RSS
I’ve never heard the expression “violin plot” before, but it’s a good way to show a point I’ve been trying to get across for 20 years: when analyzed with modern genetic assays, there is surprisingly little overlap between non-Hispanic Americans who identify as white versus black.
It’s commonly said that Race Does Not Exist because social science statistics are collected based on self-identification rather than on genetic testing.
Indeed, I once planned to write the definitive take-down of how standard U.S. racial categories are absurd when viewed through the rapidly improving lens of genetic science. But I wound up concluding that, to my surprise, the Census Bureau’s categories were good enough for government work.
It turns out that, due to the workings of the one-drop rule, most people who self-identify as white (red in the above graph) really are highly white genetically (% sub-Saharan ancestry on the vertical axis). In contrast, the majority of Americans who self-identify as black (blue) are in the range of 70%-90% black. (The modal person who self-identities as white and black (green) is about 40% black due to having one self-identifying white parent of more or less 0% blackness and one self-identifying black parent of about 80% blackness.) These are non-Hispanics.
From OpenPsych:
Genetic ancestry and social race are nearly interchangeable
OpenPsych , Dec. 22, 2021, ISSN: 2597-324XEmil O. W. Kirkegaard
Ulster Institute for Social Research
Abstract
It has been claimed that social race and genetic ancestry are at best weakly related. Here we test this claim by applying predictive modeling in both directions, i.e., predicting genetic ancestry from social race(s), and predicting social race(s) from genetic ancestry. We utilize the public Pediatric Imaging, Neurocognition, and Genetics (PING) dataset (n = 1,391), so that others may examine the data as well. In the simple scenario where we are only concerned with self-identified white, black, and mixed (black-white) race individuals (571 whites, 140 blacks, 25 mixed), model accuracy was very high. Predicting social race from genetic ancestry resulted in an area under curve (AUC) of .994, an overall accuracy (concordance) of 98.0%, and a pseudo-R2 of .951. Conversely, predicting genetic ancestry from social race had a model R2 adjusted of .992.Using the full dataset, there are 8 census-type categories of social race. Using cross-validated multinomial regession to predict social race from 6 genetic ancestry variables, we find that the AUC is .89. Using Dirichlet regression to predict ancestries from social race, we find an overall correlation of .94 (R2 = 88.4%). Further analyses using more sophisticated methods (random forest, support vector machine) found similar results. In conclusion, social race and genetic ancestry are nearly interchangeable.
These results are similar to those found in other recent admixture studies of young people.
In any case, if you dropped out of the black sample the not all that black blacks like Barack Obama and just included the highly blacks like Michelle Obama, you’d wind up with even bigger race gaps in behavior than you do with our current system of self-identification.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Kipling was on the Right track: Black is black and White is White, and never the twin shall meet.
"Half devil and half child."
But Charles I, King of Scotland, England, and Ireland was black. He really was. Mental defectives say so on the internet.
“By heaven, thy love is black as ebony.”
With global exploration and colonization the meaning of black happened to change.
Don't make me tell you about Bluebeard.
They always claim to detect the cloven hoof of essentialism. Then they point out there are intermediates, and cry checkmate!
People have a really hard time with the fact that most differences are a matter of degree rather than absolutes.Replies: @kihowi, @Johnny Rico
There seem to be a lot of blacks with African ancestry in that chart.
“In any case, if you dropped out of the black sample the not all that black blacks like Barack Obama and just included the highly blacks like Michelle Obama, you’d wind up with even bigger race gaps in behavior than you do with our current system of self-identification.”
This prediction is not reliable due to selective immigration effects in recent African and Afro-Carribean immigration. Many recent immigrants with African ancestry tend to have 100% or near-100% African ancestry but have been selected, deliberately or indirectly, for higher intelligence and/or more conscientious behavior due to immigration barriers which must be breached. This gives rise to an offsetting effect which makes Sailer’s prediction less reliable.
Isn’t it curious, that our African immigrants are not involved in violent and impulsive street crime like African-Americans? If Steve’s theory concerning “highly blacks” was truly accurate, they arguably would be the most violent and ferocious group in this country, but that does not appear objectively to be the case.Replies: @Bill, @res
Afro-Caribbean immigration also skews selective, but the elite of those societies (aside from Haiti) have considerable white-admixture. If you find an Afro-Caribbean doing well in the US--Colin Powell, Eric Holder--they pretty much always have significant (at least "talented-tenth level) white admixture.
African and Afro-Caribbean immigration to the US, has the wonderful effect of making both nations worse.
Woke logic makes sense once you understand they all didn’t pay attention in 5th grade science. They get all their null hypotheses backwards. Everyone is taught in elementary school that science works by establishing your null hypothesis (that nothing interesting is happening) and then doing something to disprove that. Wokies instead assume a spicy null hypothesis (race doesn’t exist, gender is a social construct) and assume it’s correct because no one has bothered to refute it yet.
These are also called bean plots, depending on the shape. They are an improvement over bar and whisker plots that only show nonparametric values like mean, median, and interquartile range.
Presumably, the big lump in the middle of the green graphic at ~40% is the freshly crossed black+white mulattoes.
Then the smaller lumps above and below it at ~20% and ~60% are the next-generation-out crosses.
Not sure what’s up with that ~90% lump, though.
And the 0% lump sure has a lot of Rachel Dolezal’s and Talcum X’s.
No.
That graph is trash. Just because you have a graph and numbers doesn’t mean anything. If you think that supports some point you have been trying to make you might maybe want to critically examine this point of yours.
It’s a shame the abstract expressionists didn’t discover violin plots.
In your earlier article linked here, A Matter of Tone, you cited drag racer Don Prudhomme as one of those mostly-but-not-entirely white people from Louisiana* who are an exception to the usual black/white dichotomy. While that may have been the case in his younger years, in this recent photo of him at about 80 he looks much more conventionally black.
* = he’s actually a California native of Louisianan background
http://snakeracing.com/about-us/
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/73/31/e0/7331e0e23c9fe56a7fb77d327d429cd6.jpg
He always looked kind of black, but the great thing from my point of view is that I never noticed.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a0/39/e7/a039e7fdbd2a90a68527482a24748458.jpg
If politicians, academics and race hustlers would just leave kids alone, they would work things out themselves. I liked Don Prudhomme, and he could have been green for all I cared.Replies: @Colin Wright, @JMcG, @Anonymous Jew, @GeneralRipper
* = he's actually a California native of Louisianan backgroundhttp://snakeracing.com/about-us/Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Jack D, @Paperback Writer
Don Prudhomme was another one of my childhood heroes. I went through a phase of building plastic models of drag racers, and two of them were his. He had a nice contract with the Mattel toy company in SoCal.
He always looked kind of black, but the great thing from my point of view is that I never noticed.
If politicians, academics and race hustlers would just leave kids alone, they would work things out themselves. I liked Don Prudhomme, and he could have been green for all I cared.
This is wishful thinking. It would be nice if it were so, but it isn't.
I started out genuinely color-blind. That there was a difference was borne in on me with increasing force by the time I was ten. Citing Don Prudhomme won't change that.Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
https://axleaddict.com/cars/Mongoose-vs-The-Snake--The-Greatest-Rivalry-In-Drag-Racing
Violins? More like lava lamps.
Thanks for blogging about that paper, Steve.
Violin plots are a nice way to compare distributions, but (as done here) they do lose information about the number in each group. Table 1 shows the numbers for common combinations of social races. Here 571 white, 140 African American, and 25 African American, White. I wonder why they did not include that information in the caption?
So the mixed category is only about a seventh of African Americans. They give a model for predicting between those three groups (basically cutlines at 27% and 52% African ancestry, it would be helpful to have those shown on the violin plot, though easy enough to imagine). The confusion matrix in Table 2 shows that except for one predicted Black self declared as White the only “errors” came from sorting out the Black and White+Black groups. That appears to be the “social construct” aspect of race. Which helps explain why Blacks tend to focus on it.
The project R code is available at https://osf.io/qxvg8/ and SOME data at https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.3983
It looks like the R code requires more data from http://pingstudy.ucsd.edu/Data.php though. Which requires approval to download. I wonder if it would be possible for Emil to make the derived genetic ancestry data available? I think that would be sufficient to reproduce the work.
P.S. For anyone interested, Emil made a good post about heritability measurements two days ago on his blog.
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2021/12/heritabilities-are-usually-underestimated/
I suspect that the blackness correlation is not merely bi-directional, but tri-directional. The third predictor is S.A.T. score or I.Q. Anyway, the concept of correlation of two variables has many interesting applications. For example, fry voice in a woman probably correlates with having a progressive political orientation. Seeing a clean-shaven man predicts that you are looking at a conservative.
Better learn to keep up.
(Okay, maybe 'he's' conservative...)
LOL! Have to remember that one. Thanks.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/73/31/e0/7331e0e23c9fe56a7fb77d327d429cd6.jpg
He always looked kind of black, but the great thing from my point of view is that I never noticed.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a0/39/e7/a039e7fdbd2a90a68527482a24748458.jpg
If politicians, academics and race hustlers would just leave kids alone, they would work things out themselves. I liked Don Prudhomme, and he could have been green for all I cared.Replies: @Colin Wright, @JMcG, @Anonymous Jew, @GeneralRipper
‘…If politicians, academics and race hustlers would just leave kids alone, they would work things out themselves. I liked Don Prudhomme, and he could have been green for all I cared…’
This is wishful thinking. It would be nice if it were so, but it isn’t.
I started out genuinely color-blind. That there was a difference was borne in on me with increasing force by the time I was ten. Citing Don Prudhomme won’t change that.
‘If politicians, academics and race hustlers would just leave kids alone, they would work things out themselves. I liked Don Prudhomme, and he could have been green for all I cared.’
People have a really hard time with the fact that most differences are a matter of degree rather than absolutes.
I don’t think the “one drop” rule is signficant in its contribution to the effect, and I think the presence of relatively “pure” white people on the earth will persist for quite some time. I think it has more to do with the almost universal desirability of white women on the planet.
Having a white woman seems be the aspiration of men from almost every race (not all men, just a representative group from each race). However, this desire is not symmetrical. White men are not universally preferred by the women of the world. Or even significantly at all.
What this means is there will never be a general “cross mixing.” There will be white men, and when a white man sucessfully woos a white woman, the next generation of entirely white children are born. The size of this population will ebb and flow, but it is the strong preference for white women by white men that will sustain the population.
This is why there has been rampant cross-breeding between the European populations (French, English, German, the various Nordics, Poles, etc.) but it stops there.
The white race can almost be defined as “the race that puts forth the women that everyone seems to like the most, and therefore it is the progeny of the warriors that succeeded in conquering and killing their predecessor males.”
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/73/31/e0/7331e0e23c9fe56a7fb77d327d429cd6.jpg
He always looked kind of black, but the great thing from my point of view is that I never noticed.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a0/39/e7/a039e7fdbd2a90a68527482a24748458.jpg
If politicians, academics and race hustlers would just leave kids alone, they would work things out themselves. I liked Don Prudhomme, and he could have been green for all I cared.Replies: @Colin Wright, @JMcG, @Anonymous Jew, @GeneralRipper
Amen. Up until around thirty years ago I couldn’t have cared less if people were purple. Also, there isn’t much cooler than those supercharger air intakes.
It’s epistemically invalid to accept statements as anything but nonsense until it’s proven.
If you take a statement seriously without proof, all the Sophist has to do is snow you with an infinite number of statements. “What? You can’t prove I’m wrong!” Okay, 1) yes I can and 2) I don’t need to. Nullius in verba, bitches.
* = he's actually a California native of Louisianan backgroundhttp://snakeracing.com/about-us/Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Jack D, @Paperback Writer
Louisiana had Latin roots and a more relaxed Latin system of racial division than the American norm. It would be interesting to see the violin graphs for old stock Louisiana people.
Part of that system is that you had mixed race groups that did not “identify” as black. Some of these people had visible black ancestry and some could “pass” but in any case they did not think of themselves as “black”. Jim Crow tried to push a lot of these people into the “black” category and now the AA advantages of being black are pushing them in that direction again but absent outside pressure their mental image of themselves was not as Africans but as French speaking Creoles. Now they were not stupid – they knew that they had some colored blood (black, Indian) as well as French blood but this did not put them in the same category as English speaking Negros who were brought to work on the sugar plantations.
This is very common in Latin countries where there are a lot of people who are not “white” by American standards but if you ask them if they are Indians they will strongly deny it. They wear shoes and live in houses in the city and go to church and speak Spanish, so how could they be Indians?
It’s stupid to say that race is completely a matter of social construction but it is, in some cases, at least partly a question of social construction.
One overlooked aspect of “bi-racialism” is the difficulty for “bi-racial” individuals to procure organs for transplant.
This prediction is not reliable due to selective immigration effects in recent African and Afro-Carribean immigration. Many recent immigrants with African ancestry tend to have 100% or near-100% African ancestry but have been selected, deliberately or indirectly, for higher intelligence and/or more conscientious behavior due to immigration barriers which must be breached. This gives rise to an offsetting effect which makes Sailer's prediction less reliable.Replies: @oliver elkington, @PaceLaw, @AnotherDad
America must get very high quality African immigrants, in the UK and especially London many of the African districts are plagued by gang violence and a general negative atmosphere, it is similar in Paris too, thankfully shootings are lower than in Chicongo and Deontetroit but that is obviously because of the difficulties in obtaining firearms.
People have a really hard time with the fact that most differences are a matter of degree rather than absolutes.Replies: @kihowi, @Johnny Rico
Akshually, people have a very easy time thinking about degrees of whatever rather than discrete steps. Nobody has trouble with age or beauty or racial mixture for that matter. What people have trouble with is defending themselves against subtle sophistries. That could actually be called the main Achilles heel of normal white people.
A lot of modern “intellectual” arguing goes like this (you’ve heard a lot of this if you come from a middle class white family that knows no God except fashionable thought, like mine):
Age doesn’t exist. If it exists, when do people go from “young” to “old”, huh? Huh? Well? What second of which day of which year do they officially become old? You can be too old for some things and too young for others at the same time. I know young looking “old” people and old looking “young” people. It’s all a spectrum and “young” and “old” are simplistic extremes that don’t exist in real life. So, what is “age” exactly then? No, you can’t say it’s a number of years, because numbers and years are human constructs therefore have no objective existence. Therefore, 8 years old and 80 years old are exactly the same, QUE EEE DEEEEE
Takes a while to figure out why that’s wrong, even like this when I’ve tried to make it sound as ridiculous as possible. People have things to do. The right answer to the above is “suck my dick”, but we’ve all been taught that arguing is what intelligent people do, so we lose.
Or a tranny.
Better learn to keep up.
(Okay, maybe ‘he’s’ conservative…)
An additional factor is that white settlement and immigration into the US was predominantly from northern Europe:
https://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/09/estimate-of-sub-saharan-autosomal.html
This is wishful thinking. It would be nice if it were so, but it isn't.
I started out genuinely color-blind. That there was a difference was borne in on me with increasing force by the time I was ten. Citing Don Prudhomme won't change that.Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
I would say you did work it out, as you say, “with increasing force by the time [you were] ten.” I totally get that. One hopes you therefore worked it out to the point at which you realized there were perfectly fine example like Don Prudhomme and then there were others, not so fine, that you encountered.
Yes, stereotypes are based in reality. They arise from statistical averages and probabilities, and you discovered them by age ten. One hopes you also discovered exceptions. You don’t need politicians, academics and race hustlers to tell you what to do, and you certainly don’t need laws to tell you how to be fair and honest and with whom to associate.
Famed mixed race jazz musician Ferdinand “Jelly Roll”* Morton nearly died because Louisiana’s relaxed racial categories didn’t always apply beyond the Pelican State’s borders. After a 1938 stabbing in Washington DC the nearest hospital refused to treat him because it was for whites only. He barely survived the delays in transferring him to a black hospital and died young a few years later at least in part because of the lingering effects of his injury, though asthma was a bigger factor.
* Jelly Roll = New Orleans slang for a particular part of a lady’s body
People have a really hard time with the fact that most differences are a matter of degree rather than absolutes.Replies: @kihowi, @Johnny Rico
Lol. It is unclear what you are trying to say here. Twice. As near as I can figure you taught yourself to be obsessed with race at 10 four years ago.
Oh well. Happily, your confusion doesn't upset me too much.
If it makes you feel better, flame me at this point.
Having a white woman seems be the aspiration of men from almost every race (not all men, just a representative group from each race). However, this desire is not symmetrical. White men are not universally preferred by the women of the world. Or even significantly at all.
What this means is there will never be a general "cross mixing." There will be white men, and when a white man sucessfully woos a white woman, the next generation of entirely white children are born. The size of this population will ebb and flow, but it is the strong preference for white women by white men that will sustain the population.
This is why there has been rampant cross-breeding between the European populations (French, English, German, the various Nordics, Poles, etc.) but it stops there.
The white race can almost be defined as "the race that puts forth the women that everyone seems to like the most, and therefore it is the progeny of the warriors that succeeded in conquering and killing their predecessor males."Replies: @Rich, @adreadline
Have you ever been in a non-White country? Everywhere I ever travelled White males were the most desired. In the US, any White male can find a black woman, if he desires (I had a crew of friends as a kid who always dated black girls). Of the guys I grew up with, a good percentage married Hispanic girls and the younger guys I work with there is a solid number married to Asian girls. You are mistaken.
Wasn’t that a 60s fad?
https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/filer/March-Phenomenon-Liquid-Light-631.gif
* = he's actually a California native of Louisianan backgroundhttp://snakeracing.com/about-us/Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Jack D, @Paperback Writer
Definitely a Creole of color, or as they called them back in the day “gens du coleur.” (my spelling may be off.)
Jack Ruby is an even more recent case of an unknown birth date. He definitely was born in 1911, four years before Chicago instituted mandatory birth registration, but no one knew the exact date other than it was sometime in the spring or early summer. His school records showed several different dates, and he eventually settled on March 25.Replies: @AceDeuce, @Reg Cæsar, @Paperback Writer
Homer Plessy of Plessy v. Ferguson was phenotypically white. From Wikipedia:
I would be curious to know what black Americans think of Africans as far as physical attractiveness and as sexual / mating partners. Also visa versa. Some Latin Americans and Southern Europeans consider it an upgrade to date a Northern European type. Does the polar opposite occur. Blobs like those in the graph rarely stay static and are usually moving either up or down.
“Essentialism” is what decision-makers do with information and the only time it’s wrong is when the information is wrong, which is likely to not be the essentializer’s fault; on a related note careful essentialization with hedges can protect you from the hazards of expert worship. This last part bugs the hell out of them, and (to essentialize) driving academics crazy is why you were put on this Earth.
Slightly off topic, but this will likely be an iSteve content generator: https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/black-girls-code-ousted-ceo
That graph is trash. Just because you have a graph and numbers doesn't mean anything. If you think that supports some point you have been trying to make you might maybe want to critically examine this point of yours.Replies: @J.Ross, @Anon, @adreadline
What is missing?
That graph is trash. Just because you have a graph and numbers doesn't mean anything. If you think that supports some point you have been trying to make you might maybe want to critically examine this point of yours.Replies: @J.Ross, @Anon, @adreadline
Ad hominem attack. Not better than a woke s reflexive counterargument
By the way, how come the feminine of this name, Emily, is so popular in the English-speaking world, but the masculine form is almost unknown? There are Emile Hirsch, Emile Francis, and...?
Hirsch is the ultimate method actor. To prepare to play Christopher McCandless, who gave away all his money, Hirsch gave away all his. Francis, who is still kicking at 95, was given the Wayne Gretsky International Award. His playing career ended before Gretzky was born.
Jelly Roll Morton never knew his exact age. He most likely was born in or around 1890 and for convenience’s sake used September 20 of that year as his official birth date. No one ever knew for sure, however, as Louisiana, or at least New Orleans, didn’t have mandatory birth registration until 1914.
Jack Ruby is an even more recent case of an unknown birth date. He definitely was born in 1911, four years before Chicago instituted mandatory birth registration, but no one knew the exact date other than it was sometime in the spring or early summer. His school records showed several different dates, and he eventually settled on March 25.
He was one of 25 children fathered by his sharecropper daddy , and no one bothered to record his birth. He died over the holidays in the 1970s in what was probably a mob hit at his house. No one found him for several days--they've guesstimated a date based on the mail and newspapers piled up after he went night-night, but no one can definitively say if it's right or not.
Violin plots are a nice way to compare distributions, but (as done here) they do lose information about the number in each group. Table 1 shows the numbers for common combinations of social races. Here 571 white, 140 African American, and 25 African American, White. I wonder why they did not include that information in the caption?
So the mixed category is only about a seventh of African Americans. They give a model for predicting between those three groups (basically cutlines at 27% and 52% African ancestry, it would be helpful to have those shown on the violin plot, though easy enough to imagine). The confusion matrix in Table 2 shows that except for one predicted Black self declared as White the only "errors" came from sorting out the Black and White+Black groups. That appears to be the "social construct" aspect of race. Which helps explain why Blacks tend to focus on it.
The project R code is available at https://osf.io/qxvg8/ and SOME data at https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.3983
It looks like the R code requires more data from http://pingstudy.ucsd.edu/Data.php though. Which requires approval to download. I wonder if it would be possible for Emil to make the derived genetic ancestry data available? I think that would be sufficient to reproduce the work.
P.S. For anyone interested, Emil made a good post about heritability measurements two days ago on his blog.
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2021/12/heritabilities-are-usually-underestimated/Replies: @Emil O. W. Kirkegaard
Plots don’t normally include sample sizes. My convenience functions did not do this automatically, but I guess I could upgrade it so it does in the future.
They are available in the public data. It’s the variables that begin with “GAF_”, see e.g. https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fnn.3983/MediaObjects/41593_2015_BFnn3983_MOESM16_ESM.xlsx
(Undskyld mig. GAF var Amerikas Lego for 50 år siden.)
https://youtu.be/DAxJzwawc7g
https://youtu.be/t7FKNcfHk-8
The GAF_* variables I see are 0/1 (I was assuming those were the SIRE values, had not looked at the Noble paper then). Am I missing something obvious somehow?
Ah, now I see. The first few GAF_* rows really are 1 and 0 values and I stopped looking too soon. The spreadsheet defaults the formatting to round to 0/1 which is really confusing to me (and funny given that the binary M/F is formatted with two decimal places). But easy enough to change.
Thanks! Can you offer any tips on converting those files into the data/data_out.rds file you use in the R code? Or should it be obvious once I look more closely?
In your paper you discuss how the race information was collected as part of the interview, but I am not seeing that data anywhere in the supplementary files?Replies: @Emil O. W. Kirkegaard
Maybe on the West Coast. It was a 70s thing in flyover land.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/73/31/e0/7331e0e23c9fe56a7fb77d327d429cd6.jpg
He always looked kind of black, but the great thing from my point of view is that I never noticed.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a0/39/e7/a039e7fdbd2a90a68527482a24748458.jpg
If politicians, academics and race hustlers would just leave kids alone, they would work things out themselves. I liked Don Prudhomme, and he could have been green for all I cared.Replies: @Colin Wright, @JMcG, @Anonymous Jew, @GeneralRipper
When I went from a 97% White elementary school to a 55% Black middle school I figured it out ‘right quick’ as they say. It took a lot of aggressive socialization from the educational system, my family and the media to keep the genie in the bottle until I got to college.
But to your point, I believe humans are both inherently racist and inherently not racist at the same time. First, we’re tribal pattern-recognition machines, so it’s natural to notice race differences and behave accordingly. Secondly, when we get to know someone personally it’s also natural to see them as an individual. This doesn’t mean you improve a country by brining in a foreign race. But in multi-racial countries that achieve some kind of harmony or at least understanding (Mexico, the US in the 80s and 90s) people are capable of balancing inherent racism with principles of fairness. I can’t think of an ideology that has stoked more racial tension than the modern left.
Regarding the previous comment, Don Prudhomme looks more White than Black if you put a picture of a pure Bantu next to a typical White person. Most Americans think of someone that looks like Obama as a typical Black. Typical American Black, maybe, but not a typical Black African.
Insert Henry Fonda joke here: _____.
(Undskyld mig. GAF var Amerikas Lego for 50 år siden.)
That graph is trash. Just because you have a graph and numbers doesn't mean anything. If you think that supports some point you have been trying to make you might maybe want to critically examine this point of yours.Replies: @J.Ross, @Anon, @adreadline
Someone got bad grades in statistics back in school, I guess?
His money quote on the subject was from another of his poems:
“Half devil and half child.”
Jack Ruby is an even more recent case of an unknown birth date. He definitely was born in 1911, four years before Chicago instituted mandatory birth registration, but no one knew the exact date other than it was sometime in the spring or early summer. His school records showed several different dates, and he eventually settled on March 25.Replies: @AceDeuce, @Reg Cæsar, @Paperback Writer
negro boxer Sonny Liston’s exact dates of birth and death are both unknown.
He was one of 25 children fathered by his sharecropper daddy , and no one bothered to record his birth. He died over the holidays in the 1970s in what was probably a mob hit at his house. No one found him for several days–they’ve guesstimated a date based on the mail and newspapers piled up after he went night-night, but no one can definitively say if it’s right or not.
Thank you for your reply, Emil. Understood about the sample size not being usual/required. But it would be a nice enhancement, especially when the sizes differ by up to a factor of 20x.
The GAF_* variables I see are 0/1 (I was assuming those were the SIRE values, had not looked at the Noble paper then). Am I missing something obvious somehow?
Ah, now I see. The first few GAF_* rows really are 1 and 0 values and I stopped looking too soon. The spreadsheet defaults the formatting to round to 0/1 which is really confusing to me (and funny given that the binary M/F is formatted with two decimal places). But easy enough to change.
Thanks! Can you offer any tips on converting those files into the data/data_out.rds file you use in the R code? Or should it be obvious once I look more closely?
In your paper you discuss how the race information was collected as part of the interview, but I am not seeing that data anywhere in the supplementary files?
Having a white woman seems be the aspiration of men from almost every race (not all men, just a representative group from each race). However, this desire is not symmetrical. White men are not universally preferred by the women of the world. Or even significantly at all.
What this means is there will never be a general "cross mixing." There will be white men, and when a white man sucessfully woos a white woman, the next generation of entirely white children are born. The size of this population will ebb and flow, but it is the strong preference for white women by white men that will sustain the population.
This is why there has been rampant cross-breeding between the European populations (French, English, German, the various Nordics, Poles, etc.) but it stops there.
The white race can almost be defined as "the race that puts forth the women that everyone seems to like the most, and therefore it is the progeny of the warriors that succeeded in conquering and killing their predecessor males."Replies: @Rich, @adreadline
One can simply say men are not favored by women the way women are favored by men. Having a man doesn’t seem to be an universal aspiration of women, nowhere as much as how non-gay men aspire to have a woman. Thus the men have to take the initiative, get things rolling. Those who don’t succeed with women of any race can retreat to their inflatable waifus’ solace.
And despite that rampant cross-breeding, the Germans are not much like the French who are not much like the English, including genetically (to a certain degree), even if all of them are obviously White European (phenotypically and genotypically). Assortative mating doing its thing.
Jack Ruby is an even more recent case of an unknown birth date. He definitely was born in 1911, four years before Chicago instituted mandatory birth registration, but no one knew the exact date other than it was sometime in the spring or early summer. His school records showed several different dates, and he eventually settled on March 25.Replies: @AceDeuce, @Reg Cæsar, @Paperback Writer
Isaac Asimov, of all people, never knew his own birth date. They didn’t keep the best records in the Shumyachsky District a century ago. But, to be fair, they do have a great coat and flag.
Brian Dunlevy and Mitchell Parish didn’t even know which country they were born in. For that matter, neither did Chester Arthur, who may have been born in Quebec. He fudged a Vermont birth to take a position in New York which required native citizenship. Later, that was good enough for presidency work. But he didn’t really know.
Any shady dealings about Obama’s birth certificate were obviously meant to cover his bastardy. The soundest case against his “natural born” citizenship, though, was always the legitimacy of the Republicans’ theft of the Hawaiian kingdom. But Democrats are the first to forgive their opponents’ crimes once the advantage shifts in their direction.
The GAF_* variables I see are 0/1 (I was assuming those were the SIRE values, had not looked at the Noble paper then). Am I missing something obvious somehow?
Ah, now I see. The first few GAF_* rows really are 1 and 0 values and I stopped looking too soon. The spreadsheet defaults the formatting to round to 0/1 which is really confusing to me (and funny given that the binary M/F is formatted with two decimal places). But easy enough to change.
Thanks! Can you offer any tips on converting those files into the data/data_out.rds file you use in the R code? Or should it be obvious once I look more closely?
In your paper you discuss how the race information was collected as part of the interview, but I am not seeing that data anywhere in the supplementary files?Replies: @Emil O. W. Kirkegaard
Yes, read into R and the numbers will be there. Authors rounded displayed values to 0 decimals lol.
Yeah, looks like they didn’t release the social race variables in these files. Email me.
We’re fixin’ for a Battle of the Emils. Herr Kirkegård, you up for this?
By the way, how come the feminine of this name, Emily, is so popular in the English-speaking world, but the masculine form is almost unknown? There are Emile Hirsch, Emile Francis, and…?
Hirsch is the ultimate method actor. To prepare to play Christopher McCandless, who gave away all his money, Hirsch gave away all his. Francis, who is still kicking at 95, was given the Wayne Gretsky International Award. His playing career ended before Gretzky was born.
‘…Yes, stereotypes are based in reality. They arise from statistical averages and probabilities, and you discovered them by age ten. One hopes you also discovered exceptions. You don’t need politicians, academics and race hustlers to tell you what to do, and you certainly don’t need laws to tell you how to be fair and honest and with whom to associate.’
The most interesting observation I have to make on this subject is that racism isn’t as big a deal as people think.
I’ve been very racist with respect to blacks for nearly thirty years now — and yet, when I ran my own business, I had perfectly amicable and successful relationships with black customers and employees. It really didn’t matter much if I hated blacks in the abstract — if an individual deserved it, I could treat him right. It wasn’t like they were asking my daughter out.
It’s funny, really. ‘OMG — Colin’s racist.’ And yet, either as an employee or a client, even if you were black, you would have got a better deal from me than at least one of my competitors I could name.
As I say, perhaps it’s simply not quite as important as people assume. Other qualities matter more.
Then why were you racist?
https://www.esquireme.com/public/styles/fb_share_style_image/public/images/2019/10/31/the-thinker-3.jpg?itok=o7rwGzJjReplies: @Rich
‘Lol. It is unclear what you are trying to say here. Twice. As near as I can figure you taught yourself to be obsessed with race at 10 four years ago.’
Oh well. Happily, your confusion doesn’t upset me too much.
If it makes you feel better, flame me at this point.
This prediction is not reliable due to selective immigration effects in recent African and Afro-Carribean immigration. Many recent immigrants with African ancestry tend to have 100% or near-100% African ancestry but have been selected, deliberately or indirectly, for higher intelligence and/or more conscientious behavior due to immigration barriers which must be breached. This gives rise to an offsetting effect which makes Sailer's prediction less reliable.Replies: @oliver elkington, @PaceLaw, @AnotherDad
I have to agree with your assessment Peter. I know quite a few high-achieving and dark-skinned Nigerians and Ghanaians in this country who would definitely disprove Steve’s hypothesis.
Isn’t it curious, that our African immigrants are not involved in violent and impulsive street crime like African-Americans? If Steve’s theory concerning “highly blacks” was truly accurate, they arguably would be the most violent and ferocious group in this country, but that does not appear objectively to be the case.
Where your point gets interesting is looking at the finer grained behavior of the IQ-admixture curve near 100% African ancestry. See the graph at the start of this iSteve post (also inline after the MORE).
https://www.unz.com/isteve/genetic-ancestry-and-general-cognitive-ability-in-a-sample-of-american-youths/
Both Steve and I have attributed the uptick in the spline at 0% European to highly selected immigrants (the sort of people you describe). Though in that graph of the three outliers around +2 SD two are Hispanic and only one is black.
https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Screen-Shot-2021-08-22-at-2.15.03-AM-1.png
Whoops. Nearly forty years.
I would estimate that most Africans meet/partner with other Africans (I would imagine for nationalistic/cultural reasons), and the overwhelming majority of black Americans do the same. Both African women and black American women tend to prefer men who look like them and that is why they mate amongst our own.
Many white Europeans do appear darker than others, of course, and the term “black” had often been used, such as in Shakespeare:
“By heaven, thy love is black as ebony.”
With global exploration and colonization the meaning of black happened to change.
“Fairness,” as in black jurors refusing to convict obviously guilty black defendants if their victim is white.
I did not mean to imply that this selective-immigration effect changes the Black community’s distribution of outcomes dramatically, but it is a bias relative to Sailer’s prediction in the blog piece. Using your example, according to Sailer’s prediction that I cited, the UK British-African community (which is perhaps 95% African ancestry) should have substantially worse academic/economic average outcomes than the US African-American community which is only 80% African ancestry. I suspect that in fact the British-African average outcomes are slightly better rather than substantially worse than the average African-American outcomes. This selective immigration effect does not eliminate “the gap” it just impacts it, and gives a small net effect in the wrong direction, especially for the first generation. Not so sure about France; that is a good question. France does not allow statistics to be collected sorted by race.
Then the smaller lumps above and below it at ~20% and ~60% are the next-generation-out crosses.
Not sure what's up with that ~90% lump, though.
And the 0% lump sure has a lot of Rachel Dolezal's and Talcum X's.Replies: @Bill
Yeah, the buried lede from that graph are all those Dolezals at the bottom of the green violin.
Isn’t it curious, that our African immigrants are not involved in violent and impulsive street crime like African-Americans? If Steve’s theory concerning “highly blacks” was truly accurate, they arguably would be the most violent and ferocious group in this country, but that does not appear objectively to be the case.Replies: @Bill, @res
Exceptions don’t really disprove claims about averages. It’s possible that there are so many dark black immigrants that they mask the behavior of dark black natives, but it doesn’t look that way to me. I guess if you set dark black dark enough it would be true since there are very few really, really dark natives. Even then it’s a fiddly little gotcha exception which doesn’t threaten the rule at all.
Jack Ruby is an even more recent case of an unknown birth date. He definitely was born in 1911, four years before Chicago instituted mandatory birth registration, but no one knew the exact date other than it was sometime in the spring or early summer. His school records showed several different dates, and he eventually settled on March 25.Replies: @AceDeuce, @Reg Cæsar, @Paperback Writer
My father didn’t know his exact birthdate, only the 5 day period surrounding it. I don’t know if the Army required a birth certificate, or if he had to go get one, or what.
A lot of people in 1890 didn’t know their exact birth date, esp. if they weren’t rich.
I believe the US began requiring birth certificates in the early 1900s but obviously, enforcement took some time to be uniform across “these United States” LOL.
Erik the Red was not an Indian, he just had red hair. Edward the Black Prince was not an African, he just had black hair. Blackbeard the Pirate was…. well, you guessed it.
Don’t make me tell you about Bluebeard.
Really?
Then why were you racist?
Isn’t it curious, that our African immigrants are not involved in violent and impulsive street crime like African-Americans? If Steve’s theory concerning “highly blacks” was truly accurate, they arguably would be the most violent and ferocious group in this country, but that does not appear objectively to be the case.Replies: @Bill, @res
Which hypothesis was that? This was the iSteve quote Peter gave.
Given the relative number of “high-achieving and dark-skinned Nigerians and Ghanaians” (and I agree they exist, but as you said, “few”) I think that quote would still be true. That is assuming “highly black” means something like 75-100% African. Requiring 100% African would exclude almost all African Americans.
Where your point gets interesting is looking at the finer grained behavior of the IQ-admixture curve near 100% African ancestry. See the graph at the start of this iSteve post (also inline after the MORE).
https://www.unz.com/isteve/genetic-ancestry-and-general-cognitive-ability-in-a-sample-of-american-youths/
Both Steve and I have attributed the uptick in the spline at 0% European to highly selected immigrants (the sort of people you describe). Though in that graph of the three outliers around +2 SD two are Hispanic and only one is black.
Your dad was born in 1890, Methuselah?
My dad was born in 1939, I thought I was old.
Slave status was determined by maternal descent if unbroken by manumission. NO ONE was enslaved because of a “drop” of the dreaded “Negro blood.” Actual racial classification trials studied by scholars like Frank W. Sweet and Daniel Sharfstein reveal that “performing whiteness” or acting in the manner expected of whites was more important than actual purity of lineage. Have you ever wondered how Hispanics and Arabs in this country can clearly show sub-Saharan African lineage yet never call themselves “black”?
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1124999
https://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/September-October-2003/story_sharfstein_sepoct03.msp
This country has never been able to resolve what is an internal contradiction: You can’t crow about “individualism” while genuflecting at the altar of “diversity.”
Standing on its own, the motto “E Pluribus Unum” makes no sense.
I'd suggest that 'diversity' only became actually desirable rather recently. Rather, the idea was that everyone -- whether black, Asian, Jewish, Italian -- was permitted to become a white person inside, whatever the shade of their skin.
That was definitely the message of the story about the little Italian boy who wanted a baseball mitt in my mid-sixties school reader. The whole schtick with blacks is that really, they just needed to be allowed to express their complete identity with white people. Jews were whites who didn't have to go to church -- but were otherwise completely indistinguishable. Until some point after World War Two, Mexicans were punished if they spoke Spanish in the schoolyard.
Etc. Etc. 'Diversity' existed -- but it was a condition to be rectified, not one to be celebrated. On the contrary: the enlightened view was not only that everyone should be white, but that they were perfectly capable of it, and should both permitted and encouraged to ascend to that laudable condition.
No – 1914. I was the last in a reasonably large brood of brats.
This prediction is not reliable due to selective immigration effects in recent African and Afro-Carribean immigration. Many recent immigrants with African ancestry tend to have 100% or near-100% African ancestry but have been selected, deliberately or indirectly, for higher intelligence and/or more conscientious behavior due to immigration barriers which must be breached. This gives rise to an offsetting effect which makes Sailer's prediction less reliable.Replies: @oliver elkington, @PaceLaw, @AnotherDad
African, not Afro-Caribbean.
Afro-Caribbean immigration also skews selective, but the elite of those societies (aside from Haiti) have considerable white-admixture. If you find an Afro-Caribbean doing well in the US–Colin Powell, Eric Holder–they pretty much always have significant (at least “talented-tenth level) white admixture.
African and Afro-Caribbean immigration to the US, has the wonderful effect of making both nations worse.
Then why were you racist?
https://www.esquireme.com/public/styles/fb_share_style_image/public/images/2019/10/31/the-thinker-3.jpg?itok=o7rwGzJjReplies: @Rich
Nowadays, “racist” is a synonym for White. That’s why.
Hey I have a quick quesiton, Paisan:
Whud if you dook tha wife n kidz to tha Island, Nassau, unyendale to catch duh Ishanduhs? An say, whadif dis smart alek little Suffolk County prick is feelin' his balls latuh, while youze are at dinna, You know that fulkin kind, fulkin thinks he's fulkin Billy Badass because he can fulkin trow a fulkin footboll or somthin? And say, like trowhs a move on yuz, mocks ya, in fronna ya fulkin wife, real embarrisin like. Whadiff he fulkin staats threatinin' ya ands asks ya ta take it to tha fulkin pockin' laat, hehh?
Would youze fulkin stan up and defend yaself like a real fulkin paisan, from bensenhoist, like you fulkin wuz when you'ze ran with Vitto Scapellis fulkin crewe back in the fulkin 70's, or would you's fulkin try to talk out that fulkin situration like a fulkin Nassaah county fulkin mope? You know that kind gentle fulkin Oprah type shit hehh? Whawouyouze fulkin do hehh?
Be careful witch fulkin ansa paisan, Cahmine, Eddie and dah whole fulkin crewe are gonna fulkin read this layta.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfMbN_MzCpwReplies: @fish
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/73/31/e0/7331e0e23c9fe56a7fb77d327d429cd6.jpg
He always looked kind of black, but the great thing from my point of view is that I never noticed.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a0/39/e7/a039e7fdbd2a90a68527482a24748458.jpg
If politicians, academics and race hustlers would just leave kids alone, they would work things out themselves. I liked Don Prudhomme, and he could have been green for all I cared.Replies: @Colin Wright, @JMcG, @Anonymous Jew, @GeneralRipper
Don’t forget Tom “Mongoose” McEwen.
https://axleaddict.com/cars/Mongoose-vs-The-Snake--The-Greatest-Rivalry-In-Drag-Racing
Cheese with the whine Richie?
Hey I have a quick quesiton, Paisan:
Whud if you dook tha wife n kidz to tha Island, Nassau, unyendale to catch duh Ishanduhs? An say, whadif dis smart alek little Suffolk County prick is feelin’ his balls latuh, while youze are at dinna, You know that fulkin kind, fulkin thinks he’s fulkin Billy Badass because he can fulkin trow a fulkin footboll or somthin? And say, like trowhs a move on yuz, mocks ya, in fronna ya fulkin wife, real embarrisin like. Whadiff he fulkin staats threatinin’ ya ands asks ya ta take it to tha fulkin pockin’ laat, hehh?
Would youze fulkin stan up and defend yaself like a real fulkin paisan, from bensenhoist, like you fulkin wuz when you’ze ran with Vitto Scapellis fulkin crewe back in the fulkin 70’s, or would you’s fulkin try to talk out that fulkin situration like a fulkin Nassaah county fulkin mope? You know that kind gentle fulkin Oprah type shit hehh? Whawouyouze fulkin do hehh?
Be careful witch fulkin ansa paisan, Cahmine, Eddie and dah whole fulkin crewe are gonna fulkin read this layta.
Steve Sailer believes that “race” is very real, but all the evidence that we have is that it is a socio-historical construct. Like I said before, species is not a construct, sex is not a construct, and the Higgs Boson is most definitely not a construct. But “race”?
Race is absolutely, 100% an artificial construct that is biologically meaningless. In “race” you just choose an arbitrary phenotypical characteristic, in this case the color of the dermis, and create categories of human beings separated by that. It is 100% arbitrary and scientifically meaningless. You might as well determine that “race” is determined by eye color and not skin color, and in that case a black man with blue eyes(yes, there are several of those) would be lumped in the same “race” as a Norwegian man with white skin and blue eyes, while an Italin man with white skin but brown eyes would belong to a different “race”. Understand this? It is a completely arbitrarily created category with no biological relevance.
Don’t get me wrong, the phenotypical characterisitc that is used to separate people by “race” in this case skin color, is biologically real. But my point is, it has no biological *relevance* . It is a random arbitrary biological trait that does not serve any other useful biological role.
Let me expand and elucidate on that. Consider, for instance, blood groups. Blood groups serve a much, much, much more biologically potent role than what we call “race”. For instance, if you are O Negative “white” man and you receive blood from a B positive “white” man, you can have a severe anaphylactic reaction and die. Conversely, if you receive blood from another O negative blood donor, who happens to be a “black” man, you will be 100% fine. So which has more biological relevance? Obviously, blood groups are far more biologically relevant than skin color. And the O blood group, is far more common among norhtern Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans than it is for southern Europeans! So if “race” is real, how do you explain that?
Another example: lactose tolerance. Do you know what are the two groups that have the highest rates of lactose tolerance? Scandinavians and the “black” east Africans! Conversely, southern Europeans, who are often lumped together with northern Europeans as being of the same “race”(not by all, but by most racists) have much higher rates of lactose intolerance.
You might as well separate Humans into “races” determined by blood group or lactose tolerance, because that has a lot more biological relevance than the color of the dermis!
Here is another fact: the greatest genetic “distance” in Humans is determined by sex, which is definitely not only a biological phenomenom that causes much, much broader biological differentiation than merely skin color, but also of a much higher degree. Genetically, a “white” man is much, much closer to a “black” man that he is to a “white” woman! For starters, both the “white” and the “black” man will have a “Y” sex chromossome, while the “white” woman won’t. Now that is a radical biological difference.
“Race” is an arbitrary 19th century construct created to justify European colonialism(“White Man’s Burden”). I am not saying that “race” has no relevance at all. The point I am trying to bring home is that most of the relevance of “race” is *social*. Race does have some biological meaning in the sense that skin color is determined by genes, but it is a very minor biological difference compared to, say, sex chromossomes, and has almost no relevance whatsoever biologically compared to, as I said, things like blood groups and lactose tolerance.
Your confusion is in thinking skin color defines race. Skin color, bone structure, and other appearance traits are some of the traits a race shares, but not the most important. Intelligence, future time orientation, impulse control, and empathy are far more important traits (for civilization) that vary among races.
It doesn't matter that race groups have fuzzy edges and overlap - the racial groupings are still real.
It doesn't matter that the differences between races are differences in averages, not absolute differences - the categories are still very real.
Thousands of genes contribute to making human intelligence, like a card deck with thousands of cards. The decks that evolved in sub-Saharan Africa have many of the same cards as the decks that evolved in northern Europe, but not in the same quantity and distribution.
Race is ancestry, where most of your card deck came from. Blacks are people with lots of sub-Saharan ancestry who have high crime rates and low intelligence because they are drawing from a pool of decks with fewer intelligence and empathy cards. Black skin color is just a tell of the ancestry and not expected to be a cause or significant marker of anything else.
And the ancestry itself is only an indication of what to expect at the group level where averages make their impact known. It doesn't tell you how an individual will behave, since after all a particular individual may have luckily been dealt a very good hand from an overall bad deck.
One black might be a very fine fellow (he drew a good hand), but a group of blacks will be trouble (the bad averages of the deck emerge).Replies: @Anonymous
‘This country has never been able to resolve what is an internal contradiction: You can’t crow about “individualism” while genuflecting at the altar of “diversity.”…’
I’d suggest that ‘diversity’ only became actually desirable rather recently. Rather, the idea was that everyone — whether black, Asian, Jewish, Italian — was permitted to become a white person inside, whatever the shade of their skin.
That was definitely the message of the story about the little Italian boy who wanted a baseball mitt in my mid-sixties school reader. The whole schtick with blacks is that really, they just needed to be allowed to express their complete identity with white people. Jews were whites who didn’t have to go to church — but were otherwise completely indistinguishable. Until some point after World War Two, Mexicans were punished if they spoke Spanish in the schoolyard.
Etc. Etc. ‘Diversity’ existed — but it was a condition to be rectified, not one to be celebrated. On the contrary: the enlightened view was not only that everyone should be white, but that they were perfectly capable of it, and should both permitted and encouraged to ascend to that laudable condition.
Race is absolutely, 100% an artificial construct that is biologically meaningless. In "race" you just choose an arbitrary phenotypical characteristic, in this case the color of the dermis, and create categories of human beings separated by that. It is 100% arbitrary and scientifically meaningless. You might as well determine that "race" is determined by eye color and not skin color, and in that case a black man with blue eyes(yes, there are several of those) would be lumped in the same "race" as a Norwegian man with white skin and blue eyes, while an Italin man with white skin but brown eyes would belong to a different "race". Understand this? It is a completely arbitrarily created category with no biological relevance.
Don't get me wrong, the phenotypical characterisitc that is used to separate people by "race" in this case skin color, is biologically real. But my point is, it has no biological *relevance* . It is a random arbitrary biological trait that does not serve any other useful biological role.
Let me expand and elucidate on that. Consider, for instance, blood groups. Blood groups serve a much, much, much more biologically potent role than what we call "race". For instance, if you are O Negative "white" man and you receive blood from a B positive "white" man, you can have a severe anaphylactic reaction and die. Conversely, if you receive blood from another O negative blood donor, who happens to be a "black" man, you will be 100% fine. So which has more biological relevance? Obviously, blood groups are far more biologically relevant than skin color. And the O blood group, is far more common among norhtern Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans than it is for southern Europeans! So if "race" is real, how do you explain that?
Another example: lactose tolerance. Do you know what are the two groups that have the highest rates of lactose tolerance? Scandinavians and the "black" east Africans! Conversely, southern Europeans, who are often lumped together with northern Europeans as being of the same "race"(not by all, but by most racists) have much higher rates of lactose intolerance.
You might as well separate Humans into "races" determined by blood group or lactose tolerance, because that has a lot more biological relevance than the color of the dermis!
Here is another fact: the greatest genetic "distance" in Humans is determined by sex, which is definitely not only a biological phenomenom that causes much, much broader biological differentiation than merely skin color, but also of a much higher degree. Genetically, a "white" man is much, much closer to a "black" man that he is to a "white" woman! For starters, both the "white" and the "black" man will have a "Y" sex chromossome, while the "white" woman won't. Now that is a radical biological difference.
"Race" is an arbitrary 19th century construct created to justify European colonialism("White Man's Burden"). I am not saying that "race" has no relevance at all. The point I am trying to bring home is that most of the relevance of "race" is *social*. Race does have some biological meaning in the sense that skin color is determined by genes, but it is a very minor biological difference compared to, say, sex chromossomes, and has almost no relevance whatsoever biologically compared to, as I said, things like blood groups and lactose tolerance.Replies: @rebel yell
Race categories are indeed biologically real. Race is real because humans evolved with a great deal of geographic separation from each other and bred locally.
Your confusion is in thinking skin color defines race. Skin color, bone structure, and other appearance traits are some of the traits a race shares, but not the most important. Intelligence, future time orientation, impulse control, and empathy are far more important traits (for civilization) that vary among races.
It doesn’t matter that race groups have fuzzy edges and overlap – the racial groupings are still real.
It doesn’t matter that the differences between races are differences in averages, not absolute differences – the categories are still very real.
Thousands of genes contribute to making human intelligence, like a card deck with thousands of cards. The decks that evolved in sub-Saharan Africa have many of the same cards as the decks that evolved in northern Europe, but not in the same quantity and distribution.
Race is ancestry, where most of your card deck came from. Blacks are people with lots of sub-Saharan ancestry who have high crime rates and low intelligence because they are drawing from a pool of decks with fewer intelligence and empathy cards. Black skin color is just a tell of the ancestry and not expected to be a cause or significant marker of anything else.
And the ancestry itself is only an indication of what to expect at the group level where averages make their impact known. It doesn’t tell you how an individual will behave, since after all a particular individual may have luckily been dealt a very good hand from an overall bad deck.
One black might be a very fine fellow (he drew a good hand), but a group of blacks will be trouble (the bad averages of the deck emerge).
Your confusion is in thinking skin color defines race. Skin color, bone structure, and other appearance traits are some of the traits a race shares, but not the most important. Intelligence, future time orientation, impulse control, and empathy are far more important traits (for civilization) that vary among races.
It doesn't matter that race groups have fuzzy edges and overlap - the racial groupings are still real.
It doesn't matter that the differences between races are differences in averages, not absolute differences - the categories are still very real.
Thousands of genes contribute to making human intelligence, like a card deck with thousands of cards. The decks that evolved in sub-Saharan Africa have many of the same cards as the decks that evolved in northern Europe, but not in the same quantity and distribution.
Race is ancestry, where most of your card deck came from. Blacks are people with lots of sub-Saharan ancestry who have high crime rates and low intelligence because they are drawing from a pool of decks with fewer intelligence and empathy cards. Black skin color is just a tell of the ancestry and not expected to be a cause or significant marker of anything else.
And the ancestry itself is only an indication of what to expect at the group level where averages make their impact known. It doesn't tell you how an individual will behave, since after all a particular individual may have luckily been dealt a very good hand from an overall bad deck.
One black might be a very fine fellow (he drew a good hand), but a group of blacks will be trouble (the bad averages of the deck emerge).Replies: @Anonymous
Race is biologically real in the sense that you can choose any random phenotypical characteristic(determined by genes) like skin color and eye color, and then divide humans in categories according to whether they have those phenotypical traits.
The point that I am making here is what exactly is the *relevance* of this? If race is so biologically meaningful, then why the life of a “white” man that has O negative blood and needs an urgent blood transfusion can be saved by the blood of an equally O negative “black” man, but cannot be saved by the blood of another “white” man that has B- blood? So which is biologically more relevant, the category based on skin color and geographical descent or the far more useful blood group way of dividing Humans?
You claim that “race”, biologically, is determined by geographical descent, adaptations to environment. There are phenotypical traits that are universally determined by geography, like skin color being universally lighter in Europe than in Africa due to the intensity of the sun, with more northerly peoples needing to have lighter skin to absorb more sunlight for vitamin D production. But again, what is the relevance of this if “black” people can still make vitamin D anyway or just pop a pill just like “white” people can, but a “white” man who is O negative cannot receive blood from another “white” man that is from a different blood group but can from an equally O negative O blood “black” man? When a “white” man can digest milk just like a “black” man fr0m east Africa can, while his fellow “white” man cannot? What is more *relevant* here in terms of biology, the universal, geographically determined traits of skin color and, say, how high the bridge of the nose is(universally higher in “white” people), or the far more important biological traits that are *not* determined by geography, like lactose tolerance and blood groups? What is the importance of the division of Humans into “races” by phenotypical characteristics that are exclusively geographically determined
You claim that I am confused. I doubt very, very, very much that you know more biology than I do. I am 100% sure that, if we both took tests on physiology and biochemistry right now. I could name a lot more biochemical pathways, molecules and metabolic processes than you can.
I never argued that racists define “race” only by skin color. Racists use all the phenotypical traits selected by geography, like eye color, shape of the brow ridge and nose bridge height. But they tend to focus on skin color above all, because it is truly the only biological trait that is universally determined by geography. Blue eyes, for instance, appear in black people even without European admixture. And there are southern Europeans with darker eyes than Nilothic Africans.
But none of this matters. We are talking *relevance* here. Why are these phenotypical traits, of mostly cosmetic importance, that are determined by geogrpahy more genetically relevant than things like blood groups, lactose tolerance, and lipoprotein metabolism?
For instance, the APOE4 gene is one of the biggest hallmarks for the development of Alzheimer’s Disease. And guess what? Northern “ehite” Europeans and West “black” Africans have a much higher rate of APE4 than southern “white” Europeans. “White” southern Europeans are mostly APOE3 and APOE2. What is more relevant here? That northern Europeans and northern Europeans share the cosmetic trait of white skin, or the much more relevant implication of the APOE version that you carry?
Determined by geographical descent? Who cares! The most important genes, the genes that determine health, longevity and biological functions at the primary level are NOT determined by geographical descent!
Another example: the FOXO3 gene. A certain v3ersion of the FOXO3 gene is found on “white” “black” and “yellow” Asian centenarians. Conversely, shorter lived “white”, “black” or “yellow” people that are shorter lived have a different version of this gene. So what is more important in terms of biological implications, this or genes that are completely determined by geographical descent like skin color or mostly by geogrphical descent like eye color and hair texture?
The point that I was making is that race is *mostly* social, with the biological aspects of it being trivial, traits that “more or less” correlate with geographical descent. But so what? Race has *mostly* social meaning, with the biological component of it being arbitrary and unimportant
I wonder what a “white” racist who has B- or O- negative blood and needs and immediate blood transfusion would do if the only O- or B- negative blood came from “black” donors and all the other blood available at the hospital donoated by “white” people were of the “A” type? How funny would it be if the “white”racist insisted on receiving the “A” blood from the “white” donors, just to go into instant and severe anaphylactic shock? 😆
Of course whites and blacks can have the same blood types and share blood transfusions. I think that point was clear when I said that racial group differences are differences in the distribution of genes in populations, not absolute differences between races. You are having difficulty understanding the idea of differing distribution of genes in different populations, and you are not understanding the concept of different average group outcomes as a result.
Your example of a bogeyman white racist refusing a blood transfusion from a black is dated and in fact borrowed from a MASH TV episode from the 1970’s. Tiresome, tiresome.
The different average outcomes are what is relevant about race.
Blacks make up 13% of the population but 56%+ of the murderers and 40%+ of the prison inmates. Liberals incorrectly attribute this disparate outcome to systemic racism, naughty whites, etc, when in fact African genetics accurately explains it. Liberals then falsely accuse whites of bad behavior and waste great efforts on feel good programs for blacks that have zero impact on black outcomes.
The correct moral implications from black genetic averages are these:
1. Don’t bring more blacks into your country.
2. Enforce criminal laws everywhere, including black neighborhoods, to protect human life. When blacks then make up 40% of your prison population, don’t worry about it.
3. Abolish affirmative action, as this simply puts blacks in classroom seats and jobs where they will fail, and more importantly is unfair to whites and asians.
4. Try to have an economy where people of low mental ability, black or white, will still have productive work to do to bring stability and meaning to their lives. Understand that these low ability workers will need a more authoritarian hand than self-motivated workers and accept this.
5. Respect all people who make an effort to work, black or white, however low their ability may be, and pay them a living wage.
6. Have no pity for the freeloaders, black or white, who won’t make an effort to work, and get rid of them. Accept that due to genetic averages a disproportionate number of the freeloaders will be black.
7. Make limited exceptions for the mentally retarded and truly disabled, black or white, and care for them with mercy.
8. Take every individual as you find them, black or white, and treat them as they treat you.
You need to rethink your views on race and biology. If you believe that racial disparities are caused by the social environment, you will falsely (and unethically) accuse whites. You will pursue fruitless programs to change black behavior. You will tear this country apart and find out why conservatives place such value on not screwing up what you already have.
Hey I have a quick quesiton, Paisan:
Whud if you dook tha wife n kidz to tha Island, Nassau, unyendale to catch duh Ishanduhs? An say, whadif dis smart alek little Suffolk County prick is feelin' his balls latuh, while youze are at dinna, You know that fulkin kind, fulkin thinks he's fulkin Billy Badass because he can fulkin trow a fulkin footboll or somthin? And say, like trowhs a move on yuz, mocks ya, in fronna ya fulkin wife, real embarrisin like. Whadiff he fulkin staats threatinin' ya ands asks ya ta take it to tha fulkin pockin' laat, hehh?
Would youze fulkin stan up and defend yaself like a real fulkin paisan, from bensenhoist, like you fulkin wuz when you'ze ran with Vitto Scapellis fulkin crewe back in the fulkin 70's, or would you's fulkin try to talk out that fulkin situration like a fulkin Nassaah county fulkin mope? You know that kind gentle fulkin Oprah type shit hehh? Whawouyouze fulkin do hehh?
Be careful witch fulkin ansa paisan, Cahmine, Eddie and dah whole fulkin crewe are gonna fulkin read this layta.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfMbN_MzCpwReplies: @fish
Ooooh…….now do it in Ebonics Troof….err….Old Sport!