1. The official Sherdog Store is back! Check it out! » Discuss it here! »
Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.

Nicholas Wade and the Reality of Race

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Cold Front, May 21, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cold Front Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    8,477
    Likes Received:
    0
    Reread it yourself: http://books.google.com/books?id=XS...tal faculties in men of the same race&f=false

    He compares the differences in men to those found in dogs and domestic animals, as well as monkeys, and specifically mentions mental faculties.
     
  2. Zankou Bringing peace and love Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    31,781
    Likes Received:
    2,187
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Honestly that EO Wilson quote's rather crazy. Who cares about forums and celebrations and such? How is that science?

    I have somewhat similar criticisms of Lewontin's protege, Coyne, when he wades outside of the science (incidentally, Orr is likewise Coyne's protege student; their alignment is not exactly coincidental, though it obviously doesn't mean their views are wrong). Take Coyne's complaint that genetic variation between human populations is not 'profound.' Well, that value judgment is not exactly science either. If I desire to play cornerback in the NFL, Coyne may not find my ancestors being from the statistically wrong continent 'profound,' but I'm hardly obliged to agree with his assessment of its significance.

    And likewise, one might suggest that our trio of Lewontin, Coyne, and Orr ending up at Harvard, rather than in the NFL, was not exactly a statistical shocker. Whether Coyne finds this statistical pattern "profound," another uncertainty that is unlikely to be resolved by appeals to scientific authority.
     
  3. Cold Front Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    8,477
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, the genetic formula for family values is always true.

    Haven't you heard the famous phrase by J.B.S. Haldane? How he would be wiling to die for two brothers or eight cousins?

    Haldane was just expressing humorously what others later developed, that kin selection has a genetic and evolutionary basis.

    Read here for the algebra: https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg...b4135fae90486f09852573e6000d50cf?OpenDocument
     
  4. OldGoat Red Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,783
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sport is really what highlights the statistical differences.
     
  5. OldGoat Red Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,783
    Likes Received:
    0
    That I understand. I'm talking about learned behavior to take care of non-reproductive members out of a sense of family loyalty even at your own expense. Or patriotism, nationalism, religion, or other tricky ideologies that have you sacrifice yourself or your resources for others very remotely related and for their benefit. Like liberalism lol
     
  6. Cubo de Sangre President of the War Room

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2014
    Messages:
    53,131
    Likes Received:
    14,464
    Location:
    Hell
    So if we learned something genetically truthful yet unpleasant (for some people) through science is that good or bad for human evolution as a whole? Last I knew we didn't have special laws for people who test slightly below the mean IQ. Is there anything besides intelligence where genetically speaking ignorance is bliss?

    I agree beauty fades although I'm not sure what bearing that has on our discussion. But I'll throw this out there.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2009/07/the-truth-about-iq/22260/

     
  7. Cold Front Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    8,477
    Likes Received:
    0
    But there is a cost to the individual. Medications don't always work. They cost money. Therapy costs both time and money. Etc.

    Ultimately, it's like being asked to run a competitive race while weighed down with sandbags. You can get across the finish line, but you won't have as easy a time of it as someone without those burdens - and ultimately all that matters for the spread of a trait in a population is differential breeding rates. If you have six kids, but your neighbor has twelve, your neighbor's genes win that round.
     
  8. Cold Front Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    8,477
    Likes Received:
    0
    We value those things religiously and sentimentally, but evolution may or may not value them, depending on the context.

    Genes are generally not into self-sacrifice if the price is too high. What's in it for them?
     
  9. OldGoat Red Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,783
    Likes Received:
    0
    Genes don't think. They produce organisms that may. Some of the behavior of the organisms may not be optimal for the propagation of the genes that produce the behavior. Some stuff that genes do doesn't survive and certain manners of behavior may be part of that.

    Which is why in the long term altruistic and self-sacrificing behavior towards distantly related groups may be out reproduced by more selfish behaviors.
     
  10. Cold Front Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    8,477
    Likes Received:
    0
    Correct. I was anthropomorphizing genes to make a point, in the same way Richard Dawkins described "the selfish gene" to make a point.

    We were originally talking about the impact of mutations. I said that those which don't affect reproductive success don't matter. You countered by mentioning the possibility of individual selfish behavior hurting a man's family.

    But if the individual's selfish behavior doesn't impact the reproduction of his genes - and I'm speaking in the widest sense to include the success of his family's genes - then those mutations don't matter.

    I mean, a mutation which makes a woman have a lot of children and then kill them all before they grow up affects her fitness, even if it doesn't directly hurt her reproductive success.
     
  11. OldGoat Red Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,783
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm making the point that if how you think is partially determined by your genes than you feel about others in your family even the non-reproducing ones can change your behavior in such a way that you do not reproduce as much as you otherwise would. So a later mutation that caused a health issue may result in you devoting an excess of resources to care for that sick individual instead of focusing on your own reproduction. In which case compassion can be counterproductive to your own genes.

    Now to what extent especially if this concept is extended to self sacrificing behavior for further cousins based on notions of patriotism and such is impossible to say. But that gets into intractable game theory sort of issues.
     
  12. Cold Front Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    8,477
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, exactly. Like I said, there's a tradeoff. Even in families there's a tradeoff and sometimes that tradeoff is ugly to our modern sensibilities. Look at Sarah Hrdy's work on infanticide, for example - mothers who willingly snuff their infants because there aren't enough resources to go around.
     
  13. Khabib Khanate Hashashiyan Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    44,920
    Likes Received:
    13,399
    Location:
    Pleasure Dome
    I wouldn't know tbh but I think its a discussion society might have in the coming decades. Reproductive rights are something we take for granted but one could find many reason to limit them.
    I think intelligence is the best example because its something we as humans value a lot. I guess athletic prowess might be another one.
    Haha, like I said I haven't read much on intelligence for a while. Made the mistake of thinking because IQ tends not to change does not mean it can't change.
    You don't need therapy, the medication is usually all you need and more often than not it works very well. I never said modern medicine nullified evolution but just that it made is easier for these maladaptive traits to spread.
     
  14. Cold Front Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    8,477
    Likes Received:
    0
    But all this argument comes down to is that the mutational problem doesn't reduce fitness very much, if at all. That's a separate argument. I'm assuming it's a serious problem.

    If the problem can be controlled to the point it doesn't affect fitness, then it's the equivalent of a disease which you can be vaccinated against.
     
  15. Cubo de Sangre President of the War Room

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2014
    Messages:
    53,131
    Likes Received:
    14,464
    Location:
    Hell
    I guess I just don't have a vision for what could really come of it. I can see people picking genes off a menu if they had the chance but I don't see people picking or eschewing mates due to science uncovering you might have 2-3 less IQ points or lose a few inches of your vertical leap if you choose someone of a particular race over someone of another race. People are already highly racial with mate selection with little regard for how genes might be combined in their offspring.
     
  16. kjg1672 Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,639
    Likes Received:
    51
    Wish I had seen this thread earlier. I heard him interviewed on Leonard Lopate and it sounds like a great book. Just listening to the interview for 15 minutes was fascinating.
     
  17. Cold Front Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    8,477
    Likes Received:
    0
  18. Jack V Savage Secretary of Keepin' It Real/Nicest Guy on Sherdog

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    81,120
    Likes Received:
    10,532
    Hilarious review from Dirk Dorkins (though he might have had a professor somewhere along the line that isn't acceptable to academic racists so tread carefully):

    http://genotopia.scienceblog.com/441/hail-britannia-review-of-wades-a-troublesome-inheritance/

    To put it as nicely as possible. Basically, there doesn't seem to be any reason at all to accept his conclusions. But, you know, he said he was jest speculatin' so it's all good. He's immune from criticism. He has immunity. It's cool.
     
  19. Cold Front Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    8,477
    Likes Received:
    0
    Poor Savage is now reduced to searching the internet for book reviews parodying a book whose contents he still knows anything about.
     
  20. 7437 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    25,428
    Likes Received:
    150
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.