you and me and hbd

continuing on from the other day, jamie bartlett and timothy stanley are flat-out wrong that human biodiversity (hbd) is “neo-fascist” “bad science.” human biodiversity is simply the diversity found among and between human populations that has a biological basis. that’s all. yes, that most likely includes some degree of biological variation affecting the measurable difference in intelligence between individuals and various populations, but it’s early days yet on that front, and we barely know what exactly that biological variation entails. i’m sure the chinese will let us know all about it soon enough.

bartlett is sorta right about one thing, though (see his fourth paragraph here): that many who accept human biodiversity, many individuals on the political right, obsess over the racial differences in iq. he’s wrong to claim that the research that has found average differences in iq by race is pseudoscience, and he’s wrong to claim (indirectly as he does) that races don’t exist, but he is right about the obsess part.

now, i am the LAST person who should criticize anybody for obsessing about any one thing (see: most of this blog), but i’m going to anyway. if you accept that humans exhibit biologically based diversity, then you’d better be prepared to accept ALL of it. here’s the problem: too many of the people who obsess over the racial differences in iq DON’T want to accept — or often even think about! — OTHER facts, or possible facts, related to hbd. especially about their own kind.

as misdreavus tweeted…

misdreavus 01 sm

…and…

misdreavus 02 sm

quite so.
_____

here’s an example. try — just try! — bringing up the apparent average differences in iq between the sub-populations of europeans and see what happens. i dare ya! (~_^) [map stolen from jayman.]:

jayman's map

too many (imho) in the hbd-o-sphere don’t want to hear it (while, meanwhile, there is this obsession over racial differences in iq). never mind that human accomplishments from europe map extremely well onto the average iq distributions (although i think there’s possibly more to it than just iq):

charles murray - human accomplishment map - european core

here’s another more personal example. i happen to be an agnostic when it comes to the existence of a god(s). functionally i’m an atheist, and i almost never think about the topic, but i can’t see how we can know whether or not there is a god(s). what if he is omnipotent? then, of course, he’d be able to hide his existence from us, right? (don’t answer that — i really don’t want to get into a discussion about religious belief.) that seems very logical to me — it just seems right — but we know that religious belief is highly heritable, so this is probably just my genes talking — my “genes for neuroticism” maybe (i’m such a neurotic (~_^) ).

my point is that, while my agnosticism seems logical to me, i’m probably just born this way. and i need to keep that in mind. i really do. i should also remember that a lot of my other “logical conclusions” might not be so logically based either.

and so should you — about your own conclusions, i mean.

we should rely, instead, on what science tells us (see end of post).
_____

the obsession about racial differences in iq in some circles of the hbd-o-sphere is all about confirmation bias, of course, which all humans are prone to (yes, even me!) — although some more than others in my experience. people see what they want to see and disregard the rest. i’m going to quote that pessimistic pothead john derbyshire on this, ’cause the dude is like toootally awesome on these sorts of things [pg. 154]:

“Researchers like Tversky and Kahneman have identified dozens of different kinds of bias. Some of them have leaked out to become common knowledge: *confirmation bias*, for example — the tendency to give extra weight to facts that support our predesired conclusion….

“Can we correct our biases? That depends on whom you ask. The overall picture that emerges from the cognitive science researchers of the last half century is one of a brain that struggles to cope with reality, and rarely does very well at it.

“Worse yet: Its not doing very well may be *adaptive*. That’s a term of art in biology. A trait is adaptive if an organism that possesses this trait gets a reproductive edge thereby over an organism that doesn’t.

“Researchers like S. Taylor and J. Brown (‘Illusion and Well-being, 1988) have found that a moderate degree of self-deception is normal in mentally healthy people, and is likely adaptive. Contrariwise:

“‘[I]t appears to be not the well-adjusted individual but the individual who experiences subjective distress who is more likely to process self-relevant information in a relatively unbiased and balanced fashion.’

“To put it slightly differently: Up to a point, the more depressed and maladjusted you are, the more likely it is that you are seeing things right, with minimal bias.”

oh, dear. =/

so, it’s asking too much, i know, and it’s not fair of me — humans are given to cognitive biases, they are a part our nature, and we will never get rid of them (not without a really stringent genetic engineering program, anyway!) — but, as a favor to me, if you are interested in and/or accepting of the principles of human biodiversity, please try to be open to all sorts of hbd possibilites, even the ones that seem to go against yourself or your own group. try.

by way of demonstration, going back to the average differences in iq between europeans, my own european ethnic group doesn’t have a very high average iq. no one from my group invented the steam engine or the microprocessor and we sure as h*ll weren’t the first people to travel into space. on top of it, we’re one of the piigs. those are the facts. that’s just how it is. no point in pretending otherwise. (i could also mention all of the male-female differences, too, of course, but i really can’t get engaged in that discussion, it’s just so…obvious.) and there are undoubtedly biological reasons for this lack of achievement from my group. see? what i’m asking is possible, although probably more difficult for some than others. but we’re not going to solve any of humanity’s problems without the truth, so we should at least try. a bit. who knows? maybe we’ll succeed — a bit.

and remember: focus your attention on scientific results that have been successfully reproduced — and focus your attention on scientific results that enable us to make predictions about individuals/populations. these are good indicators that science has actually been done. (please note that most of what i discuss on this blog — my own interest in inbreeding/outbreeding/etc. — is NOT science. it’s just an idea. i’m NOT doing science.)

that is not to say that speculation and theorizing have no place in hbd discussions! rather to the contrary, speculate away! and obsess away! just be clear about when you are speculating — and remember not to obsess to the exclusion of everything else hbd.

thank you. (^_^)

previously: in the dark about the dark enlightenment

(note: comments do not require an email. be careful with science, too! (~_^) )

Advertisements

107 Comments

  1. I was sort of expecting that last link would go here

    So, yeah, about science. I’ve been puzzling about that a bit. You’ve collected a huge amount of suggestive annecdata in support of an interesting hypothesis. Wouldn’t it be good at this point to do some actual tests? Or, at minimum, propose actual tests?

    What would it take to falsify the outbreeding theory—or to confirm it? Or do you think it is not yet time to ask that question?

    Reply

  2. 1. David asks the right questions (some of which you have already provided answers for).

    The difficulty with the HBD movement is that so many of its hypotheses are so far beyond the pale of polite discourse that they cannot and will not be tested (by Westerners) for some time. It would not be politically correct to peer review it, so it will not be peer reviewed.

    This means, of course, you have a large host of bloggers who are making all sorts of scientific claims – and in some cases doing fairly original research – without peer review.

    There is something of a chicken-and-egg problem here. The research will not be done until people are willing to consider it, and people will not be willing to consider it until lots of research is done showing this is not just another group bunch of bloggers who think they have figured out how the world works.

    I suspect the resolution of all this will come from East Asians, for they do not suffer the same cultural inhibitions as those in America and Western Europe.

    2. With that said, hbdchick is worth following and listening to. For one, she always finds the most random and weirdly fascinating pieces of data. But more importantly (and unlike most everybody else in the blogosphere) she is willing to pull back and test her assumptions when you ask her to and to examine data that might invalidate it. A lot of the people who write about HBD like to talk about science, but she is one of the few people here who actually practices the scientific method.

    She is also the only one in this section of the blogosphere to actively point out how her theories could be falsified and acknowledge when they have been.

    I just don’t see that kind of intellectual honesty or commitment to the scientific method very much. And she is humble on top of that.

    3. I implore chick and others to drop the “Dark Enlightenment” term. I’ve already made my arguments elsewhere, but to re-cap: the enlightenment was truly enlightening.. It included Hume as well Roseau. Moreover, it was not just a time of philosophical truths, but scientific ones– the enlightenment is the age of Newton, Huygens, Polinière, Lavoisier, Volta, Linnaeus, Watt, Humboldt, and many others. Most modern ‘branches’ of scientific study arose at this time. It was the age of reason. If HBD is truly what its most vocal proponents claim it to be, then it is not a refutation of the enlightenment, but simply the application of enlightenment methods to data enlightenment thinkers did not have access to!

    The other problem with the term is it justifies a community that has no real reason for existence. The many voices in the ‘dark enlightenment’ do not harmonize. They don’t share the same ideals, aims, or even impulses. They defined by a shared enemy; were this enemy to disappear then so would all talk of a cohesive ‘dark enlightenment.’

    Some have said that what unites that dark enlightenment is an attachment to HBD. If you investigate all the different blogs in the community, however, you find that this really is not true. The major strand that unites the entire community is a willingness to frankly state opinions polite society does not accept (but in many cases once did) and listen to others do the same. But there is very little holding them together past this point. Neoreaction is a political movement, and if hard HBD was falsified tomorrow its most prominent thinkers could happily continue peddling monarchy or corporation-states without a losing a beat. The theocrats do not share the goals, often doubt the methods, and have an entirely different world view from the hyper-rationalists of the HBD researchers. The idea that red pill buffoonery is even comparable to a community engaged in a scientific endeavor is laughable.

    I could continue with the other groups but I think you understand the point. Perhaps the greatest difference between the HBD section of the dark enlightenment and the rest of it is that the HBD folks are interested in positive claims, while the rest are obsessed with normative ones. For most of these HBD is a tool to an end, and if it did not serve their chosen end they would drop it without a second thought.

    I suggest that if HBD was not a taboo topic then HBD researchers would not pay the least bit of notice to any of these groups. But as it is now, these guys are the only ones who will listen to them, and we humans pay attention to the audience.

    But HBD’s association with these groups does nothing to further what we know about HBD or promote awareness of these findings among educated community at large. The dark enlightenment community simply distracts, confuses, and defames HBD researcher’s more legitimate aims. And truth be told, HBD is too unproven and new to deserve all this normative analysis anyways. Every post an HBD blogger writes arguing for specific political values or specific political policies makes it harder for them to declare that what they are really seeking is “the truth” or that they can be honest interpreters of scientific data.

    Besides, science does not need any glitzy names or online ecosystems to justify it. If HBD is what its proponents claim it to be, then it does not need any other title than “reason” or “science.” Additional ornamentation cheapens the results.

    .

    Reply

  3. “If HBD is truly what its most vocal proponents claim it to be, then it is not a refutation of the enlightenment, but simply the application of enlightenment methods to data enlightenment thinkers did not have access to!”

    Quite.

    Reply

  4. They’re attacking because attack is the best form of defense (or rather it’s the best form of defense against people with high levels of agreeableness).

    They attack so you try to be reasonable/agreeable and meet them halfway.

    They keep attacking so you try to be reasonable/agreeable and meet them 3/4 of the way.

    They keep attacking so you try to be reasonable/agreeable and meet them 7/8 of the way.

    etc

    It’s just a tactic.

    Reply

  5. I think Ireland recently stopped being a ‘piigs’ country as it got out of the imf relief situation and is a full Eu member again. I guess that would make it regular ol pigs now. You are correct to emphasize there are more factors than Iq at play-Europe is an ironic PROOF of that. Britian, the most successful European country (some debate I know but plausible) does not have the highest Iq. Also to date (probably will change in the future) European accomplishments dwarf north east Asians, yet they are the group with higher Iq.

    Even countries sub divide in accomplishment, take north Italians vs southern Italians as an example. This might be due to more population mixing from the southern Italians with other populations that created a small (but detectable) pattern of variation.

    One possible speculation i can muster in defense of race obsession is what you might call ‘apparent homogeneity’. If the differences between groups are not huge, and the groups are somewhat hard to distinguish, then it might be easier to maintain a relative fiction of homogeneity-to treat yourself as one group. A wheel doesn’t have to be perfectly round (homogenous) to roll. Or , even if tensions exist they might be smaller.

    Another important factor is population. Ireland for example was not only the victim of oppression but has only a fraction of the population of the big contributors. It didn’t have as many rolls of the dice to produce genius’s. That’s not to say Ireland has an IQ distribution that’s equal to Germany, it doesn’t. But part of the genius outlier difference is far less chances at producing them. ( though I do suppose Ireland has a lot of ancestors in America-but hey Americas a successful country!).

    Its not at all clear what sort of impact on politics HBD will have or should have. I doubt at times the focus on racial homogeneity and think its a red herring to the real long term problem. At some point all groups are going to have to learn to share this planet.

    (Hopefully u approve comment ^_^).

    Reply

  6. “and he’s wrong to claim (indirectly as he does) that races don’t exist, but he is right about the obsess part.”

    For example, who? At HV, we focus on, that is, we specialize in, intelligence for the same reason that professional intelligence researchers do. depth. If we had more energy, time, and intelligence we would cover more topics. Since we don’t, we focus mainly on one in hopes of contributing to the research. To note, our results, published on HV and not, are routinely sent out to professional researchers and, at times, make their way into published research. To take one example, Malloy’s Jamaican IQ posts were cited in a recent Journal of Intelligence article (“IQ and the wealth of nations: How much reverse causality?”). So contra T. Greer, some contribution is being made — and more could, Now, is this focus obsession? If so, then perhaps obsession on the matter is called for. (Admittedly, I do obsess — especially when off the lamictal — but I’m an outlier.) Perhaps if “HBDers” applied concerted effort to the topic, they could resolve the ethnos-IQ issue. Is this topic not in desperate need of resolving? Is it not a major reason that race and HBD (more generally understood) is denied in the first place? The big clog in the toilet? There are a number of other, more scientifically pragmatic, reasons for this focus/obsession, of course. For example, intelligence is literally the most researched trait in the social sciences; as such, there is a plethora of good data; compare with e.g., Frost’s visual word form. These points are so obvious, they need not be detailed. Generally, my diagnosis is that you are making the same mistake that Alternative Right types do when complaining about HBD obsession. What they mean is that, among ARers, there is a disproportionate amount of focus on it. You, like they, are mistaking disproportion for absolute excess. The main problem is not an obsession with IQ (among those who actually, if at times haphazardly, compile data), but rather a dearth of interest, in absolute terms, in HBD in general. That is, there is TOO LITTLE IQ-HBD and even less other HBD. In short, you confuse, assuming you are critiquing HBD as a research program and not HBD as a online clique, “even less other HBD” with ” too much IQ-HBD”. (I would agree, of course, that there is too much HBD, and with it HBD-IQ, stance taking and too little idea proposing and data looking at — but that doesn’t seem to be what you are saying. And if so we then disagree as to whom qualifies as “HBDers”.)

    Reply

  7. I discuss with my brother leftpath practically every day on these issues . I have realized that I am actually smarter than him. Some might say that I’m more honest or sincere , but I think intelligence combined with personality ( primary traits ) has a key role in all the rest , so I believe it to be intellectually smarter , can relate in , accurately and quickly find the systemic patterns of society and that honesty look at first sight. The fact that he is an extrovert ( I think every classic extrovert is a direct descendant of the monkey ) and me being introverted and psychotic , contributes significantly to this state of affairs .
    The extrovert is a being more adaptable , and this requires flexibility and inner emptiness , which can always be filled . Who really feel the environment will always be full of himself .
    As others have said , your work can not be based on a university, but without a doubt it is extremely serious and well executed . If we have more ‘amateur’ scientists like you than these technically intelligent and apathetic beings who accept all the controls of their masters ” intellectuals ” the world would a better place.
    The capture of higher education institutions in the Western world by this ”iluminated” mafia is a palatable indeed . In the world where the elitist hierarchy in acquiring knowledge of the subject is quickly being eliminated , which has passed into the hands of the church and the media , have a degree or be developing a job in an institution ceased to be an important factor , what matters now is the very manifestation of the supreme human biology , based on intelligence , honesty and creativity and I believe you are a person with a combination of genes that determines the phenotypic manifestation of the true scientist, archespiritual descendant of the Greek masters and the most of the great geniuses of mankind .
    I’ll give you a hint, someone already ” debated ” several times with sheep and cows on the farm. Animals are not rational, do not waste your time with small things.
    Yes, hbd is not only IQ and racial differences, even the IQ and racial differences are not the same heterogeneous things, only empty heads of useless idiots. All human knowledge that is not perfectly aligned with Marxist ‘ideas’ = racism. Monkeys should be smarter.
    Hbd need a culture, art and a neo-philosophy to have a soul.

    Reply

  8. only the intellectually honest are willing to accept truths that reflect poorly on their tribe

    Nice for him to have us notified that the White Guilt folks must be intellectually honest, as they accept certain unflattering “truths”.

    Re: racial differences in IQ, I think that is particularly of interest because it actually meets fairly high empirical standards.

    You can get subpopulations of pretty much any Black and White groups who are in the same environment and you’ll get around 2/3 to 1 SD difference in pretty much any intellectual-academic (as in, the sort of intelligence based tests you do in school) variable. There are even transracial adoptions to test.

    Differences between say Spanish and Germans do not have this property. There’s not much data and when there is, there’s no control for environment. The closest control for environment there is, descent from various Euro groups within the USA, does not really establish much difference.

    Same kind of pattern with subracial groups generally – there are plenty of papers on establishing personality differences between East Asia and Europe, including through a genetic channel, but not so much for Finns vs Swedes, etc. Its hard to get the data.

    Racial differences in IQ allow us to establish that human genetic trait differences are tenable. Non-racial genetic group differences are plenty tenable, but often not that testable (it’s likewise harder to test non-IQ racial differences in personality, generally).

    Reply

  9. @Matt
    support your conclusion. In addition, the difference in kind of 1 to 2IQ points are, IMO much less valid and much more prone to environmental variation than differences in scale of 1/2 to 1sd (7.5 to 15IQ points).

    Finally, HBDChick, the map you are showing is really showing who influenced modern western countires and who is known there, not who was good scientist. It’s not that the differences did not exist,but his method surely must lead to exxagerate any existing difference.

    Reply

  10. It’s possible that some hbders have a problem discussing intra-white IQ differences, but generally speaking the problem is not one of obsession. From what I’ve read, IQ is the single best predictor of school- and work performance. No country on the face of the Earth (except small oil nations and tax havens) with less than a national average of 96 is doing well – Ireland is as good as it gets. And this is a highly heritable trait that is very resistant to external influence.

    But the PC liberals ignore it completely and gaily declare anyone who assumes that it’s very important to be obsessive. A good example is found here in Sweden where we had a disastrous result in the PISA survey. Politicians have decided to investigate how this came to happen by looking at virtually every aspect of the problem – with the exception of the possibility that mass immigration of people with IQs 80-85 might have something to do with it. Because they don’t want to be “obsessive.”

    And fascism, I mean, look it up in a dictionary, Bartlett. Fascism is anti-intellectual, visceral hive mind politics. Hbd is more like a little heterogenous click of nerds.

    Reply

  11. “The many voices in the ‘dark enlightenment’ do not harmonize. They don’t share the same ideals, aims, or even impulses. They defined by a shared enemy; were this enemy to disappear then so would all talk of a cohesive ‘dark enlightenment.’”

    “The major strand that unites the entire community is a willingness to frankly state opinions polite society does not accept (but in many cases once did) and listen to others do the same.”

    In other words, the defining strand is not HBD, but “The Cathedral”.

    This is true. As someone who has been wholly embraced by the hbd/dark enlightenment/neoreactionary I accept the welcome on those terms, because I am deeply tired of the crap that ensues when someone violates the Cathedral canons. I don’t care whether I agree or not, whether it’s true or not, whether it’s offensive or not, at this point. However, I was somewhat troubled by the Bartlett article, because I get quite nervous at the idea of one set of ideas being defined, one or two spokesmen being defined as it. I’m pretty mainstream.

    Some other guy, can’t remember who, put out a typology that called the HBD folk the “data providers”, the people who may or may not agree politically, but write about topics that fuel the neo-reactionaries. I think this is more accurate, and you are correct that in many cases, the people pushing their views would be untroubled if HBD suddenly vaporized.

    What is my point? Probably nothing useful. I am vehemently against the nonsense of disavowal. It should be sufficient to say look, I write to inform and suggest ideas for our educational policy, and to get people thinking more about seemingly simple issues that turn quite complicated on close inspection. I have seen people be convinced by my logic, data, or ideas—and some of those people hold views I disagree with.

    That won’t be enough, obviously. I take heart in the fact that, were I ever outed I’d have a whole host of other sins that could end my career before my Dark Enlightenment association rises to the top of the list.

    Reply

  12. This is a key post. In fact, I think it is required reading on this topic. I will probably add it to my list of references somewhere.

    Misdreavus is correct, in order to discuss this topic, one has to be honest about the unflattering characteristics about one’s own group.

    I don’t have much of a problem there, but I don’t to spend too much time doing that, since there are many others out there doing it for me.

    Of course, it cuts both ways. I don’t see much by way of honest analysis of say, conservative White U.S. Southerners out there, save of course, from you and me. Indeed, much of this is met with apologism (I mean the fact-blurring kind, the only kind that matters here) for these peoples’ foibles, which Greg Cochran was only too happy to correct.

    I agree with T. Greer. Oh yes, there is a lot of nonsense out there on this topic, partly because idea of heritable human differences isn’t given its academic due.

    As well, I also agree that the “Dark Enlightenment” label has got to go. Even “human biodiversity” is questionable, as with any label for that matter. This is just human science – perhaps anthropology even. But the “Dark Enlightenment” is a bit more egregious since it implies (rightly or wrongly) association with other things, such as monarchism, White nationalism, or even just conservatism. As easy label also makes adherents easier to lump together, and to dismiss/demonize by “right” thinking people.

    I agree with most of T. Greer’s points, in fact, I think this part is dead-on:

    Some have said that what unites that dark enlightenment is an attachment to HBD. If you investigate all the different blogs in the community, however, you find that this really is not true. The major strand that unites the entire community is a willingness to frankly state opinions polite society does not accept (but in many cases once did) and listen to others do the same. But there is very little holding them together past this point. Neoreaction is a political movement, and if hard HBD was falsified tomorrow its most prominent thinkers could happily continue peddling monarchy or corporation-states without a losing a beat. The theocrats do not share the goals, often doubt the methods, and have an entirely different world view from the hyper-rationalists of the HBD researchers. The idea that red pill buffoonery is even comparable to a community engaged in a scientific endeavor is laughable.

    I could continue with the other groups but I think you understand the point. Perhaps the greatest difference between the HBD section of the dark enlightenment and the rest of it is that the HBD folks are interested in positive claims, while the rest are obsessed with normative ones. For most of these HBD is a tool to an end, and if it did not serve their chosen end they would drop it without a second thought.

    Not to mention that there are outright falsehoods that are popularly believed in this sphere because it furthers their moralistic beliefs. Biggest examples, parenting and the family or most anything on health/diet/exercise. My experience should serve as proof of anything that to many, the agenda matters more than the truth.

    But, all we can do is just keep pushing on through, keep trying to find out what’s true, and keep stating the truth (since it must be said), and hopefully we’ll get somewhere.

    I will add that if and when the facts of heritable human differences do get widespread attention, we need to be more determined to state the truth, to ensure warped versions don’t spiral out of control, as they are wont to do.

    Reply

  13. I don’t think people would be so concerned about racial differences in IQ and personality if the dogma that there are none were not being so vigorously pushed at the same time that the world is under such apparent stress.

    Personally, I think we are doomed anyway, probably even more than Derb does, and this century is going to see a collapse of human population due to war, disease, and famine (with the latter two growing out of the first), but most people are really concerned with trying to find what is wrong and stave off disaster. I don’t see any consequential difference between people who fixate on HBD induced racial problems and people who fixate on solving “inequality” (or any of the other “crises” like Climate Change).

    It’s in my nature to dislike having someone piss on my boots and tell me it’s raining, but I don’t think it will affect history. It’s human nature to try to solve problems and racial differences stick out like a sore thumb in the USA, no matter what one thinks the cause might be.

    Reply

  14. Hey jayman. I also enjoy your blog.

    Couple more things from my last post on the ‘piigs’.
    First, noticing ‘in group’ problems doesn’t result in abandoning in group preferences, I can go on all day about how much is wrong with my family, but they are still my family =)

    Second, the reason why ‘dark enlightment’ , ‘hbd’ etc are lumped together is partially just expendency. Most people have never heard of this movement or collection of thoughts. When language deals with subjects that are not well known to the speaker it uses more broad and umbrella terms. Like how an object from far away can be several objects once you get closer. (closer in the epistemic sense here).

    What jayman seems to be really asking is to be seen for what the dark enlightment is, a heterogeneous movement/collection of ideas. Any two people involved in the dark enlightment likely have areas of overlap , but also areas of disagreement. Those areas of overlap and disagreement would vary between different individuals. You are correct to point out that this is not a coherent set of beliefs, or a proper ideology.

    HAVING said that there is one nearly universal thread to the dark enlightment, and that is a reaction(intellectual) to modern progressive liberalism, and to a lesser extent contempary conservativism. Or as it sometimes gets dramatically labeled-the cathedral. So if one understands by dark enlightment ‘a collection of distinct ideologies, thoughts and approachs to politics and biology, that often venture into politically controversial areas.’ Then I think the term has some sense, but you are quite right it doesn’t refer to a unified specific set of beliefs with adherents.

    And, for what its worth there are some people in The DE who I find as silly as the status quo.
    I’ve thought about starting my own blog on it hmmm.

    -Klay

    Reply

  15. “There is something of a chicken-and-egg problem here. The research will not be done until people are willing to consider it, and people will not be willing to consider it until lots of research is done showing this is not just another group bunch of bloggers who think they have figured out how the world works. ”

    Right. But why would the scientists who could come forward do so? What’s in it for them? As you know, there are lots of scientists out there who know this stuff. But why speak publicly in the media about it when you know it could cost you your career.

    I would be ecstatic if real researchers would come forward. I would love it. Then there wouldn’t be any need for us regular people in the blogosphere. But I don’t feel like just sitting around waiting for them to gather up the courage to do so. In the meantime, blogs are about all we have.

    So T. Greer thinks the bloggers are just making HBD look bad. Fine. But what the blogosphere is doing is forcing the issue. If it wasn’t for the Steve Sailers of the world, the real scientists could just live out their entire lives without ever bringing the issue up. Then nobody would be talking about it. However right or wrong the blogosphere is, we’re the only reason anyone’s talking about HBD at all.

    By the way, I hope I’m not the only one who richly savors the irony of JayMan, the internet’s self-proclaimed expert on parenting research, telling us to keep an open mind and challenge our own biases. I mean, he’s Mr. “The Science Is Settled” personified. Apparently, he thinks that he came to that conclusion without any biases of his own. Classic.

    Reply

  16. I think I just skip over the neofascist and antisemitic comments when they show up on blogs I read. Perhaps I should spend more time engaging them and contesting with them, but I doubt I will.

    I dislike governments wasting energy doing the wrong things for the downtrodden. I see it in education and social work, where activists keep pushing for changes that they are Just Sure will work to improve schools or unemployment or crime. They draw the wrong conclusions from the data, and I have a thing about statistics, as well. Then they want to make policy – expensive policy – on the basis of their misinterpretations. Starting with the correct understanding will not guarantee that we make good policy, as there are many other things we could screw up. But starting from a wrong understanding very seldom results in good decisions.

    I don’t have much interest in 1-2 point differences between small or groups. I get irked at things like the Lovenstein Institute hoax and the like. I suppose I have some interest in voices that can’t get a fair hearing in PC society and appreciate that feature of the HBD blogs, but that is secondary. Some opinions are rejected because they truly have little to be said in their favor, not merely because “people don’t want to hear it.” I get enough of that professionally, thank you, listening to paranoids who conclude that they must be messiahs because they are persecuted.

    I loved this post and the comments. But you knew that, as I have interacted with many of you before. I don’t share the complete enthusiasm for the original Enlightenment – it had some serious negative consequences – but certainly it was a net positive. The Dark Enlightenment, what little I know of it, seems to flow in the opposite direction. Some good may come of it, but it’s looking net negative.

    Reply

  17. I believe an important aspect of human nature is being overlooked in the “obsession on IQ” critique and that is the schadenfreude that arises from making powerful arguments in reaction to agitprop masquerading as conventional wisdom. If you’re told that race doesn’t exist, that IQ is an invalid concept, etc then pushing back against such positions and having the better argument is going to appeal to a good many people simply because they get to poke their antagonists in the eye.

    Forbidden books, samizdat, and the like is often very sought after simple because people want to rebel against thought policing. There is a greater intensity in seeking out that forbidden work than there is in going to the Soviet bookstore and picking up some good literature or poetry by a State-approved poet.

    If race and IQ are subjects that are treated differently than mundane topics like inflation, poverty, rates of obesity, and such, then some people will be drawn to the topics and want to explore them fully, want to shock others by mentioning them, and double down on the schadenfreude by making the more powerful arguments.

    Reply

  18. Question – are there advantages to using the word “race”? Seems like that’s where the h8ers have a point. The word suggests uniformity within the race, like we’re videogame characters being shuttled into thief/warrior/wizard. It doesn’t seem to cover the full spectrum of humanity’s diversity.

    I’m aware that anthropologists prefer to use alternate terms, such as “clade”. Should hbders do the same?

    Reply

    1. Biologists use “race” to describe subspecies. The word is perfectly fine.

      There’s no need to get on the euphemism treadmill for everything for the sake of satisfying more people.

      Reply

  19. most humans are not intelligent enough to discuss intellectual topics intelligently. so with mainstream conventional types who are arguing that race does not exist because of lewontin’s fallacy…often i have to 1) explain what it is 2) why it implies what they think it implies 3) why i don’t think it implies what they think it implies. this is argumentation by rote rather than understanding, just like creationists who explain that the second law of thermodynamics shows how evolution can’t happen. ask most creationists what the second law is in any detail and they fail, because it’s just something they memorized.

    as for HBD, a large number of commenters are not too interested in the science, or not intellectually capable of following it. there’s no problem in that. but i did have the annoying experience of someone at *inductivist’s* blog responding to a comment i made by asserting “sounds like lewontin’s fallacy to me.” actually i’m pretty sure that the person didn’t really understand what lewontin’s fallacy was in the first place, but it was a nice buzzword for them to throw around, just like mainstreamers.

    HBD implies that there is a wide variation in intelligence. that egalitarianism isn’t really feasible in a deep way in many aspects of life. but naturally there’s a cognitive bias by those who espouse these views that they are intelligent enough, and not part of the masses. doesn’t seem correct to me.

    Reply

  20. re: “yes, that most likely includes some degree of biological variation affecting the measurable difference in intelligence between individuals and various populations, but it’s early days yet on that front, and we barely know what exactly that biological variation entails.”

    Intelligence isn’t the half of it. I was thinking about variation among Ashkenazi Jews the other day, how they tend to extremes in personality, as if every trait that has a normal distribution (there may be quite a few) seems to have a wider spread (larger standard deviation) with them. Thus they produce both saints and sinners in abundance, cultured gentleman and vulgarians, super-modist and hyper-egotistical, self-effacing and embarassingly narcissitic, ethnocentric and cosmopolitan universalist, highly intelligent and (believe it or not, I’ve met a few) amazingly stupid, and when you add it all up it turns out Mark Twain (was it him?) was right: Ashkenazis (for it is really them we are talking about — I subscribe to the Ashkenazi hypothesis*) are no better or worse than any other group, just more so. I was also thinking that of course Jesus was a Jew. Nobody but a Jew could be that crazy.

    Ashkenazi hypothesis: that it is really just the Ashkenazis, not Jews in general, who bear the burden of the Jewish religion. The history of the Hebrew people is one of splitting and, yes, betrayal: Jacob gypted his brother, Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery, the ten tribes of Israel had a falling out with the other two tribes (from which “Jews” descend) and now, most recently, the Ashkenazi are leaving the other branches behind. Anyway it is the Ashkenazis who have the amazingly wide spread in their normals — including a lot of Jewish mediocraties” as the really smart ones sometimes disparagingly refer to the average Jew, who is still rather talented compared to the average of any other group.

    Oh, well, I hope nobody accuses me of anti-Semitism cause I’m not. I love the senator from Vermont (what’s his name?) but hate the linguist from MIT (what’s his name?); like Irving Krystal senior but hate Dershowitz, etc, etc. etc. It is all about extremes.

    Reply

  21. Razib’s comment reminded me I forgot to mention the worrisome part about my classification as HBD: if so, shouldn’t I have to actually understand all this science? I don’t know who Lewontin is, much less have any familiarity with his fallacy. (Kidding, kind of. Either Lewontin said race is biologically meaningless, or the guy who called fallacy did. I can never keep it straight. )

    I like to think I’m intellectually capable, pace Razib. But it’s not what interests me.

    Reply

  22. 1. “So T. Greer thinks the bloggers are just making HBD look bad…..”

    I would like to note that I did not actually claim that. Blogging does not make HBD look bad. But it is not a medium really capable of making HBD look good either. Like I said, chicken/egg conundrum.

    2. As for the ‘race’ thing – well, since I already said whole lot of controversial stuff this round, I might as well throw more in:

    I suggest HBD researchers use the word with more care. A lot of people claim race is a ‘social construct’ and in many ways they are correct. What we call ‘black’ is probably two separate population groups (khoisans and the rest), while “Hispanic” makes just as little sense.

    Just as researchers investigating biological differences between men and women distinguish between sex and gender, perhaps it would be wise for researchers investigating differences between various populations to distinguish between ancestry and race. Race for social construed meanings (like “hispanic”) and ancestry for populations that are actually related.

    I think this would reduce confusion this research generates.

    Reply

  23. i really don’t want to get into a discussion about religious belief.

    Too late! Your entire post is about religious belief. Bartlett and Stanley belong to a cult. They make dogmatic statements about things they don’t understand because the cult has taught them to. But at least they have the excuse of ignorance. Dawkins is lying when he dismisses the importance of HBD.

    Reply

  24. @chuck – “For example, who?”

    not you, chuck!

    when i discussed being obsessed, i wasn’t talking about scientists or researchers or researcher-bloggers. extreme focus and obsession is clearly part of what research is all about. it’s what drives it! — and drives the scientists/researchers. i know that (and appreciate it!).

    who i was referring to are those individuals who claim to be interested in/accepting of human biodiversity, but in reality are only interested in adopting a part of it for their own ends.

    in the post, i used the example of right-wingers obsessed by racial differences in iq. i chose that only because that’s the group that bartlett (and stanley) brought up. i could’ve also used as example all of the left-wingers who say they understand evolution, and are willing to accept biological differences like lactase persistence or malaria resistance, but who are adamant that brain/intellectual differences between populations are just NOT possible. this is another group suffering from severe cognitive biases, and i ask them, too, to at least be open to hearing about other areas of human biodiversity.

    Reply

  25. @Jayman “As easy label also makes adherents easier to lump together, and to dismiss/demonize by “right” thinking people.”

    You are of course exactly right. Labels function much like medieval standards in that they allow followers of an idea to band together and become stronger through cohesion while also providing those who reject the idea with clear aim for their crossbows. However unlike a standard, a label has a tendency to stick, one can’t simply throw it to the ground and pretend it never existed. The bolts are still on their way.

    ~S

    Reply

  26. This is meant as a respones to Jayman: Yes, biologists do use the word race for a subspecies and I support that tendency. But as biologists classify humanity, there is only one currently surviving subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. There’s at least one extinct human subspecies, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and I don’t mind if anyone talks about the Neanderthal race as opposed to the human race. But to call the various lineages and populations inside our own human race “races” strikes me as imprecise because it conflicts with this other usage. This is just my own preference, and, admittedly, I may be influenced by political correctness, but I like to stay as close to the terminology used by actual physical anthropologists as possible.

    Reply

  27. I, too, have been mystified at the difference between northern and southern Italy. And Scotland, too, for that matter. How did such a tiny area produce so many polymaths and the Scottish Enlightenment? If I remember correctly, at that time Edinburgh only had about 25,000 people.

    Where are our polymaths? From what I’ve been able to gather, they’re coming out of the home-school movement.

    That term “Dark Enlightenment” really has to go.

    Reply

  28. @jayman – “Even ‘human biodiversity’ is questionable, as with any label for that matter. This is just human science – perhaps anthropology even.”

    yeah, absolutely! agreed.

    i’ve never thought of human biodiversity as a discipline of its own, and i’ve never thought that it ought to be made one, either. i’ve always thought it was just…yeah…the set of facts about how humans are diverse biologically — like other species! i think it’s an important and useful term, though, in order to draw attention to the fact that there IS biodiversity in the human species! (plus i’d really HATE to have to come up with a new blog title/internet handle. (~_^) )

    i’m working on (trying to anyway) a post on “What is Human Biodiversity?” and in it i’ve said:

    “Human biodiversity is actively studied in a wide range of academic disciplines including: genetics, population genetics, sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, biological anthropology, neuroscience, psychometrics, and psychology.”

    that sentence might be altered in the editing process, but the gist of it will be in the post somewhere. (^_^)

    Reply

  29. @t.greer – sincere thanks, t, for all the kind words (under your point number 2)! (^_^) i feel that now i’ve got a lot to live up to after all that praise! — but that’s just good. it’ll keep me on my toes! (hopefully!) (^_^)

    Reply

  30. @amicus ecclesiarum – “i really don’t want to get into a discussion about religious belief. Too late! Your entire post is about religious belief. Bartlett and Stanley belong to a cult.”

    good point! (~_^)

    Reply

  31. Not to get deeply into religion, but I’ll make the point that any genetic predisposition you have to be agnostic is expressed that way in 21st century America. If you were born into an educated milieu in 18th century America, you might well have been a Deist. At most times and places in the post-Classical West you’d likely have been a conventional but not terribly devout Christian.

    The same way with sex. Today someone with a particularly warm-blooded disposition might spend their teens and twenties pursuing a variety of sexual relationships. The same person living in a rural area in the 1890s might instead have wanted to get *married* as early as possible, and while he or she would have been more likely to stray than the average person, very likely they wouldn’t have, given few opportunities and, maybe, having bonded more strongly with their first partner.

    I know this is obvious to you (and, I think, Jayman), but it’s a point that often gets lost in general discussion.

    Reply

  32. @razib – “most humans are not intelligent enough to discuss intellectual topics intelligently…. as for HBD, a large number of commenters are not too interested in the science, or not intellectually capable of following it.”

    true. but i would think — hope — that many people ought to be able to grasp the fundamental point that, if you have biological differences (thanks to evolution) in one area (say hair color), that it’s logical to assume there might be biological differences in other areas, too — even if (like me) they don’t understand all the technicalities.

    why shouldn’t evolutionary processes have affected biodiversity in humans in many different ways (not just in racial differences in iq, for example)? what would make people think that hasn’t happened?

    maybe i ask too much. (~_^)

    Reply

  33. @chrisb – “I’ll make the point that any genetic predisposition you have to be agnostic is expressed that way in 21st century America. If you were born into an educated milieu in 18th century America, you might well have been a Deist. At most times and places in the post-Classical West you’d likely have been a conventional but not terribly devout Christian.”

    yup! very good point. thanks! i probably would, indeed, have gone to church, but not be too devout, like you say. maybe i would’ve been like my grandfather and many of the other men in the village back in the old country: go to church on sunday, but spend most of the time outside in back of the church chatting with each other. (~_^)

    Reply

  34. Random thoughts:

    Biologists use “race” to describe subspecies. The word is perfectly fine.

    Just imagine the trouble any of us would get in if we started describing racial groups as “subspecies”.

    That map showing higher IQs in the north of Spain is interesting – a friend of mine told me that the Moors weren’t too bothered about not conquering that area because “the people there are as stubborn as oxen, and about as smart”.

    Derb says Up to a point, the more depressed and maladjusted you are, the more likely it is that you are seeing things right, with minimal bias.

    I think he’s got the causality backwards here – if you see things with minimal bias, you will end up depressed and maladjusted, but there are plenty of other ways you can end up depressed and maladjusted, too.

    Reply

  35. One way in which even straight white anglo-saxon males in the HBD community are “willing to accept truths that reflect poorly on their tribe” is in accepting a genetic basis for group IQ levels – which puts gentile whites in third place behind East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews. This despite the fact that many whites personally dislike Jews!

    Whites in this community must also acknowledge a genetic basis for the superior sprinting ability of West Africans and the the superior endurance of East Africans.

    Any other ways in which HBD reflects poorly on Anglo-Saxon white gentiles? Too much outbreeding resulting in weak group identity, perhaps?

    Reply

  36. I’m afraid I don’t have time to respond to this post at the length and detail it deserves.

    A few quick thoughts on the various terms being discussed:

    (1) I agree the term Dark Enlightenment sucks.

    (2) In contrast, Human Biodiversity is an excellent term, a stroke of genius on Sailer’s part. It’s scientific-sounding, non-loaded (what else are you going to call it – race realism?), and is a useful way to filter out people who are willing to discuss the issue frankly without the ritualistic paeans to equalism that must precede even an extremely limited discussion of the topic in polite mainstream society.

    (3) Neoreaction is a good term, evoking images of swords and spaceships (traditionalism amidst modernity).

    Reply

  37. @ChrisB:

    “Not to get deeply into religion, but I’ll make the point that any genetic predisposition you have to be agnostic is expressed that way in 21st century America. If you were born into an educated milieu in 18th century America, you might well have been a Deist.”

    “The same way with sex. Today someone with a particularly warm-blooded disposition might spend their teens and twenties pursuing a variety of sexual relationships. The same person living in a rural area in the 1890s might instead have wanted to get *married* as early as possible, and while he or she would have been more likely to stray than the average person, very likely they wouldn’t have, given few opportunities and, maybe, having bonded more strongly with their first partner.

    I know this is obvious to you (and, I think, Jayman), but it’s a point that often gets lost in general discussion.”

    This point is very obvious to me. Behavior, and more broadly behavioral traits are environmentally context-dependent. This is a fine point that many, conceptually, fail to fully grasp. The reason why this is so is mainly because the socio/cultural/technological landscape of the day sets the playing field. People with different genetic predispositions have to adopt different tactics depending on what works; they receive a different set of incentives and feedback to their behavior. Obviously, some people play the game of the day better than others. This is what sets up selective forces every society exerts. Of course, when the landscape changes, behavior can change over all, and who has the advantage changes.

    The effective landscape explains how you can get rapid changes in behavioral traits all without comparable genetic change. As you say, the rise in irreligiosity, increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage, etc, are examples. This confuses many people, because they somehow assume that if you can have rapid environmental change on behavioral traits, that they can’t be so “heritable” after all (despite the fact that they all are). This stems from the misconception that heritability = degree of mutability, which is wrong. Average height for example has increased considerably in America over the past century (after decreasing for some time), and virtual no one then claims that height is “less heritable” than we thought because of this. The rise in obesity is another example. Some take the increase to signal that environment is much more important that it is let on.

    Of course, these people mean “environment” in the sense of the environment that differs between people living today, where is the change over time was brought on by an environmental change that (in a fashion) affects everybody. The playing field is different. But that knowledge doesn’t necessarily guide you in how to change it, or if an effective change is even possible.

    I’m not sure if that helps to clear up the issue for those confused about it, because it is admittedly a difficult concept to grasp.

    Reply

  38. @HBD Chick:

    Hmmm: can you fix the tag on the previous comment (add an after “This is what sets up selective forces every society exerts.”)? The lack of preview and edit does make WordPress commenting tricky…

    Reply

  39. Just a few random point:

    -On the IQ map it looks as if Protestant > Catholic > Orthodox >> Muslim

    -The same ordering applies to lack of corruption (see corruption perception index)

    -How dare you suggest highland Scots are dumber than Sassanachs! My grandparents are from the highlands! Are you trying to suggests that we are CLANNISH?

    Reply

  40. Theories where HBD could see Anglo-Saxons males as different, in ways that are unfavorable

    – Less adapted for a business / professional environment than Jews (or other mercantile niche breeding pops), in terms of personality, not just IQ.

    – Less adapted for high shame and sensitivity to social respect than East Asians (and probably South and South East Asians). So lack the pro-social and humble behaviors that this enhances (avoidance of crime?), and would also be maladapted for functioning in Asian societies.

    – Less adapted for visual spatial as opposed to other kinds of intelligence (memory, verbal, sensory non-spatial) compared to Northeast Asians.

    – Less adapted for a competitive male “game playing”, promiscuous, low commitment environment than West Africans. Less adapted for very high levels of social engagement or very high levels of vengeful protection of status compared to West Africans, both of which could serve the aforementioned complex.

    However these are all rather more tenuous and not really things that most Anglo-Saxons would care about (winning “The Game” but having no wife and kids they don’t see is not something they would generally be that keen on, etc.). They also tend to be tradeoffs, unlike IQ which is frankly just a simple better / worse axis.

    There are other biological disadvantages to being European but these are generally not really HBD as they’re acknowledged by the mainstream and aren’t psychological or related to how well people function in different societies (“You’ll get more skin cancer than Asians under the same conditions”, “You’ll get malaria in Africa”, etc.). HBD has a big focus on how people function in societies (is essentially sociobiological in orientation) through two routes : because different populations adapt the societies to fit their genotypes and because different populations are subject to different selective pressures due to it. This is part of why it generally allies to immigration skeptic movements, who are also concerned with whether new citizens can adapt to fit their society.

    Reply

  41. “The overall picture that emerges from the cognitive science researchers of the last half century is one of a brain that struggles to cope with reality, and rarely does very well at it.”

    Evolution is so incompetent. It shapes animals to fit their niche, but causes defects in people. Perhaps we’d be better off without brains, so that we can cope with reality as well as animals.

    Reply

  42. Well, I don’t know about Anglos, but try to discuss with Germans the recent genetic results combined with linguistical old data (hint: start discussion with Germans have ancient affinities with near-eastern populations, Slavs are more related to ancient Indo-Europeans than Germans). You will see how quickly enthusiasm for science and genetics evaporates.

    Reply

  43. @Razib Khan

    HBD/”race realism” has its roots in creationism, especially typological thinking.

    Reply

  44. It no makes sense that the Angles are not able to compete with other groups . Not when you see a group that was able of your little cloudy and flat island , to expand into various regions of the world , colonize and conquer the vast majority of people have encountered . They have USA ( simply the greatest power of all time ) , Australia, New Zealand , Canada (yes , they spoil the French party ) . The ability to field and expansion of Europeans in general is huge . View Little Portugal and its territorial conquests !
    I think you ‘re confusing extreme capacity , which also is a defect , a lack of capacity . The Angles conquered the world , his tongue is the language of globalization ( and I need to learn it fast ) , so …
    They do not see predators because they do not actually exist. Rather, there are not direct predators , but indirect . Direct predators would win the Angles and other Europeans in creative ability . However , what we have are people able to find weaknesses ( major weaknesses ) that they have and use them against the Europeans. It’s kind of different and specific , yet grand , creativity these people have .
    The biggest fault that whites have is that their elites are extremely similar to the foreign elites. So it’s easy to governors and cognitive join class groups hostile to the national collective. I think.

    Reply

  45. Well, I don’t know about Anglos, but try to discuss with Germans the recent genetic results combined with linguistical old data (hint: start discussion with Germans have ancient affinities with near-eastern populations, Slavs are more related to ancient Indo-Europeans than Germans). You will see how quickly enthusiasm for science and genetics evaporates.

    Shades of some few Ashkenazis, probably the most successful ethnicity on earth, being upset at the idea of being more related to Roman Era Italians than the Hebrew herders.

    But at least they have some religious mumbo jumbo reason to disdain being merely the most successful ethnicity of earth and pine after being related to Him Ham and Bliz Blaz.

    If the Krauts would truly envy some frankly fairly backwards Easterners being more related to some ancient barbaric cattle herders (in the context of, uh, Germany) then they really quite are as strange as they are made out to be.

    Reply

  46. In a world of affirmative action, hate speech laws, and mass immigration HBD has a political component that can’t be denied. I agree its not limited just to IQ (there are other things that suck about diversity) buts its the easiest thing to slam down and say (mathematically this just isn’t going to work, its not an opinion its a fact). For instance, when someone showed a chart that proved that the 80/20 rule in disparate impact can’t possibly be met given IQ differences Mathematic impossibility. How do you argue with that?

    Reply

  47. now, i am the LAST person who should criticize anybody for obsessing about any one thing (see: most of this blog), but i’m going to anyway. if you accept that humans exhibit biologically based diversity, then you’d better be prepared to accept ALL of it. here’s the problem: too many of the people who obsess over the racial differences in iq DON’T want to accept — or often even think about! — OTHER facts, or possible facts, related to hbd. especially about their own kind.

    But focusing on certain things, and especially claiming those certain things explain other phenomena, entails rejecting, minimizing, or de-emphasizing certain other things or possible facts in relation to their possible explanation of the other phenomena. Obviously, for example, focusing on ancient practices as an explanation for certain modern phenomena, entails rejecting other possible facts and explanations, such as those offered by Kevin MacDonald, as an explanation for the phenomena.

    Reply

  48. An interesting supplement to that map is the “Birthplace maps” pages on the University of St. Andrews math biographies website http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/BiogIndex.html Check out Spain vs. Poland, for example. (DISCLAIMER: I am neither Spanish nor Polish.)

    Of course, the “Polish” do overwhelmingly tend to have such names as Arnhold, Bergman, Courtant, Dickstein, Eilenberg, Fuchs, Grassman, Herstein, Infeld, Jacobson, Kreiger, Landsberg, Mertens, Pringsheim, Robinson, Schwarz, Toeplitz, Wolfowitz.

    Which does tend to help rather (even having such people around probably boosts the productivity of locals who aren’t such people a bit).

    Reply

  49. too many of the people who obsess over the racial differences in iq DON’T want to accept — or often even think about! — OTHER facts, or possible facts, related to hbd. especially about their own kind.

    Not only about their own kind, but about other kinds as well. Genetic interests are always involved, not just with respect to the perception and the shaping of the perception of one’s own identity and group, but also with respect to the perception and the shaping of the perception of other identities and groups. This would be the case in Razib’s and Jayman’s and other bloggers” blogging to varying degrees with respect to northern Europeans and others, for example.

    Reply

  50. @dave – “But focusing on certain things, and especially claiming those certain things explain other phenomena, entails rejecting, minimizing, or de-emphasizing certain other things or possible facts in relation to their possible explanation of the other phenomena.”

    no. irrelevant. you’re missing the point.

    i’m talking about focusing or obsessing on one thing while illogically ignoring or dismissing something else which is of exactly the same type.

    for example: many politically correct leftists say that they accept evolution is true, even in the case of humans, but reject that any evolution has happened “above the neck” in human populations in the past 50,000 years or so. or, like the example i used in the post, that many right-wingers say that they accept that, as a result of evolution, there are racial differences in iq, but they won’t even entertain the idea that there might be differences in iq within the white race. illogical. evolution either happens, or it doesn’t.

    it would be like someone saying that they accept that the germ theory of disease is true, but that it doesn’t apply to the human respiratory system, only to all the other organ systems. illogical. (and untrue.)

    Reply

  51. @eris – “Evolution is so incompetent. It shapes animals to fit their niche, but causes defects in people. Perhaps we’d be better off without brains, so that we can cope with reality as well as animals.”

    guess you’ve never read about deception/self-deception, huh? our niche is a social one.

    Reply

  52. @rosenmops – “- On the IQ map it looks as if Protestant > Catholic > Orthodox >> Muslim

    – The same ordering applies to lack of corruption (see corruption perception index)”

    yes, absolutely. the only thing is, the chinese throw that whole correlation off: very high average iq but also very high corruption. so, like i keep saying, there’s more to hbd than just iq. (~_^)

    @rosenmops – “Are you trying to suggests that we are CLANNISH?”

    well, you guys invented the word! (^_^)

    Reply

  53. @dave – “This would be the case in Razib’s and Jayman’s and other bloggers’ blogging to varying degrees with respect to northern Europeans and others, for example.”

    you damn well better be able to offer examples of what you mean in the case of either of those bloggers.

    you’re behind the commenting moderation wall until you do (or, alternatively, decide to retract that statement).

    Reply

  54. @pwyll – “One way in which even straight white anglo-saxon males in the HBD community are ‘willing to accept truths that reflect poorly on their tribe’ is in accepting a genetic basis for group IQ levels – which puts gentile whites in third place behind East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews.”

    yes, many, many do, of course (and this post wasn’t really directed towards them). unfortunately, many others don’t — or many others just obsess about the white-black differences while almost never mentioning the other diffs.

    @pwyll – “Any other ways in which HBD reflects poorly on Anglo-Saxon white gentiles? Too much outbreeding resulting in weak group identity, perhaps?”

    yeah, maybe. although i think the inbreeding/outbreeding thing, and the resulting differences, cuts both ways: too much outbreeding (maybe) causes a weak group identity, but it also enables you (maybe) to build high-trust societies with little corruption, etc., etc. too much inbreeding (maybe) causes strong extended family ties with all the support that goes with that, but it also (maybe) makes you corrupt and inable to forge a nation-state.

    take your pick.

    Reply

  55. @john – “An interesting supplement to that map is the ‘Birthplace maps’ pages on the University of St. Andrews math biographies website http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/BiogIndex.html

    oh, neat! thanks.

    what i really, really want someone to explain to me is all the smarts in scotland. it’s not that i’ve got anything against the scots (irn-bru, ftw!), but what is with that band of accomplishment in the lowlands? it’s there on your math biographies map, too. what happened there?? was it just that all the smart scots moved to the towns/cities in the region? was it the anglo-saxons? normans? flemish? picts? (outbreeding?) what?!?!

    why the scottish enlightenment?

    @john – “DISCLAIMER: I am neither Spanish nor Polish.”

    (~_^)

    Reply

  56. @david – “Wouldn’t it be good at this point to do some actual tests? Or, at minimum, propose actual tests?

    “What would it take to falsify the outbreeding theory—or to confirm it? Or do you think it is not yet time to ask that question?”

    i don’t do real science for the simple fact that i’m not a scientist. my background is history and anthropology — the soft, squishy cultural kind — so i really wouldn’t know a falsifiable hypothesis from a hypotenuse — or an hippopotamus for that matter. (~_^) i also don’t have any funding, a lab, a coterie of dedicated grad students to do my research for me — i don’t even have access to an academic library. (~_^)

    so, i’m gonna leave the scientific investigations into inbreeding/outbreeding and possible effects on altruism, etc., to the real scientists. they’ll be much more capable at it than i, i’m sure. (^_^)

    having said that — a gwas study or two looking for “genes for altruistic behaviors” (whatever they might be) would be nice. especially looking to see if there are differences between inbred and outbred groups (there ought to be, if the theory’s at all correct).

    more studies on how kin behave towards one another would be neat: first of all, do family members in inbred societies look more like one another than family members in outbred societies (i bet they do)? then, do they treat each other differently? graham coop suggested a neat study the other day on twitter: looking at ibd data from siblings to see if those that share more genes can actually pick up on that and if they treat each other differently according to how similar or not they are. i’d LOVE to see such a study — and extended to include all sorts of family members — and, of course, to find out if there are any average diffences between inbred and outbred societies (there should be, if the theory is right).

    i also wondered before if we could take a cochran & harpending approach and look at genetic disorders/conditions in inbred societies to find “genes for altruism” (like they did with ashkenazi iq). are there a lot of androgen disorders in inbred populations? is there any evidence that these genes have been under (recent?) selection in those populations? i dunno. i’m starting to wade into the deep end here (for me anyway!).

    that’s all i’ve got. (^_^) (see? not a scientist!)

    Reply

  57. @matt – “Nice for him to have us notified that the White Guilt folks must be intellectually honest, as they accept certain unflattering ‘truths’.”

    this has nothing to do with white guilt.

    Reply

  58. @t.greer – “I suggest HBD researchers use the word with more care. A lot of people claim race is a ‘social construct’ and in many ways they are correct. What we call ‘black’ is probably two separate population groups (khoisans and the rest), while ‘Hispanic’ makes just as little sense.”

    well, the thing is, race is a real category AND it is also a social construct. it’s a social construct because, to be blunt, people are stupid: obama “identifies” as an african-american. that is him “socially constructing” his race. in reality, he is mixed-race — half black and half white. (see? that wasn’t so hard!) EVERYbody should use the word with more care!

    “hispanic” as a racial category is just nonsense. a cultural one, maybe — but even that is stretching it — but not a racial category.

    Reply

  59. As an outsider I would say it is extremely important to create a clear division between actual science, whether anthropological or psychometric, and weird ideas about the cathedral, monarchism, white nationalism, etc. Obviously some bloggers are more careful than others but how many even careful bloggers actively oppose any of these things? To establish any sort of scientific legitimacy HBD thinkers must distinguish between research (let’s say IQ differences between races) and the political or policy ideas that flow from these. This separation is lacking in HBD work. Indeed, with the exception of Jayman, most bloggers also seem to see a natural connection between HBD and conservatism.
    I find that many HBD blogs, in my only field of overlapping interest (psychometrics), are too quick to see problems with environmental models as direct evidence of genetic factors. We are at a point where there are lots, and lots, of problems with environmental explanations but no direct evidence that genetic factors explain racial IQ variation. Oftentimes HBD blogs ignore this point. As has been pointed out above the actual question of the difference between “races” is very complex. You can’t just say Lewontin’s fallacy proves races exist. Its all very well to say that evolution has happened above the head but that doesn’t prove anything. Confirmation bias is one explanation for these problems. Razib Khan suggests intellectual ability is another, although I get the impression he thinks that about all topics.
    There is also the question of racism. Most, not all, HBD websites have a contingent of racist supporters. It is common to find statements like east Asians, Jews technically have have higher IQ’s but in reality there are these … reasons why white people are still better, for example Asians cheat, Asians cram, Asians didn’t create the scientific revolution etc. Straightforward anti-semitism is even more easy to find. Whereas any difference that makes whites, or northern Europeans look good has a good is favoured or even embraced. If one was to judge ethnic(national, racial) groups, on the basis of the complexity of their civilization, at different historical periods the connection between IQ and success becomes less obvious, more complex.

    Reply

  60. hbd chick – this has nothing to do with white guilt.

    It’s just an example that accepting unflattering “truths” about your group is a laughable predictor that there is any truth to them, or that you are a disinterested and intellectually honest observer of humanity.

    I’m not inclined to listen to any gay guy who comes with unflattering truths about gays just on the basis that he is gay. It’s probably just gonna be some bullshit “gay guilt” (some with blacks who accept unflattering truths about blacks, etc.).

    Reply

  61. @matt – “It’s just an example that accepting unflattering ‘truths’ about your group is a laughable predictor that there is any truth to them….”

    no one is saying that you — or anyone else — ought to accept “truths.”

    we’re talking about THE truth based upon SCIENTIFICALLY established facts.

    re-read the post if you didn’t get it the first time (hint: the bit about science is toward the end).

    Reply

  62. @test subject – “Indeed, with the exception of Jayman, most bloggers also seem to see a natural connection between HBD and conservatism.”

    that’s because most hbd bloggers at the moment are conservatives (by nature).

    if left-wingers would just get their heads out of their politically correct *sses, there might be more hbd bloggers with liberal ideas. no one is stopping them (except themselves).

    Reply

  63. If I can add to your list – and be realistic. A female medical practitioner with an IQ of 135 – 140 is not going to win a Nobel prize, but she could be a truly great primary care doctor or specialist, or a really outstanding civil engineer. I’m giving real examples of people I know. Not everyone needs to be a prize-winning genius, and it does me no good at all to belong to a tribe in which one person has won a Nobel Prize. It’s his prize, it says nothing at all about me. Not much point in cheering about being English and therefore superior to the French, if you are the dumbest guy in England, and therefore dumber than almost all of the people in France. The best and most useful technician I ever worked with could barely read and write.

    Education of Aboriginal children in Australia has gone nowhere in the last 15 years, for two reasons (1) truly Olympic gold medal winning levels of truancy – they just never get there, and (2) failure by the education authorities to even recognise that they might not all be junior Einsteins and might need special approaches, different materials, different achievement levels, and preparing them for jobs they can handle, when the mean IQ is 65. Given that, they are already doing well to be able function at all in a modern world. If someone was trying to make me attend classes in astrophysics, after a while I probably wouldn’t keep turning up either.

    Reply

  64. @t.greer – “I suggest HBD researchers use the word with more care. A lot of people claim race is a ‘social construct’ and in many ways they are correct.”

    I think there is truth in this for practical reasons however there is a glaring logical flaw in the proposed alternative i.e. that “populations” exist at every level from *above* the old race-sized population scale i.e. human race scale population, and every level *below* the old race-sized population scale but not exactly *at* the old scale even though there will be definable populations on a practical level that more or less coincide with that scale.

    .

    “Most, not all, HBD websites have a contingent of racist supporters…Whereas any difference that makes whites, or northern Europeans look good has a good is favoured or even embraced. ”

    Compared to the “non-racist” mainstream where everything associated with white people is bad?

    .

    @Sandgroper

    Have they tried iodine supplements?

    Reply

  65. @sandgroper – “If someone was trying to make me attend classes in astrophysics, after a while I probably wouldn’t keep turning up either.”

    well, yeah, exactly! they’ve done the same thing in california (other states?) where they make everyone take what used to be college-level algebra in high school. you now have to take it and pass in order to graduate. and, naturally, a LOT of kids just don’t manage — and then wind up dropping out of high school.

    what a dumb idea that was! =/

    Reply

  66. “continuing on from the other day, jamie bartlett and timothy stanley are flat-out wrong that human biodiversity (hbd) is “neo-fascist” “bad science.” human biodiversity is simply the diversity found among and between human populations that has a biological basis.”

    I’ve long had an intuitive theory that BDSM and extreme sexual perversions (which are currently all the trendy rage in Anglo cultures) have a biological basis in Anglo stock.

    I’ll look more into this HBD theory to see if what is obvious to me has any science at all behind it.

    Reply

  67. “In other words, the defining strand is not HBD, but “The Cathedral”.

    … I am deeply tired of the crap that ensues when someone violates the Cathedral canons.”

    By “cathedral” you mean the Vatican? The Roman Papal Conspiracy?

    Reply

  68. Matt, you still around? As far as what negative traits can be attributed to Anglos and other “whites” surrounding that area (northern and western european) – there are a number, which is why so called “western civilization” is so effed up today. No, its not just because of “the wimmenz” – Feminism and the Sexual Revolution. Its genetic. If you read the history of these peoples from hundreds of years back you get a glimpse.

    Reply

  69. There are 3 discussions that really interest me – what is the DE, what is HBD and what is ASE. And there are many many brilliant contributions to these discussions that I try and catch/follow. This blog is obviously second to none when discussing ASE (anglosaxonexceptionalism) but the other two discussions are spread out across the different contributing blogs. I would so love there to be dedicated blogs where people could have ongoing discussion of definitions on these fascinating topics, and on how to interface with the mainstream. But perhaps that defeats the point of the internet?

    ASE discussion is a bit more consolidated but is spread out between posts. I’d love to see a definitive list that we could discuss. I tried to explain it to someone and I ended up saying that the exceptionalism in fact stems from that very thing, the ability to understand exceptions, and so then I wondered whether the title of this blog was deliberate in that sense. It’s because exceptions form such a vital function in AS organisation that, I think, the relativists have been able to chip away at some really good forms of organisation.

    There’s a fourth discussion that I suppose is my favourite, and much gets discussed here, and that is the origins and outcomes of Europeans. For instance it occurred to me recently that maybe why America was so readily conquered and why ‘the cowboy’ is so iconic is because actually that’s who we are, riders of the plains and drovers. And the changes we experience in our cultures nowadays are simply the rise of traders over riders and drovers? We have an advert in the UK that says Brits don’t have the guts to haggle. I certainly don’t. I just don’t see the appeal, I can’t be bothered. But a horse and a horizon, now that is appealing.

    But then I suppose many Europeans are wood-dwellers and maybe that is why Appalachian culture has emerged as a truly new culture, unlike the hyphenated American cultures. And is it really too far fetched to think that if evolution wanted to colonise a deciduous woodland niche then hair and eye colours that range from sunny skies to autumn leaves would be perfect camouflage?

    Reply

  70. “There’s a fourth discussion that I suppose is my favourite, and much gets discussed here, and that is the origins and outcomes of Europeans. For instance it occurred to me recently that maybe why America was so readily conquered and why ‘the cowboy’ is so iconic is because actually that’s who we are, riders of the plains and drovers. And the changes we experience in our cultures nowadays are simply the rise of traders over riders and drovers?”

    – Hmmm. What changes exactly are you referring to? Some of what passes for “changes” are Angosaxon inheritable traits. Like the supposedly current trend of interest in BDSM in the global anglosphere, as well as irrational self-interest and the lack of family orientation.

    None of that is the fault of Feminism or the Sexual Revolution or some vague “Cultural Marxism”. Its genetic.

    Reply

  71. BNK

    “We have an advert in the UK that says Brits don’t have the guts to haggle. I certainly don’t.”

    I despise haggling. To me there’s either a fair price or there isn’t.

    (nb I’m not saying that view is universally correct in some way. It *feels* like it is to me but it’s probably just another culturally evolved response. Interesting though.)

    Reply

  72. There is biodiversity in all species with separated populations. This seems never to be mentioned when trying to explain/convince non-specialists of the existence of HBD.

    Reply

  73. human biodiversity is simply the diversity found among and between human populations that has a biological basis. that’s all. yes, that most likely includes some degree of biological variation affecting the measurable difference in intelligence between individuals and various populations,
    ————————- ———————–

    Innocent enough sounding, but that really is not all. What is the reality on the web? Too often, numerous pseudo-claims, outright distortions, and hypocritical double-standards. You yourself note the race obsessions on may fronts.

    ————————- ———————–

    [Bartlett] is wrong to claim that the research that has found average differences in iq by race is pseudoscience, and he’s wrong to claim (indirectly as he does) that races don’t exist, but he is right about the obsess part.

    Actually Bartlett advances no such claim that average differences in IQ by race is pesudoscience. He says nothing about averages. On his “dark Enlightenment” piece he says- quote: “(they obsess over IQ testing and pseudoscience that they claim proves racial differences, like the Ku Klux Klan) ”

    HBDers do obsess over IQ testing, and do engage at times in pesudo science, and do obsess over “race” a concept numerous scholars using hard data shows does not exist in t e biological sense (Templeton 2002, Armelagos 2001, Kittle and Keita 2004, et al). Bartlett never disputes that there are average differences in IQ scores by ethnicity. Sure. Who credibly is going about “denying” that East Asians on the average post higher IQ scores than whites? In what credible quarter is there any such “denial?” The question is not the differences. All know they exist. The crucial point is the REASON for said difference. What combination of “nature” or “nurture” in a given situation or time? That is the key- not that there are statistical differences.

    ————————- ———————–

    if you accept that humans exhibit biologically based diversity, then you’d better be prepared to accept ALL of it.

    Of course humans differ. Who is going about “denying” that Swedes have a paler skin color than Zulus for example? The key questions again relate to the causes of such differences. Too often HBDers trade in strawmen, asserting that people are “denying differences” when their claims and distortions are challenged. Doubts about the existence of biological race for example are a matter of hard data put on the table by credible scientists, not the bogus strawman of “denying differences.”

    ————————- ———————–

    here’s an example. try — just try! — bringing up the apparent average differences in iq between the sub-populations of europeans and see what happens. i dare ya!

    I did and it is clear what the author and some blog comments missed. Sure southern Europeans now have lower IQs than northern Europeans on the average. But how important or credible is IQ as explanatory variable for anything involving these populations, at a given time or situation? It is southern Europeans who for numerous centuries far surpassed any technological or civilization achievements of northern Europeans. If IQ scores are so determinative, why did “the glory that was Greece” not develop in ultra white Sweden? Why was northern or Eastern Europe a backwater for millennia until comparatively recently in human history? As conservative scholar Thomas Sowell noted in his trilogy on culture: the record of history destroys numerous simplistic claims of race-mongers or alleged “progressives”..

    Your blog author proffers this laughably simplistic explanation for southern vs northern European IQ:- quote

    “he decline in IQ in Spain and Italy can be explained by racial differences in the population; the northern parts of both countries contain a more Germanic stock, whereas the southern parts are more Mediterranean in origin.”

    ^^What a crock of typical HBD nonsense, put forward as it it were “truth”..

    ——————————- ————–
    just seems right — but we know that religious belief is highly heritable, so this is probably just my genes talking — my “genes for neuroticism” maybe (i’m such a neurotic

    Here’s the thing though- you are misrepresenting heritability. Heritability is a proportion expressing genes, environment and random chance. When you say its “probably just my genes talking” you are presenting a false construct of what heritability is- a typical pattern with many HBEers.

    ——————————- ————–
    the obsession about racial differences in iq in some circles of the hbd-o-sphere is all about confirmation bias..

    I would agree here, and because of that confirmation bias, many HBDers in many places are prone to strawman facades, dubious data, distorted claims and weak arguments.

    ——————————- ————–
    just so…obvious.) and there are undoubtedly biological reasons for this lack of achievement from my group. see?

    Obvious? Really… Here again, is an example of the weakness of HDB logic. What “biological differences” between Greeks and Germans leads to lower Greek IQ? Take a stab at it.

    Reply

  74. The Dark Enlightenment and Duck Dynasty | educationrealist

    […] hbd chick wrote a detailed response to the Jamie Bartlett column which, to the extent I understand it, I agree with. But I would refer someone trying to figure this thing out to read the comments, particularly this one by T. Greer: […]
    ————————————

    The many voices in the ‘dark enlightenment’ do not harmonize. They don’t share the same ideals, aims, or even impulses. They defined by a shared enemy; were this enemy to disappear then so would all talk of a cohesive ‘dark enlightenment.’

    The major strand that unites the entire community is a willingness to frankly state opinions polite society does not accept..
    –T. Greer
    —————————————

    Greer forgot to add, that another major strand that unites said community is a willingness to trade in bogus strawmen, distorted data, weak arguments and hypocritical double standards.

    Greer also forgot to add that the HBD obsession with race is part and parcel of the “shared enemy.” That is the key defining element. There must be an “Other” to demonize, to define oneself against as lesser, inferior, beyond the pale. WHo better fits the bill than those perennial HBD whipping boys- blacks? This is why race (and particularly blacks) are such an obsession, though there is some “allowance” made for Asians. There must be a demonized Other, upon which the faithful can muster the requisite “Two Minutes Of Hate” again and again.. Ot the language is more polite and scientific sounding, but that bottom line is there.

    The “race enemy” is an even more powerful focus than “the Cathedral” Education Realist talks about. Race is extremely profitably for both liberals and right wingers. Both play “race cards” as it benefits them. The “coded” race references and bogus claims of the right are matched by the “politically correct” name-calling and bogus claims of the left. HBD embraces its own version of “correctness” just like the two above.

    Reply

  75. well, the thing is, race is a real category AND it is also a social construct. it’s a social construct because, to be blunt, people are stupid: obama “identifies” as an african-american. that is him “socially constructing” his race. in reality, he is mixed-race — half black and half white. (see? that wasn’t so hard!) EVERYbody should use the word with more care!

    “hispanic” as a racial category is just nonsense. a cultural one, maybe — but even that is stretching it — but not a racial category.
    —————————————————————–

    Actually credible scientists, using hard data refute the notion that race is a real biological category in the rigorous sense other sub-species thresholds are defined. See for example Tempelton 2002, “The Genetic and Evolutionary SIgnificance of Human Races.” And simple continental clustering of groups does not define “race” for there is often more variation within those continents than between. Africa is a typical example. Manipulation of categories and sampling is a common practice among those trying to prove biological “race.” ONe study for example threw out certain African samples to create the impression that people like Ethiopians are “whites with black skin.” Another defined an Africa versus the “rest of the world” construct, with the “rest of the world” section including AFRICAN groups. Other studies rig the outcomes, pre-sorting samples into pre-defined “Racial” groups in advance and then running the analysis, rather than letting an general analysis run and having the data speak for themselves. See Kieta and Kittles 2004, COnceptualizing Race for such manipulation.

    As for Social category- sure. You can have as many “races” as you want socially.

    As for Obama, what does half-white and half-black mean in terms of biological race? Does this mean he is the child of two sub-species of the human race? How do you define “race”?

    And using the HDB approach, why wouldn’t Hispanics be a separate “race”? After all, most “Hispanics” can show certain DNA haplogroups related to those Asiatics who populated the Americas. Plenty of your HBD buddies on the web say this signifies “Race.”

    And how about Hispanics like Dominicans and Puerto Ricans who happen to “look black”? Or famous Brazilian soccer greats like Garrincha, or Socrates? How come these mingled people are NOT a race, but mingled Obama is a race, under your formula? Do you start to see the kind of weaknesses in HBD notions? Your definitions are contradictory. Obama is a “race” but Hispanic Garrincha who soccer historians say was mingled with black, Indian and white is not a race. Afro-sporting, spanish-speaking Hispanic soccer star of Peru Teofilo Cubillas is even darker than Michele Obama. How come he is not a race, but Michele is?

    How do you explain the contradictions in your logic?

    Reply

  76. @enrique – “How come these mingled people are NOT a race, but mingled Obama is a race, under your formula?”

    obama “mingled” is not a race — he’s mixed race — half-black and half-white. that really isn’t that hard to understand.

    @enrique – “How do you explain the contradictions in your logic?”

    there are no contradictions in my logic. (~_^)

    wrt defining race, you might want to see this.

    Reply

  77. @enrique – “HBD embraces its own version of ‘correctness’ just like the two above.”

    please note that hbd is NOT a movement or an ideology or a political stance of any sort. so it can’t “embrace” anything.

    human biodiversity simply is: the diversity found among and between human populations that has a biological basis.

    that’s all.

    Reply

  78. @enrique – “It is southern Europeans who for numerous centuries far surpassed any technological or civilization achievements of northern Europeans. If IQ scores are so determinative, why did ‘the glory that was Greece’ not develop in ultra white Sweden? Why was northern or Eastern Europe a backwater for millennia until comparatively recently in human history?”

    they’re not that determinative. populations have all sorts of genetic combinations — plus, evolution. different evolutionary trajectories or paths.

    @enrique – “Your blog author proffers this laughably simplistic explanation for southern vs northern European IQ:- quote

    “’The decline in IQ in Spain and Italy can be explained by racial differences in the population; the northern parts of both countries contain a more Germanic stock, whereas the southern parts are more Mediterranean in origin.'”

    who said that? where?

    Reply

  79. @enrique – “‘just seems right — but we know that religious belief is highly heritable, so this is probably just my genes talking — my “genes for neuroticism” maybe (i’m such a neurotic’

    “Here’s the thing though- you are misrepresenting heritability.”

    you ignored the word “maybe.” and you left off my winky face. (~_^)

    Reply

  80. But you still have not answered the contradiction. Why is Obama a “Race”- a mixed race entity, but dark, Afro-sporting Spanish-speaking South American soccer players are not a race?

    And you fall into the HBD trap of using obsolete “race” models- like the bogus “Mediterranean Race” model of yore. WHat genetic markers cause intelligence differences between northern Europeans and southern Europeans? Your link says precious little. Sure some alleles can be linked to intelligence and brain functioning, just as some can be linked to things like height. But which ones cause the north-south divide in IQ in Europe, and to what extent? What defines a “Germanic” allele versus a supposedly inferior Italian one in terms of IQ?

    The author from the link you presented says:
    “he decline in IQ in Spain and Italy can be explained by racial differences in the population; the northern parts of both countries contain a more Germanic stock, whereas the southern parts are more Mediterranean in origin.”

    ^^How is it that you as an HBD investigator are unable to explain this frequent tenet of HBD thought- the alleged superiority of those of “Germanic stock” over lesser southern breeds like Italians and Greeks? I am Italian myself and am really curious to know about this HBD scientific “truth.” What “racial” alleles are involved?

    Reply

  81. They necessarily disapprove, but not just because they think HBD’s contentions are factually inaccurate.. They think a priori, HBD is bad science in the sense that even if racial qualities existed, they would be an inappropriate subject for science. Hence anyone who takes an interest in it has got stuck on a triviality to the point of obsession, like focusing on one blade of grass in a rain forest. In doing so HBDers are losing track of the point of the excercise, which is seeming more tuned in to what is important. That’s always funny, like someone with spectacularly bad dress sense. Evolution is adaptation, and the adaptable ones don’t get dogmatic on the genetic facts as a way of deciding if HBD’s assertions are justified. It’s a cultural background too vast to be articulated which is determining their attitude.(and it is a general thing not a judgement as to the particular facts). In other words even if you convinced them that you were right about HBD, that would not change their mind that you are espousing bigotry and fascism.

    Reply

  82. Hi everyone,

    I’ve only recently learned of HBD, and I’d like to know members of the community’s positions on something before further researching the topic.

    Let’s say the structural physiological differences between races lead to the development of, for lack of a better word, targeted vaccines — the flu, for instance.

    What’s to keep the company that holds the patent on the vaccine from charging one targeted demographic more than another according to their corporate interests? Do the benefits of targeted vaccines outweigh the potential for increased regulation — regulation that I can easily see decreasing drug manufacturers’ interest in funding further research into targeted vaccines — lobbied for by interest groups seeking to prevent certain racial groups from paying more than others?

    Thanks in advance for your opinions.

    Reply

  83. @newbie – welcome! in case you’re unaware of it, there already is a “racially targeted” medication out there: BiDil. i didn’t follow closely the controversy that surrounded it when it was first announced, and i have no idea what they’re charging for it or if the controversy has put pharmaceutical companies off further research into such meds (i hope not!).

    i know that didn’t answer your question, but i haven’t got an opinion on your scenario at the moment. i’ll give it some thought!

    Reply

  84. @Enrique Cardova:

    Never heard of you. But you’re in need of a JayMan Smackdown.

    I never heard of you either and your alleged “smackdown” is anything but..

    ————————————————— —————–

    Well, those researchers are flat out wrong:

    As usual with many HDB types, you make sweeping statements of messianic certainty. Yeah, everybody else is wrong and only you have discovered “truth” – not realizing that some of your HBD messiahs have feet of clay. You proffered your link, so here are a few that debunk numerous cherished “HBD” notions, in addition to those refs already given.

    Race and other misadventures: essays in honor of Ashley Montagu… By Larry T. Reynolds, Leonard Lieberman

    http://books.google.com/books?id=5DLrgG_MflgC&pg=PA190&dq=r-+k-+selection+races&cd=1#v=onepage&q=r-%20k-%20selection%20races&f=false
    ——————————–

    Race and intelligence: separating science from myth. By Jefferson M. Fish. Routledge 2002. See Templeton’s detailed article referenced above also inside the book

    http://books.google.com/books?id=t9OdPPLIgMAC&pg=PA64&dq=r-+k-+selection+races&cd=7#v=onepage&q=r-%20k-%20selection%20races&f=false
    ————————

    Race Matters debunked
    http://www.ogiek.org/indepth/what-they-mean.htm
    —————- ——-

    Lynn and Vanhaven’s IQ and The Wealth Of Nations Debunked
    http://mises.org/daily/2677
    —————- ——-

    HBD “selection” and evolution claims debunked- Sarich and Miele’s “Race: the reality of Human Differences”
    http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-02-18/
    —————- ——-

    Harpending and Cochran’s 10,000 year explosion debunked
    http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/03/exploding-nonsense-review-of-cochran_8.html
    ——————————- ——-

    “Racial evolution” debunked
    –S OY Keita, R A Kittles, et al. “Conceptualizing human variation,” Nature Genetics 36, S17 – S20 (2004)

    –S.O.Y. Keita and Rick Kittles. (1997) *The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence. American Anthropologist, 99:3
    —————- ——-

    What caused average IQs to be different in the first place? Evolution. Just as evolution led to the differences we see today, it led to the differences in the past (evolution means that populations change over time).

    ^^lol.. OK, since the specific question involved hbdchck’s posting of European IQs link, and your response is to my specific response, how did “evolution” give those sterling Germanic folk a higher IQ than southern Europeans, like my Italian forbears? Do tell.. What are the different “Evolutionary” pathways between them that led to this outcome? You have a page full of links, do tell.. This I gotta hear..

    So how does a Black HBD’er fit into your equation?

    lol black HBDers are just as full of distortion and simplistic notions as white HBDers.. I will demonstrate that right now, using typical HBD notions.

    Since your blog proudly posts a Jamaican flag and such, let me ask you:

    1) Are higher levels of Jamaican criminality and violence (compared to northern Europeans) due to “evolution?” If so, how? What “evolutionary” pathway did Jamaicans or on a broader plane, blacks, take that gives them lower IQs, and higher violence and criminality? HBD commenters on assorted websites occasionally point to things such as high Jamaican murder rates, and they are right, as far as the statistics go. But how did “evolution” cause this to happen among your people, or among blacks? Did your black people have a lower-level evolutionary pathway, somewhat lesser than those of more refined Caucasoid stock?

    2) HBDers (people like Richard Lynn among them) also like to tout testosterone as one of those important variables that make people like Jamaican blacks more over-sexed, violent and criminal. Does testosterone account for the violence of your black Jamaican people and their less restrained sexual behavior, including relatively high levels of out of wedlock births compared to mo virtuous white people?

    And if the higher testosterone levels of Jamaicans and other blacks is associated with violence, then how come supposedly mo virtuous white “role models” with LOWER testosterone, perpetrated the vicious mass murder of the Holocaust, or the tens of millions murdered in Stalin’s gulags and collectives?

    As a Jamaican or perhaps black HBDer, you should be familiar with such arguments. So how does (a) evolution, and (b) testosterone, make blacks, including Jamaicans, so violent and criminal?

    ————————————– ————-

    When I mix chocolate and vanilla ice cream in my sundae, what flavor is it? Do ice cream flavors then not exist? Is it meaningless to talk about “vanilla” ice cream and “chocolate” ice cream as real categories? Seriously now.

    But you are avoiding the question on hbdchick’s contradictory reasoning. She says Obama is a race mix, but then excludes Hispanics from being a race, even though many are even darker than Michele Obama. The nub of the issue is not that that Obama has a black father and white mother- sure he does- no one is denying that at all. But how do Hispanics get excluded by her? And what about the argument that most people in South America show large amounts, or at least some amount of haplotypes derived from ancient Asiatic migrations to the Americas? Doesn’t that make Hispanics a “race”? And if you add in migrations from Europe and Africa, doesn’t that make Hispanics “mixed race”?

    Let me add:
    Matter of fact, speaking of race mixes, some conservative scholars (Even Sailer touts some of his work) hold that Europeans are not a primary “race” at all, but mixed breed hybrids, one third African, two thirds Asian, a finding that itself deconstructs racial categories. QUOTE:
    “Moreover, a specific evolutionary model tested, i.e., that Europe is formed by contributions from Asia and Africa, fits the distance matrix perfectly.. The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively”.
    –Cavalli-Sforza, LL (1997), “Genes, Peoples and Languages”, PNAS 94 (15): 7719–24,

    Behavioral genetic studies clearly show the importance of genetic variation to trait variation. It doesn’t then follow that we must identify the specific genes involved to know that varying combinations of genes lead to these effect.

    But even if you don’t have to identify the gene the central question still remains, no matter what labels are used. What genetic variation, or trait variation leads to the much touted northern Europeans having higher IQs than southern Europeans like Italians? Neither you, or hbdchick can answer the question yet, nor does the proffered link which merely asserts alleged “decline” and says- quote:

    ””The decline in IQ in Spain and Italy can be explained by racial differences in the population; the northern parts of both countries contain a more Germanic stock, whereas the southern parts are more Mediterranean in origin.”

    What are these mysterious “racial differences” asserted so forcefully by the HBDer as if they were gospel “truth”?

    Reply

  85. Newbie says:
    Let’s say the structural physiological differences between races lead to the development of, for lack of a better word, targeted vaccines — the flu, for instance…

    Actually Bidil is no “racial pil'” as claimed by some HBDers. Credible researches debunk such notions. Yes BiDil has in SOME cases helped those self-identifying as black, but trials ALSO show Bidil has helped whites as well. Let me quote from one credible scientist, Professor Joseph Graves, just to show you how simplistic HBD claims sometimes are: QUOTE:

    “Actually, these results do not indicate that BiDil is a “racial” pill. What we know about the mechanism supports that assertion. Nitric oxide is synthesized by individual cells and this is catalyzed by an enzyme known as endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS). Genetic variation at position G894T in this enzyme influences arterial stiffness (after controlling for sex, age, body mass index, insulin, heart rate, and mean arterial pressure).19 African Americans that had the T allele had less elasticity than those with the G allele. European Americans showed no significant difference between T and G, but the trend was similar. However, they also found that the frequency of T was 0.131 in African Americans v. 0.321 in European Americans, respectively. This of course means, if all other factors were equal, that more “whites” should have less elastic arterioles than “blacks.” If so, BiDil should help whites more than blacks, yet present data do not support this, meaning that other factors must be at play.”
    –Joseph Graves, 2006. What We Know and What We Don’t Know: Human Genetic Variation and the Social Construction of Race
    http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Graves/

    And further from another credible scholar- again debunking simplistic HBD notions..
    J. Kahn (2013) How a Drug Becomes “Ethnic” – Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law and Ethics, v4:1
    http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=yjhple

    Reply

  86. @enrique – “But you are avoiding the question on hbdchick’s contradictory reasoning. She says Obama is a race mix, but then excludes Hispanics from being a race….”

    obama is mixed-race: half white and half black. that should be obvious to anybody — mother was white, father was black. obama is not “a race” — he is mixed-race.

    most hispanics are mixed-race, too. imho, “hispanic” and “latino” are not useful categories, because they both lump all sorts of peoples together. i mean, they’re fine as cultural delineators, but not biological ones. some hispanics are uni-racial (e.g. some native americans in mexico or guatemala who have no admixture with any other group), some are bi-racial, some are probably tri-racial (e.g. some puerto ricans — native american, white, and black ancestry) and even possibly more. eventually, given enough time and enough mixing, “hispanics” might become one race. they’re not there yet.

    you need to calm down, enrique, and NOT misrepresent what i — or anyone else here — thinks. do that too many times, and you will simply not be welcome here anymore.

    Reply

  87. @enrique – “Actually Bidil is no ‘racial pil’’ as claimed by some HBDers.”

    that’s not correct. the original trial of bidil — which they had created with african americans in mind based on previous research — resulted in a fantastic 43% success rate [see here]. it was so fantastic, in fact, that the researchers stopped the trial early in order to give the control patients bidil, too, because they felt it would unethical not to do so (i.e. to deny so many people this terrific medication that would help them so much).

    i don’t want to get all bogged down in a debate about bidil with you, though.

    what i do want to say to you is that you’re really arguing with the wrong hbd-er here. I’M NOT REALLY THAT INTERESTED IN RACIAL QUESTIONS. sure, it’s interesting, but afaiac, racial questions are just ONE element of human biodiversity, and it’s just not the one that interests me the most. there’re also the differences between the sexes, and that doesn’t interest me much, either. and there are the differences in intelligence — again, not really for me. what i AM interested in is any human biodiversity between ethnic groups. so, don’t be so hung up on race. i’m not. race is just one way to divy up humans into sub-populations, but there are many other biological sub-groupings of humans, too.

    my point just is, when it comes to issues of health/medicine and race (or any sub-population), i’m with the paleoanthropologist/geneticist john hawks. here’s what he said about the bidil controversy:

    “Why should the drug work in blacks but not in other groups? The short answer to this question is that we don’t know that it does. The drug apparently doesn’t result in health improvement when applied to large random samples of white Americans, but that doesn’t mean that many would not benefit from the treatment. Nor does it mean that people of other backgrounds might not benefit. And conversely, it is not clear that every African-American will be best served by the medication: after all, the population of African-Americans includes people with a wide range of ancestries, some with a relatively high proportion of genes with other origins.

    “I like the way this researcher puts the problem in the Time article:

    ‘Race is a placeholder for something else,’ says Dr. Clyde Yancy, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and a BiDil investigator. ‘And that’s probably a mix of biomarkers, demographics and genes….’

    “Race is a miserable substitute for the knowledge of alleles and genotypes in a study like this one. Compared to other populations in the world, Africans are more genetically variable, which means predicting effects for a drug for the entire population based on the average of study subjects is probably a mistake. The problem is worse when applied to African-Americans, which share much of the genetic diversity of Africans, but also include a relatively high proportion of alleles that are common in Europeans — a proportion that varies greatly from individual to individual….

    On the other hand, testing drugs based on information about racial groups is a step forward from not knowing anything about individual ancestries. I’m reminded of an episode of MAS*H where Klinger was acting sick and nobody believed him. Not until another soldier started having the same symptoms did Hawkeye and B.J. make the connection that complications of a drug administered to the whole camp, expected among people of Jewish descent, might also apply to Lebanese. Ancestry is an important part of understanding what has gone wrong when someone is sick, and the more doctors use it, the better.

    if bidil happens to work better for african americans than other groups, isn’t that just great?! isn’t it FANTASTIC to be able to make people well?! if it turns out that bidil works even better on whites, well…GREAT! then it can be marketed as a miracle drug for whites and, once again, the scientists will be able to make people well! i don’t care either way, so long as we can use knowledge of biology to help people.

    Reply

  88. hbdchick says:
    most hispanics are mixed-race, too. imho,

    I am just trying to clarify here:

    You earlier said- quote:

    ““hispanic” as a racial category is just nonsense.”

    Does not the existence of a mixed race imply that their mixture still represents a racial category? This is what many HBDers hold in saying Hispanics are indeed a race. You seem to be not following the standard HBD party line here.

    You seem to be saying that groups that are “mixed” from different races, cannot be a separate race. Is that correct? You said some can be uni-racial, some bi-racial and some-tri racial but not a separate race. So mixed people belong to no race. Am I correct that this is your position?

    (a) If so, what is the threshold that makes someone a “pure” race as opposed to a non-race that is mixed? Does the Obama 50-50 mix meet the non-race mix treshhold? Does a 60-40 mix tip the scales towards a true racial classification? At what point does one become a “pure” race?

    (b) ANd if mixed people belong to no race, would you say that EUropeans are not a race? Cavalli-Sforza 1997 ref above, says EUropeans are hybrids, one third African, two-thirds Asian. According to your definition, hybrids cannot be a separate race. Does your definition then exclude Europeans as a separate race?

    Just seekin clarification here of the racial schema. I am not going to jump down on the answers. Can you take a shot at clarifying a and b above? (a) WHat is your pure race threshhold? and (b) SInce Europeans have a mix of genetic material from non-Europeans, are they truly a pure race?

    t. the original trial of bidil — which they had created with african americans in mind based on previous research — resulted in a fantastic 43% success rate ..

    I am not too much myself into any BiDIl controversy but I do not see many of the sweeping “racial reality” claims put forward by HBDers based on BiDil. BiDil was not created with African Americans in mind per se as the detailed article I linked to above shows. The creator company TOUTED Bidil as such as a marketing tool, particularly to African-American consumers. BlDil helps alleviate heart failures, true, and African Americans have a higher rate of heart failures. As such, BiDil can be beneficial. But it does not automatically follow that BiDil was specially CREATED FOR African-Americans. It can be marketed as such, but marketing and reality are 2 different things. BiDil applies to ANY sub-population with a high incidence of heart disease, including whites who may have such incidences passed down through the family.

    Nor does it prove the validity of biological race. As Prof Graves referenced above shows, BiDil may work for AA patients with greater oxidative damage in their cells due to chronic stress- an environmental factor. It is by no means clear that simply ethnic background explain most of the case- although many HBDers in typical fashion, charge ahead with messanic claims of having discovered “the truth.” There’s more to the situation than one-dimensional explanations. Whites with the same dire heart conditions sparked by things like chronic stress or some other factor in the mix, also benefit from BiDil.

    Reply

  89. Wow. All those chromicsomas, alleles, and like. Simple answer to all of this: if no one expects any two people on the planet to have the same fingerprint, why in the hell would they expect any two people to behave identically? Isn’t the brain structure a wee bit more complicated that the physical characteristics of a fingerprint?

    OMGoodness then let’s throw in a little ‘environment’.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s