December 16, 2007

My Race FAQ

On VDARE.com, I offer a Frequently Asked Questions list about the the basic concept of race.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

By Steve Sailer on 12/16/2007 Labels:

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Actually, Chinese did not treat brothers equally. The big brother always got the best plot, and younger brothers had to defer to him. However, older brothers had a grave responsibility (hehe, inside joke) in looking after their younger brothers and their welfare.

In Japan, there was a far more equitable distribution between brothers, which, believe it or not, led to more sibling rivalry. This is why "Ran" worked well as an adaptation of MacBeth when the daughters were changed to sons.

Japanese women were treated far better than Chinese women in any case.

12/16/07, 10:35 PM
Anonymous said...

Oops, I meant King Lear, not Macbeth.

Dumb mistake :-(

12/16/07, 11:03 PM
Anonymous said...

Steve,
Great read. Some very handy information to understand this topic better.

But what about the implications? Racial systems such as the ones which dominated Europe in previous centuries, or segregation, Apartheid and UDI in Rhodesia were all based on issues in practice (security, economic protection, preserving a common culture or religion, preventing Genocide etc.).

All these systems were dismantled by churches and liberals. But the underlying conflicts continue unabated to this day, usually to the detriment of those who were protected by these systems in the past and with much collateral damage because the regulating effect of these rigid systems is missing.

So clearly there is a need for delineations. But if all these systems were evil, what will the new more "just" systems look alike?

12/17/07, 1:21 AM
MensaRefugee said...

So clearly there is a need for delineations. But if all these systems were evil, what will the new more "just" systems look alike?
-------------------------
Eviler? Communism and its variants come to mind for some reason.

12/17/07, 5:58 AM
Matt Parrott said...

I take issue with your contention that race is entirely about relatedness. This fails to take convergent evolution into consideration and can lead to inaccurate conclusions.

For instance, according to sex-linked chromosomal data, we can see that Irish (R1b) populations are more closely related to Amerindian (Q) populations than to Armenian populations (E,F,G,I,J,K, etc...).

The Ainu, especially before admixture with the Yayoi invaders, were essentially Caucasoid yet are entirely unrelated to Europeans.

Eskimo, Yakut, and Japanese populations are also very unrelated and yet share very similar appearances, typically falling into the same Asiatic race.

I understand that the message accepts the impact of admixture, such as the fact that White Americans are very closely related to Mestizo but that they are a separate race.

12/17/07, 8:50 AM
Anonymous said...

The NPR show, "On Point", had a show about race and IQ today. The guests were all very sure to to make perfectly clear that "IQ is determined by environment."

One of the guests said that "white supremacists are interested in this subject." They cited some study about Chinese immigrants having the same IQ's as whites. I always thought that Asians had higher IQ's but these folks didn't say that?

They also said that "head size was not a factor in determining IQ." Some black female called in and screeched about "why the people in control should even be allowed to speak about the oppressed head sizes blah blah blah racism, oppression blah social construct blah ."

They also criticized Aurthur Jensen.

The media has really been concentrating on this issue lately and appears to be in some sort of damage mode?

Here's a link to the web-cast, I suggest you listen and find the distortions.
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/12/20071217_b_main.asp

12/17/07, 2:15 PM
Anonymous said...

Here's an infrequently asked question: what implications of your views on race would be the most offensive to the multi-culti set?

12/17/07, 4:35 PM
Anonymous said...

one thing that continuing study of genetic differences will probably also show, and not particularly to the advantage of non-whites, is the "Little Wing phenomenon", a higher incidence among minorities of instability, erratic behavior, depression, and other psychological ills.

12/17/07, 4:44 PM
Anonymous said...

Will the difference between publicly expressed and privately held views on race presage a swift, major change in the public race discussion? (I've forgotten the originator of the idea that a public/private gap leads to sudden shifts in opinion, surprise revolutions, etc.). An unusual number of rational articles in the mainstream media presently may be the first indications of an upheaval that will pit an increasingly large rational pole against the opposite, opiate of the masses ("40! And Loving it!") media pole.

12/17/07, 5:08 PM
Matt Parrott said...

anonymous said...

...I've forgotten the originator of the idea that a public/private gap leads to sudden shifts in opinion, surprise revolutions, etc...

That would be Mr. Sailer's arch nemesis, Mr. Malcolm Gladwell.

Mr. Gladwell's ideas about Blink explained how prejudice resisted decades of draconian attempts at eradication. The ideas from Tipping Point will also do a good job of explaining the seismic shift in public discourse and attitudes that's about to occur.

12/17/07, 6:10 PM
Anonymous said...

Here's the On Point info...

On Point had Watson on in October...

James Watson
A conversation with scientist James Watson -- who along with Francis Crick discovered the "double helix" structure of DNA -- about his new memoir, "Avoid Boring People." - (Wednesday, October 03, 2007)

Here's the latest show...

IQ and Race

Nobel laureate James Watson touched a third rail when he linked race and IQ. Top researchers explain what the data tells us. - (Monday, December 17, 2007)

Nobel Laureate James Watson set off a fury when he questioned whether Africans have the same intelligence as Caucasians.

So did journalist William Saletan, who defended Watson in a recent three-part series on race and IQ for Slate magazine, and highlighted research championed by white supremacists.

Saletan has apologized. But discomforting questions remain in the air.

We've invited three authorities in the field to help us understand what the science does -- and does not -- tell us, and hear why they believe all brains are created equal.


Richard Nisbett, Professor of Psychology and co-director of the Culture and Cognition Program at the University of Michigan. He wrote an op-ed article for the New York Times titled "All Brains Are the Same Color."

James Flynn, Professor Emeritus of Political Studies at the University of Otago in New Zealand. He is best known for discovering the Flynn Effect -- the rise in IQ test scores over time around the world. He is author of the new book "What is Intelligence?: Beyond the Flynn Effect."

Eric Turkheimer, Professor of Psychology, University of Virginia. He completed a major study in 2003 looking at class and IQ.

12/17/07, 7:15 PM
Anonymous said...

hoosier comrade,

what I'm talking about is a large preexisting private rational group on the race subject that becomes suddenly public and fairly sweeping in power, upsetting establishment views, policies, etc. It's apparently a matter of history (though, again I don't remember the book, only once skimmed its description) that a public/private difference is a condition for revolution (i.e. major, sudden, surprise, even violent change), even though, as now with the race subject, there must always have been a force causing people not to express their true views.

I've never read Malcolm Gladwell's book but there are no meaningful references in it to a gap between public or private views using amazon "search inside". The book I'm thinking of had greater academic credibility.

12/18/07, 4:36 PM
Linda Seebach said...

I think that book would be "Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification" by Timur Kuran.

12/18/07, 5:40 PM
lloyd1927 said...

There has not been any consistent "one drop rule" to define "black." Standards have varied from state to state, judge to judge, community to community. Time periods vary from more open to more exclusive. There is also the silent exemption for Hispanics and Arabs. There are many historical articles and books showing this, but the most comprehensive is Frank W. Sweet's LEGAL HISTORY OF THE COLOR LINE.

12/19/07, 5:06 AM
Anonymous said...

Steve, great article. It could be the first chapter, or the outline of topics, of a book - assuming writing a book is worthwhile (it could be). Everything Is Relative as a title? Anthology divided according to different areas of the culture (Science, Sports, Movies, Mating, i.e. "Everything") each article going to demonstrate your viewpoint (altered to refer to it)?

I don't know if you're a system-builder/guru as this would require you to be (you're very empirical) but New Year's Resolutions are coming up, and you've already got a lot of the material...

12/20/07, 12:27 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)