Substack cometh, and lo it is good. (Pricing)

Open Thread, 10/21/2018

You may have noticed I haven’t been posting much. Busy with other things, like ASHG, work, family, etc. I don’t normally post “won’t be posting often” notices, as no one really cares much about blogs…but when I go into lower production mode people sometimes worry. No reason to worry.

Tim Blanning’s Frederick the Great: King of Prussia is an excellent book. So is The Pursuit of Glory: The Five Revolutions that Made Modern Europe: 1648-1815. Finally, Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600–1947. One of the most interesting things about Frederick the Great: King of Prussia is how Blanning recounts the importance of personally playing and repeatedly listening to music in the life of the German monarch. He was apparently a very competent flutist.

There was talk about ASHG about the Amy Harmon article, Why White Supremacists Are Chugging Milk (and Why Geneticists Are Alarmed). It seems most of the geneticists I know personally were contacted by Harmon at some point over the last two years. A lot of work went into this. Many of our quotes were obviously not used. That’s called journalism.

There was a period when many frog-Nazis were on Twitter brandishing a particular STRUCTURE bar plot (since frog-Nazism has been severely purged by Twitter I see this far less often). I understand that many journalists and people of the “chattering-thinking” classes are strongly influenced by what they see on Twitter in terms of their perception of what’s going on in the world.

Additionally, to be honest for many white people racism is somewhat an abstraction. They need to make recourse to instrumental variables. The SNL election night sketch which shows white liberals talking about how it’s never been so bad, and black comedians nodding along, illustrates a real trend, and that is that many white liberals feel like there has been a massive upsurge of racism over the past few years.* But as a nonwhite person who has lived in this country since the early 1980s, it is clear that America is far less racist than it was back then, and our society has been defined by a gradual decrease in racial prejudice. White support for laws banning interracial marriage went from about 25% in the 1980s to 10% in 2002, when the question stopped being asked because it was such a marginal viewpoint.

A story about the social and political of implications evolutionary population genetics is a reasonable one. And, it might make a somewhat interesting academic paper as well. But the prominence of this piece to me cuts to a deep disagreement about the nature of racial conflict and difference within human societies. Immanuel Kant’s abstract and intellectual reflections on race may be alarmingly white supremacist to many moderns, but the profitable character of exploitation of sugar and the utility of slavery in the West Indies, and the rise of the West in a much more robust manner as signified by the McCartney Mission in the 1790s, was far more important in shaping the emergence of a very vigorous white supremacist ideology in the late 19th century which culminated in Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard.

I enjoy discourses on the intersection of race and genetics as much as the next person. I write them myself. But the most concrete thing I can do for the “racial question” is what I’m doing already: participating in the amalgamation of very distinct pedigrees and producing Americans related to a much larger fraction of the world’s population. White Americans who believe in the cause of racial social justice and anti-racism can do something very easily if they so choose: select a non-white partner and produce mixed children. If you are already partnered up, encourage your children to do so. This will make a bigger difference than retweeting how great diversity is, while not living it in your own life. For white progressives, do understand that your nonwhite allies notice the overwhelming pallor of the types of people who become and remain your intimates. You spend an afternoon on a racially diverse panel. Why not spend life in a racially diverse manner? Because I am a political outsider to these issues nonwhites probably feel more comfortable telling me how they perceive you don’t have much skin in the game. An ounce of action is worth a pound of talk (also, you can proactively give money to nonwhite people from your own disposable income).

The above is not a troll at all. I’m not the sort of person who thinks that the type of person another human being becomes friends with, or partners with, is my business. Do as you wish. But if you accept the premises of most forms of anti-racist talk, then Norman Podhoretz’s 1963 essay which enjoins action still applies.

The Uralic podcast is up. Brown Pundits now have a podcast.

This Elizabeth Warren fact-check by the Daily Caller Foundation’s Emily Larsen is pretty good. Having to listen to political pundits talk about ancestry testing all week has been painful. More need for education….

ASHG photo that I find most amusing.

As most of you probably know, the human genome still has gaps. I felt this year more people talked about those gaps, and how to fill them in. Also, lots of African genetics (this was by plan).

May write some more tutorials soon. Depends on the time.

The Slow Burn podcast ended with talking about Juanita Broderick. The Broderick allegations really have shot into prominence over the last few years. But if the Republicans knew about them in detail, that does make their determination to impeach Bill Clinton far more comprehensible.

I don’t have much to say about the Khashoggi thing you haven’t heard elsewhere.

A new analysis of CEU mutation rates is there is an age effect, most mutations are paternal, and, there might be variation in increases in mutations with older individuals by family.

* Most of my white friends tend to point to particular media anecdotes. As a nonwhite person I have not perceived any difference, and I travel in various parts of the country. Your experience may vary.

18 thoughts on “Open Thread, 10/21/2018

  1. Nice to see that you’re back. What happened as ASHG ? Anything exciting that you might want to share ? Did you meet up with Niraj Rai ?

  2. Razib,

    Noticed on Twitter you claimed Nathan J Robinson of Current Affairs had slandered you as a racist. I tried searching online for that interaction but couldn’t find it. Do you recall where he said/wrote those words?

    Riordan

  3. many white liberals feel like there has been a massive upsurge of racism over the past few years

    Moving goalposts.

  4. “I don’t have much to say about the Khashoggi thing you haven’t heard elsewhere” is an example of how you’re substantially better to read than the vast majority of people opining online. It shouldn’t seem remarkable that someone refrains from commenting when they don’t have anything to add, but it does.

  5. “… if the Republicans knew about them in detail, that does make their determination to impeach Bill Clinton far more comprehensible.”

    By late 1998, Broderick’s allegations were known by anybody who was an adult and who was bothering to pay attention. They weren’t refuted. They were simply ignored.

    Christopher Hitchens, himself no right-winger, had a lot to say about it all: https://www.amazon.com/One-Left-Lie-Triangulations-Jefferson/dp/1455522996

  6. “shows white liberals talking about how it’s never been so bad, and black comedians nodding along, illustrates a real trend, and that is that many white liberals feel like there has been a massive upsurge of racism over the past few years.”
    It’s vitally important to create a narrative of increased racial hostility. There is no better way to keep minorities on the political reservation than by telling them you’re their only hope against destruction. It also gives white liberal supporters license to hate the “racists” (anyone who holds alternative beliefs, working class, etc.), and keep them politically white hot.

  7. Noticed on Twitter you claimed Nathan J Robinson of Current Affairs had slandered you as a racist. I tried searching online for that interaction but couldn’t find it. Do you recall where he said/wrote those words?

    current affairs attacked hillbilly elegy cuz it cited me, as i’m a racist.

    also, scott of slatestar and julia galef both claim he misrepresents the positions of his interlocutors. their word is good enuf for me (i know both personally and they are ppl with integrity).

  8. “how you’re substantially better to read than the vast majority of people opining online. It shouldn’t seem remarkable that someone refrains from commenting when they don’t have anything to add, but it does.”

    Strikes me as a mark of maturity as well (which is sadly lacking in these modern times). It is important to realize when you have nothing more to say, and say anything else just adds to the noise.

  9. “the ‘australiasian’ signal found in amazonians not found in any of these ancient siberian samples so far.”

    From your twitter

    Is this signal found in any non-australasian population, excluding the asian islanders?

  10. Sorry to see Razib equating diversity with lack of distinction. If diversity is good, a country/world without ethnicities is a worse world. In the 60s, Podhoretz could promote miscegenation because the racial problem was seen as problems of behavior and feeling on a personal level, as his essay amply demonstrates. He doesn’t have to make obeisance to The Axiom.

    On a slightly different note, the universal miscegenation plan doesn’t take into account the fact that not everyone gets their kicks from science. For many people, ethnic rituals and identities are sources of pleasure alternative to the bread and circuses of consumer behavior.

  11. You might at least have mentioned the downsides of miscegenation, Razib. You know what they are–at least when taken to its logical extreme of total global admixture. The result is much lower genetic diversity (phenotypically speaking) and a much lower number of high IQ individuals (from whom all real progress arises). There are few prospects that strike me a grimmer and, indeed, more illiberal than a genetically (and therefore, in the end, culturally) homogenized human species.

    The zeitgeist already pushes race mixing with enough ignorant gusto; for a geneticist-historian to chip in with more moralisms and no science contributes a Buzzfeed’s worth of value.

  12. The result is much lower genetic diversity (phenotypically speaking) and a much lower number of high IQ individuals (from whom all real progress arises). There are few prospects that strike me a grimmer and, indeed, more illiberal than a genetically (and therefore, in the end, culturally) homogenized human species.

    your whole comment is moronic asshole. lower genetic diversity “phenotypically speaking” is not even wrong. the species would not be homogenized. i’ve blogged on this enuf times, so you obviously are too stupid to understand.

Comments are closed.