so apparently there’s another discussion about race and iq out there in the blogosphere. i’ve only been following it out of the corner of my eye really — via steve sailer‘s posts and some others (dennis, the one).
but it’s something that roissy said that made me realize (again) that folks just ain’t asking the right question about all this (politically correct thinking). what needs to be asked is cui bono?
first, what roissy said:
“But egalitarians and the SWPL industrial complex know that these softening words cannot contain the horrible, unrelenting, monstrous truth that stalks every cooing syllable. IQ is FUCKING HUGELY IMPORTANT to your chance to live a happy, successful life filled with wonder and glee and gadgets and crime-free neighborhoods in a modern, technofantastical, information-highwayed, cognitively stratifying first world Western nation.
“The enemies of truth know this, and that is why they tirelessly work to shut down any talk about it, and to smear and slander and shun those who would deign to lift the veil of lies for a peek underneath.”
yes … but, emphatically, NO!
the human-all-too-human drives of greed and desire for status symbols (ipads, etc.) did NOT just pop up out of thin air. they have been selected for via natural selection. evolution by natural selection is the name of the game, and we humans are part of it whether we like it or not.
greed and cravings for status and aaaall the other human foibles you can think of are here today in our world because certain individuals in the past (our ancestors) possessed those traits and successfully left descendants behind (you and me). greed and cravings for status, etc., etc., worked in the past to enable some people to pass on their genes. any individuals who didn’t have those winning traits (or who accidentally got hit by a train) didn’t leave any (or enough) descendants behind, so there are a LOT of people out there who are greedy, shallow, etc., etc.
people today are not politically correct just because they want to live a life “filled with wonder and glee and gadgets” — they only want those things because they are driven to reproduce their genes successfully. anyone who isn’t — well, those genes just won’t be around in the coming generations.
in “Narrow Roads of Gene Land, Vol. 1”, william hamilton wrote about how he was part of a series of discussions on population control (it was the 1960s, you see), and he was struck by the strong emotions that came out during the discussions amongst otherwise rational academics (at lse), and at the very strong reactions against his ideas of human altruism and genetics. here’s what he concluded — and with a little editing, you could say exactly the same thing about the race & iq debate — or, indeed, any other politcally correct debate — today [pgs. xxxiii-xxxiv, my emphases]:
“As I listened in silence I drew one general conclusion: for us to be so passionate about a topic we must be close indeed here to that centre of my actual and hoped-for expertise — biological fitness. It must be because of such a proximity to the deepest evolved roots of our psyche that no one seemed able to address the subjects of reproduction and population in a dispassionate way (I could tell from my own feelings as I listened to some of the points that ready-made passions and lack of objectivity were present in myself). Well, wasn’t this all just as I should expect; wasn’t it indeed a topic in which I should expect our deepest urges to be concealed almost from our very selves only in order that, in our everyday commerce with others, we would avoid being forced to expose ultimate objectives in ‘everyday’ discussion — not expose, that is, personal, family, class, or racial ultimate biases, rather to put on view an agreeable and softened version, a general hypocrisy, something to the effect that it doesn’t matter who reproduces, that we treat all people and groups with equal favor? That we all hold, whatever our specific denomination, a pan-religious view to the effect that ‘all men are brothers’ when actually we know very well, deep down, it isn’t true?”
so, who benefits biologically from this idea that the races are equally endowed when it comes to smarts?
the most obvious groups here in the u.s. are blacks and other minorities. if the reason you do poorly in society has nothing to do with how smart you aren’t — ’cause everyone is just as smart as everyone else — then it must be because The Man is keeping you down. waaaaycism. or something like that. (note that i do not discount the obvious fact that blacks were, in the past, and even to some extent today, discriminated against. but that is simply not the whole story.) then you need, and get, affirmative action programs and/or lots o’ welfare, which is obviously a plus in helping you to reproduce (which is what it’s all about — biological fitness). pretty much the same argument can be made for women.
so blacks and other minorities have very good reasons to support pc thinking.
less obvious is how politically correct thinking benefits people at the top of the iq totem pole — whites and asians.
well one benefit is simply that you get society’s permission to rip off not-so-smart folks. instead of society protecting lower iq people — maybe have some laws against subprime mortgages — it lets the sharks go after them. steve sailer wrote about this here. this is a win-win situation for many whites/asians: they get to financially gain by scamming lower iq minorities, therefore likely increasing their own personal fitness (again, what it’s all about), AND at the same time they get to decrease the fitness of some of their competition — some low-iq minority folks.
the shark behavior can be more subtle though — those from higher-iq groups don’t have to directly financially rip off those from lower-iq groups. they can just set them up to FAIL.
take whiskey’s favorite group — white women. actually, take a sub-group of them — the nice white ladies steve sailer talks about who teach nams and generally run the education system. what do they get out of claiming that all groups of people are just as smart as one another (even though they’re the ones who are probably most exposed to the glaringly obvious completely opposite truth)? what’s their payoff? well, every five or ten years or so they get another grand federal program to make all kids everywhere above average. they get jobs — money — moolah. wealth which can go towards their own personal fitness — i.e. raising a family.
at the same time, they are also shafting the competition (nams) because no one bothers to find a real solution to lower-iq blacks’ problems, like maybe we shouldn’t insist that they learn advanced algebra in high school which just makes them drop out and not even get a high-school diploma. or like maybe we shouldn’t import more mexicans/guatemalans to directly compete with blacks for jobs. those nice, white pc schoolteacher ladies? sharks.
and, of course, there are the whites vs. whites in the pc, moral status games (as steve sailer has described it, but gosh-durnit i can’t find a link right now). there’s all of the swpl peoples poopooing the lowbrow beliefs of those who don’t buy into all of the pc cr*p (not many of us like that nowadays) — poopooing from their nearly all-white enclaves like portland or their gated-communities.
but they’re not just winning in the moral status game against their “fellow” whites — they’re also economically shafting their “fellow,” mostly working class whites who are now almost completely ignored by both the democrats and republicans. think of how white firemen are treated nowadays — or how ALL of us have had to bailout financial institutions (partly) because some great white sharks ridiculously gave loans to nams. they managed to screw BOTH nams AND their “fellow” whites. impressive.
how can whites be so heartless to other whites? well, we’ve been in competition with each other for such a long time that we’re just in the habit of thinking of other whites as the competition. plus we’ve outbred for so long that we’ve prolly watered down the type(s) and amount(s) of altruism genes in our population. our genetic ties are so loose that, on many levels — the levels that count — we just don’t care so much about our “fellow” whites. not enough anyway.
there are a lot of vested interests out there keeping thoughts of human biodiversity at bay — the most important vested interests there are — those related to increasing biological fitness. those are tough drives to beat — possibly impossible. to be honest, my hopes for an hbd-realistic world are not lookin’ too bright….
(i know some of you are going to object and say: “but hbdchick! white folks are only having 1.2 kids per couple, so none of this can having anything to do with reproducing!” answer: white folks have a long history of having not-so-many kids. i think we’re more k-selectionist than many other populations; and these reproductive behaviors have, no doubt, been selected for. this is, of course, a problem when we share territories with other peoples who have more kids, although many of their birth rates are now dropping, too. just ’cause we have few kids, though, doesn’t mean that belief in the pc ideology doesn’t have anything to do with reproduction. it has EVERYTHING to do with reproduction.)
(note: comments do not require an email. iq matters.)