« Occupy protests and the Bourgeoisie | Main | Obituary for Gary Carter »

February 17, 2012

Comments

Someone needs to make a religion out of HBD, so that we can claim religious discrimination.

Open a Church of HBD so that you can claim your religious liberty. And avoid taxes.

I am not so sure that it's so much elites don't believe that HBD is real, they just recognize that there's no upside to saying so, whether it's from a career, business, social or political standpoint.

The elites suffer from social or status anxieties just like everyone else. If you want to be a member of the club, so to speak, you have to demonstrate that your attitudes aren't at odds with what the other members claim to believe. To many, if not most people social acceptance is a really big deal.

Such people by and large DO believe there is a strong genetic component to intelligence and behavior, but are also aware that there's enough historical and social noise in that signal that it's not worth their reputations and careers to be identified as a person particularly interested in racial differences. Especially when such elites also enjoy access to co-elite celebrities, athletes, and politicians of different races.

In short, they have neither the inclination nor incentive to devote so much time fretting over what you have made a personal obsession.

The problem with the whole HBD denialism is its impact on immigration policies. If 1% of the population are AA beneficiaries to compensate for low group average performance, then it is no big deal. Even at 5% it is only a small drain. There is a tipping point. 95% can carry 5%, but 5% can't carry 95%. So, where is the tipping point. We actually may be past it, but we just haven't collapsed yet. Even if we stopped all low IQ immigration today, we will still have a majority of people both unwilling and unable to maintain a 1st world country. We look like Brazil.

The elites who do believe in HBD will pretend not to notice the naked emperor due to the aforementioned social acceptance.

The elites believe in a small group chosen to rule, but not by inheritance of social status or genetic quality, but by moral election- based on Calvin's elect. Like the Calvinist elect they are most likely to be afflent bourgeoisie, and that status is usually inherited, but not always and it can be lost by doing or saying the wrong thing.

the last two comments echo what Derbyshire has been suggesting: the business Elites (I hate this term, but everyone 'understands' it) very likely understand HBD but have no incentive to publicize their views. And probably don't have too much time to ruminate on such topics.

The political Elites, however, do not understand HBD not because they refuse to, but rather because PC/anti-HBD is a useful tool to censor and castigate their political opponents. And in that vein, they have little incentive to entertain the notions of HBD (less they lose a very effective tool in the process). Incidentally, this is why they can't argue, in response, any factual or statistical points. The best they can do is engage in emoting on this topic.

Facts and stats always win. But it's just as important to attack them on their emotional baggage too.

"Facts and stats always win"

----

No, they don't.

The elites and wannabe elites don't want to talk "racist" because it's declasse. It makes them feel like rednecks, or some other horrible thing. Especially if you're already got it made. In fact, denying HBD is good for some cheap nobless oblige points.

@dearieme I am reading "Beyondism" by Raymond Cattell. He was actually trying to create a church of HBD!

More generally, I agree with HS. Reading "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer was a real eye opener for me in this regard. The last section of the book is "Why Smart People Believe Weird Things", and he makes the point that people apply their intelligence to invent justifications for beliefs that they hold for a variety of non-rational reasons. The smarter you are, the more able you are to concoct a convincing justification for your belief, but you may not be more likely to hold beliefs based on fact.

You can think what you like about Jesus, but do you really prefer the what secular liberals have created? Everything you rant against has been created by secular libersls.

Patrick and Thrasymachus nail it.

Does no one remember "double think" from 1984? Its possible to maintain cognitive dissidence if you practice is and adopt certain habits and disciplines that support it.

"Like the Calvinist elect they are most likely to be afflent bourgeoisie, and that status is usually inherited, but not always and it can be lost by doing or saying the wrong thing."

But election is unconditional! If they "fall" by saying or doing the wrong thing then they weren't an elected preserved saint to begin with. Worldly success is indicative of a "divine" nature according to Calvinism. As absurd as Calvinism is, it looks like the most accurate interpretation of Christianity, and Calvinists typically win debates against other Christians.

I think you're discounting the function of "faith" in resolving certain otherwise inescapable psychological or emotional anxieties. Faith, as opposed to rational belief, is a flexible notion; you believe when convenient, but if you're smart, you don't leave too much riding on faith.

Life has certain inescapable risks, dangers, and terrors, but we nevertheless keep plugging along, unless of course we opt out via suicide. Knowing that life is in a sense terrifying, we take comfort in the belief that there is a benevolent god warching over us, keen to protect us from harm. However, only a rare few put such faith to the test, under circumstances where the consequences could be horrific. They trust in God, but play it pretty safe. In other words, their faith in a benevolent God serves largely to contain their anxieties; they don't really believe it full on, in the way that one rationally believes in the utility of keeping a charged up fire extinguisher near the stove.

Similarly, elites play a largely subconscious game of both believing and not believing in HBD. They tell themselves that they aren't looking for a public school with the proper balance of whites and Asians (mostly whites), and very few of anybody else; they're looking for schools with good teachers, state-of-the-art facilities, and high test scores. If such schools tend to have, by utter coincidence, an attractive racial mix by HBD standards, ah well, what's a progressive-minded parent to do?

Yes, I know, such people would be even happier if the school had a few cafe au lait sons and daughters (mostly daughters) of mixed raced parentage. So much the better! But unless they're absolute suckers (and some are), they aren't going to send their kids to an 85% black school in a ghetto neighborhood, because deep down, the thought of it makes them very nervous, for reasons they'd prefer not to dwell on. Hence, their blank slate faith allows them to contain the cognative dissonance that would otherwise trouble them if they had to admit that they only put so much faith -- not that much -- in human equality. To the extent that they believe ghetto kids are, on average, just as academically promising and well-behaved as any other kids, it^s because the other possibilities are too disturbing to their sense of themselves, and, as others have pointed, to their desire to be accepted in a certain social/intellectual class. In brief, they "believe" it because it makes them feel better, not because they really believe it, the way you believe chocolate ice cream is no better or worse for you than vanilla.

Faith: you trust in whatever, but you don't bet much on it.

Patrick is right.

It's easier to believe in the equality of races when you're rich and/or intelligent. You live in good neighborhoods, surrounded by people who think like you. You don't have welfare housing near you. Any minorities you come across in your workplace probably have very similar (or at least some) qualifications. You don't see the welfare queens at your grocery store. Any reports of violence you hear about are not racially categorized so you can believe that they are as likely to be committed by whites as by anyone. You simply do not come across evidence as often as a white blue collar worker would.

Smart elies almost all believe in what you consider "hbd". They all move to the neighborhoods and send their kids to schools where they'll be around mostly other elite white people, with a smattering of affluent people from other races. They all get it. But they also get that to stay elite, they need to spout certain views not to be "racist".

A similar thing is starting to happen with gay marriage. It's gaining steam because celebrities/media are all for it. Most probably don't care one way or another, but they want to be more popular and be considered "enlightened".

To add to what Carmen said. Denying HBD is a useful way to keep minorities voting Democrat. If the Democratic elites decided to embrace HBD then certainly a large portion of their core electorate would be forced to reconsider their position and their aversion to the Republican party. They could also begin to feel totally disenfranchised and that could be a recipe for social disaster.

The "Elites" certainly understand that intelligence and success in life are the result of a combination of factors. Genes are certainly one factor. Family structure, social status, and economic status all have a role too.

Asian families have very strong work ethics. They emphasize education, sacrifice to get their children into the best schools and push them to do well in those schools. How much of the success of Asian children in school is due to genes and how much to the other factors?

Liberal Elites know some of the difference is due to genes, but there is nothing you can do about genes. Some of it is due to other factors, and society can do something about those other factors. Blaming differences in test scores or success in life on genes, is a way of saying society doesn't need to do anything about the other factors.

Even if genes are a very large factor, there is a wide range of intelligence in all racial or ethnic groups and interracial marriage is blurring racial lines.

Liberal Elites know god does not exist, but there is nothing to be gained by talking about it. Religion is the glue that hold society together. The believe that government in some way derives its legitimacy from the gods underlies all of human history. Religion is one of the noble lies that makes human civilization possible.

Likewise liberal elites know there is nothing to be gained by talking about genetic differences between races. The average differences between races is smaller than the distribution of any given race. Liberal elites talk about equality of opportunity. Only when opportunity is really equal could you possibly know or measure the genetic difference. Genetic differences are real, but they are something you just don't talk about.

Ice Hole--

Very well put. That about sums it up.

I do think a lot of the elites are aware that blacks end up less intelligent by high school, but probably most of them want to believe that that's for cultural disadvantage, socioeconomics, and momentum from a discriminated against past sorts of reasons, rather than being heavily due to genetic differences.

I think HBD is harder to believe in than Atheism, mostly because there's no cultural base of reference in favor of HBD and all sorts of ingrained cultural beliefs (cultural myths) supporting the opposing ideal, that hard work and dedication lead to the American dream and that this is something that anyone can achieve. Also, if you are rich and elite, it's more comfortable to not believe in HBD. Atheism, on the other hand, has been around in some form forever. There have always been unbelievers, even if the church considered them heretics and burned them at the stake.

>"The elites who do believe in HBD will pretend not to notice the naked emperor due to the aforementioned social acceptance."


That theory won't stand up to examination. The elites, by definition, are the ones who decide what is and what is not socially acceptable. If you're too cowed to speak what you believe to be the truth then you're not part of the elite, you're subordinate to it.

>"Smart elies almost all believe in what you consider "hbd". They all move to the neighborhoods and send their kids to schools where they'll be around mostly other elite white people, with a smattering of affluent people from other races. They all get it. But they also get that to stay elite, they need to spout certain views not to be "racist"."


Implicit in what you say is there that there must exist some force outside and above of the elite - the "super-elite"? - which has the power to strip members of the elite of their elite status if they say the wrong things.

In which case you're using the term "elite" incorrectly. If there is another, more powerful social class above yours, then THEY are the elite and you are not. If your position in society is dependent on currying favor with some powerful group, you're not elite. They are.

I think that what races emphasize and their genetic structure are very linked. Thus, the Chinese emphasize scholastic discipline becasue they're good at academics. Blacks emphasize sports discipline becuase that's what they are good at. Most black athletes get there by a combination of talent and enormous discipline.

I know a lot of white people like to think all blacks are lazy, but if you ever look into the history of black sports starts, most of them, starting at a very young age, were practicing and practicing and practicing.

Mexicans are not lazy at all when it comes to menial work. But they are not particularly disciplined about sports or academics. Why? becuase they don't have the innate genes to succeed, so why bother. A sensible decision.

Whites? In general, we don't have either the scholastic discipline of the Chinese, nor the sports discipline of the blacks, nor the aptitude for menial work of the Mexicans. But we're prettier than any of them, and seem to have a certain leadership gene.

Slightly off topic but someone raised an interesting prospect.
Just as some climatologists believe that the global warming that has supposedly been set in train is such that it is too late for us to do anything about, and that the damage has aready been done, and we will in the coming years notice more and more the impact but are powerless to stop it, so WHAT IF Third World immigration, diversity, etc, have already inflicted fatal wounds to Western countries but no-one has realised it yet, as Western countries are at present using up what remains of their social capital, so everything appears almost normal. I recall reading a while ago that in Italy the interest rate on 30 year bonds issued by the government was high partly because people purchasing the Italian debt were thinking that in thirty years Italy will have a smaller proportion of productive white Italians in the workforce and a larger proportion of unproductive non-Italian non-white immigrants, so Italy might find it hard to repay their loans. So what will happen in thirty years is affecting in subtle and quiet ways what happens now. This might be going on silently all around us.

Well, we've had some LIBERALS post on here in the past that they and their liberal friends know HBD is true, so I suspect the liberal elite, mostly DO know the truth.

Strange, isn't it, that 100 years ago HBD was accepted as fact by the elite.

I don't think it matters what they believe. What matters is what they do or what they say. A belief that is, for all practical purposes, hidden, is of no consequence to the rest of us.

The elites might do it subconsciously by spouse/mate selection, thus ensuring their offspring will have high IQ, ample resources and "good" genes.

"and even more smart people who believe in the HBD-denialism nonsense, because people believe what other people believe and don’t really think for themselves"

Except that the tendency to think for yourself and be skeptical of traditions and widely-held beliefs is highly correlated to IQ.

See, for example, the Kanazawa study which got out in 2010.

Ironically, this tendency often leads to liberalism, because that's what you get if you reject patriotism and religion as unfounded while not being smart enough to understand that patriotism and religion are necessary to keep dumb people in line.

The "elites" are not HBD believers, but the POWER ELITE (top 0.1%) is, and that becomes quite obvious when you have a bit of historical knowledge.

Benjamin Disraeli is a good example of a covert HBD believer.

Two Points:

Don't miss John Derbyshire's CPAC Speech: Will Our Multicultural Elites Ever Become Race Realists? http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-future-of-elite-attitudes-on-race

Things can turn around really fast. It looks like the socialist party running Australia is in the process of being shed like a snake's skin:
http://www.news.com.au/national/prime-minister-julia-gillard-urged-to-quit-by-labor-mps-including-darren-cheeseman/story-e6frfkvr-1226274740588

Dan Kurt

Siggie, if possible you should duplicate PJ Media's readers' comments format so that a reader can comment directly below a post to which he is responding. Would make your site better IMO.

"I am not so sure that it's so much elites don't believe that HBD is real, they just recognize that there's no upside to saying so, whether it's from a career, business, social or political standpoint."--Sgt Friday

You are correct, sir. Elites are generally intelligent, and Siggie would make the argument that smart people can't figure out obvious HBD truths--like blacks are on average unintelligent? Pleez!

"That theory won't stand up to examination. The elites, by definition, are the ones who decide what is and what is not socially acceptable. If you're too cowed to speak what you believe to be the truth then you're not part of the elite, you're subordinate to it."

The elites are subordinate to each other and do not want to risk expulsion from their club. If elite A demonstrates a behavior or says something not congruent with what is considered acceptable, then elites B, C, D, etc., will ostracize them. Or, in the best case scenario be vastly reduced in social status among that group. This is also why people pretend having information they lack regarding certain individuals, because ignorance in certain matters demonstrates their outsider position (this behavior is one all classes engage in). If they aren’t informed of certain events, people, etc., it is a terrible sign that they have socially fallen. Thus, they will do what is necessary to stay in the loop.

There are different layers within what we call the "elite"; those who make the rules (i.e., those at the very top) do not typically follow their own rules, as determining what is fashionable and "the rules" for the middle uppers and below is the ultimate status symbol and they'd risk lowering their own status by following them. Violating the rules is basis for exclusion among the middle uppers and below.


Thus, those initiated into Skull and Bones or Porcellian who send their children to Eton, Brillantmont, Le Rosey, etc., (St.Grottlesex schools and Andover of course being for those upper-middle through middle-upper class children "beneath" theirs) influence what the middle uppers will deem socially acceptable, and a trickle-down effect ensues. Once said ideas, fashions, etc., trickle down too low canons are immediately changed by the upper-uppers (i.e., top-out-of-sights).

"Ironically, this tendency often leads to liberalism, because that's what you get if you reject patriotism and religion as unfounded while not being smart enough to understand that patriotism and religion are necessary to keep dumb people in line."

I am dismayed at the direction in which the Atheist community as a whole has gone. It seems like it is technically an unofficial church and if one holds heretical views such as not believing that circumcising one's son* is wrong, then they will be excommunicated.

Even I am guilty of the shaming behavior at times, an example of which is when I heard about Julia Gillard (Australia's prime minister) disapproving of gay marriage. I nevertheless envy Australia in a way, because Gillard demonstrates that Atheists have a credible chance of becoming prime minister in Australia.


*Babies not only heal much faster and lack the consciousness to remember the operation, but the evidence that circumcision reduces the chances for various diseases still stands. The comparisons between female circumcision and male circumcision are dishonest as having foreskin removed (for any reason) and a clitoris removed are in entirely different leagues. Never mind the wound created in type III female "circumcision" and its subsequent fusing.

"Elites are generally intelligent, and Siggie would make the argument that smart people can't figure out obvious HBD truths--like blacks are on average unintelligent? Pleez!"

They *can* - but they don't *want to*.

The smarter you are, the easier it is for you to figure out how actually reading about HBD would change your opinion. Buy a copy of the Bell Curve and try to borrow it out. You'll notice that nobody wants to read it because most people that are smart enough to read books like that have already noticed where thinking about this stuff would lead and they choose not to think about it.

The smarter you are, the more likely it is that you've already noticed your intuition telling you that a school full of black students is not a good school and you've also realized that thinking about this stuff further would lead to evil racism... so you choose not to think about it further.

The most zealous anti-racist types who want HBDers in the closet are those who have already figured out that it's probably true but denied that line of thought to themselves: they don't want it out there and on discussion since then they'd end up thinking about it and they've already realized where thinking about HBD leads.

(Not that different from Jesus - plenty of religious people actively avoid books, TV and other media that they figure would lead to doubts. They don't want to think, they want to believe.)

You can tell elites believe HBD from who they hire for high level complex jobs. Even Obama tends to surround himself with Jews, not blacks. If a mulatto liberal elite is aware of HBD, imagine how aware white elites are. They're just in denial and lie to themselves, but deep down they know. That's why they get so defensive when books like the bell curve are published. The truth hurts.

"In general, we don't have either the scholastic discipline of the Chinese, nor the sports discipline of the blacks, nor the aptitude for menial work of the Mexicans."

History does not support this contention. Probably whites are better in all of these categories. I think of the low status Jews of only a half century ago who worked their 140 IQ asses off in menial crap work and their sons grew up to be top ranking executives of major international corporations and project managers of some of the biggest engineering projects ever executed. Also, hut dwelling farmers from Scandinavia toiled in the wretched upper midwest and their grandkids grew up to be rich farmers, doctors, businessmen etc.

So, I call BS on the other races are better nonsense. Yes, they can work hard, no doubt, but no way are Asians more academic than Europeans who built the universities. Nor are blacks more disciplined athletes than the Eurros who invented the sports and created the leagues. And no way are Mexicans harder working than the Russians who built St. Petersburg. For crying out loud, there is a whole lot more evidence than just current conditions.

@ not too late

I think the point was that whites don't specialize in one thing at the expense of others. Whites are the most balanced race. That's why European conquered the world and nobody else did.


This is like saying that religious people are secret atheists.


No, it's like saying that top clergy do not believe in what they preach. Which is totally the case.

This is disappointing.

I assumed that since this was a libertarian blog that I would find not only rationality but a deeper examination of topics. To say that HBD(I assumed this stands for Human Biological Difference) cannot be denied logically is buffoonery.

According to the bell curve(what I assume from reading other posts is the basis of your argument) latinos and African Americans(neither are accurate descriptors/terms and neither are races) have the lowest IQs by average. While this may or may not be true this ignores (amazingly) that both hispanics and Afro Americans reperesent (proportionally) the poorest segments of the western world.

To simplify, the dumbest people are also the poorest, least educated and coincidentally come from the worst backgrounds(on average).

By your reasoning backwoods trailer types should (because they are white) be, on average, more intelligent than, say, middle class latinos; this is most obviously not the case.

Perhaps since the wealthy tend more towards intelligence (as another post on this site posits) they have the mental capacity to reason this out.

Yet, I assume from the comments that most here are either white or asian. Comments of this sort do nothing but inflate your ego at worst.

Perhaps I should have read the frontpage(there goes that low IQ again), are negros even allowed here?

"No, it's like saying that top clergy do not believe in what they preach. Which is totally the case."

Exactly. As Voltaire said, "I do not believe in God, but I want my servant to believe in God so she does not steal from me".

I am a "secret atheist." I go to church at least once a month, am involved in my church community and a related philanthropic organization, and I volunteer at church fundraisers and the like. I pretend to pray while there, and I don't point out how ridiculous and absurd the bible is to my fellow congregants.

I know for a fact that several of the other men in the church are just like me, or at a minimum, they believe the bible is a crock of shit. But we go to church because my church is full of the kind of people we want our kids to be around, and church is a formal way for us to be together and to instill morals in our kids. It is also a great social network for things like babysitters, doctors, business referrals, etc. The church is not evangelical or politically active, so I can stomach my hypocrisy for the benefits of being in the community.

I don't doubt that many progressives have similar feelings re: HBD. They know its true, but they keep their mouths shut because its part of the price of admission to progressive social circles and organizations. And it's a requirement because accepting HBD would be a problem politically for Dems, so those at the top don't really give a shit whether its true or false.

Finally, "racism" is seen as a characteristic of lower class whites, so status-conscious white elites cannot admit the truth of HBD. Yet another reason to fake it.

[HS: I don't understand why parents want to brainwash their kids into believing stuff they don't believe themselves. Why don't you get together with the other nonbelievers and form an organization that better reflects your actual beliefs and still socializes your children?]

[HS: I don't understand why parents want to brainwash their kids into believing stuff they don't believe themselves.]

That is something I struggle with. But they're smart kids, and I'm sure they'd figure it out on their own, but I'll be helping them along once they get a little older. My church is liturgical, so we almost never have sermonizing from the priest. Every once in a while we get a sermon, but they're tame compared to what you see in evangelical churches. Mainly we just sit through mass, which is a bunch of stupid rituals that the kids don't really understand, so I'm not terribly afraid of them being brainwashed. And the outside activities are never really focused on religion.

[Why don't you get together with the other nonbelievers and form an organization that better reflects your actual beliefs and still socializes your children?]

Too much work to find normal, family oriented non-believers and then assemble an organization that is not *about* being a non-believer, which would attract the wrong sort of people. In my experience, most open non-believers are either progressive SWPLs, argumentative zealots with a persecution complex, or proles. It's just easier to join a church community.

It takes alot more intellectual strength and conviction if one is going by pure reason to choose Catholicism then lets say the zeitgeist of atheism/secularism. It is easy to say I don't believe in anything unseen, but to objectively study the case of Christ and an overview of all theological and philosophical weltanschauungs, and come to a conclusion of belief require more intellectual courage.


Only an ignorant person will ascribe belief in Christ to a lack of intellectual capability. It is because the dominant trends in academia, science, and so-called intellectual elite classes are secularized and subscribe to scientism, does not mean intelligence or knowledge has anything to do with belief in Christianity. To find any excuse to insult the intellect of those who hold religious beliefs shows a deep insecurity.


I urge all to do a thorough and OBJECTIVE analysis of the case of Christ, and you will find that the most logical conclusion one can come to is that he was Divine. Faith is required, because there is room not to believe. But it is quite difficult to be both objective and HONESTLY believe that Jesus was a fraud. Study history, philosophy, theology, for yourself. Very few people who do not subscribe to Christianity have made a deep, thorough, sympathetic, and objective study of Christ and then come to reject it. Most are just ignorant, subscribe to popular views and current culture, or evade the question due to interference with their desires.

It just seems like you use any excuse to insult the intelligence of believers when it has nothing to do with intelligence. I have an iq of 142 and find Christianity, and by that I mean Catholicism, extremely convincing. I have also studied all world religions and none have any rational basis and historical evidence like Christianity does.

And, no I do not deny the truth of HBD, but I do not ascribe any value to the differences. Intelligence is not the measure of man, nor is any other quality. Man has equal dignity to everyone because it is God-given not man-made. If only man was the arbitrator of who has worth, any criteria can be used and we enter into a utilitarian society. There are definitely differences between the races, some better for worldly success then others, but should not have any effect on the worth of a person.

I remember typing a message sometime ago but it didn't go through, maybe because it linked Penn and Teller's "BS" bottled water episode?

The post made the point of some closet Atheist priests (and other spiritual leaders) not wanting to come out of the Atheism closet because their entire educations (even up to the Th.D level) and decades of service meant that their entire reputations are married to religion. If they admit their Atheism then their amassed reputations, social standing, and professional lives crumble.


"Exactly. As Voltaire said, 'I do not believe in God, but I want my servant to believe in God so she does not steal from me'."

While I strongly agree that most high level clergy are closet Atheists I will mention how that quote is misattributed to Voltaire. Voltaire was a Deist who criticized Baron d'Holbach for his Atheism.


The comments to this entry are closed.