If you think a field is worthless, you won't read the arguments that have been in its literature for decades or centuries.

People who attempt to be rational are skeptical, to a substantial degree, about many things, but I'm highly skeptical of Razib's claim about theories of history. He may rationally believe that hedgehogs are less promising sources for such theories than are foxes, but I don't think he would put the time into understanding history and the softer sciences that he does if he didn't think that there was structure there to be understood analytically.

Do we have good sources for the numbers?

It seems to me that among humans the cycle goes the other direction. Bored housewives mess around with pretty boys, barbarians kick the pretty boys asses and take the women, family values guys band together to fight off the barbarians.

Does "atheism" indicate "low religiosity", where the latter is a personality trait? This is not a-priori self-evident. You are assuming that a belief is the same thing as a personality trait. That's sort of like assuming that having accurate knowledge of the rates of mortality and morbidity associated with various activities is identical to, or even indicates, low (or possibly high) neuroticism.

Bucholtz seems fantastically clueless. Not the slightest hint of insight to offer for her 12 years of "study". Typical social scientist with only a hammer and a world filled with nails. Why did you link this?

I think that Asimov knew better and was, basically, lying. Eric Raymond has a lot to say about what sf is and isn't, and takes the interesting and to me convincing view that Frankenstein isn't and Kim is. After reading it, you can look at Herman Hesse's "Master Ludi"/"Glass bead game" and see that the reason it sucks is that Hesse knows how to write literature but doesn't know how to write sf, most particularly, doesn't know how to do hypothesis exposition in the background of a story but is forced instead to alternate between the two activities.  
BTW, Jonathan strange and Mr Norell was good if you appreciate Jane Austin's skill but think she needs a Cliché high fantasy plot to make the slow pacing tolerable. 
Ted Chiang's "Stories of Your Life" is a collection of terribly written short stories but has some brilliant twists.  
The first half of every Neal Stephenson book and all of Cryptonomicon (which is set in WWII with now magical or high tech elements but which is still sf) are excellent.

Five for me

For IQ 100 whites, it's not a job, but join the LDS church, the Mormons, and let them find you one, and probably pay for your college.  
For IQ 100 blacks and Hispanics, take advantage of affirmative action to get through college with a degree in nursing. If possible also get an education credential. Get as much financial aid in college as possible, preferably coming out with no debt and some net assets. If it will cover an extra year or two of college, have fun. After college try nursing and teaching, do whichever you prefer. If you get bored with or don't like one, give it at least 2 and no more than 5 years, then try the other. If neither works out, join a police force or do other government work. All this time, save at least $5000/year, preferably $10,000/year and invest it in half domestic and half foreign index funds and don't (not having kinds will help here). Once you have at least $100K of net assets have worked for 10 years (locking in about $500/month of social security benefits, plus giving you time to save $100K if you are spend cautiously and don't have kids) you don't need to save any more (though it wouldn't hurt) and can now afford to retire and live on your investment returns in Jamaica, or even more nicely in Cuba or the Dominican Republic if you speak Spanish. Try to have any kids you want prior to leaving in order to lock in citizenship for them. Try multiple countries before settling down. While abroad you can try your hand in business if you feel inclined with little personal risk.

For those top quintile IQs and no other unusual talents, a pharmacy degree is a very good choice. Dentistry pays even better, but is less appealing work to many people. Anyone competent at 9th grade algebra should have a good shot at being an accountant. Anyone with good mechanical skills can be an auto mechanic. (I think plumbing is usually union and harder to enter) People with mechanical skills and top quartile IQs should consider being electricians. People with sales skills can always make money. Pilot is a risky career but intelligence requirements are modest. Franchise businesses are always good if you have some capital. Managing food carts and scaling up has lots of potential. Military and trucking have good benefits and pay respectively, but restrict lifestyle severely. Teaching is a standby. Cook and waiter both have their advocates, and cooking skills are never totally wasted even if work is scarce. Teaching English as a foreign language offers travel opportunities. Construction is good pay with flexibility. Police work is surprisingly safe and boring, but is well paid in some cities. Club recruiters with initiative and style can make lots of money. Americans with management experience and moderate capital, a few tens of thousands to a hundred thousand, can often open very successful commercial enterprises in developing nations if they speak the relevant language. For women, child care is often a good choice. Massage or other forms of personal semi-medical services pay very well by the hour, but finding clients can be difficult for many people. Finally, if you look the part and have reasonable discretion and some public speaking ability, you could try running for a local political office.

(surprised by axolotl) Minor factoid, at Columbia University, the sf student org is mostly female, roughly 20 to 4, with at least one of the men being gay. (probably an even larger fraction of the women are gay or bi. I'm sure homosexuality correlates strongly and positively with counter-culture and sf.)

I suggest that Hyperbole read Robin Hanson on priors, Eliezer Yudkowski on Bayesian reasoning, and Nick Bostrom on observer selection effects in order to improve his epistemology. 
All I have time to say here is, priors must sum to one, and one's prior for one's priors being better than someone else's should be symmetrical. This strongly constrains the ability to rationally entertain complex ideas as having reasonable probability in the absence of evidence.

Saying 9 words out of 10 helps.

Veiling doesn't seem likely to be of recent origin for Muslims. It's obviously as old as the old testament among their co-ethnics the Hebrews. Remember Jacob and Lea? He married the wrong woman because of her veil. OTOH, he had earlier seen Rachel without a veil, so veiling doesn't seem to have been continual.

Wow Razib. Just when I think you have decided to try to repress your nerd side for good I see a post like this.

You could post in comments over at Randal Parker's "futurepundit", where this was already discussed credulously.

VERY interesting.  
IGF deficiency also GREATLY extends life expectancy in most organisms.  
By the way, identical twins frequently differ in handedness.

Razib: Do you think that Webb understands *that* you value choice and what that means/how you value it? Does he understand that from your perspective, or at least from mine, what he is saying sounds awfully like "I choose for the world to be like I say, my choices should matter and those of people I disagree with should not."

I'm very very skeptical of such is>ought admixtures. Can you tell me how the blog made you reconsider your decision?

One where people can ask questions like that, examine them from a variety of view-points in light of the largest possible variety of historical and contemporary human opinions, and implement behaviors in accordance with their conclusions.