Pigmentation loss is of itself maladaptive

Posted by Søren Renner on March 02, 2006, 03:57 AM | #

Swedes are pale like cave salamanders? Witrh vestigial eyes?

Oh that this too too foolish post would melt / Mine kingdome for a newt! / Albino seemeth it and pale / And slimy like the skin / Of monstrous ‘phibian.

Posted by J Richards on March 02, 2006, 05:12 AM | #

John,

Peter Frost’s paper is not just about blond hair, but also about lighter eyes, an unusually high diversity of eye and hair color, and the more feminine appearance of white women.  I also added the finer facial features of whites [especially of the Scandinavians] and parts of the face, such as the jaw, whereby the chin is better developed than in non-Nordics, even though all other parts of the jaw have shrunk significantly.  All this is strong sexual selection writ large.

In Peter Frost’s paper, the conclusion of intense sexual selection is separate from the proposed reason for the intense sexual selection, and even if it could be shown that the proposed reason for the intense sexual selection is incorrect, the fact of intense sexual selection will stand.  All your objections target the proposed reason behind strong sexual selection, not the conclusion that strong sexual selection has taken place, which apart from the correlates I mentioned in the first paragraph of this reply, is also based on the recent rapid accumulation of an unusual amount of genetic diversity at the MC1R locus in Europeans.

I replied to your last comment in my entry regarding skin color differences between the Irish and the Scandinavians, and will repeat it here.  The Scandinavians are not as pale-skinned as the Irish, though they are blonder.  Contrary to your interpretation, this strengthens Peter Frost’s case because it argues against the notion that natural selection is responsible for across-the-board depigmentation.  Whereas Peter Frost has mentioned the more feminine appearance of white women, he has probably thought it best to refrain from mentioning the finer facial features of Scandinavians compared to the Irish, which once again reflects strong sexual selection.  It is difficult to imagine any advantage of finer facial features from the standpoint of natural selection.

You assume that loss of pigmentation occurred due to mysterious forces beyond the control of the ancestors of Nordics, and then they moved to cloudier regions to protect their skin.  Well, maladaptive mutations would be selected against.  By all means, loss of skin pigmentation occurred after humans moved up North, and was adaptive in the sense that it made them make the most of the limited amount of sunlight they received.  Part of the skin depigmentation could also be possibly related to sexual selection.  There is no genetic reason why skin lightening need necessarily correspond to lightening of hair and irises.

Regarding the three postulates that you mention, Peter Frost has made a good case that Northern populations would have been more dependent on men for obtaining food because of limited opportunities for food gathering, and has also cited evidence that they derived most of their food from animal sources (i.e., hunting). 

To address the second postulate, Frost has cited molecular data, which I have appended, showing that a smaller proportion of European males per generation have been successful at reproducing than non-European males.  This issue needs to be looked at in more detail among European populations, but greater reproductive skew among European males appears to be a fairly robust conclusion.

Finally, speaking of being sexually liberated, how long have the Scandinavian been Christian?  Like a thousand years or so, and presently the majority of them are not Christian in any sense of the word.  Christianity was imposed upon Northern Europeans, and they have largely modified and abandoned [the Middle Eastern aspects] it because it is not part of their nature.  Do you seriously believe that the sexual freedom Scandinavians give to their women is entirely due to some kind of social conditioning that could be implemented in any other human population?  Think before you or someone else tries to explain this in terms of feminism or liberalism.  There are undoubtedly feminist types among the Saudis, but any feminist movement there would be mercilessly crushed, and with the backing of many women.  Race differences are more than skin deep.

Posted by AD on March 02, 2006, 05:56 AM | #

Why is it about pigmentation loss? Primates have white skin. Dark skin was the mutation. If we were ever dark skinned back up the family tree, our pigmentation has now returned to what it originally was. Maybe our breakaway race just remained hairy enough until we got to Europe that we kept white skin all along.

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 02, 2006, 07:30 AM | #

Charles Darwin wrote in the Descent of Man:

The following case, though relating to savages, is well worth giving for its curiosity. Mr. Winwood Reade informs me that the Jollofs, a tribe of negroes on the west coast of Africa, “are remarkable for their uniformly fine appearance.” A friend of his asked one of these men, “How is it that every one whom I meet is so fine looking, not only your men but your women?” The Jollof answered, “It is very easily explained: it has always been our custom to pick out our worst-looking slaves and to sell them.” It need hardly be added that with all savages, female slaves serve as concubines. That this negro should have attributed, whether rightly or wrongly, the fine appearance of
his tribe to the long-continued elimination of the ugly women is not so surprising as it may at first appear; for I have elsewhere shewn* that negroes fully appreciate the importance of selection in the breeding of their domestic animals, and I could give from Mr. Reade additional evidence on this head.

Certainly concubines were common amongst the pagan Nords and animal husbandry, especially regarding cattle was important to the Germanic people. If the Nords and the Jollofs both considered the importance of selection in breeding their animals, it seems not unreasonable that the Nords might apply the same criteria to their concubines.

Posted by Mark Richardson on March 02, 2006, 11:08 AM | #

This is the Roman historian Tacitus writing about the northern tribes in his work Germania (98 AD):

Their marriage code, however, is strict and no feature of their morality deserves higher praise. They are almost unique among barbarians in being content with one wife apiece ...

... This interchange of gifts [between bride and groom] typifies for them the most sacred bond of union, sanctified by mystic rites under the favour of the presiding deities of wedlock.

... By such means is the virtue of their women protected, and they live uncorrupted by the temptations of public shows or the excitements of banquets. Clandestine love letters and unknown to men and women alike.

Adultery is extremely rare, considering the size of the population. A guilty wife is summarily punished by her husband. He cuts off her hair, strips her naked, and in the presence of kinsmen turns her out of his house and flogs her all through the village.

They have in fact no mercy on a wife who prostitutes her chastity. Neither beauty, youth, nor wealth can find her another husband.

No one in Germany finds vice amusing, or calls it “up-to-date” to seduce and be seduced.

Even better is the practice of those states in which only virgins may marry, so that a woman who has once been a bride has finished with all such hopes and aspirations. She takes one husband, just as she has one body and one life. Her thoughts must not stray beyond him or her desires survive him.

And even that husband she must not love for himself, but as an embodiment of the married state.

To restrict the number of children, or to kill any of those born after the heir, is considered wicked. Good morality is more effective in Germany than good laws are elsewhere.

Of course, this is only one source of evidence. But this source does strongly suggest that the northern tribes were not at all lax in their sexual morality, but were strict even by later Christian standards.

Posted by SD on March 02, 2006, 02:15 PM | #

This is interesting:-

“21 November 2001
Professor proves men want blondes for marriage and brunettes for fun
Source: Divorce-Online World News

A German scientist claims the old adage about blondes having more fun is no longer true.

Professor Hans Juergens says his research proves brunettes now have more fun.

He believes men want to marry blondes like Claudia Schiffer but have affairs with brunettes like Catherine Zeta Jones.

Professor Juergens says men associate blondes with marriage and washing powder but brunettes with sex.

To test his theory the professor from Kiel put two adverts in a newspaper pretending to be a 26-year-old woman looking for marriage.

In one he made her blonde, in the other a brunette.

“The men wanted to bed the dark-haired women, but were thinking of sharing their lives or building a house with the blonde,” he said.

Professor Juergens says advertisers have already cottoned on to changing attitudes about hair colour.

“Almost everything that is associated with washing and cleaning materials is advertised with a blonde,” he said.

Dark-haired women, said the professor, are usually used to sell chocolate, alcoholic drinks and sexy underwear”

Posted by Guessedworker on March 02, 2006, 02:37 PM | #

Is there by any chance a survey out there which shows that a large majority of men think it’s churlish to be too fussy.

Posted by J Richards on March 02, 2006, 05:26 PM | #

Mark,

I’d be more impressed if you found a similar description of the Vikings.  The problem with your account is that Germans are central European in large part.  The Nordic element in Germany is largely in the North, and some of its dates to recent history, namely when the Swedes went down south to fight the Catholics in the 1600s (the 30 years war), and some settled there.  Nordic types have passed through Germany in the past, but this was way before Tacitus was born.

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 02, 2006, 06:23 PM | #

The Illicit Love Visit: An Archaeology of Old Norse Sexuality
Journal article by Jenny Jochens; Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol. 1, 1991, she writes:

The Norse corner of the Germanic world, however, standing at the outermost limit of the geographic and chronological expansion of Christianity, offers a special case worth further investigation. Arriving in the north with its sexual and marital program almost fully developed at least half a millennium later than in the rest of Europe, churchmen encountered sharper confrontations with native culture here than on the European continent where Germanic and Christian traditions had been in contact for centuries. As a consequence, Old Norse sources afford abundant illustrations of the near-impossible task of imposing Christian sexual morality on a recalcitrant population. Is it also possible, therefore, to bring into focus the latent image of pre-Christian or pagan sexuality from this evidence? It seems apparent that those features against which churchmen fought most vigorously or which they accepted with reluctance, traits such as extensive concubinage and easy divorce, can be hardly less than still vital remnants of pagan sexual deportment.

Re: multiple sexual partners she writes,

We recall that the thirteenth-century sources indicate the prevalence of informal unions in place of marriage and the indulgence of multiple sexual companions in concubinage in addition to marriage by most leading men.  85 This behavior was especially common among the Nordic royalty. The kings’ sagas reveal cases where fathers offered their daughters for sexual pleasure to Danish and Norwegian kings in the often justified hope that they might produce a royal heir who would in due course bring prominence to their own family.
[...]
Persisting in Norway and Iceland among the leading classes, this ingrained habit suggests that pagan sexuality had been originally characterized by multiple partners, at least among royalty and aristocracy.
[...]
The narrative and legal texts indicate that pagan men made regular sexual use of slaves, poor women, and servant girls. We recall the beautiful slave Melkorka whom Hǫskuld brought home from a market.  The Icelandic law stipulated that a man had the right to purchase a slave “for his bodily pleasure” (til karnaðar, Gg [la:192]).

Posted by J Richards on March 03, 2006, 10:25 PM | #

Desmond,

Thanks for the excerpts.

Mark,

I have recently learned that what Tacitus had to say about Germania is not necessarily 100% reliable.  Tacitus never visited Germany and conceded that his work is “unauthenticated.” In a paper titled The Duel in International Relations, I also came across the statement, “Yet even when more exacting investigators study the same subject [duels to settle disputes], Tacitus’ narrative repeats with nauseating monotony across history and cultures.”

Posted by Calvin on March 07, 2006, 07:52 PM | #

This theory sounds like a bunch of crap to me. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that the hunter gatherer lifestyle was more viable than the primitive agricultural lifestyle. It was no more difficult for humans to survive in ice-age Europe than it was in many other environments. Why haven’t Eskimos evolved into blue-eyed blondes? There is no evidence that the HG lifestyle was more dangerous to men than it was to women. HG women were just as exposed to accident or attack from wild animals as HG men were and they were most likely to have not been armed to defend themselves against such attack. There is no evidence that blond hair or light eyes would be regarded as attractive in a brown eyed dark skinned population. As deviations from the norm, these traits are more likely to have been regarded as ugly deviations. The selective pressure needed to elevate a recessive gene to a dominant position, a position in which the vast majority of the population possessed the attributes of a non-dominant gene, would have to be phenomenal. If prehistoric populations had concentrated their reproductive choices on such a limited selection of females the European race would have become extinct thousands of years ago. Blondes are still the bench mark of feminine beauty and yet blondes, we are informed, will be extinct in about 200 years time. According to this theory the modern preference for blondes should lead to a massive explosion of blondness. A recessive gene cannot become a dominant gene. Nordic Europeans must have been created blonde and blue-eyed. Is this what passes for science these days?

Posted by J Richards on March 07, 2006, 09:14 PM | #

Calvin,

Have you bothered to even read the actual paper?  Are you kidding me that it was not more difficult to survive in the cold North compared to the tropics?  The reason for the Nordic looks is more intense sexual selection, not natural selection or else Eskimos and Northeastern Asians would have also acquired lighter hair, lighter eyes and a high level of diversity of hair and eye color.  And, Frost is not just considering hair and eyes; he is also addressing the more feminine appearance of white women, and I have mentioned a bunch of other aspects of the facial features of Nordics that suggest strong sexual selection. 

You completely ignore the unusual diversity at the MC1R locus in Europeans that has accumulated so rapidly that random genetic drift can be ruled out and natural selection does not appear to be implicated, you disregard molecular data showing greater reproductive skew among European males compared to non-European males, ignore evidence of Norse sexuality, ignore evidence that Nordic looks are well-appreciated among many dark people, and if you only had bothered to read the link that John Ray refers to, you would have encountered information debunking the rumor that blondes are supposed to go extinct in 200 years.  Peter Frost’s paper by no means suggests uniform blondness given enough time.  He talks about rare color advantage, something that will tend to maintain a high level of hair and eye color diversity in Nordics rather than cause uniform blondness.

Posted by Calvin on March 08, 2006, 09:23 AM | #

“Are you kidding me that it was not more difficult to survive in the cold North compared to the tropics?”

No. I’m saying that it was no more difficult to survive in ice-age Europe than it was to survive in Siberia, Northern China, or the Kalahari desert. 

“And, Frost is not just considering hair and eyes; he is also addressing the more feminine appearance of white women, and I have mentioned a bunch of other aspects of the facial features of Nordics that suggest strong sexual selection”

There are plenty of ugly blonde and ginger people around. There is no reason to suggest a correlation between lack of pigmentation and general beauty. In order to have a selective advantage the blondes thrown up through random mutation would also have to have been fortunate enough to be more beautiful than their dark haired competitors. Your average blonde is more likely to look like Jade Goody than Anna Kournikova.

“You completely ignore the unusual diversity at the MC1R locus in Europeans”

I don’t see any reason to assume that phenotypic diversity is attributable to anything other than the fact that Europe was inhabited by a multitude of sub-races. We see the same range of diversity in African populations expressed in morphology rather than through pigmentation (although Blacks do vary in pigmentation).

“Nordic looks are well-appreciated among many dark people”

And Oriental looks are appreciated among European males. If I claimed that Europeanshave become increasingly dark haired because of an innate preference for black hair and brown eyes, I could cite the attraction many White Europeans have for East Asian women as evidence. Would anyone take that proposition seriously? I do hope not.

Historical evidence seems to indicate that certain European racial groups were almost uniformly light haired and blue eyed. These groups seem to have lost their distinctive pigmentation through lengthy interbreeding with darker Europeans with dominant chromatic genes. Why are we assuming that Nordic had to “turn” blonde? Is their a big debate in China about how they became black haired?

Posted by J Richards on March 09, 2006, 01:53 AM | #

Calvin,

You wrote:

No. I’m saying that it was no more difficult to survive in ice-age Europe than it was to survive in Siberia, Northern China, or the Kalahari desert.

Why do you ignore evidence of greater reproductive skew among white males compared to non-white males, as revealed by Y-chromosome data?  Peter Frost notes:

The eastern end of the Eurasian tundra belt differed from the western end in two OSR-relevant ways. First, its narrower width constrained herbivore mobility, thus shortening hunting distances and reducing hunting deaths among young men. Male mortality would have further decreased after the glacial maximum: An absence of base camps in the archeological record suggests that residential units were dispersing to exploit a variety of resources with shorter hunting distances (Goebel, 1999, p. 223). Second, the eastern Eurasian tundra had higher latitudes, lower carrying capacity, and a more dispersed human population, thus providing the same environmental conditions that in more recent times have led to female infanticide in the extreme Arctic. These two factors, shorter hunting distances and increased female infanticide, would have resulted in a more balanced OSR and, consequently, less sexual selection to diversify hair and eye color.

Note the differences between the eastern and western ends of the Eurasian tundra belt.

You wrote:

There are plenty of ugly blonde and ginger people around. There is no reason to suggest a correlation between lack of pigmentation and general beauty. In order to have a selective advantage the blondes thrown up through random mutation would also have to have been fortunate enough to be more beautiful than their dark haired competitors. Your average blonde is more likely to look like Jade Goody than Anna Kournikova.

No correlation between lighter pigmentation and general beauty?  Have you not noticed the finer facial features of Northern Europeans?  It is not the contention of Frost’s paper to argue that the initial blondes had finer facial features, but more intense sexual selection has lead to a high frequency of light hair, a high frequency of light eyes, a great deal of hair and eye color diversity and finer facial features among Nordics.  Yes, there are ugly light-haired people around, but it is clear that Northern Europeans have finer facial features than other Europeans.

You wrote:

I don’t see any reason to assume that phenotypic diversity is attributable to anything other than the fact that Europe was inhabited by a multitude of sub-races. We see the same range of diversity in African populations expressed in morphology rather than through pigmentation (although Blacks do vary in pigmentation).

I am not talking about phenotypic diversity, but genotypic diversity at the MC1R locus.  So you are suggesting that red-haired, brown-haired, black-haired and blonde-haired populations mixed to form the Nordics of today?  Why did such population diversity arise in the European tundra belt but not the Asian tundra belt, and where is the evidence that European populations distinguished by hair color mixed to produce the present-day Nordics?  Do not forget that the diversity at the MC1R locus has rapidly accumulated within the past 14,000 years.  If what you say is true, then there would be molecular evidence of mixing of distinct populations among Nordics.  Where is this evidence?  Also note that if you remove recent Northern migrations toward southern Europe (e.g., Franks and Normans toward France, Lombards toward Italy, etc.), you end up with largely dark-haired Europeans in Central and Southern Europe.  So what made all the hair and eye color diversity rapidly accumulate in a small [Northern] portion of Europe?  It does not appear to be natural selection. 

You wrote:

And Oriental looks are appreciated among European males. If I claimed that Europeanshave become increasingly dark haired because of an innate preference for black hair and brown eyes, I could cite the attraction many White Europeans have for East Asian women as evidence. Would anyone take that proposition seriously? I do hope not.

Few white males have an interest in East Asian women.  Most white males that I have seen with East Asian women are loser types.

You wrote:

Historical evidence seems to indicate that certain European racial groups were almost uniformly light haired and blue eyed. These groups seem to have lost their distinctive pigmentation through lengthy interbreeding with darker Europeans with dominant chromatic genes. Why are we assuming that Nordic had to “turn” blonde? Is their a big debate in China about how they became black haired?

What historical evidence are you talking about?  To the best of my knowledge, no such population has ever existed.  Besides, if everyone is blond and blue-eyed, how attractive will these traits be within such a population?  Rare color advantage is well-known in the context of sexual selection, and it is unlikely that sexual selection ever transformed a European population to uniform blondness and uniform blue-eyedness.  Who said anything about assuming that Nordics had to turn blond?  There is no reason why they had to from the perspective of natural selection, but they became a lot blonder than other populations and this needs to be explained, and the explanation best appears to lie in sexual selection.

Before you respond, please read Peter Frost’s paper and the commentary on it first.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 09, 2006, 03:54 PM | #

There are two issues here.  One is the Frost theory itself, which sounds reasonable, but remains conjectural.  The second issue is the “political” reasons for these posts, which possibly revolve around the attempt to convince guys like JJR and David B. – who ignore or mock the concept of EGI – to support the preservation of populations that are characterized by certain phenotypic traits. 

Of course, if it works, anything that can motivate a defense of EGI – even when that defense is unconscious and performed on the conscious level only in defense of certain proximate values – could be adaptive.

However, there are some problems with concentrating on the proximate approach.

First, different people have varying views of what phenotypic traits should be valued.  The GNXPers value “high-IQ cognitive elitist technocrats” and thus support assortative mating based on intelligence and not race nor racial phenotype.  They indeed seem to welcome Sailer’s vision of a “Jeurasian elite” future.  It doesn’t seem likely that these people would be bothered if the average physical appearance of North America and Europe was similar to that of Razib, as long as “high intelligence” and “technological progress” was maintained and promoted (although Razib himself would mourn the loss of blonde, Nordic women as potential mates for his descendants).  JJR may well dis-associate fair complexions from “fine features” (e.g., “pink-skinned” mestizos) and/or may wish to associate fair complexion in an aracial manner associated with GNXP-like considerations of ability and status (e.g., the idea that the infusion of “high quality” non-white genes into the pool of “fair-skinned” elites is “good” – with Latin America viewed as a role model).  Here John is actually stating that fair skin is “maladaptive” and he seems to be mirroring the GNXP IQ preferences.  The point is that JJR, David B., and others are unlikely to share the same phenotypic preferences as say, J Richards, or Guessedworker.

While it may be emotionally satisfying to classify white males with Asian mating preferences as “losers”, the fact remains that phenotypic preferences vary among the populace:
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/8/emw277702.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040621-122217-3647r.htm
It is difficult to make an “objective” argument for valuing proximate traits other than saying that “these are our traits and therefore we should wish to preserve them.” This then goes beyond valuing the traits for their own utility and/or aesthetic value and toward the idea of valuing traits because they are shared by co-ethnics.  This latter idea begins to approach the boundary of EGI.

Second, even if all agree on a set of phenotypic preferences, the implication then is, that if a population is a focal point of positive interest because it has a high incidence of the valued traits, then populations characterized by lower incidence of the traits are of lesser, or no, interest.  To the extent that these differences correlate with actual genetic distance, particularly when the latter populations are quite genetically different, then utilizing proximate interests have some adaptability.  However, in some cases, it may be possible that the latter populations are genetically closer to the person making the value judgment than the former populations.  More likely is the scenario in which the latter populations may be more distant, but only slightly so, and thus represent a repository of considerable genetic interest.  Another likely scenario is a combination of both possibilities, in which kinship overlap exists so that for some members of the judging group, the latter population is genetically closer, while for another fraction of the judging group, the latter population is indeed more distant, but by a small margin.

Here we approach the problem inherent with the “disjunctive racialism” of the German National Socialists, who ignored the possibility that, for some Germans, Frenchmen and Poles may be genetically closer than are other Germans, and the wider reality that Poles and Frenchmen are genetically not very distant from the German genetic average as a whole, and thus, the cost-benefit ratio of the disjunctive racialism amongst these groups is questionable.

The usefulness of these proximate values is ultimately dependent upon how well these values track with genetic interests.

Therefore, eventually, points one and two lead to point three:

While proximate values may suffice for the “man in the street”, with respect to the intelligent minority of the population who have – or should have – a disproportionate influence on policy, there is no reason to mask the underlying EGI.  If there are many without the brainpower to understand EGI, and thus need to be “tricked” into self-defense by the invocation of proximate interests, there are others who should be capable of understanding ultimate interests. 

If the only objectivity of proximate interests is how they serve ultimate interests, the more intelligent members of the majoritarian group need to focus on the ultimate interests themselves.

Posted by J Richards on March 09, 2006, 11:19 PM | #

Slinker, Sailer, Toldya, Sly,

Frost’s idea is more than mere conjecture.  It is a far better explanation of some aspects of Northern Europeans looks than the alternatives.  My entry was not aimed toward JJR or David B., but toward whites in general.

The MR crowd is not different from the GNXPers when it comes to desiring governance by a cognitive elite, but we want the cognitive elite to consist of whites who do not undermine the interests of whites in general.  Europeans have a long history of inventions and innovations, and do not need aliens in their midst to continue technological progress.

You say that the GNXPers support assortative mating based on intelligence and not race nor racial phenotype.  This is only half true.  Do you think that Razib will be willing to breed with an intelligent Negress or want his children to breed with intelligent Negroes?

You have cited two links showing variability of phenotypic preferences among white males, but the variation described is that which exists in European populations.  Peter Frost’s paper does not postulate uniform blondness in Northern Europeans given enough time.  Rare color advantage in the context of sexual selection will tend to maintain diversity in hair and eye color.  I have no reason to believe that a substantial number of white males like Asian women; only a few do.

Regarding physical appearance, modern genetic research has clearly shown that population classification based on overall physical appearance is the same as that based on neutral DNA markers.  Therefore, an attempt to preserve physical appearance is equivalent to a preservation of the entire set of genes that constitute EGI.  An attempt to preserve physical appearance of a given specification need not imply at all that other appearances are of lesser value. 

Since you mention National Socialists, back then there were hardly any non-whites living in Germany, and if some of them did not like some non-Germanic European populations, then big deal.  Left to themselves, Europeans will be in conflict with each other for numerous reasons.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 10, 2006, 10:26 AM | #

“Regarding physical appearance, modern genetic research has clearly shown that population classification based on overall physical appearance is the same as that based on neutral DNA markers.”

Evidence?  Sure, when looking at broad racial/sub-racial categories *of course* there is a strong correlation between appearance and genetic ancestry.  But, is a group of blonde/blue-eyed Englishmen genetically more similar, with respect to overall kinship, to blonde/blue-eyed Estonians, than they are to a group of dark-haired and eyed Englishmen?  Actually, I don’t know the answer to this question with certitude, but I’d suspect the answer is no.  If you had read my comment carefully, I’m talking about genetically similar intra-continental populations.  That physical appearance matches markers when comparing, say, Swedes with Bengalis, is conceded.  When comparing Swedes to Frenchmen is another matter.

I doubt that a blonde/blue man is more similar, genetically, to a blonde/blue stranger, than he would be to his own brother, who may be brown/brown, such color combinations to be found in European families.  Facial appearance can differ within families (and ethnic groups) as well.  Morphological subracial classifications can differ within families, which, it you are familiar with the work of Coon, you should be aware.

Razib’s personal mating preferences are well known.  This, however, does not change the fact that the primary ideological thrust of GNXP is assortative mating based on intelligence and the promotion of Jeurasian mongrelization.  The point remains that not everyone shares the same phenotypic preference as a strong motivating factor, and, proximate interests can, by definition, ultimately only be subjective.

It is rather remarkable to dismiss the NS disjunctive racialism and hostility toward toward non-Germanics as “big deal”; these attitudes leading as they did to many of the problems we face today. 

“I have no reason to believe that a substantial number of white males like Asian women; only a few do.”

Evidence?  I believe that this form of mixing ranks up with Negro male-white female as the most prevelant.  Actual rates of white-Asian mixing must take into account the relatively low percent of Asians in the population and their concentration in “blue states.” If the only “evidence” is anecdotal, one can then cite the anecdotal evidence of your average large blue state college campus, where white male-Asian female couplings bid fair to outstrip all other combinations in frequency.

I am in fact against such couplings.  But to fight something, one must consider the facts.  And the facts suggest to me that, when given access to Asian females, a significant fraction of white males are attracted to them.  Why that may be needs to be dissected, but dismissing it by calling all these college students and other professionals (eg, David Baltimore, Nobel winner) as “losers” doesn’t cut it.

“An attempt to preserve physical appearance of a given specification need not imply at all that other appearances are of lesser value.”

I then await phenotypic-oriented posts that expand the range of positive interests to a wider spectrum of European types.

Posted by J Richards on March 11, 2006, 12:12 AM | #

Slinker, Sailer, Toldya, Sly,

For one example of similar population classification based on DNA markers and an independent classification based on 20 discreet cranial traits, see:

American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2003, 121:241–51.

This is not what you would have a problem with given that you expect this to be the case at the level of the species.  You wonder whether something like this is true for closely related populations such as the English and the Estonians.  Well, the hair and eye color example that you give is reminiscent of a common argument of race deniers.  Race deniers would often pick one or two traits such as lactose tolerance and ask that since the majority of Swedes and the majority of some African tribal groups are lactose tolerant, then does this mean that they belong to the same race or whether a lactose tolerant Swede is a closer kin of a lactose tolerant African than a lactose intolerant Swede?

Well, race does not lie in a few genes; it lies in the correlation structure of a large number of genes.  If one were to assess the English and the Estonians on 10,000 microsatellites and 1,000 anatomical traits, including hair, eye and skin color, it is highly likely that the ancestry assignment of randomly picked individuals from these two groups based on either microsatellite data or anatomical traits will typically assign the individuals correctly.  This would be an example of population classification based on overall physical appearance being in agreement with population classification based on DNA.  I am not aware of any such study, but the point is that the closer the populations, the greater the number of markers required to correctly classify the majority of individuals.

It is true that there is variation within a group, and on several measures, the majority of the variation is within groups.  Yet, if a large number of markers are assessed, the correlation structure of the markers distinguishes populations.

You are right that not everyone shares the same phenotypic preference, but there is nothing subjective about the overall physical appearance of whites; the subjectivity lies in its rating.  Once again, preserving overall looks is equivalent to preserving the entire set of DNA markers that constitute EGI because these are well correlated, and the correlation structure of the genes behind the looks of whites are part of the EGI of whites.

Regarding white male preference for Asian women, there are hardly any reasonable studies on this count, but I do know of some studies where whites are shown line drawings or pictures of white people, and these figures are manipulated to make the nose flatter or the jaw more protruding, and then the participants are asked to rate the attractiveness of the series of images.  It turns out that an increasing amount of transformation toward non-white looks sharply reduces the attractiveness ratings.  Therefore, by all means, most whites do not appreciate the looks of non-whites, especially those as different as Mongoloids, but when men are deprived of desirable women, most will usually take up whatever they can, i.e., undesirable women.  Thus, the white male losers will disproportionately end up with Asian women and white males living among a large number of Asian women will also disproportionately end up with Asian women.  None of this proves that a substantial number of white males like the looks of Asian women.  Two examples of the kind of studies that I have mentioned above are:

Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery, 2004;6:257-62.
European Journal of Orthodontics, 2005, 27:123-33.

Before the flood of non-whites into the West, there is a long history of fewer white males reproducing per generation than non-whites males, as assessed from Y-chromosome data, which Peter Frost has cited.  If you start flooding the West with non-whites, then it should not be surprising that several whites who would normally remain partnerless would end up with non-whites, but this cannot be interpreted in terms of the appeal of non-white looks on the part of the whites involved in interracial relationships; such appeal characterizes a small minority of whites.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 11, 2006, 08:04 PM | #

Why cite a paper that you yourself admit has no bearing on the specific issues I’ve raised?  Only you can answer that question.  The point remains: there is as yet no evidence to support your blanket assertion that aiming at morphological phenotypes will accurately preserve the underlying EGI – or perhaps I should rephrase that to state that such a method will be no more accurate, and perhaps less accurate, than others.

Some of the work performed by DNAPrint Genomics may shed some light on the genotype-phenotype connection.  But this proves my point.  The forensics-driven studies by DNAPrint attempt to ascertain phenotype based on known genetic markers.  Why bother doing the reverse, when the genetic markers can be directly assayed?  If it may take correlating 1000 anatomical measurements to accurately distinguish intra-continental populations in a manner that accurately correlates with genetics, then that is certainly NOT easier than just doing the gene assays; in fact, if anything it’ll be more difficult.  The cruder phenotypic analyses that characterize the posts on these topics on the blog are no more likely – and probably less likely – to correlate with genetic ancestry that is a simple determination of what someone’s ethnic background is.

What’s then the point?  If there *really* is a sincere interest in EGI, then focus on the genetics, without moving a step away and focusing on the phenotypes derived from a small fraction of those genes.  I suspect what is going on is that the real interest is in the phenotypes themselves, and the “concern” with EGI is just a cover to justify a primary focus on proximate and aesthetic, rather than ultimate and genetic, interests.

Even if one decides to focus on proximate phenotypic interests, genetics must still be considered, since genes are “prior” to phenotypes.  This brings up the question of exactly how a focus on phenotypes can be used to preserve EGI on levels finer than the crude continental levels that are obvious to everyone.  Lighter complexions are definitely recessive to darker, and there is reason to believe that so-called fine features are recessive as well.  Therefore, a person with more dominant traits but heterozygous may well be indistinguishable physically from one that is homozygous, but the impact that these two sets of peoples would have on the frequencies of the desired recessive traits would be markedly different.  A dark haired, dark-eyed white may have a blonde/blue-eyed full sibling, and there are wide variability within families, and ethnies, on other morphological traits as well.  A man may look more similar to a complete stranger, including a non-coethnic stranger, than to his own brother.  Saying that this is equal to “race denial” leads to the problem mentioned above.  Yes, indeed, with sufficient numbers of traits measured over a sufficient number of people, you may begin to get a closer correlation to genetics.  But why measure hundreds of anatomical traits in an attempt to get an ever-closer correlation to genetics, when the genetics can simply be directly measured?  This is the year 2006, not 1906. 

The cost/benefit ratio of using phenotype over genotype decreases markedly the more similar are the individuals and groups analyzed.  An Englishman does not need to know genes or ethnic identity to understand that the dark Negro guy is less of a genetic interest to him that is that white guy standing next to him.  Phenotype can suffice.  But to distinguish among narrower populations with accuracy? 

Even IF you were correct with respect with this, the other problem I cite is that a focus on phenotype may lead to disjunctive racialism in which the high levels of genetic interest in various populations are ignored because the frequencies of specific phenotypic traits are lower in these groups than in other populations. Carried to the extreme, reduction to absurdity, one can practice disjunctive familialism in which a person favors their second cousin over their brother due to the fact that their second cousin looks more similar to them than their own brother, or, to an even greater extreme, one ignores their own brother because of a relative dis-similarity in appearance. 

Once again, I suspect that the real interests here are phenotypic.

That these posts also reinforce stereotypes –actively propagated by ‘anti-racists’ and other enemies of western survival - that racial nationalists are concerned only with the types of physical specimens valued by J Richards is another point of consideration.

With respect to white-Asian matings: there is a relatively high outmarrying rate for Asian females, and most of that is with white men.  You suggest that’s because white “losers” with no access to white women are taking the Asian women as replacements.  Evidence?  Citing prehistoric rates of white mating does not suffice.  Before the influx of Asians, were there large numbers of white men not reproducing?  Are all the white guys attending college “losers” as well?  And, there is certainly no shortage of white women at college, more females than males attend college in the USA, most of whom are white.  Given a choice between an abundance of white females and a crop of Asian females, some white males choose the latter.  Are guys like David Baltimore and Nicholas Cage and other professional or celebrity white men with Asian wives, “losers?” In a genetic sense, yes, they are, but that is not what you mean, is it?  The problem is that you impose your own aesthetic standards on others.  Citing studies only marginally related to this issue is questionable, someone may in response site Gillian Rhodes’ study that you critiqued.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 11, 2006, 08:17 PM | #

A quote:
“dlg: If you believe that the women in the first four figures are more attractive than the white women shown, chances are that you are either non-white or a plain-weird white person.  Irrespective of your race, it is likely that the moral of the following story applies to you. 

The Fox and the Grapes:

One hot summer’s day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch.  “Just the thing to quench my thirst,” quoth he.  Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch.  Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success.  Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: “I am sure they are sour.”

Moral: It is easy to despise what you cannot get.

Posted by J Richards on Thursday, May 19, 2005 at 06:51 AM “| #

Does this mean that if someone disagrees with your aesthetic preferences then they are non-white, plain-weird, or suffering from “sour grapes?’

Isn’t it possible that they simply have different opinions of feminine beauty than you do?

Posted by J Richards on March 12, 2006, 07:05 AM | #

Why cite a paper that you yourself admit has no bearing on the specific issues I’ve raised?

What do you mean it has no bearing?  It is not a detailed comparison of English vs. Estonians as in my hypothetical example, but if you look at the paper, the 20 discreet cranial traits did indeed separate Eastern Europeans from the English, just as a detailed genetic comparison would do.

The point remains: there is as yet no evidence to support your blanket assertion that aiming at morphological phenotypes will accurately preserve the underlying EGI – or perhaps I should rephrase that to state that such a method will be no more accurate, and perhaps less accurate, than others.

This is just absurd.  Nature itself acts on and selects the phenotype, not the genotype.  The genotype is selected indirectly.  In the absence of genetic engineering, how would you preserve EGI without aiming toward preserving the phenotype, given that the phenotype is strongly correlated with the genotype?  Once again, don’t bring up one or two phenotypic traits; consider a large number of phenotypic markers. 

Some of the work performed by DNAPrint Genomics may shed some light on the genotype-phenotype connection.  But this proves my point.  The forensics-driven studies by DNAPrint attempt to ascertain phenotype based on known genetic markers.  Why bother doing the reverse, when the genetic markers can be directly assayed?  If it may take correlating 1000 anatomical measurements to accurately distinguish intra-continental populations in a manner that accurately correlates with genetics, then that is certainly NOT easier than just doing the gene assays; in fact, if anything it’ll be more difficult.

Why indeed bother measuring a large number of anatomical traits?  There is no need to.  The example that I gave you is a hypothetical scenario where you would see broad agreement between genotype-based and phenotype-based classification of closely related populations.

The cruder phenotypic analyses that characterize the posts on these topics on the blog are no more likely – and probably less likely – to correlate with genetic ancestry that is a simple determination of what someone’s ethnic background is.

None of the “cruder phenotypic analyses” you have encountered in my entries are supposed to be used to determine someone’s ethnic background.  They are offered as items of interest to some.  Even the entry that John’s post above has branched off from is mostly descriptive and the only prescriptive item in it is my argument that we have yet more reasons to keep the non-white masses out of the West, which I don’t think that you should have a problem with.

What’s then the point?  If there *really* is a sincere interest in EGI, then focus on the genetics, without moving a step away and focusing on the phenotypes derived from a small fraction of those genes.  I suspect what is going on is that the real interest is in the phenotypes themselves, and the “concern” with EGI is just a cover to justify a primary focus on proximate and aesthetic, rather than ultimate and genetic, interests.

Phenotype is related to genotype, and the genes behind overall superficial appearance correlate well with other genes related to EGI. 

Even if one decides to focus on proximate phenotypic interests, genetics must still be considered, since genes are “prior” to phenotypes.

Genes by themselves do nothing.  They are mere DNA sequences.  Translating them into gene products requires an elaborate metabolic machinery, which is part of the phenotype.  Do not forget that selection directly acts on the phenotype and genes are only indirectly selected.  To consider the phenotype is to simultaneously consider the associated genotype, and if the phenotypic markers are large enough in number, then the entire set of genes related to EGI are automatically taken into consideration.

This brings up the question of exactly how a focus on phenotypes can be used to preserve EGI on levels finer than the crude continental levels that are obvious to everyone.

Phenotype is not merely physical appearance but also functional traits, and once again, phenotype is related to genes.  Therefore, emphasizing phenotypes related to intelligence and behavior, and thereby culture, also maps into EGI.

Lighter complexions are definitely recessive to darker, and there is reason to believe that so-called fine features are recessive as well.

Most genes behind skin color are co-dominant (i.e., do not show dominant-recessive relationships).  The reason that white plus dark-skinned non-white produces a dark offspring is because white skin is at one extreme and if you add in the genes for darker skin, the result would naturally be darker.

Therefore, a person with more dominant traits but heterozygous may well be indistinguishable physically from one that is homozygous, but the impact that these two sets of peoples would have on the frequencies of the desired recessive traits would be markedly different.

Most genes are additive rather than associated with dominant-recessive phenotypes.  Therefore, if you consider a sufficiently large number of phenotypic markers, the problem that you list will not be a problem since admixture will be easy to detect based on phenotype alone.

Yes, indeed, with sufficient numbers of traits measured over a sufficient number of people, you may begin to get a closer correlation to genetics.  But why measure hundreds of anatomical traits in an attempt to get an ever-closer correlation to genetics, when the genetics can simply be directly measured?  This is the year 2006, not 1906.

There is no need to measures anatomy in detail.  The example that I gave you is a hypothetical example to drive home the point that population classification based on a set of sufficiently numerous phenotypic markers will correspond very well to population classification based on a sufficiently large number of genes involved in non-considered phenotypic markers and neutral DNA markers. 

The cost/benefit ratio of using phenotype over genotype decreases markedly the more similar are the individuals and groups analyzed.  An Englishman does not need to know genes or ethnic identity to understand that the dark Negro guy is less of a genetic interest to him that is that white guy standing next to him.  Phenotype can suffice.  But to distinguish among narrower populations with accuracy?

Who above has proposed using phenotype rather than genotype to make inferences about ancestry? 

Even IF you were correct with respect with this, the other problem I cite is that a focus on phenotype may lead to disjunctive racialism in which the high levels of genetic interest in various populations are ignored because the frequencies of specific phenotypic traits are lower in these groups than in other populations.

Talking about some phenotypic traits is not the same as especially focusing on them.  Besides, whites will not be fighting each other over looks.

Carried to the extreme, reduction to absurdity, one can practice disjunctive familialism in which a person favors their second cousin over their brother due to the fact that their second cousin looks more similar to them than their own brother, or, to an even greater extreme, one ignores their own brother because of a relative dis-similarity in appearance.

Do you seriously believe that any such thing would happen?  You can do better than to come up with a ridiculous scenario that will never come to pass. 

Once again, I suspect that the real interests here are phenotypic.  That these posts also reinforce stereotypes –actively propagated by ‘anti-racists’ and other enemies of western survival - that racial nationalists are concerned only with the types of physical specimens valued by J Richards is another point of consideration.

There are over 2,000 entries at this site, and only a miniscule number of them deal with superficial looks.  So what is the problem?  Nobody here is trying to win over the “anti-racists.” Even if you are as clean-cut and circumspect as Jared Taylor is, you will be seen as no different from skinheads and Nazis as far as the “anti-racists” are concerned.

Posted by J Richards on March 12, 2006, 07:06 AM | #

With respect to white-Asian matings: there is a relatively high outmarrying rate for Asian females, and most of that is with white men.  You suggest that’s because white “losers” with no access to white women are taking the Asian women as replacements.  Evidence?  Citing prehistoric rates of white mating does not suffice.  Before the influx of Asians, were there large numbers of white men not reproducing?

What pre-historic evidence?  The Y-chromosome data is based on DNA extracted from living people, and it reflects racial history.  Also, you should know that in many parts of the world, one has an arranged marriage system, typically long-standing, with few to no young adults being able to select their partners on their own initiative.  This system is much more loser-friendly when it comes to reproducing. 

What do you expect to happen when non-whites are flooding the West and white losers come across plenty of non-whites who find them a lot more attractive than most whites do?  You have not addressed the fact that studies show a sharp drop in attractiveness ratings of whites by whites when parts of white faces are transformed to those of non-whites.  If some people can be sexually interested in dogs or children, then surely some whites can be sexually interested in Asians, but all these interests characterize only a small proportion of whites. 

Are all the white guys attending college “losers” as well?  And, there is certainly no shortage of white women at college, more females than males attend college in the USA, most of whom are white.  Given a choice between an abundance of white females and a crop of Asian females, some white males choose the latter.

All white males attending college are not dating Asian women; only some of them are.  Besides, academically-decent colleges attract a lot of white nerds and white geeks, the kind that are usually losers when it comes to dating white women.

Are guys like David Baltimore and Nicholas Cage and other professional or celebrity white men with Asian wives, “losers?” In a genetic sense, yes, they are, but that is not what you mean, is it?

Here is what I wrote:

Most white males that I have seen with East Asian women are loser types.

I said most, not all.  So what if some non-loser white males end up with Asian women?  This does not undermine my contention that most white men who end up with Asian women are loser types.

The problem is that you impose your own aesthetic standards on others.  Citing studies only marginally related to this issue is questionable, someone may in response site Gillian Rhodes’ study that you critiqued.

This entry and the one that it has branched off of have nothing to do with me imposing my own aesthetic standards on others.  Regarding Gillian Rhodes, her stupid study is based on unattractive whites and numerous methodological problems, and is of hardly any relevance here.

You have quoted a passage by me from an entry on Nordic beauties.  I was responding to a commentator who called the Nordic women bland compared to the non-white women.  I said:

Irrespective of your race, it is likely that the moral of the following story applies to you.

Note that I said it is likely rather than it is certain.  Therefore, it is obviously possible that this person has a different concept of beauty than mine, and nothing that I have stated rules out this possibility.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 12, 2006, 10:42 AM | #

Compare this: “What do you mean it has no bearing?  It is not a detailed comparison of English vs. Estonians as in my hypothetical example, but if you look at the paper, the 20 discreet cranial traits did indeed separate Eastern Europeans from the English, just as a detailed genetic comparison would do.”

With this: “Why indeed bother measuring a large number of anatomical traits?  There is no need to.”

Which is it then, do we measure large numbers of cranial traits or do we not?

“This is just absurd.  Nature itself acts on and selects the phenotype, not the genotype.  The genotype is selected indirectly.”

Yes, and the aim of the process is to select genotypes.  Genes are the ultimate replicators, not phenotypes.

“In the absence of genetic engineering, how would you preserve EGI without aiming toward preserving the phenotype, given that the phenotype is strongly correlated with the genotype? “

Why invoke genetic engineering?  What does that have to do with preserving EGI?  Absolutely nothing.  To preserve EGI what you need to know are the genetic relationships of the peoples in question. ‘Genetic engineering’ has zero to do with that; all that are needed are genetic assays. 

“Phenotype is related to genotype, and the genes behind overall superficial appearance correlate well with other genes related to EGI.”

Evidence?  Besides measuring “20 cranial traits.”

“Genes by themselves do nothing.  They are mere DNA sequences”

I don’t want to get into “ad hominem” (as you do when you term people “losers”), but you are sounding a bit like Barlow and David B., just about now, do you know that?  A computer program “does nothing” as well, by this criteria.  For any system, biological or computational, information is fundamental and the ultimate interest.  In your case, I’d assume you’d be interested in what the computer looks like.

“Do not forget that selection directly acts on the phenotype and genes are only indirectly selected.”

Hard to forget as you’ve now mentioned it twice in the same comment.  And where, pray tell, does the phenotype come from?

“To consider the phenotype is to simultaneously consider the associated genotype, and if the phenotypic markers are large enough in number, then the entire set of genes related to EGI are automatically taken into consideration.”

The entire set!!??  First, this assumes that Salter is correct that EGI is focused solely on functional genes, which in fact is logically flawed and inconsistent with his other comments about “the entire distinctive genome.” Second, to analyze a set of phenotypic markers large enough to cover the entire “functional” genome would require “measuring a large number of ….traits.” Why, indeed, bother?  Because that is the *only* way of getting even an approximate correlation to the most narrow definition of EGI, which, as stated, is insufficient.

“Phenotype is not merely physical appearance but also functional traits, and once again, phenotype is related to genes.  Therefore, emphasizing phenotypes related to intelligence and behavior, and thereby culture, also maps into EGI.”

Ethnic identity can “map” with EGI as well.

“Most genes behind skin color are co-dominant (i.e., do not show dominant-recessive relationships).  The reason that white plus dark-skinned non-white produces a dark offspring is because white skin is at one extreme and if you add in the genes for darker skin, the result would naturally be darker.”

Eye color being an example.

“Most genes are additive rather than associated with dominant-recessive phenotypes.  Therefore, if you consider a sufficiently large number of phenotypic markers, the problem that you list will not be a problem since admixture will be easy to detect based on phenotype alone.”

Really?  How many phenotypic markers would you need to detect, say, lower levels of, say, East or South Asian, or Amerind, admixture?  Easy to detect?  Do you really believe it is easier to detect the Asian admixture in Kate Beckinsale via phenotype than with genetic analysis? 

“Who above has proposed using phenotype rather than genotype to make inferences about ancestry?”

Since EGI is a measure of common ancestry (going back far enough), you. 

“Do you seriously believe that any such thing would happen?  You can do better than to come up with a ridiculous scenario that will never come to pass.”

Do you understand the concept of “reduction to absurdity” as an argumentative technique?

“There are over 2,000 entries at this site, and only a miniscule number of them deal with superficial looks.  So what is the problem?  Nobody here is trying to win over the “anti-racists.” Even if you are as clean-cut and circumspect as Jared Taylor is, you will be seen as no different from skinheads and Nazis as far as the “anti-racists” are concerned.”

Focusing on the contributions of particular bloggers, the entries are more than miniscule.  If you can understand argument, you can see that I am NOT in any way implying that we need to “win over” anti-racists.  The point is – and I thought it obvious – that anti-racists stereotype white racialism, with the aim of convincing the same third party observers that this blog wishes to convince as well.  And that the more white racialism fits into these stereotypes, the easier it will be for the anti-racists to influence these third parties.

“What pre-historic evidence?  The Y-chromosome data is based on DNA extracted from living people, and it reflects racial history.”

Yes, and it reflects the entire history of the specific NRY back from the time it was distinguished from others – starting in prehistory, no?

“You have not addressed the fact that studies show a sharp drop in attractiveness ratings of whites by whites when parts of white faces are transformed to those of non-whites.  If some people can be sexually interested in dogs or children, then surely some whites can be sexually interested in Asians, but all these interests characterize only a small proportion of whites.”

It is difficult to talk about a “small proportion of whites” when Asians are a minority and clustered in blue states.  It is proper to look at the situation at places where numbers of the two groups are more equal, and observe the large numbers of couplings. 

“All white males attending college are not dating Asian women; only some of them are.”

Not all blacks are criminals, only some of them are.  Apply that logic to your Katrina post, for example. 

“I said most, not all.  So what if some non-loser white males end up with Asian women?  This does not undermine my contention that most white men who end up with Asian women are loser types….Note that I said it is likely rather than it is certain.  Therefore, it is obviously possible that this person has a different concept of beauty than mine, and nothing that I have stated rules out this possibility.”

OK, so white guys who are with Asians are mostly “loser types”, but then again, using words like “likely” indicate that maybe it is just a preference, depending what assertion you are trying to defend.

Yes or no: do you believe that white men who prefer non-white female phenotypes are, or are not, abnormal and/or “losers?” If you wish to use “likely”, feel free, but state what you believe the predominant tendency is.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 12, 2006, 10:57 AM | #

“So what is the problem? “

Critical analysis of ideas/posts is now a “problem?”

How about changing MR to a blog like Sailer then, that allows no comments?

“Problem” solved.

Posted by J Richards on March 12, 2006, 10:38 PM | #

Compare this: “What do you mean it has no bearing?  It is not a detailed comparison of English vs. Estonians as in my hypothetical example, but if you look at the paper, the 20 discreet cranial traits did indeed separate Eastern Europeans from the English, just as a detailed genetic comparison would do.”

With this: “Why indeed bother measuring a large number of anatomical traits?  There is no need to.”

Which is it then, do we measure large numbers of cranial traits or do we not?

What is this?  The point is that there is no need to measure a large number of superficial anatomical markers to determine ancestral relationships, but this can be done if needed to show that population classification based on a sufficiently large number of phenotypic markers will agree very well with population classification based on a sufficiently large number of genotypic markers

“This is just absurd.  Nature itself acts on and selects the phenotype, not the genotype.  The genotype is selected indirectly.”

Yes, and the aim of the process is to select genotypes.  Genes are the ultimate replicators, not phenotypes.

The aim of the process (nature acting on the phenotype) is to select phenotype; genotype is selected indirectly.  Genes cannot replicate themselves without the phenotype.

“In the absence of genetic engineering, how would you preserve EGI without aiming toward preserving the phenotype, given that the phenotype is strongly correlated with the genotype? “

Why invoke genetic engineering?  What does that have to do with preserving EGI?  Absolutely nothing.  To preserve EGI what you need to know are the genetic relationships of the peoples in question. ‘Genetic engineering’ has zero to do with that; all that are needed are genetic assays.

Genetic engineering offers the possibility of genetically engineering people for a desired set of genes, and if this can be achieved, it will offer the best way of preserving EGI.

People are not going to go around and ask others for their DNA profile to determine how well they are related to them.  A determination of relatedness is typically based on overall physical appearance and also elements of culture, all of which map very well to the genes related to EGI. 

“Phenotype is related to genotype, and the genes behind overall superficial appearance correlate well with other genes related to EGI.”

Evidence?  Besides measuring “20 cranial traits.”

You apparently do not have a sufficient background in biology.  It is time for you to pick up a basic textbook of biology and look for the section that offers evidence for evolution.  Part of the evidence offered will point out that the initial classification of living organisms based on external appearance has corresponded very well to classification based on DNA markers, most of which have nothing to do with external appearance, including DNA markers not involved in gene expression.

In light of the above, it is hardly required to show the same for humans, including closely related populations, but some studies have done so, as in example of the study that assessed 20 discreet cranial traits.  Another study showed that Bosnians and Croatians, who happen to be next door neighbors, were distinguished by a set of 22 skull measurements [American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2004, 124:73-80].  Do you think that DNA testing using a sufficiently large number of markers will not separate the majority of Bosnians from most Croatians? 

“Genes by themselves do nothing.  They are mere DNA sequences”

I don’t want to get into “ad hominem” (as you do when you term people “losers”), but you are sounding a bit like Barlow and David B., just about now, do you know that?  A computer program “does nothing” as well, by this criteria.  For any system, biological or computational, information is fundamental and the ultimate interest.  In your case, I’d assume you’d be interested in what the computer looks like.

Ad hominem is attacking an argument by attaching malicious motives to one’s opponent or critiquing an argument by pointing out negative traits of one’s opponent rather than addressing the claims of one’s opponent.  How does the claim that most white males that I have seen with Asian women are loser types qualify as ad hominem?

Information is of course important, but by itself it does nothing.  The value of computer software lies in what it can be made to do using computer hardware.  The fundamental/ultimate interest is not the information itself, but what you can do with it.  What you can do with information obviously requires the information in the first place.  Therefore, any measure to derive the benefits of some information will automatically ensure that the information itself is preserved. 

Hard to forget as you’ve now mentioned it twice in the same comment.  And where, pray tell, does the phenotype come from?

The phenotype comes from the genotype and its interaction with the environment.

“To consider the phenotype is to simultaneously consider the associated genotype, and if the phenotypic markers are large enough in number, then the entire set of genes related to EGI are automatically taken into consideration.”

The entire set!!??  First, this assumes that Salter is correct that EGI is focused solely on functional genes, which in fact is logically flawed and inconsistent with his other comments about “the entire distinctive genome.” Second, to analyze a set of phenotypic markers large enough to cover the entire “functional” genome would require “measuring a large number of ….traits.” Why, indeed, bother?  Because that is the *only* way of getting even an approximate correlation to the most narrow definition of EGI, which, as stated, is insufficient.

Guess what?  When you look at a person, you simultaneously see a huge number of anatomical markers, and mating preferences based on matching ancestry-informative anatomical markers with your own so as to produce a child that pretty much looks like you guarantees—at the population level—that the entire set of genes constituting EGI (including neutral markers that distinguish ancestry) will be taken care of.  In this case, there is no need to take out calipers and actually measure anatomical traits; your brain does all the evaluation that you need. 

“Most genes are additive rather than associated with dominant-recessive phenotypes.  Therefore, if you consider a sufficiently large number of phenotypic markers, the problem that you list will not be a problem since admixture will be easy to detect based on phenotype alone.”

Really?  How many phenotypic markers would you need to detect, say, lower levels of, say, East or South Asian, or Amerind, admixture?  Easy to detect?  Do you really believe it is easier to detect the Asian admixture in Kate Beckinsale via phenotype than with genetic analysis?

The genotype-phenotype correlation is typically validated at the level of a population.  Given enough examples of individuals such as Kate Beckinsale, yes it would be easy to detect lower levels of non-European admixture using superficial anatomical markers in the group.  I also wish to add that if a white man had to choose between Kate Beckinsale and a far less attractive white woman, he would not be foolish enough to ask for a DNA sample to assess the amount of non-European admixture and then reject Kate Beckinsale because she is less European.  In addition, if white males were to only breed with white-looking women, then it is a guarantee that the EGI of whites as it stands now will be negligibly affected by the inclusion of the rare women who have significant non-European admixture yet look European. 

“Who above has proposed using phenotype rather than genotype to make inferences about ancestry?”

Since EGI is a measure of common ancestry (going back far enough), you.

Cite where I have proposed using phenotype rather than genotype to make inferences about ancestry.

“Do you seriously believe that any such thing would happen?  You can do better than to come up with a ridiculous scenario that will never come to pass.”

Do you understand the concept of “reduction to absurdity” as an argumentative technique?

Why even mention the absurd scenario when no reasonable person could end up practicing what you have termed disjunctive familialism?

“There are over 2,000 entries at this site, and only a miniscule number of them deal with superficial looks.  So what is the problem?  Nobody here is trying to win over the “anti-racists.” Even if you are as clean-cut and circumspect as Jared Taylor is, you will be seen as no different from skinheads and Nazis as far as the “anti-racists” are concerned.”

Focusing on the contributions of particular bloggers, the entries are more than miniscule.  If you can understand argument, you can see that I am NOT in any way implying that we need to “win over” anti-racists.  The point is – and I thought it obvious – that anti-racists stereotype white racialism, with the aim of convincing the same third party observers that this blog wishes to convince as well.  And that the more white racialism fits into these stereotypes, the easier it will be for the anti-racists to influence these third parties.

Some bloggers occupy a particular niche, and the point remains that a focus on looks at MR hardly registers when all its contents are considered in totality.  You don’t have to worry about so-called anti-racists making a point out of MR entries.  They know better than to reference a site that offers a lot of content that they would rather have remain largely unknown.

Posted by J Richards on March 12, 2006, 10:40 PM | #

“What pre-historic evidence?  The Y-chromosome data is based on DNA extracted from living people, and it reflects racial history.”

Yes, and it reflects the entire history of the specific NRY back from the time it was distinguished from others – starting in prehistory, no?

The evidence reflects pre-history and also the time period covering recorded history, and is therefore not labeled pre-historic as you have termed it.

“You have not addressed the fact that studies show a sharp drop in attractiveness ratings of whites by whites when parts of white faces are transformed to those of non-whites.  If some people can be sexually interested in dogs or children, then surely some whites can be sexually interested in Asians, but all these interests characterize only a small proportion of whites.”

It is difficult to talk about a “small proportion of whites” when Asians are a minority and clustered in blue states.  It is proper to look at the situation at places where numbers of the two groups are more equal, and observe the large numbers of couplings.

Well then, people don’t just marry for looks.  There are plenty of reasons why people marry, and it is not unusual to compromise on looks.  Therefore marriage or couplings do not necessarily reflect a high rating of the looks of one’s partner.  Additionally, even if you have an equal number of Asians and whites living in a city, these people will not be randomly distributed throughout the city.  In a number of cases, some whites will encounter an environment where they come in contact with more Asians than whites.

The fact remains that the best way of assessing preferred looks is to do the kind of studies that I have cited, where it is clear that most whites prefer white looks than non-white looks. 

“All white males attending college are not dating Asian women; only some of them are.”

Not all blacks are criminals, only some of them are.  Apply that logic to your Katrina post, for example.

Where have I implied in my Katrina post that all blacks are criminals?

OK, so white guys who are with Asians are mostly “loser types”, but then again, using words like “likely” indicate that maybe it is just a preference, depending what assertion you are trying to defend.

Yes or no: do you believe that white men who prefer non-white female phenotypes are, or are not, abnormal and/or “losers?” If you wish to use “likely”, feel free, but state what you believe the predominant tendency is.

You have curiously combined “mostly loser types” with “likely.” These terms originally appeared in different threads and different contexts.  What is not clear about the statement that most of the white men that I have observed with Asian women are loser types? 

“So what is the problem? “

Critical analysis of ideas/posts is now a “problem?”

What you call critical analysis on your part is nitpicking on trivialities that are hardly relevant to the central reason that prompted John to come up with this entry.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 13, 2006, 01:01 PM | #

I’ll leave the Asian mating discussion to the newer Korean cartoon post, where commentators have been taking a more realistic view of the situation that you do.  Note that the term “argument” can be used, in the broad biopolitical sense, to include lifestyle choices.  In a real sense, Derbyshire’s marriage is an argument in favor of Eurasian mongrelization; thus, calling him a “loser” for that choice is ad hominem.  You may “nitpick” all you wish on the terminology.  How about formulating a response to Eurasian mating that *argues* (in the more traditional sense) in favor of endogamy, instead of calling people “losers?” Is calling a “white geek” a “loser” going to convince him not to mate with an Oriental?

“What is this?  The point is that there is no need to measure a large number of superficial anatomical markers to determine ancestral relationships, but this can be done if needed to show that population classification based on a sufficiently large number of phenotypic markers will agree very well with population classification based on a sufficiently large number of genotypic markers”

My point remains: it is easier, more direct, and accurate just to measure the genetics.  Furthermore, forgive me for being skeptical that, given phenotypic overlap, that measuring cranial attributes will be able to give useful information about narrower classification on the individual level, which genetic analyses is beginning to have the ability to do. 

“The aim of the process (nature acting on the phenotype) is to select phenotype; genotype is selected indirectly.  Genes cannot replicate themselves without the phenotype.”
You need to crack open some biology textbooks, yourself, I believe.  Whether or not the genotype is selected indirectly is not the point, nor is it the obvious fact, which you so charitably point out to us, that genes cannot replicate by themselves.  The point is that (at the cost of being teleological) the “aim” is to replicate the genes and genetic structures. 

“Genetic engineering offers the possibility of genetically engineering people for a desired set of genes, and if this can be achieved, it will offer the best way of preserving EGI.”

You need to wake up from your “big boob dreams” and actually realize what you are writing.  Should we engineer Negroes to have the entire white distinctive genome?  Or what, exactly?  Who now is talking about unrealistic absurdities?  All that is needed to preserve EGI is the maintenance of relative homogeneity of the defined “ethny”, which should share a higher concentration of distinctive genes/genetic structures than the non-ethny populations (so defined).  If Iceland eschews immigration and has its territory reserved for Icelanders, that’s preserving their EGI.  No need for “genetic engineering.” As you would say: “damn!”

Let’s go back to your original statement: “In the absence of genetic engineering, how would you preserve EGI without aiming toward preserving the phenotype, given that the phenotype is strongly correlated with the genotype?” You are asking a question.  The obvious answer is that outlined in every analysis of EGI: ethnostates of some sort or another.  Identification does not have to be based on phenotype; it can be based on racial/ethnic identity, gene analysis, etc.  You were implying a choice between a phenotype-based analysis or genetic engineering.  That choice is absurd. As there are other practical alternatives.  EGI can be based upon genetic analysis and ethnic identity, as described by Salter.  No need to invoke futuristic, transhumanist scenarios.

“People are not going to go around and ask others for their DNA profile to determine how well they are related to them.”

No, instead they will go around with a set of calipers and take cranial measurements.

In point of fact I know of some examples in which people interested in Russian/Ukrainian women for wives or egg donors have had the women tested using autosomal DNA analysis.  DNA testing is of course imperfect and requires further improvements, but is more objective than other evaluative tools.

“A determination of relatedness is typically based on overall physical appearance and also elements of culture, all of which map very well to the genes related to EGI.”

Bait and switch.  First, is the assertion that a large number of anatomical measurements can correlate with genes and hence EGI.  Now we are back to “overall physical appearance” – but isn’t the point of bringing up measurements of large numbers of phenotypic traits precisely because “overall physical appearance” can be misleading?  Your whole argument of course has as its purpose an attempt to justify using “overall physical appearance” as the ultimate evaluative tool, because, and let us be honest here; your predominant interest is in the phenotype, rather in EGI. 

Comments about culture are interesting as well.  Culture is part of the phenotype, the extended phenotype.  Very well.  But non-whites may mimic, if not create, at least certain superficial aspects of white culture.  Should we just then preserve culture and assume that the genes will be “along with the ride?”

“You apparently do not have a sufficient background in biology.  It is time for you to pick up a basic textbook of biology and look for the section that offers evidence for evolution.  Part of the evidence offered will point out that the initial classification of living organisms based on external appearance has corresponded very well to classification based on DNA markers, most of which have nothing to do with external appearance, including DNA markers not involved in gene expression.”

And you need to cut down on the porn and read up on evolutionary biology yourself.  Maybe actually read Salter, or re-read it with the aim of actually understanding it this time.  You “apparently” have missed the last 40 years of gene-based evolutionary theory.

I am well aware of reasonable correspondence, in general, between morphological classification, and genetics.  I am also aware that this correlation does not always hold in the case of humans.  I’m sorry, but the narrower classifications of guys like Coon to not match genetic realities, and you yourself are attempting to justify a “man in the street looks at phenotypes” methodology, when that is fraught with errors.  People on this blog think that pink-skinned mestizos are white, and cannot distinguish racially mixed beauty contestants from native Europeans.  I have plenty of anecdotal experience to confirm that “overall physical appearance” can be misleading.  It is you, sir, with your aesthetic interests, who refuses to acknowledge modern biology.

“In light of the above, it is hardly required to show the same for humans, including closely related populations, but some studies have done so, as in example of the study that assessed 20 discreet cranial traits.  Another study showed that Bosnians and Croatians, who happen to be next door neighbors, were distinguished by a set of 22 skull measurements [American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2004, 124:73-80].  Do you think that DNA testing using a sufficiently large number of markers will not separate the majority of Bosnians from most Croatians?”

First, I’m doubtful that these studies have the same power as the potential of genetics, and you give no reason why we shouldn’t just use genetics instead.  Second, you then talk about “overall physical appearance.” OK, then, can the average white American separate Bosnians from Croatians by sight? 

“Information is of course important, but by itself it does nothing.  The value of computer software lies in what it can be made to do using computer hardware.  The fundamental/ultimate interest is not the information itself, but what you can do with it.  What you can do with information obviously requires the information in the first place.  Therefore, any measure to derive the benefits of some information will automatically ensure that the information itself is preserved.”

No, not when the “benefits” derive from only a fraction of the information, or if the same “benefit” can be derived from information less valuable in terms of a broader benefit, or when people don’t even agree on what that benefit should be. 

“Guess what?  When you look at a person, you simultaneously see a huge number of anatomical markers, and mating preferences based on matching ancestry-informative anatomical markers with your own so as to produce a child that pretty much looks like you guarantees—at the population level—that the entire set of genes constituting EGI (including neutral markers that distinguish ancestry) will be taken care of.  In this case, there is no need to take out calipers and actually measure anatomical traits; your brain does all the evaluation that you need.”

This is the key to the entire argument.  You wish to preserve phenotypic interests; all the talk of correlating anatomical traits with gene frequencies was all so much obfuscation.
We go back to the issue – can just looking at a person give sufficiently accurate information to match EGI?  Is it sufficiently objective?  Are people skilled enough to make narrower judgments?  You say yes, I say no.  My personal experiences strongly support my opinion; yes, that is anecdotal, but I see no strong evidence for otherwise. 

We now have the tools to examine these questions on the genetic level.  The resistance against these tools is very interesting, to say the least.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 13, 2006, 01:02 PM | #

- continued -

“I also wish to add that if a white man had to choose between Kate Beckinsale and a far less attractive white woman, he would not be foolish enough to ask for a DNA sample to assess the amount of non-European admixture and then reject Kate Beckinsale because she is less European.”

Here you expose yourself as a phenotypic “interest-est.” I see.  The fact that the woman is attractive trumps the fact that someone else provides higher genetic/parental kinship.  Eurasian and other mongrels are acceptable as long as they fit your sense of aesthetics, genes be damned.

“In addition, if white males were to only breed with white-looking women, then it is a guarantee that the EGI of whites as it stands now will be negligibly affected by the inclusion of the rare women who have significant non-European admixture yet look European.”

In general true.  But, again, why not use ethnic ancestry?

“Cite where I have proposed using phenotype rather than genotype to make inferences about ancestry.”

Let’s see.  EGI is based upon, ultimately, common (distant and not so distant) ancestry.  You say that phenotype can be used to make choices to maximize EGI.  Hmm…..

“Why even mention the absurd scenario when no reasonable person could end up practicing what you have termed disjunctive familialism?”

Disjunctive racialism is a historical fact, and may be practiced by those who share your proximate focus.

“Some bloggers occupy a particular niche, and the point remains that a focus on looks at MR hardly registers when all its contents are considered in totality.  You don’t have to worry about so-called anti-racists making a point out of MR entries.  They know better than to reference a site that offers a lot of content that they would rather have remain largely unknown.”

Let me explain it so even you can understand it. Let TPO = third party observer
1.TPO reads of racialist stereotypes, from anti-racists and others
2.TPO comes to MR and sees, in his opinion, these stereotypes confirmed
3.Thus, stereotype confirmation occurs without the active participation of anti-racists in MR, or citing MR.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 13, 2006, 02:58 PM | #

No Bosnians here, but Croatians:
http://dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?board=raceclass&action=display&thread=1105969983

Putting aside our calipers, and relying on brains and “overall phenotype”, I’m a bit skpetical that the average white person would be able to distinguish Croats from other Balkan peoples here.  I also am skeptical of a reliable separation of Croats from a generalized Central or Southern European grouping.  Of course, Croats can be distinguished by eye from the typical Turk and, especially, the South Asians.  Within the European samples, greatest chances of separation would be from samples from the opposite ends of the continent. But, even there, there is overlap.

Thus, if we would need to depend on calipers and large numbers of anatomical measurements for narrower distinctions, I don’t see why we just don’t look at the genes, and support the further development of such genetic tests.

That’s one part of the problem.  With increasing immigration and miscegenation, there is also the need for people to distinguish racially admixed people from native European types.  Given my observations, I have skepticism there as well.  I have already noted MR examples.  Many white people may also place Paul Kariya and Merle Oberon as white, etc. 

Do not misunderstand: I agree that phenotype is very important, as is culture.  However, if there is a sincere interest in EGI, we do need to consider actual genetic data.

If the interest is at the level of the phenotype, then just be open about it, and not attempt to justify that by saying our choice is between a reliance on phenotype vs. genetic engineering, or use the possible general correlation of large numbers of anatomical measurements with genes (of which I am not convinced of) to justify a quite different tactic of using personal evaluation of overall phenotype to correlate with EGI.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 13, 2006, 03:40 PM | #

If you are really interested in Frost’s descriptive theories, rather than a prescriptive distortion of EGI, you’d note David B’s critique of sexual selection on GNXP.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 13, 2006, 08:38 PM | #

More on genes:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/threatened_by_salterism_youre_a_scientist_apply_ad_hominem/

“Evolution 101” may be needed here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIA1Genotypevsphenotype.shtml

Now: Sailer tells us his wife (using her brain) looked at mulatto Shelby Steele’s “overall physical appearance” and decided that Steele was Greek.  Perhaps people may think the half-Japanese Kariya looks Russian, or the one quarter Japanese Dean Cain looks, say, Serbian.  Are Greeks, Russians, and Serbs then obligated to absorb the Negro or Japanese genes of those individuals? 

This is not a “rare” or “theoretical” problem.  Although still a small percentage of the population, there are still plenty of mixed race people out there, and their numbers are increasing.  Immigration of non-European Caucasian peoples also bring individuals of alien genetic background, but with “overall physical appearances” that Mrs. Sailer and others may designate as native European.  Particularly, when these non-European Caucasians mate with European Caucasians (e.g., Razib telling us that his grandchildren will be accepted as white), this increases the Merle Oberon factor.  Then there is the well-known Leo Felton story which is so ludicrous that one may think it is a “reduction to absurdity” argument, but nonetheless is true.

Now, haven’t you expressed concern that a problem with race mixing is not so much the “losers” with the Orientals or the “fatsos” with the Negroes, but that their offspring would then be more likely to mate with the white population?

This being so, let us at least depend upon a combination of phenotypic and genetic evaluative techniques.  Someone may think Mr. Cain is “Serbian”, but analysis of, for example, large numbers of SNPs will allow us to determine his significant East Asian ancestry.  Now, if someone says, “who cares”, he “looks white” to me and that’s what matters, that is their right.  Others have the right to decide not to wish to absorb his East Asian genetic material. 

As per previous posts on these topics, there needs be no “naturalistic fallacy.” The fact that a Cain is ¼ Asian or a Beckinsale is 1/8 Asian does not imply that they must be rejected by a specific evaluation.  But, why not have that information?  Why do we need to depend on what the Sailer family, or anyone else, thinks about Shelby Steele.  Frankly, I don’t care what Mrs. Sailer thinks about Mr. Steele; it is irrelevant for my evaluation of his impact on the genetic interests of others.

Once again, I am not saying we should be pure genetic reductionists.  By all means, let us consider phenotypes and culture as well.  After all, from a practical perspective, a purely genetic argument would be unlikely to persuade most people to preserve EGI (unfortunately).  But, we absolutely must consider genetic factors.  We may decide that Beckinsale’s obvious phenotypic charms and her (I suspect) identification as white, together with her 7/8 white genotype “outweights” her 1/8 Asian ancestry.  Or we may decide otherwise, or some of us may think one way, others differently.  But we shouldn’t just ignore her genetics and her ancestry.

And we certainly cannot say that just looking at her appearance tells us all we need to know about her impact on our genetic interests.  It simply isn’t so.  And it simply isn’t so that she is an extremely rare case, particularly when the “average person” lacks the discerning eye to make judgments in many cases.

Examination of phenotype raises several challenges.  Is intelligence, behavior, and cultural creativity/compatibility included?  Even looking only at “overall physical appearance”, from a descriptive standpoint, how can this be evaluated in as objective and quantitative way as possible?  From a prescriptive standpoint, how can it match this blog’s purported focus on the interests of western populations?

Posted by J Richards on March 14, 2006, 05:54 AM | #

Note that the term “argument” can be used, in the broad biopolitical sense, to include lifestyle choices.  In a real sense, Derbyshire’s marriage is an argument in favor of Eurasian mongrelization; thus, calling him a “loser” for that choice is ad hominem.

If Derbyshire were married to a woman from the Baltics, would it imply an argument for Balticization?  Whatever the reason for his marrying an Asian, I don’t think he promotes Eurasian mongrelization.  Personal choice is not necessarily a statement of recommendation to others.  And, once again, I have said that most white men that I have seen with Asian men are loser types; I have not called all such men loser types.  Your saying that my statement constitutes ad hominem is just nonsensical.

You may “nitpick” all you wish on the terminology.  How about formulating a response to Eurasian mating that *argues* (in the more traditional sense) in favor of endogamy, instead of calling people “losers?” Is calling a “white geek” a “loser” going to convince him not to mate with an Oriental?

I already have argued against Eurasian mongrelization by pointing out the loss to whites of attractiveness and the negative health consequences of race mixing.  There are additional arguments, of course, which have been pointed out by others.  Where have I called a white geek a loser?  I have said that white nerds and white geeks in colleges are usually losers when it comes to dating white women.  Note the word usually.  Some white geeks go on to make big money when they start working, and then they have no problems getting all the women they want. 

“What is this?  The point is that there is no need to measure a large number of superficial anatomical markers to determine ancestral relationships, but this can be done if needed to show that population classification based on a sufficiently large number of phenotypic markers will agree very well with population classification based on a sufficiently large number of genotypic markers”

My point remains: it is easier, more direct, and accurate just to measure the genetics.  Furthermore, forgive me for being skeptical that, given phenotypic overlap, that measuring cranial attributes will be able to give useful information about narrower classification on the individual level, which genetic analyses is beginning to have the ability to do.

You talk about phenotypic overlap.  Are you not aware of genotypic overlap?  About 85% of neutral DNA genetic variation in humans exists within populations, i.e., the genetic information of races considerably overlaps.  Of course, it is easier to obtain DNA samples and analyze thousands of genetic markers than to use calipers and lasers to measure hundreds of anatomical markers, but once again, when it comes to mate choice, basing it on similar ancestry-informative looks and shared elements of culture/personality/behavior maps very well to EGI.

“The aim of the process (nature acting on the phenotype) is to select phenotype; genotype is selected indirectly.  Genes cannot replicate themselves without the phenotype.”

You need to crack open some biology textbooks, yourself, I believe.  Whether or not the genotype is selected indirectly is not the point, nor is it the obvious fact, which you so charitably point out to us, that genes cannot replicate by themselves.  The point is that (at the cost of being teleological) the “aim” is to replicate the genes and genetic structures.

If the aim is to replicate genetic structure, what happens if the environment changes such that the genetic structure becomes less optimal?  Would nature still attempt to replicate the genetic structure?  It is time for you learn that nature selects the phenotype, not to replicate the genotype, but its end goal, speaking anthropomorphically, is to simply select the phenotype.  The genotype is selected indirectly. 

You need to wake up from your “big boob dreams” and actually realize what you are writing.  Should we engineer Negroes to have the entire white distinctive genome?  Or what, exactly?  Who now is talking about unrealistic absurdities?

Negroes genetically engineered to have white DNA will no longer be Negroes; they will be white.  This is fantasy, of course, and is simply digressing into irrelevancy.

All that is needed to preserve EGI is the maintenance of relative homogeneity of the defined “ethny”, which should share a higher concentration of distinctive genes/genetic structures than the non-ethny populations (so defined).  If Iceland eschews immigration and has its territory reserved for Icelanders, that’s preserving their EGI.  No need for “genetic engineering.” As you would say: “damn!”

If Iceland reserves its territory for Icelanders only, I’ll be glad, and this point is not relevant here because I am not opposed to ethnostates.  I don’t mind a small non-white presence in the West, but ethnostates are fine with me.

Let’s go back to your original statement: “In the absence of genetic engineering, how would you preserve EGI without aiming toward preserving the phenotype, given that the phenotype is strongly correlated with the genotype?” You are asking a question.  The obvious answer is that outlined in every analysis of EGI: ethnostates of some sort or another.

Of course ethnostates will preserve EGI, and I am not opposed to ethnostates.

Identification does not have to be based on phenotype; it can be based on racial/ethnic identity, gene analysis, etc.  You were implying a choice between a phenotype-based analysis or genetic engineering.  That choice is absurd.

I have not implied a choice between phenotypic and genotypic analyses; what I have pointed out is that multiple analyses serve the purpose of preserving EGI equally well.

“People are not going to go around and ask others for their DNA profile to determine how well they are related to them.”

No, instead they will go around with a set of calipers and take cranial measurements.

To assess multiple phenotypic markers, calipers are not needed; visual examination is typically enough, but a DNA profile involves DNA extraction and subsequent laboratory analysis. 

In point of fact I know of some examples in which people interested in Russian/Ukrainian women for wives or egg donors have had the women tested using autosomal DNA analysis.  DNA testing is of course imperfect and requires further improvements, but is more objective than other evaluative tools.

This is not how people normally reproduce.  If you are going to obtain donor sperm or eggs, it is of course understandable that you will go for DNA analysis.  If you are going to seek a spouse without going through the courtship process, I suppose you could go for DNA analysis, but this is not how most people find a mate or will be finding a mate anytime in the foreseeable future. 

“A determination of relatedness is typically based on overall physical appearance and also elements of culture, all of which map very well to the genes related to EGI.”

Bait and switch.  First, is the assertion that a large number of anatomical measurements can correlate with genes and hence EGI.  Now we are back to “overall physical appearance” – but isn’t the point of bringing up measurements of large numbers of phenotypic traits precisely because “overall physical appearance” can be misleading?

An evaluation based on a few phenotypic markers can be misleading, just as an evaluation based on a few genotypic markers can be misleading, but a visual examination of overall physical appearance takes into account a huge number of anatomical markers, which from a statistical point will not mislead to the extent that white males strictly breeding with white-looking women will make a significant change to the white gene pool resulting from non-European admixture.

Your whole argument of course has as its purpose an attempt to justify using “overall physical appearance” as the ultimate evaluative tool, because, and let us be honest here; your predominant interest is in the phenotype, rather in EGI.

This is patently false.  What I have pointed out is that there are multiple ways of evaluating genetic relatedness that serve the purpose of preserving EGI equally well, and that multiple phenotypic markers are what people typically use to evaluate genetic relatedness, and sufficiently numerous phenotypic markers map very well to EGI.

Posted by J Richards on March 14, 2006, 05:56 AM | #

Comments about culture are interesting as well.  Culture is part of the phenotype, the extended phenotype.  Very well.  But non-whites may mimic, if not create, at least certain superficial aspects of white culture.  Should we just then preserve culture and assume that the genes will be “along with the ride?”

Non-whites may mimic culture, but can they mimic the physical appearance of whites?  Nowhere have I implied a phenotypic focus on culture only.  For phenotypic markers to map well with EGI, you need to have a sufficiently large number of phenotypic markers, and combining overall looks with shared culture is good enough for preserving EGI.

And you need to cut down on the porn and read up on evolutionary biology yourself.  Maybe actually read Salter, or re-read it with the aim of actually understanding it this time.  You “apparently” have missed the last 40 years of gene-based evolutionary theory.

What pornography?  Molecular biology is my field, so don’t tell me to read about genetics.

I am well aware of reasonable correspondence, in general, between morphological classification, and genetics.  I am also aware that this correlation does not always hold in the case of humans.  I’m sorry, but the narrower classifications of guys like Coon to not match genetic realities, and you yourself are attempting to justify a “man in the street looks at phenotypes” methodology, when that is fraught with errors.

Can genetics not be misleading?  There are plenty of studies around that are used by race deniers to argue that the so-called races are not easily distinguished genetically.  These studies have usually examined a few dozen genotypic markers at most, but when you increase the number of DNA markers evaluated, the probability of misclassification diminishes.  For instance, in a study that has been addressed at length within this site, 326 microsatellite markers evaluated in 3,636 individuals missclassified only 5 individuals [American Journal of Human Genetics, 2005, 76:268–275], but note that there was still some misclassification.  Similarly, relying on a few phenotypic markers corresponds to an unacceptable level of probability of misclassification, but increase the number of markers and the probability of misclassification rapidly goes down. 

People on this blog think that pink-skinned mestizos are white, and cannot distinguish racially mixed beauty contestants from native Europeans.  I have plenty of anecdotal experience to confirm that “overall physical appearance” can be misleading.  It is you, sir, with your aesthetic interests, who refuses to acknowledge modern biology.

Nobody associated with this blog would mistake pink-skinned mestizos for white; John ray once left a comment in this regard, where he pointed to the retention of white skin among some mestizos, but if I remember correctly, he did not argue that these individuals have retained the facial features of whites.  Another person commented on some mixed-race beauty pageant contestants as looking like they came from Southern Europe.  This is not to say that that he believed that the contestants are white.

First, I’m doubtful that these studies have the same power as the potential of genetics, and you give no reason why we shouldn’t just use genetics instead.  Second, you then talk about “overall physical appearance.” OK, then, can the average white American separate Bosnians from Croatians by sight?

Once again, the choice is not between genetics vs. anatomical markers, but the point is that a sufficiently large number of markers belonging to either group will map well to race and EGI.  I have never been to the Balkans and wouldn’t know how to distinguish Bosnians from Croatians via a visual examination, but both these groups are European, and I would have no problem with them breeding together or even myself breeding with an attractive Bosnian or Croat, notwithstanding the fact that I don’t have recent ancestors from the Balkans.  On the other hand, why should whites have to care about distinguishing closely related white populations?  Do you believe that Swedes should breed with Swedes only, Welsh should breed with Welsh only, and so on?  Personally, whereas I would not breed with a non-white, if I like a white woman, I’m not going to bother what her nationality is. 

No, not when the “benefits” derive from only a fraction of the information, or if the same “benefit” can be derived from information less valuable in terms of a broader benefit, or when people don’t even agree on what that benefit should be.

The benefits here derive from a large set of genes.  Overall looks and elements of culture correspond to a large set of genes that constitute EGI and also correlate well with all other genes that are part of EGI.  There is broad agreement among whites that white looks and Western culture should be preserved.

This is the key to the entire argument.  You wish to preserve phenotypic interests; all the talk of correlating anatomical traits with gene frequencies was all so much obfuscation.

Phenotypic interests also happen to cover genotypic interests, provided that a sufficiently large number of markers are considered.

We go back to the issue – can just looking at a person give sufficiently accurate information to match EGI?  Is it sufficiently objective?  Are people skilled enough to make narrower judgments?  You say yes, I say no.  My personal experiences strongly support my opinion; yes, that is anecdotal, but I see no strong evidence for otherwise.

If you have normal eyesight and vision, you should be able to tell a white person from one with significant non-European admixture.  There will be exceptions, of course, but these exceptions are so few in number that if all whites were to breed with white-looking people only, the gene pool of whites will not change significantly as a result of non-European admixture.

We now have the tools to examine these questions on the genetic level.  The resistance against these tools is very interesting, to say the least.

I have no objections to genetic analyses of ancestry.  It is you who has an objection to any focus on looks at this site.

“I also wish to add that if a white man had to choose between Kate Beckinsale and a far less attractive white woman, he would not be foolish enough to ask for a DNA sample to assess the amount of non-European admixture and then reject Kate Beckinsale because she is less European.”

Here you expose yourself as a phenotypic “interest-est.” I see.  The fact that the woman is attractive trumps the fact that someone else provides highe