Nicholas Wade and the Reality of Race

[Cold Front]

Interesting. Good to read such evolutionary advances were not made in a couple hundred of years.

I wonder how mixing dna clusters will affect this thesis in a few thousand years

For Ashkenazi Jews in the U.S., who are intermarrying at a high rate, it will probably quickly lower their mean IQ to that of the surrounding population very soon. Maybe a century. In short, Jews will become less distinctive the more they intermarry.

.... I am guessing we will have mutants in NA while Japan and China are collapsing from weird new inbreeding diseases .....

By definition, very adverse negative mutations will not spread because they're not beneficial to reproduction.

Beneficial mutations, on the other hand, will spread around the world depending on the level of their benefit. If the benefit is high, then very quickly. If the benefit is not high, then much more gradually.

 

[IDL]

Behavioral geneticists believe every trait is heritable.

http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/three_laws.pdf

Yikes. Have you read A Brave New World? Huxley invisions a world where people no longer reproduce naturally and all of the common classes are bred for distinct purposes by the state.

So people would be smart enough to perform their tasks, but not smart enough to figure out they were being used..

 

[Cold Front]

Interesting. Good to read such evolutionary advances were not made in a couple hundred of years.

From Wade's book, a very specific illustration of how quickly IQ can go up. Keep in mind it's just an illustration:

From about 900 AD to 1700 AD, Ashkenazim were concentrated in a few professions, notably moneylending and later tax farming (give the prince his money up front, then extract the taxes due from his subjects). Because of the strong heritability of intelligence, the Utah team calculates that 20 generations, a mere 500 years, would be sufficient for Ashkenazim to have developed an extra 16 points of IQ above that of Europeans. The Utah team assumes that the heritability of intelligence is 0.8, meaning that 80% of the variance, the spread between high and low values in a population, is due to genetics. If the parents of each generation have an IQ of just 1 point above the mean, then average IQ increases by 0.8% per generation. If the average human generation time in the Middle Ages was 25 years, then in 20 human generations, or 500 years, Ashkenazi IQ would increase by 20

 

[Cold Front]

Yikes. Have you read A Brave New World? Huxley invisions a world where all off the common classes are bred for distinct purposes.

Yeah, it's good book and he was basing it on a lot of ideas we're discussing in this thread.

Remember, though, even if we as a society don't select for certain traits, nature still does the selecting for us.

 

[Threetrees]

I've read the Sports Gene
have to check this book out

 

[Jack V Savage]

I've read the Sports Gene
have to check this book out

It's just the latest book to get academic racists excited and get laughed at by actual scientists.

 

[Threetrees]

It's just the latest book to get academic racists excited and get laughed at by actual scientists.

Maybe.
I still consider it worth a read.
You never read things you don't necessarily agree with?

 

[IDL]

Yeah, it's good book and he was basing it on a lot of ideas we're discussing in this thread.

Remember, though, even if we as a society don't select for certain traits, nature still does the selecting for us.

Certainly. Our society would not accept the state doing that in its current form.

 

[Cold Front]

I've read the Sports Gene
have to check this book out

I thought that was a great book. I loved his very detailed physiological descriptions for why the Altiplano Indians, the Tibetans, and the East Africans living at high altitudes along the Rift Valley all developed different adaptations.

"The Vitruvian NBA Player" and "The Big Bang of Body Types" chapters were cool, too

 

[Cold Front]

It's just the latest book to get academic racists excited and get laughed at by actual scientists.

Hahaha ! Like Jack Savage knows any actual scientists.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Maybe.
I still consider it worth a read.
You never read things you don't necessarily agree with?

I read things I don't agree with all the time. This particular book doesn't look worth reading at all. I mean, go ahead if you want to, but like I said, these come up all the time, get racist hearts aflutter, and then they always turn out to be full of shit.

I've posted a few good reviews already.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/jun/05/stretch-genes/

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/2014/05/21/on-the-origin-of-white-power/

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...as-wade-professor-ceiling-cat-says-paws-down/

But you know how these go. Academic racists just think that the reason people laugh at them is that they are intimidated into it the PC police. I'm sure the TS can quote Steve Sailer, Jared Taylor, David Duke, or John Derbyshire supporting his view, though.

Hahaha ! Like Jack Savage knows any actual scientists.

Yes, surely, anyone who thinks that racism is stupid can't possibly "know any scientists."

 

[kpt018]

I am not familiar with this guy's work, but here is a critique of this one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/agust...ome-ignorance-of-nicholas-wade_b_5344248.html

Ouch. If you don't want to read the whole thing, here's a piece:

"Wade's approach is particularly dangerous because his argument is that he is just a defender of scientific truth and that a cabal of left-leaning academics is obfuscating reality with oppressive, even fascistic, denials of the truth about race. Unfortunately, he is either ignorant of the actual data and diversity of research or he is willfully avoiding them."

And even more damning is that apparently he doesn't really even define race specific enough to test.

IDK, the book sounds like a total waste of time.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

Haven't read the book. It wouldn't make any sense that if evolution is real that it would just up and stop.

It doesn't stop and the substituion rates of alleles in a genome can be used as a molecular clock.

 

[CableandThanos]

I am not familiar with this guy's work, but here is a critique of this one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/agust...ome-ignorance-of-nicholas-wade_b_5344248.html

Ouch. If you don't want to read the whole thing, here's a piece:

"Wade's approach is particularly dangerous because his argument is that he is just a defender of scientific truth and that a cabal of left-leaning academics is obfuscating reality with oppressive, even fascistic, denials of the truth about race. Unfortunately, he is either ignorant of the actual data and diversity of research or he is willfully avoiding them."

And even more damning is that apparently he doesn't really even define race specific enough to test.

IDK, the book sounds like a total waste of time.

So someone that you more than likely agree with (at least politically) writes a negative review and you just write the book off as bunk. Figures

You don't think it would be worth a read even if just to see the areas that people you disagree with, talk about? Maybe you can see where they come from or their proof, evidence, or thoughts and then maybe find a way to combat them. This would help you in further discussions on the topic. Instead of just finding a negative review on something and going ohh well, no use in discussing the issue, a guy on my side said he didn't like it.

 

[nixkid]

It's just the latest book to get academic racists excited and get laughed at by actual scientists.

I'm wondering when they are just going to go ahead and stick the stormfront logo on this site because it has devolved into that. Racism apparently isn't frowned upon around these parts.

 

[kpt018]

So someone that you more than likely agree with (at least politically) writes a negative review and you just write the book off as bunk. Figures

You don't think it would be worth a read even if just to see the areas that people you disagree with, talk about? Maybe you can see where they come from or their proof, evidence, or thoughts and then maybe find a way to combat them. This would help you in further discussions on the topic. Instead of just finding a negative review on something and going ohh well, no use in discussing the issue, a guy on my side said he didn't like it.

What the hell does this have to do with politics?

Here is one thing he says in his book:

"Readers should be fully aware that in chapters 6 through 10 they are leaving the world of hard science and entering into a much more speculative arena at the interface of history, economics and human evolution."

I would genuinely be interested in reading on the topic, but it sounds like this thing has serious flaws, making it pretty useless. There are plenty of better books to read (time is limited, you know).

To your other point, I can ascertain what "the other side is talking about or where they're coming from" by asking them, can't I?

 

[CableandThanos]

What the hell does this have to do with politics?

Here is one thing he says in his book:

"Readers should be fully aware that in chapters 6 through 10 they are leaving the world of hard science and entering into a much more speculative arena at the interface of history, economics and human evolution."

I would genuinely be interested in reading on the topic, but it sounds like this thing has serious flaws, making it pretty useless. There are plenty of better books to read (time is limited, you know).

To your other point, I can ascertain what "the other side is talking about or where they're coming from" by asking them, can't I?

Come on man, If rush Limbaugh gave this book 2 thumbs up would you be getting ready to buy it? NO, but someone who you probably already agree with on the subject matter says he doesn't like it and you just poo poo it.

How do you know it has serious flaws? Because someone wrote a negative review?

And I guess you can ask the average internet poster what they mean by genetic intelligence, etc. But it seems like you would want to go to someone who has spent a decent amount of time in the subject (even if you think they are wrong).

Is this how you normally make decisions or learn about the other side of an issue, by listening to random internet posters?

 

[Cold Front]

Yes, surely, anyone who thinks that racism is stupid can't possibly "know any scientists."

It's not that you think "racism is stupid" - an easy enough pose for any schoolboy to assume. It's that you lump in David Duke with Nicholas Wade, when you and I both know you don't know anything about the science in this field or in the books under discussion.

You haven't read any of the material. You can't discuss it intelligently. You don't have the first clue about any of the principles involved in population genetics or evolution.

In brief, you're a poser who puts up a Bertrand Russell avatar because you want people to believe you're smart and informed when you're neither.

If you were forced to comment on what you know about science, you couldn't comment at all. But because that position is not tenable for you and you desperately want to criticize a book whose contents you're unclear about, you put on moral airs and make shoddy moral equivalencies.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm wondering when they are just going to go ahead and stick the stormfront logo on this site because it has devolved into that. Racism apparently isn't frowned upon around these parts.

You're apparently not even supposed to mention it when you see it.

It's not that you think "racism is stupid" - an easy enough pose for any schoolboy to assume. It's that you lump in David Duke with Nicholas Wade, when you and I both know you don't know anything about the science in this field or in the books under discussion.

My field is finance, but I know enough to see that Wade is full of shit.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

He assumes it already has, and gives numerous examples.

Ashkenazi Jews, for example, have the highest IQs of any population group in the world, and this fact has consequences for their outsized success in business, science, and the arts. It may also explain why they have so many genetic disorders.

Does this book establish if the jews have always been successful in business and science or is it after Rothchilds progenitor Amschel became successful? What genetic disorders do jews have?

Does this book establish which is the superior race if there is one?