patrick.net

marcus says

rando says

i was explicitly taught in college that there are no races

If that's true, it silly and it's silly to get hung up on it. It's a semantics argument. Both you and the flaky professor that said that can both be right because you don't mean the same thing by race.

Genetically, we are 99.999% the same. We are all descendants of Apes.

which begs the question, is the chimpanzee a member of a different race than say, the gorilla, the lemar, the libbies???

Strategist says

Genetically, we are 99.999% the same. We are all descendants of Apes.

Where is Hispanic or Latino on the chart?

So I guess what Patrick's saying is that Jews and Asians are much sharper on the whole than the average Caucasian, and we white folk are fucked going forward?

I guess I agree with that.

Hell the Nazis had to purge the Jews from their professional classes in the 30s, since they had begun to monopolize all the high-paying professions, given their IQ superiority.

I sure felt a lot dumber when I was living in Tokyo in the 90s, LOL.

Great being back in the states, where I'm a super-genius*

*until I interview at a Microsoft, Google, or Apple campus

Where are the Saudis?

Bellingham Bill says

So I guess what Patrick's saying is that Jews and Asians are much sharper on the whole than the average Caucasian, and we white folk are fucked going forward?

Jews and Asians are on average smarter than white people, and that does seem to be partly genetic, but everything is a bell curve and there's a lot of overlap, so it's not deterministic. Ie, you can't just say any given Jew or Asian will be smarter than any random white person, nor how history will turn out.

The Saudis are very inbred:

Across the Arab world today an average of 45 percent of married couples are related, according to Dr. Nadia Sakati, a pediatrician and senior consultant for the genetics research center at King Faisal Specialist Hospital in Riyadh.

In some parts of Saudi Arabia, particularly in the south, where Mrs. Hefthi was raised, the rate of marriage among blood relatives ranges from 55 to 70 percent, among the highest rates in the world, according to the Saudi government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/01/world/saudi-arabia-awakes-to-the-perils-of-inbreeding.html

Another interesting tidbit I ran across recently: yes, all humans of the same gender are 99.9% identical or something like that, but the mere fact of having a Y chromosome or an extra X makes men much more closely related to other men and women to women. So much so that a male chimpanzee is more closely related to a male human than a female human is related to a male human! And similar for females.

I'm going to disagree and say race is not real, because I don't believe in aliens. The only context I've ever heard the word "race" in where it makes sense is the human race. Now if you want to say ethnicity is real, well what moron would ever argue with that?

rando says

So much so that a male chimpanzee is more closely related to a male human than a female human is related to a male human! And similar for females.

Wait, is this essentially saying that a human male having a penis and a female human having a vagina (in addition to all the internal differences in reproductive organs and functions) is a bigger difference than the difference in intelligence between human male and a chimpanzee male ?

That's pretty nonsensical if you ask me. I guess we could say that an apple and a orange are more similar to each other than a forklift is similar to a boat. But I don't know what metrics would be used to draw this conclusion. Seems silly to me rather than profound.

rando says

Bellingham Bill says

So I guess what Patrick's saying is that Jews and Asians are much sharper on the whole than the average Caucasian, and we white folk are fucked going forward?

THe question is: if any race that you think is less intelligent than another were to have a cultural shift with respect to mating patterns, say for example such that a significant majority of females placed the highest emphasis in mate selection criteria on intelligence and potential career success in modern society, how much would this change in just a few hundred years (nothing close to an evolutionary time scale). Would the difference still be there ?

I don't think we know the answer to that. But my opinion is there would be no difference. Besides we can't really measure intelligence, since there are so many different types: emotional intelligence, creative intelligence (of many kinds), imagination, common sense, analytical, logic and problems solving, sense of humor, and social intelligence and so on. Not to mention so many skills that would not usually be classified as types of intelligence.

NuttBoxer says

Now if you want to say ethnicity is real,

Ethnicity only gets you farther into the weeds as it is even more poorly defined. Current PC practice can keep it pretty simple - there are white people and there are colored people. Asians who may be whiter than some white people are apparently colored people, if they choose to be. People with Spanish surnames can also claim to be colored people, if that proves to be advantageous.

rando says

The Saudis are very inbred:

Generations of inbreeding results in freaks.

marcus says

THe question is: if any race that you think is less intelligent than another were to have a cultural shift with respect to mating patterns, say for example such that a significant majority of females placed the highest emphasis in mate selection criteria on intelligence and potential career success in modern society, how much would this change in just a few hundred years (nothing close to an evolutionary time scale). Would the difference still be there ?

I don't think we know the answer to that. But my opinion is there would be no difference.

I think that experiment has actually been done. Ashkenazi (European) Jews did have a system of occupations and marriages where more intelligent men had more children for something like a thousand years, say 800 AD to 1800 AD (ok, "common era" for you hardcore Jews).

And Jews did end up significantly smarter on average because of it, and it is genetic. That higher intelligence comes with the cost of susceptibility to more genetic diseases.

And I bet similar dynamics explain the over-achievement of the Igbo people in Nigeria, though I don't know as many details about that.

Race is absolutely not a social construct. It is biological fact.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220519200857/https://www.boston.com/news/health/2022/05/18/scientists-create-ai-race-from-x-rays-dont-know-how-it-works-harvard-mit/

Additionally, the fact that humans are unable to detect what features of the images are tipping off the AI systems to the patient’s race, combined with the fact that the AI systems were still accurately detecting the patient’s race regardless of what part of the body the image was taken from, as well as when the images were greatly degraded, means that it would be extremely hard to create an AI system using medical imaging that does not have a racial bias, the study authors wrote.

One should treat all races equally - except in medicine, where one's race can make a large difference in how well various treatments work.

someone else says

And Jews did end up significantly smarter on average because of it, and it is genetic. That higher intelligence comes with the cost of susceptibility to more genetic diseases.

And I bet similar dynamics explain the over-achievement of the Igbo people in Nigeria, though I don't know as many details about that.

For the Igbo, yes, because herding is a very abstract, planning and thinking exercise.

Ethnicities that practice ocean fishing and herding are generally the smartest: You have to do guess work as to weather, learn different methodologies for knots, ropes, sails, wind apparent angle, leeway, currents, etc. You have to say "I think the grass on the other side of the valley would be best. On the other hand, it hasn't rained much this season, but maybe it did in the rain shadow on the other side of the hill. Now let me count my sheep and train my dogs." or "Will the fish be biting again on this bank, or that bank? What was the weather like last week? Will I face a storm? How much netting width do I need if I have to encounter one fish versus another."

Primitive farming is basically seed spray and praying for the floods/monsoon/rains/sun to come in order.

Just FYI Ashkenazi are 2/3rd White, with the entire maternal line coming from a starter base of about half a dozen West Coast Italian/Sardinian/Corsican (the last two famous for sailors and intelligence) maternal ancestors.

That's interesting. My wife's father is Jewish, and her mother is Armenian. Yet 23andme shows her as a small part Sardinian.

Patrick says

Corsican (the last two famous for sailors and intelligence)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV52zs4-sNU

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jun/12/what-does-it-mean-to-be-genetically-jewish

In recent years, a number of high-profile commentators have appropriated these scientific insights to push the idea that genetics can determine who we are socially, none more controversially than the former New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade. In his 2014 book, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History, Wade argues that genetic differences in human populations manifest in predictable social differences between those groups.

His book was strongly denounced by almost all prominent researchers in the field as a shoddy incarnation of race science, but the idea that our DNA can determine who we are in some social sense has also crept into more mainstream perspectives.

In an op-ed published in the New York Times last year, the Harvard geneticist David Reich argued that although genetics does not substantiate any racist stereotypes, differences in genetic ancestry do correlate to many of today’s racial constructs. “I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism,” he wrote. “But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among ‘races’.”

Reich’s op-ed was shared widely and drew condemnation from other geneticists and social science researchers.

Lol, another truth that may not be spoken.

https://notthebee.com/article/this-man-just-crushed-the-world-record-marathon-time-in-chicago

Kelvin Kiptum of Kenya is the new record-holder for the fastest marathon time, at just 35 seconds past the two hour mark. This is an amazing feat, and he did it all without a coach.

Pretty much all marathon winners are Kenyan.

It's genetic.

https://twitter.com/eyeslasho/status/1725214282567033257

marcus says

i was explicitly taught in college that there are no races

I don't think colleges should be in the business of teaching this. But we know schools and colleges do do this.

Patrick says

Pretty much all marathon winners are Kenyan.
It's genetic.

I second. The nature of the heart and muscle characteristics are suitable to marathons.

Patrick says

Race is absolutely not a social construct.

Social construct is a bullshit phrase?

The bullshit phrase is indeed bullshit. I should have put it in quotes. Race is real.

Patrick says

Lol, another truth that may not be spoken.

I agree - the truth should be pursued regardless of "possible" effects.

That being said, one thing that some in HBD won't like is the proven concept of hybrid vitality, that mixing strains often results in hardier, better adapted offspring. Mutts are healthier and exhibit fewer negative traits than purebred dogs, for example.

Another myth is that the Blackness always burns through: I work with a 6' tall woman you'd never think was anything but Italian or Hispanic, she's hardly a shade darker than me. The only hint of her Blackness is her curly hair and nose, but again plenty of Roman Noses and Dark Curly hair among South Europeans. Her father is a giant of an almost pitch Black Man, a pastor. Another example would be that influencer Britney Venti (sp?) who is so light skinned you'd never guess she's half black. Once you know it, you see a few features but nothing you couldn't find in plenty of Whites.

The solution to Africa might be taking all the unmarried Chinese men and having them marry African women.

AmericanKulak says

hybrid vitality, that mixing strains often results in hardier, better adapted offspring. Mutts are healthier and exhibit fewer negative traits than purebred dogs, for example

Hybrid vigor is a thing, but outbreeding depression is also a thing.

Some subspecies are so well adapted to a specific environment so that mixing them dilutes those adaptations. Example: blue eyes are an adaptation to the low winter light in northern Europe in both people and wolves. A homogenized human will invariably have brown eyes and lose that advantage, not being able to see as well in low light.

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/in-person-nation-vs-impersonation

physiognomy, once a darling of victorian natural philosophers, is one of those disciplines that got discredited but probably shouldn’t have been, at least not conceptually.

it, along with genes, gene driven outcomes, and genetic population variance in traits and outcomes are among the most suppressed topics in academia, media, and social media.

even mention them on twitter and you get your reach throttled severely.

do so in a university and unless you have the most secure of tenure, they will drop a building on your head.

many like to denounce it as pseudoscience.

this seems odd to me as, at core, it’s not like this is an exotic or even debatable idea. such notions were once common canon, they were just taken too far and in some poor directions owing to lack of rigor but the simple fact is that it’s patently obvious that genes affect all manner of characteristics and behaviors in animals (including humans).

because these traits are heritable, changes in environment serve as selectors where some traits prove advantageous to certain populations at certain times and are therefore conserved and spread through mating fitness outcomes.

breed and your genes spread; don’t and they disappear. that’s just biology.

similarly obvious is the idea that the traits encapsulated in your genes often create visible markers in your physiology and that humans are highly attuned to this. the evidence for this is (contrary to popular pontification) actually quite strong. like everything, it has limits, but the there is real information there.

we carry all manner of signals in our bodies and body language and it follows inevitably from this that learning to read such signals (consciously or unconsciously) from other humans is a highly adaptive trait. you’re probably experienced it consciously when you see the mentally ill on the street. their posture and movement is wrong. you can see it from a block away. it’s not difficult to perceive the survival benefit once upon a time of catching that early or knowing who would likely be prone to violence before they got close enough to engage in any.

the ones who figured it out had offspring. the ones who didn’t, not so much.

similarly, high heeled shoes on women became a trend because it’s attractive to men, but the reason for it is not known to most. it’s because it changes hip and pelvic angle to a position associated with human estrus. ask any chimp or baboon. they know this. men may not realize they’re having a “breeding response” but they are. the men who didn’t respond to that stimulus were less likely to propagate and their genes are no longer with us.

Patrick says

Some subspecies are so well adapted to a specific environment so that mixing them dilutes those adaptations. Example: blue eyes are an adaptation to the low winter light in northern Europe in both people and wolves. A homogenized human will invariably have brown eyes and lose that advantage, not being able to see as well in low light.

Those are nice for pre-artificial light/electric living, but much better that races with poor time-preferences and emotion management get that bred out or diluted by those that do?

That "Tropical Dystemper", LOL.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/meritocracy-would-mean-almost-no-black-harvard-professors-says-cambridge-academic-mqjwdwg92

Meritocracy would mean almost no black Harvard professors, says academic

Students have previously called for Nathan Cofnas to be sacked from Cambridge and said his fellowship was tantamount to funding ‘scientific racism’

A University of Cambridge academic has suggested that a meritocracy would reduce the number of black Harvard professors to almost zero.

Nathan Cofnas, an early career fellow at the faculty of philosophy, wants a “hereditarian revolution” and for a culture of “race realism” that acknowledges differences between ethnicities. ...

Cofnas, who was hired by the university in 2022, said that, without imposed diversity in recruiting, that black people “would disappear from almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment”.

He called for an end to the “war on nature” and for people to “accept that talent is not distributed equally within or across groups”.

https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2021/08/21/race-science-infographics-archive-biology-genetics-anthropology-etc/

Note that I'm not ascribing value to any race, only stating the facts:

- race is real, just like breeds of dog are real
- the different races have different average aptitudes and inclinations, as well as different propensity to diseases

The denial of facts to conform to the woke agenda prevents us from solving real problems, causing needless suffering for everyone.

Patrick says

causing needless suffering for everyone.

"Needless suffering" is the whole point. It's called 'loosh', and it supposed to be the psychic food of the demons.

Patrick says

the different races have different average aptitudes and inclinations, as well as different propensity to diseases

True, but not really useful outside of medicine. For example, it is a waste of resources to test Nordics for sickle cell anemia. Other than such physical matters, each individual has his/her own distinct aptitudes, inclinations, and propensities.

HeadSet says

Patrick says

the different races have different average aptitudes and inclinations, as well as different propensity to diseases

True, but not really useful outside of medicine. For example, it is a waste of resources to test Nordics for sickle cell anemia. Other than such physical matters, each individual has his/her own distinct aptitudes, inclinations, and propensities.

We’re talking group averages. It’s telling.

GNL says

We’re talking group averages. It’s telling.

No doubt it is "telling," but what use is it, other than the evil of putting individuals from "underrepresented" groups into unearned positions?

The biggest advantage from admitting the obvious fact that race is very real would be the calm acceptance of inevitable disparities in outcomes instead of blaming them all on "oppression" and imposing truly racist and unworkable plans to end that "oppression".

Perhaps even more important would be a newfound respect for provable truth above leftist ideology. What we have now is a hysterical suppression of biological reality mostly because it makes blue-haired Karens feel bad.

And there are other advantages. There might be funding to study the real reasons why black people are an order of magnitude more violent on average, or why Asians do well in engineering, etc. OK, some of it may be cultural, but to claim the genetic component is never significant is obviously false. Evolution did not magically stop 50,000 years ago.

Patrick says

Note that I'm not ascribing value to any race, only stating the facts:

- race is real, just like breeds of dog are real
- the different races have different average aptitudes and inclinations, as well as different propensity to diseases

The denial of facts to conform to the woke agenda prevents us from solving real problems, causing needless suffering for everyone.

Yes - the fact that we can't have a rational discussion about this to disentangle "nature vs. nurture" is yet another part of the globohomo divisionary plan. @Wookieman can definitely weigh in on this.

Globohomo wants to equate "acknowledge differences" with Huxley's "Brave New World," where humans are "bottle grown" into various mental classes, worship the "Great Ford," the inventor of mass production, and are all regular users of "Soma," the perfect soporific drug. This is actually the great gaslighting.

It sounds incongruous, but isn't that what glolbohomo is doing? They claim that they can create synthetic societies to replace what has gone before to maximize the influence of globohomo - control the (admittedly cowardly and weak) thinking middle class (the Betas), create vast class of illegal and underpaid labor (the Gammas), while the self appointed ruling class (the Alphas) run the show.

One big reason for Globohomo: Males Save, Women Spend.

By the 60s there was such an explosion of owning assets the upper class freaked out. How to get them to spend, not save and buy assets? Take away men's control of family money.

That's an interesting idea I had not heard. The upper class prefers the rest of us to spend and stay poor, and that's also less competition for the assets that can provide an income.