Blogging elsewhere….
At ScienceBlogs, I posted on a new paper on Jewish genetics. At Taki’s Magazine I offer my opinion as to why labor and capital flows are qualitatively different, as well as some pedantic comments on points of Roman history. I wouldn’t be such a stickler on Roman history…but people just love to make analogies based on presumed correspondences. I’ve been meaning to review Peter Turchin’s new book, Secular Cycles, which you can read for free as a PDF. But if you recall how long my last post on his previous book was, it might be a little while in coming, so I encourage everyone to read Secular Cycles if the topic interests them. Finally, Ed Yong has a nice review of a new paper Language Phylogenies Reveal Expansion Pulses and Pauses in Pacific Settlement (the paper is in Science, but it doesn’t seem online yet).
Too many econ people take “rationality” for granted and see non-rationality as needing explaining, if not correcting. That seems all wrong to me. How about looking at matters in the opposite way: non-rationality as normal, and economic rationality as what’s weird and in need of being explained? (Let alone being justified …)
Anyway, have you run into the Post-Autistic Economics movement? In many cases just a pretty and up to date wrapper for boringly lefty thinking. But good points are made by some others.
Link.
I note that you refer to the Uighurs as being in between Europeans and Han Chinese in terms of their ancestry. But wouldn’t it be more apt to say between Europeans and Central Asian Turkic populations?
But wouldn’t it be more apt to say between Europeans and Central Asian Turkic populations?
in terms of genetic distance in this context the *original* turks and han are interchangeable (that is, compared to europeans). central asian turks have a non-trivial non-east eurasian ancestry.
You claim in your response to Matthew Roberts that genetic studies do not support the idea that population replacement occured in the late Roman Empire. Do you plan to elaborate? Roberts argues in his follow-up post that genetic studies relevant to this question would be difficult to perform.
You claim in your response to Matthew Roberts that genetic studies do not support the idea that population replacement occured in the late Roman Empire. Do you plan to elaborate? Roberts argues in his follow-up post that genetic studies relevant to this question would be difficult to perform.
please follow all links. i did respond (unless there are further posts from him that i don’t see). cavalli-sforza’s old classical marker based Consanguinity, Inbreeding, and Genetic Drift in Italy is a pretty fine-grained analysis which supports what i’m asserting, but i didn’t cite that because most people don’t have that lying around….