The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Fareed Zakaria Interviews Nicholas Wade
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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

On CNN:

ZAKARIA: Next on “GPS.” All people are created equal, right? Not so fast according to my next guest. He has some controversial new science to share with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAKARIA: Common belief in the 21st century is that skin color tells us nothing other than skin color, that underneath it all people are the same. Not quite according to my next guest. Nicholas Wade is the author of the controversial new book “A Troublesome Inheritance.” He’s a journalist who covers science, most notably genetics for “The New York Times.” So, first, set out what you see is the important scientific finding that undergirds this book, that, you know, we have always thought that essentially there was no real genetic difference among the races. That we might all look different but that underneath it we’re the same.

NICHOLAS WADE, AUTHOR “A TROUBLESOME INHERITANCE”: Well, the main scientific finding of the book is there’s human evolution as we can now tell from looking into a human genome, which we decoded about a decade ago, has been very rapid and very recent and it’s also been regional. And the regionality underlines the fact of race because the population on each continent have been evolving independently since we left our African homeland about 50,000 years ago. So since evolution happens all the time, it’s a continuous, unstoppable process that as population splits, the two halves will continue to evolve, but now independently. So, over time they will accumulate differences between each other and eventually they’ll become new species.

ZAKARIA: So that as these groups sitting on different continents evolved, they acquire different characteristics and that therefore it’s fair to say that different racial or ethnic regional groupings of people, whites, blacks, Europeans, Asians, are going to have different characteristics.

WADE: Right.

ZAKARIA: Now, the first question I would have is so that part of it I think people can understand. And you see, for example, that East Asians are generally speaking lactose intolerant. But you go onto say that while those differences are there, there are also probably differences in terms of the political, social organization. That Europeans are probably better at living in rule based societies that have, you know, democracy and liberty.

WADE: Yes. I say that there’s no reason to assume that the head is exempt from evolution. Our social behavior is as much subject to evolutionary change as any other part of our body.

ZAKARIA: Another thing you talk about is how people adapt to extreme circumstances and your examples are the Eskimos or the Tibetans who live at very high altitudes and so develop the capacity to deal. And you compare that then to Jews with capitalism. That the Jews have been able to adapt so well to capitalism because they were persecuted so much. Now, I think there is a mystery of Jewish, you know, super achievement for sure, but when I look at that, I think yes, but there were so many other small populations that were treated badly, discriminated. You know, expelled from various countries and in that case it didn’t seem to produce high achievement. So why did – you know, this seems like an argument backwards. In other words, you found the one case where there was high achievement and you attribute it to genetics, but all the cases where there was low achievement and they were persecuted, you didn’t attribute to genetics.

WADE: Well, I don’t think the persecution had anything to do with Jewish achievement. I think the answer more probably lies in literacy. So, from a very early time, you know, about six from 6380[?] onwards, there was a requirement that all Jews should be literate and should teach their sons …

ZAKARIA: But then that’s not genetic at all. That’s just – that was a decision because it was a religion of the book and it was a cultural institutional, historical reason why this happened.

WADE: But, I mean, this is not genetic. But it puts a constraint on there. So, if you have a population where you need to be literate to be a member of the population, then – generation after generation you can imagine people dropping out. And it is – there was an enormous reduction in the Jewish population as it seems that many of Jews opted out. Remember everyone was living by farming in these days. Education is of little interest to a farmer. It’s very expensive. So, the size of the Jewish population did, in fact, reduce substantially in the four centuries after the first century and one possibility is that this sort of created a natural selection for people who took easily to literacy.

ZAKARIA: You’ve had people say “The New Republic” has run an article, there are others that this book is simply racist. What do you say about that?

WADE: Well, that’s entirely untrue. Many people including the social scientists, have based their opposition to racism on the idea that race does not have a biological basis. But this is factually untrue. It seems to me one should oppose racism as a matter of principle and if you – about principle, you don’t care what the science says because your view is never going to change. As it happens, and as I make very clear in the book, there’s nothing in the human gene that supports racism of any kind. But nonetheless, although my book in my view is basically the science book, it does have – has roused political opposition from people who cling to this view I mentioned to you that we should pretend that there is no biological basis to race.

ZAKARIA: Nicholas Wade, pleasure to have you on.

WADE: Thank you.

 
Hide 17 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Zakaria didn’t even read the blurb. And he’s dumb as a brick.

  2. If you watch the actual show, Wade doesn’t come across as very confident or articulate.

  3. we have always thought that essentially there was no real genetic difference among the races.

    Only for sufficiently wrong definitions of “we” and “always”.

  4. “6380” is presumably a mistaken transcription of “63 AD”.

  5. Was Fareed the guy who was caught plagiarizing?

  6. Seems like Zakaria was nice to him, at least from the transcript…

  7. According to Fareed,a few millennia of persistent pedigree polishing, along with an emphasis on a literacy and education,are not supposed to be interpreted as a genetics-based factors that led to ‘ mystery of Jewish, you know, super achievement ‘

    For a Southern-Asian who doctorated under Huntington and was a proud POR member
    ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_the_Right_%28Yale%29 ), his clumsy effort to sell himself as a rather intelligence-intolerant (” All people are created equal, right?”) egalitarian is quite ridiculous.

    It comes as a surprising that Wade failed to adequately confront Zakaria’s mumbai-jumbai ‘argument backwards’ accusation by simple some-of-my-best- co-thinkers- are- full- card-memberhip-holders tactics.

    Basically, all he had to do was to admit that not persecution,but literacy theory was not actual product of his rejsis’ mind, but a conclusion of the study coauthored by a super-achiever named Zvi Ekstein;

  8. WADE: Yes. I say that there’s no reason to assume that the head is exempt from evolution. Our social behavior is as much subject to evolutionary change as any other part of our body.

    This guy isn’t doing himself any favors. “Social behavior” is a body part?

  9. Found the audio track of the show, listen to the wade interview here, it starts at the 30 minute mark.

  10. Gregory Cochran disagrees with the Botticini-Eckstein hypothesis.

  11. Over many generations environmental factors get aborbed into genetics. The Chinese emphasis on high achievement (without the assertiveness of Jews due to other factors) came from the overarching effect of the Chinese Court, far more pervasive than its European counterparts. The Tiger Mother phenomenon is due to the predisposition (capacity) of Chinese youngsters to practice, practice, practice until mastery.

  12. ““Social behavior” is a body part?”

    It can be, if personality traits are inherited. And they are. Aggression as a personal trait may work well in a tribal hunter-gatherer society in constant conflict with neighboring tribes , not so well in an agricultural society. If the agricultural society hangs the aggressive troublemakers for a few centuries, what happens to the gene pool? If the people in the agricultural society become more peaceful, how does that affect the structure of the society?

    Wade’s speculation is that social structures and the humans in them are co-evolving, and that it’s likely that this is happening in different was in different populations and social structures.

  13. Would it kill anybody around here to learn the very simple html code for a hyperlink?!

  14. Wade: “It seems to me one should oppose racism as a matter of principle” “there’s nothing in the human gene that supports racism of any kind”. What does “racism” even mean nowadays? What are we supposed to be opposing?

  15. “””””””””””””””””””””””””””WADE: Well, that’s entirely untrue. Many people including the social scientists, have based their opposition to racism on the idea that race does not have a biological basis. But this is factually untrue.””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

    Well, good for him. He not only refused to backtrack but he will rise and/or fall on this point. And this could be among the main reasons why the established consensus on the nurture side won’t ever forget his stand. They’ve got him down in their book of ‘those sorts of folks for daring to expressing those sorts of things’.

  16. What if the millenial Jewish spy net/journalism network/merchant’s newsnet (used by medieval merchants, Rothschilds, Ludendorff, Bolsheviks, bunch of capitalists for a thousand years) across the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was the real business the Ashkenazi were breeding their kids to excel at?

  17. “WADE: Well, that’s entirely untrue [that this book is simply racist]. Many people including the social scientists, have based their opposition to racism on the idea that race does not have a biological basis. But this is factually untrue. It seems to me one should oppose racism as a matter of principle and if you – about principle, you don’t care what the science says because your view is never going to change.”

    Sorry Mr. Wade but you really are a bona fide RACIST according to the currently accepted definitions of the word.

    Actually I agree with Nicholas Wade regarding his views on HBD, however Mr. Wade really needs to review the actual definitions of the word “racism”.

    Here we can review (from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racism) three major dictionary definitions for “racism”:

    Webster’s College Dictionary-
    1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usu. involving the idea that one’s own race is superior.

    2. a policy, system of government, etc., based on such a doctrine.

    3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

    American Heritage Dictionary-
    1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

    2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

    Collins English Dictionary-
    1. (Sociology) the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others

    2. (Sociology) abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief

    Note that the first definitions cited from all three major dictionaries rather aptly encapsulate the views of Mr. Wade (and myself and most other HBD enthusiasts).

    Some HBDers will object along the lines that even though they believe that some ethnoracial groups are innately more intelligent and innately more economically prosperous, that nevertheless that should not be misconstrued as saying that they believe that some groups are superior–BUT THIS IS SO DISINGENUOUS, who really thinks that being smarter and richer is not SUPERIOR to being dumber and poorer??

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS