Up to a point, sure. But I think there's a strong argument to be made that it's not a very productive activity to go around talking about whether the black-white IQ gap is genetic. I follow Nathan Cofnas here on substack and I certainly support his right to free speech but I think he is wrong to focus on this sort of thing. It is a needless provocation. I am generally sympathetic to hereditarian ideas and would love if more people learned about the heritability of intelligence and so on, but we shouldn't address the third rail until people first accept the truth about twin studies and polygenic scores *within populations*, then accept gender differences and higher IQs of Jews and East Asians, and maybe then finally we can *carefully and compassionately* address the ultra-radioactive B-W. One could argue that some conservatives are too hard on black people by wrongly blaming them and their actions for their low achievement levels. Any successful discussion of hereditarianism needs to incorporate both left-hereditarian as well as right-hereditarian arguments, just as a successful discussion of global warming needs to also appeal to pro-market types.
Maybe that's a bit of a soapbox rant, just wanted to push back against the "always speak your mind" specifically as it concerns the race-IQ stuff. You wouldn't want to ran about the nonexistence of a supreme being in a Christian theocracy.
I would certainly NOT open a conversation about affirmative action by talking about race and IQ. Nathan Cofnas and co are right to point out that that's where the conversation will eventually lead and you have to be willing to bite the bullet. And I think it's generally good that some people have pushed the overton window on this? (do you disagree?)But there's no need to go and bite the bullet as an opening move in social settings since it's not clear to most people (who haven't thought about deeply) that it's a corollary to this discussion. So yes, i'm not arguing for taking 0 context clues. But in so far as you're having a conversation and someone says something you think is demonstarbly false (and they think is both true and righteous), you have an obligation to speak your mind.
I agree that you should not open an AA convo by talking about race and IQ, and I also agree that it's good some people like Cofnas are pushing the overton window. However, I am *not at all* sure that's the conversation will necessarily lead. You can say that at some point we have to accept these differences whatever their cause, as with the overrepresentation of Jews and Asians in academics and the overrepresentation of blacks in sports. You don't need to talk about Jewish and Asian IQ to oppose affirmative action / quotas against them, or to talk about fast-twitch muscle fibers to oppose affirmative action for Whites and Asians in sprinting.
I think that maybe the race-IQ is like atheism, it may be true but maybe it's not good or not realistic for it to become society-wide common knowledge. There are other ways to push back against theocracy. Definitely it's good for some people to push the overton window and to be openly atheist. But you know, it's even good for society for there to be some religion and for people who don't believe in a supreme being to practice religion to some extent. And to remove a terrible theocracy you don't go around saying you are an atheist, and you don't even need to get to an atheist society as an ideal. There is some social use to religion. But I agree, free speech for atheists and pushing the overton window is good.
We wouldn't be in this place if the left wasn't obssessed with group level outcomes. Unfortunately, they cite persistent differences in group outcomes as evidence of discrmination and thus need for continuing affirmative action. .You tell me how you rebut that without citing IQ literature. ?
OK a more clever thing you can do is to show that not only does the B-W gap not go down by much when you control for income, the Jewish and Asian overrepresentation doesn't change much as well. You can just point to lots of data showing that it's the same as the causes of Jewish and Asian overrepresentation, Hispanic underrepresentation, and within-group differences between various White ethnicities.
You can even point out that mathematicians were <1% of the German population when Hitler rose to power but 1/3 of the mathematicians. Jews faced huge discrimination for their overrepresentation in the US in the 1920s, Poland, Hungary, the Soviet Union, and yes Nazi Germany.
Yes, I want them to answer that. I am Jewish, so if they support Jewish quotas, they can tell me to my face. Granted if you are not Jewish, this strategy does not work as well.
But I think the solution is for the left to stop being obsessed with group level outcomes and in particular the Black-White disparity. I think it's easier to get them to stop obsessing about the Black-White disparity, or at least for them to care about it only as much as they care about the Hispanic-White disparity or the Asian-White disparity or the Jewish-White disparity, then to get them to accept HBD.
Historically, when Jewish quotas were abolished, it's not because people accepted Jews having a higher IQ for genetic reasons. It's because people stopped viewing it a problem that needed to be solved, and rightly so.
I like the conclusion - anyone who would socially exclude you for politely expressing your opinion is probably not someone you’d want to stay friends with anyways. Reminded me a bit of Aella talking about how normies assume her mate value is severely impaired by being a sex worker, but in her subculture, and among the men she’d be compatible with and like to date it isn’t, so there’s no actual loss to her.
Yes, holding minority viewpoints in small towns in hard. I do have a relatively unfounded yet strong intuition that people in small towns are more forgiving of each other's political differences. This is not to diminish the higher likelihood of racism, homophobia or other types of bigotry . But I see urban, lefty culture as more stifling, totalizing and less tolerant of speech it disagrees with.
Being a non conformist and expressing your views that go against the tide are also about being really sure about what you’re talking about . I remember reading about it being a trait of those with a high IQ . And it is less threatening or consequential for them compared those who are less intelligent.
How much does it matter if Sally's motivation is ego? She seems to accept that it's not a valid reason for disagreeing with Rachel at the party. Do we have to remove ego from the situation in order to have a satisfying debate?
Up to a point, sure. But I think there's a strong argument to be made that it's not a very productive activity to go around talking about whether the black-white IQ gap is genetic. I follow Nathan Cofnas here on substack and I certainly support his right to free speech but I think he is wrong to focus on this sort of thing. It is a needless provocation. I am generally sympathetic to hereditarian ideas and would love if more people learned about the heritability of intelligence and so on, but we shouldn't address the third rail until people first accept the truth about twin studies and polygenic scores *within populations*, then accept gender differences and higher IQs of Jews and East Asians, and maybe then finally we can *carefully and compassionately* address the ultra-radioactive B-W. One could argue that some conservatives are too hard on black people by wrongly blaming them and their actions for their low achievement levels. Any successful discussion of hereditarianism needs to incorporate both left-hereditarian as well as right-hereditarian arguments, just as a successful discussion of global warming needs to also appeal to pro-market types.
Maybe that's a bit of a soapbox rant, just wanted to push back against the "always speak your mind" specifically as it concerns the race-IQ stuff. You wouldn't want to ran about the nonexistence of a supreme being in a Christian theocracy.
I would certainly NOT open a conversation about affirmative action by talking about race and IQ. Nathan Cofnas and co are right to point out that that's where the conversation will eventually lead and you have to be willing to bite the bullet. And I think it's generally good that some people have pushed the overton window on this? (do you disagree?)But there's no need to go and bite the bullet as an opening move in social settings since it's not clear to most people (who haven't thought about deeply) that it's a corollary to this discussion. So yes, i'm not arguing for taking 0 context clues. But in so far as you're having a conversation and someone says something you think is demonstarbly false (and they think is both true and righteous), you have an obligation to speak your mind.
I agree that you should not open an AA convo by talking about race and IQ, and I also agree that it's good some people like Cofnas are pushing the overton window. However, I am *not at all* sure that's the conversation will necessarily lead. You can say that at some point we have to accept these differences whatever their cause, as with the overrepresentation of Jews and Asians in academics and the overrepresentation of blacks in sports. You don't need to talk about Jewish and Asian IQ to oppose affirmative action / quotas against them, or to talk about fast-twitch muscle fibers to oppose affirmative action for Whites and Asians in sprinting.
I think that maybe the race-IQ is like atheism, it may be true but maybe it's not good or not realistic for it to become society-wide common knowledge. There are other ways to push back against theocracy. Definitely it's good for some people to push the overton window and to be openly atheist. But you know, it's even good for society for there to be some religion and for people who don't believe in a supreme being to practice religion to some extent. And to remove a terrible theocracy you don't go around saying you are an atheist, and you don't even need to get to an atheist society as an ideal. There is some social use to religion. But I agree, free speech for atheists and pushing the overton window is good.
We wouldn't be in this place if the left wasn't obssessed with group level outcomes. Unfortunately, they cite persistent differences in group outcomes as evidence of discrmination and thus need for continuing affirmative action. .You tell me how you rebut that without citing IQ literature. ?
Ask them if they support Jewish quotas in light of the Jewish overrepresentation.
Dude, do you really want them to answer that?
OK a more clever thing you can do is to show that not only does the B-W gap not go down by much when you control for income, the Jewish and Asian overrepresentation doesn't change much as well. You can just point to lots of data showing that it's the same as the causes of Jewish and Asian overrepresentation, Hispanic underrepresentation, and within-group differences between various White ethnicities.
You can even point out that mathematicians were <1% of the German population when Hitler rose to power but 1/3 of the mathematicians. Jews faced huge discrimination for their overrepresentation in the US in the 1920s, Poland, Hungary, the Soviet Union, and yes Nazi Germany.
Yes, I want them to answer that. I am Jewish, so if they support Jewish quotas, they can tell me to my face. Granted if you are not Jewish, this strategy does not work as well.
But I think the solution is for the left to stop being obsessed with group level outcomes and in particular the Black-White disparity. I think it's easier to get them to stop obsessing about the Black-White disparity, or at least for them to care about it only as much as they care about the Hispanic-White disparity or the Asian-White disparity or the Jewish-White disparity, then to get them to accept HBD.
Historically, when Jewish quotas were abolished, it's not because people accepted Jews having a higher IQ for genetic reasons. It's because people stopped viewing it a problem that needed to be solved, and rightly so.
I like the conclusion - anyone who would socially exclude you for politely expressing your opinion is probably not someone you’d want to stay friends with anyways. Reminded me a bit of Aella talking about how normies assume her mate value is severely impaired by being a sex worker, but in her subculture, and among the men she’d be compatible with and like to date it isn’t, so there’s no actual loss to her.
https://x.com/aella_girl/status/1585710472690651137?s=46&t=sExMpUEEN8nxtCtuJsgy1g
Yep, let your friends and acquaintances self-select into your world view; instead of moulding your your world view to be infinitely malleable
Sure, but this works a lot better in NYC than in a small town
Yes, holding minority viewpoints in small towns in hard. I do have a relatively unfounded yet strong intuition that people in small towns are more forgiving of each other's political differences. This is not to diminish the higher likelihood of racism, homophobia or other types of bigotry . But I see urban, lefty culture as more stifling, totalizing and less tolerant of speech it disagrees with.
Being a non conformist and expressing your views that go against the tide are also about being really sure about what you’re talking about . I remember reading about it being a trait of those with a high IQ . And it is less threatening or consequential for them compared those who are less intelligent.
https://www.bmj.com/content/334/7587/245
How much does it matter if Sally's motivation is ego? She seems to accept that it's not a valid reason for disagreeing with Rachel at the party. Do we have to remove ego from the situation in order to have a satisfying debate?