Sunday, May 25, 2014

huff whoops wade like he stole something..., MUCH more impressed with this chick than I am with myself!


violentmetaphors |  To begin with, Wade can’t provide a clear definition of “race.” He tries to rely instead on loose associations rather than definitive characteristics, which forces him to conclude both that physical traits define race but that the traits can vary from person to person: “races are identified by clusters of traits, and to belong to a certain race, it’s not necessary to possess all of the identifying traits” (p. 121).

With such a shifty, casual footing, it’s no surprise that Wade’s conclusions are unsound. He can’t keep the number of races straight:


Wade can’t settle on a definite number of races because he can’t come up with a consistent, rigorous definition of what “race” means. He uses terms like “major race”, “race”, “subrace”, “group”, or “population,” but doesn’t provide any serious, objective ways to distinguish between these terms for arbitrary groupings of people arbitrary groups.

Rather than just announcing his subjective opinions about race, Wade wants to ground them in science. He tries to use genetics: “Such an arrangement, of portioning human variation into five continental races, is to some extent arbitrary. But it makes practical sense. The three major races are easy to recognize. The five-way division matches the known events of human population history. And, most significant of all, the division by continent is supported by genetics.” (p. 94)

To support his claim, Wade relies heavily on a 2002 paper (by Rosenberg et al.) that used a program called structure to group people based on similarities in markers distributed across the genome. He notes that the program identified five major clusters in this 2002 study, which corresponded to the major geographic regions (Africa, Eurasia, East Asia, Oceania, and America) of the world. Therefore, Wade argues, these results clearly show that humans are divided up into racial categories that match continents.

Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, who recently reviewed Wade’s book in the Wall Street Journal, agrees:
A computer given a random sampling of bits of DNA that are known to vary among humans—from among the millions of them—will cluster them into groups that correspond to the self-identified race or ethnicity of the subjects. This is not because the software assigns the computer that objective but because those are the clusters that provide the best statistical fit.
But Wade and Murray are both wrong. Structure didn’t simply identify five clusters. It also identified two, three, four, six, and seven clusters. (Rosenberg et al. 2002 actually identified up to 20 divisions, but 1-7 are the primary ones they discussed. They also divided their worldwide sample up into regions, and then ran structure within those regions, to look at more fine-scale population structure.)

Why? Researchers using structure have to define the number (K) of clusters in advance, because that’s what the program requires. The program was designed to partition individuals into whatever pre-specified number of clusters the researcher requests, regardless of whether that number of divisions really exists in nature. In other words, if the researcher tells structure to divide the sampled individuals into 4 clusters, structure will identify 4 groups no matter what–even if there is really only 1 group, or even if there are really 14 groups.

So, when Rosenberg et al. (2002) told structure to use K=6? They got six clusters, with the sixth corresponding to a northwestern Pakistani group, the Kalash. Does this make the Kalash a separate race? Wade doesn’t think so. When they told structure to use K=3? They got three clusters back, corresponding to Africa, Europe/Middle East/South Asia, and East Asia/Oceania/Americas. So are Native Americans and Australians not separate races? Rosenberg et al. never published any statistical evidence that justifies picking 5 races instead of 7, or 4, or 2 (although such methods do exist–see Bolnick et al. 2008). Wade seems to like K=5 simply because it matches his pre-conceived notions of what race should be:
“It might be reasonable to elevate the Indian and Middle Eastern groups to the level of major races, making seven in all. But then many more subpopulations could be declared races, so to keep things simple, the five-race, continent-based scheme seems the most practical for most purposes.” (p. 100)
Practical. Simple. Wade wants us to cut up human diversity into five races not because that’s what the statistical analyses show, but because thinking about it as a gradient is hard.

Wade isn’t even using the tools of genetics competently. The authors of the paper he relied on, as well as subsequent studies, showed that different runs of the program with the same data can even produce different results (Bolnick, 2008). Structure’s results are extremely sensitive to many different factors, including models, the type and number of genetic variants studied, and the number of populations included in the analysis (Rosenberg et al. 2005). When Rosenberg et al. (2005) expanded the 2002 dataset to include more genetic markers for the same population samples, they identified a somewhat different set of genetic clusters when K=6 (Native Americans were divided into two clusters and the Kalash of Central/South Asia did not form a separate cluster). In fact, Rosenberg et al. (2005) explicitly said:
“Our evidence for clustering should not be taken as evidence of our support of any particular concept of ‘biological race.’”
Finally, the creators of structure themselves caution that it will produce rather arbitrary clusters when sampled populations have been influenced by gene flow that is restricted by geographic distance (i.e. where more mating occurs between members of nearby populations than between populations that are located farther apart, a pattern we geneticists refer to as isolation by distance). As this pattern applies to the majority of human populations, it makes the results of structure problematic and difficult to interpret in many cases. These limitations are acknowledged by anthropological geneticists and population biologists, who interpret the results of structure cautiously. It’s very telling that Wade, a science reporter, chose to ignore the interpretations of the experts in favor of his own.

21 comments:

BigDonOne said...

Enjoy your warm fuzzy feel-good sweet talk posted above.

The problem is:- Mainstream media, the Census bureau, the DOJ & FBI, every public/private school, college and university, the NAACP, the SPLC, every city police and county sheriff's department in the country, just to name a few, have no problem whatsoever accepting established traditional definitions of races. Some choice Google examples below.... [now, control yerselves, BD is just the messenger...]

BD is waiting for the Chinese, unimpeded by constraints of political correctness, to come out with some of their findings.............

CNu said...

BD is welcome to serve the community as its messenger of "traditional", non-scientific belief, but not welcome to leave his little flaming sacks of poopoo in the form of large attached images or videos intended to sabotage the thread.

BigDonOne said...

See...!! That's what BD gets for being such a consummate Nice Guy. in a weak moment of extreme charity, we had omitted the news item where perp used his dreadlocks to strangle his girl friend....(it was the next one in that stream of Google hits)


BD has trouble understanding how your posting of 10-hours of 'Blakkity-Blak-Black' video was OK, while Lil Wayne video 'Back That Ass Up' spewed to screaming hordes of adoring youth, inspiring them to further the destructive OOW-breeding epidemic, had to be deleted......?????!!

Tom said...

Nice article. It's gotten really hard to get through to people that they aren't actually seeing much of anything when they look at the color of a face.


Twenty years ago that was obvious -- "sure we're racist, it's human nature, but it's dumb and wrong" was a clear consensus among an awful lot of people who had any contact between groups -- but now we're being led back to the barnyard for some reason.

BigDonOne said...

What you are seeing here is as if all the meticulously pure bred dogs, over 700 years of controlled mating, were then turned loose to breed indiscriminately at random - and then viewed the mix a few years later. Of course there would no longer be distinct breeds, rather a spectrum of ...miscegenation. The "credit" goes to the relatively recent ease of world travel.....

Ed Dunn said...

Bro. Feed, I think you discussing the liberal side but there is also another side on the opposite end of the spectrum that seems extremely bitter and carrying over their grudge from maybe something that happened in 1970s inner city areas between Jews and Blacks during the transition of urban community demographics where many Jews moved out but retain ownership of the commercial sectors. These silver-haired leftovers from the 1970s reside in places like NewsMax, Dow Jones and even the New York Times and NY Daily News and backrooms of local media with a 1970s grudge that none of us alive even have a clue about. That's the group Matt Schudel belongs to.

Constructive_Feedback said...

Though Donald Sterling is no personal hero of mine he made some comments that need to be explored. I have no doubt that he is the "Type Of Jew" that you are speaking of.


1) He mentioned that Jewish people leverage their money for the benefit of "competitive advantage" (against other races) inside of this capitalistic system.


2) He questioned what Magic Johnson has done (structurally) to help the Black community


3) He mentioned that (Black) Sports Stars like Magic are able to "Sex Up" a bevy of women around the nation - yet never suffer any negative attribute that one is assigned for making a RACIAL offense


4) He mentioned that Magic's HIV was not done in the midst of being an innocent by standard (Blood Transfusion) but in the midst of violating what others would believe to be "Moral & Healthy Living" Codes


In the blowback from the CNN interview I saw the (Black) president of the Los Angeles City Council come on television and PERSONALLY ATTEST to his satisfaction that Magic Johnson has done a sufficient amount for the Black community.


FEW BLACKS SAW THE PROBLEM in this entire episode.


While the MCDONALDS/WENDY'S PROTESTERS hold the "corporate face" accountable for low wages - and Johnson, Dr Dre, PDitty and Jamie Foxx up as paragons of Black Wealth And Success - they never manage to inspect them about their EMPLOYEE PAY RATES and JOB OPPORTUNITIES CREATED.


Instead THEY ARE ALWAYS SATISFIED.


The larger point that I am making is that because the "Americanized Negro" CONSCIOUSNESS has been so fused to 'THE STRUGGLE MOTION" and (with Johnson Publishing" - TELLING THE NEGRO CONSUMER "GOOD NEWS" after being beaten down by so many other sources - THEY FAIL to provide good governance to the Black Community, making the same requests of "THEIR OWN" as they do with CORPORATIONS.


The functional result is a PROTECTION RACKET.
* The 1% is not attached to you via your membership in the money club. Instead if you are Oprah, Dr Dre, Russell Simmons, Jay-Z or Jamie Foxx that AGREES with the general sentiment of the protesters a PASSOVER is created


Again - I return to my original message about the plot of the movie:


* A BLACK REVOLUTIONARY joins the American CIA
* To Learn Their Techniques of Insurgency
* So that he can apply them IN CHICAGO
* To fight for Liberation of BLACK AMERICANS
* AGAINST THE OPPRESSIVE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.


With Chokwe Lumumba telling the world that "There Is No Longer A Need For 'The Republic Of New Afrika' because the AMERICANIZED NEGRO can now achieve everything that was promised in this break away republic through VOTING IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS" - it is clear to everyone that the one "TOO BLACK TOO STRONG BLACK RADICAL REVOLUTIONARY" has now accepted his place ON THE INSIDE OF THE SYSTEM.


His "Radical Pose" - is merely for DRAMATIC EFFECT, ultimately leading the Americanized Negro Congregation INTO THE VOTING BOOTH to VOTE FOR HIS BLACK COMMUNITY SALVATION against the WHITE RIGHT-WING SUPREMACISTS in the Republican Party, while dutifully SELLING OUT THE BLACK COMMUNITY'S STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY by diluting it into the lowest common denominator so as not to offend the Democratic Progressive Coalition Members.


I have no choice but to pin accountability upon the entirety of the "Black Rank & File" for observing all that is going on yet being too entrenched in the POLITICAL OPPORTUNIST SCHEME in America to see their way through the straight and narrow.

Tom said...

When was there ever any meticulously controlled mating among human beings? I recall a tiny group of Euro royalty who bred themselves for insanity and cleft palates. After them, what's your next example?


How has meticulously controlled breeding affected even 0.01% of humanity, either 700 years ago, today, or at any other time?

CNu said...

Don't forget those big-assed heads yo...,

T to the O to the M said...

omg those were some big-assed heads. Holy moly.


But i thought they just had their bandannas wound too tight when they were babies?

BigDonOne said...

Breeding was historically controlled by *geography*. Before easy travel (e.g., 700 years ago), most folks lived their whole lives never venturing beyond 25 miles from place of birth due to geographical constraints - oceans, rivers, deserts. So they evolved to survive in the local environment, hot African sun, cold European seasons, etc. tending to produce distinctive "pure bred" races.....

Tom said...

Exactly. What was meticulous about that? What was beneficial about it? Basically, if we have the opportunity to live in caves again and make do with very little sunlight, teh Euro are good to go.


What else besides that? I believe once we get sunlight out of the picture, everything else you have is just-so stories. "Europeans are smarter because there were large mammals in Europe. So you had to be intelligent and hunt as a team. Africa has no large ... uh ... mamm ... uh ... "


That's the sort of quality I expect from ya, BD. Because that's what you're in the habit of supplying.

Makheru Bradley said...

“You apparently missed when the article was first published.” Ok, since I missed it, post a link to the original article.

“Quite frankly, no one in the Root has the depth to even write such an article.” First you bash Schudel: “Looking at the author Matt Schudel track record, he appear to be this 1970 Jew obsessed with having the last say about Black revolutionaries utilizing the power of mainstream media. Jewish people obsessed with Blacks like him are nothing more than punks and cowards… it is apparent there is a Jewish-operated post-mortem hitlist on these guys via the mainstream media channel to narrate people like Mr. Greenlee legacy.”

But no one at The Root has “the depth to even write such an article” as was written by a “Jew obsessed, punk and coward.” I thought it was the Mad Dog, but the problem is obviously much deeper. At least Mr. Ellison’s articles are coherent.

http://www.theroot.com/authors.charles_d_ellison.html

BigDonOne said...

What was meticulous?
Allow BD to quote from the opening scene of Idiocracy.....


"As the 21st Century began, human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection - the process whereby the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, reproduced in greatrer numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits....a dumbing down...with no natural predators to thin the herd evolution began to reward those who reproduced the most........." Cradle-to-grave parasites began heavily infusing within the genome......


Now, the Asian race, arguably the highest in intelligence based on available data, are the most reluctant to intermarry, having the wisdom to protect those superior traits thousands of years of evolution have bestowed upon them - you see few interacial couples in Japan, Korea, China. By contrast, the left half of the white bell curve routiinely adulterates its superior genetic heritage with Eye-Q-74 blackness (we would have posted below, as solid evidence, that Lil Wayne degenerate cultural video again, but BD got his hand slapped for "abusing" the image feature of Disqus....)

Tom said...

I asked something but your answer has nothing to do with the question:


BD: Breeding was historically controlled by *geography*.

Tom: What was meticulous about that?

BigDonOne said...

Physical features of the geography, absent advanced transportation, kept dissimilar peoples from interbreeding. An equivalence of sorts to the careful dog breeders cages....


The situation today, among the less astute, makes as much sense as throwing all the world's dogs together to mongrelize, and the media moguls have folks today believing this is all perfectly acceptable.....

Tom said...

So we might decline to interbreed in order to preserve certain geographical legacies. Are those legacies harmful or beneficial?

BigDonOne said...

Blending races makes as much sense as blending dogs...


Where would our star athletes, e.g., sprinters, marathon runners, line backers, wide receivers, and slam-dunkers come from then...?? Ditto, nobel prize winners in physics, medicine, and FoxNews anchorbabes....


So, to answer your question....on balance, miscegenation is harmful.

Tom said...

I understand that dog breeding was meticulous and controlled. We agree on that.


Are you saying that human breeding was meticulous? That it was controlled in any way (other than geographically)?

BigDonOne said...

Woman stabs to death two attacking Cocker Spaniels---> http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/woman-stabs-death-two-attacking-pit-bulls-n114016

Makheru Bradley said...

“Post a link to the original article.” No response from Ed Dunn as expected, because there is no such article written by WaPo obituary writer Matt Schudel. Just a lot of hot air and ad hominem attacks of Afrikan people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/matt-schudel

Master Arbitrageur Nancy Pelosi Is At It Again....,

🇺🇸TUCKER: HOW DID NANCY PELOSI GET SO RICH? Tucker: "I have no clue at all how Nancy Pelosi is just so rich or how her stock picks ar...