Some initial thoughts on Yang et al.

Posted by Dasein on June 30, 2010, 07:31 AM | #

Compare the above 2 plots with the following from López Herráez, 2009. 

[IMG]http://i760.photobucket.com/albums/xx249/Aletheia14/Herraez2009PCA.jpg[/IMG]

This plot includes more populations than are in the HapMap III set (it is using the HGDP set).  However, we still see the 3 poles of Africa, Europe, and East Asia, as is also shown in my plot above, but which is not shown in Yang et al.‘s plot.  I am not aware of any PCA plot in which Africans share the first half of the PC1 axis with either European or East Asian groups.  Perhaps one could get this by using a specific set of populations and number of individuals (PCA plots are senstive to such), but I do not see how Yang et al. could have obtained that plot with the HapMap III populations and their additional European ethnies.

Posted by Dasein on June 30, 2010, 07:35 AM | #

One obvious explanation for the strange results in Yang’s PCA plot is that he’s showing a plot for the wrong principal components.  However, the plotting program in EIGENSOFT (which is also what I used- everything, including the PCA, was done with default settings) automatically adds this label.  So, unless they manually edited the gnuplot file, I don’t see how this could easily happen.

Posted by Dasein on June 30, 2010, 09:01 AM | #

One possible reason for the unusual result may be the very different numbers of individuals in the sample populations.  I’ve tried a few different combinations of populations to change the numbers for the major races, but this does not affect the overall shape of the PCA plot.  I don’t see why the much larger number of Europeans would produce the plot Yang shows, and it’s very weird that Indians are so much more seperable from Europeans than are Africans.

Posted by Dasein on June 30, 2010, 09:15 AM | #

One last PCA plot, from Xing et al., 2009.  This one is interesting because it includes a number of African populations, including the Luhya, one of the 3 African populations in the HapMap III set.  Again, we see the 3 poles of Africa, Europe, and East Asia, with intermediate Eurasian groups falling along the Europe-East Asia axis.

[IMG]http://i760.photobucket.com/albums/xx249/Aletheia14/Xing2009-1.jpg[/IMG]

Posted by Guessedworker on June 30, 2010, 09:56 AM | #

Dasein,

Might Yang’s sample of Europeans be biased by the addition of non-Europeans?

Posted by Dasein on June 30, 2010, 03:41 PM | #

GW,

Any non-Europeans would show up apart from the cluster of true Europeans.  The fact that no such European pole exists on the plots is a pretty clear indication that something is amiss.  This looks more like a plot from a genetic dystopian future, e.g. AD 2200, after the EU has invited in however many millions of Bantus.

About the only thing I can think of that would produce their plot is if they chose some subset of the populations to infer eigenvectors, and then projected populations onto those.  This might produce what we see here. 

There’s one guy on the Dienekes comment thread who is also pointing out the problems with this plot, but Dienekes doesn’t seem very suspicious of the results.  Again, very weird.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 30, 2010, 07:57 PM | #

Dasein,

Some of these people reveal their true committment to science when they come up against (what is for them) the stop of allowing Europeans an interest in life as Europeans.  They mysteriously retreat into obfuscation or silence because, for whatever reason, they are unable to treat Europeans as human beings like any other human beings.  Some of this might be the dog whistle Holocaustian conditioning that assigns Nazihood to anyone who does speak up for us.  Some of it might be the psychological drag of three centuries of liberalism - how, after all, does one handle such a mighty river of individualism when one has been thrown upon it from birth and known nothing else?  Some of it might be fear of losing institutional funding or otherwise incurring professional disfavour.  Some of it might be simple racism, of course.

Whichever, whatever, the empirical loses its way somewhere here, imo.

Posted by Captainchaos on July 01, 2010, 03:39 AM | #

Some of this might be the dog whistle Holocaustian conditioning that assigns Nazihood to anyone who does speak up for us.

But GW, is it not at least ostensibly your own position that those whom were National Socialists historically, and those whom are proponents of that political system today, are pathological cases?  I think you know that with regards to the “Holocaust,” were all the evidence presented before neutral observers, the traditional narrative could not withstand the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”; and it would not even be close. 

Do we not in the end cut our own throats by condemning men such as Rudolf Hess to the status of palingenetically possessed unpersons when in fact they displayed such character that were they English you may well feel inclined to lionize them?  Adolf Hitler himself in Mein Kampf lamented the authoritarian character of his movement as opposed to the openness which he associated with the old pagan world; yet deemed it necessary because that was the fight he was in.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 01, 2010, 08:03 AM | #

CC,

But GW, is it not at least ostensibly your own position that those whom were National Socialists historically, and those whom are proponents of that political system today, are pathological cases?

No, I’ve said that NS was an unEuropean philosophy, very Jewish in fact.  It is almost as though some clever Kraut decided to bolt together a means to “resolve” the millenial war for Jewish peace, and took the hair of the dog.

I’ve also said that, today, worshipping the very places in which “masculine honour” and “nobility of the soul” treads upon the Alpine snow is, in its essence, feminine.  Costume Nazism is even worse, and is rightly associated with homo-eroticism.  If you’re not queer you have to be pretty dumb or pathological to do that shit.

I think you know that with regards to the “Holocaust,” were all the evidence presented before neutral observers, the traditional narrative could not withstand the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”; and it would not even be close.

I’ve never gamble my hard-earned.  But I would put every penny I’ve earned or will ever earn on the nose of that nag.

Do we not in the end cut our own throats by condemning men such as Rudolf Hess to the status of palingenetically possessed unpersons when in fact they displayed such character that were they English you may well feel inclined to lionize them?

No.  The English, by the way, are too given to deconstructive irony (not necessarily an attractive trait), not to mention contempt for authority (pretty attractive, that one), to dress up in spliff, stiff new uniforms and bounce around the ancient capitals of Europe.

Generally, palingeneticism - this desire to be new and perfect, freed from the soiling past and freshly arisen into limitlessness - seems to have appealed most strongly to the peoples who retained Catholicism.  I haven’t looked into it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if quite a high proportion of the thinkers and writers associated with 20th century anti-liberal thought in England and America have been Catholics.

Adolf Hitler himself in Mein Kampf lamented the authoritarian character of his movement as opposed to the openness which he associated with the old pagan world; yet deemed it necessary because that was the fight he was in.

They killed their own people like birds, strung up on wire - in some cases for no more offence than losing belief as the war dragged on.  How luxurious to be able to “lament” this no doubt “necessary legal sanction” because of “the fight we are in”.

Sooner or later - I hope sooner - you will come, CC, to the point where you ask critical questions of NS and the Third Reich.  Then some balance will be restored to your Weltanschauung, and we can resume profitable debate.

Posted by Armor on July 01, 2010, 12:22 PM | #

The English, by the way, are too given to deconstructive irony (not necessarily an attractive trait), not to mention contempt for authority (pretty attractive, that one), to dress up in spliff, stiff new uniforms and bounce around the ancient capitals of Europe. (—GW)

So far, the English have been no better than others at resisting their own genocide. I think their deconstructive irony isn’t aimed at the best targets. The same could be said of the rebellious instincts of the young in Western countries. Healthy defiance is hijacked by the media who tell the young that the rebellious thing to do is to support the genociders who are in power.

You too, Guessedworker, have a tendency to be overly critical of your own side. I think you should drop the deconstructive irony, and try constructive anger and German discipline. For example, each time you see a picture of Nick Griffin, you should make an effort to think to yourself: Heil Griffin!

They killed their own people like birds, strung up on wire - in some cases for no more offence than losing belief as the war dragged on.

How many of their own people did the nazis kill? I think that kind of thing only happened when the situation became desperate. If nazism must be criticized, it would be more interesting to criticize its core belief.

Like most people, I know little about the Nazis, but I’ve been realizing more and more that they have been slandered, and that many of their ideals were no different from what most decent people want. Even so, I would rather not say that I look up to the Nazis as a model, but I have a practical problem: What to reply to people who call us nazis for saying that immigration should be stopped and the immigrants sent home? If someone calls me a racist, I will reply: No, YOU are the racist. If I’m called a nazi, I could reply: No, YOU are the nazi - you want to genocide white people. Except that I don’t think nazism centered on the idea of genociding anyone. I could also reply that I am really an admirer of the racial policies of Israel, not nazi Germany, but it would be only half-true. It’s hard to find a good snappy comeback when you are called a nazi. In the case of the “fascist” insult, I have no problem calling leftists “fascists”. Maybe I should do the same with the “nazi” insult.

Posted by notuswind on July 01, 2010, 12:35 PM | #

GW,

First of all, whatever happened to the interview with JB?  I hope it’s still on as I was really looking forward to it.

Some of these people reveal their true commitment to science when they come up against (what is for them) the stop of allowing Europeans an interest in life as Europeans.  They mysteriously retreat into obfuscation or silence because, for whatever reason, they are unable to treat Europeans as human beings like any other human beings…Some of it might be the psychological drag of three centuries of liberalism - how, after all, does one handle such a mighty river of individualism

I completely agree with the spirit behind these comments.  What use do we have for the anthropologist types who focus their minds exclusively on data?  They have betrayed their true mission, which was to enlighten the philosophy of mankind (European or otherwise) with their empirical knowledge and not isolate themselves from it.

Also, never attribute to individualism what can also be attributed to cowardice.  The retreat to technical obfuscations has more to do with the latter than the former.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 01, 2010, 03:37 PM | #

Armor,

each time you see a picture of Nick Griffin, you should make an effort to think to yourself: Heil Griffin!

L’ironie parfaite du Breton.  Trop.

Posted by Captainchaos on July 01, 2010, 11:54 PM | #

GW,

No, I’ve said that NS was an unEuropean philosophy, very Jewish in fact.

All that is authoritarian is not Jewish, nor is it alien to the organic life of Europeans.  After all, it is not as if Europe did not enjoy many centuries of stability under feudalism, and as if the Jews were running shit back then.  Or do you claim the contrary?

Costume Nazism is even worse, and is rightly associated with homo-eroticism.

I’m not terribly concerned with the goings on of hobbyists, fetishists and crackpots.

No.  The English, by the way, are too given to deconstructive irony

What of the veritable hero-worship of Churchill then?  Who, by the way, was fond of donning uniforms when parading in front of the troops, of course he by necessity went without when Lord of the Bath.

seems to have appealed most strongly to the peoples who retained Catholicism.

I concede the possibility, but a nationalism populated only by those who lack the faith gene will also find itself lacking in many adherents.

They killed their own people like birds, strung up on wire - in some cases for no more offence than losing belief as the war dragged on.  How luxurious to be able to “lament” this no doubt “necessary legal sanction” because of “the fight we are in”.

There was no reason at the time for Germans to believe that defeat would not result in their total destruction per the Morgenthau Plan - a Judeo-Bolshevik style plan for mass starvation agreed to in part by the English.  Their station was anything but “luxurious.”  Laying down their arms in anticipation of their genocide was not a luxury they apparently thought they could afford, even if it was desired by their alleged moral betters.

Posted by Wandrin on July 02, 2010, 01:28 AM | #

If someone calls me a racist, I will reply: No, YOU are the racist. If I’m called a nazi, I could reply: No, YOU are the nazi - you want to genocide white people. Except that I don’t think nazism centered on the idea of genociding anyone.

They’ve built the word up to have great moral power with that associated meaning. Using it in reverse is very effective at neutralizing the attack although not suited for everyone.