The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Gregory Cochran Unloads on the NYT's Jihad to Watson Geneticist David Reich
🔊 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

At West Hunter, Greg Cochran unloads on the New York Times:

Primitive tribesmen complain about technologically superior invaders

Posted on January 18, 2019 by gcochran9

There is a new article in the New York Times Magazine (Is Ancient DNA Research Revealing New Truths — or Falling Into Old Traps?) , in which some pinhead repeats complaints about David Reich crushing his enemies [archaeologists] , driving them before him, and hearing the lamentations of their women. He doesn’t give them much respect.

They don’t deserve respect. Sure, he has a far more powerful method. Sequencing DNA gives you billions of bits, orders of magnitude more than staring at potsherds. But it is fair to look at how archaeologists did with the tools they had: terrible, horrible, no good, very bad. They really, really wanted to create detailed stories of local social change, stories that didn’t sound like something by Robert E, Howard, full of thud and blunder. Not stories about barbarian conquest, population replacement, and mating with nonhuman races.

But that’s what happened….

Aryan Invasion theory: An Aryan invasion (!) , offensive to local feelings in India, sounds almost like colonialism, blah blah blah. But correct….

And so on, and so on. They had one job…

Does this mean that David Reich is without sin? No. He occasionally genuflects to the PC powers that be, sometimes smearing the innocent in the process. Is his success going to his head – might he tend to underrate peer review when he has Nick Patterson on his side? Maybe. Should he think very carefully about sample conservation, perhaps saving some for improved future methods? Sure.

But he’s contributing to knowledge, while the archaeologists were sliding backwards, less correct in 2018 than in 1930.

Read the whole thing there.

 
Hide 267 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. To be clear, in India the left liberals love love love the Aryan invasion theory.

    It gives them the opportunity to paint upper caste Hindus in the same brush as white South Africans, Israeli Jews and European Americans.

    • Replies: @Anonymuse
    And they are correct
    , @Jason Liu
    Not really. Indian liberals like the Aryan Invasion theory because it counters Indian nationalist beliefs, such as the Out of India theory, or that Indian history is long and unbroken for 5,000 years, starting from the Harappan civilization. It is the same reason why white leftists endorse theories of a diverse historical Europe, or how European achievements were the result of foreign influences.
    , @would smashionalist

    "white South Africans, Israeli jews and European Americans"
     
    one of these things is not like the other. one of these things just doesn't belong.
  2. It’s not that simple, Our minds are not made to give a answer to those kinds of questions.

    Gustaf Kossinna did play a part in the early 20th century century climate in Germany, but no more than art critic Julius Langbehn. If we are talking about Hitler (whose last words were said to be “what an artist dies in me”) and without whom there would have been no Third Reich, the greatest influence was Rienzi. Romanticism and humanism is the culprit, not genetics or Robert E Howard. He did say in The Hybornian Age that blondes came from the very furthest north though. The 18, 000 year old central Siberian Afontova Gora 3 carries the derived rs12821256 allele associated with blond hair color in Europeans, making Afontova Gora 3 the earliest individual known to carry this derived allele.

    • Replies: @sleeping noticer
    >If we are talking about Hitler (whose last words were said to be “what an artist dies in me”)

    That's Nero, not Hitler.
    , @kihowi

    If we are talking about Hitler (whose last words were said to be “what an artist dies in me”)
     
    dude...

    Anyway, apart from the difficulty of keeping romans and nazis apart, I did read a story (might in Irving somewhere) of one of uncle adolfs friends who said that he used to be entirely apolitical, until they went out to see Rienzi in Vienna after which he had a different look in his eyes and started talking about heimats and lebensraums.

  3. For the empirically minded, this is a great broadside. We like facts and reason. To the army of volunteer Torquemadas accusing scientists of blasphemy, these responses just conform their beliefs. James Watson, for example, is accused of heresy. His unwillingness to speak to the issue on moral terms is proof of his heresy. They make that plain in their indictments.

    The same will happen to Reich if he does not address the issue on moral grounds. That is, it is immoral to corrupt the search for scientific truth in order to serve a political agenda. Comparing the witch hunters to primitives is useful. Comparing them to primitive shamans, appealing to the supernatural, is even more useful.

    Facts are useless in a moral war. For the new human sciences to prevail, the current moral order must be de-legitimized and anathematized.

    • Agree: TWS
  4. OT but Steven Pinker has weighed in on the APA and masculinity.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/apa-guidelines-men-boys.html

    ““The report is blinkered by two dogmas. One is the doctrine of the blank slate” that rejects biological and genetic factors, Pinker wrote, adding that

    The word “testosterone” appears nowhere in the report, and the possibility that men and women’s personalities differ for biological reasons is unsayable and unthinkable.

    The other dogma, Pinker argued,

    is that repressing emotions is bad and expressing them is good — a folk theory with roots in romanticism, Freudian psychoanalysis, and Hollywood, but which is contradicted by a large literature showing that people with greater self-control, particularly those who repress anger rather than “venting,” lead healthier lives: they get better grades, have fewer eating disorders, drink less, have fewer psychosomatic aches and pains, are less depressed, anxious, phobic, and paranoid, have higher self-esteem, are more conscientious, have better relationships with their families, have more stable friendships, are less likely to have sex they regretted, are less likely to imagine themselves cheating in a monogamous relationship.

    In Pinker’s view, the A.P.A. guidelines fail to recognize that

    a huge and centuries-long change in Western history, starting from the Middle Ages, was a “Civilizing Process” in which the ideal of manhood changed from a macho willingness to retaliate violently to an insult to the ability to exert self-control, dignity, reserve, and duty. It’s the culture of the gentleman, the man of dignity and quiet strength, the mensch. The romantic 1960s ethic of self-expression and escape from inhibitions weakened that ethic, and the A.P.A. report seems to be trying to administer the coup de grâce.

    Pinker suggested rather that

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.

  5. If you assume the goal of the most powerful anthropologists was to discover historical truths then they did a bad job, but if you assume they had a different goal in mind then perhaps they did a pretty amazing job.

    • Agree: james wilson
  6. My OT comment disappeared during The Great Unz Database-Not-Found of 1.30 GMT, so I’ll try again. Pinker on the APA and masculinity.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/apa-guidelines-men-boys.html

    The report is blinkered by two dogmas. One is the doctrine of the blank slate” that rejects biological and genetic factors, Pinker wrote, adding that

    The word “testosterone” appears nowhere in the report, and the possibility that men and women’s personalities differ for biological reasons is unsayable and unthinkable.

    The other dogma, Pinker argued,

    is that repressing emotions is bad and expressing them is good — a folk theory with roots in romanticism, Freudian psychoanalysis, and Hollywood, but which is contradicted by a large literature showing that people with greater self-control, particularly those who repress anger rather than “venting,” lead healthier lives: they get better grades, have fewer eating disorders, drink less, have fewer psychosomatic aches and pains, are less depressed, anxious, phobic, and paranoid, have higher self-esteem, are more conscientious, have better relationships with their families, have more stable friendships, are less likely to have sex they regretted, are less likely to imagine themselves cheating in a monogamous relationship.

    In Pinker’s view, the A.P.A. guidelines fail to recognize that

    a huge and centuries-long change in Western history, starting from the Middle Ages, was a “Civilizing Process” in which the ideal of manhood changed from a macho willingness to retaliate violently to an insult to the ability to exert self-control, dignity, reserve, and duty. It’s the culture of the gentleman, the man of dignity and quiet strength, the mensch. The romantic 1960s ethic of self-expression and escape from inhibitions weakened that ethic, and the A.P.A. report seems to be trying to administer the coup de grâce.

    Pinker suggested rather that

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.

    • Replies: @e
    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.

    Ah, progressives will hate this, of course, especially the "self reliance" as a positive masculine virtue as it undermines Big Government right off the bat.
    , @Colin Wright
    '...Pinker suggested rather that

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.'

    I'd argue that we really have very little understanding of how culture works -- so we should be extremely cautious about screwing with it.

    The average 'progressive' presumably lacks a clear understanding of how his computer works -- so he would reluctant to pull off the case and just start ripping out whatever appears to be superfluous.

    We should approach cultural changes the same way.

    , @PhysicistDave
    YetAnotherAnon wrote (quoting the NYT quoting Pinker):

    Pinker suggested rather that

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.
     
    I keep trying to tell everyone here that Pinker (and Dave Reich and Amy Chua and Charles Murray) are among the good guys!

    I recently talked to a young woman who was on a date with a guy when one of her date's buddies started physically assaulting her. Her date did nothing. She managed to deal with it herself.

    Needless to say, she never dated that weenie again!

    Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.

    Perhaps we are more at danger from "toxic wimpishness" than "toxic masculinity."
    , @Colin Wright
    '...One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.'

    I'm touched. For one, having grown up under some less-than-sheltered circumstances, and having both been a bully and been bullied, it's pretty clear to me that displaying 'machismo' and a willingness to engage in violence is an excellent way of deterring aggression. Your basic bully usually doesn't want a fight. Even if he feels confident he'll win it, he'll pick a victim who won't offer resistance over one who will. I can distinctly recall both driving off some aggressors and being deterred from harassing people who physically were much smaller than me. In both cases, the operative factor was a willingness to go down fighting.

    For another, fairly obviously, those who manage to suppress their drive for dominance will wind up at the bottom of whatever pile they belong to -- and worse, ruled by those who may otherwise be less fit than they to decide what should be done. If I feel confident I should be in charge, I might be right. Perhaps I should go for it.

    I think men are the way they are for some excellent reasons, and pending a far more profound understanding of human culture and its mechanisms than what we currently possess, we should be loathe to tinker with the machinery. People like Pinker won't be doing anyone who listens to them any favors. Then too, any successful culture should really accord with human nature. If half of the species is inclined to violence, 'machismo,' and a will to dominate, then the thing to do is to structure society accordingly, not try to remake the people the society is for in the first place.

  7. A tad oversimple, no? The archaeologists cooperated with Reich but dispute his extrapolations from the very few samples he used. Are they really just guarding their comfy notions? Time will tell.

    • Replies: @gcochran
    A single genome tells you a lot about the whole population it comes from. It's not like finding one more arrowhead. And there have been more sequenced: they confirm the original results.

    Reporters don't know much.
    , @utu
    "dispute his extrapolations" - Absolutely. This is a new field. The methodologies Reich and others use did not undergo independent scrutiny. There is a lot of ambiguity sand uncertainties that they circumnavigate by making ad hoc assumptions that can't be validated. Unfortunately archeologists are not in a position to challenge them. The community to which Reich belongs is so strongly incestuous (three labs spawned by one researcher) that it is unlikely that they can police themselves. And if the cowboy demeanor of Greg Cochran is an indication of their attitude we may wait a long time before we will hear about what really is going on. They are in the hype phase now. The cold shower will come if a truly independent research is done.
  8. A gentle Hegelian reminder of why we post:

    (Remember: How you react defines the general reaction)

    • Replies: @rufus
    ... this is one of sailer's hoz ?
    , @keuril
    I’m partial to this one:
    https://youtu.be/b9GQuZmH2DQ
    , @Reg Cæsar
    Two strikes against the young lady:

    The scenery looks like Florida. Or worse, someplace farther south.

    She's sitting close to a guy with a florid tattoo on his upper arm.
    , @donut
    She's got good teeth a nice smile and fake tits that she uses to sell memberships at a gym . Since it's Florida her next appearance will be her mug shot on TSG . The tattoo on her co-conspirator is a minor Buddhist deity so he's either a monstrous serial killer or a dodgy misdemeanor kind of disappointment to his striving honest working class folks . My guess is that they are on there way to film an episode of "Capt'n Stabbin" . Threat Level : STDs and wallet empty in AM. Warning Will Robinson !
  9. Greg Cochran is a fat old white male. No one who is anyone takes him serousily.

    One more thing: you know that Gillette ad that all you right wingers are having a cow over? Well, most Men of Color see no problem with the ad. Men of Color dominate sports, are better fighters, get more romance, disproportianley serve in the military, attract more women, have better bodies, are more muscular, can dance good, have large genitals, and command respect from other men.

    Only white males seems to have a problem with the Gillette ad. Only white males are son insecure that they through a hissy fit over a commercial

    That tells you something right there.

    • Replies: @BigDickNick
    "disproportianley serve in the military,"

    in non-combat roles. The guys actually killing jihadis are overwhelmingly white.
    , @bomag
    All that ability and nothing to show for it. Tsk.
    , @George Taylor

    disproportionately serve in the military
     
    Wrong again Tiny Troll, okay maybe if were talking about supply clerks and cooks. But when it comes to Special Forces; Seals, Rangers, Green Berets, Force Recon, Airborne the guys who have done most of shooting for last 20 years plus technical positions, pilots etc., it's really really White. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/05/diversity-seals-green-berets/31122851/
    , @al gore rhythms
    'Well, he's just a smelly old white man, so who cares? Smelly old white men care, that's who!'

    Oh yeah, and you know that other thing that happened in the news that you probably all find really annoying? Well it's not, it's GREAT, and I hope it happens even more!'

    , @lavoisier

    Well, most Men of Color see no problem with the ad. Men of Color dominate sports, are better fighters, get more romance, disproportianley serve in the military, attract more women, have better bodies, are more muscular, can dance good, have large genitals, and command respect from other men.
     
    Some of this I agree with, particularly the sports part. I assume you acknowledge the role of natural selection in creating these advantages.

    But why do white men totally monopolize significant intellectual achievements that have advanced civilization while Men of Color are totally absent?

    Could natural selection be operational at this level too TD?
    , @ben tillman

    Men of Color dominate sports, are better fighters, get more romance, disproportianley serve in the military . . . .
     
    Yeah, they are a disproportionately SMALL portion of the military.
  10. @Tiny Duck
    Greg Cochran is a fat old white male. No one who is anyone takes him serousily.

    One more thing: you know that Gillette ad that all you right wingers are having a cow over? Well, most Men of Color see no problem with the ad. Men of Color dominate sports, are better fighters, get more romance, disproportianley serve in the military, attract more women, have better bodies, are more muscular, can dance good, have large genitals, and command respect from other men.

    Only white males seems to have a problem with the Gillette ad. Only white males are son insecure that they through a hissy fit over a commercial

    That tells you something right there.

    “disproportianley serve in the military,”

    in non-combat roles. The guys actually killing jihadis are overwhelmingly white.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    See the SAS guy, in plain clothes (he was officially 'out shopping'), taking control of the response to the latest al-Shabab terrorist attack in Kenya.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/nairobi-attack-sas-soldier-terror-pirate-badge-hotel-dusitd2-kenya-al-shabaab-a8730561.html
  11. @Pat Hannagan
    A gentle Hegelian reminder of why we post:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_efP3UW0AAlepS.jpg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgUWBPIxv6c

    (Remember: How you react defines the general reaction)

    … this is one of sailer’s hoz ?

    • Replies: @Pericles
    Lagertha. Keep it on the qt.
    , @BB753
    Sailer groupies, that'd be a strange social phenomenon to happen.
  12. Yes, we all aspire to be dindus hopped up on ape testosterone. You nailed it.

  13. @BigDickNick
    "disproportianley serve in the military,"

    in non-combat roles. The guys actually killing jihadis are overwhelmingly white.

    See the SAS guy, in plain clothes (he was officially ‘out shopping’), taking control of the response to the latest al-Shabab terrorist attack in Kenya.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/nairobi-attack-sas-soldier-terror-pirate-badge-hotel-dusitd2-kenya-al-shabaab-a8730561.html

    • Replies: @donut
    That looks like a cheap ad for more invade the world BS . I don't know about the UK but we've got enough Third World shit going on right here in River City . If they want to kill each other in Kenya or Baltimore it's OK with me . You can take your SAS heroes and stick them your ASS .
  14. I once visited a “matriarchal” tribe in the Amazon. Prior to arriving I was given the impression that it’d be knitting circles of wise old women and soft-spoken men darting around the edges. Instead, I found the hurried women toiling all day, doing every piece of work, while the men got into gangs, took drugs and had a laugh. I assume the sexual relations were not #MeToo friendly either.

    Even the hallucinogenic drug was misadvertised by Western academics. Supposedly the natives took it for peace, harmony and liberation. In actuality, the Shaman informed me that his ancestors took it to turn into magical animals and slaughter their enemies across the jungle.

    They were nice people, but perhaps if the men helped out a bit with production something might actually be produced, and they wouldn’t be so utterly at the mercy of nature.

    • Replies: @Moshe
    I like exploring human societies at the edges too. Is this something you do regularly? Was it cheap? I have explored many of the odd cultures in the United States, from The Nation of Islam (great stories) to various odd Polygamous Mormon split-off groups to bank robbers and cops on the beat in numerous small towns and big cities to the Satmar Rebbe of Kiryas Joel (I drove him and his nuclear family around) to Mennonites of various sorts to Spiritualists to Scientologists, etc. Beyond the borders I've explored less, but luckily the most interesting places tend to be the cheapest so I can speak to matters pertaining to lesser explored cultures of the Middle East pretty well too.

    But I've never lived with hunter-gatherers or, for that matter, been in the Amazon at all. Did you spend some time with amazonian pre-civilized societies or other uniquely interesting groups of people and was it cheap to get there and did you take any special shots or pills to stave off malaria and whatnot?

    I cannot afford special shots and pills but I'm very interested in visiting interesting or odd small societies in Africa. Does anyone have experience with that? A place sufficiently safe and cheap to get to and stay for awhile that is also very different from Western societies?

    , @Sean

    They were nice people, but perhaps if the men helped out a bit with production something might actually be produced, and they wouldn’t be so utterly at the mercy of nature.
     
    Them being in a part of the world where nature was generous and allowed men to just advertise their sexy son genes would be the problem. In a tropical paradise where a bit of garden agriculture by women is enough for them and their children to live, the women will select the bad boys as the fathers. Where bringing up children requires a tight parental bond as in Tibet, women will require the fathers of their children to be good providers, and even then sometimes brothers have to share a wife. Tibetans are surprisingly pale for the massive amount of UV on their plateau.

    Frederique Valentin concluded years before Reich that, though they look like Papuans, Vanuatus were descended from Asians not Papuans. Now Asians once they got to a tropical paradise were under a different selection pressure and instead of women demanding they get food all the men had to do is advertise their genes by acting in a testosterone--crazed way, which probabally explains why they were selected for less Asian traits and appearance. This process of sexual selection with a certain focus is how a race is formed according to Darwin.

    If Reich tried to reconstruct the appearance of the ancient ancestors of the modern people of Vanuatu from their Asian dna he would have to assume that they looked nothing like Papuans, but in fact the Vanuatuans now do look like Papuans. They look black.
    , @Stan d Mute

    Even the hallucinogenic drug was misadvertised by Western academics.
     
    I can’t wait for Mr McKenna to reply.
    , @Redneck farmer
    White Sharia in the Amazon!
    , @larry lurker

    Even the hallucinogenic drug was misadvertised by Western academics. Supposedly the natives took it for peace, harmony and liberation. In actuality, the Shaman informed me that his ancestors took it to turn into magical animals and slaughter their enemies across the jungle.
     
    Years ago I watched a lecture about the history of the use of psilocybin mushrooms. What I remember most is an off-the-cuff remark by the professor where he pointed out that the existence of the Aztecs - with their penchant for both entheogens and human sacrifice - should decisively explode the hippy-dippy notion that we could bring about world peace if everyone would just drop acid.
    , @PiltdownMan
    Many "matriarchal" societies that feminists cite are far from matriarchal (in the sense of matriarchy being a mirror image replacement for patriarchy). They are often merely matrilineal in regards to property rights.

    https://feminisminindia.com/2016/09/01/decline-matrilineal-society-kerala/
    , @vinteuil

    They were nice people
     
    How so? Do you just mean that they treated you kindly?
    , @Lot
    "Even the hallucinogenic drug was misadvertised by Western academics."

    Very likely you mean ayahuasca (DMT).

    While I never tried that, I read a lot of scientific info on psilocybin online before taking it freshman year. It was quite accurate. Same for peyote. DMT is in the same class and likely quite similar.

    I guess you said "academics." If it was chemists like Alexander Shulgin, they were accurate. If it was loopy anthropologists, that was your mistake.
    , @Mr McKenna
    Honey, that wasn't the Amazon. That was Memphis.
  15. I’m all for genetic research, but I’m not sure it should be taken as the key to absolute truth.

    Sometimes, it produces results that are definitely improbable. For example, one study of Chinese DNA ‘revealed’ that there were only something like a thousand Han Chinese in 500 BC. It also determined that modern Tibetans had only diverged from the rest of Chinese around two thousand years ago or something — i.e., that’s when they emigrated to Tibet. Conventional archeologists objected that all the evidence indicated that the movement occurred more like about ten thousand years ago.

    All figures are from memory, and subject to correction. The point is that genetics research sometimes comes up with results that are at odds with the rest of the evidence or even simply improbable even taken in isolation. So should we be so unhesitating in draping the mantle of absolute certainty about its shoulders?

    Another aspect of it all is that the ‘research’ may be subject to abuse. Here I’m thinking of the reality of Jewish racial identity. Obviously, ‘Jews’ are not all the same people. Netanyahu looks a lot like many gentile Poles; he doesn’t bear the least resemblance to Yemeni Jews. And so on. Historical evidence supports this as well; Jewish populations exploded at a rate and in a manner that could only have occurred if the main engine of expansion was conversion rather than natural increase. And so on.

    And indeed, the first genetic studies of Jewry supported this. While the DNA of the descendants of the various Jewish communities were related to the DNA of the descendants of other nearby Jewish communities, it was still more closely related to the DNA of their immediate gentile neighbors. I.e., a German Jew might be a distant cousin to an Italian Jew, but his really close relatives tended to be German gentiles.

    …but now all that appears to have been mysteriously reversed. Somehow — the visual evidence, the historical evidence, and the earlier genetic evidence all notwithstanding — Jews are a race after all, most closely related to each other, be they from Tunisia or the Ukraine.

    Moreover, the studies ‘establishing’ this all seem to be done by Jews themselves.

    Theoretically, it’s possible — but isn’t it also possible that one can make the genetic data say whatever one pleases? Again, if so, can we really place so much unqualified credence in the results?

    Personally, I’m kind of a blood and thunder guy myself, and I’m perfectly happy to accept that the ancient Indo-Europeans carried out mass slaughter on a scale that dwarfs Genghis Khan and everyone since — but should we really take that as proven?

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Flip
    Many Ashkenazi Jews have blue eyes and pale skin, which implies a different ancestry than a mixture from the Middle East and Italy.
    , @Lot
    "Jews are a race after all, most closely related to each other, be they from Tunisia or the Ukraine."

    That's not right. All Ashkenazi groups are closely related, but they are only moderately related to Sephardis and pretty distant from middle eastern jews. Closest relatives of Sephardis are Italian Jews, Greek Jews, Anatolian Jews, and non-Jewish Iberians and Italians.
    , @gcochran
    "Jewish populations exploded at a rate and in a manner that could only have occurred if the main engine of expansion was conversion rather than natural increase. "

    Slower than the Amish, though. I want to hear more about all those converts ripping off their buttons.
    , @Kevin Brook

    Colin Wright wrote: "I.e., a German Jew might be a distant cousin to an Italian Jew, but his really close relatives tended to be German gentiles."
     
    German ancestry is low in Ashkenazim. I have what might be the only Ashkenazic mtDNA haplogroup of German origin - one of the three Ashkenazic branches of H7. I have Full Coding Region matches with Christian German and Dutch matrilines with a separation of 3 mutations from me. Beyond that, I match more Germans and several Swedes, in my HVR2 screen.

    The only Germans who are autosomally related to Ashkenazim are those who had a Jewish ancestor who converted to Christianity within the past several centuries. The German woman who converted to Judaism lived much longer ago than that.

    "And indeed, the first genetic studies of Jewry supported this. While the DNA of the descendants of the various Jewish communities were related to the DNA of the descendants of other nearby Jewish communities, it was still more closely related to the DNA of their immediate gentile neighbors."
     
    None of the autosomal DNA or Y-DNA studies ever agreed with the second part of your second sentence, except in the cases of a few isolated groups like Ethiopian Jews and Yemenite Jews and one of the Indian Jewish groups.

    Ashkenazim don't have more than 20 percent of ancestry from northern and eastern Europeans. They don't cluster with Poles or Germans on genetic plots.

    The data on Ashkenazic ancestry isn't manipulated because it is easily replicable.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    mass slaughter on a scale that dwarfs Genghis Khan

     

    Why does everyone pick on poor Gengy? Why not use Bantus and Shaka kaSenzangakhona as the generic go to example of bloody conquest?
  16. “less correct in 2018 than in 1930”

    This is the real big issue – because Howard was right about Civilisation’s tendency to fall into decadence and then barbarism, too.

  17. I figure, if somehow we just get all those inferior blacks, then everything will be a paradise forever.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Simply removing blacks to someplace else would alter violent crime statistics, property values and community cohesion overnight.
  18. @Tyrion 2
    I once visited a "matriarchal" tribe in the Amazon. Prior to arriving I was given the impression that it'd be knitting circles of wise old women and soft-spoken men darting around the edges. Instead, I found the hurried women toiling all day, doing every piece of work, while the men got into gangs, took drugs and had a laugh. I assume the sexual relations were not #MeToo friendly either.

    Even the hallucinogenic drug was misadvertised by Western academics. Supposedly the natives took it for peace, harmony and liberation. In actuality, the Shaman informed me that his ancestors took it to turn into magical animals and slaughter their enemies across the jungle.

    They were nice people, but perhaps if the men helped out a bit with production something might actually be produced, and they wouldn't be so utterly at the mercy of nature.

    I like exploring human societies at the edges too. Is this something you do regularly? Was it cheap? I have explored many of the odd cultures in the United States, from The Nation of Islam (great stories) to various odd Polygamous Mormon split-off groups to bank robbers and cops on the beat in numerous small towns and big cities to the Satmar Rebbe of Kiryas Joel (I drove him and his nuclear family around) to Mennonites of various sorts to Spiritualists to Scientologists, etc. Beyond the borders I’ve explored less, but luckily the most interesting places tend to be the cheapest so I can speak to matters pertaining to lesser explored cultures of the Middle East pretty well too.

    But I’ve never lived with hunter-gatherers or, for that matter, been in the Amazon at all. Did you spend some time with amazonian pre-civilized societies or other uniquely interesting groups of people and was it cheap to get there and did you take any special shots or pills to stave off malaria and whatnot?

    I cannot afford special shots and pills but I’m very interested in visiting interesting or odd small societies in Africa. Does anyone have experience with that? A place sufficiently safe and cheap to get to and stay for awhile that is also very different from Western societies?

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "I cannot afford special shots and pills"

    You'll need yellow fever vaccination*, pretty much mandatory for sub-Saharan Africa and most of South and Central America - some places won't let you in without a vaccination certificate. About £80 in the UK so not outrageous.

    The NHS has a useful travel website - here's what you need if heading for a worst-case place

    https://www.fitfortravel.nhs.uk/destinations/africa/democratic-republic-of-congo

    * not recommended for over-60s or people with compromised immune systems - a 67 year old Brit cancer specialist recently died after his jab, though that's an extremely rare reaction.

    , @BB753
    You can afford a plane ticket but not a $100 yellow fever shot? Please do not reinforce antisemitic stereoptypes, lol!
    Since you're looking for a primitive yet safe setting, Detroit or Camden are excluded.
    Seriously, I'd avoid Africa altogether and try to approach some South East Asian or Austronesian (trigger alert!) Negrito tribe.
    , @Tyrion 2
    You can do these things cheaply because the countries are cheap, but you'll have to accept a degree of serious discomfort.

    I assume you're from the US so budget flights are possible to all over South America.

    As for medical care, I don't personally take anti-malarials. I instead take great care not to get bit. Nonetheless, vaccinations, such as for yellow fever are crucial. Yellow fever kills half of the people who get it, while malaria is more like the flu.

    I apologise for the slow answer. It is a hard thing to reccomend without knowing the person you are reccomending to.

    While I am fine in a jungle, it is not a generally agreeable environment. I'd suggest you try and start off with a guided group or something like that. They'll know how to look after you. Prices for those types of things are often very high, but since their costs are low it is possible to negotiate them well down.
  19. @Sean
    It's not that simple, Our minds are not made to give a answer to those kinds of questions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiQhEK1Dh8M




    Gustaf Kossinna did play a part in the early 20th century century climate in Germany, but no more than art critic Julius Langbehn. If we are talking about Hitler (whose last words were said to be "what an artist dies in me") and without whom there would have been no Third Reich, the greatest influence was Rienzi. Romanticism and humanism is the culprit, not genetics or Robert E Howard. He did say in The Hybornian Age that blondes came from the very furthest north though. The 18, 000 year old central Siberian Afontova Gora 3 carries the derived rs12821256 allele associated with blond hair color in Europeans, making Afontova Gora 3 the earliest individual known to carry this derived allele.

    https://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/28464901.jpg

    >If we are talking about Hitler (whose last words were said to be “what an artist dies in me”)

    That’s Nero, not Hitler.

    • Agree: Mr McKenna
    • Replies: @Logan
    Hitler couldn't have quoted him?
  20. OT LOL: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/nyregion/is-a-planned-monument-to-womens-rights-racist.html

    In effect, the monument, a maquette of which is on display in Albany, manages to recapitulate the marginalization black women experienced during the suffrage movement to begin with, when, to cite but one example, they were forced by white organizers to congregate in the back during a famous women’s march, in Washington, in 1913, coinciding with Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration.

    More literally, the inclusion of the scroll and the way that the women are positioned toward it suggests they are writing the history of suffrage, which is in itself problematic because Anthony and Stanton coedited a six volume compendium — “The History of Women’s Suffrage’’ — that gave them ownership of a narrative that erased the participation of black women in the movement.

    The women behind the Statue Fund are white, well-intentioned feminists of a certain vintage.

    In the words of Kissinger, it’s a pity they can’t both lose.

  21. @YetAnotherAnon
    My OT comment disappeared during The Great Unz Database-Not-Found of 1.30 GMT, so I'll try again. Pinker on the APA and masculinity.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/apa-guidelines-men-boys.html

    The report is blinkered by two dogmas. One is the doctrine of the blank slate” that rejects biological and genetic factors, Pinker wrote, adding that

    The word “testosterone” appears nowhere in the report, and the possibility that men and women’s personalities differ for biological reasons is unsayable and unthinkable.

    The other dogma, Pinker argued,

    is that repressing emotions is bad and expressing them is good — a folk theory with roots in romanticism, Freudian psychoanalysis, and Hollywood, but which is contradicted by a large literature showing that people with greater self-control, particularly those who repress anger rather than “venting,” lead healthier lives: they get better grades, have fewer eating disorders, drink less, have fewer psychosomatic aches and pains, are less depressed, anxious, phobic, and paranoid, have higher self-esteem, are more conscientious, have better relationships with their families, have more stable friendships, are less likely to have sex they regretted, are less likely to imagine themselves cheating in a monogamous relationship.

    In Pinker’s view, the A.P.A. guidelines fail to recognize that

    a huge and centuries-long change in Western history, starting from the Middle Ages, was a “Civilizing Process” in which the ideal of manhood changed from a macho willingness to retaliate violently to an insult to the ability to exert self-control, dignity, reserve, and duty. It’s the culture of the gentleman, the man of dignity and quiet strength, the mensch. The romantic 1960s ethic of self-expression and escape from inhibitions weakened that ethic, and the A.P.A. report seems to be trying to administer the coup de grâce.

    Pinker suggested rather that

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.

     

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.

    Ah, progressives will hate this, of course, especially the “self reliance” as a positive masculine virtue as it undermines Big Government right off the bat.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Ah, progressives will hate this, of course, especially the “self reliance” as a positive masculine virtue as it undermines Big Government right off the bat.
     
    Much of what progressives hate is the work of earlier progressives. Eugenics, anyone? Prohibition?

    Immigration control?

    Race science?

    , @Autochthon
    GloboHomo does not mind men's being self-reliant at all – indeed, they insist upon it by destoying family, community, church, and nation – it's female self-reliance that will not be tolerated: males are responsible for taking care of all females' needs and even desires; heck, that's part of the plan regarding destroying families: women get all of the resources with none of the pesky, reciprocal responsibilities and burdens....
  22. Anon[204] • Disclaimer says:

    Off of the topic:

    TV food commercials target Hispanic and black youth with unhealthy snacks and sugary drinks

    Hardest hit…

    Companies target minorities because it is profitable, the report said. Asian and Hispanic people are the fastest-growing populations in the U.S., and their buying power is growing quickly as well. The report said black Americans are often targeted because “marketers view African-Americans as trendsetters who younger consumers want to emulate.”

    America’s obesity problem comes as hunger is on the rise in the country. While this may seem incongruous, the two are actually related, Berg said. “Hunger and obesity are flip sides of the same malnutrition coin,” he said. “There are complex risk factors for obesity, but there is no question that socioeconomic issues are key factors.”

    It’s perfidious that we are continually treated to insults from the “experts” on this. There is no starvation problem that coincides with an obesity problem.

    Just spell it out that you think every non-white is entitled to an unlimited EBT card at Whole Foods.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/tv-food-commercials-target-hispanic-and-black-youth-with-unhealthy-snacks-and-sugary-drinks-2019-01-17

    • LOL: bomag
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Liberals feel cognitive dissonance when they see their sacred objects weighing 350 pounds and pushing shopping carts full of two-liter soda bottles, bags of Doritos, and economy-sized bags of M&Ms. Hunger! Let's talk about food insecurity among America's neediest!
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    target Hispanic and black youth with unhealthy snacks and sugary drinks

     

    Sugar Crisp Commercials - 1950s to 1977


    unlimited EBT card at Whole Foods

     

    How about free 50lb sacks of wheat berries and access to a hand grinder at every post office. Then they could make their own artisan whole wheat sourdough slow-rise fermented bread at home.
  23. @Colin Wright
    I'm all for genetic research, but I'm not sure it should be taken as the key to absolute truth.

    Sometimes, it produces results that are definitely improbable. For example, one study of Chinese DNA 'revealed' that there were only something like a thousand Han Chinese in 500 BC. It also determined that modern Tibetans had only diverged from the rest of Chinese around two thousand years ago or something -- i.e., that's when they emigrated to Tibet. Conventional archeologists objected that all the evidence indicated that the movement occurred more like about ten thousand years ago.

    All figures are from memory, and subject to correction. The point is that genetics research sometimes comes up with results that are at odds with the rest of the evidence or even simply improbable even taken in isolation. So should we be so unhesitating in draping the mantle of absolute certainty about its shoulders?

    Another aspect of it all is that the 'research' may be subject to abuse. Here I'm thinking of the reality of Jewish racial identity. Obviously, 'Jews' are not all the same people. Netanyahu looks a lot like many gentile Poles; he doesn't bear the least resemblance to Yemeni Jews. And so on. Historical evidence supports this as well; Jewish populations exploded at a rate and in a manner that could only have occurred if the main engine of expansion was conversion rather than natural increase. And so on.

    And indeed, the first genetic studies of Jewry supported this. While the DNA of the descendants of the various Jewish communities were related to the DNA of the descendants of other nearby Jewish communities, it was still more closely related to the DNA of their immediate gentile neighbors. I.e., a German Jew might be a distant cousin to an Italian Jew, but his really close relatives tended to be German gentiles.

    ...but now all that appears to have been mysteriously reversed. Somehow -- the visual evidence, the historical evidence, and the earlier genetic evidence all notwithstanding -- Jews are a race after all, most closely related to each other, be they from Tunisia or the Ukraine.

    Moreover, the studies 'establishing' this all seem to be done by Jews themselves.

    Theoretically, it's possible -- but isn't it also possible that one can make the genetic data say whatever one pleases? Again, if so, can we really place so much unqualified credence in the results?

    Personally, I'm kind of a blood and thunder guy myself, and I'm perfectly happy to accept that the ancient Indo-Europeans carried out mass slaughter on a scale that dwarfs Genghis Khan and everyone since -- but should we really take that as proven?

    Many Ashkenazi Jews have blue eyes and pale skin, which implies a different ancestry than a mixture from the Middle East and Italy.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Pale skin and blue eyes only imply a certain combination of recessive genetics that can be introduced at any time. They certainly do not exclude southern admixtures, nor does their introduction eliminate the contribution of prior (southern) admixtures. Most Ashkenazi Jews, even those with light hair and blue eyes, unquestionably display J1 and J2 phenotype expression in their skull structure (head, nose, jaw, etc). This is evidence of that southern admixture, which is most prevalent in modern Turkey and the Levant.
    , @william munny
    A fair amount of redheads too.
    , @BB753
    I bet you've never visited Italy. Blue eyes and pale skin are common North of Rome. And far from unusual South of it.
  24. @YetAnotherAnon
    My OT comment disappeared during The Great Unz Database-Not-Found of 1.30 GMT, so I'll try again. Pinker on the APA and masculinity.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/apa-guidelines-men-boys.html

    The report is blinkered by two dogmas. One is the doctrine of the blank slate” that rejects biological and genetic factors, Pinker wrote, adding that

    The word “testosterone” appears nowhere in the report, and the possibility that men and women’s personalities differ for biological reasons is unsayable and unthinkable.

    The other dogma, Pinker argued,

    is that repressing emotions is bad and expressing them is good — a folk theory with roots in romanticism, Freudian psychoanalysis, and Hollywood, but which is contradicted by a large literature showing that people with greater self-control, particularly those who repress anger rather than “venting,” lead healthier lives: they get better grades, have fewer eating disorders, drink less, have fewer psychosomatic aches and pains, are less depressed, anxious, phobic, and paranoid, have higher self-esteem, are more conscientious, have better relationships with their families, have more stable friendships, are less likely to have sex they regretted, are less likely to imagine themselves cheating in a monogamous relationship.

    In Pinker’s view, the A.P.A. guidelines fail to recognize that

    a huge and centuries-long change in Western history, starting from the Middle Ages, was a “Civilizing Process” in which the ideal of manhood changed from a macho willingness to retaliate violently to an insult to the ability to exert self-control, dignity, reserve, and duty. It’s the culture of the gentleman, the man of dignity and quiet strength, the mensch. The romantic 1960s ethic of self-expression and escape from inhibitions weakened that ethic, and the A.P.A. report seems to be trying to administer the coup de grâce.

    Pinker suggested rather that

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.

     

    ‘…Pinker suggested rather that

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.’

    I’d argue that we really have very little understanding of how culture works — so we should be extremely cautious about screwing with it.

    The average ‘progressive’ presumably lacks a clear understanding of how his computer works — so he would reluctant to pull off the case and just start ripping out whatever appears to be superfluous.

    We should approach cultural changes the same way.

    • Agree: Abe
  25. @Pat Hannagan
    A gentle Hegelian reminder of why we post:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_efP3UW0AAlepS.jpg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgUWBPIxv6c

    (Remember: How you react defines the general reaction)

    I’m partial to this one:

    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
    Great tune!

    Can't understand why Twins is not on Spotify.

    Ty Segall is a modern maestro, Stevo, can't believe you live close to San Francisco and haven't been to see a Segall concert and reported back to us, goys.

    Instead of going to the latest intersextional SJW movement takeover-space report back to us on a love Ty Segall concert or Oh Sees concert.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2GemaJPTuY
  26. @Tyrion 2
    I once visited a "matriarchal" tribe in the Amazon. Prior to arriving I was given the impression that it'd be knitting circles of wise old women and soft-spoken men darting around the edges. Instead, I found the hurried women toiling all day, doing every piece of work, while the men got into gangs, took drugs and had a laugh. I assume the sexual relations were not #MeToo friendly either.

    Even the hallucinogenic drug was misadvertised by Western academics. Supposedly the natives took it for peace, harmony and liberation. In actuality, the Shaman informed me that his ancestors took it to turn into magical animals and slaughter their enemies across the jungle.

    They were nice people, but perhaps if the men helped out a bit with production something might actually be produced, and they wouldn't be so utterly at the mercy of nature.

    They were nice people, but perhaps if the men helped out a bit with production something might actually be produced, and they wouldn’t be so utterly at the mercy of nature.

    Them being in a part of the world where nature was generous and allowed men to just advertise their sexy son genes would be the problem. In a tropical paradise where a bit of garden agriculture by women is enough for them and their children to live, the women will select the bad boys as the fathers. Where bringing up children requires a tight parental bond as in Tibet, women will require the fathers of their children to be good providers, and even then sometimes brothers have to share a wife. Tibetans are surprisingly pale for the massive amount of UV on their plateau.

    Frederique Valentin concluded years before Reich that, though they look like Papuans, Vanuatus were descended from Asians not Papuans. Now Asians once they got to a tropical paradise were under a different selection pressure and instead of women demanding they get food all the men had to do is advertise their genes by acting in a testosterone–crazed way, which probabally explains why they were selected for less Asian traits and appearance. This process of sexual selection with a certain focus is how a race is formed according to Darwin.

    If Reich tried to reconstruct the appearance of the ancient ancestors of the modern people of Vanuatu from their Asian dna he would have to assume that they looked nothing like Papuans, but in fact the Vanuatuans now do look like Papuans. They look black.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    In a tropical paradise where a bit of garden agriculture by women is enough for them and their children to live, the women will select the bad boys as the fathers
     
    Isn't it true, though, that the "tropical paradise" is a double-edged sword? Food supplies are plentiful, but so are parasites and disease.

    So "livin' is easy," while it lasts. But life expectancy is short. In other words, you have to "live fast and die young," whether you like it or not.

    The evolutionary pressure under this environment would seemingly discourage delayed gratificstion and long term investment strategies.

    Does anyone know whether hunter-gatherers in colder climates had the same patterns of warfare and violence as their topical counterparts? My guess is that the data is simply lacking as northern tribes got civilized before the records could be made.

  27. a little OT: 1989 WP article, Man Behind the Double Helix, on James Watson that was fair.

    Interesting points:
    his mother’s role in getting him a scholarship at UC. (Steve: why have universities changed their admission policies on gifted students? There must be less starting at 16 than in 1940’s…)

    his early IQ tests rated him at just 120…reminds me of Sailer’s report that Shockley failed Terman’s threshold for gifted when Shockley scored just 128.

    JW came to appreciate his portrayal by Jeff Goldblum in the Double Helix.

    His 1985 comment on women: wow, one could just apologize and move on. Not today.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/wellness/1989/09/12/the-man-behind-the-double-helix/2df96b5e-5134-4150-90e0-257f9cde8e92/?utm_term=.ef368e20db65

  28. the archaeologists were sliding backwards, less correct in 2018 than in 1930.

    Who would have guessed that elevating PC mythology over actual data would fail to advance knowlege?

    Since PC opinions are irrationally promoted in our society, the correct Bayesian prior is to presume that they are incorrect, or at least unsupported.

  29. @Tiny Duck
    Greg Cochran is a fat old white male. No one who is anyone takes him serousily.

    One more thing: you know that Gillette ad that all you right wingers are having a cow over? Well, most Men of Color see no problem with the ad. Men of Color dominate sports, are better fighters, get more romance, disproportianley serve in the military, attract more women, have better bodies, are more muscular, can dance good, have large genitals, and command respect from other men.

    Only white males seems to have a problem with the Gillette ad. Only white males are son insecure that they through a hissy fit over a commercial

    That tells you something right there.

    All that ability and nothing to show for it. Tsk.

  30. Anon[295] • Disclaimer says:
    @Flip
    Many Ashkenazi Jews have blue eyes and pale skin, which implies a different ancestry than a mixture from the Middle East and Italy.

    Pale skin and blue eyes only imply a certain combination of recessive genetics that can be introduced at any time. They certainly do not exclude southern admixtures, nor does their introduction eliminate the contribution of prior (southern) admixtures. Most Ashkenazi Jews, even those with light hair and blue eyes, unquestionably display J1 and J2 phenotype expression in their skull structure (head, nose, jaw, etc). This is evidence of that southern admixture, which is most prevalent in modern Turkey and the Levant.

  31. @Tyrion 2
    I once visited a "matriarchal" tribe in the Amazon. Prior to arriving I was given the impression that it'd be knitting circles of wise old women and soft-spoken men darting around the edges. Instead, I found the hurried women toiling all day, doing every piece of work, while the men got into gangs, took drugs and had a laugh. I assume the sexual relations were not #MeToo friendly either.

    Even the hallucinogenic drug was misadvertised by Western academics. Supposedly the natives took it for peace, harmony and liberation. In actuality, the Shaman informed me that his ancestors took it to turn into magical animals and slaughter their enemies across the jungle.

    They were nice people, but perhaps if the men helped out a bit with production something might actually be produced, and they wouldn't be so utterly at the mercy of nature.

    Even the hallucinogenic drug was misadvertised by Western academics.

    I can’t wait for Mr McKenna to reply.

  32. @Sean

    They were nice people, but perhaps if the men helped out a bit with production something might actually be produced, and they wouldn’t be so utterly at the mercy of nature.
     
    Them being in a part of the world where nature was generous and allowed men to just advertise their sexy son genes would be the problem. In a tropical paradise where a bit of garden agriculture by women is enough for them and their children to live, the women will select the bad boys as the fathers. Where bringing up children requires a tight parental bond as in Tibet, women will require the fathers of their children to be good providers, and even then sometimes brothers have to share a wife. Tibetans are surprisingly pale for the massive amount of UV on their plateau.

    Frederique Valentin concluded years before Reich that, though they look like Papuans, Vanuatus were descended from Asians not Papuans. Now Asians once they got to a tropical paradise were under a different selection pressure and instead of women demanding they get food all the men had to do is advertise their genes by acting in a testosterone--crazed way, which probabally explains why they were selected for less Asian traits and appearance. This process of sexual selection with a certain focus is how a race is formed according to Darwin.

    If Reich tried to reconstruct the appearance of the ancient ancestors of the modern people of Vanuatu from their Asian dna he would have to assume that they looked nothing like Papuans, but in fact the Vanuatuans now do look like Papuans. They look black.

    In a tropical paradise where a bit of garden agriculture by women is enough for them and their children to live, the women will select the bad boys as the fathers

    Isn’t it true, though, that the “tropical paradise” is a double-edged sword? Food supplies are plentiful, but so are parasites and disease.

    So “livin’ is easy,” while it lasts. But life expectancy is short. In other words, you have to “live fast and die young,” whether you like it or not.

    The evolutionary pressure under this environment would seemingly discourage delayed gratificstion and long term investment strategies.

    Does anyone know whether hunter-gatherers in colder climates had the same patterns of warfare and violence as their topical counterparts? My guess is that the data is simply lacking as northern tribes got civilized before the records could be made.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    'Does anyone know whether hunter-gatherers in colder climates had the same patterns of warfare and violence as their topical counterparts? My guess is that the data is simply lacking as northern tribes got civilized before the records could be made.'

    ? Plenty of such groups still existed well into the twentieth century; in Siberia, Northern Canada, Alaska. The subject could easily be studied; the main obstacle I see isn't a lack of data, but the importance of other factors. For example, Siberian aborigines might not fight much -- but perhaps simply because they're so thin on the ground that they don't encounter each other that often. Matters might be otherwise in a tropical setting offering plentiful food year round.
    , @Anonymous

    So “livin’ is easy,” while it lasts. But life expectancy is short. In other words, you have to “live fast and die young,” whether you like it or not.
     
    Pete Townshend famously said " (I) hope I die before I get old". He did no such thing.

    He is older-by a month and a half-than this exponent of much the same thing, who also did no such thing and is doing pretty well for herself these days:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4poVbu4tKGQ
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    Plenty of warfare among the Canadian First Nations - like the Bloody Falls massacre of 1771, when Dene and Chippewa wiped out an Inuit camp.
    , @Sean

    Isn’t it true, though, that the “tropical paradise” is a double-edged sword? Food supplies are plentiful, but so are parasites and disease.
     
    That is true and testosterone seems to make one more more vulnerable to infections disease. So where food is easy to get the men are in competition for women that pick the high T men and the population will get more vulnerable to infectious disease.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11419954

    Evidence is presented that melanization of skin and other tissues forms an important component of the innate immune defense system. A major function of melanocytes, melanosomes and melanin in skin is to inhibit the proliferation of bacterial, fungal and other parasitic infections of the dermis and epidermis. This function can potentially explain (a) the latitudinal gradient in melanization of human skin; (b) the fact that melanocyte and melanization patterns among different parts of the vertebrate body do not reflect exposure to radiation; (c) provide a theoretical framework for recent empirical findings concerning the antimicrobial activity of melanocytes and melanosomes and their regulation by known mediators of inflammatory responses.
     
    So high testosterone promotes black skin.
  33. At West Hunter, Greg Cochran unloads on the New York Times

    This is a nice sentiment, but inadvertently comic, almost like an Onion Headline. In terms of relative power and reach, this the equivalent of those old “Head of American Communist Party denounces American Imperialism in Latin America!” headlines the Socialist Worker used to run.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    Shush, Petrushka, the grownups are having a conversation, and nobody wants to hear your juvenile thoughts on your favorite toy the Onion
    , @Almost Missouri
    Yes, in terms of circulation and fame, you are certainly correct. Yet we may hope that in the Halls of Truth, Cochran's voice will reverberate down through the ages while the NYT's will be no more than ... yesterday's newspaper.
  34. @Tyrion 2
    I once visited a "matriarchal" tribe in the Amazon. Prior to arriving I was given the impression that it'd be knitting circles of wise old women and soft-spoken men darting around the edges. Instead, I found the hurried women toiling all day, doing every piece of work, while the men got into gangs, took drugs and had a laugh. I assume the sexual relations were not #MeToo friendly either.

    Even the hallucinogenic drug was misadvertised by Western academics. Supposedly the natives took it for peace, harmony and liberation. In actuality, the Shaman informed me that his ancestors took it to turn into magical animals and slaughter their enemies across the jungle.

    They were nice people, but perhaps if the men helped out a bit with production something might actually be produced, and they wouldn't be so utterly at the mercy of nature.

    White Sharia in the Amazon!

  35. OT: The Boston Globe tracks 113 Boston valedictorians from the classes of 2005, 2006, and 2007. 25% failed to graduate college in six years. 40% current make less than $50k a year. Proposed solutions, pay off their loans for them and provide a sense of belonging. Don’t they know Raj Chetty says they just need to move to magic dirt?

    http://apps.bostonglobe.com/magazine/graphics/2019/01/17/valedictorians/

  36. @Flip
    Many Ashkenazi Jews have blue eyes and pale skin, which implies a different ancestry than a mixture from the Middle East and Italy.

    A fair amount of redheads too.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    A fair amount of redheads too.
     
    Do redheads count as "fair"?
  37. @e
    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.

    Ah, progressives will hate this, of course, especially the "self reliance" as a positive masculine virtue as it undermines Big Government right off the bat.

    Ah, progressives will hate this, of course, especially the “self reliance” as a positive masculine virtue as it undermines Big Government right off the bat.

    Much of what progressives hate is the work of earlier progressives. Eugenics, anyone? Prohibition?

    Immigration control?

    Race science?

    • Agree: Simon in London
  38. @william munny
    A fair amount of redheads too.

    A fair amount of redheads too.

    Do redheads count as “fair”?

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    The fair ones do.

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9a/60/2b/9a602b2770ea4146d7548880b15f2764.jpg

    https://i-dailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w680/s/i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/06/article-2139462-12EBB6BF000005DC-649_634x520.jpg
    , @songbird
    I believe they made a kids' movie recently where Dracula's grandson was a redhead.
  39. @Pat Hannagan
    A gentle Hegelian reminder of why we post:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_efP3UW0AAlepS.jpg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgUWBPIxv6c

    (Remember: How you react defines the general reaction)

    Two strikes against the young lady:

    The scenery looks like Florida. Or worse, someplace farther south.

    She’s sitting close to a guy with a florid tattoo on his upper arm.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    'Two strikes against the young lady:

    The scenery looks like Florida. Or worse, someplace farther south.

    She’s sitting close to a guy with a florid tattoo on his upper arm.'

    There you go. You'll be rescuing her.

  40. @Tiny Duck
    Greg Cochran is a fat old white male. No one who is anyone takes him serousily.

    One more thing: you know that Gillette ad that all you right wingers are having a cow over? Well, most Men of Color see no problem with the ad. Men of Color dominate sports, are better fighters, get more romance, disproportianley serve in the military, attract more women, have better bodies, are more muscular, can dance good, have large genitals, and command respect from other men.

    Only white males seems to have a problem with the Gillette ad. Only white males are son insecure that they through a hissy fit over a commercial

    That tells you something right there.

    disproportionately serve in the military

    Wrong again Tiny Troll, okay maybe if were talking about supply clerks and cooks. But when it comes to Special Forces; Seals, Rangers, Green Berets, Force Recon, Airborne the guys who have done most of shooting for last 20 years plus technical positions, pilots etc., it’s really really White. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/05/diversity-seals-green-berets/31122851/

  41. @Colin Wright
    I'm all for genetic research, but I'm not sure it should be taken as the key to absolute truth.

    Sometimes, it produces results that are definitely improbable. For example, one study of Chinese DNA 'revealed' that there were only something like a thousand Han Chinese in 500 BC. It also determined that modern Tibetans had only diverged from the rest of Chinese around two thousand years ago or something -- i.e., that's when they emigrated to Tibet. Conventional archeologists objected that all the evidence indicated that the movement occurred more like about ten thousand years ago.

    All figures are from memory, and subject to correction. The point is that genetics research sometimes comes up with results that are at odds with the rest of the evidence or even simply improbable even taken in isolation. So should we be so unhesitating in draping the mantle of absolute certainty about its shoulders?

    Another aspect of it all is that the 'research' may be subject to abuse. Here I'm thinking of the reality of Jewish racial identity. Obviously, 'Jews' are not all the same people. Netanyahu looks a lot like many gentile Poles; he doesn't bear the least resemblance to Yemeni Jews. And so on. Historical evidence supports this as well; Jewish populations exploded at a rate and in a manner that could only have occurred if the main engine of expansion was conversion rather than natural increase. And so on.

    And indeed, the first genetic studies of Jewry supported this. While the DNA of the descendants of the various Jewish communities were related to the DNA of the descendants of other nearby Jewish communities, it was still more closely related to the DNA of their immediate gentile neighbors. I.e., a German Jew might be a distant cousin to an Italian Jew, but his really close relatives tended to be German gentiles.

    ...but now all that appears to have been mysteriously reversed. Somehow -- the visual evidence, the historical evidence, and the earlier genetic evidence all notwithstanding -- Jews are a race after all, most closely related to each other, be they from Tunisia or the Ukraine.

    Moreover, the studies 'establishing' this all seem to be done by Jews themselves.

    Theoretically, it's possible -- but isn't it also possible that one can make the genetic data say whatever one pleases? Again, if so, can we really place so much unqualified credence in the results?

    Personally, I'm kind of a blood and thunder guy myself, and I'm perfectly happy to accept that the ancient Indo-Europeans carried out mass slaughter on a scale that dwarfs Genghis Khan and everyone since -- but should we really take that as proven?

    “Jews are a race after all, most closely related to each other, be they from Tunisia or the Ukraine.”

    That’s not right. All Ashkenazi groups are closely related, but they are only moderately related to Sephardis and pretty distant from middle eastern jews. Closest relatives of Sephardis are Italian Jews, Greek Jews, Anatolian Jews, and non-Jewish Iberians and Italians.

    • Replies: @utu
    "Sephardis are Italian Jews, Greek Jews, Anatolian Jews, and non-Jewish Iberians and Italians"

    They are all different lineages. DNA ancestry software has to use many OR's in its programs. If you have A OR B OR C OR D.... then you are Ashkenazi and then they find a group of Jews who do not match any of it so they append another condition to the list of alternatives.
    , @ben tillman

    “Jews are a race after all, most closely related to each other, be they from Tunisia or the Ukraine.”

    That’s not right. All Ashkenazi groups are closely related, but they are only moderately related to Sephardis and pretty distant from middle eastern jews.
     
    I disagree. If you have never known a Sephardic Jew, you can move to Texas and easily identify Sephardic Jews as Jews using Ashkenazim as your prototype.
  42. @Toño Bungay
    A tad oversimple, no? The archaeologists cooperated with Reich but dispute his extrapolations from the very few samples he used. Are they really just guarding their comfy notions? Time will tell.

    A single genome tells you a lot about the whole population it comes from. It’s not like finding one more arrowhead. And there have been more sequenced: they confirm the original results.

    Reporters don’t know much.

  43. @Colin Wright
    I'm all for genetic research, but I'm not sure it should be taken as the key to absolute truth.

    Sometimes, it produces results that are definitely improbable. For example, one study of Chinese DNA 'revealed' that there were only something like a thousand Han Chinese in 500 BC. It also determined that modern Tibetans had only diverged from the rest of Chinese around two thousand years ago or something -- i.e., that's when they emigrated to Tibet. Conventional archeologists objected that all the evidence indicated that the movement occurred more like about ten thousand years ago.

    All figures are from memory, and subject to correction. The point is that genetics research sometimes comes up with results that are at odds with the rest of the evidence or even simply improbable even taken in isolation. So should we be so unhesitating in draping the mantle of absolute certainty about its shoulders?

    Another aspect of it all is that the 'research' may be subject to abuse. Here I'm thinking of the reality of Jewish racial identity. Obviously, 'Jews' are not all the same people. Netanyahu looks a lot like many gentile Poles; he doesn't bear the least resemblance to Yemeni Jews. And so on. Historical evidence supports this as well; Jewish populations exploded at a rate and in a manner that could only have occurred if the main engine of expansion was conversion rather than natural increase. And so on.

    And indeed, the first genetic studies of Jewry supported this. While the DNA of the descendants of the various Jewish communities were related to the DNA of the descendants of other nearby Jewish communities, it was still more closely related to the DNA of their immediate gentile neighbors. I.e., a German Jew might be a distant cousin to an Italian Jew, but his really close relatives tended to be German gentiles.

    ...but now all that appears to have been mysteriously reversed. Somehow -- the visual evidence, the historical evidence, and the earlier genetic evidence all notwithstanding -- Jews are a race after all, most closely related to each other, be they from Tunisia or the Ukraine.

    Moreover, the studies 'establishing' this all seem to be done by Jews themselves.

    Theoretically, it's possible -- but isn't it also possible that one can make the genetic data say whatever one pleases? Again, if so, can we really place so much unqualified credence in the results?

    Personally, I'm kind of a blood and thunder guy myself, and I'm perfectly happy to accept that the ancient Indo-Europeans carried out mass slaughter on a scale that dwarfs Genghis Khan and everyone since -- but should we really take that as proven?

    “Jewish populations exploded at a rate and in a manner that could only have occurred if the main engine of expansion was conversion rather than natural increase. ”

    Slower than the Amish, though. I want to hear more about all those converts ripping off their buttons.

  44. @Sean
    It's not that simple, Our minds are not made to give a answer to those kinds of questions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiQhEK1Dh8M




    Gustaf Kossinna did play a part in the early 20th century century climate in Germany, but no more than art critic Julius Langbehn. If we are talking about Hitler (whose last words were said to be "what an artist dies in me") and without whom there would have been no Third Reich, the greatest influence was Rienzi. Romanticism and humanism is the culprit, not genetics or Robert E Howard. He did say in The Hybornian Age that blondes came from the very furthest north though. The 18, 000 year old central Siberian Afontova Gora 3 carries the derived rs12821256 allele associated with blond hair color in Europeans, making Afontova Gora 3 the earliest individual known to carry this derived allele.

    https://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/28464901.jpg

    If we are talking about Hitler (whose last words were said to be “what an artist dies in me”)

    dude…

    Anyway, apart from the difficulty of keeping romans and nazis apart, I did read a story (might in Irving somewhere) of one of uncle adolfs friends who said that he used to be entirely apolitical, until they went out to see Rienzi in Vienna after which he had a different look in his eyes and started talking about heimats and lebensraums.

    • Replies: @Sean
    The difficulty of keeping romans and nazis apart is not inconsiderable. Hitler's first name meant proud wolf, he demanded "Wolf", as a nickname and he referred to the SS as "my pack of wolves". He had wolves on the brain, while the origin of Rome myth was about boys raised by a wolf--and the Rape of the Sabine Women. And of course the Romans exterminated those peoples who were too troublesome.

    So Hitler quoted Nero; he could quote Clausewitz by the yard. Pre Reich (the 5000 year old DNA Reich not the the storied 1000 year one) post WW2 the school of school that thought that the Dorian invasion of Greece had been from Germany, was long gone.

    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YUTr5LMZSYw/WZ9wG_LxfCI/AAAAAAAACVw/rLha5OOf4_MRuTroDCwN8tzsiPdgxPOkwCLcBGAs/s640/6jykn-aryens.jpg

    However, by the 1950s Marija Gimbutas, had more or less worked out that Indo European were warlike Fuhrer-worshiping abusers of women, organised in a wolf cult, came from the steppes not Germany, and supplanted the old Europeans by rape and murder not cultural exchange.

    Spengler, who warned that the Nazis were building castles in the air if they thought the West would leave them alone, is said to have remarked about Hitler that Germany needed a hero not a heroic tenor. In his 1938 essay "Bruder Hitler", Thomas Mann said that Hitler was an artist. Hitler spent vast amounts of time before the first world war trying to create a Wagnerian-style opera, with lots of incest and flying in it by all accounts. Just before his death he spent time fiddling with his architectural plans for Linz. Hitler was more Rienzi (and destined to meet the same fate) not about practical politics, he liked Nietzsche, who said " to be a public utility, a cog, a function, is a natural vocation: it is the kind of happiness of which the great majority are alone capable".
    , @Anonymous
    Robert Griffin talks about this in his biography of William Pierce:

    August ("Gustl") Kubizek (3 August 1888 – 23 October 1956) was an Austrian man best known for being a close friend of Adolf Hitler, when both were in their late teens. He later wrote about their friendship in his book The Young Hitler I Knew (1955).
     
    Another summary:

    August Kubizek met Adolf Hitler in 1904 while they competed for standing room at the opera. Kubizek describes a reticent young man, painfully shy, yet capable of bursting into hysterical fits of anger if anyone disagreed with him. But they grew close, often talking for hours on end. In 1908, they began sharing an apartment in Vienna. After being rejected twice from art school, Hitler found himself sinking into an unkind world of “constant unappeasable hunger.” Kubizek did not meet his friend again until he congratulated him on becoming Chancellor of Germany. The Young Hitler I Knew tells the story of an extraordinary friendship, and gives fascinating insight into Hitler’s character during these formative years.
     
    Griffin's summation is best, and can be found in his book, readily downloadable as a free .pdf with his consent.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    difficulty of keeping romans and nazis apart

     



    Pledge of Allegiance 1930s video (rare palms up version)

    Beginning video is a 1930s all African-American segregated school in Kansas.

    The salute was officially replaced by the hand-over-heart salute when Congress amended the Flag Code on 22 December 1942.

     

  45. @YetAnotherAnon
    My OT comment disappeared during The Great Unz Database-Not-Found of 1.30 GMT, so I'll try again. Pinker on the APA and masculinity.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/apa-guidelines-men-boys.html

    The report is blinkered by two dogmas. One is the doctrine of the blank slate” that rejects biological and genetic factors, Pinker wrote, adding that

    The word “testosterone” appears nowhere in the report, and the possibility that men and women’s personalities differ for biological reasons is unsayable and unthinkable.

    The other dogma, Pinker argued,

    is that repressing emotions is bad and expressing them is good — a folk theory with roots in romanticism, Freudian psychoanalysis, and Hollywood, but which is contradicted by a large literature showing that people with greater self-control, particularly those who repress anger rather than “venting,” lead healthier lives: they get better grades, have fewer eating disorders, drink less, have fewer psychosomatic aches and pains, are less depressed, anxious, phobic, and paranoid, have higher self-esteem, are more conscientious, have better relationships with their families, have more stable friendships, are less likely to have sex they regretted, are less likely to imagine themselves cheating in a monogamous relationship.

    In Pinker’s view, the A.P.A. guidelines fail to recognize that

    a huge and centuries-long change in Western history, starting from the Middle Ages, was a “Civilizing Process” in which the ideal of manhood changed from a macho willingness to retaliate violently to an insult to the ability to exert self-control, dignity, reserve, and duty. It’s the culture of the gentleman, the man of dignity and quiet strength, the mensch. The romantic 1960s ethic of self-expression and escape from inhibitions weakened that ethic, and the A.P.A. report seems to be trying to administer the coup de grâce.

    Pinker suggested rather that

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.

     

    YetAnotherAnon wrote (quoting the NYT quoting Pinker):

    Pinker suggested rather that

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.

    I keep trying to tell everyone here that Pinker (and Dave Reich and Amy Chua and Charles Murray) are among the good guys!

    I recently talked to a young woman who was on a date with a guy when one of her date’s buddies started physically assaulting her. Her date did nothing. She managed to deal with it herself.

    Needless to say, she never dated that weenie again!

    Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.

    Perhaps we are more at danger from “toxic wimpishness” than “toxic masculinity.”

    • Replies: @Autochthon

    Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.
     
    Like the provision of resources, protection was something the females drisively opted out of when they started their suicidal ravings for "equality" and, having hijacked the state to take resources from men, incarcerate them, and rob them of their own children at the whims of the women, forfeited their claim to under the natural order.

    These modern harridans should embrace assaults by men as golden opportunities to demonstrate the myth that men are stronger than women and showcase their martial prowess; failing that, they can call the police they are so fond of calling to incarcerate and otherwise abuse the fathers of their own children when they decide they'd prefer the paycheck without the hassles of marriage. If the women are beaten, raped, and robbed, and the assailant log gone when the police show up to file a report in a half an hour, that just goes to show their feminine wisdom placing faith in the state's paid stooges over the inferiour men they are forced to walk amongst who dare to gaze upon them each day.

    They cannot have it both ways; they are going to get more and more "equality," good and hard, especially at the hands of the ever larger waves of the invaders they worship.
    , @L Woods

    Men protect women and children.
     
    Lol no thanks.
    , @dvorak

    I recently talked to a young woman who was on a date with a guy when one of her date’s buddies started physically assaulting her. Her date did nothing.
     
    Bros before hoes.
    , @Mr McKenna

    Men protect women and children. All of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.
     
    Yes we were taught that. But as society 'progressed' these past few decades, that ethos ran headlong into the stricture that white males must be presented as evil everywhere and always. So now we have a situation where white males are depicted in the broader culture as a threat to women and children, always and everywhere, while black males and latino males, for example, are presented as women's and children's best friends and protectors.

    The resulting society-wide disconnect, where what's being presented and dramatized 24/7 is diametrically-opposed to easily-perceived reality, requires endless reinforcement from the entertainment-propaganda machine as well as instant 'unpersoning" of anyone who points out the obvious. Our predicament today serves one useful purpose: it demonstrates that even the more far-fetched of Orwell's paranoid fantasies are no match for a society which has been hijacked by a small, determined minority with hatred in its heart and the levers of power in its hands.

    Look around you--even here on a site which is as subversive as they come--and you'll find a 'healthy' (and industrious) minority daily abusing those who question the Approved Narrative or who otherwise display evidence of independent thought.

    , @BB753
    I'm all for feminism and empowering them wymyn. I say let them stew in their own juice. There ain't such a thing as a free meal (male).
    , @Anonymous

    I recently talked to a young woman who was on a date with a guy when one of her date’s buddies started physically assaulting her. Her date did nothing. She managed to deal with it herself.
     
    Let me guess, the conversation turned to Trump?
    , @AndrewR
    Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.

    Lmao. You don't mention your age, but one presume you are at least 65 years old. I wouldn't be surprised if you were 80.

    Things have changed since you were a kid, gramps - a lot. Women don't get to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted equality, they can have it.

  46. @rufus
    ... this is one of sailer's hoz ?

    Lagertha. Keep it on the qt.

  47. Italian leftist Jews: there is no white race to save (after a Northern Italian politician said he wanted to save Europeans from Islam). Lyingpress framing it in terms of Nazism because everything is always about Nazism at all times.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20180118025918/https:/twitter.com/dureghello/status/952889048049307648

  48. @Tyrion 2
    I once visited a "matriarchal" tribe in the Amazon. Prior to arriving I was given the impression that it'd be knitting circles of wise old women and soft-spoken men darting around the edges. Instead, I found the hurried women toiling all day, doing every piece of work, while the men got into gangs, took drugs and had a laugh. I assume the sexual relations were not #MeToo friendly either.

    Even the hallucinogenic drug was misadvertised by Western academics. Supposedly the natives took it for peace, harmony and liberation. In actuality, the Shaman informed me that his ancestors took it to turn into magical animals and slaughter their enemies across the jungle.

    They were nice people, but perhaps if the men helped out a bit with production something might actually be produced, and they wouldn't be so utterly at the mercy of nature.

    Even the hallucinogenic drug was misadvertised by Western academics. Supposedly the natives took it for peace, harmony and liberation. In actuality, the Shaman informed me that his ancestors took it to turn into magical animals and slaughter their enemies across the jungle.

    Years ago I watched a lecture about the history of the use of psilocybin mushrooms. What I remember most is an off-the-cuff remark by the professor where he pointed out that the existence of the Aztecs – with their penchant for both entheogens and human sacrifice – should decisively explode the hippy-dippy notion that we could bring about world peace if everyone would just drop acid.

  49. actually, this is why we lose. guys like greg who can dominate the SAT and do technically important work in science, but who couldn’t even avoid getting fired and losing their job once the enemy comes doxing for them. what resistance do you actually offer if the enemy can literally laugh in your face at your stupid numbers and facts and statistics. “Who cares. The sky is not blue, you said it was, you’re fired.”

    i like greg and admire some of his work, but have you ever heard him talk. god, he’s terrible. you can’t listen to him for more than 10 minutes before tuning out. and he can’t stay on topic for long before going off on a tangent about world war 2 or some other military history that nobody on earth cares about in the moment. his sperg outs only further undermine his delivery. a bad communicator. and he doesn’t look that great either. conversely, the enemy is great at all of that, and that they are innumerate, and can’t even calculate the height of mexican invaders, is irrelevant. the mexicans ARE invading, are they not? who cares if we quoted their heights wrong.

    greg is great at physics, and biology? so what. none of that matters because there’s a million guys just like him who are highly technically capable at figuring out some difficult problem, but remain invisible cogs in some lab or corporate business unit somewhere, forever having zero effect on society. these are the guys getting steamrolled every day. highly capable spergs like james damore who are genuinely shocked when the enemy comes for them – a lot of them don’t even realize there is an enemy or that they’re in a war. even the guys who do realize this, are completely helpless, turning into irrelevant wordsmiths on the internet, blogging away more like a sideline reporter calling the play by play in a boxing match as the enemy smashes to victory after victory, rather than being a combatant in an actual back and forth battle themselves.

    and it doesn’t matter at all that greg is married and has lots of kids, either. they’ll either be indoctrinated too and turned against us, or they will become meek symbol manipulators like their father, put to work in some cubicle somewhere, solving an economic problem for a corporation or university.

    “But I’m right!” the white man shouted, as his enemies simply swarmed over him like a tidal wave, his last gurgling noise a plea for appeal to logic and reason…

    • Replies: @JackOH
    yes, pretty much agree with you. I suggested maybe a month ago that Ron come up with a sort of political campaign platform for the 2020 election whose planks might draw the good attention of the major and minor parties. There seem to me younger folks here who are hungry for political expression, and who simply have nowhere to go. Ron has actual electoral experience as a candidate and issue promoter in a very big state, so he has the talent to put together such a platform.

    Both the posts and comments here at Unz Review offer a treasure, millions of words of sharp observations and reasoned insights by very bright people, from which a few platform planks can be drawn.

    (IOW-yep, there's a real danger that all the good talk here will end up in a 22nd century museum of archaic rhetoric, unless we can breath some life into it.)
  50. Anon[204] • Disclaimer says:

    Brains are like muscles. They are elastic to a point. Suppose a person who doesn’t ‘work out’ can bench-press 150 lb., but then he takes up weight-training, and he is able to bench-press 200 lbs. So, he’s gained 50 lbs in additional weight he can lift. But MORE exercise will not mean more strength. Eventually, he will reach his limit no matter how hard he exerts himself. Same goes for intelligence. Mental training with memory and logic will expand the boundaries of intelligence. A person who, under normal circumstances, has an IQ of 100 might raise it to 110, but it’s unlikely he will go beyond that no matter how much he trains his mind.

  51. @Reg Cæsar

    A fair amount of redheads too.
     
    Do redheads count as "fair"?

    The fair ones do.

  52. @e
    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.

    Ah, progressives will hate this, of course, especially the "self reliance" as a positive masculine virtue as it undermines Big Government right off the bat.

    GloboHomo does not mind men’s being self-reliant at all – indeed, they insist upon it by destoying family, community, church, and nation – it’s female self-reliance that will not be tolerated: males are responsible for taking care of all females’ needs and even desires; heck, that’s part of the plan regarding destroying families: women get all of the resources with none of the pesky, reciprocal responsibilities and burdens….

  53. charles murray is definitely not one of the good guys. he’s a sit on the sidelines, don’t do anything and never rock the boat fat bald loser.

    charles murray is a never trumper who would rather we all get replaced and vanish into the history books than lift a single finger to resist the total destruction of the thing he putatively claims to care about, human accomplishment. nothing sends shivers down charles murray’s spine like the idea of actually trying to resist zero human capital third world hordes from over running the west. my goodness, that would be rude to interrupt them. what matters the most is being polite while you’re being exterminated!

    the guy is useless.

    • LOL: AndrewR
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "the guy is useless"

    He's just not great in our current situation. He's not useless per se. And you could argue that a lot of his work was a useful precursor to other people's stuff and changing people's minds on an individual level.

    His work on underclasses and benefit dependency, on Fishtown and Belmont, on "custodial democracy", on assortative mating and the cognitive elite (main theme of The Bell Curve) is interesting and IMIO (in my ignorant opinion) pretty accurate - and useful and relevant today.

    "The bottom line for this accumulation of experience in America is that it is impossible to make up for parenting deficits through outside interventions. I realize this is still an intellectually unacceptable thing to say in Britain. It used to be intellectually unacceptable in the United States as well. No longer. We’ve been there, done that.

    Our grandparents’ most basic taken-for-granted understanding, which today’s intellectual and political elites find it hardest to accept, is this: make it easier to behave irresponsibly and more people will behave irresponsibly. The welfare state makes it easier for men to impregnate women without taking responsibility for them, easier for women to raise a baby without the help of a man and easier for men and women to get by without working. There is no changing that situation without reintroducing penalties for irresponsible behavior.

    This is the sticking point for every political figure in Britain, Labor or Tory. Frank Field has been miles ahead of other politicians in recognizing the growing problem of the underclass and in speaking out, but last week even he was saying: “Surely we can say that the traditional family unit is the best way to nurture children without making it a campaign to beat up single mums.”

    With respect: you cannot. If you want to reduce the number of single mums you have to be ready to say that to bring a child into the world without a father committed to its care is wrong....

    Stigma is one of society’s most efficient methods for controlling destructive behavior."
     
    He's just not the intellectual warrior some of us would like him to be - and if he were, would The Bell Curve and all his other interesting stuff ever have been published? Or would he have been Richwined long ago? He's been called a Nazi and a racist ever since The Bell Curve as it is.

    There are all sorts of academics who have lost their jobs for pointing out racial average differences in IQ. I can think of two or three in the UK who you'll never have heard of.

    “And some there be, which have no memorial; who are perished, as though they had never been; and are become as though they had never been born" - Ecclesiastes 44:9
  54. I keep trying to tell everyone here that Pinker (and Dave Reich and Amy Chua and Charles Murray) are among the good guys!

    Amy Chua?

    But apart from her, are they really that “good” if their nice-guy contrarianism doesn’t get the job done?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    But apart from her, are they really that “good” if their nice-guy contrarianism doesn’t get the job done?
     
    Well... I guess two points:

    A) Often people cannot absorb the truth all at once; often they have to be exposed to it slowly, in bits and pieces. It's the "Overton Window" and all that.

    B) Lies are simple; truth is often complicated. On points where you or I or other posters here might disagree with Chua, Reich, Pinker, or Murray, it could turn out that he or she is right and we are wrong. All of them are trying to push truths that the ruling elite does not want to hear. If sometimes they say something you or I do not want to hear, they might just possibly be right.

    All the best,

    Dave
    , @anon
    Pinker suffers from a serious case of the Trump Derangement Syndrome. "The Third Reich", too. I would guess all of them do.
  55. @PhysicistDave
    YetAnotherAnon wrote (quoting the NYT quoting Pinker):

    Pinker suggested rather that

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.
     
    I keep trying to tell everyone here that Pinker (and Dave Reich and Amy Chua and Charles Murray) are among the good guys!

    I recently talked to a young woman who was on a date with a guy when one of her date's buddies started physically assaulting her. Her date did nothing. She managed to deal with it herself.

    Needless to say, she never dated that weenie again!

    Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.

    Perhaps we are more at danger from "toxic wimpishness" than "toxic masculinity."

    Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.

    Like the provision of resources, protection was something the females drisively opted out of when they started their suicidal ravings for “equality” and, having hijacked the state to take resources from men, incarcerate them, and rob them of their own children at the whims of the women, forfeited their claim to under the natural order.

    These modern harridans should embrace assaults by men as golden opportunities to demonstrate the myth that men are stronger than women and showcase their martial prowess; failing that, they can call the police they are so fond of calling to incarcerate and otherwise abuse the fathers of their own children when they decide they’d prefer the paycheck without the hassles of marriage. If the women are beaten, raped, and robbed, and the assailant log gone when the police show up to file a report in a half an hour, that just goes to show their feminine wisdom placing faith in the state’s paid stooges over the inferiour men they are forced to walk amongst who dare to gaze upon them each day.

    They cannot have it both ways; they are going to get more and more “equality,” good and hard, especially at the hands of the ever larger waves of the invaders they worship.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Autochthon wrote to me:

    Like the provision of resources, protection was something the females drisively opted out of when they started their suicidal ravings for “equality” and, having hijacked the state to take resources from men, incarcerate them, and rob them of their own children at the whims of the women, forfeited their claim to under the natural order.
     
    Hmmm... Y'know, Trump won white women.

    Just maybe women are individuals and it is a mistake to assume that most women adhere to the views of a very loud and obnoxious minority?
  56. @Reg Cæsar

    A fair amount of redheads too.
     
    Do redheads count as "fair"?

    I believe they made a kids’ movie recently where Dracula’s grandson was a redhead.

  57. Earlier today a Buzzfeed writer held up anonymous sources claimed by Buzzfeed to be claiming that Cohen was the proof of Trump’s much-discussed Rus’nost. The lyingpress was all atwitter. I thought, if this were true it would be yet more case against Mueller because he had access to this years ago and didn’t find it.
    Later today Robert Mueller’s office said this wasn’t true. Buzzfeed’s anonymous sources have not yet commented, if they ever did.
    Tomorrow at three the President will make an announcement, possibly declaring the emergency.

  58. @Anonymous
    To be clear, in India the left liberals love love love the Aryan invasion theory.

    It gives them the opportunity to paint upper caste Hindus in the same brush as white South Africans, Israeli Jews and European Americans.

    And they are correct

  59. @YetAnotherAnon
    My OT comment disappeared during The Great Unz Database-Not-Found of 1.30 GMT, so I'll try again. Pinker on the APA and masculinity.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/apa-guidelines-men-boys.html

    The report is blinkered by two dogmas. One is the doctrine of the blank slate” that rejects biological and genetic factors, Pinker wrote, adding that

    The word “testosterone” appears nowhere in the report, and the possibility that men and women’s personalities differ for biological reasons is unsayable and unthinkable.

    The other dogma, Pinker argued,

    is that repressing emotions is bad and expressing them is good — a folk theory with roots in romanticism, Freudian psychoanalysis, and Hollywood, but which is contradicted by a large literature showing that people with greater self-control, particularly those who repress anger rather than “venting,” lead healthier lives: they get better grades, have fewer eating disorders, drink less, have fewer psychosomatic aches and pains, are less depressed, anxious, phobic, and paranoid, have higher self-esteem, are more conscientious, have better relationships with their families, have more stable friendships, are less likely to have sex they regretted, are less likely to imagine themselves cheating in a monogamous relationship.

    In Pinker’s view, the A.P.A. guidelines fail to recognize that

    a huge and centuries-long change in Western history, starting from the Middle Ages, was a “Civilizing Process” in which the ideal of manhood changed from a macho willingness to retaliate violently to an insult to the ability to exert self-control, dignity, reserve, and duty. It’s the culture of the gentleman, the man of dignity and quiet strength, the mensch. The romantic 1960s ethic of self-expression and escape from inhibitions weakened that ethic, and the A.P.A. report seems to be trying to administer the coup de grâce.

    Pinker suggested rather that

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.

     

    ‘…One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.’

    I’m touched. For one, having grown up under some less-than-sheltered circumstances, and having both been a bully and been bullied, it’s pretty clear to me that displaying ‘machismo’ and a willingness to engage in violence is an excellent way of deterring aggression. Your basic bully usually doesn’t want a fight. Even if he feels confident he’ll win it, he’ll pick a victim who won’t offer resistance over one who will. I can distinctly recall both driving off some aggressors and being deterred from harassing people who physically were much smaller than me. In both cases, the operative factor was a willingness to go down fighting.

    For another, fairly obviously, those who manage to suppress their drive for dominance will wind up at the bottom of whatever pile they belong to — and worse, ruled by those who may otherwise be less fit than they to decide what should be done. If I feel confident I should be in charge, I might be right. Perhaps I should go for it.

    I think men are the way they are for some excellent reasons, and pending a far more profound understanding of human culture and its mechanisms than what we currently possess, we should be loathe to tinker with the machinery. People like Pinker won’t be doing anyone who listens to them any favors. Then too, any successful culture should really accord with human nature. If half of the species is inclined to violence, ‘machismo,’ and a will to dominate, then the thing to do is to structure society accordingly, not try to remake the people the society is for in the first place.

    • Replies: @Thea
    If few women found machismo attractive, it would have been bred out of our lineage. Sleeping with bad boys is a surefire way to solidify their continued existence.


    On the other end, The hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world. Mothers must be nurturing some of these behaviors decried as toxic if one subscribes to the blank slate.

    Either way women can carry some if the burden for the masculinity they supposedly don’t like.
  60. @Tyrion 2
    I once visited a "matriarchal" tribe in the Amazon. Prior to arriving I was given the impression that it'd be knitting circles of wise old women and soft-spoken men darting around the edges. Instead, I found the hurried women toiling all day, doing every piece of work, while the men got into gangs, took drugs and had a laugh. I assume the sexual relations were not #MeToo friendly either.

    Even the hallucinogenic drug was misadvertised by Western academics. Supposedly the natives took it for peace, harmony and liberation. In actuality, the Shaman informed me that his ancestors took it to turn into magical animals and slaughter their enemies across the jungle.

    They were nice people, but perhaps if the men helped out a bit with production something might actually be produced, and they wouldn't be so utterly at the mercy of nature.

    Many “matriarchal” societies that feminists cite are far from matriarchal (in the sense of matriarchy being a mirror image replacement for patriarchy). They are often merely matrilineal in regards to property rights.

    https://feminisminindia.com/2016/09/01/decline-matrilineal-society-kerala/

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Many “matriarchal” societies that feminists cite are far from matriarchal (in the sense of matriarchy being a mirror image replacement for patriarchy). They are often merely matrilineal in regards to property rights.
     
    There have never been any continuously existing human matriarchies. Any true martriarchy that popped up would be quickly conquered and enjoyed by surround patriarchies.

    Seriously the closest thing to matriarchy that has ever existed is the modern West. And, yes, it's in the process of being conquered and plundered by barbarians.
    , @John Carr
    Matrilocal is a word used to describe a system where married couple live with or near the wife's parents and is found in some societies around the world.
    Matrilinear is a word used to describe a system where each person is identified with their mother's lineage and is found in some societies around the world.
    Matriarchal is a word used to describe a system where women hold the primary power positions and is found in a dictionary.
  61. @Tiny Duck
    Greg Cochran is a fat old white male. No one who is anyone takes him serousily.

    One more thing: you know that Gillette ad that all you right wingers are having a cow over? Well, most Men of Color see no problem with the ad. Men of Color dominate sports, are better fighters, get more romance, disproportianley serve in the military, attract more women, have better bodies, are more muscular, can dance good, have large genitals, and command respect from other men.

    Only white males seems to have a problem with the Gillette ad. Only white males are son insecure that they through a hissy fit over a commercial

    That tells you something right there.

    ‘Well, he’s just a smelly old white man, so who cares? Smelly old white men care, that’s who!’

    Oh yeah, and you know that other thing that happened in the news that you probably all find really annoying? Well it’s not, it’s GREAT, and I hope it happens even more!’

  62. @Hypnotoad666

    In a tropical paradise where a bit of garden agriculture by women is enough for them and their children to live, the women will select the bad boys as the fathers
     
    Isn't it true, though, that the "tropical paradise" is a double-edged sword? Food supplies are plentiful, but so are parasites and disease.

    So "livin' is easy," while it lasts. But life expectancy is short. In other words, you have to "live fast and die young," whether you like it or not.

    The evolutionary pressure under this environment would seemingly discourage delayed gratificstion and long term investment strategies.

    Does anyone know whether hunter-gatherers in colder climates had the same patterns of warfare and violence as their topical counterparts? My guess is that the data is simply lacking as northern tribes got civilized before the records could be made.

    ‘Does anyone know whether hunter-gatherers in colder climates had the same patterns of warfare and violence as their topical counterparts? My guess is that the data is simply lacking as northern tribes got civilized before the records could be made.’

    ? Plenty of such groups still existed well into the twentieth century; in Siberia, Northern Canada, Alaska. The subject could easily be studied; the main obstacle I see isn’t a lack of data, but the importance of other factors. For example, Siberian aborigines might not fight much — but perhaps simply because they’re so thin on the ground that they don’t encounter each other that often. Matters might be otherwise in a tropical setting offering plentiful food year round.

  63. @Reg Cæsar
    Two strikes against the young lady:

    The scenery looks like Florida. Or worse, someplace farther south.

    She's sitting close to a guy with a florid tattoo on his upper arm.

    ‘Two strikes against the young lady:

    The scenery looks like Florida. Or worse, someplace farther south.

    She’s sitting close to a guy with a florid tattoo on his upper arm.’

    There you go. You’ll be rescuing her.

  64. @Flip
    Many Ashkenazi Jews have blue eyes and pale skin, which implies a different ancestry than a mixture from the Middle East and Italy.

    I bet you’ve never visited Italy. Blue eyes and pale skin are common North of Rome. And far from unusual South of it.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    That's just kooky. Fair skin and especially blue eyes are rare indeed in most of Italy. And sorry but I've spent years there; I know whereof I speak. Possibly you've mistaken Italy for Ireland.
  65. @Lot
    "Jews are a race after all, most closely related to each other, be they from Tunisia or the Ukraine."

    That's not right. All Ashkenazi groups are closely related, but they are only moderately related to Sephardis and pretty distant from middle eastern jews. Closest relatives of Sephardis are Italian Jews, Greek Jews, Anatolian Jews, and non-Jewish Iberians and Italians.

    “Sephardis are Italian Jews, Greek Jews, Anatolian Jews, and non-Jewish Iberians and Italians”

    They are all different lineages. DNA ancestry software has to use many OR’s in its programs. If you have A OR B OR C OR D…. then you are Ashkenazi and then they find a group of Jews who do not match any of it so they append another condition to the list of alternatives.

  66. @PhysicistDave
    YetAnotherAnon wrote (quoting the NYT quoting Pinker):

    Pinker suggested rather that

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.
     
    I keep trying to tell everyone here that Pinker (and Dave Reich and Amy Chua and Charles Murray) are among the good guys!

    I recently talked to a young woman who was on a date with a guy when one of her date's buddies started physically assaulting her. Her date did nothing. She managed to deal with it herself.

    Needless to say, she never dated that weenie again!

    Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.

    Perhaps we are more at danger from "toxic wimpishness" than "toxic masculinity."

    Men protect women and children.

    Lol no thanks.

  67. @Tiny Duck
    Greg Cochran is a fat old white male. No one who is anyone takes him serousily.

    One more thing: you know that Gillette ad that all you right wingers are having a cow over? Well, most Men of Color see no problem with the ad. Men of Color dominate sports, are better fighters, get more romance, disproportianley serve in the military, attract more women, have better bodies, are more muscular, can dance good, have large genitals, and command respect from other men.

    Only white males seems to have a problem with the Gillette ad. Only white males are son insecure that they through a hissy fit over a commercial

    That tells you something right there.

    Well, most Men of Color see no problem with the ad. Men of Color dominate sports, are better fighters, get more romance, disproportianley serve in the military, attract more women, have better bodies, are more muscular, can dance good, have large genitals, and command respect from other men.

    Some of this I agree with, particularly the sports part. I assume you acknowledge the role of natural selection in creating these advantages.

    But why do white men totally monopolize significant intellectual achievements that have advanced civilization while Men of Color are totally absent?

    Could natural selection be operational at this level too TD?

  68. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hypnotoad666

    In a tropical paradise where a bit of garden agriculture by women is enough for them and their children to live, the women will select the bad boys as the fathers
     
    Isn't it true, though, that the "tropical paradise" is a double-edged sword? Food supplies are plentiful, but so are parasites and disease.

    So "livin' is easy," while it lasts. But life expectancy is short. In other words, you have to "live fast and die young," whether you like it or not.

    The evolutionary pressure under this environment would seemingly discourage delayed gratificstion and long term investment strategies.

    Does anyone know whether hunter-gatherers in colder climates had the same patterns of warfare and violence as their topical counterparts? My guess is that the data is simply lacking as northern tribes got civilized before the records could be made.

    So “livin’ is easy,” while it lasts. But life expectancy is short. In other words, you have to “live fast and die young,” whether you like it or not.

    Pete Townshend famously said ” (I) hope I die before I get old”. He did no such thing.

    He is older-by a month and a half-than this exponent of much the same thing, who also did no such thing and is doing pretty well for herself these days:

  69. @Toño Bungay
    A tad oversimple, no? The archaeologists cooperated with Reich but dispute his extrapolations from the very few samples he used. Are they really just guarding their comfy notions? Time will tell.

    “dispute his extrapolations” – Absolutely. This is a new field. The methodologies Reich and others use did not undergo independent scrutiny. There is a lot of ambiguity sand uncertainties that they circumnavigate by making ad hoc assumptions that can’t be validated. Unfortunately archeologists are not in a position to challenge them. The community to which Reich belongs is so strongly incestuous (three labs spawned by one researcher) that it is unlikely that they can police themselves. And if the cowboy demeanor of Greg Cochran is an indication of their attitude we may wait a long time before we will hear about what really is going on. They are in the hype phase now. The cold shower will come if a truly independent research is done.

  70. @Tyrion 2
    I once visited a "matriarchal" tribe in the Amazon. Prior to arriving I was given the impression that it'd be knitting circles of wise old women and soft-spoken men darting around the edges. Instead, I found the hurried women toiling all day, doing every piece of work, while the men got into gangs, took drugs and had a laugh. I assume the sexual relations were not #MeToo friendly either.

    Even the hallucinogenic drug was misadvertised by Western academics. Supposedly the natives took it for peace, harmony and liberation. In actuality, the Shaman informed me that his ancestors took it to turn into magical animals and slaughter their enemies across the jungle.

    They were nice people, but perhaps if the men helped out a bit with production something might actually be produced, and they wouldn't be so utterly at the mercy of nature.

    They were nice people

    How so? Do you just mean that they treated you kindly?

  71. @Peter Akuleyev
    At West Hunter, Greg Cochran unloads on the New York Times

    This is a nice sentiment, but inadvertently comic, almost like an Onion Headline. In terms of relative power and reach, this the equivalent of those old "Head of American Communist Party denounces American Imperialism in Latin America!" headlines the Socialist Worker used to run.

    Shush, Petrushka, the grownups are having a conversation, and nobody wants to hear your juvenile thoughts on your favorite toy the Onion

  72. Centuries ago there was a science called chemistry that claimed all the diverse matter around us was really made of only about a hundred different building blocks. These “chemists” thought they could explain things like why steel rusts based on this crazy building block theory. Because of their mistakes, horrible things like polyester and gasoline were invented.

    Of course, we now know that all matter is different and unique as well as basically the same. A double macchiato is different in its diverse beauty than a fair-trade espresso but they’re both really coffee, which is a liquid just like vegan butternut squash bisque.

    Some areas of science are still as primitive as chemistry. Certain scientists think we can learn about people by grouping them, the way chemists used to group matter (don’t ask, they had this insane grid thing that had something to do with counting electrons). But thanks to the recent work of Amy Harmon we seem to be heading towards an understanding that people are just like liquids. Sometimes they taste great when you dunk a piece of artisanal crispbread in them and sometimes they dissolve the paint off your bike, nobody really knows why!! lol 🙂

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @res
    Atomic mass is a social construct?
  73. @PhysicistDave
    YetAnotherAnon wrote (quoting the NYT quoting Pinker):

    Pinker suggested rather that

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.
     
    I keep trying to tell everyone here that Pinker (and Dave Reich and Amy Chua and Charles Murray) are among the good guys!

    I recently talked to a young woman who was on a date with a guy when one of her date's buddies started physically assaulting her. Her date did nothing. She managed to deal with it herself.

    Needless to say, she never dated that weenie again!

    Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.

    Perhaps we are more at danger from "toxic wimpishness" than "toxic masculinity."

    I recently talked to a young woman who was on a date with a guy when one of her date’s buddies started physically assaulting her. Her date did nothing.

    Bros before hoes.

    • Agree: L Woods
  74. @obwandiyag
    I figure, if somehow we just get all those inferior blacks, then everything will be a paradise forever.

    Simply removing blacks to someplace else would alter violent crime statistics, property values and community cohesion overnight.

  75. @Pincher Martin

    I keep trying to tell everyone here that Pinker (and Dave Reich and Amy Chua and Charles Murray) are among the good guys!
     
    Amy Chua?

    But apart from her, are they really that "good" if their nice-guy contrarianism doesn't get the job done?

    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    But apart from her, are they really that “good” if their nice-guy contrarianism doesn’t get the job done?

    Well… I guess two points:

    A) Often people cannot absorb the truth all at once; often they have to be exposed to it slowly, in bits and pieces. It’s the “Overton Window” and all that.

    B) Lies are simple; truth is often complicated. On points where you or I or other posters here might disagree with Chua, Reich, Pinker, or Murray, it could turn out that he or she is right and we are wrong. All of them are trying to push truths that the ruling elite does not want to hear. If sometimes they say something you or I do not want to hear, they might just possibly be right.

    All the best,

    Dave

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    A) Often people cannot absorb the truth all at once; often they have to be exposed to it slowly, in bits and pieces. It’s the “Overton Window” and all that.
     
    I would say the evidence over the last fifty years is that they can't absorb it all.

    A lot of conservatives mention the "Overton Window" when discussing these taboo subjects, but where is the evidence that soft-pedaling the evidence undermining these taboos - in the manner of Pinker, Murray and Reich - actually helps to do that?

    Are these subjects any more discussable today in public because of them? Nope.

    Is the public more conversant in these topics? Nope.

    Have the major media outlets become more balanced in discussing them? Nope.

    Just look at the NYT, which has gone from Nicholas Wade to Amy Harmon in the last decade. If pushing the "Overton Window" really helped, the paper should've moved in the opposite direction. Or at the very least, not gone backwards.


    B) Lies are simple; truth is often complicated. On points where you or I or other posters here might disagree with Chua, Reich, Pinker, or Murray, it could turn out that he or she is right and we are wrong.
     
    If a scholar is genuinely perplexed as to what is causing a phenomenon, then he certainly has a duty to the truth as best he sees it. But the direction and scope of their confusion is too limited to race for me to believe that these social scientists (at least for Reich, Pinker, and Chua) are really perplexed instead of just fearful.
    , @Almost Missouri

    "Lies are simple; truth is often complicated."
     
    Isn't it the other way around?

    A Grand Unified Field Theory of physics would be a holy grail of simplicity, not complication.

    Police routinely suss out liars by their complicated ever-permutating, ever-ramifying stories. By contrast, a true alibi is usually pretty simple: "I wasn't at the scene of the crime. I was at the pizzeria. Here is the receipt."
  76. Pipeline explosion in Mexico. Pipeline theft has become a major issue and AMLO has taken drastic measures to attempt to curb it.
    Anon said:
    A pipeline blew up while locals were stealing fuel near the town of Tlahuelilpan, in central Mexico’s Hidalgo state. Dozens were killed and dozens more severely burned out of a crowd of around 300. This is the kind of [thing] we usually see in places like Nigeria, when desperately poor villagers swarm crashed fuel trucks. Sad to see this kind of dindu-tier behavior in Mexico:

    http://www.milenio.com/estados/explosion-toma-clandestina-hidalgo-minuto-minuto

    • Replies: @FPD72
    I’ve been told by oil and gas contractors who work in the Eagle Ford shale in South Texas that it is common to find private taps in natural gas flow lines.
    , @Mr McKenna
    Don't let Mr Unz hear of this. He'll be blaming Whitey.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    Listen to my story bout a man named Jose, a poor Mex-i-can barely kept his famly fed.

    Then one day he was smugglin some cocaine, and up from the ground comes a geyser of 92 octane. Gasoline that is. Cheap tequila.

    Next thing you know Jose's fillin his bucket from that spout, and his kinfolk said "Jose, put your cigarette out!"

    Gas has high inflammibility. So they all ran away just before Jose went kablooey.
  77. @Pincher Martin

    I keep trying to tell everyone here that Pinker (and Dave Reich and Amy Chua and Charles Murray) are among the good guys!
     
    Amy Chua?

    But apart from her, are they really that "good" if their nice-guy contrarianism doesn't get the job done?

    Pinker suffers from a serious case of the Trump Derangement Syndrome. “The Third Reich”, too. I would guess all of them do.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Pinker suffers from a serious case of the Trump Derangement Syndrome. “The Third Reich”, too. I would guess all of them do.
     
    I don't care about that at all. All of them could put politics aside, as far as I care.

    Just be honest and direct about what the evidence is telling us. If scholars conversant in these subjects are too afraid to tell the truth, who's left? Some guys on the internet?
  78. OT – When is Buzzfeed going to get the Infowars treatment?

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    I am shocked that Mueller's office actually commented. Wow! I did not see that coming!
  79. @Lot
    "Jews are a race after all, most closely related to each other, be they from Tunisia or the Ukraine."

    That's not right. All Ashkenazi groups are closely related, but they are only moderately related to Sephardis and pretty distant from middle eastern jews. Closest relatives of Sephardis are Italian Jews, Greek Jews, Anatolian Jews, and non-Jewish Iberians and Italians.

    “Jews are a race after all, most closely related to each other, be they from Tunisia or the Ukraine.”

    That’s not right. All Ashkenazi groups are closely related, but they are only moderately related to Sephardis and pretty distant from middle eastern jews.

    I disagree. If you have never known a Sephardic Jew, you can move to Texas and easily identify Sephardic Jews as Jews using Ashkenazim as your prototype.

    • Replies: @Lot
    "I disagree. If you have never known a Sephardic Jew, you can move to Texas and easily identify Sephardic Jews as Jews using Ashkenazim as your prototype."

    There are very few full blooded Sephardi in the USA, and the ones that are are mostly elderly or Israeli immigrants, and even many of those might be using the term in the newer "not Ashkenazi" meaning, not the historical meaning.

    For a Mexican, claiming to be Sephardi is kind of like saying great grama was a Cherokee princess in North Carolina. Indeed, NY has two young hispanic politicians who have made dubious claims of Sephardi ancestry, Ocasio-Cortez and Julia Salazar.

    Here's some proof: name one famous American who is full Sephardi and under 50 years old. I certainly can't.
  80. @istevefan
    OT - When is Buzzfeed going to get the Infowars treatment?

    I am shocked that Mueller’s office actually commented. Wow! I did not see that coming!

    • Replies: @istevefan
    They probably figure it's best to nip this in the bud on a Friday when most people are not paying attention. Since we have MLK day on Monday, maybe the world will forget the story by Tuesday. Had they not intervened, this story would have been growing all weekend and would have become too big to contain.

    I am glad Trump just tweeted out about this. He needs to keep pushing this to discredit the last 2-plus years of the witch hunt.

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1086464467481833480

    Trump even retweeted Geraldo:

    https://twitter.com/GeraldoRivera/status/1086451161991995392
  81. @Tyrion 2
    I once visited a "matriarchal" tribe in the Amazon. Prior to arriving I was given the impression that it'd be knitting circles of wise old women and soft-spoken men darting around the edges. Instead, I found the hurried women toiling all day, doing every piece of work, while the men got into gangs, took drugs and had a laugh. I assume the sexual relations were not #MeToo friendly either.

    Even the hallucinogenic drug was misadvertised by Western academics. Supposedly the natives took it for peace, harmony and liberation. In actuality, the Shaman informed me that his ancestors took it to turn into magical animals and slaughter their enemies across the jungle.

    They were nice people, but perhaps if the men helped out a bit with production something might actually be produced, and they wouldn't be so utterly at the mercy of nature.

    “Even the hallucinogenic drug was misadvertised by Western academics.”

    Very likely you mean ayahuasca (DMT).

    While I never tried that, I read a lot of scientific info on psilocybin online before taking it freshman year. It was quite accurate. Same for peyote. DMT is in the same class and likely quite similar.

    I guess you said “academics.” If it was chemists like Alexander Shulgin, they were accurate. If it was loopy anthropologists, that was your mistake.

    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    out of those three substances, which did you prefer? do you think any tryptamine has a medical usage potential?
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    Yes, he must be talking about ayahuasca. What the shaman told him was true: they believe it's magical and that all the things they experience with it are real. Some dummies up north here do to.

    I did ayahuasca three or four times thirty years ago. It was better than mushrooms or LSD. YMMV. When I did it with my girlfriend it was a fuckfest. We nearly broke a four-poster bed at the Stanley Hotel.
  82. @Tiny Duck
    Greg Cochran is a fat old white male. No one who is anyone takes him serousily.

    One more thing: you know that Gillette ad that all you right wingers are having a cow over? Well, most Men of Color see no problem with the ad. Men of Color dominate sports, are better fighters, get more romance, disproportianley serve in the military, attract more women, have better bodies, are more muscular, can dance good, have large genitals, and command respect from other men.

    Only white males seems to have a problem with the Gillette ad. Only white males are son insecure that they through a hissy fit over a commercial

    That tells you something right there.

    Men of Color dominate sports, are better fighters, get more romance, disproportianley serve in the military . . . .

    Yeah, they are a disproportionately SMALL portion of the military.

  83. @Anon
    Off of the topic:

    TV food commercials target Hispanic and black youth with unhealthy snacks and sugary drinks
     
    Hardest hit...

    Companies target minorities because it is profitable, the report said. Asian and Hispanic people are the fastest-growing populations in the U.S., and their buying power is growing quickly as well. The report said black Americans are often targeted because “marketers view African-Americans as trendsetters who younger consumers want to emulate.”

    America’s obesity problem comes as hunger is on the rise in the country. While this may seem incongruous, the two are actually related, Berg said. “Hunger and obesity are flip sides of the same malnutrition coin,” he said. “There are complex risk factors for obesity, but there is no question that socioeconomic issues are key factors.”
     
    It's perfidious that we are continually treated to insults from the "experts" on this. There is no starvation problem that coincides with an obesity problem.

    Just spell it out that you think every non-white is entitled to an unlimited EBT card at Whole Foods.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/tv-food-commercials-target-hispanic-and-black-youth-with-unhealthy-snacks-and-sugary-drinks-2019-01-17

    Liberals feel cognitive dissonance when they see their sacred objects weighing 350 pounds and pushing shopping carts full of two-liter soda bottles, bags of Doritos, and economy-sized bags of M&Ms. Hunger! Let’s talk about food insecurity among America’s neediest!

    • Replies: @Lot
    https://acidcow.com/pics/12360-people-of-walmart-part-6-85-pics.html
  84. @ben tillman
    I am shocked that Mueller's office actually commented. Wow! I did not see that coming!

    They probably figure it’s best to nip this in the bud on a Friday when most people are not paying attention. Since we have MLK day on Monday, maybe the world will forget the story by Tuesday. Had they not intervened, this story would have been growing all weekend and would have become too big to contain.

    I am glad Trump just tweeted out about this. He needs to keep pushing this to discredit the last 2-plus years of the witch hunt.

    Trump even retweeted Geraldo:

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    Jason Leopold's still hanging tough, right? Even though his partner in crime is now hedging the report seven ways to sunday. We need Leopold to blame the Neo-Nazis who run the MSM next. Then he can claim his Twitter was hacked, and all will be well again.
  85. anonymous[214] • Disclaimer says:

    To quote Gore Vidal, “Once again, words fail Greg.”

    Is there anyone on the internet with a higher bluster x verbal impotence OPS score than Greg Cochran?

    Most of his blog follows a simple but ass backwards template: he suggests he knows something while flagrantly avoiding actually demonstrating what he insistently implies he knows.

    It’s quite tiresomse, though clearly Steve and others are hypnotized by him calling himself a genius. After all, he is a physicist (sic) and his h-index is–wait, what’s that? His h-index is ZERO because he’s literally contributed nothing to physics? How strange for a physics genius to have never attended a decent school and never have published a serious paper. It must be a physics conspiracy against genius Greg!

    • LOL: AaronB
    • Troll: Pincher Martin
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    To quote Gore Vidal, “Once again, words fail Greg.”
     
    The quote was much funnier and more appropriate when Vidal used it because the target was the brawling Norman Mailer, who had (once again) just been provoked by Gore into using his fists rather than his wits.

    Most of his blog follows a simple but ass backwards template: he suggests he knows something while flagrantly avoiding actually demonstrating what he insistently implies he knows.
     
    Horseshit. Cochran's blog is filled with arguments for those who know how to understand them. Within just the last ten days there have been three masterpieces of polemical concision.

    "Common Deleterious Recessives: Info for Taleb"

    "More on Gene Flow"

    "Primitive Tribesmen Complain about Technologically Superior Invaders"

    Each of these pieces is suburb in advancing an argument - at least for those of us who understand what an argument looks like. You - with your inapt quotations and your use of the word "template" - clearly don't.
    , @Lot
    https://i.imgflip.com/syly2.jpg
    , @Anonymous

    Most of his blog follows a simple but ass backwards template: he suggests he knows something while flagrantly avoiding actually demonstrating what he insistently implies he knows.
     
    You're not the only one who has noticed that.
  86. @ben tillman

    “Jews are a race after all, most closely related to each other, be they from Tunisia or the Ukraine.”

    That’s not right. All Ashkenazi groups are closely related, but they are only moderately related to Sephardis and pretty distant from middle eastern jews.
     
    I disagree. If you have never known a Sephardic Jew, you can move to Texas and easily identify Sephardic Jews as Jews using Ashkenazim as your prototype.

    “I disagree. If you have never known a Sephardic Jew, you can move to Texas and easily identify Sephardic Jews as Jews using Ashkenazim as your prototype.”

    There are very few full blooded Sephardi in the USA, and the ones that are are mostly elderly or Israeli immigrants, and even many of those might be using the term in the newer “not Ashkenazi” meaning, not the historical meaning.

    For a Mexican, claiming to be Sephardi is kind of like saying great grama was a Cherokee princess in North Carolina. Indeed, NY has two young hispanic politicians who have made dubious claims of Sephardi ancestry, Ocasio-Cortez and Julia Salazar.

    Here’s some proof: name one famous American who is full Sephardi and under 50 years old. I certainly can’t.

    • Replies: @Kevin Brook
    The difference between the Cherokee princess claims and the Sephardic converso ancestry claims is that the latter are usually true, verifiable by genetics, especially for Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. I have posted on this before, here and in Razib Khan's GNXP blog. They usually do have between 0.5 and 1 percent of that kind of ancestry.
    , @ben tillman

    For a Mexican, claiming to be Sephardi is kind of like saying great grama was a Cherokee princess in North Carolina.
     
    They never claim it. One has to figure it out. And I'm not claiming they are full-blooded, although many undoubtedly are. They are identifiable as Jews if you are able to identify Ashkenazim.
    , @ben tillman

    Indeed, NY has two young hispanic politicians who have made dubious claims of Sephardi ancestry, Ocasio-Cortez and Julia Salazar.
     
    Ocasio-Cortez has clearly evident Jewish ancestry. She looks like a girl from Tenafly whom I went to college with. How can you miss it?
  87. @Harry Baldwin
    Liberals feel cognitive dissonance when they see their sacred objects weighing 350 pounds and pushing shopping carts full of two-liter soda bottles, bags of Doritos, and economy-sized bags of M&Ms. Hunger! Let's talk about food insecurity among America's neediest!
  88. “One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.”

    That sounds suspiciously like a father. Next this heretic will be calling for ‘family friendly.’

  89. @YetAnotherAnon
    See the SAS guy, in plain clothes (he was officially 'out shopping'), taking control of the response to the latest al-Shabab terrorist attack in Kenya.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/nairobi-attack-sas-soldier-terror-pirate-badge-hotel-dusitd2-kenya-al-shabaab-a8730561.html

    That looks like a cheap ad for more invade the world BS . I don’t know about the UK but we’ve got enough Third World shit going on right here in River City . If they want to kill each other in Kenya or Baltimore it’s OK with me . You can take your SAS heroes and stick them your ASS .

  90. @Lot
    "Even the hallucinogenic drug was misadvertised by Western academics."

    Very likely you mean ayahuasca (DMT).

    While I never tried that, I read a lot of scientific info on psilocybin online before taking it freshman year. It was quite accurate. Same for peyote. DMT is in the same class and likely quite similar.

    I guess you said "academics." If it was chemists like Alexander Shulgin, they were accurate. If it was loopy anthropologists, that was your mistake.

    out of those three substances, which did you prefer? do you think any tryptamine has a medical usage potential?

    • Replies: @Lot
    Psilocybin mushrooms were the best. Fun in different ways in large or small amounts. The 4 hours they last is about right too. Popping into a store in Amsterdam and getting them OTC (in a converted soda display fridge), then spending the day in art museums and parks was probably my favorite day of the trip there I took in college.

    They likely do have medical benefits when used responsibly under medical direction. There have been tons of studies about this and they mostly show stronger results than other classes of psychoactive drugs.
  91. @Lot
    "I disagree. If you have never known a Sephardic Jew, you can move to Texas and easily identify Sephardic Jews as Jews using Ashkenazim as your prototype."

    There are very few full blooded Sephardi in the USA, and the ones that are are mostly elderly or Israeli immigrants, and even many of those might be using the term in the newer "not Ashkenazi" meaning, not the historical meaning.

    For a Mexican, claiming to be Sephardi is kind of like saying great grama was a Cherokee princess in North Carolina. Indeed, NY has two young hispanic politicians who have made dubious claims of Sephardi ancestry, Ocasio-Cortez and Julia Salazar.

    Here's some proof: name one famous American who is full Sephardi and under 50 years old. I certainly can't.

    The difference between the Cherokee princess claims and the Sephardic converso ancestry claims is that the latter are usually true, verifiable by genetics, especially for Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. I have posted on this before, here and in Razib Khan’s GNXP blog. They usually do have between 0.5 and 1 percent of that kind of ancestry.

    • Replies: @Lot
    In the case of white-ish Mexicans, their Sephardi ancestry may be as much as 5-10% based on the large number of conversos who settled there during the inquisition, as well as suggestive DNA evidence.

    But the number who are actual full blood practicing Sephardi in either Mexico or the Southwest? Very few and rapidly dying off.
    , @Lot
    Search my comments for Sephardi to see why I think it is much higher than 1%.

    I could be wrong, do you have contrary evidence?
    , @moshe
    Kevin Brook! I recognise your name. We were in touch a dozen yeats ago when I was doing some work on the Khazars. Good to see your name.
  92. @Colin Wright
    I'm all for genetic research, but I'm not sure it should be taken as the key to absolute truth.

    Sometimes, it produces results that are definitely improbable. For example, one study of Chinese DNA 'revealed' that there were only something like a thousand Han Chinese in 500 BC. It also determined that modern Tibetans had only diverged from the rest of Chinese around two thousand years ago or something -- i.e., that's when they emigrated to Tibet. Conventional archeologists objected that all the evidence indicated that the movement occurred more like about ten thousand years ago.

    All figures are from memory, and subject to correction. The point is that genetics research sometimes comes up with results that are at odds with the rest of the evidence or even simply improbable even taken in isolation. So should we be so unhesitating in draping the mantle of absolute certainty about its shoulders?

    Another aspect of it all is that the 'research' may be subject to abuse. Here I'm thinking of the reality of Jewish racial identity. Obviously, 'Jews' are not all the same people. Netanyahu looks a lot like many gentile Poles; he doesn't bear the least resemblance to Yemeni Jews. And so on. Historical evidence supports this as well; Jewish populations exploded at a rate and in a manner that could only have occurred if the main engine of expansion was conversion rather than natural increase. And so on.

    And indeed, the first genetic studies of Jewry supported this. While the DNA of the descendants of the various Jewish communities were related to the DNA of the descendants of other nearby Jewish communities, it was still more closely related to the DNA of their immediate gentile neighbors. I.e., a German Jew might be a distant cousin to an Italian Jew, but his really close relatives tended to be German gentiles.

    ...but now all that appears to have been mysteriously reversed. Somehow -- the visual evidence, the historical evidence, and the earlier genetic evidence all notwithstanding -- Jews are a race after all, most closely related to each other, be they from Tunisia or the Ukraine.

    Moreover, the studies 'establishing' this all seem to be done by Jews themselves.

    Theoretically, it's possible -- but isn't it also possible that one can make the genetic data say whatever one pleases? Again, if so, can we really place so much unqualified credence in the results?

    Personally, I'm kind of a blood and thunder guy myself, and I'm perfectly happy to accept that the ancient Indo-Europeans carried out mass slaughter on a scale that dwarfs Genghis Khan and everyone since -- but should we really take that as proven?

    Colin Wright wrote: “I.e., a German Jew might be a distant cousin to an Italian Jew, but his really close relatives tended to be German gentiles.”

    German ancestry is low in Ashkenazim. I have what might be the only Ashkenazic mtDNA haplogroup of German origin – one of the three Ashkenazic branches of H7. I have Full Coding Region matches with Christian German and Dutch matrilines with a separation of 3 mutations from me. Beyond that, I match more Germans and several Swedes, in my HVR2 screen.

    The only Germans who are autosomally related to Ashkenazim are those who had a Jewish ancestor who converted to Christianity within the past several centuries. The German woman who converted to Judaism lived much longer ago than that.

    “And indeed, the first genetic studies of Jewry supported this. While the DNA of the descendants of the various Jewish communities were related to the DNA of the descendants of other nearby Jewish communities, it was still more closely related to the DNA of their immediate gentile neighbors.”

    None of the autosomal DNA or Y-DNA studies ever agreed with the second part of your second sentence, except in the cases of a few isolated groups like Ethiopian Jews and Yemenite Jews and one of the Indian Jewish groups.

    Ashkenazim don’t have more than 20 percent of ancestry from northern and eastern Europeans. They don’t cluster with Poles or Germans on genetic plots.

    The data on Ashkenazic ancestry isn’t manipulated because it is easily replicable.

    • Agree: Lot
  93. @J.Ross
    Pipeline explosion in Mexico. Pipeline theft has become a major issue and AMLO has taken drastic measures to attempt to curb it.
    Anon said:
    A pipeline blew up while locals were stealing fuel near the town of Tlahuelilpan, in central Mexico's Hidalgo state. Dozens were killed and dozens more severely burned out of a crowd of around 300. This is the kind of [thing] we usually see in places like Nigeria, when desperately poor villagers swarm crashed fuel trucks. Sad to see this kind of dindu-tier behavior in Mexico:

    http://www.milenio.com/estados/explosion-toma-clandestina-hidalgo-minuto-minuto

    I’ve been told by oil and gas contractors who work in the Eagle Ford shale in South Texas that it is common to find private taps in natural gas flow lines.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    In the old days the natural gas wells would collect a fluid called "casing head gasoline" or just "case" in the well casing. It was a nuisance but the well operators would allow all and sundry to drain some off and use it for gasoline. It was a piss poor motor fuel but Model T's and A's would run on the stuff and many of the old Arkies and Okies tapped the stuff off on their way to California in their jalopies.
  94. @Kevin Brook
    The difference between the Cherokee princess claims and the Sephardic converso ancestry claims is that the latter are usually true, verifiable by genetics, especially for Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. I have posted on this before, here and in Razib Khan's GNXP blog. They usually do have between 0.5 and 1 percent of that kind of ancestry.

    In the case of white-ish Mexicans, their Sephardi ancestry may be as much as 5-10% based on the large number of conversos who settled there during the inquisition, as well as suggestive DNA evidence.

    But the number who are actual full blood practicing Sephardi in either Mexico or the Southwest? Very few and rapidly dying off.

  95. @epochehusserl
    out of those three substances, which did you prefer? do you think any tryptamine has a medical usage potential?

    Psilocybin mushrooms were the best. Fun in different ways in large or small amounts. The 4 hours they last is about right too. Popping into a store in Amsterdam and getting them OTC (in a converted soda display fridge), then spending the day in art museums and parks was probably my favorite day of the trip there I took in college.

    They likely do have medical benefits when used responsibly under medical direction. There have been tons of studies about this and they mostly show stronger results than other classes of psychoactive drugs.

    • Replies: @moshe
    You can buy shrooms in a store in Amsterdam?

    Also, shouldn't there be an isteve meetup so regaulars can actually press the flesh and share a drink? It strikes me as weird that I've read and responded to so many people whose faces I've never seen. Internet culture is cool but it is also quite counter to how we evolved to interact with people and causes a lot of harm that could be avoided if more people met each other. Based on nothing more than a pic on this blog I recognized Masha Gessen in the hall of Columbia University and went over to talk with her. We disagree of course but the sort of venom that is spat betwixed the lite-altright and Masha herself vanishes when two humans meet as human beings. Based on some pic I probably saw here as well I also recognized and went over to Shaun King in The Strand (bookstore) and on another occasion Malcolm Gladwell on 27th and Madison.

    People thought back in the 90s that the internet would bring us all together but rhe world of the internet is generally an ugly and lonely world. We evolved to communicate face to face and I miss that.

    Oh, in case anyone is interested, Gladwell is shorter and whiter than you would expect and also incredibly polite for someone who was interrupted while he was on the phone (he was waiting to cross the street and I was going a different way so apologetically interrupting his call for a moment was my preference). Masha Gessen isn't a name but a person. A regular woman. One who shouldn't be attempting to influence the world too much perhaps but just a lady and not worthy of receiving the mockery and loathing that she receives in print -- or writes in print. And Shaun King was the best. I told him point blank that I pretty much disagree with everything he believes (and this at the height of the Black Lives Matter movement) but I did so as a human talking to another human and he was friendly and nice as heck. That's why I always say that I'm sure I'd get along great even with the people who write the most odious things here and the people to whom I on occasion do the same.

    Heck, even the autists at slatestarcodex have face to face meetups around the world all the time. Come to think of it, how about we combine isteve meetups with whatever group of internet open-borders people there are?

    It would definitely be fun. Worse comes to worst we fight it out. Like men. Not anonymii with keypads.
  96. @Kevin Brook
    The difference between the Cherokee princess claims and the Sephardic converso ancestry claims is that the latter are usually true, verifiable by genetics, especially for Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. I have posted on this before, here and in Razib Khan's GNXP blog. They usually do have between 0.5 and 1 percent of that kind of ancestry.

    Search my comments for Sephardi to see why I think it is much higher than 1%.

    I could be wrong, do you have contrary evidence?

    • Replies: @Lot
    I see your webpage actually has confirmatory evidence!

    To clarify, it appears that up to 10% of the Iberian ancestry of Mexicans is Sephardi, but obviously few Mexicans are purely old Spanish stock.
  97. @Lot
    Search my comments for Sephardi to see why I think it is much higher than 1%.

    I could be wrong, do you have contrary evidence?

    I see your webpage actually has confirmatory evidence!

    To clarify, it appears that up to 10% of the Iberian ancestry of Mexicans is Sephardi, but obviously few Mexicans are purely old Spanish stock.

  98. @PhysicistDave
    YetAnotherAnon wrote (quoting the NYT quoting Pinker):

    Pinker suggested rather that

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.
     
    I keep trying to tell everyone here that Pinker (and Dave Reich and Amy Chua and Charles Murray) are among the good guys!

    I recently talked to a young woman who was on a date with a guy when one of her date's buddies started physically assaulting her. Her date did nothing. She managed to deal with it herself.

    Needless to say, she never dated that weenie again!

    Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.

    Perhaps we are more at danger from "toxic wimpishness" than "toxic masculinity."

    Men protect women and children. All of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.

    Yes we were taught that. But as society ‘progressed’ these past few decades, that ethos ran headlong into the stricture that white males must be presented as evil everywhere and always. So now we have a situation where white males are depicted in the broader culture as a threat to women and children, always and everywhere, while black males and latino males, for example, are presented as women’s and children’s best friends and protectors.

    The resulting society-wide disconnect, where what’s being presented and dramatized 24/7 is diametrically-opposed to easily-perceived reality, requires endless reinforcement from the entertainment-propaganda machine as well as instant ‘unpersoning” of anyone who points out the obvious. Our predicament today serves one useful purpose: it demonstrates that even the more far-fetched of Orwell’s paranoid fantasies are no match for a society which has been hijacked by a small, determined minority with hatred in its heart and the levers of power in its hands.

    Look around you–even here on a site which is as subversive as they come–and you’ll find a ‘healthy’ (and industrious) minority daily abusing those who question the Approved Narrative or who otherwise display evidence of independent thought.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Mr McKenna wrote to me:

    But as society ‘progressed’ these past few decades, that ethos ran headlong into the stricture that white males must be presented as evil everywhere and always. So now we have a situation where white males are depicted in the broader culture as a threat to women and children, always and everywhere, while black males and latino males, for example, are presented as women’s and children’s best friends and protectors.
     
    However, in the case I described with the young woman I know, both the assailant and the spineless date were white males.

    Some white males are indeed "toxic males." The problem is that the non-toxic males are spineless and unwilling to stand up to the thugs of whatever race.

    It's as Yeats said:

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.
     
  99. @PhysicistDave
    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    But apart from her, are they really that “good” if their nice-guy contrarianism doesn’t get the job done?
     
    Well... I guess two points:

    A) Often people cannot absorb the truth all at once; often they have to be exposed to it slowly, in bits and pieces. It's the "Overton Window" and all that.

    B) Lies are simple; truth is often complicated. On points where you or I or other posters here might disagree with Chua, Reich, Pinker, or Murray, it could turn out that he or she is right and we are wrong. All of them are trying to push truths that the ruling elite does not want to hear. If sometimes they say something you or I do not want to hear, they might just possibly be right.

    All the best,

    Dave

    A) Often people cannot absorb the truth all at once; often they have to be exposed to it slowly, in bits and pieces. It’s the “Overton Window” and all that.

    I would say the evidence over the last fifty years is that they can’t absorb it all.

    A lot of conservatives mention the “Overton Window” when discussing these taboo subjects, but where is the evidence that soft-pedaling the evidence undermining these taboos – in the manner of Pinker, Murray and Reich – actually helps to do that?

    Are these subjects any more discussable today in public because of them? Nope.

    Is the public more conversant in these topics? Nope.

    Have the major media outlets become more balanced in discussing them? Nope.

    Just look at the NYT, which has gone from Nicholas Wade to Amy Harmon in the last decade. If pushing the “Overton Window” really helped, the paper should’ve moved in the opposite direction. Or at the very least, not gone backwards.

    B) Lies are simple; truth is often complicated. On points where you or I or other posters here might disagree with Chua, Reich, Pinker, or Murray, it could turn out that he or she is right and we are wrong.

    If a scholar is genuinely perplexed as to what is causing a phenomenon, then he certainly has a duty to the truth as best he sees it. But the direction and scope of their confusion is too limited to race for me to believe that these social scientists (at least for Reich, Pinker, and Chua) are really perplexed instead of just fearful.

    • Replies: @Lot
    "Reich, Pinker, and Chu are really perplexed instead of just fearful."

    Show some respect.

    The latter two are awesome and in no way fearful.

    Reich is doing groundbreaking work on touchy subjects and has a wide audience. You really want him to mix that up with right-wing politics?

    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/01/28/business/28Table3/28Table3-facebookJumbo.jpg

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/women/2016/01/15/Picture_4185181_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bq5yQLQqeH37t50SCyM4-zeERf_Wk3V23H2268P_XkPxc.jpg?imwidth=480
    , @PhysicistDave
    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    I would say the evidence over the last fifty years is that they can’t absorb it all.
     
    Honestly, how many decades back do you personally remember intellectual and political debates?

    My own direct personal memory on such goes back almost exactly fifty years. Back then, serious, educated people took behaviorism (!), Freudianism, and Soviet-style socialism quite seriously. Nowadays, even self-proclaimed socialists (such as Bernie or OAC) protest that they do not really want the government to control everything the way the Soviets did. Rather than talking about behaviorism (does anyone anymore?), the public debate is about how much evolutionary psychology explains, to what degree genes control your intelligence and personality, etc. And, are there any true-blue Freudians left?

    Similarly, I remember when "continental drift" was viewed as semi-scientific speculation, when serious scientists doubted there were planets elsewhere in the galaxy, and so on. I could give a number of examples from my own field of physics (anyone interested in the evolution of attitudes in physics in the last five decades should read Adam Becker's recent What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics, which takes arcane issues in quantum philosophy and turns them into an engaging and readable book).

    The point is that, yes, ultimately attitudes can change very dramatically but both from my personal experience and my reading of history it appears to me that it commonly takes the better part of a human lifetime: basically, the old fools have to die and then young people can start asking the forbidden questions.

    Patience, my friend.

    PM also wrote:

    Just look at the NYT, which has gone from Nicholas Wade to Amy Harmon in the last decade.
     
    Well, sometimes there are steps backward. Incidentally, my positive opinion on Wade was formed back around 1980 when he did some excellent reporting on fraud in mainstream science.

    PM also wrote:

    But the direction and scope of their confusion is too limited to race for me to believe that these social scientists (at least for Reich, Pinker, and Chua) are really perplexed instead of just fearful.
     
    Pinker seems to be a liberal with libertarian tendencies. I suspect that Reich and Chua are true liberals: their political views probably do not align with anyone here.

    But, in a way, that means they deserve more credit for trying hard to see the truth, even if it does not align with their political commitments.

    You know, Chua spoke positively of Brett Kavanaugh, simply because she honestly believes he was a decent man being subjected to a miscarriage of justice.

    Personally, I'm not sure he was a great choice for the High Court. But, I am sure that the whole affair before the Senate turned into a caricature of justice.

    No, Chua, Pinker, Reich, and Murray are not going to lead us into the Promised Land, however you define it. But neither is Sailer or Cochran or you or me or anyone else here.

    But, in the long term, one person here, one person there tells the truth just because it is the truth. And, in the end, the truth will out.
  100. @anon
    Pinker suffers from a serious case of the Trump Derangement Syndrome. "The Third Reich", too. I would guess all of them do.

    Pinker suffers from a serious case of the Trump Derangement Syndrome. “The Third Reich”, too. I would guess all of them do.

    I don’t care about that at all. All of them could put politics aside, as far as I care.

    Just be honest and direct about what the evidence is telling us. If scholars conversant in these subjects are too afraid to tell the truth, who’s left? Some guys on the internet?

  101. @Tyrion 2
    I once visited a "matriarchal" tribe in the Amazon. Prior to arriving I was given the impression that it'd be knitting circles of wise old women and soft-spoken men darting around the edges. Instead, I found the hurried women toiling all day, doing every piece of work, while the men got into gangs, took drugs and had a laugh. I assume the sexual relations were not #MeToo friendly either.

    Even the hallucinogenic drug was misadvertised by Western academics. Supposedly the natives took it for peace, harmony and liberation. In actuality, the Shaman informed me that his ancestors took it to turn into magical animals and slaughter their enemies across the jungle.

    They were nice people, but perhaps if the men helped out a bit with production something might actually be produced, and they wouldn't be so utterly at the mercy of nature.

    Honey, that wasn’t the Amazon. That was Memphis.

  102. @anonymous
    To quote Gore Vidal, "Once again, words fail Greg."

    Is there anyone on the internet with a higher bluster x verbal impotence OPS score than Greg Cochran?

    Most of his blog follows a simple but ass backwards template: he suggests he knows something while flagrantly avoiding actually demonstrating what he insistently implies he knows.

    It's quite tiresomse, though clearly Steve and others are hypnotized by him calling himself a genius. After all, he is a physicist (sic) and his h-index is--wait, what's that? His h-index is ZERO because he's literally contributed nothing to physics? How strange for a physics genius to have never attended a decent school and never have published a serious paper. It must be a physics conspiracy against genius Greg!

    To quote Gore Vidal, “Once again, words fail Greg.”

    The quote was much funnier and more appropriate when Vidal used it because the target was the brawling Norman Mailer, who had (once again) just been provoked by Gore into using his fists rather than his wits.

    Most of his blog follows a simple but ass backwards template: he suggests he knows something while flagrantly avoiding actually demonstrating what he insistently implies he knows.

    Horseshit. Cochran’s blog is filled with arguments for those who know how to understand them. Within just the last ten days there have been three masterpieces of polemical concision.

    “Common Deleterious Recessives: Info for Taleb”

    “More on Gene Flow”

    “Primitive Tribesmen Complain about Technologically Superior Invaders”

    Each of these pieces is suburb in advancing an argument – at least for those of us who understand what an argument looks like. You – with your inapt quotations and your use of the word “template” – clearly don’t.

  103. @BB753
    I bet you've never visited Italy. Blue eyes and pale skin are common North of Rome. And far from unusual South of it.

    That’s just kooky. Fair skin and especially blue eyes are rare indeed in most of Italy. And sorry but I’ve spent years there; I know whereof I speak. Possibly you’ve mistaken Italy for Ireland.

    • Replies: @BB753
    It depends on your definition on "rare". My point was that Jews could have picked up the revelant genes in Italy and have them spread among their population widely through some selection constraint.
  104. @Pat Hannagan
    A gentle Hegelian reminder of why we post:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_efP3UW0AAlepS.jpg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgUWBPIxv6c

    (Remember: How you react defines the general reaction)

    She’s got good teeth a nice smile and fake tits that she uses to sell memberships at a gym . Since it’s Florida her next appearance will be her mug shot on TSG . The tattoo on her co-conspirator is a minor Buddhist deity so he’s either a monstrous serial killer or a dodgy misdemeanor kind of disappointment to his striving honest working class folks . My guess is that they are on there way to film an episode of “Capt’n Stabbin” . Threat Level : STDs and wallet empty in AM. Warning Will Robinson !

  105. @Lot
    "Even the hallucinogenic drug was misadvertised by Western academics."

    Very likely you mean ayahuasca (DMT).

    While I never tried that, I read a lot of scientific info on psilocybin online before taking it freshman year. It was quite accurate. Same for peyote. DMT is in the same class and likely quite similar.

    I guess you said "academics." If it was chemists like Alexander Shulgin, they were accurate. If it was loopy anthropologists, that was your mistake.

    Yes, he must be talking about ayahuasca. What the shaman told him was true: they believe it’s magical and that all the things they experience with it are real. Some dummies up north here do to.

    I did ayahuasca three or four times thirty years ago. It was better than mushrooms or LSD. YMMV. When I did it with my girlfriend it was a fuckfest. We nearly broke a four-poster bed at the Stanley Hotel.

    • Replies: @Lot
    Ayahuasca requires taking an herbal MAOI, which can cause a hypertensive reaction when combined with certain foods and medication, and has its own separate non-psychedelic effects.

    Likely safe for someone young, healthy, on no other medication, and who doesn't eat rich aged foods. But dangerous to a large part of the population in a way mushrooms are not.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Reading your comment...

    "I did ayahuasca three or four times thirty years ago. It was better than mushrooms or LSD."
     
    "better" = ?

    "When I did it with my girlfriend it was a fuckfest. We nearly broke a four-poster bed at the Stanley Hotel."
     
    Oh.

    Never mind.
    , @Romanian
    I wish I had an inappropriate uncle like you I could talk to during family reunions!
  106. @J.Ross
    Pipeline explosion in Mexico. Pipeline theft has become a major issue and AMLO has taken drastic measures to attempt to curb it.
    Anon said:
    A pipeline blew up while locals were stealing fuel near the town of Tlahuelilpan, in central Mexico's Hidalgo state. Dozens were killed and dozens more severely burned out of a crowd of around 300. This is the kind of [thing] we usually see in places like Nigeria, when desperately poor villagers swarm crashed fuel trucks. Sad to see this kind of dindu-tier behavior in Mexico:

    http://www.milenio.com/estados/explosion-toma-clandestina-hidalgo-minuto-minuto

    Don’t let Mr Unz hear of this. He’ll be blaming Whitey.

  107. @Pincher Martin

    A) Often people cannot absorb the truth all at once; often they have to be exposed to it slowly, in bits and pieces. It’s the “Overton Window” and all that.
     
    I would say the evidence over the last fifty years is that they can't absorb it all.

    A lot of conservatives mention the "Overton Window" when discussing these taboo subjects, but where is the evidence that soft-pedaling the evidence undermining these taboos - in the manner of Pinker, Murray and Reich - actually helps to do that?

    Are these subjects any more discussable today in public because of them? Nope.

    Is the public more conversant in these topics? Nope.

    Have the major media outlets become more balanced in discussing them? Nope.

    Just look at the NYT, which has gone from Nicholas Wade to Amy Harmon in the last decade. If pushing the "Overton Window" really helped, the paper should've moved in the opposite direction. Or at the very least, not gone backwards.


    B) Lies are simple; truth is often complicated. On points where you or I or other posters here might disagree with Chua, Reich, Pinker, or Murray, it could turn out that he or she is right and we are wrong.
     
    If a scholar is genuinely perplexed as to what is causing a phenomenon, then he certainly has a duty to the truth as best he sees it. But the direction and scope of their confusion is too limited to race for me to believe that these social scientists (at least for Reich, Pinker, and Chua) are really perplexed instead of just fearful.

    “Reich, Pinker, and Chu are really perplexed instead of just fearful.”

    Show some respect.

    The latter two are awesome and in no way fearful.

    Reich is doing groundbreaking work on touchy subjects and has a wide audience. You really want him to mix that up with right-wing politics?

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    The latter two are awesome and in no way fearful.

    Reich is doing groundbreaking work on touchy subjects and has a wide audience. You really want him to mix that up with right-wing politics?
     

    Read my very next post to the one you responded (currently #92), and you'll see that isn't true. I don't care about their politics.

    But shading and avoiding the truth to cater to the boobs should no longer be acceptable. (Chua doesn't even belong in the company of Murray, Reich, and Pinker, by the way.)

  108. @istevefan
    They probably figure it's best to nip this in the bud on a Friday when most people are not paying attention. Since we have MLK day on Monday, maybe the world will forget the story by Tuesday. Had they not intervened, this story would have been growing all weekend and would have become too big to contain.

    I am glad Trump just tweeted out about this. He needs to keep pushing this to discredit the last 2-plus years of the witch hunt.

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1086464467481833480

    Trump even retweeted Geraldo:

    https://twitter.com/GeraldoRivera/status/1086451161991995392

    Jason Leopold’s still hanging tough, right? Even though his partner in crime is now hedging the report seven ways to sunday. We need Leopold to blame the Neo-Nazis who run the MSM next. Then he can claim his Twitter was hacked, and all will be well again.

  109. A fond memory : On one ship , early on , I would piss and moan . You know throw my little tantrums at times . My supervisor , a slow talking southerner with an honest to God corn cob pipe would ask me ” so tell me Burke are you an only child?” Bosun’ McCoy . Like all of us someone will say his name or think of him for the last time for all eternity .

    I met a traveller from an antique land
    Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
    Stand in the desert… near them, on the sand,
    Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
    And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
    Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
    Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
    The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed;

    And on the pedestal these words appear:
    ‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings;
    Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
    Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
    Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.

    The mighty do despair . Will the meek inherit the earth ?

  110. @Anonymous
    To be clear, in India the left liberals love love love the Aryan invasion theory.

    It gives them the opportunity to paint upper caste Hindus in the same brush as white South Africans, Israeli Jews and European Americans.

    Not really. Indian liberals like the Aryan Invasion theory because it counters Indian nationalist beliefs, such as the Out of India theory, or that Indian history is long and unbroken for 5,000 years, starting from the Harappan civilization. It is the same reason why white leftists endorse theories of a diverse historical Europe, or how European achievements were the result of foreign influences.

  111. @Buzz Mohawk
    Yes, he must be talking about ayahuasca. What the shaman told him was true: they believe it's magical and that all the things they experience with it are real. Some dummies up north here do to.

    I did ayahuasca three or four times thirty years ago. It was better than mushrooms or LSD. YMMV. When I did it with my girlfriend it was a fuckfest. We nearly broke a four-poster bed at the Stanley Hotel.

    Ayahuasca requires taking an herbal MAOI, which can cause a hypertensive reaction when combined with certain foods and medication, and has its own separate non-psychedelic effects.

    Likely safe for someone young, healthy, on no other medication, and who doesn’t eat rich aged foods. But dangerous to a large part of the population in a way mushrooms are not.

  112. @anonymous
    To quote Gore Vidal, "Once again, words fail Greg."

    Is there anyone on the internet with a higher bluster x verbal impotence OPS score than Greg Cochran?

    Most of his blog follows a simple but ass backwards template: he suggests he knows something while flagrantly avoiding actually demonstrating what he insistently implies he knows.

    It's quite tiresomse, though clearly Steve and others are hypnotized by him calling himself a genius. After all, he is a physicist (sic) and his h-index is--wait, what's that? His h-index is ZERO because he's literally contributed nothing to physics? How strange for a physics genius to have never attended a decent school and never have published a serious paper. It must be a physics conspiracy against genius Greg!

    • Replies: @donut
    But your shit is weaker still Abraham . You know when we are alone we mock your Holohoax story , your sacred texts . We laugh because your American "allies" are as false as you . You arrogant fools . In the future we'll have "Ann Franks Porno Komicks for Kids" . Anti-Semitism is alive and well . Believe that .
  113. @Colin Wright
    I'm all for genetic research, but I'm not sure it should be taken as the key to absolute truth.

    Sometimes, it produces results that are definitely improbable. For example, one study of Chinese DNA 'revealed' that there were only something like a thousand Han Chinese in 500 BC. It also determined that modern Tibetans had only diverged from the rest of Chinese around two thousand years ago or something -- i.e., that's when they emigrated to Tibet. Conventional archeologists objected that all the evidence indicated that the movement occurred more like about ten thousand years ago.

    All figures are from memory, and subject to correction. The point is that genetics research sometimes comes up with results that are at odds with the rest of the evidence or even simply improbable even taken in isolation. So should we be so unhesitating in draping the mantle of absolute certainty about its shoulders?

    Another aspect of it all is that the 'research' may be subject to abuse. Here I'm thinking of the reality of Jewish racial identity. Obviously, 'Jews' are not all the same people. Netanyahu looks a lot like many gentile Poles; he doesn't bear the least resemblance to Yemeni Jews. And so on. Historical evidence supports this as well; Jewish populations exploded at a rate and in a manner that could only have occurred if the main engine of expansion was conversion rather than natural increase. And so on.

    And indeed, the first genetic studies of Jewry supported this. While the DNA of the descendants of the various Jewish communities were related to the DNA of the descendants of other nearby Jewish communities, it was still more closely related to the DNA of their immediate gentile neighbors. I.e., a German Jew might be a distant cousin to an Italian Jew, but his really close relatives tended to be German gentiles.

    ...but now all that appears to have been mysteriously reversed. Somehow -- the visual evidence, the historical evidence, and the earlier genetic evidence all notwithstanding -- Jews are a race after all, most closely related to each other, be they from Tunisia or the Ukraine.

    Moreover, the studies 'establishing' this all seem to be done by Jews themselves.

    Theoretically, it's possible -- but isn't it also possible that one can make the genetic data say whatever one pleases? Again, if so, can we really place so much unqualified credence in the results?

    Personally, I'm kind of a blood and thunder guy myself, and I'm perfectly happy to accept that the ancient Indo-Europeans carried out mass slaughter on a scale that dwarfs Genghis Khan and everyone since -- but should we really take that as proven?

    mass slaughter on a scale that dwarfs Genghis Khan

    Why does everyone pick on poor Gengy? Why not use Bantus and Shaka kaSenzangakhona as the generic go to example of bloody conquest?

  114. From the beginning of the century ….

    And now it’s we who don’t know our place . Since white men are evil according to the Lügenpresse . Maybe for their own safety the Jews should by law be required to wear a six pointed star in public for their own safety . You know , so they don’t get mistaken for white men . To be murdered and thrown into a mass grave is an indignity and injustice I could accept , but to spend eternity listening to the winging of some jew … well I’d rather not .

  115. @Anon
    Off of the topic:

    TV food commercials target Hispanic and black youth with unhealthy snacks and sugary drinks
     
    Hardest hit...

    Companies target minorities because it is profitable, the report said. Asian and Hispanic people are the fastest-growing populations in the U.S., and their buying power is growing quickly as well. The report said black Americans are often targeted because “marketers view African-Americans as trendsetters who younger consumers want to emulate.”

    America’s obesity problem comes as hunger is on the rise in the country. While this may seem incongruous, the two are actually related, Berg said. “Hunger and obesity are flip sides of the same malnutrition coin,” he said. “There are complex risk factors for obesity, but there is no question that socioeconomic issues are key factors.”
     
    It's perfidious that we are continually treated to insults from the "experts" on this. There is no starvation problem that coincides with an obesity problem.

    Just spell it out that you think every non-white is entitled to an unlimited EBT card at Whole Foods.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/tv-food-commercials-target-hispanic-and-black-youth-with-unhealthy-snacks-and-sugary-drinks-2019-01-17

    target Hispanic and black youth with unhealthy snacks and sugary drinks

    Sugar Crisp Commercials – 1950s to 1977

    unlimited EBT card at Whole Foods

    How about free 50lb sacks of wheat berries and access to a hand grinder at every post office. Then they could make their own artisan whole wheat sourdough slow-rise fermented bread at home.

  116. @Mr McKenna

    Men protect women and children. All of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.
     
    Yes we were taught that. But as society 'progressed' these past few decades, that ethos ran headlong into the stricture that white males must be presented as evil everywhere and always. So now we have a situation where white males are depicted in the broader culture as a threat to women and children, always and everywhere, while black males and latino males, for example, are presented as women's and children's best friends and protectors.

    The resulting society-wide disconnect, where what's being presented and dramatized 24/7 is diametrically-opposed to easily-perceived reality, requires endless reinforcement from the entertainment-propaganda machine as well as instant 'unpersoning" of anyone who points out the obvious. Our predicament today serves one useful purpose: it demonstrates that even the more far-fetched of Orwell's paranoid fantasies are no match for a society which has been hijacked by a small, determined minority with hatred in its heart and the levers of power in its hands.

    Look around you--even here on a site which is as subversive as they come--and you'll find a 'healthy' (and industrious) minority daily abusing those who question the Approved Narrative or who otherwise display evidence of independent thought.

    Mr McKenna wrote to me:

    But as society ‘progressed’ these past few decades, that ethos ran headlong into the stricture that white males must be presented as evil everywhere and always. So now we have a situation where white males are depicted in the broader culture as a threat to women and children, always and everywhere, while black males and latino males, for example, are presented as women’s and children’s best friends and protectors.

    However, in the case I described with the young woman I know, both the assailant and the spineless date were white males.

    Some white males are indeed “toxic males.” The problem is that the non-toxic males are spineless and unwilling to stand up to the thugs of whatever race.

    It’s as Yeats said:

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
    Did he ask her to smile? Not cool.
  117. @Lot
    https://i.imgflip.com/syly2.jpg

    But your shit is weaker still Abraham . You know when we are alone we mock your Holohoax story , your sacred texts . We laugh because your American “allies” are as false as you . You arrogant fools . In the future we’ll have “Ann Franks Porno Komicks for Kids” . Anti-Semitism is alive and well . Believe that .

    • Replies: @Lot
    Keep dreaming, keep losing.

    https://newspunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Disappearing-PalestineL.png

    https://i.imgur.com/kWQXYIer.jpg
  118. @Lot
    "Reich, Pinker, and Chu are really perplexed instead of just fearful."

    Show some respect.

    The latter two are awesome and in no way fearful.

    Reich is doing groundbreaking work on touchy subjects and has a wide audience. You really want him to mix that up with right-wing politics?

    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/01/28/business/28Table3/28Table3-facebookJumbo.jpg

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/women/2016/01/15/Picture_4185181_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bq5yQLQqeH37t50SCyM4-zeERf_Wk3V23H2268P_XkPxc.jpg?imwidth=480

    The latter two are awesome and in no way fearful.

    Reich is doing groundbreaking work on touchy subjects and has a wide audience. You really want him to mix that up with right-wing politics?

    Read my very next post to the one you responded (currently #92), and you’ll see that isn’t true. I don’t care about their politics.

    But shading and avoiding the truth to cater to the boobs should no longer be acceptable. (Chua doesn’t even belong in the company of Murray, Reich, and Pinker, by the way.)

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Pincher Martin wrote:

    Chua doesn’t even belong in the company of Murray, Reich, and Pinker, by the way.
     
    Have you read her recent Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations ? She is trying systematically with her books (even Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother) to warn people, ever so gently, that different cultures and ethnic groups are truly different and that ignoring that fact can lead to catastrophe.

    What does she really think about genes vs. culture? I don't know: although she is a Chinese girl who married a Jewish guy, so I can sort of guess. I think she might say that, regardless of the relative contribution of genes vs. culture, the simple point that people need to grasp is that different cultures and ethnic groups really, truly are different.

    And, surely that is an important message for our society to hear.

    , @ben tillman

    (Chua doesn’t even belong in the company of Murray, Reich, and Pinker, by the way.)
     
    Is that supposed to be an insult? Or a compliment?
  119. Here is an incredible news item for Steve:

    An aboriginal Australian man rapes and murders an Arab Israeli student in Melbourne:
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6609341/Prime-Minister-Scott-Morrison-meet-Aiia-Maasarwes-father.html

    He is described as an “aspiring rapper” and no media mentions that he is an aboriginal.

    • Replies: @anon
    said:

    He is described as an “aspiring rapper” and no media mentions that he is an aboriginal.
     
    The Australian newspaper has a large photo of the man on it's front page this morning.
    He appears to be about 25% Aboriginal.
    The Daily Mail has the same photo, but his skin color is quite a bit darker than in The Australian.
  120. well , this creature did plow into Cochran, Hardy and Harpending. Why give this “person” any quarter as well?

    “who is this person!….”

  121. @Pincher Martin

    A) Often people cannot absorb the truth all at once; often they have to be exposed to it slowly, in bits and pieces. It’s the “Overton Window” and all that.
     
    I would say the evidence over the last fifty years is that they can't absorb it all.

    A lot of conservatives mention the "Overton Window" when discussing these taboo subjects, but where is the evidence that soft-pedaling the evidence undermining these taboos - in the manner of Pinker, Murray and Reich - actually helps to do that?

    Are these subjects any more discussable today in public because of them? Nope.

    Is the public more conversant in these topics? Nope.

    Have the major media outlets become more balanced in discussing them? Nope.

    Just look at the NYT, which has gone from Nicholas Wade to Amy Harmon in the last decade. If pushing the "Overton Window" really helped, the paper should've moved in the opposite direction. Or at the very least, not gone backwards.


    B) Lies are simple; truth is often complicated. On points where you or I or other posters here might disagree with Chua, Reich, Pinker, or Murray, it could turn out that he or she is right and we are wrong.
     
    If a scholar is genuinely perplexed as to what is causing a phenomenon, then he certainly has a duty to the truth as best he sees it. But the direction and scope of their confusion is too limited to race for me to believe that these social scientists (at least for Reich, Pinker, and Chua) are really perplexed instead of just fearful.

    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    I would say the evidence over the last fifty years is that they can’t absorb it all.

    Honestly, how many decades back do you personally remember intellectual and political debates?

    My own direct personal memory on such goes back almost exactly fifty years. Back then, serious, educated people took behaviorism (!), Freudianism, and Soviet-style socialism quite seriously. Nowadays, even self-proclaimed socialists (such as Bernie or OAC) protest that they do not really want the government to control everything the way the Soviets did. Rather than talking about behaviorism (does anyone anymore?), the public debate is about how much evolutionary psychology explains, to what degree genes control your intelligence and personality, etc. And, are there any true-blue Freudians left?

    Similarly, I remember when “continental drift” was viewed as semi-scientific speculation, when serious scientists doubted there were planets elsewhere in the galaxy, and so on. I could give a number of examples from my own field of physics (anyone interested in the evolution of attitudes in physics in the last five decades should read Adam Becker’s recent What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics, which takes arcane issues in quantum philosophy and turns them into an engaging and readable book).

    The point is that, yes, ultimately attitudes can change very dramatically but both from my personal experience and my reading of history it appears to me that it commonly takes the better part of a human lifetime: basically, the old fools have to die and then young people can start asking the forbidden questions.

    Patience, my friend.

    PM also wrote:

    Just look at the NYT, which has gone from Nicholas Wade to Amy Harmon in the last decade.

    Well, sometimes there are steps backward. Incidentally, my positive opinion on Wade was formed back around 1980 when he did some excellent reporting on fraud in mainstream science.

    PM also wrote:

    But the direction and scope of their confusion is too limited to race for me to believe that these social scientists (at least for Reich, Pinker, and Chua) are really perplexed instead of just fearful.

    Pinker seems to be a liberal with libertarian tendencies. I suspect that Reich and Chua are true liberals: their political views probably do not align with anyone here.

    But, in a way, that means they deserve more credit for trying hard to see the truth, even if it does not align with their political commitments.

    You know, Chua spoke positively of Brett Kavanaugh, simply because she honestly believes he was a decent man being subjected to a miscarriage of justice.

    Personally, I’m not sure he was a great choice for the High Court. But, I am sure that the whole affair before the Senate turned into a caricature of justice.

    No, Chua, Pinker, Reich, and Murray are not going to lead us into the Promised Land, however you define it. But neither is Sailer or Cochran or you or me or anyone else here.

    But, in the long term, one person here, one person there tells the truth just because it is the truth. And, in the end, the truth will out.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    And, in the end, the truth will out.
     
    Well, you know there is no end, except to your life and mine and the lives of descendants. It can take the truth centuries to come out.

    Yours is an optimistic (and realistic) comment, worthy of consideration.

    You mention continental drift and also your field of physics. Indeed all of that has come through steps -- and continues to do so. There are even today some ideas you may think are crackpot that someday, long after we are gone, may prove to be true. A mere layman sometimes feels that you experts are lost in your favorite trees, while we are standing out here looking at a forest that doesn't resemble what you are telling us it is.

    Yes, it could take a long time indeed.

    , @Pincher Martin

    Honestly, how many decades [of the fifty years] back do you personally remember intellectual and political debates?
     
    Three. And I've read extensively about the other two.

    My own direct personal memory on such goes back almost exactly fifty years. Back then, serious, educated people took behaviorism (!), Freudianism, and Soviet-style socialism quite seriously.
     
    Yes, many intellectual fashions have fallen out of favor, but they haven't been replaced by a commitment to the truth. They've been replaced by new intellectual fashions.

    This story doesn't have a happy ending, Dave. If you read Greg closely, you should have already noted that social scientists and biologists a hundred years ago had a better idea of the biological grounding of mankind than their peers do today. And on less evidence!

    What makes you think the next hundred years are going to be any better? We're all looking at the same evidence. Greg's inferences don't require the brain of Einstein to follow.


    Pinker seems to be a liberal with libertarian tendencies. I suspect that Reich and Chua are true liberals: their political views probably do not align with anyone here.
     
    I do not care about their politics.

    What I care about is how they coat the truth with a heavy dusting of sugar in the hope some of their opponents will find the medicine palatable and swallow it. Yet despite this tactic never working, they still don't change their approach.

    , @Pincher Martin

    Similarly, I remember when “continental drift” was viewed as semi-scientific speculation, when serious scientists doubted there were planets elsewhere in the galaxy, and so on. I could give a number of examples from my own field of physics (anyone interested in the evolution of attitudes in physics in the last five decades should read Adam Becker’s recent What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics, which takes arcane issues in quantum philosophy and turns them into an engaging and readable book).
     
    There's no corollary between what is going on in the social sciences right now and what took place in physics or geology.

    In the social sciences, the evidence is the enemy. Many social scientists don't want to know about it. They refuse to engage it.

    Wegener and Alvarez weren't called "racists" or "fascists" because of their scientific beliefs. They might've been called "assholes" or "dumbasses," but those insults are blessedly free of political content and policy implications.

    , @Almost Missouri

    "in the end, the truth will out."
     
    True-ish, perhaps, but not in the way you imply.

    Truth comes out because men get it out. It doesn't just appear by itself. The Periodic Table did not appear in a burning bush. People laboriously excavated it from the ignorant darkness.

    If we just kick back and assume, "hey, truth will out, so the current heretic burnings are no biggee", then no, truth won't out. Discussions at secret fringe sites like this one may temporarily preserve a little truth for a limited audience. But truth won't triumph until the heretic burners are themselves burnt.

  122. anon[199] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ozz
    Here is an incredible news item for Steve:

    An aboriginal Australian man rapes and murders an Arab Israeli student in Melbourne:
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6609341/Prime-Minister-Scott-Morrison-meet-Aiia-Maasarwes-father.html


    He is described as an "aspiring rapper" and no media mentions that he is an aboriginal.

    said:

    He is described as an “aspiring rapper” and no media mentions that he is an aboriginal.

    The Australian newspaper has a large photo of the man on it’s front page this morning.
    He appears to be about 25% Aboriginal.
    The Daily Mail has the same photo, but his skin color is quite a bit darker than in The Australian.

  123. @PhysicistDave
    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    I would say the evidence over the last fifty years is that they can’t absorb it all.
     
    Honestly, how many decades back do you personally remember intellectual and political debates?

    My own direct personal memory on such goes back almost exactly fifty years. Back then, serious, educated people took behaviorism (!), Freudianism, and Soviet-style socialism quite seriously. Nowadays, even self-proclaimed socialists (such as Bernie or OAC) protest that they do not really want the government to control everything the way the Soviets did. Rather than talking about behaviorism (does anyone anymore?), the public debate is about how much evolutionary psychology explains, to what degree genes control your intelligence and personality, etc. And, are there any true-blue Freudians left?

    Similarly, I remember when "continental drift" was viewed as semi-scientific speculation, when serious scientists doubted there were planets elsewhere in the galaxy, and so on. I could give a number of examples from my own field of physics (anyone interested in the evolution of attitudes in physics in the last five decades should read Adam Becker's recent What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics, which takes arcane issues in quantum philosophy and turns them into an engaging and readable book).

    The point is that, yes, ultimately attitudes can change very dramatically but both from my personal experience and my reading of history it appears to me that it commonly takes the better part of a human lifetime: basically, the old fools have to die and then young people can start asking the forbidden questions.

    Patience, my friend.

    PM also wrote:

    Just look at the NYT, which has gone from Nicholas Wade to Amy Harmon in the last decade.
     
    Well, sometimes there are steps backward. Incidentally, my positive opinion on Wade was formed back around 1980 when he did some excellent reporting on fraud in mainstream science.

    PM also wrote:

    But the direction and scope of their confusion is too limited to race for me to believe that these social scientists (at least for Reich, Pinker, and Chua) are really perplexed instead of just fearful.
     
    Pinker seems to be a liberal with libertarian tendencies. I suspect that Reich and Chua are true liberals: their political views probably do not align with anyone here.

    But, in a way, that means they deserve more credit for trying hard to see the truth, even if it does not align with their political commitments.

    You know, Chua spoke positively of Brett Kavanaugh, simply because she honestly believes he was a decent man being subjected to a miscarriage of justice.

    Personally, I'm not sure he was a great choice for the High Court. But, I am sure that the whole affair before the Senate turned into a caricature of justice.

    No, Chua, Pinker, Reich, and Murray are not going to lead us into the Promised Land, however you define it. But neither is Sailer or Cochran or you or me or anyone else here.

    But, in the long term, one person here, one person there tells the truth just because it is the truth. And, in the end, the truth will out.

    And, in the end, the truth will out.

    Well, you know there is no end, except to your life and mine and the lives of descendants. It can take the truth centuries to come out.

    Yours is an optimistic (and realistic) comment, worthy of consideration.

    You mention continental drift and also your field of physics. Indeed all of that has come through steps — and continues to do so. There are even today some ideas you may think are crackpot that someday, long after we are gone, may prove to be true. A mere layman sometimes feels that you experts are lost in your favorite trees, while we are standing out here looking at a forest that doesn’t resemble what you are telling us it is.

    Yes, it could take a long time indeed.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Buzz Mohawk wrote to me:

    Well, you know there is no end, except to your life and mine and the lives of descendants. It can take the truth centuries to come out.
     
    Indeed.

    Buzz also wrote:

    There are even today some ideas you may think are crackpot that someday, long after we are gone, may prove to be true.
     
    As a physicist, I of course have opinions on all sorts of current issues in physics -- supestring theory, the multiverse/landscape, the black-hole firewall, the foundations of quantum mechanics, dark energy, the inflationary model of the universe, and various others.

    My hope is that my opinion will not turn out to be wrong on all of those issues! But, surely I will be wrong on some of them (and, in fact, my opinion changes on some of them from time to time).

    Buzz also wrote:

    A mere layman sometimes feels that you experts are lost in your favorite trees, while we are standing out here looking at a forest that doesn’t resemble what you are telling us it is.
     
    Can you think of any examples where you think it is likely that a layman is more likely to be right on such issues than most scientific experts?

    The obvious example is "global warming," but what the media presents as the "scientific consensus" is actually fake: competent scientists know the research is actually unsettled.

    Anything else?
  124. @prime noticer
    actually, this is why we lose. guys like greg who can dominate the SAT and do technically important work in science, but who couldn't even avoid getting fired and losing their job once the enemy comes doxing for them. what resistance do you actually offer if the enemy can literally laugh in your face at your stupid numbers and facts and statistics. "Who cares. The sky is not blue, you said it was, you're fired."

    i like greg and admire some of his work, but have you ever heard him talk. god, he's terrible. you can't listen to him for more than 10 minutes before tuning out. and he can't stay on topic for long before going off on a tangent about world war 2 or some other military history that nobody on earth cares about in the moment. his sperg outs only further undermine his delivery. a bad communicator. and he doesn't look that great either. conversely, the enemy is great at all of that, and that they are innumerate, and can't even calculate the height of mexican invaders, is irrelevant. the mexicans ARE invading, are they not? who cares if we quoted their heights wrong.

    greg is great at physics, and biology? so what. none of that matters because there's a million guys just like him who are highly technically capable at figuring out some difficult problem, but remain invisible cogs in some lab or corporate business unit somewhere, forever having zero effect on society. these are the guys getting steamrolled every day. highly capable spergs like james damore who are genuinely shocked when the enemy comes for them - a lot of them don't even realize there is an enemy or that they're in a war. even the guys who do realize this, are completely helpless, turning into irrelevant wordsmiths on the internet, blogging away more like a sideline reporter calling the play by play in a boxing match as the enemy smashes to victory after victory, rather than being a combatant in an actual back and forth battle themselves.

    and it doesn't matter at all that greg is married and has lots of kids, either. they'll either be indoctrinated too and turned against us, or they will become meek symbol manipulators like their father, put to work in some cubicle somewhere, solving an economic problem for a corporation or university.

    "But I'm right!" the white man shouted, as his enemies simply swarmed over him like a tidal wave, his last gurgling noise a plea for appeal to logic and reason...

    yes, pretty much agree with you. I suggested maybe a month ago that Ron come up with a sort of political campaign platform for the 2020 election whose planks might draw the good attention of the major and minor parties. There seem to me younger folks here who are hungry for political expression, and who simply have nowhere to go. Ron has actual electoral experience as a candidate and issue promoter in a very big state, so he has the talent to put together such a platform.

    Both the posts and comments here at Unz Review offer a treasure, millions of words of sharp observations and reasoned insights by very bright people, from which a few platform planks can be drawn.

    (IOW-yep, there’s a real danger that all the good talk here will end up in a 22nd century museum of archaic rhetoric, unless we can breath some life into it.)

  125. @PhysicistDave
    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    I would say the evidence over the last fifty years is that they can’t absorb it all.
     
    Honestly, how many decades back do you personally remember intellectual and political debates?

    My own direct personal memory on such goes back almost exactly fifty years. Back then, serious, educated people took behaviorism (!), Freudianism, and Soviet-style socialism quite seriously. Nowadays, even self-proclaimed socialists (such as Bernie or OAC) protest that they do not really want the government to control everything the way the Soviets did. Rather than talking about behaviorism (does anyone anymore?), the public debate is about how much evolutionary psychology explains, to what degree genes control your intelligence and personality, etc. And, are there any true-blue Freudians left?

    Similarly, I remember when "continental drift" was viewed as semi-scientific speculation, when serious scientists doubted there were planets elsewhere in the galaxy, and so on. I could give a number of examples from my own field of physics (anyone interested in the evolution of attitudes in physics in the last five decades should read Adam Becker's recent What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics, which takes arcane issues in quantum philosophy and turns them into an engaging and readable book).

    The point is that, yes, ultimately attitudes can change very dramatically but both from my personal experience and my reading of history it appears to me that it commonly takes the better part of a human lifetime: basically, the old fools have to die and then young people can start asking the forbidden questions.

    Patience, my friend.

    PM also wrote:

    Just look at the NYT, which has gone from Nicholas Wade to Amy Harmon in the last decade.
     
    Well, sometimes there are steps backward. Incidentally, my positive opinion on Wade was formed back around 1980 when he did some excellent reporting on fraud in mainstream science.

    PM also wrote:

    But the direction and scope of their confusion is too limited to race for me to believe that these social scientists (at least for Reich, Pinker, and Chua) are really perplexed instead of just fearful.
     
    Pinker seems to be a liberal with libertarian tendencies. I suspect that Reich and Chua are true liberals: their political views probably do not align with anyone here.

    But, in a way, that means they deserve more credit for trying hard to see the truth, even if it does not align with their political commitments.

    You know, Chua spoke positively of Brett Kavanaugh, simply because she honestly believes he was a decent man being subjected to a miscarriage of justice.

    Personally, I'm not sure he was a great choice for the High Court. But, I am sure that the whole affair before the Senate turned into a caricature of justice.

    No, Chua, Pinker, Reich, and Murray are not going to lead us into the Promised Land, however you define it. But neither is Sailer or Cochran or you or me or anyone else here.

    But, in the long term, one person here, one person there tells the truth just because it is the truth. And, in the end, the truth will out.

    Honestly, how many decades [of the fifty years] back do you personally remember intellectual and political debates?

    Three. And I’ve read extensively about the other two.

    My own direct personal memory on such goes back almost exactly fifty years. Back then, serious, educated people took behaviorism (!), Freudianism, and Soviet-style socialism quite seriously.

    Yes, many intellectual fashions have fallen out of favor, but they haven’t been replaced by a commitment to the truth. They’ve been replaced by new intellectual fashions.

    This story doesn’t have a happy ending, Dave. If you read Greg closely, you should have already noted that social scientists and biologists a hundred years ago had a better idea of the biological grounding of mankind than their peers do today. And on less evidence!

    What makes you think the next hundred years are going to be any better? We’re all looking at the same evidence. Greg’s inferences don’t require the brain of Einstein to follow.

    Pinker seems to be a liberal with libertarian tendencies. I suspect that Reich and Chua are true liberals: their political views probably do not align with anyone here.

    I do not care about their politics.

    What I care about is how they coat the truth with a heavy dusting of sugar in the hope some of their opponents will find the medicine palatable and swallow it. Yet despite this tactic never working, they still don’t change their approach.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    If you read Greg closely, you should have already noted that social scientists and biologists a hundred years ago had a better idea of the biological grounding of mankind than their peers do today. And on less evidence!
     
    Well, sometimes. You know anything about the "Virginia Public Choice School" in economics -- Jim Buchanan, Gordon Tullock et al.? Buchanan (who had a Nobel) once said that all they were really doing was taking what the Founders understood about politics and putting it in terms twentieth-century social scientists could understand!

    So, I take your point.

    On the other hand, some progress in areas relevant to social science is real, sometimes as a result of conceptual advances, often as a result of new (observational or historical) data:

    For example, we now understand that usually evolution works at the level of the gene, not the species. If some gene will increase the chance of its bearer passing that gene on to future generations, it will tend to spread, even if it damages the survival chances of the group of which its bearer is a member.

    This really was not that well understood until George Williams' Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought was published in 1966.

    And the reason that a modern industrial economy could not be centrally planned was not really grasped by economists until Mises and, especially, Hayek explained the decentralized nature of economic knowledge and how that decentralized knowledge is coordinated by the price system. Of course the disastrous (mal)functioning of the Soviet central planning system was also key empirical evidence that buttressed Hayek's analysis.

    The Minnesota twins' study provided crucial empirical support that genes were critical not just in physical aspects of development but also in behavioral aspects.

    Doctrinaire Keynesianism died under the "stagflation" of the '70s: yes, I wish that textbooks would stop paying obeisance of any sort to Keynes, but if you look at a modern text such as Mankiw's, it is a little bit of Keynes and a lot of narginalist/neoclassical analysis.

    Freudianism and behaviorism collapsed under their own weight: after a few decades, it just became clear they did not work.

    PM also wrote:

    Yes, many intellectual fashions have fallen out of favor, but they haven’t been replaced by a commitment to the truth. They’ve been replaced by new intellectual fashions.
     
    Well... what "new intellectual fashions" have replaced the fallacies I've just mentioned?

    Idiots still call themselves "socialists" and from time to time Keynesian nostrums are still pushed, but neither have the definiteness and self-confidence of their forebears. The replacements for Freudianism and behaviorism are evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, and neuro-psychology: for all their ongoing problems (the replication crisis, etc. -- but at least they admit there is a replication crisis!), the psych guys are somewhat saner than fifty years ago.

    More broadly, both doctrinaire religious beliefs and doctrinaire materialism are much less common than fifty years ago: as far as I can tell, most philosophers are no longer doctrinaire materialists (they are learning to say, "I don't know" when they don't know).

    I know that we have very, very serious problems with our society: The American imperialism and garrison state instituted by the Progressives and solidified by FDR and Truman has proven to be a disaster, but people are actually talking about this now on both Right and Left. Our monetary and financial system (thank you again, our Progressive forebears!) is intrinsically unstable. Our education system (again instituted by Progressives and gelled under FDR and Truman) is a joke, but people are starting to look for alternatives. Our medical system, the unthinking efforts to destroy traditional families, the attempts to pretend that children can function as adults... yeah, it's all a mess.

    But... it's all a mess because bad ideas and decisions from the past continue into effect for a long time. We are living with the consequences of idiotic ideas from the early twentieth century.

    But, I also think I have made a case above that those bad ideas are sometimes being replaced by correct ideas. Progress is possible.

    Okay, that's my case for (long-term) optimism.

    Your turn.

    Dave
  126. @PhysicistDave
    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    I would say the evidence over the last fifty years is that they can’t absorb it all.
     
    Honestly, how many decades back do you personally remember intellectual and political debates?

    My own direct personal memory on such goes back almost exactly fifty years. Back then, serious, educated people took behaviorism (!), Freudianism, and Soviet-style socialism quite seriously. Nowadays, even self-proclaimed socialists (such as Bernie or OAC) protest that they do not really want the government to control everything the way the Soviets did. Rather than talking about behaviorism (does anyone anymore?), the public debate is about how much evolutionary psychology explains, to what degree genes control your intelligence and personality, etc. And, are there any true-blue Freudians left?

    Similarly, I remember when "continental drift" was viewed as semi-scientific speculation, when serious scientists doubted there were planets elsewhere in the galaxy, and so on. I could give a number of examples from my own field of physics (anyone interested in the evolution of attitudes in physics in the last five decades should read Adam Becker's recent What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics, which takes arcane issues in quantum philosophy and turns them into an engaging and readable book).

    The point is that, yes, ultimately attitudes can change very dramatically but both from my personal experience and my reading of history it appears to me that it commonly takes the better part of a human lifetime: basically, the old fools have to die and then young people can start asking the forbidden questions.

    Patience, my friend.

    PM also wrote:

    Just look at the NYT, which has gone from Nicholas Wade to Amy Harmon in the last decade.
     
    Well, sometimes there are steps backward. Incidentally, my positive opinion on Wade was formed back around 1980 when he did some excellent reporting on fraud in mainstream science.

    PM also wrote:

    But the direction and scope of their confusion is too limited to race for me to believe that these social scientists (at least for Reich, Pinker, and Chua) are really perplexed instead of just fearful.
     
    Pinker seems to be a liberal with libertarian tendencies. I suspect that Reich and Chua are true liberals: their political views probably do not align with anyone here.

    But, in a way, that means they deserve more credit for trying hard to see the truth, even if it does not align with their political commitments.

    You know, Chua spoke positively of Brett Kavanaugh, simply because she honestly believes he was a decent man being subjected to a miscarriage of justice.

    Personally, I'm not sure he was a great choice for the High Court. But, I am sure that the whole affair before the Senate turned into a caricature of justice.

    No, Chua, Pinker, Reich, and Murray are not going to lead us into the Promised Land, however you define it. But neither is Sailer or Cochran or you or me or anyone else here.

    But, in the long term, one person here, one person there tells the truth just because it is the truth. And, in the end, the truth will out.

    Similarly, I remember when “continental drift” was viewed as semi-scientific speculation, when serious scientists doubted there were planets elsewhere in the galaxy, and so on. I could give a number of examples from my own field of physics (anyone interested in the evolution of attitudes in physics in the last five decades should read Adam Becker’s recent What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics, which takes arcane issues in quantum philosophy and turns them into an engaging and readable book).

    There’s no corollary between what is going on in the social sciences right now and what took place in physics or geology.

    In the social sciences, the evidence is the enemy. Many social scientists don’t want to know about it. They refuse to engage it.

    Wegener and Alvarez weren’t called “racists” or “fascists” because of their scientific beliefs. They might’ve been called “assholes” or “dumbasses,” but those insults are blessedly free of political content and policy implications.

  127. @Moshe
    I like exploring human societies at the edges too. Is this something you do regularly? Was it cheap? I have explored many of the odd cultures in the United States, from The Nation of Islam (great stories) to various odd Polygamous Mormon split-off groups to bank robbers and cops on the beat in numerous small towns and big cities to the Satmar Rebbe of Kiryas Joel (I drove him and his nuclear family around) to Mennonites of various sorts to Spiritualists to Scientologists, etc. Beyond the borders I've explored less, but luckily the most interesting places tend to be the cheapest so I can speak to matters pertaining to lesser explored cultures of the Middle East pretty well too.

    But I've never lived with hunter-gatherers or, for that matter, been in the Amazon at all. Did you spend some time with amazonian pre-civilized societies or other uniquely interesting groups of people and was it cheap to get there and did you take any special shots or pills to stave off malaria and whatnot?

    I cannot afford special shots and pills but I'm very interested in visiting interesting or odd small societies in Africa. Does anyone have experience with that? A place sufficiently safe and cheap to get to and stay for awhile that is also very different from Western societies?

    “I cannot afford special shots and pills”

    You’ll need yellow fever vaccination*, pretty much mandatory for sub-Saharan Africa and most of South and Central America – some places won’t let you in without a vaccination certificate. About £80 in the UK so not outrageous.

    The NHS has a useful travel website – here’s what you need if heading for a worst-case place

    https://www.fitfortravel.nhs.uk/destinations/africa/democratic-republic-of-congo

    * not recommended for over-60s or people with compromised immune systems – a 67 year old Brit cancer specialist recently died after his jab, though that’s an extremely rare reaction.

    • Replies: @moshe
    Thanks, YetAnother. Have you been there by the way? Or elsewhere in Africa? This blog grew out of an interest in Human Biodiversity so I would expect that there are others here who enjoy going out into the field to adventure human biodiversity out in the field.

    As for the yellow shot price, yeah, still beyond my budget. That's kinna why the antisemitism here bothers me on a personal level. It's based in a strong belief in overwhelming Jewish tribalism which is what antisemitism has always been based on. It has almost always begun on account of jealousy/loathing of the Elites or Rich but was simplified and made safer by changing Class Consciousness into Jew Consciousness because Jews were overrepresented among the wealthy and were more conspicuous and a safer target than the ruling class in general. So,to make a book-length point in a paragraph, local antisems increase the odds of danger occuring to me even though I'm not remotely among the ruling class.

    I consider the local general approach to The Jewish Question inaccurate inasmuch as it is a stupidification of who is really oppressing whom, but for a fella who doesn't even generally identify as Jewish at all (but would be regarded as one by the alt-right antisems) and isn't benefiting from the above average Jewish Household Income in the United States, this inaccuracy pisses me off inasmuch as it influences actually dangerous people and the general mind.

    It's basically a whole lot of people stoking hatred of me because they think I have something I don't even have. (((Jewish Privilege)))

    Back to travel and pills n' all. I think I'm good on tetanus and I know I'm good on rabies (I actually went through a whole series of shots after being bitten by a cat in Istanbul.) My primary concern isn't government regulations (I think Jamaica required that I have the shot after visiting Columbia but they let me through anyway) but actually getting sick and/or dying. Mosquitos and other small flies eat me like I'm made of candy which is why I have good reason to worry about catching anything they might offer. Come to think of it I may have had yellow fever inoculation before going to South Africa a dozen years ago when I was 25.

    Anyhow, are there hunter-gatherers of any kind that live in a relatively safe environment that I can stay with for a month on the cheap? Has anyone here done it?

  128. @Pincher Martin

    Honestly, how many decades [of the fifty years] back do you personally remember intellectual and political debates?
     
    Three. And I've read extensively about the other two.

    My own direct personal memory on such goes back almost exactly fifty years. Back then, serious, educated people took behaviorism (!), Freudianism, and Soviet-style socialism quite seriously.
     
    Yes, many intellectual fashions have fallen out of favor, but they haven't been replaced by a commitment to the truth. They've been replaced by new intellectual fashions.

    This story doesn't have a happy ending, Dave. If you read Greg closely, you should have already noted that social scientists and biologists a hundred years ago had a better idea of the biological grounding of mankind than their peers do today. And on less evidence!

    What makes you think the next hundred years are going to be any better? We're all looking at the same evidence. Greg's inferences don't require the brain of Einstein to follow.


    Pinker seems to be a liberal with libertarian tendencies. I suspect that Reich and Chua are true liberals: their political views probably do not align with anyone here.
     
    I do not care about their politics.

    What I care about is how they coat the truth with a heavy dusting of sugar in the hope some of their opponents will find the medicine palatable and swallow it. Yet despite this tactic never working, they still don't change their approach.

    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    If you read Greg closely, you should have already noted that social scientists and biologists a hundred years ago had a better idea of the biological grounding of mankind than their peers do today. And on less evidence!

    Well, sometimes. You know anything about the “Virginia Public Choice School” in economics — Jim Buchanan, Gordon Tullock et al.? Buchanan (who had a Nobel) once said that all they were really doing was taking what the Founders understood about politics and putting it in terms twentieth-century social scientists could understand!

    So, I take your point.

    On the other hand, some progress in areas relevant to social science is real, sometimes as a result of conceptual advances, often as a result of new (observational or historical) data:

    For example, we now understand that usually evolution works at the level of the gene, not the species. If some gene will increase the chance of its bearer passing that gene on to future generations, it will tend to spread, even if it damages the survival chances of the group of which its bearer is a member.

    This really was not that well understood until George Williams’ Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought was published in 1966.

    And the reason that a modern industrial economy could not be centrally planned was not really grasped by economists until Mises and, especially, Hayek explained the decentralized nature of economic knowledge and how that decentralized knowledge is coordinated by the price system. Of course the disastrous (mal)functioning of the Soviet central planning system was also key empirical evidence that buttressed Hayek’s analysis.

    The Minnesota twins’ study provided crucial empirical support that genes were critical not just in physical aspects of development but also in behavioral aspects.

    Doctrinaire Keynesianism died under the “stagflation” of the ’70s: yes, I wish that textbooks would stop paying obeisance of any sort to Keynes, but if you look at a modern text such as Mankiw’s, it is a little bit of Keynes and a lot of narginalist/neoclassical analysis.

    Freudianism and behaviorism collapsed under their own weight: after a few decades, it just became clear they did not work.

    PM also wrote:

    Yes, many intellectual fashions have fallen out of favor, but they haven’t been replaced by a commitment to the truth. They’ve been replaced by new intellectual fashions.

    Well… what “new intellectual fashions” have replaced the fallacies I’ve just mentioned?

    Idiots still call themselves “socialists” and from time to time Keynesian nostrums are still pushed, but neither have the definiteness and self-confidence of their forebears. The replacements for Freudianism and behaviorism are evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, and neuro-psychology: for all their ongoing problems (the replication crisis, etc. — but at least they admit there is a replication crisis!), the psych guys are somewhat saner than fifty years ago.

    More broadly, both doctrinaire religious beliefs and doctrinaire materialism are much less common than fifty years ago: as far as I can tell, most philosophers are no longer doctrinaire materialists (they are learning to say, “I don’t know” when they don’t know).

    I know that we have very, very serious problems with our society: The American imperialism and garrison state instituted by the Progressives and solidified by FDR and Truman has proven to be a disaster, but people are actually talking about this now on both Right and Left. Our monetary and financial system (thank you again, our Progressive forebears!) is intrinsically unstable. Our education system (again instituted by Progressives and gelled under FDR and Truman) is a joke, but people are starting to look for alternatives. Our medical system, the unthinking efforts to destroy traditional families, the attempts to pretend that children can function as adults… yeah, it’s all a mess.

    But… it’s all a mess because bad ideas and decisions from the past continue into effect for a long time. We are living with the consequences of idiotic ideas from the early twentieth century.

    But, I also think I have made a case above that those bad ideas are sometimes being replaced by correct ideas. Progress is possible.

    Okay, that’s my case for (long-term) optimism.

    Your turn.

    Dave

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    For example, we now understand that usually evolution works at the level of the gene, not the species.
     
    Except that's a vast oversimplification. There are a number of other levels at which evolution works.
    , @ben tillman
    I don't share your optimism, but at least you appreciate some first-rate thinkers. The Mises/Hayek insight regarding the price mechanism was impressive and influential. I read The Calculus of Consent and was impressed with the quality of the authors' intellect. But a lot of fundamental insights are not incorporated into public policy, especially the insight that you will get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax. Yet we tax the productive and subsidize the non-productive.
    , @Pincher Martin

    Well… what “new intellectual fashions” have replaced the fallacies I’ve just mentioned?
     
    Various forms of identity politics and multicultural crap, of course. They were important thirty years ago (mainly as just part of the ongoing traditional civil rights' issues between blacks and whites), but over the last fifteen years they have moved front and center in our academic and political debates and moved far beyond the treatment of African-Americans.

    Environmentalism. I'm not kidding when I say I recently read a history of the Holocaust by Timothy Snyder - Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning - and the main lesson he wants his readers to draw from his book is that a better understanding of how Hitler killed the Jews can better prepare us for how to deal with climate change. And, no, I'm not joking.

    Animal Rights. Peter Singer has, sadly, become one of the most influential intellectuals of the last fifty years. Now that gay rights has become generally accepted in the West, don't be surprised if bestiality, incest, and polygamy are next. A recent documentary called Dolphin Lover was covered sympathetically in the leftist online media. These guys are always pushing on the edge, no matter where that edge is at.

    All these ideas were out there fifty years ago, but they have now become prominent among lefties in the same way that ideas like economic inequality and disarmament were dominant thirty to forty years ago.


    For example, we now understand that usually evolution works at the level of the gene, not the species. If some gene will increase the chance of its bearer passing that gene on to future generations, it will tend to spread, even if it damages the survival chances of the group of which its bearer is a member.
     
    This is not necessarily social science. In fact, if you apply this insight to man's genetic legacy and then work out a few reasonable inferences from it, you stand a good chance of being ostracized from any mainstream scientific group.

    As for your thoughts on economics, don't fool yourself. Keynesian economics is dominant outside of a few schools, and it's completely dominant in policy circles. Good luck electing a president from either party whose economic staff doesn't advise him to stimulate the economy whenever there is even a whiff of a recession.

  129. @Hypnotoad666

    In a tropical paradise where a bit of garden agriculture by women is enough for them and their children to live, the women will select the bad boys as the fathers
     
    Isn't it true, though, that the "tropical paradise" is a double-edged sword? Food supplies are plentiful, but so are parasites and disease.

    So "livin' is easy," while it lasts. But life expectancy is short. In other words, you have to "live fast and die young," whether you like it or not.

    The evolutionary pressure under this environment would seemingly discourage delayed gratificstion and long term investment strategies.

    Does anyone know whether hunter-gatherers in colder climates had the same patterns of warfare and violence as their topical counterparts? My guess is that the data is simply lacking as northern tribes got civilized before the records could be made.

    Plenty of warfare among the Canadian First Nations – like the Bloody Falls massacre of 1771, when Dene and Chippewa wiped out an Inuit camp.

  130. @Pincher Martin

    The latter two are awesome and in no way fearful.

    Reich is doing groundbreaking work on touchy subjects and has a wide audience. You really want him to mix that up with right-wing politics?
     

    Read my very next post to the one you responded (currently #92), and you'll see that isn't true. I don't care about their politics.

    But shading and avoiding the truth to cater to the boobs should no longer be acceptable. (Chua doesn't even belong in the company of Murray, Reich, and Pinker, by the way.)

    Pincher Martin wrote:

    Chua doesn’t even belong in the company of Murray, Reich, and Pinker, by the way.

    Have you read her recent Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations ? She is trying systematically with her books (even Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother) to warn people, ever so gently, that different cultures and ethnic groups are truly different and that ignoring that fact can lead to catastrophe.

    What does she really think about genes vs. culture? I don’t know: although she is a Chinese girl who married a Jewish guy, so I can sort of guess. I think she might say that, regardless of the relative contribution of genes vs. culture, the simple point that people need to grasp is that different cultures and ethnic groups really, truly are different.

    And, surely that is an important message for our society to hear.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    I've read a couple of her books, but not the one you mention. She's nothing special. First, she's a lawyer, not a scientist, and she writes like a lawyer.

    Second, I don't recall Chua saying group differences were innate. If you have evidence that she has done so in one of the books I haven't read, I'd certainly like to see it. As far as I can recall, her opinion appears to be more in line with the hard cultural constructs of Thomas Sowell. And if I have to read that kind of book, I'd much rather read Sowell than Chua.
  131. @Buzz Mohawk

    And, in the end, the truth will out.
     
    Well, you know there is no end, except to your life and mine and the lives of descendants. It can take the truth centuries to come out.

    Yours is an optimistic (and realistic) comment, worthy of consideration.

    You mention continental drift and also your field of physics. Indeed all of that has come through steps -- and continues to do so. There are even today some ideas you may think are crackpot that someday, long after we are gone, may prove to be true. A mere layman sometimes feels that you experts are lost in your favorite trees, while we are standing out here looking at a forest that doesn't resemble what you are telling us it is.

    Yes, it could take a long time indeed.

    Buzz Mohawk wrote to me:

    Well, you know there is no end, except to your life and mine and the lives of descendants. It can take the truth centuries to come out.

    Indeed.

    Buzz also wrote:

    There are even today some ideas you may think are crackpot that someday, long after we are gone, may prove to be true.

    As a physicist, I of course have opinions on all sorts of current issues in physics — supestring theory, the multiverse/landscape, the black-hole firewall, the foundations of quantum mechanics, dark energy, the inflationary model of the universe, and various others.

    My hope is that my opinion will not turn out to be wrong on all of those issues! But, surely I will be wrong on some of them (and, in fact, my opinion changes on some of them from time to time).

    Buzz also wrote:

    A mere layman sometimes feels that you experts are lost in your favorite trees, while we are standing out here looking at a forest that doesn’t resemble what you are telling us it is.

    Can you think of any examples where you think it is likely that a layman is more likely to be right on such issues than most scientific experts?

    The obvious example is “global warming,” but what the media presents as the “scientific consensus” is actually fake: competent scientists know the research is actually unsettled.

    Anything else?

    • Replies: @BB753
    What is your take on "global warming" and "man-made climate change"?
    , @Almost Missouri
    Genetics and race.

    Economics.

    Anything in sociology.

    Most psychology.

    If you say, those last three aren't real sciences, well yeah, but tell them that.
    , @Anon
    They are coming for the physicists. A sysmposium at Pomona College:

    https://i2.wp.com/claremontindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/49344375_372743823272531_7456246419096076288_n.jpg

    https://claremontindependent.com/pomona-decolonize-physics-2018/

    From what I can tell this is mostly a mixture of "White guys, shut up in class so the holistic students don't feel dumb and not ask questions" with "Did you see the movie Hidden Figures? Did you hear about the chick lab assistant who got her name on her 'French' physics prof's paper in exchange for bonking him, and she won a Nobel Prize along with him because of it?"

    In Canada it's more hardcore: Actual science is being taught alongside Indiginous Ways of Knowing, where molecules are replaced by really tiny polar bears.

  132. @Mr McKenna
    That's just kooky. Fair skin and especially blue eyes are rare indeed in most of Italy. And sorry but I've spent years there; I know whereof I speak. Possibly you've mistaken Italy for Ireland.

    It depends on your definition on “rare”. My point was that Jews could have picked up the revelant genes in Italy and have them spread among their population widely through some selection constraint.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    Isn't it plausible that natural selection favored Jews in Northern Europe whose appearance resembled their hosts'?
  133. @PhysicistDave
    Buzz Mohawk wrote to me:

    Well, you know there is no end, except to your life and mine and the lives of descendants. It can take the truth centuries to come out.
     
    Indeed.

    Buzz also wrote:

    There are even today some ideas you may think are crackpot that someday, long after we are gone, may prove to be true.
     
    As a physicist, I of course have opinions on all sorts of current issues in physics -- supestring theory, the multiverse/landscape, the black-hole firewall, the foundations of quantum mechanics, dark energy, the inflationary model of the universe, and various others.

    My hope is that my opinion will not turn out to be wrong on all of those issues! But, surely I will be wrong on some of them (and, in fact, my opinion changes on some of them from time to time).

    Buzz also wrote:

    A mere layman sometimes feels that you experts are lost in your favorite trees, while we are standing out here looking at a forest that doesn’t resemble what you are telling us it is.
     
    Can you think of any examples where you think it is likely that a layman is more likely to be right on such issues than most scientific experts?

    The obvious example is "global warming," but what the media presents as the "scientific consensus" is actually fake: competent scientists know the research is actually unsettled.

    Anything else?

    What is your take on “global warming” and “man-made climate change”?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    BB753 asked me:

    What is your take on “global warming” and “man-made climate change”?
     
    There is no doubt that the globe has warmed in the last two centuries. I first learned about this from my great-grandmother back in the 1960s, who told me that the Mississippi River used to freeze over when she was a child in the late 1800s, whereas it did not freeze over when I was a kid. (I later checked and confirmed that Grandma's memory was correct.)

    There is also very little doubt that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have contributed to that warming. The argument is very simple: if you do not impede solar radiation coming in to the earth, but you do make it harder for the earth to re-radiate energy back into space because of greenhouse gases, then the earth has to warm up to the point where it can "punch through" the greenhouse gases and re-radiate as much energy as it receives.

    The problem, though, is that the climate also changes on its own without human forcing -- the obvious examples are the Pleistocene Ice Ages but also the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age during the last millennium.

    So... how much of the warming of the last two centuries is due to natural causes and how much to human action?

    That is a very difficult question to answer!

    You build computer models, but those models have so many adjustable parameters that it is very hard to know if you have actually modeled the physical phenomena you are studying or if you have "overfitted" the historical data in a way that is not predictive.

    There is one way to "cut to the chase" to determine how good your models are: predict future climate developments and then sit back and wait and see how good your predictions are.

    So far, the models have not done that well.

    That's not a surprise. This is how scientific research goes, lots and lots of errors and false starts before you get it right.

    The only "surprise" is that the mainstream media and some irresponsible publicity-seeking scientists have pretended that the models are better than they have proven to be and can accurately understand the past and predict the future. They can't, at least not yet.

    By the way, I doubt that any knowledgeable, responsible scientist would privately disagree with what I have written here. Unfortunately, a handful of scientists have made a consciouos decision to publicly over-sell the value of existing models in order to frighten the public into taking what those scientists consider wise precautionary measures. That's dishonest.

    If you want to hear much more detail, from someone enormously more knowledgeable than I, check out Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog. Judith gets it from both sides because she is neither a "denialist" nor a "catastrophist" but merely a scientist trying to advance the actual science.
  134. @YetAnotherAnon
    "I cannot afford special shots and pills"

    You'll need yellow fever vaccination*, pretty much mandatory for sub-Saharan Africa and most of South and Central America - some places won't let you in without a vaccination certificate. About £80 in the UK so not outrageous.

    The NHS has a useful travel website - here's what you need if heading for a worst-case place

    https://www.fitfortravel.nhs.uk/destinations/africa/democratic-republic-of-congo

    * not recommended for over-60s or people with compromised immune systems - a 67 year old Brit cancer specialist recently died after his jab, though that's an extremely rare reaction.

    Thanks, YetAnother. Have you been there by the way? Or elsewhere in Africa? This blog grew out of an interest in Human Biodiversity so I would expect that there are others here who enjoy going out into the field to adventure human biodiversity out in the field.

    As for the yellow shot price, yeah, still beyond my budget. That’s kinna why the antisemitism here bothers me on a personal level. It’s based in a strong belief in overwhelming Jewish tribalism which is what antisemitism has always been based on. It has almost always begun on account of jealousy/loathing of the Elites or Rich but was simplified and made safer by changing Class Consciousness into Jew Consciousness because Jews were overrepresented among the wealthy and were more conspicuous and a safer target than the ruling class in general. So,to make a book-length point in a paragraph, local antisems increase the odds of danger occuring to me even though I’m not remotely among the ruling class.

    I consider the local general approach to The Jewish Question inaccurate inasmuch as it is a stupidification of who is really oppressing whom, but for a fella who doesn’t even generally identify as Jewish at all (but would be regarded as one by the alt-right antisems) and isn’t benefiting from the above average Jewish Household Income in the United States, this inaccuracy pisses me off inasmuch as it influences actually dangerous people and the general mind.

    It’s basically a whole lot of people stoking hatred of me because they think I have something I don’t even have. (((Jewish Privilege)))

    Back to travel and pills n’ all. I think I’m good on tetanus and I know I’m good on rabies (I actually went through a whole series of shots after being bitten by a cat in Istanbul.) My primary concern isn’t government regulations (I think Jamaica required that I have the shot after visiting Columbia but they let me through anyway) but actually getting sick and/or dying. Mosquitos and other small flies eat me like I’m made of candy which is why I have good reason to worry about catching anything they might offer. Come to think of it I may have had yellow fever inoculation before going to South Africa a dozen years ago when I was 25.

    Anyhow, are there hunter-gatherers of any kind that live in a relatively safe environment that I can stay with for a month on the cheap? Has anyone here done it?

    • Replies: @Peterike
    “It’s based in a strong belief in overwhelming Jewish tribalism which is what antisemitism has always been based on. It has almost always begun on account of jealousy/loathing of the Elites or Rich but was simplified and made safer by changing Class Consciousness into Jew Consciousness because Jews were overrepresented among the wealthy and were more conspicuous and a safer target than the ruling class in general.”

    Complete nonsense. Anti-semitism has always been a direct response to Jewish behavior. Always. Yet Jews won’t even own it once, for any time or place.
  135. @Kevin Brook
    The difference between the Cherokee princess claims and the Sephardic converso ancestry claims is that the latter are usually true, verifiable by genetics, especially for Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. I have posted on this before, here and in Razib Khan's GNXP blog. They usually do have between 0.5 and 1 percent of that kind of ancestry.

    Kevin Brook! I recognise your name. We were in touch a dozen yeats ago when I was doing some work on the Khazars. Good to see your name.

  136. @kihowi

    If we are talking about Hitler (whose last words were said to be “what an artist dies in me”)
     
    dude...

    Anyway, apart from the difficulty of keeping romans and nazis apart, I did read a story (might in Irving somewhere) of one of uncle adolfs friends who said that he used to be entirely apolitical, until they went out to see Rienzi in Vienna after which he had a different look in his eyes and started talking about heimats and lebensraums.

    The difficulty of keeping romans and nazis apart is not inconsiderable. Hitler’s first name meant proud wolf, he demanded “Wolf”, as a nickname and he referred to the SS as “my pack of wolves”. He had wolves on the brain, while the origin of Rome myth was about boys raised by a wolf–and the Rape of the Sabine Women. And of course the Romans exterminated those peoples who were too troublesome.

    So Hitler quoted Nero; he could quote Clausewitz by the yard. Pre Reich (the 5000 year old DNA Reich not the the storied 1000 year one) post WW2 the school of school that thought that the Dorian invasion of Greece had been from Germany, was long gone.

    However, by the 1950s Marija Gimbutas, had more or less worked out that Indo European were warlike Fuhrer-worshiping abusers of women, organised in a wolf cult, came from the steppes not Germany, and supplanted the old Europeans by rape and murder not cultural exchange.

    Spengler, who warned that the Nazis were building castles in the air if they thought the West would leave them alone, is said to have remarked about Hitler that Germany needed a hero not a heroic tenor. In his 1938 essay “Bruder Hitler”, Thomas Mann said that Hitler was an artist. Hitler spent vast amounts of time before the first world war trying to create a Wagnerian-style opera, with lots of incest and flying in it by all accounts. Just before his death he spent time fiddling with his architectural plans for Linz. Hitler was more Rienzi (and destined to meet the same fate) not about practical politics, he liked Nietzsche, who said ” to be a public utility, a cog, a function, is a natural vocation: it is the kind of happiness of which the great majority are alone capable”.

  137. @Lot
    Psilocybin mushrooms were the best. Fun in different ways in large or small amounts. The 4 hours they last is about right too. Popping into a store in Amsterdam and getting them OTC (in a converted soda display fridge), then spending the day in art museums and parks was probably my favorite day of the trip there I took in college.

    They likely do have medical benefits when used responsibly under medical direction. There have been tons of studies about this and they mostly show stronger results than other classes of psychoactive drugs.

    You can buy shrooms in a store in Amsterdam?

    Also, shouldn’t there be an isteve meetup so regaulars can actually press the flesh and share a drink? It strikes me as weird that I’ve read and responded to so many people whose faces I’ve never seen. Internet culture is cool but it is also quite counter to how we evolved to interact with people and causes a lot of harm that could be avoided if more people met each other. Based on nothing more than a pic on this blog I recognized Masha Gessen in the hall of Columbia University and went over to talk with her. We disagree of course but the sort of venom that is spat betwixed the lite-altright and Masha herself vanishes when two humans meet as human beings. Based on some pic I probably saw here as well I also recognized and went over to Shaun King in The Strand (bookstore) and on another occasion Malcolm Gladwell on 27th and Madison.

    People thought back in the 90s that the internet would bring us all together but rhe world of the internet is generally an ugly and lonely world. We evolved to communicate face to face and I miss that.

    Oh, in case anyone is interested, Gladwell is shorter and whiter than you would expect and also incredibly polite for someone who was interrupted while he was on the phone (he was waiting to cross the street and I was going a different way so apologetically interrupting his call for a moment was my preference). Masha Gessen isn’t a name but a person. A regular woman. One who shouldn’t be attempting to influence the world too much perhaps but just a lady and not worthy of receiving the mockery and loathing that she receives in print — or writes in print. And Shaun King was the best. I told him point blank that I pretty much disagree with everything he believes (and this at the height of the Black Lives Matter movement) but I did so as a human talking to another human and he was friendly and nice as heck. That’s why I always say that I’m sure I’d get along great even with the people who write the most odious things here and the people to whom I on occasion do the same.

    Heck, even the autists at slatestarcodex have face to face meetups around the world all the time. Come to think of it, how about we combine isteve meetups with whatever group of internet open-borders people there are?

    It would definitely be fun. Worse comes to worst we fight it out. Like men. Not anonymii with keypads.

    • Replies: @Lot
    There are about a dozen "smart shops" that sell mushrooms in Amsterdam. For reasons that are unclear to me, they now call them "truffles" which they are not.

    https://www.smokersguide.com/featured/img/19-77-940-k7b.jpg
    , @Hypnotoad666

    Also, shouldn’t there be an isteve meetup so regaulars can actually press the flesh and share a drink?
     
    Not a bad idea. Of course, it wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea as a lot of people are concerned with anonymity. Maybe we need secret handshakes and a password. An iSteve (Semi) Secret Society, if you will.

    When I was a kid in the 70's my father used to host Mensa meetings with an invited speaker and drinks/mingling afterward. Even as a kid I could tell they were an eccentric and eclectic bunch of nerds. But they seemed to have a good time.

    We even had a guy named Wozniack show up once to demonstrate some device he was working on. Wonder what ever became of that guy . . .
    , @Thea
    I do the posited and share isteve columns with people I already know.


    My aunt met Jesse Jackson. He was very personable and friendly but his smile did fade as she amiably told him he was a liar and a hypocrite.
    , @BB753
    " Masha Gessen isn’t a name but a person. A regular woman. "

    Are you sure she is a woman?

    You know, Moshe, your invitation to meet in person sounds actually creepy. Do you work for the SPLC?
    , @Buzz Mohawk

    Also, shouldn’t there be an isteve meet up...?
     
    No. That would mean I would have to leave my mom's basement.
    , @Redneck farmer
    Dude, I'd be worried about us getting a couple of Hellfires through the windows.
  138. @Peter Akuleyev
    At West Hunter, Greg Cochran unloads on the New York Times

    This is a nice sentiment, but inadvertently comic, almost like an Onion Headline. In terms of relative power and reach, this the equivalent of those old "Head of American Communist Party denounces American Imperialism in Latin America!" headlines the Socialist Worker used to run.

    Yes, in terms of circulation and fame, you are certainly correct. Yet we may hope that in the Halls of Truth, Cochran’s voice will reverberate down through the ages while the NYT’s will be no more than … yesterday’s newspaper.

  139. @Hypnotoad666

    In a tropical paradise where a bit of garden agriculture by women is enough for them and their children to live, the women will select the bad boys as the fathers
     
    Isn't it true, though, that the "tropical paradise" is a double-edged sword? Food supplies are plentiful, but so are parasites and disease.

    So "livin' is easy," while it lasts. But life expectancy is short. In other words, you have to "live fast and die young," whether you like it or not.

    The evolutionary pressure under this environment would seemingly discourage delayed gratificstion and long term investment strategies.

    Does anyone know whether hunter-gatherers in colder climates had the same patterns of warfare and violence as their topical counterparts? My guess is that the data is simply lacking as northern tribes got civilized before the records could be made.

    Isn’t it true, though, that the “tropical paradise” is a double-edged sword? Food supplies are plentiful, but so are parasites and disease.

    That is true and testosterone seems to make one more more vulnerable to infections disease. So where food is easy to get the men are in competition for women that pick the high T men and the population will get more vulnerable to infectious disease.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11419954

    Evidence is presented that melanization of skin and other tissues forms an important component of the innate immune defense system. A major function of melanocytes, melanosomes and melanin in skin is to inhibit the proliferation of bacterial, fungal and other parasitic infections of the dermis and epidermis. This function can potentially explain (a) the latitudinal gradient in melanization of human skin; (b) the fact that melanocyte and melanization patterns among different parts of the vertebrate body do not reflect exposure to radiation; (c) provide a theoretical framework for recent empirical findings concerning the antimicrobial activity of melanocytes and melanosomes and their regulation by known mediators of inflammatory responses.

    So high testosterone promotes black skin.

    • Replies: @Romanian
    Darker skin. Compare an Urkel to a Bronze Age Pervert and BAP will have more than him, yet be much whiter. Comparisons are only apt within a homogeneous group.
    , @Hypnotoad666

    Evidence is presented that melanization of skin and other tissues forms an important component of the innate immune defense system.
     
    Very interesting.

    I suppose one counter-observation is that palms and soles of feet are without melanin, although these would seemingly be the areas most likely to come into contact with pathogens.

    On the other hand, I remember reading somewhere that black men are actually a bit darker on average than black women. If true, that would be consistent with the theory that melanin is partly an immunological defense, and that this defense is more important to individuals with higher T. (But then again, if the immunological-T-melanin connection were really strong, you'd expect men in tropical regions to have a lot more melanin than the females.)
  140. @Buzz Mohawk
    Yes, he must be talking about ayahuasca. What the shaman told him was true: they believe it's magical and that all the things they experience with it are real. Some dummies up north here do to.

    I did ayahuasca three or four times thirty years ago. It was better than mushrooms or LSD. YMMV. When I did it with my girlfriend it was a fuckfest. We nearly broke a four-poster bed at the Stanley Hotel.

    Reading your comment…

    “I did ayahuasca three or four times thirty years ago. It was better than mushrooms or LSD.”

    “better” = ?

    “When I did it with my girlfriend it was a fuckfest. We nearly broke a four-poster bed at the Stanley Hotel.”

    Oh.

    Never mind.

  141. @PhysicistDave
    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    I would say the evidence over the last fifty years is that they can’t absorb it all.
     
    Honestly, how many decades back do you personally remember intellectual and political debates?

    My own direct personal memory on such goes back almost exactly fifty years. Back then, serious, educated people took behaviorism (!), Freudianism, and Soviet-style socialism quite seriously. Nowadays, even self-proclaimed socialists (such as Bernie or OAC) protest that they do not really want the government to control everything the way the Soviets did. Rather than talking about behaviorism (does anyone anymore?), the public debate is about how much evolutionary psychology explains, to what degree genes control your intelligence and personality, etc. And, are there any true-blue Freudians left?

    Similarly, I remember when "continental drift" was viewed as semi-scientific speculation, when serious scientists doubted there were planets elsewhere in the galaxy, and so on. I could give a number of examples from my own field of physics (anyone interested in the evolution of attitudes in physics in the last five decades should read Adam Becker's recent What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics, which takes arcane issues in quantum philosophy and turns them into an engaging and readable book).

    The point is that, yes, ultimately attitudes can change very dramatically but both from my personal experience and my reading of history it appears to me that it commonly takes the better part of a human lifetime: basically, the old fools have to die and then young people can start asking the forbidden questions.

    Patience, my friend.

    PM also wrote:

    Just look at the NYT, which has gone from Nicholas Wade to Amy Harmon in the last decade.
     
    Well, sometimes there are steps backward. Incidentally, my positive opinion on Wade was formed back around 1980 when he did some excellent reporting on fraud in mainstream science.

    PM also wrote:

    But the direction and scope of their confusion is too limited to race for me to believe that these social scientists (at least for Reich, Pinker, and Chua) are really perplexed instead of just fearful.
     
    Pinker seems to be a liberal with libertarian tendencies. I suspect that Reich and Chua are true liberals: their political views probably do not align with anyone here.

    But, in a way, that means they deserve more credit for trying hard to see the truth, even if it does not align with their political commitments.

    You know, Chua spoke positively of Brett Kavanaugh, simply because she honestly believes he was a decent man being subjected to a miscarriage of justice.

    Personally, I'm not sure he was a great choice for the High Court. But, I am sure that the whole affair before the Senate turned into a caricature of justice.

    No, Chua, Pinker, Reich, and Murray are not going to lead us into the Promised Land, however you define it. But neither is Sailer or Cochran or you or me or anyone else here.

    But, in the long term, one person here, one person there tells the truth just because it is the truth. And, in the end, the truth will out.

    “in the end, the truth will out.”

    True-ish, perhaps, but not in the way you imply.

    Truth comes out because men get it out. It doesn’t just appear by itself. The Periodic Table did not appear in a burning bush. People laboriously excavated it from the ignorant darkness.

    If we just kick back and assume, “hey, truth will out, so the current heretic burnings are no biggee”, then no, truth won’t out. Discussions at secret fringe sites like this one may temporarily preserve a little truth for a limited audience. But truth won’t triumph until the heretic burners are themselves burnt.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Almost Missouri wrote to me:

    Truth comes out because men get it out. It doesn’t just appear by itself. The Periodic Table did not appear in a burning bush.
     
    Yes, of course. Truth is not just floating up there in the sky, waiting to rain down upon us!

    And yet... in some ways, it often does look that way. Your example of the Periodic Table illustrates my point. Some crazy dude in backward, largely illiterate, nineteenth-century Russia of all places made the discovery. Mendeleev claimed to have seen the Periodic Table in a dream. He made up a set of cards with the properties of the elements and basically played a weird game against himself trying to put them together in a sensible way. One weird dude.

    Now, of course, Mendeleev was a trained chemist: this was not some peasant kid who heard voices that gave him the answer. And, he struggled very hard to discover the answer.

    On the other hand, some crazy guy in Russia is not whom a reasoanble person would have expected to solve the problem. (I'd have bet on a German.)

    I could make a similar point about the advances in the social sciences I quoted to Pincher Martin earlier: yes, nowadays people interested in the relevant subjects recognize the names of Mises and Hayek, Thomas Bouchard, Tooby and Cosmides, etc. But, I can assure you that none of these folks were recognized leaders of their fields when they started pushing their heterodox (but true) ideas.

    Most importantly, we tend to think of intellectual battles as us (now) vs. them (now), as if the combatants are those already involved in the fray. Thankfully, there are children, who eventually grow up and join in the battles. I remember when I was one of those young people doing what I could to denounce socialism, behaviorism, and all the rest: it seemed as if I had managed to choose the losing side on just about every issue I was aware of (including in philosophy and in my own field of physics!). And, yet, on many of those issues the "fringe" views I held fifty years ago are now the mainstream views.

    How did this happen? I'm not quite sure. I think that an awful lot of social life happens "below the radar" with ordinary people thinking about things and discussing them in small groups and then, all of a sudden, it turns out that society has changed.

    The fall of the Soviet Union, the collapse of Jim Crow, Brexit, the Trump phenomenon -- I have seen this happen again and again and again.

    Yes, progrss is not automatic: it depends on human action. But often even those bringing about the progressive changes do not realize they are doing it until, one day, the world is different.

    Thankfully, the course of human events can not be controlled or even predicted from the top down.
  142. @PhysicistDave
    Buzz Mohawk wrote to me:

    Well, you know there is no end, except to your life and mine and the lives of descendants. It can take the truth centuries to come out.
     
    Indeed.

    Buzz also wrote:

    There are even today some ideas you may think are crackpot that someday, long after we are gone, may prove to be true.
     
    As a physicist, I of course have opinions on all sorts of current issues in physics -- supestring theory, the multiverse/landscape, the black-hole firewall, the foundations of quantum mechanics, dark energy, the inflationary model of the universe, and various others.

    My hope is that my opinion will not turn out to be wrong on all of those issues! But, surely I will be wrong on some of them (and, in fact, my opinion changes on some of them from time to time).

    Buzz also wrote:

    A mere layman sometimes feels that you experts are lost in your favorite trees, while we are standing out here looking at a forest that doesn’t resemble what you are telling us it is.
     
    Can you think of any examples where you think it is likely that a layman is more likely to be right on such issues than most scientific experts?

    The obvious example is "global warming," but what the media presents as the "scientific consensus" is actually fake: competent scientists know the research is actually unsettled.

    Anything else?

    Genetics and race.

    Economics.

    Anything in sociology.

    Most psychology.

    If you say, those last three aren’t real sciences, well yeah, but tell them that.

  143. Anon[219] • Disclaimer says:
    @PhysicistDave
    Buzz Mohawk wrote to me:

    Well, you know there is no end, except to your life and mine and the lives of descendants. It can take the truth centuries to come out.
     
    Indeed.

    Buzz also wrote:

    There are even today some ideas you may think are crackpot that someday, long after we are gone, may prove to be true.
     
    As a physicist, I of course have opinions on all sorts of current issues in physics -- supestring theory, the multiverse/landscape, the black-hole firewall, the foundations of quantum mechanics, dark energy, the inflationary model of the universe, and various others.

    My hope is that my opinion will not turn out to be wrong on all of those issues! But, surely I will be wrong on some of them (and, in fact, my opinion changes on some of them from time to time).

    Buzz also wrote:

    A mere layman sometimes feels that you experts are lost in your favorite trees, while we are standing out here looking at a forest that doesn’t resemble what you are telling us it is.
     
    Can you think of any examples where you think it is likely that a layman is more likely to be right on such issues than most scientific experts?

    The obvious example is "global warming," but what the media presents as the "scientific consensus" is actually fake: competent scientists know the research is actually unsettled.

    Anything else?

    They are coming for the physicists. A sysmposium at Pomona College:

    https://claremontindependent.com/pomona-decolonize-physics-2018/

    From what I can tell this is mostly a mixture of “White guys, shut up in class so the holistic students don’t feel dumb and not ask questions” with “Did you see the movie Hidden Figures? Did you hear about the chick lab assistant who got her name on her ‘French’ physics prof’s paper in exchange for bonking him, and she won a Nobel Prize along with him because of it?”

    In Canada it’s more hardcore: Actual science is being taught alongside Indiginous Ways of Knowing, where molecules are replaced by really tiny polar bears.

  144. @Faraday's Bobcat
    Centuries ago there was a science called chemistry that claimed all the diverse matter around us was really made of only about a hundred different building blocks. These "chemists" thought they could explain things like why steel rusts based on this crazy building block theory. Because of their mistakes, horrible things like polyester and gasoline were invented.

    Of course, we now know that all matter is different and unique as well as basically the same. A double macchiato is different in its diverse beauty than a fair-trade espresso but they're both really coffee, which is a liquid just like vegan butternut squash bisque.

    Some areas of science are still as primitive as chemistry. Certain scientists think we can learn about people by grouping them, the way chemists used to group matter (don't ask, they had this insane grid thing that had something to do with counting electrons). But thanks to the recent work of Amy Harmon we seem to be heading towards an understanding that people are just like liquids. Sometimes they taste great when you dunk a piece of artisanal crispbread in them and sometimes they dissolve the paint off your bike, nobody really knows why!! lol :)

    Atomic mass is a social construct?

  145. @PhysicistDave
    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    But apart from her, are they really that “good” if their nice-guy contrarianism doesn’t get the job done?
     
    Well... I guess two points:

    A) Often people cannot absorb the truth all at once; often they have to be exposed to it slowly, in bits and pieces. It's the "Overton Window" and all that.

    B) Lies are simple; truth is often complicated. On points where you or I or other posters here might disagree with Chua, Reich, Pinker, or Murray, it could turn out that he or she is right and we are wrong. All of them are trying to push truths that the ruling elite does not want to hear. If sometimes they say something you or I do not want to hear, they might just possibly be right.

    All the best,

    Dave

    “Lies are simple; truth is often complicated.”

    Isn’t it the other way around?

    A Grand Unified Field Theory of physics would be a holy grail of simplicity, not complication.

    Police routinely suss out liars by their complicated ever-permutating, ever-ramifying stories. By contrast, a true alibi is usually pretty simple: “I wasn’t at the scene of the crime. I was at the pizzeria. Here is the receipt.”

    • Replies: @Sean
    Which is an argument for making "no comment", which is what the vast majority of scientists do. Journalist do not understand what the real consensus among scientist is on certain issues is.
  146. @Almost Missouri

    "Lies are simple; truth is often complicated."
     
    Isn't it the other way around?

    A Grand Unified Field Theory of physics would be a holy grail of simplicity, not complication.

    Police routinely suss out liars by their complicated ever-permutating, ever-ramifying stories. By contrast, a true alibi is usually pretty simple: "I wasn't at the scene of the crime. I was at the pizzeria. Here is the receipt."

    Which is an argument for making “no comment”, which is what the vast majority of scientists do. Journalist do not understand what the real consensus among scientist is on certain issues is.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  147. @PiltdownMan
    Many "matriarchal" societies that feminists cite are far from matriarchal (in the sense of matriarchy being a mirror image replacement for patriarchy). They are often merely matrilineal in regards to property rights.

    https://feminisminindia.com/2016/09/01/decline-matrilineal-society-kerala/

    Many “matriarchal” societies that feminists cite are far from matriarchal (in the sense of matriarchy being a mirror image replacement for patriarchy). They are often merely matrilineal in regards to property rights.

    There have never been any continuously existing human matriarchies. Any true martriarchy that popped up would be quickly conquered and enjoyed by surround patriarchies.

    Seriously the closest thing to matriarchy that has ever existed is the modern West. And, yes, it’s in the process of being conquered and plundered by barbarians.

  148. @Almost Missouri

    "in the end, the truth will out."
     
    True-ish, perhaps, but not in the way you imply.

    Truth comes out because men get it out. It doesn't just appear by itself. The Periodic Table did not appear in a burning bush. People laboriously excavated it from the ignorant darkness.

    If we just kick back and assume, "hey, truth will out, so the current heretic burnings are no biggee", then no, truth won't out. Discussions at secret fringe sites like this one may temporarily preserve a little truth for a limited audience. But truth won't triumph until the heretic burners are themselves burnt.

    Almost Missouri wrote to me:

    Truth comes out because men get it out. It doesn’t just appear by itself. The Periodic Table did not appear in a burning bush.

    Yes, of course. Truth is not just floating up there in the sky, waiting to rain down upon us!

    And yet… in some ways, it often does look that way. Your example of the Periodic Table illustrates my point. Some crazy dude in backward, largely illiterate, nineteenth-century Russia of all places made the discovery. Mendeleev claimed to have seen the Periodic Table in a dream. He made up a set of cards with the properties of the elements and basically played a weird game against himself trying to put them together in a sensible way. One weird dude.

    Now, of course, Mendeleev was a trained chemist: this was not some peasant kid who heard voices that gave him the answer. And, he struggled very hard to discover the answer.

    On the other hand, some crazy guy in Russia is not whom a reasoanble person would have expected to solve the problem. (I’d have bet on a German.)

    I could make a similar point about the advances in the social sciences I quoted to Pincher Martin earlier: yes, nowadays people interested in the relevant subjects recognize the names of Mises and Hayek, Thomas Bouchard, Tooby and Cosmides, etc. But, I can assure you that none of these folks were recognized leaders of their fields when they started pushing their heterodox (but true) ideas.

    Most importantly, we tend to think of intellectual battles as us (now) vs. them (now), as if the combatants are those already involved in the fray. Thankfully, there are children, who eventually grow up and join in the battles. I remember when I was one of those young people doing what I could to denounce socialism, behaviorism, and all the rest: it seemed as if I had managed to choose the losing side on just about every issue I was aware of (including in philosophy and in my own field of physics!). And, yet, on many of those issues the “fringe” views I held fifty years ago are now the mainstream views.

    How did this happen? I’m not quite sure. I think that an awful lot of social life happens “below the radar” with ordinary people thinking about things and discussing them in small groups and then, all of a sudden, it turns out that society has changed.

    The fall of the Soviet Union, the collapse of Jim Crow, Brexit, the Trump phenomenon — I have seen this happen again and again and again.

    Yes, progrss is not automatic: it depends on human action. But often even those bringing about the progressive changes do not realize they are doing it until, one day, the world is different.

    Thankfully, the course of human events can not be controlled or even predicted from the top down.

    • Replies: @J.Ross

    Some crazy dude in backward, largely illiterate, nineteenth-century Russia of all places made the discovery.

     

    This is a little gratuitous. While born in Siberia, Mendeleev was educated, worked, and died in St Petersburg, which was about as advanced as anywhere in Europe at the time; his family were not peasants but educators. Educated, highly literate, detail-oriented middle class people working in a major city are exactly who you expect to make scientific discoveries.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Haha, I didn't know that about Mendeleev. I guess the form of the benzene molecule would be another example of revelation informing science. (Kekule said he discovered the unusual ring structure of benzene after having a dream of a snake biting its own tail.)

    But still, once the revelation is over, there is still a lot of hard and clever work to nail down the science. One percent inspiration and 99% perspiration and all that.
  149. @PhysicistDave
    Almost Missouri wrote to me:

    Truth comes out because men get it out. It doesn’t just appear by itself. The Periodic Table did not appear in a burning bush.
     
    Yes, of course. Truth is not just floating up there in the sky, waiting to rain down upon us!

    And yet... in some ways, it often does look that way. Your example of the Periodic Table illustrates my point. Some crazy dude in backward, largely illiterate, nineteenth-century Russia of all places made the discovery. Mendeleev claimed to have seen the Periodic Table in a dream. He made up a set of cards with the properties of the elements and basically played a weird game against himself trying to put them together in a sensible way. One weird dude.

    Now, of course, Mendeleev was a trained chemist: this was not some peasant kid who heard voices that gave him the answer. And, he struggled very hard to discover the answer.

    On the other hand, some crazy guy in Russia is not whom a reasoanble person would have expected to solve the problem. (I'd have bet on a German.)

    I could make a similar point about the advances in the social sciences I quoted to Pincher Martin earlier: yes, nowadays people interested in the relevant subjects recognize the names of Mises and Hayek, Thomas Bouchard, Tooby and Cosmides, etc. But, I can assure you that none of these folks were recognized leaders of their fields when they started pushing their heterodox (but true) ideas.

    Most importantly, we tend to think of intellectual battles as us (now) vs. them (now), as if the combatants are those already involved in the fray. Thankfully, there are children, who eventually grow up and join in the battles. I remember when I was one of those young people doing what I could to denounce socialism, behaviorism, and all the rest: it seemed as if I had managed to choose the losing side on just about every issue I was aware of (including in philosophy and in my own field of physics!). And, yet, on many of those issues the "fringe" views I held fifty years ago are now the mainstream views.

    How did this happen? I'm not quite sure. I think that an awful lot of social life happens "below the radar" with ordinary people thinking about things and discussing them in small groups and then, all of a sudden, it turns out that society has changed.

    The fall of the Soviet Union, the collapse of Jim Crow, Brexit, the Trump phenomenon -- I have seen this happen again and again and again.

    Yes, progrss is not automatic: it depends on human action. But often even those bringing about the progressive changes do not realize they are doing it until, one day, the world is different.

    Thankfully, the course of human events can not be controlled or even predicted from the top down.

    Some crazy dude in backward, largely illiterate, nineteenth-century Russia of all places made the discovery.

    This is a little gratuitous. While born in Siberia, Mendeleev was educated, worked, and died in St Petersburg, which was about as advanced as anywhere in Europe at the time; his family were not peasants but educators. Educated, highly literate, detail-oriented middle class people working in a major city are exactly who you expect to make scientific discoveries.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    J. Ross wrote to me:

    This is a little gratuitous [towards Mendeleev]
     
    I'm not trying to insult him: obviously, his contribution to science for otustrips anything I have done.

    But he does seem to have been on the eccentric side, and his family had serious financial hardships. Furthermore, while you say that "St Petersburg... was about as advanced as anywhere in Europe at the time" the truth is that very little came out of Russia in the sciences in the mid-nineteenth century. (Yes, Russia did go through a literary Renaissance in the nineteenth century, and, of course, there was the glorious flowering of late-Romantic music, but science, not so much.)

    I doubt that anyone would have bet that a Russian would find the Rosetta Stone for chemistry.
  150. @Buzz Mohawk
    Yes, he must be talking about ayahuasca. What the shaman told him was true: they believe it's magical and that all the things they experience with it are real. Some dummies up north here do to.

    I did ayahuasca three or four times thirty years ago. It was better than mushrooms or LSD. YMMV. When I did it with my girlfriend it was a fuckfest. We nearly broke a four-poster bed at the Stanley Hotel.

    I wish I had an inappropriate uncle like you I could talk to during family reunions!

  151. @Sean

    Isn’t it true, though, that the “tropical paradise” is a double-edged sword? Food supplies are plentiful, but so are parasites and disease.
     
    That is true and testosterone seems to make one more more vulnerable to infections disease. So where food is easy to get the men are in competition for women that pick the high T men and the population will get more vulnerable to infectious disease.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11419954

    Evidence is presented that melanization of skin and other tissues forms an important component of the innate immune defense system. A major function of melanocytes, melanosomes and melanin in skin is to inhibit the proliferation of bacterial, fungal and other parasitic infections of the dermis and epidermis. This function can potentially explain (a) the latitudinal gradient in melanization of human skin; (b) the fact that melanocyte and melanization patterns among different parts of the vertebrate body do not reflect exposure to radiation; (c) provide a theoretical framework for recent empirical findings concerning the antimicrobial activity of melanocytes and melanosomes and their regulation by known mediators of inflammatory responses.
     
    So high testosterone promotes black skin.

    Darker skin. Compare an Urkel to a Bronze Age Pervert and BAP will have more than him, yet be much whiter. Comparisons are only apt within a homogeneous group.

  152. @BB753
    It depends on your definition on "rare". My point was that Jews could have picked up the revelant genes in Italy and have them spread among their population widely through some selection constraint.

    Isn’t it plausible that natural selection favored Jews in Northern Europe whose appearance resembled their hosts’?

    • Replies: @Lot
    That's what happened. Though it was probably mostly sexual selection.
  153. @Pincher Martin

    The latter two are awesome and in no way fearful.

    Reich is doing groundbreaking work on touchy subjects and has a wide audience. You really want him to mix that up with right-wing politics?
     

    Read my very next post to the one you responded (currently #92), and you'll see that isn't true. I don't care about their politics.

    But shading and avoiding the truth to cater to the boobs should no longer be acceptable. (Chua doesn't even belong in the company of Murray, Reich, and Pinker, by the way.)

    (Chua doesn’t even belong in the company of Murray, Reich, and Pinker, by the way.)

    Is that supposed to be an insult? Or a compliment?

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Is that supposed to be an insult? Or a compliment?
     
    She's not a social scientist. I suppose you can take that as an insult or a compliment. I've read a couple of her books and found neither one impressive on these topics.
  154. @PhysicistDave
    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    If you read Greg closely, you should have already noted that social scientists and biologists a hundred years ago had a better idea of the biological grounding of mankind than their peers do today. And on less evidence!
     
    Well, sometimes. You know anything about the "Virginia Public Choice School" in economics -- Jim Buchanan, Gordon Tullock et al.? Buchanan (who had a Nobel) once said that all they were really doing was taking what the Founders understood about politics and putting it in terms twentieth-century social scientists could understand!

    So, I take your point.

    On the other hand, some progress in areas relevant to social science is real, sometimes as a result of conceptual advances, often as a result of new (observational or historical) data:

    For example, we now understand that usually evolution works at the level of the gene, not the species. If some gene will increase the chance of its bearer passing that gene on to future generations, it will tend to spread, even if it damages the survival chances of the group of which its bearer is a member.

    This really was not that well understood until George Williams' Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought was published in 1966.

    And the reason that a modern industrial economy could not be centrally planned was not really grasped by economists until Mises and, especially, Hayek explained the decentralized nature of economic knowledge and how that decentralized knowledge is coordinated by the price system. Of course the disastrous (mal)functioning of the Soviet central planning system was also key empirical evidence that buttressed Hayek's analysis.

    The Minnesota twins' study provided crucial empirical support that genes were critical not just in physical aspects of development but also in behavioral aspects.

    Doctrinaire Keynesianism died under the "stagflation" of the '70s: yes, I wish that textbooks would stop paying obeisance of any sort to Keynes, but if you look at a modern text such as Mankiw's, it is a little bit of Keynes and a lot of narginalist/neoclassical analysis.

    Freudianism and behaviorism collapsed under their own weight: after a few decades, it just became clear they did not work.

    PM also wrote:

    Yes, many intellectual fashions have fallen out of favor, but they haven’t been replaced by a commitment to the truth. They’ve been replaced by new intellectual fashions.
     
    Well... what "new intellectual fashions" have replaced the fallacies I've just mentioned?

    Idiots still call themselves "socialists" and from time to time Keynesian nostrums are still pushed, but neither have the definiteness and self-confidence of their forebears. The replacements for Freudianism and behaviorism are evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, and neuro-psychology: for all their ongoing problems (the replication crisis, etc. -- but at least they admit there is a replication crisis!), the psych guys are somewhat saner than fifty years ago.

    More broadly, both doctrinaire religious beliefs and doctrinaire materialism are much less common than fifty years ago: as far as I can tell, most philosophers are no longer doctrinaire materialists (they are learning to say, "I don't know" when they don't know).

    I know that we have very, very serious problems with our society: The American imperialism and garrison state instituted by the Progressives and solidified by FDR and Truman has proven to be a disaster, but people are actually talking about this now on both Right and Left. Our monetary and financial system (thank you again, our Progressive forebears!) is intrinsically unstable. Our education system (again instituted by Progressives and gelled under FDR and Truman) is a joke, but people are starting to look for alternatives. Our medical system, the unthinking efforts to destroy traditional families, the attempts to pretend that children can function as adults... yeah, it's all a mess.

    But... it's all a mess because bad ideas and decisions from the past continue into effect for a long time. We are living with the consequences of idiotic ideas from the early twentieth century.

    But, I also think I have made a case above that those bad ideas are sometimes being replaced by correct ideas. Progress is possible.

    Okay, that's my case for (long-term) optimism.

    Your turn.

    Dave

    For example, we now understand that usually evolution works at the level of the gene, not the species.

    Except that’s a vast oversimplification. There are a number of other levels at which evolution works.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    ben tillman wrote to me:


    [Dave]For example, we now understand that usually evolution works at the level of the gene, not the species.
     
    [ben]Except that’s a vast oversimplification. There are a number of other levels at which evolution works.
     
    Well, in principle. In practice, it's hard to make that work: selection at the level of the gene tends to trump selection at the level of the group or species (see Williams' classic Adaptation and Natural Selection). That is why I did hedge with "usually": I don't kow of any plausible case of "higher-level" selection, but, yes, it is not impossible in theory.
  155. @ben tillman

    (Chua doesn’t even belong in the company of Murray, Reich, and Pinker, by the way.)
     
    Is that supposed to be an insult? Or a compliment?

    Is that supposed to be an insult? Or a compliment?

    She’s not a social scientist. I suppose you can take that as an insult or a compliment. I’ve read a couple of her books and found neither one impressive on these topics.

  156. @moshe
    You can buy shrooms in a store in Amsterdam?

    Also, shouldn't there be an isteve meetup so regaulars can actually press the flesh and share a drink? It strikes me as weird that I've read and responded to so many people whose faces I've never seen. Internet culture is cool but it is also quite counter to how we evolved to interact with people and causes a lot of harm that could be avoided if more people met each other. Based on nothing more than a pic on this blog I recognized Masha Gessen in the hall of Columbia University and went over to talk with her. We disagree of course but the sort of venom that is spat betwixed the lite-altright and Masha herself vanishes when two humans meet as human beings. Based on some pic I probably saw here as well I also recognized and went over to Shaun King in The Strand (bookstore) and on another occasion Malcolm Gladwell on 27th and Madison.

    People thought back in the 90s that the internet would bring us all together but rhe world of the internet is generally an ugly and lonely world. We evolved to communicate face to face and I miss that.

    Oh, in case anyone is interested, Gladwell is shorter and whiter than you would expect and also incredibly polite for someone who was interrupted while he was on the phone (he was waiting to cross the street and I was going a different way so apologetically interrupting his call for a moment was my preference). Masha Gessen isn't a name but a person. A regular woman. One who shouldn't be attempting to influence the world too much perhaps but just a lady and not worthy of receiving the mockery and loathing that she receives in print -- or writes in print. And Shaun King was the best. I told him point blank that I pretty much disagree with everything he believes (and this at the height of the Black Lives Matter movement) but I did so as a human talking to another human and he was friendly and nice as heck. That's why I always say that I'm sure I'd get along great even with the people who write the most odious things here and the people to whom I on occasion do the same.

    Heck, even the autists at slatestarcodex have face to face meetups around the world all the time. Come to think of it, how about we combine isteve meetups with whatever group of internet open-borders people there are?

    It would definitely be fun. Worse comes to worst we fight it out. Like men. Not anonymii with keypads.

    There are about a dozen “smart shops” that sell mushrooms in Amsterdam. For reasons that are unclear to me, they now call them “truffles” which they are not.

  157. @PhysicistDave
    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    If you read Greg closely, you should have already noted that social scientists and biologists a hundred years ago had a better idea of the biological grounding of mankind than their peers do today. And on less evidence!
     
    Well, sometimes. You know anything about the "Virginia Public Choice School" in economics -- Jim Buchanan, Gordon Tullock et al.? Buchanan (who had a Nobel) once said that all they were really doing was taking what the Founders understood about politics and putting it in terms twentieth-century social scientists could understand!

    So, I take your point.

    On the other hand, some progress in areas relevant to social science is real, sometimes as a result of conceptual advances, often as a result of new (observational or historical) data:

    For example, we now understand that usually evolution works at the level of the gene, not the species. If some gene will increase the chance of its bearer passing that gene on to future generations, it will tend to spread, even if it damages the survival chances of the group of which its bearer is a member.

    This really was not that well understood until George Williams' Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought was published in 1966.

    And the reason that a modern industrial economy could not be centrally planned was not really grasped by economists until Mises and, especially, Hayek explained the decentralized nature of economic knowledge and how that decentralized knowledge is coordinated by the price system. Of course the disastrous (mal)functioning of the Soviet central planning system was also key empirical evidence that buttressed Hayek's analysis.

    The Minnesota twins' study provided crucial empirical support that genes were critical not just in physical aspects of development but also in behavioral aspects.

    Doctrinaire Keynesianism died under the "stagflation" of the '70s: yes, I wish that textbooks would stop paying obeisance of any sort to Keynes, but if you look at a modern text such as Mankiw's, it is a little bit of Keynes and a lot of narginalist/neoclassical analysis.

    Freudianism and behaviorism collapsed under their own weight: after a few decades, it just became clear they did not work.

    PM also wrote:

    Yes, many intellectual fashions have fallen out of favor, but they haven’t been replaced by a commitment to the truth. They’ve been replaced by new intellectual fashions.
     
    Well... what "new intellectual fashions" have replaced the fallacies I've just mentioned?

    Idiots still call themselves "socialists" and from time to time Keynesian nostrums are still pushed, but neither have the definiteness and self-confidence of their forebears. The replacements for Freudianism and behaviorism are evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, and neuro-psychology: for all their ongoing problems (the replication crisis, etc. -- but at least they admit there is a replication crisis!), the psych guys are somewhat saner than fifty years ago.

    More broadly, both doctrinaire religious beliefs and doctrinaire materialism are much less common than fifty years ago: as far as I can tell, most philosophers are no longer doctrinaire materialists (they are learning to say, "I don't know" when they don't know).

    I know that we have very, very serious problems with our society: The American imperialism and garrison state instituted by the Progressives and solidified by FDR and Truman has proven to be a disaster, but people are actually talking about this now on both Right and Left. Our monetary and financial system (thank you again, our Progressive forebears!) is intrinsically unstable. Our education system (again instituted by Progressives and gelled under FDR and Truman) is a joke, but people are starting to look for alternatives. Our medical system, the unthinking efforts to destroy traditional families, the attempts to pretend that children can function as adults... yeah, it's all a mess.

    But... it's all a mess because bad ideas and decisions from the past continue into effect for a long time. We are living with the consequences of idiotic ideas from the early twentieth century.

    But, I also think I have made a case above that those bad ideas are sometimes being replaced by correct ideas. Progress is possible.

    Okay, that's my case for (long-term) optimism.

    Your turn.

    Dave

    I don’t share your optimism, but at least you appreciate some first-rate thinkers. The Mises/Hayek insight regarding the price mechanism was impressive and influential. I read The Calculus of Consent and was impressed with the quality of the authors’ intellect. But a lot of fundamental insights are not incorporated into public policy, especially the insight that you will get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax. Yet we tax the productive and subsidize the non-productive.

  158. @ben tillman
    Isn't it plausible that natural selection favored Jews in Northern Europe whose appearance resembled their hosts'?

    That’s what happened. Though it was probably mostly sexual selection.

  159. @Sean

    Isn’t it true, though, that the “tropical paradise” is a double-edged sword? Food supplies are plentiful, but so are parasites and disease.
     
    That is true and testosterone seems to make one more more vulnerable to infections disease. So where food is easy to get the men are in competition for women that pick the high T men and the population will get more vulnerable to infectious disease.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11419954

    Evidence is presented that melanization of skin and other tissues forms an important component of the innate immune defense system. A major function of melanocytes, melanosomes and melanin in skin is to inhibit the proliferation of bacterial, fungal and other parasitic infections of the dermis and epidermis. This function can potentially explain (a) the latitudinal gradient in melanization of human skin; (b) the fact that melanocyte and melanization patterns among different parts of the vertebrate body do not reflect exposure to radiation; (c) provide a theoretical framework for recent empirical findings concerning the antimicrobial activity of melanocytes and melanosomes and their regulation by known mediators of inflammatory responses.
     
    So high testosterone promotes black skin.

    Evidence is presented that melanization of skin and other tissues forms an important component of the innate immune defense system.

    Very interesting.

    I suppose one counter-observation is that palms and soles of feet are without melanin, although these would seemingly be the areas most likely to come into contact with pathogens.

    On the other hand, I remember reading somewhere that black men are actually a bit darker on average than black women. If true, that would be consistent with the theory that melanin is partly an immunological defense, and that this defense is more important to individuals with higher T. (But then again, if the immunological-T-melanin connection were really strong, you’d expect men in tropical regions to have a lot more melanin than the females.)

  160. @Colin Wright
    '...One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.'

    I'm touched. For one, having grown up under some less-than-sheltered circumstances, and having both been a bully and been bullied, it's pretty clear to me that displaying 'machismo' and a willingness to engage in violence is an excellent way of deterring aggression. Your basic bully usually doesn't want a fight. Even if he feels confident he'll win it, he'll pick a victim who won't offer resistance over one who will. I can distinctly recall both driving off some aggressors and being deterred from harassing people who physically were much smaller than me. In both cases, the operative factor was a willingness to go down fighting.

    For another, fairly obviously, those who manage to suppress their drive for dominance will wind up at the bottom of whatever pile they belong to -- and worse, ruled by those who may otherwise be less fit than they to decide what should be done. If I feel confident I should be in charge, I might be right. Perhaps I should go for it.

    I think men are the way they are for some excellent reasons, and pending a far more profound understanding of human culture and its mechanisms than what we currently possess, we should be loathe to tinker with the machinery. People like Pinker won't be doing anyone who listens to them any favors. Then too, any successful culture should really accord with human nature. If half of the species is inclined to violence, 'machismo,' and a will to dominate, then the thing to do is to structure society accordingly, not try to remake the people the society is for in the first place.

    If few women found machismo attractive, it would have been bred out of our lineage. Sleeping with bad boys is a surefire way to solidify their continued existence.

    On the other end, The hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world. Mothers must be nurturing some of these behaviors decried as toxic if one subscribes to the blank slate.

    Either way women can carry some if the burden for the masculinity they supposedly don’t like.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Aggression is a trait that doesn't necessarily perpetuate itself through sexual selection. In fact, it seems like the trait most tangential to sexual selection. If Ug really wants to get with Uggette, her level of attraction to him isn't necessarily relevant.
  161. @moshe
    You can buy shrooms in a store in Amsterdam?

    Also, shouldn't there be an isteve meetup so regaulars can actually press the flesh and share a drink? It strikes me as weird that I've read and responded to so many people whose faces I've never seen. Internet culture is cool but it is also quite counter to how we evolved to interact with people and causes a lot of harm that could be avoided if more people met each other. Based on nothing more than a pic on this blog I recognized Masha Gessen in the hall of Columbia University and went over to talk with her. We disagree of course but the sort of venom that is spat betwixed the lite-altright and Masha herself vanishes when two humans meet as human beings. Based on some pic I probably saw here as well I also recognized and went over to Shaun King in The Strand (bookstore) and on another occasion Malcolm Gladwell on 27th and Madison.

    People thought back in the 90s that the internet would bring us all together but rhe world of the internet is generally an ugly and lonely world. We evolved to communicate face to face and I miss that.

    Oh, in case anyone is interested, Gladwell is shorter and whiter than you would expect and also incredibly polite for someone who was interrupted while he was on the phone (he was waiting to cross the street and I was going a different way so apologetically interrupting his call for a moment was my preference). Masha Gessen isn't a name but a person. A regular woman. One who shouldn't be attempting to influence the world too much perhaps but just a lady and not worthy of receiving the mockery and loathing that she receives in print -- or writes in print. And Shaun King was the best. I told him point blank that I pretty much disagree with everything he believes (and this at the height of the Black Lives Matter movement) but I did so as a human talking to another human and he was friendly and nice as heck. That's why I always say that I'm sure I'd get along great even with the people who write the most odious things here and the people to whom I on occasion do the same.

    Heck, even the autists at slatestarcodex have face to face meetups around the world all the time. Come to think of it, how about we combine isteve meetups with whatever group of internet open-borders people there are?

    It would definitely be fun. Worse comes to worst we fight it out. Like men. Not anonymii with keypads.

    Also, shouldn’t there be an isteve meetup so regaulars can actually press the flesh and share a drink?

    Not a bad idea. Of course, it wouldn’t be everyone’s cup of tea as a lot of people are concerned with anonymity. Maybe we need secret handshakes and a password. An iSteve (Semi) Secret Society, if you will.

    When I was a kid in the 70’s my father used to host Mensa meetings with an invited speaker and drinks/mingling afterward. Even as a kid I could tell they were an eccentric and eclectic bunch of nerds. But they seemed to have a good time.

    We even had a guy named Wozniack show up once to demonstrate some device he was working on. Wonder what ever became of that guy . . .

  162. @donut
    But your shit is weaker still Abraham . You know when we are alone we mock your Holohoax story , your sacred texts . We laugh because your American "allies" are as false as you . You arrogant fools . In the future we'll have "Ann Franks Porno Komicks for Kids" . Anti-Semitism is alive and well . Believe that .

    Keep dreaming, keep losing.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Do you understand that Schadenfreude triggers anti-Semitism? I'm not crazy about Palestinians, but where are they being carted to in your map?
    , @donut
    Lots of us are dreaming Abraham , more than you can imagine .
  163. @moshe
    You can buy shrooms in a store in Amsterdam?

    Also, shouldn't there be an isteve meetup so regaulars can actually press the flesh and share a drink? It strikes me as weird that I've read and responded to so many people whose faces I've never seen. Internet culture is cool but it is also quite counter to how we evolved to interact with people and causes a lot of harm that could be avoided if more people met each other. Based on nothing more than a pic on this blog I recognized Masha Gessen in the hall of Columbia University and went over to talk with her. We disagree of course but the sort of venom that is spat betwixed the lite-altright and Masha herself vanishes when two humans meet as human beings. Based on some pic I probably saw here as well I also recognized and went over to Shaun King in The Strand (bookstore) and on another occasion Malcolm Gladwell on 27th and Madison.

    People thought back in the 90s that the internet would bring us all together but rhe world of the internet is generally an ugly and lonely world. We evolved to communicate face to face and I miss that.

    Oh, in case anyone is interested, Gladwell is shorter and whiter than you would expect and also incredibly polite for someone who was interrupted while he was on the phone (he was waiting to cross the street and I was going a different way so apologetically interrupting his call for a moment was my preference). Masha Gessen isn't a name but a person. A regular woman. One who shouldn't be attempting to influence the world too much perhaps but just a lady and not worthy of receiving the mockery and loathing that she receives in print -- or writes in print. And Shaun King was the best. I told him point blank that I pretty much disagree with everything he believes (and this at the height of the Black Lives Matter movement) but I did so as a human talking to another human and he was friendly and nice as heck. That's why I always say that I'm sure I'd get along great even with the people who write the most odious things here and the people to whom I on occasion do the same.

    Heck, even the autists at slatestarcodex have face to face meetups around the world all the time. Come to think of it, how about we combine isteve meetups with whatever group of internet open-borders people there are?

    It would definitely be fun. Worse comes to worst we fight it out. Like men. Not anonymii with keypads.

    I do the posited and share isteve columns with people I already know.

    My aunt met Jesse Jackson. He was very personable and friendly but his smile did fade as she amiably told him he was a liar and a hypocrite.

  164. @PhysicistDave
    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    If you read Greg closely, you should have already noted that social scientists and biologists a hundred years ago had a better idea of the biological grounding of mankind than their peers do today. And on less evidence!
     
    Well, sometimes. You know anything about the "Virginia Public Choice School" in economics -- Jim Buchanan, Gordon Tullock et al.? Buchanan (who had a Nobel) once said that all they were really doing was taking what the Founders understood about politics and putting it in terms twentieth-century social scientists could understand!

    So, I take your point.

    On the other hand, some progress in areas relevant to social science is real, sometimes as a result of conceptual advances, often as a result of new (observational or historical) data:

    For example, we now understand that usually evolution works at the level of the gene, not the species. If some gene will increase the chance of its bearer passing that gene on to future generations, it will tend to spread, even if it damages the survival chances of the group of which its bearer is a member.

    This really was not that well understood until George Williams' Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought was published in 1966.

    And the reason that a modern industrial economy could not be centrally planned was not really grasped by economists until Mises and, especially, Hayek explained the decentralized nature of economic knowledge and how that decentralized knowledge is coordinated by the price system. Of course the disastrous (mal)functioning of the Soviet central planning system was also key empirical evidence that buttressed Hayek's analysis.

    The Minnesota twins' study provided crucial empirical support that genes were critical not just in physical aspects of development but also in behavioral aspects.

    Doctrinaire Keynesianism died under the "stagflation" of the '70s: yes, I wish that textbooks would stop paying obeisance of any sort to Keynes, but if you look at a modern text such as Mankiw's, it is a little bit of Keynes and a lot of narginalist/neoclassical analysis.

    Freudianism and behaviorism collapsed under their own weight: after a few decades, it just became clear they did not work.

    PM also wrote:

    Yes, many intellectual fashions have fallen out of favor, but they haven’t been replaced by a commitment to the truth. They’ve been replaced by new intellectual fashions.
     
    Well... what "new intellectual fashions" have replaced the fallacies I've just mentioned?

    Idiots still call themselves "socialists" and from time to time Keynesian nostrums are still pushed, but neither have the definiteness and self-confidence of their forebears. The replacements for Freudianism and behaviorism are evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, and neuro-psychology: for all their ongoing problems (the replication crisis, etc. -- but at least they admit there is a replication crisis!), the psych guys are somewhat saner than fifty years ago.

    More broadly, both doctrinaire religious beliefs and doctrinaire materialism are much less common than fifty years ago: as far as I can tell, most philosophers are no longer doctrinaire materialists (they are learning to say, "I don't know" when they don't know).

    I know that we have very, very serious problems with our society: The American imperialism and garrison state instituted by the Progressives and solidified by FDR and Truman has proven to be a disaster, but people are actually talking about this now on both Right and Left. Our monetary and financial system (thank you again, our Progressive forebears!) is intrinsically unstable. Our education system (again instituted by Progressives and gelled under FDR and Truman) is a joke, but people are starting to look for alternatives. Our medical system, the unthinking efforts to destroy traditional families, the attempts to pretend that children can function as adults... yeah, it's all a mess.

    But... it's all a mess because bad ideas and decisions from the past continue into effect for a long time. We are living with the consequences of idiotic ideas from the early twentieth century.

    But, I also think I have made a case above that those bad ideas are sometimes being replaced by correct ideas. Progress is possible.

    Okay, that's my case for (long-term) optimism.

    Your turn.

    Dave

    Well… what “new intellectual fashions” have replaced the fallacies I’ve just mentioned?

    Various forms of identity politics and multicultural crap, of course. They were important thirty years ago (mainly as just part of the ongoing traditional civil rights’ issues between blacks and whites), but over the last fifteen years they have moved front and center in our academic and political debates and moved far beyond the treatment of African-Americans.

    Environmentalism. I’m not kidding when I say I recently read a history of the Holocaust by Timothy Snyder – Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning – and the main lesson he wants his readers to draw from his book is that a better understanding of how Hitler killed the Jews can better prepare us for how to deal with climate change. And, no, I’m not joking.

    Animal Rights. Peter Singer has, sadly, become one of the most influential intellectuals of the last fifty years. Now that gay rights has become generally accepted in the West, don’t be surprised if bestiality, incest, and polygamy are next. A recent documentary called Dolphin Lover was covered sympathetically in the leftist online media. These guys are always pushing on the edge, no matter where that edge is at.

    All these ideas were out there fifty years ago, but they have now become prominent among lefties in the same way that ideas like economic inequality and disarmament were dominant thirty to forty years ago.

    For example, we now understand that usually evolution works at the level of the gene, not the species. If some gene will increase the chance of its bearer passing that gene on to future generations, it will tend to spread, even if it damages the survival chances of the group of which its bearer is a member.

    This is not necessarily social science. In fact, if you apply this insight to man’s genetic legacy and then work out a few reasonable inferences from it, you stand a good chance of being ostracized from any mainstream scientific group.

    As for your thoughts on economics, don’t fool yourself. Keynesian economics is dominant outside of a few schools, and it’s completely dominant in policy circles. Good luck electing a president from either party whose economic staff doesn’t advise him to stimulate the economy whenever there is even a whiff of a recession.

  165. @PhysicistDave
    Pincher Martin wrote:

    Chua doesn’t even belong in the company of Murray, Reich, and Pinker, by the way.
     
    Have you read her recent Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations ? She is trying systematically with her books (even Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother) to warn people, ever so gently, that different cultures and ethnic groups are truly different and that ignoring that fact can lead to catastrophe.

    What does she really think about genes vs. culture? I don't know: although she is a Chinese girl who married a Jewish guy, so I can sort of guess. I think she might say that, regardless of the relative contribution of genes vs. culture, the simple point that people need to grasp is that different cultures and ethnic groups really, truly are different.

    And, surely that is an important message for our society to hear.

    I’ve read a couple of her books, but not the one you mention. She’s nothing special. First, she’s a lawyer, not a scientist, and she writes like a lawyer.

    Second, I don’t recall Chua saying group differences were innate. If you have evidence that she has done so in one of the books I haven’t read, I’d certainly like to see it. As far as I can recall, her opinion appears to be more in line with the hard cultural constructs of Thomas Sowell. And if I have to read that kind of book, I’d much rather read Sowell than Chua.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Pincher martin wrote to me:S

    econd, I don’t recall Chua saying group differences were innate. If you have evidence that she has done so in one of the books I haven’t read, I’d certainly like to see it.
     
    I think she's carefully sterring away from that. No one can fight battles on all fronts simultaneously. As yoou say, like Sowell.

    By the way, you know, surely some group differences are cultural and not innate.

  166. @moshe
    Thanks, YetAnother. Have you been there by the way? Or elsewhere in Africa? This blog grew out of an interest in Human Biodiversity so I would expect that there are others here who enjoy going out into the field to adventure human biodiversity out in the field.

    As for the yellow shot price, yeah, still beyond my budget. That's kinna why the antisemitism here bothers me on a personal level. It's based in a strong belief in overwhelming Jewish tribalism which is what antisemitism has always been based on. It has almost always begun on account of jealousy/loathing of the Elites or Rich but was simplified and made safer by changing Class Consciousness into Jew Consciousness because Jews were overrepresented among the wealthy and were more conspicuous and a safer target than the ruling class in general. So,to make a book-length point in a paragraph, local antisems increase the odds of danger occuring to me even though I'm not remotely among the ruling class.

    I consider the local general approach to The Jewish Question inaccurate inasmuch as it is a stupidification of who is really oppressing whom, but for a fella who doesn't even generally identify as Jewish at all (but would be regarded as one by the alt-right antisems) and isn't benefiting from the above average Jewish Household Income in the United States, this inaccuracy pisses me off inasmuch as it influences actually dangerous people and the general mind.

    It's basically a whole lot of people stoking hatred of me because they think I have something I don't even have. (((Jewish Privilege)))

    Back to travel and pills n' all. I think I'm good on tetanus and I know I'm good on rabies (I actually went through a whole series of shots after being bitten by a cat in Istanbul.) My primary concern isn't government regulations (I think Jamaica required that I have the shot after visiting Columbia but they let me through anyway) but actually getting sick and/or dying. Mosquitos and other small flies eat me like I'm made of candy which is why I have good reason to worry about catching anything they might offer. Come to think of it I may have had yellow fever inoculation before going to South Africa a dozen years ago when I was 25.

    Anyhow, are there hunter-gatherers of any kind that live in a relatively safe environment that I can stay with for a month on the cheap? Has anyone here done it?

    “It’s based in a strong belief in overwhelming Jewish tribalism which is what antisemitism has always been based on. It has almost always begun on account of jealousy/loathing of the Elites or Rich but was simplified and made safer by changing Class Consciousness into Jew Consciousness because Jews were overrepresented among the wealthy and were more conspicuous and a safer target than the ruling class in general.”

    Complete nonsense. Anti-semitism has always been a direct response to Jewish behavior. Always. Yet Jews won’t even own it once, for any time or place.

    • Replies: @lavoisier

    Complete nonsense. Anti-semitism has always been a direct response to Jewish behavior. Always. Yet Jews won’t even own it once, for any time or place.
     
    This is the centrality of the matter, is it not?

    But I have kind of changed over time from directing most of my anger towards the destructive actions of the Jewish elite back to the gentile whores who do their bidding.

    Jewish mischief can only go so far without the aid and abetting of far too many stupid and greedy gentiles who willingly sell out their people and their nation for the sake of a few pieces of silver.

    Look at what the whores in Congress have done recently with trying to criminalize support for the BDS movement.

    These bastards are the real traitors.

    At least the members of the tribe are loyal to their own.
  167. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @kihowi

    If we are talking about Hitler (whose last words were said to be “what an artist dies in me”)
     
    dude...

    Anyway, apart from the difficulty of keeping romans and nazis apart, I did read a story (might in Irving somewhere) of one of uncle adolfs friends who said that he used to be entirely apolitical, until they went out to see Rienzi in Vienna after which he had a different look in his eyes and started talking about heimats and lebensraums.

    Robert Griffin talks about this in his biography of William Pierce:

    August (“Gustl”) Kubizek (3 August 1888 – 23 October 1956) was an Austrian man best known for being a close friend of Adolf Hitler, when both were in their late teens. He later wrote about their friendship in his book The Young Hitler I Knew (1955).

    Another summary:

    August Kubizek met Adolf Hitler in 1904 while they competed for standing room at the opera. Kubizek describes a reticent young man, painfully shy, yet capable of bursting into hysterical fits of anger if anyone disagreed with him. But they grew close, often talking for hours on end. In 1908, they began sharing an apartment in Vienna. After being rejected twice from art school, Hitler found himself sinking into an unkind world of “constant unappeasable hunger.” Kubizek did not meet his friend again until he congratulated him on becoming Chancellor of Germany. The Young Hitler I Knew tells the story of an extraordinary friendship, and gives fascinating insight into Hitler’s character during these formative years.

    Griffin’s summation is best, and can be found in his book, readily downloadable as a free .pdf with his consent.

  168. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @FPD72
    I’ve been told by oil and gas contractors who work in the Eagle Ford shale in South Texas that it is common to find private taps in natural gas flow lines.

    In the old days the natural gas wells would collect a fluid called “casing head gasoline” or just “case” in the well casing. It was a nuisance but the well operators would allow all and sundry to drain some off and use it for gasoline. It was a piss poor motor fuel but Model T’s and A’s would run on the stuff and many of the old Arkies and Okies tapped the stuff off on their way to California in their jalopies.

  169. @Anonymous
    To be clear, in India the left liberals love love love the Aryan invasion theory.

    It gives them the opportunity to paint upper caste Hindus in the same brush as white South Africans, Israeli Jews and European Americans.

    “white South Africans, Israeli jews and European Americans”

    one of these things is not like the other. one of these things just doesn’t belong.

  170. @PhysicistDave
    YetAnotherAnon wrote (quoting the NYT quoting Pinker):

    Pinker suggested rather that

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.
     
    I keep trying to tell everyone here that Pinker (and Dave Reich and Amy Chua and Charles Murray) are among the good guys!

    I recently talked to a young woman who was on a date with a guy when one of her date's buddies started physically assaulting her. Her date did nothing. She managed to deal with it herself.

    Needless to say, she never dated that weenie again!

    Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.

    Perhaps we are more at danger from "toxic wimpishness" than "toxic masculinity."

    I’m all for feminism and empowering them wymyn. I say let them stew in their own juice. There ain’t such a thing as a free meal (male).

  171. @Moshe
    I like exploring human societies at the edges too. Is this something you do regularly? Was it cheap? I have explored many of the odd cultures in the United States, from The Nation of Islam (great stories) to various odd Polygamous Mormon split-off groups to bank robbers and cops on the beat in numerous small towns and big cities to the Satmar Rebbe of Kiryas Joel (I drove him and his nuclear family around) to Mennonites of various sorts to Spiritualists to Scientologists, etc. Beyond the borders I've explored less, but luckily the most interesting places tend to be the cheapest so I can speak to matters pertaining to lesser explored cultures of the Middle East pretty well too.

    But I've never lived with hunter-gatherers or, for that matter, been in the Amazon at all. Did you spend some time with amazonian pre-civilized societies or other uniquely interesting groups of people and was it cheap to get there and did you take any special shots or pills to stave off malaria and whatnot?

    I cannot afford special shots and pills but I'm very interested in visiting interesting or odd small societies in Africa. Does anyone have experience with that? A place sufficiently safe and cheap to get to and stay for awhile that is also very different from Western societies?

    You can afford a plane ticket but not a $100 yellow fever shot? Please do not reinforce antisemitic stereoptypes, lol!
    Since you’re looking for a primitive yet safe setting, Detroit or Camden are excluded.
    Seriously, I’d avoid Africa altogether and try to approach some South East Asian or Austronesian (trigger alert!) Negrito tribe.

  172. @moshe
    You can buy shrooms in a store in Amsterdam?

    Also, shouldn't there be an isteve meetup so regaulars can actually press the flesh and share a drink? It strikes me as weird that I've read and responded to so many people whose faces I've never seen. Internet culture is cool but it is also quite counter to how we evolved to interact with people and causes a lot of harm that could be avoided if more people met each other. Based on nothing more than a pic on this blog I recognized Masha Gessen in the hall of Columbia University and went over to talk with her. We disagree of course but the sort of venom that is spat betwixed the lite-altright and Masha herself vanishes when two humans meet as human beings. Based on some pic I probably saw here as well I also recognized and went over to Shaun King in The Strand (bookstore) and on another occasion Malcolm Gladwell on 27th and Madison.

    People thought back in the 90s that the internet would bring us all together but rhe world of the internet is generally an ugly and lonely world. We evolved to communicate face to face and I miss that.

    Oh, in case anyone is interested, Gladwell is shorter and whiter than you would expect and also incredibly polite for someone who was interrupted while he was on the phone (he was waiting to cross the street and I was going a different way so apologetically interrupting his call for a moment was my preference). Masha Gessen isn't a name but a person. A regular woman. One who shouldn't be attempting to influence the world too much perhaps but just a lady and not worthy of receiving the mockery and loathing that she receives in print -- or writes in print. And Shaun King was the best. I told him point blank that I pretty much disagree with everything he believes (and this at the height of the Black Lives Matter movement) but I did so as a human talking to another human and he was friendly and nice as heck. That's why I always say that I'm sure I'd get along great even with the people who write the most odious things here and the people to whom I on occasion do the same.

    Heck, even the autists at slatestarcodex have face to face meetups around the world all the time. Come to think of it, how about we combine isteve meetups with whatever group of internet open-borders people there are?

    It would definitely be fun. Worse comes to worst we fight it out. Like men. Not anonymii with keypads.

    ” Masha Gessen isn’t a name but a person. A regular woman. ”

    Are you sure she is a woman?

    You know, Moshe, your invitation to meet in person sounds actually creepy. Do you work for the SPLC?

    • Replies: @anonymous
    BB573 - do you know that, whether or not you are on the spectrum, you could not have written a more autistic or Aspergerian reply?

    There are clinicians and therapists who can help you overcome that. If you are a vet, or have previously qualified for medicare, or if you live near a teaching hospital with a good psychiatric staff, you can probably get therapy for free.


    Stop insulting people, and people will think more highly of you.

    , @J.Ross
    I had this thought also. Masha Gessen is literally an unhinged genocide apologist (not effectively but directly) who talks nonchalantly and killing millions of people and who does so because of a desire to normalize the unnatural. I don't care what her good side looks like.
    I suppose someone else has posted it but it's relevant to this: a stand-up comedian nobody has heard of has said he wants to see the Catholic school kids who did nothing at a rally die and be tortured. Happily, these kids have responded and talked about lawyers (which, to further joy, they can afford).
    It is time for us to be as conveniently sensitive as our enemies, and to slap down any insulting naiveté about PC lawfare not existing and free speech thriving. I had lunch recently with some boomers who pretty much just crawled out of bomb shelters.
  173. @Lot
    Keep dreaming, keep losing.

    https://newspunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Disappearing-PalestineL.png

    https://i.imgur.com/kWQXYIer.jpg

    Do you understand that Schadenfreude triggers anti-Semitism? I’m not crazy about Palestinians, but where are they being carted to in your map?

    • Replies: @would smashionalist

    Do you understand that Schadenfreude triggers anti-Semitism?
     
    That's a feature, not a bug.
    , @Lot
    "Do you understand that Schadenfreude triggers anti-Semitism"

    If that's truly the price of lulz, so be it. But I'm not so pessimistic.
  174. Here’s a reader comment appearing under a book review today in Areo magazine that touches upon the coming attack on Mr. Reich. It’s received more “likes” than any comment I’ve ever seen on Areo. And no dislikes.

    “This review only flits around the reason that I believe that the scientific method is coming under intensified and coordinated attack from the activist left in academia –- and that reason is preemption. It has to do with cutting off the opposing army before it can land the final devastating and humiliating blow: Direct evidence for the genetic basis of important group differences.

    2018 was a year in which you began to get the sense that the environmentalists in the nature-versus-nurture debate on differences in individual cognitive and behavioral traits finally threw in the towel. Huge genome-wide-association studies (GWAS) and tools like polygenic risk scoring took over where twin studies had fairly convincingly left off, but added the coup de grace –- hundreds of specific genes and variants were identified and associated with traits and outcomes like cognition and educational attainment

    As the year faded, standard bearers for the left like the New York Times, the Guardian, and New Statesman -– each aggressively hostile over the years to genetic arguments (the case of Nicholas Wade at the NYT is an example of what happens when you dare to go against the environmental orthodoxy) –- began to start to walk a tightrope across the chasm between what their readers (indoctrinated in the pleasantries of the blank slate religion) wanted to read and what science was actually saying. Sometimes you had to read between the lines, but the message was clear: We’ve got some bad news for you. To be able to maintain any credibility among the scientists doing the most important research, these papers all realized that they had to back down from their pro-environment positions, and they did.

    And so, with respect to individual differences in these traits, the verdict appeared to be in: Genes had finally won. This was especially true with respect to intelligence. It is now estimated -– based upon large studies conducted over the last several years — that by mid-adulthood about eighty percent of individual differences in intelligence can be explained by genes. With respect to certain executive cognitive functions, a large study found that up to 100 percent of these are heritable.

    But the genes-versus-environment battle over individual differences isn’t the big one for the left. The big one -– potentially Armageddon –- is the battle over group differences. A genetic basis for the consistent and significant gaps in IQ between racial groups (e.g., a staggering twenty-point difference between African Americans and Asian-Americans) has the potential of destroying the foundation upon which much of the progressive-left project in the US has been built, leaving it no more excuses, no more facile blame-throwing at “oppressive social forces.” The statistical and empirical evidence for a genetic basis for racial IQ gaps –- called “circumstantial” by the left –- is already overwhelming, consisting as it does of IQ data from over 500,000 persons obtained through a variety of different scientifically-validated tests (some actually deliberately designed to skew toward blacks or against Asians), adoption studies, racial admixture studies, controlled-for-SES studies, brain studies, and so on. The desperation of the left, evidenced in tactics such as its endless smear campaigns against honorable and respected scientists like Arthur Jensen, suggests that it quietly (and perhaps even subconsciously) suspects that the worst is true. Otherwise, why would it so aggressively fight against the idea of funding for rigorous scientific research which should, to their way of thinking, ultimately produce the promised egalitarian result?

    If 2018 was the year in which the genes-versus-environment battle over individual differences was finally decided in favor of genes, then 2019 is already shaping up as a year in which a preemptive strike by the activist left in the battle over group differences is going to be launched. Is Science Racist? is just a bit player in this spectacle. Most of it is going to play out in places like the New York Times, which in the past two weeks alone has gone after after James Watson (low-hanging fruit) and now –- predictably after his courageous NYT op-ed back in March 2018 attacking the scientific validity of the notion of race as a purely social construct — even the formidable David Reich. The attacks will be shameless, involve diversions and strawmen like “white supremacy” — shouldn’t it be “northeast Asian supremacy” or “Ashkenazi Jewish” supremacy, anyway? — and, as always, be thin on the actual science. Politically-motivated hacks like Amy Harmon, the NYT’s hitwoman (a science reporter with no training in a scientific field), will interview third-rate scientists with deep activist resumes (or will simply avoid interviewing scientists at all) and avoid eminent figures (like Richard Haier or even James Flynn) who she knows will tell her things that she and her editors and readers don’t want to hear. Institutions like the Times may believe that morality and compassion are on their side, but their fervor and desperation suggest that they already know that science isn’t.”

  175. Here’s a comment by A New Radical Centrism appearing under a book review in Areo magazine today that touches upon the coming coordinated attack on David Reich. It already has more “likes” than any comment I’ve ever seen on Areo. Which is interesting because Areo is a left-leaning site.

    “This review only flits around the reason that I believe that the scientific method is coming under intensified and coordinated attack from the activist left in academia –- and that reason is preemption. It has to do with cutting off the opposing army before it can land the final devastating and humiliating blow: Direct evidence for the genetic basis of important group differences.

    2018 was a year in which you began to get the sense that the environmentalists in the nature-versus-nurture debate on differences in individual cognitive and behavioral traits finally threw in the towel. Huge genome-wide-association studies (GWAS) and tools like polygenic risk scoring took over where twin studies had fairly convincingly left off, but added the coup de grace –- hundreds of specific genes and variants were identified and associated with traits and outcomes like cognition and educational attainment

    As the year faded, standard bearers for the left like the New York Times, the Guardian, and New Statesman -– each aggressively hostile over the years to genetic arguments (the case of Nicholas Wade at the NYT is an example of what happens when you dare to go against the environmental orthodoxy) –- began to start to walk a tightrope across the chasm between what their readers (indoctrinated in the pleasantries of the blank slate religion) wanted to read and what science was actually saying. Sometimes you had to read between the lines, but the message was clear: We’ve got some bad news for you. To be able to maintain any credibility among the scientists doing the most important research, these papers all realized that they had to back down from their pro-environment positions, and they did.

    And so, with respect to individual differences in these traits, the verdict appeared to be in: Genes had finally won. This was especially true with respect to intelligence. It is now estimated -– based upon large studies conducted over the last several years — that by mid-adulthood about eighty percent of individual differences in intelligence can be explained by genes. With respect to certain executive cognitive functions, a large study found that up to 100 percent of these are heritable.

    But the genes-versus-environment battle over individual differences isn’t the big one for the left. The big one -– potentially Armageddon –- is the battle over group differences. A genetic basis for the consistent and significant gaps in IQ between racial groups (e.g., a staggering twenty-point difference between African Americans and Asian-Americans) has the potential of destroying the foundation upon which much of the progressive-left project in the US has been built, leaving it no more excuses, no more facile blame-throwing at “oppressive social forces.” The statistical and empirical evidence for a genetic basis for racial IQ gaps –- called “circumstantial” by the left –- is already overwhelming, consisting as it does of IQ data from over 500,000 persons obtained through a variety of different scientifically-validated tests (some actually deliberately designed to skew toward blacks or against Asians), adoption studies, racial admixture studies, controlled-for-SES studies, brain studies, and so on. The desperation of the left, evidenced in tactics such as its endless smear campaigns against honorable and respected scientists like Arthur Jensen, suggests that it quietly (and perhaps even subconsciously) suspects that the worst is true. Otherwise, why would it so aggressively fight against the idea of funding for rigorous scientific research which should, to their way of thinking, ultimately produce the promised egalitarian result?

    If 2018 was the year in which the genes-versus-environment battle over individual differences was finally decided in favor of genes, then 2019 is already shaping up as a year in which a preemptive strike by the activist left in the battle over group differences is going to be launched. Is Science Racist? is just a bit player in this spectacle. Most of it is going to play out in places like the New York Times, which in the past two weeks alone has gone after after James Watson (low-hanging fruit) and now –- predictably after his courageous NYT op-ed back in March 2018 attacking the scientific validity of the notion of race as a purely social construct — even the formidable David Reich. The attacks will be shameless, involve diversions and strawmen like “white supremacy” — shouldn’t it be “northeast Asian supremacy” or “Ashkenazi Jewish” supremacy, anyway? — and, as always, be thin on the actual science. Politically-motivated hacks like Amy Harmon, the NYT’s hitwoman (a science reporter with no training in a scientific field), will interview third-rate scientists with deep activist resumes (or will simply avoid interviewing scientists at all) and avoid eminent figures (like Richard Haier or even James Flynn) who she knows will tell her things that she and her editors and readers don’t want to hear. Institutions like the Times may believe that morality and compassion are on their side, but their fervor and desperation suggest that they already know that science isn’t.”

  176. @BB753
    Do you understand that Schadenfreude triggers anti-Semitism? I'm not crazy about Palestinians, but where are they being carted to in your map?

    Do you understand that Schadenfreude triggers anti-Semitism?

    That’s a feature, not a bug.

  177. @BB753
    Do you understand that Schadenfreude triggers anti-Semitism? I'm not crazy about Palestinians, but where are they being carted to in your map?

    “Do you understand that Schadenfreude triggers anti-Semitism”

    If that’s truly the price of lulz, so be it. But I’m not so pessimistic.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Yeah, you people are only second to Gypsies in inverse popularity. Keep pushing for that first place but then don't complain about Cossack rides and pogroms.
  178. @PhysicistDave
    YetAnotherAnon wrote (quoting the NYT quoting Pinker):

    Pinker suggested rather that

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.
     
    I keep trying to tell everyone here that Pinker (and Dave Reich and Amy Chua and Charles Murray) are among the good guys!

    I recently talked to a young woman who was on a date with a guy when one of her date's buddies started physically assaulting her. Her date did nothing. She managed to deal with it herself.

    Needless to say, she never dated that weenie again!

    Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.

    Perhaps we are more at danger from "toxic wimpishness" than "toxic masculinity."

    I recently talked to a young woman who was on a date with a guy when one of her date’s buddies started physically assaulting her. Her date did nothing. She managed to deal with it herself.

    Let me guess, the conversation turned to Trump?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Anonymous[215] asked me:

    Let me guess, the conversation turned to Trump?
     
    No, the young woman is in STEM: she is capapble of thinking logically.
  179. @keuril
    I’m partial to this one:
    https://youtu.be/b9GQuZmH2DQ

    Great tune!

    Can’t understand why Twins is not on Spotify.

    Ty Segall is a modern maestro, Stevo, can’t believe you live close to San Francisco and haven’t been to see a Segall concert and reported back to us, goys.

    Instead of going to the latest intersextional SJW movement takeover-space report back to us on a love Ty Segall concert or Oh Sees concert.

    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
    After being posted at Steve Sailer's the original Fuzz One track has been removed from Youtube.

    Only one way to beat those better than you: ban them:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4_COOh4VXw
    , @keuril
    Twins is on Spotify. Search for Ty Segall, then tap All Albums.
    Ty is a very rare talent, reminds me of Anton Newcombe.
  180. @Pat Hannagan
    Great tune!

    Can't understand why Twins is not on Spotify.

    Ty Segall is a modern maestro, Stevo, can't believe you live close to San Francisco and haven't been to see a Segall concert and reported back to us, goys.

    Instead of going to the latest intersextional SJW movement takeover-space report back to us on a love Ty Segall concert or Oh Sees concert.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2GemaJPTuY

    After being posted at Steve Sailer’s the original Fuzz One track has been removed from Youtube.

    Only one way to beat those better than you: ban them:

  181. The only moment their music resonated and hit a spot with White disaffected university students on summer vacation

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_(They_Might_Be_Giants_album)

    Even their own music clip didn’t endear you

    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
    Ted Nugent generations understood all

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c3d7QgZr7g
  182. @Pat Hannagan
    The only moment their music resonated and hit a spot with White disaffected university students on summer vacation

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_(They_Might_Be_Giants_album)

    Even their own music clip didn't endear you

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhjSzjoU7OQ

    Ted Nugent generations understood all

  183. @J.Ross

    Some crazy dude in backward, largely illiterate, nineteenth-century Russia of all places made the discovery.

     

    This is a little gratuitous. While born in Siberia, Mendeleev was educated, worked, and died in St Petersburg, which was about as advanced as anywhere in Europe at the time; his family were not peasants but educators. Educated, highly literate, detail-oriented middle class people working in a major city are exactly who you expect to make scientific discoveries.

    J. Ross wrote to me:

    This is a little gratuitous [towards Mendeleev]

    I’m not trying to insult him: obviously, his contribution to science for otustrips anything I have done.

    But he does seem to have been on the eccentric side, and his family had serious financial hardships. Furthermore, while you say that “St Petersburg… was about as advanced as anywhere in Europe at the time” the truth is that very little came out of Russia in the sciences in the mid-nineteenth century. (Yes, Russia did go through a literary Renaissance in the nineteenth century, and, of course, there was the glorious flowering of late-Romantic music, but science, not so much.)

    I doubt that anyone would have bet that a Russian would find the Rosetta Stone for chemistry.

  184. @Anonymous

    I recently talked to a young woman who was on a date with a guy when one of her date’s buddies started physically assaulting her. Her date did nothing. She managed to deal with it herself.
     
    Let me guess, the conversation turned to Trump?

    Anonymous[215] asked me:

    Let me guess, the conversation turned to Trump?

    No, the young woman is in STEM: she is capapble of thinking logically.

  185. They Might Be Giants is to Australia
    As Edgar Allen Poe was to the French

  186. @Pincher Martin
    I've read a couple of her books, but not the one you mention. She's nothing special. First, she's a lawyer, not a scientist, and she writes like a lawyer.

    Second, I don't recall Chua saying group differences were innate. If you have evidence that she has done so in one of the books I haven't read, I'd certainly like to see it. As far as I can recall, her opinion appears to be more in line with the hard cultural constructs of Thomas Sowell. And if I have to read that kind of book, I'd much rather read Sowell than Chua.

    Pincher martin wrote to me:S

    econd, I don’t recall Chua saying group differences were innate. If you have evidence that she has done so in one of the books I haven’t read, I’d certainly like to see it.

    I think she’s carefully sterring away from that. No one can fight battles on all fronts simultaneously. As yoou say, like Sowell.

    By the way, you know, surely some group differences are cultural and not innate.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    I think she’s carefully sterring away from that. No one can fight battles on all fronts simultaneously. As yoou say, like Sowell.
     
    I think we are losing the thread of the argument.

    You spoke of scientific progress in the social sciences. I told you there isn't any.

    A few names of social scientists were thrown out in the discussion (Pinker, Reich, Murray). I pointed out that they consistently soft-peddle their conclusions out of fear of the academic mob.

    You also mentioned the name of Amy Chua. She is not a social scientist, and given that she does not say anything new that hasn't been said by Thomas Sowell for the past forty years (and also by others before him), how can she represent progress?


    By the way, you know, surely some group differences are cultural and not innate.
     
    I do know it. But given that few people dispute this, how is it progress when Amy Chua writes about it? You want to give her credit - and claim progress in the name of social science - when she writes about something that even few non-scientists dispute.
  187. @prime noticer
    charles murray is definitely not one of the good guys. he's a sit on the sidelines, don't do anything and never rock the boat fat bald loser.

    charles murray is a never trumper who would rather we all get replaced and vanish into the history books than lift a single finger to resist the total destruction of the thing he putatively claims to care about, human accomplishment. nothing sends shivers down charles murray's spine like the idea of actually trying to resist zero human capital third world hordes from over running the west. my goodness, that would be rude to interrupt them. what matters the most is being polite while you're being exterminated!

    the guy is useless.

    “the guy is useless”

    He’s just not great in our current situation. He’s not useless per se. And you could argue that a lot of his work was a useful precursor to other people’s stuff and changing people’s minds on an individual level.

    His work on underclasses and benefit dependency, on Fishtown and Belmont, on “custodial democracy”, on assortative mating and the cognitive elite (main theme of The Bell Curve) is interesting and IMIO (in my ignorant opinion) pretty accurate – and useful and relevant today.

    “The bottom line for this accumulation of experience in America is that it is impossible to make up for parenting deficits through outside interventions. I realize this is still an intellectually unacceptable thing to say in Britain. It used to be intellectually unacceptable in the United States as well. No longer. We’ve been there, done that.

    Our grandparents’ most basic taken-for-granted understanding, which today’s intellectual and political elites find it hardest to accept, is this: make it easier to behave irresponsibly and more people will behave irresponsibly. The welfare state makes it easier for men to impregnate women without taking responsibility for them, easier for women to raise a baby without the help of a man and easier for men and women to get by without working. There is no changing that situation without reintroducing penalties for irresponsible behavior.

    This is the sticking point for every political figure in Britain, Labor or Tory. Frank Field has been miles ahead of other politicians in recognizing the growing problem of the underclass and in speaking out, but last week even he was saying: “Surely we can say that the traditional family unit is the best way to nurture children without making it a campaign to beat up single mums.”

    With respect: you cannot. If you want to reduce the number of single mums you have to be ready to say that to bring a child into the world without a father committed to its care is wrong….

    Stigma is one of society’s most efficient methods for controlling destructive behavior.”

    He’s just not the intellectual warrior some of us would like him to be – and if he were, would The Bell Curve and all his other interesting stuff ever have been published? Or would he have been Richwined long ago? He’s been called a Nazi and a racist ever since The Bell Curve as it is.

    There are all sorts of academics who have lost their jobs for pointing out racial average differences in IQ. I can think of two or three in the UK who you’ll never have heard of.

    “And some there be, which have no memorial; who are perished, as though they had never been; and are become as though they had never been born” – Ecclesiastes 44:9

  188. @sleeping noticer
    >If we are talking about Hitler (whose last words were said to be “what an artist dies in me”)

    That's Nero, not Hitler.

    Hitler couldn’t have quoted him?

  189. @PiltdownMan
    Many "matriarchal" societies that feminists cite are far from matriarchal (in the sense of matriarchy being a mirror image replacement for patriarchy). They are often merely matrilineal in regards to property rights.

    https://feminisminindia.com/2016/09/01/decline-matrilineal-society-kerala/

    Matrilocal is a word used to describe a system where married couple live with or near the wife’s parents and is found in some societies around the world.
    Matrilinear is a word used to describe a system where each person is identified with their mother’s lineage and is found in some societies around the world.
    Matriarchal is a word used to describe a system where women hold the primary power positions and is found in a dictionary.

  190. @Pat Hannagan
    Great tune!

    Can't understand why Twins is not on Spotify.

    Ty Segall is a modern maestro, Stevo, can't believe you live close to San Francisco and haven't been to see a Segall concert and reported back to us, goys.

    Instead of going to the latest intersextional SJW movement takeover-space report back to us on a love Ty Segall concert or Oh Sees concert.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2GemaJPTuY

    Twins is on Spotify. Search for Ty Segall, then tap All Albums.
    Ty is a very rare talent, reminds me of Anton Newcombe.

  191. @rufus
    ... this is one of sailer's hoz ?

    Sailer groupies, that’d be a strange social phenomenon to happen.

  192. @Lot
    "Do you understand that Schadenfreude triggers anti-Semitism"

    If that's truly the price of lulz, so be it. But I'm not so pessimistic.

    Yeah, you people are only second to Gypsies in inverse popularity. Keep pushing for that first place but then don’t complain about Cossack rides and pogroms.

  193. @Moshe
    I like exploring human societies at the edges too. Is this something you do regularly? Was it cheap? I have explored many of the odd cultures in the United States, from The Nation of Islam (great stories) to various odd Polygamous Mormon split-off groups to bank robbers and cops on the beat in numerous small towns and big cities to the Satmar Rebbe of Kiryas Joel (I drove him and his nuclear family around) to Mennonites of various sorts to Spiritualists to Scientologists, etc. Beyond the borders I've explored less, but luckily the most interesting places tend to be the cheapest so I can speak to matters pertaining to lesser explored cultures of the Middle East pretty well too.

    But I've never lived with hunter-gatherers or, for that matter, been in the Amazon at all. Did you spend some time with amazonian pre-civilized societies or other uniquely interesting groups of people and was it cheap to get there and did you take any special shots or pills to stave off malaria and whatnot?

    I cannot afford special shots and pills but I'm very interested in visiting interesting or odd small societies in Africa. Does anyone have experience with that? A place sufficiently safe and cheap to get to and stay for awhile that is also very different from Western societies?

    You can do these things cheaply because the countries are cheap, but you’ll have to accept a degree of serious discomfort.

    I assume you’re from the US so budget flights are possible to all over South America.

    As for medical care, I don’t personally take anti-malarials. I instead take great care not to get bit. Nonetheless, vaccinations, such as for yellow fever are crucial. Yellow fever kills half of the people who get it, while malaria is more like the flu.

    I apologise for the slow answer. It is a hard thing to reccomend without knowing the person you are reccomending to.

    While I am fine in a jungle, it is not a generally agreeable environment. I’d suggest you try and start off with a guided group or something like that. They’ll know how to look after you. Prices for those types of things are often very high, but since their costs are low it is possible to negotiate them well down.

    • Replies: @Moshe
    How do you take care not to get bit by mosquitos? I'm like a mosquito magnet. As for the jungle, how extensive are your experiences? Also, yeah, replying to a guy you know in only a very narrow context is hard. Hence my suggestion upthread for meetups...that I assume I'd never actually end up attending due to not hanging out in normal places too much but it'd still be nice to meet you.
  194. @kihowi

    If we are talking about Hitler (whose last words were said to be “what an artist dies in me”)
     
    dude...

    Anyway, apart from the difficulty of keeping romans and nazis apart, I did read a story (might in Irving somewhere) of one of uncle adolfs friends who said that he used to be entirely apolitical, until they went out to see Rienzi in Vienna after which he had a different look in his eyes and started talking about heimats and lebensraums.

    difficulty of keeping romans and nazis apart

    Pledge of Allegiance 1930s video (rare palms up version)

    Beginning video is a 1930s all African-American segregated school in Kansas.

    The salute was officially replaced by the hand-over-heart salute when Congress amended the Flag Code on 22 December 1942.

  195. @PhysicistDave
    Mr McKenna wrote to me:

    But as society ‘progressed’ these past few decades, that ethos ran headlong into the stricture that white males must be presented as evil everywhere and always. So now we have a situation where white males are depicted in the broader culture as a threat to women and children, always and everywhere, while black males and latino males, for example, are presented as women’s and children’s best friends and protectors.
     
    However, in the case I described with the young woman I know, both the assailant and the spineless date were white males.

    Some white males are indeed "toxic males." The problem is that the non-toxic males are spineless and unwilling to stand up to the thugs of whatever race.

    It's as Yeats said:

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.
     

    Did he ask her to smile? Not cool.

  196. @J.Ross
    Pipeline explosion in Mexico. Pipeline theft has become a major issue and AMLO has taken drastic measures to attempt to curb it.
    Anon said:
    A pipeline blew up while locals were stealing fuel near the town of Tlahuelilpan, in central Mexico's Hidalgo state. Dozens were killed and dozens more severely burned out of a crowd of around 300. This is the kind of [thing] we usually see in places like Nigeria, when desperately poor villagers swarm crashed fuel trucks. Sad to see this kind of dindu-tier behavior in Mexico:

    http://www.milenio.com/estados/explosion-toma-clandestina-hidalgo-minuto-minuto

    Listen to my story bout a man named Jose, a poor Mex-i-can barely kept his famly fed.

    Then one day he was smugglin some cocaine, and up from the ground comes a geyser of 92 octane. Gasoline that is. Cheap tequila.

    Next thing you know Jose’s fillin his bucket from that spout, and his kinfolk said “Jose, put your cigarette out!”

    Gas has high inflammibility. So they all ran away just before Jose went kablooey.

  197. @moshe
    You can buy shrooms in a store in Amsterdam?

    Also, shouldn't there be an isteve meetup so regaulars can actually press the flesh and share a drink? It strikes me as weird that I've read and responded to so many people whose faces I've never seen. Internet culture is cool but it is also quite counter to how we evolved to interact with people and causes a lot of harm that could be avoided if more people met each other. Based on nothing more than a pic on this blog I recognized Masha Gessen in the hall of Columbia University and went over to talk with her. We disagree of course but the sort of venom that is spat betwixed the lite-altright and Masha herself vanishes when two humans meet as human beings. Based on some pic I probably saw here as well I also recognized and went over to Shaun King in The Strand (bookstore) and on another occasion Malcolm Gladwell on 27th and Madison.

    People thought back in the 90s that the internet would bring us all together but rhe world of the internet is generally an ugly and lonely world. We evolved to communicate face to face and I miss that.

    Oh, in case anyone is interested, Gladwell is shorter and whiter than you would expect and also incredibly polite for someone who was interrupted while he was on the phone (he was waiting to cross the street and I was going a different way so apologetically interrupting his call for a moment was my preference). Masha Gessen isn't a name but a person. A regular woman. One who shouldn't be attempting to influence the world too much perhaps but just a lady and not worthy of receiving the mockery and loathing that she receives in print -- or writes in print. And Shaun King was the best. I told him point blank that I pretty much disagree with everything he believes (and this at the height of the Black Lives Matter movement) but I did so as a human talking to another human and he was friendly and nice as heck. That's why I always say that I'm sure I'd get along great even with the people who write the most odious things here and the people to whom I on occasion do the same.

    Heck, even the autists at slatestarcodex have face to face meetups around the world all the time. Come to think of it, how about we combine isteve meetups with whatever group of internet open-borders people there are?

    It would definitely be fun. Worse comes to worst we fight it out. Like men. Not anonymii with keypads.

    Also, shouldn’t there be an isteve meet up…?

    No. That would mean I would have to leave my mom’s basement.

  198. @Tyrion 2
    You can do these things cheaply because the countries are cheap, but you'll have to accept a degree of serious discomfort.

    I assume you're from the US so budget flights are possible to all over South America.

    As for medical care, I don't personally take anti-malarials. I instead take great care not to get bit. Nonetheless, vaccinations, such as for yellow fever are crucial. Yellow fever kills half of the people who get it, while malaria is more like the flu.

    I apologise for the slow answer. It is a hard thing to reccomend without knowing the person you are reccomending to.

    While I am fine in a jungle, it is not a generally agreeable environment. I'd suggest you try and start off with a guided group or something like that. They'll know how to look after you. Prices for those types of things are often very high, but since their costs are low it is possible to negotiate them well down.

    How do you take care not to get bit by mosquitos? I’m like a mosquito magnet. As for the jungle, how extensive are your experiences? Also, yeah, replying to a guy you know in only a very narrow context is hard. Hence my suggestion upthread for meetups…that I assume I’d never actually end up attending due to not hanging out in normal places too much but it’d still be nice to meet you.

  199. @Peterike
    “It’s based in a strong belief in overwhelming Jewish tribalism which is what antisemitism has always been based on. It has almost always begun on account of jealousy/loathing of the Elites or Rich but was simplified and made safer by changing Class Consciousness into Jew Consciousness because Jews were overrepresented among the wealthy and were more conspicuous and a safer target than the ruling class in general.”

    Complete nonsense. Anti-semitism has always been a direct response to Jewish behavior. Always. Yet Jews won’t even own it once, for any time or place.

    Complete nonsense. Anti-semitism has always been a direct response to Jewish behavior. Always. Yet Jews won’t even own it once, for any time or place.

    This is the centrality of the matter, is it not?

    But I have kind of changed over time from directing most of my anger towards the destructive actions of the Jewish elite back to the gentile whores who do their bidding.

    Jewish mischief can only go so far without the aid and abetting of far too many stupid and greedy gentiles who willingly sell out their people and their nation for the sake of a few pieces of silver.

    Look at what the whores in Congress have done recently with trying to criminalize support for the BDS movement.

    These bastards are the real traitors.

    At least the members of the tribe are loyal to their own.

  200. @PhysicistDave
    Pincher martin wrote to me:S

    econd, I don’t recall Chua saying group differences were innate. If you have evidence that she has done so in one of the books I haven’t read, I’d certainly like to see it.
     
    I think she's carefully sterring away from that. No one can fight battles on all fronts simultaneously. As yoou say, like Sowell.

    By the way, you know, surely some group differences are cultural and not innate.

    I think she’s carefully sterring away from that. No one can fight battles on all fronts simultaneously. As yoou say, like Sowell.

    I think we are losing the thread of the argument.

    You spoke of scientific progress in the social sciences. I told you there isn’t any.

    A few names of social scientists were thrown out in the discussion (Pinker, Reich, Murray). I pointed out that they consistently soft-peddle their conclusions out of fear of the academic mob.

    You also mentioned the name of Amy Chua. She is not a social scientist, and given that she does not say anything new that hasn’t been said by Thomas Sowell for the past forty years (and also by others before him), how can she represent progress?

    By the way, you know, surely some group differences are cultural and not innate.

    I do know it. But given that few people dispute this, how is it progress when Amy Chua writes about it? You want to give her credit – and claim progress in the name of social science – when she writes about something that even few non-scientists dispute.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    I think we are losing the thread of the argument.

    You spoke of scientific progress in the social sciences. I told you there isn’t any.

    A few names of social scientists were thrown out in the discussion (Pinker, Reich, Murray). I pointed out that they consistently soft-peddle their conclusions out of fear of the academic mob.
     
    I think you are mixing two subthreads: my reply to your question on social science is at January 19, 2019 at 10:42 am GMT (currently shows up as comment 130 for me, though that numbering can change, as we all know).

    My comments on Pinker, Chua et al. were part of a subthread that started with YetAnotherAnon at January 18, 2019 at 2:50 pm GMT (shows up as comment 7 for me).

    I've been trying to keep my comments separate between those two subthreads (though I or someone else may have inadvertently intertwined them).

    Dave
  201. @moshe
    You can buy shrooms in a store in Amsterdam?

    Also, shouldn't there be an isteve meetup so regaulars can actually press the flesh and share a drink? It strikes me as weird that I've read and responded to so many people whose faces I've never seen. Internet culture is cool but it is also quite counter to how we evolved to interact with people and causes a lot of harm that could be avoided if more people met each other. Based on nothing more than a pic on this blog I recognized Masha Gessen in the hall of Columbia University and went over to talk with her. We disagree of course but the sort of venom that is spat betwixed the lite-altright and Masha herself vanishes when two humans meet as human beings. Based on some pic I probably saw here as well I also recognized and went over to Shaun King in The Strand (bookstore) and on another occasion Malcolm Gladwell on 27th and Madison.

    People thought back in the 90s that the internet would bring us all together but rhe world of the internet is generally an ugly and lonely world. We evolved to communicate face to face and I miss that.

    Oh, in case anyone is interested, Gladwell is shorter and whiter than you would expect and also incredibly polite for someone who was interrupted while he was on the phone (he was waiting to cross the street and I was going a different way so apologetically interrupting his call for a moment was my preference). Masha Gessen isn't a name but a person. A regular woman. One who shouldn't be attempting to influence the world too much perhaps but just a lady and not worthy of receiving the mockery and loathing that she receives in print -- or writes in print. And Shaun King was the best. I told him point blank that I pretty much disagree with everything he believes (and this at the height of the Black Lives Matter movement) but I did so as a human talking to another human and he was friendly and nice as heck. That's why I always say that I'm sure I'd get along great even with the people who write the most odious things here and the people to whom I on occasion do the same.

    Heck, even the autists at slatestarcodex have face to face meetups around the world all the time. Come to think of it, how about we combine isteve meetups with whatever group of internet open-borders people there are?

    It would definitely be fun. Worse comes to worst we fight it out. Like men. Not anonymii with keypads.

    Dude, I’d be worried about us getting a couple of Hellfires through the windows.

  202. It is unclear what if any conclusions follow from the knowledge that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence The majority of scientists in the field have always known this is true and believed it had a genetic explanation, so they if keep quiet it is quite likely because they do not think particular social policies are mandated by it.

    Amy Chua did point out that the appeal of communism for Vietnamese had much to do with their loathing for the Chinese minority who dominated the business class of Vietnam. There has been a lot written about Vietnam, but that little detail was overlooked before her. The key to the British victory over Communist guerrillas in Malaysia was the mass expulsion of the Chinese minority…

    • Replies: @Flip

    It is unclear what if any conclusions follow from the knowledge that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence
     
    Well, the assumption that differences in achievement are due entirely to white racism and that quotas are justified as a result would be the first thing.
    , @AndrewR
    Well, for starters, we can stop blaming 100% of black dysfunction on white supremacy.
    , @Pincher Martin

    It is unclear what if any conclusions follow from the knowledge that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence The majority of scientists in the field have always known this is true and believed it had a genetic explanation, so they if keep quiet it is quite likely because they do not think particular social policies are mandated by it.
     
    You have got to be kidding.

    I can think of half a dozen educational policies that would be changed as a result of this knowledge, not to mention the various proposals having to do with income and wealth disparities between whites and blacks. And what about criminal justice issues?
    , @Colin Wright
    '...so they if keep quiet it is quite likely because they do not think particular social policies are mandated by it.'

    I'd guess scientists keep quiet because they don't want to be subjected to the kind of pillorying inflicted on Watson and Jensen. Several social policies are obviously at least rendered arguably desirable by lower average black intelligence, if not actually mandated by it. More or less in order of radicalism, they are:

    1. An end to attempts to make just as large a percentage of brain surgeons, mathematicians, etc black as there are blacks in the general population. The notion of black intelligence being equal to that of whites and Asians abandoned, the effort becomes obviously futile and even mischievious in its effects.

    2. A conscious effort to increase the employment opportunities and the conditions of employment for stupid people. We need to have an economy that offers sufficient positions actual blacks can actually fill.

    3. Some bars against blacks serving on juries, as judges, and in other roles where a modicum of intelligence and ethical behavior is expected. As the prosecutor was overheard to say when the OJ Simpson verdict came in, 'what do you expect from a black jury?'

    4. A more paternalistic attitude by the state towards blacks than non-blacks. Assuming perfection isn't necessary, whites, Asians, and Hispanics can be given latitude to manage their own lives within very broad limits; blacks can't. In other words, as far as the rest of us are concerned, the police can just back off; blacks will always require closer supervision.

  203. @BB753
    " Masha Gessen isn’t a name but a person. A regular woman. "

    Are you sure she is a woman?

    You know, Moshe, your invitation to meet in person sounds actually creepy. Do you work for the SPLC?

    BB573 – do you know that, whether or not you are on the spectrum, you could not have written a more autistic or Aspergerian reply?

    There are clinicians and therapists who can help you overcome that. If you are a vet, or have previously qualified for medicare, or if you live near a teaching hospital with a good psychiatric staff, you can probably get therapy for free.

    Stop insulting people, and people will think more highly of you.

    • Troll: BB753
  204. @anonymous
    To quote Gore Vidal, "Once again, words fail Greg."

    Is there anyone on the internet with a higher bluster x verbal impotence OPS score than Greg Cochran?

    Most of his blog follows a simple but ass backwards template: he suggests he knows something while flagrantly avoiding actually demonstrating what he insistently implies he knows.

    It's quite tiresomse, though clearly Steve and others are hypnotized by him calling himself a genius. After all, he is a physicist (sic) and his h-index is--wait, what's that? His h-index is ZERO because he's literally contributed nothing to physics? How strange for a physics genius to have never attended a decent school and never have published a serious paper. It must be a physics conspiracy against genius Greg!

    Most of his blog follows a simple but ass backwards template: he suggests he knows something while flagrantly avoiding actually demonstrating what he insistently implies he knows.

    You’re not the only one who has noticed that.

    • Replies: @gcochran
    For example?
  205. @Sean
    It is unclear what if any conclusions follow from the knowledge that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence The majority of scientists in the field have always known this is true and believed it had a genetic explanation, so they if keep quiet it is quite likely because they do not think particular social policies are mandated by it.

    Amy Chua did point out that the appeal of communism for Vietnamese had much to do with their loathing for the Chinese minority who dominated the business class of Vietnam. There has been a lot written about Vietnam, but that little detail was overlooked before her. The key to the British victory over Communist guerrillas in Malaysia was the mass expulsion of the Chinese minority...

    It is unclear what if any conclusions follow from the knowledge that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence

    Well, the assumption that differences in achievement are due entirely to white racism and that quotas are justified as a result would be the first thing.

  206. @PhysicistDave
    YetAnotherAnon wrote (quoting the NYT quoting Pinker):

    Pinker suggested rather that

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.
     
    I keep trying to tell everyone here that Pinker (and Dave Reich and Amy Chua and Charles Murray) are among the good guys!

    I recently talked to a young woman who was on a date with a guy when one of her date's buddies started physically assaulting her. Her date did nothing. She managed to deal with it herself.

    Needless to say, she never dated that weenie again!

    Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.

    Perhaps we are more at danger from "toxic wimpishness" than "toxic masculinity."

    Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.

    Lmao. You don’t mention your age, but one presume you are at least 65 years old. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were 80.

    Things have changed since you were a kid, gramps – a lot. Women don’t get to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted equality, they can have it.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    AndrewR wrote to me:


    [Dave} Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.
     
    [Andy] Lmao. You don’t mention your age, but one presume you are at least 65 years old. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were 80.

    Things have changed since you were a kid, gramps – a lot. Women don’t get to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted equality, they can have it.
     
    Well, Andy, I do have kids but I hope it is at least a few years before they present me with grandkids! No, I am nowhere near 80.

    You were not raised to understand that men protect the females who are near to them? You would not risk yourself at all to protect a wife or daughter?

    Then you have been cheated in how you were raised.

    And we can hope that American women are still wise enough to never make you a husband or a father.
  207. @Thea
    If few women found machismo attractive, it would have been bred out of our lineage. Sleeping with bad boys is a surefire way to solidify their continued existence.


    On the other end, The hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world. Mothers must be nurturing some of these behaviors decried as toxic if one subscribes to the blank slate.

    Either way women can carry some if the burden for the masculinity they supposedly don’t like.

    Aggression is a trait that doesn’t necessarily perpetuate itself through sexual selection. In fact, it seems like the trait most tangential to sexual selection. If Ug really wants to get with Uggette, her level of attraction to him isn’t necessarily relevant.

  208. @Sean
    It is unclear what if any conclusions follow from the knowledge that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence The majority of scientists in the field have always known this is true and believed it had a genetic explanation, so they if keep quiet it is quite likely because they do not think particular social policies are mandated by it.

    Amy Chua did point out that the appeal of communism for Vietnamese had much to do with their loathing for the Chinese minority who dominated the business class of Vietnam. There has been a lot written about Vietnam, but that little detail was overlooked before her. The key to the British victory over Communist guerrillas in Malaysia was the mass expulsion of the Chinese minority...

    Well, for starters, we can stop blaming 100% of black dysfunction on white supremacy.

    • Replies: @Sean
    No, blacks' inferiority and dysfunction is merely relative to whites, it follows from whites' supremacy.
  209. @Sean
    It is unclear what if any conclusions follow from the knowledge that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence The majority of scientists in the field have always known this is true and believed it had a genetic explanation, so they if keep quiet it is quite likely because they do not think particular social policies are mandated by it.

    Amy Chua did point out that the appeal of communism for Vietnamese had much to do with their loathing for the Chinese minority who dominated the business class of Vietnam. There has been a lot written about Vietnam, but that little detail was overlooked before her. The key to the British victory over Communist guerrillas in Malaysia was the mass expulsion of the Chinese minority...

    It is unclear what if any conclusions follow from the knowledge that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence The majority of scientists in the field have always known this is true and believed it had a genetic explanation, so they if keep quiet it is quite likely because they do not think particular social policies are mandated by it.

    You have got to be kidding.

    I can think of half a dozen educational policies that would be changed as a result of this knowledge, not to mention the various proposals having to do with income and wealth disparities between whites and blacks. And what about criminal justice issues?

    • Replies: @Sean

    https://neuroanthropology.net/2009/04/16/raising-iq-nicholas-kristof-meets-richard-nisbett/

    Nicholas Kristof has an op-ed today, How to Raise Our I.Q. He opens with a standard version of the individual meritocracy argument, that IQ is largely inherited:

    Poor people have I.Q.’s significantly lower than those of rich people, and the awkward conventional wisdom has been that this is in large part a function of genetics. After all, a series of studies seemed to indicate that I.Q. is largely inherited. Identical twins raised apart, for example, have I.Q.’s that are remarkably similar. They are even closer on average than those of fraternal twins who grow up together. [...] World-class social psychologist Richard E. Nisbett takes on the idea of intelligence as something that is biologically determined and impervious to culture— with vast implications for the role of education as it relates to social and economic development. Intelligence and How to Get It asserts that intellect is not primarily genetic but is principally determined by societal influences.
     

     
    No I am not kidding, but Richard Nisbett is. The only people that don't believe that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence are journalists, who are exposed to much more education (ie indoctrination) than other people.

    The scientists may not say, but they already know all this stuff. The policies have nothing to do with the science. If it was admitted that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence that would make it very much more difficult to alter the educational policies, proposals having to do with income and wealth disparities between whites and blacks and criminal justice issues I think.
    , @JackOH
    Yep.

    A new civil rights movement is something of a half-glimmer in my mind's eye. Among my political consultants would be Whites who are football coaches, car wash owners, shop foremen, cafeteria managers, union shop stewards, and other Whites who have day-to-day and generally okay relations with Black folks. Purpose: to undo the damage caused by the civil rights movement that came to a head in the 1960s.

    I'd probably want to leave political hustlers, lawyers, journalists, and most academics out of things. Why? Because, in my view, their world of abstractions, legalisms, and wobbly big-picture wordsmithing has done a disservice to actual White folks and actual Black folks alike. Jus' sayin'.

  210. @BB753
    What is your take on "global warming" and "man-made climate change"?

    BB753 asked me:

    What is your take on “global warming” and “man-made climate change”?

    There is no doubt that the globe has warmed in the last two centuries. I first learned about this from my great-grandmother back in the 1960s, who told me that the Mississippi River used to freeze over when she was a child in the late 1800s, whereas it did not freeze over when I was a kid. (I later checked and confirmed that Grandma’s memory was correct.)

    There is also very little doubt that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have contributed to that warming. The argument is very simple: if you do not impede solar radiation coming in to the earth, but you do make it harder for the earth to re-radiate energy back into space because of greenhouse gases, then the earth has to warm up to the point where it can “punch through” the greenhouse gases and re-radiate as much energy as it receives.

    The problem, though, is that the climate also changes on its own without human forcing — the obvious examples are the Pleistocene Ice Ages but also the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age during the last millennium.

    So… how much of the warming of the last two centuries is due to natural causes and how much to human action?

    That is a very difficult question to answer!

    You build computer models, but those models have so many adjustable parameters that it is very hard to know if you have actually modeled the physical phenomena you are studying or if you have “overfitted” the historical data in a way that is not predictive.

    There is one way to “cut to the chase” to determine how good your models are: predict future climate developments and then sit back and wait and see how good your predictions are.

    So far, the models have not done that well.

    That’s not a surprise. This is how scientific research goes, lots and lots of errors and false starts before you get it right.

    The only “surprise” is that the mainstream media and some irresponsible publicity-seeking scientists have pretended that the models are better than they have proven to be and can accurately understand the past and predict the future. They can’t, at least not yet.

    By the way, I doubt that any knowledgeable, responsible scientist would privately disagree with what I have written here. Unfortunately, a handful of scientists have made a consciouos decision to publicly over-sell the value of existing models in order to frighten the public into taking what those scientists consider wise precautionary measures. That’s dishonest.

    If you want to hear much more detail, from someone enormously more knowledgeable than I, check out Judith Curry’s Climate Etc. blog. Judith gets it from both sides because she is neither a “denialist” nor a “catastrophist” but merely a scientist trying to advance the actual science.

    • Replies: @BB753
    So there's no chance of scientific advances in climatology as long as it's approached as political and self-serving economic issues. Aren't we fast approaching an ice-age, anyway?
  211. @Pincher Martin

    I think she’s carefully sterring away from that. No one can fight battles on all fronts simultaneously. As yoou say, like Sowell.
     
    I think we are losing the thread of the argument.

    You spoke of scientific progress in the social sciences. I told you there isn't any.

    A few names of social scientists were thrown out in the discussion (Pinker, Reich, Murray). I pointed out that they consistently soft-peddle their conclusions out of fear of the academic mob.

    You also mentioned the name of Amy Chua. She is not a social scientist, and given that she does not say anything new that hasn't been said by Thomas Sowell for the past forty years (and also by others before him), how can she represent progress?


    By the way, you know, surely some group differences are cultural and not innate.
     
    I do know it. But given that few people dispute this, how is it progress when Amy Chua writes about it? You want to give her credit - and claim progress in the name of social science - when she writes about something that even few non-scientists dispute.

    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    I think we are losing the thread of the argument.

    You spoke of scientific progress in the social sciences. I told you there isn’t any.

    A few names of social scientists were thrown out in the discussion (Pinker, Reich, Murray). I pointed out that they consistently soft-peddle their conclusions out of fear of the academic mob.

    I think you are mixing two subthreads: my reply to your question on social science is at January 19, 2019 at 10:42 am GMT (currently shows up as comment 130 for me, though that numbering can change, as we all know).

    My comments on Pinker, Chua et al. were part of a subthread that started with YetAnotherAnon at January 18, 2019 at 2:50 pm GMT (shows up as comment 7 for me).

    I’ve been trying to keep my comments separate between those two subthreads (though I or someone else may have inadvertently intertwined them).

    Dave

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    I think you are mixing two subthreads: my reply to your question on social science is at January 19, 2019 at 10:42 am GMT (currently shows up as comment 130 for me, though that numbering can change, as we all know).

    My comments on Pinker, Chua et al. were part of a subthread that started with YetAnotherAnon at January 18, 2019 at 2:50 pm GMT (shows up as comment 7 for me).
     

    They are part of the same discussion, and my duo with you began with your comment #47 and my comment #56.

    I’ve been trying to keep my comments separate between those two subthreads (though I or someone else may have inadvertently intertwined them).
     
    Okay. But they really aren't separate. They are part of the same discussion concerning your optimism about the future of what we as a society will know because of what scientists are able to discuss.
  212. @Pincher Martin

    It is unclear what if any conclusions follow from the knowledge that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence The majority of scientists in the field have always known this is true and believed it had a genetic explanation, so they if keep quiet it is quite likely because they do not think particular social policies are mandated by it.
     
    You have got to be kidding.

    I can think of half a dozen educational policies that would be changed as a result of this knowledge, not to mention the various proposals having to do with income and wealth disparities between whites and blacks. And what about criminal justice issues?

    https://neuroanthropology.net/2009/04/16/raising-iq-nicholas-kristof-meets-richard-nisbett/

    Nicholas Kristof has an op-ed today, How to Raise Our I.Q. He opens with a standard version of the individual meritocracy argument, that IQ is largely inherited:

    Poor people have I.Q.’s significantly lower than those of rich people, and the awkward conventional wisdom has been that this is in large part a function of genetics. After all, a series of studies seemed to indicate that I.Q. is largely inherited. Identical twins raised apart, for example, have I.Q.’s that are remarkably similar. They are even closer on average than those of fraternal twins who grow up together. […] World-class social psychologist Richard E. Nisbett takes on the idea of intelligence as something that is biologically determined and impervious to culture— with vast implications for the role of education as it relates to social and economic development. Intelligence and How to Get It asserts that intellect is not primarily genetic but is principally determined by societal influences.

    No I am not kidding, but Richard Nisbett is. The only people that don’t believe that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence are journalists, who are exposed to much more education (ie indoctrination) than other people.

    The scientists may not say, but they already know all this stuff. The policies have nothing to do with the science. If it was admitted that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence that would make it very much more difficult to alter the educational policies, proposals having to do with income and wealth disparities between whites and blacks and criminal justice issues I think.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    No I am not kidding, but Richard Nisbett is. The only people that don’t believe that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence are journalists, who are exposed to much more education (ie indoctrination) than other people.
     
    Sailer recently cited a poll (or GSS survey) which claimed only 23 percent of American whites think whites are more intelligent than blacks.

    So 77 percent of American whits disagree with you.

    The policies have nothing to do with the science.
     
    They have everything to do with it. My God, man, have you never heard of disparate impact? That kind of thinking pervades how our political class thinks about racial issues.
    , @J.Ross
    Scientists knowing but not saying means that they don't know, except in an utterly useless and meaningless ultimate sense which can itself never be known.
  213. @Autochthon

    Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.
     
    Like the provision of resources, protection was something the females drisively opted out of when they started their suicidal ravings for "equality" and, having hijacked the state to take resources from men, incarcerate them, and rob them of their own children at the whims of the women, forfeited their claim to under the natural order.

    These modern harridans should embrace assaults by men as golden opportunities to demonstrate the myth that men are stronger than women and showcase their martial prowess; failing that, they can call the police they are so fond of calling to incarcerate and otherwise abuse the fathers of their own children when they decide they'd prefer the paycheck without the hassles of marriage. If the women are beaten, raped, and robbed, and the assailant log gone when the police show up to file a report in a half an hour, that just goes to show their feminine wisdom placing faith in the state's paid stooges over the inferiour men they are forced to walk amongst who dare to gaze upon them each day.

    They cannot have it both ways; they are going to get more and more "equality," good and hard, especially at the hands of the ever larger waves of the invaders they worship.

    Autochthon wrote to me:

    Like the provision of resources, protection was something the females drisively opted out of when they started their suicidal ravings for “equality” and, having hijacked the state to take resources from men, incarcerate them, and rob them of their own children at the whims of the women, forfeited their claim to under the natural order.

    Hmmm… Y’know, Trump won white women.

    Just maybe women are individuals and it is a mistake to assume that most women adhere to the views of a very loud and obnoxious minority?

  214. @AndrewR
    Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.

    Lmao. You don't mention your age, but one presume you are at least 65 years old. I wouldn't be surprised if you were 80.

    Things have changed since you were a kid, gramps - a lot. Women don't get to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted equality, they can have it.

    AndrewR wrote to me:

    [Dave} Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.

    [Andy] Lmao. You don’t mention your age, but one presume you are at least 65 years old. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were 80.

    Things have changed since you were a kid, gramps – a lot. Women don’t get to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted equality, they can have it.

    Well, Andy, I do have kids but I hope it is at least a few years before they present me with grandkids! No, I am nowhere near 80.

    You were not raised to understand that men protect the females who are near to them? You would not risk yourself at all to protect a wife or daughter?

    Then you have been cheated in how you were raised.

    And we can hope that American women are still wise enough to never make you a husband or a father.

    • Replies: @Sean
    It is only women who are in need of a provider that go for the cardinal masculine virtues in the father of their children. Heiresses, women making serious money, and welfare recipients will go for playboys, bad boys and even card carrying psychopaths. Women being financially independent means their genes can forget about making sure there is bread on the table and concentrate on getting into a sexy son who will spread them far and wide. Henry Harpending proposed that the welfare payments for a child should be made to its father in order to make women only have children with cardinal masculine virtue type men.
    , @AndrewR
    And now grandpa starts hitting below the belt. Sad.

    Would I protect my wife or daughter? Of course. But you're definitely moving the goalposts here. I wouldn't necessarily protect someone else's daughter just because I have a Y-chromosome and she doesn't.
  215. @ben tillman

    For example, we now understand that usually evolution works at the level of the gene, not the species.
     
    Except that's a vast oversimplification. There are a number of other levels at which evolution works.

    ben tillman wrote to me:

    [Dave]For example, we now understand that usually evolution works at the level of the gene, not the species.

    [ben]Except that’s a vast oversimplification. There are a number of other levels at which evolution works.

    Well, in principle. In practice, it’s hard to make that work: selection at the level of the gene tends to trump selection at the level of the group or species (see Williams’ classic Adaptation and Natural Selection). That is why I did hedge with “usually”: I don’t kow of any plausible case of “higher-level” selection, but, yes, it is not impossible in theory.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    But there are levels of organization other than gene, "group", and species. Moreover, the term "selection" obscures rather than illuminates, and the conversation is always better without it. I note that your prior comment said "evolution" rather than "selection".
  216. @Pincher Martin

    It is unclear what if any conclusions follow from the knowledge that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence The majority of scientists in the field have always known this is true and believed it had a genetic explanation, so they if keep quiet it is quite likely because they do not think particular social policies are mandated by it.
     
    You have got to be kidding.

    I can think of half a dozen educational policies that would be changed as a result of this knowledge, not to mention the various proposals having to do with income and wealth disparities between whites and blacks. And what about criminal justice issues?

    Yep.

    A new civil rights movement is something of a half-glimmer in my mind’s eye. Among my political consultants would be Whites who are football coaches, car wash owners, shop foremen, cafeteria managers, union shop stewards, and other Whites who have day-to-day and generally okay relations with Black folks. Purpose: to undo the damage caused by the civil rights movement that came to a head in the 1960s.

    I’d probably want to leave political hustlers, lawyers, journalists, and most academics out of things. Why? Because, in my view, their world of abstractions, legalisms, and wobbly big-picture wordsmithing has done a disservice to actual White folks and actual Black folks alike. Jus’ sayin’.

  217. @AndrewR
    Well, for starters, we can stop blaming 100% of black dysfunction on white supremacy.

    No, blacks’ inferiority and dysfunction is merely relative to whites, it follows from whites’ supremacy.

  218. Cochran gives ground by in effect conceding the NYT’s main point: that cutting edge science is supporting and a further development of the same school of thought as Kossinna (and the Nazis).
    But this is wrong, Kossina was an exponent of the North European hypothesis in which the German people were a single racial group identical with historical the Indo Europeans and the Germans were the original denizens of north Germany.

    It had political relevance that seems much the same as the Vanuatu myths.

    The ni-Vanuatu were not accustomed to thinking about history for its own sake, instead expecting that any story you told about the past necessarily gave form and guidance to the present. If kastom told you that your people came from a stone near the lagoon, that was relevant for ongoing disputes about who now deserved to till that land. The idea that in some abstract, scientific way they were “really” from somewhere else didn’t mean anything unless there was a direct contemporary moral.

    The Nazis the NYT and the ni-Vanuatu are all in agreement then!

    Reich and others’ work was not needed to make clear that Indo Europeans weren’t from the North German plain but actually were from southern Russia.

    Ancient Fennoscandian genomes reveal origin and spread of Siberian ancestry in Europe Broadly, present-day Europeans have ancestors in three deeply diverged source populations: European hunter-gatherers who settled the continent in the Upper Paleolithic, Europe’s first farmers who expanded from Anatolia across Europe in the early Neolithic starting around 8000 years ago, and groups from the Pontic Steppe that arrived in Europe during the final Neolithic and early Bronze Age ~ 4500 years ago. As a consequence, most Europeans can be modelled as a mixture of these three ancestral populations. This model, however, does not fit well for present-day populations from north-eastern Europe such as Saami, Russians, Mordovians, Chuvash, Estonians, Hungarians, and Finns…

    Unfortunately these aboriginal northern peoples are the blondest blue eyed Europeans, while the Indo Europeans were swarthy immigrants, so the NYT will have to switch tack and write a puff piece for Reich.

  219. @PhysicistDave
    AndrewR wrote to me:


    [Dave} Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.
     
    [Andy] Lmao. You don’t mention your age, but one presume you are at least 65 years old. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were 80.

    Things have changed since you were a kid, gramps – a lot. Women don’t get to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted equality, they can have it.
     
    Well, Andy, I do have kids but I hope it is at least a few years before they present me with grandkids! No, I am nowhere near 80.

    You were not raised to understand that men protect the females who are near to them? You would not risk yourself at all to protect a wife or daughter?

    Then you have been cheated in how you were raised.

    And we can hope that American women are still wise enough to never make you a husband or a father.

    It is only women who are in need of a provider that go for the cardinal masculine virtues in the father of their children. Heiresses, women making serious money, and welfare recipients will go for playboys, bad boys and even card carrying psychopaths. Women being financially independent means their genes can forget about making sure there is bread on the table and concentrate on getting into a sexy son who will spread them far and wide. Henry Harpending proposed that the welfare payments for a child should be made to its father in order to make women only have children with cardinal masculine virtue type men.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Sean wrote to me:

    It is only women who are in need of a provider that go for the cardinal masculine virtues in the father of their children. Heiresses, women making serious money, and welfare recipients will go for playboys, bad boys and even card carrying psychopaths.
     
    Yeah, there is a lot to that. Although, now that our kids are (more or less) grown, I can look back and realize that it would be very hard for a single parent to raise kids on her own, even if finance were no issue. Kids really do need a mom and a dad. But, current ideology obscures that fact.
  220. @PhysicistDave
    AndrewR wrote to me:


    [Dave} Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.
     
    [Andy] Lmao. You don’t mention your age, but one presume you are at least 65 years old. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were 80.

    Things have changed since you were a kid, gramps – a lot. Women don’t get to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted equality, they can have it.
     
    Well, Andy, I do have kids but I hope it is at least a few years before they present me with grandkids! No, I am nowhere near 80.

    You were not raised to understand that men protect the females who are near to them? You would not risk yourself at all to protect a wife or daughter?

    Then you have been cheated in how you were raised.

    And we can hope that American women are still wise enough to never make you a husband or a father.

    And now grandpa starts hitting below the belt. Sad.

    Would I protect my wife or daughter? Of course. But you’re definitely moving the goalposts here. I wouldn’t necessarily protect someone else’s daughter just because I have a Y-chromosome and she doesn’t.

    • Troll: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Crazy Andy wrote to me:

    Would I protect my wife or daughter? Of course. But you’re definitely moving the goalposts here. I wouldn’t necessarily protect someone else’s daughter just because I have a Y-chromosome and she doesn’t.
     
    No, I was talking about a case of a guy on a date with a girl who would not defend the girl when she was assaulted. That was the case to which you responded. You made quite clear what you would do, or rather what you would not do, in that case.

    You are an example of the decadence into which our society has fallen. I pity you. But I do understand why many young "men" like yourself, never raised to be men, end up killing themselves.

    You have been cheated, like so many of your peers. It is very sad.
  221. @PhysicistDave
    BB753 asked me:

    What is your take on “global warming” and “man-made climate change”?
     
    There is no doubt that the globe has warmed in the last two centuries. I first learned about this from my great-grandmother back in the 1960s, who told me that the Mississippi River used to freeze over when she was a child in the late 1800s, whereas it did not freeze over when I was a kid. (I later checked and confirmed that Grandma's memory was correct.)

    There is also very little doubt that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have contributed to that warming. The argument is very simple: if you do not impede solar radiation coming in to the earth, but you do make it harder for the earth to re-radiate energy back into space because of greenhouse gases, then the earth has to warm up to the point where it can "punch through" the greenhouse gases and re-radiate as much energy as it receives.

    The problem, though, is that the climate also changes on its own without human forcing -- the obvious examples are the Pleistocene Ice Ages but also the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age during the last millennium.

    So... how much of the warming of the last two centuries is due to natural causes and how much to human action?

    That is a very difficult question to answer!

    You build computer models, but those models have so many adjustable parameters that it is very hard to know if you have actually modeled the physical phenomena you are studying or if you have "overfitted" the historical data in a way that is not predictive.

    There is one way to "cut to the chase" to determine how good your models are: predict future climate developments and then sit back and wait and see how good your predictions are.

    So far, the models have not done that well.

    That's not a surprise. This is how scientific research goes, lots and lots of errors and false starts before you get it right.

    The only "surprise" is that the mainstream media and some irresponsible publicity-seeking scientists have pretended that the models are better than they have proven to be and can accurately understand the past and predict the future. They can't, at least not yet.

    By the way, I doubt that any knowledgeable, responsible scientist would privately disagree with what I have written here. Unfortunately, a handful of scientists have made a consciouos decision to publicly over-sell the value of existing models in order to frighten the public into taking what those scientists consider wise precautionary measures. That's dishonest.

    If you want to hear much more detail, from someone enormously more knowledgeable than I, check out Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog. Judith gets it from both sides because she is neither a "denialist" nor a "catastrophist" but merely a scientist trying to advance the actual science.

    So there’s no chance of scientific advances in climatology as long as it’s approached as political and self-serving economic issues. Aren’t we fast approaching an ice-age, anyway?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    BB753 wrote:

    So there’s no chance of scientific advances in climatology as long as it’s approached as political and self-serving economic issues.
     
    Oh, no. There is progress; it's just that the mainstream media are totally lame when it comes to reporting on ongoing scientific research, especially when there are disagreements among scientists. This is true not only of climate science but also of areas such as superstring theory that have no social or political implications.

    Of course, the fact that "global warming" does have political implications makes it even worse.

    BB753 also wrote:

    Aren’t we fast approaching an ice-age, anyway?
     
    Could be -- nobody knows, of course. There is faint evidence that we could be entering another quiet Sun period like the Maunder Minimum, which could signal another Little Ice Age.

    Or not. We don't know.

    Of course, one of the ironies is that if we are headed towards another Little Ice Age, then anthropogenic CO2 could be exactly what we need in the short term to help stabilize the climate!

    The universe is a complicated place, but most people, especially not-very-bright journalists, yearn for a simplicity that just does not exist.
  222. @Lot
    Keep dreaming, keep losing.

    https://newspunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Disappearing-PalestineL.png

    https://i.imgur.com/kWQXYIer.jpg

    Lots of us are dreaming Abraham , more than you can imagine .

  223. @BB753
    " Masha Gessen isn’t a name but a person. A regular woman. "

    Are you sure she is a woman?

    You know, Moshe, your invitation to meet in person sounds actually creepy. Do you work for the SPLC?

    I had this thought also. Masha Gessen is literally an unhinged genocide apologist (not effectively but directly) who talks nonchalantly and killing millions of people and who does so because of a desire to normalize the unnatural. I don’t care what her good side looks like.
    I suppose someone else has posted it but it’s relevant to this: a stand-up comedian nobody has heard of has said he wants to see the Catholic school kids who did nothing at a rally die and be tortured. Happily, these kids have responded and talked about lawyers (which, to further joy, they can afford).
    It is time for us to be as conveniently sensitive as our enemies, and to slap down any insulting naiveté about PC lawfare not existing and free speech thriving. I had lunch recently with some boomers who pretty much just crawled out of bomb shelters.

  224. @Sean

    https://neuroanthropology.net/2009/04/16/raising-iq-nicholas-kristof-meets-richard-nisbett/

    Nicholas Kristof has an op-ed today, How to Raise Our I.Q. He opens with a standard version of the individual meritocracy argument, that IQ is largely inherited:

    Poor people have I.Q.’s significantly lower than those of rich people, and the awkward conventional wisdom has been that this is in large part a function of genetics. After all, a series of studies seemed to indicate that I.Q. is largely inherited. Identical twins raised apart, for example, have I.Q.’s that are remarkably similar. They are even closer on average than those of fraternal twins who grow up together. [...] World-class social psychologist Richard E. Nisbett takes on the idea of intelligence as something that is biologically determined and impervious to culture— with vast implications for the role of education as it relates to social and economic development. Intelligence and How to Get It asserts that intellect is not primarily genetic but is principally determined by societal influences.
     

     
    No I am not kidding, but Richard Nisbett is. The only people that don't believe that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence are journalists, who are exposed to much more education (ie indoctrination) than other people.

    The scientists may not say, but they already know all this stuff. The policies have nothing to do with the science. If it was admitted that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence that would make it very much more difficult to alter the educational policies, proposals having to do with income and wealth disparities between whites and blacks and criminal justice issues I think.

    No I am not kidding, but Richard Nisbett is. The only people that don’t believe that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence are journalists, who are exposed to much more education (ie indoctrination) than other people.

    Sailer recently cited a poll (or GSS survey) which claimed only 23 percent of American whites think whites are more intelligent than blacks.

    So 77 percent of American whits disagree with you.

    The policies have nothing to do with the science.

    They have everything to do with it. My God, man, have you never heard of disparate impact? That kind of thinking pervades how our political class thinks about racial issues.

    • Replies: @Sean

    23 percent of American whites think whites are more intelligent than blacks.
     
    A clear majority of scientists in the relevant field know that blacks on average fall short of whites, and genetics that are the most important reason for the difference. As Hans Eysenck, said decades ago, the media gave the misleading impression that anyone (such as himself) saying blacks were of inferior intelligence was a maverick outside the mainstream scientific consensus. He cited The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy as showing that there was majority support among scientists for every single one of the main contentions he had put forward, further asserting that the idea there was any real debate about the matter among the scientists in the field was incorrect.

    If an "is" (like black inferiority in intelligence) can mandate an "ought" the world would be a very different place. The mainstream balance of opinion among scientists is of the pointlessness in bringing up blacks' lack of intelligence, considering it as a hypothesis, or debating with those who do. To change policy requires breaking a modus vivendi, which only exists in the first place because half the West, at least, will not accept scientific truth as a guide to policy. They won't.
    , @PhysicistDave
    Pincher Martin wrote:

    Sailer recently cited a poll (or GSS survey) which claimed only 23 percent of American whites think whites are more intelligent than blacks.

    So 77 percent of American whits disagree with you.
     
    Well, everyone knows that whites do better than blacks academically and on standardized tests (on average): the media have been inundating us with this fact and discussions of how to ameliorate it for at least half a century.

    So, either the whites answering the test were interpreting it in a somewhat different manner than you stated it (maybe it asked if they were "certain" or if they knew it was genetic?) or, perhaps, many of the whites were "virtue signalling."

    I suspect the latter.
  225. @Sean

    https://neuroanthropology.net/2009/04/16/raising-iq-nicholas-kristof-meets-richard-nisbett/

    Nicholas Kristof has an op-ed today, How to Raise Our I.Q. He opens with a standard version of the individual meritocracy argument, that IQ is largely inherited:

    Poor people have I.Q.’s significantly lower than those of rich people, and the awkward conventional wisdom has been that this is in large part a function of genetics. After all, a series of studies seemed to indicate that I.Q. is largely inherited. Identical twins raised apart, for example, have I.Q.’s that are remarkably similar. They are even closer on average than those of fraternal twins who grow up together. [...] World-class social psychologist Richard E. Nisbett takes on the idea of intelligence as something that is biologically determined and impervious to culture— with vast implications for the role of education as it relates to social and economic development. Intelligence and How to Get It asserts that intellect is not primarily genetic but is principally determined by societal influences.
     

     
    No I am not kidding, but Richard Nisbett is. The only people that don't believe that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence are journalists, who are exposed to much more education (ie indoctrination) than other people.

    The scientists may not say, but they already know all this stuff. The policies have nothing to do with the science. If it was admitted that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence that would make it very much more difficult to alter the educational policies, proposals having to do with income and wealth disparities between whites and blacks and criminal justice issues I think.

    Scientists knowing but not saying means that they don’t know, except in an utterly useless and meaningless ultimate sense which can itself never be known.

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
  226. @PhysicistDave
    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    I think we are losing the thread of the argument.

    You spoke of scientific progress in the social sciences. I told you there isn’t any.

    A few names of social scientists were thrown out in the discussion (Pinker, Reich, Murray). I pointed out that they consistently soft-peddle their conclusions out of fear of the academic mob.
     
    I think you are mixing two subthreads: my reply to your question on social science is at January 19, 2019 at 10:42 am GMT (currently shows up as comment 130 for me, though that numbering can change, as we all know).

    My comments on Pinker, Chua et al. were part of a subthread that started with YetAnotherAnon at January 18, 2019 at 2:50 pm GMT (shows up as comment 7 for me).

    I've been trying to keep my comments separate between those two subthreads (though I or someone else may have inadvertently intertwined them).

    Dave

    I think you are mixing two subthreads: my reply to your question on social science is at January 19, 2019 at 10:42 am GMT (currently shows up as comment 130 for me, though that numbering can change, as we all know).

    My comments on Pinker, Chua et al. were part of a subthread that started with YetAnotherAnon at January 18, 2019 at 2:50 pm GMT (shows up as comment 7 for me).

    They are part of the same discussion, and my duo with you began with your comment #47 and my comment #56.

    I’ve been trying to keep my comments separate between those two subthreads (though I or someone else may have inadvertently intertwined them).

    Okay. But they really aren’t separate. They are part of the same discussion concerning your optimism about the future of what we as a society will know because of what scientists are able to discuss.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    But they really aren’t separate. They are part of the same discussion concerning your optimism about the future of what we as a society will know because of what scientists are able to discuss.
     
    Well, you are interpreting them in a way I did not intend. Obviously, I know that Chua is not a scientist or a social scientist, and I never said she was. Sorry that you thought I was addressing your point when I was referring to other points.

    Dave
  227. @Pincher Martin

    No I am not kidding, but Richard Nisbett is. The only people that don’t believe that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence are journalists, who are exposed to much more education (ie indoctrination) than other people.
     
    Sailer recently cited a poll (or GSS survey) which claimed only 23 percent of American whites think whites are more intelligent than blacks.

    So 77 percent of American whits disagree with you.

    The policies have nothing to do with the science.
     
    They have everything to do with it. My God, man, have you never heard of disparate impact? That kind of thinking pervades how our political class thinks about racial issues.

    23 percent of American whites think whites are more intelligent than blacks.

    A clear majority of scientists in the relevant field know that blacks on average fall short of whites, and genetics that are the most important reason for the difference. As Hans Eysenck, said decades ago, the media gave the misleading impression that anyone (such as himself) saying blacks were of inferior intelligence was a maverick outside the mainstream scientific consensus. He cited The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy as showing that there was majority support among scientists for every single one of the main contentions he had put forward, further asserting that the idea there was any real debate about the matter among the scientists in the field was incorrect.

    If an “is” (like black inferiority in intelligence) can mandate an “ought” the world would be a very different place. The mainstream balance of opinion among scientists is of the pointlessness in bringing up blacks’ lack of intelligence, considering it as a hypothesis, or debating with those who do. To change policy requires breaking a modus vivendi, which only exists in the first place because half the West, at least, will not accept scientific truth as a guide to policy. They won’t.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    A clear majority of scientists in the relevant field know that blacks on average fall short of whites, and genetics that are the most important reason for the difference.
     
    A clear majority? No. A clear plurality? Maybe. But that plurality keeps very quiet about it.

    You mention the only scholarly survey I can recall of the specific issue you claim "a clear majority of scientists in the relevant field" believe about black intelligence, but you misrepresent it.

    Here is the relevant section from the Wikipedia article you linked:


    The role of genetics in the black-white IQ gap has been particularly controversial. The question regarding this in the survey asked "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of black-white differences in IQ?" Amongst the 661 returned questionnaires, 14% declined to answer the question, 24% voted that there was insufficient evidence to give an answer, 1% voted that the gap was "due entirely to genetic variation", 15% voted that it was "due entirely to environmental variation" and 45% voted that it was a "product of genetic and environmental variation".
     
    So only 46 percent of hundreds of scholars in various relevant fields thought that black-white intelligence differences were either wholly or partially explained by genetics. And fifteen times as many scholars believed the gap was entirely due to environmental variation than it was to genetic variation.

    And that was back in 1984. I bet if the same question was circulated today, that percentage would be lower than it was in nineteen-eighties. Many of those scholars who were surveyed by Rothman and Snyderman in 1984 would've been educated in the forties and fifties when such questions could still be studied dispassionately (if quietly).

    , @Pincher Martin
    Keep in mind, Sean, that Rothman and Synderman's survey was conducted in 1984 (and published in 1988).

    That's 35 years ago.

    I would confidently bet that a majority of those 661 scholars and experts are now either dead or retired.

    And any of those scholars and experts who were forty-five or older at the time of the survey in 1984 were most likely educated in a very different type of university than would exist even by the late nineteen-sixties and taught by very different types of professors than those who teach university students today.

    (I can't recall if Rothman and Synderman gave the demographic breakdown, but given the year of the survey, I bet more than 90 percent of the 661 scholars and experts surveyed were white and a majority were men.)

    Yet even with those conditions - conditions which no longer exist today - only 46 percent of these scholars and experts agreed that genetics contributes to the black-white intelligence gap.

  228. • Replies: @MEH 0910
    https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1087564448225619968
  229. @MEH 0910
    https://twitter.com/a_centrism/status/1087543691307307008

  230. @AndrewR
    And now grandpa starts hitting below the belt. Sad.

    Would I protect my wife or daughter? Of course. But you're definitely moving the goalposts here. I wouldn't necessarily protect someone else's daughter just because I have a Y-chromosome and she doesn't.

    Crazy Andy wrote to me:

    Would I protect my wife or daughter? Of course. But you’re definitely moving the goalposts here. I wouldn’t necessarily protect someone else’s daughter just because I have a Y-chromosome and she doesn’t.

    No, I was talking about a case of a guy on a date with a girl who would not defend the girl when she was assaulted. That was the case to which you responded. You made quite clear what you would do, or rather what you would not do, in that case.

    You are an example of the decadence into which our society has fallen. I pity you. But I do understand why many young “men” like yourself, never raised to be men, end up killing themselves.

    You have been cheated, like so many of your peers. It is very sad.

    • LOL: AndrewR
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    I wasn't there so I don't know what happened. I could think of any number of reasons the male date didn't "defend" the girl. Clearly he just wasn't that into her.

    Anyway, it's beyond absurd to hear a boomer blaming millennials for the fact that the boomers chose not to raise their millennial kids in the same way boomers were (allegedly) raised. But boomers like you reveal yourselves to be perhaps the worst generation in history. You rebelled in an extreme fashion against your elders when you were young, and now you refuse to take any responsibility for how the younger generations have turned out.

  231. @Sean
    It is only women who are in need of a provider that go for the cardinal masculine virtues in the father of their children. Heiresses, women making serious money, and welfare recipients will go for playboys, bad boys and even card carrying psychopaths. Women being financially independent means their genes can forget about making sure there is bread on the table and concentrate on getting into a sexy son who will spread them far and wide. Henry Harpending proposed that the welfare payments for a child should be made to its father in order to make women only have children with cardinal masculine virtue type men.

    Sean wrote to me:

    It is only women who are in need of a provider that go for the cardinal masculine virtues in the father of their children. Heiresses, women making serious money, and welfare recipients will go for playboys, bad boys and even card carrying psychopaths.

    Yeah, there is a lot to that. Although, now that our kids are (more or less) grown, I can look back and realize that it would be very hard for a single parent to raise kids on her own, even if finance were no issue. Kids really do need a mom and a dad. But, current ideology obscures that fact.

  232. @Pincher Martin

    I think you are mixing two subthreads: my reply to your question on social science is at January 19, 2019 at 10:42 am GMT (currently shows up as comment 130 for me, though that numbering can change, as we all know).

    My comments on Pinker, Chua et al. were part of a subthread that started with YetAnotherAnon at January 18, 2019 at 2:50 pm GMT (shows up as comment 7 for me).
     

    They are part of the same discussion, and my duo with you began with your comment #47 and my comment #56.

    I’ve been trying to keep my comments separate between those two subthreads (though I or someone else may have inadvertently intertwined them).
     
    Okay. But they really aren't separate. They are part of the same discussion concerning your optimism about the future of what we as a society will know because of what scientists are able to discuss.

    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    But they really aren’t separate. They are part of the same discussion concerning your optimism about the future of what we as a society will know because of what scientists are able to discuss.

    Well, you are interpreting them in a way I did not intend. Obviously, I know that Chua is not a scientist or a social scientist, and I never said she was. Sorry that you thought I was addressing your point when I was referring to other points.

    Dave

  233. @Anonymous

    Most of his blog follows a simple but ass backwards template: he suggests he knows something while flagrantly avoiding actually demonstrating what he insistently implies he knows.
     
    You're not the only one who has noticed that.

    For example?

  234. @BB753
    So there's no chance of scientific advances in climatology as long as it's approached as political and self-serving economic issues. Aren't we fast approaching an ice-age, anyway?

    BB753 wrote:

    So there’s no chance of scientific advances in climatology as long as it’s approached as political and self-serving economic issues.

    Oh, no. There is progress; it’s just that the mainstream media are totally lame when it comes to reporting on ongoing scientific research, especially when there are disagreements among scientists. This is true not only of climate science but also of areas such as superstring theory that have no social or political implications.

    Of course, the fact that “global warming” does have political implications makes it even worse.

    BB753 also wrote:

    Aren’t we fast approaching an ice-age, anyway?

    Could be — nobody knows, of course. There is faint evidence that we could be entering another quiet Sun period like the Maunder Minimum, which could signal another Little Ice Age.

    Or not. We don’t know.

    Of course, one of the ironies is that if we are headed towards another Little Ice Age, then anthropogenic CO2 could be exactly what we need in the short term to help stabilize the climate!

    The universe is a complicated place, but most people, especially not-very-bright journalists, yearn for a simplicity that just does not exist.

  235. @Pincher Martin

    No I am not kidding, but Richard Nisbett is. The only people that don’t believe that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence are journalists, who are exposed to much more education (ie indoctrination) than other people.
     
    Sailer recently cited a poll (or GSS survey) which claimed only 23 percent of American whites think whites are more intelligent than blacks.

    So 77 percent of American whits disagree with you.

    The policies have nothing to do with the science.
     
    They have everything to do with it. My God, man, have you never heard of disparate impact? That kind of thinking pervades how our political class thinks about racial issues.

    Pincher Martin wrote:

    Sailer recently cited a poll (or GSS survey) which claimed only 23 percent of American whites think whites are more intelligent than blacks.

    So 77 percent of American whits disagree with you.

    Well, everyone knows that whites do better than blacks academically and on standardized tests (on average): the media have been inundating us with this fact and discussions of how to ameliorate it for at least half a century.

    So, either the whites answering the test were interpreting it in a somewhat different manner than you stated it (maybe it asked if they were “certain” or if they knew it was genetic?) or, perhaps, many of the whites were “virtue signalling.”

    I suspect the latter.

    • Agree: Sean
  236. @Sean

    23 percent of American whites think whites are more intelligent than blacks.
     
    A clear majority of scientists in the relevant field know that blacks on average fall short of whites, and genetics that are the most important reason for the difference. As Hans Eysenck, said decades ago, the media gave the misleading impression that anyone (such as himself) saying blacks were of inferior intelligence was a maverick outside the mainstream scientific consensus. He cited The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy as showing that there was majority support among scientists for every single one of the main contentions he had put forward, further asserting that the idea there was any real debate about the matter among the scientists in the field was incorrect.

    If an "is" (like black inferiority in intelligence) can mandate an "ought" the world would be a very different place. The mainstream balance of opinion among scientists is of the pointlessness in bringing up blacks' lack of intelligence, considering it as a hypothesis, or debating with those who do. To change policy requires breaking a modus vivendi, which only exists in the first place because half the West, at least, will not accept scientific truth as a guide to policy. They won't.

    A clear majority of scientists in the relevant field know that blacks on average fall short of whites, and genetics that are the most important reason for the difference.

    A clear majority? No. A clear plurality? Maybe. But that plurality keeps very quiet about it.

    You mention the only scholarly survey I can recall of the specific issue you claim “a clear majority of scientists in the relevant field” believe about black intelligence, but you misrepresent it.

    Here is the relevant section from the Wikipedia article you linked:

    The role of genetics in the black-white IQ gap has been particularly controversial. The question regarding this in the survey asked “Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of black-white differences in IQ?” Amongst the 661 returned questionnaires, 14% declined to answer the question, 24% voted that there was insufficient evidence to give an answer, 1% voted that the gap was “due entirely to genetic variation”, 15% voted that it was “due entirely to environmental variation” and 45% voted that it was a “product of genetic and environmental variation”.

    So only 46 percent of hundreds of scholars in various relevant fields thought that black-white intelligence differences were either wholly or partially explained by genetics. And fifteen times as many scholars believed the gap was entirely due to environmental variation than it was to genetic variation.

    And that was back in 1984. I bet if the same question was circulated today, that percentage would be lower than it was in nineteen-eighties. Many of those scholars who were surveyed by Rothman and Snyderman in 1984 would’ve been educated in the forties and fifties when such questions could still be studied dispassionately (if quietly).

  237. @Sean

    23 percent of American whites think whites are more intelligent than blacks.
     
    A clear majority of scientists in the relevant field know that blacks on average fall short of whites, and genetics that are the most important reason for the difference. As Hans Eysenck, said decades ago, the media gave the misleading impression that anyone (such as himself) saying blacks were of inferior intelligence was a maverick outside the mainstream scientific consensus. He cited The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy as showing that there was majority support among scientists for every single one of the main contentions he had put forward, further asserting that the idea there was any real debate about the matter among the scientists in the field was incorrect.

    If an "is" (like black inferiority in intelligence) can mandate an "ought" the world would be a very different place. The mainstream balance of opinion among scientists is of the pointlessness in bringing up blacks' lack of intelligence, considering it as a hypothesis, or debating with those who do. To change policy requires breaking a modus vivendi, which only exists in the first place because half the West, at least, will not accept scientific truth as a guide to policy. They won't.

    Keep in mind, Sean, that Rothman and Synderman’s survey was conducted in 1984 (and published in 1988).

    That’s 35 years ago.

    I would confidently bet that a majority of those 661 scholars and experts are now either dead or retired.

    And any of those scholars and experts who were forty-five or older at the time of the survey in 1984 were most likely educated in a very different type of university than would exist even by the late nineteen-sixties and taught by very different types of professors than those who teach university students today.

    (I can’t recall if Rothman and Synderman gave the demographic breakdown, but given the year of the survey, I bet more than 90 percent of the 661 scholars and experts surveyed were white and a majority were men.)

    Yet even with those conditions – conditions which no longer exist today – only 46 percent of these scholars and experts agreed that genetics contributes to the black-white intelligence gap.

    • Replies: @Sean
    Eysenck said that Rothman and Snyderman found an overwhelming majority of psychologists were willing to state that they believed that individual genetic inheritance contributes to variations in inheritance within the white community, and a smaller majority expressed the same view about the high-low SES and black-white difference in intelligence.

    Rothman and Snyderman themselves said media coverage gave the impression that only a few mavericks disputed that the concept of intelligence was hopelessly biased against the poor and black, and hence the only conclusion was that media was misleading as to what the scientific balance of opinion was.
  238. @PhysicistDave
    Crazy Andy wrote to me:

    Would I protect my wife or daughter? Of course. But you’re definitely moving the goalposts here. I wouldn’t necessarily protect someone else’s daughter just because I have a Y-chromosome and she doesn’t.
     
    No, I was talking about a case of a guy on a date with a girl who would not defend the girl when she was assaulted. That was the case to which you responded. You made quite clear what you would do, or rather what you would not do, in that case.

    You are an example of the decadence into which our society has fallen. I pity you. But I do understand why many young "men" like yourself, never raised to be men, end up killing themselves.

    You have been cheated, like so many of your peers. It is very sad.

    I wasn’t there so I don’t know what happened. I could think of any number of reasons the male date didn’t “defend” the girl. Clearly he just wasn’t that into her.

    Anyway, it’s beyond absurd to hear a boomer blaming millennials for the fact that the boomers chose not to raise their millennial kids in the same way boomers were (allegedly) raised. But boomers like you reveal yourselves to be perhaps the worst generation in history. You rebelled in an extreme fashion against your elders when you were young, and now you refuse to take any responsibility for how the younger generations have turned out.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    AndrewR wrote to me:

    I wasn’t there so I don’t know what happened. I could think of any number of reasons the male date didn’t “defend” the girl. Clearly he just wasn’t that into her.
     
    Andy, one of the things I am trying to get into your head is that if you ask a girl on a date, you have some reasonable responsibility for her safety. No, you do not literally have to take a bullet for her. But simply telling your buddy to knock it off or else... that is not exactly a Purple Heart level of courage! And he would not do even that.

    All American boys used to be taught that they had some obligation to protect girls in the neighborhood, female classmates, etc. You are making quite clear that this is no longer true.

    Andy also said:

    Anyway, it’s beyond absurd to hear a boomer blaming millennials for the fact that the boomers chose not to raise their millennial kids in the same way boomers were (allegedly) raised. But boomers like you reveal yourselves to be perhaps the worst generation in history. You rebelled in an extreme fashion against your elders when you were young, and now you refuse to take any responsibility for how the younger generations have turned out.

     

    I rebelled?? In his later years, my dear old dad used to say that I had never been a problem as a child at all! Not quite true, we had our conflicts (although we were more likely to argue about trade policy -- I was and am a free trader and finally got him to agree -- than usual teen-age issues such as curfews or loud music, much less drugs or alcohol).

    You over-generalize. A lot. The Boomers are not a monolith. Bu the way, contrary to your original claims, no Boomer is pushing 80!!!

    However, perhaps you and I are moving towards a point of agreement. Humans are not born with knowledge about the world. No one allows their children to just "follow their instincts" when it comes to eating mushrooms or pretty-looking berries.

    But, the dominant mind-set for decades now, going back to my own childhood in fact, is that we can allow "young people" to just "follow their instincts" when it comes to dating, choosing a spouse, sex, reproduction, child-rearing, etc. It does not work: humans are no more born with an instinctual grasp of how to deal well with sex, reproduction, and child-rearing than we are born with an innate ability to tell which mushrooms are safe.

    Changes in society (extended periods of education, massing of an age cohort in high school and college, greater physical mobility, etc.) as well as technological changes (most notably the Pill) were sufficient to cause adults back in the mid-twentieth century to abnegate their responsibility to guide their children with regard to dating, sex, spousal choice, etc.

    It has not worked well.

    We have, as a society, stopped teaching kids that:

    Sex is evolutionarily tied to reproduction and pair bonding.

    Because evolution is focused on passing on one's genes (i.e., reproduction and child-rearing), evolution has put an enormous psychological weight on sex.

    Treating sex as simply a form of casual entertainment is going to be very psychologically damaging, to both young men and, especially, young women.

    Because reproduction necessarily involves a much greater burden for females than males, what males "naturally" want is not the same as what females "naturally" want.

    Some males therefore want to take a short-cut and sexually assault women.

    It is the responsibility of decent males to stop them.

    Human beings do not achieve happy lives by simply focusing on grabbing every bit of momentary pleasure that suits their fancy.

    Becoming a good, productive, responsible person will make you happier in the long term than "following your bliss."
     
    All of that is just Evolutionary Psychology 101, but, more than that, it was once the common sense of civilized societies (e.g., among our Victorian great-great grandparents).

    It is regrettable that my generation and my parents' generation failed to pass all this on to you. I have tried (and my father tried), but we were out-numbered. This is what I meant when I repeatedly said that "you've been cheated": your generation has been cheated of the knowledge that human beings have had for tens of thousands of years as to what is needed to lead a worthwhile and happy life.

    What a shame!

    So, now we have a "Lord of the Flies" situation where young people school other young people without any actual understanding or experience.

    But, you are human beings. You can think and you can understand what has gone wrong. It doesn't take a genius, just some honest thought.

    Good luck.
  239. @PhysicistDave
    Almost Missouri wrote to me:

    Truth comes out because men get it out. It doesn’t just appear by itself. The Periodic Table did not appear in a burning bush.
     
    Yes, of course. Truth is not just floating up there in the sky, waiting to rain down upon us!

    And yet... in some ways, it often does look that way. Your example of the Periodic Table illustrates my point. Some crazy dude in backward, largely illiterate, nineteenth-century Russia of all places made the discovery. Mendeleev claimed to have seen the Periodic Table in a dream. He made up a set of cards with the properties of the elements and basically played a weird game against himself trying to put them together in a sensible way. One weird dude.

    Now, of course, Mendeleev was a trained chemist: this was not some peasant kid who heard voices that gave him the answer. And, he struggled very hard to discover the answer.

    On the other hand, some crazy guy in Russia is not whom a reasoanble person would have expected to solve the problem. (I'd have bet on a German.)

    I could make a similar point about the advances in the social sciences I quoted to Pincher Martin earlier: yes, nowadays people interested in the relevant subjects recognize the names of Mises and Hayek, Thomas Bouchard, Tooby and Cosmides, etc. But, I can assure you that none of these folks were recognized leaders of their fields when they started pushing their heterodox (but true) ideas.

    Most importantly, we tend to think of intellectual battles as us (now) vs. them (now), as if the combatants are those already involved in the fray. Thankfully, there are children, who eventually grow up and join in the battles. I remember when I was one of those young people doing what I could to denounce socialism, behaviorism, and all the rest: it seemed as if I had managed to choose the losing side on just about every issue I was aware of (including in philosophy and in my own field of physics!). And, yet, on many of those issues the "fringe" views I held fifty years ago are now the mainstream views.

    How did this happen? I'm not quite sure. I think that an awful lot of social life happens "below the radar" with ordinary people thinking about things and discussing them in small groups and then, all of a sudden, it turns out that society has changed.

    The fall of the Soviet Union, the collapse of Jim Crow, Brexit, the Trump phenomenon -- I have seen this happen again and again and again.

    Yes, progrss is not automatic: it depends on human action. But often even those bringing about the progressive changes do not realize they are doing it until, one day, the world is different.

    Thankfully, the course of human events can not be controlled or even predicted from the top down.

    Haha, I didn’t know that about Mendeleev. I guess the form of the benzene molecule would be another example of revelation informing science. (Kekule said he discovered the unusual ring structure of benzene after having a dream of a snake biting its own tail.)

    But still, once the revelation is over, there is still a lot of hard and clever work to nail down the science. One percent inspiration and 99% perspiration and all that.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  240. @Pincher Martin
    Keep in mind, Sean, that Rothman and Synderman's survey was conducted in 1984 (and published in 1988).

    That's 35 years ago.

    I would confidently bet that a majority of those 661 scholars and experts are now either dead or retired.

    And any of those scholars and experts who were forty-five or older at the time of the survey in 1984 were most likely educated in a very different type of university than would exist even by the late nineteen-sixties and taught by very different types of professors than those who teach university students today.

    (I can't recall if Rothman and Synderman gave the demographic breakdown, but given the year of the survey, I bet more than 90 percent of the 661 scholars and experts surveyed were white and a majority were men.)

    Yet even with those conditions - conditions which no longer exist today - only 46 percent of these scholars and experts agreed that genetics contributes to the black-white intelligence gap.

    Eysenck said that Rothman and Snyderman found an overwhelming majority of psychologists were willing to state that they believed that individual genetic inheritance contributes to variations in inheritance within the white community, and a smaller majority expressed the same view about the high-low SES and black-white difference in intelligence.

    Rothman and Snyderman themselves said media coverage gave the impression that only a few mavericks disputed that the concept of intelligence was hopelessly biased against the poor and black, and hence the only conclusion was that media was misleading as to what the scientific balance of opinion was.

    • Replies: @Sean
    ...contributes to variations in intelligence within the white community...
  241. @Sean
    Eysenck said that Rothman and Snyderman found an overwhelming majority of psychologists were willing to state that they believed that individual genetic inheritance contributes to variations in inheritance within the white community, and a smaller majority expressed the same view about the high-low SES and black-white difference in intelligence.

    Rothman and Snyderman themselves said media coverage gave the impression that only a few mavericks disputed that the concept of intelligence was hopelessly biased against the poor and black, and hence the only conclusion was that media w