Sam Harris is a sleeper white Supremacist

[Dear Mami]

• Tweet

....who knew??? He'd never admit it explicitly but he has been legitimizing that "Bell Curve" book for the last few years and is partly responsible for its renewed popularity. He talks about it as if its pure undebunkable fact despite its dismissal by a majority of the scientific and scholarly community. He doesn't address the Flynn effect and Flynn's debates specifically with this Murray person.

What's goin on? I feel like something really nefarious is on the rise and I have no idea why that is. Its just so disheartening.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/15695060/sam-harris-charles-murray-race-iq-forbidden-knowledge-podcast-bell-curve

[vooke]

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

He is one of those that prove formal education and speaking in a polite way does not equate to brilliance.  There is no scientific evidence that intelligence is distributed by race.

[Dear Mami]

I love this video because it describes why this race and iq business is very silly from a genetics point of view:

1) Genetically speaking, there is no such thing as "race" in humans, (or "subspecies" as alt-righters refer to it) for several reasons:

a) We simply haven't been around long enough for such speciation amongst ourselves to happen. Evolution places us at 200,000 years old as a species, which is but a blip in terms of evolution.

b) Even worse than this, we are ALL descended from a very small population of humans, probably just a couple of a thousand, as the group of humans on the continent had been drastically reduced to that size by some cataclysmic event some 70,000 years or so....ALL of us, without exception, even the aborigines of Australia. It was after this that the out of Africa movements from our own "group" started happening. So its a 70,000 year window for us to evolve away from each other in order to give rise to biological races.

c) Even presuming there had been some speciation before then, it has vanished from the genetic record because all of us who survived were from that tiny group 70,000 years ago that was closely "related" lets say.

d) There have been no genuinely isolated human groups during this short time due to the constant migratory impulse of the homo sapien sapien which has always given rise to waves of migration all over the world throughout. No genes have been completely/perfectly isolated.

e) There are no clusters of genes that can define biological race. ie. traits you can say belong to only one group (100% of the group has them) and only them (no others have them). Even the ones we are most likely to point out, eg East Asian slanted eyes. European blonde hair/blue eyes, white skin, brown/black skin fail the test because none of them belong exclusively to anyone group (google blonde, blue-eyed Aborigines or Khoisans to see "East Asian" eyes) or to every single member of any group to the exclusion of others so that you can say that THAT is the defining trait of that race vs another race or vs all other races.

-They are also arbitrary. These are very superficial traits corresponding to certain large geographies but you could use less visible but more fundamental genetic traits to create WHOLLY different "races".

f) The diversity: There is more genetic diversity between African "black" groups than between "Africans" and "Europeans" for example. So pygmies and the Tutsi and Some other bantus, Nilotes, etc probably qualify much more as "races" than "Africans" and "Europeans" or "Blacks" and "Whites". Yet even in that case, the difference is negligible and this is almost unique to humans (the tiny amount of diversity) or at least is rare compared to nearly all other species.

-Again, humans just barely arrived on the evolutionary time scale and were reduced to a tiny population of East Africans 70,000 years ago. I've seen it said that any two of us are more closely related than two apples you pick up at a store. That's what they discovered when the entire human genome was mapped in the early 2000s.


2) Linking IQ to intelligence per se is controversial

3) Even more, going further to link this iQ-intelligence thing to race (a biologically non-existent thing) is problematic to say the least.

Another video you can see is this:

Linking intelligence to race using IQ is a highly problematic thing to attempt from a scientific perspective because of how nebulous both "race" and "intelligence" are, no matter what you think of the IQ test's relation to innate intelligence is.

[vooke]

He is one of those that prove formal education and speaking in a polite way does not equate to brilliance.  There is no scientific evidence that intelligence is distributed by race.

I knew him for his anti-religion zeal. He is calm while at it.

As I said, we so badly wish that intelligence is not a function of race primarily because of what that assumption did in the past. Now ,even with a chance to study it  we are not interested in confirming our worst fears.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

He is one of those that prove formal education and speaking in a polite way does not equate to brilliance.  There is no scientific evidence that intelligence is distributed by race.

I knew him for his anti-religion zeal. He is calm while at it.

As I said, we so badly wish that intelligence is not a function of race primarily because of what that assumption did in the past. Now ,even with a chance to study it  we are not interested in confirming our worst fears.

I am not aware of anyone stopping the studies.  Genome studies are ongoing.  Maybe some combination of genes might be found that favor intelligence(if we can summarize it) with different distributions among races.  But they haven't.  My own experience tells me there is nothing a mzungu is endowed with that the Negro living in the trees in the Congo lacks.

[vooke]

He is one of those that prove formal education and speaking in a polite way does not equate to brilliance.  There is no scientific evidence that intelligence is distributed by race.

I knew him for his anti-religion zeal. He is calm while at it.

As I said, we so badly wish that intelligence is not a function of race primarily because of what that assumption did in the past. Now ,even with a chance to study it  we are not interested in confirming our worst fears.

I am not aware of anyone stopping the studies.  Genome studies are ongoing.  Maybe some combination of genes might be found that favor intelligence(if we can summarize it) with different distributions among races.  But they haven't.  My own experience tells me there is nothing a mzungu is endowed with that the Negro living in the trees in the Congo lacks.

Mzungu has lesser melanin than the negro

[Dear Mami]

He is one of those that prove formal education and speaking in a polite way does not equate to brilliance.  There is no scientific evidence that intelligence is distributed by race.

I knew him for his anti-religion zeal. He is calm while at it.

As I said, we so badly wish that intelligence is not a function of race primarily because of what that assumption did in the past. Now ,even with a chance to study it  we are not interested in confirming our worst fears.

Hmm, actually this is not exactly true either. Scientists reject these alt-right ideas because they are utterly unfounded based on the evidence. It's not because they are afraid to look for evidence. The genome was mapped recently and it is the genetic discoveries over the past decade that has most made these "race realism" ideas ridiculous from a genetics point of view. The thing we humans call "races" in our day to day lives become meaningless when they actually look at our genes, and the genetic differences between different geographic groups.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I love this video because it describes why this race and iq business is very silly from a genetics point of view:

1) Genetically speaking, there is no such thing as "race" in humans, (or "subspecies" as alt-righters refer to it) for several reasons:

a) We simply haven't been around long enough for such speciation amongst ourselves to happen. Evolution places us at 200,000 years old as a species, which is but a blip in terms of evolution.

b) Even worse than this, we are ALL descended from a very small population of humans, probably just a couple of a thousand, as the group of humans on the continent had been drastically reduced to that size by some cataclysmic event some 70,000 years or so....ALL of us, without exception, even the aborigines of Australia. It was after this that the out of Africa movements from our own "group" started happening. So its a 70,000 year window for us to evolve away from each other in order to give rise to biological races.

c) Even presuming there had been some speciation before then, it has vanished from the genetic record because all of us who survived were from that tiny group 70,000 years ago that was closely "related" lets say.

d) There have been no genuinely isolated human groups during this short time due to the constant migratory impulse of the homo sapien sapien which has always given rise to waves of migration all over the world throughout. No genes have been completely/perfectly isolated.

e) There are no clusters of genes that can define biological race. ie. traits you can say belong to only one group (100% of the group has them) and only them (no others have them). Even the ones we are most likely to point out, eg East Asian slanted eyes. European blonde hair/blue eyes, white skin, brown/black skin fail the test because none of them belong exclusively to anyone group (google blonde, blue-eyed Aborigines or Khoisans to see "East Asian" eyes) or to every single member of any group to the exclusion of others so that you can say that THAT is the defining trait of that race vs another race or vs all other races.

-They are also arbitrary. These are very superficial traits corresponding to certain large geographies but you could use less visible but more fundamental genetic traits to create WHOLLY different "races".

f) The diversity: There is more genetic diversity between African "black" groups than between "Africans" and "Europeans" for example. So pygmies and the Tutsi and Some other bantus, Nilotes, etc probably qualify much more as "races" than "Africans" and "Europeans" or "Blacks" and "Whites". Yet even in that case, the difference is negligible and this is almost unique to humans (the tiny amount of diversity) or at least is rare compared to nearly all other species.

-Again, humans just barely arrived on the evolutionary time scale and were reduced to a tiny population of East Africans 70,000 years ago. I've seen it said that any two of us are more closely related than two apples you pick up at a store. That's what they discovered when the entire human genome was mapped in the early 2000s.


2) Linking IQ to intelligence per se is controversial

3) Even more, going further to link this iQ-intelligence thing to race (a biologically non-existent thing) is problematic to say the least.

Another video you can see is this:

Linking intelligence to race using IQ is a highly problematic thing to attempt from a scientific perspective because of how nebulous both "race" and "intelligence" are, no matter what you think of the IQ test's relation to innate intelligence is.

To me IQ tests are just a reflection of cultural differences.  If you spend time around African Americans, you will notice a very different type of environment than bazungus.  And Asians are also in a very different kind of setup with different demands and expectations.  And this is regardless of income.

Bazungus tend to have the lower demands placed on them.  They are allowed to be kids when they are kids.  African Americans have to "grow up" very fast, just to not get into trouble.  So a good deal of energy is focused on the straight and narrow for black kids who want to succeed.  Asians have to deal with demands from their parents who expect nothing less than Phds in a technical field.  No burden on them to survive a police encounter though.

[vooke]

He is one of those that prove formal education and speaking in a polite way does not equate to brilliance.  There is no scientific evidence that intelligence is distributed by race.

I knew him for his anti-religion zeal. He is calm while at it.

As I said, we so badly wish that intelligence is not a function of race primarily because of what that assumption did in the past. Now ,even with a chance to study it  we are not interested in confirming our worst fears.

Hmm, actually this is not exactly true either. Scientists reject these alt-right ideas because they are utterly unfounded based on the evidence. It's not because they are afraid to look for evidence. The genome was mapped recently and it is the genetic discoveries over the past decade that has most made these "race realism" ideas ridiculous from a genetics point of view. The thing we humans call "races" in our day to day lives become meaningless when they actually look at our genes, and the genetic differences between different geographic groups.

The question of whether there is a genetic basis of human races is far from being settled in academia.

[Dear Mami]

I am not aware of anyone stopping the studies.  Genome studies are ongoing.  Maybe some combination of genes might be found that favor intelligence(if we can summarize it) with different distributions among races.  But they haven't.  My own experience tells me there is nothing a mzungu is endowed with that the Negro living in the trees in the Congo lacks.

Mzungu has lesser melanin than the negro

But thats the problem vooke, dont you see? For example, which negro? There are all shades of negro. Plus, would mzungu be the same race as the Japanese per a melanin test? Would the Australian Aborigine and Southern Indian be Negro per melanin? Would the Arab qualify for Mzungu status? For that matter, is the Italian and Greek the same race as the German, Scotsman and Irishman, per melanin? In fact, are ANY of them the same race as the Scandinavian? There are no defining "melanin" traits to bazungu, negro, asian etc. This is why these categories are arbitrary.

[vooke]

I love this video because it describes why this race and iq business is very silly from a genetics point of view:

1) Genetically speaking, there is no such thing as "race" in humans, (or "subspecies" as alt-righters refer to it) for several reasons:

a) We simply haven't been around long enough for such speciation amongst ourselves to happen. Evolution places us at 200,000 years old as a species, which is but a blip in terms of evolution.

b) Even worse than this, we are ALL descended from a very small population of humans, probably just a couple of a thousand, as the group of humans on the continent had been drastically reduced to that size by some cataclysmic event some 70,000 years or so....ALL of us, without exception, even the aborigines of Australia. It was after this that the out of Africa movements from our own "group" started happening. So its a 70,000 year window for us to evolve away from each other in order to give rise to biological races.

c) Even presuming there had been some speciation before then, it has vanished from the genetic record because all of us who survived were from that tiny group 70,000 years ago that was closely "related" lets say.

d) There have been no genuinely isolated human groups during this short time due to the constant migratory impulse of the homo sapien sapien which has always given rise to waves of migration all over the world throughout. No genes have been completely/perfectly isolated.

e) There are no clusters of genes that can define biological race. ie. traits you can say belong to only one group (100% of the group has them) and only them (no others have them). Even the ones we are most likely to point out, eg East Asian slanted eyes. European blonde hair/blue eyes, white skin, brown/black skin fail the test because none of them belong exclusively to anyone group (google blonde, blue-eyed Aborigines or Khoisans to see "East Asian" eyes) or to every single member of any group to the exclusion of others so that you can say that THAT is the defining trait of that race vs another race or vs all other races.

-They are also arbitrary. These are very superficial traits corresponding to certain large geographies but you could use less visible but more fundamental genetic traits to create WHOLLY different "races".

f) The diversity: There is more genetic diversity between African "black" groups than between "Africans" and "Europeans" for example. So pygmies and the Tutsi and Some other bantus, Nilotes, etc probably qualify much more as "races" than "Africans" and "Europeans" or "Blacks" and "Whites". Yet even in that case, the difference is negligible and this is almost unique to humans (the tiny amount of diversity) or at least is rare compared to nearly all other species.

-Again, humans just barely arrived on the evolutionary time scale and were reduced to a tiny population of East Africans 70,000 years ago. I've seen it said that any two of us are more closely related than two apples you pick up at a store. That's what they discovered when the entire human genome was mapped in the early 2000s.


2) Linking IQ to intelligence per se is controversial

3) Even more, going further to link this iQ-intelligence thing to race (a biologically non-existent thing) is problematic to say the least.

Another video you can see is this:

Linking intelligence to race using IQ is a highly problematic thing to attempt from a scientific perspective because of how nebulous both "race" and "intelligence" are, no matter what you think of the IQ test's relation to innate intelligence is.

To me IQ tests are just a reflection of cultural differences.  If you spend time around African Americans, you will notice a very different type of environment than bazungus.  And Asians are also in a very different kind of setup with different demands and expectations.  And this is regardless of income.

Bazungus tend to have the lower demands placed on them.  They are allowed to be kids when they are kids.  African Americans have to "grow up" very fast, just to not get into trouble.  So a good deal of energy is focused on the straight and narrow for black kids who want to succeed.  Asians have to deal with demands from their parents who expect nothing less than Phds in a technical field.  No burden on them to survive a police encounter though.

We muddy the definition of intelligence when not muddying the one of Race and we thus effectively bury the quest.

[vooke]

I am not aware of anyone stopping the studies.  Genome studies are ongoing.  Maybe some combination of genes might be found that favor intelligence(if we can summarize it) with different distributions among races.  But they haven't.  My own experience tells me there is nothing a mzungu is endowed with that the Negro living in the trees in the Congo lacks.

Mzungu has lesser melanin than the negro

But thats the problem vooke, dont you see? For example, which negro? There are all shades of negro. Plus, would mzungu be the same race as the Japanese per a melanin test? Would the Australian Aborigine and Southern Indian be Negro per melanin? Would the Arab qualify for Mzungu status? For that matter, is the Italian and Greek the same race as the German, Scotsman and Irishman, per melanin? In fact, are ANY of them the same race as the Scandinavian? There are no defining "melanin" traits to bazungu, negro, asian etc. This is why these categories are arbitrary.

I understand the various shades of melanin. My point was,there are differences of endowment from negro to bazungu. We are only too careful not to take this to intelligence because that is not PC. I can almost bet that if melanin was as radioactive as intelligence many would deny variation in melanin despite staring at it with their naked eyes

[Dear Mami]

I am not aware of anyone stopping the studies.  Genome studies are ongoing.  Maybe some combination of genes might be found that favor intelligence(if we can summarize it) with different distributions among races.  But they haven't.  My own experience tells me there is nothing a mzungu is endowed with that the Negro living in the trees in the Congo lacks.

Mzungu has lesser melanin than the negro

But thats the problem vooke, dont you see? For example, which negro? There are all shades of negro. Plus, would mzungu be the same race as the Japanese per a melanin test? Would the Australian Aborigine and Southern Indian be Negro per melanin? Would the Arab qualify for Mzungu status? For that matter, is the Italian and Greek the same race as the German, Scotsman and Irishman, per melanin? In fact, are ANY of them the same race as the Scandinavian? There are no defining "melanin" traits to bazungu, negro, asian etc. This is why these categories are arbitrary.

I understand the various shades of melanin. My point was,there are differences of endowment from negro to bazungu. We are only too careful not to take this to intelligence because that is not PC. I can almost bet that if melanin was as radioactive as intelligence many would deny variation in melanin despite staring at it with their naked eyes

But which "bazungu"? The Arab, Greek, German, or Swede? The problem is while geneticists are trying to find biological "races" and failing, the idea of "bazungu" and "negro" races already assumes a certain validity to this very categorization that just is utterly meaningless when they look at our genes. Per our genes, it makes more sense to think of many african groups as "races" than it does to think of a "bazungu" race.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I am not aware of anyone stopping the studies.  Genome studies are ongoing.  Maybe some combination of genes might be found that favor intelligence(if we can summarize it) with different distributions among races.  But they haven't.  My own experience tells me there is nothing a mzungu is endowed with that the Negro living in the trees in the Congo lacks.

Mzungu has lesser melanin than the negro

But thats the problem vooke, dont you see? For example, which negro? There are all shades of negro. Plus, would mzungu be the same race as the Japanese per a melanin test? Would the Australian Aborigine and Southern Indian be Negro per melanin? Would the Arab qualify for Mzungu status? For that matter, is the Italian and Greek the same race as the German, Scotsman and Irishman, per melanin? In fact, are ANY of them the same race as the Scandinavian? There are no defining "melanin" traits to bazungu, negro, asian etc. This is why these categories are arbitrary.

I understand the various shades of melanin. My point was,there are differences of endowment from negro to bazungu. We are only too careful not to take this to intelligence because that is not PC. I can almost bet that if melanin was as radioactive as intelligence many would deny variation in melanin despite staring at it with their naked eyes

I think it's because intelligence is not well defined.  Neither is race.  I think kadame has already pointed that out.

You put a finger on those, provide reliable data, I don't think you will run into any problems.  I think Charles Murray was debunked partly on the methodology he used to estimate IQ levels(without measuring them).  He would for instance estimate the IQ of one country on the basis of the estimated IQs of neighboring countries.  You know nobody went around Africa giving controlled IQ tests for instance.

[Dear Mami]

I didn't know that

He would for instance estimate the IQ of one country on the basis of the estimated IQs of neighboring countries.  You know nobody went around Africa giving controlled IQ tests for instance.

I've always wondered when I see IQ scores for African countries if these people know of the diversity within countries for example. Imagine giving a Turkana who has never been to school the same IQ test as some Nairobi kid and then assuming that the predictably low score by the Turkana is because Turkanas are innately less intelligent than Nairobi city dwellers. It's just crazy how mindless these claims are yet these pple think they are being rational.

[vooke]

I am not aware of anyone stopping the studies.  Genome studies are ongoing.  Maybe some combination of genes might be found that favor intelligence(if we can summarize it) with different distributions among races.  But they haven't.  My own experience tells me there is nothing a mzungu is endowed with that the Negro living in the trees in the Congo lacks.

Mzungu has lesser melanin than the negro

But thats the problem vooke, dont you see? For example, which negro? There are all shades of negro. Plus, would mzungu be the same race as the Japanese per a melanin test? Would the Australian Aborigine and Southern Indian be Negro per melanin? Would the Arab qualify for Mzungu status? For that matter, is the Italian and Greek the same race as the German, Scotsman and Irishman, per melanin? In fact, are ANY of them the same race as the Scandinavian? There are no defining "melanin" traits to bazungu, negro, asian etc. This is why these categories are arbitrary.

I understand the various shades of melanin. My point was,there are differences of endowment from negro to bazungu. We are only too careful not to take this to intelligence because that is not PC. I can almost bet that if melanin was as radioactive as intelligence many would deny variation in melanin despite staring at it with their naked eyes

But which "bazungu"? The Arab, Greek, German, or Swede? The problem is while geneticists are trying to find biological "races" and failing, the idea of "bazungu" and "negro" races already assumes a certain validity to this very categorization that just is utterly meaningless when they look at our genes. Per our genes, it makes more sense to think of many african groups as "races" than it does to think of a "bazungu" race.

[vooke]

I am not aware of anyone stopping the studies.  Genome studies are ongoing.  Maybe some combination of genes might be found that favor intelligence(if we can summarize it) with different distributions among races.  But they haven't.  My own experience tells me there is nothing a mzungu is endowed with that the Negro living in the trees in the Congo lacks.

Mzungu has lesser melanin than the negro

But thats the problem vooke, dont you see? For example, which negro? There are all shades of negro. Plus, would mzungu be the same race as the Japanese per a melanin test? Would the Australian Aborigine and Southern Indian be Negro per melanin? Would the Arab qualify for Mzungu status? For that matter, is the Italian and Greek the same race as the German, Scotsman and Irishman, per melanin? In fact, are ANY of them the same race as the Scandinavian? There are no defining "melanin" traits to bazungu, negro, asian etc. This is why these categories are arbitrary.

I understand the various shades of melanin. My point was,there are differences of endowment from negro to bazungu. We are only too careful not to take this to intelligence because that is not PC. I can almost bet that if melanin was as radioactive as intelligence many would deny variation in melanin despite staring at it with their naked eyes

I think it's because intelligence is not well defined.  Neither is race.  I think kadame has already pointed that out.

You put a finger on those, provide reliable data, I don't think you will run into any problems.  I think Charles Murray was debunked partly on the methodology he used to estimate IQ levels(without measuring them).  He would for instance estimate the IQ of one country on the basis of the estimated IQs of neighboring countries.  You know nobody went around Africa giving controlled IQ tests for instance.

[Dear Mami]

Actually, no. The sickle cell thing is a favourite alt-right trope thats been thoroughly debunked lots of times. You are more likely to have sickle cell if your ancestors once lived in the tropics, be that in Africa, Asia or elsewhere. In fact thats still too broad--You are likely to have it if your ancestors were exposed to some type of malaria. It has absolutely nothing to do with race. Africans without such ancestry are no more likely to have it than any other groups without that ancestry. So including "race" in that discussion rather than "tropics" in your lineage is highly misleading. That's why the argument is always thrown away. It's exactly the kind of thing where the correlation is utterly arbitrary and meaningless.

[Dear Mami]

He is absolutely advancing inferiority theory. His main motivation is political. Have you seen the second video I linked? Murray has beef with affirmative action. He is trying to convince Americans that it is a waste of resources to try to positively discriminate in favour of blacks to improve the historical disparities. He is saying basically that they're dumb and cant be helped so don't bother.

Well? Italians had similarly dismal scores as Blacks when they arrived on American shores 100 years ago and were thoroughly otherized and considered inherently daft and not even White at all. Jews as well. In fact they limited immigration into the US by these groups because they considered them too daft to integrate well and they used aptitude tests for this silly policy. Lucky for Italians and European Jews, their appearance allowed them to "join" the rest of the White population in the next few generations and those IQ differences between them and 'the main stream' vanished.

Black history in the US is too long and negative it cant even be put in the same boat and yet, against all the odds, as Flynn found, they alsohave been catching up to the rest despite Jim Crow, racism and the fact that its harder for them to "disappear" into the dominant White race after a generation or two of learning the language and culture like people with White skin and blonde/brown hair. It's harder for them to "become White" if not impossible.

Murray claims that all the environmental differences had ceased to affect the IQ difference from 1972 because the race to join the main stream lagged for some years after 1972 (I think till the 80s/90s) after Blacks closing the gap consistently for decades before. They still don't know why it plateaued then, but unfortunately for Murray and pals, they still closed another 6 points  by 2002 notwithstanding all that. By now I bet the gap is smaller still. In another generation or two, the difference will have vanished, by all indications, then the Murrays of that time will invent another goal post to support their bigotry.

It's also cheap of them to hide under conspiracy theories about nefarious motives for their ideas getting zero traction and respect in expert circles. It's not like they've just been hand waved. Each and everyone of their claims has been challenged with evidence or on the grounds of their baseless presuppositions; ie being questioned/demanded evidence for. They refuse to actually respond to the actual critiques they are getting from the academic communities and instead invent a boogeyman to tell lay people that their ideas lack authority with the experts because of bias. That's just lazy.

You can't just say race must be biologically real because you've always thought, like most of us have, that skin and hair colour were all-important markers of biological human families and are now shocked that they are insignificant as far as biology goes; then without evidence for these races one deeply believes in, they just claim they lack the evidence because the other scientists are meanies. I've seen many talks of actual biologists/geneticists, not political scientists like Murray or non-biologists like Harris, but the actual geneticists who utterly rubbish these claims solely on the basis of genes. If the alt-right wants to claim race validity on the basis of biology, its up to them to find these races in gene clusters, not just in their unyielding faith in the all-important-ness of skin colour and hair just because it was what we used to assume before we knew there were invisible things like genes that record our biological history.