The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Thompson Archive
Human Diversity: the Interpretable Mosaic
🔊 Listen RSS
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

Charles Murray, a sociologist by background and a datanaut by inclination, has carved out a prominent place in American intellectual debate by the simple expedient of writing clearly about difficult subjects. He is an Enlightenment Regular Guy, who does not want Americans to lose ground, or be split apart or be cast asunder by imperious elites and their lucrative patterns of frustration. He crunches data, and writes his conclusions in plain text, with helpful explanations about the harder statistical bits. No wonder some people hate him for it.

Having “The Bell Curve” on my university library shelves 26 years ago seemed somewhat daring. I was bewildered by the passions it arose. He had found a dataset and analysed it carefully, using histograms rather than correlation coefficients. I enjoyed the powerful clarity of the findings, and ruefully acknowledged that “bell curve” was a snappier phrase than “standard normal distribution”. I wish I’d had the talent to write it. Perhaps many other academics felt their noses put out of joint by a job well done.

We owe the inspiration for this book to Murray’s wife, who was so outraged by the attack he received at Middlebury College that she urged him to enter the fray on more contentious topics. Cherchez la femme. On the logical premise that “I might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb” Murray has obligingly bundled up all the taboo subjects, examined them and explained that they are not so frightening after all. This time he is not crunching new stuff (beyond some interesting investigations of class differences), but mostly explaining what a whole torrent of new research may mean for all of us. In that sense he is following up on his work on Human Excellence, identifying those thoughts and findings which later ages will find of note in ours. These are exciting times, and although we cannot be sure that this is a whole new chapter in our understanding of ourselves, it certainly feels it might be.

Critics will quickly note that Murray’s aim is seditious. He wishes to destroy the proposition that in a properly run society, people of all human groupings will have similar life outcomes. Clearly, they won’t, and the fast flourishing genetic revolution is what provokes Murray to provide a progress report, one he hopes will be out of date shortly. Incidentally, writing a book about the genetics of human behaviour is a selfless act. This book took a long time to write, working through complex new research, but Murray is aware it might have a shelf life of a few months. Given that his explanations of basic issues are helpful, I think it will last far longer.

Let me therefore state explicitly that I reject claims that groups of people, be they sexes or races or classes, can be ranked from superior to inferior.

Murray is very clear about this, though probably wrong. Whether such a ranking is possible is an empirical question, not a moral one. The Scots may be a dour lot, easily distinguishable from a ray of sunshine, mean, resentful, rough and prone to lachrymose sentimentality; or they may be the inventors of the modern world. Opinions differ, but those opinions can be tested by reference to the historical record. I see no reason at all why we should not compare their achievements to those of the Finns, the Bantu, the Tibetans and the Tutsi, and pronounce on their pecking order, and respond to the other evidence-based ranking which might be proposed. Human excellence varies. Books have been written about this. Comparisons are illuminating, and sometimes life-saving. I rate the Allies higher than the Nazis. Whatever the emotions aroused by the provocative language employed by critics, empiricism must prevail.

In reading the book, I was aware that I would want to show that I was above needing to read it. Wrong. Murray handles his scalpel politely but accurately. For example, I had questioned the way Janet Shibley Hyde deals with sex differences (saying she included variables which had never been considered sexually different so as to swamp those that were) but failed to make the point that Murray easily comes up with, which is that to atomise behaviour by individual variable comparisons obscures overall effects, which he calls “profiles”. In a nutshell, there should be poly-variable sex difference risk scores. He discusses when individual differences need to be summed up or considered in isolation.

For example, do you note that these two faces are so similar that individual comparisons of features might mostly show very few significant differences, yet most of us could tell which is man and which is woman?

Murray nails it. Murray also gives you notes on arguments contrary to what he has just concluded in his book, and also rejoinders to those arguments. Proper.

Another advantage of having a good explainer is to be “reminded of/learn for the first time” things which are important but get lost in the detail. Unprompted, I can give an overview of five factor personality theory, and whether collapsing them into a general factor is warranted (probably yes, for high level analyses, I think) but Murray makes the important point that, in terms of variance accounted for, they rank thus: neuroticism (emotional stability), extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Stability matters.

Are sex differences already there at birth? Here is Murray’s account of Baron-Cohen’s 2002 paper.

The most dramatic example of a finding from infancy, which led to considerable publicity, was a 2002 study presenting evidence that newborn girls no more than two days old after birth showed stronger interest in a human face while the newborn boys showed stronger interest in a mechanical mobile. It is a single, unreplicated study with a sample of 102, not proof to take to the bank, but its finding was in line with many other studies that have found personality sex differences in infants.

I judge this a balanced account. My own assessment is truculent: on the “last man standing” rule, this result stands until refuted. Baron Cohen told me the reason it hadn’t been replicated is probably that it takes over a year to get new-borns at the right stage of new-born-ness and alert-ness to get this large sample, requiring the researcher to be on call for long hours for 12 months.

Murray deals deftly with the research showing that sex differences increase in societies which remove barriers to women’s advancement:

Both sexes become freer to do what comes naturally.

Sex differences in Maths are very small on average, and get bigger as the tests get hardest. At the very highest level the ratio is 14 to 1. (page 52)

In the table, I counted perfect scores of 150 as being in the 99th percentile. When they are broken out separately, it turns out that from 2009 to 2018, 97 males and 7 females got perfect scores: a ratio of 13.9 to 1.

In general, whatever the level of ability, including those of IQ 186, men prefer to work with “things” women prefer “people”.

At the turn of the twenty- first century, it was known that the incidence of depression was higher among women, that women ruminate more than men, and that there was probably some relationship between those facts. Two decades later, important components of the biological processes of depression are understood and progress continues to be rapid.

Turning to Race, Murray bins it in favour of “ancestral population”. However, he properly continues to use it in his Propositions, so it may be a euphemism too far. He gives a clear, cautious account of race differences, and speculates as what polygenic risk scores may eventually achieve when they are calculated for all ancestral populations.

Murray is perfectly clear that, whatever we call it, there are continental differences, and 7 turns out to be a good number for the races of humanity.

He also shows that if you drill down into the detail you will discern subgroups, but some continental races are more samey than others. For example, look at the vertical lines above, each one representing a single person and thus what proportion of that person is made up of the ancestral population. All the Africans are all African. Europeans are most of them wholly European, as are most of the East Asians, East Asian; most of the Americans, American. As to the Middle East, most of the lines have a mix of Mideastern, European, and Central or South Asian ancestry. The people of the Middle East are an admixture, others far less so. Do that make some groups purer than others? In the statistical sense, yes. They are less stratified. Whether that is good or bad for health and behaviours depends on other tests and other values.

Oddly enough, the main reason why we know that race really exists is that it gets in the way. That is, in searching for links between medical disorders and SNPs, those links which work in one race don’t always work so well in other races. Eventually each continental race will be studied in enough detail to look at the genetic differences which may account for health and behavioural differences.

More and more unique SNPs are being found, and much more are like to be found, and need to be found, before they will all make sense.

However, we can already guess that some significant differences will be found on genetic markers of interest by comparing within continent comparisons (say English with Italians) with between continent comparisons (say Italians with Chinese). When that is done, races show strong communalities within themselves, and differences between races. The scatterplots are shown on page 187 and 188. The overall results are shown on page 190.

Within continents, the allele frequencies are tightly bound (97% of the variance for brain volumes), across continents less so (59% between Africans and Asians, 62% between Europeans and Africans, 74% between Asians and Europeans). So, we have the usual pattern: Asian, then European, then African. The gap between Asians and Africans is the biggest. That general pattern includes all five measures of cognitive performance. These findings lead one to expect that ancestral populations differ in ability and behaviour as a result of genetic differences.

The book is a master-class in explaining, and is far closer to text-book than meta-analysis, though it performs that latter function. Sadly, Murray cannot name his many advisors who looked at drafts of his book and made helpful suggestions. Contemporary academia is poisonous on race, sex and class. Happily, there are many knowledgeable people who were able to help him give an accurate and balanced account, without needing to share in the lime light. Veritas liberabit vos.

Murray is a good top-level guide to genetic discoveries precisely because he is outside the field looking in, with the purpose of being an explainer. Good writers in science quickly make you feel you knew the subject anyway. He is to behavioural science what Feynman’s lecture notes were to physics. Which reminds me of a Feynman quote highly relevant to what Murray is doing in the this book: Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

Clearly, humans are under selective pressures. We are changing fast, very fast compared to what was assumed before the genetic revolution, and still pretty fast when looking back at our adoption of agriculture. Those ancestors who left Africa also screwed around with Neanderthals and Denisovans, picking up interesting introgressive variants in the process, perhaps assisting adaption to cold climates, and accounting for Tibetan’s ability to live healthily at high altitudes.
As to continental differences in the genome, Murray reports (page 179):

An early analysis of local adaptation using the HapHap database was published in 2006 by a team of geneticists (first author was Benjamin Voight). They examined regions of the genome under selection pressure for three populations: Yoruba (a Nigerian tribe), Europeans from a mix of Northern and Western European countries, and East Asians (a mix of Chinese and Japanese). Of the 579 regions, 76 percent were unique to one of the three populations, 22 percent were shared by two of the three, and only 2 percent were shared by all three populations. In the authors’ judgment, the degree to which selection occurred independently is probably underestimated by these percentages. In any case, these events represent quite recent selection—“average ages of ~6,600 years and ~10,800 years in the non- African and African populations respectively,” in the authors’ judgment.

For Europeans, that is 235 generations ago.

As a consequence of this separation, medical researchers have to restrict their investigations to specific continental groups, or they will fail to find reliable disease variants.

For example, a polygenic score based on a test population of English and Italians usually generalizes accurately for French and Germans, not so accurately for Chinese and Indians, and least accurately for the genetically most distant populations from sub-Saharan Africa.[6]

Part II has described a parallel universe. In the universe inhabited by the elite media and orthodox academia, it has been settled for decades that race is a social construct. In that universe, the lessons taught by Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould back in the 1970s and early 1980s still apply. In the universe inhabited by geneticists who study human populations, the 1990s saw glimpses of a new perspective, and the new century opened up fascinating stories that had previously been closed.

Class
Murray refers to being intelligent as matter of luck. I would like to nit-pick about that, because that phrase is inimical to one of his key purposes, which is to strengthen respect for the institution of marriage. Intelligence is not a matter of luck. It depends on the sensible choice of partners your parents made. It would only truly be a matter of luck if humans mated randomly, say by gathering in vast crowds every full moon for the express purpose of almost random fornication.

To begin to wind up, in a treasure-trove of a book, I have picked up just a few things that struck my eye.

Taking all jobs together, the predictive validity of IQ scores for overall job performance is about +.50 (it’s higher than that for high- complexity jobs). You can square that figure and point out that IQ explains only 25 percent of the variance in job performance. If you’re an employer, however, and are told that a standard deviation increase in IQ is associated with half a standard deviation increase in overall job performance, a predictive validity of +.50 is a big deal.

I like that one. At another time it is worth discussing whether we should continue to disparage correlation coefficients by always “squaring to minimize”. I think this is a ploy by mystical environmentalists who imagine that by downplaying the variance accounted for by a biological predictor they somehow own the (larger) unexplained variance.

Usually, the class you attain is more determined by your intelligence than the class you were born into. That advantage is not a genetic lottery, that is not unless your parents mated randomly: it is a benefit conferred on children by thoughtful parents. To say “we don’t choose our parents” obscures the important fact that most parents choose each other, and have forgone other options.

Murray persists in arguing thus:

The new form of unfairness is that talent is largely a matter of luck, and the few who are so unusually talented that they rise to the top are the beneficiaries of luck in the genetic lottery.

I think he has this wrong. Certainly, being born bright is not a personal achievement. Choosing a mate wisely is, and should not be under-valued. If the Murrays are doing well, then all power to their mating choices. Although Murray himself did not choose his parents, he was not lucky. He descended from canny people.

Murray treats epigenetics kindly, but politely has his doubts. The evidence so far supports his doubts.

Murray is also kind about 50 years of attempts to boost intelligence and good behaviour by interventions short of full adoption, and concludes that we should not be entirely down-hearted. Designer drugs already work, and will get better. CRISPR will work in the future, and also get better. The old stuff which keeps being tried again and again needs to be laid to rest, apart from those which are simply kind helpfulness, which we should accept anyway.

Consider educational attainment, a rough proxy measure for IQ, as an example. In just the five years from 2014 through 2018, the percentage of the variance that could be explained from genetic material alone went from zero to 15 percent. For some, the appropriate reaction is “Wow!” For others, 15 percent is not much, and the appropriate reaction is “So what?”

I am on the “wow” side. For those who find 15% to be not much, I like pointing out that class of origin probably accounts for only 3%.

Murray deals respectfully with Turkheimer’s view that polygenic risk scores do not elucidate causes.

In my field, applied social science, predictive validity trumps causal pathways. The Turkheimer position about our ignorance of causal pathways is certainly correct now and may be correct for decades to come. But applied social science has never been about causal pathways (until now, it’s never been an option) and perhaps never will be. It’s about explaining enough variance to make useful probabilistic statements.

Too damn right. Astronomy came to greater public attention when Halley predicted the return of the comet which now bears his name, without having a complete understanding of the causes of gravity.

As matters stand, the environment is routinely treated by many social scientists as almost mystically complicated.

Are we interested in g×E interactions for ancestral populations? Every major ancestral population lives in every conceivable kind of environment. They live in countries in different parts of the world. Within most of those countries, they have varying socioeconomic status, varying numbers of generations of acculturation, and, for that matter, varying degrees of admixture with other ancestral populations. They live in countries that they rule and countries in which they are minorities. As minorities, they live in countries where discrimination against their ethnic group is severe and countries where it is negligible. do ethnicity and environment interact in complex ways? The natural variation in the environments where ancestral populations live is so great that the raw material for answering that question is plentiful.

This is a disarmingly simple proposal about how polygenic risk scores could be used to answer questions about the power of the environment. A version of that research can be done with admixture studies, but this should be even more convincing. Murray is also right to chide those who use complexity as a get-out-of-jail card when their chose explanations are found wanting.

So it is with human nature: The important thing is not the heritabilities of specific traits but the way that the heritability of a variety of linked traits forms an interpretable mosaic.

Murray sums up with a series of broad personal reflections. In brief, he discerns a sea change in how we perceive ourselves, moving from blank slate fundamentalism to a realistic acceptance of our biological origins and propensities, not as all-determining, but as guides to reasonable expectations. Human nature becomes an interpretable mosaic.

He is clear about his own values:

For me, what matters most is not material equality, but access to the wellsprings of human flourishing, which in turn requires that society be structured so that people across a wide range of personal qualities and abilities are able to find valued places.

Murray is strongly against the conflation of high intelligence with high human worth. Agreed, but what if brighter people are, on balance, kinder and more thoughtful in their treatment of other people? What if they are less likely to support capital punishment? What if brighter people turn out to be more altruistic? What if surgeons actually contribute more to human happiness than housewives? The terrible empirical “ifs” accumulate. There might be something other than middle class snootiness which accounts for it being better to live surrounded by middle class people.

Murray has few good words for the mass of the American upper class, other than recognising their usual charm at the individual level. Murray judges them injurious, and in contrast stresses the good, competent and likeable nature of the average citizen (with which I mostly agree), recommending the upper classes get out and meet more average citizens. This is his style, and a core value. He has no fear of being a Whig, Hernnstein the Tory, either detecting gradual historical improvements or devoutly wishing them to happen.

In “An Essay of Dramatic Poesy” Dryden was more sanguine: “If by the people you understand the multitude, the hoi polloi, ‘tis no matter what they think; they are sometimes in the right, sometimes in the wrong; their judgment is a mere lottery”.

Harsh, but we need to accept human nature: crowds can get things wrong.

Murry closes thus:

It is time for America’s elites to try living with inequality of talents, understanding that each human being has strengths and weaknesses, qualities we admire and qualities we do not admire, and that our good opinion seldom turns on a person’s talents, but rather on a person’s character. We need a new species of public policy that accepts differences and works with people as they are, not as we want to shape them. I hope this book contributes to that process.

ORDER IT NOW

It is very strange that an author who goes to such lengths to be kind, considered and balanced should be excoriated. Stranger still that the attacks should be so rigidly extreme when the text itself is mild, cautious and proudly admiring of the average citizen. Murray is not a polemicist: he just keeps the score, and explains his judgments. He does not eschew the correct nomenclature of digging instruments. I think he makes good calls, and if you want to see the steps in his arguments, he lays them out for you in the appendices.

The purpose and test of this book is whether it will be read. I hope so. The writing invites reading. The tone is balanced, restrained, and friendly to those for whom all this research may be news. When the topics are complicated and technical, anyone can baffle. Being legible is harder. Anyone who wants to know the score on the possible causes of sex, race and class differences will be amply rewarded in understanding if they read this book. It deserves to mark a turning point in public understanding of the biological factors in human behaviour.

 
Hide 138 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. BingoBoingo says: • Website

    Props to Murray for putting in the effort to chip away at the derealization plague that keeps being pushed to prop up the equality of outcomes fraud. It’s a grift and everyone is poorer for it. Murray’s intense committment to method and putting in work versus the dime a dozen inclusion parrots… doesn’t seem like a fair fight at all.

    • Replies: @HallParvey
  2. res says:

    Great review. Thank you. There is much to talk about here, but just one question to start. Regarding

    However, we can already guess that some significant differences will be found on genetic markers of interest by comparing within continent comparisons (say English with Italians) with between continent comparisons (say Italians with Chinese). When that is done, races show strong communalities within themselves, and differences between races. The scatterplots are shown on page 187 and 188. The overall results are shown on page 190.

    Within continents, the allele frequencies are tightly bound (97% of the variance for brain volumes), across continents less so (59% between Africans and Asians, 62% between Europeans and Africans, 74% between Asians and Europeans).

    How do we reconcile that with the idea that there is more diversity within Africa than between it and other continental populations?

    Now I need to chase Murray’s book down and read it.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
    , @Anon
    , @Anon
  3. Let me therefore state explicitly that I reject claims that groups of people, be they sexes or races or classes, can be ranked from superior to inferior.

    Murray is very clear about this, though probably wrong. Whether such a ranking is possible is an empirical question, not a moral one.

    There is no such thing as a superior human being from a scientific point of view because science only deals with the measurement of specific characteristics. You may, for example, define mathematical intelligence (which already involves some subjectivity, but that is not my point), and then establish that one individual has a superior mathematical intelligence than another, but that will never make him superior as a human being because that statement would not make any sense. In thesis, you could go further and arbitrarily establish and define a set of characteristics that you think are important in a human being, and then measure them across human individuals and/or populations. You then could come up with a ranking based on the ensemble performance of the populations/individuals, but the original choice of characteristics was an arbitrary act, no matter who were the persons behind it, and thus would have nothing whatsoever scientific about it.

    So, the empiric part deals only with measurements. The moral (and political) part precedes it by establishing and, perhaps to a certain extent, defining what characteristics will be measured and what weight will be ascribed to each characteristic.

  4. melpol says:

    Some people are smart and others are stupid. Your wife may be stupid and you smart, but a divorce won’t solve that problem. Child support will have to be paid along with court costs, It is best to remain uncomfortable rather that contending with larger problems. It is the same with black and white differences, that problem cannot be solved by separation.It is best to remain uncomfortable than create a larger problem. Social pain cannot be relieved except by using prohibited painkillers. Live with it and hope for some good days.

    • Disagree: Some Guy
    • Replies: @gotmituns
  5. Adrian E. says:

    [Murray:] For me, what matters most is not material equality, but access to the wellsprings of human flourishing, which in turn requires that society be structured so that people across a wide range of personal qualities and abilities are able to find valued places.

    I think there are important political consequences for what kind of left-wing ideas are seen as promising (using left-wing in the sense of attempting to reduce inequality, that could include conservatives who also care about inequality not becoming too large).

    Especially in Anglosaxon political culture, often a distinction between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity is drawn. Meritocratic liberals are in favor of equality of opportunity. Communists would theoretically be in favor of complete equality of outcome, but that is hardly realistic because it would also remove incentives for effort, and it has hardly be tried in a pure form on the scale of whole societies rather than small communes and kibbutzim. A typical social democratic position would be to favor policies that don’t lead to complete equality of outcome, but aim at reducing inequality of outcome.

    I don’t know whether Murray would agree, but I think that a society that is “structured so that people across a wide range of personal qualities and abilities are able to find valued places” should probably also be a society in which material inequality is not too stark, although to some degree it can exist and may even be useful if it does not exceed certain limits.

    Traditionally, the liberal meritocratic position that we should only care about equality of opportunity is considered more moderate. But if we take into account genetic diversity, it is obvious that even with complete equality of opportunity, there can still be enormous economic inequality both between individuals and between demographic groups. Some people – from the more libertarian side – are fine with this. But others – from the left – are not ready to accept this kind of inequality.

    An interesting phenomenon is that, especially in Anglophone countries, a relatively strong current of the left with a peculiar mix of characteristics has emerged:
    – they accept the idea that we should focus on equality of opportunity rather than (partial) equality of outcome
    – they completely reject HBD and claim that any difference in average outcome between different demographic group must be due to discrimination, racism, privilege etc.
    – they don’t accept inequalities as far as they don’t concern individuals, but (at least some) demographic groups (since they claim these inequalities only exist for illegitimate reasons – discrimination etc.)

    I would call them the meritocratic anti-HBD left. While generally, people who exclusively focus on equality of opportunity are seen as more moderate, many members of this meritocratic anti-HBD left are by no means moderate. The large degree of inequality between different demographic groups leads them to extreme claims about the amount of discrimination and racism that allegedly exists in society (and they must claim this if they want to stick by their total rejection of HBD).

    This meritocratic anti-HBD left has a lot of elite support (academia, rich donors for NGOs etc.). I would claim that this is an ideology that particularly suits the interests of the affluent upper class (in Anglophone countries mostly White people). Of course, it is not the only ideology that fits their interests. A purely libertarian ideology that accepts any kind of economic inequality fits their interests at least as well. But many people can’t easily accept inequality and are therefore drawn to some kind of left-wing ideas, and the meritocratic anti-HBD left benefits the affluent upper class much more than other left-wing ideas.

    The meritocratic anti-HBD left offers very little to people who actually belong to less affluent demographic groups. Since it starts from very implausible assumptions (any kind of inequality between groups is allegedly due to discrimination), it offers solutions (e.g. detecting more and more subtle micro-aggressions, people “checking their privilege”, implicit bias tests) that are not likely to decrease economic inequality even the slightest bit. It even seems likely that by poisoning race relations, these pseudo-solutions probably harm members of less affluent demographic groups in particular.

    Another kind of left is the social democratic left, which attempts to limit and reduce inequality. They can remain agnostic about HBD (or support it if they want, though few would do that openly at the moment), and the question what is the cause for inequality is less important for them than for the meritocratic left because the social democratic lefts wants to reduce economic inequality no matter what it was caused by (while for the meritocratic left illegitimate causes like discrimination are crucial for opposing economic inequality). Favorite solutions of the social democratic left have to do with supporting a certain degree of redistribution of wealth from the rich to less affluent people.

    Of course, such social democratic programs would cost the affluent elite something. Therefore, they have a strong interest in channeling the energy of the left towards meritocratic anti-HBD ideas. Members of the core of the elites may or may not believe themselves in these strict anti-HBD ideas (I suppose that most don’t). But in any case, they prefer paying lip service to white guilt and accepting language policing rather than paying somewhat higher taxes for reducing economic inequality.

  6. “It is time for America’s elites to try living with inequality of talents.”

    China’s elites have done so for 2200 years. It’s worked for them; why not for us?

    • Replies: @Really No Shit
  7. Where does Murray come down on free association? How about say, the nation of Hungary, having explicitly pro-ethnic Hungarian policies, and declining immigration by ethnic others? Is that OK? Good? Bad? Same for the English or French? What about the US? Is the act of choosing a social sin? Is (as I suspect) the goal to erase all races by amalgamating (by force if necessary) all the existing racial groups into one light brown skinned, curly haired, almond eyed crew of Humans? Well maybe the Uber group would not look quite like that….

    The problem we have is that the powers-that-be want us all mad at each other, so they are insisting that we interact intimately (against will and common sense) with people that we do not want to intimately interact with. This goes up and down the social ladder. Until this is settled in favor of the freedom of association, more trouble is sure to come.

  8. It is very strange that an author who goes to such lengths to be kind, considered and balanced should be excoriated.

    Strange, and undeserved; but not inexplicable.

    Part II has described a parallel universe. In the universe inhabited by the elite media and orthodox academia, it has been settled for decades that race is a social construct.

    The recent findings of human genetics differ from the opinions of the chattering classes. They will not give up without a fight, and when Murray’s position is the one supported by the evidence, the only possible attack is ad hominem.

    When the orthodox theory was constructed for political and social reasons before the experimental evidence was available, there is no particular reason why it should turn out to be correct.

    Sadly, Murray cannot name his many advisors who looked at drafts of his book and made helpful suggestions. Contemporary academia is poisonous on race, sex and class.

    This is incredibly sad. The same poison leads to other problems. Steve Sailer reported that some of HBDchick’s ideas found their way into a scientific paper:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/hbd-chick-vindicated/

    There must be no other branch of science where you can see a decade into the future by reading an anonymous blog. You can find out not only the questions that the field will address, but also the answers.

    It is hard to exaggerate the significance of this. Such a situation would be impossible in most branches of science – the mere suggestion would be preposterous.

    • Replies: @Jim bob lassiter
  9. @Brás Cubas

    From a biological point of view, those groups that have more children on average are superior to those that have less. Of course this is based on the value judgement that surviving is a desirable outcome.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  10. RJJCDA says:

    1) As a non-scientist, my default position in analyzing our species is that if a trait or characteristic seems to be present now, and was appears to have been always present, then it probably has an evolutionary purpose. Protecting and affirming one’s ethnicity appears to fit this proclivity. Those groups which did not “protect and affirm” their own kind would virtually disappear from the species gene pool.

    2) In the following sense only do I support UBI. Why don’t we subsidize high IQ? Suppose we adopt some kind of universal basic income but elevate the amount according to an IQ above the mean. Our most important attribute is our intelligence, so why not subsidize those who have the greatest potential to excel and advance the species? But if one is raising a family, how is one to get the $$$ and time to explore and create after 40-60 hours of family sustenance work?

    • Replies: @dearieme
    , @Alfred
    , @Mefobills
  11. Svevlad says:

    So basically: eugenics good, and Africans need it the most.

    Which makes sense, really. High disease load => perpetual low population => never even having some sort of malthusian conditions to give you nice evolutionary abilities at the cost of mass death

  12. dearieme says:
    @RJJCDA

    “Our most important attribute is our intelligence”

    What on earth makes you think so?

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  13. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    How do we reconcile that with the idea that there is more diversity within Africa than between it and other continental populations?

    A reason could be incomplete data on African populations.

    He only used Phase 1 Human Genome Project data in his book, why not Phase 2 or 3?

    • Replies: @res
  14. Anti-HBD says:

    Within continents, the allele frequencies

    Not trying to spam, but honestly interested in any thoughts on Kevin’s tweets pointing out the issues with the book’s use of allele frequency tables and phenotype-genotype relationship:

    • Replies: @res
  15. @Just passing through

    It is at times quite harmful to survival to have many kids.

  16. @Adrian E.

    Marx made the case for an outcome “according to everybody’s abilities and needs”. – The closer you look at this formula, the more cryptic it gets and the clearer you see, that Marx here (as in his notes about the useless bohemians, whom he despised, abhorred and ridiculed all at once) did not argue in a very straightforward way for the equality of outcome. Not even for total social justice – at least not for the time being – and in the last years of his life he developed even envy towards the entrepreneurs: Only the business is greening, he wrote in a self-critical – and even self-loathing letter to Engels. Bitterness is one of the disciplines, in which he truly excelled (he was a very busy writer, but quite low on agreeableness – so low even, that he did not even care to agree with himself – or with his doctrines (I am no Marxist). Heine liked that quite a bit about him, by the way. – Aja! – irony! – The most accurate realization of heaven on earth.

  17. Anon[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    Pardon me if I spout nonsense, as I am an amateur, but I believe that the answer is that the mathematical measure of genetic variance “within group” and the measure of “between group” are slightly different, and this causes strange little confusions.

    The best way to examine genetic similarity between “races” (very genetically distant human populations) I think is described in the article from DJ Witherspoon: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

    Our analysis focuses on the frequency, ω, with which a pair of random individuals from two different populations is genetically more similar than a pair of individuals randomly selected from any single population.


    We show that claim c, the observation of high ω, holds with small collections of loci. It holds even with hundreds of loci, especially if the populations sampled have not been isolated from each other for long. It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero.

    • Replies: @res
  18. Very thorough review, though it would have profited from fewer endless quotes.

    Murray’s book is not going to change the debate simply because its conclusions are against the official orthodoxy. The term ‘progress one funeral at a time’ applies here. The hope is that young and bright grad students, not just within the closely related fields, will read it and reconsider the evidence. Even if that were to happen, we’d have to wait several decades for the fruits of such labour to bloom.

    • Replies: @res
  19. Flemur says:

    The graph of 1st and 2nd principal components looks a bit like a map of the world’s land masses, if you rotate it about 45 degrees clockwise, and add some distance between Asia and America. And squint.

  20. Flemur says:

    it is a benefit conferred on children by thoughtful parents.

    The children of thoughtful and intelligent parents didn’t cause their parents to be that way, so those children are lucky (if they got the right mix of DNA), but you might say that the parents aren’t (just) lucky if their children are successful.

    Besides, haven’t the non-genetic effects of parenting been grossly exaggerated?

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
  21. res says:
    @Thulean Friend

    Very thorough review, though it would have profited from fewer endless quotes.

    It is interesting how tastes differ on the use of quotes. I found the large number of IMHO fairly short (most were a paragraph) quotes helpful for giving a sense of Murray’s points in his own words.

    Murray’s book is not going to change the debate simply because its conclusions are against the official orthodoxy. The term ‘progress one funeral at a time’ applies here. The hope is that young and bright grad students, not just within the closely related fields, will read it and reconsider the evidence. Even if that were to happen, we’d have to wait several decades for the fruits of such labour to bloom.

    I agree with this, but am concerned that if anything the trend is in the other direction.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
  22. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    A reason could be incomplete data on African populations.

    That’s possible. Rather than just throwing FUD about how about trying to find better data which would tell us one way or another?

    Data >> hypothetical data which might give the conclusion you want

    He only used Phase 1 Human Genome Project data in his book, why not Phase 2 or 3?

    More FUD (to be clear, the doubt kind), but still a worthwhile question. Does Murray say anything about his reasons in the book? Exactly which dataset did Murray use?

    The 1000 Genomes Project has three phases: https://www.internationalgenome.org/about/

    The HGDP is on its third database version, but I don’t think they usually refer to those as phases. http://www.cephb.fr/hgdp/

    As far as I can tell the HGP (the closest match to your “Human Genome Project”) did not have phases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project

    Given the presence of Oceania, I am guessing Murray used the HGDP?

    This PCA plot comparing coverage of 1KGP, HGDP and PASNP (Pan-Asian SNP Project) might be of interest.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3701331/

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
    , @Anti-HBD
  23. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Twitter sucks for meaningful technical communication. However, it is a venue par excellence for throwing FUD about. Vagueness is a feature rather than a bug for that purpose.

    Those tweets are totally lacking in context or useful argument (as opposed to assertion), but let’s take a shot anyway.

    1. there is no standard classification of allele frequency differences so calling 0.2 “large” is arbitrary.

    Perhaps. Do the results look any different with other thresholds? This graphic (see panel c) looking at the number of SNPs with an AF difference between populations above 0.5 in 1000 Genomes might be of interest.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09534

    Here is the caption for Figure 5c: “c, Numbers of SNPs showing increasingly high levels of differentiation in allele frequency between the CEU and CHB+JPT (red), CEU and YRI (green) and CHB+JPT and YRI (blue). Lines indicate synonymous variants (dashed), non-synonymous variants (dotted) and other variants (solid lines). The most highly differentiated genic SNPs were enriched for non-synonymous variants, indicating local adaptation.”

    Pay special attention to that last sentence. That indicates selection is probably more important than drift as a cause of the differentiation for the most highly differentiated SNPs.

    2. Any two populations will differ, pointing to differences doesn’t make the groupings meaningful,

    It also does not make them meaningless (it’s clear why I keep talking about FUD, right?). And why should any two populations differ if there has been as much gene flow as you keep going on about?

    And as far as “Any two populations will differ,” the magnitude of the differences is important (which I believe was Murray’s point).

    3. differences in genes don’t require differences in a trait.

    Right. There can be silent changes. But is Bird saying that none of those SNP differences result in trait differences? I hope not, because that would be really stupid. And the last sentence of the Figure 5c caption above indicates that Bird is wrong to imply the differences are unimportant.

    BTW, I would expect a geneticist to be more precise about the usage of “gene” and “SNP” (the latter was Murray’s focus).

    Nope, though that is also the case. It turns out that the relationship between genotype and phenotype is extremely complicated

    “Extremely complicated.” What does that mean?
    – We need a scientist (like Kevin Bird?) to tell us what it means?
    – It is unknowable (remember my comment about appeals to ignorance or unknowability?)?
    – I (Kevin Bird) am a super genius because I understand extremely complicated things like this. But I apparently don’t understand it well enough to give a real explanation.

    Bird is just saying that:
    1. Traits can vary without genes changing (e.g. suntan and skin color).
    2. Genes (or SNPs) can vary without traits changing (e.g. synonymous SNP differences).

    That hardly seems complicated (much less extremely so) to me. And I think giving examples would have made his tweet much more understandable. But that’s not his goal now, is it?

    P.S. It says a lot (none of it good) that you consider those tweets significant enough to be worth posting in multiple threads.

  24. res says:
    @Anon

    I believe that the answer is that the mathematical measure of genetic variance “within group” and the measure of “between group” are slightly different, and this causes strange little confusions.

    It would be helpful to include concrete examples of “slightly different” and “strange little confusions.”

    There can be some confusion depending on things like:
    – The relative size of the populations (e.g. do we analyze them using equal sizes or the actual size ratios).
    – What exactly we look at. As an example, Fst measurements depend on exactly which SNPs are used.

    Different ways of measuring similarity are interesting so thanks for the link. However, it is hard for me to take seriously a paper which asserts in the abstract:

    Phenotypes controlled by a dozen or fewer loci can therefore be expected to show substantial overlap between human populations.

    Apparently the author is unfamiliar with something called “selection.” You may have heard of the idea. Snarkiness aside, skin color is an obvious counterexample. Skin color is primarily caused by a small number of SNPs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#Genetics
    Yet I think it would be hard to characterize it as showing “substantial overlap between human populations.” At least at the extremes like European vs. African.

    If you don’t like that example, how about lactose intolerance?

    Especially when it goes on to use that as the basis for the final sentence of the abstract:

    This provides empirical justification for caution when using population labels in biomedical settings, with broad implications for personalized medicine, pharmacogenetics, and the meaning of race.

    My quick look at the paper shows an interesting mix of useful analysis and less useful hypotheticals.

    Notice this contradiction to the “African more closely related to Asian/European rather than other African” meme.

    The power of large numbers of common polymorphisms is most apparent in the microarray data set, comparing the European, East Asian, and sub-Saharan African population groups (Figure 2C). ω approaches zero (median 0.12%) with 1000 polymorphisms. This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group. In general, CC and CT decrease more rapidly and to lower values than ω.

    And that was with only 1000 loci in contrast to the hundreds of thousands of SNPs we look at routinely now.

    They go on to talk about how adding intermediate populations makes things more complicated.

    As a specific example of “less useful hypotheticals” consider this:

    However, consider a hypothetical phenotype of biomedical interest that is determined primarily by a dozen additive loci of equal effect whose worldwide distributions resemble those in the insertion data set (e.g., with δ = 0.15; Table 1).

    AFAICT they are assuming these dozen loci are independent. Which is not the case for any trait subject to differential selection between groups as I discussed earlier.

    This 2019 paper looking at Allele Frequency Difference (AFD) as an alternative to Fst might be of interest.
    https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/10/4/308

    • Replies: @Anon
  25. Anon[483] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    The authors are probably aware of selection, but I’d guess that they are trying to say that ‘selected’ traits are rare among all traits. Maybe they are wrong, and maybe most traits controlled by few SNPs do differ substantially between populations.

    I didn’t really want to go into the “genetic variance” thing because I think that it is moot now that the researchers have the ability to look at the entire genome of many people (Lewontin couldn’t) and get a ‘w’ meaurement by crunching tons and tons of sample data. That measurement is the master measure: it is the ultimate answer to the question “are you more genetically close to a black man than a white man?”

    Nevertheless, my hypothesis on the variance issue: I think the issue arises when one defines “variance” itself. When summing the variances of SNPs to get the overall genetic variance, one *should* do something about covariances between SNP frequencies (“In general the variance of the sum of n variables is the sum of their covariances” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance).

    Var( Sum(Xi) ) = Sum( Var(Xi) ) + 2 * Sum ( Cov(Xi, Xj) where i!= j )

    This covariance structure would affect the *true* variance of the genetic data, and the covariance structure will differ between populations.

    I do not know if the geneticists can fit/find the correlation structure of data like this; I know it is a big challenge in quantitative finance.

    • Replies: @res
    , @utu
  26. The Scots may be a dour lot, easily distinguishable from a ray of sunshine, mean, resentful, rough and prone to lachrymose sentimentality; or they may be the inventors of the modern world.

    Why not both?

    Logarithms and drunken brawls that start over an argument about a tiny amount of money, and end with the belligerents bawling on each other’s shoulders and becoming fast friends.

    All powered by porridge and offal: the breakfast, lunch and dinner of champions.

  27. @res

    I agree with this, but am concerned that if anything the trend is in the other direction.

    I’m more optimistic: the history of ideas has abundant examples where the orthodoxy prevailed right up until it reached near-saturation. Almost invariably, the people in charge of the orthodoxy knew it was horse-shit well before they stopped trying to ‘cancel’ heretics – but they continued because ti was profitable for them.

    Financial markets show the same phenomenon: herd behaviour that is almost monotonic until everyone’s on the same side of the boat – these extrema are where the majority of the profitable opportunities exist.

    Our perspectives have been compressed by the Culture of the Constant Now (for dummies) and the lack of ‘ordeal’ required to learn key things about any discipline (for smarties): almost-instantaneous access to vast amounts of information makes it seem like motivated people ought to be able to get the right answer quickly.

    So there is a tendency to expect a controversy to be resolved (with the final iteration arriving at a fact, not a belief) on timescales measured in weeks or months. That is what a motivated person of moderate intelligence can achieve in almost any domain – so long as they are motivated by a desire to find out what is true.

    However if a moderately smart person is motivated by something else – for example, the continued receipt of low-effort income (and status) from a sinecure, quango, boondoggle, or grift – then the abundance of information makes it easier to keep the waters muddy.

    And once a thing gets buy-in from a significant part of the political class, it can take decades before the factual answer is permitted to see the light of day. Fast access to information might cut that in half, but it will still mean that truth arrives slowly.

    The best example is the 1977 US Dietary Recommendations“.

    By the mid-1970s everyone – including the AMA – knew that Yudkin was right (that sugar was the culprit), but that didn’t matter: the political class was getting very large amounts of payola from the sugar industry (and later, the junk food industries).

    So Ancel Keys ‘won’. 20 years later, the metabolic consequences of those dietary ’tilts’ started to show up as the US CVD, obesity and diabetes curves departed (upwards) from the rest of the West… and the ‘authorities’ waited another decade until they started walking back their advice (while constantly dissembling and misdirecting).

    • Agree: PetrOldSack
    • Replies: @PetrOldSack
  28. iffen says:

    Although Murray himself did not choose his parents, he was not lucky.

    Yes he was lucky. Of all the possible combinations of parents he was blessed with his two.

  29. res says:
    @Anon

    The authors are probably aware of selection, but I’d guess that they are trying to say that ‘selected’ traits are rare among all traits. Maybe they are wrong, and maybe most traits controlled by few SNPs do differ substantially between populations.

    That may be (though perhaps it would be more accurate to say assuming rather than trying to say?). But if so, they really should make that more clear.

    I think we know that most SNP variation is due to drift (vs. selection), but it is less clear to me if that is true for phenotypic trait variation. Especially those traits which vary greatly between populations. I think Figure 5c (linked above) is good evidence that selection is important for traits (using non-synonymous SNP variation as a proxy for trait variation, which I think is reasonable) which are highly differentiated between populations. Which just happen to be the traits where looking at racial differences would be most important. In other words, the paper’s assumptions are least valid where they matter most.

    This covariance structure would affect the *true* variance of the genetic data, and the covariance structure will differ between populations.

    I do not know if the geneticists can fit/find the correlation structure of data like this; I know it is a big challenge in quantitative finance.

    Interesting point. I can see there being sampling issues (representativeness), but I would think absent those the full SNP profiles would be enough information to derive all the covariances. Is that not so? Is the problem in quantitative finance due to an inability to get enough data, or are there computational problems?

    • Replies: @Anon
  30. @dearieme

    Because it is the only one which we do not share with all other animals. Without it we are not different from them so, not distinctly human. We would not even be having this discussion without it.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  31. @Flemur

    That Quillette piece is entertaining. The person who wrote it (dunno what his name is – I seldom look at bylines) is clever in that “gotcha” way – for example using ‘menagerie‘ in a way that seems contextually inappropriate, but is entirely consistent with its French origins (this also invites dummies to claim wrongly that he’s used ‘menagerie‘ wrongly).

    That said: I would have used ‘congeries’, because that more properly fits the disordered jumble of horse-shit that he then proceeds to describe (it’s not his fault that it’s horse-shit: psych and sociology are to the scientific pursuit of knowledge, what overflowing sewage-pipes are to a tidy back yard).

    .

    The Philip Larkin poem in the comments is one of my favourites.

    I am lucky that my own Mum & Dad didn’t ‘fuck us up’ hardly at all – which explains (and is explained by) their continued refusal to assassinate one another for over 57 years. It also explains why my siblings and I are huge fans of both of them, despite being conscious of their foibles being replicated in each of us.

    In the case of myself and my siblings, it is obviously not possible to determine the ‘nature/nurture’ split: we all – as far as we know – have the same 2 parents, and as the eldest I can confidently say that the others (the dregs – let’s be frank: first-born ≡ best genetic material) were raised in the same environment.

    My guess is that if my parents raised someone else’s kid, it would have the same view of them, as we all have (which is the same as every dog and cat the family has ever had): a deep respect and affection; a tendency to do what you’re told that almost rises to the level of a desire to please… but not quite (if you can get away with not doing it, “fair do’s“).

    Disclosure: one of the main reasons I consciously decided in my mid-teens that I never wanted to have kids – apart from the fact that they are stupid and expensive – is that the likelihood that I and any prospective partner could do as good a job as my parents, is as near to zero as makes no odds. (I’m not asserting that my parents are unique, or that there are not other parents who do as good a job[1]: I am asserting that expecting to be one of those people is insanely optimistic).

    [1] “As good a job” doesn’t mean having smart kids (although we’re all pretty smart), or accomplished kids (although we’re that, too). Even “genuinely-happy, functional offspring with a solid moral framework and a coherent (and non-delusional) worldview” doesn’t quite get it right. I think I could accomplish that – but that would fall well short of being my Dad, and anything short of that would be less than a kid deserves.

    • Replies: @Alfred
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
  32. gotmituns says:
    @melpol

    Some people are smart and others are stupid
    ————————————————-
    Im’ won ov the smarte gies.

  33. utu says:
    @Anon

    You are using a wrong formula. This is not about adding arithmetically random variables X1+X2+… but the addition is in terms of summing sets.

    This is valid for arithmetic sum:

    Var(X+Y)=Var(X)+Var(Y)+2COV(X,Y)

    But what you need is variance of union of two sets also called combined variance:

    Var(X u Y)=[Var(X)+Var(Y)]/2+ [(Mean(X)-Mean(Y))/2]^2

    which is valid when the two sets have the same number of elements, which is always assumed when measuring genetic diversity and genetic distance between populations.

    You notice that the term [(Mean(X)-Mean(Y))/2]^2 measures the distance between two populations. Which can be expressed in terms of fraction of total variance Var(X u Y) as fixation index

    Fst=1-[Var(X)+Var(Y)]/2/Var(X u Y) (*)

    How variance is calculated in population X for one SNP? It is Var(X)=f*(1-f) where f is frequency of the SNP. For two SNPs f1 and f2 it is Var(X)=f1*(1-f1)+f2*(1-f2). This summation follows from Hamming distance metric for text strings that is used to define distance between DNA strings.

    How variance is calculated for union of two sets for one SNP. Let fx and fy are frequencies of SNP in X and Y, respectively. Then Var(X u Y)=[(fx+fy)/2]*[1-(fx+fy)/2]

    Lewontin used formula (*) to get his famous result though he used different expression for variance (diversity) based on Shannon index f*ln(f). Probably because Shannon index f*ln(f) produces slightly lower Fst than f(1-f) and that is what Lewontin wanted: Fst as low as possible).

    It is useful to note that diversity (variance) is maximum when f=0.5. So populations are the most diverse when the frequency of SNPs are around 0.5. So if there are particularly beneficial SNPs the populations that are not diverse in terms of this SNP are either the best or the worst depending whether f=1 or f=0 but on the other hand population with f=0.5 is just 50/50. In other words being diverse is not a value in itself.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Anon
  34. utu says:

    I am on the “wow” side. For those who find 15% to be not much, I like pointing out that class of origin probably accounts for only 3%.

    First of all it is closer to 11-13%. Second James Lee et al. (2018 Nature Genetics) use around ~1 million genetic variants. Which means 10% of all SNPs there are in human genome. And you won’t find this information it in their paper but must look for it in their FAQ document. Their paper misleads one to believe that it is all about the 1,271 leading SNPs they identified with GWAS.

    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/journey-of-1-1-million-miles/#comment-2436546

    Taken together, these 1,271 SNPs accounted for just 3.9% of the variation across individuals in years of education completed.

    As discussed in FAQ 1.5, we can create an index using the GWAS results from around ~1 million genetic variants. Such an index is called a “polygenic score.”

    The polygenic score we constructed “predicts” (see FAQ 1.4) around 11% of the variation in education across individuals (when tested in independent data that was not included in the GWAS). This ~1 million SNP polygenic score predicts much more of the variation than does the genetic predictor described in FAQ 2.2, which was based on only 1,271 SNPs. Including all ~1 million SNPs tends to add predictive power because the threshold for significance/inclusion that is used to identify the 1,271 SNPs is very conservative (i.e., many of the other ~1 million SNPs are also associated with educational attainment but are not identified by our study, and on net, it turns out empirically that more signal than noise is added by including them).

    The research has stagnated and the missing heritability gap is not being closed meaning that either (1) the heritability derived from twin studies is grossly overestimated as some critics always have been pointing out or (2) the research has been taken to the secret government labs in order to ‘weaponize’ it.

  35. @Brás Cubas

    But there is a criterion to measure superiority or inferiority : the ability to create or – in case of borrowing – sustain a civilization. In this races (sorry…”continental populations”) are widely different. See how Rhodesia became Zimbabwe and draw your conclusions.

    • Replies: @Just passing through
  36. Ghali says:

    This is really astonishing. Charles Murray, is NOT “an Enlightenment Regular Guy”. He is a biggoted racist. His co-authored “studies” – if one can call studies – have been rejected with hard evidence and empirical data.

    • LOL: iffen
    • Troll: Thulean Friend, Alfred
    • Replies: @Jim bob lassiter
    , @res
    , @utu
  37. dearieme says:
    @ThreeCranes

    But the book is not about how we differ from other animals.

  38. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Civilisation is over-rated. Especially modern civilisation which has lead to the proliferation of bugmen.

    Life as a Negro in Zimbabwe must be far more interesting that life as a White, as the former’s days will consist of feeding off savage machete attacks and getting food, while the latter’s will consist of waiting for the new iPhone to be released.

  39. Alfred says:
    @RJJCDA

    Why don’t we subsidize high IQ?

    You don’t need the government interfering to do that.

    Do as I do. Marry and have kids with as many beautiful smart women as you can. 🙂

  40. Alfred says:
    @Kratoklastes

    I consciously decided in my mid-teens that I never wanted to have kids

    By not having kids, you have wasted whatever your parents did to create you.

    I have met lots of people like you. They are best described as extremely self-centered. The fact that you are also the first-born explains a lot. Hopefully, it is not too late for you to change your mind. 🙂

  41. @Just passing through

    Perhaps “more interesting”, but can he create himself an iPhone? What kind of people have created such stuff?

  42. It is the same with black and white differences, that problem cannot be solved by separation.

    The reduced friction and higher levels of social trust found in monocultural entities, be they neighborhoods or nations, belies this opinion.

  43. Surprised there aren’t more women on the list!!! Everyone in the ad industry knows women are higher IQ, faster, stronger & better than men.

    Even the great Irish-Amerjcan Henry Ford knows that & how honest the scots-irish are. That’s why his new ad shows a frumpy bald ‘female’ boxer knocking out a male boxer. We can see how strong they are with the black-as-spades, northern as a dumb rock, frumpy as a dungaree-wearing obese sjw at a kdlamg concert winning gold. Bet the only reason she wasn’t allowed to take on the men is the patriachu would be too embarrassed!

    It’s not like the (((ARSE))) ate shyster swarthy rats who tell 6 million lies per ad! iIRC every uppity bull who takes on a man in the Ant Middleton show has knocked him spark out!!!!!!

  44. Truth3 says:

    I don’t see Kike-istan on the list of regions.

  45. Illegal unlimited immigration and no borders is the zionist plan to destroy America.

  46. “Do that make some groups purer than others?”

    I ain’t sure ’bout dat, but it do seem like it do.

    OK, call out the SS Grammarian Korps for a little Socratic discussion.

  47. res says:
    @utu

    What did you think of the AFD paper I linked above? It compares a few measures of population differentiation. Also note the correction.
    Allele Frequency Difference AFD–An Intuitive Alternative to FST for Quantifying Genetic Population Differentiation
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6523497/
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6826353/

    Attempt to combine captions from original paper and correction (neither is sufficient by itself).

    Population differentiation expressed by different metrics. Magnitude of genetic differentiation at a bi-allelic single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) along the continuum of allele frequency differentiation between two populations (top graphs). Differentiation is quantified by the absolute allele frequency difference (AFD), by two popular estimators of FST (GST and Theta), by DEST, and by Shannon differentiation (DShannon). The X-axis specifies the underlying allele counts in population 1 (first row) and population 2 (second row) for two hypothetical alleles (A, C), assuming a draw of 40 total alleles per population at the exact allele frequencies in each population (no sampling stochasticity). The third row gives the frequency of the less common SNP allele across the pool of the two population samples (i.e., the pooled minor allele frequency, MAF). The SNP is specified to exhibit a maximal MAF in (a) and a minimal MAF in (b) (for the latter, DShannon is undefined mathematically). The bar plots on the bottom illustrate the counts of the two alleles for three levels of differentiation (none, intermediate, complete). Note that some metrics are undefined at the endpoints of the differentiation continuum, and that in (a), DEST very closely approximates Theta and is therefore hidden.

    Population differentiation expressed by different metrics, including re-calculated Shannon differentiation (DShannon). GST and Theta were calculated according to the formulas (8) and (6) provided in Reference [28] in the paper. DEST was calculated using formula (13) in Reference [14]. All graphing conventions follow Figure 1 in the paper.

    You can see the lower values for the Shannon distance you mentioned. As well as how low all of the traditional estimators are in the midrange.

    • Replies: @res
    , @utu
  48. res says:
    @Ghali

    The other responses (reply and flags) have pretty much covered this, but it is worth emphasizing how worthless comments that talk about something having been “rejected” (or “refuted”, “debunked”, etc.) without including evidence are.

    The misspelling of “bigoted” is a nice bonus.

  49. res says:
    @res

    Argh. Included the wrong version of the graphic.

  50. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Dieter Kief

    It is at times quite harmful to survival to have many kids.

    But for nations to have fewer children than sufficient to maintain their numbers while importing people of alien race, religion and culture is suicidal.

    Yet suicide by suppressed native fertility and mass replacement immigration is what all Western nations are presently engaged in, and anyone who opposes this self-genocide is, as a matter of national policy, condemned as a racist.

    So judged in terms of survival, the peoples of the West are unquestionably inferior to the philoprogenitive races of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle-East where those who are to replace us derive.

    • Replies: @Just passing through
  51. @Godfree Roberts

    Because it’s not about the Chinese but the true blue Americans!

  52. @CanSpeccy

    If this replacement was happening with the natives at gunpoint, you could give the natives.

    However, if this replacement is happening due to the parties people elect, you can’t blame anyone but the natives, at least here in Europe where there is a presence of viable ethnic nationalist parties. If people really get put off putting a cross next to a ‘racist’ party because they think it will pollute their soul and make them a ‘racist’, then the natives deserved to get replaced.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  53. @Jim bob lassiter

    Africa will never have an incel problem because rape is de facto legal there. Rape and sexual assault laws are just another toxic product of civilisation, a construct that takes us farther away from our base, and primitive instinct that feed the soul.

  54. Anon[147] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    “there is more diversity within Africa than between it and other continental populations…”

    Perhaps its because Africa contains subpopulations from other continents: ie look at northeast, Saharan vs sub Saharan, and east African…also, there are colossal selection pressure differences…

    Whereas other continents don’t have the African components from sub Saharan Africa,…

    ???

    • Replies: @res
  55. utu says:
    @res

    Looks like a paper written by a student who did not get good math background.

    – That he did not realize that p*ln(p) has a limit at p–>0 and thus is defined by its limit is embarrassing.

    – He uses the term of population differentiation which is confusing, it belongs to a different category hinting on the process of differentiation while what he is dealing with is the difference, distance between two populations and how they become so is irrelevant.

    He should have provided formulas for all measures he is comparing.

    And to be general one should start with definition(s) of genetic distance between individuals and only then proceed to the distance between populations.

    Consider two populations A and B defined by two SNPs that have the following elements:

    A={(1,1), (0,0)} and B={(1,0), (0,1)}.

    In each frequencies of markers f1=0.5 and f2=0.5 are the same. So if you define any measure that is solely based on frequencies the distance between the two population will be zero. Yet the populations do not have identical individuals.

    – Personally I believe that using Shannon index has no justification whatsoever. First of all because it is not symmetrical around p=0.5. Two populations with p=0.25 and p=0.75, respectively have the same diversity but this is not so according to Shannon index.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Anti-HBD
  56. @James N. Kennett

    “When the orthodox theory was constructed for political and social reasons before the experimental evidence was available, there is no particular reason why it should turn out to be correct.”– However the orthodox theory was constructed long after lyin’ eyes were universally ubiquitous.

  57. @Dieter Kief

    Clearly the blitzkrieg conquest of Latin America by Iberians and their survival prospects would have been greatly jeopardized or rendered a complete bloodbath had they brought white women and kids in the initial critical stages.

  58. res says:
    @Anon

    That might be part of it. Another part of it (this is probably what you meant by your last sentence, but worth elaborating IMHO) is the presence of African subpopulations which split off longer ago than the dominant out of Africa effect. One example of this is the San.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235245621_Genomic_Variation_in_Seven_Khoe-San_Groups_Reveals_Adaptation_and_Complex_African_History

    Do you think the selection pressure differences within Africa are larger than the differences in the rest of the world? That seems non-intuitive to me. I think the explanation has more to do with time available for differentiation.

  59. @BingoBoingo

    This is a modern version of Galileo’s challenge to the approved religion of his time. So many have a personal interest in supporting the accepted belief that any threat is perceived as anathema. And they will oppose it with all the power they have without regard to elements of fairness.

    Another thing is that there has never been a fair fight. And never will be. Might makes right, or in the words of Chairman Mao, political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. Opposing relationships always take the form of predator / prey.

  60. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Just passing through

    If people really get put off putting a cross next to a ‘racist’ party because they think it will pollute their soul and make them a ‘racist’, then the natives deserved to get replaced.

    To continue the discussion of the premise that the superiority or otherwise of the races of humanity is to be judged by their ability simply to survive — in other words, to equate superiority with Darwinian fitness — we must recognize that human superiority is a feature chiefly, not of individuals, but of cultures and civilizations. And judging the existing races of mankind in that light, it seems pretty certain that the white races are doomed unless they achieve a radical cultural course correction.

    That is the theme of this interview of Charles Murray by Jonathan van Maren:

    In brief, Murray’s comments can, perhaps, be summarized thus:

    The European peoples, including those of the US and other former British white colonies are in a culturally determined death spiral driven by an upper class pursuing a culture at odds with the traditions of Western Civilization.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  61. res says:
    @utu

    Looks like a paper written by a student who did not get good math background.

    True. The lack of equations in the paper is a good tipoff. Do you have a better analysis to recommend? I was just happy to find a comparison of metrics.

    He should have provided formulas for all measures he is comparing.

    Agreed. He at least gives references in the corrected figure caption. Presenting equations here is a pain, but I’ll try to give direct references to allow looking at them easily. After looking at the equations it is a bit easier to understand why he did not include them inline.

    AFD – defined on page 3 of the paper. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6523497/
    G_ST – According to the caption this is equation 8 in reference 28 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3759727/ Described as “Nei’s estimator” there.
    Theta – According to the caption this is equation 6 in in reference 28 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3759727/ Described as “Weir and Cockerham’s FST (WC)” there.
    D_EST – According to the caption this is equation 13 in reference 14 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19238703 Full text is on Sci-Hub. Described as “D_est_Chao” there.
    D_Shannon – For this he mentions references 43-45. 45 has free full text: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4465833/ but I am not sure exactly which equation the paper used.

    BTW, reference 28 mentioned multiple times above looks like a good read on this topic (notice Nick Patterson in the list of authors, I think he has plenty of math background ; )
    Estimating and interpreting FST: The impact of rare variants
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3759727/

    Abstract
    In a pair of seminal papers, Sewall Wright and Gustave Malécot introduced FST as a measure of structure in natural populations. In the decades that followed, a number of papers provided differing definitions, estimation methods, and interpretations beyond Wright’s. While this diversity in methods has enabled many studies in genetics, it has also introduced confusion regarding how to estimate FST from available data. Considering this confusion, wide variation in published estimates of FST for pairs of HapMap populations is a cause for concern. These estimates changed—in some cases more than twofold—when comparing estimates from genotyping arrays to those from sequence data. Indeed, changes in FST from sequencing data might be expected due to population genetic factors affecting rare variants. While rare variants do influence the result, we show that this is largely through differences in estimation methods. Correcting for this yields estimates of FST that are much more concordant between sequence and genotype data. These differences relate to three specific issues: (1) estimating FST for a single SNP, (2) combining estimates of FST across multiple SNPs, and (3) selecting the set of SNPs used in the computation. Changes in each of these aspects of estimation may result in FST estimates that are highly divergent from one another. Here, we clarify these issues and propose solutions.

    • Replies: @utu
  62. @Just passing through

    Civilisation is over-rated. Especially modern civilisation which has lead to the proliferation of bugmen.

    True. It all started with the invention of the electric stove, which replaced the wood stove. This ended the need for women to chop wood for the stove. Followed by a veritable cornucopia of labor saving appliances which have all but eliminated the need for what once was called “womens work”.

    Suddenly, in geologic time, women found themselves with time on their hands. It has allowed them to become politically active and to work seriously towards ending the patriarchy. The same one that invented the electric stove.

    Women no longer have to persuade their menfolk that they know best in order to have a say in how things are run. They simply get together and organise things themselves.

    A recent example of their skills in these areas was the recent Democratic caucus in the great state of Iowa.

  63. What the heck, I’ll say it–when the crap really hits the fan and an Armeggedon scenario occurs it won’t matter who someone thinks are the smartest people on Earth, because then it will be obvious who the smartest people on Earth are: the Namib and Kalahari Bushmen, who as hunter-gatherers in a land without underground water and collect dew on leaves and have survived for thousands of years on little water and having to hunt large animals, wear and process animal skins, have no guns that I know of and generally get along with each other (no tribal warfares) and have no sense of land ownership and are nomadic and speak with clicks…when the crap hits the fan, in order to survive we will all have to learn from them-Bush Craft.==from a female former teacher of HS math including calculus, as well as present-day author.

  64. @CanSpeccy

    The world of David Goodhart’s Anywheres is not the same as the world of his Somewheres. The upper classes of the West are doing well – but they bond rather with the world than with the deplorables at home. So Charles Murray could be understood as opposing the idea, that rationality should exclusively be equated with economic effectiveness?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  65. @Adrian E.

    I think there are important political consequences for what kind of left-wing ideas are seen as promising (using left-wing in the sense of attempting to reduce inequality, that could include conservatives who also care about inequality not becoming too large).

    Adrien E

    Left-wing, Right-wing arguments are in my opinion, the reason why we see so much inequality in this world. Each take their views to an extreme extent in their quest for power and history has time and time again showed us how those events have decimated the “Middle-wing”! By middle-wing, I’m referring to those of us that just want to live a normal happy life, free from violence and endless power struggles. Both (L and R) try to contain the other from becoming too large (Dominant), while the TPTB work both sides against each other creating an almost 50-50 divide.

    I believe the British sold their soul to the Zionist when they allowed them to return. The British Empire was the result of that union and to this day remains as the dominant power thanks to the cooperation of the United States. The Portuguese and Spanish Jews that immigrated to England definitely played a major role in England’s rise to power. Don’t you find it interesting that this evaluation of Murry’s work fails to mention the Jewish influence in creating inequality?

    In my opinion there is something missing in this evaluation of demographic areas, racial differences and higher or lower IQ levels. There is a moral and spiritual level missing and that difference has nothing to do with demographics, race or IQ.

    I see no difference in the actions of Anglo politicians and bankers in the US from that of the Spanish politicians and bankers in Mexico even tho they come from different demographic areas and culture. The Mexican Banking crisis of the nineties and the US bank bailout in 2008 both had the same impact on the citizens of each country, they both were paid by the taxpayers. What did they produce? Tremendous inequality between the rich person and average citizen. That type of inequality has nothing to do with right, left, center, nor demographics, race or IQ and everything to do with lacking moral and spiritual convictions.

    “Power” is what drives inequality between people and the more power the more inequality!

    This is just the opinion of someone who has lived in the US and Mexico.

  66. Anti-HBD says:
    @utu

    Personally I believe that using Shannon index has no justification whatsoever. First of all because it is not symmetrical around p=0.5. Two populations with p=0.25 and p=0.75, respectively have the same diversity but this is not so according to Shannon index.

    But it has been established in genetic literature since Lewontin. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1512/1512.02324.pdf

    Of course, there are several limitations in applying Fst to human data in the first place. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/381884/pdf?casa_token=_09_Yn-UFgQAAAAA:rXcKpbFjoPp-HG6lguB25FMcIc62CfqkvuGqAXtQuIQsGXAxFtgFNN_CeXim-2kqfevpI71eEA

    • Replies: @utu
  67. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Dieter Kief

    The upper classes of the West are doing well – but they bond rather with the world than with the deplorables at home.

    If so, that would indicate that our elites are for the genocide of their own people, aiming to mongrelize both their own posterity and the proletariat, the latter in due course to be comprised chiefly of the H-1b visa immigrant class, while the rest are to “wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight”* under the influence of so-called sex “education” (i.e., the promotion of sexual deviancy, abortion and infanticide), opiates and porn: a scenario, that seems to make pointless any debate about the relative merits of the races of mankind.

    One wonders, though, how the traditionally racially supremacist Jews fit into this scheme. Is it possible that their ancient imperative to go forth, multiply and rule over the nations of the earth is about to be realized? Seems to have been Jeffrey Epstein’s idea with his baby farm, and his allegiance to a foreign power. If so, it will confirm that culture trumps genes in the survival stakes — unless, that is, Jewish racism and culture are genetically determined.
    __________
    * This graphic description of what is now happening to the European peoples are the words of the Jewish legal scholar, Raphael Lemkin, coiner of the term “genocide.”

  68. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    Apologies for not replying to your other posts just yet, I will soon but having a busy day today.

    I had meant to link you a paper about PCAs earlier but forgot so I am doing so now.
    I would be interested in your opinion on it: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10955-017-1770-6

    A system with many degrees of freedom can be characterized by a covariance matrix; principal components analysis focuses on the eigenvalues of this matrix, hoping to find a lower dimensional description. But when the spectrum is nearly continuous, any distinction between components that we keep and those that we ignore becomes arbitrary; it then is natural to ask what happens as we vary this arbitrary cutoff. We argue that this problem is analogous to the momentum shell renormalization group. Following this analogy, we can define relevant and irrelevant operators, where the role of dimensionality is played by properties of the eigenvalue density. These results also suggest an approach to the analysis of real data. As an example, we study neural activity in the vertebrate retina as it responds to naturalistic movies, and find evidence of behavior controlled by a nontrivial fixed point. Applied to financial data, our analysis separates modes dominated by sampling noise from a smaller but still macroscopic number of modes described by a non-Gaussian distribution.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @res
  69. @Adrian E.

    I don’t know where you reside, but from your comments, I suspect it is the US.
    Your generalized statement about “Anglosaxon political culture, often a distinction between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity is drawn” has no context. Fifty years ago, the “Anglosaxon political culture” was not only different from what it is today, but markedly different between the US, and the rest of the “Anglosaxon world”. I have personally seen the successful export of the US brand to the UK and Canada, and in discussions with friends from NZ and Oz, it appears to be much the same.
    One simple example is the conversion of education into a commodity. In the US, it has always been exclusively a commodity purchased as an investment to higher earnings, whereas in the rest of the Anglosaxon world it was that to a great degree, but a very important personal achievement as well. There were dozens of university grads who completed their field of study, yet went on to work in totally unrelated fields out of choice, sometimes jobs requiring manual labour.

    As for the “socialism” aspect, including social democracies, you fail to grasp the central proposition behind the rise of socialism – finance capital. Under the guild system, which was dismantled, the crafts owned the means of production. That meant nothing could be produced, or service rendered, for sale unless it was provided through a master craftsman of the trade. The worker owned the means of production, not someone sitting in a corporate office 200 miles away that had no understanding of local conditions or the nuances of the trade itself. The socialists saw co-operatives as the means to reclaim the production from finance capital.
    The social democracies that existed 50 years ago are very different from the ones presented as social democracies today. Denmark, Sweden, and Norway had very low rates of immigration, and insisted those immigrants integrate or be deported. That meant there was a smaller pool of “excess” labour, therefore, closer to full employment. I’d say that is a fairly good understanding of genetics. They didn’t want their own polluted by outsiders and their ideas. They supported their own industries, and provided the best and brightest with free post secondary education, earned through standardized testing of graduating secondary school students. They recognized people weren’t equal, but also understood the cost of high income disparity. There is a high correlation between poverty and poor health, as well as poverty and the need for social services. Compressing income inequality reduced the cost of health and social services and provided more discretionary income to the lowest levels, which meant they too, could participate to a greater extent, in the economy. This was easy to achieve in Scandinavia because of the homogeneous population, which, to a greater or lesser degree was all related.
    The old Scandinavian model can no longer work, just as the old Anglosaxon political culture cannot work today, due the loss of trust through high levels of immigration. What is happening today cannot be thought of in old left/right terms. It’s the (((globalists))) and their useful idiots against the nationalists, and the (((globalists))) are far, far, ahead.
    As for meritocracy, that is a myth in the capitalist world. While it may be highly desirable the old shop floor saying “they hire what they see in the mirror” rings loud and clear.

  70. @Kratoklastes

    “one of the main reasons I consciously decided in my mid-teens that I never wanted to have kids – apart from the fact that they are stupid and expensive – is that the likelihood that I and any prospective partner could do as good a job as my parents, is as near to zero as makes no odds. ”

    This is such a weak and self serving excuse, but does help explain why you are such a miserable and angry young man.

    Children, more than anything, give us purpose for reasons that should be painfully obvious.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  71. I can’t resist.

    Dr. Thompson claims that Dr. Murray’s work rests on direct cause and effect as opposed to correlation. but in less than three paragraphs the contend turns on —

    allele frequency observations. maybe I missed something since the last time some Mr. Fuentes wanna called on me note the genetic codes of dog breeds that indicate various races of dogs . . . because he couldn’t identify the genetic markers for intelligence. Two separate issues creed is reflection of adaptation not species . . .

    Nonetheless, the frequencies of alleles are correlations, now unless I misunderstood, that is not direct cause to effect. But are associations to IQ based on population samples — to biology and from there the speculative to cognition.

    ————————-

    “But it has been established in genetic literature since Lewontin. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1512/1512.02324.pdf

    Of course, there are several limitations in applying Fst to human data in the first place. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/381884/pdf?casa_token=_09_Yn-UFgQAAAAA:rXcKpbFjoPp-HG6lguB25FMcIc62CfqkvuGqAXtQuIQsGXAxFtgFNN_CeXim-2kqfevpI71eEA”

    I appreciated the above links. informative.

  72. ricpic says:

    Apparently, according to James Thompson, you can’t have “high human worth” if you support the death penalty. What piffle.

    • Replies: @iffen
  73. utu says:
    @Anti-HBD

    But it has been established in genetic literature since Lewontin. – Lewontin should not be taken as mathematical oracle. He for instance mixes up concavity with convexity in his famous paper. My objection to using Shannon index stands when the index is used incorrectly as p*logp but if it is used as p*logp+(1-p)*log(1-p) then it is symmetric and I can’t object. However, I still believe that Shannon’s appeal is a pure hype that existed in the era of 1950s when the buzzword: information theory, entropy, cybernetics were very hard to resist by the pretentious class in the soft sciences.

    there are several limitations in applying Fst – Fst does not have to depend on Shannon index. Fst is a measure of distance between two or more populations expressed in terms of global diversity. The global diversity can be measured with different formulas. Among them one is Shannon index which Lewontin used but he also wrote the formula 2p(1-p) which has a very simple justification and explanation as distance in terms of very intuitive and agreeable Hamming metric.

    The issue of population size is a red herring or a sign of a serious confusion. When calculating the distance between populations they always have to be ‘normalized’ and treated as if they had the same size. The same goes for ‘evolving independently’ statements which also indicate confusion…

  74. utu says:
    @Ghali

    You came to a wrong place, Ghali. Most people here are racists though most of them will object when asked. So, to make it clear for you: James Thompson is a racist and the fabulous commenter ‘res’ are racists. Now, are they also bigoted racists, I can’t tell as I never understood what the enhancing adjective bigoted really mean. Charles Murray is much much worse than racist or bigoted racist. He is a despicable human being. I suspect that James Thompson has the same despicability index. As far as our fabulous commenter ‘res’ is concerned he is a good guy, just confused and running with a wrong crowd. Some spanking should fix him but Murray and Thompson are beyond salvation for human race.

  75. Anon[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I’d ask what the “spectrum is nearly continuous” means here. When doing PCA analysis, you can get a number on the “percent of variation” described by each principle component, with the first components being chosen to explain more variation than the subsequent.

    The first two PC of the human genome, I believe, capture over 85% of the variation in the genome. It might be simply the first component that captures 85% of the variation.

  76. Anon[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    I don’t think there is such thing as a variance of a set. I’ll need a link; I think your wording is wrong.
    As far as I know, there is only variance of random variables, and statistical “variance” formulas (based on probability theory plus some assumptions).

    Combined variance also falls under the umbrella of my criticism, which is about the true definition of variance (in probability) vs the more convenient but inaccurate approximations of variance used in statistics&data analysis (such as “sample variance” or “combined variance”). My argument is that the statistical measure doesn’t really represent the mathematical measure, which itself might not even give you a picture of the “similarity” of the different populations!

    The layman can’t help but to imagine variance as “spread” of a “data cloud,” but it is not such a thing.

    BTW, the f(1-f) formula for variance of a single SNP is given from the solution of variance for a random variable of a Bernoulli distribution, which is a sensible way to do it.

    • Replies: @utu
  77. Anon[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    My understanding is that it is very difficult to get solutions for covariances, and that there are many possible solutions. The finance industry likes to force-fit using things called “copulas.”

    I suppose you are right about the selection of phenotype.

  78. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Anon nailed it. Except for the 85% comment. That might be true in very specific cases, but 10-25% for the first two PCs seems more typical. It depends greatly on the populations involved.

    This paper does a PCA of 1000 Genomes data excluding various admixed populations. I thought you might enjoy their clusters.
    https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/33/4/1082/2579427

    Here is some explanatory text:

    Since we are interested in selective pressures that occurred during the human diaspora out of Africa, we decide to exclude individuals whose genetic makeup is the result of recent admixture events (African Americans, Columbians, Puerto Ricans, and Mexicans). The first three principal components capture population structure whereas the following components separate individuals within populations (fig. 3 and supplementary fig. S11, Supplementary Material online). The first and second PCs ascertain population structure between Africa, Asia, and Europe (fig. 3) and the third principal component separates the Yoruba from the Luhya population (supplementary fig. S11, Supplementary Material online). The decay of eigenvalues suggests to use K = 2 because the eigenvalues drop between K = 2 and K = 3 where a plateau of eigenvalues is reached (supplementary fig. S3, Supplementary Material online).

    Supplementary Figure S3 (see link at paper) gives a plot of the variance explained for the first 20 PCs (the lower left panel is for their 1000 Genomes data). It is anything but continuous, PC1 explains over 30% of the variance and PC2 explains 15% of the variance. The remainder of the PCs explain less than 1% of variance each. Looking at that plot should make clear that the cutoff at K=2 is anything but arbitrary in this case.

    P.S. That seems like a really random paper to bring into the conversation. What prompted you to bring it up? Are you throwing darts at the wall now?

    • Replies: @utu
  79. utu says:
    @Anon

    “My argument is that the statistical measure doesn’t really represent the mathematical measure”. – Really? Why not go further. Read Lebesgue and Kolmogorov and have an argument with them. You want to obfuscate and argue in bad faith go somewhere else and GFY.

  80. utu says:
    @res

    I looked at Gaurav Bhatia, Nick Patterson at al. paper (thanks)

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3759727/

    and I think I found the chief source of confusion about the fixation index, its definitions and its meaning.

    Wright (1949) defined FST as the correlation of randomly drawn gametes from the same population, relative to the total population. However, he did not clearly specify the “total population,” leaving subsequent investigators to interpret its meaning. For Nei (1973) the “total population” is the combination of the two population samples. This means that FST quantifies drift relative to an average of the two population samples. For Cockerham (1969) and WH, the “total” population is the most recent common ancestral population to the two populations being considered. Consistent with those investigators, we view FST as a parameter of the evolutionary process and not a statistic from observed samples as Nei has described.

    I come from the 2nd school that is only interested in the statistic, where Fst is a measure of difference between two (or more) populations. I look at populations as sets of text strings (DNA) where one establishes a metric to measure distance between two different strings. Once you define a metric between strings you can define a measure of distance between populations. Then you can define population diversity which actually is population’s distance form itself. The bottom line is I am not interested in Fst as a parameter of the evolutionary process. For me it is just a measure of distance.

    When you deal with an allele that is either 0 or 1 the measure of diversity is actually a variance. When however the allele can be 0, 1 or 2 then variance no longer can be defined uniquely because it produces different results depending which allele value is assigned 1 or 2. You switch 2 with 1 and you get different variance. BTW, Lewontin was aware of it. Nevertheless the analogy of variance is useful for measure of diversity. Diversity has a property like variance, i.e., it is (must be) a concave function:

    f(X u Y)≥ [f(X)+f(Y)]/2 where “u” is operator of union of sets (a combined samples). The residual that balances this inequality is proportional to the fixation index. The fixation index is that residual divided by f(X u Y).

    • Replies: @res
  81. utu says:
    @res

    Don’t you find it interesting that when you show all populations in 2-D PC space the variance of EU population and AFR population are comparable and more importantly the distance between them is much larger that the variances?

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
    , @res
  82. @Kratoklastes

    Meaninful byte, advancing the discussion, science as matters according as to the bulb in which it is contained. Human nature is the closure, fencing expression of planet and bioshere.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  83. @MikeatMikedotMike

    Yes, I think he should reassess what the wisdom of his mid teens came up with. (I was shocked to find that s young Chinese engineer I had hot yo know when he wrote some software for me has settled for only one child though living in Australia and havinng told me that being the “one child” in Shanghai was “lonely”).

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  84. iffen says:
    @ricpic

    I noticed the death penalty mention as well. My idea of kindness skews more toward the victims of crime and criminals rather than toward the criminal.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    , @CanSpeccy
  85. @Wizard of Oz

    “s young Chinese engineer I had hot yo know”

    Is this code for something? Was there sex involved?

    • LOL: CanSpeccy
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  86. @iffen

    Well then I hope you can always discern which is which.

  87. Anti-HBD says:
    @utu

    I am curious, so do you hold Fst to be valid for human populations?

    In addition, if we hold Fst valid, what do you make of this paper using Fst to quantify human population differences?
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927186v1.abstract

    The highest global FST was that of humans. The rate of human gene
    flow was estimated to be 20, thus indicating that 20 effective individuals migrated per generation between subpopulations. Because this global FST estimate was inferred using neutral microsatellite markers, it should reflect the random mating history of humans within and between populations, such as from migration events (Diamond 522 1997; Rutherford 2016; Nielsen et al. 2017).

    @res, disclaimer, yes that paper was sent to me by a geneticist.

    The issue of population size is a red herring or a sign of a serious confusion. When calculating the distance between populations they always have to be ‘normalized’ and treated as if they had the same size. The same goes for ‘evolving independently’ statements which also indicate confusion…

    Why would the ‘evolving independently part’ indicate confusion? It is a fact human populations are not evolving independently, is it not?

    • Replies: @res
  88. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @PetrOldSack

    Meaninful byte, advancing the discussion, science as matters according as to the bulb in which it is contained. Human nature is the closure, fencing expression of planet and bioshere.

    Absolutely. No one’s going to disagree with that.

  89. res says:
    @utu

    Thanks for highlighting that passage. By “2nd school” did you mean Nei’s interpretation (my guess) or Cockerham’s? I tend to prefer Nei’s interpretation because it is better defined (only needs current observations) and focuses on current populations.

    Patterson works with David Reich analyzing ancient genomes. Perhaps that is the reason he (and the rest of the group, not sure of their respective roles) prefers the Cockerham interpretation?

    Having more than 2 alleles for a SNP is uncommon, though perhaps less so than commonly thought. See this paper:
    Multiallelic Positions in the Human Genome: Challenges for Genetic Analyses
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4752396/

    Caption:

    Figure 1
    Observation of multiallelic positions increases with cohort size. To assess the relationship between cohort size and the proportion of sites observed to be multiallelic, we resampled the HGSC cohort to produce random subsets of various sizes. On the x-axis the number of individuals in the sub-sampled cohorts and on the y-axis is the median proportion of sites observed to be multiallelic across samples. The red line corresponds to a fitted non-linear model, while the dotted line corresponds to a linear model. This model suggests that the challenges that result from multiallelic sites increase with cohort size. The observed fractions for the Center for Mendelian Genomics (CMG) and Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) sub-cohorts are also plotted.

    Anyone know how Fst calculations account for multiallelic positions in practice?

    FWIW, the UKBB has multiallelic positions. I did not find anything especially informative about them in their documentation, but I suspect there is good information in there somewhere.

  90. res says:
    @utu

    Yes. That was the basis of my snarky clusters comment.

    However, I think that is at least partly an artifact of the sampling process for the study and the omission of the admixed populations.

    Important to note that the variance between groups is much larger for the first two PCs. Those clusters will likely vary in other PCs (though in this particular example less than half the variance remains after PC1 and PC2).

    One way in which the hierarchical nature of race/population shows up is in the finer divisions of the tree being accounted for by later PCs.

    • Replies: @utu
  91. utu says:
    @res

    I still find it somewhat puzzling that calculated Fst values suggest that difference between populations is small (say Fst=0.15) when expressed in terms of their total diversity while when showing the same populations on the 2-D plot in terms of PCs it seems that distances between populations seem to be large.

    Is it partly because Fst is ratio of variances while on the 2-D plot we see distances that are root squares of variances? Sqrt(0.15)=0.397, 15% vs. 40%.

    Is it also because the denominator in Fst calculation is a total diversity that includes the distance between populations which means that the distance implied by Fst appears to be smaller.

    Since Lewontin the meme that Fst is small is being pushed and people are persuaded that differences between races are smaller than their internal diversity but when you look at 2-D plots in PC axes it is not so. That’s why the Lewontin meme should be counteracted with the meme of 2-D plots in PC axes.

    • Replies: @res
  92. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @iffen

    I noticed the death penalty mention as well. My idea of kindness skews more toward the victims of crime and criminals rather than toward the criminal.

    Where intelligence comes in is in understanding that whereas the verdict of judge or jury can be reversed, being hanged cannot.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @res
  93. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    @res, disclaimer, yes that paper was sent to me by a geneticist.

    And what point did he (?) think it makes? The conversation is much more interesting if you say what you (or your source) think then ask us for our views rather than playing the “what do you think” game while revealing nothing of YOUR thoughts. Or, if you are afraid of biasing our responses (my usual reason for behaving as you are), at least clarify your take after someone else responds. This is one of the games which makes you look insincere.

    Regarding “inferred using neutral microsatellite markers,” what is it that makes people think it is sensible to ignore non-neutral sites for analyzing human population genetic differences in the context of races (which are usually colloquially defined by phenotypic differences). Have I not been emphatic enough above about the most interesting trait differences likely having been subject to selection?! I guess their point is trying to focus on drift to estimate gene flow.

    About that paper. First, this is relevant to some comments above:

    Pairwise FST
    We used Nei and Chesser’s (1983) bias-corrected GST estimator (NC83) for estimating pairwise FST over loci in our analysis:
    (Equation 4 omitted)
    where H_T and H_S are the unbiased estimators of total and within-population heterozygosity, respectively (Supplemental Note), with each variance component obtained from its moments. GST (Nei 1973) is defined “by using the gene frequencies at the present population, so that no assumption is required about the pedigrees of individuals, selection, and migration in the past” (Nei 1977). GST (Nei 1973) assumes no evolutionary history (Holsinger and Weir 2009), while NC83 does not consider any population replicates (Weir and Cockerham 1984). Our pairwise FST values obtained from NC83 therefore measured current population structures based on a fixed set of samples of subpopulations.

    Genome-wide and locus-specific global FST
    We used Weir and Cockerham’s (1984) 𝜃 (WC84) for estimating global FST over all loci (genome-wide FST) as given by Equation 10 in the original study:

    If I read correctly they are using the HGDP-CEPH data for humans. They only used 377 loci (looks like the dataset from the original 2002 paper). Why use 2002 data for a 2020 paper in genetics?!
    Note that dataset 2 in V3.0 of that data contains 650k SNPS: http://www.cephb.fr/hgdp/

    You highlight global Fst being highest for humans, but fail to mention how similar the values were:

    The global FST estimate ± standard error (SE) was unexpectedly similar for the three cases. The estimate was 0.0488 ± 0.0012 for humans with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.025. The value for Atlantic cod, 0.0424 ± 0.0026 (CV=0.061), was slightly lower than that of human populations. The lowest global FST estimate was for wild poplar, 0.0415 ± 0.0002 (CV 357 = 0.005), which was slightly lower than the estimate for Atlantic cod.

    Did you happen to notice this excerpt? You are familiar with the term “own goal,” right?

    On the basis of pairwise FST values, the populations were divided into five clusters: 1) Africa, 2) the Middle East, Europe and Central/South Asia, 3) East Asia, 4) Oceania and 5) America (Figure 1B). As indicated by sampling points with FST values below the 0.02 threshold (connected by yellow lines in Figure 1C), gene flow from Africa was low. Gene flow was substantial within Eurasia but was much smaller than that inferred from that continent to Oceania and America (Figure 1C).

    Your quote is from page 23 (you might note when you excise a parenthetical equation from a quote, BTW). The equation they give is 𝜃 = 1 / Fst – 1 referencing the Supplemental Note (I was unable to find that equation there, anyone?). They use a global Fst estimate for humans of 0.0488 to estimate a migration rate of 20 (BTW, if you do the math it is actually 19.49, which rounds to 19).

    This compares to Wright’s equation used by Greg Cochran here:
    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/gene-flow/
    Another reference gives Wright’s equation as Fst = 1/(4Nm+1) http://www.ufscar.br/~evolucao/TGE/Lect06.pdf
    Cochran rearranges that to
    Nm = (1 / Fst – 1) / 4
    He uses an estimate of CEU-YRI Fst of 0.165 to calculate a migration rate of 1.26 (I actually get 1.265 which should round to 1.27).

    Those equations are the same except for the factor of 4. Perhaps your geneticist friend can comment on that? Because the version in your/his paper seems like the less conventional take.

    Using Wright’s equation with the paper Fst we get 4.87 migrants per generation. This leaves a factor of 3.8 difference in the migration estimates caused by the differing Fst estimates. I think this can be attributed to looking at an extreme pairwise Fst vs. the global Fst (roughly an average of the pairwise Fsts?). So the question is, which makes sense to use? I think the answer depends on what we are discussing and it would be best to give both numbers being clear about what they each represent.

    In the particular case of discussing African-European trait differences it seems clear we should use the CEU-YRI pairwise Fst rather than the global average.

    To summarize, their estimate of gene flow differs by a factor of 15.4 from Cochran’s. This is explained by a factor of 4 difference in the equation they used and a factor of 3.8 difference in the Fst estimates.

    A question, did your geneticist friend analyze that paper more or less thoroughly and accurately than I did? Did he understand why the two gene flow estimates were so different or just glibly assume the paper was right and Cochran wrong?

    P.S. All of a sudden it is OK to use Fst to estimate gene flow now? You were rather unhappy when Greg Cochran did that. Note that Cochran made an additional important point about the amount of gene flow (migrants per generation) needed to block adaptive trait divergence (about 2% of the entire population per his estimate). He also contrasted that with the amount of gene flow needed to counteract drift. Only about 1 migrant per generation. Notice how different those numbers are. My points above about selection vs. drift are important for this conversation. I don’t think you realize how badly you are underestimating Greg Cochran.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  94. res says:
    @utu

    Agreed. I think there are multiple things going on.
    – Fst estimates understate the differences in some sense (see the AFD plots).
    – Sampling of populations biases the various numbers and plots. IMO a good part of that (choice of which data to present) is intentional. We really need to take a look at all of these measures using a single set of data. Although not perfect, 1000 Genomes can be good for this given the availability of data and analyses.
    – Any more?

    Since Lewontin the meme that Fst is small is being pushed and people are persuaded that differences between races are smaller than their internal diversity but when you look at 2-D plots in PC axes it is not so. That’s why the Lewontin meme should be counteracted with the meme of 2-D plots in PC axes.

    I agree with you. But it is critical to give percent variance explained for the PCs to allow for accurate judgments (this is why I keep harping on the need to include that in plots). If the first two PCs explain 10-25% of variance it is still quite possible for Lewontin’s estimates to be reasonable even though those two PCs show strong clustering. This is why it is a fallacy to use Lewontin’s within/between observation (even if accurate) to claim races don’t exist.

  95. Mefobills says:
    @RJJCDA

    In the following sense only do I support UBI. Why don’t we subsidize high IQ?

    You can support UBI from a scientific point of view….monetary science.

    There is a gap between what labor produces and what they can buy. Put another way, if you tabulate labor’s price, and then tabulate the price of goods produced, it becomes apparent that people cannot buy what they produce.

    The difference in the two tabulations, goes to bankers (to pay for the cost of creating bank credit) and it also goes to waste, and wear and tear on machines.

    A proper economy operating with science, would tax away the takings of bank credit, which is actually cheaply produced. You also have to give tax breaks for wear and tear and buying of new capital equipment, to then further increase productivity.

    A direct injection of new money is required to fill in the gap, and this is similar to a UBI. This injection of purchasing power goes to all labor so labor can reap the rewards of their efforts.

    A real country would use Eugenics to improve its human capital, and that could in the form of incentives.

    But, then again we cannot talk about Eugenics.. because that is rayciss, never mind that evolution and nature is rayciss. This is what we get for living in a Jewish reality, we are hoaxed about money, and we are hoaxed about race (we are all one race… the human race, according to our owners.)

    • Replies: @Anon
  96. iffen says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I prefer a mercy killing instead of a lifelong sentence in a cage for something I didn’t do, but that’s just me and I give no better or worse for my fellow man.

  97. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    I prefer a mercy killing instead of a lifelong sentence in a cage for something I didn’t do

    You could always volunteer for the gas chamber if sentenced to life for something you didn’t do. And failing that, you could hang yourself.

    But why shouldn’t other innocents have the option (like these people) of incarceration pending a hoped for eventual vindication?

  98. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I wonder what effect it would have if the death penalty required the prosecutor who asked for that penalty pledge their own life against the defendant never being exonerated.

    At minimum I suspect that would result in a much closer look at the evidence involved. In practice it would probably be the same as banning the death penalty though.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @CanSpeccy
  99. Anon[632] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mefobills

    “The difference in the two tabulations, goes to bankers (to pay for the cost of creating bank credit) and it also goes to waste, and wear and tear on machines. ”

    According to what I’ve been taught/reading/thinking, the wear and tear on machines does not come out of labors share of production. (So labor is not paying for depreciation.) (Wear and tear comes out of capital’s share of production.) That is, the depreciation (reproduction of tangible capital) is a separate stream than labor’s share. So the cut, rent extraction, is not confused with depreciation. Accelerated depreciation for rent extraction, as codified in tax regulations, is distinct from real depreciation. How the rentiers have meddled with concepts.

  100. iffen says:
    @res

    The reason that it takes 20-30 years to carry out capital punishment in the US is because the people with the closest look at the process (judges) do not have faith in “the system.”

    This is called a loss of faith in institutions.

  101. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    I wonder what effect it would have if the death penalty required the prosecutor who asked for that penalty pledge their own life against the defendant never being exonerated.

    LOL

    But if you wanted to be hard nosed, you might argue:

    so what if a few innocents go to the gallows — They are hanged pour encouragez, or rather disencouragez, les autres.

    That was the argument for public executions, which were a popular attraction in the European world in the not so distant past. Perhaps they will be again. In both Zamyatin’s futuristic novel, We, and Orwell’s 1984, there are public executions.

    Indeed soon, as Western IQ’s continue falling due to our dysgenic breeding patterns, we will, like our dim pre-Flynn-Effect forebears, get to be thrilled at the sight of traitors being broken on the wheel.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  102. @Johnny Rico

    No my one finger typos should not divert you from using your fevered imagination on something more apocalyptic 🙂

  103. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @mikemikev

    Re: The European Revolution

    Yes, the Europeans created the modern world, possibly with a kick start from Zeng He’s mission to Europe in 1434. And perhaps the racial characteristics of the Europeans contributed. But the particular circumstances of the Europeans as discussed by Jared Diamond, and especially the circumstances of the English likely played a greater role.

    In particular, I like Carroll Quigley’s idea that England set off the industrial revolution because of the English Channel. The Channel meant that unlike the continental powers, England did not need, and therefore the English Parliament would not approve funding for, a standing army to defend the country from invasion. Without a standing army at his command, the King was unable to withstand a Parliamentary rebellion. Forced, by the Glorious Revolution of 1588, the monarch ceded power to Parliament.

    Parliament, made up of land owners great and small, enacted legislation allowing enclosure of, i.e., private appropriation of, common land. It was this that made the agricultural revolution an economic proposition. And it was the wealth accumulated in agriculture that provided the capital for the construction of canals and investment in industry.

    But there were no doubt many other factors. If you are looking for a genetic factor, perhaps it is left-handedness — generally recognized for an association with creativity, which is more than three times as common in Britain, the Netherlands, the United States and Canada than in, for example, China or Japan.

    But that contradicts your thesis, since left handedness is associated with violence.

    But I wouldn’t care if Europeans were dumber than the dumbest bushmen or whoever are supposed to occupy the bottom of the IQ hierarcy, I’d still want then to go on being Europeans, occupying their European homelands and upholding the cultural tradition of the West. But sadly they are ruled by traitors who cannot seek with the utmost haste to replace their own people with people from elsewhere, as though Europe’s modest homeland was a suitable place to accomodate the reproductive surplus of the vast territories of Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

  104. dearieme says:

    “the Glorious Revolution of 1588” 1688.

    “enclosure of, i.e., private appropriation of, common land.” No, parliamentary enclosure allowed owners of cultivation strips to consolidate their ownership into distinct fields, which they could then hedge or fence. When non-landowners had common rights e.g. rights to pasture on the fallow land, they would be given allotments of freehold land in compensation for losing the right to pasture on the new fields. Similarly, it was usual to pay compensation, in land, to the tithe owners, with the tithe thereby abolished. Lastly the Lord of the Manor would be paid compensation for his loss of rights – typically to any minerals under the land. Nearly all of what “everyone knows” about Parliamentary Enclosure is bollocks.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  105. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dearieme

    Nearly all of what “everyone knows” about Parliamentary Enclosure is bollocks.

    Right. And that’s probably true of almost anything discussed here.

    But common land was privatized, which is what made greater investment in agriculture feasible. And the enclosure of common land was dependent on Parliament. Between 1604 and 1914 there were over 5,200 bills enacted by Parliament which equates to a little more than one fifth of England.

    cf. The enclosure Acts.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  106. SidVic says:

    A explanation of the figures presented would have been helpful. Why even show them?

    • Replies: @res
  107. res says:
    @SidVic

    Because they are fairly clear to those of us who have followed this blog over a period of time? If you have a specific question please ask.

    The figure I found least obvious was the B+W admixture plot. The original source is based on Figure 1 (color) from this paper-which includes an explanatory caption.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5560546_Worldwide_Human_Relationships_Inferred_from_Genome-Wide_Patterns_of_Variation

  108. dearieme says:
    @CanSpeccy

    ‘But common land was privatized’: that’s a meaningless statement. What do you mean by “common land”? Are you suggesting that the owners of the cultivation strips somehow didn’t own them? Everyone acknowledged that they did, or at least that they owned the exclusive right to cultivate their strips.

    In other words the land was owned privately to begin with in those places where strip cultivation was done, but in the peculiarly inconvenient form of intermingled strips; what was being rearranged was who owned which strips – the strips were being consolidated into fields.

    There were also people – “commoners” – who owned individual rights to use bits of the land in common e.g. to graze the fallow areas, perhaps to graze any dedicated pastureland if there was any, and to graze the aftermath in the meadows, during a specified part of the year, with a specified “stint”. (Thus the owner of cottage A can graze two cows and six geese while the tenant of cottage B can …, all in the period of such and such a date to some other date.)

    • Replies: @utu
    , @CanSpeccy
  109. utu says:
    @dearieme

    The Protestant Reformation in England by William Cobbett

    • Replies: @dearieme
  110. Uncle Sam says:

    I have a question: can anyone please tell me how close or how far we are from determining definitively the genetic basis of intelligence? Give me a time —- weeks, months, years, decades,etc.

    If and when that is determined, we will be able to solve most of the problems associated with intelligence, even if it results in social explosions.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @James Thompson
  111. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    P.S. All of a sudden it is OK to use Fst to estimate gene flow now? You were rather unhappy when Greg Cochran did that. Note that Cochran made an additional important point about the amount of gene flow (migrants per generation) needed to block adaptive trait divergence (about 2% of the entire population per his estimate). He also contrasted that with the amount of gene flow needed to counteract drift. Only about 1 migrant per generation. Notice how different those numbers are. My points above about selection vs. drift are important for this conversation. I don’t think you realize how badly you are underestimating Greg Cochran.

    More soon but for now:

    I did not say it is ok. I can not judge for myself. I was just told that under certain circumstances it apparently applies.

    He also contrasted that with the amount of gene flow needed to counteract drift. Only about 1 migrant per generation.

    I am confused tbh. If only one migrant per generation is needed to counteract drift and humans do differ some by drift alone, then perhaps that paper has too high estimates of migrations. It could support your point but need to ask.

    In the particular case of discussing African-European trait differences it seems clear we should use the CEU-YRI pairwise Fst rather than the global average.

    Why?

    They use a global Fst estimate for humans of 0.0488 to estimate a migration rate of 20 (BTW, if you do the math it is actually 19.49, which rounds to 19).

    In all honesty it is one of the lowest ones I have seen. Most have it about 0.11 if I recall the estimates correctly.

    Regarding “inferred using neutral microsatellite markers,” what is it that makes people think it is sensible to ignore non-neutral sites for analyzing human population genetic differences in the context of races (which are usually colloquially defined by phenotypic differences). Have I not been emphatic enough above about the most interesting trait differences likely having been subject to selection?! I guess their point is trying to focus on drift to estimate gene flow.

    Estimating gene flow and divergence is best done from neutral markers (as you said so yourself)
    Selection is rarely that strong on most traits as it is for the usual phenotypic ones (pigmentation etc)

    • Replies: @res
  112. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I was just told that under certain circumstances it apparently applies.

    What circumstances? Are there objective criteria or does it depend on who is doing the analysis and what assertions they are making with it? Or the venue (research paper vs. blog post)?

    Perhaps your geneticist friend who made that statement can clarify how Cochran’s post fails to meet those criteria while that paper does? After getting back to me about what is going on with the missing factor of 4 for Wright’s equation in the paper.

    If only one migrant per generation is needed to counteract drift and humans do differ some by drift alone, then perhaps that paper has too high estimates of migrations. It could support your point but need to ask.

    That is a good point. I haven’t dug into Cochran’s one migrant per generation to counteract drift analysis, but if that is true then even Cochran’s 1.26 migrants per generation should be enough. Given that hasn’t happened there is something missing here.

    This education piece (as well as a quick web search) indicates that the one migrant per generation rule is well accepted.
    https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/natural-selection-genetic-drift-and-gene-flow-15186648/

    According to a commonly used approximation, the introduction of only one migrant per generation (Nem = 1) constitutes sufficient gene flow to counteract the diversifying effects of genetic drift in a metapopulation.

    In the particular case of discussing African-European trait differences it seems clear we should use the CEU-YRI pairwise Fst rather than the global average.

    Why?

    Because the effective gene flow between those two populations (not what is happening in the larger population) is what is most relevant to their trait differences. Is this not obvious?

    In all honesty it is one of the lowest ones I have seen. Most have it about 0.11 if I recall the estimates correctly.

    Perhaps because looking at 2002 data which focuses on neutral markers is not the best approach? I am still waiting for you to explain what point you thought that paper made, but it seems to me it was a poor choice to bring into an argument about genetics in 2020.

    BTW, that factor of two difference would move you closer to Cochran’s estimate for migration rate. Any thoughts on my detailed comparison of the migration rate estimates from Cochran’s post and your paper?

    Estimating gene flow and divergence is best done from neutral markers (as you said so yourself)
    Selection is rarely that strong on most traits as it is for the usual phenotypic ones (pigmentation etc)

    Please be more careful when attempting to restate my views (but thanks for trying at least). I said estimating gene flow is probably better done by looking at neutral markers (assuming the equations used are focusing on drift, I don’t know the assumptions for Wright’s equation in detail).

    But I don’t recall saying anything like that about divergence and neutral markers. If anything I have implied the opposite by discussing how the most divergent SNPs appear to be enriched for selection (e.g. non-synonymous changes above, and notice that I even called that statement out with “pay special attention”).

    P.S. This blog post (and comment from Cochran) talk a bit more about Cochran’s gene flow post. They give a plot of Wright’s equation and make an important point which I think we need to be more explicit about.
    http://www.benespen.com/journal/2019/1/7/fst-and-selection

    N sub e m stands for number of migrants, with the sub e probably reminding you that it is a representation of people who not only moved into a new location, but successfully had kids, along with some simplifying assumptions. Since this is about gene flow, the mechanism is reproduction

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
    , @Anti-HBD
  113. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dearieme

    ‘But common land was privatized’: that’s a meaningless statement.

    Meaningless to you anyhow.

    But if you like, let’s say, not privatized, but:

    taken out of some form of collective ownership and management and handed over to individuals.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  114. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Uncle Sam

    I have a question: can anyone please tell me how close or how far we are from determining definitively the genetic basis of intelligence?

    LOL, the psychos don’t even know what intelligence is. Arthur Jensen, one of the World’s leading IQ-ists wrote:

    Intelligence by definition, is what IQ tests measure.

    Which means that just because he wrote Miserere mei, Deus, doesn’t mean, according to the IQ-ists, that Gregorio Allegri had any brains. Likewise, just because he could write the score of the Miserere — with orchestration — after a single hearing, doesn’t mean Mozart had any brains either. Whether either Mozart or Allegri were intelligent we’ll never know — according to the psychologists — because they never took an IQ test.

    Or to put that more plainly, IQ-ism is bunk, because IQ tests don’t measure intelligence as that word is properly defined, i.e., the ability to acquire and use knowledge and skills. This is abundantly clear in the case of the idiot savant, capable of the extraordinary acquisition of certain types of knowledge or skill despite a negligible IQ. It may also be clear in the case of the high IQ genius who can barely tie a shoe-lace or make decent conversation, let alone write a symphony.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  115. dearieme says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Your last point is simply balls. None of it was collectively owned. Commoners’ rights were individual rights: they could buy and sell them when they moved house or bought and sold property. What was done in common was grazing (and sometimes other things such as gathering wood). The notion that the land was owned as a sort of collective farm is just wildly wrong.

    In one case near us the commoners of a large open field were offered a choice at enclosure: would they like a 20 acre pasture put aside exclusively for their own grazing in common, or would they rather have an allocation of freehold land each? They voted 95% for the freehold land. In other words they were offered your notion of owning land in common and turned it down.

    Not everything went smoothly every time – some commoners of different land near us had their grazing rights stolen from them. Who was the malefactor? Some King, Earl, Squire, or Bishop? No, it was the Town Council.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  116. @Uncle Sam

    Interesting question. “Determining definitely” sounds demanding, but is rather vague. Better to ask what percentage of the variance might be accounted for by a particular date, or what the error term might be when making predictions about intelligence from genetic material alone. Even then, there are some provisos, namely whether the prediction is being tested in reasonable environments (the majority in the world today) or in very poor environments.

    My sense is that we will be at 20% of the variance accounted for (in European populations) by 2030.

    • Replies: @Uncle Sam
  117. @CanSpeccy

    I wonder if the reason you so comprehensively write off IQ tests, and presumably their equivalents like SAT, is that you define intelligence without reference to problem solving which is surely essential even if some degree of knowledge and skill acquisition and use is relevant.

  118. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dearieme

    Your last point is simply balls.

    It would seem that’s what you’d say whatever I’d said, even if it were only “God is love” or “Please adjust your dress before leaving.”

  119. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    I wonder if the reason you so comprehensively write off IQ tests, and presumably their equivalents like SAT, is that you define intelligence without reference to problem solving which is surely essential even if some degree of knowledge and skill acquisition and use is relevant.

    I accept intelligence to be what a competent speaker of the English language understands intelligence to be, namely, the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

    IQ test results correlate in some degree with certain capacities for the acquisition and use of knowledge and skills, but generally they do so poorly. Proof that they do so poorly is the existence of the SAT tests which were invented to assess math skills and verbal skills independently, since the two are not well correlated.

    But most skills are poorly correlated, and when you go beyond the narrow range of skills that constitute academic aptitude, IQ test results are more or less irrelevant to the assessment of knowledge acquisition or skill achievement.

    If psychology were a real science, its practitioners would define their terms operationally. That would mean, for example, defining how, operationally, they will measure the capacity to acquire knowledge and then proving that the capacity measured is a truly unitary property of mind.

    If they did that they would find that their random digit memory test bears no relation to visual memory, the capacity to carry a tune, or memory for taste, touch and odor. They would then have to go to the trouble of doing some real science finding out how many ways memory and skill can vary independently.

    After that, they could develop some tests that would allow them to assess an intelligence profile. But come to think of it, that’s what schools have been doing for centuries, instructing and then testing in a broad range of subjects, including music and athletics. And what that program of education and testing reveals is that individuals differ greatly in their profile of abilities, few being either highly “intelligent” or hopelessly dull in every field from Greek, math, and musical composition, to the debating society, the soccer field, and the pole vault.

  120. It seems you reject all findings which do not fit in with your conclusions.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Wizard of Oz
  121. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @James Thompson

    It seems you reject all findings which do not fit in with your conclusions.

    I reject no findings that are well founded. The claim that intelligence is a univariate property of mind and therefore measurable by a single number, i.e., IQ, is not well founded. It is obviously false and, indeed, absurd.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  122. Uncle Sam says:
    @James Thompson

    Respectfully, your answer does not address that/those portion(s) of the human brain that deal with intelligence. I mean the literal physical part of it I am refering to cells, neurons, electrical impulses, physical acctivity related to thought proscesses, etc. that produce or make up human intelligence. There has to be such a part of the human brain, for the simple reason that the brain is responsible for intelligence. Can science explain what physical process or processes take place in the human brain when a human thinks a thought, as it were. Obviously some physical activity of some kind goes on in your brain when you think about something. That has to be established and should help considerably in determing the genetics of intelligence.

    The trouble with IQ tests is that they are circumstantial evidence of intelligence. What we need is direct evidence. Direct evidence always trumps circumstantial evidence. Any lawyer will tell you that.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  123. Being smart and intelligent dont define your worth. Some very smart people are really poor.. But everyone who is rich is utterly ruthless. Most of them are not intelligent but they are conniving and uses others. Although being intelligent can lead of a comfortable life, without being ruthless and conniving you can never expect to be ubber rich because someone will come along and take it from you.

    Another criteria seems to be to treat those lower than you as dirt. Amazon is a great example of this ladder.. Other companies that treat its employees fairley dont practice any kind of ethical competitive practices in reality. Fairly is widely defined word.. free cereals dont mean being treated fairly.. But many think its better than being treated as a common worker.. But even here, the more conniving you are, the higher your position. Stepping on others much smarter than you is why you make the bucks.

    Ofcourse treating others like dirt only gets you so far.. And those that greeze the wheels gets moving much further.. Treating others fairly pretty soon ends up as you being on the bottom in most cases.

    Although British and French empires were equally ruthless.. The british had much better luck in fooling people.. While the french arrogance did not get that far. Being able to get the other guy to turn his back to you and shooting him gets you further.. Insulting him would make sure he dont turn his back to you.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  124. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Igor Bundy

    Being smart and intelligent dont define your worth.

    They don’t even define you IQ.

  125. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Uncle Sam

    … your answer does not address that/those portion(s) of the human brain that deal with intelligence.

    Like the psychologists, you have the wrong model, Sam. The brain isn’t like a computer. There is no central processing unit that determines computing power, FLOPS or IQ.

    The brain is the product of evolution. It is built on the Rube Goldberg principle. A bunch of junk put together and then endlessly tested, modified, retested. The brain does all kinds of amazing things in amazing ways, but they’re not neat tidy ways, the way an engineer would design something, but completely crazy ways, but ways that nevertheless work — somehow, just…

    The result is that intelligence is not one thing. It is not the product of one bit of brain or one brain module. It is the product of numerous brain modules and networks, each doing its own thing, each dependent on its own particular structure and biochemistry, each subject in its development to its own set of controlling genes. Did you know, in the male brain, there’s even a specialized knot of neurons that light up at a girl’s smile.

    That’s why IQ testing is nonsense. It’s possible to be both a genius and an idiot — in different areas of mental activity: an obvious fact, but which one might think never crossed the mind of a psychologist.

  126. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    Are there objective criteria or does it depend on who is doing the analysis and what assertions they are making with it? Or the venue (research paper vs. blog post)?

    No, its about the method one uses. But like I said, it’s what I have been told, I am not a geneticist in order to make these analyses on my own.

    And since I can not answer (comments closed) about clusters on the other thread, I will do so here.
    The argument is that clusters are entirely an artifact of IBD (and no I did not retract any agreement that we made earlier-I was very specific that it seems so based on what I was told by a geneticist)

    And btw, I agree with your reading of Coop’s paper. I misread the conclusion.

    I will try to be once more very concise about the no clusters (also affecting PCAs) argument here:

    But first:

    No, because differentiation has already happened. I told you, had phylogenomic methods proved lineages for humans just as they do between humans and chimpanzees (let’s say that a paper comes out tomorrow that suggests that demographic inferences have been biased so far or something) then I would have no issue acknowledging races in humans.

    That’s my comment. It is not that it does not bother me to find the exact divergence point. Based on what I have read it is about 6mya when we could not interbreed anymore or when gene flow is supposed to have stopped (will look for the study).

    However, this software showed biased performance by detecting artificial clusters in data sets containing clines of genetic variation (Frantz et al., 2009; Guillot et al., 2009; Rosenberg et al., 2005), a pattern expected as a result of IBD. The software’s authors recognized this shortfall, and since 2002, the following sentence regarding IBD is stated in the structure manual (Pritchard & Wen, 2002): “In this situation, allele frequencies vary gradually across the region. The underlying structure model is not well suited to data from this kind of scenario. When this occurs, the inferred value of K, and the corresponding allele frequencies in each group can be rather arbitrary.”

    It is not a false dichotomy. These papers specifically argue for no clusters and only clines, do they not?

    That is a strange omission for as expert a geneticist as he is. Consider the sickle cell allele. The frequency differences never become that large because the homozygous recessive case causes disease

    I honestly do not know why he omitted balancing selection. It should be happening in most populations and perhaps can bias demographic inferences too.

    No need to talk about the false dichotomy of IBD vs. other explanations. As I discuss below, what is important is that the differences exist.

    The argument by most geneticists in their papers is that due to IBD

    you see groups where none exist.

    Should I elaborate more on this? I guess one could test it (I suspect it might not be so around the Himalayas or the Sahara desert but I have been told it is entirely clinal there too)

    When “disagreeing with” clusters (what does that even mean?) focus on the actual data, not the causes.

    From his 2019 book pg. 38 on STRUCTURE clusters:
    STRUCTURE-like methods have proven incredible popular and useful in examining population structure within species. However, the results of these methods are open to misinterpretation; see Lawson et al. (2018) for a recent discussion. Two common mistakes are 1) taking the results of STRUCTURE-like approaches for some particular value of K and taking this to represent the best way to describe population-genetic variation. 2) Thinking that these clusters represent ‘pure’ ancestral populations. There is no right choice of K, the number of clusters to partition into. There are methods of judging the ‘best’ K by some statistical measure given some particular dataset, but that is not the same as saying this is the most meaningful level on which to summarize population
    structure in data. For example, running STRUCTURE on world-wide human populations for low value of K will result in population clusters that roughly align with continental populations (Rosenberg et al., 2002). However, that does not tell us that assigning ancestry at the level of continents is a particularly meaningful way of partitioning individuals. Running the same data for higher value of K, or within continental regions, will result in much finer-scale partitioning
    of continental groups (Rosenberg et al., 2002; Li et al., 2008). No one of these layers of population structure identified is privileged as being more meaningful than another.
    It is tempting to think of these clusters as representing ancestral populations, which themselves are not the result of admixture. However, that is not the case, for example, running STRUCTURE on world-wide human data identifies a cluster that contains many European individuals, however, on the basis of ancient DNA we know that modern Europeans are a mixture of distinct ancestral groups.

    I will write my response to your points about Fst in a different window to keep this conversation more concise. If you are still interested in a geneticist’s opinion on PCAs I can make another post about them.

    • Troll: mikemikev
  127. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    Perhaps your geneticist friend who made that statement can clarify how Cochran’s post fails to meet those criteria while that paper does? After getting back to me about what is going on with the missing factor of 4 for Wright’s equation in the paper.

    He has not replied yet except that about the paper, he pointed me to that segment The WC84 moment estimator of global FST is an unweighted average of population-specific FST values (Weir and Goudet 2017). Therefore, genome-wide global FST would be a measure of a species’ genetic divergence, which reflects its evolutionary history

    But yet again, even I think m=20 is a bit too high.

    Given that hasn’t happened there is something missing here.

    His formula might deviate from the true rate of gene flow as I mentioned in the past: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2540.1999.00496.x

    The difficulty of directly measuring gene flow has lead to the common use of indirect measures extrapolated from genetic frequency data. These measures are variants of FST, a standardized measure of the genetic variance among populations, and are used to solve for Nm, the number of migrants successfully entering a population per generation. Unfortunately, the mathematical model underlying this translation makes many biologically unrealistic assumptions; real populations are very likely to violate these assumptions, such that there is often limited quantitative information to be gained about dispersal from using gene frequency data. While studies of genetic structure per se are often worthwhile, and FST is an excellent measure of the extent of this population structure, it is rare that FST can be translated into an accurate estimate of Nm.

    If I recall correctly that paper used a different method.

    This education piece (as well as a quick web search) indicates that the one migrant per generation rule is well accepted.

    Thanks for this, interesting information.

    Is this not obvious?

    yes correct, I understood something else before.

    Perhaps because looking at 2002 data which focuses on neutral markers is not the best approach?

    How old were the date Cochran used? Also, Fst is most informative on neutral markers when it comes to estimating divergence and gene flow. Fst outliers exist but are rare. (can expand on this)

    Re the last chart, it is obvious since Fsts< 0.25 that races are not lineages (as Templeton notes) because no human population has an Fst value of above 0.25 that would indicate (almost) no migration between them (nm<1)

    Any thoughts on my detailed comparison of the migration rate estimates from Cochran’s post and your paper?

    Interesting, I am trying to understand why that paper was different from Cochran’s estimation.

    P.S.

    At this point you are looking like an insincere intellectual lightweight who is serving as a mouthpiece for someone who is only slightly better informed and afraid to come here and debate for himself.

    I would ask you to please stop using these kind of expressions, have I called you that?

    • Troll: mikemikev
    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  128. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    That’s possible. Rather than just throwing FUD about how about trying to find better data which would tell us one way or another?

    I have shown you studies about within African divergence before, have I not?

    Does Murray say anything about his reasons in the book? Exactly which dataset did Murray use?

    HGDP phase 1 which as Kevin notes, creates the following issues with his analysis: https://twitter.com/itsbirdemic/status/1228427027952222208

    Honest question (though philosophical) about the PCAs (will read the papers tomorrow): At least regarding Eurasia, without the colors, would you be able to tell how distinct the populations are?

    Africa seems to consistently stand out though, it is something I would like to look into further. Also seems to be more homogenous than I have heard/read based on the PCA.

  129. Anti-HBD says:
    @Anti-HBD

    @mikemikev

    Your input is invaluable as always.

    • Troll: mikemikev
    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  130. Anti-HBD says:
    @Anti-HBD

    @mikemikev, once again I would appreciate some arguments instead of troll buttons like those @res presents me.

    Otherwise I am just going to stop bothering with you.

    • Troll: mikemikev
  131. @CanSpeccy

    Surely you have the wrong approach to IQ. It has a probabilistic relation with many kinds of human performance that one might wish to predict or improve, and surely that can be valuable. To take a simple example you could sensibly require that your short list for interviewing people for software writing jobs would be scoring 1.5 ads above average on a standardshort IQ test. (Of course you could just invite the Tans, Kims, Gohs and -steins while excluding the Deshawns and Leroys).

  132. @James Thompson

    This thread seems as good a place to post the following from the FT today (for which Comments have not been opened!!). Your reaction would of coursebe specially welcome but others may, anyway find it interesting:

    [Note it was a Conservative MP quoted as complaining]

    “A Downing Street adviser has been forced to quit after attracting criticism for his comments on eugenics and whether black people on average have lower IQs.

    [MORE]

    The resignation came after Boris Johnson’s spokesperson repeatedly refused to say on Monday whether he agreed with the position of Andrew Sabisky, a “contractor” hired to work for Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s closest adviser.

    No 10 confirmed that Mr Sabisky had quit after he said on Twitter: “Hey all, The media hysteria about my old stuff online is mad but I wanted to help HMG not be a distraction.

    “Accordingly I’ve decided to resign as a contractor. I hope no. 10 hires more ppl w/ good geopolitical forecasting track records & that media learn to stop selective quoting.

    “I know this will disappoint a lot of ppl but I signed up to do real work, not be in the middle of a giant character assassination: if I can’t do the work properly there’s no point, & I have a lot of other things to do w/ my life.”

    In the earlier briefing with journalists, the prime minister’s spokesperson declined to answer more than a dozen times whether Mr Johnson agreed with the position of Mr Sabisky.

    “The prime minister’s views are well documented and publicised,” his spokesperson said, adding that Downing Street would not be commenting on Mr Sabisky’s role, his beliefs or the process around his hiring.

    The Conservative MP Caroline Nokes wrote on Twitter on Monday afternoon: “Cannot believe No 10 has refused to comment on Andrew Sabisky. I don’t know him from a bar of soap, but don’t think we’d get on . . . must be no place in government for the views he’s expressed.”

    Number 10’s refusal to distance Mr Johnson from the adviser came as the government faced a backlash from some Tory MPs over the increasingly centralised operation being run from Downing Street by Mr Cummings.

    The decision to hire Mr Sabisky, a self-described “super forecaster” who has spoken of the need to have “universal contraception” to prevent a “permanent underclass”, may also raise questions over the prime minister’s judgment.

    Antiracism campaigners have accused Mr Johnson himself of pushing racial stereotypes as a journalist and columnist. In 2002, he described black people as “picaninnies with watermelon smiles” while two years ago he likened Muslim women wearing burkas to “letterboxes” and “bank robbers”.

    During the election in December the prime minister apologised for any offence caused by his previous comments.

    Mr Sabisky’s exact role in government was unclear. Reports suggested he was hired as part of Mr Cummings’ drive to bring “weirdos and misfits” into government, while Downing Street insiders said he was a “contractor” working on forecasting. His role covered the government’s strategic defence review, as well as other policy areas.

    Recommended
    Dominic Cummings has ‘done’ Brexit. Now he plans to reinvent politics
    Government officials said he had attended several meetings with Mr Johnson in recent days. Number 10 declined to comment on whether Mr Sabisky had gone through the typical vetting procedures for special advisers. Mr Sabisky did not respond to a request for comment.

    In a 2016 interview Mr Sabisky defended his views on eugenics. “Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things. Intelligence is largely inherited and correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness,” he told Schools Week.

    In a tweet, he also said he had always been “straight up in saying that women’s sport is more comparable to the Paralympics than it is to men’s”. In a 2014 online comment from an account in Mr Sabisky’s name, he suggested black people had IQs at or below 75, “close to the typical boundary for mild mental retardation”.

    The opposition Labour party had called on Mr Johnson to sack Mr Sabisky, while some Conservatives were also privately critical.

    “Would a minister survive if remarks like that came to light?” asked one government official.

    “I don’t know what’s going on, but no one wants to get involved even though it looks bad,” said a minister.”

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Thompson Comments via RSS