Comments on: An ethnography: N = 1

By: Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:47:52 +0000

Didn’t William James Sidis have some kind of Out-of-America theory 90 years ago?

By: pconroy

pconroy — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:02:14 +0000

@11 – Literally LOL’d

By: Mitchell Porter

Mitchell Porter — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:13:07 +0000

OK, it’s been done before: http://atlantipedia.ie/samples/argod-robert/

By: Mitchell Porter

Mitchell Porter — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:07:39 +0000

I lay claim to out-of-Antarctica. Though I’d be interested in prior art; it sounds theosophical.

By: Razib Khan

Razib Khan — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:50:48 +0000

#10, public masturbators sometimes spray on others

By: Justin Giancola

Justin Giancola — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:54:04 +0000

I’ll go on record saying it’s lively having him around. He’s like the Diogenes of the group.

By: miko

miko — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 18:07:42 +0000

No fair, my pithy comment about The Dziebel got spam filtered or something. Basically, he’s a dualist who knows nothing about biology, and there is no “off” position on his bullshit switch.

By: pconroy

pconroy — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:47:37 +0000

In this Dienekes post:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/07/new-evidence-for-archaic-admixture-in.html

I mentioned that I thought the OOAmerica Theory couldn’t work. Then blogger Terry Toohil chimes in saying that most commenters didn’t believe in it.

Dziebel responded with:

@pconroy

But for OOAmerica, you would have to have the Native Americans arrive in Western Europe as Solutreans or something?!

They would arrive to Europe at the time when we know modern humans arrived to Europe, around 40,000

Now I consider myself very open to ideas, and had speculated previously that Beriginians/Aleuts/Artic Native Americans might have spread back to East Asia 10,000 or more years ago and contributed to the classical East Asian phenotype. But 40,000 years ago in Europe is a bridge way too far…

By: miko

miko — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 13:06:40 +0000

In another age, The Dziebel would’ve been a prophet to some benighted, doomed tribe, with some arcane cosmology that constantly struggles for internal consistency but seeks none with the rest of the world. And he’s a dualist — ’nuff said. There was some crazy shit about “mind” and epigenetics years ago. Dziebel was hilarious on biology.

I thought I missed him there for a second. Turns out I don’t.

By: S.J. Esposito

S.J. Esposito — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 12:50:50 +0000

I remember Dziebel from this blog as well, but last week I was browsing through Dienekes’ blog and saw that he had made some ridiculous out-of-America comment; it was the first time in a long time that I’ve seen him show up. Guess he’s got some time on his hands lately.

Dziebel is a strange fellow because he’s definitely the type of guy that could fool others if given the unrestricted opportunity–like a cult-leader or something. I, personally, believe that his positions are not taken for the right reasons: i.e., he is eager to find a way to ‘make a name’ in (what he calls) science, so he takes up radical positions that he knows are damn near indefensible. But when he’s called out on, he claims that taking up unorthodox positions is a part of science. He’s engineered quite a game here on the internet.

By: Defectivebrayne

Defectivebrayne — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 08:14:56 +0000

Anybody can get a PhD if they have enough money and can stick around long enough. Getting two implies a form of career constipation.
I remember laughing at a PhD candidate who bragged about getting two BSc’s.
“You took twice as long, spent twice as much money, to reach the same place I got with just one BSc ?”
Qualifications aren’t like experience points, where you can grind at the lower levels and expect to level up. You can’t trade in 50 GCSE’s for BSc, and you can’t trade two PhD’s for a professorship.

By: TGGP

TGGP — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 05:17:02 +0000

“I’m willing to bet he reads me a lot more than I read him!”
Good.

As I mentioned at West Hunter, Dziebel has cited the case of the macrobat-microbat clade or “flying ape theory” as an example of how genetic taxology can go wrong. But for pretty much everyone else such a pseudo-controversy is just further confirmation for why you should rely on genetic analysis. It’s another instance where he doesn’t seem to realize just how marginal a position is and how much of a burden of proof there is to get others to reconsider a standard theory.

By: gcochran

gcochran — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 05:13:09 +0000

Dziebel is of course crazy. But lots of people are crazy: generally it isn’t as striking because we’re more used to it – it’s a common kind of crazy, maybe even a traditional kind. Like cultural anthropology or Freudian psychology. Or libertarianism. It takes a special kind of guy to formulate his own personal brand of craziness rather than buying one off-the-shelf.

By: Hallie Scott Kline

Hallie Scott Kline — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 05:12:45 +0000

I remember reading Dziebel’s posts here—I was stunned!—and recall that Cochran rode in to rescue us that day. I didn’t realize Dziebel was banned. It makes sense that he should be, but if he has a blog I must take a peek at the madness. Who could resist?

By: Dienekes

Dienekes — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 03:53:36 +0000

Dziebelism for dummies: Climate, geology, and genetics have colluded for hundreds of thousands of years to deny us of all evidence of early modern man in the Americas, but I’ll believe in Out-of-America anyway, because my brilliant kinship/linguistic analysis tells me so, and I look down upon brutish sciences like population genetics, archaeology, and physical anthropology that contradict me.