Comments by "scrim" (@-scrim) on "Michael Yo Talks About Growing Up Mixed-Race in Texas" video.
-
4
-
@unusual coconut > Being a troll is embarassing.
hurr durr everyting iz a troll LOLZ
. Nice outdated meme and emojis.
> Just so you know whites are gonna be a minority by 2050
Similar to findings elsewhere, once whites pass a certain threshold of replacement (&cl.) they start to wake up and refuse these things. It's revitalizes a sense of ethnocentrism, perhaps. It won't be surprising if we see something similar happen in the U.S. in the future — in fact, I'd say it's already happening to a certain extent.
I, for one, can't wait until white people get angry.
> Black men are gonna keep taking your white women!
First off, black people aren't the ones doing the replacing. The black population has been quite stagnate for a century, and is expected to maintain a similar population. Blacks aren't the ones in question, though it's cute how you can dream. That 85 IQ is doing you well!
Secondly, have you seen those interracial statistics? That isn't much of a worry to begin with. Not to mention that blacks are consistently rateed as the least desirable (whites the opposite), lol.
2
-
@highneedforcognition9660 > "Meanwhile, are you aware that only non-african ethnicities, including European whites, have interbred with neanderthals and have measurable amounts of neanderthal DNA?"
Yes, some other groups have varying degrees of neanderthal admixture, almost solely ranging from >2%. Also, that's wrong; African groups have also been found to have a degree of neanderthal admixture. Many African groups also have a degree of "ghost DNA" — speculated to be from an extinct species or other unknown events unique to the continent.
> "does this suggest that less "inbreeding" helped them in some way relative to Africans? If not, is it a weakness that you feel embarrassed about as a non-African, mixed-species or at least mixed-race individual?"
The small degree of varying admixture is not particularly of importance yet, as it's not definitively known what precisely the transmitted loci entirely impacts. It could cause significant variance, it could be junk. There's some evidence for adaptive introgression, but I think it was minor. In the modern day, insofar as neanderthal introgression may have been cognitively helpful, it would, thus, probably be negatively associated with fertility, which is consistent with some recent selection against it at the genetic level. The entire topic needs far more analysis before anything is asserted.
> "But if this mixing did help, how do you make sense of the fact that the continent of Africa before European conquest, all of the denizens of which were presumably labeled "black", still had more genetic diversity than the rest of the human race combined (and still does)?"
I don't see any contradiction to make sense of. "Diversity" in terms of heterozygosity and the number of polymorphisms does not imply anything trait-wise; for many traits - thanks in part to things like overdominance -, you'll find that heterozygosity and phenotypic diversity are negatively associated.
People often get confused about the African variability. Africans are highly variable because they don’t have a lot of founder effects since they stayed stationary in Africa. Most of the variation lost in non-Africans is nonfunctional rare variants. If it was functional in a significant way, Africans would, say, have higher standard deviations on measured human traits.
A lot of this variation is also inside each smaller population in Africa. The two really diverse groups, the Bushmen and the Pygmies, are only a small fraction of 1% or so of the billion-plus population of Africa south of the Sahara. In contrast, the vast majority of old stock African Americans trace their ancestry back to the vast Bantu Expansion out of West Africa (or to Bantu-adjacent peoples in West Africa) — a not so diverse group.
In any case, the fact that a given large group has more variation does not imply it has more overall genetic variation between populations for any given trait, such as height. So, there is no particular reason to expect there to be large within African variation in say, intelligence.
We can see, for instance, Europeans have much more "diversity" in many phenotypic traits, or things like hair and eye color, than Africans.
> "Also, how do you expect mixed race people to feel about their existence if you label race-mixing embarrassing?"
I would expect them to continue as normal.
> "that you hated groups for immutable characteristics, which would be racist if so."
Nothing I said suggests I hate any group. Being against the act of miscegenation for the value of racial diversity, preservation, heritage, various other genetic and cultural reasons (&c.) is not racist and is not indicative of hating the product of said action. Say I hate ligers (the offspring of a tiger and a lion) due to the various negative effects, and so forth, that come along with it — does that somehow mean that I'm against the offspring itself and would want to, say, cause any harm to the animal? No, I want the animal to have a good life. This does not mean, however, that I want more of this offspring produced.
> "Finally, if the Irish were white all along, as were the French, the Greeks, the Italians, the Jews, and all our other allowed immigrant groups, it seems clear that the Spaniards, the Portuguese, and their decendants to the south of us are white as well."
As I already stated, the views of historical people do not impact the current literature necessarily. It turns out that they happened to basically be correct, most of the time (Jews are a distinct group, though).
Spaniards and the like are white — the basic history of the Spaniard genotype reflects this. They are mainly Celtic-descended.
Sure, their descendants "to the south of us" are white, assuming they have not race-mixed and have any significant degree of non-white admixture. That's often not the case, though.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@highneedforcognition9660 > "rather than insulting me, your point would be better served by providing clear reasoning and logic."
I didn't insult you.
> "I do want introductory literature to your views. Please clearly state what the "white biological cluster" is to you."
If you want a basic introductory, I'd suggest A Troublesome Inheritance by Nicholas Wade. It's easy to understand and short. Nearing the end it gets a bit speculative, but good nonetheless. I'd also suggest Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective by Rushton. Some of the things haven't held up to a certain degree, but it's a pretty good basic comprehension.
> "There is a book called "how the Irish became white" if you would like some "introductory literature" on the topic of the evolving breadth of the "white biological cluster" in America."
1. You don't know what a biological cluster is. They cluster with whites as they are white, that's the extent.
2. Specific skirmishes about the different ethnicities within the white race is diminished in the face of relevant policy and the like.
- The U.S. had a white only immigration policy. As Irish were included and granted citizenship, they were clearly considered white.
- Were the Irish allowed to go to “whites-only” schools in the South, or otherwise partake of the advantages that accrued to whites? Yes.
- When laws banned interracial marriage, if an Anglo-Saxon wanted to marry a member of the group, would that have been against the law? No.
- Furthermore, the Irish had similar rates of employment and economic success as other groups, including Italians and Germans.
But as I already stated, this is irrelevant to our understanding of race and this, itself, has no impact on the subject. It's not really something that I, or anyone else for that matter, should really care about (regarding this subject). Also, that citation seems more like an ideological piece more than anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@highneedforcognition9660 > "it seems as though you are selecting which traits to attend to based on a pre-existing agenda."
No, and nothing suggesting so.
> "Statements implying there is less phenotypic diversity among Africans than among a group as similar as Europeans are simply laughable."
Okay, provide a list of important (or otherwise) traits that are more variable among Africans.
As I already stated, Africans are highly variable because they don’t have a lot of founder effects since they stayed stationary in Africa. Most of the variation lost in non-Africans is nonfunctional rare variants. If it was functional in a significant way, Africans would, say, have higher standard deviations on measured human traits.
Generally, we expect between population or subgroup variety in intelligence and other expensive traits, only when natural variation has favored this, i.e. in the presence of divergent selection.
> "Yes, if you fixate on eye color or hair color, you could support that assertion."
Just some basic examples, don't get too caught up.
> "But these traits are hardly comprehensive, relevant, or interesting, and there are many equally superficial ones such as nose widths or heights or body shapes or lactose tolerance that clearly show more variance among Africans (which are shockingly all grouped into the monolithic "black" category). How about variance in personality traits? Learning styles? Diets? Linguistic phonemes? Approaches to sexuality? Emotional intelligence?"
Feel free to empirically substantiate these and list the more variable traits. Not sure what is exactly shocking about them being in the black category, it is clearly viable in cluster analyses and the like. Perhaps you can explain that for me.
Also, "emotional intelligence" isn't really a thing — at least other than g + personality.
> "Measuring intelligence is dubious in diverse cultural contexts..."
It clearly works.
> "... a form of imperialism imposed on some societies by others."
Not even a sensible claim. In general, third world samples seem to be even more excited about taking tests, but they also show more acquiescent bias — and if testing were biased it would break measurement invariance.
> "It's little surprise that cultural contexts similar to the ones in which the construct was invented tend to score the highest on average."
Doesn't make much sense. It has nothing to do with culture (same thing with elementary cognitive tasks) and bias doesn't robustly manifest in the same directions.
> "I'm still not clear on why race mixing is a problem for you."
Refer above. Also, things like deleterious effects are going to be due to draws from additivity and it cannot have a positive average effect for populations sitting at higher means of good traits unless they're inbred, and no major population in inbred in such a way as to allow that to be beneficial, so probably null, bad for that population's mean, good for the lower one's. Insofar as liability for things like atherosclerosis and multiple sclerosis or depression and anxiety is genetically additive, any population mixing where one population has a higher mean will see an expected average increase for the lower population as well, provided a lack of sorting, and of course, additivity without funk from dominance/epistasis.
> "I imagine things like a more competent and diverse immune system"
Doubtful for most populations since major populations are generally not meaningfully inbred and immune diversity especially is typically strongly conserved.
> "greater symmetry and/or attractiveness"
Not likely for mixes from major populations since they aren't inbred. From strange isolates, sure. In general, breakup of adapted linkage will probably lead to more negative effects here — which we can already see.
> "and even greater intelligence than their parents are possibilities worth investigating"
Same caveats as above but not much linkage consideration. Assortative mating is a barrier here, however. Are you a big fan of eugenics? Unassortative mating will typically have a negative impact on the population with the higher mean — which is why, say, mixed-race people have an average IQ roughly in between that of populations. Don't think assortative mating here would be worth it, especially with all the other variables to consider.
> "But of course I still think the concept of races is terribly imprecise and would prefer the more specific term ethnicities."
Depends on the task at hand. You can go arbitrarily smaller or larger, but there's generally real no utility in that. There is some utility in using race, broadly defined at the continental level.
Admixture results from the normal Blumenbach Partition. race-level K=5, are consistent with the regularly observed group differences being as they are.
> "Perhaps the Flynn effect is due in part to societies' increased tolerance of inter-ethnic unions (including among groups under the "white" umbrella)."
This is just so on-its-face wrong that it's laughable. I will however ask; what exactly is the Flynn effect? What variable(s) does it affect? Is it related to the relevant racial differences?
1