—“Lewontin and Gould were Marxist biologists who were so shameless about their ideology shaping their research that even left-leaning colleagues like Dawkins called them out.”— Matthew GenackLewontin: ‘greater variation within than across groups’ Gould: ‘mismeasure of man – cranium size is irrelevant’ What is “Lewontin’s Fallacy”? By Justin Smith, PhD Genetics and Heredity, Stanford University (2016) This is copied directly from Wikipedia but I think explains it well. Basically Lewontin’s argument was that because common genetic variation varies more between individuals than between races, race/ethnicitiy doesn’t really mean anything biologically, and that races/ethnicities aren’t real genetic categories. Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin’s Fallacy “Lewontin’s argument In the 1972 study “The Apportionment of Human Diversity”, Richard Lewontin performed a fixation index (FST) statistical analysis using 17 markers, including blood group proteins, from individuals across classically defined “races” (Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, and, Australian Aborigines). He found that the majority of the total genetic variation between humans (i.e., of the 0.1% of DNA that varies between individuals), 85.4%, is found within populations, 8.3% of the variation is found between populations within a “race”, and only 6.3% was found to account for the racial classification. Numerous later studies have confirmed his findings.[5] Based on this analysis, Lewontin concluded, “Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance.” This argument has been cited as evidence that racial categories are biologically meaningless, and that behavioral differences between groups cannot have any genetic underpinnings.[6] One example is the “Statement on ‘Race’” published by the American Anthropological Association in 1998, which rejected the existence of races as unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups.[7] Edwards’ critique: Edwards argued that while Lewontin’s statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different alleles (variants of a particular gene) at an individual locus (the location of a particular gene) between individuals, it is nonetheless possible to classify individuals into different racial groups with an accuracy that approaches 100 percent when one takes into account the frequency of the alleles at several loci at the same time. This happens because differences in the frequency of alleles at different loci are correlated across populations — the alleles that are more frequent in a population at two or more loci are correlated when we consider the two populations simultaneously. Or in other words, the frequency of the alleles tends to cluster differently for different populations.[8] In Edwards’s words, “most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data.” These relationships can be extracted using commonly used ordination and cluster analysis techniques. Edwards argued that, even if the probability of misclassifying an individual based on the frequency of alleles at a single locus is as high as 30 percent (as Lewontin reported in 1972), the misclassification probability becomes close to zero if enough loci are studied.[9] Edwards’s paper stated that the underlying logic was discussed in the early years of the 20th century. Edwards wrote that he and Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza had presented a contrasting analysis to Lewontin’s, using very similar data, already at the 1963 International Congress of Genetics. Lewontin participated in the conference but did not refer to this in his later paper. Edwards argued that Lewontin used his analysis to attack human classification in science for social reasons.[9]” There are also real traits that vary a lot my ethnicity. Another argument against the Lewontin’s argument has to with rare or functional variation. For example sickle cell anemia is much more prevalent in subsaharan african populations than in the rest of the human population, and cystic fibrosis is much more prevalent in european populations than in the rest of the world.
Form: Quote Commentary
-
Revoking the Legitimacy of A Monarchy (sovereign)
—“What legal grounds can the legitimacy of the extant commonwealth sovereign (the Queen of England) be revoked?”— A Friend There are only three conditions: 1 – If you hold a constitution of natural law (like the USA, and less so the UK), then for the systemic violation of that law (this is the virtue of absolute constitutions). 2 – if you do not hold a constitution of natural, then for the systemic violation of that constitution. (This is the problem with populist constitutions). 3 – If the sovereign attempts to alter the constitution without a substantive (natural law/common law juridical), or legislative procedural (continental), or populist (democratic approval) justification. And the three criteria are: Treason(conspiracy), Usurpation, Circumvention. Ill judgement is not a criteria. Disagreement is not a criteria. The purpose of the monarchy remains, as does do lords in the UK, Senate under the old US constitution, Judiciary in the current US constitution, defenses against the ‘populism’ of the people. This is the best defenese against the ‘passions’ of the people. (ignorance and folly) The second best defense against misrule by the people is the demand for reversibility and restitution for bad policy, legislation, and law. This has not been yet implemented in a constitution that I know of but it would end most nonsense debates by warranty (“skin in the game”). I have never seen another reason to revoke the legitimacy of a sovereign, only to replace the sovereign. The process of replacing a sovereign is quite simple and common: Regicide. Regicide is most often performed by members of the royal family, out of familial defense from the public anger at a monarch. Let us recall that anglos have the longest continuous governments extant for the very simple reason that our governments from time immemorial out of necessity of dependence upon the militia for defense (and aggression), is contractualism. And that while we have had many civil wars in our history on both sides of the atlantic, the only substantive change to prevent them and to end them has required modification of the written contract that limits the powers of the government over the militia (citizenry). (Populist Brits are insane. Monarchies are priceless assets.)
-
Revoking the Legitimacy of A Monarchy (sovereign)
—“What legal grounds can the legitimacy of the extant commonwealth sovereign (the Queen of England) be revoked?”— A Friend There are only three conditions: 1 – If you hold a constitution of natural law (like the USA, and less so the UK), then for the systemic violation of that law (this is the virtue of absolute constitutions). 2 – if you do not hold a constitution of natural, then for the systemic violation of that constitution. (This is the problem with populist constitutions). 3 – If the sovereign attempts to alter the constitution without a substantive (natural law/common law juridical), or legislative procedural (continental), or populist (democratic approval) justification. And the three criteria are: Treason(conspiracy), Usurpation, Circumvention. Ill judgement is not a criteria. Disagreement is not a criteria. The purpose of the monarchy remains, as does do lords in the UK, Senate under the old US constitution, Judiciary in the current US constitution, defenses against the ‘populism’ of the people. This is the best defenese against the ‘passions’ of the people. (ignorance and folly) The second best defense against misrule by the people is the demand for reversibility and restitution for bad policy, legislation, and law. This has not been yet implemented in a constitution that I know of but it would end most nonsense debates by warranty (“skin in the game”). I have never seen another reason to revoke the legitimacy of a sovereign, only to replace the sovereign. The process of replacing a sovereign is quite simple and common: Regicide. Regicide is most often performed by members of the royal family, out of familial defense from the public anger at a monarch. Let us recall that anglos have the longest continuous governments extant for the very simple reason that our governments from time immemorial out of necessity of dependence upon the militia for defense (and aggression), is contractualism. And that while we have had many civil wars in our history on both sides of the atlantic, the only substantive change to prevent them and to end them has required modification of the written contract that limits the powers of the government over the militia (citizenry). (Populist Brits are insane. Monarchies are priceless assets.)
-
Stupid: The Short Obvious, Selfish, Moron-Route to Political Change
—“What’s your position on mixing?”— Which question are you asking me? As a jurist of natural law? As a public intellectual practicing political economy seeking political solutions to optimum flourishing? Or as an anglo northern european man seeking the intersets of my people? Or as a man who loves his kinfolk first and foremost? As a jurist of natural law it is a question for a polity to choose mixing or not, since underclass mixing seems to be as beneficial as working, middle, and upper class race mixing is counter-productive. And as such the optimum conditions for all are to create many states, that produce commons that reflect the interests of the people who live in them. Nationalism is in the interests of all people. As a public intellectual it’s clearly superior politically and economically to create homogenous nation states. For my people as for all other peoples. As a northern european, I prefer others of my kin don’t mix, and I want my people and civilization to survive, and prosper. Just as I do for all other peoples. As an individual, am certain that I don’t choose to mix (and I have tried). But as such I won’t choose for all other peoples. DEMONSTRATED PREFERENCE But I dont just talk about it – I demonstrated that I prefer to live in a traditional, religious, homogenous country. Although, I would prefer to live in old new england, or old england, or old normandy, old netherlands, or maybe old denmark if I could – since those are the origins of my people. But due to conquest by french, cosmopolitans, and marxists, I cannot do so. RECIPROCITY But I will not force the choice for others. Only prevent others from making the choice for me and those that agree with me. Any man who will work to help me make a nation for me and mine, I will by reciprocity help to make a nation for he and his. Any man who seeks to stop me and mine from creating a nation that provides the optimum for our kin interests is an enemy and I will work against him at the cost of my life and his. NATURAL LAW ON INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION Under natural law, heterogeneity is not a choice that is open to restitution (repair) and therefore involuntary imposition is against the law of nature and of men, and as such must be prosecuted, and the only restitution for genocide is genocide – a consequence for which western politicians should tremble and fear. All men who fight for nationalism are our brothers in arms. All others are merely obstacles to be ended. Revolt. Separate. Prosper. Speciate. CRITICISM OF THE MAN IN THE MIRROR You have simple answers if you’re a simple person with simple responsibilities, particularly if you are only vaguely responsible for yourself. Those of us who are more sophisticated, more able, with wider affect, and broader responsibilities, who work to take responsibilities for tribe, nation, race, and mankind have more sophisticated answers. Don’t equate us other than in our interests. In my world I work for in the intersets of the common moral people, and against the interests of parasites and fools. ***Is that clear enough (you f-cking idiot). WN is trash because only fucking morons are stupid enough to take the short obvious, selfish, moron-route to political change.***
-
Stupid: The Short Obvious, Selfish, Moron-Route to Political Change
—“What’s your position on mixing?”— Which question are you asking me? As a jurist of natural law? As a public intellectual practicing political economy seeking political solutions to optimum flourishing? Or as an anglo northern european man seeking the intersets of my people? Or as a man who loves his kinfolk first and foremost? As a jurist of natural law it is a question for a polity to choose mixing or not, since underclass mixing seems to be as beneficial as working, middle, and upper class race mixing is counter-productive. And as such the optimum conditions for all are to create many states, that produce commons that reflect the interests of the people who live in them. Nationalism is in the interests of all people. As a public intellectual it’s clearly superior politically and economically to create homogenous nation states. For my people as for all other peoples. As a northern european, I prefer others of my kin don’t mix, and I want my people and civilization to survive, and prosper. Just as I do for all other peoples. As an individual, am certain that I don’t choose to mix (and I have tried). But as such I won’t choose for all other peoples. DEMONSTRATED PREFERENCE But I dont just talk about it – I demonstrated that I prefer to live in a traditional, religious, homogenous country. Although, I would prefer to live in old new england, or old england, or old normandy, old netherlands, or maybe old denmark if I could – since those are the origins of my people. But due to conquest by french, cosmopolitans, and marxists, I cannot do so. RECIPROCITY But I will not force the choice for others. Only prevent others from making the choice for me and those that agree with me. Any man who will work to help me make a nation for me and mine, I will by reciprocity help to make a nation for he and his. Any man who seeks to stop me and mine from creating a nation that provides the optimum for our kin interests is an enemy and I will work against him at the cost of my life and his. NATURAL LAW ON INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION Under natural law, heterogeneity is not a choice that is open to restitution (repair) and therefore involuntary imposition is against the law of nature and of men, and as such must be prosecuted, and the only restitution for genocide is genocide – a consequence for which western politicians should tremble and fear. All men who fight for nationalism are our brothers in arms. All others are merely obstacles to be ended. Revolt. Separate. Prosper. Speciate. CRITICISM OF THE MAN IN THE MIRROR You have simple answers if you’re a simple person with simple responsibilities, particularly if you are only vaguely responsible for yourself. Those of us who are more sophisticated, more able, with wider affect, and broader responsibilities, who work to take responsibilities for tribe, nation, race, and mankind have more sophisticated answers. Don’t equate us other than in our interests. In my world I work for in the intersets of the common moral people, and against the interests of parasites and fools. ***Is that clear enough (you f-cking idiot). WN is trash because only fucking morons are stupid enough to take the short obvious, selfish, moron-route to political change.***
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. —“Why should I be barred from contributing
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
—“Why should I be barred from contributing to the growth of another who would in turn contribute to my own growth?”— Bennard Ebanks
When doing so imposes costs upon others by externality, who tolerate your presence only under the condition that you do not do so.
Groups differ in the degree of suppression of externalization of costs. High trust high performance, homogenous polities are intolerant – and because they are, they have the choice. Low trust, heterogeneous, low performing are tolerant. Because they have no other choice.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 16:07:19 UTC
-
WHY KEEP DACHAS (VILLAGE FAMILY MICRO-FARMS) —“The broader and stronger your c
WHY KEEP DACHAS (VILLAGE FAMILY MICRO-FARMS)
—“The broader and stronger your confidence and capacity to sustain yourself, in all the various forms of sustenance, the fewer and weaker the incentives to parasitize, in all the various forms of parasitism.”— Luke Weinhagen
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 15:55:00 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post. EUGENICS VS. DYSGENICS by Ely Harman Eugenics is t
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
EUGENICS VS. DYSGENICS
by Ely Harman
Eugenics is the tendency of genes to get “better.” It relates to politics because all policies are either Eugenic, they tend to make genes better, or they are “dysgenic,” they tend to make genes “worse.”
I understand the definitions of “better” or “worse” are going to be a stumbling block for most people, since they seem kind of subjective. But I believe they have more or less objective definitions, at least as related to policy. A policy is eugenic if it selects for the genes that enable the policy to be carried into effect. And it is dysgenic if it selects for genes that disrupt, retard or arrest the policy itself or against genes that the policy relies upon.
E.g. Insisting people feed themselves is a eugenic policy because it selects for people who can feed themselves, and against people who can’t. There is no systemic failure mode. Things only get better over time as individuals who fail to feed themselves remove their failure genes from the gene pool. But feeding people is a dysgenic policy because it selects for people who can’t feed themselves and against people who can feed them (the ability to feed people who can’t feed themselves becomes a burden, risk, and cost, because it carries the obligation to do so.) Thus, the latter policy will tend to break down over time as people who can’t feed themselves proliferate and the people who can feed them are consumed. But a eugenic policy can be maintained indefinitely and be built upon continuously.
Put another way, Eugenia is the gradual, sustainable, accumulation and inprovement of genetic capital, that can be built upon with further improvements, while dysgenia is its consumption for the short term propagation of defective garbage.
Accumulation vs. consumption. Production vs. parasitism. Eugenia vs. dysgenia.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 12:35:03 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. —“Lewontin and Gould were Marxist biologist
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
—“Lewontin and Gould were Marxist biologists who were so shameless about their ideology shaping their research that even left-leaning colleagues like Dawkins called them out.”— Matthew Genack
Lewontin: ‘greater variation within than across groups’
Gould: ‘mismeasure of man – cranium size is irrelevant’
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 11:52:28 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. What is “Lewontin’s Fallacy”? By Justin Smith
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
What is “Lewontin’s Fallacy”?
By Justin Smith, PhD Genetics and Heredity, Stanford University (2016)
This is copied directly from Wikipedia but I think explains it well. Basically Lewontin’s argument was that because common genetic variation varies more between individuals than between races, race/ethnicitiy doesn’t really mean anything biologically, and that races/ethnicities aren’t real genetic categories.
Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin’s Fallacy
“Lewontin’s argument
In the 1972 study “The Apportionment of Human Diversity”, Richard Lewontin performed a fixation index (FST) statistical analysis using 17 markers, including blood group proteins, from individuals across classically defined “races” (Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, and, Australian Aborigines). He found that the majority of the total genetic variation between humans (i.e., of the 0.1% of DNA that varies between individuals), 85.4%, is found within populations, 8.3% of the variation is found between populations within a “race”, and only 6.3% was found to account for the racial classification. Numerous later studies have confirmed his findings.[5] Based on this analysis, Lewontin concluded, “Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance.”
This argument has been cited as evidence that racial categories are biologically meaningless, and that behavioral differences between groups cannot have any genetic underpinnings.[6] One example is the “Statement on ‘Race’” published by the American Anthropological Association in 1998, which rejected the existence of races as unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups.[7]
Edwards’ critique:
Edwards argued that while Lewontin’s statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different alleles (variants of a particular gene) at an individual locus (the location of a particular gene) between individuals, it is nonetheless possible to classify individuals into different racial groups with an accuracy that approaches 100 percent when one takes into account the frequency of the alleles at several loci at the same time. This happens because differences in the frequency of alleles at different loci are correlated across populations â the alleles that are more frequent in a population at two or more loci are correlated when we consider the two populations simultaneously. Or in other words, the frequency of the alleles tends to cluster differently for different populations.[8]
In Edwards’s words, “most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data.” These relationships can be extracted using commonly used ordination and cluster analysis techniques. Edwards argued that, even if the probability of misclassifying an individual based on the frequency of alleles at a single locus is as high as 30 percent (as Lewontin reported in 1972), the misclassification probability becomes close to zero if enough loci are studied.[9]
Edwards’s paper stated that the underlying logic was discussed in the early years of the 20th century. Edwards wrote that he and Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza had presented a contrasting analysis to Lewontin’s, using very similar data, already at the 1963 International Congress of Genetics. Lewontin participated in the conference but did not refer to this in his later paper. Edwards argued that Lewontin used his analysis to attack human classification in science for social reasons.[9]”
There are also real traits that vary a lot my ethnicity. Another argument against the Lewontin’s argument has to with rare or functional variation. For example sickle cell anemia is much more prevalent in subsaharan african populations than in the rest of the human population, and cystic fibrosis is much more prevalent in european populations than in the rest of the world.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 09:06:56 UTC