Lion of the Blogosphere

Comment on Amy Harmon article in the NY Times

I know for a fact that at some time in the past she read at least a few posts on my blog.

Regarding the issue at hand, I’m just going to restate what I’ve written plenty of times before. Before DNA sequencing was available, there was plenty of evidence that intelligence is a genetically inherited trait, and furthermore that different races have different average levels of inherited intelligence. The late Arthur Jensen’s books are a great source of information.

Many years ago, when I wrote about this on internet forums, I was mocked by leftists who wrote things like ‘show me these “genes”‘ with “genes” in scare quotes.

Well now, actual genes have been identified! Or more accurately, specific locations on genes that correlate with intelligence. It’s only a matter of time until we can verify through DNA analysis that those races we assume are genetically less intelligent* really are that way. (Although I am sure that time will be pushed out further into the future than required by the available technology because people don’t want to know the answer.)

*On average. For example, Barrack Obama is way more intelligent than the average white person, despite being 50% Kenyan.

* * *

This is my quick explanation of the meaning of intelligence. (To rebut those who want to obfuscate something that’s simple.)

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

October 17, 2018 at EST pm

Posted in Biology

128 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. > It’s only a matter of time until we can verify through DNA analysis that those races we assume are genetically less intelligent* really are that way.

    You are assuming the DNA sub-sequences are causative of the IQ trait. More likely they are essentially correlations. You are still stuck on the model of DNA as blueprint or software code. That’s not how it works and 30 years and billions of dollars of biotech research down this path looking for disease treatments have failed. The cytoplasm of both sperm and egg are chock full of non-DNA mechanisms that produce heritable outcomes. Gene expression is so complex a process that the DNA itself is less than half of it. Evolution is definitely way more complicated than DNA and mutations and the experimental evidence for heritability of acquired traits is strong.

    Obviously IQ is highly heritable, as are many diseases. As is male pattern baldness. Nobody has produced any proof at all that particular sub-sequences of DNA has much to do with it. You set yourself up to look very silly by continuing to go on about what the 25 year old DNA databases will yield. They’ve yielded just about nothing. Simply stick to asserting the obvious truths that traits are highly heritable and populations change very slowly.

    bobbybobbob

    October 17, 2018 at EST pm

    • BTW, lactose intolerance is essentially a myth. Multiple trials with “lactose intolerant” people fed them small amounts of milk over weeks and then they were able to digest milk fine. The entire idea of a gene for lactase persistence is junk science. The same thing has been shown repeatedly with people claiming “gluten intolerance.” If you feed them small and clean amounts you can increase the amounts and they learn to digest it fine. “Clean” because American wheat is polluted with bad supplements that cause a lot of people problems.

      bobbybobbob

      October 17, 2018 at EST pm

      • It is possible to put you in a pot fill it up with cold water and then increase temperature very slowly to boiling, so that you will eventually thrive in boiling water. Unless you had a meal with bad supplements before it, of course.

        My 2c

        October 17, 2018 at EST pm

    • Stephen Hawking, who some people think was a pretty smart guy, believes that genetic engineering will be able to create smarter people: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/stephen-hawking-feared-a-rich-superhuman-species-will-end-humanity.html

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      October 17, 2018 at EST pm

      • He still believes that? Can he speak from the dead?

        BTW I’m with bobbybobbob. I think genetic heritability is way more complicated than you are making it out to be.

        PS McGahn gone.

        gothamette

        October 17, 2018 at EST pm

      • I didn’t say it was simple, but I say that I have faith that science and technology will figure it out.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        October 17, 2018 at EST pm

      • I think genetic engineering intelligence will be more difficult than Hawking thought, The reason is that the brain is very complicated and involves a lot of genes working together. Tweaking a few might get one a few points, But it will probably take a lot more than a handful of tweaks to get substantial improvement. And the more genes that are involved the more complicated and unpredictable the results will be.

        destructure

        October 17, 2018 at EST pm

      • “I think genetic engineering intelligence will be more difficult than Hawking thought”

        It will be impossible.

        I had a discussion once with a woodworker (who BTW had a Ph.D. in some abstruse form of chemistry). He said that man will NEVER be able to fabricate a material as good as wood to work with. Nature had been working on this for eons. I took the devil’s advocate position because we were flirting.

        He was right.

        gothamette

        October 18, 2018 at EST am

      • “Nature had been working on this for eons.”

        And humans could create better(from humanity’s POV) plants and domestic animals long before they knew anything about evolution.

        Tanturn

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • I am so tired of Stephen Hawking.

        When a scientist lands a spaceship on a comet, he is pilloried for the shirt that he wears. But some gimp sitting in a wheelchair making proclamations about the heavens is touted as some kind of genius.

        No one seems to realize that everything Hawking talked about may as well be myth-making, storytelling and science fiction. I, as layman, can no more verify what Hawking was talking about than a medieval peasant could understand what the priesthood was mumbling in Latin. And Hawking and the Priesthood give similar results.

        map

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • That was a pretty crazy shirt.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • “I am so tired of Stephen Hawking.”

        I agree. I don’t doubt that he was pretty smart. But that doesn’t mean his theories were valid. Plus, he was a real dirt bag of a human being. The only reason people idolized him was the sentimentality of a drooling invalid being a “genius”. Some people get off on nonsense like that.

        destructure

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

    • The experimental evidence for heritability of acquired traits is strong?

      Joe

      October 18, 2018 at EST am

    • There is no such thing as a “genetic basis for disease.”

      Your genes don’t evolve to kill you.

      map

      October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • Your genes evolved to have as many offspring as possible, they don’t give a crap about whether you enjoy your life or if you drop dead a day after you become too old to breed.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • Mutations happen all the time. Most are inconsequential (so far as we know). Some are harmful. Very few are beneficial (and often only in certain environments).

        Georgia Resident

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • Your genes don’t evolve to kill you during your prime reproducible years.

        map

        October 20, 2018 at EST am

    • > Gene expression is so complex a process that the DNA itself is less than half of it. Evolution is definitely way more complicated than DNA and mutations and the experimental evidence for heritability of acquired traits is strong.

      Are you seriously claiming that over half of phenotype heritability is from acquired traits? Because that’s not supported by any mainstream biologist anywhere. You’re essentially claiming that Lamarck was right and Darwin was wrong.

      Doug

      October 18, 2018 at EST pm

  2. Geneticists who say that race does not exists are probably worried about losing research funding if they spoke honestly about the issue.

    Joe Walker

    October 17, 2018 at EST pm

    • Indeed.

      not too late

      October 17, 2018 at EST pm

  3. NYT won’t let me read them since I cancelled. Incognito window unavailable on Chrome for iPad. Can you summarize?

    Frau Katze

    October 17, 2018 at EST pm

    • Safari for iPad definitely has incognito windows.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      October 17, 2018 at EST pm

      • Maybe, I’ll look.

        Steve Sailer has a more extensive extract (I’m kind of surprised he gets away with it.) The article even references The Unz Report.

        Almost all shutdowns have been occurring on Youtube, Twitter or Facebook. Plain old print bloggers have been almost completely ignored.

        Frau Katze

        October 17, 2018 at EST pm

    • I’m not going to pay for that fish wrap either. But one is allowed 5 free articles per month. When I exceed this, I just view it through a proxy site.

      destructure

      October 17, 2018 at EST pm

      • Safari does have an incognito option.

        Frau Katze

        October 18, 2018 at EST am

      • I don’t want to install another browser just to read the New Yawk Slimes.

        destructure

        October 19, 2018 at EST am

      • @destructure The translate feature of Chrome is so useful it was worth downloading it.

        Frau Katze

        October 19, 2018 at EST pm

  4. I don’t doubt that there are genes for intelligence, but intelligence is an ill-defined and complex property. Some people are very good at language skills. Some people are very good a math. Some people are very good at abstract reasoning. There probably are many many genes that contribute to “intelligence”.

    There are distributions of intelligence in every race. Does that mean there are distributions of the genes for intelligence in every race?

    MikeCA

    October 17, 2018 at EST pm

      • Intelligence is the ability to figure things out, get stuff done and not screw up. Period.

        destructure

        October 17, 2018 at EST pm

      • You miss that intelligence is so highly correlated to overall metabolic health. It is not a separate module bolted in to the skull of a human by way of some particular “brain genes.”

        The smart have less heart disease and cancer and better vision and run faster because their cells fundamentally work better.

        bobbybobbob

        October 18, 2018 at EST am

      • [The smart have less heart disease and cancer and better vision and run faster because their cells fundamentally work better.]

        I believe it is jayman who always says smart people are healthier because… they make smarter choices,

        Even if they choose to live a dangerous lifestyle in one way or another they tend to make less dangerous choices than their dimmer counterparts. A million slightly smarter (or less stupid) decisions over a lifetime translate into better quality of life.

        toomanymice

        October 18, 2018 at EST am

      • “The smart have less heart disease and cancer and better vision”

        Isn’t myopia the only negative thing that’s correlated with high IQ?

        Horace Pinker

        October 18, 2018 at EST am

      • Richard Feynman was a very good mechanic, in addition to being Feynman.

        gothamette

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

    • @toomanymice One striking thing you can’t help but notice if you major in Physics, Math or Chemistry: there’s a high rated of near-sightedness. Students and profs both.

      If you go onto work in the field (or the related field of computer programming) lots of your coworkers are near-sighted.

      So the part about better vision is plain wrong.

      Frau Katze

      October 18, 2018 at EST am

      • That’s interesting. My two smartest kids are the only two who need glasses. My overachiever is -7.5 at age 16. I didn’t get that bad until I was an adult.

        bobbybobbob, my impression is high IQ individuals tend to be more sickly/ asthmatic/ non athletic than the general population. In fact I have a theory one reason women have such a visceral aversion to nerds is because they’re perhaps more likely to carry genes for autoimmune disease.

        toomanymice

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • @toomanymice The near-sighted connection has never been explained, or at least I haven’t read it. My husband and I (met at university) were both near-sighted. My successful daughter is also near-sighted but my less successful son has 20/20.

        Being athletic? My husband hated high school sports and managed to weasel his way out of the class. I hated them too but was unable to get out of it.

        Neither kid was athletic but daughter has lately taken up running (cross-country running was the only sport I didn’t hate.)

        Don’t know about the autoimmune connection, although my sister (majored in Math) has rheumatoid arthritis.

        Frau Katze

        October 19, 2018 at EST pm

      • > So the part about better vision is plain wrong.

        The mechanics of myopia are pretty well understood. Definitively not genetic. It’s most typically from too little time outdoors in bright light and also from excessive serotonin.

        A lot of professional accomplishment is actually about enduring unnatural stress that a healthy animal would never tolerate. A healthy animal simply does not endure medical school and residency, or grad school in a science program. This “stress tolerant” behavior is actually highly correlated to hormone profiles that produce a variety of health problems including myopia and baldness. You see succesful bald, near-sighted professionals because their lifestyle did it to them.

        bobbybobbob

        October 19, 2018 at EST pm

      • This is why the IQ denialists jumped on the “marshmallow experiment” some years back, where kids who delayed gratification for a tiny payoff of another marshmallow were shown to grow up more occupationally successful. And it didn’t correlate with IQ well at all.

        In reality what that research showed is some people are willing to stress themselves out for trivial and stupid payoffs. Ability to endure pointless, and ultimately low-reward stress for years on end is how you wind up in a bunch of “high status” occupations.

        bobbybobbob

        October 19, 2018 at EST pm

      • @bobbybobobl

        You’re wrong. Myopia is often hereditary although not in a simple way. Likely a lot of genes involved. Nor is it necessarily always hereditary (it can be caused by other things.)

        I bet you didn’t study in a STEM field (specifically Math, Physics, Chemistry, Computer Science.). The frequency of myopia was too high not to be related.

        https://www.aao.org/eye-health/ask-ophthalmologist-q/is-myopia-hereditary

        https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160421133905.htm

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-sightedness

        Frau Katze

        October 20, 2018 at EST am

      • @bobby

        What makes you think that med school or study in other STEM fields is stressful? If you have the ability, it’s not particularly stressful. I found it interesting.

        The training of MDs involves residencies that definitely require long hours. Still, my near-sighted daughter got through the whole thing, without undue stress.

        Male pattern baldness is also hereditary. A minority of men don’t seem to get it. I had not heard that it’s related to other conditions, but it could be. It’s not an area I’m familiar with.

        Frau Katze

        October 20, 2018 at EST am

      • “In reality what that research showed is some people are willing to stress themselves out for trivial and stupid payoffs”.

        I thought that the implication was that the test was to correlate to executive function and impulse control. Measuring and/or imaging the forebrains of the children involved in the study likely would have been the most interesting co-variable. Impossible due to PC, though.

        Sam

        October 22, 2018 at EST am

    • “There are distributions of intelligence in every race. Does that mean there are distributions of the genes for Intelligence in every race?”
      Yes. Why would it not be so? This is the case for all other complex traits influenced by genes as well.
      “Some people are good at language skills…math…abstract reasoning”
      People who are better (or worse) than average at one tend to be better or worse than the average at the others. Sometimes they are not, as in the case of savants, but this is a rarity. Most people do have relative strengths and weaknesses among different domains of intelligence, but this general correlation between the domains is a robustly replicated finding.

      Georgia Resident

      October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • Thank you for pointing that out. When I refer to people at my high ranking high school who were good at language skills but not good at math, they were still better at math than 95% of the population. Getting a C in calculus is very good generally, because a lot of people are bad at math.

        Joe

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

    • “You miss that intelligence is so highly correlated to overall metabolic health. It is not a separate module bolted in to the skull of a human by way of some particular “brain genes.”

      The smart have less heart disease and cancer and better vision and run faster because their cells fundamentally work better”.

      Controlled for socioeconomic factors? Where’s the study?

      I could see there being correlative developmental factors as you state, but I have a difficult time believing that your claim holds true for adults. Again, let’s see the study.

      Sam

      October 22, 2018 at EST am

      • It would be worth studying, but unfortunately close to zero medial studies include any test scores. Education is a very bad proxy for IQ in these types of studies.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        October 22, 2018 at EST am

    • Anti-IQ test people get held up on the semantics of “IQ” and think that they are making a point. They aren’t.

      It doesn’t matter if you wish to define IQ alternately / more widely. All of those counter-arguments are nullified with the logical truth of the matter, and it doesn’t matter how you wish to qualify “IQ”. Qualify it however you wish. The social implications of “IQ” tests as they stand, and the doors that they open and close, will remain the same.

      The truth is this: “IQ” tests measure relative performance on a set of tasks. Relative to what? Relative to the performance of the majority population.

      It does not matter what you call that task set. You can call it the “Test for being a cool guy” if you want. Or the “test that means absolutely nothing whatsoever” to go with a title that tries to imply the opposite gravity of what many people think IQ tests mean. You can even call the task set “not an IQ test” if you wish.

      The truth is that certain institutions and organizations in society, as well as certain scientists, have agreed that relative performance in completing this task set is correlated with certain social outcomes and a ability to perform in educational and work settings. This agreement has come after extensive research and decades of experience.

      That’s the truth, and that’s all that anyone has to accept. It doesn’t matter what you call the task set. Someone’s performance in completing this task set will continue to correlate with the same outcomes, and open and close the same doors.

      Sam

      October 22, 2018 at EST am

  5. “I know for a fact that at some time in the past she read at least a few posts on my blog.”

    You know this for a fact?

    gothamette

    October 17, 2018 at EST pm

    • yes I do.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      October 17, 2018 at EST pm

      • What else would they read? Obviously, it would be silly to read what they wrote themselves. The rest of MSM is just repeating what NYT wrote. So, their choice is very limited.

        My 2c

        October 18, 2018 at EST am

      • Almost 11 years ago! Time flies. Did you correspond for the article by email or phone?

        anon

        October 18, 2018 at EST am

      • Didn’t she contact you for an article some time ago?

        Mike Street Station

        October 18, 2018 at EST am

      • 11 years ago?

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        October 18, 2018 at EST am

      • The old article in the NYT was part of a series that won a Pulitzer Prize.

        McFly

        October 18, 2018 at EST am

    • I think he knows for a fact that she read some posts on his old blog, but not necessarily this one.

      Hermes

      October 17, 2018 at EST pm

      • He explained it, thanks. I know for a fact that big media reads Daily Stormer – they refer to it, and quote the guy who runs it.

        gothamette

        October 18, 2018 at EST am

  6. “There is no evidence, the scientists stress, that environmental and cultural differences will not turn out to be the primary driver of behavioral differences between population groups.”

    Then they’ve got nothing to worry about! But they seem kind of worried. Maybe it is because the above statement isn’t actually true.

    Jokah Macpherson

    October 17, 2018 at EST pm

    • The whole article has a tone of desperation.

      Rosenmops

      October 17, 2018 at EST pm

    • It is absolutely an act of faith to declare, as a default assumption, that any difference between genetically distinct populations have no genetic component. My view is that the default assumption should be that intergroup heritability in any trait is approximately equal to the overall heritability within the environment inhabited by these populations. Since the difference in the heritability of intelligence among adults in the US, among Whites and Blacks, is above 50%, the baseline assumption should be 50% for intergroup heritability. If there is specific evidence to contradict this assumption, then it should be presented and argued, but there is literally no reason whatsoever to start with an assumption of a 0% genetic component (ie, a 100% environmental component) for intergroup differences in the US, other than doctrinaire egalitarianism.

      Georgia Resident

      October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • They assume 100% environment in the same way people hold religious beliefs. They are like old time gospel preachers. People who don’t share their belief are heretics. They get very angry with heretics and call them racists, white supremacists, and Nazis.

        Rosenmops

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

    • “There is no evidence, the scientists stress, that environmental and cultural differences will not turn out to be the primary driver of behavioral differences between population groups.”

      =

      “There is no evidence that invisible berries won’t turn out to be the primary source of gravity on Earth”.

      These two claims have the exact same level of scientific merit. It follows that the quoted person for the first claim should be laughed out of science.

      Sam

      October 22, 2018 at EST am

  7. Well now, actual genes have been identified! Or more accurately, specific locations on genes that correlate with intelligence.

    this is fake news. james lee’s, plomin’s, and shoe’s studies have shown that PGS gives an h^2 of only 10% in local homogeneous samples and 0% in global heterogeneous samples.

    HBD is dead, but HBDers never understood the science in the first place, so they think it’s still alive.

    sad!

    the rebel yell

    October 17, 2018 at EST pm

    • How does your example make it dead?

      Joe

      October 18, 2018 at EST am

      • james lee said so in his interview with khan and wells. https://insitome.libsyn.com/genetics-and-educational-attainment

        even more millions of people tested and genotyped and genotyped more precisely will NOT produce much more than 10% in local homogeneous populations.

        the rebel yell

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • *Entirely independent of environment

        Georgia Resident

        October 19, 2018 at EST am

    • The fact that the specific genes they identified did not “explain” more than 10% of IQ variance does not rule out other genes influencing intelligence and accounting for its higher heritability. Same could be said for specifically identified genes associated with height or muscularity. As more data is collected and more of the small gene effects can be sussed out, it’s almost certain that heritability estimates from specific gene studies will converge towards heritability inferred from twin studies, much as has been the case in studying the heritability of height.
      As for the genes identified in Plomin’s study explaining more variation within the UK than globally, that’s not surprising, and doesn’t contradict the hereditarian hypothesis. There is far more variation, in both genes and environment, globally than in the UK.

      Georgia Resident

      October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • no. shoe and lee used the whole genome.

        the rebel yell

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • and same CANNOT be said for height.

        shoe was able to reproduce a 40% h^2 for height from the same data.

        the rebel yell

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • 1. As more data is collected and more of the small gene effects can be sussed out, it’s almost certain that heritability estimates from specific gene studies will converge towards heritability inferred from twin studies, much as has been the case in studying the heritability of height.

        2. As for the genes identified in Plomin’s study explaining more variation within the UK than globally, that’s not surprising, and doesn’t contradict the hereditarian hypothesis. There is far more variation, in both genes and environment, globally than in the UK.

        these are both misunderstandings.

        1. there is no more data. the data has explained height 4x better than IQ.

        2. if the same PGS isn’t used for the whole world this is cheating. HBD claims that genes have an environment independent effect. if there is no environment independent effect then HBD is false.

        the rebel yell

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • HBD is the assumption that the phenotype of various psychological traits is the arithmetic sum of environment and genotype and that GxE, genome/environment interactions don’t exist or are trivial.

        the rebel yell

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • “There is far more variation, in both genes and environment, globally than in the UK.”

        I’m not entirely sure this is true. Certainly not in London,

        Rosenmops

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • I don’t think most HBDers claim the effects of genes are entirely independent of entire. The “hard” HBD position is that variation in genes accounts for more observed variation in behavioral traits, including intelligence, than environmental variations (in the context of populations residing in industrialized countries). And as Lee explained via the “chopstick gene” analogy, effects of genes are studied in the context of homogenous populations specifically to avoid conflation with environmental (and other genetic) conditions affecting particular populations. The ideal population to study causal effects of genes would be even more homogenous than any existing human population. It seems like you have created a literally insane straw man version of HBD that, outside of your own head, maybe exists on Stormfront, and are arguing against that.

        Georgia Resident

        October 19, 2018 at EST am

      • “Shoe and Lee used the whole genome.”
        No, Lee specifically said he and his colleagues didn’t look at rare variants in the interview that you yourself linked. I haven’t seen this much self-ownage since the Kraut and Tea debacle.

        Georgia Resident

        October 19, 2018 at EST pm

    • “HBD is dead”

      Open your eyes and look around.

      Rosenmops

      October 18, 2018 at EST pm

    • I’m not sure if you didn’t listen to the interview, didn’t comprehend what was said, or simply assumed no one else would listen. At no point does Lee claim that the heritability of years of education inferred from twin studies (.4) was incorrect. He did say that 15% of overall variance was the theoretical limit what could be inferred from common variants, with the remainder consistent of rare variants that are difficult or impossible to get a sufficient sample size to do the statistical analysis done in the study to infer causality. Very different from what you are implying.

      Georgia Resident

      October 19, 2018 at EST am

    • Homogenous samples are are used to avoid conflating the effect of a variant with a trait of a population in which that variant happens to occur more frequently than in others

      Georgia Resident

      October 19, 2018 at EST am

    • You’re wrong. Earlier in the 20th century IQ was studied extensively. In particular, the armed forces were very interested in it. A lot effort was put into this.

      The number of people tested (the sample size) is huge, easily hundreds of thousands. IQ can be measured, is a hereditary trait and there is some variation with race.

      But this outlook became taboo after WW2. In fact, desperate denial set in. As genetic factors are located, the denial crowd fears it must be faced sooner or later.

      There are many people who say one thing but believe another. That’s due to the extreme strength of the taboo. It can kill careers.

      Frau Katze

      October 20, 2018 at EST am

  8. educational attainment is less heritable than IQ in most of the samples, but plomin found PGS was much less able to explain IQ than educational attainment in a british sample.

    houdini isn’t getting out of the tank this time.

    the rebel yell

    October 17, 2018 at EST pm

    • …than IQ in most of the samples twin studies

      even if gould was a fraud it turned out he was right and densen was wrong.

      the rebel yell

      October 17, 2018 at EST pm

    • “PGS was much less able to explain IQ”

      You are using some elastic terms there. Care to explain your use of ‘explain’?

      Curle

      October 18, 2018 at EST am

      • it’s not elastic if you’ve taken math stats i.

        it means that the PGS correlation with IQ is much less than the PGS correlation with educational attainment.

        the PGS correlation with whatever behavioral trait is squared to give the heritability.

        the rebel yell

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

    • Educational attainment “explaining” (correlating with) IQ doesn’t tell us much – does education make people smarter, or do smart people pursue and obtain higher degrees of education? The former might be true of domain-specific abilities (if we exclude degrees in fields like Women’s Studies that actually make the student dumber, or at least less able to reason). In fairness, we don’t necessarily know that the genes identified as being associated with higher IQ actually cause higher intelligence, but we can at least assume that being smart is causing these specific alleles to be altered during the individuals’ lifetimes.

      Georgia Resident

      October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • Correction: Is NOT causing these specific alleles to be rewritten during the individuals’ lifetimes.

        Georgia Resident

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • “do smart people pursue and obtain higher degrees of education”

        That.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • educational attainment is a very imperfect measure of ability. it’s used because it’s available.

        the majority of people in these studies have never taken the SAT or ACT or any other IQ test.

        the rebel yell

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • and the SAT and ACT and all the other college entrance exams are the best IQ tests…just not for dumb people…because only the top half of the curve ever sit them.

        the rebel yell

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • To get a degree you literally have to take an IQ test. As in you need a passing grade on the many tests you are required to take and pass.

        SlushFundPuppie

        October 19, 2018 at EST pm

    • The psgs for education were created using a much larger sample size than those for iq.

      Tanturn

      October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • because those with IQ scores are at most half of the study population.

        the rebel yell

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

  9. “I know for a fact that at some time in the past she read at least a few posts on my blog.”

    At one time, you had at least one reader who was VERY famous. And the person’s IQ was damn near off the charts, too. You’d shit if you knew who it was. I only know this because they practically quoted one of my comments on twitter a few years ago. It was a comment about a very obscure topic that wasn’t currently in the news, A few hours after I made it, I saw a nearly identical comment on their twitter, I didn’t mind. I was proud they thought it was worth repeating. And I was glad they made the point to a broader audience.

    I also saw a post I’d made on my now defunct blog used for a more in-depth article on a conservative site with a pretty big following. Once again, not going to out the person. Because I wanted my views and opinions to reach a wider audience. That’s what was important to me, And if I started outing them then they might have stopped.

    Don’t out a reader even if they turn one of your ideas into an article. Writers are under a lot of pressure to produce, So it’s perfectly legit to take inspiration from anonymous bloggers or anywhere else they can find it. If you want credit, then put your name on it. That way they can quote you. But they can’t quote an anonymous blogged called “Lion of the Blogosphere”.

    destructure

    October 17, 2018 at EST pm

    • It’s not a secret that Amy Harmon read at least one post in my former blog, she quoted it in a New York Times article.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      October 17, 2018 at EST pm

      • Oh yeah, I forgot, That’s been a long time.

        destructure

        October 17, 2018 at EST pm

      • Oh yeah, I forgot, That’s been a long time. But a writer doesn’t normally quote an anonymous blogger.

        destructure

        October 17, 2018 at EST pm

    • Now I’m curious. Why not name this person? You say they’re a public figure with a Twitter account and a broad audience.

      Hermes

      October 18, 2018 at EST pm

  10. The key to this article is the phrase “extremist views on race.” In reality, there are no extreme views on race. Instead, what we have is a remarkable uniformity of opinon. Whether we’re talking about whites, jews, east asians, south asians, middle-eastern arabs, central american indios, everyone agrees – they don’t want to live near blacks. All of the biochemistry arguing is intended to obscure this one iron fact of political science.

    Marty

    October 17, 2018 at EST pm

    • I like this comment because it highlights (by contrast) a habit woefully deficient in the public at large and one media propagandists rely upon; the inability of readers to spot the inclusion of definitionally ambiguous terms and phrases and more importantly the inclusion of those terms and phrases to create a bogus association. You are correct: that use of ‘extremism’ was the point of the article.

      Curle

      October 18, 2018 at EST am

  11. Amy Harmon makes it all about white supremacists. But Asians and Jews have higher average IQ than whites. She can browbeat whites, maybe, but the Chinese don’t give a damn about being politically correct. If there is some way to make money from it, the Chinese will eventually start making super babies.

    Though I think Jews and whites, or maybe Asians who live in the West, will work out the science. Everything in China is corrupt, including the universities. Corruption ruins everything.

    Rosenmops

    October 17, 2018 at EST pm

    • You should figure out by now that there is no such thing as ‘Whites”, but rather a forced grouping of sometimes vastly differing tribes. All with differing Bell Curves. The same is true for “Asians”.

      Sam

      October 22, 2018 at EST am

  12. MEH 0910

    October 18, 2018 at EST am

    • The author implies that modern ethnicity is solely based on social acceptance, but that’s not factual as far as the government and most modern liberalism is concerned.

      For governments, both national and foreign, ethnicity is now largely a matter of citizenship rather than functional social acceptance within that ethnicity.

      Well, at least insofar as White groups are concerned after the powers that be made all of their ethnicities the equivalent of nations that anyone can get a passport for.

      In one breath the NYT or one of its political equivalents will claim that Somalis are the “New Irish” after receiving citizenship, for example, and in another print an article like this that claims that ethnicity is rooted in social acceptance.

      They need to make up their minds, rather than changing positions when it is politically convenient.

      The truth is that genetic variance exists in all tribes, but social DNA borders exist that limit such variance insofar as it translates to true acceptance.

      From the article:

      “The truth is that sets of DNA markers cannot tell us who we really are because genetic data is technical and identity is social”.

      She is dealing in a false dichotomy, when the truth is that identity is both technical and social.

      Humans have been strongly identifying with their disassociated heritages for our entire history. Genetics have always been deeply meaningful.

      What separates two humans, genetically, is merely a smaller distance of the same process that separates humans from non-humans. It might be a horizontal (across humanity) instead of a vertical (transgressing humanity) speciation distance, but its still the same process.

      What this means is that devaluing what separates two genetic tribes is similar to devaluing what separates us from other species, just on a less significant scale.

      “Nevertheless, this genetic analysis did locate five chromosome segments that strongly suggest indigenous ancestry”.

      This is getting embarrassing for them. They can’t admit when they are wrong, even in the face of almost universal social agreement to the contrary (which is ironic given that the author is big on the social acceptance factor when parsing reality).

      “To be Native American is to be a member of a tribal community and recognized by that community as such”.

      Untrue. One can have 100% native American genetics and not be recognized by a tribe. Two proofs that invalidate her weak, politicized logic:

      What if you were adopted and have never had contact with any tribe? Are you not a Native American at that point?

      What if you are the last of your tribe, and thus cannot be recognized by that social group? Are you not a native American at that point?

      “In the end, what does Senator Warren’s genetic ancestry tests prove? That identity is dynamic and political.”

      And genetic.

      The author seems to think that we accept her unsupported, half-muttered claim that Warren’s test shows N. American ancestry that means anything. The Cherokee didn’t agree with the author either.

      The author seems to be writing this article primarily to refute the Cherokee rejection of Warren’s test (in the politically opportunistic context and reminding the public that race doesn’t exist), in implying that she has the genetics to be N. American but not the social acceptance (and therefore that genetics don’t mean anything in terms of ethnicity / race). That’s bold spin, even for the NYT.

      Sam

      October 22, 2018 at EST am

  13. Roseanne update: The fucking NY Times says that the general opinion is that the show is better off without her. Of course their general opinion is a bunch of quotes from Vulture and Vox, that is, from A to B, or is that, from A to A?

    gothamette

    October 18, 2018 at EST am

    • It’s not a show I’d watch one way or the other.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      October 18, 2018 at EST am

      • It’s an important sociological litmus test, as important as Kavanaugh. Roseanne died for our sins.

        gothamette

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

    • And yet the ratings for The Connors don’t match the ratings for the rebooted Roseanne show. So according to the NYT, as quality improves, ratings decline?

      Mike Street Station

      October 19, 2018 at EST am

      • Yeah, NY Times logic! Basically all they did was quote their clones. Big circle jerk.

        gothamette

        October 19, 2018 at EST am

  14. Some white supremacist wants to do the milk probe. All people would have to drink 3 bottles of milk. The one who can’t handle it, and would have big diarrhea and intoxication, didn’t have their ancestor in Europe 5000 years ago, and would have to go.

    99.9% of white people would pass the test. Only 25% of Jewish people would be ok. Meaning 75% of Jewish would be expelled as non white …

    White supremacy is not as cool as you intend Lion, because you are convinced of being 100% white, and that is a dubious claim when a big part of your ancestors were in Judea 3k years ago and not in Europe.

    Obama would probably pass the test as the 150M East African from pastoral civilization who got the same mutation as white people, allowing them to handle milk as adults, contrary to the rest of mammals …

    Bruno

    October 18, 2018 at EST am

    • 3000 years ago, people in the Middle East had civilization while people in Northern Europe were barbarians.

      I am not personally aware of being lactose intolerant. But Jews’ aversion to mixing meat and dairy may contribute to this.

      10% or more of gentile white Europeans are still lactose intolerant, so it seems like a bad basis for allowing entry into the exclusive club of white supremacy.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      October 18, 2018 at EST am

      • Not my area of expertise, but I think as with all other things in biology, the loss of lactase is a spectrum rather than binary. My mother ate dairy like any other white person for most of her life, but now in her 60s she has to buy Lactaid milk.

        Hermes

        October 18, 2018 at EST am

      • I don’t know the « science » behind the proposition. I found it both grotesque and evil.

        Bruno

        October 18, 2018 at EST am

      • It’s even higher than 10% in Southern Italy and Southern Spain.

        WRB

        October 18, 2018 at EST am

      • Well, the genetic testing stuff shows us that the lines are blurry. Lots of people who are phenotypically one race have tiny little sequences of genes that are associated with another. In fact, that’s the norm.

        Plus there are phenotypic and genotypic differences within populations that persist over time. For example, Saddam Hussein’s second in command was a ginger. He was a local guy from Hussein’s home town, and may not have had any recent ancestors from Northern Europe. Ramses the Great was a ginger living in the Middle East 3,000 years ago.

        Ramses had 28 sons that we know of, so lots of people in the Middle East have tiny little fragments of his DNA. Where did Ramses ginger genes come from? Ultimately they probably came from Northern Europe, but recent science suggests that the Pharaohs had lots of common ancestors with modern day Turks.

        Turkey is our best guess for the geographic origin of the proto-Indo-European language. The spread of the Indo-Europeans was one of the events that caused great deal of gene mixing, and it happened thousands of years before Ramses. Although, it’s relevant to note that Ramses didn’t conduct state affairs in a proto-Indo-European language. Ancient Egyptian was a descended from Proto-Afroasiatic.

        The races diverged a long time ago, but the interesting ones (located in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East) never stayed totally separate. Every once and a while, someone made a very long journey, and spread their genes. It wasn’t just humans either. Non-human animals that traveled with humans have the same complex genetic history. The Maine coon breed of cat, which was discovered in the woods of Maine, is actually descended from cats brought over by the Vikings 1,000 years ago.

        MoreSigmasThanYou

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • Both Middle East and Europe were very barbarian.

        My 2¢

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

    • Wow! Maybe that does work. In college I knew a guy named Mondschein. The last name exists mostly in Austria, but also in Western PA. Turns out the Mondscheins in the U.S. in 1880 were either peddlers or tailors. Yup. Jewish.

      Anyway, he’s the only person I can remember telling me that he was lactose intolerant. I’d had a long day, and was hungry/thirsty/tired all at the same time. I was sitting in front of him drinking milkshakes, and he gave me this ‘how can you do that’ look.

      I didn’t realize that he was Jewish until I looked the last name up just now.

      MoreSigmasThanYou

      October 18, 2018 at EST am

      • I had a delicious milkshake in August and didn’t have any gastro problems after drinking it.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • I have no problem with large doses of milk and cheese. That said, my kid brother (out of a total of four siblings) claims to be lactose intolerant.

        Kosher Kowboy

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • Cheese is low in lactose. It’s in the whey, not the curds.

        gothamette

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • I know two white people who are lactose intolerant: one is 50% Irish and 50% Ashkenazi, the other is mostly Irish with a little bit of Italian and Portuguese.

        SC

        October 21, 2018 at EST pm

      • I’m a milkaholic. I easily go through 3 to 4 gallons per week by myself. And that’s while trying to control my consumption. My wife never drinks milk, though. She’s not lactose intolerant. Just doesn’t like it. I swear the only milk she drinks is in her coffee. She likes cheese and yogurt, though.

        destructure

        October 22, 2018 at EST am

      • Few adults outside of the Netherlands drink milk regularly if at all.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        October 22, 2018 at EST am

    • Aren’t you French? Lots of non-Jewish whites, including many French, are lactose intolerant. In general, there’s a north-south cline of lactose intolerance in Europe, with southern Europe being more lactose intolerant, northern Europe less.

      It also doesn’t seem to be a strictly binary thing, but can depend on age and acclimation. I know people from British, German, and other similar backgrounds who technically should be lactose tolerant, but who went on paleo, vegan, and other diets and cut out dairy or just gradually stopped drinking milk or drinking a lot less of it, and now can’t drink milk without getting gas and feeling bloated.

      Tom

      October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • I am French with an Italian father and Spanish mother. I love milk like everyone in my family.

        My autosomal test give quite different results for geography :
        1) 45% Spanish 40% French 10% Scottish or Irish and 5% basque

        2) 60% Spanish 20% English 10% basque 5% Italian 5% Maltese

        3) 25% french 25% Spanish 15% English 15% basque 10% Maltese 10% Sardinian

        My mother Mtdna is subsaharian african from a mutation who appeared in Malta and Portugal and south-west Spain . It may be slave brought by Tartessian 3000 years ago.

        My father Y dna is located in Caithness/Highlands in Scotland and Hebrides as the main settlement region 1000 years ago.

        Bruno

        October 18, 2018 at EST pm

      • There’s also an East-West cline. This is why milk is popular in England and the Netherlands but not so much in eastern Germany and areas east of that.

        SC

        October 21, 2018 at EST pm

    • I’d be able to stay. I can also “pass,” having blue eyes, pale skin and straight hair.

      So relieved.

      gothamette

      October 18, 2018 at EST pm

    • That would never happen. The “lactose tolerance equals whiteness” crown are 4chan juveniles, not serious individuals. If Whites were to come into power it would be a prerequisite that their demeanor would closer resemble the seriousness of the men that ran the third Reich or run Israel (take your pick), not 4chan.

      I’m 100% non-Jewish Northwest European. I drink milk frequently in small quantities, mostly with coffee. When I do that, I have no problems. If I have a bowl of cereal or eat ice cream, however, I absolutely have symptoms of lactose intolerance (every time). I disagree with the prior poster that stated that one can acclimate if they are lactose intolerant. I’m proof that this is untrue, though perhaps the symptoms can become somewhat less severe (but not disappear) with very frequent consumption. However, in my experience, none of that “acclimation” lasts if you take even a short break from lactose.

      Northwest Europeans can be and often are lactose intolerant. Lactose tolerance will never be used as a body-function shibboleth for Whiteness. Too many Whites are lactose intolerant. The lactose intolerance is whiteness thing was merely a performance-art meme and troll (that has legs because it still triggers the Left and makes them write articles about it in mainstream publications, which is hilarious).

      Sam

      October 21, 2018 at EST pm

  15. I don’t understand why people can’t accept the computer analogy for intelligence. Aside from the fact the we understand our insides in part as we developed plumbing, our brains operate like a computer in that we have hardware that is based on genetics, and what goes into it is software. Even if you put Einstein’s exact environment (software) into my brain, my hardware will limit me from being as “intelligent” as Einstein. So environment does matter to some extent, but it is not determinative.

    I don’t know that anything that I say above is true, but it’s a concept that should be understood by lay people and the NYT as not so far fetched that only a frothing hitler would propose it.

    Joe

    October 18, 2018 at EST pm

    • Because emotions. I predict that genetics will be thrown under the bus.

      My 2¢

      October 18, 2018 at EST pm

  16. Wasnt the whole milk – Alt Right thing just a joke created by trolls?

    DataExplorer

    October 18, 2018 at EST pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: