含有〈种族〉标签的文章(15)

遗传差异与文化进化

【2017-10-14】

Richerson&Boyd模型的另一个相对外围的问题是,他们认为群体间遗传差异很小且对文化进化不构成什么影响,他们用来支持该判断的仅有证据来自跨文化收养研究,这是缺乏说服力的。 ​​​​

确实,跨文化/跨种族被收养者(稍低程度上也包括二代以上移民)都能顺利习得当地文化并正常生活于其中,但这并不表明:1)当一个群体的成员被大部分或全部替换成另一个种族或文化不同的群体成员时,其原有文化仍可保持,2)当外部条件适宜时,任何群体都能采纳某种特定文化。

这里的要害是:一种文化结构(包括制度(more...)

标签: | | |
7827
【2017-10-14】 Richerson&Boyd模型的另一个相对外围的问题是,他们认为群体间遗传差异很小且对文化进化不构成什么影响,他们用来支持该判断的仅有证据来自跨文化收养研究,这是缺乏说服力的。 ​​​​ 确实,跨文化/跨种族被收养者(稍低程度上也包括二代以上移民)都能顺利习得当地文化并正常生活于其中,但这并不表明:1)当一个群体的成员被大部分或全部替换成另一个种族或文化不同的群体成员时,其原有文化仍可保持,2)当外部条件适宜时,任何群体都能采纳某种特定文化。 这里的要害是:一种文化结构(包括制度)得以产生和维持,可能取决于某些特定个人禀赋,拥有这些禀赋的个体在群体中的比例可能很低(比如1%),但不能没有,也不能低于某个下限(比如0.1%),假如这些禀赋的分布曲线只要向左移动一个标准差,该文化便难以为继。 假设群体A的这组禀赋比群体B高一个标准差,那么,即便来自群体B的移民都可顺利习得A的文化且正常生活于其中,可一旦群体A的人口被来自B的移民替换掉一半,原有文化即可能瓦解 容易想到的此类禀赋有:道德感,尽责性,实施惩罚的意愿,亲社会性,智力,延迟满足,自我克制…… 假如盎格鲁文化需要80%的群体成员具有亲社会性,70%中等以上延迟满足,60%中等以上尽责性,10%强惩罚意愿,1%120以上智商……任何几条的大幅改变可能都是颠覆性的 很明显,这组条件与少量移民顺利融入和正常生活的可能性完全不矛盾 比如,道德规范,一个社区中,可能只要60%的人具有中等以上道德感,规范即可产生,再加上5%的人有强道德感和强惩罚意愿,规范便可稳定持续,但只要分布曲线偏离一个标准差,局面完全不同 极端情形下(其实我觉得很可能),文化的某些重要方面可能仅仅由群体0.1%精英成员的禀赋所决定,此时分布曲线的轻微移动即可让这0.1%变得不合格 回复@慕容飞宇gg:嗯,但那是另一个问题,我正在论证的是:即便最完美融入条件下也不行//@慕容飞宇gg:外来移民不是随机或均匀发布,而是集中在某些区域形成移民小社区,而在这些区域内移民比例远高于宿主,所以一开始就不会被同化。  
阻断自然选择

【2017-10-06】

第一第二代进化论者通常也是古典自由主义者,第三第四代进化论者里却冒出了大批进步主义者、种族主义者和强制优生论者,这是怎么回事?奥秘在于福利制度,作为进化论者,他们很容易看出福利制度逆转选择压力的效果,这是对的,错误在于他们自负且狂妄到想要扮演上帝的角色。

在我们达尔萨斯主义者看来,通过育种计划来改进人类的想法是幼稚可笑的,消除福利制度,让自然选择在和平条件下继续起作用,才是正道。

类似的错误也发生在种族和民族问题上,常有人将我们的特殊(more...)

标签: | | |
7809
【2017-10-06】 第一第二代进化论者通常也是古典自由主义者,第三第四代进化论者里却冒出了大批进步主义者、种族主义者和强制优生论者,这是怎么回事?奥秘在于福利制度,作为进化论者,他们很容易看出福利制度逆转选择压力的效果,这是对的,错误在于他们自负且狂妄到想要扮演上帝的角色。 在我们达尔萨斯主义者看来,通过育种计划来改进人类的想法是幼稚可笑的,消除福利制度,让自然选择在和平条件下继续起作用,才是正道。 类似的错误也发生在种族和民族问题上,常有人将我们的特殊主义和alt-right中的孤立主义和白人民族主义者相混淆,其实两者之间只有肤浅的相似性。 我们达尔萨斯主义者相信,存在种族、民族和文化差异,就现代文明的存在条件而言,一些种族比另一些优秀,一些民族比另一些优秀,一些文化比另一些文化优秀,一些共同体比另一些优秀…… 但我们不会像某些alt-right那样主张孤立主义、民族主义乃至种族隔离,因为所有这些都是在试图阻断自然选择和进化过程,而优秀群体的优秀正是选择和进化的结果,他们才是最不需要把自己圈闭起来的群体,他们唯一需要的是一个和平开放自愿条件下继续展开竞争的制度条件。 诸如『不能让我们优秀民族的血统被劣等民族污染了』这种念头,只有极度自卑者才会冒出来,用关税保护本国产业的性质完全一样。  
细细的歧视

【2016-11-07】

最近闹得沸沸扬扬的亚裔细分,无非暴露了平权法的种族主义实质,所谓平权本来就是赤裸裸的种族歧视嘛,只不过没平到自己头上就体会不到,如今不光要歧视,还要细细的歧视。 ​​​​

 

标签: | | |
7779
【2016-11-07】 最近闹得沸沸扬扬的亚裔细分,无非暴露了平权法的种族主义实质,所谓平权本来就是赤裸裸的种族歧视嘛,只不过没平到自己头上就体会不到,如今不光要歧视,还要细细的歧视。 ​​​​  
[译文]令人尴尬的社会学证据

The sobering evidence of social science
来自社会科学的证据发人深省

作者:George F. Will @ 2016-07
译者:鳗鱼禅(@鳗鱼禅)
校对:龙泉(@L_Stellar)
来源:The Washington Post,https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-sobering-evidence-of-social-science/2016/07/06/4a3831f8-42dd-11e6-bc99-7d269f8719b1_story.html

The report was so “seismic” — Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s word — that Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration released it on Fourth of July weekend, 1966, hoping it would not be noticed. But the Coleman Report did disturb various dogmatic slumbers and vested interests. And 50 years on, it is pertinent to today’s political debates about class and social mobility. So, let us now praise an insufficiently famous man, sociologist James Coleman, author of the study “Equality of Educational Opportunity.”

这份报告如此‘有震撼力’,用Daniel Patrick Moynihan的话来说,以至Lyndon B. Johnson政府选择在1966年独立日前的周末发布这份报告,冀望无人留意【编注:7月4日为美国独立日,乃公共假日,Fourth of July weekend就是恰好与独立日连上的那个周末,1966年7月4日为星期一,故此周末为独立日前之周末】。但“Coleman报告”确实惊扰了教条主义者的昏睡和既得利益团体的算盘。50年后,这份报告和眼下关于阶层和社会流动性的政治辩论仍息息相关。那么,让我们赞誉一位名气还不够大的男士,研究著作《教育机会的平等》的作者,社会学家James Coleman。

In 1966, postwar liberalism’s confidence reached its apogee. From 1938, when the electorate rebuked Franklin Roosevelt for his plan to “pack” the Supreme Court, through 1964, congressional Republicans and conservative Democrats prevented a liberal legislating majority. But Johnson’s 44-state victory that year gave Democrats 68 Senate seats and a majority of 155 in the House.

1966年,战后自由主义者的自信心膨胀到最高峰。1938年,选民严厉抨击了富兰克林·罗斯福“填充最高法院”的计划。自那时至1964年,多亏国会中的共和党议员和保守派民主党议员,自由主义者未能掌握立法机构多数议席。然而,1966年,约翰逊拿下来44个联邦州,民主党人在参议院占有68席,在众议院以155席拿下多数席位。

Effortless and unint(more...)

标签: | |
7481
The sobering evidence of social science 来自社会科学的证据发人深省 作者:George F. Will @ 2016-07 译者:鳗鱼禅(@鳗鱼禅) 校对:龙泉(@L_Stellar) 来源:The Washington Post,https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-sobering-evidence-of-social-science/2016/07/06/4a3831f8-42dd-11e6-bc99-7d269f8719b1_story.html The report was so “seismic” — Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s word — that Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration released it on Fourth of July weekend, 1966, hoping it would not be noticed. But the Coleman Report did disturb various dogmatic slumbers and vested interests. And 50 years on, it is pertinent to today’s political debates about class and social mobility. So, let us now praise an insufficiently famous man, sociologist James Coleman, author of the study “Equality of Educational Opportunity.” 这份报告如此‘有震撼力’,用Daniel Patrick Moynihan的话来说,以至Lyndon B. Johnson政府选择在1966年独立日前的周末发布这份报告,冀望无人留意【编注:7月4日为美国独立日,乃公共假日,Fourth of July weekend就是恰好与独立日连上的那个周末,1966年7月4日为星期一,故此周末为独立日前之周末】。但“Coleman报告”确实惊扰了教条主义者的昏睡和既得利益团体的算盘。50年后,这份报告和眼下关于阶层和社会流动性的政治辩论仍息息相关。那么,让我们赞誉一位名气还不够大的男士,研究著作《教育机会的平等》的作者,社会学家James Coleman。 In 1966, postwar liberalism’s confidence reached its apogee. From 1938, when the electorate rebuked Franklin Roosevelt for his plan to “pack” the Supreme Court, through 1964, congressional Republicans and conservative Democrats prevented a liberal legislating majority. But Johnson’s 44-state victory that year gave Democrats 68 Senate seats and a majority of 155 in the House. 1966年,战后自由主义者的自信心膨胀到最高峰。1938年,选民严厉抨击了富兰克林·罗斯福“填充最高法院”的计划。自那时至1964年,多亏国会中的共和党议员和保守派民主党议员,自由主义者未能掌握立法机构多数议席。然而,1966年,约翰逊拿下来44个联邦州,民主党人在参议院占有68席,在众议院以155席拿下多数席位。 Effortless and uninterrupted prosperity seemed assured as the economy grew in 1965 and 1966 by 10.7 percent and 7.99 percent, respectively. So, a gusher of tax revenue coincided with liberalism’s pent-up demand for large projects. It hoped to meld two American traits — egalitarian aspirations and faith in education’s transformative power. 1965年和1966年的经济增长率分别为10.7%和7.99%,唾手可得且无间断的繁荣看似已不在话下。于是,井喷式的税入增长恰逢自由派对大项目压抑已久的热情,如同干柴烈火。自由派希望将两大美国特色融为一体——追求人人平等的志向和教育推动变革的信念。 The consensus then was that the best predictor of a school’s performance was the amount of money spent on it: Increase financial inputs, and cognitive outputs would increase proportionately. As the postwar baby boom moved through public schools like a pig through a python, almost everything improved — school buildings, teachers’ salaries, class sizes, per-pupil expenditures — except outcomes measured by standardized tests. 那时的共识是,学校经费数目是预测该校学生表现的最佳指标:增加经费投入,学生的认知水平会成比例地上升。二战后婴儿潮横扫公立学校,如同一头猪通过巨蟒体内,公立学校的任一方面几乎都比以往更上一层楼——校舍、教师薪资、班级规模、平均每个学生的经费投入——唯一的例外是由标准化考试衡量的学生表现。 Enter Coleman, and the colleagues he directed, to puncture complacency with the dagger of evidence — data from more than 3,000 schools and 600,000 primary and secondary school students. His report vindicated the axiom that social science cannot tell us what to do, it can tell us the results of what we are doing. He found that the best predictor of a school’s outcomes was the quality of the children’s families. And students’ achievements are influenced by the social capital (habits, mores, educational ambitions) their classmates bring to school: 让Coleman和受其指导的同僚上台,用证据之匕首——从3000所学校和60万名小学、初中生处收集的数据 —— 刺破自满的气球吧。Coleman的报告印证了一个公理:社会科学无法指导我们行事,它能告诉我们的是行动的后果。Coleman发现,预测某校学生表现的最佳指标是学生家庭的素质。学生的学业表现受其同学带到学校的社会资本(习惯、规矩、教育方面的进取心)的影响: “One implication stands out above all: That schools bring little influence to bear on a child’s achievement that is independent of his background and general social context; and that this very lack of an independent effect means that the inequalities imposed on children by their home, neighborhood, and peer environment are carried along to become the inequalities with which they confront adult life at the end of school.” “一个暗含推论尤为突出:将学生的家庭背景和社交圈子的影响排除后,学校教育对学生的学业成就影响极小;这意味着由家庭、社区和同侪环境带来的水平不均等,将一路伴随他们毕业,成为他们开启成人生活时面临的不均等。” Coleman’s report came exactly one year after — and as an explosive coda to — what is known as the Moynihan Report, which was leaked in July 1965. Moynihan, then a 37-year-old social scientist in Johnson’s Labor Department, presented in “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action” what then counted as shocking news: 23.6 percent of African American births were to unmarried women. Coleman的报告恰好于“Moynihan报告” 发表一年后面世,为后者燃起之火添柴加薪。 Moynihan在1965年7月被人泄露于众。当年Moynihan 37岁,是约翰逊执政下劳工部的一名社会学者,他的研究《黑人家庭:国家行动的案例》,成为令时人震惊的新闻:23.6%的非裔美籍婴儿由未婚女性所生。 Today 71 percent are. Almost 47 percent of all first births are to unmarried women, and a majority of all mothers under 30 are not living with the fathers of their children. 如今这个数字为71%。将近47%的头胎新生儿由未婚女性所生,大多数30岁以下的母亲和孩子的父亲分居。 The causes of family disintegration remain unclear, but 51 years ago Moynihan and then Coleman foresaw the consequences. Moynihan said the “tangle” of pathologies associated with the absence of fathers produces a continually renewed cohort of inadequately socialized adolescent males. Socializing them is society’s urgent business if it is to avoid chaotic neighborhoods and schools where maintaining discipline displaces teaching. Coleman documented how schools are reflections of, rather than cures for, the failure of families to function as the primary transmitters of social capital. 家庭解体的原因尚未明朗,但51年前Moynihan和Coleman先后预见到家庭解体的后果。Moynihan称,父亲缺位造成的种种困扰,源源不断地产生了一代社会化不充足的青春期男性。使他们充分社会化是社会的当务之急,否则难以避免产生混乱的社区和学校,在那里维持纪律取代了正常教学。学校本应是首要的社会资本传递途径,现在却成了家庭溃败的倒影,而非家庭溃败的解药,这一切都被Coleman记在笔下。 The extraordinary synergy between Moynihan and Coleman was serendipitous. Today, their baton of brave and useful sociology has passed to Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute. His “Losing Ground” (1984) was an autopsy of 1960s aspirations. His “Coming Apart” (2012) explores the social consequences — we are wallowing in the political consequences — of a bifurcated society in which many do very well while many others are unable to reach even the lowest rungs on the ladder of upward mobility. Moynihan和Coleman两项研究的协同增强效应,纯属意外。如今,他们勇敢、实用的社会学接力棒,传到了美国企业研究所的Charles Murray手上。Murray《站不住脚》(1984年出版)一书解剖了1960年代那场失败的壮举。他的《四分五裂》(2012年出版)一书探索了社会两极分化带来的社会后果。社会两极分化的表现是,许多人非常出色,而另外的很多人甚至连社会爬升阶梯的最低梯级都够不着,我们正在两极分化的政治后果中打滚。 Coleman’s evidence that cultural rather than financial variables matter most was not welcomed by education bureaucracies and unions. Similarly, we now have more than half a century of awkward, and often ignored, evidence about the mostly small and evanescent effects of early-childhood education. Today’s Democratic Party fancies itself “the party of science”; Barack Obama pledged, in his first inaugural address, to “restore science to its rightful place.” Social science, however, is respected by Democrats only when it validates policies congenial to the interests of favored factions. 比起经费投入,文化因素是最重要的影响变量,教育官僚机构和工会并不青睐Coleman提出的证据。与此情况相仿,早期儿童教育效果微弱,转瞬即逝,这方面令人尴尬、常被忽略的证据,我们已经积累了50多年了。如今民主党幻想自身为“科学之党”;贝拉克·奥巴马在他首个总统任期的就职演讲中,誓言“恢复科学理应占有的地位。”然而,仅在社会科学论证支持的政策有利于民主党所偏袒的利益团体时,民主党人才会尊重社会科学。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]一所杰出黑人中学的毁灭

Dunbar High School After 100 Years
百年后的Dunbar 高中

作者:Thomas Sowell @ 2016-10-04
译者:鳗鱼禅(@鳗鱼禅)
校对:龙泉(@L_Stellar)
来源:RealClearPolitics,http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10/04/dunbar_high_school_after_100_years_131956.html

One hundred years ago, on October 2, 1916, a new public high school building for black youngsters was opened in Washington, D.C. and named for black poet Paul Laurence Dunbar. Its history is a story inspiring in many ways and appalling in many other ways.

一百年前,1916年10月2日,一座为年轻黑人而设的公立高中教学楼在华盛顿特区投入使用。这座教学楼以非洲诗人 Paul Laurence Dunbar 的姓氏命名,它的历史是个令人既振奋又惊骇的故事。

< (more...)
标签: | |
7478
Dunbar High School After 100 Years 百年后的Dunbar 高中 作者:Thomas Sowell @ 2016-10-04 译者:鳗鱼禅(@鳗鱼禅) 校对:龙泉(@L_Stellar) 来源:RealClearPolitics,http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10/04/dunbar_high_school_after_100_years_131956.html One hundred years ago, on October 2, 1916, a new public high school building for black youngsters was opened in Washington, D.C. and named for black poet Paul Laurence Dunbar. Its history is a story inspiring in many ways and appalling in many other ways. 一百年前,1916年10月2日,一座为年轻黑人而设的公立高中教学楼在华盛顿特区投入使用。这座教学楼以非洲诗人 Paul Laurence Dunbar 的姓氏命名,它的历史是个令人既振奋又惊骇的故事。 Prior to 1916, the same high school had existed under other names, housed in other buildings -- and with a remarkable academic record. 在1916年前,这所高中以其它名字运营,在另外的建筑中教学,教学成果显著。 In 1899, when it was called "the M Street School," a test was given in Washington's four academic public high schools, three white and one black. The black high school scored higher than two of the three white high schools. Today, it would be considered Utopian even to set that as a goal, much less expect to see it happen. 1899年,当时学校还叫“ M 街学校”,华盛顿特区四所公立高中进行学业测试,三所白人高中,一所黑人高中。黑人高中的成绩高于其中两所白人高中。如今,人们会认为设立这样的目标本身就是做白日梦,更别说指望其变为现实。 The M Street School had neither of two so-called "prerequisites" for quality education. There was no "diversity." It was an all-black school from its beginning, and on through its life as a high quality institution under the name Dunbar High School. 优质教育所需的两项所谓“前提条件”,M街学校通通没有。没有“多样性”。一开始就是全黑人学校,直到保持高质量教学水平的Dunbar高中时期,依然如此。 But its days as a high quality institution ended abruptly in the middle of the 1950s. After that, it became just another failing ghetto school. 然而,这首优质教学之歌在1950年代中期戛然而止。之后,Dunbar 高中沦为又一所溃败的贫民窟学校。 The other so-called "prerequisite" that the M Street School lacked was an adequate building. Its student body was 50 percent larger than the building's capacity, a fact that led eventually to the new Dunbar High School building. But its students excelled even in their overcrowded building. 另一项所谓的“前提条件”——一座适宜教学的大楼——M街学校也没有。全校学生数量超过建筑物设计容纳人数50%,因此才兴建新的Dunbar高中教学楼。尽管如此,学生成绩依然优秀。 Some students at the M Street School began going to some of the leading colleges in the country in the late 19th century. The first of its graduates to go to Harvard did so in 1903. Over the years from 1892 to 1954, thirty-four of the graduates from the M Street School and Dunbar went on to Amherst. 在19世纪晚期,M街学校开始有学生考上国内顶尖大学。1903年,该校首次有学生考入哈佛大学。1892至1954年间,M街学校和Dunbar高中合共有34名毕业生考入 Amherst 学院【译注:位于马萨诸塞州的一所精英男校】 Of these, 74 percent graduated from Amherst and 28 percent of these graduates were Phi Beta Kappas. Other graduates from M Street High School and Dunbar became Phi Beta Kappas at Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and other elite institutions. 这些学生中,74%顺利从Amherst 学院毕业,其中28%毕业生为最高荣誉优等生。其他M街学校和Dunbar 高中的一些毕业生,在哈佛、耶鲁、达特茅斯和其它精英院校成为最高荣誉优等生。 Graduates of this same high school pioneered as the first black in many places. These included the first black man to graduate from Annapolis, the first black woman to receive a Ph.D. from an American institution, the first black federal judge, the first black general, the first black Cabinet member and, among other notables, a doctor who became internationally renowned for his pioneering work in developing the use of blood plasma. 这一所高中的毕业生在多个领域都是首次取得杰出成就的黑人。包括第一名从美国海军学院毕业的黑人男生,第一名从美国高等院校获得博士学位的黑人女性,第一名黑人联邦法官,第一名黑人将军,第一名黑人内阁成员。在众多取得不凡成就的黑人中,特别值得一提的是,在保存血浆以供使用方面做出开拓性工作的一名享誉全球的黑人医生【译注:Charles Drew】 How could all of this come to an abrupt end in the 1950s? Like many other disasters, it began with good intentions and arbitrary assumptions. 这一切怎么会在1950年代突然完结?跟很多灾难一样,一切以善意和武断的假设前提开始。 When Chief Justice Earl Warren declared in the landmark 1954 case of "Brown v. Board of Education" that racially separate schools were "inherently unequal," Dunbar High School was a living refutation of that assumption. And it was within walking distance of the Supreme Court. 1954年里程碑式的“ 布朗诉教育委员会” 一案宣判,Earl Warren大法官代表的多数判词称种族隔离的学校‘ 在本性上就是不平等的’,Dunbar高中是对这一假设前提活生生的反驳。学校就位于最高法院的步行距离之内。 A higher percentage of Dunbar graduates went on to college than the percentage at any white public high school in Washington. But what do facts matter when there is heady rhetoric and crusading zeal? Dunbar高中毕业生考入大学的比例高于华盛顿特区内任何一所白人公立高中。但在令人头脑发热的修辞和运动式的热情面前,事实又有什么用呢? There is no question that racially segregated schools in the South provided an inadequate education for blacks. But the assumption that racial "integration" was the answer led to years of racial polarization and turmoil over busing, with little, if any, educational improvement. 毋庸置疑,南部各州的种族隔离学校未能为黑人提供足够的教育。但种族“融合”才是解决之道的假设导致连年的种族极化和骚乱,用几近于无的教育成果提升来代替种族隔离的校巴。 For Washington, the end of racial segregation led to a political compromise, in which all schools became neighborhood schools. Dunbar, which had been accepting outstanding black students from anywhere in the city, could now accept only students from the rough ghetto neighborhood in which it was located. 对华盛顿特区而言,种族隔离的结束导致一项政治让步。所有学校都转为就近入学的学区学校。Dunbar 高中此前一直在全市范围内招收学业突出的黑人学生,现在只能从学校周边的贫民窟社区招收学生。 Virtually overnight, Dunbar became a typical ghetto school. As unmotivated, unruly and disruptive students flooded in, Dunbar teachers began moving out and many retired. More than 80 years of academic excellence simply vanished into thin air. 几乎一夜之间,Dunbar高中变为一所典型的贫民窟学校。没有学习动力、没有规矩和爱捣蛋的学生涌入学校后,原先的教师开始离开、退休。80多年的教学成果随风飘逝。 Nobody, black or white, mounted any serious opposition. "Integration" was the cry of the moment, and it drowned out everything else. That is what happens in politics. 不论黑人或白人,没有人提出任何严肃的反对意见。“融合”是当红的口号,让其它都沉没于海底。这就是政治领域正在发生的事情。 Today, there is a new Dunbar High School building, costing more than $100 million. But its graduates go on to college at only about half the rate of Dunbar graduates in earlier and poorer times. Politics can deliver costly "favors," even when it cannot deliver quality education. 如今,Dunbar新高中教学楼耗资超过1亿美元。但学校毕业生的大学入学率仅为早期贫穷世代的一半。哪怕政治无法提供优质的教育,一样可以提供昂贵的“惠泽”。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

往坏里带

【2016-08-20】

@whigzhou: 对比两组数据挺有意思,左图美国黑人比例最高的前10个城市(city),从84%到56%不等,右图黑人比例最高的前10个都市区(metropolis),从48%到31%,左图蓝色数字是对应都市区的黑人比例,很明显,在这些城市,白人中产者基本上放弃了内城,这个趋势估计还会延续下去,最终产生一批黑人城市。

@whigzhou: 这些城市的共同特点是犯罪率极高,1/3-1/2的成年黑人男性被关在牢里,民主党长期垄断权力,福利计划一个接一个,政府开支和税率不断上涨,公立学校一团糟,大片街区沦为废墟,官僚机构腐败透顶……

@whigzhou: 这是内城/郊区的分化,类似的分化也发生在城(more...)

标签: | | | |
7392
【2016-08-20】 @whigzhou: 对比两组数据挺有意思,左图美国黑人比例最高的前10个城市(city),从84%到56%不等,右图黑人比例最高的前10个都市区(metropolis),从48%到31%,左图蓝色数字是对应都市区的黑人比例,很明显,在这些城市,白人中产者基本上放弃了内城,这个趋势估计还会延续下去,最终产生一批黑人城市。 @whigzhou: 这些城市的共同特点是犯罪率极高,1/3-1/2的成年黑人男性被关在牢里,民主党长期垄断权力,福利计划一个接一个,政府开支和税率不断上涨,公立学校一团糟,大片街区沦为废墟,官僚机构腐败透顶…… @whigzhou: 这是内城/郊区的分化,类似的分化也发生在城市之间,未来也会发生在州与州之间。 @whigzhou: 有些城市通过土地管制、建筑管制和分区规划把房价抬的极高,也起到了挤出贫穷黑人的效果,过去二十年湾区的黑人比例就在下降 @whigzhou: 相对于现代文明生活,黑人确实有些弱点,但要是没有民主党过去半个世纪不遗余力地残害,也不至于落得这个地步 @whigzhou: 残害政策从两个方向同时下手:压制他们人性中所有积极向善的倾向,纵容娇惯他们所有坏的那些方面:用最低工资法剥夺工作机会,用福利救济削弱工作激励和家庭责任,用禁毒法施饵下套,用平权法强化种族身份,总统和司法部长赤膊上阵煽动种族对立……所有你能想到的把他们往坏里带的办法,全用上了 @路人萨维:辉总的意思是太傻了政策形同残害,还是故意的? @whigzhou: 一开始应该不是故意的,毕竟谁都没有这样的远见,只是民主党惯于玩族裔政治而已,但那么多年过去,效果这么明显,再变本加利的坚持玩,就有点故意了 @whigzhou: 动员少数群体,强化族裔身份,玩族裔政治和裙带政治,是民主党的看家本领,看看坦慕尼协会的历史就很清楚 @whigzhou: 有人可能对60年代民主党180度大转身感到困惑,其实一点不奇怪,他们的族裔/身份政治把戏是一贯的,改变的只是选择哪些族裔/身份群体建立票仓 @whigzhou: 所以无论站在哪一边,他们决不能让黑人这个身份标签消失 @whigzhou: 对黑人来说,不幸的是,他们被挑中时,正是福利主义大跃进之际,结果就被坑惨了 @whigzhou: 当然黑人自身的弱点也起了作用,自律性、延迟满足、责任心方面,比起有着数千年文明历史的民族都差一些,因而福利主义和娇惯政策负面激励效果也更显著 @沉思之后:黑人自身的问题才是主因吧。即便没有民主党的政策,全世界哪个黑人主导的国家或地区繁荣了呢?反之,北欧以及荷兰福利主义和娇惯政策也不少,但是黑人少,也还在持续繁荣中 @whigzhou: 可是平权运动之前美国黑人的状况要好很多啊,非洲人自己未能建立好国家,不等于他们不能作为少数群体在已经建立的好国家中获得良好发展 @SenatusPopulusqueRomanus: 日耳曼人没有数千年文明史,埃及、巴比伦文明史最长。 @whigzhou: 日耳曼人的文明化进程少说也有一千五百年了吧 @whigzhou: 文明化不是全部(在何种文明中被文明化也很重要),但很关键,所有中东来源的移民群体中,波斯裔表现最好,不是没缘由的  
黄金太贵

【2016-08-14】

@whigzhou: 只有将竞争在性别间完全隔离,才可能让男女运动员拿到数量大致相同的奖牌,同理,必须实行某种(有形或无形的)种族隔离制度,才可能让各种族在职业竞技场上获得大致相同的报酬和晋升机会,现在你们大概明白平权法的精髓所在了吧?

@去了哪儿的人: 不知道为吗没有这样的言论——某族人居然一块金牌都没,种族歧视啊,领这种奖是一种侮辱。

@whigzhou: 更奇怪的是竟然没有人主张将赛事分(more...)

标签: | |
7341
【2016-08-14】 @whigzhou: 只有将竞争在性别间完全隔离,才可能让男女运动员拿到数量大致相同的奖牌,同理,必须实行某种(有形或无形的)种族隔离制度,才可能让各种族在职业竞技场上获得大致相同的报酬和晋升机会,现在你们大概明白平权法的精髓所在了吧? @去了哪儿的人: 不知道为吗没有这样的言论——某族人居然一块金牌都没,种族歧视啊,领这种奖是一种侮辱。 @whigzhou: 更奇怪的是竟然没有人主张将赛事分成17个性别举行,可能是因为最近黄金太贵~  
[译文]进步派的种族主义历史

When Bigots Become Reformers
 当顽固派变成改革者

作者:Damon Root @ 2006-05
译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
校对:Whig Zhou(@whigzhou)
来源:Reason,https://reason.com/archives/2006/05/01/when-bigots-become-reformers/

The Progressive Era’s shameful record on race.
进步时代在种族问题上的黑记录

The Progressive Era and Race: Reform and Reaction, 1900-1977, by David W. Southern, Wheeling, W.V.: Harlan Davidson, 240 pages, $15.95

《进步时代与种族问题:改革与反动,1900-1977》,作者 David W. Southern

THE PROGRESSIVE movement swept America from roughly the early 1890s through the early 1920s, producing a broad popular consensus that government should be the primary agent of social change.

大概从1890年代早期开始,直到1920年代早期,进步主义运动席卷美国,催生了一个广泛的民众共识,即政府应当是推动社会变化的首要主体。

To that end, legions of idealistic young crusaders, operating at the local, state, and federal levels, seized and wielded sweeping new powers and enacted a mountain of new legislation, including minimum wage and maximum hour laws, antitrust statutes, restrictions on the sale and consumption of alcohol, appropriations for hundreds of miles of roads and highways, assistance(more...)

标签: | | | |
7177
When Bigots Become Reformers  当顽固派变成改革者 作者:Damon Root @ 2006-05 译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 校对:Whig Zhou(@whigzhou) 来源:Reason,https://reason.com/archives/2006/05/01/when-bigots-become-reformers/ The Progressive Era’s shameful record on race. 进步时代在种族问题上的黑记录 The Progressive Era and Race: Reform and Reaction, 1900-1977, by David W. Southern, Wheeling, W.V.: Harlan Davidson, 240 pages, $15.95 《进步时代与种族问题:改革与反动,1900-1977》,作者 David W. Southern THE PROGRESSIVE movement swept America from roughly the early 1890s through the early 1920s, producing a broad popular consensus that government should be the primary agent of social change. 大概从1890年代早期开始,直到1920年代早期,进步主义运动席卷美国,催生了一个广泛的民众共识,即政府应当是推动社会变化的首要主体。 To that end, legions of idealistic young crusaders, operating at the local, state, and federal levels, seized and wielded sweeping new powers and enacted a mountain of new legislation, including minimum wage and maximum hour laws, antitrust statutes, restrictions on the sale and consumption of alcohol, appropriations for hundreds of miles of roads and highways, assistance to new immigrants and the poor, women's suffrage, and electoral reform, among much else. 为实现那一目的,一大批年轻的理想主义斗士活跃在地方、各州直至联邦政府层面,掌握并运用手中势不可挡的权力,制定了成堆的新法律,涉及最低工资和最长工时法、反托拉斯法、酒精出售与消费限制、对数百英里道路与高速路的征用、对新移民及穷人的补助、妇女投票权和选举改革,等等。 Today many on the liberal left would like to revive that movement and its aura of social justice. Journalist Bill Moyers, speaking at a conference sponsored by the left-wing Campaign for America's Future, described Progressivism as "one of the country's great traditions." Progressives, he told the crowd, "exalted and extended the original American Revolution. They spelled out new terms of partnership between the people and their rulers. And they kindled a flame that lit some of the most prosperous decades in modern history." 今天,许多自由左派人士希望复兴这一运动以及它带来的社会正义氛围。在一场由左翼团体“美国的未来运动”举办的会议上,记者Bill Moyers称进步主义是“美国的伟大传统之一”。他向与会者说,进步派“提升并拓展了原本的美国革命。他们阐明了人民与统治者之间合作关系的新条件。他们所点燃的火焰,照亮了现代历史上最为繁荣昌盛的年代之一。” Yet the Progressive Era was also a time of vicious, state-sponsored racism. In fact, from the standpoint of African-American history, the Progressive Era qualifies as arguably the single worst period since Emancipation. The wholesale disfranchisement of Southern black voters occurred during these years, as did the rise and triumph of Jim Crow. 然而,进步时代也是一个种族主义得到国家支持、极为严重的时代。事实上,从非裔美国人历史的角度来看,进步时代可以说是自黑奴解放以来最为黑暗的一段时间。南方黑人选民的公民权遭到大规模剥夺,就发生于这段时间,Jim Crow法【译注:指南方各州通过的在公共设施使用上实行种族隔离的法律】也是在此期间出现并流行。 Furthermore, as the Westminster College historian David W. Southern notes in his recent book, The Progressive Era and Race: Reform and Reaction, 1900-1917, the very worst of it-disfranchisement, segregation, race baiting, lynching-"went hand-in-hand with the most advanced forms of southern progressivism." Racism was the norm, not the exception, among the very crusaders romanticized by today's activist left. 另外,正如威斯敏斯特学院的历史学家Daivd W. Southern在其新书《进步时代与种族问题:改革与反动,1900-1917》中所提到的那样,其中最糟糕的情形——剥夺选举权、种族隔离、种族羞辱和对黑人实施私刑——“与南方进步运动的最先进活动是携手并进的。”正是在那些被今天的左派活动家浪漫化的斗士中,种族主义是种常态,而非例外。 At the heart of Southern's flawed but useful study is a deceptively simple question: How did reformers infused with lofty ideals embrace such abominable bigotry? His answer begins with the race-based pseudoscience that dominated educated opinion at the turn of the 20th century. Southern的研究不无瑕疵,但非常有用,其核心是一个看似简单的问题:那些心中充满崇高理念的改革者们怎么会有这样恶劣的偏执言行?他的回答始于一种以种族为基础的伪科学,这种伪科学在19和20世纪之交时曾在知识人的观念中占据主导地位。 "At college," Southern notes, "budding progressives not only read exposés of capitalistic barons and attacks on laissez-faire economics by muckraking journalists, they also read racist tracts that drew on the latest anthropology, biology, psychology, sociology, eugenics, and medical science." “学院里头,”Southern提到,“崭露头角的进步派不仅阅读调查记者所写的揭批资本主义大亨、攻击自由放任经济学的东西,他们也阅读那些征引最新的人类学、生物学、心理学、社会学、优生学和医学研究的种族主义小册子。” Popular titles included Charles Carroll's The Negro a Beast (1900) and R.W. Shufeldt's The Negro, a Menace to American Civilization (1907). One bestseller, Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race (1916), discussed the concept of "race suicide," the theory that inferior races were outbreeding their betters. 当时流行的作品包括Charles Carroll的《黑人是野兽》(1900)和R. W. Shufeldt的《黑人对美国文明的威胁》(1907)。Madison Grant所写的畅销书,《伟大种族的消逝》,讨论了“种族自杀”这一概念,该理论认为卑贱种族已然比优等种族繁殖得更快。 President Theodore Roosevelt was one of many Progressives captivated by this notion: He opposed voting rights for African-American men, which were guaranteed by the 15th amendment, on the grounds that the black race was still in its adolescence. 西奥多·罗斯福总统就是诸多被这一概念俘获的进步人士之一。他反对非裔美国男性获得由宪法第15修正案保障的投票权,理由就是黑人种族尚未成年。 Such thinking, which emphasized "expert" opinion and advocated sweeping governmental power, fit perfectly within the Progressive worldview, which favored a large, active government that engaged in technocratic, paternalistic planning. As for reconciling white supremacy with egalitarian democracy, keep in mind that when a racist Progressive championed "the working man," "the common man," or "the people," he typically prefixed the silent adjective white. 这类理论强调“专家”观点,主张扩大政府权力,与进步主义的世界观严丝合缝,后者就欣赏大而有为、实施专家治理和家长式计划的政府。至于在白人至上与民主平等之间如何调和,你只要记住,当一个种族主义的进步派拥护“劳动群体”、“普通人”或“人民”时,他总是会加上一个不说出声的形容词前缀,“白人”。 For a good illustration, consider Carter Glass of Virginia. Glass was a Progressive state and U.S. senator and, as chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, one of the major architects of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. He was also an enthusiastic supporter of his state's massive effort to disfranchise black voters. 这里有个很好的例证,就是弗吉尼亚州的Carter Glass。Glass是个进步派,既是州参议员也是国会参议员,他曾任国会银行与货币委员会主席,是1913年《联邦储备法》的主要缔造者之一。他也是弗吉尼亚州大规模剥夺黑人选民公民权行动的热情支持者。 "Discrimination! Why that is exactly what we propose," he declared to one journalist. "To remove every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate." “歧视!为什么这恰恰就是我们所提倡的,”他对某记者宣称,“为了合法地移除每一个可以甩掉的黑人投票人,避免极大地削弱白人选民的数量优势。” Then there was political scientist John R. Commons, an adviser to the Progressive Wisconsin governor and senator Robert M. LaFollette and a member of Theodore Roosevelt's Immigration Commission. Commons, the author of Races and Immigrants in America (1907), criticized immigration on both protectionist grounds (he believed immigrants depressed wages and weakened labor unions) and racist ones (he wrote that the so-called tropical races were "indolent and fickle"). 然后还有政治科学家John R. Commons,他曾是威斯康辛州进步派州长和参议员Robert M. LaFollette的顾问,还曾是西奥多·罗斯福的“移民委员会”成员。Commons著有《美国的种族与移民》(1907),同时从贸易保护主义立场(他相信移民压低了工资、削弱了工会)和种族主义立场(他写道,所谓的热带种族都“懒惰而善变”)出发批评外来移民。 Woodrow Wilson, whose Progressive presidential legacy includes the Federal Reserve System, a federal loan program for farmers, and an eight-hour workday for railroad employees, segregated the federal bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. "I have recently spent several days in Washington," the black leader Booker T. Washington wrote during Wilson's first term, "and I have never seen the colored people so discouraged and bitter as they are at the present time." 伍德罗·威尔逊,这位进步派总统的遗产包括联邦储备体系、一项针对农民的联邦贷款计划和铁路工人八小时工作日制度,对华盛顿的联邦机构实施了种族隔离。“最近我在华盛顿呆了几天”,黑人领袖Booker T. Washington在威尔逊的第一个任期写道,“我从没见过有色人种像今天这样气馁心酸。” Perhaps the most notorious figure of the era was Benjamin "Pitchfork" Tillman, a leading Southern Progressive and inveterate white supremacist. As senator from South Carolina from 1895 to 1918, Tillman stumped for "Free Silver," the economic panacea of the agrarian populist (and future secretary of state) William Jennings Bryan, whom Tillman repeatedly supported for president. 或许这一时代最为臭名昭著的人物应数“干草叉”Benjamin Tillman,南方进步派领袖,同时也是冥顽不灵的白人至上主义者。Tillman从1895年至1918年一直是南卡罗来纳州的参议员,一直为William Jennings Bryan这位土地民粹主义者(后曾出任国务卿)的经济万灵药——“自由银币”——而奔走鼓呼,并反复支持后者出任总统。 "Pitchfork" Tillman favored such Progressive staples as antitrust laws, railroad regulations, and public education, but felt the latter was fit only for whites. "When you educate a negro," he brayed, "you educate a candidate for the penitentiary or spoil a good field hand." “干草叉”Tillman对反托拉斯法、铁路管制、公共教育等进步主义产品均表支持,但他觉得公共教育这种东西只适用于白人。“你要是教育黑人”,他干嚎道,“那就相当于为监狱教育出一个后备分子,或说是糟蹋了一个农活好手。” Nor did African Americans always fare better among those radicals situated entirely to the left of the Progressives. Socialist Party leader Eugene V. Debs, though personally sympathetic to blacks, declared during his 1912 campaign for the presidency, "We have nothing special to offer the Negro." 在完全处于进步派最左端的激进分子面前,非裔美国人也并不总是能讨得了好。美国社会党领袖Eugene V. Debs尽管私底下同情黑人,但在1912年总统竞选活动中仍宣称:“我们不能向黑人提供什么特殊对待”。 Other leading radicals offered even less. Writing in the Socialist Democratic Herald, Victor Berger, the leader of the party's right wing, declared that "there can be no doubt that the negroes and mulattoes constitute a lower race-that the Caucasian and even the Mongolian have the start on them in civilization by many years." 其他激进分子领袖愿意付出的甚至比这还少。社会党右翼领袖Victor Berger在为社会主义刊物《民主先驱报》所写文章中宣称,“毫无疑问,黑人和黑白混血是一个低等种族,白人甚至蒙古人都在文明程度上领先他们许多年。” The celebrated left-wing novelist Jack London, covering the 1908 heavyweight title bout between black challenger Jack Johnson and white boxing champ Tommy Burns, filled his New York Herald story with lurid ethnic caricatures and incessant race baiting. "Though he was a committed socialist," observed Jack Johnson biographer Geoffrey C. Ward, London's "solidarity with the working class did not extend to black people." 著名左翼小说家杰克·伦敦曾报道过黑人挑战者Jack Johnson和白人拳击冠军Tommy Burns于1908年进行的重量级拳王争霸赛,在为《纽约先驱报》采编的故事中,他用尽了各种夸张的族裔讽刺和层出不穷的种族羞辱。“尽管伦敦是个坚定的社会主义者,”Jack Johnson的传记作家Geoffrey C. Ward说道,但他“并没有将其与劳动阶级的团结延伸到黑人身上。” As Southern thoroughly documents, these examples just begin to scratch the surface. Progressivism was infested with the most repugnant strains of racism. But was there something more, something inherent in Progressivism itself that facilitated the era's harsh treatment of blacks? 正如Southern的详尽描绘所示,以上例证只是浮光掠影。种种令人心生厌恶的种族主义性质在进步主义之中泛滥成灾。但是,这一时代对于黑人的残酷态度,是否出于进步主义本身所具有的某种内在特质? According to Southern, who repeatedly maintains that racism derailed "the great promise" of Progressivism, the answer is no. "The ideas of race and color were powerful, controlling elements in progressive social and political thinking," he argues. "And this fixation on race explains how democratic reform and racism went hand-in-hand." Southern的回答是“并非如此”。他反复强调,种族主义偏离了进步主义的“伟大愿景”。“种族观念和肤色观念强大无比,控制了进步主义的社会与政治思想元素,”他论证道,“而这种对于种族的关注,解释了为何民主改革会与种族主义并驾齐驱。” That is surely correct, but is it the whole story? As the legal scholar Richard Epstein has noted, "the sad but simple truth is that the Jim Crow resegregation of America depended on a conception of constitutional law that gave property rights short shrift, and showed broad deference to state action under the police power." 这当然是对的,但这就是事情的全部面目吗?正如法学家Richard Epstein所说,“真相虽然可悲,但很简单:美国的Jim Crow种族隔离法案奠基于一种宪法理念,这种理念漠视财产权,并对国家依据治安权实施的行动表现出最大程度的顺从。” Progressivism itself, in other words, granted the state vast new authority to manage all walks of American life while at the same time weakening traditional checks on government power, including property rights and liberty of contract. Such a mixture was ripe for the racist abuse that occurred. 换句话说,进步主义本身就把广泛的新权限赋予国家,使之能够管理美国人生活的方方面面,同时又削弱了传统上对于政府权力的各种制衡,包括财产权和契约自由。这种组合对于所发生的种族主义虐待而言,正是水到渠成。 Take the Supreme Court's notorious decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), a case that has rightly come to symbolize the South's Jim Crow regime. In Plessy, the Court considered a Louisiana statute forbidding railroads from selling first-class tickets to blacks, a clear violation of economic liberty. 以最高法院在“普莱西诉弗格森案”(1896)中臭名昭著的判决为例,这个案子自此已经恰如其分地成为南方种族隔离体制的象征。在普莱西案中,最高法细致考察了路易斯安那州一条禁止铁路公司将头等票卖给黑人的法令——这是一条明显违反经济自由的法令。 In its 7-1 ruling, the Court upheld segregation in public accommodations so long as "separate but equal" facilities were provided for each race, setting off an orgy of legislation throughout the old Confederacy. South Carolina, for example, segregated trains two years after Plessy.Streetcars followed in 1905, train depots and restaurants in 1906, textile plants in 1915-16, circuses in 1917, pool halls in 1924, and beaches in 1934. 在其7-1的判决中,最高法院认可在公共设施中实施种族隔离,只需每个种族都获得“隔离但平等”的设施。这一判决在整个过去的南部邦联地区引爆了一轮立法高潮。比如,普莱西案两年后,南卡罗来纳州就在火车上实行了种族隔离。1905年是有轨电车,1906年是火车站和餐厅,1915-1916是纺织厂,1917年是马戏团,1924年是台球厅,1934年则是海滩。 No doubt many of those businesses would have excluded or mistreated black customers whatever the law. But in a market free from Jim Crow regulations, other businesses would have welcomed blacks, or at least black dollars, forcing racist enterprises to bear the full cost of excluding or mistreating all those potential paying customers. (This was one of the chief reasons the segregationists pushed for those laws in the first place.) 毫无疑问,不管法律如何规定,许多上述企业还是会排斥或歧视黑人顾客。但是,如果某个市场没有受到种族隔离法规的限制,其他企业就可能欢迎黑人,或至少是黑人身上的美金,那些排斥或歧视此类潜在付费顾客的种族主义企业就会被迫承受由此产生的全部成本。(这就是隔离主义者一开始推动此类立法的最主要原因之一。) The state, in the eloquent words of the historian C. Vann Woodward, granted "free rein and the majesty of the law to mass aggressions that might otherwise have been curbed, blunted, or deflected." 用历史学家C. Vann Woodward文辞华美的话来说,各州把“完全的自由和法律的庄严认可”赋予了“大规模的侵害行为,而这本来是可以有所限制、有所缓和或有所修正的。” Furthermore, this tangled web of regulations, ordinances, codes, and controls was spun during the heyday of Progressivism, precisely when such official actions were least likely to receive any meaningful scrutiny. Southern, despite his otherwise close attention to the many permutations of race and racism, fails to recognize this major defect in the Progressive worldview. 另外,这一团由各种规章、条例、法令和控制组成的乱麻是在进步主义的鼎盛时期编织出来的,而当时恰恰就是这种官方行为最不可能受到任何有意义的细致审查的时候。尽管Southern在其他地方考察种族和种族主义的各种不同组合时细致绵密,在这里却没有注意到进步主义世界观的这一巨大缺陷。 A similar failure handicaps his treatment of one of the era's rare victories for African Americans. In Buchanan v. Warley(1917), the Supreme Court unanimously overturned a Louisville ordinance segregating residential housing blocks by race. The case involved a voluntary contract between a white seller and a black buyer for a housing lot located in a majority-white neighborhood. Under the law, the new black owner could not live on the property he had just purchased. Southern还有一个不足之处,导致他未能很好地处理非裔美国人在这一时期所取得的罕见胜利之一。在“布坎南诉沃利案”(1917)中,最高法院一致判决推翻路易斯维尔市依据种族来隔离居民住宅街区的法令。在该案中,黑人买方和白人卖方自由订立合同,购买一套位于以白人居民为主的街区的住宅。按照上述法律,这位黑人新房主不能在他刚刚购买的房产内居住。 Writing for the Court, Justice William Rufus Day held that "this attempt to prevent the alienation of the property in question to a person of color...is in direct violation of the fundamental law enacted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution preventing state interference with property rights except by due process of law." 大法官William Rufus Day代表最高法院写道,“企图阻止涉案房产转让给有色人……这是对于宪法第十四修正案关于各州不经正当法律程序不得干涉财产权的基本法则的直接违反。” Yet Southern dismisses this rare and important victory as "hollow" and incorrectly asserts that it "was decided not on the grounds of human rights, but on those of white property rights." In fact, the judicial recognition of black rights stood at the very center of the decision. Justice Day's opinion clearly states that the Fourteenth Amendment "operate[s] to qualify and entitle a colored man to acquire property without state legislation discriminating against him solely because of color." 然而,Southern却称这一罕见且重要的胜利“意义不大”,并且错误地断言其“并非基于人权所作出的判决,而是基于白人的财产权。”事实上,法院对黑人权利的承认正处于上述判决的核心。大法官Day在其意见中清晰阐明,第十四修正案“的作用是,准予并授权有色人获得财产,不受各州仅仅因为其肤色而针对他的立法歧视。” Nor should Southern's characterization of this victory as "hollow" pass unchallenged. As the legal scholars David Bernstein and Ilya Somin have argued, the Buchanan ruling played a major though sadly underappreciated role in the burgeoning fight for civil rights. Southern对这一胜利“意义不大”的描述也不应该轻轻揭过。正如法学家David Bernstein和Ilya Somin论证到的,布坎南案判决在风生水起的公民权斗争中发挥了重要作用,很遗憾没有获得应得的承认。 "Buchanan could not force whites to live in the same neighborhood as blacks," Bernstein and Somin write, "but it did prevent cities from stifling black migration by creating de jure and inflexible boundaries for black neighborhoods, and may have prevented even more damaging legislation." It is well worth noting, they continue, that the South did not adopt South African-style apartheid at this time, despite widespread white support for such measures. “布坎南案无法强迫白人和黑人住到同一个街区去,”Bernstein和Somin写道,“但它对各市通过为黑人街区制造法定且固定的边界以限制黑人迁徙的做法发挥了阻止效果,并且可能阻止了其他伤害性更大的立法。”他们接着说,特别值得注意的是,美国南方当时并没有采取一种南非式的种族隔离,尽管当时白人普遍支持此类举措。 In addition, Buchanan was the first major Supreme Court victory for the four-year-old National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a huge boon for the organization that would go on to win the landmark Brown v. Board of Education (1954), overturning Plessy. W.E.B Du Bois, an NAACP founder and longtime editor of its newsletter, The Crisis, gave Buchanan credit for "the breaking of the backbone of segregation." 此外,布坎南案是当时成立仅4年的“全国有色人种协进会”在最高法院所取得的第一次重要胜利,这为该组织带来了极大的好处,此后它将赢得里程碑式的“布朗诉教育委员会案”(1954),从而推翻普莱西案。该组织的创始人之一、长期为会刊《危机》担任编辑的W. E. B. Du Bois赞扬布坎南案“打断了种族隔离制度的脊柱”。 Despite these significant shortcomings, The Progressive Era and Race deserves careful attention. The Progressive movement unleashed, aided, and abetted some of the most destructive forces in 20th-century America. The better we understand this history, the less likely we are to repeat it. 尽管存在这些重大缺陷,《进步时代与种族问题》仍值得细心阅读。进步运动解放、助推和煽动了在20世纪美国历史上最具破坏性的一些力量。我们对这段历史了解越多,重复犯错的可能性就越小。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]根本没有种族这回事

Such a thing
种族这回事

作者:Gregory Cochran @ 2016-4-19
译者:Tankman
校对:龙泉
来源:https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/04/19/such-a-thing/

“there’s no such thing as race” is a standard sentence in the United States and Europe. Conventional wisdom, and like so much conventional wisdom, false.

“没有种族这回事”在欧美,这是老生常谈。传统观点,甚至如此传统的观点,是错误的。

Of course there is.

种族,当然是存在的。

First you need to define your terms. I would suggest that any population – a group whose members have mated within that group, almost entirely, for some time – and has experienced strong-enough natural selection to change significantly in some trait that we give a shit abo(more...)

标签: | |
7094
Such a thing 种族这回事 作者:Gregory Cochran @ 2016-4-19 译者:Tankman 校对:龙泉 来源:https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/04/19/such-a-thing/ “there’s no such thing as race” is a standard sentence in the United States and Europe. Conventional wisdom, and like so much conventional wisdom, false. “没有种族这回事”在欧美,这是老生常谈。传统观点,甚至如此传统的观点,是错误的。 Of course there is. 种族,当然是存在的。 First you need to define your terms. I would suggest that any population – a group whose members have mated within that group, almost entirely, for some time – and has experienced strong-enough natural selection to change significantly in some trait that we give a shit about can usefully be considered a race. Or a ‘goklu’, where goklu has exactly the same operational meaning as race, without having yet acquired any toxic associations. 首先,你得需要为你的术语给出定义。我的建议是:任何人群,群内成员交配繁衍(有时几乎只在群内交配),并且经历了足够强度的自然选择因而显著改变了一些被我们所在意的重要性状,那么方便起见,这样的群体便可称作一个种族。或者叫它“格克鲁”【译注:作者生造词】也行,在此处,格克鲁有着和种族完全一样的操作性意义,但尚未像后者那样获得毒性。 Low levels of inward gene flow allow selection to change the frequencies of alleles, so mating within the group is important. Usually this endogamy is a natural consequence of geography (not much gene flow across the Atlantic before Columbus) but sometimes it has been caused by social rules, as in the case of the Ashkenazi Jews or the Hindu castes. 低水平的外来基因流入,让自然选择得以改变等位基因的频率,因此交配限于群内这一点是重要的。通常这种内婚是地理分割的自然结果(如哥伦布之前,大西洋两岸并未发生很多基因转移),但有时社会规则也会导致内婚,如阿什肯納茲犹太人和印度种姓制度。 Low inward gene flow: in order for significant differences in the neutral genome to accumulate, there must have been < 1 immigrant per generation for tens of of thousands of years or more. That has happened sometimes, and not just with Neanderthals: sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians were that separate until fairly recently, and have that kind of differences in their neutral genomes. For that matter, Bushmen and Bantu were genetically distinct for an even longer period. So it takes only a little gene flow to stop drift in its tracks. 低水平的外来基因流入:为了累积中性基因组的显著差异,在数万年甚至更长时间内,每代的外来迁入率必须小于1%【编注:依下文内容可知,此处原文漏了百分号】。这种情况时有发生,而且不止在尼安德特人身上:撒哈拉以南的非洲人和欧亚人种间的隔离状态,直到相当晚近时才结束。而他们的中性基因组也有这种差别。同样的,布希曼人和班图人在更长的时间内,在遗传学上有显著不同。所以,只需要一小点基因转移,就能让遗传漂变改变轨迹。 Selection can be a lot stronger, and it takes more gene flow to scotch it. You could have effective selection for IQ among the Ashkenazi Jews even in the presence of as much as 0.5% inward gene flow per generation from the general European population. 2% would have been too much, though. 选择压力的作用则可强大得多,需要更多的基因流入才能抵消。即使目前经历了每代0.5%的来自欧洲人口的外来基因流入,你仍可以在阿什肯納茲犹太人中观察到针对智商的让人印象深刻的选择压力。不过,也许2%的外来基因流入会抵消选择压力的效果。 A long period of genetic isolation does not automatically generate differences in any particular trait: but it does show that there has been an extended opportunity for selection to operate effectively and generate population differences. 长期的遗传隔离不能自动产生任何特有性状上的不同:但是它的确显示了选择压力更起作用,并导致种群差异。 So when we see differences, how old are they? and how can we tell? Plausible selection pressures could generates one-std trait differences in as little as a thousand years, and in some cases, like the Ashkenazim, it likely has. In other cases it may have operated over tens of thousands of years, even as much as quarter of a million years (Bushmen/Pygmies versus other humans). 所以,当我们看到差异时,如何得知这些差异发生多久了?某些情况下,在短短一千年里,合理的选择压力可以产生一个标准差的性状差异,阿什肯納茲犹太人很可能就是这样。其他情况下可能要花上几万年甚至长达二三十万年(比如布须曼人/俾格米人相对于其他人类的差异)。 If the trait in question is characteristic of a geographically extended population, you might suspect that selection had operated over a long time. But since we now know that there have been many population expansions and replacements, you might be wrong. Ancient DNA may be a better guide. 如果讨论的性状属于一个在地理上广泛分布的人群,你一定会怀疑自然选择已经作用了很长时间。但是既然我们现在知道很多人口扩张和替代现象,你的猜测可能是错的。古代DNA可能是更好的线索。 So sometimes the explanation for the differences between two populations may go back deep into the Ice Age, but it might also have happened since the birth of agriculture, or even since the fall of Rome. 所以有时解释两个种群间的差异,可能要回溯到冰河时代,但它也可能发生在农业起源之后,甚至是罗马灭亡之后。 Suppose you have a one-std difference in some trait between two populations? What can we say about the genetic architecture? Well, sometime it boils down to the presence or absence of a single allele. Other times it is caused by a shift in the frequencies of a number of alleles that each have a small effect on the trait. 假如在两个种群间,一些性状存在一个标准差的差距,在遗传构成方面,我们有何结论?有时,这归结于某个等位基因的存在或缺失。也有时,这是因为多个等位基因的频率漂变,每个(对)等位基因对性状均有一些影响。 African-Americans average about 1-std lower in white count. That’s all due to the Duffy allele. All else equal, northern Europeans are a couple of centimeters taller than southern Europeans: that is caused by frequency differences in hundreds of alleles affecting height, a shift that on the whole has increased the frequency of plus variants. 非裔美国人平均比美国白人矮一个标准差。这完全归因于Duffy等位基因。其他条件相同时,北欧人比南欧人高一两厘米:这是因为数百个影响身高的等位基因的频率差异,某个漂变作用于这些等位基因上,增加了正向变异的频数。 So what to say to someone that asks about the ‘race gene’? First, you tell her that she’s an idiot. The complex of shovel-shaped incisors, thick hair, small breasts, more eccrine sweat glands, and a different shape to the hangy-down part of the ear, fixed in northeast Asia, is indeed caused by a single allele, an EDAR variant that is essentially nonexistent in Europe or Africa. On the other hand, Pygmy height, or the lack of it, is influenced by a number of alleles. 所以如果有人问道“人种基因”的问题,该怎么回答呢?首先,你告诉她她是个白痴。铲形门齿,浓密头发,小乳房,小汗腺发达,以及耳垂的不同形状,这些集中于东北亚人种的组合性状,实际上是由同一个等位基因带来的,一个不存在于欧非人种中的EDAR变异。另一方面,俾格米人的身高,或者说身高很低,则反映了大量等位基因的影响。 But the genetic architecture isn’t all that important: it’s the differences that matter. Pygmies are really short – that’s what matters. 但是遗传结构并不一定都那么重要:重要的是性状差异。比如俾格米人真的很矮,这才是要紧的。 Along those lines, Lewontin and other bullshit artists have tried to argue that genetic statistics are such that human groups can’t really be different. Most genetic variation in humans is within-group, rather than between-group: so fucking what? the same is true for dogs: am I supposed to think that pit bulls and Chihuahuas and border collies are ‘really the same’? 类似的,列万廷或者其他喷子一直试图争辩,遗传统计学反映了人类族群并非真的不同。人类的大多数遗传学变异出现在族群内,而非族群之间:那又如何?对狗来说也一样啊:难道我就应该认为斗牛犬和吉娃娃和边境牧羊犬“真的是一样的”吗? Having more plus variants in the alleles that affect a particular quantitative trait doesn’t show up in these genetic statistics (like Fst) at all. Neither would a big frequency difference in a single allele that had a big effect, like EDAR. 这些遗传统计学差异(例如Fst,【译注:费雪统计量,衡量种群间基因差异程度】)完全不能反映影响了特定性状的数据对应的等位基因含有更多正向变异。也不能反映某一有显著影响的单个等位基因在频数上的巨大差异,例如EDAR。 People are mostly about as different as they seem to be. There are exceptions, cases where an environmental insult makes a fair amount of difference. This is particularly the case with height, where nutritional status can easily create a 1-std difference. But height is influenced by genetics, too, and the shortest people (the Pygmies) are short for genetic reasons, not because they’re starving. 一般来说,人群间的差异看上去有多大,他们的基因差异就有多大。环境冲击是一个例外,它也可以导致相当多的差异。尤其是身高,营养环境可以造成一个标准差的差异。但基因也可以影响身高。最矮的人群(俾格米人)长得矮就是因为基因而非饥饿。 What about the magic immunity of the brain to natural selection? That’s nonsense, of course. We know, for sure, that different goklus have different distributions of personality traits – because they act significantly differently with 24 hours of birth. All the psychometric results indicate that goklus vary in intelligence too [perhaps 3 stds from highest to lowest] probably largely because of differences in the frequency of many alleles with small effects. 关于自然选择,难道大脑就能神奇的免于其影响吗?这当然是胡扯。我们确定知道,不同种族在人格特质上有不同的分布——出生24小时之后,人们的行为就明显不同。所有智商测试结果都表明不同种族在智商上也有差异(最低水平与最高水平间约有三个标准差),这可能归因于众多影响智商的等位基因在频率上的差别。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

释放母爱

【2016-05-18】

@Helen干杯:关于保守派以高生育率取胜, 恐怕难。现在生育率高的时移民,且移民多为民主党所虏。

@whigzhou: 亚裔移民生育率很低,比白人低,第二代更低,拉丁移民第一代生育率很高(但也没摩门教徒高),第二代就高得不多了

@whigzhou: 不同种族背景移民前三代生育率:http://t.cn/RqFqmHV

@whigzhou: 当前亚裔移民年度增量已超过拉丁裔,墨西哥移民已开始净流出,若边境控制收紧,还会继续降低,所以移民生育率高这个判断已不再成立

@whigzhou: 半只烤鸭下肚,再说说刚才那个生育率的问题。

1(more...)

标签: | | |
7150
【2016-05-18】 @Helen干杯:关于保守派以高生育率取胜, 恐怕难。现在生育率高的时移民,且移民多为民主党所虏。 @whigzhou: 亚裔移民生育率很低,比白人低,第二代更低,拉丁移民第一代生育率很高(但也没摩门教徒高),第二代就高得不多了 @whigzhou: 不同种族背景移民前三代生育率:http://t.cn/RqFqmHV @whigzhou: 当前亚裔移民年度增量已超过拉丁裔,墨西哥移民已开始净流出,若边境控制收紧,还会继续降低,所以移民生育率高这个判断已不再成立 @whigzhou: 半只烤鸭下肚,再说说刚才那个生育率的问题。 1)要区分生育意愿和实际生育率,前者是行为倾向,后者是行为表现, 2)所谓行为倾向就是将外部条件映射为实际行为的函数, 3)两个在某件事上有着不同行为倾向的人,对应两个行为函数, 4)这两个函数在某个区间可以是重合的, 5)这意味着,拥有不同生育意愿的人,在区间A有着相同生育率,在区间B则不同 6)决定生育率的行为函数有着众多参数,姑且只考虑其中三个:A)收入,B)迫使个人生儿育女的社会压力,C)与生养儿女竞争时间(特别是女性时间)和金钱的各种其他活动的机会(或曰诱惑), 7)现代化和城市化尽管提高了收入,但也大幅降低了不生育带来的成本B,并大幅提高了生育带来的成本C, 8)与自由派相比,保守派对成本B更敏感,对成本C更不敏感, 9)所以,即便两种生育函数在传统条件下接近重合,可是当B和C大幅改变时,其行为表现上的差距就拉开了 10)同性恋的情况与之相似(可能表现得更纯粹更极端),在传统社会的巨大社会压力下,同性恋尽管缺乏意愿,实际上多数也会结婚生子,换句话说,他们的行为函数和其他人的函数在传统区间取值很接近甚至大致重合,但在现代区间就形同天壤了, 11)那些不肯生或生的很少的人,绝大多数并非不喜欢孩子,而是因为一方面促使其生育的社会压力消失了,同时自己又经不住各种与孩子抢时间的现代诱惑,结果她们便转向各种帮助其释放母爱的廉价替代品,于是便有了猫狗党和圣母婊。  
[译文]列万廷的谬误

Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy
人类遗传多样性之列万廷的谬误

作者:A.W.F. Edwards
翻译:小聂(@PuppetMaster)
校对:辉格(@whigzhou)
来源:Edwards, A. W. F. (2003). “Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy”. BioEssays 25 (8): 798–801.

Summary

In popular articles that play down the genetical differences among human populations, it is often stated that about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It has therefore been proposed that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data. This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors. The underlying logic, which was discussed in the early years of the last century, is here discussed using a simple genetical example.

概要

在那些淡化人类种群遗传差异的流行文章里面,一个常见的说法是:85%的遗传差异来自于种群内的个体间差异,而只有15%是来自于种群或种族间差异。因此,有人认为依靠遗传数据而将智人划分为不同群体,是不合理的。R.C.列万廷在1972年作出的该论断是缺乏根据的,原因在于:用于区分种群的大部分信息隐藏在遗传数据的相关性结构里,而不简简单单体现在单个因子的差异上。这背后的逻辑,在上世纪初就已被讨论,在这里用一个简单的遗传学范例来加以说明。

“When a large number of individuals [of any kind of organism] are measured in respect of physical dimensions, weight, colour, density, etc., it is possible to describe with some accuracy the population of which our experience may be regarded as a sample. By this means it may be possible to distinguish it from other populations differing in their genetic origin, or in environmental circumstances. Thus local races may be very different as populations, although individuals may overlap in all characters; . . .” R.A. Fisher (1925).

“在测量「任何一种有机体的」大量个体的物理属性——重量,颜色,密度等——的时候,我们可以以特定的精确度来对该有机体的种群加以描述,虽然在经验上,他们可能只是样本而已。用这种方式,我们有可能把他们和其他种群在遗传起源上,甚至是在环境条件上,加以区分。这样一来,地区亚种之间在种群层面上可以有巨大的差别,尽管个体之间有可能高度重合……”R.A.菲舍尔(1925)。

“It is clear that our perception of relatively large differences between human races and subgroups, as compared to the variation within these groups, is indeed a bi(more...)

标签: |
6357
Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy 人类遗传多样性之列万廷的谬误 作者:A.W.F. Edwards 翻译:小聂(@PuppetMaster) 校对:辉格(@whigzhou) 来源:Edwards, A. W. F. (2003). "Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy". BioEssays 25 (8): 798–801. Summary In popular articles that play down the genetical differences among human populations, it is often stated that about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It has therefore been proposed that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data. This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors. The underlying logic, which was discussed in the early years of the last century, is here discussed using a simple genetical example. 概要 在那些淡化人类种群遗传差异的流行文章里面,一个常见的说法是:85%的遗传差异来自于种群内的个体间差异,而只有15%是来自于种群或种族间差异。因此,有人认为依靠遗传数据而将智人划分为不同群体,是不合理的。R.C.列万廷在1972年作出的该论断是缺乏根据的,原因在于:用于区分种群的大部分信息隐藏在遗传数据的相关性结构里,而不简简单单体现在单个因子的差异上。这背后的逻辑,在上世纪初就已被讨论,在这里用一个简单的遗传学范例来加以说明。 “When a large number of individuals [of any kind of organism] are measured in respect of physical dimensions, weight, colour, density, etc., it is possible to describe with some accuracy the population of which our experience may be regarded as a sample. By this means it may be possible to distinguish it from other populations differing in their genetic origin, or in environmental circumstances. Thus local races may be very different as populations, although individuals may overlap in all characters; . . .” R.A. Fisher (1925). “在测量「任何一种有机体的」大量个体的物理属性——重量,颜色,密度等——的时候,我们可以以特定的精确度来对该有机体的种群加以描述,虽然在经验上,他们可能只是样本而已。用这种方式,我们有可能把他们和其他种群在遗传起源上,甚至是在环境条件上,加以区分。这样一来,地区亚种之间在种群层面上可以有巨大的差别,尽管个体之间有可能高度重合……”R.A.菲舍尔(1925)。 “It is clear that our perception of relatively large differences between human races and subgroups, as compared to the variation within these groups, is indeed a biased perception and that, based on randomly chosen genetic differences, human races and populations are remarkably similar to each other, with the largest part by far of human variation being accounted for by the differences between individuals. Human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance”. R.C. Lewontin (1972). “很明显,我们对于人类种群或是亚种之间差异大于群内个体差异的理解,是一种偏见。并且,基于随机选定的遗传差异来看,人类种族和种群之间具有显著的相似性,迄今为止人类间差异的最大部分都源于个体差异。种族分类不仅没有社会价值,而且对人和社会的关系有着强烈的破坏性。既然现在看来这样的种族分类毫无遗传学和分类学根据,将其持续下去也是毫无必要的了。”R.C.列万廷(1972)。 “The study of genetic variations in Homo sapiens shows that there is more genetic variation within populations than between populations. This means that two random individuals from any one group are almost as different as any two random individuals from the entire world. Although it may be easy to observe distinct external differences between groups of people, it is more difficult to distinguish such groups genetically, since most genetic variation is found within all groups.” Nature (2001). “对于智人遗传差异的研究表明种群内差异大于种群间差异。这意味着从同一族群中随机挑选的两个个体之间的差异几乎等同于世界上任何两个随机个体间的差异。尽管我们可以观测到族群间分明的外部特征区别,对他们在遗传上加以区分却困难得多,因为大部分遗传差异存在于所有的族群之内。”《自然》(2001)。 Introduction 导言 In popular articles that play down the genetical differences among human populations it is often stated, usually without any reference, that about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It has therefore been suggested that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data. People the world over are much more similar genetically than appearances might suggest. 淡化人类种群间遗传差异的流行文章里,一个常见的未加引用的说法是:85%的遗传差异源于种群内的个体间差异,而只有15%的差异来自于种群或是种族。因此以这些种群为智人分类是不被遗传数据支持的。世界各地的人们在遗传上的相似性远大于外表所显示出的那样。 Thus an article in New Scientist reported that in 1972 Richard Lewontin of Harvard University “found that nearly 85 per cent of humanity’s genetic diversity occurs among individuals within a single population.”“In other words, two individuals are different because they are individuals, not because they belong to different races.” In 2001, the Human Genome edition of Nature came with a compact disc containing a similar statement, quoted above. 正如《新科学家》的一篇文章所报道的,哈佛大学的理查德•列万廷在1972年“发现近85%的人类遗传差异产生于种群内的个体之间”、“换句话说,个体之所以不同是因为他们是不同的个体,而不是因为他们属于不同的种族。”2001年,《自然:人类基因组特刊》附带的压缩光盘内也包含类似的引述。 Such statements seem all to trace back to a 1972 paper by Lewontin in the annual review Evolutionary Biology. Lewontin analysed data from 17 polymorphic loci, including the major blood-groups, and 7 ‘races’ (Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, S. Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, Australian Aborigines). The gene frequencies were given for the 7 races but not for the individual populations comprising them, although the final analysis did quote the within-population variability. 类似的陈述貌似都出自列万廷在1972年《进化生物学》年度综述中发表的一篇文章。列万廷分析了出自17个多态基因位点(包括主要的血型)和7个“种族”(高加索人,非洲人,蒙古人,南亚原住民,美洲印第安人,大洋洲人,以及澳洲原住民)的数据。尽管最终的分析引述了种群内多样性,对于基因频率,文章只给出了7个种族的数据,而没有给出组成这些种族的种群数据。 “The results are quite remarkable. The mean proportion of the total species diversity that is contained within populations is 85.4%.... Less than 15% of all human genetic diversity is accounted for by differences between human groups! Moreover, the difference between populations within a race accounts for an additional 8.3%, so that only 6.3% is accounted for by racial classification.” “结果很显著。在种群内包含的总物种多样性的比例平均可以达到85.4%……而只有不到15%的人类遗传多样性能被种群差异所解释!不仅如此,同一种族内部种群的差异在这里占8.3%,所以只有6.3%的差异能归结于种族划分。” Lewontin concluded “Since . . . racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance . . ., no justification can be offered for its continuance” (full quotation given above). 列万廷结论道:“既然如此……种族划分现在看来毫无遗传学或是分类学依据……延续它看来是毫无必要的”(上文已有完整引用)。 Lewontin included similar remarks in his 1974 book The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change “The taxonomic division of the human species into races places a completely disproportionate emphasis on a very small fraction of the total of human diversity. That scientists as well as nonscientists nevertheless continue to emphasize these genetically minor differences and find new ‘scientific’ justifications for doing so is an indication of the power of socioeconomically based ideology over the supposed objectivity of knowledge.” 在他1974年的书《进化改进的遗传学基础》种,列万廷加入了类似的评论。“将人类划分为种族的分类学方法将不成比例的注意力集中在人类总体多样性的零头上。科学家和大众对这种零星遗传差异的重视和坚持,甚至发现新的‘科学’证据来支持这种做法,显示出社会经济学意识形态的力量超越了本该是客观的知识。” The fallacy 谬误 These conclusions are based on the old statistical fallacy of analysing data on the assumption that it contains no information beyond that revealed on a locus-by-locus analysis, and then drawing conclusions solely on the results of such an analysis. The ‘taxonomic significance’ of genetic data in fact often arises from correlations amongst the different loci, for it is these that may contain the information which enables a stable classification to be uncovered. 之所以有以上定论,主要是出于一个陈旧的统计谬误,即认为除了基于单个位点的分析结论之外,数据不包含任何其它信息,并且只考虑基于这个假设的分析和它衍生出的结论。而所谓的“有分类学意义”的遗传数据实际上源自不同位点之间的相关关系,正是这些相关关系中可能包含的信息驱动了对于分类的发掘。 Cavalli-Sforza and Piazza coined the word ‘treeness’ to describe the extent to which a tree-like structure was hidden amongst the correlations in gene-frequency data. Lewontin’s superficial analysis ignores this aspect of the structure of the data and leads inevitably to the conclusion that the data do not possess such structure. The argument is circular. A contrasting analysis to Lewontin’s, using very similar data, was presented by Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards at the 1963 International Congress of Genetics. Making no prior assumptions about the form of the tree, they derived a convincing evolutionary tree for the 15 populations that they studied. Lewontin, though he participated in the Congress, did not refer to this analysis. Cavalli-Sforza和 Piazza创造了“树性”这一词汇,用于描述一个树形结构在基因频率数据的相关关系中的隐匿程度。列万廷的肤浅分析无视了数据在这方面的特性,于是不可避免的得出结论认为该树形结构不存在。这是个循环论证。Cavalli-Sforza和Edwards于1963年的世界遗传大会发表了与之对应的对比分析,并使用了类似的数据。在不对树形做任何先验假设的情况下,他们在研究的15个种群中得出了一个令人信服的进化树结构。列万廷虽然参加了此次会议,但却没有提到这个分析。 The statistical problem has been understood at least since the discussions surrounding Pearson’s ‘coefficient of racial likeness’ in the 1920s. It is mentioned in all editions of Fisher’s Statistical Methods for Research Workers from 1925 (quoted above). A useful review is that by Gower in a 1972 conference volume The Assessment of Population Affinities in Man. As he pointed out, “...the human mind distinguishes between different groups because there are correlated characters within the postulated groups.” 早在围绕皮尔森在1920年代提出的“种族相似性的协同因素”的讨论中,人们就已经理解了相关的统计原理了。在菲舍尔所作的《给研究员的统计方法》的所有版本中,该原理都有被提及(本文开头亦有引用)。高尔于1972年在“人类种群亲缘关系评估”的会议出版物中提出了一个有用的评论,他指出:“……人类心智将人划分为不同的组别,原因在于在这些组别内存在具有相关性的特性。” The original discussions involved anthropometric data, but the fallacy may equally be exposed using modern genetic terminology. Consider two haploid populations each of size n. In population 1 the frequency of a gene, say ‘+’ as opposed to ‘-’, at a single diallelic locus is p and in population 2 it is q, where p + q = 1. (The symmetry is deliberate.) Each population manifests simple binomial variability, and the overall variability is augmented by the difference in the means. 原初的讨论涉及一些人体测量学数据,但是我们用现代遗传学术语也同样可以揭示这个谬误。考虑两个个体数量各为n的单倍体种群。在种群1中某基因在一个单独位点为“+”而不是“-”的频率为p,在种群2中该频率为q,且p + q = 1。(这种对称性是有意设定的。)各种群的多样性为简单二项式分布,且总体多样性由于两个种群间平均值的差异而得到加强。 The natural way to analyse this variability is the analysis of variance, from which it will be found that the ratio of the within-population sum of squares to the total sum of squares is simply 4pq. Taking p = 0.3 and q = 0.7, this ratio is 0.84; 84% of the variability is within-population, corresponding closely to Lewontin’s figure. The probability of misclassifying an individual based on his gene is p, in this case 0.3. The genes at a single locus are hardly informative about the population to which their bearer belongs. 很自然的,我们用方差分析来评估多样性,从中可以得出种群内平方和与总体平方和之比为4pq【译注:对于任一种群,种群方差为npq,种群平方和为n2pq;总和平方和为1/4•n2(p+q)2 = 1/4•n2;(n2pq)/( 1/4•n2)=4pq】。如 p = 0.3 而 q = 0.7,该比率为0.84,即84%的多样性来自于种群内,正好对应列万廷的结果。基于该基因对个体的分类误差率为p,即0.3。单个位点的基因几乎不包含关于该基因携带者属于哪个种群的任何信息。 Now suppose there are k similar loci, all with gene frequency p in population 1 and q in population 2. The ratio of the within-to-total variability is still 84% at each locus. The total number of ‘+’ genes in an individual will be binomial with mean kp in population 1 and kq in population 2, with variance kpq in both cases. Continuing with the former gene frequencies and taking k = 100 loci (say), the mean numbers are 30 and 70 respectively, with variances 21 and thus standard deviations of 4.58. With a difference between the means of 40 and a common standard deviation of less than 4.6, there is virtually no overlap between the distributions, and the probability of misclassification is infinitesimal, simply on the basis of counting the number of ‘+’ genes. Fig. 1 shows how the probability falls off for up to 20 loci. 现在假设共有k个相似位点,都在种群1中和种群2中分别具有p和q的基因频率。在每个单个位点上,种群内多样性与总体多样性之比仍是84%。在每个个体上为“+”的基因数将呈二项式分布,其均值在种群1中为kp,在种群2中为kq,方差在两个种群中同为kpq。继续之前关于基因频率的假设【译注:即p = 0.3,q = 0.7】,设k = 100 个位点,则在两个种群中均值各为30和70,方差为21,因此标准差为4.58。在均值相差40的情况下,共同的标准差还不到4.6,因此这两个分布几乎没有任何重叠部分,所以基于“+”基因出现个数所作分类的误差可能性是无限小。图1显示了该分类误差率随位点数增加而下降的曲线,至20个位点。 #73-1 Figure 1. Graph showing how the probability of misclassification falls off as the number of gene loci increases, for the first example given in the text. The proportion of the variability within groups remains at 84% as in Lewontin’s data, but the probability of misclassification rapidly becomes negligible. 图1. 该图显示分类误差率随基因位点数增加而下降的曲线,用于文本中第一个例证。组内多样性占比依旧为列万廷数据揭示的84%,但分类误差率迅速下降至可以忽略的程度。【图表横轴:基因位点数;图表纵轴:分类误差率】 One way of looking at this result is to appreciate that the total number of ‘+’ genes is like the first principal component in a principal component analysis (Box 1). For this component the between-population sum of squares is very much greater than the within-population sum of squares. For the other components the reverse will hold, so that overall the between-population sum of squares is only a small proportion (in this example 16%) of the total. But this must not beguile one into thinking that the two populations are not separable, which they clearly are. 一种领会该结果的方式是将“+”基因的总数看成主成分分析法中的第一主成分(见框文1【编注:是对主成分分析(Principal components analysis,PCA)方法的介绍,译略,有兴趣可查看原文,或参见维基词条“主成分分析”】)。对于该成分,种群间平方和远大于种群内平方和。对于其他成分则反之,以至于对所有成分来说种群间平方和仅占总体平方和的一小部分(在这个例子里面为16%)。但这个结果不能诱使我们认为两个种群是不可分的,而实际上他们是清晰可分的。 Each additional locus contributes equally to the within-population and between-population sums of squares, whose proportions therefore remain unchanged but, at the same time, it contributes information about classification which is cumulative over loci because their gene frequencies are correlated. 每一个增加的位点都同样的增加种群内和种群间的平方和,导致它们之间的比率不变。但同时,关于分类的信息也增加了,而且这种增加在位点数量上是具有累加性的,因为位点之间的基因频率是相关的。 Classification 分类 It might be supposed, though it would be wrong, that this example is prejudiced by the assumptions that membership of the two populations is known in advance and that, at each locus, it is the same population that has the higher frequency of the ‘+’ gene. In fact the only advantage of the latter simplifying assumption was that it made it obvious that the total number of ‘+’ genes is the best discriminant between the two populations. 人们或可认为——虽然这么想是错的——这是个不太好的例子,因为假设了个体在两个种群的归属事先已知,并且在每个位点都是同一种群拥有较高的获得“+”的基因频率。实际上,后一个简化假设的唯一优势在于使得“+”基因的总数成为种群的明显最优判准。 To dispel these concerns, consider the same example but with ‘+’ and ‘-’ interchanged at each locus with probability 1⁄2, and suppose that there is no prior information as to which population each individual belongs. Clearly, the total number of ‘+’ genes an individual contains is no longer a discriminant, for the expected number is now the same in each group. A cluster analysis will be necessary in order to uncover the groups, and a convenient criterion is again based on the analysis of variance as in the method introduced by Edwards and Cavalli-Sforza. Here the preferred division into two clusters maximises the between-clusters sum of squares or, what is the same thing, minimises the sum of the within-clusters sums of squares. 为解除这些疑虑,设想同样的例子,但“+”和“-”在各个位点以1/2的概率互换,且没有关于个体归属的任何先验信息。显然,个体所拥有的“+”基因总数不能再作为判准,因为该数目的期望值在两组里面是一样的。在这种情况下需要用聚类分析来处理分组,且一个便利的分组条件仍然是基于方差分析的,其方法由Edwards和Cavalli-Sforza提供。这里对于聚类的优先分割会最大化聚类间平方和,或者说是最小化聚类内平方和,在这里是一样的意思。 As pointed out by these authors, it is extremely easy to compute these sums for binary data, for all the information is contained in the half-matrix of pairwise distances between the individuals, and at each locus this distance is simply 0 for a match and 1 for a mismatch of the genes. Since interchanging ‘+’ and ‘-’ makes no difference to the numbers of matches and mismatches, it is clear that the random changes introduced above are irrelevant. 正如这两位作者指出的那样,在二值数据里是很容易计算出这些平方和的,因为所有信息都可以体现为一个成对个体间的距离半矩阵。在每个位点上,配对时距离为0,不配对为1。既然互换“+”和“-”对于配对关系没有影响,那么显然以上引入的随机变化是无关的。 Continuing the symmetrical example, the probability of a match is p2 + q2 if the two individuals are from the same population and 2pq if they are from different populations. With k loci, therefore, the distance between two individuals from the same population will be binomial with mean k(p2 + q2) and variance k(p2 + q2)(1 – p2 – q2) and if from different populations binomial with mean 2kpq and variance 2kpq(1 – 2pq). These variances are, of course, the same. 继续这个对称性例子,对于来自同一种群的两个个体来说,单一位点配对的机率为p2 + q2;若来自不同种群,则为2pq。因此,对于k个位点,同一种群两个个体间距离呈二项式分布,均值为k(p2 + q2),方差为k(p2 + q2)(1 – p2 – q2);若来自不同种群,则均值为2kpq,方差为2kpq(1 – 2pq)。这两个方差显然是一样的【译注:p + q = 1 à p2 + q2 = 1 – 2pq】。 Taking p = 0.3, q = 0.7 and k = 100 as before, the means are 58 and 42 respectively, a difference of 16, the variances are 24.36 and the standard deviations both 4.936. The means are thus more than 3 standard deviations apart (3.2415). The entries of the half-matrix of pairwise distances will therefore divide into two groups with very little overlap, and it will be possible to identify the two clusters with a risk of misclassification which tends to zero as the number of loci increases. 像之前一样,取p = 0.3, q = 0.7 和 k = 100,则均值分别为58和42,相差16。方差为24.36,即两组的标准差都为4.936。这样一来两组均值之间则有超出3个标准差的距离。因此,这个成对个体距离半矩阵中的数值就可以被分成几乎没有重叠的两组,这样就有可能以较小的分类误差来识别两个聚类,且该分类误差率随位点数目增加逐渐趋向于0。 By analogy with the above example, it is likely that a count of the four DNA base frequencies in homologous tracts of a genome would prove quite a powerful statistical discriminant for classifying people into population groups. 同理可知,对于基因组同源区域的四个DNA碱基频率进行计数,这种方法很可能被证明是一个十分有效的进行种群分类的统计判准。 Conclusion 结论 There is nothing wrong with Lewontin’s statistical analysis of variation, only with the belief that it is relevant to classification. It is not true that “racial classification is . . . of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance”. It is not true, as Nature claimed, that “two random individuals from any one group are almost as different as any two random individuals from the entire world”, and it is not true, as the New Scientist claimed, that “two individuals are different because they are individuals, not because they belong to different races” and that “you can’t predict someone’s race by their genes”. Such statements might only be true if all the characters studied were independent, which they are not. 列万廷对于多样性的统计分析本身没错,错的是认为该分析与分类有关。那种认为“人种分类……毫无遗传学和分类学依据”的想法是错误的。类似《自然》杂志所声明的“两个来源于任何组别的个体之间的差异和两个来源于世界上任何地方的个体之间的差异几乎一样大”的想法是错误的。类似《新科学家》声明的“两个个体有区别是因为他们是两个个体,而不是因为他们从属于不同的种族”和“你无法通过基因来判断某人的种族”的想法也是错误的。这类声明唯有在所有被研究的特性都是独立分布的时候才成立,可它们并不是独立分布的。 Lewontin used his analysis of variation to mount an unjustified assault on classification, which he deplored for social reasons. It was he who wrote “Indeed the whole history of the problem of genetic variation is a vivid illustration of the role that deeply embedded ideological assumptions play in determining scientific ‘truth’ and the direction of scientific inquiry”. 列万廷利用他对于多样性的分析对人种分类发起了一场毫无根据的攻击,认为人种分类是社会因素造成的悲剧。正是他写道:“的确,遗传多样性问题的整个研究历史生动的向我们展示了深埋的意识形态假设是如何决定科学的‘真相’和科学探索的方向。” In a 1970 article Race and intelligence he had earlier written “I shall try, in this article, to display Professor Jensen’s argument, to show how the structure of his argument is designed to make his point and to reveal what appear to be deeply embedded assumptions derived from a particular world view, leading him to erroneous conclusions.” 更早之前在一篇发表于1972年的题为“种族与智能”的文章里他写道:“我会努力在本文向你展示詹森教授的论据,以及他如何构筑这些论据以说明他的论点的,并向你揭示那些深埋的假设是如何来自于一种特别的世界观,最终导致他得出一个错误的结论。” A proper analysis of human data reveals a substantial amount of information about genetic differences. What use, if any, one makes of it is quite another matter. But it is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, once revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality. One is reminded of Fisher’s remark in Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference “that the best causes tend to attract to their support the worst arguments, which seems to be equally true in the intellectual and in the moral sense.” 对于人类数据的恰当分析揭示了有关遗传差异的大量信息。如何利用这些信息则是另外一回事。但将生物学上的相似性当作人类在道德上平等的前提是一个危险的错误,因为差异一旦被发现,就会被视作道德不平等的论据。我们应当铭记菲舍尔在《统计方法与科学推断》中的话:“最好的主张常常会吸引最差的理由,而这理由在智力上和道德上都一样不靠谱。” Epilogue 后记 This article could, and perhaps should, have been written soon after 1974. Since then many advances have been made in both gene technology and statistical computing that have facilitated the study of population differences from genetic data. The magisterial book of Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza took the human story up to 1994, and since then many studies have amply confirmed the validity of the approach. 这篇文章本可以——且应该——在1974年之后不久就写完。自那时起,基因技术和统计计算方面取得了诸多进展,为研究遗传数据中的种群差异提供了很大帮助。Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi和Piazza的权威著作将人类的故事带到了1994年,从那时起,众多研究广泛的证实了他们的方法。 Very recent studies have treated individuals in the same way that Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards treated populations in 1963, namely by subjecting their genetic information to a cluster analysis thus revealing genetic affinities that have unsurprising geographic, linguistic and cultural parallels. As the authors of the most extensive of these comment, “it was only in the accumulation of small allele-frequency differences across many loci that population structure was identified.” 一些晚近的研究用Cavalli-Sforza和Edwards处理种群的方法对待个体,即,将聚类分析运用到个体遗传信息的分析上,由此所揭示出的地理、语言、以及文化上的遗传亲缘性,并不出乎意料。正如在这些课题上之中涉猎最为广泛的作者所言:“只有当众多微小位点上等位基因的差异逐渐累积,种群结构才得以显现。” (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

一滴血法则

【2015-09-08】

@格林黑风:请问不同类型的(有欧洲人血统)的混血儿自我族裔判定的影响因素是什么?据调查,在美国黑白混血儿自认为白人的比重大大低于黄白混血儿和拉白混血儿

@whigzhou: 美国黑人的“一滴血法则”大概是特殊历史造成的例外,最初是白人方面排斥的结果,而不是黑人方面的主动选择,久而久之,双方都这么认为了

@whigzhou: 因为早期白人和黑人地位过于悬殊,黑白通婚和混血儿皆不被白方社会接受,而且多数是私生子,他们在自我认同上没有别的选(more...)

标签: | |
6427
【2015-09-08】 @格林黑风:请问不同类型的(有欧洲人血统)的混血儿自我族裔判定的影响因素是什么?据调查,在美国黑白混血儿自认为白人的比重大大低于黄白混血儿和拉白混血儿 @whigzhou: 美国黑人的“一滴血法则”大概是特殊历史造成的例外,最初是白人方面排斥的结果,而不是黑人方面的主动选择,久而久之,双方都这么认为了 @whigzhou: 因为早期白人和黑人地位过于悬殊,黑白通婚和混血儿皆不被白方社会接受,而且多数是私生子,他们在自我认同上没有别的选择。 @whigzhou: 不过,单单地位悬殊原本未必有这效果,还要加上基督教的婚姻传统,单妻制对夫妻地位对称性要求更高,若换成阿拉伯的多妻制,结果就不一样了 @whigzhou: 阿拉伯人历史上娶黑人的很多(其中很多是奴隶),假如我的解释没错,对阿拉伯混血儿应该就不存在一滴血法则之类的习惯,你可以查一下 @格林黑风:问题是印第安人的地位难道比黑人还要高吗? @whigzhou: 大概是吧,印第安人和殖民者曾是对等敌手,打过仗,签过条约,划过边界,而不是被奴役过
[微言]“国民性”

【2014-08-30】

@袁裕来律师 中国一向就少有失败的英雄,少有韧性的反抗,少有敢单身鏖战的武人,少有敢抚哭叛徒的吊客;见胜兆则纷纷聚集,见败兆则纷纷逃亡。——鲁迅

@段宇宏:他自己不都躲在租界里吃香喝辣嘛!鲁迅要是穿越到今天上微博,他这个“大公知”每天熬鸡汤段子,绝对天天被舞矛朋友围殴,也会被舟子老师批

@whigzhou: 鲁迅这个观察是对的,历史上几次统一进程之所以那么迅速,就是因为竞争各方拥强凌弱的博弈策略和成王败寇的预期,之前讨论过 http://t.cn/zj6yO98

@whigzhou: 假如日本群岛整个向西南方挪动600公里,东亚历史就会完全不同,这样的日本很难被大陆帝国征服并长期留在帝国之内,但又很容易被入侵

@whigzhou: 这样,日本的当权者会执行一种阻止大陆形成统一帝国的政策,而这又会反过来改变大陆各派的博弈策略,让较弱者更加敢于对抗最强者,因为他们有望(more...)

标签: | | |
5301
【2014-08-30】 @袁裕来律师 中国一向就少有失败的英雄,少有韧性的反抗,少有敢单身鏖战的武人,少有敢抚哭叛徒的吊客;见胜兆则纷纷聚集,见败兆则纷纷逃亡。——鲁迅 @段宇宏:他自己不都躲在租界里吃香喝辣嘛!鲁迅要是穿越到今天上微博,他这个“大公知”每天熬鸡汤段子,绝对天天被舞矛朋友围殴,也会被舟子老师批 @whigzhou: 鲁迅这个观察是对的,历史上几次统一进程之所以那么迅速,就是因为竞争各方拥强凌弱的博弈策略和成王败寇的预期,之前讨论过 http://t.cn/zj6yO98 @whigzhou: 假如日本群岛整个向西南方挪动600公里,东亚历史就会完全不同,这样的日本很难被大陆帝国征服并长期留在帝国之内,但又很容易被入侵 @whigzhou: 这样,日本的当权者会执行一种阻止大陆形成统一帝国的政策,而这又会反过来改变大陆各派的博弈策略,让较弱者更加敢于对抗最强者,因为他们有望得到一个难以被征服的岛国的支持,即便输了也有地方逃,不至于被诛灭九族。 @whigzhou: 这正是发生在英国与欧洲之间的故事 @DarthIII:这是不可能的,日本历史上大部分时间都没有这个实力,到战国时代才一千万人口,战斗力不敌明朝的辽东边军 @whigzhou: 离得近就会有很多移民了,至于战斗力,女真才多少人? @段宇宏:鲁迅基于国民和文化“劣根性”发议论,跟你方法不同。拥强凌弱、弱弱联合抗强、多数人最终站在有实力者或胜者一边,人类文明史很普遍现象 @whigzhou: 策略和预期发生得多了持续时间长了,就会变成文化或“国民性”的一部分 @夕阳孤鹜2:你这个“国民性”和鲁迅的国民性还是有很大的差异。鲁迅的国民性有种族论的嫌疑(至少很容易就演化成种族性),它本身是反普世的,所以鲁迅及其支持者往往既刻薄又悲观 @whigzhou: 哦,是嘛,他有嫌疑,我就不用嫌疑了,我明确认为种族间存在差异,而且我也不是普世主义者 @夕阳孤鹜2 生物学上确实支持一些种族差异,这个不必说。你的意思是中国人“天生”(即基因决定)就不愿当英雄?更准确讲,比其他民族更不愿当英雄? @whigzhou: 我的观点是:1)可以有意义的区分races和ethnic groups,并为每个race或group识别出一组特性,3)至少其中一些特性具有遗传基础 @whigzhou: 说某个群体特性具有遗传基础的意思是,即便控制了所有非遗传因素,这些特性仍可在统计上得以识别,而并不是说这个特性是“基因决定”的,没什么东西可以被基因单独决定,我曾说过:若精确实施一个激素注射计划,你完全可能将一个拥有XY基因型的受精卵培养成具有完美女性生理特征的女人。 @夕阳孤鹜2:那你所说的这种“特性”是针对研究对象当下的客观描述,是即时的现象,是结果,而不是原因。可以这样理解 @whigzhou: 原因结果都可以是啊,比如东非人的某项生理特性,(可能)既是他们长期以来所采用的畜牧方式的结果,也是他们独霸长跑项目的原因 @whigzhou: 从一个群体识别出这样一组特性,我称之为文化特性,所谓国民性(我不喜欢用这个词)可以粗略对应于某个ethnic group的文化特性,这样,说某个民族具有某项国民性,意思是成长于该群体的人,比其他人更可能具有这一特性,无论该特性是否具有遗传基础 @愚行的螺旋:如果那不是基因决定的那就不是具有遗传基础的特征。而且你的定义哪怕是在理想实验中也是不操作的 @whigzhou: 当然是可操作的,比如对时间偏好,已经有了许多跨文化研究,群体间差异十分显著,假如控制了非遗传因素后差异仍然显著,便可断言:某群体具有高时间偏好的文化特性,且该特性有遗传基础 @whigzhou: 我同意鲁迅的意思是:我相信存在某些可以称为国民性的文化特性,它们对个人在博弈中持有何种信念/预期、采用何种策略——比如面对强者是抵抗还是依附——有重要影响 @夕阳孤鹜2 如果这种种族差异最后体现在否定人性的普适性,即同样的趋利避害,而支持种族的优劣(不深究该词,以普通人标准),那这种结论我强烈质疑,它必须有强硬的论据,右边可有这方面的论著介绍? @whigzhou: 特性可以在各种分类层次上识别,因而肯定种族/民族特性并不意味着否定普遍人性 @whigzhou: 我不赞成谈论种族/民族优劣,我只谈论特性和适应性,所谓优劣只能在给定评价标准下谈论,我相信每个群体的特性都曾是对特定环境的适应,某些不适应现代市场社会的特性,可能适应其他环境和社会形态,称之为“劣”没什么道理。 @whigzhou: 只有在现实政治/伦理冲突的语境下,当我需要伸张自己的政治立场和伦理主张时,才会用优劣之类的字眼,此时,优劣评判标准当然是我自己的价值标准,那是一种与这一串帖子十分不同的语境 @whigzhou: 所以我一般要骂也只会骂芝娜蛛,其他民族劣不劣根好像碍不到我什么,优了或许还能靠点福,怕的就是被坏种同胞了,直接影响我幸福 @whigzhou: 关于种族/民族特性,一种常见的认识是:你说汉民族有某某特性,我是汉人,所以按你说法我就自动获得了这些特性,这是我无法摆脱的宿命。正是这样的认知,使得谈论某些群体特性成了对全体的冒犯,这背后其实又是本质主义在作祟,本质主义认为先有类后有对象,对象自动具有类属性作为其“本质”。 @whigzhou: 不仅如此,本质主义通常还会将类属性视为“存在的意义”,我为人类规定了这组属性,于是拥有这组属性便是我成为人的根本,失去它们我就丧失了存在意义,人就不人了,天就塌了,诸如此类。 @whigzhou: 而我们非本质主义者不这么看事情,先有对象后有类,类不过是为认识世界方便而作的人为概念区分(当然对象也是,但对象的区分先于类),没错,你可以将我视为汉人,同时指出汉人这个类具有某些劣性,但我不会因此生气或自卑,只要我确信自己并不具有这些劣性 @whigzhou: 这是因为,用于归类的特性集,不会与归类之后识别出的特征集完全一致(这样的归类是无意义的),比如基于一组特征DNA标志,我被归为汉族,而统计发现汉族比其他民族更猥琐(假设该特性已有了可操作定义),但我作为个体未必很猥琐,因为猥琐并不是用于认定汉族归属的必备特征。 @whigzhou: 甚至,即便存在某个可能让人变得更猥琐的基因等位体,而我继承了该等位体,但由于我的独特个人生活史,我并未变得猥琐 @whigzhou: 有关动物分类,有个重要的事实:姐妹物种之间、种内各亚种之间的差异,通常远小于群体内的个体间差异,因而类别特性的现实意义更多表现在群体/社会层次上,在推测个体特性上的作用反而较小  
[微言]爱尔兰人与科学

【2013-02-08】

@舟子直播间 尽管所有的分子遗传学证据都表明“人种”在生物学上没有意义,但是这两人仍然在鼓吹欧洲人是最优秀的人种。不过最离奇的是这两人提出同性恋是一种由病毒或病菌引起的疾病。由这种人写的书根本不值得看。 //@方舟子 这不是什么革命性结论,而是在欧洲学者中重复了一、两百年的…|http://t.cn/zYVlsyz

@-Lucifier-:舟舟发出了怒吼,@whigzhou @Ent_evo

@whigzhou: 这是方舟子的原话吗?若真是,又拉低了我对他学识的评价,我看此书相当靠谱,分析方法很好,论证有力,虽然支持证据还有些薄弱((more...)

标签: |
4865
【2013-02-08】 @舟子直播间 尽管所有的分子遗传学证据都表明“人种”在生物学上没有意义,但是这两人仍然在鼓吹欧洲人是最优秀的人种。不过最离奇的是这两人提出同性恋是一种由病毒或病菌引起的疾病。由这种人写的书根本不值得看。 //@方舟子 这不是什么革命性结论,而是在欧洲学者中重复了一、两百年的...|http://t.cn/zYVlsyz @-Lucifier-:舟舟发出了怒吼,@whigzhou @Ent_evo @whigzhou: 这是方舟子的原话吗?若真是,又拉低了我对他学识的评价,我看此书相当靠谱,分析方法很好,论证有力,虽然支持证据还有些薄弱(对于这样一部开创性著作,这一弱点完全可以接受),另外,他们对文化差异的影响有些过度低估, 但这不是此书重点 @-Lucifier-:方舟子大概只看了这篇书评,然后整合对两位作者的背景,据以断定。 @whigzhou: 可能是这样,但他对此类见解的第一反应是得出一个基于固有成见的、意识形态的、学历资格论的判断,仅此一点,也足以让人失望 @whigzhou: “所有的分子遗传学证据都表明“人种”在生物学上没有意义”——很难相信这句话出自一位对现代进化理论和人类遗传学进展有着良好把握的人之口 @水蒸馒头:莫非人种之间真的有智商差别? @whigzhou: 这应该没有疑问,不过更有意义的是各种特定心智能力的种群间差异及其遗传基础和进化背景,比如认路能力、空间想象力、语言学习能力、抽象能力、逻辑能力、自我控制能力,等等,相比之下,智商并不是一个好的指标 @whigzhou: Thomas Sowell也注意到,爱尔兰裔在虽成功融入美国社会,在政治和文艺领域取得很多成就,社会地位也大幅提升,但在科学上却没什么成就,与犹太裔形成鲜明对比。我查了一下,好像是这样,8千万爱尔兰人(裔)得过4个诺贝尔文学奖,2个和平奖,但只有一个科学奖,和1千万Ashkenazi犹太人相比,差太远了 @whigzhou: 又查了一下,唯一得诺贝尔科学奖的那个爱尔兰人Ernest Walton,好像也不是爱尔兰裔,他不是天主教徒,是新教卫理宗(Methodist)的,父亲还是卫理宗传教士,而且Walton是个盎格鲁-撒克逊姓氏 @Tyresea:nobelprize/walton-bio 裏面提到他父親是愛爾蘭中部的Tipperary人,biography/ernest-walton 裏面寫他母親是北愛爾蘭Ulster古老家族里的一員 @whigzhou: 没有啊,只说他出生在Tipperary,没说他爹是Tipperary人,“ministry demanded that his father move from place to place every few years” @理之越:还是跟别的族群比好一点,犹太人的特殊文化传统干扰太大 @whigzhou: 嗯,可以对比条件类似的意大利裔,还是差很多,意大利人/裔出了很多科学家,得诺奖的也不少 http://t.cn/zYVrvTH  
[微言]种族体质差异

【2012-07-18】

@古希腊人:回复@花总丢了金箍棒: 刚查了一下,按照维基百科的说法,有组织的农业生产出现在在1万1千年前的中东。生物学意义的人在一万年的时间上跟现代人是一样的。所以辉格的说法不靠谱

@whigzhou: 一万年足以产生“生物学意义上”的差异,乳糖耐受、肤色、发质、镰刀形贫血、乳房形状、脂肪臀、湿耳垢…

@Ent_evo: 一万年(500代)一般不够产生生殖隔离和成新种,但出个亚种是可能的。

@whigzhou: 记得哪里提到过澳洲土著与白人生育的流产率已经高出常规水平了,澳洲要是再晚发现几万年,那就有点麻烦了…

@花总丢(more...)

标签: | | | |
4437
【2012-07-18】 @古希腊人:回复@花总丢了金箍棒: 刚查了一下,按照维基百科的说法,有组织的农业生产出现在在1万1千年前的中东。生物学意义的人在一万年的时间上跟现代人是一样的。所以辉格的说法不靠谱 @whigzhou: 一万年足以产生“生物学意义上”的差异,乳糖耐受、肤色、发质、镰刀形贫血、乳房形状、脂肪臀、湿耳垢... @Ent_evo: 一万年(500代)一般不够产生生殖隔离和成新种,但出个亚种是可能的。 @whigzhou: 记得哪里提到过澳洲土著与白人生育的流产率已经高出常规水平了,澳洲要是再晚发现几万年,那就有点麻烦了... @花总丢了金箍棒: 那是最早的农业生产,不是农业民族 @whigzhou: 不需要引入民族这个概念,只须假定种群在取食模式上具有不可逆性即可,也就是采用了农耕模式的种群不会或极少会退回到狩猎/采集模式,这样,某地区长久的农业历史,即可提高在农业条件下优势基因的频率,从而改变相关性状的平均水平 @花总丢了金箍棒: 太扯了,除非有统计数据能支持你的论点。#我们在讨论jb长度# @whigzhou: 统计数据滴没有,本来就是猜想,爱信不信,又没人给我拨经费凭啥给数据 @Alcibiades: 乳糖耐受、肤色、发质、镰刀形贫血、乳房形状、脂肪臀、湿耳垢... 这些是物种内差异吧? @whigzhou: 有人说是种间差异了? @花总丢了金箍棒 维基词条《人类JJ 长度》。里面提到:1、关于JJ 长度测量,很多情况下得到的数据在统计学上不可靠(更别提比较研究)。2、JJ 在胚胎时生长就被Hox 基因控制,但难以推测精确长度。3、没有结论性证据可证明种族和JJ 尺寸间有必然联系。民族也一样 @whigzhou: Human penis size词条说无种族差异 http://t.cn/ht8j8V Human penis词条说有 http://t.cn/zWi5ZEE 有个网站还提供了活龙活现的地图 http://t.cn/htoCLn 看来并无定论 @whigzhou: 因为涉及政治正确敏感点,比较体质人类学这个学科二战后几乎就消失了(或转入地下了?),此类数据就算有也不容易看到 @Araby-Exodus 这事有什么政治正确不正确,难道小就inferior了吗?不会这么insecure的吧! @whigzhou: 谈论任何种族差异都可能犯忌 @whigzhou: 还真就这么insecure,那个说女人数学能力不及男人的哈佛校长,可耻下场大家也都看到了