Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Alistair Penbroke's avatar

I don't think it's just woke liberals who feel discomfort when thinking about group differences. I'm an anti-woke libertarian and also feel discomfort at the idea. I worry that one day I'll become woke as a result.

This is because it removes agency. I have a burning deep seated belief that my successes and failures in life are down to my own decisions, thought and ultimately free will. When things have gone well for me, I usually feel like I deserved them, and when things didn't, I usually feel like it's because I messed up in some way. (Exception: when woke people have attacked me for not being woke, then sometimes things work out badly but it's undeserved).

Still. Overall, I feel agency.

The narrative around genetics and group differences seems like it takes that away. It says no, you did well in life because of IQ and that's meaningfully genetic so it's really just luck of the draw. Yet we see counter-examples all the time of dramatic changes and self improvement (or destruction), as Richard attests to here about his own life, so how can that be?

Concretely, I do believe men and women are fundamentally different, or at least start in a very different place, because the differences are blindingly obvious. We look different, and we act different. For race it seems far less obvious and far more related to culture. That is, I might grudgingly accept accusations of having "sexist" views albeit relatively normal ones (women are more emotional, more caring, etc), but I would not accept claims of having racist views, because I'd say intelligence is actually more/all about culture and upbringing than race. The apparent ease with which black men rise to high station in places like America or Britain when they are culturally indistinguishable from whites is evidence for this.

So the IQ/genetics argument is highly uncomfortable. I'm familiar with the data and arguments advanced about Ashkenazi Jews being super-intelligent and the like, but I still don't feel comfort with where that goes and it seems enough of an edge case to be ignorable.

Expand full comment
Henry Rodger Beck's avatar

While I do understand feeling you don't need to cite something as obvious as the IQ gap in your sources, I really do think you should've anyway, because there's both enough people out there whom believe it doesn't exist at all -- or whom believe that even though it does exist, it's caused by non-genetic factors like pollution or poverty or whatever else can be blamed other than genetics -- that you can't just rely on it being axiomatic.

The fucked up thing is that even though the primary motivation for protesting that the IQ gap has a genetic component, the refusal to accept this could be possible invariably leads to the embrace of racism against any cognitively overperforming group, especially when the overperformers are outnumbered. People don't just accept that any group attains disproportionate success for no reason. They always want an explanation, and if you can't tell them the truth (i.e., they were born that way), they start believing in dolchstossesque conspiracies about the group conspiring against them at every turn, in ways so subtle as to be almost impossible to detect, and that any means necessary must be used to stomp out this devilry.

Amy Chua details this in her first book, World on Fire. I recommend it to anybody who has any doubts that the embrace of Kendi'ism leads to anywhere but the gas chamber.

Expand full comment
10 more comments...

No posts