'It is not illiberal or xenophobic to want to maintain a country’s dominant ethnic group. But inside a country, where individuals are neighbors, co-workers and citizens, population averages are largely irrelevant'.
What about, say, the white people in Bradford whose neighbors, co-workers and citizens are often Muslims, some of whom are quite hostile to our way of life? Are you saying that white people INSIDE a country shouldn't worry about such things or merely that governments, once they've saddled us with this less-than-optimal situation, should treat us all the same, regardless of race and religion? I think you must mean the former since you'd kind of already dealt with the latter.
Fair point and difficult question. But yes, I agree that "largely irrelevant" might have been a slight overstatement. They still matter. Perhaps I will address this in more detail later. I do think, however, that color-blindness is the best national policy *inside* a country, with a few caveats.
And some of these humans can be put into groups which can be called 'races' and they have patterns of variation which are , in varying degrees, different to other 'races'
Race deniers accept the existence of 'ethnic groups' and 'population groups' but deny the existence of races. It is really hard to deny that there is variation between groups but they deny the existence of larger, continental sized groupings.
Isn't this like creationists accepting 'microevolution' but denying 'macroevolution'?
The race-deniers accept that 'micro-races' exist but deny there are 'macro-races'.
I've even had one of them ask for a detailed explanation of all the selection pressures, and when they were, that supposedly have lead to increased IQ in some parts of the world.
That is straight out of the creationists 'How did eyes evolve?' playbook!
This is perhaps related to Alexis de Tocqueville's observation that in America everyone seemed to him vaguely dissatisfied with their lot since, having no longer a semi-determined role to play in society, everyone was free to do what they wanted, which is rather like entering a restaurant and being presented with a menu of 4,000 dishes. How are you supposed to decide? Narrow it down for me, PLEASE!
I think that essay should be compulsory reading for everyone at every age, just as a constant and easy-to-follow reminder of what reality looks like. And you made it sound not in the least scary.
'Whites and Asians are overrepresented in fields that are cognitively demanding. Blacks are overrepresented in sports that require explosive movement. And so forth'.
The above reminded me of an incident when I started full-time work at 16. I left school with no qualifications and went to work in a sports shop as a sales assistant. Though I had no academic qualifications I did have the ability, unique among the people who worked at the shop, of jumping down a whole flight of stairs, around a dozen steps, from the boss's first floor office to the store room below, without breaking any bones.
Mr. Mills, the owner of the shop, was proud of his full-time and part-time staff and used to introduce us all to the reps who came round selling their wares:
"This is Greg, he has 8 'O' levels and is off to Wolverhampton University this September [going to university was still a big thing in mid-1970's Britain]. And this is Vernon, who is now studying for his 'A' Levels and is expected to get 3 top grades. And this is Keith. He can jump down all these stairs".
I like both of your writings equally for different reasons. When Noah writes something I would bet my house that his conclusions are correct. He has thought about likely objections and adds caveats accordingly. He seems to write, not so much for Aporia readers as for a jury determined to find him guilty. He must therefore be moderate in his claims.
Your writing is more speculative, more intuitive and the issues themselves are often big issues which have been around for hundreds of years without ever being properly resolved. Both writings are fascinating.
Bo Winegard makes a good start toward answering the third, and most difficult, question as society awakes from enforced ignorance in the Blank Slate censorship regime.
Q1: Are there large, genetically mediated differences between sexes and between ancestral population groups for important traits?
A: Absolutely yes.
Q2: Is it a wise and sustainable policy to censor these facts from public discussion?
Answer: No. “The norm against candor has failed. …This was inevitable. The differences among people are too visible, too immediate, too deeply woven into ordinary experience to be denied,” - Bo Winegard in the essay. Also, brave social scientists speaking frankly have helped damage the censorship regime.
Q3: “If some differences are real,” people ask, “what follows? How should we live with them?” - Bo Winegard in this essay.
Thank you. I hope the conversation slowly moves in this direction, though I've hoped that for many years now and I don't know that things are any better (and might be worse) than they were in 2012.
"I hope the conversation slowly moves in this direction, though I've hoped that for many years now and I don't know that things are any better (and might be worse) than they were in 2012."
I believe there has been a significant improvement in the dissemination of the truth
The only bit I didn't fully agree with was this:
'It is not illiberal or xenophobic to want to maintain a country’s dominant ethnic group. But inside a country, where individuals are neighbors, co-workers and citizens, population averages are largely irrelevant'.
What about, say, the white people in Bradford whose neighbors, co-workers and citizens are often Muslims, some of whom are quite hostile to our way of life? Are you saying that white people INSIDE a country shouldn't worry about such things or merely that governments, once they've saddled us with this less-than-optimal situation, should treat us all the same, regardless of race and religion? I think you must mean the former since you'd kind of already dealt with the latter.
Fair point and difficult question. But yes, I agree that "largely irrelevant" might have been a slight overstatement. They still matter. Perhaps I will address this in more detail later. I do think, however, that color-blindness is the best national policy *inside* a country, with a few caveats.
Bo W
Bo, a wise and balanced approach to human differences.
Some are inclined to emotion, others are influenced by cognition.
Thank you for the kind words
Bo
Concur entirely Bo. Thanks for your enduring commitment to finding and speaking the truth.
Thank you for the kind words. And you bet.
Bo
'Humans, like all of nature, vary.'
And some of these humans can be put into groups which can be called 'races' and they have patterns of variation which are , in varying degrees, different to other 'races'
Race deniers accept the existence of 'ethnic groups' and 'population groups' but deny the existence of races. It is really hard to deny that there is variation between groups but they deny the existence of larger, continental sized groupings.
Isn't this like creationists accepting 'microevolution' but denying 'macroevolution'?
The race-deniers accept that 'micro-races' exist but deny there are 'macro-races'.
I've even had one of them ask for a detailed explanation of all the selection pressures, and when they were, that supposedly have lead to increased IQ in some parts of the world.
That is straight out of the creationists 'How did eyes evolve?' playbook!
An excellent summation of what I too have come to believe.
Thank you for the kind words. I appreciate them.
Bo
'Sex-roles provide guidance for the young'.
This is perhaps related to Alexis de Tocqueville's observation that in America everyone seemed to him vaguely dissatisfied with their lot since, having no longer a semi-determined role to play in society, everyone was free to do what they wanted, which is rather like entering a restaurant and being presented with a menu of 4,000 dishes. How are you supposed to decide? Narrow it down for me, PLEASE!
I think that essay should be compulsory reading for everyone at every age, just as a constant and easy-to-follow reminder of what reality looks like. And you made it sound not in the least scary.
'Whites and Asians are overrepresented in fields that are cognitively demanding. Blacks are overrepresented in sports that require explosive movement. And so forth'.
The above reminded me of an incident when I started full-time work at 16. I left school with no qualifications and went to work in a sports shop as a sales assistant. Though I had no academic qualifications I did have the ability, unique among the people who worked at the shop, of jumping down a whole flight of stairs, around a dozen steps, from the boss's first floor office to the store room below, without breaking any bones.
Mr. Mills, the owner of the shop, was proud of his full-time and part-time staff and used to introduce us all to the reps who came round selling their wares:
"This is Greg, he has 8 'O' levels and is off to Wolverhampton University this September [going to university was still a big thing in mid-1970's Britain]. And this is Vernon, who is now studying for his 'A' Levels and is expected to get 3 top grades. And this is Keith. He can jump down all these stairs".
I hope it becomes mandatory reading so we get more readers who check out Noah's wonderful writings : )
Bo
I like both of your writings equally for different reasons. When Noah writes something I would bet my house that his conclusions are correct. He has thought about likely objections and adds caveats accordingly. He seems to write, not so much for Aporia readers as for a jury determined to find him guilty. He must therefore be moderate in his claims.
Your writing is more speculative, more intuitive and the issues themselves are often big issues which have been around for hundreds of years without ever being properly resolved. Both writings are fascinating.
Bo Winegard makes a good start toward answering the third, and most difficult, question as society awakes from enforced ignorance in the Blank Slate censorship regime.
Q1: Are there large, genetically mediated differences between sexes and between ancestral population groups for important traits?
A: Absolutely yes.
Q2: Is it a wise and sustainable policy to censor these facts from public discussion?
Answer: No. “The norm against candor has failed. …This was inevitable. The differences among people are too visible, too immediate, too deeply woven into ordinary experience to be denied,” - Bo Winegard in the essay. Also, brave social scientists speaking frankly have helped damage the censorship regime.
Q3: “If some differences are real,” people ask, “what follows? How should we live with them?” - Bo Winegard in this essay.
A: This essay is a good starting point.
Thank you. I hope the conversation slowly moves in this direction, though I've hoped that for many years now and I don't know that things are any better (and might be worse) than they were in 2012.
Bo
"I hope the conversation slowly moves in this direction, though I've hoped that for many years now and I don't know that things are any better (and might be worse) than they were in 2012."
I believe there has been a significant improvement in the dissemination of the truth