Avalanche of Agitprop vs. Real Science

A free-lance writer published in a Canadian newspaper quotes a UC Berkeley "study" which finds that "whiny" children grow up conservative and "self-reliant" children grow up liberal. The piece strives for balance by quoting another "social psychologist" [one assumes the original study was flaccid enuf to be written by an "sp," but the article only describes the author as a UCBerkeley prof] thus:

:`I found (the Jack Block study) to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best' sez Jeff Greenberg @ University of Arizona

So there! Read the whole thing to see the degeneration of the "helping professions" as they propagate the avalanche of agitprop oozed by lefties onto the MSM.

Read a post by NuSapiens for a trou normand between hors d'oeuvres and entree:

"We have previously shown that the Y chromosomes of 'white' Brazilians have their immediate geographical origin in Europe, with low frequency of sub-Saharan African chromosomes and virtual absence of Amerindian contribution. … The population structure revealed by this work confirmed that there were indeed no significant differences between Brazil and Portugal and no population differentiation within the four geographical regions of Brazil, suggesting that this phenomenon is unrelated to the nature of the markers typed."

I suspect the same type of dynamic might have been at play during key demographic processes in Europe, including the putative spread of the Indo-Europeans. In a nutshell, post-Neolithic society is patricentric, and during invasions (fast or slow) clans of males tend to kill off or marginalize their male rivals while marrying indigenous women. The result is a pattern of Y chromosome variation similar to the invading male group, but an overall population structure reflecting the multiple sources of genetic material.

Now there's an example of true science reflecting true diversity!