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
Superior Ideology
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Superior: the return of race science. Angela Saini. 4th Estate. London. 2019.

ORDER IT NOW

Excitedly promoted in national newspapers, glowingly reviewed in Sunday magazines, the author interviewed on national radio, this book is part of a mainstream narrative which promotes the ascendant public stance, which is that race does not exist as a useful category, and that those who perversely study it have reprehensible motives.

Saini dedicates the book to her parents “the only ancestors I need to know”. This is touching, though a bit hard on her grandparents. The Prologue (page 3) explains her stance: “The key to understanding the meaning of race is understanding power. When you see how power has shaped the idea of race, and continues to shape it, how it affects even the scientific facts, everything finally begins to make sense”.

As Lenin said in 1921: “The whole question is—who will overtake whom?”

Written by an avowed anti-racist, race, racism, anti-racism, and political groupings on the Right are prominent themes. The style of the book is engagingly discursive, a quick tour through selective history: Hitler gets 8 mentions, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot none. The text is reference free, and flows easily. Papers are listed at the end of the book, but not linked to the text, and claims cannot always be traced to references. Other popular genetics books have given references by page number. This is not a book to read if you want to learn about the genetics of intelligence, or of group differences in intelligence, about which there is surprisingly little.

Much of the book involves interviews with researchers, many of whom argue that there is no biological basis to race “except as social categories”. There is warm praise (page 89) for Montagu’s 1942 view that race “is based upon an arbitrary and superficial collection of external characters” and that “Individual variation within population groups, overlapping with other population groups, turned out to be so enormous that the boundaries of race made less and less sense”.

Amusingly for a book which understandably attacks the notion of racial purity, it tacitly champions ideological purity. As in the Da Vinci Code, it warns the innocent public about shadowy organizations promulgating foul ideas in tainted media, probably planning dreadful things in secret conclaves. Saini’s polemic assumes that if she can show that a person or their associates are right wing, then that invalidates their opinions. Her tone is unabashedly political. It is one thing to try to avoid being partisan, and fail; and quite another to be resolutely partisan throughout, and to assume righteousness. Here are a selection of what Saini regards as strong arguments.

Saini (page 90) quotes Lewontin 1972 and concludes:

In total, around 90% of the variation lies roughly within the old racial categories, not between them. There has been at least one critique of Lewontin’s statistical method since then, but geneticists today overwhelmingly agree that although they may be able to use genomic data to roughly categorize people by the continent their ancestors came from (something we can often do equally well by sight), by far the biggest chunk of human genetic difference indeed lies within populations.

First, there is no detailed criticism of Lewontin’s argument. Second, it is admitted that DNA alone can confirm genetic groups, albeit “roughly”. In fact, it can be done with very high precision, as Tang et al. (2005) have shown. Third, Lewontin’s misleading conclusion is repeated, without saying that some genes acting together can have big effects, and many other genes of minimal effect do not wash away actual differences. It would be like denying Pygmies are short or that the fastest sprinters are usually West Africans.

Richard Dawkins gave an elegant summary:

However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance.

A balanced account would have mentioned findings which changed the picture. Lewontin based his claims on blood type markers: about as advanced as it was possible to be in 1972, but hopeless to identify genetic clustering, therefore doomed to render a false negative. By 1975 the number of markers had increased sufficiently to easily discriminate between groups.

The issue was explained here:

Edwards (2003) Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy. A.W.F. Edwards. Bio-Essays 25:798–801, 2003

In popular articles that play down the genetical differences among human populations, it is often stated that about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It has therefore been proposed that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data. This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/loci-and-genetic-groups-keyhole-problem/

Here is an account of more modern research, showing that even US census categories can be utilized for the purposes of genetic classification

H.Tang et al. (2005) Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies. Am J Hum Genet. 2005 Feb; 76(2): 268–275.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.

There is a near-perfect correspondence between genetic measures and the common US census racial labels, with a misclassification rate of only 14 per 10,000. Some of this is due to the admixed “other” category, but 9,986 in 10,000 subjects can master the art of looking in a mirror and noting which race they most resemble, a task beyond the wit of some academics.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/more-markers-more-differentiation-and/

R.A.Fisher made all this plain in 1925

‘‘When a large number of individuals [of any kind of organism] are measured in respect of physical dimensions, weight, colour, density, etc., it is possible to describe with some accuracy the population of which our experience may be regarded as a sample. By this means it may be possible to distinguish it from other populations differing in their genetic origin, or in environmental circumstances. Thus local races may be very different as populations, although individuals may overlap in all characters;’’ R.A. Fisher (1925).

In summary, relying on Lewontin 1972 misrepresents current knowledge on genetics.

Pages 178 onwards covers her interview with David Reich, who studies ancient genomes. Saini is disturbed to find that he, a respected mainstream geneticist, believes in races, at least at some level. She reassures herself that although there could be profound genetic differences between populations groups “but to date, no scientific research has been able to show any average genetic differences between population groups that go further than the superficial and are linked to hard survival, such as skin colour or those that prevent a geographically linked disease” (page 183).

This is a strong statement, though confusingly put. Skin colour illustrates evolutionary adaptation to environments, and Saini herself has reported that early inhabitants of Britain were dark skinned but then became lighter skinned, possibly to increase vitamin D uptake. “Geographically linked disease” means genetic responses to diseases like falciparum malaria, another adaptation. I think she means that both these differences are superficial. Sickle cell is a costly defence against a parasite, better than being dead, but awful to live with, and hardly superficial, but anyway. The intellectually curious would ask: are there other adaptations which are not superficial? How about bone density?

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/82/2/429/2823249
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1863580/

Equally, how about differences in glomerular function, a measure of kidney health, for which the scores are adjusted for those of Black African descent, to account for their higher muscle mass? Muscle mass and bone density are not superficial characteristics. In conflicts it would be a considerable advantage to have strong warriors, favouring “hard survival”. Would brain shape and size be superficial characteristics? Despite the widespread use of scanners in clinical practice, it is hard to find data on racial differences in brain size, but racial differences in head circumference are evident at 21 weeks of gestation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4584427/

There are also studies of brain shape and surface variability in teenagers:

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/racial-brain-differences/

Actual measures of cognitive ability are not discussed, despite a century of data on racial differences in intelligence, and it is increasingly hard to argue that genetic causes can be excluded.

On page 185 Saini reports that James Watson asked David Reich why Jews and Brahmins were so smart. Watson suggested that millennia of selecting for scholarliness was the key to both Jewish and Brahmin success. Saini is appalled, and reports that Reich was also appalled. Racism.

Others would be intrigued. Could selection actually achieve this, and if so, how many generations would it take? How does effective population size affect such presumed changes? Are those groups marrying just their own kind, or do they also marry brighter locals? What happens to non-scholarly Jewish and Brahmin children? Do they give up membership of the selective group and join the local population, abandoning their roots (what Henry Harpending called “boiling off”)? Is there a purely cultural explanation for cognitive elites that does not involve careful controls on marriage? What do the genetic studies say?

Saini visits her family in Indian Punjab, and allows herself to consider that, over generations, some groups might become genetically adapted to their occupations, like the Bajau free divers who can hold their breath underwater for long periods, assisted by larger spleens which may help them keep their oxygen levels high. Has she succumbed to doubts? Not for long.

Back in England (page 221), she visits Robert Plomin. and Lewontin is called into service again with his parable of the seeds: group differences may be due to different circumstances, in that seeds in well fertilized and watered soils will get better crop yields than those same seeds planted in poorer soils. Quite so, but is it true of racial difference in intelligence? The match between socio-economic status of origin and achievemebt in the US is weak, as the rise of poor Chinese, Japanese and Korean immigrants shows.

Page 228 and she says of Turkheimer that “in studies of people with the lowest socioeconomic status, environment explains almost all the variation researchers see in IQ, with genes accounting for practically nothing”. No discussion of current research which shows a partial effect in the US but not in other countries. Example:

https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/24434026/Bates_etal_I_2016_When_does_socioeconomic_status_SES.pdf

On page 231 Saini says: In reality, parent’s IQ scores can only explain 15% of the variance in their own children, admits Plomin.

Plomin explains:

It’s true that you can only predict 15% of the variance of children’s IQ from one of their parent’s IQ but more if you had both parents’ IQ. However, when it comes to explaining variance in children’s IQ, inherited DNA differences account for about 50% of the differences.

IQ is about 50% heritable averaged over all studies at all ages. Parents and offspring correlate about 0.4. Perhaps she is squaring 0.4 (which would come to 16%) which is fine if what you want to do is predict children’s IQ from their parents’ IQ. However, if a trait were 100% heritable, you would expect parents and offspring to correlate 0.5. You don’t square the correlation when you are asking about components of variance, just as you don’t square a test-retest reliability correlation if you are trying to estimate reliability.

Given 50% heritability, children of intelligent parents (say IQ 130, found in 2.28% of the population) will be more intelligent than average, leading to them being over-represented in intellectually demanding occupations. However, since there are three times more parents in the IQ 120-128 range, (found in 6.84% of the population), they will also be contributing bright children though at a slightly lower rate, leading to real social mobility. Some very bright children will come from all social classes.

Page 234 Saini reports James Flynn saying that the IQ gap between developing and developed countries could close by the end of the 21st century. Indeed he did, in a special edition of Intelligence I edited in 2013. She could have added that he accepted Meisenberg and Woodley’s estimate it could take 40 years on PISA assessments, and 341 years to never on the TIMMS tests.

G. Meisenberg and M.A. Woodley “Are cognitive differences between countries diminishing? Evidence from TIMSS and PISA. Intelligence 41 (2013) 808-816.

Page 272 Saini explains how silly it would be to search for a “use of chopsticks” gene. Agreed. Genetic studies tend to look at far broader categories than use of table utensils.

Page 284 on Satoshi Kanazawa, “the unproven assumption that populations have different cognitive abilities”. Populations do have different cognitive abilities. The argument is about how to explain that finding. If you object to intelligence tests, try looking at country differences in arithmetic.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/africa-and-the-cold-beauty-of-maths/?highlight=cold+beauty

Page 284. Saini says of the Lynn estimate of IQ 70 for sub-Sahara that when Wicherts investigated this figure he “found that they could have arrived at it only by deliberately excluding the vast majority of data that actually shows African IQs to be higher.” No. Lynn argued Wicherts should not have included university samples in estimating general population levels, a valid objection. Wicherts estimated African IQ 82 to Richard Lynn’s 70, and said that Africans were not at European levels. Rindermann estimated IQ 75. Saini’s report does not do justice to the debate.

Page 285. Saini criticizes Jason Richwine and assumes that he must be wrong. In May 2013 I issued the following challenge: a bottle of fine French wine sent to the first person who can show that Hispanic/Latino American intelligence and scholastic ability is on the same level as European American intelligence and scholastic ability.

The bottle is still unclaimed.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/jason-richwine-and-bottle-of-rich-wine/

Saini gets into a delightful tangle about Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, because she struggles with the concept of an anti-racist doing research which tacitly accepts the concept of race. Cavalli-Sforza wrote to Saini that marriages between people of different races did not lead to damaged children, but on the contrary, you only have to look at “the beauty and vitality of hybrids, children of partners coming from genetically distant groups” for proof of this. Far from being happy about this, Saini confesses:

It was his use of the phrases “hybrids” and “genetically distant” that disturbed me. This kind of language might have seemed at one time scientifically acceptable, but is it any more? It implies that human populations are like different breeds, even different species.”

No. If they were different species they could not interbreed. As to “breeds” not being acceptable, human populations do come in different varieties. This should not come as any surprise to Saini, because she is writing a book about them. Call them breeds, races, sub-populations, lineages, or whatever word is deemed acceptable this year or next: neither their names nor the changing nature of political sensibilities can wish them away.

Saini claims to be against the use of racial categorizations, yet is happy to discuss her Indian origins and what they mean for her, including her pride at Indian scientific and technological achievements, her sense of not belonging in India or England, which Nobel Laureate Sir Vidiadhar Naipaul so tellingly likened to being In a Free State: an unsettling disjunction between cultural and genetic identities. “Ni chicha, ni limonada”, as Victor Jara sang in another time and place, before they killed him.

To Saini, motives matter a lot, often, it would seem, as much as facts. The case of Cavalli-Sforza disturbs her. Saini is not absolutely convinced of his purity. Supposedly against categorizing people, Saini is an avid categorizer, and it really bugs her that she cannot categorise him as a pure anti-racist. She judges him to have (page 146) “unimpeachable political credentials” but finds his conclusions not quite up to her requirements. (I think he wanted to study genetics, and said whatever anti-racist stuff was needed to keep the thought police off his back, and out of his lab).

There is a pronounced disdain for impure thinkers, described as “dripping with pus”. I may be too optimistic, but I sense that even the most virulent critics of genetic research are having to adjust to new findings. They are against the word “race” but are trying to get comfortable with the synonyms. Perhaps, they muse, I can still be an anti-racist but accept that there are certain “clusters” from which my ancestors were drawn. Saini finds she is not “comfortable” with certain findings. How is this relevant to whether they are true? Should crypto-racists be denounced or shielded because of their good qualities as individuals? Quite what is to be done about Cavalli-Sforza and his work? If racists read him, can he be left un-denounced?

Saini quotes Jobling (page 151) saying that “the divisions between us are so blurry that humans can theoretically be grouped any way you like”. Many geneticists use principal components analysis (as shown below for the 1000 genomes study). “Any way you like” is not a fair description of current methods.

Sometimes Saini seems to throw in the towel, as when she says (page 154): People who are related are of course close to each other genetically, and historically we have tended to live near our relatives, which is how clustering of genetic similarity happens”. She does not go on to say that she now understands the basis of genetic trees and genetic distances.

Her great fear seems to be that some groups will be shown to be better than others. Why do people fear this? Weren’t the Allies better than the Nazis? I think they were, and that the historical record shows it. That does not imply they will always be better, and that nations do not change their ways, but again that depends on the evidence. Are Brahmins brighter than other Indians? Do European Jews have greater intellectual accomplishments than European Gypsies? The reasons may be cultural or genetic, or very probably both, but difference exist. Why not debate these claims? Pronouncing that all people are equal in ability can lead to the mistaken belief that differential outcomes must be proof of conspiratorial exploitation.

Saini says this is the book she has wanted to write since she was 10 and that she has poured her soul into it. That is the problem. She soulfully laments that others are prejudiced, driven by their horrible motives into twisting the truth, seeing racial differences where none exist. Those awful people have poured their souls into their work: evil souls in this case. Is Saini above her own strictures on the matter of bias? Her condemnation of many researchers is severe, her self-examination occasional. Is she really above the audit? James Flynn does not regard himself so:

Scholars should stop playing games and let science do its job. Those of us who have turned their research into a contest rather than a diagnosis should be ashamed. I am not exempt from this censure.

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

All of us find it hard not to be partisan, but Saini is not a reliable guide to the literature, either in her sampling of papers or in her interpretations. She fails to give balanced evaluations of the debates. She makes sweeping judgements which I would rate as contrary to the facts, or more charitably, highly biased. For example: “the unproven assumption that populations have different cognitive abilities”. On the contrary, most intelligence researchers accept that there are population differences in cognitive abilities, but differ in their views as to how much of that is due to genetics. Over the last 30 years, researchers have increased their estimates of the genetic component.

In addition, there are some muddles in the reporting which, though they favour her argument, are probably simple misunderstandings.

It may seem unnecessary to review this personal book, but it has been promoted to reach a wide audience. It is not a superior guide, but a polemic. Part of its stridency and partisanship may come from the realization that formerly dominant cultural and sociological accounts of racial differences are being challenged by genetic research. This book is not a fair guide to that literature. That anyone should think so is of more significance than the book itself.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Political Correctness, Race, Racism 
Hide 390 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. neir says:

    she also wrote a book called “Geek Nation: How Indian Science is Taking Over the World”
    so there is no such thing as race science, but there is such a thin as indian science.

  2. mikemikev says:

    One simple way of debunking Lewontin is by pointing out that “more variation within groups” is typical among subspecies. Angela Saini is an absolute charlatan and there is a serious problem that fake science like this is so promoted.

    • Agree: annamaria
    • Replies: @Anon
    , @annamaria
  3. Julian T says:

    She seems to be yet another writer who makes a living from inventing convenient falsehoods.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    , @renfro
  4. Edward says:

    Thank you for this detailed, informative and sober review.

    Now, I’m going to make it a bit more personal. From what I’ve seen of Saini, the very reason that she seems to be obsessed with “debunking” group differences is that she’s obsessed with intelligence herself. Consider the three books that she’s written: one is about India being a “nation of geeks”, one is about debunking sex differences, and one is about debunking race differences.

    She’s one of those intelligent people who, privately, knows how important intelligence is; who takes a lot of pride in her own intelligence. She has two Master’s degrees, one from Oxford, and she seemed very pleased with herself when she did admirably well on the BBC’s University Challenge. She has to deploy false modesty when people on the radio and television tell her about how ‘she knows everything’ and fawn over her.

    But, instead of using her intelligence to reach the truth, she seems to have used it for obfuscatory purposes. And I suspect that, deep down, she knows what she’s doing.

    • Agree: DCThrowback, Mr McKenna
    • Disagree: Thulean Friend
  5. dearieme says:

    Years ago I attended lectures in Maths for Natural Sciences at Cambridge. One lecturer impressed me:
    A.W.F. Edwards was a master of clarity.

    That was no mean feat on a topic – probability – where problems used in teaching are often hopelessly underspecified, so that the student’s work becomes an exercise in “what does the bugger mean by that?”

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  6. Excellent review.

    My review should appear in Taki’s Magazine on Wednesday.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  7. @Steve Sailer

    Thanks for letting me know. Shall we attempt to work out concordance measures?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  8. @dearieme

    Such teachers are to be cherished.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @Mr McKenna
  9. Anonymous[301] • Disclaimer says:

    “Saini gets into a delightful tangle about Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, because she struggles with the concept of an anti-racist doing research which tacitly accepts the concept of race.”

    You’re mistaken. Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994 clearly criticised and rejected race e.g. “The classification [of humans] into races has proved to be a futile exercise” (p. 19) and he explains why racial classification is arbitrary and not useful to population genetics.

    Sadly, it seems Cavalli-Sforza’s work is distorted and misrepresented by *both* far-left “SJWs” like Saini and you far-right “race realists”. What Cavalli-Sforza was saying is while there are different human breeding populations (there’s not just one panmictic human population), there’s hundreds to thousands of local breeding groups e.g. Druze, Orcadian Islanders (two population samples in the Human Genome Diversity Project, Cavalli-Sforza et al. 2005) not a small number of broad/continental “race” divisions.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @Steve Sailer
  10. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    Some people don’t even understand that categories subdivide.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @dc.sunsets
  11. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    Nonsense. The point Cavilli-Sforza makes is broad/continental population divisions (“races”) are too heterogeneous to have any utility in genetics. And he’s right, for example if looking at medicine:

    “These big groups that we characterize as races are too heterogeneous to lump together in a scientific way. If you’re doing a DNA study to look for markers for a particular disease, you can’t use ‘Caucasians’ as a group. They’re too diverse.” – Kurgen K. Naggert, a geneticist at the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine

    Even “European” as a category is useless in medical genetics because its too broad.

    What is though useful is small groups like Amish hence the Amish Study of Major Affective Disorders:

    https://www.coriell.org/0/Sections/Collections/NIGMS/AmishIntro.aspx?PgId=601

    Is explained in detail here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism#Populations_.28demes.29

    • LOL: mikemikev
    • Replies: @neir
    , @mikemikev
    , @Edward
  12. neir says:
    @Anonymous

    “These big groups that we characterize as races are too heterogeneous to lump together in a scientific way.”

    why not just redefine race to be groups of people that can be lumped together in a scientific way, so instead of Caucasian race, we can have Amish race, jewish race, ect.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @RaceRealist88
  13. If it’s amplified in The Echo Chamber, we already know it’s a lie.

    Everywhere we look we must see that those whose voice is promoted from On High are simply propagandists whose goal is to further and expand the Narrative demanding redistribution of wealth and power from those who earn(ed) it (or whose direct ancestors built it) to those who simply didn’t.

    The funny part is that these clowns saw away at the very foundation of epistemology for civilization. They assert that belief magically trumps empiricism and inquiry. Taken to its end-state this is Post-Modernism in a nutshell, and is identical in all respects to Hobbes’ State of Nature, a war of all against all….barbarism.

    The world in which we live arose amidst unprecedented (frankly pathological) social trust and openness, leading to a global, equally-unprecedented level of detail in the division-of-labor economy. Now that wealth (much of it an illusion of debt creation) is so widespread, the movement of parasites and grifters is equally global.

    I think this is evidence that apogee is behind us.

    Ms. Saini is simply one of the globally mobile grifters.

  14. @mikemikev

    Some people don’t even understand that categories subdivide.

    True, but there’s a sophist born every minute.
    Maybe this anon missed the part on the IQ test where objects are grouped first by color, then by shape, then by weight….

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  15. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:

    “There is a near-perfect correspondence between genetic measures and the common US census racial labels, with a misclassification rate of only 14 per 10,000.”

    – This has been debunked countless times on RationalWiki. “Race realists” spammed that study there for years, thinking it somehow proves race as broad categories…

    The Tang et al study used very limited population samples e.g. self-identified African-Americans in their study came from only 10 US states. Bryc et al. (2015) in contrast used samples from at least 25 states to discover: “systematic differences across states in the US in mean ancestry proportions of self-reported African Americans”. Had Tang et al used many more samples for self-identified AA’s their accuracy rate for determining biogeographical ancestry would have been a lot lower; the latter is clearly demonstrated by Bryc et al. who show drastically different levels of putative “European” mean ancestry for AA’s per state. How exactly is the category “African-American” useful to population genetics at all, when self-identified AA’s from some states have mean >45% admixture, while others <10? Rather, it would be useful to study these populations at a more local level (per state). This is what Cavilli-Sforza's Human Genome Diversity Project realised as did the International HapMap Project. There's no broad "African American" or "European American" samples in either, but local samples based on individual states.

  16. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @neir

    Because that was already tried (unsuccessfully) decades back and it runs into a semantics dispute. As an example the US alone counts 567 federally recognised indigenous tribes. No one considers these today to be “races”.

    To quote one anthropologist:

    “[If] race is equated with local (or breeding) population, which according to most if not all scientists is a biologically sound concept, the whole issue reduces to one of semantics.” (Strkalj, 2009)

    To quote another source that highlights problems with the semantics:

    “Amish in America (Appiah 1996, 73) or to [Northern] Irish Protestants (Zack 2002, 69), but they clearly cannot refer to those groupings of people presently subsumed under American racial census categories. Because the concept “race” can only apply to groups not typically deemed races (Amish, [Northern] Irish Protestants), and because this concept cannot apply to groups typically deemed races (African Americans, Whites, Asians, Native Americans), a mismatch occurs between the concept and its typical referent. Thus, the concept of race must be eliminated due to its logical incoherence (Mallon 2006, 526, 533).”

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  17. @Anonymous

    At first reading the Bryc paper seems complimentary to Tang, not at odds with it. I will look at it further, and thank you for the reference.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  18. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    What’s your point? First study on that list is about multiple sclerosis and is a good example why broad populations i.e. races are useless to map its frequency.

    For example MS is low in the Hutterites, but high in Sardinians, yet both these populations are putatively considered (as of 21 century) “White” (in the early 20th century though the latter were not always considered “White” and the definition of who is “White” constantly changes, it’s political).

    Anyway, how is race as a heterogeneous broad category useful if there are disparate frequencies like this? Please do explain. The reality is it’s not useful at all, and you only cling to a belief in a “white race” for your politics.

    You’re a pan-European white nationalist loon:

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs
    https://gab.com/Mikemikev

    Try putting aside your pan-European white nationalist political beliefs, and looking at the scientific evidence without the extreme political bias for a change.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @blahbahblah
  19. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    So I inserted the first part of the quote you left out:

    Racial skeptics like Appiah and Zack adopt normative racial eliminativism, which recommends discarding the concept of race entirely, according to the following argument. Because of its historical genealogy, the term race can only refer to one or more discrete groups of people who alone share biologically significant genetic features. Such a monopoly on certain genetic features could only emerge within a group that practices such a high level of inbreeding that it is effectively genetically isolated. Such genetic isolation might refer to the…

    Amish in America (Appiah 1996, 73) or to [Northern] Irish Protestants (Zack 2002, 69), but they clearly cannot refer to those groupings of people presently subsumed under American racial census categories. Because the concept “race” can only apply to groups not typically deemed races (Amish, [Northern] Irish Protestants), and because this concept cannot apply to groups typically deemed races (African Americans, Whites, Asians, Native Americans), a mismatch occurs between the concept and its typical referent. Thus, the concept of race must be eliminated due to its logical incoherence

    They’re attacking a strawman “single trait” race concept, rather than the usual concept based on shared ancestry, or overall morphological or genomic similarity.

  20. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    Anyway, how is race as a heterogeneous broad category useful if there are disparate frequencies like this? Please do explain.

    Yes because because in medicine all variables predict everything with 100% certainty.

  21. res says:
    @Anonymous

    For anyone who actually wants to engage with that paper:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289685

    One tidbit:

    Lower Estimates of African Ancestry in 23andMe African Americans
    Unlike previous estimates of the mean proportion of African ancestry, which typically have ranged from 77% to 93% African ancestry,2–4,48–62 our estimates, depending on exclusions, are 73% or 75%.

    Though for anyone who thinks about it for more than thirty seconds, it should be obvious that 23andMe is almost certainly a very unrepresentative sample.

    One interesting aspect of your using this paper to (attempt to) debunk the idea of broad racial categories (e.g. continental races) is that they perform their analysis in exactly those terms. For example, see Table 1 which gives the average admixture for African Americans, Latinos, and European Americans in terms of these ancestry categories: African, Native American, and European. There we see that African Americans and Latinos are admixed to a degree that makes things complicated, but European Americans are >= 98.4% European on average.

    And Anon243, I agree there is an important difference between levels of African ancestry (though we should both be careful, because that is politically incorrect to mention in the Current Year). It would be much more instructive to look at people by proportion of ancestry at say the continental race level (like Bryc et al. did). Perhaps we should adapt our archaic affirmative action approach to this reality?

    P.S. Thanks for the excellent review, Dr. Thompson. I can’t believe that book is getting raves. There are some informative reviews on Amazon as well, for anyone who is interested.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  22. Amazon says:

    If that graph is based on data from Lynn it’s garbage.

  23. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    Yes Bryc et al use putative broad population categories, but the paper shows why they have no utility i.e. the heterogeneity of sub-populations (by state). This is especially seen in self-identified African Africans and Latinos, but also self-identified European/White Americans, hence they note:

    “Consistent with previous anecdotal results, the frequency of European American individuals who carry African ancestry varies strongly by state and region of the US .”

    How is it useful to lump together self-identified European-Americans from one state who have significantly higher mean frequency of putative African ancestry, with self-identified European-Americans from a separate state, that have considerably less?

    Well it isn’t… These heterogeneous categories are redundant to genetics and it’s only US identity politics keeping these broad/continental categories like “White American” alive.

  24. @Anonymous

    “You’re a pan-European white nationalist loon”

    You’re someone who cites rationalwiki unironically.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  25. @Julian T

    So just like “evolutionary” psychologists (and their just-so stories) and IQ-ists who construct the test based on presuppositions about who is or is not “intelligent”?

    • Replies: @Anon
  26. Edward says:
    @Anonymous

    Indeed. Kenan Malik penned this wonderful piece about race and population groups.

    https://kenanmalik.com/2012/03/04/why-both-sides-are-wrong-in-the-race-debate/

    He quotes Cavalli-Sforza as follows:

    Our experiments have shown that even neighbouring populations (villages or towns) can often be quite different from each other… The maximum number of testable genes is so high that we could in principle detect, and prove to be statistically significant, a difference between any two populations however close geographically or genetically. If we look at enough genes, the genetic distance between Ithaca and Albany in New York or Pisa and Florence in Italy is most likely to be significant, and therefore scientifically proven… the inhabitants of Ithaca and Albany might be disappointed to discover that they belong to separate races, the people in Pisa and Florence might be pleased that science had validated their ancient mutual distrust by demonstrating their genetic differences.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @Anonymous
  27. mikemikev says:
    @Edward

    What is it with all these people that don’t understand nested classifications?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  28. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @Edward

    My only criticism of Maliks’ Strange Fruit: Why Both Sides are Wrong in the Race is he tries to present his argument as a centre-ground between the SJW “only individuals are real, not groups” and “race realism” extremes – as something new. In reality, the so-called local populationist middle-ground was pioneered by Cavalli-Sforza, Jonathan Marks and William W. Howells in the 1990s. It’s nothing new and has been around for ages. As Marks wrote in his book Human Biodiversity (1995) – there are “small biopackages” (local populations), but not races as continental populations.

    There would be absolutely nothing pseudoscientific about “HBD” if it stuck like Marks did (who coined that term) with studying local populations like Amish.

    Where did it all go wrong?

    Alt-righters/white nationalists like Steve Sailer distorted Marks “human biodiversity” and shifted it from studying local populations to continental putative races and fixating on “White people”, “Black people” etc. The only good chapter of Saini’s book is how she documents how racist imbeciles like Sailer completely changed HBD from the legitimate study of local populations to racialism pseudoscience and obsessing with “Black people”.

    • Replies: @anon
  29. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    There probably are nested classifications, Cavilli Sforza et al 1994 used them, but they don’t include broad (i.e. continental) population divisions that are far too large and heterogeneous to be of any use. In The History and Geography of Human Genes, Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi & Piazza (1994) include 491 local population samples. Cavilli-Sforza then clustered these, but the clustering still produced samples in their hundreds – 116 population aggregates to be specific. He didn’t pointlessly create 3 or 4 heterogeneous continental clusters, but 116 population clusters that are a lot smaller than continents. Sorry Mike, but geneticists don’t take your “pan-European white race” seriously.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @Steve Sailer
  30. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @blahbahblah

    Because the RationalWiki article https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism#Populations_.28demes.29 on racialism is well-sourced, accurate and presents the centre-ground scientific consensus between the SJW “only individuals are real, not groups” and “race realism” extremes. Both those extremes are as toxic and stupid as each other. “Race realists” often claim the RationalWiki article is SJW. It isn’t at all. They’ve never even read it. Real SJWs don’t like that article at all.

  31. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    I guess the human vs. neanderthal division is even more heterogeneous and even less useful, although you’re not using more or less, just useful or not useful. And mammals vs. reptiles also goes in the “not useful because heterogeneous” bin I guess.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  32. Telling the truth has never been proven to be a profitable evolutionary strategy.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  33. @neir

    “why not just redefine race to be groups of people that can be lumped together in a scientific way, so instead of Caucasian race, we can have Amish race, jewish race, ect.”

    This was refuted by Hardimon in Rethinking Race: The Case for Deflationary Realism (my emphasis):

    “To count as racial, a visible physical characteristic must be real (as opposed to imaginary). One might mistakenly regard G1 and G2 as different races based on merely imagined differences. But unless G1 actually exhibits a pattern of visible physical features distinguishing it from some other group, G2, G2 is not a race. If (as seems to be the case) there are no visible patterns in differences in visible physical features that distinguish the Amish from other Caucasians, the Amish are not a distinct minimalist race. (Note that Hardimon cites Appiah’s Race, Culture, Identity (pg 71) in his 25th footnote; pg 186.)

    And writes on pg 170 about the Irish (my emphasis):

    “In characterizing minimalist race as the “biological correlate of socialrace,” I mean that minimalist race supplies the visible physical features that are the biological correlate of socialrace. I do not mean to suggest that for every socialrace there is a corresponding minimalist race. The Irish once represented a socialrace that may have lacked a biological correlate. It is unlikely that they are a minimalist race.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  34. @dc.sunsets

    “Maybe this anon missed the part on the IQ test where objects are grouped first by color, then by shape, then by weight….”

    What’s the point? Which “IQ” tests? Which “IQ” tests are construct valid?

  35. @James Thompson

    You need to philosophize about race, not biologize about race – even racial antirealists agree there is genetic variation but this doesn’t prove that races are “real.”

  36. Mioceno says:

    If the race does not exist and the professionals of the social sciences have not achieved the egalitarianism they want, that implies that they are shit.

    I suppose that those who say that races do not exist do not believe in the classification of hominids because the classification of fossils is very difficult for gradual changes.

  37. @James Thompson

    The best math teacher I ever had (Calculus) was also (paradoxically?) the best speaker about math I ever had.

  38. is it really worth all that time and effort to respond to somebody who is so obviously wrong and not all that smart either.

    unless you consider it practice, keeping your knowledge and debate abilities sharp, i don’t see the point of this. after replying at length, point by point, to a dozen annoying people like Angela Saini, for 30 or 40 years of this stuff, isn’t that enough.

    decades of these exact same clone people showing up every couple years, being annoying and wrong, is more than sufficient. i suggest at this point the next dozen people exactly like her should just be ignored, and all the rest after that as well.

    responding in a serious manner to people like this is like responding in a serious manner to Ta-Nehisi Coates and other of the numerous race hustlers. a giant waste of time. you’ll never, ever change their mind or convince them of anything, but you will waste years having low signal to noise communications with them.

    no, it’s NOT important to reply and rebutt to these people. after a while anyway. NYT, BBC, CNN will just find another one in a couple years, ready to quote Gould and Lewontin, and waste your time. ignore them.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
    , @mikemikev
  39. At the end of the day, if left free of political interference (unlikely), science will uncover whatever it is that science uncovers. However the true HBD debates which concern us in these parts, really only concern public policy.

    Science is done with precision instruments and careful measurements. Sane public policy is mostly done by eye.

    How about this. From now on the science debates roam wherever the evidence leads. The policy debates restrict themselves to phraseology like, “Nobody wants to live next door to Haplogroup 627b, not even other Haplogroup 627b’s. And this has non-trivial consequences for the real estate market.” Or, “what policies can we adopt to close the Haplogroup 1159c-sub1 / Haplogroup 1243m-sub9 achievement gap?”

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  40. DB Cooper says:

    She is a typical bullshit artist. Indians are the most race conscious people on this earth bar none.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  41. Miro23 says:

    India seems to be the go-to place for academic prostitutes.

    Angela Saini reminds me of Shyam Sunder, the NIST lead investigator of the 9/11 collapse of WTC Building 7:

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released its long-awaited report on the collapse of World Trade 7 following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery,” NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told journalists at this morning’s press conference in Gaithersburg, Md. “WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings.”

    Arianne Cohen. Popular Mechanics Aug.1st 2017

  42. I’m going to write a book explaining how all women find me irresistibly charming.

    If I’ve got it right, you just decide what you wish were the case and then claim it is the case.

  43. @Anonymous

    Lumpers and Splitters will have different opinions of course.

    Anyway, the cover of Cavalli-Sforza’s big 1994 book The History and Geography of Human Genes makes clear that his research found more or less the same continental-scale races as everybody else had found. Here’s his description of the map on the cover:

    “The color map of the world shows very distinctly the differences that we know exist among the continents: Africans (yellow), Caucasoids (green), Mongoloids … (purple), and Australian Aborigines (red). The map does not show well the strong Caucasoid component in northern Africa, but it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe, and in West, South, and much of Central Asia.”

  44. @James Thompson

    Here’s my review of Saini’s book, which focuses on Chapter 6, in which I am cast as the villain:

    https://www.takimag.com/article/arguing-against-reality/

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  45. Bruno says:

    Saini and Reich perfectly illustrate Kevin McDonalds point.

    Walton whorish moment in Reich book is really the most disgusting stain on an otherwise inteeesring work.

    When he himself compare the 8000 Indian jatis, endogamy despite cohabitation, like an hyper-ashkenazim experience, this part should have been the starting point of the discussion.

    The girl has written a lot about Indian success.

    So like Indian in the USA adopting radical left wing policies and then voting for an Hinduist nationalistic party home (BGP) tend to explain that this discourse is just a strategy of expansion in occident.

    Either they copied it from the Jews, either it’s the logical thing to tell when you are a allogene superior group of individuals belonging to a less powerful nation.

  46. @Anonymous

    Nah, older African-Americans are more homogeneous than you might think, due to the workings of the one drop rule:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/

  47. @Anonymous

    Sorry, just look at the world maps Cavalli-Sforza put on his big book:

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  48. Ahoy says:

    The bare TRUTH scares people short on brains.

  49. @Brás Cubas

    Ho, ho. Probably a correct observation.

  50. Parfois1 says:

    What’s this all about? Pardon my ignorance about genetic differences and genome classifications. I had a look at world and European DNA maps the other day and they consistently show clear geographical distributions of populations according to our sense of “race” – the physical differences glaring at you. For instance, the West European dominant haplogroup R1b, while showing some regional variations, is a clear indicator of genetic differentiation. The Easter European is different but, together, they are consistent with our common sense understanding of “White” because they are absent or near absent in other parts of the world. So, there is a genetic foundation for our meaning of race.

    There is another element in our perception of race, the social dimension: self-identity, shared values, civilisation, history, sometimes language, religion and other factors normally associated with ethnic classifications, but they re-inforce our perception of race as well.

    All races are endowed with a particular gene that enables the carrier to recognise the in-group physical characteristics or traits. Long ago I read of an experiment in social anthropology where a group of Montagnards (Vietnam) were taken to Southern Africa to meet the local Bushmen and report the encounter. They exhibited all the signs of species recognition as being members of the same racial group, attempted to communicate and where surprised they could not understand each other’s language.

    What’s this fuss all about? The other day a stranger walked up to me and said: “You are from England, be careful with pick-pockets around here” before I spoke a word. And I said “And you are from Russia.” I was wrong, he was from the Ukraine. Not bad for species recognition.

  51. @prime noticer

    I understand your reservations, but when claims are not challenged truth suffers.

    • Agree: MarkU
    • Replies: @Interested Bystander
  52. MarkU says:

    Saini says this is the book she has wanted to write since she was 10 and that she has poured her soul into it.

    It makes research so much easier if you have reached your conclusions before you have even started.

    Some of this stuff does have an upside you know. If race does not exist as a useful category then presumably Angela Saini will be arguing strongly against the notion of ‘racial reparations’ and for ‘affirmative action’ being applied purely on socioeconomic criteria in the future. Even better, if race isn’t a useful category then presumably ‘white’ isn’t a useful category either, so the notion of ‘toxic whiteness’ can be dismissed also. I am looking forward to her impassioned public statements on these matters, though (strictly as a precautionary measure) I will refrain from holding my breath while I wait for her impeccably objective assessments.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  53. mikemikev says:
    @prime noticer

    The real audience is all of the people deluded by her crap.

  54. @neir

    Yet pointing this out to her and those of her ilk, would generate no admissions of their self serving hypocrisy and they’d just plough on through with little more than their own self indulgent wants & goals driving their interpretations of reality. It’s the sort of mindset that doesn’t make planes fly, nor ships float, or allow rockets to generate escape velocity, let alone create the circumstances that could cause a high functioning nation to appear, that could one day build something of great note.

  55. Anonymous[126] • Disclaimer says:

    The wetness of water was not a social construct before H2O. Even a medieval peasant could see it, feel it or even squeeze it into a measuring cup. Reality works like that sometimes.

    As a European, I think it’s time to ship these kinds of “academics” back to their shit-holes. India should pay for the subsequent wall.

  56. @James Thompson

    An excellent takedown of an admittedly easy target. In a better world you would have been able to stop at this:

    ‘Saini dedicates the book to her parents “the only ancestors I need to know”. This is touching, though a bit hard on her grandparents.’

    Laugh out loud funny…

  57. Agent76 says:

    May 27, 2019 How psychological vulnerabilities are exploited to control us

    Dr Lissa Johnson is a clinical psychologist and columnist for the Australian news website New Matilda, with a background in media studies and sociology, and a PhD in the psychology of manipulating reality-perception.

    https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/interviews/news/how-psychological-vulnerabilities-are-exploited-control-us-1749292

    May 16, 2013 The Psychology of Authority What percentage of people would obey if they were ordered to commit murder?

    The answer might surprise you.

    • Replies: @Anon
  58. Anon[898] • Disclaimer says:

    Excitedly promoted in national newspapers, glowingly reviewed in Sunday magazines, the author interviewed on national radio, this book is part of a mainstream narrative which promotes the ascendant public stance, which is that race does not exist as a useful category, and that those who perversely study it have reprehensible motives.

    Humankind and truth/search for truth elide each other.
    Why mourn one truth in the specific above the others.

  59. @DB Cooper

    Indians are a race? How many races are there? What are they?

    • LOL: Wally
    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Wally
  60. @Ahoy

    Splitting is how to do it. See Hardimon (Rethinking Race: The Case for Deflationary Realism) and Spencer (What ‘Biological Racial Realism’ Should Mean and A Radical Solution to the Race Problem).

  61. @MarkU

    “It makes research so much easier if you have reached your conclusions before you have even started.”

    Just like “evolutionary” psychologists and their just-so stories, right?

    • Replies: @MarkU
  62. Wally says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Yes, American “Indians” are a race.

    https://www.iowadatacenter.org/aboutdata/raceclassification

    Race Categories

    American Indian or Alaska Native: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.
    Asian: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
    Black or African American: A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Terms such as “Haitian” or “Negro” can be used in addition to “Black or African American”.
    Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
    White: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

    and:
    https://www.prb.org/americasracialandethnicminorities/
    also:
    https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data/race-aian.html

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    , @dearieme
  63. Anon[247] • Disclaimer says:
    @Agent76

    Nah.

    I even needn’t watch that. I tried to merge into an “online community” once, and after that there’s no Stanely Milgram’s or Solomon Asch’s or Lissa Johnson’s study/paper/finding that would surprise me.

    (If you are interested in the subject, do a quick googling for Venkatesh Rao’s “The Gervais Principle”, it’s a great description of the whole thing.)

    • Replies: @Agent76
  64. Anon[247] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    It is promoted because it is wanted. Because it sells well. Because it makes governing people a smoother task.
    Things aren’t around random — there are reasons for their being around.

  65. Anon[163] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Just like the overly numerous people coming from low-IQ groups/nations/(parts of nations, in some cases, or not?) who feel forever compelled to tirelessly oppose evidence in intelligence studies. Not too hard to trace back the source of their stamina.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  66. R.H.Burt says: • Website

    The author views the world through a cracked prism.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  67. No. If they were different species they could not interbreed.

    In an otherwise very good article, the above statement is false.
    Mules are the result of horse and donkey breeding. Most mules are sterile.
    Scientists have cross bred lions and tigers, producing a liger.
    In far Northern climes, where grizzly and polar bears interact, crossbreeds have been seen.
    Would not (normally) is different than could not. Sub-species, in nature, are generally very rare.

    I have always found it amusing that in the Animal Kingdom, except for humans, minor differences in animals result in different species. Growing up, I often saw cedar and bohemian waxwings. Similar size, and a lot of similar plumage, but the cedar had a yellow tinge and the bohemian a red or peach tinge. There were other minor marking differences as well. Why are they different species, but an Inuit and Aborigine not? My guess is that there would be less genetic variation between the waxwings than between the Inuit and Aborigine.
    The genetic differences between humans and apes is relatively minor, and some human populations fall closer to bonobo apes than others. I don’t hear anyone saying that the apes are human or those humans are apes. Let’s face it, races are the human version of species. Each is adapted to its “home” environment. If I’m lost in the Arctic, I want an Inuit to find me and guide me to safety. If I’m lost in the Australian outback, I want an Aborigine. My chances of survival are much greater than if a Chinese found me, regardless of IQ.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  68. Agent76 says:
    @Anon

    “A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.” William Shakespeare

  69. @Ahoy

    I haven’t read Barnett in ages, but there’s no fucking way Thomas Barnett wrote that and you’re an idiot for spreading it. Sounds like a mashup of Kalergi and Hooton.

  70. Sean says:

    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/a-modern-myth/

    The problem here is the assumption that genetic variation within a human group is comparable to genetic variation between human groups. In fact, the two are qualitatively different. When a gene varies between two groups the cause is more likely a difference in natural selection, since the group boundary also tends to separate different natural environments (vegetation, climate, topography) or, more often, different cultural environments (diet, means of subsistence, sedentism vs. nomadism, gender roles, state monopoly of violence, etc.). Conversely, when a gene varies within a population, the cause is more likely a random factor without adaptive significance. That kind of variation is less easily flattened out by the steamroller of similar selection pressures.

    This point isn’t merely theoretical. In other animals, as Lewontin himself noted, we often see the same genetic overlap between races of one species. But we also see it between many species that are nonetheless anatomically and behaviorally distinct. […]

    We see this genetic overlap not only between sibling species, but even between some species that have long been separated, like humans and other primates. This is the case with ABO blood groups:

    Remarkably, the A, B, and H antigens exist not only in humans but in many other primates […], and the same two amino acids are responsible for A and B enzymatic specificity in all sequenced species. Thus, primates not only share their ABO blood group, but also the same genetic basis for the A/B polymorphism. O alleles, in contrast, result from loss-of-function alleles such as frame-shift mutations and appear to be species specific. (Segurel et al., 2012)

    Just think. Lewontin used the same blood group polymorphisms for his study. While the O alleles are specific to each primate species, the A and B alleles show considerable overlap between primates that have been separated for millions of years. So it’s not surprising that this polymorphism should vary much more within human races than between them, as Lewontin found. Little did he know that the same pattern can continue above the species level.

    … but to date, no scientific research has been able to show any average genetic differences between population groups that go further than the superficial and are linked to hard survival, such as skin colour

    Black Africans keeling over in Northern Europe? No.In fact the ancient indigenous Britons were black, though with light eyes.

    [Above] full facial reconstruction model of a head based on the skull of Britain’s oldest complete skeleton on display during a screening event of The First Brit: Secrets Of The 10,000 Year Old Man at The Natural History Museum, in London According to Nature, genetic samples of ancient remains show there was little interbreeding between the newcomers and the darker-skinned foragers that had inhabited the British Isles for millennia.

    You can say biological race does not exist just as you can say, and physicist do say, that time as the flow of happenings from past to future (what time is commonly understood to be) does not exist.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  71. @Curmudgeon

    Should have said “cannot interbreed successfully” to account for the sterile exceptions.

  72. j2 says:

    I think that the problem with human races is that it does not seem to have a positive content, therefore a study of that concept is understood as having a negative (racial, supremacist) content.

    A continental race (White, Black, Yellow, what ever) is a too wide concept for studying deleterious genes that cause genetic diseases. As these genes are deleterious, they are slowly purged out of the population, but they keep reappearing by repeated mutations and new deleterious mutations add new diseases. For this topic a study should focus on small isolated populations, which are not called races. So, this application area is not for race studies.

    Then there are positive Mendelian alleles. If they are positive, they should make a sweep. They are such as the skin color, useful for sunlight variation. These are not too interesting, so not this either.

    It leaves polygenic traits, like those of personality etc. They are positive if they were selected and used to be acted on by natural selection in a homogeneous small population where only few survived. These conditions probably do not apply any more, thus traits do not develop much. They are inherited from populations from where the present populations came from, and despite admixture and more alleles, they are still there, though not so common. One could study them and try to speculate what the original populations were, in what conditions they developed the traits and where they came from. That should be a rather neutral application of the studies, yet interesting enough to motivate them without going into speculations what traits may be more useful in a modern society and who has them.

  73. MarkU says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Sorry not familiar with the subject so I don’t know what you mean, an example or two might be educational if you can be bothered.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  74. @Wally

    I know that Native Americans are a race – when I asked if Indians were a race I meant the subcontinent Indians. They’re not Asian, in any case, they’re Caucasian.

  75. Wally says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Races of India

    https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=ifz3XLr9H5D00wLC370I&q=races+of+india%27&oq=races+of+india%27&gs_l=psy-ab.12..0i22i30l10.1129.5467..7700…0.0..0.125.1148.14j1……0….1..gws-wiz…..0..0i131j0.uVp8VnC47V8

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  76. @Anon

    How do IQ tests test intelligence if they’re not construct valid? For a construct to be valid there must be a well-accepted theory for the unseen “variable”. There is no theory of individual intelligence differences nor a theory of human intelligence (see Ian Deary, 2001). So if there is no theory of individual intelligence differences nor a theory of human intelligence then it’s not possible for IQ tests to be construct valid.

    Furthermore, unseen measures are accepted when we can mechanistically relate differences in one variable to differences in another, like height of mercury column and blood pressure; white blood cell count and internal infection; and breath alcohol and level of consumption.

    Are there such mechanistic relations for IQ and physiology? Don’t cite Jung and Haier or any pooled meta-analyses of brain imaging studies because William Uttal’s work in his Reliability in Cognitive Neuroscience: A Meta-meta Analysis refute such notions.

    … inconsistencies abound at all levels of data pooling when one uses brain imaging techniques to search for macroscopic regional correlates of cognitive processes. Individual subjects exhibit a high degree of day-to-day variability. Intersubject comparisons between subjects produce an even greater degree of variability.

    […]

    The overall pattern of inconsistency and unreliability that is evident in the literature to be reviewed here again suggests that intrinsic variability observed at the subject and experimental level propagates upward into the meta-analysis level and is not relieved by subsequent pooling of additional data or averaging. It does not encourage us to believe that the individual meta-analyses will provide a better answer to the localization of cognitive processes question than does any individual study. Indeed, it now seems plausible that carrying out a meta-analysis actually increases variability of the empirical findings. (Uttal, 2012: 132)

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/04/07/the-lack-of-iq-construct-validity-and-neuroreductionism/

    Neuroreductionist explanations of cognition fail and are not possible.

    • Agree: Okechukwu
    • Replies: @JP
  77. @MarkU

    “Evolutionary” psychologists notice the existence of trait T. They have their conclusion already – they then work backwards to construct a history of why selection has fixated that trait in the population in question. This is known as “reverse engineering”, which is heavily criticized by Richardson 2007 (Evolutionary Psychology as Maladapted Psychology and Buller 2005 (Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature).

    This paper has a good look at the matter “Explanations for adaptations, just-so stories, and limitations on evidence in evolutionary biology”.

    • Replies: @MarkU
  78. @Wally

    How many races are in India? By what criteria are you demarcating these races?

    • Replies: @Theodore
  79. She may blather on IQ etc., but she is, as most dot Indians (not all) are, a walking example of racial & cultural inferiority complex plaguing subcontinentals. They all would like to be white & can only partially “heal” their wounds by denigrating or trying to diminish everything & anything white European.

    IQ debate is just a variation on the theme of their ineradicable frustrations.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/aug/14/indias-dark-obsession-fair-skin

    East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans,…) don’t seem to possess this kind of frustration because, visually, they’re too different.

  80. annamaria says:
    @mikemikev

    Angela Saini is an ignoramus and she is proud of that. And she is an opportunist feeding on the PC stuff.

    • Replies: @lavoisier
  81. nickels says:

    Dey iz NO RACE:

    An oldie but always a goodie.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  82. SZ says:
    @Ahoy

    Nowhere in the mentioned book (“THE PENTAGON’S NEW MAP”) the author (“THOMAS P.M. BARNETT”) mentions anything resembling like the creation of a “light brown race” or of “mingling of the races”!!!

    The closest it gets to this is a paragraph in pp.210-211: “The news, unfortunately, looks a lot worse for insular Japan and xenophobic Europe. If America has its problems with immigrants, what with bilingual education and all, our issues pale when compared with those of the rest of the Old Core. Europe already has its share of right-wing, anti-immigration politicians exploiting people’s worst impulses, and Japan has such a dismal record of accepting immigrants that the Land of the Rising Sun is heading toward its sunset at warp speed. According to the UN, Europe is likely to let in about 300,000 immigrants per year between now and 2050, when it really needs to let in something in the range of 1.5 million each year if there’s any hope its PSR won’t drop below two to one by mid-century. Japan’s situation is even worse. It is difficult to project any immigrant flows for the country between now and 2050 because there’s nothing in its history that would indicate any willingness to let immigrants in at all, but the UN estimates that Japan will need to average roughly 600,000 immigrants a year over the next half century.”, which is quite different from what you moron claim he has written.

    You just need to download the book’s pdf from Library Genesis and search with CTRL-F to check whether an alleged quote is genuine or not. It took me less than 5 min in total.

    And to all those morons who complain that this or that book is not listed on Amazon: download any non-fiction book from Libgen and read freely instead of bitching about its absence on Amazon. Non-fiction books are not written for the sake of profit, and most of the time the authors of non-fiction books have already been compensated with their salaries they get or have gotten at their academic or non-academic institutions at the time of their authoring or their preparation of those non-fiction works. Non-fiction books are never a ‘source’ of living, they are the ‘outcome’ of an already existing (current or past) worklife. And this is exactly how it has to be as the value of any non-fiction work is the reflection of past experience based on one’s worklife presumed to have been compensated with a salary or profit (if that particular work really had a value). As if you morons all were born with Amazon attached to your umbilical cords!!! Books were written, sold, read and shared hundreds of years before that fucking company was in existence, and they will be written, shared and read thanks to sites like Libgen. I have written one book and 5 book chapters myself and I don’t expect and insist on earning money from those non-fiction works as I wrote all of those as a result of my academic as well as non-academic work for which I already have been compensated. Non-fiction books are the modern version of oral histories, written form of traditional father-to-son conversations; they are the transmission of past knowledge to coming generations, and they should be available to everyone interested, at least after a reasonable period, like 5 or 10 years at most, after which a non-fiction book should be public property. Learn, read, search and check for the authenticity of any quote yourself instead of believing some fucking meme another retard has posted on his twitter or facebook account.

  83. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    As usual you don’t know what you’re talking about Mike.

    There’s a far greater quantitative morphometric difference between Neanderthals and “anatomically modern humans” than among living human populations. This has been tested using crania many times. Furthermore, Neanderthals and so-called “anatomically modern human” (AMH) crania are qualitatively distinct i.e. there are cranial studies on autapomorphic characters that distinguish N/AMH with 100% accuracy because they are uniquely diagnostic. This means there are characters present in Neanderthals not found in AMH or vice-versa, e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19896701

    I’m not sure what your exact point is, but you confirm why there aren’t any human races today – quantitative variation between populations is low, while there aren’t any living populations with unique diagnostic characters. For example, we don’t find an individual character that is confined to only one population and not found in any other; the obvious reason for the latter is common gene flow between populations; in contrast gene flow between Neanderthals and AMH, while occurring, was a lot more restricted and seems to have been limited to certain rare interbreeding events, rather than casually occurring.

    • Agree: Okechukwu
  84. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Re: dark-skinned early Brits becoming light-skinned

    … possibly to increase vitamin D uptake

    Actually, to allow greater photochemical conversion of 7-dehydrocholesterol (provitamin D3) to 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol, or cholecalciferol, aka Vitamin D3, by ultraviolet light in the 290–315 nm waveband.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  85. @Edward

    Shes not bad looking,tho her youth is pretty much gone.

  86. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    In total, around 90% of the variation lies roughly within the old racial categories, not between them.

    Bill Vallicella, the Maverick Philosopher has a good comment on that nonsense. More simply, the absurdity of the claim is debunked by the fact that humans and gorillas share 98% of their DNA. And one might suppose that the race-is-a-social-construct crowd recognize the difference between a man and a gorilla.

    But then maybe the don’t. The same peop0le seem to have difficulty telling the difference between a man and a woman, so it may not be long before we see policemen, judges, US Congress members, and even the US President in the form of a chimp, gorilla and baboon (although I guess we already have the examples of the latter).

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    , @Fox
  87. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994 used 6633 individual samples from 491 local populations.

    Nowhere in the book does he cluster these 491 populations into 4 or 5 continental clusters (“races”). He makes some clusters and population aggregates, but doesn’t reduce them to a low number, but still in the many dozens or hundreds. And the book cover shows a genetic gradient, hardly that supports traditional races for example most of the middle-east and India is a different colour to Europe, yet in the old race classifications (such as Coon, 1965) the middle-east and India was thought to be “Caucasoid”. Like I said, there is both an SJW and “race realist” distortion of Cavalli-Sforza to suit your own silly political agendas. You’re as bad as the SJWs (like Saini) you’re complaining about.

  88. @nickels

    Yes, clearly examples of a “social construct”.

    • Replies: @nickels
  89. dearieme says:
    @Wally

    A person having origins in any of the original peoples of …. But who gets to decide who was original?

  90. dearieme says:
    @Sean

    A person having origins in any of the original peoples of …. But who gets to decide who was original?

    • Replies: @dearieme
    , @Sean
  91. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Hardimon’s position is old-school racialism (he defends continental race divisions), but since he knows race and IQ is more toxic because of the overt white supremacy he’s basically saying for “race realists” to drop the IQ stuff while still retaining the old-school continental race divisions. His “minimalist race concept” is really nothing exciting.

    It seems completely pointless to me, since anti-racialists like myself will see Hardimon’s position as really no different to the same old racialism bullshit. At the end of the day Hardimon is still claiming there are “Blacks”, “Mongoloids”, “Caucasians” etc. Nothing has changed and this race concept is the same as racialist dinosaurs like Carleton Coon.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  92. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Her great fear seems to be that some groups will be shown to be better than others. Why do people fear this?

    People fear this because it is (a) silly, and (b) it constitutes incitement to hate, exploitation, genocide and war.

    West Africans run faster than East African highlanders, but have less stamina over more than a few hundred yards. So which group is better?

    Races are different from one another by definition, but what is better or worse remains for the process of natural selection to determine.

    The denial of racial differences has nothing to do with biology: it is brainwashing in the service of a political objective; namely global governance, under which a mongrelized mass of mankind will be used, abused and as necessary disposed of at the will of the money power.

    The process of racial mongrelization is essential to the globalist plan because it destroys national elites and hence the sovereign, democratic nation states that are the chief obstacle to global control by institutions such as the WTO, the UN, NATO, the EU, that are subject to informal control by the money power.

    • Agree: MarkU, 95Theses, Miro23
  93. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    So now you’re claiming taxa are defined by single traits again? This is going around in circles isn’t it?

  94. Anonymous[179] • Disclaimer says:
    @R.H.Burt

    The author provided reason and data. Your empty proclamation contains neither.

    • Replies: @R.H.Burt
  95. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Pronouncing that all people are equal in ability can lead to the mistaken belief that differential outcomes must be proof of conspiratorial exploitation.

    Exploitation of man by man, whether conspiratorial or otherwise has been a feature of history throughout the ages. Moreover, exploitation has most often been justified by reference to the supposed inferiority of those exploited, whether they be of a difference race to that of the exploiters or merely of a different social class.

    In fact, differences in outcome among societies are primarily due to differences in social, economic and political organization. In the 19th Century the Brits thought that white men, particularly white British men, were superior to all others because white men ruled almost the entire world other than China. Today, we realize that European world dominance was a consequence of many chance variables, for example the existence of the English Channel, which meant that the British monarch could not persuade Parliament to fund a standing army, which meant that the people, as represented by Parliament, were more powerful relative to the monarch than elsewhere. Parliament was thus able to legislate in ways that favored the economic interests of its members, leading to private appropriation of common land, capital accumulation, investment in agriculture, transportation and industry, and hence the industrial revolution in a once backward, poverty-stricken offshore island.

    Today, the key political issue about race is this. Do human groups that have existed for generations on particular patches of real estate have the right to exclusive control over that real estate as it has been shaped and defended through the blood sweat and tears of their ancestors, there to propagate their own kind and rule themselves by their own traditions?

    The answer of the globalists is: No, the entire world is now open to all, and if that means tens of thousand, hundreds of thousand, or millions flooding into civilized places and shitting on the streets, undercutting wages, driving both housing costs and tax-funded infrastructure spending sky high, so be it.

    The answer the nationalists in defence of their homelands must give the globalists is “go fuck yourselves”.

    • Replies: @Slug
    , @xcd
  96. Miro23 says:
    @Ahoy

    That quote doesn’t come from Barnett’s, “The Pentagon’s new Map”, but it also doesn’t mean that there isn’t a Jewish war on Anglo-America.

    America’s Jewish mafia is playing dirty, and has gained undemocratic power by subverting Congress and taking control of the US media.

    The Anglo’s (empty) dream is that they can resist this attack by democratic means, for example by voting for Trump, with the impossible promise of “Draining the Swamp”, when, more realistically, they need to level the playing field.

    For example, at one time, Pablo Escobar’s narco mafia ruled Columbia. It was the US that brought him down, and they didn’t do it democratically through the Columbian parliament. They did it undercover, with cells that subverted his networks, tapped his phones, promoted challengers and chipped away at his power on different fronts until his organization broke up in fear and collapsed.

  97. Anonymous[179] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    there aren’t any human races today

    Funny. How about “breeds”? Did you know that in some languages dog breeds are called dog “races”?

    Do you see any differences here? Can they be measured even if you don’t trust your lying eyes?

    • Replies: @95Theses
  98. Okechukwu says:
    @Anonymous

    I’m not sure what your exact point is, but you confirm why there aren’t any human races today

    You can always count on clowns like Mikemikev to debunk themselves.

    Btw, this is excellent, cogent stuff that is a breath of fresh air in this cesspool of ignorance (including the ignorance of Thompson himself). I wish you would write under a real moniker so as to be able to track your posts.

  99. dearieme says:
    @dearieme

    An unoriginal comment. Oops!

  100. Sean says:
    @dearieme

    What makes Jews superior is not their origin but their genetic adaptation to a certain mode of existence. I suppose that the splitting of people into ‘original peoples’ categories is important for a disparate impact criterion t that virtually always redound to the advantage of those who are not white gentiles. Equality is a racial theory, and it depends on genetics as assessed by appearance it is still about genes.

    • Replies: @iffen
  101. Okechukwu says:
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    However the true HBD debates which concern us in these parts, really only concern public policy.

    No one is ever going to let a bunch of HBD morons (promoters of junk science) make public policy. No HBD advocate even has the balls to show his face outside of echo-chambers like this and you think you’re going to make policy? LOL.

  102. renfro says:
    @Julian T

    We are drowning in “gimmick writers”….Jewish brilliance, Gentile superiority, Asian genius, Black stupidity, its Culture, its IQ, no its environment or diet…ad nausea. Its very profitable because there is no final proof for the claims and they can cite each others works and argue over them forever…..ah what a never ending career!

    I wrote my own book on this, it has only one page that says….

    ”In view of the fact that God limited the intelligence of man, it seems unfair that He did not also limit his stupidity.”

    • Replies: @John Howard
  103. @neir

    India is place, not race.

    • Replies: @neir
  104. ia says:

    I’m surprised scientific and technical types haven’t tried to explain the huge difference between blacks and and everybody else regarding sexually transmitted disease. Why such a tremendous gap? And why do blacks infect themselves heterosexually with AIDS and nobody else does?

  105. @renfro

    I also wrote a book with one page on the subject of race.

    It says: A racist is a person who can spot racists by the color of their skin.

  106. @Okechukwu

    Btw, this is excellent, cogent stuff that is a breath of fresh air in this cesspool of ignorance

    We would be able to clean out this “cesspool” if you left tbqh

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
    , @Anonymous
  107. MarkU says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Thanks for taking the time to illustrate what you were alluding to. I remember a lecturer asking the class whether or not the “soft” sciences were really science. I was the only one to offer a response which was “If it uses the scientific method it is a science, otherwise not” I stand by that view and if “evolutionary psychology” is not using the scientific method (and clearly “reverse engineering” is not) then it isn’t science.

    Incidentally, the 88 in your chosen name has very unfortunate connotations in the UK of which you are presumably unaware.

  108. Okechukwu says:
    @BengaliCanadianDude

    This hindu clown wants a hermetically sealed echo-chamber where no opposition voices can ever seep through.

    Big hint, hindu, they don’t like you. You would not be welcome at any white supremacist rally. You are licking asses here in vain.

    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude
  109. At this point I believe that people should just adopt an anti-ecumenism approach to this shit.

    But take it to the extreme – like, actively boycott the mere existence of these insufferable cunts. They can either accept the truth and be treated as people, or do their thing and be considered to not be a biological lifeform. Attention is what drives them anyway

  110. nickels says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Yes, clearly examples of a “social construct”.

    Just like gender!!

  111. @Okechukwu

    This hindu clown wants a hermetically sealed echo-chamber where no opposition voices

    Your words not mine. Don’t put ’em in my mouth, negroid, ‘cos I never said that.

    Big hint, hindu

    Wrong religion, Mr.Wakanda.

    where no opposition voices

    I agree and disagree with many people on here regularly, and I air my dissentions towards any foibles I have an issue with quite frequently. I don’t follow anything blindly(unlike you).

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  112. iffen says:
    @Sean

    Equality is a racial theory

    No, it is a political aspiration. Race is just a mega confounding.

    • Replies: @Sean
  113. 95Theses says:
    @Anonymous

    Of course! One is an all-grown-up Yorkshire Terrier, and the other is a stunted and very strange-looking German Shepherd. ツ

  114. Okechukwu says:
    @BengaliCanadianDude

    Hindu is a way of life, you moron. Notice there are a few of you on here who obsequiously attempt to lick ass and curry favor. Malla is another prime example.

    Seriously, stop embarrassing yourself. They don’t want you. Most white people even prefer us to you.

    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude
  115. @Edward

    She has two Master’s degrees, one from Oxford, (…)

    Note that an Oxford, Cambridge, or Dublin MA requires no postgraduate work. Anyone graduated by those Universities as a BA with Honours is promoted to MA after six or seven years as a member of the university (including years spent as an undergraduate). Her two Master’s degrees are probably her Oxford MA and one from another institution that required her to pass additional examinations and write a thesis.

  116. @Okechukwu

    Most white people even prefer us to you.

    (x) douby. Whatever helps you sleep at night(it’s quite inaccurate).

    Seriously, stop embarrassing yourself

    Follow your own advice

  117. @Okechukwu

    In just two comments of the mighty genius Okechukwu, I count the following usages:

    1. morons
    2. junk science (definition please)
    3. balls
    4. echo chambers (definition please)
    5. LOL (just like Ben Franklin used to say)
    6. “this Hindu clown”
    7. “white supremacist” (voodoo wizard-word, definition please)
    8. licking asses

    Somebody call up the Cicero Club, looks like we’ve got a winner.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  118. Okechukwu says:
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Oh, here’s the clown that thinks he’s going to make policy even though HBD is absolutely absent in real world scientific circles. In fact, the people that push HBD stupidity here on Unz are too scared to show up at a real scientific conference and give a presentation.

    So you want to make policy, huh? Based on IQ? You idiot, we don’t even make policy to frustrate the aspirations of 20 IQ Down Syndrome sufferers. In fact we do the exact opposite. We bend over backwards in terms of policy to make their lives more comfortable and meaningful.

    And if you’re going to make policy based on IQ, you think that low-IQ whites are going to be saved from your concentration camps? Seriously, have you thought this through?

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
    , @neir
    , @MarkU
  119. R.H.Burt says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    When one expresses one’s opinion, reason and data are not required. They are only required when one is trying to persuade. Simply putting in one’s two cents is an acceptable form of verbal communication.

  120. @Okechukwu

    Policy based on IQ would bring both common sense and enhanced productivity anywhere it could be utilized.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  121. Sean says:
    @iffen

    Disparate impact theory is the basis for saying there is racism that needs to be corrected. Yet one must start from what are obviously racial categories then apply the disparate impact criteria to be able to say that there is inequality. So whether they claim to disbelieve in racial categories and superiority or not, they gather information to put people in monitorable categories and have what is clearly a theory about the equality of races. Therefore it is a racial theory.

    The same disparate impact criterion is now being applied to immigration and nationality law, which obviously fails the test. There are no actual get-outs or exemptions for nation states trying to control their borders against illegal immigrants to ward off accusations of disparate impact. Nationality and right of residence based on where you were born has a very obvious disparate impact, and it is clear cut racism under the definitions agreed to by all countries under international treaties and conventions against racial discrimination.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  122. typo alert: The match between socio-economic status of origin and achievemebt in the US is weak, as the rise of poor Chinese, Japanese and Korean immigrants shows.
    “Achievemebt”

  123. utu says:
    @Anonymous

    “we don’t find an individual character that is confined to only one population”

    Where did you get this from? And define “individual character.”

    In the subspace defined by the first two or three or four principal components you find disjoint regions that can be defined as race cluster and because they are disjoint in this metric space one can assign to the clusters “individual charter” as linear combinations of SNPs in say 3-D vector space. By definition this “individual charter […] is confined to only one population.”

  124. SafeNow says:

    This reminds me of the scene in “Do the Right Thing” in which the Korean grocer is approached by the rioting Blacks of the neighborhood, about to make his store the next victim of the melee. The Korean, who shares their neighborhood, protests “I’m Black!” The Blacks are at first bewildered, but then accept his statement as good sociology, and walk away.

  125. Skeptikal says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Is this the last sentence of your review?
    “They are words I never expected to hear from a respected mainstream geneticist.”

  126. anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ahoy

    Others have clearly debunked your false claim. You are clearly one of those low IQ (80 at most) white trash idiots who is trying his(her) best to feel superior to others. White Trash! Lol!

    Since you included the oft-repeated trope of muslims been intentionally brought in to eurape to decrease the overall IQ of the “superior” race, I would say that the eurapeans should be so lucky as to gain some true monotheist Islamic spiritual-IQ, an IQ which will prove infinitely more valuable where we are all headed. Of course, I don’t think the average eurapean is that lucky.

    The “superior” race languishes in a hearsay-driven spiritual loser-land, a pagan polytheist mangods-worshipping pestilence, whose final destination will be the Fire. No reprieve in sight to the self-inflicted curse of White Supremacism, for the foreseeable future. Political happenings currently all across eurape are plenty proof.


    PS: I wonder, if your melanin deficient hides are indeed as “superior” as advertised, will they prove to be quite flame retardant too. You will find out soon enough. 😀

  127. neir says:
    @John Howard

    from my non-indian perspective, indian science has been negligible, and very far from taking over the world

  128. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @Okechukwu

    Thanks.

    I’m mostly retired which is why I’m just using an Anon. I wrote most of the RationalWiki content on these “race realist” pseudoscientists. I’ve known Mikemikev for 7 years- he’s a literal neo-Nazi imbecile and has learnt nothing in all that time; a scientific illiterate.

    Although I argue human races don’t exist today, I don’t deny they existed in the past, but human population structure radically changed around 10,000 years ago.

    A good quote from one of my favourite paleoanthropologists, Milford Wolpoff (2013):

    “…as the significant population expansions and movements of the late Pleistocene and more recent times began (Hawks et al. 2007), the ancient pattern of distinct regional differences (subspecies) was obscured. One consequence is that today variation within populations is greater than variation between populations, and subspecies (biological races) do not exist… Human geographic variation obviously exists, but it is not racial. Modern paleoanthropology and genetics are among the disciplines that have shown that there is no taxonomy in the human species below the species level. They also show that the present poorly reflects the past. Neandertal morphology and genetics, and genetic evidence of other distinct groups, suggest far more population structure in the past. It is likely that for much of the Pleistocene the human species had races. But, whether or not races appeared in the past, they did not persist.”

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @Okechukwu
  129. neir says:
    @Okechukwu

    Even if academics choose to ignore HDB, the US military and pentagon will be forced to recognize it due to geopolitical reality. A nation that recognizes HBD and implement pro-eugenic policies like china will have a massive advantage over the US.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    , @CanSpeccy
  130. I like how you guys don’t believe anything the mass media says about Hitler but believe everything it says about Stalin.

    You guys take the cake. Wouldn’t know a contradiction if it bit you.

    • Troll: BengaliCanadianDude
  131. Hmm. Seems to be a sudden influx of liberal trolls on here. I don’t like them either. They are just as stupid.

  132. @CanSpeccy

    Good Wikipediaing! You mus be [email protected]

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  133. @CanSpeccy

    You are the stupid one. The 90 % of variation being discussed in the article is all contained within that 2 % of difference from gorillas.

    In other words, all human variation dwells within that 2% difference from gorillas.

    As usual with you people, you are playing games with statistics to get the presupposed answer that fits your troglodyte prejudices. Where is Disraeli when you need him?

    Statistics without probability is bunkum anyway.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Jliw
  134. Theodore says:
    @RaceRealist88

    I would say India is a mixture of Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Australoid. In the USA, they are classified as Caucasian, which is used synonymously with “White” on the census. It certainly depends on which group you’re looking at, the Indian subcontinent is a big place.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  135. @Robert Dolan

    Why? How? Let’s accept the IQ-ist hypothesis – would “policy based on IQ” be ethical?

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  136. @neir

    What’s the argument that eugenic policies are ethical?

  137. CanSpeccy says:
    @obwandiyag

    Good Wikipediaing! You mus be [email protected]

    If you go away and think about it a bit, you may see it is rather foolish to dispense with even just a few moments of your one and only life making foolish comments such as that.

    If we are to discuss the adaptive consequences that drive evolutionary change, we will do well to keep the facts straight. And, as I pointed out, white skin does not facilitate vitamin D uptake, a claim that makes no logical sense, it makes possible in vivo vitamin D production by photochemical conversion during skin exposure to ultra-violet light.

  138. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @obwandiyag

    You are the stupid one. The 90 % of variation being discussed in the article is all contained within that 2 % of difference from gorillas.

    If the race-is-a-social-construct crowd meant that 90% of the variation among human races was “90 % of variation …contained within that 2 % of difference from gorillas” surely they would have said “90 % of variation …contained within that 2 % of difference from gorillas.” But they didn’t say that did they, and therefore it is pretty certain that it was not what they meant.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    , @obwandiyag
  139. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Theodore

    I have read that there are Indian scholars who hold the Dravidians of Southern India to be derived from East Africans, the influx dating back maybe ten thousand years.

  140. @Anonymous

    “Hardimon’s position is old-school racialism (he defends continental race divisions)”

    I know – I read his book. So what if he does?

    “but since he knows race and IQ is more toxic because of the overt white supremacy he’s basically saying for “race realists” to drop the IQ stuff while still retaining the old-school continental race divisions.”

    Social concepts are socially constructed in a pernicious sense iff it “(i) fails to represent any fact of the matter and (ii) supports and legitimizes domination.

    So he then goes on to write (pg 63):

    Because it lacks the nasty features that make the racialist concept of race well suited to support and legalize domination, the minimalist race concept fails to satisfy condition (ii). The racialist concept, on the other hand, is socially constructed in the pernicious sense. Since there are no racialist races, there are no facts of the matter it represents. So it satisfies (i). To elaborate, the racialist race concept legitimizes racial domination by representing the social hierarchy of race as “natural” (in a value-conferring sense): as the “natural” (socially unmediated and inevitable) expression of the talent and efforts of the individuals who stand on its rungs. It supports racial domination by conveying the idea that no alternative arrangement of social institutions could possibly result in racial equality and hence that attempts to engage in collective action in the hopes of ending the social hierarchy of race are futile. For these reasons the racialist race concept is also ideological in the pejorative sense.

    He rejects racialist races because they’re not real.

    “It seems completely pointless to me, since anti-racialists like myself will see Hardimon’s position as really no different to the same old racialism bullshit. At the end of the day Hardimon is still claiming there are “Blacks”, “Mongoloids”, “Caucasians” etc. Nothing has changed and this race concept is the same as racialist dinosaurs like Carleton Coon.”

    Hardimon (and Spencer) both reject these types of conclusions. Why does it matter that “Hardimon is still claiming there are “Blacks”, “Mongoloids”, “Caucasians” etc”, if he’s giving sound arguments for their existence? If Hardimon (and Spencer) specifically argues against racialist race concepts, how can you attempt to line-up his views with racialists (HBDers)? His race concepts (minimalist/populatonist/socialrace) describe the reality of race.

    When you say you’re an anti-racialist, what do you mean? Are you a social constructivist about race or an anti-realist about biological race?

  141. @CanSpeccy

    “If the race-is-a-social-construct crowd meant that 90% of the variation among human races was “90 % of variation …contained within that 2 % of difference from gorillas” surely they would have said “90 % of variation …contained within that 2 % of difference from gorillas.” But they didn’t say that did they, and therefore it is pretty certain that it was not what they meant.”

    What does the phrase “race is a social construct” mean to you? Does it mean that “race is not real”? Do constructivists about race deny that there is genetic variance between population groups deemed “races”?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  142. @RaceRealist88

    Why would policies based on IQ not be ethical?

    I was tested as a kid and tracked into “accelerated classes.” Tracking is a bad word now because the loony left calls it “racist,” but tracking is a common sense solution to the fact that people are NOT equal.

    Is it unethical that basketball and football are dominated by black males?

    Essentially, for the last hundred years we used IQ testing for college admissions which also amounted to a form of screening for future careers. They are throwing all of that out the window in their efforts to destroy white people.

    Now, the latest idiocy is the SAT will give “adversity points” to blacks and browns so they can screw whitey even more. The non-whites already get a 300 point bump but that wasn’t good enough.

    The left says that race and IQ don’t matter, but science says otherwise.

    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude
  143. Miro23 says:
    @Sean

    Nationality and right of residence based on where you were born has a very obvious disparate impact, and it is clear cut racism under the definitions agreed to by all countries under international treaties and conventions against racial discrimination.

    So if you don’t support open frontiers you’re a racist. That’s the SJW argument and they’re mostly right. Governments have to speak openly about race, and explicitly make a statement about the racial identity of their countries. That way voters can vote on mass immigration rather than it just have it happening (as at present).

    Some countries adhere to the racial homeland idea (China for the Chinese, Hungary for the Hungarians etc.) and others don’t (diverse France for everyone, diverse Germany for everyone – everywhere belongs to everybody).

    It doesn’t have to be either/or. There are good arguments for protecting the political power of the traditional inhabitants of a racial homeland (defined) while still allowing some immigration with assimilation, or, if that’s not going to work, just run Swiss style work contracts with entry and exit dates that are seriously enforced.

  144. @CanSpeccy

    You have proven yourself an imbecile and not worth the time of day.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  145. Fox says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Good comment. Nicely put. To imagine the power elite in the coat of an ape and gesturing and grimassing in its manner is quite amusing and turns the tragedy into tragicomedy when one sees the picture of one of those pretenders of the species homo sapiens.
    What remains is a painful laugh at the fools who have nothing (such as angela saini (spelling on book cover)) to say but do it anyway. I am an avid reader, but am avoiding bookstores now, have been for years, because I can’t bear to see the stacks of newly published garbage one is confronted with already in the entrance. It is overwhelming.
    These writings are directed at the same people who also have a subscription of “reputable and established newspapers”, and who also watch the daily news. No damage can be wrought amongst those anymore.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  146. @Robert Dolan

    browns

    Not Indians though, most notably….just hispanics and blacks..

  147. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    Now Lewontin’s fallacy, again. You know that “more variation within groups” is typical among subspecies. You cycle through these fallacies in an endless loop, always changing the subject and never admitting you’re wrong. I can only guess that your goal is to waste people’s time, Oliver. Or maybe you just need someone to talk to.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  148. Whitewolf says:

    I really don’t get the angst that some people feel in admitting that human races and ethnic groups are different. Ironically it’s usually the people who claim to love diversity yet they insist there isn’t any in humans except for skin color.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  149. @Miro23

    Don’t forget that open borders are only advocated for white countries by mostly whites and some of their coloured poodles. They pretend that it’s a “universal” right but I haven’t seen hordes of these white liberals storming borders of non-European countries demanding the right to settle there with no documents or paperwork. Same as always, just weaponised lies serving an agenda (in this case an anti-white one) favoured by those who manipulate the useful leftist idiots implementing it. They are the real racists as if not they would be storming those African, Arab, Asian borders and demanding their right to live amongst other races.

    • Replies: @neir
    , @Miro23
    , @Slug
  150. neir says:
    @Commentator Mike

    if all countries have open border, then american oil companies can just march into Venezuela and drill up all the oil, sell it and siphon all the profits back to US bank. So open border is a form of imperialism.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  151. Miro23 says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Don’t forget that open borders are only advocated for white countries by mostly whites and some of their coloured poodles. They pretend that it’s a “universal” right…

    They can do this because most Western countries don’t have political leaderships that can confidently say something like:

    “This is Sweden, the historic homeland of the ethnically Swedish people. People who speak Swedish and who built this, advanced and peaceful society.” “We respect foreigners, and a small number may become Swedish citizens through marriage and a commitment to the Swedish way of life.”

    It’s being good neighbours, on the basis that “this is my house, and that is your house”. It’s not open door time, and move in (permanently), with a many of your friends and family as you want.

    Counter-culturals who advocate a borderless West are either childish innocents, cheap labour Globalists or hard-core Cultural Marxist wreckers.

  152. CanSpeccy says:
    @RaceRealist88

    What does the phrase “race is a social construct” mean to you? Does it mean that “race is not real”? Do constructivists about race deny that there is genetic variance between population groups deemed “races”?

    I suspect that have no idea what they are talking about. The thing is, when you have the media and the ruling elite behind you, you can say anything you like and bully most people into believing it. And as it happens, insisting that folks from Syria, or Equitorial Guinea, or Honduras, or wherever are indistinguishable from the English or the Japanese and therefore have as much right to occupy housing, take a job, or demand tax-payer funded infrastructure spending in London or Tokyo as a native-born Englishman or Japanese, serves the interests of the globalist money power which owns the media, and most elected politicians too.

    Conversely, insistence that Europeans are not only different from Africans and Chinese, but that they have a right to persist in their differences physically, culturally and in religious faith is anathema to the globalist since it restricts corporate profit maximization and the global hegemony of money.

    And although the globalist media will tell you that such an interpretation of the facts is the product of deranged conspiracy theorists, it is, in fact, they considered conclusion of perhaps the most brilliant 20th century historian, Carroll Quigley, who was Bill Clinton’s Georgetown University history mentor, who aided Clinton in obtaining a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford University where, in accordance with the wishes of Cecil Rhodes, his brains should have been washed as to the virtues of global governance, to be achieved at the expense of the sovereign, nation state.

    That, anyway, rather broadly speaking seems to be the view of Bill Vallicella’s correspondent that I mentioned above. Specifically, of those who claim that race is a social construct, he said:

    I think in most cases they don’t mean anything much. They haven’t thought about it. It’s a smart-sounding phrase they picked up from PBS or from some half-wit university lecturer. It’s the kind of thing the bien pensant people say. So they say it too. And they know that, whatever it really means, it must be true and morally right to say it. They know that only Nazis disagree. I’ve talked to some educated intelligent Leftists who say stuff like this. They usually just retreat to Lewontin’s fallacy—more differences within races than between, and all of that. Again, it seems they just don’t want to think about it and they use these dumb phrases as a way to avoid thinking. The dumb phrases change once in a while. I guess in earlier decades we’d hear more about how “There is only one race, the human race”. But it may be a mistake to expect any clear or coherent meaning behind these propaganda phrases.

  153. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @obwandiyag

    You have proven yourself an imbecile and not worth the time of day.

    But you nevertheless chose to waste the time of day by adding to your own record of imbecility, which I suppose makes some kind of sense.

  154. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Fox

    I am an avid reader, but am avoiding bookstores now, have been for years, because I can’t bear to see the stacks of newly published garbage one is confronted with already in the entrance. It is overwhelming.
    These writings are directed at the same people who also have a subscription of “reputable and established newspapers”, and who also watch the daily news.

    Yes, my view exactly. Here, in Victoria, British Columbia, we used to have what was perhaps the world’s finest small English-language bookstore, which was founded by Jim Munro and his former wife Alice, who as you may know, received the 2013 Nobel Prize for literature. However, Jim Munro retired and sold the business, which now has the same line-up of crap new books that every other bookstore offers.

    Beside new books, Munro’s has a “bargain book bin” where cheap remainders could be had for six or eight dollars a piece. At one time, if you bought half a dozen at a time, there was a good chance that at least one or two would be worth reading. Most recently, however, even these offerings seem mostly to be about the horrors of Hitlerism, the Holocaust, and the wickedness of Russia. Indeed a large proportion of the books, and I say this with no personal antipathy for Jews, seem to be not only by Jews but about Jews. Another peculiarity of the books now published is how frequently authors seem compelled, in the middle of a treatise on history or economics, or psychology, to pledge, for no apparent reason, their allegiance to the official account of 9/11. I guess that’s a point for aspiring authors to note.

    The reason for this catastrophic transformation of the book business is that it has been taken over by a handful of corporate giants, most of which own large swaths of the media. Indeed, a large proportion of books on politics, history and economics seem to be written by professional journalists, people who otherwise spend their time churning out rubbish for the Economist or the Guardian, etc.

    Book publishing, in other words, has become part of the globalist propaganda apparatus.

  155. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    There have always been two ways to categorise subspecies. This has been explained to you countless times (quantitative and qualitative group variation) and you can read this in any taxonomist. Using Fst, 0.20 is a quantitative cut-off for delimiting subspecies:

    “With increasing effective number of migrants Fst declines only very slowly when Nefm ≥ 1, but with decreasing effective number of migrants Fst rises very rapidly when Nefm ≤ 1. Because Nefm = 1 is at the inflection point of equation 6. 10, an effective number of migrants of 1 marks a biologically significant transition in the relative evolutionary importance of gene flow to drift.” (Templeton, 2006)

    Below 0.20 FST two populations behave effectively as a single evolutionary lineage and gene flow dominates over genetic drift. So 0.20 is a useful and non-arbitrary threshold to determine subspecies, i.e. as more or less isolated populations with minimal to no gene flow, hence separate lineages. Of course I don’t admit I’m wrong, since I’m right, and “race realists” cannot refute anything I’ve said. Rather they re-define subspecies/race to mean something it never traditionally did hence I’m sure you will argue subspecies were never isolated or independent lineages. Keep re-defining race because it was debunked.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @res
  156. Whitewolf says:
    @Miro23

    So if you don’t support open frontiers you’re a racist.

    Yes that’s right. If you don’t support open borders you are a racist. If on the other hand you do support open borders you are an idiot.

    • Agree: Miro23
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  157. Morris L says:

    If you don’t believe in race I’d very much like to try and pin down what you actually do believe in, so I’d really appreciate you indulging me and answering the following questions:

    1. Do you accept that there are people living today who are directly and wholly descended from people who lived in sub-Saharan Africa, say, 40,000 years ago?

    2. Do you accept that there are people living today who are directly and wholly descended from people who lived in East Asia, say, 40,000 years ago?

    3. Do you accept that there are people living today who are directly and wholly descended from people who lived in Europe, say, 40,000 years ago?

    4. Do you accept that members of these groups outlined above are genetically more like each other than they are genetically more like members of the other groups?

    5. Do you accept that these genetic differences have come about through the processes we broadly call ‘evolution’ (genetic bottlenecks, natural selection, sexual selection etc.)

    6. Do you accept that an average person in a modern society could look at an individual who is a member of one of these groups and correctly identify which group the individual belongs to?

    7. Can you suggest a nice, concise, overarching term to describe the phenomenon outlined above? I prefer the term ‘race’, but I’m willing to accept a better term if you have one.

  158. Just tap your heels together three times and say:

    THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS RACE
    THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS RACE
    THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS RACE

  159. > Saini quotes Jobling (page 151) saying that “the divisions between us are so blurry that humans can theoretically be grouped any way you like”.

    Yes, and the only way you *should* want to divide humans is to put those icky white Europeans represented by the blue dots in the “evil” category and the rest of humanity in the “good” category. QED #Science!

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
  160. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    Changing the subject again. Now it’s Templeton’s fabricated Fst subspecies cutoff used nowhere except by Templeton to deny human races.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  161. Slug says:
    @CanSpeccy

    “Parliament was thus able to legislate in ways that favored the economic interests of its members, leading to private appropriation of common land, capital accumulation, investment in agriculture, transportation and industry, and hence the industrial revolution in a once backward, poverty-stricken offshore island.”

    Poverty stricken prior to the industrial revolution? The English were colonising North America well before they had invented steam engines. Also, I’m not sure how you can reduce the industrial revolution down to the existence of the English Channel. One of the prime reasons the industrial revolution occurred first in Britain was due to the existence of both iron ore and coal deposits along its coast. Their close proximity to the sea allowed for cost-efficient transportation by boat to a single site for steel production. Germany by comparison, while having its own land-locked deposits, were unable to unify them until the British built their railways for them in the late eighteen hundreds. At which point they quickly rose to become the most dominant industrial power in Europe.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  162. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @neir

    A nation that recognizes HBD and implement pro-eugenic policies like china will have a massive advantage over the US.

    Perhaps it would be enough for the Western nations to survive the global competition if they were to abandon their current universal adherence to dysgenic policies.

    They give every intelligent girl multiple incentives to pursue a career, not motherhood; tax the Hell out of the competent middle class, thereby discouraging large families; while forcing the public at large to underwrite reproduction by the welfare class.

    No wonder national mean IQ test scores are falling.

  163. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Whitewolf

    I really don’t get the angst that some people feel in admitting that human races and ethnic groups are different. Ironically it’s usually the people who claim to love diversity yet they insist there isn’t any in humans except for skin color.

    And their love of diversity is like the love of a small child who hugs a kitten to death. They want everyone mixed up and mongrelized so there’s no diversity left.

  164. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Whitewolf

    If you don’t support open borders you are a racist.

    Actually, you don’t have to be a racist. You might just be a democrat, since there is no country in the world where the majority of the populace craves for open borders, allowing people of alien race, religion and culture to flood in and compete for jobs and housing and cause taxes to rise to pay for more maternity hospitals, schools, roads, subsidized housing, free healthcare, etc.

  165. Slug says:
    @Commentator Mike

    “They are the real racists“

    White Liberals do not hate the white race. They are, if anything, those who think most highly of it. They regard it as possessing a godlike omnipotence which can order the entire world. So that all group disparities either within or between nations are deemed the will of whites. These supposedly ‘self-loathing’ whites are in fact white supremacists. Hence their hysteria. 1) It’s projection 2) They see non-whites as being so unfairly handicapped by comparison that they are driven to favour all manner of absurd corrective measures in an attempt to level the playing field. As loudly as they may decry whiteness they’re never unsure of its power, influence & importance in the world. Every condemnation of white dominance is a backhanded compliment. I’m amazed that more people don’t see this.

  166. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Slug

    I’m not sure how you can reduce the industrial revolution down to the existence of the English Channel.

    I don’t.

    With respect to European world domination at the end of the 19th Century, I said it was due to many chance factors including “for example the existence of the English Channel.” That Britain got achieved an industrial revolution before anyone else was indeed due to many chance variables that just happened to come together. The presence in Britain of both coal and iron ore being one factor, certainly. Britain’s access to the best North American colonies being another. That last factor itself the result of Britain’s island status which meant defense expenditure being focused on the navy, which in turn, gave Britain the edge in the colonial wars with France. And there were almost certainly important cultural factors, which made the British the most creative people on earth, inventors of golf, soccer, rugby football in its various forms, skiing, tennis, not to mention steam engines, the telephone (Alexander Graham Bell was born and raised in Edinburgh), fax, radar, and television.

    So yes, the rise of Europe was the result of a totally improbable set of circumstances.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  167. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Slug

    These supposedly ‘self-loathing’ whites are in fact white supremacists.

    I think there is some truth in what you are saying. But I think that you are overlooking the contempt that these “white supremacists” have for the mass of their own kind. They are people who, as I recall from my English childhood, used to think that if you gave the common people houses with indoor bathrooms (at the time 90% of houses in Britain relied on a privy in the back yard) they would just keep coal (the main home heating fuel at the time) in the bath tub.

    So in fact there attitude of white elties to the mass of their own population is exterminationist. They suppress native reproduction through economic means, no-fault divorce and state-funded abortion, while promoting mongrelization.

    “Métissage, It’s An Obligation,” as President Nicolas Sarcozy warned the people of France. In fact, the love of the white elites for races other than the European is so great that they willing lay down the lives of their own people to make way for the multi-culti, multi-racial cheap-labor immigrant enrichment.

  168. @Slug

    “I’m amazed that more people don’t see this.”

    White Liberals don’t see it themselves. But you are right, their whole worldview is (unconsciously) based on the idea of white superiority. That’s why they would decry the idea of repatriation of non-Whites to their countries of origin. They understand that that would mean a degradation, which the non-Whites would never be able to overcome.
    “Liberals are the real racists”.

  169. Sean says:
    @Miro23

    The lower orders of the population of the West have been totally cowed by antiracism and they are helpless against non European immigration. Reversing it, let alone stopping it is a non starter. Claiming that IQ and race is a reason for objecting to immigration is a very effective tactic and it will continue to be used.

    The only example of open frontiers I am aware of in the freedom of movement (labour) within the EU. Brexit was caused by massive unending inflow of Polish immigration, which the higher IQ sectors of British society approved of but the lower IQ actors saw as inimical to their economic interests. Probably the upper classes in Britain thought that Poles would not be objected to as the they were not of a different race, but actually the ordinary British worker is every bit as jealous of his wages as the bosses are of their profits.

    The trend in history was formerly that countries leaderships (the class with the higher IQ) would try to increase the power of their state by annexing parts of other countries. That was as anti chauvinist as open door immigration. When the West moved outside Europe for its conquests the era of colonisation just took the conquests further afield. Frontiers being open to people (for example Germans who came to England before WW1, or the Estonians who were imported by mine and mill owners into Scotland) encountered no racial obstacles. There were ethnic Indian qualifying as lawyers in England such as Gandhi, and Indians were made officers in the British Army

    The higher up in society you go the more you find superior IQ people that want to distinguish themselves over others. The best way is to propound a theory that everyone is equal, but the beautiful good and true becomes less interesting if it is found in everyone. So a few want to be superior to themselves if they are equal to others. And that is the real reductionism, not reducing everything to racial differences in genes or but the world as boiled down to a theory of equality, which is then used by a few to rise to prominence.

    In Denmark right now there is more immigration of non Europeans than ever before, and if Denmark is any guide left wing parties can always move to a tough policy on immigrants without stopping the inflow of immigrants. The business class like them. Adding to the population is seen as adding to the wherewithal to the country, economic and in the final analysis military. So there the motives for the individuals and classes with the highest IQs advocate to make sure there will be no end to immigration. Above all this is the state which has the emergent quality of always functioning so as to increase its power, even if the all the classes within it are worse off. The elites can not stop immigration, certainly not reverse it, even if they wanted to. The state will see to that .

  170. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    Are you saying if subspecies are defined by quantitative variation, there is no required threshold? If so that is totally false. Even Ernst Mayr used a threshold-

    “Mayr (1969) described a coefficient of difference (the difference between the mean values for 2 populations, divided by the sum of the 2 standard deviations of the mean, which should exceed 1.28 or even 1.50 before subspecies are recognised.” (Gill, 1983)

    “The establishment of a distinct subspecies is justified when the difference coefficient, C. D., exceeds 1.28.” (Banarescu, 1999)

    “The differences among European roe deer populations are small and provide no basis for dividing them into different subspecies. Specifically, the coefficients of difference among samples did not exceed the threshold level of 1.28 for any of the morphometric indices.”

    Now what dumbass? Was Ernst Mayr also a “Marxist race denying Jew”? (that’s what you usually claim for any taxonomist who sets a quantitative threshold for subspecies)

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  171. @CanSpeccy

    “…So yes, the rise of Europe was the result of a totally improbable set of circumstances…”

    If you would exchange the whole population of Europe with Australian Aborigines, but would keep intact that “totally improbable set of circumstances”, are you racially so blind as to believe the result would be the same ?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  172. MarkU says:
    @Okechukwu

    You’re just a fucking troll Okechukwu, just some white guy sitting at a keyboard in Langley Virginia in all probability, attempting to sow dissent.

    Still haven’t heard your opinion on this hate filled racist fuckwit, care to actually commit to some point of view of your own?

    So is this pile of anti-white racist bullshit OK, is this guy fit to teach? Is it OK to teach young blacks to hate whites?

    • Replies: @anon
  173. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    If you would exchange the whole population of Europe with Australian Aborigines, but would keep intact that “totally improbable set of circumstances”, are you racially so blind as to believe the result would be the same ?

    First, I am not racially blind in the slightest degree. I even wrote an honors undergraduate thesis based on a quantitative evaluation of racial variation in a non-human species (and due, presumably, to that thesis, at least in part, I graduated with the faculty prize).

    If you are trying to say that the Abos are mentally different from the people of Britain, I wouldn`t doubt it. Indeed, I have argued that they must be, if only because of their abnormally large visual cortex to which is attributed their superior path-finding ability, a faculty they share, apparently, with the Innuit people of Canada.

    So yes, since, I concluded that the occurrence of the industrial revolution in Britain was due to an extraordinary confluence of circumstances, the mentality of the people, may have been a factor. However, if the Australian aboriginals had been subjected to the same historical experience as the British, who knows. Certainly, subjected to the same historical and environmental factors, the Australian aboriginals in Britain would have evolved differently to the way they have evolved in Australia, and would have become a different people, perhaps just like the actual Brits.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  174. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    “Mayr (1969) described a coefficient of difference (the difference between the mean values for 2 populations, divided by the sum of the 2 standard deviations of the mean, which should exceed 1.28 or even 1.50 before subspecies are recognised.”

    The mean of what?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  175. res says:
    @Anonymous

    So you think Fst > 0.20 is a hard threshold? Interesting. This might traumatize you then:
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/big-if-true/

    Abstract
    Kinship coefficients and FST, which measure genetic relatedness and the overall population structure, respectively, have important biomedical applications. However, existing estimators are only accurate under restrictive conditions that most natural population structures do not satisfy. We recently derived new kinship and FST estimators for arbitrary population structures. Our estimates on human datasets reveal a complex population structure driven by founder effects due to dispersal from Africa and admixture. Notably, our new approach estimates larger FST values of 26% for native worldwide human populations and 23% for admixed Hispanic individuals, whereas the existing approach estimates 9.8% and 2.6%, respectively. While previous work correctly measured FST between subpopulation pairs, our generalized FST measures genetic distances among all individuals and their most recent common ancestor (MRCA) population, revealing that genetic differentiation is greater than previously appreciated. This analysis demonstrates that estimating kinship and FST under more realistic assumptions is important for modern population genetic analysis.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  176. @CanSpeccy

    That is like saying: “if the Aboriginals were like the British, they would act like the British”, which is a tautology. My question was: “if the Aboriginals were like the Aboriginals, would they act like the British?”

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  177. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    “if the Aboriginals were like the Aboriginals, would they act like the British?”

    Act? In response to what? They probably share the same knee-jerk reflex. But how an Aboriginal educated at Eton and Oxford would behave is entirely beyond my imagination to conceive.

    However, as you can see from this picture, having had only months to acculturate, these Abos at Oxford University look pretty much indistinguishable from any trio of British undergraduates you might meet crossing the quadrangle at Balliol College.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  178. Okechukwu says:
    @Anonymous

    You are to be commended, Sir, for doing good works. Truly, not a great many people have made the impact you’ve made with your RationalWiki content.

    RationalWiki is a vital and invaluable resource in exposing these racist quacks, charlatans and pseudoscientists. I don’t have tell you that they tend to disingenuously present themselves as bespectacled, bookish, objective seekers of scientific truths. The uninitiated or those of low-information may be fooled by this. Thanks to you, however, a quick search of their names will turn up their RationalWiki pages, wherein lies the truth.

  179. @CanSpeccy

    They are what I call “one drop Aboriginals” having no more than a few percents of Aboriginal blood. For real Aboriginals, search in Google Images : full blood Aboriginals and see the difference. Full blood Aboriginals are a failure in modern Australian society.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  180. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    They are what I call “one drop Aboriginals” having no more than a few percents of Aboriginal blood.

    Modern Brits are about the same. The aboriginal hunter-gatherers being largely displaced by farming people arriving by various routes from the Middle-East, to be followed by Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Celts from Ireland, and then the Vikings, their settlement in Britain culminating with the Norman Conquest.

    So, yeah, if the first Brits had been replaced by Australian aboriginals, they’d look pretty much like those one-drop Aboriginals at Oxford today.

    • Replies: @jbwilson24
  181. DB Cooper says:
    @neir

    Indians in general have an inflated sense of self-importance. And this is across the board including the more educated one.

  182. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    Back then (1960s) taxonomists like Mayr were using morphological characters.

    Subspecies/race classification requires a high degree or threshold of quantitative differentiation – if not, then you end up with the ridiculous scenario any two separate breeding populations are a subspecies because no two populations are genetically identical, for example the genetic distance between ethnic Dutch and Danes is 0.0009 (Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994). So are Dutch and Danes two different subspecies? These are obviously local populations not subspecies.

    “If every genetically distinguishable population were elevated to the status of race, then most species would have hundreds to tens of thousands of races, thereby making race nothing more than a synonym for a deme or local population. A race or subspecies requires a degree of genetic differentiation that is well above the level of genetic differences that exist among local populations.” (Templeton, 2013)

    • Agree: Okechukwu
    • Replies: @mikemikev
  183. Theodore says:

    From:

    The Race FAQ – John Goodrum

    https://archive.is/eHpdd

    [MORE]

    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.[10], Stephen J. O‟Brien and Ernst Mayr [11] 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.”[12] This is known as the phylogeographic subspecies definition, and a review of recent conservation literature will show that these principles have gained wide acceptance. A number of studies have employed this subspecies definition, and these can be helpful in inferring how the definition is applied in practice. A good example is a paper entitled “Phylogeographic subspecies recognition in leopards (Panthera pardus): Molecular Genetic Variation,”[13] co-authored by Stephen J. O‟Brien (one of the definition‟s co-authors). From the ranges of the revised leopard subspecies (Fig. 1) we can infer that a „unique geographic locale‟ does not require that a range be an island, or share no environmental characteristics with another. Rather, it merely requires a subspecies to have a geographical association as opposed to a subset of individuals sharing a trait but drawn from different geographical populations. Conversely, two subspecies will not remain distinct if they occupy the same locale over evolutionary time. Hypothetical human races have been proposed in which members would share a single trait (e.g., lactose tolerance or fingerprint pattern)[14] but not a common geographic locale. These „races,‟ therefore, would not be valid under the phylogeographic definition.

    Another definition of race is “A large, extended family that is partly inbred”

    Also recommended:

    Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications. https://archive.is/03Sml

  184. @neir

    And I suppose if they had open borders, the Russian army could just roll all the way to Paris if it wanted. So why are they building up the NATO presence on the Russian/EU border, and none of the liberal politicians bringing in the immigrants to the west are protesting, nay, they’re encouraging it!? Can’t people see that the whole “open borders” ideology is a lie, and lefties holding up placards advocating it are just the most useful useless idiots you can find anywhere!? I suppose ISIS combatants cum terrorists disguised as refugees are preferable to Russian soldiers in uniform on their European soil. The future is an interesting movie, get out the popcorn and watch.

  185. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    So are Dutch and Danes two different subspecies?

    European nationalities tend to overlap a lot. I guess you could slice the continuum and call them that. And they’d be races than than first level subspecies.

    If every genetically distinguishable population were elevated to the status of race, then most species would have hundreds to tens of thousands of races

    Sure, why not?

    thereby making race nothing more than a synonym for a deme or local population

    No, because you can also have macro races composed of micro races, also demes are usually defined by location.

    A race or subspecies requires a degree of genetic differentiation that is well above the level of genetic differences that exist among local populations

    No, why?

  186. mikemikev says:
    @res

    Oh no it’s over 20. If it was 19 that would mean differences were imaginary, because Templeton said so, or something.

  187. Ahoy says:

    @ SZ
    IF you are as smart as you claim put your brain to think about this

  188. @mikemikev

    Classification is a matter of choice. Such choise should be practical.

  189. Name The Nose. Put them on defense.

  190. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    It’s been explained to you before many times why broad/continental/”macro” groups have no utility, so claiming you can cluster or aggregate populations into into large geographical divisions as “races” is false.

    “Although information about ethnicity can be informative for biomedical research, it is imperative to move away from describing populations according to racial classifications such as ‘black’, ‘white’ or ‘Asian’ because “there can be considerable genetic heterogeneity within a region, it is most useful to be specific as possible about geographic origins, ethnicity, or tribal affiliation.” (Tishkoff & Kidd, 2004)

    As another example, bioarchaeology or osteoarchaeology uses 28 population references samples from Howells’ (1973, 1989, 1995) https://web.utk.edu/~auerbach/HOWL.htm to identify biogeographical ancestry of human remains from archaeological sites by mean craniometric measurements. There’s no “Black”, “Mongoloid” or “White” in Howell’s population reference samples, but local populations like Ainu, Buryats and Tasmanian aborigines. In his 1995 monograph Who’s Who in Skulls. Ethnic Identification of Crania from Measurements, Howells’ noted “There are no races, there are only [local] populations.” His study found craniometric variation between populations doesn’t accurately cluster groups at the continental level because of the heterogeneity within continents: “individuals assign themselves to specific populations better than to ‘races’ or regional samples” (Howells, 1995: 103-104).

    You ignore all the above, and still cling to a belief in a “white” or “pan-European race” for your white nationalist politics.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @j2
    , @Okechukwu
  191. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    You’re repeating again the same obvious nonsense that any heterogeneity within a taxon, which there always will be, even within identical twins, invalidates it. You’re repeating nonsense ad nauseam. You’re a pseudoscientist Oliver, there should be a Rationalwiki article about you.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  192. j2 says:
    @Anonymous

    “As another example, bioarchaeology or osteoarchaeology uses 28 population references samples from Howells’ (1973, 1989, 1995) https://web.utk.edu/~auerbach/HOWL.htm to identify biogeographical ancestry of human remains from archaeological sites by mean craniometric measurements. There’s no “Black”, “Mongoloid” or “White” in Howell’s population reference samples, but local populations like Ainu, Buryats and Tasmanian aborigines. In his 1995 monograph Who’s Who in Skulls. Ethnic Identification of Crania from Measurements, Howells’ noted “There are no races, there are only [local] populations.” His study found craniometric variation between populations doesn’t accurately cluster groups at the continental level because of the heterogeneity within continents: “individuals assign themselves to specific populations better than to ‘races’ or regional samples” (Howells, 1995: 103-104).”

    The natural scientific application of continental races is indeed in bioarcheology, but not from craniometric measurements but from DNA measurements. As Howell started his research specialization before DNA was available, he naturally could not use it. But today it is different.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  193. Jliw says:
    @obwandiyag

    This comment doesn’t refute @CanSpeccy’s point, which is merely that “high variation within and low variation between” means nothing as to how significant that small between-sample variation is.

    I.e., that tiny % interspecies variation shows that a tiny % inter-population variation in humans can nevertheless be extremely important.

    Well, that should have been his point, anyway. From his reply to you, it sort of seems like he does think that that statistic on human-ape variation somehow invalidates the statistic on human variation, making your rebuttal appropriate as well as correct.

    But the former, more salient point that could be taken from his post is not contradicted by pointing out that the intra-human variation is contained within the interspecies variation.

  194. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    I never said local populations *within* subspecies are identical; this is yet another of your creationist-style straw man arguments. I specifically said no two local breeding populations are the same, however local populations within subspecies are very similar with extremely low phenotypic/genetic variation; the high differentation is found *between* subspecies, not within them. This is basic biology and taxonomy. You then confuse group and individual variation. This is why you’re a lolcow, Michael. https://kiwifarms.net/threads/mikemikev-michael-coombs-twinkle-toes-velcro-pants.17243/page-705

    All you do is lie, create straw man arguments and misrepresent what I’m saying.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  195. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @j2

    I’ve already refuted continental biogeographical categories for humans – they’re too heterogeneous/diverse and they have no utility in bioarchaeology, biomedicine etc.

    As for bioarchaeology, it doesn’t use the discredited “continental races” you’re talking about. For example, see the recent published papers on ancient DNA for Mycenaean Greeks and Minoans. In none of those studies were the geneticists categorising these ancient populations as “Caucasoid” or a member of some sort of “pan-European White race” (Mikemikev’s pseudoscience). Instead they discuss biogeographical ancestry in more local terms of Greece/Aegean. Give up the politics and try looking at the science.

    • Replies: @j2
  196. j2 says:
    @Anonymous

    “Give up the politics and try looking at the science.”

    It is probably so that of us two, I am the scientist and you are the politician. There is indeed an interesting problem of the origin of the present people and today we can go much beyond craniology. We can from genes try to find traits, like personality traits, and speculate what environment caused these traits to develop and how they show in present populations.

    “I’ve already refuted continental biogeographical categories for humans”

    Of course you have refuted many areas of promising research because to see the promise requires some creative thinking. But was it you who wrote those ridiculous articles in the RationalWiki. I always wondered what idiot wrote them, but now I know.

    So, the area is potentially very promising. One could, and totally without any racistic or political motives, study the development of traits, basically from DNA, and investigate how they influence today. But, as you wrote articles in RationalWiki, I guess you cannot understand any constructive suggestions. You already refuted everything, in your mind, that is. Try to have more openness to ideas.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  197. Okechukwu says:
    @Anonymous

    You ignore all the above, and still cling to a belief in a “white” or “pan-European race” for your white nationalist politics.

    HBD and race realism are ideologies that reject human genetic variation and diversity. Most HBDers are too dumb to understand that they are actually anti-HBD. Rather than celebrating diversity and variation, they believe there are three or four immutable and essentially stereotypical races. This is the big tip-off that they are into it for the ideology and not the science.

    If these people want races so fervently, they should advocate for thousands of races. But no, what they try to do is to establish artificial lines of demarcation in conformity with the three races paradigm that was established long before the advent of modern genetic science, essentially creating massive superclusters and expunging the distinctiveness and diversity within those superclusters.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  198. lavoisier says: • Website
    @annamaria

    Angela Saini is an ignoramus and she is proud of that. And she is an opportunist feeding on the PC stuff.

    I suspect that she does not see herself as an ignoramus. Rather, a voice of reason bringing us all back to the virtuous fiction that there is no such thing as race.

    True believers have very high opinions of themselves and their ideas and she is no exception.

    Is she a witch burner and a book burner at the same time? Absolutely. Her kind have always been and will always be enemies of reason and free inquiry.

    But what is more noble in today’s world than fighting against racism?

    • Agree: Miro23
  199. Anonymous[100] • Disclaimer says:
    @j2

    “Give up the politics and try looking at the science.”

    Wow! Something tells me he’s not seeing the irony. The guy has obviously left this planet long ago (on a cloud of cannabis, no doubt).

  200. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @Okechukwu

    I couldn’t agree more with you.

    Human population structure is isolation-by-distance, so the super-clusters at the continental & subcontinental levels HBDers are obsessed with making, aggregate populations at the geographical extremes of those areas – that are significantly genetically dissimilar. As an example, within Europe, the largest genetic difference is between Lapps and Sardinians (0.07). Wright (1978) who came up with Fst noted that values over 0.05 are clearly significant and not trivial i.e. “small”, “moderate”, “great”, and “very great” levels of genetic differentiation are indicated by different FST values and over 0,05 is “moderate”. Why exactly are HBDers lumping moderately genetically differentiated populations together like Lapps and Sardinians into a “European race”? These idiots then turn around and claim I’m an “SJW” or “Antifa” since I criticise this absurdity. lol All I’ve ever said is if studying human population structure today, then we should be looking only at local populations because continental/sub-continental aggregates are too heterogeneous.

  201. Anyone who puts on his obligatory PC spectacles will immediately see that “racial” differences between the people in this picture do not exist. They are all the same, just like all dogs, all horses and all roses are the same. Varieties = races = sub-species of species do not exist (but of course “diversity” does exist !). Categorization is a form of fascism. All beings are equal. The science of Lysenko and Lewontin says so, so it must be true. “True” is what does not hurt feelings. “False” is what hurts feelings. It is all so simple. See for yourself :

    • Replies: @Parfois1
    , @Okechukwu
  202. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    All I’ve ever said is if studying human population structure today, then we should be looking only at local populations because continental/sub-continental aggregates are too heterogeneous.

    Is your concern and focus restricted to uncovering that which is true?

    If so, I am on board with you 100%.

    If it is instead an attempt to dishonestly prop up an egalitarian fiction than I request you to stop such nonsense and present your arguments in good faith going forward with the intention of being a servant to the truth.

    Genetic differences of importance between various cohabiting groups of people, whether neighborhoods or continents, are very real and this science is progressing at a rapid pace.

    One can argue convincingly that the Earth does not move, but it does not make this argument any less absurd.

  203. Parfois1 says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Very revealing poster. But be careful with using irony: the lower species might misinterpret what you mean!

  204. Okechukwu says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Anyone who puts on his obligatory PC spectacles will immediately see that “racial” differences between the people in this picture do not exist.

    To be taken seriously and not be viewed as a racist joker you must accept that the European featured prominently in the middle might be the dumbest of the bunch.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  205. Parfois1 says:
    @Anonymous

    I think you chose an unfortunate example of diversity to prove your point by using a peripheric minority cluster to come to a continental-size conclusion. Everywhere in Europe – as elsewhere – you’ll find the minor exception to prove the rule. Besides, if you dig down enough you’ll find an explanation for such deviations, eg. migrations from adjacent regions.

  206. TRM says:

    A question for Mr. Thompson:

    Have you seen any information about the EPA/DHA (cold water fish) effect on intelligence? The effect seems to be greatest from cold, not warm, water fish.

    Thanks

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  207. @Anonymous

    “…we should be looking only at local populations because continental/sub-continental aggregates are too heterogeneous…”

    The heterogeneity within continental aggregates is far smaller than the heterogeneity between continental aggregates. In concrete terms : the differences between Lapps and Sardinians are far smaller than between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans. Thus Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans form meaningful categories. If you want to sub-divide such big categories, go ahead. You can go on sub-dividing and sub-dividing until you reach individuals. But each sub-division because it can be made does not deny the existence of a division on a higher level. That is your argument and makes no sense.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  208. @Okechukwu

    Yes, individually he might be the dumbest, but the collectivity he represents, is not.
    One thing has become clear to me in this debate with you, that you don’t understand the meaning of group averages. We are talking about Bell curves that partially overlap. Thus there are always some individuals from a “dumber” group that are more intelligent than some individuals from a “smarter” group, without denying their average differences.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  209. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    I never said you said they were identical, so the strawman is yours. What subspecies do you mean? Humans are a first level subspecies. You’re contradicting yourself. There’s no fundamental difference between dividing groups and individual differences. It’s all cutting continua. There is no “too much” heterogeneity or “too small” between group difference. This is something ad hoc conjured up for human differences for political reasons.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  210. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    “Europeans” and “Sub-Saharan Africans” would only form meaningful categories if:

    (1) all local populations in those broad divisions are very similar in terms of genetics and/or phenotype.
    (2) all local populations in those broad divisions are more similar to each other than other divisions.

    That’s not the case in either. Instead local populations within those continents or sub-continents are diverse and show significant genetic differentiation – this is particularly noticeable in SSA that has the most genetic heterogeneity. Furthermore, note that there are numerous local populations in continents that are more similar to local populations in a different continent, especially in peripheral and coastal regions. As an example, Somalis in the Horn of Africa, are genetically more similar to Gulf Arab populations than to other populations in SSA Africa. It’s your argument that makes no sense whatsoever.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  211. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    The genetic distance between Italians and Finns is 0.018, while the genetic distance between Italians and Palestinian Arabs is 0.0064. You’re though claiming Finns and Italians should be clustered together into a “European race”, excluding Palestinian Arabs, when the latter are closer genetically to Italians than Finns. How does any of this make sense, Michael Coombs? It doesn’t. You’re purely motivated by politics (pan-European/White nationalism) to make these bizarre and meaningless racial divisions.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @j2
  212. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    You can’t seem to write anything that doesn’t include ad hominem. Even assuming your data isn’t cherry picked, which is unlikely, as I’ve said one can think of races as a slices of a continuum, or end points of a distribution.

    http://faculty.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/PCA84pops.html

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  213. j2 says:
    @Anonymous

    “The genetic distance between Italians and Finns is 0.018, while the genetic distance between Italians and Palestinian Arabs is 0.0064. You’re though claiming Finns and Italians should be clustered together into a “European race”, excluding Palestinian Arabs, when the latter are closer genetically to Italians than Finns. How does any of this make sense, Michael Coombs? ”

    There is the same problem in physics. There are some frequencies of light which are given names like red, yellow, green, blue and so on. Yet it is so that there are frequencies that are called green, though they are close to the most greenish blue than the furthest away blue. Does that make sense? It does not. We must stop talking about colors. It is a continuous spectrum. Colors do not exist.

  214. @Anonymous

    Somalians (and Ethiopians) are an ancient mixture of Negroids and Caucasoids*). Small wonder they resemble Gulf Arabs. But there is such a thing as “full blood negroes”, how similar are they to Caucasoids ?

    Old populations tend to vary considerably genetically, but not in those qualities that define them as belonging to the same race.
    ________
    *) One could call then “paleo-mulattoes”.

  215. @j2

    If frequencies can be defined, then they can also be named. How you call them is a matter of convention. You can quarrel about the names, but not about the existence of frequencies. Hence the phrase “colors don’t exist” is nonsense.

    • Replies: @j2
  216. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    Mike – you spent 6 years when arguing with me on RationalWiki, denying human population variation is continuous. This is the first time I’ve seen you now claim human genetic variation is a continuum. Congratulations.

    Was it through my influence (again) you’ve changed your views on this? lol

    Mikemikev back in 2014 when he was arguing races are discontinuous:

    “There is a huge genetic discontinuity between them. ‘Continuity’ is just a data ignoring lie. Try looking at a world map.” https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/211.168.4.62

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  217. j2 says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    “If frequencies can be defined, then they can also be named. How you call them is a matter of convention. You can quarrel about the names, but not about the existence of frequencies. Hence the phrase “colors don’t exist” is nonsense.”

    yes, but the Fst between a pair of colors is larger inside a color that between one frequency and a frequency in an outside color group. Does this not spoil your classification, if it does it for a race?

  218. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    The contributor you reference is very clear there that variation is semi-continuous, with significant discontinuities, and that’s the natural place to draw divisions. Of course you ignore this, and lie that the dispute was between “continuous” or “not continuous”. Anyone can look at the thread and see that they were clear throughout that human variation was both clustered and clinal:

    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race&diff=prev&oldid=1369135#On_the_current_edit_war

    Why do you feel the need to lie like this when anyone can see that you’re lying, Oliver?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  219. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @j2

    Yes but note that most spectral colours cover a narrow band of wavelengths e.g. the wavelength of cyan is approx. 490–520 nm. That was one of my points – categories that are too broad aren’t useful because they’re too heterogeneous/have too much variation.

    Colours more or less actually confirm what I’m saying.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @j2
  220. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    LMAO. The word “green” is not useful now. You heard it here first.

  221. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    You’re literally insane Mike and all over the place.

    A few posts above you posted this: “I’ve said one can think of races as a slices of a continuum, or end points of a distribution.”

    I was simply pointing out you’re suddenly now claiming human population variation is continuous and part of a continuum – a position you never held for 6 years and denied countless times when I debated you. I always told you human population variation is a continuum and you denied it, i.e. on RationalWiki years back you were arguing races weren’t “slices of a continuum” but discontinuous. Suddenly now, you’re claiming they’re slices of a continuum. Make up your mind?

    Anyone who points out how you flip-flop/change views – you bizarrely deny your earlier posts or accounts. Laughably you’re now posting as if 211.168 is a third-person (“The contributor you reference”.) No. It’s you, Michael. You seem to change your positions or views a lot, but then get embarrassed or ashamed of what you earlier posted years back and then try to blame them onto others… You posted those comments on 211.168.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  222. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    So you’re going to repeat this lie when anyone can look at the thread and see you’re lying.

    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race&diff=prev&oldid=1369135#On_the_current_edit_war

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  223. Ahoy says:

    @ Anonymous{243} #213

    Woyld you answer the question why the Israelis do not allow anybody to enter and reside in their country unless is a white European Khazarian Jew? Some Ethiopean Jews that they were there were sent away.

    Could it be that they don’t believe the Sub-Sahara crap you are talking about and it is only good for the naive Americans and Europeans?

    It was a good try though. What an immense exhibit of brains.

  224. Okechukwu says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Yes, individually he might be the dumbest, but the collectivity he represents, is not.

    Where’s your proof of this? That essentially is white supremacy, and white supremacy is a hope and a desire, not a science. In fact, if we could establish a universally accepted method of measuring intelligence, and if we could do a head count, the European might, in fact, be representative of the dumbest group. That is to say, you should not foreclose the possibility.

    One thing has become clear to me in this debate with you, that you don’t understand the meaning of group averages.

    And you don’t understand how human intelligence works. Nature doesn’t do averages. Either an organism has something or it doesn’t. No chimpanzee can operate an automobile or do algebra. But all humans are capable of performing the same functions. Which group or “race” is “smarter” or “dumber” cannot be known. And no, so-called IQ research (largely a pseudoscience) and alleged averages are meaningless in this regard. If you were to present your IQ data in a court of law as evidence of anything it would instantly be impeached because it’s got more holes than anyone can count.

    Thus there are always some individuals from a “dumber” group that are more intelligent than some individuals from a “smarter” group, without denying their average differences.

    Who determined which group is dumber or smarter? Richard Lynn? J.P. Rushton? Charles Murray? The Pioneer Fund? Are you serious? If this question had global consequences all the “research” of all your favorite pseudoscientific quacks would not be considered. Instead, a global body like the UN would make the determination. And I can assure you, that determination would be far afield of your expectations.

    • LOL: mikemikev
    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  225. j2 says:
    @Anonymous

    So, how about this classification to three continental colors:

    infrared, this is the color dangerous to eyes

    visible light, these are the familiar real colors

    ultraviolet, these heat you up, but do no special harm

    Is there any sense in physics to consider such a grouping? Or is it so that the sense in some grouping depends only on the application. Depends on your imagination whether you see a positive application. You may invent a useful application, or not. But in any case, if the three continental colors are useful in some application, they do have the property that the distance of two frequencies from two continental color groups may be very close and the boundary is unclear and has to be simply decided, yet this does not invalidate the grouping.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  226. @TRM

    No, have not looked at this literature, but I think that previous claims have not been substantiated that there are any reliable intelligence-boosting effects.

  227. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @j2

    Show me how clustering populations at the continental/sub-continental level is useful.

    I’ve already shown how they’re of no use to bioarchaeology & biomedicine, e.g.

    “These big groups that we characterize as races are too heterogeneous to lump together in a scientific way. If you’re doing a DNA study to look for markers for a particular disease, you can’t use ‘Caucasians’ as a group. They’re too diverse.” – Kurgen K. Naggert, a geneticist at the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine

    • Replies: @j2
  228. @Okechukwu

    “…But all humans are capable of performing the same functions. Which group or “race” is “smarter” or “dumber” cannot be known…”

    Yes, all humans (unless handicapped) can run, but some humans can run faster than others. How much faster can be measured. Same with the performance of mental tasks.
    By testing a number of persons representable for each group the group average can be known. This is happenig all the time in sociology for all kinds of research (for example status of health or education or income) and is accepted all over the world. But suddenly when intelligence is the object of research all kinds of “methodological or even philosophical objections” are raised, such as that IQ tests don’t really test intelligence or nobody really knows what intelligence is etc. The real objection is not scientific or philosophical but the refusal to accept the reality that all men are not equal, which undermines the basic illusion of the Left.

  229. Anonymous[302] • Disclaimer says:

    I like this Anonymous[243] guy.

    Every time he instructs people to disbelieve what every 9-month baby was able to see since the dawn of time – and every scientific measure (biology, IQ, behaviour, productivity, culture etc.) confirm since we have science – another 100 onlookers get red-pilled.

    Thanks #243, I hope you get paid per word.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  230. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Well OK, let’s look at IQ.

    Why should Bosnia and Herzegovina with a mean IQ of 82 or Albania, 84 be grouped with Iceland with an IQ of 101, or Germany, 100? It is meaningless to talk of a “White” or “European” IQ because of the huge variation in IQ you find across countries in Europe.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
    , @Anonymous
  231. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    What you posted in 2013 & 2014 at RationalWiki when I debated you, contradicts what you’re saying here as that link proves.

    Mikemikev 2019: “I’ve said one can think of races as a slices of a continuum, or end points of a distribution.”

    Mikemikev 2013: “Even if there were perfectly smooth clines (the usual race denial argument these days is to simply say “there are clines” triumphantly, without any data) we could still divide and name them any way we want to describe them. But there are absolutely not perfectly smooth clines, and further, the discontinuities are more significant than the continuities.”

    You’ve shifted from arguing races are discontinuous, to now arguing they’re slices of a continua. I’m pleased you are making at least some progress Mike. After many years, you finally have realised human population structure is not discontinuous and populations grade into each other. And you’ve weakened your race concept from originally arguing races are discontinuous to now arguing they’re arbitrary slicing of a genetic continua.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  232. Okechukwu says:
    @Anonymous

    Why should Bosnia and Herzegovina with a mean IQ of 82 or Albania, 84

    Both lower than the African-American IQ of 91 and the Nigerian-American IQ of 110 and the Sierre Leone IQ of 91 and the Nigerian IQ of 84, etc.

    I’m not a believer in IQ. But even under IQ, their ideology fails. I know they have tortured talking points to deal with all this but that only works in their echo-chambers.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  233. Anonymous[302] • Disclaimer says:
    @Okechukwu

    hahahahahaha

    You’re too good for this world.

  234. Anonymous[302] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    I give up. You’re obviously right. Once Okechukwu gave you his Seal of Approval I didn’t stand a chance.

    This is Europe, clearly:

  235. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @Okechukwu

    Yes that’s all true. There’s also massive variation of IQ within some single countries, e.g. China. There’s over 100 native ethnic groups and tribes living there; 56 are officially recognised by the Chinese government, but there’s dozens more. The mean IQ range between these different groups is very diverse (and many have not even been tested). The fact you can find so much variation in IQ scores within not only continents, but some countries doesn’t lend support to the hereditarian hypothesis, but cultural hypothesis.

    • Replies: @anon
  236. j2 says:
    @Anonymous

    “Show me how clustering populations at the continental/sub-continental level is useful.
    I’ve already shown how they’re of no use to bioarchaeology & biomedicine, e.g.
    “These big groups that we characterize as races are too heterogeneous to lump together in a scientific way. If you’re doing a DNA study to look for markers for a particular disease, you can’t use ‘Caucasians’ as a group. They’re too diverse.” – Kurgen K. Naggert, a geneticist at the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine”

    It only shows your lack of imagination if you cannot find a positive application for a concept. One test of creative thinking is to invent 100 usages for a dead cat, and that can be done. I surely can invent positive applications for some concept if you find it too challenging.

    Let’s take the EU. Currently the EU wants to create an European identity. This European identity contains European values, such as equality, democracy, freedom of speech, social justice, and so on. (Do not laugh, they can put you to jail for making correct calculations of the holocaust death toll, but they still mean it is justice and freedom of speech). These are partially aspects of personality and personality is partially genetically determined.

    Compare this to the idea of the German order, the volkish secret society which Sebottendorf splitted and created Thule, which gave Nazis their Aryan racial philosophy. As the goal of Nazis was just to transport Jews to Palestine and to realize the end ot the time prophesies, we can ignore them, but the original idea of the Germanenorder is similar to the one of EU values. Different races of people were assumed to have developed by natural selection and they each developed their own values. These values could be found from their old myths and old religion. This is why the volkish people studies runes and myths. The Aryan people (that is, North Europeans) was supposed to be honest, valiant, equal, whatever you attribute in your mind to the Germanic barbarians in Roman times. Incidentally, these are more or less the same as the EU shared values. So, EU people are not to be corrupted, dishonest Mediterranean people. And this is why there is much larger support for the EU application by Island than by the former Yugoslavian countries, who are not exactly fitting to this model of Europeans.

    Thus, it is not all whites. It is the exactly same concept as before. The Northern Europeans, who get a bit admixed with alien elements when one approaches the Mediterranean, but one still can accept most of them as real EU people.

    You ask if there is any application for this European people concept. Of course there is, it is to create the EU identity. Was there before for the Aryan concept? Of course there was, it was pretty much the same from the root of it, to create an Aryan identity.

    As for a black identity. I think some black Africans and African Americans have a very strong black identity. How can they have a black identity if there is no usage for the concept of black people? Chinese have a very strong and clear Chinese identity. Whether it includes Japanese and Korean people as similar people I do not know, but I think probably it does. So, this that there are identities and the identities go along with some cultural and personality aspects is just reality. It is you who have the political illusion that there is no application to the concept. Many people who think like you just want to divide and conquer. It is better that conquered people are divided into very small groups.

    Building identities is not science. A scientific application for the concept of continental races is to study how the original populations that formed these present populations developed and what characteristics (physical and mental) they obtained, and how these combined into present populations. This does not focus on medical applications of Mendelian deleterious genes, which are not selected but the selection tries to purge them. Thus, collections of special diseases is typically limited to small isolated populations, not to continental races. It is more about positive traits which get selected. These spread in large populations and admixture of populations creates interesting combinations.

    Of course only a brain dead ideologist could not invent applications to such an easy concept as a continental race. It is so much easier than using a dead cat. But I can see the reasons why you want to deny the obvious. It is some kind of misunderstood social justice mission.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  237. JP says:
    @RaceRealist88

    This is babble.

    So if there is no theory of individual intelligence differences nor a theory of human intelligence then it’s not possible for IQ tests to be construct valid.

    Prior to Isaac Newton, no tests of gravity could be “construct valid”, therefore none of the data he used to come up with his theory of gravitational attraction could be valid. Congratulations, you’ve killed science.

    Note that even now, no one can explain what causes gravity, only describe its effects and speculate about the causes.

    But hey, as long as you rape a thesaurus hard enough, you can make anything true, right? Talk long enough and maybe you can get people to forget the world that exists outside of academia. Ignorant people, unaware of the existence and attributes of groups like Pygmys, Khoi-San, Abo’s, etc. would be ill-equipped to call you on your bullshit, because they have no context to judge your conclusions. But knowledge of these groups as well as the obvious implications of human evolution means that it’s impossible that there would not be differences in human cognitive capacity. You would have to argue that the same evolution that turned us from apes to humans suddenly stopped above the shoulders, while the same evolutionary forces continued to change skin tone, skeleton shapes, gestation time and twinning rates, and any number of other attributes right up until the present.

    IQ correlating with non-cultural attributes like reaction times would blow your university babble out of the water, but I have no doubt you’ll come up enough convoluted sentences to baffle your opponents into submission. So I’ll have to let this prestigious academic journal do the talking for me:
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1475346

    • Replies: @Miro23
    , @RaceRealist88
  238. Miro23 says:
    @JP

    Ignorant people, unaware of the existence and attributes of groups like Pygmys, Khoi-San, Abo’s, etc. would be ill-equipped to call you on your bullshit, because they have no context to judge your conclusions.

    This “no context” problem is getting worse since people stopped reading books and dedicate their time to online social. The West is gravitating towards the Southern Mediterranean, where talk has long displaced literature, and somebody reading a book in public (or in private) is a rarity.

    Without any knowledge it’s difficult to make independent judgments. The only option is to take the socially approved line or switch off completely, which is in fact what seems to be happening. Conversation is restricted to which acquaintance did what, films, restaurants, travel or the latest MSM talking point with the inevitable baked in conclusion. It’s rather like having a computer and operating system ready to go but a disk full of social trivia.

    For example, consider the Khoisan. How many people out of ten thousand (without being a specialist) could give a basic explanation from memory of how they live, their language, why they are sociologically important, their place relative to other African tribes and where they fit in genetically with the rest of the world’s population.

    • Replies: @JP
  239. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    So you’re going to repeat the lie ad nauseam. That I switched from thinking variation was discontinuous to continuous, when I’ve always said it was both. But this is typical Oliver D. Smith, defame the messenger because he can’t address the message. At least you’ve given up trying to deny the validity of the race concept, and are reduced to lying about your opponent.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  240. anon[336] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    I’m sure you’re proud of your half-Black grandkid too.

  241. anon[336] • Disclaimer says:
    @MarkU

    More or less each “Black” poster we get is either some LARPer (be it a Honky, a Jew, or some other Mud who identifies with Kunta Kinte) or some resentful Bourgie Black.

  242. anon[336] • Disclaimer says:
    3260594

    Saini is a shining example of the fruit of diversity:
    >Brown
    >Diaspora
    >Lack a legit identity
    >Be a woman who Hit the Wall
    What you get is a wonderful stew of resentment.

    • Replies: @DB Cooper
  243. anon[336] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    It’s funny how you’ve been singing the praises of Jonathan Marks and yapping about muh pseudoscience considering Jonny’s past words:

    https://areomagazine.com/2019/01/18/is-science-racist-book-review/

    He highlights four of the foundational pillars of science that he views as epistemological vulnerabilities. These are: (i) naturalism, the idea that the natural world can be comprehended without recourse to the supernatural (which Marks claims is impossible due to the characteristics of human thought, while riffing on creationism); (ii) experimentalism, the idea we can study the world in controlled settings (which Marks says is impossible because things are different everywhere); (iii) rationalism, the idea that reason should govern scientific practice; and (iv) accuracy, the idea that scientific ideas should be factually correct.

    Marks claims that all these premises are unusual and do not make for a better mode of thought when compared to other modes of thinking. This argument is, frankly, bizarre, given that Marks concedes that science must pronounce authoritative facts about the world.

    In laboring to tear down the four pillars of science, Marks demonstrates a critical misunderstanding of science’s fallibilistic nature. The very point of science is to fail, to find weaknesses, expose them, and to stumble towards truth, which it describes with gradually increasing clarity.

    Already we can smell the poststructuralism .

    Worst of all is his unabashed use of guilt by association: “There is a reasonable line of thought that goes, ‘If the Nazis like you, you’re probably despicable.’” Such an argument has been levied against many biological theorists, including W. D. Hamilton and E. O. Wilson, but we can’t go on refusing to cite them, can we? Even more curiously, Marks later dismisses the association of left-wing academics with Marxist ideology as “paranoid red-baiting, classic in American politics, but not science.” Going after people who have cited the work of Philip J. Rushton, Marks states that to cite someone who has been accused of racism destroys your own credibility as a scientist because you thereby acknowledge that you are ideologically driven. Yet Marks also argues the contrary: that “bloodless androids” perform “Nazi science.” Cringily, he alludes to Vulcans at least five times in the book’s 120 pages, to highlight the inability of scientists to think outside their emotions and ideology (he claims that the Vulcans would agree with him on this). It is rather curious that, in talking about scientists’ biases, at no point does Marks admit his own (though you can join the Marksist Society biological anthropology group on Facebook, which is ironically dedicated to fighting anti-science narratives, to get a hint of whom he and his colleagues admire).

    Muh Nazis. “Reality has a Liberal Bias” more or less (hence Marks’ denial of Prog ideology in academia being relevant for how much he yaps about non-Progressive ideology in science).

    One might be surprised to find a biological anthropologist arguing such a postmodernist position, but this is not a stance restricted to a minority of anthropologists. Scholars who have praised Marks’ book include Alondra Nelson, president of the Social Science Research Council and Dean of Social Science at Columbia University; Agustin Fuentes, professor of anthropology and endowed department chair at Notre Dame University; and noted science popularizer and biological anthropologist, Barbara King. The book was also cited in a recent controversial blog post by science communicator and biological anthropologist Holly Dunsworth—posted both on the Evolution Institute’s website and PLOS Blogs—which received quite a bit of traction online. It is somewhat jarring to see such a postmodern attack on science appreciated by so many biological anthropologists.

    Looks to me like more of the old Leftoid Anthro shieet we’ve been getting for decades since Maggie Mead.

  244. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    You regularly contradict yourself Mike. It may just be you’re mentally ill and don’t know what you’re typing. When someone points out the contradictions or how you suddenly change viewpoints, you call them a “liar”. Here’s you contradicting yourself i.e. you’ve clearly shifted from arguing races are discontinuous to a continuum, even now arguing races are “end points” of a continua:

    Mikemikev 2013: “Even if there were perfectly smooth clines (the usual race denial argument these days is to simply say “there are clines” triumphantly, without any data) we could still divide and name them any way we want to describe them. But here are absolutely not perfectly smooth clines, and further, the discontinuities are more significant than the continuities.”

    Mikemikev 2019: “I’ve said one can think of races as a slices of a continuum, or end points of a distribution.”

    All I’m doing is quoting your own words that contradict.

    You also went from calling yourself a white supremacist to denying being one and calling anyone a ” liar” who merely points your white supremacist posts from as recent as 2016.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  245. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @j2

    There’s no such thing as a “European identity”, “European values” etc. In fact there is no such thing as “European culture”. This is because there’s hundreds of different cultures across Europe and there’s no single thing that unifies all of them.

    According to a recent Eurobarometer survey, 64% of people in the UK and 51% in Greece deny that they feel in any way “European”. A “European identity” is only held by a majority of people in central European countries like Germany and Poland. But even in those countries around 30-40% of people deny their identity is in any way “European”.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
    , @j2
  246. @Anonymous

    Identity is in contrast. Look at the differences between the cultures of Europe, the Middle East, India and East Asia. Then you find macro-identities. How Confucian-Daoist-Buddhist is Europe? How Hindu, how Muslim? Do Europeans use the Chinese script, the Sanskrit script or the Arabic script? If you deny a European identity, you should deny also all other non-European identities. That would be typical cultural-Marxist destructive thinking.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  247. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Cultures across Europe are as dissimilar in many ways to each other as cultures from outside of Europe. Look at language(s) as an example, how do you explain language isolates like Basque? Not all languages native to Europe belong to same language families/groupings.

    • Replies: @j2
  248. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    Congratulations Mike, you made it to fstdt.com

    https://fstdt.com/HM4$2SKG4WFP6

  249. Ahoy says:

    @ Anonymous{243] #250

    The definition of stupidity. Yoy must be a graduate of the new Harvard.

    European languages have solely Greco-Latin root.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  250. DB Cooper says:
    @anon

    Her home country India is a shithole with a disgusting culture.

    • Agree: BengaliCanadianDude
  251. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ahoy

    Not all of them do you imbecile; there are non-Indo-European languages that survived in parts of Europe into ancient, medieval and even modern/contemporary times, e.g.:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_language
    “Basque is unrelated to the other languages of Europe and is a language isolate to any other known living language.”

    Like I said there’s no such thing as a “European” culture, but extreme diversity in languages, cultures, etc across Europe – the same really as any other continent.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  252. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    Oliver “false dichotomy” Smith.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  253. Ahoy says:

    @ Anonymous{243}

    If your information source about the Basque country and people is wikipedia then you proved you are a graduate of the new Harvard. Their agenta now is that Shakespeare, Socrates, Nitze, Plato never existed. It is a fairy tale.

    Go and keep company with Noel Ignatiev you MORON.

  254. j2 says:
    @Anonymous

    “There’s no such thing as a “European identity”, “European values” etc.”

    The EU is trying to build such an identity. I just two days ago filled one questionnaire where they asked for the identity I have (identify with the city, country, Europe and so on). It is true that so far European union citizens do not yet have an European identity, just like in the beginning there was no American identity. But today there is a strong American identity. That is what people striving for a closer integration in the EU want to create (I am not one of them). In order to build such an identity they need a concept: an European sharing European values. If you only look what there is today and do not see what can be in the future, you lack vision. The concept of European is a potentially powerful one, just like was the concept of an American. Equally well there can be the concept of white people, joining Europeans and Americans, and some of these other former European colonies. Of course, there is an application for the concept of a white race, if one wants to create such. There is also an application for such a concept as Jewish people, though Jews are not one people genetically. One can create new concepts and find positive applications for the concepts.

  255. j2 says:
    @Anonymous

    “Cultures across Europe are as dissimilar in many ways to each other as cultures from outside of Europe. Look at language(s) as an example, how do you explain language isolates like Basque? Not all languages native to Europe belong to same language families/groupings.”

    Culturally and genetically Europe is quite similar. There are languages that do not belong to the Indo-European language family: Basque and Fenno-Ugrian (Finnish, Estonia, 3 Saami languages and Hungarian), but the speakers of these languages are quite European and feel European, compared to non-European people. Culturally they live in similar cultures and share most values. It is very possible to create an European identity. As a Finn I do notice small differences in character between Finns and Central Europeans or even Scandinavians, but those are very minor and they do not prevent integration. There is a bigger North-South difference, but it is gradual and not too large. One can create European identity, and that is being created. I think you are some 30 years behind your time.

    Probably you would say that there is no American identity. The USA is a mess of different cultures and languages, but actually it is not. There is an American identity.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
    , @Anonymous
  256. Okechukwu says:
    @Anonymous

    What I don’t get is why Mikemikev lies about his real views. Is he trying to make himself palatable to normies? Is he trying to clean up his act so he can be invited to an MSM talk show? Is he that delusional?

    Seriously, what’s the point?

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @Anonymous
  257. Okechukwu says:
    @j2

    There is no European identity, just as there is no African identity or Asian identity.

    Yes, there is an American identity just as there is a British identity. Note that these are countries and not entire regions or continents.

    The USA has a single culture and a single language. If you knew anything about the United States you’d know that no foreign culture survives a single generation here.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @mikemikev
  258. mikemikev says:
    @Okechukwu

    I don’t. Oliver lies about what I said. He often tries to make out that his opponents “changed their views” by misrepresenting two quotes, and they’re a hypocrite, dishonest, afraid, or ashamed of themselves. He often casts himself as the hero that was responsible for that, maybe to feel powerful as he sits alone in his mom’s basement. It’s pretty obvious ad hominem distraction. Of course I’m not surprised that someone with your integrity would join in with it. I could explain in detail the inaccuracies in what he’s saying. But that’s the point isn’t it, derailment.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  259. Factorize says:

    The Cognitive and Genetic Singularities are approaching!

    We need to remind ourselves continually of this fact. The dominant psychometric feature of the future will be endless cognitive uplift. Cognitive abilities of newborns will increase year by year for decades. Those born just before enhancement begins will have no future. By age 30, even the enhanced would no longer be competitive. It should be a surprise to no one that average IQ will likely increase by 100 points this century in developed nations. An adult conversation about this topic would help us prepare for the extremely profound challenges ahead.

  260. @mikemikev

    Indians are Caucasians.

    You can’t stand this fact.

  261. j2 says:
    @Okechukwu

    “If you knew anything about the United States you’d know that no foreign culture survives a single generation here.”

    I once lived in the USA for a year, have been there several times and know something of the country. But you do not seem to know much of the EU. The EU is trying to create an European identity. EU people already know this concept though most have not accepted this identity yet. The British, of course, did not like to become Europeans. So, there is an effort to turn “European” to mean an EU citizen, like an Americans refers to citizens of the USA, not of the North America.

  262. mikemikev says:
    @Okechukwu

    There is no European identity, just as there is no African identity or Asian identity.

    Bantu Negroids seem to like flocking together in their ethnic interests in my experience.

  263. JP says:
    @Miro23

    This “no context” problem is getting worse since people stopped reading books and dedicate their time to online social.

    Exactly. People generally hang out with people of their own race, class, religion, and approximate IQ. If the only depictions they get of other groups is from TV and movies, or worse university pseudo-science anthropology and documentaries like “Guns Germs and Steel”, they’ll be under the impression that everyone is like them and act accordingly. The whitest places are the least racist and the most mixed are the most racist.

    For example, consider the Khoisan. How many people out of ten thousand (without being a specialist) could give a basic explanation from memory of how they live, their language, why they are sociologically important, their place relative to other African tribes and where they fit in genetically with the rest of the world’s population.

    That might be a bad example, because at least older people might have seen “The Gods Must Be Crazy”, which at least gives them a familiarity that can be mistaken for understanding. They likely would think of them as just another group that hasn’t developed technology, and just blame it on their desert environment (and not question who drove them there).

    I think an even better example is any of the various groups of Pygmys. Few people even know of their existence. Yet a single glance at one would cause one to question if we’re the same species. On the basis of a similar size difference, scientists were calling Homo Floresiensis a different species, and similar traits are used to distinguish between a wolf and coyote, a lion and a tiger (or worse, a jaguar and a leopard), a black bear and a polar bear, etc. ad nauseum. They’ll claim that we can interbreed and thus can’t be different species, & be unaware of such things as mules, ligers, or wholphins. At that point, their argument will devolve to calling you a racist, and the Pavlovian trigger will shut off their brain.

  264. @obwandiyag

    Indians are a mixture of Caucasoids and Australoids. They are just as “Caucasoid” as are Mulattoes, who are a mixture of Caucasoids and Negroids. Mixted populations should be classified as such and not be reckoned to either side of their mixture.

  265. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @Okechukwu

    Mikemikev a few years ago identified as a neo-Nazi & white supremacist. He was one of those 14/88 morons everyone laughed at with a Hitler fetish. He suddenly realised everyone viewed him as a clown (even right-wingers, for example most white nationalists incl. David Duke & Richard Spencer have ditched the Nazi cosplay) and so he has tried to reinvent himself recently as a more palatable and less extreme white nationalist.

    He then gets into a fit of rage if you quote his neo-Nazi past as recent as 2017. For example on Kiwi Farms, he’s tried to deny his past and blame a tun of his old white supremacist internet posts onto other people, variously claiming he was impersonated (in reality all those deranged Nazi and white supremacist posts were his.)

    See the last 10 or so pages here:
    https://kiwifarms.net/threads/mikemikev-michael-coombs-twinkle-toes-velcro-pants.17243/page-705

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @Anonymous
  266. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    All pure fabrication from Oliver D. Smith. Isn’t there a rule here about irrelevant personal attacks?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  267. mikemikev says:
    @obwandiyag

    Where have I said anything that suggests that? Are you just making stuff up?

  268. Anonymous[319] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Who cares. Those labels mean nothing nowadays. Gerbils like you were trained to use them to shut down discussion but that’s not working anymore, is it?

    It’s you who’s wearing clown shoes in this thread. You’re literally – and desperately – trying to convince us to ignore our eyes, data and reason. When a 9-month-old baby can penetrate your lies it’s all over.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  269. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    What is fabrication Michael Coombs? Why are you ashamed of your neo-nazi past?

    Filthy lying kikes. Hitler was right.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs#Anti-Semitism

    You wrote these Nazi-type statements across the internet for years, but now when people quote them or call you a Nazi, you claim they’re “liars” and you never wrote these things because you’ve tried to reinvent yourself as a non-Nazi white nationalist. You’re a joke.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  270. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    Oliver you seem confused. I’m not the topic of this thread.

  271. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @j2

    You aren’t taking into account the colonial history of many countries in Europe which have forged cultural ties for centuries with countries outside of Europe. For example, it’s arguable that Singapore is more culturally similar to UK, than most European countries as 37% of Singaporeans speak English as their first language/mother tongue. How many Poles, Swedes, French or Germans do? According to Wikipedia, based on 1999 data only 5% of French do.

    • Replies: @j2
  272. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    They obviously do care about labels. Why did a whole load of alt-righter crackpots, ditch the alt-right label? In fact how many alt-righters use that label anymore?

    Here’s a good example:

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

    “In 2016 Ramsey was a featured speaker at a November 2016 National Policy Institute conference, an organization founded by alt-right spokesman Richard B. Spencer. However, following the National Policy Institute’s 2016 conference, Ramsey, “a blogger who flirts with white nationalism,” disassociated himself from Spencer because of Spencer’s Nazi associations.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  273. Anonymous[319] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Lol, I’m not even talking about the “alt-right” label. I’m talking about all of it: Nazi, Supremacist, far-Right, White-whatever…

    You use those labels to escape any debate where you end up looking foolish.

    Too late, bye.

  274. I hear the Chinese Communist Party loves this book, as well as her “Geek Nation: How Indian Science is Taking Over the World”. Big fans.

  275. Anonymous[243]: “Show me how clustering populations at the continental/sub-continental level is useful.”

    It’s useful in tissue typing, for one thing.

    From: https://www.giftoflife.org/page/content/about-tissue-typing

    Why do ethnicity, race and geography matter?

    The genes that determine HLA types are found in our DNA on human chromosome 6. These particular genes are naturally highly diverse and are called polymorphic by scientists – literally meaning “having multiple forms.”

    When a group of people has geographic or cultural separation from other human populations for hundreds or thousands of years, genetic mutations can occur in that population that are passed to their descendants — but not the general human population. That group can develop a unique set of HLAs that may be rare, or even completely unique.

    When a patient from an ethnic group with uncommon or rare HLA types needs a transplant, the chances of finding a match among the general population is small. The best chance of finding a match will be if the donor comes from a related genetic pool.

    If there is no family member match and there is no match identified in the existing registries, many patients choose to run drives that target their family’s ethnic group and/or the historical geographic area where their ancestral line originated.

    People of mixed ethnicity have an especially difficult time finding matches. It is estimated that 75 percent of mixed-race individuals will not find a match in the current registry because their HLA combinations are unique.

    It is urgent for everyone to get swabbed and join the registry – the more people of diverse ethnicity and race join the registry, the more chances we have to make lifesaving matches.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @Anonymous
  276. James Thompson: “No. If they were different species they could not interbreed.”

    Not true. There are plenty of examples of different species interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. (Fertility in the offspring of such unions is often reduced, but not eliminated.) Here’s a particularly interesting theory involving that from an expert on hybrids.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2515969/Humans-evolved-female-chimpanzee-mated-pig-Extraordinary-claim-American-geneticist.html

    http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html#.Upmw19K-18F

  277. j2 says:
    @Anonymous

    “For example, it’s arguable that Singapore is more culturally similar to UK, than most European countries as 37% of Singaporeans speak English as their first language/mother tongue. How many Poles, Swedes, French or Germans do?”

    Culturally Singapore may well be more similar to the UK because of its past as a trade post. But that is not any refutation that a concept such as Europeans as citizen of the EU, or White Americans as a fraction of the citizens of the USA can be or become valid identities. The common language in the EU is continental English, which is somewhat different from British, American, Australian or any other English. It will probably never be the first language, in this identity the common language is the second language just as was the case with Latin in Medieval Europe.

    About this that in the USA there is an identity of White American is easily shown. People with European origin have mixed easily and lost their identity as a member of their nation of origin. However, though the USA was expected to be the melting pot of people, it has not melted all people. African Americans, Asians and Native Americans and Pacific Islanders do remain largely separate, as does the community of Orthodox Jews and some other groups. It may be said that the ideal of mixing all Americans into one people has failed. The result of such a failure, when there are more than one group in the same area, is often problems and racism.

    In Europe also there are people who stay apart. Roma people (Gypsies) usually marry only their own. It is important for such cultures where the moral code is different for own people and for outsiders: that is, you cannot treat outsiders in a different (worse) way than your own if the people are considered the same. It may be said that with very few exceptions the tendency to be endogamous is associated with a set of double moral codes. This causes such groups to be (with a reason) suspected of favoring their own and mistreating outsiders. It is for this reason that slaves could not intermarry with their slave holders: it is in conflict with a different set of moral codes, you could not treat them any more the way you did.

    Obviously one solution to the problem of different groups had been that people intermarry and form one people, but that has not happened even in the USA. In India, where you have Caucasian invaders and the original population admixture did happen, but it lead to the caste system, which limits admixture by artificially setting boundaries. This tendency must be a natural one in humans, as it happens everywhere. The Chinese in Indonesia stay as a group, they do not intermix. Even in prehistoric Europe, where three groups of people did mix (European hunter-gatherers, Anatolian farmers and Yamna people), this admixture seems to lack male Y-chromosomes: only women from the earlier population were absorbed.

    As this is the case, the solution by mixing is unrealistic. Only an idealist like you may still think it would work. In reality it causes more problems. There is another group that insists that mixing is the correct way: they are supremacists from a small group which has no intention of being absorbed but would like the ruled to be weaker.

    A working solution is that a population absorbs small amounts of outside groups. This can always be done and it only slightly changes the gene pool. The denial of these simple facts is futile. You always have to start from facts and what in reality there is. Humans are rather clearly divided into populations that easily intermix and they form clusters that do not easily intermix, even though you can promote admixture between these clusters and find such cases. But these cases are relatively rare and they do not change the facts. That is, your philosophy of there not being continental races is only ideological. It is not based on reality and it is motivated by a false hope. It is very much like the promise of Communism: just a false idea.

    • Agree: Miro23
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Okechukwu
  278. mikemikev says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    For example, a selected allele that strongly differentiates the French from both the Yoruba and Han could be strongly clinal across Europe, or at high frequency in Europe and absent elsewhere, or follow any other distribution according to the geographic nature of the selective pressure.

    However, we see that the global geographic distributions of these putatively selected alleles are largely determined simply by their frequencies in Yoruba, French and Han (Figure 3). The global distributions fall into three major geographic patterns that we interpret as non-African sweeps, west Eurasian sweeps and East Asian sweeps, respectively.

    https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000500

  279. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    You can look up HLA haplotypes by frequency e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HLA_DR3-DQ2#Distribution

    These demonstrate the opposite of what you’re claiming i.e. there’s huge variation within continents and so it’s only useful to analyse at a much more local level (e.g. Sardinians).

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  280. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @j2

    I said “European” is invalid in terms of population genetics & culture because sub-populations in the continental grouping are too heterogeneous. Political unions are irrelevant to what I was saying. Aside from the EU, there’s also the African-Union.

    Unlike the EU’s European Parliament – the African-Union’s Pan-African Parliament (PAP) doesn’t have legislative powers – so that’s why there’s no “Afriscepticism” like Euroscepticism. Pretty much all the PAP can do advise on matters such as peace and security between the member states. If the EU was a powerless institution and a mere advisory body like this (without the ability to propose and draft legislation) there would be no populist/Eurosceptic political parties winning elections like there currently now is.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @j2
  281. Anonymous[243]: “These demonstrate the opposite of what you’re claiming …”

    First, it’s not what I’m claiming. It’s what the site I linked to claims, and they’re the experts.

    Second, of course it’s always possible to look for a better match even within a race, and more complete information can help. But what they’re saying is that race is a useful category for this purpose. It’s more likely you’ll find a match within a race than outside of it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  282. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    Right after I posted a quote showing selected genes tend to be distributed along continental race lines, you cherry pick one that isn’t? Are you trying to look silly?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  283. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    That’s falsified by looking at the disparate frequency of HLA haplotypes in populations within continents. “White European” or “Black African” as a category has no utility if e.g. there is frequency of a HLA haplotype at 20-30% in a local population within these large racial groupings, but 0-1% in another local population. And that’s exactly what we find.

  284. j2 says:
    @Anonymous

    “I said “European” is invalid in terms of population genetics & culture because sub-populations in the continental grouping are too heterogeneous”

    You gave two possible applications for which European population is too heterogeneous:
    1. Studying genetic diseases. This is because genetic diseases are caused by deleterious genes. Such genes are not selected, they finally are purged though they tend to reappear and new mutations appear. For that reason genetic diseases are localized to small populations. You are correct, this is not the natural application for European-wide population genetics.
    2. Studying the origin of groups of people from DNA or skeletons. Here one wants as good differentiation of populations as possible. For that reason one should focus to aspects that differentiate populations to smaller units. You are correct that for this application European-wide population genetics is not good.

    But this is where you stop, though I and some other commenter mentioned genes that are selected. As they are positive and selected, they spread (can make a sweep) to the whole breeding population. That implies that they characterize wide populations, like European, East-Asian, Yorubi, and so on. This is the natural scientific application of continental race concept. One may find what selected genes there are and what effect do these genes have in physical and mental areas. If these genes have made a sweep, I cannot see your point in claiming that the population is too heterogeneous, a sweep precisely means that it has spread widely to the population.

  285. j2 says:
    @Anonymous

    It is really more of a question of the researcher if you find results or not. Some researchers find interesting results from some data, some cannot find anything. I am pretty sure that one can find interesting results from the common gene pool of Europeans which they do not share with Africans or East-Asians. I once looked at the brain size genes and there were some that had differences in continental race level. I wrote like this, probably not very professional, just text in a post:

    “A new ASPM allele was born maybe 5,800 ybp and it made a selective sweep in Europe, also in New Guinea: about half of Europeans and 58% of New Guineans have this gene. About half penetration points out towards the case that heterozygotes, those with one new and one ancestral allele of ASPM, have some selective advantage. It has been tested that the new allele does not raise IQ, so the selective advantage is something else. The new ASPM allele is missing from China, but instead it has been found that Chinese have a new DAB1 allele. This allele has some cognitive relevance and it may have a similar evolutionary advantage as the new ASPM allele elsewhere.
    Not only ASP, but also CDK5RAP2, CENPJ and MCPH1 had a rapid evolution under strong positive selection. MCPH1 is only in females, CDK5RAP2 is only in males. A new allele, D haplotype, of MCPH1 is rare in sub-Saharan Africa. The allele appeared some 37,000 ybp and initially it seemed to be strongly correlated with IQ, but this hope died when a new study was published. Nowadays it is thought that the allele does not increase IQ, but may boost the immunology system, which may raise IQ by fighting viral illnesses. While geneticist Bruce Lahn is said to have suggested that Neanderthals gave Eurasians a gene on MCPH1 for larger and more developed brains, so far decoded Neanderthal genomes did not have MCPH1 D haplotype.
    According to [2] the genes ASPM, CDK5RAP2, BRCA1, MCPH1 are not associated with general cognition, reading or language, and that they have long time ago reached stabilizing selection meaning that they are not becoming more common. The list contains three of the first four genes causing microcephaly.”

    But in any case, there seems to be something one can say of brain size genes using the continental race division level. The same must be true of other traits. I cannot see why some competent gene researcher (that is, not an amateur blogger like me) could not make reasonably good research on such issues.

  286. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    What am I cherry-picking? You you look up plenty more on Wikipedia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:HLA-DQ_haplotypes

    Here’s another:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HLA-DQ6

    HLA DQB1*0602 frequencies

    Spain Pas Valley 31.5%
    Ireland South 19.6%
    Sweden 14.1%
    Slovenia 7.5%
    Greece 3.3%
    Italy 0.1%
    Sardinia 0.1%

    That is so well “distributed along continental race lines”, Michael (sarcasm).

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  287. Okechukwu says:
    @mikemikev

    I don’t. Oliver lies about what I said. He often tries to make out that his opponents “changed their views” by misrepresenting two quotes, and they’re a hypocrite, dishonest, afraid, or ashamed of themselves.

    He has you dead to rights. Why are you trying to deny what you are? If you’ve had a genuine conversion and have seen the light like RaceRealist88, then say so. Although your recent posting history, including your output on this thread, would seem to augur otherwise.

    I will concede that compared to the material on your RationalWiki page, you are presently rather less vivid and more reserved in your racism. But that’s merely a (perhaps strategic) change of tone. At some point, even you realized that the cartoonish, over-the-top white supremacy you were exhibiting wasn’t helping your cause. Maybe it’s because you are completely doxxed and no decent person will want to associate with a virulent, cancerous white supremacist.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @Anonymous
  288. Okechukwu says:
    @j2

    About this that in the USA there is an identity of White American is easily shown. People with European origin have mixed easily and lost their identity as a member of their nation of origin. However, though the USA was expected to be the melting pot of people, it has not melted all people. African Americans, Asians and Native Americans and Pacific Islanders do remain largely separate, as does the community of Orthodox Jews and some other groups.

    You don’t know what you’re blabbering about. Remove the African-American element from American culture and it would be unrecognizable. American culture is not wholly European in origin. It has a large input from African-Americans, some Native-American and Hispanic. Traditionally, and even in the present day, Europeans who wanted to preserve their culture in America created separate enclaves, separate clubs and separate institutions. Some eventually melded into the larger American culture, some still survive.

    It may be said that the ideal of mixing all Americans into one people has failed. The result of such a failure, when there are more than one group in the same area, is often problems and racism

    Yet it’s Europe that has struggled with wars and ethnic strife for thousands of years. You’re one of those misguided people that think that if everyone has white skin, they will all get along. Yet no one has cut themselves to pieces over ethnic and “racial” issues, large and small, like the Europeans. Even today there is a great deal more tension between various European nationalities and ethnicities than there is between the races in America. War could break out in Europe at any time, and probably would have if not for the presence of US forces. Yet a civil war in the United States is inconceivable.

    • Replies: @j2
  289. mikemikev says:
    @Okechukwu

    Why are you trying to deny what you are?

    I’m not confirming or denying anything. I’m just pointing out that cheap ad hominem derailment tactics won’t fly. Your comments are irrelevant to the topic. Stop it. I am not sure why it is even allowed.

  290. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    >why am I cherry picking?
    >again posts one single gene because it isn’t race distributed

    There’s really no logic where you’re concerned is there? It’s interesting that both you and Lewontin rely on blood group genes. They seem to distribute neutrally, and even apes and humans together have similar variation patterns in these genes. I gave a reference above that shows a lot of genes that are race distributed, and that makes continental race an informative concept. But in “Rationalwiki” style Oliver here ignores everything that doesn’t support his lies.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  291. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @Okechukwu

    Mikemikev also went on a deletion spree attempting to remove his more extreme racist posts such as where he was supporting violence and genocide.

    Disqus: Mikemikev. Archive.is 13 Nov 2015

    Yes, sad that “not advocating violence” has to be the official position of this site.

    This was Michael Coombs in 2015 posting on the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer website that he is sad that they don’t advocate violence.

    If you now check his Disqus that comment is deleted with dozens of others.

    But here we have the archive screenshot: http://archive.is/xw1Wj#selection-2127.0-2127.85 proving he did write this. There’s some other comments he made (now deleted) where he talked about his fantasies of shooting black people. Again, I have the screenshots.

    Quotes are here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs#Black_people

    You are correct in your observation that Mikemikev as a strategic change in tone is now more cautious and less extreme in the racism he posts online. However, there’s not much point in doing this as you find anti-Semitism, white nationalism etc still all over his Gab: https://gab.com/Mikemikev So anyone can see his political motivations are the same.

    • LOL: mikemikev
    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  292. Anonymous[243]: “That’s falsified by looking at the disparate frequency of HLA haplotypes in populations within continents. ”

    Just because one measure or tool is more useful than another it doesn’t follow that the latter is useless. That would be like saying that a magnifying glass is made useless by the existence of the microscope. In order for race to be completely useless as a category you’d have to have completely panmixia, which isn’t the case. That’s why doctors in search of tissue donors consider the recipient’s race, and why, as I posted above, it can be hard to find a match in the case of hybrids.

  293. Okechukwu says:
    @Anonymous

    Great work as usual.

    Notice in his reply to me (#292) he basically admits that everything you say is true.

    As Mikemikev has advocated violence and terrorism, I’m sure he has been referred to law enforcement in the UK and elsewhere. He also belongs on the US Terrorist Screening Center’s No Fly List.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  294. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    lol.

    The paper you posted shows no such thing because it doesn’t sample many populations. Whole regions are excluded; the paper even admits their study has “sampling gaps in Africa and elsewhere”.

    If you look at Figure 3. Global allele frequency distributions for SNPs – note there are zero population samples from the Iberian Peninsula, India, nearly the whole of North Africa and large parts of south-east Asia, east Mediterranean/Turkey and east Europe.

    How can you claim a study shows “continental race [is] an informative concept” when population samples from huge geographical areas of continents are not included?

    This is the same fallacy you used many years ago i.e. you linked to studies showing discontinuous genetic variation between populations – but that was a sampling error since when ‘intermediate’ populations were added to the extreme population samples as geographical outlier – the discontinuity disappears and you see smooth genetic continua.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  295. j2 says:
    @Okechukwu

    “You don’t know what you’re blabbering about.”

    I will start ignoring your comments unless you change your style of writing.

    “Yet it’s Europe that has struggled with wars and ethnic strife for thousands of years.”

    I guess there were only American Indians fighting among themselves before Columbus. Then Whites fought against Indians, then against each other largely because of the Black slave issue and then they had a war against Mexico. After that the USA has fought many wars abroad against all kinds of non-White people. Clearly, they have picked non-White opponents for some reason.

    “You’re one of those misguided people that think that if everyone has white skin, they will all get along. ”

    I am no White Nationalist. I actually voted against joining EU as I expected that it would in some 50 years end to clashes of people from different EU nations, but this seems not to be happening. But here we are discussing whether there is any application for genetic studies of continent-wide populations.

    “Yet a civil war in the United States is inconceivable.”

    I kind of remember they already had it.

    “War could break out in Europe at any time, and probably would have if not for the presence of US forces.”

    Not in the EU. When there were Communists there was a threat of a war and when Communism fell there were some wars. But that was ideology.

    Today the problems in the EU are most likely to come from taking a too large numbers of refugees to Europe and this causing unrest, but not a war. I lived in Sweden when it shortly had started taking immigrants. It was very peaceful and a nice country. Now these immigrants have been there longer and problems have started.

  296. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @Okechukwu

    [This thread isn’t an open forum for endless personal insults and quarreling, especially by commenters who refuse to even adopt a Handle. Stop your misbehavior or all your future comments will be treated as spam and trashed.]

  297. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    https://ibb.co/NxmBNTH

    We’re supposed to imagine that every sample point in the region shows the same distribution, but all of the ones in between don’t. Whatever could be next?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  298. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    Note – a moderator edited my previous response. But back on topic:

    Look at the abrupt jump in allele frequency in A/B between Mozabite & Bedouin Arab.

    That jump is a result of poor sampling and omitting many population samples of North Africa (in fact it includes only one sample Mozabite for the whole of North Africa and there are no samples from Horn Africa.) Doesn’t take a genius to work this out, Michael. Had they included many more population samples, there would be no abrupt jumps in allele frequency between Africa the the Levant/Arabia, but a gradual smooth continua.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  299. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:

    Predictably, Noah Carl posts a bunch of PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times) in his latest article; I’ll briefly below debunk what he writes about race and forensic science-

    https://medium.com/@NoahCarl/are-racial-classifications-arbitrary-ac53cb43de90

    Carl Writes:

    In fact, researchers can classify human variation by continent quite accurately using only data from the human skull. (They are able to correctly classify human skulls into black and white Americans with about 80% accuracy, using only two variables). Here is Figure 2 from that paper, which shows that the first principal component of variation in Murphy and colleagues’ data was able to demarcate the black and white skulls quite successfully:

    Long debunked by-

    Goodman, A. H. (1997). “Bred in the Bone?”. The Sciences. 37(2): 20-25.

    Smay, D., and Armelagos, G. (2000). “Galileo wept: A critical assessment of the use of race of forensic anthropolopy”. Transforming Anthropology. 9(2): 19-29.

    As I wrote in an earlier response to RaceRealist88:

    Forensic anthropologists who study osteology are able to determine the biogeographical ancestry of human remains at “relatively high-allocation accuracies (often more than 80%, but rarely more than 90%)” (Albanese & Sanders, 2006: 309). However, these relatively high accuracy rates are restricted to local populations. As an example Giles & Elliot (1962) took 8 measurements from skulls at the archaeological site Indian Knoll, Kentucky to construct a reference sample to identify an “American Indian” race based on discriminant function analysis (based on multivariate distances to the reference sample centroid). In a separate test on skulls from the same site of the reference sample (Indian Knoll): 92% of crania were correctly identified (Birkby, 1966). When though tested on crania from Inuit/Eskimos (Labrador, Canada): only 64.4% were correctly identified (Birkby, 1966), while Fisher & Gill (1990: 59) accurately classified as low as 25.9% (m) and 37.5% (f) skulls (= 31.7%) from north-west US Plains Indian tribes (Goodman, 1997).

    Therefore when it is claimed 80% of “Black Americans” can be distinguished to “White Americans” this applies only to a “subset of a sample… tested on the sample from which the subset was derived” (Smay & Armelagos, 2000), the same as Indian Knoll, Kentucky.

  300. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    They do include mixed races, e.g. the Uyghur and Hazara, which blend between the discontinuous continental races. Anyone can look at the chart and see there isn’t a “gradual smooth continua” (continua being gradual and smooth and the plural of continuum) within continental races, for selected genes. Ethiopians and Somalis are a mix of Caucasoids and Negroids, and would also blend between. There are no “abrupt jumps” within continent sized areas. Even the authors of the study report this:

    For example, a selected allele that strongly differentiates the French from both the Yoruba and Han could be strongly clinal across Europe, or at high frequency in Europe and absent elsewhere, or follow any other distribution according to the geographic nature of the selective pressure.

    However, we see that the global geographic distributions of these putatively selected alleles are largely determined simply by their frequencies in Yoruba, French and Han (Figure 3). The global distributions fall into three major geographic patterns that we interpret as non-African sweeps, west Eurasian sweeps and East Asian sweeps, respectively.

    There is little point discussing if you lie about data right in front of you.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  301. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    I said there were no abrupt jumps/discontinuity *between* continents. I wasn’t discussing variation within them (although within them is much the same, a genetic continuum, with the sole exceotion of some relict hunter-gatherer tribes who are isolated). There is no genetic discontinuity between continents and I showed why. You basically cling to a creationist typological view there are 3 or 4 “pure races” and populations between those like the Uyghur are “mixed”. Nonsense.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  302. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    Yes there aren’t any abrupt jumps. Because between continental races there are hybrid races, such as Ethiopians and Uyghur. There is of course a discontinuity, which is not exactly “abrupt”, and there is not a continuum within them, for selected genes, more of a plateau, as anyone can see from looking at the chart. Nobody is saying anything about “pure races” whatever that means.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  303. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    There’s a genetic continuum in the sense of continuous gradients/inclinations in allele frequency, rather than steep slopes, so genetic variation between populations is gradual, rather than abrupt. That is what the study you posted shows for within continents, but it makes the mistake of showing some sharp allele frequency differences by extremely poor population sampling e.g. the very huge jump in allele frequency between Mozabites & Bedouin Arabs is because dozens of geographical populations between those two distant populations have been excluded. I explained this to you for past 7 years on RationalWiki and you still don’t get it… there really is no hope for you Michael. And you now claim to not believe in “pure races”, but you clearly do since you’re claiming Ethiopians and Somalis are some sort of “hybrids”. This sort of thinking is discredited pseudoscience.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  304. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    The study doesn’t show a continuum within continents, regardless of whether boundaries are gradual or abrupt (I agreed they’re gradual above if you include Horn Africans). The authors also look at the graph and see plateaus, which they report. So I guess it’s just you with eyesight problems.

    https://ibb.co/NxmBNTH

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  305. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    No, you’re just repeating the same 7 year old fallacy like a broken record. What you call “plateaus” are a sampling error. How many population samples are in graphs A-F: around 40 (including many geographical areas with no samples for both within and between continents.) Include 400 populations and those graphs would look completely different as I have explained countless times – you would see a genetic continuum.

    “For instance, geographic discontinuous samples of Africans, Europeans and East Asians yield clustered representations of the datasets. But when South Asian samples are included in the analyses, clinal representations emerge (Bamshad et al., 2001; Jorde and Wooding, 2004; Tishkoff and Kidd, 2004). The sampling of geographically isolated populations has been called “island model” sampling procedure (Bamshad et al., 2004; Maglo, 2011). It produces a misleading representation of the human genetic continuum.” (Maglo, 2016)

    That’s all the misleading studies you post do.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @mikemikev
  306. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    Putting more samples between the existing samples wouldn’t make any difference to the wider pattern.

  307. James Thompson: “… this book is part of a mainstream narrative which promotes the ascendant public stance, which is that race does not exist as a useful category, and that those who perversely study it have reprehensible motives.”

    Strictly speaking, deciding what is useful isn’t within the domain of science, which should concern itself only with truth or falsity. Which of the truths that science uncovers are considered useful and which are to be suppressed changes from time to time and is the domain of politicians and moralists. This means that human racial taxonomy in particular is unfortunately as much a political and a moral question as it is a scientific one; hence the difficulty in trying to draw clear lines of distinction between human races. It’s like trying to find a non-arbitrary and objective way to draw clear lines of distinction between light and darkness, or divide up the color spectrum, only with the additional complication introduced by moral and political considerations. Where would we be if there were a widespread moral preconception that to distinguish blue from red is immoral, or would hurt national unity? It would cause chaos, and the controversies it would generate would resemble the current talk about race. Instead of “No race but the human race” the slogan would be “Everything is the same color!” But ultimately, the usefulness of the idea of human races is shown by technicians. Does the idea have useful applications in daily life? That’s the proof in the pudding. If human racial distinctions were truly of no significance, they would have been abandoned long ago.

  308. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    But when South Asian samples are included in the analyses, clinal representations emerge (Bamshad et al., 2001; Jorde and Wooding, 2004; Tishkoff and Kidd, 2004).

    Not only are South Asian samples included they include Uyghurs and Hazara. You people really are in a world of your own. And even if there was a “perfect continuum”, which there isn’t, you could still divide it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  309. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    There’s over 50 native ethnic groups in China alone, yet the study you posted includes only 40 samples for native ethnic groups across the entire world (lol?). Whole regions are excluded. So yes, you people really are in a world of your own. If you rely on studies with extremely limited population samples you end up with a misleading representation of genetic variation.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  310. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    So we need to “find the transitional fossils”? All of the samples from China show a similar pattern, but somehow all of the ones in between are totally different. If there were 400 samples you’d demand 4000. You’re a joke. You should create an article about yourself in “Rationalwiki”.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  311. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    The graph shows some small jumps in allele frequency between ethnic groups in China because of limited samples. Had they included more samples, those would disappear, same as the large jumps between continents.

    With a large number of populations below is what human population genetic structure looks like (IBD, isolation-by-distance i.e. gradual continuous variation):

    This has been explained to you for past 7 years.

    • LOL: mikemikev
    • Replies: @res
  312. @JP

    What *I wrote* is babble? You’re just appealing to consequences – either refute my objection and show that IQ tests are construct valid or accept the conclusion of my argument. If you can’t refute it (no, an appeal to consequences doesn’t do it) and you still hold that IQ tests test intelligence, then you’re an ideologue. You’re not an ideologue, are you?

    IQ tests are tests of middle class knowledge and skills, not of “intelligence.” IQ test scores are indices of one’s distance from the middle class and its knowledge structure.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  313. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88

    You had a tun of posts on your website supporting HBD/race and IQ/Richard Lynn-type pseudoscience as recent as 2017.

    I perfectly get people change their views, but your name is still “race realist”. Although you claim to still believe in race, but not IQ, it is kind of suspicious as if you still hold your old hereditarian views secretly, but adopt a more moderate version of “race realism” as a public cover (to deny allegations of racism). Why not abandon racialism entirely?

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  314. Factorize says:

    How can questions of the genetics of intelligence go on and on and on, now that we have massive massive databases of consumer DNA genotypes? The Figure below is from all the way back in August 2018. Since then, 23andme and Ancestry have both increased the number of people genotyped by 5 million! In the last month, it was estimated that the total is now over 25 million.

    Posters on the thread and those writing books etc. about the genetics of intelligence might soon need to take up another pastime. Definitive answers about psychometric questions might be known within a year.

    It is thought that only 3-5 million genotype files for Educational Attainment would largely completely unlock human intelligence (in particular European, as many groups are underrepresented). If the researchers do not soon take advantage of this deep treasure trove, perhaps We the People should. Fully unlocking human IQ would be the greatest achievement in the history of humanity. With current technology, it likely could be accomplished within a month. It would easily deserve a Nobel Prize. All those who contributed DNA could claim a small piece of the award.

  315. @Anonymous

    “You had a tun of posts on your website supporting HBD/race and IQ/Richard Lynn-type pseudoscience as recent as 2017.”

    So what? My views changed two years ago around this time period. The old pieces stay up so people can see the evolution of my views over time.

    “I perfectly get people change their views, but your name is still “race realist”. Although you claim to still believe in race, but not IQ, it is kind of suspicious as if you still hold your old hereditarian views secretly, but adopt a more moderate version of “race realism” as a public cover (to deny allegations of racism). Why not abandon racialism entirely?”

    I’ve spent thousands of hours arguing against racialism and you think it’s a “cover” and that I believe hereditarianism? That’s really funny. My views on race are like that of Hardimon and Spencer, not charlatans like Lynn, Jensen and Rushton.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  316. res says:
    @Anonymous

    So you think a graph showing perfect linearity and completely lacking units or tick marks on either axis is showing real data?! mikemikev is right, that truly is LOL worthy.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @Anonymous
  317. mikemikev says:
    @res

    Apparently this isn’t an accurate picture of human variation because there aren’t enough data:

    Luckily we have Oliver D. Smith to show us the truth:

  318. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    It’s from a paper that references numerous studies, duh:

    “The second pattern that has emerged from many genetic studies is that human variation is clinally distributed (see fig. 4.1).” (Bolnick, 2008)

    If we take the limited population samples Mikemikev uses from the HGDP-CEPH cell line panel and plot their genetic distance (Fst) against geographic distance: R2 = 0.77 (see figure 1.)
    https://www.academia.edu/16929394/Going_the_distance_human_population_genetics_in_a_clinal_world

    This means that even in the misleading studies Mike uses, 77% of the total variance of pairwise Fst can be captured by geographic distance alone and debunks his lie that “discontinuities are more significant than the continuities.” He doesn’t even read his own data, or probably doesn’t know how to. My argument is simply by increasing population samples, 77% will increase to virtually 100% and this is has already been demonstrated.

    • Replies: @res
  319. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Hardimon and Spencer are arguing for the same races/racial divisions as Lynn.

    If you ignore the IQ stuff, they’re all arguing exactly the same thing.

    Some alt-righters like John Fuerst have therefore realised since Hardimon’s position sounds less racist (because it doesn’t touch IQ) but still defends races, it’s strategic for “race realists” to adopt it.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_Fuerst#Motte_and_bailey_strategy

    Fuerst is a hereditarian crank, but has adopted a more moderate Hardimon-type “race realism”. And this is why some people may be suspicious about your change in views as not being sincere like John Fuerst. Look up Motte and bailey strategy.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  320. res says:
    @Anonymous

    It’s from a paper that references numerous studies, duh:

    “The second pattern that has emerged from many genetic studies is that human variation is clinally distributed (see fig. 4.1).” (Bolnick, 2008)

    Could you please be more specific with your reference? I have been unable to find that figure in either the link you gave (the paper DOI is 10.1016/j.tig.2007.07.002 for those who prefer not to download using Facebook or Google) or either Bolnick 2008 I found (both about fish).
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18452402
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18245356

    Please clarify.

    P.S. That “duh” was a nice touch showing me how seriously I should take you. Especially given that
    1. The graph itself is ridiculous (no tick marks or units in sight), regardless of source.
    2. Your references seem not to be holding up, though I await clarification.

    P.P.S. So are you really Oliver D. Smith? Here is some background on the last time Oliver appeared around here: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/scientific-racism/#comment-2602200
    One funny thing is that in that thread there are multiple accusations of sock puppetry, but the only one who actually seemed to be doing it there was “Oliver Keyes”. Search for AKA which is Ron’s way of flagging suspected (via IP I think) sock puppet handles. Seems like at least some of those accusations were a classic example of projection ; )

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  321. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    You ignored most of what I said. View the other source, Handley et al. 2007 that plots genetic distance (Fst) against geographic distance: R2 = 0.77 (see figure 1.)

    As for the other source:

    Deborah A. Bolnick. (2008). “Individual Ancestry Inference and the Reification of Race as a Biological Phenomenon,” in Barbara A. Koenig et al. (eds). Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age. Rutgers University Press: 70–88.

    You put zero effort in trying to find this – it comes up on Google books.

    And yes I’m not Oliver Keyes (although some confuse us). I’ve also never used sockpuppets here and most written on that other thread looks like petty trolling.

    • Replies: @res
  322. res says:
    @Anonymous

    You ignored most of what I said. View the other source, Handley et al. 2007 that plots genetic distance (Fst) against geographic distance: R2 = 0.77 (see figure 1.)

    I responded to the portion of your comment which actually addressed my comment. If you go off on tangents I have no obligation to follow.

    I think it is clear that genetic distance would correlate with physical distance. Just as it is clear that race (or ancestry if you prefer) is a hierarchical construct as shown quite clearly by the graphic at the top of this page. Those facts are quite consistent.

    You put zero effort in trying to find this – it comes up on Google books.

    I gave two links that came up for me when I searched for Bolnick 2008. That makes clear I put in some effort. If you are referencing a paper (chapter?) from a book collection it is helpful to include the book or paper title. Or you could just give a link like this:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281402973_Individual_ancestry_inference_and_the_reification_of_race_as_a_biological_phenomenon

    As for putting in effort, how about you put some effort into giving links for your references rather than forcing your readers to go search for them?

    I looked at that reference. Lots of words (and agenda), but nary a real graph or data in sight. The figure was clearly illustrative (of the author’s opinion AFAICT) and not a graph of real data. Which was my point when I wrote (emphasis added): “So you think a graph showing perfect linearity and completely lacking units or tick marks on either axis is showing real data?! mikemikev is right, that truly is LOL worthy.”

    So my original point stands (my you do love to divert and redirect, don’t you).

    And yes I’m not Oliver Keyes (although some confuse us). I’ve also never used sockpuppets here and most written on that other thread looks like petty trolling.

    That’s not what I asked. To repeat: So are you really Oliver D. Smith?

    I’m curious, do you expect people to take you seriously when you act like this?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @RaceRealist88
  323. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    I responded to the portion of your comment which actually addressed my comment. If you go off on tangents I have no obligation to follow.

    I never went off-topic, but linked to another study that shows human population structure is IBD (isolation-by-distance). Why are you lying?

    I think it is clear that genetic distance would correlate with physical distance.

    Which is the opposite of a subspecies/race model of population structure; IBD and a race model are not compatible.

    Just as it is clear that race (or ancestry if you prefer) is a hierarchical construct as shown quite clearly by the graphic at the top of this page. Those facts are quite consistent.

    No they aren’t at all and the graphic (a branching tree aka phenogram) for human populations doesn’t make any sense. Why? Well quite simply, it would require populations to branch/split off from each other and remain isolated to make those (hierarchical) divisions, yet they never did; there is gene flow between populations.

    For criticism of phenograms to accurately describe human population variation see p.8:
    https://www.academia.edu/3762922/Species_of_humanity
    Wolpoff, M.H, and R. Caspari: The Many Species of Humanity. Przegląd Antropologiczny (Anthropological Review) 63(1):3-17

    I gave two links that came up for me when I searched for Bolnick 2008. That makes clear I put in some effort. If you are referencing a paper (chapter?) from a book collection it is helpful to include the book or paper title. Or you could just give a link like this:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281402973_Individual_ancestry_inference_and_the_reification_of_race_as_a_biological_phenomenon

    As for putting in effort, how about you put some effort into giving links for your references rather than forcing your readers to go search for them?

    If you merely type “bolnick 2008 race” (since race is the discussion) you find the paper at the first hit on Google, Bing or any other search-engine. Like I said you put in no effort.

    I looked at that reference. Lots of words (and agenda), but nary a real graph or data in sight. The figure was clearly illustrative (of the author’s opinion AFAICT) and not a graph of real data. Which was my point when I wrote (emphasis added): “So you think a graph showing perfect linearity and completely lacking units or tick marks on either axis is showing real data?! mikemikev is right, that truly is LOL worthy.”

    So my original point stands (my you do love to divert and redirect, don’t you).

    Bolnick references about a dozen studies to show human population structure looks like that i.e. “clinally distributed”. Of course you ignore all those. This isn’t even something particularly controversial and is accepted by the vast majority of population geneticists.

    That’s not what I asked. To repeat: So are you really Oliver D. Smith?

    I’m curious, do you expect people to take you seriously when you act like this?

    Why is my identity important? You seem obsessed with identities rather than debating the topic (I noticed you kept posting names and asking who posters were in the other thread.) The only reason I discussed more about Mikemikev personally above before a mod intervened is because he seems to have changed his views or rather more the way in which he presents them (toning down the hardcore white supremacism) since I debated him 6-7 years back on RationalWiki- something another poster (Okechukwu) noticed.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @res
  324. @Anonymous

    “Hardimon and Spencer are arguing for the same races/racial divisions as Lynn.

    If you ignore the IQ stuff, they’re all arguing exactly the same thing.”

    So what? Hardimon and Spencer’s concepts don’t even rank populations. Even then, Rushton, Lynn et al don’t even have a concept of race that I’m aware of.

    “Some alt-righters like John Fuerst have therefore realised since Hardimon’s position sounds less racist (because it doesn’t touch IQ) but still defends races, it’s strategic for “race realists” to adopt it.

    Fuerst is a hereditarian crank, but has adopted a more moderate Hardimon-type “race realism”. And this is why some people may be suspicious about your change in views as not being sincere like John Fuerst. Look up Motte and bailey strategy.”

    Again, so what? He’s using the concept wrong.

    Being” suspicious about my change in views” is an appeal to motive.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  325. @res

    “To repeat: So are you really Oliver D. Smith?”

    It definitely is.

    • Replies: @res
  326. j2 says:
    @Anonymous

    “No they aren’t at all and the graphic (a branching tree aka phenogram) for human populations doesn’t make any sense. Why? Well quite simply, it would require populations to branch/split off from each other and remain isolated to make those (hierarchical) divisions, yet they never did; there is gene flow between populations.”

    But there are natural barriers, which make gene flow between some neighbors less likely. Though some gene flow often happens, these barriers separate populations rather well into clusters. Such barriers include oceans, even seas, mountain ranges, deserts, glaciers, and so on. Just a look at any admixture plot of autosomal DNA of several populations shows that populations form clusters. It is not at all difficult to detect the European cluster from the East Asian cluster, while individual European countries look very similar in an admixture plot on the global scale. There are more than three clusters, but not that many.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  327. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88

    I just observe things. There’s now a trend where white nationalists/alt-righters (whatever you want to call them) are adopting more moderate “race realism” views or perspectives like Hardimon so they can deny allegations of racism, while still arguing races exist. I find this incredibly deceptive. Notice how all these people are suddenly quoting David Reich all over the place. Reich is arguing something like Hardimon, that although human races exist -the race and IQ stuff is pseudoscience.

    For a criticism of Reich’s moderate “race realism”:
    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bfopinion/race-genetics-david-reich

    This article co-written by 67 scientists, makes similar arguments I’ve made above that shows why race is not an accurate or useful way to describe human population variation.

  328. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @j2

    See following

    http://contrailscience.com/30-years-of-airline-travel/

    It shows the differences between 1980 and 2008 in airline frequency of flights & travel routes. Where are the geographical barriers? Typically when “race realists” talk about geographical barriers they’re talking pre-1500 and ignore the huge changes in transport technology since then. Now and the future whether you like it or not is globalisation.

    • Replies: @res
  329. res says:
    @Anonymous

    I never went off-topic, but linked to another study that shows human population structure is IBD (isolation-by-distance). Why are you lying?

    The only point I raised was that graph. Which the latter part of your response did not address. Why are you lying? (see how useful statements like that are?)

    I think it is clear that genetic distance would correlate with physical distance.

    Which is the opposite of a subspecies/race model of population structure; IBD and a race model are not compatible.

    That is just dumb. Genetic distance correlating with geographical (this is the word the literature uses, “physical distance” is used to mean the distance in base pairs AFAICT) distance is perfectly compatible with subspecies. Here is a look at this in deer:
    Genetic diversity and structure among subspecies of white-tailed deer in Mexico
    https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article/93/4/1158/960922

    Why are you lying?

    No they aren’t at all and the graphic (a branching tree aka phenogram) for human populations doesn’t make any sense. Why? Well quite simply, it would require populations to branch/split off from each other and remain isolated to make those (hierarchical) divisions, yet they never did; there is gene flow between populations.

    In my experience they are more commonly called dendrograms. For example:
    https://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/how-to-read-a-dendrogram.html
    They are also called phylogenetic trees.
    https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/course/ent425/text02/phylotrees.html
    has some discussion about this and also notes specific meanings for phenogram and cladogram which do not apply to the graphic at the top. That graphic is based on the genotypes rather than the phenotypes.

    As for the gene flow issue, yes that is a limitation of the model. But the model seems to capture the reality quite well nonetheless.

    If you merely type “bolnick 2008 race” (since race is the discussion) you find the paper at the first hit on Google, Bing or any other search-engine. Like I said you put in no effort.

    I searched on “bolnick 2008” (which was your citation, you might recall) and got the papers I linked. You might learn what “no effort” means. Why are you lying?

    Bolnick references about a dozen studies to show human population structure looks like that i.e. “clinally distributed”. Of course you ignore all those.

    With absolutely no numerical discussion or data presented in her article. Remember, my criticism was that graph was not showing real data. That graph was a classic example of something an innumerate person presents to make it look like they have a quantitative point when in reality it is presenting an idealization which captures little of the real world variation in the data. It is a pretend graph. Lack of units and numerical scales makes that very clear.

    Why is my identity important?

    It is not particularly. I was just curious about why, if you are Oliver D. Smith, you might have changed from commenting here under your own name to being anonymous. I was also wondering how much your previous interactions with mikemikev might have colored your comments here. The primary reason I asked the question again is I was annoyed by your transparent dodge in responding to the Oliver Keyes part of my comment rather than my actual question. You must deal with pretty stupid people in real life if you have any expectation of that nonsense working.

    You seem obsessed with identities rather than debating the topic (I noticed you kept posting names and asking who posters were in the other thread.)

    If you read that comment thread through you will see there was much talk about sock puppeting and pretending to be other people. I was attempting to evaluate who was telling the truth. Which seemed appropriate.

    I am not obsessed about identities. Why are you lying? (pro tip, if you are going to accuse people of lying, do less of it yourself)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  330. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Thanks. He has as much as admitted it in recounting his history with mikemikev, but I am curious why he is evading now.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  331. res says:
    @Anonymous

    So in a discussion of genetics (millions of years of evolution) you bring up transport changes in the last forty years. That definitely complicates things, but it is amazing how much the historic groups persist in the data.

    To add to Dr. Thompson’s PCA plot above. From
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/07/one-principal-component-to-rule-them-all

    From the article:

    Note that PC 1 accounts for nearly eight times as much variation as PC 2. This speaks to the African vs. non-African gap. Because their data set is relatively thick in “intermediate” groups you see a spectrum. The vertical axis is obviously mostly east-west.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @James Thompson
  332. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    The only point I raised was that graph. Which the latter part of your response did not address. Why are you lying? (see how useful statements like that are?)

    You falsely claimed I went “off on tangents” when I’ve been discussing the same thing here; my latter part of response clearly relates to the graph and was explaining IBD (isolation-by-distance).

    That is just dumb. Genetic distance correlating with geographical (this is the word the literature uses, “physical distance” is used to mean the distance in base pairs AFAICT) distance is perfectly compatible with subspecies. Here is a look at this in deer:
    Genetic diversity and structure among subspecies of white-tailed deer in Mexico
    https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article/93/4/1158/960922

    Why are you lying?

    Bizarre. The study you posted about subspecies of white-tailed deer shows geographically discontinuous/allopatric populations. That’s a subspecies/race model of population variation, not IBD. Why show this, when human population structure is completely different? Anyway, to use an example from that study that proves my point:

    The genetic distance (Fst) between O. v. texanus and O. v. yucatanensis is 0.11.
    The genetic distance (Fst) between O. v. texanus and O. v. sinaloae is 0.15.

    However, O. v. texanus is a lot geographically closer to O. v. sinaloae than O. v. yucatanensis.

    Can you now find a human ethnic group x, that is genetically similar to y than x</i, but where x is geographically closer? I’ll be waiting…

    I predict you won’t actually respond on point because your position is not tenable, but just nitpick and show there was some lowish correlation (r = 0.38, far lower than humans) between pairwise FST values and geographic distance, something you know I never denied – the dispute was the overall population structure and variation (hence I used the term ‘model’) i.e. subspecies/race versus IBD; the study you posted is not IBD. Anyone who compares subspecies of white-tailed deer to humans can see why the latter don’t have subspecies.

    In my experience they are more commonly called dendrograms. For example:
    https://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/how-to-read-a-dendrogram.html
    They are also called phylogenetic trees.
    https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/course/ent425/text02/phylotrees.html
    has some discussion about this and also notes specific meanings for phenogram and cladogram which do not apply to the graphic at the top. That graphic is based on the genotypes rather than the phenotypes.

    As for the gene flow issue, yes that is a limitation of the model. But the model seems to capture the reality quite well nonetheless.

    It doesn’t capture reality well for the reasons I’ve outlined, and there are further problems of bias with it such as the human origins model it starts off with (for example I would question like Milford Woloff the idea of an “African” and “Eurasian” split), but there’s no point in getting into that here.

    I searched on “bolnick 2008” (which was your citation, you might recall) and got the papers I linked. You might learn what “no effort” means. Why are you lying?

    I’ve not lied about anything, but you have repeatedly. All you had to do was search “bolnick 2008 race” to find the study. Instead you searched “bolnick 2008” then came back whining you couldn’t find it. You’re either incredibly lazy or trolling.

    With absolutely no numerical discussion or data presented in her article. Remember, my criticism was that graph was not showing real data. That graph was a classic example of something an innumerate person presents to make it look like they have a quantitative point when in reality it is presenting an idealization which captures little of the real world variation in the data. It is a pretend graph. Lack of units and numerical scales makes that very clear.

    They reference a bunch of studies that show human population structure is IBD and that graph shows what isolation-by-distance looks like.

    It is not particularly. I was just curious about why, if you are Oliver D. Smith, you might have changed from commenting here under your own name to being anonymous. I was also wondering how much your previous interactions with mikemikev might have colored your comments here. The primary reason I asked the question again is I was annoyed by your transparent dodge in responding to the Oliver Keyes part of my comment rather than my actual question. You must deal with pretty stupid people in real life if you have any expectation of that nonsense working. If you read that comment thread through you will see there was much talk about sock puppeting and pretending to be other people. I was attempting to evaluate who was telling the truth. Which seemed appropriate. I am not obsessed about identities. Why are you lying? (pro tip, if you are going to accuse people of lying, do less of it yourself)

    You’re not obsessed about identities but are mentioning people’s real names in every post. lol And I’m not posting in any other thread, so didn’t see the point in using my name that I haven’t posted under in around 7 months. As for why did I re-appear on this website – BBC journalists contacted me over the book being discussed and I was invited to speak in a future radio discussion; I declined, but took interest in the book which I read some on Google Books. It’s shoddy science and SJW junk, as bad as “race realism”. I’m not sure why people think if I reject race pseudoscience I must be a commie SJW.

    • Replies: @res
  333. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    that’s Mikemikev’s favourite fallacy you’re now repeating.

    You’re posting a PCA of very few population samples, e.g. there’s no populations from North Africa.

    If you don’t include populations from whole geographical regions of course you will see discontinuities. Duh. Include them and the discontinuity disappears – it’s a sampling error. Look at the PCA in Tishkoff et al 2009 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2947357/ that used lots of samples for Africa that are usually excluded to see no genetic discontinuity.

    Jayman has posted it on his blog-

    • Replies: @res
  334. res says:
    @Anonymous

    You falsely claimed I went “off on tangents” when I’ve been discussing the same thing here; my latter part of response clearly relates to the graph and was explaining IBD (isolation-by-distance).

    You were responding to my comment. You did so with something which was not relevant to my comment. Nuff said.

    Can you now find a human ethnic group x, that is genetically similar to y than x</i, but where x is geographically closer? I’ll be waiting…

    I think this is garbled (did you leave a z out?) I’m pretty sure you meant a 3 way comparison like in your example).

    As for examples, how about the Madagascar highlands? Much closer geographically to sub-Saharan Africa than Asia, but here is what they find. Emphasis mine.

    The team conducted mtDNA analysis of the samples and found roughly equal contributions from both Asian and African lineages—African lineages were found to be more frequent in Asian in Y chromosomes, however, which suggested a male bias for African ancestry. The team also found that the ratio of Asian to African ancestry varied by geographic location. Those living in the central highlands had more Asian ancestry, while those living on the coasts showed more African ancestry. These results, the team suggests, indicate that admixture happened heterogeneously on the island, which suggests people from Asia and Africa colonized the island independently of one another.

    Here is the paper and a relevant graphic. https://www.pnas.org/content/114/32/E6498

    Short wait. Funny how that works.

    Back to you.

    They reference a bunch of studies that show human population structure is IBD and that graph shows what isolation-by-distance looks like.

    The graph is illustrative. Not real data. Which was my original point. A graph that fails to include numerical scales or even units of measurements is pretty much worthless.

    I’m curious why you think isolation by distance is completely inconsistent with the continental races idea anyway. Especially once one realizes that continental boundaries tend to be more significant (e.g. oceans) than their simple distances would lead one to believe.

    You’re not obsessed about identities but are mentioning people’s real names in every post.

    I have written 6,440 comments on unz.com. We are talking about a tiny fraction of my comments. In threads where identity seems a topic of concern. Funny that those threads also happen to be the few threads here you have been active on.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  335. res says:
    @Anonymous

    I am not arguing for genetic discontinuity. What would be interesting is to see PCA plots that were weighted by the world population of each group. I am pretty sure 1 billion Chinese would have a large fairly tight cluster of Han Chinese. And pretty much all groups that aren’t directly admixed with Africans are relatively far genetically from Africans. Notice how in all the PCA plots that include Africa as well as the rest of the world the largest principal component is the one separating Africa from the rest of the world.

    There certainly exist mixes either from border groups or from recent admixture between groups. The relevant question is how large are these groups compared to the groups constituting the continental races?

    To repeat the primary point from the comment you were responding to: “it is amazing how much the historic groups persist in the data.”

    • Replies: @j2
    , @mikemikev
    , @Anonymous
  336. j2 says:
    @res

    I still think that the creation of races is well explained in the very old evolution theory: If natural boundaries have separated populations for a long enough time, they develop to different directions and are genetically different. Some of this development is adaptation to the environment, that is, positive in a sense, and some is not. It the area is large, there appears a gradual differentiation from one end of the distribution to the other end. In both cases you find different subspecies. The difference can be fairly abrupt, if the natural boundary is an ocean (like with Asia and Americas), though also there exist or once existed intermediate forms. In many cases the intermediate forms have disappeared. Or the difference can be fully gradual, like is often the case in Eurasia. If these populations later can overcome the natural boundaries, they always mix to some extent, but there can be two pattern: they may mainly stay apart, that is, for some reason these subspecies do not like to mix, or they may easily mix. It probably depends on their behavior patterns rather than on the genetic distance, but if the genetic distance is large, behavior patterns are more different.

    This should be valid for all species. Now to the human race case.

    With humans moving to the USA, European origin people have not much mixed with African Americans, while in Latin America Europeans, Africans and Native Indians have mixed. Europeans are genetically quite similar, so it is not difficult to understand that they have freely mixed in both the USA and in Latin America. But Africans or American Indians are not so similar to Europeans, and in one large area, the USA, they have not mixed, while in another large area, Central America, they have mixed. Obviously the behavior patterns causing mixing or separating have not been fully determined by genetics, but they have reflected the culture. Because it is at least largely cultural, media and intellectuals can favor one outcome. They can influence the behavior patterns.

    I conclude from this: there can be human races, like Europeans and (some subsets of) Africans and Native Americans, that were created by natural boundaries long ago. The concept of a race itself is a valid scientific concept. These races can mix under some conditions, or they can tend to stay separate under some conditions. There is no general rule for what will and should happen if different populations live in the same area.

    People with a strong opinion on race matters, like race deniers or racists, state that one outcome is the good one (mixing) and the other is the bad one (separation), but this is only a specific moral philosophy.

    Of course, one can try to evaluate with pattern is better, not to derive it from moral beliefs.
    The outcomes of the behavior patterns can be evaluated by many measures and possibly the USA is better than Central America in some measures. Mixing races you lose the specific adaptations, or at least make them less common in the population, but you may gain a more homogeneous population (which as a homogeneous population will create its own identity and will see itself separated from other homogeneous populations of the world, so not much is gained in the race denier mission, it just moves racism to another place). I personally have this opinion that creating minorities causes problems in some 50 years, usually the populations do not mix that well and the Latin America is not a good model.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @res
  337. @res

    I can tell due to how he cites and quotes – that’s his hallmark (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

  338. mikemikev says:
    @res

    What would be interesting is to see PCA plots that were weighted by the world population of each group.

    Yes exactly. Of course you would see a continuum if you took ten Chinese, Uyghurs, Europeans, Ethiopians, Nigerians. But if you take into account population densities you see dense clusters by continent.

  339. j2 says:
    @j2

    I wrote a short post that explains why mixing of races changes nothing: even if it succeeds, it is finally useless:
    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2019/06/14/lets-write-one-post-about-race/

  340. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    I am not arguing for genetic discontinuity.

    And this is the problem: “race realists” don’t hold a stable position on anything; Mikemikev is/was (since he changes his views a lot) arguing races are discontinuous (although he also oppositely claimed they’re slices of a continuum), yet you’re claiming they’re not. Another “race realist”, Jayman, argues races are wholly continuous, not discontinuous (contradicting sometimes Mikemikev), yet we then find another “race realist”, Noah Carl recently claim in an article there are discontinuities between races.

    So are races discontinuous or not? Make up your minds guys.

    Aside from “race realists” not being able to ever agree on whether there is genetic discontinuity or continuity between populations, they constantly re-define what race or subspecies means; Mikemikev’s, Noah Carl’s and Jayman’s definition of race all differ to some extent (although they end up mostly agreeing with the same socio-political influenced racial divisions like “White people”).

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  341. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    You’re all over the place and contradicting yourself. lol

    The graph is illustrative. Not real data. Which was my original point. A graph that fails to include numerical scales or even units of measurements is pretty much worthless.

    I am not arguing for genetic discontinuity.

    If you’re not arguing for genetic discontinuity between populations (especially continents) why are you rejecting the graph I posted that shows isolation-by-distance i.e. gradual continuity? The whole point in me posting that was to show population genetic variation (to quote Bolnick, 2008) is “clinally distributed”/a continuum not discontinuous/abrupt jumps or steep slopes. Do you even know what you’re posting?

    • Replies: @res
  342. res says:
    @Anonymous

    You’re all over the place and contradicting yourself. lol

    If you are going to assert that you need to pick a better example. Because if this is the best evidence you have…

    If you’re not arguing for genetic discontinuity between populations (especially continents) why are you rejecting the graph I posted that shows isolation-by-distance i.e. gradual continuity?

    The primary reason (as I have repeated over and over in this thread) is that the graph is not of real data and lacks units and numerical scales. It attempts to assert the behavior is exactly a straight line and provides no numerical data to back it up.

    And besides that (as mikemikev covered nicely in comment 320) there is the issue of the exact shape of that curve. Between discontinuous and that perfectly straight line you like so much there are a variety of curve shapes. Let’s repeat the graphics he showed.

    Hopefully the difference is obvious. Those former graphs aren’t discontinuous, but there are definitely sharp transitions. If you have the (basic calculus) math we could try to quantify that using the derivatives of the curves (though this is harder than it seems given that the x-axis represents discrete variables).

    The whole point in me posting that was to show population genetic variation (to quote Bolnick, 2008) is “clinally distributed”/a continuum not discontinuous/abrupt jumps or steep slopes.

    And this is why I criticized your graph. Because it purports to “show” that while just offering an idealization. When in fact, at least some real data (first figure above) does indeed show “abrupt jumps or steep slopes.” Are you familiar with the motte and bailey fallacy? Because your lumping of “discontinuous” and “abrupt jumps or steep slopes” provides a pretty good example of it.

    Do you even know what you’re posting?

    Does this kind of nonsense (also your first sentence) work for you sometimes? Because it just seems ridiculous to me. And if anything, looks like projection.

    P.S. In case anyone is interested, here is the source for that first graphic:
    https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000500.g003

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  343. res says:
    @j2

    That seems sensible to me. I would divide the group differences into a variety of categories.

    – Physically easily visible differences (e.g skin/eye/hair color, body shape).
    – Less easily visible but still important intrinsic differences (e.g. intelligence, physical strength/endurance, aggressiveness, personality characteristics).
    – Cultural differences (e.g. food, religion, various social conventions).
    – Group cohesiveness and general attitudes concerning in/out groups.

    Given group cohesiveness we are unlikely ever to have the deracinated uniformity which seems desired by many (this is ironic for those who go one about “diversity” and its benefits). One only has to look at the tendency of blacks in the US to want their own living groups and graduation ceremonies in colleges to see the hypocrisy so often on display here.

    Thus group cohesiveness means we will always have groups differing in the first three categories, including intermediate groups which will either identify with one of the existing groups or create their own (as you mention).

    I think your comparison of the USA and Latin America is a good one. Some people seem to want to reproduce Latin America in the USA. Including the stark economic inequality–which is an odd desire for what was once the Democratic party.

    Bringing starkly different groups (in all four aspects I mentioned above) together in similar population proportions seems like a recipe for societal discord. Are there any positive examples (current or historical) out there? I for one do not want to be a part of that experiment.

  344. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    Discontinuous: “the state of having intervals or gaps; lack of continuity.” (Oxford Dictionary)

    That’s what the graph Mikemikev posted shows e.g. see the interval in mean allele frequency between Algerian Mozabite and Bedouin Arab in graphs B & D:

    Algerian Mozabite: 60%
    Bedouin Arab: 70%

    That’s an interval of 10% i.e. discontinuity.

    For much larger and abrupt gaps (“jumps”) in frequency between populations in SSA (the studies uses very limited samples) to Mozabite, e.g.

    Yoruba: 10%
    Mbuti Pygmy: 5%
    etc.

    Instead what I’m saying is if these studies include more populations between these limited geographical populations (since many have been excluded, why is there only a single North African population sample? None from Horn Africa etc.) you would find not intervals like this, but gradual continuous variation e.g. 1%, 2%, 3%, 4% etc.

    And I’ve been explaining this to Mikemikev for 7 years (!), but he still fails to get it. Apparently you don’t get it either. You’re both very lowbrow “race realists”. More competent “race realists” I’ve explained this to, at least have understood what I was saying and concede what I’m saying it true, but what they argue is even if population genetic variation is a gradual continuum, so what? We can still (arbitrarily) divide it into broad divisions. I’ve shown why that is erroneous above, but that’s a separate argument.

    • Replies: @res
  345. @res

    Thanks. Good to be reminded of all the work Razib did years ago, explaining results to general readers.

  346. res says:
    @Anonymous

    Discontinuous: “the state of having intervals or gaps; lack of continuity.” (Oxford Dictionary)

    Thanks. Do you also make a habit of teaching your grandmother to suck eggs?

    That’s what the graph Mikemikev posted shows e.g. see the interval in mean allele frequency between Algerian Mozabite and Bedouin Arab in graphs B & D:

    Algerian Mozabite: 60%
    Bedouin Arab: 70%

    That’s an interval of 10% i.e. discontinuity.

    Well, using the definition you so kindly provided, for a finite number of groups there will always be discontinuities. The question is how large is their magnitude relative to the overall trend? And what is the slope across various distances?

    Instead what I’m saying is if these studies include more populations between these limited geographical populations (since many have been excluded, why is there only a single North African population sample? None from Horn Africa etc.) you would find not intervals like this, but gradual continuous variation e.g. 1%, 2%, 3%, 4% etc.

    The gaps will fill, but what will the slopes be at different distances from Africa? (useful to use as a reference point since that is where humans appear to have originated) The variation might be continuous (there will always be discretization issues, and you will keep complaining no matter how small the gaps as long as it suits your purpose, whatever that might be), but gradual (say as measured in change per 1000 miles) it may not be. There will most likely be steep slopes between sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, and the rest of the world (though the location of the steep slopes will likely vary depending on the allele we are using).

    And I’ve been explaining this to Mikemikev for 7 years (!), but he still fails to get it. Apparently you don’t get it either.

    As far as I can tell you have two main points here.
    1. Fine grained variation exists within/between subpopulations. Which I consider obvious. And you harping on this as if it were some kind of kill shot only convinces me you don’t understand hierarchical variation as shown in the dendrogram above.
    2. The rate of genetic change with distance is roughly linear (which is what your beloved innumerate graph purports to show). Which is simply wrong. Based, for instance, on those population graphs of allele frequencies.

    Don’t confuse “not getting” your points with considering them either obvious enough not to be worth discussing or disagreeing with them.

    You’re both very lowbrow “race realists”.

    You are simply stupid if that is how you interpret my comments here. (I figure one ad hominem deserves another ; )

    We can still (arbitrarily) divide it into broad divisions. I’ve shown why that is erroneous above, but that’s a separate argument.

    Which is little better than this one. See the light spectrum. Are the ROYGBIV colors useful mental categories? Yes. Do they have precise (and non-arbitrary) boundary points? No.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  347. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    2. The rate of genetic change with distance is roughly linear (which is what your beloved innumerate graph purports to show). Which is simply wrong. Based, for instance, on those population graphs of allele frequencies.

    No it’s not wrong. It’s been explained over and over why those population graphs of allele frequencies Mikemikev posted look like they do – add more population samples and they will turn into the “clinally distributed” graph I posted or what you call linear. There’s not much point in further debating if you deny this fact.

    Read Morning (2014)

    [MORE]

    Sample Geography. Similarly, it is not hard to understand why the geographic location of the
    sampled individuals makes a difference. To take an extreme example, analysis of a data set
    that included only people from either Colombo, Sri Lanka, or Reykjavik, Iceland would likely
    conclude that our species is made up of two clusters. And given the great distance between the
    two places, the analysis would probably assign the individuals sampled to one cluster or the
    other with ease, since genetic distinctiveness is positively correlated with geographic distance
    (Templeton 1999). But few people would be satisfied that sampling from just two locations,
    Colombo or Reykjavik, would give us a good picture of the structure of the entire human species around the globe. In other words, the representativeness and the geographic source locations of the sample shape our conclusions about population structure.
    This problem is not as remote as the hypothetical example above suggests. Because we
    do not (yet) have vast data banks of genetic data collected in every corner of the world (at
    least not at the disposition of scientific researchers), claims about genetic clusters of human
    beings—that is, about the structure found within a species of more than 7 billion people—
    are often based on samples that are relatively very small….Moreover, large “sampling gaps” in the data
    available clearly skew the picture of human genetic diversity (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1682;
    see also Wilson et al. 2001:268 on the need for “geographically exhaustive” data). When
    Serre and Pääbo (2004) analyzed the widely used HGDP-CEPH Human Genome Diversity
    Cell Line Panel,2 they found not only a dearth of individuals from North Africa
    , for example,
    but a complete absence of indigenous people from North America

    Mikemikev’s posted study uses population samples primarily from HGDP-CEPH Human Genome Diversity Cell Line Panel and very few others. There’s only one sample for North Africa. Serre and Pääbo (2004) demonstrated exactly what I have been saying:

    Given the relatively small numbers and limited locations of human beings who have been genotyped, the distribution of individuals sampled is important for any assessment of population structure. Serre and Pääbo (2004) argued that sampling often concentrates on “the
    extremes of continental land masses” (p. 1680), maximizing the geographic and therefore
    genetic distance between individuals presumed to belong to distinct continental clusters.
    Without “a sampling strategy that maximizes the geographic distribution of samples and
    keeps similar sample size for each geographical area,” they warned, researchers risked
    falsely creating “apparent substructures” (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1681). In contrast, when
    these researchers designed a study that sampled individuals “such that their geographic distribution around the world approximates the distribution of the human population as a whole
    and includes areas where Africa, Asia, and Europe meet,” the pattern of genetic variation
    they found was “one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world,
    rather than discrete clusters
    ” (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1679-1680)

    – Does Genomics Challenge the Social Construction of Race?
    Sociological Theory 2014 32: 189-207

  348. res says:
    3270080

    No it’s not wrong. It’s been explained over and over why those population graphs of allele frequencies Mikemikev posted look like they do – add more population samples and they will turn into the “clinally distributed” graph I posted or what you call linear. There’s not much point in further debating if you deny this fact.

    So if we are looking at allele frequencies by distance (degrees latitude here) for the allele in panels A and B:

    You can clearly see there is little variation across 30 degrees S to 0 degrees of latitude in Southern Africa, then roughly a step function between 0 and 30 degrees N, then roughly flat again from 30 degrees N to 60 degrees N in Europe and on into Asia.

    It is possible adding more populations between 0 and 30 degrees N in Africa would fill in the step, but they would not change the slope in that region. And even the filling in is in question because that is where the Sahara (a significant barrier) is located.

    There is indeed little point in debating this if you can’t see that panel B is not linear by distance, regardless of any gaps.

    P.S. To be clear, gradients generally exist at geographical boundaries, and may even be linear for a region around the boundary, but for large expanses the changes per mile/degree/etc. are typically much smaller. Put another way, a piecewise linear curve may be a decent approximation in many cases. With the regions with the sharpest gradients tending to occur at major barriers: like oceans, deserts, and mountains. Hence the continental races idea–those major barriers often define continents.

  349. Okechukwu says:
    3270080

    You’re never going to be able to reason with an ideologue like Res. His entire worldview depends upon the existence of three or four distinct human races because that’s the only way to arrive at his holy grail of a racial hierarchy in intelligence. Since this hierarchy is impossible if race itself isn’t a biological reality, he will fight tooth and nail for the biological reality of race. The actual evidence and the actual facts are irrelevant to a race and intelligence/HBD pseudoscience devotee like Res.

    If you follow sports and sports injuries, that is a completely race-neutral arena. Kevin Durant’s Achilles tendon rupture and Klay Thompson’s ACL tear are two recent examples. On Reddit, there are surgeons who post detailed explanations of what a particular injury entails, how it’s remedied surgically, the prospects for recovery and the impact on future performance. No one ever mentions race because all humans are alike in their physiology. But somehow when it comes to the brain, jokers like Res (who tend not to be very bright themselves; Res, in particular, is very stupid), are determined to spread the fiction that some “races” are smarter than others. Their proof? Richard Lynn and similar. That’s how dumb they are.

    • LOL: res
    • Replies: @res
    , @Anon
    , @j2
  350. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    Perhaps you would care to engage with my arguments? If you are so smart it should be easy for you to answer them.

    It is really funny that you call me stupid. The Dunning Kruger effect is real.

  351. Factorize says:

    Interracial differences are typically highlighted as the goto hot button topic. Though in terms of how people actually live (i.e., in psychometrically and racially segregated communities), one might predict that the true hot botton topic should be intraracial differences.

    Disruptive changes are now incubating that will overturn deep cultural practices embedded at the level of intraracial differences (i.e., at the level of reality as it is actually experienced). For example, the outdated model of a high school class with student IQs ranging by 30 or more points will probably be retired over the near-mid term. Such classes are not educationally efficient and likely should be understood as violating the human rights of students. Students at the lower end of the IQ distribution would not have a reasonable chance at success and would likely, as a consequence, drift towards a delinquent counter-culture. This is entirely unnecessary. Success could instead be normalized by genetic potential. Stratifying by genoIQ would allow students of all ability levels to compete on an equal footing with their psychometrically matched peers and probably allow each stanine of ability to achieve higher academic standards than are typical today.

    Before these changes do emerge, I want to note that I am grateful that I was able to experience a diverse psychometric high school environment. Technology changes, life changes; the way things were once is forgotten, history is forgotten. People then understand a new reality as being fixed. Psychometric diversity in my high school allowed for events that are almost too fantastic to be believed. One might expect in a highly organized, regimented institution such occurrences would not occur (unfortunately).

    If we continue to focus on abstractions and not on our lived experience, then these experiences will be lost memories as technology replaces everything that we lived and cherished.

  352. Anon[207] • Disclaimer says:

    Anecdotally, as to the usefulness of continental race, my doctor just the other day mentioned to me that African Americans often respond only to a certain type of blood pressure medication, and only in specific dosages. I didn’t take that to mean that all people of African descent have this issue, but, if you can tell just by looking at someone that they are of African ancestry, it’s certainly something to watch out for. There are lots of examples like this in medicine. This is just one I hadn’t heard of before.

    As for examples of nonlinear relationships between genetic similarity and geographic distance, Steve tweeted something about this a few days ago, quoting David Reich:

    “…the frequencies of mutations in groups in Nigeria and in Zambia are more similar than the frequencies of mutations in Germany and Italy despite the former two countries being separated by a far greater geographic difference”

    I think this is what Oliver was asking for above. But the argument is a silly one because even if there was perfect continuity we could still make useful and meaningful distinctions based on morphology, culture, abilities, etc, not to mention genetic distance — and all these distinctions tend to agree with one another.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  353. Anon[207] • Disclaimer says:
    @Okechukwu

    So, to recap your contributions to this thread: nature doesn’t do averages, all humans can do algebra, IQ is a pseudoscience (not used in court), and now “all humans are alike in their physiology.” Please don’t let me stop you there!

  354. j2 says:
    @Okechukwu

    “But somehow when it comes to the brain, jokers like Res (who tend not to be very bright themselves; Res, in particular, is very stupid), are determined to spread the fiction that some “races” are smarter than others. Their proof? Richard Lynn and similar. That’s how dumb they are.”

    Even if we discard Lynn and other IQ researchers and say that their results are all false, there remains observations that point to the direction that there are small genetic differences in the average IQ between continental races. One simple observation is to look at the fields where African Americans make Ph.D., compared to American Whites or East Asians. African Americans are currently 13% of the US population and make a bit less than 7% of PhDs. This total fraction of PhDs can be changed by education and it has been changing over time (African Americans make today more PhDs than before), but the split of PhDs between fields shows that they make a small fraction of PhDs in hard sciences and more of them make PhDs in easier fields, such as education, social science and so on. As they have the possibility to make a PhD, we may assume that they have the same possibilities as anybody else. They are not deprived by the environment. To make a PhD in math you only need some paper and a pencil, the same with any hard theoretical field. Some African Americans do it, like Dr. Gates, so it is possible, but a smaller proportion of African Americans do it than Whites or East Asians. Yet, mathematics is a talent, you cannot teach somebody to excel in it if he does not have the talent.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  355. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    I don’t deny human population/group differences or categorisation, never have done (although “race realists” constantly lie about or misrepresent my position.) Instead what I argue is broad “race” categories have no utility and therefore I stick with very local populations (aka demes). Jonathan Marks author of the book Human Biodiversity (which I recommend) argues the same. This is explained in a lot more detail here:

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism#Populations_.28demes.29

    The “SJW” position like Angela Saini in contrast is to deny there are any group differences and there is only variation between individuals. That’s never been my position despite trolls like Mikemikev falsely claiming for many years I believe that.

    I regard “SJW”s and “race realists” to be as bad as each other.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @Anon
  356. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    I argue is broad “race” categories have no utility

    But isn’t it just a fact that those categories have some correlation with variation in selectively influencing genes?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  357. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    There’s a broad ecogeographical pattern of variation for some genetic/phenotypic characters under selection, but they’re discordant meaning different characters result in different ecotype classifications. This has been explained since Livingstone (1962) who showed discordant patterns of variation by different selection pressures.

    So for example, if classifying by skin colour this would result in a completely different classification to nose size since there are different (climatic) selection pressures resulting in the variation of these phenotypic characters.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  358. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    No they are not all discordant. You are factually wrong.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  359. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    Whatever you say Michael – the opposite is always true.

    As for discordant characters under selection that result in separate classifications, see:

    Diamond, Jared. 1994. “Race Without Color.” Discover 15 (11): 82–89.
    http://discovermagazine.com/1994/nov/racewithoutcolor444

    One such procedure would group Italians and Greeks with most African blacks. It would classify Xhosas–the South African “black” group to which President Nelson Mandela belongs–with Swedes rather than Nigerians. Another equally valid procedure would place Swedes with Fulani (a Nigerian “black” group) and not with Italians, who would again be grouped with most other African blacks. Still another procedure would keep Swedes and Italians separate from all African blacks but would throw the Swedes and Italians into the same race as New Guineans and American Indians.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @mikemikev
  360. Okechukwu says:
    @j2

    Even if we discard Lynn and other IQ researchers and say that their results are all false, there remains observations that point to the direction that there are small genetic differences in the average IQ between continental races. One simple observation is to look at the fields where African Americans make Ph.D.,

    This is just plain stupid. You call yourself an academic? You prove genetic differences in intelligence by going into a lab and producing hard genetic evidence. There are no shortcuts and your hopes and desires don’t constitute evidence.

    What you are blabbering about has nothing to do with native intelligence. Or are you actually dumb enough to believe that African-Americans have exhausted their capacity to produce PhD’s? You are probably that dumb, meaning you bought your own PhD at a county fair somewheere.

    I recently watched a Netflix documentary on the Vietnam war. The Vietnamese had not one single PhD. They had no industry. They had no modern technology. To a large degree, they were still living in the stone age. Yet they still outsmarted and outfought two advanced Western powers (France and the USA) that were just brimming with PhDs. Pay attention, I said the Vietnamese OUT-SMARTED the French and the Americans respectively. And again, the Vietnamese did not have one single PhD. In fact, it wasn’t even close. The Vietnamese performed like geniuses, while the French and Americans performed like 20 IQ Down Syndrome sufferers.

    These were by no means isolated incidents. Throughout recorded history, we find evidence of relatively primitive forces destroying vastly more advanced enemies mostly by out-thinking them. The Romans were chock full of their version of PhD’s, yet they were destroyed by Germanic tribes in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. Similarly, the Zulus outsmarted and wiped out 1300 elite British troops at Isandlwana. More recently, Iraqi insurgents fought the USA and its millions of PhD’s to a standstill. And in Afghanistan, the Taliban, without a single PhD as far as I know, is outsmarting and fighting to a draw the entire NATO alliance with it’s tens of millions of PhDs.

    So, hopefully, I’ve gotten it through your thick skull that human intelligence isn’t measured in the way you think it is. In fact your kind of supremacist, imperialist thinking has been ruinous and devastating to white Europeans, as they have continually dismissed and underestimated their opponents, only to end up getting their asses kicked time after time because of it.

    • Replies: @j2
  361. j2 says:
    @Okechukwu

    “This is just plain stupid. You call yourself an academic?

    What you are blabbering about has nothing to do with native intelligence. Or are you actually dumb enough to believe that African-Americans have exhausted their capacity to produce PhD’s? You are probably that dumb, meaning you bought your own PhD at a county fair somewheere.

    So, hopefully, I’ve gotten it through your thick skull that human intelligence isn’t measured in the way you think it is. In fact your kind of supremacist, imperialist thinking has been ruinous and devastating to white Europeans, as they have continually dismissed and underestimated their opponents, only to end up getting their asses kicked time after time because of it.”

    You are all the time offending other people without any reason and all your arguments are either incorrect or totally irrelevant. I do not see any reason for discussing any longer with you.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  362. Okechukwu says:
    @j2

    You are all the time offending other people without any reason and all your arguments are either incorrect or totally irrelevant. I do not see any reason for discussing any longer with you.

    So there’s a relative paucity of African-American PhD’s and your first thought is that they must be intellectually inferior while dismissing all other VASTLY MORE PLAUSIBLE causes?

    And you think my arguments are incorrect? You are a fucking moron. When you die, if they perform an autopsy they’ll find that more than half of your brain is missing.

    • Replies: @j2
  363. Anon[207] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    The broad race categories that we are all familiar with are definitely used in medicine all the time. They clearly have utility. I just gave you one example, but here’s another:

    I was just reading that the NIH is considering different BMI recommendations among races, owing to differences in percentage of body fat vs lean muscle mass, creating different incidences of things like heart disease and diabetes. Blacks are at one end of the spectrum, with Asians on the other. So a doctor might recommend a different target weight for a given patient based on their race.

    I don’t think that anyone here would argue with the fact that finer distinctions among populations are sometimes warranted, but this hardly negates the usefulness of broader racial categories.

    You must realize that the definitions of race and deme are almost identical and have exactly the same problems with fuzzy boundaries. It’s merely a question of scale.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  364. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    the opposite is always true

    Maybe for a mentally ill pathological liar.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  365. j2 says:
    @Okechukwu

    “And you think my arguments are incorrect? You are a fucking moron. When you die, if they perform an autopsy they’ll find that more than half of your brain is missing.”

    You are the best proof of African level of intelligence.

    • Troll: Okechukwu
  366. Anonymous[210] • Disclaimer says:

    Wow. Anonymous[243] posted 71 comments out of 367 in the thread, so far.

    Basically, every fifth comment is Anonymous[243]. Unreal.

    Paid shill or obsessive-compulsive lunatic? You decide.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  367. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    I’ve already shown why that’s false-

    “Although information about ethnicity can be informative for biomedical research, it is imperative to move away from describing populations according to racial classifications such as ‘black’, ‘white’ or ‘Asian’ because “there can be considerable genetic heterogeneity within a region, it is most useful to be specific as possible about geographic origins, ethnicity, or tribal affiliation.” (Tishkoff & Kidd, 2004)

    • Replies: @Anon
  368. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Excluding Okechukwu I’m the only anti-racialist here. Multiple “race realists” began debating me, which is why I’ve responded dozens of times and I’ve been debating several different individuals. If I’m doing that, I will post more replies than other posters. That’s a more rational explanation than the tin-foil hat conspiracy theories or ad hominem.

    • Agree: Okechukwu
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  369. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    Well done for describing yourself Michael.

    https://www.fstdt.com/R76MH4343RZR5

    “I just read part of the ED article on Coombs. Among the paranoid (or disturbed) fantasies, the hundreds of sock puppets – seriously; this guy must have created hundreds of socks across multiple social media platforms – and his delusions of adequacy, I’m surprised he has time to use the the toilet.”

    LOL.

  370. Anonymous[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Multiple “race realists” began debating me, which is why I’ve responded dozens of times

    Yes, and all of them demolished your repetitive narrative from dozens of different angles. You’re literally trying to convince thinking persons – and thinking onlookers – to ignore their lying eyes and every bit of scientific data we have on the subject.

    If it’s true that you’re one of the agents freely editing, and censoring related Wikipedia pages, we can be sure that you’re a paid shill. Even obsessive-compulsives are pretty much extinct in that environment. They lost on account of insufficient networking and… not getting paid for their time.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  371. Anon[207] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    It’s not always necessary (or possible) to be so specific. It simply depends on what you’re trying to do.

  372. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    I stopped editing Wikipedia ages back. As for RationalWiki, I no longer edit there or have anything to do with it. I was banned for some silly drama. Although since I know the owner, he said I could be unblocked if I submitted an appeal. I can’t though be bothered.

    The user here still obsessed with these wikis and who still posts on them is Mikemikev.

    This was only a few days ago on the race article:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essentially_Dave
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mikemikev
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_(human_categorization)&action=history

  373. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    Diamond’s classifications, however, are nonsensical. They are far more arbitrary than the traditional classifications because the traits he singles out for classifying have little, if any, predictive value beyond the initial classification. Such schemes are not only confused, but dishonest, because they deliberately side-step the long accepted scientific meaning of race — a recognizable (or distinguishable) geographic population based on common descent.

    http://www.geocities.ws/race_articles/rushton_view_race.html

    Since you’ve been discussing this for 7 years as you keep saying, and you keep cycling through the same fallacies, what are we to think? My suspicion is that you have a psychotic behavior disorder and enjoy trolling people, and you see European dissidents as an easy target to abuse.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  374. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    You’re too dumb to realise the difference between neutral/non-neutral genetic variation, Michael. You were discussing selection, now suddenly shift to non-adaptive neutral characters. 7 years and you don’t know the difference between these. Embarrassing.

    “Traits that are of adaptive value to their possessors and are under selective force control show graded and independent distributions throughout the inhabited world. The converse is that the traits that do show regional clumping or clustering lack any particular survival value.” (Brace, 2000)

    Of course, Rushton also failed to understand this difference. He was a pseudoscientist.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @mikemikev
  375. Potato says:

    HBD is pseudoscience, always is, always has been. 90% of HBD is basically misunderstanding what heritability means, and then the rest of it misrepresenting population genetics research. Notice these papers that talk about population structure and the fact that you can distinguish people living in Ireland and England from genetic markers always say that this *does not* mean that the english and the irish are distinct ‘races’. Feral cats living on two opposite sides of the city will have population structure and will therefore be identifiable based on genetic markers, just like people in Ireland and England will be. This does not imply these cats are different ‘races’, and this does not imply that the English and the Irish are ‘races”.

    The heritability nonsense has been debunked so many times it’s almost funny. BMI and obesity has a fairly high heritability, and if you take the HBD understanding of heritability this means that americans are genetically fat, while ethiopians are genetically malnourished and thin. Heritability just doesn’t mean that. The amount of ‘very heritable’ traits that have changed in the 20th century alone is too much to count. It just doesn’t say anything about group differences, and you can repeat this shit time and time again and these people just never get it.

    • Agree: Okechukwu
    • Replies: @mikemikev
  376. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    The opposite of what Brace says is true.

  377. mikemikev says:
    @Potato

    Race is defined by shared ancestry, not location.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  378. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    Which directly contradicts what you said earlier about selection, Michael.

    You cannot use non-neutral characters to define race because of convergent evolution. So for example two populations can be dark skinned despite separated by thousands of miles from each other (no gene flow) because they share same climate.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @mikemikev
  379. res says:

    You cannot use non-neutral characters to define race because of convergent evolution.

    Why not?

    So for example two populations can be dark skinned despite separated by thousands of miles from each other (no gene flow) because they share same climate.

    And for many other reasons besides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution

    But no one thinks bats and birds are the same species (or genus, family, order, or class) because they both have wings and fly.

    Or are you one of those simpletons who think skin color is the only thing that matters for defining race? For example, that Africans and Aboriginal Australians both having dark skin makes the whole idea of race invalid?

    P.S. Earlier you talked about waiting for a response from me (see comments 335 and 337). You had only a short wait until I supplied the example you requested–which you rudely did not even acknowledge.
    Well, I am still waiting for your response to my comment 352.

  380. j2 says:
    @Anonymous

    “You cannot use non-neutral characters to define race because of convergent evolution.”

    You should use selected genes to define a race, not base it on phenotype characteristics.

    Neutral genes spread by diffusion, not by selection, and they normally show a gradient in the population and they usually do not become fixed if the population is large. These do not determine common properties of a population: they show intra-population variation.

    Deleterious genes are finally purged out (though they keep on reappearing) and they usually spread only locally. They show intra-population variation and often point out to small bottleneck populations inside the large breeding population. (As an example, cystis fibrosis, a common European disease, is very rare in Finland, though Finns are Caucasians. Finns have their own diseases. Deleterious genes are not good for defining continental races. They identify smaller populations.)

    Selected genes spread widely in a breeding population because they are favored. The common characteristics of a large population, if there are such, are therefore the result of selected genes that have made a sweep in the population, and some have even become fixed at some point in the history, before new immigrants or mutations. These selected genes include e.g. a gene to be able to digest milk, common in Europe. So, you should use these in your definition of a human race. It is not a phenotype characteristic, such as the skin color. It is genotype: frequencies of gene alleles.

  381. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    I never said race was defined by selected genes, it tends to be informative for them. Even your silly skin color gambit played by clowns like the AAA, that’s caused by different sets of genes in East Asians and Caucasoids.

  382. mikemikev says:
    @Anonymous

    “Traits that are of adaptive value to their possessors and are under selective force control show graded and independent distributions throughout the inhabited world. The converse is that the traits that do show regional clumping or clustering lack any particular survival value.” (Brace, 2000)

    The opposite is true.

  383. Anonymous[190] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Anonymous[243] is obviously Oliver D. Smith. Admins can see his IP and rename him so he can’t lie about identity. There is only one person on the internet who is obsessed in this way with race, Mike Coombs, editing RationalWiki etc.

  384. @James Thompson

    “He who knows that he is profound strives for clarity; he who would like to appear profound to the multitude strives for obscurity. The multitude thinks everything profound of which it cannot see the bottom; it is so timid and goes so unwillingly into the water.” (Nietzsche)

  385. @CanSpeccy

    Good lord, reading your drivel is absolutely painful. You dodge the question and use torrents of verbiage to say almost nothing.

    If you took modern Australian Aborigines, used a time machine to take them back to England 500 years ago, and replaced the British population with them, would they have invented the steam engine, etc etc?

    If you can’t answer that question honestly without all the bafflegarble, you are a charlatan. The group that has almost no technology, sleeps on the ground in the open, and lacks the engineering prowess to build a simple canoe is not about to invent the wheel, let alone the steam engine.

  386. xcd says:
    @CanSpeccy

    You have ventured part of the way. Now, go on to (a) capitalism, fascism and imperialism — economic, subversive and military (b) insecurity, obsession and psychopathy.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Thompson Comments via RSS