Archives for the month of: June, 2012

links don’t appear in this backup post. but i’ve got them in the blog backup files — so if you really want a link from an old open thread comment, just ask. (^_^)


02/19/2011 at 3:48 PM

The Caspian Sea on the map above is woefully out of all proportion to its realistic shape and size. Please forward my complaint to the map-maker.


02/19/2011 at 10:30 PM

@hail – heh! (^_^) well, silly ol’ johannes was always so busy looking up rather than down…. (~_^)


02/20/2011 at 6:46 AM

Quoting Bertold Brecht shows you are no chick! But I like you.


02/20/2011 at 7:05 AM

Bahrain? The English did it. That horrible island at two days navigation from Batzra was nothing before the oil companies made it into their depot some 70 years ago. A most destitute and miserable family lived there near the only spring in Manama. The current population – of all races and religions – is of recent origin and came to work for the oil company. Giving names to the ethnic groups in flow does not make them crystallized and solid political entities.


02/20/2011 at 7:16 AM

Sorry, You say you are a chick so you are a chick. I assumed that you are not a teenager chick, as the rarely quote Brecht.


02/21/2011 at 7:46 AM

@j – “That horrible island at two days navigation from Batzra was nothing before the oil companies made it into their depot some 70 years ago.”

bahrain had a good economy for a couple of hundred years based upon pearling and, later, trade. not to mention that it was important because of its strategic location in the gulf.

it certainly wasn’t a destitute place as you describe it. if it had been, why would the al khalifa, the persians, the brits, et. al., have been so interested in controlling the place? — all before oil was ever discovered?


02/23/2011 at 9:16 PM

…why would the al khalifa, the persians, the brits, et. al., have been so interested in controlling the place?

(1) Was there any place on Earth that the brits et al were NOT interested in controlling?

(2) Manama had a miserable economy of fishing, pearling, oasis gardening, and some trade with the peninsula. “Miserable” is my opinion, as in the eyes of a famelic beduin nomad it was a rich metropolis.


03/02/2011 at 8:34 PM

Re Sunni vs Shia. Isn’t it depressing?


03/02/2011 at 9:26 PM

@j – well, i don’t lose any sleep over it, if that’s what you’re wondering. (~_^)


03/06/2011 at 5:49 PM

a commenter calling himself francois left this on the al-hatfield vs. al-mccoy post, but since it didn’t really belong there, i thought i’d post it up here on the open thread:

from tea party chain email:

——–Forwarded Message——–

From a chain email:

Russell K. Nieli recently brought to light a new study by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and his colleague Alexandria Radford that shows that lower-income European Americans (poor whites) are the most discriminated against group of people in college admissions.

Nieli writes: “When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely. These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade and Radford surveyed.”

Get that? Not African Americans, not Mestizo Americans — but European Americans are the most discriminated against group in college admissions.

This widespread discrimination against European Americans should be unsurprising. And immigration is making it worse, as more non-whites immigrate here their “disparate impact” status makes them prime affirmative action candidates.

All other racial groups have powers lobbying on their behalf. Blacks have the NAACP, mestizos have La Raza, Asians have the 80-20 Initiative, Indians have USINPAC, etc. What do European Americans have?

When other groups lobby on behalf of their ethnic interests and whites do nothing, whites are bound to receive the short end of the stick. And all the while this is taking place, many whites pursue the “ostrich strategy”. They stick their heads in the sand and wish it were otherwise.

Time to take your heads out of the sand, white people.


03/06/2011 at 9:43 PM

Regarding Israeli Jewish consanguinity rates, you quote 50 years old data. I am sure that Jew living among Arabs had higher rates of consanguinity than the general population, and it was certainly the case among Ashkenazi Jews in Eastern Europe. But here in Israel the situation has changed dramatically. Intermarriage among Jewish communities has increased dramatically as ethnic neighborhoods are liquidated and the younger population is mixed. According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, last year about a quarter of the marriages was inter-ethnic and the rate is growing. One consequence of this process is that Israel’s younger population is completely unlike the founding population. Walking in Tel Aviv you cannot see the stunted stereotypic Jew so loved by European antisemites, but a different Mediterranean-looking people. We Jews are remaking ourselves here (and in a different way, in the USA too) so Jewish consanguinity figures of two generation back are no longer representative of reality.


03/06/2011 at 10:21 PM

@j – “According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, last year about a quarter of the marriages was inter-ethnic and the rate is growing.”

that’s interesting. thnx for the info!


03/11/2011 at 5:52 AM

Re Sunni vs Shia, isn’t it depressing that the real cause of this thousand years old theological and military conflict is that differ in a couple of bases, say guanine instead of adenine, while you know one can buy on the internet custom designed and synthesized genes delivered in as little as five days. Vanidad de vanidades, todo es vanidad.


03/12/2011 at 5:13 AM

“one can buy on the internet custom designed and synthesized genes delivered in as little as five days”



03/13/2011 at 7:26 AM

Yes. You and anyone else can buy synthetic genes from commercial companies. They are used in research.


03/21/2011 at 8:36 PM

The perennially-clueless**, constnatly-blathering extreme-Neocon who posts as Whiskey has been absolutely flooding Steve Sailer’s blog with comments lately. I mean, one, two, three, four, five in a row. All long, verbose, lacking in logic or fact, and all with his typical fare of Loud Cluelessness with a dash of Neoconservatism and a pinch of white-ethnomasochism. It’s been quite a long time since I decided to simply skip over anything by him, but when others quote his posts, I sometimes end up reading them anyway.

** — (There is nothing worse than someone who does not know what they are talking about who goes on at length on some subject, or rather “blathers” about it, as I write above. There is ignorance, and then there is arrogant ignorance. Ignorance is excusable, arrogance can even be excusable, but arrogant ignorance is just repugnant.)


03/21/2011 at 8:37 PM

A few of the representative counter-comments in the past days:
1.) Albertosaurus wrote: Whiskey, you’re retarded. Please leave and stop polluting the comment section of an otherwise good blog.

2.) [Whiskey makes a characteristically-inane claim that Pakistan is a far superior nuclear power to Britain and France] Mr. Anon wrote: This is an assinine statement, even by your standards, Whiskey. [...]

3.) Felix wrote: Whiskey is such a clown. Britain and France have a total of EIGHT nuclear ballistic missile submarines between them…Combined, the UK and France possess ~500 fusion warheads, all of which can be delivered by highly advanced ballistic missiles with no chance of interception. In contrast Pakistan has a couple dozen puny fission devices (1940′s tech) that may or may not work if the day comes [...]

4.) Anonymous wrote: Since absolutely every factual statement Whiskey makes is false and I don’t have time to correct them all, I’ll just pick a couple: [...]

5.) A reference to one of Whiskey’s “greatest hits”: MQ wrote: Of course, in the past Whiskey has informed us that Spain is still today under threat from a violent invasion from Morocco, so I guess it’s all consistent.

6.) Alexandra Wallace With Epiphany wrote: I’m beginning to think most posts by Whiskey are bot-generated, given such repetitive fallacies peppered with specific facts that appear frequently falsified with a uniformly bias.

7.) [After Whiskey makes the (sigh) characteristically-inane claim that "Italy and France could become Muslim majority in a few months" unless we invade and occupy Libya, now!, now!, now!] Anonymous wrote: Whiskey, if you seriously think it is possible for 10 million people (which by the way even on a generous estimate would have to include every last human being within Libyan territory) to cross the Mediterranean in the space of a few months, and then, within the same few months, to turn France and Italy (combined population 125 million) into “Muslim majority” nations, then you are officially the stupidest person on the internet.

8.) [In response #7's "then you [Whiskey] are officially the stupidest person on the internet.”] Truth wrote: LM-GD-AO! You must be new here. On the Whiskey scale of stupidity, that one was a 6, 6.5 tops. [lists several other "greatest hits of Whisk-inanity]…

9.) Albertosaurus wrote: After reading these comments on this difficult and complex issue I’d rather have our foreign policy be directed by these commenters than by Obama, Clinton, and the State Department. All of the comments here reveal an impressive breath of knowledge and judgement in their authors — except Whiskey of course.

10.) And finally, a parody of Whiskey’s typical style. (Anti-Gnostic is not an arm-flailing Neocon fool, he sometimes uses irony to make his points, as Sailer himself does).


03/27/2011 at 7:44 PM

———- Forwarded Message ———-

Although Paris Hilton may be a twit, she apparently has good judgement about black men:

To redeem herself for showing preference for her own race (genophilia), she will probably now date 12 black men.

Always Frosty

04/04/2011 at 9:07 AM

I posted your Cousin Marriage Conundrum article over on Reddit along with another one by a different author on birth defects in the the immigrant community in the UK. The response has been hilariously negative. How many of these guys are banging their cousins?


04/04/2011 at 6:30 PM

@always frosty – thnx! (^_^)

i spend more time than i’d like to admit on reddit (just lurking). the natives are very pc, of course, but there’s still a lot that is entertaining|informative. (^_^)


04/11/2011 at 1:09 AM

So, I’ve just read that “Whites are Their Own Enemies” on the “In mala fide” blog or whatever the fuck it’s called. Ignoring my opinion of the writer (pretty much every author there is a whiny, dickless, moralizer), F. Bardamu just came across one of the few worthwhile insights I’ve ever seen on these “HBD Blogs”.

Ironically, despite being an old-woman moralizer, Bardamu is one of the few people to FINALLY realize that Old World, Anglo-Saxon moralizing, something the HBD folk ALWAYS do, is the very thing that is destroying the White Race – and, indeed, life ITSELF – to begin with! In this sense, “Whites” are not really their own enemies. It’s the Anglo-Saxons and the Christians, those boring moralizers, that have led to a turn for the worst. All this talk of “tolerance” lol, “politeness” lol, “free speech” lol, “altruism” lol, “nationalism” lol, “united we stand” lol, “respect” lol, “we the people” lol, “activism” lol, “civil rights” lol, “ethical progress” lol – this Liberalism, a secular offshoot of decadent Christian attitudes, and multicultural decay were a necessary conclusion to centuries of slave-morality. The more lion-hearted races – the Japanese and the Finnish – would have none of it! Thousands of utterly worthless pages of “equality doesn’t exist” this and “Blacks are inferior” that and “Democracy sucks balls” this – tautologies! – and a whiny moralizing shit writes the only worthwhile “HBD” article of the past 4 years – and by sheer luck! Bigger lulz cannot be had!

What we are about to enter is an age that will bring a return to a more demanding, more intolerant, more selfish, more aristocratic, more warlike, more beast-like, more lion-hearted, more instinctive, more noble spirit. The common man will likely perish under the coming age and will, inevitably, lead to a higher type of man. Yet, this is not something to grow “sad” over – we (higher types) leave that to the old women and the Christians. We merely analyze, rank which is higher and lower, and use these “problems” (as if the world had problems!) to our advantage. And even still, the decadance of the French Revolution created Napoleon – the Revolution is justified. In this sense, while still contemptible and disgusting, multiculturalism and Liberalism were necessary, justified and redeemed.


04/12/2011 at 5:20 PM

@d – somebody’s been reading nietzsche, i see! (~_^) (not that there’s anything wrong with that!)


04/18/2011 at 9:55 PM

This is probably the first time I’ve ever seen the word ‘lesbian’ used in a piece or associated with the college. Ever.”

Obviously, the problem is semantic. Lesbian is offensive to Lesbians, those from the Greek Island of Lesbos. I propose to adopt the Spanish version: “tortillera” or “marimacha”.

hbd chick

04/19/2011 at 3:59 AM

@j – ha! (~_^)


05/14/2011 at 3:24 AM

The Alpenhorn blowers look Swiss.

hbd chick

05/14/2011 at 9:38 AM

@j – you could be right, but then they’re prolly germanic swiss anyway. close enough. (~_^)

actually, those big horns (or similar ones) are used from french switzerland all the way over to the carpathians. who knew?!


05/16/2011 at 1:23 AM

>i<…distaste for reality…

Isnt it justified? Reality is far below my expectation. I want a world of people like me.

hbd chick

05/16/2011 at 10:24 AM

@j – “I want a world of people like me.”

oh, yes! wouldn’t THAT be nice! a world of people like ME! (^_^)

(actually, i would prolly just irritate and annoy myself.) (~_^)

you do make a good point, tho. (some parts of) reality is definitely below my expectations, too. however, in order to get the best out of life (especially in order to get the best out of life for our kids), i think we have to deal with reality. it’s annoying, but i think it must be done.


05/16/2011 at 10:55 AM

I cant deal with my kids’s reality. For one, I’ll be mostly dead. And I have enough dealing with my own @¡?#! reality or whatever it is.

hbd chick

05/16/2011 at 12:01 PM

@j – “I cant deal with my kids’s reality. For one, I’ll be mostly dead.”

well, what i meant was, we can all try to leave our kids the best possible world for them in which to thrive. obviously there are potential conflicts between populations here. for instance, jewish israeli parents and palestinian parents might have different ideas on what sort of future environment is best for their kids. in fact, different jewish israeli populations (i’m thinking orthodox vs. others) prolly have different ideas on how to set up the future for their kids.

true, we’ll be dead (eventually). but we can try to influence the future now. in fact, we do whatever actions we take in the present.


05/17/2011 at 2:28 AM

It is futile to try to improve my kid’s future. Money and position never last. Education… they do it by themselves and any paternal intervention is counterproductive. They are much more ambitious than I am. From my gens point of view, the best would be to ensure them membership in a large cohesive protective tribe. My return to the Orthodox judaism of my ancestors would guarantee that but it is too late for me.


05/23/2011 at 2:36 AM

I dont know what is your problem. US Government zombie experts’s advice seems to me very reasonable.

Plan your evacuation route. When zombies are hungry they won’t stop until they get food (i.e., brains), which means you need to get out of town fast! Plan where you would go and multiple routes you would take ahead of time so that the flesh eaters don’t have a chance!

Americans should thank God for having a Government that protects them, thinks for them and plans ahead for them. I wonder if there is a contingency plan for the Second Coming too.

hbd chick

05/23/2011 at 9:54 AM

@j – “Americans should thank God for having a Government that protects them, thinks for them and plans ahead for them.”

heh. (^_^)


05/23/2011 at 6:58 PM

For those that liked existential star wars:


05/24/2011 at 1:05 PM

For those that liked existential star wars, more family circus Nietzsche favorites:


05/24/2011 at 1:05 PM

Oops, double post


05/24/2011 at 1:33 PM

@r.s. – “Oops, double post”

that’s ’cause this is one of those echo-chamber blogs. (~_^)


05/24/2011 at 9:41 PM

We Ashkenazi Jews do not “descend from Imperial Russia” but from Judeans (aka Jews) brought to Rome by Emperor Titus.


05/28/2011 at 4:03 PM

Your portrait on the “hbd chick?” page is kinda cute.

You sure that you are not in the market? :-)


05/28/2011 at 4:09 PM

@jg – heh. (^_^)


06/02/2011 at 1:10 PM

Seems like your thing:

Or have you seen this already?

hbd chick

06/02/2011 at 2:01 PM

@fred – “Seems like your thing.”

TOTALLY my sort of thing! (^_^) i have seen it and it’s waiting in my que of star wars things to post — but thnx for reminding me about it! (^_^)


06/04/2011 at 1:01 AM

Vár állott, most kőhalom,
Kedv s öröm röpkedtek,
Halálhörgés, siralom
Zajlik már helyettek.
S ah, szabadság nem virul
A holtnak véréből,
Kínzó rabság könnye hull
Árvánk hő szeméből!

Your English translation is very poor. kinzo is not tortous but full of tortures
rabsag means a person living in captivity and not slavery
Arvank refers specifically to our orphans
and so on.

The mongol invasions were no fun, but agree that the hymn may contain an excessive measure of self-pity.

hbd chick

06/04/2011 at 8:57 AM

@j – “Your English translation is very poor.”

ah! well, i just got it from wikipedia, so what can you expect. (~_^)

do you speak hungarian?


06/04/2011 at 8:06 PM

I can speak nothing else but Hungarian, even when I am speaking other languages. Hungarian is for life.


06/04/2011 at 8:14 PM

@j – cool! (^_^)


06/06/2011 at 8:42 PM

How do you address the possibility of a Flynn-Lynn-like effect on C? I am not sure Lynn really does so in a strong way in ‘Dysgenics’.

From the info on page 114 it looks pretty likely that genotypic C is declining (with some calculuations I could check)… but if there’s some really long lasting FL-like effect on C, which is conceivable, it might not matter for a long time. C could even rise for some generations. Why not?

It’s the case though that the FL-like effect on height ended at the same time as the IQ effect. There’s a good chance that that was when any & all FL-like effects ended.

As I have said before, if C really is declining (maybe even faster than IQ, Lynn suggests), it really matters…. considering how it’s C * IQ = achievement, not C + IQ.


06/06/2011 at 8:45 PM

The data on page 114 are per generation… they don’t even address the fact that generation time differs by IQ and maybe by C within-race. Overall, it’s possible all this is really quite bad in magnitude.

hbd chick

06/06/2011 at 9:36 PM

@rs – “Overall, it’s possible all this is really quite bad in magnitude.”

iow, you’re saying we’re scr*wed (if conscientiousness in personality is really rapidly declining).


06/07/2011 at 9:30 AM

Yeah. It would be great to actually calculate the IQ and C for 2050, including racial change, differential gen time within-race — the whole thing.

I think it can be done for IQ. Sailer took a crude stab at that here:

While Sailer seems to have just semi-guessed, Charles Murray has put forth some information on generation time by IQ. The truth is out there.

The problem is really C. Somewhere in the book, Lynn looks at changes in criminality or antisocial behavior or something, on the belief that these are largely caused by low C and are therefore an index of C. And that’s where he suggests C is declining significantly faster (presumably meaning, in SD units) than IQ. But that’s not really a method with the same strong level of epistemic value as say, IQ testing over time has. A method examining the whole distribution of C would be much better than a method examining the rates of very low C. And then there’s a problem of how purely a product of C these antisocialities are. We know rather clearly that adult IQ is not altered by the social environment or by any sort of ‘do-gooder’ interventions. I doubt that we really know that about these antisocialities; they may well be able to be affected by culture and social environment.

Even if one cannot remove all the uncertainty about what the value of IQ * C will be in 2030 or 2050 relative to today, it does look bad, and there are a ton of other econo-pessimistic facts to note, from demographic aging, to everything else in Cowan’s recent book — boy, are there a lot of bad trends.

As I’ve noted at various blogs, we aren’t all going to starve to death or something, even if GDP/head were (over a few decades) to decline very, very dramatically to $20,000 or even $17,000. Clearly the biggest problem presented by all this ‘dysgenics, etc’ is the possibility that it will favor untoward political movements, such as jingo-militaristic ones, etc. People will be more manipulable, and a greater fraction of people will face varying levels of desperation. Some will even be hungry, though far from a majority will be. Some will live without sewers or police, as in Brazil. All that’s a big part of the recipe for wacky political developments.

hbd chick

06/08/2011 at 1:47 AM

hey rs — if you run the numbers (whatever they might be) on this and come up with something interesting and wanna write it up, lemme know. you’re welcome to have a guest post here if you like.

if yes, just write a reeeeeeeeeeeeally long comment (or two or three or however many it takes) and i can make it a blog post. (^_^)

(or lemme know if you post something on this elsewhere, like on your own blog! then i can link to it.)


06/08/2011 at 5:39 PM

I’ll def let you know, should I ever actually do anything.

I guess one option is regress, for IQ, the differential gen time and completed fertility by education, and call the residual C. If I’m using those terms correctly.

But that only permits estimation of change in genotypic C, whereas predicting future phenotypes the desideratum.

Maybe there’s actually literature on this from recent years; Lynn’s “Dysgenics” is 15 years old.

La Griffe once modeled future GDP/capita, but it was just racial change that he did. No dysgenesis, no demographic aging.

One problem with considering the Flynn effect ‘real’, is that GDP/capita growth didn’t change much at all upon exhaustion of the Flynn change circa 1980. It could be that a lot of the growth from 2000-2008 was fake, but surely not most of that from 1980-2000.

Assistant Village Idiot

06/08/2011 at 5:39 PM

RS, greatly agree, but “Clearly the biggest problem presented by all this ‘dysgenics, etc’ is the possibility that it will favor untoward political movements, such as jingo-militaristic ones, etc. People will be more manipulable…” If you’ve seen Steve Hsu’s site, you might be equally worried about the manipulableness of elites.

hbd chick, caught your comment at steve sailer’s (and commented further) and came over. I will likely link back from my own site.

hbd chick

06/08/2011 at 6:52 PM

@avi – “I will likely link back from my own site.”

thnx! (^_^) linked to your blog in my blogroll … way down there ↓ .

Patrick Casey

06/09/2011 at 12:04 PM

regarding the origin of the phrase “the exception proves the rule”: Bill Bryson wrote in The Mother Tongue that the phrase originally meant the exception tests the rule–prove also meaning “to test” at the time.

hbd chick

06/09/2011 at 6:01 PM

@patrick – heh! (^_^)

a long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away…) i read bryson’s “notes from a small island” and to this day i still giggle at his description of women in the supermarket. when they get up to the cashier and everything has been scanned and it’s time to pay, they seem to be surprised that they have to take their money (or debit card) out (at this point they start searching in their purse for their wallet) and actually PAY for their shopping! he thought it funny that they (ok, ok, WE) almost never have their money about beforehand … like they’ve never been shopping before. (^_^) makes me laugh every time i’m in the store and see that happen. (^_^)

Patrick Casey

06/10/2011 at 2:14 AM

Ha! Thats about the only other particular passage I remember from any of his books–I suppose thats so because I’ve never seen an exception that tests the rule ;) A Walk In The Woods was too depressing to finish; I had no idea so many types of trees had been totally wiped out by disease over ages not very far back.

Regarding the causal connection you posited between tribalism and inbreeding, my instincts say you’re right. However, I can think of one link you might be missing. Soldiers develop a tribal bond with their platoon mostly because they live and work together in such close quarters. When extended families lived together and farmed together they probably developed the same type of tribal bond. The key to tribalism might be environmental proximity rather than genetic proximity. That was essentially Emile Durkheim’s conclusion in Anomie: organic solidarity gave way to mechanical anomie with the introduction of industrialization, the drawing apart of family members into factories. You should see how closely the two trends–tribalism and inbreeding–parallel under a microscope of history. it would make a great paper either way I’m sure.

Always Frosty

06/27/2011 at 4:06 PM

Most combat units, even more so for special operations units, are specially filtered to find people who can both perform well and work in a team. No one can get through SOF selection if the trainers wouldn’t want you on their team. There is a lot of pressure to keep people from turning into prima donnas within the group before the bonds are ever forged in actual combat.


07/20/2011 at 8:39 AM

In the Weekly Portion, we learn that God favours cousin marriage.


08/24/2011 at 7:51 PM

Cracks in America’s phallic totem! Time to panic! A white mare has to be sacrificed to the angry gods!

hbd chick

08/25/2011 at 12:21 PM

@j – that is one, big phallus, isn’t it?! (^_^)


08/28/2011 at 9:00 PM

Nice recap. It also may partly explain why outbred societies have lower reproductive growth, if any. If an individual’s genes are wide distributed in a large population, it makes little sense for him personally to reproduce – others will do it for him. On the other hand, an inbred clan has to do the work itself to pass on its specific genes, as no others seem to carry them. The loss of reproductive urge seems to happen everywhere a tribal/clannish society turns into a large indifferentiated human mass, like in late Greece and Rome. Today, Japan, China and of course Europe.

hbd chick

08/29/2011 at 2:59 AM

@j – yes, i think you’re right on target there, j. i’ve been thinking along the same lines myself. there does seem to be a “loss of reproductive urge” as you describe it when inbreeding rates drop.


09/16/2011 at 7:08 PM

This is the only way I can figure out to leave comments. Is there some way to leave comments under each blog entry?

hbd chick

09/16/2011 at 10:21 PM

hey, mel! yes, there is. just click on the title of the post (like “clientelism in greece”) to open the full post. then the comments box will be at the end of the post. i moved your comment to the “clientelism” post, btw. (^_^)


09/17/2011 at 1:31 PM

Thanks HBD chick!


09/30/2011 at 6:29 AM

chick, it would be interesting to see some statistics about genetic diseases in deeply inbred populations like those Pakistanis you mention. They should look like Charles II of Spain, the drooling imbecile that inherited the Habsburg Empire, but they dont. How much inbreeding depresses their mental and physical capabilities?

Many peoples discovered that inbreeding causes birth defects and they imposed social rules to avoid it. How is that these Pakistanis are not aware of the danger and on the contrary, they enforce it?

In the case of the Beduins of the Negev, they were living in permanent war of all against all and they had no social mechanism to interact peacefully with anyone, so they were forced to stay in the family. But Pakistanis are a large group and they dont need to fear their neughbors.

hbd chick

09/30/2011 at 3:06 PM

@j – i responded to your comments in the pakistan comment thread, j, ’cause they were good points that you made and i wanted to make sure that anyone reading the pakistan post saw them. (^_^)


10/01/2011 at 8:27 PM

Chickie, I am unconvinced by your conclusion “c’est la vie”. Having a defectous child is such a tragedy and cost that there must be very powerful reasons to inbreeding.

hbd chick

10/02/2011 at 10:24 AM

@j – “Having a defectous child is such a tragedy and cost that there must be very powerful reasons to inbreeding.”

well, sure. there’re a bunch of different things pushing people towards inbreeding:

1) the drive to reproduce as many of your own genes as possible — if you mate with a relative, you get more bang for your buck;

2) economic reasons — keep the goats or the property or whatever in the family;

3) one reason that i keep thinking of that i haven’t really seen anyone else talk about — people are more attracted to those with whom they share genes, right? so, if you start down the inbreeding road, i wonder if you might be prone to even more inbreeding as time goes on, each generation finding their relatives even more attractive than the preceding ones.


10/02/2011 at 10:43 AM

My cousins (girls) are certainly very attractive.

hbd chick

10/02/2011 at 10:50 AM

@j – well, there you go! (^_^)


10/04/2011 at 8:45 AM

I am for Kissing Cousins but none is at hand, they live in Argentina, Canada, Australia, Hungary, etc. Inbreeding being impossible, I have to do with what is available.

Linked to your blog.

hbd chick

10/04/2011 at 3:49 PM

@j – “Inbreeding being impossible, I have to do with what is available.”

heh! hard times, hard times. (^_^)


10/06/2011 at 1:50 AM

Whoa. Been a while. I apologize if I came off as a little abrasive before.

Anyway, I’d like to say good work on the blog. Despite some flaws, this is pretty much the only “HBD”-centric blog I have any respect for. And good Nietzsche call there!

hbd chick

10/06/2011 at 8:08 PM

@d – “I apologize if I came off as a little abrasive before.”

eh, no problem! (^_^) (i had to go back and find your previous comment to see what might’ve been abrasive ’cause i couldn’t remember anything in particular, so you obviously didn’t leave any scars. (~_^) )

@d – “this is pretty much the only “HBD”-centric blog I have any respect for.”

yay! i’m finally commanding respect! now if i could only manage to do the same here at home. (~_^)

srsly — thnx for the compliment. (^_^)


10/08/2011 at 2:59 AM

about inbreeding

hbd chick

10/08/2011 at 10:39 AM

@j – heh! yeah — i’ve always like the muppets version. (^_^)


10/12/2011 at 2:02 AM

On the other hand, in another passage, the Bible, in its wonderful consistency, forbids marriage (not only that, but also SEX!) between individuals related – up to seven generations.

Apparently the tabu was not strictly enforced, as the story of Noah and his daughters recalls.

hbd chick

10/12/2011 at 2:06 AM

@j – “On the other hand, in another passage, the Bible, in its wonderful consistency, forbids marriage (not only that, but also SEX!) between individuals related – up to seven generations.”

well that’s interesting! do you recall where that is in the bible? (just being lazy here. i guess i could look it up, too. (~_^) )


10/12/2011 at 9:01 AM

ההלכה בעדה החשיבה את הזמד בתור אחים ואחיות ולכן אסרה נשואים לטווח שבעה הדורות שמקורו בספר ויקרא:

וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִקַּח אֶת אֲחֹתוֹ בַּת אָבִיו אוֹ בַת אִמּוֹ וְרָאָה אֶת עֶרְוָתָהּ וְהִיא תִרְאֶה אֶת עֶרְוָתוֹ חֶסֶד הוּא וְנִכְרְתוּ לְעֵינֵי בְּנֵי עַמָּם עֶרְוַת אֲחֹתוֹ גִּלָּה עֲו‍ֹנוֹ יִשָּׂא
– ספר ויקרא, פרק כ’, פסוק י”ז

I know only in Hebrew the Ve-Yikrah Book Chapter Kaf paragraph yud zayin
Maybe someone can identy it in English.


10/12/2011 at 9:03 AM

hbd chick

10/12/2011 at 9:42 AM

@j – awesome! thanks. (^_^)

hbd chick

10/12/2011 at 10:39 AM

@j – “I know only in Hebrew the Ve-Yikrah Book Chapter Kaf paragraph yud zayin”

thnx! that’s leviticus chapter 20, verse 17:

“And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness: it is a shameful thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.”

but i don’t really see how the beta israel/other ethiopians got seven generations out of that. they must’ve got the idea from somewhere else — or invented it on their own.


11/23/2011 at 1:02 PM

Say, what’s up with The Cold Equations? Some time between Sunday night and Monday morning, he took his blog private.

hbd chick

11/23/2011 at 1:48 PM

@justthisguy – “Say, what’s up with The Cold Equations?”

yeah, i dunno. -??- i actually just removed him from my blogroll ’cause that’s just awkward (been refurbishing the blogroll). shame. good blog.


11/23/2011 at 3:24 PM

Maybe he was afraid of getting Dooced? It may be too late for him, unless he’s taken advantage of that feature of the Internet Archive which allows you to delete things retrospectively. Even so, people might have saved local copies of his stuff. The Internet is a dangerous servant and a scary master, to paraphrase George Washington.


01/04/2012 at 10:57 AM

About Ashkenazi mating patterns, I can tell about my own family. We are part of the large 19th Century immigration to Hungary from the Northern parts of the Hapsburg empire, that is from Moravia, Slovakia, etc. My grandfather reached the Southernmost part in Jaszbereny (South of Budapest) but we had relatives all along the way. Marriage pattern: my relatives mostly found husbands/wives from a small number (5 – 6) families, so we are all cross-bred among us. What is notable the geographical dispersion of these cluster of families all along the the way from South to North and the maintainance of close contacts across the generations. I am describing the situation before WWII, after the war no one remained, most were dead and the few survivors dispersed all over the world. Facebook and genealogy sites connected us once more.

hbd chick

01/04/2012 at 5:42 PM

@j – “What is notable the geographical dispersion of these cluster of families all along the the way from South to North and the maintainance of close contacts across the generations.”

that is very interesting! thnx for sharing. (^_^)

@j – “after the war no one remained, most were dead”


Curt Doolittle

01/05/2012 at 2:29 PM


hbd chick

01/05/2012 at 8:37 PM

@curt – interesting. thnx for sharing that!

i feel that i should read murray’s original article first so that my thoughts on what kling said have any chance of making some sense (and there’s no guarantees that they will even after i’ve done so! (~_^) ), so i’ll get back to you on this. hopefully i can give it a read this evening.


01/20/2012 at 10:59 AM

@HBD* Chick:


See this article on the rapidity at which classes become castes:

It was referenced by this mainstream economics blog:

hbd chick

01/20/2012 at 3:23 PM

@curt – “See this article on the rapidity at which classes become castes.”

thnx, curt! i did see that, but i didn’t see the marginal revolution post. will have to head over there to see what the economists have to say. (^_^)

small note – i’d rewrite your above comment to read: “See this article on the rapidity at which classes may become castes.”

harpending’s model is just that – a model. a pretty convincing one, imho – but still a model.


01/30/2012 at 8:12 PM

You need a favicon. Download it here.
Change name to favicon.ico

To add it to your site upload to the folder you use for images.
I don’t know if you you use the root folder but it’s address would be:

if you did. Or maybe


if you upload to an image folder.

Next, insert the below code in the section of your page.

now if you upload to another folder other than the root it might look like:

On some hosts thought you have to use the whole address ..

Here are the actual WP directions:

You know my email.


01/30/2012 at 8:14 PM

Interesting …. the code didn’t post … i can email to you tomorrow or you can do a little research.

hbd chick

01/30/2012 at 9:45 PM

@rjp – “You need a favicon.”

i’ve been thinking about that! thanks for the info. i’ll take a look at it (prolly over the weekend.) (^_^)

LInton Herbert

02/13/2012 at 4:34 AM

In regards to “crafting the message,” I have no agenda but here’s something to consider. The individual in the host country makes a small sacrifice when there is immigration (press one for English) but the immigrant makes an enormous sacrifice. I think it has been documented that the fertiltiy of immigrants plummets within a few generations. Maybe somebody could warn them.

hbd chick

02/13/2012 at 10:31 AM

@linton – i’m going to copy your comment and paste it into the comments thread on the “crafting the message” post. if you click on the title of a post (like “crafting the message”), then that post will open and you can leave a comment at the bottom. (^_^)


02/14/2012 at 6:32 AM

Real pleasure to find this site which has got me thinking. Looking at the world through the lens of consanguinity would it help to make a distinction between the genetic and cultural consequences? Specifically has the ability of the US to mold immigrants in its own image been a function of the former of the latter? It seems in my travels there that there is a remarkably high level of consensus on the advisability of the “empty nest” model among second generation immigrants of all backgrounds. And of course that is just the start — the buy-in extends to the whole world of “What White People Like”. The central reason for this is that all immigrants with one notable exception chose to move to the US in the first place.

My personal hunch is that the while consanguinity does have genetic disadvantages it is not a trait that is selected for. What it does do is affect peoples motives and imagination, in the way that being born in a small village may, and the best way to escape both it to go the US.

hbd chick

02/14/2012 at 3:16 PM

@anonymous – “Looking at the world through the lens of consanguinity would it help to make a distinction between the genetic and cultural consequences?”

ah, but is there a difference? where does culture come from? (~_^)

With the thoughts you'd be thinkin

02/14/2012 at 9:38 PM

A game about succesion in medievel europe, thought it might interest you

LInton Herbert

02/15/2012 at 4:47 AM

You say the “empty nest” is typical already in the first generation? That’s a lot worse than I thought. “Empt nest” or no chidren migh have advantages somewhere, but not for the society at large. We need children to carry on, and if you don’t care about that, whoever is going to feed you when you are old started as a baby.


02/15/2012 at 9:45 AM

maybe i’ve misunderstood the concept of empty nest here, but I thought it was the idea that once children has come of age (16, 18 or 21 depending on who you ask) they should no longer live with their parents. ie. not wait until they get married or have children (or even later)

hbd chick

02/15/2012 at 3:57 PM

@anonymous – “maybe i’ve misunderstood the concept of empty nest here, but I thought it was the idea that once children has come of age (16, 18 or 21 depending on who you ask) they should no longer live with their parents. ie. not wait until they get married or have children (or even later)”

yes, that’s right. linton, on the other hand, is talking about people having few or no children — below replacement rate levels, anyway.

hbd chick

02/15/2012 at 5:09 PM

@With the thoughts you’d be thinkin – can i be joan of arc? i’ve always wanted to be joan of arc. (^_^)

With the thoughts you'd be thinkin

02/15/2012 at 6:15 PM

@ hbd chick noot in the time frame of 1066-1366.

With the thoughts you'd be thinkin

02/15/2012 at 6:16 PM

Typing with my phone should be not.

hbd chick

02/15/2012 at 6:25 PM

@with the thoughts you’d be thinkin – “@ hbd chick noot in the time frame of 1066-1366.”

drat. (^_^) but, sounds like i can invade england, tho. cool! (~_^)

With the thoughts you'd be thinkin

02/15/2012 at 10:03 PM

here’s the demo:

if you want to try it

LInton Herbert

02/16/2012 at 4:13 AM

@ anonymous about empty nest: OK. That makes sense. My mistake. Thanks. I see hbd chick has clarified it.

hbd chick

02/16/2012 at 10:00 PM

@wttybt – thanks! (^_^)


02/22/2012 at 7:23 AM

Hey, Zhai has some sort of question for you, though I have no idea what it is:

hbd chick

02/22/2012 at 10:38 PM

@eric – thnx!

Olave d'Estienne

03/27/2012 at 3:46 PM

Hey, email me your email address and I’ll cut you in on my nifty proposal.


04/02/2012 at 10:40 AM

Here’ something for you to chew on:

ABC News aired a story last week about a study released by the CDC that shows that there appears to be a significant rise in the rate of autism spectrum disorders (see and here). Besser seems to indicate that the rate of increase is so stark that better and/or more inclusive diagnosis couldn’t be solely responsible for the jump.

However, he repeatedly stressed that the cause of autism is “unknown”—which we know is patently untrue. ASDs clearly have a strong heritable component; I suppose that since the exact genes involved haven’t been identified and exact pathways to the expression of the phenotype hasn’t nailed down, the cause is officially “unknown”. But then, that’s true of a lot of things that are clearly heritable (like say IQ).

Going on the assumption that the apparently rise can’t be completely accounted for by better/broader diagnosis (which I not sure can be ruled out, yet), there is one possible explanation that seems to completely escape them: evolution. Years of treatment for autism would have, I would imagine, rendered a lot of autistics much more functional—especially for those with milder forms or on the cusp. It is not inconceivable that this has boosted the fecundity of those who carry genes for the trait. Assortative mating would also helped this along as well.

Of course, admitting that we may have a demonstrable example of human evolution happening in our lifetimes opens up a can of worms that they’d rather not open…

hbd chick

04/02/2012 at 4:23 PM

@jayman – “Here’ something for you to chew on.”

thanks! (^_^)

@jayman – “Besser seems to indicate that the rate of increase is so stark that better and/or more inclusive diagnosis couldn’t be solely responsible for the jump.”

you know, i just saw the headlines about this and didn’t read any details, but the thought that popped into my head was that at some point the “more inclusive diagnosis” explanation for the increase in autism cases — one which i’ve thought is pretty reasonable/likely — starts to seem UNlikely. interesting that the professionals are starting to think this, too.

@layman – “Years of treatment for autism would have, I would imagine, rendered a lot of autistics much more functional—especially for those with milder forms or on the cusp. It is not inconceivable that this has boosted the fecundity of those who carry genes for the trait. Assortative mating would also helped this along as well.”

i’d put my money on assortative mating. and, if simon baron-cohen is right with his engineers thesis, maybe being somewhat autistic (e.g. having asperger’s) has just been paying off fertility-wise for quite some time. i mean, the guys who build acqueducts and space ships earn pretty well … and wind up being pretty durned attractive at second glance. (~_^) never mind since the information age got going. h*ll, the auties invented that!


04/03/2012 at 8:33 AM

Wouldn’t it be something if the modern age has suddenly given aspies a considerable selective advantage? There’s your explanation for the increase in the rate of autism right there.

It’s likely that AS traits have been somewhat evolutionarily useful for sometime. The benefit of being a technocrat is worth the occasional non-functional highly autistic child.

In fact, this works with a lot of things, like for example, bipolar disorder. Psychiatry professor Nassir Ghemi wrote book called A First-Rate Madness: Uncovering the Links Between Leadership and Mental Illness (which he talked about on The Colbert Report), in which he claimed that FDR was bipolar and that Abraham Lincoln was depressive.

Indeed, a lot of the more common mental disorders, like bipolar disorder, ASDs, ADD, OCD, and many of the personality disorders (which are themselves highly prevalent in the population) may be so common because they confer some selective benefit, either in mild doses or sometimes even full blown (imagine how reproductively successful someone like Charlie Sheen would be in a world with no birth control). Even though many individuals with one of these disorders are debilitatingly ill, for every such sufferer there are probably many more who are able to function, and probably many who even thrive thanks to their disorder. The loss of fertility from the most afflicted individuals is probably more than made up for those who benefit from just being touched.

I’ve seen a lot of hypotheses based on this idea, like the Orchid hypothesis about depressives. The problem for me is that most researchers who posit evolutionary theories of human behavior don’t do it with an HBD slant, and don’t consider that many of these traits are only useful to people living in civilized society or consider that they are not equally prevalent around the world. For example, bipolar disorder appears to be most prevalent among those of European descent, while ADD is absent from East Asia. These are clues into the evolution of these traits.

My gf’s motto is “Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit,” which translates to “there is no great genius without an element of madness.” It seems that there is quite a bit of truth to that…

hbd chick

04/05/2012 at 8:06 AM

@jayman – “The problem for me is that most researchers who posit evolutionary theories of human behavior don’t do it with an HBD slant, and don’t consider that many of these traits are only useful to people living in civilized society or consider that they are not equally prevalent around the world.”

yeah, i never buy this at all. i often see a 1% prevelance rate of schizophrenia worldwide. doubt it. i betcha the frequency is different in different populations. i’m sure the same is true with other things like autism as well.

Jonathan Gress-Wright

04/05/2012 at 3:27 PM

Is autism more prevalent among Ashkenazis?

hbd chick

04/10/2012 at 7:34 AM

@jonathan – “Is autism more prevalent among Ashkenazis?”

i don’t know. never seen anything about it one way or another. i have read somewhere (lord knows where) that adhd is quite prevelant amongst ashkenazis, but i don’t recall where i read that or if it’s more in than other north european populations.


04/11/2012 at 9:08 AM

I read on iSteve somewhere that Ashkenazis are strongest in verbal logic, while East Asians dominate in visual/spatial skills. Is this true? Autistic genius types I would imagine would tend to be more the East Asian than the Jewish type.

hbd chick

04/12/2012 at 7:25 AM

@jgress – “I read on iSteve somewhere that Ashkenazis are strongest in verbal logic, while East Asians dominate in visual/spatial skills. Is this true?”

yes, i’ve heard that, too. will have to read up on it more and perhaps do a post on that one day. someone suggested some sources in one of the comments here (lord knows where) which i shall have to follow up on. (^_^)

@jgress – “Autistic genius types I would imagine would tend to be more the East Asian than the Jewish type.”

that would be my guess, too. (^_^)

hbd chick

04/12/2012 at 7:30 AM

@jgress – i said: “someone suggested some sources in one of the comments here (lord knows where) which i shall have to follow up on.”

here is that comment. (^_^)


04/12/2012 at 5:33 PM

Hey there HBD chick I’ve been reading through your articles and I’m enjoying it.

Just a question , what do you know about this regression towards the mean stuff?

Robert Lindsay (some blogger) decided to make a hypothetical response to this concept on race , here’s the link:

He also make’s a strawman argument in claiming I’m just another one of those nationalists despite no evidence of it. When in reality , I’m a racial realist.


04/12/2012 at 5:42 PM

Oops , accidently pressed enter after typing this for only 40 seconds. Didn’t have a chance to review.

But my question more specifically is if you do have knowledge on this concept , is this hypothetical argument by Robert fallacious?

hbd chick

04/15/2012 at 5:44 PM

@gregory – “But my question more specifically is if you do have knowledge on this concept , is this hypothetical argument by Robert fallacious?”

hey, gregory. sorry i didn’t answer this question of yours sooner — just making my way back to the blogosphere after a nice spring break. (^_^)

looks like you got unamused to answer your question anyway. what he — and aaron — had to say about regression to the mean seems spot on to me, as far as i understand the concept.

the individual members of a population will move towards the mean in both directions (i.e. up or down), but the mean (the average iq or whatever) depends on what population you’re talking about. if someone really did segregate out high iq individuals from whatever population to found a new population, the mean iq would probably be higher than what it had been in the parent population.

the problem with lindsay’s post was this sentence:

“Groups can’t keep endlessly regressing and crashing back down to the mean, otherwise no population would have ever seen an IQ increase.”

they do and will keep crashing down (and up) to the mean, unless there is some selection for higher iq in the population — that is, selection for some “genes for higher iq” in the population which must come from either mutations or introduction from elsewhere.


04/20/2012 at 6:23 AM

Mrs. Chick,

Not sure whether this thread is where you would want tips that aren’t tied to an existing entry. Have you seen this?

links to

“A British scientist fathered up to 600 children after founding a fertility clinic that promised to provide sperm donors from ‘intelligent stock’, it emerged yesterday.”

(I know he is a very intelligent man, for he has told me so himself!)

(Who ever said the British newspapers were too much like tabloids?)

Bonus: The first time I read this sentence—
“The barrister found out in 1965, at the age of 12, that he was born from a sperm donor, but was never told who his biological father was.”
—I thought it said “The bastard”.


04/20/2012 at 10:13 AM

@hbdchick: Thanks!

I was reading an interesting piece by Ron Unz on American Conservative about how China’s economy will soon outstrip the US’s, and how this relates to the thesis of a couple of economists about different types of economy, “extractive” and non-extractive.

The thesis is that countries with “extractive elites” result in wealth accumulating at the top, but ultimately the entire society is unstable, while the other kind of economy distributes wealth more evenly over the population and is more stable. They believe that China represents an extractive economy, and the US a non-extractive one, because the US has democracy and liberal institutions.

Unz argues that in fact it is the opposite, and that non-democratic China is in fact the non-extractive economy, since an objective measurement of the distribution of wealth, in particular of wealth increase as a result of economic growth, is more evident in China than here (witness how practically all of the wealth accumulated in the recent “recovery” went to the top 1% here).

He speculates as to the reasons, and one of them is that China’s elite is predominantly trained in engineering, i.e. they make stuff, while America’s elite is mainly trained in law, i.e. they manipulate stuff. That got me thinking about the East Asian/Jewish differences in cognitive ability. Both are highly intelligent, but have different specific skills. If we allow that America’s elite is disproportionately dominated by Ashkenazi Jews, then the patterns make some sense.

I’m glad there’s a forum where I can raise the issue and not be shot down as a racist-anti-Semitic etc etc!


04/20/2012 at 10:16 AM

Sorry I meant that an objective measurement of wealth distribution shows a more even spread of economic growth benefits across the population in China than in the US.

hbd chick

04/20/2012 at 11:45 AM

@jgress – here’s that comment that i mentioned where another commenter (matt, thnx matt!) cited some sources about jewish iq.

hbd chick

04/20/2012 at 11:52 AM

@jgress – as i was reading your comment, i was thinking that the u.s. used to have a non-extractive economy (or more of a non-extractive one), but not anymore! but then you (or unz) got to that point.

i don’t know about china. there are some awfully rich people there (with connections to the communist party regime) and some awfully poor folks in the countryside. maybe the latter’s economic position has, indeed, improved over the last couple of decades, but you’d think that was almost inevitable. when you start off at or near the bottom, you’d think some improvements in your economic status would be inevitable given all their hard work.

in other words, not sure i’m convinced that china’s economy is non-extractive, although i am convinced that today america’s economy is, unfortunately, extractive. =/


04/20/2012 at 11:55 AM

Yeah I saw that one, thanks!

What do you think of my other idea about different patterns among Chinese and American elites? Do you think there’s something there or not?


04/20/2012 at 11:55 AM

Oops didn’t see your last post.


04/20/2012 at 11:58 AM

Yeah a lot depends on the economic data and what we make of it. Is China’s wealth and growth really as fairly distributed as Unz claims? If not, then there is less reason to start speculating about possible ethnic factors.

hbd chick

04/20/2012 at 11:58 AM

@jgress – “If we allow that America’s elite is disproportionately dominated by Ashkenazi Jews, then the patterns make some sense.”

there can be cause for concern when the leaders/elite of a population are not of that population.

@jgress – “I’m glad there’s a forum where I can raise the issue and not be shot down as a racist-anti-Semitic etc etc!”

i want to try to understand all human populations (heh! — kinda a tall order, maybe…) and you’ve got to be able to raise all sorts of possibilities if you want to do that. h*ck — if you want to understand anything in life.

just for the record, though (and this is not directed towards you) — i won’t tolerate anyone making any sort of threatening comments towards any individuals or groups of peoples. just letting the internet know that. (~_^)

hbd chick

04/20/2012 at 12:03 PM

@chillingworth – “Have you seen this?”

i did see that! i saw the daily mail article about it. thanks for reminding me about it! (^_^) i was thinking of doing a post about it.

@chillingworth – “The first time I read this sentence—
‘The barrister found out in 1965, at the age of 12, that he was born from a sperm donor, but was never told who his biological father was.’
—I thought it said ‘The bastard’.”

heh! (^_^)


04/20/2012 at 12:31 PM

By the way, I wasn’t trying to imply that a heavily Jewish elite entails that this elite will actively try to exploit the rest of the population for their own gain. That’s a whole different discussion. My chain of reasoning was this: if Unz is right that America is an extractive economy (and it looks like we can agree on that), and if he’s right that top Americans are typically lawyers, i.e. have strong verbal logic, not so much strong spatial skills (maybe this is more debatable), and if it’s true that America’s elite is disproportionately Jewish (I suppose financial elite; political elite is not so obviously Jewish), then, given that Ashkenazi Jews are apparently stronger in verbal logic than spatial skills, i.e. skills that make good engineers, it follows that we would expect America’s elite to have more lawyers and fewer engineers than China’s elite, who are presumably all East Asians with innately good spatial skills and relatively poor verbal skills. And then the second part of Unz’s argument would apply: an elite of lawyers will inevitably end up doing lawyerly things like manipulate the economy for their own gain, without being very good at “engineering” constructive economic solutions for the whole country.

hbd chick

04/20/2012 at 12:47 PM

@jgress – “And then the second part of Unz’s argument would apply: an elite of lawyers will inevitably end up doing lawyerly things like manipulate the economy for their own gain, without being very good at ‘engineering’ constructive economic solutions for the whole country.”

yeah, that’s very good thinking, i think, and the way i’d be inclined to think about things, too: that people(s) do what they do and behave in the ways that they behave just because they’re naturally inclined to behave in those ways.

i dunno enough about the chinese economy to say whether it’s an extractive one or not, but i wouldn’t think china would be full of lawyers, either. full of bureaucrats, maybe, ’cause they do have a looong history of selecting for that sort of intelligence/personality type!

@jgress – “That’s a whole different discussion.”

i agree! sometimes individuals/people are exploitative, but not always. or, perhaps, not always in a way that’s completely detrimental to those being exploited. sometimes the “exploited” benefit, too.

but, like you say, that’s a whole different discussion!


04/20/2012 at 1:58 PM

Steve made a good point that, while different ethnic groups seem to concentrate in different economic niches according to their innate abilities, you will also find that societies at a given level of development will always have these niches, even if the ethnic makeup of the society wouldn’t otherwise predict it. For instance, in the US, your average gangster is not going to be East Asian, but in a country consisting only of East Asians, like Japan, you still have organized crime, staffed by East Asians. An advanced industrial society is going to spawn gangs, even if the ethnic group in question wouldn’t compete very well against other groups in dominating gangs.

So China is going to have the lawyers it needs, but put Chinese in competition with Jews and you’re going to have fewer Chinese lawyers.

There are arguably cultural reasons why a Jewish elite might be more exploitative, if you believe the arguments of e.g. Kevin Macdonald. I think he makes a good comparision between the Ashkenazis in the US and the overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia. Both occupy the typical economic middleman niche of higher IQ minority groups, but the Chinese in SE Asia are notably apathetic in politics. They’ve been content to be denied political rights in Malaysia, for example, on the understanding that they get to run the economy behind the scenes. Jews in the US, on the other hand, have been at the forefront of secularizing the public sphere and opening up the borders to immigration. They’re not content to dominate the country economically, as the Chinese might, but also ideologically.

Then again, if his thesis is right, this could also somehow tie back into their different cognitive abilities. Being more adept verbally means a more lawyerly, manipulative path to success, and different ideas of what it takes to succeed not just individually, but as an ethnic group.

As with all these discussions, I want to add my own boilerplate and acknowledge that you’re going to get individual differences etc etc. It’s just that we do have these larger patterns that do cry out for an explanation. Everything I just said might be BS, but at least we should talk about it. Thanks, hbdchick, for providing a forum to do so.


04/24/2012 at 4:17 PM

This is, by far, one of the most intelligent things I’ve ever read on “race”.

And he even gets the “race = social construct” part right! Amazing.

Read it, criticize it, spread it around, etc.

Mr. Bob

04/26/2012 at 4:09 PM

Do you ever capitalize?

hbd chick

04/26/2012 at 5:17 PM

@mr. bob – “Do you ever capitalize?”

NO! (~_^)

hbd chick

04/27/2012 at 9:38 PM

@d – “This is, by far, one of the most intelligent things I’ve ever read on ‘race’.”

i don’t think it’s very intelligent. the guy obviously doesn’t understand genetic relatedness — or even basic biology, i think.


05/09/2012 at 1:30 PM

You might be interested in this:

A Tale of Two Maps.


06/28/2012 at 2:28 PM

Question: Can you folks still comment on my blog? I know I haven’t had a post up for awhile, but it’s strange that I haven’t had comments or spam for the last few days…

hbd chick

06/28/2012 at 3:58 PM

@jayman – “Can you folks still comment on my blog?”

just tried and i was unable to leave a comment (i tried on two different posts). i got an error message saying that my browser was not supported by mozilla browser id, but i’m using firefox 12.0, so that doesn’t make much sense. =/


06/28/2012 at 6:08 PM

Hmm…try it now, without posting an e-mail. isn’t exactly the most cooperative as of late…

hbd chick

06/29/2012 at 3:55 AM

@jayman – “try it now, without posting an e-mail.”

that seems to have done the trick. (^_^)


06/29/2012 at 4:54 AM

Thanks! So now I’m stuck in a little quandry, should I leave it we way it is, and put a disclaimer that an e-mail is not necessary, or should I go back to the way it was before with e-mail required but with the problems commenters have brought to my attention?


06/29/2012 at 6:27 AM

In other news, have you seen this? Martin Sewell, Cambridge Don, Urged To Resign Over ‘Racist And Sexist’ Views

hbd chick

06/29/2012 at 9:30 PM

@jayman – “…should I leave it we way it is, and put a disclaimer that an e-mail is not necessary, or should I go back to the way it was before with e-mail required but with the problems commenters have brought to my attention?”

i prefer having comments as open as possible in order to let the discussion flow easily, that’s why i don’t require folks to give an email or even their real name. that policy could be changed, though, if the blog was beseiged by a bunch of pc hostiles or something.

“If during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organisation, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometrical powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each being’s own welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection.”

- Chas. Darwin, On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859), pgs. 126-27.


(note: comments do not require an email. finches.)

can’t decide what to do with my extra second today. so many options! (^_^) (admission: i’ll prolly spend it online.)

Leap Second on Saturday Will Cause 61-Second Minute

(note: comments do not require an email. tick tock.)

greg cochran said: “[Y]our comment implicitly assumes that people somehow _know_ just closely related family members, and of course they don’t.”

i think he meant that kin recognition isn’t something innate in humans, although maybe i’ve misunderstood what he wrote (wasn’t completely clear to me). i disagree. i think there is good evidence that people do somehow “know” their relatives. it’s not a perfect system, but it does exist.

first, a little anecdotal evidence (which obviously isn’t scientific evidence in any way):

nearly everytime i go back to the “old country,” some stranger that i’ve never seen before in my life is sure to stop me in the street or in a cafe and say: “you must be one of the so-and-so’s.” this, you understand, happens in or near the town where my family is from — not at the other end of the country, of course (although come to think of it, i actually have another anecdote related to that which i’ll tell you below). two interesting examples of this come to mind. on one occasion, a very old man stopped and asked me if i was one of the “so-and-so’s” and he was referring to my maternal grandmother’s side of the family. because i’m pretty aware of my family history, i was able to confirm that i was, indeed, one of the “so-and-so’s.” he was quite old and he claimed that i looked just like my great-grandmother who he remembered from when he was a boy. the second example was a guy who told me i reminded him of his sister in both appearance and mannerisms, so we sat down and tried to figure out who each other was, and we eventually worked out that we were, in fact, second-cousins.

i said that this usually happens to me when i’m in the area where my family comes from in the “old country,” but here’s another example: one of my cousins, who like me did not grow up back where our parents came from, was on vacation in another country when a stranger she had never met before asked her if she was one of the so-and-so’s. this stranger was from the area where my and my cousin’s family came from, and he recognized her as one of us. (^_^)

(this sort of stuff that i’ve experienced my whole life is why this did not surprise me at all.)

so, people in traditional societies are attuned to appearance and personality in other individuals and they use them to identify relatedness (is this person a member of my family or of another family? if another family, which other family?). i’m sure their success rate is nothing like 100%, but they seem to me to be pretty good at it.

i think most americans are unaware that this sort of thing goes on in other societies simply most americans don’t do this. and that’s because the population in large parts of the u.s. is so jumbled up. why would you look for family resemblances in order to identify people in a place like new york or los angeles? pretty pointless. maybe it happens in areas of the country that have been settled the longest and haven’t experienced many changes in their populations. dunno.

but those are just a couple of anecdotes. now for some scientific studies:

- one of my faves: Grandma plays favourites: X-chromosome relatedness and sex-specific childhood mortality (posted about here). because of the differential inheritance of the x- and y-chromosomes, grandparents are not related to each of their grandchildren equally — and this seems to show up in the amount of time/resources a grandmother invests in each of her grandchildren. the more dna grandma shares with you, the more she’s going to invest in you. and vice versa. you’d think this must be some sort of innate behavior, ’cause i don’t imagine grandmas in nonliterate societies go around calculating the genetic relatedness between themselves and their grandkids.

- The neuronal substrates of human olfactory based kin recognition — smell tests showing that women can identify their sisters vs. their female friends via odor.

- The sibling uncertainty hypothesis: Facial resemblance as a sibling recognition cue“Within families, individuals reported greater closeness and altruism toward siblings who more closely resembled them.”

- Kin recognition: evidence that humans can perceive both positive and negative relatedness“Participants made trustworthiness and attractiveness judgements of pairs of opposite-sex positive and negative self-resembling faces. Analyses revealed opposing effects of positive and negative self-resembling faces on trustworthiness and attractiveness judgements.”

- and from the chapter entitled ‘Cooperation, Conflict, and Kin Recognition’ in The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Family Psychology:

“[T]echnological innovations now make it possible to experimentally manipulate a postulated label of kinship — facial resemblance — to investigate phenotype matching mechanisms. In these studies, images of participants’ own faces are used to digitally alter the appearance of a set of faces, unfamiliar to the participants, to generate realistic, self-resembling stimuli (Fig. 20.2). Participants’ responses to selfresembling faces, relative to control faces, are then used as indices of cooperative and sexual inclinations toward kin (for a review of the methods and findings, see DeBruine et al., 2008).

“In an experimental task assessing monetary transfers between pairs of individuals, DeBruine (2002) found that participants were more trusting of selfresembling partners than controls. Furthermore, in a test of theoretical predictions that cooperation in ‘tragedy of the commons’ contexts — wherein there is a conflict between individual and collective interests — is enhanced by genetic relatedness, Krupp, DeBruine, and Barclay (2008) found group cooperation (as measured by monetary transfers to the group) increased as a function of the number of self-resembling members of the group.”

there are more studies out there showing that innate kin recognition is something real. there are also those that have found that it does not exist. (you can sift through some of them here on google if you like.) i’m inclined to believe that we can, on average, identify our close relatives (out to first-cousins maybe?) using resemblance clues with pretty good accuracy, but i’m happy to accept that the jury is still out on the matter (more research is required! (~_^) ).

something that greying wanderer has suggested is that maybe inbred peoples are better at this — i.e. have better innate skills to identify family — than outbred peoples. interesting idea. i like it!

(note: comments do not require an email. kin group!)

sewell’s obviously a warlock who must be burnt at the stake. h/t jayman!:

“Martin Sewell, Cambridge Don, Urged To Resign Over ‘Racist And Sexist’ Views”

“A Cambridge academic responsible for mentoring students has come under pressure to resign over his controversial views which have been dubbed by some as racist, sexist and pro-Hitler….”

i like his response – a LOT:

“Sewell told HuffPost in an email: ‘I am neither sexist nor racist, nor am I pro-Hitler.

“‘The real fascism lies with attempting to compromise an academic’s career on the basis of his synthesis of peer-reviewed scientific research. The university has a long tradition of ground-breaking science and freedom of speech, which Cambridge University Students’ Union (CUSU) would do well to respect….’”

i guess the story of this evil, evil man was first brought to light by cambridge university’s student newspaper:

Cambridge Economics supervisor criticised for racist and sexist views

“Exclusive: Students have raised concerns about articles written by Martin Sewell, supervisor in Economics and research associate in Land Economy.

“Though Sewell clearly and frequently references the work of other academics, some of his statements have been considered as contentious, offensive or explicitly racist.

“For example, when writing on the significance of race in conjunction with crime, Sewell states, without reference to academic sources:

“‘The most likely reason for the high incidence of black crime is blacks’ lower intelligence and greater impulsivity, which themselves are probably biological in origin….’”

first they say he gives references and then they say he does not. i’m confused. afaics, he’s got plenty of references on his website’s race page — most of the pages seem to have biblographies, in fact. plus, it’s not as though we’re talking about an academic publication here. it’s his private website. and if someone were to have a question about a specific statement on his website, they could just email him for more details.

i hope sewell sticks to his guns! (figuratively, of course.)

here’s his website.

(note: comments do not require an email. watsoning.)

steve sailer posted about this paper the other day — from the amazingly awesome michael woodley and his partner in crimethink edward bell:

Consanguinity as a Major Predictor of Levels of Democracy: A Study of 70 Nations

oh, how such a study just warms hbd chick’s cold, little heart! (~_^)

using the good, ol’ data on cousin marriage rates (which are great but have a lot of problems — i’ll get into that in another post) and data on democracy from polity iv and the eiu democracy index, woodley and bell found pretty strong negative correlations between first-/second-cousin marriage rates in societies and how democratic those societies are: –0.632 between consanguinity and the polity iv data, and –0.771 with the eiu data. (as steve points out, a -0.6 correlation in the social sciences is something to make you stop and go hmmmm, never mind a -0.77 correlation.)

in other words, the more cousin marriage in a society, the less democracy.

woodley and bell also looked at a lot of other neat stuff like economic freedom+consanguinity+democracy and percent muslim+consanguinity+democracy and pathogen index+consanguinity+democracy (i like that one!), but i’ll get to those in another post. (in fact, the rest of this week is probably going to be devoted to the woodley and bell paper here on hbd chick, so if you’re sick to death of hearing about inbreeding and democracy, don’t say you haven’t been warned!)

woodley and bell say:

“Consanguinity … appears to severely restrict the political and social fluidity characteristic of democratic systems, as individual allegiances are primarily to kinship groupings where sophisticated group-level free-rider detection and social identity mechanisms serve to discourage expressions of self-interest that do not maximize collective utility (MacDonald, 2001, 2002). This process of collective utility maximization is consistent with the notion of inclusive fitness in which individuals exhibit altruistic behaviors toward those with whom they share genes, thus indirectly increasing their fitness (Hamilton, 1964; Rushton, 1989, 2005; Trivers, 1971).”

they also say:

“A further shortcoming of the study is its cross-sectional nature; a panel study using data gathered at regular intervals would be ideal for testing the hypotheses and models presented in this study.”

yes. i’ve been thinking that there are at least two things going on with regard to inbreeding and man’s innate social aptitudes (and their expressions like democracy or no democracy):

1) genetic similarity. so, as woodley and bell said, “individuals exhibit altruistic behaviors toward those with whom they share genes.” thus, in highly inbred societies, individuals favor their own extended family members at the expense of their neighbors and unrelated members of their society simply because they are much more genetically related to their [edit] extended family members than individuals in outbred societies are to theirs. this is a very direct effect — change the relatedness, change the behavior patterns. and, so, liberal democracy will simply never work in inbred societies — or not work very well anyway — because you get clannishness.

2) the evolution of “genes for altruism” over the longer term. i think that, in addition to genetic similarity, we’re also looking at populations with different types and/or frequencies of “genes for altruism” due to their long-term mating patterns. i think it could’ve made a difference that northwest europeans have been outbreeding a lot since the early medieval period while arabs having been inbreeding a lot since … well, i’m not sure … probably since at least whenever some jewish tribes from the levant migrated into the arab peninsula. this is a long-term effect — change the relatedness over the long-term, and you might change at least the frequencies of “genes for altruism” in the population. you’d think the selection pressures for different sorts of altruism genes would change, too, if you went from an outbred to inbred society (bushmen vs. yanomamo, for example) or vice versa. in other words, you’d think different altruism genes might be selected for in different types of societies.

this is one of the reasons that i say there are problems with the data, i.e. that they lack time-depth or, as woodley and bell said, they offer only a cross-sectional look at consanguinity.

for instance, the data for china averages to a rate of 5% (per woodley and bell), but all of the data for china come from the twentieth century. however, the chinese have been seriously marrying their cousins since at least the third century b.c. and, as far as i know, the rates only slowed down in the twentieth century (and maybe not to the extent one would think from looking at the data) — and after that, they kept on marrying very locally (endogamously) until very, very recently.

i think woodley and bell would find much higher correlations between consanguinity and democracy if they had long-term consanguinity data. (what will probably need to be used is some sort of genetic data.)

the woodley and bell paper [pdf].

the classics: Veil of Fears by stanley kurtz; Consanguinity prevents Middle Eastern political development by parapundit; and Cousin Marriage Conundrum by steve sailer.

previously: democracy and endogamous mating practices and the corporate nature of european societies and liberal democracy and “hard-won democracy” and consanguinity + corruption = correlation

(note: comments do not require an email. paranoia.)

…und kaliM.

lOOk! BIG leTTers! (~_^)

(note: comments do not require an email. brought to you by the letter….)

Welsh people could be most ancient in UK, DNA suggests

Genomics and African queens“[The researchers] found that the genomes of some Ethiopian populations bear striking similarities to those of populations in Israel and Syria, a potential genetic legacy of the Queen of Sheba and her companions.”

Opiate of the Male Masses“How big of a problem, really, does pornography cause for men?” – from dennis mangan.

Study suggests poor mothers favor daughters“Poor mothers will invest more resources in daughters, who stand a greater chance of increasing their status through marriage than do sons…. On the contrary, mothers who were better off financially favored sons over daughters.” – an example of the trivers-willard hypothesis. research article. h/t linton! (^_^)

Liberalism rankings by country – from the audacious epigone.

Study Finds People Who Believe In Heaven Commit More Crimes“A study published in the scientific journal PLoS One by University of Oregon’s Azim Shariff and University of Kansas’s Mijke Rhemtulla finds that people who believe in hell are less likely to commit a crime while people who believe in heaven more likely are to get in trouble with the law.” – i thought the concepts of heaven and hell usually went together?

Declining testosterone levels in men not part of normal aging, study finds“‘Men who had declines in testosterone were more likely to be those who became obese, had stopped smoking or were depressed at either clinic visit.’”

bonus: Never-before-seen microbes found in Chile’s desert

bonus bonus: All 786 Known Planets To Scale – from xkcd. (^_^)

bonus bonus bonus: EU should ‘undermine national homogeneity’ says UN migration chief“Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.”

bonus bonus bonus bonus: Jogging in forest twice as good as trip to gym for mental health

(note: comments do not require an email. hi there!)


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 229 other followers