The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
American Society of Human Genetics Denounces Interest in Human Genetics
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

From the American Journal of Human Genetics in 2018:

ASHG Denounces Attempts to Link Genetics and Racial Supremacy
Open Archive Published:October 19, 2018

The American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) is alarmed to see a societal resurgence of groups rejecting the value of genetic diversity and using discredited or distorted genetic concepts to bolster bogus claims of white supremacy.

Because the ASHG values genetic diversity, it insists that all groups are genetically identical.

Or something.

Okay, let’s try that again: All races are diverse, but some races are more diverse than others.

ASHG denounces this misuse of genetics to feed racist ideologies. In public dialog, our research community should be clear about genetic knowledge related to ancestry and genomic diversity. To that end, ASHG affirms the following:

Genetics demonstrates that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct subcategories.

Granted, we in the genetics business divide humans up into racial categories all the time, but those are not biologically distinct categories, they are biologically distinctive categories.

Big difference.

Although there are clear observable correlations between variation in the human genome and how individuals identify by race, the study of human genetics challenges the traditional concept of different races of humans as biologically separate and distinct. This is validated by many decades of research, including recent examples.

Which you can go look up for yourself because we aren’t going to demean ourselves by providing examples.

Most human genetic variation is distributed as a gradient, so distinct boundaries between population groups cannot be accurately assigned.

For example, in 1491, how could you tell where sub-Saharan Africans and Amerindians began and ended? The Atlantic Ocean was just a gradient.

Oh, wait, remember what we said about no examples?

There is considerable genetic overlap among members of different populations. Such patterns of genome variation are explained by patterns of migration and mixing of different populations throughout human history. In this way, genetics exposes the concept of “racial purity” as scientifically meaningless.

It follows that there can be no genetics-based support for claiming one group as superior to another.

It follows. Follow the Science. Don’t try to think about the logical connection, if any, between our last two sentences. Just listen to us. You’re getting very sleepy.

Although a person’s genetics influences their phenotypic characteristics, and self-identified race might be influenced by physical appearance, race itself is a social construct.

We said the magic words: “social construct.” As all well-educated people know, when we say that phrase, that means to turn off your brain. You are well-educated, aren’t you?

Any attempt to use genetics to rank populations demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of genetics.

For example, anybody who ranks populations on, say, skin color fundamentally misunderstands genetics.

Trust us.

The past decade has seen the emergence of strategies for assessing an individual’s genetic ancestry. Such analyses are providing increasingly accurate ways of helping to define individuals’ ancestral origins and enabling new ways to explore and discuss ancestries that move us beyond blunt definitions of self-identified race.

For example, black activist Shaun King self-identifies as black, but, c’mon, just look at him!

Oh, wait, remember the part about No Examples?

Through its support for research at the leading edge of human genetics, ASHG will continue to advance scientific knowledge and debunk genetics-based arguments promoting racial supremacy.

Just look at all the debunking we’ve done in this article. And we expect to debunk a lot more straw men. Like did you know that modern genetics has proven that whites and blacks are not separate species from different galaxies? Take that, racists!

ASHG also encourages all society members to be active as citizens in political, policy, and social advocacy organizations that reflect their values.

But not if your values include science, objectivity, and curiosity.

Look, people, we’ve got jobs in human genetics. Don’t get our funding canceled by researching topics that anger the powerful.

 
Hide 94 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Once upon a time, “science” didn’t mean the same thing as “self-contradictory, politically correct, mealy-mouthed tripe” but those days are long gone now.

    • Thanks: Fox, Old Prude
    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    @Hangnail Hans

    Probably because back then the ones that were scientists were born scientists. Now they are 'made' scientists because of government diploma mills.

    Now most of them think science is pleasing their masters and having a secure job.

    , @Colin Wright
    @Hangnail Hans

    'Once upon a time, “science” didn’t mean the same thing as “self-contradictory, politically correct, mealy-mouthed tripe” but those days are long gone now.'

    Maybe it's a matter of what we worship. In 1890, Doctor Blank could calmly go to church, pray, and then that afternoon discuss his interesting finding; his faith was quite unaffected.

    Now -- when it' science we see as offering total, final, unanswerable truth, it's very upsetting if it generates unpleasant results.

    1890 guy could say, 'all men are equal in the eyes of God, so it's interesting if Blacks are on the average stupid, but hardly the most significant observation to be made. ' Now -- when 'it's the science' is the unanswerable argument -- that's not so palatable.

    , @BB753
    @Hangnail Hans

    "Science" is now whatever Anthony Fauci says. He's science! Pronounced: "soyience"!
    https://youtu.be/z-tfZr8Iv0s

  2. https://www.unz.com/pfrost/farewell-to-henry/
    When Paul Ehrlich wrote Human Natures(2000), he returned to the conventional wisdom that cultural evolution had largely replaced genetic evolution in our species. As one became more important, the other became less so. […] I would like to say that Henry was allowed to work in peace. That’s how things are in a free society, no? Unfortunately, he was repeatedly warned to stop, subtly at first and then not so subtly. Last year, the Southern Poverty Law Center added his name to its list of “extremists”—a list that, curiously, omits people whose skin is darker than peaches and cream. […] The actual Out of Africa event—when modern humans spread out of Africa some 50,000 years ago—was tangential to this process of accelerating genetic evolution, yet the SPLC summary makes it seem pivotal (perhaps to show that Henry was obsessed with black people?).

    – The book’s argument was that culture and genes coevolve: culture drives genetic evolution just as much as genes drive cultural evolution. And this process can take place within groups that are not normally thought to be “racial.” […] Anyway, Henry Harpending seemed unfazed by the SPLC’s blacklisting. He was apparently one of those rare tenured professors who put his tenure to good use and blissfully went on doing what he had always been doing. I wish he had lived longer. He was irreplaceable not so much because he knew more but because he was unafraid to say and act on what he knew.

    • Thanks: ic1000
  3. I once had a biology professor do the Lewotin thing and determine that since there was more variation within populations (Which are or aren’t social constructs? Aren’t they biological reality?) that in his words “there is no scientific basis for racism” but racism (Whether it is defined in the way we openly pretend it’s meant in terms of hatred and contempt for an outgroup for it’s own sake or in the true meaning of the term in 2021, white ethnocentrism of any level) isn’t about science or objectivity.

    A scientifically-founded argument may be made for pre-existing ingroup-outgroup identification and discrimination but it’s just that, a justification. Like any argument against it. It existed before there was any science to justify it or not.

    There is no ‘logical’ reason for me or anyone to be concerned with my kin or not, it’s not based on reason it is a foundational emotional motivation. And if those who cried most intently about ‘racism’ were inclined to not possess this emotion (Or an inversion of it where they deeply respect and are concerned with the collective well-being and interests of outgroup populations without concern for their own) I might believe they were being ‘objective’ or ‘rational’. But we all know that isn’t the case.

    There can be no scientific justification for anti-racism anymore than racism. (Again, how ever you define those words meanings) You can make rational arguments for how best to achieve a goal desired through an emotional motivation but eventually you come to the hard ground of an emotion that has no reason, it just is.

    • Replies: @Old Prude
    @Altai

    Preference for one's kin has a very solid reason: Continuation of one's genetic legacy. Eat, survive, reproduce. The biological imperative of every living organism except white liberal women.

  4. This is off the point, but Africans are more genetically diverse than non-Africans. Similarly, there is more diversity among maize/corn types in Mexico (the “homeland” of maize), more diversity within the apple forests in Almaty Kazakhstan (the “homeland” of apples), etc.

    • Agree: JLK
    • Replies: @jamie b.
    @Guest29048


    ...Africans are more genetically diverse than non-Africans.
     
    And the Saan are more diverse than non-Saan Africans.
    , @RonaldB
    @Guest29048

    If you look at Ed Dutton's https://www.amazon.com/Making-Sense-Race-Edward-Dutton/dp/1593680716/ref=sr_1_1?crid=PC920CE0VFR9&dchild=1&keywords=making+sense+of+race+edward+dutton&qid=1632064333&sprefix=making+sense+of+race%2Caps%2C177&sr=8-1 you'll see that genetic diversity within a group is an inverse effect of environmental stress. A group that lives in a stressful environment in a Darwinian sense has less margin for genetic diversity. They live close to the edge of survival and their survival depends on efficient group functioning. Living in a food-rich, ecologically-friendly environment, like an African jungle, allows greater genetic diversity within the group, as the group dynamics are not so connected to actual survival.

  5. Steve, are you a member?

  6. The notion that noticeable, measurable differences are a social construct is itself a social construct.

    But let’s not go down that path. Stop noticing, and stop measuring, or we will make sure that you find out what is meant by social deconstruction.

  7. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:

    I’m not conversant with academia geneticist argot, but the tenor of the 2018 bit strikes me as desperate lying, oblique threatening, and an unmistakably sullen effort at peer-pressure suasion. It’s not just “They believe their own b.s.,” you can sense the defensiveness and guilty conscience from this kind of screed.

    Now maybe that helps with shaking down \$\$ but doesn’t it injure ASHG’s professional rep (to anyone else who has heard of em)? The confident never resort to finger-wagging “open letters.” Stanford and Harvard don’t put this kind of charity-solicitation guilt-you-into-donating boilerplate on their application forms. The IRS doesn’t say, “We’ve debunked your legal theory of being exempt from taxes.”

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
  8. Although residents, transients, and offshore orcas are all members of the same species, they have not been observed to interbreed. Resident killer whales inhabit the inland waters of Washington and British Columbia.

    https://ptmsc.org/programs/investigate/citizen-science/completed-projects/orca-project/resident-and-transient-orcas

    It’s okay in the rest of the animal kingdom, just not for the human animal.

  9. There is considerable genetic overlap among members of different populations. Such patterns of genome variation are explained by patterns of migration and mixing of different populations throughout human history. In this way, genetics exposes the concept of “racial purity” as scientifically meaningless.

    There is considerable sub-atomic overlap among different elements in the Periodic Table. I mean, they’re all made from the same three constituents: protons, neutrons, and electrons. In this way, physics exposes the concept of “elemental purity” as scientifically meaningless. There is no meaningful difference between nitrogen and cobalt.

    It follows that there can be no genetics-based support for claiming one group as superior to another.

    Note how they conflate racial difference with “racial purity”, and then conflate that again with “racial superiority”. Time was when scientists would have recognized such a logical error. It seems that increasingly scientists just aren’t very good. Science is dying.

    • Thanks: Some Guy
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Mr. Anon


    It follows that there can be no genetics-based support for claiming one group as superior to another.
     
    These 8 colored guys beg to differ:

    https://www.deccanherald.com/sites/dh/files/styles/article_detail/public/articleimages/2021/07/29/635603-01-02-1-1014286-1627565952.jpg?itok=T6pQOred
    , @Francis Miville
    @Mr. Anon

    Science is not dying. American science has chosen to decline for ideological reasons, while Saudi Arabia, China and India are watching. Anyway all what is happening is that genetics is increasingly kept secret from the public by corporations who are more advanced than ever. It has just been decided that from now on American whites will be barred from higher scientific education lest they threaten to destabilize once more the world financial oligarchy with their inventions, and that they should stay at middle level while very high level specialists will be imported from now on, as was the American practice during the 19th century when most advanced scientific concepts were off limits for most American universities that were then submitted to religious ideological constraints in most states : there was no equation made then between higher standards of living and scientific advancement and most prosperous Whites tried not to get too engrossed by too progressive science. Science doesn't count on America to advance any more than it counted on USSR and China during most of the 20th century.

    Actually 360dg open-mindedness as was often advocated by the Indian most educated classes traditionally is not that good for scientific progress : it seems that the progress of detailed scientific knowledge in definite directions such as engineering or electronics goes abreast with ideological censorship in the realm of greater ideas. One thing is sure : Iranian geneticists will never be impressed by the declarations made by their American colleagues. In India there is no tradition of intellectual censorship but you are considered a nice person worthy of talking to only if you are good at fraud and disinformation first, only if you are at war with common humanity, only if you have given up all hope to leave behind a better world. Science is not dying, it is being privatized while the decision has been taken since long by the scientists to feed the general public with myths. America, together with Israel, is a nation committed to pure evil, it is a Barbaresque pirate country like there were so many others in the 18th century with the difference they learned to have professionals of Protestant-style moral indignation on their side, and any new as to American science declining in comparison with other great powers is good news. Afghanistan is now prohibiting girls to attend secondary schools and universities but in seven years at most you will hear about Afghanistan as one of the richest emirates of all, from rare earths and from legal opium sold to big Pharma for the devising of psychiatric medications.

    Replies: @RonaldB, @Jack D

  10. “race itself is a social construct. ”

    Society is a racial construct.

    • Thanks: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @Bert
    @Mike Tre

    Indeed. And extending that thought further: Society is an extended phenotype. The geographic variation in complexity of human society goes beyond the phenotypic distinctiveness required to define subspecies. Societal complexity defines three extant species of Homo: 1. Australian-New Guinean aborigines, 2. Sub-Saharan Africans, and 3.Eurasians-Amerindians. Species limits used by zoologists would consider interfertility irrelevant in the face of such extreme differences in extended phenotypes. Do your own thought experiment with continental isolates of beavers which differ so greatly in the complexity of their constructions.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Mike Tre

    Isn't any physical object or mental concept defined by a word a social construct?

    I mean, at some point a group of people or a person decided that a slab of wood or stone held up by other objects would be defined as a "table" in English or "der Tisch" auf Deutsche. (See what I did there. )

    Where does a table end and a desk begin? Social constructs. There's no reason to distinguish between the two, other than, of course, it's useful.

    Literally, everything with a word attached to it is a social construct. Therefore, this idea that pointing out that something is a social construct somehow invalidates it is insane and shows an almost unimaginable amount of stupidity by the person making the claim.

    Replies: @res

  11. Word games and argument by anecdote.

    Notice the bizarre caricature opponents with the the Black and white fallacy https://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html , while employing the Argument of the beard (a continuum proves no difference) fallacy https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/cgi-bin/uy/webpages.cgi?/logicalfallacies/Argument-of-the-Beard.

    Yes, the continuum argument is a recognized logical fallacy.

    • Replies: @Polistra
    @Dr. DoomNGloom

    Logical fallacies? The very sound of that is white supremacist.

    What say we shut those little websites down like a good boy?

    , @Jack D
    @Dr. DoomNGloom

    What is really amazing is that an ostensibly scientific organization not only falls prey to such obvious known fallacies but loudly and proudly insists on them and demands that you go along with them.

    People talk about speaking truth to power but in most cases it's entirely the other way 'round - Power has a little chat with Truth (nice little Society you got there, Truth. Be a shame if anything happened to it) and next thing you know, Truth is singing the praises of Power and declaiming the Party Line. Truth just wants a quiet life looking at fruit flies in the microscope or something (or else they wouldn't have chosen this business in the first place) and doesn't want to get involved in politics, so when Power comes by to threaten them they fold like a cheap suit.

    What I would really like to see is the hostage video where the head of the ASHG is robotically mouthing this script on screen but his eyes are blinking SOS in Morse code.

    Replies: @Dr. DoomNGloom

  12. For gene, gene, roses are red
    And all of the leaves have gone green
    While the hills are ablaze with genetic nosegays
    Come into my arms, bonnie gene

    Gene, gene, you’re young and alive!!
    Come out of your half-creamed dream
    And run, if you can, to the top of the strand
    Come into my lab, bonnie gene

    [MORE]

  13. @Guest29048
    This is off the point, but Africans are more genetically diverse than non-Africans. Similarly, there is more diversity among maize/corn types in Mexico (the "homeland" of maize), more diversity within the apple forests in Almaty Kazakhstan (the "homeland" of apples), etc.

    Replies: @jamie b., @RonaldB

    …Africans are more genetically diverse than non-Africans.

    And the Saan are more diverse than non-Saan Africans.

  14. Most human genetic variation is distributed as a gradient, so distinct boundaries between population groups cannot be accurately assigned.

    Right, for example, it’s not really possible to call some people “tall” and other people “short”, or some people “smart” and other people “mentally retarded” because intelligence and height exist on a gradient.

    It’s also not possible to distinguish between a gentle breeze and a hurricane for the same reason. Who is to say when a gentle breeze ends and a hurricane begins? These are arbitrary distinctions and imaginary lines drawn between things that are in fact distributed on a gradient so that distinct boundaries can not be accurate assigned.

    • Thanks: Joseph Doaks
    • LOL: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @res
    @Jack D

    That fallacy has many names, but I like "The Continuum Fallacy."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox#Continuum_fallacy

    Playing "Hunt the fallacy" with that article is entertaining, but not terribly challenging.

    P.S. Steve, it doesn't seem quite fair to say "we aren’t going to demean ourselves by providing examples" when that paragraph was followed by six references. Even if only two were recent and all looked pretty pathetic.

    , @Joseph Doaks
    @Jack D

    "Who is to say when a gentle breeze ends and a hurricane begins? These are arbitrary distinctions and imaginary lines drawn between things that are in fact distributed on a gradient so that distinct boundaries can not be accurate assigned."

    Great comparison!

  15. @Mr. Anon

    There is considerable genetic overlap among members of different populations. Such patterns of genome variation are explained by patterns of migration and mixing of different populations throughout human history. In this way, genetics exposes the concept of “racial purity” as scientifically meaningless.
     
    There is considerable sub-atomic overlap among different elements in the Periodic Table. I mean, they're all made from the same three constituents: protons, neutrons, and electrons. In this way, physics exposes the concept of "elemental purity" as scientifically meaningless. There is no meaningful difference between nitrogen and cobalt.

    It follows that there can be no genetics-based support for claiming one group as superior to another.
     
    Note how they conflate racial difference with "racial purity", and then conflate that again with "racial superiority". Time was when scientists would have recognized such a logical error. It seems that increasingly scientists just aren't very good. Science is dying.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Francis Miville

    It follows that there can be no genetics-based support for claiming one group as superior to another.

    These 8 colored guys beg to differ:

    • Thanks: Redneck farmer
  16. stalin — the bourgeoisie
    hitler — the jews
    globohomogayplexistan — poor whites

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @anon

    The only one not thinking of number 1 and running a scam was Hitler.

    Replies: @anon

  17. It would appear that we are entering the new dark ages, ironically just when people are traveling into space in (slightly) increasing numbers.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Escher

    They'll never leave orbit since we've lost civilizational capacity for extra-orbital travel.

    I think we have a pretty good idea what the Great Filter actually is, and it's in front of us.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  18. Okay, so everybody is the same and nobody is identifiably different from anybody else. Got it. I’m right on board with that.

    Now, when do I get my reparations check?

  19. @Dr. DoomNGloom
    Word games and argument by anecdote.

    Notice the bizarre caricature opponents with the the Black and white fallacy https://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html , while employing the Argument of the beard (a continuum proves no difference) fallacy https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/cgi-bin/uy/webpages.cgi?/logicalfallacies/Argument-of-the-Beard.

    Yes, the continuum argument is a recognized logical fallacy.

    Replies: @Polistra, @Jack D

    Logical fallacies? The very sound of that is white supremacist.

    What say we shut those little websites down like a good boy?

  20. Is this the first era when one can be told at the same time that everyone is special and everyone is the same?

    Society is a woman experiencing a nervous breakdown in a tight feedback loop every single day.

    Bring the salts.

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
  21. Strangely enough, the “social construct” idea was already known in the 1940s, when Karl Popper had patiently explained that ALL concepts – not particularly the BAD ones – are constructs for the sake of easily wording sentences – the sentences however were more than mere constructs because they could be true or false (or, for a finer measurement, “verisimilar”).
    So much erudite philosophy of science – so easily forgotten by the scientific communities.

  22. @Mike Tre
    "race itself is a social construct. "

    Society is a racial construct.

    Replies: @Bert, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Indeed. And extending that thought further: Society is an extended phenotype. The geographic variation in complexity of human society goes beyond the phenotypic distinctiveness required to define subspecies. Societal complexity defines three extant species of Homo: 1. Australian-New Guinean aborigines, 2. Sub-Saharan Africans, and 3.Eurasians-Amerindians. Species limits used by zoologists would consider interfertility irrelevant in the face of such extreme differences in extended phenotypes. Do your own thought experiment with continental isolates of beavers which differ so greatly in the complexity of their constructions.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Bert

    In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy for which various definitions exist. We have seen that races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species, or they may be defined in geographical or physiological categories. Forensic anthropologists (and geneticists) are employing the term “genetic ancestry”. Genomes from reference populations around the globe have been collected, with the most diversity found in African populations. “There is much more diversity between them than the combined African genome would have between the European genome,” says Nicolas Robine, director of computational biology at the New York Genome Center (NYGC), a nonprofit academic research institution that serves as a collaborative hub for genomic research. “The proportion that is variable is very small, compared to that which is common to everybody.”

    https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/forensic.2021.0004

    http://eknygos.lsmuni.lt/springer/657/281-316.pdf

    Indeed, race is partially based on physical similarities within groups that are patently obvious to the naked eye, but it was assigned by us–human beings–to have an inherent physical or biological meaning. Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time.

    –In the 1700’s, Carl Linnaeus four “varieties” of humans (Europaeus albus, Americanus rubescens, Asiaticus fuscus, and Africanus niger), even going so far as to specify behavioral characteristics–Americanus as “unyielding, cheerful, free”; Europaeus as “light, wise, inventor”; Asiaticus as “stern, haughty, greedy”; and Africanus as “sly, sluggish, neglectful”. Clearly, Linnaeus was basing these characteristics on social conventions.

    –In the early 1800’s, Samuel Morton used his collection of human skulls to link the size and shape of them to correlate each with intelligence, and his imagined hierarchy was employed by white Northerners and Southerns to justify slavey.

    –Then there is Louis Agassiz who touted that different races of humanity were of different origins.

    –My personal favorite, however, is Madison Grant.

    Source –> https://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/White.htm


    “Between 1880 and WWI, the United States experienced large waves of European immigration. These “new immigrants” however did not come from northern Europe and represented a frightening diversity to many. The difference perceived in these immigrants was frequently described as a racial difference in which Europeans were represented as, not one, but many races identified by region (Alpine, Mediterranean, Slavic and Nordic) or by alleged head shape (roundheads, slopeheads). Madison Grant, a biologist and curator for the American Museum of Natural History in New York explained in his book “The Passing of the Great Race that White Americans”, the great race, were losing out to hordes of inferior European immigrants. Grant’s book was so popular it experienced 7 reprints before WWII. According to Grant, “These new immigrants were no longer exclusively members of the Nordic race as were the earlier ones…The transportation lines advertised America as a land flowing with milk and honey and the European governments took the opportunity to unload upon careless, wealthy and hospitable America the sweepings of their jails and asylums…Our jails, insane asylums and almshouses are filled with this human flotsam and the whole tone of american life, social, moral and political has been lowered and vulgarized by them.”
     
    So, which taxonomy ought to be the “standard”? Are all somehow on equal intellectual and biological footing, or is one more precise compared to the rest?

    Replies: @Jack D, @jamie b., @Drapetomaniac

  23. @Altai
    I once had a biology professor do the Lewotin thing and determine that since there was more variation within populations (Which are or aren't social constructs? Aren't they biological reality?) that in his words "there is no scientific basis for racism" but racism (Whether it is defined in the way we openly pretend it's meant in terms of hatred and contempt for an outgroup for it's own sake or in the true meaning of the term in 2021, white ethnocentrism of any level) isn't about science or objectivity.

    A scientifically-founded argument may be made for pre-existing ingroup-outgroup identification and discrimination but it's just that, a justification. Like any argument against it. It existed before there was any science to justify it or not.

    There is no 'logical' reason for me or anyone to be concerned with my kin or not, it's not based on reason it is a foundational emotional motivation. And if those who cried most intently about 'racism' were inclined to not possess this emotion (Or an inversion of it where they deeply respect and are concerned with the collective well-being and interests of outgroup populations without concern for their own) I might believe they were being 'objective' or 'rational'. But we all know that isn't the case.

    There can be no scientific justification for anti-racism anymore than racism. (Again, how ever you define those words meanings) You can make rational arguments for how best to achieve a goal desired through an emotional motivation but eventually you come to the hard ground of an emotion that has no reason, it just is.

    Replies: @Old Prude

    Preference for one’s kin has a very solid reason: Continuation of one’s genetic legacy. Eat, survive, reproduce. The biological imperative of every living organism except white liberal women.

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
  24. @anon
    stalin --- the bourgeoisie
    hitler --- the jews
    globohomogayplexistan --- poor whites

    Replies: @El Dato

    The only one not thinking of number 1 and running a scam was Hitler.

    • Replies: @anon
    @El Dato

    but contrary to popular opinion:

    trump's base is much better off economically than average.

    the nazis' base was the petit bourgeois, professionals, university students...they were "radical chic" at the time. so many top flight intellectuals were nazis when the nazi party was like the green party. the famous book burning wasn't a government directive. it was the university students.

    so you see: we all live in north korea and have always lived in north korea, but only a very few of us know it.

  25. Shouldn’t you know basic biology to be a human geneticist?

  26. Quite persuasive. I call upon the American Kennel Club to abolish its unfair classification of companion animals into artificial categories like “German Shepherd” and “Golden Retriever.” There is only canis lupus familiarus, and any attempt to subcategorize or evaluate differing traits of dogs is enabling genetics-based claims of superiority.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Arclight

    The dog breeds example is by far the best way to hand hold Normies into the issue of racial differences.

    Replies: @Arclight

  27. @Mr. Anon

    There is considerable genetic overlap among members of different populations. Such patterns of genome variation are explained by patterns of migration and mixing of different populations throughout human history. In this way, genetics exposes the concept of “racial purity” as scientifically meaningless.
     
    There is considerable sub-atomic overlap among different elements in the Periodic Table. I mean, they're all made from the same three constituents: protons, neutrons, and electrons. In this way, physics exposes the concept of "elemental purity" as scientifically meaningless. There is no meaningful difference between nitrogen and cobalt.

    It follows that there can be no genetics-based support for claiming one group as superior to another.
     
    Note how they conflate racial difference with "racial purity", and then conflate that again with "racial superiority". Time was when scientists would have recognized such a logical error. It seems that increasingly scientists just aren't very good. Science is dying.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Francis Miville

    Science is not dying. American science has chosen to decline for ideological reasons, while Saudi Arabia, China and India are watching. Anyway all what is happening is that genetics is increasingly kept secret from the public by corporations who are more advanced than ever. It has just been decided that from now on American whites will be barred from higher scientific education lest they threaten to destabilize once more the world financial oligarchy with their inventions, and that they should stay at middle level while very high level specialists will be imported from now on, as was the American practice during the 19th century when most advanced scientific concepts were off limits for most American universities that were then submitted to religious ideological constraints in most states : there was no equation made then between higher standards of living and scientific advancement and most prosperous Whites tried not to get too engrossed by too progressive science. Science doesn’t count on America to advance any more than it counted on USSR and China during most of the 20th century.

    Actually 360dg open-mindedness as was often advocated by the Indian most educated classes traditionally is not that good for scientific progress : it seems that the progress of detailed scientific knowledge in definite directions such as engineering or electronics goes abreast with ideological censorship in the realm of greater ideas. One thing is sure : Iranian geneticists will never be impressed by the declarations made by their American colleagues. In India there is no tradition of intellectual censorship but you are considered a nice person worthy of talking to only if you are good at fraud and disinformation first, only if you are at war with common humanity, only if you have given up all hope to leave behind a better world. Science is not dying, it is being privatized while the decision has been taken since long by the scientists to feed the general public with myths. America, together with Israel, is a nation committed to pure evil, it is a Barbaresque pirate country like there were so many others in the 18th century with the difference they learned to have professionals of Protestant-style moral indignation on their side, and any new as to American science declining in comparison with other great powers is good news. Afghanistan is now prohibiting girls to attend secondary schools and universities but in seven years at most you will hear about Afghanistan as one of the richest emirates of all, from rare earths and from legal opium sold to big Pharma for the devising of psychiatric medications.

    • Replies: @RonaldB
    @Francis Miville

    You make a good argument, but I think you confound scientific creativity with engineering prowess. As detailed in https://www.amazon.com/Genius-Famine-Geniuses-Theyre-Rescue-ebook/dp/B07TWZGZDJ/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=the+genius+famine&qid=1632065400&sr=8-2 scientific and technological innovations depend not only on high IQ, but on certain moderately-deviant personality traits and a society tolerant to those deviant personality traits. I wouldn't expect to see much innovation out of either China or Iran, as these are societies that fiercely suppress deviance. Although either or both are capable of developing fearsome weapons with technology they have already stolen or bought. Russia might become a center of technological innovation; even in the USSR, scientists had great leeway for ideas as long as they didn't get overtly political.

    I think you have a point concerning private corporations, although if they are centers of innovation, they are also centers of thought-suppression. I wonder how long they can maintain that dichotomy. My own preference is that US corporations be limited to US citizens on their boards of directors, and barred from owning any foreign subsidiaries. If a corporation wants to register with the Cayman Islands and look to the Cayman Islands for protection, I send them my compliments and wish them good luck.

    , @Jack D
    @Francis Miville

    Every word you have written is wrong, including and, or and if. The US (and Israel) will continue to be leading technological innovators and Afghanistan will continue to be the shithole country that it has always been.

  28. Genghis was Down’s.

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    @Desiderius

    But was was he down with the brown?

  29. “Are meant to” is passive voice. Who are the meaners? Can we validate this sentiment?

  30. Anybody who wants to and has decent drone technology. Before that it’s the same people who have them now – the people who build them and pay for those who vote to continue doing so.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Desiderius


    If the US breaks up, who gets the aircraft carriers?
     
    Hopefully, the West and Midwest won't be as STUPID as Ukraine and deprive themselves of thermonuclear forces. Wouldn't want the NE Axis of Evil threatening us with destruction without counterstrike capability.

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fe/a3/7b/fea37b7dfa302721c17a9054aee69dc2.jpg
  31. @Escher
    It would appear that we are entering the new dark ages, ironically just when people are traveling into space in (slightly) increasing numbers.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    They’ll never leave orbit since we’ve lost civilizational capacity for extra-orbital travel.

    I think we have a pretty good idea what the Great Filter actually is, and it’s in front of us.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    “I think we have a pretty good idea what the Great Filter actually is, and it’s in front of us.”

    Indeed. There has been a marked increase the past 5 years in confirmation bias among the Coalition of The Fringes. as well as elites such as yourself, and it’s now cascading to normies. One has to vigilant against succumbing to it. But being aware of it is half the battle. What’s your excuse?

    Replies: @El Dato, @The Anti-Gnostic

  32. @Mike Tre
    "race itself is a social construct. "

    Society is a racial construct.

    Replies: @Bert, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Isn’t any physical object or mental concept defined by a word a social construct?

    I mean, at some point a group of people or a person decided that a slab of wood or stone held up by other objects would be defined as a “table” in English or “der Tisch” auf Deutsche. (See what I did there. )

    Where does a table end and a desk begin? Social constructs. There’s no reason to distinguish between the two, other than, of course, it’s useful.

    Literally, everything with a word attached to it is a social construct. Therefore, this idea that pointing out that something is a social construct somehow invalidates it is insane and shows an almost unimaginable amount of stupidity by the person making the claim.

    • Replies: @res
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    I like responding to the race is a social construct claim with: “Race is a social construct overlaid on a biological reality.”

    Elaboration at https://www.unz.com/isteve/sailer-what-if-im-right/#comment-4696179

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

  33. @Arclight
    Quite persuasive. I call upon the American Kennel Club to abolish its unfair classification of companion animals into artificial categories like "German Shepherd" and "Golden Retriever." There is only canis lupus familiarus, and any attempt to subcategorize or evaluate differing traits of dogs is enabling genetics-based claims of superiority.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    The dog breeds example is by far the best way to hand hold Normies into the issue of racial differences.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Arclight
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Yeah, it's a pretty easy comparison to make - people readily accept that selective pressures result in a wide range of physical and behavioral traits within a particular animal species, but when it comes to humans evolution goes right out the window because of the mental distress it causes.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Joseph Doaks

  34. The American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) is alarmed to see a societal resurgence of groups rejecting the value of genetic diversity and using discredited or distorted genetic concepts to bolster bogus claims of white supremacy.

    You have to love it when the first sentence of a scientific article includes really scientific words like “discredited, distorted” and (especially) “bogus.” To me, those words fit in a kind of opinion becomes fact category.

  35. Anyone who believes race is a social construct should be forced to march through Detroit at 1AM.

    Allow them their choice of body armor and weapons.

  36. H. sapiens is the only species in which cognitive speciation could be applied. Those whose thinking is emotional should be H. sapiens v.1 and those whose thinking is STEM should be H. sapiens v.2.

    Left to their own devices, v.1 would sink back into the animal world and v.2 would go to the stars.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Drapetomaniac

    This has nothing to do with speciation (which implies lack of ability to interbreed) but with the creation and maintenance of separate breeds within a single species. There are separate breeds of humans just like there are separate breeds of cattle or dogs or corn. One breed of cattle is especially good for giving milk, another for producing milk. One breed might be suited for hot dry climates and another might thrive in cold damp areas. It's useful to have these separate breeds and not have everything mixed together like village dogs who are a mix of everything and have no special skills or attributes - they're not especially smart or especially fast or especially good at following a scent or at doing anything. They can do all of these things, but none of them especially well. Human breeds arose as a result of geographic and cultural isolation but we are in danger of losing them and turning the world into Brazil, where except for a small (white) elite, everyone is a sort of human equivalent of a village dog.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Drapetomaniac

  37. Academicians are other-directed people of weak character, with a scatter of exceptions. See Fr. Paul Shaughnessy’s article on ‘sociological corruption’ and you’ll see a description of just about any institute of higher education you’d care to name.

    • Agree: Jack D
  38. @Dr. DoomNGloom
    Word games and argument by anecdote.

    Notice the bizarre caricature opponents with the the Black and white fallacy https://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html , while employing the Argument of the beard (a continuum proves no difference) fallacy https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/cgi-bin/uy/webpages.cgi?/logicalfallacies/Argument-of-the-Beard.

    Yes, the continuum argument is a recognized logical fallacy.

    Replies: @Polistra, @Jack D

    What is really amazing is that an ostensibly scientific organization not only falls prey to such obvious known fallacies but loudly and proudly insists on them and demands that you go along with them.

    People talk about speaking truth to power but in most cases it’s entirely the other way ’round – Power has a little chat with Truth (nice little Society you got there, Truth. Be a shame if anything happened to it) and next thing you know, Truth is singing the praises of Power and declaiming the Party Line. Truth just wants a quiet life looking at fruit flies in the microscope or something (or else they wouldn’t have chosen this business in the first place) and doesn’t want to get involved in politics, so when Power comes by to threaten them they fold like a cheap suit.

    What I would really like to see is the hostage video where the head of the ASHG is robotically mouthing this script on screen but his eyes are blinking SOS in Morse code.

    • Replies: @Dr. DoomNGloom
    @Jack D


    What is really amazing is that an ostensibly scientific organization not only falls prey to such obvious known fallacies but loudly and proudly insists on them and demands that you go along with them.
     
    There is often little scientific about sociology. A few of them use fairly sophisticated mathematics, but most of any use was developed by psychologists. While they should be aware of cluster analysis, most of them read like literary critics who Lin Manuel Miranda's self effacing humor about their own innumeracy. I'm certain they don't understand fuzzy logic or rough sets, and that's a disqualification for having an educated and scholarly opinion.

    The race question is usually denounced with some semantic nonsense that shows utter ignorance of fuzzy and rough set theory that is 50+ years old. See for example, https://faculty.washington.edu/mdecock/papers/ccornelis2008z.pdf

    At the risk of misstating, fuzzy sets set a probability of class membership, vaguely like a quantum superposition.
    Rough sets look at the frequency population near the boundary, (a bimodal distribution may have two completely distinct peaks separated by a void, or there may be some overlay. This also happens in physical systems because of quantum uncertainty or macroscopic variations.

    I don't know that iSteve is familiar with the math of fuzzy and roughs, but he clearly understands the concepts. That MBA has been useful. But moonlighting English Lit dropouts seem to have taken over sociology.
  39. @Guest29048
    This is off the point, but Africans are more genetically diverse than non-Africans. Similarly, there is more diversity among maize/corn types in Mexico (the "homeland" of maize), more diversity within the apple forests in Almaty Kazakhstan (the "homeland" of apples), etc.

    Replies: @jamie b., @RonaldB

    If you look at Ed Dutton’s https://www.amazon.com/Making-Sense-Race-Edward-Dutton/dp/1593680716/ref=sr_1_1?crid=PC920CE0VFR9&dchild=1&keywords=making+sense+of+race+edward+dutton&qid=1632064333&sprefix=making+sense+of+race%2Caps%2C177&sr=8-1 you’ll see that genetic diversity within a group is an inverse effect of environmental stress. A group that lives in a stressful environment in a Darwinian sense has less margin for genetic diversity. They live close to the edge of survival and their survival depends on efficient group functioning. Living in a food-rich, ecologically-friendly environment, like an African jungle, allows greater genetic diversity within the group, as the group dynamics are not so connected to actual survival.

  40. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Escher

    They'll never leave orbit since we've lost civilizational capacity for extra-orbital travel.

    I think we have a pretty good idea what the Great Filter actually is, and it's in front of us.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “I think we have a pretty good idea what the Great Filter actually is, and it’s in front of us.”

    Indeed. There has been a marked increase the past 5 years in confirmation bias among the Coalition of The Fringes. as well as elites such as yourself, and it’s now cascading to normies. One has to vigilant against succumbing to it. But being aware of it is half the battle. What’s your excuse?

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @Corvinus

    Personally, I'm partial to Charles' Stross idea of the Great Filter, which doesn't involve people falling prey to confirmation bias.

    From "Missile Gap" (available legit'ly on the Internet)


    Sagan sighs. “Okay, play it your way.” He closes his menu. “Ready to order?”

    “I believe so.” Gregor looks at him. “The spaghetti al’ polpette is really good here,” he adds.

    “Really?” Sagan smiles. “Then I’ll try it.”

    They order, and Gregor waits for the waiter to depart before he continues. “Suppose there’s an alien race out there. More than one. You know about the multiple copies of Earth. The uninhabited ones. We’ve been here before. Now let’s see...suppose the aliens aren’t like us. Some of them are recognizable, tribal primates who use tools made out of metal, seadwelling ensemble entities who communicate by ultrasound. But others – most of them – are social insects who use amazingly advanced biological engineering to grow what they need. There’s some evidence that they’ve colonized some of the empty Earths. They’re aggressive and territorial and they’re so different that...well, for one thing we think they don’t actually have conscious minds except when they need them. They control their own genetic code and build living organisms tailored to whatever tasks they want carrying out. There’s no evidence that they want to talk to us, and some evidence that they may have emptied some of those empty Earths of their human population. And because of their, um, decentralized ecosystem and biological engineering, conventional policy solutions won’t work. The military ones, I mean.”

    Gregor watches Sagan’s face intently as he describes the scenario. There is a slight cooling of the exobiologist’s cheeks as his peripheral arteries contract with shock: his pupils dilate and his respiration rate increases. Sour pheromones begin to diffuse from his sweat ducts and organs in Gregor’s nasal sinuses respond to them.

    “You’re kidding?” Sagan half-asks. He sounds disappointed about something.

    “I wish I was.” Gregor generates a faint smile and exhales breath laden with oxytocin and other peptide messengers fine-tuned to human metabolism. In the kitchen, the temporary chef who is standing in for the regular one–off sick, due to a bout of food poisoning – will be preparing Sagan’s dish. Humans are creatures of habit: once his meal arrives the astronomer will eat it, taking solace in good food. (Such a shame about the chef.)

    “They’re not like us. SETI assumes that NHIs are conscious and welcome communication with humans and, in fact, that humans aren’t atypical. But let’s suppose that humans are atypical. The human species has only been around for about a third of a million years, and has only been making metal tools and building settlements for ten thousand. What if the default for sapient species is measured in the millions of years? And they develop strong defense mechanisms to prevent other species moving into their territory?”

    “That’s incredibly depressing,” Sagan admits after a minute’s contemplation. “I’m not sure I believe it without seeing some more evidence. That’s why we wanted to use the Arecibo dish to send a message, you know. The other disks are far enough away that we’re safe, whatever they send back: they can’t possibly throw missiles at us, not with a surface escape velocity of twenty thousand miles per second, and if they send unpleasant messages we can stick our fingers in our ears.”
     
    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Corvinus

    You're increasingly incoherent.

  41. @Drapetomaniac
    H. sapiens is the only species in which cognitive speciation could be applied. Those whose thinking is emotional should be H. sapiens v.1 and those whose thinking is STEM should be H. sapiens v.2.

    Left to their own devices, v.1 would sink back into the animal world and v.2 would go to the stars.

    Replies: @Jack D

    This has nothing to do with speciation (which implies lack of ability to interbreed) but with the creation and maintenance of separate breeds within a single species. There are separate breeds of humans just like there are separate breeds of cattle or dogs or corn. One breed of cattle is especially good for giving milk, another for producing milk. One breed might be suited for hot dry climates and another might thrive in cold damp areas. It’s useful to have these separate breeds and not have everything mixed together like village dogs who are a mix of everything and have no special skills or attributes – they’re not especially smart or especially fast or especially good at following a scent or at doing anything. They can do all of these things, but none of them especially well. Human breeds arose as a result of geographic and cultural isolation but we are in danger of losing them and turning the world into Brazil, where except for a small (white) elite, everyone is a sort of human equivalent of a village dog.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Jack D

    “There are separate breeds of humans just like there are separate breeds of cattle or dogs or corn.”

    Simply put, no.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Drapetomaniac
    @Jack D

    spe•ci•a•tion (ˌspi ʃiˈeɪ ʃən, -siˈeɪ-)

    n.
    the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.

    Behavior wise, I would never have offspring with a government lover. Completely incompatible.

    Like having offspring with a monkey that loves its troop.

  42. @Hangnail Hans
    Once upon a time, "science" didn't mean the same thing as "self-contradictory, politically correct, mealy-mouthed tripe" but those days are long gone now.

    Replies: @Drapetomaniac, @Colin Wright, @BB753

    Probably because back then the ones that were scientists were born scientists. Now they are ‘made’ scientists because of government diploma mills.

    Now most of them think science is pleasing their masters and having a secure job.

  43. @Jack D
    @Dr. DoomNGloom

    What is really amazing is that an ostensibly scientific organization not only falls prey to such obvious known fallacies but loudly and proudly insists on them and demands that you go along with them.

    People talk about speaking truth to power but in most cases it's entirely the other way 'round - Power has a little chat with Truth (nice little Society you got there, Truth. Be a shame if anything happened to it) and next thing you know, Truth is singing the praises of Power and declaiming the Party Line. Truth just wants a quiet life looking at fruit flies in the microscope or something (or else they wouldn't have chosen this business in the first place) and doesn't want to get involved in politics, so when Power comes by to threaten them they fold like a cheap suit.

    What I would really like to see is the hostage video where the head of the ASHG is robotically mouthing this script on screen but his eyes are blinking SOS in Morse code.

    Replies: @Dr. DoomNGloom

    What is really amazing is that an ostensibly scientific organization not only falls prey to such obvious known fallacies but loudly and proudly insists on them and demands that you go along with them.

    There is often little scientific about sociology. A few of them use fairly sophisticated mathematics, but most of any use was developed by psychologists. While they should be aware of cluster analysis, most of them read like literary critics who Lin Manuel Miranda’s self effacing humor about their own innumeracy. I’m certain they don’t understand fuzzy logic or rough sets, and that’s a disqualification for having an educated and scholarly opinion.

    The race question is usually denounced with some semantic nonsense that shows utter ignorance of fuzzy and rough set theory that is 50+ years old. See for example, https://faculty.washington.edu/mdecock/papers/ccornelis2008z.pdf

    At the risk of misstating, fuzzy sets set a probability of class membership, vaguely like a quantum superposition.
    Rough sets look at the frequency population near the boundary, (a bimodal distribution may have two completely distinct peaks separated by a void, or there may be some overlay. This also happens in physical systems because of quantum uncertainty or macroscopic variations.

    I don’t know that iSteve is familiar with the math of fuzzy and roughs, but he clearly understands the concepts. That MBA has been useful. But moonlighting English Lit dropouts seem to have taken over sociology.

  44. @Francis Miville
    @Mr. Anon

    Science is not dying. American science has chosen to decline for ideological reasons, while Saudi Arabia, China and India are watching. Anyway all what is happening is that genetics is increasingly kept secret from the public by corporations who are more advanced than ever. It has just been decided that from now on American whites will be barred from higher scientific education lest they threaten to destabilize once more the world financial oligarchy with their inventions, and that they should stay at middle level while very high level specialists will be imported from now on, as was the American practice during the 19th century when most advanced scientific concepts were off limits for most American universities that were then submitted to religious ideological constraints in most states : there was no equation made then between higher standards of living and scientific advancement and most prosperous Whites tried not to get too engrossed by too progressive science. Science doesn't count on America to advance any more than it counted on USSR and China during most of the 20th century.

    Actually 360dg open-mindedness as was often advocated by the Indian most educated classes traditionally is not that good for scientific progress : it seems that the progress of detailed scientific knowledge in definite directions such as engineering or electronics goes abreast with ideological censorship in the realm of greater ideas. One thing is sure : Iranian geneticists will never be impressed by the declarations made by their American colleagues. In India there is no tradition of intellectual censorship but you are considered a nice person worthy of talking to only if you are good at fraud and disinformation first, only if you are at war with common humanity, only if you have given up all hope to leave behind a better world. Science is not dying, it is being privatized while the decision has been taken since long by the scientists to feed the general public with myths. America, together with Israel, is a nation committed to pure evil, it is a Barbaresque pirate country like there were so many others in the 18th century with the difference they learned to have professionals of Protestant-style moral indignation on their side, and any new as to American science declining in comparison with other great powers is good news. Afghanistan is now prohibiting girls to attend secondary schools and universities but in seven years at most you will hear about Afghanistan as one of the richest emirates of all, from rare earths and from legal opium sold to big Pharma for the devising of psychiatric medications.

    Replies: @RonaldB, @Jack D

    You make a good argument, but I think you confound scientific creativity with engineering prowess. As detailed in https://www.amazon.com/Genius-Famine-Geniuses-Theyre-Rescue-ebook/dp/B07TWZGZDJ/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=the+genius+famine&qid=1632065400&sr=8-2 scientific and technological innovations depend not only on high IQ, but on certain moderately-deviant personality traits and a society tolerant to those deviant personality traits. I wouldn’t expect to see much innovation out of either China or Iran, as these are societies that fiercely suppress deviance. Although either or both are capable of developing fearsome weapons with technology they have already stolen or bought. Russia might become a center of technological innovation; even in the USSR, scientists had great leeway for ideas as long as they didn’t get overtly political.

    I think you have a point concerning private corporations, although if they are centers of innovation, they are also centers of thought-suppression. I wonder how long they can maintain that dichotomy. My own preference is that US corporations be limited to US citizens on their boards of directors, and barred from owning any foreign subsidiaries. If a corporation wants to register with the Cayman Islands and look to the Cayman Islands for protection, I send them my compliments and wish them good luck.

  45. @Bert
    @Mike Tre

    Indeed. And extending that thought further: Society is an extended phenotype. The geographic variation in complexity of human society goes beyond the phenotypic distinctiveness required to define subspecies. Societal complexity defines three extant species of Homo: 1. Australian-New Guinean aborigines, 2. Sub-Saharan Africans, and 3.Eurasians-Amerindians. Species limits used by zoologists would consider interfertility irrelevant in the face of such extreme differences in extended phenotypes. Do your own thought experiment with continental isolates of beavers which differ so greatly in the complexity of their constructions.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy for which various definitions exist. We have seen that races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species, or they may be defined in geographical or physiological categories. Forensic anthropologists (and geneticists) are employing the term “genetic ancestry”. Genomes from reference populations around the globe have been collected, with the most diversity found in African populations. “There is much more diversity between them than the combined African genome would have between the European genome,” says Nicolas Robine, director of computational biology at the New York Genome Center (NYGC), a nonprofit academic research institution that serves as a collaborative hub for genomic research. “The proportion that is variable is very small, compared to that which is common to everybody.”

    https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/forensic.2021.0004

    http://eknygos.lsmuni.lt/springer/657/281-316.pdf

    Indeed, race is partially based on physical similarities within groups that are patently obvious to the naked eye, but it was assigned by us–human beings–to have an inherent physical or biological meaning. Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time.

    –In the 1700’s, Carl Linnaeus four “varieties” of humans (Europaeus albus, Americanus rubescens, Asiaticus fuscus, and Africanus niger), even going so far as to specify behavioral characteristics–Americanus as “unyielding, cheerful, free”; Europaeus as “light, wise, inventor”; Asiaticus as “stern, haughty, greedy”; and Africanus as “sly, sluggish, neglectful”. Clearly, Linnaeus was basing these characteristics on social conventions.

    –In the early 1800’s, Samuel Morton used his collection of human skulls to link the size and shape of them to correlate each with intelligence, and his imagined hierarchy was employed by white Northerners and Southerns to justify slavey.

    –Then there is Louis Agassiz who touted that different races of humanity were of different origins.

    –My personal favorite, however, is Madison Grant.

    Source –> https://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/White.htm

    “Between 1880 and WWI, the United States experienced large waves of European immigration. These “new immigrants” however did not come from northern Europe and represented a frightening diversity to many. The difference perceived in these immigrants was frequently described as a racial difference in which Europeans were represented as, not one, but many races identified by region (Alpine, Mediterranean, Slavic and Nordic) or by alleged head shape (roundheads, slopeheads). Madison Grant, a biologist and curator for the American Museum of Natural History in New York explained in his book “The Passing of the Great Race that White Americans”, the great race, were losing out to hordes of inferior European immigrants. Grant’s book was so popular it experienced 7 reprints before WWII. According to Grant, “These new immigrants were no longer exclusively members of the Nordic race as were the earlier ones…The transportation lines advertised America as a land flowing with milk and honey and the European governments took the opportunity to unload upon careless, wealthy and hospitable America the sweepings of their jails and asylums…Our jails, insane asylums and almshouses are filled with this human flotsam and the whole tone of american life, social, moral and political has been lowered and vulgarized by them.”

    So, which taxonomy ought to be the “standard”? Are all somehow on equal intellectual and biological footing, or is one more precise compared to the rest?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Corvinus


    Europaeus as “light, wise, inventor”; and Africanus as “sly, sluggish, neglectful”.

     

    Indeed, what nonsense. What have Europeans ever invented? Who has ever seen a sluggish or neglectful African? Such lies were purely the product of racism and bear no relationship whatsoever to anything that Linnaeus might have observed.

    So, which taxonomy ought to be the “standard”?
     
    Indeed, the very fact that there is disagreement and no bright line shows that there should be no taxonomy at all. The very idea of "genus" and "species" itself is tainted with European's anal compulsion to classify everything (it's OK to insult people by race so long as that race is European). Is a horse really a thing apart from a donkey? Is a horse a "better" animal than a rattlesnake? From now on we should just call them "animals", or indeed just "living things" because dividing animals from vegetables is in itself another manifestation of Western thought which is just another name for racism.
    , @jamie b.
    @Corvinus


    So, which taxonomy ought to be the “standard”?
     
    Cluster (distance based) analysis is a reasonably objective tool for identifying races: It is not model based, and brings no preconceptions to how a computer defines the clusters. Regardless of cluster number, the clustering is invariably consistent with geographic boundaries.

    If we set the number of cluster (‘K’) at 5, we have something rather nearly identical to Blumenbach’s classification. Any increase in the number of clusters results in a splitting of clusters previously identified. IOW, increasing K will invariably augment previously determined clusters, rather than form a new pattern.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Drapetomaniac
    @Corvinus

    and his imagined hierarchy was employed by white Northerners and Southerns to justify slavey.

    So how was the thousands of years of slavery justified before that?

  46. @Jack D
    @Drapetomaniac

    This has nothing to do with speciation (which implies lack of ability to interbreed) but with the creation and maintenance of separate breeds within a single species. There are separate breeds of humans just like there are separate breeds of cattle or dogs or corn. One breed of cattle is especially good for giving milk, another for producing milk. One breed might be suited for hot dry climates and another might thrive in cold damp areas. It's useful to have these separate breeds and not have everything mixed together like village dogs who are a mix of everything and have no special skills or attributes - they're not especially smart or especially fast or especially good at following a scent or at doing anything. They can do all of these things, but none of them especially well. Human breeds arose as a result of geographic and cultural isolation but we are in danger of losing them and turning the world into Brazil, where except for a small (white) elite, everyone is a sort of human equivalent of a village dog.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Drapetomaniac

    “There are separate breeds of humans just like there are separate breeds of cattle or dogs or corn.”

    Simply put, no.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Corvinus

    Black dog:

    https://www.dog.com/Breeds/images/AllBreeds/3.jpg

    White dog:

    https://www.thesprucepets.com/thmb/NXOPSWPMLBzpLLU-uCIfc2I0r3I=/2123x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/Samoyed-d78c4bb2c56b4c2ab004dc421441fb10.jpg

    Black human next to a white human:

    https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/553152c/2147483647/resize/1160x/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fcapny%2Ffiles%2Fa-rice-obamasr_0.jpg

    Replies: @Corvinus

  47. @Jack D
    @Drapetomaniac

    This has nothing to do with speciation (which implies lack of ability to interbreed) but with the creation and maintenance of separate breeds within a single species. There are separate breeds of humans just like there are separate breeds of cattle or dogs or corn. One breed of cattle is especially good for giving milk, another for producing milk. One breed might be suited for hot dry climates and another might thrive in cold damp areas. It's useful to have these separate breeds and not have everything mixed together like village dogs who are a mix of everything and have no special skills or attributes - they're not especially smart or especially fast or especially good at following a scent or at doing anything. They can do all of these things, but none of them especially well. Human breeds arose as a result of geographic and cultural isolation but we are in danger of losing them and turning the world into Brazil, where except for a small (white) elite, everyone is a sort of human equivalent of a village dog.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Drapetomaniac

    spe•ci•a•tion (ˌspi ʃiˈeɪ ʃən, -siˈeɪ-)

    n.
    the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.

    Behavior wise, I would never have offspring with a government lover. Completely incompatible.

    Like having offspring with a monkey that loves its troop.

  48. @Corvinus
    @Jack D

    “There are separate breeds of humans just like there are separate breeds of cattle or dogs or corn.”

    Simply put, no.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Black dog:

    White dog:

    Black human next to a white human:

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Jack D

    Humans aren’t breeds similar to dogs.

    https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-019-0109-y

    Several decades ago, well before most of the research we cited here was possible, Montagu (1942) covered familiar territory:

    “Man has bred dogs for certain temperamental qualities useful in the hunt for many centuries. The Irish setter, for example, is always red-haired, but his red hair has no connection with his temperamental qualities. The Irish setter has the same kind of temperament as the English setter, but the hair color of the English setter is white and black. The only difference between the white, the black, the white and black, and the red setters is in their coat color; there are no significant differences in their mental or temperamental qualities. No one ever asks whether there are mental and temperamental differences between white, black, or brown horses—such a question would seem rather silly. When, however, it comes to man, the prejudice of anyone who has ever made the statement that skin color is associated with mental capacity is accepted as gospel. For such an assumption there is about as much justification as there would be for the assumption that there exist substantial differences between different color varieties of setters. We know this to be false concerning setters only because we have paid more unprejudiced attention to the mental qualities of dogs than we have to those of human beings.” (1942; p. 92–3)

    Replies: @Jack D, @blagnot, @jamie b., @Reg Cæsar, @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

  49. @Desiderius
    https://twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/1438704931351842820?s=20

    Anybody who wants to and has decent drone technology. Before that it's the same people who have them now - the people who build them and pay for those who vote to continue doing so.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    If the US breaks up, who gets the aircraft carriers?

    Hopefully, the West and Midwest won’t be as STUPID as Ukraine and deprive themselves of thermonuclear forces. Wouldn’t want the NE Axis of Evil threatening us with destruction without counterstrike capability.

  50. @Francis Miville
    @Mr. Anon

    Science is not dying. American science has chosen to decline for ideological reasons, while Saudi Arabia, China and India are watching. Anyway all what is happening is that genetics is increasingly kept secret from the public by corporations who are more advanced than ever. It has just been decided that from now on American whites will be barred from higher scientific education lest they threaten to destabilize once more the world financial oligarchy with their inventions, and that they should stay at middle level while very high level specialists will be imported from now on, as was the American practice during the 19th century when most advanced scientific concepts were off limits for most American universities that were then submitted to religious ideological constraints in most states : there was no equation made then between higher standards of living and scientific advancement and most prosperous Whites tried not to get too engrossed by too progressive science. Science doesn't count on America to advance any more than it counted on USSR and China during most of the 20th century.

    Actually 360dg open-mindedness as was often advocated by the Indian most educated classes traditionally is not that good for scientific progress : it seems that the progress of detailed scientific knowledge in definite directions such as engineering or electronics goes abreast with ideological censorship in the realm of greater ideas. One thing is sure : Iranian geneticists will never be impressed by the declarations made by their American colleagues. In India there is no tradition of intellectual censorship but you are considered a nice person worthy of talking to only if you are good at fraud and disinformation first, only if you are at war with common humanity, only if you have given up all hope to leave behind a better world. Science is not dying, it is being privatized while the decision has been taken since long by the scientists to feed the general public with myths. America, together with Israel, is a nation committed to pure evil, it is a Barbaresque pirate country like there were so many others in the 18th century with the difference they learned to have professionals of Protestant-style moral indignation on their side, and any new as to American science declining in comparison with other great powers is good news. Afghanistan is now prohibiting girls to attend secondary schools and universities but in seven years at most you will hear about Afghanistan as one of the richest emirates of all, from rare earths and from legal opium sold to big Pharma for the devising of psychiatric medications.

    Replies: @RonaldB, @Jack D

    Every word you have written is wrong, including and, or and if. The US (and Israel) will continue to be leading technological innovators and Afghanistan will continue to be the shithole country that it has always been.

  51. @Corvinus
    @Bert

    In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy for which various definitions exist. We have seen that races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species, or they may be defined in geographical or physiological categories. Forensic anthropologists (and geneticists) are employing the term “genetic ancestry”. Genomes from reference populations around the globe have been collected, with the most diversity found in African populations. “There is much more diversity between them than the combined African genome would have between the European genome,” says Nicolas Robine, director of computational biology at the New York Genome Center (NYGC), a nonprofit academic research institution that serves as a collaborative hub for genomic research. “The proportion that is variable is very small, compared to that which is common to everybody.”

    https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/forensic.2021.0004

    http://eknygos.lsmuni.lt/springer/657/281-316.pdf

    Indeed, race is partially based on physical similarities within groups that are patently obvious to the naked eye, but it was assigned by us–human beings–to have an inherent physical or biological meaning. Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time.

    –In the 1700’s, Carl Linnaeus four “varieties” of humans (Europaeus albus, Americanus rubescens, Asiaticus fuscus, and Africanus niger), even going so far as to specify behavioral characteristics–Americanus as “unyielding, cheerful, free”; Europaeus as “light, wise, inventor”; Asiaticus as “stern, haughty, greedy”; and Africanus as “sly, sluggish, neglectful”. Clearly, Linnaeus was basing these characteristics on social conventions.

    –In the early 1800’s, Samuel Morton used his collection of human skulls to link the size and shape of them to correlate each with intelligence, and his imagined hierarchy was employed by white Northerners and Southerns to justify slavey.

    –Then there is Louis Agassiz who touted that different races of humanity were of different origins.

    –My personal favorite, however, is Madison Grant.

    Source –> https://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/White.htm


    “Between 1880 and WWI, the United States experienced large waves of European immigration. These “new immigrants” however did not come from northern Europe and represented a frightening diversity to many. The difference perceived in these immigrants was frequently described as a racial difference in which Europeans were represented as, not one, but many races identified by region (Alpine, Mediterranean, Slavic and Nordic) or by alleged head shape (roundheads, slopeheads). Madison Grant, a biologist and curator for the American Museum of Natural History in New York explained in his book “The Passing of the Great Race that White Americans”, the great race, were losing out to hordes of inferior European immigrants. Grant’s book was so popular it experienced 7 reprints before WWII. According to Grant, “These new immigrants were no longer exclusively members of the Nordic race as were the earlier ones…The transportation lines advertised America as a land flowing with milk and honey and the European governments took the opportunity to unload upon careless, wealthy and hospitable America the sweepings of their jails and asylums…Our jails, insane asylums and almshouses are filled with this human flotsam and the whole tone of american life, social, moral and political has been lowered and vulgarized by them.”
     
    So, which taxonomy ought to be the “standard”? Are all somehow on equal intellectual and biological footing, or is one more precise compared to the rest?

    Replies: @Jack D, @jamie b., @Drapetomaniac

    Europaeus as “light, wise, inventor”; and Africanus as “sly, sluggish, neglectful”.

    Indeed, what nonsense. What have Europeans ever invented? Who has ever seen a sluggish or neglectful African? Such lies were purely the product of racism and bear no relationship whatsoever to anything that Linnaeus might have observed.

    So, which taxonomy ought to be the “standard”?

    Indeed, the very fact that there is disagreement and no bright line shows that there should be no taxonomy at all. The very idea of “genus” and “species” itself is tainted with European’s anal compulsion to classify everything (it’s OK to insult people by race so long as that race is European). Is a horse really a thing apart from a donkey? Is a horse a “better” animal than a rattlesnake? From now on we should just call them “animals”, or indeed just “living things” because dividing animals from vegetables is in itself another manifestation of Western thought which is just another name for racism.

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
  52. @Jack D

    Most human genetic variation is distributed as a gradient, so distinct boundaries between population groups cannot be accurately assigned.
     
    Right, for example, it's not really possible to call some people "tall" and other people "short", or some people "smart" and other people "mentally retarded" because intelligence and height exist on a gradient.

    It's also not possible to distinguish between a gentle breeze and a hurricane for the same reason. Who is to say when a gentle breeze ends and a hurricane begins? These are arbitrary distinctions and imaginary lines drawn between things that are in fact distributed on a gradient so that distinct boundaries can not be accurate assigned.

    Replies: @res, @Joseph Doaks

    That fallacy has many names, but I like “The Continuum Fallacy.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox#Continuum_fallacy

    Playing “Hunt the fallacy” with that article is entertaining, but not terribly challenging.

    P.S. Steve, it doesn’t seem quite fair to say “we aren’t going to demean ourselves by providing examples” when that paragraph was followed by six references. Even if only two were recent and all looked pretty pathetic.

  53. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Mike Tre

    Isn't any physical object or mental concept defined by a word a social construct?

    I mean, at some point a group of people or a person decided that a slab of wood or stone held up by other objects would be defined as a "table" in English or "der Tisch" auf Deutsche. (See what I did there. )

    Where does a table end and a desk begin? Social constructs. There's no reason to distinguish between the two, other than, of course, it's useful.

    Literally, everything with a word attached to it is a social construct. Therefore, this idea that pointing out that something is a social construct somehow invalidates it is insane and shows an almost unimaginable amount of stupidity by the person making the claim.

    Replies: @res

    I like responding to the race is a social construct claim with: “Race is a social construct overlaid on a biological reality.”

    Elaboration at https://www.unz.com/isteve/sailer-what-if-im-right/#comment-4696179

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @res

    The reality of the object is always there. If humans didn't exist, the oak tree would still exist. That English-speaking people categorize that particular type of tree by using the word "oak" (the social construct) doesn't change what it is.

    People who use the phrase "social construct" as though it's an argument are stunningly stupid. They think that they're so very, very clever by pointing out that definitions of races might have changed a bit over time. "The Irish or Italians weren't considered "white" one hundred and fifty years ago" they say (which actually isn't true anyway) as though that proves that using racial or ethnic categories today is silly.

    It's like arguing that because what was consider the color red has changed a bit over time means that there's no such thing as different colors.

    We have social constructs because they are useful. For farmers, it's useful to distinguish between different breeds of plants and animals. Maybe the definition of those different breeds change a bit over time, so what. They still point out important differences. The same is true with races.

  54. Okay, let’s try that again: All races are diverse, but some races are more diverse than others.

    Yes, we are constantly told that sub Saharan Africans are more genetically “diverse” than the entire rest of humanity. By professional geneticists.

    See, the rest of humanity at various intervals bugged out over the Sinai desert (when various Ice Ages made this a nice, pleasant land bridge to Asia) and “diversified” to some extent in many other places. But these wanderers are far less genetically diverse than their African fore-bearers.

    However, it counting up Nobel Prize winners in STEM, we see few if any sub Saharan Africans winning awards for their intellectual contributions to mankind. Ditto inventions, etc.

    So “diversity” doesn’t equal intellectual achievement, necessarily. Sitting around swatting flies and hunter-gathering, since it is the easiest choice, fails to develop brain skills. Only when “out of Africa” did thinking improve.

    One might even suspect adding “diversity” of this type might even hinder achievement.

    Yet supposed professional geneticists seem to avoid this subject like the plague. Maybe in a future saner world, science will look into this.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Muggles

    Sure, a diversity of traits means a mix of attributes so that no one attribute stands out. I mentioned in my other post the "village dog". This is a type of mutt that is found all over the planet. If you mix all sorts of dog breeds together eventually they revert back to the village dog phenotype. This is a medium sized dog with mostly yellow coloring (sometimes there is a bit of white on the legs or lower body). Sometimes the ears stand up, sometimes they flop down. This dog is not especially good at hunting or retrieving or rat catching or sheep herding or any of the myriad tasks for which dogs have been bred throughout history. It doesn't run especially fast nor is it especially strong or fierce or docile. It's not especially big nor especially small.

    https://retrieverman.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/african-village-dogs.jpg

    The way to breed something like intellectual achievement is to isolate a population of people with slightly above average achievement and then have the best of each generation interbreed (and even inbreed) for a number of generations so that trait gets emphasized (and maybe other traits such as running speed become deemphasized) . In other words what you want is the OPPOSITE of diversity.

    Replies: @Muggles, @2BR

  55. @res
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    I like responding to the race is a social construct claim with: “Race is a social construct overlaid on a biological reality.”

    Elaboration at https://www.unz.com/isteve/sailer-what-if-im-right/#comment-4696179

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    The reality of the object is always there. If humans didn’t exist, the oak tree would still exist. That English-speaking people categorize that particular type of tree by using the word “oak” (the social construct) doesn’t change what it is.

    People who use the phrase “social construct” as though it’s an argument are stunningly stupid. They think that they’re so very, very clever by pointing out that definitions of races might have changed a bit over time. “The Irish or Italians weren’t considered “white” one hundred and fifty years ago” they say (which actually isn’t true anyway) as though that proves that using racial or ethnic categories today is silly.

    It’s like arguing that because what was consider the color red has changed a bit over time means that there’s no such thing as different colors.

    We have social constructs because they are useful. For farmers, it’s useful to distinguish between different breeds of plants and animals. Maybe the definition of those different breeds change a bit over time, so what. They still point out important differences. The same is true with races.

  56. @Desiderius
    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/1439517351901286400?s=20

    Genghis was Down's.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

    But was was he down with the brown?

  57. @Jack D
    @Corvinus

    Black dog:

    https://www.dog.com/Breeds/images/AllBreeds/3.jpg

    White dog:

    https://www.thesprucepets.com/thmb/NXOPSWPMLBzpLLU-uCIfc2I0r3I=/2123x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/Samoyed-d78c4bb2c56b4c2ab004dc421441fb10.jpg

    Black human next to a white human:

    https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/553152c/2147483647/resize/1160x/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fcapny%2Ffiles%2Fa-rice-obamasr_0.jpg

    Replies: @Corvinus

    Humans aren’t breeds similar to dogs.

    https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-019-0109-y

    Several decades ago, well before most of the research we cited here was possible, Montagu (1942) covered familiar territory:

    “Man has bred dogs for certain temperamental qualities useful in the hunt for many centuries. The Irish setter, for example, is always red-haired, but his red hair has no connection with his temperamental qualities. The Irish setter has the same kind of temperament as the English setter, but the hair color of the English setter is white and black. The only difference between the white, the black, the white and black, and the red setters is in their coat color; there are no significant differences in their mental or temperamental qualities. No one ever asks whether there are mental and temperamental differences between white, black, or brown horses—such a question would seem rather silly. When, however, it comes to man, the prejudice of anyone who has ever made the statement that skin color is associated with mental capacity is accepted as gospel. For such an assumption there is about as much justification as there would be for the assumption that there exist substantial differences between different color varieties of setters. We know this to be false concerning setters only because we have paid more unprejudiced attention to the mental qualities of dogs than we have to those of human beings.” (1942; p. 92–3)

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Corvinus

    Human races aren't distinguished just by skin color. For example, people from the Indian subcontinent come in many shades ranging from as white as Europeans to as dark as Africans, but we recognize the dark skinned ones all as belonging to the same race as the light skinned and not as Africans.

    http://men-care.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/DSC6404-banner.jpg

    You can see from their hair texture, the shape of their noses, etc. that they are not African regardless of their skin color. Just as you can distinguish a setter from a poodle not by hair color but by other traits.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @blagnot
    @Corvinus

    Ibn Khaldun as well as other Islamic scholars noted differences between the races beyond the color of someone's skin. The concept of race was not invented by Europeans.

    , @jamie b.
    @Corvinus


    The only difference between the white, the black, the white and black, and the red setters is in their coat color; there are no significant differences in their mental or temperamental qualities.
     
    The Irish setter is a single breed. There are most emphatically difference in temperament between different dog breeds.

    No one ever asks whether there are mental and temperamental differences between white, black, or brown horses—such a question would seem rather silly.
     
    Agreed. But are there differences between eg. a clydsdale and race horse? Certainly.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Corvinus


    Humans aren’t breeds similar to dogs.
     
    Both are the results of human decisions.
    , @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Corvinus



    Several decades ago, well before most of the research we cited here was possible, Montagu (1942) covered familiar territory:
     
    “Man has bred dogs for certain temperamental qualities useful in the hunt for many centuries. The Irish setter, for example, is always red-haired, but his red hair has no connection with his temperamental qualities. The Irish setter has the same kind of temperament as the English setter, but the hair color of the English setter is white and black. The only difference between the white, the black, the white and black, and the red setters is in their coat color; there are no significant differences in their mental or temperamental qualities. No one ever asks whether there are mental and temperamental differences between white, black, or brown horses—such a question would seem rather silly. When, however, it comes to man, the prejudice of anyone who has ever made the statement that skin color is associated with mental capacity is accepted as gospel. For such an assumption there is about as much justification as there would be for the assumption that there exist substantial differences between different color varieties of setters. We know this to be false concerning setters only because we have paid more unprejudiced attention to the mental qualities of dogs than we have to those of human beings.” (1942; p. 92–3)
     
    This is an obvious fallacy. First, he's just wrong about the Irish Setter - until recent breed standards Irish Setters came in Red and Red and White. The "Irish Red and White Setter" is simply the same standard but for coat color. Prior to this recent divergence, a single litter could include puppies that were either wholly red or red and white. They're the same dog because they're the same dog. And, of course, the Irish setter breeds and the English setter breeds are recently descended from the same original breeding stock. Did you really think that the Irish and the English independently domesticated wolves into dogs on their respective islands and ended up with breeds of dogs that were very similar by chance?

    Similarly, two brown horses can yield a black foal or a silver foal or a white foal. This is why we don't make much of a distinction between them other than the particular accident of the horse's coat. Horses of all colors can and do win races.

    Unlike these examples, the human races experienced long periods of separate evolution under different evolutionary pressures. Two Chinese do not routinely give birth to an African, nor two Africans to a Polynesian.

    If two German Shepherds produce a litter of Chihuahuas, I'll of course revisit my priors. My assumption, however, will be that the the bitch got over the wall one too many times.

    The point of referencing dog breeds is, of course, not to make a perfect analogy between human races and breeds of dogs but to demonstrate that genetics is a substantial factor in differences within a single species in terms of appearance, temperament, and intelligence.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  58. @Muggles

    Okay, let’s try that again: All races are diverse, but some races are more diverse than others.
     
    Yes, we are constantly told that sub Saharan Africans are more genetically "diverse" than the entire rest of humanity. By professional geneticists.

    See, the rest of humanity at various intervals bugged out over the Sinai desert (when various Ice Ages made this a nice, pleasant land bridge to Asia) and "diversified" to some extent in many other places. But these wanderers are far less genetically diverse than their African fore-bearers.

    However, it counting up Nobel Prize winners in STEM, we see few if any sub Saharan Africans winning awards for their intellectual contributions to mankind. Ditto inventions, etc.

    So "diversity" doesn't equal intellectual achievement, necessarily. Sitting around swatting flies and hunter-gathering, since it is the easiest choice, fails to develop brain skills. Only when "out of Africa" did thinking improve.

    One might even suspect adding "diversity" of this type might even hinder achievement.

    Yet supposed professional geneticists seem to avoid this subject like the plague. Maybe in a future saner world, science will look into this.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Sure, a diversity of traits means a mix of attributes so that no one attribute stands out. I mentioned in my other post the “village dog”. This is a type of mutt that is found all over the planet. If you mix all sorts of dog breeds together eventually they revert back to the village dog phenotype. This is a medium sized dog with mostly yellow coloring (sometimes there is a bit of white on the legs or lower body). Sometimes the ears stand up, sometimes they flop down. This dog is not especially good at hunting or retrieving or rat catching or sheep herding or any of the myriad tasks for which dogs have been bred throughout history. It doesn’t run especially fast nor is it especially strong or fierce or docile. It’s not especially big nor especially small.

    The way to breed something like intellectual achievement is to isolate a population of people with slightly above average achievement and then have the best of each generation interbreed (and even inbreed) for a number of generations so that trait gets emphasized (and maybe other traits such as running speed become deemphasized) . In other words what you want is the OPPOSITE of diversity.

    • Replies: @Muggles
    @Jack D


    The way to breed something like intellectual achievement is to isolate a population of people with slightly above average achievement and then have the best of each generation interbreed (and even inbreed) for a number of generations so that trait gets emphasized (and maybe other traits such as running speed become deemphasized) . In other words what you want is the OPPOSITE of diversity
     
    Doesn't this remind you of the likely manner in which very tiny populations of then Africans managed to reach Middle Eastern/Asia over centuries? Travelling mainly around coastal areas and river valleys until some eventually reached the Indian subcontinent. Other groups headed up to the then wetter areas of Iran and Tigris/Euphrates valley system. Such groups were only a few hundred at most and later ran into distant cousins in the expanding African diaspora.

    Hardiness and ability to adapt to wide climate and food variability made them keen survivors (the ones who did). Always heading up the next valley or hill. Though agriculture was a long ways off, the lack of human competition for fish and game made expansion a regular routine.

    I wonder if any serious study has been made of the differences between the diaspora African development over centuries versus the remaining African populations. Other than rather lazy 19th century racist tropes (prior to DNA). Such work might currently be verboten.
    , @2BR
    @Jack D


    The way to breed something like intellectual achievement is to isolate a population of people with slightly above average achievement and then have the best of each generation interbreed (and even inbreed) for a number of generations so that trait gets emphasized (and maybe other traits such as running speed become deemphasized
     
    They are called Ashkenazi Jews. The 1000 year eugenics experiment worked very well - up to 1939. At that point the traits were no longer beneficial for survival. And the point of evolution is survival in order to pass on the genes.

    Replies: @BB753

  59. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Arclight

    The dog breeds example is by far the best way to hand hold Normies into the issue of racial differences.

    Replies: @Arclight

    Yeah, it’s a pretty easy comparison to make – people readily accept that selective pressures result in a wide range of physical and behavioral traits within a particular animal species, but when it comes to humans evolution goes right out the window because of the mental distress it causes.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Arclight

    Planting seeds is all we can do sometimes.

    Some people do wake up.

    , @Joseph Doaks
    @Arclight

    "when it comes to humans evolution goes right out the window because of the mental distress it causes."

    Under Stalin the idea of evolution caused a lot more than mental distress; we appear to be headed in the same direction!

  60. @Corvinus
    @Jack D

    Humans aren’t breeds similar to dogs.

    https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-019-0109-y

    Several decades ago, well before most of the research we cited here was possible, Montagu (1942) covered familiar territory:

    “Man has bred dogs for certain temperamental qualities useful in the hunt for many centuries. The Irish setter, for example, is always red-haired, but his red hair has no connection with his temperamental qualities. The Irish setter has the same kind of temperament as the English setter, but the hair color of the English setter is white and black. The only difference between the white, the black, the white and black, and the red setters is in their coat color; there are no significant differences in their mental or temperamental qualities. No one ever asks whether there are mental and temperamental differences between white, black, or brown horses—such a question would seem rather silly. When, however, it comes to man, the prejudice of anyone who has ever made the statement that skin color is associated with mental capacity is accepted as gospel. For such an assumption there is about as much justification as there would be for the assumption that there exist substantial differences between different color varieties of setters. We know this to be false concerning setters only because we have paid more unprejudiced attention to the mental qualities of dogs than we have to those of human beings.” (1942; p. 92–3)

    Replies: @Jack D, @blagnot, @jamie b., @Reg Cæsar, @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    Human races aren’t distinguished just by skin color. For example, people from the Indian subcontinent come in many shades ranging from as white as Europeans to as dark as Africans, but we recognize the dark skinned ones all as belonging to the same race as the light skinned and not as Africans.

    You can see from their hair texture, the shape of their noses, etc. that they are not African regardless of their skin color. Just as you can distinguish a setter from a poodle not by hair color but by other traits.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Jack D

    Regardless, human beings aren’t similar to breeds of dogs.

    As an aside, race is a social construct overlaid on competing biological narratives. Phenotypic and genotypic differences are crafted in a way to establish a perceived biological reality of each race. Yes, “the same individual might be classified as different (social construct) races in the US and Brazil despite their genotype and phenotype (biological reality) remaining unchanged”. But it comes down to how we interpret social behavior like a propensity for violence, then align it as being undeniably the result of a person’s genotypes and phenotypes, that ends up being rooted in subjectivity and confirmation bias. Now, society and culture are developed through a complex mix of factors, including the genetics of its members. To what extent? Well, of course, that is debatable. If we look at the past four hundred years, we bear witness to whites more inherently likely to murder and steal (see colonialism and imperialism, the world wars, predatory capitalism, corporate globalism). So it is natural for people from different races to be wary of those who are known to be violent or otherwise criminally inclined give a group’s history. Thus, an argument could be made that whites as a race are more prone to greed and aggression. I don’t like it at all admitted this likelihood, but that seemingly is our biological reality.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

  61. @Jack D
    @Muggles

    Sure, a diversity of traits means a mix of attributes so that no one attribute stands out. I mentioned in my other post the "village dog". This is a type of mutt that is found all over the planet. If you mix all sorts of dog breeds together eventually they revert back to the village dog phenotype. This is a medium sized dog with mostly yellow coloring (sometimes there is a bit of white on the legs or lower body). Sometimes the ears stand up, sometimes they flop down. This dog is not especially good at hunting or retrieving or rat catching or sheep herding or any of the myriad tasks for which dogs have been bred throughout history. It doesn't run especially fast nor is it especially strong or fierce or docile. It's not especially big nor especially small.

    https://retrieverman.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/african-village-dogs.jpg

    The way to breed something like intellectual achievement is to isolate a population of people with slightly above average achievement and then have the best of each generation interbreed (and even inbreed) for a number of generations so that trait gets emphasized (and maybe other traits such as running speed become deemphasized) . In other words what you want is the OPPOSITE of diversity.

    Replies: @Muggles, @2BR

    The way to breed something like intellectual achievement is to isolate a population of people with slightly above average achievement and then have the best of each generation interbreed (and even inbreed) for a number of generations so that trait gets emphasized (and maybe other traits such as running speed become deemphasized) . In other words what you want is the OPPOSITE of diversity

    Doesn’t this remind you of the likely manner in which very tiny populations of then Africans managed to reach Middle Eastern/Asia over centuries? Travelling mainly around coastal areas and river valleys until some eventually reached the Indian subcontinent. Other groups headed up to the then wetter areas of Iran and Tigris/Euphrates valley system. Such groups were only a few hundred at most and later ran into distant cousins in the expanding African diaspora.

    Hardiness and ability to adapt to wide climate and food variability made them keen survivors (the ones who did). Always heading up the next valley or hill. Though agriculture was a long ways off, the lack of human competition for fish and game made expansion a regular routine.

    I wonder if any serious study has been made of the differences between the diaspora African development over centuries versus the remaining African populations. Other than rather lazy 19th century racist tropes (prior to DNA). Such work might currently be verboten.

  62. @Corvinus
    @Jack D

    Humans aren’t breeds similar to dogs.

    https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-019-0109-y

    Several decades ago, well before most of the research we cited here was possible, Montagu (1942) covered familiar territory:

    “Man has bred dogs for certain temperamental qualities useful in the hunt for many centuries. The Irish setter, for example, is always red-haired, but his red hair has no connection with his temperamental qualities. The Irish setter has the same kind of temperament as the English setter, but the hair color of the English setter is white and black. The only difference between the white, the black, the white and black, and the red setters is in their coat color; there are no significant differences in their mental or temperamental qualities. No one ever asks whether there are mental and temperamental differences between white, black, or brown horses—such a question would seem rather silly. When, however, it comes to man, the prejudice of anyone who has ever made the statement that skin color is associated with mental capacity is accepted as gospel. For such an assumption there is about as much justification as there would be for the assumption that there exist substantial differences between different color varieties of setters. We know this to be false concerning setters only because we have paid more unprejudiced attention to the mental qualities of dogs than we have to those of human beings.” (1942; p. 92–3)

    Replies: @Jack D, @blagnot, @jamie b., @Reg Cæsar, @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    Ibn Khaldun as well as other Islamic scholars noted differences between the races beyond the color of someone’s skin. The concept of race was not invented by Europeans.

  63. @Corvinus
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    “I think we have a pretty good idea what the Great Filter actually is, and it’s in front of us.”

    Indeed. There has been a marked increase the past 5 years in confirmation bias among the Coalition of The Fringes. as well as elites such as yourself, and it’s now cascading to normies. One has to vigilant against succumbing to it. But being aware of it is half the battle. What’s your excuse?

    Replies: @El Dato, @The Anti-Gnostic

    Personally, I’m partial to Charles’ Stross idea of the Great Filter, which doesn’t involve people falling prey to confirmation bias.

    From “Missile Gap” (available legit’ly on the Internet)

    [MORE]

    Sagan sighs. “Okay, play it your way.” He closes his menu. “Ready to order?”

    “I believe so.” Gregor looks at him. “The spaghetti al’ polpette is really good here,” he adds.

    “Really?” Sagan smiles. “Then I’ll try it.”

    They order, and Gregor waits for the waiter to depart before he continues. “Suppose there’s an alien race out there. More than one. You know about the multiple copies of Earth. The uninhabited ones. We’ve been here before. Now let’s see…suppose the aliens aren’t like us. Some of them are recognizable, tribal primates who use tools made out of metal, seadwelling ensemble entities who communicate by ultrasound. But others – most of them – are social insects who use amazingly advanced biological engineering to grow what they need. There’s some evidence that they’ve colonized some of the empty Earths. They’re aggressive and territorial and they’re so different that…well, for one thing we think they don’t actually have conscious minds except when they need them. They control their own genetic code and build living organisms tailored to whatever tasks they want carrying out. There’s no evidence that they want to talk to us, and some evidence that they may have emptied some of those empty Earths of their human population. And because of their, um, decentralized ecosystem and biological engineering, conventional policy solutions won’t work. The military ones, I mean.”

    Gregor watches Sagan’s face intently as he describes the scenario. There is a slight cooling of the exobiologist’s cheeks as his peripheral arteries contract with shock: his pupils dilate and his respiration rate increases. Sour pheromones begin to diffuse from his sweat ducts and organs in Gregor’s nasal sinuses respond to them.

    “You’re kidding?” Sagan half-asks. He sounds disappointed about something.

    “I wish I was.” Gregor generates a faint smile and exhales breath laden with oxytocin and other peptide messengers fine-tuned to human metabolism. In the kitchen, the temporary chef who is standing in for the regular one–off sick, due to a bout of food poisoning – will be preparing Sagan’s dish. Humans are creatures of habit: once his meal arrives the astronomer will eat it, taking solace in good food. (Such a shame about the chef.)

    “They’re not like us. SETI assumes that NHIs are conscious and welcome communication with humans and, in fact, that humans aren’t atypical. But let’s suppose that humans are atypical. The human species has only been around for about a third of a million years, and has only been making metal tools and building settlements for ten thousand. What if the default for sapient species is measured in the millions of years? And they develop strong defense mechanisms to prevent other species moving into their territory?”

    “That’s incredibly depressing,” Sagan admits after a minute’s contemplation. “I’m not sure I believe it without seeing some more evidence. That’s why we wanted to use the Arecibo dish to send a message, you know. The other disks are far enough away that we’re safe, whatever they send back: they can’t possibly throw missiles at us, not with a surface escape velocity of twenty thousand miles per second, and if they send unpleasant messages we can stick our fingers in our ears.”

  64. @Jack D
    @Corvinus

    Human races aren't distinguished just by skin color. For example, people from the Indian subcontinent come in many shades ranging from as white as Europeans to as dark as Africans, but we recognize the dark skinned ones all as belonging to the same race as the light skinned and not as Africans.

    http://men-care.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/DSC6404-banner.jpg

    You can see from their hair texture, the shape of their noses, etc. that they are not African regardless of their skin color. Just as you can distinguish a setter from a poodle not by hair color but by other traits.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    Regardless, human beings aren’t similar to breeds of dogs.

    As an aside, race is a social construct overlaid on competing biological narratives. Phenotypic and genotypic differences are crafted in a way to establish a perceived biological reality of each race. Yes, “the same individual might be classified as different (social construct) races in the US and Brazil despite their genotype and phenotype (biological reality) remaining unchanged”. But it comes down to how we interpret social behavior like a propensity for violence, then align it as being undeniably the result of a person’s genotypes and phenotypes, that ends up being rooted in subjectivity and confirmation bias. Now, society and culture are developed through a complex mix of factors, including the genetics of its members. To what extent? Well, of course, that is debatable. If we look at the past four hundred years, we bear witness to whites more inherently likely to murder and steal (see colonialism and imperialism, the world wars, predatory capitalism, corporate globalism). So it is natural for people from different races to be wary of those who are known to be violent or otherwise criminally inclined give a group’s history. Thus, an argument could be made that whites as a race are more prone to greed and aggression. I don’t like it at all admitted this likelihood, but that seemingly is our biological reality.

    • LOL: res
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Corvinus


    Regardless, human beings aren’t similar to breeds of dogs.

    As an aside, race is a social construct overlaid on competing biological narratives. Phenotypic and genotypic differences are crafted in a way to establish a perceived biological reality of each race. Yes, “the same individual might be classified as different (social construct) races in the US and Brazil despite their genotype and phenotype (biological reality) remaining unchanged”. But it comes down to how we interpret social behavior like a propensity for violence, then align it as being undeniably the result of a person’s genotypes and phenotypes, that ends up being rooted in subjectivity and confirmation bias. Now, society and culture are developed through a complex mix of factors, including the genetics of its members. To what extent?

     

    This is just more casuistry. It's not a mere "social construct" that societies recognize racial differences which are readily apparent on the face of things.

    Query: what is the socially constructed racial makeup of the place in which you have made your home?

    Well, of course, that is debatable. If we look at the past four hundred years, we bear witness to whites more inherently likely to murder and steal (see colonialism and imperialism, the world wars, predatory capitalism, corporate globalism). So it is natural for people from different races to be wary of those who are known to be violent or otherwise criminally inclined give a group’s history. Thus, an argument could be made that whites as a race are more prone to greed and aggression. I don’t like it at all admitted this likelihood, but that seemingly is our biological reality.
     
    Yes, it is well known that the Earth was populated by peace-loving innocents who had no concept of violence before contact with the white man. Everywhere man lived in harmony with nature, and survived on the ample fruits of the land wanting for nothing.

    Replies: @Mr. Grey

  65. @Arclight
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Yeah, it's a pretty easy comparison to make - people readily accept that selective pressures result in a wide range of physical and behavioral traits within a particular animal species, but when it comes to humans evolution goes right out the window because of the mental distress it causes.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Joseph Doaks

    Planting seeds is all we can do sometimes.

    Some people do wake up.

  66. anon[307] • Disclaimer says:
    @El Dato
    @anon

    The only one not thinking of number 1 and running a scam was Hitler.

    Replies: @anon

    but contrary to popular opinion:

    trump’s base is much better off economically than average.

    the nazis’ base was the petit bourgeois, professionals, university students…they were “radical chic” at the time. so many top flight intellectuals were nazis when the nazi party was like the green party. the famous book burning wasn’t a government directive. it was the university students.

    so you see: we all live in north korea and have always lived in north korea, but only a very few of us know it.

  67. @Corvinus
    @Bert

    In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy for which various definitions exist. We have seen that races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species, or they may be defined in geographical or physiological categories. Forensic anthropologists (and geneticists) are employing the term “genetic ancestry”. Genomes from reference populations around the globe have been collected, with the most diversity found in African populations. “There is much more diversity between them than the combined African genome would have between the European genome,” says Nicolas Robine, director of computational biology at the New York Genome Center (NYGC), a nonprofit academic research institution that serves as a collaborative hub for genomic research. “The proportion that is variable is very small, compared to that which is common to everybody.”

    https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/forensic.2021.0004

    http://eknygos.lsmuni.lt/springer/657/281-316.pdf

    Indeed, race is partially based on physical similarities within groups that are patently obvious to the naked eye, but it was assigned by us–human beings–to have an inherent physical or biological meaning. Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time.

    –In the 1700’s, Carl Linnaeus four “varieties” of humans (Europaeus albus, Americanus rubescens, Asiaticus fuscus, and Africanus niger), even going so far as to specify behavioral characteristics–Americanus as “unyielding, cheerful, free”; Europaeus as “light, wise, inventor”; Asiaticus as “stern, haughty, greedy”; and Africanus as “sly, sluggish, neglectful”. Clearly, Linnaeus was basing these characteristics on social conventions.

    –In the early 1800’s, Samuel Morton used his collection of human skulls to link the size and shape of them to correlate each with intelligence, and his imagined hierarchy was employed by white Northerners and Southerns to justify slavey.

    –Then there is Louis Agassiz who touted that different races of humanity were of different origins.

    –My personal favorite, however, is Madison Grant.

    Source –> https://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/White.htm


    “Between 1880 and WWI, the United States experienced large waves of European immigration. These “new immigrants” however did not come from northern Europe and represented a frightening diversity to many. The difference perceived in these immigrants was frequently described as a racial difference in which Europeans were represented as, not one, but many races identified by region (Alpine, Mediterranean, Slavic and Nordic) or by alleged head shape (roundheads, slopeheads). Madison Grant, a biologist and curator for the American Museum of Natural History in New York explained in his book “The Passing of the Great Race that White Americans”, the great race, were losing out to hordes of inferior European immigrants. Grant’s book was so popular it experienced 7 reprints before WWII. According to Grant, “These new immigrants were no longer exclusively members of the Nordic race as were the earlier ones…The transportation lines advertised America as a land flowing with milk and honey and the European governments took the opportunity to unload upon careless, wealthy and hospitable America the sweepings of their jails and asylums…Our jails, insane asylums and almshouses are filled with this human flotsam and the whole tone of american life, social, moral and political has been lowered and vulgarized by them.”
     
    So, which taxonomy ought to be the “standard”? Are all somehow on equal intellectual and biological footing, or is one more precise compared to the rest?

    Replies: @Jack D, @jamie b., @Drapetomaniac

    So, which taxonomy ought to be the “standard”?

    Cluster (distance based) analysis is a reasonably objective tool for identifying races: It is not model based, and brings no preconceptions to how a computer defines the clusters. Regardless of cluster number, the clustering is invariably consistent with geographic boundaries.

    If we set the number of cluster (‘K’) at 5, we have something rather nearly identical to Blumenbach’s classification. Any increase in the number of clusters results in a splitting of clusters previously identified. IOW, increasing K will invariably augment previously determined clusters, rather than form a new pattern.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @jamie b.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707625786

    In summary, from a very large study of four major racial/ethnic groups within the United States and Taiwan, we found extraordinary correspondence between SIRE and genetic cluster categories but only modest geographic differentiation within each race/ethnicity group. This result indicates that studies using genetic clusters instead of racial/ethnic labels are likely to simply reproduce racial/ethnic differences, which may or may not be genetic. On the other hand, in the absence of racial/ethnic information, it is tempting to attribute any observed difference between derived genetic clusters to a genetic etiology. Therefore, researchers performing studies without racial/ethnic labels should be wary of characterizing difference between genetically defined clusters as genetic in origin, since social, cultural, economic, behavioral, and other environmental factors may result in extreme confounding (Risch et al. 2002).

    Replies: @jamie b.

  68. @Hangnail Hans
    Once upon a time, "science" didn't mean the same thing as "self-contradictory, politically correct, mealy-mouthed tripe" but those days are long gone now.

    Replies: @Drapetomaniac, @Colin Wright, @BB753

    ‘Once upon a time, “science” didn’t mean the same thing as “self-contradictory, politically correct, mealy-mouthed tripe” but those days are long gone now.’

    Maybe it’s a matter of what we worship. In 1890, Doctor Blank could calmly go to church, pray, and then that afternoon discuss his interesting finding; his faith was quite unaffected.

    Now — when it’ science we see as offering total, final, unanswerable truth, it’s very upsetting if it generates unpleasant results.

    1890 guy could say, ‘all men are equal in the eyes of God, so it’s interesting if Blacks are on the average stupid, but hardly the most significant observation to be made. ‘ Now — when ‘it’s the science’ is the unanswerable argument — that’s not so palatable.

  69. @Corvinus
    @Bert

    In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy for which various definitions exist. We have seen that races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species, or they may be defined in geographical or physiological categories. Forensic anthropologists (and geneticists) are employing the term “genetic ancestry”. Genomes from reference populations around the globe have been collected, with the most diversity found in African populations. “There is much more diversity between them than the combined African genome would have between the European genome,” says Nicolas Robine, director of computational biology at the New York Genome Center (NYGC), a nonprofit academic research institution that serves as a collaborative hub for genomic research. “The proportion that is variable is very small, compared to that which is common to everybody.”

    https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/forensic.2021.0004

    http://eknygos.lsmuni.lt/springer/657/281-316.pdf

    Indeed, race is partially based on physical similarities within groups that are patently obvious to the naked eye, but it was assigned by us–human beings–to have an inherent physical or biological meaning. Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time.

    –In the 1700’s, Carl Linnaeus four “varieties” of humans (Europaeus albus, Americanus rubescens, Asiaticus fuscus, and Africanus niger), even going so far as to specify behavioral characteristics–Americanus as “unyielding, cheerful, free”; Europaeus as “light, wise, inventor”; Asiaticus as “stern, haughty, greedy”; and Africanus as “sly, sluggish, neglectful”. Clearly, Linnaeus was basing these characteristics on social conventions.

    –In the early 1800’s, Samuel Morton used his collection of human skulls to link the size and shape of them to correlate each with intelligence, and his imagined hierarchy was employed by white Northerners and Southerns to justify slavey.

    –Then there is Louis Agassiz who touted that different races of humanity were of different origins.

    –My personal favorite, however, is Madison Grant.

    Source –> https://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/White.htm


    “Between 1880 and WWI, the United States experienced large waves of European immigration. These “new immigrants” however did not come from northern Europe and represented a frightening diversity to many. The difference perceived in these immigrants was frequently described as a racial difference in which Europeans were represented as, not one, but many races identified by region (Alpine, Mediterranean, Slavic and Nordic) or by alleged head shape (roundheads, slopeheads). Madison Grant, a biologist and curator for the American Museum of Natural History in New York explained in his book “The Passing of the Great Race that White Americans”, the great race, were losing out to hordes of inferior European immigrants. Grant’s book was so popular it experienced 7 reprints before WWII. According to Grant, “These new immigrants were no longer exclusively members of the Nordic race as were the earlier ones…The transportation lines advertised America as a land flowing with milk and honey and the European governments took the opportunity to unload upon careless, wealthy and hospitable America the sweepings of their jails and asylums…Our jails, insane asylums and almshouses are filled with this human flotsam and the whole tone of american life, social, moral and political has been lowered and vulgarized by them.”
     
    So, which taxonomy ought to be the “standard”? Are all somehow on equal intellectual and biological footing, or is one more precise compared to the rest?

    Replies: @Jack D, @jamie b., @Drapetomaniac

    and his imagined hierarchy was employed by white Northerners and Southerns to justify slavey.

    So how was the thousands of years of slavery justified before that?

  70. @Corvinus
    @Jack D

    Humans aren’t breeds similar to dogs.

    https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-019-0109-y

    Several decades ago, well before most of the research we cited here was possible, Montagu (1942) covered familiar territory:

    “Man has bred dogs for certain temperamental qualities useful in the hunt for many centuries. The Irish setter, for example, is always red-haired, but his red hair has no connection with his temperamental qualities. The Irish setter has the same kind of temperament as the English setter, but the hair color of the English setter is white and black. The only difference between the white, the black, the white and black, and the red setters is in their coat color; there are no significant differences in their mental or temperamental qualities. No one ever asks whether there are mental and temperamental differences between white, black, or brown horses—such a question would seem rather silly. When, however, it comes to man, the prejudice of anyone who has ever made the statement that skin color is associated with mental capacity is accepted as gospel. For such an assumption there is about as much justification as there would be for the assumption that there exist substantial differences between different color varieties of setters. We know this to be false concerning setters only because we have paid more unprejudiced attention to the mental qualities of dogs than we have to those of human beings.” (1942; p. 92–3)

    Replies: @Jack D, @blagnot, @jamie b., @Reg Cæsar, @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    The only difference between the white, the black, the white and black, and the red setters is in their coat color; there are no significant differences in their mental or temperamental qualities.

    The Irish setter is a single breed. There are most emphatically difference in temperament between different dog breeds.

    No one ever asks whether there are mental and temperamental differences between white, black, or brown horses—such a question would seem rather silly.

    Agreed. But are there differences between eg. a clydsdale and race horse? Certainly.

    • Agree: TWS
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @jamie b.

    Bettors don't need to pay attention to a thoroughbred's color because they have his genealogy back for 15 or 20 generations.

  71. @Corvinus
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    “I think we have a pretty good idea what the Great Filter actually is, and it’s in front of us.”

    Indeed. There has been a marked increase the past 5 years in confirmation bias among the Coalition of The Fringes. as well as elites such as yourself, and it’s now cascading to normies. One has to vigilant against succumbing to it. But being aware of it is half the battle. What’s your excuse?

    Replies: @El Dato, @The Anti-Gnostic

    You’re increasingly incoherent.

  72. @Jack D

    Most human genetic variation is distributed as a gradient, so distinct boundaries between population groups cannot be accurately assigned.
     
    Right, for example, it's not really possible to call some people "tall" and other people "short", or some people "smart" and other people "mentally retarded" because intelligence and height exist on a gradient.

    It's also not possible to distinguish between a gentle breeze and a hurricane for the same reason. Who is to say when a gentle breeze ends and a hurricane begins? These are arbitrary distinctions and imaginary lines drawn between things that are in fact distributed on a gradient so that distinct boundaries can not be accurate assigned.

    Replies: @res, @Joseph Doaks

    “Who is to say when a gentle breeze ends and a hurricane begins? These are arbitrary distinctions and imaginary lines drawn between things that are in fact distributed on a gradient so that distinct boundaries can not be accurate assigned.”

    Great comparison!

  73. @Arclight
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Yeah, it's a pretty easy comparison to make - people readily accept that selective pressures result in a wide range of physical and behavioral traits within a particular animal species, but when it comes to humans evolution goes right out the window because of the mental distress it causes.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Joseph Doaks

    “when it comes to humans evolution goes right out the window because of the mental distress it causes.”

    Under Stalin the idea of evolution caused a lot more than mental distress; we appear to be headed in the same direction!

  74. @Corvinus
    @Jack D

    Humans aren’t breeds similar to dogs.

    https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-019-0109-y

    Several decades ago, well before most of the research we cited here was possible, Montagu (1942) covered familiar territory:

    “Man has bred dogs for certain temperamental qualities useful in the hunt for many centuries. The Irish setter, for example, is always red-haired, but his red hair has no connection with his temperamental qualities. The Irish setter has the same kind of temperament as the English setter, but the hair color of the English setter is white and black. The only difference between the white, the black, the white and black, and the red setters is in their coat color; there are no significant differences in their mental or temperamental qualities. No one ever asks whether there are mental and temperamental differences between white, black, or brown horses—such a question would seem rather silly. When, however, it comes to man, the prejudice of anyone who has ever made the statement that skin color is associated with mental capacity is accepted as gospel. For such an assumption there is about as much justification as there would be for the assumption that there exist substantial differences between different color varieties of setters. We know this to be false concerning setters only because we have paid more unprejudiced attention to the mental qualities of dogs than we have to those of human beings.” (1942; p. 92–3)

    Replies: @Jack D, @blagnot, @jamie b., @Reg Cæsar, @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    Humans aren’t breeds similar to dogs.

    Both are the results of human decisions.

  75. @jamie b.
    @Corvinus


    The only difference between the white, the black, the white and black, and the red setters is in their coat color; there are no significant differences in their mental or temperamental qualities.
     
    The Irish setter is a single breed. There are most emphatically difference in temperament between different dog breeds.

    No one ever asks whether there are mental and temperamental differences between white, black, or brown horses—such a question would seem rather silly.
     
    Agreed. But are there differences between eg. a clydsdale and race horse? Certainly.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Bettors don’t need to pay attention to a thoroughbred’s color because they have his genealogy back for 15 or 20 generations.

    • Thanks: jamie b.
  76. @Jack D
    @Muggles

    Sure, a diversity of traits means a mix of attributes so that no one attribute stands out. I mentioned in my other post the "village dog". This is a type of mutt that is found all over the planet. If you mix all sorts of dog breeds together eventually they revert back to the village dog phenotype. This is a medium sized dog with mostly yellow coloring (sometimes there is a bit of white on the legs or lower body). Sometimes the ears stand up, sometimes they flop down. This dog is not especially good at hunting or retrieving or rat catching or sheep herding or any of the myriad tasks for which dogs have been bred throughout history. It doesn't run especially fast nor is it especially strong or fierce or docile. It's not especially big nor especially small.

    https://retrieverman.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/african-village-dogs.jpg

    The way to breed something like intellectual achievement is to isolate a population of people with slightly above average achievement and then have the best of each generation interbreed (and even inbreed) for a number of generations so that trait gets emphasized (and maybe other traits such as running speed become deemphasized) . In other words what you want is the OPPOSITE of diversity.

    Replies: @Muggles, @2BR

    The way to breed something like intellectual achievement is to isolate a population of people with slightly above average achievement and then have the best of each generation interbreed (and even inbreed) for a number of generations so that trait gets emphasized (and maybe other traits such as running speed become deemphasized

    They are called Ashkenazi Jews. The 1000 year eugenics experiment worked very well – up to 1939. At that point the traits were no longer beneficial for survival. And the point of evolution is survival in order to pass on the genes.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @2BR

    Funny, I was under the impression that Ashkenazi Jews were doing better after 1939 than before, up to this day. Now, that night be true in the future, as they are no competition for the Chinese.

    Replies: @2BR

  77. @Hangnail Hans
    Once upon a time, "science" didn't mean the same thing as "self-contradictory, politically correct, mealy-mouthed tripe" but those days are long gone now.

    Replies: @Drapetomaniac, @Colin Wright, @BB753

    “Science” is now whatever Anthony Fauci says. He’s science! Pronounced: “soyience”!

  78. @2BR
    @Jack D


    The way to breed something like intellectual achievement is to isolate a population of people with slightly above average achievement and then have the best of each generation interbreed (and even inbreed) for a number of generations so that trait gets emphasized (and maybe other traits such as running speed become deemphasized
     
    They are called Ashkenazi Jews. The 1000 year eugenics experiment worked very well - up to 1939. At that point the traits were no longer beneficial for survival. And the point of evolution is survival in order to pass on the genes.

    Replies: @BB753

    Funny, I was under the impression that Ashkenazi Jews were doing better after 1939 than before, up to this day. Now, that night be true in the future, as they are no competition for the Chinese.

    • Replies: @2BR
    @BB753

    Well 1939-1945 seems like a pretty large dip to me, one that can hardly be ignored. Had the State of Israel existed then, so that the European Jews had their own nation to emigrate to, I think your statement about post 1939 success would certainly be unequivocally true. But my point was only that for a dispersed group, brains alone might not be the best survival mechanism.

  79. @Corvinus
    @Jack D

    Humans aren’t breeds similar to dogs.

    https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-019-0109-y

    Several decades ago, well before most of the research we cited here was possible, Montagu (1942) covered familiar territory:

    “Man has bred dogs for certain temperamental qualities useful in the hunt for many centuries. The Irish setter, for example, is always red-haired, but his red hair has no connection with his temperamental qualities. The Irish setter has the same kind of temperament as the English setter, but the hair color of the English setter is white and black. The only difference between the white, the black, the white and black, and the red setters is in their coat color; there are no significant differences in their mental or temperamental qualities. No one ever asks whether there are mental and temperamental differences between white, black, or brown horses—such a question would seem rather silly. When, however, it comes to man, the prejudice of anyone who has ever made the statement that skin color is associated with mental capacity is accepted as gospel. For such an assumption there is about as much justification as there would be for the assumption that there exist substantial differences between different color varieties of setters. We know this to be false concerning setters only because we have paid more unprejudiced attention to the mental qualities of dogs than we have to those of human beings.” (1942; p. 92–3)

    Replies: @Jack D, @blagnot, @jamie b., @Reg Cæsar, @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    Several decades ago, well before most of the research we cited here was possible, Montagu (1942) covered familiar territory:

    “Man has bred dogs for certain temperamental qualities useful in the hunt for many centuries. The Irish setter, for example, is always red-haired, but his red hair has no connection with his temperamental qualities. The Irish setter has the same kind of temperament as the English setter, but the hair color of the English setter is white and black. The only difference between the white, the black, the white and black, and the red setters is in their coat color; there are no significant differences in their mental or temperamental qualities. No one ever asks whether there are mental and temperamental differences between white, black, or brown horses—such a question would seem rather silly. When, however, it comes to man, the prejudice of anyone who has ever made the statement that skin color is associated with mental capacity is accepted as gospel. For such an assumption there is about as much justification as there would be for the assumption that there exist substantial differences between different color varieties of setters. We know this to be false concerning setters only because we have paid more unprejudiced attention to the mental qualities of dogs than we have to those of human beings.” (1942; p. 92–3)

    This is an obvious fallacy. First, he’s just wrong about the Irish Setter – until recent breed standards Irish Setters came in Red and Red and White. The “Irish Red and White Setter” is simply the same standard but for coat color. Prior to this recent divergence, a single litter could include puppies that were either wholly red or red and white. They’re the same dog because they’re the same dog. And, of course, the Irish setter breeds and the English setter breeds are recently descended from the same original breeding stock. Did you really think that the Irish and the English independently domesticated wolves into dogs on their respective islands and ended up with breeds of dogs that were very similar by chance?

    Similarly, two brown horses can yield a black foal or a silver foal or a white foal. This is why we don’t make much of a distinction between them other than the particular accident of the horse’s coat. Horses of all colors can and do win races.

    Unlike these examples, the human races experienced long periods of separate evolution under different evolutionary pressures. Two Chinese do not routinely give birth to an African, nor two Africans to a Polynesian.

    If two German Shepherds produce a litter of Chihuahuas, I’ll of course revisit my priors. My assumption, however, will be that the the bitch got over the wall one too many times.

    The point of referencing dog breeds is, of course, not to make a perfect analogy between human races and breeds of dogs but to demonstrate that genetics is a substantial factor in differences within a single species in terms of appearance, temperament, and intelligence.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    “This is an obvious fallacy. First, he’s just wrong about the Irish Setter”.

    Not really. Irish Setters come in two types: show and field dogs. Show dogs are heavier and larger than field dogs. Both types meet the breed standard — a written description of how a breed should appear and behave.

    So dogs are artificially selected by humans. Dog breeds are by definition, inbred, and there are few genes that control major differences in their traits. In humans, the opposite occurs: many genes control very minor differences in complex traits. Of course, human differences probably reside more due to culture, which can be (loosely) applied to certain ethnicities, but are other than genetic.

    “Did you really think that the Irish and the English independently domesticated wolves into dogs on their respective islands and ended up with breeds of dogs that were very similar by chance?“

    Strawman much?

    “ hat genetics is a substantial factor in differences within a single species in terms of appearance”

    Yes.

    “temperament, and intelligence.”

    Perhaps. Then again, maybe not. It’s really about how one crafts the narrative to suit their preferred version of biological reality.

    “Query: what is the socially constructed racial makeup of the place in which you have made your home?“

    Let’s see. Several black families. Two Asian families. A number of Eastern Europeans (Serbs). Even lil’ Abdul down the street fits in. Although, he does have a keen knowledge about explosives. Wonder if that skill is in born or learned…

    “ Yes, it is well known that the Earth was populated by peace-loving innocents who had no concept of violence before contact with the white man.”

    Of course Africans and Asians have displayed violent tendencies. They are part of the human race, after all. But unquestionably we whites are more inherently likely to create and destroy, especially within the past 400 years. After all, we have been the dominant species. With the good comes much bad.

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease

  80. @Corvinus
    @Jack D

    Regardless, human beings aren’t similar to breeds of dogs.

    As an aside, race is a social construct overlaid on competing biological narratives. Phenotypic and genotypic differences are crafted in a way to establish a perceived biological reality of each race. Yes, “the same individual might be classified as different (social construct) races in the US and Brazil despite their genotype and phenotype (biological reality) remaining unchanged”. But it comes down to how we interpret social behavior like a propensity for violence, then align it as being undeniably the result of a person’s genotypes and phenotypes, that ends up being rooted in subjectivity and confirmation bias. Now, society and culture are developed through a complex mix of factors, including the genetics of its members. To what extent? Well, of course, that is debatable. If we look at the past four hundred years, we bear witness to whites more inherently likely to murder and steal (see colonialism and imperialism, the world wars, predatory capitalism, corporate globalism). So it is natural for people from different races to be wary of those who are known to be violent or otherwise criminally inclined give a group’s history. Thus, an argument could be made that whites as a race are more prone to greed and aggression. I don’t like it at all admitted this likelihood, but that seemingly is our biological reality.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    Regardless, human beings aren’t similar to breeds of dogs.

    As an aside, race is a social construct overlaid on competing biological narratives. Phenotypic and genotypic differences are crafted in a way to establish a perceived biological reality of each race. Yes, “the same individual might be classified as different (social construct) races in the US and Brazil despite their genotype and phenotype (biological reality) remaining unchanged”. But it comes down to how we interpret social behavior like a propensity for violence, then align it as being undeniably the result of a person’s genotypes and phenotypes, that ends up being rooted in subjectivity and confirmation bias. Now, society and culture are developed through a complex mix of factors, including the genetics of its members. To what extent?

    This is just more casuistry. It’s not a mere “social construct” that societies recognize racial differences which are readily apparent on the face of things.

    Query: what is the socially constructed racial makeup of the place in which you have made your home?

    Well, of course, that is debatable. If we look at the past four hundred years, we bear witness to whites more inherently likely to murder and steal (see colonialism and imperialism, the world wars, predatory capitalism, corporate globalism). So it is natural for people from different races to be wary of those who are known to be violent or otherwise criminally inclined give a group’s history. Thus, an argument could be made that whites as a race are more prone to greed and aggression. I don’t like it at all admitted this likelihood, but that seemingly is our biological reality.

    Yes, it is well known that the Earth was populated by peace-loving innocents who had no concept of violence before contact with the white man. Everywhere man lived in harmony with nature, and survived on the ample fruits of the land wanting for nothing.

    • Replies: @Mr. Grey
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)


    Yes, it is well known that the Earth was populated by peace-loving innocents
     
    Don't you mean Africa? It was when the Africans naively shared their science and technology with the white man that the Earth's downfall began.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  81. With this logic one could say a dog is a social construct since we invented the concepts of ‘species’ and ‘mammals’ etc.

  82. @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Corvinus


    Regardless, human beings aren’t similar to breeds of dogs.

    As an aside, race is a social construct overlaid on competing biological narratives. Phenotypic and genotypic differences are crafted in a way to establish a perceived biological reality of each race. Yes, “the same individual might be classified as different (social construct) races in the US and Brazil despite their genotype and phenotype (biological reality) remaining unchanged”. But it comes down to how we interpret social behavior like a propensity for violence, then align it as being undeniably the result of a person’s genotypes and phenotypes, that ends up being rooted in subjectivity and confirmation bias. Now, society and culture are developed through a complex mix of factors, including the genetics of its members. To what extent?

     

    This is just more casuistry. It's not a mere "social construct" that societies recognize racial differences which are readily apparent on the face of things.

    Query: what is the socially constructed racial makeup of the place in which you have made your home?

    Well, of course, that is debatable. If we look at the past four hundred years, we bear witness to whites more inherently likely to murder and steal (see colonialism and imperialism, the world wars, predatory capitalism, corporate globalism). So it is natural for people from different races to be wary of those who are known to be violent or otherwise criminally inclined give a group’s history. Thus, an argument could be made that whites as a race are more prone to greed and aggression. I don’t like it at all admitted this likelihood, but that seemingly is our biological reality.
     
    Yes, it is well known that the Earth was populated by peace-loving innocents who had no concept of violence before contact with the white man. Everywhere man lived in harmony with nature, and survived on the ample fruits of the land wanting for nothing.

    Replies: @Mr. Grey

    Yes, it is well known that the Earth was populated by peace-loving innocents

    Don’t you mean Africa? It was when the Africans naively shared their science and technology with the white man that the Earth’s downfall began.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Mr. Grey

    More like were forced by bayonet to give up their resources. Europeans sought gimmedats and free stuff.

  83. @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Corvinus



    Several decades ago, well before most of the research we cited here was possible, Montagu (1942) covered familiar territory:
     
    “Man has bred dogs for certain temperamental qualities useful in the hunt for many centuries. The Irish setter, for example, is always red-haired, but his red hair has no connection with his temperamental qualities. The Irish setter has the same kind of temperament as the English setter, but the hair color of the English setter is white and black. The only difference between the white, the black, the white and black, and the red setters is in their coat color; there are no significant differences in their mental or temperamental qualities. No one ever asks whether there are mental and temperamental differences between white, black, or brown horses—such a question would seem rather silly. When, however, it comes to man, the prejudice of anyone who has ever made the statement that skin color is associated with mental capacity is accepted as gospel. For such an assumption there is about as much justification as there would be for the assumption that there exist substantial differences between different color varieties of setters. We know this to be false concerning setters only because we have paid more unprejudiced attention to the mental qualities of dogs than we have to those of human beings.” (1942; p. 92–3)
     
    This is an obvious fallacy. First, he's just wrong about the Irish Setter - until recent breed standards Irish Setters came in Red and Red and White. The "Irish Red and White Setter" is simply the same standard but for coat color. Prior to this recent divergence, a single litter could include puppies that were either wholly red or red and white. They're the same dog because they're the same dog. And, of course, the Irish setter breeds and the English setter breeds are recently descended from the same original breeding stock. Did you really think that the Irish and the English independently domesticated wolves into dogs on their respective islands and ended up with breeds of dogs that were very similar by chance?

    Similarly, two brown horses can yield a black foal or a silver foal or a white foal. This is why we don't make much of a distinction between them other than the particular accident of the horse's coat. Horses of all colors can and do win races.

    Unlike these examples, the human races experienced long periods of separate evolution under different evolutionary pressures. Two Chinese do not routinely give birth to an African, nor two Africans to a Polynesian.

    If two German Shepherds produce a litter of Chihuahuas, I'll of course revisit my priors. My assumption, however, will be that the the bitch got over the wall one too many times.

    The point of referencing dog breeds is, of course, not to make a perfect analogy between human races and breeds of dogs but to demonstrate that genetics is a substantial factor in differences within a single species in terms of appearance, temperament, and intelligence.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “This is an obvious fallacy. First, he’s just wrong about the Irish Setter”.

    Not really. Irish Setters come in two types: show and field dogs. Show dogs are heavier and larger than field dogs. Both types meet the breed standard — a written description of how a breed should appear and behave.

    So dogs are artificially selected by humans. Dog breeds are by definition, inbred, and there are few genes that control major differences in their traits. In humans, the opposite occurs: many genes control very minor differences in complex traits. Of course, human differences probably reside more due to culture, which can be (loosely) applied to certain ethnicities, but are other than genetic.

    “Did you really think that the Irish and the English independently domesticated wolves into dogs on their respective islands and ended up with breeds of dogs that were very similar by chance?“

    Strawman much?

    “ hat genetics is a substantial factor in differences within a single species in terms of appearance”

    Yes.

    “temperament, and intelligence.”

    Perhaps. Then again, maybe not. It’s really about how one crafts the narrative to suit their preferred version of biological reality.

    “Query: what is the socially constructed racial makeup of the place in which you have made your home?“

    Let’s see. Several black families. Two Asian families. A number of Eastern Europeans (Serbs). Even lil’ Abdul down the street fits in. Although, he does have a keen knowledge about explosives. Wonder if that skill is in born or learned…

    “ Yes, it is well known that the Earth was populated by peace-loving innocents who had no concept of violence before contact with the white man.”

    Of course Africans and Asians have displayed violent tendencies. They are part of the human race, after all. But unquestionably we whites are more inherently likely to create and destroy, especially within the past 400 years. After all, we have been the dominant species. With the good comes much bad.

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @Corvinus

    "But unquestionably we whites are more inherently likely to create and destroy, especially within the past 400 years."

    The past 400 years. So, in other words, in the scale of human history, since last Tuesday.

    Now do Islam. You do realize that all North Africa, Egypt, Sudan, Anatolia, the Levant, and Mesopotamia are all "stolen tribal land", right? Now do Timur the Lame. Now the Hindu Kush. Now tell me what "devcirme" is.
    Now do the Bantu Expansion.
    How did the Han, a tiny tribe from the northern Wei River Valley, end up in places like Guangdong and Tibet and Taiwan and Macao?
    How about asking the Ainu what happened to their islands?

    You're so smug and stupid (btw, the funniest combination) you make everyone else here stupider just by listening to you.

    Now be quiet, chucklehead.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Moses

  84. @Mr. Grey
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)


    Yes, it is well known that the Earth was populated by peace-loving innocents
     
    Don't you mean Africa? It was when the Africans naively shared their science and technology with the white man that the Earth's downfall began.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    More like were forced by bayonet to give up their resources. Europeans sought gimmedats and free stuff.

  85. @BB753
    @2BR

    Funny, I was under the impression that Ashkenazi Jews were doing better after 1939 than before, up to this day. Now, that night be true in the future, as they are no competition for the Chinese.

    Replies: @2BR

    Well 1939-1945 seems like a pretty large dip to me, one that can hardly be ignored. Had the State of Israel existed then, so that the European Jews had their own nation to emigrate to, I think your statement about post 1939 success would certainly be unequivocally true. But my point was only that for a dispersed group, brains alone might not be the best survival mechanism.

  86. @jamie b.
    @Corvinus


    So, which taxonomy ought to be the “standard”?
     
    Cluster (distance based) analysis is a reasonably objective tool for identifying races: It is not model based, and brings no preconceptions to how a computer defines the clusters. Regardless of cluster number, the clustering is invariably consistent with geographic boundaries.

    If we set the number of cluster (‘K’) at 5, we have something rather nearly identical to Blumenbach’s classification. Any increase in the number of clusters results in a splitting of clusters previously identified. IOW, increasing K will invariably augment previously determined clusters, rather than form a new pattern.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707625786

    In summary, from a very large study of four major racial/ethnic groups within the United States and Taiwan, we found extraordinary correspondence between SIRE and genetic cluster categories but only modest geographic differentiation within each race/ethnicity group. This result indicates that studies using genetic clusters instead of racial/ethnic labels are likely to simply reproduce racial/ethnic differences, which may or may not be genetic. On the other hand, in the absence of racial/ethnic information, it is tempting to attribute any observed difference between derived genetic clusters to a genetic etiology. Therefore, researchers performing studies without racial/ethnic labels should be wary of characterizing difference between genetically defined clusters as genetic in origin, since social, cultural, economic, behavioral, and other environmental factors may result in extreme confounding (Risch et al. 2002).

    • Replies: @jamie b.
    @Corvinus

    "Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories."

    "This result indicates that studies using genetic clusters instead of racial/ethnic labels are likely to simply reproduce racial/ethnic differences, which may or may not be genetic."

    A precaution. There's been progress since 2005. You seem to be resting your case on a hope that isn't presently panning out.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  87. I am trying to look at the idea of distinct groups from a Woke viewpoint.

    Distinct groups exist if we are proposing affirmative action, and they include whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans. However, if someone wants to measure a quality such as IQ, then distinct groups do not exist. Thus they exist at some times but not at others.

    When they exist these groups must not be called “races”. However, discrimination against any non-white group, or failure to discriminate sufficiently in favor of them, is called “racism”. This means that racism exists, even though races do not.

  88. @Corvinus
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    “This is an obvious fallacy. First, he’s just wrong about the Irish Setter”.

    Not really. Irish Setters come in two types: show and field dogs. Show dogs are heavier and larger than field dogs. Both types meet the breed standard — a written description of how a breed should appear and behave.

    So dogs are artificially selected by humans. Dog breeds are by definition, inbred, and there are few genes that control major differences in their traits. In humans, the opposite occurs: many genes control very minor differences in complex traits. Of course, human differences probably reside more due to culture, which can be (loosely) applied to certain ethnicities, but are other than genetic.

    “Did you really think that the Irish and the English independently domesticated wolves into dogs on their respective islands and ended up with breeds of dogs that were very similar by chance?“

    Strawman much?

    “ hat genetics is a substantial factor in differences within a single species in terms of appearance”

    Yes.

    “temperament, and intelligence.”

    Perhaps. Then again, maybe not. It’s really about how one crafts the narrative to suit their preferred version of biological reality.

    “Query: what is the socially constructed racial makeup of the place in which you have made your home?“

    Let’s see. Several black families. Two Asian families. A number of Eastern Europeans (Serbs). Even lil’ Abdul down the street fits in. Although, he does have a keen knowledge about explosives. Wonder if that skill is in born or learned…

    “ Yes, it is well known that the Earth was populated by peace-loving innocents who had no concept of violence before contact with the white man.”

    Of course Africans and Asians have displayed violent tendencies. They are part of the human race, after all. But unquestionably we whites are more inherently likely to create and destroy, especially within the past 400 years. After all, we have been the dominant species. With the good comes much bad.

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease

    “But unquestionably we whites are more inherently likely to create and destroy, especially within the past 400 years.”

    The past 400 years. So, in other words, in the scale of human history, since last Tuesday.

    Now do Islam. You do realize that all North Africa, Egypt, Sudan, Anatolia, the Levant, and Mesopotamia are all “stolen tribal land”, right? Now do Timur the Lame. Now the Hindu Kush. Now tell me what “devcirme” is.
    Now do the Bantu Expansion.
    How did the Han, a tiny tribe from the northern Wei River Valley, end up in places like Guangdong and Tibet and Taiwan and Macao?
    How about asking the Ainu what happened to their islands?

    You’re so smug and stupid (btw, the funniest combination) you make everyone else here stupider just by listening to you.

    Now be quiet, chucklehead.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    “The past 400 years. So, in other words, in the scale of human history, since last Tuesday.”

    More like last Friday.

    “Now do…”

    I am quite aware of the destructive accomplishments of the groups you mentioned. Thieving and conniving is in our collective DNA. It’s just that our recent history Europeans have done a really good job in those activities, besides obviously helping to advance human societies.

    “Now be quiet, chucklehead.”

    Hey, take out your frustrations with your old lady at your Saturday night bowling league.

    , @Moses
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    “We Whites” is the telltale here Germ man.

  89. @Corvinus
    @jamie b.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707625786

    In summary, from a very large study of four major racial/ethnic groups within the United States and Taiwan, we found extraordinary correspondence between SIRE and genetic cluster categories but only modest geographic differentiation within each race/ethnicity group. This result indicates that studies using genetic clusters instead of racial/ethnic labels are likely to simply reproduce racial/ethnic differences, which may or may not be genetic. On the other hand, in the absence of racial/ethnic information, it is tempting to attribute any observed difference between derived genetic clusters to a genetic etiology. Therefore, researchers performing studies without racial/ethnic labels should be wary of characterizing difference between genetically defined clusters as genetic in origin, since social, cultural, economic, behavioral, and other environmental factors may result in extreme confounding (Risch et al. 2002).

    Replies: @jamie b.

    “Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories.”

    “This result indicates that studies using genetic clusters instead of racial/ethnic labels are likely to simply reproduce racial/ethnic differences, which may or may not be genetic.

    A precaution. There’s been progress since 2005. You seem to be resting your case on a hope that isn’t presently panning out.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @jamie b.

    “A precaution. There’s been progress since 2005. You seem to be resting your case on a hope that isn’t presently panning out.“

    More like caution. I just find it interesting that when these theories were advanced that essentially put whites in hierarchical categories, like Madison Grant, some people (not you per se) say it in other than applicable now.

  90. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @Corvinus

    "But unquestionably we whites are more inherently likely to create and destroy, especially within the past 400 years."

    The past 400 years. So, in other words, in the scale of human history, since last Tuesday.

    Now do Islam. You do realize that all North Africa, Egypt, Sudan, Anatolia, the Levant, and Mesopotamia are all "stolen tribal land", right? Now do Timur the Lame. Now the Hindu Kush. Now tell me what "devcirme" is.
    Now do the Bantu Expansion.
    How did the Han, a tiny tribe from the northern Wei River Valley, end up in places like Guangdong and Tibet and Taiwan and Macao?
    How about asking the Ainu what happened to their islands?

    You're so smug and stupid (btw, the funniest combination) you make everyone else here stupider just by listening to you.

    Now be quiet, chucklehead.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Moses

    “The past 400 years. So, in other words, in the scale of human history, since last Tuesday.”

    More like last Friday.

    “Now do…”

    I am quite aware of the destructive accomplishments of the groups you mentioned. Thieving and conniving is in our collective DNA. It’s just that our recent history Europeans have done a really good job in those activities, besides obviously helping to advance human societies.

    “Now be quiet, chucklehead.”

    Hey, take out your frustrations with your old lady at your Saturday night bowling league.

  91. @jamie b.
    @Corvinus

    "Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories."

    "This result indicates that studies using genetic clusters instead of racial/ethnic labels are likely to simply reproduce racial/ethnic differences, which may or may not be genetic."

    A precaution. There's been progress since 2005. You seem to be resting your case on a hope that isn't presently panning out.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “A precaution. There’s been progress since 2005. You seem to be resting your case on a hope that isn’t presently panning out.“

    More like caution. I just find it interesting that when these theories were advanced that essentially put whites in hierarchical categories, like Madison Grant, some people (not you per se) say it in other than applicable now.

  92. So… you’re making an appeal to consequence.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @jamie b.

    "So… you’re making an appeal to consequence."

    In what specific way? Please explain.

  93. @jamie b.
    So... you're making an appeal to consequence.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “So… you’re making an appeal to consequence.”

    In what specific way? Please explain.

  94. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @Corvinus

    "But unquestionably we whites are more inherently likely to create and destroy, especially within the past 400 years."

    The past 400 years. So, in other words, in the scale of human history, since last Tuesday.

    Now do Islam. You do realize that all North Africa, Egypt, Sudan, Anatolia, the Levant, and Mesopotamia are all "stolen tribal land", right? Now do Timur the Lame. Now the Hindu Kush. Now tell me what "devcirme" is.
    Now do the Bantu Expansion.
    How did the Han, a tiny tribe from the northern Wei River Valley, end up in places like Guangdong and Tibet and Taiwan and Macao?
    How about asking the Ainu what happened to their islands?

    You're so smug and stupid (btw, the funniest combination) you make everyone else here stupider just by listening to you.

    Now be quiet, chucklehead.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Moses

    “We Whites” is the telltale here Germ man.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Hidden Information in Our Government Archives
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
How America was neoconned into World War IV
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.