4 ms·

The implicit comment is that the article's substance is of no conceivable relevance, because it fails to mention the most obvious possible cause - human genetic

by moldbug 15y ago

The implicit comment is that the article's substance is of no conceivable relevance, because it fails to mention the most obvious possible cause - human genetic diversity - for the pattern it purports to analyze. It's one thing to refute or qualify the null hypothesis. It's another to ignore it. Why shouldn't it be the null hypothesis that genetic diversity is the cause of global inequality? Human beings have been thinking about this subject for a lot more than the last 50 years, you know. All I think is what more or less everyone used to think - since when Jesus was a little boy. If that's not a null hypothesis, what is? So, from my perspective, the OP is like a long, vague explanation of how stress causes ulcers or marsh miasmas cause malaria. It's impossible for any such analysis to be any more cogent than any other - all are equally wrong.

hristov 15y ago
This is the most obvious cause only if you are a racist. Genetic differences between races are very minor as compared to the genetic differences between individuals within a race. Furthermore, it is very doubtful that you can find any statistically significant genetic differences between some of the countries mentioned in the article (e.g., England and Spain).
- moldbug 15y ago
  Genetic differences between races are very minor as compared to the genetic differences between individuals within a race. In case you're posting from a different dimension, these "minor" differences can change the color of our skin, the shape of our bones, and even (gasp) the size of our brains. If these are minor organs, what are major ones? In case you're posting from the same dimension, your fallacy has a name: https://www.google.com/?q=Lewontins%20fallacy https://www.google.com/?q=Lewontins%20fallacy Furthermore, it is very doubtful that you can find any statistically significant genetic differences between some of the countries mentioned in the article (e.g., England and Spain). You've been keeping up with the latest genomic research, I see! Ha. I jest, of course. Again, your own eyes are a great start - they really never lie. Have you been to England? Spain? Would you be confident in saying: "Englishmen look just like Spaniards?" Or if there's a difference... what's the cause? The weather, perhaps? Personally - call me crazy, I know - I feel I can tell an Englishman from a German with much better than random accuracy. If I note that English weather is pretty similar to German weather, does that make me... oh, noes... a racist?
  - hristov 15y ago
    Thank you for the Google link. There I learned that Lewontin's fallacy is a fallacy because "Richard Lewontin is a Marxist Jew who has dedicated his career to attacking genetics as an explanation for human variation." That explains so much. It is really cute how you think you can tell an Englishman from a German. Do you know, by the way, the genetic make up of the Englishman? Do you know where the word "England" came from? Here is a clue -- it came from the Anglo-Saxons a group of GERMAN tribes that conquered England after the Romans left and later became the people you now call English. So your ability to tell apart the English and Germans based on their look is most likely a figment of your imagination. Anyways lets not get carried away and stick to the topic at hand. Here is another example from the article -- the economic difference between the southern US and the rest of the US. Could you explain that one. Please tell me how the southerners developed a statistically different genetic make up than northerners in the 400 year period since colonization. I would love to hear about the split between the grits and pizza genes.
    - moldbug 15y ago
      Thank you for the Google link. There I learned that Lewontin's fallacy is a fallacy because "Richard Lewontin is a Marxist Jew who has dedicated his career to attacking genetics as an explanation for human variation." That explains so much. You're really good with teh googles! I guess you read the A.W.F. Edwards paper too: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstra... You also seem interested in European population substructure: http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020143 http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...
      - hazov 15y ago
        What's your problem? Apparently from all your submissions and comments you are really fascinated by IQ and Race stuff, besides politics, and you just bring the topic each time you can. You always create flamewars with people that disagrees with you, this is not Digg if you're old enough to know what this mean. I also have my motives to believe that you're not a psychometrist, population geneticist or whatever could and that you're probably someone sitting your ass in class each day at Uni. I am jewish and it always sad to see people acting this way, like you, saying they are jewish. You probably never read the Shas, as the majority of American jews are not brought up in a religious environment, but Rabbi Shimom ben Gamaliel used to say that the best thing for a man is silence. You can learn a couple of things with the Bavli, what about giving it a try?
- tatsuke95 15y ago
  >Genetic differences between races are very minor as compared to the genetic differences between individuals within a race. So do you agree or disagree with people being "born-that-way", for lack of a better term? That's what's being argued here (at least by me). Not whether "all whites are born that way" or "all blacks are born that way", which is where you seem to be trying to steer it. Can we not talk about genetic diversity without associating it with race?
- dingfeng_quek 15y ago
  However, genetic differences between certain groups of people can be quite significant. Sometimes, they are clustered geographically, like immunity against malaria. Other times, they are clustered based on a shared history and selection pressure, like the Jews. Or math professors. Afterall, humans came from the same small genetic stock, and races generally reflect adaptation/mutation to particular geographies - not to the very recent economic developments. Not to mention that diversity and specialization is generally good for trade.
tatsuke95 15y ago
The situation is bad enough that I'm a little sensitive to agreeing with what you've said here. According to a few posts up, that makes me a racist, I guess. The problem is, I never really understood why it's a stretch to believe that in all of the messy soup of chromosomes and culture (variables of a magnitude beyond what we could ever possibly research) that there are tangible differences between human beings. And once you start acknowledging differences, you have to acknowledge that those differences are going to give rise to advantages and disadvantages to things so random that they might not ever matter. But sometimes they do. Are these differences, this genetic diversity, the root cause of global inequality? Based on my understanding of economics, I don't believe so. But that doesn't mean the conversation should be off the table.
- moldbug 15y ago
  The 20th-century scientist probably most influential in bringing about this change of perspective: Franz Boas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Boas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Boas You can evaluate Boas' logic yourself, by reading his The Mind of Primitive Man (1911) - free online: http://archive.org/stream/mindofprimitivem031738mbp#page/n10/mode/1up http://archive.org/stream/mindofprimitivem031738mbp#page/n10... Fascinatingly, in the introduction to the 1938 edition (copyright police missed this one), Boas writes: "Still worse is the subjection of science to ignorant prejudices in countries controlled by dictators. Such control has extended particularly to books dealing with the subject matter of race and culture. Since nothing is permitted to be printed that runs counter to the ignorant whims and prejudices of the governing clique, there can be no trustworthy science. When a publisher whose pride used to be the number and value of his scientific books announces in his calendar a book trying to show that race mixture is not harmful, withdraws the same book after a dictator comes into power, when great encyclopedias are rewritten according to prescribed tenets, when scientists either do not dare or are not allowed to publish results contradicting the prescribed doctrines, when others, in order to advance their own material interests, or blinded by uncontrolled emotion, follow blindly the prescribed road, no confidence can be placed in their statements. The suppression of intellectual freedom rings the death knell of science." Indeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson
- 15y ago
Tangaroa 15y ago
We've taken kids from the "poor" gene pools to London and they do fine. It's anecdotal but it fairly well quashes the race argument which holds that this should be impossible, and it suggests we look at society and upbringing instead.
alan-crowe 15y ago
If one were finalizing ones political views in the 1980's and settling to write ones book, one would be doing so against a background in which the Chinese, the planet's cleverest race, had suffered a truly wretched century, bringing them to misery and ruin. Do brains make a nation rich? No, brains are what makes a nation take a Great Leap Forward. The plausibility of a link between prosperity and IQ is also going to depend on one's basic assumptions about how nations work. Suppose that national prosperity is basically a battle between the good guys building and the bad guys looting. What happens when both the good guys and the bad guys are smarter? Smarter bad guys makes things worse and the bad guys generally out number the good guys, so it is no surprise that the planet's smartest race lose 30million members to a man made famine. There are rival basic assumptions, around which one could build ones political theorizing. I like "Man versus Nature". So I'm temperamentally inclined to smarter is better. But I can see how some-one who sees the world as "Man versus Man" would dismiss "IQ leads to prosperity" as not worth considering, because there is no underlying mechanism to make it work.

by moldbug 15y ago

hristov 15y ago

This is the most obvious cause only if you are a racist. Genetic differences between races are very minor as compared to the genetic differences between individuals within a race. Furthermore, it is very doubtful that you can find any statistically significant genetic differences between some of the countries mentioned in the article (e.g., England and Spain).

moldbug 15y ago
Genetic differences between races are very minor as compared to the genetic differences between individuals within a race. In case you're posting from a different dimension, these "minor" differences can change the color of our skin, the shape of our bones, and even (gasp) the size of our brains. If these are minor organs, what are major ones? In case you're posting from the same dimension, your fallacy has a name: https://www.google.com/?q=Lewontins%20fallacy https://www.google.com/?q=Lewontins%20fallacy Furthermore, it is very doubtful that you can find any statistically significant genetic differences between some of the countries mentioned in the article (e.g., England and Spain). You've been keeping up with the latest genomic research, I see! Ha. I jest, of course. Again, your own eyes are a great start - they really never lie. Have you been to England? Spain? Would you be confident in saying: "Englishmen look just like Spaniards?" Or if there's a difference... what's the cause? The weather, perhaps? Personally - call me crazy, I know - I feel I can tell an Englishman from a German with much better than random accuracy. If I note that English weather is pretty similar to German weather, does that make me... oh, noes... a racist?
- hristov 15y ago
  Thank you for the Google link. There I learned that Lewontin's fallacy is a fallacy because "Richard Lewontin is a Marxist Jew who has dedicated his career to attacking genetics as an explanation for human variation." That explains so much. It is really cute how you think you can tell an Englishman from a German. Do you know, by the way, the genetic make up of the Englishman? Do you know where the word "England" came from? Here is a clue -- it came from the Anglo-Saxons a group of GERMAN tribes that conquered England after the Romans left and later became the people you now call English. So your ability to tell apart the English and Germans based on their look is most likely a figment of your imagination. Anyways lets not get carried away and stick to the topic at hand. Here is another example from the article -- the economic difference between the southern US and the rest of the US. Could you explain that one. Please tell me how the southerners developed a statistically different genetic make up than northerners in the 400 year period since colonization. I would love to hear about the split between the grits and pizza genes.
  - moldbug 15y ago
    Thank you for the Google link. There I learned that Lewontin's fallacy is a fallacy because "Richard Lewontin is a Marxist Jew who has dedicated his career to attacking genetics as an explanation for human variation." That explains so much. You're really good with teh googles! I guess you read the A.W.F. Edwards paper too: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstra... You also seem interested in European population substructure: http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020143 http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...
    - hazov 15y ago
      What's your problem? Apparently from all your submissions and comments you are really fascinated by IQ and Race stuff, besides politics, and you just bring the topic each time you can. You always create flamewars with people that disagrees with you, this is not Digg if you're old enough to know what this mean. I also have my motives to believe that you're not a psychometrist, population geneticist or whatever could and that you're probably someone sitting your ass in class each day at Uni. I am jewish and it always sad to see people acting this way, like you, saying they are jewish. You probably never read the Shas, as the majority of American jews are not brought up in a religious environment, but Rabbi Shimom ben Gamaliel used to say that the best thing for a man is silence. You can learn a couple of things with the Bavli, what about giving it a try?
tatsuke95 15y ago
>Genetic differences between races are very minor as compared to the genetic differences between individuals within a race. So do you agree or disagree with people being "born-that-way", for lack of a better term? That's what's being argued here (at least by me). Not whether "all whites are born that way" or "all blacks are born that way", which is where you seem to be trying to steer it. Can we not talk about genetic diversity without associating it with race?
dingfeng_quek 15y ago
However, genetic differences between certain groups of people can be quite significant. Sometimes, they are clustered geographically, like immunity against malaria. Other times, they are clustered based on a shared history and selection pressure, like the Jews. Or math professors. Afterall, humans came from the same small genetic stock, and races generally reflect adaptation/mutation to particular geographies - not to the very recent economic developments. Not to mention that diversity and specialization is generally good for trade.

tatsuke95 15y ago

The situation is bad enough that I'm a little sensitive to agreeing with what you've said here. According to a few posts up, that makes me a racist, I guess. The problem is, I never really understood why it's a stretch to believe that in all of the messy soup of chromosomes and culture (variables of a magnitude beyond what we could ever possibly research) that there are tangible differences between human beings. And once you start acknowledging differences, you have to acknowledge that those differences are going to give rise to advantages and disadvantages to things so random that they might not ever matter. But sometimes they do. Are these differences, this genetic diversity, the root cause of global inequality? Based on my understanding of economics, I don't believe so. But that doesn't mean the conversation should be off the table.

moldbug 15y ago
The 20th-century scientist probably most influential in bringing about this change of perspective: Franz Boas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Boas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Boas You can evaluate Boas' logic yourself, by reading his The Mind of Primitive Man (1911) - free online: http://archive.org/stream/mindofprimitivem031738mbp#page/n10/mode/1up http://archive.org/stream/mindofprimitivem031738mbp#page/n10... Fascinatingly, in the introduction to the 1938 edition (copyright police missed this one), Boas writes: "Still worse is the subjection of science to ignorant prejudices in countries controlled by dictators. Such control has extended particularly to books dealing with the subject matter of race and culture. Since nothing is permitted to be printed that runs counter to the ignorant whims and prejudices of the governing clique, there can be no trustworthy science. When a publisher whose pride used to be the number and value of his scientific books announces in his calendar a book trying to show that race mixture is not harmful, withdraws the same book after a dictator comes into power, when great encyclopedias are rewritten according to prescribed tenets, when scientists either do not dare or are not allowed to publish results contradicting the prescribed doctrines, when others, in order to advance their own material interests, or blinded by uncontrolled emotion, follow blindly the prescribed road, no confidence can be placed in their statements. The suppression of intellectual freedom rings the death knell of science." Indeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson
15y ago

Tangaroa 15y ago

We've taken kids from the "poor" gene pools to London and they do fine. It's anecdotal but it fairly well quashes the race argument which holds that this should be impossible, and it suggests we look at society and upbringing instead.

alan-crowe 15y ago

If one were finalizing ones political views in the 1980's and settling to write ones book, one would be doing so against a background in which the Chinese, the planet's cleverest race, had suffered a truly wretched century, bringing them to misery and ruin. Do brains make a nation rich? No, brains are what makes a nation take a Great Leap Forward. The plausibility of a link between prosperity and IQ is also going to depend on one's basic assumptions about how nations work. Suppose that national prosperity is basically a battle between the good guys building and the bad guys looting. What happens when both the good guys and the bad guys are smarter? Smarter bad guys makes things worse and the bad guys generally out number the good guys, so it is no surprise that the planet's smartest race lose 30million members to a man made famine. There are rival basic assumptions, around which one could build ones political theorizing. I like "Man versus Nature". So I'm temperamentally inclined to smarter is better. But I can see how some-one who sees the world as "Man versus Man" would dismiss "IQ leads to prosperity" as not worth considering, because there is no underlying mechanism to make it work.