Tag: science

Genetic segregation

“The regional nature of selection was first made evident in a genomewide scan undertaken by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the University of Chicago, in 2006. He looked for genes under selection in the three major races—Africans, East Asians and Europeans (or more exactly Caucasians, but European genetics are at present much better understood, so European populations are the usual subjects of study). Copious genetic data had been collected on each race as part of the HapMap, a project undertaken by the National Institutes of Health to explore the genetic roots of common disease. In each race Pritchard found about 200 genetic regions that showed a characteristic signature of having been under selection (206 in Africans, 185 in East Asians and 188 in Europeans). But in each race, a largely different set of genes was under selection, with only quite minor overlaps.”

The primary theme of Nicholas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance is repeated over and over by Wade in the early chapters like a drumbeat, as if he knows the critical reader is not going to read very far into the book and will misrepresent what Wade is asserting: human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional. It is also apparent that Wade knows why his words are likely to be twisted and attacked: “The fact that human evolution has been recent, copious and regional is not widely recognized, even though it has now been reported by many articles in the literature of genetics. The reason is in part that the knowledge is so new and in part because it raises awkward challenges to deeply held conventional wisdom.”

Genetic science has already exploded most of the equalitarian mantras. We are not all the same under the skin. Race is not a social construct. Race is not only skin-deep. The content of your character can, on average, be estimated by, if not necessarily the color of your skin, the sum total of your superficial features. Human evolution did not stop at some point in the distant past. Civilization is not magically bestowed by geographic location. Education is not the answer.

The reason even professional biologists are afraid to discuss the current scientific evidence coming out of the genetic laboratories is because it leads to one inescapable conclusion: all of the social policies based upon the idea of basic human equality are doomed to failure. And worse, when combined with other evidence from other disciplines, it leads to a second conclusion: most of the social policies designed to improve the lot of the so-called disadvantaged are not merely doomed to failure, but are intrinsically dyscivic in nature and are more likely to drag the genetically advantaged populations down into semi-barbarism than to help the genetically disadvantaged populations become fully civilized on average.

Not all of the specifics of these known genetic differences are known, much less the full extent of their effects on human behavior. Some of them are, of course, trivial. But they are not all insignificant. Consider, for example, the example of the MAO-A gene, which is connected to the control of aggression.

“As it happens, the promoter for MAO-A is quite variable in the human population. People may have two, three, four or five copies of it, and the more copies they have, the more of the MAO-A enzyme their cells produce. What difference does this make to a person’s behavior? Quite a lot, it turns out. People with three, four or five copies of the MAO-A promoter are normal but those with only two copies have a much higher level of delinquency…. He and his colleagues looked at the MAO-A promoters in African Americans. The subjects were the same 2,524 American youths in the study by Shih mentioned above. Of the African American men in the sample, 5% carried two MAO-A promoters, the condition that Shih had found to be associated with higher levels of delinquency. Members of the two-promoter group were significantly more likely to have been arrested and imprisoned than African Americans who carried three or four promoters. The same comparison could not be made in white, or Caucasian, males, the researchers report, because only 0.1% carry the two-promoter allele.”

Does this mean that all African-Americans are prone to violence? No, it proves the exact opposite. The vast majority are not. But it does mean that with regards to this single factor related to an individual’s ability to control his own aggression, an African-American male is 50 times more likely to have a genetic handicap in comparison with a white male. Therefore, social policies that blithely assume that African-American males have the same intrinsic ability to control their aggression as white males are not only unscientific, but can be reliably predicted to fail. That is just one significant genetic distinction that has been discovered. There will be more. There will be many more.

Equality is not merely unscientific, at this point it is now objectively antiscientific. The undeniable fact of human genetic segregation does not intrinsically justify the eugenic excesses and ethnic cleansings of the past. But sooner or later, as the science advances, it will force the eventual discussion of whether the costs of playing equalitarian make-believe are too high for Western civilization, if that civilization wishes to survive.

Slouching towards barbarism

In his book A Troublesome Inheritance, Nicholas Wade points out what he believes to be two of the most important steps in building an advanced Western civilization. The first is the more fundamental one:

How then was the profound transition made from the chimplike society of the joint ancestor to the hunter-gatherer societies in which all humans lived until 15,000 years ago and in which kinship was a central institution? The likely steps in this process have been persuasively worked out by the primatologist Bernard Chapais. The critical behavioral step, in his view, was formation of the pair bond, or at least a stable breeding relationship between male and female….

Having a dad around makes all the difference to social networks. In highly promiscuous societies like those of chimps, an individual knows only its mother and the siblings it grows up with. With pair bonding, people know not only their father as well as their mother, but all their father’s relatives too. The males in a community now recognized both their daughters and, when their daughters dispersed to a neighboring group, a daughter’s husband and his parents.

The development of the heterosexual pair bond, which eventually developed into monogamous marriage, appears to have been crucial in the development of tribalism. It therefore follows that the modern sexual free-for-all and the weakening of the vital pair bond involved is not only dyscivic, but downright dehumanizing.

The second significant step Wade identifies comes much later, and enables the escape from tribalism. This was accomplished most successfully, and fully, in England, but also took place in East Asia:

The entry to the modern industrial world has two principal requirements. The first is to develop institutions that enable a society to break away, at least to some substantial extent, from the default human institution of tribalism. Tribalism, being built around kinship ties, is incompatible with the institutions of a modern state.

The break from tribalism probably requires a population to evolve such behaviors as higher levels of trust toward those outside the family or tribe. A second required evolutionary change is the transformation of a population’s social traits from the violent, short-term, impulsive behavior typical of many hunter-gatherer and tribal societies into the more disciplined, future-oriented behavior seen in East Asian societies and documented by Clark for English workers at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

But this break from tribalism required a eugenic and eucivic mechanism, one that Wade rather generously labels “natural selection”: the English rich consistently having a little more than twice as many children as the poor.

As it happens, Clark has documented four behaviors that steadily changed in the English population between 1200 and 1800, as well as a plausible mechanism of change. The four behaviors are those of interpersonal violence, literacy, the propensity to save and the propensity to work….

“The surname evidence confirms a permanent selection in pre-industrial England for the genes of the economically successful, and against the genes of the poor and the criminal,” Clark concludes. “Their extra reproductive success had a permanent impact on the genetic composition of the later population.”

Clark’s data provide substantial evidence that the English population responded genetically to the harsh stresses of a Malthusian regime and that the shifts in its social behavior from 1200 to 1800 were shaped by natural selection. The burden of proof is surely shifted to those who might wish to assert that the English population was miraculously exempt from the very forces of natural selection whose existence it had suggested to Darwin.

If Wade and Clark are correct, this has terrible implications for the profoundly dyscivic mechanisms we are witnessing across the West today, where the dependent classes and the imported barbarians have considerably more children than the productive classes. While this part of the book is more logic based on statistical and historical observations than science, its scientific aspects are fairly firm. Blank slatists attempting to dismiss it unread, (the ever-inept PZ Myers being but one example), will soon find themselves forced to take scientifically indefensible positions.

That was fast

Nicholas Wade, the author of the excellent A Troublesome Inheritance and science editor of the New York Times, is now still the FORMER science editor of the New York Times:

Nicholas Wade, a British-born science reporter and editor for more than 30 years with The New York Times, is no longer with the newspaper — just days after the release of his latest book, in which he depicts blacks with roots in sub-Saharan Africa as genetically less adapted to modern life than whites and Asians.

Was The New York Times uncomfortable with Wade’s science or his conclusions? It’s unclear. Neither Wade nor his former employer returned requests for comment.

Wade’s last Times article appeared April 24. His Penguin Press book “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History” arrived in bookstores on Tuesday, May 6. In excerpts from his book posted by Time.com on Friday, he is identified as a “former science editor” of the Times. Until then, coverage of his book called him a current Times journalist.

Obviously he deserved it, as he undeniably implied black people are “differently evolved” when he wrote that only 45 of the 394 genes currently deemed to be under selection are the same genes in blacks and whites. In light of such an atrocity, he may as well have called someone a “half-savage”; clearly he must be lambasted and ritualistically assailed by every goodthinking individual. I wonder if it is still acceptable to the Left to describe the fine, upstanding gentlemen who belong to Boko Haram and are so eager to host teenage schoolgirls as “less than entirely civilized although otherwise totally equal to all individuals of both sexes of European descent in every way” or if that too is a purgeable offense?

The Left is more than uncomfortable with both science and the conclusions that logically follow from it. It is now openly and avowedly anti-science. What is fascinating is that most clueless Leftists still feverishly insist that they, and not the Right, are pro-science even as they reject it in favor of various nonexistent ideals. As I have repeatedly pointed out since last August, the time for tolerating the Left has passed. Your only choice now is to submit to them or to shatter them.

UPDATE: I’m not sure this proves that Wade was not “fired”, even if he had already stepped down as science editor. “Anyway, just heard from reliable source that Wade took a retirement
package a couple of years ago.  The deal was that he could continue to
make occasional contributions on a fee basis.”

If he continues to make occasional contributions, then we’ll know he wasn’t canned for his book. If his last contribution on a fee basis turns out to have been April 24th, well, that would not prove that he was fired, but it would tend to indicate that was the case.

UPDATE 2: Not so fast. Apparently the Daily Caller author let his imagination run away with him.

“I retired from the Times about two years ago. There’s a stupid story you may have seen in the blogosphere. It is completely untrue. The writer just made that up. The fact that he saw the words ‘former Science editor’ in the piece I did in Time. He assumed that I had been fired by the Times. There is nothing to the story at all. I myself wrote the word ‘former’ in because I saw that the Time editor in putting the tag line on had said that I was Science editor of the Times. Since that was some time in the past, and is no longer true, I inserted the word ‘former’ and the writer in the Daily Caller just made the story up out of thin air. He made absolutely no attempt to contact me and not a word of it is true.” 

Geno-cultural eucivicism

The “culture is not genetic” crowd is finished, they simply don’t realize it yet because they a) have never thought logically through their position, and, b) are not up on the relevant science. This study of differing Han cognitive styles is but one of the many examples that is putting the coup de grace into the blank slate myth:

It has long been suggested that China’s reliance on rice fostered collectivist attitudes, and the Confucian emphasis on group allegiance and conformity. Such attitudes are even cited as explaining why Europe, rather than China, was the home of the industrial revolution: the revolution was based on scientific thinking, which is held to rely on individualism and openness to innovation. But the idea that growing rice promotes a group mentality remained speculation.

Talhelm and his colleagues in China decided to test it. They gave standard tests for cognitive style, individualism, and in-group loyalty to 1162 students in six cities across China, in wheat or rice-growing areas. All were Han Chinese, China’s dominant ethnic group, so other differences were hopefully minimal.

Nevertheless, they found many differences in cognitive style. For instance, students from all-wheat areas were 56 per cent more likely to think analytically than students from all-rice areas. For example, when asked to match the two closest of sheep, dog and grass, they grouped sheep and dog, which appear most similar. Students from rice-growing areas grouped sheep and grass, as these have the closest relationship to each other in real life, and to them this relationship mattered more than physical resemblance.

I read Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance yesterday, and while it was not without flaws, it does make for a useful roundup of the current state of genetic science as it presently relates to race, culture, and civilization. It is very nearly a restatement of my time-to-civilization hypothesis, and even provides some evidence in support of this.

Due to the intertwining of genetic microevolution, culture, and individual behavior, it is very likely that the differences in cognitive style observed are the result of genetic microevolution in the divergent Han populations brought about by the different growing cultures. It might be useful to think of these “cultural selections” as inadvertent genetic programming which tends to have either eucivic or dyscivic consequences over time.

I will get into this in considerably more detail over the next week, but after reading Wade’s book, it is apparent to me that geno-cultural eucivicism is likely to become one of the more important concepts of the 21st century.

Exploding orthodoxy

Charles Murray anticipates that “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History” by Nicholas Wade, is going to explode more equalitarian minds than his own landmark work did:

The orthodoxy’s equivalent of the Nicene Creed has two scientific
tenets. The first, promulgated by geneticist Richard Lewontin in “The
Apportionment of Human Diversity” (1972), is that the races are so close
to genetically identical that “racial classification is now seen to be
of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.” The second,
popularized by the late paleontologist
Stephen Jay Gould,
is that human evolution in everything but cosmetic differences
stopped before humans left Africa, meaning that “human equality is a
contingent fact of history,” as he put it in an essay of that title in
1984.

Since the sequencing of the human genome in 2003, what is known by geneticists has increasingly diverged from this orthodoxy, even as social scientists and the mainstream press have steadfastly ignored the new research. Nicholas Wade, for more than 20 years a highly regarded science writer at the New York Times, has written a book that pulls back the curtain….

At the heart of the book, stated quietly but with
command of the technical literature, is a bombshell. It is now known
with a high level of scientific confidence that both tenets of the
orthodoxy are wrong.

Mr. Lewontin turns out to have been mistaken
on several counts, but the most obvious is this: If he had been right,
then genetic variations among humans would not naturally sort people
into races and ethnicities. But, as Mr. Wade reports, that’s exactly
what happens. A computer given a random sampling of bits of DNA that are
known to vary among humans—from among the millions of them—will cluster
them into groups that correspond to the self-identified race or
ethnicity of the subjects. This is not because the software assigns the
computer that objective but because those are the clusters that provide
the best statistical fit. If the subjects’ ancestors came from all over
the inhabited world, the clusters that first emerge will identify the
five major races: Asians, Caucasians, sub-Saharan Africans, Native
Americans and the original inhabitants of Australia and Papua New
Guinea. If the subjects all come from European ancestry, the clusters
will instead correspond to Italians, Germans, French and the rest of
Europe’s many ethnicities. Mr. Lewontin was not only wrong but
spectacularly wrong. It appears that the most natural of all ways to
classify humans genetically is by the racial and ethnic groups that
humans have identified from time out of mind.

Stephen Jay Gould’s
assurance that significant evolution had stopped before humans left
Africa has also proved to be wrong—not surprisingly, since it was so
counterintuitive to begin with.

Those who still stubbornly cling to their antiscientific belief in human equality are the Flat Earth Society of our day. There is truly nothing surprising here except the name of the author; for a New York Times columnist to abjure liberal race orthodoxy is like a sitting cardinal of the Catholic Church publishing a book declaring that God does not exist.

All the dogma goodthink with which we were raised, all the statements about “race is only skin deep” and “it’s not genetics, its the culture” and “deep inside we’re all the same” are nothing more than children’s tale meant to obscure the frightening truth. Science is gradually peeling away the orthodox falsehoods; soon it will be impossible to conceal the important and necessary discussions about reality under nonsensical accusations of racism.

It will be interesting to see how science-loving equalitarians react to the discovery that they will have to choose between science and their faith. I expect that most of them will react as they did when economics made incontrovertibly clear the intrinsic contradictions of socialism and stubbornly cling to their antiscientific beliefs without admitting that they have openly rejected science.

The intrinsic unreliability of science

This 19x rise in retractions should suffice to put the lie to the ridiculous idea that published scientific papers are the best means of determining truth, let alone the only one:

In the first decade of the 21st century, retractions of papers published by medical journals went up 19 fold, although the number of manuscripts being published only increased 44 percent. The reasons behind this surge in evidence of scientific falsification were examined in a recent editorial in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology • Biology • Physics (the Red Journal), published in October 2013.

“One of the greatest, and sadly all too common, challenges facing a contemporary medical journal editor is the adjudication of ethical integrity issues,” Editor-in-Chief Anthony L. Zietman wrote. “I had originally presumed that this would be just an occasional role, but it transpires that these problems are quite widespread, ranging from unconscious and unwitting naivete to the conscious and willful betrayal of scientific trust.”

Studies suggest that a majority of papers are retracted due to deliberate falsification by researchers, rather than simple mistakes.

Science fetishists have long ignored the fundamental flaw in the system of modern science; it is only as reliable as the moral character of the scientists involved permits. Of course, this could be seen as a positive; more science fiction is being published than ever before!

The seeds of bad science

Rupert Darwell traces them in a book entitled The Age of Global Warming:

The origins of warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth and a belief in world government. It involves a fondness for predicting that energy supplies won’t last much longer (as early as 1909, the US National Conservation Commission reported to Congress that America’s natural gas would be gone in 25 years and its oil by the middle of the century), protest movements which involve dressing up and disappearing into woods (the Kindred of the Kibbo Kift, the Mosleyite Blackshirts who believed in reafforestation) and a dislike of the human race (The Club of Rome’s work Mankind at the Turning-Point said: “The world has cancer and the cancer is man.”).

These beliefs began to take organised, international, political form in the 1970s. One of the greatest problems, however, was that the ecologists’ attacks on economic growth were unwelcome to the nations they most idolised – the poor ones. The eternal Green paradox is that the concept of the simple, natural life appeals only to countries with tons of money. By a brilliant stroke, the founding fathers developed the concept of “sustainable development”. This meant that poor countries would not have to restrain their own growth, but could force restraint upon the rich ones. This formula was propagated at the first global environmental conference in Stockholm in 1972….

Scientists, Rupert Darwall complains, have been too ready to embrace the
“subjectivity” of the future, and too often have a “cultural aversion to
learning from the past”. If they read this tremendous book they will see
those lessons set out with painful clarity.

If one wanted to understand the root of my contempt for scientists and scientistry, as opposed to my mere opposition to their pseudo-scientific policies, it can be summarized by Darwall’s statement about their “cultural aversion to
learning from the past”.

Scientody is a powerful tool. But history is an even more useful and reliable one with regards to humanity. Because, a few genetic alterations over time notwithstanding, Man remains Man and human nature remains human nature.

Science and raciss Africans

It’s telling how SWPLs decry whites who are openly less than enthusiastic about mudsharks, but tend to remain entirely silent concerning blacks who discriminate against other blacks who associate with whites in any way:

A new study of 212 black college students made available to Secrets found little open-mindedness: Blacks don’t like it when other blacks associate with whites, to the point of refusing help to an African-American experiencing “a run of bad luck” — just because they have white friends.

The study in the April edition of the authoritative journal Social Psychological and Personality Science found the so-called “black code” alive and kicking, prompting blacks far more than whites to frown on one of their own if they associate with the other race.

And it is particularly ironic that it is most often those who insist that the natural world is all there is and subscribe to the theory of evolution by natural selection who are most upset by the logically inevitable preference of one distinct population sub-species for its own kind in preference to the members of other sub-species that have evolved differently.

Of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the “black code”, as it is not only scientifically logical, but is precisely the sort of thing that the Constitutional right of free association is designed to protect.

The end of the free love era

As socionomics predicts, with economic contraction comes war… and disease:

The CDC has issued a report detailing its findings in attempting to trace the increasing difficulty in treating gonorrhea, a sexually transmitted disease (STD) that can cause severe discomfort, serious medical problems (such as sterility) for both genders and in very rare cases, death.

Gonorrhea is a bacterial disease that has been around for thousands of years, if not longer, plaguing human populations. In more recent times, it’s had to evolve to survive as humans learned to treat it using penicillin and other antibacterial agents. Over the past thirty years in particular, gonorrhea has evolved to the point that there are very few treatments left (ceftriaxone along with either azithromycin or doxycycline) and now, it looks like its poised to get the best of those as well, which will mean those who contract the disease in the very near future will find that doctors have no way to cure them…. The overriding conclusion of the researchers is that the world is now sitting on the precipice of losing the ability to fight a major bacterial infection.

AIDS was the warning and the medical and political establishments completely failed in their responsibilities in the face of the gay community acting up. One sincerely hopes they will do better the next time around. Because the next time does not appear to be very far off.

The posturing of the fetishist

Maddox quite rightly skewers the public posturing of the faux science fans, most of whom can’t even differentiate between science proper and political propaganda:

Any time I see people on Facebook simultaneously liking “iCarly, One Direction” and “The Pauly D Project” while also liking fucking loving science, it raises some red flags. The problem is, people who claim to “fucking love” science don’t. They don’t even like science, let alone “fucking love it.” Want proof? Here are two posts from IFLS. On the left is a typical post, and on the right, a rare scientific post. Note the number of “likes” each post received….

People love science in the same way they love classical music or art. Science and “geeky” subjects are perceived as being hip, cool and intellectual. So people take a passing interest just long enough to glom onto these labels and call themselves “geeks” or “nerds” every chance they get.

 It’s impossible to argue with his logic: “If you ‘fucking love science’, why don’t you do some?”

I also found the incipient cult of the midwitted junior co-signer Neil deGrasse Tyson to be interesting, mostly for the insipid and inadvertently revealing banalities he utters:


“One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.”

I’ll ignore the ironic bait of the obvious and customary oxymoron involved and observe that it should be no surprise that Tyson harbors considerable appeal for the less intelligent. This is a literal paean to cluelessness. Don’t understand X in the slightest? That’s just an indication of how open-minded and progressive you are!

“Science literacy is a vaccine against the charlatans of the world that would exploit your ignorance.”

Judging by Tyson and his observed historical illiteracy, it works about as well as the MMR vaccine on a highly allergic child who ends up in a post-jab coma as his parents are financially compensated by VAERS.

“Not only are we in the Universe the Universe is in us. I don’t know of any deeper spiritual feeling than what that brings upon me.”

Ah, the profound depths of Deepak Chopra lite. Again, this is a literal paean to cluelessness; Tyson is openly confessing to his own ignorance of spirituality. How fortunate that it indicates his openness to new ideas. All of this is simple religion-substitute, which is explains how Tyson has become the new softer and cuddlier Dawkins-replacement that Peter Boghossian wanted to be.