i dunno about you, but i barely do. (*^_^*)

if you’re like me, and you want to understand statistics better, have a look at emil kirkegaard’s understanding statistics page!

it’s a work in progress, but what he’s got there so far is really cool!

email says he’s got one planned for regression to the mean. any suggestions for other concepts?
_____

(p.s. – i am slowly working on my response to kevin macdonald. will try to get that up over the weekend, fingers crossed. buiyt nort whoile i’n tyyypoing. (~_^) )

(note: comments do not require an email. correlation≠causation)

holy cr*p! winter is coming!!1!

star wars - game of thrones - white walkers

it’s practically guaranteed now that whenever i blog about a population that i haven’t previously discussed — whether it’s to do with the “clannishness” idea or intelligence or some other aspect of human biodiversity — someone (purportedly) from that group will turn up and angrily complain that i’ve got it all wrong or that hbd is nonsense or whatever.

to date, i have felt the wrath of members of all sorts of groups: the scots, the irish, the scots-irish, the spanish, the italians, the greeks, the serbs (boy, was that guy ever mad!), eastern european ashkenazi jews. there was one pashtun guy that was really p*ssed off at me on account of what i’ve had to say about father’s brother’s daughter (fbd) marriage. and there was even one fellow supposedly from a subsaharan african country who was annoyed at me for insulting polygamy (which i hadn’t done).

(i say “purportedly” and “supposedly” because, of course, i can’t know for sure that any of you are who you say you are or that you’re really from where you say you’re from. ip addresses can be faked. you could all be [very sweet and lovable!] dogs for all i know! certainly some people out there are convinced that i am a b*tch. (~_^) )

on the other hand, plenty of other individuals from various populations that i’ve blogged about who have disagreed with me — about what i’ve written about their own populations — or found my posts lacking in some way, have simply come on the blog and calmly disagreed with my interpretations of the data and/or corrected points which they thought i had wrong. sometimes they were right — i was wrong! and i’m very grateful for their input! some poles and russians and finns come to mind, for example. i’ve even gotten a lot of positive feedback (via email) from a person who claims to be an arab from the middle east (i think that they really are).

this is how it should be. no one should get their panties in a bunch over human biodiversity, neither the facts of nor especially not speculations about hbd, which is what i mostly engage in around here. whether or not some individuals have a certain set of traits while others different sets, or whether or not one group is characterized by an average set of traits while others possess some other ones, is nothing to take personally. these things are just the result of evolution! and, frankly, imho, that’s just cool and nothing to get worked up about.

i do, however, confess that sometimes i let my own biases slip out. for various reasons, i happen to prefer anglo/anglo-american society (which is a product of the nature(s) of anglos/my “core europeans”, i think). that’s just how it is, even though i’m (probably) not anglo myself. (guess some of my people would say i’m suffering from stockholm syndrome. (~_^) )

despite what i’ve been telling my husband for the past twenty years, my opinion doesn’t count for diddly-squat. (please don’t tell him i admitted to that.) i am not the final arbiter on which society is the best or worst or whatever. in fact, it doesn’t matter at all what sort of society i or you or anybody else happens to like. all that matters is what works from an evolutionary point of view. so just ignore my own personal partialities. really.

the most important thing to remember is to not take (genuine) discussions about human biodiversity personally. to paraphrase the mobsters: it’s nothing personal, it’s just human biodiversity.

previously: know thyself and you and me and hbd
_____

when i’m up to it, my very next post will be my response to kevin macdonald’s comments from january(!). and then, i swear to god, come h*ll or high water, i will start on that manorialism series!

(note: comments do not require an email. it’s not personal…)

star wars - game of thrones - palpatine

first of all, let me apologize for the lack of posting over the last few weeks. annoyingly, i have been unwell since just before easter. the family curse has finally caught up with me! =/ (dr*t! i thought i was going to get through this life without experiencing it, but it was not to be.) you do *not* want to know any details, trust me. but suffice it to say that the d*mned condition often leaves me with only enough energy to lay on the sofa and press the retweet button on twitter or to binge watch stupid tv shows.**

the good news is: i’m all caught up on mad men! the bad news is: i’m all caught up on mad men! (>.<)

steve sailer had a run of posts recently on how one of matt weiner's major personal drives in creating mad men has been his grudge over what he perceived as discrimination against jews by wasps when he was growing up in los angeles in the 1970s and 1980s. (see here and here here, for examples.) here’s weiner himself:

“I’ve always said this is a show about becoming white. That’s the definition of success in America—becoming a WASP. A WASP male. The driving question for the series is, Who are we? When we talk about ‘we,’ who is that? In the pilot, Pete Campbell has this line, ‘Adding money and education doesn’t take the rude edge out of people.’ Sophisticated anti-Semitism. I overheard that line when I was a schoolteacher. The person, of course, didn’t know they were in the presence of a Jew. I was a ghost.”

i have to say that steve’s posts (and weiner’s own revelations) certainly make the show much more understandable. i honestly couldn’t make head nor tail of it before learning about weiner’s hang-ups (the clothes were fun to look at, though!).

[SPOILER ALERT!]

one scene from the final season (in “Time & Life”, s07e11) really makes sense now! it’s not available on youtube, so i’ve transcribed the dialogue for you. in it, pete campbell — a wasp (at least his mother was) — and his ex-wife, trudy, meet with the principal of a school — the school in their area — when their application for their five year old daughter is rejected. i should say that, for the audience, this whole scene comes right out of the blue. we haven’t heard before that the campbells are having difficulties getting their daughter into the best of schools, and we don’t hear what they decide to do instead either when their application is once again firmly rejected, although their big ending [they move to another state] changes all the possibilities for them anyway. still, when i saw this episode, i thought it odd that this is really a stand alone scene that has no bearing on the rest of the storylines. it’s like a play within the play.

so, here it is. pete campbell and his ex-wife, trudy, go to the school to meet with principal macdonald. here’s what happens:

pete campbell: well, i assume you know why we’re here, mr. macdonald. we feel there’s been a mistake regarding our daughter, tammy. it’s a campbell family tradition to receive the inimitable education of greenwich country day.

mr. macdonald: but you didn’t go here.

pete: no. but a campbell has been in attendance since…it was a barn! (laughs. pete’s attempting to use his best accounts man/sales persona here.)

macd: i’m sorry, but our decision is final.

pete: now, trudy explained to me that you said it’s a question of space, and i say tammy would make it worth your while. she wouldn’t feel extra at all.

macd: it’s not a question of space. your little girl scored very low on her draw-a-man test.

pete: well, that’s news to us. and i find it hard to believe.

macd: your ex-wife and i discussed this. children had to draw a man, and their development is assessed based on the volume of details: eyes, nose, ears, ten fingers, ten toes, etc. your daughter had only a head, moustache, and necktie.

pete: moustache? (looking suspiciously at his ex-wife. pete doesn’t have a moustache.)

trudy campbell: she didn’t understand what you wanted, and i’ve been told anything beyond a stick figure is considered advanced for her age.

pete: albert einstein didn’t speak until he was four years old.

macd: this is not about your little girl.

(pete and trudy looked puzzled.)

mcd: the real problem is that your former wife failed to submit applications to other schools. that was careless and arrogant.

trudy: what?!

pete: how dare you!

macd: i think we’ve said all there is to say. (getting up.)

pete: we’re not leaving until you apologize to trudy!

trudy: (to her ex-husband.) peter, it doesn’t matter.

macd: (shaking his head.) heh. einstein.

pete: would you like to step outside?!

macd: are you sure you wouldn’t rather get me while i’m sleeping like a real campbell?!

pete: are you kidding me?!

macd: no macdonald will ever mix with a campbell!

trudy: what are you talking about?!

pete: it’s some stupid story! it’s three hundred years old! he’s obviously nuts!

macd: (addressing trudy) you should know that his clan took advantage of the gift of hospitality and murdered my ancestors while they slept!

pete: the king ordered it!!

macd: (still addressing trudy) just be grateful you can remarry and get rid of that name.

trudy: (shocked, raising her hand to her mouth.) oh!

pete punches macdonald.

pete: come on, trudy. (escorts her out.)

macd: (rubbing his chin.) another sucker punch from the campbells! coward!!

so, here we have it, i think — matt weiner fiiiinally getting a chance to show wasps — and not just any wasp, but the very guy who made the snide comment about “the rude edge out of people” — how it feels when the shoe is on the other foot. pete campbell can’t get his daughter into an exclusive school simply because of who they are — campbells! so there!

the scene plays out as a comic one — principal macdonald comes off as a complete loon (once he reveals his true motive for rejecting tammy’s application) — but it’s a lesson for us all: there are crazy people out there in the world who hold grudges for a loooong time (like members of the macdonald clan…and some weiners?), and if they have any power, they will exclude people that they don’t like.

the most fun for me was just getting to see a heeland clan skirmish on tv. that’s always a good time! (~_^)

edit: see also “Mad Men” Trolls HBD Chick: Clan War in Connecticut from steve sailer. (^_^)
_____

**never fear! i have every confidence that i’ll get this thing under control eventually (with diet, etc.) and will feel better once again! (^_^)

(note: comments do not require an email. the king ordered it!)

star wars - winterfell

so the mother of all meta-analyses of twin studies and the heritability of human traits was published the other day: “Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies” [pdf].

the authors looked at “17,804 traits from 2,748 publications including 14,558,903 partly dependent twin pairs, virtually all published twin studies of complex traits.” 14.5+ MILLION twin pairs! as james thompson said, this study pretty much represents “the mother of ‘F*** Off’ samples.” (~_^) in future, if someone says to you that twin studies were debunked a long time ago, blah, blah, blah, just point them to this paper.

and the upshot is: we are not blank slates. we never were.

from the paper, “[A]cross all traits the reported heritability is 49%.” in other words, these researchers found that pretty much half of the variance in all sorts of physical and behavioral traits in humans — the differences that we see between people — can be accounted for by genetics.

here’s a key table from the paper. i took the liberty of jiggling it around a bit so it would fit better on the blog (h2 is what you should be looking at here — that’s narrow sense heritabilty):

twin studies meta-analysis

the press has picked this up as there being an even split between nature and nurture, genes versus “the environment.” here, for example, from the huffington post*:

“Nature Or Nurture? The Long-Running Debate May Finally Be Settled”

“It’s an age-old debate: do our genes make us who we are, or is it the environment in which we were raised?

“There’s long been agreement that both ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ play some role in determining many aspects of our physical and mental selves, from our height and weight to our intelligence and disposition. But as to which plays the bigger role in shaping us, scientists have never seemed to agree.

“That debate may now be over, thanks to a sweeping analysis of studies conducted around the world for more than five decades. The analysis — involving more than 14.5 million twin pairs from 39 countries — indicates that nature and nurture are virtually tied.

“Across all of our traits, in other words, genes and environment exert equal influence.”

yeeeessss…but what is “the environment”? on hearing that most people will think of things like reading bedtime stories to kids or playing mozart to your unborn fetus. but those sorts of things are decidedly not what the environment is in this context. from kevin mitchell of wiring the brain:

i’ve blogged this before, but i think we all need to read it again — from steven pinker on “the environment”:

“Even the technical sense of ‘environment’ used in quantitative behavioral genetics is perversely confusing. Now, there is nothing wrong with partitioning phenotypic variance into components that correlate with genetic variation (heritability) and with variation among families (‘shared environment’). The problem comes from the so-called ‘nonshared’ or ‘unique environmental influences.’ This consists of all the variance that is attributable neither to genetic nor familiar variation. In most studies, it’s calculated as 1 – (heritability + shared environment). Practically, you can think of it as the differences between identical twins who grow up in the same home. They share their genes, parents, older and younger siblings, home, school, peers, and neighborhood. So what could make them different? Under the assumption that behavior is a product of genes plus environment, it must be something in the environment of one that is not in the environment of the other.

But this category really should be called ‘miscellaneous/unknown,’ because it has nothing necessarily to do with any measurable aspect of the environment, such as one sibling getting the top bunk bed and the other the bottom, or a parent unpredictably favoring one child, or one sibling getting chased by a dog, coming down with a virus, or being favored by a teacher. These influences are purely conjectural, and studies looking for them have failed to find them. The alternative is that this component actually consists of the effects of chance – new mutations, quirky prenatal effects, noise in brain development, and events in life with unpredictable effects.

“Stochastic effects in development are increasingly being recognized by epidemiologists, frustrated by such recalcitrant phenomena such as nonagenarian pack-a-day smokers and identical twins discordant for schizophrenia, homosexuality, and disease outcomes. They are increasingly forced to acknowledge that God plays dice with our traits. Developmental biologists have come to similar conclusions. The bad habit of assuming that anything not classically genetic must be ‘environmental’ has blinkered behavioral geneticists (and those who interpret their findings) into the fool’s errand of looking for environmental effects for what may be randomness in developmental processes.”

and more from kevin mitchell:

“Just because some trait is not genetic does not mean it is not innate. If we are talking about how the brain gets wired, any number of prenatal environmental factors are known to have large effects. More interestingly, however, and probably a greater source of variance across the population, is intrinsic developmental variation. Wiring the brain is a highly complex procedure, reliant on cellular processes that are, in engineering terms, inherently ‘noisy’. Running the programme from the same starting point (a specific genotype) does not generate exactly the same output (the phenotype) every time. The effects of this noise are readily apparent at the anatomical level, when examining the impact of specific mutations, for example. In many cases, the phenotypic consequences are quite variable between genetically identical organisms, or even on two sides of the same brain. (If you want to see direct evidence of such developmental variation, take a directly face-on photograph of yourself, cut it in half and make mirror-image copies of the left and right sides. You will be amazed how different the two resultant faces are).

If the way the brain is wired is determined, not just by the starting genotype, but, to a large extent by chance events during development, then it is reasonable to expect this variation to be manifest in many psychological traits. Such traits may thus be far more innate than behavioural genetics studies alone would suggest.

in other words, it’s NOT genes + environment (or nature + nurture) — not as most people would think of it anyway. it’s genes + shared environment (which, since it’s shared, i.e. the same for the individuals in question, oughtn’t to make a difference, right?) + nonshared environment (which can include de novo mutations and development noise, which also may be heritable! iow, variation itself might be a genetic trait.). not much room for the effects of nurture here.

so, when you see a figure like 51% for “environmental” causes behind the differences we see in traits between people, remember that that very much includes biological causes like new mutations that are particular to individuals and developmental “noise,” which again may ultimately be regulated by genes.

(and, no, it’s not epigenetics either! see here and here and here.)

h/t once again to jayman for cluing me in on this in the first place! (^_^)
_____

*to give credit where credit is due, the huff post journalist did mention that part of what’s included in “the environment” is measurement error. that is correct. edit: see comment below about measurement error. so the 49% heritabilty figure should be considered a very conservative figure.

p.s. – there’s even a dedicated website where you can have a look at all the heritability numbers for yourself. enjoy!

see also: Gone with the Wind from dr. james thompson, Nature, nurture and noise from kevin mitchell, and About Developmental Noise and Environmental Hereditarianism from jayman.

previously: it’s not nature and nurture…

(note: comments do not require an email. the blank slate.)

via everyone on twitter today:

“ISIS fighters complain they are not being chosen to blow themselves up on suicide missions because leaders’ friends and family get put to the top of the waiting list”

“- Chechen militant angry that Saudis are snubbing them for bombing runs
– Jihadi complains that they are ‘letting their relatives go to front of the line’
– Said ISIS leader Bakr al-Baghdadi’s brother had carried out suicide attack

“Islamic State fighters claim they are not getting the chance to blow themselves up because they are being bumped down the suicide-bomber waiting list by nepotistic leaders.

“A Chechen militant has complained that Saudi jihadis are favouring their own friends and family for bombing missions.

“Kamil Abu Sultan ad-Daghestani said fighters were becoming increasingly angry after being left languishing on the waiting list for months.

“Ironically, he said some militants were dying on the battlefield before getting the chance to carry out a bombing.

“Abu Sultan’s complaint, was posted on a new website named Qonah which is said to be linked to a group connected with Akhmed Chatayev (Akhmad al-Shishani), a Chechen militant in charge of the Yarmouk Battalion of ISIS.

“‘Amir [Leader] Akhmed al-Shishani told me about a young lad who went to Iraq for a suicide mission and he went there because in Sham [Syria] there is a veeeeery long queue [of several thousand people],’ he wrote.

“He said the fighter eventually gave up after three months and returned to Syria, it was reported by Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty.

“The young militant complained that he would only be able to secure a bombing mission through a ‘blat’ with the Saudi leaders – a Russian slang term meaning connections.

“Abu Sultan wrote that the boy said: ‘Those Saudis have got things sewn up, they won’t let anyone in, they are letting their relatives go to the front of the line using blat.’

“He said the only to deal with the ‘corruption’ was to make a direct appeal to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

“He recently noted on another site that Baghdadi’s own brother and the son of his second-in-command had carried out suicide bombings.

“The leader’s cousin also reportedly blew himself up at a checkpoint in Iraq in April….”

heh! (~_^)

see also A Boratesque story from ISIS-land: Chechen ISIS fighters being cheated out of paradise by Saudi nepotism from ed west.

btw, buy ed’s latest kindle single!: 1215 and All That: A very, very short history of Magna Carta and King John (and @amazon.co.uk).

(note: comments do not require an email. the people’s front.)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 376 other followers