Mar 22Liked by Aporia

In case any readers have an interest, I have a paper which covers some of the same ideas as in Winergard's piece, but from a slightly different more statistically focussed perspective. My paper only covers cognitive ability differences between biogeographic ancestries so it is a bit more narrow. https://psyarxiv.com/863cv

Expand full comment
Mar 26Liked by Aporia

It's quite an indictment of the current state of academia that such obvious truths (e.g., that differences in mean IQ among various ancestral groups have a strong genetic component) are so "controversial".

As the Academy has become increasingly feminized, postmodernist ideas have leaked out of the Humanities and parasitized STEM. Scientific truth has now been subjugated to concerns about feelings... I'm not sure how we can turn the ship around.

Expand full comment

"Whereas earlier scholars of human diversity sometimes argued that modern humans evolved independently in various regions, most scholars today believe that all modern humans stem from ancestors who evolved in East Africa somewhere between 300,000 and 100,000 years ago. This means that instead of evolving in disparate areas around the globe, humans from this one population migrated to all of them. According to researchers, humans likely began this long exodus from Africa into the Near East and across the planet approximately 150,000 years ago. "

would change this a bit

1) we don't know east african so much anymore

2) the most recent split of modern lineages probably 150K, others argue 200K

3) non-africans left btwn 100K and 60K BP, closer to latter

Expand full comment

Due to the incidiary nature of speculation about intra-species variation in humans, especially for cognitive traits, I think it'd behoove a piece like this to be more exacting and careful. Greater deference to mainstream conclusions from genetic/genomic research is a wiser course even if one has some evidence they may be informed by political sensitivities. Greater evidence has to be presented. For instance, a complete catalog of all known and hypothesized local selection events with citations should be presented and ranked by robustness. Also, using a single polymorphism example (i.e. candidate gene era dubious studies) isn't going to be persuasive with field experts. It will look like motivated reasoning or sloppiness to them even with the caveat.

Additionally, the refutation of counterarguments against race as a classification with biological relevance wasn't thorough and is somewhat inconsistent with the best available data from population genetic research (even the account provided in Human Diversity by Charles Murray).

Thanks for writing the provocative piece. Have plenty of thoughts. Just thought I'd share some.

Expand full comment

Brilliant essay.

Expand full comment

Race seems to have more to do with IQ differences than wealth: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sftfi1%7Bimage1%7D.gif

Expand full comment