Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Consanguinity as a major predictor of levels of democracy: A study of 70 nations

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Wolfhound says: Everything is a nail if all you have is a hammer. And if all you have is a screwdriver, it's easy to really screw things up.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #17
      Everything is a nail if all you have is a hammer. And if all you have is a screwdriver, it';s easy to screw everything up.
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        Not only have I been to Britain many times in my life, I was married to a Brit for 24 years. First of all, during WWII there was a mass evacuation of young children into the distant parts of England from the Greater London area and other vital cities. May of these children, my former wife among them, ended up staying there for various reasons, got married, and passed on their genes. Secondly, Britain now is not what bBitain once was, but is now a stewpot of former colonies all living, mating and reproducing under the same roof. Britain is hardly even "British" any more; therefore, the claim of homogeneity is false. " racially homogeneous : all the people belong to the same race." And I "do it" because you tend to make some fairly outrageous statements from time to time that do not bear scrutiny well.
        So you are a better judge than the experts I quoted? I'm not playing that game.
        We hunt the hunters

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

          So you are a better judge than the experts I quoted? I'm not playing that game.
          Didn't say that. Said my experience points me away from your conclusions. MY last trip to England was '79) I'm sure you are as aware as I am that the British Isles are now as mixed as America has been from the start, so I honestly don't see how that claim can be maintained any longer.

          I am also certain that you are aware, as am I, that the Royal Family itself now includes a half-black American woman. If homogeneity does not extend any longer to the Royals themselves, what specific experts are guaranteeing it on behalf of the English population in general? For starters, when were their DNA studies conducted? And in which specific population regions and groups? Anyone who has been to London knows that such a claim is nonsense, akin to claiming that the population of inner city Detroit is completely "white of European ancestry" because they met a few of them in some distant part of the city.

          And these discussions are not intended as "games", although I grant you they are most often conducted that way.

          I would appreciate it if you could see your way to continuing. However, please note that I am on new meds now and you may need to use shorter words so I can keep up!




          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

            I don't know why you do this.



            http://www.sci-news.com/genetics/sci...ion-02616.html

            Granted your definition may vary but I mostly just go with the flow.
            Look closely at how and where they drew their samples from and see if you can spot where the issue is with using their study as a basis for the current genetic state of the UK.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post

              Look closely at how and where they drew their samples from and see if you can spot where the issue is with using their study as a basis for the current genetic state of the UK.
              Exactly.
              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #22
                I was responding to a question from slick_miester, you have to frame the response based on the rather difficult to interrupt outline he presented. It also seemed somewhat unrelated to the OP but that is another issue.

                The question you could have is homogeneous compared to what. In this case it is compared to the suggestion that Britain should be heterogeneous. That is find and perhaps accurate if the question had been framed differently. For example if you were to compare Britain to Finland you would find that the British are like 12th cousins and the Fins 5th cousins. Making the British significantly less homogeneous than the Fins. Remember though that I said surprisingly homogeneous, that would be with reference to the history presented.

                The important thing was in the quote I selected which is “the majority of eastern, central and southern England is made up of a single, relatively homogeneous, genetic group with a significant DNA contribution from Anglo-Saxon migrations (10-40 percent of total ancestry). This settles a historical controversy in showing that the Anglo-Saxons intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing populations.” Something I thought addressed the specific context of slick_miester's guestion.

                Now I know you are going to say that "intermarried" argues against homogeniality but that is not the way the scholars in this article and several others I had run across frame it. As I'm not particularly interested in the topic of Britain nor it's genetic particularities I will let you sort it out. I was just kindly responding to a question which I answered as best I could.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                  I was responding to a question from slick_miester, you have to frame the response based on the rather difficult to interrupt outline he presented. It also seemed somewhat unrelated to the OP but that is another issue.

                  The question you could have is homogeneous compared to what. In this case it is compared to the suggestion that Britain should be heterogeneous. That is find and perhaps accurate if the question had been framed differently. For example if you were to compare Britain to Finland you would find that the British are like 12th cousins and the Fins 5th cousins. Making the British significantly less homogeneous than the Fins. Remember though that I said surprisingly homogeneous, that would be with reference to the history presented.

                  The important thing was in the quote I selected which is “the majority of eastern, central and southern England is made up of a single, relatively homogeneous, genetic group with a significant DNA contribution from Anglo-Saxon migrations (10-40 percent of total ancestry). This settles a historical controversy in showing that the Anglo-Saxons intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing populations.” Something I thought addressed the specific context of slick_miester's guestion.

                  Now I know you are going to say that "intermarried" argues against homogeniality but that is not the way the scholars in this article and several others I had run across frame it. As I'm not particularly interested in the topic of Britain nor it's genetic particularities I will let you sort it out. I was just kindly responding to a question which I answered as best I could.
                  You're choosing to ignore the issue with the study which makes its claims problematic.

                  So let me underscore the major issues with the study as it stands.
                  From the study:

                  The team, led by Dr Peter Donnelly of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics in Oxford, UK, analyzed the DNA of people from rural areas of the UK, whose four grandparents were all born within 80 km of each other.

                  Because a quarter of our genome comes from each of our grandparents, Dr Donnelly and his colleagues were effectively sampling DNA from these ancestors, allowing a snapshot of UK genetics in the late 19th century.
                  As stated above, for their sample group they picked rural people from insular communities.
                  Surprise, surprise they don't see a lot of genetic differentials in these groups.
                  Anyone with even a remote historical understanding about British rural life would know how closed of a community it is.
                  So you're sampling a non diverse group that tends to marry within its own boundaries.

                  Secondly, as of 2014 just before this study was done, just 17% of the population lived in rural areas.
                  So they are ignoring 83 percent of the population as a source for samples in their study.
                  https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ulation-201415

                  Finally, in the UK, the vast majority of immigrants who would add to the genetic mix, diluting their findings, live in the cities and urban areas. Areas they have chosen not to sample from So this groups' impact is being overlooked.

                  So we have a study that looks at samples drawn from the minority of the UK population by concentrating on small insular communties that represent a demographic minority in the nation as a whole. The study also has a sampling criteria that rules out the majority of immigrants or non-Anglo stock from being considered as part of the sample.

                  Doesn't fill me with much confidence that their findings can be considered accurate for all of the UK.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post

                    Doesn't fill me with much confidence that their findings can be considered accurate for all of the UK.
                    As I said in an earlier post against my better judgement I will bite.

                    Here is the question I was responding too.

                    wlfhnd: does the UK count as one of the seventy nations included in that study? I only ask because British subjects have never been consanguineous. Even at the time of the Norman conquest beginning in 1066, Britons were many different kinds of Celts and Germans, intermixed in many different kinds of ways. with grafted on Roman and Viking heritage, as well as the aforementioned French Normans -- who were themselves an admixture of Gauls, Franks, Germans, Romans, and Vikings -- and it would be pretty hard to view the British Isles as consanguineous at any time after 43 AD.
                    In answering that question why would you sample the entire population? In order to answer it you have to find an insular population that hasn't been effected significantly by recent immigration patterns and by recent I mean in the last two hundred years. The significance of the study has more to do with the difficulty of sorting the genetics out considering how Europe in general is fairly homogeneous thus what they are calling fine grain analysis. If you have better genetic data or know of a better way to evaluate the question then please present it. In any case I no longer want to go down this rabbit hole that is not particularly relevant to the original post.

                    The original post itself is of interest as much for illustrating the new statistical tools used to answer questions about the effects that genetics may have on cultural development as the conclusions themselves. At the moment it seems likely that the science is not advanced enough to draw strict conclusions. As that is likely to change in the next decade it is worthwhile hypothesizing based on existing data what will be discovered.


                    We hunt the hunters

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                      As I said in an earlier post against my better judgement I will bite.

                      Here is the question I was responding too.



                      In answering that question why would you sample the entire population? In order to answer it you have to find an insular population that hasn't been effected significantly by recent immigration patterns and by recent I mean in the last two hundred years. The significance of the study has more to do with the difficulty of sorting the genetics out considering how Europe in general is fairly homogeneous thus what they are calling fine grain analysis. If you have better genetic data or know of a better way to evaluate the question then please present it. In any case I no longer want to go down this rabbit hole that is not particularly relevant to the original post.

                      The original post itself is of interest as much for illustrating the new statistical tools used to answer questions about the effects that genetics may have on cultural development as the conclusions themselves. At the moment it seems likely that the science is not advanced enough to draw strict conclusions. As that is likely to change in the next decade it is worthwhile hypothesizing based on existing data what will be discovered.

                      You're the one who started the trip down the rabbit hole with this statement.

                      Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                      Ok I will bite.

                      Britain is surprisingly genetically homogeneous and stable historically.

                      Fine distinctions are interesting but not surprising.

                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632200/

                      I'm not sure how consanguineous plays into this. Or what point you are trying to make.

                      If you chose to extrapolate a conclusion about the genetic homogeneity of a whole country by looking at an isolated insular group, you're going to get rather skewed and biased results. What this study shows is that the rural population of the UK is rather homogeneous, not the UK as a whole.

                      As to reasons why you'd want to use a larger sample, instead of looking at just 17% of the population, the answer is plainly obvious to anyone with a modicum of understanding of scientific method. The larger the sample, the more data. The more data, the information that can be used to draw conclusions on the generic makeup on the nation as a whole. Ignoring the majority of the population to make a conclusion about the makeup of the majority of the population is poor science.

                      To use an exaggerated example, this is the equivalent of looking the genetic makeup of Hasidic Jews in New York (an isolated distinct community that marries within its own boundaries, similar to rural dwellers in the UK) and saying you can use this data to extrapolate the genetic makeup of the rest of the United States.

                      Poor data, poor sampling and poor extrapolation leads to poor results and poor conclusions.

                      And if you don't want to go down a rabbit hole, don't open the door and invite people through, to mix a metaphor.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post

                        You're the one who started the trip down the rabbit hole
                        No I did not, slick_miester did but he did not respond as to why it was relevant. You will have to ask him why we opened this rabbit hole


                        If you chose to extrapolate a conclusion about the genetic homogeneity of a whole country by looking at an isolated insular group, you're going to get rather skewed and biased results. What this study shows is that the rural population of the UK is rather homogeneous, not the UK as a whole.
                        No you are going to get skewed and biased results if you look at the whole country out of historical context. As I stated earlier we are not interested in the country as it is constituted today.


                        And if you don't want to go down a rabbit hole, don't open the door and invite people through, to mix a metaphor.
                        I only opened the door to answer a question out of politeness, that didn't mean I expected that it was an invitation to walk through it.

                        We hunt the hunters

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post

                          You're choosing to ignore the issue with the study which makes its claims problematic.

                          So let me underscore the major issues with the study as it stands.
                          From the study:

                          The team, led by Dr Peter Donnelly of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics in Oxford, UK, analyzed the DNA of people from rural areas of the UK, whose four grandparents were all born within 80 km of each other.

                          Because a quarter of our genome comes from each of our grandparents, Dr Donnelly and his colleagues were effectively sampling DNA from these ancestors, allowing a snapshot of UK genetics in the late 19th century.
                          As stated above, for their sample group they picked rural people from insular communities.
                          Surprise, surprise they don't see a lot of genetic differentials in these groups.
                          Anyone with even a remote historical understanding about British rural life would know how closed of a community it is.
                          So you're sampling a non diverse group that tends to marry within its own boundaries. . . . .
                          When phrased like that, you'd think that they were talking about Hasidim.

                          All kidding aside, let's say, for the sake of argument, that genetically speaking, those aforementioned populations in England have been stable going back at least four generations. How would their current genome compare to their genome in the years following 1066? Following ~500 AD? Following ~43 AD? Would the events of those earlier eras represent almost tectonic changes to the native British genomes as they then existed?
                          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I'm going to contact the authors of the aforementioned paper and see if they will comment. I think it unlikely but worth a try.

                            Regardless of the reliability of the study DNA is an important new tool for historians similar to carbon dating. We should understand it's limitations and uses.

                            I don't actually mind the thread going sideways that is actually a good thing. All I'm saying is that I'm occupied with other things I'm more interested in and have no particular expertise.
                            We hunt the hunters

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                              I offer this only to illustrate that part of any historical education should include evolutionary principles, genetics, and environmental influences. For those not to closed minded to follow the arguments it adds another layer to their understanding.
                              Welcome back.

                              You continue to interest me. ….ergo what you are saying may be of some value.

                              Perhaps you could humour me and illustrate the point you are making with an example?

                              From what I gather you are gingerly trying to suggest that there are some uncomfortable (alright, alright.... if you insist politically incorrect or socially unacceptable) connections between ….errr….ummm….. race and ethnicity and an entity's level of adoption of basic democratic principles?

                              That, as I'm sure you'll agree is touchy stuff.
                              I'm no doubt a political opposite to yourself but I do agree that "For those not to closed minded to follow the arguments it adds another layer to their understanding."

                              Well I'll look forward to hearing what you say.
                              Gotta go now, ….soy latte to drink, vegan quiche to eat and Malcolm X online video clips to
                              watch.

                              If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. - Noam Chomsky
                              (and no I don't despise you - I'm just interested)

                              Regards
                              lodestar



                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by lodestar View Post


                                If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. - Noam Chomsky
                                (and no I don't despise you - I'm just interested)

                                Regards
                                lodestar
                                I'm actually not very interested in race outside of how it is related to class for political purposes. For scientific purposes ethnic differences related to things like lactose intolerance are of interest. From a historian's perspective such observations help track population movements. You get into trouble when you start talking about race and IQ.

                                One of the authors of this paper is Woodley and he is often labeled a racist and pseudo scientist. Those labels are applied so broadly today that they have little meaning. It is my opinion that the social sciences have been so corrupted by a nexus of bad philosophies that it would not be unreasonable to dismiss much of anthropology, sociology and psychology as pseudo science. I think we need to resist the temptation and give people like Woodley the benefit of the doubt and assume they are simply trying to restore the balance between biology and culture.

                                The decoupling of biology from the social sciences is justified at least in part by the horrors of eugenics, Nazism, and Stalinism in the early to mid 20th century. I take the position that it was the collectivist nature of each of these movements that was central to the misapplication of biology and find it ironic that societies have turned to more collectivism as the solution. There in lies the crux of our political differences.

                                What is interesting about Woodley's work is he has decoupled k factors and personality as well as epigenetic from intelligence. This is very anti racists for reasons I will let the reader ponder. His sin was to not allowed ethnic differences in abstract reasoning ability deter him from following the data. His additional sin was to be part of what left stream media has labeled a cabal of Scottish aristocratic racist intellectuals. A less conspiratorial take would be someone who advocates traditional values. The unfortunate truth is that class and intelligence do correlate. I should point out that my lower class disdain for aristocrats made me instantly dislike Woodley on a personal level but it doesn't stop me from respecting his work.

                                That all of the above is irrelevant to the discussion at hand I recognize. I offer it instead of a more scientific evaluation because I have no expertise in the subject matter. The kind of expertise that requires decades of training. I do think however that my agricultural and professional background gives me a better "common sense" understanding of biology than most people. Anyone exposed to animal husbandry will automatically understand that there must be a genetic component to intelligence. Unfortunately like all common sense approaches it it can go astray as the devil really is in the details. It would be best for anyone with serious questions to ask them directly to Woodley. If you have academic credentials he might actually reply.
                                We hunt the hunters

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X