For example, people from Asia are much more likely to be lactose-intolerant than people of European heritage. But what our brains find so hard to process is that no one is lactose-intolerant because they are Chinese.

This paragraph is a great example of Crimestop in action. So close yet so far.

Is this book review by an authority? Or is this a new form of journalism, the book “re-review” written by a non-authority about how the book changed his worldview, tipping over all the false paradigms propping up his false view of scientific reality?

I’m giving Achmed E. Newman, Whisky, Davey Crocko, RealOwenBenjamin, ultrafuzzyforeigner, and the rest of the Unauthorized-hating gamma trolls on Reddit and YouTube 24 hours to come clean, declare their real identities, admit their actions, and thereby avoid having the wrath of the VFM and the Legal Legion of Evil crash down upon their heads.

I have never filed a copyright violation before nor had anyone do so on my behalf, but starting next week, the Legal Legion lawyers will begin filing copyright violations against every YouTube attack video that broadcasts content from the Darkstream without permission. And note that I am not only doing this of my own accord, but also at the specific request of some of our technology partners that these individuals have been contacting and with whose contracts they have been attempting to tortiously interfere.

As for those who say this is a waste of time, rest assured that it is not. Lines – serious criminal lines that consist of state and federal laws – have been crossed and we will no longer look the other way. Instead, we intend to utilize the full force of the techniques and tactics that have been developed and refined by the Rabid Puppies, the VFM, and the LLoE.

And since we don’t know precisely who was responsible for exactly which action against us and we can’t easily distinguish the civil tortfeasors from the felonious criminals, we have no choice but to begin systematically rolling them up and forcing them to admit their deeds, beginning with the most obvious culprits.

I have all the liberal lefty’s revulsion at racism,

lol. Lefties have no prob with racism as long as it’s directed at wypipo. Especially the deplorable working class.

But genetics has found no such innate origins of behavioural differences between “races” – and it is highly unlikely, given what we know about genetic variation, that it would.

https://www.unz.com/jman/all-human-behavioral-traits-are-heritable/

On a totally unrelated note, Bret Stephens has decided to explain for us The Secrets of Jewish Genius.

(Hey, he links to Cochran and Harpending! Cool beans!)

in milk-drinking obsessed Denmark

The Finns have the Danes beat by a Swedish mile. Much of the Danish product is sent abroad. The Finnish product goes straight into Finns.

The Chinese adult is lactose-intolerant

But he’d better not be lacrosse-intolerant, as that would lower his chances at getting into a good Eastern school on scholarship. It’s also the official national sport in their favorite bolt-hole, Canada.

The China Lacrosse Association (CLA) has received full membership status in the Federation of International Lacrosse (FIL).

How ‘stick net ball’ – or lacrosse – is aiming to become more than just a niche sport in Hong Kong

It’s too bad Tom Wolfe isn’t around to write about this.

“Germany, more than any other country, showed how to turn the microscopic fragmentation of nature into a useful, predictive, quantitative and explanatory science.”

The man who published the above statement has to “come out” with at least an occasional “How I changed my mind about the biology of race” to keep from getting forever cancelled.

Speaking of those next in line for permanent cancel:

This is progressive degeneration. Guardian was dumb back in 2009. Now it’s even dumber.

(To be fair though it would take gigantic cojones to discuss race honestly in a major paper over there. The UK public is skewed far left overall. Boris Johnson would be roughly a clintonite in the US.)

Murdoch’s Sky News over there is dumb as hell also. Get the app and watch nonstop feminized mush mixed with bleeds it leads disaster stuff.

The worst though is France 24 which is hard left commie crap.

Progressivism makes you stupid.

Daily Mail is tacky but the news page sometimes goes to politically incorrect places.

Summit News Paul Joseph Watson is a one man show who blows the doors off the UK establishment media—mostly by simply maintaining a non-progressive sceptical eye.

[W]hat our brains find so hard to process is that no one is lactose-intolerant because they are Chinese.

Wow. As Mr. Sailer points out, one is indeed lactose intolerant precisely because his parents were. The minor quibble that this is not quite because they were Chinese as such represents a degree of stupidity about statistics, patterns, and the very idea of a concept or category that boggles the mind. One must wonder whether such obtuseness permits the writer to negotiate routine life, since he doubtless much also wonder whether a puppy shall be a quadraped simply because its parents were; whether his flat will be the same place when he returns that it was when he departed, and ao on.

OT: Warren’s fund-raising ability has suddenly declined quite a bit. That’s the sign of a campaign on the way to imploding, just like Kamala’s.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/warren-says-campaign-fundraising-down-30-in-fourth-quarter

Since there have been almost no changes in the Democratic lineup except for one, it seems obvious that the rich donors are sudden bolting to Bloomberg. The rich Dem donor crowd must think he’s the best candidate with the best chance. He may be the sort of guy they wanted all along. Rich donors naturally relate to another rich guy, and many of them probably know Bloomberg socially and trust him not to steal their money in some crack-brained socialist scheme.

It will be interesting to see what the SJWs do to in him the primary. I predict the Democrats are heading for one heck of a civil war. If Bloomberg gets the pick due to special delegates, I predict the breaking up of the Democrats as the extreme left walks out in a rage and forms a new party. The left is already mad about Stop-and-Frisk, and they’re furious Bloomberg had prison inmates calling voters to drum up support for him (and being paid almost nothing for it, of course.) They see the latter as being akin to having slaves. Bloomberg is a nightmare candidate for the hard left. I really doubt the hard left will vote for Bloomberg in the general election even if he’s the candidate. They just see him as another Trump.

Phillip Ball.

That characteristically wide bridge of the nose that signals mendacious, bad faith argument in journalists among other things.

Stop confusing science with facts.

Don’t think the race realism revolution will erupt from the UK. Not gonna happen. Potentisl thought criminal leaders will continue to emigrate. Race realism just does not register in the English mind as “progress”…

The English people are vast majority of UK and they are fundamentally overall liberal progressive people.

USA is only ~10% English demographically… with much greater German and Celtic ratio than UK. Australia is similar and these two countries are more conservative than Canada or New Zealand or the mothership UK which have high % of English stock in the demography.

If USA was 70% English ethnicity we would be a left wing country.

Don’t think the two world wars made the English left wing by killing off the alpha males. Think they’ve always been much more progressive than global average. They were first to ban slavery etc. Cromwell represented a proto-commie freak cultural outburst impossible anywhere else on earth at that time etc. The social conservatives (Puritans) were literally hounded out of the country back when the entire world was socially conservative etc.

Even if he were adopted and raised in milk-drinking obsessed Denmark, he would still be lactose-intolerant because of who his parents were and the genes they gave him.

Personal experience here. A few years ago, I did the 23andme thing and was floored to learn that I’ve got the lactose intolerance gene. I eat dairy and used to drink straight up milk in large quantities. Never had a problem. Neither am I aware of any blood relatives who had a problem. My son likes to drink up to a gallon of milk a week, and he’s never complained.

23andme says that this is normal. Apparently, a lot of people with the gene can be acculturated to drinking milk. I wonder if there used to be whole tribes of people like me. Based on their genes you’d think they couldn’t drink milk, but in reality they could and did. Possibly, they were the original inventors of dairy.

Not quite OT: Bret Stephens HBD panic alert.

https://twitter.com/jodyrosen/status/1210793100194414593?s=21

How I changed my mind about the biology of race

Because a fake-science Marxist rag paid you to?

But what our brains find so hard to process is that no one is lactose-intolerant because they are Chinese. We’re not cognitively well equipped to develop the right intuitions here.

It is probably showing white supremacists (from whom I heard a little after my review) more charity than they deserve to say that they’re caught up in the same confusion.

Doesn’t everyone know that race is predictive, and that there are exceptions? Well most people do, even “white supremacists” (which is probably code for most people). It’s only Philip Ball’s brain that finds this hard to process, that is not cognitively well equipped and is caught up in confusion.

‘Not quite OT: Bret Stephens HBD panic alert.’

Bret Stephens seems to be one of those folks who can be safely left to kick own goals all year round.

Of course, there is always the frightening possibility he might take the side I favor on some issue.

While you’ve been doing the Lord’s Work on this issue Steve, I fear that the ability of the mass media to maintain/perpetuate a lie about something as esoteric as genomics and gene-race-ability correlations will be formidable. Any credible expert who argues with them will be deplatformed and “debunked” by halfwits immediately. But please keep up the good work in 2020 – I suspect more influential people read this blog than any other non-mainstream news/commentary blog.

Is the full movie available online? I’ve been unable to find anything more than trailers for it. At amazon, I see you can buy an mp3 soundtrack for it (helpfully labelled by amazon as “explicit”).

For example, people from Asia are much more likely to be lactose-intolerant than people of European heritage. But what our brains find so hard to process is that no one is lactose-intolerant because they are Chinese.

I’d like to see more discussion on the huge variation in lactose tolerance within Africa.

Speaking of populations, the Scottish government now has a stated “repopulation” objective: https://www.gov.scot/news/warning-over-uk-government-plans-for-australian-style-immigration-system/

It’s funny that it’s A-OK for Jews to have approximately a billion well-funded ethno-religious organizations and lobby groups including those associated with their own ethno-state outside the USA and yet if a white goy even has so much as vague sympathies for his own people it is literally anuddah shoah, let’s blackball him, destroy his career, etc.

one of its co-authors, the late Henry Harpending, was a White Nationalist.

Under US law one cannot libel or slander dead people. Oh, well.

That entire twitter timeline is a mass of anti-science retarded liberals and lefties.

The author’s bio from Wikipedia.

Philip Ball (born 1962) is a British science writer. For over twenty years he has been an editor of the journal Nature for which he continues to write regularly.[1] He now writes a regular column in Chemistry World. He has contributed to publications ranging from New Scientist[2] to the New York Times, The Guardian, the Financial Times and New Statesman. He is the regular contributor to Prospect magazine,[3] and also a columnist for Chemistry World, Nature Materials and BBC Future. He has broadcast on many occasions on radio and TV, and in June 2004 he presented a three-part serial on nanotechnology, Small Worlds, on BBC Radio 4.

Nature is becoming a sort of Scientific American. Didn’t it used to be a major research journal? How come it hires “science writers” to edit the thing? I thought the staff was more hard core scientists.

Reading on in his bio, he seems to be wanting to be a sort of Malcolm Gladwell of science.

He does have an undergraduate degree in chemistry and a doctorate in physics from Bristol University.

But it’s obvious that this is one popular book writer “reviewing” the work of another, expecting the same in return, just like they burb each other’s books, whether or not they read them.

Our brains are exquisitely adapted to pick up on such correlations – and, unfortunately in this case, to conclude that they are causative. We instinctively assume that differences in behaviour that are in fact due to culture must be linked to – even caused by – characteristics of appearance.

No, only morons like you would presume that.

Ok, from their FAQ I see it’s still only in theaters. Hey, free country. I can’t blame them for trying to get a return on their investment. Would be nice, though, if it was showing somewhere less than 400 miles away from me.

Certainly no-one is lactose-intolerant because they *speak* chinese, or belive the cultural stuff that chinese people tend to belive. What’s missing here is that lactose intolerance and speaking chinese are both usually caused by a common cause: being racially chinese.

gamma

Yikes!

Dont agree. Hard to say what percentage of the population is English, but it’s more than survey’s show. Most people dont know all their ancestors and if they were here before the civil war odds are most are English.

The locations that are the most old stock WASP are in the South, and those are pretty conservative areas. I’d say in America English whites are one of the most conservative (with the Appalachian Scots the most). And the Irish descended population is by far the most left wing in the US of any white group.

“The English people are vast majority of UK and they are fundamentally overall liberal progressive people.”

Not for long.

‘Race realism’ only emerges when it is needed.

It’s really not that hard. Just slap ‘Workers’ in front of it and voila, immune to that type of criticism. Use their own terms and worldview against them. Frame the fight for majority white countries/communities as a fight against capitalism and billionaires. Don’t use the word ‘globalist’, it has too many pre-existing associations.

The alt right needs to start spreading far and wide the meme of “white separatist”. The key word needs to be separation. The enemy repeats “supremacist” ad nauseum because it conjures images of slavery, men in hoods burning crosses, lynching, Nazis, the Holocaust, etc., all the memes they have spread to control and subjugate us. This needs to be countered and destroyed and it needs to be priority #1. The idea that white people deserve their own, separate communities and by extension countries, and that the type of living and civilizational standard most white people want and should/would have access to is absolutely dependent on this does not exist in the mind of most people. They cannot conceive of it because they are blinded by the media and the government at every turn.

Countries are a product of their people. Race is real and produces very different societies. White people deserve their own. #whiteseparatist

Cromwell represented a proto-commie freak cultural outburst impossible anywhere else on earth at that time etc. The social conservatives (Puritans) were literally hounded out of the country back when the entire world was socially conservative etc.

In these stupid times we live in, I sometimes fear my eyes will roll so violently they will spring out of their sockets…

Cromwell WAS a puritan. And, there was nothing – nothing at all – socially conservative about the puritans: they were driven out of England because they were a constant threat to social order.

That photograph is quite a few years old.

I know this because Ball and Saini recently appeared on a BBC quiz programme (University Challenge – the Christmas version for alumni) on opposing teams.

Leaving aside the fact that neither showed any obvious aptitude for answering the questions (which are sometimes quite hard), perhaps a chat in the green room led to Ball’s article.

Did he want to ingratiate himself with the delightful Ms Saini? Or to protect himself from the risk of “cancellation” after some ill-judged remark?

Actually, the only race that is PROVEN not to exist is the negro race, and especially those negroes who live out of Africa, and more especially those who live in the United States, and most especially those negroes in the United States that are not as wealthy as the other, indistinguishable non-negro people. The ones with the nice hair, I mean. No ability to distinguishing negroes at all. Just the same as everyone else. Except for the hair, I mean.

The whole thing is an updated version of Cartesian duality. Let’s call it neo-Cartesianism (I don’t know if that term’s taken).

In the old Cartesian duality, you had a soul existing in but separate from a body. In the new Cartesian duality, you’ve got “characteristics” residing in but separate from family trees.

The falsity of his position would, maybe, be clearer to laymen (like me) if he used external and near-universal characteristics. “No one has black hair because they’re Chinese” is a lot less impressive a statement. That’s more likely to have people saying, “hey, wait a minute…” and thinking about “because” vs “if” etc

I am honestly curious, do HBDers pay attention to the most recently published papers and studies?

Most studies after the 2010s reject races in humans and research in ancient DNA has further confirmed that.

Take the clustering studies by Rosenberg et al,2002 and 2005 often cited in support of race, actually used programs that can not tell you ones race or ancestry but are dependent on the user’s input as a very recent paper from last year shows:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30108219

Unless by race you just mean population, which is not the same thing in biology.

I have all the liberal lefty’s revulsion at racism,

I find this line in the Guardian article interesting – it makes me think of a Pavlovian dog.

“I`m a liberal, so I automatically react with revulsion to racism.”

Well, at least he understand himself.

I Read Angela Saini’s “Superior” and the Scales Fell from My Eyes

Those weren’t scales…they were your glasses…now you’re a blind, dumbass.

Is this book review by an authority?

Jack of all trades science writer?

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

Philip Ball (born 1962) is a British science writer. For over twenty years he has been an editor of the journal Nature for which he continues to write regularly.[1] He now writes a regular column in Chemistry World. He has contributed to publications ranging from New Scientist[2] to the New York Times, The Guardian, the Financial Times and New Statesman. He is the regular contributor to Prospect magazine,[3] and also a columnist for Chemistry World, Nature Materials and BBC Future. He has broadcast on many occasions on radio and TV, and in June 2004 he presented a three-part serial on nanotechnology, Small Worlds, on BBC Radio 4.

******
Ball’s most popular book is the 2004 Critical Mass: How One Thing Leads to Another, winner of the 2005 Aventis Prize for Science Books. It examines a wide range of topics including the business cycle, random walks, phase transitions, bifurcation theory, traffic flow, Zipf’s law, Small world phenomenon, catastrophe theory, the Prisoner’s dilemma. The overall theme is one of applying modern mathematical models to social and economic phenomena.[4]

In 2011, he wrote The Music Instinct in which he discusses how we make sense of sound and how music entices us. He outlines what is known and still unknown about how music has such an emotional impact, and why it seems indispensable to humanity. He has since argued that music is emotively powerful due to its ability to mimic humans and through setting up expectations in pitch and harmony and then violating them.[5]

Ball holds a degree in chemistry from Oxford and a doctorate in physics from Bristol University. As of 2008 he has lived in London.

Jeez, how can you people drink this stuff?!

disentangling the effects of nature and nurture remains intellectually challenging, which is why we use such sophisticated mechanisms as twin and adoption studies, as well as advanced genomics.

I am somewhat dubious that adoption studies can shed light on more subtle differences:

— Abandoning a healthy child is counter survival. Does this imply that the population of orphans “on net” represents a slightly less favorable genetic pool (nature)?
— If a child is made an orphan by parent suicide or ‘reckless accident’, do those behaviours have a genetic component?

PEACE 😇

Vox Day is coming for the gammas. The Day of the Rope is at hand for the gammas.

And this is someone that people still take seriously?

People are starting to ask questions Vox. Why doesn’t Unauthorized have streaming after one year? Where is the 50K per month going (5000 paid subscribers at $10 per month), when a full-featured site costs at most $1000 per month? Why did you delete your Dorkstream from tonight as well as the one about Nick Fuentes? Why do you look like a turtle without a shell? Is it because of tortoise interference?

Anecdotally, whenever I’ve talked to a black person about HBD they’ve wanted to know more and been quite interested. They showed great enthusiasm for discussing Lactase persistence, ear wax texture and reasons for the variety of skin pigmentation . This seems like a normal reaction for a human to have. This stuff is fascinating.

So who are these killjoys protecting? It’s likely not a specific group but the idea of groups. They want one undifferentiated blob of humanity.

It’s too bad Tom Wolfe isn’t around to write about this.

Not a day goes by that I don’t have this thought…

Most studies after the 2010s reject races in humans and research in ancient DNA has further confirmed that.

Great! So “an honest conversation about race” is now officially pointless. About time SCIENCE ™ recognized this.

But genetics has found no such innate origins of behavioural differences between “races” – and it is highly unlikely, given what we know about genetic variation, that it would.

Right. If a black person grew up with cardinals or blue jays as adoptive parents, he would be able to fly. And if he had a spider as an adoptive mother, he would be able to spin webs from his body.

Ball and Saini recently appeared on a BBC quiz programme (University Challenge – the Christmas version for alumni) on opposing teams. Did he want to ingratiate himself with the delightful Ms Saini? Or to protect himself from the risk of “cancellation” after some ill-judged remark?

I’ll take Door Number Two, Monty. (And definitely not the box that Angela’s holding.)

Speaking of NYC’ers Bloomberg and Trump, look at what “2nd Amendment is important” POTUS is doing to gun rights via his BATF:

Please, Bloomberg prefers the term, ‘Prisoners with jobs’ to the, ‘S-word’.

For example, people from Asia are much more likely to be lactose-intolerant than people of European heritage. But what our brains find so hard to process is that no one is lactose-intolerant because they are Chinese.

My impression is that no one who is smart enough to obtain a doctorate in Physics would be dumb enough to write that in all sincerity. You got to invoke Leo Strauss to explain that. Jody Rosen is just fulfilling his role in the dissemination of information, either knowingly or unknowingly.

What’s missing here is that lactose intolerance and speaking chinese are both usually caused by a common cause: being racially chinese.

The current race-denialist fad is an interesting phenomenon because it involves otherwise intelligent people trying to train themselves to “unsee” obvious patterns. But the human brain is good at seeing patterns, not unseeing them.

That’s why the effort requires such absurd mental gymnastics. In particular, race denialists seem especially prone to the black-white fallacy (no pun intended). I.e., “races” must be uniform and mutually exclusive, or they can’t be a “thing” at all.

Lincoln recruited recent German and Irish immigrants is his war against the South over slavery.

Boston Irish Teddy Kennedy was used by Jews to wreck the country with the 1965 Immigration Act.

Australia is actually more English.

The guy you’re responding to, Michael Coombs aka Mikemikev, is a self-described white supremacist who has fantasies of some sort of violent ‘race war’ online:

“White Supremacism” means you think Whites are superior. I do too.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs#White_supremacism

London: Nigger riots defended by Nigger MP (imagine my shock). I long for the day when they use live ammo on these clowns.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs#Black_people

Laughably he’s recently tried to whitewash his past and now tries to reinvent himself as a peaceful ‘white seperatist’ which totally contradicts all his past (insane) internet posts.

I love this – I’m not qualified in this field at all but the title of the article makes me nervous and one of the authors has political view I disagree with, therefore I deem the article to be unmentionable in the hallowed halls of the NY Times, which I BTW inhabit. These people are beyond parody.

This is basically the equivalent of the Nazi attempts to divide physics into Deutsche Physik and Jüdische Physik. To such people, there is no objective yardstick of science – whether a paper is “good” or “bad” depends on who wrote it. If a “bad” person wrote it, then the paper is “bad” regardless of its contents.

Philip Ball looks like an elderly lesbian:

Now that I think about it, it’s because he resembles Camille Paglia:

The current race-denialist fad is an interesting phenomenon because it involves otherwise intelligent people trying to train themselves to “unsee” obvious patterns.

He doesn’t even do that here. He attacks a strawman that race categories “cause” differences, and takes that at a refutation of race, which it obviously isn’t. Did he honestly think that? I guess we can agree with him that race categories are correlated with traits, which is all anybody was saying.

Lactose intolerance and speaking Chinese may be correlated with each other and with being racially Chinese but they are fundamentally different and this is what the “race is a social construct” people refuse to see.

Speaking Chinese is 100% socially constructed – there are people who are racially Chinese who speak not a word of that language and there are whites that are fluent in Mandarin – there’s ZERO genetic component to speaking Chinese – it’s a completely learned phenomenon.

OTOH, you could take a Chinese baby and adopt her to Finland at birth and ply her with dairy products and (putting aside whether you can be acclimated to dairy – apparently you can to some limited extent) yet as soon as she passed infancy her ability to produce the lactase enzyme would switch off due to genetics.

Perhaps we’ve inherited lying eyes?

OTOH, you could take a Chinese baby and adopt her to Finland at birth

Danes have been adopting Greenlanders for a century or more. Has there been research on lactose or anything else using this sample?

Speaking Chinese is 100% socially constructed – there are people who are racially Chinese who speak not a word of that language and there are whites that are fluent in Mandarin – there’s ZERO genetic component to speaking Chinese – it’s a completely learned phenomenon.

Minor quibble. Perhaps not 100%. A relationship between speaking a tonal language and absolute pitch has been noted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_pitch#Linguistics

Absolute pitch is more common among speakers of tonal languages, such as most dialects of Chinese or Vietnamese, which often depend on pitch variation as the means of distinguishing words that otherwise sound the same—e.g., Mandarin with four possible tonal variations, Cantonese with six, Southern Min with seven or eight (depending on dialect), and Vietnamese with six.[31][32]

That page also discusses a possible genetic contribution to absolute pitch:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_pitch#Nature_vs._nurture

This SNPedia page has some information: https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Musical_aptitude
This seems most significant (the figure is from the Finnish study linked below):

Carl Seashore’s subtests of pitch SP (Heritability 68%)

I am having trouble finding specific SNPs to check (has anyone studied absolute pitch genetics in Asians?), but here are some examples from a Finnish study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4259854
https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs9854612
https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs4349633

You can look at population frequencies for these SNPs in GGV (Geography of Genetic Variants Browser). For rs9854612
https://popgen.uchicago.edu/ggv/?data=%221000genomes%22&chr=3&pos=128257214

I don’t see any compelling evidence showing selection for those SNPs in Chinese, but I think a study would be worthwhile. Presumably being better able to speak and understand your own language is an evolutionary advantage.

Did he want to ingratiate himself with the delightful Ms Saini? Or to protect himself from the risk of “cancellation” after some ill-judged remark?

Is he an ethnic Briton? If not fully, then that would explain the laughable article. It’s very rich for someone to use the idiom “scales lifted from my eyes” when it is most appropriately used for those on the alternative right when they become redpilled on any number of things, and genetics, race and ethnicity is a very common gateway redpill (Thanks Steve, thanks Unz – you won’t be on the Hanukkah card list of the ADL or the SPLC any time soon, lol.)

Those scales were laid down over many years requiring many talented minds, almost complete media and educational control at the cost of billions of dollars. I’ll paraphrase a /pol comment on a discussion on why the redpill usually only leads to blackpills and not bluepills unless it is parlayed into some sort of media career (and even then what is seen cannot be unseen – what is thought in private is a different thing to how many fingers you say that O’Brien is holding up). Who would win – said media/educational apparatus requiring massive coordination and billions of dollars or one funny internet racist?

My guess based on the chutzpah to use that idiom, being employed by leftist Guardian, and facial tells is that he has the usual reasons for providing squid ink in this area and it goes beyond avoiding cancel culture.

It’s really not that hard. Just slap ‘Workers’ in front of it and voila, immune to that type of criticism. Use their own terms and worldview against them. Frame the fight for majority white countries/communities as a fight against capitalism and billionaires. Don’t use the word ‘globalist’, it has too many pre-existing associations.

So you do that, and they send the right half of the white goy bell curve to the gulag. Great strategy, bro.

I wonder if the author, Philip Ball

is related to Guardian columnist Zoe Williams?

Both have the look of an aristocratic hen who’s spotted possible food in the distance.

Perhaps you can offer a scientific argument against the paper I cited and discuss it.

No, I do not think your eyes are lying to you nor that, say Africans and Europeans do not have different phenotypes. But that is not race.

Race must be based on genetics and related to overall genome differentiation not a few traits that are also not unique to one race anyways.

A few years ago, I did the 23andme thing and was floored to learn that I’ve got the lactose intolerance gene.

Did they also report you were 1% or more African? That was a thing for a while, maybe still is.

23 is a business that sells stuff, not a medical lab reporting to your doctor.

Saini shows that what we have understood by race encodes the belief that literally superficial aspects of our appearance act as markers for innate differences we can’t see.

That is how hunter-gatherers created their plant taxonomy (which remains still valid) they could pass as knowledge to next generations which roots, berries and mushrooms are edible and which are toxic. They did not know biochemistry, bio-toxicology and nutrition science but their superficial taxonomy worked which means that the knowledge of superficial differences carries information of what is hidden and not available to our senses which can either save us or kill us.

Then they developed technological processes to convert toxic and less nutritious plants into edible and nutritious ones like (1) removing cyanogenic glucosides from cassava, (2) nixtamalization of corn to remove aflatoxins and to free niacin or (3) removing tannins from acorns.

Don’t think the two world wars made the English left wing by killing off the alpha males. Think they’ve always been much more progressive than global average. They were first to ban slavery etc. Cromwell represented a proto-commie freak cultural outburst impossible anywhere else on earth at that time etc. The social conservatives (Puritans) were literally hounded out of the country back when the entire world was socially conservative etc.

The Puritans were not socially conservative. Steeped in tikkun olamism and messianism, they were part of the Cromwell phenomenon. Or Cromwell was part of the Puritan phenomenon. Take your pick.

Oliver D. Smith is a smear artist, pathological liar and troll who is best ignored.

https://vdare.com/articles/lunatics-take-over-asylum-oliver-d-smith-rationalwiki-and-the-wikipedeans
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034

One of his angles is to contrast his misrepresentation of a person from cherry-picked out-of-context quotes (e.g. one comment suggesting the police use live ammo on violent arsonist rioters equates to “longing for a white supremacist race war”) with the actual person and claim that they “changed their views” (often casting himself as the hero) and try to “whitewash their past”, to make them look weak. Needless to say everything is in his mentally ill head. The guy is only here to annoy people.

Sorry. Not interested in your obscurantism.

They aren’t cherry-picked taken out of context posts –

You’re a former recent self-described white supremacist who promoted violence to the extent Daily Stormer (the neo-Nazi site) banned you. You’re the compulsive liar who keeps denying your online history and gets mad when anyone actually quotes what you’ve in the past written.

Here’s you promoting violence on the Daily Stormer in 2015 and claiming you weren’t happy with the “not advocating violence” position:

Yes, sad that “not advocating violence” has to be the official position of this site.

http://archive.is/xw1Wj

A 700 page thread dedicated to documenting your online insanity (and how you constantly change your views) on Kiwi Farms is still up with nearly 800,000 views:

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/mikemikev-michael-coombs-twinkle-toes-velcro-pants.17243/page-407
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/mikemikev-michael-coombs-twinkle-toes-velcro-pants.17243/page-705

You can’t run away from your past Mike.Why are you ashamed or embarrassed about being a former white supremacist or neo-Nazi? I mean it wasn’t even that long ago, you self-described yourself as a “white supremacist” on Stormfront in 2016 and 2017.

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1095858-171/?postcount=1709#post13844283

So, Ball is not an authority.

there is more genetic variation within such groups than between them

This argument is so common, yet apparently so stupid, that I’ve never been quite certain I’m getting it right.

If my interpretation is correct what it says is that the difference in height between the tallest and shortest white man is larger than the difference between the height of the average white man and the average black man. If that is what they are intending to say then it is somewhat interesting and useful…but mostly just stupid and obvious. The average differences between two biologically and geographically distinct groups will tell you a lot more about the differences in their societies than will the differences within those groups.

Ted Bundy was one of the more evil whites to ever exist. Mother Theresa was one of the least evil. The difference between the two of them isn’t nearly as important or interesting as the fact that blacks are about ten times as likely as whites to commit murder or a number of other crimes.

The logical style of Mr. Ball’s argument, such as it seems to be, is that since we humans are all made up of the same stuff such as atoms, protons, electrons, quarks, etc. that any differences or similarities in humans who come from varying ancestry is merely a “mental construct” of no actual reality.

Hence, all “stuff” is identical. Cats and dogs, Asians and Africans, earth, wind, fire, etc.

All differences perceived are merely mental constructs we impose on the same “stuff.”

Now maybe there is an epistemological or metaphysical argument in philosophy to be distilled from such a nutty idea (or that reality is all in our heads, Matrix style) but this is not widely accepted. If one goes about life using this version of reality, you will soon be dead. Gravity, speeding trains, fire, bad people, etc. all will soon remove your incorrect thinking from humanity for good.

So Mr. Ball obviously doesn’t believe his own theory. And hasn’t traveled widely enough to experience the obvious differences between people in Singapore and people in Lagos. Alas.

…Deutsche Physik and Jüdische Physik. To such people, there is no objective yardstick of science…

There might be something to this dichotomy. Pierre Duhem wrote about different philosophies underlying French, English and German approaches to science.

Fo example about English French dichotomy:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/duhem/#HisSci
Duhem even seems scornful of Maxwell’s interchangeable use of the verbs “to represent” and “to explain.” He states, “for an English physicist, the two words have the same meaning”

He decides that, for an English scientist, theory is “for him neither an explanation nor a rational classification of physical laws, but a model of these laws, a model not built for the satisfying of reason but for the pleasure of the imagination” (1914, 117; 1954, 81). The complaint is clear: model building has no real place in physical theory (beyond a minor heuristic role); it can neither be grounded in realism, in the thought that physical theories are explanatory structures, nor in instrumentalism, in the thought that physical theories are classificatory or representative structures. In fact, model building is not even connected to the higher intellectual faculty of reason but to the lower faculty of imagination. So, ultimately, Duhem’s attack on model building is rooted in something more fundamental than his instrumentalist methodology for the physical sciences.

For Duhem, there are always at least two basic ways of proceeding in science. Some scientists prefer the clutter of concrete details and thus do not mind ad hoc explanations, complications, and corrected theories; others prefer abstract, simple, and uncomplicated theories, even if they are gotten at the price of conceptual novelty. As we have seen, Duhem discusses this dichotomy under the rubric of the English mind and the French mind—what he also calls “esprit de finesse” and “esprit de géométrie,” following Blaise Pascal. Despite the labels “English” and “French,” Duhem’s categories are analytic ones, not mere epithets to be used rhetorically against his adversaries. In fact, from the start, when he described the broad-shallow English mind, his archetype was Napoleon Bonaparte, a great genius of military details—not an Englishman. Duhem’s ideal of the narrow-deep French mind was Newton, the geometer of physics—not a Frenchman. Thus, when Duhem accused Faraday and Maxwell of having English minds, he did so by trying to establish something about how they conducted their science, not by referring to their ancestry.

And about German mind:

In his last work, La science allemande, mostly a work of wartime propaganda, Duhem added a third kind of mind to his original two, namely, the German mind. If there are two basic types, the French mind and the English mind, then what could the German mind possibly be? Citing Pascal, Duhem tells us that truth requires both reason and argument—raison and raisonnement. Logic, or our ability to link propositions with one another, allows us to deduce one truth from another; but that ability, by itself, merely gets us back to first principles or axioms. We also need a faculty that allows us to intuit the truth of the first principles or axioms, that is, bon sens (good sense). Bon sens is to “esprit de finesse” what “pure logic” is to “esprit de géométrie.” Moreover, bon sens, our faculty of recognizing fundamental truth gets perfected by the practice of history, by our becoming more aware of the failures and successes of previous theories, by thinking about the trajectory of scientific theories, rather than by considering a single theory frozen in time. The dual scheme can now be expanded. We need logic, the ability to systematize, but we also need intuition, the recognition of truth. When one of these is allowed to dominate, we get a science which is all intuition, all “esprit de finesse,” but no logical coherence, namely, English science; or we get a science which is all logic, lacking bon sens, namely, German science. German science then is a degenerate kind of French science, the latter being predominantly “esprit de géométrie,” corrected by bon sens.

They remind me of the people Schopenhauer says are so stupid they think YOU are stupid. As he says, “A man cannot see over his own head”.

Perhaps related to J. Revulsky’s “High IQ idiots”: people who are unable to recognize patterns, such as the lone gunman trope, and, being smart, insist YOU must be a “conspiracy theorist” if you do.

Spot on MEH.

But genetics has found no such innate origins of behavioural differences between “races” – and it is highly unlikely, given what we know about genetic variation, that it would.

This really is the crux of the issue.

Two things i’ve realized as i’ve paid more attention to these HBD related issues:

1) Most liberals/leftists checkbox “evolution” (and ergo natural selection) as something they–of course!–believe in to separate themselves from the straw sucking flyover hayseeds, but do not actually believe or understand how natural selection *must* work. Apparently they have some fuzzy notion that people descended from apes and became “humans” and now there are just “people” all over. (The mathematical power of selection operating over generations to move the needle is of course something many don’t get because all sorts of verbal people never really internalize even sixth grade math.)

In fact, natural selection *must* alter the makeup of people in differing environments or it isn’t working. And the #1 survival trait of humans–our big flexible brains–is where the differential alteration in different environments would be the greatest. The only thing that’s plausibly as strong would be things related to diet (e.g. lactose tolerance) or disease resistance (e.g. sickle cell trait).

2) Most modern people really have no idea what civilization is, how it came to be, how it works, what keeps it running. Now a few generations off the farm–and certainly any traditional farm labor or thought to how their ancestors lived–they bob in the vast sea of prosperity and just have absolutely zero understanding of how we got here, what human traits helped–or heaven forbid any thought about the selection for those traits.

What do you mean?

Most liberals/leftists checkbox “evolution” (and ergo natural selection) as something they–of course!–believe in to separate themselves from the straw sucking flyover hayseeds, but do not actually believe or understand how natural selection *must* work. Apparently they have some fuzzy notion that people descended from apes and became “humans” and now there are just “people” all over. )

I think we know pretty well how selection works. And whether there is evidence of it or not.

You know you are winning when this retarded drivel is *all* the other side can come up with. Good God, fremdschämen is the German word for this.

Amusingly, one of Philip Ball’s many books is on precisely the topic of Jewish vs Aryan physics.
Although you would undoubtedly agree with his general slant, I am confident you would also deplore his approach: Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark were both mediocrities whose Nobel prizes were “mistakenly” awarded, neither of them had enough math to understand the theories of the vastly more intelligent Einstein, and both were, well before the Nazis came onto the scene, noted for their sympathy for their own country during the First World War. This last alone appears to be enough to condemn them in Ball’s “liberal Lefty” eye.

As for the basic concept: well I have never understood why we are supposed to applaud an approach to the physical world which brought us to the brink of utter destruction, and still holds the power to push us over that brink. Is a physics which would refuse such a “discovery” really worthy of nothing but our scorn?

I disagree – there can be different approaches to getting at the truth but there can only be one truth. All the post-modernists who talk about “your truth” are just plain wrong – if A and B are contradictory views (e.g. the existence or non-existence of the luminiferous aether) then one of them is right and the other one is just plain wrong. You might not know at any given time which of A or B is the truth but one of them is and one of them isn’t.

Is a physics which would refuse such a “discovery” really worthy of nothing but our scorn?

Maybe if that physics proceeded from pacifist principles then no (and it should be noted that many Western physicists expressed regret at having opened Pandora’s Box about 5 minutes after Hiroshima but this was 5 minutes too late – the generals and the politicians were never going to let the scientists determine how their invention should be used).

But Lenard and Stark were anything but pacifists. And if their approach has produced Wunderwaffen they would have been the first to push the button and vaporize London. Unfortunately (for Germany) their approach led nowhere and even the Nazis shunted them aside after a while in favor of the “White Jew” Heisenberg. It turns out that there is no German physics and Jewish physics, only a physics that works and one that doesn’t. The truth is the truth whether it aligns with current political views or not. Which is something to keep in mind in the Current Year.

There is a well-known story about a rabbi who was called upon to settle a dispute between two of his followers. The first man poured out his complaints to the rabbi, and when he finished, the rabbi said, “You’re right.” Then it was the second one’s turn. When he finished, the rabbi said, “You’re also right.” The rabbi’s wife, who had been listening to the conversation, said incredulously to her husband, “What do you mean, ‘You’re also right’? They can’t both be right!” The rabbi thought for a few moments, and then replied, “You know, my dear, you’re also right.”

The key phrase in my comment was “different approaches to science.”

Did they also report you were 1% or more African? That was a thing for a while, maybe still is.

I think they were doing this to mess with evil wipipo’s heads – hey you Klansman, we’re assigning you 1% black, take that you dirty racist!

OTOH, Ancestry.com recently upgraded my daughter from 99% Ashkenazi 1% E. European to 100% Ashkenazi (off of the same DNA sample).

It’s too bad Tom Wolfe isn’t around to write about this.

Tom Wolfe’s last book criticized Darwin. Steve didn’t review it.

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

Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark were both mediocrities whose Nobel prizes were “mistakenly” awarded

(1) How many of the Jewish Nobel awards were “mistakenly” awarded and the recipients were mediocrities?

(2) Lenard and Stark were experimental physicists. They were awarded the prize that in original intention of Alfred Nobel was meant for tangible discoveries not for theories. (In 1947 a denazification court sentenced Stark to four years in a labour camp.)

(3) There were many objections to Einstein’s method apart from insinuations of plagiarism but both are probably connected. The one that shows the difference between his approach and that of his predecessors (Lorentz and Poincare) from whom he very likely borrowed without any acknowledgments was voiced by Lorentz that “Einstein just assumed that which we were all trying to prove.” One plausible hypothesis why Einstein postulated the invariance of speed of light that could have been derived by other means is that Einstein could derive the Lorentz transforms from this postulate and thus did not need to acknowledge Lorentz and Poincare. He feigned ignorance of Poincare to the end of his life even though there are his letters which imply that he must have been familiar with Poincare’s relativity papers.

“The truth is the truth” indeed, but not all truth is scientific, perhaps not even the most important.
Lenard died in 1947, Stark ten years later. It would be of great interest (to me anyway) to know what, if anything, they had to say about the great triumph of Jewish physics which Hiroshima and Nagasaki represented.
Would they have said: “We were wrong” or, “We told you so”?

If we overlook it, the Chinese invent it, then conquer us with it.

OTOH, Ancestry.com recently upgraded my daughter from 99% Ashkenazi 1% E. European to 100% Ashkenazi (off of the same DNA sample).

Probably because they adopted your daughter’s genetic vector as part of the base subspace that defines what is Ashkenazi. The genetic definition of Ashkenazi is probably the most iffy of all as there are several disjoint lineages that are decreed that they are all Ashkenazi and the fact that Ashkenazis have under 50% Middle Eastern admixture. Would it be possible to create new Ashkenazis by breeding Palestinians with Europeans? Will Ivanka children be 50% Ashkenazi or 100%? If they are adopted into the base subspace they will be 100% Ashkenazi. \Almost rverything is possible in the applied “science” of genetics ancestry.

If one day it is decreed that Rastafarians are Ashkenazi not much would change for your daughter and she would remain 100% Ashkenazi while Bob Marley would be upgraded from 25-50% Jewish to 100% Ashkenazi.

The business of Ashkenazi genetic ancestry is iffy, tricky and very political because the genetic link to Middle Eastern population is postulated by the principle of Zionism so establishing it is paramount and must be achieved.

Bennett Greenspan, founder of Family Tree DNA said something very revealing about his motives and priorities which are strictly political:

http://www.avotaynuonline.com/2015/06/genetic-census-of-the-jewish-people/

The urgency of our work is magnified by the fact that the legitimacy of the Jewish people and its claim to our ancestral home is currently under constant pseudo-historical attack. The media, particularly on the web, carries regular features from enemies of Israel describing theories to the effect that Ashkenazi Jews have no connection to the land of Israel and are, in fact, European and Central Asian interlopers.

Are genetic ancestry companies based on fraudulent science? Would Bennett Greenspan have a motive to cook results? Would he had means to cook results? Besides his company just like 23andMe and Ancestry are not really scientific outfits that can be independently scrutinized. Their output is not a scientific product. They are selling to people what people want to hear. Jews want to be Jewish and be connects to Israel so they get Jewish results. African-Americans want some fancy tribal names from Africa so they get it. There is a lot of BS there which is not really verifiable. Besides nobody really tries. These companies spend lots of money on advertisement and clever meme creation. I am sure that Henry Louis Gates Jr. is paid very well to spread the meme. People eat it up thinking it is a robust and reliable science. But is it?

Those were Ball’s characterisations, not mine.

You know you are winning when this retarded drivel is *all* the other side can come up with. Good God, fremdschämen is the German word for this.

You are correct that Saini et al. produce nothing but retarded drivel. But we’re hardly winning when the entire MSM and even Nature promote it, while HBD scholars are banned from speaking.

That’s one way to put it.

I’d say he looks like the kind of guy who would fuck a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around.

Did you have one gene or two for lactose intolerance? Because lactose tolerance is the the dominant trait. Also, even if you showed up as lactose intolerant on 23andMe they are only testing one specific mutation that confers lactose tolerance (which is the predominant one among Europeans and Indians), but there are several others which they don’t test for.

The evidence is that the original Steppe people 5000 years ago who were drinking horse milk and perhaps later cow’s milk were largely lactose intolerant themselves (the milk would ferment), though few of them had the lactose tolerance gene and this has been greatly selected for among Northern Europeans in the past few thousand years. It’s the most obvious evidence for recent human evolution.

Edward Dutton already poked at the holes in Saini’s book in a BitChute/YouTube video.

Beyond my pay grade, but having been in meetings with high level genomics researchers at rather prominent US universities, I have noticed that tagging samples with ‘ethnicity’ is expected in order to pass peer review. Why? Because of major correlations between genotypes and folk psychological designations of ‘race’. That would be rather hard to explain if there was truly nothing there except magical habits formed out of the ether.

Didn’t the Mongols eventually develop the ability to tolerate lactose? I could swear that I had encountered an article about how the ability to drink milk was causally related to the population explosion that allowed the formation of large armies.

Come to think of it, wasn’t there a recent article about European and Mongolian cohabitation in Western China before a campaign of extermination by the Han? I wonder if gene transfer happened at that time due to intermarriage.

It’s the most obvious evidence for recent human evolution.

Muh blue eyes! What about muh blue eyes?

Question: does Phil Ball play Scrabble? Asking for a friend.

The Mongolians are not lactose tolerant from what I’ve read. They consume fermented milk products. From what I’ve seen on travel shows and what not, they mainly eat copious amounts of meat.

Lactose tolerance is slightly overrated as a concept. Most people think of lactose intolerance as being like this:

Or they’ve watched one of those gallon milk challenges on Youtube with some idiot vomiting all over the place. But when pizza is delivered at work or at parties you see all kinds of folks eating it. That stuff has a lower amount of lactose than plain milk and people – regardless of lactose status – seem to be able to eat it without problems. As they probably could one cup of milk, in a bowl of cereal.

I don’t doubt that the ability to drink straight milk, especially in a cold climate where it doesn’t automatically ferment – is an evolutionary advantage though.

The Steppe people who were light (or tan) skinned and had dark eyes had sex with the indigenous European hunter gatherer people who were dark skinned with blue eyes, creating a hybrid race with various phenotypes represented. Then over time, the very light skin and blue eyes was heavily selected for in Northern Europe so perhaps you are right.

What “HBD scholars” have been banned from speaking?

The alt-right has a persecution complex.

People eat it up thinking it is a robust and reliable science. But is it?

Put it this way – Ancestry found a lot of people whom I know to be 1st or 2nd cousins of mine or my wife (we definitely took home the right baby and I’m the father) and then it found a whole bunch of other people with Ashkenazi Jewish names and some of them were from my mother’s or my father’s shtetls. If ancestry is just extended family, I’m pretty sure these people were my family. I don’t know how well Ancestry works for Africans or other European nationalities but for Ashkenazi Jews it seems to work pretty damn well.

People make out lactose tolerance as if it was this really big thing in human evolution but the conditions in which it is safe and convenient to drink raw cow’s milk are very limited. In most places and times you would ferment the milk in to yogurt or kefir, curdle it into cheese, etc., all of which reduce the lactose content (hard cheese has zero lactose and it keeps for years). It’s not like people had fridges where you could keep fresh cow’s milk and without refrigeration the shelf life of cow’s milk is a matter of hours before it spoils in the warm months. And in a lot of places (China) it was never the custom to keep dairy cattle at all.

In some ways we are going back to the historic norm in that people are now starting to drink a lot less fluid milk. People used to have this idea that fresh milk was an absolutely essential elixir for school age children without which they would die or be stunted or something, rather than being just one more food – a nutritious food to be sure but not the only one.

What I hope they would have said was, “Before God and all Mankind, we beg your forgiveness on behalf of Germany. We endorsed a sick and twisted ideology that not only took the lives of millions of innocents but brought ruin onto our nation and forever stained the great name of Germany. We know that our own names are now indelibly stained and our reputations will never be restored, but we hope that someday Germany can rejoin the family of civilized nations and once again hold its head up high. ” But human nature being what it is, I doubt it.

I rather prefer the attitude of the defeated 1er REP of the French Foreign Legion.

People used to have this idea that fresh milk was an absolutely essential elixir for school age children without which they would die or be stunted or something, rather than being just one more food – a nutritious food to be sure but not the only one.

Blame the Swedish-American dairy lobby.

A long time ago in the Midwest, there was an Asian-American couple who refused to feel their kids milk. The authorities (including medical doctors, who should have known better) threatened to take their kids away on grounds of “neglect”. It turned out these kids were severely lactose-intolerant, and they nearly died when doctors rammed milk down their throats.

It seems like everyone sort of agrees on most of this stuff, but people just frame things differently in their own minds to make it compatible with their own personal situation and psychology.

I don’t think this issue can ever be resolved. Too many people have a stake in how race is ‘officially’ perceived. Those with power will use the issue of race in a way that benefits them and their group. The moral of the story is don’t give excessive power to people who are hostile to you and have different interests.

I agree with everything you wrote except for the wording that implies that natural selection is a thing. Seems to me that your wording, if not your actual conceptionalization of natural selection, comes close to reifying selection. Natural selection is not a thing. It’s a process that is dependent on variation in performance, i.e., the ability to do something in some specific manner. The evidential trace of the process is a statistical correlation between performance and reproductive output.

Also natural selection does not always cause evolution. The sub-type of natural selection termed stabilizing selection eliminates the extremes of the distribution of performance ability and so maintains the population at a certain average that is the most fit. For example, extremely high performance ability regarding one particular function likely imposes costs on other functions and therefore, in population long-adapted to a stable habitat, is correlated with lower reproductive output than is the average performance ability.

The way to counter the MSM propaganda is for the race realists to settle on a set of defensible assertions, and then to stick to that message in personal and internet conversations until it has acquired the status of a meme.

Examples of defensible assertions are: 1) Geographic variation in performance ability (which itself is based on geographic variation in morphology and physiology, which themselves are based on geographic variation in genes) is the standard condition in any verebrate species that has a large geographic distribution. 2) Races in typical vertebrate species may or may not have sharp geographic boundaries. In the latter case, cluster analysis of genetic, morphological, or performance samples taken across the geographic range will show areas of high and low density when plotted graphically with a data summarization technique like Principal Component Analysis. The areas of high density define the races. The areas of low density represent intergradation between the races.

In other words, learn the science behind geographic variation as applied to understanding animal evolution. And then show that human variation follows the same patterns.

And by the way, the ultimate performance ability in human beings is the creation of a civilization that continues to advance science.

Examples of defensible assertions

I do not want to spam , but as an anti-realist I do not see something in what you wrote that supports race.

These positions can be reconciled with anti-realism about race.

I’m curious–what did Achmed do to get on this list? I engage him often both here and on his Peak Stupidity blog, and he’s never struck me as a gamma, a troll, or someone who would have a problem with Unauthorized.

Yes, ‘race realists’ use the same fallacies over and over in an endless loop. The main one is to equate anti-racialism with denying humans populations/geographical variation, something no anti-racialist has ever said – an obvious straw man and absurdity.

To deny the existence of subspecies in Homo sapiens is not to deny biological variation between populations; there is human population structure.
Misrepresenting anti-racialism as the position that “all human populations are identical” or there are “no differences between populations” is a common tactic among racialists.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism#Human_biological_variation

Mikemikev has been using this same fallacy for past 6 years I debated him. These people are intellectually dishonest and all they end up doing is totally misrepresenting what the anti-racialist position actually is (which doesn’t deny human biological variation at all).

Most liberals/leftists checkbox “evolution” (and ergo natural selection) as something they–of course!–believe in to separate themselves from the straw sucking flyover hayseeds, but do not actually believe or understand how natural selection *must* work. Apparently they have some fuzzy notion that people descended from apes and became “humans” and now there are just “people” all over. )

I think we know pretty well how selection works. And whether there is evidence of it or not.

The genetic evidence for selection is absolutely overwhelming. Both from any honest observers’ “lying eyes” and now directly from statistical analysis of thousands of people’s genomes.

And selection has actually *ramped up* during the last 10,000 years since the neolithic. (The thrust of Cochran and Harpendings “The 10,000 Year Explosion.) Something that should come as zero surprise not just to anyone who can see, but to anyone who understands the concepts of evolution and natural selection. It is precisely a new/differing environment that energies a faster selective response. And not only was the neolithic itself a hugely new environment, but humans since the neolithic have been rapidly self-creating new environments, so we have gene-culture co-evolution.

And this massive burst of selection has been precisely during the time when the various peoples–“races”, or call them “populations” if it gives you a warm and fuzzy–have been either mostly or completely reproductively isolated.

~~~

You can prattle on in your learned stupidity … “race isn’t population” blah, blah, blah. But none of that alters the reality that various peoples have been geographically reproductively isolated during our-post neolithic surge of selection … and you can observe the effects of selection with your own eyes or directly in the genes.

You make a good point: Whatever natural selection that occurred associated with hydraulic agriculture, plow-based agriculture, manorial organization, urbanization, industrialization, and money-based economies during the last several thousand years would only have affected people outside of sub-Saharan Africa. During that period, Africans lived as horticulturalists, a cognitively undemanding life style.

Vox Day is coming for the gammas. The Day of the Rope is at hand for the gammas.

In that case ‘Vox’ would have to hang himself.

All the post-modernists who talk about “your truth” are just plain wrong – …

They are not merely “plain wrong.” To the Frankfurt School and its predecessors (at least back to Marx and Freud), it is a core tenet that truth is INDEFINITE and infinitely variable at the beck and call of POWER. The basic push by the Frankfurters and their allies has been to supplant the “one truth” of Christianity and classical (Greek) tradition with “my truth,” “your truth,” “socialist truth,” etc. In this interpretation, there is no difference in substance between “truth” and “subjective view” or “opinion.” Everything dissolves into a cloaca of subjectivity.

It is probably a fortuitous coincidence – a weak version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis – that Hebrew, Greek and West European languages each happen to have definite articles, so one can speak of “THE” truth.” Russian and East Asian languages have no articles at all, so to speakers of such langues, there is no built-in distinction between “the truth,” “truth” and even “a truth.”

Cromwell WAS a puritan. And, there was nothing – nothing at all – socially conservative about the puritans: they were driven out of England because they were a constant threat to social order.

Cromwell was a fraud opportunist. He converted to Puritanism late in life. His talk was filled with god but his action was anti-christian ruthless as Torquemada. Obvious religious charlatan who simply had no Jacobin or Marxist framework as a vehicle. So his rule was incoherent he ended up Your Highness in the ermine robe everything but a crown.

Also there was absolutely nothing at all liberal about the Puritans. They were roughly Taliban of their time.

The Puritans were not socially conservative. Steeped in tikkun olamism and messianism, they were part of the Cromwell phenomenon. Or Cromwell was part of the Puritan phenomenon. Take your pick.

Catholics interpret Puritans as not conservative because the Vatican represents ultimate tradition. But Puritans were actually an extreme conservative reaction to Catholic decadence. They were not in any sense leftist or liberal…

“No, I do not think your eyes are lying to you nor that, say Africans and Europeans do not have different phenotypes. But that is not race.”

Correct. Africa and Europe are continents. “Negro” and “Caucasian” are the correct biological NAMES for distinct races.

“Race must be based on genetics and related to overall genome differentiation not a few traits that are also not unique to one race anyways.”

Humans and mice share approx. 98% of the same genes. Does that means that there is no biological differences, REALLY , in Humans and mice?

And this massive burst of selection has been precisely during the time when the various peoples–“races”, or call them “populations” if it gives you a warm and fuzzy–have been either mostly or completely reproductively isolated.

But none of that alters the reality that various peoples have been geographically reproductively isolated during our-post neolithic surge of selection

They haven’t though; there’s been recurrent gene flow for a long time:

On a time scale of tens of thousands of years (the temporal resolution of the ML-NCPA studies), there is not one statistically significant inference of splitting during the last 1.9 million years. Hence, the null hypothesis of a single human lineage is not rejected, so there is no evidence for lineage races in humans. Furthermore, ML-NCPA strongly rejects the null hypotheses of no gene flow and no admixture under the null hypothesis that isolated lineages did exist, so there is strong evidence against lineage races in humans. Hence, there are no races in humans under the lineage definition.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/

And this massive burst of selection has been precisely during the time when the various peoples–“races”, or call them “populations” if it gives you a warm and fuzzy–have been either mostly or completely reproductively isolated.

Is there any evidence they were isolated?

That is my main point, they were not and I can cite you multiple peer-reviewed studies on the issue.

Re: “tikkun olamism”:

People here throw around the term tikkun olam a great deal, most not realizing (or at least not caring) that at least most of the ideology and behavior that they are referring-to is actually a perversion of the authentic Judaic concept by that name. And the policies, sentiments and behaviors promoted in the name of this pseudo tikkun olam— sexual degeneracy; mass immigration; sacralization of non-Whites and hostility toward Whites, etc.– are no less harmful to Jews than they are to anyone else. I enumerate examples below.

POTUS is doing to gun rights via his BATF

ATF is the Deep State, the like Social Security Administration. More so, in that it’s a legacy of Prohibition, not the New Deal.

Presidents come and go. The “imperial Presidency” we complain about is more of a Frank Baum-like screen for an elected figurehead like the presidents of Ireland, Iceland, or Finland.

they’re furious Bloomberg had prison inmates calling voters to drum up support for him

Please, Bloomberg prefers the term, ‘Prisoners with jobs’ to the, ‘S-word’.

That’s the sound of the men workin’ on the campaign ga-a-ang…

Huh? If there’s no such thing as “race,” then there is no point trying to have an “honest conversation” about something that doesn’t exist. I thought it was quite obvious…

Oh really? That is a bit rich from someone who writes hit pieces on HBD scholars as a hobby.

But happily for people who actually care about the truth, there was a paper a few months ago looking at sanctions applied to intelligence researchers. This blog post links to the paper.
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/persecution-of-iq-researchers/

People here throw around the term tikkun olam

No True Tikkun Olam!

Take it up with these people, not us.

https://www.tikkun.org/

But happily for people who actually care about the truth, there was a paper a few months ago looking at sanctions applied to intelligence researchers. This blog post links to the paper.

That paper is nonsense; most of the 55 listed ‘intelligence researchers’ aren’t real intelligence researchers… but are totally unqualified e.g. Noah Carl’s PhD is in sociology, Frank Ellis is a former lecturer in Slavic Studies and Gerhard Meisenberg has a PhD in biochemistry. What does sociology, Slavic studies and biochemistry have to do with intelligence research? Probably less than 10% of the people listed in the paper are actually qualified psychologists or behavioural geneticists. The rest are unqualified cranks like Carl who dedicate their time writing about race and IQ when they have no academic background or expertise in this area. One of the reasons Noah Carl was sacked was because of his association with the pseudoscientific OpenPsych journals that don’t even have formal peer-review and he published shoddy papers in them, widely criticised for selective use of data and serious methodological flaws. Read the following article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPsych#Noah_Carl

Do you respond in the same way when such positions as support for mass third-world immigration, or ‘LGBTQ’ equality are claimed to be Christian values, and someone counters with the contention that such positions are actually perversions of Christianity?

Every single one of the positions that liberal Jews perversely characterize as “tikkun olam” is also that of the predominate mainstream Christian* churches and organizations: Pro-immigration/”refugee”;”anti-racism”;”anti-sexism”;pro-“LGBTQ”, etc. And just as with liberal/Progressive/Leftist/Woke Jews who take said positions in the name of Judaism and their purported Judaic/Jewish values, so too, liberal/Progressive/Leftist/Woke Christians* take them in the name of Christianity and their purported Christian values.

(*Or purportedly or nominally Christian, if you prefer.)

Citing a Jewish organization that advocates for the pseudo tikkun olam concept that I characterized as a perversion of Judaism proves absolutely nothing. That such organizations exist was already obvious and not in dispute. To suggest that their existence (or the fact that some of them have impressively-named and possibly impressively-presented web sites) in any way refutes, much less disproves or discredits anything I wrote, is simply preposterous.

Now one could, of course, challenge the assertions I made concerning Judaism by citing sources such as passages from purported Judaic texts or statements from Jewish clergy. (And surely, that is just what many of the Jews-in-question would do, given conditions they found sufficiently propitious.) But you did no such thing.

Moreover, even were one not to accept my contentions concerning Judaism, my point that that it is not only non-Jews who are harmed by the positions and policies that are advanced by liberal Jews in the name of “tikkun olam”, but also Jews themselves, would remain germane.

https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691122946/on-bullshit

Do you respond in the same way when such positions as support for mass third-world immigration, or ‘LGBTQ’ equality are claimed to be Christian values, and someone counters with the contention that such positions are actually perversions of Christianity?

I tend to avoid engaging in other people’s logical fallacies. So I don’t have much interest in the kind of mental masturbation usually found in long, emotional, comment box rants about “No True Christian” or “No True Muslim” or “No True Feminist” or “No True Communist” or “No True Capitalist” or “No True Libertarian” or “No True Republican” or “No True Leftist” or “No True Democrat” or “No True Whatever”. Or “No True Tikkun Olem”. Or “No True Jew”.

Suggest you take your complaint about No True Tikkum Olem up with Rabbi Lerner. I’m pretty sure he has more real-world effect on the use of that term than anyone in a combox does. Good luck.

…all they end up doing is totally misrepresenting what the anti-racialist position actually is (which doesn’t deny human biological variation at all)

You might admit to human biological variation, but your fellow travelers sure don’t. We can’t even get an acknowledgement that there is a difference between men and women from the usual suspects.

That rationalwiki entry is the usual dissembling, spouting the usual weasel phrases like, “there is no definitive set of criteria”, and invoking the usual continuum fallacies.

Changes nothing.

That rationalwiki entry is the usual dissembling, spouting the usual weasel phrases like, “there is no definitive set of criteria”, and invoking the usual continuum fallacies.

He should know because he wrote it.

They haven’t though; there’s been recurrent gene flow for a long time:

Ah, gene flow. The explanation for everything. Except for why Fst values remain as large as they are in reality. I thought we had covered the extreme gene flow idea when I mentioned ancient alien spacecraft moving people around the continents every generation, but I guess not.

This post by Greg Cochran discusses the magnitude of gene flow and is worth a look.
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/gene-flow/

It’s a question of were they isolated enough to allow differences to evolve. Which we see quite clearly empirically that they were. See Greg Cochran link above.

That paper is nonsense

Says Oliver D. Smith, noted science expert. Do you have any arguments other than ad hominems?

And nice attempt at cherry picking people you don’t like. But let’s take a look at which scientists experienced the most incidents.

Looking at the top three I see: Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, and Hans Eysenck. And James Watson appears at number seven.

Those four include two Nobel Prize Winners (Shockley and Watson) and numbers 13 (Eysenck) and 47 (Jensen) on this list of Eminent psychologists of the 20th century: https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug02/eminent

If you look at the X axis of that graphic there are quite a few more well respected names. And that is leaving aside the accuracy of your characterizations of the people you don’t like (and character assassinate at every opportunity).

I’m not a scientist or science expert and have never claimed to be. However, my peer-reviewed publications are at least on things I’m qualified in (to postgraduate level) and know about. Noah Carl, Gerhard Meisenberg, Frank Ellis etcetc aren’t qualified in psychology or behavioural genetics yet they choose to fixate and publish on race and intelligence when they aren’t competent. They’re like PhD creationists who have PhD’s in things irrelevant to evolutionary biology (like aerospace engineering). Because someone is qualified and specialises in one subject doesn’t make them an expert in another…

Those four include two Nobel Prize Winners (Shockley and Watson) and numbers 13 (Eysenck) and 47 (Jensen) on this list of Eminent psychologists of the 20th century: https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug02/eminent

And two of those are largely irrelevant – Shockley was a physicist (PhD from MIT). As far as I’m aware he published very few articles on race and IQ (e.g. Shockley, 1971); the controversy was primarily over comments he made in interviews and made in talks on a university campus. Watson is a molecular biologist and geneticist and doesn’t seem to have published a single paper on race and intelligence; the controversy was over comments he’s made in an interview at CSHL in the 2000s. Watson clearly isn’t an intelligence researcher. And hilariously, looking at that list we find Toby Young:

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

Is he also meant to be an intelligence researcher? Thanks for the comedy. His only verifiable qualifications appear to be mediocre to poor grades at mere A level (two Bs and a C). No evidence he’s ever studied psychology, has done intelligence research at a university or published a peer-reviewed article on IQ etc.

Except for why Fst values remain as large as they are in reality.

Fst values between geographical neighbours are minimal. Significant differences are only found at large geographical distances because of isolation-by-distance. This fits an an anti-race model (clines or smooth gradients), not a race model of genetic variation.

This post by Greg Cochran discusses the magnitude of gene flow and is worth a look.
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/gene-flow/

He’s just describing isolation-by-distance:

Now there may well have been significant gene flow between one tribe and a neighboring one in some parts of SSA, which kept them from becoming too different from each other: but there was nothing keeping them from becoming different from people in the Middle East, or Europe, or East Asia.

He’s too dumb though to comprehend why this invalidates race. We already went over this in the other thread and I also explained in detail, so no need to repeat myself here.

How does he reconcile his arguments with this?

https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000695? High gene flow has been known for a decade now or longer.

Beyond the fact that Fst is unreliable in these cases. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3567740/

You might admit to human biological variation, but your fellow travelers sure don’t.

They do, but people like you set up dishonest straw man positions no one holds.

Who denies human biological variation when no two individuals are identical clones?

That’s the absurdity of the straw man you set up.

We can’t even get an acknowledgement that there is a difference between men and women from the usual suspects.

An example: men on average are taller than women. Who denies this? No one.

https://www.thoughtco.com/why-men-are-typically-taller-than-women-3975666

So you’re lying again.

It gets good feedback from scientists. I know because I’m on ResearchGate and it’s often cited in discussions there. There’s also the fact it has received a lot of clicks on Google.

In contrast to my article creations at RationalWiki, your wiki, Rightpedia was shut down by their web host for breaking their rules hosting obscene imagery, libel and hate speech.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rightpedia#Hosting_issues

You’re the actual ‘hit piece’ writer. Multiple hosts kicked you off their platforms and after Rightpedia was kicked at least 3 times it was finally deleted and has since been offline.

“”We can’t even get an acknowledgement that there is a difference between men and women from the usual suspects.”

An example: men on average are taller than women. Who denies this? No one.”

Are there any innate psychological differences between men and women? Can men transition into women”

As for isolation by distance, instead of race, what’s the Fst between Amazonian Indians and West Africans? What’s the Fst halfway between them? Sure looks more like a clade than a cline. Race in the US looks more cladal than clinal.

But if you go by isolation by distance instead of race, do you think there are any cognitive differences between people who are socially constructed as African-American and those who are socially constructed as white?

Ask him. Or how about engaging with what he said? Unlike you he actually makes concrete mathematical statements which can be argued for or against.

At the end of the day gene flow has not been sufficient to eliminate group differences in either genotype or phenotype. Your repeated references to it as invalidating the concept of race are simply a red herring. What matters is that those differences exist and vary systematically between groups in a way we refer to as race.

Fst values between geographical neighbours are minimal. Significant differences are only found at large geographical distances because of isolation-by-distance. This fits an an anti-race model (clines or smooth gradients), not a race model of genetic variation.

Isolation (be it by distance, geographical barriers, or culture) is what drives the evolution which resulted in different races. I would hardly say isolation by distance and race are inconsistent.

He’s just describing isolation-by-distance:

No. The effect he discusses is dependent on migration rate. Part of that is isolation by distance, but there are other causes for isolation (lack of migration) as I mentioned above.

He’s too dumb though to comprehend why this invalidates race.

You calling Cochran dumb is pretty funny.

We already went over this in the other thread and I also explained in detail, so no need to repeat myself here.

Thank you for that.

P.S. Perhaps the best example of group differences being caused by culture (not distance) based isolation is castes in India. This paper has some data:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43512232_Fine-scaled_human_genetic_structure_revealed_by_SNP_microarrays
The Himalayas and the Sahara Desert are two good examples of geographical barrier based isolation.

How about providing some actual examples of incompetence rather than just asserting anyone doing research outside of the field(s) they have degrees in is incompetent?

Your focus on people rather than their arguments is both tiresome and profoundly anti-science.

And two of those are largely irrelevant – Shockley was a physicist (PhD from MIT). As far as I’m aware he published very few articles on race and IQ (e.g. Shockley, 1971); the controversy was primarily over comments he made in interviews and made in talks on a university campus. Watson is a molecular biologist and geneticist and doesn’t seem to have published a single paper on race and intelligence; the controversy was over comments he’s made in an interview at CSHL in the 2000s.

So simply offering thoughts about the genetics of group differences in intelligence is enough to be censured. That hardly seems irrelevant. Do you think people whose livelihood as researchers (e.g. ability to be employed, get grants, or be published) depends on avoiding that fate have failed to notice what happens to those who do engage with these topics? Even if only in informal conversations!

And by avoiding mentioning Eysenck and Jensen you have validated my point concerning them.

Since you seem intent on picking the weaker examples, let’s consider another strong one. Here is a profile of Linda Gottfredson which discusses some of her travails:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250185762_Linda_S_Gottfredson

Some excerpts:

No stranger to controversy, she is perhaps most widely known for her clear, rigorous, and forthright analyses of individual and group differences in intelligence and their social consequences.
…
But no one had inquired into the magnitude or patterning of disparate impact to expect across all jobs simply because of Black–White differences in IQ mean and variance. For example, Black representation falls steadily as job level rises,which is often taken as self-evident proof of more racial discrimination in more desirable jobs. Public policy is often based on such claims.
Having already compiled data on the aptitude demands of different occupations and the typical intelligence levels of incumbents, it was a simple mat-ter to calculate what proportion of each race fell within those recruitment ranges and would, presumably, be cognitively eligible for them. Based on the two IQ distributions, I knew for statistical reasons that the per capita ratio of Black to White eligibles would fall as jobs rose in difficulty and status level but otherwise did not know what to expect. I was shocked at how disproportionate the ratios were, at both the top and bottom of the job scale—and also how closely they conformed to actual employment patterns. I included the analysis in a commentary I was invited in 1985 to write on an article by Art Jensen appearing in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS). My commentary was eventually published (Gottfredson, 1987), but only after protracted correspondence rebutting the reviewers’ and editor’s objections. Up to that point, my submissions had always sailed through the review process, some-times with no revisions at all.
That one little analysis, so simple and obvious, had clearly provoked anxieties among journal reviewers, but it would also instigate years of requests for assistance from personnel selection practitioners.
…
As sociologists, Bob Gordon and I have always been interested in how societies react to and structure themselves around their members’ differences in intelligence (e.g., see Gordon, 1980, 1988, 1997a). The persisting controversies over intelligence are part of this general phenomenon, what we dubbed the sociology of intelligence. As a long-time participant-observer of them, I have drawn on that experience in articles on how political and social pressures affect the field and public perceptions of it. For example,scholars are rarely censored outright, so how do politically incorrect views and results actually get burdened and suppressed? How is the taboo against looking into the genetics of racial differences in intelligence enforced? How are falsehoods about intelligence made to seem true, and the truth made to seem false? My most recent book chapter (‘‘Logical Fallacies Used to Dismiss the Evidence on Intelligence Testing,’’ 2009) deals specifically with that issue, while some of the articles I have already mentioned, plus others,describe the social mechanisms by which politically incorrect research is suppressed (e.g., Gottfredson, 1994a, 1996a, 1996e, 2007a).
…
No one would place me at the cautious end of the continuum, but having traversed the range, I can report that the practical consequences of matter-of-fact, reasoned, nondefensive candor are minor until one broaches the genetics of racial differences in IQ.

Much more at the link.

If I want to read or learn about intelligence research I rely on reputable psychologists; most on that list aren’t psychologists and the few that are, aren’t reputable, but ideologues with terrible reputations. Are you really going to dispute this? lol. As an example, Richard Lynn frequently attends political conferences hosted by the white-nationalist American Renaissance. Should we take him seriously? See below link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn#Allegations_of_racism

I found and documented many of these politically-motivated ideologues when covering OpenPsych:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/OpenPsych_pseudojournals#Political_bias_of_OpenPsych

This is a comment from one of the OpenPsych journal referees, Peter Frost:

We must act now to bring anti-globalist parties to power: the UKIP in Britain, the Front national in France, the Partij voor de Vrijheid in the Netherlands, the Alternative für Deutschland in Germany, and the Sverigedemokraterna in Sweden… I wrote the above last January, fearing that Europe would see an acceleration of the massive demographic change already under away—the Great Replacement

The only reason these people hate me is because I exposed them for what they are, political ideologues, not scientists. And all I ever did is quote their own words.

So simply offering thoughts about the genetics of group differences in intelligence is enough to be censured. That hardly seems irrelevant. Do you think people whose livelihood as researchers (e.g. ability to be employed, get grants, or be published) depends on avoiding that fate have failed to notice what happens to those who do engage with these topics? Even if only in informal conversations!

There’s never been censorship about discussing group differences in IQ, as long as it is done sensibly. The examples you mentioned weren’t sensible discussions; Shockley made extremely controversial and distasteful comments about paying people to be undergo voluntary sterilization (!) and Watson made offensive pseudoscientific comments about trying to link dark skin to sexual promiscuity; Watson’s specific comments on group differences in intelligence were to criticise Western social policies towards African countries because the latter in his view are mentally inferior to Westerners. Had he not mentioned social policy and just said he thought genes partly explained group differences in IQ, there wouldn’t have been much a fuss. But most people interpreted his remarks as saying Western countries should change their foreign policy and relations with Africa because black people are mentally inferior. There are a load more outrageous comments he made (sexist and racist), so it wasn’t just 1 incident.

And by avoiding mentioning Eysenck and Jensen you have validated my point concerning them.

Since you seem intent on picking the weaker examples, let’s consider another strong one. Here is a profile of Linda Gottfredson which discusses some of her travails:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250185762_Linda_S_Gottfredson

I’ll get back to you on this later today.

I tend to avoid engaging in other people’s logical fallacies.

You ought to at least recognize your own, though. You would do well to be more careful to avoid simplistically, incorrectly and likely reflexively falling back on applying the No True Scotsman or any other pat, meme-ready characterization. That– i.e.. such glibly invoking of such memes, as you have done in this case– is itself a fallacy.

I stand by both my initial comment as well as my previous reply to you. It already addresses and answers what you have added in this followup.

(In light of the smug condescension and gratuitous (even if subtle) hostility you have demonstrated toward me, I make no apologies for any boldness or patronizing tone that I may have exhibited in my response.)

Are there any innate psychological differences between men and women? Can men transition into women.

There’s studies showing IQ differences exist between men and women, but they’re negligible; under 1 IQ point i.e. men and women are more or less equal in general intelligence.

As for isolation by distance, instead of race, what’s the Fst between Amazonian Indians and West Africans? What’s the Fst halfway between them? Sure looks more like a clade than a cline. Race in the US looks more cladal than clinal.

Of course it ‘looks’ like that, but looks can be deceiving… Most self-identified African-Americans or ‘blacks’ in US have ancestries from ethnic groups from western Africa, while most self-identified European Americans or ‘whites’ have ancestries from ethnic groups from northern Europe. So the ordinary person on the street isn;t seeing many people on a common basis with ancestries from northern or eastern Africa and southern or eastern Europe. An interesting breakdown of ancestries from Europe is on Wikipedia, showing how European Americans have ancestries predominantly from northern and central Europe (English, Scottish, Irish, German, Norwegian, Swedish, Polish) etc, opposed to southern and eastern European countries. The typical American is still a mutt of course, but a northern-central European mutt… Anyway the point is you would recognise the clinal reality better in person if there were more people from ethnic groups from southern and eastern European and north and eastern Africa. Instead though what the typical American sees is mostly people from geographical extremes without any of the intermediate populations. This deludes them into thinking there are discontinuous races and not a smooth continua of populations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Americans#Ancestral_origins

But if you go by isolation by distance instead of race, do you think there are any cognitive differences between people who are socially constructed as African-American and those who are socially constructed as white?

As far I’m aware no one denies group IQ score differences, they’re accepted. The controversy is about their heritability: genes or environment. My own view is predominantly environmental factors (particularly culture) and this is what the data supports. I don’t though argue for 0% genes and I think it’s foolish to restrict the environmental hypothesis to 0% (after all the genetic/hereditarian hypothesis is >50%). I’d be happy for example arguing the B-W IQ gap is 95% environmental and 5% genes. I should point out though I consider the black-white IQ gap to be considerably lower than 15 points; it’s usually inflated by hereditarians when it’s around 5 points lower.

If I want to read or learn about intelligence research I rely on reputable psychologists; most on that list aren’t psychologists and the few that are, aren’t reputable, but ideologues with terrible reputations. Are you really going to dispute this?

Absolutely. The three I focused on in that comment (Eysenck, Jensen, and Gottfredson) are all reputable within the profession. You did see the link I gave above in comment 135 responding to you, right? Let’s repeat that excerpt here since you seem to have forgotten it already.

numbers 13 (Eysenck) and 47 (Jensen) on this list of Eminent psychologists of the 20th century: https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug02/eminent

The only reason these people hate me is because I exposed them for what they are, political ideologues, not scientists.

Anyone who has ever read one of your character assassination pieces is well aware of why people hate you.

And all I ever did is quote their own words.

I’ll let Emil respond to that.
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034

There’s never been censorship about discussing group differences in IQ, as long as it is done sensibly. The examples you mentioned weren’t sensible discussions…Watson made offensive pseudoscientific comments about trying to link dark skin to sexual promiscuity; Watson’s specific comments on group differences in intelligence were to criticise Western social policies towards African countries because the latter in his view are mentally inferior to Westerners. Had he not mentioned social policy and just said he thought genes partly explained group differences in IQ, there wouldn’t have been much a fuss. But most people interpreted his remarks as saying Western countries should change their foreign policy and relations with Africa because black people are mentally inferior.

Here is the statement most commonly cited as getting Watson in trouble.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/dna-pioneer-james-watson-loses-honorary-titles-over-racist-comments-180971266/
In 2007, he told former protégé Charlotte Hunt-Grubbe that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really.”

That is an eminently sensible comment. And furthermore was in a (supposedly) private conversation. Notice that he was not advocating policy change. He was stating that he is pessimistic because of the current policies. Do you disagree with that pessimism?

That you are defending the actions taken against him for that comment is telling.

I’ll share an interesting quote:

Suppose for instance that we had developed our own physics and chemistry: would not the techniques and industries based on them have taken a different form, would not our myriads of everyday gadgets, our medicines, the products of our industrial art—would they not have suited our national temper better than they do? In fact our conception of physics itself, and even the principles of chemistry, would probably differ from that of Westerners; and the facts we are now taught concerning the nature and function of light, electricity, and atoms might well have presented themselves in different form.

Tanizaki, In Praise of Shadows, 1933

The clear-headed Jap looks at the world and realises things may have been natural, not adoptive, and as such engineered culturally towards solutions they would prefer instead ot imported Western technology. But yet it stands to reason that it is ‘racism’ to suggest that solutions to Africa should be engineered based in African mentalities and not the Western perception thereof.

Lothrop Stoddard says something similar about Indians after the Industrial revolution:

This growing social friction was indubitably heightened by the lack of interest of Orientals in the sufferings of all persons not bound to them by family, caste, or customary ties. Throughout the East, “social service,” in the Western sense, is practically unknown…As an American sociologist remarked of the growing slum evil throughout the industrialized Orient: “The greatest danger is due to the fact that Orientals do not have the high Western sense of the value of the life of the individual, and are, comparatively speaking, without any restraining influence similar to our own enlightened public opinion, which has been roused by the struggles of a century of industrial strife. Unless these elements can be supplied, there is danger of suffering and of abuses worse than any the West has known.”

It seems bizarre that people want to use Watson’s comment against him when he is implying diverse peoples of the world require diverse solutions.

So your contention is that if a researcher has politics, then his research is suspect? Or that if someone thinks that the (almost certainly genetic) differences between, for example, whites and sub-Saharan Africans in intelligence and personality should inform foreign aid and development policies, then that is beyond the pale?

Here’s an analogy, though not a perfect one. Some people have Down’s syndrome. Should the fact that they have lower IQs inform our plans for what sorts of work they should perform and whether they can successfully live independently? It seems obvious to me that knowing that their IQ is lower is vitally important. They’re more likely to be good baggers at grocery stores than mathematical physicists. Training them as physicists is a waste of resources that only leads to sadness and frustration. Expecting them to live independently will only lead to misery.

Obviously Africans don’t have Downs, but decades of foreign aid and development assistance have not moved the needle on their quality of life. Improvements (to the extent they’ve improved) has come from high commodity prices and cheap manufactured goods from China. If hbd-ers are right, and people who are isolated by distance from Europeans and Asians in the direction of Africa are incapable of running functional governments and economies that provide broad prosperity, that should inform policy.

I would hardly say isolation by distance and race are inconsistent.

It’s inconsistent because with IBD you end up with geographical distance strongly correlating with genetic distance and if you arbitrarily divide by continents/subcontinents the groupings are too heterogeneous to be of use in data analyses because they cover too much genetic variation over space. This was explained in the other thread where you and Mikemikev were thoroughly debunked.

You calling Cochran dumb is pretty funny.

His PhD is in physics, not genetics. So he’s another pseudointellectual who publishes on something he’s not qualified in; as I said HBDers in this sense are like creationists. It’s remarkable you cannot ever quote a scientist who is qualified. Would you quote a biochemist if asked about astronomy?

The Himalayas and the Sahara Desert are two good examples of geographical barrier based isolation.

They’re really not good examples. Tishkoff et al. 2009 found the Sahara wasn’t a barrier to gene flow at all. How could it be when there’s nomadic tribes that live there? Typically HBDers ignore populations like the Taureg.

Watson had a history of making inflammatory and bizarre offensive comments before that one. There’s a good article here: https://www.nature.com/articles/449948a that concludes something similar to me i.e. sensitive/controversial topics should be debated, but must be done sensibly:

Debate about sensitive scientific issues needs to be forthright but not crass.

There will be important debates in the future as we gain a fuller understanding of the influence of genetics on human attributes and behaviour. Crass comments by Nobel laureates undermine our very ability to debate such issues, and thus damage science itself.

How do you explain there are some reputable scientists who write controversially about group differences in IQ but they remain widely respected and have untarnished reputations? Unlike Watson, they’re sensible and don’t make stupid comments.

That you are defending the actions taken against him for that comment is telling.

As I said he has a long history:

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/15/18182530/james-watson-racist

He proved to be an embarrassment to the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory but they never sacked him as he retired. If he didn’t even lose his job, what’s the fuss? He was primarily just criticised. More persecution complex from HBDers?

It’s inconsistent because with IBD you end up with geographical distance strongly correlating with genetic distance and if you arbitrarily divide by continents/subcontinents the groupings are too heterogeneous to be of use in data analyses because they cover too much genetic variation over space. This was explained in the other thread where you and Mikemikev were thoroughly debunked.

Debunked in your fantasies. If you are so confident about that how about linking to your decisive points there?

Again, isolation by distance is just one form of reproductive isolation. I explained that in detail, but you just don’t seem to understand.

His PhD is in physics, not genetics. So he’s another pseudointellectual who publishes on something he’s not qualified in; as I said HBDers in this sense are like creationists. It’s remarkable you cannot ever quote a scientist who is qualified. Would you quote a biochemist if asked about astronomy?

So a PhD in physics makes one a pseudointellectual (and also “dumb”, it seems). Fascinating. As for quoting scientists who are qualified, as far as I can tell you think any scientist quoted by someone who disagrees with you is unqualified–for reasons…

If the biochemist was obliviously knowledgeable about astronomy and made good arguments I would absolutely quote them.

Do you let credentials and other people’s opinions dictate everything you believe? Or are you actually capable of thinking for yourself and evaluating someone’s arguments on their merits? No need to answer. Your comment history makes your answer clear.

They’re really not good examples. Tishkoff et al. 2009 found the Sahara wasn’t a barrier to gene flow at all. How could it be when there’s nomadic tribes that live there? Typically HBDers ignore populations like the Taureg.

Yet somehow whenever PCA is done the largest separation is between sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the world. Amazing. What a coincidence!

Where exactly do you get that statement from Tishkoff et al. 2009?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2947357

Figure 5 makes it seem the Sahara is rather important.

Caption:

Geographic and genetic structure of populations within Africa. (A) Geographic discontinuities among African populations using TESS, assuming a model of no population admixture (25). Circles indicate location of populations included in the study. (B) Inferred proportions of ancestral clusters from STRUCTURE analysis at K = 14 for individuals grouped by geographic region and language classification. Classifications of languages spoken by self-identified ethnic affiliation in the Africans are as in Fig. 1. (C) Inferred proportion of ancestral clusters in individuals from STRUCTURE analysis at K = 14.

Absolutely. The three I focused on in that comment (Eysenck, Jensen, and Gottfredson) are all reputable within the profession. You did see the link I gave above in comment 135 responding to you, right? Let’s repeat that excerpt here since you seem to have forgotten it already.

numbers 13 (Eysenck) and 47 (Jensen) on this list of Eminent psychologists of the 20th century: https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug02/eminent

Highly misleading. I’m sure Eysenck and Jensen were ranked as eminent for their research not related to their controversial views on group IQ differences. Eysenck is mostly remembered for his PEN model of personality https://www.psychologistworld.com/personality/pen-model-personality-eysenck

Anyone who has ever read one of your character assassination pieces is well aware of why people hate you.

It’s only the alt-right who hate me for those pages. I get good feedback from academics and people with ordinary/mainstream (mostly centre-left, but some moderate conservative) political views.

I’ll let Emil respond to that.
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034

– This is the same Emil Kirkegaard who has almost certainly lost the lawsuit he filed against me. That entire page he wrote and keeps updating is filled with lies and smears.

The preliminary judgement he lost can be read publicly here (the judge ruled in my favour):

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3393.html

Judgment handed down today in Kirkegaard v Smith. Trial of meaning and fact/opinion as preliminary issues. 5RB’s @aled_mj for the Defendant. https://t.co/KGb7lPiZqQ

— 5RB Barristers (@5RB) December 11, 2019

And see #41 which refers to the link you just posted:

b. the Claimant [Emil Kirkegaard] is a weird and vindictive individual due to his conduct in repeatedly smearing and attacking the Defendant [Oliver Smith] on the Claimant’s website.

I still see Kirkegaard refuses to take that page down and has updated it to further smear me and is now attacking me on his Twitter; I’ll be sure to mention this to my lawyer.

How do you explain there are some reputable scientists who write controversially about group differences in IQ but they remain widely respected and have untarnished reputations?

Name some.

If he didn’t even lose his job, what’s the fuss? He was primarily just criticised. More persecution complex from HBDers?

May you experience as little persecution in life as James Watson has over this.

Perhaps he was remarking more on the common weal, in that as discussing the effects of industrialization in cities like Calcutta, where workers slept in the street because they couldn’t afford the increasing cost of rent compared to meagre wage increases. Whereas Western institutions had already been implemented to curtail this, as some cities in India later did with rent ceilings.

Name some.

The behavioural geneticists John C. Loehlin and James Spuhler are two examples. They co-authored the book Race Differences in Intelligence in 1975; it remains one of the most objective books on the controversy; they tentatively estimate B-W between-group heritability: 12.5%. Their meta-analysis of the data at the time, concluded the evidence best fits an environmentalist hypothesis (but above 0%) or “moderate hereditarianism” (not Jensenism) with environmental factors predominating over genes. Neither appear to have attracted much if any criticism throughout their career and gained reputations; Spuhler died in 1992 and in 1990 he received the NAS Award for Scientific Reviewing.

So give up the persecution complex.

Who denies human biological variation when no two individuals are identical clones?

…men on average are taller than women. Who denies this? No one.

I’ve been in plenty of discussions where this has been denied: women in combat; women in men’s sports; distribution of talent in general in sports and the sciences. I googled, and there are plenty of articles downplaying differences.

The zeitgeist today is all in downplaying differences. Men can transition seamlessly into women and vice-versa, using the same arguments as the rationalwiki article you cited/wrote: we all look the same from 30,000 feet; there is more difference within groups than between groups; since there is no distinct line between groups, there is thus no difference between groups; etc.

Your schtick of admitting biological differences but denying that there are important group differences based on genetics strikes me as plenty disingenuous. At the end of the day, you are just arguing for a politically correct conclusion.

Comes across as a soft sell, not a controversial writing.

The fact remains that those who write bluntly about IQ as a useful measure face a lot more pushback than the deniers.

In my opinion, 0,1% Black should be enough to qualify for reparations.

What length of geographical isolation is required to produce a race? Certainly there are genetic differences between races. Who can argue that basketball and football are not dominated by blacks or that Ashkenazi jews make up a higher than normal proportion of intellectuals. All things being equal one would expect blacks to be 10 percent of a sports team but are more likely to be 60 or 70 percent. Same with Olympic runners. Blacks dominate almost to the exclusion of any others.

Clydesdales and thoroughbreds can produce viable offspring but when was the last time you saw a clydesdale at the racetrack. There are differences. To deny the truth is wrong no matter how much it feeds into racial discord.

Highly misleading. I’m sure Eysenck and Jensen were ranked as eminent for their research not related to their controversial views on group IQ differences.

Way to move the goalposts. And Jensen was eminent for his work on IQ research. Important parts of which involved racial differences in IQ.

It’s only the alt-right who hate me for those pages. I get good feedback from academics and people with ordinary/mainstream (mostly centre-left, but some moderate conservative) political views.

I’d be interested in learning more about those people. It would make a good list of people unworthy of respect.

Thanks for the trial update. Direct case link:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3393.html

Your interpretation of 41 is misleading. Your excerpt describes what your lawyer claimed your statement meant (not the judge’s opinion!) as indicated by this more complete context:

40. On behalf of the Defendant, Mr Maclean-Jones submitted that the words complained of in the four Posts are expression of opinion and not statements of fact, and mean the following.
41. Post Four:
a. the Claimant has controversial opinions on the acceptability of paedophilia due to his own writings in support of child rape; and
b. the Claimant is a weird and vindictive individual due to his conduct in repeatedly smearing and attacking the Defendant on the Claimant’s website.

So you lied using an out of context quote. How typical. When are you going to figure out you can’t get away with this sort of thing with me?

Point 62. is interesting. My understanding is this is the judge’s opinion.

62. I find that (a) and (b) are expressions of opinion that are defamatory of the Claimant at common law. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not deciding the question of serious harm under s 1 of the Defamation Act 2013.

Also point 66.

66. Meanings (a) to (c) are all expressions of opinion and are defamatory of the Claimant at common law.

And point 69. There seems to be a trend here.

69. Meanings (a)-(d) are expressions of opinion and are defamatory of the Claimant at common law.

And point 72.

72. Meaning (a) – (b) are expressions of opinion that are defamatory of the Claimant at common law.

So it looks like the judge considered all of your defamations to be opinion rather than statements of fact. Is that it or does the judge still have to rule on the point he made in 62.: “For the avoidance of doubt, I am not deciding the question of serious harm under s 1 of the Defamation Act 2013”?

How exactly does this constitute “ruling in your favour”? If I understand correctly this was a preliminary hearing and the case is still ongoing.

Thanks for the reference. I will be sure to use it when talking to those who believe there is no genetic component underlying racial differences in IQ. It will be interesting to see how uncontroversial it remains with Current Year SJWs.

I actually have a paper copy of that book. Just need to find it. For the time being though there is a PDF on Libgen.

The 12.5% estimate appears in Appendix G (i.e. not exactly highlighted) on page 291.

If we calculate the between-group heritability using .04 for r. .75 for hi, and DeFries’s estimate of r = .20 for black-white IQ differences, we obtain an estimate of hi = .125. That is. about one-eight of the variation between groups would be genetic, as opposed to three-fourths of the variation within groups. This estimate assumes that the genes influencing IQ arc average with respect to racial differentiation. However, it might be argued that this assumption is a rather awkward one to have to make, since it is an important part of the question at issue. If the genes influencing IQ have been subject to differential selection in different races they might well differ more than the average gene.

That last sentence is incredibly interesting since it indicates 12.5% is likely to be an underestimate given that IQ has almost certainly been selected for. Last time I saw you were agreeing to a 5-50% range. Still sticking with that despite this evidence?

This excerpt from page 133 looks like a decent summary of their views:

Genetic Designs: Conclusions
In summary, the studies we have reviewed in this chapter provide no unequivocal answer to the question of whether the differences in ability-test performance among U.S. racial-ethnic subpopulations do or do not have a substantial component reflecting genetic differences among the subpopulations. We have reviewed evidence from studies of twins and siblings that for the most part suggests appreciable and similar heritability of IQ within the U.S. black and white subpopulations. but this speaks only indirectly to the issue of differences between populations.
Only very limited data exist from such potentially informative groups as adopted children and half-siblings. A variety of studies of individuals of mixed racial ancestry are available; most are impaired by limited samples, probable biases, incomplete information, or combinations of these factors. On balance, such studies can probably be assessed as offering fewer explanatory difficulties to environmentalists than to hereditarians, although they admit interpretation from a range of viewpoints.

All in all a surprisingly even handed treatment based on a quick look. I need to dig out my paper copy and take a closer look.

BTW, here is what Loehlin has to say about Richard Lynn. Do you want to reconsider your opinion of Lynn?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Differences_in_Intelligence_(book)

A review by John C. Loehlin, University of Texas Professor emeritus, argues that the general trends in the data that Lynn presents are probably dependable, but faults Lynn for carelessness in how his conclusions are presented. Loehlin summarizes his view of the book as follows:

Is this book the final word on race differences in intelligence? Of course not. But Richard Lynn is a major player, and it is good to have his extensive work on this topic together in one place. Future workers who address these matters under this or any other label will find that Lynn has done a lot of spadework for them. And they will also find that there is plenty to ponder over within these pages.[7]

I am a bit surprised Loehlin has managed to survive the race/IQ fallout so he seems like a good example for you to have raised. I guess he was sufficiently careful in framing the points he made to avoid attention. Impressive given the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Loehlin

He has also written on the race and intelligence controversy. He was a Director of the American Eugenics Society from 1968 to 1974. In 1994 he was one of 52 signatories on “Mainstream Science on Intelligence”,[1] a public statement written by Linda Gottfredson, published in response to popular criticism of the conclusions presented in Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s controversial book The Bell Curve (1994). Among his PhD students are Eric Turkheimer.

In 1995, he took part in the American Psychological Association task force writing a consensus statement on the state of intelligence research in response to the claims being advanced amid the Bell Curve controversy, titled “Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns.”

He turns 94 in two weeks so I don’t think I’ll be doing anything to try to raise his profile among the SJW mob like I said in my opening.

P.S. Their acknowledgements are interesting in terms of whom they respect. Note the presence of Jensen, Shockley, and Eysenck. Do you want to reconsider your opinion of those three? You might also want to take a look at the assessment of the reaction to the views those three espoused which is described on pp. 8-11.

Among those to whom wc are particularly grateful for helpful suggestions are Joan and Stephen S. Baratz, Ned Block, Philip K. Bock. Jack Brcsler, Jan Bruell, Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, Raymond B. Caltcll, Bernard Davis. Ralph Mason Dreger. Otis D. Duncan, Hans J. Eysenck, Stanley M. Gam, Perry Gluckman. Irving I. Gottesmun. Henry Harpending. Richard J. Hcrrnstein. Joseph Horn, Christopher Jencks. David Jenncss, Arthur R. Jensen. Ashley Montagu. R. Travis Osborne. T. Edward Reed. Sherman Ross, H. Eldon Sutton, William Shockley, Steven G. Van den berg, and Lee Willerman.

Also interesting to see the way they provided cover in the following paragraph.

In identifying these various distinguished scientists and scholars, we do not, of course, mean to imply or suggest their endorsement of this book. We sent them a draft—in which all of them found at least some room for improvement. Their suggestions were of help to us in
putting the draft into its final form. We do want to acknowledge that assistance, plus the encouragement that many of them provided us, but we do not wish to have them saddled with any of our views that they do not share

“saddled with any of our views” is interesting wording. I winder what they were thinking.

Comes across as a soft sell, not a controversial writing.

I agree that’s how it comes off (probably intentionally), but if you look closer it is plenty controversial when contrasted with the goodthinker world view. Reminds me of Cavalli-Sforza’s work in that respect.

And this is undeniable. Perhaps Oliver can tell us about someone persecuted for advocating a 100% environment view (one which even he agrees is ridiculous).

The fact remains that those who write bluntly about IQ as a useful measure face a lot more pushback than the deniers.

Your interpretation of 41 is misleading. Your excerpt describes what your lawyer claimed your statement meant (not the judge’s opinion!) as indicated by this more complete context. So you lied using an out of context quote. How typical. When are you going to figure out you can’t get away with this sort of thing with me?

I didn’t say #41 was written by the judge; perhaps learn to read. All I said in response to the link you posted was the following:

And see #41 which refers to the link you just posted.

Falsely accusing me of lying just makes you look dishonest.

Point 62. is interesting. My understanding is this is the judge’s opinion.

See particularly #57:

I am quite sure that in order to determine meaning and the issue of fact versus opinion then the whole context of the posts has to be considered, and that includes the hyperlinked material. I reject the Claimant’s submissions and accept the Defendant’s submissions.

Interestingly, soon after this preliminary judgement, someone (not me) discovered more of Emil Kirkegaard’s controversial and disturbing comments on paedophilia and child porn – I hadn’t before seen. These include comments where Kirkegaard says the following:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131007045727/http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade/
http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade/

I have thought about this before. For ‘age of consent’-fiction (people can consent at any age, even babies consent and disconsent to stuff happening to them!), perhaps a dual approach. Either 13 years old or start of puberty, whichever comes first.

There is another potential reason why it is a good idea to legalize child porn. Some studies show that the availability of porn has reduced rape rates. Since child porn is a subset of porn, one could expect the same thing to happen with it.

In other words Kirkgaard has written he thinks the age of consent should be as young as 13 (or even younger since puberty on average begins earlier, as young as 11 in girls) and that he supports legalising child pornography. There’s then a disturbing comment that in his view age of consent is a fiction because “even babies consent and discontent”…

Some people recently reading these comments are Twitter have been horrified:

he's a disgusting monster and i looked up that blog he's talking about where he commented about lowering the age of consent to 13 or puberty, whatever comes first, after briefly noting that babies consent and don't consent to things all the time.

— sammy 😗 (@sup_im_sammy) December 24, 2019

So it looks like the judge considered all of your defamations to be opinion rather than statements of fact. Is that it or does the judge still have to rule on the point he made in 62.: “For the avoidance of doubt, I am not deciding the question of serious harm under s 1 of the Defamation Act 2013”?

How exactly does this constitute “ruling in your favour”? If I understand correctly this was a preliminary hearing and the case is still ongoing.

Honest opinion is an outright defence in a UK defamation lawsuit; Defamation Act 2013:

(1) that the statement in question was an opinion;
(2)that within the statement there was an apparent basis to the opinion; and
(3)the statement is one that an honest person could have held.

The “apparent basis” of my opinions can seen in the number of websites, newspapers sources etc I referenced or linked. This was recognised by the judge, see #57 (hyperlinked material). There’s virtually no way Kirkegaard can win the lawsuit given the preliminary judgement. My lawyer has already written to his, asking him to discontinue. He’s a sore loser and so has resorted to not responding – as he knows he will have to pay a large sum of my legal fees (this is normal for the losing party), so that’s probably why he’s delaying.

That last sentence is incredibly interesting since it indicates 12.5% is likely to be an underestimate given that IQ has almost certainly been selected for. Last time I saw you were agreeing to a 5-50% range. Still sticking with that despite this evidence?

I certainly don’t argue for 5-50%. I’m arguing for 1-5%. I’m an environmentalist. I don’t though restrict the environmentalist viewpoint to strictly 0%.

Here’s my own subjective breakdown of the categories I currently find useful:

1-5%: environmentalist
6-49%: ‘moderate hereditarianism’
50-80%: Jensenism (Jensen’s hereditarianism hypothesis)
81-100%: ‘extreme hereditarianism’

It’s fairly arbitrary and in the past I extended environmentalist to around 10%.

I’d classify Loehlin et al. 1975 as ‘moderate hereditarianism’, but leaning heavily towards environmentalism; in fact there’s a quote in their book where they say something like this and their conclusions touch upon a “environmentalist framework”. Anyway I’m done commenting here in 2019 and don’t plan to comment ever again in 2020 or visit this website again, so I’ll have to cut this response short. I could though have provided a full rebuttal e.g. the fact Loehlin lists Jensenists in acknowledgements isn’t an endorsement; if you look at the names you find the anti-racist activist there like Ashley Montagu.

I certainly don’t argue for 5-50%. I’m arguing for 1-5%. I’m an environmentalist. I don’t though restrict the environmentalist viewpoint to strictly 0%.

Thanks for clarifying. It’s nice to nail it down so we can eventually see who is right and who is wrong ; )

So you don’t take Loehlin’s 12.5% estimate (which is probably an underestimate if IQ is selected for) seriously?

I could though have provided a full rebuttal e.g. the fact Loehlin lists Jensenists in acknowledgements isn’t an endorsement; if you look at the names you find the anti-racist activist there like Ashley Montagu.

Of course you could have. And it would have been just as good as your other “rebuttals.”

If you read more carefully you would have noticed that I said “respect” not “endorse.” It is telling that you feel the need to reword what I say before responding to it.

Here is an interesting excerpt in light of your attempts to pretend no one ever argues for 0% genetic contribution. From pp. 85-86.

Kamins more radical assertion of zero heritability. if substantiated, might not render the present book entirely meaningless, but it would certainly require a considerable revision of its language and point of view. In Appendix H we have taken a second look in the light of Kamin’s critique at some of the data that provide the main focus for his misgivings, namely the studies of adoptive families and separated identical twins. We do not find these data to be quite as fragile as does Kamin, and we find Kamin’s analysis to suffer from a number of statistical and logical problems: our conclusion is that a reasonable person with environmentalist references could very well emerge from an appraisal of these data with a lower figure for the broad heritability of IQ than, say, Jensen’s estimate of .80 (Jensen, 1967) or Burt’s of .87 (Burl. 1972). but we do not believe that that figure would be anywhere in the neighborhood of zero. Essentially similar conclusions would hold for another recent paper in the spirit of Kamin’s. by Schwartz and Schwartz (1974).

It is interesting that he outright disagrees with Kamin’s 0%, but the most he says about Jensen and Burt’s estimates is: “our conclusion is that a reasonable person with environmentalist references could very well emerge from an appraisal of these data with a lower figure for the broad heritability of IQ than, say, Jensen’s estimate of .80 (Jensen, 1967) or Burt’s of .87 (Burl. 1972).”

We have all heard of “damning with faint praise”, but one might almost call that “praising with faint damnation.”

Your interpretation of 41 is misleading. Your excerpt describes what your lawyer claimed your statement meant (not the judge’s opinion!) as indicated by this more complete context. So you lied using an out of context quote. How typical. When are you going to figure out you can’t get away with this sort of thing with me?

I didn’t say #41 was written by the judge; perhaps learn to read. All I said in response to the link you posted was the following:

And see #41 which refers to the link you just posted.

Falsely accusing me of lying just makes you look dishonest.

I’ll leave it up to others to decide if that level of intentionally misleading writing qualifies as a lie. It certainly is in spirit even if not to the letter.

57. Does seem like the crux of things, but again I think your bolding of the judge’s disagreement implies a more general disagreement than is meant.

Some people recently reading these comments are Twitter have been horrified:

SJWs on Twitter horrified by badthinker. News at 11. It is interesting what you consider to be important.

Thanks for including the information about the Defamation Act 2013. That does make things a bit clearer. It will be interesting to see how the judge rules on

(3)the statement is one that an honest person could have held.

Pedophile is not a legal term, but it generally applies to sex crimes .

Multiple people have brought it up and he ignores them.

I would ask him myself but do not know how to contact him.

Unlike you he actually makes concrete mathematical statements which can be argued for or against.

Did you even read the Fst paper I posted? I can provide a segment in case you do not have time to read it or you do not understand it.

At the end of the day gene flow has not been sufficient to eliminate group differences in either genotype or phenotype. Your repeated references to it as invalidating the concept of race are simply a red herring.

Yes it has, why else would anyone bring it up? HBD people need to read some ancient DNA papers, something which most if any have not done.

It was, yes. but was also green for a duration of time.
https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-018-1393-5

I would ask him myself but do not know how to contact him.

I linked a blog post. Commenting there seems like the sensible way to ask him about an issue you have with that blog post.

Did you even read the Fst paper I posted? I can provide a segment in case you do not have time to read it or you do not understand it.

I assume you mean this from comment 138 (if you want me to engage consider repeating the link so I don’t have to chase back through the comment history and hope I picked the right paper).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3567740/

As far as I can tell they are saying Fst is more complex than most people think. And you are saying that means it is meaningless. Looking more closely they are making the obvious point that Fst depends on both within and between group variation (which is apparent from a quick look at the equation). This can make it difficult to compare values in different circumstances.

If you want to make a concrete point you really need to be more specific than (from comment 138):

Beyond the fact that Fst is unreliable in these cases. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3567740/

Do you not see how vague that is and not understand how tedious it is to continually have to try to figure out the specific point you are trying to make? Especially since so often the points aren’t that good in the first place. In particular, what makes Fst unreliable in these cases rather than other cases? And to what does “these cases” refer specifically? Your crypticness makes communicating with you difficult, and the lack of payoff in terms of me learning much from what you say is starting to make me consider it a total waste of time.

Back to your current comment.

At the end of the day gene flow has not been sufficient to eliminate group differences in either genotype or phenotype. Your repeated references to it as invalidating the concept of race are simply a red herring.

Yes it has, why else would anyone bring it up?

Differences exist in current populations. Shown by Fst, allele frequencies, PCA, dendrograms, and one’s own lying eyes. How can you say those differences have been eliminated with a straight face?

As for why you keep bringing it up–that is for you to answer. Because I seldom find the way you do so persuasive. And that last quote provides a perfect example of why. As for why all the references you give bring it up–I suspect because it is the best obfuscation they can come up with.

Interesting paper. I think this serves as a decent summary:

The most recent Green Sahara period occurred in the Holocene, in a time frame from about 12 thousand of years ago (kya) to about 5 kya. This phase has been denominated the “Holocene climatic optimum” and is the most well-documented past climatic change [2, 6]. Human settlement across the Sahara in this period is testified by archaeological evidence, such as rock engravings, lithic and bone tools and pottery [7].

After the African humid period, the climatic conditions became rapidly hyper-arid and the Green Sahara was replaced by the desert, which acted as a strong geographic barrier against human movements between northern and sub-Saharan Africa.

The Sahara is 1100 miles wide. So even when green that would be a significant barrier. Any idea if any rivers other than the Nile ran through it then? This article talks about three more rivers over 100 kya, but I don’t see anything about more recent rivers:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/three-ancient-rivers-long-buried-by-the-sahara-created-a-passage-to-the-mediterranean-7222072/

The first reference from your paper gives some more detail on Holocene humid period rivers, but I don’t see major rivers flowing to the Mediterranean (I might be missing that though, I find their figure a bit hard to read).
https://www.pnas.org/content/108/2/458.full

All I am saying is that there is evidence of population movements, not that it was a highway for people to move around.

I assume you mean this from comment 138 (if you want me to engage consider repeating the link so I don’t have to chase back through the comment history and hope I picked the right paper).

Yes, and fair enough, I will.

In particular, what makes Fst unreliable in these cases rather than other cases? And to what does “these cases” refer specifically? Your crypticness makes communicating with you difficult, and the lack of payoff in terms of me learning much from what you say is starting to make me consider it a total waste of time.

I am assuming that you have some biology background and knowledge about the topic at hand (which to be fair, you seem to have to an extent) so you can read these papers really fast and get their conclusions. In any case, here is the important parts:

Further, our analysis suggests that many unusual observations of FST, including the relatively low FST values in high-diversity human populations from Africa and the relatively low estimates of FST for microsatellites compared to SNPs, can be understood not as biological phenomena associated with different groups of populations or classes of markers but rather as consequences of the intrinsic mathematical dependence of FST on the properties of allele-frequency distributions.
It refers specifically to the Fst values between populations being dependent on other variables than biological properties.

Shown by Fst, allele frequencies, PCA, dendrograms, and one’s own lying eyes. How can you say those differences have been eliminated with a straight face?

Hence why I bring up this paper about Fst, papers about how PCA is more about sampling than clusters and Templeton’s paper about dendograms (though I have not seen dendrograms cited by you here- though I might mis-remembering. And I do it the same way most evolutionary biologists and geneticists do it.

As for why you keep bringing it up–that is for you to answer. Because I seldom find the way you do so persuasive. And that last quote provides a perfect example of why. As for why all the references you give bring it up–I suspect because it is the best obfuscation they can come up with.

For me at least, simply the main or only reason races do not exist. 40 or even 20 k years of isolation would be enough for races to exist in humans more or less.