Razib Khan writes about genetics, human evolution, IQ, history, and science culture.
HN links it in heated threads: one commenter uses his E.O. Wilson letter to criticize Scientific American, and others argue over IQ and epigenetics.
Unfortunately again, IQ is highly predictive. It obviously clashes with the massive emphasis on merit, grit & educational attainment placed by western liberal ideology. It fundamentally shakes the very foundation of outcome based evaluation of one's protestant/puritanism, especially in American Academia.
(the deeply rooted nature of protestantism in the pro-science / anti-religion/ Academic community in the US is long discussion I would love to have at some point. I want to be clear that I do not mean it in a derogatory manner. It is an observation. Not a value judgement)
Imagine if grit, intelligence and productivity within a capitalistic system were highly predictable at birth. Then the claim to eliteness that lends these elite institutions power, will suddenly get the appearance of genetic superiority. It quickly starts sounding like old school eugenicists. They/We will become what they claim to hate.
Intelligence is an easier discussion in the east. The floor for the value you bring to society is not based on your intelligence alone. They also don't hide the brutal realities for survival/thriving in a society where you might lack vital skills from birth.
I think everyone on HN would agree that a feudal-class system determined at birth, is not a desirable outcome. As it stands now, ignoring the ground realities has led to us building exactly that. The tabooing of IQ does not serve to stop the creation of this dystopia. It serves to obscure the reality that we might…
> Would we still expect such adamant evolutionary opposition to homosexuality if we took into account kin selection or that sexuality is a complex thing whose genetic component is likely to be influenced by many different genes
Yes. For example, a kin selection argument would need to assume that the number of additional surviving children produced by the homosexual's siblings was at least double the number of children forgone by the homosexual. This does not come anywhere close to being plausible. Things only get worse as the relationship becomes more distant.
> and it is possible that the set of genes that in some particular combinations give homosexuality give in other combinations heterosexuality plus some additional survival benefits that make it overall worthwhile to preserve those genes that can give homosexuality?
Is it possible? Sure; that's the sickle-cell anemia model. But as previously noted, what evidence we have tells us that homosexuality is already one of the least genetically-determined traits we're aware of.† And this theory shares the same problem as your first idea: the cost of homosexuality is so staggeringly high that we would never expect an offsetting benefit to be able to make up for it.
Suppose there is a genetic complex that arranges for various effects, and if everything goes wrong it causes homosexuality. Assume this failure occurs 5% of the time.
Our homosexual produces zero children. But a decline in relationship coeffiecients, which…
Tragicomically the author quotes: "the great ecologist E.O. Wilson" for guidance on what a good scientist is...
Read what Scientific American did to Wilson mere three days after his death:
https://razib.substack.com/p/setting-the-record-straight-open
A meritless attack by an untrained hack, with no evidence and proof whatsoever:
> seemed to have little to do with Wilson, and everything to do with opportunistically shoehorning particular views about social justice into the practice of hard science.
and
> ... attacks on science are legion, genuine fear of the social-media mob is rampant in academia and whole careers are “canceled” on a specious basis ...
That is a much better lesson for a young scientists of where science is headed.
Three Quarks Daily often surfaces high-quality long form content from a broad ideological cross-section. As others have mentioned, Arts and Letters Daily is often interesting too.
https://3quarksdaily.com/
https://www.aldaily.com/
And, while I'm commenting, some of my favorite Substacks who tend to write long content are:
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/
https://justinehsmith.substack.com/
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/
https://razib.substack.com/
https://www.theinsight.org/
Interesting article quantifying the effects of caste endogamy: https://razib.substack.com/p/the-character-of-caste?s=r
> In contrast to these cases, Indian endogamy has maintained discernible genetic differences even within the same village for thousands of years. In 2009, geneticist David Reich estimated that the Vyasa community of South India had been genetically isolated from its neighbors for 2,000 years. Endogamy rates were 99% per generation at a minimum.
By the way, I got there via https://michaelshermer.substack.com/p/scientific-american-goes-woke which was mentioned in the comment section of https://razib.substack.com/p/setting-the-record-straight-open