Miscellaneous links
Larger monkey groups lose fights because they contain more deserters
In the Battle of Rorke’s Drift, 150 or so British troops defended a mission station against thousands of Zulu warriors. At the Battle of Thermopylae, around 7,000 Greeks successfully held back a Persian army of hundreds of thousands for seven days. Human history has many examples of a small force defeating or holding their own against a much larger one.
Among animals too, the underdogs often become the victors. One such example exists in the rainforests of Panama. There, capuchin monkeys live in large groups, each with its own territory. The monkeys often invade each other’s land. Numbers provide an obvious advantage in such conflicts, but small groups can often successfully defend their territory against big ones. Unlike human underdogs, they don’t win because of superior tactics or weapons. They win because their rivals are full of deserters.
Whole genome sequences of a male and female supercentenarian, ages greater than 114 years
We show that: (1) the sequence variant spectrum of these two individuals’ DNA sequences is largely comparable to existing non-supercentenarian genomes; (2) the two individuals do not appear to carry most of the well-established human longevity enabling variants already reported in the literature; (3) they have a comparable number of known disease-associated variants relative to most human genomes sequenced to-date;
Comparison of measures of marker informativeness for ancestry and admixture mapping.
BACKGROUND: Admixture mapping is a powerful gene mapping approach for an admixed population formed from ancestral populations with different allele frequencies. The power of this method relies on the ability of ancestry informative markers (AIMs) to infer ancestry along the chromosomes of admixed individuals. In this study, more than one million SNPs from HapMap databases have been interrogated in an admixed populations using various measures of ancestry informativeness: Fisher Information Content (FIC), Shannon Information Content (SIC), F statistics (FST), Informativeness for Assignment Measure (In), and the Absolute Allele Frequency Differences (delta). The objectives are to compare these measures of informativeness to select SNP markers for ancestry inference, and to determine the accuracy of AIM panels selected by each measure in estimating the contributions of the ancestors to the admixed population.
RESULTS: FST and In had the highest Spearman correlation and the best agreement as measured by Kappa statistics based on deciles. Although the different measures of marker informativeness performed comparably well, analyses based on the top 1 to 10% ranked informative markers of simulated data showed that In was better in estimating ancestry for an admixed population.
CONCLUSIONS: Although millions of SNPs have been identified, only a small subset needs to be genotyped in order to accurately predict ancestry with a minimal error rate in a cost-effective manner. In this article, we compared various methods for selecting ancestry informative SNPs using simulations as well as SNP genotype data from samples of admixed populations and showed that the In measure estimates ancestry proportion (in an admixed population) with lower bias and mean square error.
Fluid insight moderates the relationship between psychoticism and crystallized intelligence
To elucidate potential relationships between personality and intelligence it is necessary to move beyond the ad hoc reporting of correlation coefficients and focus instead on testing deductions from well established theories. To this end the present paper references Eysenck’s (1995) theoretical work linking the dimension of psychoticism to both psychosis and creative genius. Drawing on this theory it was argued that the relationship between psychoticism and crystallized ability will be conditional on the level of fluid intelligence. Participants (N = 100) completed the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised (EPQ-R) and the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (K-BIT). Moderated multiple regression revealed a significant interaction effect. Crystallized ability (K-BIT vocabulary) was negatively related to psychoticism at low levels of fluid ability (K-BIT matrices) and positively related to psychoticism at high levels of fluid ability. These findings highlight the potential importance of psychoticism within GfGc investment theory.
MH/CHAOS: The CIA’s Campaign against the Radical New Left and the Black Panthers
Operation MHCHAOS was the code name for a secret domestic spying program conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency in the late 1960s and early 1970s charged with unmasking any foreign influences on left wing protestors. CIA counterintelligence officer Frank Rafalko was a part of that operation. When The New York Times revealed MHCHAOS in 1974 and Congress investigated, MHCHAOS took its place in the pantheon of intelligence abuses. However, in his new book Rafalko says that the operation was justified and that the CIA was the logical agency to conduct it. Listen as he defends his perspective with dramatic intelligence collected on the New Left and black radicals. This event took place on 26 October 2011.
26 comments:
"Larger monkey groups lose fights because they contain more deserters"
It seems like "right-sizing" is the essence of successful political leadership. For example, George Washington was successful at both down-sizing the British Empire, then up-sizing the 13 colonies. These two major changes proved enduringly successful, thus Washington's enduring fame. But it's seldom obvious a priori what the right size of a political organization will turn out to be.
In the Battle of Rorke’s Drift, 150 or so British troops defended a mission station against thousands of Zulu warriors.
It seems like someone is not thinking here.
The British troops at Rorke's Drift, while outnumbered and some wounded, they had the advantage of a good defensive position and long experience with firearms and adequate ammunition.
Moreover, how does the Battle of Isandlwana fit into this narrative?
The British were outnumbered there as well.
Facile analogies are not very useful. The devil is in the details.
Perhaps, more importantly, for the men at Rorke's drift, there was no fucking way to defect.
On the other hand, the military has traditionally punished desertion with death, so I guess they know the cost of deserters ...
It is just that in the example cited, there was no need for punishment.
Ronald Bailey published an article that rather stupidly repeated the "How X became White" narrative, without actually providing any evidence that the european immigrants in discussion were not considered white. He just quotes one guy who distinguished between Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean. You're the only person I can think of who semi-regularly uses such terms, so I'd find your thoughts on it more interesting.
TGGP,
MajorityRights administrator GW issued a devastating reply to Bailey, here: A reasoned reply to Ronald Bailey
N/A,
Maju cites an interesting study on the deep ancestral origins of Jamaican Blacks.
TGGP,
Ronald Bailey is wrong. If Irish and Italian immigrants were not considered White, why were they not prevented from marrying Anglo-Saxons/Germanics under miscegenation laws?
Cmon n/a, we both know otzi says a lot about post neolithic migrations . Let's hear your take...
Jk, I'm not pushing : )
Ronald Bailey is wrong. If Irish and Italian immigrants were not considered White, why were they not prevented from marrying Anglo-Saxons/Germanics under miscegenation laws?
Firstly, I don't know of anyone who has ever advanced the theory that the Irish were considered non-white. The distinction drawn between the Irish and the Anglo-Germanic founders was cultural, not racial.
Your question really relates to view regarding Italians and Jews, whose racial bona fides came under considerable scrutiny. In my opinion the average thought process regarding their racial acceptability went something like: "Grumble, grumble, sigh. Yes, these people are different to us and yes they're going to racially take us down a notch, but they're not nearly horrible enough to raise an armed revolt against." That certainly doesn't mean that Italians and Jews didn't face "discrimination" (hope that doesn't sound too accusatory) as they went about their daily lives. Acceptance exists along a continuum, and there are always those at the non-accepting end of the spectrum who are most eager to publicly express their disdain (just as more vocal WNs are today), but ultimately the forces of disdain were overwhelmed by the forces of acceptance.
MajorityRights administrator GW issued a devastating reply to Bailey, here: A reasoned reply to Ronald Bailey
It's really only "devastating" to those already inclined to think racially, or are at least somewhat open to persuasion. Imo, those open to persuasion are whites who are willing to admit to making race-based decisions in their lives but are genuinely unconcerned about long-term racial survival, ie they'd just like to get through their own lives, and leave it to future whites to deal with future problems. I really don't believe GW's sort of reasoning would make the slightest impression on whites who are determined (be it willfully, be it because they're duped) to prevent other whites from thinking/acting pro-whitely. I think ramzpaul-style sarcasm, satire and scorn are the most effective ways to blast through the hypocrisy, double standards and unreasoning that characterize the anti-white status quo.
Ronald Bailey is wrong. If Irish and Italian immigrants were not considered White, why were they not prevented from marrying Anglo-Saxons/Germanics under miscegenation laws?
The erroneous Irish-weren't-considered-White meme, popularized by that ugly Asiatic Jew Ignatiev who looks like he came straight out of NS German propaganda, is greatly exaggerated and has no genetic or anthropological truth to it. The Irish are on average Keltic Nordic.
Rooney Mara who stars in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is Irish on both sides. Racially, a typical Irish-American Keltic Nordic female.
The composite Irishman, representing the mean of ten thousand of his countrymen, is 35 years old, 172 cm. tall, and weighs 157 pounds. He is well built, muscular, and large boned, with shoulders 39 cm. broad, and a trunk length which is 53.3 per cent of his total height. His arms are long, and his span is 105.3 per cent of his stature. So far, his bodily dimensions and proportions might be matched among western Norwegians, Icelanders, many Swedes, Livs, and Finns of Finland.
In the proportion of pure light eyes, Ireland competes successfully with the blondest regions of Scandinavia. Over 46 per cent of the total group has pure light eyes, and of these all but 4 per cent are blue. Very light-mixed eyes (equivalent to Martin #13-14) account for another 30 per cent, while less than one-half of one per cent have pure brown. There is probably no population of equal size in the world which is lighter eyed, and blue eyed, than the Irish.
We have now reviewed in some detail the racial characters of the living Irish, and are prepared to make some tentative conclusions. These are: the Irish people represent a blend between two principal racial groups, (a) the survivors of the unreduced Upper Palaeolithic people of northwestern Europe, in a mesocephalic or sub-brachycephalic form, and (b) a Keltic Iron Age Nordic. The other two factors, (c) the tall, long-headed Mediterranean form brought by the Megalithic invaders, and (d) the Dinaric introduced during the Bronze Age, have both been submerged by the earliest and latest population waves.
Bailey isn't wrong about America's Nordicist past and the fact that we tried to maintain the Northern European racial character of our founding population with restrictive immigration laws, and the fact that the White standard has broadened to include peripheral Caucasoid groups like Jews and other non-Europeans and hybrid castizos from Latin America. His conclusion though that this means we should just give up and forget about race is nonsensical.
Still alive. I'll try to respond to everything and catch up on a few posts over the next couple days.
"The distinction drawn between the Irish and the Anglo-Germanic founders was cultural, not racial."
Lincoln's words are interesting in that regard.
"But after we have done all this we have not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. We have besides these men—descended by blood from our ancestors—among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe—German, Irish, French and Scandinavian—men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us,"
http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/electric-cord-speech.html
His words were not specifically concerning the Irish but all who did not descend from the founders and those who fought for America's independence.
The distinction is much more evident in those that immigrated in the late 19th and 20th century, who really have no connection or interest in America's racial or cultural heritage, in fact many despise it, most prominently Jews.
It's interesting that Lincoln does not remark upon their religion, Germans, Irish and French-Canadian, being overwhelmingly Catholic. Instead, he focuses on blood, being only too ready to break the bond between blood and soil, to the detriment of the founding people ever after. Not only in the US was the bestial drunken filth and savagery of the Irish Catholic remarked upon.
"Whenever a district is distinguished for especial filth and especial ruinousness, the explorer may safely count upon meeting chiefly those Celtic faces which one recognises at the first glance as different from the Saxon physiognomy of the native"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch06.htm#[5]
Much has changed, of course, largely because the Gaelic Irish were dragged kicking and screaming by the Saxon into their civilized world, however, not without great damage to the Saxon's world. Who were the great Irish Catholic voices that stood by Grant? Who were bent, as much as any other group, upon the destruction of the second Klan? Did Al Smith and his chosen companion not despise America's racial and cultural heritage as much as any others in the history of the founding people?Did the fighting Irish of Notre Dame not attempt to destroy those good folk who attempted to stand against the swell of contempt heaped upon them and their cultural beliefs?
Most of that is just bias, melodrama, ethnic posturing, and bitterness over the lowering of working-class wages.
This is a common theme throughout history. How did the Latins speak of the Germans, as filthy barbarians before they were civilized.
How do liberals speak of us, although clearly a much more feigned and false sense of superiority.
Liberals need to take a heavy dose of propranolol (discovered by a Celt) that they advocate for "racists," maybe it would curb their White guilt and fear of White racialism.
The Latins may have spoken of the Germans as barbarians, but they did not hold them in contempt.
Tacitus,wrote in his Annales II, 88:
"Arminius, without doubt Germania's liberator, who challenged the Roman people not in its beginnings like other kings and leaders, but in the peak of its empire; in battles with changing success, undefeated in the war."
This was not the work of drunken filth and ruinousness. this was not 9 AD but the middle of the 19th century, with most of White world at its zenith.
Al Smith was of Irish, Italian and German descent.
The Klan was anti-Catholic and nativist, no surprise they were at odds with Irish Catholic immigrants.
You're taking isolated accounts and trying to generalize to an entire group.
Furthermore, it's not relevant to today.
Furthermore, it's not relevant to today.
It's not even close to relevant, yet this total inability to 'forgive the past' remains all too typical of narrow-minded nationalists. They create a picture of angry drunkards throwing punches at the air while society looks on in pity.
Not relevant? Forgiving the past? Now that's funny especially in light of the monument erected in 2008 commemorating "the proud people (Catholics) who stood against the KKK" in Lilly, Pennsylvania. Generalizing to an entire group like the Jewish people no doubt. All is forgiven.
Wow, new evidence that H was in paleolithic Eastern Europe.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0032851
"Overall the phylogeny of HV4 suggests an origin in Eastern Europe about 14.2 kya (ΔT = 2.4)."
Interestingly they think a, or some, branches spread west in the mesolithic. So there may have been some east to west migrations right around the mesolithic.
Since the previous open thread is now unusable thanks to Blogger (can't see past comment #200), I'm going to post this here:
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/silvers_manifesto
I have nothing to add really. I've deconstructed Silver's personality on here before as well as his mendacious commentary. I think this just completes the circle.
Moron claims to have debunked HBD / racial IQ differences by examining a single study of UK children: http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/a-gaping-hole-in-the-masters-evolutionary-theory/
Slant-fucking, Jew-loving John Derbyshire pens an anti-black article in Takimag and subsequently gets fired by faggy cowards at National Review:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2012/04/07/national-review-fires-john-derbyshire/
http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire (article that got him fired)
"Moron claims to have debunked HBD / racial IQ differences by examining a single study of UK children"
Chuck's not a moron. And I think he included several studies, including one from the Netherlands. Also, he seems to be saying that he has severely weakened the case for a "mostly genetic" hypothesis of the B-W IQ gap globally, but suggests that the gap still flows from an ultimately genetic source via gene-environment interaction.
Also, he seems to be saying that he has severely weakened the case for a "mostly genetic" hypothesis of the B-W IQ gap globally, but suggests that the gap still flows from an ultimately genetic source via gene-environment interaction.
So he creates a straw man that people are saying it's mostly or nearly all genetic, and then at the end agrees with what most people are saying which is that it's equally or at least significantly genetic, and that both genes and environment play a role. How the hell does that weaken anything.
What's weak is the argument that genes don't play a significant role at all and that we're a blank slate and all equal.
It was pointless to post about Silverino there so why bring it up here. Are they so bored at MR that that is a topic of discussion. That's worse than celebrity gossip.
What else needs to be discussed, he's an attention-seeking, sociopathic swarthoid troll who wants to see his own people mass murdered. The only thing I want to hear about him is his obituary.
Post a Comment