Great interview.

Expand full comment
Nov 2Liked by Aporia

Wow, this guy is my favorite dissident now!

Expand full comment
Nov 2·edited Nov 2Liked by Aporia

This is an excellent conversation on race, intelligence, and ideology.

Content like this makes me very happy that I subscribed to Aporia.

I am looking forward to reading the comments.

A transcript would be nice.

Expand full comment

I have to say that I found his critique of left and mental disorder making the rise of left-wing exaggerated.

How many leftistm in south american and asia? Even he states his views of leftistm is basically CRT, LGBT+ and cultural wars, this really don't follow...

Expand full comment

Nothing of that is against the main point of hereditary. It’s the limitation and the ignorance of many things. Not, genes are not the basis of everything, even when in fact intelligent or leftish is hereditary. What about epigenetic? And more, the idealistic point. It means that consciousness is fundamental. And the evidence is now overwhelming.

Expand full comment

Of course there are studies in feminist and decline of civilisation!!!!! Sex and Civilisation by J. D. Unwin.

Expand full comment

A lot of the commenters do not have English as a first language, and I hesitate to pretend I understand their nuances. They seem intelligent enough, but I am missing tone. Nothing personal.

I agree with much of this, but in terms of environment - consuming lead, getting dropped on the head, and severe undernourishment are also big issues. Allowing 1st cousin marriage is a cultural item that leads to a genetic one. You could raise the IQ of Pakistan 3-5 points in a generation if you forbade it. Do we call that "environmental?" Eh. You could.

Also, the exact equivalent of IQ's of 12-year-olds with adults is not something to rely on too heavily. The different subtests of the WAIS do not progress on the same schedule. Yes, some bright 12-year-olds can under stand some types of abstract thought as well as most adults, or better. But that is uneven. The WAIS and the WISC were divided for good reasons.

The mutational load argument is intriguing and may prove to be a partial factor. But sliding definitions of conservative and leftist - different in North America, Europe, and Latin America - is only the beginning of why I consider this unproven and almost undemonstrated at all.

Expand full comment

To be fair I have heard one good argument for the Schizophrenia gene being a pro, that, similar to being gay, there is a correlation to the disease having a link to extreme creativity. The fear of removing the genes may be that down the line it causes more issues - in the case of removing all mental illness, inadvertently removing all openness to experience derived genetics in the personality, therefore causing a less growth-based entrepreneurial society. Not to say I believe that, but its an interesting thought experiment.

Say personally I would remove all disgust sensitivity, because mine is very low and I see "stupid fear of things" to be a waste of resources. But, on the flipside to the prior example, that may remove all conscientiousness, therefore remove all conservatives... etc etc. As disgust sensitivity seems to have a correlation to conscientiousness... then you would have no stability in society -.-.

Would a woman remove the tragedy of the male sex drive from her child's embryo? As it seems to cause men distress over their lives. So, balancing out the male and female sex drives, so that men didn't suffer what biology has evolved https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vNNehCn8Ac? Because the male sex drive is "bad" for women in the modern era, until women need to breed anyway - which is generally not a correlation to the highest testosterone period anyway, so causes a mismatch in output periods.

I like Malcolm Collin's views on this a lot, his video was actually the first one I ever watched here for some weird reason.

I think saying things are good or bad, are fine, but I think we err on the side of traditionality sometimes, and once the label sticks it can be harder to remove it in the collective mind - once a further positive correlation is found later on. It's complex to say "this was bad, now its good", because as we know anything that incites fear/disgust is primal somewhat. It's hard to remove it out of that primal state.

I was thinking about it recently when watching some interviews with DPR Ian - he is an Australian Kpop star, very interesting in that he is clearly wildly creative but he has manic bipolar to the point where he cant remember his alternative mental state. Seems to flip from being ultra soft and kind to being quite serious - possibly from my hypothesis its a rift, being the two parts of himself being unable to bridge the personality gap smoothly, so they do it with intensity forcing him because they are so opposite. Ie, he cant make the leap mentally himself due to some kind of resistance between the opposing states. But whether or not this is good or bad I don't know. Say, in this example, it is good for the world because his art about his bipolar seems to have helped people, but its bad because it seems to cause him displeasure. It's complex. To someone who has been cured of cancer and had their mental state altered in a positive way, again, complex. Take away all hardship and you get a weak society theory.

I do totally agree that the basis of things being labelled good and bad are important in regards to it being "blatantly obvious" and your subconscious making those assumptions regardless of your conscious intention. But the thoughtfulness of the labelling based on the understanding that sometimes "we just don't know enough" is important also.

I don't know how I found Bronski originally, probably you or someone else shared him on twitter but I was sitting on the train reading through one of his articles the other day on substack and he is a fascinating writer. He writes, very well, and his pieces are intriguing. Gave me some internal war of cognitive dissonance one was so good, so I was excited for this interview :). Thanks for interviewing him.

The cognitive dissonance was: does culture exist or is it all just biology? I had never considered that before, that it may all just be a correlate for biology, and boy that eternal war will be raging for quite a bit longer. What percentage does it have to be, to have its own title of a thing... what do i think culture is... can cultural evolution occur... is culture just a reflection of the countries biology... can you change culture without changing average IQ if entirely biological... it goes on and on... lol.

Expand full comment

Could mutational load be a influential factor in regards to the low TFR in the industrialized world?

Expand full comment

Where is the discussion of the Occupational Government Question? Can you provide a link?

Expand full comment

This was an excellent, high quality interview. I have only listened through this once so I may have missed a few things, so here are my questions for Joseph Bronski (and the host of the Aporia can chime in too if he wishes).

How did you investigate the link between genetics/mutations and changing political ideas throughout time? What evidence or research was used to support that analysis?

What were the most persuasive points of discussion about IQ and genetics that you came across? How did you approach that contentious debate?

What inspired you to present some challenging viewpoints on issues such as genetic manipulation and cultural evolution? How do you back up those points of view?

In what ways do you argue mutational load may differentially impact certain groups' beliefs? What studies or data did you draw from?

How does your view of genetic improvement relate to the concept of mutational load? What are the key connections or differences there?

How did you examine the components of political agency and their relationship to union formation?

I might have missed something, but can you clarify your criticisms of elite theory and ideological regurgitation?

Expand full comment

His critics to Jordan Peterson are just pure rubbish. Also please, read Iain Mcgilchrist and Michael Levin.

Expand full comment

So, even when I agreed with the basic of his ideas, such limitations are appealing.

Expand full comment

Bro sky have a total confusion regarding with idealism. Apparently his knowledge of philosophy is very very very poor.

Expand full comment