Review of “She has Her Mother’s Laugh”

Now up in Quillette.

The cartoon didn’t make it, but here it is.


(Art by Bryan Johnson, caption by Russel T. Warne, Copyright: Russel T. Warne, 2017)


Also editors edit. Final version: “there would be a huge difference in their bodies: they’d  be dwarves.” Original version: “there would be a huge difference in their bodies: they’d be ripe for tossing.”






This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

91 Responses to Review of “She has Her Mother’s Laugh”

  1. LFJ says:

    You bring up the pitbull-labrador thing as an obvious example, but progs will happily deny the pitbull-baby eating correlation.

  2. thesoftpath says:

    Too bad the cartoon didn’t make it.

  3. So may laugh-out-loud lines! Thanks. Reality does seem to be making headway versus wishful thinking. Slowly.

    • gcochran9 says:

      Why do you think that?

      • Wade, Reich and Zimmer were all mainstream-published in the last few years. Despite the fact that they “wish the claims had never been made” the claims are being read by the cognitive elites. Especially the younger ones. It will take awhile, but reality is like the ocean. It wears you down.

      • Jacob says:

        There are tons of race-aware/ IQ-aware/ genetics-aware political movements gaining popularity with young men. Political dialogue on massive sites like 4chan and even YouTube is chock full of people with little to no patience for feminism and “multiculturalism.” A few years ago, it was considered edgy/controversial to call out 3rd wave feminists on their horseshit, and nobody talked about race/IQ/etc. Today, virtually everyone other than feminists agrees that feminists are a joke, and it isn’t even edgy to call them a bunch of rent-seeking hacks. Some fairly mainstream guys like Stefan Molyneux are now talking race and IQ.

        I know of four different young men on the UP campus familiar with the race & IQ issue alone. And that’s only counting the ones who were not introduced to it by me. None of them are Psych majors.

        Importantly, you can find these people when you gather statistics. Gen Z, in spite of having less Whites than previous generations, has more conservatives. Even millennials are drifting rightwards.

      • James DW says:

        my generation isnt completely retarded like boomers are–and boomers are dying

  4. thesoftpath says:

    My one word review: Mealymouthed.

  5. Ente says:

    Gregory Cochran, The Master of One-Liners.

    I liked the review. Since the book encompasses many areas of biology, I guess you could’ve spend some more time on the book more generally (other than when talking about human variation). But all in all great. The best part is the portion regarding Galton and mathematics. Absolutely hilarious.

  6. ohwilleke says:

    Hurray for editors.

  7. gcochran9 says:

    I have no idea why anyone would call these people ‘cognitive elites’. They don’t know very much, they don’t have much sense, and they’re usually wrong, often about stuff that the average goat-herder knows.

    • Yudi says:

      They still score well on IQ tests, typically. Their fatal problem is their need to engage in social signaling and embrace ideologies that make them effectively dumber.

      Also, they care more about sounding nice than being effective. If they really cared about helping low-IQ peoples, the cognitive elites would be willing to countenance theories about their situation that make them and others feel uncomfortable. Virtue signalling is a sign that the elites don’t really mind the current system.

      • Xenophon Hendrix says:

        Yeah, they want to score virtue points rather than actually help people. Some things that would really help the low IQ:

        Help them with contraception. The Great and Good scream, “Genocide!”

        Lock up the criminals in their midst. The G&G scream, “War on minorities!” or “Racial profiling!”

        Try to limit the competition they face for jobs by restricting illegal immigration. The G&G scream, “Racism!” or “Nazism!”

        • Peter Akuleyev says:

          You‘ve got it backwards on contraception. The elites are perfectly happy, even eager to encourage more contraception among low IQ populations, but the right is in thrall to evangelicals and Catholics and fights any attempt to control fertility tooth and nail.

          • William O. B'Livion says:

            Dude, you need to update your biases.

            Not even Catholics fight the notion of people having access to contraception anymore and it wasn’t the Evangelicals who opposed it (well, it may have been–that was before my time) it was the Fundamentalists. Heck, most catholic parents are PRAYING their daughter is using contraception.

            There might still be some hard core, pre-vatican type Catholics who are still in opposition, but they’re such a tiny minority these days.

            Now, they’re still mostly opposed to abortion, but that’s not an attempt to control fertility.

            • Thiago Ribeiro says:

              “Heck, most catholic parents are PRAYING their daughter is using contraception.”
              Have you heard of abstinence-only sex education? Not commenting on the merits of them, I doubt they are headed by people praying their daughters are having fun while using contraception.

        • Peter Akuleyev says:

          You‘ve got it backwards on contraception. The elites are perfectly happy, even eager to encourage more contraception among low IQ populations, but the right is in thrall to evangelicals and Catholics and fights any attempt to control fertility tooth and nail.

      • Do they? They are above-average, but graduate degrees measure tenacity more than intelligence beyond a threshold. All of the college professors I know are reasonably bright. Only two would I call brilliant.

        When I was in Prometheus Society, academics were uncommon in the membership rolls.

        • savantissimo says:

          For those who don’t know the name, the Prometheus Society is the highest IQ society of any significant size, with a four-sigma (~top 1 in 30,000) requirement. There aren’t any tests that are very reliable at that level, which is a hard ceiling score for the best-normed tests, so we mere 1 in 1000 Triple Nine Society members are statistically indistinguishably as smart, according to the late Prometheus member Grady Towers. (K.L. and his grandfathered-in crowd excepted, but unfortunately not excluded.) TNS also has hardly any professors.

        • Frau Katze says:

          What was common, just out of curiosity?

        • Thiago Ribeiro says:

          “When I was in Prometheus Society, academics were uncommon in the membership rolls.”

          That veritable pillar of our society. Hahaha.

        • another fred says:

          “…graduate degrees measure tenacity more than intelligence beyond a threshold.”

          Tenacity, an aversion to real work, and the people who do it.

        • Linda Seebach says:

          Professors are not especially common in Mensa, either, although a (relatively) large percentage of them would qualify.(The SAT cutoff for Mensa used to be 1250 – it’s not a qualifying test now.) People join Mensa for many reasons (finding peers for a gifted child, say) but one reason is building a social circle of people who are similar enough in IQ that it’s not a source of discomfort – you don’t have to hide being smart. If you’re a professor, that social circle comes with the job, you don’t need to build your own.

      • guest says:

        Why do you assume they are rational? And I think they really do want to help the poor and reduce inequality, atleast that has been the case with the leftists I’ve met.

        • David Chamberlin says:

          I was raised a good little liberal fervently opposed to anything that smelled the slightest of racism and would probably still hold those beliefs if I didn’t read a lot of non fiction with an open mind. A tiny fraction of the public, maybe 1 or 2 percent does that. Now reading the above comments we can all self congratulate ourselves on being smarter than the average bear but guess what? We suck at using our brains to convince the other 98% out there on the subject matter of that everyone here at West Hunter agrees on, namely race realism.
          Instead of talking to each other with our highbrow notions we need to step back and see why we suck at convincing others of what seems obvious to us. They hold, or i should say they believe they hold the moral high ground. Take it from them. You are not going anywhere until you take the moral high ground from the 98% who don’t read non fiction with an open mind.

          Sorry to suggest that the truth needs to be told hatching a Machiavellian strategy but that is just how it is. Yes in the hallowed ground of scientific scholarship such actions would be beneath us but sorry Charlie, welcome to the real world. We are racists and they are the good guys and all the finely crafted reasoning of a million Cochrans won’t change the playing field until we tip over their playing board.

          The third world is approaching rock bottom of the Malthusian trap. We know why, it’s friggin obvious to every one of us. !00 million poor souls living in Ethiopia and we all know perfectly well it is just going to get worse. You can’t fix a problem if you ignore the source of the problem. It’s like the car won’t start but we don’t believe in carburetors so that can’t be the problem. We can’t inspect that part of the car because that means we are racists.

          Take the moral high ground from them, their beliefs ARE the problem because they prevent us from honestly seeing the cause of immense human suffering that is growing worse and worse every year. Forty years ago you could take lovely road trips through all kinds of third world countries. Now you try that and you come home in a box.

          • Frau Katze says:

            The fraction of the elites who claim to be politically correct but who are secretly HBD-aware is still unknown. Some of them could have their careers ruined if it became public.

            One thing I’ve noticed in my own family is that some younger people just don’t have time to read around.

            I didn’t start reading around seriously until after 9/11. That was also when the Internet was ramping up. Single parenthood is pretty time consuming even with a 9-5 job.

            If you’re a woman in a demanding career that requires years of study, plus you have children, you simply don’t have enough spare time. Nor would her science-based education expose her to literature or even history.

            In Canada there aren’t very many blacks, so you couldn’t go by direct observation, as one could in the US.

            However, I noticed that Chinese/ Koreans were disproportionately common in Math and Physics and computer science. I noticed it starting in university. Around 1970.

        • ccscientist says:

          While they may want to help the poor, this desire does not extend to careful examination of their policies’ actual impacts. So if raising the min wage throws young black men out of work in the real world, they simply deny it or don’t want to know about it. If welfare causes lack of fathers in the home and thus poorly socialized kids, they deny it or don’t want to know. etc.

      • jb says:

        I don’t think it’s entirely fair to say that the elites are virtue signalling, because that would imply insincerity. I think that many — perhaps most! — of them are genuinely pious, genuinely in thrall to the new religion, and want not merely to signal virtue, but to actually be virtuous.

        That makes things more difficult. The hypocrite can be turned simply by convincing him that it’s in his interest to turn. The true believer is much less amenable to that approach. Getting through the shell of a true believer is always difficult, and accusing them of insincerity is almost certainly not the best way to go about it. Whatever else they might know or not know, they know for a fact that they are not insincere!

      • Jacob says:

        Hey Yudi, good comment as always. A few thoughts:

        1) I think it’s interesting that intelligent people are better at being stupid than stupid people are at being intelligent. No different from the fact that my phone can run a Game Boy simulator, but a Game Boy cannot run an Android simulator. Each set of hardware has its own upper limits, but not a lower limit.

        2) I agree that some of them have a terrible need to virtue signal, but I suspect there is something else at play with some of them: they’re smartish, but not truly brilliant, or they’re simply lazy. They want all the trappings of being an intellectual without working hard and competing against brilliant people. So they bullshit.

        3) I strongly agree with your second paragraph. I think their politics are falling apart for a similar reason: they would rather virtue signal than actually succeed at anything. Hence, my new favorite politician, the brilliant self-satire piece named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

        • Yudi says:

          Thanks for the reply. I’ll respond to your points:

          2) They are absolutely not alone in this need. One of the things that people trying to design “rationality tests” (see here: ) in order to figure out the problems with smart elites need to remember is that humans are a social species. No psychometrical test can adequately account for how that affects behavior. Everyone is subject to the temptation to ignore or deny the truth in order to fit in with their group. Elites have much greater pressure to do so because, in addition to seeking acceptance, they are also seeking power.

          (Note that this thread contains much more cheerleading about Greg’s review than the comments section on Quillette; fans are influencing fans.)

          3) Greg and Peter Turchin, along with plenty of astute observers over the years, have pointed out that societies only change for the better because they are forced to, usually from the outside. Lack of competition results in slow decay, as the various sectors of society try to secede from each other. The West has experienced very little competition for a generation, and I think it’s no coincidence that elite concern for the masses and their ability to understand the world have caved in at the same time.

          • Samedi says:

            I see the contemporary intelligentsia as a modern version of the old First Estate. The role of the intelligentsia, as with the clerics of the Ancien Régime, entails scholarly research and shaping public mores. As such, it is no surprise that they would let the latter responsibility outweigh the former. There is ample historical precedent for this phenomenon.

          • Jacob says:

            2) Agreed.

            3) I think that makes intuitive sense. People act in individual interest, not group interest, and an external pressure would be a good way of getting those to align.

            I think the US could use a little more secession of its various elements, however. Lots of dead weight. And the dead weight isn’t trying to secede, it’s trying to push itself into every single space where it is not wanted.

    • Leonard says:

      Sinclair said, ” “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

      But salary is mere money. Social status is higher priority for normal humans. It is very difficult indeed to get a man to understand something when his status depends on not understanding it.

    • Zenit says:

      Well, they are in charge, and you are not. Surely, they must be doing something right…

      • another fred says:

        I contend that they are “in charge” because politicians on the left found their theories useful to expand the state involvement in society. They’ve just about ridden that horse into the ground. Does the name Lysenko ring a bell?

        Politicians and oligarchs always turn on the effete left after they’ve served their purpose.

  8. Coagulopath says:

    Also editors edit. Final version: “there would be a huge difference in their bodies: they’d be dwarves.” Original version: “there would be a huge difference in their bodies: they’d be ripe for tossing.”

    RIP Funny Line.

  9. RCB says:

    Lewontin’s fallacy has been discredited so many times now that appealing to is a reliable indicator for being a liar or an idiot. Not sure which applies to Zimmer – maybe both.

    • gcochran9 says:

      Saying nonsensical things along those lines is almost required in any book touching the subject, much more so for a New York Times reporter. I’m sure that some people reviewing the book just ignored all that race-doesn’t-exist stuff.

  10. Frau Katze says:

    I find the book title itself stupid in a way I can’t quite explain. When I first saw another review, I just skimmed it and decided, no, I wasn’t buying that book.

  11. Jaim Klein says:

    The bottom line: “…a decent account of scientific progress in a field that he (Zimmer) evidently finds deeply disquieting.” Who doesn’t? Nature is dark and disheartening.

  12. Observer says:

    The cartoon should have been there instead of the photo of Zimmer. It’s a great cartoon and makes the point nicely.

  13. Coagulopath says:

    Carl Zimmer. Dutton (May 2018) 656 pages

    I bet it made a pretty good thump as it hit the dustbin.

  14. “The facts of genetics are caltrops on the road to a ‘just’ society.”
    Can I get that embroidered on a throw cushion?

  15. William H. Stoddard says:

    In your review you include a passage from Trivers that begins, “Lewontin would lie openly and admit to doing so.” Is there a published source for this? I’d like to track it down, if possible.

  16. cam says:

    Is there any estimate what the Fst would have been between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens at contact?

    • gcochran9 says:

      Surely high, but that doesn’t necessarily mean much, because it would be high just from drift , which would mostly be differences in the frequencies of junk DNA.

      A more meaningful number would be Fst in coding genes. And even that wouldn’t necessarily tell you what you want to know: you need to look at the genetic differences weighted by their effects.

      • Ryan Baldini says:

        So, breeding value, then. But that’s hard, so just look at phenotype and you’re probably pretty close. We don’t know all that much about Neanderthal behavior (also a phenotype), but I’d guess they must have been at least as different from us mentally as they were physically. Behavioral Modernity and all. Total guess, though.

        Speaking of behavioral modernity – is that an off-limits term yet?

        • Cloveoil says:

          Neanderthal brain endocasts are known and studied: why not take a look?

          Such differences may have had profound implications for Neanderthals. First, assuming similar densities, the area covered by the Neanderthals’ extended communities would have been smaller than those of AMHs. Consequently, the Neanderthals’ ability to trade for exotic resources and artefacts would have been reduced [75], as would their capacity to gain access to foraging areas sufficiently distant to be unaffected by local scarcity [76]. Furthermore, their ability to acquire and conserve innovations may have been limited as a result [77], and they may have been more vulnerable to demographic fluctuations, causing local population extinctions.

          Whereas AMHs appear to have concentrated neural investment in social adaptations to solve ecological problems, Neanderthals seem to have adopted an alternative strategy that involved enhanced vision coupled with retention of the physical robusticity of H. heidelbergensis, but not superior social cognition. For instance, only in Neanderthals, not AMHs, does body mass [26], and hence brain volume [78], increase over time. While the physical response to high latitude conditions adopted by Neanderthals may have been very effective at first, the social response developed by AMHs seems to have eventually won out in the face of the climatic instability that characterized high-latitude Eurasia at this time.

  17. BlackFlag says:

    Off topic: homosexuality (and homophobia) existed in the Americas pre-Columbus.

    What does this mean for the gay germ hypothesis?

    Unlikely that the parasite-host system would arise twice independently. Unlikely that the small population of hunters who crossed the Bering strait would carry it.

    • Greying Wanderer says:

      “Unlikely that the parasite-host system would arise twice independently.”

      if a gay germ was actually a promiscuity germ (working via widening what a person finds attractive) then i could imagine multiple versions developing in multiple environments where male promiscuous behavior was adaptive i.e. environments where women could feed the kids without male assistance?

      alternatively if it’s not a gay germ but hormone imbalances in the womb causing female gene expression in men then maybe some places had a staple food containing naturally occurring estrogens?

      thirdly i wonder if large scale female infanticide leads to pederasty / eunuchs as a separate purely supply and demand type thing.

      • BlackFlag says:

        Except that gayness doesn’t increase the number of women that the gay wants to have sex It dramatically decreases it. Furthermore, has insufficient male libido ever been a problem? There were 10 girls left for me to fuck, but I got bored and swimming instead.

        • Greying Wanderer says:

          “Except that gayness doesn’t increase the number of women that the gay wants to have sex It dramatically decreases it.”

          imagine an extreme environment where females can easily feed their kids without male assistance then males being promiscuous and having loose constraints on what they consider sufficiently attractive might be adaptive – so a bug that caused or encouraged those behaviors might be adaptive.

          then move that bug to an environment which required high paternal investment for the kids to survive so women had evolved to be more picky and less promiscuous – then women become a barrier to the bug’s desired behavior…

          but yes you have a point – the idea needs some way for [bug + constraint of female non-promiscuity] to lead to x% exclusive homosexuality – the only thing i can come up with is homosexuality as an extreme outlier of the bug’s behavioral modification i.e. there’s far more people infected but most of them are simply more promiscuous heterosexual than they otherwise would be (and/or have non-adaptive body shape fetishes).


          “Furthermore, has insufficient male libido ever been a problem? There were 10 girls left for me to fuck, but I got bored and swimming instead.”

          ten girls with a cute waist-hip ratio maybe but too skinny / too fat ?

          a bug that made you sufficiently attracted to a girl with no hips and a flat chest might make you more attracted to men also

      • Cloveoil says:

        As far as female homosexuality goes, Asian lesbians do have a different digit ratio when you compare them to Western lesbians (or straight women). Assuming the hormone imbalance theory is true, female homosexuality must have two different causes.

        • Greying Wanderer says:


          if there was a gay germ effecting male and female equally and a hormone imbalance effecting men more (by making men more feminine but only making women hit puberty sooner) then maybe you’d get more male homosexuals than female?

          • albatross says:

            The fitness effect of homosexuality is probably very different for women than for men. Women are rate-limited in their offspring by factors other than how many men they can convince to have sex with them. A man who has the socially-mandated marriage and occasional kids but prefers men for extracurricular activities is losing some potential offspring (albeit with a corresponding drop in probability of waking up with a spear in his back one fine day). A woman who has the socially-mandated marriage and occasional kids but prefers women for extracurricular activities is probably not losing a whole lot of fitness–maybe a bit if she’s missing out on the chance to get a kid with better genes at some point, but not much.

      • savantissimo says:

        ” maybe some places had a staple food containing naturally occurring estrogens?
        I seem to recall that the Pill was originally made from Mexican yams.

  18. ziel says:

    “homosexuality (and homophobia) existed in the Americas pre-Columbus.”
    How do we know that?

    • gcochran9 says:

      Aztec seem to have had some ferocious punishments.

      • Cloveoil says:

        Why do you think homosexuality is absent from the Dogon?

        • gcochran9 says:

          I don’t remember saying or thinking anything about the Dogon, one way or the other. On this topic.

          • Cloveoil says:

            Maybe not, but its something I noticed in a map of societies where homosexuality is unknown. It makes sense homosexuality is missing from hunter gatherers, but Dogon are farmers.

      • Cloveoil says:

        Actually, how do you explain it in the New World? I understand heterosexual men have parts of their hypothalmus greatly enlarged compared to gays, and the same pattern emerges in sheep. According to your gay germ theory, the germ was a zoonose, correct? And that makes a lot of sense for the Old World, but not in the Precolumbian Americas.

    • BlackFlag says:

      Sorry, I don’t remember the sources. Try looking up Kimball. I’m going buy the punishments for sodomy like Greg said. IIRC, some people claimed the translations were bad. There’s a lot of politis and emotion so it takes a lot of effort to figure out who’s right and who’s lying.

      Anyway, if we did find out that homosexuality existed in pre-Columbian America, what would it mean? IIRC, one of the supporting arguments for the hypothesis, is that it doesn’t exist in isolated tribes like the Bushmen.

      • Jim says:

        It didn’t exist in traditional Eskimo culture.

        • Interested Layman says:

          “It didn’t exist in traditional Eskimo culture.” – How do you know? I think it is In “Kabloona: Among the Inuit” that the author talks about an obvious gay Eskimo. This was in the late 1930’s after contact, but still early.

      • Cloveoil says:

        Or a gay gene doesn’t pay off in band-level societies. Gay germ advocates are big on bringing up Bushmen and Pygmies, but they forget its missing from the Eskimos too.

        • gcochran9 says:

          It’s hard to see how it would pay off in any society.

          Lots of band-level societies skate under the critical community size for various germs.

  19. RCB says:

    Re homosexuality and genetics:

    How well is it appreciated that natural selection generally only operates on additive genetic variance – not the total genetic variance? In that light, there could definitely be gay genotypes. As long as they are highly epistasis-based, those genotypes would only be very weakly selected against. And therefore could persist for a long time.

    This would apply if, for example, homosexuality usually followed whenever one was homozygous for gene A AND gene B AND (gene C OR gene d) AND… Lots of complex interactions usually means lots of epistatic variance. Though if it’s too stringent, it might not be able to produce the rates of homosexuality we see today.

    If this were at all true, then we’d expect to see some appreciable concordance among MZ twins, but almost no concordance at all between DZ twins (who only correlate on 1/4 dominance variance, and I think 1/16 first-order epistatic variance, and less still on higher-level epistatic effects). We’d see virtually no correlation between any single polymorphism and homosexuality (because then there would be additive genetic variance).

    Grasping at straws, perhaps, but not impossible…

    Greg has also mentioned the possibility that there may indeed be genes that make you susceptible to a gay germ (or some other effect). In that case, we’d see genetic correlates of homosexuality, and those genes would currently be selected against.

    • gcochran9 says:

      This argument suggests that there could be many other low-fitness phenotypes at the few-percent level – like?

      • savantissimo says:

        Personality disorders, other psychiatric disorders, laziness, gluttony, other “sinful natures”, esp. the 7 deadlies? VLSS (vicious little shit syndrome)? Immune disorders? A taste for licorice? Probably sub-clinical variants of many sorts, not usually considered pathological because they are just too common. Still plenty of room for the gay germ hypothesis, homosexuality is just too reproductively devastating, but some predisposing genetic component as well.

  20. Citizen A says:

    How about the simple explanation that genes might be expressed under certain sets of conditions (say in the womb) that might lead to a child having a potential homosexual outcome, or a near certain homosexual outcome depending on the concentration of say testosterone and stress hormones in the mother?

    And these genes have some other advantageous principles and since homosexuality was present in the New World. We know these genes are quite old- over 20k years and predate the split in Berengaria. So, since outcome is pretty common, and has not had the hard selection against it present in the modern era, it must have some advantages.

    In short, seeing how many LDS folks come out after having children, one begins to see how it could continue to propagate.

    Now, what is the percentage of homosexuality in the ancestral lineages left in Africa? Like the Khosa and the pygmies?

    Ask the questions, and begin to identify what makes it so different anyway?

    Of course, removing societal conformance pressure will over time reduce the numbers of them born in the wild, by removing reluctant participants.

    So many questions, if you begin to really look. For instance, does the rate increase with the number of children born by a woman (I think in western European descent it does…)

    On the other hand, it does seem to be X linked, so blame the mothers for passing it on:

    I would note that if you think about it being linked to the x chromosome, and very old, and think about the kin selection theories enabling survival of small bands, having the equivalent of drone workers that contribute resources but do not directly share in the germ line can be of use to the survival of the species. Further, the overwhelmingly male expression seems to further consolidate this conclusion, because of the winnowing effect of male fertility.

    In short, it seems to be a successful mutation.

    • ziel says:

      I really couldn’t follow his argument – it was pretty wordy, and I’m not too patient. He seemed to be just arguing that wrt height and intelligence
      a) the differences between related individuals and MZ twins are too large
      b) the degree of overlap in the distributions is too large and
      c) there is too much environmental impact
      for the population differences to have any significant genetic origin.

      But he doesn’t explain how that conclusion follows from those assertions. It maybe explains why the genetic basis behind the differences in dog breeds is more readily accepted, but hardly refutes it in humans.

      Seems like a variation on the old argument of “You can’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these differences are genetically mediated, so any suggestions that genetics are involved at all is simply wrong!”

    • Frau Katze says:

      I’m going by “The Bell Curve” and the fact that after 60 years nothing has been found to help the disadvantaged races, or whatever you call them. A huge effort has been made.

      The fact that Africans from Africa and the Caribbean are more successful does indicate that there’s a cultural component. Of course, legal immigrants from these places are likely above average to start with.

      • This immigration is selective so it proves nothing.

        • Frau Katze says:

          Immigrants are more carefully vetted in Canada. Harder for illegals to get here. But idiot Trudeau might be inviting the whole world. He’s a complete idiot.

      • Greying Wanderer says:

        it may just be a selection filter but you’d think any genuine liberal who doesn’t want to believe in genetics as the cause would look at this difference in the search for environmental clues – but they don’t cos researching it would put a crack in the “racism” narrative.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s