This is kind of a test, since we don’t have a discussion forum option anymore. So here’s a open thread where you can leave questions and what not. I’ll leave a link to this thread on the sidebar above “Recent Entries.”

Posted by razib at 10:10 PM

A few weeks ago, I asked where Spencer Wells might be. Matt Pope emails me again:

Dear Razib,

I had a post on your site not too long ago about contacting Spencer Wells, and I recently was called on the phone by a guy who viewed that post. He is working on a documentary for PBS on Clovis sites, and was looking to get in touch with Dr Wells. The only problem is that I erased his message before I was able to phone him back and give him the information he’s looking for.

You’re not in contact with this guy are you? If so, could you send me any contact details you might have?

So “Clovis sites” guy, call Matt again. And no, I’m not a messaging service, at this rate, I might have to start a “Dear Spencer” blog. Also, check out Matt’s site. Rather interesting.

Posted by razib at 09:52 PM

Griffe is arguing that overall IQ score overpredicts East Asian GDP because their verbal IQ is lower. The standard caveats on Lynn’s data-sets apply. Also, a few other question marks:

1) Griffe looks at Ph.D.’s awarded to Asian Americans, and notes more in science and engineering, and fewer in other fields. He also notes the lower rate of passage of the bar among Asian Americans (after offering cautions about the clustering of various Asian groups together). My personal anecdotal impression is that the representation in fields like law among Asian American is directly proportional to the average length of residence of the immigrant group in the United States. That is, Japanese Americans are more well represented among lawyers than South Asian Americans or Taiwanese Americans because they are long term residents of the United States who are fully acculturated and have a full command of the all the basic idioms from a young age because of their parental & peer (native American) environment. In contrast, fields like engineering or medicine are more technical, so cultural fluency is less relevant.

2) Griffe offers a hypothesis about how Northeast Asians attained higher visuo-spatial IQs because of their hunter-gather environment. I have been skeptical of the idea that the IQs of modern day populations have origins at such a far remove from the present epoch before, so I won’t repeat myself, but I find it curious that Northeast Asians excel in technical professionals when historically their cultures lionized literary intellectuals (more so Chinese and Koreans than the Japanese). That is, Confucian Mandarins attained their high status through passing examinations that were focused on interpretations of elements of the literary canon. Though the Chinese were a numerate people, my personal impression from reading history of science is that they were mathematically unoriginal in comparison to the Indians or Greeks, though their engineering feats have been noted. Richard Nisbett’s Geography of Thought offers a tentative socio-cultural hypothesis for why East Asians do well on the visuo-spatial section of IQ tests (see my post).

3) I could bring up many quibbles with the specifics, but Griffe implies that the low verbal IQ (relatively) makes East Asians underperforming capitalists, but this only seems to apply in their homelands, as Chinese do well in southeast Asia, and in the United States, Korean shop-keepers abound (who are stereotypically not big talkers). Rather than verbal IQ, there seems to be strong socio-cultural constraints that prevent East Asian economies from going into over-drive generally (and there are always the specifics like Hong Kong, Singapore or Japan which might be pointers to the fully realized future).

It seems to me, assuming much of what Griffe says is accurate (and I think I have signalled my skepticism on the specifics), a society with both the technically proficient and verbally adept is optimal for the material well-being of all. In any case, I think the verbal IQ gap is small enough that Griffe’s case is much weaker here than it was when he was analyzing Jews.

Posted by razib at 03:27 PM

Here’s a paper titled Genome Scans of DNA Variability in Humans Reveal Evidence for Selective Sweeps Outside of Africa (via Dienekes), something I’ve been hearing about for a year or so now from various people. The abstract notes: “A disproportionate number of these loci exhibited reduced levels of relative variability in non-African populations alone, suggesting that recent episodes of positive selection have been more prevalent outside of sub-Saharan Africa.” In contrast, some have suggested that the prevalence of pale skin outside of Africa is evidence of relaxed selection.

Posted by razib at 08:23 PM

I know many conservatives complain that “separation of church & state” is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, and I also know historically that a moderate level of state establishment of denominations persisted in places like New England deep into the 19th century, but articles like this from England point us to how fortuitous some American legal traditions have been in dealing within the brave new world of “multiculturalism.” The article is published in The Guardian, so it’s not a right-wing tabloid. Here are some “recommendations” made by a group of Muslim intellectuals & educators:

“compulsory religious education from 14 to 16, a new A-level in Islamic studies and a teacher of Islam in all Muslim-majority state schools for Muslim pupils who withdraw from religious education.”
“all majority Muslim schools should provide a teacher of Islam for students who withdraw from collective worship”
“Insensitivities included organising cooking and dancing classes involving Muslim children during Ramadan”
“The study also proposes schools should adapt physical education changing facilities, such as communal showers, to comply with privacy codes, and consider prayer rooms for pupils over the age of 10”
“It calls for a reversal of the trend towards mixed-sex schooling, saying many parents would prefer their children educated separately at secondary level. “

I am bolding the last part about mixed-gender education for a very important reason. I believe that some level of gender mixing is crucial for the continuance of liberal democracy. I haven’t fleshed out my thoughts totally on this issue, and have been predated by centuries of debate about the “civilizing impact of women” on the male gender, but my experiences in segregated gender societies where men and women do not talk to each other in a socially intimate manner suggests to me that something is missing in these societies (from the perspective of liberal democrats!).

I am not here suggesting that what we need is even full-bore equity feminism, though that is my preference. The level of gender mixing common in the early 20th century West would suffice. I would would like to reiterate my position that there is something deeply “natural” about gender segregation and “oppression” of females in complex societies, it is a stable equilibrium, so to speak. In other words, patriarchy is inevitable. I would be comfortable with all that stuff about Allah, and prayer and what not, as long as genders kept mixing, beause I believe that this social interaction is a very important exercise in moderating the tendencies of both sexes.

In many places in Europe, like England or the Netherlands, where there is more funding of religiously sanctioned activities and facilities than in the United States, they will be faced with issues of how to be balanced in their treatment of various faiths in the context of new pluralism. Frankly, I have always found the feminism card handy in preventing the multicultural tendencies of anyone I’m talking to from getting the upper hand, but recently, it hasn’t been as powerful, as people are more likely to respond, “well, that’s there culture” [fill in the blank about treating women like chattel].

So again, separation of church & state, three cheers!. Now, how about separation of race & state? Separation of ethnicity & state?

Addendum: Guest blogger Randy McDonald has spoken of how only 10% of American Muslims attend mosque regularly. Assuming that this is projectable to Europe, that 10% is the portion likely to be politically active, ergo, take control of government monies that might be directed toward the “Muslim community”.

Posted by razib at 09:01 PM

Carl Zimmer and Randall Parker are both talking about love & chemistry (and evolution & monogamy) over at their blogs, check out their posts (follow the links). Also check out Imbler Volokh’s genius-on-the-street perspective on mating & dating issues here, here and here. So why do women focus on being sexy so much? Well, the fact that America is a serially monogamous society where there tends to be a “male shortage” as women push past 30 (there are more men than women in age cohorts past 28, the pairing of older men with younger women accentuates the imbalance as far as mating goes).

All this goes to show that there are important biological and individual considerations to take into account when it comes to mating and dating. Systems like “arranged marriage” are not romantic precisely because they are hyper-rational, taking into account data about potentional partners in a very empirical fashion, sometimes resembling command-style economics. When I was in Bangladesh, there was a young woman my mother wanted me to marry who seemed rather uninterested in her university coursework, and my uncle stated, “I know she is genetically intelligent, her father and her uncles are all rather intelligent and professional oriented.” This sort of gleaning of data of the extended family tree is common. Not that this sort of thing doesn’t go on in conventional (from the American perspective) mating & dating scenarios, but I tend to perceive the system as somewhat ass-backwards in that inter-personal compatibility is assumed to follow after inter-familial compatibility is ascertained. How’s that for kin selection? In some ways, assortive mating is extremely strong in arranged marriage systems, but sometimes I wonder if parents also make sure that their “wild” child pairs up with a more conformist and stable individual when possible, nudging atypical personalities toward a more conventional social channel. In contrast, we’ve all seen the assortment of like-with-like in American society, as deviants have formed their own subcultures of freaks, geaks and all those goths.

So here’s an analogy for you: arranged marriage is like socialism or corporatism, Western style marriage is more like the free market mediated by individual preferences. Which would you bet on? I guess that depends on what you think a “good end” is.

Posted by razib at 10:15 PM

Here is an article from the The Economist on the “whole racist cops in Britain” issue. Full article below.

The Macpherson millstone
Jun 17th 2004
From The Economist print edition

Efforts to combat racism in the police are failing. Time for a rethink

THE existence of institutional racism is so widely accepted these days that the concept has been institutionalised. The police first admitted the charge in 1999, following a damning report by Sir William Macpherson, a retired High Court judge. Sir William’s definition—“the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin”—is plastered on the walls of training centres and regularly drummed into new recruits. As an interim report published this week by the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) reveals, though, it hasn’t done them much good.

Before 1999, most coppers associated racism with a few “bad apples”—malicious officers who simply needed to be plucked out of the barrel. Sir William’s report encouraged them to see it as an unconscious prejudice infecting the whole organisation. That is probably more realistic, which is not to say more useful. “Institutional racism makes sense if you have a PhD,” says one senior officer. It does not, however, make sense if you are trying to reform an intransigent outfit like the police.

There are plenty of signs that, after several years of enlightened theory and much effort, the police have been unable to change their discriminatory ways. Between 1999, when the Macpherson report was published, and 2002-03, street searches of blacks and Asians in London increased by 89%, while only 22% more whites were searched. More vivid proof came from a BBC documentary in October, which exposed racism of the white-hooded type among police trainees and led to the current investigation.

As the CRE’s report notes, one new attempt to screen out the unwittingly prejudiced seems to have had the unfortunate effect of reinforcing discrimination against ethnic minorities. Applicants to the police are now subjected to role-playing exercises and interviews designed to uncover their prejudices. If they fail, they are out. Nobody can explain why, but whites do best on the test (see chart): just 23% failed in the past year, compared with 34% of black applicants and 45% of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.

Why have attempts to change police culture been so unsuccessful, even counterproductive? The problem seems to be that officers cannot understand how they can be collectively racist without being individually racist. Valerie Vaughan-Dick, who oversees the police’s race and diversity training, reports that many trainees interpret institutional racism as “a slur on the whole police service”. Confronted by the concept in the classroom, they simply cross their arms and keep quiet, knowing that they will soon be back in the station house, where different notions apply.

More sympathetic souls, meanwhile, find themselves at a loss for what to do. The bad apples theory may have been naive, but at least it pointed to a solution. It is much harder to know how to combat institutional racism. As a result, those who wish to do nothing tend to prevail. The paralysing effect of the label is so powerful, says Trevor Phillips, head of the CRE, that it has become a useful defence against reform: “People have used the concept of institutional racism as a means of preventing further inquiry.”

This is true not just of the police. In the past two years, the “institutionally racist” label has been pinned to outfits as diverse as the NHS, the Football Association, and the theatre industry. As with the police, the accusation has been met with a mixture of derision and a throwing up of hands. Time for a new concept.

Posted by razib at 11:27 PM

The Economist has a strinkingly biased (anti-affirmative action) article (full article below) out that reviews Thomas Sowell’s new book, Affirmative Action Around The World, and another publication from an obscure academic that is more pro-affirmative action. The money shot is this:

Though such policies are supposed to help the poor, their beneficiaries tend to be quite well-off. The truly poor rarely apply to enter university or bid for public-works contracts, and so cannot take advantage of quotas. The better-off quickly learn how to play the system.

When you delineate a “disadvantaged group,” you almost always include within this set those who are not particularly disadvantaged, because of the natural imperfections that go along with any typology. It seems that this subset is the one that most benefits from affirmative action programs, and further soldifies their status within the class-caste system. “Systems” by their nature are more easily manipulated and exploited by those who need the system the least. This does not apply only to affirmative action. Foreign aid to Bangladesh invariably is used by the “talented tenth” (or “lucky tenth”) to perpetuate their structural advantages over the “bottom” 90%. Sometimes you can live with these imperfections, Mahathir Mohammed, architect of the New Economic Policy (NEP) in Malaysia, which shifted some of the wealth of the country from the Chinese to the Malays, has admitted that only a minority of well connected Malays have benefited from it, but he states that it is crucial that the common Malay see plutocrat Malays to buttress their own self-worth. I will not dismiss these sort of calculations out of hand, but to me, this is the reality of the world, let’s stop this talk of “justice,” as all these policies have become immutable parts of the legal cosmos of the societies that implement them (Mahathir now complains of the parasitism of the Malay middle and upper class).

Affirmative action

Advantages for the advantaged
Jun 17th 2004
From The Economist print edition

Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study
By Thomas Sowell

Yale University Press; 256 pages; $28

Buy it at
Amazon.com
Amazon.co.uk

Affirmative Action is Dead; Long Live Affirmative Action
By Faye J. Crosby

Yale University Press; 352 pages; $30

Buy it at
Amazon.com
Amazon.co.uk

HERE are two books on “affirmative action” from the same publisher. One is by a black man, the other by a white woman. Thomas Sowell’s “Affirmative Action Around the World” is a delight: terse, well argued and utterly convincing. The best one can say about Faye Crosby’s “Affirmative Action is Dead; Long Live Affirmative Action” is that it is less badly written than the average academic tome.

Mr Sowell takes the reader on a fascinating tour of the ways in which the preferential treatment of chosen groups has been applied in India, Malaysia, Nigeria, Sri Lanka and the United States. Some groups singled out for a leg-up are minorities whose members have suffered discrimination in the past, such as American blacks or India’s untouchables. To atone for the injustices inflicted on their forefathers, these groups have been granted favours, such as preferential access to universities or jobs. Other groups favoured in similar ways have never been discriminated against, but nonetheless do worse at school and in business than their neighbours. Examples include Malays in Malaysia, who earn less and learn less than their Chinese compatriots, and the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, who have long lagged behind the Tamils.

Mr Sowell’s insight is that regardless of the supposed moral basis for preferential policies, the results are often remarkably similar. Though such policies are supposed to help the poor, their beneficiaries tend to be quite well-off. The truly poor rarely apply to enter university or bid for public-works contracts, and so cannot take advantage of quotas. The better-off quickly learn how to play the system.

Once affirmative-action policies are instituted, their proponents tend to credit them with all subsequent advances by the intended beneficiaries. Mr Sowell shows that this is bunk. Malays, for example, have done better in Singapore, where they do not receive preferences, than in Malaysia, where they do. And in America, blacks were working their way out of poverty at a faster rate before affirmative action was introduced than after. Supposedly pro-black policies have in some ways made it harder for blacks to find jobs. “The ease with which discrimination charges can be made,” writes Mr Sowell, provides an incentive “for businesses to locate away from concentrations of blacks.”

Mr Sowell’s book is brief, but crammed with striking anecdotes and statistics. He tells of the family of recent Cuban immigrants with a $500m fortune who won American government contracts set aside for disadvantaged minorities, and of how preferential policies in Nigeria and Sri Lanka caused ethnic polarisation and, eventually, civil war. He shows how lowering the bar for certain groups dulls their incentives to excel. He quotes, for example, the architect of Malaysia’s preferential policies, the former prime minister, Mahathir Mohamed, who laments that his fellow Malays now regard university places as a right, and so neglect their studies.

Ms Crosby’s book is longer but covers less ground. She writes as if America were the only country in the world, and the Californian campus consensus the only set of opinions a reasonable person could hold. “Thoughtful scholars”, she tells us, “wonder why affirmative action has not elicited unwavering support” among Americans. They should read Mr Sowell’s book and find out why.
Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study.
By Thomas Sowell.
Yale University Press; 256 pages; $28

Posted by razib at 09:13 PM

Statscan has a press release out that documents the rise in interracial relationships in Canada over the past 10 years. Seeing as how the “visible minority” segment of the Canadian population is small (13%), this shouldn’t be that surprising, but, considering that it is concentrated in the major urban areas where segregation has been an issue, it is a good sign of integration. Some highlights:

Of these couples, 53% consisted of a woman who was a visible minority and a man who was not, and 47% the reverse.

Japanese were the most likely visible minority group to marry or live common-law with a non-Japanese person. The second and third most common groups were Latin Americans and Blacks.

Among the least likely to form a partnership outside their group were South Asians and Chinese.
…
People in mixed unions tend to be younger and foreign-born, live in large urban areas and have a higher education.

Via the Mixed Blog.

Posted by razib at 08:52 PM

Koin 6 News up here in Portland, OR just reported on a story of adult strangers targeting teens for sex. While this is nothing new in our country, the news people decided to make an unusual turn that if they had taken to completion would have been interesting and controversial.

Towards the end of the story they interviewed a teen, who grew up overseas and is just now in America, about how she feels. She stated to the reporter that “in Israel I don’t feel threatened by strangers”

Now, anyone who reads this blog would have spoken up immediately and said; well the stronger cultural ties inside Israel would dissuade the individual from those deviant acts or the fact that the Israeli population comes predominately from a high IQ group (Jews) would indicate that individuals would be able to understand the consequences of their actions. But no, we get a story scaring the public of how more “dangerous” America is.

No wonder they are setting this movie in Portland.

Posted by scottm at 11:30 PM