Rarely (though it has happened). My point was merely that most political animosity even in multi-party systems is cross-block, not intra-block, and that I really don't think it's a major factor in these kinds of issues.
First, it's good to see people reading GNXP - I blog there occationally;)
Couple of points though:
1: Brazil is a far more "mixed" country than the United States - I.e. there is more of a color continuum than in the US.
2: Hence, self-identified race is a less useful concept in Brazil than in the states, and a much less useful concept than when comparing, say, nigerians with icelanders. (Especially as many visible racial markers have started to mix around seriously in the population)
3: Still, as the diagram in the article makes clear, self-identification does tell you *something* - (I.e. "whites" on average have less african ancestry than "intermediates" that in turn have less african ancestry than "blacks"). Race, in other words, is "less useful" in Brazil, not "nonsense".
4: This illustrates the importance of thinking in terms of practical usefulness when it comes to designations and categorization, and not to get stuck in the Platonian way of thinking, where the world of ideas sore above us all, where the perfect example of each category exists in splendid perfection, and where a category can be "wrong".
1. I am not an american and do not live in the US.
2. "That means absolutely nothing. How much recent is?"
Did you read the article I linked regarding the Hapmap? You can very accurately pinpoint ancestry by looking at a person's genome. This will, as the article points out, help forensic science, etc. a great deal.
3. "Without precise definitions and evidence backing it all, this "idea" is nothing more than wishful-thinking."
Again, did you read the article I linked regarding the subject of this entire post? It's not as if this is new, by the way - see for instance, from last year: "RACIAL GROUPINGS MATCH GENETIC PROFILES, STANFORD STUDY FINDS"
4. "Do you anything about the world? Do you think this race centric view like in the US is the predominant everywhere? Do you think "black" in the US is the same as "black" in Africa or anywhere else?"
No, not entirely, of course - all designations and symbols used by human beings are non-discrete to some degree. Just as one can claim that "there are no races", one can claim that "there are no tables" or that "there are no knives". Reality is, in essence, one big mess that humans then try to make some sense out of using designations and symbols applied to different observed structures - it's in our nature to do so.
As the research above makes clear, however, the concept of "race" is not useless, as it can provide information even at a very high level of abstraction, I.e. "black", "white", etc. Thus, I believe it is a mistake to discount the concept of race - usefulness and the ability to convey information is after all the acid test for whether a concept is valid or not.
"What? If they self-identify didn't they provide the data previously? How sorting records would be difficult to a computer!?"
The computer does not use their self-identification, only their genetic profile. Only after the computer have sorted the subjects by genome is self-identification used to compare genetics to self-identification. See the link above.
"Nonsense. Hispanic is a marketing definition created in the US for americans, used to select meals by the number, to be able to deal with the latin american diversity. It's not used anywhere else!"
"The only strange thing I see in your post is that people of mixed ancestors aren't cited. So I guess in your world people don't mix at all and can be precisely determined what they are."
No, but it can be determined very accurately if people have recent (broadly speaking) ancestry in a particular part of the world.
"Do you live in Nazi Germany, 1940?"
Ah, the Hitler thing. How original.
"If they do mix, how "the research" identifies them?"
Using non-binary designations, probably. It's like colors - there is no discrete line where one color becomes another, yet people rarely go around proclaiming that "colors do not exist". Racial designations is a matter of utility and economy of information.
When it comes to "tagging" however, the old racial classificiations remain remarkably efficient - I.e. if you compare how people self-identify with their genetic makeup, a computer will usually sort them into their own self-classified category with a high degree of precision. Certain fashionable ethnic identifiers are far less effective than racial ones, however, I.e. "hispanic".
"My guess is that a lot of people in here or in science have a bias towards a racially segregated society, where people don't mix, just like the US and european countries."
Ah yes, scientists are all racists - that must be it. Interestingly, this kind of exchange is rather typical, I.e:
Scientists: "We have lots of new cool genetic data!"
"The scientists looked at people from three broad racial groups - African, Asian and European. Although there was an underlying similarity in terms of how common it was for genes to be copied, there were enough racial differences to assign every person bar one to their correct ethnic origin. This might help forensic scientists wishing to know more about the race of a suspect."
In short, this research supports the notion that race is a useful and scientifically supported concept. Indeed, virtually all new data coming in on human genetic differences go against the fashionable yet not-very-well-supported notion that "race does not exist". How strange.
Ah, nothing like 100% fact-free speculation. From what we can glean from shared environment / shared genome type studies (I.e. twin/adoption studies), genes do matter to a very significant degree.
Of course, this particular paroject isn't about determining actual real-world impact at all, but is rather primarily intended to map out different genomes among different population groups (I.e. races) that can then serve as a basis for further research.
I recently (a month or so) bought a spanking new XBOX. Why? Because it's dirt cheap new, and because XBOX Media Center on a chipped XBOX is just one of the best TV media center solutions around - and certainly the cheapest.
"I can report that the Creationists are absolutely correct to hate and fear modern biology. Learning this stuff works against your faith. To take a single point at random: The idea that we are made in God's image implies we are a finished product. We are not, though. It is now indisputable that natural selection has been going on not just through human prehistory, but through recorded history too, and is still going on today, and will go on into the future, presumably to speciation, either natural or artificial. So which human being was made in God's image: the one of 100,000 years ago? 10,000 years ago? 1,000 years ago? The one of today? The species that will descend from us? All of those future post-human species, or just some of them? And so on. The genomes are all different. They are not the same creature. And if they are all made in God's image somehow, then presumably so are all the other species, and there's nothing special about us at all.
Now of course there are ways to finesse that point--intellectuals can cook up an argument for anything, and religious intellectuals, who cut their teeth on justifying some wildly improbable stuff, are especially ingenious--but the cumulative effect of dozens of factlets like this is devastating to the notion that human beings are a special creation. And without that notion, traditional religious belief is holed below the water line. The more you read and learn in the modern human sciences, the more your image of homo sap. fades back into our being just another branch on the tree of life, with all those wonderful features of ours--even language, the most wonderful feature of all--just adaptations, like fins or feathers, with an actual record of the adaptation written, and date-stamped, right there in the genome!"
"Your political system is essentially a two-party state, which encourages black/white either/or for/against binary thinking. This also means if you discuss politics in the USA, you quickly end up essentially either on the same side (in which case there's nothing to discuss) or on oposite sides (in which case you're essentially enemies) this makes it safer to drope the entire topic. In most of Europe there's more of an understanding for the *many* possible angles and solutions for any one problem. For cooperation and compromise rather than confrontation. That makes it easier to discuss such things without it turning into a competition about who will "win" the discussion."
I'm onboard with all of your points except this one. Most western nations have two-block systems, with one left-wing and one right-wing bloc. This is true here in Sweden, and it's true in most western European states.
Of course, there is plenty of intra-block conflict and friction, but that is also the case in the US, where the party system is a lot looser than in, say, Sweden. Here, we have more parties (Seven to be precise, divided into two blocks), but central control of the party structure is more strict. Our MP:s are essentially button-pushers without much real power, unlike in the states.
Hence, I really don't think the political system's structure is that huge a factor in explaning why Americans are more insular than Europeans. Your other factors, however, do - and there are probably a few additional ones we both overlook.
"My response to that is still the same. If the police cannot do their job for fear someone might see them doing it, then we have a serious problem."
That's some pretty binary reasoning - it's not a matter of "doing their job" or not. The issue is, they can choose their risk level rather freely. If the cost of risk taking goes up, their propensity to take risk in the line of duty will go down.
On-camera fuckups are rarely something that you plan - but you sure can reduce the risk of them happening to you by simply staying in "safe" areas at "safe" times of day. Of course, the fuckups are not "needed to do your job" per se - but they are a cost of doing business to some degree (as police work is to a significant degre about handling difficult situations), and when that cost goes up, police propensity to incur that cost will go down.
Aye, a big upside here is that police filming can cut down seriously on spurious charges of misconduct, both helping honest cops as well as making life more difficult for the bad apples.
But of course, people might end up being overly cautious and passive if they know they are constantly monitored. As cops plan their time themselves to a great degree at all levels, the risk of mistakes or misconduct being exposed on YouTube for the world to see might very well make police more passive. I.e. No stakeout in a bad neighbourhood = no YouTube video of police fuckups.
Well, the cameras would not be on 24/7, but the cops can shut them down at will (in order to administer beatings, etc.). But I agree about the importance of seeing to that the police don't abuse their powers. On the other hand, you don't want too 'limp' a police force either...
"One alarmingly raised the point that the proliferation of camera phones is damaging law enforcement and something needs to be done about that..."
1. Saw something about UK officers deploying their own helmet cameras as to be able to give their own "view" of the situation. They also bought 3 500 copies of Adobe Premiere for all local police districts...
2. Cell-phone cameras will most likely decrease police brutality. To the extent that police brutality is an effective anti-crime measure, it might also be deterimental to law enforcement effectiveness.
"To most of the people in that library, the whole thing was just like watching COPS, but in the ultra-ultra high definition sometimes known as Reality(TM)."
Is that better or worse than 1080p? Or can it be upscaled?
"Personally, I would be curious to see more of the data that these people collected; maybe even see the actual distribution of this gene by geographic location."
I already posted this in reply to a similar post, but since it keeps popping up, it's worth repeating. Svante Pääbos comment on this research from ScienceNOW:
"Ancient DNA pioneer Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, says that this new work is "the most compelling case to date for a genetic contribution of Neandertals to modern humans." Indeed, Pääbo says, he will now search for the haplogroup D variant of microcephalin in his own studies of the Neandertal genome."
Also, what is posited is not extensive interbreeding between humans and an archaic homo lineage, but rather drive-by allele theft. This can be very effective, for reasons explained here:
"Ancient DNA pioneer Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, says that this new work is "the most compelling case to date for a genetic contribution of Neandertals to modern humans." Indeed, Pääbo says, he will now search for the haplogroup D variant of microcephalin in his own studies of the Neandertal genome."
Also, the point is that the kind of interbreeding posited would not have left mtDNA traces. It pretty much amounts to driveby DNA theft. For more detail, see here:
No need to increase net taxation - rather, what is needed to curb emissions is a taxation shift, away from labor, services, etc. and towards fossil fuel use.
Ah, but you have to realize we are now in the midst of a perfect moral-hysteria storm regarding Global Warming. Any distaster-mongering based on GW will now be relayed more or less uncritically, while any scepticism is seen not only as wrong, but morally culpable. Thus we have created a perfect one-way filtering system.
This does not mean that the Global Warming consensus (mostly thinking about the IPCC here) is wrong - it just means we right now have the perfect conditions present for groupthink-related exaggeration and one-way information filtering.
Slashdot Mirror
Rarely (though it has happened). My point was merely that most political animosity even in multi-party systems is cross-block, not intra-block, and that I really don't think it's a major factor in these kinds of issues.
First, it's good to see people reading GNXP - I blog there occationally ;)
Couple of points though:
1: Brazil is a far more "mixed" country than the United States - I.e. there is more of a color continuum than in the US.
2: Hence, self-identified race is a less useful concept in Brazil than in the states, and a much less useful concept than when comparing, say, nigerians with icelanders. (Especially as many visible racial markers have started to mix around seriously in the population)
3: Still, as the diagram in the article makes clear, self-identification does tell you *something* - (I.e. "whites" on average have less african ancestry than "intermediates" that in turn have less african ancestry than "blacks"). Race, in other words, is "less useful" in Brazil, not "nonsense".
4: This illustrates the importance of thinking in terms of practical usefulness when it comes to designations and categorization, and not to get stuck in the Platonian way of thinking, where the world of ideas sore above us all, where the perfect example of each category exists in splendid perfection, and where a category can be "wrong".
1. I am not an american and do not live in the US.
/ racial-data.htm
2. "That means absolutely nothing. How much recent is?"
Did you read the article I linked regarding the Hapmap? You can very accurately pinpoint ancestry by looking at a person's genome. This will, as the article points out, help forensic science, etc. a great deal.
3. "Without precise definitions and evidence backing it all, this "idea" is nothing more than wishful-thinking."
Again, did you read the article I linked regarding the subject of this entire post? It's not as if this is new, by the way - see for instance, from last year: "RACIAL GROUPINGS MATCH GENETIC PROFILES, STANFORD STUDY FINDS"
http://mednews.stanford.edu/releases/2005/january
4. "Do you anything about the world? Do you think this race centric view like in the US is the predominant everywhere? Do you think "black" in the US is the same as "black" in Africa or anywhere else?"
No, not entirely, of course - all designations and symbols used by human beings are non-discrete to some degree. Just as one can claim that "there are no races", one can claim that "there are no tables" or that "there are no knives". Reality is, in essence, one big mess that humans then try to make some sense out of using designations and symbols applied to different observed structures - it's in our nature to do so.
As the research above makes clear, however, the concept of "race" is not useless, as it can provide information even at a very high level of abstraction, I.e. "black", "white", etc. Thus, I believe it is a mistake to discount the concept of race - usefulness and the ability to convey information is after all the acid test for whether a concept is valid or not.
"What? If they self-identify didn't they provide the data previously? How sorting records would be difficult to a computer!?"
The computer does not use their self-identification, only their genetic profile. Only after the computer have sorted the subjects by genome is self-identification used to compare genetics to self-identification. See the link above.
"Nonsense. Hispanic is a marketing definition created in the US for americans, used to select meals by the number, to be able to deal with the latin american diversity. It's not used anywhere else!"
That was precicely my point.
"The only strange thing I see in your post is that people of mixed ancestors aren't cited. So I guess in your world people don't mix at all and can be precisely determined what they are."
No, but it can be determined very accurately if people have recent (broadly speaking) ancestry in a particular part of the world.
"Do you live in Nazi Germany, 1940?"
Ah, the Hitler thing. How original.
"If they do mix, how "the research" identifies them?"
Using non-binary designations, probably. It's like colors - there is no discrete line where one color becomes another, yet people rarely go around proclaiming that "colors do not exist". Racial designations is a matter of utility and economy of information.
When it comes to "tagging" however, the old racial classificiations remain remarkably efficient - I.e. if you compare how people self-identify with their genetic makeup, a computer will usually sort them into their own self-classified category with a high degree of precision. Certain fashionable ethnic identifiers are far less effective than racial ones, however, I.e. "hispanic".
"My guess is that a lot of people in here or in science have a bias towards a racially segregated society, where people don't mix, just like the US and european countries."
Ah yes, scientists are all racists - that must be it. Interestingly, this kind of exchange is rather typical, I.e:
Scientists: "We have lots of new cool genetic data!"
Lewontinites: "Hitler! Racism! Hitler! Racism!"
etc. etc.
Epigenetics will probably be churning out answers to some questions like this in coming years.
From the article in the Independent referenced elsewhere in this thread:
o logy/article2007490.ece
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_techn
"The scientists looked at people from three broad racial groups - African, Asian and European. Although there was an underlying similarity in terms of how common it was for genes to be copied, there were enough racial differences to assign every person bar one to their correct ethnic origin. This might help forensic scientists wishing to know more about the race of a suspect."
In short, this research supports the notion that race is a useful and scientifically supported concept. Indeed, virtually all new data coming in on human genetic differences go against the fashionable yet not-very-well-supported notion that "race does not exist". How strange.
Ah, nothing like 100% fact-free speculation. From what we can glean from shared environment / shared genome type studies (I.e. twin/adoption studies), genes do matter to a very significant degree.
Of course, this particular paroject isn't about determining actual real-world impact at all, but is rather primarily intended to map out different genomes among different population groups (I.e. races) that can then serve as a basis for further research.
I recently (a month or so) bought a spanking new XBOX. Why? Because it's dirt cheap new, and because XBOX Media Center on a chipped XBOX is just one of the best TV media center solutions around - and certainly the cheapest.
1. The religiousness of scientists is considerably lower than that of the US general public:
r y/FaithFAQ.htm
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001419.html
2. Religions from time to time decides to go a round against science. Religion, as a rule, loses out.
3. The real killer is evolution of course. As the far more eloquent than me John Derbyshire puts it:
http://www.olimu.com/WebJournalism/Texts/Commenta
"I can report that the Creationists are absolutely correct to hate and fear modern biology. Learning this stuff works against your faith. To take a single point at random: The idea that we are made in God's image implies we are a finished product. We are not, though. It is now indisputable that natural selection has been going on not just through human prehistory, but through recorded history too, and is still going on today, and will go on into the future, presumably to speciation, either natural or artificial. So which human being was made in God's image: the one of 100,000 years ago? 10,000 years ago? 1,000 years ago? The one of today? The species that will descend from us? All of those future post-human species, or just some of them? And so on. The genomes are all different. They are not the same creature. And if they are all made in God's image somehow, then presumably so are all the other species, and there's nothing special about us at all.
Now of course there are ways to finesse that point--intellectuals can cook up an argument for anything, and religious intellectuals, who cut their teeth on justifying some wildly improbable stuff, are especially ingenious--but the cumulative effect of dozens of factlets like this is devastating to the notion that human beings are a special creation. And without that notion, traditional religious belief is holed below the water line. The more you read and learn in the modern human sciences, the more your image of homo sap. fades back into our being just another branch on the tree of life, with all those wonderful features of ours--even language, the most wonderful feature of all--just adaptations, like fins or feathers, with an actual record of the adaptation written, and date-stamped, right there in the genome!"
"Your political system is essentially a two-party state, which encourages black/white either/or for/against binary thinking. This also means if you discuss politics in the USA, you quickly end up essentially either on the same side (in which case there's nothing to discuss) or on oposite sides (in which case you're essentially enemies) this makes it safer to drope the entire topic. In most of Europe there's more of an understanding for the *many* possible angles and solutions for any one problem. For cooperation and compromise rather than confrontation. That makes it easier to discuss such things without it turning into a competition about who will "win" the discussion."
I'm onboard with all of your points except this one. Most western nations have two-block systems, with one left-wing and one right-wing bloc. This is true here in Sweden, and it's true in most western European states.
Of course, there is plenty of intra-block conflict and friction, but that is also the case in the US, where the party system is a lot looser than in, say, Sweden. Here, we have more parties (Seven to be precise, divided into two blocks), but central control of the party structure is more strict. Our MP:s are essentially button-pushers without much real power, unlike in the states.
Hence, I really don't think the political system's structure is that huge a factor in explaning why Americans are more insular than Europeans. Your other factors, however, do - and there are probably a few additional ones we both overlook.
Yea, adjusting the incentive structure is a good move. Question is how that can be accomplished in a "good way".
"My response to that is still the same. If the police cannot do their job for fear someone might see them doing it, then we have a serious problem."
That's some pretty binary reasoning - it's not a matter of "doing their job" or not. The issue is, they can choose their risk level rather freely. If the cost of risk taking goes up, their propensity to take risk in the line of duty will go down.
On-camera fuckups are rarely something that you plan - but you sure can reduce the risk of them happening to you by simply staying in "safe" areas at "safe" times of day. Of course, the fuckups are not "needed to do your job" per se - but they are a cost of doing business to some degree (as police work is to a significant degre about handling difficult situations), and when that cost goes up, police propensity to incur that cost will go down.
Aye, a big upside here is that police filming can cut down seriously on spurious charges of misconduct, both helping honest cops as well as making life more difficult for the bad apples.
But of course, people might end up being overly cautious and passive if they know they are constantly monitored. As cops plan their time themselves to a great degree at all levels, the risk of mistakes or misconduct being exposed on YouTube for the world to see might very well make police more passive. I.e. No stakeout in a bad neighbourhood = no YouTube video of police fuckups.
Relax, just kidding about the Adobe part :)
Well, the cameras would not be on 24/7, but the cops can shut them down at will (in order to administer beatings, etc.). But I agree about the importance of seeing to that the police don't abuse their powers. On the other hand, you don't want too 'limp' a police force either...
"One alarmingly raised the point that the proliferation of camera phones is damaging law enforcement and something needs to be done about that..."
1. Saw something about UK officers deploying their own helmet cameras as to be able to give their own "view" of the situation. They also bought 3 500 copies of Adobe Premiere for all local police districts...
2. Cell-phone cameras will most likely decrease police brutality. To the extent that police brutality is an effective anti-crime measure, it might also be deterimental to law enforcement effectiveness.
"To most of the people in that library, the whole thing was just like watching COPS, but in the ultra-ultra high definition sometimes known as Reality(TM)."
Is that better or worse than 1080p? Or can it be upscaled?
"Honestly, neither the Yanks nor the Chinks have *any* interest in a peaceful, unified Korean peninsular."
Why not? Well, I could see China's case, but the states?
"Personally, I would be curious to see more of the data that these people collected; maybe even see the actual distribution of this gene by geographic location."
, 000-722163.JPG
Your wish, my command:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/uploaded_images/MCPH1-37
I already posted this in reply to a similar post, but since it keeps popping up, it's worth repeating. Svante Pääbos comment on this research from ScienceNOW:
/ 2006/1106/1?rss=1
o gression.php
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full
"Ancient DNA pioneer Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, says that this new work is "the most compelling case to date for a genetic contribution of Neandertals to modern humans." Indeed, Pääbo says, he will now search for the haplogroup D variant of microcephalin in his own studies of the Neandertal genome."
Also, what is posited is not extensive interbreeding between humans and an archaic homo lineage, but rather drive-by allele theft. This can be very effective, for reasons explained here:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/11/neanderthal-intr
No worries, they are no doubt working on that.
Also, it is known as a brain size regulator simply because if it malfunctions, the brain goes to hell. That's what the gene is named after.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcephaly
From ScienceNOW:
o gression.php
"Ancient DNA pioneer Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, says that this new work is "the most compelling case to date for a genetic contribution of Neandertals to modern humans." Indeed, Pääbo says, he will now search for the haplogroup D variant of microcephalin in his own studies of the Neandertal genome."
Also, the point is that the kind of interbreeding posited would not have left mtDNA traces. It pretty much amounts to driveby DNA theft. For more detail, see here:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/11/neanderthal-intr
No need to increase net taxation - rather, what is needed to curb emissions is a taxation shift, away from labor, services, etc. and towards fossil fuel use.
Ah, but you have to realize we are now in the midst of a perfect moral-hysteria storm regarding Global Warming. Any distaster-mongering based on GW will now be relayed more or less uncritically, while any scepticism is seen not only as wrong, but morally culpable. Thus we have created a perfect one-way filtering system.
This does not mean that the Global Warming consensus (mostly thinking about the IPCC here) is wrong - it just means we right now have the perfect conditions present for groupthink-related exaggeration and one-way information filtering.
Why indeed - life in the west has become "unbearable and choking". Erm, right. Because of, like, the Patriot act and stuff... /puffs joint