The future belongs to those societies that can work with reality, rather than denying it. It's not only the denial of biology that's a problem, but the denial of physics as well which can be seen in current energy policies in the West, and the denial of scientific psychology/sociology in the case of economic and governance policies around the world.
Ehh, the future belongs to those who show up. If the insane paradigms that reign in the west can crush genuine truth and fact, then that is what will be matched with the selective pressures of tomorrow. If the social cohesion of decorum wins out over the ugliness of the truth, especially when denial of reality is such a well adapted strategy to such biomes as the academy. Extinction awaits, and we may get some sort of grotesque elephant seal as the winner the current struggle. Whatever triumphs will be enter the cage against other survivors, same as it ever was.
In listening to this I just thought of a good way to shut down a blank slate argument. Breeding. "Are you looking for a husband with certain qualities, or a blank slate husband?" ... "Why?" ... "Do you think maybe it's because it will be better for your kids?" ... "Give them some kind of inbuilt advantage, subconsciously?" ... "Think it's possible?" Nice soft way to give some cognitive dissonance. Cause most people who are looking for a partner know it's... like attraction is out of their hands, and assume there is some extra things going on in the process of love because it's not able to be forced.
"One answer you rarely hear someone openly professing is the hereditarian perspective, namely that genes are the primary driver of these disparities."
This is one of my favorite subjects. I believe that genetics is at least eighty percent of what drives human traits.
I have no interest in eugenics, genocide, or controlling anyone's choices in matters of reproduction. I am interested in research on the psychometrics of positive human traits and genetic enhancement technology of those traits. I would never condone the forcing of anyone to participate in genetic enhancement against their will. Strictly voluntary. I believe people would see the great advantage of participating in such programs and become involved.
"Meanwhile, advances are being made in genetic engineering (gene-edited babies have been born), and multiple companies are offering polygenic embryo selection to consumers (Genomic Prediction and Orchid)."
I understand that Genomic Prediction does not select for cognitive ability, just health traits, due to its highly controversial nature.
"I understand that Genomic Prediction does not select for cognitive ability, just health traits, due to its highly controversial nature."
Correct, though healthy traits correlate with higher IQ.
There is not currently technology to drastically increase IQ from embryo selection, but it would surprise me if it got you a couple of points even if you weren't shooting for it.
"Correct, though healthy traits correlate with higher IQ."
Ah, but what is cause, and what is effect? I submit that people with high IQs have the means and desire to live a healthy life; in other words, they choose a better lifestyle.
"There is not currently technology to drastically increase IQ from embryo selection, but it would surprise me if it got you a couple of points even if you weren't shooting for it."
Yes, embryo selection is currently limited in significantly increasing IQ. But with further research, which I strongly support, significant improvement in positive human traits will be obtained with genetic enhancement.
Here are a few human traits that I consider positive:
An additional point is that deliberately ignoring behavioral effects of genetic differences undermines social science. A key part of quantitative social science is to control for the most important causal variables. This helps to determine secondary causes.
Currently, few social science investigators control for genetic variation. Therefore, most of our theories in social science are incorrect or at least incomplete.
As an example of why an embrace of hereditarianism doesn’t equate to discriminating against those groups identified as being less whatever, I have long thought that hereditarianism plus a commitment to fairness equates to at least some redistribution. No one is responsible for the genes that they get -- it is pure luck from their perspective. And the idea of offsetting bad luck (as opposed to bad choices) has a basis in notions of fairness. So it seems like the context into which you place hereditarianism matters a lot to the outcome, even in a more mundane way than Mao remaking humanity.
So all the comments seem to be addressing the substance of fairness. That was totally not my point. Given my screen name, you might be able to guess how much law I think should be passed to pursue fairness. The point was that a person with a commitment to fairness like many liberals have can still get comfortable with hereditarianism because that’s just another unfairness that government should fix.
It's fair to give everyone an equal education. It's higher ROI to give a better education to the gifted, because they can do more with it.
And ROI is more fair to future generations.
Most of our government spending is justified on an ROI basis. If the ROI isn't there, and you had to rely just on fairness, spending would probably fall. That's why people don't want to drop blank slate, ROI is a stronger argument then fairness and you can't claim ROI on a lot of things if black slate isn't true.
It is not clear that there is higher ROI for gifted in K-8 grades. Perhaps in later grades. Certainly, for universities, although very specific training for jobs may have far more ROI for mid and low intelligence.
I enjoyed my gifted classes in K-8. Being around other smart kids has a big psychological and social effect. For top 1% IQ I would take the Singapore approach of heavily tracking and subsidizing them to an extreme level.
I would say we are just generally over invested in (pre)K-12 education. It doesn't take $20k a year to make a kid literate, and certainly it could be done in a variety of settings and doesn't need to be done in a public school.
I also think we try to hard to fix people at the bottom that are disruptive to everyone else, rather then giving up on them.
A huge chunk of the bell curve should probably be attending some type of trade school rather than traditional high school as well.
People have already written plenty about the waste in modern colleges.
Medicaid/Obamacare seems like a waste too, it's often sold as ROI but there isn't much evidence we get a lot for our money.
"I have long thought that hereditarianism plus a commitment to fairness equates to at least some redistribution."
The point is that rather than taking from some and giving to others less genetically fortunate, it would be much more fair and logical to make genetic enhancement available to those who want it. That way, the problem is eliminated.
Life isn’t fair. Attempting to make it so is a fool’s errand. Genetic enhancement will be done whether it is us doing it or others, like the Chinese. The first nation to successfully introduce and establish such as a national objective/priority may very well establish a superiority among nations in but a few generations. The wealth of a nation ultimately lies in its people.
No, not at all. I’m saying that *prohibiting* or *restricting* such process (R&D for example) for reasons of “fairness” or “equity” is counterproductive. Other countries, such as China, will have no such qualms. Technology is a competitive race which we are quickly losing due to such silliness on our part.
Ok but too short also I have some ethical concerns about embryo selection and genetic editio , I reccomend to read Letter to humans on gene editing by Jean-Francois Gariepy
There is scope for implementing interventions based on the hereditarian hypothesis with compassion. But it would seem to require a level of paternalism that is at odds with our current understanding of democratic participation.
On the other hand, as the colossal fiasco of Lockdown demonstrated, people are more than willing to be told what to do when it suits them.
"We will soon have a powerful and ethical way of influencing people’s genetic makeup, which has the potential to help the worst off." Perhaps true. But the more likely scenario with such recreative power is that the best and the already advantaged among us would want to be better and accrue even more advantage. I don't think it's difficult to imagine an outcome that's the opposite of what you predicted: the widening rather than the narrowing of competitive advantage within the human species.
First, we should always care about the truth. Full stop.
Second, while genetics are clearly an important source of heredity, it has not been demonstrated that they are the only source of heredity. We should not be treating them, therefore, as
Rupert Sheldrake has a theory about morphogenic fields. I’m not necessarily endorsing it; it’s really just a hypothesis.
But even without an alternate proposal, genetics doesn’t make sense to me. I buy that intelligence is heritable. What I have a hard time understanding is how genes, which govern the creation of protein sequences at the cellular level, translate into intelligence.
So maybe I am missing something. But when I hear biologists talk, it seems like they are assuming that genetics determine heritability but don’t actually explain how. Again, if I am missing something, I’d like to know what.
But it seems like a safe default to say that there is a lot that we don’t know.
> What I have a hard time understanding is how genes, which govern the creation of protein sequences at the cellular level, translate into intelligence.
Think of genes as the software for the body. In hardware technologies, the software can account for huge performance variations in hardware.
Why is it so hard to believe that this is not also true in biological organisms?
What accounts for the differences in complex behaviors in animals, for example, a beaver building a dam or wolves hunting together in packs? Is that not controlled by genes?
Exactly. This is the question that the previous writer has not addressed. How does the sequencing of proteins determine intelligence. Or, for that matter the shape of our bodies? What is the connection between the micro level of our cells and the macro levels of biology?
I see now that you are the previous writer I was referring to. I apologize for the error.
Your question is my question. What accounts for differences in complex behavior?
Is that controlled by genes? I don’t know that has been established. I am open to persuasion.
But I am raising another possibility. That there is a means of heritability other than genes. I don’t see how that possibility has been, or can be, excluded. Instead it seems like an area that merits investigation. To say that we should not ask this question would be to terminate scientific inquiry.
OK. I agree that genes are a storage device. But is it the only one? Has that been scientifically determined that all heritable traits are conveyed exclusively through the genes. Not to my knowledge.
Has it even been determined that, say, intelligence is conveyed through the genes? Or has it just been assumed because genes are the one storage device that we have identified?
So back to my question. If all heritable traits are supposed to be conveyed through the genes, how was that decided?
The definition of heritable traits means conveyance by genes. So, yes, heritable traits are conveyed by genes. If it is not genes, then by definition, it cannot be heritable.
It is actually pretty easy to use studies of identical twins who are separated at birth and other types of twins to identify the extent to which genetics are the means of transmission. There are a huge number of studies on the issue. The evidence that genes are the primary explanation for variation is very well-established in the literature.
For any given trait, genes typically account for 40-60% of the variation. The environment also plays a role, but parenting plays very little role. We know very little about which factors in the environment cause variation, largely because social scientist refuse to accept the role of genes.
What is unclear is exactly which genes. That requires alot more study and DNA sequencing. In other words, we know for sure that it is some cluster of genes that accounts for variation. We just do not know which.
Here is one example of the literature of relationship between genes and intelligence:
> If we recognise the significance of heredity and group differences we risk repeating the mistakes that led to the holocaust
What lead to the holocaust, and the communist gulags, is observing that some people, Jews/kulaks, were more successful then others, and concluding that since their success couldn't possible be due to differences (all people are black slates) it must be due to them doing teh evilz.
Holocaust is simply a scare word that is used by detractors to distract from sound thought and discussion. Similar to calling every HBD adherent a “racist”. There is nothing in the concept of genetic enhancement that logically leads to the destruction/killing of humans already born. That’s an old plot line from Startrek.
Sorry, I hate it when that occurs to me. HBD stands for “Human Biodiversity”. As a science, it includes study/knowledge of genetic diversity among human beings and among the “races” as a whole. Of course, for those “blank statists”, this is the equivalent of racism under the guise of (pseudo) science. Since the higher educational institution's are completely under the control of Leftist influence, you’ll find few—if any—affiliated faculty researchers directly professing interest in this field as such interest is a career ender.
Those reading here are invited to correct me if I’ve made an inadequate explanation of HBD.
"Perhaps a half way house is to conditionally recognise these differences as real on the basis that the rewards of uncontrolled meritocracy will be taxed more heavily and the receipts paid out to those who can’t compete."
That is a recipe for disaster for our civilization. Meritocracy must always prevail.
So you would punish merit? That is how I first read it, and I adamantly disagree. Would you tax the handsome and beautiful? Would you tax those who are athletic? A much better solution is to use genetic enhancement. That is why I greatly support research in psychometrics of positive human traits and genetic enhancement.
It's not clear that the Nazies thought the Jews were dysgenic. Opinions on this seem to range wildly within the Nazi hierarchy. The issue seems to be less "are Jews dysgenic" then "are Jews our enemy". You could decide Jews were your enemy without any knowledge of genetics, people did it for centuries.
It's not even clear what the Nazi stance on genetics was. The Nazies seemed to favor even relatively dysgenic Germans over obviously eugenic members of other races. Yes, they would eliminate the disabled, but ordinary mediocre Germans were OK, better than Jewish Nobel winners.
Their plan for conquest would inevitably mean their most genetically fit members going off the die.
National Socialism to me seems to be a way to resolve the socialism question (class struggle) by uniting the classes against an external enemy (other countries/races). As opposed to International Socialism (Marxist/Leninism) which relies on class struggle (hence the constant purging of Kulaks). The Fascists therefore were an attempt to channel socialist impulses away from internal enemies (capital) onto external enemies. Since you can't always be fighting a war with external enemies, and internal "other" helps focus those energies (don't target Krupp, target the Jews).
Another tell is that the Nazies western enemies were also eugenicists, and it didn't much matter. Winston Churchill certainly believed in eugenics, he was part of the eugenics society, and defiantly believed that Brittian's colonies were full of inferior peoples. Yet, he was Hitlers great rival.
Yes, Hitler and the National Socialists focused on “blood” not genes.
It is unclear exactly what they meant by this term, but it was clearly not the blood in the veins.
More likely, they meant something like Spirit in the Hegelian sense. That is closer to the modern understanding of culture, but they clearly believed it was transmissible via sex.
As far as I know, the National Socialists did not know about or care about genetics.
I think it is better for society to fully embrace Merit. We need to put people with the most abilities to contribute to society in the best position to do so.
Everyone benefits from this, including those who are less blessed genetically.
We should also embrace Upward Mobility rather than Equality.
The Holocaust was not due to an awareness of genetic variation. Differences in outcomes between groups has been known for millennia.
The Holocaust was due to followers of a Totalitarian ideology achieving power. There are plenty of Totalitarians who reject hereditarianism, particularly on the Left.
The future belongs to those societies that can work with reality, rather than denying it. It's not only the denial of biology that's a problem, but the denial of physics as well which can be seen in current energy policies in the West, and the denial of scientific psychology/sociology in the case of economic and governance policies around the world.
So well said.
Ehh, the future belongs to those who show up. If the insane paradigms that reign in the west can crush genuine truth and fact, then that is what will be matched with the selective pressures of tomorrow. If the social cohesion of decorum wins out over the ugliness of the truth, especially when denial of reality is such a well adapted strategy to such biomes as the academy. Extinction awaits, and we may get some sort of grotesque elephant seal as the winner the current struggle. Whatever triumphs will be enter the cage against other survivors, same as it ever was.
In listening to this I just thought of a good way to shut down a blank slate argument. Breeding. "Are you looking for a husband with certain qualities, or a blank slate husband?" ... "Why?" ... "Do you think maybe it's because it will be better for your kids?" ... "Give them some kind of inbuilt advantage, subconsciously?" ... "Think it's possible?" Nice soft way to give some cognitive dissonance. Cause most people who are looking for a partner know it's... like attraction is out of their hands, and assume there is some extra things going on in the process of love because it's not able to be forced.
Good point. Many people who claim to not believe in heritable characteristics behave in ways that say otherwise. Particularly in choosing mates.
"One answer you rarely hear someone openly professing is the hereditarian perspective, namely that genes are the primary driver of these disparities."
This is one of my favorite subjects. I believe that genetics is at least eighty percent of what drives human traits.
I have no interest in eugenics, genocide, or controlling anyone's choices in matters of reproduction. I am interested in research on the psychometrics of positive human traits and genetic enhancement technology of those traits. I would never condone the forcing of anyone to participate in genetic enhancement against their will. Strictly voluntary. I believe people would see the great advantage of participating in such programs and become involved.
"Meanwhile, advances are being made in genetic engineering (gene-edited babies have been born), and multiple companies are offering polygenic embryo selection to consumers (Genomic Prediction and Orchid)."
I understand that Genomic Prediction does not select for cognitive ability, just health traits, due to its highly controversial nature.
Thanks for a great article.
"I understand that Genomic Prediction does not select for cognitive ability, just health traits, due to its highly controversial nature."
Correct, though healthy traits correlate with higher IQ.
There is not currently technology to drastically increase IQ from embryo selection, but it would surprise me if it got you a couple of points even if you weren't shooting for it.
"Correct, though healthy traits correlate with higher IQ."
Ah, but what is cause, and what is effect? I submit that people with high IQs have the means and desire to live a healthy life; in other words, they choose a better lifestyle.
"There is not currently technology to drastically increase IQ from embryo selection, but it would surprise me if it got you a couple of points even if you weren't shooting for it."
Yes, embryo selection is currently limited in significantly increasing IQ. But with further research, which I strongly support, significant improvement in positive human traits will be obtained with genetic enhancement.
Here are a few human traits that I consider positive:
Integrity, intelligence, inquisitiveness, intuitiveness, industriousness, insight, inspiration, imagination, inventiveness, and intentness.
"but what is cause, and what is effect?"
The cause is lower mutation load in the selected embryos. The effect is better genetic outcomes.
Mutations are usually bad and rarely good. Embryo selection is mostly about throwing away the embryos with lots of bad ones.
Again, 'I submit that people with high IQs have the means and desire to live a healthy life; in other words, they choose a better lifestyle.'
"Mutations are usually bad and rarely good. Embryo selection is mostly about throwing away the embryos with lots of bad ones."
I agree. I know how it works.
An additional point is that deliberately ignoring behavioral effects of genetic differences undermines social science. A key part of quantitative social science is to control for the most important causal variables. This helps to determine secondary causes.
Currently, few social science investigators control for genetic variation. Therefore, most of our theories in social science are incorrect or at least incomplete.
As an example of why an embrace of hereditarianism doesn’t equate to discriminating against those groups identified as being less whatever, I have long thought that hereditarianism plus a commitment to fairness equates to at least some redistribution. No one is responsible for the genes that they get -- it is pure luck from their perspective. And the idea of offsetting bad luck (as opposed to bad choices) has a basis in notions of fairness. So it seems like the context into which you place hereditarianism matters a lot to the outcome, even in a more mundane way than Mao remaking humanity.
So all the comments seem to be addressing the substance of fairness. That was totally not my point. Given my screen name, you might be able to guess how much law I think should be passed to pursue fairness. The point was that a person with a commitment to fairness like many liberals have can still get comfortable with hereditarianism because that’s just another unfairness that government should fix.
There is a tradeoff between fairness and ROI.
It's fair to give everyone an equal education. It's higher ROI to give a better education to the gifted, because they can do more with it.
And ROI is more fair to future generations.
Most of our government spending is justified on an ROI basis. If the ROI isn't there, and you had to rely just on fairness, spending would probably fall. That's why people don't want to drop blank slate, ROI is a stronger argument then fairness and you can't claim ROI on a lot of things if black slate isn't true.
It is not clear that there is higher ROI for gifted in K-8 grades. Perhaps in later grades. Certainly, for universities, although very specific training for jobs may have far more ROI for mid and low intelligence.
I enjoyed my gifted classes in K-8. Being around other smart kids has a big psychological and social effect. For top 1% IQ I would take the Singapore approach of heavily tracking and subsidizing them to an extreme level.
I would say we are just generally over invested in (pre)K-12 education. It doesn't take $20k a year to make a kid literate, and certainly it could be done in a variety of settings and doesn't need to be done in a public school.
I also think we try to hard to fix people at the bottom that are disruptive to everyone else, rather then giving up on them.
A huge chunk of the bell curve should probably be attending some type of trade school rather than traditional high school as well.
People have already written plenty about the waste in modern colleges.
Medicaid/Obamacare seems like a waste too, it's often sold as ROI but there isn't much evidence we get a lot for our money.
That's a pretty big chunk of money.
"I have long thought that hereditarianism plus a commitment to fairness equates to at least some redistribution."
The point is that rather than taking from some and giving to others less genetically fortunate, it would be much more fair and logical to make genetic enhancement available to those who want it. That way, the problem is eliminated.
Life isn’t fair. Attempting to make it so is a fool’s errand. Genetic enhancement will be done whether it is us doing it or others, like the Chinese. The first nation to successfully introduce and establish such as a national objective/priority may very well establish a superiority among nations in but a few generations. The wealth of a nation ultimately lies in its people.
"Life isn’t fair. Attempting to make it so is a fool’s errand. "
Your reply is confusing. Are you for or against making genetic enhancement available to those who want it?
No, not at all. I’m saying that *prohibiting* or *restricting* such process (R&D for example) for reasons of “fairness” or “equity” is counterproductive. Other countries, such as China, will have no such qualms. Technology is a competitive race which we are quickly losing due to such silliness on our part.
Ok but too short also I have some ethical concerns about embryo selection and genetic editio , I reccomend to read Letter to humans on gene editing by Jean-Francois Gariepy
There is a vast difference between embryo selection and gene editing.
But as I stated in my comments to the author, any action should be voluntary on the part of the parents.
There is scope for implementing interventions based on the hereditarian hypothesis with compassion. But it would seem to require a level of paternalism that is at odds with our current understanding of democratic participation.
On the other hand, as the colossal fiasco of Lockdown demonstrated, people are more than willing to be told what to do when it suits them.
"We will soon have a powerful and ethical way of influencing people’s genetic makeup, which has the potential to help the worst off." Perhaps true. But the more likely scenario with such recreative power is that the best and the already advantaged among us would want to be better and accrue even more advantage. I don't think it's difficult to imagine an outcome that's the opposite of what you predicted: the widening rather than the narrowing of competitive advantage within the human species.
Two points.
First, we should always care about the truth. Full stop.
Second, while genetics are clearly an important source of heredity, it has not been demonstrated that they are the only source of heredity. We should not be treating them, therefore, as
What other source of heritability are you thinking of? Are you referring to cultural inheritance?
Rupert Sheldrake has a theory about morphogenic fields. I’m not necessarily endorsing it; it’s really just a hypothesis.
But even without an alternate proposal, genetics doesn’t make sense to me. I buy that intelligence is heritable. What I have a hard time understanding is how genes, which govern the creation of protein sequences at the cellular level, translate into intelligence.
So maybe I am missing something. But when I hear biologists talk, it seems like they are assuming that genetics determine heritability but don’t actually explain how. Again, if I am missing something, I’d like to know what.
But it seems like a safe default to say that there is a lot that we don’t know.
> What I have a hard time understanding is how genes, which govern the creation of protein sequences at the cellular level, translate into intelligence.
Think of genes as the software for the body. In hardware technologies, the software can account for huge performance variations in hardware.
Why is it so hard to believe that this is not also true in biological organisms?
What accounts for the differences in complex behaviors in animals, for example, a beaver building a dam or wolves hunting together in packs? Is that not controlled by genes?
Exactly. This is the question that the previous writer has not addressed. How does the sequencing of proteins determine intelligence. Or, for that matter the shape of our bodies? What is the connection between the micro level of our cells and the macro levels of biology?
I see now that you are the previous writer I was referring to. I apologize for the error.
Your question is my question. What accounts for differences in complex behavior?
Is that controlled by genes? I don’t know that has been established. I am open to persuasion.
But I am raising another possibility. That there is a means of heritability other than genes. I don’t see how that possibility has been, or can be, excluded. Instead it seems like an area that merits investigation. To say that we should not ask this question would be to terminate scientific inquiry.
Generally, the words heritable and genetic are used interchangeably. How was that decided?
No, they are not the same.
I cannot give you an exact definition, but genes are basically the information storage device that transfers from parent to child.
Inherited traits are what humans have in common that are different from other species. For example, having two legs and ten fingers.
Heritable traits refers to differences between humans that are transferred via genes. For example, height.
Both come from genetics.
I am sure the above is not technically accurate, but it is close enough.
OK. I agree that genes are a storage device. But is it the only one? Has that been scientifically determined that all heritable traits are conveyed exclusively through the genes. Not to my knowledge.
Has it even been determined that, say, intelligence is conveyed through the genes? Or has it just been assumed because genes are the one storage device that we have identified?
So back to my question. If all heritable traits are supposed to be conveyed through the genes, how was that decided?
The definition of heritable traits means conveyance by genes. So, yes, heritable traits are conveyed by genes. If it is not genes, then by definition, it cannot be heritable.
It is actually pretty easy to use studies of identical twins who are separated at birth and other types of twins to identify the extent to which genetics are the means of transmission. There are a huge number of studies on the issue. The evidence that genes are the primary explanation for variation is very well-established in the literature.
For any given trait, genes typically account for 40-60% of the variation. The environment also plays a role, but parenting plays very little role. We know very little about which factors in the environment cause variation, largely because social scientist refuse to accept the role of genes.
What is unclear is exactly which genes. That requires alot more study and DNA sequencing. In other words, we know for sure that it is some cluster of genes that accounts for variation. We just do not know which.
Here is one example of the literature of relationship between genes and intelligence:
https://techratchet.com/2021/07/23/book-summary-in-the-know-35-myths-about-human-intelligence-by-russell-t-warne/
This book also give a great summary of the literature:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Diversity
though they were.
> If we recognise the significance of heredity and group differences we risk repeating the mistakes that led to the holocaust
What lead to the holocaust, and the communist gulags, is observing that some people, Jews/kulaks, were more successful then others, and concluding that since their success couldn't possible be due to differences (all people are black slates) it must be due to them doing teh evilz.
Hiding from reality is not the solution.
Holocaust is simply a scare word that is used by detractors to distract from sound thought and discussion. Similar to calling every HBD adherent a “racist”. There is nothing in the concept of genetic enhancement that logically leads to the destruction/killing of humans already born. That’s an old plot line from Startrek.
Sorry, I hate it when that occurs to me. HBD stands for “Human Biodiversity”. As a science, it includes study/knowledge of genetic diversity among human beings and among the “races” as a whole. Of course, for those “blank statists”, this is the equivalent of racism under the guise of (pseudo) science. Since the higher educational institution's are completely under the control of Leftist influence, you’ll find few—if any—affiliated faculty researchers directly professing interest in this field as such interest is a career ender.
Those reading here are invited to correct me if I’ve made an inadequate explanation of HBD.
Perhaps, but HBD seems to be the more common term in use and really is widely known and used in the field.
"Perhaps a half way house is to conditionally recognise these differences as real on the basis that the rewards of uncontrolled meritocracy will be taxed more heavily and the receipts paid out to those who can’t compete."
That is a recipe for disaster for our civilization. Meritocracy must always prevail.
Sorry, I didn't read it that way.
So you would punish merit? That is how I first read it, and I adamantly disagree. Would you tax the handsome and beautiful? Would you tax those who are athletic? A much better solution is to use genetic enhancement. That is why I greatly support research in psychometrics of positive human traits and genetic enhancement.
It's not clear that the Nazies thought the Jews were dysgenic. Opinions on this seem to range wildly within the Nazi hierarchy. The issue seems to be less "are Jews dysgenic" then "are Jews our enemy". You could decide Jews were your enemy without any knowledge of genetics, people did it for centuries.
It's not even clear what the Nazi stance on genetics was. The Nazies seemed to favor even relatively dysgenic Germans over obviously eugenic members of other races. Yes, they would eliminate the disabled, but ordinary mediocre Germans were OK, better than Jewish Nobel winners.
Their plan for conquest would inevitably mean their most genetically fit members going off the die.
National Socialism to me seems to be a way to resolve the socialism question (class struggle) by uniting the classes against an external enemy (other countries/races). As opposed to International Socialism (Marxist/Leninism) which relies on class struggle (hence the constant purging of Kulaks). The Fascists therefore were an attempt to channel socialist impulses away from internal enemies (capital) onto external enemies. Since you can't always be fighting a war with external enemies, and internal "other" helps focus those energies (don't target Krupp, target the Jews).
Another tell is that the Nazies western enemies were also eugenicists, and it didn't much matter. Winston Churchill certainly believed in eugenics, he was part of the eugenics society, and defiantly believed that Brittian's colonies were full of inferior peoples. Yet, he was Hitlers great rival.
Yes, Hitler and the National Socialists focused on “blood” not genes.
It is unclear exactly what they meant by this term, but it was clearly not the blood in the veins.
More likely, they meant something like Spirit in the Hegelian sense. That is closer to the modern understanding of culture, but they clearly believed it was transmissible via sex.
As far as I know, the National Socialists did not know about or care about genetics.
I think it is better for society to fully embrace Merit. We need to put people with the most abilities to contribute to society in the best position to do so.
Everyone benefits from this, including those who are less blessed genetically.
We should also embrace Upward Mobility rather than Equality.
The Holocaust was not due to an awareness of genetic variation. Differences in outcomes between groups has been known for millennia.
The Holocaust was due to followers of a Totalitarian ideology achieving power. There are plenty of Totalitarians who reject hereditarianism, particularly on the Left.