The first time I tried to get through Scott Atran’s In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion, I gave up because it seemed so pretentious and impenetrable. My curiosity was piqued by the fact that the subtitle alluded to evolution, and I was interested in evolutionary psychology. But though In Gods We Trust does talk somewhat about the evolutionary origins of religion, fundamentally it’s a work of cognitive anthropology.
Because I did not know about this field, its lexicon struck me as totally opaque, and there seemed something almost Post-Modern and French about Atran’s prose. Actually though this perception made some sense, Atran, Dan Sperber, Pascal Boyer, and Larry Hirschfeld actually came up with the naturalistic paradigm in anthropology while meeting at Sperber’s home in Paris in the early 1980s.
I did end up reading In Gods We Trust front to back a year after I initially tackled it, along with some other books on religion from this perspective (e.g., Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer). Up until 2007 or so I would write extensively on cognitive anthropology and religion, but I got what I wanted to in terms of insight after period and do not write much on this topic (in 2006 I actually got invited to a conference with a press pass on the topic of religion and evolution, my interests had become so well known in this domain).
So I was surprised to see this comment:
I’ll give it a go. I tried starting with Principles of Population Genetics but found it heavy going (Ive only been reading here for a few years and mainly got into it for the posts about religion, but the genetics stuff is quite interesting)
I suppose I still write about religion enough that that might hook some people. Though honestly I don’t have anything original to say…it’s just that much of mainstream commentary strikes me as totally dumb and uninformed.
But that prompts me. Consider this an “unlurk” thread. Two questions:
1) Why do you read me? (and implicitly, what should I write about more?)
2) Tell me anything about yourself that you think would be of interest to me or other readers (some of you are not anonymous, so I know those who are lawyers in Colorado or engineers in Australia; that sort of thing)
1) I read you because most mainstream public intellectuals (if that’s the right term for you) are “totally dumb and misinformed” about a lot of things. And more importantly they’re really boring. The mix of population genetics, ancient history, and the intellectually taboo stuff that you write about challenges me to broaden my intellectual horizons. Similar to why I read Greg Cochran.
2) I study probability theory at the awful place on the West Coast that riots a lot, but I’m leaving that world for reasons that everyone else does. So while I’m comfortable with your math heavy posts, I get nervous when you do broad sweeps of the ancient Near East or early Christianity, and I have to add a bunch of books to my pile.
Year 2011. It was a dark time in my life. I won’t go into details, but let’s just say that the Great Recession had me trapped in a hot hell-town which I won’t name.
I happened upon an article, via a link from who knows where, that had topic, content, voice, trajectory, that perked me right into wakefulness. The article expressed the voice of a passionate biology-scholar who was conveying his real excitement about new revelatory vistas that computer-aided analyses were constantly opening up. This scholar-fellow was walking me through his field as a respectful friend might tell me about his field of expertise –explaining, not condescending, filling me in, generously sharing new learnings.
I’ve found the link: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/02/the-driver-of-human-evolution-isnt-the-climate-around-you-its-the-worms-inside-you/ I comment as “wink” there, and you can see that in the second sentence I pile the flowery horse-shit on my own shallow understanding of the topic, in my own cockadoodle way, as usual, oh well. The first sentence I still stand by, and it goes: “A fine piece of science writing here. With concision and verve Mr. Khan tears off a dispatch to the laity.”
In the generosity, use of common-unstuffy language, and enthusiasm to explain, and willingness to state a valid opinion, this Razib reminded me of the art critic Peter Schjeldahl, back in the late 1980’s-early 1990s, when he was writing for the Village Voice (before he became burdened as the All-Weighty Eminence Gris who holds forth somewhat crankily and imperially from atop Olympus, I mean the New Yorker.)
And then I found you were a polymath who’s read so much on history, has forthright opinions on the big-picture currents of the day, etc. So that’s why I read your blog. Wherever your interests take you, I am fascinated to see what you’re up to. When you need to use mathematical formulae to express an idea or follow a close argument, the rigor is necessary and appreciated, very much yes on that.
Glad I went back to the Discover blog just now. That is a good place for an inquisitive person who doesn’t have time for full Arxiv-dives to hang around. I never did care for Unz, although it was illuminating to observe some of the politico-characters skulking about the place…
I gotta say, I don’t know that all your Twittering is helping your blog-writing. Comparing just now to the old Discover posts, your posts feel a little more dashed-off now. But I understand times aredifferent, your life is different…You’re still conveying interesting shtuff…
The best conversations on the blog happen are when you talk hardcore fellow-genomics/pop-gen commenters who are freely expressing under nommes de guerre, guys who are enjoying talking outside the academic box. (Haven’t seen ’em lately though, maybe due to certain wretched imbroglios.) Then we get to listen in and see how people actively inside the fast-moving genomics/pop-gen field are thinking, and how y’all move current info, terms, and concepts around. I learn a lot about the dynamic core of real candid thought in the field, as it’s currently actually occurring, that way..
i think you are right that i write more in a hurry. but also when i wrote that post for the crux i wasn’t a father yet. 🙂
re: why few pop-gen ppl comment. a lot of the discussion has moved to twitter. i am not particularly happy about that….
you should hang out with ‘rationality’ people. i looked u up on FB and the only friend we share in common is scott aaronson.
1) I stumbled across one of your posts on brownpundits while reading up on South Asian population genetics, a hobby interest of mine. Since then I’ve enjoyed virtually all of your posts, be they about pop-gen, history, religion, etc. I especially like your discussions of current literature re: ancient DNA. Pop-gen isn’t my field, so your posts are at the right level for keeping abreast of new findings.
2) I live in the same place as Elan, and probably am in grad school at the same university. I quite like it though 🙂
well don’t worry i won’t report your IP to the antifa 😉
I’m a history student who mostly reads for history content, but I like the popgen as well. A lot of Internet discussion of history as it relates to human biology is dumb or a cover for knee jerk racism and your writing is neither which I appreciate.
I will be switching to the west coast university that’s getting so much attention in this thread starting next fall, right now I’m at your alma mater, UCD.
1. I have told you this story before, but it probably bears telling again for the benefit of any other readers who have mixed-race children. I have a mixed-race daughter, who was subjected to racist treatment by her kindergarten teacher when she was 4 years old. It impacted her pretty heavily, and my wife and I needed to do a rescue job on her to restore her sense of self and whatever we could to make her feel like a normal modern human. I began trawling the Internet to try to understand genetics and what goes into the making of a child who is the product of the mating of two very distinct racial and cultural groups, to try to improve my own understanding so that I could do whatever I could to help her to understand what it means to be ‘mixed’ in real terms. In 2002 I stumbled on the original GNXP Blog. At that point I was starting with zero understanding of population genetics (I actually believed Lewontin at that point, because I wanted desperately to believe), and was probably pretty obnoxious in my questioning, but various people on the site were kind and patient in their explanations, and I became a believer in modern genomics and all of the magic it could reveal about individuals and populations. I was particularly struck by your insistence on adherence to the facts supported by evidence, and uncoloured by ideology, and kind of fell in love with your style of writing, and I have continued to read GNXP in all of its subsequent permutations ever since. I make no secret of the fact that I admire your intellect, knowledge, style of writing, your prolific production of useful and reliable information, and all of the mysteries that you have unfolded for me over the succeeding 15 years. I also discovered, through reading GNXP, a deep and abiding interest in ancient human origins and how modern populations came to be who they are. I have little interest in either politics (as far as I can gather, I am pretty closely aligned with you in terms of non-aligned conservatism) or religion, and usually skim lightly the pieces you write on those subjects, although a lot of the historical stuff is enlightening, as my own knowledge of history is poor and patchy.
2. I am an Australian civil and geotechnical engineer. (If I can use a medical analogy, a civil engineer is like a general practitioner, and a geotechnical engineer is a specialist who deals with those aspects of civil engineering that pertain to the earth and ground/structure interaction.) After graduating and practising in Australia, in my late 20s I got a job in Hong Kong working on preventing people from being killed by landslides, where I have lived ever since, with a few brief and abortive attempts to return to live in Australia which always turned out to be a bad idea, for a whole host of different reasons. My daughter is obviously now an adult, fully bicultural, trilingual and biliterate, and comfortable in her own skin, and knows far more about human biology than I will ever be able to comprehend. She is equally comfortable travelling in both Australia, and in Mainland China, Taiwan and anywhere else in Greater China, and engaging fully in two different cultures, between which she switches as effortlessly as she switches languages. If she had to choose, I think she would align with Chinese culture, but she doesn’t make a thing about it. I am now much more comfortable living as an ‘ethnic minority’ among an almost wholly Chinese population, and so I will live out my days.
As far as what to write about – I would say just keep doing what you are doing, brother, and I will keep reading it, as long as I have breath in me and a functioning brain. You are still the best Blogger on the Internet as far as I am concerned.
[thanks! & now i have 3 kids! times change -Razib]
1) I originally started reading you, if I recall correctly, because of your posts on historical evolution/population genetics, etc. I have a vague recollection that you used to write about evolutionary psychology also, but I could be mixing that up with some other stuff I was reading at the time. My interests have drifted quite a bit, and these days I’m more interested in your writing on religion and history, and how it impacts current affairs. I’ve really liked your GSS posts as well, so I’d love more of that.
2) I’m from the States, but have spent most of the past ten or so years living overseas. I’m currently in the first year of a PhD focusing on Political Psychology at a university in the UK, but my longest time in one country was in Sweden, where I lived for about six years, learned the language, and eventually became a dual-citizen. Just like how mainstream commentary can be dumb and uninformed with regard to religion, getting to know another country really well shows you how poor almost all foreign commentary on that country really is. It’s especially interesting with Sweden where the left idolizes it and the right vilifies it, and both get a lot wrong.
1) I discovered your blog around 2010 I think, and was especially interested in your writings on human genetics and and migrations. Pretty much all the subjects you write on are interesting to me, though; but I suppose human genetics remains the primary reason I’m here.
2) I’m an archaeologist working in B.C., and while I’ve worked around the province including on coastal sites, I’ve spent more time in, and thus developed a special interest in, the subarctic northeast and the Dene groups there.
I read for the history and social commentary. I think you provide a unique and necessary voice that is polymathic, highly informed, and fundamentally reality-driven, rather than ideologically driven.
I’d like to be more interested in the population genetics but I think it’s going to remain a peripheral interest for me, the non-genetics articles are those I learn most from.
(1)
I read you because I should be reading things that push me as opposed to sticking to just Steve Sailer and his comment section.
James Thompson bridges the gap somewhat, but I figure that I should at least expose myself to more difficult-to-understand things. The problem for me is that there’s a huge gap between what Thompson writes about and what you and Steve Hsu write about. I got a copy of Principles of Population Genetics, started flipping through it, saw a Γ and a ∂ and thought oh god what did I get myself into? (I barely passed single-variable calculus and never got a chance to take a stats course in college). Not knowing where to begin when using a textbook for home-study for personal enrichment, I started in at chapter 1 taking notes and doing the exercises like I would for a normal textbook in class, but had to set it aside for reasons and I haven’t gotten back into it. While I had the book and notes put away, someone mentioned Coursera and I figured I should finish its introductory stats course first.
(2)
I can’t think of anything worth mentioning.
I have been reading you for ca. 10 years but I rarely comment (one or two comments per year perhaps). I find the intersection of genetics and history the most appealing of your topics. I might read hot sauce reviews as well, but that is not why I am here. I like your book reviews too.
I have a background in physics, I am from Hungary.
Please, keep your content available outside social media, as I do not use any of them (and neither intend to do so, even if it is increasingly difficult: some pages nowadays don’t even render properly if one blocks social media plugins).
I’m that really annoying guy who constantly bothers you! You’re posts give me that “oh, man, who’s he gonna offend now?” kind of feeling so that’s why I’m a return customer. I always need juicy links to get me through my day of mowing grass so that’s why you’re one of the 6 I follow on twitter. Really, though, I’m not aware of another source that has the variety, depth, and courage to go where GNXP goes…I’m here for pursuit of Truth.
I meant to add that I also finally read/skimmed through “In Gods We Trust” and the word impenetrable also immediately came to mind. Which is too bad because it’s a really interesting concept and because it’s not written clearly or concisely I just can’t recommend it to anyone. Seems a waste of an important idea – if you want exposure you have to express your idea well but maybe he doesn’t care.
[*religion explained* is more accessible fwiw -razib]
I was trained as a Behavior Geneticist in the 1970’s and published a couple of papers on quantitative genetics. I left that field and am now retired. I am impressed that many of the questions we could not even address in the 1970’s can now be addressed.
As a deist, I am also casually interested in the anthropology/sociology/evolution of religion.
I honestly have no memory of how I discovered your blog to begin with. Looking over the archives on Discover Magazine, it seems my first replies to your posts were in late 2011, though I’m sure I was reading you for a bit before that. I had a long-standing interest in genetics as a layman, and had read books like Genome and The Blank Slate in my early 20s. I even have had a copy of the History and Geography of Human Genes since High School, although it’s been years since I opened it up for obvious reasons. I am guessing that another blogger I read at the time (maybe Ed Yong?) linked to you at some point.
Regardless, I stick around because I learn a great deal from the posts. I’ll admit that since numeracy isn’t my strong point I don’t get a lot out of your “professional” posts on population genetics. Out of what you write about on genetics I’m by far the most interested in archeogenetics, but I realize there’s a limited number of papers which come out on the subject, so there’s a limit to how much can be said without getting into wild speculation. In your more “pundity” style posts, you come at things with a slightly different set of priors than myself, but your posts are generally very well thought out and help me to think about things with a different perspective. Your commenters are generally top rate too. On West Hunter too many of them have ideological axes to grind, while Eurogenes is full of trolls and data nerds, meaning I get relatively little out of reading the comments on a regular basis.
When I was 15 or so, my grandfather told me we came from Aryans who lived at the North Pole. I’ve had an amateur interest in ancient Indian history ever since 🙂 I come to your posts for ancient Indian stuff, but you offer a perspective and insight that is uncommon in my regular circles, so I lurk 🙂
I’ve been reading your blog posts for some time. What got me hooked was all the then new genomic info on the origins of various human populations. That’s still my primary interest – keeping up on the latest work vis-à-vis the history and movements of human groups. The historical, religious, philosophical and political posts are also of interest, but much closer to my own background (philosophy) and areas of expertise—not that I don’t enjoy them—just that I read you primarily for what I don’t know or haven’t the time to find out about on my own. Frankly, I wouldn’t want to see you change a thing. It’s a nice mix of topics, that, and I’ve been following you long enough to see how, for you, “it’s all connected.” I should add that I’ve always read the comments: you seem to have mellowed with age and parenthood. Who knows? I might even make (another) a mostly uninformed comment myself someday.
(As it was my comment linked to above, I may aswell add my 2cents..) I think it was actually looking for reviews of Atran’s* book that first got me reading you (I cant be sure, but it matches the timeline when I was reading it) So it was initially, primarily, the old posts that got me reading (first the posts on religion, but then more on the debates over race etc.) I’d found both these debates (on population differences and religion, particularly Islam) to be mostly tedious**over the past decade so it offered something of a fresh perspective.
Personally, I dont really have any opinions on what you should write about. (1) it’d be a little presumptuous of me, particularly considering you’ve a lot of longer readers who Id imagine have different preferences to mine. (2) One of the things that Ive liked about the blogs(s)is that it’s brought topics to my attention I wouldnt have given much thought to before.(ie it convinced me to buy ‘The Horse, the Wheel and Language’, although Ive only dipped into it so far) A lot of the content out there has become repetitive and boring because it’s been tailored specifically to particular ideological factions, so it’s good to have somewhere not catering specifically to my tastes.
* Robert Ford above. yeah I found Atran’s book hard going, and would need to read it again to get more out of it. A lot of his other stuff is accessible though (I really liked ‘Talking to the Enemy’ if you havent read it.
**tedious on both sides. The right are every bit(more in my opinion) as capable of being either single issue bores or morons as the left, and race and Islam are hobbyhorses on the right which generates much more heat than light.
1) I read you because of your prolific output on topics that interest me (as a pure amateur) and your demonstrated unwillingness to let politics you abhor OR embrace to color your opinions on the data.
2) I’m the first person, I believe, to purchase a US$1000 direct-to-consumer whole genome sequence and released it through the PGP (not news to you, but maybe to readers.) I’m a seemingly 100% Euro-derived generic white guy with a few chunks of DNA that admixture tools love to categorize as Baloch and carry an mtDNA haplotype that seems to represent a not yet named branch of U2e1. I’d be interested in any comments you have on how generic Euro folks can investigate unexpected ancestry calling like my supposed Baloch.
I’m a psychologist and game designer from Finland. I think I first read your stuff around 2005, when I was studying cognitive science and read broadly on related subjects on the blogosphere of the time. I’m very interested in human prehistory and the ancient genome stuff is what I’ve put your RSS feed on my subscription list for. I use Feedly as I largely read for entertainment on my phone these days, what with young children consuming most of my time and keeping me from sitting down at a computer, so I don’t get to read your acerbic dismissals of stupid comments. I do remember enjoying them.
Could it be that you’re treading water intellectually speaking. I share your interest in pre-history, the origins of cognition, the historical past, evolutionary psychology, psychology tout court. What does population genetics bring to the table as regards these interests?
you can’t understand evolution without understanding population genetics. you can’t understanding evolutionary psychology or the *origins* of human traits without understanding evolution.
I don’t see it. I suspect you are practicing a kind of reductionism, trying to explain the higher in terms of the lower. Despite their genetic differences, the smartest people share their smarts non-materially. You might consider whether you are not committing the error of materialism, reducing the mentality of psychology, cognition, and the interesting parts of the historical and pre-historical past to elements of stuff.
I’m a post doctoral researcher in molecular & cell biology, got my PhD at Stanford and am now at Cornell. I do a lot of yeast genetics, but it’s all geared towards using genetic screens to understand cellular function. So human genetics and genomics is interesting but foreign to me from a specialist perspective, and I read you because you write about it without overly dumbing it down.
I do also appreciate you as one of my few sources of sane, rational, moderately conservative perspective. I’m progressive (but of the no tolerance for sjw bullshit variety), so you’re at least a little outside my bubble.
I’m an ex biochemist who became a doctor, but maintained an interest in biochemistry. I chanced upon you 7-8 years ago as I became interested in genetics due to 23andme. I found belatedly in my life that I love population genetics as it joins my love of history and science. I’m in a small town now and don’t get a lot of intellectual stimulation so I enjoy your varied topics and book suggestions; and although I sometimes (well, actually, rarely) don’t agree with you, you are no dummy and I always appreciate your insight.
By the way all of my kids went to said west coast university as either undergrads or grad students, and all were they happy to get the heck out of dodge as soon as they had their degrees (although the next institutions they each went to were no better). It’s oppressive for those who are not like Stepford wives and do not march to ultra liberal dogma. I feel like ultra liberal dogma followers are no different than religious zealots–“there can only be one viewpoint and it is good”–they are self-righteous.
1. I think I first came across you while I was still in law school (2000-2003). Probably curious about genetics first, but really appreciate your broad historical knowledge (good for reading recommendation, too). Others said it better, but you’re a erudite polymath with strong opinions and interests that somewhat align with mine; i.e. good content. I think where you grew up may have given you better insight (or maybe just exposure) to a broader set of American cultures than is typically found among commentators. I don’t really comment much because I rarely have anything to really add to the conversation.
2. I grew up in a very rural area of northwest Missouri (county population: roughly 6,000). I went out east for college, then moved to the SF Bay area, then returned to the Midwest for law school, finally settling in Chicago. I’ve never lived in a suburb.
1) I’ve been reading you for 8 years at least. I have no idea how I stumbled upon you, but I had to do a project in computational methods for phylogenetics as an application of some algorithm I was learning and I’m pretty sure I’ve found you when I was trying to familiarize myself with the subject.
2) I am a programming born and raised in São Paulo. I like reading interesting books. I probably keep reading you because you’re a source for me to look for interesting books
I like what you’re writing about as it is. But I am particularly fond of ancient DNA information and opinions.
I also like topics about China (I am learning Chinese and planning to visit the country), books, history (and books about history). I love mycology, but as far as I remember you’ve never written anything about it.
I am just 35 year old uneducated bum from Ukraine=) Trying to get into programming now, but it goes hard. If I will succeed I’ll try to get into biology (I was working in plant biology lab (phytohormonology) for couple years).
But is it okay if he explains “the mentality of psychology, cognition, and the interesting parts of the historical and pre-historical past” by the interaction of stuff, a.k.a. emergence?
Ditto on 1 and reverse on 2. Except that I don’t pile up new books but just wait for a mathematical messiah to teach me what I need to know. It’s cheaper.
1. I’ve been reading you since Usenet days, though I didn’t immediately transition to gnxp when you started it up. I mostly read you because it’s like crossfit for my somewhat intellectually lazy mind. I can keep up with the history and religion stuff, but most of the genetics outside of the broadest details are about 2-3 rungs above my ability to reach, particularly since I’m not mathematically inclined. I mostly read you because you’re far more informed and well read than most “public intellectuals”, yet you keep it at least semi-approachable to a non-specialist audience. Like I said, I may not get the whole story out of a genetics post, but I can at least get the broad details (hopefully without oversimplifying it in my mind).
As for what I’d possibly like to see more of? Well, you just spitballing new things, particularly things you don’t feel you have a mastery of, just pushing outside the comfort zone. Like reading a book about something you’d never looked into before and reporting on it from a novelty standpoint, like reading a book on urban planning or the history of the hamburger or a novel written by the most popular living Indonesian writer and placing them within your frame, no need for tons of previous context. Just random unexpected things every now and then.
2. As for myself, probably the most notable thing about me is I bet I’m the only security guard/restaurant dishwasher who reads gnxp.
1. I can’t remember how I first found your blog but I have been reading it since before I graduated college in 2006. From the early days, I admired your commitment to making commenters test out their own hunches on the GSS or whatever rather than just throwing out whatever unsupported intuitions they had. Also, like most everyone else, I enjoy getting insight into a broad range of topics from someone who rigorously hones their analysis through constant reading and writing. It’s kind of intellectual porn for me since I work a very non-science-y accounting job and need a regular dose of insight into the deeper “Why” of the world beyond spreadsheets. Just want to emphasize that although the modal reader is probably from a science background and has some level of professional interest, there’s also a sizable minority like me with no science background who still appreciate your writing. Anyways, your current mix is fine, and I’m actually enjoying the much more frequent but slightly less refined posts at the new blog.
I think I’ve passed on your earwax posts to friends more than anything else. As a white dude with dry earwax I have trouble explaining to acquaintances myself that (1) this is a real thing I’m not making up and (2) this is why I don’t wear deodorant.
2. I’ve never met anyone IRL who reads your blog. Just once I’d like to mention it in passing and have someone else go, “Oh, yeah, I read Gene Expression too. Great stuff.”
1) I read you because I am trying to form a more complete model to understand inequality in the US. I am a graduate student in Applied Linguistics, and, as this is an Education field, it is unfortunately taboo to say to my peers that part of the reason population X isn’t getting ahead MIGHT be because g and other factors relevant to success are at least partially genetically determined. So, I’m fortifying myself.
2) I gave this away in part already, but I’m an Applied Linguist working in China and studying at a university in the southeast US. My undergrad training was in philosophy.
1. I read you because:
– Your blog is a great place to keep up with the revolution happening at the intersection of pop genetics and history (in general sense, including pre-history.) We are truly living in remarkable times.
– Your cultural posts are insightful and often make interesting and unexpected connections.
– I appreciate your willingness to dive into “unfriendly” waters, such as Critical Theory recently, with intellectual integrity and without hackery.
– I like to keep up with intelligent exponents of conservative perspectives, although I am a Lefty and I mostly agree with what you say. Your trolling on Twitter annoys me a bit, but I guess that’s the point.
– You are just plain fun to read. Intellectual curiosity, analytical capacity, seemingly endless energy, exceptional memory (I really envy your recall) all expressed in clear, precise writing. What’s not to like?
2. Not sure what you or your readers would want to know about me. I was born in Russia, came to US when I was 13yo, have a grad degree in philosophy, had a good long career in software development, now own a cannabis company in Seattle. No kids of my own but have a very cool stepson.
I forgot great book recommendations.
Why I Read Razib Khan
I stumbled on Razib’s website very early on because I was googling for latest information on discoveries in human genetics. Initially I found a site that published abstracts on the topic. I would go straight to the conclusions because I’m not a scientist and don’t understand much of the statistical analysis. I believe this site was called GNXP or something like that. Razib’s site evolved into layman friendly range of topics written in essays with sprinkles of incomprehensible math and statistics which I skimmed through. I should mention that I am also interested in quantum physics, or the philosophy of quantum physics, as it relates to the existence of the universe. Why something and not nothing. I read as much of the popular writings on this subject as I can find and understand. I have also used Razib’s reading list to point me to interesting books on history, Albion’s Seed, for example. Another subject that has recently fascinated me is the writings about Kabbalah, a Jewish philosophy about ultimate matters of existence and man’s place in universe. Howard Smith wrote a book Let There Be Light about modern cosmology and Kabbalah, which is quite lovely as a literary as well as scientific and religious work.
My background in all things is quite humble. I have a B.S. in education. I have taught 4th and 5th grade. I am a 70 year old widow with 2 children and 4 grandchildren. I live in rural Illinois. If you saw me on the street you might mistake me for Aunt Bea from the Andy Griffith Show. I have always been a social outlier, although I can put on a good face and mix with the group. I worry about losing my mind to Alzheimer’s and want to learn as much as I can before it happens. I am so regretful that I will miss future discoveries especially in human history and cosmology. Thank you for letting me lurk.
1) I first found you because of historical genetics. Big fan of your broader history posts as well, for instance your post on Greater Khorasan opened up a whole new area of history for me. Partial to those topics and your takes on modern politics, but read nearly every post. Use your book list a great deal.
2) I’m anon, obviously, but I’ll say agnostic Midwest-US techie.
I read you mostly for your non-standard take on cultural issues (domestic and especially regarding the Muslim world). The genetics I enjoy but honestly it is not the main draw. The initial hook for me was indeed your writing on anthropology of religion (though I feel somewhat in the same boat as yourself – I’ve absorbed what I need to from that field, if I get a sense there are major new developments I’ll take a closer look).
My reading mind is much happier lately since you’ve started posting more. 🙂
PS, I am a neuroscientist, but am staying anon. because I prefer my online footprint to be small.
I read it because I like to hear another person’s take on the same things I am already reading or thinking about. And over the years I have really come to respect your usually very well informed opinions.
I have mixed feelings about your strict moderation of the comments.
On the one hand, it is nice to have mostly intelligent comments, even on controversial or difficult to understand subjects. I especially appreciate your promotion of textbooks and other sources to bring the interested people up to speed. It is a great service.
On the other hand, the lag between comments makes it a bit hard to maintain interest for very long. There is almost no way to maintain momentum on a topic.
I do also like how you actually take the time to respond thoughtfully about comments, unlike other bloggers (Greg Cochran) who usually just say “WRONG!”, when he in fact they have obviously not even bothered to set down their 8th glass of whiskey long enough to scroll down to read the entire comment.
[automoderation for people who have been approved has been enabled…so the latency should get better over time -Razib]
I read your blog because of your wide range of interests. No one in my social or work circles are interested in anything intellectual, so just reading the comments section is a form of dialogue I don’t get anywhere else. I’m glad you left Unz.com. The comments section is much better. I like how you moderate the comments, this is your blog.
I’m a liberal that works on Ft. Carson so it can be frustrating talking to people about pretty much anything. I’m not as adventurous as you with hot sauce, my go-to’s are Tapatio and Valentina.
Another lurker from Finland, have been following you since 2002.
I do miss the early days and the heated debates, but even though my own life is a bit of a mess your posts are one of the many little things that make life worth living.
PS I hope Godless Capitalist is doing fine.
[he is doing very well -razib]
I read you because you’re one of the very few HBD/genetics writers who isn’t some sort of racial supremacist. You simply tell the facts as they are. Thank you for this.
(Hate to put this in this comment, but I don’t know where else to put it so that you’ll see it. Do you have any thoughts on what Indian potential IQ is?)
I’m a Protestant and a mathematician. I most appreciate your expert exposition and opinions on current genetics research. My second-favorite content category here is history, especially non-Western history that I am less familiar with. These are the red meat that keep me coming back. Thoughts on politics, sociology, religion, etc. are more like popcorn. I admit to enjoying them, but try not to over-indulge.
My motive seconds that of several previous posters. I live in a university town in the deep South, with a social circle that is about half professors, half other professions. One would think that there would be intellectual fare aplenty in such environs, but outside their narrow academic and professional specialties few venture forth. They are wonderful people for the most part, and all in all I in am the right place, and lucky to be here. But to find generalist intellectual stimulation I have to turn to books and the internet. Your content is among the best I have found both in breadth and commentary. My only requests are a) keep going! and b) write on some subjects/books you’ve never touched on before. Ours is a one-sided conversation, but I’ll take it and be most glad.
I’m a pharmacist/ex-math & science teacher nearing retirement. Heavy CSA ancestry, wife probably only woman in the US who belongs to NOW *and* the NRA. Episcopalian, although more the “For the ashes of his fathers,/And the temples of his Gods” sort than from much concern over who is running the sim. My one huge regret in life is that I waited until my mid-thirties to be become a father -what a mind-boggling mistake!
1) I think I started reading you regularly around the time you started posting on discover. I came here via Dienekes’ blog, if I remember correctly. I quickly became a fan, you tackle most subjects I am interested in (population genetics of course, but also history, politics, and last but not least hot sauces) and do so in a very generous way, ie. I particularly appreciate that you write fairly long and thoughtful posts. Sometimes I am not too fond of how boastful or cavalier you can be (posts about gym achievements for instance), but that most likely boils down to personality and cultural differences.
2) I am a 28 year old French guy who has lived 8 years in Australia and has been back in France for about a year. I hold an MFA and am an artist working with video mostly, although I’ve never lived off my art (not even close, I’ve worked teaching languages, as a photographer’s assistant, as a call centre worker). I am currently in the process of taking the agregation (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agr%C3%A9gation) in English in order to finally have a satisfying full-time job.
Coming from the art world, where Critical Theory* is gospel and science is seen at best as aesthetically inspiring wizardry and at worst as cis-white patriarchy’s finest weapon of oppression (and oh do they love to bring Kuhn out to back up their claims), your blog helps me keep a balanced perspective on things and often supports a lot of my intuitions that however i wouldn’t share around me, out of fear of being ostracised. That said, and while a lot of people in the art world see me as being somewhat conservative, I am undeniably left-wing and very progressive in outlook. I dare even say, much more than the tribalistic virtue-signallers among my peers.
My greatest regret in life is not to have gone to study biology and genetics at university. If I won at the lottery it would be the very first thing I’d do. In the meantime reading your blog and a few others keeps my vicarious appetites sated.
*as someone has mentioned before, your posts tackling CT were very good and quite fair. CT is also undeniably inspiring and productive when it comes to understanding every related to art (producing it, viewing it…), reading Barthes, Adorno, Deleuze or Foucault was crucial for me and what I do. However I don’t think it is as relevant when it comes to “real life”.
I recall first reading you while I was living in Japan, so it has to have been prior to 2005. I believe I followed a link on Instapundit. I am a protestant Christian of a fairly conservative type. I studied agriculture with a strong focus on genetics back in the early 1980s, thinking I was going to go into breeding. Alas, I ended up teaching English for the next 15 years. I am now a critical care nurse. I was happy to get back into something related to the sciences, and it was actually stimulating to retake all those core bio and chem classes prerequisite to nursing school.
I read here for the wide range of interesting topics, so I hope you don’t narrow your focus too much. Almost all of your posts are worth at least a skim, and many of them require a careful read including the comments. I like the history and pop genetics posts the most.
I strongly appreciate your carefully moderated comment section. Left to run wild, comments quickly devolve into uselessness. I comment rarely, since there is seldom anything I know enough about to add value for other people.
[nice to know u still read tom. did not realize u were no longer in japan -razib]
1. I have known you via Sepia Mutiny and been reading you since everywhere (gnxp, Science blogs, Discover, UNZ, brown pundits). As others have said, it is the no nonsense attitude towards the truth that made me keep reading. I am interested in your posts about ancient history, population genetics, religion and psychology.
2. I am a civil engineer (hi Sandgroper), but of the research-kind with specialization in probability and risk. Moved to several places as researcher but left academia for day job that involves heavy data analysis (R and moving towards Python with Pandas) and structural mechanics.
I hope that Khans 2 & 3 have evened out the average contribution of their paternal grand mother DNA to 1/4. Also, hope that you are enjoying the cuteness and data re. differences between Khan-1 and Khan-2 in behaviour and its correlation to their DNA.
Patiently waiting for some kind of reference post on where we are at in terms of aDNA (e.g. sites where it is found, what is found, and what we can say based on that and what CHG, EHG, ANE etc etc are referring to, is ANI part of ANE?). Most of eurogenes posts are inside baseball.
2. I’m an economist, academic (approaching retirement) and blogger. Canadian, originally British.
1. Don’t take this the wrong way: I don’t actually know why I read you. One’s own motives for doing things aren’t always transparent. But I have been reading you, and have enjoyed reading you, for about 8 or so years now. I think it’s because you are very intelligent and widely-read and an independent thinker, and write about things that interest me and are important but which I know little about. Genetics, evolution, big-picture history (and their interdependence) especially. Some/many of your posts go over my head; but that’s OK.