GNXP

A few other things: I should start by pointing out that your premise is flawed. I don't hate any ethnic group. I appreciate human diversity. Differences between human groups are real, and they appear to be somewhat genetic. I was actually surprised to see how few race-y books I'd added to the wishlist. There's a sort of illicit thrill to buying something that you can't read in public. By the way, if you're interested in the lynching issue you might give Thomas Sowell a read. He claims that there were more whites than blacks lynched prior to the Civil War. http://www.amazon.com/Black-Rednecks-Liberals-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1594030… Again, I really appreciate that you can keep an open mind about this. When I first got interested in this issue, I didn't know the ethnic background of the guy who was arguing against me -- if I encountered these views from someone who considered his ethnic group smarter than mine, I would not have been nearly so open. If you're open to considering the idea further, I would recommend adding http://isteve.blogspot.com and http://gnxp.com to your reading list for a little while. You'll find, as I did, that they present a view of the world that's just more consistent than the one most Americans are raised with.

> Imagined Communities - the notion of a "nation" is only 300 years old and has no objective basis, only the fact that a group of people agree that it is a thing. The Lombards, Saxons, Franks, Magyars, Mongols and many, many others would disagree. And the Khmer, Mon, Viet and Tai. https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/03/26/communities-only-exist-only-… > Overall it is worth reading Imagined Communities because of its purported cultural significance. But much of it is so garbled and unclear I’m not sure what people are taking from it, aside from the proposition that the modern nation-state was invented in the last few centuries due to modernity. In the end the book is kind of a long tautology. Azar Gat’s Nations is a far superior book.

I thought Razib Kahn also had a response worth reading. This is all out of line with my previous impression of the New York Times as a respectable paper. Is the new era of virality driven news taking its toll on them? My impression is that they wouldn't have published this 10 years ago but perhaps I'm being naive? https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2019/01/19/194105/

EDIT -- In reference to The Blank Slate: I read it awhile back, and while there are some stretches in his usage of evolution to explain every form of behavior, e.g., people sat around fires for millenia therefore storytelling ability evolved, his explanations concerning adaptations for general survival utility are well supported. I would recommend reading it with a grain of salt, and take evolutionary psychology for what it is, with the same level of skepticism you would apply to get data from any social "science". EDIT--Some suggestive guideposts when reading in this field: http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003817.html http://itb.biologie.hu-berlin.de/~hagen/papers/Controversies.pdf http://www.badscience.net/?p=518 Be on the lookout for handwaving, but certainly investigate. Don't make it the only book you read in this area...

I mostly follow Razib Khan's reporting on this work. It is really dense and uses domain lingo, so it can be rather hard to parse. But, here are some narratives that are changing: 1. Genetic findings among South-East Asians indicate that the maritime powers of India (and mostly south India) were of greater significance at their peak than the Delhi sultanate or the Delhi centric view held by most historians. [1][2] 2. We are expecting huge changes to our understanding of ancient humans in Africa [3] 3. The most famous co-evolution fact of milk-and-lactose-tolerance might not be true [4][5] 4. The so-called-indo-aryans might not have brought the caste system or "Indian culture" with them. The Dravidians are almost just as "indo-aryan" as their non-Dravidian counter parts and the Aryan-Invasion-Theory, might not have had an invasion to speak of at all. [6][7] These are extreme simplifications of the interesting stuff I found that was relevant to my country. I'm sure there is just as much about every other culture and it's just as spicy. Also, emphasis on 'might' & 'probably'. These fields are mid-disruption, and facts on the ground are changing as we speak. [1] https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/10/06/likely-male-mediated-indiani… [2] https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/09/20/indic-civilization-came-to-s… [3]…

> Why are you so sure that IQ isn't just a useful fiction that masks a large number of underlying factors that we don't fully understand? Why are you so sure that it is the best predictor of success in these fields. Perhaps other traits are equal or better predictors of success in a particular field, like tenaciousness, or conscientiousness, and perhaps IQ doesn't matter as much if one of those aren't present. Because the study of human intelligence is a well established scientific discipline with a lot of well-regarded research that replicates and provides explanations of real world phenomena. And it all points to there being this (not yet fully understood) thing called g that is the strongest known predictor of tons of things related to life outcomes. Here's a blog post by Razib Kahn about an episode of his podcast, The Insight, with guest Stuart Ritchie, a researcher in human intelligence. The podcast episode is a good start. https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/04/11/the-insight-episode-17-stuar…

Anti-poverty policy (especially foreign aid) over the past five decades has consisted mainly of giving away food, healthcare, etc. For a while, this decreased death rates substantially in the third world. But the problem was that when the death rates decreased, we simply got more and more poor people. Ethiopia received great quantities of foreign aid in the 1980's. Now thirty years later its population has doubled and it is on the brink of famine yet again: Yet the wide-eyed children of 1984-86, who were saved by western medicines and foodstuffs, helped begin the greatest population explosion in human history, which will bring Ethiopia's population to 170 million by 2050. By that time, Nigeria's population will be 340 million, (up from just 19 million in 1930). The same is true over much of Africa. Thus we are heading towards a demographic holocaust, with a potential premature loss of life far exceeding that of all the wars of the 20th Century. This terrible truth cannot be ignored. ( Kevin Myers, http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/writing-what-… ) Neill Blomkamp, the director of District 9, makes the same point about Johanessberg in South Africa: Well, in my opinion, you have out-of-control population growth … —we are heading for the biggest train wreck our civilization has ever come across ever. If your population curve is on an exponential growth, and the resources are on an exponential…

Ethnicity is a biological construct. You can see my ethnic group as a tight cluster in a genetic chart: https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/07/09/the-main-interesting-thing-a… > The point is at the end of the day their govt will build trains to every little village because that’s the consensus, they just don’t call it DEI “DEI” is the promotion of distinct identities with an emphasis on differences (the “D” means “diversity”). In contrast to assimilating into a common, dominant identity. Investing in underdeveloped geographic regions isn’t DEI at all. I agree the Chinese system is vastly better than what we call DEI.

I think you're good. From what I've read, the high risk is C. T/T is modern human. C is neanderthal. So C/C - youre 3 times more likely to get sick. C/T youre 1.5times more likely to get sick. Reference: https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2020/07/04/using-23andme-ancestry-famil… === If this is wrong, someone correct me, but T/T results from 23andme seem to be 84.5% of the population (caucasion people), so YOU SHOULD BE FINE.

In this study men with the highest AND lowest intelligence were the least likely to have kids. It reminds me of "Smart Teens Don't Have Sex (or Kiss Much Either)" discussed in http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php. There was an analogous relationship with having sex. My interpretation: assortative mating.

> I'm quite sure my experience is a lot more common than most people realize, and I think much of the world isn't ready for it. Nonpaternity is quite rare overall, and still unusual even when the putative father has so little paternity confidence that he demands a paternity test. https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/12/04/how-paternity-testing-is-lik…

A few more links on this phenomenon: 1)http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2009/12/build… 2)http://www.gnxp.com/new/2009/12/30/the-engineer-terrorist/

A fascinating controversy in all respects. I find it difficult to argue with the conclusions in this article as an empiricist, but it does provoke some very troubling considerations about our future as a global species: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth…

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php "Each additional point of IQ increased the odds of virginity by 2.7% for males and 1.7% for females."

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php Depending on the specific age and gender, an adolescent with an IQ of 100 was 1.5 to 5 times more likely to have had intercourse than a teen with a score of 120 or 130. Each additional point of IQ increased the odds of virginity by 2.7% for males and 1.7% for females.

Good analysis on that: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php

Feldman and his crew at Stanford are at the forefront of the "your lying eyes" crowd. http://genomebiology.com/2008/9/7/404 Hawks at Utah has written about Feldman on his blog, I believe. In fact, SNP maps tend to be very detailed and show the variation one would expect plus variation we didn't know about before. Click for some pictures: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/02/npr-on-human-variation.php Your philosophizing on immigration strikes me as informed by equality theory rather than reality and evidence.

See "A Farewell to Alms" for a really interesting discussion of the rise of low time-preference individuals in medieval England, and the role this played in fomenting the Industrial Revolution. Short interview with the author here: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/08/10-questions-for-greg-clark.php

"If this is too discordant with the official ideology of the state, they could send them to graduate school in science." LOLOL. Would be even funnier if it weren't so true: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php A depressing statistic: "only 65% of MIT graduate students have had sex."

Actually, cultural preferences can change. This blog entry commenting on the NYTimes article mentions that both Japan and Korea have in recent decades begun to prefer daughters: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2009/04/boy-trade-in-china.php

Babies? http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php

It's conveniently filed under finn bating: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/labels/Finn%20baiting.php ...at any rate, I just watched it again. I revisted all the old pleasures (the mostly-coordinated high-socks back-up dancing, the pyscho eyebrow work of the keyboardist at 0:06, the guitarist who seems to be reconsidering the communism of his fathers, etc) and learned some new things. For instance, I'm beginning to think the whole thing has homosexual overtones...

Thing is, I don't know if we are viewing this by the same angle. For all accounts, we could start by breaking the stereotype that nerds will all end as 40 year-old virgins. Second, there was a study [1] that showed high correlation between lower testosterone levels and higher IQ, and little correlation between testosterone levels and sex drive. Third, as someone already said before, the article tells little about age, and that is something way more connected with hormone levels than marital status. [1] : http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php

See, this is exactly the problem I'm talking about. For example, you are referencing Feldman&Riskin, as if they have made some cogent argument. They have not, their review is a mess. Consider Nick Patterson's response: > Let us discuss the genetics of Educational Attainment (EA) defined as the number of years of schooling and measured in adults over 30 years old. EA takes up a good part both of the book and the review. Using genetic data from more than 300,000 individuals of European ancestry, it was possible to develop a ‘score’ using the genomes of the people in the study (Okbay et al. Genome-wide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment, Nature, 2016). The details of the score are of lesser importance, but it’s important to realize that the score is a single number calculated from a genomic sample, by a fixed recipe. The score is correlated with EA at an enormously significant statistical level. This result was then replicated in an Icelandic study, using entirely different individuals from the first study. (Kong et al. Selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment, PNAS, 2017). Again enormously significant results were obtained. > How do Feldman and Riskin explain these results? After a somewhat rambling diatribe complaining that choices were made in the details of the score, and how exactly the EA phenotype was chosen to study, they conclude that ‘researchers are [not] counting anything but their own…

Part of me wonders if things could improve if the resources put towards "drug discovery" could go further if they were allocated to tooling to allow for individuals to synthesize drugs tailored to their present state. With increasingly more data available on the drugs released by FDA, EMA, etc, combined with cheap genetic sequencing and other measurements, part of me wonders if the statistical approaches with some sub fields of chemistry combined with bioinformatics could move things from the era where certain drugs are produced in mass to one where getting certain interactions with compounds to take place based on and individuals state. Razib Kahn talks[0] about this recently: "There’s a debate that periodically crops up online about the utility, viability, and morality of returning results from genetic tests to consumers. Consumers here means people like you or me. Pretty much everyone. If you want to caricature two stylized camps, there are information maximalists who proclaim a utopia now, where people can find out so much about themselves through their genome. And then there are information elitists, who emphasize that the public can’t handle the truth. Or, more accurately, that throwing information without context and interpretation from someone who knows better is not just useless, it’s dangerous. Of course, most people will stake out more nuanced complex positions. That’s not the point. Here is my bottom-line, which I’ve probably held since about ~2010: -…

As far as I can tell, the entire "Out of Africa" model taken for granted within the MSM is being treated with increasing skepticism/nuance by scientists actually studying the facts on the ground, leading to these odd & increasingly ancient "first modern out of Africa" stories which may be confusing the public more than they're illuminating the history of human populations. Razib Khan had a good short primer on this topic a little while back [1], excerpt: The data for non-Africans is rather unequivocal. The vast majority of (>90%) of the ancestry of non-Africans seems to go back to a small number of common ancestors ~60,000 years ago. Perhaps in the range of ~1,000 individuals. These individuals seem to be a node within a phylogenetic tree where all the other branches are occupied by African populations. Between this period and ~15,000 years ago these non-Africans underwent a massive range expansion, until modern humans were present on all continents except Antarctica. Additionally, after the Holocene some of these non-African groups also experienced huge population growth due to intensive agricultural practice. To give a sense of what I’m getting at, the bottleneck and common ancestry of non-Africans goes back ~60,000 years, but the shared ancestry of Khoisan peoples and non-Khoisan peoples goes back ~150,000-200,000 years. A major lacunae of the current discussion is that often the dynamics which characterize non-Africans are assumed to be applicable to Africans. But…

> You can't measure a person's intelligence using a test. Do you actually believe this dogma? This Usenet post should be read by all "IQ deniers": http://tiny.cc/F7gxA "according to IQ doubters, knowing how smart I am should tell you nothing about my IQ. It is as likely to be 50 as 150." The same poster once proposed a beautiful test of the depth of an IQ denier's beliefs: You are to be operated on, and have been given a choice between two surgeons. You know nothing about them, save for the IQ of each. Will you choose the surgeon with the lower IQ? What if the difference between them is an entire standard deviation? Two standard deviations? If you truly believe that IQ tests measure nothing - that the result of any such test is essentially a random number - you should happily choose the surgeon with the lower score. If you do not believe it, we are merely quibbling over the accuracy of existing tests. Moreover, the only way to seriously dismiss the existing IQ tests as hopelessly inaccurate is to borrow tricks from the Creationists' playbook wholesale (as Steven Jay Gould, the patron saint of IQ denial, often did) and close your eyes (and more importantly, those of your audience) to reams of high-quality data. More references, for those actually interested: http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intelligence/cache… And if you want to know the core driving force behind the IQ…