Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Bo Winegard and Ben Winegard lie in a research paper

I've already pointed out that Steven Pinker misrepresented the facts surrounding the controversy over Larry Summers' speech at the NBER.

Why do evo-psycho bros lie so much about their controversies? Do they realize they are lying and are doing it as a political expediency? Or is their view of the world so warped by their faith in evolutionary psychology that they don't even realize they are doing it?

Here are evo-psycho bro bros Bo and Ben Winegard  also misrepresenting the Summers controversy. I fiddled with the formatting for added clarity:
In 2005, Larry Summers, then president of Harvard university, gave a talk to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) in which he addressed the differential representation of men and women (there are more men) in tenured positions in science and engineering at prestigious universities and research institutions.
He forwarded three hypotheses to explain the differential representation:
(1) the high-powered job hypothesis;
(2) the differential aptitude at the extreme end of the intelligence distribution hypothesis; and
(3) the socialization and discrimination hypothesis.
According to hypothesis 1, men are more willing than women to work the long, grueling hours required to be successful in a math or engineering department at a top-tier university. According to hypothesis 2, there are more men than women at the extreme ends of the intelligence distribution (both on the low end and the high end); therefore, there are more men than women of exceptional intellectual ability. And, according to hypothesis 3, women are socialized to pursue “feminine” hobbies and jobs and are discriminated against in certain academic disciplines such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 
They then jump right into the response to Summers' statement and of course have the nerve to complain that Summers' critics mischaracterized him.

So my best guess, to provoke you, of what's behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people's legitimate family desires and employers' current desire for high power and high intensity, that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination.
So no, contrary to how the Winegards present it, Summers doesn't merely advance three equal hypotheses. He weighted one of them:
...there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination.
Larry Summers top reasons for why women have less successful STEM careers than men:
  • Intrinsic aptitude
  • Socialization
  • Discrimination
A word about "variability" - nobody cares about it.

Now Summers said these things while he was in a political role, president of Harvard and he said it at a Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce.

It was a stupid thing to do from a political perspective and it was a slap in the face to women in the room interested in STEM careers.

And that is why there was such a big response.

But of course evo-psycho bros know, thanks to their theories, women evolved to be irrational, emotion-driven creatures so it's no surprise if they portray women's response to a political slap in the face as hysterical and stupid.

I haven't addressed the mind-boggling idiocy of the evo-psycho views on gender much, because that would take a whole other many-months worth of discussion and I have enough to deal with on the subject of race. But this bullshit gives you some idea of where they are coming from.

They also cry big fat tears over poor Larry Summers' career:
Similar to Murray, Summers’ reputation was thoroughly besmirched by the nasty attacks he faced, and he is still haunted by accusations of sexism.

The paper in which they lie about Summers' speech is entitled: A social science without sacred values

What "sacred value" would they like to remove from social science - honesty? 

So what exactly did Steven Pinker say about race in the PC video?

I am so glad that someone transcribed Pinker's words from the PC video, now I don't have to wade through listening to Pinker's smug annoying voice.

In this ongoing series, I haven't focused on what Pinker said about race in this video. But now that I know about some of the Criminal Justice-connected people whose work Pinker has recommended, his remarks take on a whole new perspective. 

I will discuss it in greater detail after I am finished with racist Steve Sailer's contribution (ugh) to the Pinker-edited 2004 installment of "The Best American Writing on Science and Nature." But for now here's the transcription and I highlighted his remarks on race and his implications of the Leftist cabal's deliberate censoring of facts.

 Steven Pinker’s remarks on a panel, 11/6/2017, Harvard University

“The other way in which I do agree with my fellow panelists that political correctness has done an enormous amount of harm in the sliver of the population that might be ... I wouldn't want to say persuadable, but certainly whose affiliation might be up for grabs... comes from the often highly literate, highly intelligent people who gravitate to the alt-right. Internet savvy, media savvy, who often are radicalized in that way — who swallow the red pill, as the saying goes, the allusion from The Matrix. 
When they are exposed the first time to true statements that have never been voiced in college campuses, or in The New York Times, or in respectable media, they are almost like a bacillus to which they have no immunity. And they're immediately infected with both the feeling of outrage that these truths are unsayable, and no defense against taking them to what we might consider to be rather repellent conclusions. 
Let me give you some examples. Here is a fact that's going to sound ragingly controversial but is not, and that is that capitalist societies are better than communist ones. If you doubt it, then just ask yourself the question, would I rather live in South Korea or North Korea? Would I rather live in West Germany in the 1970s or East Germany or in the 1960s? I submit that this is actually not a controversial statement — but in university campuses, it would be considered flamingly radical. 
Here's another one: Men and women are not identical in their life priorities, in their sexuality, in their tastes and interests. Again, this is not controversial to anyone who has even glanced at the data. The kind of vocational interest tests of the kind that your high school guidance counselor gave you were given to millions of people. And men and women give different answers as to what they want to do for a living, and how much time they want to allocate to family versus career, and so on. But you can't say it. I mean, someone, a very famous person on this campus did say it and we all know what happened to him. He's no longer ... Well, he is on this campus but no longer in the same office. 
Here's a third fact that is just not controversial, although it sounds controversial, and that is that different ethnic groups commit violent crimes at different rates. You can go to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Look it up on their website. The homicide rate among African Americans is about seven or eight times higher than it is among European Americans. Terrorism. Go to the Global Terrorism Database, and you find that worldwide, the overwhelming majority of suicide terrorist acts are committed by Islamist extremist groups. 
Now, if you've never heard these facts before and you stumble across them, or someone mentions them, it is possible to come to some extreme conclusions. Such as that women are inferior, that African Americans are naturally violent. That we all ought to be anarcho-capitalists and do away with all regulation and social safety nets. That most terrorism in this country is the fault of Muslims. 
Now, these are unwarranted conclusions. Because for each one of these facts, there are very powerful counterarguments for why they don't license racism and sexism and anarcho-capitalism and so on. 
The fact that men and women aren't identical has no implications for whether we should discriminate against women, for a number of reasons. One of them is: for any traits in which the sex is different, two distributions have enormous amounts of overlap, so that you can't draw a reliable conclusion about any individual from group averages. 
Number two, the principle of opposition to racism and sexism is not a factual claim that the sexes and races are indistinguishable in every aspect. It's a political and moral commitment to treat people as individuals, as opposed to pre-judging them by the statistics of their group. Third, we know that some of the statistical generalizations about races and sexes change over time, so what is true now may not necessarily be true in 10 or 20 years. 
These are all reasons why you can believe that the sexes are different, and be a very strong feminist; why you can believe that differences between the races exist, and be very strongly opposed to any form of racism. 
In the case of, say, rates of violent crime, it used to be — go back 100 years, the rate of violent crime among Irish Americans was far higher than among other ethnic groups. That obviously changed. There's no reason that that can't change in the case of current racial differences. In the case of terrorism, the majority of domestic terrorism is committed by right-wing extremist groups, not by Islamic groups within this country. Of course, through much of its history, Islam was far more enlightened than Christendom. There was no equivalent of the Inquisition. There was no equivalent of the wars of religion in the classical history of Islam.
Finally, in the case of the fact that capitalism is really a better system than Marxism — every successful capitalist society has regulation, has a social safety net. And in fact, some of the countries with the strongest social safety nets are also the countries that are most market-friendly, that have the greatest degree of economic freedom. 
These are all reasons why you can believe all of these and not necessarily drift toward extremist positions — in fact, why you can be a progressive, a centrist, a liberal, even a leftist, and believe all of these. Because you're exposed not only to the facts, but how to put them in context. 
Now, let's say that you have never even heard anyone mention these facts. The first time you hear them, you're apt to say — number one, the truth has been withheld from me by universities, by mainstream media. And moreover, you will be vindicated when people who voice these truths are suppressed, shut down, assaulted... all the more reason to believe that the left, that the mainstream media, that universities can't handle the truth. So you get vindicated over and over again. 
But worst of all, you're never exposed to the ways of putting these facts into context so that they don't lead to racism and sexism and extreme forms of anarcho-libertarianism. 
The politically correct left is doing itself an enormous disservice when it renders certain topics undiscussable, especially when the facts are clearly behind them. Because they leave people defenseless, the first time they hear them, against the most extreme and indefensible conclusions possible. If they were exposed, then the rationale for putting them into proper political and moral context could also be articulated, and I don't think you would have quite the extreme backlash.”

Evo-psycho bros and the inconvenient truth about slave rape part 3

Evo-psycho bros and the inconvenient truth about slave rape part 2 here.

Razib Khan has been talking about 23andMe since at least 2009. In 2013 he wrote a positive piece about the company in Slate, saying:
This brings us to the fact that 23andMe is just part of a broader movement toward the democratization of health information.
He even promoted a sale they had last July. And on his blog in 2016 he seems to hold out hope that genetic testing was going to provide evidence of race-based intelligence:

Razib Khan says:
honestly i would just sit on my hands for now. in the next < 5 years the genomic components of traits like intelligence will finally be characterized. this is not speculation, but anticipation based on research going on now.

And while we are here, I mentioned in this series the evo-psycho bros like to use the term "Platonic." Khan uses the word Platonic in this article and gives a definition, in response to a commenter's question:

marcel proust says:January 25, 2016 at 1:08 pm GMT • 100 WordsThe problem, if there is one, is that these population genetic differences are not necessarily good fits if one assumes a Platonic model of racial categorization.  
I don’t understand this. It may be that the phrase “Platonic model of racial categorization” is what I don’t understand; but please elaborate the whole sentence.
Khan responds:

According to Webster's typologies is:

"study of or analysis or classification based on types or categories

In fact that term typology and the term Platonic are not actual synonyms and have a complex non-obvious connection. The same dictionary's definition of Platonic is:
1. capitalized : of, relating to, or characteristic of Plato or Platonism 
2 a : relating to or based on platonic love; also : experiencing or professing platonic love  
b : of, relating to, or being a relationship marked by the absence of romance or sex
3 : nominal, theoretical
Most people of course know only of definition 2. Presumably he's getting at "Platonism" since nominal and theoretical are so vague as to be useless. My assumption has always been that he means races can't be conceptualized like Platonic solids, but really the context never gives any clear indication.

So why does Razib Khan use the term Platonic instead of typologies? I think most likely because he's a terrible writer and won't use a clear term when he can use a more obscure one.

Khan is a big booster of the use of genetics testing. But back in 2014 he didn't seem to like an article by Carl Zimmer that used 23andMe data. Considering the evo-psycho inability to provide racial typologies it has an unexpected title: American Racial Boundaries are Quite Distinct for Now. In it he writes:
So I have to take issue when The New York Times posts articles with headlines such as White? Black? A Murky Distinction Grows Still Murkier. What genetics is showing is that in fact white Americans are shockingly European to an incredibly high degree for a population with roots on this continent for 400 years. If we removed all the history that we take for granted we’d be amazed that the indigenous peoples had so little demographic impact, and, that the larger numbers of people of partial African ancestry did not move into the general “white” population. 
Now Khan bolded the bit in the paragraph above. I highlighted the sentence that follows. I blogged about this curious passage back in March 2015:
History explains everything - so yeah, of course if you removed it you would be "amazed" by the state of whiteness. But why would you do that? 
After all the research I've done in the past few weeks into the work and thought-patterns of the evo-psycho bros I understand now why he said it. The evo-psycho system is so rigidly hereditarian that to Razib Khan it's absolutely no big deal to just remove "all the history that we take for granted."

Khan demonstrates the impulse of the evo-psycho bros to erase history and all other factors and just use "genetics" to explain everything.

Khan then proceeds to say:
It is entirely reasonable to argue that racial categories in the United States are blurred if one holds to a Platonic and essentialist view which resembles that which underpinned white racial supremacy and the law of hypdoescent. But as it is these views have no necessary scientific basis, and a percent or two of African ancestry in someone who is ~98 percent of European ancestry does not make them non-white in any rational sense.
"One" doesn't have to hold Platonic and essentialist views - "one" has to acknowledge that the essentialist view was and is the white supremacist view. The entire point of Zimmer's article is exactly that "these views have no necessary scientific basis." I'm not sure why Khan stuck the word "necessary" in there, but then lack of clarity is his calling card.

So who does Khan think he's arguing against there? He seems confused - even more than you would normally attribute to his lousy literary stylings. This was especially interesting:
a percent or two of African ancestry in someone who is ~98 percent of European ancestry does not make them non-white in any rational sense.
Khan has told us that we can't expect a typology for race. And yet we see here Khan identifying two "races" in this section: white and non-white. And then he tells us that 98% of European ancestry is not sufficient to make an individual non-white.

We can deduce from this that if Khan knows what percent of African ancestry does not make one non-white, he therefore knows what percentage of African ancestry does make one non-white.

But as always his lack of clarity makes it impossible to know what Khan really means. Does he think a genetic-testing-derived ancestry indicator of 98% European make someone exclusively "white" in a genetic sense or in a social construct sense? What about 75% European ancestry? And 50%?

We know ancestry composition and socially perceived "race" are not the same thing. That's what the NYTimes article is saying. Fortunately Zimmer is a much better writer than Khan and it's not a struggle to understand what he's getting at:
“We use these terms — white, black, Indian, Latino — and they don’t really mean what we think they mean,” said Claudio Saunt, a historian at the University of Georgia who was not involved in the study. 
The data for the new study were collected by 23andMe, the consumer DNA-testing company. When customers have their genes analyzed, the company asks them if they’d like to make their results available for study by staff scientists. 
Over time the company has built a database that not only includes DNA, but also such details as a participant’s birthplace and the ethnic group with which he or she identifies. (23andMe strips the data of any information that might breach the privacy of participants.) 
And then this map is displayed:

What this map displays is "white" Americans who have one or more percent African ancestry and we see that in South Carolina and Louisiana the percentage is as high as 12.5%. In other words, "Octoroons."

And as we discussed in the inconvenient truth about slave rape part 2, the average black person in the United States is almost 1/4 white.

But just in case you're still not sure where Khan is coming from, he finishes off the piece with a link to Steve Sailer, who says:
Actually, as the genome data has gotten more precise in the 21st Century, the big surprise has been how white are American whites. 
Except Sailer doesn't say "if we removed all the history." Perhaps because Sailer has even less self-awareness of how much his view of "race" erases history than Khan does. But the only way you could be surprised at "how white are American whites" is because you erased history.

As I wrote in response to this article back in 2015:
Yes, if we removed all the history, the very thing that explains exactly why we shouldn't be "amazed" at the whiteness of the European population. The indigenous people were wiped out first by European diseases for which they had no resistance, and then European land expansion. And of course people of "partial African ancestry" were not considered partially black, they were considered fully black according to the one-drop rule and there were laws against miscegenation right up until 1967 and the case of Loving vs. Virginia. But not only that - since there were social taboos and outright laws against black/white marriage, a goodly portion of those who were "partially black" were the result of slave rape - and of course the children of raped slaves were invariably slaves themselves, and thus not likely to be having much sex with the general white populace. 
Thanks to what I've learned in this ongoing series, the children of raped slaves were not "invariably" slaves themselves but still, pretty often - but it's likely almost all descendants of slaves were considered "black" and thus even as freemen not likely to be marrying whites. We've seen thanks to the two separate endings provided for the popular mid-19th century play The Octoroon, being one-eighth black still made you "black" and the prospect of such an individual marrying a "white" person was considered a "mixed marriage" and unacceptable to white Americans of the time

So the same clear historical point stands: the white population is so "white" thanks to an obvious, well-documented legal and social system.

Both Khan and Sailer in the articles linked here demonstrate they are well aware of the one-drop rule and miscegenation laws. So it's odd they are "surprised" by white ancestral composition in the US.

But considering they were both working for Ron Unz at the time (Sailer still does), this Upton Sinclair phrase springs to mind:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
We've already seen the Winegard bros attempting to erase history in their defense of The Bell Curve in Claire Lehmann's Quillette:
Of course, there are other possible explanations of the Black-White gap, such as parenting styles, stereotype threat, and a legacy of slavery/discrimination among others. However, to date, none of these putative causal variables has been shown to have a significant effect on the IQ gap,
As I noted, they don't actually provide any refutation for non-genetic explanations, they just dismiss them. They clearly believe that the legacy of slavery/discrimination has had no impact on people identified as "black" in our social system. And although they only talk about intelligence in this article, I'm pretty certain they believe the same is true for criminality since they run in the same Criminal Justice gang as John Paul Wright.

In the Summer 2017 issue of the City Journal, a publication of the Koch brothers-funded Manhattan Institute for Policy ResearchJohn Paul Wright also dismissed slavery:
While promoting the report, Travis and Nicholas Turner, president of the Vera Institute of Justice, an advocacy organization, published a New York Times op-ed assailing American prisons and holding up the German penal system as a positive exemplar. “To be sure, there are significant differences between the two countries,” the authors observed. “Most notably, America’s criminal justice system was constructed in slavery’s long shadow and is sustained today by the persistent forces of racism.” Not only does this statement shed light on the authors’ ideological views; it also manages to insult anyone who works in the criminal-justice system and who values public safety and order. 
As is the custom with evo-psycho bros Wright doesn't address the argument about slavery/discrimination, he just apparently dismisses it, and then proceeds to rant and rave about liberals.
Liberal criminologists avoid discussing the lifestyles that criminal offenders typically lead. Almost all serious offenders are men, and they usually come from families with long histories of criminal involvement, often spanning generations. They show temperamental differences early in life, begin offending in childhood or early adolescence, and rack up dozens of arrests. Their lives are chaotic and hedonistic, including the constant pursuit of drugs and sex...
I'm sure the liberal criminologists might take the time to explain how their comment about slavery's long shadow relates to the "lifestyles that criminal offenders typically lead." But Wright will never give them that chance because he already knows the answer and he already stated it publicly in 2009 in Biosocial Criminality New Directions in Theory and Research:
Moreover evolutionary theory helps explain why race-based patterns of behavior are universal, such as black over-involvement in crime. No other paradigm organizes these patterns better. No other paradigm explains these inconvenient truths.
Based on the theories of evo-psycho bros like Wright, you would never guess that members of other "races" besides blacks commit crimes. Evo-psycho bros have this obsession with black crime and black intelligence and they will not be persuaded that non-genetic factors play a significant role in any of it. I will address this next in a post about the belief at the center of the evo-psycho view of African Americans.

And then, because it finally arrived, I will review Steve Sailer's contribution to the Steven Pinker edited The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2004 in which Sailer explains what's wrong with Iraqi society. I promise you, you will never guess what it is. 

In my discussion about Sailer's piece I will reference a fascinating recent New Yorker article on organized crime in southern Italy, which also relates to Wright's rantings about black criminality.

Which will lead us to the question we always seem to get back to in discussions of the history of racial classification: Are Italians White?

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Never underestimate the power of a technical writer... make trouble for the alt-right when she's sick in bed with the flu and bored:
Gilliam, a technical writer from Texas, was bored with the flu when she created @SeanHannity__ early Saturday morning. The Fox News host's real account was temporarily deleted after cryptically tweeting the phrase “Form Submission 1649 | #Hannity” on Friday night. Twitter said the account had been “briefly compromised,” according to a statement provided to The Daily Beast, and was back up on Sunday morning.
When Gilliam made the account, she did not expect to be setting up a meeting over “other channels” for Assange to send “some news about Warner,” an apparent reference to Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election.
I was also stuck in bed with the flu way back on January 10 when I began my series on the evo-psycho bros

Although looking at that first post in the series I owe Pinker an apology - his publicly expressing far-fetched conspiracy theories about the Left is not actually due to creeping senescence, he's been banging that crazy drum for a couple of decades now, maybe more. 

And yet somehow the Vast Leftwing Anti-Science Conspiracy hasn't stopped Pinker from becoming a well-known, well-connected and probably very wealthy promoter of gender and racial essentialism, nor prevented him from promoting the work and careers of racists, right-wingers and members of the alt-right. 

How odd.

Jordan Peterson and the Lobster

I knew Jordan Peterson was an idiot. I didn't realize how big an idiot until PZ Myers told all on Youtube. This is a guy that Claire Lehmann admires and promotes on Quillette.

Evo-psycho bros and the inconvenient truth about slave-rape part 2

The historical record is full of stories of slave rape. 

In the first part I pointed out that having "black" ethnicity was considered so polluting by the Southern slave system that men who fathered children via slave-rape would allow their own children to remain in slavery.

Apparently that's not the whole story:

...Ira Berlin writes in his classic text, Slaves Without Masters, “fully 40 percent of the Southern free Negro population were classified as mulattoes, while only one slave in ten had some white ancestry.” The obvious reason: Masters were more likely to free slaves who looked like—and, in many cases, descended from—them. And sometimes—not often enough—these slaves were able to earn enough money working on their own to purchase their freedom and that of their wife and children.
Now Berlin was still dealing with the imprecise social construct of race in his "Slaves Without Masters" but following directly from the above excerpt, Gates makes the connection to contemporary genetic data:
The average African American today, according to Joanna Mountain at the genetics company 23andMe, “is 73.4 percent African, 24.1 percent European, and only 0.7 percent Native American” in their genetic makeup.
Any sexual intercourse between slave and master must be categorized as rape since a slave is hardly free to reject a master's sexual advances without fear of consequences to herself or her loved ones. And it's unlikely many slave masters cared whether a slave was attracted or no.

The case of The State of Missouri v. Celia, a Slave makes clear how little right to bodily integrity slaves possessed.
...between 1850 and 1855, Newsom regularly forced Celia to have sexual intercourse with him, and Celia bore two children over the course of those five years, at least one of which was fathered by Newsom.[9] At some point before 1855, Celia began a romantic relationship with George, one of Newsom’s other slaves. In 1855, Celia was pregnant for a third time with a child that was likely fathered by either George or Newsom.[10] At some point, George gave Celia an ultimatum, telling her “he would have nothing more to do with her if she did not quit the old man."[8] After this, Celia attempted to plead with Newsom’s family members and with Newsom himself. Sometime on or around June 23, 1855, Celia begged Newsom to leave her alone because she was sick and pregnant. Newsom refused, and told her “he was coming down to her cabin that night.”[8] Celia threatened Newsom, telling him that she would hurt him if he tried to rape her again. After her conversation with Newsom, Celia went and found a large stick, which she placed in the corner of her cabin.[8] 
On the night of June 23, 1855, after the rest of his family had gone to bed, Robert Newsom came to Celia’s cabin, as he had told her he would.[8] Celia made an attempt to reject his sexual advances, and when he refused to back down, she clubbed him over the head with the stick that she had brought into her cabin earlier that day. 
Celia was found guilty of murder and hanged for attempting to defend herself against rape.

In 1998, the scientific journal Nature published the results of DNA tests designed to shed new light on questions first asked some two hundred years earlier: Did Thomas Jefferson have a relationship with a woman who was his slave? Did that relationship produce children? 
Now, the new scientific evidence has been correlated with the existing documentary record, and a consensus of historians and other experts who have examined the issue agree that the question has largely been answered: Thomas Jefferson fathered at least one of Sally Hemings's children, and quite probably all six. The language of "proof" does not translate perfectly from science and the law to the historian's craft, however. And the DNA findings in this case are only one piece of a complicated puzzle that many in previous generations worked hard to make sure we might never solve.
And  white men continued to rape black women without legal consequences right into the mid-20th century as we can see in the case of Recy Taylor:
"The Rape of Recy Taylor," Nancy Buirski's somber and disturbing new documentary, revisits this grave injustice through an evocative weave of testimony, music and film footage of the Jim Crow South. Although the 97-year-old Taylor is seen at strategic moments, her story is largely recounted by her younger siblings, Robert Corbitt and Alma Daniels, who speak with palpable anguish about the horror their sister endured. The longer view is provided by historians and scholars who position the crime within a never-ending cycle of black suffering and resistance that continues to this day. 
The suffering, in this case, is no more detailed than it needs to be. It's revealed that Taylor, who was married and had a 9-month-old daughter at the time of the assault, was violated to a degree that she could no longer bear children afterward. "What they did to her? They didn't need to live," Daniels says matter-of-factly. But live they did. Although Hugo Wilson, the driver of the Chevy, confessed to the rape and named the six other men involved, none of them were arrested — an infuriating if unsurprising reminder of the rarity of justice in the segregated South.
So slave-rape was common and even through the mid-20th century white men could get away with raping black women.

And as we have seen from the testimony of 23andMe, "...the average African American today... “is 73.4 percent African, 24.1 percent European, and only 0.7 percent Native American”

The average African American today is actually more than one-quarter something besides African. Why don't evo-psycho bros consider this at all worth examining when they classify Americans by race? Why do they continue to rely, exclusively, on the social construction of race when making claims about the intelligence and criminality of groups of people?

Well, why should the evo-psycho bros have to engage in so much extra work when nobody cares how sloppy they are? Especially when there are free, convenient half-century old data from white supremacist organizations around for the taking?

And so they accept that simple binary - black & white - and pretend it is not a social construct. 

The binary that, in the United States, was given to us by slavery: any hint of West African ethnic features made you "black." Even if your slaver father was white. Even if your slaver grandfather and your slaver father were white. In other words, even if you were three-quarters white and only one-quarter black. There was even a term for blacks who were only 1/8 black - "Octoroon" and a play The Octoroon was popular in the mid-1800s, although the ending was changed depending on where it was performed:
When the play was performed in England it was given a happy ending, in which the mixed-race couple are united. The tragic ending was used for American audiences, to avoid portraying a mixed marriage.
Considering the social hierarchy, those with West African ethnicity in the United States attempted to "pass" for white whenever there was any hope for success.

Even after slavery ended, blacks continued to be deemed inferior, by both social customs and the law. And people with virtually any West African features were considered "black."

When "blacks" began to conduct organized campaigns against notions of and laws and customs based on the assumption of their inferiority, they began to take pride in their "race"-  but many still accepted the black/white binary, even while there was a color-based hierarchy within the "race."

And even some on the Left enshrine the simple binary as much as White Supremacists do, a subject I've blogged about before and will discuss further in this series.

Thanks to DNA testing we know that people considered "black" in the United States usually have complex heritages. And it turns out, to a lesser but still significant extent, so do people considered "white" - especially in the Southern US.

Especially in the Southern US, where attempts are still made to misrepresent the causes of the Civil War. And where you can still see people denying that the Confederacy was treason for an evil cause, every bit as awful as Germany's Third Reich. There are still many in the South who consider their Confederate history a source of pride, rather than shame. Unlike the German descendants of supporters of the Third Reich.

But that simple black/white binary is so easy and uncomplicated and so inexpensive. The evo-psycho bros would have to work so much harder to include actual genetic data in their explanations of "race" groupings, and also it might not turn out after all that there's a connection between African ancestry and greater criminality and lower intelligence. 

How much nicer for them to take three convenient shortcuts:
  • Use social constructions developed in the antebellum South (but pretend they are not social constructions);
  • Use existing data from white supremacists and;
  • Throw out all inconvenient factors.
If you follow this system your sloppiness will not lead to condemnation - on the contrary, established science figures like Steven Pinker will recommend your work on the one hand, and on the other you will be praised for your "science" by a member of the alt-right, Stefan Molyneux.

 I've already discussed the first two convenient shortcuts taken by the evo-psycho bros. Let's next look at the tactic of throwing out inconvenient factors, as we see Razib Khan doing, blatantly in a blog post from a few years ago.

Monday, January 29, 2018

Michael Shermer & Stefan Molyneux

Well turns out that evo-psycho bro Michael Shermer has also used his credibility to boost alt-right Stefan Molyneux.

Shermer and Steven Pinker are good buddies. Here Pinker presenting Shemer speaking out against the dastardly Left.

Claire Lehmann presents alt-right Milo Yiannopoulos "testing" the dastardly Left.

I suppose the evo-psychos are using the dastardly Left as an excuse for why they must make common cause now with the alt-right.

Charles Murray has also appeared on Molyneux's Youtube channel. So has Richard Lynn, Nicholas Wade, and Linda Gottfredsson. If Rushton and Jensen were still alive I'd expect he'd have them on too.

Evo-psycho bros and the inconvenient truth about slave-rape part 1

John Paul Wright, another member of the evo-psycho bro/alt-right network.
Every time I think I have a small, easily covered topic I end up stepping into a rat's nest of science racialism. And then it takes me much longer to research and write than I anticipated and I don't get my laundry done, again.

So before I discuss Razib Khan's interesting response to the NYTimes article White? Black? A Murky Distinction Grows Murkier I want to talk about a few related issues.

Since the days of The Pioneer Fund and before, claims of racial tendencies have been based on the assumption that all humans could be sorted neatly into one of several racial groups, most especially black/white, based on self-identification. This is a practice that lives on right up to the present time, as demonstrated by this exchange I had with Kevin M. Beaver, the Judith Rich Harris Professor of Criminology and Director, Distance Learning Program at FSU who appears in the videos of alt-right racist/misogynist Stefan Molyneux to discuss the genetics of intelligence and crime.

When you look at data according to “race” what genetic testing do you use on study participants to determine their “race"? It’s been shown (23andMe) that some self-identified African Americans have a significant percentage of European ancestry and vice-versa.
In all of my research, I have analyzed secondary data which has only included self-identification of race/ethnicity.  As a result, I was never able to examine ancestry based on genetic testing.

There is no doubt that J. Phillipe Rushton believed there are two "platonic" racial types, black and white:
“Whites have, on average, more neurons and cranial size than blacks… Blacks have an advantage in sport because they have narrower hips — but they have narrower hips because they have smaller brains.”
--J. Philippe Rushton, speaking at the 2000 American Renaissance conference
Like all evo-psycho authors, it seems, Beaver cites the work of J. Phillipe Rushton, who was president of The Pioneer Fund from 2002 until his death in 2012. 
There are probably more but I think five is sufficient to make the point.

Based on the chapter "Inconvenient Truths" written by John Paul Wright in the Biosocial Criminology: New Directions... book edited by Beaver, it's safe to assume that Beaver believes in the two platonic racial types, black and white:

Page 149:
...Areas afflicted by crime and other social pathologies are more frequently black than white, and even less frequently Oriental. Part of the reason for these visible and dramatic differences may have to do with the differential abilities of races to organize socially.
Page 150:
From the available data it would seem ludicrous to argue that "race" is a construct devoid of a biological or evolutionary backdrop. That evolutionary forces have produced biological variance across races is now scientifically undeniable. That many of the characteristics that define races appear to be universal and time stable is also undeniable. Evolution can produce many forms of adaptations, but it cannot produce equality. 
The connection between race and criminal behavior is clearly complex and involves a range of historical, social, psychological and individual variables. Evolution however, provides a powerful mechanism to understand the development of human races and the distribution of traits and behaviors within and across races. It helps explain why races would appear and under what conditions races would appear. It helps to explain why certain traits would be beneficial and why these traits such as higher IQ, would be unequally distributed across races. Moreover evolutionary theory helps explain why race-based patterns of behavior are universal, such as black over-involvement in crime. No other paradigm organizes these patterns better. No other paradigm explains these inconvenient truths.
So we see that the "inconvenient truth" according to John Paul Wright in Biosocial Criminology: New Directions in Theory and Research is that there are (apparently) three races: black, white and Oriental, and that races have different evolved intelligences and criminal tendencies.

By the way, who is John Paul Wright? Well he's an author at Quillette, of course.

John Paul Wright is a Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati.

Here is the web site associated with the book Wright co-authored with Matt DeLisi Conservative Criminology, in case you weren't sure where Wright stood politically.

Turns out there is quite the network in academia, centering on Criminal Justice studies, of white conservative men who consider black people to be by nature more criminal and less intelligent than members of other "races."

Not just conservative of course, in many cases alt-right as demonstrated by Wright's visit to Stefan Molyneux (of course) and his fascinating thoughts on "Why Leftists Are Violent"

I am creating a spreadsheet of them - maybe I'll call it "Shitty University Men" with their academic affiliations and connections to Steven Pinker, the alt-right and Quillette.

Although Quillette and the alt-right is rather redundant since Quillette founder Claire Lehmann is part of the international alt-right.

OK, so how does slave-rape fit into all this? Well it appears that although evo-psycho bros will allow for historical, social, psychological and individual variables as Wright does, what they actually do is ignore the historical record and other data sources.

Thanks to the #MeToo movement, we have seen how often many men with power over women will take full advantage of that power from Harvey Weinstein's complicity machine, to Matt Lauer's "assault button" to Donald Trump's brag that when you're famous you can grab 'em by the pussy.

Now imagine what men like that would do if they owned women.

We don't have to imagine of course, we have historical and genetic records. I will get to that next.

Sunday, January 28, 2018

That brilliant genius Claire Lehmann

Here is Claire Lehmann, the Australian Ann Coulter wanna-be, impressed when a right-wing asshole wins an argument against an imaginary feminist. He even does a voice!

Claire Lehmann thinks he's smart so I'm going to have to go with "yes."

A photo of Peterson arguing with a "radical feminist."

Jerry Coyne, possibly the most anti-feminist of the original evo-psycho bro trio I started this series with (the other two are Pinker and Khan so that's saying a LOT) thinks this moron Peterson is pretty slick because if his standard right-wing party line about no pay gap for women.

Human categorization for basic Bros

I'm not saying the following system is the best possible way to categorize humans, but it's sure better than the evo-psycho bro methodology which is NO methodology except for pure. social. construction.

My system accounts for the interconnections between human bodies and human societies, something that evo-psycho bros cannot be bothered with. At all. And it's their job - or should be - to use rigor in their profession.

In my system there is a difference between race, ethnicity and ancestry.

(Unfortunately the Blogger interface makes it impossible to create a quick and neat and reliable table in HTML - I will switch to WordPress one of these days -  so the table below is a graphic. I do have the HTML version online here. Although the only real advantage is the live links in the HTML version.)

Most of the information is derived from Wikipedia so this table isn't meant to be taken literally, but rather as a demonstration. I don't actually know what the 23andme report says for any of the individuals being studied here.

And unlike evo-psycho bros I believe in more than just "self-reporting" when determining someone's heritage.

You can easily see the problem with self-reporting with someone like Rachel Dolezal, who appears to believe she is at least partially black. She's quoted on her Wiki page describing herself as "African American, Native American, German, Czech, Swedish, Jewish and Arabic." And the self-reporting is also an issue with many Americans who don't know that they have some other "color" in their DNA. For example many "African-Americans" like Michelle Obama go along for years or for life not knowing about their white ancestors - but it's certain that many "African-Americans" do have white ancestors, thanks to all the slave-raping that went on. And it turns out that plenty of "white" Americans have some other "race" in their DNA.

And of course we are all, ultimately, Out of Africa, which is why I included "Broadly Sub-Saharan African" in all three individual profiles. It showed up in my 23andme report too.

And many Americans think they have Native American ancestry, as Obama and Dolezal each claim. Many of them are wrong - my maternal grandmother always claimed we had a Native American woman in our ancestry but one of my maternal cousins and I, using two separate genetic analytic companies,  came up with no evidence of such ancestry.

There is also the issue of the one-drop rule in the United States. Which obviously came about because your ethnicity was a reliable marker of whether you were a slave or not, and would enable free men born in the United States to be kidnapped into slavery, as the historically-based movie 12 Years a Slave recounts.

The one-drop rule was especially useful to the Euro-tocracy when it came to the offspring of slaves. No matter how obvious it was that some children of slaves were fathered by men of European descent, children of enslaved women would remain slaves thanks to having any African heritage.

The moral aspect of this is rarely acknowledged: slave owners allowed their own children to remain slaves thanks to their children's partial African ancestry.

And thanks to the one-drop rule, even though Barack and Michelle Obama and Rachel Dolezal have white ancestors - and nothing but in the case of Dolezal (not counting out of Africa) - all three are considered black - well were considered black in the case of Dolezal before her parents ratted her out. But Dolezal was able to pass for black for years in spite of her light skin. Thanks to the one-drop rule. She made an effort to "look black" and people, even black people believed her.

So in spite of this insistence that race is real, and the obsession with comparing "black" and "white" intelligence on the part of the evo-psycho bros, I have yet to find a study of black/white intelligence that bothered to test its subjects for actual genetic ancestry. Instead they rely completely on self-reporting. I emailed Brian Boutwell's mentor (one might call him recruiter - I will get to that later in this series) Kevin Beaver and asked him:
When you look at data according to “race” what genetic testing do you use on study participants to determine their “race"? It’s been shown (23andMe) that some self-identified African Americans have a significant percentage of European ancestry and vice-versa.
And his response was:
In all of my research, I have analyzed secondary data which has only included self-identification of race/ethnicity.  As a result, I was never able to examine ancestry based on genetic testing.
This did not surprise me at all. Especially considering evo-psycho bro Razib Khan's very strange reaction to a 23andme report that made its way into the NYTimes. I will address that next.

Saturday, January 27, 2018

It's because you support anti-feminists, Jerry Coyne

Evo-psycho bro Jerry Coyne posts on his blog:
I don’t want to put up a poll, or compile statistics, but I have noticed that fewer women seem to chime in on gender-related posts, though I’m not sure about “controversial” posts. This may be an illusion, but if women readers are hesitant to do so, I’d like to know why. 
Also, the sex ratio of commenters does seem to be skewed toward males (I’m judging mostly from user names), and if there’s anything we can do to encourage more women to participate, I’d like to know.  So, although men can weigh in below, I’d especially encourage the women to do so.
Well I could have told him it's because of his MRA sympathies and the fact that he constantly refers readers to Quillette, founded by raging anti-feminist Claire Lehmann - just check out her grotesque screeds on the Canadian alt-right media outlet "The Rebel". 

And here she is appearing on the same show as Gavin McInnes, professional misoygnist. And no, I don't mean merely anti-feminist I mean fucking full-on misogynist. Gavin McInnes hates women, especially women's bodies. He hates women so much you either have to feel incredibly sorry for his mother, or wonder what is wrong with her that she raised such an MRA psychopath.

Diana MacPherson 
Posted January 26, 2018 at 9:44 am | Permalink 
Yes Randall you are absolutely spot on here. I’ve engaged this handful of people over and over and frankly it is no longer worth my time to engage in this conversation. I’m just repeating myself and I’m frankly exhausted to have to counter the following ad nauseam: 
– Feminists hate men
– Women don’t work in STEM because they don’t want to
– The pay gap is a myth
– All feminists are the same – they hate men and if you say otherwise, you are behaving like a theologian who says atheists aren’t sophisticated enough to appreciate religion
– Women and feminists is all about victimhood
– There is no sexism anymore. Women have equal rights
– Women don’t get high paying jobs because they don’t want to do the dirty work/dangerous work/hard work
The above are the persistent themes and they are not worth my time to counter so I left the discussion to the men to decide about what is so with women. Thank goodness for the majority of WEIT men who counter these claims, but even they seem to be growing tired of these remarks and have stopped commenting.
It should be noted, I’m no wuss about engaging in discussion; I think my track record here speaks for itself. But, I can already hear, “the women don’t like arguing; women don’t like engaging in rough discussions; women think WEIT should be safe space for feminists (actually said on WEIT once); women just aren’t interested in this kind of discussion.
If I wanted to read this stuff, I’d go to an MRA site.

So I have to wonder why, given such a hostile environment, she continues to have anything to do with Coyne's site. I gave up on it years ago.

Especially when it's known Coyne likes to censor dissent on his blog, while at the same time, hypocritically, writing screeds against Anita Sarkeesian for refusing to post the abusive misogyny she has been targeted with (in addition to rape and death threats) thanks to Gamergate. 

The evo-psycho bros & The Social Constructionist Heresy

Five races are identified here
It's a funny thing about the evo-psycho brotherhood. As I discussed before they are all certain that race is not a social construct.

And yet you can't get a straight answer out of them about race. Not only for an exact definition of race, but an accounting of all the races that are supposed to exist.

Although at any given time they can reel off a bunch of names of things they sometimes call "races" (which they also call ethnicity and ancestry whenever it suits them) as the Winegard bros and Boutwell did in their article on race and the abhorrence of racism:
  • Caucasians
  • Asians
  • East Asians 
  • Africans
  • African-American
  • Native Americans
  • Australian Aborigines
  • Ashkenazi Jewish 
  • Mizrahi Jewish
Meanwhile, alt-right extremist Stefan Molyneux -  evo-psycho bro Brian Boutwell chose to provide a scientific veneer to his racism has a race classification system showing a different combination (with intelligence rankings):
  1. Ashkenazi Jews
  2. East Asian (it's unclear if he's including South Asian in with this or not)
  3. Caucasian
  4. Mestizo/Hispanic
  5. African Americans
  6. Sub-Saharan Blacks
  7. Pygmies
  8. Indigenous Australians.
In spite of their imprecision about the definition of race and the classification of races and the total number of races, they are at the same time certain that there is a discrete race of people called "blacks" and another called "whites" and that individuals can be accurately assigned to one or the other "race" through self-reporting and that the two groups can then be compared in terms of innate intelligence, and anybody who disagrees with any aspect of the black/white classification and rating process is a denier of reality and giving aid and comfort to demagogues.

Carleston Stevens Coon identifies six races

It's impossible to avoid the conclusion that they can't tell you what race is because they don't have a goddam clue and don't care to investigate further, and all this yammering about platonic concepts is pure obfuscation. 

It reminds me of growing up Catholic.

One of the first things that put me on the road to atheism was when, as a kid it struck me as weird that there was this God who was so important to the adults I knew (and for good reason: he apparently could send you to hell to be tormented forever if he didn't like you) and yet there was precious little known about him, and nobody seemed to want to talk about him and they didn't like it if you asked questions about him.

It seems that for the religious, God was "the truth" and that's all they needed to know and looking too closely at the truth was intolerable.

I asked my first grade teacher Sister Martin Joseph if God could do things that Samantha Stevens on "Bewitched" could do and she just about bit my head off.

That's what it's like to ask an evo-psycho bro for clarity on "race." Your skepticism will lead to your being accused of being anti-science and "promoting a false narrative" and radicalizing the alt-right and denying reality itself, with your damn crazy politically correct insistence on testability and controls and standardized terminology.

And in fact, it turns out that for all their talk about genetics and heredity, when it comes to race, the hereditarians don't actually think much about the genetic evidence of "race." I'll talk about that next.

And then I'll talk about the connection between the evo-psycho bros and the Canadian alt-right - I've blogged about the Canadian alt-right before but I only now just discovered that Stefan Molyneux interviewed Ezra Levant for his Youtube channel and it turns out that Quillette's Claire Lehmann was a contributor of Ezra Levant's "The Rebel."  And her videos about feminism are just as anti-feminist as the content at Quillette.

The evo-psycho/alt-right network is even more tangled than I realized.

Friday, January 26, 2018

On the evo-psycho bros & the social construction of race

Winegard, Winegard and Boutwell argue, 
unintentionally, that "race" is a social construct: 
"There aren’t a fixed number of racial categories, 
and the number researchers use is
partially a matter of convenience. "

Continuing from the last post to review the article in Quillette by the Winegard Bros and Brian Boutwell On the Reality of Race and the Abhorrence of Racism.

What have we learned so far?
  • The problem with race according to the "social constructionists" (we are told) isn't the lack of definition of race, it's ranking races
  • Although race is real, and the average person believes in "Asian" "Caucasian" and "African American" races, no actual race can be identified because there are no "platonic" distinctions 
  • The word "race" is interchangeable with ethnicity and ancestry at random
I should note that Razib Khan did a truly impressive bit of shitweaseling over the term "platonic" as I wrote about in 2015.

Both Steven Pinker and Jerry Coyne approve of this article - Pinker linked to it from his Twitter account and Coyne linked to it from his blog, saying:
I’ve explained my take on “race” many times before, and you can search for it on this site. (If you want just one article, go here, which summarizes and glosses a like-minded piece from Quillette by Bo Winegard, Ben Winegard, and Brian Boutwell).
Boutwell and the Bros compare races to film categories, concluding: 
 ...genre-based satire like Scream, for example, does not snugly fit into any of the traditional film categories. It might be horror; it might be comedy; it might be some previously unknown combination of the two. Furthermore, there aren’t a fixed number of film categories. The amount and the granularity of film categories depend upon the interests of the people using them. Your friend might use four (horror, comedy, drama, and science fiction), whereas Netflix might use an apparently limitless and startlingly specific supply. 
The same principles apply to racial categories...
The Winegards and Boutwell apparently don't know, or don't care that nobody claims that film genre categorization is scientific. This is the worst possible analogy they could come up with.

Or maybe it's the best. This demonstration of evo-psycho bro thought processes gives you an insight into what evolutionary psychology really is - not a rigorous scientific discipline but rather very much like a bunch of bros idly chatting about whether "Scream" is comedy or horror, and deciding they can agree to disagree and each have their own proprietary system at home.

You can't get a better example of why evolutionary psychology, especially in relation to "race" is absolute bullshit.

They admit racial categories are not real - "in some metaphysical sense" - and are "partially a matter of convenience."
 There aren’t a fixed number of racial categories, and the number researchers use is partially a matter of convenience. One might start with five continentally based categories (i.e., Caucasians, East Asians, Africans, Native Americans, and Australian Aborigines) and then add more categories as one’s analysis becomes more granular (e.g. Ashkenazi Jewish, Mizrahi Jewish, and so on). These categories aren’t real in some metaphysical sense, but they are useful, and they do have predictive value. 
They then go on to scold progressives - because that is always what evo-psycho bros do.
Although the argument that racial categories are fictitious and useless is ostensibly a scientific one, it has been promulgated by progressives to combat racial bigotry. After all, if race is an illusion, then racism is as unreasonable as the fear of ghosts. This would allow researchers and intellectuals not only to denounce racism, but also to mock racists for their basic misunderstanding of biology. But what if meaningful race differences do exist? Should intellectuals continue to promote a false narrative because it serves laudable social ends? This dilemma can be avoided entirely if intellectuals promote a narrative of tolerance that is not attached to an empirical claim. 
As I have demonstrated, they show that the evo-psycho concept of "race" is a random, unstable, ad-hoc, subjective categorization "of convenience", similar to film genre categorization - and on reflection, I find their concept of race is even less stable, less organized and more variable than film genre categorization.

In other words, they scold progressives for denying a biological reality that they have utterly failed to demonstrate exists.

This is why the evo-psycho bros are so irritating: their smug certainty that they are the champions of objective truth combined with poorly reasoned, poorly argued, poorly written, vague, unsupported claims. This is why evo-psycho bros cause scientists like PZ Myers to cry out in exasperation: "shitweasel!"

The Winegard bros and Boutwell then use the same argument Pinker used in his PC video:
Denying the reality of race leaves a vacuum for extremists to exploit. If moderates and progressives refuse to discuss human racial variation, then only the most extreme and often deplorable people will.  We can assure you that if we don’t talk about it as research scientists, it will not prevent racial demagogues from using it to support ugly and intolerant social policies. And it will also cede the scientific high ground to those demagogues, compelling moderates and progressives to resort to semantic games or purposeful obfuscation and straw man arguments.
The incredible hypocrisy of this statement is demonstrated by the fact that Brian Boutwell gave an interview to alt-right extremist Stefan Molyneux.

Apparently questioning the assumptions and claims of the HBD crowd is ceding the moral high ground to demagogues, but it's perfectly OK to aid and abet an alt-right extremist.

And thus we see the accuracy of PZ Myers's words: "racist circle jerk" - there is a through-line from the racism of the mid- 20th century to the alt-right extremists now.
  1. The explicitly racist Pioneer Fund pays for research to demonstrate the natural inferiority of blacks.
  2. Charles Murray used their research to argue for the natural intellectual inferiority of blacks in The Bell Curve - and not coincidentally to argue against funding programs that help the poor
  3. Steven Pinker defends The Bell Curve and although he denies he agrees with The Bell Curve's view of blacks, often cites, supports and promotes the work of "hereditarians" who do: J. Phillipe Rushton, Arthur Jensen, Richard LynnRazib KhanSteve SailerBo WinegardBen Winegard and Brian Boutwell.
  4. Those hereditarians promoted by Pinker then help to give a "scientific" veneer to alt-right extremists such as Stefan Molyneux. Or are an alt-right extremist like Steve Sailer.


In this video we see Stefan Molyneux ranking "races" by intelligence. The races he identifies (most intelligent at the top)
  1. Ashkenazi Jews
  2. East Asian (it's unclear if he's including South Asian in with this or not)
  3. Caucasian
  4. Mestizo/Hispanic
  5. African Americans
  6. Sub-Saharan Blacks
  7. Pygmies
  8. Indigenous Australians
Now the thing is, according to the Winegards and Boutwell (supported by Pinker, Coyne and Khan), you have no basis to critique or question Stefan Molyneux's race classifications because there are no fixed number of racial classifications and anybody can hand-craft their own artisanal system.

So if you thought most Jews were Caucasian or you're wondering how the Inuit or the Maori or the Yanomami fit in here, well don't worry - you can invent your own race classifications system and decide for yourself. That's the way it's done in the world of evolutionary psychology/human biodiversity. Do whatever feels good man.

Here is anthropologist R. Brian Ferguson's critique of the claims about Ashkenazi Jews.

FUN FACT: while my ethnicity falls 99.9% within what the evo-psycho bros and the average person would classify as "Caucasian"  I once upon a time benefitted from both the food stamps program and "welfare." Thanks to my ex-husband's failure to pay child support for years (he's an Ashkenazi Jew for those of you "racial realists" following this series) I was a struggling single mother, the kind of person Stefan Molyneux believes nobody should get involved with.