The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Sociologists Are Out to Get David Reich
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

From a site called Orgtheory:

race, genetics, and the lure of forbidden knowledge (guest post by ann morning)

Ann Morning is an Associate Professor of Sociology at New York University. Her book, The Nature of Race: How Scientists Think and Teach about Human Difference , was published by the University of California Press.

Recently geneticist David Reich published an op-ed in the New York Times entitled “How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race.’” In it he contends that “differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real”—and what’s more, that “as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among ‘races.’”

The invocation of his status as a natural scientist, the insistence on what is “real,” and the astonishing suggestion that race has been overlooked until now—I’ve seen it all before. Reich is using a rhetorical device that sociologist Reanne Frank has called the “forbidden knowledge” thesis, where academics who identify themselves with “science” (and are usually, though not always, male, white biological scientists) contend that anyone who questions the biological foundations of racial groupings is denying reality, or “sticking their heads in the sand” as Reich puts it. …

The problem in the geneticists’ arguments (science journalist Wade’s are of a whole other magnitude of weakness) is that basically they confuse “population” with “race.” They are absolutely correct when they talk about average differences between populations in terms of the frequency of particular genetic traits. They illustrate this with examples like the Andaman Islanders (in LeRoi 2005) or Northern Europeans or West Africans (in Reich 2018). The trouble is, none of these groups are considered “races” (or have been at least since the 1920’s). “Races” are huge groups spanning entire continents and thus remarkably varied ecological environments. “Races,” as described by Linnaeus in the 1700’s or on the U.S. census of 2010, group Koreans, Mongolians, Sri Lankans and Pakistanis together (as the “Asian” race); they group Moroccans, Norwegians, and Greeks together as another (the “white” race). Groupings like these, billions of people strong and traditionally inhabiting highly variable geographic terrains, just don’t demonstrate homogenous genetic characteristics that distinguish them, even if average differences can be calculated between them.

As I point out in my review in Taki’s Magazine, Reich writes in “Who We Are …”:

Today, the peoples of West Eurasia—the vast region spanning Europe, the Near East, and much of central Asia—are genetically highly similar. The physical similarity of West Eurasian populations was recognized in the eighteenth century by scholars who classified the people of West Eurasia as “Caucasoids” to differentiate them from East Asian “Mongoloids,” sub-Saharan African “Negroids,” and “Australoids” of Australia and New Guinea…. [P]opulations within West Eurasia are typically around seven times more similar to one another than West Eurasians are to East Asians. When frequencies of mutations are plotted on a map, West Eurasia appears homogeneous, from the Atlantic façade of Europe to the steppes of central Asia. There is a sharp gradient of change in central Asia before another region of homogeneity is reached in East Asia….

Morning goes on ….

That is why the statistics that Reich or others present are actually not about races; they are about much smaller-scale, local populations (including African Americans, an ethnic group that is hardly representative of the global “black” race).

Well, no, not always. As I quoted above, sometimes he gives statistics for very large scale races.

… So we are left with the question of why he is adamant that average genetic differences between races not be “ignored,” when he himself doesn’t seem to attend much to them.

It comes as no surprise though that “race” can’t do much work for him; the idea that race can help us characterize or understand human genetic variation in any serious way is laughable. Race is basically a very simple, 4-part color wheel assigning all 7.6 billion of us to a “black,” “white,” “yellow” or “red” category. Can anyone credibly claim that a taxonomy grounded in the humoral theory of Antiquity—remember the red blood, black bile, yellow bile, and white phlegm that the ancients believed determined our health and temperaments?—is a useful tool for analyzing genetic diversity at the start of the 21st century? That with the insights made possible by ever more sophisticated biological and statistical theory, growing DNA databanks, and formidable computing power, Linnaeus’ color scheme is the best we can do?

Reich implies above that the 18th Century scientists who first thought hard about these questions more or less got them right.

… As far as I can tell, the only advantage to dredging up the “race” notion is to be provocative and garner attention (especially if, like Reich, you have a new book to flog). …

Maybe it has something to do with how obsessed the federal government is with race?

Barack Obama was president of the United States for eight years. Did he order the Census Bureau to stop ask questions about the obsolete concept of race?

 
Hide 53 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Is this the best the sociologists can do? This is an astonishingly weak rebuttal of Reich’s work. So if we just start saying “populations” instead of “races” we’ll be ok?

    > There’s nothing new here except the well-known observation that human biological traits vary around the world in tandem with geographical location.

    So they admit it? Isn’t this the thing they spent the last 60 years telling us wasn’t true? If Stephen Jay Gould were alive right now he’d be spinning in his grave.

    • Replies: @G Pinfold
    @Space Ghost

    Indeed. Such a weak rebuttal that Morning needs Watsoning.

    , @Nicholas Stix
    @Space Ghost

    "So if we just start saying 'populations' instead of 'races' we’ll be ok?"

    Hey, it worked for Cavalli-Sforza.

    He's spent forty years speaking of race without knowing it!

    'The secret of my longevity has been in avoiding using a certain word.'

  2. I wonder if the coming battle over HBD as a result of recent advances in genetic analysis is just another example of C.P. Snow’s Two Cultures hypothesis, that progress is often not possible because of a complete disconnect between people educated in the humanities and people with a science education.

    Of course, for this to be true, it is necessary to view sociology, the softest of the soft sciences, as a humanities subject instead, since is so now so beholden to cultural, emotive imperatives. But Lord Snow would probably have viewed it that way anyway, since what he had in mind were hard science technocrats.

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

    • Replies: @schnellandine
    @PiltdownMan

    Bill the Blizzard:


    There are no sciences like Sociology. And if I found chemistry beginning to fit in with a secret police run by a middle-aged virago who doesn’t wear corsets and a scheme for taking away his farm and his shop and his children from every Englishman, I’d let chemistry go to the devil and take up gardening again…I happen to believe that you can’t study men: you can only get to know them, which is quite a different thing. Because you study them, you want to make the lower orders govern the country and listen to classical music, which is balderdash. You also want to take away from them everything which makes life worth living and not only from them but from everyone except a parcel of prigs and professors.
     
    , @anonymous
    @PiltdownMan

    Only in sociology would you see the term "social construct."

  3. Right I never understood how progressives could simultaneously disavow and obsess over race. The people who are the most adamant that race is a meaningless social construct seem also to be among the most obsessed with assigning us to the very same racial categories that they themselves had disavowed only minutes earlier!

    It’s truly uh doublethink at its finest…

  4. “Races,” as described by Linnaeus in the 1700’s or on the U.S. census of 2010, group Koreans, Mongolians, Sri Lankans and Pakistanis together (as the “Asian” race); they group Moroccans, Norwegians, and Greeks together as another (the “white” race).

    Would anybody who truly understands human variation lump Pakistanis with Koreans?

    “Races” are huge groups spanning entire continents and thus remarkably varied ecological environments.

    Dunno. I always thought that races could be scaled up or down….

    The problem in the geneticists’ arguments (science journalist Wade’s are of a whole other magnitude of weakness) is that basically they confuse “population” with “race.” They are absolutely correct when they talk about average differences between populations in terms of the frequency of particular genetic traits. They illustrate this with examples like the Andaman Islanders (in LeRoi 2005) or Northern Europeans or West Africans (in Reich 2018).

    So everything is kosher if we use “population” instead of “race?”

    The trouble is, none of these groups are considered “races” (or have been at least since the 1920’s).

    Really? I’ve got some anthropology books from the ’50s that divide the world into dozens of separate races……

    • Replies: @res
    @syonredux


    Dunno. I always thought that races could be scaled up or down….
     
    Have you ever noticed that people like Morning are the ones usually espousing the most simplistic notions of race? I don't think they actually believe things like that (e.g. the four color idea), but it does make it hard to stomach their strawmen.
  5. Reich implies above that the 18th Century scientists who first thought hard about these questions more or less got them right.

    In Kim Stanley Robinson’s Red Mars, he has a psychiatrist character work out that the four humours theory she mocks was essentially correct too. P. 216 of the mass market paperback — just go there to Amazon, click “Look Inside”, and search for “humours” and it’ll come right up.

  6. “Races,” as described by Linnaeus in the 1700’s or on the U.S. census of 2010, group Koreans, Mongolians, Sri Lankans and Pakistanis together (as the “Asian” race);

    No, this is false. You can read the 2010 Census race questions. The questionnaire distinguishes between Koreans, Chinese, and Asian Indians.

    Saying “suggestion that race has been overlooked until now” is also wrong. No one suggested that.

  7. or wears his pants baggy or whatever,

    I keep trying to tell you suburban types that White preppies invented baggy pants hanging down around your ass in the eighties (and thus YT would be collecting royalties from Blacks), a-but no-o-o-o. This was when every Black kid was wearing tight pants to look like Michael Jackson.

    “Races” are huge groups spanning entire continents and thus remarkably varied ecological environments. “Races,” as described by Linnaeus in the 1700’s or on the U.S. census of 2010, group Koreans, Mongolians, Sri Lankans and Pakistanis together (as the “Asian” race); they group Moroccans, Norwegians, and Greeks together as another (the “white” race). Groupings like these, billions of people strong and traditionally inhabiting highly variable geographic terrains, just don’t demonstrate homogenous genetic characteristics that distinguish them, even if average differences can be calculated between them.

    *cough*dog breeds*cough*

    I bet if we looked up various definitions of “race” we’d have a hard time finding “(must be) huge groups spanning entire continents” anywhere.

    A “race” is a population somewhere along in the process of speciation; we all know how many such groups there must have been, over time, in places like the Amazon Forest…

    On the other hand, when you do find a handful of races blanketing the planet, they suddenly become a very important subject of study. Hence anthropologists’ desperate attempts to prevent them being studied.

    P.S., “Morning” doesn’t sound like a particularly Jewish surname. *Fingers crossed*

    • Replies: @backup
    @Svigor


    A “race” is a population somewhere along in the process of speciation
     
    I would say anything that does not (yet) warrant the biological term "subspecies".
    , @Seamus Padraig
    @Svigor


    I keep trying to tell you suburban types that White preppies invented baggy pants hanging down around your ass in the eighties (and thus YT would be collecting royalties from Blacks), a-but no-o-o-o. This was when every Black kid was wearing tight pants to look like Michael Jackson.
     
    Are you thinking of those really billowing baggy suits that David Byrne used to wear back then?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUg7-mjW_kk

    , @MEH 0910
    @Svigor

    https://www.nyu.edu/alumni.magazine/issue14/14_square_whatcolor.html


    Morning, who grew up in Harlem, traces her fascination with racial classification back to high school at the U.N. International School, where classmates insisted she wasn’t black. Instead, they used words such as métis or mulatta to describe her.
     
    https://www.nyu.edu/alumni.magazine/issue14/images/14_SQ-whatcolor.jpg

    Replies: @MEH 0910

    , @Anon
    @Svigor

    “Morning” doesn’t sound like a particularly Jewish surname. *Fingers crossed*

    Nee Morgen

  8. Right I never understood how progressives could simultaneously disavow and obsess over race. The people who are the most adamant that race is a meaningless social construct seem also to be among the most obsessed with assigning us to the very same racial categories that they themselves had disavowed only minutes earlier!

    It’s truly uh doublethink at its finest…

    It’s a meaningful social construct because deplorables and invisible White Supremacy. Until YT has been smashed, leftists must reluctantly care about race!

    Another way to say it is that racial disparities demand leftists champion the victims, because assumption of human equality.

  9. @Space Ghost
    Is this the best the sociologists can do? This is an astonishingly weak rebuttal of Reich's work. So if we just start saying "populations" instead of "races" we'll be ok?

    > There’s nothing new here except the well-known observation that human biological traits vary around the world in tandem with geographical location.

    So they admit it? Isn't this the thing they spent the last 60 years telling us wasn't true? If Stephen Jay Gould were alive right now he'd be spinning in his grave.

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @Nicholas Stix

    Indeed. Such a weak rebuttal that Morning needs Watsoning.

  10. This argument doesn’t make any sense.

    If splitting populations into large categories and calling them ‘races’ is bad, wouldn’t dividing them up into many smaller groups (like Luigi Cavalli Sforza’s list of at least 2000 ethnic groups) be considered worse, since it would open up the possibilities for even more potential stereotyping?

  11. The invocation of his status as a natural scientist, the insistence on what is “real,” and the astonishing suggestion that race has been overlooked until now—I’ve seen it all before. Reich is using a rhetorical device that sociologist Reanne Frank has called the “forbidden knowledge” thesis, where academics who identify themselves with “science” (and are usually, though not always, male, white biological scientists) contend that anyone who questions the biological foundations of racial groupings is denying reality, or “sticking their heads in the sand” as Reich puts it.

    Well, if she can call it a ‘rhetorical device’ then I suppose it can’t be true

    • Replies: @Clyde
    @DFH


    Well, if she can call it a ‘rhetorical device’ then I suppose it can’t be true
     
    aka man splaining according to these two unmarried female sociologists. But "rhetorical device" resonates better in the post modern bullshit sphere.
  12. @DFH

    The invocation of his status as a natural scientist, the insistence on what is “real,” and the astonishing suggestion that race has been overlooked until now—I’ve seen it all before. Reich is using a rhetorical device that sociologist Reanne Frank has called the “forbidden knowledge” thesis, where academics who identify themselves with “science” (and are usually, though not always, male, white biological scientists) contend that anyone who questions the biological foundations of racial groupings is denying reality, or “sticking their heads in the sand” as Reich puts it.
     
    Well, if she can call it a 'rhetorical device' then I suppose it can't be true

    Replies: @Clyde

    Well, if she can call it a ‘rhetorical device’ then I suppose it can’t be true

    aka man splaining according to these two unmarried female sociologists. But “rhetorical device” resonates better in the post modern bullshit sphere.

  13. A pretend scientist quotes another pretend scientist to argue that a real scientist is wrong in his own speciality.

    Well, I’m convinced.

    • Replies: @ic1000
    @Richard of Melbourne

    I look forward to Prof. Morning explaining Principal Components Analysis (PCA) to Reich. That would do more than anything else to teach him the errors of his fallacious speculations.

    But professional, academic, salaried sociologists are so busy applying their expertise in so many areas, that it may be hard for Dr. Morning to find the time to rescue Reich. Perhaps she could assign one of her undergraduate students to this task.

  14. @Svigor

    or wears his pants baggy or whatever,
     
    I keep trying to tell you suburban types that White preppies invented baggy pants hanging down around your ass in the eighties (and thus YT would be collecting royalties from Blacks), a-but no-o-o-o. This was when every Black kid was wearing tight pants to look like Michael Jackson.

    “Races” are huge groups spanning entire continents and thus remarkably varied ecological environments. “Races,” as described by Linnaeus in the 1700’s or on the U.S. census of 2010, group Koreans, Mongolians, Sri Lankans and Pakistanis together (as the “Asian” race); they group Moroccans, Norwegians, and Greeks together as another (the “white” race). Groupings like these, billions of people strong and traditionally inhabiting highly variable geographic terrains, just don’t demonstrate homogenous genetic characteristics that distinguish them, even if average differences can be calculated between them.
     
    *cough*dog breeds*cough*

    I bet if we looked up various definitions of "race" we'd have a hard time finding "(must be) huge groups spanning entire continents" anywhere.

    A "race" is a population somewhere along in the process of speciation; we all know how many such groups there must have been, over time, in places like the Amazon Forest...

    On the other hand, when you do find a handful of races blanketing the planet, they suddenly become a very important subject of study. Hence anthropologists' desperate attempts to prevent them being studied.

    P.S., "Morning" doesn't sound like a particularly Jewish surname. *Fingers crossed*

    Replies: @backup, @Seamus Padraig, @MEH 0910, @Anon

    A “race” is a population somewhere along in the process of speciation

    I would say anything that does not (yet) warrant the biological term “subspecies”.

  15. I’d love to see a Youtube channel Cinema Sins-style review of race-denial, something like “Everything Wrong With Left-wing Anti-white Race-denial.”

  16. Reich implies above that the 18th Century scientists who first thought hard about these questions more or less got them right.

    This was what struck me about the Reich article. Races developed within continental divides, and as we dig into this further, sub-races–ethnicities–developed within creeds and local geography, and “ancestry” is a useful term. Science is validating common sense observation, and that is not okay!

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    "Sub-races–ethnicities–developed within creeds and local geography, and “ancestry” is a useful term.

    We already had this exchange already on this matter. You think you would learn. Race is linked to biology; ethnicity is linked to culture. Race is a biological and social construct. Ethnicity is a social construct. Ethnicity is the term for the culture of people in a given geographic region, including their language, heritage, religion and customs. To be a member of an ethnic group is to conform to some or all of those practices.

    Certainly, race and ethnicity overlap, but they are distinct. For example, a Japanese-American could probably consider himself a member of the Asian race, but, if he does not engage in any of the practices or customs of his ancestors, he might not necessarily identify with the ethnicity, but rather consider himself to be American. Of course, American is not a “race”, it is a conglomeration of distinct ethnic groups all rolled into one, with a common cultural bond. Scandanavians, which are from the white race, are descendants from several distinct (North) Germanic tribes. Through intermarriage, they developed a unique set of customs that incorporated Old Norse traditions.

    So, in a nutshell, race refers to a group of people who possess similar and distinct physical characteristics, while ethnicity refers to a a category of people who regard themselves to be different from other groups based on common ancestral, cultural, national, and social experience.

    As far as sub-races are in essence "ethnicities", that is YOUR sophistry.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

  17. Infrickincredible! What’s most troubling about this is 1) the species of ad hominem argument against Reich (“white male”) and 2) the post-modern dismissal of objective reality. Is someone still stupid enough to pay sociologists? If so, could Morning’s employers argue she is denying their “accounting foundations” when she sees a zero in her pay statement and they say it’s actually a gazillion dollars? These idiots can’t see the slippery slope of their own reasoning.

  18. @Svigor

    or wears his pants baggy or whatever,
     
    I keep trying to tell you suburban types that White preppies invented baggy pants hanging down around your ass in the eighties (and thus YT would be collecting royalties from Blacks), a-but no-o-o-o. This was when every Black kid was wearing tight pants to look like Michael Jackson.

    “Races” are huge groups spanning entire continents and thus remarkably varied ecological environments. “Races,” as described by Linnaeus in the 1700’s or on the U.S. census of 2010, group Koreans, Mongolians, Sri Lankans and Pakistanis together (as the “Asian” race); they group Moroccans, Norwegians, and Greeks together as another (the “white” race). Groupings like these, billions of people strong and traditionally inhabiting highly variable geographic terrains, just don’t demonstrate homogenous genetic characteristics that distinguish them, even if average differences can be calculated between them.
     
    *cough*dog breeds*cough*

    I bet if we looked up various definitions of "race" we'd have a hard time finding "(must be) huge groups spanning entire continents" anywhere.

    A "race" is a population somewhere along in the process of speciation; we all know how many such groups there must have been, over time, in places like the Amazon Forest...

    On the other hand, when you do find a handful of races blanketing the planet, they suddenly become a very important subject of study. Hence anthropologists' desperate attempts to prevent them being studied.

    P.S., "Morning" doesn't sound like a particularly Jewish surname. *Fingers crossed*

    Replies: @backup, @Seamus Padraig, @MEH 0910, @Anon

    I keep trying to tell you suburban types that White preppies invented baggy pants hanging down around your ass in the eighties (and thus YT would be collecting royalties from Blacks), a-but no-o-o-o. This was when every Black kid was wearing tight pants to look like Michael Jackson.

    Are you thinking of those really billowing baggy suits that David Byrne used to wear back then?

  19. Sociology today is not a serious academic discipline, either in the context of social science or humanities. It is not an objective body of knowledge nor does it utilize any objective standards.

    The entire field is staffed with freaks, lesbians, queers, and leftist women whose sole agenda is pushing the Cultural Marxist agenda.

    Unfortunately, there is a a LOT of sociology taught in universities today. Often, sociology classes are required. Young women in particular seem to register for these classes in droves.

  20. @Svigor

    or wears his pants baggy or whatever,
     
    I keep trying to tell you suburban types that White preppies invented baggy pants hanging down around your ass in the eighties (and thus YT would be collecting royalties from Blacks), a-but no-o-o-o. This was when every Black kid was wearing tight pants to look like Michael Jackson.

    “Races” are huge groups spanning entire continents and thus remarkably varied ecological environments. “Races,” as described by Linnaeus in the 1700’s or on the U.S. census of 2010, group Koreans, Mongolians, Sri Lankans and Pakistanis together (as the “Asian” race); they group Moroccans, Norwegians, and Greeks together as another (the “white” race). Groupings like these, billions of people strong and traditionally inhabiting highly variable geographic terrains, just don’t demonstrate homogenous genetic characteristics that distinguish them, even if average differences can be calculated between them.
     
    *cough*dog breeds*cough*

    I bet if we looked up various definitions of "race" we'd have a hard time finding "(must be) huge groups spanning entire continents" anywhere.

    A "race" is a population somewhere along in the process of speciation; we all know how many such groups there must have been, over time, in places like the Amazon Forest...

    On the other hand, when you do find a handful of races blanketing the planet, they suddenly become a very important subject of study. Hence anthropologists' desperate attempts to prevent them being studied.

    P.S., "Morning" doesn't sound like a particularly Jewish surname. *Fingers crossed*

    Replies: @backup, @Seamus Padraig, @MEH 0910, @Anon

    https://www.nyu.edu/alumni.magazine/issue14/14_square_whatcolor.html

    Morning, who grew up in Harlem, traces her fascination with racial classification back to high school at the U.N. International School, where classmates insisted she wasn’t black. Instead, they used words such as métis or mulatta to describe her.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @MEH 0910

    https://www.nyu.edu/alumni.magazine/issue14/14_square_whatcolor.html


    NYU Alumni Magazine recently asked Morning some questions about the labels used in the 2010 Census and what they mean for us.

    What do racial categories accomplish?
    Those categories help us know something specifically about discrimination. If the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission receives a complaint that a particular employer in New York City is discriminating, the government will look at the census data about the racial composition of the city to get an idea whether that employer’s workforce looks more or less like the surrounding community. So, in that sense, it helps us know something about our society.
    ......
    Some countries, such as France, believe that collecting racial data opens up people to discrimination.
    In France, the sense is that if the government were to suggest that its citizens were anything but a united body, that would be a dangerous road to go down. They can certainly point to aspects of American history that are unsavory. The truth is we’ve had these racial categories on our census from the very beginning, from 1790. In that era, racial categorization wasn’t on the census to help people of color, but quite the opposite.

    The French look at our long history and see census race categories as part and parcel of that older oppressive regime. They can also point to the fact that these statistics helped the federal government intern Japanese-Americans during World War II. Having said that, the French are going to have to find some way to measure who is being discriminated against. If you can’t, it’s easy to turn a blind eye.
    ......
    So is the construct of race useful?
    It’s useful for the precise purpose of tracking discrimination. Having said that, I wish we academics did a better job making clear the ways these categories are socially constructed. We are not using them because human beings come in four flavors or six flavors. These are man-made categories.
     
  21. “That is why the statistics that Reich or others present are actually not about races; they are about much smaller-scale, local populations ”

    This demolishes racial,solidarity but replaces it with something horribly WORSE — it sounds like a justification for a finely-differentiated CASTE system!

  22. @MEH 0910
    @Svigor

    https://www.nyu.edu/alumni.magazine/issue14/14_square_whatcolor.html


    Morning, who grew up in Harlem, traces her fascination with racial classification back to high school at the U.N. International School, where classmates insisted she wasn’t black. Instead, they used words such as métis or mulatta to describe her.
     
    https://www.nyu.edu/alumni.magazine/issue14/images/14_SQ-whatcolor.jpg

    Replies: @MEH 0910

    https://www.nyu.edu/alumni.magazine/issue14/14_square_whatcolor.html

    NYU Alumni Magazine recently asked Morning some questions about the labels used in the 2010 Census and what they mean for us.

    What do racial categories accomplish?
    Those categories help us know something specifically about discrimination. If the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission receives a complaint that a particular employer in New York City is discriminating, the government will look at the census data about the racial composition of the city to get an idea whether that employer’s workforce looks more or less like the surrounding community. So, in that sense, it helps us know something about our society.
    ……
    Some countries, such as France, believe that collecting racial data opens up people to discrimination.
    In France, the sense is that if the government were to suggest that its citizens were anything but a united body, that would be a dangerous road to go down. They can certainly point to aspects of American history that are unsavory. The truth is we’ve had these racial categories on our census from the very beginning, from 1790. In that era, racial categorization wasn’t on the census to help people of color, but quite the opposite.

    The French look at our long history and see census race categories as part and parcel of that older oppressive regime. They can also point to the fact that these statistics helped the federal government intern Japanese-Americans during World War II. Having said that, the French are going to have to find some way to measure who is being discriminated against. If you can’t, it’s easy to turn a blind eye.
    ……
    So is the construct of race useful?
    It’s useful for the precise purpose of tracking discrimination. Having said that, I wish we academics did a better job making clear the ways these categories are socially constructed. We are not using them because human beings come in four flavors or six flavors. These are man-made categories.

  23. @PiltdownMan
    I wonder if the coming battle over HBD as a result of recent advances in genetic analysis is just another example of C.P. Snow's Two Cultures hypothesis, that progress is often not possible because of a complete disconnect between people educated in the humanities and people with a science education.

    Of course, for this to be true, it is necessary to view sociology, the softest of the soft sciences, as a humanities subject instead, since is so now so beholden to cultural, emotive imperatives. But Lord Snow would probably have viewed it that way anyway, since what he had in mind were hard science technocrats.

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

    Replies: @schnellandine, @anonymous

    Bill the Blizzard:

    There are no sciences like Sociology. And if I found chemistry beginning to fit in with a secret police run by a middle-aged virago who doesn’t wear corsets and a scheme for taking away his farm and his shop and his children from every Englishman, I’d let chemistry go to the devil and take up gardening again…I happen to believe that you can’t study men: you can only get to know them, which is quite a different thing. Because you study them, you want to make the lower orders govern the country and listen to classical music, which is balderdash. You also want to take away from them everything which makes life worth living and not only from them but from everyone except a parcel of prigs and professors.

  24. If people were serious about identifying population genetic structures, they’d take the full-genome databases being compiled at institutions like Harvard and use them as a corpus in an incremental prize for lossless compression.

    If people were serious about identifying social causality structures, they’d take the wide range of time-series social measures that have been, for 100 years, compiled at institutions like Harvard and use them as a corpus in an incremental prize for lossless compression.

    If people were serious about getting to the bottom of the contributions of population genetic structures to social causality structures, they’d combine the two into a single corpus in an incremental prize for lossless compression.

    But they aren’t serious. They want to yammer.

    https://www.hectorzenil.net/index.html

    One year before passing away, Marvin, Minsky, a founding father of the field of Artificial Intelligence, made an astonishing claim describing what turns out to be exactly my research aim and purpose in a closing statement at a prime venue (see video on the right):
    It seems to me that the most important discovery since Gödel was the discovery by Chaitin, Solomonoff and Kolmogorov of the concept called Algorithmic Probability which is a fundamental new theory of how to make predictions given a collection of experiences and this is a beautiful theory, everybody should learn it, but it’s got one problem, that is, that you cannot actually calculate what this theory predicts because it is too hard, it requires an infinite amount of work. However, it should be possible to make practical approximations to the Chaitin, Kolmogorov, Solomonoff theory that would make better predictions than anything we have today. Everybody should learn all about that and spend the rest of their lives working on it.

    ​Marvin Minsky
    Panel discussion on The Limits of Understanding
    World Science Festival
    NYC, Dec 14, 2014

  25. O’Brien held up a picture of Lawrence Fishburne. “Is he black or is he White, Winston?” “I, I don’t know.” Replied Winston. “Good, you are learning.” Said O’Brien.”

  26. It’s Impossible to Lie About Your Race
    By Ann Morning 07/01/2015

    There’s an important question being left out of the furor over charges that Rachel Dolezal, the former head of the NAACP’s Spokane chapter, has been “lying” about her race: How can you lie about something that doesn’t have any objective truth to it in the first place?

    The frenzy over Dolezal has erupted because her claim to black identity defies a longstanding American belief that human beings come in three or four or five flavors called “races,” which are linked to the geographical areas from which our ancestors came, and which are characterized by physical characteristics that are passed down from one generation to the next. According to this dominant view, Dolezal is objectively white because her parents are white Americans whose recent ancestors were from Europe.

    But instead of being a matter of natural, objective facts, race is more like astrology. It’s a way of dividing human beings up into different categories, and we are the ones who invent those categories, not Mother Nature. The idea that there are “black” people and “white” people is no different than the belief that there are Geminis and Scorpios. Indeed, astrology and racial classification both claim to be grounded in nature. Race ostensibly reflects our biological constitution, while sun signs are meant to capture planetary forces that imprinted us at birth. But it’s not too hard to see that a whole lot of human cultural thinking has gone into both. The reality is that scientists are far from any agreement on what race has to do with genes. And the racial classifications so familiar to Americans today are actually products of the 1700s, when they were forged by Europeans who were trying to explain the physical, social and moral qualities of peoples they had come to colonize across the world.

    [MORE]

    To be sure, Dolezal doubtless knew that her family’s German and Czech roots made her white by longstanding American racial logic. So if her family has no recent African ancestry, she did mislead people under the usual definitions of race. But at the same time, her claim to black identity also reflects two other standards of racial classification — one old, one new — in American culture and underscores the myth of racial identity.

    The first is the enduring tradition of determining a person’s race from their behavior and the company they keep. When early census takers were stumped about how to classify people of mixed white and American Indian heritage, they were told to decide by examining what kinds of people the individuals associated with and how they dressed, spoke, and worshipped. Flash forward a hundred years and the same standards are still in place. In 1989, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts had to determine the race of Paul and Philip Malone, two brothers who had identified themselves as “black” on their applications to the Boston Fire Department and benefitted from affirmative action provisions, but who otherwise appeared to be white. There was no genetic test then or now that could tell judges who is white or black, so they scrutinized the Malones’ social networks and ways of presenting themselves — the very areas in which Rachel Dolezal has sought to affiliate herself with the African American community.

    The second strain of thought about race that her actions embody is a much newer one. It reflects the growing recognition of multiracial people, who were once socially and legally required to identify with one race only. Ever since the Supreme Court struck down bans on interracial marriage in 1967, and the Census Bureau began in 2000 to permit Americans to check off more than one race, we have become more aware of the complexities of racial identity. Ample research has shown that many people do change their racial self-identification over the course of their lives, sometimes even from one social setting to the next. Carolyn Liebler and other demographers have shown that, in the aggregate, so many people change their racial identity from one census to the next that a category like “white” just doesn’t have the same people in it that it had during the previous count. It’s in this context of growing talk about the fluidity of racial identities that we once thought of as set in stone that Rachel Dolezal’s story has struck a nerve.

  27. “Turquoise and navy blue are very different colors that have different wavelengths but are both classified as blue. Therefore, there is no difference between blue and yellow. And blue and yellow are both social constructs anyways, what are you a colorist?”

    “Mount Olympus and Mount Everest are two vastly different mountains in terms of size, width, and height. But both are classified as mountains despite millions of cubic meters of difference. Therefore, there is no difference between Hamburger Hill in Vietnam and Mount Everest. Hills and mountains are social constructs. One culture’s hill is another culture’s mountain…”

  28. @Richard of Melbourne
    A pretend scientist quotes another pretend scientist to argue that a real scientist is wrong in his own speciality.

    Well, I'm convinced.

    Replies: @ic1000

    I look forward to Prof. Morning explaining Principal Components Analysis (PCA) to Reich. That would do more than anything else to teach him the errors of his fallacious speculations.

    But professional, academic, salaried sociologists are so busy applying their expertise in so many areas, that it may be hard for Dr. Morning to find the time to rescue Reich. Perhaps she could assign one of her undergraduate students to this task.

  29. The significance of races — not just the Caucasoid race, but all races — has only been reinforced with Reich’s studies.

    It wasn’t a priori obvious, or even expected, I think, that (mostly) continental races would be so homogeneous genetically. If separate peoples came about because a settler group entered an area otherwise uninhabited, and stayed there until modern day, or if displacements were relatively rare events, then we would expect significant genetic differences to arise.

    But Reich’s data shows that that almost never happened. The story of the human expansion across the globe is one of relentless displacement (that is, elimination of previous peoples), and “merger” (that is, conquered women being taken as concubines). This appears to be true in the case of all races. Reich’s account of the Caucasoid race would seem to apply to all five standard races. In a sense, this should not be surprising: it is, on Reich’s evidence, obviously a human trait to conquer adjacent peoples.

    It appears that the only impediment to such impulses to conquer are insuperable natural barriers, such as the oceans, the Sahara Desert, and the Himalayas. That’s why races are delimited as they are.

    Reich tries to spin this story into one in which we are all descended from recent mergers, etc., but the real story is how much more homogeneous race is than we might have previously thought. Continental races explain a lot more than we might have otherwise thought.

    It has always struck me as a puzzle that different peoples within races didn’t exhibit greater differences than they do, such as on IQ, given what I thought might be their deep history of genetic separation.

    But Reich’s account underpins a good explanation of those similarities within races.

  30. The Left loves low-syllable count arrows in its quiver, like “racist” or “sexist”, but they hate, hate, hate even lower-syllable count arrows in the Rights’s quiver, like “race” and “sex.”

  31. “Races,” as described by Linnaeus in the 1700’s or on the U.S. census of 2010, group Koreans, Mongolians, Sri Lankans and Pakistanis together (as the “Asian” race); they group Moroccans, Norwegians, and Greeks together as another (the “white” race).

    Chartreuse exists; therefore, green does not. Navy exists; therefore, blue does not. Some bureaucrat misclassified an orange as an apple; therefore, fruit varieties don’t exist. How do you even parody this?

  32. Entry #367 in the “Watch me engage in abstruse metaphysical hair-splitting, despite never having heard of the Problem of Universals” archive. You could easily substitute “dog breed” for “race” in most of these articles, and the incompetence would be obvious.

  33. @syonredux

    “Races,” as described by Linnaeus in the 1700’s or on the U.S. census of 2010, group Koreans, Mongolians, Sri Lankans and Pakistanis together (as the “Asian” race); they group Moroccans, Norwegians, and Greeks together as another (the “white” race).
     
    Would anybody who truly understands human variation lump Pakistanis with Koreans?

    “Races” are huge groups spanning entire continents and thus remarkably varied ecological environments.
     
    Dunno. I always thought that races could be scaled up or down....

    The problem in the geneticists’ arguments (science journalist Wade’s are of a whole other magnitude of weakness) is that basically they confuse “population” with “race.” They are absolutely correct when they talk about average differences between populations in terms of the frequency of particular genetic traits. They illustrate this with examples like the Andaman Islanders (in LeRoi 2005) or Northern Europeans or West Africans (in Reich 2018).
     
    So everything is kosher if we use "population" instead of "race?"

    The trouble is, none of these groups are considered “races” (or have been at least since the 1920’s).
     
    Really? I've got some anthropology books from the '50s that divide the world into dozens of separate races......

    Replies: @res

    Dunno. I always thought that races could be scaled up or down….

    Have you ever noticed that people like Morning are the ones usually espousing the most simplistic notions of race? I don’t think they actually believe things like that (e.g. the four color idea), but it does make it hard to stomach their strawmen.

  34. Anonymous[382] • Disclaimer says:

    Check out biological anthropologist Jonathan M. Marks and his latest blog post (and don’t miss the archives):

    http://anthropomics2.blogspot.com

    There’s an arrogant anti-intellectual hereditarian at Harvard who isn’t Steven Pinker! Who would have thunk it?

    Harvard geneticist David Reich had an op-ed in the New York Times today that I find stimulating. As stupid genetics rants about human variation go, actually this one is better than many of them. Reich positions himself against Henry Harpending, James Watson, Nicholas Wade, and Hitler. So far, so good.

    Foul-mouthed ad hominems are his specialty.

    This video gives more insight into his style:

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    @Anonymous

    Wow, he spends 90 percent of interview asserting that biology can't explain human beings, than at the end tells creationists they are full of shit for believing biology can't explain human beings. Contradict much? Are people like Marks even aware of how stupid they sound?

    , @MEH 0910
    @Anonymous

    Marks hardly ever posts on his blog. Four posts down and you're already back to 2016.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  35. @Svigor

    or wears his pants baggy or whatever,
     
    I keep trying to tell you suburban types that White preppies invented baggy pants hanging down around your ass in the eighties (and thus YT would be collecting royalties from Blacks), a-but no-o-o-o. This was when every Black kid was wearing tight pants to look like Michael Jackson.

    “Races” are huge groups spanning entire continents and thus remarkably varied ecological environments. “Races,” as described by Linnaeus in the 1700’s or on the U.S. census of 2010, group Koreans, Mongolians, Sri Lankans and Pakistanis together (as the “Asian” race); they group Moroccans, Norwegians, and Greeks together as another (the “white” race). Groupings like these, billions of people strong and traditionally inhabiting highly variable geographic terrains, just don’t demonstrate homogenous genetic characteristics that distinguish them, even if average differences can be calculated between them.
     
    *cough*dog breeds*cough*

    I bet if we looked up various definitions of "race" we'd have a hard time finding "(must be) huge groups spanning entire continents" anywhere.

    A "race" is a population somewhere along in the process of speciation; we all know how many such groups there must have been, over time, in places like the Amazon Forest...

    On the other hand, when you do find a handful of races blanketing the planet, they suddenly become a very important subject of study. Hence anthropologists' desperate attempts to prevent them being studied.

    P.S., "Morning" doesn't sound like a particularly Jewish surname. *Fingers crossed*

    Replies: @backup, @Seamus Padraig, @MEH 0910, @Anon

    “Morning” doesn’t sound like a particularly Jewish surname. *Fingers crossed*

    Nee Morgen

  36. Perhaps the most interesting thing about this rebuttal is that it does not even attempt to address this geneticist’s claims of fact: that the distribution of gene frequency in populations do indeed result in divisions broad enough and large enough to be reasonably equated with the usual idea of “race”, that race is as real as continents.

  37. Anonymous[399] • Disclaimer says:

    Sociologist (soft “science”) vs. geneticist (a subset of biology which is “hard” science). Bet on the geneticist. My prob with “The Bell Curve”, which was otherwise very interesting and thought-provoking, was that it was strong on so-called “experimental psychology” (another soft science) and weak on genetics.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    @Anonymous

    The Bell Curve really represents a compendium of different studies, beyond the study the authors themselves conducted. It describes adoption studies, twin studies, family studies, and other types of studies to inform an underlying picture of the genetic component of IQ. These studies taken together certainly make a very compelling case that genes play a big role in IQ within groups, and an effective case that they do so between groups (i.e., races).

    If the same sort of case were made for virtually any neutral trait -- say, height -- it would stand as a powerful case for the substantial genetic basis of that trait.

    We can't, of course, conduct certain kinds of studies on human beings for ethical reasons. Yet the studies we can conduct generally differ in no basic way from the sort of genetic studies that have been conducted of other species -- say, cattle -- and have been used to great effect in artificial selection for better breeds. If these sorts of studies weren't correct about the genetic components, that selection simply wouldn't work.

    The idea that we can't declare an important genetic component in the case of IQ in human beings unless we can identify the genes -- and now, it seems, unless we know the exact pathways they invoke -- is just a way of moving the goalposts so that the hereditarian side will never achieve victory.

    But it's a rear guard attack that is doomed to fail in the long run -- maybe even in the short run. The number of, and amount of variance, identified genes for IQ can explain is ever increasing. The pathways are getting better understood, and already appear to be involved in brain development. Predictions from these genes can be cross checked with environmental factors to determine independence.

    The noose is tightening on environmentalists. You can see the flop sweat on their faces. One wonders why they don't spend their lives and careers doing something useful, such as figuring out how to soften the blow of the truth when it does at long last transpire.

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix

  38. anonymous[399] • Disclaimer says:
    @PiltdownMan
    I wonder if the coming battle over HBD as a result of recent advances in genetic analysis is just another example of C.P. Snow's Two Cultures hypothesis, that progress is often not possible because of a complete disconnect between people educated in the humanities and people with a science education.

    Of course, for this to be true, it is necessary to view sociology, the softest of the soft sciences, as a humanities subject instead, since is so now so beholden to cultural, emotive imperatives. But Lord Snow would probably have viewed it that way anyway, since what he had in mind were hard science technocrats.

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

    Replies: @schnellandine, @anonymous

    Only in sociology would you see the term “social construct.”

  39. Barack Obama was president of the United States for eight years. Did he order the Census Bureau to stop ask questions about the obsolete concept of race?

    A line I myself have used in discussion, or variants thereof when confronted with the assertion that he was The First Post Racial President or whatever.

    Race is not obsolete so long as it can be used to document (invent) discrimination against melanists as the over-arching religio-social explanation for their failure to achieve good outcomes in First World societies.

    Race is absolutely obsolete so long as it can be used to assign the causes of that failure to melanists and their deficits.

    For melanists and their farmers, race is a way of monetarizing their deficits and making the non-deficit pay for them. It’s thus a genomic/dysgenic tax on high achievers.

    It asserts that melanists are incapable of self direction and must remain dependents of the state, which farms their deficits for taxes (profit) and careers. This is in effect a system of indulgences, where high achievers are constantly reminded of the original sin of their g, and offered the chance to buy their way out of whatever they’re accused of at the moment.

    I also like to remind SJW types that we never heard Barack Obama utter a peep about his homeys in his not actual home of Chiraq clinging to THEIR guns or their thuggish religion.

  40. @Anonymous
    Sociologist (soft "science") vs. geneticist (a subset of biology which is "hard" science). Bet on the geneticist. My prob with "The Bell Curve", which was otherwise very interesting and thought-provoking, was that it was strong on so-called "experimental psychology" (another soft science) and weak on genetics.

    Replies: @candid_observer

    The Bell Curve really represents a compendium of different studies, beyond the study the authors themselves conducted. It describes adoption studies, twin studies, family studies, and other types of studies to inform an underlying picture of the genetic component of IQ. These studies taken together certainly make a very compelling case that genes play a big role in IQ within groups, and an effective case that they do so between groups (i.e., races).

    If the same sort of case were made for virtually any neutral trait — say, height — it would stand as a powerful case for the substantial genetic basis of that trait.

    We can’t, of course, conduct certain kinds of studies on human beings for ethical reasons. Yet the studies we can conduct generally differ in no basic way from the sort of genetic studies that have been conducted of other species — say, cattle — and have been used to great effect in artificial selection for better breeds. If these sorts of studies weren’t correct about the genetic components, that selection simply wouldn’t work.

    The idea that we can’t declare an important genetic component in the case of IQ in human beings unless we can identify the genes — and now, it seems, unless we know the exact pathways they invoke — is just a way of moving the goalposts so that the hereditarian side will never achieve victory.

    But it’s a rear guard attack that is doomed to fail in the long run — maybe even in the short run. The number of, and amount of variance, identified genes for IQ can explain is ever increasing. The pathways are getting better understood, and already appear to be involved in brain development. Predictions from these genes can be cross checked with environmental factors to determine independence.

    The noose is tightening on environmentalists. You can see the flop sweat on their faces. One wonders why they don’t spend their lives and careers doing something useful, such as figuring out how to soften the blow of the truth when it does at long last transpire.

    • Replies: @Nicholas Stix
    @candid_observer

    "But it’s a rear guard attack that is doomed to fail in the long run — maybe even in the short run. "

    If you silence, ruin, and/or murder enough scientists, you "win" the debate.

  41. “Maybe it has something to do with how obsessed the federal government is with race?”

    Indeed. The federal pentagonal racial classification scheme has been around a long time. If Prof. Morning says race does not exist, then I guess she will not need any “diversity” quotas at NYU, which rely upon that “social construction” to hand out benefits to “underprivileged minorities” at NYU.

    The absurdity of this drivel is incomprehensible. I can see with my own eyes things like melanin content and epicanthic eyefolds. Denying such things exist is not very helpful, and denigrates sociology as a science, which was far more legitimate 100 years ago–even though it has always been somewhat a squishy “science” since its inception. Why doesn’t peer review cast these intellectually bankrupt, dishonest cretins into darkness and label them as the leftist whack jobs they are? Has groupthink consumed this psuedoscientific academic discipline?

    Kind of reminds me of when Lysenko tried growing citrus in Moscow. He had the entire communist regime fooled:

    “Lysenko wanted, above all else, to be an original. An otherwise enthusiastic official report warned that he was an ‘extremely egotistical person, deeming himself to be a new Messiah of biological science.’ Unable to understand the new-fangled genetics, he did everything he could to banish it from biology.”

    https://www.faber.co.uk/blog/stalin-and-his-mad-scientists/

    “[Trofim] Lysenko’s simple solutions and eager promises appealed to Stalin, who loved gardening and was obsessed with growing lemons in his greenhouses at his dacha near Moscow. When challenged by the esteemed geneticist Nikolai Vavilov, Lysenko responded viciously, denying the existence of genes. Vavilov rushed to appeal to Stalin, who received him but sneered, “You are the Vavilov who fiddles with flowers, leaves, grafts and other botanical nonsense instead of helping agriculture, as is done by Academician Lysenko.” Vavilov was arrested in 1940. The world-famous scientist died in prison in 1943.”

    https://arnoldzwicky.org/2017/03/12/a-political-parable/

  42. @Anonymous
    Check out biological anthropologist Jonathan M. Marks and his latest blog post (and don't miss the archives):

    http://anthropomics2.blogspot.com

    There's an arrogant anti-intellectual hereditarian at Harvard who isn't Steven Pinker! Who would have thunk it?

    Harvard geneticist David Reich had an op-ed in the New York Times today that I find stimulating. As stupid genetics rants about human variation go, actually this one is better than many of them. Reich positions himself against Henry Harpending, James Watson, Nicholas Wade, and Hitler. So far, so good.
     
    Foul-mouthed ad hominems are his specialty.

    This video gives more insight into his style:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3ySHO2d4H8g

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow, @MEH 0910

    Wow, he spends 90 percent of interview asserting that biology can’t explain human beings, than at the end tells creationists they are full of shit for believing biology can’t explain human beings. Contradict much? Are people like Marks even aware of how stupid they sound?

  43. @Anonymous
    Check out biological anthropologist Jonathan M. Marks and his latest blog post (and don't miss the archives):

    http://anthropomics2.blogspot.com

    There's an arrogant anti-intellectual hereditarian at Harvard who isn't Steven Pinker! Who would have thunk it?

    Harvard geneticist David Reich had an op-ed in the New York Times today that I find stimulating. As stupid genetics rants about human variation go, actually this one is better than many of them. Reich positions himself against Henry Harpending, James Watson, Nicholas Wade, and Hitler. So far, so good.
     
    Foul-mouthed ad hominems are his specialty.

    This video gives more insight into his style:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3ySHO2d4H8g

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow, @MEH 0910

    Marks hardly ever posts on his blog. Four posts down and you’re already back to 2016.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @MEH 0910


    Marks hardly ever posts on his blog. Four posts down and you’re already back to 2016.
     
    Yeah, I noticed that immediately, because I went looking for any posts just after Trump won. But he was inactive during that period.

    He has an earlier blog to whose posts he links at the end of this blog. He's apparently such an idiot that he lost his password and log-in email for Blogspot and had to make a new blog.

    Although he doesn't post much, the posts that are on the two blogs pretty much cover it all, his (and anthropology's?) theory that science has no meaning unless anthropologists have filtered it through their understanding of culture.

    He really hates Steven Pinker.

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow

  44. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Reich implies above that the 18th Century scientists who first thought hard about these questions more or less got them right.

    This was what struck me about the Reich article. Races developed within continental divides, and as we dig into this further, sub-races--ethnicities--developed within creeds and local geography, and "ancestry" is a useful term. Science is validating common sense observation, and that is not okay!

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Sub-races–ethnicities–developed within creeds and local geography, and “ancestry” is a useful term.

    We already had this exchange already on this matter. You think you would learn. Race is linked to biology; ethnicity is linked to culture. Race is a biological and social construct. Ethnicity is a social construct. Ethnicity is the term for the culture of people in a given geographic region, including their language, heritage, religion and customs. To be a member of an ethnic group is to conform to some or all of those practices.

    Certainly, race and ethnicity overlap, but they are distinct. For example, a Japanese-American could probably consider himself a member of the Asian race, but, if he does not engage in any of the practices or customs of his ancestors, he might not necessarily identify with the ethnicity, but rather consider himself to be American. Of course, American is not a “race”, it is a conglomeration of distinct ethnic groups all rolled into one, with a common cultural bond. Scandanavians, which are from the white race, are descendants from several distinct (North) Germanic tribes. Through intermarriage, they developed a unique set of customs that incorporated Old Norse traditions.

    So, in a nutshell, race refers to a group of people who possess similar and distinct physical characteristics, while ethnicity refers to a a category of people who regard themselves to be different from other groups based on common ancestral, cultural, national, and social experience.

    As far as sub-races are in essence “ethnicities”, that is YOUR sophistry.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Corvinus

    What is your hang-up over the term "ethnic?" It refers to a population sub-group, as in, ethnic Japanese are a sub-group of the Asiatic race. If the Japanese marry other Japanese more than they marry anybody else, then their genetics are going to cluster, like the Amish and Ashkenazim. This is not a novel idea.

    If a Japanese becomes a Southern Baptist barbecue chef it doesn't make him an ethnic English, no more than an Anglo becoming a Shinto Buddhist and karate black belt doesn't become an ethnic Japanese.

  45. Can anyone credibly claim that a taxonomy grounded in the humoral theory of Antiquity—remember the red blood, black bile, yellow bile, and white phlegm that the ancients believed determined our health and temperaments?—is a useful tool for analyzing genetic diversity at the start of the 21st century?

    So abandon any attempt to correct the error because of historical errors/misunderstandings?

    Boy the sciences have a lot of culling to do.

  46. Anonymous[382] • Disclaimer says:
    @MEH 0910
    @Anonymous

    Marks hardly ever posts on his blog. Four posts down and you're already back to 2016.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Marks hardly ever posts on his blog. Four posts down and you’re already back to 2016.

    Yeah, I noticed that immediately, because I went looking for any posts just after Trump won. But he was inactive during that period.

    He has an earlier blog to whose posts he links at the end of this blog. He’s apparently such an idiot that he lost his password and log-in email for Blogspot and had to make a new blog.

    Although he doesn’t post much, the posts that are on the two blogs pretty much cover it all, his (and anthropology’s?) theory that science has no meaning unless anthropologists have filtered it through their understanding of culture.

    He really hates Steven Pinker.

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    @Anonymous

    I think Steve pointed out several years ago that Marks was probably the only leftist who realized the contradictory nature of Cavali-Sforza claiming he wasn't talking about racial differences in a book devoted to talking about racial differences. All the other reviewers bought the obscurantism hook, line, and sinker. Interesting that the people promoting the book are known as the Boasnetwork.

  47. Anonymous[382] • Disclaimer says:

    So much of left-wing political tactics consists of trying to seize control of language. Declaring that words are suddenly offensive, and so on. In this case they are taking a word that preexisted their discipline, redefining it, and then telling the world population of native speakers of English that they are using it wrong because 1,000 academics don’t like the meaning they ascribe to it. The meaning of a word is precisely the average sense you would get if you could poll all native speakers.

    And words do not have to be perfect logical structures. There can be gray borders and corner cases. You’re allowed to use the words cup and mug despite the fact that there can be things that are weirdly halfway between the two that people might call by different names.

  48. @Anonymous
    @MEH 0910


    Marks hardly ever posts on his blog. Four posts down and you’re already back to 2016.
     
    Yeah, I noticed that immediately, because I went looking for any posts just after Trump won. But he was inactive during that period.

    He has an earlier blog to whose posts he links at the end of this blog. He's apparently such an idiot that he lost his password and log-in email for Blogspot and had to make a new blog.

    Although he doesn't post much, the posts that are on the two blogs pretty much cover it all, his (and anthropology's?) theory that science has no meaning unless anthropologists have filtered it through their understanding of culture.

    He really hates Steven Pinker.

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow

    I think Steve pointed out several years ago that Marks was probably the only leftist who realized the contradictory nature of Cavali-Sforza claiming he wasn’t talking about racial differences in a book devoted to talking about racial differences. All the other reviewers bought the obscurantism hook, line, and sinker. Interesting that the people promoting the book are known as the Boasnetwork.

  49. @Corvinus
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    "Sub-races–ethnicities–developed within creeds and local geography, and “ancestry” is a useful term.

    We already had this exchange already on this matter. You think you would learn. Race is linked to biology; ethnicity is linked to culture. Race is a biological and social construct. Ethnicity is a social construct. Ethnicity is the term for the culture of people in a given geographic region, including their language, heritage, religion and customs. To be a member of an ethnic group is to conform to some or all of those practices.

    Certainly, race and ethnicity overlap, but they are distinct. For example, a Japanese-American could probably consider himself a member of the Asian race, but, if he does not engage in any of the practices or customs of his ancestors, he might not necessarily identify with the ethnicity, but rather consider himself to be American. Of course, American is not a “race”, it is a conglomeration of distinct ethnic groups all rolled into one, with a common cultural bond. Scandanavians, which are from the white race, are descendants from several distinct (North) Germanic tribes. Through intermarriage, they developed a unique set of customs that incorporated Old Norse traditions.

    So, in a nutshell, race refers to a group of people who possess similar and distinct physical characteristics, while ethnicity refers to a a category of people who regard themselves to be different from other groups based on common ancestral, cultural, national, and social experience.

    As far as sub-races are in essence "ethnicities", that is YOUR sophistry.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    What is your hang-up over the term “ethnic?” It refers to a population sub-group, as in, ethnic Japanese are a sub-group of the Asiatic race. If the Japanese marry other Japanese more than they marry anybody else, then their genetics are going to cluster, like the Amish and Ashkenazim. This is not a novel idea.

    If a Japanese becomes a Southern Baptist barbecue chef it doesn’t make him an ethnic English, no more than an Anglo becoming a Shinto Buddhist and karate black belt doesn’t become an ethnic Japanese.

  50. “What is your hang-up over the term “ethnic?”

    Strawman on your part.

    “It refers to a population sub-group, as in, ethnic Japanese are a sub-group of the Asiatic race.”

    Is there any scientific literature you are able to refer to that discuses in depth that each of the five race consists of several distinct sub-races? Because methinks you are simply making it up as you go along. Perhaps you enjoy playing armchair anthropologist.

    “If the Japanese marry other Japanese more than they marry anybody else, then their genetics are going to cluster, like the Amish and Ashkenazim. This is not a novel idea.”

    I never directly or indirectly stated otherwise.

    “If a Japanese becomes a Southern Baptist barbecue chef it doesn’t make him an ethnic English, no more than an Anglo becoming a Shinto Buddhist and karate black belt doesn’t become an ethnic Japanese.”

    OK. Your point?

  51. @Space Ghost
    Is this the best the sociologists can do? This is an astonishingly weak rebuttal of Reich's work. So if we just start saying "populations" instead of "races" we'll be ok?

    > There’s nothing new here except the well-known observation that human biological traits vary around the world in tandem with geographical location.

    So they admit it? Isn't this the thing they spent the last 60 years telling us wasn't true? If Stephen Jay Gould were alive right now he'd be spinning in his grave.

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @Nicholas Stix

    “So if we just start saying ‘populations’ instead of ‘races’ we’ll be ok?”

    Hey, it worked for Cavalli-Sforza.

    He’s spent forty years speaking of race without knowing it!

    ‘The secret of my longevity has been in avoiding using a certain word.’

  52. @candid_observer
    @Anonymous

    The Bell Curve really represents a compendium of different studies, beyond the study the authors themselves conducted. It describes adoption studies, twin studies, family studies, and other types of studies to inform an underlying picture of the genetic component of IQ. These studies taken together certainly make a very compelling case that genes play a big role in IQ within groups, and an effective case that they do so between groups (i.e., races).

    If the same sort of case were made for virtually any neutral trait -- say, height -- it would stand as a powerful case for the substantial genetic basis of that trait.

    We can't, of course, conduct certain kinds of studies on human beings for ethical reasons. Yet the studies we can conduct generally differ in no basic way from the sort of genetic studies that have been conducted of other species -- say, cattle -- and have been used to great effect in artificial selection for better breeds. If these sorts of studies weren't correct about the genetic components, that selection simply wouldn't work.

    The idea that we can't declare an important genetic component in the case of IQ in human beings unless we can identify the genes -- and now, it seems, unless we know the exact pathways they invoke -- is just a way of moving the goalposts so that the hereditarian side will never achieve victory.

    But it's a rear guard attack that is doomed to fail in the long run -- maybe even in the short run. The number of, and amount of variance, identified genes for IQ can explain is ever increasing. The pathways are getting better understood, and already appear to be involved in brain development. Predictions from these genes can be cross checked with environmental factors to determine independence.

    The noose is tightening on environmentalists. You can see the flop sweat on their faces. One wonders why they don't spend their lives and careers doing something useful, such as figuring out how to soften the blow of the truth when it does at long last transpire.

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix

    “But it’s a rear guard attack that is doomed to fail in the long run — maybe even in the short run. ”

    If you silence, ruin, and/or murder enough scientists, you “win” the debate.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS