You’ve got to love The New York Times.
The lies that we are all forced to live under in the Editorial section are constantly being undermined by what is on display in the Science section:
“IN 1999, a trio of economists emerged from a conference at the University of California, Los Angeles, squinting without sunglasses in the unfamiliar sun, and began a slow walk through the hills overlooking the city. The three of them — a Harvard economist-in-training, Daniel Benjamin, and the Harvard economists Edward Glaeser and David Laibson — were reeling. They had just learned about a new field, neuroeconomics, which applies economic analysis to brain science in an effort to understand human choices. Now they were strolling through the taxonomy of midday joggers and dog-walkers in Los Angeles, talking all the while about how people become what they are. Benjamin recalls feeling very out of place. “Everyone was so beautiful,” he says.
The economists spent the walk discussing what else they could measure across such a wide variety of human beings. By the time the sun began to set, the conversation landed on the very building blocks of life. “If economists are studying the brain,” Laibson asked, “what about studying genes?” …”
He went into his program believing that our social environment is largely the cause of our outcomes, and that biology is usually the dependent variable. By the end of his time, he says, the causal arrow in his mind had pretty much flipped the other way: “I tried to show for a range of outcomes that the genetic models were overstating the impact of genetics because of their crazy assumptions.” He sighs. “But I ended up showing that they’re right.” …
If what Benjamin’s study claims to measure is controversial, consider what it doesn’t measure. The study only draws on the DNA of white people — Europeans, Icelanders, Caucasians in North America, Australia and the United Kingdom. And that’s in part because only those groups, along with Chinese nationals, have given over their D.N.A. in large enough numbers to achieve the statistical power that geno-economics researchers need. …
But even if the same numbers of people from all races provided their data, one group would still have to be excluded from the study: people with recent genetic roots in Africa, which is to say both Africans, African-Americans and many Latinos. This racial exclusion has to do with the origins of modern humans. When a group of people on what is now the continent of Africa decided, some 50,000 to 70,000 years ago, to go see what the rest of the world was about, they formed what geneticists call a “population bottleneck.” The small group that walked off the continent formed the small gene pool from which all non-African people — whether a Caucasian or a Han Chinese — descend. …”
The world in which we can predict all sorts of things about the future based on saliva samples — personality traits, cognitive abilities, life outcomes — is happening in the next five years,” Benjamin says. “Now is the time to prepare for that.”
Basically, if there was any merit to ideas like the blank slate, dogmatic anti-racism and human equality, which are heretical to question in our society, this sort of thing would be impossible. You wouldn’t be able to use these polygenic scores to detect genetic differences that lead to favorable economic outcomes between Whites much less between Whites and other races.
It just so happens that Zhores Medvedev, the Soviet scientist who discredited Lysenkoism and who was declared insane, stripped of his citizenship and confined to a mental hospital, died on Thursday. How many American scientists do you think will be discredited like Lysenko when the truth comes out about race realism and blacks find out they were lied to about Wakanda?
Note: A few months ago, The New York Times ran an explosive editorial by a geneticist about how race actually exists and the establishment is at risk of being discredited by science. He argued that “well-meaning people” had dug themselves into “an indefensible position” and needed to be preparing society for a soft landing from egalitarianism.