The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
NYT: Beware! "Members of the 'Human Biodiversity Movement' Enthusiastically Tweet and Blog"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

From the NYT opinion section:

Why Progressives Should Embrace the Genetics of Education
By Kathryn Paige Harden

Dr. Harden is a psychologist who studies how genetic factors shape adolescent development.

Harden was a co-author of the 2017 Vox article “Charles Murray Is Once Again Peddling Junk Science About Race and IQ,” which I wrote about at length here. In general, Harden knows what she is talking about and wishes to continue being allowed to research genetics without getting Watsoned. This leads her to some contortions.

July 24, 2018

… Now new research has found that college graduation, with all its advantages, is partly the outcome of a genetic lottery.

On Monday, scientists published a study in Nature Genetics that analyzed the genes of 1.1 million people of European ancestry, including over 300,000 23andMe customers. Over 99 percent of our DNA is identical in all humans, but researchers focused on the remaining 1 percent and found thousands of DNA variants that are correlated with educational attainment. This information can be combined into a single number, called a polygenic score. In Americans with European ancestry, just over 10 percent of people with a low polygenic score completed college, compared with 55 percent of people with a high polygenic score. This genetic disparity in college completion is as big as the disparity between rich and poor students in America.

Because researchers focused on differences within an ancestrally homogeneous group of people, their results have no implications for understanding racial disparities in education. Also, when researchers looked at African-Americans, the genetic variants only minimally predicted educational outcomes. Many more studies will need to be done before we can come close to understanding fully the role of genetics in the American education system.

But research like this makes many people nervous. Linking social inequality to DNA — isn’t this eugenics? After all, the term “eugenics” was coined by Francis Galton, whose 1869 book, “Hereditary Genius,” argued that British class structure was based on a biological inheritance of “eminence.” In the United States, the idea that inferior genes were to blame for poverty led to state-sponsored atrocities, including forced sterilization and institutionalization.

Eugenic thinking is not safely in the past. Today, members of the “human biodiversity movement” enthusiastically tweet and blog

This link leads to an SPLC “extremist” dossier on Stefan Molyneux.

If you can’t trust marketing materials from an organization founded by a member of the Direct Marketing [i.e., junk mail] Association Hall of Fame, what can you trust? If our Junk Mail Geniuses’ claims to be Good People are not above suspicion, what will become of our society?

about discoveries in molecular genetics that they mistakenly believe support the ideas that inequality is genetically determined; that policies like a more generous welfare state are thus impotent; and that genetics confirms a racialized hierarchy of human worth.

In other words, “members of the ‘human biodiversity movement” are Bad People, unlike Professor Harden, who, while she has much the same scientific interests and views, is a Good Person. Just ask her. You can tell she is a Good Person because she’ll warn you about all the Bad Persons.

Similarly, if you see a sleigh full of Russian peasants being pursued by a pack of wolves across the Siberian steppe and occasionally a peasant goes flying out of the back of the sleigh and is devoured by the wolves, giving the other peasants in the sleigh time to get away, you can tell, scientifically, that the person who got eaten by wolves was a Bad Peasant, while the people who got away were Good Peasants.

Just ask them: they’ll tell you.

From left to right: Wolves, Bad Peasant, Good Peasants, Horses

You see, science has proven that when it comes to discussion of science, there are Good People and there are Bad People. The Bad People deserve to be harassed by the SPLC, while the Good People, should never, ever, be lumped in with the Bad People.

This has led people who value social justice to argue that, when it comes to issues like education, genetic research should simply not be conducted. For instance, in response to an earlier study on the genetics of education, Dorothy Roberts, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, asserted that this type of research “cannot possibly be socially neutral — and in fact will intensify social inequities.” She joins a long tradition of left-wing thinkers who considered biological research inimical to the goal of social equality. Lenin himself wrote that “the transfer of biological concepts into the field of the social sciences is a meaningless phrase.”

But this is a mistake. Those of us who value social justice should instead be asking: How can the power of the genomic revolution be harnessed to create a more equal society?

Discovering specific DNA variants that are correlated with education can help us in two ways.

First, these genetic results reveal the injustice of our so-called meritocracy. …

But success in our educational system is partially a result of genetic luck. No one earned his or her DNA sequence

Did you “earn” your children’s DNA sequence? An interesting question, one that tends to get overlooked in the easy talk about “genetic luck.”

, yet some of us are benefiting enormously from it. By showing us the links between genes and educational success, this new study reminds us that everyone should share in our national prosperity, regardless of which genetic variants he or she happens to inherit.

The practicality of “everyone should share in our national prosperity” depends on who “everyone” is defined to be. It makes more sense from a pre-2016 Bernie Sanders anti-Open Borders perspective, defining everyone who is to share in our national prosperity to be members of the American nation, not the whole world. But the Current Year is rapidly pushing toward defining Bernie’s 2015 view as Literally Hitler.

Second, knowing which genes are associated with educational success will help scientists understand how different environments also affect that success. The eventual development of a polygenic score that statistically predicts educational outcomes will allow researchers to control for genetic differences between people, so that the causal effects of the environment are thrown into sharper focus. Understanding which environments cause improvements in children’s ability to think and learn is necessary if we want to invest wisely in interventions that can truly make a difference.

True, but we can already do that crudely simply by classifying students by race in our study. It typically turns out in the studies I’ve been following since 1972 that the special sauce of “good schools” is having good students (i.e., Asian or white). Polygenic scores will allow us to distinguish more finely within races, which doesn’t sound promising for finding more convenient ways to construct good schools based on mediocre students.

As somebody who has been a social sciences aficionado for 46 years, a lot of the discussion in 2018 clearly assumes that nobody before last week ever thought about these issues. But instead there was much insightful discussion especially about 40 to 50 years ago.

For example, while it’s interesting to check to see which students might have high academic potential due to their genes, we have long had more direct ways to measure academic potential, such as GPAs and test scores.

Here’s a very old example: Much denounced IQ researcher Sir Cyril Burt was knighted by a British Labour government for pushing through a plan to give IQ tests to working class kids to find diamonds in the rough, which led to a doubling on the percentage of workers’ children winning scholarships. In the future, maybe you won’t have to give IQ tests to poor kids because you can just look at their DNA and predict how they’d do on an IQ test , but … we’ve had IQ tests for over a century now. Of course, few SJWs are reconciled to the science of IQ testing …

Similarly, scientists have been able to look at the effects of genes versus upbringing for many decades now via twin and adoption studies. See my movie review in Wednesday’s Taki’s Magazine of a 1960s covert experiment by Freudians separating twins to prove that the Freudian family dynamics of nurture was more important than that outdated Galtonian nonsense about genetics. This effort did not turn out well.

So why imagine that Social Justice Warriors will suddenly discover much in DNA that fits their worldview after all their scientific failures of the last half century?

What could you use these advancing polygenic scores for in social sciences? Because they are advertised as only working on white people, and they aren’t yet powerful enough to be very accurate for individuals, the class of study I could them imagine them being useful for in the new future is for studies of low-achieving white communities.

– For example, do Irish Travelers have the same genetic potential for educational attainment as other Irish people and it’s just their Gypsy-like culture that holds them back? Or have they separated enough in terms of mating over the centuries that their genetic potential is now lower?

– What about West Virginia, the state with the lowest NAEP school test scores among whites? Has it been genetically brain-drained by all the high potential people moving out? Or are West Virginian students victims of their environment? Both? 50-50? 80-20? 20-80?

– Professor Caroline Hoxby of Stanford has shown that quite a few high school students scoring at the 90th percentile or higher on SAT/ACT tests are not intensively recruited by prestige colleges. The most overlooked high scorers tend to be Red State white males. That’s pretty interesting as it is, but it could be that SAT/ACT scores are somewhat biased against them because of a lack of a culture of test prep, so perhaps their genetical potential on average is even higher than their test scores would indicate?

I find these kind of Coming Apart-related questions of great interest, but few others seem to care.

Genetic differences in human life are a scientific fact, like climate change. …

Many progressives resist acknowledging this when it comes to education, fearing that it will compromise their egalitarian beliefs. But just like acknowledging the reality of climate change is necessary to ensure a sustainably habitable planet, acknowledging the reality of genetic differences between people is a necessary step for us to ensure a more just society.

But the Fundamental Tenet of Social Justiceism is that all disparities in outcome among identity groups cannot possibly be due to genetics and thus are the fault of the Bad People.

Update: Antonio Regalado’s twitter thread on this is helpful:

 
Hide 107 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    Bad is bad but can also means disobedient.

    After all, ‘good doggy’ is a compliment to a dog, but is ‘good hummy’ a compliment for a human?

    Good has many many meanings, but one meaning is obedience to the official power.

    And the HBD community must be proud to be…

  2. There was a time when I thought that once I joined the ranks of humanities and/or social sciences in academia, I would have had it made.

    Hence the nickname.

  3. Enthusiastically Tweet and Blog

    Are they likening us to chirping birds and croaking amphibians?

    • Replies: @Roderick Spode
    Is Steve Sailer enthusiastic? His thesis is rather downbeat to warrant enthusiasm.
  4. “Many progressives resist acknowledging this when it comes to education, fearing that it will >compromise their egalitarian beliefs<. "

    "reveal the futility of their egalitarian beliefs" would be more accurate.

  5. Over 99 percent of our DNA is identical in all humans

    And, for reference, over 98% of human DNA is identical to chimpanzee DNA…

    • Replies: @Big Bill
    Fruit flies and humans have 60% DNA in common.
    , @Travis
    but chimps have less chromosomes than Humans....Around 80% of the human genome has an equivalent section in the chimp genome. When we compare these sections we find that they’re around 95% similar. We know that the 99% number is just plain wrong and in reality we are actually about 75% similar to chimps when we compare the entire genome.
  6. Yes, I think a man who mates with a beautiful and talented woman with Ivy-level smarts (e.g., Olivia Wilde, Ellie Kemper, Natalie Portman) has “earned” better DNA for his children.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Olivia Wilde is the screen name of a Cockburn, the great leftwing journalist clan that is related to the great rightwing journalist/novelist Waugh clan.
    , @International Jew
    There were no beautiful girls in the Ivy League, in my day. Brooke Shields might have been the first one but I graduated before she arrived.
    , @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    I have to be one of the only men who doesn't get the Olivia Wilde hype. She looks quite ordinary to me with strange, severe features - and I think you could find at least five better looking women of her age just walking around on the street on any given day in any reasonably well populated place in the United States.

    De gustibus.
  7. Haven’t we always had this divide in the Progressives: those who admit genetic differences and say they don’t matter; and those who claim no genetic differences?

    The latter appear to hold the political power. Might be time for a purge.

    • Replies: @notanon
    before WW2 progressives were the people pushing for eugenics
  8. Dr Harden is a psychologist

    discoveries in molecular genetics that they mistakenly believe support the ideas that inequality is genetically determined

    mistakenly believe

    psychologist

    Indeed.

  9. Over 99 percent of our DNA is identical in all humans

    Setting aside the grammatical nightmare, this phrase could just as well read

    Over 99 percent of our DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees and bonobos

    or even

    Over 50 percent of our DNA is identical to that of bananas

    I know that you know, but I never get tired of reminding people that this argument is BS.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I thought the banana was about 70%.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Over 50 percent of our DNA is identical to that of bananas

     

    Some are predicting that bananas will soon go extinct. If human activity is responsible, would that be frugicide?
    , @StAugustine
    So we're all half bananas... I'd say some people are completely bananas X'D
    , @Anon
    99% of DNA are same for Albert Einstein, Mike Tyson, Hank the Angry Dwarf, and an Amazonian Indian.

    Two cars can be exactly alike except for power of the engine. Makes huge difference.
  10. Because researchers focused on differences within an ancestrally homogeneous group of people

    Evidently not so homogeneous, if they found those tremendous disparities in genetic predisposition to finish college.

    Also, when researchers looked at African-Americans, the genetic variants only minimally predicted educational outcomes.

    So, contrary to the “focused on…ancestrally homogeneous populations” bit, they actually did test Africans. They simply chose not to report where African genes stack up on their continuum. (I’ll take a wild guess and say they discovered that including Africans in their report would have made the difference between Sicilians and Estonians seem less significant.)

    • Replies: @WowJustWow


    Because researchers focused on differences within an ancestrally homogeneous group of people
     
    Evidently not so homogeneous, if they found those tremendous disparities in genetic predisposition to finish college.
     
    *backtracks, flips through handbook of talking points* Ahem, as you can clearly see, this research shows there's no such thing as race.
  11. state-sponsored atrocities, including forced… institutionalization

    Ha! Good thing we don’t do THAT to extremely low-IQ people anymore.

    Lenin himself

    Oh, fuck off, Kathryn.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Also, while straight up forced sterilization may not be on the menu anymore, we most certainly do suppress fertility among certain demographics and subsidize fertility among certain other demographics

    So eugenics is alive and well, it's just not called that anymore.

    Also, the bad old eugenics brought measurable improvements in society, while the good new "not eugenics" eugenics brings measurable deteriorations in society. But that's a technicality. State sponsored discrimination in who gets born and who doesn't is happening now more than ever.
  12. @Reg Cæsar

    Enthusiastically Tweet and Blog
     
    Are they likening us to chirping birds and croaking amphibians?

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

    Is Steve Sailer enthusiastic? His thesis is rather downbeat to warrant enthusiasm.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Is Steve Sailer enthusiastic? His thesis is rather downbeat to warrant enthusiasm.

     

    Change the topic to golf course architecture, and that'll fire him up.
  13. For example, do Irish Travelers have the same genetic potential for educational attainment as other Irish people and it’s just their Gypsy-like culture that holds them back? Or have they separated enough in terms of mating over the centuries that their genetic potential is now lower?

    IT’S THE SECOND ONE.

  14. @JA
    Yes, I think a man who mates with a beautiful and talented woman with Ivy-level smarts (e.g., Olivia Wilde, Ellie Kemper, Natalie Portman) has "earned" better DNA for his children.

    Olivia Wilde is the screen name of a Cockburn, the great leftwing journalist clan that is related to the great rightwing journalist/novelist Waugh clan.

    • Replies: @JudyBlumeSussman

    Olivia Wilde is the screen name of a Cockburn
     
    Lightly-applied pickup artistry won her heart.
    http://www.barstoolsports.com/dmv/jason-sudeikis-pickup-line-to-olivia-wilde-was-so-genius/

    But she learned nothing and is raising her son a feminist.
    https://www.bustle.com/articles/171435-olivia-wildes-son-is-already-a-feminist-the-reason-why-proves-teaching-kids-about-gender
    , @The Big Red Scary
    Left-wing is a fair description of much of the Cockburns, but it seems that so many years in the Middle East have produced in Patrick Cockburn a degree of realist caution.
  15. @Roderick Spode

    Over 99 percent of our DNA is identical in all humans
     
    Setting aside the grammatical nightmare, this phrase could just as well read

    Over 99 percent of our DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees and bonobos
     
    or even

    Over 50 percent of our DNA is identical to that of bananas
     
    I know that you know, but I never get tired of reminding people that this argument is BS.

    I thought the banana was about 70%.

  16. Direct quote from Dr. Kathryn Harden’s New York Times op-ed:

    This has led people who value social justice to argue that, when it comes to issues like education, genetic research should simply not be conducted. […] Lenin himself wrote that “the transfer of biological concepts into the field of the social sciences is a meaningless phrase.”

    Well, thank you, Dr. Harden. The wise Vladimir Lenin, notable for nothing so much as the value he put on “social justice,” told us that one cannot transfer biological concepts into the field of the social sciences. Who would know better?

    But still there could remain a tiny doubt: what about the biological concepts of starvation and violent death? Lenin and his followers served out a very large amount of social justice and many observers noted biological effects. . .

    Seriously, folks, I am not surprised that the New York Times printed Harden’s piece– the Times spent most of 2017 celebrating the mass murderers (and allegedly good sex for Russian women, at least for those who didn’t starve to death) of the 1917 Bolshevik coup and bragging about a century of its own fawning coverage of Soviet Communism since Walter Duranty was chief correspondent.

    However, I am mildly surprised to see that Harden is so marinated in fashionable Communism that she thinks everyone else will regard V. I. Lenin as the proper authority to whom to appeal for proof of her thesis that DNA analysis is bad.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    However, I am mildly surprised to see that Harden is so marinated in fashionable Communism that she thinks everyone else will regard V. I. Lenin as the proper authority to whom to appeal for proof of her thesis that DNA analysis is bad.
     
    Thank you, Veracitor. Your comment wasn't up when I wrote mine, but you said this better than I could have. Do lots of people in NY City bring up Vlad Lenin in conversation? "Lenin said carbon dioxide is bad; I just read it in the New Yorker." "Really, Meghan? That's cool! In the last issue they published one of his best borscht recipes".
    , @Joe Stalin
    "Lenin himself wrote that “the transfer of biological concepts into the field of the social sciences is a meaningless phrase.”"

    I still like: "Immigration is the transfection of a country" whether Lenin likes it or not.
  17. James Watson co-discovered DNA, which made him a genius and a Nobel Prize winner. When Watson pointed out very obvious differences in people he went from genius to pariah. Watson thrown to the wolves. For what it’s worth Obama won a Nobel Prize, but he is no genius.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    For what it’s worth Obama won a Nobel Prize, but he is no genius
     
    Maybe the science prizes are "won", but the Peace? Come on...
    , @hyperbola
    To be a little more accurate, Watson (plus Wilkins and Crick) stole the research results of another scientist (Rosalind Franklin) and published them while leaving her out.


    Rosalind Franklin
    Discovery of the Structure of DNA
    https://www.thoughtco.com/rosalind-franklin-biography-3530347

    After graduating, Rosalind Franklin stayed and worked for a while at Cambridge, then took a job in the coal industry, applying her knowledge and skill to the structure of coal. She went from that position to Paris, where she worked with Jacques Mering and developed techniques in x-ray crystallography, which was a leading-edge technique to explore the structure of the atoms in molecules.

    Studying DNA

    Rosalind Franklin joined the scientists at the Medical Research Unit, King's College, when John Randall recruited her to work on the structure of DNA. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) was originally discovered in 1898 by Johann Miescher, and it was known that it was a key to genetics. But it was not until the middle of the 20th century when scientific methods had developed to where the actual structure of the molecule could be discovered, and Rosalind Franklin's work was key to that methodology.

    Rosalind Franklin worked on the DNA molecule from 1951 until 1953. Using x-ray crystallography she took photographs of the B version of the molecule. A co-worker with whom Franklin did not have a good working relationship, Maurice H. F. Wilkins, Wilkins showed Franklin's photographs of DNA to James Watson, without permission of Franklin. Watson and his research partner, Francis Crick, were working independently on the structure of DNA, and Watson realized that these photographs were the scientific evidence they needed to prove that the DNA molecule was a double-stranded helix.

    While Watson, in his account of the discovery of the structure of DNA, largely dismissed Franklin's role in the discovery, Crick later admitted that Franklin had been "only two steps away" from the solution, herself.....
    , @hyperbola
    Obama's Nobel was much like his Presidency - bought through by corruption of anglo-zionist globalists.

    Behind the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
    by Thierry Meyssan
    https://www.voltairenet.org/article162559.html

    While the Nobel Peace Prize award has led to a chorus of praise from the Atlantic alliance leaders, it has also raised skepticism around the world. Rather than discuss the reasons that might after the fact justify this surprising choice, Thierry Meyssan exposes the corruption of the Nobel Committee and the ties between its chairman, Thorbjørn Jagland, and Obama’s associates.....
  18. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:

    Welcome to the USSA! This is a recurrent theme very much reminiscent of the Soviets: People who know feeling immense pressure to indicate that they don’t. The deal is:

    Dr. Harden, although never particularly insightful, is truly an expert in the field and she most certainly knows the score and may even strongly suspect where it leads. The article she authored is merely her attempt to sit on two chairs. Ultimate politician that she is, she is not willing to take even 1% risk of being Watsoned. Alas, she is not willing to face the reality that publishing falsehoods only increases the chance that one day they will come for Paige Harden.

  19. everyone should share in our national prosperity, regardless of which genetic variants he or she happens to inherit.

    Think of it as a sort of genetic inheritance tax. If your parents happen to be rich, you get to inherit some portion of their wealth and the rest you get to “share” with the government (sharing is good). Likewise if you parents give you a rich genetic inheritance, it’s only fair that you share any wealth that results from that too. Anytime you come into money for any reason, you should “share” it with the government who can give it out to our less fortunate brothers and sisters (after taking some off the top for itself – those pensions and overtime ain’t gonna pay themselves) – that’s only fair, wouldn’t you say?

    • Replies: @Veracitor
    The Establishment Left is already teaching our children to welcome such a "genetic inheritance tax" through communist propaganda such as the illustrated book for small children, The Rainbow Fish by Marcus Pfister, which is notable for straightforward way it lauds forced dismemberment of the main character to satisfy the petty envy of those around him.

    The Rainbow Fish is the most evil book directed to children that I have ever seen. It's scary for little kids, too.

    If anyone tries to inflict it upon your children or children in your care, you should substitute The Little Red Hen.

    However, before you destroy your copy of The Rainbow Fish, read and analyze it with your children. Help them recognize that: the initial rudeness of the rainbow fish is unfairly put in the character's mouth by the axe-grinding author; that in real life no one should or likely would* be so discourteous; that the other fishes' envy is immoral and rather bogus; that the octopus should be admonishing the other little fish rather than the rainbow fish; that the other fish ought to attract their share of attention by their own qualities or efforts ("pretty shape," "fast swimmer," etc.); and that the "solution" of tearing off and "sharing out" the rainbow fish's scales destroys both the rainbow fish himself and the pleasure everyone else gets from seeing him-- point out that all the other little fish would soon neglect and lose their stolen scales (your kids will nod in agreement) so scalping the rainbow fish is wasteful as well as evil in other ways.

    Help your children to recognize that tearing the rainbow fish's scales off would be painful and crippling, so when the rainbow fish appears happy at the end of the book, that is just the author's thumb on the scale, like with the rudeness at the beginning. Guide your children to recognize and analyze the propaganda slant which distorts the story so that one part after another seems forced if you ask "how would the rainbow fish really feel?" and compare your children's answer to what the book says. Finally, ask what should happen if another rainbow fish comes along? Should every rainbow fish that ever hatches be scalped?

    *Some folks might be so rude, but not any children you are raising, nor their well-mannered friends, right? If necessary, point out that the proper response to rudeness is argument or shunning, not dismemberment.
  20. 1) I am looking forward to your Takimag article (been reading yours and Jim Goad’s lately). Maybe you could tell me now whether the movie is a new movie about these goings-on in 1960, or a movie from that time. If it’s new, it’s usually very hard for me to get through the PC, and I usually don’t enjoy it.

    2) I know how much you enjoy this topic of nature vs. nurture. How in the world could you deal with a character like this, and all those other SJWs in academics, in some sort of conference or something? This lady’s method (I guess it’s the reporter, not the researcher from the study) seems to be: We found this one thing out, but whatever the result, we’ve still got to do things the same stupid way we’ve been. I’ll come up with a reason from some sort of logic.

    3) My opinion of Miss Harden just got worse and worse, as first she brought up Lenin. Who the hell cares about what Vladimir Lenin said about anything, except a historian? Next, she had to get in 2 possibly-required-by-contract digs in on the “climate change” BS. I thought I was done writing about that for the week. Alas!

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    I'm guessing the movie Steve is going to review is the documentary "Three Identical Strangers" which Steve wrote about back when it was in the news for it's Sundance film festival debut, and has more recently had it's wide release.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/three-identical-strangers-a-documentary-about-separated-at-birth-triplets/

  21. @Svigor

    Over 99 percent of our DNA is identical in all humans
     
    And, for reference, over 98% of human DNA is identical to chimpanzee DNA...

    Fruit flies and humans have 60% DNA in common.

    • Replies: @Dave from Oz

    Fruit flies and humans have 60% DNA in common.
     
    Anyone surprised by this should consider just how complex any living organism is. That 60% includes the genes for "how to create proteins necessary for cell division", "how to make a cell wall", and "how to combine oxygen and glucose to release energy". The 99% we share with chimpanzees includes genes for "how to make bone", "how to make a pancreas", and "how to make an eye".
  22. @Roderick Spode

    Over 99 percent of our DNA is identical in all humans
     
    Setting aside the grammatical nightmare, this phrase could just as well read

    Over 99 percent of our DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees and bonobos
     
    or even

    Over 50 percent of our DNA is identical to that of bananas
     
    I know that you know, but I never get tired of reminding people that this argument is BS.

    Over 50 percent of our DNA is identical to that of bananas

    Some are predicting that bananas will soon go extinct. If human activity is responsible, would that be frugicide?

    • Replies: @bomag

    Some are predicting that bananas will soon go extinct.
     
    Just the one particular variety that stocks most shelves.

    The other varieties are not as tasty or "eatable".

    Looks to be a cautionary tale: it's hard to maintain nice things (like Western civilization).

    The genetic difference between banana varieties is vanishingly slight, but it makes the difference between survival and extinction.
  23. @Roderick Spode

    state-sponsored atrocities, including forced... institutionalization
     
    Ha! Good thing we don't do THAT to extremely low-IQ people anymore.

    Lenin himself
     
    Oh, fuck off, Kathryn.

    Also, while straight up forced sterilization may not be on the menu anymore, we most certainly do suppress fertility among certain demographics and subsidize fertility among certain other demographics

    So eugenics is alive and well, it’s just not called that anymore.

    Also, the bad old eugenics brought measurable improvements in society, while the good new “not eugenics” eugenics brings measurable deteriorations in society. But that’s a technicality. State sponsored discrimination in who gets born and who doesn’t is happening now more than ever.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    ... the good new “not eugenics” eugenics brings measurable deteriorations in society. But that’s a technicality. State sponsored discrimination in who gets born and who doesn’t is happening now more than ever.
     
    Socialism will do that kind of thing.
  24. So basically, genetics is enormously influential and undeniable, so let’s embrace it in the hope that there will be some tweaking around the environmental margins we can throw our progressive energies into that still let us embrace the politics of redistribution and resentment.

    I think she knows this is a pretty slender reed, but it’s all she’s got to avoid tossing most of progressive dogma over the side.

  25. @Veracitor
    Direct quote from Dr. Kathryn Harden's New York Times op-ed:

    This has led people who value social justice to argue that, when it comes to issues like education, genetic research should simply not be conducted. [...] Lenin himself wrote that “the transfer of biological concepts into the field of the social sciences is a meaningless phrase.”
     


    Well, thank you, Dr. Harden. The wise Vladimir Lenin, notable for nothing so much as the value he put on "social justice," told us that one cannot transfer biological concepts into the field of the social sciences. Who would know better?

    But still there could remain a tiny doubt: what about the biological concepts of starvation and violent death? Lenin and his followers served out a very large amount of social justice and many observers noted biological effects. . .

    Seriously, folks, I am not surprised that the New York Times printed Harden's piece-- the Times spent most of 2017 celebrating the mass murderers (and allegedly good sex for Russian women, at least for those who didn't starve to death) of the 1917 Bolshevik coup and bragging about a century of its own fawning coverage of Soviet Communism since Walter Duranty was chief correspondent.

    However, I am mildly surprised to see that Harden is so marinated in fashionable Communism that she thinks everyone else will regard V. I. Lenin as the proper authority to whom to appeal for proof of her thesis that DNA analysis is bad.

    However, I am mildly surprised to see that Harden is so marinated in fashionable Communism that she thinks everyone else will regard V. I. Lenin as the proper authority to whom to appeal for proof of her thesis that DNA analysis is bad.

    Thank you, Veracitor. Your comment wasn’t up when I wrote mine, but you said this better than I could have. Do lots of people in NY City bring up Vlad Lenin in conversation? “Lenin said carbon dioxide is bad; I just read it in the New Yorker.” “Really, Meghan? That’s cool! In the last issue they published one of his best borscht recipes”.

    • Replies: @Clyde

    Do lots of people in NY City bring up Vlad Lenin in conversation?
     
    No. They are more likely to bring up Gray's Papaya recession special. Like in TV show Billions.
  26. What about West Virginia, the state with the lowest NAEP school test scores among whites? Has it been genetically brain-drained by all the high potential people moving out? Or are West Virginian students victims of their environment?

    I find these kind of Coming Apart-related questions of great interest, but few others seem to care.

    I must say tovarisch Steve, your reactionary concern for the fate of West Virginians is deeply suspicious. What would Vladimir Ilyich say?

    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
    Steve, my guess is that Fred Reed answers your emails. (or at least he answers those of Mr. Unz)

    I'd like to see don Frederico wrassle wid deese existential questions.
  27. @Almost Missouri
    Also, while straight up forced sterilization may not be on the menu anymore, we most certainly do suppress fertility among certain demographics and subsidize fertility among certain other demographics

    So eugenics is alive and well, it's just not called that anymore.

    Also, the bad old eugenics brought measurable improvements in society, while the good new "not eugenics" eugenics brings measurable deteriorations in society. But that's a technicality. State sponsored discrimination in who gets born and who doesn't is happening now more than ever.

    … the good new “not eugenics” eugenics brings measurable deteriorations in society. But that’s a technicality. State sponsored discrimination in who gets born and who doesn’t is happening now more than ever.

    Socialism will do that kind of thing.

  28. @Buffalo Joe
    James Watson co-discovered DNA, which made him a genius and a Nobel Prize winner. When Watson pointed out very obvious differences in people he went from genius to pariah. Watson thrown to the wolves. For what it's worth Obama won a Nobel Prize, but he is no genius.

    For what it’s worth Obama won a Nobel Prize, but he is no genius

    Maybe the science prizes are “won”, but the Peace? Come on…

  29. I find these kind of Coming Apart-related questions of great interest, but few others seem to care.

    Because they don’t have a racial angle to them. Race is the 3rd rail of American discourse. You touch the N-word once (as a white person) and zap, 900 volts shoots thru your body and they take away your job, your corporation, your picture on the pizza box, everything. But as long as an issue involves only white people (especially white men) then no one gives a damn – you can say whatever you want as if freedom of speech still existed.

    That’s why The Bell Curve made Murray persona non grata (because he mentioned race – it wasn’t even the main theme of this book) and why he wrote Coming Apart strictly about white people – he knew that as long as he did that no one could condemn him for it.

  30. @International Jew

    Because researchers focused on differences within an ancestrally homogeneous group of people
     
    Evidently not so homogeneous, if they found those tremendous disparities in genetic predisposition to finish college.

    Also, when researchers looked at African-Americans, the genetic variants only minimally predicted educational outcomes.
     
    So, contrary to the "focused on...ancestrally homogeneous populations" bit, they actually did test Africans. They simply chose not to report where African genes stack up on their continuum. (I'll take a wild guess and say they discovered that including Africans in their report would have made the difference between Sicilians and Estonians seem less significant.)

    Because researchers focused on differences within an ancestrally homogeneous group of people

    Evidently not so homogeneous, if they found those tremendous disparities in genetic predisposition to finish college.

    *backtracks, flips through handbook of talking points* Ahem, as you can clearly see, this research shows there’s no such thing as race.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    LOL..... it's just a social construct, you know....
  31. “Also, when researchers looked at African-Americans, the genetic variants only minimally predicted educational outcomes.”

    Perhaps because the mental aptitude of Africans is fairly narrowly dispersed. Who finishes high school and goes on to a 4 year college has more to do with whether they wear glasses and are well behaved because, well, they don’t want to be punched in the face because they wear glasses.

  32. Anon[211] • Disclaimer says:

    Harden has seemed to be less dogmatic than other “progressives” in her field. For instance, at the end of the second Turkheimer/Harden/Nisbett Vox article, “There’s still no good reason to believe black-white IQ differences are due to genes,” on the question of whether the black/white IQ gap is genetic or environmental Turkheimer says this:

    I will close by noting that not even the three of us are completely in agreement about it: I (Turkheimer) am convinced that the question is irredeemably unscientific; Nisbett accepts it as a legitimate scientific question, and thinks evidence points fairly strongly in the direction of the black-white gap being entirely environmental in origin; while Harden questions the quality of the existing evidence, but thinks more determinative data may be found in future genetic knowledge.

    https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/15/15797120/race-black-white-iq-response-critics

    She comes across as someone who knows that she is young enough that genetics will have made great strides later on in her career, so she needs to hedge her bets and not get too far out on a limb. On the other hand, her mentoree relationship with Turkheimer means she has to toe the progressive line as much as possible.

    I get the sense that her op piece is a kind of preemptive strike, a la David Reich. She needs to shore up her progressive cred from time to time so she can say the occasional “problematic” thing in a technical paper and get away with it.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    In the very interesting Rubin-talk with Peterson and Weinstein, Einstein gets mentioned, saying something like: Being a scinetist means to be prepared to lose your job, your tenure etc. - because science implies real fights. Be ready for that...This is all a bit slimey on Harden's side. She seems to try to be agreeable up to the point where her understanding of agreeableness implies to - you know: Quote Lenin and - - - smear Stefan Molyneux (and Steve Sailer).

    Who are the present-day Comedians to make fun of this stuff?. - Or would there rather be the tragedy the genre, that might turn out to be appropriate? - What are the novelists doing these days? - It should be their turn, to sort this stuff out - - they should love this labyrith of characters and scientific findings - and intellectual fights...)

  33. Genetic differences in human life are a scientific fact, like climate change. …

    I wonder if she isn’t trolling the NYT subscribers here.

  34. Those of us who value social justice should instead be asking: How can the power of the genomic revolution be harnessed to create a more equal society?

    Sorry, Dr. Harden.

    You’re a comely Nice White Lady and all that, but I’ve already Hardened My Heart.

    • Replies: @Anon

    "Harden My Heart" would later be rerecorded by the band after they renamed themselves Quarterflash. The name came from an Australian slang description of new immigrants as "a quarter flash, three quarters foolish", which the Rosses found in a book at producer John Boylan's house.
     
  35. Anon[961] • Disclaimer says:

    Some marry a spouse who has money. Some marry a spouse who is good-looking, and yet others marry for brains. Yet when the last has smart kids, more people get upset about that than they do about the kids with wealth or good looks. Good brains are the ultimate insult to everyone else.

    Of course, the difference is that a lot of people can see themselves potentially marrying the kids with money or good looks. But brains? Not so much. They don’t want to feel stupid and inferior to their spouse every time they try to have a conversation. Wealth and looks in your spouse leaves your ego intact–in fact, many like to boast about their genetic coup and show off their spouse–but not brains. The only spouse who comes out feeling good in that sort of marriage is someone who is brainy, too.

    Brains are an uncrossable genetic barrier for many people when it comes to breeding, and those who have no hope of getting across it absolutely hate and are jealous of brainy people for that reason.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    I recall a statistic that showed people tend to marry within 5 + or 5 - IQ points of each other. I've observed very few smart men who breed with pure arm candy. I've seen a lot of doctor + doctor pairings.

    I also recall an old saying: marry at or slightly above your station. I think that "rule" gets breached more than the "IQ rule" though.

    For both rules, women marry up. Very, very few men marry up.

    I don't expect geneticists to observe publicly that welfare is dysgenic and schooling is a waste of time for the bottom third of students after age 14, and the next third by age 16.

    I expect a lot of energy and obfuscation devoted to legitimizing cousin marriage.
    , @Lefty
    That seems like an exaggeration to me. I'm 47 and smarter than most, and yet I don't think I've run into people jealous of me for my brains, nor have I observed jealousy by others of others that are much smarter than me. Of course, I live in Seattle and work in the tech industry, so there are lots of smarties around me. But still, I've got 47 years on the planet.
  36. @Achmed E. Newman
    1) I am looking forward to your Takimag article (been reading yours and Jim Goad's lately). Maybe you could tell me now whether the movie is a new movie about these goings-on in 1960, or a movie from that time. If it's new, it's usually very hard for me to get through the PC, and I usually don't enjoy it.

    2) I know how much you enjoy this topic of nature vs. nurture. How in the world could you deal with a character like this, and all those other SJWs in academics, in some sort of conference or something? This lady's method (I guess it's the reporter, not the researcher from the study) seems to be: We found this one thing out, but whatever the result, we've still got to do things the same stupid way we've been. I'll come up with a reason from some sort of logic.

    3) My opinion of Miss Harden just got worse and worse, as first she brought up Lenin. Who the hell cares about what Vladimir Lenin said about anything, except a historian? Next, she had to get in 2 possibly-required-by-contract digs in on the "climate change" BS. I thought I was done writing about that for the week. Alas!

    I’m guessing the movie Steve is going to review is the documentary “Three Identical Strangers” which Steve wrote about back when it was in the news for it’s Sundance film festival debut, and has more recently had it’s wide release.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/three-identical-strangers-a-documentary-about-separated-at-birth-triplets/

    • Replies: @Clyde
    I just saw Sicario #2 Day of The Soldado. The movie was pointless, plot sucked, but had lots of really good action, meaning shootouts. The bad guys (people smugglers) got killed off en masse at the end which was great! Josh Brolin is good at being a credible tough guy.
    , @MEH 0910
    I guessed right.

    http://takimag.com/article/the_disco_triplets_steve_sailer/print#axzz5METoJtaN
  37. @Veracitor
    Direct quote from Dr. Kathryn Harden's New York Times op-ed:

    This has led people who value social justice to argue that, when it comes to issues like education, genetic research should simply not be conducted. [...] Lenin himself wrote that “the transfer of biological concepts into the field of the social sciences is a meaningless phrase.”
     


    Well, thank you, Dr. Harden. The wise Vladimir Lenin, notable for nothing so much as the value he put on "social justice," told us that one cannot transfer biological concepts into the field of the social sciences. Who would know better?

    But still there could remain a tiny doubt: what about the biological concepts of starvation and violent death? Lenin and his followers served out a very large amount of social justice and many observers noted biological effects. . .

    Seriously, folks, I am not surprised that the New York Times printed Harden's piece-- the Times spent most of 2017 celebrating the mass murderers (and allegedly good sex for Russian women, at least for those who didn't starve to death) of the 1917 Bolshevik coup and bragging about a century of its own fawning coverage of Soviet Communism since Walter Duranty was chief correspondent.

    However, I am mildly surprised to see that Harden is so marinated in fashionable Communism that she thinks everyone else will regard V. I. Lenin as the proper authority to whom to appeal for proof of her thesis that DNA analysis is bad.

    “Lenin himself wrote that “the transfer of biological concepts into the field of the social sciences is a meaningless phrase.””

    I still like: “Immigration is the transfection of a country” whether Lenin likes it or not.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    Shouldn't you have recused yourself from this thread?
  38. Anon[211] • Disclaimer says:

    Many more studies will need to be done before we can come close to understanding fully the role of genetics in the American education system.

    So we don’t really know what’s going on yet.

    [They] blog about discoveries in molecular genetics that they mistakenly believe support the ideas that inequality is genetically determined

    Wait, we do know what’s right and what’s “mistaken”? Which is it?

    these genetic results reveal the injustice of our so-called meritocracy…. By showing us the links between genes and educational success, this new study reminds us that everyone should share in our national prosperity, regardless of which genetic variants he or she happens to inherit.

    Wait, so educational inequality is in fact genetic? And so we should pay everyone the same because it’s unfair to treat people differently because of a “lottery” result?

    Understanding which environments cause improvements in children’s ability to think and learn is necessary if we want to invest wisely in interventions that can truly make a difference.

    So genetics is behind ability, but environment can rejigger things, so let’s study what we can do to the environment … that will cause another Bell curve to emerge, equally arbitrary? Or is she saying that there is a hypothetical environment in which every child will be identical, red and yellow, black and white, no Bell curves, no child below average because all are average?

    By the way, comments are turned on for this, but were turned off for the original article reporting on the new paper. There are quite a few Reader Picks ranking high that are not Narrative-friendly (yet quite civilized, so the Times couldn’t delete them)..

    • Replies: @Clyde
    Yes the NYT comments are good for this article. Of course, for the NYT comments section press the "readers picks" tab.
  39. It’s interesting that she (or her editor?) linked to Stefan Molyneux. Why him? Because Steve doesn’t have his own dedicated SPLC page (merely some passing mentions)? Because for literate NY Times readers Steve would be too tempting, would appear too reasonable?

    • Replies: @Pericles

    It’s interesting that she (or her editor?) linked to Stefan Molyneux.

     

    Probably because it's most productive to attack the leftmost of the right, especially if they have some fame. Perhaps the prog enforcers can make him disavow or otherwise crawl before them. It could also serve as a fire break.
    , @Peter Akuleyev

    Because for literate NY Times readers Steve would be too tempting, would appear too reasonable?
     
    Exactly. Molyneux, to me anyway, comes across as unctuous and creepy. The sort of person you don't leave your children alone with.

    Steve comes across as a rational SoCal engineer type, and can't be as easily dismissed.
  40. @Steve Sailer
    Olivia Wilde is the screen name of a Cockburn, the great leftwing journalist clan that is related to the great rightwing journalist/novelist Waugh clan.

    Olivia Wilde is the screen name of a Cockburn

    Lightly-applied pickup artistry won her heart.
    http://www.barstoolsports.com/dmv/jason-sudeikis-pickup-line-to-olivia-wilde-was-so-genius/

    But she learned nothing and is raising her son a feminist.
    https://www.bustle.com/articles/171435-olivia-wildes-son-is-already-a-feminist-the-reason-why-proves-teaching-kids-about-gender

  41. Because researchers focused on differences within an ancestrally homogeneous group of people, their results have no implications for understanding racial disparities in education.

    Of course not! And why would we want to understand racial disparities anyway? Don’t taze Watson me bro!

  42. Steve,

    1. the thought of throwing someone to wolves was hilarious.
    2. The piece of art illustrating it was phenomenal
    3. The “from left to right” was next level comedy.

    Keep up the good work. Although you’re no Hannah Gadsby, you do make me laugh.

    • Agree: Clyde
  43. @MEH 0910
    I'm guessing the movie Steve is going to review is the documentary "Three Identical Strangers" which Steve wrote about back when it was in the news for it's Sundance film festival debut, and has more recently had it's wide release.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/three-identical-strangers-a-documentary-about-separated-at-birth-triplets/

    I just saw Sicario #2 Day of The Soldado. The movie was pointless, plot sucked, but had lots of really good action, meaning shootouts. The bad guys (people smugglers) got killed off en masse at the end which was great! Josh Brolin is good at being a credible tough guy.

    • Replies: @Lefty
    Doesn't "Sicario" actually mean "Soldier" and doesn't that make the title ridiculously redundant, i.e. "Soldier: Day of the Soldier"?
  44. anonymous[694] • Disclaimer says:

    Steve my gut feeling is it has been a long time since you have been around the sort of person who thinks people who think IQ is important are just losers who can’t make low-IQ workers productive…. there are a lot of people who think you do not know that they are smart enough to manage low-IQ workers so well that they might as well be high-IQ workers, too bad so sad, they think, if you don’t recognize their awesome amazing management skills ….

    also, you may or may not know this, but the concept of “throwing someone off the sled to slow down the following starving wolves” is complete cartoonish fiction, first made popular in America by the lesbian (and extremely talented, but not the sort of gifted person who understood animals) novelist Willa Cather in a flashback episode of her very good novel “My Antonia”. Good novel, but like that stupid novel “Jaws” by poor Peter Benchley, shamefully full of childish fear of wonderful animals (Cather – wolves on the steppe – Benchley – the great white sharks of the North Atlantic).

    • Replies: @Clyde

    also, you may or may not know this, but the concept of “throwing someone off the sled to slow down the following starving wolves” is complete cartoonish fiction......
     
    I don't believe you. There is lots of old Russian artwork of troikas being attacked by wolves in the winter. See it on bing or googoo. To "lighten the troika" was to throw someone off.
    , @Anonymous

    the concept of “throwing someone off the sled to slow down the following starving wolves” is complete cartoonish fiction
     
    Sorry to belabor the obvious, but it's not to slow down the wolves, it's to occupy them..
  45. Steve, I’ve probably read most of your output in the last few years; but, the set up and punch line to the Russian peasant joke is probably my favorite. Tip of the cap.

  46. @Anon

    Many more studies will need to be done before we can come close to understanding fully the role of genetics in the American education system.

     

    So we don't really know what's going on yet.

    [They] blog about discoveries in molecular genetics that they mistakenly believe support the ideas that inequality is genetically determined
     
    Wait, we do know what's right and what's "mistaken"? Which is it?

    these genetic results reveal the injustice of our so-called meritocracy.... By showing us the links between genes and educational success, this new study reminds us that everyone should share in our national prosperity, regardless of which genetic variants he or she happens to inherit.
     
    Wait, so educational inequality is in fact genetic? And so we should pay everyone the same because it's unfair to treat people differently because of a "lottery" result?

    Understanding which environments cause improvements in children’s ability to think and learn is necessary if we want to invest wisely in interventions that can truly make a difference.
     
    So genetics is behind ability, but environment can rejigger things, so let's study what we can do to the environment ... that will cause another Bell curve to emerge, equally arbitrary? Or is she saying that there is a hypothetical environment in which every child will be identical, red and yellow, black and white, no Bell curves, no child below average because all are average?

    By the way, comments are turned on for this, but were turned off for the original article reporting on the new paper. There are quite a few Reader Picks ranking high that are not Narrative-friendly (yet quite civilized, so the Times couldn't delete them)..

    Yes the NYT comments are good for this article. Of course, for the NYT comments section press the “readers picks” tab.

  47. @Achmed E. Newman

    However, I am mildly surprised to see that Harden is so marinated in fashionable Communism that she thinks everyone else will regard V. I. Lenin as the proper authority to whom to appeal for proof of her thesis that DNA analysis is bad.
     
    Thank you, Veracitor. Your comment wasn't up when I wrote mine, but you said this better than I could have. Do lots of people in NY City bring up Vlad Lenin in conversation? "Lenin said carbon dioxide is bad; I just read it in the New Yorker." "Really, Meghan? That's cool! In the last issue they published one of his best borscht recipes".

    Do lots of people in NY City bring up Vlad Lenin in conversation?

    No. They are more likely to bring up Gray’s Papaya recession special. Like in TV show Billions.

  48. What could you use these advancing polygenic scores for in social sciences? Because they are advertised as only working on white people, and they aren’t yet powerful enough to be very accurate for individuals, the class of study I could them imagine them being useful for in the new future is for studies of low-achieving white communities.

    In a way, this might be the irony of the result.

    Sure, on an individual level, the scores may not tell us much. But it may prove immensely informative on an average group level — which, is of course, the great taboo here.

    What if, say, Spaniards don’t come out as well as Danes? Or Southern Italians as Northern Italians?

  49. The Ministry of Truth has determined that badthink has reared its ugly head in the blissful global village. The Village will not tolerate such disharmony and punishment for badthink will be forthcoming to all wreckers of the harmonious existence of The Village. Number 2 will again lecture you all on the need for compliance. Blissful harmony must be maintained at all cost. The panopticon sees all and hears all. The unblinking Eye of Sauron will find you. Big Brother will watch over you.
    In other news, rationing must be again limited. Due to the continuing War with Eastasia and the terrorists that embrace other false ideologies, we must restrict electricity to 8 hours a day and cut food rations. Freedonia appreciates your expected compliance. The wreckers that claim these cuts come from inefficiency and failures by our workforce inclusion are creating disharmony. If you see and overhear such lies, call the authorities.
    Now we will all observe Two Minutes of Hate for Schicklgruber the evil nazi badthinker.

  50. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    As the evidence is becoming overwhelming, it seems like the Power is preparing for soft-landing.
    How to appropriate HBD while remaining proggy.

    Kinda like the conundrum of the Church. How to accept the truth of Evolution while clinging to Biblical Truth.
    The ‘social justice’ evangelism of Liberal Progs want to embrace true science of genetics while clinging to faith in the Equality Cult or Ecult.

    Btw, is the US really about equality? If humanity is equal, why should they leave their own nations and come to US? Isn’t US better because of its Anglo-Germanic founding and demographics?
    Indeed, I’m dubious about how democracy and the American Way were so necessary to America’s success. Autocratic Germany made similar economic gains in the 19th century, and Japan shot up out of nowhere in the late 19th and early 20th century even though it wasn’t democratic. And UK kept expanding even though Brits kept their king. And did Canada, which long remained loyal to UK, do worse than the US? No. Looks like demography + culture were more crucial than any political system or ideology.

    Also, plenty of nations that adopted democracy did no better or got worse. Low IQ demography + culture of corruption.

    People come to the US not to be equal but to be better. After all, they want to be richer. They want more opportunities. Some might say ‘equal opportunities’ is equality, but it leads to vastly different results not only among individuals but among groups. Jews sure win in finance, and blacks sure win in sports.

    Celebrity, the thing Americans are crazy about, is not about equality. It’s about neo-aristocracy of mondo trasho culture. The rabble want to spend hrs upon hrs fixating about their favorite celebrity who is worth millions or billions of dollars. Of course, the parody of Americanism is the tranny business now. The American myth of ‘anyone can become anyone(often rags to riches)’ has turned into a man can turn into a ‘woman’, actually not just any ‘woman’ but a Diva, a kind of goddess. American History repeats itself, first as Triumph, then as Farce.

    And if we are into equality, why do we have elite colleges? Why do we have elite sports? Why are people so fixated on box office and the like?

    We hear about equality, equality, and equality. Everyone says it, but no one wants it. No one wants to be equal with common folk. They all want to be like celebrities.
    There was a time when Leftism promoted the Common Man as the center of humanity. It was good to be a Common Man, and politics should revolve around serving the Common Man.
    But now, the Common Man is seen as uncool. In our cool-centric culture, it is celebrity that matters, and the New Social Justice or Special Justice is about the right to be a celebrity. This is why there is so much emphasis on narcissistic rappers, homos, trannies, and sluts as the face of
    progressivism. Every dumb rapper thinks he be something special. Homos play neo-aristocrat. Trannies see themselves as Divas. Sluts, even fat ones like Dunham, think they are Hot Stuff.

    Celebrity, not equality, is what the New Proggism is all about.

    Also, do Jews, blacks, and homos wanna be equal with everyone else? Really? If Jews were equal, they’d have 2% of the wealth. And blacks would be only 13% of sports representation. And Homos would control 2.5% of fashion and Hollywood.
    No, those groups are held in awe because they are unequal in talent and so successful in their special niches. And that’s what the people are obsessed about. How to suck up to Jews, how to imitate blacks, how to celebrate homos and trannies.

  51. @anonymous
    Steve my gut feeling is it has been a long time since you have been around the sort of person who thinks people who think IQ is important are just losers who can't make low-IQ workers productive.... there are a lot of people who think you do not know that they are smart enough to manage low-IQ workers so well that they might as well be high-IQ workers, too bad so sad, they think, if you don't recognize their awesome amazing management skills ....


    also, you may or may not know this, but the concept of "throwing someone off the sled to slow down the following starving wolves" is complete cartoonish fiction, first made popular in America by the lesbian (and extremely talented, but not the sort of gifted person who understood animals) novelist Willa Cather in a flashback episode of her very good novel "My Antonia". Good novel, but like that stupid novel "Jaws" by poor Peter Benchley, shamefully full of childish fear of wonderful animals (Cather - wolves on the steppe - Benchley - the great white sharks of the North Atlantic).

    also, you may or may not know this, but the concept of “throwing someone off the sled to slow down the following starving wolves” is complete cartoonish fiction……

    I don’t believe you. There is lots of old Russian artwork of troikas being attacked by wolves in the winter. See it on bing or googoo. To “lighten the troika” was to throw someone off.

  52. @JA
    Yes, I think a man who mates with a beautiful and talented woman with Ivy-level smarts (e.g., Olivia Wilde, Ellie Kemper, Natalie Portman) has "earned" better DNA for his children.

    There were no beautiful girls in the Ivy League, in my day. Brooke Shields might have been the first one but I graduated before she arrived.

  53. @Joe Stalin
    "Lenin himself wrote that “the transfer of biological concepts into the field of the social sciences is a meaningless phrase.”"

    I still like: "Immigration is the transfection of a country" whether Lenin likes it or not.

    Shouldn’t you have recused yourself from this thread?

  54. @Roderick Spode

    Over 99 percent of our DNA is identical in all humans
     
    Setting aside the grammatical nightmare, this phrase could just as well read

    Over 99 percent of our DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees and bonobos
     
    or even

    Over 50 percent of our DNA is identical to that of bananas
     
    I know that you know, but I never get tired of reminding people that this argument is BS.

    So we’re all half bananas… I’d say some people are completely bananas X’D

  55. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @WowJustWow


    Because researchers focused on differences within an ancestrally homogeneous group of people
     
    Evidently not so homogeneous, if they found those tremendous disparities in genetic predisposition to finish college.
     
    *backtracks, flips through handbook of talking points* Ahem, as you can clearly see, this research shows there's no such thing as race.

    LOL….. it’s just a social construct, you know….

  56. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous
    Steve my gut feeling is it has been a long time since you have been around the sort of person who thinks people who think IQ is important are just losers who can't make low-IQ workers productive.... there are a lot of people who think you do not know that they are smart enough to manage low-IQ workers so well that they might as well be high-IQ workers, too bad so sad, they think, if you don't recognize their awesome amazing management skills ....


    also, you may or may not know this, but the concept of "throwing someone off the sled to slow down the following starving wolves" is complete cartoonish fiction, first made popular in America by the lesbian (and extremely talented, but not the sort of gifted person who understood animals) novelist Willa Cather in a flashback episode of her very good novel "My Antonia". Good novel, but like that stupid novel "Jaws" by poor Peter Benchley, shamefully full of childish fear of wonderful animals (Cather - wolves on the steppe - Benchley - the great white sharks of the North Atlantic).

    the concept of “throwing someone off the sled to slow down the following starving wolves” is complete cartoonish fiction

    Sorry to belabor the obvious, but it’s not to slow down the wolves, it’s to occupy them..

  57. @Jack D

    everyone should share in our national prosperity, regardless of which genetic variants he or she happens to inherit.
     
    Think of it as a sort of genetic inheritance tax. If your parents happen to be rich, you get to inherit some portion of their wealth and the rest you get to "share" with the government (sharing is good). Likewise if you parents give you a rich genetic inheritance, it's only fair that you share any wealth that results from that too. Anytime you come into money for any reason, you should "share" it with the government who can give it out to our less fortunate brothers and sisters (after taking some off the top for itself - those pensions and overtime ain't gonna pay themselves) - that's only fair, wouldn't you say?

    The Establishment Left is already teaching our children to welcome such a “genetic inheritance tax” through communist propaganda such as the illustrated book for small children, The Rainbow Fish by Marcus Pfister, which is notable for straightforward way it lauds forced dismemberment of the main character to satisfy the petty envy of those around him.

    The Rainbow Fish is the most evil book directed to children that I have ever seen. It’s scary for little kids, too.

    If anyone tries to inflict it upon your children or children in your care, you should substitute The Little Red Hen.

    However, before you destroy your copy of The Rainbow Fish, read and analyze it with your children. Help them recognize that: the initial rudeness of the rainbow fish is unfairly put in the character’s mouth by the axe-grinding author; that in real life no one should or likely would* be so discourteous; that the other fishes’ envy is immoral and rather bogus; that the octopus should be admonishing the other little fish rather than the rainbow fish; that the other fish ought to attract their share of attention by their own qualities or efforts (“pretty shape,” “fast swimmer,” etc.); and that the “solution” of tearing off and “sharing out” the rainbow fish’s scales destroys both the rainbow fish himself and the pleasure everyone else gets from seeing him– point out that all the other little fish would soon neglect and lose their stolen scales (your kids will nod in agreement) so scalping the rainbow fish is wasteful as well as evil in other ways.

    Help your children to recognize that tearing the rainbow fish’s scales off would be painful and crippling, so when the rainbow fish appears happy at the end of the book, that is just the author’s thumb on the scale, like with the rudeness at the beginning. Guide your children to recognize and analyze the propaganda slant which distorts the story so that one part after another seems forced if you ask “how would the rainbow fish really feel?” and compare your children’s answer to what the book says. Finally, ask what should happen if another rainbow fish comes along? Should every rainbow fish that ever hatches be scalped?

    *Some folks might be so rude, but not any children you are raising, nor their well-mannered friends, right? If necessary, point out that the proper response to rudeness is argument or shunning, not dismemberment.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Christ! This is new to me. We are truly doomed. When Kurt Vonnegut wrote about this kind of thing, it was as a horrific dystopia, not a happy moral for children to learn.

    "Finally, in the end, despite having one shiny scale left (as he gave them all away to the other fish), he becomes very happy."

    He loved Big Brother.
  58. They must be countered — sung to the tune of.

    • Replies: @eah
    'the current year'

    San Fran straphangers on edge after third BART murder

    “Maybe I should start driving to school, because I don’t think I feel safe as a BART commuter anymore. But then again, I’m a woman of color. Am I safe anywhere? My car? On campus? At an event? Walking my dogs?” @keani_yafreak tweeted.
  59. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Those of us who value social justice should instead be asking: How can the power of the genomic revolution be harnessed to create a more equal society?
     
    Sorry, Dr. Harden.

    You’re a comely Nice White Lady and all that, but I’ve already Hardened My Heart.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNFSED77-GM

    “Harden My Heart” would later be rerecorded by the band after they renamed themselves Quarterflash. The name came from an Australian slang description of new immigrants as “a quarter flash, three quarters foolish”, which the Rosses found in a book at producer John Boylan’s house.

  60. “In the future, maybe you won’t have to give IQ tests to poor kids because you can just look at their DNA and predict how they’d do on an IQ test ….”

    I’d posit that it is necessary to use the genetic information, because IQ test results are necessarily polluted by life experiences, like being kept down by white privilige or male privilege or European privilige or, worst of all worlds, WEM privilege.

  61. @Steve Sailer
    Olivia Wilde is the screen name of a Cockburn, the great leftwing journalist clan that is related to the great rightwing journalist/novelist Waugh clan.

    Left-wing is a fair description of much of the Cockburns, but it seems that so many years in the Middle East have produced in Patrick Cockburn a degree of realist caution.

  62. Did you “earn” your children’s DNA sequence?

    I sure as hell did. The love of my life doesn’t hand out high quality reproductive nucleic acids for free or cheap, nor should she.

    Can say the same for myself.

    The two of us made a lot of effort, choices, and sacrifices in this respect. While I understand many people distribute and fuse gametes with no other awareness than of loinal itch, it is likely that the best and brightest kids in fact had painstakingly earned genomes, and not just by their parents’ generation.

    Minimizing, stealing, or destroying this carefully/painstakingly earned and tended genetic investment and legacy seems to be a common element of many redistributive schemes, from post war mass rape to trafficking of white babies in mid-20th century NYC to today’s fashionable pressure for miscegenation. I see it as the fundamental issue at the core of white genocide. “We want what we can’t earn for ourselves…that you can and did create.”

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Agree very strongly. "Accident of birth" is pure propaganda. People on this genetic side of the Hajnal lines tend to make very deliberate choices about who they have sex with, where and when they have it, and the traits prioritized in prospective mates. The "knapsack of privilege" is a culmination of choices made by your parents, their parents, etc. "Honor thy father and mother" is a good social compact with a biological basis.
  63. @Anon
    Harden has seemed to be less dogmatic than other "progressives" in her field. For instance, at the end of the second Turkheimer/Harden/Nisbett Vox article, "There’s still no good reason to believe black-white IQ differences are due to genes," on the question of whether the black/white IQ gap is genetic or environmental Turkheimer says this:

    I will close by noting that not even the three of us are completely in agreement about it: I (Turkheimer) am convinced that the question is irredeemably unscientific; Nisbett accepts it as a legitimate scientific question, and thinks evidence points fairly strongly in the direction of the black-white gap being entirely environmental in origin; while Harden questions the quality of the existing evidence, but thinks more determinative data may be found in future genetic knowledge.
     
    https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/15/15797120/race-black-white-iq-response-critics

    She comes across as someone who knows that she is young enough that genetics will have made great strides later on in her career, so she needs to hedge her bets and not get too far out on a limb. On the other hand, her mentoree relationship with Turkheimer means she has to toe the progressive line as much as possible.

    I get the sense that her op piece is a kind of preemptive strike, a la David Reich. She needs to shore up her progressive cred from time to time so she can say the occasional "problematic" thing in a technical paper and get away with it.

    In the very interesting Rubin-talk with Peterson and Weinstein, Einstein gets mentioned, saying something like: Being a scinetist means to be prepared to lose your job, your tenure etc. – because science implies real fights. Be ready for that…This is all a bit slimey on Harden’s side. She seems to try to be agreeable up to the point where her understanding of agreeableness implies to – you know: Quote Lenin and – – – smear Stefan Molyneux (and Steve Sailer).

    Who are the present-day Comedians to make fun of this stuff?. – Or would there rather be the tragedy the genre, that might turn out to be appropriate? – What are the novelists doing these days? – It should be their turn, to sort this stuff out – – they should love this labyrith of characters and scientific findings – and intellectual fights…)

  64. @MEH 0910
    I'm guessing the movie Steve is going to review is the documentary "Three Identical Strangers" which Steve wrote about back when it was in the news for it's Sundance film festival debut, and has more recently had it's wide release.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/three-identical-strangers-a-documentary-about-separated-at-birth-triplets/

  65. @Big Bill
    Fruit flies and humans have 60% DNA in common.

    Fruit flies and humans have 60% DNA in common.

    Anyone surprised by this should consider just how complex any living organism is. That 60% includes the genes for “how to create proteins necessary for cell division”, “how to make a cell wall”, and “how to combine oxygen and glucose to release energy”. The 99% we share with chimpanzees includes genes for “how to make bone”, “how to make a pancreas”, and “how to make an eye”.

  66. the outcome of a genetic lottery

    Actually it’s evolution. Read Darwin you dumb superstitious bitch.

    (This is how it begins: the spinning of HBD to obey prog narrative. We can expect more, far more.)

  67. @Anon
    It's interesting that she (or her editor?) linked to Stefan Molyneux. Why him? Because Steve doesn't have his own dedicated SPLC page (merely some passing mentions)? Because for literate NY Times readers Steve would be too tempting, would appear too reasonable?

    It’s interesting that she (or her editor?) linked to Stefan Molyneux.

    Probably because it’s most productive to attack the leftmost of the right, especially if they have some fame. Perhaps the prog enforcers can make him disavow or otherwise crawl before them. It could also serve as a fire break.

  68. @Anon
    It's interesting that she (or her editor?) linked to Stefan Molyneux. Why him? Because Steve doesn't have his own dedicated SPLC page (merely some passing mentions)? Because for literate NY Times readers Steve would be too tempting, would appear too reasonable?

    Because for literate NY Times readers Steve would be too tempting, would appear too reasonable?

    Exactly. Molyneux, to me anyway, comes across as unctuous and creepy. The sort of person you don’t leave your children alone with.

    Steve comes across as a rational SoCal engineer type, and can’t be as easily dismissed.

    • Agree: Peter Johnson
  69. I already can’t stand this woman. Another liar: no more time for that.

    I’m going to block her immediately.

  70. – What about West Virginia, the state with the lowest NAEP school test scores among whites? Has it been genetically brain-drained by all the high potential people moving out? Or are West Virginian students victims of their environment? Both? 50-50? 80-20? 20-80?

    appalachia was the epicenter of goiters back before iodized salt so i wonder if iodized salt did enough to fix the most obvious sign of iodine deficiency but not the full effect?

    – Professor Caroline Hoxby of Stanford has shown that quite a few high school students scoring at the 90th percentile or higher on SAT/ACT tests are not intensively recruited by prestige colleges. The most overlooked high scorers tend to be Red State white males. That’s pretty interesting as it is, but it could be that SAT/ACT scores are somewhat biased against them because of a lack of a culture of test prep, so perhaps their genetical potential on average is even higher than their test scores would indicate?

    there’s probably a certain amount of discrimination behind this but i also wonder if conscientiousness / laziness has a part to play i.e. if a high IQ population with only moderate average conscientiousness is competing among themselves maybe the conscientiousness part largely cancels out but when they compete with populations who are both high IQ and high conscientiousness they come unstuck?

    • Replies: @JudyBlumeSussman

    i also wonder if conscientiousness / laziness has a part to play
     
    For these red-state smart guys, there's plenty of opportunity in doing well at a nearby public university. The Ivy League and NYC look like a foreign country from there. And they are a foreign country.
    , @Ed
    Another thing is being close to family and the familiar. Everyone is not looking to escape their environment even if they can do so.

    There have been studies that show the summer between HS graduation and freshman year in college as being the most fraught for college kids of modest backgrounds. Many never show up.
  71. The seemingly-casual line about climate change is of course also a virtue signaller.

  72. @bomag
    Haven't we always had this divide in the Progressives: those who admit genetic differences and say they don't matter; and those who claim no genetic differences?

    The latter appear to hold the political power. Might be time for a purge.

    before WW2 progressives were the people pushing for eugenics

    • Replies: @notanon
    actually i'm wrong now i think of it - pre WW2 it was western liberals who wanted eugenics but Marxists were already pushing the environment (Lysenko etc) - so it's more a case of the Marxists winning their argument with liberals after WW2 and forming an alliance to bully everyone else - and the current coming apart of the two factions is the resurgence of that conflict now the evidence is in.
  73. I guess this does mean they’re running scared, knowing that the truth will out, and are desperately trying to find a way to be “progressive” about it. Subtext of this piece: “Certain people are stupid by genetics! So let’s stop making non-stupidity a criterion!”

  74. Many progressives resist acknowledging this when it comes to education, fearing that it will compromise their egalitarian beliefs.

    true but if its genetic then acknowledging it is the only way to reach their egalitarian goals

    and it would be very simple to do – just tell women in the low achieving groups to only make babies with the smarter half of the local men – you’d notice the difference in 1st grade within a few years

    (while we’re at it we could equalize homicide rates by locking up gangsters when they’re juveniles so they don’t breed)

  75. On balance, the article is useful. Of course it says that this research can lead to Bad people doing Bad things, but it gives the main findings of the research. I think it is part of a scorched earth policy, as the purely sociological view of human beings conducts a long retreat.

    • Replies: @Gravity Denier
    Homo sapiens is merely a social construct whose biology shares chemical elements with all other plant and animal species.
  76. @notanon
    before WW2 progressives were the people pushing for eugenics

    actually i’m wrong now i think of it – pre WW2 it was western liberals who wanted eugenics but Marxists were already pushing the environment (Lysenko etc) – so it’s more a case of the Marxists winning their argument with liberals after WW2 and forming an alliance to bully everyone else – and the current coming apart of the two factions is the resurgence of that conflict now the evidence is in.

  77. ‘For example, do Irish Travellers have the same genetic potential for educational attainment as other Irish people and it’s just their Gypsy-like culture that holds them back? Or have they separated enough in terms of mating over the centuries that their genetic potential is now lower?’

    Honestly a lot of it is inbreeding depression. I’ve met Travellers who look like they come from the backwoods of Appalachia and yet the have lived their lives moving from big city to big city. They have an extremely small gene pool and many of the more traditional Travellers won’t even allow their offspring to marry other types of Gypsy let alone non Gypsies. Add to this that Travellers who are not able to afford the travelling lifestyle (you can’t claim government benefits if you are going around committing crimes because you cannot be on government databases, many of the ones I knew had several aliases originating in Ireland) become semi-assimilated and often marry out of the purest Travellers gene pools. Their descendants become half Gypsy half underclass White and the pejorative name for these people where I come from is pikeys. They are seen as having all of the anti social instincts of the purer Gypsies but without any of the mystery or charm and with all of the ennui of those stuck between incompatible cultures. The Travelling culture is extremely anti education and even the ones who are semi-assimilated and live in houses often decline to send their kids to school. The ones I feel more sorry for are the occasional naturally intelligent Travellers- they get expelled from the Travelling community (they are viewed as freaks) often with no education and have to use their intelligence to survive. Mostly they become con men. With a little out breeding and a few generations of education it would be possible for the Travellers to reach the White norm for intelligence.

  78. @kaganovitch
    What about West Virginia, the state with the lowest NAEP school test scores among whites? Has it been genetically brain-drained by all the high potential people moving out? Or are West Virginian students victims of their environment?

    I find these kind of Coming Apart-related questions of great interest, but few others seem to care.


    I must say tovarisch Steve, your reactionary concern for the fate of West Virginians is deeply suspicious. What would Vladimir Ilyich say?

    Steve, my guess is that Fred Reed answers your emails. (or at least he answers those of Mr. Unz)

    I’d like to see don Frederico wrassle wid deese existential questions.

  79. @Anon
    Some marry a spouse who has money. Some marry a spouse who is good-looking, and yet others marry for brains. Yet when the last has smart kids, more people get upset about that than they do about the kids with wealth or good looks. Good brains are the ultimate insult to everyone else.

    Of course, the difference is that a lot of people can see themselves potentially marrying the kids with money or good looks. But brains? Not so much. They don't want to feel stupid and inferior to their spouse every time they try to have a conversation. Wealth and looks in your spouse leaves your ego intact--in fact, many like to boast about their genetic coup and show off their spouse--but not brains. The only spouse who comes out feeling good in that sort of marriage is someone who is brainy, too.

    Brains are an uncrossable genetic barrier for many people when it comes to breeding, and those who have no hope of getting across it absolutely hate and are jealous of brainy people for that reason.

    I recall a statistic that showed people tend to marry within 5 + or 5 – IQ points of each other. I’ve observed very few smart men who breed with pure arm candy. I’ve seen a lot of doctor + doctor pairings.

    I also recall an old saying: marry at or slightly above your station. I think that “rule” gets breached more than the “IQ rule” though.

    For both rules, women marry up. Very, very few men marry up.

    I don’t expect geneticists to observe publicly that welfare is dysgenic and schooling is a waste of time for the bottom third of students after age 14, and the next third by age 16.

    I expect a lot of energy and obfuscation devoted to legitimizing cousin marriage.

  80. @notanon

    - What about West Virginia, the state with the lowest NAEP school test scores among whites? Has it been genetically brain-drained by all the high potential people moving out? Or are West Virginian students victims of their environment? Both? 50-50? 80-20? 20-80?
     
    appalachia was the epicenter of goiters back before iodized salt so i wonder if iodized salt did enough to fix the most obvious sign of iodine deficiency but not the full effect?

    - Professor Caroline Hoxby of Stanford has shown that quite a few high school students scoring at the 90th percentile or higher on SAT/ACT tests are not intensively recruited by prestige colleges. The most overlooked high scorers tend to be Red State white males. That’s pretty interesting as it is, but it could be that SAT/ACT scores are somewhat biased against them because of a lack of a culture of test prep, so perhaps their genetical potential on average is even higher than their test scores would indicate?
     
    there's probably a certain amount of discrimination behind this but i also wonder if conscientiousness / laziness has a part to play i.e. if a high IQ population with only moderate average conscientiousness is competing among themselves maybe the conscientiousness part largely cancels out but when they compete with populations who are both high IQ and high conscientiousness they come unstuck?

    i also wonder if conscientiousness / laziness has a part to play

    For these red-state smart guys, there’s plenty of opportunity in doing well at a nearby public university. The Ivy League and NYC look like a foreign country from there. And they are a foreign country.

  81. Anon[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @Veracitor
    The Establishment Left is already teaching our children to welcome such a "genetic inheritance tax" through communist propaganda such as the illustrated book for small children, The Rainbow Fish by Marcus Pfister, which is notable for straightforward way it lauds forced dismemberment of the main character to satisfy the petty envy of those around him.

    The Rainbow Fish is the most evil book directed to children that I have ever seen. It's scary for little kids, too.

    If anyone tries to inflict it upon your children or children in your care, you should substitute The Little Red Hen.

    However, before you destroy your copy of The Rainbow Fish, read and analyze it with your children. Help them recognize that: the initial rudeness of the rainbow fish is unfairly put in the character's mouth by the axe-grinding author; that in real life no one should or likely would* be so discourteous; that the other fishes' envy is immoral and rather bogus; that the octopus should be admonishing the other little fish rather than the rainbow fish; that the other fish ought to attract their share of attention by their own qualities or efforts ("pretty shape," "fast swimmer," etc.); and that the "solution" of tearing off and "sharing out" the rainbow fish's scales destroys both the rainbow fish himself and the pleasure everyone else gets from seeing him-- point out that all the other little fish would soon neglect and lose their stolen scales (your kids will nod in agreement) so scalping the rainbow fish is wasteful as well as evil in other ways.

    Help your children to recognize that tearing the rainbow fish's scales off would be painful and crippling, so when the rainbow fish appears happy at the end of the book, that is just the author's thumb on the scale, like with the rudeness at the beginning. Guide your children to recognize and analyze the propaganda slant which distorts the story so that one part after another seems forced if you ask "how would the rainbow fish really feel?" and compare your children's answer to what the book says. Finally, ask what should happen if another rainbow fish comes along? Should every rainbow fish that ever hatches be scalped?

    *Some folks might be so rude, but not any children you are raising, nor their well-mannered friends, right? If necessary, point out that the proper response to rudeness is argument or shunning, not dismemberment.

    Christ! This is new to me. We are truly doomed. When Kurt Vonnegut wrote about this kind of thing, it was as a horrific dystopia, not a happy moral for children to learn.

    “Finally, in the end, despite having one shiny scale left (as he gave them all away to the other fish), he becomes very happy.”

    He loved Big Brother.

  82. eah says:
    @eah
    They must be countered -- sung to the tune of.

    https://twitter.com/Soob/status/1021777963661049856

    ‘the current year’

    San Fran straphangers on edge after third BART murder

    “Maybe I should start driving to school, because I don’t think I feel safe as a BART commuter anymore. But then again, I’m a woman of color. Am I safe anywhere? My car? On campus? At an event? Walking my dogs?” @keani_yafreak tweeted.

  83. @Olorin

    Did you “earn” your children’s DNA sequence?
     
    I sure as hell did. The love of my life doesn't hand out high quality reproductive nucleic acids for free or cheap, nor should she.

    Can say the same for myself.

    The two of us made a lot of effort, choices, and sacrifices in this respect. While I understand many people distribute and fuse gametes with no other awareness than of loinal itch, it is likely that the best and brightest kids in fact had painstakingly earned genomes, and not just by their parents' generation.

    Minimizing, stealing, or destroying this carefully/painstakingly earned and tended genetic investment and legacy seems to be a common element of many redistributive schemes, from post war mass rape to trafficking of white babies in mid-20th century NYC to today's fashionable pressure for miscegenation. I see it as the fundamental issue at the core of white genocide. "We want what we can't earn for ourselves...that you can and did create."

    Agree very strongly. “Accident of birth” is pure propaganda. People on this genetic side of the Hajnal lines tend to make very deliberate choices about who they have sex with, where and when they have it, and the traits prioritized in prospective mates. The “knapsack of privilege” is a culmination of choices made by your parents, their parents, etc. “Honor thy father and mother” is a good social compact with a biological basis.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "People on this genetic side of the Hajnal lines tend to make very deliberate choices about who they have sex with, where and when they have it, and the traits prioritized in prospective mates. The “knapsack of privilege” is a culmination of choices made by your parents, their parents, etc. “Honor thy father and mother” is a good social compact with a biological basis."

    It is irksome to correct you, but it is necessary. There is no "genetic side of the Hajnal lines" here, just people from around the world and throughout history have made decisions, based on numerous factors along a continuum from the biological to the environmental, regarding who to procreate with. Moreover, "Honor thy father and mother" is a STRONG social compact, with nature and nurture components.
  84. @JA
    Yes, I think a man who mates with a beautiful and talented woman with Ivy-level smarts (e.g., Olivia Wilde, Ellie Kemper, Natalie Portman) has "earned" better DNA for his children.

    I have to be one of the only men who doesn’t get the Olivia Wilde hype. She looks quite ordinary to me with strange, severe features – and I think you could find at least five better looking women of her age just walking around on the street on any given day in any reasonably well populated place in the United States.

    De gustibus.

  85. The arrival of a humanoid supergenius species is now imminent!

    The article describes 17 SD of EA (roughly 200 IQ for an optimized genotype). Even larger EA GWAS will reveal hundreds more IQ points. The technology to select embryos based on genotype has existed for many decades and could be (and likely will be) used immediately to incorporate the latest research.

    Beginning on April 23, 2019, a new generation and new species of humanoids will start to be born. Humanity desperately needs to prepare for the arrival of the eugenica.

  86. Ed says:
    @notanon

    - What about West Virginia, the state with the lowest NAEP school test scores among whites? Has it been genetically brain-drained by all the high potential people moving out? Or are West Virginian students victims of their environment? Both? 50-50? 80-20? 20-80?
     
    appalachia was the epicenter of goiters back before iodized salt so i wonder if iodized salt did enough to fix the most obvious sign of iodine deficiency but not the full effect?

    - Professor Caroline Hoxby of Stanford has shown that quite a few high school students scoring at the 90th percentile or higher on SAT/ACT tests are not intensively recruited by prestige colleges. The most overlooked high scorers tend to be Red State white males. That’s pretty interesting as it is, but it could be that SAT/ACT scores are somewhat biased against them because of a lack of a culture of test prep, so perhaps their genetical potential on average is even higher than their test scores would indicate?
     
    there's probably a certain amount of discrimination behind this but i also wonder if conscientiousness / laziness has a part to play i.e. if a high IQ population with only moderate average conscientiousness is competing among themselves maybe the conscientiousness part largely cancels out but when they compete with populations who are both high IQ and high conscientiousness they come unstuck?

    Another thing is being close to family and the familiar. Everyone is not looking to escape their environment even if they can do so.

    There have been studies that show the summer between HS graduation and freshman year in college as being the most fraught for college kids of modest backgrounds. Many never show up.

  87. “The practicality of “everyone should share in our national prosperity” depends on who “everyone” is defined to be.”

    Ctrl + f “posterity”
    Zero results…

    #prosperityforourposterity

  88. @Roderick Spode

    Over 99 percent of our DNA is identical in all humans
     
    Setting aside the grammatical nightmare, this phrase could just as well read

    Over 99 percent of our DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees and bonobos
     
    or even

    Over 50 percent of our DNA is identical to that of bananas
     
    I know that you know, but I never get tired of reminding people that this argument is BS.

    99% of DNA are same for Albert Einstein, Mike Tyson, Hank the Angry Dwarf, and an Amazonian Indian.

    Two cars can be exactly alike except for power of the engine. Makes huge difference.

  89. @Roderick Spode
    Is Steve Sailer enthusiastic? His thesis is rather downbeat to warrant enthusiasm.

    Is Steve Sailer enthusiastic? His thesis is rather downbeat to warrant enthusiasm.

    Change the topic to golf course architecture, and that’ll fire him up.

  90. @Buffalo Joe
    James Watson co-discovered DNA, which made him a genius and a Nobel Prize winner. When Watson pointed out very obvious differences in people he went from genius to pariah. Watson thrown to the wolves. For what it's worth Obama won a Nobel Prize, but he is no genius.

    To be a little more accurate, Watson (plus Wilkins and Crick) stole the research results of another scientist (Rosalind Franklin) and published them while leaving her out.

    Rosalind Franklin
    Discovery of the Structure of DNA
    https://www.thoughtco.com/rosalind-franklin-biography-3530347

    After graduating, Rosalind Franklin stayed and worked for a while at Cambridge, then took a job in the coal industry, applying her knowledge and skill to the structure of coal. She went from that position to Paris, where she worked with Jacques Mering and developed techniques in x-ray crystallography, which was a leading-edge technique to explore the structure of the atoms in molecules.

    Studying DNA

    Rosalind Franklin joined the scientists at the Medical Research Unit, King’s College, when John Randall recruited her to work on the structure of DNA. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) was originally discovered in 1898 by Johann Miescher, and it was known that it was a key to genetics. But it was not until the middle of the 20th century when scientific methods had developed to where the actual structure of the molecule could be discovered, and Rosalind Franklin’s work was key to that methodology.

    Rosalind Franklin worked on the DNA molecule from 1951 until 1953. Using x-ray crystallography she took photographs of the B version of the molecule. A co-worker with whom Franklin did not have a good working relationship, Maurice H. F. Wilkins, Wilkins showed Franklin’s photographs of DNA to James Watson, without permission of Franklin. Watson and his research partner, Francis Crick, were working independently on the structure of DNA, and Watson realized that these photographs were the scientific evidence they needed to prove that the DNA molecule was a double-stranded helix.

    While Watson, in his account of the discovery of the structure of DNA, largely dismissed Franklin’s role in the discovery, Crick later admitted that Franklin had been “only two steps away” from the solution, herself…..

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Crick later admitted that Franklin had been “only two steps away” from the solution, herself…..
     
    And yet, she was still two steps away. Close is only in horseshoes, cricket, and hand grenades.
  91. The only people equal in abilities and potential are dead people, hence why egalitarians are so fond of slaughtering people.

    • LOL: bomag
  92. @Buffalo Joe
    James Watson co-discovered DNA, which made him a genius and a Nobel Prize winner. When Watson pointed out very obvious differences in people he went from genius to pariah. Watson thrown to the wolves. For what it's worth Obama won a Nobel Prize, but he is no genius.

    Obama’s Nobel was much like his Presidency – bought through by corruption of anglo-zionist globalists.

    Behind the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
    by Thierry Meyssan
    https://www.voltairenet.org/article162559.html

    While the Nobel Peace Prize award has led to a chorus of praise from the Atlantic alliance leaders, it has also raised skepticism around the world. Rather than discuss the reasons that might after the fact justify this surprising choice, Thierry Meyssan exposes the corruption of the Nobel Committee and the ties between its chairman, Thorbjørn Jagland, and Obama’s associates…..

  93. More phony blah-blah-blah from the NY Times and “psychologists”. These “million person” studies are so under-sampled as to be nothing but random noise. Take 40 genes with 2 variants each (this is only a very small fraction of the genes that have been proposed to be correlated with things like “IQ”). The possible number of genetic variants is then 2 to the 40th power – that is more than ONE TRILLION combinations of those 40 genes with two variants each. A sample size of one million persons corresponds to testing less than 1 part per million of those combinations.

    This leads to two inescapable conclusions.

    1. There are NOT enough people in the world to EVER do meaningful statistics on complex traits that involve >ca. 30 genes. ALL of these studies are measuring nothing more than noise artefacts.

    2. NO genetic test will ever be able to predict the “IQ” (or related things like “education achievement”) for an individual person.

    The question we should be asking ourselves is why we are being sold so much obvious snake oil.

  94. Anonymous[263] • Disclaimer says:
    @hyperbola
    To be a little more accurate, Watson (plus Wilkins and Crick) stole the research results of another scientist (Rosalind Franklin) and published them while leaving her out.


    Rosalind Franklin
    Discovery of the Structure of DNA
    https://www.thoughtco.com/rosalind-franklin-biography-3530347

    After graduating, Rosalind Franklin stayed and worked for a while at Cambridge, then took a job in the coal industry, applying her knowledge and skill to the structure of coal. She went from that position to Paris, where she worked with Jacques Mering and developed techniques in x-ray crystallography, which was a leading-edge technique to explore the structure of the atoms in molecules.

    Studying DNA

    Rosalind Franklin joined the scientists at the Medical Research Unit, King's College, when John Randall recruited her to work on the structure of DNA. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) was originally discovered in 1898 by Johann Miescher, and it was known that it was a key to genetics. But it was not until the middle of the 20th century when scientific methods had developed to where the actual structure of the molecule could be discovered, and Rosalind Franklin's work was key to that methodology.

    Rosalind Franklin worked on the DNA molecule from 1951 until 1953. Using x-ray crystallography she took photographs of the B version of the molecule. A co-worker with whom Franklin did not have a good working relationship, Maurice H. F. Wilkins, Wilkins showed Franklin's photographs of DNA to James Watson, without permission of Franklin. Watson and his research partner, Francis Crick, were working independently on the structure of DNA, and Watson realized that these photographs were the scientific evidence they needed to prove that the DNA molecule was a double-stranded helix.

    While Watson, in his account of the discovery of the structure of DNA, largely dismissed Franklin's role in the discovery, Crick later admitted that Franklin had been "only two steps away" from the solution, herself.....

    Crick later admitted that Franklin had been “only two steps away” from the solution, herself…..

    And yet, she was still two steps away. Close is only in horseshoes, cricket, and hand grenades.

    • Replies: @hyperbola
    And Watson et. al. were a million steps away without Franklin's data. Had there been no theft, she might well have gotten there well before the Crick criminals. The prize committee should retract Watson's prize.
  95. @Reg Cæsar

    Over 50 percent of our DNA is identical to that of bananas

     

    Some are predicting that bananas will soon go extinct. If human activity is responsible, would that be frugicide?

    Some are predicting that bananas will soon go extinct.

    Just the one particular variety that stocks most shelves.

    The other varieties are not as tasty or “eatable”.

    Looks to be a cautionary tale: it’s hard to maintain nice things (like Western civilization).

    The genetic difference between banana varieties is vanishingly slight, but it makes the difference between survival and extinction.

  96. @Svigor

    Over 99 percent of our DNA is identical in all humans
     
    And, for reference, over 98% of human DNA is identical to chimpanzee DNA...

    but chimps have less chromosomes than Humans….Around 80% of the human genome has an equivalent section in the chimp genome. When we compare these sections we find that they’re around 95% similar. We know that the 99% number is just plain wrong and in reality we are actually about 75% similar to chimps when we compare the entire genome.

  97. @Anon
    Some marry a spouse who has money. Some marry a spouse who is good-looking, and yet others marry for brains. Yet when the last has smart kids, more people get upset about that than they do about the kids with wealth or good looks. Good brains are the ultimate insult to everyone else.

    Of course, the difference is that a lot of people can see themselves potentially marrying the kids with money or good looks. But brains? Not so much. They don't want to feel stupid and inferior to their spouse every time they try to have a conversation. Wealth and looks in your spouse leaves your ego intact--in fact, many like to boast about their genetic coup and show off their spouse--but not brains. The only spouse who comes out feeling good in that sort of marriage is someone who is brainy, too.

    Brains are an uncrossable genetic barrier for many people when it comes to breeding, and those who have no hope of getting across it absolutely hate and are jealous of brainy people for that reason.

    That seems like an exaggeration to me. I’m 47 and smarter than most, and yet I don’t think I’ve run into people jealous of me for my brains, nor have I observed jealousy by others of others that are much smarter than me. Of course, I live in Seattle and work in the tech industry, so there are lots of smarties around me. But still, I’ve got 47 years on the planet.

  98. @Clyde
    I just saw Sicario #2 Day of The Soldado. The movie was pointless, plot sucked, but had lots of really good action, meaning shootouts. The bad guys (people smugglers) got killed off en masse at the end which was great! Josh Brolin is good at being a credible tough guy.

    Doesn’t “Sicario” actually mean “Soldier” and doesn’t that make the title ridiculously redundant, i.e. “Soldier: Day of the Soldier”?

    • Replies: @Clyde
    Ridiculous only to someone who is thinking. The title is meaningless, but it sounded catchy.
  99. Anon[137] • Disclaimer says:

    “To be a little more accurate, Watson (plus Wilkins and Crick) stole the research results of another scientist (Rosalind Franklin) and published them while leaving her out.”

    That’s a blatant misrepresentation of events. You imply that Franklin knew the structural relationship of nucleic acids in the DNA double helix and others stole that knowledge from her when no such thing happened. There is no indication whatsoever that Franklin knew anything about the structure of DNA. She had the data but Watson and Crick had the model. She refused to share the data, so they arranged to get it. Saying Watson and Crick didn’t discover the structure of DNA is like saying Einstein didn’t come up with the theory of relativity because others had already made the observations.

    I’ve noticed a lot of college genetics courses teaching this propaganda, so I’m assuming that this is where you got the idea from, probably from a female professor; women are disproportionately represented in Biology.

    Further, her data were indeed published alongside theirs. They simply didn’t mention that they had confirmed the model they originated using her x-ray data.

    “A sample size of one million persons corresponds to testing less than 1 part per million of those combinations.”

    Polling data is often remarkably accurate for having a sample size of less than 1,000 persons out of a country of around a third of a billion. Why? Well, given certain reasonable assumptions, it is fairly trivial to extrapolate trends to a whole with a small margin of error. Likewise, we don’t really need a sample size of 200,000 parts per million to make a reasonable prediction about a lot of things, including the genetics of IQ.

    Many chess masters can realize that a game of chess has been won or lost after just a handful of moves even though there might still be a large number of possible games to be played given the configuration of the board. They extrapolate a likely endgame and resign before being defeated.

    Your argument strikes me as merely moving the goal posts because you don’t like the results.

  100. Anon[137] • Disclaimer says:

    “but chimps have less chromosomes than Humans”

    Chimps have more chromosomes than humans because some ancestor of humans underwent a fusion event between two chimp chromosomes. The total DNA content between humans and chimps is very similar, with most of the difference coming from the Y chromosome, which mainly determines sex.

  101. Yes, I won the genetic lottery. Those ancestral balls have been good to me man. Don’t be ghey, you can’t win if you don’t play…

    Oh, I have Math Skills for all to see. Its as easy as 1,2,3. I look good even though I’m getting gray.
    I still have hair to comb today.

    Don’t fritter away your genes. You can’t choose your parents, but you can choose the parents of your children. CHOOSE WISELY.

  102. @Lefty
    Doesn't "Sicario" actually mean "Soldier" and doesn't that make the title ridiculously redundant, i.e. "Soldier: Day of the Soldier"?

    Ridiculous only to someone who is thinking. The title is meaningless, but it sounded catchy.

  103. @Anonymous

    Crick later admitted that Franklin had been “only two steps away” from the solution, herself…..
     
    And yet, she was still two steps away. Close is only in horseshoes, cricket, and hand grenades.

    And Watson et. al. were a million steps away without Franklin’s data. Had there been no theft, she might well have gotten there well before the Crick criminals. The prize committee should retract Watson’s prize.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Are you Jewish or have you Jewish ancestors?
  104. @James Thompson
    On balance, the article is useful. Of course it says that this research can lead to Bad people doing Bad things, but it gives the main findings of the research. I think it is part of a scorched earth policy, as the purely sociological view of human beings conducts a long retreat.

    Homo sapiens is merely a social construct whose biology shares chemical elements with all other plant and animal species.

  105. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Agree very strongly. "Accident of birth" is pure propaganda. People on this genetic side of the Hajnal lines tend to make very deliberate choices about who they have sex with, where and when they have it, and the traits prioritized in prospective mates. The "knapsack of privilege" is a culmination of choices made by your parents, their parents, etc. "Honor thy father and mother" is a good social compact with a biological basis.

    “People on this genetic side of the Hajnal lines tend to make very deliberate choices about who they have sex with, where and when they have it, and the traits prioritized in prospective mates. The “knapsack of privilege” is a culmination of choices made by your parents, their parents, etc. “Honor thy father and mother” is a good social compact with a biological basis.”

    It is irksome to correct you, but it is necessary. There is no “genetic side of the Hajnal lines” here, just people from around the world and throughout history have made decisions, based on numerous factors along a continuum from the biological to the environmental, regarding who to procreate with. Moreover, “Honor thy father and mother” is a STRONG social compact, with nature and nurture components.

  106. Anonymous[147] • Disclaimer says:
    @hyperbola
    And Watson et. al. were a million steps away without Franklin's data. Had there been no theft, she might well have gotten there well before the Crick criminals. The prize committee should retract Watson's prize.

    Are you Jewish or have you Jewish ancestors?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS