The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"Race, Genetics and Pseudoscience: An Explainer"
🔊 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

This essay by 4 academics is supposed to be a thorough debunking of the reality of human biodiversity:

Race, genetics and pseudoscience: an explainer
Ewan Birney, Jennifer Raff, Adam Rutherford, Aylwyn Scally

Human genetics tells us about the similarities and differences between people – in our physical and psychological traits, and in our susceptibility to disorders and diseases – but our DNA can also reveal the broader story of our evolution, ancestry and history. Genetics is a new scientific field, relatively speaking, merely a century old. Over the last two decades, the pace of discovery has accelerated dramatically, with exciting new findings appearing daily. Even for scientists who study this field, it’s difficult to keep up.

Amidst this ongoing surge of new information, there are darker currents. A small number of researchers, mostly well outside of the scientific mainstream, have seized upon some of the new findings and methods in human genetics, and are part of a social-media cottage-industry that disseminates and amplifies low-quality or distorted science, sometimes in the form of scientific papers, sometimes as internet memes – under the guise of euphemisms such as ‘race realism’ or ‘human biodiversity’. Their arguments, which focus on racial groupings and often on the alleged genetically-based intelligence differences between them, have the semblance of science, with technical-seeming tables, graphs, and charts. But they’re misleading in several important ways. The aim of this article is to provide an accessible guide for scientists, journalists, and the general public for understanding, criticising and pushing back against these arguments.

Human population structure is not race

Racial categories, as most people understand them today, have some of their roots in the development of scientific thinking during only the last few centuries. As Europeans explored and colonised the world, thinkers, philosophers and scientists from those countries attempted to apply taxonomic structures to the people that they encountered, and though these attempts were many and varied, they typically reflected sharp geographic boundaries, and obvious physical characteristics, such as pigmentation and basic morphology – that is to say, what people look like. Research in the 20th century found that the crude categorisations used colloquially (black, white, East Asian etc.) were not reflected in actual patterns of genetic variation, meaning that differences and similarities in DNA between people did not perfectly match the traditional racial terms. The conclusion drawn from this observation is that race is therefore a socially constructed system, where we effectively agree on these terms, rather than their existing as essential or objective biological categories.

Some people claim that the exquisitely detailed picture of human variation that we can now obtain by sequencing whole genomes contradicts this. Recent studies, they argue, actually show that the old notions of races as biological categories were basically correct in the first place. As evidence for this they often point to the images produced by analyses in studies that seem to show natural clustering of humans into broadly continental groups based on their DNA. But these claims misinterpret and misrepresent the methods and results of this type of research. Populations do show both genetic and physical differences, but the analyses that are cited as evidence for the concept of race as a biological category actually undermine it.

Even though geography has been an important influence on human evolution, and geographical landmasses broadly align with the folk taxonomies of race, patterns of human genetic variation are much more complex, and reflect the long demographic history of humankind.

One thing to note is how boring and uninformative this essay is.

If they wanted to be more persuasive, they should give more examples to back up their assertions. For example, they repeatedly claim that old scientific and popular ideas about how best to lump and split human populations have been debunked by modern genomics, but they don’t tell us which of these ideas that have been disproven and what has replaced them. The essay would be far more interesting with more factual examples.

… Moreover, since it is a complex trait, the genetic variation related to IQ is broadly distributed across the genome, rather than being clustered around a few spots, as is the nature of the variation responsible for skin pigmentation. These very different patterns for these two traits mean that the genes responsible for determining skin pigmentation cannot be meaningfully associated with the genes currently known to be linked to IQ. These observations alone rule out some of the cruder racial narratives about the genetics of intelligence: it is virtually inconceivable that the primary determinant of racial categories – that is skin colour – is strongly associated with the genetic architecture that relates to intelligence.

Wow, that’s pretty embarrassing.

Folks interested in human biodiversity tend to have vastly more sophisticated views than those attacked here.

But, they are Bad People, so don’t pay any attention to what they have to say, even though they tend to be well-informed and insightful. Making fools of ourselves is a small price to pay for not listening to what the Bad People have to say.

 
Hide 334 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. IQ tests reflect degrees of intelligence that correlate strictly with the old bad categories of black, white and Asian races. How do the race is a social construct folks explain that?

  2. When there are multiple authors to a piece like this one,I wonder who actually wrote it, and who merely gave it their blessing without looking at it too closely.

    The two more junior authors are Raff and Rutherford. Jennifer Raff is an anthropologist in Indiana who specializes in ancient Native American anthropology. Adam Rutherford is a “half-Guyanese-Indian” researcher turned popular science writer.

    Birney and Scally are the big names. Ewan Birney is a senior guy in bioinformatics (computational methods for rapidly figuring out DNA sequencing) who, ironically, was once mentored by James Watson, in an internship after high school in Eton. Aylwyn Scally is a big name in Cambridge University in their genetics department in computational genetics of human evolution.

  3. “These very different patterns for these two traits mean that the genes responsible for determining skin pigmentation cannot be meaningfully associated with the genes currently known to be linked to IQ. “

    You should be congratulating them for pointing out that correlation is not causation!

    PS – “Scally” is what people called shell-suited Liverpudlian bad-hats.

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Scally

  4. Jesus liberals are dumb.

  5. I can’t figure out what “Summertime Blues” is doing here.

    • Replies: @reactionry
    , @Clyde
    , @jamie b.
  6. Altai says:

    Again, if they only limited their argument to ‘race doesn’t matter’ instead of ‘race doesn’t exist, you white bigot!’.

  7. Tiny Duck says:

    Its over for you guys

    whiteness is seen as evil by most people and is necessary that it be destoryed

    everyone agrees

    this is a new hit movie

    revoultion is upon us

    I went to a wedding and all the groomsmen were Men of Color and the bridesmaids were mostly white girls

    That tells you something righ there

  8. I don’t get this whole line of argumentation. Of course skin color isn’t *necessarily* related to intelligence, it just happens to be. It’s just a coincidence.

    • Replies: @firstime
  9. Are these scientists then anti-diversity?

    We are told that there are inherent substantive differences based on demographic differences — ‘diversity’.

    Now these scientists are claiming that this ‘diversity’ is a scam?

    How dare these racists denigrate ‘diversity’ theory?

    • LOL: bomag
    • Replies: @Travis
  10. Not surprisingly I have seen Jennifer Raff getting flustered when arguing online with the likes of Jayman, and immediately running to credentialism.

    • Replies: @Laurence Whelk
  11. So it’s the usual “race is not a thing” semantic argument, plus knocking down straw man arguments that no one is making — like the idea that the genes for pigmentation themselves cause IQ.

    Embarassing indeed.

    However, the point is not to persuade with any particular information or analysis, but rather to intone with a voice of authority that bad thoughts are “pseudo” science. And should therefore be ignored.

    The strategy of the good thinkers is to never, ever, under any circumstances, engage with the actual points or data of the bad thinkers.

    • Replies: @gregor
    , @res
  12. Hail says: • Website

    it is virtually inconceivable that the primary determinant of racial categories – that is skin colour – is strongly associated with the genetic architecture that relates to intelligence.

    Very poor effort.

    If I didn’t know better, I’d say possible troll job (a weak one, at that).

  13. Before I actually read the whole report, if I do at all, may I just point out that the use of the word “darker” in the second paragraph is a strong hint that basically everything that follows will be cant. If the people who might honestly disagree with these scientists are necessarily swimming in “darker currents,” then of course it is the latter’s duty to show us the sunshiny path to decent, respectable views.

    • Agree: TTSSYF
  14. eugyppius says:

    Nobody believes that “skin colour” is “the primary determinant of racial categories.” Not even the authors of this travesty believe that. It is simply a salient feature that serves as a convenient shorthand.

    But perhaps our explainers should extend their logic. They could for example treat us to essays about bears and fur color. “Fur color,” they could write, is “the primary determinant of bear species,” for example when we speak of black bears and brown bears. Then they could prove that the very real differences in aggression etc. observed between black and brown bears are wholly spurious because the genes that determine their fur color could not conceivably be implicated also in their distinctive cognitive and/or behavioral traits. Similar arguments could be made about red and white wine (is resveratrol red? ha no! so red wine can’t be healthy! here’s an argument I could get behind even though typing it out has made me stupider) or about whatever it is people are claiming for red meat.

    Every time academic gatekeepers associate themselves with sad anemic refutations of HBD like this one, a new crop of race realists are born, as they realise: this is all you got? So thank Birney, Raff, Rutherford and Scally for doing more than many to guide people to the truth.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  15. Acilius says: • Website

    The writer who had the biggest influence on me was Irving Babbitt, who lived from 1865 to 1933. Babbitt was a literary scholar who developed a form of Perennialism, that is to say, a theory according to which the great books of all civilizations were delivering more or less the same message.

    The passage in Babbitt’s books that is most frequently condemned today comes from his 1924 DEMOCRACY AND LEADERSHIP, which spells out the political implications of his theory. These implications are mostly to do with the kind of governing elite a society ought to have. The passage that has drawn so much fire is one in which he name-checks books by Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant. Those really are just name-checks; all he says about Stoddard and Grant is that their books are important and disturbing. Babbitt usually mentions authors by the dozen, making penetrating remarks about each in turn. In that context, it’s puzzling to see a reference to a couple of books Babbitt shows no signs of having read, and ironic that he is still being abused 95 years later for having made these cursory mentions.

    I bring this up because I wonder if publications like these serve the same purpose in today’s intellectual climate that Stoddard and Grant served for Babbitt. Babbitt was a conservative by inclination, and certainly did not want to be seen as a kooky radical who would oppose the consensus view of his day by working against white supremacy. Yet the whole thrust of his theory was against the color line, and even the most reactionary parts of it were alien to the particular rhetoric that white supremacists favored at the time. By name-checking Stoddard and Grant, he could reassure his right-leaning readers that he wasn’t interested in challenging the status quo in race relations, then go on with the work he had been doing.

    Nowadays, psychometricians and others find that their work sometimes points in iSteve-ish directions, and even when it doesn’t they find that it is difficult to explain it in terms of the most familiar forms of anti-racist rhetoric. Yet most of them are inclined to support the political left, and very few are interested in joining battle to reform the ways we talk about race. So, they need respectable-sounding publications they can name-check somewhere on the first page of each of their articles to reassure their readers that they are standard-issue academic liberals. Having done that, they can hope to continue their research unmolested.

    Over the years, you’ve quoted a number of articles that have started with a tip of the hat to S. J. Gould’s 1981 MISMEASURE OF MAN, then gone on to contradict all of Gould’s conclusions. Perhaps these publications reflect a growing recognition that Gould’s book is no longer serviceable in that role, and their authors hope to be cited in the opening pages of every scholarly publication in psychometrics, physical anthropology, etc, for the next 38 years.

  16. @eugyppius

    When I first started helping my wife with her research papers and speeches she struggled mightily to come up with anything worthwhile to say because she was utterly oblivious to the possibility, let alone necessity, of employing concrete facts and examples in her arguments.

    Sitting/sifting through the often painful efforts of her peers in workshops/their own research and the like reveals that she wasn’t alone. We have a class of people terrified to condescend from the purely abstract lest they endanger their precarious status.

    Maybe capacity for and inclination toward abstract thinking isn’t the best criteria for constructing an aristocracy.

  17. Some people claim that the exquisitely detailed picture of human variation that we can now obtain by sequencing whole genomes contradicts this. Recent studies, they argue, actually show that the old notions of races as biological categories were basically correct in the first place. As evidence for this they often point to the images produced by analyses in studies that seem to show natural clustering of humans into broadly continental groups based on their DNA. But these claims misinterpret and misrepresent the methods and results of this type of research.

    Jimmy Buffet’s Margaritaville:

    Some people claim that there’s a woman to blame

    But I know it’s my own damn fault

    I say these academic Luddites are overpaid system enforcer goons who are using straw men arguments to hide the fact that race is real and race is measurable and race is genetically based.

    Populations do show both genetic and physical differences, but the analyses that are cited as evidence for the concept of race as a biological category actually undermine it.

    Van Morrison’s Pagan Streams:

    And we walked the pagan streams

    In meditation and contemplation

    And we didn’t need anybody, or anything

    Then, no concepts, being free

    And I want to climb that hillside again, with you

    One more time

    I say these overpaid academic dolts are stewing in their own concept of race denial slop. I say culture and politics and civilization are downstream from genetic race.

  18. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:

    Increasingly, such explainers are becoming more and more stupid. Here is the claim:

    In reality for most [complex] traits … it is not only unclear that genetic variation explains differences between populations, it is also unlikely.

    Height is a complex trait. It is abundantly clear that genetic variation explains a lot of differences in height between populations.

    In the ten paragraphs that follow, the authors do not even attempt to explain how the mechanistically very basic and totally expected genetic differentiation is “unlikely”.

  19. gregor says:
    @Hypnotoad666

    I think this stuff is primarily written to signal. But I think they also do feel the need to produce apologetic material to reassure the liberals who are troubled by some of the HBD-type topics that leak into the mainstream. In an apologetic work, your job is preserve faith. The best tactic here isn’t to take on the best arguments directly and honestly and admit where your position has difficulties. No, you want to write something lengthy that sounds informed and confidant that goes off on irrelevant tangents.

  20. mikemikev says:

    So they’ve got “higher diversity in Africa”. This claim is overstated, I think from Tishkoff’s work, and rarely backed up with a link to the relevant data. This paper finds similar genetic diversity in Africa when masking traces of Eurasian backmigration.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13997

    Assuming their claim “many distinct groups within Africa that are just as different from each other as Africans are to non-Africans” is correct, so what? Then you have several African races splitting before a Eurasian race. Either way it invalidates no claims about group differences. And race is defined by shared ancestry, Africans share ancestry versus Eurasians, irrespective of “genomic diversity” in junk DNA. I don’t think more or less genomic diversity invalidates non-human taxa. It’s not true that Eurasians are a “subset” of Africans. They have plenty of genes that are near fixation, and near absent in Africans.

    “sharp geographic boundaries” they must know this is a lie. Perhaps they haven’t read e.g. Blumenbach who they defame.

    “Furthermore, there isn’t really a human ‘tree’”. I guess nobody even realised this was a simplification. They go on to describe waves of migration and gene flow in Europe. Historical gene flow doesn’t change the fact that what we currently call Europeans share ancestry versus other groups. Historical gene flow cannot invalidate subspecies.

    Why don’t these people ever make these fallacious arguments for non-human taxa?

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
    , @Lot
  21. gregor says:

    “…structural racism has historically and continues to hugely contribute to economic and social disparities. We cannot use populations in these countries…”

    This position is impossible to falsify. More precisely, it can only be falsified if we have objective criteria to measure this “structural racism” and we specify the level below which it can no longer be used as an excuse.

    If they were serious about this argument, they would try to show how the sort of oppression they allege exists is suppressing black and brown cognition. Because the idea that discrimination, largely historical, impairs cognition for many generations goes against what you’d expect theoretically and in practice there are many counterexamples (groups that have been oppressed but that don’t show cognitive deficits). They aren’t even specific about what they think is going on. Is it Lamarckian inheritance of trauma? Is it purely a psychological thing, as in the stereotype threat becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy?

  22. Bugg says:

    Gotta crank “Live at Leeds” at top volume some point this weekend.

  23. “…the cruder racial narratives…”

    That’s a “scientific” analysis?

    Just like the US Supreme Court (in the words of the old political cartoon character, Mr. Dooley) can be influenced by the election returns like everyone else, so can scientists fall under the spell of the prevailing zeitgeist.

  24. @Anonymouse

    And as a corollary, notice that it was the white and Asian races who built the great civilizations of the world, with blacks being conspicuously absent.

  25. I

    The conclusion drawn from this observation is that race is therefore a socially constructed system, where we effectively agree on these terms, rather than their existing as essential or objective biological categories.

    Here, they make the fundamental difference disappear between the social and the hard sciences.
    (A public sphere, which tolerates this amount of ignorance is a problem in itself).

    II

    Making fools of ourselves is a small price to pay for not listening to what the Bad People have to say.

    Right. I think a big part of the controversy is really about who wants to pay which price. HBD insights are indeed costly because they annihilate lots of ideas about the status quo of our multi-racial social world.

    Sam Harris put it this way: To accept the findings written down in The Bell Curve means to threaten quite a number of “nested taboos”.

    I would go as far as to say, that which of those taboos are the ones that would hurt most if destroyed is not even clear. One that came up lately is, that it is a comfortable arrangement for the brighter classes to have an advantage, which is being protected by Rutherford’s et. al. ignorance of the biological foundation of being bright.

    Adam Rutherford and Angela Saini might protect the ignorance of hard biological facts not least because they both have Indian roots. In India, there is a big and undisputed traditional shield between the brighter and the lower classes – not least in the form of the caste system.

  26. PTT says: • Website

    Sounds like a run-of-the-mill case of the latent variable fallacy — quite beneath the stature of scientists who ought to know better:
    https://posttenuretourettes.wordpress.com/2018/07/03/latent-variable-fallacy/

    • Agree: res
    • Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter
  27. Anonymous[160] • Disclaimer says:

    You see, the genes for skin pigmentation are spread throughout the genome, so there’s really no way to tell what your skin color will be based on those of your parents. Oh wait—

  28. @Desiderius

    Interesting comment. My impression is that our PhD’s are focused not so much on the right answer as an answer that cannot be proven wrong. In other words, they are generating non-falsifiable hypotheses. A good soft-science example would be transgenderism. Thus, they can publish their “science” and not have to worry about more serious people shredding it empirically. Give your critics a bunch of Jell-o to wrestle.

    We’re over-producing PhD’s so this sort of thing is inevitable. There’s not much new fruit to be picked out there. Particle physics, I’ve read, is practically done as far as new discoveries.

  29. This “explainer” is actually quite stunning in its admissions. They basically have ceded most of the debate and have used this article as a field guide on how to obfuscate and deflect rather than debunk. Take a look.

    Section 1: Human population structure is not race

    Reality: Yes, there are races and they correspond with the definitions that everyday people use

    Field Guide: Tell people that “race” doesn’t exist; instead use the term “populations” or “population clusters” and say that this is totally different, even though it isn’t but they’ll never know. Say that it’s messy and they wouldn’t understand.

    Traits, IQ and genetic diversity

    Reality: Yes, intelligence is real, it’s measurable and it’s partially genetic

    Field Guide: Silly people, there’s no one IQ gene, there are hundreds, maybe thousands. What’s more they interact with each other, so it’s all so messy that no one can’t understand how it really works. Also, we haven’t sampled every person on the planet so how can we can sure about our results. Finally, well, yes, IQ is heritable within populations but that tells us nothing about differences between populations. How could any thinking person put the two together.

    Oh, yea, and racism, especially racism in the USA, which, of course, means white racism. You’re white too, right. Are you a racist?

    Conclusion

    Sure, new genetic research seems to back up what people see every day and have believed for centuries, but it’s actually really complicated, so complicated that you don’t understand it nor do those racist whites. Trust me, they’re wrong.

  30. Steve,

    Isn’t this Murray’s FAQ, just inverted?

  31. Neoconned says:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7611051/Foster-mom-charged-murder-deaths-three-year-old-twin-girls-hot-car.html

    OT: a black foster mother allows 2 young twin white girls in her custody to die of heat stroke…..

    I’m curious…..i always thought foster families were of similar racial background so as to promote stability? Am I incorrect? Not a subject I’m that educated on….

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Bill
  32. @Desiderius

    The Discourse of Modernity (Habermas) = our discourse, is restricted by all kinds of failures. And it serves all kinds of purposes.

    The same is true for abstraction as one of the means with the highest status within this Discourse of Modernity. There are two ways to make the debate of this social fact very short. The shortest version I know consists of the two names Sigmund Freud and Ludwig Wittgenstein.

    Freud because abstractions are often times rationalizations (= misleading) and Wittgenstein, because of his insight in the nature of meaning and therewith in the heart of our language as the basis of our discourse: That in order to understand what a word means, you should have a look at how it is used (a very practical undertaking – and not abstract at all).

    • Replies: @David
    , @Anonymouse
  33. @Dieter Kief

    HBD undermines every single pillar of current Western society. We live in a theocracy – the Church of Equality. HBD explicitly says that’s a false god. That’s why HBD will be fought tooth and nail to the bitter end. For the other side, this is a fight for survival and holy crusade rolled into one.

    They will gladly destroy your life, imprison you and, if need be, kill you to protect their world.

    • Agree: jim jones
    • Replies: @Ragno
  34. Alfa158 says:
    @Anonymouse

    They explain it as follows:
    “Shut up, racist!”
    Oh wait, no such thing as race.
    “Shut up, human population structurist”!
    Actually, human population structure is a neat little summary of what the definition of race is, and gets you away from using the r**e word but still too clumsy for a descriptor. I will continue to describe myself as someone who believes race exists, therefore a racist.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  35. As always, the authors are ignorant liars. It’s that simple.

  36. 1. Who’s right about race and genetics?

    2. Who has the power to get whom fired about race and genetics?

  37. Nodwink says:

    Pretty much everything in that statement is correct. Maybe you should go back to reviewing movies.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  38. Not totally OT:

    The Washington Post has review of The Problem With Everything: My Journey Through the New Culture Wars, a book by the author Meghan Daum.

    What is unusual is that the Post has even allowed a review of a book that’s mildly critical of the current zeitgeist on the left.

  39. syonredux says:

    Human population structure is not race

    OK. So we should all start substituting “race’ with “population structure”: Sub-Saharan African population structure, East Asian population structure, European population structure, etc. Sounds good to me.

    Racial categories, as most people understand them today, have some of their roots in the development of scientific thinking during only the last few centuries.

    See, it’s a newfangled, johnny-come-lately notion, like heliocentrism or the Double Helix…..

    Research in the 20th century found that the crude categorisations used colloquially (black, white, East Asian etc.) were not reflected in actual patterns of genetic variation, meaning that differences and similarities in DNA between people did not perfectly match the traditional racial terms.

    “Did not perfectly match” doesn’t mean that the “traditional racial terms” are incorrect, though. After all, our traditional terms for sex (male and female) don’t perfectly match biological realities, seeing as how they don’t address the small percentage of people who are born with intersex conditions. However, they do work in the vast majority of cases.The continental-scale racial classifications are kinda similar, not completely precise but good enough when it comes to distinguishing Koreans , Nigerians, and Lithuanians from one another.

  40. More and more outtakes from Michael Wadleigh’s documentary, Woodstock, have been released in recent years, and The Who’s performance of Summertime Blues at Woodstock is now on YouTube. In some ways, IMHO, it’s better than their performance recorded at Leeds. Of course, I might be influenced by the fact that the Woodstock performance has the advantage of letting us see them performing the song. MTV and YouTube have gotten us accustomed to that.

    Of course, the Live at Leeds album as a whole is pretty much the perfect concert album. Even so, I think I like their performance of Magic Bus at Leeds the best, and it’s probably better than any other version I’ve heard.

    • Replies: @Kibernetika
  41. Arclight says:

    All this effort by the left to say race isn’t real and that normal standards (like the ACT/SAT) need to be abandoned is actually an admission that a) they understand that the racial achievement gap is real, and b) they don’t think it can be eliminated.

    This basically follows what John Derbyshire has been saying for a long, long time. The evidence is piling up for a strong genetic component to IQ and all its associated outcomes, the left is cracking up as it realizes that magical concepts like magic/tragic dirt and white supremacy don’t actually explain the world, and that despite having had a death grip on public policy for over half a century none of their interventions in the economy of society have really moved the needle.

    For some of them, the fact that they have squandered trillions of other people’s money and created massive societal divisions is all upside, but the more honest sort who truly believed with the right mix of policy and ‘investment’ we’d see an organic leveling of society are still working their way through the five stages of grief.

    • Agree: Dtbb
    • Replies: @Kronos
    , @TheTrumanShow
  42. Anon[213] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s like a “we the undersigned” open letter, but they could only get four people to sign it, and even Buzzfeed wouldn’t publish it.

  43. RACE IS A GENETIC CONSTRUCT

    Genetics predisposes some women to corpulence. Women generally have a higher body fat percentage than men do.

    Steve Sailer says he weighs 180 pounds at 6 feet 3 7/8 eighth of an inch tall.

    Perhaps these ladies — shown below — are 180 pounds or more, and, if they are, it would be partially attributable to genetic factors such as their family history and the fact that they are women.

    Excuse me while I eat a whole box of cheese crackers and not gain an ounce.

    Future Sailer Blog Post Material:

    1/2 Off Pizza Every Tuesday!

    Hippopotamus In Front Of The Bus!

    • Replies: @anon
    , @reactionry
  44. Anon[772] • Disclaimer says:

    Poorly written (lacking appropriate proofs and specificity) science propaganda pieces are par, when held to a reasonable standard of science writing.

    After all, propaganda is propaganda because it doesn’t comport with the truth that science is designed to uncover. It follows that science standards have to be avoided in research and writing when there is a political agenda that takes priority over science.

    Such pieces damn their perspective on their own. It only takes someone with the remotest sense of science-writing to read them. Which, unfortunately, is not most people.

    Human genetics are largely the same. The difference is the hominid genetic load (non-human genetics), quality and quantity, in any one racial group. Which is what actually defines racial difference at the genetic level. These hominid genetics are universally unaccounted for in all anti-racist genetic essays.

    This hominid intermixing origin of the primary three human races is the truth that evolutionary theory is designed to obscure. Within it is resolved, where it exists, any seeming genetic homogeneity and difference between the races.

  45. Wow, that’s pretty embarrassing.

    People who engage in science denialism are usually pretty embarrassing.

  46. nebulafox says:

    I’m genuinely agnostic on the HBD question: I’m not well-informed enough to take an objective position on the subject. (For the same reason, I stay away from climate change debates at present-climate science is a complex subject!) I intuitively would guess that tens of thousands of years of evolution makes perfectly identical features among different subgroups of the human species unlikely, and blank-slate Gouldism even moreso. But I also know that there have been massive shift of human behavior over a relatively short period of time in some societies-50, 100 years-to also be skeptical of absolute biological determinism. It’s probably a 50/50 mix, as Steve has said repeatedly.

    I strongly suspect that IQ isn’t wholly unmalleable, at least within hard biological limits. Lee Kwan Yew had a wise approach here: society isn’t God. If you are naturally below average, it probably can’t change that. But it could help you get 10, 20% higher in terms of potential than you would be elsewhere. If IQ measures how fast you can learn stuff, then that can be improved with conscious practice, and that’s money and effort well-worth spending: it makes a massive different in quality of life when the day-to-day work done around you is done by people with an IQ of 100 rather than 80, as anybody who has compared Changi Airport to an American one can assert. But that’s not the same thing as asserting that there are no differences between different groups of people.

    At the very least, I’d guess it is not simply made-up pseudoscience, because All Of The Decent People are assuring me that it is. Given their track record over the past quarter century, from foreign policy to the economy, whenever they are doing that, you should immediately be skeptical. Doubly so when it takes on disturbing pseudo-religious overtones.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  47. David says:
    @Dieter Kief

    How can Wittgenstein be credited with the idea of looking at how words are used to understand their meaning when the Oxford English Dictionary had been published before he was born?

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  48. “Populations do show both genetic and physical differences, but the analyses that are cited as evidence for the concept of race as a biological category actually undermine it.”

    This is an excellent topic sentence to begin a paragraph with. The reader will then be keyed up to examine specific examples that undermine the concept of race. But no such examples are given; what a let-down for the reader.

    – – – – –
    “euphemisms such as ‘race realism’ or ‘human biodiversity’”

    What are ‘race realism’ and ‘human biodiversity’ euphemisms *for*? Complete this SAT-like analogy:

    pass away : die = race realism : _____________

    • Replies: @TheTrumanShow
  49. The linked essay is such an incredible nothing-burger of empty blather. What an embarrassment that two distinguished geneticists allowed their names to be listed as co-authors. Perhaps, shock and horror, they wrote some of this drivel.

    Scientists ?????

    Well at least their grant agencies will be reassured that these “scientists” are not being naughty by thinking for themselves.

  50. @Dieter Kief

    >Freud because abstractions are often times rationalizations (= misleading)

    How are abstractions rationalizations? And what has that to do with Freud? I’ve read The Interpretation of Dreams to my delight and profit. I get the strongest sense that you have never read a word of Freud. That for you Freud is a name you use as a token of bad thought. I point this out so that other less knowing readers here may not be misled.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  51. nebulafox says:
    @Alfa158

    >I will continue to describe myself as someone who believes race exists, therefore a racist.

    The best hope for a backlash against the ctrl-left is for the word “racist” to lose its power. OK, you are a racist. Now what? Does that invalidate your argument somehow?

    You can’t make a term imply a social stigma on the level of a convicted felon for decades, as was the case until the Obama era, and then suddenly apply it to the most trivial of offenses and start a shift to a position that you are this horrible, horrible thing without realizing it all these decades. People will realize that you are full of crap and stop caring about anything you have to say at all… unless forces that have the power to ruin lives are the ones doing it, or allowing people to do it.

    This is why Corporate America’s decision to become woke, or acquiesce to the pressures of the woke, is very dangerous. Employers have far more day-to-day power to ruin an average American’s life than some politician.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  52. Altai says:

    OT: More woke science!

    Why sexist bias in natural history museums really matters
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2019/oct/23/bad-science-sexist-bias-natural-history-museums-specimens

    The centuries-long preference for collecting male specimens over female at five institutions worldwide could skew research

    The Natural History Museum in London boasts that it holds “the world’s most important natural history collection”. But, while excited families queue this half-term to explore its exhibits on volcanoes, dinosaurs and creepy-crawlies, one of its scientists has revealed a fatal flaw among the 29m animal specimens it holds for research purposes.

    A study led by NHM researcher Dr Natalie Cooper has uncovered discrepancies in gender representation, with significantly more male specimens than female.

    Cooper found the same male skew in four other leading natural history museums around the world and the NHM reports that her work reflects “a growing awareness across all areas of science of underlying sex biases in data and their repercussions in the wider world”. And repercussions there will be.

    While it may not be surprising that Charles Darwin and other male, mutton-chopped 19th-century specimen collectors were a bit sexist, the study has discovered that the bias remains unchanged among more recent collections. Criado-Perez doesn’t find this surprising “when you look at everything else in the world and see this is what we do when we collect data on anything”.

    The study, which focused on birds and mammals, found that the worst discrepancy lay in the individual specimens on which a species description is based – known as type specimens, with 25% of female birds represented, and 39% of female mammals. It would be easy to fix this, notes Cooper, but “people don’t seem to have bothered to take that option”.

    The NHM’s website advertises the fact that its collections are used by the scientific community to “answer key questions about the past, present and future of … life on Earth”. Do we want the same to happen in the natural world?

    It’s a critical feminist issue that more female animals weren’t killed stuffed in the 19th century. You might think this is because most male birds are more colourful and male mammals tend to be larger and more interesting and that a male is as reasonable a type specimen as a female in a species with an even sex ratio, but you’d be wrong, bigot!

    This I believe all goes back to the issue of using male mice predominantly in drug testing due to the very fast reproductive metabolism of female mice that caused issues in tracking drug metabolites. This is and was a problem. Essentially a publish or perish mentality in the sciences led people to do this. There was no issue with this being done for ‘sexist’ reasons.

    But because this issue became one that funding institutions made an effort to deal with, now you typically have to inform if there might be a sex bias in subjects (Human or otherwise) used for research and if you have considered this or if it may make the outcomes incomplete. (For example, another project once just used just one kind of adult male dummy for crash tests, making them potentially invalid for people who are taller/shorter or heavier/lighter) But the opening like this has led people to search for more examples.

    They also seem to make a ridiculous case for some of the topics of study being informed by these specimens.

    At a time of unprecedented importance for scientists to understand ecosystems and work to protect endangered animals, any research that has used these kinds of collections is likely to be inaccurate. For instance, chemicals found in specimens are analysed to learn about their migration patterns, but some species have gender-specific diets.

    Wouldn’t this be true too if the specimens were predominantly female? Is this something you’re trying to deduce from single type specimens which are the only ones that seem to be included in this study.

    And, yes, the Criado-Perez is the same indolent daughter of a mega rich Argentine father who used to work in ‘digital marketing’ whose claim to fame was badgering the bank of England to put Jane Austen on £10 note instead of Winston Churchill. A kind of English Donna Zuckerberg.

  53. res says:
    @Hypnotoad666

    So it’s the usual “race is not a thing” semantic argument, plus knocking down straw man arguments that no one is making — like the idea that the genes for pigmentation themselves cause IQ.

    It’s actually worse than that. Because they keep eliding (to the point I wonder if they honestly understand, or just think we don’t) the differences between cause/predict/associated.

    From a quote above:

    Moreover, since it is a complex trait, the genetic variation related to IQ is broadly distributed across the genome, rather than being clustered around a few spots, as is the nature of the variation responsible for skin pigmentation. These very different patterns for these two traits mean that the genes responsible for determining skin pigmentation cannot be meaningfully associated with the genes currently known to be linked to IQ.

    In a word, no. If the traits evolved differently in different environments then they might very well be associated–even if the individual SNPs causing one trait are not causal for the other. That is an empirical question. How about we take a look at the data?

    From an Ewan Birney tweet:

    Circling back: there is strong evidence for a genetic component to IQ/Eductional Attainment. Genetics is also involved in visible characterisitics (skin pigmentation, hair type), *but* these two features *do not mean* that skin pigmentation/hair type can predict IQ/Education.

    Perhaps, but they also do not mean skin pigmentation/hair type can not predict IQ/Education (in a statistical sense). That is an empirical question. How about we take a look at the data?

    Another fun excerpt from above (emphasis mine):

    Research in the 20th century found that the crude categorisations used colloquially (black, white, East Asian etc.) were not reflected in actual patterns of genetic variation, meaning that differences and similarities in DNA between people did not perfectly match the traditional racial terms. The conclusion drawn from this observation is that race is therefore a socially constructed system, where we effectively agree on these terms, rather than their existing as essential or objective biological categories.

    Looks like a textbook isolated demand for rigor to me.
    https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/

    I took one drop out of that cup of water, therefore it is empty. I mean, it’s not full and that means empty, right?

    I was a bit surprised to see that they engaged with the height analogy for intelligence genetics.

    Even analyses that have tried to calculate the proportion of the difference between people in different countries for a much more straightforward trait (height) have faced scientific criticisms. Simply put, nobody has yet developed techniques that can bypass the genetic clustering and removal of people that do not fit the statistical model mentioned above, while simultaneously taking into account all the differences in language, income, nutrition, education, environment, and culture that may themselves be the cause of differences in any trait observed between different groups. This applies to any trait you could care to look at – height, specific behaviours, disease susceptibility, intelligence.

    Them making this equivalence might be useful for when further results for the genetics of those other traits are available. I mean surely the height of Pygmies is caused by “differences in language, income, nutrition, education, environment, and culture”, right?

    It is interesting how hard science becomes and how much uncertainty exists in their account.
    https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/
    It is a miracle scientists are able to figure anything out with enough certainty to make drawing conclusions and publicizing them worthwhile. Perhaps next Birney et al. can engage with stereotype threat research? Or their own writing?

    And here is some obvious BS:

    The genetic variants that are most strongly associated with IQ in Europeans are no more population-specific than any other trait. To put it bluntly, the same genetic variants associated with purportedly higher IQ in Europeans are also present in Africans, and have not emerged, or been obviously selected for, in recent evolutionary history outside Africa.

    This paper serves as good contrary evidence to their assertions (which are themselves without evidence, convenient how “accessible” seems to absolve them of the need to provide support for their assertions):
    https://www.genetics.org/content/208/4/1565
    The GitHub for that paper might also be of interest: https://github.com/FerRacimo/PolyGraph

    This Birney et al. quote illustrates the strawman fallacy quite nicely:

    These observations alone rule out some of the cruder racial narratives about the genetics of intelligence: it is virtually inconceivable that the primary determinant of racial categories – that is skin colour – is strongly associated with the genetic architecture that relates to intelligence.

    So race is just skin color. Who actually believes that again? And BTW, this association is again an empirical question. How about we take a look at the data? Because the phenotypic association is clear:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289605000929

    This seems like a pretty weak assertion to make at the end. But at least it indicates the penetrating nature of their arguments and their deep look at the relevant data.

    It is our contention that any apparent population differences in IQ scores are more easily explained by cultural and environmental factors than they are by genetics.

    So in the end that long blog post by “scientists” comes down to: “this is what I think”? Accompanied by a false dichotomy?

  54. @PiltdownMan

    Birney and Scally are the big names.

    Ok, so the two white guys did the heavy lifting, but my interest is how this sermon, sorry, essay came to be in the first place. Who organised it? Was it funded? To what purpose will it be put?

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
  55. res says:
    @Desiderius

    We have a class of people terrified to condescend from the purely abstract lest they endanger their precarious status.

    Maybe capacity for and inclination toward abstract thinking isn’t the best criteria for constructing an aristocracy.

    Good point. But at the same time, the ability to abstract concrete reality effectively and then use those abstractions to reason about (and change!) reality is incredibly valuable.

    When did we move away from the need to connect the abstract with the concrete?

    That seems like a key distinction between STEM and Current Year humanities.

    P.S. What field is your wife in? (roughly, if you are concerned about self-doxxing)

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  56. Altai says:
    @PiltdownMan

    Moreover, since it is a complex trait, the genetic variation related to IQ is broadly distributed across the genome, rather than being clustered around a few spots, as is the nature of the variation responsible for skin pigmentation.

    Doesn’t that make population structure more important not less? Height is massively polygenic, yet certain populations in Europe have ended up with population structures which lead to much greater average heights than their neighbours whom they were sufficiently reproductively isolated from. We can see that the average range for height in some countries is completely different and can say ‘The Dutch are taller than the Danes’. That this will make it more important how tall all your ancestors were in the past.

  57. peterike says:

    Their arguments, which focus on racial groupings and often on the alleged genetically-based intelligence differences between them, have the semblance of science, with technical-seeming tables, graphs, and charts.

    Methinks they could have used a few “technical-seeming” charts with the “semblance of science” in their weak tea argument. The arrogance and contempt of that statement is genuinely remarkable.

    As Europeans explored and colonised the world…

    And yet… nobody else did. Funny how that worked out.

  58. @res

    That is an excellent contribution, Res, thanks for that.

    These multiple-author, tendentious articles on politically-fraught topics can really bring out the worst, with ridiculous leaps of logic. “Skin colour genes cannot genetically influence intelligence” oh come on that is so weak! It is shameful from noted scientists (standard stuff from anthropologists).

    In a few months time, will Ewan Birney or Alywyn Scally look back with shame at their names attached as co-author to this garbage? Hopefully so.

  59. @res

    It is our contention that any apparent population differences in IQ scores are more easily explained by cultural and environmental factors than they are by genetics.

    Good post, Res. Your right, their little profession of faith in environmentism at the end sort of gives away the game as to their intentions.

    It also raises what might be the ultimate trump argument against-hereditarians: i.e., If we accept your dichotomy that IQ is either genetic or environmental, then why are there zero environmental interventions proven to raise normal IQ?

    In other words, since IQ is some combination of genes and environment, evidence of the absence of environmental causation is/should be per se evidence of genetic causation. And, boy, there is a massive body of evidence that you really can’t move the IQ needle much after birth.

    The utility of looking at the problem this way is that it switches the burden of proof. Thus, the same “demand for rigor” should be applied to the alternative, PC environmental hypothesis.

    The problem of course is that consistency is the one thing you will never get from people arguing in bad faith.

  60. • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    , @Ragno
  61. Jack D says:
    @nebulafox

    The idea that IQ is 100% genetically determined is a straw man, like saying that IQ is linked to pigment. No one (intelligent) says that. Man has always been understood to be a mix of nature and nurture. We don’t know the exact % but 50/50 is a good working hypothesis. It’s the other side that has the ridiculous extreme position – that man in 100% the product of nurture and that your genetics have nothing to do with your intelligence.

    It’s an unfortunate fact that those with poor genetics are also often poorly nurtured so they end up with two strikes against them. If you step into life with two strikes against you, the odds of ever getting on base are considerably lower. If you (as has been done) take ghetto babies from their mamas and adopt them to a nice middle class white family they end up with a higher IQ but not as high as if that family raised their own genetic children. There is plenty of data for this.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @nebulafox
  62. Wonder if we get an essay on intelligence saying it isn’t that important next?

  63. nebulafox says:
    @Jack D

    >No one (intelligent) says that.

    Who ever said that everybody on this side of the debate was intelligent? I deal with family members who believe this, and like most people of average intelligence, it isn’t very well thought out, although it is an understandable reaction against the dominating position of cultural elites-meaning they don’t, you know, not think-who do have the means to force their views on everybody.

    >It’s the other side that has the ridiculous extreme position – that man in 100% the product of nurture and that your genetics have nothing to do with your intelligence.

    The real rub here is: it is deeply cruel to push somebody who doesn’t have the IQ level needed to handle abstract material into an environment where they are forced to daily deal in it, and then to blame them when they unsurprisingly can’t keep up. This happens all the time with middle-class kids in China and countries like it. One of the motives behind Zhao Bowen’s work is to prove to parents that their kid can’t be a genius, no matter how hard they push him or her, so they’ll stop pushing them to the point of suicide and ruining their childhoods. It’s more productive anyway: they can focus on things they can do well and enjoy doing, to society’s greater benefit.

    Of course, that’s only possible because in China, you can talk the realities of biology.

  64. Bill says:
    @PiltdownMan

    I’m sure you know this, but the way to bet is that the junior people did most of the actual writing while the senior people shaped the narrative.

  65. nebulafox says:
    @Jack D

    >If you (as has been done) take ghetto babies from their mamas and adopt them to a nice middle class white family they end up with a higher IQ but not as high as if that family raised their own genetic children. There is plenty of data for this.

    Which was LKY’s point. I’m not debating it. Try to encourage smart people to reproduce (and no, hectoring them is not going to work, you need to make it fiscally doable). When dumb people reproduce, try to ensure that society makes the resulting offspring less dumb.

    Over time, a cumulative positive eugenic effect can propagate, assuming things are handled properly. It shouldn’t be controversial.

  66. @Dieter Kief

    Here, they make the fundamental difference disappear between the social and the hard sciences.

    Ben Orlin’s new Change is the Only Constant, which explains calculus for the interested observer, shows how that discipline can be used with price-and-demand curves to maximize profits; i.e., will an increase in price make up for what is lost in volume?

    That assumes volume is lost at all. I thought of the (true) story of the gift shop owner who instructed a clerk to halve the price on a slow-selling item. But the memo was garbled, the clerk misread it, and she doubled the price instead.

    The item sold out in a day.

    Obviously, human psychology played a part, and that necessarily makes a science “soft”.

    Orlin, a math teacher, probably gets this himself. He quotes Life on the Mississippi where Twain mocks the overuse of extrapolation. Later in the chapter, he catches Twain doing the same thing himself.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  67. Jack D says:

    I think that people should put their money where their mouth is. I hereby propose a new law, called the “Random Baby Assignment Law”. The way this would work is that any person who authors or endorses an article in which race is said not to exist or intelligence is said not to be linked to inheritance is automatically deemed to agree to accept a randomly assigned baby at the hospital where he or she gives birth. All the babies in the blank slate pool would be put in one room. They would cut off the little ID bracelets and when it was time for you to go home (which nowadays is real soon) the nurses would just grab a baby and hand it to you. Since race and heritable IQ don’t exist, you should be fine taking any baby – there’s nothing that really distinguishes yours from anyone else’s.

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  68. @Jack D

    …where he or she gives birth.

    Remember when that would have been viewed as a mistake?

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  69. @Charles Pewitt

  70. nebulafox says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    I remember an age where the word “retarded” was the go-to description of elementary school boys to describe the daily, objectively stupid situations they had to put up with.

    Then there was “Smear the Queer”. I don’t even think I knew what a “queer” was.

    I’m not old. Most of the political positions the Democrats now advocate would have been considered objectively insane as recently as the 1990s. The rate of change combined with the level of change demanded is near that level where things end badly.

    • Replies: @Kronos
  71. Kronos says:
    @Arclight

    The evidence is piling up for a strong genetic component to IQ and all its associated outcomes, the left is cracking up as it realizes that magical concepts like magic/tragic dirt and white supremacy don’t actually explain the world, and that despite having had a death grip on public policy for over half a century none of their interventions in the economy of society have really moved the needle.

    You’ve have millions of people with careers and pensions while nothing was ever achieved.

  72. Kronos says:
    @nebulafox

    I’m not old. Most of the political positions the Democrats now advocate would have been considered objectively insane as recently as the 1990s. The rate of change combined with the level of change demanded is near that level where things end badly.

    Most of the crazy had been locked up in the Universities/Colleges for the last 60 years. But with everyone needing to go to College and dropping massive funds into it, they’ve gotten powerful. Also, Sailer predicted in “Half-Blood Prince” that the crazies would “go crazy” after the 2012 election.

    **Rare footage on Obama officials exploring Harvard’s Women Studies Department.**

  73. That article is typical of all authoritarian correct-line pronouncements: if you don’t believe what we believe, then you must believe [insert pejorative polar-opposite straw-man].

    • Got doubts about forced vaccinations? Well, then, you must think that vaccination doesn’t work at all (as opposed, say, to the idea that it has significant deleterious effects as currently implemented).

    • Got doubts about the scale of unpleasantness in Occupied Europe in the 1940s? Well, then, it follows that you must think that zero Jews were killed. (As opposed to a large-ish number of people under the direct control of the regime dying during an epidemic as the system collapsed – still an atrocity; still reprehensible… but not useful as a cult-specific rhetorical tool)

    • Got doubts about the ability of LED lightbulbs to alter the global mean daily temperature in 2100? Well, then, it follows that you’re an oil industry apologist who thinks that humans have no effect on the environment.

    • Got doubts about the claim that there are no long-term endocrine effects from ingesting fluoride in amounts that vary with thirst and bathing, as opposed to (putative) deficiency? Well, then, it follows that you must want kiddies to get fillings.

    • Got doubts about the core narrative behind Blowback Day[1]? Well, then, it follows that you think it was all holograms and Jews.

    I refer to this as the Gladwell-Monbiot (G-M) phenomenon[2]: a dilettante gets het up about some nonsense that is being ginned up by a group of control freaks, and they spout the talking-points in ways that remove all nuance.

    And of course there have to be 3-5 syllable phrases (the ‘na-na-na-na LEEE-DER!!‘ effect: ‘car-bon-foot-print’, ‘the science is settled’,’97%’) and pejoratives for dissidents (‘denier’,’anti-vaxxer’,’antisemite’).

    It’s straight from the Torquémada playbook: cast nastertiums from a position of authority, and rely on the fervour of some zealous dullards. Going back even farther, it was a key mechanism for turning opinion against each of Cicero, Pythagoras, Seneca and Socrates (Archimedes also met a violent death, but that was during an invasion).

    [1] September 11 2001

    [2] This kind-of already has a name – the ‘Igon-value problem‘ – from when Pinker called out Gladwell for being a bullshitting retard. I think that review marked “Peak Gladwell”; now we just need “Peak Monbiot” to happen.

    It would be good to ‘Sabremetrics‘ G-Mt: to assign an ordinal ranking to G-M phenomena, based perhaps on the number of perfectly reasonable counter-arguments to the core argument. I think it would be great if this was called the ‘Igon-value’.

    • Replies: @Bill
    , @J.Ross
  74. Anonymous[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @Neoconned

    I know that transracial adoption (e.g. white parents adopting black children) is often discouraged (don’t think this is enforced with American parents adopting foreign children though). but fostering is supposed to be only a temporary thing so intuitively I’d say it probably doesn’t matter so much there.

  75. Bill says:
    @Neoconned

    That’s a really weird story. Three-year-old twin girls were found dead of heatstroke in the back seat of a car parked in the back yard of a house their foster mother was visiting with them.

    It’s weird. Why didn’t they just open the door of the car and exit? The story doesn’t say they were retarded, and they don’t look retarded in the pictures. Three years old is old not to know how to exit a car. Maybe the back doors don’t open from the inside (b/c of that child safety feature, whatever it’s called), and they didn’t think to try the front doors? Maybe there is something the story is leaving out?

    • Replies: @Neoconned
    , @Alden
  76. Ryan says:

    The last part is a corollary to Lewontin’s Fallacy. The basic fallacy: The variance in batting average is greater within baseball teams than it is between baseball teams, therefore baseball teams and/or batting average don’t exist. The corollary: The marker we use to identify baseball teams, their uniforms, does not have any causal relationship with batting average, therefore baseball teams or batting average do not exist.

  77. J.Ross says:

    OT it’s not baseball but an end is coming to the Russia nothingburger, a ton of stuff is coming out or developing now

  78. Ed Dutton’s main problem is that he won’t be able to top his impeccable mimicry of Angela Saini ever again. Ed Dutton must live in the knowledge that his best has been done, and the proceeding years will bring only faded glory as compared to his Saini. Maybe Dutton can do a good Sinatra?

    Peak Dutton was reached and it’s all downhill from here. Although his Angela Merkel ain’t bad. I like the way Dutton says Guhrman or Guhrmany too.

    Asian Indian Angela Saini slops her crud in to defend the dolts that say race ain’t real and race isn’t all about genetics and race has very little to do with IQ rates for racial groups.

    Angela Saini thinks the Asian Indians are very clever indeed.

    Trump’s plot to flood the USA with Asian Indians is another excellent reason to support another presidential candidate and another political party besides the rancid Republican Party.

  79. Bill says:
    @Kratoklastes

    It’s straight from the Torquémada playbook:

    That’s pretty funny, in context.

  80. Steve, when are you going to post about BAP getting published in Claremont?

  81. MEH 0910 says:
    @PiltdownMan

    • Replies: @Anon
  82. @PTT

    much like most of the HBD folks (presumably) don’t think that artificially manipulating melanin levels will have an effect on aggression.

    Well, perhaps not aggression, but in the case of Justin Trudeau, IQ seems to clearly have been affected.

  83. KunioKun says:

    These people need to take down those racists at wikipedia.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy

    Thinking conspiratorially, perhaps this low quality article was ordered up and slapped together because too many people looked at BAP’s article recently where he had a paragraph in it about how out-of-date our media/political overclass is on genetics.

  84. Dr. Raff has the article posted on her blog — comments are disabled.

    Dr. Raff’s Vita

    CURRICULUM VITAE

    Jennifer A. (Kedzie) Raff

    Department of Anthropology

    University of Kansas

    Education

    2008 Ph.D., Anthropology and Genetics (dual degree), Indiana University,
    Bloomington, IN.

    Dissertation: An Ancient DNA Perspective on the Prehistory of the Lower Illinois Valley

    2008 M.A., Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

    2001 B.A., Biology and Anthropology (double major): Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

    Professional Positions

    2015-present Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Kansas.

    2013-2015 Research Fellow: Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin

    2011-2013 Postdoctoral Fellow: Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Molecular Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University at Chicago

    2008-2011 Postdoctoral Associate: Department of Anthropology, University of Utah at Salt Lake City

    2002-2008 Graduate Researcher: Departments of Biology and Anthropology, Indiana University at Bloomington

    2001-2002 Research Assistant: Department of Biology, Indiana University at Bloomington

    1997-2001 Undergraduate Research Assistant: Department of Biology, Indiana University at Bloomington

    She and her co-articlists are busy on twitter congratulating themselves, and being congratulated by others, on this “explainer”.

    • Replies: @gcochran
  85. J.Ross says:
    @Kratoklastes

    NPR just had a story about how shambolic, self-destructive third world vaccination programs, which are perfectly par with third world charities and government operations, are spreading rather than containing disease, because they’re completely different from first world variants (in other words, there’d be no problem were the vaccines what was promised, and there’d be no problem had the vaccinations not been implemented with the inferior iteration). They didn’t indulge the customary masturbation of claiming that critics are scientific illiterates and did mention that the disease being vaccinated against occurs in two (2) countries where it impacts about few hundred people a year. Then again, they also didn’t touch upon the real epidemiological medicine crisis, the collapse of our antibacterials from massive commercial overuse.

  86. @Desiderius

    Students–and everybody else–prefer to make generalizations because generalizations are easy and concrete specifics are hard. Every pontificator in a bar generalizes, “Aaa, they’re all crooks,” “Aaa, why can’t everybody just get along?”, “Aaa, it’s all just liberals.”

    I have noticed that even English teachers don’t deal with this issue of paramount importance in writing–being specific. In fact, it seems that students (and I suspect some teachers), not to mention most of the people in the world, are not really clear on what the difference between general and specific is. And thus vague high-flown rhetoric works much better with them than elucidating specific policy prescriptions.

    On the other hand, there can be too much specificity. I have seen Chomsky give a speech that lasted for an hour in which all he does is itemize one specific example after another, with nothing tying them together other than a vague “the US, or capitalism, or empire, or something like that” is bad. I am pretty sure he has ADD, because that’s what they do. And don’t tell me ADD is a sham. I assure you, it is very real, and people with it are absolutely infuriating and I strongly advise them to get medication in order to bring relief to the rest of us. Know anybody absolutely infuriating? They probably have ADD.

  87. @Reg Cæsar

    I loved Twain as a kid. The Mannheim Public Library had some of his books. He knew a lot about paradoxes – Tom Sawyer’s fence-painting experience comes to my mind. – As soon as you succeed in making something appear to be special, – it becomes attractive. – Joni Mitchell understood this too: We don’t know what we’ve got, till its gone... It’s universal. And it has to do with humor (is structurally linked with humor). We are – – Dharma Bums (Jack Kerouac). – No use to try and figure this out.

  88. Neoconned says:
    @Bill

    https://www.wtoc.com/2019/10/01/biological-mother-speaks-after-twin-toddlers-found-dead-car/

    Heres another article…..its pretty vague and I bet thats because the DHS people are expecting a nasty federal lawsuit, firings and a 7 figure payout to the drug addict parents.

    Either way its sad. Not that there arent bad white foster parents but you would think out of cultural reasons this stuff would be discouraged.

  89. Anti-HBD says:
    @mikemikev

    They do make them against non-human subspecies and modern-day phylogenetics invalidate many extant subspecies.
    Also, gene flow was quire high, thus invalidating the genetic reality of races as continental populations.

    • Replies: @Theodore
  90. @res

    When did we move away from the need to connect the abstract with the concrete?

    That seems like a key distinction between STEM and Current Year humanities.

    The history of science is full of examples of this phenomenon. But one big deviation took place with the success of Postmodernism/ Deconstructivism, because Foucault, de Man, Derrida, Lacan all held, that the concept of reality is one of the potent means of the powers that be to suppress – mankind.

    There are traces of that thinking in the Frankfurt School too, in that Adorno taught, that there simply can be no right or wrong as long as the Capitalist system (= structural power (Marcuse)) lingers on.

    I still encounter old school Frankfurters, who argue, that the concept of race too is just that: An example for reifying thinking = totalitarian at its very core. In their eyes, all scientific work on race is racist and a resurrection of – – – Hitler’s ghost.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  91. J.Ross says:

    If they wanted to be more persuasive, they should give more examples to back up their assertions. For example, they repeatedly claim that old scientific and popular ideas about how best to lump and split human populations have been debunked by modern genomics, but they don’t tell us which of these ideas that have been disproven and what has replaced them. The essay would be far more interesting with more factual examples.

    Soviet writing. The Soviet children’s textbook description of the American revolution mentions nothing about rights in English law but does paint a picture of footprints in the snow marked by blood. Bizarre example of this from NPR today. White working class Democrat opposition to an Arab hopeful for a city council seat were characterized as “emotional.” Their rejection of multikulti is called an “emotional reaction” and magically imputed to President Trump after the NPR journalist described neighborhoods flooded with no-income immigrant families overwhelming sewer systems and crowding by the tens into semi-demolished one-family houses. I’d be emotional too, in the British sense.

    • Replies: @Alden
  92. As bad as is the “argument” in this explainer, the thing to bear in mind is:

    This is the best case geneticists who propound environmentalism can make for their side.

    Surely, if they had in hand a better one, they would have gone with it.

    It becomes a convincing argument for the other side faute de mieux.

  93. @David

    How can Wittgenstein be credited with the idea of looking at how words are used to understand their meaning when the Oxford English Dictionary had been published before he was born?

    Since the context we humans live in changes constantly, simple truths have to be rediscovered (embedded in the new contexts) every once in a while. That’s one of the nobler tasks of the humanities and not least of philosophy. Philosophers who managed to do so might then become something like lawyers or promoters of these newfangled simple truths.

    The underlying problem Wittgenstein worked on is this: If you’d manage to construct a formal system which could produce the right meaning of language, every problem of right or wrong could be solved by – you (that was what not least the early Wittgenstein but in a way also Noam Chomsky amongst many others).

    On a slightly different path, we find – – – Marx, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot all trying to establish their scientific Marxist system of world-explanation. Wittgenstein’s answer to their approach was very tongue in cheek: There is no such thing as an all-encompassing scientific system. – If you want to understand life, you have to talk with people (= find out, how words are used in which situations/contexts).

  94. @PiltdownMan

    Ewan Birney is a senior guy in bioinformatics (computational methods for rapidly figuring out DNA sequencing) who, ironically, was once mentored by James Watson, in an internship after high school in Eton.

    Maybe in Mr. Birney’s case, he’s publicly signaling his distance from a retroactively poor choice of mentor.

    It always seems that promoters of HBD and race realism have loads of stats and charts and studies and research finding to support their claims, while this “spainling” just essentially a collection of insults and unsupported assertions.

  95. I have taught undergrad law over the years as an adjunct. John Bonsignore is a big name in the legal process field text book. His Before the Law is okay and old, and no one can agree which new one is better—so we can’t get anything modern.

    He thought that women’s rights, practical and systemic, not #METOO, would be the future. As part of getting there he attacked the old cases on eugenics and fixing defective people.

    Of course, reality is that women with smarts and ability get forced into educating and learning through their peak fertility, and end up competing for a small pool of men after they are already post 30. So they celebrate turning 35 by getting the geeky process engineer fired for try to flirt with them and screwing up and saying something cringey. #GRLPWR Even if they get a man with better quals they have to choose between cutting their income in half or leaving the kid at a daycare that sucks up 1/3 of their income.

    The problem is that during classes usually a few students figure out if there is a physical, mental,and temperament difference in dog breeds or huge difference in corn yield for different strains, why is there only a pro Black difference in BB and football, and nowhere else in life.

    At least twice a year I have to stop people by saying that it is just wrong no matter what. Twice I have had to take a student aside and worn them asking questions in public could ruin their future employment, because the net is forever.

  96. @Joe, Averaged

    Not surprisingly I have seen Jennifer Raff getting flustered when arguing online with the likes of Jayman, and immediately running to credentialism.

    • LOL: Autochthon
    • Replies: @Laurence Whelk
  97. @Laurence Whelk

    Though I’d be willing to entertain Dr. Raff’s theories over a couple bottles of wine…

    Especially if she does all her “explaining” over her shoulder like this.

  98. J.Ross says:
    @Nodwink

    Movies suck now, and they largely suck in the same narrow range of ways, all of which are just slight variants of the idea that the audience does not matter.

  99. Ano says:
    @Tiny Duck

    Hi Tiny, why are promoting a film portraying the life of black people under Obama (i.e. deaths at the hands of police and Ferguson type riots)?

    It’s now three years since Trump’s reopening of the slave auction houses, and there’s still no sign of a negro uprising yet. Not one riot.

    Why didn’t you create space for the oppressed negro of Baltimore to rise up when white Trump supporters came into the ghetto and voluntarily cleaned up the garbage?

    Why aren’t you reporting on all the Trump stormtroopers gunning down unarmed young black resistance heroes with their hands in the air (in one hand a copy of The Art of the Deal, and in the other Jared Taylor’s The Color of Crime).

    Where’s is your underground railroad for aspiring-rapper-gentle-giants-who-are-turning-their-lives-around to escape to Canada- a land of such negro-lovers it just re-elected Justin Trudeau.

    Stop spending your time weeping over the Wedding March, and lead the March on the Trump plantation!

  100. Lot says:
    @mikemikev

    “ So they’ve got “higher diversity in Africa”. This claim is overstated, I think from Tishkoff’s work, and rarely backed up with a link to the relevant data.”

    Depends how you define and measure diversity.

    Pick 500 random Black Africans, and most will be Bantus and not especially diverse.

    But Africa also has bushmen, which genetically are a distinct race by most objective tests. You also probably have a much more diverse set of archaic human ancestry than the boring 2-3% Neanderthal found in Euros and many Asians.

    Pygmies largely separated from the main Black Africam groups earlier than whites split from NE asians. They sporadically mixed with the main populations too, so whether they should be a distinct race is a harder question. But the pygmies and their nearby Bantu neighbors are more diverse than any two white groups.

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
  101. gcochran says:
    @Jack Armstrong

    I knew people that knew her when she had that postdoc at Utah. She’s not bright.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
    , @Anti-HBD
  102. Anti-HBD says:
    @gcochran

    Why does HBD never bother with the claim that races or populations are not coherent genetic entities?
    There is no such thing as Europeans, too much gene flow and admixture, differences are superficial.
    Hence, how can there be systematic differences in such a polygenic trait as intelligence?

  103. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    The Racimo article you cited does not support your point. In fact, the authors had a FAQ saying EA differences are unlikely.
    Also, this is a good argument against PGS for intelligence:
    https://academic.oup.com/emph/article/2019/1/26/5262222

    Not to mention that gene flow was too high for race differences to exist. Ancient dna makes that clear and so do studies like Templeton,2013.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    , @syonredux
    , @res
  104. agro19 says:

    To those that cheered when the new education Discovery Policy of the NYC Mayor de Blassio might reduce the participation of Asian American in the specialized high school, your cheers were premature.

    https://chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2019/10/24/the-shsat-is-this-weekend-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-nycs-controversial-admissions-exam/

    “This year, 30% of the Discovery offers went to black and Hispanic students, up from 22.4% in 2018. Asian students earned 54% of offers, up 11 percentage points from the year before, and almost 15% of offers went to white students — down about a dozen percentage points from 2018.”

    For 2019, Whites down 12 % points while Asian American up 11 % points and Black and Hispanic are up 7.6 % points. Thanks to de Blassio, the White students have fled top tier NYC public schools, replaced by Blacks, Hispanic and Asian Americans.

    The White SJWs are still suckered to their doctrine of “equality of outcomes”.

  105. Spangel says:
    @PiltdownMan

    No one gets a pass on this. The article is very easy to read. There is no excuse of “didn’t look that closely.” All of the authors know what the article says and all of them want to be associated with that perspective.

  106. Travis says:
    @eddy wobegon

    well said.

    If Race does not exist , than diversity does not actually exist. But if diversity does not exist what is our strength ?

  107. @Lot

    It’s also overstated from the perspective of total numbers, Pygmy and Bushman populations combined are a very small % of the total population of Africa, much less than Bantu descended populations.

  108. Ian Smith says:
    @Tiny Duck

    Queen and Slim is co-written by James Frey! That brings back memories!

    http://exiledonline.com/a-million-pieces-of-shit/

  109. “But these claims misinterpret and misrepresent the methods and results of this type of research. Populations do show both genetic and physical differences, but the analyses that are cited as evidence for the concept of race as a biological category actually undermine it.”

    Details?

    You can find PCAs by Google/Verily showing how samples from individuals cluster in ways that match up with folk psychology ‘racial’ groups.

    How were these PCAs wrong exactly? How do they undermine the idea that the concept of ‘race’ doesn’t track real differences?

    I’m no geneticist, but I’ve been in meetings with genomics researchers who clearly believe that tagging samples with ethnicity information is mandatory for purposes of accuracy.

  110. @Laurence Whelk

    Though I’d be willing to entertain Dr. Raff’s theories over a couple bottles of wine…

    Is she one of the Rif Raffs?

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  111. À propos of skin color, I ran across this description of Chinese skin color by some of the first Europeans to encounter the Chinese, in the early 16th century:

    “bianchi, si come siamo noi” (“white like us”)

    Tomé Pires’ impression of the Chinese was that they were “white like us [bianchi, si come siamo noi], the greater part of them dressing in cotton cloth and silk.” His full account also compares them to the Germans, and the women, whom he describes as “of our whiteness” and similar in appearance to Spanish ladies.

    Duarte Barbosa gives a similar account of Chinese people: “great merchants, white men and well-made [huomini bianchi, grandi & ben disposti]; their women are very beautiful but both the men and women have small eyes, and the men’s beards contain only three or four hairs and no more.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Portugal_relations#Ming_dynasty

  112. @Laurence Whelk

    That’s a man-sized chin she has there …

    • LOL: Laurence Whelk
  113. @res

    “It is a miracle scientists are able to figure anything out with enough certainty to make drawing conclusions and publicizing them worthwhile.”

    What conclusions are drawn from HBD research and what are the premises (and inference rules)?

    What’s the argument that IQ tests shouldn’t be banned? What’s the response to the argument that IQ tests should be banned because hereditarianism is false and believing it is true while pushing IQ tests could lead to policies being enacted that would harm group X?

    (P1) If the Hereditarian Hypothesis is false and we believed it to be true, then policy A could be enacted.

    (P2) If Policy A could be enacted, then it will do harm to group X.

    (C1) If the Hereditarian Hypothesis is false and we believed it to be true, then it will do harm to group X (Hypothetical Syllogism, P1, P2).

    (P3) If Policy A is enacted and it would do harm to group X, then we should ban whatever lead to Policy A.

    (P4) If Policy A is derived from IQ tests, then IQ tests must be banned.

    C2) If Policy A is enacted and it would do harm to group X, then we should ban IQ tests (Hypothetical Syllogism, P3, P4)

    (C3) Therefore, if the hereditarian hypothesis is false and we believed it to be true, then we should be IQ tests (Hypothetical Syllogism, C1, C2)

    • Replies: @res
  114. This is what happens when you live in a world where there is only one permissible answer to any given question. Your argumentation skills atrophy. All they know how to do, is recite dogma.

  115. @Anti-HBD

    The task for whomever believes that there is causal explanation for PGS. The argument must:

    (1) be a valid deductive argument, in that the conclusion is the phenomena to be explained; (2) have an explanans (the sentences adduced as the explanation for the phenomenon) that has one lawlike generalization; and (3) the remaining premises which state the preceding conditions have to have empirical content and they have to be true.

    The explanandum is the description of events that needs explaining whereas the explanans is what does the explaining.

    Take Justin Garson’s example from What Biological Functions Are and Why They Matter (2018, pg 30):

    “Explanans: Stripes deter flies

    causes

    Explanandum: Zebras have stripes”

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  116. Okechukwu says:

    They’re geneticists. You, allegedly, are a movie critic.

    • Troll: Anonymousse
  117. @res

    “So in the end that long blog post by “scientists” comes down to: “this is what I think”? Accompanied by a false dichotomy?”

    What do think of heritability estimates?

    If IQ tests are tests of middle class knowledge and skills then …? What’s the consequent? Or do you reject this and would rather go with something else? If so, what?

    • Replies: @res
  118. syonredux says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Why does HBD never bother with the claim that races or populations are not coherent genetic entities?
    There is no such thing as Europeans, too much gene flow and admixture, differences are superficial.

    Dunno.Not much gene flow between, say West Africa and the pre-1492 Americas. Ditto for Europe and pre-Contact Aboriginal Australia……

  119. syonredux says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Not to mention that gene flow was too high for race differences to exist.

    Is that why East Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans look so similar?

  120. For those who are unaware, this appears to be the Claremont article that is referred to:

    https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/are-the-kids-altright/

    It discusses BAM by BAP.

    • Agree: European-American
  121. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    The Racimo article you cited does not support your point. In fact, the authors had a FAQ saying EA differences are unlikely.

    What I find interesting about that FAQ is how they accept the results for height without qualification, but when it comes to EA they feel the need to shuck and jive (IMHO pretty much all the qualifications they give for EA apply equally well to height). Here is the Twitter thread about the FAQ: https://twitter.com/ferracimo/status/1053895190530924546
    The FAQ itself: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17fvO6MVsNmrxoePlrWKF-2L3p9ibg6Yt8bo-pji0i1g/mobilebasic
    And more qualification: https://www.genetics.org/content/208/4/1351

    But let’s return to your “EA differences are unlikely” (what exactly do you mean by that anyway?) and the statement I originally objected to (emphasis mine):

    the same genetic variants associated with purportedly higher IQ in Europeans are also present in Africans, and have not emerged, or been obviously selected for, in recent evolutionary history outside Africa.

    The Racimo paper does demonstrate that genetic variants associated with EA (which is not the same as IQ, but close, and is the best we have until someone actually does the same study for IQ variants) were selected for. The FAQ does give appropriate qualifications (e.g. those variants being selected for does not mean with certainty that was because EA was selected for), but that does not change the fact that the EA associated variants were selected for. Which is contrary to the quoted point from that “explainer.” Which was my original point.

    Also, this is a good argument against PGS for intelligence:
    https://academic.oup.com/emph/article/2019/1/26/5262222

    Please elaborate how your linked paper “is a good argument against PGS for intelligence.” That is an extremely vague statement and I am not seeing how it follows from the paper. In the paper itself I am not seeing explicit argument against using PGS for intelligence. Most of what I see is just going on about how PGS don’t account for environmental affects on the trait in question. Which is both obvious and less relevant for traits like intelligence with relatively high heritability.

    Not to mention that gene flow was too high for race differences to exist. Ancient dna makes that clear and so do studies like Templeton,2013.

    Here is Templeton 2013: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/

    And the abstract:

    Races may exist in humans in a cultural sense, but biological concepts of race are needed to access their reality in a non-species-specific manner and to see if cultural categories correspond to biological categories within humans. Modern biological concepts of race can be implemented objectively with molecular genetic data through hypothesis-testing. Genetic data sets are used to see if biological races exist in humans and in our closest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee. Using the two most commonly used biological concepts of race, chimpanzees are indeed subdivided into races but humans are not. Adaptive traits, such as skin color, have frequently been used to define races in humans, but such adaptive traits reflect the underlying environmental factor to which they are adaptive and not overall genetic differentiation, and different adaptive traits define discordant groups. There are no objective criteria for choosing one adaptive trait over another to define race. As a consequence, adaptive traits do not define races in humans. Much of the recent scientific literature on human evolution portrays human populations as separate branches on an evolutionary tree. A tree-like structure among humans has been falsified whenever tested, so this practice is scientifically indefensible. It is also socially irresponsible as these pictorial representations of human evolution have more impact on the general public than nuanced phrases in the text of a scientific paper. Humans have much genetic diversity, but the vast majority of this diversity reflects individual uniqueness and not race.

    To my mind that is a great deal of double talk devoted to coming up with a definition of “race” which does not apply to humans. Compare that to this excerpt from the body:

    It is well known that the frequencies of alleles vary over geographical space in humans. Although the differences in allele frequencies are generally very modest for any one gene, it is possible with modern DNA technology to infer the geographical ancestry of individuals by scoring large numbers of genes. Using such geographically informative markers, self-identified “whites” from the United States are primarily of European ancestry, whereas U.S. “blacks” are primarily of African ancestry, with little overlap in the amount of African ancestry between self-classified U.S. “whites” and “blacks”.

    So I guess instead of “race” we just need to start saying “geographical ancestry groups.” I prefer “continental races” myself. That makes the geographical point explicit.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  122. Alden says:
    @Bill

    All states require children strapped into the car seats until they weigh 60 pounds. Some states require children strapped into the car seats until they weigh 80 pounds.

    Three year olds are always strapped into the car seats. Three year olds can’t get out of the car seats to open the doors. The buckles and straps of the car seats are designed so kids can’t get out of the car seat.

    Therefore, kids strapped into car seats are completely dependent on someone to release the straps and buckled.

    • Replies: @Bill
  123. Alden says:
    @J.Ross

    Landlords can always tell when Asian tenants have 15 people living in 1 or 2 bedroom apartments. The water bill soars.

    • Replies: @fnn
  124. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    That’s a lot of verbiage devoted to a concept you don’t even bother to define: “the Hereditarian Hypothesis.”

    And after you finish defining it you could try justifying this assertion: “because hereditarianism is false.”

    It would be interesting to try a similar form of reasoning concerning what might happen if “the equality assumption” was wrong. Where “the equality assumption” is defined as the belief that all groups have the same average ability for all traits.

    P.S. You might also want to consider whether devoting that amount of thought to my sarcastic aside (your initial quote) was worthwhile.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  125. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    Which makes it incredibly sad that iSteve seems to have a better grasp of this topic than the alleged geneticists do.

    Perhaps you might like to try defending the explainer on its merits rather than just making an appeal to authority?

  126. @res

    “The Racimo paper does demonstrate that genetic variants associated with EA … were selected for”

    What’s the argument that T can be ‘selected for’ when T is coextensive with T’, so that if you have one you have the other and vice versa? So if “genetic variants associated with EA” were coextensive with other genes, how could there be selection for “genetic variants associated with EA” and not another correlated genes? Why were “genetic variants associated with EA … selected for”?

  127. fnn says:
    @Alden

    What can they do about it without incurring the wrath of govt and NGO anti-discrimination orgs?

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    , @J.Ross
  128. @Dieter Kief

    When you stop believing in God…

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  129. @res

    “That’s a lot of verbiage devoted to a concept you don’t even bother to define: “the Hereditarian Hypothesis.””

    I take “the Hereditarian Hypothesis” to be the hypothesis that traits are significantly influenced by genes. It also tests on twin/adoption/family/GWA studies. That research into “the Hereditarian Hypothesis” is mostly on IQ is telling.

    “And after you finish defining it you could try justifying this assertion: “because hereditarianism is false.””

    The hereditarian hypothesis rests on a false dichotomy: either nature or nurture. Moore and Shenk (2016) show that the claims from hereditarians use of heritability estimates don’t follow: since we cannot control environments for humans as we do for animals, then it follows that heritability estimates won’t be valid. Nevermind the slew of false assumptions that hereditarians (behavioral geneticists) hold on these types of studies.

    In any case the argument:

    If IQ tests are tests of middle class knowledge and skills, then differences in IQ are due to differing experiences.
    IQ tests are tests of middle class knowledge and skills.
    Therefore, differences in IQ are due to differing experiences

    is a valid argument, and I hold it to be sound. Where’s the error?

    “It would be interesting to try a similar form of reasoning concerning what might happen if “the equality assumption” was wrong. Where “the equality assumption” is defined as the belief that all groups have the same average ability for all traits.”

    Try it.

    “P.S. You might also want to consider whether devoting that amount of thought to my sarcastic aside (your initial quote) was worthwhile.”

    I believe it was, as I got to provide my argument.

  130. anon[343] • Disclaimer says:
    @Charles Pewitt

    “Thunder Force”? more like thunder thighs.

  131. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    What do think of heritability estimates?

    You first.

    If IQ tests are tests of middle class knowledge and skills then

    That’s clearly the reason poor Asians do well on tests. Well, that and the cultural bias of the tests.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  132. @Okechukwu

    That might be impressive if they actually made an argument based on science or if you could avoid making an appeal to authority. However since neither they nor you did either, Steve can ignore your petty insults, better luck next time.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  133. @res

    Why should I state my beliefs on heritability estimates first when I asked you the question?

    The bedrock of behavior genetics (what I take to be the main purveyor of ‘HBD’) rests on a slew of false assumptions—of twin, adoption, family, and GWA studies. It rests on heritability estimates. Moore and Shenk (2016)in The Heritability Fallacy have shown how illogical such assumptions are. Nevermind the fact that it leads to the acceptance of the false dichotomy: that traits can be partitioned into ‘genetic’ or ‘environmental’ components when they both interact.

    “That’s clearly the reason poor Asians do well on tests. Well, that and the cultural bias of the tests.”

    What’s the consequent? Which “poor Asians do well on tests”? Sources? Are you claiming that IQ tests aren’t culturally biased? What’s the argument?

    • Replies: @gregor
    , @Yak-15
    , @eugyppius
  134. @Henry's Cat

    Ok, so the two white guys did the heavy lifting, but my interest is how this sermon, sorry, essay came to be in the first place. Who organised it? Was it funded? To what purpose will it be put?

    One purpose it will serve is as a citation for the next dumb NYT writer who wants to dismissively say:
    “leading geneticists have debunked the idea that ‘race’ is a meaningful biological concept, and have concluded that attempting to determine racial differences in behavior and cognition is the realm of discredited pseudoscience.”

    I would not be surprised at all if the NYT itself commissioned the essay for exactly that purpose. At the risk of sounding paranoid, the NYT seems to have metastasized into a conspiratorial, activist outfit that sees its mission as nothing less than defining the range of permissive thought for the whole country and de-platforming the rest.

    • Replies: @Henry's Cat
  135. @Anonymouse

    IQ tests reflect degrees of intelligence that correlate strictly with the old bad categories of black, white and Asian races. How do the race is a social construct folks explain that?

    “Shut up,” he explained.

    [-Ring Lardner]

  136. @nebulafox

    You can’t make a term imply a social stigma on the level of a convicted felon for decades

    Ahh… remember the old days, when convicted felons couldn’t vote, but people you simply disagreed with could? Well, come 2021 it won’t surprise me if ‘racists’ lose the franchise. Which will be fair recompense for all the havoc they’ve wreaked in the past, amirite?

  137. @Anti-HBD

    It’s probabilistic, kind of like betting money on sportsball. ‘Cept the stakes are higher, much higher. Fundamental issue: the [Deep State] always wins.

  138. @PiltdownMan

    Blue Cheer had a go, too:

    I dig their rendition.

    Cousin It could not be reached for comment.

    • Replies: @donvonburg
  139. Anon[213] • Disclaimer says:
    @MEH 0910

    Stuart Richie is not a “signatory” to the document, but he is thanked in the acknowledgements.

    Am I misremembering, or did Richie use to come across as sympathetic to HBD? Recently he has been involved in highly visible virtue signaling Twitter dust-ups where he takes the other side. I wonder if he had a tenure near-death experience or something and he did a Willie Saletan.

  140. eah says:

    Amidst this ongoing surge of new information, there are darker currents. A small number of researchers, mostly well outside of the scientific mainstream, …

    You could have stopped reading right there.

    At this point, it seems the Establishment thinks that if they can bully you into believing men are women and women are men, they can bully you into believing anything — I can’t say I blame them.

    • Replies: @eah
  141. anon[372] • Disclaimer says:

    You can stand these arguments on their head.
    Argue that differences between individuals are largely due to genetics. Race has nothing to do with it. You make no claims about race. You have no race agenda.
    You just want individuals to get their rewards and punishments in life based on their individual behavior, regardless of where they got the genes that are pushing that behavior.
    And when it turns out that over 40% of the prison inmates are people who self-identify as black, you draw no racial conclusions. You just want to make sure that each individual in prison is in fact guilty of the crime for which they are convicted.
    The truly race blind will ignore the fact that 40% of the inmates have black skin.
    This means that we don’t care if large numbers of blacks go to prison.
    Leave it to the Left to argue that blacks exist as a race and that we are supposed to be race conscious and feel sorry for some races but not others in some big race narrative.
    Argue against race. Argue genes and argue individual responsibility.

  142. eah says:
    @eah

    … if they can bully you into believing men are women and women are men, they can bully you into believing anything …

    Apropos, an interesting — or concerning, depends on how you look at it — video, albeit with a somewhat misleading title: they don’t really look like what you expect to see when someone says ‘trans activists’; more like ordinary folks (but what do I know).

    Trans Activists Protest Michael Knowles’ “Men Are Not Women” Lecture at at Kennesaw State

    • Replies: @eah
  143. anon[372] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Why does HBD never bother with the claim that races or populations are not coherent genetic entities?

    “Coherent genetic entities” isn’t a real concept.
    Gene Distribution is a real concept and that is what HBD is arguing. Some genes be found a lot more often in some places than in other places. Some genes be found more often in some places than in other places cause people tend to fuck someone close by. It’s really that simple.

  144. Okechukwu says:

    We’ve all experienced the gnashing of teeth of HBD advocates, lamentations to the effect that there is a malicious conspiracy to keep HBD out of the mainstream for fear of “unconformable truths.” Well, Race, Genetics and Pseudoscience: An Explainer is a treatise on HBD. These geneticists are doing exactly what you people have been pleading for (mainstream scientists discussing HBD). They just aren’t saying what you would like to hear.

    So, basically, you are interested in exposing HBD only to the extent that your delusional, unscientific worldview is validated. You want to take your echo-chambers out into the wider world, where, naturally, you will meet withering resistance. Because, ultimately, your racism which you want to dress up as “science” has absolutely no chance of surviving outside of circle-jerks like Sailer’s blog here.

    These geneticists express skepticism about the likelihood of any type of genetic contribution to observed or alleged group differences in IQ. None of you have even come close to refuting this thesis. In order to refute their thesis, you are obliged to provide genetic evidence. Citing the “work” of some Pioneer Fund grantee isn’t evidence of anything, and indeed would get you laughed out of every scientific conference everywhere in the world.

  145. MEH 0910 says:
    @Okechukwu

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  146. @Laurence Whelk

    Ms. Rabb looks like she could be related to the actor, Willem Dafoe. No disrespect intended to Mr. Dafoe, of course, who has movie star looks.

    • Replies: @Henry's Cat
  147. For example, samples of “European” populations used in genetic studies often have excluded up to as many as 30% of self-identified Europeans. This is because some individuals introduce hard-to-model complications into the data, forming distinct sub-clusters or complicating the genetic model. For example, Finns and Sardinians are often excluded as they have quite distinct genetic ancestries compared to many other Europeans

    It is almost like the authors are deliberately hiding nuggets of interest in a pile of cant.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  148. @Smithsonian_6

    Sardinians of the inland mountains of their island are largely Middle Eastern Farmer by ancestry. In their refuge, they survived the Steppe Barbarian onslaught of 4,500 years ago better than most other Europeans at the time. I’m not aware of any famous people of inland Sardinian ancestry, although I imagine there are some soccer players. I presume they look pretty similar to other Mediterraneans, but I don’t really know.

  149. Okechukwu says:
    @MEH 0910

    “there may be more than superficial average differences between black & white Americans, possibly even cognitive and psychological ones, because… 70000 years apart…

    Indeed there may be. However,

    A) There is as yet no genetic evidence.

    B) Assuming genetic evidence does ever materialize, we have no idea whether it will be blacks or whites who will be shown to have these cognitive and psychological advantages.

    We do know that black people are genetically more fit than white people, who are prone to deleterious mutations as a result of inbreeding and bottlenecking.

    Proportionally more deleterious genetic variation in European than in African populations

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06611

    In fact, black babies are vastly more fit than white babies. As a matter of fact, some white babies are so weak that there’s a clinical term for it: wimpy white boy syndrome. A black female premie has double the survival chances of a white male premie.

    Black people also have stronger immune systems than white people.

    Immune system of African-Americans responds more strongly to bacterial infection compared to immune system of Americans of European descent

    https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-10/uom-iso101716.php

    These genetic and immunological advantages black people have over whites may extend to the area of brain function and intelligence.

  150. A small number of researchers, mostly well outside of the scientific mainstream, have seized upon some of the new findings and methods in human genetics, and are part of a social-media cottage-industry that disseminates and amplifies low-quality or distorted science, sometimes in the form of scientific papers, sometimes as internet memes – under the guise of euphemisms such as ‘race realism’ or ‘human biodiversity’.

    That’s the modern-day, pseudoscience equivalent of, “Witches! Burn them!”

    • Replies: @Jack D
  151. MEH 0910 says:
    @Anti-HBD

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  152. @Kibernetika

    One of the best Who covers of all time, it brings out the Beach Boys like sense of pop innocence Townshend was going for, think.

  153. MEH 0910 says:

  154. @Desiderius

    “When you stop believing in God…” – you are threatened with losing your faith. That’s painful.

    Therefore you start your own religion: Let’s assume all we know of so far is wrong. Then what we have to do constantly is to make sure the negative side of everything occurring in life (= criticism) is the most important aspect of our thinking. There are lots of parallels between the old Frankfurt School and the DEus absconditus in Gnosticism. Same is true for Derrida.

    The late Foucault understood the limitations of Postmodernism/Deconstructivism and – studied Friedrich Hayek and became a bread and butter – – – Citoyen with the words “Revolution is over”. What’s a little bit confusing for most people is, that Theodor W. Adorno – on an everyday level – behaved like a regular (=reformist) Citoyen too. – Not only was he deeply skeptical of the 68ers radicalism. But he tirelessly worked in the field of teacher-education and – voted for the Social Democrats.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
  155. @Anonymouse

    How are abstractions rationalizations?

    The more abstract your thinking becomes, the more you are prone to rationalize (rationalization is one of – eh, the Freud’s (namely Sigmund and his daughter Anna, who too did work on this very subject) – neurotic defense-mechanisms).

    This interdependence (or dynamic relation) between abstraction and rationalization defines our era (Modernity). Seen from this perspective, it is interesting, that lots of everyday experiences are things that have to be done in the first place. The appropriate saying in this context goes like this: It’s more useful to try things out than to study them. All practical things are in a way insured against over-rationalization because they imply bodily actions – skin in the game can’t be as easily betrayed as mere thought (=pure rationality).

    Jordan Peterson talked about this phenomenon recently and remarked, that one outcome of this dynamic he oftentimes saw in his clinical work (= his therapies) is, that neuroses of high IQ people can be more severe and harder to disentangle than those of regular folks.

  156. @fnn

    I am glad my rentals are in a city that is, apparently, insufficiently woke. We have more than once forced tenants to eject extra off-lease occupants due to occupancy laws and restrictions, and have gotten rid of tenants when they repeatedly snuck extra occupants in on us.

    I think a lot of landlords simply don’t care to enforce the rules.

  157. mikemikev says:
    @Okechukwu

    These genetic and immunological advantages black people have over whites may extend to the area of brain function and intelligence.

    Why speculate when all of the data is clear that black people have lower brain function and intelligence. Development is a trade-off, fast development ends up with a cheaper phenotype. The brain is the developmental bottleneck in humans.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  158. @Okechukwu

    From the last paper you cite:

    While the immune system of African Americans responds more strongly, Professor Barreiro is careful to qualify it as better: “The immune system of African Americans responds differently, but we cannot conclude that it is better, since a stronger immune response also has negative effects, including greater susceptibility to autoimmune inflammatory diseases such as Crohn’s disease. Too much inflammation can damage organs and leave sequelae. In short, a strong immune response can be beneficial in some areas but a disadvantage in others.

    So the author explicitly contradicts your claims of a Black “advantage.”

    Anyway, even if your papers supported your assertions, who should I trust — a handful of academic papers or my lyin’ eyes that show me worldwide, long-term Black dysfunction?

    • Replies: @agro19
  159. Mokiki says:
    @Tiny Duck

    Why are men not attracted to black women??

  160. @Hypnotoad666

    The alacrity with which Saini and Lammy retweeted the piece indicates there’s a continuing need for restatements of the faith, especially ones with the patina of scientific authority, as much to salve their own doubts as those of the agnostic laypeople.

  161. Anti-HBD says:
    @RaceRealist88

    A reasonable argument, I agree

    • Replies: @gregor
  162. Anti-HBD says:
    @MEH 0910

    How about Templeton,2013?
    Also how about McEvoy et al.2011 that shows gene flow Africa and Europe via LD decay patterns?

    • Replies: @res
  163. mikemikev says:

    One of the authors Ewan Birney is saying race categories aren’t valid because “we’re leaf nodes on an ARG”.

    As I understand it an ARG is a complete record of all alleles and recombination events. Taxonomic categories in general do not claim to hold this level of information.

    The whole tweet there is strange, he says genetics isn’t a parsimonious explanation of intelligence gaps between races, races aren’t valid because they’re not 100% predictive for the genetics of every individual like an ARG, then environment is a parsimonious explanation. Lurching from non-sequitur to non-sequitur and even contradicting himself in the same sentence. Races aren’t valid because of “ARG” (I guess he’s blinding by science here), but then they are valid when the gap is environmental, which he provides zero (logical) argument for. He seems very confused.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
    , @Desiderius
  164. Mr. Anon says:
    @Tiny Duck

    I went to a wedding and all the groomsmen were Men of Color and the bridesmaids were mostly white girls

    That tells you something righ there

    Yeah. That your local Lane Bryant outlet has been doing brisk business.

  165. Mr. Anon says:
    @Okechukwu

    Okechukwu’s thesis:

    There are no significant genetic differences between black people and white people.

    But black people are genetically better.

  166. @Okechukwu

    Tiny is stepping up his game! There’s no room left at the inn for Corvy

  167. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    These geneticists are doing exactly what you people have been pleading for (mainstream scientists discussing HBD).

    More like a lecture than a discussion. Shut up he explained. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ring_Lardner

    Perhaps you could pick a particularly persuasive (to you) point in the explainer and we could discuss that here?

    These geneticists express skepticism about the likelihood of any type of genetic contribution to observed or alleged group differences in IQ. None of you have even come close to refuting this thesis.

    I think “likelihood of any type of genetic contribution to observed or alleged group differences in IQ” is supported by the observation in Lee et al. 2018 that their PGS predicts 1.6% of EduYears variance in Africans.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0147-3

    Because the discovery sample used to construct the score consisted of individuals of European ancestry, we would not expect the predictive power of our score to be as high in other ancestry groups7,27,28. Indeed, when our score was used to predict EduYears in a sample of African-Americans from the HRS (n=1,519), the score only has an incremental R2 of 1.6%, implying an attenuation of 85%. The Supplementary Note shows that this amount of attenuation is typical of what has been reported in previous studies.

    Those SNPs differ in frequency (to some degree) between Africans and Europeans.

    And as far as “alleged group differences.” LOL! Only an idiot would claim there is no observed difference in phenotypic group average IQ between Sub-Saharan Africa and Northern Europe. We can argue about the magnitude. We can argue about the relative contribution of genetics and environment. But arguing that no phenotypic difference exists is just dumb.

  168. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    So there are no differences between blacks and whites except when blacks are better. Got it.

    And before you try to flip that script on me, it seems to me that whites are surpassed (on average) in sprinting by West Africans and in endurance running by East Africans.

  169. @MEH 0910

    Ehh – that’s the biological core of lots of these debates. Thanks for posting this.

  170. Spangel says:
    @Anti-HBD

    “There is no such thing as Europeans, too much gene flow and admixture, differences are superficial.
    Hence, how can there be systematic differences in such a polygenic trait as intelligence?”

    I’m not going to address the idea that there is no such thing as Europeans, but your belief that the conclusion follows your premise is wrong, even if your premise were correct.

    This demonstrates: I have two animals- walaphants and jaguons. Walaphants have two breeds- elephants and walruses. Janguons have two breeds- lions and jaguars.

    Admittedly, it makes no sense. These are not coherent animal groupings. There is far more genetic distance between elephants and walruses than there is between jaguars and lions. In any case…

    Which animal weighs more? Walaphants or jaguons? It has an obvious correct answer. Which animal has bigger tusks? Again easy.

    Europeans don’t have to be a clear static category in order for them to be measurably different than other gruops.

  171. Jack D says:
    @Okechukwu

    These genetic and immunological advantages black people have over whites may extend to the area of brain function and intelligence.

    They might if the last 5,000 years of history and observation did not point completely in the opposite direction.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke, BB753
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  172. Jack D says:
    @The Alarmist

    Scientific breakthrus often come from “well outside the scientific mainstream”. Einstein was a patent clerk, not a full professor at Heidelberg. The “scientific mainstream” was that we were all traveling thru the Luminiferous Aether, which turned out not to exist.

    One of the sure signs that your scientific ideology is bankrupt is when you base your arguments on appeal to authority rather than evidence.

    • Agree: res
    • Replies: @gregor
  173. Anonymous[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    They may in fact have some mental abilities in excess of whites, in the way that aborigines instinctively know how to survive and navigate in the Australian outback. But in all the ways of civilization needed to succeed in a White social environment they are on average woefully deficient.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  174. J.Ross says:
    @fnn

    Some of the landlords are to blame, they’re the ones who knocked out walls and signed people in.

  175. @Okechukwu

    They aren’t saying what we like to hear because they are not saying anything of consequence, there isn’t any science in that entire article, again you are engaging in blind appeals to authority that do not cite any scientific data at all. You can’t refute anything when you are engaging in straw-man attacks, vague statements and have no data to support your assertions to speak of.

    However because they are geneticists who support your politics they get a blanket exemption from you from making any statements at all regarding science. This article which you seem to regard as the last word on genetics is not in a peer reviewed journal, it’s posted on someone’s blog. It simply dismisses out of hand arguments made by other geneticists that the authors don’t like, that isn’t a scientific paper, so it refutes nothing, no matter how much you and they wish it did.

  176. MEH 0910 says:

  177. MEH 0910 says:
    @Laurence Whelk

  178. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I linked Templeton 2013 above and gave some thoughts about their definition of race and their use of geographical differences as what I would call “continental races.” Any thoughts on that?

    Here is a link to McEvoy et al. 2011
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106315/

    What exactly are you asserting it shows?

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  179. gregor says:
    @RaceRealist88

    “Why should I state my beliefs on heritability estimates first when I asked you the question?”

    Well, if you want to convert anyone to, er, whatever it is you are arguing for, you should be happy to explain yourself. Just give your argument instead of trying to draw other people into some kind of pointless dialectic.

    The abstract of the paper says: “Because we already know that genetic factors have significant influence on the development of all human traits, measures of heritability are of little value, except in very rare cases.”

    You say: “I take “the Hereditarian Hypothesis” to be the hypothesis that traits are significantly influenced by genes.”

    Sounds like that paper is just saying that the technical definition that’s used in research (proportion of explained variance) is easily misunderstood.

    The paper makes that point we’ve all heard a hundred times about how you could take identical seed and plant some of it in ideal conditions and some of it in deficient conditions and get very different outcomes between the two groups of plants. Okay. But does this apply to blacks and whites in America? We know damn well that the seed is not identical to begin with. In fact, Africans and Europeans are about as genetically distant as it gets among human populations. If I plant carnations should I be surprised that I end up with carnations and not roses? And do blacks in America in fact suffer from a deficient environment today in 2019? Objectively, we see no formal discrimination; to the contrary, they have access to considerable educational resources (subsidized by whites) and they enjoy preferential treatment in government policies (university admissions, scholarships, hiring, etc). The primary environmental disadvantages are nothing more than the consequences of living with other blacks and the attendant violence and disorder (and the fact that whites rationally tend to avoid this). Hence why “segregation” is seen as the greatest form of oppression even though no one would say that the Japanese, for example, are oppressed in Japan because they are “segregated” and have to live among their fellow Japanese.

    Even in cases where you take black children and have them raised in a leafy suburb by educated whites, we still do not see their cognitive ability reach parity. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study found the average Flynn-adjusted IQ (age 17) of adoptees to be: 101.5 for whites, 93.2 for mulattoes, and 83.7 for blacks. Again, that’s in conditions significantly better than what we provide to the median white child. Back to the seed thing: it strikes me as bizarre to insist that the “true” characteristics of the seed must be contrary to characteristics that we’ve observed repeatedly in the actual plants. That isn’t “cautious” science. It’s Lysenkoism.

  180. firstime says:
    @Joe, Averaged

    Srinivasa Ramanujan was darker than the most deeply tanned caucasian and, to a good approximation, could out think them all .

  181. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    LD patterns show gene flow between Africans and Europeans.

    As for your definition of race, it is completely arbitrary. Given how interconnected “human races” are why partition the variation across continents? Especially when a British and a Japanese can be more closely related than two random Africans?

    Human variation is clinal and there is no objective criterion of dividing it into races. If there were continentals splits and you proved low gene flow, maybe you would have a point.

    Furthermore, there is no evidence of selection for intelligence that differs across “races”

  182. Anti-HBD says:
    @mikemikev

    That comment shows you know nothing about genetics or biology.
    When the groups you are measuring are not real and share only superficial characteristics, there is no reason to suspect genetic contributions to the gap.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @res
  183. @Roger Sweeny

    The track Steve was trying to link to was a cover from Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin’s band, Kto Kogo (lead song writer John Lenin). Lyrics:

    No one know what it like
    To be bad man
    To be sad man
    Behind Aryan blue eyes

    The song was also covered by the sneaky, left-leaning “Ol’ Blue Eyes” Frank Sinister – whose stage name was nabbed from Vladimir Nabokov’s turgenev-turgid, “Get Bent, Sinister.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  184. gregor says:
    @Jack D

    Yes. Although I would add that in many cases the mainstream scholars are producing good research and very compelling data. They just insist on coupling it with intentionally obtuse analysis on the politically sensitive points. The outsiders are usually looking at the same data. The main difference is they are willing to draw the obvious conclusions.

    • Agree: res
    • Replies: @Jack D
  185. gregor says:
    @Anti-HBD

    This has to be a sock

    • Agree: eugyppius
  186. Jack D says:
    @Anonymous

    There seems to be little doubt that blacks are the stronger physical specimens. Before modern medicine, whites were unable to survive in sub-Saharan Africa. They would all die of tropical diseases. In the Caribbean, they have largely replaced whites and Indians because of their more vigorous nature – the entire Columbian experiment can be viewed as an unintentional scheme for the African race to spread to the Americas, especially in the Caribbean.

    However, even in their native habitat, it’s hard to say how Bantus have special mental capabilities. The Bushmen were known for their ability to survive in harsh desert conditions such as found in the Kalahari desert, which required a certain amount of native cunning, but the Bantus lived in areas with ample rainfall and cultivable land. They had some ability to conduct tribal warfare but otherwise I can’t really think of any special talents that they have that Europeans lack. Europeans, such as in Rhodesia, made much better farmers than the native farmers. They were better game hunters, etc. Nowadays in these PC times African art is admired but in earlier times it was thought to be primitive and crude.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Jack Henson
  187. @Jack D

    Ah, been a while since we had a round of black fetishism around here.

    Go look at who dominates powerlifting and come talk to me. MMA, boxing, etc.

    A few blacks bouncing a ball is not “physically superior”.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  188. @Charles Pewitt

    [Celebrating African Diversity?]

    Dear Charles Pewitt:

    STEATOPYGIA IS A GENETIC CONSTRUCT

    Please see “Baby Got Back”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steatopygia

    Best,
    Sir Mix-A-Lotta-Races

    https://www.google.com/search?ei=xpS0Xfv6MIG0sQX3-6OoDw&q=baby+got+back+&oq=baby+got+back+&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.2075.7403..11060…0.1..0.302.1712.11j2j1j1……0….1..gws-wiz…..6..0i71j0i362i308i154i357j0i131j0i67..10001%3A0%2C154.TtxeZt75Pr4&ved=0ahUKEwj79ZmZy7rlAhUBWqwKHff9CPUQ4dUDCAs&uact=5

  189. @MEH 0910

    I’d make the point a bit more forcefully than does Cochran.

    It would be actually surprising if there were genetic variants which affected IQ in a substantial, positive way which differed across populations.

    Why? Because, as we now know with some certainty, there are no genetic variants affecting educational attainment (a decent ersatz for IQ) in a substantial, positive way: even the largest effect size found is exceedingly small — 0.02% according to Plomin’s book.

    Likely, this has to do with the difficulty of improving such a complex set of mechanisms as those underlying educational attainment or IQ. If there ever were a genetic variant that had a big positive effect, it very likely went into fixation long before 70,000 years ago.Of course damaging variants of large effect are easier to come by, but they are never going to be common. They will be rooted out by selection quite quickly.

    And if the positive genetic variants are of very small effect, they will take forever to go to fixation, and will be stuck in standing variation pretty much forever — which is clearly the situation we’re in.

    So frequency is all we will ever have to distinguish populations.

    And the final point is that even if standing variation on thousands of genetic variants is all we’ve got, it’s still huge in impact. If heritability is about .5 for IQ or educational attainment, the difference is still Yuge in societal consequence. A difference in 1 SD across groups would be momentous indeed.

  190. mikemikev says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I’ve heard of begging the question, but you’re begging people to not see that you’re eating their cake in front of them. Groups are not real, for some unexplained reason, the groups, which are not real, only differ superficially, the gap, which doesn’t exist because differences are superficial, is therefore not genetic. Is it supposed to be funny?

    • Replies: @res
  191. Jack D says:
    @Jack Henson

    All running events (W. Africans for the short distances, E. Africans for the long). NFL cornerbacks, etc. Boxing? Haven’t there been an awful lot of great black boxers? Africans don’t dominate all athletic events but they dominate many. You have to give them credit where credit is due. Certainly the vice versa gap is not as pronounced as it is wrt intellectual achievement and in some cases the advantage even falls to whites. In intellectual achievement, blacks exceed whites almost never.

    • Replies: @Jack Henson
  192. Jack D says:
    @gregor

    They just insist on coupling it with intentionally obtuse analysis on the politically sensitive points.

    Can you blame them? To be “watsoned” is now a verb.

  193. Okechukwu says:

    Please note, I will not respond to the poster Res. He is simply too dumb, too delusional and too captured by the cult of racist pseudoscience to engage with.

    • Disagree: lavoisier
    • LOL: William Badwhite, res
    • Replies: @res
  194. Jack D says:
    @candid_observer

    The good news is that if these variants are present in all races and all that is needed is selection pressure (or intentional efforts at eugenic breeding) then large improvements are possible in a relatively short amount of time. It appears that the Ashkenazic advantage in IQ developed in a matter of a few hundred years – nothing in evolutionary time.

    And in the US we have the advantage that the “black” population is already a mixed population so there is plenty of European gene material in their pool.

    The real problem is that no only has there been no conscious effort at eugenic breeding (something that has been rarely done anywhere), all of the accidental experiments have been for the most part DYSGENIC – both during slavery and now again in conditions of modernity and the welfare state. Nor do modern social and political conditions, where any mention of eugenics is linked in the public mind to Nazi experiments and social conditions are opposite to those which gave rise to higher IQ in Europe (e.g. women of high intelligence have fewer and often no children, particularly in the black community), give us any hope that this will change any time soon.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  195. Okechukwu says:
    @Jack D

    And in the US we have the advantage that the “black” population is already a mixed population so there is plenty of European gene material in their pool.

    LOL. You clowns are hilarious.

  196. @candid_observer

    Maybe the other point to add here is that even if there were genetic variants which are of small positive effect which arose only in one population and not others, the overall contribution of those variants is very likely to be in aggregate small. If, again, the largest known contribution of a single allele is on the order of .02%, the accumulation of the rare mutations which have this sort of effect over 70000 years is not going to be in aggregate large. The size of that overall positive effect is going to be roughly proportional to the very small sizes of the individual effects.

    The smaller the positive effects of gene variants overall on a selected trait, the more important standing variation becomes over a given evolutionary period.

  197. syonredux says:
    @Anti-HBD

    . If there were continentals splits and you proved low gene flow, maybe you would have a point.

    How much gene flow occurred between pre-1492 Sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas?

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  198. Yak-15 says:
    @RaceRealist88

    If you had actually done any serious data analysis you would understand that you CAN disaggregate variables that have interactions.

  199. Yak-15 says:
    @candid_observer

    If this were true, that variants of all genes exist for intelligence within every population, then this would apply to every other genetic structure that humans possess.

    Extrapolated, this would imply that you could take a population of whites, say 100 pct Western European as they have existed for the last ~4,000 years, and breed a group of people with the same phenotypic traits as west Africans.

    Do you stand by this assertion?

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    , @Jack D
  200. @Anti-HBD

    The issue isn’t whether is no gene flow at all between two populations. It’s how much of a gene flow there might be — whether it is enough to prevent different frequencies of genes affecting certain traits to arise in those different populations.

    You have no argument that this would be true for cognitive or other behavioral traits.

    In fact, traits which would seem to have quite small if any degree of selection clearly differ across continental groups. For example, SubSaharan Africans almost always have broader, flatter noses than those of Europeans, and thicker lips. Only different frequencies of genes would account for these differences.

    If gene flow can’t stop this selectively trivial difference, what makes you think it would stop differences in cognitive or behavioral traits, which may well display significant selection effects?

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  201. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    LD patterns show gene flow between Africans and Europeans.

    Did you actually read the paper? Because what I see them arguing for is multiple distinct out of Africa events. Not gene flow from Europe back into Africa. From the paper:

    Rather, population divergence times are consistent with substantial ancient gene flow to the proto-European population after its divergence with proto-East Asians, suggesting distinct, early dispersals of modern H. sapiens from Africa.

    Back to you:

    As for your definition of race, it is completely arbitrary.

    No, it is not “completely arbitrary.” The reference YOU gave discussed the importance of geography. And continents have the most dramatic geographic boundaries. Then there is the inconvenient fact that that decomposition matches the genetic data quite well (if not perfectly).

    Especially when a British and a Japanese can be more closely related than two random Africans?

    Yes, given all of that genetic diversity contained within the continent of Africa it is important to more finely decompose the “races” (or if you prefer, geographic genetic groups) in that continent. But that by no means negates the fact that British and Japanese can be differentiated using genetics.

    Human variation is clinal and there is no objective criterion of dividing it into races. If there were continentals splits and you proved low gene flow, maybe you would have a point.

    At least you have the standard talking points down. Unfortunately for you, those aren’t necessary conditions. An observable difference (e.g. PCA) is enough. The existence of half-breeds invalidates the idea of continental races no more than the existence of orange invalidates the idea of “red” and “yellow.”

    Furthermore, there is no evidence of selection for intelligence that differs across “races”

    Like it or not, that Racimo paper shows evidence of selection for EA genetic variants (where EA is commonly used as a proxy for IQ because phenotypic information is so much more easily available) in East Asians. That evidence is by no means definitive, but don’t try to pretend that is the same as “no evidence.” I would love to see a similar study done for IQ. Would you like that? Pro tip: in a debate, when one side is eagerly seeking new evidence and the other side is not it usually implies something about the truth of their respective positions. That observation has great explanatory power in debates about the genetics of IQ.

  202. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    When the groups you are measuring are not real

    What makes you call continental racial groupings not real? The PCA analyses are quite clear on that point.

    share only superficial characteristics

    What makes you assume that the sharing is only “superficial characteristics”? And how do you define that, anyway?

    there is no reason to suspect genetic contributions to the gap.

    I see. That explains why there is no genetic contribution to the skin color differences observed between races. Got it.

    It sounds like you are of the camp that evolution only functions below the neck. Not very bright.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  203. @Yak-15

    I made it clear I was talking only about certain traits — e.g., educational attainment and IQ, for example, though my points may well apply to other behavioral traits.

    And yes, on those traits I would expect that one could select in such a way that their descendants would be the same as Western Africans today.

  204. res says:
    @mikemikev

    Is it supposed to be funny?

    Not sure if is supposed to be funny, but it certainly is. What’s even funnier is that Anon[164] seems to believe that constitutes a real argument.

  205. Anti-HBD says:
    @syonredux

    Not any.
    But a lot between East Asians, Europeans and Africans.
    I can cite you studies that prove it, for example Fu et al 2016 about the genetic history of Europe and East Asian gene flow and Petr et al, 2019 about European and African gene flow.
    So many more actually. Is there any evidence that did not happen?

    To be specific pre Columbian America and Australia were most likely completely isolated. But not the rest of the world by far.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  206. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    I will reply to both of your posts here.

    Did you actually read the paper? Because what I see them arguing for is multiple distinct out of Africa events. Not gene flow from Europe back into Africa. From the paper:

    Yes. More OoA out of the main one with was practically African admixture into the Proton-European population. But how about Petr et al, 2019? Paabo suggests gene flow between Africans and Europeans are the reason for Neanderthal admixture remaining stable in modern-day Europeans.

    No, it is not “completely arbitrary.” The reference YOU gave discussed the importance of geography. And continents have the most dramatic geographic boundaries. Then there is the inconvenient fact that that decomposition matches the genetic data quite well (if not perfectly).

    How is it not arbitrary when these groups you identify as races are mixtures of earlier groups and formed in roughly the same time-frame? Why privilege a certain partition of the variation over another?

    Yes, given all of that genetic diversity contained within the continent of Africa it is important to more finely decompose the “races” (or if you prefer, geographic genetic groups) in that continent. But that by no means negates the fact that British and Japanese can be differentiated using genetics.

    They can but differences are miniscule and do not warrant any taxonomic classification? Also where do you draw the line on where Europeans end and East Asians begin given the clinal variation between them?

    The existence of half-breeds invalidates the idea of continental races no more than the existence of orange invalidates the idea of “red” and “yellow.”

    Colors are not races. When you are referring to biology, you should use the standards that biology uses for taxonomy. In this case, it is independent evolutionary lineages and a tree-like structure which always fails in humans (again due to too much gene flow and admixture).

    hat evidence is by no means definitive, but don’t try to pretend that is the same as “no evidence.” I would love to see a similar study done for IQ. Would you like that?

    I do not pretend, the authors themselves suggested extreme caution in interpreting their results. And sure I would like to see one done for IQ, why would I not?

    What makes you call continental racial groupings not real? The PCA analyses are quite clear on that point.

    PCA is context-dependent (like clusters) and depends on sampling methods. Birney et al also mention that. A PCA also can explain a really small component of the total variance so it is not phylogenetically informative. Bad sampling can create distinct groups when in reality they do not exist.

    What makes you assume that the sharing is only “superficial characteristics”? And how do you define that, anyway?

    1. Phylogenetics and systematics use a variety of statistical methods to determine the relationships of populations and their differences. In humans, both Rosenberg,2002; Edge and Rosenberg,2015 (building on Edwards model btw) showed that the genetic differences are miniscule.

    I see. That explains why there is no genetic contribution to the skin color differences observed between races. Got it.

    As Templeton,2013 shows, some traits if advantageous can be selected for in lieu of low overall divergence. No such evidence exist for IQ. Not to mention, skin color is a trait clinally distributed and does not fall among races. Paraphyletic groups can have similar skin color due to convergent evolution, does not mean anything.

    It sounds like you are of the camp that evolution only functions below the neck. Not very bright.

    I assure you that I am not. If one answers my points or present sufficient evidence in favor of HBD I would definitely consider it. So far though, I have not seen any.

    • Replies: @res
  207. Anti-HBD says:
    @candid_observer

    But that is the thing though, there has been way too much.
    East Asians to Europeans, Europeans to Africans and vice versa at least for the last 20 thousand years.
    None in the HBD community has been able to prove any of the studies that proved that wrong. All they know is to hand-wave them away or present arguments that only one with no knowledge of biology would make.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
  208. Jack D says:
    @Anti-HBD

    These straw men are so easy to deflate that it’s not even worth the effort. Hot and cold don’t exist either – they are clinal. Europe and Asia don’t exist either. Genes flowed all the time between Congo and Sweden – that’s why it’s impossible to reliably tell a Swede from a Congolese. No on could possibly do it, certainly not just by eyeballing them.

    That you think that you are making a serious argument shows how much you have been mislead by the conventional wisdom and have fallen for it. If you were arguing for the earth to be flat and at the center of the universe you wouldn’t be much more wrong than you are in making these arguments. Orwell said that some ideas are so stupid that only an “intellectual” could believe them. You have rationalized yourself into a pretzel where up is down and black is white.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  209. Anti-HBD says:
    @Jack D

    If only you knew how these traits work. Skin color is not IQ. And yes there has been gene flow from Sweeden to Africa and from Sweeden to Asia (and a lot of it in that case)
    Would you like me to cite a paper perhaps?

    That is the issue btw, most of the HBD supporters know nothing of genetics or biology. And that is fine, until they go around making claims that are refuted by evidence and the field of population genetics at large.
    All I am asking here is for one science-informed argument and I am seeing none.

  210. Jack D says:
    @Yak-15

    Humans have rarely been consciously bred for certain traits. When this has been tried with animals, amazing variations have been achieved – wolves bred down to the size of Chihuahuas, all sorts of color variations, etc. If you tried, I’d bet you could bred Chihuahuas back up to wolf size or Great Danes down to dachshund. The only reason this isn’t possible with humans is that generation lengths are long and you’d have to conduct a multi-century (and by modern standards highly unethical) breeding experiment.

  211. Okechukwu says:
    @mikemikev

    Why speculate when all of the data is clear that black people have lower brain function and intelligence.

    No such data exists, liar.

    Go fling your bullshit elsewhere.

  212. Okechukwu says:
    @Unladen Swallow

    That might be impressive if they actually made an argument based on science

    It’s not a scientific paper with lots of esoteric technical jargon. This is by design in order to reach the widest possible audience. And it has worked. This paper is receiving rave reviews from people from all walks of life, those who don’t necessarily have strong scientific backgrounds.

    What’s important is that the paper is true. I would not expect most of the posters here to ever acknowledge its truthfulness. As the authors themselves concede, such people are hopelessly unreachable. The paper was not written with you people in mind.

    I might also pat myself on the back since some of my own commentary here on Unz echoes much of the verbiage of this paper, often times almost verbatim.

    • LOL: YetAnotherAnon
    • Troll: Unladen Swallow
  213. @Dieter Kief

    Jordan Peterson talked about this phenomenon recently and remarked, that one outcome of this dynamic he oftentimes saw in his clinical work (= his therapies) is, that neuroses of high IQ people can be more severe and harder to disentangle than those of regular folks.

    Perhaps Peterson is not all he pretends to be …

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  214. @Peripatetic Commenter

    He’s just a dude trying to figure shit out like the rest of us. Beale hates him but Beale hates a lot of people.

    • Agree: Dieter Kief
    • Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter
  215. agro19 says:
    @Dieter Kief

    “that neuroses of high IQ people can be more severe and harder to disentangle than those of regular folks.”

    Because the psychologists are a few order of magnitude dumber than their patients.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    , @Desiderius
  216. agro19 says:
    @Cloudbuster

    The distribution of the dominant SNPs for those diseases for the Afr and Eur populations,

    Pct | Diff | Afr | Eur | SNP | Disease | Name
    201.83 | 0.446 | 0.884 | 0.438 | rs11171739 | T1D | Type1 Diabetes
    195.76 | 0.339 | 0.693 | 0.354 | rs4402960 | T2D | Type2 Diabetes
    193.54 | 0.304 | 0.629 | 0.325 | rs7901695 | T2D | Type2 Diabetes
    192.86 | 0.117 | 0.243 | 0.126 | rs17234657 | CD | Crohn’s Disease
    164.34 | 0.184 | 0.47 | 0.286 | rs10946398 | T2D | Type2 Diabetes
    141.64 | 0.294 | 1.0 | 0.706 | rs564398 | T2D | Type2 Diabetes
    140.82 | 0.24 | 0.828 | 0.588 | rs1111875 | T2D | Type2 Diabetes
    135.59 | 0.1 | 0.381 | 0.281 | rs6887695 | CD | Crohn’s Disease
    130.51 | 0.22 | 0.941 | 0.721 | rs13266634 | T2D | Type2 Diabetes
    127.08 | 0.039 | 0.183 | 0.144 | rs2542151 | T1D/CD | Type1 Diabetes/Crohn’s Disease
    120.07 | 0.163 | 0.975 | 0.812 | rs10077785 | CD | Crohn’s Disease
    116.45 | 0.137 | 0.97 | 0.833 | rs10811661 | T2D | Type2 Diabetes
    110.56 | 0.045 | 0.471 | 0.426 | rs9939609 | T2D/OB | Type2 Diabetes/Obesity
    109.89 | 0.09 | 1.0 | 0.91 | rs1801282 | T2D | Type2 Diabetes

  217. Clyde says:
    @Roger Sweeny

    I can’t figure out what “Summertime Blues” is doing here.

    It has been 100 and more in LA. Aside from all the trees and brush going up in flames in California.

  218. @Anti-HBD

    You say that there has been way too much gene flow for, say, behavioral traits to differ genetically across continental groups.

    You provide zero evidence to show this.

    Look, one can make out an argument that skin color is so strongly selected for between continental groups that even somewhat significant gene flow would not stop the genes for different skin colors to differ across continental groups.

    But, again, how about the many features that clearly differ across continental groups that don’t have a very obviously strong selection factor at work? I mentioned, for example, the breadth and flatness of noses and thickness of lips. If there were significant gene flow, how would these differences be maintained?

    I can see no reason to believe that behavioral traits are less strongly selected for than are features like nose and lip shape and size.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  219. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    But how about Petr et al, 2019?

    So I show that the reference you gave really wasn’t saying what you implied and you just give me another one? Not playing that game. If you want me to engage with any more of your references please do the following:
    1. Include a link.
    2. Include an excerpt which supports your point.

    If you are unclear how to do that, please refer to my comments above where I give examples.

    Until you do that I am not wasting my time chasing down any more of your references.

    How is it not arbitrary when these groups you identify as races are mixtures of earlier groups and formed in roughly the same time-frame? Why privilege a certain partition of the variation over another?

    Because continental boundaries (for the most part, anyway) are not arbitrary. And I privilege geography because most researchers (e.g. see your Templeton 2013 reference) consider that important for genetic variation.

    I do not pretend, the authors themselves suggested extreme caution in interpreting their results.

    “Extreme caution in interpreting” is very different from “no evidence.”

    (multiple points skipped pending you providing links and excerpts for your references)

    I assure you that I am not. If one answers my points or present sufficient evidence in favor of HBD I would definitely consider it. So far though, I have not seen any.

    OK. I’ll take you at your word. It looks like we just need to wait until additional evidence come in. I look forward to seeing your advocacy of research designed to answer these questions. I think an African IQ GWAS would make an excellent start. Perhaps we can revisit this discussion once additional evidence is available.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  220. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    It is cute that you think that is some kind of meaningful response. I suppose I should be flattered that you have finally figured out that you have no hope of winning a substantive argument with me.

    I invite anyone to compare the information content of my comments to Okechukwu’s. Then decide for yourself who is too dumb, delusional, and captured by propaganda.

    Let’s see how much willpower he has this time. Last time we had a conversation like this we went through several iterations of “I’m not responding to you” followed by another response. Here was my take on his schtick then:
    http://www.unz.com/article/why-harvard-is-right-to-discriminate-against-asians/?display=showcomments#comment-3469399

    But you have already quite amply demonstrated your lack of willpower to follow through on your childish grandstanding. It’s like dealing with a three year old. Who failed the marshmallow test.

  221. MBlanc46 says:

    I’ll take the Eddie Cochran original. Or even Blue Cheer’s cover. Not the Who’s best effort.

  222. syonredux says:
    @Anti-HBD

    But a lot between East Asians, Europeans and Africans.

    Define “a lot.” Mexicans, for example, have had a massive infusion of European DNA since 1492. Is the gene flow between West Africa and East Asia between say, 1,000 BC and AD 1492 equal to that admixture event?

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  223. eah says:
    @eah

  224. eugyppius says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Your paper, Moore and Shenk, is just an extended concern troll about the use of the word “heritability.” You know they accept and state repeatedly that “genetic factors influence all of our characteristics,” right?

    But there is more to it than that. The article barely cites any literature, goes into an extended summary of the tattered Lewontin thought experiment that everybody has heard about identical seeds planted in fertile and arid soil (checkmate hereditarians!), is illustrated with a half-page-sized cartoon of children filling a bucket of water with a hose, and an entire page is spent on an odd thought experiment about house fires.

    This is because, it turns out, Moore and Shenk (2016) is not an ordinary article at all but what the publisher, Wiley, calls a “Primer.” It is not research, merely a breezy overview intended for beginning undergraduates in psychology. The second author, David Shenk, is a “writer” and a “filmmaker” (see http://www.davidshenk.com/). I know that you think academic papers are like talismans, that those last names with those parenthetical dates are weapons with which you can drive your opponents from you. Here, alas, you have basically cited a coloring book.

    But let us go further, and sample the arguments of your Moore and Shenk, to get a read on their quality. Here they are tilting at the windmill of twin studies:

    The math of twin studies is based on the assumption that environments encountered by identical twins are no more similar than environments encountered by fraternal twins. However, the formulas are not sound if identical twins, in addition to having more genetic similarity, are also exposed to more environmental similarity; in that case, increased similarities in identical twins’ traits can just as easily be accounted for by environmental similarities as by genetic similarities.

    Why would identical twins have more similar environments? Could it be because they are genetically identical and this tends to bring them into environments that are more similar than the environments fraternal twins experience?

    In fact, identical twins are exposed to demonstrably more similar environments than are fraternal twins. It starts in the womb: while fraternal twin embryos are always connected to their mother via two unique placentas, identical twins most often (but not always) share a single placenta. This means that, beginning soon after conception, identical twins typically have more similar access to nutrients, oxygen, and other factors than do fraternal twins. But does this increased similarity matter? Yes. In fact, identical twins who share a placenta as fetuses have more similar IQs and personalities than do identical twins who did not share a placenta.

    Wow that is interesting right? But then you look up the studies they cite in favor of this point — there are two of them — and, well, even more wow.

    Melnick et al from 1978 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685620/) looked at 116 white and 143 black twins monozygotic and dizygotic twins; each group had monochorionic and dichorionic representatives. So do the math: Very small sample numbers all around. Which is probably why the authors confess immediately in their abstract: “The type of chorion and zygosity had no significant effect on the mean IQ or among-pair variation.” So the study is so underpowered it cannot even establish the effect that we know is there, namely zygosity on IQ variation. And from there it can only establish chorionicity effects within the white population: none in the black sample. But please do hang your hat on this nonsense.

    The other study they cite is from 1995, Sokol et al (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7487842). It looks at 23 monochorionic and 21 dichorionic twins (so 88 kids in all), all monozygotes, all between 4 and 6 years old. I mean these sample sizes are seeding confidence in me. They administered personality and cognitive tests. The dichorionic twins had greater variation on some of the personality subtests but they could find no difference on the cognitive tests. So what actually happened here is that the 1978 study failed to replicate in the 1995 study but our genius Primer authors cite both in the same breath anyway.

    This environmental difference continues after birth. Scarr and McCartney argued that, because similar-looking individuals are more likely than different-looking individuals to evoke similar social responses from people around them, identical twins likely encounter more similar environments than do fraternal twins.

    It is like genetic similarity (similar-looking individuals!) is causing environmental similarity and there is a feedback effect. What a strange effect, and how totally it destroys all the arguments we have made about heritability.

  225. Anonymous[642] • Disclaimer says:
    @reactionry

    Sinister would have drowned if not for a Brad Dexter.

    Look it up.

    • Replies: @reactionry
  226. @agro19

    Jordan Peterson spoke here of his own experiences. – Even very high IQ patients should not be that much brighter than him. I think the bulk of those he spoke about would be found between 130 and 160 and he once said his own IQ’d be 150, if I remember right.

    • Replies: @agro19
  227. mikemikev says:

    So is this Angela Saini’s “team”?

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Angela+Saini+on+Twitter%3A+”I+have+begun+assembling+a+team+of

    She’s deleted the relevant tweets it seems.

  228. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    Petr et al, 2019 (https://www.pnas.org/content/116/5/1639)

    “To evaluate the sensitivity of the indirect f4-ratio to migration events, we performed neutral simulations of Neandertal, West Eurasian, and African demographic histories (Fig. 2). All simulations included introgression from Neandertals into West Eurasians, and varying levels of migration between Africans and West Eurasians, and between African populations. We find that gene flow from West Eurasians into Africans leads to misestimates of Neandertal ancestry when using the indirect f4-ratio statistic, and results in the incorrect inference of a continuous decline in Neandertal ancestry.”

    And I am not really sure you correctly read Templeton, 2013, as he emphasizes the absence of tree-like relationship among humans and the pervasive role of admixture and gene flow in shaping modern populations. Would you like me to cite you the related sections?

    And I privilege geography because most researchers (e.g. see your Templeton 2013 reference) consider that important for genetic variation.

    Geography is of course important, but Templeton (as others, for example this paper http://www.ericlwalters.org/Meirmans2012.pdf) suggest that human differentiation patterns fit a model of isolation by distance which can create artificial clusters when in reality there are none. It can also confound tests of selection.

    multiple points skipped pending you providing links and excerpts for your references)

    Also where do you draw the line on where Europeans end and East Asians begin given the clinal variation between them?

    (https://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/9/1679.full)
    “Genetic variation in humans is sometimes described as being discontinuous among continents or among groups of individuals, and by some this has been interpreted as genetic support for “races.” A recent study in which >350 microsatellites were studied in a global sample of humans showed that they could be grouped according to their continental origin, and this was widely interpreted as evidence for a discrete distribution of human genetic diversity. Here, we investigate how study design can influence such conclusions. Our results show that when individuals are sampled homogeneously from around the globe, the pattern seen is one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between different continents or “races.”

    Edge and Rosenberg,2015 (building on Edwards model btw)

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516610/

    To quote:
    “Researchers in many fields have considered the meaning of two results about genetic variation for concepts of “race.” First, at most genetic loci, apportionments of human genetic diversity find that worldwide populations are genetically similar. Second, when multiple genetic loci are examined, it is possible to distinguish people with ancestry from different geographical regions. These two results raise an important question about human phenotypic diversity: To what extent do populations typically differ on phenotypes determined by multiple genetic loci? It might be expected that such phenotypes follow the pattern of similarity observed at individual loci. Alternatively, because they have a multilocus genetic architecture, they might follow the pattern of greater differentiation suggested by multilocus ancestry inference. To address the question, we extend a well-known classification model of Edwards (2003) by adding a selectively neutral quantitative trait. Using the extended model, we show, in line with previous work in quantitative genetics, that regardless of how many genetic loci influence the trait, one neutral trait is approximately as informative about ancestry as a single genetic locus. The results support the relevance of single-locus genetic-diversity partitioning for predictions about phenotypic diversity.”

    In that paper they effectively prove Edward’s objection to Lewontin wrong and further validate that races in humans do not exist as the between population variation is extremely small.

    Here is the reference for PCA being context-dependent which anyone familiar with genetics would know. ( https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1007841)
    “Population structure in genotype data has been extensively studied, and is revealed by looking at the principal components of the genotype matrix. However, no similar analysis of population structure in gene expression data has been conducted, in part because a naïve principal components analysis of the gene expression matrix does not cluster by population. We identify a linear projection that reveals population structure in gene expression data. Our approach relies on the coupling of the principal components of genotype to the principal components of gene expression via canonical correlation analysis. Our method is able to determine the significance of the variance in the canonical correlation projection explained by each gene. We identify 3,571 significant genes, only 837 of which had been previously reported to have an associated eQTL in the GEUVADIS results. We show that our projections are not primarily driven by differences in allele frequency at known cis-eQTLs and that similar projections can be recovered using only several hundred randomly selected genes and SNPs. Finally, we present preliminary work on the consequences for eQTL analysis. We observe that using our projection co-ordinates as covariates results in the discovery of slightly fewer genes with eQTLs, but that these genes replicate in GTEx matched tissue at a slightly higher rate.”

    Finally, fatal to the concept are:
    1. Native American populations that have higher Fst distances than global populations as proven here: (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6189/1280)

    “Seri and Lacandon show the highest level of population differentiation as measured with Wright’s fixation index FST (0.136, Fig. 1B and table S4), higher than the FST between Europeans and Chinese populations in HapMap3 (0.11)”
    So two tribes in Mexico are more distantly related than Europeans and East Asians.

    2. Pervasive ancient gene flow from East Asians to ancient Europeans, shown in Fu et al, 2016 (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17993)

    “Among the newly reported individuals, GoyetQ116-1 from presentday Belgium is the oldest at ~35,000 years ago. This individual is similar to the ~37,000-year-old Kostenki14 and all later individuals in that it shares more alleles with present-day Europeans (for example, French) than with east Asians (for example, Han”
    and
    “Second, we detect an excess of allele sharing with east Asians in a subset of Villabruna Cluster individuals— beginning with an ~13,000-year-old individual from Switzerland—as revealed by significant statistics of the form D(Test1, Test2; Han, Mbuti) (Fig. 4b and Extended Data Fig. 3). For example, Han Chinese share more alleles with two Villabruna Cluster individuals (Loschbour and LaBrana1) than they do with Kostenki14, as reflected in significantly negative statistics of the form D(Kostenki14, Loschbour/LaBrana1; Han, Mbuti)4 This statistic was originally interpreted as evidence of Basal Eurasian ancestry in Kostenki14. However, because this statistic is consistent with zero when Han is replaced with Ust’-Ishim, these findings cannot be driven by Basal Eurasian ancestry (as we discuss earlier), and must instead be driven by gene flow between populations related to east Asians and the ancestors of some Europeans (Supplementary Information section 8).”

    An African IQ GWAS would be spurious because African populations are not a coherent group. Two Africans can be less related to each other than Europeans and Africans.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @Jack D
    , @eugyppius
  229. mikemikev says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Imagine having to go to lengths like this to delude yourself out of the self-evident fact that Europeans, Africans and East Asians share ancestry and traits.

    • Agree: eugyppius
    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  230. Anti-HBD says:
    @candid_observer

    Gene flow Europe-Africa
    1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106315/ (McEvoy et al, 2011)

    Estimates of divergence times between European–African and East Asian–African populations are inconsistent with its simplest manifestation: a single dispersal from the continent followed by a split into Western and Eastern Eurasian branches. Rather, population divergence times are consistent with substantial ancient gene flow to the proto-European population after its divergence with proto-East Asians, suggesting distinct, early dispersals of modern H. sapiens from Africa. We use simulated genetic polymorphism data to demonstrate the validity of our conclusions against alternative population demographic scenarios.

    2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/ (Templeton,2013)

    Following the expansion with admixture of modern humans from Africa, there have been additional expansions, mostly into areas not formerly occupied by humans (Figure 3). Wherever humans lived, gene flow was soon established, mostly limited by isolation-by-distance but with some long-distance dispersal in more recent times. These inferences of long distance range expansions followed by gene flow mostly constrained by isolation by distance have been subsequently supported by extensive computer simulations (Hunley, et al., 2009). On a time scale of tens of thousands of years (the temporal resolution of the ML-NCPA studies), there is not one statistically significant inference of splitting during the last 1.9 million years. Hence, the null hypothesis of a single human lineage is not rejected, so there is no evidence for lineage races in humans. Furthermore, ML-NCPA strongly rejects the null hypotheses of no gene flow and no admixture under the null hypothesis that isolated lineages did exist, so there is strong evidence against lineage races in humans. Hence, there are no races in humans under the lineage definition.

    3. https://www.pnas.org/content/111/7/2632 (Pickrell et al, 2014)

    “The hunter–gatherer and pastoralist populations of southern Africa are among the culturally, linguistically, and genetically most diverse human populations. However, little is known about their history. We show that all of these populations have some ancestry most closely related to Europeans and Middle Easterners and use this to reconstruct the history of population movements between Eurasia, eastern Africa, and southern Africa.”

    Gene flow East Asia-Europe

    Fu et al, 2016 (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17993)

    “Second, we detect an excess of allele sharing with east Asians in a subset of Villabruna Cluster individuals— beginning with an ~13,000-year-old individual from Switzerland—as
    revealed by significant statistics of the form D(Test1, Test2; Han, Mbuti)
    (Fig. 4b and Extended Data Fig. 3). For example, Han Chinese share
    more alleles with two Villabruna Cluster individuals (Loschbour and
    LaBrana1) than they do with Kostenki14, as reflected in significantly
    negative statistics of the form D(Kostenki14, Loschbour/LaBrana1; Han,
    Mbuti)4. This statistic was originally interpreted as evidence of Basal
    Eurasian ancestry in Kostenki14. However, because this statistic is consistent with zero when Han is replaced with Ust’-Ishim, these findings
    cannot be driven by Basal Eurasian ancestry (as we discuss earlier),
    and must instead be driven by gene flow between populations related
    to east Asians and the ancestors of some Europeans (Supplementary
    Information section 8).”

    I am still waiting for any convincing arguments of no gene flow.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  231. Anti-HBD says:
    @syonredux

    It is interesting that you mention Mexicans, given that two tribes can be more different than Europeans and East Asians (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6189/1280).

    “Seri and Lacandon show the highest level of population differentiation as measured with Wright’s fixation index FST (0.136, Fig. 1B and table S4), higher than the FST between Europeans and Chinese populations in HapMap3 (0.11)” (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6189/1280 – “The genetics of Mexico recapitulates Native American substructure and affects biomedical traits”

    And I expect to see that pattern for all continents so that really tells you how meaningless race categories are.
    I doubt anyone will answer my points, given how HBDers avoid scientific studies that contradict their pre-conceived notions on race.

  232. Jack D says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Just because gene flow existed (and BTW it’s not entirely convincing that it did in any meaningful amount – small infusions can be dissolved without a ripple in large populations) doesn’t mean that it’s impossible for two groups to have different traits. Asians, Europeans and Africans clearly have visibly different physical traits on average and there’s no reason to think that these average differences don’t also extend to certain mental traits either.

    As Steve says, Africa in general is wildly diverse but African-Americans are mostly West African and not particularly diverse. Even if they were, all of sub-Saharan Africa showed a depressingly uniform lack of intellectual accomplishment before white contact. Most noticeably in the fact that they never developed a system of writing, something that even the American Indians did in Mexico. Nor were there any great pyramids or other markers of advanced civilization – Great Zimbabwe is a miserable little pile of rocks. The only place where advanced African civilizations exist is in comic book fantasies.

    And in many cases, the diverse Africans that we didn’t get, such as the bushmen and the pygmies, were for the most part even more primitive and less intelligent than the ones that we did. OTOH there were also some smarter tribes such as the Ibo who were largely absent from the slave trade – they were DOING the slave trade, so probably the people we got were average for Africa – smarter than pygmies, dumber than Ibos.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  233. Anti-HBD says:
    @Jack D

    As people have asked me to do here (and have done so) I would also ask you to provide citations for these claims.
    And you do not strike me the type who would welcome more immigration to the US from non-Bantu groups would you?

    If gene flow was as low as you claim I would agree with you. But it was not, Templeton’s analysis and Long and Kittles,2009 article (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20504196) clearly show that
    a. gene flow was high b. human “races” do not fit a tree-like structure.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  234. Jack D says:
    @Anti-HBD

    And you do not strike me the type who would welcome more immigration to the US from non-Bantu groups would you?

    As far as I can tell, we are well supplied with Africans in America due to natural increase – perhaps 1/2 million imported from African have grown to 40 million on their own without need for further imports. I would say that our need for Africans is already completely fulfilled, perhaps even over-fulfilled such that I wouldn’t mind even a few million leaving. We’d still have plenty of NBA players and “aspiring” rappers to choose from. However, to the extent that we do take African immigrants, it seems like some of the imported blacks are an improvement over the domestic models – e.g. Obama. It’s telling that for America’s first black President they had to reach back to Africa. A large % of the (swelled by Affirmative Action) black quota at Harvard, etc. is filled with Nigerian-Americans (and Caribbean blacks and half blacks with Jewish mothers and any sort of black other than slave descended American blacks). If you ever read a story about “HS student accepted at every Ivy League school”, the HS student in question is usually Ibo.

  235. mikemikev says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I am still waiting for any convincing arguments of no gene flow.

    Why? Nobody said this.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  236. Anti-HBD says:
    @mikemikev

    You mean actually learn genetics?

    Oh wow, yes such a delusion….

    You know that you could have replied to me with a scientific argument or a paper but you did not do so instead expressing opinion about PCA only one that has no knowledge of genetics could say.

    And no there is little in common between what you call black Africans for example, same with Europeans , same with East Asians. You also share a lot of recent ancestry with them, have you heard of pedigree collapse and identical ancestors point.

    Btw, where did @res go, they still have not replied to my arguments.

    • Replies: @res
  237. eugyppius says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Really it is absurd to cite all of these papers imagining gene flow in ancient populations when all you have to do is look at modern fst distances to falsify the idea that it has ever been “pervasive”.

    There is a formula for estimating the gene flow between global populations based on FST distances. Running it yields very low numbers. Just to start see Cochran on this:

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/gene-flow/

    It is not enough to wash out local adaptations.

    Finally, fatal to the concept are:
    1. Native American populations that have higher Fst distances than global populations as proven here: (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6189/1280)

    “Seri and Lacandon show the highest level of population differentiation as measured with Wright’s fixation index FST (0.136, Fig. 1B and table S4), higher than the FST between Europeans and Chinese populations in HapMap3 (0.11)”
    So two tribes in Mexico are more distantly related than Europeans and East Asians.

    I don’t know why you think this destroys the concept of race. Greater FST distance comes via homogeneity within + divergence between the compared populations. Your Mexican tribes are small relatively homogeneous populations, one in the extreme north of Mexico and one in the extreme south. Not much gene flow between them.

    Just casually browsing Wikipedia I find the claim that Mbuti und Papuans have fst distances of .46: Very high indeed for these to highly divergent and extremely homogeneous populations.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  238. Bill says:
    @Alden

    It doesn’t say they were strapped in car seats. It says they were playing in the back yard.

  239. Anti-HBD says:
    @eugyppius

    Whoever wrote that post about Fst is wrong.
    Fst is not like that formula implies.
    From: https://www.nature.com/articles/6884960

    The difficulty of directly measuring gene flow has lead to the common use of indirect measures extrapolated from genetic frequency data. These measures are variants of FST, a standardized measure of the genetic variance among populations, and are used to solve for Nm, the number of migrants successfully entering a population per generation. Unfortunately, the mathematical model underlying this translation makes many biologically unrealistic assumptions; real populations are very likely to violate these assumptions, such that there is often limited quantitative information to be gained about dispersal from using gene frequency data. While studies of genetic structure per se are often worthwhile, and FST is an excellent measure of the extent of this population structure, it is rare that FST can be translated into an accurate estimate of Nm.

    • Replies: @eugyppius
  240. lavoisier says: • Website

    If they wanted to be more persuasive, they should give more examples to back up their assertions. For example, they repeatedly claim that old scientific and popular ideas about how best to lump and split human populations have been debunked by modern genomics, but they don’t tell us which of these ideas that have been disproven and what has replaced them.

    It seems to me that the “debunkers” of what they see as “junk science” never use real science to defend their arguments. If they use science at all it is truly “junk science” from the likes of Gould or Lewontin.

    The debunkers are not only dishonest they are boring.

  241. @Desiderius

    Who is the Beale you refer to?

    Is your obsession showing?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  242. Wait. Are my lying eyes deceiving me?

    When I look at Chinese people they are definitely different in many ways from Caucasians and SS-Africans.

    Could it be that Lewontin’s Fallacy is indeed a fallacy, and when you look at more characteristics there is more variance within groups than between groups?

  243. jamie b. says:
    @Roger Sweeny

    I almost never understand why various Youtube links are given. I guess that it must be obvious to at least some people, but a clue or hint might be called for…

  244. @agro19

    That wasn’t my (admittedly limited) experience. He turned out to be right in his advice as well, though I didn’t take it until many years later.

  245. @Peripatetic Commenter

    Ted Beale = Vox Day, famous Peterson critic. Not wrong, also not super relevant.

    Who or what am I supposed to be obsessed with?

  246. @Jack D

    Again, not physical dominance. Credit where it’s due, but that’s not what you were saying.

  247. Anti-HBD says:
    @mikemikev

    Greg Cochran did for example whose blog you cited even though he is wrong about Fst.

    And, yes most HBDers say that even when population geneticists all state that it was high and connects all populations on earth through intermediate ones.

    Given how high it was/is no way that a.race exists objectively as a biological category b. there is a genetic component to IQ differences between races.

  248. MEH 0910 says:

  249. Ragno says:
    @Tiny Duck

    I went to a wedding and all the groomsmen were Men of Color and the bridesmaids were mostly white girls

    That tells you something righ there

    It sure does.

  250. Ragno says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Remember, not too long ago, when Steve wondered aloud where would all the deluded liberals go once the inarguable science of HBD would debunk all of their wishful-thinking fairy tales?

    Who knew they’d simply double down, and urge the construction of gulags for the rest of us?

    (Ok, ok….don’t all raise your hands at once.)

  251. MEH 0910 says:

  252. Ragno says:
    @Charles Pewitt

    [TWEET]1187444666960154624[/TWEET]

    Granted, this is now default ‘reality’ for shrill doxies in pudenda-hats, POC who drew winning lottery tickets granting them seats on the MSM train, and every journalist hip to the price of keeping one of those seats (they come with book deals and six figure salaries, you see)…..but can someone kindly point out an actual “mainstream politicians pushing white supremacy”? Seriously; and inadvertant ok-signs found in 20-year old Polaroids and ‘it’s okay to be white’ sentiments don’t count.

    Because the only politicians out there stumping for racial supremacy are all of darker hue….but if you can find a white one, please let us know; I for one will vote for that candidate.

  253. @Okechukwu

    Go look in your text of history of math, science, and invention for proof of superiority of the mind…etc LOOK AT ALL THE MYRIAD WHITE FACES (with brilliant minds) LOOKING BACK at you with your different face (with relatively retarded mind). Hmm has their ever been a urban-rapper on the level of Cauchy, Galois, Pascal, LaGrange, Maclaurin, Boole, DeMorgan, Ramanujan, Jacobi, Poussin, Euclid, Pythagoras, Etc…? Funny cause even those are genius of the first order they are still far behind the greatest geniuses in human history ie GAUSS, NEWTON, EULER, ARCHIMEDES. Classical-fans solved the quadratic, cubic (Fior, Tartaglia), quadratic (Ferrari, Euler, Lagrange, Galois), Quintic (Eisenstein, Landen) has a 100m sprinter ever even independently proved the Pythagorean theorem, solved a new differential equation, or initiated a new branch like Fractals, wavelets, chaos, Ramsey Theory, Diophantine equations, or differing integral equations? In short, NO.

  254. agro19 says:
    @Dieter Kief

    From https://www.psychology.org/resources/graduate-application-guide/

    “According to the ETS, between July 2013 and June 2016, the mean GRE scores for test takers in the social and behavioral sciences for verbal reasoning reached 153; for Quantitative Reasoning, 151;”

    The overall average GRE Quant score is 153, i.e. on average those Psych PhDs have below average quant ability even from the ivy league graduate schools. Now some of them are too embarrass to show the low score requirement that they have scrap the GRE requirement. They can talk the patients to death but most of their theories are rubbish that do not replicate.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#Replication

    Some well known psychologist even had shown to be making high school level statistical errors. Many just talked about effect sizes neglecting the probability of false positive and hence the replication problems. How are they going to convince those high IQ people??

  255. syonredux says:
    @Anti-HBD

    It is interesting that you mention Mexicans, given that two tribes can be more different than Europeans and East Asians

    Are there pre-1492 tribes that are more closely related to West Sub-Saharan Africans than they are to other Amerinds?That would be kinda interesting…

  256. syonredux says:
    @Anti-HBD

    And you didn’t answer my question:

    But a lot between East Asians, Europeans and Africans.

    Define “a lot.” Mexicans, for example, have had a massive infusion of European DNA since 1492. Is the gene flow between West Africa and East Asia between say, 1,000 BC and AD 1492 equal to that admixture event?

    And how about the gene flow between Europe and East Asia. Does the gene from 1,000 BC to AD 1492 equal the flow of European genes into Mexico post-1492?

  257. syonredux says:
    @Anti-HBD

    It is interesting that you mention Mexicans, given that two tribes can be more different than Europeans and East Asians

    And I expect to see that pattern for all continents so that really tells you how meaningless race categories are.

    So you favor small-scale races over the big continental divisions.Lumper vs splitter, it’s an age-old debate…..

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  258. eugyppius says:
    @Anti-HBD

    We don’t need an “accurate estimate”. An inaccurate one will do fine because all we want to know is whether the pervasive gene flow you are positing can be squared with the fst distances observed between human global ‘races’. Note also that the global ‘races’ are enormous populations with robust FST distances established by a great deal of sampling.

    From your very own study:

    Finally, a note of cautious (and perhaps foolish) optimism. For the reasons we have discussed throughout this review, estimates of gene flow based on FST are unlikely to be very reliable. However, these estimates are likely to be correct within a few orders of magnitude. Comparisons of large groups of species are likely to be more informative, as many of the differences may average out. Estimates of dispersal from FST should be undertaken with great caution, and only if the biological question behind the attempt at estimating dispersal depends on knowing migration rates within very large bounds.

    So the formula is inaccurate but “likely to be correct within a few orders of magnitude.” That is more than enough for our very crude purposes.

    Just to illustrate this with a concrete case, per the original link, the formula gives us an Nm of 1,26 migrants (individual persons) per generation between Africa south of the Sahara and Europe for the last 100k years. But your article is very right that this estimate is inaccurate. It might be inaccurate by several orders of magnitude. So let us say maybe the Nm was really 1,26^3 or 2 individual persons instead of 1 and a quarter. But it could also be several of magnitudes lower, i.e. a fraction of a person, or perhaps nobody. You can see, with fst distances like those between sub-Saharans and Europeans, great inaccuracies don’t matter because the answer will always be some flavor of “nearly zero”.

    And how much do you need to prevent evolution above the neck? A lot more than nearly zero.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
    , @Anti-HBD
  259. Anti-HBD says:
    @eugyppius

    How do you explain then that the Fst distance between two tribes in Mexico is larger than the Fst distance between Native Americans and Europeans?
    Given they share ancestors only 15ooo years ago, and most likely much more recently, while Europeans and Africans are considered to share ancestors 60000 years ago and the Fst is only 0.15

    From: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6189/1280

    “Seri and Lacandon show the highest level of population differentiation as measured with Wright’s fixation index FST (0.136, Fig. 1B and table S4), higher than the FST between Europeans and Chinese populations in HapMap3 (0.11)”

    It is unlikely there was such low gene flow between them given the geographic distance so we see how bad Fst estimates are for gene flow.
    The 0.15 between Africans and Europeans means nothing important

    • Replies: @eugyppius
  260. Anti-HBD says:
    @syonredux

    No, I do not favor any races.

    And your point is void, since yes the admixture between East Asians and Europeans has been that high.

    Look up Ancient North Eurasians in wikipedia and ydna R and tell me where they come frrom and what they are. (East Asians)

    All Europeans are at least 20% East Asian today, Russians more like 30%.

  261. mikemikev says:

  262. @Tiny Duck

    Why is the outbreeding of whites upsetting to anyone? When we yield blushing brides to NAMs, we’re not sending our best. Let the white race, such as it is, be culled from the bottom. This is a positive development.

  263. Anti-HBD says:
    @eugyppius

    But it has always been high! Templeton’s analysis shows that and so do papers like Kelleher et al, 2019.

    As for Fst read this by Long , 2009
    https://muse.jhu.edu/article/381884/pdf?casa_token=w4lFxeyCYK8AAAAA:uYjPsFaikzziCI9QdrfYvapP0doVZHiewlbEo5Hl1FzBvuHdL11KEZOAtoOgad1Z74k1W3zCWw
    It is only 3 pages and shows exactly why Fst does not apply to humans.

    • Replies: @eugyppius
  264. @Dieter Kief

    Jordan Peterson debunking the McMartin Day Care “Satanic Panic” stuff:

    That feeling when the FBI does a document dump on the last Friday in October 2019 and they confirm the existence of tunnels that every claimed did not exist.

    The man is a charlatan!

  265. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Btw, where did @res go, they still have not replied to my arguments.

    It appears I live in a third world country now since I was without some key infrastructure for a couple of days. Between that and our homeless camps (favelas?) I am really starting to wonder WTF is happening to the US. Trying not to become a third world country is why some of us care about topics like this.

    Now that I am back I am debating whether it is worth replying to you. I think Theodore has things pretty well covered in the James Thompson thread on this explainer so I will pass for now.

    Except for one point. In comment 187 you say:

    Furthermore, there is no evidence of selection for intelligence that differs across “races”

    So we are expected to believe that selection for intelligence in primates was strong enough to result in brain sizes changing like this: https://www.britannica.com/science/human-evolution/Increasing-brain-size

    Remember how expensive the brain is metabolically and what an issue the brain size and hip width interaction is. That increase was costly. There had to be a strong force pushing brains to become larger.

    But once humanity migrated out of Africa that selection for intelligence magically stopped.

    And how do you square my second quote above with this exchange of ours?

    It sounds like you are of the camp that evolution only functions below the neck. Not very bright.

    I assure you that I am not.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  266. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    I will reply tomorrow when I have more time but no argument against Templeton’s analysis I see, the skulls you show have not relationship to intelligence and eve if it did, massive gene flow ( per Templeton and the papers I cited you) has occurred between different human populations, a point @Theodore has not answered sufficiently. He of course is ignorant of the literature and the requirements for subspecies but I will deal with his arguments more tomorrow.

    Once again, gene flow was too high globally and thus prevented divergence and considerable phenotypic differences. A few examples of local adaptation are meaningless. Intelligence variants are not expected to differ the same way due to their low polygenicity.

    And before you cite Greg on this (@gcochran9 – who avoids the debate):

    • Replies: @res
  267. Anti-HBD says:
    @gcochran

    Once again, a few examples of local adaptation do not invalidate high gene flow. Nor is lineage sorting an issue for Templeton’s analysis.

    Gene flow was always high and did inhibit the kind of selection you are talking about.

    Misrepresenting Fst and writing about traits under selection (as well as thinking the gene genealogies vs population splits is an argument against NCPA) do not change any of that.

    • Replies: @res
  268. MEH 0910 says:

  269. Anon[419] • Disclaimer says:

    You say that there has been way too much gene flow for, say, behavioral traits to differ genetically across continental groups.

    This has been challenged by showing gene frequency change accelerating quite rapidly over recent history and post Out of Africa when racial groups were geographically separated. The concept, along with supporting arguments, is explained in the book “The 10,000 Year Explosion” by Gregory Cochran and Henry Happending.

    The assertion made by the commenter is also obviously false. Racial groups vary in numerous physical characteristics — ear wax texture, dietary response, body odor, skull shape, skin color, disease propensity, medication response, etc. It’s really absurd to claim these differences magically stop at behavioral / cognitive characteristics when we already know behavioral / cognitive characteristics vary within groups based on genetic composition. There are gene combinations, for example, correlated with such trivial things as propensity to push restaurant chairs into their tables by passersby. Numerous genetically-influenced physical characteristics vary between groups, so behavioral and cognitive ones probably do as well. There is no reason for them not to, and if the commenter’s argument were correct, we should probably see much less physical variation between groups than we do.

    The book also explains many of the fallacies repeated by some commenters here, namely this bizarre repetition of “gene flow” and “genetic variation” concepts. “Gene flow” certainly wasn’t extensive enough to overcome the strong selection pressures on allele frequencies between populations and the resultant — relatively rapid — change in allele frequencies between populations broadly categorized as race; this can be evidenced just by looking different groups. Nowhere has it been definitively shown otherwise. Merely noting gene flow in a geographic area does not accomplish what proponents claim it does. And most “genetic variation” arguments are examples of Lewontin’s Fallacy.

    The implicit assumption made by proponents of Lewontin’s Fallacy is that each gene variant has equal affect. Therefore, if the variation between human groups is small, then the resulting variation in observed phenotype between groups should also be small. That’s incorrect. From the book:

    “Approximately 85 percent of human genetic variation is within-group rather than between groups, while 15 percent in between-group. Lewontin and others have argued that this means that the genetic differences between human populations must be smaller than the differences within human populations groups …. his interpretation was incorrect. Information about the distribution of genetic variation tells you essentially nothing about the size or significance of trait differences … Genetic statistics do not tell you what sort of differences in size, strength, life span, or disposition you can expect to see between populations.” — pg 15.

    Here’s an example of why population genetics is hard and, therefore, very often misunderstood by science deniers:

    MAO-A Gene Versions

    There are a few main versions of a gene that produces MAO-A: 2R, 3R, 4R. The ‘2R’ version of the gene results in the lowest MAO-A production, while the ‘4R’ version results in the highest level of MAO-A, and the least aggression. 3R is somewhere in between. So if you’ve got the 2R or 3R version, you’re going to produce less MAO-A and have more circulating adrenaline, dopamine, and serotonin. It’s known as the “Warrior Gene” because 2R and 3R are associated with increased violence and aggressiveness- especially 2R.

    The Warrior Gene was found to be more or less prevalent in different groups.

    The 3R version, which produces less MAO-A, was found in 59% of Black men, 56% of Maori men (an aboriginal New Zealand group), 54% of Chinese men and 34% of Caucasian men.

    The 2R version, which produces the least MAO-A, is found in 5.5% of Black men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men.

    https://selfhacked.com/blog/about-mao-a-and-what-to-do-if-you-have-the-warrior-gene/

    MAOA alleles aren’t well correlated with things like violent crime rates between racial groups because the relative contribution is small and potentially masked by other confounding alleles; violent crime propensity is multi-faceted and likely encompasses numerous genes and some environmental factors. Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Korean), for example, have lower violent crime rates than either whites or blacks while having significantly more “bad” MAOA 3R than whites and nearly the same as blacks.

    Can different MAOA allele combinations increase violent reactions within groups? Yes, probably. Can they account for some of the differences between groups, too? Potentially also yes, but teasing that correlation out and its relative contribution will be difficult because different racial groups may have allele combinations that result in an overall lower rate of violent crime / violent response to stimuli, masking the effect of so-called Warrior Genes. Asians, for example, are far more intelligent than the global mean and cognitive ability is inversely correlated with violent crime rate – among other genetically-based factors. So, more 3R in that population than whites does not necessarily indicate they are more violent than whites.

    But this does not also necessarily mean we couldn’t look at MAOA’s affect on violent tendencies between racial groups if we could account for all the other factors as well (very difficult). The presence of particularly nasty combinations of MAOA alleles plus lower cognitive ability – among many other factors – in the black population probably does explain some part of why they are so much more violent than either whites or blacks, but MAOA contribution specifically could be small when isolated from other factors …. or not, perhaps, depending on what else we find. Example: just six SNPs give very good predictions for eye color (91% for blue eyes), but that’s relatively easy. In that case, a small number of factors determines with high precision what eye color someone will have. That’s usually not the case for cognitive ability.

    Please explain to me …

    This is a common rhetorical tactic of the left: they demand you repeat large volumes of material in detail when that material already exists elsewhere. It is akin to asking someone to explain all the facets of differential calculus in a blog post – doable, but not likely to occur. The tactic is used to imply that someone doesn’t know what he is talking about through his refusal to answer the challenge. If the left were being honest, they’d propose their own specific set of critiques based on an understanding of the material at hand instead of demanding others teach an entire body of knowledge to them from scratch. They usually don’t bother, though. For the most part, it’s one sophism after another – semantics, moving goal posts, strawmen, red herrings, specious arguments, name dropping, appeal to authority, jargon dropping …. etc.

  270. eugyppius says:
    @Anti-HBD

    It is only 3 pages and shows exactly why Fst does not apply to humans.

    HA. Your RaceRealist88 is showing. Might want to tuck that in.

    On the Thompson thread you started out asserting that humans couldn’t be divided into subspecies because their fst distances didn’t exceed the spurious threshold of .25. I guess fst applied to humans then.

    Then you decided in response to Cochran (in this thread he is “Whoever wrote that”, but in the Thompson thread, he is “Greg Cochran”: you are well acquainted with him there but not here for some reason) that Fst values were not accurate indications of gene flow. I guess fst applied to humans then too.

    Now that it has turned out that fst values are not inaccurate enough for your purposes, and that even according to your own reference they are good for ballpark estimates within a few orders of magnitude, you have decided to dump them altogether.

    Old Anon: FST values prove races don’t exist!
    New Anon: FST does not real for humans because it proves races exist!

    What has emerged from your honestly very entertaining behavior across these threads is that you are not defending any honest beliefs. You have no genuine opinions about anything relating to human populations, their history and genetic diversity. Everything you are doing is a bad-faith and remarkably low-effort attempt to kick up sand in service of a preferred conclusion.

    So here is a homework assignment for you, to help you understand Long and his finding of an fst distance of .18 between chimpanzees and humans:

    Investigate how the markers Long is talking about have been handpicked for his purposes.

    Just by way of example, you could start by considering how it is that heterozygosity depresses FST values.

    What you could also do is investigate what the highest possible fst distance between humans and chimpanzees was, given these deceptively chosen markers, and report back about that.

    This will help you see in what context the fst of .18 is to be understood and why you are a fool to be citing this nonsense like it proves anything.

    Finally, because you have cited the Mexican tribes and their fst values again: What does genetic homogeneity within a population do to its fst values with respect to other populations? Does it increase or decrease them? And by extension, why is it appropriate to compare fst distances obtained between small Native Mexican tribes to fst distances between global populations?

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  271. eugyppius says:
    @Anti-HBD

    It is unlikely there was such low gene flow between them given the geographic distance so we see how bad Fst estimates are for gene flow.

    More homework for you:

    How large is Mexico? Is it a very small country or a very large one with diverse climates and geographical features?

    How far away do the Seri and Lacandon tribes live from one another? Is maybe one in the extreme north of Mexico and one in the extreme south, or what?

    Are the Seri and Lacandon in fact the most distantly located tribes in this study and do they have the greatest fst distance?

    If that is the case, do other more proximately located tribes have lower fst values? Do neighboring tribes have the lowest fst values?

    What do the answers to these questions teach us?

    And finally, why is it unconvincing to discredit fst by comparing fst distances between Mexican tribes to fst distances of global populations?

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  272. Anti-HBD says:
    @eugyppius

    Why not?

    And I did not say Fst are not valid for humans, just that they are problematic and that is proven.

    As for Greg Cochran, he has no idea what he is talking about. He is using alleles under selection and local adaptation when the question about gene flow is in relation to overall genome-wide differentiation. Wonder if he will reply here

    (most likely not)

    And no matter what else, gene flow as inferred by NCPA (Templeton,2013) as by the studies I posted earlier (Petr et al, 2019; Fu et al, 2016; Kelleher et al, 2019) is high enough that race is a meaningless concept.

    As for the Fst values between Native Americans sure, they are from opposing sides of the country so what? Of course it is valid to compare them with global populations why not? The authors themselves do so.

    People might have raised interesting points here but the reality is no lineage splits have occured, gene flow was been too high between Africa and Europe as well as Europe and Asia etc, (again nobody here seems to understand ML-NCPA) so there is no way that a genetic component exists on such a weakly polygenic trait as intelligence (and it could not be hard selection because we would have noticed that. Gene flow Africa-Europe is not negligible more than 10% replacement if not more so if you want to call Aboriginal Australians a race whatever, but none of the other HBD claims are true)

    And btw, https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(19)30356-8

    • Replies: @eugyppius
    , @eugyppius
  273. Anti-HBD says:
    @eugyppius

    Look, here are the arguments. Either you can answer them or not.

    None of what we know from population genetics research or systematics supports racial categories in humans.

    Templeton’s article is one example, but several other studies exist.

    • LOL: eugyppius
    • Replies: @eugyppius
  274. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    gene flow was qui[t]e high, thus invalidating the genetic reality of races as continental populations.

    This silly claim made by this guy has been debunked multiple times in this comment thread:
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/explaining-race-and-genetics-no-need-to-despair/

    Gene flow does not invalidate the genetic reality of human races / subspecies. Gene flow between different subspecies and even species is quite common in the animal world. “Intergradation” is the concept where two subspecies are connected with areas of hybridization with intermediate populations.

    This simply is not unique to humans at all. I gave over a dozen examples in that comment thread. Branches splitting off and then genes introgressing back in happens all the time, but no doubt we know much more about this with humans because we study ourselves the most and use DNA from ancient remains to support this. We don’t do the same for other species, so this may give a false impression that the gene flow between human races/subspecies is so absolutely unprecedented in the history of evolution.

    We can’t even determine whether there are races/subspecies by measuring (or making models to calculate) gene flow. We determine if gene flow was “Too high” by measuring differences in the populations, and only then the argument is made against them polytypic because of the lack of differences, not because of the gene flow specifically (even though it may be the underlying cause).

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  275. eugyppius says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Alas Anon you have done none of your homework.

    You, naught but a few hours ago:

    It is only 3 pages and shows exactly why Fst does not apply to humans.

    You now:

    And I did not say Fst are not valid for humans, just that they are problematic and that is proven.

    Also it’s great that you’re following Weissman’s twitter account and know how to rationalize Edar370a:

    He is using alleles under selection and local adaptation when the question about gene flow is in relation to overall genome-wide differentiation.

    I have not said a word about edar370a but by all means keep throwing everything but the kitchen sink at this. You are not making a fool out of yourself at all.

    And are you copying and pasting from the comment thread on Cochran’s blog? Your favorite Petr and Fu papers are there too! Interestingly enough, also exactly the same quotation from the paper on Native Mexican genetics that you have not understood. I mean it is precisely the same quotation! This is an amazing coincidence really and truly. Think Fst Malkovich indeed.

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2019/10/26/gene-flow-iii/

    More homework for you. How much gene flow does Petr establish from his Eurasian populations to Africa? What is the relationship of gene flow between these ancient populations to modern sub-Saharan Africans and modern Europeans, the two groups whose 100k year history we are discussing here?

    And how much gene flow does Fu and friends establish between sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans? Here I will spare you much head scratching: None. It is about populations in West Eurasia and East Asia.

    Alas Templeton 2013! Nobody cares about ML NCPA because whether or not you elect to draw a tree and which toys you use to draw one or avoid drawing one or deny that one can be drawn is wholly irrelevant to the only question you are pretending to discuss: Are modern human populations different? Alas for your position, they are.

    And now before I leave you to your continued adventures in gish galloping (uniparental disomy!), an anecdote:

    Eons ago, an ancient Greek philosopher named Zeno held that motion was impossible. He proposed a variety of paradoxes to prove that this was so. He won renown and traveled all around informing everyone of his proof, moving as it were even though his own arguments ought to have rooted him in place. Like the fools from whom you paste and copy, Zeno skipped the only step that mattered: Showing that motion does not in fact occur. He had no other choice, confronted with the clear reality of motion. You are just a foolish internet person with a total inability to argue anything. But some of the people that you have been silly enough to cite, the ones you cling most firmly to, like the Templetons, are just neo-Zenos. They argue that population-level differences in humans are impossible, and they think that this saves them having to address the differences that we observe every day.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  276. eugyppius says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I am laughing my ass off right now. Kevin Bird assisted with this video! He has forgotten more than the last narrator even knows! How can this be real? With the Kraut cameo?

    Please do the race realist psyops somewhere else: everyone here already agrees with you.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  277. Anti-HBD says:
    @eugyppius

    Why are you misrepresenting the sources people cite you?

    More homework for you. How much gene flow does Petr establish from his Eurasian populations to Africa? What is the relationship of gene flow between these ancient populations to modern sub-Saharan Africans and modern Europeans, the two groups whose 100k year history we are discussing here?

    Enough to create the illusion of negative selection against Neanderthal introgression in Europeans. And we know from the 929 genomes HGDP paper that Yoruba for example are about 11% West Eurasian. What is your point about how much of these population contribute to Europeans and Africans. Of course they do in both cases, Petr et al, 2019 mention Western Europe.

    And how much gene flow does Fu and friends establish between sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans? Here I will spare you much head scratching: None. It is about populations in West Eurasia and East Asia.

    Gene flow between East Asia and Europe specifically yes. It is expected to trickle down to all populations via intermediate ones. But on the same time-period as Petr et al, 2019 thus further validating Templeton;’s analysis.

    Alas Templeton 2013! Nobody cares about ML NCPA because whether or not you elect to draw a tree and which toys you use to draw one or avoid drawing one or deny that one can be drawn is wholly irrelevant to the only question you are pretending to discuss: Are modern human populations different? Alas for your position, they are.

    Nice, we agree that races do not exist then! And Templeton’s analysis is particularly relevant in issues of group differences, indicating that gene flow was high enough to prevent significant differentiation. No one here has challenged that argument.

    Are modern human populations different?

    Literally in skin color traits. Do you have any evidence to the contrary. And please do not cite me papers by Kirkegaard and Fuerst, they are not scientists and know nothing about genetics.

    Do you guys ever wonder why actual geneticists do not take you seriously?

    • Replies: @eugyppius
  278. Anti-HBD says:
    @eugyppius

    You mean the person that has debunked every HBD argument on twitter.

    That is interesting, do you have any criticisms of that video?

    Most people who believe in HBD have no knowledge of genetics or biology, hence I understand why it is hard for you to understand the arguments in that video.

    • LOL: eugyppius
  279. Anti-HBD says:
    @Theodore

    If it is too high, it inhibits genome-wide differentiation and local adaptation. This is evident with only a basic knowledge of population genetics.

    Templeton’s analysis shows it has been too high (more than 1% Nm per generation)
    thus we should not expect genome-wide differentiation in human populations for weakly polygenic traits like intelligence.

    Furthermore, the argument here is that it inhibited the divergence in the other subspecies you cited. 10% replacement is enough to do so, and it has been the case throughout human history.

    Do you know any systematics? Genetic data are needed, not only phenotypes. Would you like me to go into detail on how gene flow between the subspecies you mention has been much lower than humans (less than 1% a generation)?

    What is so hard about this?

    Gene flow does not invalidate the genetic reality of human races / subspecies. Gene flow between different subspecies and even species is quite common in the animal world. “Intergradation” is the concept where two subspecies are connected with areas of hybridization with intermediate populations.

    What are the subspecies then? And while intergradation is indeed what you are referring to, gene flow in humans has exceeded the boundaries of intergradation and has been pervasive across all individuals and their genomes.

    You seem unable to understand that in the case of humans. the divergence observed in other subspecies simply has not occured. The argument again is not that gene flow occured after divergence but it inhibited divergence in the first place.

    No paper find Homo Sapiens polytypic, Woodley compared different Fst values for humans and different for his examples (mtdna)

    The issue is that due to gene flow, the only variation that really exists is the individual one, not group variation. (Templeton, 2013)

    We are not talking about speciation with gene flow in Humans, but rather NO speciation due to gene flow. Other point an error with Templeton’s analysis or exit the conversation please.

    • Replies: @Theodore
    , @Theodore
  280. eugyppius says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Your last paragraph of pseudointellectual verbiage glazed my eyes but then this jumped out at me:

    there is no way that a genetic component exists on such a weakly polygenic trait as intelligence

    You mean that intelligence is a highly polygenic trait and the gene flow has just been too high for a genetic component to lurk behind the variation here.

    This is truly checkmate level stuff. For example it is like how human height, another highly polygenic trait, doesn’t vary across global populations because also the gene flow has been too high.

    If you access lists of height by country it turns out that every male everywhere is 175cm tall on average except for some malnourished people in Africa. Thanks for explaining this strange anomaly I have always wondered about it.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  281. eugyppius says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Enough to create the illusion of negative selection against Neanderthal introgression in Europeans

    What this means is you do not know if it is enough to wash out local adaptions, or even when it occurred, and so it is unclear why you are citing this paper. You just like papers that mention gene flow.

    Nice, we agree that races do not exist then!

    From this it appears that you have gotten a little too high on your own supply, namely by supposing that what Templeton says about “race” has anything to do with what anybody has ever meant by the term.

    And Templeton’s analysis is particularly relevant in issues of group differences, indicating that gene flow was high enough to prevent significant differentiation.

    Are you serious with this? Read your own paper. Templeton is positing “gene flow” so he can knock down his taxanomical races strawman. He just doesn’t want to have a tree because he has decided that races=tree and instead he has a trellis which is not a tree so no races. If there is “gene flow” there are in his words no “isolated lineages”.

    He doesn’t do anything to prove that there is enough gene flow to inhibit adaptations. He goes on to talk about “genetic differentiation” in a totally different section where he uses the completely spurious .25 fst threshold to checkmate the racists. Please continue to cite the Templeton paper because it is doing so much for you.

    Literally in skin color traits.

    Absolutely the human races differ only in skin color traits not even in height or anything. Look: You might believe this, but not even the authors of the explainer in the OP believe this. You are a liar, or their useful fool, or a little from both columns.

  282. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    the skulls you show have not relationship to intelligence

    So a tripling in brain size (from 400 to 1350 cc) has no relationship to intelligence?! I just hurt myself from laughing so hard. Do you want to back off from that statement? Because if not you have completely lost credibility in my eyes.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  283. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Just how many times do you plan to post the same tweet? If you are not Daniel Weissman you sure are proud of his tweet.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  284. Anti-HBD says:
    @eugyppius

    Take a look at comment 288 first.
    And height differences are only due to environment, nothing genetic as you claim.
    You only have the pygmies perhaps that have a genetic component.
    Can you provide some papers in support of race or these adaptations that you claim to see having a genetic basis?

    • Replies: @eugyppius
    , @eugyppius
    , @res
  285. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    I might have been wrong there, but it reality it further validates Templeton’s claim.

    Isolation in early Pleistocene but too much gene flow in the late Pleistocene and Holocene for brain size to change the way it did back then. And please just watch the video posted, completely deals with all your silly claims.

    FWI: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/389556 and https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bies.20678 both prove these traits differ clinally, and thus more evidence of gene flow. But that is provided you know what a cline is. Given what we know about intelligence there is no reason to suspect that these variants have not spread across all populations and no reason to claim they have been under differential selective pressures.

    • Replies: @res
    , @res
  286. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    Got any argument against it or not?

    Greg Cochran can only give examples of alleles under selection or mtdna because he knows that when you look at the overall genome or phylogenetic markers gene flow is evident as shown by Templeton.

    • Replies: @eugyppius
  287. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    The same nonsense over and over. You’re like a broken record. also wrong about Woodley’s alleged mistake (he in fact criticized someone else for doing that). Your entire argument is an appeal to authority that deceptively appears not to be at first glance. It’s just not a relevant measure for this topic.
    Gene flow was not “Too high” as we see genetically different populations who can easily be separated with >99% accuracy using genes or physical features. And the genetic distance between major races is comparable to that between other species that are considered polytypic. I gave many examples as did Woodley.

    Your argument is just plain silly and you have been slapped around continuously over it.
    And I told you I would answer the “How many subspecies/races” question when you answered my other one, yet you dodged it.

    You continually gish gallop & spam irrelevant points. and after your points get addressed you just repeat them and say nobody ever discussed them.

    The existence of gene flow, which is absolutely undeniable, does not disprove the existence of separate subspecies/races/breeds of human. It actually supports the concept, as explained in that thread, but it isn’t the salient point you make it seem like.

    And as pointed out, there HAS BEEN speciation with gene flow. Multiple examples were provided in that thread plus a paper specifically on the topic. And humans arent even separate species, I am arguing for subspecies. Gene flow can exist between separate species and subspecies, it’s actually quite common in the latter.

    I don’t have to go through every paye and refute every point of every link you post. Especially since you continually ignore the points I post. Your entire argument is that gene flow was “Too high” and your supposed proof is an appeal to authority. It’s absurd, but predictably so.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  288. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I might have been wrong there, but it reality it further validates Templeton’s claim.

    So Anti-HBD and Anon[164] are the same person. Good to know. That is within Ron’s rules for sockpuppetry, but don’t try to use multiple handles.
    https://www.unz.com/announcement/record-traffic-but-too-much-sockpuppetry/

    • Replies: @eugyppius
  289. eugyppius says:
    @Anti-HBD

    And height differences are only due to environment, nothing genetic as you claim.

    Read literally anything.

  290. eugyppius says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Anti-HBD (who is also Anon):

    Most people who believe in HBD have no knowledge of genetics or biology […]

    Anon (who is also Anti-HBD):

    And height differences are only due to environment, nothing genetic as you claim.
    You only have the pygmies perhaps that have a genetic component.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  291. eugyppius says:
    @res

    It seems that multiple people are lurking behind the Anon and Anti-HBD handles on this and the Thompson thread. Varying tendencies and competence (for example, the varieties who cling to Templeton,2013 like a life-raft and those who can sail a stretch) coupled with hesitation/confusion about what has been said.

    • Replies: @lavoisier
    , @res
  292. lavoisier says: • Website
    @eugyppius

    It seems that multiple people are lurking behind the Anon and Anti-HBD handles on this and the Thompson thread. Varying tendencies and competence (for example, the varieties who cling to Templeton,2013 like a life-raft and those who can sail a stretch) coupled with hesitation/confusion about what has been said.

    But all adrift on the Sea of Ignorance.

    • Agree: eugyppius
  293. eugyppius says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Got any argument against it or not?

    An argument against what? You or your organization in the Thompson thread:

    Haplotypes can be different in Gambia and Nigeria but that does not mean gene flow did not exist between them. Same with Europe and Africa.

    So two neighboring West African populations have different betas sub-haplotypes and that means Europe and Africa had gene flow?

    Or do you just keep reposting this because nobody has bothered to “refute” it and so you think it is “winning” for you?

    Greg Cochran can only give examples of alleles under selection or mtdna because he knows that when you look at the overall genome or phylogenetic markers gene flow is evident as shown by Templeton.

    This is like machine-generated garbage text. But I am glad that you have learned the phrase “under selection” from Weissman. It is like a wind-up toy for you. Keep using it. You have typed this out under a tweet by somebody who is literally talking about a case in which “gene flow” is not “evident”. And as a cherry on top Templeton returns, as in a parody of The Man of One Study.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  294. Anti-HBD says:
    @Theodore

    Tell me then in your opinion how much gene flow has occured between a British person and one in Gambia, Africa?
    How about an Englishman and an Australian?

    Cochran says low in the first case and none in the second. How about you?

    As for Woodley, he appears not to recognize the distinction between population and pairwise Fst estimates. He compares SNPs only in humans. mtDNA for hominids, gorillas and chimps, some random loci for gorillas & then an unspecified autosome sequencing for chimps.
    Which is really funny you did not understand.

    @res
    I was unaware of the rule for multiple accounts, just wanted to respond to multiple people btw. I do not have all day to wait. Still I will only use this one from now on.

    • Replies: @res
  295. Anti-HBD says:
    @eugyppius

    So two neighboring West African populations have different betas sub-haplotypes and that means Europe and Africa had gene flow?

    Then Cochran’s articles do not support the existence of low gene flow either.

    But I am glad that you have learned the phrase “under selection” from Weissman

    .
    Was he wrong?

    And you know you could have just pointed an error in Templeton’s analysis to show he is wrong but you have not done that. (Nor can you because he is correct and NCPA is an extremely validated method)

    See also Hunley et al, 2009
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.20932

    The other regional strata are shown in Figure 3E–H.
    At the between-region level, with one important exception, gene identity is uniform across geographic distance on each stratum. The identities are particularly uniform
    cross thousands of kilometers of geographic distance for the Western Eurasia versus Native American (Fig. 3E), Oceanic versus Native American (Fig. 3F) and East Asian versus Native American (Fig. 3G) strata. In contrast to the African pattern, the individual populations in the different regions do not form their own individual gene identity strata, but are more evenly mixed (results not shown). These results are highly consistent with the nested regions model.The exception to the trend of uniform gene identity occurs for the Western Eurasia-East Asian comparisons shown in Figure 3E. Here, though it is difficult to make out in the figure (red circles), there is a slight but statistically significant decay in gene identity with increasing geographic distance. The trend suggests that genetic exchange has been occurring between the populations of
    Western Eurasia and East Asia long enough to have affected the geographic pattern of gene identity variation (see also Li et al., 2008). There is also a slight but statistically significant decay in gene identity between populations within each of the regions

    • Replies: @eugyppius
    , @eugyppius
  296. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Woodley compared different Fst values for humans and different for his examples (mtdna)

    Just to double down on this point that we are the same species. Woodley certainly did list these in his study, in table 4. But that was not to argue his position humans are polytypic with regards to subspecies, but to argue against someone who said Blacks and Eurasians are separate species! He used someone else’s table, but added a different column to show how his argument was fraudulent (for the very reason you explained)! He did exactly the opposite of what you said.

    Under “Criticisms of Fuerle’s arguments” Woodley says:
    “FST reflects the relative amount of total genetic differentiation between populations, however different measures of genetic distance involving mtDNA and autosomal loci are simply inappropriate for the purposes of interspecific comparison as the different genes involved will have been subject to markedly different selection pressures and are therefore not likely to have diverged at the same time”

    So you’re just being dishonest here. I wonder if you will correct yourself?

    The issue is that due to gene flow, the only variation that really exists is the individual one, not group variation. (Templeton, 2013)

    Same debunked Templeton paper you keep shilling. Gene flow is irrelevant, the issue is whether humans are genetically different enough to have multiple races/subspcies. And they are.

    – Genetic variation between suspecies/races/populations/breeds of humans is 12% (usually 10-15% is the range) measured by FST: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049837

    – After finding 12% genetic variation between 3 populations of humpback whales, it was considered sufficient to classify them as separate subspecies despite “evidence of long-term gene flow between oceans” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4046397/

    – The African buffalo is separated into 5 subspecies, but the genetic variation between them is at 5.9%. The authors claim this is “relatively large, supporting their status as distinct subspecies” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11123614
    It is also known in that there are “high levels of female gene flow” between subspecies: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1024719231545
    Another study found that between two of the subspecies, “gene flow was estimated at around five female migrants per generation” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3578844/

    – There are 18 breeds of SW European cow, but the genetic variation between them is 6.8%, with “an average gene flow of 4.38 effective migrants per generation” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227679400_Genetic_structure_of_eighteen_local_South_European_beef_cattle_breeds_by_comparative_F-statistics_analysis

    – The Canadian Lynx is separated into 3 subspecies, with the genetic variation between them found to be only 3%. There is evidence of hybridization (gene flow, admixture) found not only between these subspecies, but another species (the bobcat): https://archive.is/7MBgM

    Many other examples have been given in the comments here: https://www.unz.com/jthompson/explaining-race-and-genetics-no-need-to-despair/

    We are not talking about speciation with gene flow in Humans, but rather NO speciation due to gene flow.

    I did not claim there was speciation with humans, and Woodley specifically argued against someone that did. I am simply pointing out the fact that speciation has occurred in other animals despite gene flow. I gave multiple examples in the other thread I have linked to above.

    And the lack of speciation is not “due to gene flow” necessarily. It may be that humans still would be the same species even if there was absolutely 0 gene flow. The point of gene flow is irrelevant, and can only be used as an argument AFTER we determine whether populations diverge enough to warrant classification into separate races/subspecies. And that is quite obviously the case if we use the same standards applied to other animals.

    You’re just trying to invent new standards for humans. Which is perfectly fine, but you should at least be honest about it.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  297. Anti-HBD says:
    @eugyppius

    Again not a sockpuppet I just can not use Anti-HBD anymore (which I preferred to Anon)

    And height differences are only due to environment, nothing genetic as you claim.
    You only have the pygmies perhaps that have a genetic component.

    Either provide evidence I am wrong or do not comment on the thread.’

    Let’s debunk all the stuff you people believe about PGS even though most likely nobody will notice

    The selection for height was actually a false positive due to uncorrected population stratification.
    See https://elifesciences.org/articles/39725 and https://elifesciences.org/articles/39702

    Furthermore, current PGS are unlikely to be of use in issues of group differences. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.00892.pdf

    See also https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0732118X1830196X

    Much time and effort, as well as funding, is being devoted to Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) for identifying genetic causes of variation (single nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs) in human cognitive abilities and educational attainments (CA and EA). After years of finding only very weak associations, usually failing to replicate, attention has turned to aggregates of otherwise non-significant SNPs (called polygenic scores, or PGS) and some associations with traits are now being reported. Here we show how, in the context of CA and EA as approximation measures, spurious correlations in GWAS/PGS can arise in a number of ways, particularly from genetic population structure. We review recent studies suggesting that attempts to control for such confounds have been quite inadequate, and also criticize the underlying statistical assumptions and genetic model.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @eugyppius
  298. mikemikev says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Let’s debunk all the stuff you people believe about PGS even though most likely nobody will notice

    By “debunk” you mean copy pasting URLs to critical papers which you demonstrate zero understanding of.

    • Replies: @eugyppius
  299. res says:
    @eugyppius

    So far Anon[164] and Anon[977] are definitively Anti-HBD. He has responded to me using different handles in a 3 comment string (him-me-alternate him) in two different places. Could you post any others you think with high confidence are him?

    Or Anti-HBD could just own up to all the Anons he is using. Which would make them a bit less sock puppet like.

    • Replies: @eugyppius
  300. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    @res
    I was unaware of the rule for multiple accounts, just wanted to respond to multiple people btw. I do not have all day to wait. Still I will only use this one from now on.

    Now you know. So ignorance is no longer an excuse. And I notice you went back to using the Anons again as soon as Anti-HBD stopped working.

    Do you think all of us have all day to wait? The reason Ron implemented the commenting limit was to prevent precisely the kind of thread spamming you are doing.

    And sockpuppetry is a longtime concern of Ron’s. In past comments it has sounded like one of his primary issues. At one point he outed the sock puppets (putting aka primary name after the puppets)–which was entertaining.

  301. eugyppius says:
    @Anti-HBD

    You’ve said an amazing thing, that height is environmental except maybe in pygmies, and then to compound this embarrassing error you have spammed links that do nothing to prove your point and only illustrate the depth of your failure to understand what you are pretending to talk about.

    Either provide evidence I am wrong or do not comment on the thread.

    Google is available to you as well as to everyone else. If you want to understand the genetics of height, read anything. You don’t even understand the studies you post, so how any evidence I can provide can convince you otherwise is baffling.

    Evidence of polygenic selection for height (e.g. increasing alleles for tall or short correlated across European populations: if height were not selected for you would not expect the many tall alleles to align with each other) is not the same as evidence that height is genetic.

    The two studies you have posted are only about European height scores from GIANT as they even say in the abstracts. You have not even understood the abstracts of your own papers. They address only the very recent arguments that height has been selected for as you move north in Europe.

    You then tilt at the whole windmill of PGS as without GWAS we have no understanding of the genetic basis of height.

    Imagine thinking that any of the links you just spammed shows that height except in pygmies has no genetic component and is totally environmental. Imagine thinking that height is not highly heritable based on untold numbers of studies and empirical observations going back to the nineteenth century. Imagine thinking that nothing was known about height and genetics until GWAS or thinking that recent GWAS since 2010 at issue here, about European height, are the only proof that height has a genetic basis.

    Imagine thinking that the male children of Chinese immigrants to Sweden average 180cm tall as adults.

  302. eugyppius says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Then Cochran’s articles do not support the existence of low gene flow either.

    “Articles”? You are caught in a totally backwards argument . Your twitter character complains to Cochran that most alleles are regionally confined and he gives betas sub haplotypes as an example. You are saying that gene flow must have occurred anyway so the lack of wide dispersion of alleles is evidence that…what exactly? If the alleles are not dispersed there is no “gene flow” whatever you think should have happened. I can’t even imagine what point you think you’re making here.

    Templeton 2013! has been explained to you multiple times. Again: He doesn’t establish that gene flow inhibits adaptation. He just establishes gene flow so he can destroy his strawman of taxanomic races. (“isolated lineages” as I tried to explain to you but as you have no understanding of your own papers as usual you don’t know what is going on here). His MLNCPA is a totally meaningless red-herring to everything that is being discussed here. It is just how he builds his trellis. Because nobody but Templeton thinks you need “isolated lineages” for races and this is not even a category that exists outside of Templeton’s head the fact that he sketches a trellis and which methods he uses to sketch it does not matter. Templeton 2013! When he talks about what really matters, genetic differentiation, he says that humans fall below the .25 fst threshold necessary for speciation: a threshold that is totally spurious. Other than that Templeton has nothing and yet you keep citing him. Why? Because you have no idea what is going on.

  303. eugyppius says:
    @res

    In this thread, these are him/them:

    Anon[148]
    Anon[249]
    Anon[325]
    Anon[824]
    Anon[353]
    Anon[167]

    • Replies: @res
  304. eugyppius says:
    @mikemikev

    “Please let‘s talk about something other than the genetic component to differences in height as I have made a grave and an absurd error here.”

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  305. eugyppius says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I said that I was glad you had learned the phrase “under selection” from Weissman.

    You said:

    Was he wrong?

    What you don’t seem to understand is that I am making fun of you because nobody has made a single argument about Edar370a in this thread, and yet you keep repeating Weissman’s argument that Edar370a is “under selection”, in precisely those words because they sound intellectual to you. You’re just hoovering up reactions to Cochran from around the internet and then dumping them out here irrespective of what anybody has said.

    I keep finding new instances of this behavior. Like above, when you said this:

    And we know from the 929 genomes HGDP paper that Yoruba for example are about 11% West Eurasian.

    And a few days ago the commenter JamesH at West Hunter said this:

    Well, was there not some into the Yoruba too, per the most recent HGDP 929 genomes paper? . I think it showed them as 5% West Eurasian or something. But I am not sure if it has any impact on heredity issues.

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2019/10/26/gene-flow-iii/#comment-139487

    What is interesting about this particular instance is not only your use of the exact same phraseology (“the 9292 genomes HGDP paper”) but the divergence in Eurasian ancestry figures given. JamesH (what is his relation to you? or do you just plagiarize his comments?) says 5%, you say 11%, but the paper puts it at 8.6% + or – 3%. So you or your source are adding (11%) and JamesH is subtracting (5%).

    And now an aside: In fact the paper that you have copied and pasted references to finds distinct Neanderthal admixture in the Yoruba and then it says the most likely source is West Eurasians, which must of course be the case. But they cite another study, Pickrell Patterson and many other people, Ancient west Eurasian Ancestry (bioRxiv423079, 2018). Here we read: “…our model predicts that West Africans (represented by Yoruba) had 12.5 +/- 1% ancestry from a Taforalt-related group … this may have mediated the limited Neanderthal admixture present in West Africans.” The Taforalt (a population known from human remains in Morocco) genome has various components, including a west African one; and also limited Neanderthal ancestry.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  306. mikemikev says:
    @eugyppius

    “So I’m totally wrong about A but what about B…”

    A few days later.

    “So I’m totally wrong about Z but what about A…”

  307. Anti-HBD says:
    @eugyppius

    JamesH (what is his relation to you? or do you just plagiarize his comments?) says 5%, you say 11%, but the paper puts it at 8.6% + or – 3%. So you or your source are adding (11%) and JamesH is subtracting (5%).

    He does not know what he is talking about along with the rest of the Cochran fanboys. He could not even answer the Fst comments about Native Americans but merely questioned the group size.

    I read the Pickrell paper that is why I said 11% since it agreed with the HGDP one. The JamesH guy subtracted because he, like most of the commenters on the blog and Greg himself do not like the fact that gene flow was high even though these papers establish such and have been pointed out to them on twitter and elsewhere many times.

    And Cochran has not answered why when in Africa, you have different quite haplotypes for hbb locus between Yorubas in Nigeria and Gambian populations, which most likely had a lot of gene flow between them, we should take his comments on “sensitive detection of gene flow” seriously.

    And no not all these accounts are me. Anon 164, Anon 900something and Anti-HBD yes unless different ones come up when I use a tablet or phone.

    • Replies: @eugyppius
  308. res says:
    @eugyppius

    That’s crazy if true. I took a look and here are my thoughts:

    Anon[148] – confirmed, see the the three comment thread 188/209/213
    Anon[249] – probable, see the three comment thread 187/215/216 (I say probable rather than confirmed because he does not imply he was the precious commenter, though it seems obvious by context)
    Anon[325] – probable, see the three comment thread 212/230/240
    Anon[824] – probable, see the three comment thread 238/244/256
    Anon[353] – probable, see the three comment thread 248/267/268
    Anon[167] – probable, see the three comment thread 248/267/272

    Nice work! I wonder if Anon[164]/Anti-HBD will own up to these Anons (and Anon[977] from the Thompson thread) as well.

    P.S. iSteve, not sure if I lost my auto-moderation privileges because of this controversy (doxxing concerns?). Moderation is obviously your choice, but if that was the reason I would appreciate you taking a closer look to see who is actually doing wrong here.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  309. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I forgot to reply to this yesterday in the chaos about your multiple identities. eugyppius has done a good job responding to you, but I want to add my two cents since I have talked about height a fair bit both here and in the Thompson thread.

    And height differences are only due to environment, nothing genetic as you claim.

    You. Must. Be. Kidding.

    First, let’s look at the qualifier immediately following.

    You only have the pygmies perhaps that have a genetic component.

    At least it looks like you saw my comment in the Thompson thread presenting the evidence for a genetic contribution in Pygmies. Here it is for anyone else interested: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/explaining-race-and-genetics-no-need-to-despair/#comment-3524634

    Given that you have an exception ,you have already invalidated your initial only/nothing comment. But let’s assume you had been more considered in your language there and respond further.

    I think this paper makes quite clear how substantial the genetic contribution to height is (as if the decades of twin studies establishing a heritability of about 0.80 had failed to do that).
    Accurate Genomic Prediction Of Human Height
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/190124v1

    Abstract
    We construct genomic predictors for heritable and extremely complex human quantitative traits (height, heel bone density, and educational attainment) using modern methods in high dimensional statistics (i.e., machine learning). Replication tests show that these predictors capture, respectively, ~40, 20, and 9 percent of total variance for the three traits. For example, predicted heights correlate ~0.65 with actual height; actual heights of most individuals in validation samples are within a few cm of the prediction. The variance captured for height is comparable to the estimated SNP heritability from GCTA (GREML) analysis, and seems to be close to its asymptotic value (i.e., as sample size goes to infinity), suggesting that we have captured most of the heritability for the SNPs used. Thus, our results resolve the common SNP portion of the “missing heritability” problem – i.e., the gap between prediction R-squared and SNP heritability. The ~20k activated SNPs in our height predictor reveal the genetic architecture of human height, at least for common SNPs. Our primary dataset is the UK Biobank cohort, comprised of almost 500k individual genotypes with multiple phenotypes. We also use other datasets and SNPs found in earlier GWAS for out-of-sample validation of our results.

    How can we take you seriously when you say such stupid things?

  310. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I might have been wrong there

    Thanks for admitting that. Now, remember your claim that HBDers never refute your arguments? You never get to say that again. Especially after your idiocy in saying that genetics don’t contribute to height.

  311. Anti-HBD says:
    @Theodore

    You’re just trying to invent new standards for humans. Which is perfectly fine, but you should at least be honest about it.

    Not really, independent evolutionary lineages and subspecies delimitation based on genetic rather than phenotypic data is becoming the norm in non-human literature.

    It may be that humans still would be the same species even if there was absolutely 0 gene flow. The point of gene flow is irrelevant, and can only be used as an argument AFTER we determine whether populations diverge enough to warrant classification into separate races/subspecies

    That is true, due to OoA gene flow or not we would be the same species due to recent divergence. Gene flow is relevant in questions of genetic group differences, and my argument is that it has been to high for these to happen, taxonomy aside.

  312. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    What wrong did I do? I was just answering to multiple arguments, I never claimed to be a different person, or denied that I used multiple accounts (in this case more like multiple devices)

    When people pointed it out I immediately admitted to using them.

    The only time that I reverted back to Anon after Anti-HBD is because I was told it was not my usual commentors name even though I had not exceeded the post limit and even mentioned I am the same person on the posts.

    I am here to talk and debate, I never attacked anyone or bothered with who is replying what. It is possible these accounts are me but also might not be, I would have to check individually. Some anons I am pretty sure are not me, because they showed up while I was typing responces and replying.

    Why do HBD people bother with identities and not with the comments? Some of you even suggested I was a random weird dude for some reason. Of course isteve would be fearful of doxxing, you seem capable of doing so judging by your tone.

    Its an argument in a comment thread, relax. If you think you are winning no need to complain about the rest, when the owner of the website himself is aware of them.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Eduardo C.
  313. @Dieter Kief

    Yes. There is a well-known photo of him and one or two others of that wretched sect – and they all look like Tory local councillors circa 1950.

  314. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    When people pointed it out I immediately admitted to using them.

    You have still not admitted to which specific Anons were yours. So don’t pretend that you are being open about this.

    Why do HBD people bother with identities and not with the comments?

    Why do you put everything on “HBD people.” It is quite natural to want to know to whom one is talking. Especially when engaging in a back and forth conversation.

    And you have admitted to using the Anons because you did not want to wait (comment 303). Which I interpret as meaning to avoid the comments per hour limits.

    Its an argument in a comment thread, relax. If you think you are winning no need to complain about the rest, when the owner of the website himself is aware of them.

    Funny that you say this when the reason the owner of the site became aware of this was us raising the issue. The reason I keep following up is because you STILL won’t admit which Anons were you. You seem to not even know for sure. Which is funny because it makes clear how confusing you doing that was.

    Since you want to get back to the substantive parts of the conversation how about responding to my comment 318 where I critique your assertion:

    And height differences are only due to environment, nothing genetic as you claim.
    You only have the pygmies perhaps that have a genetic component.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  315. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    You have still not admitted to which specific Anons were yours. So don’t pretend that you are being open about this.

    Because I was not paying attention. Regard all of them as me if that somehow makes you feel better, I do not care.

    And you have admitted to using the Anons because you did not want to wait (comment 303). Which I interpret as meaning to avoid the comments per hour limits.

    Not that specific rule, more to reply to all who replied to me. I am one you are many on this thread (as in the only Anti-HBD person)

    Funny that you say this when the reason the owner of the site became aware of this was us raising the issue. The reason I keep following up is because you STILL won’t admit which Anons were you. You seem to not even know for sure. Which is funny because it makes clear how confusing you doing that was.

    I said after the owner noticed. And again why do you care so much. It was the same arguments, it is an exchange on a website, you seem strangely obsessed with this. I highly doubt it was that confusing to you and I do not think I often poster more than 3 comments an hour. And it was 2 comments an hour initially that I could only post so thus why I used another device/account. I did not make it to obfuscate anything, hence why I did not try to hide anything. You are just being weird about it. Some Anons were definately not me because they posted while I was typing and refreshed. Ron Unz integrated them under Anti-HBD and that is fine, just letting you know. And do not ask me to specify which ones since I am too lazy to go through all the comments now, and I do not really care if you believe me or not.

    Since you want to get back to the substantive parts of the conversation how about responding to my comment 318 where I critique your assertion:

    Bad phrasing on my part true, my point was about group differences in height, that the ones observed are most likely due to environment rather than genetics. See for example: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/evo.12803 about claims regarding the Dutch, and https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/167551v4 (the notice in the abstract especially)

    my main argument against group differences is: (race is another topic)

    1. You need drift or selection for group differences. Drift unlikely to be the cause of polygenic traits since selection is more powerful. But drift can also lead to divergence and group differences.

    2. Gene flow prevents both drift and selection if too high but depends on the strength of selection in the second case.

    3. Gene flow has been too high through all populations via intermediate ones and migrations to prevent drift and selection.

    4. On the traits that gene flow did not prevent selection, we have evidence that selection acted on them which does not exist for IQ etc.

    • Replies: @eugyppius
    , @res
  316. eugyppius says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Some clarifications in case anybody bothers to read this thread in the distant future.

    I read the Pickrell paper that is why I said 11% since it agreed with the HGDP one.

    I clipped in the wrong reference. The “Pickrell paper” (Ancient West Eurasian ancestry) uses Yorubans as a reference population but I don’t see that it discusses their ancestry at all. So I don’t know what 11% figure you got from that.

    The reference I meant to provide was to Lazaridis and many others, “Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus” (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/09/20/423079.full.pdf).

    And then I was inexact: Indeed prior work on the Taforalt has posited West African ancestry, but Lazaridis and company want to see it the other way around, that is, that Yorubans at least have some kind of Taforalt-related ancestry to the tune of about 12%.

    So, connecting the dots: The “929 HGDP Genomes Paper” models ca. 8% Eurasian ancestry in Yorubans based on their Neanderthal ancestry. When the Lazaridis paper models ca. 12% Taforalt ancestry in the Yorubans, and speculates that this is the source of their Neanderthal ancestry, it is a separate and basically a prior result. If you want you can put both papers together and say Yorubans get 12% of their ancestry from Taforalt-like populations and through that 12% also the Neanderthal DNA that permits the 8% Eurasian result. But if we are combining results in this way, we don’t want both numbers to “agree” here, do we? We want the Taforalt number to be bigger than the Eurasian number, because the Taforalt have a little bit of Neanderthal DNA but they are not Eurasian.

    I generally try not to make other people’s arguments for them, but I encourage you to read more about the hbb sickle mutation and the five beta-s sub-haplotypes, as it is extremely interesting. The five sub-haplotypes are fairly clearly differentiated and named for what we think of their origins: Arab, Bantu, Benin, Cameroon, Senegal. One of these sub-haplotypes typically does dominate within specific populations. At the same time, the situation is not at all uniform and there are even a few regions where no single sub-haplotype predominates: eyeballing it, maybe especially where malaria is a little less of a threat. The five sub-haplotypes actually appear to descend, alas in a kind of tree-like fashion, from one relatively recent mutation. This was clearly driven by mutation in the malaria parasite that enabled it to jump to humans. New work suggests this happened very, very recently: Maybe only 6000 years ago. The clear distinctions of these beta-s sub-haplotypes are indeed taken as proof that sub-Saharan Africans were quite isolated from each other when the mutation developed. Nevertheless, and despite this isolation that ensured the preservation of all five variants down to the present day (the relatively recent nature of the mutation has also helped here obviously), the mutation spread quickly throughout Africa because of the heterozygote advantage it conferred.

    I am not sure where this leaves the twitter argument, except to say that yes, we think African populations were quite isolated when the mutation emerged. And indeed it seems confused to compare the diffusion of sub-haplotypes within Africa (what advantage does one sub-haplotype have over another?) with the diffusion of the mutation tout court (which undeniably confers an advantage and thus ought to wander far and wide).

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  317. eugyppius says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Bad phrasing on my part true, my point was about group differences in height, that the ones observed are most likely due to environment rather than genetics.

    No. Please read absolutely anything on height and genetics.

    See for example: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/evo.12803 about claims regarding the Dutch,

    Again: Evidence of polygenic selection for height is not the same as evidence that height is genetic. What is more, you cannot accept the findings of these studies arguing that evidence for polygenic selection is confounded, without accepting that height is substantially genetic, and this on the strength of GWAS. The point is not that there are no “tall” alleles–only that the “tall” alleles we have identified do not in fact explain the greater height of northern Europeans equally well across datasets. The paper by Berg and friends even says outright that “all of the datasets [GIANT, UK Biobank and a few others] primarily capture real signals of association with height”. The purported confounding has primarily hurt some of the effect sizes.

    1. You need drift or selection for group differences. Drift unlikely to be the cause of polygenic traits since selection is more powerful. But drift can also lead to divergence and group differences.

    2. Gene flow prevents both drift and selection if too high but depends on the strength of selection in the second case.

    3. Gene flow has been too high through all populations via intermediate ones and migrations to prevent drift and selection.

    4. On the traits that gene flow did not prevent selection, we have evidence that selection acted on them which does not exist for IQ etc.

    Gene flow has not been high enough to prevent substantial variation across human populations in the highly polygenic trait of height. We are talking about differences in the case of Europeans, where there has long been “gene flow”, by as much as 2 SDs.

    This leaves everything you are saying in shambles. All of your gene flow theory predicts that European populations have the same height. Well, we have gone out into the world and tested your theory and it has been falsified: European populations differ substantially in height. Now you are left to play the role of Zeno, who has traveled a great distance, all to tell us that movement is impossible.

  318. Anti-HBD says:
    @eugyppius

    Ok I will be honest here and say that I just accessed the biorxiv citation when they mentioned that on the Cochran blog, after someone posted the gene flow 3 article as a response to my arguments about gene flow, and searched for the section about the Yoruba, I did not pay attention to the name of the authors.

    You said Pickrell and I repeated that but it is the same paper we are talking about.

    As for the haplotypes, are you saying that African populations so close to each other were isolated??

    • Replies: @eugyppius
  319. @Anti-HBD

    Stop being so geek, fucking loser.

  320. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Not that specific rule, more to reply to all who replied to me. I am one you are many on this thread (as in the only Anti-HBD person)

    So if it was not that specific rule then what was the reason you NEEDED to use multiple Anons to reply to everyone?

    And you go on to actually admit exactly what I accused you of!!! LOL!

    And it was 2 comments an hour initially that I could only post so thus why I used another device/account.

    Are you really this dumb?

    And again why do you care so much.

    1. Multiple identities can make conversations hard to follow.
    2. Sock puppetry is not allowed on this site.
    3. Circumvention of comment posting limits. (admitted above)
    4. I don’t like liars. Which the excerpts above clearly indicate is a fair description of how you have handled this episode.

    Is that enough reasons? And BTW, that is what giving a straight answer to a question looks like. You might try it sometime.

    Bad phrasing on my part true, my point was about group differences in height, that the ones observed are most likely due to environment rather than genetics. See for example: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/evo.12803 about claims regarding the Dutch, and https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/167551v4 (the notice in the abstract especially)

    I’m not sure “Bad” is adequate to describe your original phrasing then. In any case, the existence of the pygmy exception invalidates your contention that no group differences in height are due to genetics. Though I see you have backed off to “most likely” now–that was smart at least, if a little late. And by the way, did you notice that my Pygmy reference showed that 73% (! so much for most likely) of height variance in that group was explained by the relative proportion of Pygmy and Bantu ancestry?

    [MORE]

    At this point your gene flow argument is both circular and ridiculous.

    1. Humans don’t have genetic differences in traits.
    2. Therefore gene flow must exist to a sufficient degree to eliminate that variation.
    3. Therefore humans can’t have genetic differences in traits.

    Let’s engage with your references. And BTW, your abstract comment is a nice tell that you aren’t actually reading these papers. You might want to start making more of an effort there, because for papers in research areas where PC is an issue the abstract often oversimplifies the analysis in the paper body.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/evo.12803 about claims regarding the Dutch

    They are only looking at changes over the last 150 years. That is too little time for much evolution to take place. I think there is general agreement (including by me) that environmental effects have dominated over that time frame. Frankly, I am surprised the genetic effect over that time was even measurable. A smarter person than you would find that a persuasive counterargument against your point.

    Unfortunately for you, that analysis says little about the effect of selection on height over the last 100,000 years of human evolution while we divided into the continental races.

    One argument refuted.

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/167551v4 (the notice in the abstract especially)

    This one is at least interesting. I’ll focus on the followup paper mentioned in that abstract excerpt: https://elifesciences.org/articles/39725

    The discussion section beginning on page 13 looks like a good place to focus. It looks like there is some issue with whether the effects they observed are not seen or just attenuated.

    So it looks like the end result of that series of papers is that the evidence they thought they had for height selection within Europeans is weaker than they thought. But notice that within Europeans twin studies make quite clear the importance of the genetic contribution to height. And I don’t see anything in this paper related to group differences in height–which is the point you are defending.

    So this argument shown not to be relevant to your actual point.

    What most interests me about this paper though (and might even make this whole annoying conversation with you worthwhile for me, thanks) is that they engaged with a point I have raised repeatedly in discussions about corrections for population stratification.

    We wondered whether the main reason for the weakened trend in UKB-GB is an overly conservative PC-correction. This could occur if the genetic contribution to height is highly correlated with population structure axes. If this were the case, we would expect the correlation between GWAS p-value and tSDS to still be observed in a UKB GWAS without population structure correction (namely, in UKB-GB-NoPCs). However, we see no evidence for this correlation (block jackknife p = 0.6). Taken together with the UKB-GB-NoPCs polygenic score analysis (Figure 1), the lack of signal in UKB-GB-NoPCs suggests that the main reason that UKB is less confounded by population structure than GIANT is the relatively-homogeneous ancestry of the UKB British sample—rather than differences in GWAS correction procedures.

    I hope doing something like this will become a standard for studies of this sort. In particular, I think studies which report variance explained for a PGS should report that both with and without PC correction. If only to make clear how much variance is explained by the systematic group variation–even if we can’t be certain whether that is an artifact of population stratification or a true signal of a genetic effect.

    So kudos to the researchers for including that analysis. The acid test will be to see if something like that will be done consistently going forward. Particularly if it shows there might be a significant effect from the population PCs.

    P.S. It looks to me like the goodthinkers have finally figured out that the height analogy is dangerous to their cherished (professed?) beliefs about IQ genetics. So I am guessing height genetic research is going to grind to a halt as well. Too bad. But we will always have the Pygmy data I cited above. As well as the Hsu et al. UKBB PGS. And whatever leaks out from people who actually care about the truth enough to let it slip through the disclaimers.

    • Replies: @Theodore
  321. Theodore says:
    @res

    At this point your gene flow argument is both circular and ridiculous.

    It is actually fallacious entirely, the gene flow will always be “too high” by his standards. Additionally, he is putting the cart before the horse. “Differences between human populations can’t exist because gene flow is too high.” But they do exist, so then it wasn’t too high? Oh, but he has “Proof” that it was “too high” so why does he need to prove they are not different?

    Imagine there are two paint buckets (green and purple) and Anti-HBD asks you if they are different colors. You look at them and say yes., they Then he tells you that paint has been scooped from one and put into the other, and vice versa, a large number of times. And then you say, “Well, they are still different colors, I see that is the case.”

    Next, he pulls back a curtain and shows you a blue bucket of paint. He tells you that the two initial buckets had a large amount of this third bucket poured into each. “So, how can you say they are different?” he asks. You insist they are different because they look different.

    He then takes a piece of paper with multiple lines of paint drawn in a sort of gradient, from purple to green. He places this in between the two buckets and says “Well, now they are obviously the same color!” Again, you insist they are not.

    Next, he shows you a bunch of calculations, proving that if you mix paint colors “too much” they will become the same color. He cites many “Experts” who reiterate this, affirming that the paint buckets have been mixed “too much.” For every paper by an “expert” that he shows you, you explain the flaws in it, but then he has 5 more at hand ready to throw at you.

    He asks you, “Well, if they are different colors, tell me exactly how many colors exist?” Finally, he demands you find a peer-reviewed academic article affirming specifically that the paint buckets are different colors.

    • LOL: mikemikev
  322. eugyppius says:
    @Anti-HBD

    You said Pickrell and I repeated that but it is the same paper we are talking about.

    Look this is a minor point, but you’ve been so overwhelmingly ungenerous I’ll make it anyway: What actually happened here is you wanted to poop on JamesH for playing the same game you were playing (adding/subtracting the margin of error), and you thought my numbers gave you a way to do that.

    As for the haplotypes, are you saying that African populations so close to each other were isolated??

    I don’t know about “close to each other.” The geneticists who have studied the matter note distinct sub-haplotypes as evidence for strong population subdivisions in Holocene-era Africa. And I’ll actually point you in the direction of a study for once, because I find the issue extremely interesting and I think you, as a theorist of gene flow, should read more about it:

    https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2156-8-52

  323. @Anonymous

    Hah and thanks! Internet searches are fun not only for discovering unexpected relationships, but also delightfully odd coincidences. I recall not understanding much, if anything, when attempting to read VN’s “Bend Sinister” several decades ago. The name “Brad” seemed unlikely to be in its foreign setting, though there’s a tale of a tutor drowning while trying to rescue a pupil in one of Nabokov’s short stories. Nonetheless, a Google search of “Sinister Ol’ Blue Eye” eventually pointed to Sinatra’s rescue by Brad Dexter.

    Sorry about the arcane and lame Kto Kogo/Who? Whom?/The Who and John Lenin/John Lennon/Valdimr Lenin puns.

Current Commenter
says:

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


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS