A new study investigates the occurrence of genetic recombination in humans. The authors used a large set of individuals and discovered that there is a correlation between a mother's age and maternal recombination counts in her offspring. There are two possible explanations for this: either a woman's eggs have a higher recombination rate as she ages, or an egg with high recombination rate has a higher chance of being fertilized and finally born.
The authors reject the first hypothesis, as it makes some assumptions which have not been confirmed empirically, and conclude that eggs with higher recombination rates have a higher chance of being born. If this is true, then women whose eggs have higher recombination rates would produce more babies. After regressing family size on average recombination rate, this "selection hypothesis" is confirmed, even though the effect is modest, as many factors influence family size. Moreover, bylooking at sister pairs it is estimated that recombination rate has a heritability of ~30% in the group of women of this study. Therefore, it is likely that maternal recombination rate is a trait under positive selection.
Nature Genetics
Published online: 03 October 2004; doi:10.1038/ng1445
Recombination rate and reproductive success in humans
Augustine Kong et al.
Intergenerational mixing of DNA through meiotic recombinations of homologous chromosomes during gametogenesis is a major event that generates diversity in the eukaryotic genome. We examined genome-wide microsatellite data for 23,066 individuals, providing information on recombination events of 14,140 maternal and paternal meioses each, and found a positive correlation between maternal recombination counts of an offspring and maternal age. We postulated that the recombination rate of eggs does not increase with maternal age, but that the apparent increase is the consequence of selection. Specifically, a high recombination count increased the chance of a gamete becoming a live birth, and this effect became more pronounced with advancing maternal age. Further support for this hypothesis came from our observation that mothers with high oocyte recombination rate tend to have more children. Hence, not only do recombinations have a role in evolution by yielding diverse combinations of gene variants for natural selection, but they are also under selection themselves.
Link
October 13, 2004
October 12, 2004
A common fitness factor behind intelligence and body symmetry
A new study shows that intelligence and body symmetry are correlated, and the correlation becomes more marked for intelligence tests with higher loading of the general intelligence factor g. This may indicate that both g and body symmetry are influenced by a general "fitness" factor.
Intelligence (Article in Press)
Intelligence tests with higher g-loadings show higher correlations with body symmetry: Evidence for a general fitness factor mediated by developmental stability
Mark D. Prokosch et al.
Abstract
Just as body symmetry reveals developmental stability at the morphological level, general intelligence may reveal developmental stability at the level of brain development and cognitive functioning. These two forms of developmental stability may overlap by tapping into a “general fitness factor.” If so, then intellectual tests with higher g-loadings should show higher correlations with a composite measure of body symmetry. We tested this prediction in 78 young males by measuring their left–right symmetry at 10 body points, and by administering five cognitive tests with diverse g-loadings. As predicted, we found a significant (z=3.64, p<0.003) relationship between each test's rank order g-loading and its body symmetry association. We also found a substantial correlation (r=0.39, p<0.01) between body symmetry and our most highly g-loaded test (Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices). General intelligence is apparently a valid indicator of general developmental stability and heritable fitness, which may partly explain its social and sexual attractiveness.
Link
Intelligence (Article in Press)
Intelligence tests with higher g-loadings show higher correlations with body symmetry: Evidence for a general fitness factor mediated by developmental stability
Mark D. Prokosch et al.
Abstract
Just as body symmetry reveals developmental stability at the morphological level, general intelligence may reveal developmental stability at the level of brain development and cognitive functioning. These two forms of developmental stability may overlap by tapping into a “general fitness factor.” If so, then intellectual tests with higher g-loadings should show higher correlations with a composite measure of body symmetry. We tested this prediction in 78 young males by measuring their left–right symmetry at 10 body points, and by administering five cognitive tests with diverse g-loadings. As predicted, we found a significant (z=3.64, p<0.003) relationship between each test's rank order g-loading and its body symmetry association. We also found a substantial correlation (r=0.39, p<0.01) between body symmetry and our most highly g-loaded test (Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices). General intelligence is apparently a valid indicator of general developmental stability and heritable fitness, which may partly explain its social and sexual attractiveness.
Link
October 11, 2004
Old Archives moved
The archives from the previous incarnation of Dienekes' Anthropology Blog have been moved, and you can search them here, also accessible from the sidebar on the right. If you've linked (or found a link via google) to an older entry, you should be able to access the link by modifying the URL:
http://www.dienekes.com/blog/archives/000637.html
should become:
http://dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000637.html
http://www.dienekes.com/blog/archives/000637.html
should become:
http://dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000637.html
October 08, 2004
Are "ethnic genetic interests" behind ethnocentrism? A test.
After the last long post on the origin of ethnocentrism, I have pretty much exhausted my thoughts on the subject. But an idea occurred to me as I was writing that post which illustrates why attempts to explain ethnocentrism in terms of "ethnic genetic interests" are fundamentally misguided and ethnocentrism is best understood as a psychological-cultural phenomenon. I have conceptualized this idea as a simple test:
I would personally choose to spare George. I suspect that this would be the case for at least most of my countrymen, that they would choose to spare a fellow Greek rather than e.g., Turk or Bulgarian who happened to be closer to them genetically. Even though condition (b) is an ideal case for the "genetic ethnocentrism" thesis (you are told the exact degree of relatedness of the individuals affected by our actions), I believe that it does not create nearly the same motivation to save Michael than the simple notion that "George is a Greek" does to save him.
Condition (a) is very important to elicit the above choice. Imagine for example that you're an American of German ancestry fighting in WWII. If you're an ethnocentric German-American, then you will doubtlessly choose to kill a German to protect a fellow American, even though you're most likely closer kin to the German than to the American. But, if you knew that the German e.g., was your cousin, then you might be tempted to look the other way.
An omnipotent being presents itself before you, posing a simple dilemma: either George, an 18-year-old co-ethnic, or Michael, an 18-year-old foreigner will be killed. You are also told that (a) neither George or Michael are your close kin, and (b) that Michael is twice closer to you genetically than George. You can decide to spare either George or Michael. Who would you choose?If ethnocentric behavior arises from our desire to further our genetic interests, then we would choose to spare Michael. If it arises from our desire to support members of our ethnic group irrespective of genetic interests, then we would choose to spare George.
I would personally choose to spare George. I suspect that this would be the case for at least most of my countrymen, that they would choose to spare a fellow Greek rather than e.g., Turk or Bulgarian who happened to be closer to them genetically. Even though condition (b) is an ideal case for the "genetic ethnocentrism" thesis (you are told the exact degree of relatedness of the individuals affected by our actions), I believe that it does not create nearly the same motivation to save Michael than the simple notion that "George is a Greek" does to save him.
Condition (a) is very important to elicit the above choice. Imagine for example that you're an American of German ancestry fighting in WWII. If you're an ethnocentric German-American, then you will doubtlessly choose to kill a German to protect a fellow American, even though you're most likely closer kin to the German than to the American. But, if you knew that the German e.g., was your cousin, then you might be tempted to look the other way.
Are women getting more feminine?
A reader of iSteve writes that perhaps women are getting more feminine:
A second argument is that success in the workplace in many cases depends on being attractive. Attractive, feminine women get more career breaks, hence they may be more likely to have decreased fitness. Not to mention that attractive people are often more intelligent, as both intelligence and attractiveness are partially depended on health which in turn depends on genetic factors.
[1] Lesbians on the other hand are (i) fewer than male homosexuals, and (ii) have a much easier option of having kids if they choose to. Hence increased lesbianism and increased male homosexuality do not balance each other out.
[2] This would affect the frequency of feminine phenotypes but would probably be counterbalanced by improved cosmetic technologies which are leading to a more efficient phenotypic feminization of women.
An interesting suggestion, but an argument can be made in favor of women becoming less "feminine". If a person's femininity or masculinity depends on how feminine/masculine their parents are, then in today's age many "feminine" men are choosing the homosexual lifestyle [1] instead of choosing to lead a "regular" family life. This probably shifts the genetic balance in favor of "masculine" traits, in addition to the common observation that often girls might pick up more "male-like' traits due to being raised in a house by a "masculine" father who does man-like activities [2]I suspect the traits that make being a mother attractive are "feminine", such as taking pleasure in nurturing others. An ambitious woman with a aggressive personality is likely to choose to be a newspaper reporter (explaining partially why the writers or so feminist), but this choice is likely to go along with having fewer children. (Alas, high IQ makes a interesting career easier to achieve and leads to fewer offspring). Thus, I suspect there is already strong selection for femininity.
A second argument is that success in the workplace in many cases depends on being attractive. Attractive, feminine women get more career breaks, hence they may be more likely to have decreased fitness. Not to mention that attractive people are often more intelligent, as both intelligence and attractiveness are partially depended on health which in turn depends on genetic factors.
[1] Lesbians on the other hand are (i) fewer than male homosexuals, and (ii) have a much easier option of having kids if they choose to. Hence increased lesbianism and increased male homosexuality do not balance each other out.
[2] This would affect the frequency of feminine phenotypes but would probably be counterbalanced by improved cosmetic technologies which are leading to a more efficient phenotypic feminization of women.
October 07, 2004
The origin of ethnocentrism
As I have mentioned previously, I doubt that ethnocentrism is adaptive, i.e., that it is due to genetic factors and that it has evolved. In this post, I will discuss my views on the origin of ethnocentrism. But, before I get into that, I'll summarize the evidence which leads me to doubting a "genetically induced ethnocentrism."
First, altruistic acts to co-ethnics are usually detrimental to one's genetic interests, because co-ethnics are much further removed genetically than your close kin. So, you can't afford to spend too much on them (in terms of fitness), and not only do you have to spend a little on them but you also need to benefit many of them to realize any benefit in terms of "inclusive fitness".
Second, an argument from history: time and again peoples have allied themselves with alien peoples against their co-ethnics, e.g., in WWII, where the northern Europoid Germans allied with the southern Europoid Italians and Mongoloid Japanese against the northern Europoid Anglo-Americans and Slavs.
Third, an argument from historical change, e.g., the transformation of Germans from ultra-ethnocentrics of c. 1940 to quite non-ethnocentric today, or of the Japanese from aggressive ethnocentrics to mild passive ones, or of the Americans who restricted immigration in the 1920s to the Americans who opened the gates of the USA to the Races of Mankind in the 1960s. Or, of the Jews who have have thousands of years of history transitioning between aggressive ethnocentrism, passive ethnocentrism, assimilationism/internationalism.
Fourth, again from history, the evidence of so many irrational "last stands" where people have chosen to be anhilated (reducing their genetic fitness to 0) rather than be enslaved (thus maintaining some genetic fitness), i.e., ethnocentric behavior that does not make sense in terms of genetic fitness.
Such arguments lead me to the conclusion that ethnocentrism is usually maladaptive, and thus cannot have possibly been selected for. But, this still leaves us with the experience of ethnocentrism. So, if ethnocentrism exists, and it is not adaptive, why does it exist?
In my view, ethnocentrism is a learned behavior (cf. third argument above). No one is "born" to be ethnocentric. Everyone learns to be ethnocentric as part of the socialization process. To see why this is the case, consider the many millions of immigrants to the US (in the days before globalization and multiculturalism) who have happily shed one ethnic identity for another. Or, the Janissaries, tied by "shared genetic interests" with Greeks and Slavs, but fighting for the Muslim Ottoman genetic interests due to the fact that they learned a Muslim Ottoman ethnic identity. Or all those who have acquired an internationalist perspective due to travelling the world or being exposed to internationalist ideology.
It must be emphasized that ethnocentrism is impossible without an ethnic identity. And an ethnic identity is socially constructed; no one is born with a knowledge or tendency of being e.g., German. You become a member of an ethnic group. Note that this has nothing to do with choosing your ethnic group; it simply states that we don't have hard-wired ethnicities.
Let's take four examples to see why this is the case. We will cover all possible combinations of genetic proximity and current level of "ethnocentrism":
The ethnicity meme [1] is of course successful, as nearly all living humans are part of an ethnic group and have various degrees of ethnocentrism. There is need for an explanation for its success.
I have no doubt that the origin of the ethnicity meme must be sought in kinship groups. Proto-ethnic groups were nothing more than kinship groups consisting of a few families. In that sense their ethnocentrism would make sense in terms of kin selection, due to the high relatedness coeffciient between their members. The origin of ethnic groups in kinship groups explains much of the language of ethnicity (e.g., fatherland, brothers, etc.), but it would be a mistake to think that ethnic groups are maintained by extended family ties.
The origin of proper "large" ethnic groups must be sought in the Neolithic period, when the aggregation of tribes into larger units based on systems of trade and exchange and complex political organization first become possible.
These new ethnic groups were no longer homogeneous, as they consisted of unrelated tribes which had adopted common cultural elements, spoke the same language or recognized the same "king'.
These groups were no longer genetically homogeneous, at least not enough for kin nepotism to justify most altruistic acts in favor of co-ethnics. On the other hand, their existence was profitable to both their members (since civilization depends on large numbers) and to their rulers. For this reason, large ethnic groups were successful.
The ethnicity meme was cemented by two forces: the psychological profit of belonging in a large, or illustrious group, and the fear of "not-belonging" or "rejection from the tribe" which feeds on the universal human need for social contact.
Both these psychological mechanisms are self-evident and they express perfectly the historical record of ethnocentrism, unlike genetic rationalizations for the same phenomena.
For example, the Hellenic ethnicity spread, according to Thucydides at least, as different "tribes" associated themselves with "Hellen and his sons". Clearly, the Proto-Hellenic ethnic group's prestige was what led to many people being added to its ranks, and this process continued into historical times.
Or, we may look at the spread of the Roman ethnicity, which spread from a small Italian town to the point where millions around the Mediterranean considered themselves to be Roman. More recently, we see the expansion of the Magyars in Hungary, a relatively minor element growing in numbers due to its prestige as conquerors of Pannonia.
But, the opposite phenomenon is also seen, e.g., the anhilation of Celtic ethnicity after the Romans conquered the Gauls, or of (almost) all ethnicities of Asia Minor when Alexander conquered Asia.
Ethnicity is also maintained by fear, e.g., the fear of shame which led the Spartans to death rather to defeat, or the Souliotes over the cliff. It is the same fear which ensures that young men will always be ready to die for their country [2], since the opposite would bring shame.
Conclusions
Ethnocentrism is the attitude of aiding one's ethnic group even at personal expense. While this sometimes increases a person's inclusive fitness, it most often does not. Therefore, ethnocentrism is generally not an adaptive trait, and hence cannot have evolved. Instead, it is proposed that ethnocentrism is dependent on the creation of an ethnic identity, and ethnic identity emerges from the need of small tribes and individuals to join forces for mutual benefit, and from the desire of rulers to control many individuals and to extend their power. However, this still leaves the question open on why ethnocentrism is such a popular cultural element, and it is proposed that it persists because it serves a psychological need (a feeling of power and belonging), while its dissolution is tagged with costs of rejection and shame.
Notes
[1] I don't particularly like the idea of "memes", but in this case it fits quite well the origin and development of ethnic identities,.
[2] Of course when ethnic identity is eroded, as in e.g., the USA, most young men are not ready to die for their country.
First, altruistic acts to co-ethnics are usually detrimental to one's genetic interests, because co-ethnics are much further removed genetically than your close kin. So, you can't afford to spend too much on them (in terms of fitness), and not only do you have to spend a little on them but you also need to benefit many of them to realize any benefit in terms of "inclusive fitness".
Second, an argument from history: time and again peoples have allied themselves with alien peoples against their co-ethnics, e.g., in WWII, where the northern Europoid Germans allied with the southern Europoid Italians and Mongoloid Japanese against the northern Europoid Anglo-Americans and Slavs.
Third, an argument from historical change, e.g., the transformation of Germans from ultra-ethnocentrics of c. 1940 to quite non-ethnocentric today, or of the Japanese from aggressive ethnocentrics to mild passive ones, or of the Americans who restricted immigration in the 1920s to the Americans who opened the gates of the USA to the Races of Mankind in the 1960s. Or, of the Jews who have have thousands of years of history transitioning between aggressive ethnocentrism, passive ethnocentrism, assimilationism/internationalism.
Fourth, again from history, the evidence of so many irrational "last stands" where people have chosen to be anhilated (reducing their genetic fitness to 0) rather than be enslaved (thus maintaining some genetic fitness), i.e., ethnocentric behavior that does not make sense in terms of genetic fitness.
Such arguments lead me to the conclusion that ethnocentrism is usually maladaptive, and thus cannot have possibly been selected for. But, this still leaves us with the experience of ethnocentrism. So, if ethnocentrism exists, and it is not adaptive, why does it exist?
In my view, ethnocentrism is a learned behavior (cf. third argument above). No one is "born" to be ethnocentric. Everyone learns to be ethnocentric as part of the socialization process. To see why this is the case, consider the many millions of immigrants to the US (in the days before globalization and multiculturalism) who have happily shed one ethnic identity for another. Or, the Janissaries, tied by "shared genetic interests" with Greeks and Slavs, but fighting for the Muslim Ottoman genetic interests due to the fact that they learned a Muslim Ottoman ethnic identity. Or all those who have acquired an internationalist perspective due to travelling the world or being exposed to internationalist ideology.
It must be emphasized that ethnocentrism is impossible without an ethnic identity. And an ethnic identity is socially constructed; no one is born with a knowledge or tendency of being e.g., German. You become a member of an ethnic group. Note that this has nothing to do with choosing your ethnic group; it simply states that we don't have hard-wired ethnicities.
Let's take four examples to see why this is the case. We will cover all possible combinations of genetic proximity and current level of "ethnocentrism":
- Imagine that Bosnian Muslim and Christian children are abducted and raised in a far away land where they are told that they are part of the same group. Clearly, there would be no ethnocentrism in this example, as their ethnic identities are non-genetic in origin.
- Now, imagine that in a Catholic nation, a new sect appears which opposes Catholicism [you don't actually have to imagine this if you know something about the Reformation]. Members of this sect start aggregating in new places of worship and adopt various new cultural traits distinguishing them from the Catholics. Again, the two groups are not genetically different, although with continued separation they may eventually become so. But still, members of the two groups will become ethnocentric, supporting members of the in-group.
- Then, imagine that Japanese and White Californian children are brought up by ethnocentric leaders, which teach them to dislike white and mongoloid people respectively.
- Or, conversely imagine a time machine transporting young would-be kamikaze from Imperial Japan into 21st century California and raising them as "Americans".
The ethnicity meme [1] is of course successful, as nearly all living humans are part of an ethnic group and have various degrees of ethnocentrism. There is need for an explanation for its success.
I have no doubt that the origin of the ethnicity meme must be sought in kinship groups. Proto-ethnic groups were nothing more than kinship groups consisting of a few families. In that sense their ethnocentrism would make sense in terms of kin selection, due to the high relatedness coeffciient between their members. The origin of ethnic groups in kinship groups explains much of the language of ethnicity (e.g., fatherland, brothers, etc.), but it would be a mistake to think that ethnic groups are maintained by extended family ties.
The origin of proper "large" ethnic groups must be sought in the Neolithic period, when the aggregation of tribes into larger units based on systems of trade and exchange and complex political organization first become possible.
These new ethnic groups were no longer homogeneous, as they consisted of unrelated tribes which had adopted common cultural elements, spoke the same language or recognized the same "king'.
These groups were no longer genetically homogeneous, at least not enough for kin nepotism to justify most altruistic acts in favor of co-ethnics. On the other hand, their existence was profitable to both their members (since civilization depends on large numbers) and to their rulers. For this reason, large ethnic groups were successful.
The ethnicity meme was cemented by two forces: the psychological profit of belonging in a large, or illustrious group, and the fear of "not-belonging" or "rejection from the tribe" which feeds on the universal human need for social contact.
Both these psychological mechanisms are self-evident and they express perfectly the historical record of ethnocentrism, unlike genetic rationalizations for the same phenomena.
For example, the Hellenic ethnicity spread, according to Thucydides at least, as different "tribes" associated themselves with "Hellen and his sons". Clearly, the Proto-Hellenic ethnic group's prestige was what led to many people being added to its ranks, and this process continued into historical times.
Or, we may look at the spread of the Roman ethnicity, which spread from a small Italian town to the point where millions around the Mediterranean considered themselves to be Roman. More recently, we see the expansion of the Magyars in Hungary, a relatively minor element growing in numbers due to its prestige as conquerors of Pannonia.
But, the opposite phenomenon is also seen, e.g., the anhilation of Celtic ethnicity after the Romans conquered the Gauls, or of (almost) all ethnicities of Asia Minor when Alexander conquered Asia.
Ethnicity is also maintained by fear, e.g., the fear of shame which led the Spartans to death rather to defeat, or the Souliotes over the cliff. It is the same fear which ensures that young men will always be ready to die for their country [2], since the opposite would bring shame.
Conclusions
Ethnocentrism is the attitude of aiding one's ethnic group even at personal expense. While this sometimes increases a person's inclusive fitness, it most often does not. Therefore, ethnocentrism is generally not an adaptive trait, and hence cannot have evolved. Instead, it is proposed that ethnocentrism is dependent on the creation of an ethnic identity, and ethnic identity emerges from the need of small tribes and individuals to join forces for mutual benefit, and from the desire of rulers to control many individuals and to extend their power. However, this still leaves the question open on why ethnocentrism is such a popular cultural element, and it is proposed that it persists because it serves a psychological need (a feeling of power and belonging), while its dissolution is tagged with costs of rejection and shame.
Notes
[1] I don't particularly like the idea of "memes", but in this case it fits quite well the origin and development of ethnic identities,.
[2] Of course when ethnic identity is eroded, as in e.g., the USA, most young men are not ready to die for their country.
October 06, 2004
Math education responsible for rising IQ
On the heels of a previous study which proposed that better nutrition of the less privileged is responsible for increases in mean IQ, a new study proposes that the education system has played this role.
Intelligence (In Press)
Rising mean IQ: Cognitive demand of mathematics education for young children, population exposure to formal schooling, and the neurobiology of the prefrontal cortex
Clancy Blair et al.
Abstract
This paper proposes one potential explanation for 100 years of rising population mean IQ in the United States associated with historical changes in access to schooling and educational practice. A neurodevelopmental-schooling hypothesis is forwarded based on evidence of growth in the population's access to schooling early in the last century and the increasing cognitive demands of mathematical curricula from mid-century onward. The fact that these educational changes have been widespread, affect individuals early in the lifespan, and are uncorrelated with genetic propensity for IQ makes them particularly well suited to produce large environmentally driven gains in intelligence between generations in the face of high heritability for intelligence. Future directions for research that would test the neurodevelopment-schooling hypothesis are described.
Link
Intelligence (In Press)
Rising mean IQ: Cognitive demand of mathematics education for young children, population exposure to formal schooling, and the neurobiology of the prefrontal cortex
Clancy Blair et al.
Abstract
This paper proposes one potential explanation for 100 years of rising population mean IQ in the United States associated with historical changes in access to schooling and educational practice. A neurodevelopmental-schooling hypothesis is forwarded based on evidence of growth in the population's access to schooling early in the last century and the increasing cognitive demands of mathematical curricula from mid-century onward. The fact that these educational changes have been widespread, affect individuals early in the lifespan, and are uncorrelated with genetic propensity for IQ makes them particularly well suited to produce large environmentally driven gains in intelligence between generations in the face of high heritability for intelligence. Future directions for research that would test the neurodevelopment-schooling hypothesis are described.
Link
Hamilton's Rule or Why Ethnic Nepotism is not (usually) Adaptive
Continuing the previous entry on Ethnic Nepotism and Kin Selection to make the points raised there more formal. The bedrock of kin selection theory is Hamilton's rule, which states that altruistic behavior of X towards an individual Y is adaptive depending on three factors:
Sure, it's better to do an altruistic act for a co-ethnic than a foreigner. But it's better in the sense that you lose less if you help a co-ethnic than a foreigner. Your genes don't gain anything in either case. Altruism is adaptive for your close kin. Altruism for your co-ethnics or foreigners is (usually) a strictly lose or lose-more proposition.
- The relatedness r of X to Y
- The cost C of the altruistic behavior (reduction in fitness of X)
- The benefit B of the altruistic behavior (increase in fitness of Y)
Sure, it's better to do an altruistic act for a co-ethnic than a foreigner. But it's better in the sense that you lose less if you help a co-ethnic than a foreigner. Your genes don't gain anything in either case. Altruism is adaptive for your close kin. Altruism for your co-ethnics or foreigners is (usually) a strictly lose or lose-more proposition.
October 05, 2004
Havelock Ellis on British brunettes
I had previously written about Havelock Ellis' study at the National Portrait Gallery. Recently, I came across an interesting excerpt by Ellis, which confirms my impression that brunettes are overrepresented in the British aristocracy, and gives an evolutionary explanation for this phenomenon. His explanation ties in quite well with my theory on the evolution of blondness. In summary, my theory holds that:
Of course, I personally accept the last point of the above list, but it is possible that I might be biased. I had previously discovered a BBC Story which seemed to confirm my opinion. It was thus pleasantly surprising to see that this preference for dark hair is nothing new, but was noticed almost a century ago, and indeed by Havelock Ellis, whose escapade in the National Portrait Gallery was intended to show the alleged "superiority" of blonds.
I came across this quote in Joana Pitman's rather fluffy book On Blondes, p. 168, citing Ellis in The Monthly Review, August 1901. Ellis' words are in quotes (')
It would certainly be interesting to do an experiment that would confirm this theory. I can think of two possible setups:
- Hair acts like a frame, emphasizing facial features.
- Light hair "softens" features, while dark hair makes them more prominent, just as a frame draws attention to the painting.
- Women with "hard" features have a higher reproductive fitness if they are blond, since they look more feminine, due to the above-mentioned softening effect.
- Hence, there is sexual selection in favor of light hair which however operates primarily on facially robust and un-feminine populations.
- This selection allows the robust and un-feminine characteristics to persist if they are linked with light hair; by contrast, in a brunet population, sexual selection operates on facial characteristics alone, leading to a swifter selection for facial beauty.
- Superior beauty is primarily a function of facial features, and since (i) good facial features are enhanced by framing, and (ii) brunet populations evolve towards a more attractive facial structure faster, it follows that brunettes are on average more attractive than blondes facially.
Of course, I personally accept the last point of the above list, but it is possible that I might be biased. I had previously discovered a BBC Story which seemed to confirm my opinion. It was thus pleasantly surprising to see that this preference for dark hair is nothing new, but was noticed almost a century ago, and indeed by Havelock Ellis, whose escapade in the National Portrait Gallery was intended to show the alleged "superiority" of blonds.
I came across this quote in Joana Pitman's rather fluffy book On Blondes, p. 168, citing Ellis in The Monthly Review, August 1901. Ellis' words are in quotes (')
The low position of the hereditary aristocracy [DP: low in "blondness"] was also explained by infusions of foreign blood, and because 'peers have been in a position to select as wives... the most beautiful women, and there can be little doubt that the most beautiful women, at all events in our own country, have tended more to be dark than to be fair. This is proved by the low index of pigmentation of the famous beauties in the Gallery.'
It would certainly be interesting to do an experiment that would confirm this theory. I can think of two possible setups:
- Artificially change the pigmentation of women photos, and determine whether attractiveness ratings improve when unattractive brunettes are given light hair and deteriorate when unattractive blondes are given dark hair, and that no or the opposite effect occurs from attractive women of either color.
- Compare random samples of blondes from a naturally blond population (e.g., from Sweden) with a random sample of brunettes from a naturally brunet one (e.g., from Spain) after removing the differences in hair color.
High-resolution typing of HLA-DRB1 locus
I have written elsewhere on Arthur Kemp's against his misuse of genetic studies to "prove" the supposed significant African admixture in the Greek population. Recently, Racial Reality created an informative article on the same topic.
Even though we should be cautious about generalizations based on single-locus studies, a recent article examining the HLA-DRB1 locus has shown that Greeks and "Macedonians", as well as other Balkan populations all cluster together and are separate from Africans, pace Kemp.
Tissue Antigens, Volume 64 Issue 4 Page 486 - October 2004
High-resolution typing of HLA-DRB1 locus in the Macedonian population
A. Petlichkovski et al.
Abstract: The Macedonian population is of special interest for HLA anthropological study in the light of unanswered questions regarding its origin and relationship with other populations, especially the neighbouring Balkanians. Two studies have been performed to examine HLA molecular polymorphism in the Macedonian population, so far. The present study is the first to be performed in Macedonia using high-resolution sequence-based method for direct HLA typing. The study included 158 unrelated healthy volunteers of Macedonian origin and nationality, having a Christian Orthodox religion. After the simultaneous amplification of exon-2 on both HLA-DRB1 alleles, DNA sequencing was used for genotype assignment. In the 158 samples analysed, all 316 alleles were typed and a total of 29 different DRB1 alleles were detected, with DRB1*1601 being the most frequent allele (14.9%), followed by DRB1*1104 (13.9%). A phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of the high-resolution data deriving from other populations revealed the clustering of Macedonians together with other Balkan populations (Greeks, Croats, Turks and Romanians) and Sardinians, close to another "European" cluster consisting of the Italian, French, Danish, Polish and Spanish populations. The included African populations grouped on the opposite side of the tree.
Link
Even though we should be cautious about generalizations based on single-locus studies, a recent article examining the HLA-DRB1 locus has shown that Greeks and "Macedonians", as well as other Balkan populations all cluster together and are separate from Africans, pace Kemp.
Tissue Antigens, Volume 64 Issue 4 Page 486 - October 2004
High-resolution typing of HLA-DRB1 locus in the Macedonian population
A. Petlichkovski et al.
Abstract: The Macedonian population is of special interest for HLA anthropological study in the light of unanswered questions regarding its origin and relationship with other populations, especially the neighbouring Balkanians. Two studies have been performed to examine HLA molecular polymorphism in the Macedonian population, so far. The present study is the first to be performed in Macedonia using high-resolution sequence-based method for direct HLA typing. The study included 158 unrelated healthy volunteers of Macedonian origin and nationality, having a Christian Orthodox religion. After the simultaneous amplification of exon-2 on both HLA-DRB1 alleles, DNA sequencing was used for genotype assignment. In the 158 samples analysed, all 316 alleles were typed and a total of 29 different DRB1 alleles were detected, with DRB1*1601 being the most frequent allele (14.9%), followed by DRB1*1104 (13.9%). A phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of the high-resolution data deriving from other populations revealed the clustering of Macedonians together with other Balkan populations (Greeks, Croats, Turks and Romanians) and Sardinians, close to another "European" cluster consisting of the Italian, French, Danish, Polish and Spanish populations. The included African populations grouped on the opposite side of the tree.
Link
October 04, 2004
Arab scholar 'cracked Rosetta code' 800 years before the West
Robin McKie, science editor
Sunday October 3, 2004
The Observer
It is famed as a critical moment in code-breaking history. Using a piece of basalt carved with runes and words, scholars broke the secret of hieroglyphs, the written 'language' of the ancient Egyptians.
A baffling, opaque language had been made comprehensible, and the secrets of one of the world's greatest civilisations revealed - thanks to the Rosetta Stone and the analytic prowess of 18th and 19th century European scholars.
But now the supremacy of Western thinking has been challenged by a London researcher who claims that hieroglyphs had been decoded hundreds of years earlier - by an Arabic alchemist, Abu Bakr Ahmad Ibn Wahshiyah.
'It has taken years of painstaking research to prove this,' said Dr Okasha El Daly, at UCL's Institute of Archaeology. 'I was convinced that Western scholars were not the first, and I have found evidence that shows Arabian scholars broke the code a thousand years ago.'
Link
Sunday October 3, 2004
The Observer
It is famed as a critical moment in code-breaking history. Using a piece of basalt carved with runes and words, scholars broke the secret of hieroglyphs, the written 'language' of the ancient Egyptians.
A baffling, opaque language had been made comprehensible, and the secrets of one of the world's greatest civilisations revealed - thanks to the Rosetta Stone and the analytic prowess of 18th and 19th century European scholars.
But now the supremacy of Western thinking has been challenged by a London researcher who claims that hieroglyphs had been decoded hundreds of years earlier - by an Arabic alchemist, Abu Bakr Ahmad Ibn Wahshiyah.
'It has taken years of painstaking research to prove this,' said Dr Okasha El Daly, at UCL's Institute of Archaeology. 'I was convinced that Western scholars were not the first, and I have found evidence that shows Arabian scholars broke the code a thousand years ago.'
Link
October 02, 2004
Genetic vs. Mythical Origins
Many peoples around the world have origin stories regarding their common ancestors. It is now possible to determine whether these stories have a basis in reality, or whether they are simply common myths. A new study tries to answer this question for several ethnic groups from Uzbekistan. As the authors point out, these are very conservative, previously nomadic, patrilineal groups with elaborate genealogies going up to 60 generations. By studying their Y-chromosomes the authors examine whether or not they share an ancestor at the various kinship levels recognized by them: lineage, clan and tribe. It is shown that lineages do in fact have common ancestors, whereas tribal ancestors are largely mythological. Thus, tribes may be formed by the coming together of various clans who invent a mythological ancestor to justify their union.
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 75:000, 2004
The Genetic or Mythical Ancestry of Descent Groups: Lessons from the Y Chromosome
Raphaëlle Chaix et al.
Traditional societies are often organized into descent groups called "lineages," "clans," and "tribes." Each of these descent groups claims to have a common ancestor, and this ancestry distinguishes the group's members from the rest of the population. To test the hypothesis of common ancestry within these groups, we compared ethnological and genetic data from five Central Asian populations. We show that, although people from the same lineage and clan share generally a recent common ancestor, no such common ancestry is observed at the tribal level. Thus, a tribe might be a conglomerate of clans who subsequently invented a mythical ancestor to strengthen group unity.
Link
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 75:000, 2004
The Genetic or Mythical Ancestry of Descent Groups: Lessons from the Y Chromosome
Raphaëlle Chaix et al.
Traditional societies are often organized into descent groups called "lineages," "clans," and "tribes." Each of these descent groups claims to have a common ancestor, and this ancestry distinguishes the group's members from the rest of the population. To test the hypothesis of common ancestry within these groups, we compared ethnological and genetic data from five Central Asian populations. We show that, although people from the same lineage and clan share generally a recent common ancestor, no such common ancestry is observed at the tribal level. Thus, a tribe might be a conglomerate of clans who subsequently invented a mythical ancestor to strengthen group unity.
Link
Phylogeny of mtDNA haplogroup N in India
Many new mtDNA studies including the previously posted one on mtDNA haplogroup H are based on complete sequencing of mtDNA, allowing for a very detailed phylogenetic study of the populations examined. This is much easier for mtDNA compared to chromosomal DNA, since the former is much shorter. Studies based on complete sequencing typically have to use small samples, but the resulting phylogenetic knowledge can then be applied to larger population samples, by testing only the informative polymorphic loci discovered.
A new study examines Indian mtDNA in this manner, and especially the macrohaplogroup N, which reaches its highest frequencies in Caucasoid populations, although its specific subclades are found in non-Caucasoids, e.g., Australoids. Most Indian matrilineages belong to a different maclohaprogroup, M, which is shared with the Mongoloids, although Indians harbor clades different from those of Mongoloids, indicating that they are both descended from ancient "Proto-Asian" populations. Both M and N predate the emergence of the modern racial divisions of mankind.
Macrohaplogroup N is shared between Indians and West Eurasians but as this new paper indicates, in India it contains clades likely to be the result of admixture with West Eurasians, but also more ancient clades lacking in West Eurasia; these latter ones are indigenous to India, representing its earliest colonization.
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 75:000, 2004
Phylogeny of Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup N in India, Based on Complete Sequencing: Implications for the Peopling of South Asia
Malliya gounder Palanichamy et al.
To resolve the phylogeny of the autochthonous mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups of India and determine the relationship between the Indian and western Eurasian mtDNA pools more precisely, a diverse subset of 75 macrohaplogroup N lineages was chosen for complete sequencing from a collection of >800 control-region sequences sampled across India. We identified five new autochthonous haplogroups (R7, R8, R30, R31, and N5) and fully characterized the autochthonous haplogroups (R5, R6, N1d, U2a, U2b, and U2c) that were previously described only by first hypervariable segment (HVS-I) sequencing and coding-region restriction-fragment–length polymorphism analysis. Our findings demonstrate that the Indian mtDNA pool, even when restricted to macrohaplogroup N, harbors at least as many deepest-branching lineages as the western Eurasian mtDNA pool. Moreover, the distribution of the earliest branches within haplogroups M, N, and R across Eurasia and Oceania provides additional evidence for a three-founder-mtDNA scenario and a single migration route out of Africa.
Link
A new study examines Indian mtDNA in this manner, and especially the macrohaplogroup N, which reaches its highest frequencies in Caucasoid populations, although its specific subclades are found in non-Caucasoids, e.g., Australoids. Most Indian matrilineages belong to a different maclohaprogroup, M, which is shared with the Mongoloids, although Indians harbor clades different from those of Mongoloids, indicating that they are both descended from ancient "Proto-Asian" populations. Both M and N predate the emergence of the modern racial divisions of mankind.
Macrohaplogroup N is shared between Indians and West Eurasians but as this new paper indicates, in India it contains clades likely to be the result of admixture with West Eurasians, but also more ancient clades lacking in West Eurasia; these latter ones are indigenous to India, representing its earliest colonization.
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 75:000, 2004
Phylogeny of Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup N in India, Based on Complete Sequencing: Implications for the Peopling of South Asia
Malliya gounder Palanichamy et al.
To resolve the phylogeny of the autochthonous mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups of India and determine the relationship between the Indian and western Eurasian mtDNA pools more precisely, a diverse subset of 75 macrohaplogroup N lineages was chosen for complete sequencing from a collection of >800 control-region sequences sampled across India. We identified five new autochthonous haplogroups (R7, R8, R30, R31, and N5) and fully characterized the autochthonous haplogroups (R5, R6, N1d, U2a, U2b, and U2c) that were previously described only by first hypervariable segment (HVS-I) sequencing and coding-region restriction-fragment–length polymorphism analysis. Our findings demonstrate that the Indian mtDNA pool, even when restricted to macrohaplogroup N, harbors at least as many deepest-branching lineages as the western Eurasian mtDNA pool. Moreover, the distribution of the earliest branches within haplogroups M, N, and R across Eurasia and Oceania provides additional evidence for a three-founder-mtDNA scenario and a single migration route out of Africa.
Link
October 01, 2004
Kin Selection and Ethnic Nepotism
First, Richard Dawkins wrote an article on race. Then Steve Sailer commented on it. Jason Malloy of Gene Expression replied, critiquing Sailer's assessment of Dawkins. And then, the discussion started. Much of the discussion revolves around an article by Frank Salter, which proposes that we are as related to our co-ethnics (relative to mankind) as we are to our cousins relative to our co-ethnics. In other words, Frank Salter proposes a genetic basis for ethnic nepotism.
The analogy between the degree of relatedness between a person and their cousin (against an ethnic group genetic background) and a person and members of their ethnic groups (against the genetic background of the species) is accurate, but potentially misleading.
To see why this is the case, imagine that each person has a $-value depending on how close they are genetically to us. Let's say that the average human has a value of $1, the average member of our ethnic group has a value of $10, and our cousin has a value of $100.
So, our cousin is "more valuable" to us (relative to our co-ethnics) and our co-ethnics are "more valuable" to us (relative to our co-humans).
But, we share many more polymorphisms with our cousin than we do with our co-ethnics than we do with our co-humans. So, in relative terms the analogy of me-cousin-coethnic with me-coethnic-cohuman is equivalent (ratio of 1:10), but in absolute terms, i.e., the number of my alleles in polymorphic loci, I am getting a $90 profit by preferring my cousin over my coethnic, whereas I get a $9 profit by preferring my coethnic over my cohuman. Genetic ethnic nepotism predisposition (if it exists) is a much weaker force than kin nepotism predisposition.
Now, suppose that there is an "ethnic nepotism" allele, a genetic predisposition to get into trouble for persons of our ethnic group. Is it plausible that such an allele would be adaptive, especially for race-level groups?
The answer is probably no, due to the fact that the set of different "actions" which would increase such an allele's prevalence is limited. It's only the more "dramatic" actions that benefit many of my coethnics at my expense that would have this effect, but the opportunity for such actions is rare, both because dramatic acts are rare in themselves, and also because for the greater part of human prehistory and history human groups had limited interaction with other racial groups.
The analogy between the degree of relatedness between a person and their cousin (against an ethnic group genetic background) and a person and members of their ethnic groups (against the genetic background of the species) is accurate, but potentially misleading.
To see why this is the case, imagine that each person has a $-value depending on how close they are genetically to us. Let's say that the average human has a value of $1, the average member of our ethnic group has a value of $10, and our cousin has a value of $100.
So, our cousin is "more valuable" to us (relative to our co-ethnics) and our co-ethnics are "more valuable" to us (relative to our co-humans).
But, we share many more polymorphisms with our cousin than we do with our co-ethnics than we do with our co-humans. So, in relative terms the analogy of me-cousin-coethnic with me-coethnic-cohuman is equivalent (ratio of 1:10), but in absolute terms, i.e., the number of my alleles in polymorphic loci, I am getting a $90 profit by preferring my cousin over my coethnic, whereas I get a $9 profit by preferring my coethnic over my cohuman. Genetic ethnic nepotism predisposition (if it exists) is a much weaker force than kin nepotism predisposition.
Now, suppose that there is an "ethnic nepotism" allele, a genetic predisposition to get into trouble for persons of our ethnic group. Is it plausible that such an allele would be adaptive, especially for race-level groups?
The answer is probably no, due to the fact that the set of different "actions" which would increase such an allele's prevalence is limited. It's only the more "dramatic" actions that benefit many of my coethnics at my expense that would have this effect, but the opportunity for such actions is rare, both because dramatic acts are rare in themselves, and also because for the greater part of human prehistory and history human groups had limited interaction with other racial groups.
New crack at riddle of Knossos
The Culture Ministry has given the go-ahead for a seismological study that might help provide a scientific answer to one of the most tantalizing questions of Greek archaeology: What caused the collapse of the flourishing Minoan culture on Crete some 3,500 years ago?
LinkShambala Found ?
A Russian expedition headed by a member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Yuri Zakharov has established the exact location of the capital of the ancient state of Shambala – the mystical center revered by many religions and philosophers all over the World.
Link
Link
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)