*update below*
“Conservatives have taken to ‘reconfiguring’ science to agree with their ideology. The creationists relabeled their beliefs to ‘intelligent design’ and festooned it with pseudo-scientific garlands. They constructed Potemkin villages from falsehoods to deny the science of climate change. Their latest venture is the rebranding of racism under the oh-so scientific-sounding label ‘Human Biodiversity’, or HBD. Herewith an explanation of yet another ideological foray into science….
“In the scientific community the ‘all-environment’ school has pretty much been annihilated and the doors have been opened to extensive research on the genetic components of human behavior. Much has been learned, much of which will come as a surprise to the general public. To boil down volumes of research into a single grand overstated generalization, about 50% of human behavior is determined by genetic factors. Obviously, this statement fails to include a great many intricacies, qualifiers, and exceptions, but for the purposes of this short essay, it’s adequate; an explanation of all those intricacies, qualifiers, and exceptions would drag on for hundreds of pages.
“I must emphasize that the great bulk of this work has been rigorously vetted by a properly ferocious peer review process. Most of these results are genuinely reliable.
“However, riding on the coattails of this respectable work is the HBD movement, populated mostly by eager amateurs rather than professional scientists. The HBD movement covers a broad range of ideas, from the genuinely scientific to the nakedly racist. At the scientific end of the range we have people like HBD Chick, who aggregate lots of evidence on matters anthropological and genetic as they relate to human behavior. At the other extreme we have Steve Sailor [sic], a conservative who promulgates racist ideas….”
that last bit is nonsense, of course, but otherwise … yay! the hbd meme is spreading! (^_^)
*update: see also steve sailer.
(note: comments do not require an email. welcome!)
Sailor. Why is it always Sailor?
By the way, I think they’re giving you a pass for, well, being a Chick.
They had to label it as racist to scare off the low info portion of the public and properly scare off any libs who automatically genuflect to scientists. Too many people trust science and genetic ideas for the left to allow HBD to come out without smearing it as racist immediately.
@ihtg – “Sailor. Why is it always Sailor?”
i dunno. it’s not really that hard to notice/remember that it’s “-er” at the end, is it?
@ihtg – “By the way, I think they’re giving you a pass for, well, being a Chick.”
i’ll take it! along with opened doors, pulled out chairs, and diamonds (platinum settings only, please). (~_^)
lol. IQ work is, psychometrically speaking, by far the solidest bit, and is actually what real economists, for example, actually look at generally to explain international development gaps, differences within countries and so on.
Obvious to see what that author finds intimidating and threatening.
I wonder if this is Chris Crawford, frequent commenter at Peter Frost’s blog? He recently made some comments there along the same lines, to the extent of misspelling Sailer’s name and citing that international IQ comparisons somehow are something he avoids focus on (not that I think transnational IQ comparisons are the strongest part of the HBD edifice). The same misleading analogies were present, the same “debunking” of the concept that variation in mental ability can be modelled largely (if not completely) as a single dimension.
I particularly like the response to his only example of stated uncorrelated, or negatively correlated, mental abilities – “Er… so they’re actually correlated? Well, I don’t know of any set of actually interesting cognitive abilities that are specifically uncorrelated or negatively correlated, but there’s still a “plethora” of them!”.
“To boil down volumes of research into a single grand overstated generalization, about 50% of human behavior is determined by genetic factors.”
not sure where the author gets this from. i’m guessing he’s making the all-too-common (and easy to do) error of confusing “inherited” vs. “heritability.”
for instance, differences in personality are thought to be 50% heritable … NOT that 50% of our personalities are due to our genes.
Erasmussimo’s attempt at creating a distinction between the good progressively-minded sociobiologists & evolutionary psychologists like E. O. Wilson & Steven Pinker, and those disreputable evil racist conservative HBDists like Steve Sailer & Charles Murray is rather laughable, and indicates a lack of familiarity with the “impeccable” and “rigorous” writings of those he praises. E. O. Wilson acknowledges innate population differences in psychological traits in his landmark book Sociobiology, pointing to Daniel G. Freedman’s research on racial differences in infant development. Wilson also praised Arthur R. Jensen as an “honest, courageous man” and defended John Philippe Rushton’s application of r/K selection theory to human populations. Steven Pinker defended Richard Herrnstein’s 1971 Atlantic Monthly article on IQ and societal genetic stratification which caused howls of outrage amongst leftists as so obviously true as to be “banal”. Despite his professed skepticism of innate group differences in cognitive ability in The Blank Slate, Pinker has since made clear that he thinks Cochran & Harpending’s theory on Ashkenazi IQ is plausible. And of course, there is 2004′s The Best American Science and Nature Writing book that Steven Pinker edited, which included an article by that disreputable racist Steve Sailer.
Comment waiting periods suck; because I’d like to leave a comment there letting readers know that this liberal, atheist, Black man believes in HBD, and see how they handle that. ;)
Kudos on getting yourself out there in the mainstream world! Yes, it’s very good to see the reality of HBD spreading to the masses.
Since a certain percentage of readers of the Daily Kos article will no doubt come here and read this post, I will use this as an opportunity to direct them to my blog, because I think the knowledge that the truth of HBD isn’t limited to White believers will do them some good.
So to those readers, I recommend that you start here:
All Human Behavioral Traits are Heritable « JayMan’s Blog
then:
IQ Ceilings?
then:
An HBD Summary of the Foundations of Modern Civilization
then:
A Tale of Two Maps
then:
More on Farming and Inheritance Systems – Part I: IQ
And if you’ve made it through those, be sure to check out my pioneer hypothesis and the posts which discuss it.
And for those Daily Kos readers who are in doubt:
Yes, I’m really liberal.
Yes, I’m really an atheist.
Yes, I’m most certainly really Black.
;)
@jayman – “…this liberal, atheist, Black man believes in HBD…”
good, god! female AND black hbd’ers?! we ought to have some smelling salts on hand for these folks. (~_^)
thank you, b.b., for neatly summarizing some of the connections between sociobiologists/human biodiversity researchers and other academics! i wasn’t aware of all of those myself. (^_^)
@Matt:
“I wonder if this is Chris Crawford, frequent commenter at Peter Frost’s blog? He recently made some comments there along the same lines, to the extent of misspelling Sailer’s name and citing that international IQ comparisons somehow are something he avoids focus on (not that I think transnational IQ comparisons are the strongest part of the HBD edifice). The same misleading analogies were present, the same “debunking” of the concept that variation in mental ability can be modelled largely (if not completely) as a single dimension.”
Interesting. I wouldn’t be too surprised. I have a bit of experience with Mr. Crawford.
@HBD Chick:
“good, god! female AND black hbd’ers?! we ought to have some smelling salts on hand for these folks. (~_^)”
I’ll have some Jamaican spices ready to go… ;)
“I’ll have some Jamaican spices ready to go… ;)”
Always knew you were a jerk …
Nice mention. Also notice how he cites a correlation between GDP and IQ as undermining HBD, hahaha. Uh, ‘IQ and the Wealth of Nations?’ By Richard Lynn, a man to the ‘right’ of Rushton…
Oh, and a broccoli aversion -IQ relationship WOULD be interesting – I bet it’s inverse.
Great blog, by the way.
@Basil Ransom
“‘I’ll have some Jamaican spices ready to go… ;)’
Always knew you were a jerk …”
The finger-lickin’ good kind that always keeps ‘em coming back for more …
Perhaps this goes back to what you said in earlier posts about how HBD isn’t all “race” and “IQ.” (Indeed, in my next installment of my Hispanic HBD series which I’m working on right now, neither is a prominent part of the post.)
I see JayMan has chimed in on being a Black liberal atheist HBD’er; while we’re at it, I might as well join the party and declare (again) that I’m a Christian Hispanic left-of-center HBD’er. See – there’s more diversity amongst HBD’ers than the detractors think! ;-)
@Nelson:
“I’m a Christian Hispanic left-of-center HBD’er. See – there’s more diversity amongst HBD’ers than the detractors think! ;-)”
Absolutely! I only wish I could see just of few of the heads that are exploding…
@JayMan: that oughtta be a sight to see! Probably too many to count…
I’m postliberal, not so much conservative. I started as a socialist, theater-degreed, 1-O, folksinger who became a social worker. But none of that will count with liberals now that I am an older, balding, white evangelical. They hate class traitors.
It is definitely Chris Crawford. I know the guy from his writings on game and software design. He made a textual game engine called the Erasmatron.
Hey Assistant Village Idiot, that’s a great word. I’m also postliberal, having started as a socialist. It’s too bad the “reality based community” bases their worldview on so many, well, lies. If they would accept the truth about human biodiversity, they could figure out how to help people /better/ than just assuming that everyone is exactly the same and you’re evil if you point out any differences.
So yeah, postliberal. I agree with helping people, but the first step is to /tell the truth/.
“Sailor. Why is it always Sailor?”
Steve Sailer is about as evil as Lord Voldemort, so there’s a taboo on spelling his name properly.
One of the things I’ve wondered about is what *truly* makes one a conservative. Take Steve Sailer – his end goals are not peculiar, nor particularly right wing – peace, prosperity, order, freedoms granted by the bill of rights, etc. It’s his beliefs about reality that distinguish him as conservative. But if you accepted all his descriptive statements as true… can his philosophy or suite of recommended public policies be considered especially conservative or right wing? It’s not redistributionist, and therefore not leftist, but beyond that, what would classify it as centrist vs right wing? If everyone bought Sailer’s version of HBD, would he cease to be considered conservative? I’m more using Sailer as a stand-in for people who ‘buy’ HBD, or other heterodox beliefs, more or less.
We’re at a point where to be conservative or a liberal is more about one’s beliefs about reality than it is about what the ideal society should look like, or how it should operate. I suppose that’s always been true to an extent, but it seems now more so than ever (vs say the era of Pat Moynihan).
I think you’re being a bit hard on our Diarist, and on us, folks. The argument is that HBD is being used (mis-used you all might say) by certain republicans to justify racism. Checking out that other link to “Sailor,” this cannot be denied.
The Jury is out for me on the movement as a whole, but I’m glad there are some apparently reasonable people on this side of the spectrum. You folks here have been called scientific by a decent diarist over at DailyKos, and from what I’ve read so far it seems like a fair judgement to me.
So that means that you folks have a problem. This idea that you care about is going to be very horribly misused by folks who want to use it to justify racist action and racist thought.
What are you going to do about it?
I’ll be reading.
@ollie – “The argument is that HBD is being used (mis-used you all might say) by certain republicans to justify racism. Checking out that other link to ‘Sailor,’ this cannot be denied.”
hi, ollie! — and welcome.
before i comment any further on the topic of hbd and racism, you’re gonna have to define racism for me. afaics, it means a whole range of things to all sorts of different people. so, exactly what are we talking about here?
thnx!
@basil – “Steve Sailer is about as evil as Lord Voldemort….”
surely you mean lord voldomort. (~_^)
@nelson – “I might as well join the party and declare (again) that I’m a Christian Hispanic left-of-center HBD’er. See – there’s more diversity amongst HBD’ers than the detractors think! ;-)”
i’m glad you “self-mentioned” yourself, nelson. i had you in mind, too, and was going to mention you, but i wasn’t 100% sure of your thinking on hbd, so i didn’t want to label you without knowing for certain. (^_^)
the moral of the story obviously is: hbd’ers are … biodiverse! (~_^) (a little anyway.)
Matt, I wondered the same thing–that it might be Crawford.
No matter the evidence, Crawford remains a clinger but tries to his emotional need to believe what he wants to believe by playing word games.
@basil – “One of the things I’ve wondered about is what *truly* makes one a conservative.”
it’s a pretty broadly applied label, isn’t it? everybody from neoconservatives (who are arguably not really conservative) to fiscal conservatives to the religious right. i don’t know what *truly* makes one a conservative, either.
pew keeps telling me that i’m a libertarian, which is correct insofar as i hate big government and don’t want anybody to tell me what to do, but i’ve never bought into any of that ayn rand superhuman cr*p, so i ain’t a libertarian in that sense.
i’ve always been a conservative in the sense that i like to conserve the things that i think are good — things that work well. when you’ve got western civilization that works pretty darned well — but which naturally, like anything else, could always stand room for improvement — why would you change it radically?! western civ has given us science, modern medicine, liberal democracy (fwiw), etc., etc. — why mess with it?! CONSERVE it.
i also like conserving nature, too, unlike many conservatives. drilling for oil is ok and extracting minerals is necessary, but can we not completely destroy nature in the process? seems like a waste — and i hate wastage.
that doesn't mean that i don't like change, though. internet=good, for instance. genetic engineering (will probably)=good.
my conservatism also doesn't mean that i don't want any government intervention in our lives, though. securing our borders — the government should do that. some regulations on greed are good, too (glass-steagall was good, for example). just the minimum amount of government, please.
i’m also completely a-religious, so i don’t have much of anything in common with the religious right.
finally, myself, i am socially very liberal. personally i don’t care if gays marry for instance (with one hesitation — if it meant, as some have suggested, that legalized gay marriage would put straight men off marriage, then forget it. after all i’ve learned about mating patterns over the last year or two, we need stable, monogamous marriage to keep western society going.).
anyway. what kind of a conservative does that make me? i dunno. you tell me. i tend to think of myself as some sort-of a combination of a paleoconservative plus a libertarian minus religiosity. what THAT is, i haven’t got a clue! (^_^)
@basil – “Great blog, by the way.”
thanks! (^_^)
@anonymous – “If they would accept the truth about human biodiversity, they could figure out how to help people /better/ than just assuming that everyone is exactly the same….”
yes! that’s what i’d like to do with hbd knowledge, too. use it to actually help people.
afaics, hbd-denial is used mostly to not help people. e.g. all peoples are equally smart, therefore there’s no need for any special education for those groups that might, on average, need extra assistance….
lol Chris Crawford
[edit: removed link. no more chris crawford bashing, ok guys? thanks! - h.chick]
olliegarkey
1) evolution works on populations. it has to be racial by definition as races are one scale of population – but only one scale – if there’s a marriage incline between them then two distinct populations can exist in two neighboring valleys.
2) blank slate idealogy is entirely false and only maintained by lies and force – what are you going to do about it?
3) There is more truth in Sailer’s blog than in the rest of the entire MSM.
I think Crawford deep down already accepts the argument but he doesn’t want to believe it – hence the conflict.
For intelligent people there are three basic approaches to thinking: rationalism, romanticism, and empiricism. Rationalism and romanticism are together classified as Continental while empiricism is Anglo-American. Marxists and libertarians are rationalists, national socialists are romanticists, and conservatives are empiricists. If you love liberty and you’re a rationalist you are a libertarian. If you love liberty and you are an empiricist then you are a conservative, and possibly a distributist.
Actually these same three approaches work for average people as well, but the correlations break down. So you have rationalists, romantics, and empiricists in all ideologies.
As an empiricist and particularist I take the Amish as my model. Economically they are distributist and politically they are uninvolved though technically they are anarcho-capitalists. There is not point trying to win elections until we’ve won the culture and the cradle. Once we’ve won the culture and the cradle political victory will be effortlessly achieved as a byproduct.
Sailer is, on all non-racial issues, a moderate, or even a liberal. Read his How to Help the Left Half of the Bell Curve for proof of that.
Recently my facebook feed has been filled with a Kennedy quote about what being liberal means. (Or, meant 50 years ago.) One part is “someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions” (which mostly doesn’t apply to any liberals today). Sailer offers in that one essay more new ideas about how to help the poor (and not-so-bright) than every non-HBD liberal has offered in the past 30 years.
@HBD Chick:
“yes! that’s what i’d like to do with hbd knowledge, too. use it to actually help people.”
That is one of my goals. It would seem that if one wants to help people, it would be better to understand how people actually are rather than how one thinks they are. The latter often leads to disastrous results, such as with aid to Africa.
Defining Racism: Policies, Laws, or Ideas which are either designed to, or act as a method to prevent an ethnic group from enjoying the same rights and opportunities as other members of society.
Sailer would argue that black people score lower on IQ tests in general because there is something wrong with them. I would argue that any population as a whole will score lower on achievement tests if they attend terrible schools and are generally impoverished.
The Data from Glasgow pretty clearly proves the economic argument over any inherent genetic issues when it comes to economics and achievement.
In general, Scottish people are some of the wealthiest people on earth, yet Glasgow is the poorest part of Europe with the lowest school scores, highest infant mortality, and lower life expectancy than some third world countries.
Yet Salier would use his ethnic argument to try and prevent solid, concrete, economic, legal, and educational steps from being taken which would improve the living standards and educational achievement levels of poor communities.
Don’t even try, he argues, because its their own fault for being inferior.
TL;DR
Asking scientific questions about genetic differences and how they affect human beings is fine, arguing that we shouldn’t try to solve problems because a selected group is inferior is racism.
@hbd* chick: no prob! While my postings on HBD are admittedly few and far between (so I understand why you weren’t 100% sure on my position), its implications on education alone (not to mention side ventures like learning more about one’s heritage, etc.) lead me to support it. Speaking of HBD, my next Hispanic HBD post is 50% complete; I expect to finish within the week.
While our motivations might differ, I concur with you and with JayMan; I’d also use HBD knowledge to help others, especially in education (I am a pro tutor, so there’s a bit of a personal stake; I’ve seen for myself that not everyone’s cut out for college-level work, for example).
OllieGarkey,
I have *never* seen a leftist use that definition for the word “racism”. The real definition of the word as used by leftists is something more like “heretic” or “crimethink”. Also by your definition everyone who supports affirmative action (including you?) is extremely racist. So now that you’ve admitted to being a racist I’d like to move on and discontinue the use of that silly word.
“Sailer would argue that black people score lower on IQ tests in general because there is something wrong with them.”
This is an absurd statement and I am 100% certain that you cannot find any evidence for this. You completely misinterpret the concept of Human Biological DIVERSITY. It is a fact that the black mean IQ is lower than the white IQ due to genetic reasons. However that does not mean that there is anything wrong with black people. I personally value high intelligence, and high intelligence is not something frequently found in blacks. However that doesn’t mean that there is anything wrong with them. It just means that they don’t fit my tastes. Stupid people aren’t necessarily defective; they’re merely adapted to different niches. That’s how evolution works. Your argument is essentially:
“T would argue that bulldogs score lower than border collies on doggie IQ tests in general because there is something wrong with them.”
Bulldogs and collies have followed different evolutionary paths and thus they have different capabilities. Likewise the various groups of humans were subject to different selective pressures, and thus evolved in different directions.
@ Ollie Garkey,
Note that there are group differences controlling for socio-economic factors. Read some of the academic debates on the subject in June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2. http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/
Ollie “I would argue that any population as a whole will score lower on achievement tests if they attend terrible schools and are generally impoverished.
The Data from Glasgow pretty clearly proves the economic argument over any inherent genetic issues when it comes to economics and achievement” Proves? Proves? You have no clue what reasoning is, let alone the status of the data.
Oh, gee, possible environmental, socio-economic causes. No one’s ever thought of that possibility before. I guess we’ll just have to fold our tents now that you’ve opened out that whole new avenue to us. We have no answers. We are dumbfounded. Why didn’t we think of that before? (headslap)
You are waiting, Master Yoda, for what we will say about the fact that bad men will hide behind good excuses. Yeah, that has never happened on the left, never since the time of Marx. In fact, it’s completely unknown in the history of civilization until the last few years. Amazing times we live in, eh? No one has ever pretended that they are Christian to sanctify their evil. No one has ever used patriotism as a dodge. No one has ever pretended to love the poor in order to get money for their cause or votes for their campaign.
Will you please at least take five minutes to listen to yourself before typing? Excuse me for sneering, but it seems to be an arguement tha liberals take seriously. I am rolling my eyes, too. Your own writing suggests that you think that qualifies as evidence.
Just for fun, try the word “Anosognosia,” or the phrase “confirmation bias.”
@OllieGarkey
“The Data from Glasgow pretty clearly proves the economic argument over any inherent genetic issues when it comes to economics and achievement.”
No it doesn’t. It shows that, all else being equal, kids who go to bad schools do worse than kids who go to good schools. Nobody ever denied that, did they?
The question is whether or not all else really IS equal. You simply assume that it is, based on no real evidence at all, and in spite of the rather compelling evidence that all groups really aren’t equal in terms of intelligence. You do this merely because it’s what you want to believe, and what you’ve been told you should believe your entire life.
If you think it’s an economic issue, then why do you think it is that black kids from wealthy families only do about as well as white kids from poor families on the SAT? (See the graph here, for example: http://liberalbiorealism.wordpress.com/tag/black-white-iq-gap/)
If the issue was bad schools, then why do you think it is that, even when black kids go to the exact same schools as white people, they tend to do worse? Have you ever heard of Shaker Heights, Ohio? And, really, I would wager that you have seen this in your own personal experience, but simply refused to admit it to yourself.
If it seems like people around here are being rude, it’s because you sit there criticizing something you’ve never even looked into. Did you honestly believe, for example, that we’ve been sitting here discussing IQ differences for all these years, and just never HEARD the “It’s poverty!” explanation? Or the “It’s the effects of racial stereotypes!” explanation that you’re going to come up with next?
Trust us. We have. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that we’ve heard every argument you could come up with, hundreds of times, and discussed them ad nauseum. Which you would know if you had bothered to actually read up on any of this. It’s all there, on the web, for free.
“Don’t even try, he argues, because its their own fault for being inferior.”
Oh? Would you kindly post a link to where Steve Sailer has ever argued that it’s anyone’s fault for being born a certain way? That’s right, you can’t, because he’s obviously never said anything of the sort. If you took the time to read his “How To Help The Left Half Of The Bell Curve” essay, (which you can find here: http://www.isteve.com/How_to_Help_the_Left_Half_of_the_Bell_Curve.htm), you would see that he basically argues that, if we acknowledge that some people are less intelligent than others, then the humane thing to do would be to realize that their problems obviously AREN’T their fault, and we should stop setting them up to fail. It would be interesting to see what objections you would actually have to this.
But you would have to actually read it first.
@ollie – “Defining Racism: Policies, Laws, or Ideas which are either designed to, or act as a method to prevent an ethnic group from enjoying the same rights and opportunities as other members of society.”
thanks. i know that words can have different meanings to different people, that’s why i asked. i’m sure if we got 3 or 4 hbd’ers in a room together, we’d wind up with 5 or 6 different definitions of human biodiversity. (~_^) it’s important to define one’s terms.
now that i know what you mean when you use the word “racism,” i can assure you 100% that steve sailer is in no way, shape, or form a racist. (nor are any hbd’ers that i know or know of.) i’ve been reading his articles/blog now for something like ten years, and i can’t recall a single one of them suggesting — or even hinting — that one or more ethnic groups should be prevented from “enjoying the same rights and opportunities as other members of society.” quite the opposite, in fact.
steve’s major political/social “platform” or position is, in fact, citizenism which he defines thusly: “Americans should be biased in favor of the welfare of our current fellow citizens over that of the six billion foreigners.” this is the basis for all of his ideas on how the country should be run, etc., etc.
since the citizens of our country comprise a number of different ethnic groups, it’s hard to see how any advocate of citizenism could be a racist.
_____
to be honest with you, i think steve is often labelled as a racist (and now i mean by others who might have a different definition than you), not just because he talks about human biodiversity which is a BIG no-no in today’s politically correct world, but also because he spends a lot of time writing about the hypocricies of politically correct people. (please don’t take that personally. of course i don’t know you from adam, so i don’t know how you live your life.)
and now i’m talking about all sorts of hypocritical politically correct people — both on the left AND the right. i think it really irks them that he points out things like this, i.e. that the intelligensia and upper & middle classes pay all sorts of lip-service to “anti-racism” and what not, but lead COMPLETELY different lives, isolating themselves and their families from minorities and immigrants and so on. THAT’S what gets him in trouble a lot, i think.
like i said, though — i don’t mean to imply that that applies to you. just wanted to point it out.
@ollie – “Sailer would argue that black people score lower on IQ tests in general because there is something wrong with them.”
no, not “wrong” with them. having a different evolutionary history, that’s all. there is no “right” or “wrong” in biology.
(steve also talks about things like poor nutrition wrt iq, btw.)
@ollie – “Yet Salier would use his ethnic argument to try and prevent solid, concrete, economic, legal, and educational steps from being taken which would improve the living standards and educational achievement levels of poor communities.
Don’t even try, he argues, because its their own fault for being inferior.”
i can assure that steve has never, ever written anything remotely like any of that. again, quite the opposite.
@jayman – “It would seem that if one wants to help people, it would be better to understand how people actually are rather than how one thinks they are.”
exactly! how can you (even hope to) fix a problem if you don’t know what the cause of it is?
@nelson – “Speaking of HBD, my next Hispanic HBD post is 50% complete; I expect to finish within the week.”
let me know when you do, so i don’t miss it! (^_^)
@frank – “…stop setting them up to fail.”
very well put! and an important issue imho.
[edit: removed link. no more chris crawford bashing, ok guys? thanks! - h.chick]
Heh, I wasn’t actually bashing him. That video is of one of his most famous moments. I’m sure he’s quite proud of it, ridiculous as it may seem.
@ihtg – oh, ok! it seemed to me like they were making fun of him on youtube, but i didn’t watch the whole thing, so – what do i know?
i don’t have the link anymore. feel free to repost it!
racism, n. unacceptable belief in inconvenient realities.
racist, n. despicable believer in inconvenient realities.
race, n. inconvenient reality in which only despicable people believe.
reality, n. inconvenience all decent people ignore.
Jayman, I love this description of you:
“I warn you, the author of this blog is definitely on towards the racist end of the HBD spectrum, is loudly and proudly conservative, and has no qualms about mixing his politics with his science. ”
It’s just getting funnier and funnier
@szopeno:
LOL! Where is that??
He (Erassmussimo) does not mention you by name, but he links to your blog entry on heritable traits. Just ctrl+f the phrase I posted in the comments section. You would be amused, I guarantee.
szopeno,
Thanks! Glad that he “mentioned” me. Unfortunately, it seems the site is still not letting me comment after their 24-hour waiting period. Interesting, yes?
Well, I got a grand total of 6 hits directly from the Daily Kos, but tons of hits via HBD Chick! :) So it doesn’t look like Erassmussimo’s mention did much for me either way.
In any case, to address such mischaracterization of me in the future, I’ve added a new, bigger, badder “About Me” page, which serves also as an intro/table of contents (just click on my name).
For awhile, I’m going to leave that as my main page, to get things straight about me. :)
@jayman – “In any case, to address such mischaracterization of me in the future, I’ve added a new, bigger, badder ‘About Me’ page….”
when i read that i thought: i must suggest to him that he add the “shaft” theme to the page … but you already DID!! (^_^) (^_^) (^_^)
thank you for making my day! (^_^)
@HBD Chick:
“thank you for making my day! (^_^)”
No problem! ;)
@jayman – “…I got a grand total of 6 hits directly from the Daily Kos….”
over the last couple of days, i had a total of 199 click-thrus from the daily kos. (compare that to one time when steve sailer linked to me and i got ca. 1500 hits! same from roissy. oh, and once from reddit — ca. 5000 hits in the course of a couple hours. whew!) some people might’ve cut-and-pasted the link, though, so there might’ve been more hits from the kos. the post itself (this post) has been viewed 586 times.
@HBD Chick:
Awesome! Well, I’ve gotten a decent amount of traffic from this blog since yesterday, much of which I assume were click-thrus from the Daily Kos.
I’ve had similar bumps from both Steve Sailer and Roissy/Heartiste. I have a fair amount of traffic now thanks to both this post and my post on the sexual orientation pathogen theory of Greg Cochran, which was great timing. :)
Perhaps it would have been simpler from the start to reverse the headline: “HBD has another name – racism”
Now I’m sorry that Ollie Garchy quit posting, because there is a ton of data from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study to the crime stats of (very poor) W. Virginia vs. Chicago to the College Board data graphed at La Griffe du Lion (and elsewhere) which show just how badly he’s been lied to, for years, while the truth has been buried.
I’d like to ask him, are persons of pure or mixed Central and South American indian descent “discriminated against” in the NBA because they tend to be short? Is there some injustice because those high-earning opportunities are closed off to them?
Sadly, I doubt he’ll ever read this now.
“good, god! female AND black hbd’ers?! we ought to have some smelling salts on hand for these folks. (~_^)”
Is it too late to mention I’m gay…? ;)
@mark – “Is it too late to mention I’m gay…? ;)”
it’s never too late to come out of the closet! (~_^)
For purposes of getting a good audience, Mark, way too late. But in timing for maximum humorous effect? Spot on. A few of us were around to see it anyway.
For every action… The ideologically-driven “science” of these efforts generated an equal and opposite reaction in the form of an ideologically-driven rejection of ANY genetic component in human behavior. The eminent scientist E.O.Wilson was the world’s leading authority on the behavior of ants when, in the 1970s, he proposed that evolutionary selection pressures acted on behavior as well as the body, leading to genetic factors in behavior. His work with ants demonstrated the basic concept beyond question, but when he extended his ideas to humans, he triggered a shitstorm of outrage, and was treated quite badly. Wilson’s work was impeccable, but because it was distantly analogous to the racist IQ claims, his ideas (which he termed “sociobiology”) were lumped together with that odious ideology.
What ideology drives the across-the-board differences in test scores (SAT, ACT, AFQT, MCAT, LSAT, etc.)? What ideology drives the measured difference in e.g. prevelance of the different MAOA versions, and the difference they cause in aggressive behavior?
Using the slur “ideologically-driven” in reference to scientifically measured and validated differences in gene frequency between populations is like calling quantum mechanics “Jewish science” or non-Lamarckian inheritance “counter-revolutionary”. It’s a call to kill the messenger, literally.