« Jack Kemp | Main | SWPL = white educated liberal bohemian »

June 02, 2009

Comments

"Biodiversity" is even better than mere "diversity" because it has a scientific aura.

Let's not be disingenuous ... it's really just the intelligence part that most HBD advocates care about.

"it's really just the intelligence part that most HBD advocates care about."

Not really.

IQ is merely the introductory course to HBD.

There are still issues with behavior and personality that go beyond IQ and explain what IQ cannot explain.

For example, low levels of testosterone and agressiveness (no killer instinct) explains why high IQ scientists generally are not good at being Fortune 500 CEOs, and why low levels of neuroticism make high IQ corporate CEOs not so good at elite level mathematics.

Furthermore, HBD does not necessarily mean support for high IQ Asian immigration.

An immigration restrictionist could easily use HBD to demonstrate why, even if NEAsians have high IQs, they still are going to have a hard time culturally assimilating - in large numbers - into a European civilization because NEAsians and Europeans differ in terms of other important behavioral and personality traits other than IQ.

Despite the obvious obstacles in its way, HBD does have a lot of intellectual talent on its side compared to any other strand of "race reaism".

Prominent HBD, or HBD closeted, or HBD sympathetic intellectuals include:

Geoffrey Miller at University of New Mexico

Steven Pinker of Harvard

Jonathan Haidt of UVa

Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute

Jason Richwine, also of AEI

"An immigration restrictionist could easily use HBD to demonstrate why, even if NEAsians have high IQs, they still are going to have a hard time culturally assimilating - in large numbers - into a European civilization because NEAsians and Europeans differ in terms of other important behavioral and personality traits other than IQ."


However, they don't mind trading shots with "rioters." You know, LA style. Koreans will always have a special place in my heart just because of that.

A cost of political correctness is that critics of HBD are not willing to engage in an intelligent debate of the issues.

Therefore, I would appreciate a blog post from you on what you consider to be the best evidence against HBD.

[HS: There isn't any evidence against HBD. All evidence which exists is consistent with HBD.]

"IQ is merely the introductory course to HBD."

I disagree. The reason IQ takes the forefront in the HBD community is because biological IQ diversity is the third rail of science. No one really disputes that men are more muscular, that black children are likely to have dark skin, or that asian kids are likely to have narrow eyes. The point of contention (and censorship) is whether there is a hereditary component to intelligence, and whether that component is distributed differently among races.

The major motivation behind IQ-denialism is, on a basic level, anti-white-male bigotry. It is more acceptable to suggest that asians are more intelligent than whites than to suggest that asians are more intelligent than mestizos, or that whites are more intelligent than blacks. HBD views in the USA are only politically incorrect when they reflect positively on whites/males or negatively on NAMs/females.

I won't, at this moment, get into the reasons why this is enforced. My point is that everyone with functioning eyes is aware of HBD. They just pick and choose which aspects to believe in, and furthermore which aspects to profess belief in, as it serves their agenda.

You wrote "[HS: There isn't any evidence against HBD. All evidence which exists is consistent with HBD.]"

In general, if you believe that ALL the evidence supports a theory you believe in then you should believe that there is a very high probability that cognitive biases are causing you to have far more faith in your theory than is rationally justified.

"I disagree. The reason IQ takes the forefront in the HBD community is because biological IQ diversity is the third rail of science."

I stand by my assertion that IQ is just the beginning of HBD enlightenment.

Behavior and personality are every bit as controversial as IQ is.

Try this as an expirement:

Go to a party with white collar professionals and say blacks are genetically prone to have lower IQs than whites.

Take notes about the reaction you receive.

Then go to another party of white collar professionals and tell people blacks are genetically more prone to commit rape than whites.

Take notes about the reaction you receive.

If anything, the response you will get for saying blacks are genetically more violent than whites will be WORSE than when you bring up IQ.

"In general, if you believe that ALL the evidence supports a theory you believe in then you should believe that there is a very high probability that cognitive biases are causing you to have far more faith in your theory than is rationally justified."

I agree with you to a certain extent, but look at it this way: Is all available evidence consistent with a round earth? If I believe that all evidence is consistent with a round earth, should I consider the possibility that I have a cognitive bias on the issue?

HBD is not like the open versus closed universe debate, where reasonable people can disagree over which way the evidence points.

Denying HBD is like denying that the moon landing took place or claiming that the Earth is only 6000 years old or claiming that the Mossad is behind the 9/11 attacks. No reasonable person could honestly take such a position.

Some debates really are one-sided.

Sabril, you make a good point about the earth being round. So I should limit my point to situations in which reasonable people disagree.

Most people in the U.S. believe that HBD is wrong. Indeed, most people who have studied race, intelligence and social outcomes believe it is wrong. This very fact by itself is evidence that HBD might be wrong.

Consider in the abstract what Half Sigma believes:

Most people believe theory X is false.
I'm certain that it's true.
All the evidence points to theory X being true.
People deny that theory X is true because they are irrational or (unlike me) afraid to tell the true.

In general, although not always, people who have such a set of beliefs are crackpots.


Undiscovered Jew, your argument makes no sense.

My argument: Everyone acknowledges HBD, except where it advantages whites or disadvantages NAMs.

Your argument: People get SUPER-MAD when you claim HBD disadvantages NAMs.

I don't see how these positions are inconsistent at all. Your claim about how "white-collar professionals" would react about IQ versus rape is purely theoretical.

By the way, black-on-white rape was significantly less rampant before the welfare-induced black crime epidemic.

I posted the following comment in the NAM thread. Substitute "HBD" for "NAM" and it still applies just as well:

"While I can't explain just why, there is something thoroughly nerdy about NAM. Whenever anyone uses it I automatically think of pathologically introverted Beta loser nerds who spend all their waking hours in Mom's basement playing WoW and spanking the monkey."

"Most people in the U.S. believe that HBD is wrong"

Even assuming that's true, so what? Apparently a majority of Americans believe in ghosts.

"Indeed, most people who have studied race, intelligence and social outcomes believe it is wrong"

I'd like a cite for that, please.

In any event, "most people believe in X" is weak evidence at best. Particularly where people will be labeled as evil for not believing in X.

In fact, if the main evidence offered for a proposition is that some huge percentage of people (or scientists or whatever) profess belief in it, that's a huge cause for skepticism.

"Behavior and personality are every bit as controversial as IQ is."

Indeed, that is the point of Johnathan Haidt's essay in Edge:

"The most offensive idea in all of science for the last 40 years is the possibility that behavioral differences between racial and ethnic groups have some genetic basis. Knowing nothing but the long-term offensiveness of this idea, a betting person would have to predict that as we decode the genomes of people around the world, we're going to find deeper differences than most scientists now expect. Expectations, after all, are not based purely on current evidence; they are biased, even if only slightly, by the gut feelings of the researchers, and those gut feelings include disgust toward racism..

A wall has long protected respectable evolutionary inquiry from accusations of aiding and abetting racism. That wall is the belief that genetic change happens at such a glacial pace that there simply was not time, in the 50,000 years since humans spread out from Africa, for selection pressures to have altered the genome in anything but the most trivial way (e.g., changes in skin color and nose shape were adaptive responses to cold climates). Evolutionary psychology has therefore focused on the Pleistocene era – the period from about 1.8 million years ago to the dawn of agriculture — during which our common humanity was forged for the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

But the writing is on the wall. Russian scientists showed in the 1990s that a strong selection pressure (picking out and breeding only the tamest fox pups in each generation) created what was — in behavior as well as body — essentially a new species in just 30 generations. That would correspond to about 750 years for humans. Humans may never have experienced such a strong selection pressure for such a long period, but they surely experienced many weaker selection pressures that lasted far longer, and for which some heritable personality traits were more adaptive than others. It stands to reason that local populations (not continent-wide "races") adapted to local circumstances by a process known as "co-evolution" in which genes and cultural elements change over time and mutually influence each other. The best documented example of this process is the co-evolution of genetic mutations that maintain the ability to fully digest lactose in adulthood with the cultural innovation of keeping cattle and drinking their milk. This process has happened several times in the last 10,000 years, not to whole "races" but to tribes or larger groups that domesticated cattle.

Recent "sweeps" of the genome across human populations show that hundreds of genes have been changing during the last 5-10 millennia in response to local selection pressures. (See papers by Benjamin Voight, Scott Williamson, and Bruce Lahn). No new mental modules can be created from scratch in a few millennia, but slight tweaks to existing mechanisms can happen quickly, and small genetic changes can have big behavioral effects, as with those Russian foxes. We must therefore begin looking beyond the Pleistocene and turn our attention to the Holocene era as well – the last 10,000 years. This was the period after the spread of agriculture during which the pace of genetic change sped up in response to the enormous increase in the variety of ways that humans earned their living, formed larger coalitions, fought wars, and competed for resources and mates.

The protective "wall" is about to come crashing down, and all sorts of uncomfortable claims are going to pour in. Skin color has no moral significance, but traits that led to Darwinian success in one of the many new niches and occupations of Holocene life — traits such as collectivism, clannishness, aggressiveness, docility, or the ability to delay gratification — are often seen as virtues or vices. Virtues are acquired slowly, by practice within a cultural context, but the discovery that there might be ethnically-linked genetic variations in the ease with which people can acquire specific virtues is — and this is my prediction — going to be a "game changing" scientific event. (By "ethnic" I mean any group of people who believe they share common descent, actually do share common descent, and that descent involved at least 500 years of a sustained selection pressure, such as sheep herding, rice farming, exposure to malaria, or a caste-based social order, which favored some heritable behavioral predispositions and not others.)

I believe that the "Bell Curve" wars of the 1990s, over race differences in intelligence, will seem genteel and short-lived compared to the coming arguments over ethnic differences in moralized traits. I predict that this "war" will break out between 2012 and 2017.

There are reasons to hope that we'll ultimately reach a consensus that does not aid and abet racism. I expect that dozens or hundreds of ethnic differences will be found, so that any group — like any person — can be said to have many strengths and a few weaknesses, all of which are context-dependent. Furthermore, these cross-group differences are likely to be small when compared to the enormous variation within ethnic groups and the enormous and obvious effects of cultural learning. But whatever consensus we ultimately reach, the ways in which we now think about genes, groups, evolution and ethnicity will be radically changed by the unstoppable progress of the human genome project."


http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2009/01/ethnic-differences-in-morality.php


Could you also define "prole?"

What I think is ironic is that eventually the elites, as always, will probably try to use HBD and "race realism" to rid themselves forever of the white working class. The idea that "race realism" means there should be some kind of "all whites are in this together" feeling is nonsense. What HBD actually demonstrates is that smart parent+smart parent = smart offspring despite liberal protestations to the contrary. So why would I let my daughter marry a 105 IQ white guy when she can marry a 125 IQ Chinese person? Elites are already thinking like that even if they can't really verbalize why they think like that. Ivy League schools have effectively become a way to cream the best out of each racial group - mix them together and then over time breed a elite that will appear to be non-racial (a little Asian, a little Jew, some Wasp, and just a hint of Black) and, so hope the elites, less controversial than an obviously race based elite. Obama is the model for this future elite - a "Black" who has nothing in common genetically with most American Blacks on his African side, and is actually more European genetically than African. Yet is accepted uncontroversially by American Blacks who still think along the old lines that "skin color=race." HBD also demonstrates that "race" is not an immutable value, like the white supremacists (or Korean racists or panAfricans) would like to believe - races come in and out of existence over time, racial characteristics change. Ashkenazi Jews were nothing special in 100 BC, they didn't even exist - they are the result of many centuries of breeding in Europe for high literacy and math skills. You could breed a similarly bookish "race" of Africans if you were so inclined and had the time and resources. So White "supremacy" is just a characteristic of this moment in history - it hasn't always been true of the human race and it won't always be true. HBD is going to upset a lot of apple-carts if it's really understood, not just the liberal ones.

uselessidiot,

"My argument: Everyone acknowledges HBD, except where it advantages whites or disadvantages NAMs.

Your argument: People get SUPER-MAD when you claim HBD disadvantages NAMs.

I don't see how these positions are inconsistent at all."

I was not disagreeing with you.

My point was to expand the HBD argument beyond intelligence/IQ and into other psychological traits.

You're right, TUJ, that the discussion should go beyond easily measurable IQ and on to more esoteric concepts of personality. There is certainly ample (if indirect) evidence.

I'm sorry that I responded to you that way. I'm used to hostile, antagonistic responses when I post on other sites so I sometimes assume the worst.

I stand by my claim before, though, that most of humanity (especially anyone living in a multicultural society) recognizes "below-the-shoulders" HBD. I would amend your statement to say "IQ is merely the introductory course to honest, depoliticized, socially relevant HBD."

"I'm sorry that I responded to you that way."

Aw, don't worry about it. I've had worse conversations.

"I stand by my claim before, though, that most of humanity (especially anyone living in a multicultural society) recognizes "below-the-shoulders" HBD."

Scientists already know, and have probably known for decades, that the Lewontin fallacy is crap.

Scientists already know there are bioligical differences between races because of population genetics.

What makes the elite nervous is that there are inbuilt, and almost impossible to change psychological differences across races on top of those biological differences (to the extent people consider biology as different from mental traits).

HBD-take what you like, forget want you don't.

Phillipe Rushton has explained why ethncitiy is so important to us. The genetic similarity of random co-ethnics is about one cousin.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/N&N%202005-1.pdf

Universal cog-elitism is just another idealism, and ignores certain aspects of human behavior that would explain much about our world.


For a quick and easy to understand primer for proving HBD, please see my blog:

http://onestdv.blogspot.com/

http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2009/05/quick-easy-to-understand-primer-on.html

Quite a few "white nationalists" seem to be coming over to this site. I have nothing against white nationalists, they are following what they think is in their heart the best path. But really this web site is not the place for it. This site is for the cognitive elite, people like half sigma, to discuss things. Not for white nationalists.

My own observation of white nationalists is that they are people who have spent their whole life angry about one thing or the other. Anger is the constant, and they have picked up on white rights. Perhaps earlier in their life they might have spoken incessantly about the rights of hetros against homos, about the rights of rural people against city folks, etc. Just anger and hate.

I have my own theory that I would like to hear other people here comment on. These white nationalists are programmed to be in group / out group oriented - ie they have to think about some other group and the differences between them and the other group.

For example, inside germany a few hundred years ago, for some reason these in group / out group types decided that Catholics and Protestants were so different from each other that somehow the Catholics and Protestants went to war and 30% of the german population was killed

Then later, some "white people" in France decided for some reason that the "white people" in Germany were their enemy and there were huge wars between different groups of white people

The point is that the same people are just genetically programmed to be complainers. We see them on Stormfront and VDARE complaining about too many non whites in the USA - but if the USA was an all white country they would find something else to complain about - too many catholics? too many olive colored whites from sicily and greece and portugal? Too many this too many that . The one constant of the white nationalists is that they have an incessant need to complain about something.

If you took all the white nationalists in the USA and gave them the all-white homeland they are asking for - perhaps by moving them all to new zealand or something - I have no doubt that they would find something else to complain about - white nationalists are programmed to find differences and let those differences bother them

If they were born japanese, they would be living in japan and complaining incessantly about something. Believe me, even in an almost homogeneous society there are malcontents that find something to complain about -

So I like the white nationalists, I think they are being true to themselves, following their heart, etc. But at the same time they are obviously malcontents that are generally sad about their lot in life, sad about their place in the pecking order, and looking for a cause, looking for something bigger than themselves to latch on to

white nationalism is but a convenient cause for today,

An immigration restrictionist could easily use HBD to demonstrate why, even if NEAsians have high IQs, they still are going to have a hard time culturally assimilating - in large numbers - into a European civilization because NEAsians and Europeans differ in terms of other important behavioral and personality traits other than IQ.

Posted by: The Undiscovered Jew | June 02, 2009 at 03:54 PM

Jew, I'm not buying. 2d-generation Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese 100% assimilate (see Margaret Cho)

Kyle,

I think you're right about WN being programmed to think the way they do. It seems clear to me that in-group/out-group distinctions are part of human nature, and some people get a whole heaping of whatever it is that predisposes people to make such distinctions, whereas others get relatively little of it. And some people - though certainly not all - who get a whole heaping of it attach those distinctions to racial differences.

Personally, I sympathize with White Nationalists - though not with their goal of an all-white America - because I think they're the homosexuals of 21st century America. By which I mean that society reviles them for feelings over which they have no conscious control.

I think Kyle has a good point about white nationalists. People have a need to draw a line 1 rung below them on the ladder and look down at everyone beneath them.

Here's an idea: An easy track to US citizenship for anyone of any ethnicity if that person has IQ 130+. For people who are IQ 115+, if they are under the age of 25, they can join our army for 3 years and get US citizenship if they are honorably discharged.

Sabril

I agree with you 100%. This is the best idea I have heard all week.

I also want to say that I have pity and empathy for the white nationalists. I personally want to live among a diverse number of high IQ people - my ideal neighborhood has all people with an IQ over 130 from different racial groups. I'd like to live among high IQ blacks, Indians, whites, latins, and also throw in some high IQ gays and lesbians - as long as my friends co workers and neighbors have high IQ I enjoy myself.

However I respect very much the desire of the white nationalists to live among themselves. Why can't the USA designate Idaho, for example, as a homeland for the white nationalists. Have no non whites of any kind move in to Idaho. The white nationalists would get what they want, and it really wouldn't harm the rest of us in any way. To be fair, Chinese Americans could have Monterey Park as a 100% Chinese place if they want it.

My point is, I personally want to live among high iq people of all races - and I want my 2 kids to grow up with friends of all races ( so long as they have high IQ) but I don't understand why the white nationalists shouldn't get what they want

Young Asian-Americans are most loyal Democratic voters next to blacks.
Jewish Americans are obviously also very liberal.

No offense to anyone on here, but until Asians are endowed with all the privileges of being white and have no complaints (and they have many--misrepresentation in the media, under representation in business and politics, white males with Asian fetishes,etc) they will NEVER join "your side." If you people knew more Asians you'd know that they feel like white, Christian culture is often against them. Look up, "Last Airbender cast controvery"

Also good luck "converting" Jews. No matter how often you include the caveat "Well Jews are actually VERY smart", they won't budge. The last time white gentiles proclaimed racial realism and eugenics, Jews had some problems. So forgive them for not coming on board.

You won't get smart blacks (but I suspect you don't want them), nor Hispanics (you probably don't want them either). Maybe a few Razib Khans, but that's about it.

Trust me, the only time people will convert, is when genetic engineering can be done cheaply. I give it a good 20 years.

^lol @ the white supremacist sympathy comment. that's what I'm talking about.

"No offense to anyone on here, but until Asians are endowed with all the privileges of being white and have no complaints (and they have many--misrepresentation in the media, under representation in business and politics, white males with Asian fetishes,etc) they will NEVER join "your side."

That doesn't seem to be my experience in terms of political orientation.

Also, in terms of HBD Asians in my experience are far more honest about group differences.

"^lol @ the white supremacist sympathy comment. that's what I'm talking about."

Where is there a white supremacist sympathy comment?

The person is referring to white nationalists, no different to those who seek to keep Japan Japanese (I understand it is 98% Japanese). There is no reference to supremacy, but maintaining a homogenous group. Your comment about supremacy is dishonest.

"No offense to anyone on here, but until Asians are endowed with all the privileges of being white and have no complaints (and they have many--misrepresentation in the media, under representation in business and politics, white males with Asian fetishes,etc) they will NEVER join "your side."-Jing Rubin

Asians are oppressed? What planet are you on? White people are irrationally condemned by politically minded minorities. Asian studies, ethnic studies, women studies, African studies, etc and quite a few mainstream news sources still claim white people are privileged. Every little thing is distorted(what!? Not enough Chinese male newscasters! Racism.) or devised(Duke rape hoax) for political means to dehumanize.

This is incredibly ridiculous. White nationalism is nothing more than a by-product of the various other ethnic nationalisms that are cropping up in organized competition against whites. They are not hateful...they just see the writing on the wall. That is something the lot of you need to understand.

Comments like "I want to live in a community with lots of minorities who have 130 IQ's" is equally absurd. Implicit in these comments is the belief that such minorities will all be living in your Western-based community where they all speak fluent English and duplicate the SWPL values you hold dear.

In other words, you are assuming that they will be topically different white people.

Trust me...they won't.

Any reference to a “debate” between believers and HBD and deniers is fallacious.

Any academic, journalist, etc., who asserts the bald facts will have their career destroyed.

The real test of who's right BEGINS when censorship bans are lifted and people are able to take strong pro HBD positions without fearing for their lives or their jobs.

Moreover, there was no “debate” prior to the adoption of the ideology of racial equality either:
essentially, everyone on Earth believed that there will racial differences in temperament and cognitive ability, nor was there a “consensus” in favor of racial difference:

there was no "consensus" because there was no controversy, pretty much everyone believed the same thing.

There is indeed no evidence at all against HBD, there is instead a firewall separating scientific knowledge from public discourse, which is something very different.


As someone who spent most of his life as an openly gay socialist academic cosmopolitan bohemian intellectual yada yada, I would like to say that:

most of the postings here concerning white supremacy/nationalism are hypocritical rubbish – you are essentially nervous snobs bashing the white working class for having more guts than you have.

For 3 million Norwegians to defend their ancestral territory, language, culture, and social system and prevent it from being drowned by the runoff from China (one billion plus), southern Asia (one billion plus), Africa, etc. is perfectly reasonable, and the fact that there is any question about it at all means that a mass psychosis has taken hold of the European mind, namely the ideology of “multiculturalsim/antiracism.”

I have lived in Europe for 15 years, and it is quite clear that the Persians, Chinese, Somalians, etc. who are settling here are never going to assimilate and will not maintain European civilization in any form.

They are acquiring territory, and they think of themselves as colonists.

They regard Europeans as decadent and doomed to extinction, and revile them OPENLY for participating in their own dispossession.

I am a white person with an IQ over 130. I have many friends who are not white who also have IQ over 130.

We enjoy many activities together. Our kids play together. We have the same values and aspirations.

I feel like I have much more in common with the non whites whose IQ is over 130 than with the "white separatist" crowd.

At the end of the day, I feel more kinship with people who have IQ over 130. I don't hate the low IQ white people who are so commonly in to "white supremacism" or "white separatism" I am just different than them.

All the white power types that post here assume that there will be some sort of violent battle here in the USA - perhaps they are right - but what the heck makes them so sure that the battle will be whites vs non whites? what makes them think that I will be on their side? Perhaps the battle lines will be different -

The truth is that the culture of white people with an average or below average IQ is blending in to the NAM culture. You see millions of white girls getting inpregnated by NAMs - these are NOT the high IQ elite of white girls, these are the average to below average IQ whites.
You see plenty of white young men living the "wigger" lifestyle again these are the low IQ whites.

Finally, when you look at white men who choose to marry NAMs it is overwhelmingly the low and average IQ white men. Steve Sailer has pointed out that it is more and more common for white men with average IQ and incomes that are not great enough to attract white women to marry mexican women.

So I have special pity for the white separatists - their own kids seem to be melting in to NAM culture. Don't blame me and the other high IQ whites for what is going on among low and average IQ whites.

Again, the white separatists seem to think that we high IQ whites should band with them, that the battle lines will be drawn along racial lines.

Get your arms around the fact that high IQ whites like me may truly (not just in our heads) have more in common with high IQ non whites than with you

The real catch here: there's a distinct difference between a descriptive and judgemental statement.

HBD is science, is common sense. This is not what offends people. It's the politics that offend. We know there is biological diversity, but what conclusions do we want to draw from this? Anti-immigration? Eugenics? This is where HBD becomes "racist."

The comments to this entry are closed.