October 13, 2009

Lahn: "Let's celebrate human genetic diversity"

From Nature, October 8, 2009:
Let’s celebrate human genetic diversity

Science is finding evidence of genetic diversity among groups of people as well as among individuals. This discovery should be embraced, not feared, say Bruce T. Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein.

A growing body of data is revealing the nature of human genetic diversity at increasingly finer resolution. It is now recognized that despite the high degree of genetic similarities that bind humanity together as a species, considerable diversity exists at both individual and group levels (see box, page 728). The biological significance of these variations remains to be explored fully. But enough evidence has come to the fore to warrant the question: what if scientific data ultimately demonstrate that genetically based biological variation exists at non-trivial levels not only among individuals but also among groups? In our view, the scientific community and society at large are ill-prepared for such a possibility. We need a moral response to this question that is robust irrespective of what research uncovers about human diversity. Here, we argue for the moral position that genetic diversity, from within or among groups, should be embraced and celebrated as one of humanity’s chief assets.

The current moral position is a sort of ‘biological egalitarianism’. This dominant position emerged in recent decades largely to correct grave historical injustices, including genocide that were committed with the support of pseudo scientific understandings of group diversity. The racial-hygiene theory promoted by German geneticists Fritz Lenz, Eugene Fischer and others during the Nazi era is one notorious example of such pseudoscience. Biological egalitarianism is the view that no or almost no meaningful genetically based biological differences exist among human groups, with the exception of a few superficial traits such as skin colour. Proponents of this view seem to hope that, by promoting biological sameness, discrimination against groups or individuals will become groundless.

We believe that this position, although well intentioned, is illogical and even dangerous, as it implies that if significant group diversity were established, discrimination might thereby be justified. We reject this position. Equality of opportunity and respect for human dignity should be humankind’s common aspirations, notwithstanding human differences no matter how big or small. We also think that biological egalitarianism may not remain viable in light of the growing body of empirical data.

Many people may acknowledge the possibility of genetic diversity at the group level, but see it as a threat to social cohesion. Some scholars have even called for a halt to research into the topic or sensitive aspects of it, because of potential misuse of the information. Others will ask: if information on group diversity can be misused, why not just focus on individual differences and ignore any group variation? We strongly affirm that society must guard vigilantly against any misuse of genetic information, but we also believe that the best defence is to take a positive attitude towards diversity, including that at the group level. We argue for our position from two perspectives: first, that the understanding of group diversity can benefit research and medicine, and second, that human genetic diversity as a whole, including group diversity, greatly enriches our species.

I think a third argument is even more important: all truths are connected to all other truths, so if you aren't allowed to think about a major truth, much of the rest of your thinking will be faulty.

For example, say Lahn was a physicist writing to undermine the ban on mentioning gravity in physics classes:
Let’s celebrate gravity!

Science is finding evidence of gravity. This discovery should be embraced, not feared, say Bruce T. Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein.

A growing body of data is revealing the existence of gravity. It is now recognized that despite the many situations in which gravity is not relevant, in many others it is important (see box, page 728). The physical significance of gravity remains to be explored fully. But enough evidence has come to the fore to warrant the question: what if scientific data ultimately demonstrate that gravity exists at non-trivial levels? In our view, the scientific community and society at large are ill-prepared for such a possibility. We need a moral response to this question that is robust irrespective of what research uncovers about gravity. Here, we argue for the moral position that gravity, from within or between planets, should be embraced and celebrated as one of humanity’s, not to mention the Solar System's, chief assets.

The current moral position is a sort of ‘mass egalitarianism’. This dominant position emerged in recent decades largely to correct grave astronomical injustices, such as the Moon's subordinate status relative to the Earth. Similarly, gravity has been used to drop rocks on enemies, to pour burning oil on the besiegers of castles, and to chop off heads with the guillotine. Also, gravity has been misunderstood by scientists in the past, such as Aristotle. Mass egalitarianism is the view that the Moon doesn't really go around the Earth because the Earth has more mass than the Moon, it just looks that way to ill-informed, hate-filled observers who haven't been adequately educated in modern sensitivities about mass equality. Proponents of this view hope that, by promoting a belief in mass sameness, the Moon will cease orbiting around the Earth and both will hover motionlessly relative to each other in complete equality.

We believe that this position, although well intentioned, is illogical and even dangerous, as it implies that if you stepped off the edge of the Grand Canyon, you'd just hover in the air. We reject this position. Equality of respect for planetary and subplanetary dignity should be humankind’s common aspirations, notwithstanding planetary differences in mass no matter how big or small. We also think that the nonexistence of gravity may not remain viable in light of the growing body of empirical data.

Indeed.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

108 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't think your gravity analogy works at all, but I'm very heartened to see an article like this showing up in a journal like Nature. The most important thing right now is to get to the point where the existence of significant group differences is widely treated as a legitimate open question by respectable scientists and commentators, rather than being treated as unspeakable heresy. Once we reach that point I think the rest will take care of itself.

sj071 said...

Steve, 'a lot of people' are aware of human genetic diversity.
We don't need self-apointed gatekeepers telling us there is a reason it should be embraced. We'll weigh pros and cons of each approach and make up
our own mind.

tommy said...

OT.

Democrats are making an opening move in the fight to ban hate speech with the latest hate crimes bill:

First, the committee -- controlled by majority Democrats, of course -- inserted the hate crimes measure into the House bill, where it had not been before. Then lawmakers made some crucial changes to Brownback's amendment. Where Brownback had insisted, and the full Senate had agreed, that the bill could not burden the exercise of First Amendment rights, the conference changed the wording to read that the bill could not burden the exercise of First Amendment rights "unless the government demonstrates ... a compelling governmental interest" to do otherwise.

That means your First Amendment rights are protected -- unless they're not.


This won't hold up (I hope), but be aware that Democrats will probably make further efforts to to ban hate speech in certain venues using the "compelling governmental interest" argument. Because offending minorities is like yelling fire in a crowded theater or something like that.

Anonymous said...

I, however, love your gravity analogy. Some of the tripe that I read re basic genetic information spun to a tortured degree in the mainstream media in order to emphasis equality is more worthy of the Onion than real news.

Some people will go miles to avoid the truth.

liberal biorealist said...

I agree with anonymous that the gravity analogy is hardly on point except as pure snark.

Look, there really is a difference between scientific facts about gravity and those about evolution: the first has no moral significance; the second goes to the root of how people think about themselves and others.

Darwin delayed publication of his theory for twenty years precisely because of such moral implications. It's hardly reasonable to trivialize them.

This most certainly doesn't mean we should suppress or hide the truth, which, in the end, will out anyway -- and probably beyond serious contest quite soon.

What we need is a set of moral and social precepts equal to the task of dealing with these truths, and fostering good people and a good society thereby. Unfortunately, one finds, in my opinion, passing little moral guidance in the commentary of those who now attach themselves to HBD. Too often, it seems to reduce itself to adolescent jibes or support for bizarre causes like White nationalism.

I think the quote from Nature looks like a more mature step in the right direction. It takes seriously the moral consequence of these findings, while trying at least to put a more positive and hopeful spin on them.

What we really need most critically, however, aren't more biological scientists pushing HBD -- though they will be an important vector too. We need most of all those on the "softer" side -- political scientists, psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, and philosophers to frame the entailments of HBD in a way that exhibits a vision of a just society.

OneSTDV said...

Does he have tenure yet? I hope he does.

Anonymous said...

What do you all think are the odds that the phrase "human genetic diversity" entered that article unwittingly, without some kind of a connection to the HBD blogosphere? I think it would be too much of a coincidence. Somebody's been reading iSteve.

"We believe that this position, although well intentioned, is illogical and even dangerous, as it implies that if significant group diversity were established, discrimination might thereby be justified."

I don't think that the position they're opposing was well-intentioned and I don't really know what they mean by discrimination. Would they support getting rid of disparate impact rules? My personal opinion is that employers should be able to hire whom they want and that it's none of my, their, or the government's business what those employers' motivations are. If you feel that your group isn't being hired enough, go start your own business and hire your people to your heart's content.

Aa said...

What is there to celebrate about genetic diversity?

There is nothing inherently 'good' that blacks have significantly lower IQ's than whites and asians.

Equality by birth and opportunity would be a perfect world. Liberals pretend we can have a perfect world, but reality prevents it. That doesn't mean we should pretend our shitty reality is good.

Anonymous said...

Look, there really is a difference between scientific facts about gravity and those about evolution: the first has no moral significance; the second goes to the root of how people think about themselves and others.

Actually, Galileo (and Kepler's and Newton's) work is/was directly related to the theory of gravitation (and the inverse square law, etc.)

Point: planetary motion/gravitation was surprisingly central to morality not too long ago.

We find this ridiculous today -- why would *anyone* build a moral superstructure on top of such flimsy geocentric balsa wood? -- but it's exactly the same as building a moral superstructure on top of h-bd denial.

Lahn and Ebenstein step carefully, knowing that they need to praise diversity while denouncing h-bd, in the much the same way Khruschev had to praise communism while denouncing Stalin.

The long run outcome of course will be a future in which such careful and apologetic and circumspect criticism of straight-up lies is no longer necessary. You can call a lie a lie. For example: Stephen Jay Gould was a liar.

Statsquatch said...

OneSTDV,

Bruce Lahn does have tenure but he is not yet a full professor.

Anonymous said...

"What we need is a set of moral and social precepts equal to the task of dealing with these truths, and fostering good people and a good society thereby. Unfortunately, one finds, in my opinion, passing little moral guidance in the commentary of those who now attach themselves to HBD."

Glad to see someone else making this excellent point. I would also point out that reverting to the GodDidIt Christianity of the past will not provide the moral guidance the world is looking for in an age where we understand enough about the universe to look for physical explanations instead. Civilization has hit a period of flux and the philosophies that persist will be those which most correctly describe the world around us and provide the most utility. HBD is not a value system so it can't provide that -- and until there is a value system which can stably contain HBD, it won't be relevant.

Anonymous said...

Hey Steve, I was just thinking; you should provide a list of recommended reading on your website, organised by topic, for people interested in HBD and all your varied interests. It could have links to reviews done by you and/or others. But for someone so interested in spreading 'truth', or changing the framework of debate, it's kind of surprising you haven't done this. Think about it.

wintermute said...

Too often, it seems to reduce itself to adolescent jibes or support for bizarre causes like White nationalism.

Has blank slate-ism contributed to any bizarre causes? If even one can be adduced, then the moral scales are balanced. One cannot be preferred to the other on moral grounds.

Secondly, why would this author seek to demonize gentile group affiliation?

I think liberal biorealist's words threaten to destroy freedom of association for European-Americans and should accordingly be denounced. Human flourishing is flourishing in groups. To deny meaningful concomitants to group identity is at the very least, psychological warfare, and very possibly, a prelude to genocide.

His vision of a just society is not one where Europeans are free to 'celebrate' their diversity, or to establish neighborhoods, religions, schools, businesses, mutual aid societies, etc. Is this the 'just society' which he seeks - cultural and racial dispossession and obliteration? Is his moral paragon of 'liberal biorealism' Sir Robert Mugabe? Even the minimal science that we have shows that diversity makes us unhealthy, unhappy, atomized, and ineffective. Interacting with blacks noticibly impairs cognitive function in Whites. Political science teaches us that multiracial, multicultural policies eventually become despotic, since they are incapable of internal political articulation, and their centralized governments become sites of plunder and patronage.

Contrariwise, monoracial and monocultural societies are yearly announced as the healthiest, safest, and most desirable places to live.

Does LB deny any of this? Does he require more science, biological or otherwise on the day to day cultural and economic horrors he and his ilk inflict on us by the manipulation of known untruths?

I guess not wanting to be murdered means being dedicated to a cause so bizarre and repulsive that the human sciences must be distorted to any degree necessary to forbid Whites self-determination. Liberal biorealist should feel free to correct me if I am wrong in my characterization of his hopes for our 'collective' future.




What we really need most critically, however, aren't more biological scientists pushing HBD -- though they will be an important vector too. We need most of all those on the "softer" side -- political scientists, psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, and philosophers to frame the entailments of HBD in a way that exhibits a vision of a just society.


You should look to your Progressive ancestors in order to answer these questions about a just society in light of HBD. Google on 'Planned Parenthood' and 'human weeds' for a start. Behold Margaret Sanger, the patron saint of "liberal biorealism":

http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

Look upon her works, ye mighty, and despair.

Andrea the Terrible said...

Truth is truth. The idea that we should suppress or ignore the truth because it may have evil consequences is itself evil. All truths are potentially dangerous d3depending on how we interpret and apply it. Truth in and of itself is neither good nor evil. It is just what it is.

Even our knowledge of gravity can be dangerous, for it is our understanding of gravity which made us perfect bombs and missiles. Animals with no understanding of gravity cannot use their limited intelligence to create the kind of weapons we have. Or, take nuclear energy. I suppose we should forget E=MC2 because it led to the atomic bomb and Hiroshima/Nagasaki. I suppose we should forget metallurgy since it led to the invention of knives, daggers, and swords which killed so many people. I suppose we should suppress or forget the formula for gun powder too. And, we should ban cinema and books since those can be used to convey ideas such as Mein Kampf and Battleship Potemkin. And we should ban the internet since Muslim terrorists have used it to recruit members and spread their crazy ideas.

And, we should ban and suppress EGALITARIANISM too since communism killed up to 100 million people in the 20th century. It was Stalin's egalitarian agricultural polcies which led to the Great Famine which claimed 7-10 million people in the USSR. It was Mao's radical and 'progressive' Great Leap Forward which led to the starvation of 30 million. It was Pol Pot's wonderful leftism that led to the murder of 2 million(out of 7 million Cambodians).

Truth is truth. The morality enters into how we understand and use it. We must not fear truth itself, only its application.
Indeed, the evil of Nazism was its lack of truth, its idea that certain peoples--Jews and Slavs--were subhumans. It was REAL scientific truth that proved Germans or "Aryans" are no more human than Slavs or Jews. We must rely on science and truth.

Anonymous said...

Steve used to review books over at Amazon.com. They're still there. I wish he'd review more books and less movie reviews or analysis of Larry David et al., either through V-Dare or Amazon.

Anonymous said...

A tutorial of HBD reading - either books or Steve's and others' web-based writing -- is an excellent idea.

Actually, there is anough data and interest on HBD for a solid book, edited by Steve, with chapters written by different authors on different topics covering everything from genes to brains to behavior to social policy.

Anonymous said...

sj071 said: "'a lot of people' are aware of human genetic diversity."

Yes, aware of it and deathly afraid to even speak of it.


"We don't need self-apointed gatekeepers telling us there is a reason it should be embraced."

Yes, we do. Recently we witnessed the spectacle of two towering figures (Watson, Summers) being carbonized simply for speaking of HBD. If they can be destroyed, no one is safe to discuss it. We do need a gatekeeper to say, "It's okay, don't be afraid, you can talk about this."

...And then we need to wait six months to see if the gatekeeper gets carbonized, too. ;-)

So I'm pleased to see Nature publish this piece. I'm also curious & excited to discover liberal biorealist. Like OneSTDV I am skeptical of all fricking liberals, but I welcome LB to the fray and wish him/her/it well. I'm really curious to see how liberals wrestle with this challenge, and what righties can learn from their work.

-Carbon

ben tillman said...

"We believe that this position, although well intentioned, is illogical and even dangerous, as it implies that if significant group diversity were established, discrimination might thereby be justified."

Discrimination is ALWAYS justified. How can it be otherwise? How can you claim a right to tell me what is in my interest?

The law and common sense have never retreated from the principle that personal discrimination is justified. That's what laws against theft and rape say: discrimination is always proper. My money and my body belong to me, and I get to discriminate in their use.

Because we all practice the right -- and thereby implicitly acknowledge the right -- to discriminate personally, we know that the opposition to racial discrimination is not grounded in principle. We all reject a general principle of non-discrimination. Living things live by assembling resources and discriminating with respect to their use. In fact, immunology is the science of discrimination between self and non-self. Your body naturally and necessarily discriminates between itself and other organisms that seek to use the resources present in your body.

Discrimination is utterly fundamental to life, and everyone acts accordingly, except in the special case of discrimination on the basis of race by whites. No, the opposition to racial discrimination is not grounded in principle; it is grounded in particularism.

Thomas said...

Aa, the facts of the natural world have no moral component. That human races and ethnic groups may differ in their average intelligences for genetic reasons might never have been an issue, but for the fact that all of these groups came to live within the same modern, Western societies at the same time that these societies were becoming more egalitarian and meritocratic in their basic assumptions and operation. Even in North America and Western Europe, if you go back about 200 years, intelligence and ability was not so much a critical factor in social success as it is today (at least as compared to wealth or lineage).

From the perspective of establishing a functional society, the choice of an egalitarian and meritocratic social structure that attempts to promote individuals based upon ability and intelligence is arbitrary. We get, in most respects, better social mobility and a faster technological curve, to be sure. The price of that, as well we see, is maintaining, or attracting, large groups that remain entrenched at the bottom of the ability, and thus the social, ladder. There, their lack of success causes them to seethe in frustration at those above them, and the fact of their failure to thrive sits as a silent and unmovable refutation of our egalitarian ethos.

ben tillman said...

Unfortunately, one finds, in my opinion, passing little moral guidance in the commentary of those who now attach themselves to HBD. Too often, it seems to reduce itself to adolescent jibes or support for bizarre causes like White nationalism.

That's an astonishing non-sequitur. As a moral philosopher with a degree from an Ivy League university, I can assure you that there is no moral objection to White Nationalism.

In fact, in common parlance, the argument against White Nationalism is known as slavery. To deprive whites of their right to associate with one another and to keep the fruits of their labor is to assert an ownership interest in them.

Yet you presume to lecture us on morality. Unbelievable.

Dumnorix said...

liberal biorealist,
>>>

What we need is a set of moral and social precepts equal to the task of dealing with these truths, and fostering good people and a good society thereby. Unfortunately, one finds, in my opinion, passing little moral guidance in the commentary of those who now attach themselves to HBD. Too often, it seems to reduce itself to adolescent jibes or support for bizarre causes like White nationalism.
>>>

So that's what 'The Bell Curve' was-- nothing but adolescent barbs and White Nationalism, which was rightfully attacked by the MSM for its lack of substance...

Get real. If Americans were allowed honest discourse and debate on the subject, the opponents of HBD would be discredited rapidly. Which is why the MSM refuses to allow it to happen. The interference is not on our end.

BTW, what was the new set of moral precepts that Darwin came up with that allowed him to finally publish his book?

headache said...

In our view, the scientific community and society at large are ill-prepared for such a possibility

In my view, the scientific community and the elites at large are ill-prepared for such a possibility. Society in general would take about 2 minutes to adapt, xcept of course those who were pilfering the coffers and now would have to live within their real limited means.

Anonymous said...

A Chinese guy and a Jew walk into a bar...this article is the beginning of a shift where the new elites no longer need to hide their status anymore. Denial of racial differences served its purpose to undermine the "racist" wasp elite whose power was built on the "subjugation of inferior races" but serves no purpose for the new elites whose superior status is "naturally" derived.

DavidB said...

The moon doesn't orbit around the earth. The moon and the earth both orbit around their common center of gravity. Just for the record.

Tom Regan said...

@liberal biorealist

"What we need is a set of moral and social precepts equal to the task of dealing with these truths."

Precepts? Clever semantics. What you want is laws. Overseen by fellow liberals, naturally, because only liberals can create "a good society." And anyone not working within your laws will be guilty of hate facts.

"We need most of all those on the "softer" side -- political scientists, psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, and philosophers to frame the entailments of HBD in a way that exhibits a vision of a just society."

Yes! At last! A clarion call for more liberal-approved politicians and sociologists to create a "just society". That's exactly what we need. We'll be holding hands under the rainbow in no time!

Those who oppose HBD research, or want it 'correctly interpreted' are Marcuse-ian luddites, half a step off the Unabomber.

Anonymous said...

"The moon doesn't orbit around the earth. The moon and the earth both orbit around their common center of gravity. Just for the record."

I wondered if someone would bring this up. They don't orbit around their common centre of gravity, either. (The Earth-Moon system isn't an isolated pure Kepler problem.) It's true that it's a pretty good approximation, but then in a nontechnical context I'd say it's okay to say the moon goes around the Earth, too..

Anonymous said...

Liberal biorealist said: in my opinion, passing little moral guidance in the commentary of those who now attach themselves to HBD. Too often, it seems to reduce itself to adolescent jibes or support for bizarre causes like White nationalism.

You can of course explain exactly why WN is bizarre and why you have a moral problem with it.

Im sympathetic to WN but I have not 'attached' myself to HBD. In fact the reverse is true. I read Steve's site and other stuff and I became persuaded by HBD. Then as part of that process I became open to WN. Before HBD I was a standard liberal type. Im almost here by accident!

That process is exactly what you are afraid of isnt it? Nice unthinking liberal egalitarians taking a bit too much interest in the world and then coming to the political conclusions that arise naturally out of that understanding. Setting yourself up as a moral gatekeeper are you?

Do you think La Raza is bizarre, they have managed to form a latino nationalist group apparently without recourse to HBD. Isnt that even more bizarre? If these things bother you perhaps you should be taking it up with your hispanic friends first. Or is there some way in which other peoples nationalism is somehow different to white people's. If true would you care to explain exactly how that works, morally, logically etc.

bgc said...

I find this watery-defense of science against political correctness to be almost as worrying as an attack - but quite likely the numerous unjustified concessions to leftist nonsense was insisted-upon by Nature editorialists as a condition of publication.

Nature now reads as primarily a journal of elite, mushy-minded leftist politics, with a highly-selected and over-hyped smattering of (mostly) dull science thrown-in from time to time. Nature simply would not allow a truthful and pro-science article - unless they somehow surrounded the argument with metaphorical or actual scare quotes to signal the editors' exquisitely-nuanced sensitivity to the complexities and difficulties of... Bah humbug!

"Proponents of this view seem to hope that, by promoting biological sameness, discrimination against groups or individuals will become groundless. We believe that this position, although well intentioned, is illogical and even dangerous..."

This is the problem. The leftist attitude to science is *not* well intentioned: it is dishonest.

The attitude has been historically motivated by the absolute _electoral_ necessity for the left to argue that economic and social differences are unjust - and thereby to provide the excuse for buy dependency among the poor and invent poverty-industry jobs among the rich. It is simply vote-buying.

A disbelief in HBD is therefore absolutely essential to modern leftism - and has been since the mid 1960s when the left should (if honest) have abolished themselves upon the achievement of de facto equality of opportunity.

Instead of abolishing themselves, the left chose political survival based upon denial of reality. And this root dishonesty applies to class and sex as much as to race.

The left will therefore allow HBD discourse _only_ when HBD can be made to justify the massive and continued operation of the political preferences and spoils system upon which the left absolutely depends for its survival.

Anonymous said...

"liberal biorealist said...

I agree with anonymous that the gravity analogy is hardly on point except as pure snark."

Baloney.

" Look, there really is a difference between scientific facts about gravity and those about evolution: "

No there isn't.

" the first has no moral significance; "

Yes it does.

" the second goes to the root of how people think about themselves and others."

And gravity does not? Tell that to Kepler. Kepler struggled with the disturbing fact that the orbits of the planets appeared to be elliptical, not circular. This was easily as disturbing to the implicit "moral order" as heliocentricism was.

Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and others lead to Newton and our current scientific understands of gravity. Anyone who says that gravity doesn't have moral implications doesn't know his history of science.

" Darwin delayed publication of his theory for twenty years precisely because of such moral implications. It's hardly reasonable to trivialize them. "

Who is trivializing? We are simply pointing out that the "guardians of the moral order", in thwarting scientific progress, are self-interested and have no interest in actually protecting the "moral order" per se.

Interesting that your argument sounds EXACTLY like some of the arguments of the Creationist retards. The Left is simply a semi-secularized version of Christianity, after all.

" This most certainly doesn't mean we should suppress or hide the truth, which, in the end, will out anyway -- and probably beyond serious contest quite soon. "

Uh, yeah, sure. If you say it, it must be true. Wake me up when the powers that be stop hiding and suppressing the truth.

Drogomir Smolken said...

Ha, I seem to recall someone selling "Free Pluto! Equal gravity for all planets!" shirts.

We'll see how much trouble this causes Lahm.

Anonymous said...

You're funny guy, Steve. You amuse me!!

btw:is this an example of speaking truth to power?

David said...

Aa said

> Equality by birth and opportunity would be a perfect world. <

No, it wouldn't. "Equality by birth" means universal mediocrity - no outliers pulling up the mass. "Equality by opportunity" means totalitarianism - no cultural practices (non-governmental hierarchies) allowed. Think about it.

> Liberals pretend we can have a perfect world, but reality prevents it. <

Good news that you recognize an objective reality.

> That doesn't mean we should pretend our shitty reality is good. <

Oops. You don't.

MQ said...

The gravity comparison is pure snarky silliness. Everyone in science agrees that phenotype results from the interaction of genetic and environmental influences, that both are very significant, and that no behavioral characteristics can be understood without both. The interaction between the two is actually not well understoood at all. The debate is over the nature of the interaction and the mutual influence. Since groups tend to differ profoundly in both cultural environment *and* genetics, the problem is how the effect of the two combine, which is a frontier scientific question that is hardly obvious.

This site is actually a great example of the dangers of crude genetic determinism and how it leads people to ignore science -- every time someone with brown or black skin is credited with an intellectual achievement, you get a horde of commenters here saying that science proves it was due to affirmative action. That Sonia Sotomayor could *not* have graduated first in her class without AA is seen around here as a scientific conclusion on par with the existence of gravity, but, well, it's not.

That's exactly the fear with discussing group genetic differences...that a bunch of resentful racist idiots will seize on it as a statement that the inferiority of that particular group is a genetically determined unalterable law of nature. Which is scientifically inane (on average group genetic differences don't tell you much about individuals), but it happens alll the time.

TCO said...

Pathetic. What this guy is admitting is that the lot of them didn't want to look at truth objectively and allowed "what we want to beleive is true" to shade real curious objective truth seeking.

AMac said...

Many people who have read this far might be interested in seeing what group-differences genomic data can look like.

It turns out that in almost all cases, "racial" or "ethnic" differences at the DNA level are composed of different distributions of many shared gene variants, for many hundreds or thousands of genes.

In other words, the gene for Alpha might have variants ("SNPs") A1 and A2, with A1 fairly common in group X, but rarer in groups Y and Z. In the case of gene Beta, variant B1 might be common in group Y, while variant B2 is most often seen in the DNA of members of groups X and Z. And so forth.

A prime technique for evaluating this data is "Principal Component Analysis" or PCA. The Principal Components are synthetic measures of the most informative gene variants, for the set of groups under study.

Steve Hsu wrote a post in November 2008 titled European Genetic Substructure. He reproduces a two-dimensional PCA plot from the paper he's reviewing. The figure is striking, showing what the state of the art looks like. Note that (1) The more geographically distant two populations are, the more genetically distinct they are, and (2) The up/down, right/left pattern of the PCA figue resembles a map of Europe (north/south, east/west).

Obviously, individuals who have mixed ancestry present a more complex picture than the "purebreds" pictured in the figure.

Analogous work has already been published for East Asian ethnic/national groups, and discussed by Prof. Hsu at his site.

This is the sort of emerging data that Lahn and Ebenstein are trying to bring to the attention to their doctrinaire and blank-slatist colleagues, however 'correctly and timidly.

Mr. Anon said...

"DavidB said...

The moon doesn't orbit around the earth. The moon and the earth both orbit around their common center of gravity. Just for the record."

Nitpicky. By the same token, the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun, it orbits their common center of mass........which lies nearly at the center of the Sun, and does so because the Sun is much more massive than the Earth.

The Earth orbits the Sun.

The Moon orbits the Earth.

Anonymous said...

Even in a nontechnical context, I think pointing out that in the two body central force problem the orbit is about the center of mass, is significant. For one thing, it makes it easy to understand what happens in Steve's scenario of "mass equality". The planets wouldn't sit motionless since they are experiencing an attractive force, they would either orbit the center of mass or be drawn together. On the other hand pointing out that there are perturbations from other masses in the solar system, or the universe for the matter, is a bit pedantic in this context. Don't forget Anonymous, cows are spherical to a first approximation.

Concerned Netizen said...

"Look, there really is a difference between scientific facts about gravity and those about evolution: the first has no moral significance; the second goes to the root of how people think about themselves and others."

Liberal biorealist,

I am glad to make your acquaintance. It's nice to chat with a liberal who doesn't reflexively attack attack attack at the sound of race realism.

You make a good point and I agree with you about the bizarre nature of a lot of HBD sites. Too many of them begin with sweeping statements and end up with personal anecdotes. They had a girlfriend who screwed them; women suck. It's boring & childish.

That said I think you are overinterpreting what Sailer says.

Let me just quote the Sailer's central point:

"so if you aren't allowed to think about a major truth, much of the rest of your thinking will be faulty."

The key word here is "ALLOW."

Galileo was accused of heresy by the Catholic Church, was tried, and publicly recanted. That doesn't mean every astronomer between the Greeks and Galileo was wrong. On the contrary, they were highly intelligent and observant men. But the framework was wrong because they weren't allowed to deviate from received wisdom.

There are many other such examples. Fred Hoyle, coiner of the derisive term "Big Bang" was a great physicist. He was just...wrong. But, the difference between Fred Hoyle and Galileo is that the former was ALLOWED to think whatever he wanted regardless of social norms, the latter was accused of heresy. His opposition to the Big Bang forced the proponents of the other theory to tighten their arguments.

But no one was threatened with social exclusion because they did or did not believe in either theory (Steady state v. Big Bang.)

Compare & contrast that with race realism. Forget it - this is taboo. Mention group differences in public and you'll lose everything.

You are confusing "is" with "should."

Nevertheless I appreciate your point, which is that race realism affects lives in a different way than celestial physics.

Unless I've misunderstood you in which case please clarify yourself.

Concerned Netizen said...

PS to Liberal Biorealist,

I just popped over to your blog. You say:

"because someone needs to work to create and elaborate a viable and just political philosophy consistent with likely truths of human biology and evolution."

Questions.

1. What if it turns out that race realism can't be squared with what we've got in the US, which is a strange concoction of "all men are created equal" and "be all you can be"? (in other words, race realism and American rep. democracy/capitalism isn't "viable".)

2. "Just." Is it possible that what is "just" to me is not "just" to thee? And creating a "just" society of 300M (and growing) composed of wildly disparate groups with varying group abilities is impossible?

In other words, what are you saying that's so different from any other liberal?

David said...

The analogy works perfectly.

1 - The existence of gravity is true, and gravity is ubiquitous.

2 - The existence of gravity is a natural feature, not a social convention.

3 - The existence of gravity is important, with important implications for how we conduct our lives.

4 - The existence of gravity is tacitly acknowledged by everyone, but seldom spoken of formally.

5 - The theory of gravity, while morally neutral today, was (in connection with a host of supporting understandings) not morally neutral at one time. In fact, many "morally neutral" scientific theories or notions were considered insults to God. "What do you mean everything that goes up must come down? Are you implying Christ or His angels cannot ascend and remain ascended for as long as they will it?" "What do you mean the world is revolving and rotating? Are you implying Creation is a chaos, in defiance of the Church?" You could get barbequed at the stake for such heterodoxy. "Racist" and "heretic" often are equivalently wrong-headed labels.

Particularly fine in taking care of the "HBD uniquely has moral implications" objection is this part of the analogy: "[Acknowledging gravity is morally problematic because g]ravity has been used to drop rocks on enemies, to pour burning oil on the besiegers of castles, and to chop off heads with the guillotine." Everything can be misused, such is the nature of man; and banning everything is just as impractical as banning free will. As to restricting things instead of banning them outright, thinking cannot be restricted, only stopped. As instance, restricting radiation research on account of Hiroshima would lead to the stagnation of the field, because the restricters could not know in advance which lines of thought will lead to which future discoveries; discoveries leading to new radiation therapies would likely not be made in an atmosphere of "no-go areas" for thought.

Anonymous said...

Denial of racial differences served its purpose to undermine the "racist" wasp elite whose power was built on the "subjugation of inferior races"
they will still be harping on the wasps a 100 years from now.. the left still sees the enemy as JP Morgan in mink lined tie, scowling from window of a private club...
never mind that WASPs, let alone white christian males, have been nearly entirely eliminated from the ivy leagues and nearly every other power center outside the military (but they are working on that)
under age, say 40, there white christian males are as common in those places as they are on obama's cabinet.

Udolpho.com said...

"What we really need most critically, however, aren't more biological scientists pushing HBD -- though they will be an important vector too. We need most of all those on the "softer" side -- political scientists, psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, and philosophers to frame the entailments of HBD in a way that exhibits a vision of a just society."

Yes, who better to "frame" our new morality than the clever-sillies of the libarts university? After all they've made their domains such extraordinarily moral and refined places.

This has got to be a troll of some kind, the notion that the people who spent the last 50 years tearing down a carefully built up and stable bourgeois morality should be put in charge of the development of a new PC-approved frame for group differences...well it is just very on the nose as far as liberal pomposity goes.

Of course here we have the deep mistrust of average people to come to terms with each other, and a hubristic certitude that a class of dubious academics would do a great job at this despite decades of evidence to the contrary (plus the fact that outside academia they are mostly ignored and derided). Yes, please, develop a framework for the little people, how can they get on without your superior moral guidance?

*falsifies research, spends life consumed by petty university politics, promotes pseudo-science and academic cults, is at the forefront of divisive and morally corrupt racial spoils system*

Is it possible to say "FUCK OFF" loudly enough to this type of asshole?

OneSTDV said...

@ Anonymous:

I have a quick easy to understand primer to HBD if you're interested:

Easy To Understand Primer to HBD

HHMB said...

"The moon doesn't orbit around the earth. The moon and the earth both orbit around their common center of gravity. Just for the record."

"I wondered if someone would bring this up...."

Come on, guys. The more autistic explanation is not necessarily the more accurate one.

The moon and the earth orbit around a center that is well within the radius of the earth. Ergo, to say the moon orbits the earth is entirely accurate, not a watered-down popularization.

The concept of "satellite" is valid.

l said...

Are puppies and kitties different? Dare we ask?

Melykin said...

Thomas wrote:
"...if you go back about 200 years, intelligence and ability was not so much a critical factor in social success as it is today (at least as compared to wealth or lineage)."
--------------------

I think it was the industrial revolution that made the difference. Or perhaps it was burgeoning egalitarianism in England and Scotland that brought on the industrial revolution. Around that time a lot of poor people were becoming literate, mainly because nonconformist Protestant churches such as Quakers, Presbyterians and Methodists wanted everyone to be able to read the Bible. Scotland was one of the first places in the world to have universal free education. The Catholic countries were intolerant of Protestants in general, and the Catholic Church didn't see a need to teach people to read since only the priests needed to be able to read the Bible.

In any case, people were becoming literate and the industrial revolution began. People who could design and build and maintain steam engines were suddenly very important--even if they came from very poor backgrounds, as most of the super stars of the industrial revolution did. The upper classes couldn't go on pretending that the lower classes were "stolid and stunned, a brother to the ox" when people from the lower classes were suddenly inventing all sorts of machines and making piles of money.

Deckin said...

I'm sorry, but as well meaning and as long overdue as the Nature piece was, the implication that we're waiting for some new 'moral precepts' to deal with this brave new knowledge is kind of pathetic, to anyone with the remotest training in philosophy. Perhaps it will come as a surprise to the editors of nature, but I sincerely hoped it wouldn't be a surprise to the astute readers of iSteve, but there already exists exactly the precepts needed, and mein Gott they've been around since the late 18th century.

His name is Kant, and perhaps he should be read more often and more closely. The moral precepts he deduces (sic!) provide just such a vehicle for judging all rational beings, independently of empirical facts about them, as having intrinsic dignity.

Significant cognitive differences between races provides no more of a moral challenge to us than do individuals with cognitive impairments. They are to be treated with respect. That doesn't entail allowing them to have demanding jobs for which they are unsuited any more than it entails awarding them benefits on the basis of their impairments. Ask what you would want for yourself if you knew nothing else about yourself and there's your answer. Not too tough, was it?

Andrea said...

Ignoring the truth of racial diversity can be just as dangerous as pointing it out. Emphasizing racial differences may lead to fear & resentment among the races. Gentiles may resent the smarter Jews, blacks may envy stabler Asians, whites may fear the stronger blacks, etc. BUT, ignoring or suppressing racial differences can and indeed already has led to social disasters. Take South Africa. We pretended the only difference between whites and blacks is skin color; in the new South Africa of 'racial equality', blacks would eventually catch up and everything would be hunky dory. Well, look at the state of South Africa today; look what's happening to the white population besieged by blacks.
Suppose there's an as yet unpopulated island. Knowing what we know about racial differences, would it be ethical to pretend all races are equal and bring in 1000 Nigerians and mix them up with 1000 Cambodians? The much stronger and more aggressive Nigerians will beat up the Cambodians. Most of the assault and murder will be black-on-Cambodian. Nearly all of the rape will be black-on-Cambodian. Is it really much different in the US? Look at inter-racial violence stats, and it's overwhelmingly black-on-white, black-on-brown, black-on-yellow, black-on-fill-in-the-blank. Indeed, I find it hypocritical that the very liberals who insist on racial equality tend to be rich, affluent, and privileged Jews who choose to live in safe neighborhoods far away from dangerous races. This may be why Jews so eagerly embrace the likes of Obama. They are aware of their own hypocrisy, and by picking and doting on token 'Magic Negroes' like Obama, liberal Jews get to pretend that they and the blacks are the best of friends!!

Andrea said...

Knowing what we know about racial differences, I will dare say whites should not have brought blacks over as slaves. The problem isn't ultimately lower black intelligence but stronger black strength and more aggressive temperament which make them dangerous to non-blacks. (Much social violence is black-on-black because blacks are the only ones tough enough to stand up to other blacks.) It would have been better if whites had brought over Armenians, Vietnamese, or indigenous Peruvians as slaves. I don't see too many fearsome Jack Johnson-like thugs developing among descendants of Vietnamese or Armenian slaves. It was because whites ignored or suppressed this racial truth--blacks are physically stronger and more aggressive--that US ended up with the dire racial problem. Let's face it, 90% of racial problem in this country is related to blacks. I don't see much strife among whites, Hindus, Chinese, Arabs, or etc in America. I see some problem with Mexicans but it's a cultural/numerical/legal problem than a racial or biological problem. If the Mexican-American population remained constant at 15%, there wouldn't be much to worry about. But, blacks, though less than 15% of the US population, has always been a HUGE problem in America. There are many many decent hardworking black people, but who can deny the amount of social problems overflowing out of the black community due to a certain wild element in the black genetic makeup? This is what happens to a nation when it ignores racial reality.

And, just look our 'colorblind' and 'egalitarian' immigration policy. Is there no difference between allowing in 10,000 Zulus and 10,000 Estonians? It is aiding and abetting evil to ignore the reality of racial differences.

For us to arrive at true racial progress, we must face facts. We must say we fear blacks because they are stronger and more aggressive. Unless this is said, blacks will say we just 'neglect' or avoid them because we don't like black skin. But, many Asian-Indians are dark-skinned, but whites don't mind mingling with Hindus!! Whites need to be mindful of the history of discrimination against blacks, but blacks need to be mindful of the history of black criminality, thuggery, and violence against non-blacks. Whites need to face up to the past, blacks need to the face up to how they're gonna act in the future.

Anonymous said...

Steve's gravity analogy is completely bogus. A couple of reasons why:

1) The theory of gravity has never been controversial. Newton was widely celebrated in his own lifetime.

2) The theory of gravity has never had any social or moral implications. It might have, had it been proposed in the Middle Ages, but that isn't what actually happened.

3) Steve's "mass egalitarianism" is not merely implausible, it isn't a theory at all, and doesn't even attempt to say anything sensible. Nobody has ever seriously proposed such an idea. "Mass egalitarianism" is merely a verbal parody of "biological egalitarianism", which is an entirely plausible idea that is widely held by many smart and well informed people. Personally I think that idea will probably turn out to be untrue in the end, but it's not a stupid idea, and it is a theory.

That's the thing: like it or not, biological egalitarianism is plausible. This is one reason I suggested in the first comment that a big focus for the HBD community should be to force their opponents to acknowledge that HBD is an open question. This is a much easier argument to win, and by that I mean that forcing a good-faith egalitarian to acknowledge HBD as an open question is much easier than actually convincing him that group differences are real. (And yes, there are good-faith egalitarians! Only an idiot believes that everyone who disagrees with him on a controversial issue is an idiot. Truly obvious questions are never controversial).

Personally I think that a reasonable person can believe in biological egalitarianism. But I do not think that, given the current evidence, a reasonable person can consider the question settled! Right now ideological opponents of HBD can get away with treating it as a settled question, which allows them to marginalize HBDers the same way that mainstream biologists (legitimately) marginalize creationists. Widespread acceptance of HBD as an open question by serious scientists like Bruce Lahn -- whichever side they came down on personally! -- would take that weapon away from the ideological egalitarians. That would be a big deal!

Andrea said...

We need to differentiate between social discrimination vs biological discrimination. The former is unfortunate and bestows favors and privileges upon individuals of a certain group over others simply based on race or etnicity. This kind of discrimination favors a dumb white guy over a smarter black, Jewish, or Asian guy simply because he is white. Or, it favors a dumb black guy over a smarter non-black guy--aka 'affirmative action'.

But, there is also the fact of biological discrimination. For example, gay couples cannot have kids and must leech on those practicing heterosexuality to 'have their own kids'. Nature discriminates against gay couples who pretend that two men sodomizing each other is sexually(reproductively)just as valid as a man and a woman having normal sex.

And, look at Ivy League schools. There is biological discrimination favoring the intelligent(and studious) over the dumb(and lazy). Of course, dumb and industrious kids don't have much chance of making it into the Ivy League either because no amount of dumb effort is gonna lead to high SAT scores, though to be sure, some slots are reserved for a token number of dumb blacks like Michelle Obama.

And, look at NFL and NBA. For all the yammering about diversity from liberals, biological discrimination prevents women from playing in those leagues because women can never be the athletic equal of men. And, pro sports also favor stronger blacks over whites, and favors whites over Asians and short Mexicans. There is no law that says women or Asians or Mexicans cannot play in the NBA or NFL. It's just that they don't have much of a chance with their natural attributes.

And notice how the defensive line in the NFL essentially biologically discriminates against most whites. Because defensive linemen must penetrate through the offensive line to tackle the runner or sack the quarterback, they must be stronger and more explosive than the offensive linemen. This explains why defensive linemen tend to be mostly black while big white guys are mainly reserved for the less prestigious offensive line. (Of course, predominance of one race in a certain field or profession may discourage even highly gifted members of other races. Since the finalists of 100m sprint tend to be all black, most non-blacks--even surprisingly fast ones--will not even bother to compete in that event but instead choose another in which his racial kind seems to have better chance of winning.)

Not all discrimination is intentional, social, or legal. Much of it is biological. It's just how the world is. Though we tell kids that they have the LEGAL right to become a NFL or NBA player or apply to Harvard or Yale, the fact remains that certain races have more individuals who have the natural talent for athleticism or intellectualism. Unfair? Blame evolution, not society.

It's ironic that liberals who promote evolution and mock God pretend as though the God of Evolution created all races equally.

Anonymous said...

Hey, full text on line!

albertosaurus said...

What a wonderfull posting. It gives me hope. I had fallen into despair after failing to lose weight yet again. Then I read your posting and realized that it isn't my fault that I'm fat. There's nothing wrong with me - it's that damn gravity.

I'm a victim of the ideas of other people. I feel so much better now that I realize that I'm personally blameless.

NTS said...

"In fact, in common parlance, the argument against White Nationalism is known as slavery. To deprive whites of their right to associate with one another and to keep the fruits of their labor is to assert an ownership interest in them."

Bravo, Ben Tillman! You have succinctly articulated the essence of what the current political order really means. More's the pity that this is not confined to the US of A, but is indeed, the common political mode of the West.

NTS said...

Interesting to note that Orwell in "1984" used the example of ideology over gravity as an illustration of INGSOC's pernicious hold on all things. O'Brian explains something to the effect of "Winston, if the party says that I can float like a bubble it is possible". How fantastic is this claim in light of 60 years of blankslatism and its attendent policy implications?

Phil said...

"A Chinese guy and a Jew walk into a bar...this article is the beginning of a shift where the new elites no longer need to hide their status anymore. Denial of racial differences served its purpose to undermine the "racist" wasp elite whose power was built on the "subjugation of inferior races" but serves no purpose for the new elites whose superior status is "naturally" derived."

You don't make your point explicitly, but I think I get it.

Let me just say I love guys like you. On the one hand, Jews are the race-deniers. And when you look at it, the evidence is pretty damning (Gould, Boas, Leonwtin, Montagua, etc..). Guys like you claim Jews are out to deny that race is a biological structure.

But then when there are Jews willing to accept HBD, it's only because they want to get power for their ethnic group (as if that's the only possible reason a Jew would do something).

And I'm not sure I read this right, Jews and Asians don't get there "naturally", but only through some other method. Not sure what that is, but I'm sure them getting there has nothing to do with high IQ.

As for the discussion of WNism: I don't understand the moral indignation. What is so wrong about a group of whites (excluding Jews or not) wanting to be governed and live amongst themselves? Is it so wrong?

Jun said...

Channel 4 to screen controversial documentary that asks whether intelligence is linked to race

"Oona King, Channel 4's head of diversity, said the programme shows conclusively 'that you cannot link race to IQ'."

Well, I'm glad they sorted that out for us.

Reactionary said...

@ liberal biorealist,

We need most of all those on the "softer" side -- political scientists, psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, and philosophers to frame the entailments of HBD in a way that exhibits a vision of a just society.

This means organic, hierarchical society where everybody can find their own level, instead of government-sponsored "ins" and "outs," i.e., everybody else, who serve as tax fodder for the first group.

This means things like limited government, abolishing the minimum wage and other regs that keeps the low-skilled and the young out of the labor pool, and freedom of association for social and selection pressures in the right direction.

But you've probably stopped reading this by now.

Robert said...

"That's exactly the fear with discussing group genetic differences...that a bunch of resentful racist idiots will seize on it as a statement that the inferiority of that particular group is a genetically determined unalterable law of nature. Which is scientifically inane (on average group genetic differences don't tell you much about individuals), but it happens all the time."

Group genetic differences do, however, tell you a lot about groups. And they DO tell you a lot about average members of each group, by definition. To know the worth of an individual, you have to judge him AS an individual, which is what AA does not and cannot do.

M Stein said...

Armand Leroi wrote a piece 'On Human Diversity: Why has the genetics community discarded so many phenotypes?' a few years ago.

http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15791/

I see Steve reviewed it at the time here.

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/10/on-human-diversity.html

There is also an interesting interview with Leroi here entitled 'THE NATURE OF NORMAL HUMAN VARIETY.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/leroi05/leroi05_index.html

none of the above said...

I am also happy to see hbd come out into the open more, as a discussion of available facts, rather than the morality of people who notice or study those facts. I think part of the reason is that the elites in the US (maybe elsewhere too, I don't know about that) are losing control of public debate. The net has broken down a lot of barriers--if you want to study some area of human knowledge, you can get pretty far with an internet connection and some critical thinking (especially up front) in looking for high-quality introductory material. If you want to discuss political or social or technical questions that the powerful don't want discussed, you can, usually without many consequences. That's a huge change in the world.

That means that all kinds of beliefs and policies that exist only because discussion of them is off limits are in their last days. That's going to have interesting effects in many areas, and hbd is only one.

none of the above said...

liberal biorealist:

The Bell Curve has a pretty nice attempt to start thinking about the implications of differences in intelligence in terms of good policies. Since that's not the chapter on race and IQ, it doesn't seem to get much attention, but it deserves to be read widely. It's just too damned easy for smart people to redesign the world for our benefit, in ways that screw over everyone on the left half of the bell curve.

Steve has also written quite a bit about this. As has Charles Murray.

One thing we can't really do is to wish uncomfortable reality away. That's exactly as true for hbd as it is for global warming, or the manner in which HIV is spread, or anything else. No long-term sensible or decent policy is going to be able to stand on a foundation of lies.

M Stein said...

Interesting new doco coming in the UK.

Will interview Lynn & Rushton, but apparently claims to debunk any link between race & iq.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220343/Channel-4-controversy-documentary-claims-race-linked-intelligence.html#ixzz0TwFqsFUC

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

That's the thing: like it or not, biological egalitarianism is plausible."

Sure. Conceded. It is plausible. So is Human Bio-Diversity (HBD). Which has more evidence supporting it? While Biological Egalitarianism (BE) may be plausible, it seems at this point, given all we know, not to be true.

I would add that anyone who believes in Darwinian evolution would certainly not expect BE to be true. I mean, what are the chances that two different populations that evolved in isolation from one another would end up nearly the same in all capacities? About zero. The two concepts - Darwinism and BE - are almost mutually exclusive. If you are one, you really can't be the other.

Anonymous said...

I would add that anyone who believes in Darwinian evolution would certainly not expect BE to be true. I mean, what are the chances that two different populations that evolved in isolation from one another would end up nearly the same in all capacities? About zero. The two concepts - Darwinism and BE - are almost mutually exclusive. If you are one, you really can't be the other. - Mr. Anon

And thats the game!

With Darwin & evolution in their back pockets, liberals fancy themselves as the tough guys in the leather jackets strutting down the street kicking Creationits aside and frightening the straights.

Unfortunately for them this is about the only street fighting scenario available to them with evolution. Any further, wider discussion of evolution, race and human potential etc and the whole wet dream is shattered.

When one of my liberal pals is warming to his evolution vs Creationist bashing theme, I always try and turn things around to the painful and unwelcome subject of hbd!

Anonymous said...

It's just too damned easy for smart people to redesign the world for our benefit, in ways that screw over everyone on the left half of the bell curve.

If only they actually *did* screw over the "left half" of the bell curve, or benefit "smart people".

It's more like they're screwing over the vast middle, with only the underclass and a minority of *extremely* smart people benefiting at all.

Anonymous said...

Phil:

As for the discussion of WNism: I don't understand the moral indignation. What is so wrong about a group of whites (excluding Jews or not) wanting to be governed and live amongst themselves? Is it so wrong?

I have no objection to any group wanting to govern and live amongst themselves, in some other country. I don't think it's a good way for my country to be run. A whole bunch of very capable and good people, among them my friends and loved ones and colleagues, are nonwhite. Running the country in a way that makes them second-class citizens isn't going to get my vote. Dividing the country up along racial lines looks to me like a recipe for disaster.

I rather liked Steve's old idea of citizenism, ideally implemented on a base of equality before the law, free markets, and some kind of minimal safety net to keep you from starving in the streets.

OneSTDV said...

"When one of my liberal pals is warming to his evolution vs Creationist bashing theme, I always try and turn things around to the painful and unwelcome subject of hbd!"

You'll like this:

Liberal vs. Religious Creationism

Anonymous said...

Dividing the country up along racial lines looks to me like a recipe for disaster.

Whereas the current multicultural model for white countries races ahead, from strength to strength. While ramshackle yet homogenous states like China, Japan and S. Korea are left stranded pitifully beside the highway.

Anonymous said...

OneSTDV - link doesnt work mate!

Anonymous said...

'under age, say 40, there white christian males are as common in those places as they are on Obama's cabinet.'

Bit of an exaggeration. White males dominate computing and IT in general.

OneSTDV said...

I messed up the link:

Liberal vs Religious Creationism

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

I rather liked Steve's old idea of citizenism, ideally implemented on a base of equality before the law, free markets, and some kind of minimal safety net to keep you from starving in the streets."

I rather liked it too, however the fact that it is not being implemented, and that we drift farther from it everyday, suggests that it's not a realistic alternative.

Svigor said...

Let me just say I love guys like you. On the one hand, Jews are the race-deniers. And when you look at it, the evidence is pretty damning (Gould, Boas, Leonwtin, Montagua, etc..). Guys like you claim Jews are out to deny that race is a biological structure.

But then when there are Jews willing to accept HBD, it's only because they want to get power for their ethnic group (as if that's the only possible reason a Jew would do something).

And I'm not sure I read this right, Jews and Asians don't get there "naturally", but only through some other method. Not sure what that is, but I'm sure them getting there has nothing to do with high IQ.


I see similar behavior from Jews vis-a-vis the rest of humanity, whites in particular. It isn't so hard to understand; when groups see one another as adversaries, they tend to exaggerate the bad and ignore the good. Seems functional to me; should we have made a point of emphasizing German efficiency and orderliness during WWII?

As for the discussion of WNism: I don't understand the moral indignation. What is so wrong about a group of whites (excluding Jews or not) wanting to be governed and live amongst themselves? Is it so wrong?

Yeah, it's pretty funny when you step back from it; wow, going with the de facto reality of human history, and what we know of human nature; diablerie!

(on average group genetic differences don't tell you much about individuals)

They tell you some very important things, though. E.g., white people don't bear black children, etc.

I have no objection to any group wanting to govern and live amongst themselves, in some other country. I don't think it's a good way for my country to be run. A whole bunch of very capable and good people, among them my friends and loved ones and colleagues, are nonwhite. Running the country in a way that makes them second-class citizens isn't going to get my vote. Dividing the country up along racial lines looks to me like a recipe for disaster.

I rather liked Steve's old idea of citizenism, ideally implemented on a base of equality before the law, free markets, and some kind of minimal safety net to keep you from starving in the streets.


What about an end to anti-discrimination law (perhaps as an amendment to the Constitition)? Or how about enshrining the right to freedom of association in the Constitution?

Ever stop to consider that maybe, if people could set up their own communities and institutions, they would settle for something less than "running the country" that way?

The lack of imagination in responding to questions like this always strikes me as deliberate obtuseness, conveniently supporting the status quo, which is in turn conveniently supportive of every group but mine.

AFAIK this is Jared Taylor's position so I don't see why it's never addressed. Your critique is a straw man, in that you've dictated the scenario, rather than responding to your opponents.

I do think in the long run a more literal interpretation of nationalism would be best, because some people are just too different to get along well. I think ALLOWING for the division of the country along WHATEVER lines is a capital idea. So New Hampshire wants to be a libertarian state? Fine, people can vote with their feet. So Idaho wants to abolish laws against freedom of association? Same deal. This way, a variety of experiments can grow and compete for members. What's so wonderful about one way for everyone, dictated by an elite in NYC and DC?

P.S., citizenism is squid ink.

I have no objection to any group wanting to govern and live amongst themselves, in some other country.

I mean, just ponder the arrogant disdain that sentence amounts to. Whites are second-class citizens now, by the way, a situation you tacitly approve. Well, I don't. A whole bunch of very capable and good people, among them my friends and loved ones and colleagues, are white.

But hey, you get points from me just for addressing the question, like a MAN. Kudos.

Anonymous said...

Bit of an exaggeration. White males dominate computing and IT in general.
Just give it time. Whites dominate any merit based industry - but our dear leaders are taking care of that. Bush did his part by forcing the FDNY to embrace diversity.

Anonymous said...

Asians may face tougher college admission process, study finds
By Melanie Jearlds
Monday, October 12th, 2009
dailyprincetonian.com

Asian applicants may face discrimination in the admission process at many elite universities, according to data from a recent study conducted by sociology professor Thomas Espenshade GS '72.

According to the data, not all races are considered equal in the college admissions game. Of students applying to private colleges in 1997, African-American applicants with SAT scores of 1150 had the same chances of being accepted as white applicants with 1460s and Asian applicants with perfect 1600s.

The results of the study come three years after Jian Li, a rejected Princeton applicant, filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. He alleged in the complaint that he had been discriminated against based on his race when he was denied admission to the University...

David said...

Biological egalitarianism is what? The idea that we're all identical under the skin? If so, that isn't plausible. Medicine doesn't support it. (We are very similar, of course.)

In behavioral terms too, races are discernable. Nuture? Partly. BE, I suppose, would here be blank-slatism. Blank-slatism is less and less plausible; and in my opinion it was never plausible except to ideologues (as an a priori philosophical position - and political line).

I thought the moral issues were sort of covered by the Bible and the usual moral tradition. It's not like we have been bereft of guidance during the past 2000+ years, is it. Getting people to live up to morality or common decency is the perennial problem - one that's not helped by modern totalitarian speech codes administered by well-paid bogus "experts" and other power-lusters. "The truth shall set you free." Repression is the bag of liars.

MQ said...

I would add that anyone who believes in Darwinian evolution would certainly not expect BE to be true. I mean, what are the chances that two different populations that evolved in isolation from one another would end up nearly the same in all capacities? About zero. The two concepts - Darwinism and BE - are almost mutually exclusive. If you are one, you really can't be the other.

Pure silliness, as you would know if you were actually concerned with thinking scientifically about evolution as opposed to arguing that black people are stupid. The effect of evolution on isolated populations depends on the environment they evolve in, how much time they are isolated, and how isolated they are. All human populations have evolved in environments with heavy cognitive demands, almost all humans today are descended from populations that were not completely isolated, and in any case the period of genetic isolation is limited compared to the full time span over which humans evolved. The effect of all that on today's genotype is a very open question.

One can add to this that humans evolved physically to be heavily culturally, not just genetically, influenced.

Most commenters in the HBD-sphere aren't interested in pursuing scientific truth, they're interested in confirming certain pre-existing prejudices about certain groups.

David said...

The existence of gravity (loosely understood) was never controversial. The components of the theory of gravity were. The globular spinning Earth...the absolutism of Natural Law as contrasted with Divine Will ("Law," like all naturalism, smacks of Rebellion)...the astronomical observations and assumptions behind all that, etc.

Likewise, everyone not cloistered or below his majority is aware of the fact of Human Biodiversity, loosely understood. What's controversial is any more precise description, and the science behind such a description.

Svigor said...

I rather liked it too, however the fact that it is not being implemented, and that we drift farther from it everyday, suggests that it's not a realistic alternative.

How does it suggest that?

I love the "realism" fig leaf. I wonder what was "realistic" to Russians in 1915? 1989?

Anonymous said...

"Whites dominate any merit based industry - but our dear leaders are taking care of that. Bush did his part by forcing the FDNY to embrace diversity."

I think the big one will be when boomer doctors start retiring. There will be huge demand for doctors and the near intolerable conditions including trying to lower pay could mean the gov't will call it an emergency and start recruiting the folks willing to go into medicine under those conditions. Best and brightest? Not so sure they will take the bait. Smart people aren't looking for that much of a challenge with such little upside. It is a risk vs. reward calculation requiring too much investment for too little gain. The less able will be so excited/giddy to be doctors and will rush in.

Svigor said...

Pure silliness, as you would know if you were actually concerned with thinking scientifically about evolution as opposed to arguing that black people are stupid. The effect of evolution on isolated populations depends on the environment they evolve in, how much time they are isolated, and how isolated they are. All human populations have evolved in environments with heavy cognitive demands, almost all humans today are descended from populations that were not completely isolated, and in any case the period of genetic isolation is limited compared to the full time span over which humans evolved. The effect of all that on today's genotype is a very open question.

This doesn't render "silly" the poster's observation, that evolution practically demands divergence, at least at the default starting point in the absence of certainty. What are the odds that populations would develop identically vis-a-vis traits under selection?

Most commenters in the HBD-sphere aren't interested in pursuing scientific truth, they're interested in confirming certain pre-existing prejudices about certain groups.

And you're here to introduce scientific rigor via argumentum ad hominem?

Phil said...

@ Svigor:

Your argument presumes Jews and whites are natural adversaries. I'll admit there are many Jews who do see white Christians as the "enemy" (look at how Jews treated Sarah Palin), but any reasonable Jew will see American whites as the most welcoming host they've had. Unfortunately, with 80% of American Jews being liberals, "reasonable" isn't something that common. Further, any American white should see Jewish doctors, scientists, and engineers as leaders and innovators in their fields and the huge corresponding benefits that gives to America.

So I simply don't buy that Jews and whites are natural adversaries. I don't believe Jewish liberalism is an inherent trait, so that adversarial aspect of Jews can be expunged through a cultural awakening. Will it happen? I'm not sure.

Anonymous said...

OneSTDV - link still doesnt work, but in a different way to the last time.

I even had a look in the HTML, just in case...

Svigor said...

Most commenters in the HBD-sphere aren't interested in pursuing scientific truth, they're interested in confirming certain pre-existing prejudices about certain groups.

P.S., this isn't true of me. One of my values is facts before beliefs. That's a great part of what drew me to this ball of wax, the disdain for "pretty lies."

I can make just as strong a case for ethnic nationalism without the IQ issue. In fact, if anyone bothers to check, I don't really use the IQ issue vis-a-vis ethnic nationalism except as hors d'oeuvre. I do find malice in the confluence of exhortations to miscegenation, the media blitz to whitewash blacks, and the establishment taboo against HBD, and point it out; shouldn't people know the implications for their progeny?

Svigor said...

Most commenters in the HBD-sphere aren't interested in pursuing scientific truth, they're interested in confirming certain pre-existing prejudices about certain groups.

P.S., this isn't true of me. One of my values is facts before beliefs. That's a great part of what drew me to this ball of wax, the disdain for "pretty lies."

I can make just as strong a case for ethnic nationalism without the IQ issue. In fact, if anyone bothers to check, I don't really use the IQ issue vis-a-vis ethnic nationalism except as hors d'oeuvre. I do find malice in the confluence of exhortations to miscegenation, the media blitz to whitewash blacks, and the establishment taboo against HBD, and point it out; shouldn't people know the implications for their progeny?

MQ said...

This doesn't render "silly" the poster's observation, that evolution practically demands divergence, at least at the default starting point in the absence of certainty. What are the odds that populations would develop identically vis-a-vis traits under selection?

I truly have no idea what you're talking about here. Almost all important human traits are under selection, and almost all have ended up highly similar across races. Place a human being next to a chimpanzee, the closest mammal to us evolutionarily, and every physically healthy human in every race looks incredibly similar in the capacity to develop sophisticated language. The list of human traits that are similar, close to identical, across races is much longer and more significant than the list of traits that differ.

There is nothing -- repeat nothing -- about evolution in general that tells you that human races must differ in any specific sense or indeed differ at all. It all depends on factual stuff about differences between environments, the extent, level, and duration of genetic isolation, and the initial genetic differences in the founding populations. We do not know this factual stuff, although you can make up a version of it that rationalizes your preexisting conviction that black people are stupid.

The existence of gravity (loosely understood) was never controversial. The components of the theory of gravity were....
Likewise, everyone not cloistered or below his majority is aware of the fact of Human Biodiversity, loosely understood. What's controversial is any more precise description, and the science behind such a description.


Exactly. We can all see that human populations are biologically and genetically diverse in some ways (and also very biologically similar in other ways). The question is how diverse. The fact that black people have darker skin is not in question. The contention that black people are genetically suited to be faster sprinters is a little more complex/controversial, but plausible and within the mainstream nowadays. The contention that it's pointless to educate black kids because they're biologically unable to learn is maybe a little more controversial. Not around here, but generally.

Mr. Anon said...

"MQ said...

Pure silliness, as you would know if you were actually concerned with thinking scientifically about evolution as opposed to arguing that black people are stupid."

I said no such thing.

"The effect of evolution on isolated populations depends on the environment they evolve in, how much time they are isolated, and how isolated they are."

This is not news to anyone.

"All human populations have evolved in environments with heavy cognitive demands,"

Which is why all humans are smarter than apes. But it does not follow that different populations of humans would be equally smart, on average.

"almost all humans today are descended from populations that were not completely isolated, and in any case the period of genetic isolation is limited compared to the full time span over which humans evolved."

Given that creatures exist on all seven continents, it's safe to say that no population is completely isolated. So? One cannot deny , for example, that American Indians lived apart from people in Asia - let alone Europe - for anywhere from 10 to 20 thousand years - a not insignificant amount of time in the history of human evolution.

The time that has elapsed since Dolphins evolved from some land-dwelling forbearer is limited (to use your term) compared to the amount of time since mammals as a group diverged from reptiles. Does it then follow that Dolphins are no different than reptiles?

"The effect of all that on today's genotype is a very open question."

And will remain so indefinitely if one never entertains any possible answers.

"One can add to this that humans evolved physically to be heavily culturally, not just genetically, influenced."

And so it is impossible for those cultures themselves to be different?

"Most commenters in the HBD-sphere aren't interested in pursuing scientific truth, they're interested in confirming certain pre-existing prejudices about certain groups."

Overall, your logic is insipid and wrong.

And you may find that a lot of people develop prejudices as they get older, which doesn't square with them being pre-existing. Like many here, I grew up believing in the blank slate, and viewing different groups of people as fundamentally the same. I came to my prejudices by observing the world around me.

ben tillman said...

Ashley MontaQueue wrote:

All human populations have evolved in environments with heavy cognitive demands....

Mice and dogs and cattle and many other species evolved in the same environments with humans -- are you claiming that the intelligence of these species matches that of humans?

All human populations have evolved in environments with heavy cognitive demands....

Environments with cognitive demands and ONLY cognitive demands? Of course not. Intelligence is EXPENSIVE. It has benefits and COSTS, and the environment determines whether the benefits of a certain level of intelligence outweigh the costs. Since environments vary, the optimal level of intelligence varies.

This is elementary.

Anonymous said...

Andrea said...

"Suppose there's an as yet unpopulated island. Knowing what we know about racial differences, would it be ethical to pretend all races are equal and bring in 1000 Nigerians and mix them up with 1000 Cambodians? The much stronger and more aggressive Nigerians will beat up the Cambodians. Most of the assault and murder will be black-on-Cambodian. Nearly all of the rape will be black-on-Cambodian. Is it really much different in the US? Look at inter-racial violence stats, and it's overwhelmingly black-on-white, black-on-brown, black-on-yellow, black-on-fill-in-the-blank?"

Can you cite some statistics revealing that most rapes and murders that occur in the U.S. are black-on-white, black-on-brown, black-on-yellow and black-on-fill-in-the-blank? Seems improbable for some reason.

It's no secret that blacks commit violent crime in the U.S. at much higher rates than any other group, but this alone doesn't indicate that the majority of rapists in the U.S. are black.

Furthermore, Nigeria has a relatively low violent crime rate. The same is true for Senegal, Ghana and most countries in West Africa. Most Carribean nations also have low violent crime rates. I'll post the statistics upon request, if any one is interested.

As far as I can tell, of all the "black countries" on the planet, only Jamaica, Haiti, and South Africa have high crime rates. Obviously most African countries are plagued by social/political conflict but the people who live there are no more prone to violent crime than Russians, Albanians or Colombians; And the standard of living and average IQ in those countries is greater than in any part of Africa.

Kind of weird when you think about it...

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

As far as I can tell, of all the "black countries" on the planet, only Jamaica, Haiti, and South Africa have high crime rates."

Your statistics are probably bogus, such as, for example these here:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

which shows Switzerland and Japan to be more crime-ridden than Jamaica or India. A nation that doesn't much bother collecting crime statistics is likely to come out favorably in such rankings.

David said...

Anonymous said

> Can you cite some statistics revealing that most rapes and murders that occur in the U.S. are black-on-white, black-on-brown, black-on-yellow and black-on-fill-in-the-blank? Seems improbable for some reason. <

Whites outnumber blacks by about 6 to 1 in the US. Therefore, in absolute numbers, violent crimes committed by whites outnumber those committed by blacks.

Blacks on average, however, are more violent and dangerous to whites than whites on average are violent and dangerous to blacks. Here (PDF).

Interracial rape stats are especially instructive on this point. Here.

The problem we're concerned with is race relations. It appears that as blacks and whites live together as full citizens, most of the serious problems are coming from blacks. What is to be done?

Rohan Swee said...

Mr. Anon: And you may find that a lot of people develop prejudices as they get older, which doesn't square with them being pre-existing. Like many here, I grew up believing in the blank slate, and viewing different groups of people as fundamentally the same. I came to my prejudices by observing the world around me.

If you'll allow me to pick a nit, a "prejudice" is not something one develops from experience and empirical observation. In your case, your initial belief in the blank slate is what one would accurately label a prejudice. Your later views are not samples of pre-judging but of deductive reasoning. (The belief that most people interested in HBD are "resentful racist idiots" is, on the other hand, a good example of a prejudice.)

Of course, you may have just been using the word ironically in your response to MQ, in which case, my apologies for being thick. I do see this misuse of the word everywhere, though, and this misuse is not only inaccurate but unnecessarily concedes a point.

Rohan Swee said...

MQ: ...-- every time someone with brown or black skin is credited with an intellectual achievement, you get a horde of commenters here saying that science proves it was due to affirmative action.

Really? Who are these posters who claim that "science proves" that no one with "brown or black skin" has ever attained merit-based intellectual distinction?

That Sonia Sotomayor could *not* have graduated first in her class without AA is seen around here as a scientific conclusion on par with the existence of gravity, but, well, it's not.

Really? See question number one, above. Perhaps you are thinking of the many, many people (both here and in the wider society) who reasonably speculate that, in a culture with a diversity- and AA-mad academy, government, and corporate class, that some prominent persons might not have attained their positions solely on the basis of merit, and who feel no particular reticence about mooting the question. Particularly regarding persons who forthrightly cop to being "AA babies".

This is, of course, something entirely distinct from what you're claiming about the "horde of commenters" here. I find it just about impossible to imagine any normal group of human beings who, under such a regime, would not automatically wonder about the qualifications of such persons, any more than they would not wonder about the qualifications of persons with nepotistic advantages.

can't believe my eyes said...

"Can you cite some statistics revealing that most rapes and murders that occur in the U.S. are black-on-white, black-on-brown, black-on-yellow and black-on-fill-in-the-blank? Seems improbable for some reason."

It is astonishing that you would come on this blog and ask this particular question. We are familiar with the FBI crime statistics. Most crime is intra-racial and whites keep away from blacks, but in spite of that, most interracial crime is black on white. Any white person living in a heavily black metropolis could tell you a series of horror stories going back decades, to when their particular neighborhood started to turn black, perhaps after Section 8 housing moved in. Low-crime blue collar neighborhoods quickly became unlivable for whites, even though most,by the 70s, had thought they could live with blacks since many whites were "worst." Turns out, no, they could not.

The "Color of Crime" should enlighten you as far as American statistics.

Your stories about the low crime rates in Africa sound frankly absurd. Rape is rampant even in Kenya, one of the countries doing somewhat better. What sort of stats are kept in most of these countries anyway? South Africa says it all.
Blacks have raised the crime rate everywhere they go, be it Canada, England or an American military base in Japan where most of the rapes committed by military personnel were committed by blacks.
Sorry. You don't make sense.
Or else you're saying that blacks enjoying the privileges of free education, of first world, immigrating freely to London or Toronto, to white-made countries with tax-payer benefits, are nonetheless more driven to violent crime and abysmal academic performance.
Could it be that blacks are not made for first-world civilizations, and their villages in Africa are really where they do best?
I'd have believed that a few years ago, before I saw some horrifying documentaries on rape in Uganda and other parts of Africa. Some of the perps were intereviewed and talked about the magic or moojoo that rape provided them and that ANY woman, even their mother according to one pyscho, would do in a pinch.
They shot 5 year olds with guns, internally, shattering their reproductive organs and intestines. Each gang would have a different method of shooting or maiming. This wasn't an occasional insanity; it claimed tens of thousands of victims.
Well, you get the picture.
South Africa is crumbling. Nothing works and crime defines daily life. If this is what the black man, peaceful in his village, achieves when handed the modern world on a platter, to the world's applause, then god help us all.

ben tillman said...

It appears that as blacks and whites live together as full citizens, most of the serious problems are coming from blacks.

Whites aren't full citizens.

Truth said...

"It appears that as blacks and whites live together as full citizens, most of the serious problems are coming from blacks. What is to be done?"

Most white rape and murder victims are victimized by whites. always have been.

none of the above said...

svigor:

In what sense are whites second class citizens today? I mean, looking at income, educational achievement, jail time, etc., we do quite well in this society. Would you honestly prefer to change your skin color to black, in order to have a better life here?

It seems to me that a lot of middle-class people are being squeezed in this society right now, but it sure isn't obvious that this is preferentially being done to whites. I'm no economist (and don't have unbounded faith in them), but I suspect much of the cause is captured in Steve's line about "invade the world, invite the world, in hock to the world." We have an unprofitable empire funded by deficits, and a domestic labor market kept cheap by endlessly importing low-wage competition from Central America. This worked for awhile, but it's beginning to break down now.

In what sense are whites second class citizens?

Anonymous said...

Truth said:

"Most white rape and murder victims are victimized by whites. always have been."

Indeed, and neither David or "Can't believe my eyes" answered my question. I didn't deny that blacks are more likely to victimize whites than whites are to victimize blacks. I was speaking in terms of absolute numbers of people who commit crimes. When you look at it this way, it's clear to see that whites kill and rape each other more often than blacks do, as blacks kill and rape each other more often than whites do.

As for rapes committed by military personnel in Japan, where are your stats? I find it extremely hard to believe considering that it's usually white guys who drool over and chase after asian chicks :) What about military personnel outside of Japah? Which race of U.S. soldiers commit more rapes globally?

Who more actively participates in the Cambodian pre-teen sex trade? Middle aged white American guys or blacks?

I noticed that neither of you bothered to explain why Russia and Albania, like most countries in that part of Europe, are also crime ridden.

I'm sure you'll respond with another straw man argument to avoid answering my question, so I'm done discussing it.

Anonymous said...

in a culture with a diversity- and AA-mad academy, government, and corporate class, that some prominent persons might not have attained their positions solely on the basis of merit

God knows political appointments so often trump some sort of meritocratic choice. But under AA not only have we no confidence that the best person got the job, we no longer know whether the best non-white got the job either.

Appointment being about so much more than ability, AA makes that explicit.

ben tillman said...

In what sense are whites second class citizens today? I mean, looking at income, educational achievement, jail time, etc., we do quite well in this society.

In the sense that non-whites have legal privileges that whites don't have. In the sense that whites suffer government aggression that others don't.

Anonymous said...

"In what sense are whites second class citizens today? I mean, looking at income, educational achievement, jail time, etc., we do quite well in this society."

Whites do quite well in this country because of their superior abilities and characters. As stated before, whites have fewer legal rights and do not enjoy equal protection under the law in the USA.

Svigor said...

"Most white rape and murder victims are victimized by whites. always have been."

Which doesn't answer the question "who's more dangerous (or rape-prone, etc.,), ceteris paribus, a white or a black?" Nor does it answer whether it's safer to live around blacks or whites.

Really want to delve into race and crime? Warning: about 3/4 of the people here have cheat sheets.

As for rapes committed by military personnel in Japan, where are your stats? I find it extremely hard to believe considering that it's usually white guys who drool over and chase after asian chicks :)

Wow, that was rigorous.

What about military personnel outside of Japah? Which race of U.S. soldiers commit more rapes globally?

Proportionately? Blacks.

As for Japan, I looked into every such rape case I could a few years back, and they were all perpetrated by blacks.

Who more actively participates in the Cambodian pre-teen sex trade? Middle aged white American guys or blacks?

I dunno, enlighten us. Btw, why limit it to middle-aged white guys vs. all blacks?

Who molests children at a higher rate, whites or blacks? Do you know?

I noticed that neither of you bothered to explain why Russia and Albania, like most countries in that part of Europe, are also crime ridden.

I don't know. Why are black populations more crime-ridden everywhere on Earth?

I'm done discussing it.

First bit of honesty from you so far. Funny that your lab partner is "Truth," the guy who avoids discussion like the plague. He never discusses anything, ever.

Svigor said...

"Almost all" "highly similar" "incredibly similar" ""human traits that are similar," etc. In other words, DIVERGENT.

Just read this sentence back to yourself:

"human traits that are similar, close to identical, across races is much longer and more significant than the list of traits that differ."

You're sorting things into two categories, but each thing can go in either of them.

To be more specific, there is no difference between "traits that are...close to identical," or "traits that differ".

There is nothing -- repeat nothing -- about evolution in general that tells you that human races must differ in any specific sense or indeed differ at all.

What are you smoking? Difference is inherent to race.

There's nothing - repeat nothing - about playing the lottery that tells you you won't win.

It all depends on factual stuff about differences between environments, the extent, level, and duration of genetic isolation, and the initial genetic differences in the founding populations. We do not know this factual stuff,

We know it differed significantly.

although you can make up a version of it that rationalizes your preexisting conviction that black people are stupid.

You're a real charmer.

Svigor said...

In what sense are whites second class citizens?

In the legal and cultural senses.

David said...

If blacks left the United States, the crime rate for most crimes would be much lower than if a proportional number of whites left. The Color of Crime (PDF) makes this rather clear.

Even Jesse Jackson knows it, deep in his heart. Here.

The chances of an older white man being a hunter of Cambodian boys - or a murderer of his wife - are, despite media slanting in the latter case, less than that of a young black male being a hood.

What is to be done? According to our status quo lovers, nothing except point a finger at the lower rate (rate: understand that word) of crime among whites and bluster, inaccurately, "Tu quoque!"

MQ said...

What are you smoking?

Svigor, I demonstrated quite clearly above that there is no contradiction whatsoever between believing in evolution and believing that there are no strong or significant differences between the races. The point stands, as no one has made a substantive response to any of the arguments I made. The rhetoric of scientism can be and often is used a smoke screen for just casual stereotyping based on personal resentments of other races.

Simple casual observation tells us about some surface racial differences, but does not tell us about most.

Anonymous said...

Svigor, I demonstrated quite clearly above that there is no contradiction whatsoever between believing in evolution and believing that there are no strong or significant differences between the races.

MQ, I believe that you are right about this, that there is no such contradiction. Will you in turn acknowledge that the question remains open, that significant racial differences might in fact exist, and that at least some of the people who believe in those differences are intelligent, reasonable, and well informed people?

After all, we are not talking about huge differences, merely a standard deviation or so. In height this is just a few inches, and such differences do seem to exist in the real world. So would you agree that it would not be terribly astounding if there should also turn out to be innate differences of the same order between various continental populations in other characteristics, such as intelligence or temperament?