The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Thompson Archive
Explaining Race and Genetics: No Need to Despair
Response to Birney, Raff, Rutherford, & Scally
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

It is good to have an essay which sets out a point of view clearly, so Ewan Birney’s 24th October blogpost (Ewan Birney, Jennifer Raff, Adam Rutherford, Aylwyn Scally) is welcome. A summary of this sort gives discussions of racial differences a focal point.

Race, genetics and pseudoscience: an explainer
http://ewanbirney.com/2019/10/race-genetics-and-pseudoscience-an-explainer.html

It is not up to me, but I wonder if a more balanced title would have been: Race, genetics and science? Birney et al. give a general introduction to genetic discoveries and then refer to “darker currents” affecting current research:

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

Strong stuff. These misleading cottage dwellers are low grade people, it seems! So, the Birney et al. paper is not so much an “explainer” as an attack on a position with which they do not agree. No problem with that, but these authors seek to clothe themselves in the robes of righteousness, rarely a good stance in scientific debate.

Birney et al. argue that the standard descriptions of races:

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

The key phrase is “did not perfectly match”. A high re-definition. In fact, many people find that the new genetics is a pretty good match with the continental racial groupings in general use. As witness, the authors concede as much, and also use these terms when making various points in their arguments. There are genetic groupings in different continents. It seems a great leap to say that because the match with genetic research is good, but not perfect, we can reject objective biological categories based on DNA. Many researchers regard DNA classifications as an improvement on the older ones: there is plenty of overlap, but DNA provides finer detail, which increases our understanding of group differences. The authors will have none of this. They argue:

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

Forgive me if I give a cheer here: this seems a most welcome concession: if DNA provides descriptions which “broadly align” with the old ones, why not accept this major point of agreement, shake hands, and move on? Apparently, we cannot do so because there is more genetic diversity within Africa than anywhere else. Africans are “just as different from each other as Africans are to non-Africans”.

I probably misunderstood Cavalli-Sforza and his genetic trees, and imagined that these divergent African groups in Africa were all at a significant genetic distance from those Africans who went walkabout out of Africa, and eventually became non-Africans. Can we ignore the finding that some African groups are genetically close and have a common ancestry; and that groups who later splinter away and leave Africa go on to develop differently on other continents? Furthermore, to understand what this diversity implies we should have population totals for each of the genetic African groups, and some evidence that they differ in intelligence. Currently, African country levels of IQ are pretty similar.Tribal differences would be interesting.

the real history of Homo sapiens is more like an overgrown thicket than a stately branching tree. Much of the population structure that we see today in ancestry testing results dates back only to a few thousand years or less. For example, the majority of European genomes are a mixture of at least three major groups within the last 10,000 years: the early hunter-gatherers who first populated the continent, a second wave of ancestry from the Near East associated with the spread of farming; and a third contribution from north Eurasia during the Bronze Age (2000–500 BCE).

So, genetic trees aren’t acceptable. Furthermore, I don’t see why a few thousand years is such a problem. Two thousand years, at one generation per 28 years, is 71 generations. If it is the 10,000 years of agriculture that is the time base, that provides 357 generations for the breeder’s equation to play out. Even 16 generations of very hard selection can bring about big changes in the relative proportions of different alleles. In fact, as luck would have it, a very recent publication shows that if brighter people move to London from coal mining areas and the less bright stay mining coal, then even in the short space of the British Industrial Revolution there will be evidence that those who go walkabout start differing from the local populations they leave behind.

Genetic correlates of social stratification in Great Britain. Published: 21 October 2019
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0757-5

Anyway, can’t we just display racial results using a Principal Components Analysis? Apparently not. The authors caution that data collection might be biased by:

existing cultural, anthropological or political groupings. If samples are collected based on pre-defined groupings, it’s entirely unsurprising that the analyses of these samples will return results that identify such groupings. This does not tell us that such taxonomies are inherent in human biology.

I can see that if geneticists only collect data say, from Protestants and not Catholics, or Sunni and not Shia, or even from Republicans and not Democrats, this could be a problem, but everyone lives in cultural and political groupings, researchers included, so why not take broad samples (like UK Biobank) across the world and then see if religious and political groupings show any genetic discriminators.

The authors are also against refining the concept of “race” to include new findings, and recommend it be dropped altogether, in favour of “populations”. No problem. They can use “populations”. Although different people may prefer different descriptors, if a name-change eases tensions, adopt it.

The authors then go on to make a general point about science:

It is often suggested that geneticists who emphasise the biological invalidity of race are under the thumb of political correctness, forced to suppress their real opinions in order to maintain their positions in the academy. Such accusations are unfounded and betray a lack of understanding of what motivates science.
[]
The charge that thousands of scientists across the world are covering up a real discovery for fear of personal or wider social consequences is absurd.

I don’t know about “thousands of scientists” but researchers working in the field of genetics, particularly regarding intelligence, tell me they have to be careful what they publish. They fear that grants applications, always difficult and time-consuming, will fail if they announce they wish to work on racial differences in ability. As far as Jim Flynn could find, no such studies have been funded. It is a career risk.

The authors continue:

There are countless traits one can measure in humans, but none more controversial than those associated with intelligence, such as IQ. ‘Human biodiversity’ proponents tend to fixate on IQ, and one can speculate about why this is and what conclusions they wish to draw;

Only two paragraphs ago the authors denied unfounded accusations about researcher’s motivations (not how science works) and now they are wondering aloud what motivates researchers to discuss race and IQ!

On a brighter note, the authors accept that intelligence can be tested. They go on to concede that groups evolve to have different characteristics: lactic tolerance, oily fish tolerance and so on, but this, apparently, does not support the notion that races (populations) differ in a similar way. There can be local or regional adaptation but not larger scale adaptation, apparently. We now come to the nub of the paper:

IQ scores are heritable: that is, within populations, genetic variation is related to variation in the trait. But a fundamental truism about heritability is that it tells us nothing about differences between groups. Even analyses that have tried to calculate the proportion of the difference between people in different countries for a much more straightforward trait (height) have faced scientific criticisms.

Lewontin is rattling his chains yet again. I disagree with the claim that heritability tells us nothing about differences between groups. If something is heritable there must be a genetic mechanism which makes it so. If groups show any differences in skulls, faces, brains, body shapes, muscles, fat, bones, skin and hair then it is reasonable to test for genetic causes. It is a strong prior, and it would be odd to say that genetics has an effect on human behaviour, except in the specific case of comparing genetic groups.

As regards GWAS studies, the authors argue that the samples on which the published results are based are too selective: Finns and Sardinians are rejected because they have distinct genetic ancestries compared with other Europeans. They are not European enough. The final results are too European, and leave out interesting variations which might make Europeans more like other groups.

I see this as a feature, not a bug. Try the GWAS both ways, with and without the outlying groups, and compare the results. Once we get more data from other continents, particularly from Africa, then do the same on those results. Researchers (Lee et al. 2018) have already used European polygenic risk scores for intelligence on African samples, and the formula which predicts 11-14% of the intelligence variance in Europeans predicts 1.6% of the variance in Africans. Not much, but not nothing. Doing the same for polygenic height scores also results in a commensurate attenuation. European predictors don’t work well for Africans. (African sample n=1519 which is small). Both genetic groups probably have the same intelligence boosting variants, but not in the same positions on the genome, and not necessarily with the same frequency in their populations.

However, the authors consider they have found a deeper problem:

Simply put, nobody has yet developed techniques that can bypass the genetic clustering and removal of people that do not fit the statistical model mentioned above, while simultaneously taking into account all the differences in language, income, nutrition, education, environment, and culture that may themselves be the cause of differences in any trait observed between different groups.

Not all researchers are so pessimistic. Most researchers assume that environmental and cultural factors play a part in continental differences in intellectual achievements. If genetic studies on large samples come up with a null result for genetic predictors, this would strengthen the view that environmental factors are dominant. A null result would be highly informative, and would have a big impact on the debate about racial differences in intelligence. It is worth increasing the coverage of GWAS studies to the global population, and increasing our understanding of the power and limits of genetic predictors.

Cultural factors probably have two-way relationships with genetic effects: for example, cultural restrictions on marriage will limit the gene pool, and sharpen group characteristics. Some of these hypotheses can be tested by simple means: if culture and environment have strong effects, admixture studies will fail to generate accurate predictors. Merely knowing in the American continent for each country, or state/province, or local district, the percentage of the population that are of European origins will not predict anything much about intelligence, scholastic ability and wealth. Admixture studies provide a quick test of the plausibility of genetic hypotheses, and generate good predictors.

The authors make their final substantive point:

The genetic variants that are most strongly associated with IQ in Europeans are no more population-specific than any other trait. To put it bluntly, the same genetic variants associated with purportedly higher IQ in Europeans are also present in Africans, and have not emerged, or been obviously selected for, in recent evolutionary history outside Africa. Moreover, since it is a complex trait, the genetic variation related to IQ is broadly distributed across the genome, rather than being clustered around a few spots, as is the nature of the variation responsible for skin pigmentation. These very different patterns for these two traits mean that the genes responsible for determining skin pigmentation cannot be meaningfully associated with the genes currently known to be linked to IQ. These observations alone rule out some of the cruder racial narratives about the genetics of intelligence: it is virtually inconceivable that the primary determinant of racial categories – that is skin colour – is strongly associated with the genetic architecture that relates to intelligence.

This paragraph contains a number of elements.

First, that the SNPs that boost intelligence in Europeans are also found in Africans. Great. Are they found as frequently?

Second, that there is no evidence that they have emerged in non-Africans. I thought that there was evidence that there had been selection for such variants in Europeans (and some evidence of negative selection in Iceland). A matter of debate, it seems.

Third, the fact that intelligence SNPs are all over the genome, and skin pigmentation SNPs are clustered in a few spots means that “it is virtually inconceivable that the primary determinant of racial categories – that is skin colour – is strongly associated with the genetic architecture that relates to intelligence.” I am surprised at this line of reasoning, which turns on a very restrictive definition of race, another high re-definition. Skin colour is only one aspect of racial differences, though it has some predictive value. A more reasonable approach would be to look at all the characteristics which differ in racial groups, particularly those not visible, such as bone density. On the other hand, if we find no differences in the architecture and size of brains in different racial groups, that would be far more persuasive.

The authors go on to argue that, regarding black/white intelligence differences in the US, “It is our contention that any apparent population differences in IQ scores are more easily explained by cultural and environmental factors than they are by genetics.” It would certainly be good to have more studies outside the US. Brazil, for example, which had a far more relaxed attitude about different race marriages, and far less race-based strife, has racial differences in intelligence and scholastic attainment very much like those found in the US. Equally, the global results show that Africans in the US are higher achievers than Africans in Africa.

The authors mention the Flynn effect, but not that Flynn accepts that the secular rise in intelligence scores has not led to the disappearance of the black/white achievement gap, which he originally expected. For the record, Jim Flynn says hypotheses about the genetic origins of such differences should be tested.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/armageddon-james-flynn-on-academic-freedom-and-race/

The authors conclude their “explainer” thus:

By understanding both our history and contemporary research, we are emboldened by knowing that genetics has only served to undermine its own racist history.

Despite their polemical conclusion, there are points of agreement. Intelligence is worth testing. It would be good to have a wider representation of races/populations in GWAS studies. Scientists should be judged on the quality of their findings, not their presumed motivations. We should let the science move forward whether we like the results or not.

Of course, there are a number of points of disagreement.

The authors seem to argue that races are too similar genetically to account for the observed racial differences, ergo the differences are environmental; and at other times that races are too different genetically to be pooled together. Races cannot be simultaneously too similar and too different. (Diana Fleischman drew my attention to this contradiction).

They accuse researchers who argue for a genetic component in race differences of being “dark forces” on the fringes, yet say that any accusation that political correctness marginalises this debate is absurd.

They say that no analytic method can disentangle genetic from environmental/cultural factors when comparing racial groups. I don’t find the “argument from complexity” persuasive. If Brazilian findings are similar to United States findings, some of the US-specific cultural arguments can be discounted. If South East Asian post-colonial progress is better than African post-colonial progress then some of the negative effects of colonialism can questioned. If Chinese progress post 1980 has been faster than Indian progress since 1980 then genetic explanations can be investigated, and so on.

We should not despair. We should push on with studying the genetics of intelligence in all human populations. Many cultural differences will be a consequence of genetic differences, and some cultural habits will have genetic effects. A two-way street. The grand aim of all science [is] to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest possible number of hypotheses or axioms…

A noble aim.

 
Hide 721 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. res says:

    Thanks for covering this. Much to think about here, but a couple of quick thoughts.

    Second, that there is no evidence that they have emerged in non-Africans. I thought that there was evidence that there had been selection for such variants in Europeans (and some evidence of negative selection in Iceland). A matter of debate, it seems.

    I think the current theory is that most (all?) of the variants in Europeans are present at low level in Africans. Having this “raw material” available would speed up selection greatly because you don’t have to wait for the beneficial mutations to occur in the first place.

    What I don’t understand is how all of this variation made it out of Africa given that the various founding populations leaving Africa seem to have been small (effective population size bottlenecks) and would presumably be biased towards Northern Africa (e.g. how many Bushmen left Africa?).

    One thing that surprised my is they engaged approvingly with the height analogy.

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

    I look forward to hearing about how “differences in language, income, nutrition, education, environment, and culture” cause Pygmies to be short. Actually, there might very well be some influence like that, but does anyone think genetics doesn’t have an important influence on Pygmy height? Whether or not we have found the exact variants.

    Is anyone following the discussion on Twitter? (that is where it is happening, right? I don’t see any comments on the post itself) I don’t find Twitter conversations particularly useful, but if anyone has links to important tweets they would be appreciated.

    This tweet is worth noting because it describes their division of labor:

  2. @res

    Their division of labour is interesting, and their championing of Saini very informative.
    Pygmies: poverty stunts.

    Onwards and upwards.

    • Replies: @res
    , @pppoop
  3. Mr. Thompson seems to shoot some rather large holes in Birney’s, et al., reasoning, especially the latters’ dismissal of the reason-befouling influence of political correctness on science, but I can’t find any definition of his much-used acronym GWAS.

  4. res says:
    @James Thompson

    Pygmies: poverty stunts.

    Probably part of it (and the reason for the caveats in my comment). But there was some research on Pygmy height back in 2012-2014 (seems to have stopped since then, I wonder why ; ):

    https://phys.org/news/2014-02-genes-pygmy-history.html

    The researchers further found that the pygmy genome could contain as much as 50 percent DNA inherited from people of Bantu origin.

    And their height is directly proportional to the amount of non-pygmy DNA inherited—”the less one is pygmy, genetically speaking, the taller one is,” said Patin.

    The odd thing is I don’t see anything like that in the paper the article references (could someone double check?). The quote is from the first author though.

    Here is the 2012 work:
    https://www.livescience.com/19929-pygmy-height-genetics.html
    https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002641

    They include a plot of height versus Pygmy ancestry (R^2 = 74%!) in panel D of Figure 1. I don’t think this will embed though.

    https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/figure/image?size=large&id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002641.g001

  5. Just as suggesting that differences in racial intelligence exist can end a career, so can questions about the infallibility of doctrinaire evolution. Both arouse cries of pseudoscience and both involve suppression of evidence. Both are a type of political correctness, as rational as AO’s economics.

  6. Just a tactical comment re:

    Although different people may prefer different descriptors, if a name-change eases tensions, adopt it.

    Very bad idea. _Never_ accept an opponent’s terminology. Not ever. Conclusions can be put into terminology — it’s fairly simple. “Native American” is a fairly good one — the Anglo Saxon descended people in the US used to call themselves “native Americans” in contradistinction to the 1840-1890 immigrants. I was actually present in the audience at the AAAS meeting that publically changed the definition of “native Americans” to American Indians (“aboriginal Americans” might have been better). The committee was not entirely happy about the change, and one member who was from the 1840-1890 immigration wave said that he was just as much a “native American” as anybody, and that he was only voting for the change under duress.

    In this case, you’ll find people saying things such as “Populations can and do change, so your idea of a genetic component to ‘populations’ is clearly wrong”. That’s the old “overloaded word definition” trick. Robert Zimmerman used it when he said “Free means you don’t have to pay for it” to ridicule the idea of political freedom.

    You can also find your group referred to as immoral, something like “the horrible ones”. Hard to argue when that’s the term.
    Example: WASPS. All Anglo Saxons were white, so WASP is a bit overdetermined. The term exists to make the Anglo Saxon Protestants indefensible, just like insect Wasps.
    Example: “People who think they are White”, roughly translated as “crazy people”.
    Example: “Capitalist”. Rough translation: “Person who owns all the capital and won’t share it”.

    So: never, never, never adopt your opponent’s terminology. If the opponent says “it doesn’t matter, so let’s use mine”, the answer is “Since it doesn’t matter, we’ll use mine”.

    In a friendly talk things might be different, but remember that today most opponents pose as friends during the early part of a verbal confrontation. Very old trick, but still widely used.

    Counterinsurgency

    Counterinsurgency

  7. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    If race is a social construct, meaning it only exists in some people’s minds, then there is no racism.

    There, solved a 400 yo thorny problem using raw English.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Dieter Kief
    , @loren
  8. pppoop says:
    @James Thompson

    Inbredjews create weapons of mass death, lie, steal, torture better than all other groups surveyed.

  9. @Heiba Hufa

    Genome wide association studies, the major method used in hunting for the swarm of genes involved in intelligence.

  10. gotmituns says:

    Just because a creature bears a resemblance to a human as in negroes and jews, doesn’t make the brute a human.

    • Agree: Dannyboy
  11. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    On a brighter note, the authors accept that intelligence can be tested

    Some aspects of intelligence can be assessed relatively easily. There’s the capacity for verbal and numerical logic, for example, which is what IQ tests seem primarily to assess.

    But the Flynn effect leaves no doubt that IQ test scores are dependent to a large degree on cultural and educational factors, so IQ tests are not a reliable guide to racial differences in intelligence.

    Furthermore, intelligence is vastly broader that what is measured with an IQ test. Therefore, much of the racial variation in intelligence — the ability to acquire and use information in many different spheres, artistic, literary, mathematical, proprioceptive, etc. — are largely beyond the analytical tools generally deployed by psychologists.

    The claim that all forms of intelligence arise from a general factor, g, derived by factor analysis from a test of some sub-set of intellectual abilities is trivial because g accounts for very little of the observed variation among measured attributes.

    It is true that all intellectual activities have the same substrate, i.e., neurons. But there is no central processing unit of the brain. On the contrary, the brain is highly modular, each module for storing and processing the different forms of information being subject to independent genetic variation in capacity by module-specific genes.

    What that means is that studies of racial differences in intelligence conducted to date do not provide a satisfactory basis for a comprehensive understanding of racial variation in intelligence, although such variation must surely exist, if only because the occurrence of racial differentiation occurred in parallel with cultural differentiation.

    In addition, each race evolved in a specific physical environment by which it became more or less clearly marked. Thus, for example, when it was reported recently that someone had run a sub-two-hour marathon, the immediate response of many was: “it must have been a Kenyan”. Actually, it was an Ethiopian, but Ethiopians, like those long-distance-running Kenyans, are highlanders, who like the Highlanders of Scotland, for some reason make first-rate long distance runners.

    The study of human racial differentiation deserves support provided it is conducted on a purely scientific plane. What makes such work difficult today are the endless attempts, both by racists and the politically correct, to spin the findings to promote a political objective.

    Like every widely distributed organism, humans are racially diverse, mentally and physically, and the more we know about such variation the more careful we will be — if we were rational — to preserve the genetic resources of our species.

    Unfortunately, globalists are intent on destroying human diversity by creating a global melting pot, while those for the preservation of diversity, as currently defended by the upholders of nation state sovereignty, often bring their cause into disrepute by making diversity a basis for inter-racial antagonism.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @bispora
    , @Bert
    , @notanon
  12. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Frederick V. Reed

    Just as suggesting that differences in racial intelligence exist can end a career, so can questions about the infallibility of doctrinaire evolution. Both arouse cries of pseudoscience and both involve suppression of evidence. Both are a type of political correctness

    Still, Fred, anti-evolutionists who don’t know what they are talking about should be corrected. As here:

    Misunderstanding Evolution, Or Evolutionary Theorists May Be Wrong, But Fred Reed Is Wronger

    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
  13. Wally says:
    @Greg Bacon

    Simple observation tell us what is fact vs. leftist fiction concerning low intelligence and the behavior that necessarily follows.

    In every instance where blacks & browns are in great numbers, and / or control the governments of cities, counties, regions, states, countries, & continents we see:
    – massive murder rates
    – massive crime in general
    – degraded property
    – massive disease, especially STDs
    – massive drug & alcohol abuse
    – general filth, squalor
    – massive birthrates
    – inability / unwillingness to support their own children
    – massive youth pregnancies rates
    – massive school dropout rates
    – incredibly low IQs & test scores
    – violence as a way of life
    – fathers nowhere to be found

    • Replies: @Bert
  14. @Greg Bacon

    “If race is a social construct, meaning it only exists in some people’s minds, then there is no racism.”

    Yep. But – you still can argue, that the wrong use of the term racism is the prove of this poisonous mentality of – racists – see? – People who attack racist thoughts can do this rightfully on the basis that it is a scientifically disproven idea to state that biological races would exist. – It is formally possible to be a racist for the wrong reasons – on a scientific basis, that is flat out wrong.

    Oh – just in case: No, I don’t argue like this. All I say is: It is formally possible to argue this way.

  15. @Counterinsurgency

    You are probably right about that, but I don’t feel like dying in a ditch for a particular descriptor. Genetic clusters? Perhaps there is some phrase which captures the main features, yet avoids an immediate upsurge of emotion.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  16. An environment has been created over the past 50 years to prevent the advance of science as it relates to race. It would be ‘racist’ to study race. Never mind that the term racist was invented by a Communist.
    It’s been a steady growth of insanity as the left has abandoned any semblance of sanity and we must all pander to ‘victims’, minorities, freaks, deviants and the depraved.
    I am loving the bubble bursting. It’s the beginning of the end. People are sick of it and they will nullify the insanity of these zombie.
    It’s going to be, mostly, uphill from this point forward. Bearded men who ‘identify’ as women and set people on fire are going to be treated as the mentally ill pyromaniac’s that they are. Society has has enough.
    Thank God.

    • Replies: @Bert
    , @Franklin Ryckaert
  17. Factorize says:

    Hope everyone has heard the great news!
    Biogen nailed its amyloid anti-body.
    The first treatment that has disease modifying effect for Alzheimer’s has arrived.

    It is ultimately not whether one is 130 or 100 IQ that matters, but whether one can recognize one’s loved ones. It has only ever been a question of when not if, such recognition would be lost for those who live long enough. The latest results are the first step towards ending the dementia epidemic.

    • Replies: @Factorize
    , @Philadelphian
  18. Theodore says:

    The major races differ enough to be considered separate subspecies.

    Additionally, the primary cause of the 15-point (1 standard deviation) Black-White gap in IQ median is mostly due to genetic differences.

    A common strategy for race deniers is to redefine the term “Race” into absurdity, and then say “See? That is why there are no races! That definition does not apply!”

    But when we use the definition of “Subspecies” applied to all other mammals, we see that humans can certainly be classified into separate subspecies which correspond to the major races: Caucasoid, Negroid/Congoid, Mongoloid, Australoid, Americanoid (Amerindian), and possibly also Capoid (Hottentots).

    In response to questionable interpretations of the U.S. Endangered Species Act, and to help ensure the evolutionary significance of populations deemed “subspecies,” a set of criteria was outlined in the early 1990s by John C. Avise, R. Martin Ball, Jr.[1], Stephen J. O”Brien and Ernst Mayr [2] which is as follows: “members of a subspecies would share a unique, geographic locale, a set of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters, and a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species. Although subspecies are not reproductively isolated, they will normally be allopatric and exhibit recognizable phylogenetic partitioning.” Furthermore, “evidence for phylogenetic distinction must normally come from the concordant distributions of multiple, independent genetically based traits.”[3]

    1. https://scinapse.io/papers/1244776683
    2. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/251/4998/1187
    3. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10041115.x

    Humans are certainly genetically diverse enough and differences between the major races are substantial enough to justify classification into separate subspecies. Y

    ou may think “There is no point to do this, there is no benefit, only bad things can happen from doing that!” but the reality is this: If we apply to humans the same standards we apply to all other mammalian species when determining if they are polytypic with regards to subspecies, we will end up with multiple subspecies or “major races” and there’s no reason to deny this fact.

    As for it being a “Social construct” – every classification system is. Charles Darwin himself said:
    From these remarks it will be seen that I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety [or “Subspecies”], which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for mere convenience’ sake.

  19. Sigh. I’m too old for this crap. Whenever people start trying to evade the truth, things get wonderfully obscure — and I’ll go with that rather than trying to decipher Birney et al’s bafflegarb.

    • Replies: @martin2
    , @Steve2
  20. martin2 says:
    @Colin Wright

    I agree with Mr Wright. Our knowledge of the fact that people of African descent are on the average considerably less intelligent than those of Chinese descent is “knowledge by acquaintance” not “knowledge by book learning”. No books or so-called scientific papers will convince anyone that it is not so.

    The reductionist explanation is the most plausible. The authors have to pretend to believe in racial equality in everything, to the hundredth decimal place, since otherwise they would lose their jobs and no longer be able to afford to live in the whitopia where they currently reside.

  21. Race is a social construct? If race is not a valid concept, then it has no place in various civil rights laws.

  22. Anti-HBD says:
    @Theodore

    Not really, human races do not differ enough to be considered subspecies.
    Plus most of the papers you cited are old, modern subspecies are defined as evolutionary lineages and phenotypic data are not relevant any more.
    Humans are not independent evolutionary lineages as Templeton,2013 shows

  23. @Anti-HBD

    This is a good read..You may think differently about sub species.

    https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/blacks-arent-human/

  24. For details on why the Flynn Effect is shambolic and humanity is unmistakably stupefying check Edward Dutton at his yt channel The Jolly Heretic. And hold on to your bloomers.

  25. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anti-HBD

    If the meaning of what a subspecies is has been changed by modern science you can rest assured that it has been done in the name of political correctness to make it easier to push the idea that no races exist.

    • Agree: bruce county
    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
    , @Theodore
  26. I have often been accused of being a contrarian. Just for fun, perhaps the “scientists” can explain:
    – If race is a social construct, why aren’t all societies the same?
    – If everyone is “out of Africa”, where did the Neanderthals come from, since there is no Neanderthal DNA to be found in Africans?
    – Are scientists saying Neanderthals aren’t human, and that early White and Asian humans bred with animals ?
    – Why is Ötzi the Iceman’s DNA not found anywhere today?
    – Why do ancient Chinese texts refer to a “green-eyed Emperor” has evolution taken green eyes out of the Chinese?
    – Did the White “cloud warriors” in South America come from Africa too?

    Personally, I agree with James Watson: there is so much we don’t know about the effects of different combinations of DNA and where they are placed.

  27. Anonymous[627] • Disclaimer says:

    There is a time and place where Blacks do well: never and nowhere.

    Give Blacks the cultural benefits of White society, treat them like Whites, force them into White educational institutions and jobs through affirmative action, and they do just as poorly as if they had been left in Africa. All the sophistry about exactly how genes for intelligence are distributed will not change this fact. As usual, globalists who think all humans are interchangeable units with the same potential are at war with biological reality.

    • Replies: @Wally
  28. Anti-HBD says:
    @anonymous

    Of course the HBDers have no scientific arguments.
    No evidence that is the case, you can not possibly expect me to take that seriously.
    Subspecies in general is not used in biology anymore unless we are talking about independent evolutionary lineages backed up with genomic data.

    • Replies: @Theodore
  29. Wally says:
    @Anonymous

    And note that leftists promoting ‘race is a social construct’ silliness live in neighborhoods nowhere near blacks.

    • Replies: @Theodore
  30. Steve2 says:
    @Colin Wright

    I’m overwhelmed by the bafflegarb.

    Almost everything I view, hear, or read is bullshit.

    The designed effect is induced mental illness, despair, and anger in the populace.

    Your illusion pad will make you ill. This is the fundamental truth of our era.

    Figure it out for yourself. Start by wholesale rejecting the machine’s lies. It like showering off a lifetime of being bathed in and fed shit. I only look at news to evaluate it for lies. Any person with common sense will recognize that the issues you are supposed to ruminate over are just misdirection.

    Find and enjoy a real life. The actual reality you experience is what really matters.

  31. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Not really, human races do not differ enough to be considered subspecies.

    Sure they are!


    From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787

    As we can see, humans have comparable levels of genetic diversity / genetic differences between groups as other species that are separated into sub-species. As I said, if we apply the same standards to humans as we do to all other animals, humans would be separated into subspecies.

    A 2001 study found a mean level of 5.1% heterozygosity for protein variation in 321 mammal species; In comparison Takahata (1995) found 10-14% heterozygosity in humans. Nei (1987) gives us a heterozygosity for classical protein polymorphisms of 0.148 in humans, and said “in invertebrates, a large fraction of species again show an average heterozygosity lower than 0.1”. Humans clearly are not at the low end of genetic diversity, in relation to other mammals

    Sarich and Meile (2004) have suggested that racial differences in craniofacial morphology are typically around 10 times the corresponding differences between the sexes within a given race, which they note, is larger than the comparable differences that taxonomists use in distinguishing common chimpanzees from bonobos: “The differences in morphology (cranial and facial features) between human races are typically around ten times the corresponding differences between the sexes within a given race, larger even than the comparable differences taxonomists use to distinguish the two chimpanzee species from each other. To the best of our knowledge, human racial differences exceed those for any other non-domesticated species. One must look to the breeds of dogs to find a comparable degree of within-species differences in morphology… Racial morphological distances within our species are, on the average, about equal to the distances among species within other genera of mammals. I am not aware of any other mammalian species where the constituent races are as strongly marked as they are in ours.”

    Plus most of the papers you cited are old, modern subspecies are defined as evolutionary lineages and phenotypic data are not relevant any more.

    Please provide an actual published scientific paper that defines “Subspecies” in a way that excludes the major human races. No dodging. If you fail to provide an updated definition, I will assume you just invented this “fact” yourself.

    Also, if you check the papers which cite the ones I posted, you will see that studies from the past few years do, in fact, still cite these papers. Saying “These papers are old” does not refute them. You’re desperately grasping at straws.

    Humans are not independent evolutionary lineages as Templeton,2013 shows

    That is irrelevant to the point, your argument is fallacious. The fact that mixed breed dogs exist doesn’t disprove the existence of the original breed. The existence of wolf-dog hybrids does not disprove the existence of wolves and dogs.

    Some human groups, such as Amerindians, Australoids, and some Pacific Islanders, have until relatively recently been extremely isolated from other human groups. Even when there have been no physical barriers or long geographic distances between groups, groups may avoid interbreeding and practice endogamy.

    The presence of gene flow in non-human species has not prevented there being differences between, for example, different subspecies of the same non-human species or prevented the development of new species by speciation.

    In other words, your “argument” is a red herring. It’s entirely irrelevant to the point. You’re actually doing the EXACT FALLACIOUS STRATEGY that I mentioned in my post: redefining race (implying that if any admixture whatsoever exists, subspecies can not) so as to disprove this strawman definition.

    Fact is, various human populations are admixted with archaic non-humans (Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo erectus) and have perhaps up to 10% of their DNA from one of these groups. Does that invalidate the existence of species as a valid taxonomic category? No. Your argument is absurd.

  32. Theodore says:
    @anonymous

    If the meaning of what a subspecies is has been changed by modern science

    It hasn’t, he hasn’t provided any information to support this silly claim. If you check the studies I posted, they are still cited even to this day in peer-reviewed academic journals. It is the definition scientists use, even if that fact hurts his feelings.

  33. anon[837] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s funny that all races are supposedly equal in intelligence, but kike media has no problem pushing the idea of blacks being more athletic, masculine etc. than other races lol. Whatever happened to the idea of equality there Mr. Kikestein?

  34. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Of course the HBDers have no scientific arguments.

    I posted actual peer reviewed scientific articles defining “Subspecies”. You have not. I have additionally posted more research.

    No evidence that is the case, you can not possibly expect me to take that seriously.

    No evidence that scientists changed the definition of “Subspecies” to fit your goofy narrative

    Subspecies in general is not used in biology anymore unless we are talking about independent evolutionary lineages backed up with genomic data.

    Absolutely wrong, you’re just pulling “facts” out of your butt here. Humans are not even an independent evolutionary lineage, all humans are mixed with archaic non-human species. That’s not a standard used by biologists or taxonomists at all, just one you invented.

    The old morphological method for determining the appropriateness of a subspecies classification is the 75% rule, which holds that if 75% of the members of a given population can be grouped by eye, then they constitute a subspecies. This is not used anymore, but even if we did use it, human subspecies would exist as a person can determine race just by looking at someone with well over 75% accuracy.

    This rule was updated with the one I posted, which is still cited today even though you desperately want everyone to believe it is “outdated” despite absolutely 0 evidence to substantiate this allegation.

    Heck, even chimpanzees, which are separated into numerous sub-species, have had admixture with bonobos: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6311/477

    There is also admixture between chimpanzee subspecies. Despite this undeniable fact, biologists are perfectly happy to accept there are separate subspecies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3656634/

    Various captured tigers have also been found with admixture from separate subspecies. Biologists understand this, do not care, do not claim this invalidates the existence of multiple tiger subspecies: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098220800434X

    Admixture between different bear subspecies, does not bother scientists: https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/32/9/2338/1029474

    The same can be said of wolves. “The timing of a possible admixture between red wolves and other species is of primary relevance to the species status of the red wolf. The presence of admixture does not in itself challenge the species status of the red wolf.”: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542544/

    It is a common misconception that if two different groups can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, they can not be separate species. The pintail and the mallard are separate species but can reproduce fertile offspring. The chimpanzee and bonobo as well. Different gorilla species can do the same. In 2017, a subspecies of orangutan was relabelled into a species, despite this subspecies/species being able to reproduce with other and produce fertile offspring. The wolf, coyote, jackal, and domesticated dog all have different species names (lupus, latrans, and aureus), yet they can all interbreed and produce fertile progeny. The gibbon and the siamang can also interbreed to produce a hybrid, although they differ more in chromosome numbers than do humans and chimps.

    So, basically, you have no argument. You did exactly what I predicted: invented a new definition (not seriously used by anyone) for a word for the specific purpose of “disproving” the existence of human races/subspecies. I can only assume you are ideologically/emotionally invested in this, I just wonder, why?

  35. anon[837] • Disclaimer says:

    Race equality propaganda in Jewmerica is straight up bullshit. What they are really promoting is black superiority over whites and Asians. I’m surprised most people can’t grasp this, its not equality they are pushing, its black superiority and the lowering of the self-esteem of whites and Asians.

  36. Mr. XYZ says:

    In regards to IQ being associated with skin color, a good way to test this in regards to blacks/African-ancestry people would be to see if albinos have a higher IQ polygenic score and/or a higher IQ than regular blacks/regular African-ancestry people have. If not, then we might be more confident in assuming that the genes that are responsible for skin color don’t actually have much, if any, effect on one’s IQ polygenic score and/or on one’s IQ.

    Also, a good piece of advice for this article’s authors (the environmentalist article that James Thompson is quoting and commenting on) is that all human racial and ethnic groups (“human populations”, if you will) can evolve and devolve in all sorts of directions depending on who exactly in these groups is doing most of the reproducing. In other words, if the right kinds of blacks (intelligent, well-behaved, good personalities, et cetera) are going to reproduce more than other kinds of blacks will, then eventually the entire black population is, on average, going to look much more like these right kings of blacks (due to the fact that they would make up a larger and larger percentage of the total black population with each generation).

  37. I couldn’t help but notice none of these shitlib SJW ‘scientitians’ who claim there are no significant differences between the races don’t live among the melanin-enhanced (but totally identical, interchangeable) races.

  38. Theodore says:
    @Wally

    Not to mention that “Race is a social construct” does not actually mean anything at all. All taxonomic classification schemes are “Social contruct”. Organisms are not born with labels, but neverthless our classifications of them are based on real, actual differences. This fact, the “arbitrary” nature of taxonomy, has been understood for centuries.

    Johan Blumenbach (1795), the founder of physical anthropology, when arguing that a 5 race scheme was better than 3, 4 or 6, race scheme, said:
    “Five principal varieties of mankind may be reckoned. As, however, even among these arbitrary kinds of divisions, one is said to be better and preferable to another, after a long an attentive consideration, all mankind, as far as it is at present known to us, seems to me as if it may best, according to natural truth, be divided into the five following varieties: which may be designated and distinguished from each-other by the names Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay.”

    It is incorrect to assume that being a valid biological category and being a social construct are mutually exclusive. Anytime we categorize objects we decide to group things one way as opposed to another. In this sense, all categories are social constructs.

    I can easily explain how the “race is a social construct, therefore does not exist biologically” argument is totally absurd:
    There are no labels in nature on plants and animals demarcating them between “edible” and “non-edible” things. In some parts of the world, desperately poor people even eat dirt/clay. No reasonable person would say that if you can stick it in your mouth, chew and swallow it, it is necessarily a “food”. You can eat plastic or paper, but that doesn’t mean it’s a “food” does it?

    Some people eat bugs, others would not consider that food. Some cultures eat dogs or cats or guinea pigs, others would not consider them food. There are even cannibals still in existence today, but who else would agree that other humans can be classified as food? The fact is, humans do not unanimously agree on what is and is not food.

    We could get rid of the category “food” and, in its place, invent new categories: “edible plants” and “edible animals” but it is obviously useful to have a single category which denotes all edible (and nourishing) things, so that is what we use. The point is that we “go with” one category scheme and not the other, so there is something “social” or “artificial” about all these categories.

    The fact I have pointed out in my previous posts is: if we apply the same standards to humans that we apply to all other species in determining whether they are polytpic with regards to subspecies, we would inevitably conclude that there are, in fact, separate subspecies of humans. And these subspecies correspond to the “major races” that anthropologists first named centuries ago, which continue to have their validity confirmed by DNA studies to this day.

  39. Theodore says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    In regards to IQ being associated with skin color

    Nobody really claims this, although there is a correlation. The genes for skin color have nothing to do with the genes for intellectual ability, as far as we know.

    if albinos have a higher IQ polygenic score and/or a higher IQ than regular blacks/regular African-ancestry people have

    Lighter skinned Blacks and mulattos have higher median IQ than Blacks, but lower than Whites

    the genes that are responsible for skin color don’t actually have much, if any, effect on one’s IQ polygenic score and/or on one’s IQ.

    Correct, and I have never heard anyone make such claims except a few afrocentrists who think that melanin makes them smarter and it is in their brains too or something.

    Actually we know many genes associated with intellectual ability differ between the races in frequency, and correlates with the IQ differences:

    [MORE]

    if the right kinds of blacks (intelligent, well-behaved, good personalities, et cetera) are going to reproduce more than other kinds of blacks will, then eventually the entire black population is, on average, going to look much more like these right kings of blacks

    Yes that makes sense, but unfortunately it seems the opposite is happening: not to blacks specifically, but to all human races. The welfare state exacerbates this.

    Pigmentation or skin color does not actually differ between the races as much as various other traits do; it’s rather low on the list. It just happens to be very visible.

  40. @Counterinsurgency

    I’ve dealt with this nomenclature issue regarding race in many arguments with SJWs. My tactic is to say something like, “Very well, if the term race offends you then let’s use a term that biologists universally agree is valid, i.e., ‘clade’.” I’ve yet to meet an SJW who doesn’t need to have this term explained to them. Once it has been, I then go on to point out that assuming there has been little propinquity-based endogamy in human history leads to absurd overestimates of population at this point, i.e., a ridiculously conservative over-estimate of length of generation equal to 40 years combined with an assumption of weak endogamy suggests that the human population back at the beginning of the Neolithic was something like current population times 2**250. (Most SJWs find the argument hard to follow but usually concede the point when light dawns.) Then one can point out that the mathematically necessary assumption of endogamy through geographic propinquity leads to the conclusion that the valid biological concept of human clades corresponds more or less exactly with the standard conception of human races.

  41. Well?
    It is not the brain, Blacks do have just as good brain as Whites,
    It is in the genes.
    Blacks do have still hunter gatherer genes. these genes telling them to move. Be physically active.
    These genes make attention span very short, detrimental for them particularly in the schooling years.

  42. Factorize says:
    @Factorize

    Interestingly, this latest dementia news might have some particular relevance to the question of race differences in cognitive ability. African Americans are known to have higher rates of AD, possibly related to the much higher rates of APOE epsilon 4 (the ancestral genotype) found in African populations. Reducing the dementia gap through this emerging treatment should improve their relative competitive position.

  43. loren says:
    @Greg Bacon

    racist was from (((marx))) 100 years ago.

    and (((gould))) etc

  44. Factorize says:

    What’s in it for me? Want me to show you smart? Pay up mister.
    PMID: 16795353

  45. loren says:
    @Theodore

    more like 70 V 100.

    Africans at 70. mixed race in advanced societies, for generations bumps a SD or 2.

    capise?

  46. loren says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    they eat albinos, dont they?

  47. bispora says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Eliud Kipchoge in fact is a Kenyan long-distance runner. More specifically he belongs to the 900 thousand membered Nandi tribe. This is the most successful population regarding to long distance running: Nandis collected half of all the medals of Kenya in long distannce running! Nandi is subtribe of Kalenjin (~5 million people)
    wiki:
    “The Kalenjin have been called by some “the running tribe.” Since the mid-1960s, Kenyan men have earned the largest share of major honours in international athletics at distances from 800 meters to the marathon; the vast majority of these Kenyan running stars have been Kalenjin.”

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  48. Bert says:
    @Frederick V. Reed

    Fred,
    Kindly support your assertion with several examples.

  49. Bert says:
    @Wally

    Yes, and all the facts you cite are logical consequences of Rushton’s hypothesis of R-selection in tropically situated human populations versus K-selection in high latitude populations.

  50. Bert says:
    @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    For a righting of the current disastrous course, the important thing is that the bubble-bursting regarding racial disparities in IQ and psychology exists at least to some degree when the Caucasians are fully faced with the political-economic prospect of being a productive minority and turning over the fruits of their labor to an incapable majority. We are very close to that moment, as evidenced by the most leftist set of presidential candidates in American history.

  51. @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    “Thank God.”

    “God” is a social construct.

  52. @Theodore

    “…As for it being a “Social construct” – every classification system is…”

    Indeed it is, and that applies to all kinds of sciences. Classification systems are conventions used by scientists to get a grip on the abundance of forms in nature. A classification system is “right” if you can work with it in real life.

    • Replies: @Theodore
  53. Anonymous[124] • Disclaimer says:

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

    All right, so what do we find when we study the variance of traits such as IQ in different “cultures” rather than different “races?” I would predict we’d see basically the same geographic distributions in both cases. Though not a human geneticist or anthropologist, I strongly suspect the data already exist, have been sorted in this fashion and correlated with both raw allelic frequencies and putative “racial” groups based upon such.

    And, if that’s true, what does it say about the unsubstantiated dogma that maximum “multiculturalism” is the optimal state for any society to advance and excel. If specific cultural memes seem clearly advantageous over others, why should they be suppressed for the sake of political correctness and making all participants in this game of life simply feel good about themselves? If our forebears practiced that like some religion, we never would have advanced from flint and tinder to sulphur matches, let alone safety matches or Bic lighters.

    Sadly, my old college genetics and physical anthropology textbooks published back in the 1950’s pushed the exact same points of view (that race is just an artificial construct of racists, and don’t look for any evidence of it in the science of genetics) that Mr. Thompson would debunk in this article. So, that has not changed in over 70 years. Eugenics was ascendant throughout Western civilisation prior to World War II, but became not only absolutely verboten in practice when the New World Order of that day was sorted out but also served as the presumed reason by SJW’s to disdain any application of genetics to apparently distinct human populations.

    More recently, this paradigm has also been applied to cultural anthropology, in my opinion (again, not a member of that union), and woe is the researcher who would draw conclusions about the relative state of advancement of any group based on their culture. I guess that some may just be late bloomers and their invention of the wheel may be forthcoming any day now. But their practices and beliefs are just as good as anybody else’s and they should all have equal say in running this country… which claims to run the entire world.

    What entrepreneurs are doing at Ancestry.com, 23&Me, Family Tree DNA and other genetic testing services, which goes far beyond pigeonholing individuals into mere individual “races” on the basis of their genetic sequences–supposedly inserting them into unique ethnic groups and even nationalities–must certainly be questioned by Birney et al., unless they accept the disclaimer that the interpretation given to the data by the service is for entertainment purposes only with no guarantee of accuracy. No denying that there are definitely problems of quality control when identical triplets all receive drastically different ethnic profiles. No, that is not just the kind of whimsical trick that nature likes to play on us human beings. The science is exact (speaking as a retired professional in nucleic acid chemistry and molecular genetics), but needs to be done with the utmost care.

  54. Bert says:
    @CanSpeccy

    “The study of human racial differentiation deserves support provided it is conducted on a purely scientific plane. What makes such work difficult today are the endless attempts, both by racists and the politically correct, to spin the findings to promote a political objective. ”

    In fact your stance is a political position; specifically it is like that of a politician who appoints a committee to study a problem rather than recognizing the problem prima facie and dealing with it. History provides sufficient evidence that civilization in the modern sense can only be created and maintained by populations whose ancestors experienced several millenia in a high-latitude environment. That history and the existing evidence regarding racial differences in IQ and psychology are sufficient to conclude that the maintenance of civilization today is a population genetics problem with a political solution.

    Matthew 7:20 explains how to reason practically from history.
    Therefore by their fruits you will know them. This is as true for subspecies of Homo sapiens as for fig trees.

    The typical scientific paper ends with a call for more research on the issue at hand. For the matter of preserving civilization, whose existence I believe is the only justification for the massive ecological destruction that man has caused, we don’t need more knowledge about racial disparities than we already have.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  55. @Ben the Layabout

    They can always say that civil rights is the struggle for equal rights for all “social constructs”. Some “social constructs” discriminate against other “social constructs”, hence the Goverment must intervene. In theory that remains only necessary as long as “social construction” (i.e. “racism”) continues. When that stops, egalitarian Utopia will be realized on earth, but for some mysterious reasons, no matter how much effort and money is spent, that Utopia never comes.

  56. Bert says:
    @Theodore

    Though you have completely blown Anon out of the water, there is one more instance in which interbreeding is irrelevant to taxonomic recognition. That is where two very well differentiated entities interbreed along a very narrow hybrid zone. In such cases the entities are usually treated taxonomically as separate species.

  57. eugyppius says:
    @Anti-HBD

    You smell powerfully of RaceRealist88.

    Here you are in the Sailer thread licking his boots:
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/race-genetics-and-pseudoscience-an-explainer/#comment-3524407

    RaceRealist88’s article references are usually recycled from his website. In this post RaceRealist88 cites the Templeton 2013 paper you give above (erroneously he lists it as 2014):

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/05/20/the-vitamin-d-receptor-and-the-updated-vdh/

    Why are you anonymous now?

  58. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Theodore

    Anon has a future as an “anti-racialist” and defender of egalitarian dogma, perhaps even a best selling book or employment as an opinion columnist at the New York Times. He already has proven to think in such a manner as to earn the respect of such notables as Ewan Birney or Angela Saini.

    You on the other hand–with your reasoned arguments and openness to the possibility that there is a genetic basis to differences between various human populations–have no future beyond the pages of the Unz Review.

  59. Anti-HBD says:
    @Theodore

    I appreciate the reply. Here are my sources on why humans do not have subspecies and why subspecies in general is not a useful category for taxonomy.

    1. Kopec, 2014 (https://philpapers.org/archive/KOPCCA.pdf) shows that human populations fit none of the subspecies concepts.

    2. Lorendzen et al, 2007 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17651200/) challenge Kob Antelope subspecies classification based on Fst distance for example, which Woodley uses in the source you cited and even more importantly,
    3. Groves, 2014 (https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102313-030232) also shows that:

    “Whether there are different species of modern humans was long and earnestly discussed by
    anthropologists, with or without specific metaphorical axes to grind, from the 1820s to the 1930s,
    and one might have hoped that the question had been decently buried long ago. Now it seems that
    we have to disinter the corpse to explain yet again that humanity forms a global population continuum; different as the extremes of the spectrum may appear to be, they form a genetic continuum,and there are no points at which this continuum can be broken into diagnosable segments, nor canit be maintained that there ever were such breakpoints, across the whole of the Late Pleistoceneand Holocene history of our species. The observation that “there are differences” (see, for example, Woodley 2010), although correct, is not relevant: The diagnosability of populations, not the amount of difference, is the crux.

    so Woodley’s arguments are not relevant to taxonomy as thus it can not be established that Homo Sapiens is polytypic from his paper.

    Furthermore, challenges on subspecies classification based on Fst distances and overall levels of heterozygozity are also found in: Smitz et al, 2013 (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0056235) and Zink, 2004 challenges over 97% of bird subspecies based on small genetic distances.

    Finally, Templeton,2013 (http://europepmc.org/articles/pmc3737365) shows that humans do not meet the 0.25 Fst value required for subspecies and humans are not independent lineages either.

    And before you mention clusters, they only account for a very small partition of the variation and can often be due to sampling errors . Distance from Africa for example accounts for 75% of the variation while clusters only for 2%.Just because you can find differences, does not mean these differences are significant. (http://golem.anth.wsu.edu/sites/ipem.anth.wsu.edu/files/Handley_etal_2007-TIG.pdf)

  60. Anonymous[189] • Disclaimer says:

    They accuse researchers who argue for a genetic component in race differences of being “dark forces” on the fringes, yet say that any accusation that political correctness marginalises this debate is absurd.

    Naturally. Why would those disgusting soldiers of darkness ever feel slandered. As a matter of fact, this baseless and irrational narrative only reveals their fringe, dark motivations.

    l o l

  61. mikemikev says:
    @Anti-HBD

    there are no points at which this continuum can be broken into diagnosable segments

    Well that’s false. Look at this huge hole between Greece and Turkey.

    Let’s assume there’s a “perfect continuum” in global variation, which anyone who looks at any data and isn’t delusional or invested can see there isn’t. Why couldn’t we divide it, like a map grid.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  62. anon[837] • Disclaimer says:

    The most interesting people in the world are Melanesians from the South Pacific. Their physical appearance, along with the huge geographic and genetic distance from Africa, makes them one of a kind.

  63. Theodore says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    A classification system is “right” if you can work with it in real life.

    Indeed, such as the major races, even if you personally can’t think of any use or utility. It describes real differences and helps us to understand the world. Modern DNA studies confirm the validity of the so-called “outdated” classification schemes devised hundreds of years ago.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  64. Anti-HBD says:
    @mikemikev

    Please learn some biology before commenting stuff like this.
    There is no huge hole, the pca vectors explain an extremely tiny portion of the variation.
    Read the Groves article or the last one I cited, this is not how taxonomy works.
    Clinal variation means partitions are not objective,there are no discrete races and thus race is a social construct based on arbitrary characteristics.
    (https://philpapers.org/archive/HOCATN.pdf)

    PCA is dependent on the samples used.

    • Replies: @Theodore
    , @Steve2
  65. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I hope you’re not going to do this whole “I posted a link that refuted everyhing” nonsense, instead we can actually focus on the real, actual arguments. I could do the same, post a link and demand you refute it all and by that time post 10 more. Anyway, I read the Kopec article and it is just not convincing, he makes the same goofy mistakes.

    – Source commonly uses Lewontin’s fallacy, already exposed as nonsense decades ago. Anyone can google this and see

    – Again, redefining terms to “refute” and come to a preconceived narrative

    – Their main argument is a very common fallacy, which is basically “the major groups blend together, no clearly defining lines, it’s arbitrary, therefore separating into races/subspecies is nonsense”. This is fraudulent and fallacious. Some human groups have been extremely isolated and only in recent times had any admixture. If it can be shown that the intermediate groups are admixed between others, then it doesn’t matter if they form some intermediate group. Mestizos being anywhere from 10-90% Amerindian do not disprove the existence of the differences between Amerindians and Europeans, for example.

    – The claim: “there are no points at which this continuum can be broken into diagnosable segments” / “there are no distinct boundaries” is simply wrong. See above. Also, we know that people can take DNA tests and be sorted into separate clusters corresponding to the major races well over 99% of the time.

    – Your laughable paper by Kopec claims “no respectable scholars deny” that race is invalid, yet the only place with any sort of consensus on this is China, and the consensus there is that race is biologically valid. That’s because they’re not afraid of being called “Racist” for accepting that

    – Kopec also makes the same stupid mistake of talking about “truly isolated breeding populations” as if somehow, any level of admixture, no matter how little, invalidates the concept. I showed how this is completely untrue in many cases, nobody uses this argument for anything but humans. I am only offering we use the same standard for humans as all other species.

    – Kopec sites some “Andreasen” who argues that races/subspecies are real even if they have admixed in recent generations. Kopec laughably calls this “a rather unique position” and misconstrues it as suggesting that somehow they are no longer biological legitimate, but “merely socially constructed.” I already addressed the “Social construction” gambit above, but this reasoning is absurd. Many extinct or intermixed species and subspecies exist, that doesn’t change anything. All living American bison today descend from about 500-600 bison in the 1800s, they almost went extinct. They were intermixed with cattle in attempt to save them, but this is only about 1% of their DNA. This does not invalidate anything, however. Even humans are not “pure human” does that invalidate the species concept? The argument Kopec uses is absurd

    – Woodley’s arguments are completely relevant, and show that if we apply the same standards we apply to all other species, Homo Sapiens is polytypic. Your argument is “I do not like what he said” it’s that simple

    – Kob Antelope is irrelevant to the topic, as well as the other two studies on this. I am not sure why you brought that up. Woodley does not mention Kob antelope or these bird species. If your point is that people have said “These groups are NOT separate subspecies, based on FST data,” you’re correct. Who could deny that? But what I showed in the tables that I posted is that other claimed subspecies have comparable levels of genetic diversity to humans, so your point is just impertent here. Naturally, if FST differences are used to justify subspecies classification, they are used to refute it in certain cases.

    – The 0.25 FST is not any sort of standard used, it is not corroborated by the recent literature. Additionally, the Smith et al 1997 study cited by Templeton to allegedly prove this claim, does not mention FST at all. They said: “overlap [of differentiae] exceeding 25-30% does not qualify for taxonomic recognition of either dichopatric populations or parapatric populations outside of their zones of intergradation.” What the authors are referring to here is not an FST value, but simply the long-standing 75 (or 70) percent rule that I mentioned earlier. Templeton has actually refuted himself, his own source would confirm the opposite conclusion. Oops!

    – Templeton also makes a fraudulent comparison using autosomal FST values in humans, and mitochondrial DNA values in the ape species. mtDNA has high mutation rate, no recombination (preventing independent evolution), and is easy to collect. It is absolutely, undeniably true that humans have relatively low mitochondrial diversity compared to great apes. Nobody denies this; however, mtDNA makes up just a few millionths of the human genome, and as a single locus, carries little statistical weight. Either Templeton is being deliberately deceptive here (he has been in the race denial camp for a while, with strong ideological motives) or he doesn’t understand these basic facts about DNA. Either case is bad.

    – Clusters are not from sampling errors. I don’t care about “Distance from Africa” because Africa is home to various races. And yes I agree, just finding differences doesn’t make them significant. But these differences are clearly significant enough to fit any standard we apply to other species. The 75% rule, the phyolgenetic subspecies definition, over >99% assignment into DNA clusters corresponding to the major races.

    – The lack of total, complete, perfect separation or whatever term you want to use is irrelevant, a canard. There is no distinct point where colors go from “Blue” to “green”. There is no distinct point where blood pressure is “high” or “low”. There is no distinct point where a person is “tall” or “short”. But does this invalidate the concept of height, colors, or dangerous blood pressure levels?

    – Human genetic variation, once again, is not as continuous as you’re claiming. At least not across racial lines. This only happens when there is large amounts of gene flow, which in many cases is prevented. One example: only a single digit % of White [non-Hispanic] Americans have Black or Amerind admixture. And even if all races are super mixed today (not true, but hypothetically) that doesn’t change the existence of distinct groups before the admixture. See the discussion on Andreasen and Kopec above.

    – That human genetic variation is not continuous across racial lines was shown by Rosenberg et al 2005 who found that two populations of the same race are, on average, more genetically similar than two populations of different races, even when both population pairs are equally far from one another geographically: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070

    – If human genetic variation was as “continuous” as you claim, computer programs would not consistently sort people into clusters/groups that correspond to the major races with over 99% accurate. There is no way this is “due to sampling errors” and what you’d actually want to do is include race mixed people to invalidate this, which is transparently fraudulent.

    – So-called “Race realists” have always known that human variation is continuous, see the Blumenbach quote above; he also described the way that traits vary geographically from one race to another as an “imperceptible transition”:
    “No variety exists, whether of color, countenance, or stature, so singular as not to be connected with others of the same kind by such an imperceptible transition, that it is very they are all related, or only differ from each other in degree.”

    – Comte de Buffoon: “Man descends, by imperceptible degrees, from the most enlightened and polished nations, to people of less genius and industry; from the latter to others more gross, but still subject to kings and laws, and these, again, to savages”

    – Charles Darwin: “But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed.”

    I only bring these people up to point out that your argument is nothing new, everyone knew this, was not bothered by it, did not think it invalidated anything. But a bunch of “experts” come along and publish their fancy “peer reviewed” papers with this argument as if it somehow invalidates anything. It obviously does not. In my previous post I also gave many examples of separate subpsecies of different species having admixture, and nobody cared. It just does not matter.

    Human genetic variation is not continuous across racial lines. But even if it was, this would not mean that we can’t put that continuous variation into discrete categories. Racial thinkers always accept this fact, and it didn’t matter to them because it’s irrelevant.

  66. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    race is a social construct based on arbitrary characteristics.

    This is absolutely correct. Nobody denies this though, all taxonomic classification schemes are “social construct[s] based on arbitrar[il]y [chosen] characteristics”

    That is not an argument against the validity of human races/subspecies though. Please learn some biology before commenting on stuff like this, this is not how taxonomy works.

    The classification are based on real, actual differences between organisms.

    Erynst Mayr, probably the most important taxonomist of the 20th century and the inventor of the most popular modern criteria of subspecies, called subspecies “a purely subjective” category. He went on to say: “the subspecies is merely a strict utilitarian classificatory device for the pigeonholing of population samples”

    Read also the Charles Darwin quote I posted above.

    Biologist J. Tilden wrote:
    “We should, I feel, have a mental reservation that our systems exist more in our mind than in nature. However useful our system may be as a tool, we cannot assume that no other system could be devised to express the same concepts as well or even better. By this line of reasoning, the concept of subspecies should no more be under fire than any other level of classification, since all are equally the products of man’s ingenuity.”

    Not everyone is going to fall for your silly tricks here…

    • Replies: @Bert
  67. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @bispora

    Eliud Kipchoge in fact is a Kenyan …

    Ha! Thanks for the correction and info. on the Kalenjin tribe, which confirms that human racial differentiation has resulted in some striking genetically determined specializations in form and function.

    It also confirms that the globalist drive to achieve the genetic homogenization of the human population — excepting Jews it would seem — through mass migration and and the destruction of cultural barriers to racial mixing, is a genocidal project on the most monstrous scale.

  68. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Bert

    You say, of my advocacy for pursuing the scientific study of human racial diversity:

    … your stance is a political position

    Then you say:

    We don’t need more knowledge about racial disparities …

    I think you have things backwards. It is you who are taking a political stance against science.

    • Replies: @Bert
  69. Steve2 says:
    @Anti-HBD

    PCA is dependent on the samples used.

    Sounds like a positive thing.

    PCA of an appropriate data set, followed by an examination of obtained clustering against geographic or other classifiers, is empirical. Empirical is good. PCA is good.

    Arguing about definitions to refute an analysis based on data is a low value activity, so it seems to me.

    Let the data speak. To me, everything else is just opinion.

  70. Anti-HBD says:
    @Theodore

    Again, appreciate the reply, you seem more knowledgeable of biology than most HBDers I run into.

    But you fail to address some of the core arguments I made against race, and more particular against race as subspecies.

    Some human groups have been extremely isolated and only in recent times had any admixture. If it can be shown that the intermediate groups are admixed between others, then it doesn’t matter if they form some intermediate group

    Only true perhaps for pre-colonization Americas and Australia. And even then, most likely not as this paper suggests (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02842)

    “If a common ancestor of all living humans is defined as an individual who is a genealogical ancestor of all present-day people, the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for a randomly mating population would have lived in the very recent past1,2,3… A more elaborate second model, designed to capture historical population dynamics in a more realistic way, is analysed computationally through Monte Carlo simulations.ative isolation of geographically separated groups. Here we show that recent common ancestors also emerge from two models incorporating substantial population substructure. One model, designed for simplicity and theoretical insight, yields explicit mathematical results through a probabilistic analysis. A more elaborate second model, designed to capture historical population dynamics in a more realistic way, is analysed computationally through Monte Carlo simulations. These analyses suggest that the genealogies of all living humans overlap in remarkable ways in the recent past. In particular, the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand years ago in these models. Moreover, among all individuals living more than just a few thousand years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors.”

    It is mathematically certain you and an Aboriginal Australian have the exact same set of ancestors perhaps only 3000 years ago.

    Gene flow between all major groups is also visible in this paper and it seems quite high to me given variants sharing.
    (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-019-0483-y) by Kelleher et al, 2019 in particular the chart on page 16 of the Supplemntary material (https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41588-019-0483-y/MediaObjects/41588_2019_483_MOESM1_ESM.pdf)

    The 75% rule, the phyolgenetic subspecies definition, over >99% assignment into DNA clusters corresponding to the major races.

    That is not what the 75% rule is. In the age of genetic data, you have to explain why based on the 75% rule, different populations in the UK for example are also not races. Where does one decide where to partition the variation?

    Also if you are referring to the study by Tang et al, 2005 about 99% assignment to clusters, it is based on old data and more of a bad sampling of individuals. Related to this is that just because you can identify differences, it does not mean they are significant . For example, this paper by Winther et al, 2015 (http://www.nielsenlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1-s2.0-S1369848615000114-main.pdf):

    “Scientists use models to understand the natural world, and it is important not to conflate model and nature. As an illustration, we distinguish three different kinds of populations in studies of ecology andevolution: theoretical, laboratory, and natural populations…the notion of “effective” population size, the work of Thomas Park on Tribolium populations, and model-based clustering algorithms such as Structure. Finally, we discuss ways to
    move safely between three distinct population types while avoiding confusing models and reality”

    in particular about the paper between self-identified race and cluster:

    Treating clusters from a Structure analysis as populations with
    properties that are not part of Structure’s model can lead to inferential errors… Assume the populations undergo genetic drift but are not subject to natural selection ( Also imagine that populations A and D and their ancestral populations are very large compared with their
    divergence time in generations, T1. Because allele frequencies in large populations drift very slowly, allele frequencies will be similar in populations A and D. However, if populations B and C are smaller, with sizes similar to their divergence times, T2, from populations A and D, then the allele frequencies in populations B and C will change appreciably due to drift. In this example, populations A and D will have similar allele frequencies, but populations B and C will have distinct allele frequencies across the genome. A Structure analysis assuming three clusters (K ¼ 3) would likely infer the three clusters as {A þ D, B, C} (Fig. 3).No inferential errors have been made yetdthis is the correct clustering when one considers allele frequencies alone. However, depending on one’s interests, it may make little sense to interpret cluster {A þ D} as a population that does not include B and C. For example, if the researcher is interested in questions about which groups of organisms freely interbreed, then the Structure clusters do not correspond with the researcher’s purposesd ,A and D do not freely interbreed and have not done so for a long time. Shared ancestry is a fundamental component of biological taxonomy, but Structure does not directly inform about shared ancestry.11

    There is no way this is “due to sampling errors” and what you’d actually want to do is include race mixed people to invalidate this, which is transparently fraudulent.

    Everyone is mixed race, as Birney et al mention, Europeans for example are the product of 3 divergent groups, as shown by ancient DNA. Everyone is a result of a complex admixture process, hence why most of the variation in the world today is exacly that: clinal.

    Furthermore, on the point about Fst distances, if they show “races” then how is it possible for 2 Native American populations to be as different as Europeans and East Asians as shown in this paper? (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6189/1280)

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

    But a bunch of “experts” come along and publish their fancy “peer reviewed” papers with this argument as if it somehow invalidates anything. It obviously does not.

    You mean most of the experts in population genetics. All 4 of the authors of the statement against race are highly respected scientists in their field, even though I never brought up that point as I prefer to engage with arguments and not credentials.

    Finally, I did not cite the above papers as entities I would expect you to read in full, but the sections I have copy/pasted here I believe are extremely informative in the debate.
    I also concede that Templeton might have misrepresented one of his sources, but I need to read it myself to really know.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  71. @Anti-HBD

    The color spectrum is also a “continuum”, do colors therefore not exist?

    Race denial is a political construct.

  72. mikemikev says:
    @Anti-HBD

    So

    *We have some common ancestors
    *There has been gene flow (which is “high” according to your mysterious standards)
    *We are “mixed race” because ancestral races are races but current races are not races, for some reason

    Any other fallacies you’d like to try?

  73. @Theodore

    “…Human genetic variation, once again, is not as continuous as you’re claiming. At least not across racial lines…”

    Indeed, where is the “continuum” between Blacks from Nigeria and Yellows from China? If I look at the map from Nigeria across Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia to China I can’t find such a “continuum”. But wait! Here is a merchant from Nigeria who settled in China, married a local Chinese woman and produced mixed-race children. Those mixed-race children are the long sought after “continuum”. We have now “proved” that separate Negroid and Mongoloid races don’t exist!

    • Replies: @Theodore
  74. Theodore says:

    But you fail to address some of the core arguments I made against race, and more particular against race as subspecies.

    Be specific

    Only true perhaps for pre-colonization Americas and Australia. And even then, most likely not as this paper suggests (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02842)

    Incorrect, and also irrelevant. There does not need to be exactly 0 gene flow for there to be separate subspecies. Multiple examples have been given. It’s a pointless non-argument. You really think 1% or less admixture in certain groups is more than enough to invalidate their differences?
    I guess “Species” doesn’t make any sense because humans have homo erectus, neanderthal and/or denisovan admixture…

    It is mathematically certain you and an Aboriginal Australian have the exact same set of ancestors perhaps only 3000 years ago.

    This is patently absurd. I have no idea how you can make that argument with a straight face. Do you seriously think that? Anyone can make a ridiculous “mathematical model” but this is completely and utterly wrong.

    3,000 years ago, my ancestors were oceans away from the ancestors of Australian aboriginals. We can even look to the fossil record to see that anatomically modern Caucasoids existed long before that.

    Gene flow between all major groups is also visible in this paper and it seems quite high to me given variants sharing.
    (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-019-0483-y) by Kelleher et al, 2019 in particular the chart on page 16 of the Supplemntary material (https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41588-019-0483-y/MediaObjects/41588_2019_483_MOESM1_ESM.pdf)

    Gene flow between groups, once again, is simply irrelevant. You keep desperately harping on this point but it is futile. It’s a red herring. You act like it is relevant, like “all races had gene flow with others” invalidates the concept of race/subspecies. It does not, it doesn’t bother anyone but you. You also greatly over-exaggerate it.

    The fact that there was extremely small amounts of admixture (often less than 1%) does not invalidate subspecies any more than the 1-4% Neanderthal admixture, comparable denisovan admixture, and 6-8% homo erectus admixture in certain human groups invalidates the concept of species.

    That is not what the 75% rule is.

    I am sorry if the way I worded that was incorrectly, but I was only mentioning that in the list. I defined the 75% rule above.

    In the age of genetic data, you have to explain why based on the 75% rule, different populations in the UK for example are also not races.

    They certainly can be, there is no issue with that. Now, “Race” means more than subspecies. A race is merely a ‘Large, extended family that is partly inbred’ (Sailer) but a “subspecies” is more than that. The major human races [Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, Australoid, etc] are considered “Major races” or “subspecies” but within these races/subspecies there are sub-divisions of other races. Caucasoid for example: Nordic, Mediterranean, Alpine, Dinaric, East Baltic, Phalian, the list goes on and on….

    Where does one decide where to partition the variation?

    This has been answered countless times in history.
    The reality is, you can say “Spaniards” are separate race, and “Italians” and “Nigerians” and “Ghanaian” and “Chinese” and “Japanese” – 6 separate ‘races.’ But also, it’s undeniable that Spaniards and Italians are far more similar to each other than they are to any of the other groups. ANd it’s also undeniable that Japanese and Chinese are more similar than they are to other groups, and same with the two Africans.

    If you go immediately below “Human” you will find the most rational model is the major races as explained for centuries. Then you can get more specific.

    Also if you are referring to the study by Tang et al, 2005 about 99% assignment to clusters, it is based on old data and more of a bad sampling of individuals. Related to this is that just because you can identify differences, it does not mean they are significant . For example, this paper by Winther et al, 2015 (http://www.nielsenlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1-s2.0-S1369848615000114-main.pdf):

    There are various studies that confirm this fact though. How is it based on “Old data” or “bad sampling”? You’re not making any sense. Someone may be able to find clusters, others do not. That’s perfectly fine and acceptable, that doesn’t mean the clusters do not exist just because some people do not find them by their own sampling. Even if one attempt finds them and 10 fails, the one that did find it has legitimacy.

    Your source additionally does not actually refute Tang et al’s findings. You keep posting studies and misconstruing what they say, claiming they prove things they do not. I can only wonder, why?

    in particular about the paper between self-identified race and cluster:

    Shared ancestry is a fundamental component of biological taxonomy, but Structure does not directly inform about shared ancestry.11

    Irrelevant non-point, sorry. You at least tried, but you’re just grasping at straws here, quite obviously.

    Everyone is mixed race, as Birney et al mention, Europeans for example are the product of 3 divergent groups, as shown by ancient DNA. Everyone is a result of a complex admixture process, hence why most of the variation in the world today is exacly that: clinal.

    Yes everyone is mixed, but at the same time it depends on what standard. A person with Italian and Spaniard ancestry is “Mixed” to some level, but since both sources of ancestry are Caucasoid they are not.

    Every “Human” is part non-human, does this invalidate the concept of species? No.

    Furthermore, on the point about Fst distances, if they show “races” then how is it possible for 2 Native American populations to be as different as Europeans and East Asians as shown in this paper? (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6189/1280)

    That is interesting, but FST itself does not show races, it’s just a piece of the puzzle. All the findings in genetics are consistent with the reality of human races, the ‘major races’ being analogous to subspecies. So do not misconstrue my position.

    As for why that can be somehow possible, it’s very simple. Genetic isolation and inbreeding. It’s not suprising at all, nor does it invalidate anything. They may have large FST differences between other “Native American” groups, but they will predictably be even larger from other populations (unless somehow they descend from a different ancestral population) which is the entire point. You can see in Figure S2 that Seri and Lacandon have very high levels of homozygosity, meaning they are extremely inbred. Inbreeding, or incest in its extreme form, is essentially fast-tracked evolution. It is often pointed out that incest produces sick and deformed people, but it does not actually create these bad recessive alleles, it just increases the probability that they will be expressed. But at the same time, it also increases the rate by which they are culled from the population. Outbreeding, in contrast, only hides defective recessive alleles, it does not cull them.

    You mean most of the experts in population genetics.

    I do not accept this. Like I said, the only place where there is any sort of ‘consensus’ is China, and the consensus is that race is biologically real and valid. In the West it is a very “politically incorrect” position and people gain absolutely nothing from publicly expressing support of it.

    All 4 of the authors of the statement against race are highly respected scientists in their field, even though I never brought up that point as I prefer to engage with arguments and not credentials.

    Finally, I did not cite the above papers as entities I would expect you to read in full, but the sections I have copy/pasted here I believe are extremely informative in the debate.
    I also concede that Templeton might have misrepresented one of his sources, but I need to read it myself to really know.

    Yes they are “highly respected” because they push a specific narrative, one that isn’t “Racist”. Race denialism is fashionable, the radical left supports this silly nonsense and it appears you all just keep using the same weak, nonsense arguments. They all seem to derive from a complete misunderstanding of the position, a strawman of sorts, but not really deliberate. You’re just taking a fraudulent definition of “race’ not used by the people that argue for it, but by the people that argue against it. Anyone can redefine a word until it becomes absurd.

    Templeton certainly made that mistake I have pointed out, he is notorious for making these sorts of poor arguments and getting debunked all of the time. I really just wonder if he made that mistake on purpose, or it was just an error out of ignorance. I wouldn’t put either past him.

    Actually, the race denialist propaganda serves the interests of the racists and provides them more ammunition. The radical leftist “anti-racists” are shooting themselves in the foot with this race denialist claptrap.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
    , @Ron Unz
  75. Ron Unz says:
    @Theodore

    The lack of total, complete, perfect separation or whatever term you want to use is irrelevant, a canard. There is no distinct point where colors go from “Blue” to “green”. There is no distinct point where blood pressure is “high” or “low”. There is no distinct point where a person is “tall” or “short”. But does this invalidate the concept of height, colors, or dangerous blood pressure levels?

    Exactly. I made a somewhat similar point a few years ago:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/does-race-exist-do-hills-exist/

    Incidentally, since you seem quite knowledgeable about the current literature and debate and have been leaving such extremely long and detailed comments, perhaps you might want to consider writing an article on these exact issues for this webzine?

    • Replies: @Theodore
    , @res
  76. ApostateAbe says: • Website

    The primary author is Ewan Birney, who completed an internship at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory under the supervision of James Watson, who was kicked out of the same laboratory for stating his belief that the low intelligence of black Africans was due to genetics. In the opinion of the board of trustees led by scientists, “The Laboratory condemns the misuse of science to justify prejudice.” And then, just few years later, Watson’s former intern waxed polemical about the moral neutrality of scientists, how they would bravely contradict the popular moral dogmas for the sake of the truth. Complete blind ignorance would be a more damning charge, so I am instead inclined to call Dr. Birney a liar.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  77. Anti-HBD says:
    @Theodore

    An interesting reply but you seem to not understand my arguments.

    Be specific

    Fst distances tell us nothing about race contra the assertions of the Woodley study you posted. You fail to indicate how they do.

    I make the point about gene flow because it is gene flow that has made the “races” so genetically similar as to not warrant classification as such.
    You seem to just hand-wave it aside with no substantial argument against it.

    You really think 1% or less admixture in certain groups is more than enough to invalidate their differences?

    How is it less than 1% when the papers I have cited explicitely show it is not? Did you even read them? Only look at that figure from Kelleher et al, 2019 what do you see?
    I would be more convinced if you actually engaged with it and showed me where in your opinion I am wrong, though of course given I know the literature, I doubt you can do so.

    Again, Fu et al, 2016 and Petr et al, 2019 also make it clear it was high and so does ML-NCPA. Unless you can point something wrong with their analysis, my point stands.

    From Fu et al, 2016:(https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17993)
    Second, we detect an excess of allele sharing with east Asians in a subset of Villabruna Cluster individuals— beginning with an ~13,000-year-old individual from Switzerland—as revealed by significant statistics of the form D(Test1, Test2; Han, Mbuti) (Fig. 4b and Extended Data Fig. 3). For example, Han Chinese share more alleles with two Villabruna Cluster individuals (Loschbour and LaBrana1) than they do with Kostenki14, as reflected in significantly negative statistics of the form D(Kostenki14, Loschbour/LaBrana1; Han, Mbuti)4 This statistic was originally interpreted as evidence of Basal Eurasian ancestry in Kostenki14. However, because this statistic is consistent with zero when Han is replaced with Ust’-Ishim, these findings cannot be driven by Basal Eurasian ancestry (as we discuss earlier), and must instead be driven by gene flow between populations related to east Asians and the ancestors of some Europeans

    and Petr et al, 2019 (https://www.pnas.org/content/116/5/1639)
    We find that gene flow from West Eurasians into Africans leads to misestimates of Neandertal ancestry when using the indirect f4-ratio statistic, and results in the incorrect inference of a continuous decline in Neandertal ancestry

    Do you seriously think that?

    It certainly is possible, there are a variety of papers suggesting so, and it is a basic consequence of an understanding of pedigree collapse and geneology. Here is another paper suggesting just that (but on a more local dimension)
    (https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555)
    “Genetic common ancestry within the last 2,500 years across Europe has been shaped by diverse demographic and historical events. There are both continental trends, such as a decrease of shared ancestry with distance; regional patterns, such as higher IBD in eastern and northern populations; and diverse outlying signals. We have furthermore quantified numbers of genetic common ancestors that populations share with each other back through time, albeit with a (unavoidably) coarse temporal resolution. These numbers are intriguing not only because of the differences between populations, which reflect historical events, but the high degree of implied genealogical commonality between even geographically distant population”

    Genetic isolation and inbreeding. It’s not suprising at all, nor does it invalidate anything.

    When they are populations within Native Americans who are more different than 2 races of yours, how can race be an actual taxonomic category? Do you not think that will also be the case within “East Asians” or “Europeans”.

    Every “Human” is part non-human, does this invalidate the concept of species? No.

    No, no-one is part non-human, just part non-Homo Sapiens. And not really, as the gene flow was too low to be of phylogenetic significance.

    Irrelevant non-point, sorry

    How so? Taxonomy must be objective and shared ancestry is a big part of calling something race or subspecies.

    About the Tang article, I was wrong indeed, I did not include the relevant papers.
    But, here they are: Piglucci, 2013 (https://philpapers.org/archive/PIGWAW.pdf)

    “What of Tang et al.’s paper? Sesardic summarizes its import thus:
    ‘‘A group of researchers led by geneticist Neil Risch et al., (2002) analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers on a sample of 3636 subjects from the United States and Taiwan. The subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of the four racial groups (white, African American, East Asian and Hispanic). The genetic cluster analysis of the data produced four major clusters, whose correspondence with the four self reported races was near-perfect: the genetic cluster membership and self-identified race coincided in as many as 99.9% of the cases.’’ Besides the fact that there are specific methodological issues with the Tang et al.’s survey (if one looks closely at their sample, one realizes that all of their Hispanics are Mexican Americans from a single county in Texas, which makes the otherwise surprising ‘‘Hispanic’’ cluster a reflection of mere geographical proximity), again, one can identify legitimate genetic clusters of human populations at a variety of hierarchical levels, but Sesardic offers no principled reason for identifying one such clustering as more fundamentally indicative of races.
    Tang et al, btw did not even run STRUCTURE in admixture mode so their results are probably spurious to an extent.
    And often clusters can exist tautologically, it does not imply they are biologically real or taxonomically relevant.

    I do not accept this. Like I said, the only place where there is any sort of ‘consensus’ is China, and the consensus is that race is biologically real and valid.

    Citation needed for that.

    Race denialism is fashionable, the radical left supports this silly nonsense and it appears you all just keep using the same weak, nonsense arguments.

    No, people are just objectively applying the standards of taxonomy to humans. When we do, it is clear humans do not have races.

    Templeton might have been wrong about the Fst part, but his analysis still show pervasive gene flow across the races.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @Theodore
  78. Theodore says:
    @Ron Unz

    perhaps you might want to consider writing an article on these exact issues for this webzine?

    Yes, for a while I have been planning on writing one particular article. Not specifically about race realism or the Holocaust, but something related to these topics. It’s a separate project I am working on, still gathering the info. I don’t want to go too much in detail about it, but after I had finished I did plan to email your website (and maybe two or three others) to see if you all would post it. It’s an important topic but nobody has really went too in-depth into it. This is in contrast to race realism and the holocaust which have many great articles already around.

    But for now, I get sidetracked by these internet debates (a bit of an addiction of mine 😛 ) and also I have a full time job. I will think about it, and if I write something it will probably be around December – January. I have also received the same offer from Inconvenient History / CODOH

  79. Theodore says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Usually they will bring up some examples such as East Africans and Central Asians. Somalians, Ethiopians are like an “intermediate” in some ways with Negroid and Caucasoid. But this has been known.

    Some people like to assume that this means that the races were always some continuous blend, but this is not so. The admixture between these major groups is relatively modern, if you put it in perspective of the many hundreds thousands of years of human evolution.

    On the original racial affinities of East Africans (ancient Kenyan skulls):
    Racial Affinities of Prehistoric East Africans http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2004/09/racial-affinities-of-prehistoric-east.html

    Also: “On the basis of historical, linguistic, and genetic data, it has been suggested that the Ethiopian population has been strongly affected by Caucasoid migrations since Neolithic times. On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian gene pool has an African origin, whereas ~40% is of Caucasoid derivation…” (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1376879/)

    The continuity between Mongoloid and Caucasoid groups should be easier to understand, due to Mongols and/or Hun invasions, or even older than that. But that’s essentially their point: it just blends all together, like a rainbow. But that’s not really the case. I don’t see why, say, 1-5% admixture in one population with another implies that there must now be no difference at all.

    A better example of what you’re saying is mestizos. There are Mexicans with 90% White and 10% Amerind ancestry, there is the reverse, and everything in-between. Does this mean Amerinds and Whites are not basically the same, or that these original groups never existed? It’s preposterous, a fake argument. They just use this stuff to confuse people.
    It really only makes sense to those who really, truly want to believe that “Race is not real.” The rest of us can see with our own eyes the reality in front of us.

    • Agree: Ron Unz
    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  80. mikemikev says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Europeans share ancestry versus Africans. Race is defined by shared ancestry. Historical gene flow, Fst, and genomic diversity (in junk DNA) is all completely irrelevant.

    This may also be of interest:
    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/gene-flow/

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  81. It is the greatest of ironies the author who wrote this will have his blood line and family name swept away if he lives in Europe or the U.S and that by 2070 the last homogenous all white conservative christian democracy left on earth will be Russia.

  82. Anti-HBD says:
    @Theodore

    You still have not replied to my last post about your arguments I see.
    I wonder why is that?

    Can you refute a single of my arguments?

    • Replies: @Theodore
  83. Anti-HBD says:
    @mikemikev

    You share ancestry with Africans and Europeans.
    Have you not heard of pedigree collapse? Do you not know about the recent ancestors isopoint?

    The person who wrote that post about gene flow is wrong.

    See (https://www.nature.com/articles/6884960)

    “While studies of genetic structure per se are often worthwhile, and FST is an excellent measure of the extent of this population structure, it is rare that FST can be translated into an accurate estimate of Nm.”

    Also, there is no “junk DNA”. Learn some genetics please.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  84. Bert says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Your sophistry misses the point. Both our viewpoints are political.

  85. eah says:

    Explaining Race and Genetics: No Need to Despair

    I don’t think anyone cares whether they “despair” about this research or not — but they shouldn’t moralize against, or campaign politically against, either those conducting this research, or any published results.

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

  86. mikemikev says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Listing off technical terms and copy pasting links to articles (which seem to be wild goose chases most of the time) may give a superficial impression of erudition, but it looks a bit hollow when you can’t seem to grasp, or feign not being able grasp, the elementary concept that individuals share relative levels of ancestry (not that they “share ancestry” or “not share ancestry”, I find it hard to be charitable about your integrity with such a stupid idea), and that a classification based on this is informative for various things.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  87. ApostateAbe says: • Website
    @res

    I give Birney proper respects for his defense of the science of IQ. Someone on Twitter apparently suspected it was a typo.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
  88. It is not up to me, but I wonder if a more balanced title would have been: Race, genetics and science?

    Yes… were they arguing in good faith.

    Sociologist Steven Goldberg of NYU has asserted that even astrology, which he says is as bad as science gets, cannot be termed “pseudoscience”.

    So what these people are saying is that James Watson or Carleton Coon is less of a scientist than was Sydney Omarr.

    • Replies: @acementhead
  89. @anon

    It’s called Jew propaganda. Talk out of both sides of your mouth.
    One side: Blacks are underprivileged and need affirmative action.
    Other sideL: Aren’t they great at sports! Look out whitey, they are supermensch. They’ll be coming for your women next! (As they promote race mixing via Hollywood).

    Like Lebron “I be wantin my Billion frum china brutha” James.
    That pathetic turd will found out the hard way. If he had any intelligence he would have never gotten in that position but he listened to the Jews (managers, agents etc.).
    Total loser, just like “I be on my kneez’ Kaepernick.
    Now not only is the NFL in a financial spiral but soon the NBA will be feeling it.
    Long-term prospects for parasites isn’t looking to good.

    Da bubble be burstin’ bro!

    • Replies: @anon
  90. @Franklin Ryckaert

    “God” is a social construct.

    Society is a divine construct.

  91. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I understand your arguments perfectly fine, I just don’t agree that they invalidate the reality of human subspecies. You confuse this for not understanding them, which is incorrect.

    Fst distances tell us nothing about race contra the assertions of the Woodley study you posted. You fail to indicate how they do.

    That’s not what I claimed, so you are the one in fact misunderstanding my arguments. I compared FST differences between human groups and other polytypic species in order to illustrate the point “Human populations aren’t genetically different enough…” is simply wrong.

    The definition of subspecies I provided did not say anything about FST, that was something Templeton claimed based on a misinterpretaton of another study, which I pointed out.

    I make the point about gene flow because it is gene flow that has made the “races” so genetically similar as to not warrant classification as such.

    You seem to just hand-wave it aside with no substantial argument against it.

    This is incorrect, and there is no basis to this claim except your appeals to authority.

    It is a claim YOU have made with substantial argument in favor of it.

    How is it less than 1% when the papers I have cited explicitely show it is not? Did you even read them? Only look at that figure from Kelleher et al, 2019 what do you see?

    The chart on page 16 of the supplement? It’s a bunch of colors, no numbers. Which specific population are you speaking of anyway? The existence of certain admixed groups does not disprove the existence of unmixed groups, even if these unmixed groups are presently extinct or non-existent in unmixed form. Similarly, the existence of mutts does not invalidate the reality of dog breeds.

    I would be more convinced if you actually engaged with it and showed me where in your opinion I am wrong, though of course given I know the literature, I doubt you can do so.

    I already explained. THe existence of mixed groups doesn’t invalidate the reality of race. It’s that simple. The existence of mixed people was always known and nobody cared. It was only recently that this has been used as an argument to confuse people. It’s nonsense, the validity of subspecies or race does not necessarily require totally pure, unmixed populations.

    Again, Fu et al, 2016 and Petr et al, 2019 also make it clear it was high and so does ML-NCPA. Unless you can point something wrong with their analysis, my point stands.

    High for what groups? You’re not being specific, you’re just throwing a bunch of links that don’t actually prove your point. Even if they’re saying exactly what you claim they do, it doesn’t invalidate the concept of subspecies. I pointed out many examples previously of subspecies of other species having admixture. This doesn’t bother biologists, they only pretend to be confused about it when it comes to humans.

    From Fu et al, 2016:(https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17993)
    Second, we detect an excess of allele sharing with east Asians in a subset of Villabruna Cluster individuals— beginning with an ~13,000-year-old individual from Switzerland—as revealed by significant statistics of the form D(Test1, Test2; Han, Mbuti) (Fig. 4b and Extended Data Fig. 3). For example, Han Chinese share more alleles with two Villabruna Cluster individuals (Loschbour and LaBrana1) than they do with Kostenki14, as reflected in significantly negative statistics of the form D(Kostenki14, Loschbour/LaBrana1; Han, Mbuti)4 This statistic was originally interpreted as evidence of Basal Eurasian ancestry in Kostenki14. However, because this statistic is consistent with zero when Han is replaced with Ust’-Ishim, these findings cannot be driven by Basal Eurasian ancestry (as we discuss earlier), and must instead be driven by gene flow between populations related to east Asians and the ancestors of some Europeans

    So what? This does not invalidate the existence of different subspecies. “Gene flow between populations” does not mean they can’t be separated into races or subspecies. Literally nobody is claiming that except you and a few race denialist scientists. It’s not a standard used for other species either.

    and Petr et al, 2019 (https://www.pnas.org/content/116/5/1639)
    We find that gene flow from West Eurasians into Africans leads to misestimates of Neandertal ancestry when using the indirect f4-ratio statistic, and results in the incorrect inference of a continuous decline in Neandertal ancestry

    Again, does not even invalidate the point. Are you saying species isn’t valid because humans have Neanderthal admixture?

    It certainly is possible, there are a variety of papers suggesting so, and it is a basic consequence of an understanding of pedigree collapse and geneology. Here is another paper suggesting just that (but on a more local dimension)

    No, it’s not possible at all. I can’t believe you’re arguing that I have a common ancestor with Australian Aboriginals 3,000 years ago. The idea of this is simply absurd, but I will happily let you keep repeating it so everyone can see how silly you are.

    And your next link is specifically about Europe, a whole different ball game. That link finds that all Europeans today have the same ancestors who lived 1,000 year ago. This is specific to Europe so you can’t extrapolate this to all humans.

    When they are populations within Native Americans who are more different than 2 races of yours, how can race be an actual taxonomic category?

    If 2+2=4, how can grass be green? I don’t see why it invalidates anything. What the study does not show is the genetic distance between these super-inbred, small isolated groups and the other major races.

    Do you not think that will also be the case within “East Asians” or “Europeans”.

    I think that if these groups were also compared to Europeans and East Asians, the genetic distance would be even more pronounced. Care to prove me wrong?
    I am sure there are small, isolated groups within the other major races that show similar patterns, but this doesn’t invalidate the “Race” (human subspecies) category at all.
    For example, people on different Melanesian islands have become genetically different because, despite the closeness of their islands, they were reproductively isolated from each other. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000248

    But we also understand that they have a more common ancestor, and thus they would be more similar to one another than to other populations. This is not really confusing in the slightest. It’s just a lineage splitting apart and isolating itself to some degree. Inbreeding just fast-forwards evolution. I don’t see why you’re pretending to be confused here at all.

    No, no-one is part non-human, just part non-Homo Sapiens. And not really, as the gene flow was too low to be of phylogenetic significance.

    Ah, so a semantic argument.
    Tell me EXACTLY where the line between “too low” and “enough” gene flow is set. Be very specific. Justify where you arbitrarily drew this line, please.

    How so? Taxonomy must be objective and shared ancestry is a big part of calling something race or subspecies.

    No, taxonomy is not “objective” but we should definitely apply the same standards equally. As in, we shouldn’t make exceptions for “Humans” specifically. If the differences between Blacks and Whites are sufficient enough to classify them into separate subspecies using the standards we use for other animals, we should not change the standards for humans so the differences are insufficient. That’s the only “objective” part of it. Otherwise, it’s not objective at all, and nobody claimed it was. See comment #68

    Tang et al, btw did not even run STRUCTURE in admixture mode so their results are probably spurious to an extent.
    And often clusters can exist tautologically, it does not imply they are biologically real or taxonomically relevant.

    Yes I agree “Hispanic” is not a race and shouldn’t be considered one, although it would be expected that mestizos would cluster away from other races.

    There are many other studies which analyze DNA of various people, and they manage to cluster into groups that correspond to the major races.

    And yes, the clusters DO correspond to biologically real genetic differences between groups. Clusters do not imply taxonomic relevance, you’re absolutely correct there. But I never claimed that they alone did, the totality of evidence does however. The fact that human populations cluster into groups that correspond to the major races / subspecies, and known admixed groups are intermediate, confirms the validity of these groupings which were initially created based on physical features alone

    Citation needed for that.

    On the Concept of Race in Chinese Biological Anthropology: Alive and Well
    https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/374899
    “When we applied the Cartmill’s approach to the Chinese sample we found that all of the articles used the race concept and none of them questioned its value.”
    In the ONLY place with an actual consensus, the consensus is that race is a valid concept. So if I was you I would not be using any “consensus” argument because, well, there is no consensus anywhere that race isn’t valid except in some radical leftist circles, places where any so-called “Racism” is decried as the worst thing in the world.

    No, people are just objectively applying the standards of taxonomy to humans. When we do, it is clear humans do not have races.

    Except when we apply the standards set out in post #19, it applies readily to humans. Also, I pointed out in graphs in post #32 that humans have comparative levels of genetic diversity compared to other species separated into subspecies. Also, in post #35 I showed various examples of different animal subspecies having admixture, and biologists literally not caring or saying that somehow invalidated the existence of these subspecies. Your laughable “if admixture exists between subspecies at any level, they can’t exist” is wrong and not applied anywhere except humans, for ideological purposes.

    Templeton might have been wrong about the Fst part, but his analysis still show pervasive gene flow across the races.

    He completely fabricated it. I can’t even imagine why. But the alleged “Pervasive gene flow” is greatly overstated. You’re just grouping admixed populations with other ones and saying that somehow proves gene flow. It does not.

    Admixture is rather low. Single digit admixture does not invalidate the reality of group differences.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
    , @res
  92. Anti-HBD says:
    @mikemikev

    Can for once, any HBDer respond to my studies ?

    I will keep this conversation civil of course, so I will not reply to all your post, but so far I have not seen a single biologically-informed argument from you against what I am saying.

    And now @Theodore also seems to be unable to respond to my latest arguments or actually engage with some of technical papers I cited (granted he did with some earlier)

    Individuals do share relative levels of ancestry but that does not establish race nor it does IQ differences between any racialized groups.

    Nobody is saying that (really weak if you understood how STRUCTURE works) population structure does not exist, or that different diseases might be related to different environments in different places of the world but race or anything related simply does not follow. and yeah Europeans might look a bit alike each other but these are traits we have evidence of selection for and phylogenetically unimportant.
    Race means subspecies, and go read up why that does not exist in humans.

    A social construct might have some biological correlate but that does not mean that construct is real.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @res
  93. @ApostateAbe

    ” I am instead inclined to call Dr. Birney a liar”

    Also a hypocrite – in that in his revealed choice of where to live, who to associate with, who to marry, who his kids associate with, who among his graduate students he rates as the brightest, he’s probably pretty close to most commenters here – more so as he’s from a wealthy family and probably has more choices available.

    I see (a/c/t Wiki) that he interned for the Mayor of Baltimore. I wonder if he walked much outside the tourist zone there? I bet he didn’t.

  94. Thee authors claim their purpose is to provide a “guide for scientists, journalists, and the general public for . . . pushing back against [HBD] arguments.” If so, their recommended strategy is to use a lot of weasel-words and distracting non sequiturs, while employing a basic “Appeal to Ignorance/Burden of Proof” Fallacy — i.e., the racial IQ gap must be deemed to be wholly environmental unless the exact genes and genetic mechanisms responsible for the gap are fully proven.

    I am not sure who these authors are, but even without any deep technical understanding of GWAS and the like, its easy to see how this essay is nothing but a train wreck of bad logic. At the risk of recapitulating some of JT’s comments, here’s my list of the logical low points:

    1. “Human Population Structure is Not Race.” The authors don’t like the term “race” and prefer the term “population.” Fine. We can talk about the “African-American Population” and the “European-American Population” if that makes them happy. Whatever.

    2. There has been admixture and relatively recent changes (@10,000 ya.) in racial “populations.” Yeah, so what? That’s plenty of time for significant differences in populations to develop. It just depends on the extent of the selection pressure.

    3. The differences in genetic clustering (PCA analysis) between racial populations is supposedly due to how the samples are defined. I have to admit I don’t even understand their supposed point here. They are trying to refute the idea that “racial” categories are genetically distinct. So those are the categories at issue whether they like it or not. What sample categories would they prefer to use? Perhaps they are implying that some other intra-racial “population structures” would show even greater differences on PCA plots. That’s super-unlikely. But they don’t even propose any hypothetical examples, or explain why those imagined differences between alternative “population structures” would undermine the usefulness of existing racial categories. This argument is less than half-baked.

    4. Scientists would never cover up the socially unpopular implication of data. Sure they would. But mainly they just avoid the research in the first place. The actual science done by those who will actually do it — Jensen, Lynn, Flynn, etc. — is un-refuted. The pro-heredity findings are simply ignored, just as these authors do by fail to recognize or engage with the data regarding say, siblings, twins, adoption studies, regression to the mean phenomena, etc.

    5. “it is not only unclear that genetic variation explains differences between populations, it is also unlikely.” Note that they actually admit the genetic hypothesis is not “debunked,” “negated,” “disprove,” etc. They just don’t think it’s “likely,” based on their own pseudo logic and biases.

    6. GWAS data is currently based on Europeans. Yeah, so what? They’ll eventually create a database and do a GWAS study of Africans. And we’ll see how different it is from the European GWAS studies when that happens. The authors assert that “the genetic knowledge we gain from studying our mainly-European pools of participants becomes highly unreliable when it is applied to those with different ancestries.” But wait — if the European “population” is too genetically different to map onto individual Africans — then these racial categories must indeed be two genetically distinct “population structures.” So this assertion disproves their premise that the bad old “racial” categories are not biologically appropriate “population structures.”

    7. Polygenic risk scores can’t perfectly separate genetic and environmental effects. Again, so what? No one ever expected they would isolate genetic from environmental effects — that’s why they call it a “risk” score. As the authors admit, however, this limitation on GWAS risk scores “applies to any trait you could care to look at – height, specific behaviours, disease susceptibility, intelligence.”

    8. “the same genetic variants associated with purportedly higher IQ in Europeans are also present in Africans.” Again, so what? That’s like saying genes that may cause a flat nose exist in both African and European populations, therefore there couldn’t possibly be any difference in the mean or standard deviation of “nose flatness,” between the two populations. This is a cosmically stupid and embarrassing argument to make.

    9. “multiple lines of evidence indicate that there are complex environmental effects (as might reasonably be expected) on measures of IQ.” Actually, not so much. In fact, all serious evidence is pretty much to the contrary. No one has ever identified any environmental intervention that raises normal IQ levels by any significant degree (i.e., where IQ doesn’t start out suppressed by disease, injury, malnutrition, etc.). Of course, after holding the hereditarian hypothesis to an incredibly high burden of proof, they predictably offer zero evidence for the only alternative hypothesis.

    At the end of the day, all they’ve got to support their whole hypothesis that the IQ gap is “unlikely” to be genetic is the good ‘ole Flynn Effect This is still unexplained, but whatever is causing it has nothing to do with racial differences in IQ, which have remained constant.

    In short, if this is the best they’ve got, it ‘aint much.

  95. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I did not see it. Which argument has not been refuted? You make a bunch of silly claims that are irrelevant to the subject.

    For example: “Subspecies” can not possibly exist unless there is absolutely no gene flow /admixture between populations? Absurd. See post #35 for many examples. Even speciation can exist despite gene flow / admixture:

    – Different subspecies of salamander/newt developed despite gene flow / admixture: https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/26/4/829/1021334

    – Different species of butterfly, despite gene flow / admixture: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16892975

    And:
    – Speciation with gene flow could be common: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18410295

    Other studies employing slightly different approaches suggest that the salamander study, and others employing the IM approach, are not extreme anomalies. For example, studies reporting highly discordant patterns in gene geneologies from different loci support divergence with gene flow (Wang et al. 1997; Dopman et al. 2005; Bull et al. 2006; Putnam et al. 2007), because greater geneological discordance is expected during divergence with gene flow (Hey 2006). Niemiller et al. (2008) also report such geneological discordance. Other studies have focused on the criteria for sympatric speciation proposed by Coyne & Orr (2004) in their book on speciation (e.g. Barluenga et al. 2006; Savolainen et al. 2006). Finally, other work has inferred divergence with gene flow using the heterogeneity of genetic divergence among loci within the genome (Emelianov et al. 2004), geographical patterns of divergence in allopatry vs. sympatry (Grant et al. 2005), site‐specific genetic differentiation (Panova et al. 2006), or patterns of linkage disequilibrium within populations (Nosil et al. 2006). In short, methods for detecting gene flow are improving, and their creative use has increased the available examples of speciation with gene flow.

    Also the broken images in my other post can be seen here:

    magaimg.net/img/896b.gif

    magaimg.net/img/9e1s.gif

    And to correct what I said previously, I missed the word “no”: “It is a claim YOU have made with [NO] substantial argument in favor of it.”

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  96. @Counterinsurgency

    How about this proposal: As long as the SJWs say that achievement gaps are due to “systemic racism,” we must use the term “race” when evaluating the genetic “populations” on either side of this alleged “race” gap. That seems only fair. We need to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

    If they agree to change their nomenclature to talk instead about systemic “population structurism,” we can reconsider the whole “race” thing.

  97. mikemikev says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Individuals do share relative levels of ancestry but that does not establish race

    Sure it does. That’s how the concept is defined. You’re attacking strawman concepts that are defined in other ways by levels of genomic diversity and arbitrary limits on Fst and gene flow. You could load any concept with arbitrary constraints and dismiss it. You can’t redefine your opponent’s concept and tell them your imaginary version doesn’t work. You’re just dodging what they’re saying.

    Nobody is saying that…population structure does not exist…but race or anything related simply does not follow

    Specifically how are you defining race and population structure.

    A social construct might have some biological correlate but that does not mean that construct is real.

    I don’t think anyone was saying an ancestry based classification system is “real” in some ontological sense. It’s a predictive, biological, scientific construct. What makes it anymore “social” than any other taxa?

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  98. anon[837] • Disclaimer says:
    @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    I’m pretty sure Trump is just a Zionist servant at heart, but he’s so incompetent that all his actions have led to weakening of JewSA power on the global stage as well as discrediting of the domestic (((elites))).

  99. @ApostateAbe

    I give Birney proper respects for his defense of the science of IQ.

    Did you also notice that throughout the essay he always referred to “the alleged differences in the mean value of IQ when measured in different populations,” or the “putative” measured difference. He’s actually being weaselly: he will admit IQ exists, but he won’t admit any of the measurements are accurate or valid, at least as between groups. So he’s given himself a loop hole.

    • Replies: @ApostateAbe
  100. ApostateAbe says: • Website
    @Hypnotoad666

    Yes, and those qualifications would be required to avoid the heresy. The dogma is that all races have equal intelligence, and the blasphemy is that some races are stupider than others. When describing the dogma or the blasphemy, I need not write, “genetic.” If it is about GENETIC intelligence differences, then the blasphemy is even worse, but the genetic element is not required for the charge of racism to stand.

  101. Bert says:
    @Theodore

    “Erynst Mayr, probably the most important taxonomist of the 20th century and the inventor of the most popular modern criteria of subspecies, called subspecies “a purely subjective” category. He went on to say: “the subspecies is merely a strict utilitarian classificatory device for the pigeonholing of population samples”

    Mayr was not always consistent. He also championed the idea that a subspecies could diverge further and, acquiring reproductive isolation in relation to its sibling subspecies, become a new species. Such a view emphasizes the reality of the subspecies category.

  102. Anti-HBD says:
    @mikemikev

    Specifically how are you defining race and population structure.

    The same way taxonomists do.

    Race is subspecies. If race is not subspecies then it is too much a deflationary position to hold. (See for example (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27060241)

    Even if you wanted to keep the concept of race for arbitrary population structure, the absence of differential selection pressures and the overall low divergence of human populations preclude any genetic basis for differences in IQ or intelligence to the extent IQ itself is predictive of that.

    Population structure is just a non-random partition of the variation. No way to decide to carve that objectively into races, given how for example population structure is often divided into 5,7 or 20 clusters.
    How many races are there @mikemikev?

    The constraints are not arbitrary. They are the same ones we use for non-human animals for example.

    And for the last time, population structure exists even among Europeans and it certainly is possible that a European for example will be more genetically similar to an African than another European.
    So what is so meaningful about it?

    It’s a predictive, biological, scientific construct. What makes it anymore “social” than any other taxa?

    It is not predictive of anything. Race categories hold no information about the populations they describe. It is not biological either since the overwhelming majority of biologists and geneticists do not consider it useful in any way.

    Why decide you share ancestry with Europeans and not with Africans for example? What is the difference? Do you realize how little actual difference there is between different human populations.

    And do not mention chimpanzees or bananas here , the difference of DNA with them is only across homologous regions, there are entire genes and chromosomes different between us and chimpanzees for example.

  103. mikemikev says:

    The same way taxonomists do.

    Race is subspecies. If race is not subspecies then it is too much a deflationary position to hold. (See for example (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27060241)

    Well how are you defining subspecies? Stop posting links instead of explaining what you are trying to say.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  104. Anti-HBD says:
    @Theodore

    I will reply to your other comment shortly but for now, it should be said that humans are unlike any of these subspecies, with gene flow being much more pervasive (and yes I will cite you segments from studies shortly- though take a look at figure 4 of the Kelleher et al, 2019 study I cited) and the overall divergence is much, much lower as Lewontin first proposed and further confirmed by Hunley et al, 2015 (a study I have never seen a race realist engage with)

    In 1972, Lewontin claimed that because the race-level component of variation was low, human racial classification had no genetic or taxonomic significance. Our analyses confirm that there is substantial heterogeneity in
    the amount of variation harbored by human populations, but even the least diverse population, the Suruı, harbors nearly 60% of the total species’ diversity under the RTmodel.

    It is important to recognize that the biological race concept fails based on this finding alone because no matter how much variation might exist among human populations under a given model of evolution, human populations are not genetically homogeneous within.
    Additionally, our identification of the root location confirms that (1) the out-of-Africa serial founder effect process has played a major role in shaping human diversity,
    (2) African populations are not monophyletic, (3) some African populations are equally related to other African populations and to non-African populations, and (4) outside of Africa, regional groupings of populations are nested inside one another, and many of them are not
    monophyletic. In sum, we concur with Lewontin’s conclusion that Western-based racial classifications have no taxonomic significance, and we hope that this research,
    which takes into account our current understanding of the structure of human diversity, places his seminal finding on firmer evolutionary footing.

    Again, there is less diversity within H.Sapiens and all of it can be explained by isolation-by-distance patterns, with increasing distance from Africa, rather than any race concept.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @Theodore
  105. notanon says:
    @res

    and would presumably be biased towards Northern Africa (e.g. how many Bushmen left Africa?

    before the Bantu expansion maybe Khoisan-related populations were the norm outside west Africa?

  106. notanon says:
    @CanSpeccy

    But the Flynn effect leaves no doubt that IQ test scores are dependent to a large degree on cultural and educational factors

    or
    – the nation-specific increase in consumption of fish since WW2
    – the nation-specific increase in use of iodized salt since the 1930s

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  107. mikemikev says:
    @Anti-HBD

    human populations are not genetically homogeneous within

    You really are just a clown aren’t you.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  108. notanon says:

    if they’re saying there has been too much gene flow in the past between the continental human races for those human races to be considered separate today does that mean they accept there used to be separate continental races?

    also if they’re saying there’s been too much mixing between the continental human races in the past to distinguish between them today then how come we don’t look the same?

  109. Anti-HBD says:
    @Theodore

    This is incorrect, and there is no basis to this claim except your appeals to authority.

    I appealed to scientific papers. Are there any that show low gene flow?
    Here is a recent one. Note that even French are inferred to have admixture (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07483-5) It is open access but if you do not want to read it I can cite specific segments of it.

    It’s a bunch of colors, no numbers. Which specific population are you speaking of anyway?

    It is a CCF chart and you can look for example the blue (west eurasians) and green (east Asians) or yellow (african) clusters to see shared variants between them (yellowish squares)

    The idea of this is simply absurd, but I will happily let you keep repeating it so everyone can see how silly you are.

    The idea is mathematically certain. Look for example the distribution of the SLC24A5 gene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#/media/File:Ala111Thr_allele_frequency_distribution0.png) , which arose in Asia 30 kya but still managed to reach the San people of Africa about 2000 years ago and become highly selected among them ( https://www.pnas.org/content/115/52/13324)

    As to why it is mathematically certain both of us have the exact same ancestors as the Australian Aboriginals of any group only 15000 years ago and a common ancestor (or many) only 3000 years ago, see this blog post by one of the leading geneticists on the issue, Graham Coop.
    (https://gcbias.org/2017/11/28/your-ancestors-lived-all-over-the-world/)

    And your next link is specifically about Europe, a whole different ball game. That link finds that all Europeans today have the same ancestors who lived 1,000 year ago. This is specific to Europe so you can’t extrapolate this to all humans.

    The authors themselves do.
    “Our results are therefore one of the first genomic demonstrations of the counterintuitive but necessary fact that all Europeans are genealogically related over very short time periods, and lends
    substantial support to models predicting close and ubiquitous common ancestry of all modern humans [7] :” (Citation 7 is the paper I cited previously)

    If 2+2=4, how can grass be green? I don’t see why it invalidates anything. What the study does not show is the genetic distance between these super-inbred, small isolated groups and the other major races.

    A taxonomic scheme must be objective across categories. How is race valid when within one there are more differences between its members than between the races? It is just not a useful category then, but a grouping on superficial characteristics.

    For example, people on different Melanesian islands have become genetically different because, despite the closeness of their islands, they were reproductively isolated from each other

    Fine, but then why do you not call these Melanesian groups races? Again it points to how useless race is as it tells you nothing about the group.

    But I never claimed that they alone did, the totality of evidence does however. The fact that human populations cluster into groups that correspond to the major races / subspecies, and known admixed groups are intermediate, confirms the validity of these groupings which were initially created based on physical features alone

    What evidence?
    Again structure clusters are not races, even the authors of these studies admit to that. Races in biology are subspecies, which are natural populations. The outputs from structure are not and are highly dependent on the samples gathered.
    Please read this paper when you have time, it goes into this in detail (https://philarchive.org/archive/WINTMT-2) In particular section 2.3

    What are the races that STRUCTURE gives btw? K is dependent on the user and how is it possible to have at the same time k=5 or k=7 (being 5 and 7 races?)
    That is why phylogenetics provide an objective framework of categorizing subspecies, now defined as independent evolutionary lineages which Templeton (you have not proven his analysis wrong) shows that human races are not.
    And he does not exaggerate the amount of gene flow, Mendelian inheritance can mean that superficial traits like skin color can be geographically structured but genetically our species is extremely uniform, with the greatest diversity of course found in Africa.
    But again I would welcome any citations showing the clusters to be races.

    Also, I pointed out in graphs in post #32 that humans have comparative levels of genetic diversity compared to other species separated into subspecies. Also, in post #35 I showed various examples of different animal subspecies having admixture, and biologists literally not caring or saying that somehow invalidated the existence of these subspecies.

    These subspecies are older ones, who are mostly being replaced by newer genetic data. And all these subspecies you showed are not similar in genetic diversity to humans at all
    Admixture does invalidate subspecies, I can cite related papers if you wish.

    You’re just grouping admixed populations with other ones and saying that somehow proves gene flow. It does not.

    Everyone is mixed. Take Europeans and North Americans for example. Both have ancestry from ancient north Eurasians which was a separate race on its own per David Reich. There is no pure European, no pure African or East Asian, read some of the ancient DNA literature if that is not clear
    Related paper ( https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12736)

    “Sequencing of another south-central Siberian, Afontova Gora-2 dating to approximately 17,000 years ago14, revealed similar autosomal genetic signatures as MA-1, suggesting that the region was continuously occupied by humans throughout the Last Glacial Maximum. Our findings reveal that western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Native Americans derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans.”

    Europeans themselves are profoundly mixed, absent more recent African and East Asian admixture ( https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1001373)

    Is there any evidence for low gene flow between the races as you claim? Have not seen any.

  110. Anti-HBD says:
    @mikemikev

    Either make an argument or leave the discussion.
    They should be in order to be considered races.

  111. Anti-HBD says:
    @mikemikev

    Subspecies should be natural populations which have more diversity between than within, are easily and objectively diagnosable as such using phylogenetic methods, are independent evolutionary lineages or genetic clusters with great discontinuities between them (not only 2% of the Fst).

    Most importantly , they represent lineages of some sorts. Human “races” are the result of continuous and pervasive admixture.

    • Replies: @notanon
  112. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Again, there is less diversity within H.Sapiens and all of it can be explained by isolation-by-distance patterns, with increasing distance from Africa, rather than any race concept.

    There is not “less diversity” I mean you can cherry pick examples showing this, but there are other examples showing the opposite. And you’re not making any sense here, saying it can “explained by isolation-by-distance” (but actually not, I will get to this). Nobody said that it is explained by a “Race concept”. You’re totally misunderstanding. Human populations are not genetically different because of “a race concept” but because of [partial] divergent evolution, the same thing that produces races, subspecies, species, and all that sort of thing.

    it should be said that humans are unlike any of these subspecies, with gene flow being much more pervasive (and yes I will cite you segments from studies shortly- though take a look at figure 4 of the Kelleher et al, 2019 study I cited)

    Nonsense, this is typical in biology. Zoologists even have a word for situations in which subspecies are connected by intermediate populations: “Intergradation”

    And single digit admixture does not disprove the validity of these racial groups. And I have already shown that gene flow is common between groups even if speciation occurs.

    All you’re doing is desperately looking for some way human evolution is different than other groups and then saying “Yes, this is why we can not consider this concept valid!” except it is not relevant to the concept at all, you’re just attacking a strawman.

    Same race populations are more genetically similar than different race populations even when all three populations are separated by the same geographic distance: https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070

    Also:
    – “gene flow is indicated between the western common chimpanzee subspecies and the ancestor of the central and the eastern common chimpanzee subspecies” https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/27/4/921/1748734

    Oh wow, gene flow between subspecies! Nobody cares

    As for:

    some African populations are equally related to other African populations and to non-African populations

    Yeah so what? Nobody said “African” was a race, and if they did I will laugh at them. Africa is home to various races, most notably Caucasoid and Negroid. And there are intermediate groups such as East Africans, intermediate due to historical admixture.

    So obviously the results will be messed up when that factor is not taken into account.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  113. Ron Unz says:
    @Theodore

    A race is merely a ‘Large, extended family that is partly inbred’ (Sailer) but a “subspecies” is more than that.

    Actually, I’ve never thought that particular definition made sense. I think you need to add the requirement of significant genetic or substantial phenotypic differences.

    Consider the American South of the early/mid 19th century. People back then generally intermarried other locals, so I think you could (loosely) classify Southern whites as a large, partially inbred extended family. But I don’t think it’s sensible to describe Southern whites of that era as a “racial” group.

  114. notanon says:
    @Anti-HBD

    As to why it is mathematically certain both of us have the exact same ancestors as the Australian Aboriginals of any group only 15000 years ago and a common ancestor (or many) only 3000 years ago

    some of the same ancestors maybe but not all the same ancestors

    some have neanderthal admixture and some don’t

    some have denisovan admixture and some don’t

  115. notanon says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Human “races” are the result of continuous and pervasive admixture.

    if that were true we’d look the same

  116. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @notanon

    But the Flynn effect leaves no doubt that IQ test scores are dependent to a large degree on cultural and educational factors

    or
    – the nation-specific increase in consumption of fish since WW2
    – the nation-specific increase in use of iodized salt since the 1930s

    Yeah, maybe fish have something to do with it. But not everything to do with it, according to James Flynn, who ought to know.

    For example, Flynn reports that on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, the biggest increase in generation to generation score is due to better performance on something called “Similarities,” which also happens to be the most heavily g-loaded section of the test.

    For example, the Similarities section of the test might ask: in what way are rabbits and dogs similar?

    If you say they are both four-footed or have hair, or warm blood, you score zip. But if you say they are both mammals, you score a point.

    Now it is hard to see how the difference in response could be attributed to the consumption of fish or iodine. However, the transition from IQ 75 Americans of the year 1900 (just as America was embarking on it era of greatness, industrially, militarily and technologically) to IQ 100 Americans of today (just as America is plunging into PC lunacy, widespread decadence, drug dependency, and obesity) was accompanied by (a) large-scale urbanization, and (b) much longer schooling for the average child.

    Thus, it would seem reasonable to assume that the increase in correct score on the rabbit/dog Similarities question reflects the transition from a world in which many people were brought up in a rural environment and knew a lot about rabbits and dogs to a world in which people are mainly brought up in an urban environment, know virtually nothing about animals, but spend endless hours in classrooms learning useless things like the technical name for vivaporous, placental animals, with mammary glands.

    James Flynn attributes the resultant change in the Similarities test response to the abandonment of concrete thinking for the “scientific outlook”. That seems to me to point to the illogicality of the method of scoring the Wechsler test.

    If I were looking for an intelligent engineer or a physicist to solve a technical problem, I would want someone with an aptitude for thinking about the world in concrete terms, not some la di dah fella spewing latinate words. Indeed, I suspect that a relentless focus on the concrete is precisely why great physicists such as Richard Feynman, do not appear to score particularly well on IQ tests.

    In other words, I would say that the Flynn effect reveals that IQ tests are highly dubious instruments for measuring intellingence, even in the narrow domain of intelligence in which they can plausibly claim validity.

  117. dvorak says:

    From the goodwhites:

    The charge that thousands of scientists across the world are covering up a real discovery for fear of personal or wider social consequences is absurd.

    Oh? Hundreds of millions of mainland Chinese are covering up the real discovery that Xi looks like Winnie the Pooh.

  118. @Reg Cæsar

    Sociologist Steven Goldberg of NYU has asserted that even astrology, which he says is as bad as science gets, cannot be termed “pseudoscience”.

    Astrology sure isn’t even pseudoscience, it is totally unrelated to science.

    Watson was once a proper scientist, however unfortunately he has become a full-fledged loon. He has been supporting the criminal Andrea Rossi and his “ecat” fraud for some years, or at least was when I last looked about 5 years ago.

  119. @Mr. XYZ

    In regards to IQ being associated with skin color, a good way to test this in regards to blacks/African-ancestry people would be to see if albinos have a higher IQ polygenic score and/or a higher IQ than regular blacks/regular African-ancestry people have.

    No. Albino blacks have defective melanin production genes.

    There is correlation because the ancestral environment blacks developed in required dark skin but did not require high IQ and there is a huge cost associated with high IQ. Thus they would tend to cluster around an IQ that was enough to live in their ancestral environment.

    • Replies: @Aufklærer108
    , @Okechukwu
  120. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    And the point of that rigmarole about fishes, rabbits and dogs being that, according to James, Flynn-Effect, Flynn, the Flynn effect, i.e., the 30 point difference in IQ test score (relative to the current mean of 100) between the present generation of Westerners and their grandparents is entirely cultural.

  121. notanon says:
    @CanSpeccy

    However, the transition from IQ 75 Americans of the year 1900 (just as America was embarking on it era of greatness, industrially, militarily and technologically) to IQ 100 Americans of today (just as America is plunging into PC lunacy, widespread decadence, drug dependency, and obesity) was accompanied by (a) large-scale urbanization, and (b) much longer schooling for the average child.

    and the introduction of iodized salt in 1924

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodised_salt#United_States

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Kratoklastes
  122. ApostateAbe says: • Website
    @Anti-HBD

    Disclaimer,

    I have done plenty of reading on the matter, digging backward through the sources. The limits of the categories of either “race” or “subspecies” are ultimately subjective, not relevant to whether or not human “population” groups have genotypic psyschological differences. Nevertheless, the antiracist literature on the matter seems to be riddled with myths that began as lies about the accepted science of biology concerning those arbitrary categories.

    The biological concept of “race” predates the biological concept of “subspecies” by hundreds of years, and “subspecies” predates molecular genetics, so it was a surprise to see a broad citation of the claim that there is a standard Fst threshold for either “subspecies” or “race,” Fst being purely a metric of molecular genetics. Two and only two authors seem to be responsible for this claim:

    (1) Alan Templeton, and
    (2) Joseph Graves

    Alan Templeton is favored by you and your sources. Joseph Graves makes the same wrong claim but with a different wrong citation (of Sewell Wright, who plainly wrote contrary to what Graves claimed). Alan Templeton was wrong about a different citation: Smith, Chiszar, and Montanucci, 1997, “Subspecies and Classification.” It is an obscure article in an obscure journal for herpetology (the science of reptiles and amphibians), but the article is now freely downloadable from the publisher’s website. Templeton cited the article many times over the course of more than a decade, each time citing it as his only source for his claim that subspecies have a standard minimum Fst threshold of 0.25. But, when I read the article, it had nothing to do with molecular genetics, and the “25%” value seemed to be referring to the remainder of “75%.” which in turn seemed to be drawn from the “75% rule” of subspecies: if you can identify 75% of the members with the candidate group at the exclusion of 99% of the remainder of the species, then you can have a subspecies. The article was technically difficult, so I emailed the only living co-author, Dr. Montanucci, to confirm my interpretation. And he wrote:

    Thank you for your email. You are absolutely correct. We had the 75% rule in mind as we argued our position on the matter of subspecies. I have not kept up with Templeton’s papers in recent years and unfortunately don’t know if he has been challenged or corrected by others. If you intend to address this matter in print, I certainly encourage you to do so. The vast majority of taxonomists are comparative morphologists and work with large series of preserved specimens with broad geographic representation. Fst would have little or no practical utility in decisions about subspecies under those circumstances. In groups of organisms where single-nucleotide polymorphisms, microsatellites, and the like have been well studied, using Fst as a measure of population differentiation might be acceptable. But, I don’t really know with certainty because I’m not a geneticist. If I have not answered your question adequately, please let me know. Thanks.

    Kind regards,

    Richard Montanucci

    Hundreds of authors have cited Templeton depending on the truth of his claim, and I take it to be a fundamental corruption of the sciences of biology, because it has sown confusion about taxonomy among honest scholars seemingly for the sake of an ideological end to minimize the biological importance of human races. This end is likewise corrupt, because race is key to evolutionary biology. When one species diverges into two species, races are the intermediates on this evolutionary spectrum. Races happen whenever a species diverges far apart geographically, and humans are typical of this biological pattern, not some special exception.

    I made a video some time ago, and what I wrote here is a summary of that video. I put it on YouTube here:

  123. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @notanon

    and the introduction of iodized salt in 1924

    In part, probably. According to this, the gain in IQ test scores in the US due to the iodization of salt accounts for a decades worth of the 20th century rise in IQ test scores. So still 90% probably due to cultural change.

    Certainly Flynn’s explanation of the Flynn effect, a switch from concrete thinking to the “scientific outlook” is unlikely to have been the result of more dietary iodine.

    Moreover, there are other dietary changes experienced by the American population during the course of the last century that probably had an effect that could have entirely negated any intellectual benefit due to iodine — for example, the increase in sugar consumption between 1900 and 2000 from 10 lbs per person to 110 lbs per person: cf:

    Eating sugar drastically lowers your IQ.

    LOL

    • Replies: @notanon
  124. notanon says:
    @CanSpeccy

    and of course all the other countries that did the iodine thing e.g. Poland, and comparing them with those that haven’t e.g. Ukraine, to see if it explains any differences.

    it would be great to see a full study of how iodized salt and the increased fish consumption since WW2 relate to national variations in the Flynn effect – it might explain why the effect varies so much from country to country.

  125. @Ben the Layabout

    If race is not a valid concept, then it has no place in various civil rights laws.

    It’s by no means clear why you would think that.

    Law generally (ignoring the subset of civil rights laws) is replete with key premises that are untrue by axiom; not to mention jurisprudence that is known to be flawed, but suits the powerful (and so is not challenged and remains in place due to stare decisis).

    Anything that mentions the general will[1], for example. (The general will is a concept that is impossible to determine – using it as a rationale for a law, is like referring to Jesus’ tsticle temperature as the rationale for a law).

    Law is like scripture: it’s a bunch of confected nonsense generated by people who are looking to live at others’ expense.

    And so of course it has its schtick.

    People are encouraged to believe that it’s the outcome of some profound process, and that it reflects the blending of ⓐ the deep and considered application of the most learned, with ⓑ due heed to the broad societal consensus.

    Both of those premises (ⓐ and ⓑ) are false.

    [1] ‘general will’, ‘general welfare’, ‘what society wants’, ‘the will of the people’… there are dozens, if not hundreds, of vaguely-similar phrases that are employed in order to fool the dull-witted into thinking that the utterer is not a charlatan.

    • Replies: @jbwilson24
  126. @notanon

    The amelioration of widespread iodine deficiency (by various things, including iodised salt) was a good thing (and a priori meaningful for cognition).

    The introduction of fluoridated water completely undid that, by introducing an oral-delivery halide that out-competes iodide, iodine and iodate in the thyroid… compromising metabolism (slowing everything down, including cognition) by dramatically curtailing production of T3 and T4 (triiodothyronine and thyroxine, respectively).

    It was abundantly clear by the mid-1970s that the supposed benefit of fluoride in tap water (reduction in the incidence of dental caries in children) was a statistical artifact due to delayed tooth eruption in kiddies exposed to fluoride. If kids get their teeth later, they will have fewer caries at all points in time thereafter: that explains 100% of the statistical variation in caries in the two populations.

    Now given that it was shown to be operating from a false premise before I turned 12… why was the policy not stopped?

    Answer: because kiddies’ teeth was not the actual objective. The actual objective was pacification (the old joke about bromide in the mashed potatoes for soldiers).

    • Replies: @notanon
  127. @Anti-HBD

    I will respond to more than one of your comments. Though you’ll excuse me if I don’t mention every single paper you cited because as I will prove below you either don’t understand or didn’t read most of them. So why wasting time with paper that probably don’t prove what the race-denier is stating. There will be 11 points

    1. First, the antelope thing :

    2. Lorendzen et al, 2007 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17651200/) challenge Kob Antelope subspecies classification based on Fst distance for example, which Woodley uses in the source you cited and even more importantly,

    There were 3 subspecies (kk kob, kk thomasi, kk leucotis), and the authors suggest that maybe it should drop to 2 (combining kk kob + thomasis but letting kk leucotis lives), they don’t advocate for 0 subspecies. I don’t think Woodley being challenged much from such slight change. They do not use Fst either as arguments for the change (even though they computed it). Their arguments were kk kob and thomasi are 1) morphologically 2) and ecologically similar 3) they cluster together when computing the most likely genealogy tree based on their mtDNA. Or to be more precise the clusters that appeared did not match the previous classification. None of these 3 problems concern or affect human races.

    Not only the fact genetic was only 1 argument disprove your claim that subspecies concept changed to a genetic only concept but Fst is not that even important. They do not use a method or definition remotely close to Templeton, do not use a threshold Fst, and actually the Fst distance between the 2 subspecies they propose (kk kob + thomasi and kk leucotis) have very small distance less than 0.1. By the way, they did the Fst analysis on microsatellites and the mtDNA sequences that mutate rapidly. So if used on a representative sample of the genome, expect even smaller Fst.

    Aside from Fst calculation, they did and commented a lot on cluster analysis more so than they did on Fst, falsifying your claim that cluster is so much irrelevant than Fst. Also they say their 2 recognized subspecies had a lot of gene flow going on between them, yet they don’t declare “there is no subspecies”.

    2. Pretty much the same happens with the bird classification. It’s about mtDNA again. Apparently, some birds have the same mtDNA and just like in the antelope-thing. Not only is it not about Fst between populations being too small but the criterion used for birds won’t be a problem with human race since we do see different haplogroups across the races https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mitochondrial_DNA_haplogroup

    3. Just searched the most recent paper doing subspecies classification on a particular animal I could find and I got this https://sci-hub.tw/10.11646/zootaxa.4482.3.6 (Kobor et. al 2018) on Gecoris (some bug apparently). So did they abandoned morphology, geographic separation or location, separation in breeding as criteria? No. For their definition of subspecies they cite old papers : O’Neil 1982, Gilham 1956, Mayr 1982, Zusi 1982. The author did use genetics though… to assist the other criteria. Mainly, they computed using Likelihood Maximum the most likely tree and verified whether the recognized subspecies clustered together. (only 2 of the 3 subspecies could be seen). They argue that the third subspecies should be dropped because it was probably just a different coloration of the so called “typical Gecoris”, 1) using as arguments the fact this third subspecies was found in the same areas than the “typical” one (geographical argument), 2) they are genetically no different from the “typical” one. They don’t use Fst either. The only distance they speak of is Kimura 2-parameter for which they say that a 3% distance is a good number for different subspecies (I don’t know if it can be converted into Fst or what’s their relation).

    4. Templeton: So 0.25 Fst threshold was mentioned nowhere in the 3 above examples… Moreover neither the antelope paper nor the gecoris one mentioned any constraints on the lineage being independent : they both rely on a genealogy tree computed by likehood method, the antelope-guys believe in large gene flow but it does not bother them, the gecoris-guys don’t even verify the existence of gene flow. Moreover Templeton doesn’t prove anything actually as explained by Cochran: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2019/09/28/gene-genealogies-vs-population-splits/

    5.

    Distance from Africa for example accounts for 75% of the variation while clusters only for 2%.Just because you can find differences, does not mean these differences are significant. (http://golem.anth.wsu.edu/sites/ipem.anth.wsu.edu/files/Handley_etal_2007-TIG.pdf)

    No, again you didn’t cite it properly. The quote was “>75% of the total variance of pairwise FST can be captured by geographic distance alone. Adding information on genetic clusters to this model captures only an extra 2% of the variance.” That’s radically different!
    But this does not disprove clusters or prove that the cluster are errors or don’t exist. I don’t even understand how someone can come to this conclusion.

    First, Fst is a number, a 1D object, a genome has the dimension in at least the order of magnitude of the number of genes. Because of this, Fst is by definition a qualitative measure unless all the other dimensions contain no information (which is not the case since cluster analysis show pattern Fst couldn’t). Fst are averaging an incredible amount of differences into a single metric.
    Qualitative measures are not to be dismissed, of course, but there are just one tool and cannot be used to dismiss the results from other independent tools. It doesn’t matter that clusters create only 2% distances in the “Fst space” because this space is just a projection of the real object, like the shadow on the ground (2D) is a projection of a ball (3D). Just because two shadows overlap doesn’t mean the two objects are melted into each other.

    Second, there is no criteria regarding the amount of distance (or shadow) cluster analysis must create on the Fst space to be considered “significant”. Just like how there isn’t a % of genetic differences two species must have to be considered significant (only 2% difference between humans and chimps, right?). Yes, there are a lot more genetic variants that change clinally, this is no proof of gene flow though, it could mean these variant evolved/changed very slowly. If there are massively more gene variants that change slowly than those which change faster, then so what? What does it has anything to do with significance or gene flow or anything?

    Third, go back to the antelope, bird and gecoris examples I mention to understand the (ir)relevance of your Fst-centric argument.

    6. Then you said this:

    Only true perhaps for pre-colonization Americas and Australia. And even then, most likely not as this paper suggests (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02842)

    “If a common ancestor of all living humans is defined as an individual who is a genealogical ancestor of all present-day people, the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for a randomly mating population would have lived in the very recent past1,2,3 […]

    It is mathematically certain you and an Aboriginal Australian have the exact same set of ancestors perhaps only 3000 years ago.

    The author just made a very simple mathematical model, they start with the basic “if I have 2 parents, my parents have also 2 each ect.” assuming random mating across the globe and he gets 3000 years for the last common ancestors. He then repeat with a bit more isolated populations or more constraints. And show that adding a bit more still give 3k years. But this toy model is just a mathematical games, he doesn’t know the true isolations or constraints using empirical data. His 3k years is not an empirical measurement. It seems it doesn’t take account to extremely strong assortative mating caused by let’s say stigma against mixed-race people or simply strong in-group preferences. For Jesus’ sake, their mathematical model doesn’t even take into account that not all humans have Neanderthals or whatever other hominide admixture in their DNA!

    https://www.nature.com/articles/431518a#article-info

    The idea is mathematically certain. Look for example the distribution of the SLC24A5 gene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#/media/File:Ala111Thr_allele_frequency_distribution0.png) , which arose in Asia 30 kya but still managed to reach the San people of Africa about 2000 years ago and become highly selected among them ( https://www.pnas.org/content/115/52/13324)

    As to why it is mathematically certain both of us have the exact same ancestors as the Australian Aboriginals of any group only 15000 years ago and a common ancestor (or many) only 3000 years ago, see this blog post by one of the leading geneticists on the issue, Graham Coop.
    (https://gcbias.org/2017/11/28/your-ancestors-lived-all-over-the-world/)

    It does not prove your mathematical certainty, lol. If you want to do math make a mathematical proof. Look for math paper for inspiration of what it looks like, as well, as the realization you proved nothing mathematically there. One south asian reaching the San won’t make the common ancestor 3000 years ago. The mathematical model of Rhode uses regular and constant gene flow starting from a certain point in time.

    7.

    Also if you are referring to the study by Tang et al, 2005 about 99% assignment to clusters, it is based on old data and more of a bad sampling of individuals.

    Source for Tang (2005) being largely wrong. I think there is a cluster analysis by Rosenberg et. al in 2012 or 13.

    8.

    Related to this is that just because you can identify differences, it does not mean they are significant. For example, this paper by Winther et al, 2015 (http://www.nielsenlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1-s2.0-S1369848615000114-main.pdf):

    Treating clusters from a Structure analysis as populations with
    properties that are not part of Structure’s model can lead to inferential errors… Assume the populations undergo genetic drift but are not subject to natural selection […] Shared ancestry is a fundamental component of biological taxonomy, but Structure does not directly inform about shared ancestry.

    Buddy, this is an example of cluster showing less populations than actually exist not showing more. Which is what you’re trying to prove.

    9.

    What are the races that STRUCTURE gives btw? K is dependent on the user and how is it possible to have at the same time k=5 or k=7 (being 5 and 7 races?)

    Strange because in the antelope paper YOU cited the number K was not arbitrary. They used the best fit using some likelihood method. They called \Delta K, which was equal to 4, the true numbers of clusters. They didn’t argue for 4 subspecies, though… for phenotypical, geographical reasons, also, their baseline was the 3 subspecies previously established decades ago using morphological methods (and the mtDNA tree only showed 2 cluster).

    10. Considering the Pigmies or San as a different race than the Bantu-like people is a non-issue in the first place. So your Fst argument about how large it is is not relevant. That being said Fst is not everything. The geographical and ecological criteria used in the gecoris and antelope papers is not passed by them. It is possible Fst distance underestimate the amount of gene flow there was. mtDNA analysis as well as Y-chromosome, and lastly cluster analysis are needed; just like how your antelope paper used all of them (except Y-chromosome).

    11.

    A taxonomic scheme must be objective across categories. How is race valid when within one there are more differences between its members than between the races? It is just not a useful category then, but a grouping on superficial characteristics.

    This is not a criterion used on birds, on antelopes nor on gecoris. I see no evidence this is used on species either. I have yet to see studies looking at Fst across species and within to conclude stuff like “this species of wolves can’t exist because this other species of canidae has subspecies with very high Fst distance”. Cite me one case!

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

    How is race valid when within one there are more differences between its members than between the races?

    More differences in junk DNA? Even if this ratio applied to selected genes and traits, a race concept would be informative for that portion which was different, however small it was. It could be 1%. Why would a taxonomy suddenly become valid when the divergence ratio hit 50%? It’s a fabricated arbitrary requirement applied only to humans for racial-Marxist political reasons. Race is defined by ancestry, individuals share more or less ancestry and can be grouped, and that system is predictive and therefore scientific. All of this stuff about Fst of junk DNA is strawman.

  129. Anti-HBD says:
    @Theodore

    I mean you can cherry pick examples showing this, but there are other examples showing the opposite.

    The other examples you showed are older ones, not subspecies backed by genetic data.

    and single digit admixture does not disprove the validity of these racial groups. And I have already shown that gene flow is common between groups even if speciation occurs

    Did you not see that the authors had admixture among all groups in very high levels, more than just single digit one? If it was single digit one, your point would stand but it is not. Did you actually read the paper/look at the chart?

    See for example Ydna R. It comes from East Asia and it is extremely widespread in Europeans today, most likely coming from the Ancient North Eurasians which were an East Asian population and every European has 20% of them.
    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_North_Eurasian)

    https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070

    The authors themselves say why clusters are not races, but you seem to not engage with that.

    Caucasoid and Negroid

    Define Caucasoid and Negroid. And no, these are just phenotypes they do not tell you anything about genetics. The Yoruba are much more closer to Europeans than they are to the San and according to you, both would be in the Negroid race, even though that would not make sense.

    • Replies: @Theodore
  130. mikemikev says:

    Yes, this is Saini’s “team”

    Racial nihilism certainly is making a lot of headway in Europe, among the European people. Everywhere else, not so much.

  131. @Peripatetic Commenter

    there is a huge cost associated with high IQ

    Could you elaborate, please?

  132. Anti-HBD says:
    @DetectorofKevins

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

    Templeton’s NCPA analysis did use mtdna haplogroups as well, and concluded that race is void in humans. Haplogroups are spread over the word, you will find deeply East Asian haplogroups in Europe and vice versa.

    The only distance they speak of is Kimura 2-parameter for which they say that a 3% distance is a good number for different subspecies (I don’t know if it can be converted into Fst or what’s their relation).

    That is about geographical distance and yes that is what most population geneticists say about humans, we differ based on isolation by distance patterns not race.
    After all, only 5000 years ago, you would not have any of the races today since Europeans are a mixture of 3 groups, one of them (more than 25% of modern-day Europeans being East Asian genetically)

    Moreover Templeton doesn’t prove anything actually as explained by Cochran:

    Cochran needs to read papers more closely. Templeton’s paper controls for lineage sorting issues, Cochran has no argument here.

    One south asian reaching the San won’t make the common ancestor 3000 years ago.

    How about these ones then? Even Australia was not isolated, contra the HBD assumptions here.
    (https://www.pnas.org/content/110/5/1803)
    “We also detect a signal indicative of substantial gene flow between the Indian populations and Australia well before European contact, contrary to the prevailing view that there was no contact between Australia and the rest of the world. We estimate this gene flow to have occurred during the Holocene, 4,230 y ago. This is also approximately when changes in tool technology, food processing, and the dingo appear in the Australian archaeological record, suggesting that these may be related to the migration from India.”
    and
    (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3991479/)
    “We also find evidence of gene flow between populations of the two dispersal waves prior to the divergence of Native Americans from modern Asian ancestors. ”

    And really, check the distribution of ydna R and its ancestors. The Ancient North Eurasians were East Asian in origin and heavily contributed to modern-day European populations.

    Source for Tang (2005) being largely wrong. I think there is a cluster analysis by Rosenberg et. al in 2012 or 13.

    See the article by Piglucci I posted. It is not wrong. Tang did not even run STRUCTURE in admixture mode and her samples were very limited

    Buddy, this is an example of cluster showing less populations than actually exist not showing more. Which is what you’re trying to prove.

    How many more? If multiple clusters exist in Europe or Africa, how is European and African races? We can identify population structure in the UK, does that mean different British populations are races?
    You can find clusters if you compare New York to Miami, does that mean that New Yorkers and people from Miami form races?

    How much of the total variance do Rosenberg’s clusters represent?

    Strange because in the antelope paper YOU cited the number K was not arbitrary. They used the best fit using some likelihood method. They called \Delta K, which was equal to 4, the true numbers of clusters.

    No such number exists for Rosenberg’s or related clusters. The delta K in this case is closer to 20, are there 2o races?

    It is possible Fst distance underestimate the amount of gene flow there was. mtDNA analysis as well as Y-chromosome, and lastly cluster analysis are needed;

    And rejected the subspecies identified. Also, Fst severely underestimates gene flow, it is so funny when people cite me the post by Greg Cochran that thinks he can calculate Nm from Fst.
    Templeton’s analysis used exactly these methods you are describing to infer the absence of races in humans, and Lewontin also proved that races are taxonomic ally of no value.
    See Hunley et al. I posted earlier.

    There is nothing objective about human races, given there can be 5, 7 or 20 at the same time. Population structure of course exists but does not imply shared ancestry and it is irrelevant.

    You have failed to demonstrate the validity of races, as commonly defined. k being equal to 5 or 7 or show them to be subspecies.

    It is 13 pages but see Kopec, 2014 on why human populations or clusters are not races https://philarchive.org/archive/KOPCCA

    Also Groves, 2014 regarding primate phylogeny ( https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102313-030232)

    Now it seems that we have to disinter the corpse to explain yet again that humanity forms a global population continuum; different as the extremes of the spectrum may appear to be, they form a genetic continuum, and there are

    no points at which this continuum can be broken into diagnosable segments, nor can it be maintained that there ever were such breakpoints, across the whole of the Late Pleistocene and Holocene history of our species.

    The observation that “there are differences” (see, for example, Woodley 2010), although correct, is not relevant: The diagnosability of populations, not the amount of difference, is the crux.

    Human populations form a continuum and at no point you can objectively separate them into races. Just because you can find clusters and differences, it does not mean these differences are important or of phylogenetic relevance.

    It is a fact that human variation patterns can be explained by a model of isolation-by-distance, with some long-range dispersals.

    However all populations have remained connected through recurring and constant gene flow, mostly through intermediate populations, which is obvious since every time we test for treeness of human populations it is an extremely poor fit (see cophenetic correlation)

  133. @CanSpeccy

    The Similarities subtest is scored 0,1,2 depending on how much the answers involve higher-order concepts. It is a good test of intelligence, but some good tests of intelligence, particularly like this one, can also be subject to cultural effects which date them.
    Arithmetic is also subject to educational effects, but has a logical structure and specifiable levels of difficulty. It shows virtually no Flynn Effect. Same is true for Digit Span.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  134. Anti-HBD says:
    @ApostateAbe

    It does not really mean anything that he misrepresented the Fst source. His 2 main points stand.

    1. Gene flow and no isolation across our history as shown by his analysis.

    2. Human races when tested fail to fit treeness as shown by the low value of the cophenetic correlation when tested.

    You offer no counter-arguments to these points but attempt to ascribe political motivation to two very respected evolutionary biologists.
    Need I remind you that Templeton also accurately predicted Neanderthal and Denisovan introgression into modern humans.

    Also see Long and Kittles, 2009 ( https://www.igb.illinois.edu/sites/default/files/Longetal2009.pdf) and Hochman, 2013 ( https://philpapers.org/archive/HOCATN.pdf)

    Two studies, that no “race realist” has any argument against. Appealing to the politics of the authors means nothing.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @notanon
  135. Aksavavit says:
    @Anti-HBD

    «“Sequencing of another south-central Siberian, Afontova Gora-2 dating to approximately 17,000 years ago14, revealed similar autosomal genetic signatures as MA-1, suggesting that the region was continuously occupied by humans throughout the Last Glacial Maximum. Our findings reveal that western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Native Americans derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans.”»

    May I come into this interesting discussion with linguistic arguments?

    This quote from David Reich is consistent with the “Eurasiatic” linguistic macrophylum (Greenberg, 2000) uniting the Indo-European, Uralo-Yukaghir, Altaic, Gilyak, Chukotko-Kamtchatkan and Ekimo-Aleut phyla.

    Greenberg himself noted that in his opinion the Eurasiatic phylum was closest to Amerind (a macrophylum uniting all Amerindian language families, save the northernmost Na-Dene and of course Eskimo-Aleut which is a member of Eurasiatic).

    Most of the phyla making up Eurasiatic are today found in far northeastern Asia. Only Indo-European is clearly a Western Asian outlier, and must have travelled across the Asian continent – such cases of transcontinental migrations are not so rare. This and the linguistic proximity of their Eurasiatic ancestors with Amerind may explain why modern Europeans share genes with Amerindians : they used to be a single “Amerasian” linguistic group just before the Last Glacial Maximum, when the Amerind ancestors splitted from them and crossed through the Bering Isthmus (today’s Bering Strait) to Alaska and spread onto the Americas.

    Greenberg is quite controversial among historical linguists, for wrong reasons that cannot be exposed here. Just note that his Amerind phylum, rejected by nearly all Amerindianists, was proven genetically correct by the Harvard team of the same David Reich, down to the detail of its subgroups. Also remember that Cavalli-Sforza used to work closely with Greenberg at Stanford in the 1980s to produce the first global genetic classification of human groups, which by and large remains valid to the present day.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  136. ApostateAbe says: • Website

    “It does not really mean anything that he misrepresented the Fst source. His 2 main points stand.”

    But the failure of the presumed Fst threshold was a point depended on by at least a hundred others who cited him, in both academia and the public, including you, maybe because it was so short and simple. It is either unforgivably bad scholarship or it is outright lying, and that is why the politics is relevant here. Either the mistake or the lie can not happen without the ideology, and the gullible belief of the citation by so many others in spite of the claim being at odds with a fundamental principle of evolutionary biology cannot happen without the ideology. I expect the arguments of gene flow and treeness values likewise depend on some sort of standard value. To my knowledge, biological “races” have and have always had broad biological meaning, without numbers. There is no minimum or maximum quantitative threshold required for “race.” There is such a thing for “subspecies,” and human groups plainly meet that threshold (the 75% rule), and so Templeton has directly lied about it, unless he is perfectly honest and terribly bad at his jobs.

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

    Also see Long and Kittles, 2009 ( https://www.igb.illinois.edu/sites/default/files/Longetal2009.pdf) and Hochman, 2013 ( https://philpapers.org/archive/HOCATN.pdf)

    Two studies, that no “race realist” has any argument against. Appealing to the politics of the authors means nothing.

    Instead of copy pasting URLs and expecting others to extract your points you should outline the arguments for others who may not be familiar with those papers. I mean if you summarised Long’s paper by saying “there’s more genetic diversity in Africa” it would be more clear that you’re just repeating the same debunked points ad nauseam.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  138. Don’t you get bored with your identity politics palaver? I guarantee you most normal people do.

  139. Anti-HBD says:
    @Theodore

    Going back to this, you have not provided any evidence for what the “updated” 75% rule is about subspecies and Templeton also supports than humans have 10% Neanderthal or other admixture. You are only validating his thesis.

    • Replies: @Theodore
  140. Anti-HBD says:
    @Aksavavit

    This information is indeed interesting but you are only further proving my point that

    migrations were common,

    gene flow was high and there are no races.

    I do not see how your argument supports race, unless you are not making one for racial classification.
    I know Greenberg was an extreme lumper and he was largely correct here, if we are talking linguistics only.

  141. Anti-HBD says:
    @mikemikev

    Long’s paper demonstrates that races do not fit the observed patterns of variation, not only the greatest diversity in Africa.

    If that does not mean anything to you, I guess you need to learn some taxonomy.

    Quoting from a related paper by Long, 2009: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/381884/pdf?casa_token=w4lFxeyCYK8AAAAA:uYjPsFaikzziCI9QdrfYvapP0doVZHiewlbEo5Hl1FzBvuHdL11KEZOAtoOgad1Z74k1W3zCWw

    Now, with more genetic data and more populations sampled, we are able to revisit the race problem with greater accuracy. Recently, my colleagues and I have tested the usefulness of race as a way to describe genetic differences among populations by contrasting the results of racial classification with those from generalized hierarchical models (Long et al. 2009). Race fails! Figure 3 diagrams the contrast for a data set consisting of complete DNA sequences for 64 autosomal loci (38,000 bp total). Four resequenced individuals represent each population. A summary of the major problems with using race are as follows. First, imposing the classically defined race structure on populations causes us to estimate less diversity for the species as a whole than does allowing all populations to link back to a common base population in an unrestricted hierarchy. Second, using the race pattern causes us to estimate excess diversity within non-sub-Saharan African populations, but it estimates a deficit of diversity within sub-Saharan African populations. Third, the supposition of races forces all continental populations to diverge equally from a single ancestral node, whereas an unrestricted hierarchy places the basal split within Africa. Fourth, in the classical race framework, European and Asian populations diverge from African populations independently, but the unrestricted hierarchy shows that European and East Asian populations link together before either links to sub-Saharan Africans.

    I am posting this more for the other commentors on this thread (provided they do not pretend to ignore it) than you, since based on your comments so far, I am convinced you have no knowledge of biology or population genetics.

    • Replies: @Theodore
    , @mikemikev
  142. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    More pointless nonsense. I am not going very in depth because I am posting from my phone at work

    – You ignore the concept of “Intergradation” where different subspecies are connected by areas with intermediate/admixed groups. This is common in biology but you would like to pretend as if it is not and is something specifically unique to humans.

    – There is no evidence that those examples are “Older ones”. Please prove it. You enjoy dismissing points you don’t like and then spamming irrelevant nonsense or asking me to explain or ameliorate your misconceptions. I’m not going to fall for this trick

    – Admixture between populations is irrelevant to the point, as explained. I gave numerous examples of gene flow / admixture between different species and subspecies in the animal world. It doesn’t invalidate these classifications. Gene flow can happen between groups even as speciation occurs, and happens quite frequently with other groups labelled “Subspecies”. You keep obsessing over this irrelevant point, showing the weakness and desperation of your position.

    – And no I “did not see” what you’re referring too, which is irrelevant anyway. Show me the numbers, there was just a color coded graph on the page you specified.

    – Evolutionary lineages do not need to be completely pure with no admixture or gene flow. Quite often this is not the case and nobody is bothered by it. There is no evidence that ANE are “East Asian” and even if they were it’s impertinent. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

    – Indeed, clusters aren’t races. I didn’t claim they were. Similarly, clusters aren’t species but different species when genetically tested will separate into different clusters. It’s simply an observation we would expect, you’re attacking a strawman

    – Caucasoid and Negroid have been defined well by many anthropologists. I will post some quotes later when I’m at my PC. As to your point about San, they are often separated into a separate “Capoid” race but sometimes they aren’t because of their small numbers and negroid admixture. So your supposed inconsistency has been accounted for long ago. I pointed out Capoids in post #19 so no, that’s not “according to me” at all and you can’t say I just pulled that out of my ass or anything. Also they do correspond to genetic clusters, although it would be wrong to define them as the genetic clusters, a strawman you have invoked multiple times

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  143. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    There is no updated 75% rule and I never claimed that. I claimed that there was a 75% rule and it has been largely (albeit not entirely) abandoned for other definitions.

    Templeton will say whatever he thinks will trick people into denying race. He has been spanked left and right, here and elsewhere. He, like you, loves to redefine “race” in order to attack a strawman definition.

    Intermixing / gene flow / admixture between separate subspecies or even species is perfectly fine, it doesn’t refute anything. It is quite common in biology as I have pointed ouf a number of times.

    Neanderthals and humans had plenty of gene flow, as did other archaic groups and humans. This is quite obviously not an issue, it’s an irrelevant point in the context of this discussion.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  144. Anti-HBD says:
    @Theodore

    You ignore the concept of “Intergradation” where different subspecies are connected by areas with intermediate/admixed groups. This is common in biology but you would like to pretend as if it is not and is something specifically unique to humans.

    If you read the ancient Dna papers I cited, you would know that every racialized group today is a mixture of past populations. Intergradiation means nothing given that at the same time the European populations were forming, the Central Asian ones were as well. So why choose what you define as European as a race?
    These phenotypes you identify can be due to convergent evolution and the group paraphyletic. Does not make them a race.

    Also, if you think race is real, then how many races are there? 5, 7, 20?

    Please prove it.

    Easily proven by the fact they consider phenotypic data. Have you not heard of phylogenetics?
    Phenetics are not used anymore. Besides, the subspecies you listed are unlike humans, do I have to cite specific segments to show you that?

    Admixture between populations is irrelevant to the point, as explained. I gave numerous examples of gene flow / admixture between different species and subspecies in the animal world. It doesn’t invalidate these classifications. Gene flow can happen between groups even as speciation occurs, and happens quite frequently with other groups labelled “Subspecies”.

    Again, Templeton’s analysis shows it was really high. If you know anything about biology you would know that gene flow inhibits speciation. And that is exactly the case in humans given his analysis (which you have not refuted) and the fact we are an extremely genetically uniform species. Here is another paper for you to consider, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/09/13/416610.full.pdf in particular figure 7 in page 24.
    “Age-stratified connections between ancestry groups in SGDP. The cumulative coalescent function
    (CCF) was inferred for all 556 haploid target genomes with all other comparator genomes in the SGDP sample and then aggregated by ancestry group (mean of CCFs from individuals within a population) and across chromosomes, with populations as defined in SGDP (see legend on the right). (A-D) The ancestry shared between populations is indicated by the coalescent intensity over a given time interval (epoch); shown as matrix with populations sorted from North to South within each continental region. Intensities were computed from the CCFs aggregated between a target and each comparator population; colors indicate intensity scaled per target population (rows) by the maximum over comparator populations. Ancestral connections are shown at different epochs back in time; around 200 generations ago (A), 800 generations (B), 4,000 generations (C), and 20,000 generations (D). The conversion (top right) assumes 20-30 years per generation. A detailed result of the ancestry shared between individuals over consecutive time intervals is shown in Supplementary Video 2. (E) The maximum coalescent intensity for individuals from different
    ancestry groups (continental regions) expressed as effective population size (Ne) equivalents over time; estimated from CCFs aggregated per diploid individual and summarized by the median and inter-quartile range per group. Triangles indicate the epochs shown in (A-D). A further breakdown of Ne equivalents estimated from non-aggregated CCFs per chromosome is shown in Supplementary Figure 12.

    Let me know if you have any questions but I believe the graph and the description are clear. It is simply too high, high enough to prevent divergence.

    Evolutionary lineages do not need to be completely pure with no admixture or gene flow. Quite often this is not the case and nobody is bothered by it. There is no evidence that ANE are “East Asian” and even if they were it’s impertinent. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

    Templeton also points that out, but his analysis indicates gene flow was simply too much. If it is too much it inhibits divergence, this is basic pop gen.
    ANE were East Asian, look where Ydna R and its ancestral haplogroups as well as the description of Mal’ta boy which is described as being an Ancient North Eurasian. You did not read the wiki it seems.
    Tell me what at least 7-25% of East Asian admixture in Europeans means for “race”

    I will post some quotes later when I’m at my PC. As to your point about San, they are often separated into a separate “Capoid” race but sometimes they aren’t because of their small numbers and negroid admixture.

    Do you know that the San have West Eurasian admixture? And looking forward to your studies and for you to quantitatively engage with some of the papers I am citing.

    As to why races do not exist in humans, under any definition also look at comment 144.

    Subspecies are a useless term in humans. all you have is plasticity in phenotype. The races you are talking about disappear if you only go 5000 years in the past.

    • Replies: @aksavavit
    , @Theodore
  145. Anti-HBD says:
    @Theodore

    If it is too high it inhibits divergence why is this so hard for you to understand?
    Gene flow with archaics does not really change that.
    It has been much higher between human “races” and continuous not a one pulse thing like the Neanderthals.

    None of these papers you mentioned have as high gene flow as human populations between them.

    • Replies: @Theodore
    , @Theodore
  146. Anti-HBD says:
    @ApostateAbe

    Again so what?

    Do you have any scientific arguments against the rest of my response?

    Most people here just hand wave them away? This is not how this is supposed to work. You either reply to the scientific points or you do not.

    Subspecies is a very problematic category:
    “As David Hull said “In general, professional systematists do not place much weight on the groupings below the species level” and as Ernst Mayr said in his Of What Use Are Subspecies? “it became clear that the subspecies was not a concept of evolutionary biology but simply a handle of convenience for the clerical work of the museum curator”.

    However, four main subspecies concepts have been employed in the past. First, subspecies are geographically circumscribed groups within a species that have a high level of within-group genetic similarity and a low level of between-group similarity. Second, ecological subspecies are local populations within a species that are adapted in important ways to their particular environment. Third, populationist subspecies are groups within a species that exhibit some noticeable cross-locus genetic differences due to partial genetic isolation. Fourth, cladistic subspecies are relatively large groups within a species that form distinct lineages, or, in other words, there have been only a small number of reproductive events that have taken place between these large groups over an extended period of time.

    Human races fit none of those categories.

    • Replies: @Theodore
  147. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Long’s reasons are absurd and only show that he is attacking a strawman definition of race.

    First 2 he makes mistakes based on this strawman definition and somehow that is “proof” that race isn’t valid – it is not proof of anything except that his definition is invalid

    #3 is nonsense, it is just his “estimation” that is wrong

    #4 is irrelevant. It doesnt matter if 2 races/subspecies split from other another more recently or have more in common than they do with other subspecies. The entire point is absurd and i just sit here bewildered at how this could have been published

    The fact that you would seriously post this poor “debunking” either means you’re a dishonest spammer or have no knowledge of biology or population genetics.

  148. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    If it is too high it inhibits divergence

    You have not shown that it has been “too high” and divergence clearly has not been inhibited, you can easily just open your eyes and see that there are human races. The existence of mixed people does not change that.

  149. @ApostateAbe

    Bravo, nice detective work!

    I had a long communication with both Graves and Templeton, and a bunch of other philosophers of biology, in which I challenged them on this point.

    They couldn’t give a reference. This is what Graves said:

    ………..

    “Dear John, I did not “read” into Sewall Wright the 0.250 threshold value from Alan Templeton. My use of this value comes from Wright’s discussion on page 85 of Wright, S, Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, Vol. 4: Variability Within and Among Natural Populations, (Chicago & London: U. Chicago Press), 1978.

    “We will take 0.250 as an arbitrary value above which there is very great differentiation, the range 0.15 to 0.25 as indicating moderately great differentiation. Differentiation is, however by no means negligible if F is as small as 0.05 or even less as bought out in the preceding chapter.”

    While I did not know Sewall Wright personally, many of my colleagues did. In my conversations with them about the 0.250 threshold they recounted that Wright chose the value for his arbitrary subspecies cutoff due to the fact that at this value there was be a reasonably high probability of fixation of different alleles in subspecies in question. You should also note that in my writings on this subject I continually recognize the fact that this value is arbitrary and not of utility with regards to all taxa. Insect host races tend to have very low FST across the genome, but high FST at loci responsible for host preference.

    The point I have attempted to drive home in my writing on this is that the problem with the entire subspecies/geographical race concept when applied to anatomically modern humans is that the groups that have been claimed as biological races are arbitrarily decided. Furthermore, these groups coincide more with social divisions than biological realities. The statement you cite from Wright is definitive proof of my point. While observers might be able to visually distinguish Englishman, from Chinese, from sub-Saharan Africans, what if the groups were Englishmen, Chinese, Tibetans, Solomon Islanders, and sub-Saharan Africans? What about the complex structure of sub-Saharan Africans? Why is the former division more important than the latter divisions? To understand that you must address human social relations just as much as you need to grasp conceptions of geographically based biological variation.

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Joseph L. Graves Jr.
    Associate Dean for Research”

    To which Templeton added:

    “Dear John,

    First, concerning Fst, I simply agree with what Dr. Graves said. Obviously your search of the literature and of Wright’s book itself was quite incomplete. I also knew Wright quite well, having first met him in 1970 and then frequently saw him throughout the decade before his death as he was collaborating with a group at WU and would visit here every year for a few weeks. Neither I nor Dr. Graves have mis-represented him. The quotation you give from Smith et al concerning subspecies as geographical segments (whether allopatric or parapatric) is interesting. A detailed analysis of human populations reveals no “geographical segments” but rather clines that are gene specific without distinct boundaries of any sort (see my 2013 paper). I have just finished a detailed analysis of coadapted complexes involving the vitamin D receptor gene with the skin color genes that determine most of the variation in human pigmentation, and once again these coadapted complexes display geographical clines in humans, not distinct geographical segments.

    I am not going to say anything more about the Fst threshold. ”

    And to which I politely replied:

    “Dear Joseph,

    Thank you for replying and helping to clarify the matter. I am Cc-ing this comment only because I would like to see this trivial technical matter cleared up and because not do so might possibly decrease clarity.

    I agree that your statements were nuanced and that they did not imply that Fst > 0.25 was a common or typical or usual subspecies threshold. When I encountered your relevant passages, it always came across that you were speaking of Wright’s personal opinion. This situation can be contrasted with e.g., Kittles and Weiss (2003), who state that: “The traditional, though subjective, criterion for biological subspecies is FST > 0.25 (168, 190),” and then reference Templeton (1998) and Wright (1978), the latter which, as said, made no claim about Fst > 0.25 being a traditional criteria. I did presumed — and I noted that I presumed — that you got the Fst value from Templeton since, based on my limited reading of your extensive work, your discussions of the matter seemed to show up after 1998 and since others cited both Templeton (1998) and Wright (1978), the latter of whom could not have provided the value.

    That said, I am familiar with the passage mentioned. In it, as you would agree, Wright did not mention 0.25 as a threshold for subspecies but for very great differentiation. And, as said, elsewhere, in chapter 10, he noted that the (then) common criteria for subspecies delineation was being able to correctly classify a large number of organisms, a criteria which doesn’t entail “much difference in general”. If he thought that Fst > 0.25 would have made a good subspecies criteria or if he choose this as his own personal criteria, he nonetheless recognized that this was not the usual one. Now this consideration alone has some bearing on statements which you have made over the years. For example, in a 2010 paper, “Biological V. Social Definitions of Race: Implications for Modern Biomedical Research”, you said:

    “Chapters 9 & 10 of this volume focus on variability within human populations and what he described as racial differentiation in mankind. In chapter ten, using six human blood group loci, he calculated average Fst=0.1248. Using this data he showed that variation within the major races of mankind was much less than between them (Fds=0.0715). However, on careful examination we see that Wright, based on his own criteria for the existence of race, contradicted himself. The mean Fst did not exceed, nor did it come close to his preestablished value for the existence of subspecies, which he equated with geographical races, Fst>0.250. If he had followed his own reasoning, he would have concluded that the groups he examined were populations, granted populations with different allele frequencies, but not subspecies”

    Let’s assume that Wright indeed had in mind a pre-established Fst> 0.25 criteria. If so, he would not, in fact, have contradicted himself when saying that human divisions qualified as subspecies by “the usual criterion”. And this is what he said.

    Apart from this piquancy point, the issue is whether Wright actually had such a pre established value. Might you be aware of any papers in which he discussed this? If not, we merely have the second hand recounts of your colleagues. This is somewhat problematic. Consider that in “Genetic Perspectives in Human Origins and Differentiation”, Harpending and Rogers (2000) claim:

    “Many studies have shown that the value of this statistic among samples of world populations is 10% to 15%. Two early presentations of this value reached opposite conclusions. Wright (66) commented that if racial differences this large were seen in another species, they would be called subspecies.”

    Incredibly, the authors of this passage, recently cited by Nicholas Wade in defense of human races/subspecies, reference Wright (1978)! Now, I wouldn’t be surprised if on inquiry Harpending and Rogers told me that this supposed Wright Subspecies Fst criteria, not identifiable in the actual text, in fact, came from conversations with people who discussed the matter with Wright. Perhaps Wright, in conversation, proposed a number of criteria and different people are recounting different discussions.

    This is a minor, almost trivial, matter, but I think it is, nonetheless, worth clarifying. If you could let me know a couple of names of those who assured you that Wright decided on this criteria, I will email them and request clarification — maybe they can point me to a written discussion or some letters. I would like to know, for example, what loci Wright had in mind or if he meant overall genotype and what he thought of the heterozygosity problem, which Lou Jost succinctly put as:

    “If within-group variation is high, it is mathematically impossible for Fst to reach those thresholds (or any given threshold), even if the groups cannot interbreed, share no alleles, and are each on their own evolutionary course. See Hedrick 2005 or Jost 2008 for the math. Fst and its relatives can approach zero even if no alleles are shared between groups, and can equal unity even if almost all groups are fixed for the same allele.”

    I think that it’s very plausible that Wright did come to believe that this would be the best criteria but also that this is a case of Chinese whispers.

    Again, I want to emphasize that insofar as it can be verified that Wright decided on this criteria, I don’t take issue with your statements, as you made no claim about a common or typical subspecies Fst convention. While I don’t agree with many of your conclusions or emphases, I can’t fault your writing for being misinforming.”

    And again to Templeton, who nodded approvingly to Graves:

    “Dear Alan,

    Thank you for the reply. Let me clarify that I consider this to be a minor technical issue. I don’t think that it matters much in general (or that it has much bearing on debates about race). I would, though, like to see the confusion cleared up.

    Recall that in my original email, I claimed the following:
    (a) There is no commonly used Fst threshold of 0.25 for subspecies recognition.
    (b) You mis-cited Smith et al. in three papers.
    (c) Smith et al. were referring to the ambiguous 75% rule.

    I assume that you don’t disagree with any of the above, but if you do let me know. Regarding Wright’s said predetermined subspecies threshold of Fst> 0.25, I stated that:

    (d) I couldn’t find a discussion of this in Evolution and the Genetics of Populations I.V.
    (e) I presume that Dr. Graves got the idea from you.
    (f) Wright did refer to the ambiguous 75% rule. (“the usual criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection”.)

    Perhaps I’m mistaken about (d); you seem to think so, since you suggested that I missed something in the book. I uploaded the book here:
    https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=5C09D3E413FFD501!521&authkey=!AE9AURN9CorMYos&ithint=file%2cdjvu. If you have a DJVU file reader. If you can find the passage let me know. Assuming that we can’t find it, Wright would have had to convey this point somewhere else. Dr. Graves said that he learned of Wright’s predetermination through personal commutations with some of Wright’s associates. Did you talk with Wright about this? If you did, could you briefly clarify what he meant? (i.e., Did he mean that this should be adopted as a convention, replacing the one he mentioned? Regarding Fst values, did he mean Mt, Y, microsatellite, or whole genomic Fst? Is there anyone else he would have spoken to about this?) ”

    …………..

    Of course, neither Graves nor Templeton could provide a reference to anything Wright actually wrote that backed up the claim, and what Wright actually wrote, as I pointed out, refuted the claim.
    Wright’s passage on human races (lineage-populations) and subspecies (taxonomically or formally recognized lineage-populations) is:

    “There is no question that all mankind constitutes a single species in view of the absence of any physiological bar to hybridization between the most diverse races or of any recognizable loss of vigor in the first or later generations.

    There is also no question, however, that populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world should, in general, be considered to be of different subspecies by the usual criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection. It does not require a trained anthropologist to classify an array of Englishmen, West Africans, and Chinese with 100% accuracy by features, skin color, and type of hair in spite of so much variability within each of these groups that every individual can easily be distinguished from every other.
    It is, however, customary to use the term race rather than subspecies for the major subdivisions of the human species as well as for minor ones. The occurrence of a few conspicuous differences, probably due to selection for adaptation to widely different environmental conditions, does not necessarily imply much difference in general. Nei and Roychoudhury (1974) have shown that the differences among negroids, caucasoids, and mongoloids in the protein and blood group loci are slight compared with those between individuals within any one of them. There is disagreement on the number of major races that should be recognized. At a minimum, the Australoids are added to the three referred to above….

    Diversification is much greater on the average among than within the major races (F (DS) = 0.0715, F (ST) = 0.1248) but there is more uniformity within ).0.042 to 0.141) than among (0.026 to 0.402). The great differences among loci indicates that more than pure sampling drift is involved. (Wright, 1978. Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, Vol. 4: Variability Within and Among Natural Populations. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. p 439-440)”

    And neither explicity claimed to have heard it from him firsthand, though Templeton surely suggests this. Now, I would guess that Templeton never heard this from Wright. Rather, he made it up. And that he is Graves’ unnamed source.

    Anyways, my point of commenting, is that I would like to get in contact with you. Perhaps we could collaborate and write up a very short paper and publish this in a philosophy journal.

    My colleague and I set up a very small nonprofit foundation, Human Phenome Diversity Foundation, perhaps we could get funding for the proposed paper. Currently, we are working on some admixture projects, but after I would like to turn back to the the topic of fake history and race. As it is, I am more interested in the sociology of the debate (and knowledge), then the biology of differences.

    Anyways, hit me up if interested.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Anti-HBD
  150. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @J.G.R. Fuerst

    “the subspecies was not a concept of evolutionary biology but simply a handle of convenience for the clerical work of the museum curator”

    Bravo.

    The problem resolved by common sense.

    Taxonomic classification is important because it enables identification of particular populations of organisms as defined either by phenotypic traits or, more precisely, by genotype.

    Taxonomy, in other words, enables biologists to make it clear — more or less, what (organism) they are talking about. Without such means, progress in biology would be difficult indeed.

    The distinction between race and subspecies can thus be clearly seen as a purely administrative issue, i.e., How distinct should races of one species be before it is useful to give them distinct names?

    The answer settled upon, whatever it may be, is purely arbitrary and of no biological significance.

    • Replies: @J.G.R. Fuerst
  151. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @James Thompson

    Arithmetic is also subject to educational effects, but has a logical structure and specifiable levels of difficulty. It shows virtually no Flynn Effect. Same is true for Digit Span.

    Maybe what’s needed is a totally Flynn-Effect-free test of reasoning capacity.

    Such a test would no doubt be called an IQ test although for the reasons I have stated previously, I would not consider it an intelligence test, insofar as an intelligence test should measure all aspects of intelligence, which include a multitude of factors other than math/verbal/diagrammatic reasoning.

    Psychometricians seem to view digit span as an important aspect of intelligence, which without giving the matter much thought, seems to me to be a plausible proposition. But why is long-term memory, clearly an aspect of intelligence as defined by dictionaries, not also a major focus of psychometricians’ attention?

    Certainly, it seems strange to me, that the ability to memorize a handful of digits should be considered more important than verbal/visual/musical memory, for example the ability to see, in the mind’s eye, the pages of a textbook during an exam, to recall with considerable fidelity the skyline of Red Square after a short visit, or to recall every note of a sonata after a single hearing.

  152. “Genetic correlates of social stratification in Great Britain.”

    Oh, you mean rich people marry rich people and poor people marry poor people.

    Why didn’t you say that?

    I could have told you that. And I wouldn’t have needed no graphs.

  153. aksavavit says:
    @Anti-HBD

    The races you are talking about disappear if you only go 5000 years in the past.

    This seems quite possible to me, but have you considered the hypothesis that evolution may have accelerated in the last 5 to 10 millennia, so that races might have emerged during this apparently short timespan, including thanks to sedentarization and population growth after the apparition of agriculture?

    This hypothesis is not mine but that of Cochran and Harpending’s The 10,000 Years Explosion, which I found very interesting. As a linguist interested in the deep prehistory of languages, including the evolution of the language ability, I also suspect that language evolution may also have vastly accelerated during the (few) last dozen(s) of millennia for various reasons (more complexity in languages, more languages, more contacts) all reinforcing each others.

    Contrary to commentator Theodore, I find that you remarkably and patiently stand your ground. However, I am not convinced by mathematical calculations that (most) Tibetans and Quechuans can’t strive at high altitudes, Kalenjins can’t run faster on long distances, Subsaharans in general can’t resist malaria thanks to sickle cell trait, and so on.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  154. @CanSpeccy

    re: “The distinction between race and subspecies can thus be clearly seen as a purely administrative issue, i.e., How distinct should races of one species be before it is useful to give them distinct names?

    The answer settled upon, whatever it may be, is purely arbitrary and of no biological significance.”

    No, you misunderstand.

    “Subspecies” is a taxonomic category, the one immediately below species in zoology. All taxonomic categories (e.g., genus, species, subspecies) are arbitrary. Race — or at least population-lineage — is an evolutionary concept. Only those races, or lineages, which are taxonomically recognized are technically subspecies.

    Only two things are up for debate:

    1. Word usage:

    Whether it is reasonable to still use the term “race,” for population-lineages / ancestry groups, or more specifically, what used to be called “hereditary varieties”.

    2. Whether the major human lineage are/were differentiated enough to reasonably be
    taxonomically recognized, given the standard practice of the day.

    Practically, neither matter. They only matter rhetroically for the HBD deniers.

    For example. Birney et al. wrote in response, in part, to our recent admixture research. Thus Birney tweets:

    “Many people who support ‘human biodiversity’ (modern name) or ‘biological basis of race’ (old school) point to a variety of papers published outside of mainstream journals but still looking pretty scientific (abstract, methods, plots, pvalues etc)… Another does skin pigmentation levels as a proxy for ancestry (!) against IQ in US individuals; another does actual SNP chip ancestry against IQ in US individuals.”

    But in our papers, we are clear that we are indifferent to word usage. We say, for example:

    “When discussing evolved human diversity, one can conceptualize groups in a number of different ways, e.g., as subspecies (taxonomically significant subdivisions of a species), ecotypes (environmentally adapted types), clines (character gradients), and morphs (alternative phenotypes in a population). Following the work of Charles Darwin, communities are frequently delineated by propinquity descent since descent is understood as inductively potent. The preferable term to describe descent-based groups (e.g., variety, genetic population, race, genetic cluster, ancestry group, etc.) is a matter of ongoing semantic dispute. Here we call them “biogeographic ancestry groups” (again, BGAs), as is frequently done in genetic epidemiology.”

    Does anyone deny – expect perhaps Birney — that “ancestry groups” exist? Or that East Asians, Europeans, Africans, and Amerindians represent different ancestry groups?

    Obviously the concern is not just about word-usage, otherwise we could avoid objections by adopting euphemisms to describe the type of groups which used to be called “races,” an old a term which comes from the French for “lineages”.

    • Replies: @J.G.R. Fuerst
  155. @J.G.R. Fuerst

    I apologize, in haste I misread your comment.

    We seem to agree.

    Yes, whether races or lineages are designated as “subspecies” and dignified with a trinomen is an administrative issue, which might be of significance for managing conservation resources, but is not for understanding evolution.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  156. mikemikev says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Recently, my colleagues and I have tested the usefulness of race as a way to describe genetic differences among populations by contrasting the results of racial classification with those from generalized hierarchical models (Long et al. 2009). Race fails!

    It’s you who fails. Race models are on a single level. Of course they do not capture patterns of genomic diversity as well as hierarchical models. This doesn’t invalidate them, anymore than a full ARG of every allele invalidates hierarchical models. They’re just different concepts with different utility. The fact that a hierarchical model pictures patterns of junk DNA nesting well, doesn’t change the face that people of African ancestry have dark skin. So more strawman bashing.

    Posting this with a different name since apparently someone has hijacked mikemikev and changed the email associated with it, which I’ll go about restoring. Any mods who see this please email the hidden email with this comment and I can verify my identity through other commentors here whom I’ve emailed before.

  157. Anon[112] • Disclaimer says:

    The races were formed by one (“White”) hominid-unmixed human group being forcibly (rape) or voluntarily interbred with pre-human hominids. Each race, or subrace, is defined by its quality (type) and quantity of hominid admixture. That’s all.

    This inter-breeding process spans the conceptual gap between creation and evolution: essentially splitting the difference. It also accounts for all seeming inconsistencies and paradoxes when looking at racial so-called evolution.

    The beauty ideal is essentially that of the symmetrical phenotype of the virtually unmixed (low or no admixture) human. You find these individuals most often in North and Northwest Europe. Though, due to international trade and the multiculturalism that it has spawned, there are plenty of hominid genetics to go around in these places in the modern age. Today, finding someone with undetectable hominid admixture is likely difficult. Though, compared to say Southern Italy, the admixture percentage should be relatively low.

    The broad Sicilian / Jewish / Arab “White” subrace is that of the aforementioned group and generally high percentage Neanderthal admixture. This is a generalization, as you will find individuals with varying admixture in these groups. I am speaking in regard to genetically representative individuals. The skull architecture of these individuals is reflective of Neanderthal skull architecture with the addition of cranial volume (most notably in the occipital area) to accomodate human brain architecture. Comparing Neanderthal reconstructions with these individuals, is easy to see the updated Neanderthal phenotype expressed in them.

    Broadly speaking, East Asians are a result of Eastern Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture. In most, you can still detect the remnant of the tell-tale archaic (pre-Neanderthal) phenotype of the broad flat nose that is indicative of hominid admixture that is not Neanderthal. Asian groups will have this feature to varying degree.

    Blacks are a result of the mixture of the aforementioned White group and high admixtures of a variety of pre-Neanderthal hominids. The broad flat nose, as the archaic feature notable to even the untrained eye, is much more common than in Asians.

    Research conclusion: Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127

    Research conclusion: No known hominin is ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans (Cro Magnid).

    https://phys.org/news/2013-10-hominin-ancestor-neanderthals-modern-humans.html

    Research conclusion: “Caucasians” did not evolve from Africans and likely did not migrate out of Africa, but into Africa.

    http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566

    A territorial origin of haplogroups α- and β-remains unknown; however, the most likely origin for each of them is a vast triangle stretched from Central Europe in the west through the Russian Plain to the east and to Levant to the south. Haplogroup B is descended from β-haplogroup (and not from haplogroup A, from which it is very distant, and separated by as much as 123,000 years of “lat- eral” mutational evolution) likely migrated to Africa after 46,000 ybp. The finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid haplogroups, as well as all non-African haplogroups do not carry either SNPs M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262, M32, M59, P289, P291, P102, M13, M171, M118 (haplogroup A and its subclades SNPs) or M60, M181, P90 (haplogroup B), as it was shown recently in “Walk through Y” FTDNA Project (the reference is incorporated therein) on several hundred people from various haplogroups.

    Research conclusion: Genetic evidence for archaic admixture in Africa

    http://www.pnas.org/content/108/37/15123.full

    Research conclusion: Early modern humans mated with Homo species in Africa. Sub-Saharan genetic diversity is due to introgression with archaic Hominids.

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/03/21/285734

    Research conclusion: 28,000 yr old European Cro Magnid genetics are unchanged from modern European genetics.

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002700

    The Paglicci 23 individual carried a mtDNA sequence that is still common in Europe, and which radically differs from those of the almost contemporary Neandertals, demonstrating a genealogical continuity across 28,000 years, from Cro-Magnoid to modern Europeans.
    Research conclusions (from the conclusions cited at Wikipedia): Neanderthal-derived and Denisovan-derived ancestry is significantly absent from most modern populations in Sub-Saharan Africa.

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

    The findings show that the source of modern human gene flow into Neanderthals originated from a population of early modern humans from about 100,000 years ago, predating the out-of-Africa migration of the modern human ancestors of present-day non-Africans

  158. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @J.G.R. Fuerst

    We seem to agree.

    Ha! That’s good. Otherwise my esteemed mentor, the late Professor T.G. Tutin, Editor-in-Chief of the

    Flora Europaea

    might well be turning in his grave.

    But above the race/subspecies level, taxanomic categories can (some anyway) be considered quite distinct biological entities.Thus, as you know, a species, for example, constitutes “a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.”

    There is the phenomenon of intra-specific hybridization, but species exist because, in nature, intra-specific hybridization either does not occur frequently, or it occurs to such an extent as to create a single species or hybrid swarm.

    Other taxonomic units also have definitive, biological characteristics, e.g., nuclei, or mitochondria, etc.

    • Replies: @J.G.R. Fuerst
  159. notanon says:
    @Kratoklastes

    The introduction of fluoridated water completely undid that, by introducing an oral-delivery halide that out-competes iodide, iodine and iodate in the thyroid… compromising metabolism (slowing everything down, including cognition) by dramatically curtailing production of T3 and T4 (triiodothyronine and thyroxine, respectively).

    quite

    that’s possibly another part of the puzzle as to why IQ may be going down in some places

    not an expert but my reading suggested fluoride, chloride and bromide (and lead) acted to negate iodine

    so
    – fluoride in the water
    – chloride replacing iodine as disinfect on dairying equipment
    – bromide replacing iodide in bread (in the US)
    may all be factors.

    The actual objective was pacification

    it is strange that the pro-environment people seem uninterested in potential biological influences in the environment which might explain some of the differences in IQ.

  160. notanon says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Gene flow and no isolation across our history as shown by his analysis.

    if there’d been no isolation we would look the same

    what they appear to be saying is because there was *some* gene flow there was no isolation which is nonsense

  161. @CanSpeccy

    re: But above the race/subspecies level, taxonomic categories can (some anyway) be considered quite distinct biological entities. Thus, as you know, a species, for example, constitutes “a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.”

    Horizontally but not vertically, so to speak. When people speak of taxonomic categories, themselves, being arbitrary, they usually mean that there is no reason to have 20, 8, 7, or 3 ranks (e.g., should a rank intermediate to genus and species (“superspecies”) be recognized?)
    Prior to Darwin, this was recognized, it was just thought that the species category was exceptional, designating real or non-arbitrary division (in the classical species realist sense).
    Biological species concepts (BSC) like Mayr’s attempt to reconceptualize species non-conventionally and clearly definable – both horizontally and vertically — in contrast to Darwinian species as a variety of a hereditary variety.
    I don’t think these are in vogue at the moment. Hence the ongoing “species inflation problem” with popular phylogenic concepts.
    But I would agree that it is a unique kind of evolutionary entity.

  162. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    If you read the ancient Dna papers I cited, you would know that every racialized group today is a mixture of past populations.

    I knew that before this discussion ever began, and others knew that before either of us was even born. It doesn’t invalidate the concept of race or subspecies, a point I have explained over and over

    Intergradiation means nothing given that at the same time the European populations were forming, the Central Asian ones were as well. So why choose what you define as European as a race?

    I do not define “European” as a race, and intergradation does not “mean nothing” and the argument you provided afterwards is a non-sequitur. It is actually extremely common in nature that populations will split, begin diverging into separate species or subspecies, but gene flow will continue for a while between them. This is not something unique to humans. I provided a large number of examples of this vary thing.

    These phenotypes you identify can be due to convergent evolution and the group paraphyletic. Does not make them a race.

    They can be produced via covergent evolution, but aren’t necessarily. So what? It’s another irrelevant non-point.

    Also, if you think race is real, then how many races are there? 5, 7, 20?

    I will answer that once you tell me how many species there are, or you must accept that “Species” is not real. Same with ethnicities, give me an exact number, or else we are forced to accept that ethnicity is not a real thing, totally invented out of nothingness and completely fake.

    Easily proven by the fact they consider phenotypic data. Have you not heard of phylogenetics?
    Phenetics are not used anymore. Besides, the subspecies you listed are unlike humans, do I have to cite specific segments to show you that?

    Simply saying they are “unlike humans” is insufficient. We all know this, and it’s irrelevant. All other animals are unlike humans, but still humans are animals. I’m not falling for this fallacious nonsense. The point I made was, and still is, if we apply the same standards we apply to other animals, we would certainly come to the conclusion that the human species is polytypic with regards to subspecies, and these are roughly analogous to the ‘major races’.

    I bring up sub-species that have gene flow, you say gene flow mean there can’t be subspecies, you say “Well they are not [like] humans so it’s irrelevant.” That’s a fraudulent argument and you know it.

    Again, Templeton’s analysis shows it was really high

    “Really high” is just your opinion though, and it’s also irrelevant.

    If you know anything about biology you would know that gene flow inhibits speciation.

    Still repeating this false, debunked argument? I gave many specific examples, and also posted this:

    Speciation with gene flow could be common https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18410295

    Here is another paper for you to consider, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/09/13/416610.full.pdf in particular figure 7 in page 24.

    Let me know if you have any questions but I believe the graph and the description are clear. It is simply too high, high enough to prevent divergence.

    Ah, the same exact thing you kept posting, where it’s just colors and no numbers. Still, it’s irrelevant.
    But yes I have a question: How do you know it is “too high” Please prove it. Provide actual evidence that it is, in fact, “too high”. Who decided where to arbitrarily draw the line between “too high” and “not too high”?

    Sorry, but the graph(s) don’t prove that our species is not polytypic with regards to subspecies. I am just confused why you think it does.

    Templeton also points that out, but his analysis indicates gene flow was simply too much. If it is too much it inhibits divergence, this is basic pop gen.

    His analysis does not indicate that, actually gene flow was not “too much” to create divergence. We can see such massive differences with people of different races. The divergence is right there in front of our faces, it’s self-evident. The existence of intermediary/mixed groups does not change that.

    ANE were East Asian, look where Ydna R and its ancestral haplogroups as well as the description of Mal’ta boy which is described as being an Ancient North Eurasian. You did not read the wiki it seems.

    Tell me what at least 7-25% of East Asian admixture in Europeans means for “race”

    Assuming those figures are correct (no reason to dispute them when it’s irrelevant anyway) means that the old “racist” anthropologists from 100 years ago or whatever were correct. They predicted exactly this. So, what does it mean? Well, it means one definition of “race” is completely absurd: your laughable strawman definition.

    Otherwise, it’s perfectly fine. I fail to see the issue at all. And for the record, Mal’ta boy is certainly described as “Ancient North Eurasian” but not mongoloid. And there is an important reason why mentions that, because the modern Siberian admixture was totally absent in the Mal’ta individual.
    You’re obsessed with this “Asian” and “European” and “African” nonsense, and you need to get over that because those are not races, not even close. Those are continents that do have different frequencies of certain races, but Caucasoid people do exist even today in Asia, Africa, natively there. The ancestors of all Europeans came from Asia. It’s not a big deal.

    Do you know that the San have West Eurasian admixture?

    Sure, did you know that they can easily be distinguished from “West Eurasian” people with DNA tests and also just by sight?

    And looking forward to your studies and for you to quantitatively engage with some of the papers I am citing.

    Yeah I mean you completely deserve it after just ignoring the things I posted, and continually repeating the same debunked nonsense and irrelevant points

    As to why races do not exist in humans, under any definition also look at comment 144.

    I’ll address that. But I posted a definition in #19 which certainly applies.
    Although, what must be stated is: not all groups of people neatly fit into one specific subspecies. But that’s OK, it doesn’t have to be that way. Nobody ever claimed that it did — except those obfuscationists who try to “Refute” concepts via fallacious methods.

    Subspecies are a useless term in humans. all you have is plasticity in phenotype. The races you are talking about disappear if you only go 5000 years in the past.

    I disagree entirely.
    There are certainly human populations so different from others that they can be rightfully considered separate subspecies. The races also do not “disappear” if you go back that far. The specific combinations of admixture today, sure, but there were people who lived 5,000 years ago, or even 10,000 years ago that if they were walking around today people would say “That is a white guy” or “That’s a Caucasian” or “that’s an east asian” or whatever. They wouldn’t look at him and say “Wow, what race is that guy? He doesn’t look similar to anyone else I’ve ever seen!”. There are quite a few cro-magnon skills that apply to this description.
    There are groups that would apply to that, but not all.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  163. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    None of these papers you mentioned have as high gene flow as human populations between them.

    1 – Irrelevant
    2 – Baseless claim you have not provided evidence for

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  164. Anti-HBD says:
    @J.G.R. Fuerst

    Interesting information but you have failed to answer the following:

    1. To quote Dr Graves:
    The statement you cite from Wright is definitive proof of my point. While observers might be able to visually distinguish Englishman, from Chinese, from sub-Saharan Africans, what if the groups were Englishmen, Chinese, Tibetans, Solomon Islanders, and sub-Saharan Africans? What about the complex structure of sub-Saharan Africans? Why is the former division more important than the latter divisions? To understand that you must address human social relations just as much as you need to grasp conceptions of geographically based biological variation.

    2. Disprove Dr Templeton’s analysis. ML-NCPA strongly rejects races in humans and there is no non-arbitrary way to divide human variation. But again the strongest points are the low cophenetic correlation when testing phylogenetic trees in humans and the inference of high gene flow across all “races” from his analysis

    Furthermore, pervasive admixture such as infered from ancient DNA (look up Ancient North Eurasians for example, is enough to establish that under no taxonomic schema you can find races in humans. The intergradiation you mentioned does not hold when even 2000 years ago the “races” of today did not exist.
    Systematics use independent evolutionary lineages now to determine subspecies, not the 75% rule.

    Furthermore, on the Fst patterns, you can have populations in Mexico have higher Fst than East Asian and European populations thus making the concept of races in humans an even worse fit.
    “Seri and Lacandon show the highest level of population differentiation as measured with Wright’s fixation index FST (0.136, Fig. 1B and table S4), higher than the FST between Europeans and Chinese populations in HapMap3 (0.11)” from (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6189/1280)

    No one here has replied to these arguments.

    • Replies: @notanon
    , @J.G.R. Fuerst
  165. Anti-HBD says:
    @Theodore

    Templeton’s analysis provides a claim. ML-NCPA strongly rejects lineages in humans and suggests extremely high gene flow (you seem unable to respond to the analysis itself)

    Also read this about high gene flow, I really can not cite a segment as it is a CCF chart. If you knew population genetics, high gene flow would become clear to you
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/09/13/416610.full.pdf

    • Replies: @Theodore
  166. @Kratoklastes

    “Law generally (ignoring the subset of civil rights laws) is replete with key premises that are untrue by axiom”

    Untrue by axiom? What does that bafflegarble mean? Do you mean the premises do not follow as theorems from axioms alone? Why would a premise have to follow from an axiom?

    You write like someone who has never studied axiomatic reasoning, or law for that matter.

    “Law is like scripture: it’s a bunch of confected nonsense generated by people who are looking to live at others’ expense.”

    That’s the sort of statement an ignoramus makes. As someone trained in jurisprudence, I agree that there is much that is capricious, mendacious, and discretionary about law. Tax law is a good source of examples. However, calling law a ‘bunch of confected nonsense’ is the short of shallow thinking that is worthy of a 9 year old.

    If you are going to create a system to enforce some sort of rules, rules that cannot be specified in advance in all detail (and which are subject to interpretation), how exactly are you going to do it? What’s your superior system that the rest of us dumb rubes have not thought of?

    (And don’t tell me your superior system is going to involve deductive inference, since you don’t appear to know anything about that topic).

  167. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Human races fit none of those categories.

    Sure they do, and he is using great exaggeration here. Like “low level” and “high level” and “partial” and “small number” etc. It’s very open to interpretation.

    I have defined subspecies in post #19. Various groups that are claimed to be different races have a high degree of genetic difference, to the point where over 99% of the time individuals within the group can be assigned to separate clusters. And one can merely look at these individuals and tell which race they belong to, it’s readily apparent on inspection. So there are “genetic differences” that produce actual, visible distinctions and they are adaptions to the environment (which is not merely limited to climate).

  168. res says:
    @Ron Unz

    I like the name Continuum Fallacy for that:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  169. Anti-HBD says:
    @Theodore

    They can be produced via covergent evolution, but aren’t necessarily. So what? It’s another irrelevant non-point.

    Can you prove they are not in this case?

    Otherwise, it’s perfectly fine. I fail to see the issue at all. And for the record, Mal’ta boy is certainly described as “Ancient North Eurasian” but not mongoloid. And there is an important reason why mentions that, because the modern Siberian admixture was totally absent in the Mal’ta individual.

    If he came from Asia (which he did) how is he not a “Mongoloid”? And that PCA figure shows he was not European either but more connected to Native Americans. And it matters because the admixture means Europeans and East Asians are too closely to be considered a race.

    How does it not disprove race when pervasive gene flow (25% which you can not dispute) means genetically, there is nothing phylogenetically relevant to distinguish Europeans and East Asians except skin-deep traits. A Han and an Englishman can be more related than two tribes in Mexico, how on earth are they races??? If race does not provide genetic evidence it is irrelevant and meaningless, and on top of that, impossible for differences between “races” to be genetic in origin with the exception of literally skin color and morphology.

    Genetics matter more than phenotype, would you like me to cite you a phylogenetics textbook?

    The ancestors of all Europeans came from Asia. It’s not a big deal.

    What was their “race”?

    Yeah I mean you completely deserve it after just ignoring the things I posted, and continually repeating the same debunked nonsense and irrelevant points

    You just handwave them away. If for example you look at the CCF charts and do not understand them, do you expect me to cite the output for you? What about ML-NCPA. Of course it is high. High means significant enough to prevent divergence above 1 per generation, which has been the case. Phenotypic plasticity does not change that.

    There are certainly human populations so different from others that they can be rightfully considered separate subspecies. The races also do not “disappear” if you go back that far. The specific combinations of admixture today, sure, but there were people who lived 5,000 years ago, or even 10,000 years ago that if they were walking around today people would say “That is a white guy” or “That’s a Caucasian” or “that’s an east asian” or whatever. They wouldn’t look at him and say “Wow, what race is that guy? He doesn’t look similar to anyone else I’ve ever seen!”. There are quite a few cro-magnon skills that apply to this description.

    No evidence for this whatsoever. Which populations are you talking about? And if they only have a similar phenotype, it does not really matter. What matters is how genetically distinct they are.

    I will reply to the rest of your post tomorrow most likely, if you are still around. Looking forward to your reply on my comment with number 144.

  170. notanon says:
    @Anti-HBD

    the inference of high gene flow across all “races” from his analysis

    if this was true we’d all look the same

  171. Anti-HBD says:
    @aksavavit

    Thank you.

    And of course, but without genomic evidence for selection (which you have for the groups mentioned) there is no reason to expect genetics to be the cause when environmental differences can explain them better.

    And I am not too good today, the format here is not well-known to me and I feel I need to explain too much.

    • Replies: @aksavavit
  172. res says:
    @Theodore

    No, it’s not possible at all. I can’t believe you’re arguing that I have a common ancestor with Australian Aboriginals 3,000 years ago.

    I actually think Anon is right in this case if you are willing to go far enough back.

    To the extent that Mitochondrial Eve exists in theory or practice, she would qualify.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

    It is also true that it is highly unlikely you have a common ancestor less than (say) 50,000 years ago.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/09/aborigines-the-first-out-of-africa-the-first-in-asia-and-australia/245392/

    Thanks for your detailed responses to Anon[164]. It is becoming annoying the way he keeps saying no one refutes his arguments. Because that is simply not true. Perhaps he could supply a list of 10 numbered arguments that he thinks have not been refuted. Having a number for reference would be convenient to track which have been answered.

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

    Can for once, any HBDer respond to my studies ?

    I did that in the Sailer thread. In your response you just threw another “study” my way without even acknowledging the relevance of my point. Quit wasting our time.

    • Replies: @Theodore
  174. @Anti-HBD

    I don’t know what you are talking about.

    As noted, “subspecies” is a taxonomic category (also called rank). I am not particularly interested in whether certain human lineages are / recently were sufficiently divergent to be assigned to the rank of subspecies and dignified with trinomina. The question seems even too academic for me. As it is, to answer it, one would need to specify a species concept. And there are numerous ones. You focus on Alan Templeton’s idiosyncratic “evolutionary lineage concept,” but why? I can find concepts by well-published biologists according to which some contemporary human groups constitute species. What is the point? But if you happen to have some pet species and corollary subspecies concept and, by the accepted criteria for the latter, you find that the no human lineages / races deserve to be ranked as subspecies, good for you! My criticism of Templeton was that he was fabricating a subspecies criterion and that he continued to do so even after the issue was pointed out to him and after he acknowledge that it was. Can you agree that there is something untoward about him doing so?

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  175. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    The gene flow is “high” to an extreme level by some measures. I don’t disagree, by some measures there was massive, massive levels of gene flow. But there was also “low” levels of gene flow by other measures.

    It’s an irrelevant point, that’s why I’m not obsessing over it. You think it’s the salient point, but it really is not. It doesn’t refute the “race” concept except the one you have invented. Gene flow between subspecies and even species happens all the time, many examples have provided. You hand-wave them away, ignore them, just say “not as much” or “they are different” but never actually give a real response to the point.

    You can continue your gish gallop if you want, but you’ve been ignoring the links and things I have posted as well. And then you have the gall to complain that I don’t go through page after page to “debunk” every single claim they make, which is mostly just the same nonsense points repeated over and over again. I’m not falling for that trick.

    The fact of the matter is that you can not actually provide a coherent argument to support the claim that this level of gene flow is “too much” or even relevant.

    Famous anthropologist Michael Hammer pointed out that “There were probably thousands of interbreeding events” between humans and archaic non-humans (a now-extinct clade that broke off about 700,000 years ago), “It happened relatively extensively and regularly.” https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-09/uoa-ahw090211.php

    This study on two mice species/subspecies speaks of a hybrid zone between them, “with high frequencies of M. domesticus alleles on the M. musculus side of the hybrid zone. These markers identify genome regions likely housing genes with alleles that are spreading from one species to the other” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2134771/
    Another study found that “The subspecies [Mus musculus musculus/M. m. domesticus] diverged less than 0.5 Ma (Salcedo et al. 2007; Geraldes et al. 2008; Duvaux et al. 2011), but were likely subject to episodes of gene flow long before the secondary contact in central Europe (Duvaux et al. 2011). However, as Duvaux et al. (2011) pointed out, there has still been enough time in allopatry for incompatibilities to evolve.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4408407/
    There is a lot of information on these mice species/subspecies because they’re used in a lot of labs. The following study goes in depth on it, their history is one of periods of relative isolation, then gene flow in hybrid zones, and back and forth, constant repetition: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05343.x

    The reality is that the “gene flow” is irrelevant and only brought up as an argument in the case of humans by people personally motivated to deny race. What is really measured is the actual differences between populations. It doesn’t matter if these populations had “high” or “low” or zero gene flow, they are classified into different subspecies, breeds, races, whatever if the differences are sufficient for such a thing. And the existence of hybrid zones actually support this, although you pretend that the opposite is true.
    It is undeniable that we can see the differences between various populations called different “races” or human subspecies; at least those of us with functional eyes. We can also plug their DNA into a computer program and it will cluster them into separate groups which correspond pretty much exactly to that which was determined just based on phenotype. They even correspond quite strongly to taxonomic schemes made 100+ years ago. If the gene flow was “too high” we would not be able to tell the difference, but we can so it quite obviously wasn’t.

    And human races are genetically different enough to be classified into separate subspecies/races.

    The genetic variation between races/subspecies/breeds of humans is about 12% (measured by FST): http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049837

    That’s just a little tiny bit, right? Not enough, right? “Too little” you will say… However:

    – After finding 12% genetic variation between populations of humpback whales in different oceanic regions, it was suggested that this was sufficient to classify them as separate subspecies despite “evidence of long-term gene flow between oceans”: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4046397/

    – The red winged black bird is separated into 5 subspecies and the genetic variation between them is only 0.9%: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1393&context=icwdm_usdanwrc

    – The Canadian Lynx is separated into 3 subspecies, with the genetic variation between them is only at 3%: https://archive.is/7MBgM

    – The African buffalo is separated into 5 subspecies, but the genetic variation between them is at 5.9%. The authors claim this is “relatively large, supporting their status as distinct subspecies” : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11123614

    – There are 18 breeds of SW European cow, but the genetic variation between them is 6.8%: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227679400_Genetic_structure_of_eighteen_local_South_European_beef_cattle_breeds_by_comparative_F-statistics_analysis

    – There are 2-3 subspecies of Kob according the study which you cited in post #60, but the study found that variation between subspecies was 7% or 11% depending on the classification scheme: The amova was run according to the subspecific classification of populations (Fig. 1). It attributed 7% (ΦCT = 0.07,P < 0.001) of the variance to differences among subspecies, and 8% (ΦSC = 0.09, P < 0.0001) of the variance to differences among populations within subspecies. … anamova was run where Murchison and K. k. leucotis were grouped together. This time, the variance among groups increased to 11% (ΦCT = 0.11, P < 0.01) and the variance among populations within groups decreased to 6%(ΦSC = 0.06, P < 0.0001).

    – 3 European subspecies of wildcat were tested and the genetic variation between the populations was 11%: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12969463

    The reality is, gene flow between subspecies doesn’t always happen, but it does quite often and that doesn’t invalidate these separate groups. It even has been known to happen between different species.

    Genetic variation between human races is comparable to many other species separated into subspecies. The variation between human populations is more than some polytypic species, and certainly if you wanted to you could cherry pick examples where it is smaller. But the actual real differences we can all see with our own eyes are right there to look at, if you wish to.

    I do very much thing that if some alien species came to this planet and started classifying us using the same taxonomic categories (order, family, genus, species, sub-species, etc) as we do, they would certain classify humans into separate subspecies.

    That is why the Chinese, who are not afraid of being called “Racist” and don’t have the same recent history as the west of such silliness have unanimous agreement, 100% consensus on the concept of biological race.

  176. Theodore says:
    @res

    In your response you just threw another “study” my way without even acknowledging the relevance of my point. Quit wasting our time.

    This seems to be his strategy, it’s just gish gallop / spamming. Then he goes and complains when you don’t go through every page of all of his PDF’s (which mostly use the same silly arguments) and address every point, all the while ignoring most of the things you have posted.

    And in response to your post #175:

    Yes if you go far enough back. We have common ancestors with neanderthals, chimpanzees, gorillas. But his point about the extremely recent common ancestor with Australoid people is simply wrong. We can even look at, say, archaic admixture which is in some populations but missing from others. If the gene flow was as pervasive as he says it is, it would all exist in some level everywhere.

    • Agree: res
    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
    , @aksavavit
  177. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    I will definitely do that tomorrow when I have more time if you are still here

    • Replies: @res
  178. Anti-HBD says:
    @J.G.R. Fuerst

    Based on your name and arguments, I know you have written papers arguing for a relationship between African ancestry and lower cognitive ability among others.

    Templeton’s analysis shows that gene flow has always been too high for such differences to be driven by genetics. I also know you have argued for race even though ML-NCPA shows that there are no races in humans and that trees fail when tests. Thus there are no races taxonomically. Can you respond to the actual NCPA analysis ?
    I might have been wrong about other arguments but I know for sure that no one here has responded to Templeton’s analysis.
    Yes he was wrong about the Fst stuff but his analysis stand. ML-NCPA is an extremely validated method with few if any false positives.
    I am willing to concede than in theory as user @Theodore says gene flow does not prevent the formation of races. But gene flow above 1% per generation does prevent adaptive traits and it mostly has as shown by Templeton except superficial characteristics.

    My criticism of Templeton was that he was fabricating a subspecies criterion and that he continued to do so even after the issue was pointed out to him and after he acknowledge that it was. Can you agree that there is something untoward about him doing so?

    Only the one based on Fst. The rest (and most important) part of his paper stands. It is precisely what makes group differences unlikely to be genetic.

  179. Anti-HBD says:
    @Theodore

    I will read your cited papers and reply tomorrow but I need to ask this:

    The gene flow is “high” to an extreme level by some measures. I don’t disagree, by some measures there was massive, massive levels of gene flow. But there was also “low” levels of gene flow by other measures.

    How low? Which are these measures?

    And I am not handwaving anything, but I am just not sure how to show you, you are comparing apples and oranges. You do not seem to understand the differences in variation between humans and other animals, except for the mice papers which I will read, you do not seem to understand what an CCF chart is and most importantly you can not point any errors of Templeton’s seminal work on the issue (at least his analysis) which is my main proof of high gene flow. You keep asking me to prove something that is already shown by the paper. I guess you do not understand how ML-NCPA works but I am not sure how I can help you there.

    Furthermore, I honestly do not get how if Ancient North Eurasians were East Asian in origin for example (Mongoloid as you say) race can be real? What is the utility of that classification? We are talking 25% replacement here, none of the subspecies you are referring to show this, I went through the papers.
    And again that is just one example. There are many others.

    What is your concept of race then? What is the utility of it? And you mentioned species before, well for species for example ML-NCPA would show independent lineages as gene flow is normally low enough across them (a bit higher in plants). But even species can be argued to be socially constructed in part, as are all classifications, just that race is totally arbitrary with no objective basis in reality.

    PS You still have failed to demonstrate how ancient populations were “white” for example. Furthermore adaptive traits is not how we assign races to populations as then you would group genetically discordant groups. If that does not mean anything to you, I am not sure what will, honestly I would need to cite you a segment from a systematic textbook.

  180. mikemikev says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Templeton’s analysis shows that gene flow has always been too high for such differences to be driven by genetics.

    It shows nothing of the sort and this is just fabricated assertion on your part.

    I also know you have argued for race even though ML-NCPA shows that there are no races in humans and that trees fail when tests. Thus there are no races taxonomically. Can you respond to the actual NCPA analysis ?

    It’s the same strawman argument Long was making. That some monophyletic model doesn’t apply is irrelevant to the fact that individuals can be grouped by degrees of shared ancestry.

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

    Templeton’s analysis shows that gene flow has always been too high for such differences to be driven by genetics.

    It shows nothing of the sort and this is just fabricated assertion on your part.

    I also know you have argued for race even though ML-NCPA shows that there are no races in humans and that trees fail when tests. Thus there are no races taxonomically. Can you respond to the actual NCPA analysis ?

    It’s the same strawman argument Long was making. That some monophyletic model doesn’t apply is irrelevant to the fact that individuals can be grouped by degrees of shared ancestry.

    Only the one based on Fst. The rest (and most important) part of his paper stands. It is precisely what makes group differences unlikely to be genetic.

    Absolute non-sequitur. Some strawman model doesn’t fit human differences, therefore differences are all environmental.

  182. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I will definitely do that tomorrow when I have more time if you are still here

    Life in a place with third world caliber infrastructure can be unpredictable, but I hope to be here. But in all honesty I am not sure. Not knowing seems to be part of the fun.

  183. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    This thread might be of interest on race (this and next 5 tweets)

  184. “The conclusion drawn from this observation is that race is therefore a socially constructed system, ”

    Ok Birney. If there is no such thing as race then you agree race-based affirmative action must end..

  185. Anti-HBD says:
    @mikemikev

    It shows nothing of the sort and this is just fabricated assertion on your part.

    Do you understand ML-NCPA yes or no?
    Do you understand what the paper shows yes or no?

    Because if you understood both, no way you would have replied like you did.

    Forget the arguments of Long et al about taxonomy (even though they are backed by evidence and in accordance with standards in pop gen)

    Gene flow too high-> humans too similar. How more simpler can I make it?
    Race is not real. Funny how not a single person can actually refute the analysis.

  186. Friendly reminder – No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.

    I place much more value in easily verified facts like that than in some research study where you have to trust the scientists are not rigging the data.

  187. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    How low? Which are these measures?

    You can invent whatever measures you want.
    The gene flow simply was not significant enough to have everyone “blended”. Since we can see the races with our own eyes, we know this is absolutely the case.

    And I am not handwaving anything, but I am just not sure how to show you, you are comparing apples and oranges. You do not seem to understand the differences in variation between humans and other animals, except for the mice papers which I will read, you do not seem to understand what an CCF chart is and most importantly you can not point any errors of Templeton’s seminal work on the issue (at least his analysis) which is my main proof of high gene flow. You keep asking me to prove something that is already shown by the paper. I guess you do not understand how ML-NCPA works but I am not sure how I can help you there.

    Templeton’s laughable paper made the mistake of using that 0.25 figure I pointed out. He uses the same weak arguments, you have not actually addressed any of my points since they destroy your silly claims.

    And you ARE just handwaving away. Any time another species is brought up you just whine about how they aren’t humans. Because your strategy is simple:

    Find something specifically unique about human evolution, and use that to somehow construct a definition of race that you can “Disprove”. It’s absurd.

    The existence of gene flow and intermediate groups supports the concept of separate races/sub-species, it does not refute it.

    Part of the issue here is that we do not have studies like this for other species, well, because we are humans and study our own species far more than we study any other ones. But that’s how evolution works. Many subspecies are this way. It starts with a small group, they split up into two (or more) and separate. Some of these groups split up more. Some of the groups which split up intermix back with others. Kind of like how Neanderthals split from humans, but then mixed with them and perhaps that was their extinction?

    And I do not care about your CCF chart, it’s irrelevant to the subject. The quantity of gene flow is, in fact, quite irrelevant since it clearly was not enough or we would not see what we do see today.

    Furthermore, I honestly do not get how if Ancient North Eurasians were East Asian in origin for example (Mongoloid as you say) race can be real?

    Firstly, that’s the problem. You are proving that you just do not understand the concept of race. That’s the only reason you are somehow confused here.
    Secondly, they are not “East Asian” in the sense you seem to be attributing. I showed that Mal’ta boy does not cluster with Europeans, East Asians, or Siberians. The specific location on the planet they are in is irrelevant. People move all the time. I live in America but you’d call me “European” (White). Wow, does that mean race isn’t real?

    What is the utility of that classification?

    That’s not something I can decide for you. But conversely, if someone does find it having utility, that is enough argument in favor of it. So I would not use that argument if I was you.
    Now, one example I can find is police officers. If they hear: “Suspect is a caucasian male…” and they see some negro or mestizo or chinaman walking, they will know it is not one of them. It helps them out better than “Suspect is a featherless biped” or whatever.
    You could say there’s no utility for you, and that’s fine. I am sure there isn’t.
    I personally find no utility in the separation of a lot of different species into subspecies. But someone does. It doesn’t mean they just randomly draw lines wherever the want, which is how you make it seem.

    We are talking 25% replacement here, none of the subspecies you are referring to show this, I went through the papers.

    You’re completely misconstruing the data entirely. You’re acting as if some slant-eyed, yellow skinned “east asian” sinids came to Europe and just mixed with others to become 1/4 of the entire genetic imprint. That’s simply not the case.

    What is your concept of race then? What is the utility of it? And you mentioned species before, well for species for example ML-NCPA would show independent lineages as gene flow is normally low enough across them (a bit higher in plants). But even species can be argued to be socially constructed in part, as are all classifications, just that race is totally arbitrary with no objective basis in reality.

    The ‘major races’ are human subspecies.
    The utility is an opinion, and doubtless you’ll never agree. It’s really not that important.

    And race / human subspecies certainly has a basis in reality, just like species. They’re both arbitrary, nobody pretended otherwise.

    PS You still have failed to demonstrate how ancient populations were “white” for example.

    You failed to demonstrate how ANE were “East Asian” assuming you are referring to a phenotype, rather than merely “they lived in East Asia” which is just a silly argument.

    And it would be basically impossible I guess without cloning them and watching them grow up. But you can look at reconstructions of old cro magnon skulls, many would be considered Caucasoid, even “White people”, assuming the reconstructions are accurate

    Furthermore adaptive traits is not how we assign races to populations as then you would group genetically discordant groups. If that does not mean anything to you, I am not sure what will, honestly I would need to cite you a segment from a systematic textbook.

    If the trait is the same but evolved independently, they are not grouped in that way because it is based on common descent. I don’t understand why you’re pretending to be confused about this.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  188. Anti-HBD says:

    For all the Cochran fans here:

    Cochran simply does not know enough pop gen or the literature.

    • Replies: @notanon
    , @res
  189. @Anti-HBD

    “a relationship between African ancestry and lower cognitive ability among others.”

    Yes, there is a relation. At issue is whether intelligence-related SNPs partially account for this.

    “Templeton’s analysis shows…”

    That is silly. And Templeton never claimed this. When differentiation is neutral, phenotypic differences will be concordant with genetic drift. The formula is given in this paper:
    Leinonen et al. (2013). Q ST–F ST comparisons: evolutionary and ecological insights from genomic heterogeneity. Nature Reviews Genetics, 14(3), 179. The authors note:

    “Yet, because most quantitative traits of evolutionary, ecological, economic and even of medical interest — such as body size and intelligence quotient — are known or thought to have a polygenic basis distinguishing neutral and selective patterns of population differentiation at the phenotypic level is not easily accomplished with standard FST estimates…The value of QST for a neutral quantitative trait that has an additive genetic basis is expected to be equal to the FST for a neutral genetic locus. This finding — which is based on the work of Sewall Wright — provides a basis for evolutionary inference… If QST > FST, trait divergence exceeds neutral expectation, and is likely to have been caused by directional selection. If QST < FST, trait divergence among populations is less than expected by genetic drift alone; this pattern is suggestive of uniform selection or stabilizing selection across the populations."

    Read that last sentence again. The predicted difference for IQ, were there no selection, would be 2*SNP_Fst*additive genetic_variance, which would be large, by social scientific standards, between major ancestry groups. People who argue for 'no differences' are arguing for substantial uniform selection across populations!

    "I also know you have argued for race even though ML-NCPA shows that there are no races in humans and that trees fail when tests."

    This issue is irrelevant to that about divergence. The average SNP Fst between East Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans, for example, is .15. Calling the groups "biogeographic ancestry groups" instead of "races" won't change that. Perhaps the causal IQ SNP difference is .00. We don't know, yet. However, word games won’t make it so.

    "Thus there are no races taxonomically."

    Race is not a formal taxonomic category. It never was in zoology. So, it is not clear what you mean.
    If you mean "no human ancestry groups are currently ranked as subspecies". Ok. But I never argued that. Rather, I have argued that some could be, given some species-subspecies concepts, such as Ernst Mayr's.

    "I might have been wrong about other arguments but I know for sure that no one here has responded to Templeton’s analysis."

    Not relevant. There is no contradiction between reticulation / phylogenic networks and race as traditionally understood. The first phylogenic networks (for dog races and strawberry races, respectively) were mapped out by Buffon, who popularized "race" in zoology and Duchene, who introduced it to botany — in both cases to refer to hereditary or constant varieties or forms/entities which reproduce themselves to form lineages. Show me some 18th to mid 20th century naturalists who argued that races by definition precluded reticulation.

    That said, I will grant that by Templeton’s idiosyncratic subspecies concept, no human ancestry groups qualify as subspecies, if you grant that there obviously are different ancestry groups / hereditary varieties.

    "But gene flow above 1% per generation does prevent adaptive traits and it mostly has as shown by Templeton except superficial characteristics."

    Doesn't make sense. Yes, in idealized models, divergence will be inversely proportional to migration rates. So, based on known Fst coefficients, you can guestimate migration rates. But we already have a good idea of what the divergence coefficients are. And we can toss these into Qst~Fst formulas to predict what differences would be were there no selection. See comment above.

    That takes one back to the question of whether there was homogenizing selection for behavioral traits. What is your theory model for this? I have never heard one that makes sense.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  190. @Anti-HBD

    @Anon
    “a relationship between African ancestry and lower cognitive ability among others.”

    Yes, there is a relation. At issue is whether intelligence-related SNPs partially account for this.

    “Templeton’s analysis shows…”

    That is silly. And Templeton never claimed this. When differentiation is neutral, phenotypic differences will be concordant with genetic drift. The formula is given in this paper:
    Leinonen et al. (2013). Q ST–F ST comparisons: evolutionary and ecological insights from genomic heterogeneity. Nature Reviews Genetics, 14(3), 179. The authors note:

    “Yet, because most quantitative traits of evolutionary, ecological, economic and even of medical interest — such as body size and intelligence quotient — are known or thought to have a polygenic basis distinguishing neutral and selective patterns of population differentiation at the phenotypic level is not easily accomplished with standard FST estimates…The value of QST for a neutral quantitative trait that has an additive genetic basis is expected to be equal to the FST for a neutral genetic locus. This finding — which is based on the work of Sewall Wright — provides a basis for evolutionary inference… If QST > FST, trait divergence exceeds neutral expectation, and is likely to have been caused by directional selection. If QST < FST, trait divergence among populations is less than expected by genetic drift alone; this pattern is suggestive of uniform selection or stabilizing selection across the populations."

    Read that last sentence again. The predicted difference for IQ, were there no selection, would be 2*SNP_Fst*additive genetic_variance, which would be large, by social scientific standards, between major ancestry groups. People who argue for 'no differences' are arguing for substantial uniform selection across populations!

    “I also know you have argued for race even though ML-NCPA shows that there are no races in humans and that trees fail when tests”

    This issue is irrelevant to that about divergence. The average SNP Fst between East Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans, for example, is .15. Calling the groups "biogeographic ancestry groups" instead of "races" won't change that. Perhaps the causal IQ SNP difference is .00. We don't know, yet. However, word games won’t make it so.

    “Thus there are no races taxonomically”

    Race is not a formal taxonomic category. It never was in zoology. So, it is not clear what you mean.
    If you mean "no human ancestry groups are currently ranked as subspecies". Ok. But I never argued that. Rather, I have argued that some could be, given some species-subspecies concepts, such as Ernst Mayr's.

    "I might have been wrong about other arguments but I know for sure that no one here has responded to Templeton’s analysis."

    Not relevant. There is no contradiction between reticulation / phylogenic networks and race as traditionally understood. The first phylogenic networks (for dog races and strawberry races, respectively) were mapped out by Buffon, who popularized "race" in zoology and Duchene, who introduced it to botany — in both cases to refer to hereditary or constant varieties or forms/entities which reproduce themselves to form lineages. Show me some 18th to mid 20th century naturalists who argued that races were, per definition precluded reticulation. That said, I will grant that by Templeton’s idiosyncratic subspecies concept, no human ancestry groups qualify as subspecies, if you grant that there obviously are different ancestry groups / hereditary varieties.

    "But gene flow above 1% per generation does prevent adaptive traits and it mostly has as shown by Templeton except superficial characteristics."

    In idealized models, divergence will be inversely proportional to migration rates. So, based on known Fst coefficients, you can guestimate migration rates. But we already have a good idea of what the divergence coefficients are. And we can toss these into Qst~Fst formulas to predict what differences would be were there no selection. See comment above. That takes one back to the question of whether there was homogenizing selection for behavioral traits. What is your theory model for this? I have never heard one that makes sense.

  191. @Anti-HBD

    Do you support affirmative action on the basis of race? That’s a yes or no question so I expect at least 10,000 words and 100 citations while you attempt to avoid an answer. You can’t say yes without admitting you believe that race exists and you can’t say no without suffering Watson’s punishment (the bar is higher now). If you say perhaps, I’ll interpret that as yes while you’ll still have plausible deniability. [email protected]

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  192. notanon says:
    @Anti-HBD

    if there’s been enough gene flow to prevent race why don’t we look the same?

  193. @Anti-HBD

    “Gene flow too high-> humans too similar. How more simpler can I make it?”

    Thank for clarifying! Now we can move on from the vapid debate about contemporary taxonomic convention.

    One of many errors is that you imagine the average divergence levels, produced by historic patterns of migration and mating, to be particularly low. They are not — at least in context to the magnitude of phenotypic differences typically under discussion. To see this, plug typically found average SNP Fst values into the Qst ~ Fst equation and back calculate the ‘expected’ quantitively genetic differences under neutral divergence. This will tell you what the ‘expected’ trait differences would be in absence of homogenizing selection. (Or, I guess, just look up typically craniometric / skeletal differences and convert them into standardized effects)

  194. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Here is Cochran’s article (without going through Twitter): https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2019/10/26/gene-flow-iii/

    Some thoughts.
    1. Why doesn’t Weissman engage there? Comment threads aren’t a great place to have a technical conversation, but far better than Twitter.
    2. You must have been really on top of things to get that link posted in the <1 hour between Weissman's tweet and the other replies. I wonder what your interest is here.
    3. The comments at Cochran's article have some amusing references to the iSteve thread. And some comments which look familiar stylistically.

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

    Looks like there will be more fun coming in February:

    Is this a joke? If not, the “A master storyteller” bit is really funny.

    • Replies: @Feric Jaggar
  196. Okechukwu says:

    It is not up to me, but I wonder if a more balanced title would have been: Race, genetics and science?

    Absolutely not. Pseudoscience is very apt.

  197. Okechukwu says:

    I don’t know about “thousands of scientists” but researchers working in the field of genetics, particularly regarding intelligence, tell me they have to be careful what they publish.

    There’s no political correctness in Russia or China or North Korea or Kazakhstan or Saudi Arabia or Chile or Turkey, etc.

    Why hasn’t your “science” found fertile ground among scientists in these countries?

    • Replies: @notanon
  198. Okechukwu says:
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    There is correlation because the ancestral environment blacks developed in required dark skin but did not require high IQ and there is a huge cost associated with high IQ. Thus they would tend to cluster around an IQ that was enough to live in their ancestral environment.

    Ironically, there probably isn’t a black person on this planet dumb enough to write something like this.

    Yes, you are that dumb.

  199. aksavavit says:
    @Anti-HBD

    (1) And of course, but without genomic evidence for selection (which you have for the groups mentioned) there is no reason to expect genetics to be the cause when environmental differences can explain them better.
    (2) And I am not too good today, the format here is not well-known to me and I feel I need to explain too much.

    (Perhaps on account of sentence 2) I do not understand clearly your answer in sentence 1.

    Isn’t in itself the fact that Tibetans thrive at high altitudes an evidence for genetic selection? Of course environmental differences (here, high altitude) explain this Tibetan particularity – that’s the principle #1 of natural selection.

  200. aksavavit says:
    @Theodore

    But his point about the extremely recent common ancestor with Australoid people is simply wrong.

    I think Anon may be right in a way on this point: we may have one or two common ancestors with some Australoids at a perhaps 5,000 year remove.

    What would seem to me offensively absurd as it seems to you would be the claim that we (Europeans, or Africans, or Eskimos or Basques for that matter) share all our ancestry with Australoids at such remove.

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

    Gene flow too high-> humans too similar. How more simpler can I make it?

    Your meaningless subjective statement based on nothing couldn’t be any “more simpler”, thanks.

  202. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    1. Engage with what? Intellectually dishonest statements?
    2. Irrelevant, just not a fan of pseudoscience.
    3. Again irrelevant, how about Greg Cochran answer some questions first.
    https://twitter.com/pp0196/status/1189132022679257089 (and no it is not me in case you are curious)

    See also: https://twitter.com/sillyolyou2/status/1188954778065354753

    • Replies: @res
  203. Anti-HBD says:
    @aksavavit

    No, one or two common ancestors can be as recent as 300 AD.

    It’s math. See these threads for example. You have the exact same ancestors with all humans only 3500 years ago.

  204. Anti-HBD says:
    @J.G.R. Fuerst

    Nope sorry, none of what you say is true.

    Fst tells you nothing about gene flow. That is known since 1999. You should look at the overall genome and from Templeton’s analysis and ancient DNA, it is clear ancestry groups are just groupings of superficial characteristics such as skin color etc.

    Gene flow between these groups means that the variant distribution is expected to be similar across all groups overall.

    If you look at the population genetic literature, then you will see why your claims can not stand. Population stratification is an issue one can easily think of, and take a look at these thread why the differences you imply are unlikely, particularly in the absence of distinct populations.

    as well as these papers:
    https://www.g3journal.org/content/9/5/1429 (False positives are common)
    https://academic.oup.com/emph/article/2019/1/26/5262222 ( Why such differences are unlikely)

    Why was there not homogenizing selection?

    You also can not use Fst and Qst that way. There is simple too much gene flow, and given what we know about overall divergence coupled with facts like this one:
    https://twitter.com/sillyolyou2/status/1188954778065354753 it is unlikely such differences exist.

    Again, Lewontin, 1972 and Edge and Rosenberg, 2015, I am certain you are familiar with both papers.

    None of the recent papers on selection found any significant on EA.

    I am not even going to get into how bad the Ashkenazi intelligence paper your group published was, including the papers you published on bio-geographic ancestry.

    • Replies: @notanon
    , @J.G.R. Fuerst
  205. mikemikev says:
    @Anti-HBD

    It’s math. See these threads for example. You have the exact same ancestors with all humans only 3500 years ago.

    Possibly, that’s a low estimate from simplistic simulations. It’s really just speculation. But if this is the case ancestors from distant places contribute only a minute fraction of DNA.

    Via Wikipedia:

    Figure 14 shows the corresponding ancestry for a randomly selected Norwegian. In this case, 92.3% of the ancestry in the year 5000 BC is attributable to the country in which the sim lives, in central Norway, and 96% to Scandinavia as a whole. The Norwegian has about three times as much African ancestry as the Japanese sim, but much less American, Indonesian, and Australian. The Norwegian owes 0.00044% of his ancestry to 5000 BC Japan, while the Japanese owes 0.00049%, or about 1 part in 200,000, to ancient Norway. That would suggest that, at this rate of mixing, a typical Norwegian might be expected to have inherited about one haplotype block from 5000 BC Japan (Gabriel et al., 2002).

    http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf

  206. @res

    Yes, it is a joke. But unfortunately, the author, Adam Rutherford, is serious.

  207. aksavavit says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Sorry, Anon, but I won’t swallow this.

    The most recent common ancestor (MRCA) is the one ancestor one shares with all other humans. But at a time when anyone has plenty of ancestors (2^g – x, where g is the number of generations back in the past and x is the number of common ancestors of those ancestors between themselves and g). So that the time to MRCA certainly is not the time to ALL of our ancestors, only one of them.

    Moreover, those dates (either 3,000 BP or 300 BCE) have been calculated purely based on mating hypotheses (as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor#TMRCA_of_all_living_humans).

    The study you apparently quote, refered to in the Wikipedia piece above, very inassertively states that:

    “Given the remaining uncertainties about migration rates and real-world mating patterns, the date of the MRCA for everyone living today cannot be identified with great precision. Nevertheless, our results suggest that the most recent common ancestor for the world’s current population lived in the relatively recent past— perhaps within the last few thousand years. And a few thousand years before that, although we have received genetic material in markedly different proportions from the people alive at the time, the ancestors of everyone on the Earth today were exactly the same.” (http://steveolson.com/uploads/2009/04/nature-common-ancestors2.pdf; my italics, Aksavavit)

    Well, the authors of this study suggest, without great precision, that our MRCA perhaps lived a limited number of thousands of years ago, and that some more millennia back in the past we all have the same ancestors.

    They could have said as much without even an abacus.

  208. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    1. Engage with the same thing he chose to engage with on Twitter. Only in the place where others are discussing it. And where one would expect to go to find discussion of it.

    2. Actually, your interest is quite relevant. What other forms of pseudoscience do you crusade against? Why focus on IQ and genetics? Especially since the science in those areas is less pseudoscientific than what we read in that explainer.

    3. Was there actually a question in that obscene tweet? It is fun how we go from talking about intercontinental gene flow to gene flow between Nigerians and Gambians as if there was not a difference. (and yes, it was clear stylistically that THAT tweet was not you)

    People arguing about this might want to make more of an effort to discuss whether they are talking about levels of gene flow pre or post Age of Exploration (not to mention pre or post modern transportation). That is especially important because both the volume and time duration of gene flow matter for the overall impact on populations.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  209. notanon says:
    @Okechukwu

    There’s no political correctness in Russia or China or North Korea or Kazakhstan or Saudi Arabia or Chile or Turkey, etc.

    Why hasn’t your “science” found fertile ground among scientists in these countries?

    the communist countries were the first to be completely conned by Lysenkoism – environmentally molded humanity is a key component of Marxism.

    (the people who tricked America into the blank slate theory were also Marxists)

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  210. notanon says:
    @Anti-HBD

    You have the exact same ancestors with all humans only 3500 years ago.

    if that were true then given the races are physically distinct now that would imply you and Rutherford are saying the races became physically distinct over the last 3500 years?

    #

    nb
    from the tweets you posted he doesn’t appear to be saying what you’re saying
    – he appears to be saying everyone has at least one common human ancestor within 3500 years
    – he appears to be leaving out the key point that everyone doesn’t have the same non-human ancestry

    so it seems to me they’re using a form of words which allows people like yourself to get confused into thinking they mean something else

    #

    nb2

    ancient egypt 3500 years ago

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  211. Anonymous[127] • Disclaimer says:
    @Theodore

    Since we can see the races with our own eyes, we know this is absolutely the case.

    This is why I rarely join these types of conversations. You end up “debating” people who will never admit seeing what any small child can see and recognise. As a matter of fact, even 6-month babies seem to be more clued-in than this “Anon”.

    It’s all bullshit and they know it, of course. When it’s time to implement yet another Affirmative Action travesty or demonise whites, their eyes suddenly start working and the concept of race becomes very real.

    I never liked the “The Emperor’s New Clothes” story. It just felt too much like an exaggerated caricature for its own good. Little did I know that Real Life would show me worse, less subtle, analogues.

  212. Okechukwu says:
    @notanon

    I named several non-communist or non-former-communist countries. Would you like more?

    In fact, can anyone name a single country on earth where racist pseudoscience is taken seriously?

    Maybe y’all should take a hint.

    • Replies: @notanon
    , @Theodore
    , @annamaria
  213. notanon says:
    @Anti-HBD

    it is clear ancestry groups are just groupings of superficial characteristics such as skin color etc

    so you’re saying natural selection effects everything except the brain?

  214. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I hadn’t realized people were arguing a MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) for humanity lived 3500 years ago. Given the degree of population separation in historical time (whether modern times have blurred that enough is an interesting question though) that seems like an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not simulations with simplistic assumptions (though those can be suggestive).

    BTW, this would be an excellent place to bring up isolated demands for rigor and Adam Rutherford. Compare the standard of proof he provides for a MRCA 3500 years ago to the standard of proof he demands of others in that explainer.
    https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/

    To make all of this more concrete I looked at this wiki:
    https://isogg.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor
    which references this paper (available on sci-hub):
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02842
    Note that additional details are provided in the Supplementary Material.

    Looking at that paper I find it more persuasive than I expected. I have a strong suspicion their migration estimates are unreasonably high (and don’t take adequate account of small migrant populations failing, consider Greenland across climate changes, or losing a war), but the work looks thoughtful enough (and there is enough uncertainty) that I am not sure how to critique, other than to say “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, and I don’t think this simulation qualifies by itself.

    I think this excerpt from the paper captures a key issue:

    In the case of Tasmania, which may have been completely isolated from mainland Australia between the flooding of the Bass Strait, 9,000–12,000 years ago, and the European colonization of the island, starting in 1803 (ref. 13), the IA date for all living humans must fall before the start of isolation. However, the MRCA date would be unaffected, because today there are no remaining native Tasmanians without some European or mainland Australian ancestry.

    One interesting point in the paper is how different estimates of matrilineal (Mitochondrial Eve) and patrilineal (Y-chromosomal Adam) MRCA dates are compared to the true MRCA (who might not even have left any genetic evidence in many of those descendants).

    As a thought experiment, how do people think the MRCA would compare for humans circa AD 1000 vs. humans circa AD 2000? It would be interesting to see how the simulations saw this question (and extended to more ancient dates with increasingly primitive transportation). Note the Tasmania example given above. Would the simulations capture this isolation possibility properly?

    And again, to emphasize, a MRCA 3500 years ago does not guarantee any given individual today has ANY IBD (identity by descent) contribution remaining from that person. Assuming a 30 year generation time and 50% chance of transmission the probability for any single genetic contribution remaining through a single line is 1E-35. The human genome has 3.2E9 base pairs. The relative magnitudes of those two numbers should make clear the folly of assuming the existence of a fairly recent MRCA requires much gene flow appearing in the resultant genomes.

    P.S. I do think the simulations are persuasive enough that we should be cautious about our intuitions here regarding a MRCA.

    P.P.S. Regarding your initial statement:

    No, one or two common ancestors can be as recent as 300 AD.

    Not sure where you got 300 AD. I don’t see how that date is supported by anything you wrote. The cites you gave said MRCA 3500 years ago. Not that that was the IA (identical ancestors) point. For comparison see one set of dates from the paper I linked above (context included because I thought it was interesting).

    With 5% of individuals migrating out of their home town, 0.05% migrating out of their home country, and 95% of port users born in the country from which the port emanates, the simulations produce a mean MRCA date of 1,415 BC and a mean IA date of 5,353 BC. Interestingly, the MRCAs are nearly always found in eastern Asia. This is due to the proximity of this region to both Eurasia and either the remote Pacific islands or the Americas, allowing the MRCA’s descendants to reach a few major world regions in a relatively short time.

    Actually, I just reread your comment. It looks like the error is Rutherford’s. In one place he asserts that the MRCA is 3500 years ago. In another he asserts the isopoint (IA above) is 3500 years ago. Did I misunderstand something or did he blatantly err by conflating the MRCA and IA?

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  215. If liberals and other assorted egalitarians actually cared about helping Africa then they would end this game of trying to use The Science(tm) to claim that a lack of progress is basically all caused by Whitey. This is what they are forced to claim when they hold out for blank slate and the expectation of equality in all areas.

    It also seems that liberals have not figured out that the colleges are filled with frauds. Do research on the leading social scientists that they quote and you will find that most are openly leftist. Sociology openly cites Marx as a founding father.

    If these liberals actually cared about helping Africa or South America then they would not be in forums trying to redefine taxonomic definitions to make some point. I’m not at all convinced it is working on the general public. I also do not see why these egalitarians are convinced that The Science(tm) should be some leading light for their ideals. You can actually be for helping other people without this globalist belief that all groups should be equal at all things. It just goes into insanity. I’ve even seen liberals argue that the NBA would have an equal proportion of Asian players if there was a government intervention program for them.

    What we need to do is figure out what works best for each country and let that be the focus. Stop trying to quote a dozen Sociologists that were never serious about studying this is in the first place.

    Some of us would actually like to improve the lives of people in the third world and we don’t support White nationalism or dishonest liberalism.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
    , @Anonymous
  216. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Can someone please double check whether Adam Rutherford made an error by conflating a MRCA 3500 years ago (4:16 AM tweet) with an isopoint (aka IA or Identical Ancestors point) (pair of tweets including 4:45 AM) 3500 years ago?

    In addition, this point from Rohde et al. (2004)
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02842
    casts some doubt on the isopoint dates (and what about the standard of proof Rutherford is using here?!) even if the MRCA dates are reasonable.

    In the case of Tasmania, which may have been completely isolated from mainland Australia between the flooding of the Bass Strait, 9,000–12,000 years ago, and the European colonization of the island, starting in 1803 (ref. 13), the IA date for all living humans must fall before the start of isolation. However, the MRCA date would be unaffected, because today there are no remaining native Tasmanians without some European or mainland Australian ancestry.

    P.S. Is Rutherford really as clueless as this makes him seem, or am I making a mistake somewhere?

    • Replies: @notanon
    , @eugyppius
    , @mikemikev
  217. Anti-HBD says:
    @Donald A Thomson

    Race exists in a social way not a genetic one

    • Replies: @Donald A Thomson
  218. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    I got it from his book.

    And again, to emphasize, a MRCA 3500 years ago does not guarantee any given individual today has ANY IBD (identity by descent) contribution remaining from that person.

    You have IBD from Neanderthals and the out of Africa population even if you are an Australian Aboriginal, so yes it would leave IBD.

    Furthermore, Templeton,2013 essentially verifies that.

    • Replies: @res
  219. notanon says:
    @Okechukwu

    true but if you take away all the countries currently under US or recent Marxist cultural hegemony you’re left with countries which don’t have much of a scientific foundation.

    i do agree however that it is precisely those countries with limited money and/or brains who would benefit most from a soft eugenics program and those countries should approach someone who understands the details to come up with a eugenics program that is
    – cheap
    – simple to implement
    – not too extreme
    so in a couple of generations their country would be better off by every metric.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Okechukwu
  220. notanon says:
    @res

    it’s a political argument disguised as a scientific argument

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

    I showed you Templeton,2013 which discusses gene flow in the Pleistocene and Holocene. You say his points are irrelevant to race but you do not answer them or point an error in his analysis (because you are not a geneticists nor is any from the HBD crowd)

    You failed to understand the tweet. Haplotypes can be different in Gambia and Nigeria but that does not mean gene flow did not exist between them. Same with Europe and Africa.

    And yes I am against all pseudoscience but especially racist one, given how disastrous it can be for people.

    • Replies: @res
  222. Anti-HBD says:
    @notanon

    – he appears to be saying everyone has at least one common human ancestor within 3500 years
    – he appears to be leaving out the key point that everyone doesn’t have the same non-human ancestry

    More than one most likely. And even so, it goes to show how populations were not isolated at all.
    See Graham Coop’s work on this.

    I do not see how your second point changes anything. This is simple math.

    • Replies: @notanon
    , @TrashCollector
  223. eugyppius says:
    @res

    https://www.nature.com/news/2004/040927/full/040927-10.html

    Not sure what you get from the Nature paper itself, which I can’t access right now, but Rohde’s computer models put the MRCA at 3500 years ago and the isopoint at 5400 BC according to Nature’s own press report.

    Indeed, the first sentence of Rutherford’s “common ancestors” tweet could be ambiguous on a generous reading but then he goes on to nail down what he means (“ancestor of everyone alive today”), so it is hard to see how he’s not wrong.

  224. mikemikev says:
    @res

    Can someone please double check whether Adam Rutherford made an error by conflating a MRCA 3500 years ago (4:16 AM tweet) with an isopoint (aka IA or Identical Ancestors point) (pair of tweets including 4:45 AM) 3500 years ago?

    Yeah, he says the MRCA is 3500, then says MRCA hasn’t been calculated and IAP is 3500.

  225. res says:

    Public service announcement. Anti-HBD and Anon[164] appear to be the same person. This is probably not surprising given the writing style, but worth having confirmation from the horse’s mouth.

    See the exchange leading up to this comment:
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/race-genetics-and-pseudoscience-an-explainer/#comment-3529455

    Note that occasionally posting as Anon is allowed by Ron’s rules for sockpuppetry:
    https://www.unz.com/announcement/record-traffic-but-too-much-sockpuppetry/

    But I would say systematically posting both ways in a single thread violates the spirit of his rule. Perhaps if Ron visits this thread again he could look into this situation and offer his opinion?

  226. res says:
    @notanon

    Agreed. But did he make an explicit mistake in formulating the argument? Because he at least has a day job as a scientist and I would expect him to value his credibility (at least a little bit).

  227. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @notanon

    i do agree however that it is precisely those countries with limited money and/or brains who would benefit most from a soft eugenics program

    All countries have programs modifying the human genome, though the legislators are usually too dumb or ignorant to realize it, or too psychopathic to care.

    Sub-Saharan African countries may have the most eugenic programs, inasmuch as life for most people in those countries is tough, so that genes for energy, brains and disease resistance substantially affect survival of individuals and their progeny.

    The Western nations, however, are all running dysgenic programs, feeding the idle, supporting welfare motherhood. Worst of all, they promote girls’ education, which encourages most intelligent women to prefer to pursue a career rather than raise a large family.

    And confirming that these trends, we see IQ scores in the West falling as those in sub-Saharan Africa are rising.

  228. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I got it from his book.

    That does not make it right. Which book and what pages? And if possible, how about an excerpt?

    You have IBD from Neanderthals and the out of Africa population even if you are an Australian Aboriginal, so yes it would leave IBD.

    Selective sweeps would do that. You do know what a selective sweep is, right?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_sweep
    And what that implies about the loci in question?

    BTW, your comment about IBD across many generations illustrates profound ignorance about genetics. That was a mistake. Here is some remedial material from Graham Coop’s lab.
    https://gcbias.org/2013/12/02/how-many-genomic-blocks-do-you-share-with-a-cousin/
    and the most relevant graphic (note this only goes up to 8 generations, compared to the 3500 years / 30 years per generation = 117 generations we are talking about here). I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader what that curve looks like if you extend it 13x as far to the right.

    Furthermore, Templeton,2013 essentially verifies that.

    Excerpt please. I thought we had talked about this.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Anti-HBD
  229. Okechukwu says:
    @notanon

    This is just dumb.

    • Replies: @res
  230. Anonymous[127] • Disclaimer says:
    @John Johnson

    we don’t support White nationalism

    I’m hoping you’re not white because, nowadays, that stance implies that you’re supporting the ongoing deliberate destruction of white nations. This will prove to be a losing strategy even for non-whites, but it’s a particularly shameful display of indolent ignorance coming from a white person in this day and age.

  231. notanon says:
    @Anti-HBD

    More than one most likely.

    but not every ancestor – which seems to be anon’s wrong impression

    #

    nb
    just going back eight generations (200-ish years) you have 256 ancestors (assuming no double duty)

    so sharing 1 or 2 with someone else while the other 254 could be completely different doesn’t mean much.

    And even so, it goes to show how populations were not isolated at all.

    not isolated at all?

    I do not see how your second point changes anything.

    it’s the same point restated – saying people share one or two common ancestors out of many thousands doesn’t say much – especially if the ancestors that were left out (non-human hominids) are specifically the ancestors that made the races distinct.

    This is simple math.

    simple math being “accidentally” described in a way that confuses some people into thinking it means something it doesn’t.

  232. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    So Anon[164] and Anon[977] are the same person as well. Good to know. I wonder at what point this proliferation of identities (we are up to three, and based on writing styles I would guess there are more) becomes a violation of Ron’s rules against sockpuppetry?

    And you are just ranting at this point. Where have I said “You say his points are irrelevant to race”?

    because you are not a geneticists nor is any from the HBD crowd

    Are you a geneticist? I hope not given your lack of understanding of how much genetic contribution is attenuated across the generations. Though after Adam Rutherford’s confusion about MRCA and isopoint dates (and he at least plays a geneticist on the BBC) I might have to revise my standards.

  233. @Anti-HBD

    Duh!

    Fst is a measure of genetic divergence (variant distributions across groups). If you are saying that Fst tells you nothing about gene flow, you are saying that gene flow tells you nothing about genetic divergence, in which case your point about gene flow is irrelevant.

    Birney is being a weasel. He says:
    “This is not rocket science – I’m not trying to dupe you all – the places in the genomes which are associated with IQ/EA in Europe have reasonably humdrum frequencies in populations across the world (as, it happens, do the vast majority of variations)”.

    You can call the magnitude of the known European IQ/Edu polygenic score (eduPGS) difference — and their corresponding SNP Fst values — “humdrum” all you want, but they are substantial from a social scientific perspective.

    For example, we calculated a European-African eduPGS difference of 1.89 standard deviations! Guo, Lin, Harris (2019) likewise report very large differences between Whites and the combined Black/ Black Hispanic group in a representative American sample:

    https://ibb.co/w4Q4HTW

    Maybe compared to the differences between subspecies of Struthio camelus 0.5 to 2.0 standard deviations is small beans, but from the perspective of the social sciences these are moderate to huge effect sizes. The “humdrum” differences in the “places in the genomes which are associated with IQ/EA in Europe” — the known eduSNPs — along with the “vast majority of variations” — the average SNPs — show substantial divergence.

    Now, it could be that the European derived eduPGS suffer from ascertainment bias. That they are confounded with population structure or the differences owing to drift and other factors. But this is just to say: Perhaps the average SNP differences, and especially the average eduSNP differences, do not reflect the true causal ones — because there was homogenizing selection for the latter.
    Well, yes, perhaps. But it should be clear that you now have to argue that the divergence in “true casual” eduPGS is much smaller that the average divergence, and thus Qst < Fst, which was my point above.

    Once you concede this point about, I will move on to debunking your nonsense about Templeton's model.

    To note, so now I have shown that three of your sources – Graves, Templeton, and Birney – are grossly misleading. Could you find someone who both knows what they are talking about and who is not disingenuous? Or is that too much to ask?

    • Replies: @J.G.R. Fuerst
    , @Anti-HBD
  234. res says:
    @res

    I made a mistake with the Coop Lab post I chose to illustrate my point. I used one looking at pairs of cousins related through a common ancestor. What I should have used is this one looking at how the contributions of ancestors across the generations differ for a single individual.
    https://gcbias.org/2013/11/11/how-does-your-number-of-genetic-ancestors-grow-back-over-time/

    And the relevant image:

    Note that this graphic only goes back 15 generations while a MCRA from 3500 years ago would be back about 117 generations. They actually give a closed form equation (approximate) expressed in the number of generations (k):

    So the probability that you inherit zero of your autosomal genome from a particular ancestor is approximately exp(-(22+33*(k-1))/2 ^ (k-1)).

    For k = 13 that gives 0.9029837 (see how that matches the plot above)
    For k = 117 that gives 1
    For k = 50 that gives 1 – 2.9e-12

    So you have an idea how low the probability is of inheriting ANYTHING IBD along a single line of descent from a single ancestor 117 generations back. Multiple lines of descent increase the chances, but unlikely to be able to overcome odds like that. Especially at the distance extremes from the MRCA.

    Sorry for the confusion, but at least I caught my own mistake then admitted it and corrected it.

    P.S. Anti-HBD/Anon[164]/Anon[977] please notice how easy it is to include specific links and excerpts to support my points. Much better than the way you toss off statements like: “See Graham Coop’s work on this” in comment 225. How about you show us where and how his work shows us that?

    And stop sockpuppetting to avoid the 3 comments per hour limit.

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

    Comments 232 and 233 do a great job of showcasing Okechukwu’s exquisite debating skills.

    For everyone else, reading Okechukwu’s comments as simple projection generally provides a much better understanding of reality than taking them literally.

  236. Theodore says:
    @Okechukwu

    I posted above showing that there is 100% agreement in Chinese journals that biological race is real. See post #94.
    There is no consensus anywhere else on whether it is real or is not. That’s the only place with any consensus, as far as I know, and the consensus is that it is real.

    I am not sure if they pretend that race differences in median IQ are entirely due to nurture, but they don’t have a long history of IQ testing of Blacks like we do. I also don’t know Chinese to go and look myself.

    The Chinese are certainly doing research on genes believed to be related to cognitive ability; they have made designer babies with some alleles changed for this purpose. They also are putting some of these genes into monkeys.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Okechukwu
  237. @J.G.R. Fuerst

    Just bizarre.

    I point out actually SNP differentiation values, show you the formula for why these predict substantial quantitative genetic differences in absence of homogenizing selection, and show you actual differences in polygenic scores, based on SNPs related to education / intelligence, and your response is: But Templeton said! But Birney et al. said!

    LOL.

    Why don’t you invite them to join this thread so I can roast them, one by one. Or, if I am grossly wrong, they can do so to me. If they took the time to blog in response to a series of papers I co-authored or consulted on, I see no reason why they would be unwilling to debate the matter here. (My twitter account is blocked.) And if they are unwilling to, just like Templeton was with his conjured up Fst subspecies criterion, we can safely ignore their assertions, and focus on the logic and empirics of the matter.

  238. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    Fair enough, I will keep this Anti-HBD account and stop using the rest. But when 5 of you reply to me I am just trying to reply back to all.

    It is funny you cite from Graham Coop’s lab however, given that he is the one who has done most of the work (and doing so) on MRCA and fiercely opposes the concept of race in humans. Thankfully, he also has proved mathematically how really inter-related we all are.

    If you think that no IBD segments are inherited then how can one find IBD segments from Neanderthals and Out of Africans?
    https://isogg.org/wiki/Identical_by_descent/en

    Also even if you are correct here, then how do you know gene flow was not pervasive since you can not detect these IBD segments as you say? Every k=50 there can be 1 ancestor from another “race” and genome-wide that is high gene flow.

    In fact more than 1 migrant per generation will in the long run extremely homogenize the population.

    Also I cite from Templeton’s seminal paper: Out of Africa again and again. https://www.nature.com/articles/416045a

    Genetic contact among human populations after the latest outof-Africa expansion is also indicated by several inferences at the lower clade levels of recurrent gene ¯ow constrained by isolation by distance with occasional long-distance dispersal (Tables 1 and 2), a conclusion con®rmed by other genetic analyses32. The only evidence for signi®cant fragmentation (long-term genetic isolation) among the human populations who have left living descendants is the recent genetic isolation between Amerindians and the rest of humanity that followed the colonization of the Americas (Table 1). All of these inferences are summarized in Fig. 1.

    and from biological races in humans (http://europepmc.org/articles/pmc3737365)

    Figure 3 shows the inferences from ML-NCPA about human evolution based on 25 regions of the human genome (Templeton, 2005, 2007) with some modifications due to a new test for testing the null hypothesis of no gene flow between two regions over a specified time interval in the past (Templeton, 2009a).

    in a time scale of tens of thousands of years (the temporal resolution of the ML-NCPA studies), there is not one statistically significant inference of splitting during the last 1.9 million years. Hence, the null hypothesis of a single human lineage is not rejected, so there is no evidence for lineage races in humans. Furthermore, ML-NCPA strongly rejects the null hypotheses of no gene flow and no admixture under the null hypothesis that isolated lineages did exist, so there is strong evidence against lineage races in humans. Hence, there are no races in humans under the lineage definition.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @res
  239. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Gene flow too high-> humans too similar.

    Absolutely correct. However, we are not “too similar” quite obviously. The consequence of your premise, that gene flow is “too high” (no actual objective standard has been given to accurately demarcate between “too high” and “too low”), is that humans are “too similar” but since we know they are not, the premise must be incorrect.

    We see the finished product in front of our faces every day. Humans are not “too similar” therefore, gene flow could not have been “too high”.

    Your argument is totally backwards, you prove that gene flow was too high by proving that humans are too similar. You don’t prove humans are too similar by making mathematical models on supposed gene flow.

    How more simpler can I make it?

    You can’t make your theory any simpler. It’s very simple and easy to understand. The issue is that it doesn’t align with reality.

    Race is not real. Funny how not a single person can actually refute the analysis.

    All of your silly arguments have been refuted, and the vast majority are just irrelevant red herrings.

    You can do all the silly “calculations” you want, but the reality is that human populations have vast differences between them, comparable to other species which are considered polytypic with regards to subspecies. Gene flow between the races happened, it’s real, very few people deny this. It’s not an issue. If it was “too high” we wouldn’t see what we see today.

    That’s why all you have are circular arguments, appeals to authority, and other fallacies.

  240. mikemikev says:
    @Anti-HBD

    If you think that no IBD segments are inherited

    No that isn’t what he was saying.

  241. Anti-HBD says:
    @J.G.R. Fuerst

    Fst is a measure of genetic divergence (variant distributions across groups). If you are saying that Fst tells you nothing about gene flow, you are saying that gene flow tells you nothing about genetic divergence,

    Did you not see the Whitlock, 1999 paper. Fst does not allow you to infer Nm accurately. Also there are two Native American populations who have higher Fsts between them than East Asians and Europeans, are we to believe that there was no gene flow between them? (I cited the paper somewhere earlier)

    Well, yes, perhaps. But it should be clear that you now have to argue that the divergence in “true casual” eduPGS is much smaller that the average divergence, and thus Qst < Fst, which was my point above.

    Did you control for population stratification?

    Once you concede this point about, I will move on to debunking your nonsense about Templeton’s model.

    I would first like to see that then believe it. But let us say I do concede that you identified what you say you did, how is Templeton’s model wrong? Have you read any of the ancient dna literature? What were the Ancient North Eurasians for example?

    Also, I doubt you considered epistasis in your models or GxE effects.

    Could you find someone who both knows what they are talking about and who is not disingenuous? Or is that too much to ask?

    It is funny coming from you, since Woodley for example misrepresented the Fsts in his chart. He compared SNPs only in humans. mtDNA for hominids, gorillas and chimps, some random loci for gorillas & then an unspecified autosome sequencing for chimps. Is he not a co-author of papers with you?

    • Replies: @J.G.R. Fuerst
  242. Anonymous[127] • Disclaimer says:
    @Theodore

    They also are putting some of these genes into monkeys.

    Meanwhile, the West has never even contemplated injecting Maxine Waters with similar stuff before putting her in charge. This is one of the reasons why the non-Jewed East can’t lose.

    I’m just hoping that the white race will eventually eliminate the (((parasite))) and join the rest of the world as an independent, trustworthy actor.

  243. @Okechukwu
    You’re an idiot.

    A fascinating retort. Billions have been invested researching liberal theories and this is your counter-argument. So glad that the social sciences are publicly funded. Billions invested and liberal egalitarians bring us fascinating arguments like how we are stupid or evil. A true class of intellectuals if there ever was one.

    Liberals are the most terrified of us moderates that want to help the third world but aren’t willing to join Team Liberal Group Think. They can’t just tick some mental box marked Bad Whites and then go back to their semantic arguments and childish insults. Really solid work there.

    I have always wondered about how many liberals know exactly what they are doing but hate Whites more than anything, and that includes trying to figure out what can really help these countries. Colonialism ended decades ago. Are liberals not aware of this?

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

    BTW, your comment about IBD across many generations illustrates profound ignorance about genetics. That was a mistake. Here is some remedial material from Graham Coop’s lab.

    He is talking about IBS not IBD.

    How can we trace IBD segments from before OoA of a person in Japan? Unless it is from recent ancestry in which case it validates my point

    PS: This is not a sockpuppet account, just for some reason I can not use Anti-HBD anymore.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Ron Unz
  245. Okechukwu says:
    @John Johnson

    Dude, you’re way out of your depth. Just stop.

    • Replies: @res
  246. @Theodore

    Seems to have been very useful in the justice system. Imagine trying to identify a person if you could not put racial features into some type of classification.

  247. @Anti-HBD

    Points of agreement:

    1. “Woodley for example misrepresented the Fsts in his chart. He compared SNPs only in humans. mtDNA for hominids, gorillas and chimps, some random loci for gorillas & then an unspecified autosome sequencing for chimps. Is he not a co-author of papers with you?”

    I pointed out this general error in a work, which I haven’t had time to update. Across species, you can compare Fst values for SNPs, to microsatellites, and mtDNA — but that comparison won’t be very meaningful. Apples to oranges to bananas. biallelic vs. multiallelic, autosomal versus haplotype, Large differences in heterozygosity. This is why, for example, it is ridiculous to point to low microsatellite differentiation to argue for small quantitative genetic differences in traits underwritten by SNPs.

    Now a lot of people have made this mistake. Templeton has made it. See figure 1 in:
    Templeton, A. R. (1998). Human races: a genetic and evolutionary perspective. American Anthropologist, 100(3), 632-650.

    However, I cite neither in defense of a point I am making. And yes, I pointed out the issue to Michael. No other journal will take a paper on human polytypicity, so he can’t update the work.
    That said, it would be interesting to comprehensively review the literature and collect all divergence values by class of loci for humans and for recognized subspecies in other species. Why don’t you do this and let us know what you find?

    2. Apparent points of disagreement

    “Did you control for population stratification?”

    This is the point! If one argues that the substantial eduPGS differences are due to confounding from drift (which itself is due to relative isolation) one can not at the same time argue that the drift ~ relative isolation is / was trivial. It is like arguing:

    (1) There probably are no true causal difference in eduPGS because no race (that is, because trivial average differentiation).
    AND
    (2) The substanial eduPGS differences found are spurious because of race (that is, because the substantial population stratification / average differentiation)

    Which is it? For surely you agree that you can not affirm both at the same time.

    But yes, we tried to control for population stratification/ structure. And we have a follow up paper in the works in which we address some criticism. However, in this and other papers, we grant that the associations may be spurious. I just finished a section of a new paper in which I say:

    “Nonetheless, eduPGS differences between ancestry groups can be noncausal, despite being causal within groups. For example, this would be the case if ancestry-associated differences resulted from ascertainment bias (Martin et al., 2017). If, at the same time, ancestry and g covaried due to confounding socioenvironmental factors, one could get results with eduPGS having a spurious instead of an explanatory relevant relation to g. Determining which is the case is critical for an accurate interpretation of eduPGS in admixed American populations.”

    And we outline how we plan to tackle the issue in future research. But my point is not that we have discovered true differences in causal eduPGS. It is that your line of argumentation contradicts itself.

    “Did you not see the Whitlock, 1999 paper. Fst does not allow you to infer Nm accurately.”

    Yes, and I agree. But you originally said “Fst tells you nothing about gene flow,” not “estimates of the number of effective migrants per generation based on Fst are often inaccurate”.

    Fst obviously tells you something. For example, SNP_Fst = .10, for continental races (ancestry groups), tells you that gene flow was not substantial enough to make SNP_Fst = 0.

    The point you seem to be missing is that what matters — in this context — is the actual differential, particularly differentiation with respect to the relevant trait; gene flow matters only insofar as it attenuates this.

    3. Things to be discussed.

    ” Templeton’s model wrong?”

    One thing at a time.

    • Replies: @Theodore
  248. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    If you think that no IBD segments are inherited then how can one find IBD segments from Neanderthals and Out of Africans?

    Sigh. Not only is that not what I said (thanks, mikemikev), I already responded the first time you raised the Neanderthal “issue” (see selective sweeps comment above).

    But I see I have to be very explicit with you since you really don’t understand any of this so I’ll give another try.

    The statement about no IBD segments are inherited from virtually any ancestor 117 generations ago is probabilistic. And I supported it with a reference to the Coop Lab blog. It is cute that you invoke Coop as an expert because you perceive him as being “on your side”, but don’t really understand what he says. BTW, that is precisely why I like to cite his lab’s blog. Because he is well respected, including by “goodthinkers” like you.

    Also even if you are correct here, then how do you know gene flow was not pervasive since you can not detect these IBD segments as you say? Every k=50 there can be 1 ancestor from another “race” and genome-wide that is high gene flow.

    Because the continental races are actually distinct genetically. As can be seen by looking at things like Fst or just simply comparing SNP frequencies between groups.

    In fact more than 1 migrant per generation will in the long run extremely homogenize the population.

    And I suppose ancient alien spacecraft magically transported these migrants from Britain to Tasmania (etc.) as required. Every generation.

    This is really becoming a waste of time.

  249. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    So much for stopping using the Anon[164] account. The reason you can’t use Anti-HBD is because you are making more than 3 comments per hour.

    PS: This is not a sockpuppet account, just for some reason I can not use Anti-HBD anymore.

    It sure was before you were found out. Are there any other Anons you’d like to own up to (in addition to 164 and 977) or is it up to us to figure it out?

    He is talking about IBS not IBD.

    Oh really. Here is the relevant link (the comment you were responding to had an incorrect link from me):
    https://gcbias.org/2013/11/11/how-does-your-number-of-genetic-ancestors-grow-back-over-time/
    It is quite clear he is talking about IBD rather than IBS. Or perhaps you would like to point me to something he says that indicates IBS?

    When you talk about inheriting a genetic block from a particular ancestor that is IBD. Let’s take a quick look at the wiki:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_by_descent

    A DNA segment is identical by state (IBS) in two or more individuals if they have identical nucleotide sequences in this segment. An IBS segment is identical by descent (IBD) in two or more individuals if they have inherited it from a common ancestor without recombination, that is, the segment has the same ancestral origin in these individuals.

    Hopefully that is clear enough.

    What seems clear to me is that at this point you aren’t even trying for correctness. You are just throwing things against the wall (a Gish Gallop, as Theodore noted) and hoping something sticks. And using anonymous sock puppets to enable you to make enough comments to keep it up.

    Please just go away.

    P.S. Dr. Thompson, can you pass along to Ron that he has a commenter here using anonymous sock puppets to circumvent the 3 comments per hour limit? If not, I’ll make a comment somewhere I think he will see it, but I think he would be more inclined to take notice from you given it is your blog being spammed.

  250. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    Dude, you’re way out of your depth. Just stop.

    Okechukwu projection FTW.

    It is telling that he is attacking the fairly moderate position of John Johnson.

    Now what would be really shocking is if Okechukwu posted a comment that showed any evidence he was not so far out of his depth he can’t even see the bottom.

  251. @Anti-HBD

    It certainly exists in a social way with large numbers of Australians who identify as Aborigines. They are now extremely mixed. One of my friends is part Chinese and, if my memory is correct, part Scottish, part Afghan and part Torres Strait Islander (closer to New Guinean and don’t identify as and are not accepted as Aboriginal and are also very mixed). That is quite typical and it is easy to forget. That has almost all happened since the British invasion. Neither of my adopted sons identifies as Aboriginal though with one eighth descent they are more so than many who do. They are also one quarter Jewish and that means nothing to them either. I also have a nephew who is half Maori who has no such identification and a grandson who is half Torres Strait Islander and half English but I have no idea how he identifies or if he bothers.

    Many Aborigines call trying at school “turning white”. As intelligence tests are almost certainly regarded in the same way, I have zero confidence in IQ measurements for Aborigines. As Australian working class males had complete contempt for intelligence tests in the 1950s, I’m not sure what confidence I should have in their results then.

    None of that changes the reality that all US citizens who believe there is no such thing as race believe in positive discrimination on the basis of race. They need a personal definition of race that excludes untrustworthy white women who lie to get Cherokee advantage. That means they must have objective physical evidence in support of their social construct. We all know that poverty is not relevant to them; they insist loudly and consistently that race is real and it’s what really matters. Blacks are disadvantaged because they’re black and not a sub-continental Indian.

    I can’t see any reason I shouldn’t consider the beliefs of US liberals as well as US conservatives.

    I still have no idea why US liberals believe that conservatives can look at Harris and instantly know she shouldn’t be discriminated against because she is one half Hindu Indian, three eighth slaver White and only one eighth African Black. How do they do it? How do they know she is not US Black and not to be discriminated against? Tamils are black. Why don’t any US liberals want discrimination in favour of Tamils? Could it be that there is no meaningful discrimination in the USA on the basis of skin color? I am, of course, familiar with the many US liberals who are prejudiced against orange people even though there are no such people on this planet. It only took some silly people in the mass media and a graphics editing computer program to show up that skin color prejudice, but why was it only Democrats who showed it? Why are Democrats bigots in relation to a purely imaginary race when they insist they’re not in relation to any real race? [email protected]

  252. Ron Unz says:
    @Anti-HBD

    PS: This is not a sockpuppet account, just for some reason I can not use Anti-HBD anymore.

    I’m not sure of the problem but it’s probably somehow due to your switching between “Anti-HBD” and Anonymous Handles.

    Having a real Handle is much preferable, and also allows you to provide Reactions, such as Agree/Disagree/etc. Your Commenter Archive also provides convenient access to all your comments.

    If you’re willing, I’d be glad to incorporate your various Anon comments under your “Anti-HBD” Handle, which would make things much simpler both for you and everyone else.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
    , @Anti-HBD
  253. Theodore says:
    @J.G.R. Fuerst

    Just a note about point #1. This guy is totally misinterpreting what Woodley did. Woodley only put that table up comparing different FSTs calculated from different sources to show someone’s else’s argument was fraudulent for that very reason. See post #305 here where I discuss it: http://www.unz.com/isteve/race-genetics-and-pseudoscience-an-explainer/#comment-3529680

    For Anti-HBD to argue that Woodley specifically used that as an argument and misrepresented it is absolutely absurd, since he was the one making that very criticism against someone else!

    See the relevant table 4: https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/woodley-2009-is-homo-sapiens-polytypic-human-taxonomic-diversity-and-its-implications.pdf

    Woodley does not give FST values for other animals and humans, except in that instance to prove someone wrong. See also my post #178 here in this comment thread.

    • Replies: @J.G.R. Fuerst
  254. @Anti-HBD

    “More than one most likely”

    You seem to be very confused about the concept of the “Most Recent Common Ancestor”, emphasis on the “Most Recent” and “Common”. You seem to suggest that most likely you can have “multiple immediate direct fathers” events. Are you from this world?? Is that also from your “Simpleton” theory??

  255. @Theodore

    Yes, you are right! Woodley says:

    “Fst reflects the relative amount of total genetic differentiation between populations, however differences measures of genetic distance involving MtDNA and autosomal loci are simply inappropriate for the purposes of inter-specific comparisons as the different genes involved will have been subject to markedly different selection pressures and therefore not likely to have diverged a the same time… To illustrate this point, this author listed alternative estimates of the distance between the gorilla species and the common chimpanzee and bonobo, based on various nuclear loci and autosomal DNA. The much higher numbers reflect the extreme variation that can be expected when different genes are considered. ”

    He made no error. But in my defense, I didn’t explicity accuse him of making a mistake. I said:

    “I pointed out this general error in a work, which I haven’t had time to update….Now a lot of people have made this mistake. Templeton has made it….And yes, I pointed out the issue to Michael. No other journal will take a paper on human polytypicity, so he can’t update the work.”

    It is completely unsuprising that, “Anon” would falsely blame Woodley for a mistake made by Templeton. But did Alan do this, as I claimed:

    “Figure 1 shows the values of Fst’s and related statistics for several large-bodied mammals. As can be seen, the human Fst value is one of the lowest, even though the human geographic distribution is the greatest.” (Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective, 1998)

    Unsurprisingly, yes.

    (The thing is that these — e.g., this & the supposed Fst criterion, which he trots out immediately after — are not just minor errors; they are central to his arguments.)

  256. utu says:

    What is the conclusion from the discussion here? May we talk about

    (a) human subspecies

    or

    (b) human races

    or

    (c) human biogeographic ancestry groups

    If it is the latter does Schwartze biogeographic ancestry group exist?

    • Replies: @J.G.R. Fuerst
  257. Okechukwu says:
    @Theodore

    I posted above showing that there is 100% agreement in Chinese journals that biological race is real. See post #94.

    Do you have anything that isn’t 30 or 40 years old?

    Here’s something more recent:

    Actually, we all know that this racist pseudoscience stuff attracts a great many really stupid people. Take Res for instance. As such, they’ve internalized this notion that the establishment of distinct human races is conclusive vindication of their idiotic “race science” bullshit. But in actuality, whether race is real or not is irrelevant. Even if race is real, there is still going to be that black kid who is smarter than all his white classmates.

    That’s the only place with any consensus, as far as I know, and the consensus is that it is real.

    You’re talking about some survey from the 1970’s and 80’s of questionable sample size, questionable controls and questionable veracity. I gave you one of China’s leading geneticists speaking just a few years ago essentially dismissing the race concept.

    Moreover, China which is trying to put itself at the forefront of scientific discovery isn’t going to get in the muck with the likes of James Thompson and his infantile racialism nonsense. Thompson and his fellow travelers are into fake science. China is into real science. No Chinese scientific institute will claim something as ridiculous as being able to divine intelligence on the basis of skin color, ethnicity or national origin. The fact that anyone is dumb enough to think that race and intelligence are connected will come as a shock to Chinese geneticists and biologists. Go to real scientific conferences in the real world. You will see Chinese geneticists and biologists there. I assure you, they don’t even know what race is.

    All the devotees of “race science” and “IQ research” complain that the USA is an inhospitable environment for their ideas. Not so. The USA is the most welcoming country for their ideas. That’s why the USA is the headquarters for this junk. Take Chinese national Bruce Lahn for example. Don’t you think he would go back to China if he thought he would find a conducive atmosphere for his “research” there? What he would find, actually, is a stint in prison and hard labor. In fact, China is extremely unreceptive to racist pseudoscience, much more so than the USA. And it’s for practical reasons. It’s because it’s not real. It’s an attempt to scientize racism.

    I am not sure if they pretend that race differences in median IQ are entirely due to nurture, but they don’t have a long history of IQ testing of Blacks like we do.

    There are blacks who go to China with nothing and end up owning multi-million dollar enterprises employing dozens of Chinese. Many marry Chinese women and set down roots. The Chinese are more experienced with Africans and black people than most of you in your rural enclaves in Montana or Wyoming. Many of you clowns have never even known real black people. That’s why you speak in moronic slogans informed by stereotypes that have no basis in reality.

    IQ, by the way, is all over the place. Therefore there is little if any genetic action involved. IQ is learned and assimilated. That’s why it’s able to rise. That’s why white American IQ has risen 2 standard deviations in 80 years. A genetic trait doesn’t behave that way.

    Are there variations in human intelligence? Yes, INDIVIDUALLY!!!! Your forlorn and hopeless quest to establish group differences represents the pinnacle of stupidity. If you really think about it rationally, it doesn’t even make any sense. You’re never going to be able to tell how smart or dumb anyone is based on his ethnic or racial phenotype. You’re not going to privilege dumb whites over smart blacks based on dodgy “averages” churned out by some Pioneer Fund grantee. The real scientific community will never recognize or endorse racist pseudoscience. So just give it up.

    The Chinese are certainly doing research on genes believed to be related to cognitive ability; they have made designer babies with some alleles changed for this purpose. They also are putting some of these genes into monkeys.

    Good. We in the real world want real science that is conducted in the fucking lab. I will heartily accept conclusions garnered from real, credible, rigorous and reproducible scientific research. Notice that the luminaries of racist pseudoscience aren’t even real scientists like these Chinese scientists. They’re all psychologists, which isn’t even a valid scientific discipline.

  258. @utu

    “If it is the latter does Schwartze biogeographic ancestry group exist?”

    Google scholar gives me only 23 hits for “biogeographic ancestry group,” but then the terms was first used in a patent published in the early 2000s. In contrast, “biogeographic ancestry” has 659 hits. But then in a significant number the “biogeographic ancestry” is said to be with respect to “ancestry groups” or “descent groups”. Maybe just “ancestry groups”. I get 4,000 hits for that, but that includes “self-reported ancestry groups” (70) versus “genetic ancestry groups” (71).

    If you check some old french dictionaries, you see that “ancestry” translates to lineage, race
    https://archive.org/details/nugentsfrenchdic00nugeuoft/page/n361

    So I am not sure that much is lost in language… except that “race,” as originally used zoologically, also entailed observable differences. Unlike “species” — derived from the term for “appearance” and related to the term “spectacle” –for “race” the etymology just implies common descent / origin.

    But, historically (early 1700s on), when used in context to biology, “races” typically referred to observably different lineages (e.g., constant varieties) — or, viewed alternatively, different forms which reproduced themselves to form distinguishable lineages.

    Incidentally, there are a lot of online easily searchable compilations of dictionaries, so you can just look up ordinary and zoological definitions e.g., Dictionnaire de la langue française (Littré). Tome 4 [ 1873 ] :

    Terme de zoologie.
    Réunion d’individus appartenant à la même espèce, ayant une origine commune et des caractères semblables, transmissibles par voie de génération, ou, en d’autres termes, variété constante dans l’espèce. En ce sens, il se dit des hommes. Les populations de race germanique. La race caucasienne. La race juive.

    [A meeting of individuals belonging to the same species, having a common origin and similar characters, transmissible by generation, or, in other words, a constant variety in the species. In this sense, he says of men. Populations of Germanic race. The Caucasian race. The Jewish race.]

    So, if we want to be historically consistent with the technical zoological sense, we would have to stipulate :

    “distinguishable ancestry groups”

    Which is consistent with, again, what was given by renowned naturalists at the time:

    “We have borrowed [the term] from the French; it seems very closely related to [the words] racine and radix and signifies descent in general, though in an indeterminate way. For one talks in French of the race of Caesar [in] the same [way] as of the races of horses and dogs, irrespective of the first origin, but, nevertheless, as it seems, always with tacit subordination under the concept of a species. It would be a [great] mission for an individual who had nothing else to do, to develop in what sense each writer has possibly used this word. I am no doubt permitted to say of the authors of travel descriptions who have recently described the inhabitants of the South Sea Islands that they seem to take refuge in the word only in those cases where it is uncomfortable for them to say variety. [The word] should mean nothing more than a mass of men whose common formation is distinctive and sufficiently at variance with their neighbors [such that they] could not be immediately derived from them. [They are] a lineage whose derivation is unknown one which we cannot easily count under one of the commonly accepted human varieties because we lack knowledge of the intermediary link. Thus, the Papuans and the other black inhabitants of the islands of the South Sea related to them are called a different race [distinguishable] from the light brown people of Malaysian descent that can be found in the same region. [This, however, is only to say] that [they are] a people of peculiar character and unknown descent. ” (Forster, 1786). Something More About the Human Races”

    However, I often use the term informally as a translation for “ancestry” / “lineage” / “descent”.
    — in part, because there are intellectual frauds who try to say that “race” and “ancestry” are totally different, despite the former term clearly implying the latter.

    That said, where one to formalize a technical definition, which one wanted to be historically accurate as possible, defining “race” strictly in terms of differences in “ancestry” would probably be a mistake.

    I saw an interesting paper, in which the authors made the same point for “species” (arguing that it would be silly to recognize different groups as species, just because they were distinct lineages):

    Dr. Montanucci, Freudenstein, J. V., Broe, M. B., Folk, R. A., & Sinn, B. T. (2016). Biodiversity and the species concept—lineages are not enough. Systematic Biology, 66(4), 644-656.

    Of course, the above distinctions have little practical bearing, since for example, East Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans are obviously both separate ancestry groups and distinguishable.

    However it might matter if a questions comes up as to whether members of one endogenous Amazonian tribe is a separate race, technically speaking, from members of another.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  259. @Ron Unz

    I would prefer each person to comment with a fixed identifier, and to have the wit to choose a name rather than “Anon”. For example: My Name Is Legion, No Publicity, Identity Disorder, Confused But Confident, Aggressive Refuter, or even Sock Puppet. All of these offer anonymity, yet allow other commentators to have a coherent conversation, and to understand and follow a series of arguments in a sensible sequence.

    But, above all, thanks to all of you, including Anon, for commenting. I am reading, and learning.

    • Agree: utu
  260. Anti-HBD says:
    @Ron Unz

    It said that Anti-HBD is not my usual commenter name so hence why I posted under Anon, because I had not posted more than 3 times with in in an hour I think.

    And apologies for the multiple accounts, yes if you can do that I am of course fine with it. I tried to reply to people as soon as I could given I am engaging with 3-4 of them at the same time.

    I prefer anti-HBD precisely because it allows for better communication than Anon, I agree

    • Replies: @eugyppius
    , @Ron Unz
  261. Anti-HBD says:
    @J.G.R. Fuerst

    I will reply to both of your posts here:

    Of course, the above distinctions have little practical bearing, since for example, East Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans are obviously both separate ancestry groups and distinguishable.

    However it might matter if a question comes up as to whether members of one endogenous Amazonian tribe is a separate race, technically speaking, from members of another.

    That is also partly my point, how is race or lineage a coherent concept when for example native American tribes will be more different and more isolated than the continental races or for example, or when continental races themselves are as polyphyletic as they are.

    Regarding your previous post:
    1. Agreement here, Templeton also misrepresented the Fst values in his 1997 paper.
    2.

    Which is it? For surely you agree that you can not affirm both at the same time.

    But yes, we tried to control for population stratification/ structure. And we have a follow up paper in the works in which we address some criticism. However, in this and other papers, we grant that the associations may be spurious. I just finished a section of a new paper in which I say:

    Why can it not be GxG or GxE effects?

    “Nonetheless, eduPGS differences between ancestry groups can be noncausal, despite being causal within groups. For example, this would be the case if ancestry-associated differences resulted from ascertainment bias (Martin et al., 2017).

    Well, yes but I have not seen similar statements in your papers so far. And the issue is, most of the recent literature did not find increase for EA with perhaps the exception of one or two papers.
    Furthermore, Richardson and Jones, 2019 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0732118X1830196X#) for example caution that:

    spurious correlations in GWAS/PGS can arise in a number of ways, particularly from genetic population structure. We review recent studies suggesting that attempts to control for such confounds have been quite inadequate, and also criticize the underlying statistical assumptions and genetic model.

    Have you read their paper?

    Regarding 3, whenever you want but so far all the evidence I have seen validate his model.

    • Replies: @J.G.R. Fuerst
  262. eugyppius says:
    @Anti-HBD

    It said that Anti-HBD is not my usual commenter name so hence why I posted under Anon, because I had not posted more than 3 times with in in an hour I think.

    Does this mean you are RaceRealist88?

    A chronology of early RR88 comments and Anon[164] = Anti-HBD comments on the Sailer thread and this one by comment number and time. There is an early Anon164 bloc in Sailer, then RR88 comes in for six comments, disappears forever and we have a profusion of Anons and Anti-HBD.

    [MORE]

    The early Anon164 comments:

    91 Sailer Anon164: Oct. 25 10:05 pm
    104 Sailer Anon164: Oct 25 11:51 pm
    105 Sailer Anon164: Oct 25 11:58 pm

    Then right after the RaceRealist88 bloc:

    115 Sailer RR88: Oct 26 12:56 am
    117 Sailer RR88: Oct 26 1:05 am [responding to Anon164 from 11:58pm]
    119 Sailer RR88: Oct 26 1:12 am
    130 Sailer RR88: Oct 26 2:06 am
    133 Sailer RR88: Oct 26 2:21 am
    137 Sailer RR88: Oct 26 3:07 am

    Then RaceRealist88 disappears forever and Anon164 returns:

    166 Sailer Anon164: Oct 26 1:24 pm [responding to RR88 at 3:07am: his argument is “reasonable”]
    168 Sailer Anon164: Oct 26 1:26 pm

    –[October 26, 2019 afternoon [ca 3pm?]: Thompson thread goes live]–

    187 Sailer Anon164: Oct 26 6:01 pm
    188 Sailer Anon164: Oct 26 6:04 pm
    23 Thomspon Anon164: Oct 26 9:27 pm
    212 Sailer Anon164: Oct 26 9:50 pm
    29 Thompson Anon164: Oct 26 11:31 pm
    60 Thompson Anon164: Oct 27 12:52 pm

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
    , @res
  263. Anti-HBD says:
    @eugyppius

    I am not RR, even though he should probably start calling himself anti-RR, given his views on the issue.

    My Sailer comment is awaiting moderation but in a similar fashion you must be JamesH from the Cochran thread, always excusing gene flow and failing to answer questions about Fst, just questioning the group size.
    Though it is funny and perhaps I give you credit that you finally decided to actually read the HGDP and Petr et al, papers given that they have been cited to you all many times since January. (At least to Greg on twitter)
    Or perhaps you are TWS on the Cochran thread given that you mention Unz and write something irrelevant about 1.26 in 10000.

    But it does not matter since you can not quantitatively answer my arguments about Fst between Native American populations in Mexico, and you fail to indicate how different hbb locus between for example Nigerian and Aboriginal Australians, means low gene flow when the same is true between Yorubas in Nigeria and Gambian populations.

    Furthermore, the HGDP article is really a fatal blow to race given how alleles that are considered race-specific or private are not in high frequency in any region, and most of them reflect population specific ones of the San for example (which have West Eurasian admixture as you know) and thus are not racial in any way but only show up as region-specific.

    It is not my fault Greg likes to simplify things btw.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  264. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    It’s funny that you won’t even reply to me, but feel the need to refer to me so frequently. It is fun to be living rent free in your head.

    You’re not going to privilege dumb whites over smart blacks based on dodgy “averages” churned out by some Pioneer Fund grantee.

    Agreed about that. And I don’t think anyone here wants to do that.

    What I do want is for the US to stop privileging dumb blacks over smart whites through affirmative action in both education and employment. Which is done under the force of law.

    As an aid in interpreting Okechukwu’s comments I gave what I will call the “Okechukwu Projection Principle” above. Which states that Okechukwu’s comments often make more sense if interpreted as projection.

    I will add to that the “Okechukwu Inversion Principle” which states that reversing white and black in Okechukwu’s comments often (as in the quote above) makes the comments more accurate.

    The study of Okechukwuean stupidity is know as “Okenomics” because it originated in some economic stupidity he engaged in a while back. I like using that word because it makes for a unique term to use in searches (e.g. in my comment history).

  265. mikemikev says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Furthermore, the HGDP article is really a fatal blow to race given how alleles that are considered race-specific or private are not in high frequency in any region, and most of them reflect population specific ones of the San for example (which have West Eurasian admixture as you know) and thus are not racial in any way but only show up as region-specific.

    So there’s no gene for race? This is kind of devastating argument somebody like Angela Saini would come up with. The only question is whether you people are gaslighting or just stupid.

    • Replies: @res
    , @eugyppius
    , @Anti-HBD
  266. res says:
    @eugyppius

    Thanks for compiling that list. Let’s add to that since Anti-HBD claims

    It said that Anti-HBD is not my usual commenter name so hence why I posted under Anon, because I had not posted more than 3 times with in in an hour I think.

    Looking only at this thread, here are the Anti-HBD, Anon164, and Anon977 comments combined (BTW, Anti-HBD, were any of the other Anon comments from you? yes or no.). I ignore the first 25 Anon164 comments since they are well before he started using the other handles.

    205 Thomspon Anon164 October 29, 2019 at 12:25 pm GMT
    207 Thompson Anti-HBD October 29, 2019 at 1:17 pm GMT
    220 Thompson Anti-HBD October 29, 2019 at 5:47 pm GMT
    221 Thompson Anti-HBD October 29, 2019 at 5:54 pm GMT
    224 Thompson Anon977 October 29, 2019 at 6:01 pm GMT
    225 Thompson Anti-HBD October 29, 2019 at 6:04 pm GMT
    242 Thompson Anti-HBD October 29, 2019 at 8:38 pm GMT (this is where he responded to me calling him out about the sock puppets)
    245 Thompson Anti-HBD October 29, 2019 at 9:06 pm GMT
    248 Thompson Anon164 October 29, 2019 at 10:10 pm GMT
    264 Thompson Anti-HBD October 30, 2019 at 11:03 am GMT
    265 Thompson Anti-HBD October 30, 2019 at 11:45 am GMT
    267 Thompson Anti-HBD October 30, 2019 at 2:12 pm GMT

    So it looks like he only exceeded the three comments per hour limit once (comments 220-225). Fair enough. Although that makes clear his claim is false I can accept that as an honest mistake.

    • Replies: @eugyppius
    , @res
  267. eugyppius says:

    But it does not matter since you can not quantitatively answer my arguments about Fst between Native American populations in Mexico,

    Once again the thing you are demanding is in the very paper that you are failing to understand. Read to the third column of the first page of Moreno-Estrada, Genetics of Mexico. FST measures gene flow as people have told you. High fst means isolation means less gene flow. Why you think there are no races because the Seri and Lacandon were isolated from each other for a long time, and because they appeared to have very little within-population genetic diversity also increasing fst values, is totally baffling to everybody who reads your comments. What are the fst distances of the Seri or the Lacandon to Han Chinese or Europeans?

    and you fail to indicate how different hbb locus between for example Nigerian and Aboriginal Australians, means low gene flow when the same is true between Yorubas in Nigeria and Gambian populations.

    Has anyone in this thread made Cochran’s arguments about malaria adaptations and their absence from Asia? So why do you keep mentioning this? Notice that you are literally pointing to genes that are not flowing as evidence that hypotheses of low gene flow are untenable.

    • Replies: @res
  268. mikemikev says:
    @Okechukwu

    The Chinese are more experienced with Africans and black people than most of you in your rural enclaves in Montana or Wyoming.

    Try putting this through a translator
    http://news.wenweipo.com/2017/03/03/IN1703030063.htm

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  269. eugyppius says:
    @res

    Just to emphasize a point that is probably already clear to everyone:

    It said that Anti-HBD is not my usual commenter name

    So he tripped some kind of sockpuppet mechanism because Anti-HBD was not the name he usually comments under. To this one notes the handshakes between Anon[164] and RaceRealist88 as Anon signs off and RR88 signs in and vice versa. After RR88 leaves for good Anon returns and is perhaps the only person on earth able to find RR88’s point about explanans and explanandum “reasonable”.

    That RaceRealist88 would want to discard his prior identity, the one he used to misunderstand things like construct validity at such embarrassing lengths, and the one in which he appeared to deny that genes have any effect on cognition, etc. is of course eminently understandable. Of course now he is doing much the same thing all over again, denying that there is a genetic component to height or that brain size has a relationship to intelligence.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @res
  270. Ron Unz says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I prefer anti-HBD precisely because it allows for better communication than Anon, I agree

    Okay, using my filtering software I managed to locate several dozen anonymous comments that are now all merged under your “Anti-HBD” handle. Let me know if you run into any problems.

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

    Has anyone in this thread made Cochran’s arguments about malaria adaptations and their absence from Asia?

    I don’t think so. That is an excellent point to raise, so here is a link:
    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2019/04/28/sensitive-detection-of-gene-flow/

  272. res says:
    @mikemikev

    The only question is whether you people are gaslighting or just stupid.

    At this point I think it is clear that the answer is: both. In addition, they seem to think we must be even stupider than they are.

  273. eugyppius says:
    @mikemikev

    It is just a version of Lewontin’s fallacy all over again, in this case unfair to the authors of the paper who are not even making this argument.

    Oddly the authors are unaware that they have destroyed the concept of race. At one point in their discussion they summarize their work as they see it.

    Our analyses of these genomes highlight several aspects of human genetic diversity and history, including the extent and source of geographically restricted variants in different parts of the world, the time depth of separation and extensive gene flow between populations in Africa, a potentially dramatic population expansion following entry into the Americas and a simple pattern of Neanderthal admixture contrasting with a more complex pattern of Denisovan admixture.

    That is what this paper is about.

    • Replies: @Theodore
  274. res says:
    @eugyppius

    You were consistently right in the Sailer thread about his Anons, so not sure I want to disagree, but I am not convinced Anti-HBD and RaceRealist88 are the same person. Their styles seem different to me and Ron is very adamant about not using named sock puppets. Given how easy it was for Ron to clean up the Anti-HBD identities with his filtering software I would be surprised if he would miss the two handles being the same person (were you here when he outed the sock puppets with an aka… after their handle?).

    The two handles do seem to be quite sympatico and I would not be surprised if they were intentionally working together. Perhaps something like this? ; )

    • Replies: @eugyppius
  275. eugyppius says:
    @res

    Upon reflection I’m not convinced either, and still suspect there might be multiple people behind the one handle given abrupt shifts in knowledge and argument (who is Cochran? is fst wholly invalid for human populations? etc). But the coordination is weird.

  276. res says:
    @mikemikev

    I was actually wondering about that.

  277. Anti-HBD says:

    For the last time I am not RR88.

    But where is he wrong about construct validity? (I know of him though)

    And @res, yes some of the Anon’s are not me.

    And @mikemikev, I am sure as hell I am not that Smith guy either, I might disagree with HBD but this is my first time engaging in a debate here and I do not look like him nor have engaged in any behaviors as he apparently has. Guy is just weird.

    For the final time, do any of you have evidence of low gene flow? Peer reviewed studies where it has been tested and then found low?

    I mentioned the hbb locus among Nigerians and Gambian populations because Cochran does use it in his arguments, and people here cited me Cochran’s blog as a reply to gene flow ( Sailer thread).

    Furthermore, can any of you give me a list of races then? Unlike @Theodore who fallaciously asked me to give him a list of species, races would be much less in humans.

    Which studies support “race” in your view?

    And still waiting for John Fuerst to reply.

  278. Anti-HBD says:
    @mikemikev

    If you are so confident about your position why do you not go debate the experts about it?

  279. Okechukwu says:
    @mikemikev

    Try putting this through a translator
    http://news.wenweipo.com/2017/03/03/IN1703030063.htm

    Someone needs o teach you about life, the world and their complexities.

    There is this:

    Ghana deports thousands of illegal Chinese miners

    https://mg.co.za/article/2013-07-16-ghana-cracks-down-on-illegal-chinese-miners

    There is also this:

  280. Okechukwu says:
    @Anti-HBD

    For the final time, do any of you have evidence of low gene flow? Peer reviewed studies where it has been tested and then found low?

    LMAO. You must be new here.

    Your interlocutors don’t have any valid evidence of anything. Their goal is to promote an ideology, not to seek out the truth.

    Once you understand who you’re dealing with, then you have to make a determination as to whether it’s worth your time and energy to engage in long, endless debates with them. Res can go on forever writing absolutely the most inane nonsense that even a 4 year old would be ashamed to associate with.

    These people are like religious fanatics. They have a great deal in common with Jesus freaks and Islamic extremists. You could not hope to convince the former or the latter to give up their religious beliefs so what makes you think Res is amenable to reason?

    Eventually, you will figure out that the likes of Res and Mikemikev are professional racist trolls promoting a white supremacy ideology that no amount of rational discourse will penetrate. They would rather jump out of tall buildings than concede a minor point that is inconsistent with their canonical doctrine.

  281. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    And @res, yes some of the Anon’s are not me.

    That’s nice. Which ones were you? Because Ron’s cleanup appears to have picked up all of the Anons we have been talking about here (Anon[977]) and over in the Sailer thread. Was he wrong about that?

    Here is the list over in the iSteve thread: http://www.unz.com/isteve/race-genetics-and-pseudoscience-an-explainer/#comment-3530575

    7 Anons (in addition to your original Anon[164]) is quite a few.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  282. @Okechukwu

    Why is Nigeria an oil rich country and still a mess?

    Answer: it is in Africa.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  283. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    Your interlocutors don’t have any valid evidence of anything. Their goal is to promote an ideology, not to seek out the truth.

    Always good to see the “Okechukwu Projection Principle” displayed so blatantly. When have you ever posted evidence? (and no, dumb videos don’t count) It’s easy to find examples of me doing so. We can start with comment 4 discussing the genetic contribution to Pygmy height: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/explaining-race-and-genetics-no-need-to-despair/#comment-3524634

    Regarding the rest, it is clear I need to note a variant of the “Okechukwu Inversion Principle.” In addition to swapping white and black in his comments it is useful to swap any reference in his comments to me with a reference to Okechukwu. That definitely increases their accuracy. I suppose this also represents a case of the “Okechukwu Projection Principle” (if I can going to write these as often as he demonstrates them I think I will be abbreviating them to OPP and OIP), but it is good to have a simple rule of thumb (just swap these words).

  284. mikemikev says:

    • Replies: @res
    , @J.G.R. Fuerst
  285. res says:
    @mikemikev

    Great. Can we see the ARG Ewan Birney approves (I would not want to use an unapproved version by accident)? Because I am curious how well well it maps to the “continental races” concept.

    I like that his “kill shot” is all racial taxonomies do not have additional groups within Sub-Saharan Africa. LOL! Great. Let’s add them in.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  286. mikemikev says:
    @res

    Great. Can we see the ARG Ewan Birney approves

    I doubt it. It’s a theoretical perfect model of every allele and recombination event, presumably to the origin of life. Valid scientific constructs need to be 100% informative for literally that ever existed in the universe according to Ewan Birney, pseudoscience expert.

  287. Theodore says:
    @Okechukwu

    Wow, it’s very clear that you have an extremely powerful emotional connection to this subject. This is something you need to work on, because it has a tendency to cloud a person’s judgement. I personally believe in the reality of human races and that homo sapiens is polytypic with regards to subspecies, but I do not think any race is “Superior” or “inferior” or whatever. That just doesn’t make sense to me… On to your laughable “arguments”

    – You’re correct that the study doesn’t go past Chinese articles from 2001. And no I don’t have any similar analysis that is more recent. But you have offered literally zero evidence that there was some drastic change as you have implied. Your single example is a huge flop, as we’ll see in the next point.

    – The guy in the video DOES NOT refute any so-called “Racist psuedoscience” and he doesn’t deny races or human subspecies. So I am not sure why you posted that video at all. The guy did a study to test if Chinese descend from homo erectus in China, I am sure this was in response to the erectus skull found with shovel-shaped incisors in China not long before that. Either way, he doesn’t deny human races at all, he just says he supports the Out of Africa theory which most so-called “Racists” also believe, correct or not. OoA is not incompatible with biological race or human subspecies.

    – The survey is not from the 1970’s or 1980s, It’s from 2003 and it went up to 2001 in Chinese journals. You have not offered any proof of a massive shift in opinion. You have not shown that it is “questionable” on any objective basis, you just question it because you don’t like the results. Once again, the guy DID NOT dismiss “the race concept” except maybe some strawman concept you have invented. Anyone can see the video and realize this.

    – Yes, China is trying to get at the forefront of scientific discovery. Hence why they are doing so much research on genes that influence cognitive ability. They don’t accept this “Blank slate” bullshit.

    – Nobody ever claimed to be able to determine intellectual ability by skin color. That’s a retarded straw man. There may be a statistical correlation between the two, but skin color has literally ***NOTHING*** to do with intellectual ability. Period. Now, it is true that skin color is a trait influenced by genes, and also it is generally believed that IQ is mostly heritable for adults, but only a fool would pretend that environment has no impact on intellectual ability.

    – The USA allows people to publish this stuff, but it’s not “Racism” at all. Testing the IQ people of different races and comparing them is not “Racism,” but a lot of very stupid people pretend that it is. That is why people who do this research are called “Racist” and why so few are willing to do it. And it certainly is real, even if you choose to pretend it is not.

    – I have personally lived with Black roommates, and lived in two cities with 1/4 to 1/3 Black populations. I have Black friends. I interact with Blacks all of the time. Please keep your ridiculous & baseless assumptions to yourself. I thought that was something “racists” did, hmmm.

    – IQ has a large genetic component and the fact that IQ scores in Whites has risen does not disprove that at all. Yes, it is not a “Genetic trait” that is a strawman. The differences between individuals in IQ scores are due to both genetic and environmental differences. BOTH are important. That has always been my position and I’m not aware of anyone who claims it’s 100% genetic.

    – I’m not going to “give it up” if I believe it. There are beliefs you have ascribed to me that I do not believe, and I never had those to give up. And nobody’s claiming to be able to determine IQ by ethnicity, they’re saying that there are differences in the average scores between the races. It’s a different claim, even if you’re not smart enough to see that.

    – Yes, there are no “Racists” who are real scientists. Like James Watson, the discoverer of the DNA double-helix, a molecular biologist, geneticist, a zoologist and nobel prize winner. He is objectively smarter than you in every way, he is your intellectual superior. And then, he claims that the Black-White IQ gap is largely genetic, which isn’t “Racist” at all. And what happened to him? A conspiracy by the “anti-hate” people to destroy his image, a truly pathetic rabble they are.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  288. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    For the final time, do any of you have evidence of low gene flow? Peer reviewed studies where it has been tested and then found low?

    These don’t exist because “Low” is subjective here, you’ll just say “it isn’t low enough” but we know based on the genetic differences between the various races that it wasn’t “too high” to produce these differences. I have already explained this simple point. Biologists don’t determine whether species are polytypic by measuring “gene flow” but by measuring genetic distances between them.

    Furthermore, can any of you give me a list of races then? Unlike @Theodore who fallaciously asked me to give him a list of species, races would be much less in humans.

    I have, but how is that a fallacy? Please be extremely specific. No dodging here. I wonder why it’s so hard for you to answer a simple question.. I also asked you to list the number of human ethnicities, but I’m sure you’ll call that simple question a “fallacy” too (without evidence).

    Which studies support “race” in your view?

    How do you define a “study” and why does it matter if facts are published there or posted anywhere else? A “study” can be wrong, and a person can be correct without having his opinions published anywhere.

    Your “Refutation” of Woodley was absolutely pathetic and wrong, as pointed out above.

    The simple fact is, we cannot determine if races exist based on measuring gene flow, but rather, measuring differences between the races. IF the differences are not significant enough, then we can suggest it was due to gene flow, or due to not enough divergence time, or some other reason. You’re using a backwards, fallacious argument and it’s especially “unrefutable” because, well, you’ll just call any amount of gene flow “high” no matter what.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  289. Theodore says:
    @eugyppius

    they have destroyed the concept of race.

    They certainly did destroy some goofy, strawman concept of race, but not the one being used here.
    Anyone can invent a silly definition of a word to “Refute” it. I exposed this fallacious tactic in my first post in this comment thread. It’s a common argument and of course easy to expose as fraudulent.

  290. Anti-HBD says:
    @Theodore

    Dude, provide me one study that shows races in humans.

    Can you do that?

    What kind of race concept is the one that you have so many you can not count?
    How many races are there? The answer must be known to you, yes or no? Is it 5, 7 , 10?

    I can tell you my number: 1 race

    How do you define a “study” and why does it matter if facts are published there or posted anywhere else? A “study” can be wrong, and a person can be correct without having his opinions published anywhere.

    A paper about human races. Anything that shows races in humans or papers that support their existence (aside from Woodley)
    I know how to read them, do not worry. If not I can cite you at least 20 (but alas that would indeed be a gish-gallop) in my next post that disprove the concept.

    • Troll: eugyppius
    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @Theodore
  291. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    I do not care if he did or not, some of them are probably not me but so what?
    Can you focus on the race debate and not random details.
    You have this weird obsession with this.

    • Replies: @res
  292. Anti-HBD says:
    @Ron Unz

    I am not sure all these are me, but in any case thank you and again apologies for the sockpuppet thing.

    As long there is no issue (and I have no reason to suspect there is any but just in case ) for doxxing then I think everything is all right from my part.

  293. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Dude, provide me one study that shows races in humans.

    Since “Race” like every single other taxonomic classification is subjective, it’s impossible to “Prove” beyond merely stating “I believe it.” That’s literally the greatest level of proof possible. And the greatest argument against it is “I disagree”. Why? Because, like I said, taxonomic classifications are human inventions.
    How can we show that the valencia orange and tangerine are different varities? Well, we can only say “Because I [or someone else] said so.” One could make the argument either way.

    Can you do that?

    My argument has been the entire time, if we apply the same standards we apply to other species to humans, we would find that there are multiple subspecies. I have given many examples where genetic differences between populations exist that were smaller than between human populations, and that gene flow also existed, yet it was still claimed they were different subspecies.

    What kind of race concept is the one that you have so many you can not count?

    I really want to answer this question, but the problem is, you have dodged my challenge. I asked you to provide the number of species on the planet, and the number of ethnicities. You can do neither. You can’t even tell me the exact number of foods that exist. You can’t even tell me the exact number of words in the English language.

    Clearly, ALL of these concepts are fraudulent. There are no species, no ethnicities, no foods, and no English language.

    How many races are there? The answer must be known to you, yes or no? Is it 5, 7 , 10?

    We are allowed to debate that, and also there are races within races. The word “Race” has a different meaning than “subspecies” in that races (basically the same as breeds, in many languages it is the same word) can be larger or smaller and there can be sub-races, like the “Danish race” within the “Europid race” within the “Caucasoid race” and even more.

    I can tell you my number: 1 race

    Should be easy for you to say how many species, foods, ethnicities, and words there are then. But apparently it is not!

    A paper about human races. Anything that shows races in humans or papers that support their existence (aside from Woodley)

    What is a “Paper”? You mean something which must be published in a peer reviewed journal? Why?
    As I explained, things can be incorrect despite being published and also be correct despite being found in a blog or a forum post or a comment in an article. If “2+2=4” is written on a piece of toilet paper, does that make it wrong?

    And why aside from Woodley? Your criticism of his paper has already been exposed as fraudulent.

    Here is a book entitled “Race: The reality of human differences”:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20191030230841if_/http://pdfview.x10.mx/Vincent%20Sarich%2C%20Frank%20Miele%20-%20Race_%20The%20Reality%20of%20Human%20Differences-Westview%20Press%20%282004%29.pdf

    In the book, they accurately state: “Racial morphological distances within our species are, on the average, about equal to the distances among species within other genera of mammals. I am not aware of any other mammalian species where the constituent races are as strongly marked as they are in ours… except, of course, domesticated dogs”

    I know how to read them, do not worry. If not I can cite you at least 20 (but alas that would indeed be a gish-gallop) in my next post that disprove the concept.

    I am sure they do disprove the concept… that they invented specifically for that purpose. It’s the same strawman argument I exposed in my very first post in this thread. It’s quite sad really.

    It’s just an appeal to authority. The papers I have cited are for certain points. Like: this species has this % of variation, and gene flow, etc. I don’t care about papers where someone “proves” or “disproves” some concept they have invented for that purpose. You did well citing the study on the Amerinds just for the FST figure, but unfortunately that argument failed.

    Citing a paper to “disprove race” is absurd. Why can’t you do it yourself? You can, it’s really easy to disprove human races. Just invent some ridiculous definition of race and disprove it. Anyone can do that.

    • Agree: J.G.R. Fuerst, utu
    • Replies: @J.G.R. Fuerst
    , @Anti-HBD
    , @utu
  294. @Anti-HBD

    Since you are now trying to explain the substantial EduPGS differences as confounded due to the substantial population structure (itself owing to reduced gene flow), do you concede the point (about average differentiation), so we can move on to the bit about Templeton?

    Or are we still on :

    “Gene flow too high-> humans too similar. How more simpler can I make it?” ”
    &
    “Nope sorry, none of what you say is true.”

    This is a much simpler issue than the one with Templeton, so if we can not come to agreement on it, it seem fruitless the discuss the later.

    It is like going on to 2^2 =, without coming to agreement that 2+2 = 4.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  295. @Factorize

    Actually, this is news to me. As someone who takes care of two very elderly parents, both of whom have dementia of some sort, this hits home. No doubt too late for them but maybe not for me.

    Thanks for the heads up.

  296. @Theodore

    Most biological dictionaries more or less understand the distinction between subspecies and race (when they discuss it). For example, here is the entries from the latest edition of A Dictionary of Genetics (8th edition), King, Mulligan, and Stansfield (2013):

    subspecies 1. a taxonomically recognized subdivision of a species. 2. geographically and/or ecologically defined subdivisions of a species with distinctive characteristics. See race. (pp. 456)

    race a phenotypically and/or geographically distinctive subspecific group, composed of individuals inhabiting a defined geographical and/or ecological region, and possessing characteristic phenotypic gene frequencies that distinguish it from other such extension groups. Homo Sapiens can be subdivided into five races on the basis of geographic origin. (pp. 391)

    So King et al. say there are 5 major human races, but not 5 major subspecies, presumably because they are not formally recognized.

    Anon seems to want you to produce a paper showing that the major races are formally or should be formally recognized, because he likes to equate race with subspecies, and then with Templeton’s idiosyncratic concept — a guy who is known to make up subspecies criterion.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  297. Anti-HBD says:
    @J.G.R. Fuerst

    itself owing to reduced gene flow), do you concede the point (about average differentiation), so we can move on to the bit about Templeton?

    Yes all right, there is average clinal differentiation. I do not think it is great or important and skeptical about claims of group differences upon it, but you do, very well here.

    And I did not mean to deny differentiation per say here, but more claims that such differentiation falls along racial lines and that human races are subspecies like @Theodore was saying. Population structure exists but is uninteresting imo.

    I am genuinely curious of how you think his model is wrong, I have never seen an HBDer actually engaging with it so I must say I am impressed by your claim. Still need to see it though to believe it.

  298. Anti-HBD says:
    @Theodore

    You are joking right? There are hundreds of thousands of species, is it the same for races?

    Do you not see how this looks?

    You mentioned Caucasian. I suppose that is one race, What are the others?

    I can tell you the chimpanzee subspecies if you want and already told you the Homo Sapiens one, where are your races?
    Especially since you claim race=subspecies (which I can accept as a valid claim as race in biology means subspecies)

    Which ones are they then? I am even willing to accept that they need not be independent lineages but valid under another criteria if you name them and provide evidence for them.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @Theodore
  299. Anti-HBD says:
    @J.G.R. Fuerst

    The Fst might have been made up but subspecies in current literature are monophyletic independent lineages, you must know this.

    Thus, unless you point something wrong with his method, his point stands about NCPA and independent lineages, even though the Fst does not and he was indeed wrong there.

    • Replies: @J.G.R. Fuerst
  300. utu says:
    @Theodore

    You make reasonable arguments that I like. I support Ron Unz’s invitation for you to write an article about it with, what I think is the most important fact i.e., the acknowledgment and emphasis that indeed the”taxonomic classification is subjective” which nevertheless can create useful and objective categories regardless of their names.

    The creation of meme that “races do not exits” is a purely rhetorical tool to confuse and disarm. It is no different from frequent Jewish apologetics that deny Jewishness of Jewish communist mass murderers as they could not be Jewish because they were godless communist. This sophistry or rather pilpul has Kabbalistic element in a magic belief in power of words, words over the nature, belief in nonexistence of objective reality or at least the objective reality being secondary to the Haggadah, i.e., the narrative that is created about it. But it is effective. Look how much energy you and other spent on arguing with this diversion and you spent it in earnest but w/o ever addressing what is the most important which is the fact that it is a diversion, a supreme pilpul trolling. Call it what it is and where does it come from that this kind of sophistry and supreme chutzpah is not a part of our Western cultural code. By giving it a time of a day we are disrespecting Plato who dealt with sophist jokers like that. Don’t let Socrates death be in vain.

    • Agree: J.G.R. Fuerst
  301. mikemikev says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I can try to answer this but after I’ve finished my seminal philosophical monograph, how many colors are there?

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

    LOL! From the man who felt the need to use 7 different Anons.

    I guess we should go back to talking about how you think height is not influenced by genetics.

  303. @Okechukwu

    Having worked in China for a bit, I can say that they are realistic about race (or at least the equivalent groups: “human kinds” 人种), in the Lee Kuan Yew sense. Notably, Chinese editors and reviewers are much more indifferent (non-hostile) to our research. Also, we were invited to publish some Mankind Quarterly research in a lead Chinese journal of Anthropology.

    That’s not exactly being given a stint in prison and hard labor.

    It’s more that they just don’t really care. It’s neither an ideology, nor a taboo.
    There is an increasing ethnonationalist reaction in some quarters to all the foreigners, but the government, pragmatic as always, has investing interest in keeping a lid on it.

    But everyone now agrees that Africans born in China to two African parents, will look African, and that East Asians born in Africa, will look East Asian.

    And that is race science. In the 1700s there was debate about that. There isn’t anymore.
    So we are all scientific racists.

    We just disagree about whether certain behavioral traits differences are hereditary.

    Yes, it would be interesting to see how the African children in Guangzhou compare to the Han children. Unfortunately the behavioral science are very week in China.

    They are focusing on the hard science.

    Whatever the case, I don’t get the objection to the interest in the question.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Okechukwu
  304. Anti-HBD says:
    @mikemikev

    Red Blue and Yellow are the primary ones and then there is the color spectrum.

    I find it really funny how none of you can give me a citation in favor of human races or even tell me which these are.

    How many races mikemikev I ask again. Which are the primary ones that the clines are formed from?

    Where do you separate human variation. You can not believe race exists without telling me the primary races, it does not make any sense.

  305. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @J.G.R. Fuerst

    Yes, it would be interesting to see how the African children in Guangzhou compare to the Han children. Unfortunately the behavioral science are very week in China.

    They are focusing on the hard science.

    Whatever the case, I don’t get the objection to the interest in the question.

    A ground for objection arises when you compare the two on the basis of a so-called IQ test and then say that the result shows which child is the more intelligent. The objection arises from the point made at #12; namely, that the scope of intelligence, the ability to acquire and use information, is vastly greater than the capacity for solving verbal and numerical puzzles that constitute the essence of an IQ test. Thus, much of the racial variation in intelligence — the ability to acquire and use information in many different spheres, artistic, literary, mathematical, proprioceptive, etc. — are largely beyond the purview of an IQ test.

    Furthermore, there is ground for further objection when, as is usually the case, measured differences among racial groups in IQ test score are attributed to genetics, when cultural differences among racial groups undoubtedly affect intellectual development and, hence, IQ test scores.This can be the case even when children of different racial groups are raised in the same community, since cultural differences, e.g., between Muslims, Jews, Christians and Hindus, are often strongly conserved even among people living side by side in the same country.

    • Replies: @J.G.R. Fuerst
  306. @Anti-HBD

    Before getting into the weeds, let us try to see what common ground we have.

    For example, do you agree that in biology “race” generally has – or at least used to have — a much broader meaning than “subspecies”? The term “subspecies” enters the scientific vocabulary well after “race” and by mid to late of the 19th century it came to refer to those races which possessed many species-like characteristics or the highest grade of variety. Further, by the early 20th century “subspecies” referred to the taxonomic category below species. And only those groups which were deemed of taxonomic significance were ranked as subspecies.

    But “race” almost always had a more general meaning. Thus, you could speak of the races of domestic animals and speak of races nested within races e.g., (Caucasian: European: German). I don’t see how anyone could disagree, but, again, I am not certain about our common ground for understanding.

    As for Templeton, his argument, in this specific regard, is odd. He says (2013) that we need a biological understanding of race (in context to major subgroupings):

    “A definition of “race” that is specific to one human culture at one point of time in its cultural history is inadequate for this purpose. Therefore, a universal, culture-free definition of race is required before the issue of the existence of races in humans (or any other species) can be addressed in a biological context.”

    And the only one he could find was “subspecies”:

    “Of all the words used to describe subdivisions or subtypes within a species, the one that has been explicitly defined to indicate major geographical “races” or subdivisions is “subspecies” (Futuyma, 1986, pg. 107–109; Mayr, 1982, pg. 289). Because of this well-established usage in the evolutionary literature, “race” and “subspecies” will be regarded as synonyms from a biological perspective. In this manner, human “race” can be placed into a broader evolutionary context that is no longer species-specific or culturally dependent.”

    He then cites Mayr but Mayr doesn’t identify either “race” or “major geographical race” with subspecies. For Mayr (1982), “subspecies” is said to be a “unit of convenience for the taxonomist, but not a unit of evolution.” (p. 298). In only one passage does he discuss the relation between “geographic race” and subspecies”:

    “The consistency which the term “subspecies” is applied to geographic races varies from one taxonomic group to the other. Many botanists even today call geographic races varieties. In certain areas of zoology, the term “variety” is used only for individual variants, geographic races being either ignored (if slight) or raised to the rank of full species. We are still far from consistency in plant and animal taxonomic.”

    Presumably, Templeton mis-interpreted this to mean that Mayr’s “geographic races” are synonymous with subspecies. But in fact this is not the case, because for Mayr subspecies are ‘formally recognized’ geographic races”. Thus he says, “A race that is not formally designated as a species is not recognized in the taxonomic hierarchy” and in the glossary, “Geographic race See Subspecies. A geographically delaminated race, usually a subspecies.” (Principles of systematic zoology, 1991), And elsewhere, “a subspecies is a geographic race that is sufficiently different taxonomically to be worthy of a separate name.”

    And Mayr details a number of criteria under which a “geographic race” is “sufficiently different taxonomically to be worthy of a separate name,” so it should be obvious what he means.

    The point is race =/ geographic race =/ subspecies.

    So, Templeton’s should be:

    “Biological subspecies in Humans”

    Now that is still an interesting question. And I am willing to get into the weeds, but I want to see if we can first agree that the particular divisions Templeton are talking about are a very specified type of what used to be called “race” and are called “race” by all proponents of the concept as applied to humans.

    Again, it is fine for Templeton to come up with a ‘distinct evolutionary lineage’ concept of subspecies which has its unique criteria for recognition and to apply this various human and non-human groups. However, we should be clear about what it is that we are talking about.

    Let me know if you basically agree, so we can move on.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  307. @CanSpeccy

    These are fine grounds for objection to specific methods and to hasty inferences, but not the interest or research program. Or do you think the methodological problems are insurmountable?

  308. @mikemikev

    This nonsense was discussed by Quayshawn Spencer in 2014:

    Spencer, Q. (2014). The unnatural racial naturalism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 46, 38-43.

    Basically, with balanced samples at k = 5 you get the usual groups, but if you load the data with tons of population from one major race, like Oceanians, you will flavor the results, and for example have 3 major Oceanian races and everyone else, etc.

    This happens with all data reduction tools, for example when I run a factor analysis on test scores. It is incredibe that someone who claimed credibility would make it.

    Spencer, by the way, is an interesting guy, though. African American married to Taiwanese girl who defends biological race realism. Guy once scolded me for using the term “Chinese Whispers” not knowing it is just a term for the game “telephone” — a bit overly sensitive. Here is from his most recent paper:

    “In previous research, I’ve worked out that the human continental populations are instances of genealogical populations (also known as ancestry groups) that I call ‘K populations’ (Spencer 2016, p. 796). The idea is roughly this. Suppose you want to divide a sexually reproducing species that forms a lineage into K genealogical groups of organisms such that the contemporaneous members of each group form a fuzzy set.9 Furthermore, suppose that each member of such a genealogical group has a degree of membership of 1 or a degree of membership that falls between 0 and 1 and is equal to the proportion of alleles in her genome that originate from previous members of the group the last time all members of the group had a membership degree of 1. Suppose we call that proportion an organism’s degree of genomic ancestry from that group. If you actually succeed in dividing a species in this way, then you’d have a division of that species into K populations. It turns out that each human continental population is a K population in the human species.

    Before I close, I will make an important disclaimer. Nothing I’ve said about the omb’s meaning of ‘race’ implies any sort of racial hierarchy in terms of intelligence, criminality, beauty, or any other characteristic of social interest. Of course, nothing I’ve said implies that any such differences don’t exist. Rather, the biological meaning of ‘race’ discussed in this paper is neutral on these matters. It’s simply a way of classifying people in terms of genomic ancestry. Also, this is not political correctness. Rather, the empirical evidence that supports the existence of human continental populations is based on non-functional alleles in human genomes (especially snps, indels, and microsatellites). While it’s true that some of these alleles are genetic markers (alleles that are linked to functional alleles), a separate empirical investigation is still needed to show that the genetic markers employed are linked to functional alleles whose frequencies generate a racial hierarchy in phenotypes that we care about.”

    Spencer, Q. (2019, June). I—A More Radical Solution to the Race Problem. In Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume (Vol. 93, No. 1, pp. 25-48). Oxford University Press.

    • Replies: @Emil O. W. Kirkegaard
  309. eugyppius says:

    Anti-HBD asks:

    …how is race or lineage a coherent concept when for example native American tribes will be more different and more isolated than the continental races or for example, or when continental races themselves are as polyphyletic as they are.

    Then Anti-HBD endorses an argument from (mirabile dictu) Ken Richardson and somebody else that “spurious correlations in GWAS/PGS can arise in a number of ways, particularly from genetic population structure.”

    This is at least consistent because in the Sailer thread, Anti-HBD, in a failed attempt to disprove that height differences in human populations have an overwhelming genetic component, cited similar papers complaining that “population structure” had confounded studies showing European polygenic selection for European height.

    Finally, Anti-HBD has just conceded (though with customary incoherence):

    Yes all right, there is average clinal differentiation. I do not think it is great or important and skeptical about claims of group differences upon it, but you do, very well here. And I did not mean to deny differentiation per say here, but more claims that such differentiation falls along racial lines and that human races are subspecies like @Theodore was saying. Population structure exists but is uninteresting imo.

    What this means is that we’re done here. We have gone (and this is no more than a marginally uncharitable characterization) from “gene flow so high that we must all be the same” to “populations are structured and genetically differentiated but it does not matter.” All that remains from this latter position is meaningless semantic jostling. Along the way there have been many astounding errors, contradictions, failures to grasp really fundamental concepts about genetics, and most of all a remarkably strident tone, casting wanton aspersions of ignorance from a position of profound misunderstanding.

    All of this has unfolded underneath an OP about the “Race Explainer” of Ewan Birney, Jennifer Raff, Adam Rutherford and Aylwyn Scally. This and the Sailer post on the same Explainer have gotten a lot of interest and I assume much traffic. But who is down here arguing against the reality of race, in the trenches, against the “HBDers”? Is it big names like Birney or Scally (but that would be too much to expect), or even hitchhikers like Adam Rutherford (well he is a celebrity so we are beneath him), or even their learned associates and supporters? No, we do not hear from any of them. We only hear from Anti-HBD.

    Everyone knows about the Kraut and Tea debacle from a few years ago, where Youtube “liberals” had a panic attack about the Alt-Right and a certain German Youtuber from Sargonian circles decided that he would assemble a team of “academics” to destroy the racists once and for all. What has happened in this thread is like a microcosm of what happened there. Kraut produced video after video full of truly astounding, unbelievable errors and elementary misunderstandings. It was a surreal experience, listening to them: every thirty seconds things would go off the rails in a totally new and unanticipated way. Along with these he and his team supplied hilarious gish-galloped bibliographies that adduced dozens and dozens of papers, many of which had nothing to do with anything he was saying. The operation became a circus with each new HBD debunking video an eagerly anticipated event. As the entire pseudointellectual edifice collapsed, rats fleeing the sinking ship leaked internal communications. It turned out that the “academic” race-debunkers amounted to a one or two Kevin Bird-tier grad students who rapidly fled for the trees, and a lot of people who seemed to know little more than how to search for papers on Google. As if to bring things full circle and emphasize where we are now, Anti-HBD has even posted a video from the Liberal Sanity Project, an obscure Youtube channel that appears to represent in some from the leavings of Kraut’s destroyed operation: it features a cameo from Kraut and Tea himself and copious thanks to Kevin Bird.

    Kraut’s operation generated enormous interest at the time. It even turned out that a New York Times reporter had tried to interview his crack team of HBD debunkers in service of some story–which prompted the “academics please respond” meme as everyone knows. Given this interest, wasn’t it odd that nobody with any real intellectual firepower condescended to assist Kraut in debunking the racist pseudoscience? Instead they kept their distance.

    If you are on the side of Birney and Scally here, you have to wonder why the heavy hitters or even anyone with more than a few letters after their name or papers on their CV ever shows up to help you out. At most they snipe a little on the sidelines with cryptic tweets. You have to wonder why the only people defending race denialism before the rabble are Anti-HBD. The reason is that the Race Explainer is not a thesis that can be defended or that was ever meant to be. It is an ex cathedra pronouncement of doctrine that right-thinking people are supposed to believe. The authors of the Race Explainer can’t support the ridiculous things that they have written and so above all they avoid doing so. They leave the defense up to people like Anti-HBD, and as a result anyone who follows how the argument unfolds cannot fail to see where the evidence truly points.

    • Agree: mikemikev
    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  310. eugyppius says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Red Blue and Yellow are the primary ones and then there is the color spectrum.

    The appearance of distinct divisions between colors, along with our perception of several primary and discontinuous colors (if you look at a spectrum of visible light, it will seem to ‘jump’ from color to color when in fact the gradation is smooth), are all artifacts of our visual processing. They are not inherent in reflected light. They merely extrapolate from reflected wavelengths in a way that you could quite rightly call artificial and from the perspective of maybe a space alien, strange and arbitrary.

    But none of this means that colors are not real. In fact as humans and other animals have evolved colored sight, plants and poisoned frogs and the like have evolved colors that speak to the color-sighted, that entice them or repel them or bore them or whatever. Colors are what you might call a ‘cognitive construct’. That does not make them any less important. People who cannot differentiate clearly between colors are in a way closer to the underlying electromagnetic ‘reality’, but they are also disabled.

    Similarly, humans have intellectual and social constructs that are useful even if they are also subjective or to some degree artificial or in any case not carved on the face of the moon. We classify literary genres and objects that orbit stars and dialects and psychological diseases, and in every case these classifications have some relationship to reality, but they are also built on top of it, and in principle there could also be different classifications built in another way–at higher or lower orders, for different purposes.

    These categories cannot be proven, but that also means they cannot be disproven. The only argument for them is like the argument for color: They are useful, and they help us think about complex matters. Having them is better than not having them, which is why they persist. Categories that are not useful are generally very arcane (distinctions between mosquito subspecies will interest only specialists) or strike us eccentric (like the joke of the Red-Headed League in the famous Holmes story). But as a rule, those categories that stick around in general usage are like basic words, and in fact many of them are even closely related to our manner of speaking about the world. These categories matter and there is a real truth to them even if they are not the only categories conceivable or the most necessary ones at all levels of analysis. If these categories did not have power and salience, you would not even be here attacking them. And just as with the electromagnetic spectrum as perceived through ‘colors’, racial categories are built atop genuine biological differences among human populations. That is why they are so salient and why efforts to convince humans that there are no races, which have been ongoing for two or three generations now, have always failed.

    • Replies: @res
  311. mikemikev says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I think it’s 7.7/2 billion to the power of 7.7/4 billion. Does that sound right?

  312. Anti-HBD says:
    @J.G.R. Fuerst

    I have to say this is becoming interesting, and yeah ok I agree with you that Ernst Mayr might have had a different definition than subspecies when he discussed race.

    However, what do you make of Hochman’s argument that if race is not subspecies it is too much a deflationist position to have any meaning?

    Now that is still an interesting question. And I am willing to get into the weeds, but I want to see if we can first agree that the particular divisions Templeton are talking about are a very specified type of what used to be called “race” and are called “race” by all proponents of the concept as applied to humans.

    Would be interested to get into the weeds about it. But you still have not indicated how his gene flow model is wrong.

    • Replies: @J.G.R. Fuerst
  313. Anti-HBD says:
    @eugyppius

    t is an ex cathedra pronouncement of doctrine that right-thinking people are supposed to believe. The authors of the Race Explainer can’t support the ridiculous things that they have written and so above all they avoid doing so. They leave the defense up to people like Anti-HBD, and as a result anyone who follows how the argument unfolds cannot fail to see where the evidence truly points.

    You know almost all population geneticists disagree with race right? Why is that? Are all biased or lie about it?

    • Replies: @eugyppius
    , @mikemikev
  314. eugyppius says:
    @Anti-HBD

    You know almost all population geneticists disagree with race right? Why is that? Are all biased or lie about it?

    Now you have asked the wrong person this question, because as a professor I allowed views to be ascribed to me that I did not hold; when I feared it necessary, I am ashamed to say I sometimes even espoused the politically required views myself, making claims about what I studied that were misleading or totally objectionable, all as a published and tenured ‘expert’ (and so you should know that many claims made in this guise, particularly on sensitive political questions, are to be doubted especially); and above all I never objected to the manifold lunacies and delusions that unfolded all around me.

    Why do academics do this? Here is a brief list:

    Job offers, reappointment, tenure, promotion to associate professor, promotion to full professor, reception of a named chair, grant funding, sabbatical fellowships, good relations with their colleagues, favors from administrators, favorable committee assignments, book deals with trade publishers, speaking invitations, professional regard, the reputations of their graduate students.

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

    You know almost all population geneticists disagree with race right?

    No, how did you work that out?

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  316. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Or do you think the methodological problems are insurmountable?

    The methodological problems are likely hard. But science proceeds on the presumption that all problems are surmountable. To assume otherwise might be sensible, but it is the abandonment of science. Therefore, speaking as a scientist, I commend the efforts of anyone seeking to broaden the psychometrician’s understanding of intelligence so that it approximates to the generally accepted meaning of the word, rather than to whatever it is that so-called IQ tests test.

    In the meantime, I think that psychologists should quit calling their little paper and pencil test an intelligence test, but rather give it a name more precisely descriptive of what it actually is, i.e., a test of some narrow aspects of intelligence, mostly, verbal and numerical reasoning.

    An indication of the extent of the challenge is suggested by the article today at Zero Hedge: Is Real AI Possible, which notes the extraordinary difficulty in coming to grips with the nature of even one of the the most basic forms of intelligence, namely, the ability to recognize objects.

  317. Anti-HBD says:
    @mikemikev

    Reading the papers they write maybe?

    Most I have seen disagree with race, if you have evidence to the contrary let me know

  318. Anti-HBD says:
    @eugyppius

    Job offers, reappointment, tenure, promotion to associate professor, promotion to full professor, reception of a named chair, grant funding, sabbatical fellowships, good relations with their colleagues, favors from administrators, favorable committee assignments, book deals with trade publishers, speaking invitations, professional regard, the reputations of their graduate students.

    You really think that there is this huge bias in academia against people who hold non-PC views as you would say?

    • Replies: @res
    , @Theodore
  319. res says:
    @eugyppius

    Thanks for the interesting comments from you and J.G.R. Fuerst.

    Colors make for a thought provoking analogy because they have multiple interesting features.

    First, they have both an objective (frequency spectrum) and subjective (individual human perception) reality. Most of our color terminology is built around human perception and therefore has similar issues to the concerns Anti-HBD expresses about race (e.g. clinal variation and imprecise boundaries).

    Second. those subjective perceptions vary both between individuals (e.g. color blindness as an extreme case) and across time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_colour_vision

    Third, even for individuals with exactly the same color vision, subjective color perception has an imprecise mapping to the frequency spectrum because of the trichromatic nature of human vision. If you look at the response curves for human cone cells it should be clear that different frequency stimuli can result in similar aggregate output from the cone cells:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell

    That Anti-HBD does not seem to realize any of this and thinks colors are simple makes his attempt to obfuscate race by complexity even more entertaining than such efforts usually are. Yet another example of isolated demands for rigor.

    P.S. To put this another way, here is part of a comment from a few weeks ago:
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/dog-genes-2/#comment-3491054

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

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

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

    • Replies: @eugyppius
  320. @Jeff Stryker

    Nigeria has an average IQ of 67 (Source : Lasha Darkmoon, Worlfd IQ Figures).
    And on the Global Corruption Barometer it is nr. 74 (the country with the highest corruption nr. is Sierra Leone with 95). Stupid and corrupt, that explains it.

  321. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    You really think that there is this huge bias in academia against people who hold non-PC views as you would say?

    Ah, this again. This tactic is also a favorite of Okechukwu’s.

    Happily for seekers (as opposed to obfuscators, like you) of truth there has been some research into this done recently. Here is a discussion in Anatoly Karlin’s blog:
    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/persecution-of-iq-researchers/

    And a direct link to the paper:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289619301795

    So the better question to ask is: why do you think such bias does not exist? Do YOU have any evidence?

  322. eugyppius says:

    You really think that there is this huge bias in academia against people who hold non-PC views as you would say?

    “non-PC views”?

    It’s good that most people have left the office early because I am laughing in disbelief that you have typed this. Not even my culturally progressive vaguely leftist colleagues would dispute (in private of course, and after some wine) that there is a massive intellectual and cultural problem with academia and its ideological enforcement.

    There is enormous pressure to maintain a whole array of party lines. PC does not begin to describe it. It is not just population geneticists. Most fields, even ones you think there wouldn’t be a political angle, like Classics, have developed a right-thinking acceptable dialogue and virtuous orthodoxy. A lot of this is related to efforts to hire more minorities into faculty positions (the professoriate being rather whiter than the student body at most schools).

    Then there are the institutions, where diversity and implicit bias consultants; right-thinking administrators, many of them extremely powerful; and an increasing number of politically forward rank-and-file professors in all departments, drive the culture and the dialogue in desired directions. The same thing has happened to the learned societies and grant foundations (very crucial for anybody in the hard sciences: get labeled a racist, see your grant funding disappear, and now you’re a bystander in your own field) and the journals.

    All of this unfolds against a background of constant minority faculty complaints about racism, constant student complaints about racism, constant student protests about all manner of whatever, constant racist bias incident hoaxes many of which get media attention, constant pressure to hire more minority faculty, constant dialogues and meetings and talks about confronting racism and being anti-racist.

    Honestly it is an extreme environment.

    • Replies: @res
    , @James Thompson
  323. res says:
    @eugyppius

    Thanks for describing what it is actually like out there. Sounds even worse than I had realized.

    I think Anti-HBD saying that is a good tell for an insincere interlocutor. As if we really needed another one in his case. But it is good to have simple but powerful tests.

    P.S. And Anti-HBD really has had some epic “making me laugh so hard I hurt myself” moments in his recent comments.

  324. eugyppius says:
    @res

    This formulates the whole issue more distinctly than I had managed to.

    As for your older comment and blue in the ancient world: It’s interesting. Philologists going back a while, and continuing somewhat to this day (I knew a guy in grad school) have occasionally advanced sensational arguments about words for ‘blue’ in ancient sources, leading to these weird conclusions that our perception of the color emerged in the last century or something.

    I find that ridiculous, especially as whenever I know the language in question the claims always turn out to be wrong or based on deliberately restricted evidence. At the same time, it is really curious that words for blue in ancient sources appear to have uniquely diffuse meanings, often collapsing in unstable ways with words for ‘green’ or ‘dark,’ and rarely aligning with the distinctions we make.

    The difficulty is of course intertwined with ancient vocabulary itself. Just one example, often discussed: In ancient Greek κυάνεος is darkish blue, and the meaning ought to be clear enough because it is strictly speaking an adjective from the noun κύανος, which is lapis lazuli. So ‘lapis lazulian’ would be the strict definition, and we have lapis lazuli to look at today, and I would say it roughly approximates English ‘blue,’ not even necessarily all that dark at least to my eyes. But from there it is not at all straightforward. Looking at a basic dictionary, I find literary passages where forms of κυάνεος describe the color of a swallow (ballpark for lapis lazuli), the skin of a porpoise (I would say not really), and the color of the deep ocean (no). But much more common are a whole array of definitions that have nothing to do with blue as far as I can tell. Homer applies it to Zeus’s eyebrows, for example, and I do not think we are meant to think he had them dyed or was especially colorful, though anything is possible for a god. It seems to be simply that they were dark or glossy.

    One also occasionally encounters this in modern languages. Here I am limited by those I know, but in Italian, there is not only ‘blu’ (dark[er] blue) but also ‘azzurro’ and ‘celeste’: distinctions that do not exist for English speakers or indeed for speakers of other European languages I know. And if you ask an Italian about what ‘azzurro’ and ‘celeste’ are as opposed to the category ‘blu’ (which is merely darker) you will get long and not always compatible explanations. You can get some idea of this by googling internet discussions: you’ll see how many of the distinctions seem baffling and almost unimportant, and it’s equally crazy that they seem so obvious to the Italians describing them.

    • Replies: @res
  325. res says:
    @res

    It turns out that in the iSteve thread Anti-HBD explains why he used the extra Anons:
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/race-genetics-and-pseudoscience-an-explainer/#comment-3532271

    And it was 2 comments an hour initially that I could only post so thus why I used another device/account.

    So he has admitted to intentionally circumventing the comments per hour limits. Right after he denied it in that same comment.

    Too funny for words.

    P.S. To save the trouble of having the same conversation here I will include my response to him there asking me why I care about this.

    1. Multiple identities can make conversations hard to follow.
    2. Sock puppetry is not allowed on this site.
    3. Circumvention of comment posting limits. (admitted above)
    4. I don’t like liars. Which the excerpts above clearly indicate is a fair description of how you have handled this episode.

  326. @eugyppius

    Thanks for this explanation. Can you, without putting yourself at risk, say whether you are in US or elsewhere, and what subject/discipline you are commenting on ?

    • Replies: @eugyppius
  327. eugyppius says:
    @James Thompson

    Country is safe but field is a little dicey: I was a professor at a wealthy and highly selective American school in the humanities/social sciences. The structural forces (administrators, etc.) I describe apply generally, and my impression is they are strongest at ‘prestigious’ places that attract cultural attention. (So your student racism protest gets into the New York Times where your Africana Studies colleagues publish their op-eds.)

    Female and minority hiring demands are very strong in the hard sciences, where they are hardest to achieve, and this drives a whole cascade of progressive signaling and racial navel-gazing. Culturally it is more uneven. English and Anthropology departments seem to be truly wild places. I found my hard scientist colleagues, even the progressive ones, a breath of fresh air personally, though we had a younger generation with rather more ‘diverse’ (mostly in the sense that they were women) assistant profs in the sciences eager to implement changes. In general it is precisely these people — the politically forward correctly aligned most generally diverse hires — who are promoted swiftly to things like department chairships and deanships where their influence is magnified. It is very hard not to tenure them even if they are fantastically unproductive and stupid.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  328. res says:
    @eugyppius

    Thanks for the interesting elaboration. At the link in my PS utu and I had a bit of a conversation about blue. I proposed the possibility that groups with different color words might have different color vision genetics. It would be interesting to see a test of how much that matters versus cultural explanations. For example, your discussion of the Italian differences makes me wonder if Sapir-Whorf applies.

    And your point of thinking about this through history and translations is well made. That helps illustrate how significant the advances of writing, painting, audio recording, photography, video recording (any more?) are for recording (relatively) objective information through time. And the differences in how stable such representations are (both physically and culturally).

    Have any animals (including other primates) developed a way of passing information between the generations other than direct instruction?

    Is cave art the earliest example of this in humans (and do beads qualify?):
    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/02/neanderthals-cave-art-humans-evolution-science/

    • Replies: @eugyppius
  329. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @eugyppius

    these people — the politically forward correctly aligned most generally diverse hires — who are promoted swiftly to things like department chairships and deanships where their influence is magnified. It is very hard not to tenure them even if they are fantastically unproductive and stupid.

    And the more useless deans, vice deans, vice presidents and assistant vice presidents that are appointed, the higher the salaries for these toxic-meme-spreading entities become, so that should any of them have the slightest qualm of conscience about the anti-rationality and outright insanity that they promote, they must bear in mind that they are vastly overpaid in relation to their value to society (their value to society being, in fact, negative), and that if they fail to enforce the current PC BS as dictated from on high, they will be out of the cushy education racket for good and thus obliged to earn a living, like the vast majority of people, in a much harsher, market-oriented real-world economy.

    For that much money and power, the treason-class bureaucrats of academia are only too ready to piss on their intellectual superiors, the real scholars, exercising academic freedom. Truly, these mental-disease-spreading agents of the elite understand their job: it is to be the leaders and enforcers of globalist totalitarianism.

  330. Okechukwu says:
    @J.G.R. Fuerst

    Having worked in China for a bit, I can say that they are realistic about race (or at least the equivalent groups: “human kinds” 人种), in the Lee Kuan Yew sense. Notably, Chinese editors and reviewers are much more indifferent (non-hostile) to our research. Also, we were invited to publish some Mankind Quarterly research in a lead Chinese journal of Anthropology.

    Probably to promote the narrative that the US is intensely hypocritical in matters of social justice and has no grounds to accuse China of human rights abuses. You probably are aware that this is a recurring motif in Chinese commentary about the United States. Clearly, the authorities would never allow a leading Chinese scientific institution to publish such materials. But in the case of Mankind Quarterly, it is held up as an example of what passes for “science” in the United States.

    Chinese scientists are like scientists all over the world in the sense that “race” just doesn’t enter into their frame of reference.

    That’s not exactly being given a stint in prison and hard labor.

    A native born scientific racist could never emerge in China. It works to a certain extent in the US because we have the first amendment and we have a certain segment of society that wants to believe the pseudoscience.

    But everyone now agrees that Africans born in China to two African parents, will look African, and that East Asians born in Africa, will look East Asian.

    Was that ever in dispute?

    We just disagree about whether certain behavioral traits differences are hereditary.

    This is why you couldn’t get to first base in China. The fact that behavioral traits are socially and culturally mediated is not in dispute. It’s a 100% settled question.

    Yes, it would be interesting to see how the African children in Guangzhou compare to the Han children.

    A lot depends on the environment.

  331. @Okechukwu

    “…The fact that behavioral traits are socially and culturally mediated is not in dispute. It’s a 100% settled question…”

    For Marxists and assorted neo-Lysenkoists, yes, but not for real scientists :

    See : Twins Separated at Birth Reveal Staggering Influence of Genetics, livescience.com

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  332. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    Clearly, the authorities would never allow a leading Chinese scientific institution to publish such materials.

    Sure. Clearly that is why BGI is the world’s largest genetics research center.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGI_Group

    And conducted a research project concerning the genetics of intelligence.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGI_Group#Intelligence_Project

    For the sarcasm impaired (or terminally stupid, I am responding to Okechukwu so have to keep his special needs in mind): /sarc

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  333. Anonymous[362] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I find it really funny…

    No you don’t. You’re just posturing because that’s all you have left. Everyone knows what “blue” and “yellow” represents despite the fact that “green” exists. They even took their time to explain it to less informed onlookers just in case.

    So we ended up with you desperately pretending to be amused while everyone else got bored with your brainless shtick at least 2-3 comments ago.

    Now, I’m amused.

  334. Okechukwu says:
    @res

    This is what I mean by how dumb Res is.

    The problem is that Res doesn’t know how dumb he is.

    • Replies: @res
  335. mikemikev says:
    @Okechukwu

    How do you square all that with this?

    http://news.wenweipo.com/2017/03/03/IN1703030063.htm

    This is a Chinese government policy with three complaints about Africans in China:

    1) Gangbanging
    2) AIDS
    3) A historical pattern of half-breeds collapsing civilizations

    Suggested actions are freezing bank accounts, systematic repatriation, using the “propaganda machine” to “let the Chinese people be alert to black people and prevent them from being harmed”.

    I’m not saying I agree with any of this but the picture you’re painting looks very different when we look at what the Chinese government is saying.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  336. Okechukwu says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    See : Twins Separated at Birth Reveal Staggering Influence of Genetics, livescience.com

    How are individual proclivities and tendencies pertinent here? We were talking about broad cultural behaviors.

    The dumber race realists and HBDers, for example, believe there is such a thing as genetically modulated, immutable cultural behaviors. The fact that someone who lives in the modern world would believe this I think speaks to their stupidity.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  337. Okechukwu says:
    @mikemikev

    African countries round up and deport Chinese criminals daily. So?

  338. @Okechukwu

    “Was that ever in dispute?”

    Yes. In the original Rayian-Linnaean framework, there were only “species” or “varieties.” “Varieties” were defined as changeable i.e., they varied according to environment. “Species” in contrast were forms which perpetuate themselves across generations. This idea goes back to John Ray 1686): “After long and considerable investigation, no surer criterion for determining species has occurred to me than the distinguishing features that perpetuate themselves in propagation from seed. Thus, no matter what variations occur in the individuals or the species, if they spring from the seed of one and the same plant, they are accidental variations and not such as to distinguish a species? Animals likewise that differ specifically preserve their distinct species permanently; one species never springs from the seed of another nor vice versa.”

    It makes sense when you consider that Ray, Linnaeus and virtually all 17th to early 19th century naturalists were, by religious conviction, creationists: simply, if species were created a long time ago and they did not transmute into different forms then degenerations, mutations, or other varieties, could only be transient. Eventually, of course, the nature of infraspecific differences became obvious. And when it did creationism collapsed. See in particular the co-founder of evolutionary theory’s papers, “Note on the theory of permanent and geographical varieties”:

    “Now the generally adopted opinion is that species are absolute independent creations, which during their whole existence never vary from one to another, while varieties are not independent creations, but are or have been produced by ordinary generation from a parent species. There does, therefore (if this definition is true), exist such an absolute and essential difference in the nature of these two things that we are warranted in looking for some other character to distinguish them than one of mere degree, which is necessarily undefinable. If there is no other character, that fact is one of the strongest arguments against the independent creation of species, for why should a special act of creation be required to call into existence an organism differing only in degree from another which has been produced by existing laws? … The two doctrines, of “permanent varieties” and of “specially created unvarying species,” are inconsistent with each other.”

    However, before this happened, the dominant frame was the Linnaean one. However, people kept noticing oxymoronic ‘constant varieties,’ forms which were apparently not different species (thus varieties), but yet which perpetuated themselves across generations regardless of the environment (thus constant). To explain these (consistent with creationism), they often developed models of epigenetic inheritance. But they also needed a new language to speak of the “constant varieties” and so they adopted the term “race”. For example, here is my translation of the famed French botanist Antoine Nicolas Duchesne’s (1776) discussion:

    “These metaphysical divisions have become the basis of methods, in Natural History; but we have been forced, in order to avoid confusion, to give them particular denominations; to call kingdoms the great categories of animals and vegetables; classes, families, orders, sections, subordinate divisions or subdivisions; saving the word genera for the latter; and that of species, for the assembling of the individuals produced by each other, no matter how different they may be among themselves; we then called varieties the individuals in which these varieties were observed, by a figure of speech similar to that which has made use of the word species, as we have just seen: when these extraordinary individuals have found themselves producing sorts similar to them, we have also extended to the whole assembly the name of variety, for which we have been forced to add the incompatible attribute of constancy; they have been called constant varieties; it is to this improper denomination that custom has on several occasions substituted the term of race; a term correctly employed by M. de Buffon in the Natural History of Animals, and which requires to be introduced into that of Plants.”

    Regarding humans groups, the Catholic church deemed it heretical so consider different groups difference species (in the sense of separate creations). So, conforming to doctrine, they were labeled varieties – despite the apparent tendency to perpetuate themselves in propagation. At first it was argued by some that differences were purely environmental, due to climate and diets and unknown cultural factors. Then epigenetic, with the environment having someone imprinted itself on the lineage, but such that eventually Blacks would become Whites if they lived in Europe long enough, etc.. Then finally it was accepted that they were permanent varieties, and that they were not going to revert, but by this time the original distinction between varieties and species was collapsing along with the creationism.

    So since we now all agree that endogenous Africans will have and continue to have stereotypically African-looking babies in China, for the same reason that Zebras have Zebra babies in the Shanghai safari, we are all scientific racists, in a minimalist sense. We just disagree about whether the apparent behavioral differences are environmental induced variations and of course about terms.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  339. @Anti-HBD

    Which point did you want to discuss first?

    Generally, I largely agree with Quayshawn Spencer take. And he has addressed the point. He has read my stuff and I his and we both work with a genealogical concept of race.

    As for Hochman, he juxtaposes race as “subspecies” with race as “genetically different populations”. The “genetically different populations” he refers to seem to be minimalistic. Though, I think he misunderstands Dobzhansky’s idea.

    Whatever the case, what Hochman seems to have in mind — it is not clear if he doesn’t recognize the difference or if he is eliding it — is different from what I do (Lineage-populations), what Spencer does (K-population), what Sesardic does (clusters), and, in fact, what almost every contemporary defender of “race” mean — which is a particular kind of ancestry group.

    “Subspecies,” especially in the contemporary sense” is clearly inflationist. That is easily to shown.

    It would be hard to argue for a historically consistent race concept that did not somehow relate to
    lineage or ancestry — after all, then why use the term “race”. So certain “population” concepts might indeed be deflationist. However, that is hardly a problem for ours.

    The only argument would be that these are “too” broad, since as I said, “race” in zoology just like “species” historically picked out distinguishable groups, though often trivially so. Specifically, they described and explained forms or observable biological variations in genealogical terms.

    However, whether it makes sense to define groups exclusively in terms of descent — is an open question in the philosophy of biology with respect to species:

    Would humans from an alternative universe which were perfectly identical to us in form and DNA warrant being called a different species? They would surely be different lineages, the product of different big bangs (creations). What about so-called “sibling species”?

    So, I am not going to worry about how distinguishable. Everyone accepts that “species” and other groups like “populations” exist in some sense. I discount all critiques that also apply to these acknowledge existing groups.

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

    So you are responding to me again. Looks like you really are like a three year old, Who failed the marshmallow test.

    Now pray tell me what was so dumb about my statement? I think observing that BGI conducted research into the genetic basis of IQ (apparently with encouragement rather than repercussions from the Chinese government) was a quite on target rebuttal to your statement.

    And it is good to see the Okechukwu Projection Principle is operating as usual.

  341. Okechukwu says:

    Btw, pay close attention to this prime example of Mikemikev’s lying and prevarication. He has described as the actual policy of the Chinese government a mere proposal from some low-level hack in the People’s Political Consultative Conference.

    If you peruse Mikemikev’s posts they are replete with this kind of misrepresentation and disinformation.

    • LOL: eugyppius
    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @res
    , @Theodore
  342. mikemikev says:
    @Okechukwu

    misrepresentation and disinformation

    Like saying Chinese people get sentenced to hard labor for “racism”?

  343. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    Comments like that work better when you reply to the comment you are referring to. And point out your specific disagreement.

    Let’s look at another take on this issue:
    https://www.asiabyafrica.com/point-a-to-a/little-africa-guangzhou-china

    Guangzhou was home to Asia’s largest African population, but the city’s African enclave is under increasing pressure from the Chinese government and a changing economy.

    Hmmm… Looks like they think Chinese government pressure is an issue. Let’s look closer. Emphasis mine–a rather different characterization from your “low-level hack.” Who should I believe? (that was rhetorical)

    As recent as March 2017 senior Chinese politicians expressed concerns about Guangzhou’s ‘African question.’ Speaking on the issue, Pan Qinglin – a member of the country’s top political advisory board, the People’s Political Consultative Conference – argued that:

    “Black brothers often travel in droves; they are out at night, out on the streets, nightclubs, and remote areas. They engage in drug trafficking, harassment of women, and fighting, which seriously disturbs law and order in Guangzhou […] Africans have a high rate of AIDS and the Ebola virus that can be transmitted via bodily fluids […] If their population [keeps growing], China will change from a nation-state to an immigration country, from a yellow country to a black-and-yellow country.”

    When rhetoric from China’s highest echelons matched that of Guangzhou’s officials, the stage was set for a coordinated crackdown on ‘Little Africa.’ Years before Pan’s comments, the wheels were already in motion to begin dismantling Asia’s largest African community. In an effort to clamp down of individuals with expired visas, local authorities instituted an aggressive campaign of police checkpoints and document checks, rounding up thousands in the process.

    And some more. Looks like actual policy to me.

    This campaign was bolstered by the 2011 Guangdong Act, which offered Chinese citizens rewards for reporting on foreigners with expired or forged documentation. Furthermore, the new legislation made it illegal for employers, hoteliers and educational institutions to serve illegal migrants, with heavy fines for offending businesses. The act also allowed any police officer, not just members of the Foreign Affairs Bureau to stop foreigners and ask for documentation.

    And some more policy:

    New legislation implemented by the Chinese government soon closed this work-around, as foreigners now had to return their home countries to renew their visas, a tremendous burden for the majority of Africans in Guangzhou who could only obtain three or six-month visas. Another hurdle is the fact that only foreigners with a coveted one year visa were likely to secure accommodation from Chinese landlords.

    In 2013 China went further, updating legislation governing foreigners – the Entry-Exit Administration Law – for the first time since 1986. Africans hoping for reforms were swiftly disappointed as the government merely introduced harsher penalties for overdue visas and illegal workers. In 2014, Guangzhou authorities demolished large swathes of Little Africa’s common areas and roads in the name of beautification; banning vendors during and after the renovations. The changes saw the elimination of the eclectic and bustling street markets that provided the livelihood for many Africans in the area, with wider streets and several new police stations and security checkpoints effectively sterilizing the neighbourhood’s character.

    Is that enough examples of policy for you?

    Back to Okechukwu. As if the change in tone is not unmistakable.

    If you peruse Mikemikev’s posts they are replete with this kind of misrepresentation and disinformation.

    And more Okechukwu Projection/Inversion Principle in action. So predictable…

    • Troll: Okechukwu
  344. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    You are joking right? There are hundreds of thousands of species, is it the same for races?

    No I am not joking. By your “Logic” you should be able to name an exact number, or they don’t exist. Additionally, that number must be flawless.

    Do you not see how this looks?

    It looks like you’re desperately grasping for straws here.

    I can tell you the chimpanzee subspecies if you want and already told you the Homo Sapiens one, where are your races?

    Ah, yes, spamming with silly questions. Maybe go back to the very first reply I ever made in this comments thread. Of course I was referring to major races which I equate with subspecies. Within these major races, there are more races. This has been pointed out.

    And let’s not pretend these chimpanzee subspecies are not debated. There is also “gene flow” between them, at least in some cases. Additionally, they interbred with bonobos. I pointed this out above.

    Especially since you claim race=subspecies (which I can accept as a valid claim as race in biology means subspecies)

    No, I do not claim something so simplistic. Have you been following this thread? This is a very simple point I have explained simply. I said that there are multiple human subspecies which correspond to the major races that have been identified by anthropologists for literally centuries, but within them there are more.

    Which ones are they then? I am even willing to accept that they need not be independent lineages but valid under another criteria if you name them and provide evidence for them.

    I guess I will reiterate what I already said, literally in my first post here, one that you yourself replied to. I think a good starting point is:
    – Caucasoid
    – Negroid
    – Mongoloid
    – Americanoid/Amerindian
    – Australoid
    – Capoid

    There may be more. Perhaps we should combine some. There are populations that do not fit perfectly into them. There are mixed populations which are combined into one because the admixture is not very high. And certainly, certainly there are subdivisions as well: it does not end there. (I fear as though I have to explicitly make this point clear).

    And this taxonomy is certainly open to debate, but I do think that there is no question that there are human subspecies, which we can call “major races”.

    And the “Gene flow” canard is just silly. There are polytypic species with “gene flow” between the subspecies, with hybrid zones, with genetic distances comparable to that between human populations. I have given some examples, there are many more that I did not post.

    • Replies: @J.G.R. Fuerst
  345. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Why did everyone get butthurt about what Dr James D Watson said? And how was he mistreated? A guy with his prestige, who has contributed greatly to our understanding of DNA, should be allowed to share beliefs like that. Especially ones that are supported by various “peer reviewed academic papers” which you yourself seem to worship to some degree.
    People see those sorts of things and in response just keep their mouths shut.

    I would suggest you look into the Boasian school:

    The Boasian School of Anthropology and the Decline of Darwinism in the Social Sciences
    https://archive.is/8T0D4

    • Replies: @eugyppius
    , @Anti-HBD
  346. Theodore says:
    @Okechukwu

    Claims the guy who lied claiming a Chinese scientist said race isn’t real, when he said nothing of the sort and if you watch the video he is only claiming he found evidence supporting the Out of Africa theory… LOL (see post #292)

  347. @Okechukwu

    “…How are individual proclivities and tendencies pertinent here? We were talking about broad cultural behaviors

    The dumber race realists and HBDers, for example, believe there is such a thing as genetically modulated, immutable cultural behaviors…”

    I don’t think they mean cultural behaviors, I think they mean general behavior patterns like r- or K-survival strategies, observed in nature among animals, but also applied to humans by such scholars as Philippe Rushton (“Race, Evolution and Behavior”). This theory is of course non-PC and therefore rejected by “official” science, but I think they have a point.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  348. @Theodore

    I might be clearer to say: “I said that there are multiple major human races which could be recognized or considered as subspecies, and within these many more races.”

    Or would you characterize the matter differenty? (I haven’t been following all of your comments.)

    • Replies: @Theodore
    , @CanSpeccy
  349. eugyppius says:
    @Theodore

    Race is really the third rail, in my experience, with sex differences a close second. Comments about the latter are what got Summers driven out of his Harvard presidency, though that is hardly a pure case as it also involved elements of opportunism (Summers being despised for other reasons, and his alleged ‘sexism’ a useful pretext).

  350. eugyppius says:
    @res

    For example, your discussion of the Italian differences makes me wonder if Sapir-Whorf applies.

    My own little totally unfounded theory is that there is a visual calibration process based on the colors we’re exposed to. The brain has a limited number of hard distinctions to “spend” and learns to distribute these according to the colors most often encountered.

    Our world, with all of our electronic screens and vivid fabrics and so on, has a much richer and more diverse color landscape than was available in the ancient world. Some of our distinctions seem really crude compared to those in ancient literature.

    For the time I lived in Italy, I found it remarkable (for someone with more experience of clouds and rain) how many days had clear blue skies, and how much the vivid and varying sunlight in different seasons contributed to the aesthetic experience. Azzurro is said to be a certain kind of sky color, and blu a certain kind of sea color, or both are different kinds of sky colors: it depends.

    As for celeste, there seems to be amazing disagreement about this even among native Italian speakers, as you can see by googling various language and dictionary forums and knocking around Italian wikipedia. Many think there is something abstract or artificial about celeste; it is like the color of an ideal ‘heaven’ extrapolated from the color of the sky. Some Italians seem to think there are days when the sky is celeste but others seem to think it is only the color of the sky in things like Renaissance paintings. When I went to an Italian cycle shop the dealer laughed at me when I struggled to characterize the trademark color of Bianchi bicycles. Celeste plain as day, and to him I was like someone struggling to characterize ‘red’.

    • Replies: @res
  351. eugyppius says:
    @Okechukwu

    I have corrected your comment for projection in line with the observations of @res:

    LMAO. You must be new here.

    I don’t have any valid evidence of anything. My goal is to promote an ideology, not to seek out the truth.

    Once you understand who you’re dealing with, then you have to make a determination as to whether it’s worth your time and energy to engage in long, endless debates with me. I can go on forever writing absolutely the most inane nonsense that even a 4 year old would be ashamed to associate with.

    I am like a religious fanatic. I have a great deal in common with Jesus freaks and Islamic extremists. You could not hope to convince the former or the latter to give up their religious beliefs so what makes you think I am amenable to reason?

    Eventually, you will figure out that I am a professional racist troll promoting an African supremacy ideology that no amount of rational discourse will penetrate. I would rather jump out of tall buildings than concede a minor point that is inconsistent with my canonical doctrine.

    It is amazing how accurate this exercise has proven to be. You are, by far, my favorite commenter here. It was in response to you that I first ceased lurking. Never change Okechukwu.

  352. Theodore says:
    @J.G.R. Fuerst

    Yes, that is essentially it. Caucasoid is considered a race, but so is Nordid and Mediterranid which would be under the “Caucasoid” label. And within Mediterranid, there are smaller groups also called racecs. And there is also discussion of such things as the “Danish race” or “Anglo-Saxon race” or whatever. Race in many languages is the same word for “Breed” which we is the term we use for domesticated animals.
    I would say Caucasoid can be considered a subspecies (or, a classification directly below “human”) or maybe someone could make a convincing argument for splitting it up at this level; maybe, maybe not. Like I said in various comments, the concept of “Caucasoid” does not imply in any way that further separation is not possible, as critics often make it appear as such despite overwhelming evidence against this strawman argument, but in this case the further separation would be sub-groups within this larger breed/race/subspecies.

    A good example I found while doing some research is the waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), which is a large antelope in Africa. Wikipedia states that there were originally 37 names subspecies, but today there are perhaps thirteen subspecies, split into two or three larger subspecies.

    So we have:
    – K. e. ellipsiprymnus (ellipsen waterbuck, common or ringed waterbuck) group with multiple subspecies/breeds
    – K. e. defassa (defassa waterbuck) group, which is split into four main subspecies and two of them have, I guess we can call them, sub-subspecies.

    One study examined the genetics of the waterbuck, and found that the genetic distance between populations mesured by FST was on average 20.6%, which is comparable to the genetic difference between English or Italian and Bantu (22.9% for both, according to Cavalli-Sforza’s FST table). There is also gene flow (GASP!) between these various groups. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17032274

  353. Anti-HBD says:
    @Theodore

    I am back mainly because you and John Fuerst have wrote some interesting comments and I feel more like engaging and less than “throwing studies at you” as you would say. What about the Boasian school? Boas was an anthropologist why would that have any effect population genetics?

    And even if it did, if Marxists or Boasians produce papers that are correct, why would politics be an issue in their work?

    I never accused anyone here on their politics but engaged rather because I think they are being misrepresenting science and papers.

    Also per your last post, that gene flow is in the zones of intergradation my arguments were that in humans it is pervasive and does not have a section of the Caucasoid race for example (to go by the examples mentioned) that has not had admixture with other races.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Theodore
  354. res says:
    @eugyppius

    My own little totally unfounded theory is that there is a visual calibration process based on the colors we’re exposed to. The brain has a limited number of hard distinctions to “spend” and learns to distribute these according to the colors most often encountered.

    That sounds plausible to me. I would not be surprised if there was a novelty component (based on how the different color receptors respond) to it as well. This is akin to the many words for snow idea with respect to Sapir-Whorf (and makes me wonder whether the driver there is the words or the surrounding environment, has anyone researched this?).

    Consider some thought experiments.

    – Someone exposed to a wide variety of colors and saturations in RGB space.
    – People exposed to colors in small (and disjoint) subsets of RGB space.

    How would color vision differ between these people? Your exposure idea would mean each group would perceive (perhaps discriminate is a better word?) their own space best. But a novelty idea would mean any exposure to divergent colors would have a disproportionate effect.

    Now consider how most human senses are logarithmic. How would you feel about a calibration process which works logarithmically (wrt differences) with that supplying my novelty component? Also remembering that difference is defined in terms of color receptor response–not frequency. Making this tidbit highly relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision#Wavelength_and_hue_detection

    Sufficient differences in wavelength cause a difference in the perceived hue; the just-noticeable difference in wavelength varies from about 1 nm in the blue-green and yellow wavelengths, to 10 nm and more in the longer red and shorter blue wavelengths.

    Next consider how the languages of homogeneous groups of each type of person would evolve. Seems sensible that would happen in similar fashion to perception. Does this mean the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is just attributing causality to two effects (language and ability to discriminate) both caused by environment?

    How possible is it to disentangle the multiple issues involved here? Environment, language, color vision “hardware and software”, etc.?
    Presumably environment drove color receptor placement in evolution. Along the lines of your hypothesis, does environment during development affect the proportions of color receptors, the visual cortex, neither, or both?

    Here is some research which looks relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity#Origins

    A 1969 study by Brent Berlin and Paul Kay demonstrated the existence of universal semantic constraints in the field of colour terminology which were widely seen to discredit the existence of linguistic relativity in this domain, although this conclusion has been disputed by relativist researchers.

    Looks like this is their 1969 work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Color_Terms:_Their_Universality_and_Evolution

    That wiki references this two page 2012 paper which links the hierarchy of color names to the Just Noticeable Difference (in wavelength) in each region using a simulation.
    http://cse.iitkgp.ac.in/~animeshm/hierarchy_evolang.pdf

    I wonder if there is any way to quantify color stimulus of an environment (e.g. island, grassland, mountain, forest) and include that in the simulation and then use that to look at different groups.

    OK. Enough on that for now. Though I would be very interested in what others think about all of this.

    I actually didn’t know the Bianchi color was called Celeste. Thanks. Not sure how I missed learning that (probably heard/saw it at some point, but never internalized). It is interesting how many favorite colors combine blue (sky) and green (plants).

    I am amazed how exactly taxonomy types nail distinctions like this down. For example, some colors by name and RGB location:

    Celeste: https://www.colorhexa.com/b2ffff
    Sky blue: https://www.colorhexa.com/87ceeb
    Turquoise: https://www.colorhexa.com/30d5c8
    Teal: https://www.colorhexa.com/008080

    P.S. Thanks for the fascinating digression. Sorry if I am boring everyone, but I find this incredibly interesting.

  355. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I want to thank you again for leading me (indirectly) to this paper over in the iSteve thread: Reduced signal for polygenic adaptation of height in UK Biobank
    https://elifesciences.org/articles/39725

    I thought others here might be interested in this (I have griped about things like this not being done in genetic research multiple times) so here is the relevant excerpt from my iSteve comment:
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/race-genetics-and-pseudoscience-an-explainer/#comment-3533029

    What most interests me about this paper though (and might even make this whole annoying conversation with you worthwhile for me, thanks) is that they engaged with a point I have raised repeatedly in discussions about corrections for population stratification.

    We wondered whether the main reason for the weakened trend in UKB-GB is an overly conservative PC-correction. This could occur if the genetic contribution to height is highly correlated with population structure axes. If this were the case, we would expect the correlation between GWAS p-value and tSDS to still be observed in a UKB GWAS without population structure correction (namely, in UKB-GB-NoPCs). However, we see no evidence for this correlation (block jackknife p = 0.6). Taken together with the UKB-GB-NoPCs polygenic score analysis (Figure 1), the lack of signal in UKB-GB-NoPCs suggests that the main reason that UKB is less confounded by population structure than GIANT is the relatively-homogeneous ancestry of the UKB British sample—rather than differences in GWAS correction procedures.

    I hope doing something like this will become a standard for studies of this sort. In particular, I think studies which report variance explained for a PGS should report that both with and without PC correction. If only to make clear how much variance is explained by the systematic group variation–even if we can’t be certain whether that is an artifact of population stratification or a true signal of a genetic effect.

    So kudos to the researchers for including that analysis. The acid test will be to see if something like that will be done consistently going forward. Particularly if it shows there might be a significant effect from the population PCs.

  356. mikemikev says:

    Davide Piffer responds to the Pseudoscience blogpost.

    https://wildtype.home.blog/2019/11/01/a-reply-to-the-big-four/

    • Replies: @res
  357. utu says:

    “…I find this incredibly interesting” – No only you. This issue is much more interesting than the purely reductionist view by Newton would imply. People known for their depth of thinking looked at it: Goethe, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein.

    Believing that philosophical puzzles about colour can only be resolved through attention to the language games involved, Wittgenstein considers Goethe’s propositions in the Theory of Colours, and the observations of Philipp Otto Runge in an attempt to clarify the use of language about colour. – Wiki

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Colours
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Vision_and_Colours
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remarks_on_Colour

    • Replies: @res
  358. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I am back mainly because you and John Fuerst have wrote some interesting comments and I feel more like engaging and less than “throwing studies at you” as you would say. What about the Boasian school? Boas was an anthropologist why would that have any effect population genetics?

    Have you tried reading the link I posted? Boas was an anthropologist, indeed. They didn’t have DNA testing when he was around. And it as anthropologists who initially determined that humans have various subspecies / races, and they used morphological data, rather than genetic data, to differentiate. It also just so happens that the genetic data we are finding today basically confirms many of their positions, although there was never any unanimous agreement on anything, there was sort of a consensus of sorts on certain categories.

    And even if it did, if Marxists or Boasians produce papers that are correct, why would politics be an issue in their work?

    We shouldn’t. If someone says something 100% correct and flawless, it’s valuable, no matter how ridiculous their personal beliefs are. We should never discard anyone’s work solely on the basis of their ideological political beliefs, a “genocide-loving super-racist” and a “Race-denying Boasian Marxist” can all say perfectly valid and true things, even if they usually do not.

    But really, their papers are typically all using the same fraudulent misconceptions and fallacies. And Boas was caught publishing bogus data, check out a study entitled “A reassessment of human cranial plasticity: Boas revisited”

    Also per your last post, that gene flow is in the zones of intergradation my arguments were that in humans it is pervasive and does not have a section of the Caucasoid race for example (to go by the examples mentioned) that has not had admixture with other races.

    You’re absolutely correct about that being your argument. We’ve all been aware of this argument for a while, it’s one we’ve probably heard a lot over the years. It was quite obvious that this was your argument once you posted it. It’s not difficult to understand either.

    The issue is that, well, it’s obviously nonsense. Firstly, the admixture is not as “pervasive” as you act, well it’s impossible to actually prove this wrong because, well, where is the line drawn between “pervasive” and “not pervasive”? We don’t know. In fact, two people can disagree on whether the same quantity is “pervasive” or not.

    [MORE]

    Now, it is a FACT that in many animal species, there are subspecies which have hybrid zones between them. But it’s also accepted fact that in many cases, genes from one subspecies make it over into the other by means of this hybrid zone. There is no issue with this, scientists do not find these things and say “Well, there are no subspecies here, there is a single digit percent of admixture!”
    That simply does not happen. Gene flow in many cases is expected between subspecies if there are no extreme barriers totally preventing it. This doesn’t confuse anyone but those who want to be confused about it.

    The concept of Caucasoid people is perhaps as old as the 1600s, maybe even older but before this period humans did not have the means of traveling long distance to see all the other races. And it was not created out of hatred, malice, or a desire to oppress others. These anthropologists saw people from all over the world and decided that some look more similar to others. The same way they decided other mammalian populations were divided into species and subspecies.

    The existence of minimal quantities of admixture is quite irrelevant, and when looking at the research on other mammal species, not invalidate subspecies and species categorizations unless (and it is very important to note this) it has caused these populations to not be significantly different. An only then is the categorization changed, and it is not because of the detected gene flow, but because of the lack of differences between the populations, which are attributable to gene flow (or sometimes lack of divergence time).

    So yes, maybe there is single digit % East Asian admixture in Eastern & Northern Europe. And maybe there is single digit % sub-Saharan admixture in Southern Europe. But this simply is not sufficient. We can look at Europeans and see that they are different from sub-Saharan negroes, and East-Asian Sinids. DNA tests can and have confirmed this fact.

    And this is why your position always fails. Because it does not correspond to the actual results. In the case of Europe, in nearly every case the extent of admixture is so minimal that it can be called negligible. And the genetic distance between the non-Caucasoid groups is many times higher than the genetic distance between other Europeans.

    There is a lot of information on gene flow between cat species and subspecies, for example:

    According to the Cat Classification Taskforce:
    “3. Subspecies – a group of individuals within a species that mostly share morphological and molecular characteristics that distinguish them from most other individuals within a species and that occupy a distinct part of the geographical range of the species. These distinguishing characters are not expected to be 100% diagnostic and gene flow is also expected between subspecies where ranges are contiguous.” https://web.archive.org/web/20191029220554if_/https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/32616/A_revised_Felidae_Taxonomy_CatNews.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

    – Another study found post-divergence gene flow/admixture in cat species, “highlight[ing] the mosaic origin of modern felid genomes and the influence of sex chromosomes and sex-biased dispersal in post-speciation gene flow.” The study also points out that “There is an emerging consensus that gene flow frequently occurs following speciation” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4691742/
    It also
    – Recent studies on Snow leopard have found three distinct subspecies, despite admixture/gene flow between them: https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article/108/6/597/3796316

    – Admixture between wild cats and domestic cats in Europe: “Studies across the area of distribution of the European wildcat have shown that there is a high degree of variability in the extent of admixture with domestic cats. High levels (up to 45%) of hybridization have been reported in Hungary and Scotland (3,7–10), while low levels (between 0 and 2%) of interbreeding with domestic cats have been shown in Germany, Italy, and Portugal (9–12).” https://doi.org/10.1101/342576

  359. res says:
    @mikemikev

    Thanks for posting that! Very interesting. Could you also post it on the iSteve thread? I could do so now, but would prefer you get credit.

    The contrast in tone between that and the Birney et al. post under discussion is dramatic. Funny how one looks like science and the other looks like pseudoscience.

    One thing I did not understand though. In Figure 1 we have the PGS divided into old and young SNPs. The differences between CEU and YRI for each group are consistent, but relatively small (~0.02 difference between values around 0.46).

    But looking at Figure 2 we see the respective values for the full PGS are YRI ~-1.3 and CEU ~0.7.

    Can anyone help me understand how these two figures are consistent?

    Anti-HBD might want to pay particular attention to (Chen et al. 2019) from last month which follows up on the UKBB height selection discussion: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/776377v1

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @mikemikev
  360. res says:
    @utu

    Thanks for the links. I find Schopenhauer’s view (second link) most interesting because he recognizes both the objective reality and subjective experience of color. Though it seems to me he turns it into a false dichotomy favoring the subjective. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say he focuses on the subjective aspect?

  361. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @J.G.R. Fuerst

    there are multiple major human races which could be recognized or considered as subspecies, and within these many more races

    The number of races is incalculable because it is dependent on how you want to mark out particular races — which is something you can do in any way that you want.

    And the reason you can mark out races any way that you want is that people mate with those with whom they are in proximity, and those with whom they are in proximity can be defined in an indefinite number of ways. Thus, except where the longstanding breeding pattern has been disrupted by mass migrations, any geographically defined population will be racially distinct from any other geographically defined population, a fact detectable by gene frequency analysis even where visible markers such as facial features reveal no obvious differences.

    Within geographic areas, populations may be divided racially by class, caste or religion. Thus, for example, although Britain’s aristocracy exists within the broad racial category of British, it is mainly of Norman French descent propagated by consanguineous marriage, often between cousins, and hence possessed of a gene pool distinct from that of the commoners among whom the aristocracy has lived for almost a thousand years — although one can assume that there will have been a outflow of aristocrat genes, via the back stairs, to the general population.

    The only possible scientific justification for dividing Homo sapiens into sub-species is where gene flow has been prevented by distance, large bodies of water, deserts, etc. and the racial differences in gene frequencies, or visible characteristics such as skin color, eyelid morphology, etc., have become so large as to assign each individual unambiguously to a specific racial group.

    Generally, however, defining human subspecies will misinform the uninformed. Thus, for example, the popular idea that Africans comprise a distinct subspecies presupposes that all Africans are closely related, whereas in fact, they are much more differentiated than any other large grouping such as the Europeans or East Asians.

    Equally nonsensical is the idea that the human race is divided by color, since that form of classification places Dravidians, Ethiopians, Kung tribesmen, some North American Indians, and Australian aboriginals in the same category, while placing albino sub-Saharan Africans with the Europeans.

    Insistence on defining human subspecies thus appears to have a political motivation: namely, to promote racial separation by strengthening the sense of racial identity. But in an age that celebrates diversity, such psychological aids to racial separation are surely unnecessary. “Diversity,” as our Canadian Savior, St. Justin Trudeau’ has so eloquently and originally said, “is out strength” and thus, for humanity to remain strong, it must retain its diversity by bringing a halt to the ongoing mass global migration: Vive les races séparées.

  362. Okechukwu says:
    @Theodore

    Why did everyone get butthurt about what Dr James D Watson said?

    Because beyond being objectively false, there was absolutely no scientific evidence to support Watson’s statement.

    Instead of running his mouth, we’d expect a scientist like Watson to actually go into a lab and produce the DNA evidence that validates his thesis.

    All people are asking for is evidence. The criticisms of Watson pertained mainly to his lack of evidence:

    Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) unequivocally rejects the unsubstantiated and reckless personal opinions Dr. James D. Watson expressed on the subject of ethnicity and genetics during the PBS documentary “American Masters: Decoding Watson” that aired January 2, 2019. Dr. Watson’s statements are reprehensible, unsupported by science, and in no way represent the views of CSHL, its trustees, faculty, staff, or students. The Laboratory condemns the misuse of science to justify prejudice.

    https://www.cshl.edu/statement-by-cold-spring-harbor-laboratory-addressing-remarks-by-dr-james-d-watson-in-american-masters-decoding-watson/

    It’s unimaginably irresponsible to make these kinds of statements in the complete absence of any evidence to support said statements.

    • Replies: @Theodore
  363. Okechukwu says:
    @J.G.R. Fuerst

    eventually Blacks would become Whites if they lived in Europe long enough, etc.

    There is nothing in nature that would preclude this given genetic mutations and strong selection in favor of that phenotype. Isn’t that how humans went from black to white in Europe? In fact the proliferation of white skinned people is a relatively recent phenomenon.

    So since we now all agree that endogenous Africans will have and continue to have stereotypically African-looking babies in China

    Humans went from rodent-like creatures to our present form, which is decidedly a more radical transformation than anything we can imagine happening to Africans in China or Chinese in Africa. So every possible modification in the appearance and constitution of humans over a period of deep time is within the power of natural selection.

    • Replies: @J.G.R. Fuerst
  364. @CanSpeccy

    I more or less agree. However, one might nonetheless be interested in the admittedly academic question of whether major races would qualify for formal subspecies recognition given contemporary rules of thumbs — there are of course no formal standards in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and obviously they would have qualified given the lax early to mid-20th century rules.

    The ‘problem,’ as we said, is that “subspecies” has come to refer to the category immediately below species and the taxa assigned thereto. Since the early 19th century, it was used as a rank, so it has a long history of such use. And for practical reasons, rules of thumb have been devised for formal recognition; but these are every changing, often vague, and vary by taxonomic school, and conservation needs — which makes “subspecies,” in this taxonomic sense, conventional. However, we are trying to understand variation, not merely categorize it.

    And race was never originally a taxonomic category. As Kant noted, two and one-half centuries ago, it was not a part of the “description of nature” [i.e., taxonomy] but was a concept “necessary for understanding it,” because biological variation is best understood genealogically. The classic categories were species and variety, and then in zoology species and subspecies. Race is no more a category than “form” or “population”.

    This distinction, or non-equivalence, between race and infraspecific taxa was well-understood, so it is strange that it is forgotten. (Though, I understand the rhetroical game, when that is what it is.)

    Dobzhansky: A subspecies (following Mayr 1969) is a “geographically defined aggregate of local populations which differ taxonomically from other such subdivisions of the species. A subspecies is, then, a race that a taxonomist regards as sufficiently different from other races to bestow upon it a Latin name. (pg. 310, Genetics of the Evolutionary Process, 1970)

    Gaylord Simpson: Races are populations defined by genetic relationships…In biology the term “race” is not a systemic category but is used for any local infraspecific breeding group that is conveniently distinguished for purposes of a given study. The term “subspecies” is used in a technical sense for a race considered sufficiently distinct, uniform, and widespread to merit a Latin name…. The so-called major human races of many anthropologists are usually taken as three to six in number, and they correspond well enough with biological subspecies”. (pg. 101, Biology and Man, 1969)

    Mayr: “In a recent textbook of taxonomy, I defined a “geographic race” or subspecies as “an aggregate of phenotypical y similar populations of a species inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of that species and differing taxonomically from other populations of that species.” A subspecies is a geographic race that is sufficiently different taxonomically to be worthy of a separate name.” (pg. 90, The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality, 2002)

  365. mikemikev says:
    @res

    I think he does the young/old test on just one of the datasets Lee aggregates for the second figure.

    • Replies: @res
  366. mikemikev says:
    @res

    I think he does the young/old test on just one of the datasets Lee aggregates for the second figure.

  367. Okechukwu says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    like r- or K-survival strategies, observed in nature among animals, but also applied to humans by such scholars as Philippe Rushton (“Race, Evolution and Behavior”).

    Rushton was a clown and a joker and his juvenile missives on r/K selection have been roundly and repeatedly debunked.

    This theory is of course non-PC and therefore rejected by “official” science, but I think they have a point.

    It’s dumb to embrace junk science as an act of defiance against PC culture. PCism does go too far but it’s certainly a losing strategy to try to counterbalance it with racist pseudoscience.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Theodore
  368. @CanSpeccy

    Regarding this:

    “And the reason you can mark out races any way that you want is that people mate with those with whom they are in proximity, and those with whom they are in proximity can be defined in an indefinite number of ways. Thus, except where the longstanding breeding pattern has been disrupted by mass migrations, any geographically defined population will be racially distinct from any other geographically defined population, a fact detectable by gene frequency analysis even where visible markers such as facial features reveal no obvious differences. ”

    I never cared for Mayr’s population definition of race. It always struck me as confused and inadequate. It is fine, I suppose, for most species, outside of captivity, since mendelian populations will tend to correspond with communities of descent, and over time the later which are not the former will cease to be. However, strictly speaking the two are not the same — however, the defintion conflates them. Yet, if the local zoo or reservation brings two subspecies of rhinos together they, the parental generation, don’t suddenly become of the same race, though they will becomes the same geographic and often the same breeding population – that is absurd — and it is this fact which allows their offspring to be ‘hybrid’. I don’t see that this is strictly possible under a literalist reading of Mayr’s definition, though it is obvious that that is not what he had in mind.

  369. res says:
    @mikemikev

    Any idea why the Figure 1 differences are so small then? The Figure 2 differences (YRI/Yoruba and CEU/Utah whites) are quite large. Even using a different dataset I would not expect to see such a divergence as long as he was looking at roughly the same groups.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  370. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    PCism does go too far

    That is an interesting statement from you. Perhaps you could give an example of a case where you think PC has gone too far?

  371. Theodore says:
    @Okechukwu

    Actually he is entirely correct. Your appeal to authority is ignored. The evidence is everywhere, actually.
    Nobody was asking for evidence, they just wanted his head. If they were asking for evidence they would be funding actually objective studies on this, but they are not.
    A few examples:
    – regression to different means
    – different frequency of alleles linked to cognitive ability
    – lower IQ of blacks raised in high income environments compared to poor whites
    – blacks and whites at the same IQ level score differently on IQ subtests
    – interracial adoption studies show blacks scoring below mulattoes who self identify as fully black, who score below whites, despite all being adopted into similar environments
    – 100% consensus on every study measuring black and white brain sizes, finding blacks have smaller brains
    – the gap has remained relatively stable for a century despite social disparities narrowing considerably
    – literally 0 experiments showing randomly selected black median IQ being raised to 100 with gains stable into adulthood
    – egalitarians have only offered “theories” with no tangible support for their position. they prefer to cling to those that can’t be quantified, proven or disproven

    If there was a truly intellectual response to his statements, there would have been publicized debates on the topic for weeks, additional funding into the research to rigorously test his hypothesis. And then, after he was disproven (if so) he either apologizes or is then attacked.

    None of that happened. It’s not “racist” or “hateful” to point out that genes AND ENVIRONMENT are relevant to the Black-White IQ gap. There is massive amounts of evidence to support this position, which is why instead of public debate with those who disagree there is only slander, hatred, and attempts to ruin his life.

    Imagine if Watson said Whites will always be a minority in the NBA because they can’t run as fast or jump as high on average, due to genes. I am sure that he would have been attacked in the same way, right? I am sure we would have seen the same thing happen, don’t you?

    • Agree: mikemikev
  372. utu says:

    Question: If A and B have a common ancestor X then genetic distances d(A,X) and d(B, X) can be calculated. Then either d(A,X) is than d(B,X). Can ‘races’ or ‘biogeographic ancestry groups’ be ranked according to the distance to the latest common ancestor? Was it done?

    • Replies: @J.G.R. Fuerst
  373. Okechukwu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Thus, for example, the popular idea that Africans comprise a distinct subspecies presupposes that all Africans are closely related, whereas in fact, they are much more differentiated than any other large grouping such as the Europeans or East Asians.

    This is the kill shot that essentially destroys HBD and lays bare their racist rather than scientific motivations. HBDers are interested in human diversity only to the extent that the 3 or 4 race concept is maintained. So HBDers are, paradoxically, anti-HBD.

    The HBD holy grail is a racial caste system with an attendant racial hierarchy in intelligence. But they can never get there if the world is composed of innumerable races with most of those races in Africa. Or if the concept of race itself is untenable.

    The paper Dr. Thompson’s moronic essay is attempting (and failing completely) to refute makes this exact point:

    If an alien, arriving on Earth with no knowledge of our social history, wished to categorise human ancestry purely on the basis of genetic data, they would find that any consistent scheme must include many distinct groups within Africa that are just as different from each other as Africans are to non-Africans. And they would find it difficult to identify any natural or obvious subdivision of people into groups which accurately partitions human genetic variation due to the constant migrations of people across the world.

    http://ewanbirney.com/2019/10/race-genetics-and-pseudoscience-an-explainer.html

    Anybody that genuinely desires human races can literally have thousands of them, and the overwhelming majority of those races will be in Africa. The remaining out-of-Africa races are mere aspects of African variation.

  374. @Okechukwu

    “There is nothing in nature that would preclude this given genetic mutations and strong selection in favor of that phenotype. ”

    Yes, but by the accepted Rayian-Linnaean theory, this was supposed to happen owing to the immediate effects of the environment on form. That is why people began to argue that Africans were a different species; the environment didn’t seem to transform them into Europeans. For example, take the renowned German naturalist Georg Forster’s argument in “Something More About the Human Races” (1786):

    “Kant seems to assume that such a difference of characteristic features might be sufficient for the individual describing nature to construct a kind. Of this, I cannot answer with complete satisfaction, because Linnaeus, the foremost author to treat [this] science systematically, wrote in Latin. His divisions are called: classes, ordines, genera, species, and varietates. Now [a] variety seems to me always to be defined by changeable, accidental characteristic features. By [saying] this, it is assumed that one variety can change into another.

    How much, then, is to be hoped for a decisive ruling on the [previous] question? Is the Negro a variety or a species in the human genus? If [the ruling] depends upon proving the descent of all varieties from an original, common parental couple, which cannot be demonstrated without indisputable historical evidence, there will be no definite solution…. If, on the other hand, we are satisfied by the Linnaean ruling, [that] a variety differs from a species simply through the inconstancy of its characteristic features, then a little provisional investigation is still required [to find out] to what extent this definition fits the various human lines of descent.

    There are obviously differences of [skin] color in each of the human lines of descent, the white as well as the black. Whites becomes blackish in African [and] Negroes become olive-colored in the land of the Kaffiers. But no experiment up to now teaches us if this variability might be able to take place up to a full transformation of the white into the black color, and, the other way around, the black into the white. My friend, you now easily see that this matter has not yet been settled. If someone were to give us an undoubtable example [showing] that a Negro family might have lost its color in a determinate succession of generations in which no interbreeding had occurred after they were transplanted to our climate [and] gradually exchanged its ape-like formation for that of a European climate, we [could] without objection call the Negro a human variety in the Linnaean sense, because its characteristic features are purely climatic and changeable. Such an example does not, however, exist and must indeed always be lacking.”

    The response was: No, Europeans and Africans are not different Linnaean varieties, but that doesn’t make them different species, rather they are different races of a species.

    Now it seems to me that you would concur that the morphological, though apparently not behavioral, differences are not purely climatic or otherwise environmentally changeable. And in doing so, you are being a scientific racist, in the original 18th-19th century natural historian sense.

    You know, some say that denial of racism is a sort of double racism or racism in itself. So, you should be open and honest about your first order racism — the belief that different groups are not merely Linnean varieties, like I am, so as not to worsen the charge.

  375. Theodore says:
    @Okechukwu

    All I am reading here is “Rushton’s work hurts my feelings”

    Actually, those who think that race differences in IQ are 100% environmental are the minority. Nobody thinks it’s 100% genetic, so we all agree that environment is important.

    So you, the one who is claiming 100% of the Black-White IQ gap is due to environmental differences is the one with the fringe theory. A theory which has never been substantiated by a single experiment, but contradicted by many.

    It’s quite obvious that you not only want to believe it, but you NEED to believe it. Perhaps cognitive dissonance is at play here?

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  376. utu says:

    Question: How one should respond in one sentence to the argument that races do not exit?

    • Replies: @Theodore
  377. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Okechukwu

    Anybody that genuinely desires human races can literally have thousands of them, and the overwhelming majority of those races will be in Africa. The remaining out-of-Africa races are mere aspects of African variation.

    LOL

  378. @utu

    ” Can ‘races’ or ‘biogeographic ancestry groups’ be ranked according to the distance to the latest common ancestor? Was it done?”

    What do you mean “ranked”? Read Quayshawn Spencer’s papers on K-populations, which are more or less the same thing as “biogeographic ancestry groups”.

    “In previous research, I’ve worked out that the human continental populations are instances of genealogical populations (also known as ancestry groups) that I call ‘K populations’ (Spencer 2016, p. 796). The idea is roughly this. Suppose you want to divide a sexually reproducing species that forms a lineage into K genealogical groups of organisms such that the contemporaneous members of each group form a fuzzy set.9 Furthermore, suppose that each member of such a genealogical group has a degree of membership of 1 or a degree of membership that falls between 0 and 1 and is equal to the proportion of alleles in her genome that originate from previous members of the group the last time all members of the group had a membership degree of 1. Suppose we call that proportion an organism’s degree of genomic ancestry from that group. If you actually succeed in dividing a species in this way, then you’d have a division of that species into K populations. It turns out that each human continental population is a K population in the human species.”

    These groups are delineated by overall ancestry relatedness — propinquity of descent, to use Darwin’s phrase — not MRCA. The latter is mostly irrelevant to tokogenic systems.

    • Replies: @utu
  379. mikemikev says:
    @res

    You would expect to see that difference if you used an order of magnitude smaller dataset. It’s missing heritability.

  380. Theodore says:
    @Okechukwu

    Thus, for example, the popular idea that Africans comprise a distinct subspecies presupposes that all Africans are closely related, whereas in fact, they are much more differentiated than any other large grouping such as the Europeans or East Asians.

    This is the kill shot that essentially destroys HBD and lays bare their racist rather than scientific motivations. HBDers are interested in human diversity only to the extent that the 3 or 4 race concept is maintained. So HBDers are, paradoxically, anti-HBD.

    It’s not a very popular idea. Africa has for a very long time been claimed to have three races: Negroid, Capoid, and Caucasoid.

    And nothing about “HBD” claims that all Africans are so closely related, we know of many back-migrations into Africa from West Eurasia. One claimed subspecies being more differentiated and genetically diverse than another is not something inherent to any race concept.

    Additionally, it is not at all “racist” to incorrectly claim something about African diversity. I don’t even know where that comes to play here. There is no proof of some “racist conspiracy” to pretend that all “Africans” are the same or less diverse than other populations. The thought of such a thing is completely absurd.

    The HBD holy grail is a racial caste system with an attendant racial hierarchy in intelligence.

    Wrong, that doesn’t even make sense. You insisted the Chinese are race deniers (Despite all evidence on the contrary) yet these “HBD racists” are quite happy to point out the higher median IQ of East Asians than their own race.

    Why would they be so motivated and willing to create a heirarchy in which their group is not even at the top? Oh yes, it’s just an anti-Black conspiracy, surely…

    Naturally, people are more interested in their own ancestors, their own people. As such, White “HBD” people will generally focus more on Whites. This isn’t out of hatred, or out of a desire to make other groups seem less-diverse, it’s just personal interest.
    If you want more information on Black bio-diversity, then Blacks need to step up to the plate and provide it.

    Suggested:

    No, Blacks Aren’t All Alike. Who Said They Were?
    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/no-blacks-arent-all-alike-who-said-they-were/

    But they can never get there if the world is composed of innumerable races with most of those races in Africa. Or if the concept of race itself is untenable.

    Indeed, there are innumerable races. But the major races, which may be considered subspecies, there are 3 of them in great quantities in Africa. And there is absolutely nothing about “HBD” that implies that subspecies can not be further divided, just as how species are divided into subspecies.

    Anybody that genuinely desires human races can literally have thousands of them, and the overwhelming majority of those races will be in Africa.

    I don’t see any actual evidence for this. Surely, you will be happy to post something that is not evidence of it, while pretending that it is.

    The remaining out-of-Africa races are mere aspects of African variation.

    Yeah this is complete bogus, but then again I do not accept the fraudulent “Out-of-Africa” theory which is slowly dying. In a few decades, it will be completely dead.

    But I will be happy to point out that many so-called “HBD” people, many so-called “Racist psuedoscientists” quite readily believe in the OoA theory, it’s not a debunking of anything they claim.

    • Replies: @J.G.R. Fuerst
  381. Theodore says:
    @utu

    Question: How one should respond in one sentence to the argument that races do not exit?

    Easy: “Using your silly definition of ‘Race’, I agree, they do not exist!”

  382. @Theodore

    @Okechukwu

    “The remaining out-of-Africa races are mere aspects of African variation.”

    Sure but paraphyletic subspecies are commonly recognized under the BSC, along with the morphological concept, which were the dominant on over the last two centuries.

    I saw a recent survey showing the BSC is still the most popular.

    Pušić, B., Gregorić, P., & Franjević, D. (2017). What do biologists make of the species problem?. Acta biotheoretica, 65(3), 179-209.

    Putting aside formal taxonomy, the question is not whether black Africans are more heterogenous than, say, East Asians. But whether they are more related to one another than East Asians are to one another. And they are the latter in part because of the bottleneck that produced out-of-Africa races. And also because of the more extensive miscegination between African races (e.g., Bantu expansion) than between African and out-of-Africa races (historic geographic barriers).

    This leads to a relationship, that looks as follow:

    With the largest divergence between the African races, on the one hand, and the out-of-Africa split.
    Which allows one to speak of a heterogenous, but coherent black African race (descent group), distinct from, say, a similarly dark Oceanian race.

    • Replies: @Theodore
  383. Theodore says:
    @J.G.R. Fuerst

    Putting aside formal taxonomy, the question is not whether black Africans are more heterogenous than, say, East Asians. But whether they are more related to one another than East Asians are to one another.

    This is a central point, and it’s one I try to make and the race deniers can’t seem to grasp it. Usually, their own position is contradictory. They will say there is one race, or then counter that by claiming instead of the 5 or so major races, there are hundreds or thousands. They will say it’s stupid to have a “Caucasoid” race because that implies that Scandinavians, Iberians, Irish, Iranians, and and Greeks are all the same, that there’s no difference between them. This is of course absurd, and using that same line of reasoning, the “we are all one race” people are the greatest deniers of human biodiversity.

    I gave the example of the Waterbuck antelope (Kobus ellipsiprymnus) above, which originally had 37 subspecies but then it was split into 2 subspecies but with [sub-]subspecies within them. We can see something with the domesticated cow, Bos taurus. It is separated into two main subspecies, B. t. indicus (Zebu) and B. t. taurus. And within these two formally recognized subspecies, there are numerous “breeds” a word which if translated into various European languages will simply be “race” (razza, rasse, ras, etc).

    Nothing about the concept of a polytypic species claims that each subspecies has to be the exact same size, or have the same level of genetic diversity. It is sometimes the case, such as with the Common Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatu) that one subspecies, the Black Sea Bottlenose Dolphin (T. t. ponticus) is found in one place, the population is about 2% [if that] the size of the former which is spread across the globe. There is no inconsistency or contradiction here, but it really gives me a good chuckle when people like Okechukwu (who I am guessing is Black) come in with these arguments like it’s some profound argument against the evil, racist, 5-race taxonomy that has been around for a few centuries. “Haha, those evil White racists who made up those silly terms to justify their slavery and to oppress us by saying we’re all the same, they didn’t know Africa was the most diverse!” All they can do is attack strawman arguments, scream “Racist!” or use some other fallacy.

    But maybe it is the case that humans should be separated into only two subspecies, one of them “Sub-Saharan African” and the other as something else including all Eurasians, Amerindians and so on. And then after this, each one is further delineated. I think an argument can be made for that, I’m not going to do it but I would be happy to hear someone’s case.

    Usually, Africa is split into 3 races; Negroid, Capoid, and Caucasoid. Here is an FST table:

    Bantu are not so divergent from the San here, but I wonder if that’s recent admixture. East Africans are mostly a hybrid of Caucasoid and Negroid, so that could explain some of those results we see. But notably, the Mbuti-San genetic distance is quite substantial, and actually comparable to the Mbuti-Danish genetic distance. The FST value between Mbuti and Danish is 14.6%, but between the Mbuti and English it is 23.7%. Why the big discrepancy here, sampling issues?

    Anyway, for some reason or another Blacks do not seem motivated to try to “Correct the mistakes” of grouping all sub-Saharans [sans Khoisan] into one “Negroid/Congoid” race, except by denying race altogether, or to somehow gloat about the high genetic diversity of “Africa” (I wonder if the homo erectus admixture has something to do with this?). They also seem hesitant to say “sub-Saharan African” and instead saying “African” (which includes North African Caucasoids) even though that’s not the grouping used by anyone. But it does not appear that they actually really have strong beliefs about any of these things, they just think “Racisms are bad” and then any excuse they can muster to “fight racisms” they will use.

    But as I explained, people are more likely to see small differences in their own kind, it’s not a “racist conspiracy” as Okechukwu wants us all to believe to have an over-inclusive “Negroid” categorization. It could just a lack of Blacks contributing to this sort of thing. Let’s see if he will offer some reasoned arguments in favor of separating sub-Saharan Africans into separate races/subspecies at the same level East Asians and Europeans are separated at. I doubt it though.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @James Thompson
  384. utu says:
    @Theodore

    The FST value between Mbuti and Danish is 14.6%, but between the Mbuti and English it is 23.7%. Why the big discrepancy here, sampling issues?

    Most likely sampling issue. Few years ago I looked at the question whether FST is the best measure of population diversity and genetic distance between populations. See for example here where I speculate why Lewontin has used Shannon’s metric instead of the standard Sewall Wright and Ronald Fisher metric:

    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-worlds-iq-86/?showcomments#comment-2067869

    I suspect that the genetic distance should be defined in the principal component space because PCs assign different weights to different SNPs to maximize the amount of variance explained with the minimal number of principal components. While in standard approach such as that by Lewontin which use FST all SNPs have the same weight for all genetic markers. Finally nobody seems to use all markers. There are 10 millions of SNPs that should matter, right? How many SNPs are used by 1994 Cavalli-Sforza?

    One more thing. All diversity measures based on allele frequency have a term f*(1-f) or similar that is maximum at f=0.5. So a population with 50/50 blue/brown eyes like Europeans approximately has maximum diversity as opposed to Asians or Africans who are approximately 0/100 in blue/brown and thus have zero diversity.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Theodore
  385. Okechukwu says:
    @Theodore

    Actually he is entirely correct. Your appeal to authority is ignored. The evidence is everywhere, actually.

    No. If Watson was correct he would be uncensurable. Nobody would be able to touch him. No scientist ever got into trouble for subscribing to the law of universal gravitation. Because that is real. However, the notion that black people are intellectually inferior can be challenged and refuted. In a court of law, under the rules of evidence, it would be summarily impeached.

    James Watson had his integrity as a scientist completely and unabashedly savaged. Condemnatory words like unsubstantiated, reckless, reprehensible, unsupported, etc. were shoved up Watson’s ass, and he did nothing. He could not challenge the accusations. He had no counter. He had no contradictory evidence because none exist. He knew it, and the people indicting him knew it. In fact none of the promoters of racist pseudoscience came to Watson’s aide with countervailing and persuasive scientific evidence. Because despite all the garbage you people write on these forums, no such evidence exists.

    If they were asking for evidence they would be funding actually objective studies on this, but they are not.

    LOL. So you want it studied, eh? But why? Aren’t you absolutely convinced that it is a forgone conclusion that Watson is correct? Why does something that is so glaringly obvious (according to you) need to be studied? So you don’t actually believe it, do you? You know that this question, at the very least, is open and unproven. In fact it could very well be black people that have a genetic advantage in intelligence.

    Actually, it’s pointless to study this matter. For one thing, you and most of the other posters on here would never accept results that didn’t concur with your delusional and unscientific worldview. Consider that Dr. Thompson and all of you have spent a great deal of time and energy trying to debunk a paper dealing with this topic, simply because it doesn’t say what you would like to hear. So even if we spent a trillion dollars studying “race and IQ” if the results don’t comport with the ideology of racist pseudoscience, people like you would reject it and would continue writing your bullshit online.

    A few examples:
    – regression to different means
    – different frequency of alleles linked to cognitive ability
    – lower IQ of blacks raised in high income environments compared to poor whites
    – blacks and whites at the same IQ level score differently on IQ subtests
    – interracial adoption studies show blacks scoring below mulattoes who self identify as fully black, who score below whites, despite all being adopted into similar environments
    – 100% consensus on every study measuring black and white brain sizes, finding blacks have smaller brains
    – the gap has remained relatively stable for a century despite social disparities narrowing considerably
    – literally 0 experiments showing randomly selected black median IQ being raised to 100 with gains stable into adulthood
    – egalitarians have only offered “theories” with no tangible support for their position. they prefer to cling to those that can’t be quantified, proven or disproven

    Every single statement above is incorrect. Every single one. That’s how detached from reality you are. But keep up the good work. Your kind of ignorance in stupidity is good for our side. We should put you on the payroll.

    Imagine if Watson said Whites will always be a minority in the NBA because they can’t run as fast or jump as high on average, due to genes.

    And he would be wrong again.

    • Troll: eugyppius
    • Replies: @Theodore
    , @res
    , @James Thompson
  386. Mike-SMO says:

    The discussion here has a focus on race/subspecies/etc but avoids the apparent factthat the West Africans brought to the Western Hemisphere were not a “natural” population. Some portion of the population in the Atlantic Trade were “kidnap” victims but a significant, and unknowable, portion were already slaves due to debt, failure or criminal activity. Those in fact may have been “double culls” who were deprived of their freedom in society and then dismissed/sold by the family/clan/village/etc. that was responsible for their care/guidance/control. Modern immigrants in comparison are likely to be those from a prosperous level of society who were successful in schools and society.

    Race might be a minor component of the problems of Afro-Americans.

    https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/my-great-grandfather-the-nigerian-slave-trader

  387. utu says:
    @J.G.R. Fuerst

    What do you mean “ranked”?. – Ordered in, say, ascending order.

    Quayshawn Spencer? Are you really serious? He is trolling you guys and he gets away with it because he is black. Is Quayshawn Spencer to white racialists what Alan Sokal was to postmodern cultural studies?

    Look at this drivel:

    5. Why K Populations are Biological Populations

    Remember that biological populations must be, at the very least, groups that evolve. Thus, if K populations are not, at least, groups that evolve, then the population geneticists who are acknowledging continental populations in humans are using the word ‘population’ in a way that is not helpful for evolutionary research. However, K populations are groups that evolve, and this fact can be derived from the definition of a K population.

    Suppose we have an arbitrary K population p and we want to know how it originated. By definition, the first temporal part of p is a KP beginning. Furthermore, KP beginnings, by definition, are offspring from one or more KP parts that are distinct from it. But for a KP part to be an offspring it must be a modified version of its parent, either in its object space or membership function. Thus, p will be a modified descendant the moment its first temporal part originates.

    Nevertheless, it’s an empirical question whether p originated from another K population since the KP part that p originated from could be a temporal part of a different kind of biological population. In any case, it’s easy to see how K populations form evolutionary networks.

    Are white racialist guys so desperate for any confirmation that they fall for this black self-deluded or not huckster?

    • Replies: @J.G.R. Fuerst
  388. Okechukwu says:
    @Theodore

    All I am reading here is “Rushton’s work hurts my feelings”

    Well, according to Rushton whichever one of us has a smaller dick is smarter. That’s your hero. LOL.

    Actually, those who think that race differences in IQ are 100% environmental are the minority. Nobody thinks it’s 100% genetic, so we all agree that environment is important.

    Virtually no one is thinking about so-called race differences. Most people think in terms of the intelligence of individuals. That is, there is a nature/nurture nexus in individual intelligence.

    What you people deceptively try to do is to insinuate the racial element into that general understanding of how intelligence works in individuals. It’s sort of a corruption of deductive reasoning whereby it is suggested that since genes play a role in intelligence, genes must also play a role in any alleged racial differences in IQ. It’s an absurd conflation of course.

    So you, the one who is claiming 100% of the Black-White IQ gap is due to environmental differences is the one with the fringe theory. A theory which has never been substantiated by a single experiment, but contradicted by many.

    It’s weird that you accuse me of claiming that when my real position is that black Americans have a substantially higher IQ than white Americans. When you consider everything black people have been through over 400 years any reasonable assessment would have to adjust their IQ from the present 91 to something in the range of 110-115. Put white people through the very same experience and they probably would have an IQ substantially lower than 91.

    Btw, this black American IQ of 91 is higher than the IQ’s of billions of Caucasians in North Africa, the Middle East, Southern Europe, Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent. American whites are Caucasians. If Caucasians have a genetic edge why do these billions of Caucasians have lower IQ’s than black Americans?

    You see, these theories are too easy to shoot down, which is why you people can never get anywhere.

    • Replies: @Theodore
    , @CanSpeccy
  389. @Theodore

    Egalitarianism is a political idea (and illusion), and not at all scientific. Members of the scientific establishment may reject genetic inequality as “unscientific”, but that is a political statement, of no more scientific value than Lysenkoism in Stalin’s Russia.

    • Replies: @Theodore
  390. @utu

    Spencer is merely explaining things in philosophy jargon to other so-called philosophers of science. It is more or less the same concept as “biogeographic ancestry group” used by countless genetic epidemiologists, just articulated differently. I have given my own take, as have many others. Since he defends US racial classifications, in particular, and digs up evidence that they are still being informed by biological race concepts — something I did not know — his discussions are of interest to me.

    Personally, I don’t find the concept “ancestry group” difficult to understand. And no one has yet explained to me how this is substantially different from Darwin’s or others’ ‘races’ as divisions based on ‘propinquity of descent’ etc.:

    “Grant all races of man descended from one race; grant that all structure [i.e., physical features] of each race of man were perfectly known – grant that a perfect table of descent of each race was perfectly known – grant all this, & then do you not think that most would prefer as the best classification, a genealogical one, even if it did occasionally put one race not quite so near to another, as it would have stood, if allocated by structure alone. Generally, we may safely presume, that the resemblance of races & their pedigrees would go together. (Darwin, 1903, letter 204)”

    Or why I should not informally use the term ‘race’ this way, especially given my formal association with Darwin’s nephew’s London School. Though, the term is not particularly important. However, the concept which I mean by it has proven useful for examining behavioral variation in the Americas (we have a third admixture study in the works & a forth under preparation).My own research, to which Bireny et al were in part responding, provides confirmation of that. It will be interesting to see if the same holds for other admixed groups like Cape Coloreds.

    • Replies: @utu
  391. Theodore says:
    @Okechukwu

    Well, according to Rushton whichever one of us has a smaller dick is smarter. That’s your hero. LOL.

    I hope you’re trolling / pretending to be stupid, because that’s simply not what he said.

    Virtually no one is thinking about so-called race differences.

    Source: your opinion

    Most people think in terms of the intelligence of individuals.

    Yes and the intelligence of individuals is important. We should never judge a person’s intelligence by ignoring their own behavior and assuming they are identical in intellectual ability to all of the millions of people who are their racial kin.
    Fortunately, that’s not what the so-called “Racists” are even doing, in fact they claim a bell-curve distribution of IQs for each race.

    But it is untrue that people don’t care about group intelligence, or group performance. School districts all over the country are judged by the average performance on tests of their students.

    Also, it is the case that just as individuals have characteristics, groups also have characteristics, and to ignore the latter for fear of being called a “racist” is just pathetic and childish to say the least.

    That is, there is a nature/nurture nexus in individual intelligence.

    Yes, we all know this. But it’s a separate debate on what the cause of the Black-White IQ gap is, but given that 70-90% of the difference between two random individuals in IQ is due to genetic differences between them, the starting theory should not be “The gap is 100% environmental”.

    What you people deceptively try to do is to insinuate the racial element into that general understanding of how intelligence works in individuals. It’s sort of a corruption of deductive reasoning whereby it is suggested that since genes play a role in intelligence, genes must also play a role in any alleged racial differences in IQ. It’s an absurd conflation of course.

    You contradict yourself. First, you state that we are trying to insinuate a racial element in intellectual ability, and this is completely wrong. And then you admit that we are instead claiming that the differences in intellectual ability between individuals is mostly/largely/significantly due to genetic differences, but falsely claim that this fact is why we believe genetic differences also play a role in Black-White IQ differences.

    You contradict yourself because “Race influences intelligence” (which is wrong) is not the same as “genes influence intelligence, and races have different frequencies of certain alleles”. Analogously, race does not determine your skin color, your genes do (and sun exposure). It just so happens that the skin color genes/alleles differ between Whites and Blacks.

    Now I agree it’s silly to think that Black-White IQ gap is substantially genetic merely because individual differences are. But I pointed out various reasons why it is not so simple and many factors support this.

    In post #391 you responded to this, and stated, incorrectly, “Every single statement above is incorrect. Every single one.”

    Clearly you are not an honest person, you can not distinguish fantasy from reality.

    It’s weird that you accuse me of claiming that when my real position is that black Americans have a substantially higher IQ than white Americans. When you consider everything black people have been through over 400 years any reasonable assessment would have to adjust their IQ from the present 91 to something in the range of 110-115. Put white people through the very same experience and they probably would have an IQ substantially lower than 91.

    Nice troll, who cares about your opinion? It’s not supported by any facts or experiments

    Btw, this black American IQ of 91 is higher than the IQ’s of billions of Caucasians in North Africa, the Middle East, Southern Europe, Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent. American whites are Caucasians. If Caucasians have a genetic edge why do these billions of Caucasians have lower IQ’s than black Americans?

    See, you’re doing it again. You’re assuming the wrong position. I would never argue that all Caucasians have a “genetic edge” or whatever. I don’t even think of it as a “genetic edge”.

    Black American’s (who are 20-25% White) IQ median is closer to 85 than 91, but even then, I do not argue that ALL Caucasian groups must be higher median IQ than ALL negro populations. That’s a complete distortion of my position. I never claimed or suggested or implied this.

    You see, these theories are too easy to shoot down, which is why you people can never get anywhere.

    I agree, they’re really easy to shoot down. The only problem is that you’re inventing them in your head, it’s a strawman argument. It’s not a theory anyone really seriously considered, it’s just one you invented to “disprove” in some massive waste of time. I wonder why? It’s not difficult to understand the position, but you keep misunderstanding it or just pretending to.

  392. Theodore says:
    @Okechukwu

    This is not merely stupidity, there is some sort of mental illness at work here. I will just address the questions asked of me, because the rest is simply the ramblings of an insane person mixed with the best example on Unz this week of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    To anyone interested, I suggest the following:

    Race and IQ
    https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/race-and-iq/

    Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability
    https://archive.md/1mY79

    Race and intelligence
    https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

    I suggest to read both sides and then decide which one is more sound. Okechukwu instead would say to not read one side, just call it “Racist” and then assume the other side is correct.

    LOL. So you want it studied, eh? But why? Aren’t you absolutely convinced that it is a forgone conclusion that Watson is correct? Why does something that is so glaringly obvious (according to you) need to be studied? So you don’t actually believe it, do you?

    I think the available evidence supports the position that most of the Black-White IQ gap can be attributed to genetic differences, but environment plays some role. But I would be happy to see far more research on this. My prediction is that it would confirm the hereditarian position.

    But there’s nothing wrong with more studies and research, it would be great if we had more studies. I just want to be correct, scientifically. Nothing about my personal, political, or ideological beliefs hinges on the Black-White IQ gap being [largely] genetic. If I was conclusively proven wrong (Nobody has done this, but I would happily have a formal debate with you on this subject, if Ron Unz or someone else agreed to moderate and enforce some rules like word limits).

    If something about Blacks, even Blacks adopted into White families, even Blacks with rich parents; if something about their life is so absolutely horrible to lower their median IQ by nearly an entire standard deviation, I would want that conclusively found out and exposed. To date, there is not a single experiment which raised ordinary/randomly selected Black American IQ to equal or greater than the White average (100) into adulthood. Every single attempt has failed, miserable. At best, there are a handful of adoption studies of very young children with low sample sizes that hint at this theory (when IQ has very low heritability as per the Wilson effect), but of course they are dwarfed by the larger and more comprehensive Minnesota transracial adoption study which resulted exactly how the hereditarians would predict. Nearly all of the experiments do. This is why they refuse to do more experiments, they keep going the wrong way.

    Also:

    Every single statement above is incorrect. Every single one

    Should be easy for you to pick just ONE (01) of those points and actually prove it wrong. You can’t! Really sad to see you flounder in this way.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  393. @Theodore

    Agree that “relatedness” is an important concept in this debate, and that it is also important to put population numbers against each of the genetic groupings, so as to be able to engage with the real-world consequences of genetic differences.

  394. res says:
    @utu

    I suspect that the genetic distance should be defined in the principal component space because PCs assign different weights to different SNPs to maximize the amount of variance explained with the minimal number of principal components.

    This is an interesting idea, but wouldn’t you need to weight them in some fashion? I think weighting by variance explained would give something like the raw distance, while no weighting would actually underweight the most important PCs.

    I think what we really want (for comparison) is phenotypic distance. But that is probably unmeasurable in practice even if we could agree on an acceptable theoretical measure.

    Finally nobody seems to use all markers. There are 10 millions of SNPs that should matter, right? How many SNPs are used by 1994 Cavalli-Sforza?

    To my (relatively uninformed about Fst) mind this seems like the biggest issue with using Fst as a measure. It varies by SNP and there is no good convention as to which SNPs to include. Or which particular Fst methods to use. I suspect many of the Fst comparisons we see between papers are not apples to apples comparisons and should be interpreted with caution.

    This paper claims one can estimate Fst well with a small number of SNPs (and I think implies the Fst calculation does not depend on the number of SNPs, so perhaps I am missing something?):
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419229/

    This paper gives a detailed look at different Fst calculations. Note the presence of Nick Patterson (IIRC the math brains behind much of David Reich’s work: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/science/12prof.html ) in the author list.
    Estimating and Interpreting FST: the Impact of Rare Variants
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3759727/

    This seems like a good paper for giving some background on the history:
    Genetic Characterization of Human Populations: From ABO to a Genetic Map of the British People
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4317642

    For example:

    The tree that Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards (1965) obtained, using data from five blood groups and 18 alleles on 15 populations, is shown in Figure 3A. In their words, it showed “three branches, Europeans, Africans and Asiatics … splitting into a variety of subgroups” and a “remarkable similarity between the blood group map thus obtained and the geographical map” (Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards 1965, pp. 929–930).

    and this figure which also gives information about the 1994 version in the caption:

    (A) Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards (1965) published the first evolutionary tree of human populations based on gene frequency data for five blood group systems. (B) An updated evolutionary tree based on 42 populations and 49 polymorphic systems (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1988, 1994).

    I like Bodmer’s recap of Lewontin’s Fallacy:

    …Thus, these three separate and independent assessments came to essentially the same conclusion, namely, that between 80 and 90% of the genetic variation in the human population was between individuals within populations or ethnic groups and only 10–15% was between the groups. Lewontin (1972) used this result to argue that there was, therefore, no meaning or value to defining human groups on the basis of genetic variation, concluding his article with the statement: “Human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance’’ (Lewontin 1972, p. 397). The opening statement of this last sentence is clearly scientifically wrong because the same genetic data have been successfully used to describe relationships between human populations in terms of evolutionary trees (for a clear explanation of this, see Edwards 2003). Furthermore, as I will describe later, it has now become possible in many cases to identify with reasonably high probability where people come from even within the United Kingdom. From a purely medical point of view, it can be very important to know a patient’s ethnic background because that can influence whether she or he should be screened for a particular genetic disease, including Tay Sachs in Ashkenazi Jewish populations and sickle cell trait for those with a West African background.

    BTW, I hope it is obvious to everyone that looking only at SNPs ignores non-SNP genetic variation. I wonder what racial differences in indels, CNVs, etc. will turn out to look like. See the Variant Call and RegionTypes table at this link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/dbvar/content/overview/
    which gives a comprehensive list of different types of structural variation. Also see the dbVar Variant rendering table which gives a visual look which may be helpful for understanding resources like the UCSC genome browser.

    • Replies: @utu
  395. Theodore says:
    @utu

    Yes, that seems to be the most obvious explanation. There is no way there was more gene flow between these pygmies and Danes compared to Brits, or between any other African group and these two European populations which are genetically extremely similar. I don’t know how many SNPs are used by Cavalli-Sforza, but I spent a good hour searching for large FST tables and that was the most comprehensive one that I found (in terms of the number of populations sampled, and that they were broken down into ethnic groups rather than “European” and “African” and “East Asian”) but given that it is 25 years old I am sure there were not too many. If you know of a comparable FST table that compares various Africa, Asian, European and Amerindian subgroups I would like to see it. I found this one:
    from: doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013443

    Curiously, the more MSATs used, Europeans get closer to Africans and Middle Easterners get further. I wonder why? You would expect of any Caucasoid admixture in Africa, it would be from the Middle East (especially in the case of East Africa).

    But at the same time the study used for Africans (5 Mbuti, 5 Biaka, 16 of unspecified group) and for ME (5 Druze, 11 Ashkenazi Jewish, 10 Iranian Jewish, and 10 Moroccan Jewish)
    So it could just be that the Jews themselves are somewhat more inbred, which would raise the figure. That is why I don’t like the tables that use these homogenous groups, it changes the results quite a bit: grouping East Africans into the “African” group, using Jews which are not representative of all Middle Easterners, sometimes grouping Southeast Asians (with Australoid admixture) into Northeast Asians, etc.

    I am also interested in Anti-HBD’s mention of the Seri & Lancodon who had high FST values between them and other Amerinds. There is no figure on the genetic distance between these groups and Africans, Europeans, or East Asians. I would expect it to be very large.
    When I was reading literature on sub-species classification of other mammals, the authors would usually use two FST figures: average distance between populations, and the range (highest and lowest). I think if we found the most divergent populations, probably some inbred Amerind tribe and some African group, we would note extremely high FST values.

    I would like to see something like Cavalli-Sforza’s table but more modern, either FST or a better calculation.

    • Replies: @utu
  396. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    No. If Watson was correct he would be uncensurable.

    And yet it moves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet_it_moves

    Your trust in authority is cute. Are you always this naive?

    And since we have talked about PC censorship in this thread already, let’s repeat the reference I gave above.

    A scientometric analysis of controversies in the field of intelligence research
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289619301795

  397. Theodore says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    One could easily make the case that it is instead a sort of religion. Certainly, many people react to this information in just an ‘elementary’ way (including the comparable physiological symptoms) as members of primitive Polynesian tribes would react to an infringement of one of their taboos. They are literally besides themselves and neither prepared nor capable of soberly discussing the subject at hand. All they can do is respond with a damnation shriek, you “racist” – you heathen, you heretic! How dare you say such a thing!

    Cue the photographs of very sad black and brown people, the ultimate and sole conceivable outcome of your impious and iconoclastic beliefs, of your “hate speech.”

  398. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Okechukwu

    The paper Dr. Thompson’s moronic essay is attempting (and failing completely) to refute

    Your characterization of Dr. Thompson’s essay prompted me to read it and, having done so, I conclude that it is not moronic, but that it involves a false assumption; namely, that IQ measures intelligence, whereas, in fact, intelligence, i.e., the ability to acquire and use information, is a vastly broader faculty than can be evaluated by a test of verbal and numerical reasoning, which is pretty much all that an IQ test consists in. Thus all broad inferences from IQ tests, including those concerning racial variation in intelligence, fail because they are based on the lamppost fallacy.

    Moreover, from the Flynn Effect, we know that even in the matter of reasoning ability, the IQ test is a poor measure of innate ability, since the results are subject to large cultural/educational effects.

    The HBD holy grail is a racial caste system with an attendant racial hierarchy in intelligence

    It is more than that. It is a universal hierarchy they wish to establish. Among races, as they conceive the term “race,” yes, but also within Western society where IQ-ism mainly flourishes. This is a project that has great appeal for some people, reflecting, presumably the desire for a strictly disciplined society where a rigid hierarchy is firmly imposed. It is the creed of the natural born fascist. And it provides a special place in society for the arbiters of status, i.e., the men with their mental measuring tape, the IQ test.

  399. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Okechukwu

    Well, according to Rushton whichever one of us has a smaller dick is smarter.

    You can’t win with that argument. Res will say you are projecting.

    • LOL: Okechukwu
  400. @CanSpeccy

    ” but that it involves a false assumption; namely, that IQ measures intelligence, whereas, in fact, intelligence, i.e., the ability to acquire and use information, is a vastly broader faculty than can be evaluated by a test of verbal and numerical reasoning, which is pretty much all that an IQ test consists in. ”

    I imagine that, as a clinical psychologist, Dr. Thompson is a bit more familiar than you are with the construction and administration of IQ batteries. Regarding your repeated claim, though, I don’t see one “verbal and numerical reasoning test,” for example, on the WAIS performance scale. But tell me what you see:
    Now, it is true that much research relies exclusively on tests of verbal and numerical reasoning. This is for convenience sake, as such data is available, since these measure are much more prevalent in academic and employment selection. However, consider our recent admixture paper in which use the general factor extracted from the diverse Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4345134/

    There was only one verbal or numerical reasoning test, and when we exclude it, we got the same results. So, I do not know what you mean. And I find your repeated complaint annoying, since in that case, I went out of my way to identity a sample with a battery of diverse subtests to avoid this very objection.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  401. Theodore says:
    @CanSpeccy

    IQ tests are certainly imperfect. Please provide a better test of intellectual ability which shows the races scoring equally.

    As for:

    It is a universal hierarchy they wish to establish. Among races, as they conceive the term “race,” yes, but also within Western society where IQ-ism mainly flourishes. This is a project that has great appeal for some people, reflecting, presumably the desire for a strictly disciplined society where a rigid hierarchy is firmly imposed. It is the creed of the natural born fascist. And it provides a special place in society for the arbiters of status, i.e., the men with their mental measuring tape, the IQ test.

    This is silly. Why do these supposed “White racists” want to create a hierarchy in which they are not even at the top? I mean the race differences in IQ are undeniable, they’re 100% real. We only debate the exact cause of them, and the reality is that the totality of evidence suggests that both genes and environment plays a role. You can hate this fact and wish it was not true, while still acknowledging that it is. I don’t see the IQ differences as something “they wish to establish” they are already established, but it is not really proven that these gaps can magically go away by improving environment. The experiments attempting to do so have universally failed, all we have from the egalitarian fringe-theory minority is some unfalsfiable theories of telepathic racism/oppression. How is that supposed to convince anyone who wants to believe the truth, rather than what makes them feel good?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  402. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @J.G.R. Fuerst

    I imagine that, as a clinical psychologist, Dr. Thompson is a bit more familiar than you are with the construction and administration of IQ batteries.

    Whatever you imagine, I am sure that Dr. Thompson will speak for himself if he sees a need to say anything concerning the construction and administration of IQ batteries.

    As for the WAIS, I am largely unfamiliar with it. However, I’ve seen IQ test questions and, in fact, I just did ten-question IQ test on the web in which, other than a couple of word definitions, all the questions were logic questions, which seems to confirm my contention that IQ test are essentially tests of logical facility.

    Moreover, even the vocabulary tests, where a synonym is required for a given word, are logic tests, although knowledge of the meaning of words is also required.

  403. Okechukwu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Your characterization of Dr. Thompson’s essay prompted me to read it and, having done so, I conclude that it is not moronic

    Actually, I think I was being charitable. Consider that Dr. Thompson’s subtitle, No Need to Despair presumes that anything that doesn’t toe the racialist party line is cause for despair. Immediately, the reader is given a window into a fanatical belief system that won’t brook dissent.

    Dr. Thompson goes on to say the following:

    Currently, African country levels of IQ are pretty similar.Tribal differences would be interesting.

    Dr. Thompson has no evidence to support this. No credible and acceptable IQ study of various African countries or groups has ever been done. Dr. Thompson is wont to post an image that has African countries assigned IQ’s in the 50’s and 60’s, which if plotted as a Gaussian distribution would evince a median IQ score perhaps in the the 30’s and a left tail perhaps below 15. Dr. Thompson, who considers himself a serious personality, has been promoting this junk for years. He has been advised, repeatedly, by people who’ve actually been to Africa and experienced Africans, and also by those who have a couple of brain cells to rub together, that this data is completely wrong, that Africans exhibit the same levels of intelligence as people in the USA and Europe. But Dr. Thompson persists, presumably for ideological reasons.

    Then Dr. Thompson says:

    I don’t know about “thousands of scientists” but researchers working in the field of genetics, particularly regarding intelligence, tell me they have to be careful what they publish.

    This is absurd. The “researchers” Dr. Thompson has in mind here are the kooks, cranks and charlatans of the kind that attend pseudoscientific confabs like The London Conference on Intelligence and publish in fake pseudo journals like OpenPsych. These are not real researchers. They are agenda-driven racists, white nationalists and various other scientifically and mathematically-challenged quacks who would never have the courage to present their “research” at a bricks and mortar scientific conference anywhere in the world.

    In actuality, legitimate scientists that are investigating human intelligence have absolutely nothing to fear. That is a noble area of scientific inquiry. Alleged racial differences in intelligence is not legitimate, since there is absolutely no evidence that such racial differences in intelligence exist. If they want to study the differences in intelligence between humans and chimpanzees, fine. But they should expect to receive fierce resistance when they suggest as a starting point (with no evidence, I might add) that some “races” are smarter than others. I shouldn’t even have to tell anyone why this is a bad idea. The tens of millions of innocent people who have been destroyed as a result of supremacist pseudoscience speak eloquently to why it is a bad idea.

    Then there is this little nugget that made me chuckle:

    If something is heritable there must be a genetic mechanism which makes it so.

    So the big blogger Dr. Thompson has the same appreciation of how heritability works as your average troll on YouTube. In other words, he doesn’t seem to know how heritability works. I suppose if Dr. Thompson inherits a million dollars from his parents that means he has the genetic mechanism for a million dollars.

    And then there is this:

    Researchers (Lee et al. 2018) have already used European polygenic risk scores for intelligence on African samples, and the formula which predicts 11-14% of the intelligence variance in Europeans predicts 1.6% of the variance in Africans.

    Here Dr. Thompson makes several errors. He ignores Lee et al’s disclaimer on this particular point. He conflates educational attainment with intrinsic intelligence. And he describes Africa-Americans as Africans.

    And this:

    First, that the SNPs that boost intelligence in Europeans are also found in Africans. Great. Are they found as frequently?

    Are they not found as frequently? Does Dr. Thompson have credible evidence that intelligence boosting SNP’s are found less frequently in Africans? No, he doesn’t. As I write this there are innumerable Africans sitting in villages who are vastly more intelligent than Dr. Thompson. So Africans have not been deprived of intelligence boosting SNP’s.

    And this:

    The authors go on to argue that, regarding black/white intelligence differences in the US, “It is our contention that any apparent population differences in IQ scores are more easily explained by cultural and environmental factors than they are by genetics.”

    Dr. Thompson mischaracterizes the authors as describing IQ as intelligence. No serious person in this field conflates IQ with native intelligence. IQ is an academic exercise. Plenty of people who ostensibly are high IQ are actually not particularly smart.

    And this:

    Brazil, for example, which had a far more relaxed attitude about different race marriages, and far less race-based strife, has racial differences in intelligence and scholastic attainment very much like those found in the US.

    There are no racial differences in intelligence in Brazil or the US. Dr. Thompson still does not understand the distinction between raw intelligence and IQ or scholastic achievement. There are uneducated black Brazilians in favelas who are natively more intelligent than white Brazilian PhD’s. Dr. Thompson doesn’t seem to understand that what he is describing is white supremacy, which was repudiated globally with the defeat of Nazi Germany. Dr. Thompson also doesn’t seem to understand how human intelligence works.

    Moreover, Brazil has its own legacy of racial discrimination whose impact persists. And Brazil continues to have pernicious racial discrimination that in many ways is worse than the racism experienced by black people in the United States.

    Social Apartheid in Brazil

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

    Dr. Thompson once again is wallowing in ignorance. He also doesn’t provide a link to these alleged Brazilian IQ studies.

    And this:

    The authors mention the Flynn effect, but not that Flynn accepts that the secular rise in intelligence scores has not led to the disappearance of the black/white achievement gap.

    This is a lie. The black/white IQ gap in the US has indeed been closing and will one day converge.

    On James Flynn:

    For the record, Jim Flynn says hypotheses about the genetic origins of such differences should be tested.

    Since he is quoting Flynn, would Dr. Thompson agree with Flynn’s hypothesis that it is entirely possible that the 10-point black/white IQ difference we see reflects a 12 point environmental difference and a negative 2 point genetic difference? In other words, Flynn postulates that black Americans may have an innate genetic advantage in intelligence over white Americans which is overwhelmed by environmental factors.

    And this reflects jaw-dropping ignorance on the part of Dr. Thompson, along with total cluelessness with regard to how valid scientific experiments are conducted:

    If South East Asian post-colonial progress is better than African post-colonial progress then some of the negative effects of colonialism can be questioned.

    Beyond suggesting that places like the Belgian Congo had the same colonial experience as, say, Hong Kong, Dr. Thompson has failed utterly to account for literally innumerable variables and confounds that make such comparisons untenable. I would expect a 3rd grader to know better. Dr. Thompson is a guy, I would assume, has a high IQ. So you see how IQ can mislead.

    Just the ethnic and linguistic elements alone (literally dozens of ethnic groups and languages in any African landmass the size of Hong Kong) makes the comparisons to mono-ethnic, mono-lingual and culturally homogeneous entities foolish and senseless. That’s before we start looking at things like history, location, influences and so on.

    Dr. Thompson reflects all the flaws that consign racist pseudoscience to the garbage dump. No, people don’t reject it because of political correctness, people reject it because it’s garbage.

    • LOL: mikemikev, Theodore
  404. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Theodore

    Please provide a better test of intellectual ability which shows the races scoring equally.

    It’s not my responsibility to invent an intelligence test — something I believe is far beyond the capability of psychological science in its present stage of development.

    As for showing that the races score equally, why would you assume that they would?

    Certainly I have never said that they would. I’ve simply said that there is no valid test of intelligence as that word is defined in the English language, i.e., the ability to acquire and use information.

    Maybe you’ll tell us the way to go. How for example do you quantify information acquisition when it comes to, say, remembering a landscape, a sonata, or a face?

    Res, speaking with commendable candor, has informed that that challenge is beyond him. Pretty certainly it is beyond the world of science as it now stands.

    So what the IQ-ist claim amounts to is this. What IQ tests measure is all that we know how to measure and intelligence is what our tests measure. Unfortunately, that is not a logical position to take.

    • Replies: @Theodore
    , @J.G.R. Fuerst
  405. Theodore says:
    @CanSpeccy

    As for showing that the races score equally, why would you assume that they would?

    I would not assume that, but you are talking about some sort of “universal hierarchy” which is not even what I understood the position to be.

    So what the IQ-ist claim amounts to is this. What IQ tests measure is all that we know how to measure and intelligence is what our tests measure. Unfortunately, that is not a logical position to take.

    That’s not what I ever understood from it. What I understood is that it measures something that is related to cognitive ability, and it is among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. But it does not measure many other important (perhaps more important) traits, nor does it intend to.

    And that is why there really is no evidence of a better test existing.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  406. Anti-HBD says:
    @J.G.R. Fuerst

    Whatever the case, what Hochman seems to have in mind — it is not clear if he doesn’t recognize the difference or if he is eliding it — is different from what I do (Lineage-populations), what Spencer does (K-population), what Sesardic does (clusters), and, in fact, what almost every contemporary defender of “race” mean — which is a particular kind of ancestry group.

    But then how is race an objective category? Cluster analyses depends on many things and programs like ADMIXTURE for example might underestimate or overestimate ancestry components. How can you be sure that when you look at CEU for example in a STRUCTURE or ADMIXTURE plot that you are not missing any African ancestry that the program did not notice due to K runs or sampling bias?

    In fact, how can these clusters be objective when you have Tishkoff, 2009 for example finding 14 for worldwide populations and Rosenberg et al, 2002 finding Kalash as a cluster.

    • Replies: @J.G.R. Fuerst
    , @Theodore
  407. Okechukwu says:
    @Theodore

    First Rushton, now Alternative Hypothesis?

    Okay, you’re no longer worthy of a response.

    But I tell you what, take your idiocy to a scientific conference in any country on earth and note the reaction.

    • Replies: @Theodore
    , @RobbieSmith
  408. utu says:
    @J.G.R. Fuerst

    Spencer is merely explaining things in philosophy jargon to other so-called philosophers of science.

    There is more jargon than explanation if any. It is useless garbage.

  409. @CanSpeccy

    re:”Maybe you’ll tell us the way to go. How for example do you quantify information acquisition when it comes to, say, remembering a landscape, a sonata, or a face?”

    Using a battery of memory tests. For example, the PNCB had a test precisely for this:

    “The Penn Facial Memory Test (PFMT) measures episodic memory for faces (FMEM). The task is identical to the Penn Word Memory Test (above), except that the participant is asked to memorize faces instead of words. PFMT distractor faces are matched for age, ethnicity, and gender.”

    re:”What IQ tests measure is all that we know how to measure and intelligence is what our tests measure. Unfortunately, that is not a logical position to take.”

    IQ tests measure latent abilities e.g., verbal intelligence, spatial intelligence. These broad intellectual abilities correlate, so they also measure a more general ability, general intelligence (g). Maybe you feel that ‘general intelligence’ is not general enough. Maybe ‘kinesthetic intelligence’ or ‘practical intelligence’ needs to be added to the mix, otherwise we have no-true-intelligence. However, what you feel doesn’t really matter. What is meant is conext to this research is well defined and the construct(s) well validated.

    This is more word policing. Deny “race”, deny “intelligence”, or deny “heritable”.
    –By “race” you must mean “subspecies,” well…
    –By “intelligence” you most mean “a global ability far broader than that measured by so-called intelligence tests”, well…

    No, we mean what we say we mean, not what you or others imagine. The concepts, not words, are what matters. Saying, instead: “biogeographic ancestry groups” possibly differ in the ‘expressed quantitative genetic trait’ that underlies ‘general cognitive ability as operationalized as the first factor extracted from a diverse battery of measures of cognitive ability’ doesn’t change the research question one bit & importantly will not keep us out of trouble from the usual suspects. I have tried it. In fact in some of the very papers being objected to. Here is what we said in the first paper:

    “Cognitive ability, whether measured by IQ tests, Piagetian tests, educational/scholastic tests (e.g., PISA, TIMSS, etc.), or other indices of cognitive functioning, differs on average between biogeographic ancestry groups (BGAs). (We use the term “cognitive ability” instead of “general intelligence” or “general cognitive ability” to make clear that we are not committing to a claim about the psychometric nature of the underlying construct. For the purpose of this study, the distinctions between cognitive ability in general and general cognitive ability are not important.)”

    After we received the very same complaints, we said “fuck it” and reverted to “general intelligence”.
    Perhaps in the next couple, we will revert back to “biological race”.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  410. Theodore says:
    @Okechukwu

    More of the “I don’t like your source wahh” crybaby nonsense. Quite childish.

    Why do people continue to espouse demonstrably false claims even after being confronted with the incontrovertible facts that refute them? Because you can’t convince a true-believer of anything – for their beliefs are not based on science and reason – they’re based on blind faith and a weak-willed NEED to believe. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool critical thinkers – but rather; Only to give self-deceiving cowards an excuse not to think at all.

  411. @Anti-HBD

    “But then how is race an objective category?”

    Here was an article which I recently read about species:

    Garnett, S. T., & Christidis, L. (2017). Taxonomy anarchy hampers conservation. Nature News, 546(7656), 25.

    “There is reasonable agreement among taxonomists that a species should represent a distinct evolutionary lineage. But there is none about how a lineage should be defined. ‘Species’ are often created or dismissed arbitrarily, according to the individual taxonomist’s adherence to one of at least 30 definitions2. Crucially, there is no global oversight of taxonomic decisions — researchers can ‘split or lump’ species with no consideration of the consequences.

    Depending on which species concept is used, one class can seem more threatened than another, and so receive a bigger slice of conservation funding. In 2012, for instance, roughly the same amount of spending was dedicated to birds and mammals, per species, under the US Endangered Species Act4. But if mammals are more finely split than birds, that means more money is being funnelled towards the protection of mammalian genetic diversity overall. Paradoxically, finer splitting could also make certain species more vulnerable. Safari hunters currently achieve the ‘spiral horned grand slam’ by killing just nine types of antelope. Recent developments in taxonomy could see them wanting to kill 25, and targeting smaller populations to do so.

    As with the Anthropocene, decisions about how to partition life are as much a concern of politics and ethics as of biology. If species delineations are at least partly arbitrary, deliberations must draw on expertise beyond taxonomy, morphology, systematics and genetics. Lawyers should be included to ensure that any definition can withstand legal challenge. And anthropologists and sociologists could advise on social equity, given that taxonomic decisions can dramatically affect people’s livelihoods, particularly in low-income countries.”

    How is species an “objective category”? How are “populations”? The difference, though, between “species” and both “populations” and “races” of a species is that the latter two were never claimed to be objective, in the strict sense. As it is, I just claim that races of a species are non-arbitrary. And I spell out exactly what I mean:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301293756_The_Nature_of_Race_the_Genealogy_of_the_Concept_and_the_Biological_Construct%27s_Contemporaneous_Utility
    (II-F Clarification on the Meaning of “Arbitrary” and “Objective” in Context to Natural Divisions)

    If you can find a logical flaw in my analysis, please let me know. Indeed, I will be so bold as to make the following rumpelstiltskin-like offer: find a fatal flaw in my argumentation and I will give up this research program (until I rewrite the essay, which would be a while).

    “Cluster analyses depends on many things and programs like ADMIXTURE for example might underestimate or overestimate ancestry components.”

    Clusters are not races (ancestry groups); they are statistical output from data compression programs. I have a whole section explaining this (“E-II Races, clines, clusters”).

    Note, I am still interested in further discussing Templeton’s argument. But I like to deal with one thing at a time.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  412. Theodore says:
    @Anti-HBD

    But then how is race an objective category?

    I thought we said that it isn’t, that all taxonomic classifications are subjective. This has been understood for centuries.

    What we can try to do at least is be consistent, use the same standards that have been used for other mammalian species. We can ask the question “If we used the same methods/reasoning that has been employed on other mammal populations to determine if they are different species, or different subspecies of one same species, or a monotypic species, what would we find with humans?”

    How can you be sure that when you look at CEU for example in a STRUCTURE or ADMIXTURE plot that you are not missing any African ancestry that the program did not notice due to K runs or sampling bias?

    Well it being “African” is completely irrelevant. These programs do not detect anything about location, but rather genetic differences. So it can not detect if a gene is “African” at all. And if it missing something which you believe should be there, it probably is in a very negligible quantity. I wouldn’t get too bothered over not finding any “African” admixture in Europe if you’re expecting single-digit percentages of it.

    In fact, how can these clusters be objective when you have Tishkoff, 2009 for example finding 14 for worldwide populations and Rosenberg et al, 2002 finding Kalash as a cluster.

    The program will cluster things as it is designed to, with the mathematical formulas programmed into it. It will not just decide to cluster a certain group in a certain way based on feelings. In that way, it is objective.
    However, the clusters can change if, for example in Tishkoff 2009, that you use a large number of populations from one place (Africa) and fewer from another (everywhere else).
    Tishkoff found fourteen African clusters. Notably, certain populations in the continent of Africa had high membership in clusters which were associated with Europe & The Middle East (what one may wish to label “Caucasoid”).

    The Kalash cluster in Roseberg 2002 developed at K=6, and at K=5 they showed just about complete membership in the same cluster just like other West Eurasians (excluding those with East Asian/Monogloid and sub-Saharan/Negroid admixture). So, if we were to believe that the cluster they belonged to at K=5 is Caucasoid, which is the major race that it certainly would correspond to if we were to link each cluster to one of the major races, then Kalash getting their own cluster at K=6 would indicate that they are a sub-group within the larger Caucasoid race. If they remained separate and did not mix with other populations for a long time (which seems to be the case) there’s nothing confusing or surprising about it.

    The Kalash are an interesting population and there has long been debate about their origins, and there still is, but many theories have been binned because of recent genetic data. Some of them claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great’s army, but I am not so sure about that. Hellenthal et al 2014 argued that the Kalash gained a large amount of admixture from Europeans around 990 to 210 BC and suggested Alexander’s soldiers as a possibility.

    They speak an Indo-European language and have a high frequency of R*, R1*, R1a*, R2*. Besides Amerindians, Kalash appear to have the highest frequency of ANE. You brought up Ma’lta boy, but I think the authors of the study on him were making a stretch that he was somehow unmixed, he quite possibly was ANE mixed with some East Asian compnent. Ayub et al 2015 argues that the Kalash are ANE that remained genetically isolated for 11,800 years.

    Or possibly they are a result of an admixture event in the Bronze Age between Indo-Iranian steppe migrants and Central Asian agriculturalists, as suggested by Eurogenes. Whatever their origins are, it is important to point out that the Kalash cluster with West Eurasians at K=5 and then only at K=6 produce their own cluster. That means they are related to other West Eurasians / Caucasoids but also a genetically distinct group within this one at the same time.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  413. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Theodore

    you are talking about some sort of “universal hierarchy” which is not even what I understood the position to be

    Well how else can you describe it? The IQ-ists claim to be able to grade everyone’s intelligence, whether it be of an Einstein or a Mozart, a Shakespeare, a Bezos, or a Buffet, on a uni-dimensional scale. So, according to the IQ-ists, everyone has their place in a single intellectual hierarchy, a place represented by a two or three digit number.

    So what the IQ-ist claim amounts to is this. What IQ tests measure is all that we know how to measure and intelligence is what our tests measure. Unfortunately, that is not a logical position to take.

    That’s not what I ever understood from it.

    That’s what James Flynn says in What Is Intelligence. Specifically, he says that that was Arthur Jensen’s view, a view that Jensen took because he was unable to say what intelligence is.

    What I understood is that it measures something that is related to cognitive ability, and it is among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments.

    Ah! We are to understand something different because you understand something different. Hm, well some may beg to differ.

    And that is why there really is no evidence of a better test existing.

    Yes, so we are to proceed in accordance with the lamppost fallacy, i.e., the test we have is crap, but in the absence of a valid test we’ll use what we’ve got and label people for life, even though we cannot define what we claim to have measured.

    Psychologists need to learn the meaning of the term “operational definition,” which means figuring out what they actually mean by “intelligence,” and then come up with a means of measuring that thing — if they can — which seems in doubt.

    • Replies: