Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

98.4 > 99.9 (Caution: HBD)

98.4 > 99.9 (Caution: HBD)
June 09, 2010, 10:55:34 PM
Quote
We have combined computational re-analysis of existing whole genome sequence data with novel microarray-based analysis, and detect 12,178 structural variants covering 40.6Mb that were not reported in the initial sequencing of the first published personal genome. We estimate a total non-SNP variation content of 48.8Mb in a single genome. Our results indicate that this genome differs from the consensus reference sequence by ~1.2% when considering indels/CNVs, 0.1% by SNPs and ~0.3% by inversions. The structural variants impact 4,867 genes, and >24% of SVs would not be imputed by SNP-association.

Quote
Our results indicate that a large number of SVs have been unreported in the individual genomes published to date. This significant extent and complexity of SV, as well as the growing recognition of its medical relevance, necessitate it be actively studied in health-related analyses of personal genomes. The new catalogue of SV generated for this genome provides a crucial resource for future comparison studies.

http://genomebiology.com/2010/11/5/R52/abstract

From discussion:

Quote
It is three times as much genetic diversity as Venter - a liberal - initially claimed.  Which, to quote Das, puts the variation “in the range of previous estimates of human/chimpanzee similarity”.

Quote
For Venter to state that humans populations are so closely related is simply political ideology, not science.

Quote
It’s actually closer to 25 times more.  Venter initially claimed that there were 2 million nucleotides (SNPs) that differentiate 2 genomes.  He was only off there by about 1.3 million.  But with structural variation, the current estimate is more than 50 million nucleotides difference between 2 genomes.

Re: 98.4 > 99.9 (Caution: HBD)
June 09, 2010, 11:58:46 PM
If I'm understanding what this is saying, then I assumed that this was the case years ago.  My interpretation of this is that genetic diversity between humans is far greater than the liberals wish it were.

Re: 98.4 > 99.9 (Caution: HBD)
June 10, 2010, 12:56:40 AM
Why is it that liberals love to talk about celebrating diversity, but are never willing to admit the breadth of variance among human populations?

How long do you suppose it will be until cries of racism over this study?

Re: 98.4 > 99.9 (Caution: HBD)
June 10, 2010, 01:18:42 AM
The contradictions are troubling. We're liberal, so we love human diversity. Yet, let's blend everyone to end all conflict. Yet, human biodiversity doesn't really exist because it is a social construct. Therefore, if you acknowledge HBD, you're not liberal, you're racist.

Re: 98.4 > 99.9 (Caution: HBD)
June 10, 2010, 01:18:58 AM
Why is it that liberals love to talk about celebrating diversity, but are never willing to admit the breadth of variance among human populations?

How long do you suppose it will be until cries of racism over this study?
I think this is because "celebrating diversity" is less a recognition of cultural singularity and more an attempt to assimilate all cultures into a peaceful, idyllic monoculture. For the most part this goal is practically complete.

About the article, I am no genetic expertt, but it doesn't surprise me. I would, however, be hesitant to use these findings to justify any sort of racial separation --  after all, race is not something that actually exists, in the same way that “species” is merely a concept we use to make sense of the world. In truth, every person is his own species. Race is an even fuzzier boundary, and I don't see how we can use nucleotide counts to solidify them.

Re: 98.4 > 99.9 (Caution: HBD)
June 10, 2010, 01:24:34 AM
Yet, choosing McDonald's rather than Burger King - also trivial, but no controversy. Odd.

Re: 98.4 > 99.9 (Caution: HBD)
June 10, 2010, 04:03:10 AM
The contradictions are troubling. We're liberal, so we love human diversity. Yet, let's blend everyone to end all conflict. Yet, human biodiversity doesn't really exist because it is a social construct. Therefore, if you acknowledge HBD, you're not liberal, you're racist.

To be fair, I can't remember the last time I saw an HBD-type advocate policies that weren't at the very least, kissing cousins with racism. 

Re: 98.4 > 99.9 (Caution: HBD)
June 10, 2010, 03:35:52 PM
To be fair, I can't remember the last time I saw an HBD-type advocate policies that weren't at the very least, kissing cousins with racism.

Wait, wait... you've Godwinned the discussion here.

What is racism? To my mind, a belief in superior and inferior races, such that the inferior serve the superior.

What is HBD? Recognizing the science of the situation, both (a) different abilities and (b) the problem of "diversity."

That's not racism, and calling it a kissing cousin is to deny that in some areas, science and prejudice overlap.

For example, the Dunning-Kruger effect and General Intelligence -- dumb people always fuck up, yet think they're smart.

And then HBD, which is to say that evolution not only branched but went further in some areas than others, mainly because in some environments there wasn't much of a need to evolve.

We're not all equal. We know we live in a dying society built on several myths, including that we're all equal, even though science teaches us otherwise. Well, nothing new -- learning (of which science is a subset) is usually usurping "what everyone knows" (social pressure, of which anti-racisme is a subset). Hell, even the idea that the earth was the center of the universe was socially popular. So was the notion that God existed just for us... the doctrine of equality is no different. Unfortunately, it's the founding mythos of our prole-friendly modern time.

We have to be able to face truth, and later worry about the consequences of facing that truth.

Personally, I don't think they're that big. So I recognize that Africans lack many of the evolutionary advances of Asians, and Asians lack many of the evolutionary advances of Caucasians. No real news there -- that's history and science, if you don't read the politicized stuff. It's no different from having one buddy who's a little crasser or slower than the others. You can treat them well as people, which dispenses with the social fear that is behind anti-racist thought.

But liberalism is based on emotions, and realists, well, we pay attention to cause/effect relationships. Diversity may be a cause that produces effects that are insane. It would join a list of other social illusions, such as that you can sit your kids in front of a TV and not have them be permanently altered by the hours of propaganda they absorb.

People, as individuals, are generally good at 1-3 things. Beyond that, they fuck up. As a group, they find what they have in common, which is fucking up. It takes philosophers and semi-arbitrary knowledge leaders (kings) to fix the fuck ups.

If humanity doesn't start fixing its fuck ups soon, we'll be another species that didn't adapt to its environment and passed into history. And we'll leave a polluted, radioactive globe behind us.

So tell me, Dylar: truth, or social pleasantries? You can pick one but not both.

Re: 98.4 > 99.9 (Caution: HBD)
June 10, 2010, 05:37:24 PM
Fine words, in the abstract.  The problem is that the policies we actually see advocated by prominent HBD-proponents are so like "racism" as to be functionally indistinguishable: race conscious immigration programs, even in multiracial societies, racially-targeted law enforcement, permitting, or at least not punishing (which is the same thing) employment discrimination.  If the HBD movement was about pure science and the search for knowledge, it would be one thing, but like the field of anthropology generally, it is, in practice, so heavily politicized as to be largely a political, rather than scientific movement in the first place.  

Fundamentally, I don't think you can craft good policy playing to the averages, and HBD is all about the averages.

Re: 98.4 > 99.9 (Caution: HBD)
June 10, 2010, 07:05:33 PM
Quote from: Dylar
The problem is that the policies we actually see advocated by prominent HBD-proponents are so like "racism" as to be functionally indistinguishable: race conscious immigration programs, even in multiracial societies, racially-targeted law enforcement, permitting, or at least not punishing (which is the same thing) employment discrimination.
Except those policies are only racial incidentally.  If eugenics were enacted, and thus "leveled the playing field" (as they say), the racial elements of those policies would dissipate.  Where as in a truly racist policy they wouldn't.  In fact, HBD positions would, in the long run, disproportionally help races that are currently performing below average.  Isn't that kind of the opposite of racism?

Re: 98.4 > 99.9 (Caution: HBD)
June 10, 2010, 07:23:18 PM
Yeah, but outside the confines of this forum, no one is advocating a systematic policy of eugenics either, so what we have are folks advocating policies of de facto racial discrimination with no program for the uplifting of any race in mind.

Re: 98.4 > 99.9 (Caution: HBD)
June 10, 2010, 08:11:15 PM
Who's responsible for uplifting the whole of humanity? I must have missed the memo on that one. Here's a possible nationalist statement: Go away. We have our own to look after. If that's de facto racist, I'm cool with it.

Re: 98.4 > 99.9 (Caution: HBD)
June 10, 2010, 08:18:43 PM
Who's responsible for uplifting the whole of humanity? I must have missed the memo on that one. Here's a possible nationalist statement: Go away. We have our own to look after. If that's de facto racist, I'm cool with it.

This seems to me to at least have the virtue of honesty.

Re: 98.4 > 99.9 (Caution: HBD)
June 10, 2010, 08:45:54 PM
Who's responsible for uplifting the whole of humanity? I must have missed the memo on that one. Here's a possible nationalist statement: Go away. We have our own to look after. If that's de facto racist, I'm cool with it.

Sounds good to me.

Re: 98.4 > 99.9 (Caution: HBD)
June 10, 2010, 10:21:37 PM
English forbidden entry into swelling foreign colonization zones they are taxed into financing in England: http://www.gcp.uk.net/iic-detail.php?pid=19