March 24, 2018

"In 1942, the anthropologist Ashley Montagu published 'Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race,' an influential book that argued that race is a social concept with no genetic basis...."

"Beginning in 1972, genetic findings began to be incorporated into this argument.... In this way, a consensus was established that among human populations there are no differences large enough to support the concept of 'biological race.' Instead, it was argued, race is a 'social construct,' a way of categorizing people that changes over time and across countries. It is true that race is a social construct. It is also true... that human populations 'are remarkably similar to each other' from a genetic point of view. But over the years this consensus has morphed, seemingly without questioning, into an orthodoxy.... The orthodoxy goes further, holding that we should be anxious about any research into genetic differences among populations.... I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among 'races.' Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have been made over the last two decades.... I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science.... It is important to face whatever science will reveal without prejudging the outcome and with the confidence that we can be mature enough to handle any findings. Arguing that no substantial differences among human populations are possible will only invite the racist misuse of genetics that we wish to avoid."

From "How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of 'Race'" by Harvard genetics professor David Reich (NYT).

121 comments:

Tommy Duncan said...

"I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science...."

Exactly like global warming.

The left establishes their desired narrative and shuts down discussion. But the facts of science creep back into play. That, in turn, intensifies the effort to suppress contravening views.

Unknown said...

There can be no “onslaught of science” proving that genetic differences between the races exist if scientists who attempt such studies are ostracized, defunded, lose tenure or their research jobs, etc., as has been done with climate change research.

Doubleplusungoodthinnk on this topic will be dealt with quickly and severely.

rhhardin said...

Identifying as black is the problem. Then there's a lobby insisting on fixing a problem that can't be fixed.

The problem then is taken as social.

Blend in, and there's no noticeable problem beyond the normal spread in people.

whitney said...

"I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science"

I think science should fear the onslaught of the well-meaning people

the 4chan Guy who reads Althouse said...

"From "How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of 'Race'" by Harvard genetics professor David Reich (NYT)."

When discussing race and genetics it is probably unfortunate to have the last name Reich.

The Germans have a word for this.

Ironclad said...

This follows Nicolas Wade’s book ( science writer at the Times) that was savaged over its notion that race was real.). Expect pushback. The comments were divided on the article were as expected - racism and quiet scepticism.

But with the myth that humans evolved from one strain in Africa blowing up daily - interbreeding of “races” back then seemed to be the norm- the PC crowd is in for a fall.

MadisonMan said...

It's precious when the NYTimes lectures people on Race.

PJ said...

Reich is right — the most powerful enemy of truth is not lies but orthodoxy.

Darrell said...

I can jump higher than a building.
Because I never saw a building jump even a little bit.

Sebastian said...

"I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science" Wait, so the science wasn't settled? Even though 97% o scientists agreed the "construct" of race wasn't biologically tenable?

"It is important to face whatever science will reveal without prejudging the outcome and with the confidence that we can be mature enough to handle any findings." Actually, no. Outcomes are more important than inputs. Get woke, man.

"Arguing that no substantial differences among human populations are possible will only invite the racist misuse of genetics that we wish to avoid." Huh? What "misuse" exactly? How would it be "invited" by denial?

Bob Boyd said...

Individuality is a social construct. People are remarkably similar. In fact, we're literally all just pretending to be someone — we don't realize how much we're all exactly the same.

bwebster said...

vWaiting for the usual online/media lynch mob to form, followed by the inevitable explanations, clarifications, and then outright backtracking. If the good doctor is still standing his ground by Tuesday (and I'll note right now he's a white male, which I'm sure will get brought up ad infinitum), I will doff my hat to him.

"Re-education" used to invoke shudders in American intellectual circles, being shorthand for the forced recantations against obvious facts (see "1984") that occurred in Red China and Soviet Russia, not to mention Vietnam and Cambodia. Now it's seen as a good and necessary thing for social progress.

traditionalguy said...

The Emperor's Criminalizing Science pre-dates the criminalizing the political opposition on this proven flat earth by several eras. I blame it on the acceptance of the pork eaters. They should have been killed. Then men need to get back to the purity of Astrology the way the gods intended.

My new book will be available soon.

Hagar said...

My grandfather's generation used race, people, and nation just about interchangeably.

Virgil Hilts said...

Of course the author had to "virtue signal" that he was one of the good guys by attacking Nicholas Wade. One can't disagree with Nicholas Wade or debate his points; he has to be condemned. Same with Amy Waxman. How dare you raise an issue we do not want to discuss and that makes us uncomfortable.
When the 10,000 Year Explosion came out in 2009 - a great book - it was discussed (and criticized) at a civilized level. When Wade'similar book came out 5 years later he was crucified. Amy Waxman is writing and speaking today about the matching problem that people were discussing somewhat rationally 5-10 years ago, but do that today and you become the object of a worldwide organized attempt to get you disbarred from academia. Compare https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/ But not any more. The Overton Window is radically shifting in favor of the progressive world viewpoint that facts and discussions that make us uncomfortable are racist and fascist.

tcrosse said...

So race is imaginary, but to deny this is racist ?

Fernandinande said...

"But he goes on to make the unfounded and irresponsible claim that this research is suggesting that genetic factors explain traditional stereotypes."

Stereotypes are hereby denounced.

"Mice and men share about 97.5 per cent of their working DNA"

buwaya said...

I recommend following Razib Khan on the subject of population genetics. This is an extremely fast moving field, and his various sites (over time) have been a superlative clearinghouse of all this. He is also very generous on book recommendations.

The massive expansion of consumer-level or at least low-cost genetic sampling has created large databases that cannot be wished away.

The original "serious" book on the subject is of course Cavalli-Sforzas, from 1995, from which it is quite clear already that there is indeed a biological basis for "race", or rather distinct, definable geographic patterns of genetic variation. This has been ever-more well defined, and intricate patterns discovered. Fascinating stuff.

Owen said...

We're each unique, we're all the same
Identity is just a frame
Our betters use to keep us tame
And fuddled by the naming game

rhhardin said...

Amy Wax isn't a race realist, as the term goes for thinking the races might be different, according to Derb today.

"Since Dean Ruger has called Prof. Wax a liar in print, and dishonored her by removing her first-year class, some of Prof. Wax's friends have suggested she file a grievance with the American Association of University Professors. Whether such a filing would come to any conclusive result is uncertain; but there would likely be one of those processes lawyers call "discovery," in which the law school would have to open its files on student achievement by race. Then we'd know who was telling the truth about black students … as if we don't know already.

That Prof. Wax should be hounded like this for some simple observations of fact, tells you how deep our academic culture has sunk. The lady is not even, to the best of my knowledge, a race realist. She was at any rate not a race realist eight years ago: I can state that with some authority."

LincolnTf said...

My wife and I did the 23andme geneaology thing. Her results came back before mine and I was poking fun at her for being whiter than a polar bear in a snowstorm (she has about 96% Northern European DNA) until my results showed up, 98.2% Northern European. So no exotic genes in either of us, kind of a bummer.

Owen said...

To all commenters: excellent wit and substance. Buwaya: you are a rock star, thanks for your many contributions.

Fernandinande said...

Virgil Hilts said...
Amy Waxman ...


Amy Wax.

is writing and speaking today about the matching problem that people were discussing somewhat rationally 5-10 years ago,

Disparate Impact Realism
93 Pages Posted: 28 Mar 2011 Last revised: 19 Jan 2012
Amy L. Wax

fivewheels said...

Outlaw the truth about genetics and only outlaws will have the truth about genetics.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Race is a social construct in the same way that color is a social construct. Society decides what will be referred to as green and what will be referred to as blue and where to draw the line between them. But underneath the social construct is a real physical phenomenon: light of different colors have different wavelengths, and this causes differences in the way they act in certain circumstances.

buwaya said...

Virgil,

This is exactly why I am a pessimist. And for that matter, due to the same BS in his field, why Razib Khan is a pessimist.

The American mind is gone.

Your elites have lobotomized themselves, and worse, they have put in the systems to auto-lobotomize their own children.

You now have to import foreigners to think, and these have to tread carefully to avoid trouble with the masses of now-irrational natives.

Fernandinande said...

buwaya said...
Your elites have lobotomized themselves,


What about your elites?

Fernandinande said...

I feel like pointing out that our hostess prefers the knowingly dishonest explanation of racial differences/issues.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

LincolnTf said...

My wife and I did the 23andme geneaology thing. Her results came back before mine and I was poking fun at her for being whiter than a polar bear in a snowstorm (she has about 96% Northern European DNA) until my results showed up, 98.2% Northern European. So no exotic genes in either of us, kind of a bummer.

3/24/18, 8:51 AM

Some of those Ancestry.com commercials amuse me. The people are so delighted to learn they're not 100% white.

Amexpat said...

I think part of the problem is equating skin color with race. Talking about a "black" and "white" race is a legacy of the justification for slavery in the Christian west.

Otherwise, it makes no sense. There are huge differences among sub Saharan Africans in regards to skin tone, facial features, body builds, not to mention culture. And the definition of "white" has changed in the last hundred years. Used to be swarthy Mediterraneans and Jews were not included.

Michael K said...

"I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science"

No, the trial lawyers will get there first. Hawaii is already suing the maker of Plavix because Hawaiians are affected differently.

I gave a copy of "The 10,000 Year Explosion" to a black orthopedist friend. I told him that Farrakhan was right about us white people being "ice people" because of the vitamin D effect on skin tone. He laughed and bought copies for his daughters.

Wince said...

Beginning in 1972, genetic findings began to be incorporated into this argument.... In this way, a consensus was established that among human populations there are no differences large enough to support the concept of 'biological race.' Instead, it was argued, race is a 'social construct,' a way of categorizing people that changes over time and across countries.

Is professor Reich sure it wasn't the 1972 resumption of Star Trek reruns and the Let That Be Your Last Battlefield Episode?

Bele: It is obvious to the most simpleminded that Lokai is of an inferior breed.

Mr. Spock: The obvious visual evidence, Commissioner, is that he is of the same breed as yourself.

Bele: Are you blind, Commander Spock? Well, look at me. Look at me!

Captain James T. Kirk: You are black on one side and white on the other.

Bele: I am black on the right side!

Captain James T. Kirk: I fail to see the significant difference.

Bele: Lokai is white on the right side. All of his people are white on the right side.

By 1972, what the Associated Press described [Star Trek] as "the show that won't die" aired in more than 100 American cities and 60 other countries, and more than 3,000 fans attended the first Star Trek convention in New York City.

Levi Starks said...

I don’t think you need to worry about advancing science anymore. I’m pretty sure we’ve already hit peak science, and are headed downhill.
Once man became his own god, the role of science became that of pushing what man wants to believe, biological realities need not apply.

LincolnTf said...

One thing I learned that amused me was that my wife has more Neanderthal DNA than 92% of the population, I have more than about 60% of the population. Oh, and I am descended from Niall of the Nine Hostages, a 5th Century Irish king whose family ruled and spread their genes for hundreds of years, and my wife shares a common ancestor with Ben Franklin.

buwaya said...

"What about your elites?"

I am a man of the world. In most of the world, even in places you may not credit, academics and scientists have more license to free speech than they do in the US (or the UK and Canada, which have their own sorts of the American disease).

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Race is a social construct in the same way that color is a social construct

I should note that race is lumpier than color, due to significantly more intrabreeding within populations than interbreeding between populations. But society still sets the boundaries, and does so quite unscientifically. ( For example, the one drop type rules label people black even if genetically they were 3/4 northern European. )

buwaya said...

The US academic culture is, perhaps, in these times, second to that of North Korea in its inability, out of fear, to freely conduct research and inquiry. You have money, endless money, but no guts.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

LincolnTf said...

...and my wife shares a common ancestor with Ben Franklin.

Everybody shares a common ancestor with Ben Franklin. And everyone else.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

Oh, and I am descended from Niall of the Nine Hostages, a 5th Century Irish king whose family ruled and spread their genes for hundreds of years, and my wife shares a common ancestor with Ben Franklin.

3/24/18, 9:08 AM

Many an Irishman can boast of being descended from kings, because there were a zillion of them in Ireland before the English rolled in. P.J. O'Rourke said he was told in Ireland that he was descended from kings and imagined his royal ancestor: "Hi, I am the king from that fence over to that pond, this is my wife the Queen and our dog Prince."

Meade said...

"Affirmative action." So perfect: two words; two lies.

It's like "Country Crock." Neither from the country nor a crock.

LincolnTf said...

2 to 3 million individuals (estimate by 23andme) have DNA that traces back to Niall, so it's not an exclusive club, but it does help pinpoint where in the British Isles my ancestors lived. Apparently there are still a few ruins that date back to Niall's era, so I have places to visit if I ever get back to Ireland.

AZ Bob said...

"The Emperor's Criminalizing Science pre-dates the criminalizing the political opposition on this proven flat earth by several eras. I blame it on the acceptance of the pork eaters. They should have been killed. Then men need to get back to the purity of Astrology the way the gods intended.

"My new book will be available soon." --traditionalguy

I'll keep an eye out for it.

Meade said...

"the one drop type rules label people black even if genetically they were 3/4 northern European."

Unless you are Pocahontas Warren. Your one-drop rule lets you pretend you're an Indian princess.

Tommy Duncan said...

bwebster said: ""Re-education" used to invoke shudders in American intellectual circles, being shorthand for the forced recantations against obvious facts (see "1984") that occurred in Red China and Soviet Russia, not to mention Vietnam and Cambodia. Now it's seen as a good and necessary thing for social progress."

Which is why the left is so comfortable using force to maintain compliance. It's good and necessary. Capitalism uses both the carrot and the stick. Socialists prefer the stick for thrill factor of forcing their ignorant and evil opponents to comply (Obamacare mandate).

Meade said...

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of a social construction is to stop discriminating on the basis of social constructions.

Meade said...

The way to defeat identity politics is to stop voting for Bushes, Clintons and Obamas.

Hagar said...

Sally Hemings' children did not "pass" for "white"; by Virginia law at the time anyone with less than 1/4 "foreign" blood were "white." The "one drop rule" came later, after attitudes had hardened and finally brought on the Civil War.

Owen said...

Buwaya: ".... You have money, endless money, but no guts."

Brutally honest assessment. How did this happen? Maybe it is the natural endpoint of the military-industrial-scientific-educational complex that President Eisenhower warned us about.

Anonymous said...

Second the above recommendation of Razib Khan's output. (If you recall, he was the guy who got hired by the NYT and then almost immediately canned due to the demands of the unsleeping thought police.)

As expected, many of the commenters are doggedly persevering in the same stale obfuscations and pre-emptive slanders (and flat-out nonsense) that they've been peddling for years whenever the subject comes up. As always, they are terribly concerned about the evil uses to which the racists in their heads might put this information (which they're still pretty sure isn't really so, anyway); they never consider the damage caused by denialism.

Fritz said...

The left thought they had won when they insisted race didn't exist (except when it was convenient for them). Now they're trying it with sex.

Michael McNeil said...

until my results showed up, 98.2% Northern European. So no exotic genes in either of us, kind of a bummer.

Any person not of predominantly (sub-Saharan) African descent inherits some 2.5% Neanderthal ancestry in their genes. That’s about the same proportion as if one of your great-great-great-grandparents was full-blooded Neanderthal. Sounds pretty “exotic” to me!

Meade said...

I love my brother. He and I share the exact same mother and father. We are practically identical twins — except for his being stronger, smarter, more handsome, humorous and accomplished. He has our Irish great-grandmother's blue eyes while I have our indigenous great-great-grandmother's mud brown eyes.

Man, I hate that guy.

Michael K said...

The US academic culture is, perhaps, in these times, second to that of North Korea in its inability, out of fear, to freely conduct research and inquiry.

It is being poisoned by feminist women. The poison is even creeping into STEM hence the collapsed bridge in Florida.

Said Leonor: “It’s very important for me as a woman and an engineer to be able to promote that to my daughter, because I think women have a different perspective. We’re able to put in an artistic touch and we’re able to build, too.”

Fritz said...

Michael McNeil said...
until my results showed up, 98.2% Northern European. So no exotic genes in either of us, kind of a bummer.

Any person not of predominantly (sub-Saharan) African descent inherits some 2.5% Neanderthal ancestry in their genes. That’s about the same proportion as if one of your great-great-great-grandparents was full-blooded Neanderthal. Sounds pretty “exotic” to me!


If you were Elizabeth Warren that would be enough to claim to be a Neanderthal on her Harvard application for minority status.

Michael McNeil said...

“the one drop type rules label people black even if genetically they were 3/4 northern European.”
Unless you are Pocahontas Warren. Your one-drop rule lets you pretend you're an Indian princess.


One might note that the present Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, Bill John Baker (in office since 2011), personally possesses exactly the same proportion of Cherokee blood — 1/32 — as Elizabeth Warren pretends to have — which is basically the same proportion (i.e., one full-blooded great-great-great-grandparent) as we [non- (sub-Saharan) Africans] have of Neanderthal blood!

So, we (those of us not of African descent) are all Neanderthals! (Or at least we ought to be able to run for President of the Neanderthal Nation….)

Anonymous said...

Lincoln Tf: ...until my results showed up, 98.2% Northern European. So no exotic genes in either of us, kind of a bummer.

The genes that identify your region of ancestral origin are pretty "exotic" relative to most humans.

Michael McNeil said...

Fritz: We were thinking along similar lines….

mockturtle said...

Watching the NCAA basketball tournament makes me think that schools should be forced by law to include more white players--maybe even in proportion to the population of the school at large. This 'affirmative action' measure should extend to the NBA, as well. ;-)

William said...

We like to pretend that race doesn't matter in the hope that someday it will not matter. It could work. People used to think that class, ethnic and religious differences were far more important than we do nowadays.......My German ancestors were part Jewish and my Irish ancestors were part English. Hybrid vigor. I've always been tall and healthy, but I can't think of any other field where my genetic code gave me an edge.

Gahrie said...

What we call "race" among humans we call "sub-species" in other animals.

Michael McNeil said...

The Neanderthal Nation includes all of the land areas of planet Earth except for sub-Saharan Africa.

Meade said...

"White people are potential humans - they haven't evolved yet." -- Louis Farrakhan

tim in vermont said...

I think part of the problem is equating skin color with race. Talking about a "black" and "white" race is a legacy of the justification for slavery in the Christian west.

Otherwise, it makes no sense.


Of course. Your virtue is noted! I wonder if the genetic differences between animals and plants is even significant enough to justify dividing us into separate “kingdoms”? It’s just a trick to make the differences appear so stark that even vegans will eat plants!

BTW, “significant” means whatever I say it means on any given day. As we all know, the meaning of any word is about “who is to be master” as Humpty Dumpty so sagely observed.

Meade said...

"What we call "race" among humans we call "sub-species" in other animals."

In botanical taxonomy we call them "varieties" or "named cultivars." Sometimes we refer to "landrace breed" or "standardized breed."

tim in vermont said...

What we call “race" among humans we call "sub-species" in other animals.

They used to call them races, races of bird species were spoken of when I was younger; that language has been banished. Brown bears and polar bears are races of the same species, that can easily interbreed, but shut up!

Otto said...

It's funny, to Christians this is a silly topic, that was overcome and made moot by the crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Knowing that is what flourishes mankind the dignity to do the best possible.

Bilwick said...

I believe Montagu's book on race used to be on the recommended reading list of the old Nathaniel Branden Institute back when Branden was Ayn Rand's St. Peter. Montagu's credibility took a big hit, for me, when he was on television arguing for the superiority of women over men, since they make better collectivists.

Gahrie said...

There are at least three distinct genetic populations of humans. In other animals we would call these populations sub species. (Siberian Tigers and Bengal Tigers are both sub species of tigers) In humans we call these populations "races".

The first group of humans are sub Saharan Africans. They are the most genetically pure humans, basically 100% Homo Sapiens. The second group interbred with the Neanderthals. The third group interbred with both the Neanderthals and a third hominid, called the Denisovans.



William said...

We're not that far away from gene splicing. Most people will chose to give their kids African hamstrings, Mediterranean complexions, and Northern European hair color. They'd probably opt for some other choices too, but these will be discussed in private and confidentially. The important thing to note is that race in the near future will be as antiquated as the abacus.

Paul Zrimsek said...

I don't understand. How was Montagu able to say in 1942 that race is a social concept with no genetic basis, if genetic findings didn't begin to be incorporated into the argument until 1972?

Saint Croix said...

When I was at Lucky Dog, my dog park/sports bar, there was a Golden Retriever who only would play with another Golden Retriever. And she was so happy! They were just rolling on the ground, a couple of Golden Retrievers, completely at home and happy with each other. But she would not play with any other dog. And she was suspicious of all the other breeds.

"Your dog is like a dog racist," I said. And the owner thought that was funny.

As she goes through life, that Golden Retriever will probably run into another Golden Retriever who is actually an asshole. And the Golden Retriever myth of unity will be shattered.

I had a Golden Retriever for 12 years. He looked like a pure breed. But he actually had a black dog for a dad. Some kind of Lab, maybe, or a Rottie. They don't really know. They just saw a black dog running away. And the litter was actually split, with four golden puppies and two black dog puppies. So maybe two different fathers? Biology is strange. Anyway, whenever Scout ran into a Rottie, he always wanted to hump that bitch. I'm not sure why.

Fritz said...

Gahrie said...
There are at least three distinct genetic populations of humans. In other animals we would call these populations sub species. (Siberian Tigers and Bengal Tigers are both sub species of tigers) In humans we call these populations "races".

The first group of humans are sub Saharan Africans. They are the most genetically pure humans, basically 100% Homo Sapiens. The second group interbred with the Neanderthals. The third group interbred with both the Neanderthals and a third hominid, called the Denisovans.


Denisovan women must have been pretty hot, since we interbred with them twice. By interbred, I assume that means we captured their women, and allowed the resulting offspring to live and continue to breed in our species.

Species is known to be a problematic taxon, with a malleable definition. It would be nice if there were a good sharp cutoff between species, but evolution doesn't work that way.

tim in vermont said...

Now it appears that whites are modern humans intebred with Neanderthals, and Asians appear to be modern humans interbred with Desinovans. Black Africans appear to be full on modern humans.

Apparently if you do studies of brain morphology, you come up with four distinct ancestral groups (but not races!) and that morphology of the brain is highly accurate in determining your genetic origins.

http://spartanideas.msu.edu/2016/03/26/genetic-ancestry-and-brain-morphology/

I don’t know what it means, but when I hear that there is a branch of Marxism called Critical Theory that pretends to be based on the findings of “social science,” one would assume that they would be all over these findings and have written reams of explanitory texts and guidelines to policy based on these new findings!

If one were of an argumentative state of mind, one could argue that the Neanderthals and Desivovans were leaving in peace and harmony with nature, and it wasn’t until the spread of modern humans out of Africa that environmental havoc began, in such things as the extinction of the world’s megafuana, which pretty much tracks the spread of modern humans, agriculture, etc.

Roughcoat said...

Buwaya: you are a rock star

I think of him as being more like an overbred horse. But, whatever.

Saint Croix said...

I feel like the racial scientists should come out with giant posters that label all the different breeds of humanity. With photographs, so we know who is who and what is what. I could give you the names of same veterinarians and they could give you tips on how to do it.

tim in vermont said...

The important thing to note is that race in the near future will be as antiquated as the abacus.

Yes, and these gene splicers will be run on clean abundant fusion power!

Gahrie said...

What sometimes amuses me on the Left (when it doesn't anger me) is their insistence that every minute difference in appearance and/or behavior when it comes to most animals on Earth is vital and crucial. We have to spend billions to save the Northern Spotted lesser Lefthanded owl because it is an entirely different species than the Northern spotted lesser righthanded owl. Yet gross differences in behavior and appearance in humans are meaningless.

buwaya said...

"overbred horse"

Neigh to you, you cur.

Anonymous said...

Amexpat: I think part of the problem is equating skin color with race.

The only people I've ever seen equating skin color with race are the people constructing straw-man arguments against the racists in their heads.

Seriously, do you really know people who categorize race by skin tone? People who, say, call white-skinned NE Asians "whites", and put dark-skinned southern Europeans into the same racial category as people native to Central Africa?

I've never come across anyone who believes that race has a biological basis, who defines race by skin tone. I've come across "social constructivist" types, credentialed academics, who say incredibly dumb things along the lines of "there are African albinos with white skin, so QED race isn't real" but I've never seen a "race realist" trod that particular patch of moron territory.

*I am not making this up.

Michael McNeil said...

Now it appears that whites are modern humans intebred with Neanderthals, and Asians appear to be modern humans interbred with Desinovans. Black Africans appear to be full on modern humans.

Asians generally do not possess Denisovan ancestry — despite the fact that Denisovans appear to have been somewhat the East Asian variant of Neanderthals. Asians in general have just about the same proportion of Neanderthal ancestry as Europeans and other non- (sub-Saharan) African descended peoples such as Native Americans. The only modern humans who have significant Denisovan ancestry are Melanesians, Papua New Guineans, and aboriginal Australians.

Meade said...

"I've never come across anyone who believes that race has a biological basis, who defines race by skin tone."

Well then I'd like you to meet my old friend Thomas. Tom, Ms. Buzzard. Angel, Thomas Jefferson.

Michael McNeil said...

The fact that Asians and Europeans today possess nearly the same proportion of Neanderthal ancestry is interpreted to mean that the interbreeding between Neanderthals and anatomically-modern humans occurred in the Middle East — perhaps in the vicinity of Israel — before the two streams of humans thereafter migrating west and east to people Europe and Asia respectively diverged from each other.

Robert Cook said...

"The only people I've ever seen equating skin color with race are the people constructing straw-man arguments against the racists in their heads."

And, of course, all those who, you know, "hate the n-----s!"

Gahrie said...

And, of course, all those who, you know, "hate the n-----s!"

How about the ones that hate Whitey?

Anonymous said...

William: We're not that far away from gene splicing. Most people will chose to give their kids African hamstrings, Mediterranean complexions, and Northern European hair color.

If direct genetic manipulation preferences track trends in sperm-donor demand, probably not.

They'd probably opt for some other choices too, but these will be discussed in private and confidentially. The important thing to note is that race in the near future will be as antiquated as the abacus.

People keep saying things like this but there isn't much evidence for it. Will the genetic composition of distinguishable human sub-groups change over time? Of course - gene pools are never static. Genetically distinctive human sub-groups in past were not the same as genetically distinctive sub-groups of today. That doesn't mean that there won't be different, genetically distinctive human sub-groups (races) in the future. Human populations don't mate randomly, and it's unlikely they'll "splice" randomly, either.

Earnest Prole said...

So Charles Murray is now considered polite society?

Saint Croix said...

Now I want to watch Best in Show again.

Anonymous said...

Cookie to me:

"The only people I've ever seen equating skin color with race are the people constructing straw-man arguments against the racists in their heads."

And, of course, all those who, you know, "hate the n-----s!"


Why "of course"? I'd bet that even "all those who, you know, 'hate the n-----s!'" don't categorize NE Asians and N. Europeans into the same racial group. Or even southern Europeans and Central Africans. The fact is that, no matter how bigoted or ignorant of the finer points of genetics, most human beings use many more data points than "skin tone" to make their categories. On that score "even all those who, you know, 'hate the n-----s!'" show considerably more sophistication than dim-witted "anti-racists" assume.

But "of course", I understand that such a claim was not the purpose of your splenetic little digression.

YoungHegelian said...

The only purpose of evolution is to use it to make fun of fundamentalist Christians, donchaknow. It has no applicability to human populations. Nuuh-uhhh. None.

I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science..

What I think the author misses is that many of the post-modernists who would claim that race is a "social construct" are really lying by omission. They're lying because they assume the non-postmodern listener still thinks there's a reality that's not a "social construct". But there isn't. Physics is a social construct. Logic is a social construct. So, if race is also a social construct, it's just as real as all other things, which are all social constructs.

Anonymous said...

Gahrie: ...sub Saharan Africans...are the most genetically pure humans, basically 100% Homo Sapiens.

Iirc, there is some evidence of sub-Saharan African Homo sapiens also interbreeding with the resident archaic human populations.

Don't quote me on this, though. I'd have to go look it up.

Gahrie said...

By the way...aren't the people saying that race doesn't exist the same people who are saying that everything wrong in the world is the fault of the White man?

Michael K said...

"And, of course, all those who, you know, "hate the n-----s!"

Thomas Sowell, who of course Cookie never heard of, said "I am so old that I remember when most racists were white."

Amexpat said...

Of course. Your virtue is noted!

As is your clumsy attempt at sarcasm and your inability to differentiate between a comment that's trying to make a political point and one that is positing the origins of how we view "race" in the west.

rhhardin said...

If you lie down with dogs, you get up with dogs. That's been my experience.

tcrosse said...

IN Soviet Union, dogs lie down with you.

n.n said...

Race (e.g. "color") does not matter. Character (e.g. principles, actions) matters. Institutional diversity is one step forward, two steps back.

loudogblog said...

Just yesterday, somebody posted this article from Newsweek into their facebook feed. The title is, "There is No Such Thing as Race."
http://www.newsweek.com/there-no-such-thing-race-283123

Howard said...

The biggest effects on humans are gravity and electrode-maggotism. Since these properties vary as a function of attitude and bongitude, generic muttations spawn the stereotypes between monaural through Dolby.

Fernandinande said...

Angle-Dyne, Angelic Buzzard said...
Seriously, do you really know people who categorize race by skin tone? People who, say, call white-skinned NE Asians "whites",


As Bart Simpson said of algebra, "I know of" such a person, perhaps:
How the Asians became white
By Eugene Volokh

Saint Croix said...
When I was at Lucky Dog, my dog park/sports bar,


That sounds like a cool place, what sports do the dogs play after they've had a few drinks?

Cat-ch?

there was a Golden Retriever who only would play with another Golden Retriever.

We had a Malamute who would attack dogs which didn't look like Malamutes (grew up with a floppy-eared lab...?), but our crazy res-dog doesn't like dogs which look like he does = Roughcoat's avatar.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

Hawaii is already suing the maker of Plavix because Hawaiians are affected differently.

Genetic differences engender biases, and those vectors matter in context. It could be social, it could be physiological, where the former is observed in philosophy and practice, and the latter can be characterized through mapping, history, and clinical trials.

wildswan said...

I completely subscribe to the notion that there is a danger that "well-meaning people ... are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science." But by that I mean that you cannot use the arguments worked out against the "science" of the old eugenics against the "science" of the new eugenics.

There are several kinds of eugenics swirling about in the culture today. There's old eugenics which had a research program whose results "proved scientifically" that African-Americans had an average IQ of 85, a full standard deviation below that of the average white person. And it was argued by this same group that this result was caused by a genetic deficiency in Blacks and that this genetic deficiency left them unfitted to handle modern technological society - or even school, a preparation for taking a place in modern technological society. This is what is meant by racism of the classic variety. This what was said by Cyril Burt, Arthur Jensen, HJ Eysenck and others funded by the Pioneer Fund in the years between 1945 and 2000. These are the people, English or American eugenic society members, whose "research" was used by Charles Murray in the Bell Curve. And there are commenters on this blog using this research.

Then there is a new form of eugenics which developed after the year 2000. That is the year the Human Genome Project ended and its various discoveries blew up the research basis for the previous version of eugenics. It was shown that many genes working in combination were the only possible explanation for large scale behavioral traits if genes were the explanation. And it was shown that life experiences could change gene expression during one's life in heritable ways. This undermined all previous twin research which was based on the premise that the same DNA leads to the same phenotype.

wildswan said...

Eugenics quickly remade itself however. The new discoveries led to the formation of enormous databases filled with genetic data. And at the same time the rise of the internet led to enormous databases filled with social and behavioral data. Eugenicists realized that if they claimed to be able to merge both types of databases in new forms of interpretation they would seem to have a powerful new tool for social interpretation, social intervention and social culling. And so they worked and developed a new breed of "experts". These are mostly young sociologists who got PhD's after 2000 who claim to be able to use genetic databases and the social and behavioral data one can get from Facebook or NIH sponsored surveys in order to reach "scientific" conclusions about "behavior", i.e., religion, nationalism, responses to the stress of living in the LA inner city, etc.

These young eugenicists and supporters of eugenics who write for the eugenic society journal are supported in their careers by NIH grants from the behavioral and social sciences sections in the NICHD, the NIA and the OBSSR. The danger is that their conclusion will become embodied in biomedical regulations and protocols published by the Federal government through NIH before they have ever been examined and challenged by anyone competent to evaluate their claims to have successfully combined genetic and behavioral data. NIH is not sponsoring investigation into the claims of their little pet scientists (many of them women). This should be of concern because these claims are now tending toward the usual eugenic nastiness - blacks have lower IQ's for genetic (or epigenetic) reasons, blacks have criminal tendencies for genetic (or epigenetic) reasons.

We can't count on people like David Reich to study these claims. At Harvard he has worked in The Human Evolutionary Biology program, a program founded by Peter Ellison, a former director of the American eugenic society (1996-1999). Reich isn't leading critical studies of exactly how his colleagues and students are combining genetic and behavioral data bases. Instead he seems to be trying to stun people into mental immobility by asserting the possession of unique data as if he were some necromancer weaving complex spells.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad you turned up to provide the crank's perspective on the matter, wildswan.

"Instead he seems to be trying to stun people into mental immobility by asserting the possession of unique data as if he were some necromancer weaving complex spells."

And I see you've even upped your game - new,improved, cranktastic!

n.n said...

There is also a eugenics program for life deemed unworthy, inconvenient, or unprofitable, that is subscribed to by progressives, and the liberal/libertarian nexus. Science, selectively. Law, selectively. Rights and responsibilities, selectively. The Pro-Choice religion.

Gahrie said...

@wildswan:

Are you claiming that there are not racial disparities in IQ tests worldwide, even when controlled for culture or language?

Are you claiming that IQ tests are not accurate predictors of the ability to be successful in modern civilization?

facts can be unpleasant sometimes, but they are still facts.

Gahrie said...

By the way...if all the talk of IQ tests is White racism...why did they put the Jews and Asians at the top?

Bilwick said...

Even if the Bell Curve theory is one day absolutely, positively proven, without a shadow of a doubt, to be valid, and that Blacks are in terms of the intelligence gene, inferior to Whites, I would still not know what if anything to do with that theory. I've heard "liberals" protest it on the grounds that, if true, social engineering and welfare programs are a waste and should be abolished. I think they should be abolished anyway because I don't believe in robbing Peter to subsidize Paul. Plus, I'm an individualist and try to deal with people as individuals. A Thomas Sowell or a Walter Williams is always going to be at least ten times smarter than an Inga or a Robert Cook. even if the latter two have skins as fair as my pale Irish behind.

wildswan said...

Blacks are not genetically stupid or criminals and I wish to Christ people would drop the thought. Maybe then we could get at why the real reason or reasons why they do poorly in school. As for what I'm doing:

I'm claiming that "IQ", whatever it is, is not genetically based. I'm claiming that IQ tests do not measure intelligence. I'm pointing out that IQ tests show that the average African-American has an IQ of 85. That is barely above mentally retarded. And that's absurd. And IQ tests show that sub-Saharan blacks have an average IQ of 50 - in other words more than half of them are seriously retarded. That's also absurd. And that's old eugenics talk.

But I'm also pointing out that the scientific basis for whole IQ controversy was altered by the results of the Human Genome project. I'm pointing out that there is an old eugenics and a new eugenics. I'm saying we have to know whether we are talking to a eugenicist (or one of their deluded but otherwise not so bad followers) who is spouting obsolete, discredited "facts" about twin research or whether we are talking to someone with shiny new eugenic lies. I say the shiny new lies should be studied and I'm suggesting one line would be to ask EXACTLY how genetic data and socio-behavioral data from different data bases and different formats are being linked. How, exactly? Another line of thought would be to ask NIH why they are sponsoring the new eugenics. If their response is that they are not knowingly doing so this would show that society has no protection from a new government sponsored eugenics since NIH is funding the research that appears in the eugenic society's journal, Biodemography and Social Biology. This is The Swamp being swampy in another part of itself; it's something I knew about before I, who do not watch network TV, knew who Donald Trump was or that he wanted to shrink The Swamp.

Earnest Prole said...

Although it's the epitome of White Privilege to say so, I have a dream of a nation where we will not be judged by the color of our skin but by the content of our character.

gadfly said...

The simplicity of "The Bell Curve" is often better than trying to prove otherwise. Consider:

Success in life depends on intelligence, which is measured by I.Q. tests. Intelligence is mostly a matter of heredity, as we know from studies of identical twins reared apart. Since I.Q. differences between individuals are mainly genetic, the same must be true for I.Q. differences between groups. So the I.Q. ranking of racial/ethnic groups — Ashkenazim Jews on top, followed by East Asians, whites in general, and then blacks — is fixed by nature, not culture. Social programs that seek to raise I.Q. are bound to be futile. Cognitive inequalities, being written in the genes, are here to stay, and so are the social inequalities that arise from them.


In "Intelligence and How to Get It" Richard E. Nisbett makes the point that:

When the evidence is ambiguous, it is all the easier for ideology to influence one’s scientific judgment. Liberals hope that social policy can redress life’s unfairness. Conservatives hold that natural inequality must be accepted as inevitable. When each side wants to believe certain scientific conclusions for extra-scientific reasons, skepticism is the better part of rigor.

Humanitarians among us believe that by composition, heredity is 75% of IQ scores but Nisbett thinks that the environment accounts for more than 50% of the scores - so at a cost of $15,000 per child, we can implement programs to improve IQs. Yet, by the author’s reckoning, it would cost less than $100 billion a year to extend such programs to the neediest third of America’s preschoolers. The gain to society would be incalculable.

What the heck - it is only money - $100 billion and no guarantee that life would be better without the cash in our pockets.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

There are substantial differences among human populations but the canard that there were discrete lines separating thousands of years of evolution those on either side of the Sahara, the Ural Mountains, or even the Himalayas is a bunch of racist bunk, no matter how conventional those arbitrary "dividing" lines remain.

becauseIdbefired said...

For those not familiar with it, there is the Flynn effect, which suggests IQs are rising in developed nations.

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

wildswan said...

"Intelligence is mostly a matter of heredity, as we know from studies of identical twins reared apart."
gadfly said... " Intelligence is mostly a matter of heredity, as we know from studies of identical twins reared apart."

Well, as I keep saying those studies aren't scientific because the studies of identical twins reared apart assumed that the twins had identical DNA. But since the end of the Human Genome project it has been known that persons with identical DNA can have different gene expressions because methyl side chains become attached to DNA sites and suppress expression. The previous studies did not take this into account. The premise being invalid the conclusions aren't scientific, just anecdotal at best.

But perhaps I'm wrong on this point. If so, why not answer this point? It should be easy - if I'm wrong. And, PS, there were serious questions about the methods used by Bell Curve authorities even before the Human Genome Project changed the scene.

wildswan said...

The last time we were going around on this I also asked why Catholic schools and certain charter schools serving deprived areas had better outcomes than the public schools in the same area, if the problem was caused by genetics. And I pointed out that Catholic schools were spending less per pupil. So improving school outcomes is not impossible and not a matter of expensive programs. But I don't think that back then anyone really met this point either. Maybe now with time to think someone could actually meet the point instead backing away into talk of PC people. Who is less PC than a pro-life, Roman Catholic, Trump-supporting registered Republican like myself? And damn proud of it all. Not everyone can antagonize all factions - but then I'm Irish also.

Fernandinande said...

exiledonmainstreet said...
Some of those Ancestry.com commercials amuse me. The people are so delighted to learn they're not 100% white.


From 23andme data

"We estimate that European Americans who carry at least 2% (!) Native American ancestry are found most frequently in Louisiana, North Dakota, and other states in the West. Using a less stringent threshold of 1% (!! - less than the amount of error??), our estimates suggest that as many as 8% of individuals from Louisiana and upward of 3% of individuals from some states in the West and Southwest carry Native American ancestry.
...
Individuals with more than 5% Native American ancestry are most likely to self-identify as Latino."


So a small fraction of people who think they're "white", in certain areas, have extremely small amounts of Amerindian DNA.

Paco Wové said...

wildswan – could you please provide a link to any of the things you are claiming to be true?

mockturtle said...

Intelligent people are not necessarily good people, nor wise. Some career criminals are highly intelligent.

MikeR said...

I don't know the truth about IQ and race or genetics, and I doubt anyone else does either. But that author was sure busy apologizing a lot.

Anonymous said...

I was led to understand that Prof. Reich's opinions are no longer allowed. I look forward to his upcoming ritual mobbing.

Anonymous said...

Paco: wildswan – could you please provide a link to any of the things you are claiming to be true?

If wildswan provides links, we predict that they'll adhere to the proper cranks' guidelines she's observed in the past, viz., link to some goodthinkers' squid ink, or studies that don't say what you claim they say.

She's been flogging this weird "muh methylation and muh epigenetics destroy racist twin studies" bafflegab for years.

("Bafflegab" is probably unfair. That implies deliberate obfuscation, rather than a writer who doesn't know what she's talking about, and doesn't know that she doesn't know what she's talking about.)