At long last, the self-proclaimed genetics experts have been taken down a peg. In this scenario, Michael Scroggins steps into the Captain Kirk role, with Razib Khan cast as his adversary, Khan. The original piece can be found at ethnography.com. I’ve watched Michael dismantle arguments in person many times, but seeing him do it in writing is something new.
In the classic Star Trek episode “Space Seed,” Khan is portrayed as a bioengineered superhuman, banished after the eugenics wars. That version of Khan is a keen observer of humanity—he even asks Kirk whether he’s read Milton, prompting Kirk’s resigned acknowledgment. This first Khan reflects thoughtfully on the dangers and possibilities inherent in manipulating genetics.
But there is another Khan—one whose fury has now landed on me. This post is about that second Khan, who, unlike his fictional counterpart, shows neither depth nor insight. Where the original Khan wrestles with the weight of immense responsibility, this modern Khan pontificates instead about dating patterns and eugenics.
Below are a few examples of the “science” offered by this second Khan, pulled from the discussions referenced earlier. On the subject of dating, he writes:
He argues that men, in general, don’t show strong racial preferences—a result he finds surprising. He speculates that older participants may have weaker biases because they’re more pragmatic and unwilling to restrict their choices. He also claims not to understand why more conventionally attractive women would show less racial preference, reasoning that if “hybrid vigor” truly mattered, those with supposedly higher “mutational load” would benefit most from mixing. He emphasizes, too, that the study involved Columbia University graduate students—“cognitively and socially elite,” in his words.
Reading that made me chuckle, since I actually belong to the group he considers “elite.” I suppose that’s flattering, though it clashes with his labeling me a “Left Creationist.” In any case, I won’t dwell on it—other than to note that his interpretation of dating among graduate students bears little resemblance to how things actually work. But then again, when it comes to his analyses of human behavior, this kind of distortion is entirely typical.