Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Yo mama's mama's mama's mama: our understanding of human origins

razib.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 95 posts

Re: Yo mama's mama's mama's mama: our understanding of human origins

#81

Post by rayiner »

culi wrote: post #73
rayiner wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s clearly not arguing that, but maybe you’re angry at him because some of his other points hit too close to home for you? > These include many people who I know personally, who are diversity loving progressives, but who seem to fall into the trap of disaggregation. Since I don't love diversity and don't care about that issue I don't bring it up with them often. But it's what I call a revealed preference. Or, to gi…

yeah ok > And one last thing: I am sure no one who reads VDARE has watched any pornography of late, but if anyone would care to, they would find that the only class of women that rivals busty blondes in disproportionate numbers in American pornography is East Asian females. Unlike brunette European females, Asian females don't look particularly impressive when blonded in my opinion, and the fact that few Asian female…

Razib is really courting controversy by observing that men find blondes and East asian women particularly attractive.

Re: Yo mama's mama's mama's mama: our understanding of human origins

#82

Post by clavicat »

throwaway4666 wrote: post #13
traject_ wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Africans do have Neanderthal DNA, up to 0.3%. That ancestry comes from later interactions with West Eurasians and is at trace levels compared to the substantial 2-3% in non-Africans. This does not change the point that non-Africans received input from Neanderthals just before expansion outwards. >The post tries very hard to make it look like 'Out of Africa' is wrong and not the mainstream accepted by the majority of…

The science is constantly evolving to this very day on the supposedly 'trace levels' of Neanderthal DNA in Africans (especially as we gather a more diverse range of cohorts) so I'll leave it at that. I just want to comment on this: opposing 'scientific racism' is an ideological claim now?! The dude has a pretty large record making claims about race and IQ and 'human biodiversity', works in an industry that's banking…

It’s undeniable that racial egalitarianism is part and parcel of the ideological complex of the postwar world and its attendant ethical commitments also shape our scientific discourse. It might be correct in its claims, but anti-racism can absolutely form the basis for an ideology just like its opposite can.

The New Yorker published [a decent article](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressiv...) recently about a geneticist—not a “race scientist”—who has to contend with hysterical, hyperbolic backlash from progressive scholars for simply exploring the genetic components of human behavior. The fear is that her work will somehow rationalize racial and sexual inequalities, so it must be suppressed.

>“There will be no reason to pursue these types of research programs at all, and they can be rendered to the same location as Holocaust denial research.” By the time he wrote again, several hours later, one of Harden’s few supporters among the fellows had changed the thread’s subject line from “new genetics paper” to “Seriously? Holocaust deniers?” Darity responded, “I feel just as strongly that we should not keep the notions that the world is 6000 years old or that climate change is a fabrication under consideration.”

What is that if not pure ideology?

Re: Yo mama's mama's mama's mama: our understanding of human origins

#83

Post by proxyon »

throwaway4666 wrote: post #9
Zigurd wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is his page on the takimag site: https://www.takimag.com/contributor/razibkhan/130/ Decide for yourself if he is a "scientific racist." Takimag is not shy about stuff like that.

Ah, he also believes in "Ashkenazi IQ" stuff. And is best friends with Greg Cochran who thinks homosexuality is caught by germs. Very instructive stuff

Do you have an actual refutation for Ashkenazi IQ or are you simply using it as a cheap smear?

Re: Yo mama's mama's mama's mama: our understanding of human origins

#84

Post by rayiner »

bsanr wrote: post #72
traject_ wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The science is constantly evolving to this very day on the supposedly 'trace levels' of Neanderthal DNA in Africans (especially as we gather a more diverse range of cohorts) so I'll leave it at that. No, the trace levels of Neanderthal DNA in Africans is very unlikely to change by gathering more diverse range of cohorts. It is a matter of identifying major strands of ancestry within Africans (by admixture over thou…

>No, the trace levels of Neanderthal DNA in Africans is very unlikely to change by gathering more diverse range of cohorts. Black Americans? Broad pronouncements like this square... strangely... with the ginger whiskers I see every time I look in the mirror. What is the value of slightly more Neanderthal DNA, anyway?

> Black Americans? Broad pronouncements like this square... strangely... with the ginger whiskers I see every time I look in the mirror.

Who aren’t Africans, but for the most part are of mixed background of Africans and Europeans in the last 500 years.

> What is the value of slightly more Neanderthal DNA, anyway?

There isn’t any, which is why it’s odd anyone is getting defensive about it. It just validates particular models of human expansion out of Africa.

Re: Yo mama's mama's mama's mama: our understanding of human origins

#85

Post by xyzzyz »

rayiner wrote: post #84
bsanr wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No, the trace levels of Neanderthal DNA in Africans is very unlikely to change by gathering more diverse range of cohorts. Black Americans? Broad pronouncements like this square... strangely... with the ginger whiskers I see every time I look in the mirror. What is the value of slightly more Neanderthal DNA, anyway?

> Black Americans? Broad pronouncements like this square... strangely... with the ginger whiskers I see every time I look in the mirror. Who aren’t Africans, but for the most part are of mixed background of Africans and Europeans in the last 500 years. > What is the value of slightly more Neanderthal DNA, anyway? There isn’t any, which is why it’s odd anyone is getting defensive about it. It just validates particular…

> There isn’t any

I don’t think we can confidently state that currently. Given that substantial amount of admixture persisted so many generations, it is quite possible that there has been at least some evolutionary advantage associated with it. The rest of your comment, however, is correct: we have no reason to believe that humans with bigger admixture derive huge value from it today, and no reason to be defensive about not having it.

Re: Yo mama's mama's mama's mama: our understanding of human origins

#86

Post by ryrymcfly »

singularity2001 wrote: post #80
spot5010 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: Why pick Charlemagne as an example here? The statement “Everyone is a descendent of X” is true for a lot of people who lived around that time and had descendants, no? Is Charlemagne chosen because he was a notable person of that era?

I fully agree with you. Picking Charlemagne is completely misleading. I don't know why this paradoxon of genetics formed around this persona, maybe to overcome initial disbelief.

Well considering this has most likely an English origin, it would make sense that someone one of suitably distant but recognizable heritage would be chosen. The English and French has a long history of rivalry so there might have been a joke in there.

Re: Yo mama's mama's mama's mama: our understanding of human origins

#87

Post by bsanr »

rayiner wrote: post #84
bsanr wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No, the trace levels of Neanderthal DNA in Africans is very unlikely to change by gathering more diverse range of cohorts. Black Americans? Broad pronouncements like this square... strangely... with the ginger whiskers I see every time I look in the mirror. What is the value of slightly more Neanderthal DNA, anyway?

> Black Americans? Broad pronouncements like this square... strangely... with the ginger whiskers I see every time I look in the mirror. Who aren’t Africans, but for the most part are of mixed background of Africans and Europeans in the last 500 years. > What is the value of slightly more Neanderthal DNA, anyway? There isn’t any, which is why it’s odd anyone is getting defensive about it. It just validates particular…

>Who aren’t Africans, but for the most part are of mixed background of Africans and Europeans in the last 500 years.

Again, broad pronouncements like this square... strangely... with my skin color and facial features. I think you'll find it a hard sell to much of this country, within and without the scientific community, that black African-Americans are not... you know, African. To an extent. For different reasons, depending on who you ask, of course.

>Which is why it’s odd anyone is getting defensive about it.

Assuming that you're an American, the notion that you don't understand the defensiveness strains credulity. It validates quite a bit more in the eyes of some.

Re: Yo mama's mama's mama's mama: our understanding of human origins

#88

Post by rayiner »

bsanr wrote: post #87
rayiner wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Black Americans? Broad pronouncements like this square... strangely... with the ginger whiskers I see every time I look in the mirror. Who aren’t Africans, but for the most part are of mixed background of Africans and Europeans in the last 500 years. > What is the value of slightly more Neanderthal DNA, anyway? There isn’t any, which is why it’s odd anyone is getting defensive about it. It just validates particular…

>Who aren’t Africans, but for the most part are of mixed background of Africans and Europeans in the last 500 years. Again, broad pronouncements like this square... strangely... with my skin color and facial features. I think you'll find it a hard sell to much of this country, within and without the scientific community, that black African-Americans are not... you know, African. To an extent. For different reasons, d…

> Again, broad pronouncements like this square... strangely... with my skin color and facial features. I think you'll find it a hard sell to much of this country, within and without the scientific community, that black African-Americans are not... you know, African.

The average Black American is almost 1/4 European descent due to mixing that occurred recently. My son has light brown hair—because his mom is Irish and Dutch. They’re irrelevant to a discussion of the genetics of Bangladeshis.

> Assuming that you're an American, the notion that you don't understand the defensiveness strains credulity. It validates quite a bit more in the eyes of some.

Those folks need their eyes checked.

Re: Yo mama's mama's mama's mama: our understanding of human origins

#89

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #81
culi wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah ok > And one last thing: I am sure no one who reads VDARE has watched any pornography of late, but if anyone would care to, they would find that the only class of women that rivals busty blondes in disproportionate numbers in American pornography is East Asian females. Unlike brunette European females, Asian females don't look particularly impressive when blonded in my opinion, and the fact that few Asian female…

Razib is really courting controversy by observing that men find blondes and East asian women particularly attractive.

It's a bit of a weird look to try to rehabilitate an argument that is literally being made under the VDARE masthead. We don't so much have to dissect the spirit in which that kind of writing is made.

Re: Yo mama's mama's mama's mama: our understanding of human origins

#90

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #89
rayiner wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Razib is really courting controversy by observing that men find blondes and East asian women particularly attractive.

It's a bit of a weird look to try to rehabilitate an argument that is literally being made under the VDARE masthead . We don't so much have to dissect the spirit in which that kind of writing is made.

Razib is a bit of an edge lord, but I think he gets an unfair amount of flak for challenging white American notions of race and culture. I haven’t read that website, but I assume @Culi brought forth his best evidence, and there’s just nothing damning in the quoted material. East Asians think white people are thick and age poorly? Men find blondes and Asian women especially attractive? This isn’t even the top half of controversial things my Taiwanese and Chinese friends would say.
Post reply on HN