Razib Khan's Unsupervised Learning

  Three years ago, Razib recorded two podcasts with two immigration experts on different sides of the issue, Alex Nowrestah and Jason Richwhine. While Nowrasteh, who works for the libertarian Cato Institute as Vice President for Economic and Social Policy Studies, supports higher levels of legal immigration, Richwine, a Resident Scholar at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), favors lower levels of inflows into the US. The initial pair of podcasts was recorded in the midst of the massive increase in immigration that occurred after the loosening of the pandemic-era controls, resulting in the highest proportion of the foreign-born since the turn of the 20th century. Though the Biden administration tightened controls in its last year, the swell of illegal immigration resulted in a backlash that fueled the re-election of Donald Trump to the presidency and a turn in policy toward restriction. Recently, Razib recorded two conversations with Nowrestah and Richwine, revisiting the topic in 2025, and after three years of policy shifts. Today, Razib talks to Nowrasteh about the record of the Biden administration, the pivot occurring in the first year of the Trump administration, and where he sees the Republicans going in the future. Nowrasteh addresses the reality that the Democratic administration's lack of interest in controlling illegal flows resulted in anger and frustration at migration in general, and emphasizes the importance of borders and rules in allowing for legal immigration. Razib and Nowrasteh also discuss the controversy over H1-Bs, the role that skilled immigration plays in buttressing American power, and the conflicts on the Right regarding how immigration policy relates to geopolitics. They also explore the relationship between immigration and population, and how both connect to urban policy and economic growth.

Today on Unsupervised Learning, Razib talks to John Hawks, a paleoanthropologist who has been a researcher and commentator in human evolutionary biology and paleoanthropology for over two decades. With a widely read weblog (now on Substack), a book on Homo naledi, and highly cited scientific papers, Hawks is an essential voice in understanding the origins of our species. He graduated from Kansas State University in 1994 with degrees in French, English, and Anthropology, and received both his M.A. and Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of Michigan, where he studied under Milford Wolpoff. He is currently working on a textbook on the origins of modern humans in their evolutionary context. Hawks has already been a guest on Unsupervised Learning three times. In this episode, Razib and Hawks focus on a very specific question: What were the different contributions to the heritage of modern humans in a world more than 200,000 years ago that was inhabited by at least half a dozen hominin species? First, Hawks takes us back to the year 2000 and his early work extending a more multiregional framework of human evolution, exploring what could be gleaned from the archaeological and paleontological record. Then Razib and Hawks discuss the ancient DNA revolution and the discovery that modern humans had ancestry from Neanderthals, as well as from an entirely new species, the Denisovans. They also examine the fact that, unlike Neanderthals, Denisovans appear to have been separated into very different regional populations that made distinct contributions to various modern populations. Razib also asks Hawks about the discovery of new pygmy human species in Luzon, as well as the current state of research on Homo naledi in South Africa and the Hobbits of Flores. Hawks contends that DNA will likely be extracted from all these lineages at some point and, if not, protein sequence data may be obtained. This would finally give researchers the statistical power to evaluate the possibility of extremely archaic admixture events. Hawks and Razib also address the potential role of natural selection driven by introgressed genes from sister lineages of humans and how this shaped modern variation.

  Today Razib talks to Noah Millman. Millman is an American screenwriter and filmmaker, as well as a political columnist and cultural critic based in Brooklyn, New York. He is the film and theater critic for Modern Age; previously he was a columnist for The Week (2015–2022) and a senior editor at The American Conservative (2012–2017). Millman writes the newsletter Gideon’s Substack, and his work has also appeared in outlets such as The New York Times and Politico. He graduated from Yale University and initially worked on Wall Street for 16 years, starting in a hedge fund's mail room, before leaving after the financial crisis to pursue creative endeavors full-time. Millman has been a producer on seven films, and written three and directed three. His most recent film is Resentment, and he is working on a novel, Fables of a Jewish Century. Razib and Millman begin their conversation discussing their history as bloggers who began writing early in the first decade of the century, in the wake of George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Millman discusses his disillusionment with neoconservatism, and his evolution into a moderate, if heterodox, Democrat. They also discuss their positionality in a political commentary landscape that has radically shifted over the last twenty years, and what it’s like to be strongly partisan. They discuss how their views of religion have changed, especially in the wake of the New Atheist movement after 9/11 and the emergence of psychedelic spirituality in the 2020s. Millman articulates his views as a Jew whose own theological commitments are minimal, stating that he believes that the “Hindus are right about God” but John Calvin was probably right about humans. In the second half of the discussion, they pivot to the arts, beginning with how film as a medium has developed over the last generation, from the high tide of independent films in 1999 and through the “comic book” movie heyday of the 2010s, and on finally to the reemergence of more classic movies like Tom Cruise’s Top Gun: Maverick 2 and Brad Pitt’s F1. Razib argues that the Marvel universe exhausted its creative possibilities, and the same content no longer compels the younger generations, especially in a 90-minute format. Millman addresses whether film as a medium has reached the end of the line as a mass medium, and how fan-culture and “stan” culture has transformed the experience of the arts. He also asserts that cultural fragmentation is driven by technology, as consumers have a much greater range of options in their choices than in the past. Millman observes that as top-down cultural dynamics have collapsed, shifts are now driven by bottom-up drives. He also argues that movies will ‌continue to be a major art form because filmmaking is now far cheaper than it was in the past, but he is not optimistic about the future of mass-market tent-pole films that can transcend myriad fan subcultures. Movie studios still do not know which films will become hits and which will flop, even the magic of Pixar and Marvel Studios are no longer a sure thing. In fact, Millman argues that fragmentation has masked the revival of art forms like the novel. As the gatekeepers are gone, many consume low art, with middle-aged people reading copious amounts of YA fiction. Millman argues that any aspiring artist needs to grapple with the competitive realities of the new attention economy. Technology has made it easier for anyone to create art because new tools are cheaper and self-publishing is now a real option for writers. However, all of this unleashed creativity is competing for the same amount of funding, support and a relatively fixed audience.

  On this episode of Unsupervised Learning Razib talks to human geneticist Cesar Fortes-Lima about his paper from earlier this year, Population history and admixture of the Fulani people from the Sahel. Fortes-Lima has a Ph.D. in Biological Anthropology, and his primary research areas include African genetic diversity, the African diaspora, the transatlantic slave trade, demographic inference, admixture dynamics and mass migrations. Formerly a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Human Evolution at Uppsala University, Forest-Lima is now an instructor in genetic medicine at the Johns Hopkins University. He is also a returning guest to the podcast, having earlier come on to discuss his paper The genetic legacy of the expansion of Bantu-speaking peoples in Africa. Razib and Fortes-Lima first contextualize who the Fulani are in the West African socio-historical context, in particular, their role as transmitters of Islam across the Sahel. They also discuss the importance of having numerous Fulani subpopulations in the publication; earlier work had generalized about the Fulani from a small number of samples from a single tribe. Fortes-Lima highlights the primary finding, in particular, that the Fulani seem to have what we now call “Ancient North African” (ANA) ancestry. That people was related to, but not descended from, the “out of Africa” population which gave rise to Eurasians. They also explore the role of natural selection in allowing the Fulani to subsist on a diet high in milk, and how the Fulani lactase persistence mutation is exact same with Eurasians rather than East Africans. Fortest-Lima also reviews some of the earlier 20th-century anthropological speculations about the origins of the Fulani, and what his results show about their affinities (or lack thereof) to groups in West Asia and the Maghreb.

On this episode of Unsupervised Learning Razib talks to Jack Despain Zhou, executive director of the Center for Educational Progress (CEP). Despain Zhou is a graduate of Western Governors University, and is completing his J.D. at Temple University. A former cryptographic analyst for the US Air Force, Despain Zhou is better known as a former producer for Jesse Singal and Katie Herzog at Blocked and Reported under the pseudonym Tracie Woodgrains. Despain Zhou’s mission with CEP is to push for individualized learning programs “where every student can advance as far and as fast as their curiosity and determination will take them.” In short, not only does CEP support tracking, but it believes that more individualized learning environments are what allow students to flourish. Despain Zhou talks about how his own life informed his interest in this topic, going from a precocious and curious toddler to a sullen elementary school student. He explained to his mother at the time how the boring, regimented one-size-fits-all mentality of the public school system removed all his passion for learning. Despain Zhou talks about how the levelling and equity oriented philosophy of the modern educational establishment is extremely unpopular, but has nevertheless taken root in ed schools and therefore has advocates among both teachers and administrators. He makes the case that CEP’s advocacy is needed given the educational theorists’ intense and passionate fixation on keeping students of all talents at the same level; this is a case where Despain Zhou argues common sense is far superior to esoteric research for which there is truly no robust evidence.  

On this episode of Unsupervised Learning, in the wake of Elon Musk’s xAI Grok chatbot turning anti-Semitic following a recent update, Razib catches up with Nikolai Yakovenko about the state of AI in the summer of 2025. Nearly three years after their first conversations on the topic, the catch up, covering ChatGPT’s release and the anticipation of massive macroeconomic transformations driven by automation of knowledge-work. Yakovenko is a former professional poker player and research scientist at Google, Twitter (now X) and Nvidia (now the first $4 trillion company). With more than a decade on the leading edge computer science, Yakovenko has been at the forefront of the large-language-model revolution that was a necessary precursor to the rise of companies like OpenAI, Anthropic and Perplexity, as well as hundreds of smaller startups. Currently, he is the CEO of DeepNewz, an AI-driven news startup that leverages the latest models to retrieve the ground-truth on news-stories. Disclosure: Razib actively uses and recommends the service and is an advisor to the company. Razib and Yakovenko first tackle why Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta is offering individual pay packages north of $200 million, poaching some of OpenAI’s top individual contributors. Yakovenko observes that it seems Meta is giving up on its open-source Llama project, their competitor to the models that underpin OpenAI and ChatGPT (he also comments that it seems that engineers at xAI are disappointed in the latest version of Grok). Overall, though the pay-packages of AI engineers and researchers are high; there is now a big shakeout as massive companies with the money and engineering researchers pull away from their competitors. Additionally, in terms of cutting-edge models, the US and China are the only two international players (Yakovenko notes parenthetically that Chinese engineers are also the primary labor base of American AI firms). They also discuss how it is notable that almost three years after the beginning of the current booming repeated hype-cycles of artificial intelligence began to crest, we are still no closer to “artificial general intelligence” and the “intelligence super-explosion” that Ray Kurzweil has been predicting for generations. AI is partially behind the rise of companies like Waymo that are on the verge of transforming the economy, but overall, even though AI is still casting around for its killer app, big-tech has fully bought in and believes that the next decade will determine who wins the future.

Today on Unsupervised Learning Razib talks to David van Ofwegen, a philosophy teacher based in Thailand. Razib and Ofwegen first met by chance while he was traveling in the US in 2003. A Dutch national, educated at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands and then the University of Hawaii, specializing in the philosophical underpinnings of Social Darwinism, Ofwegen has been based in Thailand for the last 15 years. Razib and Ofwegen’s initial connection was over their shared interest in the turmoil in Europe post-9/11 and the 2002 assassination of the right-wing Dutch politician Pim Fortyun. They discuss what has happened in the Netherlands over the last generation, with both immigrant assimilation into Dutch society, and the assimilation of Dutch society to immigrants. Ofwegen reflects on returning to a homeland where he encounters bartenders who don’t speak Dutch, only English, and youth culture where white Dutch affect the accents of Moroccan immigrants. He also observes that in his hometown of the Hague, it is as common to hear Arabic or Turkish on the streets as Dutch. This is in contrast with the countryside outside of the large cities, which remain overwhelmingly white and native-born. Ofwegen also notes that global multiculturalism has had an impact on the practice of some Dutch customs, in particular the traditions surrounding Black Pete (Zwarte Piet), a character in Dutch Christmas celebrations that is wildly offensive to American sensibilities, given the longtime convention of blackface. Ofwegen argues that the Netherlands is becoming less Dutch and more global, homogenizing into a node in the pan-American cultural sphere. They also discuss the contrasts between Thailand and the Netherlands, and what it is like living outside the developed world. Though in nominal terms the GDP per capita of Thailand is about 10% of that of the Netherlands, Ofwegen does not feel that his adopted homeland is particularly underdeveloped or behind the times. Bangkok in particular is fully in the modern world, with all the comforts and technologies we avail ourselves of in the West. Ofwegen also observes that while the poor in the West live in deprived ghettos, in Thailand, the poor are usually rural peasants who own their own property. Nevertheless, he is clearly a guest. Though married to a Thai native and with a child who has Thai citizenship, he is legally an expatriate of the Netherlands. He notes that the same is true of Thailand’s large Burmese and Cambodian populations. The Thai have a very clear idea of their nation and its identity, in contrast to the more globalized vision common among Western elites.

On this episode of Unsupervised Learning Razib talks to returning guest Claire Lehmann. Lehmann has an undergraduate degrees in psychology and English from the University of Adelaide. She was enrolled in a graduate program in psychology, but left it after becoming disillusioned with moral relativism, she went on to found the online magazine Quillette to reflect a more traditionally pro-reason and pro-evidence-based worldview. Within three years Lehmann was profiled in 2018 in The New York Times as a major figure within the nascent “intellectual dark web.” Razib and Claire discuss the evolution and current state of Quillette, a publication founded in 2015 to counter anti-enlightenment thinking, and later a platform for many thinkers associated with the intellectual dark web. Initially anti-left and anti-post-modernist, it later became known for its stance against cancel culture and woke ideologies, albeit without ever explicitly aligning with the American right. Lehmann clarifies her publication’s classically liberal stance. They also touch on the evolution and disintegration of the intellectual dark web, the corrosive impact of woke culture on academia over the last decade, and the likely future role of AI in disrupting traditional education. Lehmann also discusses the changing landscape of social media and public discourse, particularly the impact of Elon Musk's interventions at Twitter over the last few years. They also explore the "woke right" debate, alluding to the authoritarian tendencies emerging among ascendant conservatives, citing discussions of the topic by former Quillette contributor and editor Colin Wright and journalist Jesse Singal. Razib asks about the future of Quillette, and Lehmann talks about its new focus on long-form articles on culture, science and the arts, and addresses the magazine's pro-Israel stance, which has polarized some American readers that don’t understand why an Australia-based publication should take a strong pro-Zionist stance.

On this episode of Unsupervised Learning Razib talks to philosopher of science Nathan Cofnas, whose specialty is biology and ethics. An American, Cofnas is currently a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow in the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge. He earned his Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy from Columbia University, and his doctorate in philosophy at the University of Oxford. His Substack is here. First, they discuss Kevin MacDonald’s theory of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy, which is outlined in his three-book series, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism and The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements. Cofnas reviews his own critiques of MacDonald’s theory, and the reception they received professionally and from MacDonald’s large cohort of online fans. He also discusses the impossibility in obtaining a hearing for MacDonald’s response to Cofnas’ arguments in academia given anxieties today about so much as “platforming” offensive ideas. Razib brings up the evolutionary biological aspects of MacDonald's theory, and why there are reasons to be skeptical due to the unrealistic parameters of mathematical models required by MacDonald’s theories. They then turn to attempts to cancel Cofnas over his hereditarian views. Cofnas articulates his perspective that actually a woke-Left egalitarian perspective is probably the most rational position if you utterly reject hereditarianism, especially as regards group differences. Cofnas believes conservative arguments about the importance of culture in shaping outcomes have run their course. Finally, Razib presses Cofnas on the actual career prospects for a heterodox academic in the 21st century, and possible alternate routes to become a public intellectual.

Today Razib talks to repeat guest Steve Hsu about China, a topic with so many currently relevant dimensions gIven the PRC’s clear emergence as an economic, military and political rival to the US. Hsu is a Caltech‑trained theoretical physicist who migrated from black holes to big data, co‑invented privacy tech at SafeWeb, helped found the biotech company Genomic Prediction, all while remaining a prominent public voice on genetics, intelligence and the future of human enhancement. He is also a professor of physics at Michigan State, and from 2012-2020 was vice president for research and graduate studies there. Razib and Hsu discuss whether China is innovating and how meanwhile American regulation and culture are stifling its domestic creativity. A proud Iowan, Hsu rebuts the notion that he is pro-China, seeing himself simply as a realist convinced that it is important to face the PRC head on and assess its strengths candidly. He and Razib talk about China’s demographic headwinds. Hsu points out the reality of demographic inertia. The generation already born in the 21st century is an abundant young workforce who will power the nation’s rise for the next 30-40 years; that disastrously plummeting fertility making headlines today is a concern post-dated for at least a generation down the road. They also discuss the quality of Chinese higher education, and the reality that the population today is far more educated than it was 25 years ago. Hsu also talks about possible cultural and biobehavioral differences between East Asians and Europeans, and addresses why South Asians seem to be better adapted to succeed in American corporate culture.

Today Razib talks to David  Gress, a Danish historian. The son of an American literary scholar and a Danish writer, he grew up in Denmark, read Classics at Cambridge, and then earned a Ph.D. in medieval history from Bryn Mawr College in the US in 1981. During a fellowship form 1982-1992 at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, he published on Cold‑War strategy, German political culture, and Nordic security. He has been a visiting fellow and lecturer at Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge, fellow at the Danish Institute of International Affairs, an assistant professor of Classics at Aarhus University, and professor of the history of civilization at Boston University. He co‑directed the Center for the Study of America and the West at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia and remains a senior fellow of the Danish free‑market think tank CEPOS while writing a regular column for Jyllands‑Posten. His breakthrough book, From Plato to NATO: The Idea of the West and Its Opponents (1998), argues that Western success sprang from a hard‑edged fusion of Roman order, Germanic liberty, Christian morality, and Smithian economics, rather than being a single disgraceful arc from Greco‑Roman‐paganism to secular Enlightenment that bypassed the Middle Ages. Razib asks Gress how he would have written Plato to NATO today, more than 25 years later, and he says he would have emphasized Christianity’s role in creating a unified Western culture out of Greco-Roman and Germanic diversity more. Gress also reiterates that he does not deny the Greek foundation of Western Civilization, but rather, his work was a corrective to a very thin and excessively motivated and partisan narrative that stripped out vast periods of European history. They also discuss Gress’ own own peculiar identity, the son of an American, born to a Danish mother, raised in Denmark who converted to Catholicism as an adult, and how that all fits into a broader European identity. They also discuss the impact of mass immigration on the national identities of Europe in the last generation, and Gress’ opinions as to the European future. Razib also asks Gress about the role that evolutionary ideas may have in shaping human history, and how his own views may have changed since From Plato to NATO. They also discuss when it is plausible to say that the West was a coherent idea, and whether the Protestant Reformation was the beginning of the end for the unitary civilization that was Latin Christendom.

On this episode of the Unsupervised Learning podcast, Razib welcomes back Ethan Strauss, a writer who has covered sports and culture for the past decade, including in the book The Victory Machine: The Making and Unmaking of the Warriors Dynasty. More recently his writing is to be found at his Substack, House of Strauss, which is notable for offering a candid take on the cross-pollination between broader culture and athletics, notably in the piece Nike's End of Men: Why Nike no longer wants us to Be Like Mike. Strauss and Razib first discuss professional sports and the different representation of various nationalities. Strauss recounts the generational attempt by the NBA to get Chinese representation to gin up a lucrative rivalry, and how it sputtered due to the reality that 1.4 billion Han Chinese seem to have less basketball talent than small nations like Croatia. Razib also asks about how and why baseball is popular in parts of Latin America and East Asia, and why there are so many more Dominicans in MLB than Mexicans. Strauss says differences between populations are so obvious in sports there’s no need for complex social explanations. Then they explore the role of DEI in professional sports, and especially the NBA, and how it might be impacting decisions in the league. They recall the years around 2020, when a drive for minority representation, and in particular of blacks, was prevalent across the corporate world, and how thatimpacted professional sports. Strauss then offers his theory for why the Dallas Mavericks inexplicably traded away a potentially generational talent, Luka Dončić, and Mark Cuban’s role in the choice. Finally, he highlights the racism that Jeremy Lin, one of the few Asian American stars in the 2010’s, faced from fellow players.

  Today Razib talks to Manvir Singh about shamanism, religion and anthropology. Singh is an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of California, Davis. An artist and essayist, he is also now a regular contributor to The New Yorker. His academic interests lie in explaining why most human societies, from preliterate foragers to urbanites, develop cultural phenomena like “witchcraft, origin myths, property rights, sharing norms, lullabies, dance music, and gods.” He just came out with his first book, Shamanism: The Timeless Religion. First Razib asks what Singh exactly means by shamanism, and whether it is a religion or not. Singh argues that shamanism is religion, that in some ways it is the primal religion. While many would contrast institutional religions like Christianity with shamanism, Singh points out that even Christianity includes shamanic practices, as in the Acts of the Apostles, or in some of the Pentecostal sects of Protestantism. He also discusses how his theoretical understanding of religion was complemented by field-work among the Mentawai tribe of Indonesia, who have a rich shamanic tradition. Razib then foregrounds the question of whether shamanism was invented in a particular place and time, like Siberia as argued by some 20th-century scholars, or whether it is universal in our psychology. Singh argues for the latter position, illustrating the fact that many cultures seem to lose shamanism when the number of adherents falls low enough, but that they seem to regain it once their popularity bounces back. Humanity’s shamanic impulse is always there, at the ready. Razib and Singh also discuss the ubiquity of shamanic practices across East Asia, especially in Korea and Japan. In the latter society, shamanism forms the foundation of one of the people’s two major religions, Shinto. Finally, they address the role of psychedelic drugs in the emergence of shamanism cross-culturally.

  On this episode of Unsupervised Learning, Razib talks to Bo Winegard and Noah Carl, the editors behind the online publication Aporia Magazine, founded in 2022. Winegard and Carl are both former academics. Winegard has a social psychology Ph.D. from Florida State University, and was an assistant professor at Marietta College. He was an editor at Quillette before moving to Aporia. Carl earned his Ph.D. in sociology from Oxford University. He was a research fellow at St. Edmund’s College, Cambridge, before becoming a contributor to The Daily Skeptic and UnHerd, and a managing editor at Aporia. First, Razib asks Winegard and Carl about their respective cancellations, and the recent attacks on Aporia from the British media in particular. Winegard observes that many of the criticisms were muddled, as journalists struggled to get basic facts straight about who did what, as well as mixing up present associations among various editors with past ones. The two also address the change in the culture over the last few years, as cancellations seem to have lost some of their bite. Then Razib asks Winegard about the perception that Aporia is fixated on the third-rail of American culture: race and IQ, and its relevance to social policy and politics. Winegard talks about how he has long since said everything he has to say on the topic, but he still finds that the public conversation fails to address the possibility of cognitive differences between populations, and so keeps finding himself wading back in, to fill a gap in the discourse. Razib also asks the editors about their view of “cold winters theory,” which attempts to explain the higher IQs of temperate zone populations versus tropical ones. Then they discuss the disappointments of the MAGA movement, and its appeal to populist emotion. Winegard had hoped that despite its inchoate nature, it might have been able to pare back the radical excesses of the progressive cultural changes of the 2010’s, but now he worries that overreach may up the chances that woke policies make a comeback with the inevitable political backlash in the next few years. Winegard also addresses his personal souring on reflexive anti-wokism, and Carl shares his own views from across the Atlantic, where Britain appears to follow in the US’ footsteps, even if from an entirely different social-historical context. Winegard discusses the difficulties of maintaining a consistent heterodoxy in the face of tribalistic demands for conformity. Finally, they discuss the path forward for publications like Aporia that do not toe any particular party line.

  Today Razib talks to Tim Lee, a previous guest on Unsupervised Learning. Lee hosts Understanding AI. Lee covered tech more generally for a decade for Washington Post, Ars Technica, and Vox.com. He has a master's degree in computer science from Princeton. Lee writes extensively about general AI issues, from Deep Research’s capabilities to the state of large language models. But one of the major areas he has focused on is self-driving cars. With expansion of Waymo to Austin, and this June’s debut of Tesla’s robotaxis, Razib wanted to talk to Lee about the state of the industry. They discuss the controversies relating to safety and self-driving cars. Is it true, as some research suggests, that Waymo and self-driving cars are safer than human-driven cars? What about the accidents Waymos have been implicated in? Is it true that they were actually due to human error and recklessness, rather than the self-driving cars themselves? Lee also contrasts the different companies’ strategies in the sector, from Waymo to Zoox to Tesla. Razib also asks him about the fact that self-driving cars’ imminent arrival seems to have been overhyped five years ago, with Andrew Yang predicting trucker mass unemployment, to the reality that Waymo has now surpassed Lyft in ride volume in San Francisco. They also discuss the limitations of self-driving cars in terms of their ability to navigate cities and regions where snow might be a major impediment, and why there has been a delay in their expansion to freeway routes.

  This podcast accompanies my post Germans are from Finland, Finns are from Yakutia. The two preprints at the heart of this post are, Postglacial genomes from foragers across Northern Eurasia reveal prehistoric mobility associated with the spread of the Uralic and Yeniseian languages and Steppe Ancestry in Western Eurasia and the Spread of the Germanic Languages.

  Today Razib talks to Laura Spinney, Paris-based British author of the forthcoming Proto: How One Ancient Language Went Global. A science journalist, translator and author of both fiction and non-fiction, she has written for Nature, National Geographic, The Economist, New Scientist, and The Guardian. Spinney is the author of two novels, Doctor and The Quick, and a collection of oral history in French from Lausanne entitled Rue Centrale. In 2017, she published Pale Rider, an account of the 1918 flu pandemic. She also translated Swiss writer Charles-Ferdinand Ramuz's novel Derborence into English. Spinney graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Natural Sciences from Durham University and did a journalism residency at Berlin’s Planck Institute. First, Razib asks Spinney how difficult it was to integrate archaeology, linguistics and paleogenetics into her narrative in Proto, which traces the rise and proliferation of Indo-European languages from its ancestral proto-Indo-European. She talks about why this was the time to write a book like this for a general audience, as paleogenetics has revolutionized our understanding of recent prehistory, and in particular the questions around the origin of the Indo-Europeans. Razib and Spinney talk about various scenarios that have been bandied about for decades, for example, the arguments between linguistics and archaeologists whether proto-Indo-European was from the steppe or had an Anatolian homeland, and the exact relationship of the Hittites and their language to other Indo-European branches. They also delve into how genetics has helped shed light on deeper connections between some branches, like Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, or Greek and Armenian. Spinney also addresses how writing a book like Proto involves placing fields like historical linguistics and archaeology with charged political associations in their proper historical context

  Today, Razib talks about a new paper, A structured coalescent model reveals deep ancestral structure shared by all modern humans: Understanding the history of admixture events and population size changes leading to modern humans is central to human evolutionary genetics. Here we introduce a coalescence-based hidden Markov model, cobraa, that explicitly represents an ancestral population split and rejoin, and demonstrate its application on simulated and real data across multiple species. Using cobraa, we present evidence for an extended period of structure in the history of all modern humans, in which two ancestral populations that diverged ~1.5 million years ago came together in an admixture event ~300 thousand years ago, in a ratio of ~80:20%. Immediately after their divergence, we detect a strong bottleneck in the major ancestral population. We inferred regions of the present-day genome derived from each ancestral population, finding that material from the minority correlates strongly with distance to coding sequence, suggesting it was deleterious against the majority background. Moreover, we found a strong correlation between regions of majority ancestry and human–Neanderthal or human–Denisovan divergence, suggesting the majority population was also ancestral to those archaic humans.

  On this episode of the podcast Razib talks to John Sailer. Sailer is currently the director of higher education policy and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He covers issues of academic freedom, free speech, and ideological capture in higher education. Sailer has written for the Wall Street Journal, the Free Press and Tablet Magazine. Sailer holds a master’s degree in philosophy and education from Columbia University, and a bachelor’s degree in politics, philosophy, and economics from The King’s College. Prior to joining the Manhattan Institute, he was a senior fellow at the National Association of Scholars. Following on last week’s podcast with Jacob Shell, Razib continues to discuss the rise and fall of woke politics in academia, and the current backlash exploding out of the Trump administration. Sailer discusses his previous work back to 2020 showing how blatant universities became in their discriminatory policies against white males in particular, and how easy it was to demonstrate this dynamic with even the most minimal level of due diligence like freedom of information requests. They also discuss the reality that universities are attempting to adjust to a new landscape with the administration pressuring them to revoke DEI policies, while many faculty are urging that they instead dig in their heels. Higher education is adapting, but Sailer argues that since fundamental values have not changed, some evasion is to be expected.

  On this episode of Unsupervised Learning Razib talks to Jacob Shell. Shell is a professor of geography at Temple University and author of Transportation and Revolt: Pigeons, Mules, Canals, and the Giants of the Monsoon Forest: Living and Working with Elephants. Educated at Columbia and Syracuse universities, Shell is active on social media, where he comments extensively on the politicization of the academy. The conversation begins with Shell’s piece in Compact Magazine, To Save Academia, Hire Conservatives. The more than 3,000-word essay argues that academia must diversify ideologically to save itself, but also engage in a wider range of scholarship. Shell points out that US academia has become an ideological monoculture, with an overwhelming dominance of left-leaning faculty, especially at elite institutions. This imbalance, driven by extreme partisan ratios in fields like anthropology, leaves universities politically vulnerable and out of step with the broader public. He challenges the common view that this trend is due to self-selection, or the “pipeline problem,” suggesting instead that informal screening mechanisms discourage or exclude conservative scholars. Shell also argues that the grant system encourages conformity and limits academic freedom. More audaciously, he argues that some academics should be singled out by their peers, whether through their institution or professional organizations,t when they engage in politically motivated misrepresentation of their scholarship. Ultimately, Shell insists that academia’s unique role in public life is to observe and understand the world, not to risk co-option as an arm of any political movement.