race & iq debate – cui bono?

so apparently there’s another discussion about race and iq out there in the blogosphere. i’ve only been following it out of the corner of my eye really — via steve sailer‘s posts and some others (dennis, the one).

but it’s something that roissy said that made me realize (again) that folks just ain’t asking the right question about all this (politically correct thinking). what needs to be asked is cui bono?

first, what roissy said:

“But egalitarians and the SWPL industrial complex know that these softening words cannot contain the horrible, unrelenting, monstrous truth that stalks every cooing syllable. IQ is FUCKING HUGELY IMPORTANT to your chance to live a happy, successful life filled with wonder and glee and gadgets and crime-free neighborhoods in a modern, technofantastical, information-highwayed, cognitively stratifying first world Western nation.

“The enemies of truth know this, and that is why they tirelessly work to shut down any talk about it, and to smear and slander and shun those who would deign to lift the veil of lies for a peek underneath.”

yes … but, emphatically, NO!

the human-all-too-human drives of greed and desire for status symbols (ipads, etc.) did NOT just pop up out of thin air. they have been selected for via natural selection. evolution by natural selection is the name of the game, and we humans are part of it whether we like it or not.

greed and cravings for status and aaaall the other human foibles you can think of are here today in our world because certain individuals in the past (our ancestors) possessed those traits and successfully left descendants behind (you and me). greed and cravings for status, etc., etc., worked in the past to enable some people to pass on their genes. any individuals who didn’t have those winning traits (or who accidentally got hit by a train) didn’t leave any (or enough) descendants behind, so there are a LOT of people out there who are greedy, shallow, etc., etc.

people today are not politically correct just because they want to live a life “filled with wonder and glee and gadgets” — they only want those things because they are driven to reproduce their genes successfully. anyone who isn’t — well, those genes just won’t be around in the coming generations.

in “Narrow Roads of Gene Land, Vol. 1”, william hamilton wrote about how he was part of a series of discussions on population control (it was the 1960s, you see), and he was struck by the strong emotions that came out during the discussions amongst otherwise rational academics (at lse), and at the very strong reactions against his ideas of human altruism and genetics. here’s what he concluded — and with a little editing, you could say exactly the same thing about the race & iq debate — or, indeed, any other politcally correct debate — today [pgs. xxxiii-xxxiv, my emphases]:

“As I listened in silence I drew one general conclusion: for us to be so passionate about a topic we must be close indeed here to that centre of my actual and hoped-for expertise — biological fitness. It must be because of such a proximity to the deepest evolved roots of our psyche that no one seemed able to address the subjects of reproduction and population in a dispassionate way (I could tell from my own feelings as I listened to some of the points that ready-made passions and lack of objectivity were present in myself). Well, wasn’t this all just as I should expect; wasn’t it indeed a topic in which I should expect our deepest urges to be concealed almost from our very selves only in order that, in our everyday commerce with others, we would avoid being forced to expose ultimate objectives in ‘everyday’ discussion — not expose, that is, personal, family, class, or racial ultimate biases, rather to put on view an agreeable and softened version, a general hypocrisy, something to the effect that it doesn’t matter who reproduces, that we treat all people and groups with equal favor? That we all hold, whatever our specific denomination, a pan-religious view to the effect that ‘all men are brothers’ when actually we know very well, deep down, it isn’t true?”

uh huh.

so, who benefits biologically from this idea that the races are equally endowed when it comes to smarts?

the most obvious groups here in the u.s. are blacks and other minorities. if the reason you do poorly in society has nothing to do with how smart you aren’t — ’cause everyone is just as smart as everyone else — then it must be because The Man is keeping you down. waaaaycism. or something like that. (note that i do not discount the obvious fact that blacks were, in the past, and even to some extent today, discriminated against. but that is simply not the whole story.) then you need, and get, affirmative action programs and/or lots o’ welfare, which is obviously a plus in helping you to reproduce (which is what it’s all about — biological fitness). pretty much the same argument can be made for women.

so blacks and other minorities have very good reasons to support pc thinking.

less obvious is how politically correct thinking benefits people at the top of the iq totem pole — whites and asians.

well one benefit is simply that you get society’s permission to rip off not-so-smart folks. instead of society protecting lower iq people — maybe have some laws against subprime mortgages — it lets the sharks go after them. steve sailer wrote about this here. this is a win-win situation for many whites/asians: they get to financially gain by scamming lower iq minorities, therefore likely increasing their own personal fitness (again, what it’s all about), AND at the same time they get to decrease the fitness of some of their competition — some low-iq minority folks.

the shark behavior can be more subtle though — those from higher-iq groups don’t have to directly financially rip off those from lower-iq groups. they can just set them up to FAIL.

take whiskey’s favorite group — white women. actually, take a sub-group of them — the nice white ladies steve sailer talks about who teach nams and generally run the education system. what do they get out of claiming that all groups of people are just as smart as one another (even though they’re the ones who are probably most exposed to the glaringly obvious completely opposite truth)? what’s their payoff? well, every five or ten years or so they get another grand federal program to make all kids everywhere above average. they get jobs — money — moolah. wealth which can go towards their own personal fitness — i.e. raising a family.

at the same time, they are also shafting the competition (nams) because no one bothers to find a real solution to lower-iq blacks’ problems, like maybe we shouldn’t insist that they learn advanced algebra in high school which just makes them drop out and not even get a high-school diploma. or like maybe we shouldn’t import more mexicans/guatemalans to directly compete with blacks for jobs. those nice, white pc schoolteacher ladies? sharks.

and, of course, there are the whites vs. whites in the pc, moral status games (as steve sailer has described it, but gosh-durnit i can’t find a link right now). there’s all of the swpl peoples poopooing the lowbrow beliefs of those who don’t buy into all of the pc cr*p (not many of us like that nowadays) — poopooing from their nearly all-white enclaves like portland or their gated-communities.

but they’re not just winning in the moral status game against their “fellow” whites — they’re also economically shafting their “fellow,” mostly working class whites who are now almost completely ignored by both the democrats and republicans. think of how white firemen are treated nowadays — or how ALL of us have had to bailout financial institutions (partly) because some great white sharks ridiculously gave loans to nams. they managed to screw BOTH nams AND their “fellow” whites. impressive.

how can whites be so heartless to other whites? well, we’ve been in competition with each other for such a long time that we’re just in the habit of thinking of other whites as the competition. plus we’ve outbred for so long that we’ve prolly watered down the type(s) and amount(s) of altruism genes in our population. our genetic ties are so loose that, on many levels — the levels that count — we just don’t care so much about our “fellow” whites. not enough anyway.

there are a lot of vested interests out there keeping thoughts of human biodiversity at bay — the most important vested interests there are — those related to increasing biological fitness. those are tough drives to beat — possibly impossible. to be honest, my hopes for an hbd-realistic world are not lookin’ too bright….
_____

(i know some of you are going to object and say: “but hbdchick! white folks are only having 1.2 kids per couple, so none of this can having anything to do with reproducing!” answer: white folks have a long history of having not-so-many kids. i think we’re more k-selectionist than many other populations; and these reproductive behaviors have, no doubt, been selected for. this is, of course, a problem when we share territories with other peoples who have more kids, although many of their birth rates are now dropping, too. just ’cause we have few kids, though, doesn’t mean that belief in the pc ideology doesn’t have anything to do with reproduction. it has EVERYTHING to do with reproduction.)

(note: comments do not require an email. iq matters.)

Advertisements

politically correct “cops”

i was going to post benjamin shapiro’s “cops” video from his “primetime propaganda” series, but dennis already has, so just head on over there (if you haven’t seen it already).

i love ben’s statement on the video: “Being statistically accurate is not a stereotype.”

d*mn straight!

i think i’m likin’ ben.

see also the hollywood reporter. (now there’s a sentence i never thought i’d type!)

(note: comments do not require an email. or a permission slip.)

psychobabble

wtf is this guy talking about?:

“Why genes are leftwing”

“When the map of the human genome was presented to the world in 2001, psychiatrists had high hopes for it. Itemising all our genes would surely provide molecular evidence that the main cause of mental illness was genetic – something psychiatrists had long believed. Drug companies were wetting their lips at the prospect of massive profits from unique potions for every idiosyncrasy.

“But a decade later, unnoticed by the media, the human genome project has not delivered what the psychiatrists hoped: we now know that genes play little part in why one sibling, social class or ethnic group is more likely to suffer mental health problems than another….

“…Genes hardly explained at all why some children have ADHD and not others.

“That was illustrated recently in a heavily publicised study by Anita Thapar, of Cardiff University. Although she claimed to have proved that ADHD is a “genetic disease”, if anything, she proved the opposite. Only 16% of the children with ADHD in her study had the pattern of genes that she claimed causes the illness. Taken at face value, her study proved that non-genetic factors cause it in 8 out of 10 children….”

james is (was?) a clinical child psychologist so he oughta know that adhd is NOT one thing. so, why would he presume that, if there is something genetic to these conditionsss, that it would be just ONE gene or ONE pattern of genes involved??

just because there’s not one single gene or one pattern of genes causing adhd doesn’t mean genes are not involved. and, just ’cause genes are involved does not mean that the environment is not!

nature AND nuture, already! duh.

lame, mr. james. very lame. (guess we wouldn’t want book sales to drop, would we?)

not hbd chick

(note: comments do not require an email.)

word ii

“Except in God-given and constitutional rights, we are not equal. We are all unequal. The utopian promise of equality is but the banner of every power-hungry politician in modern history. And the rise of the egalitarian society means the death of the free society.”

(…except for the god-given part, but who am i to quibble?)

(note: comments do not require an email)

the unbearable unfunniness of political correctness

via gates of vienna, some guy in the uk milked the cash-cow of political correctness (to the tune of thousands of dollars, apparently) by whining like a little girl complaining that his (*sniff*) feelings were all hurt when someone told a politically incorrect joke about his (the whiner’s) ethnic group during some presentation or other.

and THEN, when a journalist at “the spectator” made fun of the whole sitch (as one would do, natch) … well, the sh*t rained down on HIS head, too! read all about it here:

“Why can’t anyone take a joke anymore?”

good question.

my own ethnic background (a european group) has been the butt of what are now considered politically incorrect jokes for decades … h*ll, probably for centuries. i’m just old enough to remember when ethnic jokes were actually told (“mommy, did people reeeally used to tell jokes about different peoples?” “yes, little timmy, and they were d*mn funny, too!”) and i was never offended by any of the ones i heard about my own group. h*ck, a lot of them were actually funny, and most of them characterized my people very well! and i can’t recall anyone else i knew in my group being offended by them, either.

nor have i ever been offended by jokes about women, come to think of it. (well, i am offended by vulgar, tasteless jokes of all sorts … but not because they have to do with an ethnic group or women or whatever).

what’s wrong with people nowadays? (is it something in the water?) lighten up folks!

anyway, here’s something to cleanse your mental palate – a clip from a 1970s british show called “mind your language” about a bunch of foreigners in an english language class. it wasn’t the funniest british sitcom ever, but some of the stereotypes were great: the german au pair and japanese man from the electronics company always arguing about who is more efficient, germans or the japanese; the greek and the italian men always fighting over the french girl (who is a floozie); the pakistani (“infidel!”) and the sikh (“jack*ss!”) always at each others’ throats; the chinese girl always quoting chairman mao. ;-) Ah. The good old days…

oh. and a bonus! one of my all-time favorites. “mexican-americans don’t like to get up early in the morning so they do it real sloooow….” :-D

update 09/26: “Sense of humour failure: Council slaps ban on mother-in-law jokes for being ‘offensively sexist'” & “Muslims demand apology for New Zealand minister’s joke” (via gov where u can read those jokes for urself)

(note: comments do not require an email)