August 31, 2020

"So what does [Andrew] Sullivan believe about race? ... Mr. Sullivan said he was frustrated by the most extreme claims that biology has no connection to our lives."

"He believes, for instance, that Freudian theories that early childhood may push people toward homosexuality could have some merit, combined with genetics. 'Everything is environmental for the left except gays, where it’s totally genetic; and everything is genetic for the right, except for gays,' he said sarcastically. I tried out my most charitable interpretation of his view on race and I.Q.... that he is most frustrated by the notion that you can’t talk about the influence of biology and genetics on humanity. But that he’s not actually saying he thinks Black people as a group are less intelligent. He’d be equally open to the view, I suggested, that data exploring genetics and its connection to intelligence would find that Black people are on average smarter than other groups. 'It could be, although the evidence is not trending in that direction as far as I pay attention to it. But I don’t much,' he said.... 'Let’s say Jews. I mean, just look at the Nobel Prize. I’m just saying — there’s something there, I think. And I’m not sure what it is, but I’m just not prepared to accept the whole thing is over.' I’ve been reading Mr. Sullivan too long to write him off.... I wish Mr. Sullivan would accept that the project of trying to link the biological fiction of race with the science of genetics ought, in fact, to be over."

From "I’m Still Reading Andrew Sullivan. But I Can’t Defend Him/He’s one of the most influential journalists of the last three decades, but he’s shadowed by a 1994 magazine cover story that claimed to show a link between race and I.Q." by Ben Smith (NYT).

I went over to Twitter to look up what Sullivan had to say, and at the top of my feed was this:

110 comments:

Yancey Ward said...

The blank slate clearly does not truly exist. Yes, environment is a big effect on development, but at this point denying the effect of genetic endowment is a case of not believing your lying eyes.

Jupiter said...

Ben Smith, following The Science.

Screaming, "Stop! No! You mustn't! Don't go there!"

gahrie said...

IQ is the most studied and validated metric in social science. It has proven to be valid and predictive across national, cultural and linguistic lines.

The reason the Left denies the validity of IQ is because it reveals some unpleasant truths that undermine the Left's ideology. The truth is, there are differences in IQ between the races, and these differences matter. The Left insists that Black people do worse in school because of systematic racism. IQ says that Blacks do worse in school, because on average they are less intelligent.

Race exists. It effects medical science every day. IQ exists. We use it in our schools every single day. Trying to deny either is denying science.

gerry said...

He’d be equally open to the view, I suggested, that data exploring genetics and its connection to intelligence would find that Black people are on average smarter than other groups. 'It could be, although the evidence is not trending in that direction as far as I pay attention to it. But I don’t much,' he said.

Good heavens, is Sullivan a crypto-Wilsonian-Democrat?

rehajm said...

There's a link between race and IQ. People have been bitching about it for ages. Woke is late ot the party. Woke can't cancel it...

rehajm said...

Everyone bitches about blacks being ten points down. Nobody says boo about asians being 15 points up....

Mike Sylwester said...

I'm confused about the rules.

Is a person allowed to say that Blacks generally score lower on IQ tests?

If a person is allowed to say so, then can the person discuss that phenomenon?

Sebastian said...

"I wish Mr. Sullivan would accept that the project of trying to link the biological fiction of race with the science of genetics ought, in fact, to be over.""

The science is settled! Except that genetics is moving forward, mostly in ways that upset prog assumptions.

"From "I’m Still Reading Andrew Sullivan. But I Can’t Defend Him/He’s one of the most influential journalists of the last three decades, but he’s shadowed by a 1994 magazine cover story that claimed to show a link between race and I.Q." by Ben Smith (NYT)."

"Claimed" to show? It is a fact, a very unfortunate fact, that the IQ distributions of self-identified whites and self-identified blacks and self-identified Asians differ. As to why, opinions still differ. But there is no dispute about the fact, except insofar as progs declare debate about the fact and its implications taboo.

Mike Sylwester said...

Is Ben Smith an expert on the biology of IQ scores?

MikeR said...

Huh? Is this completely dishonest? Sullivan seems to have been pushed away because he pushed back at the SJWs and their Cancel Culture. When is the last time he even mentioned the Bell Curve or anything about it? His recent comments on race were that White Fragility was poisonous garbage.
It sounds like they needed a reason "not to be able to defend him" without defending Woke Nonsense and went back and dug something up from his distant past.

Fernandinande said...

"I’m still reading the NYT but I can’t defend it."

Nice one.

I tried out my most charitable interpretation of his view on race and I.Q.... that he is most frustrated by the notion that you can’t talk about the influence of biology and genetics on humanity.

I'm interested in the high correlation between leftism/Marxism and Lysenkoism; do they fight against genetics because of their desire to create a new form of human, e.g. the "New Soviet Man"?

But that he’s not actually saying he thinks Black people as a group are less intelligent.

Well, he should because there's really no doubt that blacks are less intelligent than other races is the US, e.g.; only uninformed ideologues attempt to deny it.

JAORE said...

Party of science, exhibit # 18,645.

YoungHegelian said...

I wish Mr. Sullivan would accept that the project of trying to link the biological fiction of race with the science of genetics ought, in fact, to be over.

But races & more importantly ethnic groupings are, in essence, genotypes. That's why the Irish have red hair, Swedes blond, and Greeks black.

There's a lot of bad history on the Left here. One, the Left always misrepresents what "racialists" of whatever stripes believe, reducing them to their most imbecilic & evil versions. For example, the 19th C "Scientific Racists" like De Gobineau spoke of race when we today would speak of ethnicity, e.g the Italian, German, etc. races. This is always misrepresented. Two, the Left has always had its "issues" with the biological determinism of Darwinian genetics, since they preached an extreme version of environmental pliancy, e.g the New Soviet Man, who could be built into whatever the state wanted him to be. The horror that was Lysenkoism was an attempt by the Marxist-Leninists to create a genetic science built around environmental pliancy.

Indeed, the question of if there's a human nature at all is one of the foremost differences between Conservatism/Classical Liberalism & the Far Left.

DKWalser said...

We all have views and beliefs that conflict with other views and beliefs that we also hold. Still, I have a hard time fathoming the mental gymnastics required to be a woke member of the left. They proudly proclaim their faith in science and claim that science proves their policy prescriptions are correct. Yet, they also insist that science cannot investigate a growing number of questions. They demand in the name of science that we accept 'truths' that science cannot vet -- such as math and time being tools of white supremacy. Their spotty acceptance of science makes stereotypical cafeteria-Catholics look positively orthodox in comparison.

Fernandinande said...

Science papers retracted for political reasons -

The Great Awokening Leading to the Great Retraction—and A New Dark Age for Science

+

"Here, we demonstrate that Liberals are particularly prone to bias about victims’ groups (e.g. Blacks, Muslims, women) and identify a trait that consistently predicts this bias. This trait, termed Equalitarianism, stems from an aversion to inequality and is comprised of three interrelated assumptions: (1) demographic groups do not differ biologically; (2) prejudice is ubiquitous; (3) society can, and should, make all groups equal in society."

James Graham said...

Left dogma: genetics only works south of the human neck.

narciso said...

Ben smith journolister, who published the fraudulent danchenko crib aheet against the three oligarchs

n.n said...

Nature, environment, and nurture. Genotype, phenotype, and learned. Sex, gender, and social.

doctrev said...

Oof. I keep forgetting that a lot of Christopher Hitchens' fame during the Iraq War was due to being surrounded by leftist retards. And having a British accent, which I assume the Hudson's Bay Company and the redcoat armies conditioned America's ancestors to regard as a sign of unchallenged intellect and charisma. Andrew Sullivan, for all his sexual and intellectual confusion, can pitch a similar "relative fastball" when pressed.

Michael K said...

I was at Dartmouth when "The Bell mCurve" came out. I bought a copy and read it. Others in the medical school asked if they could read it when I was finished. They did not want to be seen buying it in the Dartmouth Bookstore.

Many gays are born that way. The others are sucked in as teenagers.

rhhardin said...

Blacks aren't less intelligent. The black average intelligence is less. Any black can be smart, in fact that was my experience until I left college and encountered black opinion on TV. The chief effect is that the stupid end of the tail is unexpectedly stupid, and if you don't encounter that tail (for instance that tail doesn't show up in school) you'll never notice.

Any race-columnized summary of averages for anything resembling an IQ test will show the race average differences in IQ test taking. The public policy warning is don't accuse anybody of discrimination. You'll start a race war that will make everything worse.

When good character can be taught pretty easily and trumps IQ.

Roger Sweeny said...

Is a person allowed to say that Blacks generally score lower on IQ tests?

If a person is allowed to say so, then can the person discuss that phenomenon?


Yes, though it is bad manners. Best not to say anything.

No. One is then obligated to say that IQ tests are racially biased, that growing up in a racist society causes blacks to score lower, etc.

Anthony said...

>>Race exists.

No, only clades.

Larry J said...

For many arguments, there are purists who argue that X is completely dominant while other purists argue that Y is dominant. The old nature (genetics) verses nurture (environment) argument is a classic example. When it comes to genetics, there are genes that are purely deterministic, such as eye color. If you have the genes for brown eyes, you're going to get brown eyes every time. For other characteristics, genetics set potentials. If, for example, your family ancestry contains a lot of tall people, you're likely to get genes related to height. However, if your environment was poor (e.g. your mother had poor nutrition during pregnancy or you had a poor diet as a child), you may never reach your genetic potential for height. You can see this by the relatively stunted height of North Koreans compared to South Koreans.

Are their genetic factors related to intelligence? Quite likely, although I have not read of any research that has identified any such genes. Assuming for the moment that such genes do exist, this is another case where they might set some potential for intelligence but the environment would play a decisive role. Poor diet, lack of educational opportunities, and related factors would likely play at least as big a role in a person's intelligence as their genes.

As for race, among homo sapiens, there is the human race. There are many skin colors and many cultures, but there is only the human race. When some racist government form like the census demands I specify my race, I mark "Other" and write in "Human".

Original Mike said...

"No. One is then obligated to say that IQ tests are racially biased, that growing up in a racist society causes blacks to score lower, etc."

Is there IQ data for blacks in Africa?

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

doctrev said...

And having a British accent, which I assume the Hudson's Bay Company and the redcoat armies conditioned America's ancestors to regard as a sign of unchallenged intellect and charisma.

Why do you think John Oliver even has a career in this country? There's nothing that makes an American Lefties panties damp like being dressed down by a Limey!

Jamie said...

he’s shadowed by a 1994 magazine cover story that claimed to show a link between race and I.Q.

And yet it moves.

I agree generally with the commenter above about epigenetic and environmental effects on IQ, though I stop short of declaring that epigenetic and environmental effects "play at least as big a role" as genetics - I don't know if that's accurate. But...

...it moves.

mandrewa said...

Neanderthal genes. Neanderthal genes correlate with autism, schizophrenia, mood disorders, and depression. That's a very partial list of the negatives of having Neanderthal genes. These are all illness that are more common in non-Africans than in Africans.

For about 50% of our DNA there are simply no Neanderthal variant genes at all. Likely this is because those combinations were so unfortunate that they have been eliminated from the gene pool. For the remaining 50% of the DNA you can find someone somewhere that has the Neanderthal version, but the probabilities of these genes occurring are hardly all equal. The two big peaks for Neanderthal genes, that is the most common Neanderthal genes for people to have, are for immunity and for genes having to do with the brain.

The immunity peak is pretty easy to explain. Having some Neanderthal genes in the DNA that codes for antibodies protects you against a number of diseases that purely African DNA does not.

As for the brain DNA, well we are allowed to talk about the negatives, you can find any number of papers that talk about the negatives, but the one probable positive is a taboo subject.

On I guess I need to say because so many people don't know it: everybody in the world outside of sub-Sarahan Africa has Neanderthal DNA. The Chinese, on average, actually have more than the Europeans do.

Not Sure said...

Also heritable: willingness to defer gratification

These results indicate a notable degree of genetic infuence on economic time preferences.

Fernandinande said...

Are their genetic factors related to intelligence? Quite likely, although I have not read of any research that has identified any such genes.

Well, then you're not keeping up on the subject -

Genome-wide association meta-analysis in 269,867 individuals identifies new genetic and functional links to intelligence
"Intelligence is highly heritable1 and a major determinant of human health and well-being."

+

"We used a case–control genome-wide association (GWA) design with cases consisting of 1238 individuals from the top 0.0003 (~170 mean IQ) of the population distribution of intelligence and 8172 unselected population-based controls. The single-nucleotide polymorphism heritability for the extreme IQ trait was 0.33 (0.02), which is the highest so far for a cognitive phenotype, and significant genome-wide genetic correlations of 0.78 were observed with educational attainment and 0.86 with population IQ."

Poor diet, lack of educational opportunities, and related factors would likely play at least as big a role in a person's intelligence as their genes.

Those are not significant factors in the western civilization.

Not Sure said...

Ben Smith pronounces the liberal shibboleth

Elliott A said...

Perhaps the issue is that intelligence is elevated over other talents in importance. Ashkenazi Jews are the highest IQ ethnic group and have an inordinate number of geniuses relative to any population. Yet, there are not very many and until the founding of Israel, they weren't in charge of anything. Any number of other talents are equally essential to a society. We just need to stop the continual attempt to shoehorn everyone into the same pair of shoes.

William said...

I do okay on IQ tests but you'd never know it from all the stupid things I've done. I don't know who exactly to blame my stupid mistakes on. It has nothing to do with raw IQ, and those mistakes couldn't possibly be my fault. It was probably my parents' fault. They gave me a lot of bad advice and taught me a lot of wrong lessons while I was growing up.....Yeah, that's it. Bad parenting is more predictive of stupid life choices than IQ or character......I've done okay in some areas of life. I wish that those areas of success were due to superior intelligence or character as opposed to good luck, but I'm not so sure..... Anyway, I didn't get fat. Does that demonstrate my character or my ability to make intelligent choices or my vanity .....We are all odd mixtures of IQ, character, culture, parenting, nutrition, etc, and you could go crazy trying to determine the inflection points and accent marks.....I'd rather sign a multi-year contract for a hundred million dollars with some sports team or record company than win a Nobel Prize in Physics. Genetic inheritance has not completely screwed Black people out of life's rewards.....Stream of consciousness here. Probably some sarcasm involved.

Jamie said...

Of course the unanswered issues are that IQ tests (1) were created by white people in a majority-white environment (so it's possible that there really are biases in them that the creators and many current users don't or can't detect), and (2) are a kind of proxy for white-defined success (so perhaps there are other measures that would coordinate better with a different definition of success).

These questions are real. But they're also sort of beside the point, since "white-defined success" remains the kind of success that matters most, rightly or wrongly (I personally go with "rightly" - and I reject the idea that it's "white-defined" in any case rather than "reality-based"). An analogy: I'm a singer, a gifted amateur with a decent amount of classical training. By the metrics that matter in assessing a classical singer, though, I don't project well enough and I have insufficient tonal and breath control. That's just the way it is. I can plead all day long that my voice ought to be assessed by different metrics, but by the metrics that matter to classical music aficionados, I'm just not good enough.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Which blacks had more potential as slaves, and were more likely to survive the voyage on the slave trader? The ones in better physical condition, not the smarter ones. And did the different physical environment in Europe tend to select people with different characteristics than the physical environment in Africa?

Ironclad said...

Listen to science except when it says something you don't like is the motto here.

IQ exists - it's just one part of a person that determines your academic ability, just like athletic ability or emotional empathy or musical ability or physical characteristics come from the luck of the genes. Sure, environmental has an impact, but it's usually negative in subtracting from potential. If anyone says that you can make anyone a physics success by just studying - I have bad news or you. And it's true to say half the population is above average just like half is below.

IQ does play a large part in financial success, so it IS noted as being desirable. At least some countries - like Germany - separate the kids into 3 tracks - academic, vocation and very low basic training. Try that in the US where they push the lie that "everyone should go to college".

Sorry - WAY too many tests over the years say the same thing - there is a difference between groups, but that doesn't mean that EVERYONE in the group is lower than the others. That's why Harvard and the Ivy league schools hoover up the talented in the race game and leave the rest for other schools to puzzle over how to fit them in.

Sullivan is right on the issue. Murray had the guts to write a book on it. But the left can't handle science.

hstad said...

AA - I read this entire article from you and the garbage published by "Ben Smith" in the NYT. Wow, so much propoganda and denying of facts its hard for me to really comprehend. But what I got from this is the Liberals are starting to eat each other. Two 'White Dudes' arguing about Liberal issues.

Ben Smith states: "...He’s one of the most influential journalists of the last three decades..." really on what scale are you measuring - Sullivan's infatuation with Palin's private parts? If on the other hand pushing of propoganda by Sullivan I might agree - that means Sullivan is not a real journalist but an Liberal Activist.

Ambrose said...

Smith's article says this about Sullivan: "He burned bridges with Republican friends when he publicly doubted Sarah Palin’s announcement in 2008 that she was pregnant. " Is that right? I remember the event differently.

doctrev said...

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Why do you think John Oliver even has a career in this country? There's nothing that makes an American Lefties panties damp like being dressed down by a Limey!

8/31/20, 12:47 PM

I assume it's the same reason that Piers Morgan keeps being able to find work, but point well made.

bagoh20 said...

Imagine saying "I still go to Flat Earth Society meetings, but I can't defend it."
Or "I still read Karl Marx everyday, but I can't defend him."

Bay Area Guy said...

Ben Smith is an idiot, easy to ignore.

Sully, regardless of flaws, is not an idiot. He's a smart guy. And, he's fairly honest. The problem is that he gets all excitable over issues and strays from common sense.

IQ tests freak people out because certain groups don't do as well as certain other groups.

Myself, not a big fan of IQ tests. I prefer assessing a person's character, rather than his IQ. But in a world of Darwinian evolution and slavish devotion to DNA and genetic testing, well, it makes sense that intelligence is an inheritable trait -- just like every other trait.

Ironclad said...

The comment on Neanderthal brains hits a big point that is a real no-no in the paleontology area - that being that as more and more digs show that humans were "out of Africa" way before the conventional timeline. Neanderthals and Denovesian bred easily with Homo Sapiens and that blows the "different species" contention of those groups into the dirt. They were more like different breeds of humans - different in appearance and characteristics - but quite human.

Dogs anyone? Would a Martian say a Chihuahua and a Great Dane are different species because they look different?

But to ADMIT that opens the door to the difference between races situation and that is a NO NO. Those differences are a lot less than in the past too - due to interbreeding, but they still show up. But political suicide to admit.

Next time "race is a social construct" is used - demand that drug tests not take race into account as a variable. Doubt you get many takers there.

Terry di Tufo said...

The most popular Reader comments are strongly in Sullivan's favor

MikeR said...

Too many comments on IQ. Don't get sucked in. They are trying to distract you. Some article from more than twenty years ago has nothing to do with why they are attacking Andrew Sullivan.

Michael K said...

are a kind of proxy for white-defined success (so perhaps there are other measures that would coordinate better with a different definition of success).

Jimmy the Greek got into all kinds of trouble saying something like that. Another "definition of success" would be running faster.

Remember "White Men Can't Jump?"

"White defined success" is stuff like Engineering and Math.

readering said...

Surprising number of folks who want to promote scientific theories as basis for their beliefs on historical intelligence of races, but not when it comes to evolution of species.

Jupiter said...

"As for race, among homo sapiens, there is the human race. There are many skin colors and many cultures, but there is only the human race."

Dogs have breeds. We have a perfectly good word to describe the same phenomenon in humans, which clearly exists. Why do you reject it? What do you want to replace it with? Are you likely to be mistaken for a Hottentot?

Ralph L said...

The others are sucked in as teenagers.

Like a gang jumping in.

gerry said...

Ironclad at 1:22 But the left can't handle science.

Lysenkoism is a good example of your statement. The whole Lysenko debacle is a great example of what happens when elitists politicize science. It's just like what's happened with COVID.

n.n said...

IQ is a point, a color, if you will, in a human constellation. It has some and no significance at all.

Narr said...

Denisovian.

The older I get the MORE high IQ is a criteria for my judgement of others.

Science(tm) tells me I have 2+% Neanderthal genes.

Narr
No unibrow, though

Martin said...

The problem with looking into racial differences in anything, but esp. intelligence, isd that it threatens the edifice based on what used to be called "disparate impact," that any differemce in representation and accomplishment can only be due to prejdice. There are, of course, other possible reasons (than genetic intelligence endowment, if we could even define that, or blatamt prejudice), such as cultural, interest or lack thereof, amd so on.

Better to just pretend that all differences are due only to prejudice, and keep society on Procrustes' bed.

Anonymous said...

Readering, a surprising number of people who fucking love science and believe that science is real turn out to be creationists.

readering said...

"Dogs have breeds."

Most of the world's dogs are mutts. More true of humans.

Gahrie said...

Is a person allowed to say that Blacks generally score lower on IQ tests?

If a person is allowed to say so, then can the person discuss that phenomenon?


You should see the reactions I get when I try to discuss it with school psychologists at work. See, what everyone forgets or ignores, is that we use IQ tests in our schools every day to decide who is gifted, who is normal and who needs extra help. And trust me, they are evaluated differently based on race. (If not most Black kids would never qualify for special education)

Gahrie said...

"As for race, among homo sapiens, there is the human race. There are many skin colors and many cultures, but there is only the human race."

There are at least three distinct genetic populations of humans. We refer to them as "races", but indeed we could use "breed" instead.

No one has a problem understanding that a chihuahua and a Doberman are very different animals, yet both are still dogs.

DavidUW said...

1) IQ is largely heritable. It is pretty clearly several genes/gene families contributing to different aspects of intelligence, with fewer perhaps or just a couple contributing to raw processing speed.
2) Those who think IQ cannot differ in statistical distributions among genetically distinct populations need to answer why nearly every top sprinter in the world is of west African descent, while nearly every top distance runner in the world is of East African descent.
3) Those who think human populations have not had enough time to become genetically distinct need to answer why there was enough time for only certain populations of humans to develop the Mongolian eye fold, blue eyes, "African" hair, skin color variations, sickle cell anemia, beta-thalassemia, and a host of other traits.

If anyone thinks that in the face of overwhelming evidence in #2 and #3 above that distinct human populations, who have obviously diverged on frequencies of those traits, cannot also diverge on a few genetic characteristics of intelligence, well, that person is stupid.

Gahrie said...

Surprising number of folks who want to promote scientific theories as basis for their beliefs on historical intelligence of races, but not when it comes to evolution of species.

IQ has much more validation and evidentiary support than evolution does. The theory of evolution is our best idea at the moment, but far from a proven thing. As a deist, I personally believe in intelligent design.

narciso said...

I hold no brief for sullivan, but this is the most ridiculous argument could possibly make,

Gahrie said...

@Jamie

Of course the unanswered issues are that IQ tests (1) were created by white people in a majority-white environment (so it's possible that there really are biases in them that the creators and many current users don't or can't detect),

IQ tests have been validated across cultural and linguistic lines. many in fact are purely symbolic, with no numbers or letters in them. In a famous case, a man went to a university in South Africa, and gave the test to White and Black South Africans attending a university. The results were consistent with historical results. We use IQ results in our schools every day.

I'm a singer, a gifted amateur with a decent amount of classical training. By the metrics that matter in assessing a classical singer, though, I don't project well enough and I have insufficient tonal and breath control. That's just the way it is. I can plead all day long that my voice ought to be assessed by different metrics, but by the metrics that matter to classical music aficionados, I'm just not good enough.

Bullshit. You have the voice of an angel. (or at least you did. I haven't heard you sing in 37 years)

But I get your point. There are very few short Jewish men who can't jump in the NBA.

Gahrie said...

On I guess I need to say because so many people don't know it: everybody in the world outside of sub-Sarahan Africa has Neanderthal DNA. The Chinese, on average, actually have more than the Europeans do.

Asians have DNA from at least three different species of human: Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal and Denisovans.

Gahrie said...

Is there IQ data for blacks in Africa?

As I stated in an earlier comment, there is a semi-famous case where a professor went to South Africa and gave IQ tests to White and Black South Africans who were attending university. The results were consistent with results in the United States.

Lem said...

The attempt to cancel Andrew Sullivan back on?

MBunge said...

Sullivan is still going to vote for Joe Biden this November. What does that say about his IQ?

Mike

Doug said...

Poor diet, lack of educational opportunities, and related factors would likely play at least as big a role in a person's intelligence as their genes.

Those are not significant factors in the western civilization.


For (lower case b)lacks, poor diet results from poor personal choices (by a parent), and lacking wealth, public schools available to most blacks is definitely a significant factor.

Jamie said...

Surprising number of folks who want to promote scientific theories as basis for their beliefs on historical intelligence of races, but not when it comes to evolution of species.

I... think you mistake this audience.

Rumpletweezer said...

Charles Murray is one of the few people on the planet that when my opinion on something is different from his, I assume he's right and I'm wrong. I dated a high school teacher in the eighties and I asked her what if there was solid evidence that one racial group was smarter than another group. She just said, "No." Things are true whether you want them to be or not.

Mike Sylwester said...

readering at 2:08 PM
Surprising number of folks who want to promote scientific theories as basis for their beliefs on historical intelligence of races, but not when it comes to evolution of species.

Do you think any commenter in this particular blog thread disputes the evolution of species?

Earnest Prole said...

I wish Mr. Sullivan would accept that the project of trying to link the biological fiction of race with the science of genetics ought, in fact, to be over.

If only Kenyan long-distance runners didn’t exist.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

It's not a single magazine cover or a few fringe commenters. Since 1970 the evidence has grown year over year that there is a significant heritable component to IQ (and, that IQ is deeply related to any credible definition of intelligence, even allowing for differences of culture and opinion). There are no other numbers, only weird changes of subject or endless redefining of terms to get away from the obvious. Even if you throw all the Caucasians, Jews, Asians, Hispanics, and Pacific Islanders out of the pool and just look at African-Americans, the SAT's, a pretty decent IQ proxy (it doesn't test spatial abilities all that well), predict college success very well. How can this be?

We don't have to call our observable differences races. If there is only one race of humans, fine. But once you go down that road then unweighted college admissions cannot logically be excluded, only politically excluded. This is what we have been doing and will continue to do, because we cannot admit the truth and cannot say it out loud.

I often wonder if liberals actually do quietly take this view, that we're always going to have to give special advantages to black people or they won't vote for us, and there's not really anything that can be done except pretend that a few tweaks and executing a few racists every generation will solve the problem Someday, One Day. I think it is a horrible redefining of people's worth in terms of their comparative fitness for Ivy League studies, when a wider variety of Moral Foundations values or even (gulp) religious values might be better for us all. Yet I don't see how they get off that train, and they are dragging us all with them.

Let's ruin African-American lives, but not hurt their feelings seems to be the plan.

gilbar said...

The Left insists that Black people do worse in school because of systematic racism. IQ says that Blacks do worse in school, because on average they are less intelligent.

Serious Question.
IF we Completely Remove race from the equation,
could we Then say that people with lower IQ's do worse in school?
('cause it's TRUE, isn't it?)

Michael K said...

readering said...
Surprising number of folks who want to promote scientific theories as basis for their beliefs on historical intelligence of races, but not when it comes to evolution of species.


You make no sense. Do you know anything about evolution ? Do you know why white skin evolved ? Do you know why Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQs but also Tay Sachs disease ?

Reading would be good for you.

Larvell said...

Sullivan:

1. If you aren’t for law and order, the rest of the stuff doesn’t matter.
2. The Democrats are not for law and order.
3. It’s important to elect Biden.

All in the same article. He’s smart and stupid at the same time. Which makes him 50% better than most leftist commentators.

historyDoc said...

Another reputation assassination attempt by Ben Smith. Last seen doing the same thing to Ronan Farrow. Taking down conservatives and fellow progs who don't perfectly toe the woke line seems to be his specialty. Had to go 25 years back in the archive to make this "hit" stick. Political henchmen all over the world should be proud of him.

Francisco D said...

Ben Smith is simply letting people know what thoughts and opinions are unacceptable today. ThoughtCrime, if you will.

He knows almost nothing about the issues that he has blacklisted, but why should that stop a SJW looking to remake all of us into the Modern Soviet Man?

Walter Duranty approves.

George Orwell could not be reached for comment.

readering said...

Michael K: Read closer.

mandrewa said...

"Asians have DNA from at least three different species of human: Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal and Denisovans."

No, they don't.

According to Wikipedia, it's the Australian aborigines, the Melanesians (some of the Pacific Islands), and the Papuans (Papua New Guinea) that have Denisovan DNA. About 3 to 6 percent of their DNA is Denisovan. Now all of these people also have Neanderthal DNA, but this is the only group of people living today that have all three ancestries.

Now we know from the one Denisovan bone that has been found, and which DNA in it, that the Denisovans used to live in Asia but modern Asians don't have that ancestry.

Marcus Bressler said...

IIRC, I had a rather high IQ result on the few tests I took when I was much younger. I attribute most of my "smartness" to being able to recall quite of bit of what I have read. But my life, plagued by alcoholism (in remission now for over 26 years) and a host of character defects (almost sociopathic except my therapist says I am can't be because I have had remorse over many of my wrongdoings), seems to be just dogpaddling along, trying to stay above the surface. A certain spiritually-based 12 Step program keeps me somewhat in line. For a "smart guy", I have made tons of bad decisions and still, to this day, continue to do so.

THEOLDMAN

Michael McNeil said...

The theory of evolution is our best idea at the moment, but far from a proven thing.

The fact is that, outside of abstract mathematics, there is no such thing as “proof” in science. No scientific theory has even been, or ever will be, “proven” true.

As a deist, I personally believe in intelligent design.

The problem with so-called “intelligent design” as an alternative to evolution's natural selection is that the former is disproven by the observable evidence. (As noted above, scientific theories cannot be proven — but they can be disproven!)

The fact is that the kind of “design” that we see in evolution is completely different from the way human designers (the only known “intelligent designers” in the universe) design things.

Human designers (whether designing hardware or software), when they develop or invent a particular technological method or solution, immediately put it into their bag of tools — to be reintroduced and reused whenever convenient.

In observing the evolutionary natural world, contrariwise, technological “tricks” or solutions — once invented and introduced into a particular (what evolution declares to be a) biological lineage — can be observed to never be used again elsewhere. Lineages of descendants outside the direct line which originated a particular innovation (such as eyes) must reinvent such technology from scratch if they are to possess that capability (e.g. seeing).

As we see when that happens (comparing the separate evolution of eyes in vertebrates vs. e.g. molluscs), the two technologies are completely independent — so that, for instance, the retinas of mollusc eyes are organized back-to-front compared with vertebrate eyes. (As a result of that ancient design choice, mollusc eyes have no “blind spot” — a necessary feature of vertebrate eyes, including our own.)

Thus, since evolution observably lacks characteristics that all “intelligent designers” exhibit, intelligent design is not viable as a substitute scientific theory of “evolution.”

mandrewa said...

And I'm out of date. It's not just one bone Denisovan bone that has been found, it's eight now. And I assume eight different DNA samples. All of them from cold caves, mostly in Russia, and of course that's how the DNA survived.

The archaic Neanderthal/Denisovans split from archaic Homo sapiens 804,000 years ago. And then they split into Neanderthals and Denisovans 640,000 years ago. And then the Denisovans may have hybridized with another hominoid species but we are not sure of this.

And then there were at least 3 or 4 successful Neanderthal/Homo sapiens interspecies matings in the last 50,000 years that despite all of the problems that Neanderthal genes bring were amazing successful since something like 5 out of 6 people today are the descendants of those three or four people.

And then something similar with the Denisovans, and then once again it was fantastically successful because it is only these Denisovan hybrids that survived to modern times and lived in Australia, Papua New Guinea, and some of the Pacific Islands before the European invasion.

Unknown said...

From someone cancelled so long ago that cancellation is meaningless, the recently published Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class by Charles Murray does a good job of summarizing the literature and making educated guesses about where the research is likely to lead. The heartening thing is that science works. People tend toward truth in science because it takes a horrible personal toll upon one to be a Lysenkoist.

I wish that were true in other areas of scholarship. I doubt that Duncan Kennedy, Roberto Unger, Larry Tribe or any other of their hosts of myrmidons will ever feel a moment of shame for their vacuous crap that has led us to this moment in politics in which the largest political party in America has chosen as its best and brightest a blank sheet of teleprompter.

Social JusticeIsGay said...

Blacks are grossly inferior.

No this is not me speaking. This is them.

And the Smithsonian, apparently.....

Michael McNeil said...

Folks here continue to parrot the notion (apparently vaguely remembered from high-school biology class decades ago) that members of different biological species physically cannot — essentially as a matter of definition — reproduce with each other.

It's false and a myth that separate species can't interbreed in modern biological science. On the contrary, it appears that separate species — at least within the genus (next higher taxonomic) level, and not always limited to that — most frequently can reproduce fertilely — and not just producing infertile “mules” (a la horses reproducing with donkeys).

As a for example, all members of genus Canis (dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals) — and not just “dogs” — are interfertile. Moreover, cats as different as lions and tigers are able to interbreed. And for a cross-genera exemplar, we have bison (Bison bison) vs. cattle (Bos taurus) — which are so freely able to reproduce together and have done so, that biologists are now perplexed and working to remove the introduced cattle genes from the modern (American) bison genome!

No, what makes for separate “species” (and sub-species, and even genera) in our biological world isn't that they physically can't reproduce necessarily, but simply that they (usually) don't — for whatever reason(s).

Such a reason for not reproducing between two species can be genetic incompatibility (as seen in the case of horses and donkeys). But at least as often the lack of cross-“species” reproduction is due to other factors, such as: 1) Isolation: i.e., they live in different places and seldom or never meet — this is what over time made Neanderthals and H. sapiens different species (if they were).

2) Alternatively, even when living basically right next door to each other, two closely-related species might not often encounter one other: if, e.g., one is active during the day, and the other at night.

3) Or they fail to reproduce simply because they've evolved “attractiveness” barriers — as species with overlapping territories often do as they're genetically separating — and so simply don't find each other physically attractive enough to want to get it on.

It's the effective lack of reproduction combined with evolution and genetic drift that ultimately drives two divergent lines into deserving of the classification separate “species” — not whether they cannot physically reproduce. The latter limitation will eventually occur as the two species genomes gradually diverge further and further apart from each other — eventually reproduction between them will be like trying to repair Ford cars using Chevy parts: it just ain't-a-gonna work — but that can take a long time.

Readering said...

Thanks Michael McNeil. Never read it expressed that way. Further reading? I come at it from different direction. Intelligent design was invented as a theory in response to a USSC decision that overturned the teaching of creationism in public schools while leaving open the possible teaching of other scientific theories on human origins.

megapotamus said...

Yes, blacks are less intelligent than whites. Black Africans are less intelligent than black Americans (an argument for the appellation African American) and Maori/Aboriginals less intelligent still. But we are all less intelligent than our great grandsires. The Flynn Effect is rubbish, explained by familiarity with testing. Overall intelligence is in steep decline. The reason? Child morality has plunged from the eternal human norm of fifty some percent to one. Yes, some places it is three or four or ten but hygiene, medicine, nutrition, safety, wildlife control and other advances mean darwinian pressures are not just removed but inverted. Intelligence is inversely associated with fertility anywhere civilized enough to compile such numbers. Dutton and Woodleys At Our Wit's End tells the sorry tale. To top it off these storehouses of adverse mutations walking about then set to pervert society to their own preferences. The solution? None, really. Only reproductive conditions approximating Tudor England, at best could slow, halt and then reverse the collapse. No one wants that but if, as seems plausible, it happens without anyone wanting it you will know it was inevitable, salutary and cyclical.

Michael K said...

readering said...
Michael K: Read closer.


I'm not nearsighted and make an effort to sound intelligent.

I'm actually more interested in Rickettsial evolution than human but you seem to know nothing about either.

I think you said you were a lawyer so it makes sense for lawyers to avoid science and math.

Michael K said...

Black Africans are less intelligent than black Americans (an argument for the appellation African American)

I don't know any evidence for that and do know some about the Nigerian tribes, especially the Igbo. Many of them have immigrated and work as "quants" in the financial industry. I also know quite a few as doctors and medical students.

Skookum John said...

@Michael K: I don't know any evidence for that and do know some about the Nigerian tribes, especially the Igbo. Many of them have immigrated and work as "quants" in the financial industry. I also know quite a few as doctors and medical students.

That has been my experience too, but there is an extraordinarily strong selection bias that you have not taken into account. How many Igbo could pass the USMLE?

Gahrie said...

The fact is that the kind of “design” that we see in evolution is completely different from the way human designers (the only known “intelligent designers” in the universe) design things.

You do understand that intelligent design postulates a non-human designer... right?

Winston Smith said...

Racial IQ differences are extremely well-established by cognitive science. And it's reasonably well-established that about 50% of IQ is heritable. The academic left routinely claim exactly the opposite--that "science has proven" that racial IQ differences are fictional. But that's exactly wrong. And it's why they opened up a new front by declaring that IQ (or g, anyway) doesn't measure anything real and/or is "culturally biased." And it *could* be the latter--a little bit. But mostly it isn't. It's correlated with too many different objective measures of success. So they've now moved on to claiming that race itself isn't real--or, at least isn't biological. They don't want it to be *entirely* unreal, because it's what they all claim to study. So they now try to say it's real, but social. Or "socially constructed," which is a phrase that means about ten different things, depending on what's convenient to the left at the moment. These arguments, too, fail. Races are, in fact, natural kinds (though not terribly significant ones). At this point, you'd think they'd have moved to such a deep phase of denial, deception, and bullshit that there's no deeper level to move to. But you'd be wrong. They still have at least one more move: to outright subordinate truth, evidence, and science to politics. Which is, fundamentally, what political correctness is. In some sectors of the intellectual / academic left, they've gone so far as to claim that science is no more rational that witchcraft...or that science is subordinate to literary theory (because "science is just another form of writing," and it's literary theorists who are, allegedly, experts in interpretation... Which is also absurd.)

I was semi- on the left until about 2.5 years ago...but then the insanity of it all finally came into perspective. (Though, to my credit, I was always a reasonably sane liberal--never a progressive nor radical.)

Skookum John said...

@Larry J: Are their (sic) genetic factors related to intelligence? Quite likely, although I have not read of any research that has identified any such genes.

Good God, Larry, you need to do the most basic of Google searches before making such a spectacle of your ignorance. There are hundreds of genes that correlate with intelligence. A recent study found more than 500.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2163484-found-more-than-500-genes-that-are-linked-to-intelligence/

Obadiah said...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Jefferson framed these famous words as a statement of religious faith, founded in the belief in a benevolent Creator. Even now, in our very secular age, we have a touching faith in this concept, and it is considered immoral to contradict the equality of all men, despite abundant evidence to the contrary. But if we jettison the concept of a Creator, then what is the basis for any belief in the equality of all mankind? Then it can only be an empirical question to be tested by data. And if the data says that some segments of the human species are less equal than others, then we can't resolve this contradiction. To those with a religious faith, this makes perfect sense as a statement of faith. But to the atheist there is no way out of the dilemma.

William said...

WRT race and IQ, there is little doubt that there are differences. But if it is white supremacists who rely on that to support their claim to supremacy then the fact that Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians has to destroy their claim.

WRT nature vs nurture and homosexuality. I think that virtually all people exist on a continuous spectrum between strictly straight and strictly homosexual. The majority of people are pretty strongly heterosexual and a smaller group are pretty strongly homosexual and I think that is probably primarily due to genetic influence. I think people who are somewhere on the spectrum between those two poles are the ones who may be influenced by environmental issues to identify as one or the other. How large that middle group is I really haven't got even a wild guess.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

As for race, among homo sapiens, there is the human race. There are many skin colors and many cultures, but there is only the human race.

That’s a load of crap. Different ethic groups exhibit varying ratios of negroid, caucasoid and mongoloid characteristics. Negroid dominant people are more likely to suffer sickle cell anemia.

Readering said...

Michael K: read closer, pontificate less.

The Drill SGT said...

'Let’s say Jews. I mean, just look at the Nobel Prize. I’m just saying — there’s something there,

I have a belief that Jews as a group must be smarter than the average Caucasian. As I explained to a Jewish GF, that's because over the centuries all the dumb Jews got killed off in one Pogrom or another. Darwin...

The Crack Emcee said...

"So what does [Andrew] Sullivan believe about race? "

"Is anyone as unsurprised as I am that he's a Leo?"

-- Andrew Sullivan, Obama's Birthday, August 4th, 2008, The Atlantic

How Andrew's worth reading or discussing after THAT is a mystery.

wildswan said...

It's because the association of race, IQ and evolution has led to some of the most deadly social policies of the 20C that anyone who plays about with the ideas finds themselves tumbling about in a racing torrent of controversy.

The whole IQ issue matters because the early 20C eugenicists associated IQ as measured by tests with one's place in a hierarchy of evolution. When then members of the black community got low scores the eugenic society members placed the black community at the bottom of the evolutionary ladder. Now, those at the bottom of the evolutionary ladder are scheduled for extermination by natural selection according to Darwinian theory and it is of the essence of eugenics to try to hurry on natural selection among human groups by using social policies to cause an inevitable extermination to happen sooner than it would have happened naturally. That is why Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews - German eugenicists thought Jews were at the bottom of the evolutionary ladder. That is why Margaret Sanger wanted to be sure to introduce birth control among the poor Southern blacks and why Planned Parenthood abortion clinics are near or within large black communities. Early 20C eugenicists had concluded on the basis of IQ tests that American blacks were a failing human group being extinguished by natural selection but the natural process was not fast enough to suit Margaret Sanger. And eugenicists have continued to say that low IQ scores among American blacks mean an lagging group in terms of evolution and a group that should be exterminated one way or other by one social policy or another. CB Davenport said it early in the 20C, HF Osborn said it, Frederick Osborn said it at Mid-Century and the 40 eugenicists whose work was the basis of the Bell Curve said it in 1994. Sullivan was aligning himself with this ghastly history.

Science can always be debated but history cannot be changed. If you take up with theories that have led to segregation, laws against intermarriage, the Aryan laws of the Nazis and the Holocaust, you will be fiercely criticized. And you can't simply bleat out that you personally have no interest in those bad social policies. Your critics are correct when they say those ideas led and always do lead to those policies. An individual like Sullivan may never arrive at the logical conclusion of his own thought but a prominent blogger who introduced a group of people into a eugenic way of thinking would be responsible when the group as whole reached the inevitable racist conclusion and started to work for a eugenic extermination. History is now there to warn where eugenic thinking will take you.

Michael McNeil said...

I come at it from different direction. Intelligent design was invented as a theory in response to a USSC decision that overturned the teaching of creationism in public schools while leaving open the possible teaching of other scientific theories on human origins.

I'm aware of that “origins theory” for intelligent design. Indeed, it's probably true, I expect, that the aforementioned Supreme Court decision did result in additional social and political pressure backing the theory of intelligent design.

I'm confident, however, that even without that court decision, there would have been enough folk who appreciated the apparent scientific nature of the Intelligent Design explanation — as opposed to the purely religious outlook of its Creationist alternative — plus were also attracted by the former's seeming order and reason versus evolution's apparent chaos and randomness — for the I-D theory to still exist and perhaps to thrive.

Fortunately for the distinguishing of real science vs. pseudoscience, however, though some opponents of I-D claim that the theory is uncheckable, that seems wrong to me.

The theory does make predictions (such as the prediction noted up-thread that its designs will resemble those of human “intelligent designers”: i.e. the only ones known) — and many of those predictions can be checked against the real world — which, as we see in the foregoing example, it fails.

Dex Quire said...

In what sense does race exist? Features like skin color and nose shape are superficial data withing the genome. The blond Swede and the Central African Pygmy can have kids. Can you connect the genes for these physical traits with genes for intelligence? I don't think so. We don't even know what intelligence is. Good at math? IQ tests do seem to cull for that, I will admit. Otherwise IQ isn't so useful. What about cunning, deceit, patience, humor, stealth, courage ... how does IQ account for these important survival traits. I'm sure 4th century Romans weren't all that sad to leave England, the incorrigible natives, etc., painting themselves blue and worshiping trees and whatnot. Try telling those Romans that centuries hence these Englishmen will rule an Empire of the oceans. "Yeah, right," the Romans would say. "Haven't you seen their IQ scores ....

Bruce Hayden said...

“'Let’s say Jews. I mean, just look at the Nobel Prize. I’m just saying — there’s something there,

“I have a belief that Jews as a group must be smarter than the average Caucasian. As I explained to a Jewish GF, that's because over the centuries all the dumb Jews got killed off in one Pogrom or another. Darwin...”

A less bloody hypothesis is that they were limited by the Christians, in particular, in which they were living, to certain professions, which included money lending (and ultimately banking), as well as some other allied areas. They were also often merchants. In any case, the more money you had, the more kids you could and typically did have. Because of the high correlation between one type of intelligence and breeding success, that type of intelligence was selected for, which is how evolution works. Making it work faster here, the population of European Jews was fairly closed, and comparatively small.

I expect that Dr K knows where I picked up this theory - we have talked about it here before.

Winston Smith said...

Race exists in the sense that other natural kinds like species exist. And we don't understand exactly what way that is. Homeostatic property clusters, maybe. Races can interbreed--but so can species. Can we connect genes for the physical traits with genes for intelligence? I dunno. I don't keep up with it that closely. My understanding is: not yet. But we can't even nail down the genes for the physical traits all that well yet. So this isn't much of an objection--all it tells us is that we don't know everything about genetics yet.

And: nobody said that IQ captures everything that can possibly be construed as intelligence. Intelligence, like all other human and scientific categories, is vague. Fact is, though, IQ captures the most central aspects of intelligence. We could expand it to capture less-central aspects if we wanted to.

Nobody claims we know everything about all this. But we know quite a bit.

Tina Trent said...

Doesn't it seem quaint to remember when the dominant leftist narrative was that homosexuality (and also heterosexuality) were present at birth, instead of being "fluid"?

Craig Howard said...

Overall intelligence is in steep decline. The reason? Child morality has plunged from the eternal human norm of fifty some percent to one.

Bingo!

The rise of the modern welfare state since WWII has effectively short-circuited evolution. It is not any longer only the strong who survive.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Sullivan is an unreliable narrator (like all of us). I remember back in the early 2000's when he went on a months-long anti-waterboarding rage. At one point he mentioned that he had considered if his own history of childhood asthma influenced his reasoning on the topic of water boarding, and then he dismissed that idea out of hand.
Curious.
So I started to pay attention to the language Sullivan used when describing how anti-gay norms made him (& other gays) feel. His phrases repeatedly referred to strangulation, choking, being denied the air he needed to live . . .

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger Tina Trent said...

Doesn't it seem quaint to remember when the dominant leftist narrative was that homosexuality (and also heterosexuality) were present at birth, instead of being "fluid"?


No, Leftists do not believe that sexual preference is fluid (regardless of the words that they use). Instead they believe that it ratchets in one direction. A heterosexual who changes his/her sexual definition to homosexual is merely revealing what they always were. A homosexual can never legitimately become a heterosexual.

Michael McNeil said...

You do understand that intelligent design postulates a non-human designer... right?

Naturally. However, to be as alien as what we see revealed in the long, observable history of the natural world, it would have to be an “intelligence” which has no memory — which is to say, an alien intelligence totally different from our brain, memory, and cognition-based consciousness and intelligence — and therefore, unlikely to be present in any actual aliens we might encounter in the universe.

Notice too that intelligent designer theorists are careful not to specify exactly what their postulated “intelligence” consists of. As we see — despite the I-D'ers general argument-from-incredulity, holding that if we encounter something in the natural world that seems like it was designed, therefore it's just got to be conceived of by a (implicitly human-like) “designer” — now theory's advocates come back defending it by postulating that “Oh, they're just too alien for us to understand!” Certainly this about-face undercuts the I-D'ers argument. (What's left of it? Not much!)

Indeed, the only “intelligence” we know of that is capable of totally brainless design — which is to say, “designing” without a human-designer-like memory, visualization, and cognition — is… evolution. (Which indeed may be regarded as being a kind of extremely alien, “non-human” — despite its presence in potential in every cell of our bodies — intelligence.)

Skeptical Economist said...

Ben Smith can claim that race has no "biological basis". He can claim that the Earth is flat and 2 + 2 is really 5. Doesn't make it true.

Below are a set of demonstrations that race is indeed a biological concept.

David Reich writing in the New York Times, stated the following.

“Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have been made over the last two decades. These advances enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years. With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.”

For another example, take a look at “The Inconvenient Science of Racial DNA Profiling”. A scientist by the name of Tony Frudakis was able to identify the race of a serial killer in a police investigation in Louisiana. The police in Louisiana were looking for a white male killer based on (mis)information received early in the case. They were wrong. Frudakis examined DNA samples collected in the investigation and told the police that the killer was probably 85% Black and 15% Native American. Based on this new information the police starting examining new suspects and found the actual killer (who matched Frudakis’s description rather well).

See also “Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies” by Neil Risch and others.

“We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population. Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed.”

In other words, race can be determined from genes with 99.86% accuracy.

See also “To classify humanity is not that hard” by Razib Kahn. Quote

“The idea that human phylogeny is impossible is in the air, I have heard it from many intelligent people. I have no idea why people would be skeptical of it, the way it is presented by many scholars makes the implication clear that phylogeny is impossible, that differences are trivial. Both these are false impressions. I do not believe that the fact that mixed-race people’s real problems obtaining organs with the appropriate tissue match is a trivial affair. Human genetic differences have plenty of concrete impacts which are not socially constructed.”

Skeptical Economist said...

Based on what I have read, homosexuality appears to be a mixture of genetic and environmental influences. There is data to support the partially-genetic thesis. Note that environmental influences (in this case) are meant to include both pre-natal hormones and cultural influences after birth. The pre-natal hormone thesis (PNHT) appears to be well-supported in the literature. It certainly fits with the

"We were born this way"

claim of most (but not all) gays. My guess is that genetics and PNHT account for most gay people. Perhaps they account for all of them.

It is worth noting that AI can now distinguish (to a certain degree) between gay and non-gay faces. This certainly fits with some combination of genetic influences and the PNHT.

Dex Quire said...

The smartest thing the left did in the 20th century was to abandon this toxic nonsense of IQ, eugenics and race; the dumbest thing the right did in the 20th century was to pick it all up and run with it.