The looming crisis in human genetics(economist.com)
economist.com
The looming crisis in human genetics
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14742737
11 comments
I also work in this field. This article is interesting and gets some things right (although is overly alarmist, in my opinion). There are opinions in this article that I disagree with, however.
For example, I disagree with the statement that "... classical Mendelian genetics based on family studies has identified far more disease-risk genes with larger effects than GWAS research has so far."
First, under selection, one would not expect common variants to have tremendous, deleterious effects in general. Second, it is not true that Mendelian studies are superior to GWAS in, say, lipoprotein genetics. There, virtually all of the genes known from studies of Mendelian disorders have been re-discovered through GWAS, with many new findings that were previously unknown. Furthermore, a substantial portion of lipid heritability (~20%) could be explained by GWAS-identified loci as of January 2009. There there is little reason to believe that common variants (>=5% minor allele frequency) should explain all of heritability; so far, so good. The upcoming 100,000 individual lipids GWAS should do a pretty good job of sucking at the marrow for the remaining common variants.
We work with the tools that we have. SNP-chips enabled GWAS. Now that "next-gen" sequencing (worst buzzword ever) has brought down costs, the thousand genomes project will provide us with a list of nearly all variants with MAF>1%. Well-funded groups can afford to deep sequence their population of choice. These provide information that is complementary to the information obtained by GWAS.
In conclusion, GWAS is good for finding common variants. Imputation from thousand genomes should be good for finding low-frequency (>1% MAF) variants. And sequencing is good for finding rare variants. There is no crisis.
For example, I disagree with the statement that "... classical Mendelian genetics based on family studies has identified far more disease-risk genes with larger effects than GWAS research has so far."
First, under selection, one would not expect common variants to have tremendous, deleterious effects in general. Second, it is not true that Mendelian studies are superior to GWAS in, say, lipoprotein genetics. There, virtually all of the genes known from studies of Mendelian disorders have been re-discovered through GWAS, with many new findings that were previously unknown. Furthermore, a substantial portion of lipid heritability (~20%) could be explained by GWAS-identified loci as of January 2009. There there is little reason to believe that common variants (>=5% minor allele frequency) should explain all of heritability; so far, so good. The upcoming 100,000 individual lipids GWAS should do a pretty good job of sucking at the marrow for the remaining common variants.
We work with the tools that we have. SNP-chips enabled GWAS. Now that "next-gen" sequencing (worst buzzword ever) has brought down costs, the thousand genomes project will provide us with a list of nearly all variants with MAF>1%. Well-funded groups can afford to deep sequence their population of choice. These provide information that is complementary to the information obtained by GWAS.
In conclusion, GWAS is good for finding common variants. Imputation from thousand genomes should be good for finding low-frequency (>1% MAF) variants. And sequencing is good for finding rare variants. There is no crisis.
I'm very confused by the article. Not sure if it's because the language or because it's not very clear. On the one hand it says that there are too little evidence of "hereditability" to be useful to cure diseases. On the other hand it says that there is a lot of evidence, to the point of being "disturbing", of racial traits. What am I reading wrong?
Regarding the missing heritability, they are claiming that this is a deficiency of GWAS. It then goes on to talk about sequencing, which it says will find lots of evidence for miscegenation, etc. (To which I say, sure, but what of it?)
In case you are not familiar with the methods, the difference between GWAS/SNP analysis and sequencing is this: GWAS relies on surveying ~500,000 (up to 6 million now, but it doesn't really matter) known single nucleotide polymorphisms. So you might ask, "which nucleotides of this subset of the human genome differ in a systematic way between cases and controls."
With sequencing, you are surveying all nucleotides, not just a subset of 500,000. So you instead ask "which nucleotides out of the 3 billion (haploid) differ between cases and controls?"
In case you are not familiar with the methods, the difference between GWAS/SNP analysis and sequencing is this: GWAS relies on surveying ~500,000 (up to 6 million now, but it doesn't really matter) known single nucleotide polymorphisms. So you might ask, "which nucleotides of this subset of the human genome differ in a systematic way between cases and controls."
With sequencing, you are surveying all nucleotides, not just a subset of 500,000. So you instead ask "which nucleotides out of the 3 billion (haploid) differ between cases and controls?"
...will find lots of evidence for miscegenation, etc. (To which I say, sure, but what of it?)
Thank you for the explanation. I'd love to know more about my DNA, specially if it says that I have a lot of far relatives around the world, I can't understand that's a problem.
Thank you for the explanation. I'd love to know more about my DNA, specially if it says that I have a lot of far relatives around the world, I can't understand that's a problem.
That sounds fascinating. Are you hiring ...
Interestingly, the article mentions both of your listed problems as possible escapes from the conclusion.
The central problem is that people don't understand what "heritable" or "genetic" really means. Every trait you can possibly think of has a genetic basis. I.e. having green hair is heritable, because people who dye their hair funny colors are more likely to be risk takers, and those personality traits are more likely in people with a higher fraction with such-and-such neurotransmitter receptors, and the number of those receptors is influenced by some gene by a few percentage points.
Just because it's genetic doesn't mean it's meaningful, anymore than it's really meaningful to say that this mutation which means you have 1% more of x receptor makes you go out and dye your hair green. It's ridiculous, and that's the kind of relationship that all these genes have with pretty much all phenotypes. The reason the effects are so small is because what the gene does is so far removed and from whatever phenotype you're studying. (usually)
Just because it's genetic doesn't mean it's meaningful, anymore than it's really meaningful to say that this mutation which means you have 1% more of x receptor makes you go out and dye your hair green. It's ridiculous, and that's the kind of relationship that all these genes have with pretty much all phenotypes. The reason the effects are so small is because what the gene does is so far removed and from whatever phenotype you're studying. (usually)
"The reason the effects are so small is because what the gene does is so far removed and from whatever phenotype you're studying."
... unless you study a medically relevant phenotype, in which case the genes are often just a few steps away (namely, transcription and translation, with processing thrown in for good measure).
I would agree that heritability is not all that meaningful (though technically valid) when talking about behavioral traits, though.
... unless you study a medically relevant phenotype, in which case the genes are often just a few steps away (namely, transcription and translation, with processing thrown in for good measure).
I would agree that heritability is not all that meaningful (though technically valid) when talking about behavioral traits, though.
There's no reason that medically relevant phenotypes would be that much less complicated (and lets remember that mental health, is, in fact, medically relevant.)
Yes, there are a select few, rare, single nucleotide polymorphisms that are responsible for congenital genetic defects. But plenty of disease involves the interactions of thousands of genes, like cancer, and for those it's really just as meaningless.
Yes, there are a select few, rare, single nucleotide polymorphisms that are responsible for congenital genetic defects. But plenty of disease involves the interactions of thousands of genes, like cancer, and for those it's really just as meaningless.
'The central problem is that people don't understand what "heritable" or "genetic" really means.'
Apparently so. Heritability does not mean genetic causation. Language is extremely heritable (that is, children almost always speak the same language as their parents), and not because there's a long just-so chain of genetic and hormone events that ends in an innate facility for Cantonese.
Apparently so. Heritability does not mean genetic causation. Language is extremely heritable (that is, children almost always speak the same language as their parents), and not because there's a long just-so chain of genetic and hormone events that ends in an innate facility for Cantonese.
"Heritability" means something like "how much of the variation in a population is due to genetic differences". This leads to some odd results, e.g. number of arms has low heritability (almost all variation is due to environment).
Anyway, language is not heritable. The variation in the languages people speak in a population is not due to genes but rather to environmental effects.
Anyway, language is not heritable. The variation in the languages people speak in a population is not due to genes but rather to environmental effects.
This is right. Readers, please mod down my comment above for being simultaneously snarky and dead wrong.
That's true, but having said that, there are alleles that affect the nature of the language people speak. So there are alleles that give onre better facility at speaking tonal languages, and those alleles are (surprise, surprise) more common among populations that speak tonal languages (such as Chinese).
So there are alleles that give one better facility at speaking tonal languages
Could you kindly provide references to a scientific study making that claim? I ask as a speaker of Chinese who learned Chinese as a second language.
Could you kindly provide references to a scientific study making that claim? I ask as a speaker of Chinese who learned Chinese as a second language.
The author's thesis statement is the following:
"The new genetics will reveal much less than hoped about how to cure disease, and much more than feared about human evolution and inequality, including genetic differences between classes, ethnicities and races."
This thesis is revisited in the section on whole genome sequencing:
"The trouble is, the resequencing data will reveal much more about human evolutionary history and ethnic differences than they will about disease genes."
However, it's never explained why next-generation whole genome sequencing will lead to success for one endeavor but not for the other. He only says that today's DNA chips (which don't reveal the whole genome) have failed to uncover the genetic basis for disease.
"The new genetics will reveal much less than hoped about how to cure disease, and much more than feared about human evolution and inequality, including genetic differences between classes, ethnicities and races."
This thesis is revisited in the section on whole genome sequencing:
"The trouble is, the resequencing data will reveal much more about human evolutionary history and ethnic differences than they will about disease genes."
However, it's never explained why next-generation whole genome sequencing will lead to success for one endeavor but not for the other. He only says that today's DNA chips (which don't reveal the whole genome) have failed to uncover the genetic basis for disease.
No, Lewontin's fallacy is the belief that if this is true for every trait, the populations are indistinguishable.
Physics Prof Steve Hsu explains the Lewtontin fallacy here:
Further technical comment: you may have read the misleading statistic, spread by the intellectually dishonest Lewontin, that 85% percent of all human genetic variation occurs within groups and only 15% between groups. The statistic is true, but what is often falsely claimed is that this breakup of variances (larger within group than between group) prevents any meaningful genetic classification of populations. This false conclusion neglects the correlations in the genetic data that are revealed in a cluster analysis. See here for a simple example which shows that there can be dramatic group differences in phenotypes even if every version of every gene is found in two groups -- as long as the frequency or probability distributions are distinct. Sadly, understanding this point requires just enough mathematical ability that it has eluded all but a small number of experts.) Update: see here for an explanation in pictures of Lewontin's fallacy. I also edited the paragraph above for clarity.
On the other hand, for most phenotypes (examples: height or IQ, which are both fairly heritable, except in cases of extreme environmental deprivation), there is significant overlap between different population distributions. That is, Swedes might be taller than Vietnamese on average, but the range of heights within each group is larger than the difference in the averages. Nevertheless, at the tails of the distribution one would find very large discrepancies: for example the percentage of the Swedish population that is over 2 meters tall (6"7) might be 5 or 10 times as large as the percentage of the Vietnamese population. If two groups differed by, say, 10 points in average IQ (2/3 of a standard deviation), the respective distributions would overlap quite a bit (more in-group than between-group variation), but the fraction of people with IQ above some threshold (e.g., >140) would be radically different. It has been claimed that 20% of all Americans with IQ > 140 are Jewish, even though Jews comprise only 3% of the total population.
What seems to be true (from preliminary studies) is that the gene variants that were under strong selection (reached fixation) over the last 10k years are different in different clusters. That is, the way that modern people in each cluster differ, due to natural selection, from their own ancestors 10k years ago is not the same in each cluster -- we have been, at least at the genetic level, experiencing divergent evolution.
In fact, recent research suggests that 7% or more of all our genes are mutant versions that replaced earlier variants through natural selection over the last tens of thousands of years. There was little gene flow between continental clusters ("races") during that period, so there is circumstantial evidence for group differences beyond the already established ones (superficial appearance, disease resistance).
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-scientific-basis-for...
Physics Prof Steve Hsu explains the Lewtontin fallacy here:
Further technical comment: you may have read the misleading statistic, spread by the intellectually dishonest Lewontin, that 85% percent of all human genetic variation occurs within groups and only 15% between groups. The statistic is true, but what is often falsely claimed is that this breakup of variances (larger within group than between group) prevents any meaningful genetic classification of populations. This false conclusion neglects the correlations in the genetic data that are revealed in a cluster analysis. See here for a simple example which shows that there can be dramatic group differences in phenotypes even if every version of every gene is found in two groups -- as long as the frequency or probability distributions are distinct. Sadly, understanding this point requires just enough mathematical ability that it has eluded all but a small number of experts.) Update: see here for an explanation in pictures of Lewontin's fallacy. I also edited the paragraph above for clarity.
On the other hand, for most phenotypes (examples: height or IQ, which are both fairly heritable, except in cases of extreme environmental deprivation), there is significant overlap between different population distributions. That is, Swedes might be taller than Vietnamese on average, but the range of heights within each group is larger than the difference in the averages. Nevertheless, at the tails of the distribution one would find very large discrepancies: for example the percentage of the Swedish population that is over 2 meters tall (6"7) might be 5 or 10 times as large as the percentage of the Vietnamese population. If two groups differed by, say, 10 points in average IQ (2/3 of a standard deviation), the respective distributions would overlap quite a bit (more in-group than between-group variation), but the fraction of people with IQ above some threshold (e.g., >140) would be radically different. It has been claimed that 20% of all Americans with IQ > 140 are Jewish, even though Jews comprise only 3% of the total population.
...The imbalance continues to increase for still higher IQ’s. New York City’s public-school system used to administer a pencil-and-paper IQ test to its entire school population. In 1954, a psychologist used those test results to identify all 28 children in the New York public-school system with measured IQ’s of 170 or higher. Of those 28, 24 were Jews.
What seems to be true (from preliminary studies) is that the gene variants that were under strong selection (reached fixation) over the last 10k years are different in different clusters. That is, the way that modern people in each cluster differ, due to natural selection, from their own ancestors 10k years ago is not the same in each cluster -- we have been, at least at the genetic level, experiencing divergent evolution.
In fact, recent research suggests that 7% or more of all our genes are mutant versions that replaced earlier variants through natural selection over the last tens of thousands of years. There was little gene flow between continental clusters ("races") during that period, so there is circumstantial evidence for group differences beyond the already established ones (superficial appearance, disease resistance).
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-scientific-basis-for...
The comments on Reddit tear this apart but I don't think it's that bad. http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/abjrm/human_genet...
The two main points: genomic data is not as medically useful as family history. What will be discovered is going to do very weird things to political correctness.
Steve Murphy has loudly been expounding about the family history meme for years now. http://thegenesherpa.blogspot.com/
The two main points: genomic data is not as medically useful as family history. What will be discovered is going to do very weird things to political correctness.
Steve Murphy has loudly been expounding about the family history meme for years now. http://thegenesherpa.blogspot.com/
I found the article to be unnecessarily patronizing. The idea that the general public can't handle the truth on any number of subjects is simple arrogance. Wasn't it revealed that McCain and Obama shared common ancestry way back? How is it possibly even shocking that yes, there is "mis-attributed paternity and covert mating between classes, castes, regions and ethnicities"?
Take this, one of the final and most bizarre statements: "If the shift from GWAS to sequencing studies finds evidence of such politically awkward and morally perplexing facts, we can expect the usual range of ideological reactions, including nationalistic retro-racism from conservatives and outraged denial from blank-slate liberals."
I agree with you - it'll be a blow to political correctness, but I'm guessing there won't be the "nationalistic retro-racism" the author seems to hype - at least no more so than exists now. But even for political correctness, there will always be those who will deny that differences exist in the face of evidence (just as in the case of "nationalistic retro-racism") as the recent gender studies skirmishes show.
Take this, one of the final and most bizarre statements: "If the shift from GWAS to sequencing studies finds evidence of such politically awkward and morally perplexing facts, we can expect the usual range of ideological reactions, including nationalistic retro-racism from conservatives and outraged denial from blank-slate liberals."
I agree with you - it'll be a blow to political correctness, but I'm guessing there won't be the "nationalistic retro-racism" the author seems to hype - at least no more so than exists now. But even for political correctness, there will always be those who will deny that differences exist in the face of evidence (just as in the case of "nationalistic retro-racism") as the recent gender studies skirmishes show.
It was Obama and Dick Cheney.
This article completely side stepped issues of how important everything else is to our lives. We won't solve disease by genetic knowledge. What food we eat, the happiness in our lives, our exercise...these are so important. Genetic knowledge won't teach us how to be healthy, just and peaceful.
As for the differences between the races, as much as they might exist, I can't believe how people can be blind to how culture is extremely influencial.
Take your so-called smarter race (e.g. asian), take them to a "dumber" place like America, and in a few generations they'll be just as dumb.
And the asians aren't smarter. I live in China now, teaching English. Their education system, and the Asian education system in general (i.e. China/Japan/Korea) strongly develops certain skills. Mostly, these involve analysis, logic, and memorization.
However, while this form of education is outstanding for producing people that can do very well at coursework and following directions (as well as become excellent engineers/doctors/research assistants/accountants), it is very poor at producing people who can think for themselves and be creative thinkers. It certainly does not develop critical thinking.
As for the African stereotype...have you looked at what's going on over there? Damn if I could study or learn shit if I'm a starving refugee.
Oh, and I can't believe nobody's seen the film "Gattaca."
As for the differences between the races, as much as they might exist, I can't believe how people can be blind to how culture is extremely influencial.
Take your so-called smarter race (e.g. asian), take them to a "dumber" place like America, and in a few generations they'll be just as dumb.
And the asians aren't smarter. I live in China now, teaching English. Their education system, and the Asian education system in general (i.e. China/Japan/Korea) strongly develops certain skills. Mostly, these involve analysis, logic, and memorization.
However, while this form of education is outstanding for producing people that can do very well at coursework and following directions (as well as become excellent engineers/doctors/research assistants/accountants), it is very poor at producing people who can think for themselves and be creative thinkers. It certainly does not develop critical thinking.
As for the African stereotype...have you looked at what's going on over there? Damn if I could study or learn shit if I'm a starving refugee.
Oh, and I can't believe nobody's seen the film "Gattaca."
> Damn if I could study or learn shit if I'm a starving refugee.
You know that most (90%+) Africans are not starving? Africa isn't filled by starving refugees as CNN would like you to believe.
I think the most common comparison with Africans is in the USA.
> Oh, and I can't believe nobody's seen the film "Gattaca."
This is an excellent (and was my favorite) movie and I identify strongly with the main character.
While the movie sends a powerful image, now matter how hard you try, you will not change a person's general intelligence (which is innate).
You know that most (90%+) Africans are not starving? Africa isn't filled by starving refugees as CNN would like you to believe.
I think the most common comparison with Africans is in the USA.
> Oh, and I can't believe nobody's seen the film "Gattaca."
This is an excellent (and was my favorite) movie and I identify strongly with the main character.
While the movie sends a powerful image, now matter how hard you try, you will not change a person's general intelligence (which is innate).
While the movie sends a powerful image, now matter how hard you try, you will not change a person's general intelligence (which is innate).
What is the evidence for this? Most human behavorial genetics researchers talk about a "reaction surface" set for each individual by that individual's genes, but I'm not aware of any researcher who claims to have a proof for an upper limit in how much "general intelligence" (that would be IQ) can change in the case of individuals or in the case of populations. In fact, the existing OBSERVED degree of IQ increases all around the world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
has been described by N. J. Mackintosh in these terms: "the data are surprising, demolish some long-cherished beliefs, and raise a number of other interesting issues along the way." (Mackintosh 1998, p. 104). You write, "no matter how hard you try," but it's not clear anyone is trying very hard or very systematically to raise anyone's general intellilgence, but it is happening anyway.
I meet weekly with human behavioral genetics researchers
http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall09/mcguem/psy8935/defau...
and have learned from them that the whole field of human behavorial genetics is becoming much more conservative and cautious in its claims about genetic limits on human potential than it was ten years ago. That's what is said explicitly by Tom Bouchard, one of the most cited researchers in the field.
REFERENCE
Mackintosh, N. J. (1998). IQ and Human Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
P.S. Other good, recent reading on this subject is
Neisser, Ulric (Ed.) (1998). The Rising Curve: Long-Term Gains in IQ and Related Measures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Flynn, James R. (2009). What Is Intelligence: Beyond the Flynn Effect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
What is the evidence for this? Most human behavorial genetics researchers talk about a "reaction surface" set for each individual by that individual's genes, but I'm not aware of any researcher who claims to have a proof for an upper limit in how much "general intelligence" (that would be IQ) can change in the case of individuals or in the case of populations. In fact, the existing OBSERVED degree of IQ increases all around the world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
has been described by N. J. Mackintosh in these terms: "the data are surprising, demolish some long-cherished beliefs, and raise a number of other interesting issues along the way." (Mackintosh 1998, p. 104). You write, "no matter how hard you try," but it's not clear anyone is trying very hard or very systematically to raise anyone's general intellilgence, but it is happening anyway.
I meet weekly with human behavioral genetics researchers
http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall09/mcguem/psy8935/defau...
and have learned from them that the whole field of human behavorial genetics is becoming much more conservative and cautious in its claims about genetic limits on human potential than it was ten years ago. That's what is said explicitly by Tom Bouchard, one of the most cited researchers in the field.
REFERENCE
Mackintosh, N. J. (1998). IQ and Human Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
P.S. Other good, recent reading on this subject is
Neisser, Ulric (Ed.) (1998). The Rising Curve: Long-Term Gains in IQ and Related Measures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Flynn, James R. (2009). What Is Intelligence: Beyond the Flynn Effect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
> claims to have a proof for an upper limit in how much "general intelligence" (that would be IQ) can change in the case of individuals or in the case of populations. In fact, the existing OBSERVED degree of IQ increases all around the world
I did not mention the Intelligence Quotient (which is subject to boosting). I mentioned the general intelligence factor (which is mostly innate). Using google scholar you can find many interesting articles about the general intelligence factor and its neurological basis.
Using google scholar with “general intelligence factor” I found this article that is cited 417 (it just struck my eye since the citations is extremely high for such a recent paper):
A Neural Basis for General Intelligence Science 21 July 2000: Vol. 289. no. 5478, pp. 457 - 460 DOI: 10.1126/science.289.5478.457
This one just struck my eye, but there are many more. In my opinion general intelligence factor has become beyond doubt – the question is now what the neurological basis for intelligence is.
I also think that we will not do this complex and interesting topic justice if we discuss it here.
I did not mention the Intelligence Quotient (which is subject to boosting). I mentioned the general intelligence factor (which is mostly innate). Using google scholar you can find many interesting articles about the general intelligence factor and its neurological basis.
Using google scholar with “general intelligence factor” I found this article that is cited 417 (it just struck my eye since the citations is extremely high for such a recent paper):
A Neural Basis for General Intelligence Science 21 July 2000: Vol. 289. no. 5478, pp. 457 - 460 DOI: 10.1126/science.289.5478.457
This one just struck my eye, but there are many more. In my opinion general intelligence factor has become beyond doubt – the question is now what the neurological basis for intelligence is.
I also think that we will not do this complex and interesting topic justice if we discuss it here.
The cited article (thanks for the citation to that year 2000 article, which I wouldn't call "recent" on this subject) doesn't address the point I asked you about. There isn't any proof whatsoever that current human beings are fixed in "general intelligence" as soon as their genome is fixed. Rather, there is entire agreement among all researchers that each human being's neurological characteristics are shaped both by genome and by experience--on this point no informed person has any doubt.
I also think that we will not do this complex and interesting topic justice if we discuss it here.
You are welcome to speak for yourself on that issue, of course. But on my part, I have observed that there are some HN readers who do their homework on genetic and environmental influences on human intelligence before expressing opinions on those issues, and I have learned from some of those participants and so could anyone else who cares to read their comments.
I did not mention the Intelligence Quotient (which is subject to boosting). I mentioned the general intelligence factor (which is mostly innate).
It is for you to show that there is any practical way to make this distinction, because general intelligence is investigated in human subjects with IQ tests as the main instrument. See any of Ian Deary's extensive writings on this subject for how difficult it is to identify "general intelligence" without looking at IQ.
I also think that we will not do this complex and interesting topic justice if we discuss it here.
You are welcome to speak for yourself on that issue, of course. But on my part, I have observed that there are some HN readers who do their homework on genetic and environmental influences on human intelligence before expressing opinions on those issues, and I have learned from some of those participants and so could anyone else who cares to read their comments.
I did not mention the Intelligence Quotient (which is subject to boosting). I mentioned the general intelligence factor (which is mostly innate).
It is for you to show that there is any practical way to make this distinction, because general intelligence is investigated in human subjects with IQ tests as the main instrument. See any of Ian Deary's extensive writings on this subject for how difficult it is to identify "general intelligence" without looking at IQ.
> The cited article (thanks for the citation to that year 2000 article, which I wouldn't call "recent" on this subject)
The two books you’ve cited are older than this. An article with such a high citation count is usually an old seminal work (citations increase with the age of an article). For an article to have such a high number of citations in only 8 years is somewhat unusual (even when it is a Science paper).
> You are welcome to speak for yourself on that issue, of course. But on my part, I have observed that there are some HN readers who do their homework on genetic and environmental influences on human intelligence before expressing opinions on those issues, and I have learned
Again, I have pointed you to a treasure trove of information.
> because general intelligence is investigated in human subjects with IQ tests as the main instrument.
Not really. Raven’s progressive matrices (RPM) are popular. Another method is a barrage of different intelligence tests (the more the better).
The two books you’ve cited are older than this. An article with such a high citation count is usually an old seminal work (citations increase with the age of an article). For an article to have such a high number of citations in only 8 years is somewhat unusual (even when it is a Science paper).
> You are welcome to speak for yourself on that issue, of course. But on my part, I have observed that there are some HN readers who do their homework on genetic and environmental influences on human intelligence before expressing opinions on those issues, and I have learned
Again, I have pointed you to a treasure trove of information.
> because general intelligence is investigated in human subjects with IQ tests as the main instrument.
Not really. Raven’s progressive matrices (RPM) are popular. Another method is a barrage of different intelligence tests (the more the better).
the points are moot in a meritocracy. the only reason this is an issue is because entitlements are at stake.
No, the reason its an issue is that people's emotions are tied up in their opinions of their own species. They want to believe cetain things about humans, and when science shows them that reality is different from their beliefs, some people take it very badly and refuse to accept reality.
A good example of this is the "controversy" over evolution v. creationism; there's no real controversy, of course, but some people just refuse to accept the reality of evolution so they've created a whole ideology of evolution denial to boost their flagging self esteem. (I suspect that at some deep hidden level, evolution deniers do accept it).
A good example of this is the "controversy" over evolution v. creationism; there's no real controversy, of course, but some people just refuse to accept the reality of evolution so they've created a whole ideology of evolution denial to boost their flagging self esteem. (I suspect that at some deep hidden level, evolution deniers do accept it).
good point. I harp about ideology being an inappropriate ego boundary extension all the time but failed to apply it in this case.
Edit: Wow, this turned out to be long. Also, this is fairly politically and potentially "identity hot" and I didn't add in a lot of caveats and disclaimers. If I may humbly request, could you read at least halfway through the comment before voting, and please write in and let me know if it offends, or with any concerns or suggestions? Also, my email is in my profile if I seem off and you're lurking without an account or don't want to comment publicly. I imagine people could read a lot into what I'm saying that I'm not saying, so please feel very welcome to make yourself heard by me if you disagree or dislike anything I've put down. Also, I didn't mention any of the downward spiral thinking that knuckleheads could potentially get into - and yeah, I agree that stuff is ugly and we need to be careful, and no, I'm not a knucklehead. Anyway:
I can tell a lot about someone by asking them in private, when it's just me and them, "So... what do you think of genetic differences between races?" Almost everyone, in private, will agree that there's some - but some people are really, really uncomfortable saying it. Some people, especially very diplomatic people, hedge and qualify first. When I make it known that I'm not particularly judgmental, that I've had friends and lovers of all colors and from all over the place, but that I also have a healthy respect for science and reality - well, the diplomatic people tend to open up a lot more.
Basically I'll put it like this - people of difference descendencies have been observed to have different average heights, weights, body fat percentages, average musculatures, bone densities. Different kinds of blood cells even - if you look at sickle cell anemia, blood cells shaped a little differently than normal make a person more resistant to malaria, but more prone to anemia. Malaria of course, being orders of magnitude more deadly and dangerous than anemia, which is a more long term unhealthiness thing. And sure enough, sickle cells are more present as an adaptation in people descending from formerly high malaria areas - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease#Genetics
Moving on - there's clearly slight variances and differences between people of different descendants. The idea that there's no cognitive differences just seems incredibly unlikely. Now, I think "IQ" or "intelligence" is drastically oversimplified and bunk. But things like abstract recall - how fast can you remember something? Pattern recognition. Dexterity and coordination. And so on - why wouldn't these things be adaptable and heritable? Wouldn't some parts of the world being able to remember a skill after not using it for a long period of time be more valuable than others? (places with harsh winters, for instance?) The ability to think quickly and adapt be better in different places? And if they were, wouldn't you expect natural and sexual selection to make the local population more like that?
This is almost all moot in many practical ways - the only thing that bothers me is that since people don't want to acknowledge that these differences exist, there's been very little work to learn teaching styles that would apply to different people, how different medicine and diet regimes would work better, and so on.
Different groups of people tend towards different lactose intolerance and alcohol intolerance levels - this is only recently being considered in nutrition and diet because the implications of it - different food good better for different races - is not a good political position these days. It would have been easy to test for lactose sensitivity among different groups of people and make recommendations 20-50 years ago, but no one wanted to touch it. Instead, "milk for everyone!" was the official position, which is nonsense. Dairy is terrible for the people it's bad for.
Finally - I'm very curious about what the effects of mixing blood in children would be, and there's been very little research that I know of. From my understanding of genetics, mixed blood children should be particularly strong. My background is mixed Western/Eastern European, and I'd prefer a wife of different bloodlines than my own, as I think it's a very positive thing to do for my children. Obviously you can't control who you fall in love and connect with completely, but if I choose to live in Ankara or Osaka instead of London, that greatly increases the chance my kids are half-Turkish or half-Japanese. I think that'd make them stronger, healthier, and less prone to some of the negative things in my bloodlines. But how much so? When parents have different cognitive backgrounds, which are dominant? For instance, if one parent has much higher natural testosterone levels, is that dominant? That means the children would have higher energy, be more resistant to some diseases, be more willing to act independently and defy consensus, but also have more proneness to violence, anger, and aggression. I generally have high testosterone throughout my family - we've made good soldiers but some of us have had pretty bad tempers. What happens if I marry a woman with a lower natural predisposition towards testosterone? How about different cognitive abilities? We've generally got bad eyesight and bad spatial relations in my family. You'd expect good eyesight should be a dominant characteristic, no? But how much so?
I'd love to see research on this, and I think we will, because you can only hold back science and knowledge through moral fashion for so long before it breaks through.
I can tell a lot about someone by asking them in private, when it's just me and them, "So... what do you think of genetic differences between races?" Almost everyone, in private, will agree that there's some - but some people are really, really uncomfortable saying it. Some people, especially very diplomatic people, hedge and qualify first. When I make it known that I'm not particularly judgmental, that I've had friends and lovers of all colors and from all over the place, but that I also have a healthy respect for science and reality - well, the diplomatic people tend to open up a lot more.
Basically I'll put it like this - people of difference descendencies have been observed to have different average heights, weights, body fat percentages, average musculatures, bone densities. Different kinds of blood cells even - if you look at sickle cell anemia, blood cells shaped a little differently than normal make a person more resistant to malaria, but more prone to anemia. Malaria of course, being orders of magnitude more deadly and dangerous than anemia, which is a more long term unhealthiness thing. And sure enough, sickle cells are more present as an adaptation in people descending from formerly high malaria areas - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease#Genetics
Moving on - there's clearly slight variances and differences between people of different descendants. The idea that there's no cognitive differences just seems incredibly unlikely. Now, I think "IQ" or "intelligence" is drastically oversimplified and bunk. But things like abstract recall - how fast can you remember something? Pattern recognition. Dexterity and coordination. And so on - why wouldn't these things be adaptable and heritable? Wouldn't some parts of the world being able to remember a skill after not using it for a long period of time be more valuable than others? (places with harsh winters, for instance?) The ability to think quickly and adapt be better in different places? And if they were, wouldn't you expect natural and sexual selection to make the local population more like that?
This is almost all moot in many practical ways - the only thing that bothers me is that since people don't want to acknowledge that these differences exist, there's been very little work to learn teaching styles that would apply to different people, how different medicine and diet regimes would work better, and so on.
Different groups of people tend towards different lactose intolerance and alcohol intolerance levels - this is only recently being considered in nutrition and diet because the implications of it - different food good better for different races - is not a good political position these days. It would have been easy to test for lactose sensitivity among different groups of people and make recommendations 20-50 years ago, but no one wanted to touch it. Instead, "milk for everyone!" was the official position, which is nonsense. Dairy is terrible for the people it's bad for.
Finally - I'm very curious about what the effects of mixing blood in children would be, and there's been very little research that I know of. From my understanding of genetics, mixed blood children should be particularly strong. My background is mixed Western/Eastern European, and I'd prefer a wife of different bloodlines than my own, as I think it's a very positive thing to do for my children. Obviously you can't control who you fall in love and connect with completely, but if I choose to live in Ankara or Osaka instead of London, that greatly increases the chance my kids are half-Turkish or half-Japanese. I think that'd make them stronger, healthier, and less prone to some of the negative things in my bloodlines. But how much so? When parents have different cognitive backgrounds, which are dominant? For instance, if one parent has much higher natural testosterone levels, is that dominant? That means the children would have higher energy, be more resistant to some diseases, be more willing to act independently and defy consensus, but also have more proneness to violence, anger, and aggression. I generally have high testosterone throughout my family - we've made good soldiers but some of us have had pretty bad tempers. What happens if I marry a woman with a lower natural predisposition towards testosterone? How about different cognitive abilities? We've generally got bad eyesight and bad spatial relations in my family. You'd expect good eyesight should be a dominant characteristic, no? But how much so?
I'd love to see research on this, and I think we will, because you can only hold back science and knowledge through moral fashion for so long before it breaks through.
For all the thought you've put into your comment you clearly have a lot of your ego -- probably too much -- invested in being the guy who's not afraid to publicly point out it might be worth making scientific inquiry into racial differences.
Let me point out exactly how you're being stupid here.
The article is about future ramifications of genetic sequencing technology finally becoming economical enough that it's possible to cheaply sequence a person's complete DNA.
You're right that this will allow research to be done of the form: grab a DB with 100k different peoples' sequences; discover strong statistical associations between such-and-such genes and such-and-such amount of alcohol intolerance, and notice that those genes are particularly prevalent amongst people of asian descent.
Where you go awry is your conceptualization of how this information will likely be used; it's a failure to take a premise you've accepted in one part of your scenario -- the premise that DNA sequencing will be cheap-and-thorough enough to allow for research like just sketched -- and failing to apply it to another part of your scenario -- the doctor-patient interaction, and so on.
Given a world in which DNA sequencing is super-cheap and super-affordable, which doctor-patient interaction is likelier:
- doctor says to patient: "you clearly are asian just by looking at you. asians have been shown to have lower alcohol tolerance on average. be careful with how much alcohol you imbibe."
- doctor says to patient: "your DNA sequence contains 7 of the 10 major genes associated with higher levels of alcohol intolerance. this isn't surprising given your family history, but it's nice to know concretely what you've got. be careful with how much alcohol you imbibe."
...which is why you're being stupid: race is a proxy measure for ancestry that's "field-performable" (just look!) and cost-effective and is not an entirely useless proxy measure for ancestry; it is indeed the case that were political bugaboos different than they are that some useful research could be done to characterize racial differences that could be put to general use.
It's also a terribly inaccurate proxy and given the ability to do direct DNA sequencing would be dropped like hotcakes; why use the inaccurate proxy when you can make a direct measurement?
So even in your hypothetical example of looking for a wife: when this research is available, would you not be better served testing for specific genes in a particular individual rather than cutting it off at the level of race? You might still want to move to Ankara if you discovered that "Turks" are likelier than Brits to carry the genes you want your kids to have, but would you really not take it further and check the specific woman's DNA directly (the way that some jews test for tay-sachs at some point in the courtship process)? If you take the research seriously enough to move to Ankara to stack the deck why stop there?
You're essentially making the same kind of mental error you saw in the early dot-com days where people understood that "in the future, you'll buy stuff at home over the internet" -- so were semi-prescient -- but couldn't discard what they already knew about "shopping"; the consequence being that they'd write articles about how you'd sign into some 3d virtual world and then visit an online bookstore and browse the shelves in virtual reality (transporting outdated ideas into a world of new possibilities).
Let me point out exactly how you're being stupid here.
The article is about future ramifications of genetic sequencing technology finally becoming economical enough that it's possible to cheaply sequence a person's complete DNA.
You're right that this will allow research to be done of the form: grab a DB with 100k different peoples' sequences; discover strong statistical associations between such-and-such genes and such-and-such amount of alcohol intolerance, and notice that those genes are particularly prevalent amongst people of asian descent.
Where you go awry is your conceptualization of how this information will likely be used; it's a failure to take a premise you've accepted in one part of your scenario -- the premise that DNA sequencing will be cheap-and-thorough enough to allow for research like just sketched -- and failing to apply it to another part of your scenario -- the doctor-patient interaction, and so on.
Given a world in which DNA sequencing is super-cheap and super-affordable, which doctor-patient interaction is likelier:
- doctor says to patient: "you clearly are asian just by looking at you. asians have been shown to have lower alcohol tolerance on average. be careful with how much alcohol you imbibe."
- doctor says to patient: "your DNA sequence contains 7 of the 10 major genes associated with higher levels of alcohol intolerance. this isn't surprising given your family history, but it's nice to know concretely what you've got. be careful with how much alcohol you imbibe."
...which is why you're being stupid: race is a proxy measure for ancestry that's "field-performable" (just look!) and cost-effective and is not an entirely useless proxy measure for ancestry; it is indeed the case that were political bugaboos different than they are that some useful research could be done to characterize racial differences that could be put to general use.
It's also a terribly inaccurate proxy and given the ability to do direct DNA sequencing would be dropped like hotcakes; why use the inaccurate proxy when you can make a direct measurement?
So even in your hypothetical example of looking for a wife: when this research is available, would you not be better served testing for specific genes in a particular individual rather than cutting it off at the level of race? You might still want to move to Ankara if you discovered that "Turks" are likelier than Brits to carry the genes you want your kids to have, but would you really not take it further and check the specific woman's DNA directly (the way that some jews test for tay-sachs at some point in the courtship process)? If you take the research seriously enough to move to Ankara to stack the deck why stop there?
You're essentially making the same kind of mental error you saw in the early dot-com days where people understood that "in the future, you'll buy stuff at home over the internet" -- so were semi-prescient -- but couldn't discard what they already knew about "shopping"; the consequence being that they'd write articles about how you'd sign into some 3d virtual world and then visit an online bookstore and browse the shelves in virtual reality (transporting outdated ideas into a world of new possibilities).
Drawing lines around big groups of people and making sweeping generalizations is exactly what will be made obsolete by proper sequence-the-whole-DNA genetics. You really don't have to give a damn if one parent's ancestry is this and another's is that, if you can look at the actual genes. As information, it's "screened off" - knowing it tells you nothing extra.
Would mixing two very different gene pools necessarily take the maximum of positive traits from each parent? Couldn't it possibly take the average or even minimum?
Natural selection operates only by influencing who mates- it does not impact the way in which genes are spliced. That is left to the molecular structure of the genes themselves I believe.
Natural selection operates only by influencing who mates- it does not impact the way in which genes are spliced. That is left to the molecular structure of the genes themselves I believe.
A lot of heritable diseases are recessive traits - dominant genes are easier to select against.
Two people from the same background/race etc. are far more likely to carry the same recessive genes for a disease than two from different backgrounds.
This is why inbreeding produces unhealthy individuals. Two individuals that share a parent/grandparent etc will be very likely to inherit identical recessive disease genes from the parent.
Two people of different backgrounds will have offspring that are somewhat more likely to be healthy and have fewer problems.
Two people from the same background/race etc. are far more likely to carry the same recessive genes for a disease than two from different backgrounds.
This is why inbreeding produces unhealthy individuals. Two individuals that share a parent/grandparent etc will be very likely to inherit identical recessive disease genes from the parent.
Two people of different backgrounds will have offspring that are somewhat more likely to be healthy and have fewer problems.
The idea that there's no cognitive differences just seems incredibly unlikely.
As long as the difference between individuals in a single population is greater than the mean difference between populations themselves, I don't see much relevance.
Sure, Negroid races as a group don't have the IQ of Caucasians. But Caucasians who attach any importance to that had better look over their shoulder at the Asians, who in turn beat them on the same tests. The Asians don't want to get too smug in a room full of Ashkenazi Jews. Meanwhile, there are plenty of individual Negroids and whitey-birds who outperform plenty of individual Asians and Ashkenazis.
If any lessons have emerged so far from the study of human genetics, it's that your genes are not your destiny. In any just society, an individual's success will always consist of 90% perspiration, 8% inspiration, and 2% DNA.
As long as the difference between individuals in a single population is greater than the mean difference between populations themselves, I don't see much relevance.
Sure, Negroid races as a group don't have the IQ of Caucasians. But Caucasians who attach any importance to that had better look over their shoulder at the Asians, who in turn beat them on the same tests. The Asians don't want to get too smug in a room full of Ashkenazi Jews. Meanwhile, there are plenty of individual Negroids and whitey-birds who outperform plenty of individual Asians and Ashkenazis.
If any lessons have emerged so far from the study of human genetics, it's that your genes are not your destiny. In any just society, an individual's success will always consist of 90% perspiration, 8% inspiration, and 2% DNA.
If any lessons have emerged so far from the study of human genetics, it's that your genes are not your destiny.
Yes, this is something that the leading researchers on human behavioral genetics increasingly acknowledge.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=838534
(The pay-wall workaround mentioned in that submission is no longer active, but the citation to the very current article is still correct.)
Yes, this is something that the leading researchers on human behavioral genetics increasingly acknowledge.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=838534
(The pay-wall workaround mentioned in that submission is no longer active, but the citation to the very current article is still correct.)
> As long as the difference between individuals in a single population is greater than the mean difference between populations themselves, I don't see much relevance.
This part is the Lewontin's fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy)
This part is the Lewontin's fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy)
No, Lewontin's fallacy is the belief that if this is true for every trait, the populations are indistinguishable.
I'd say even more difference comes from culture. Asians are a huge population, but those who have the greatest success are those with a strong culture for education (Japan, China, South Korea). The same, there are black people on several continents, and the ones who are the easiest to criticize are those who either have a lack of modern culture (countries which didn't completely recover from colonialism) of made a counter-culture which pointedly rejects everything white, including the good parts (education, work ethics etc).
Given these huge differences, a few points of IQ really don't seem to mean anything.
Given these huge differences, a few points of IQ really don't seem to mean anything.
> countries which didn't completely recover from colonialism
I’ve heard this statement and it is completely false (I did not take issue with the rest of your post). Colonialism actually introduced a lot of technology into Africa (things such as the wheel were not widely used).
The most heavily colonialised countries in Africa are the best. A good example is Botswana. They did not return to their pre-tribal ways but basically adapted the British system. South Africa is also heavily “colonialised” and it is the only industrial country.
Countries such as Lesotho and Swaziland had minimal colonial influences and still have much of their traditional leadership (uninterrupted). Those two countries are also the biggest shitholes in Africa.
The traditional African governance was a strong-man (chief) with absolute power. It was basically an absolute monarch who is only removed by someone more powerful. That is why Africans in rural areas usually like a strong-man – anyone else is seen as a weak leader. A leader who is compassionate is seen as weak.
I personally would content that a lot of African countries returned to their pre-colonial government structure.
I’ve heard this statement and it is completely false (I did not take issue with the rest of your post). Colonialism actually introduced a lot of technology into Africa (things such as the wheel were not widely used).
The most heavily colonialised countries in Africa are the best. A good example is Botswana. They did not return to their pre-tribal ways but basically adapted the British system. South Africa is also heavily “colonialised” and it is the only industrial country.
Countries such as Lesotho and Swaziland had minimal colonial influences and still have much of their traditional leadership (uninterrupted). Those two countries are also the biggest shitholes in Africa.
The traditional African governance was a strong-man (chief) with absolute power. It was basically an absolute monarch who is only removed by someone more powerful. That is why Africans in rural areas usually like a strong-man – anyone else is seen as a weak leader. A leader who is compassionate is seen as weak.
I personally would content that a lot of African countries returned to their pre-colonial government structure.
Most African societies do not have a single strong king - I think you are confusing Africa with Europe. Europe and Asia are the societies that have always had a system of very powerful leadership at the top, and a large peasant class. African society is usually not constructed that way.
But I guess knowing what you are talking about is not fundamental to your argument.
But I guess knowing what you are talking about is not fundamental to your argument.
> Most African societies do not have a single strong king - I think you are confusing Africa with Europe. Europe and Asia are the societies that have always had a system of very powerful leadership at the top, and a large peasant class.
Africans usually had a strong leader. The size of these societies does however differ. A good example is smaller “family type” groups. These are sometimes called a “kraal” in South Africa (that is why many place names are name of leader + kraal).
At least in the 18th and 19th century there was a lot of consolidation among these groups into larger groups. Probably the best example of this is the Zulu kingdom. Large strongman leaders included Dingaan and Shaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Zulu_kings). Even smaller groups have exactly the same pattern.
The governance is also top down. Even today in many rural areas of countries (which are trust or tribal areas with community property) it is usually the chief that controls them. He tells his followers who to vote for as an example. Since all ground is communal and basically controlled by the chief/king, he has significant power.
The power of tribal leaders has significantly decreased with urbanisation though.
> But I guess knowing what you are talking about is not fundamental to your argument.
And what qualifies you as an expert? Either make a good argument or refrain from posting.
Africans usually had a strong leader. The size of these societies does however differ. A good example is smaller “family type” groups. These are sometimes called a “kraal” in South Africa (that is why many place names are name of leader + kraal).
At least in the 18th and 19th century there was a lot of consolidation among these groups into larger groups. Probably the best example of this is the Zulu kingdom. Large strongman leaders included Dingaan and Shaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Zulu_kings). Even smaller groups have exactly the same pattern.
The governance is also top down. Even today in many rural areas of countries (which are trust or tribal areas with community property) it is usually the chief that controls them. He tells his followers who to vote for as an example. Since all ground is communal and basically controlled by the chief/king, he has significant power.
The power of tribal leaders has significantly decreased with urbanisation though.
> But I guess knowing what you are talking about is not fundamental to your argument.
And what qualifies you as an expert? Either make a good argument or refrain from posting.
When you say "Africa", I assume you are not speaking of "South Africa". Most of Africa has always been organised into communities, where the communities select a non-heriditary leader, who represents the community in a meeting of all local leaders. This is why the chief "controls" the land - it is his job to make impartial decisions on land. He cannot assign all the land to himself, that never happens in Africa (in constrast to Europe). Rather, he is a caretaker.
In Europe, the king is a man who tells people what to do, and his decisions are completely separated from the people. In Africa, the chief is a person who is best thought to represent the decisions of the people, and so what he says is representative of the people who he leads. His very role depends on him being the voice of the people - it is impossible for a chief to not do this, because he does not have an army to force the people to follow what he wants. His army are the very people he leads.
Ground is not communal, ground is owned by individuals in small portions across the villages or towns. Africa is mostly compared of Niger-Congo speaking people, and most of them use exactly the same system I describe here. The far South Africans, which you are basing your argument on, are not representative, just as Ethiopians or Somalis would not be representative.
I believe there has hardly ever been a situation in Africa where a chief attacked his own people with an army, and caused some kind of internal massacre. The structure of society does not allow this.
In Europe, the king is a man who tells people what to do, and his decisions are completely separated from the people. In Africa, the chief is a person who is best thought to represent the decisions of the people, and so what he says is representative of the people who he leads. His very role depends on him being the voice of the people - it is impossible for a chief to not do this, because he does not have an army to force the people to follow what he wants. His army are the very people he leads.
Ground is not communal, ground is owned by individuals in small portions across the villages or towns. Africa is mostly compared of Niger-Congo speaking people, and most of them use exactly the same system I describe here. The far South Africans, which you are basing your argument on, are not representative, just as Ethiopians or Somalis would not be representative.
I believe there has hardly ever been a situation in Africa where a chief attacked his own people with an army, and caused some kind of internal massacre. The structure of society does not allow this.
> When you say "Africa", I assume you are not speaking of "South Africa".
My experience is admittedly limited to Southern African countries (SADEC countries including Zambia and Angola). I chose the South African examples since they are the best documented.
But I see no reason to believe that there would be a significant difference in other African countries.
> Most of Africa has always been organised into communities, where the communities select a non-heriditary leader, who represents the community in a meeting of all local leaders.
Not really – I have not seen any evidence of this. Most of the leaders are hereditary or semi-hereditary (when the line is broken by the brother or family member of the chief).
As another example, take the Bamagwato. Ian Khama is the chief of the Bamagwato (in Botswana). He is the great-great grandson of Khama III (who is again had his chieftanship descend from his father). Ian Khama is the president of Botswana (this is not to detract from Botswana’s good governance and its incorporation of Western values).
> He cannot assign all the land to himself, that never happens in Africa (in constrast to Europe).
Unfortunately many similar things happen. A good example is the Reed Dance in Swaziland. King Mswati selects brides for himself from people (he recently selected one that was under the age of consent). The whole purpose of the Chief is self-serving.
> In Africa, the chief is a person who is best thought to represent the decisions of the people, and so what he says is representative of the people who he leads.
You live in a dream world. In the 1800’s, Shaka killed thousands of his own people because his mother died (and wanted people to share his pain). He also subjected them to famine.
> Ground is not communal, ground is owned by individuals in small portions across the villages or towns.
Not completely. Cattle are grazed communally and most work is performed communally. Ubuntu (most Bantu languages have a similar word) literally means “shared grazing land”. This actually also makes sense (specialisation of labour and all that).
> I believe there has hardly ever been a situation in Africa where a chief attacked his own people with an army, and caused some kind of internal massacre.
The Shaka example I showed you is a good example where he killed off and starved his own people.
I personally believe that you may have a little too romantic view of Africa (while I concede that I may suffer from the opposite).
My experience is admittedly limited to Southern African countries (SADEC countries including Zambia and Angola). I chose the South African examples since they are the best documented.
But I see no reason to believe that there would be a significant difference in other African countries.
> Most of Africa has always been organised into communities, where the communities select a non-heriditary leader, who represents the community in a meeting of all local leaders.
Not really – I have not seen any evidence of this. Most of the leaders are hereditary or semi-hereditary (when the line is broken by the brother or family member of the chief).
As another example, take the Bamagwato. Ian Khama is the chief of the Bamagwato (in Botswana). He is the great-great grandson of Khama III (who is again had his chieftanship descend from his father). Ian Khama is the president of Botswana (this is not to detract from Botswana’s good governance and its incorporation of Western values).
> He cannot assign all the land to himself, that never happens in Africa (in constrast to Europe).
Unfortunately many similar things happen. A good example is the Reed Dance in Swaziland. King Mswati selects brides for himself from people (he recently selected one that was under the age of consent). The whole purpose of the Chief is self-serving.
> In Africa, the chief is a person who is best thought to represent the decisions of the people, and so what he says is representative of the people who he leads.
You live in a dream world. In the 1800’s, Shaka killed thousands of his own people because his mother died (and wanted people to share his pain). He also subjected them to famine.
> Ground is not communal, ground is owned by individuals in small portions across the villages or towns.
Not completely. Cattle are grazed communally and most work is performed communally. Ubuntu (most Bantu languages have a similar word) literally means “shared grazing land”. This actually also makes sense (specialisation of labour and all that).
> I believe there has hardly ever been a situation in Africa where a chief attacked his own people with an army, and caused some kind of internal massacre.
The Shaka example I showed you is a good example where he killed off and starved his own people.
I personally believe that you may have a little too romantic view of Africa (while I concede that I may suffer from the opposite).
I think it is pointless to argue with you, as you are speaking of an entirely different culture with an entirely different language group and an entirely different people.
It's like arguing with someone about European Politics, and all his examples are about Ukraine.
It's like arguing with someone about European Politics, and all his examples are about Ukraine.
> with an entirely different language group and
All African languages stem from the same group (the Bantu language group).
> an entirely different people.
Again, this is doubtful. I have given you examples of the whole Southern Africa – you have given none to support your argument. Your argument looks more like a deeply held and unjustified personal believe.
The statements you make are clearly devoid of any semblance of truth.
> It's like arguing with someone about European Politics, and all his examples are about Ukraine.
We were talking about Africa and my examples are from, uhm… Africa.
All African languages stem from the same group (the Bantu language group).
> an entirely different people.
Again, this is doubtful. I have given you examples of the whole Southern Africa – you have given none to support your argument. Your argument looks more like a deeply held and unjustified personal believe.
The statements you make are clearly devoid of any semblance of truth.
> It's like arguing with someone about European Politics, and all his examples are about Ukraine.
We were talking about Africa and my examples are from, uhm… Africa.
The entire west african coast is made up of people who farm plots of land. The entire village system across the congo, through kenya, to sierra leone is made up of a chief representative system. There is very few instances of a hereditary "president" system in most of Africa. You pick a single example and then say "that is how Africa is". To be frank, it's just stupid.
Africans are completely different. An ethiopian looks very different from a South African, who looks different from a Hausa. What type of absurd extrapolation are you making when you claim your limited experience is representative of the entirerity of the continent?
What you are doing here is picking examples that can support your view of Africa as a continent of savage chiefs that kill people (and then boil them in large metal pots likely).
I don't want to continue this. It's making me angry, and people like you are not worth my being angry about.
Africans are completely different. An ethiopian looks very different from a South African, who looks different from a Hausa. What type of absurd extrapolation are you making when you claim your limited experience is representative of the entirerity of the continent?
What you are doing here is picking examples that can support your view of Africa as a continent of savage chiefs that kill people (and then boil them in large metal pots likely).
I don't want to continue this. It's making me angry, and people like you are not worth my being angry about.
> The entire village system across the congo, through kenya, to sierra leone
You went from the west coast to the east while skipping Angola, Namibia, South Africa and Mozambique.
> There is very few instances of a hereditary "president" system in most of Africa.
There is actually quite a lot. The word Ghana even means “king”. I have given you two examples of kingships with a history of over 200 years from two different countries. Traditional leadership however do not resemble a president (since most traditional organisations were small).
> You pick a single example and then say "that is how Africa is".
You pick a few unsupported examples based on your belief. You seem to reject (without motivation) the countries I mentioned (South Africa, Angola, Namibia, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, etc…). In all of these countries several systems of traditional leadership that is hereditary, dictorial and fairly small is found (in South Africa’s case, more than 9).
> Africans are completely different.
This is a retarded statement. I bet I have met more Africans and had more interaction with Africans from many countries a month than you had in your entire life. Have you gone to Kenya for a holiday and turned into an expert?
> What type of absurd extrapolation are you making when you claim your limited experience is representative of the entirerity of the continent?
You claim your view covers the entire continent. I gave you several examples which clearly falsify your theory. There is a reason why African countries tend to have the same government structure and level of development. The simple reason is that they were at the same stage of development and there is cross-pollination of ideas and people moving.
Do you think that it was a coincidence that the whole of Europe had the same type of government structure for several centuries?
> that can support your view of Africa as a continent of savage chiefs that kill people (and then boil them in large metal pots likely).
I do not think this at all. What you doing is the strawman argument – you make a easy strawman and then knock it down.
The reason (as previously stated) why the governmental structures is early similar is because of the same level of development (and similar structures existed in Europe at some stage). I personally think that your view is more based on your political view than mine.
> It's making me angry, and people like you are not worth my being angry about.
Here you descent into personal insults. This is just nasty. Just because your theory about African traditional leadership does not fit with the facts, doesn’t give you a reason to get angry. Don’t shoot the messenger.
You went from the west coast to the east while skipping Angola, Namibia, South Africa and Mozambique.
> There is very few instances of a hereditary "president" system in most of Africa.
There is actually quite a lot. The word Ghana even means “king”. I have given you two examples of kingships with a history of over 200 years from two different countries. Traditional leadership however do not resemble a president (since most traditional organisations were small).
> You pick a single example and then say "that is how Africa is".
You pick a few unsupported examples based on your belief. You seem to reject (without motivation) the countries I mentioned (South Africa, Angola, Namibia, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, etc…). In all of these countries several systems of traditional leadership that is hereditary, dictorial and fairly small is found (in South Africa’s case, more than 9).
> Africans are completely different.
This is a retarded statement. I bet I have met more Africans and had more interaction with Africans from many countries a month than you had in your entire life. Have you gone to Kenya for a holiday and turned into an expert?
> What type of absurd extrapolation are you making when you claim your limited experience is representative of the entirerity of the continent?
You claim your view covers the entire continent. I gave you several examples which clearly falsify your theory. There is a reason why African countries tend to have the same government structure and level of development. The simple reason is that they were at the same stage of development and there is cross-pollination of ideas and people moving.
Do you think that it was a coincidence that the whole of Europe had the same type of government structure for several centuries?
> that can support your view of Africa as a continent of savage chiefs that kill people (and then boil them in large metal pots likely).
I do not think this at all. What you doing is the strawman argument – you make a easy strawman and then knock it down.
The reason (as previously stated) why the governmental structures is early similar is because of the same level of development (and similar structures existed in Europe at some stage). I personally think that your view is more based on your political view than mine.
> It's making me angry, and people like you are not worth my being angry about.
Here you descent into personal insults. This is just nasty. Just because your theory about African traditional leadership does not fit with the facts, doesn’t give you a reason to get angry. Don’t shoot the messenger.
I mostly meant that as a polite version of "didn't manage to advance beyond the colonial age". Thanks for not forgiving it :)
> countries which didn't completely recover from colonialism
You have edited your post now. The reason I take issue with your post is because of the “African Renaissance” idea. This idea/ideology (which was mostly promoted by Thabo Mbeki) states that Africa was a wondrous well developed place full of technology, culture, art, industry and peace (it goes hand in hand with strong historic revisionism). The idea was that colonialism destroyed Africa and Africa should just recover from colonialism.
The problem with this is that it does not address the current core issues of African problems. It also lays the blame for all problems on colonialisation – instead of corrupt African governments and systematic problems. It basically absolves current African governments from all responsibility.
You have edited your post now. The reason I take issue with your post is because of the “African Renaissance” idea. This idea/ideology (which was mostly promoted by Thabo Mbeki) states that Africa was a wondrous well developed place full of technology, culture, art, industry and peace (it goes hand in hand with strong historic revisionism). The idea was that colonialism destroyed Africa and Africa should just recover from colonialism.
The problem with this is that it does not address the current core issues of African problems. It also lays the blame for all problems on colonialisation – instead of corrupt African governments and systematic problems. It basically absolves current African governments from all responsibility.
>>Now, I think "IQ" or "intelligence" is drastically oversimplified and bunk.
Interesting, that goes against what I've seen intelligence researchers claim (g, etc). Do you have good references?
I'm not arguing, I'm asking because I'm curious. I'm aware that some idealists breath fire over this question, but I don't have a horse in that race (as I think the expression is?).
Interesting, that goes against what I've seen intelligence researchers claim (g, etc). Do you have good references?
I'm not arguing, I'm asking because I'm curious. I'm aware that some idealists breath fire over this question, but I don't have a horse in that race (as I think the expression is?).
It's easy to have this opinion when you are from the group perceived as superior. When you are from the group that is going to receive the "scientifically validated" stamp of inferiority, I think you would be very much against such statements as advocated in the article.
So, in your opinion, it's "okay" to have this view if you're not east asian or jewish, but not if you are?
It's never okay to have this view. I find that people who favour eugenics are never those who would have been culled in the first place. Same argument always when it comes to proving the superiority of a particular group - it's usually members from that group who want to do this the most.
Shooting down the notion that genetics are tied to race and thusly tied to positive or negative traits brings really brings out the anecdotal evidence logical fallacy in full force.
Just remember, anecdotal evidence is largely the same "logic" used by racists to justify broad stereotypes of people.
Just remember, anecdotal evidence is largely the same "logic" used by racists to justify broad stereotypes of people.
> the genes typically do not replicate across studies. Even when they do replicate, they never explain more than a tiny fraction of any interesting trait.
Epigenetics. Diet and lifestyle have large effects on how a genome is expressed. And even on how the genome is expressed in future generations.
I thought this was well understood? Why no mention of it in the article?
Epigenetics. Diet and lifestyle have large effects on how a genome is expressed. And even on how the genome is expressed in future generations.
I thought this was well understood? Why no mention of it in the article?
oh, no, if genetics reveal differences in humans, then that will make it harder for the rich people to combine many races into each workplace, each neighborhood, each city and each nation. Diversity is how the rich people divide the population, and if the population cannot be divided, then the population will unite against the rich.
Remember, Kids--Diversity is strength....(for the rich)
Remember, Kids--Diversity is strength....(for the rich)
1) Current GWASs focus on common variants, but the population explosion over the last few thousand years means it's likely that most human genetic diversity is rare.
2) Current GWASs focus on the marginal effects of variation at single-nucleotide sites, but it's likely that there are complex interactions between different variations.
These misplaced foci of current GWASs have more to do with what we could do with current technology than with what we ought to do, given these biological realities: sequencing was so expensive that it was hard to determine the rare variants; sample sizes were so small that we had to use simplifying statistical assumptions like independent phenotypic effects from each nucleotide variation. Those technological limitations are changing, now.
The "thoughtful geneticists" the article refers to aren't just wringing their hands about this. They are working on both of these issues. (I'm one of them.)