patrick.net

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.

Patrick says

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.

And that spending is their source of income.

Patrick says

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.

Yep.

Whenever I hear "Great Reset" and it's focus on renting everything from housing to appliances to total dependence on centralized transport, I think of this.

https://www.unz.com/article/new-york-times-thugs-trying-to-cancel-michael-woodley-for-reporting-human-diversity-science-but-theyre-guilty-too/

I was reading about this guy earlier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher

Between 1950 and 1951, Fisher, along with other leading geneticists and anthropologists of his time, was asked to comment on a statement that UNESCO was preparing on the nature of race and racial differences, which was published in 1950 as the UNESCO Statement on Race. The statement, along with the comments and criticisms of a large number of scientists including Fisher, is published in "The Race Concept: Results of an Inquiry" (1952).

Fisher was one of four scientists who opposed the statement. In his own words, Fisher's opposition is based on "one fundamental objection to the Statement", which "destroys the very spirit of the whole document." He believes that human groups differ profoundly "in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" and concludes from this that the "practical international problem is that of learning to share the resources of this planet amicably with persons of materially different nature, and that this problem is being obscured by entirely well-intentioned efforts to minimize the real differences that exist."

Fisher's opinions are clarified by his more detailed comments on Section 5 of the statement, which are concerned with psychological and mental differences between the races. Section 5 concludes as follows:

Scientifically, however, we realized that any common psychological attribute is more likely to be due to a common historical and social background, and that such attributes may obscure the fact that, within different populations consisting of many human types, one will find approximately the same range of temperament and intelligence.

...

I quite agree with the chief intention of the article as a whole, which, I take it, is to bring out the relative unimportance of such genetic mental differences between races as may exist, in contrast to the importance of the mental differences (between individuals as well as between nations) caused by tradition, training and other aspects of the environment. However, in view of the admitted existence of some physically expressed hereditary differences of a conspicuous nature, between the averages or the medians of the races, it would be strange if there were not also some hereditary differences affecting the mental characteristics which develop in a given environment, between these averages or medians. At the same time, these mental differences might usually be unimportant in comparison with those between individuals of the same race. To the great majority of geneticists it seems absurd to suppose that psychological characteristics are subject to entirely different laws of heredity or development than other biological characteristics. Even though the former characteristics are far more influenced than the latter by environment, in the form of past experiences, they must have a highly complex genetic basis.

Fisher's own words were quoted as follows:

As you ask for remarks and suggestions, there is one that occurs to me, unfortunately of a somewhat fundamental nature, namely that the Statement as it stands appears to draw a distinction between the body and mind of men, which must, I think, prove untenable. It appears to me unmistakable that gene differences which influence the growth or physiological development of an organism will ordinarily pari passu influence the congenital inclinations and capacities of the mind. In fact, I should say that, to vary conclusion (2) on page 5, 'Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development,' seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes.[116]: 56

AmericanKulak says

groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development

True, but irrelevant. Group A may have a higher innate capacity than Group B, but a specific individual in Group B may have a higher innate capacity than most members of Group A. That is the problem with collectivism of any sort - we are all individuals with distinct attributes and grouping by any single one of those attributes induces errors when evaluating individuals for a specific task.

Divide any sample of folks by an attribute, such as last name begins with "G" versus begins with "T." One of the two groups is going to average taller, smarter, or richer than the other.

Right, this is the argument of James Damore, who got fired from Google. The graph that got James Damore into trouble:

chirp!

Patrick says

- race is real, just like breeds of dog are real

We do look different and act different and race is real - it's wherever we draw the line. However, genetics differences between people are tiny. We are very very inbred. Our genetic differences are 0.1-0.3%. To add to that differences between humans and chimps is 2-3% but differences between dogs such as Chihuahuas and Great Danes, are estimated to be around 5-10%. The genetic differences between these three subspecies of tigers are around 2-5%.

With studies performed over the past 15 years using modern NGS DNA sequencers it's looking more and more like Neanderthals were much more similar to us than we thought. Dressed up and manicured I think if I saw one on the street I'd probably just think he was some unusually robust guy.

Also, the older theory of 'out of Africa', with respect to modern humans wiping out the Neanderthals' is starting too look instead more and more like Europeans ARE Neanderthals'. Blonde hair and blue eyes for instance. It's starting to look more like the Neanderthals experienced wave after wave of homo sapiens sapiens until they eventually absorbed most of the genome.

That is quite a bit different than the prior out compete theory and the idea that there was a small number of interbreeding events where useful traits were conserved.

The story of the cro-mags is interesting. They looked more like us and were legit badasses.

Patrick says

This image suggests slightly more difference but 2008 was a long time ago we have much more data now. Back then it was mainly microarray data instead of reading the full genome. Like a sentence out of each page of the phone book vs. the whole phone book.

Also those differences in the chart are pretty inbred. There aren't large populations of those animals anymore. What would be interesting would be to see the differences of something more common like rats or crows.

https://www.sci.news/genetics/west-africans-dna-archaic-hominin-08123.html

West Africans Carry DNA from Mysterious Archaic Hominin

Feb 14, 2020 by Enrico de Lazaro

Four West African populations — Yoruba, Esan, Mende, and Gambian — derive 2 to 19% of their genetic ancestry from a yet-undiscovered species of archaic hominin that diverged before the split of modern humans and the ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans, according to new research from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Contemporary people who have ancestors from Europe, Asia, and Oceania carry DNA from two archaic species, Neanderthals and Denisovans, making up 1-4% of their genome.

These genetic segments arrived in modern humans through introgression, the process by which members of two populations mate, and the resulting hybrid individuals then breed with members of the parent populations.

Recent studies have shown that, though modern West Africans do not have Neanderthal or Denisovan ancestry, there may have been introgression by other ancient hominins in their past.

In a new study, University of California, Los Angeles researchers Arun Durvasula and Sriram Sankararaman compared Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA with genomes of 405 individuals from West Africa.

The scientists focused on four contemporary West African populations: Yoruba from Ibadan, Esan from Nigeria, Mende from Sierra Leone, and Gambian.

They found differences that could be best explained by introgression by an unknown archaic hominin whose ancestors split off from the human family tree before Neanderthals.

https://barsoom.substack.com/p/hbd-and-d

IQ has received by far the greatest degree of attention in the research of and discourse surrounding HBD, because it is by far the most important single factor in economic success, and thus group differences in IQ present an uncomfortable challenge to the narrative, central to the political project of race communism, that all disparities in outcome between racial groups in racially diverse countries, as well as disparities between racially distinct countries, can only ever be explained by racist bigotry manifesting as discrimination, xenophobia, or colonial exploitation.

... stereotypes have been repeatedly demonstrated to be remarkably accurate – indeed, next to IQ, stereotype accuracy is one of the most replicated findings of the social sciences. It is an indicator of the corruption of those disciplines that both stereotypes and IQ are considered swear words by so many of its practitioners.