I think most normies would find hereditarianism more palatable if they understood that the bell curves overlap. In other words the argument is not "all whites are smarter than all blacks" - and therefore the argument cannot be used to judge an entire race of people. Millions of blacks are smarter than millions of whites or Asians. If anything, the policy implication is to reject the disparate-impact reasoning that assumes equal group outcomes should be the default expectation, while remaining committed to equal treatment at the individual level
Awareness of distributional differences warrants unequal treatment of strangers, if no worse than what everyone already does instinctively. As Jesse Jackson put it, "There is nothing more painful to me... than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."
That is really only true when you have literally no other information about someone, and even in that case it is a very unreliable indicator (given how large the overlap is). As an illustration if two populations have a difference in mean IQ of 10 points, with a 15 pt SD, in 32% of random pairings the person from the lower mean group would have a higher IQ.
From a strictly Bayesian perspective sure you can use race to update your priors when you have no other information, but that is a far cry from how most people read the theory (or how bigots often try to use it!)
I think the ever-increasing scientific evidence of biological differences between both individuals and groups over the last 60 years is a key reason for the Woke hysteria of the last 12 years. The Left simply has no logical or scientific argument to fall back on, so they try to shame others from telling the truth.
Unfortunately, it has worked so far, but the increasing importance of biomedical research will ultimately overcome their nonsensical ideology.
The whole concept of “stereotypes” (a relatively recent coinage) is pretty much junk. It functions mostly to stigmatize the use of generalizations with respect to population groups. But generalizations are a useful intellectual tool in any realm, if you know what purpose they do and don't serve.
I don't think race realism entails unlimited Indians. We have genetic interests a la Frank Salter. Preferring your own group over high IQ outsiders is not irrational bias; it's what the whole evolutionary game is about.
Preferring your own extended family is evolutionarily rational; preferring everyone who resembles you in certain parts of their physical appearance is less so.
You're the statistician, not me, but it seems you're going WAY beyond what the Reich research established. To the layman (at least this one), the only relevance this has to "HBD" is that it demonstrates that evolution can happen a lot faster than we thought. It doesn't show us what the selection pressures were, much less that such pressures weren't also occuring in sub-saharan Africa. I'm a big fan, but this really makes me sad.
Reich was pretty clear that his research tells him Western Europeans got a lot smarter in the last 3000 years. But it has nothing to say about RELATIVE intelligence. He doesn’t have the data (at least not yet) to see what happened to the IQs of people in other parts of the world.
If I remember correctly he said it was likely the same increase happened everywhere in the world.
I think Hanania is arguing that Europeans and Africans were likely the same IQ 3000 years ago but that Europeans got a lot smarter than Africans in the last 3000 years?
But Reich doesn’t say anything about the relative IQ of the two groups were 3000 years ago or what happens to the IQ of Africans in the last 3000 years.
I think "humans will never accept racial differences in intelligence, regardless of what evidence or data comes forward" is too strong. Americans & Europeans will not accept the idea in the near- to medium-term future, because racial equality has become a sacred value supported by the sacred memory of the Holocaust in Europe & slavery/segregation in the US. (I use 'sacred' here in Durkheim's sense, to mean that these things must not, in many people's view, be profaned by contact with, e.g., counterarguments or mockery.) But this need not be permanent: sacred stories often lose their sacrality over time & thus become acceptable to criticize. For a few US examples: the settling of the West is no longer seen as unambiguously heroic, but rather is commonly criticized for its effects on the Indians & the environment; orderly direct democracy was once fundamental to the idea of American 'liberty', but as it died out (see https://scholars-stage.org/pining-for-democracy-a-few-readings/ ) that has been forgotten, allowing criticism of, e.g., Andrew Jackson to become conventional. Nor is a belief in the equality of abilities of racial groups necessary to the political systems of America & Europe, even assuming no radical revolution: at the beginning of the 20th century, America outside the South & much of Europe were governed under theoretically-egalitarian (as regards political rights) liberalism while most people believed in white superiority & saw no contradiction therein.
(Nor was there a contradiction, as can be seen in one of Lincoln's senate-campaign speeches where he reconciles the two ideas: "I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man." From https://mason.gmu.edu/~zschrag/hist120spring05/lincoln_ottawa.htm )
Have you read Jared Taylor's essay "David Reich - reluctant scientist" ? Reich is doing great work, but is he gatekeeping or genuinely concerned about his status in academia? It's hard to tell
In the Simpsons episode "Lisa the Skeptic", Gould guest stars as a version of himself who lies about performing a test on an angel's skeleton to protect the faith of the townspeople. I've not seen anyone anywhere comment on how amusingly fitting this is for him.
Amy Chua wrote a book called The Triple Threat about Indians, Asians, and Jews. The gist of it is that these three different populations all believe in education, marriage, hard work, and their own exceptionalism. By those standards, I think we can make a case for culture having at least as much influence as genetics.
Most immigrants to the US, at least historically, have believed in education, marriage, & hard work, yet their success, & even more so the success of their descendants, is far from equal. Such cultural traits are important, but for long-term demographic success they must be passed down consistently over generations, & I'm not sure if that's true of any of the groups you mention other than Orthodox Jews.
I wonder if David Reich has a duty to be Straussian about these sort of things, not just to protect himself but also because I'm not sure if the masses are able to process "there are group-average genetic differences in IQ and behavior but that does not mean we should reinstate racial segregation."
I think most normies would find hereditarianism more palatable if they understood that the bell curves overlap. In other words the argument is not "all whites are smarter than all blacks" - and therefore the argument cannot be used to judge an entire race of people. Millions of blacks are smarter than millions of whites or Asians. If anything, the policy implication is to reject the disparate-impact reasoning that assumes equal group outcomes should be the default expectation, while remaining committed to equal treatment at the individual level
Awareness of distributional differences warrants unequal treatment of strangers, if no worse than what everyone already does instinctively. As Jesse Jackson put it, "There is nothing more painful to me... than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."
That is really only true when you have literally no other information about someone, and even in that case it is a very unreliable indicator (given how large the overlap is). As an illustration if two populations have a difference in mean IQ of 10 points, with a 15 pt SD, in 32% of random pairings the person from the lower mean group would have a higher IQ.
From a strictly Bayesian perspective sure you can use race to update your priors when you have no other information, but that is a far cry from how most people read the theory (or how bigots often try to use it!)
I think the ever-increasing scientific evidence of biological differences between both individuals and groups over the last 60 years is a key reason for the Woke hysteria of the last 12 years. The Left simply has no logical or scientific argument to fall back on, so they try to shame others from telling the truth.
Unfortunately, it has worked so far, but the increasing importance of biomedical research will ultimately overcome their nonsensical ideology.
The whole concept of “stereotypes” (a relatively recent coinage) is pretty much junk. It functions mostly to stigmatize the use of generalizations with respect to population groups. But generalizations are a useful intellectual tool in any realm, if you know what purpose they do and don't serve.
Former racist nonscientist blathers about what scientists "know but wont say" but doesn't reach out to any scientists for feedback. Well done.
I don't think race realism entails unlimited Indians. We have genetic interests a la Frank Salter. Preferring your own group over high IQ outsiders is not irrational bias; it's what the whole evolutionary game is about.
Evolution can't give us an irrational bias?
Preferring your own extended family is evolutionarily rational; preferring everyone who resembles you in certain parts of their physical appearance is less so.
Oh, it's quantifiable, baby 😎 free .pdf of the book comes up on Google
Kept this one in the drafts folder until Kak left the New Releases lists, eh?
You're the statistician, not me, but it seems you're going WAY beyond what the Reich research established. To the layman (at least this one), the only relevance this has to "HBD" is that it demonstrates that evolution can happen a lot faster than we thought. It doesn't show us what the selection pressures were, much less that such pressures weren't also occuring in sub-saharan Africa. I'm a big fan, but this really makes me sad.
Came here to say almost exactly this.
Reich was pretty clear that his research tells him Western Europeans got a lot smarter in the last 3000 years. But it has nothing to say about RELATIVE intelligence. He doesn’t have the data (at least not yet) to see what happened to the IQs of people in other parts of the world.
If I remember correctly he said it was likely the same increase happened everywhere in the world.
I think Hanania is arguing that Europeans and Africans were likely the same IQ 3000 years ago but that Europeans got a lot smarter than Africans in the last 3000 years?
But Reich doesn’t say anything about the relative IQ of the two groups were 3000 years ago or what happens to the IQ of Africans in the last 3000 years.
At least that was my understanding.
I’m not sure if Hanania actually read the paper he’s talking about.
It's an uncomfortable truth that will never be accepted, especially by left-of-center people whose main value is egalitarianism.
I think "humans will never accept racial differences in intelligence, regardless of what evidence or data comes forward" is too strong. Americans & Europeans will not accept the idea in the near- to medium-term future, because racial equality has become a sacred value supported by the sacred memory of the Holocaust in Europe & slavery/segregation in the US. (I use 'sacred' here in Durkheim's sense, to mean that these things must not, in many people's view, be profaned by contact with, e.g., counterarguments or mockery.) But this need not be permanent: sacred stories often lose their sacrality over time & thus become acceptable to criticize. For a few US examples: the settling of the West is no longer seen as unambiguously heroic, but rather is commonly criticized for its effects on the Indians & the environment; orderly direct democracy was once fundamental to the idea of American 'liberty', but as it died out (see https://scholars-stage.org/pining-for-democracy-a-few-readings/ ) that has been forgotten, allowing criticism of, e.g., Andrew Jackson to become conventional. Nor is a belief in the equality of abilities of racial groups necessary to the political systems of America & Europe, even assuming no radical revolution: at the beginning of the 20th century, America outside the South & much of Europe were governed under theoretically-egalitarian (as regards political rights) liberalism while most people believed in white superiority & saw no contradiction therein.
(Nor was there a contradiction, as can be seen in one of Lincoln's senate-campaign speeches where he reconciles the two ideas: "I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man." From https://mason.gmu.edu/~zschrag/hist120spring05/lincoln_ottawa.htm )
Race averages may differ, but that's utterly unimportant for dealing with individuals. We don't hire or marry races. So...who cares?
Just treat each person as a unique individual and not as a member of a group. Problem solved.
Have you read Jared Taylor's essay "David Reich - reluctant scientist" ? Reich is doing great work, but is he gatekeeping or genuinely concerned about his status in academia? It's hard to tell
In the Simpsons episode "Lisa the Skeptic", Gould guest stars as a version of himself who lies about performing a test on an angel's skeleton to protect the faith of the townspeople. I've not seen anyone anywhere comment on how amusingly fitting this is for him.
Oh, it's quantifiable, baby 😎
Amy Chua wrote a book called The Triple Threat about Indians, Asians, and Jews. The gist of it is that these three different populations all believe in education, marriage, hard work, and their own exceptionalism. By those standards, I think we can make a case for culture having at least as much influence as genetics.
Influence on what?
If you mean influence on intelligence, then No. None of what you listed changes intelligence.
If you mean influence on life success, then Yes. All the above clearly matter, especially when combined with intelligence and conscientiousness.
Most immigrants to the US, at least historically, have believed in education, marriage, & hard work, yet their success, & even more so the success of their descendants, is far from equal. Such cultural traits are important, but for long-term demographic success they must be passed down consistently over generations, & I'm not sure if that's true of any of the groups you mention other than Orthodox Jews.
I wonder if David Reich has a duty to be Straussian about these sort of things, not just to protect himself but also because I'm not sure if the masses are able to process "there are group-average genetic differences in IQ and behavior but that does not mean we should reinstate racial segregation."
I’m confused by the poll mentioned at the end of the first paragraph. What about the other 39%?