A huge evergrowing pulsating brain that rules from the centre of The Ultraworld

Posted by on Saturday, 10 September 2005 10:05.

So the cat that Gregory Cochran hinted at on Monday has been debagged (see here and here).

Cochran says that “genomics will do to leftism what Darwinism did to Christianity”. These papers have already provoked a response from the race-deniers. Professors are quoted as pointing out that the ASPM and microcephalin haplotypes at issue may have been targets of selection because of fitness effects having nothing to do with IQ, or even the brain. Which is possible. It has been said that even though these haplotypes are common outside sub-Saharan Africa and rare inside it, that black Africans might have other genes exerting other effects which could compensate for the missing haplotypes. This argument is valid and if, in fact, there were no differences in IQ between populations, but an allele influencing IQ was more common in one population, it would even be a relevant argument. It is all casuistry, of course, designed to refute (without explicitly raising) the plausible interpretation - namely that these haplotypes do influence cognition, that they do raise IQ, that one of them may have been hybridized in from a non-African-origin population (the other arose too recently) and, worst of all, that their scarcity in modern Africa may result from weaker selective pressure for higher IQ in Africa than in the diaspora.

Let them try to refute that idea: but let it be explicitly raised. That will be enough.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by Andrew L on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:56 | #

I would have thought that no need to submitt Academic papers on the subject, just jump on a plane or watch the new’s, undeniable fact of the short cummings in Africa,and world wide for that matter, perhaps a little Ironic of the northern Africans,Arabs etc and their possession of Intellectual cognitivity of so so many years ago, and to see what a festering poo hole they have turned it into, But with knowledge we realise it was the Arabization and the rape of women that contamminated to a large extent the original occupiers of what is now wrecognised as Arab states. There exists an argument of IQ and or lack of cognitivity in the Arab world, but they see themselves as the Universal saviours,and the pinnicle of Intellectual cognitivity and The superior race, Migration is our punnishment.
There must be a few marbles loose somewhere, if that was to be believed to be true.More should be made of those that flurt with the rediculess, and dissguard Factual infomation.

Posted by John S Bolton on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:33 | #

Another way to look at this demonstration of high selection outgrowth of the microcephalin alleles; is to note that some very powerful effect must have slowed their spread into tropical africa. Those in tropical africa who have these alleles will probably turn out to have unusually low natural malaria resistance for that region. Once this is established, that tropical africans have been disadvantaged genetically by their environment over milennia, there is no longer available the antihereditarian argument that an advantageous character must penetrate thoroughly in Africa.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:42 | #

“if, in fact, there were no differences in IQ between populations, but an allele influencing IQ was more common in one population, it would even be a relevant argument.” (—from the log entry)

Soren they’re simply going to deny it’s “an allele influencing IQ.” Anything to wiggle out of it.

For these last hold-outs on the other side race-denial is religion, not science—and although I mean that figuratively, by the way, race-denial often enough is religion literally: for many Christians it’s seen (or vaguely felt, rather) as a self-abnegation obligation under Christianity; for many Jews it’s part of defending the Jewish race-nationalism-religion triad by weakening white Christians as potential threats; for many pure secularists who are genuinely not influenced by religion it’s part of the religion of Liberalism with a capital L (under which the religions of homosexualism and “feminism” are subsumed, and of course homosexuals and “feminists” are also radical race-deniers), and so on.

Look—ultimately the traditional racial classifications, the work of men like Coon, are going to have to be re-affirmed as valid on their own merits, not affirmed on the supposed basis solely of “having been genetically confirmed.” Genetics can add to them, obviously, but it’s not as if genetics are here to “replace” them. Genetics can’t replace them because genetics are intertwined with them. Not that they’ve ever been significantly invalidated, of course—that’s not what I mean: they’re going to have to be explicitly proclaimed by modern scientists as being valid in their broad lines and most—almost all—of their details. This business about the “real proof of race being genetic” is totally wrong: so there were no valid Linnaean classifications before Watson & Crick? The other side can brazenly deny Coon on no grounds whatsoever but can’t brazenly deny genetics on no grounds whatsoever? Anyone know what brazen means? What bold-faced means? Anyone who thinks they won’t simply deny genetics the way they denied Coon is dreaming. The other side’s always going to say, after all their “alternatives” (if you can call them that ...) are exhausted, that the genetic classifications, being based ultimately on the Linnaean ones, are invalid because the latter are.

But the latter aren’t.

“It is all casuistry, of course, designed to refute (without explicitly raising) the plausible interpretation” (—from the log entry)

One-hundred-percent right.

Posted by sr on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:10 | #

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/genetics/brain/lahn_2005_aspm_microcephalin_science.html

Posted by sr on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:14 | #

Mr Scrooby is correct: this research does not add to our knowledge of cognitive differences between populations, any more than modern developmental neuropychology adds to our knowledge that the first three years of life are crucial for child development. We knew these things already.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:34 | #

As I posted to Dienekes’ blog:

If it originated in Africans then why would it have time to spread to the rest of the world but not time to spread into the rest of Africa?

It’s not peculiar to hypothesize that mutant humans do best at the periphery of the ecological range and do poorly in competition with more dominant/epistatic genotypes closer the heart of the ecological range.

You want quantifiable? Look for proxies like heterozygosity and degree of recessivity and/or degree of absence of epistasis.

If people could get out of their organism chauvenism long enough to really think about the way extended phenotypes work they wouldn’t stop with molecular genetic gene expression and would go ahead and look at the ecological correlations between genes and phenotypes.

Posted by Kubilai on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:37 | #

this research does not add to our knowledge of cognitive differences between populations - sr

Yes we all know this, sr, however with ever increasing, irrefutable evidence that can be easily pointed to, it weakens the argument of the race deniers and allows the fence sitters to come to their own realizations that 1) they have been lied to, 2) they can comfortably shed their white-guilt, and 3) they can decide whether to be realists or ideologues.

With that, things like AA, quotas, set asides, racial preferences, Negro failure due to white racism can all be looked at as the evil spawnings that they are of Marxists. It will divide people as PC religionists, as Fred alludes to, or realists. Some will never give up their religion, no matter how much evidence there is.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:51 | #

“homosexuals and ‘feminists’ are also radical race-deniers” (—my comment, above)

Excuse me, that should have been “homosexual<u>ists</u> and ‘feminists’ are also radical race-deniers.” (Big difference, of course.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:05 | #

This research won’t get GnXp’s star blogger David B to mend his race-denying ways, incidentally. Not one bit. Count on it. These people who feel compelled to deny race are going to put forward any sophistry they can possibly scrounge up in opposition to this, him included. Just wait.

I never read that site (I stand in no particular need of a site maintained for the expression of anti-white opinion by yellow and subcon non-whites and white extended phenotypes, one moreover where whites are absolutely strictly forbidden to utter a word in white defense—sorry, I have no need of such a site in my life) so I’d appreciate it if someone tells me in the event I’m wrong and GnXp’s star blogger David B actually stops going around denying race after this. (Kinda strange, by the way, when the third biggest blogger on your site’s a race-denier yet you continue to bill your site as a “racial realist” one. That’s a real head-scratcher.)

Posted by Kubilai on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:09 | #

re: David B and the like. They will be forever “PC religionists”. Those aren’t the people that will be swayed over, Fred.

Posted by Proud Xtian on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 08:19 | #

“Cochran says that “genomics will do to leftism what Darwinism did to Christianity””

That was Godless Capitalist who said that, Idiot.

Who wrote this post?

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:44 | #

Ooops… I propagated the error about Cochran, but at least I did try to find where he said that and being unable to find it I didn’t quote him directly. Here’s my propagation of the error:

Greg Cochrane pretty much summed up what I think of Holocaustianity when he predicted that genomics will do to political correctness what Darwinism did to Christianity (don’t recall his exact words—that’s the gist of his statement).

So now to my retraction… Since Google comes up with zero hits for “genomics will do to leftism what Darwinism did to Christianity” or variants thereof, I must presume that somehow GNXP comments aren’t being indexed. So now I’m at an impasse, I can’t positively identify who said what exactly.

Could someone post a link to the quote?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:49 | #

Thanks for the correction. You are right. SR was undone by the shared initials. You, however, appear to have been undone by too much familiarity with uncouth Asians.

Here we are pretty tolerant because we want to encourage freedom of expression. But we do ask commenters to keep things respectful. Your contributions are most welcome but can you tone down the negativity please?

Posted by Proud Xtian on Mon, 12 Sep 2005 07:48 | #

“I didn’t differentiate “gc” and “gcochran.” An error.”

So FIX it.

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/raldanash/112578677670802917/#351045

“You, however, appear to have been undone by too much familiarity with uncouth Asians.

I am NOT welcome and I won’t quit because I am leaving now. Why don’t YOU tell your contributers, who QUOTE uncouth asians to stop using their stupid typical immigrant anti-white, anti-male anti-Christian anti-Western -Traditions quotes??? Why don’t you tell them to tone down their “Christian destroying” negativity please? you let chinks comment here and you are polite to them, and probably ban a white who isn’t, but trash on a Christian and the Religion of the West just like everywhere else and that is OK. You don’t speak for THE WEST and you don’t speak for MAJORITY, so Bye. You don’t defend me or the Majority.

Also at least I can type my name without the system deleting it because I have 8 thousand foreign letters in my name. The alphabet of the Majority has 26 letters, thats why the computer doesn’t delete them.

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:08 | #

If people could get out of their organism chauvenism long enough to really think about the way extended phenotypes work….

This is of the utmost importance.