"gc" who used to be "godless capitalist" has a celebratory comment over at the blog Gene Expression that I will repeat in its entirety (if he doesn't mind):
-------begin "gc" comment--------------
This is the ripest fruit yet of our labors. There have been others, and more yet to come, but this is an occasion to pop the bubbly and gloat. I am sipping Cristal *right now*, compiler a compilin' in the background, blasting We Takin' Over by DJ Khaled. An appropriate track. Christmas came early this year. If I had an AK I'd be firing it in the air, waving it like I jus' don't care.
I'm proud to say that we pioneered the discussion of the Hapmap's implications. Right here on GNXP. More than five years ago, we saw the future with clear eyes. From 7/30/2002:
In other words, if you think of the human genome project as a massive effort to provide a "first order" approximation to human sequence space, the HapMap will be a massive effort to provide a "second order" approximation to human sequence space. How is this useful? Suppose we want to describe the sequence of a randomly selected Joe. If you're limited to describing Joe's sequence with a single string, you'd give the consensus human genome sequence. If you can afford to be more accurate than that, you'll start figuring out which haplotypes are most common in Joe's population group, and give the haplotype distribution instead. A higher degree of accuracy would of course be to sequence Joe's genome de novo , but that's not yet cost effective. We can thus see that while the consensus human genome sequence is an approximation of what we have in common, the HapMap is fundamentally about finding the genetic roots of human differences. Yes, it may be useful for curing diseases, but that will only be the beginning of the applications and not a major one at that. There is much dispute over whether combinations of common mutations cause disease or whether rare mutations are more likely to do so, but such disputes miss the forest for the trees. The main haul of the HapMap will be a flood of data that will overwhelm those who would deny that significant genetic differences exist between humans. Even more importantly, it will provide an invaluable base of information for those who would usher us into an age of reengineered humans.
It is a fucking visceral rush to see your ideas, your blog, your baby diffuse out and percolate up to the highest neurons in the nervous system.
And at such a time it behooves us to thank our poor demonized blogfather, Steve. He's been in the NYT before (e.g. Dirt Gap and so on), but they've never taken on the fundamental h-bd premise directly. Now they have. And even though he's not mentioned by name, Sailer begat GC and Razib, and Razib/GC begat GNXP, and GNXP begat Malloy and (I believe) Half Sigma. And so the lurking reader became the blogger, and thus was the h-bd blogosphere populated, and lo it was good. And goddamn if I'm not proud as hell of what we've accomplished here, of what p-ter and Darth and Rik and all of the gang have done.
Mencius is right. This is possibly the most remarkable article -- of world historical importance, really -- that I've ever read in the NYT. The implications are that far reaching, for reasons I need not elaborate. And it's doubly important that it's not by Nick Wade. This is no isolated truth teller.
I mean, Christ Almighty, Marcus f'ing Feldman (!!!!) is acknowledging that IQ might vary by race! Do you understand what this *means*? The implications this has for peer review, for so many things...they are profound.
It's funny, I was just in a discussion over at 2Blowhards for the first time in a while ([link]), engaged in the usual kinds of repetitive block-and-tackling vs. the 101 tiresome ways to minimize the importance of h-bd. I was thinking, not for the first time, that it is and was a complete waste of time to lop off the branches of the tree rather than to strike the root. I mean, it's very difficult to see any long term benefit to arguing in a blog comment section about whether the earth moves around the sun or vice versa. But then you see something like this, and fuck, it's all worthwhile.
Anyway....as far as I'm concerned, the intellectual war is over. We've won. That doesn't mean the revelations will come quickly enough for the West or America. Hell is truth seen too late.
But in terms of the fate of the world, even if the priest class continues to burn Galileos and Watsons and Summers' who speak out in public, the international scientific journals in which history is made are now going to be incrementally more open to publishing that eventual series of articles which breaks it all wide open, which takes hammer to chisel and splits that granite facade right down the center. And everyone reads those international journals.
Even, y'know, people in other countries...
Five years ago we were right about the implications of the Hapmap. And five years hence we will be right again about our genetic engineering future. Y'all don't have to take my word for it, of course.
It'll be on the front page of the New York Times.
-------end "gc" comment----------------
Regarding my mention in the comment, I will point out that I knew about these issues since the late 1980s, but I did read about them at the Gene Expression blog before I ever blogged about them myself. I also kind of feel bad for Steve Sailer. He's been writing about these issues tirelessly for years, but I'm the one who gets quoted on the front page of the New York Times. He also deserved a mention.
I understand why he's happy. After many years of arguing with people who have no idea what they are talking about, it feels really good to be vindicated.
But my question is whether this celebrating is premature? After all, way back in 1979, Time Magazine printed an article about Arthur Jensen's book, and it was ignored. In 1994, The Bell Curve was published, and even though it sold a million copies, race realism did not go mainstream.
Is this article any different? Please limit comments to the issue of whether it's different this time.