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.
Individuals differ *a lot* within every group, and while group differences exist when you look at averages, human groups overwhelmingly overlap on virtually every measure (even albedo!). Only the means differ, and then slightly. Even the standard deviations are nearly identical.
Every group has it's share of idiots and geniuses. It's just that some have more than others.
Which may be important for public policy (if you expect all groups to have identical average characteristics and they don't, you're bound for a bad place), but that's irrelevant for individuals, because group differences are infinitesimal compared to individual differences.
You do have agency, as do we all. Just by posting here you've already proved yourself an outlier in some ways. Like most people, you're probably an outlier in many other specific ways, while being average in other ways.
Don't get yourself worked up over statistics that say nothing about *you*.
You are probably going to have to get used to the idea that determinism is true since it clearly is and just decide if the things you need to believe depend on it not being true. People can't be the cause of themselves. Your choices all come from somewhere. Not being able to discern what makes you think and act doesn't mean nothing makes you think and act. All of this IQ stuff is just group data and only useful if looking at groups. Not useful looking at individuals.
IQ being meaningful doesn't mean you have no agency or hard work doesn't matter, even if it does give you an edge. It's like sports. Genetics plays a part, but the result isn't predetermined.
Also, there are thousands of high-paying careers available in the West, not all of which require you to be a genius. I know many people who are less smart and more successful than I am, and I'm sure you do too.
You need to understand how differently-centered standard distributions overlap. Look as well into the differences in both total and relative population numbers of overlapping left- and right-hand "tails" at, say, +2 s.d. and beyond.
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.
I find it fascinating how the heredity-denying left is able to so fully embrace the idea that black-white and indigenous-white achievement gaps simply must be due to systems of privilege and oppression, while totally ignoring the implications this has for the gentile-Jewish and white-Asian achievement gaps. If they had any need at all for intellectual consistency, this would take them to some very dark places.
There are many that do. You can find a lot of them at those "pro-Palestinean" rallies that just magically felt the need to start celebrating the gangrape of women by terrorists fighting for a jihadist revolutionary republic that axiomatically refuses to recognize the legitimacy of nation states as an act of "anti-colonial" resistance. There's no genocide against overperforming groups people like this won't end up supporting.
These idiots will be the death of human civilization as a worthy contribution to the Universe. We'd be better off going extinct.
“My view is that even smart and well meaning liberals have a deep emotional need to deny truths about group differences, and there is little that can be done about this. I've been in academia most of my adult life, and I see the fear in their eyes when you bring up inconvenient facts. It's not just the fear of being cancelled, I'm talking about one-on-one conversation where it's just me and there's no incentive to lie, and you can see the physiological transformation. I wouldn't be surprised if in considering crime statistics, etc many of them feel discomfort or pain similar to what they would feel if a close relative went to the hospital.”
You and the libertarian philosopher Jan Lester basically agree that being woke is an “overcorrection” (Lester) to previous racial injustice and/or excessive caring (you). But your quote above suggests something more. It’s like a form of love that has evolved to stalking. Many liberals are simply emotionally incontinent. However, there are plenty of wealthy woke liberals who don’t seem to care much about numinous blacks as far as wealth redistribution; for them, wokeism seems to be mainly about virtue signaling and luxury beliefs (unless their child is gay or trans).
I thought you were funny in the comedy interview. It would be cool if you practiced stand-up (like Bryan Caplan) but got a Netflix special. You said you don’t like dwelling on the same subjects. Perhaps a change of medium would be good too 🤷🏼♀️
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.
Individuals differ *a lot* within every group, and while group differences exist when you look at averages, human groups overwhelmingly overlap on virtually every measure (even albedo!). Only the means differ, and then slightly. Even the standard deviations are nearly identical.
Every group has it's share of idiots and geniuses. It's just that some have more than others.
Which may be important for public policy (if you expect all groups to have identical average characteristics and they don't, you're bound for a bad place), but that's irrelevant for individuals, because group differences are infinitesimal compared to individual differences.
You do have agency, as do we all. Just by posting here you've already proved yourself an outlier in some ways. Like most people, you're probably an outlier in many other specific ways, while being average in other ways.
Don't get yourself worked up over statistics that say nothing about *you*.
You are probably going to have to get used to the idea that determinism is true since it clearly is and just decide if the things you need to believe depend on it not being true. People can't be the cause of themselves. Your choices all come from somewhere. Not being able to discern what makes you think and act doesn't mean nothing makes you think and act. All of this IQ stuff is just group data and only useful if looking at groups. Not useful looking at individuals.
IQ being meaningful doesn't mean you have no agency or hard work doesn't matter, even if it does give you an edge. It's like sports. Genetics plays a part, but the result isn't predetermined.
Also, there are thousands of high-paying careers available in the West, not all of which require you to be a genius. I know many people who are less smart and more successful than I am, and I'm sure you do too.
You need to understand how differently-centered standard distributions overlap. Look as well into the differences in both total and relative population numbers of overlapping left- and right-hand "tails" at, say, +2 s.d. and beyond.
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.
I find it fascinating how the heredity-denying left is able to so fully embrace the idea that black-white and indigenous-white achievement gaps simply must be due to systems of privilege and oppression, while totally ignoring the implications this has for the gentile-Jewish and white-Asian achievement gaps. If they had any need at all for intellectual consistency, this would take them to some very dark places.
There are many that do. You can find a lot of them at those "pro-Palestinean" rallies that just magically felt the need to start celebrating the gangrape of women by terrorists fighting for a jihadist revolutionary republic that axiomatically refuses to recognize the legitimacy of nation states as an act of "anti-colonial" resistance. There's no genocide against overperforming groups people like this won't end up supporting.
These idiots will be the death of human civilization as a worthy contribution to the Universe. We'd be better off going extinct.
“My view is that even smart and well meaning liberals have a deep emotional need to deny truths about group differences, and there is little that can be done about this. I've been in academia most of my adult life, and I see the fear in their eyes when you bring up inconvenient facts. It's not just the fear of being cancelled, I'm talking about one-on-one conversation where it's just me and there's no incentive to lie, and you can see the physiological transformation. I wouldn't be surprised if in considering crime statistics, etc many of them feel discomfort or pain similar to what they would feel if a close relative went to the hospital.”
You and the libertarian philosopher Jan Lester basically agree that being woke is an “overcorrection” (Lester) to previous racial injustice and/or excessive caring (you). But your quote above suggests something more. It’s like a form of love that has evolved to stalking. Many liberals are simply emotionally incontinent. However, there are plenty of wealthy woke liberals who don’t seem to care much about numinous blacks as far as wealth redistribution; for them, wokeism seems to be mainly about virtue signaling and luxury beliefs (unless their child is gay or trans).
Adam Carolla interviewing Gavin Newsom on youtube is fun to listen to too.
Dennis Prager show can be listened to here:
https://youtu.be/ihjAc5lOelk?si=Q2_f47JXflAqeSez&t=3223
I thought you were funny in the comedy interview. It would be cool if you practiced stand-up (like Bryan Caplan) but got a Netflix special. You said you don’t like dwelling on the same subjects. Perhaps a change of medium would be good too 🤷🏼♀️