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 Is Just a Social Construct: The Comic Book
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Here’s a curious artifact from The Nib:

What is Race?

Just the Facts.
by Whit Taylor
Posted February 24th, 2017

It’s a comic book version of the Conventional Wisdom about race. For example, from its series on Bad Thinkers:

Screenshot 2017-03-01 16.57.08

 
Hide 76 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. So I was wondering about the part about James Watson and Craig Venter testing their DNA against that of a Korean scientist and finding that they were closer to him than each other? I mean, that’s obviously very stupid, but where do they get that from?

    • Replies: @Michael Meo
    It's probably a made-up fact, Jeremy Cooper; James Watson and Craig Venter are world-rank, super-famous scientific figures, but neither one is a "Harvard geneticist". That degree of looseness with the facts suggests that the rest of the anecdote is just as unreliable.
    , @Altai
    Venter and Watson have their genomes screened for risk factors and predispositions before. Maybe that was it? There is at least one paper I remember which had a comparison of Venter, Watson and several North American and East Asian genomes for specific risk factors. I found it funny to see how high Venter was for alcoholism and sure enough his father was kicked out of the Mormon church for being a drunkard. (Though what the standards for being a drunkard in 1950s Mormon eyes might be different to our own.)

    Not to mention the fuss over Watson's ApoE genotype. (He says he redacted a large region of his genome to protect the privacy of his son) An interesting example of the Streisand effect. People were curious about what he was clearly hiding and impressively eventually managed to impute his genotype.

    I can't remember the paper or find it. I have a pdf stored elsewhere, I'll look it up then. It was a paper on First Nationers' and a trait that had a serious selective sweep. I can't remember which one, there have been a few. But at the back was a cool plot of the risk factors for development of different addictions and it had Venter and Watson in with the other genomes.

    Maybe they are referring specific trait comparisons on only a few loci where it is perfectly possible for two individuals from different races to be more similar, very few SNPs have been discovered which are novel to specific populations. Venter and Watson had their genomes sequenced very early (In Venters case, number one) and publicly available so they were used in all sorts of analysis for a while when there wasn't much else to use as comparisons.

    , @Jason Liu
    They get it from Lewontin's bullshit, misleading theory. Having genetic diversity within a group does not preclude overall differences between groups, even if one can find extreme differences within a single group. This one simple fallacy is all the egalitarians have to bank on.

    Lewontin is a self-admitted Marxist and has no business being in academia.
    , @Maz
    It's because Watson's published DNA sequence includes lots of faulty data. It's discussed in this paper:

    Our model also facilitates the assessment of results from analysis of complete genome sequences. The study of Ahn et al. (2009) suggests that the pairwise distances among three individuals, a Korean (“SJK”), Craig Venter and James Watson, measured by multilocus ASD, are roughly similar despite the distinct geographical origin of SJK in relation to Venter and Watson (see also their Fig. 2E). These results are surprising in light of our model for Ψ_n, which predicts that for worldwide distant populations (FST > 0.13) the probability for such an occurrence is virtually zero given as little as 200 independent and informative SNPs (Appendix F, Fig. F.1). In fact, with roughly 3.5 million SNPs sequenced in each individual genome,the pairwise distances Venter–Watson and Venter–SJK (or Watson–SJK) must show substantial discrepancy, since the ratio of average pairwise distances RAD is above 1.3 already at FST = 0.10 (see Fig. 5A). The paradoxical result is most likely an artifact of the high error rate and low coverage in Watson’s SNP calling (Yngvadottir et al., 2009).
     
  2. The Watson / Venter / Kim SNP overlap thing is interesting. Can anyone with a good understanding of genetics explain this?

    • Replies: @res
    Well, the first question is whether or not it's true. Here's a graphic purporting to show a Venn diagram, but it is unreferenced: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Genetic_overlapp_venn_diagram_of_Venter,_Watson_and_Kim.svg
    It does link to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy
    which states:

    The writings of Guido Barbujani (like Edwards, a collaborator with Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza) are quite helpful in summing up what the data actually show, as Barbujani is a biologist. He notes in several of his recent writings that the first few full human genome sequences of individuals included the sequence of Seong-Jin Kim, a Korean scientist, who shares more SNP (single-nucleotide polymorphism commonalities with Craig Venter than James Watson does, and similarly shares more SNP commonalities with Watson than Venter does.
     
    Here is something from Barbujani: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(13)00027-4

    This paper looks like the source of the Kim data and comparisons: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19470904
    Watson/Venter/Kim comparison is figure 2E. It does look like the information is accurate. Does anyone know Watson and Venter's national backgrounds? (this says Venter's ancestry is from England: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/science/04vent.html and this says that Watson is about 1/2 English, 1/4 Scottish, and 1/4 Irish: https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1962/watson-bio.html )
    Worth noting that they also have comparisons with YH (Chinese) and NA18057 (Yoruba). Kim has the greatest overlap of all with YH which is more intuitive. NA18507 had the largest number of distinct SNPS by a large margin (>50%).

    OK, now how could this be? They looked at over 3M genetic locations (these are whole genomes, based on the Kim paper I think the differences quoted are all SNPs). Distinction between races is done by looking at systematic variation in frequency among a subset of SNPs. I don't have a sense of how many SNPs vary systematically in frequency between races (does anyone here have an idea?). Worth noting that not all SNPs are created equal in terms of their impact on phenotype.

    It would be interesting to see more cross-race comparisons like this. My guess is the Venn diagrams would be somewhat random and we are just happening to see publicity being given to one which has a "convenient" result for the Narrative (notice that figure 2 had six comparisons).
    , @gcochran
    It's called a 'lie'.
    , @bobbybobbob
    Genomics is a failed pseudo science that has burned through billions and billions with nothing useful to show for it. Race is real and I wouldn't pay much attention to DNA nerds one way or the other on the matter, even if somebody is lying about Kim's SNPs in this instance.
  3. Leftists love the “race is a social construct” line. And obviously to some extent it’s true. But they’re like three year olds in their thinking. “Since race is obviously a social construct in this example, that must mean it’s a social construct in every way! Lalalalala I cant hear you!”

    I really don’t understand why they deny biology so.

    • Replies: @SMK
    The denial of biology -the dogma that humans are infinitely or essentially malleable; that race "beneath the skin" is an "artificial social construct"; that "gender" (masculine/feminine) as opposed to sex (male/female" is an "artificial social construct," etc. -sustains the hope in and illusion of utopia and egalitarianism, racial and sexual. If the sexes and races are innately different in profound and significant way, undifferentiated equality between the sexes and races can never be realized, much less utopia.

    To understand the actualities of sexual and racial differences, it's imperative to distinguish between groups and individuals. To given but one example. Individual "Asian" females commit violent crimes, however rarely. But negro males as a group are hundreds of times more likely than "Asian" females to commit nonsexual violent crimes, and thousands of times more likely to commit violent sexual assaults. For obvious anatomical reasons, females can't commit rape in the pure and literal sense of the word.
    , @Dieter Kief
    @ smk, too

    I really don’t understand why they deny biology so.
     
    Reduction of complexity. Very useful tool, but like all such things - you can make good and bad use of it.

    Plus - some differences make - and intensify tensions. From this point on, you get a strong dynamic as soon, as real societal tension (for whatever reason...) kicks in - or gets intensified, even.***

    *** cf. the work of social psychologist Putnam, and Paul Collier and - - - Fukuyama?! - - Steve Sailer!
  4. That’s a tuff head lock to escape.

  5. I remember seeing on the news about a White woman in Alabama who called the police over a strange suspicious man roaming around her neighborhood. She described the man as Black to the 911 operator, but he is actually Indian and the police beat him up. You can say that is an example of how ambiguous race is. And how who is Black, who is Brown, who is White, etc can sometimes be subjective, which is why many people believe race is a social construct.

    • Replies: @Romanian
    If he were sacred Black, they would have pissed their pants. Since he was possibly Dravidian Black, his Grace levels were lower. Still pretty high, but not topping a European woman in distress in Alabama.
    , @anon
    I agree. I don't have a problem with the black race. I just have one with black culture. Which is a social construct.

    But it seems to be immutable. And devolving into not merely normalizing pathology, but glorifying it. Rap music is an example.

    Even though we are closer than ever to actually mapping the genetics of race and getting some additional evidence regarding nature/nurture, the crucial thing is culture mediated behavior.

    And black culture is a problem. Which might as well be considered immutable.
  6. @Jeremy Cooper
    So I was wondering about the part about James Watson and Craig Venter testing their DNA against that of a Korean scientist and finding that they were closer to him than each other? I mean, that's obviously very stupid, but where do they get that from?

    It’s probably a made-up fact, Jeremy Cooper; James Watson and Craig Venter are world-rank, super-famous scientific figures, but neither one is a “Harvard geneticist”. That degree of looseness with the facts suggests that the rest of the anecdote is just as unreliable.

  7. the cognitive dissonance – it burns – IT BURNS!!

    (anyone notice the (((good whites))) have glasses that only Iris Apfel would approve of?)

    • LOL: Clyde
    • Replies: @Clyde
    I have but never made the connection. Those glasses widen your field of corrected vision without having to move your eyeballs. Their advantage I suppose, forgetting that they make you look like Bozo the clown.
  8. @Jeremy Cooper
    So I was wondering about the part about James Watson and Craig Venter testing their DNA against that of a Korean scientist and finding that they were closer to him than each other? I mean, that's obviously very stupid, but where do they get that from?

    Venter and Watson have their genomes screened for risk factors and predispositions before. Maybe that was it? There is at least one paper I remember which had a comparison of Venter, Watson and several North American and East Asian genomes for specific risk factors. I found it funny to see how high Venter was for alcoholism and sure enough his father was kicked out of the Mormon church for being a drunkard. (Though what the standards for being a drunkard in 1950s Mormon eyes might be different to our own.)

    Not to mention the fuss over Watson’s ApoE genotype. (He says he redacted a large region of his genome to protect the privacy of his son) An interesting example of the Streisand effect. People were curious about what he was clearly hiding and impressively eventually managed to impute his genotype.

    I can’t remember the paper or find it. I have a pdf stored elsewhere, I’ll look it up then. It was a paper on First Nationers’ and a trait that had a serious selective sweep. I can’t remember which one, there have been a few. But at the back was a cool plot of the risk factors for development of different addictions and it had Venter and Watson in with the other genomes.

    Maybe they are referring specific trait comparisons on only a few loci where it is perfectly possible for two individuals from different races to be more similar, very few SNPs have been discovered which are novel to specific populations. Venter and Watson had their genomes sequenced very early (In Venters case, number one) and publicly available so they were used in all sorts of analysis for a while when there wasn’t much else to use as comparisons.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The Icelandic genome firm announced that James D. Watson was 18% black and 9% East Asian by ancestry.

    That probably would have come as news to Yale where his father's brother was chairman of the physics department in 1940, and to his mother's parents, who were born in Scotland and Ireland.

    Cochran thinks that, because lots of people dislike Watson, everybody in the lab, including the janitor, spit in the test tube.

    I just think it was early in the technology.

  9. Are you at all disappointed you didn’t get caricatured? 😉

  10. Dude, thanks to this helpful comic I’m totally going to abandon my political outlook and move to Detroit to take advantage of the low house prices. Because whenever I see a picture of a black woman in a lab coat with a test tube, I know I am going to be reading some good science. That fictional representation’s ancestors probably invented the mud hut and the club. All those crusty old thought crime committing white guys were never in their twenties or thirties when they came up with their inventions, along with their now-deceased brethren who populated my high school physics, chemistry, biology, and math books.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    My favorite thing about this "article-cartoon" is the way the set of opinions on race at the begining have been distributed in a stereotypical way among the collection of clearly racially distinct caricatures.
  11. And now they are trying to excoriate Razib Khan:

    https://undark.org/article/race-science-razib-khan-racism/

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Do you suppose the person who chose the website's URL was familiar with "newspeak"?
  12. Even if all the genetic evidence for the existence of separate human races were thrown into doubt (and I believe it eventually will be), that certainly doesn’t justify the conclusion that race is a mere social construct. The conclusion was far too quick, and is indicative of nothing except Whit Taylor’s preconceived notions. Indeed, the onus is on him to first demonstrate, by independent means, the existence and nature of such social constructs, at which point his whole project will founder.

    However, White Nationalists and Race Realists who articulate their position using a hermeneutic of HBD informed by genetic evidence, are also setting themselves up for future disappointment.

    There is no need to look “beneath” the phenomenon of race for some sort of antecedent biological mechanism that explains it, whether that be genetic differences, skull structure, IQ, or what have you. All such biological markers, assuming that they exist and are highly correlated with traditional racial categories, would themselves be only additional symptoms or accidents of race, not the causes thereof.

    Taylor commits a very glaring error when he tries to argue against racial essentialism by attacking race-accidents. HBDers commit the equal and opposite error when they start defending the existence of race based on its accidents. What’s needed is a recognition that one’s race is an essential not an accidental characteristic of that person, and that it is manifested biologically, psychologically, and socially. We can then begin to discuss the phenomenon of race in a comprehensive way, leading to accurate and illuminating portrayals of what might be called the “White Soul,” the “Negro Soul,” etc.

    These are at present very neglected topics for art, literature, and philosophy.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    So I guess the prankish video "Trump will Complete the System of German Idealism" is actually true...

    https://youtu.be/iOk6HB609po
  13. res says:
    @oddsbodkins
    The Watson / Venter / Kim SNP overlap thing is interesting. Can anyone with a good understanding of genetics explain this?

    Well, the first question is whether or not it’s true. Here’s a graphic purporting to show a Venn diagram, but it is unreferenced: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Genetic_overlapp_venn_diagram_of_Venter,_Watson_and_Kim.svg
    It does link to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy
    which states:

    The writings of Guido Barbujani (like Edwards, a collaborator with Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza) are quite helpful in summing up what the data actually show, as Barbujani is a biologist. He notes in several of his recent writings that the first few full human genome sequences of individuals included the sequence of Seong-Jin Kim, a Korean scientist, who shares more SNP (single-nucleotide polymorphism commonalities with Craig Venter than James Watson does, and similarly shares more SNP commonalities with Watson than Venter does.

    Here is something from Barbujani: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(13)00027-4

    This paper looks like the source of the Kim data and comparisons: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19470904
    Watson/Venter/Kim comparison is figure 2E. It does look like the information is accurate. Does anyone know Watson and Venter’s national backgrounds? (this says Venter’s ancestry is from England: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/science/04vent.html and this says that Watson is about 1/2 English, 1/4 Scottish, and 1/4 Irish: https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1962/watson-bio.html )
    Worth noting that they also have comparisons with YH (Chinese) and NA18057 (Yoruba). Kim has the greatest overlap of all with YH which is more intuitive. NA18507 had the largest number of distinct SNPS by a large margin (>50%).

    OK, now how could this be? They looked at over 3M genetic locations (these are whole genomes, based on the Kim paper I think the differences quoted are all SNPs). Distinction between races is done by looking at systematic variation in frequency among a subset of SNPs. I don’t have a sense of how many SNPs vary systematically in frequency between races (does anyone here have an idea?). Worth noting that not all SNPs are created equal in terms of their impact on phenotype.

    It would be interesting to see more cross-race comparisons like this. My guess is the Venn diagrams would be somewhat random and we are just happening to see publicity being given to one which has a “convenient” result for the Narrative (notice that figure 2 had six comparisons).

  14. @oddsbodkins
    The Watson / Venter / Kim SNP overlap thing is interesting. Can anyone with a good understanding of genetics explain this?

    It’s called a ‘lie’.

    • Replies: @res
    Could you please elaborate? The Korean paper looks credible to me: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19470904

    To be clear, there is lots of lying in that cartoon. Just that the Watson / Venter / Kim SNP overlap part looks real to me.
  15. I am surprised the approach was this even handed. The conclusion was still way off. But most importantly, they really did not elaborate on why they reached it. They laid out some facts, but then just have one for their conclusion. Very odd. I can see a lot of spool thread liberals looking at this and being confused. “Is IQ really different? Hmmmmmm…”

  16. The people who wish to give up the concept of race should do so.

    They should also give up the concept of intelligence.

    • Agree: celt darnell
  17. If you think race is a socially constructed concept without biological basis I propose the following thought experiment, which could be done as a real experiment:

    Consider a set of randomly selected people, perhaps in NYC. If you asked everyone in the set to write down “black”,”white”,”neither”, “uncertain”, and “mixed” for everyone else in the set, what degree of agreement do you suppose you would see?

    Assuming this agreement was high, if you could then repeat the process for all the parents of people in the set. What fraction of people labeled “black” do you think would have two parents labeled as “white” and what fraction of people labeled “white” by consensus, would have two parents labeled “black”?

  18. I can distinguish between a Nigerian and a Japanese at 100 yards, with 100% accuracy. Everyone I have ever met can do the same, including the Nigerian and Japanese. If somebody tells me that race is a social construct, either I’m blind or they’re spewing nonsense. I’m not blind.

    • Agree: NickG
  19. @Altai
    Venter and Watson have their genomes screened for risk factors and predispositions before. Maybe that was it? There is at least one paper I remember which had a comparison of Venter, Watson and several North American and East Asian genomes for specific risk factors. I found it funny to see how high Venter was for alcoholism and sure enough his father was kicked out of the Mormon church for being a drunkard. (Though what the standards for being a drunkard in 1950s Mormon eyes might be different to our own.)

    Not to mention the fuss over Watson's ApoE genotype. (He says he redacted a large region of his genome to protect the privacy of his son) An interesting example of the Streisand effect. People were curious about what he was clearly hiding and impressively eventually managed to impute his genotype.

    I can't remember the paper or find it. I have a pdf stored elsewhere, I'll look it up then. It was a paper on First Nationers' and a trait that had a serious selective sweep. I can't remember which one, there have been a few. But at the back was a cool plot of the risk factors for development of different addictions and it had Venter and Watson in with the other genomes.

    Maybe they are referring specific trait comparisons on only a few loci where it is perfectly possible for two individuals from different races to be more similar, very few SNPs have been discovered which are novel to specific populations. Venter and Watson had their genomes sequenced very early (In Venters case, number one) and publicly available so they were used in all sorts of analysis for a while when there wasn't much else to use as comparisons.

    The Icelandic genome firm announced that James D. Watson was 18% black and 9% East Asian by ancestry.

    That probably would have come as news to Yale where his father’s brother was chairman of the physics department in 1940, and to his mother’s parents, who were born in Scotland and Ireland.

    Cochran thinks that, because lots of people dislike Watson, everybody in the lab, including the janitor, spit in the test tube.

    I just think it was early in the technology.

    • Replies: @TheotherChuck
    Omri Tal commented on this in a 2012 paper:

    "Our model also facilitates the assessment of results from analysis of complete genome sequences. The study of Ahn et al. (2009) suggests that the pairwise distances among three individuals, a Korean (“SJK”), Craig Venter and James Watson, measured by multilocus ASD, are roughly similar despite the distinct geographical origin of SJK in relation to Venter and Watson (see also their Fig. 2 E). These results are surprising in light of our model for n , which predicts that for worldwide distant populations (FST > 0.13) the probability for such an occurrence is virtually zero given as little as 200 independent and informative SNPs (Appendix F, Fig. F.1). In fact, with roughly 3.5 million SNPs sequenced in each individual genome, the pairwise distances Venter–Watson and Venter–SJK (orWatson–SJK) must show substantial discrepancy, since the ratio of average pairwise distances RAD is above 1.3 already at FST = 0.10 (see Fig. 5A). The paradoxical result is most likely an artifact of the high error rate and low coverage in Watson’s SNP calling (Yngvadottir et al., 2009)"

    The point -- apparently that two individuals from the same genealogically defined group will not infrequently be less genomically similar to one another than two individuals from two different genealogically defined divisions -- was argued by Barbujani, Ghirotto, and Tassi (2013):

    "Today, developments in DNA sequencing technology allow us to compare completely sequenced genomes. Ahn et al. (54) observed that two US scientists of European origin, namely James Watson (11) and Craig Venter (2), share fewer SNPs (461,000) than either of them shares with a Korean scientist, Seong-Jin Kim (569,000 and 481,000, respectively) (Figure 2). Of course, this does not mean that, on average, people of European origin are genetically closer to Asians than to other Europeans. However, it does show that patterns of genetic resemblance are far more complicated than any scheme of racial classification can account for. On the basis of the subjects’ physical aspect, a physician would consider Venter’s DNA, and not Kim’s, a better approximation to Watson’s DNA."

    David Piffer and I considered reanalyzing the genomes -- since updated ones are now available -- just to publish a formal rebuttal but decided it wasn't worth the time. Calling people out doesn't really work when people get rewarded for pushing bullshit. Of course, it might be fun for a curmudgeon like Greg Cochran -- but it doesn't seem to curb the nonesense.
    , @Jefferson
    "The Icelandic genome firm announced that James D. Watson was 18% black and 9% East Asian by ancestry."

    Does this mean James D. Watson can publicly say the N word and not get fired from his job? Or does the one drop rule makes a person Black only apply to people the Left likes?

    George Zimmerman has more Black ancestry than Alexander Hamilton, yet the former is the face of White supremacy according to the Left and the latter is the face of Black Caribbean excellence.

  20. • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Thanks. Is this video on Youtube?
    , @Altai
    #FU2Rascism

    It stands for Face Up To Racism we swear! 'Straya.
  21. It sounds like a splendid series to me. Maybe the next edition can take on the purveyors of Jewish Science.

  22. @Peripatetic commenter
    And now they are trying to excoriate Razib Khan:

    https://undark.org/article/race-science-razib-khan-racism/

    Do you suppose the person who chose the website’s URL was familiar with “newspeak”?

  23. @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/SBS/status/836652214705803264

    Thanks. Is this video on Youtube?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Neither SBS nor anyone else has the program or trailer on YouTube. Their YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/SBSAustralia/videos) has a couple of agitprop videos: Face Up to Racism Week on SBS, Is Australia Racist?.

    And trailers for First Contact, "an Australian reality television documentary series that aired on SBS One, SBS Two and NITV.[2][3] It documents the journey of six European Australians who are challenged over a period of 28 days about their pre-existing perceptions of Indigenous Australians."

    And a thumbnail of a pale-skinned blue-eyed girl in a hijab for SBS National Youth Week Competition.


    The Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) is a hybrid-funded Australian public broadcasting radio, online, and television network. ... The stated purpose of SBS is "to provide multilingual and multicultural radio and television services that inform, educate and entertain all Australians and, in doing so, reflect Australia's multicultural society".[1] SBS is one of five main free-to-air networks in Australia.
     
    Current chairman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulent_Hass_Dellal

    His father devoted his spare time towards assisting Turkish Cypriot immigrants who settled in Australia and helped form the Cyprus Turkish Association. He also founded the Cyprus Turkish Islamic Society, and was responsible for managing the construction of the Sunshine Mosque.[4] Although the Turkish culture was a strong presence within his household, Dellal and his siblings found it difficult to speak the language, preferring instead to speak in English. His father decided to move the family to Turkey, so that the children would gain a stronger sense of their culture.[6] In 1962, at the age of 10, Dellal's family sold their assets and moved to Ankara, Turkey but returned to Australia, in 1965, where he spent his secondary school years.[7] Dellal studied at Merrilands Secondary College and then at the Melba Conservatory in Richmond. Once he finished his studies, he became a teacher at a Catholic girl's college. In 1989, Dellal became the founding executive of the Australian Multicultural Foundation (AMF).
     
    Current managing director: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ebeid

    Categories: ... LGBT people from Australia | LGBT people from Egypt
     
    TL;DR: No.
  24. @Anonym
    Dude, thanks to this helpful comic I'm totally going to abandon my political outlook and move to Detroit to take advantage of the low house prices. Because whenever I see a picture of a black woman in a lab coat with a test tube, I know I am going to be reading some good science. That fictional representation's ancestors probably invented the mud hut and the club. All those crusty old thought crime committing white guys were never in their twenties or thirties when they came up with their inventions, along with their now-deceased brethren who populated my high school physics, chemistry, biology, and math books.

    My favorite thing about this “article-cartoon” is the way the set of opinions on race at the begining have been distributed in a stereotypical way among the collection of clearly racially distinct caricatures.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    My favorite thing about this “article-cartoon” is the way the set of opinions on race at the begining have been distributed in a stereotypical way among the collection of clearly racially distinct caricatures.

    That's good! I noticed it too but not the hypocrisy. This is on a par with the MSM articles that are titled "... : here's what you need to know.".
  25. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Thanks. Is this video on Youtube?

    Neither SBS nor anyone else has the program or trailer on YouTube. Their YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/SBSAustralia/videos) has a couple of agitprop videos: Face Up to Racism Week on SBS, Is Australia Racist?.

    And trailers for First Contact, “an Australian reality television documentary series that aired on SBS One, SBS Two and NITV.[2][3] It documents the journey of six European Australians who are challenged over a period of 28 days about their pre-existing perceptions of Indigenous Australians.”

    And a thumbnail of a pale-skinned blue-eyed girl in a hijab for SBS National Youth Week Competition.

    The Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) is a hybrid-funded Australian public broadcasting radio, online, and television network. … The stated purpose of SBS is “to provide multilingual and multicultural radio and television services that inform, educate and entertain all Australians and, in doing so, reflect Australia’s multicultural society”.[1] SBS is one of five main free-to-air networks in Australia.

    Current chairman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulent_Hass_Dellal

    His father devoted his spare time towards assisting Turkish Cypriot immigrants who settled in Australia and helped form the Cyprus Turkish Association. He also founded the Cyprus Turkish Islamic Society, and was responsible for managing the construction of the Sunshine Mosque.[4] Although the Turkish culture was a strong presence within his household, Dellal and his siblings found it difficult to speak the language, preferring instead to speak in English. His father decided to move the family to Turkey, so that the children would gain a stronger sense of their culture.[6] In 1962, at the age of 10, Dellal’s family sold their assets and moved to Ankara, Turkey but returned to Australia, in 1965, where he spent his secondary school years.[7] Dellal studied at Merrilands Secondary College and then at the Melba Conservatory in Richmond. Once he finished his studies, he became a teacher at a Catholic girl’s college. In 1989, Dellal became the founding executive of the Australian Multicultural Foundation (AMF).

    Current managing director: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ebeid

    Categories: … LGBT people from Australia | LGBT people from Egypt

    TL;DR: No.

  26. Speaking of race as a social construct but slightly off-topic; the wife made me watch Patriot Day, which I ended up really enjoying in the end (Mark Wahlberg playing a humbler version of himself). Same as with the movie Split, which she made me watch and again tremendously enjoyed myself (Shymalan seems to do better with smaller budgets).

    Anyway I digress; Patriot Day takes a very realistic portrayal of the Boston Marathon bombings. However throughout it all there was the subtle implication (especially by the Kevin Bacon character) about the repeated Caucasian (as in white gentile as opposed to Caucasus) appearance of the Boston bombers, which is fair enough.

    What was particularly interesting is that in the frantic 911 call made by the Chinese student, who was carjacked by the brothers, there was only one omission in an otherwise startlingly realistic account (even the way he ran in the movie was identical).

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2993221/Terrifying-video-Chinese-student-carjacked-Boston-bombers-running-life-dropping-knees-pray-help-gas-station-clerk.html

    The Chinese student was clearly able to identify the brothers as Middle Eastern (Iran/Iraq was a phrase he repeated multiple times). If a Chinese student, with notoriously difficult to understand English, was able to identify them as “Middle Asian” why did the film literally try to whitewash the characters?

    It’s very subtle but it was an extremely important part of the 911 exchange; a recently immigrated Chinese student for whom all white Caucasians must be alike was able to correctly identify their ethnic leanings (admittedly Chechens aren’t Iranians/Iraqis) whereas throughout the movie the emphasis was made on how non-traditionally Jihadi the brothers looked (which is again true but the unabridged 911 call should have included for balance).

    Patriot Day to its credit didn’t try to make any political statement per se except about the strength and story of a terrible Boston tragedy, so the only “pc” bit of the film is above.

    Sorry for the long post..

  27. Even if all the genetic evidence for the existence of separate human races were thrown into doubt (and I believe it eventually will be), that certainly doesn’t justify the conclusion that race is a mere social construct. The conclusion was far too quick, and is indicative of nothing except Whit Taylor’s preconceived notions. Indeed, the onus is on him to first demonstrate, by independent means, the existence and nature of such social constructs, at which point his whole project will founder.

    However, White Nationalists and Race Realists who articulate their position using a hermeneutic of HBD informed by genetic evidence, are also setting themselves up for future disappointment.

    There is no need to look “beneath” the phenomenon of race for some sort of antecedent biological mechanism that explains it, whether that be genetic differences, skull structure, IQ, or what have you. All such biological markers, assuming that they exist and are highly correlated with traditional racial categories, would themselves be only additional symptoms or accidents of race, not the causes thereof.

    Taylor commits a very glaring error when he tries to argue against racial essentialism by attacking race-accidents. HBDers commit the equal and opposite error when they start defending the existence of race based on its accidents. What’s needed is a recognition that one’s race is an essential not an accidental characteristic of that person, and that it is manifested biologically, psychologically, and socially. We can then begin to discuss the phenomenon of race in a comprehensive way, leading to accurate and illuminating portrayals of what might be called the “White Soul,” the “Negro Soul,” etc.

    These are at present very neglected topics for art, literature, and philosophy.

    • Replies: @res

    All such biological markers, assuming that they exist and are highly correlated with traditional racial categories, would themselves be only additional symptoms or accidents of race, not the causes thereof.
     
    What do you consider to be the causes?
  28. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    With average contentious black folks, I just pretend I’m dealing with a narcissistic 14 year old in an adults body, maybe with a spoonful of testosterone thrown in, and all of a sudden, black folks make sense. Going forward, I consider it a fairly subjective choice as to whether I want to deal with them or not. Their accepted culture also seems to do them no favors for coping with modern civilization. Hard to tell where their genes end, and their ever retarded culture begins…

    https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ba_1488083764

    • Replies: @Clyde
    Harsh but I will try out thinking your way. The only blacks I get to interact with regularly are Jamaicans and they are ok with a minimal white vs black thing going on. Plus they like to joke around with me. One is even a friend not an acquaintance.
    , @Travis
    From my experience the culture causes much more harm to Blacks than their lower IQ levels. Although if they had higher IQs then Black culture would be better it seems Blacks can escape the culture if raised apart from it. Noticed this in my family, I have 5 mullatto first cousins , 3 who rejected Black culture did not attend college and I would estimate they had IQs of 90 while the 2 who went to college became corrupted by Black culture, although they had IQ above 100 (based on their SAT scores)....Interesting that 4 of my first cousins obtained a full ride to college due to their athletic skills, but one of them scored too low on his SATs to qualify...thus he never attended college and became a Truck Driver in the Teamsters now.
  29. In America “liberal” is just a synonym for “hypocrite.” Just as liberals shout how there’s no such thing as IQ until they want to excuse some murderer because he has a low IQ, liberals tell you “race is just a social construct” until they want to string up Rachel Dolezal.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "In America “liberal” is just a synonym for “hypocrite.” Just as liberals shout how there’s no such thing as IQ until they want to excuse some murderer because he has a low IQ, liberals tell you “race is just a social construct” until they want to string up Rachel Dolezal."

    Why do Liberals tolerate fake Native Americans but not fake Blacks?

    If Rachel Dolezal had claimed to be Native American nobody on the Left would give a fuck.
  30. @Steve Sailer
    The Icelandic genome firm announced that James D. Watson was 18% black and 9% East Asian by ancestry.

    That probably would have come as news to Yale where his father's brother was chairman of the physics department in 1940, and to his mother's parents, who were born in Scotland and Ireland.

    Cochran thinks that, because lots of people dislike Watson, everybody in the lab, including the janitor, spit in the test tube.

    I just think it was early in the technology.

    Omri Tal commented on this in a 2012 paper:

    “Our model also facilitates the assessment of results from analysis of complete genome sequences. The study of Ahn et al. (2009) suggests that the pairwise distances among three individuals, a Korean (“SJK”), Craig Venter and James Watson, measured by multilocus ASD, are roughly similar despite the distinct geographical origin of SJK in relation to Venter and Watson (see also their Fig. 2 E). These results are surprising in light of our model for n , which predicts that for worldwide distant populations (FST > 0.13) the probability for such an occurrence is virtually zero given as little as 200 independent and informative SNPs (Appendix F, Fig. F.1). In fact, with roughly 3.5 million SNPs sequenced in each individual genome, the pairwise distances Venter–Watson and Venter–SJK (orWatson–SJK) must show substantial discrepancy, since the ratio of average pairwise distances RAD is above 1.3 already at FST = 0.10 (see Fig. 5A). The paradoxical result is most likely an artifact of the high error rate and low coverage in Watson’s SNP calling (Yngvadottir et al., 2009)”

    The point — apparently that two individuals from the same genealogically defined group will not infrequently be less genomically similar to one another than two individuals from two different genealogically defined divisions — was argued by Barbujani, Ghirotto, and Tassi (2013):

    “Today, developments in DNA sequencing technology allow us to compare completely sequenced genomes. Ahn et al. (54) observed that two US scientists of European origin, namely James Watson (11) and Craig Venter (2), share fewer SNPs (461,000) than either of them shares with a Korean scientist, Seong-Jin Kim (569,000 and 481,000, respectively) (Figure 2). Of course, this does not mean that, on average, people of European origin are genetically closer to Asians than to other Europeans. However, it does show that patterns of genetic resemblance are far more complicated than any scheme of racial classification can account for. On the basis of the subjects’ physical aspect, a physician would consider Venter’s DNA, and not Kim’s, a better approximation to Watson’s DNA.”

    David Piffer and I considered reanalyzing the genomes — since updated ones are now available — just to publish a formal rebuttal but decided it wasn’t worth the time. Calling people out doesn’t really work when people get rewarded for pushing bullshit. Of course, it might be fun for a curmudgeon like Greg Cochran — but it doesn’t seem to curb the nonesense.

  31. “The concept of a species is a concession to our linguistic habits and neurological mechanisms” J.B.S. Haldane

    To a certain extent species is also a construct. It has several definitions, each of which is valid depending on the context (we looking at fossils or trying to conserve an endangered species?). Ultimately, a good biologist will recognize that the messy nature of defining a species gels pretty well with the messy nature of speciation and biology as a whole. But it is still understood that it’s informative because it makes sense in the context of evolution and how it works. All the colors on the color wheel bleed together at the barriers, but that doesn’t invalidate the concept of distinct colors. Of course, all this nuance is thrown out the window when we talk about race, which is really just like the species problem but under a smaller span of geological time.

  32. @Jack Cade
    the cognitive dissonance - it burns - IT BURNS!!

    (anyone notice the (((good whites))) have glasses that only Iris Apfel would approve of?)

    I have but never made the connection. Those glasses widen your field of corrected vision without having to move your eyeballs. Their advantage I suppose, forgetting that they make you look like Bozo the clown.

  33. @Jeremy Cooper
    So I was wondering about the part about James Watson and Craig Venter testing their DNA against that of a Korean scientist and finding that they were closer to him than each other? I mean, that's obviously very stupid, but where do they get that from?

    They get it from Lewontin’s bullshit, misleading theory. Having genetic diversity within a group does not preclude overall differences between groups, even if one can find extreme differences within a single group. This one simple fallacy is all the egalitarians have to bank on.

    Lewontin is a self-admitted Marxist and has no business being in academia.

    • Replies: @celt darnell
    Expel the Marxists from academia and the universities will close down for lack of faculty.
  34. The author, like most leftist polemics, does not understand biology.

    Order -> Family -> Genus -> Species

    There is no category after species. Even “breed” or “subspecies” are considered informal. “Race” is not, and was never part of the classification system. When people say race, they mean phenotype, which is biologically founded.

    The left has exploited and even intentionally exacerbated this confusion over a term that was never supposed to be scientifically definitive in the first place. By doing so, they can brush away differences, or reduce the significance of phenotype to mere skin color.

    • Replies: @Chuck
    I had imagined that when people say "race" (fr. lineage) -- at least in context to natural history and not sports -- they mean something along the lines of "people of common descent" or as Steve says "extended family" -- and that they recognize that kinship predicts phenotypic similarity. Which is to say that they don't define race by phenotypic similarity anymore than they define twins this same way. But who knows now. And Apparently in philsophy the idea that "race" has anything to do with lineage is disputed. I recall that philosopher Michael Hardimon had to write a paper "Wallis Simpson was Wrong" back in 2oo9 arguing that there was a connection. But this was immediately objected to e.g., Glasgow (2010).

    On one level the debate seems purely semantic, as one could just as well use "gens" the Latin translation of "race" or some other word to convey the idea. My impression though is that race opponents frequently don't just oppose the use of the term or argue that there are no human races in some idiosyncratic sense, but rather oppose the idea of grouping people by ancestry -- and worse building identities around kinship. After all, it's not easy to change one's ancestry, and so it's hard to reconstruct these as "propositional".

    One problem with taxonomic ranks:
    Order -> Family -> Genus -> Species - > [many reject Subspecies]

    Is that for conventional reasons, contemporary zoologists don't extent the ranks down. Compare with Darwin:

    "In confirmation of this view, let us glance at the classification of varieties, which are believed or known to have descended from one species. These are grouped under species, with sub-varieties under varieties; and with our domestic productions, several other grades of difference are requisite, as we have seen with pigeons. The origin of the existence of groups subordinate to groups, is the same with varieties as with species, namely, closeness of descent with various degrees of modification… In classing varieties, I apprehend if we had a real pedigree, a genealogical classification would be universally preferred; and it has been attempted by some authors. For we might feel sure, whether there had been more or less modification, the principle of inheritance would keep the forms together which were allied in the greatest number of points."

    It makes practical sense, of course, to not formally rank the local races of pigs on old MacDonald's farm or on some isolated island, even though these would represent some type of Darwinian sub-sub-sub... Species -- or even some type of species, given some of the more permissive species concepts popular these days. On the otherhand, it doesn't make -- logical -- sense to say that these don't exist -- that there is nothing to think about, so just shut up -- because by current conventions there are no corresponding taxonomic ranks. You can't get more socially de-constructionist than to argue that communities of descent don't exist because they are not formally assigned to a conventionally recognized taxonomic rank.
  35. @anonymous
    With average contentious black folks, I just pretend I'm dealing with a narcissistic 14 year old in an adults body, maybe with a spoonful of testosterone thrown in, and all of a sudden, black folks make sense. Going forward, I consider it a fairly subjective choice as to whether I want to deal with them or not. Their accepted culture also seems to do them no favors for coping with modern civilization. Hard to tell where their genes end, and their ever retarded culture begins...

    https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ba_1488083764

    Harsh but I will try out thinking your way. The only blacks I get to interact with regularly are Jamaicans and they are ok with a minimal white vs black thing going on. Plus they like to joke around with me. One is even a friend not an acquaintance.

  36. @Chrisnonymous
    My favorite thing about this "article-cartoon" is the way the set of opinions on race at the begining have been distributed in a stereotypical way among the collection of clearly racially distinct caricatures.

    My favorite thing about this “article-cartoon” is the way the set of opinions on race at the begining have been distributed in a stereotypical way among the collection of clearly racially distinct caricatures.

    That’s good! I noticed it too but not the hypocrisy. This is on a par with the MSM articles that are titled “… : here’s what you need to know.”.

  37. Well, he managed to misrepresent population genetics and avoid math…

    …but give the poor sod SJW points: he managed to redefine all of life as a Rainbow Triangle.

  38. @Steve Sailer
    The Icelandic genome firm announced that James D. Watson was 18% black and 9% East Asian by ancestry.

    That probably would have come as news to Yale where his father's brother was chairman of the physics department in 1940, and to his mother's parents, who were born in Scotland and Ireland.

    Cochran thinks that, because lots of people dislike Watson, everybody in the lab, including the janitor, spit in the test tube.

    I just think it was early in the technology.

    “The Icelandic genome firm announced that James D. Watson was 18% black and 9% East Asian by ancestry.”

    Does this mean James D. Watson can publicly say the N word and not get fired from his job? Or does the one drop rule makes a person Black only apply to people the Left likes?

    George Zimmerman has more Black ancestry than Alexander Hamilton, yet the former is the face of White supremacy according to the Left and the latter is the face of Black Caribbean excellence.

  39. It turns out that in the evolving Mainstream Narrative, both race and gender are meaningless social constructs! This is great! HBD aware people should help to spread this new version of the Narrative; it is so wonderfully ridiculous it will shake the whole foundations. The physical construct between each person’s legs, which they negotiate each time they take a pee, is a meaningless social construct; one must accept this absurdity to qualify as a true believer in the Mainstream Narrative:

    Gloria Steinam in the NY Times today:

    “He would also be rewarded by such irresistible movies as “Hidden Figures,” about three African-American women whose brainpower fueled the American space program, or two such universal stories as the lost boys and found men in “Lion” and “Moonlight.”

    These movies meet the “chick flick” entry-level test of being more about people than special effects, more about relationships than chases. And in the Academy Awards season that just closed, all three went a long way toward ending the division of human beings into the powerful but made-up categories of race and gender. “

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    The Old West was known for categorization by detail observed. The East was known for categorization by holistic purpose.

    The New West will be known for an inability to categorize at all.
  40. @Veracitor
    In America "liberal" is just a synonym for "hypocrite." Just as liberals shout how there's no such thing as IQ until they want to excuse some murderer because he has a low IQ, liberals tell you "race is just a social construct" until they want to string up Rachel Dolezal.

    “In America “liberal” is just a synonym for “hypocrite.” Just as liberals shout how there’s no such thing as IQ until they want to excuse some murderer because he has a low IQ, liberals tell you “race is just a social construct” until they want to string up Rachel Dolezal.”

    Why do Liberals tolerate fake Native Americans but not fake Blacks?

    If Rachel Dolezal had claimed to be Native American nobody on the Left would give a fuck.

  41. @Jefferson
    I remember seeing on the news about a White woman in Alabama who called the police over a strange suspicious man roaming around her neighborhood. She described the man as Black to the 911 operator, but he is actually Indian and the police beat him up. You can say that is an example of how ambiguous race is. And how who is Black, who is Brown, who is White, etc can sometimes be subjective, which is why many people believe race is a social construct.

    If he were sacred Black, they would have pissed their pants. Since he was possibly Dravidian Black, his Grace levels were lower. Still pretty high, but not topping a European woman in distress in Alabama.

  42. Funny article, even if it’s misleading and sinister too. Much like all childrens’ books these days.

    Is anyone else tickled by the fact that Ashley Montagu (full name Montague Francis Ashley-Montagu), the fellow who settled the question on race in 1942 with a genetic trellis, was previously named Israel Ehrenberg?

    Also nice to see that all the other correct thinkers mentioned, namely Franz Boas and Richard Lewontin, were Jews too.

    The cartoonist finally summarizes Correct Science quite nicely: “But if we know racial essentialism is nonsense, how do we back it up?” (I furthermore liked the answer: “Real science!”, i.e., Ashley Montagu. Not genetics.)

  43. @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/SBS/status/836652214705803264

    #FU2Rascism

    It stands for Face Up To Racism we swear! ‘Straya.

  44. The cartoon claims that human genetic diversity is too low to have any subspecies, but it fails to cite any sources (I’ll try to contain my shock). Does anyone know where that claim comes from?

    • Replies: @Chuck
    This was conjured up by Alan Templeton and first discussed in "Human races: a genetic and evolutionary perspective" (1998, pp. 663). He misread a paper which discussed the venerable 75% (correct assignment) rule. I emailed him, a while back, and pointed out the misinterpretation, but he deflected, but nonetheless seemed to acknowledge the error. Since then others had picked up the fictitious criterion, which isn't used for some obvious reasons.

    Templeton also developed the Trellis argument, which again doesn't make much sense, or only does given his idiosyncratic concept of and criterion for subspecies. All of this is somewhat irrelavent, since such criterion only make sense when dealing with subspecies in the sense of the taxonomic rank immediately below species -- i.e., when dealing with formal taxonomically recognized races.

    (Steve, another comment -- published under TheotherChuck was sent to the span box. I don't like using this handle since a lot of comments, often about Jews, which I'm not witty enough to think of myself, are being assigned to this handle + email.)
  45. Skill level of comic-book illustration evidently is among the first to be browngraded (in our late American Honky Nazi-Hater Age, ‘downgraded’).

  46. @Peter Johnson
    It turns out that in the evolving Mainstream Narrative, both race and gender are meaningless social constructs! This is great! HBD aware people should help to spread this new version of the Narrative; it is so wonderfully ridiculous it will shake the whole foundations. The physical construct between each person's legs, which they negotiate each time they take a pee, is a meaningless social construct; one must accept this absurdity to qualify as a true believer in the Mainstream Narrative:

    Gloria Steinam in the NY Times today:

    "He would also be rewarded by such irresistible movies as “Hidden Figures,” about three African-American women whose brainpower fueled the American space program, or two such universal stories as the lost boys and found men in “Lion” and “Moonlight.”

    These movies meet the “chick flick” entry-level test of being more about people than special effects, more about relationships than chases. And in the Academy Awards season that just closed, all three went a long way toward ending the division of human beings into the powerful but made-up categories of race and gender. "

    The Old West was known for categorization by detail observed. The East was known for categorization by holistic purpose.

    The New West will be known for an inability to categorize at all.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Ability is distinct from will.
  47. Maz says:
    @Jeremy Cooper
    So I was wondering about the part about James Watson and Craig Venter testing their DNA against that of a Korean scientist and finding that they were closer to him than each other? I mean, that's obviously very stupid, but where do they get that from?

    It’s because Watson’s published DNA sequence includes lots of faulty data. It’s discussed in this paper:

    Our model also facilitates the assessment of results from analysis of complete genome sequences. The study of Ahn et al. (2009) suggests that the pairwise distances among three individuals, a Korean (“SJK”), Craig Venter and James Watson, measured by multilocus ASD, are roughly similar despite the distinct geographical origin of SJK in relation to Venter and Watson (see also their Fig. 2E). These results are surprising in light of our model for Ψ_n, which predicts that for worldwide distant populations (FST > 0.13) the probability for such an occurrence is virtually zero given as little as 200 independent and informative SNPs (Appendix F, Fig. F.1). In fact, with roughly 3.5 million SNPs sequenced in each individual genome,the pairwise distances Venter–Watson and Venter–SJK (or Watson–SJK) must show substantial discrepancy, since the ratio of average pairwise distances RAD is above 1.3 already at FST = 0.10 (see Fig. 5A). The paradoxical result is most likely an artifact of the high error rate and low coverage in Watson’s SNP calling (Yngvadottir et al., 2009).

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    They all spit in Watson's test tube?
    , @res
    Thanks for finding that! Here is the (Yngvadottir et al., 2009) reference: https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2009-10-9-237
    It has some interesting information including a discussion of Watson's African results. Also notes the Watson and Venter sequences were about 7.5x coverage.

    The paper you linked was from 2012. Has anyone done similar between races comparisons more recently?
  48. @gcochran
    It's called a 'lie'.

    Could you please elaborate? The Korean paper looks credible to me: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19470904

    To be clear, there is lots of lying in that cartoon. Just that the Watson / Venter / Kim SNP overlap part looks real to me.

  49. @Intelligent Dasein
    Even if all the genetic evidence for the existence of separate human races were thrown into doubt (and I believe it eventually will be), that certainly doesn’t justify the conclusion that race is a mere social construct. The conclusion was far too quick, and is indicative of nothing except Whit Taylor’s preconceived notions. Indeed, the onus is on him to first demonstrate, by independent means, the existence and nature of such social constructs, at which point his whole project will founder.

    However, White Nationalists and Race Realists who articulate their position using a hermeneutic of HBD informed by genetic evidence, are also setting themselves up for future disappointment.

    There is no need to look “beneath” the phenomenon of race for some sort of antecedent biological mechanism that explains it, whether that be genetic differences, skull structure, IQ, or what have you. All such biological markers, assuming that they exist and are highly correlated with traditional racial categories, would themselves be only additional symptoms or accidents of race, not the causes thereof.

    Taylor commits a very glaring error when he tries to argue against racial essentialism by attacking race-accidents. HBDers commit the equal and opposite error when they start defending the existence of race based on its accidents. What’s needed is a recognition that one’s race is an essential not an accidental characteristic of that person, and that it is manifested biologically, psychologically, and socially. We can then begin to discuss the phenomenon of race in a comprehensive way, leading to accurate and illuminating portrayals of what might be called the “White Soul,” the “Negro Soul,” etc.

    These are at present very neglected topics for art, literature, and philosophy.

    All such biological markers, assuming that they exist and are highly correlated with traditional racial categories, would themselves be only additional symptoms or accidents of race, not the causes thereof.

    What do you consider to be the causes?

  50. SMK says: • Website
    @AndrewR
    Leftists love the "race is a social construct" line. And obviously to some extent it's true. But they're like three year olds in their thinking. "Since race is obviously a social construct in this example, that must mean it's a social construct in every way! Lalalalala I cant hear you!"

    I really don't understand why they deny biology so.

    The denial of biology -the dogma that humans are infinitely or essentially malleable; that race “beneath the skin” is an “artificial social construct”; that “gender” (masculine/feminine) as opposed to sex (male/female” is an “artificial social construct,” etc. -sustains the hope in and illusion of utopia and egalitarianism, racial and sexual. If the sexes and races are innately different in profound and significant way, undifferentiated equality between the sexes and races can never be realized, much less utopia.

    To understand the actualities of sexual and racial differences, it’s imperative to distinguish between groups and individuals. To given but one example. Individual “Asian” females commit violent crimes, however rarely. But negro males as a group are hundreds of times more likely than “Asian” females to commit nonsexual violent crimes, and thousands of times more likely to commit violent sexual assaults. For obvious anatomical reasons, females can’t commit rape in the pure and literal sense of the word.

  51. @anonymous
    With average contentious black folks, I just pretend I'm dealing with a narcissistic 14 year old in an adults body, maybe with a spoonful of testosterone thrown in, and all of a sudden, black folks make sense. Going forward, I consider it a fairly subjective choice as to whether I want to deal with them or not. Their accepted culture also seems to do them no favors for coping with modern civilization. Hard to tell where their genes end, and their ever retarded culture begins...

    https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ba_1488083764

    From my experience the culture causes much more harm to Blacks than their lower IQ levels. Although if they had higher IQs then Black culture would be better it seems Blacks can escape the culture if raised apart from it. Noticed this in my family, I have 5 mullatto first cousins , 3 who rejected Black culture did not attend college and I would estimate they had IQs of 90 while the 2 who went to college became corrupted by Black culture, although they had IQ above 100 (based on their SAT scores)….Interesting that 4 of my first cousins obtained a full ride to college due to their athletic skills, but one of them scored too low on his SATs to qualify…thus he never attended college and became a Truck Driver in the Teamsters now.

  52. @Maz
    It's because Watson's published DNA sequence includes lots of faulty data. It's discussed in this paper:

    Our model also facilitates the assessment of results from analysis of complete genome sequences. The study of Ahn et al. (2009) suggests that the pairwise distances among three individuals, a Korean (“SJK”), Craig Venter and James Watson, measured by multilocus ASD, are roughly similar despite the distinct geographical origin of SJK in relation to Venter and Watson (see also their Fig. 2E). These results are surprising in light of our model for Ψ_n, which predicts that for worldwide distant populations (FST > 0.13) the probability for such an occurrence is virtually zero given as little as 200 independent and informative SNPs (Appendix F, Fig. F.1). In fact, with roughly 3.5 million SNPs sequenced in each individual genome,the pairwise distances Venter–Watson and Venter–SJK (or Watson–SJK) must show substantial discrepancy, since the ratio of average pairwise distances RAD is above 1.3 already at FST = 0.10 (see Fig. 5A). The paradoxical result is most likely an artifact of the high error rate and low coverage in Watson’s SNP calling (Yngvadottir et al., 2009).
     

    They all spit in Watson’s test tube?

    • Replies: @keypusher
    Let's just say that's a result that cries out for replication.
    , @Maz
    Maybe, but Watson's published genome is early tech with obvious problems. He should have a new one made with up-to-date sequencing methods and publish it to forestall further confusion.
  53. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jefferson
    I remember seeing on the news about a White woman in Alabama who called the police over a strange suspicious man roaming around her neighborhood. She described the man as Black to the 911 operator, but he is actually Indian and the police beat him up. You can say that is an example of how ambiguous race is. And how who is Black, who is Brown, who is White, etc can sometimes be subjective, which is why many people believe race is a social construct.

    I agree. I don’t have a problem with the black race. I just have one with black culture. Which is a social construct.

    But it seems to be immutable. And devolving into not merely normalizing pathology, but glorifying it. Rap music is an example.

    Even though we are closer than ever to actually mapping the genetics of race and getting some additional evidence regarding nature/nurture, the crucial thing is culture mediated behavior.

    And black culture is a problem. Which might as well be considered immutable.

    • Replies: @oddsbodkins
    It's only as immutable as the policies that subsidize it. A bit of that culture has always existed, but it balooned when the government started encouraging it. It's the same story in the UK, minus the dark skin.
    , @Anon
    "I don’t have a problem with the black race. I just have one with black culture."

    Black culture seems to sprout from black genetics.

    I think we tend to see the world in terms of agendas and intentions. And there is good reason for this because people do have agency, and we can change the world according to our values, ideas, and goals. Intentions have done much to reshape reality.
    And with the rise of liberty, democracy, and equality(under rule of law), we have created a world where more people can enjoy freedoms and rights.
    This is truly a great achievement of mankind all over the world. It has proven that agendas and ideas can transform the world. But it seems so many people have fallen into the fallacy of radical agenda-ism, the belief that if we pursue a certain agenda hard enough, its goals can be attained. After all, if humanity went from near universal tyranny to universal freedom(relative to the past), there is nothing we can't achieve.

    But there are two problems that undermine such Radical Agenda-ism: freedom itself and genetics. While the rise of freedom around the world(via democracy, human rights, technology, etc) has increased possibilities for change, it also meant so many people can do their own thing. And so often, what people freely choose to do is so dumb and counter-productive to having a good society. So, freedom can work against the Agenda of progress. This is what Chris Hedges willfully ignores. He's right that Negroes once had much less freedom and rights. But he falls back on that template to explain today's America. He overlooks that the rise of black pathology was the result of rise of freedom in the black community. If blacks in the past could be said to be relatively backward because of legal discrimination and social bias --- that were true enough ---, much of black problems since the 1960s has been the result of blacks using freedom badly.

    This sort of explains why so many on the Left have been drawn to totalitarian ideologies. Even as they championed freedom and liberty, they felt freedom might derail the great project of progress by enticing the masses with too many temptations, like the Golden Calf. So, in order for people to be truly free, their consciousness must first be raised and habits remolded to do what's right. It's like giving kids too much freedom turns them lazy and spoiled. So, we force them to go to school and to graduate to a higher freedom.

    As long as people have freedom, many of them will not stick to the agenda or program. And it's just something a free society will have to accept. Utopianism is incompatible with a free society. Free society can seek reform and improvement, but there are limits to what it can do.
    Too many people will do the 'wrong' thing, but a free society should allow the freedom to do wrong than right(as long as it's not criminal). (Also, there is no guarantee that the 'good' thing pushed by the Agenda may indeed be good.) Radical Agenda-ists fail to understand the nature of this problem because they champion both 'freedom' and 'progress'. They tend to assume that freedom will lead to support for the Agenda. But when people are free, there's no guarantee that they will go along with the agenda(which may be sound or unsound). Radical Agenda-ists are under the fallacious delusion that MORE FREEDOM must necessarily lead to MORE PROGRESS. But things don't turn out that way. So, they use PC, a mind-trick that tries to fool people that banning 'hate speech' is about serving 'free speech'. Radical Agenda-ists want to maintain the fiction that freedom and history are always on their side. Since it's often not the case, they use all sorts of subtle and not-so-subtle threats, nudges, manipulations, and dirty tricks to push their agenda. So, even though they finally got what they wanted through underhanded methods and abuse of power, they pretend that the People freely and rationally chose what the Agenda demanded. Consider how majority of America said NO to the homo agenda. So, the academia, media, courts, and government all conspired to promote it at every level of society and to shame/destroy anyone who stood in its way. Media don't appeal to reason and sense. It uses all the tricks of advertising and propaganda. And the 'free' media used every dirty trick in the book to NUDGE the public into not voting for Trump. "HE HAS NO CHANCE. JUST STAY HOME. HILLARY HAS 99% CHANCE OF WINNING." There's poetic justice that the media lost to a salesman who knows all the tricks of hype.

    Another problem for Radical Agenda-ism is the role of genes. This is so obvious to anyone in HBD or with honest pair of eyes, but PC is all about Blind Reason.
    Radical Agenda-ists believe that full societal commitment to any Agenda will deliver the goods and arrive at the desired outcome. It's the Good Will to Power.
    But genes don't agree. What might be called a-gene-da has its own trajectory, especially when combined with freedom.

    Genes have natural inclinations, or I should say different genes have different natural inclinations. If people are allowed more freedom, their a-gene-da will follow their natural tendencies.. and these may go against the Agenda. So, if Negro genetics are more prone to 'let the good times roll', more freedom for Negroes will lead to more good times rolling which lead to bad results.

    A-gene-da follows a certain tendency, or an 'atenda'. Take food. Suppose Food Idealists want a world of freedom where people have the choice to eat healthy, shall eat healthy, and be healthy. And suppose they to attain the great goal of creating a world of freedom and more choice of foods and drinks. And suppose they promote the message of what constitutes good eating and health. Will the world live up to their Agenda?
    No. Human genes are coded to love fatty food, creamy food, sugary food. Good or bad, genetics make people crave that stuff EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW IT'S BAD FOR THEM. So, a freedom to eat and drink will leads to lots of people eating too much 'rich foods' and turning into fatsos, fatkins, lardasses, and blubbaroons. Now, the Agenda for healthy eating may be good, but give the a-gene-da or 'atenda' of what people naturally crave, the equation is freedom + wide choice = lots of people eating and drinking the wrong kinds of foods. That's why we have so many buffalo-butts in America. All these people don't want to be fat. And they know they are pigging out on stuff they shouldn't. But their genes tell them to 'eat, eat, drink, drink'. They can't help it under the regimen of freedom and choice(and lack of shame). And freedom and availability of wide range of food turns them into a bunch of minnesota-fats.

    So, while the power of Agenda is real because we do have agency and freedom, the fact is there is a limit to what the Agenda can achieve.
    Also, one good thing achieved by the Agenda might undermine another good thing wished by the Agenda. Progressives wished two things for Negroes. They wanted Negroes to be more free and to make economic success. They thought Negroes with more freedom would use its blessings to achieve success.
    But when Negroes got more freedom, they ignored the Agenda and went with their a-gene-da that told em, "party all the time". This is what Chris Hedges just doesn't get. Filled with self-righteous sanctimony and faithful to the Magic Negro trope, his only explanation of black failures since the 1960s is 'not enough freedom' rather than misuse of freedom fueled by Negro genetics that tell Negroes to boogie-oogie-funky-all-night-long.

    https://youtu.be/iWa-6g-TbgI?t=41s

    Too much of what people are upset about is the result of ways of a-gene-da, not failure of Agenda. But because the West achieved so much with ideas and agendas, there is the fallacious notion that it can achieve ANYTHING, and if things don't turn out perfectly, it must be the failure of Agenda. It's stupid to blame the West for everything, but there's a a certain logic as to why this is the case. Prior to the rise of the West, humanity didn't expect much from reality. They took for granted that things would remain the same or even get worse. There was no idea of progress like we have in the modern world. No one believed that human will, agency, and ideas could radically change the world. This is why people preferred to dream of heaven than create heaven on earth.
    But the modern West truly did change so much so fast based on ideas, will, vision, and determination. So, it created the notion that humanity, especially white humanity, should be able to achieve anything. I mean it even sent a man to the moon. If the West could begin the century with two brother flying crude planes and 70 yrs later send a rocket to the moon, what can it not do? If this utopia doesn't materialize, it must be the failure of will or commitment.

    But there are limits to everything. And even the great West cannot achieve everything no matter how great its will, commitment, investment, and determination. The US learned in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq that it cannot turn just any part of the world into a new Vermont. US cannot even turn Detroit into new Vermont.

    While will and commitment(in the right people) can do a lot, there are other factors that come into play. Much of the failure of Black America owes to a-gene-da. It' s no one's fault. It's not the white man's fault. And it's not the black man's fault(in the sense that blacks are not willfully trying to destroy schools). It was the result of freedom + black genes. With freedom, black genes naturally gravitated toward 'party all the time' or worse, 'fight all the time'.
    Possibly, things might have turned out better if whites had withheld full freedom while investing in blacks for improvement. With less freedom, blacks might have been compelled to do the right thing. But the ideal of equal rights made such untenable in America. So, freedom + black genes was bound to lead to too many blacks reverting to their nature.

    A lot of things that happen in America is the result of a-gene-da, but Radical Agenda-ism always blames the problem on Society and especially whites. So, if Mexicans in California lag behind whites, Asians, and Jews, it's seen the fault of society than understood as the result of Mexican genetics being somewhat less prone to intellectual achievement.

    And if men don't like fat women, that's just genes at work. Men don't like fatasses. But some fat women complain that the real problem is that the Agenda hasn't done enough to enlighten society about Body-Positivity and Fat-Acceptance. While society can invest tons of money to spread the notion that Fat is Beautiful and that men should like hippo-women, a lot of men are simply not gonna fall for this. Even those who say PC stuff about fat-acceptance will go on preferring slim ladies. They'll say one thing, do something other.

    It's like OLEANNA. The real problem is the girl is not very bright. It's no one's fault. It's not the professor's fault. It's not her fault. But society instilled her with notion that everyone should achieve equally. And so, her failure as student must be the fault of society. The Agenda must be pushed regardless of the fact of a-gene-da.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDaWEh_NFeg
  54. Hilarious! The threshold of “validity” was pulled out of a hat — 25% — and says nothing at all about which variations are significant to phenotypes of interest.

    It’s a variant of the Giraffe Fallacy, as humorously negated by Michael Levin.

    Giraffes are still taller (and whites are still smarter, Latin Americans age more slowly than others, and so on.)

  55. @Daniel Chieh
    The Old West was known for categorization by detail observed. The East was known for categorization by holistic purpose.

    The New West will be known for an inability to categorize at all.

    Ability is distinct from will.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Pretty sure that liberals have managed to think themselves out of the ability. I think I read something about "there is no scientific way to distinguish a male from a female."
  56. @Intelligent Dasein
    Even if all the genetic evidence for the existence of separate human races were thrown into doubt (and I believe it eventually will be), that certainly doesn't justify the conclusion that race is a mere social construct. The conclusion was far too quick, and is indicative of nothing except Whit Taylor's preconceived notions. Indeed, the onus is on him to first demonstrate, by independent means, the existence and nature of such social constructs, at which point his whole project will founder.

    However, White Nationalists and Race Realists who articulate their position using a hermeneutic of HBD informed by genetic evidence, are also setting themselves up for future disappointment.

    There is no need to look "beneath" the phenomenon of race for some sort of antecedent biological mechanism that explains it, whether that be genetic differences, skull structure, IQ, or what have you. All such biological markers, assuming that they exist and are highly correlated with traditional racial categories, would themselves be only additional symptoms or accidents of race, not the causes thereof.

    Taylor commits a very glaring error when he tries to argue against racial essentialism by attacking race-accidents. HBDers commit the equal and opposite error when they start defending the existence of race based on its accidents. What's needed is a recognition that one's race is an essential not an accidental characteristic of that person, and that it is manifested biologically, psychologically, and socially. We can then begin to discuss the phenomenon of race in a comprehensive way, leading to accurate and illuminating portrayals of what might be called the "White Soul," the "Negro Soul," etc.

    These are at present very neglected topics for art, literature, and philosophy.

    So I guess the prankish video “Trump will Complete the System of German Idealism” is actually true…

  57. Additionally what is “reliable”?

    Nothing is “reliable”, full stop. Reliability only has meaning contingent upon a purpose.

    The probability that a random white person is smarter than a random black person is about 84%. Whether a 16% error rate is tolerable or not is contingent upon purpose, and there is no objective answer. If not tolerable, one could include more factors for the estimate — race plus something else, a possibility seldom considered.

    But as single factor models go, I’d say 84% is quite reliable.

  58. @anon
    I agree. I don't have a problem with the black race. I just have one with black culture. Which is a social construct.

    But it seems to be immutable. And devolving into not merely normalizing pathology, but glorifying it. Rap music is an example.

    Even though we are closer than ever to actually mapping the genetics of race and getting some additional evidence regarding nature/nurture, the crucial thing is culture mediated behavior.

    And black culture is a problem. Which might as well be considered immutable.

    It’s only as immutable as the policies that subsidize it. A bit of that culture has always existed, but it balooned when the government started encouraging it. It’s the same story in the UK, minus the dark skin.

  59. @Steve Sailer
    They all spit in Watson's test tube?

    Let’s just say that’s a result that cries out for replication.

  60. @Steve Sailer
    They all spit in Watson's test tube?

    Maybe, but Watson’s published genome is early tech with obvious problems. He should have a new one made with up-to-date sequencing methods and publish it to forestall further confusion.

  61. @oddsbodkins
    The Watson / Venter / Kim SNP overlap thing is interesting. Can anyone with a good understanding of genetics explain this?

    Genomics is a failed pseudo science that has burned through billions and billions with nothing useful to show for it. Race is real and I wouldn’t pay much attention to DNA nerds one way or the other on the matter, even if somebody is lying about Kim’s SNPs in this instance.

  62. @Lex Corvus
    The cartoon claims that human genetic diversity is too low to have any subspecies, but it fails to cite any sources (I'll try to contain my shock). Does anyone know where that claim comes from?

    This was conjured up by Alan Templeton and first discussed in “Human races: a genetic and evolutionary perspective” (1998, pp. 663). He misread a paper which discussed the venerable 75% (correct assignment) rule. I emailed him, a while back, and pointed out the misinterpretation, but he deflected, but nonetheless seemed to acknowledge the error. Since then others had picked up the fictitious criterion, which isn’t used for some obvious reasons.

    Templeton also developed the Trellis argument, which again doesn’t make much sense, or only does given his idiosyncratic concept of and criterion for subspecies. All of this is somewhat irrelavent, since such criterion only make sense when dealing with subspecies in the sense of the taxonomic rank immediately below species — i.e., when dealing with formal taxonomically recognized races.

    (Steve, another comment — published under TheotherChuck was sent to the span box. I don’t like using this handle since a lot of comments, often about Jews, which I’m not witty enough to think of myself, are being assigned to this handle + email.)

    • Replies: @Lex Corvus
    Great, thanks for the details.
  63. res says:
    @Maz
    It's because Watson's published DNA sequence includes lots of faulty data. It's discussed in this paper:

    Our model also facilitates the assessment of results from analysis of complete genome sequences. The study of Ahn et al. (2009) suggests that the pairwise distances among three individuals, a Korean (“SJK”), Craig Venter and James Watson, measured by multilocus ASD, are roughly similar despite the distinct geographical origin of SJK in relation to Venter and Watson (see also their Fig. 2E). These results are surprising in light of our model for Ψ_n, which predicts that for worldwide distant populations (FST > 0.13) the probability for such an occurrence is virtually zero given as little as 200 independent and informative SNPs (Appendix F, Fig. F.1). In fact, with roughly 3.5 million SNPs sequenced in each individual genome,the pairwise distances Venter–Watson and Venter–SJK (or Watson–SJK) must show substantial discrepancy, since the ratio of average pairwise distances RAD is above 1.3 already at FST = 0.10 (see Fig. 5A). The paradoxical result is most likely an artifact of the high error rate and low coverage in Watson’s SNP calling (Yngvadottir et al., 2009).
     

    Thanks for finding that! Here is the (Yngvadottir et al., 2009) reference: https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2009-10-9-237
    It has some interesting information including a discussion of Watson’s African results. Also notes the Watson and Venter sequences were about 7.5x coverage.

    The paper you linked was from 2012. Has anyone done similar between races comparisons more recently?

  64. @Jason Liu
    The author, like most leftist polemics, does not understand biology.

    Order -> Family -> Genus -> Species

    There is no category after species. Even "breed" or "subspecies" are considered informal. "Race" is not, and was never part of the classification system. When people say race, they mean phenotype, which is biologically founded.

    The left has exploited and even intentionally exacerbated this confusion over a term that was never supposed to be scientifically definitive in the first place. By doing so, they can brush away differences, or reduce the significance of phenotype to mere skin color.

    I had imagined that when people say “race” (fr. lineage) — at least in context to natural history and not sports — they mean something along the lines of “people of common descent” or as Steve says “extended family” — and that they recognize that kinship predicts phenotypic similarity. Which is to say that they don’t define race by phenotypic similarity anymore than they define twins this same way. But who knows now. And Apparently in philsophy the idea that “race” has anything to do with lineage is disputed. I recall that philosopher Michael Hardimon had to write a paper “Wallis Simpson was Wrong” back in 2oo9 arguing that there was a connection. But this was immediately objected to e.g., Glasgow (2010).

    On one level the debate seems purely semantic, as one could just as well use “gens” the Latin translation of “race” or some other word to convey the idea. My impression though is that race opponents frequently don’t just oppose the use of the term or argue that there are no human races in some idiosyncratic sense, but rather oppose the idea of grouping people by ancestry — and worse building identities around kinship. After all, it’s not easy to change one’s ancestry, and so it’s hard to reconstruct these as “propositional”.

    One problem with taxonomic ranks:
    Order -> Family -> Genus -> Species – > [many reject Subspecies]

    Is that for conventional reasons, contemporary zoologists don’t extent the ranks down. Compare with Darwin:

    “In confirmation of this view, let us glance at the classification of varieties, which are believed or known to have descended from one species. These are grouped under species, with sub-varieties under varieties; and with our domestic productions, several other grades of difference are requisite, as we have seen with pigeons. The origin of the existence of groups subordinate to groups, is the same with varieties as with species, namely, closeness of descent with various degrees of modification… In classing varieties, I apprehend if we had a real pedigree, a genealogical classification would be universally preferred; and it has been attempted by some authors. For we might feel sure, whether there had been more or less modification, the principle of inheritance would keep the forms together which were allied in the greatest number of points.”

    It makes practical sense, of course, to not formally rank the local races of pigs on old MacDonald’s farm or on some isolated island, even though these would represent some type of Darwinian sub-sub-sub… Species — or even some type of species, given some of the more permissive species concepts popular these days. On the otherhand, it doesn’t make — logical — sense to say that these don’t exist — that there is nothing to think about, so just shut up — because by current conventions there are no corresponding taxonomic ranks. You can’t get more socially de-constructionist than to argue that communities of descent don’t exist because they are not formally assigned to a conventionally recognized taxonomic rank.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Compare with Darwin:

    “In confirmation of this view, let us glance at the classification of varieties, which are believed or known to have descended from one species. These are grouped under species, with sub-varieties under varieties; and with our domestic productions, several other grades of difference are requisite, as we have seen with pigeons. The origin of the existence of groups subordinate to groups, is the same with varieties as with species, namely, closeness of descent with various degrees of modification… In classing varieties, I apprehend if we had a real pedigree, a genealogical classification would be universally preferred; and it has been attempted by some authors. For we might feel sure, whether there had been more or less modification, the principle of inheritance would keep the forms together which were allied in the greatest number of points.”

    Darwin is talking about what I call top down and bottom up classification systems. A top down system is where you don't know the genealogies of the individuals so you classify them based on visible features (or recently, genes) in hopes of reconstructing main genealogical divisions. In contrast, a bottom up system is where you have the genealogies recorded and group that way, even if that ignores visible features.

    For example, thoroughbred race horses are thought of in terms of their publicly-known genealogies and how they look is less important. For example, the auction price of a young thoroughbred depends far less on the color of his coat than whether he has Northern Dancer among his ancestors.

    http://takimag.com/article/the_great_white_horse_steve_sailer/print#axzz4aD7TeaOk

  65. @Desiderius
    Ability is distinct from will.

    Pretty sure that liberals have managed to think themselves out of the ability. I think I read something about “there is no scientific way to distinguish a male from a female.”

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    "Liberals" (sic) didn't have the ability in the first place.

    What you're talking about is SJWs/progtards.
  66. @Chuck
    I had imagined that when people say "race" (fr. lineage) -- at least in context to natural history and not sports -- they mean something along the lines of "people of common descent" or as Steve says "extended family" -- and that they recognize that kinship predicts phenotypic similarity. Which is to say that they don't define race by phenotypic similarity anymore than they define twins this same way. But who knows now. And Apparently in philsophy the idea that "race" has anything to do with lineage is disputed. I recall that philosopher Michael Hardimon had to write a paper "Wallis Simpson was Wrong" back in 2oo9 arguing that there was a connection. But this was immediately objected to e.g., Glasgow (2010).

    On one level the debate seems purely semantic, as one could just as well use "gens" the Latin translation of "race" or some other word to convey the idea. My impression though is that race opponents frequently don't just oppose the use of the term or argue that there are no human races in some idiosyncratic sense, but rather oppose the idea of grouping people by ancestry -- and worse building identities around kinship. After all, it's not easy to change one's ancestry, and so it's hard to reconstruct these as "propositional".

    One problem with taxonomic ranks:
    Order -> Family -> Genus -> Species - > [many reject Subspecies]

    Is that for conventional reasons, contemporary zoologists don't extent the ranks down. Compare with Darwin:

    "In confirmation of this view, let us glance at the classification of varieties, which are believed or known to have descended from one species. These are grouped under species, with sub-varieties under varieties; and with our domestic productions, several other grades of difference are requisite, as we have seen with pigeons. The origin of the existence of groups subordinate to groups, is the same with varieties as with species, namely, closeness of descent with various degrees of modification… In classing varieties, I apprehend if we had a real pedigree, a genealogical classification would be universally preferred; and it has been attempted by some authors. For we might feel sure, whether there had been more or less modification, the principle of inheritance would keep the forms together which were allied in the greatest number of points."

    It makes practical sense, of course, to not formally rank the local races of pigs on old MacDonald's farm or on some isolated island, even though these would represent some type of Darwinian sub-sub-sub... Species -- or even some type of species, given some of the more permissive species concepts popular these days. On the otherhand, it doesn't make -- logical -- sense to say that these don't exist -- that there is nothing to think about, so just shut up -- because by current conventions there are no corresponding taxonomic ranks. You can't get more socially de-constructionist than to argue that communities of descent don't exist because they are not formally assigned to a conventionally recognized taxonomic rank.

    Compare with Darwin:

    “In confirmation of this view, let us glance at the classification of varieties, which are believed or known to have descended from one species. These are grouped under species, with sub-varieties under varieties; and with our domestic productions, several other grades of difference are requisite, as we have seen with pigeons. The origin of the existence of groups subordinate to groups, is the same with varieties as with species, namely, closeness of descent with various degrees of modification… In classing varieties, I apprehend if we had a real pedigree, a genealogical classification would be universally preferred; and it has been attempted by some authors. For we might feel sure, whether there had been more or less modification, the principle of inheritance would keep the forms together which were allied in the greatest number of points.”

    Darwin is talking about what I call top down and bottom up classification systems. A top down system is where you don’t know the genealogies of the individuals so you classify them based on visible features (or recently, genes) in hopes of reconstructing main genealogical divisions. In contrast, a bottom up system is where you have the genealogies recorded and group that way, even if that ignores visible features.

    For example, thoroughbred race horses are thought of in terms of their publicly-known genealogies and how they look is less important. For example, the auction price of a young thoroughbred depends far less on the color of his coat than whether he has Northern Dancer among his ancestors.

    http://takimag.com/article/the_great_white_horse_steve_sailer/print#axzz4aD7TeaOk

    • Replies: @TheotherChuck
    I'm always struck by how sophisticated -- compared to what often passes today -- Darwin's thinking was. He had a variety chronic health problems which forced him into relative social isolation, giving him a lot of time to think over the matter. Consider this passage:

    "With species in a state of nature, every naturalist has in fact brought descent into his classification; for he includes in his lowest grade, or that of a species, the two sexes; and how enormously these sometimes differ in the most important characters, is known to every naturalist: scarcely a single fact can be predicated in common of the males and hermaphrodites of certain cirripedes, when adult, and yet no one dreams of separating them. The naturalist includes as one species the several larval stages of the same individual, however much they may differ from each other and from the adult...But it may be asked, what ought we to do, if it could be proved that one species of kangaroo had been produced, by a long course of modification, from a bear? Ought we to rank this one species with bears, and what should we do with the other species? The supposition is of course preposterous; and I might answer by the argumentum ad hominem , and ask what should be done if a perfect kangaroo were seen to come out of the womb of a bear? According to all analogy, it would be ranked with bears; but then assuredly all the other species of the kangaroo family would have to be classed under the bear genus. The whole case is preposterous; for where there has been close descent in common, there will certainly be close resemblance or affinity."

    Here he anticipates this hypothetical i.e., what to do if you had a genealogical kangaroo which just happened to look like -- or, in our case, had a genotype more similar to -- bears. It's possible after all.

    [To be clear -- lest I continue to be confused with some type of ogre scientific racist and socially sanctioned accordingly -- I absolutely disavow the silly, unscientific notion that "race" is needed to understand human biological variation.]
  67. Different dog breeds can interbreed. Therefore dog breeds (from Chihuahua to Great Dane) are a social construct with no reality.

    You can mix blue and red and get purple. Furthermore you can’t say exactly where red becomes purple and purple becomes blue. Therefore neither blue, purple, nor red exist and color is a social construct with no reality.

    Also: how could they bring in (((Boaz))), (((Montagu))), and (((Lewontin))) and not figure out a way to work in (((Gould)))? Huh, by the way, why is it that the obviously most “racist” tribe in human history is so dedicated to muddying the waters on race? Could it be that they don’t really mean what they say and are just aiming to undermine White solidarity and confidence while preserving their own identity?

  68. @AndrewR
    Leftists love the "race is a social construct" line. And obviously to some extent it's true. But they're like three year olds in their thinking. "Since race is obviously a social construct in this example, that must mean it's a social construct in every way! Lalalalala I cant hear you!"

    I really don't understand why they deny biology so.

    @ smk, too

    I really don’t understand why they deny biology so.

    Reduction of complexity. Very useful tool, but like all such things – you can make good and bad use of it.

    Plus – some differences make – and intensify tensions. From this point on, you get a strong dynamic as soon, as real societal tension (for whatever reason…) kicks in – or gets intensified, even.***

    *** cf. the work of social psychologist Putnam, and Paul Collier and – – – Fukuyama?! – – Steve Sailer!

  69. @Steve Sailer
    Compare with Darwin:

    “In confirmation of this view, let us glance at the classification of varieties, which are believed or known to have descended from one species. These are grouped under species, with sub-varieties under varieties; and with our domestic productions, several other grades of difference are requisite, as we have seen with pigeons. The origin of the existence of groups subordinate to groups, is the same with varieties as with species, namely, closeness of descent with various degrees of modification… In classing varieties, I apprehend if we had a real pedigree, a genealogical classification would be universally preferred; and it has been attempted by some authors. For we might feel sure, whether there had been more or less modification, the principle of inheritance would keep the forms together which were allied in the greatest number of points.”

    Darwin is talking about what I call top down and bottom up classification systems. A top down system is where you don't know the genealogies of the individuals so you classify them based on visible features (or recently, genes) in hopes of reconstructing main genealogical divisions. In contrast, a bottom up system is where you have the genealogies recorded and group that way, even if that ignores visible features.

    For example, thoroughbred race horses are thought of in terms of their publicly-known genealogies and how they look is less important. For example, the auction price of a young thoroughbred depends far less on the color of his coat than whether he has Northern Dancer among his ancestors.

    http://takimag.com/article/the_great_white_horse_steve_sailer/print#axzz4aD7TeaOk

    I’m always struck by how sophisticated — compared to what often passes today — Darwin’s thinking was. He had a variety chronic health problems which forced him into relative social isolation, giving him a lot of time to think over the matter. Consider this passage:

    “With species in a state of nature, every naturalist has in fact brought descent into his classification; for he includes in his lowest grade, or that of a species, the two sexes; and how enormously these sometimes differ in the most important characters, is known to every naturalist: scarcely a single fact can be predicated in common of the males and hermaphrodites of certain cirripedes, when adult, and yet no one dreams of separating them. The naturalist includes as one species the several larval stages of the same individual, however much they may differ from each other and from the adult…But it may be asked, what ought we to do, if it could be proved that one species of kangaroo had been produced, by a long course of modification, from a bear? Ought we to rank this one species with bears, and what should we do with the other species? The supposition is of course preposterous; and I might answer by the argumentum ad hominem , and ask what should be done if a perfect kangaroo were seen to come out of the womb of a bear? According to all analogy, it would be ranked with bears; but then assuredly all the other species of the kangaroo family would have to be classed under the bear genus. The whole case is preposterous; for where there has been close descent in common, there will certainly be close resemblance or affinity.”

    Here he anticipates this hypothetical i.e., what to do if you had a genealogical kangaroo which just happened to look like — or, in our case, had a genotype more similar to — bears. It’s possible after all.

    [To be clear — lest I continue to be confused with some type of ogre scientific racist and socially sanctioned accordingly — I absolutely disavow the silly, unscientific notion that “race” is needed to understand human biological variation.]

    • Replies: @Anon
    Most people's thinking in the mid-nineteenth century was quite sophisticated compared to what often passes today. Heck, that's true up to the mid-twentieth.

    Classical education- don't leave home without it. Or build a society. Whatever.
  70. @Daniel Chieh
    Pretty sure that liberals have managed to think themselves out of the ability. I think I read something about "there is no scientific way to distinguish a male from a female."

    “Liberals” (sic) didn’t have the ability in the first place.

    What you’re talking about is SJWs/progtards.

  71. This is such a delightful mix of fallacies and bizarre rhetorical maneuvers.

    – I produce a selection of badthink quotes — focusing entirely on IQ
    – … and emphasizing IQ differences on average, a distinctly non-essentialist position
    – but “we know racial essentialism is nonsense”!
    – so from here out I explain that different populations simply differ in their traits on average, such as this non-IQ trait and that non-IQ trait
    – I won’t circle back to the issue I used as a jumping off point, I’ll just end the comic by leaving you with the vague feeling that I’ve somehow debunked it, when in fact I’ve spent all my energy showing that, in principle, the reasoning is totally sound

  72. @Jason Liu
    They get it from Lewontin's bullshit, misleading theory. Having genetic diversity within a group does not preclude overall differences between groups, even if one can find extreme differences within a single group. This one simple fallacy is all the egalitarians have to bank on.

    Lewontin is a self-admitted Marxist and has no business being in academia.

    Expel the Marxists from academia and the universities will close down for lack of faculty.

  73. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    I agree. I don't have a problem with the black race. I just have one with black culture. Which is a social construct.

    But it seems to be immutable. And devolving into not merely normalizing pathology, but glorifying it. Rap music is an example.

    Even though we are closer than ever to actually mapping the genetics of race and getting some additional evidence regarding nature/nurture, the crucial thing is culture mediated behavior.

    And black culture is a problem. Which might as well be considered immutable.

    “I don’t have a problem with the black race. I just have one with black culture.”

    Black culture seems to sprout from black genetics.

    I think we tend to see the world in terms of agendas and intentions. And there is good reason for this because people do have agency, and we can change the world according to our values, ideas, and goals. Intentions have done much to reshape reality.
    And with the rise of liberty, democracy, and equality(under rule of law), we have created a world where more people can enjoy freedoms and rights.
    This is truly a great achievement of mankind all over the world. It has proven that agendas and ideas can transform the world. But it seems so many people have fallen into the fallacy of radical agenda-ism, the belief that if we pursue a certain agenda hard enough, its goals can be attained. After all, if humanity went from near universal tyranny to universal freedom(relative to the past), there is nothing we can’t achieve.

    But there are two problems that undermine such Radical Agenda-ism: freedom itself and genetics. While the rise of freedom around the world(via democracy, human rights, technology, etc) has increased possibilities for change, it also meant so many people can do their own thing. And so often, what people freely choose to do is so dumb and counter-productive to having a good society. So, freedom can work against the Agenda of progress. This is what Chris Hedges willfully ignores. He’s right that Negroes once had much less freedom and rights. But he falls back on that template to explain today’s America. He overlooks that the rise of black pathology was the result of rise of freedom in the black community. If blacks in the past could be said to be relatively backward because of legal discrimination and social bias — that were true enough —, much of black problems since the 1960s has been the result of blacks using freedom badly.

    This sort of explains why so many on the Left have been drawn to totalitarian ideologies. Even as they championed freedom and liberty, they felt freedom might derail the great project of progress by enticing the masses with too many temptations, like the Golden Calf. So, in order for people to be truly free, their consciousness must first be raised and habits remolded to do what’s right. It’s like giving kids too much freedom turns them lazy and spoiled. So, we force them to go to school and to graduate to a higher freedom.

    As long as people have freedom, many of them will not stick to the agenda or program. And it’s just something a free society will have to accept. Utopianism is incompatible with a free society. Free society can seek reform and improvement, but there are limits to what it can do.
    Too many people will do the ‘wrong’ thing, but a free society should allow the freedom to do wrong than right(as long as it’s not criminal). (Also, there is no guarantee that the ‘good’ thing pushed by the Agenda may indeed be good.) Radical Agenda-ists fail to understand the nature of this problem because they champion both ‘freedom’ and ‘progress’. They tend to assume that freedom will lead to support for the Agenda. But when people are free, there’s no guarantee that they will go along with the agenda(which may be sound or unsound). Radical Agenda-ists are under the fallacious delusion that MORE FREEDOM must necessarily lead to MORE PROGRESS. But things don’t turn out that way. So, they use PC, a mind-trick that tries to fool people that banning ‘hate speech’ is about serving ‘free speech’. Radical Agenda-ists want to maintain the fiction that freedom and history are always on their side. Since it’s often not the case, they use all sorts of subtle and not-so-subtle threats, nudges, manipulations, and dirty tricks to push their agenda. So, even though they finally got what they wanted through underhanded methods and abuse of power, they pretend that the People freely and rationally chose what the Agenda demanded. Consider how majority of America said NO to the homo agenda. So, the academia, media, courts, and government all conspired to promote it at every level of society and to shame/destroy anyone who stood in its way. Media don’t appeal to reason and sense. It uses all the tricks of advertising and propaganda. And the ‘free’ media used every dirty trick in the book to NUDGE the public into not voting for Trump. “HE HAS NO CHANCE. JUST STAY HOME. HILLARY HAS 99% CHANCE OF WINNING.” There’s poetic justice that the media lost to a salesman who knows all the tricks of hype.

    Another problem for Radical Agenda-ism is the role of genes. This is so obvious to anyone in HBD or with honest pair of eyes, but PC is all about Blind Reason.
    Radical Agenda-ists believe that full societal commitment to any Agenda will deliver the goods and arrive at the desired outcome. It’s the Good Will to Power.
    But genes don’t agree. What might be called a-gene-da has its own trajectory, especially when combined with freedom.

    Genes have natural inclinations, or I should say different genes have different natural inclinations. If people are allowed more freedom, their a-gene-da will follow their natural tendencies.. and these may go against the Agenda. So, if Negro genetics are more prone to ‘let the good times roll’, more freedom for Negroes will lead to more good times rolling which lead to bad results.

    A-gene-da follows a certain tendency, or an ‘atenda’. Take food. Suppose Food Idealists want a world of freedom where people have the choice to eat healthy, shall eat healthy, and be healthy. And suppose they to attain the great goal of creating a world of freedom and more choice of foods and drinks. And suppose they promote the message of what constitutes good eating and health. Will the world live up to their Agenda?
    No. Human genes are coded to love fatty food, creamy food, sugary food. Good or bad, genetics make people crave that stuff EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW IT’S BAD FOR THEM. So, a freedom to eat and drink will leads to lots of people eating too much ‘rich foods’ and turning into fatsos, fatkins, lardasses, and blubbaroons. Now, the Agenda for healthy eating may be good, but give the a-gene-da or ‘atenda’ of what people naturally crave, the equation is freedom + wide choice = lots of people eating and drinking the wrong kinds of foods. That’s why we have so many buffalo-butts in America. All these people don’t want to be fat. And they know they are pigging out on stuff they shouldn’t. But their genes tell them to ‘eat, eat, drink, drink’. They can’t help it under the regimen of freedom and choice(and lack of shame). And freedom and availability of wide range of food turns them into a bunch of minnesota-fats.

    So, while the power of Agenda is real because we do have agency and freedom, the fact is there is a limit to what the Agenda can achieve.
    Also, one good thing achieved by the Agenda might undermine another good thing wished by the Agenda. Progressives wished two things for Negroes. They wanted Negroes to be more free and to make economic success. They thought Negroes with more freedom would use its blessings to achieve success.
    But when Negroes got more freedom, they ignored the Agenda and went with their a-gene-da that told em, “party all the time”. This is what Chris Hedges just doesn’t get. Filled with self-righteous sanctimony and faithful to the Magic Negro trope, his only explanation of black failures since the 1960s is ‘not enough freedom’ rather than misuse of freedom fueled by Negro genetics that tell Negroes to boogie-oogie-funky-all-night-long.

    Too much of what people are upset about is the result of ways of a-gene-da, not failure of Agenda. But because the West achieved so much with ideas and agendas, there is the fallacious notion that it can achieve ANYTHING, and if things don’t turn out perfectly, it must be the failure of Agenda. It’s stupid to blame the West for everything, but there’s a a certain logic as to why this is the case. Prior to the rise of the West, humanity didn’t expect much from reality. They took for granted that things would remain the same or even get worse. There was no idea of progress like we have in the modern world. No one believed that human will, agency, and ideas could radically change the world. This is why people preferred to dream of heaven than create heaven on earth.
    But the modern West truly did change so much so fast based on ideas, will, vision, and determination. So, it created the notion that humanity, especially white humanity, should be able to achieve anything. I mean it even sent a man to the moon. If the West could begin the century with two brother flying crude planes and 70 yrs later send a rocket to the moon, what can it not do? If this utopia doesn’t materialize, it must be the failure of will or commitment.

    But there are limits to everything. And even the great West cannot achieve everything no matter how great its will, commitment, investment, and determination. The US learned in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq that it cannot turn just any part of the world into a new Vermont. US cannot even turn Detroit into new Vermont.

    While will and commitment(in the right people) can do a lot, there are other factors that come into play. Much of the failure of Black America owes to a-gene-da. It’ s no one’s fault. It’s not the white man’s fault. And it’s not the black man’s fault(in the sense that blacks are not willfully trying to destroy schools). It was the result of freedom + black genes. With freedom, black genes naturally gravitated toward ‘party all the time’ or worse, ‘fight all the time’.
    Possibly, things might have turned out better if whites had withheld full freedom while investing in blacks for improvement. With less freedom, blacks might have been compelled to do the right thing. But the ideal of equal rights made such untenable in America. So, freedom + black genes was bound to lead to too many blacks reverting to their nature.

    A lot of things that happen in America is the result of a-gene-da, but Radical Agenda-ism always blames the problem on Society and especially whites. So, if Mexicans in California lag behind whites, Asians, and Jews, it’s seen the fault of society than understood as the result of Mexican genetics being somewhat less prone to intellectual achievement.

    And if men don’t like fat women, that’s just genes at work. Men don’t like fatasses. But some fat women complain that the real problem is that the Agenda hasn’t done enough to enlighten society about Body-Positivity and Fat-Acceptance. While society can invest tons of money to spread the notion that Fat is Beautiful and that men should like hippo-women, a lot of men are simply not gonna fall for this. Even those who say PC stuff about fat-acceptance will go on preferring slim ladies. They’ll say one thing, do something other.

    It’s like OLEANNA. The real problem is the girl is not very bright. It’s no one’s fault. It’s not the professor’s fault. It’s not her fault. But society instilled her with notion that everyone should achieve equally. And so, her failure as student must be the fault of society. The Agenda must be pushed regardless of the fact of a-gene-da.

  74. @TheotherChuck
    I'm always struck by how sophisticated -- compared to what often passes today -- Darwin's thinking was. He had a variety chronic health problems which forced him into relative social isolation, giving him a lot of time to think over the matter. Consider this passage:

    "With species in a state of nature, every naturalist has in fact brought descent into his classification; for he includes in his lowest grade, or that of a species, the two sexes; and how enormously these sometimes differ in the most important characters, is known to every naturalist: scarcely a single fact can be predicated in common of the males and hermaphrodites of certain cirripedes, when adult, and yet no one dreams of separating them. The naturalist includes as one species the several larval stages of the same individual, however much they may differ from each other and from the adult...But it may be asked, what ought we to do, if it could be proved that one species of kangaroo had been produced, by a long course of modification, from a bear? Ought we to rank this one species with bears, and what should we do with the other species? The supposition is of course preposterous; and I might answer by the argumentum ad hominem , and ask what should be done if a perfect kangaroo were seen to come out of the womb of a bear? According to all analogy, it would be ranked with bears; but then assuredly all the other species of the kangaroo family would have to be classed under the bear genus. The whole case is preposterous; for where there has been close descent in common, there will certainly be close resemblance or affinity."

    Here he anticipates this hypothetical i.e., what to do if you had a genealogical kangaroo which just happened to look like -- or, in our case, had a genotype more similar to -- bears. It's possible after all.

    [To be clear -- lest I continue to be confused with some type of ogre scientific racist and socially sanctioned accordingly -- I absolutely disavow the silly, unscientific notion that "race" is needed to understand human biological variation.]

    Most people’s thinking in the mid-nineteenth century was quite sophisticated compared to what often passes today. Heck, that’s true up to the mid-twentieth.

    Classical education- don’t leave home without it. Or build a society. Whatever.

  75. @Chuck
    This was conjured up by Alan Templeton and first discussed in "Human races: a genetic and evolutionary perspective" (1998, pp. 663). He misread a paper which discussed the venerable 75% (correct assignment) rule. I emailed him, a while back, and pointed out the misinterpretation, but he deflected, but nonetheless seemed to acknowledge the error. Since then others had picked up the fictitious criterion, which isn't used for some obvious reasons.

    Templeton also developed the Trellis argument, which again doesn't make much sense, or only does given his idiosyncratic concept of and criterion for subspecies. All of this is somewhat irrelavent, since such criterion only make sense when dealing with subspecies in the sense of the taxonomic rank immediately below species -- i.e., when dealing with formal taxonomically recognized races.

    (Steve, another comment -- published under TheotherChuck was sent to the span box. I don't like using this handle since a lot of comments, often about Jews, which I'm not witty enough to think of myself, are being assigned to this handle + email.)

    Great, thanks for the details.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS