Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
I’m not sure what this means.
almost any child, shown a picture of a person of European, African, or East Asian ancestry can almost always effortlessly and correctly identify their area of origin. University professors, not so much: it takes an intellectual to deny the evidence of one’s own eyes.
Just that while almost everybody, including children, easily observe the existence of races (which are just human populations which have diverged during periods of geographical isolation), certain intellectuals have erected a belief system which denies the existence of race and hence have convinced themselves that even the rapidly emerging genetic evidence can be denied.
In certain situations, we’re supposed to bow down to the iron inevitability of biology; in others, we’re expected to totally ignore it. No wonder kids find adult life confusing.
How is going through a bottleneck different from just starting from a very small number?
interesting post. thanks for sharing it.
There is no difference in principle. It’s just that whenever you have a small initial population which subsequently grows to a much larger one, the genetic diversity in the resulting population will be smaller simply because the original population couldn’t carry many different versions of genes purely due to its limited size.
When a large initial population is reduced to a small one and then subsequently recovers, this is referred to as a population bottleneck, while when a population starts from a small number of settlers who are then cut off from interbreeding with their source population (for example, a small group who have migrated to an isolated island), it is called the founder effect. The result is the same.
It is believed that the human population went through a population bottleneck which resulted in its high level of genetic uniformity because there isn’t evidence for an event in human history in Africa which could invoke the founder effect. One suggestion for the origin of the bottleneck is the Toba catastrophe theory, in which the eruption of a super-volcano in Indonesia around 70,000 years before the present produced a rapid and severe climate change which may have reduced the human population in Africa to around 10,000 individuals. This was around 20,000 years before humans migrated out of Africa, so the effects of this bottleneck would affect the entire global population, which is what is observed.
The founder effect is evident in that the genetic diversity of humans in Africa is much greater than those in the entire rest of the world. This can be explained if the migration from Africa to the north was by a small group of humans. That small founder population would necessarily be less diverse than Africans as a whole, and their descendants would carry only the limited genetic heritage they brought with them.
The very low genetic diversity of the human species is well-documented. Theories of its cause are speculative and based upon only sketchy evidence at present.
I’m fixing to transfer my “Smartest Man in the World” award from Richard Epstein to you.
I’ve always found it odd that many of the same people who vociferously defend evolution are among the first to deny that it could have had any effects upon humans.
Now now. You mean Sociology professors. Not “university professors”. All sociology professors are university professors, but not all university professors are sociology professors ;) No one outside of sociology thinks “race” is a social construct. In fact, most sociologists probably don’t either.
Now, what you’re saying here pretty much true. I.e., genetic characteristics which were selected for for natural reasons, lead to certain institutional divergence.
But the opposite therefore can also be true: exogenous changes in institutions can place pressure on “natural selection” for particular genetic traits.
And since we have been seeing over the last century a very strong institutional convergence around the world, the only real question is “how long before these behavioral (genetic) differences are erased”.
Now, you bring up the example of colonialism. But colonialism, or the “imposition” of Western institutions on native societies, lasted a relatively tiny amount of time. An infinitesimal small amount of time in fact, in genetic terms.
And in some places it was stronger than in other places. And we do see differences in economic outcomes between former colonies where the institutional pressure to converge to the “mother country” was stronger, and between different kinds of institutional pressures from the colonials.
One of the most influential economics papers is written on precisely this subject:
http://economics.mit.edu/files/4123
So the real question would be to see whether Western institutional pressure in, say, Namibia or Taiwan or South Korea…which obviously led to economic and institutional divergence from their comparable “sister” populations, and convergence with the West…also led to behavioral differences (and associated genetic traits).
Having met people from Mainland China, and from HK or Taiwan…I’d say there’s a fairly obvious difference in behavior. But this difference was a lot larger 30 years ago, than today, indicating that as institutions converge, so does the pressure they place on the “natural selection” of behavior.
So, to put it another way: of course genes matter. But they act on long time scales.
But as anyone who has ever observed populations go through abrupt and exogenous institutional change can attest, human behavior can change rather dramatically, and fast.
Case in point: Eastern Europe.
I think we largely agree on this. (Also, in these reviews, I try to present the author’s opinion, which may differ from my own, with commentary as appropriate.)
Culture is clearly heritable, and can be changed in less time than genetics. But culture also feeds back and forth with genetics, so over a sufficiently long time, cultural selection (largely which behaviours enable those who possess them to have more children) will influence genetics. I’ve heard that the rule of thumb in the agriculture school is that in about eight generations you can, by selective breeding, select for just about any characteristic you wish in animals. For humans, in most of their history, that’s about 200 years, so, even granted that the selection which occurs in human societies isn’t as ruthless as in an animal breeding program, it seems plausible that a settled society on the scale of cities to empire will, over 500 years or so, select out those prone to aggression and disobedience (recall that not so long ago pickpockets in England were hanged). There is persuasive evidence for a long-term (millennia) secular decline in the death rate by violence in settled societies compared to hunter-gatherer or tribal groups.
As regards the professors, I agree that it’s only the social science professors who deny the reality of race (if even they really believe it). But around 8 years ago I had a conversation with a long-term friend of mine, a full professor of mathematics at an institution of which you’ve probably heard, about these issues (in particular the problems of development aid in sub-Saharan Africa), and he said (I’m paraphrasing from memory), “Sure, the data are indisputable. But the damage caused by discussing them may be greater than the benefit of doing so.”
I’m sure in his case he was looking at the bigger picture, but many academics in less secure positions may also consider the potential damage to their own careers by discussing these questions.
I disagree for several reasons:
1) It’s not “social science” professors. Social science is a huge body of different fields. This “race is not real” phenomenon is particular to Sociology, and particular only to certain types of sociology (the type that doesn’t concern itself with reality, but with changing reality)
2) Virtually all social science studies which examine individuals or populations control for…race. Thus it’s not only an accepted fact that “race” matters in virtually all outcomes, but it is empirically accepted in all social sciences.
3) The only disagreement on that is…why…race matters. Of course, there’s all sorts of empirical examinations to get at that question in social sciences, so it is far from a “taboo” topic.
Of course, the perception that people in academia don’t talk about race, or don’t consider it as important in outcomes etc. comes about purely from…whomever screams the loudest, and whomever the press pays attention to.
99.999% of studies in particular social science fields which examine such things not only go un-noticed in the popular press, but the authors and the particular disciplines don’t make a fuss about it.
The ones that make a fuss are the vocal “activist” types of Sociology professors whose only goal in life is to…impose…their views on others. They scream and yell and accuse you of “racism” at every opportunity. Since no one wants to be called a racist, everyone else just shuts up.
Most academics aren’t interested in imposing their views on anyone. They are interested in discovering insights about reality, whatever those may be.
Hence, there is selection bias in what the “perception” becomes, vs. what the reality is.
I wish Ricochet’s comment composition window were not so limited, as otherwise I’d interpolate my comments in your post. But, like evolution, we work with what we have, so here goes.
I’m not sure of the boundaries of these fields. I’ve found cultural anthropologists very much bought in to the “all humans are alike” meme while physical anthropologists (Hey, what do I know? I’m married to one!) consider it ridiculous.
Agreed. But they don’t often talk about those adjustments in their publications, do they? But I haven’t read many in the last 20 years.
This is kind of like the “heckler’s veto”: those who scream loudest silence those who don’t regardless of the evidence.
The easy thing would have been, having read this book, to just review it on my own Web log and leave it at that. Stepping out of line, even to the extent to citing evidence from genetic surveys with high significance, can bring down the hammer on people. At some point you have to say, “Here’s the evidence. Make of it what you like. But your opinion doesn’t change the evidence: you have to present evidence to the contrary.”
Yes, but I believe many are under a subtle or overt pressure not to raise issues which challenge the consensus.
As an individualist, I maintain that knowledge and awareness can trump biology: if a person believes they have free choice, then they act with more self awareness than if they believe that everything is in the hands of fate (or an all-controlling deity, which is the same thing).
I don’t think this comes down to inherited genetics. I think it comes down to state of mind (which is, of course, influenced by genetics).
So while I accept that there is surely a high degree of genetic predisposition to all kinds of things, that predisposition is not prescriptively helpful when talking about people who are self-aware enough.
In other words: one can, somewhat, predict the behavior of people. Sociologists do this all the time. They are most successful with people who see the world as pre-written, and thus live their lives largely in a reactive fashion. But sociologists cannot accurately predict what I (or any similarly self-aware person) am going to do next.
Creativity is a human trait, but the more creative a person chooses to be, the less their future can be predicted based on their nature and nurture.
By the way, this is a FASCINATING post and topic. Thank you, John Walker!!!!
Yes. They will talk for hours about how different dog breeds have different characteristics, but cannot say that people similarly inherit traits.
And, of course, those same people who trumpet diversity are the most opposed to actual diversity in the natural world. Invasive species, anyone?
I like to think of it as a “tilt”—it is not predestination in any manner, but simply a slight inclination to go this way or another. If you haven’t inherited the capability to reason in abstract symbols, your job opportunities will be limited to those which don’t require that skill. Not long ago, this was a skill required by, at most, 5% of the population. Now, it may be required by 80%. What will happen to the 20% who lack this skill?
This is not something which can be easily dealt with in a comment thread. Perhaps a contributor will start a thread which fully explores the consequences of a US$ 15 minimum wage in our current automation environment.
Two comments:
1) Whenever I encounter the line on forms asking for my ‘race’ or ‘ethnicity’ I always manually enter “human.” It’s mostly because I’m so sick of the racialist activists, so it feels satisfying to give them a poke in the eye. Also I’m a bit of a stubborn contrarian.
2) I remember a column from John Derbyshire some time back that postulated that with advances in science, genetic modfications of humans may wind up changing what ‘human’ is. Or see the latest Planet of the Apes movies. Or just read Brave New World. If it becomes possible for it happen, it will probably happen.
First – John, you’re postings on Saturdays are always such a delight, and which get the brain cells fired up. Thank you for that. This posting was particularly interesting having studied both genetics and population genetics. Tho that was back in the dark age and much has
John, I think the capability to reason in abstract symbols is well below the 80 percent you said. Maybe only 20 percent have that capability.
That may very well be the case. I don’t want to class people in those categories.
I think we can get along with 20% informed and able to make rational decisions. We have a steep cliff to climb to get there.
John, well done. I enjoyed the book immensely, but the subject matter is difficult to discuss without being misunderstood for racism — especially when space is limited — so I’ve tended to stay away from the subject on Ricochet. You’ve given an excellent overview.
iWc, I offer two thoughts in response. First, the kind of self-control you describe, the ability to resist inborn tendencies, may also be a genetically inherited trait to some degree. Second, in populations, a behavior need not be universal to direct the course of its culture. If a large enough minority is violent, the whole society may become violent as a consequence, for example.
One takeaway I had from the book was that the sharp rise in literacy following the Renaissance may have been driven by genetic factors as much as education. Literacy readiness may be genetic. So I speculate that 500 years ago, something like dyslexia may not have been a “disability”, but rather the default state of human ability. We should be careful not to project our own experience onto the past.
Well, John, I’ll go ahead and call you racist, as that is now de rigueur in any discussion such as this, regardless of content or intent – so now, thankfully, that’s out of the way.
I look forward to reading the book, but I am just as fascinated by the vast cultural differences occurring within groups in almost no time. The genetically same “stiff-upper-lip” Brits who were willing to give the “two-finger salute” to the German bombers almost immediately after they passed overhead during the Blitz now cower in their homes as the yobs burgle them [half of British burglaries occur to occupied dwellings] – you can go to jail for attempting to protect mere property.
One thing I appreciate in what you bring up – many thanks for general lactose tolerance as egg nog season has arrived!
John (if I may? Mr. Walker, perhaps? I just got read the riot act–yet again–in Paris for addressing by her first name a woman whom I should have addressed as Madame Crispé,* the odd thing about this not that I failed to grasp that in France, absent special intimacy, “Madame” is always the way to go, as a general principle, but that in this particular context, the general principle simply could not conceivably have been applied. What we’d just been discussing was–well, no need to go into details here, but let us just say, we had been discussing the sorts of things people on a first-name basis discuss. Even in France. In any event, I am now extra-sensitive on this score. Traumatized, even.)
Anyway: Most Esteemed and Respectable Señor Walker (just to be on the safe side), I often feel mean, low, and intellectually disreputable when commenting on your always outstanding Saturday Night Science posts–and I do mean that, by the way, and I do sometimes think, “Does he realize he should be paid for these? If not, should I tell him? Where exactly do my loyalties lie in this case?” but again, I digress–point is, I feel bad because I tend to comment before reading the book, which is in my view not the right way to think about any arguments a book might offer.
But one thing did come to my mind, and in the spirit of Ricochet, to wit, “Just keep the conversation going, so long as it’s civil and conservative,” I offer this thought:
Warning: I am about to mention a name that in these parts will make people wonder if I may be a spy or an infiltrator or at best someone who doesn’t fully get the “conservative” part of our mission. But trust me. Bear with me. I am about to mention said figure in his capacity as a linguist, not in his (sadly) better-known latter incarnation as an unendurable, deeply malignant, frothing-at-the-mouth pinko, traitor, and loon. And in his former capacity, I do believe he is both relevant and, truly, a great genius beyond all dispute.
So. Seems to me that in connection to this discussion, what Chomsky has to say is relevant. (Were I a Christian, I would now react to the introduction of his name with a spectacle-testicle-wallet-watch gesture and a whispered “In the name of the Father … ) But what he has to say is alas far too complicated to explain in the confines of our word limit, so I must be telegraphic. (Interestingly, though, Chomsky too very quickly got himself here into the territory of “forbidden thoughts.” Different ones, to be sure, with different implications. But thoughts, I think, quite relevant to any discussion of the forbidden thoughts suggested, at least, by your review of the book in question, if not the book itself.)
I am struggling to choose just the right reference. Chomsky is not precisely known for the slenderness of his scholarly output. But I suggest, perhaps, this one.
Yes, friends, I am afraid you must click on the link if you are to have any idea where I’m going with this.
I wonder if his observations–which are in my view both correct, proven, and brilliant–may be quite a bit more relevant (if every bit as forbidden in their implications, albeit in a different way) to the discussion at hand than any counter-argument suggested by the book I have not read and thus have no business discussing.
I now leave it to the rest of you to fill in the blanks of my argument, consider them, and discuss.
*Not her real name. And that joke is only funny if you speak French. But in French, let me tell you, it is funny.
I may quit Ricochet if it publishes inflammatory, garbled stuff like this. Every scientific indication available refutes Darwin. Please stop. All the fancy words and comments amount to zip.
Garbled, I agree, may well describe what I just wrote. But if you study it closely, you will see that I may be much closer to agreeing with you than you realize. So give me a chance. And think about what he has said may–indeed does–imply.
Thank you, John Walker. This is the reason our Monday AMUs are so much fun. I took a Population Genetics course in college and loved it, and this is a book we will be buying.
On “racism”, it’s just my opinion that all humans are “racist”. You like people who are like you, you don’t like people who are not like you. But you can learn not to be racist in your behavior.
What surprises me about everything I hear in the realm of sociobiology is how persistent is the assumption that evolution stops at biology’s edge. Even in this post, the evolutionary mechanism by which a cultural trait becomes dominant is assumed to be purely through increasing the likelihood that individuals that adopt that trait will reproduce. This clings to the assumption that the cultural trait really is a biological one.
I’ve long felt that the fact that Homo sapiens possesses the capacity for language and rational thought gives us a means for passing traits on, not only to our biological children, but to others around us, and that that is actually the essence of culture. Culture is a new domain, a purely human one, in which evolution takes place, with no necessary involvement of biology at all. And unlike biological evolution, which proceeds at a glacial pace, cultural evolution is orders of magnitude faster (although not nearly fast enough for our impatient Left).
I bring this up, perhaps tediously, in those Ricochet threads that touch on my hobby-horse issue, gender. To pick an example, the ancient Spartans thought it perfectly normal for young men to have sexual relations with pubescent boys, as a peculiar sort of “mentoring”, before going off and getting married and having children of their own. In our culture, we almost universally regard that is creepy and disgusting. And yet, I see no reason to assume that there is the slightest genetic difference between us and the ancient Spartans to account for that cultural difference.
Polygamy is another example. Parts of the world regard it as normal, yet in the presently dominant part of the world it is taboo. I don’t believe that indicates a genetic difference. Yet it is most certainly evolutionary, in the cultural sense. In primitive times, biological evolution rewarded those alpha males who took all the fertile females for themselves, allowing them to spread their personal genes. That mechanism still exists, but cultural evolution has created a countervailing force that discourages this reproduction of alpha male genes, because in the context of a complex civilization, a system of monogamy produces a stronger culture, more capable of reproducing itself and achieving dominance in the world. This is not a biological mechanism, and actually contradicts the now weaker biological mechanism.
So I would be inclined to believe that, for instance, the failure of the mission civilisatrice isn’t because it has run head-on into biological differences, such as a genetic predisposition to tribalism, but because it has underestimated the strength of the cultural custom of tribalism. I would bet that a baby adopted from Pakistan and raised in a white family in the United States would exhibit no greater tendency toward tribalism, or any other typically Pakistani trait other than the obvious physical ones, than his step-brothers.
That isn’t to deny evolution, merely to ascribe greater strength to that cultural form of evolution that seems invisible to most people than to the biological form that everyone is taught about in school.
The point is, if you say “social science”, you’re including everything in there from sociology and anthropology…to economics and marketing.
Widely divergent fields.
That depend if their study is focused on racial differences or not. If it’s not, then it isn’t talked much. But the fact that it is included, implies it is important and accepted.
That’s how most social sciences do work. It’s only a small subset, like sociology, that don’t work that way. And that’s where you get the problems.
Yes, but it is not a consensus in “social science” that race doesn’t exist or shouldn’t be discussed. That’s my point.
Exactly. Culture works fast, even if genes don’t.
So do genes matter? Yes, but probably not all that much. Given that today culture can be changed through an exogenous shock…unlike in pre-historic times…then changing cultural behaviors in a society can be a matter of 1-2 generations.