You may not be aware of this but dysgenics is popularly accepted as a catastrophe among lion populations. One of the arguments lion conservsationists give for being very against canned hunting in South Africa (ie breeding lions to be shot during budget safaris) is that the quality of lion genetics deteriorates rapidly. This is known to happen in just a few generations. Given that lions breed every 4-5 years, it suggests that 3-4 generations is all it takes for dysgenic effects to impede lion survival.
What is considered as self evident truth with one species is thought crime with another.
I didn't expect to find much humour in an article on Dissident Psychologists however this little snippet gave me a proper little chuckle :
" Picture the type of person who spends their finite time on Earth anonymously editing Wikipedia as social justice warfare and you’ve pictured precisely the type of person natural selection would long ago have purged..."
Abso-bloody-lutely spot on observation !
I shall be stealing those lines for further use they are too good to waste.
“If believing that any differences between the races, like, let’s say, skin colour, are principally genetic, then I am a big fat racist, which annoyingly makes the truth…racist.”
But the difference between races his work focuses on isn’t skin color, is it, it’s intelligence. And yes, believing that there are genetically determined intelligence gaps between races is racist, by definition. Not some weird CRT loosey goose definition of “racism,” like, the 1950s Webster definition.
Why can’t you just own what you believe? What sniveling cowards you people all are.
First thing: don’t name call, otherwise you’ll be banned.
Second: how is it racist to say part of the black-white IQ gap or white-Asian IQ gap or Ashkenazi-Jew-and-everybody-else IQ gap is likely genetic?
If it’s true, it’s true. The truth cannot be racist.
Racism is me not giving Dave a job because he’s black. Racism is not giving Dave an IQ test, finding out that he scores the mean for his genetic ancestry, and not giving him the job. He doesn’t get the job because he doesn’t meet the standard.
You can go ahead and ban me. I really don’t mind. Racism is the belief that one race is inherently superior to another. Literally the dictionary definition. And the common sense one. And the one any child could give you.
You believe this racist precept is true. Okay, you think racism is correct. That makes you a racist. You think science proves it’s correct? You’re a scientific racist, which means Wikipedia was right, despite all your whining. At least Lynn had the modicum of integrity necessary to own that label. So did the Nazis. The KKK. What’s the matter, you don’t like the company? Why can’t you just admit what you believe: you think some races are superior to others, which is the definition of racism. If you can’t admit that (and again feel free to ban me), you’re cowards.
I don’t think Ashkenazi Jews are inherently superior to everybody else because of a group average on one particular trait. That’s not just wrong, it’s utterly illogical (because even if it were true, it’s a group average).
If you’re open minded, I’m happy to continue the discussion, because there are actually interesting ethical points about superiority we could talk about. However, I’d first like you to accept that, by your own definition, nothing I have said in this article is racist.
Incredible. No, nothing you have said exonerates Lynn from racism, as that word is universally understood. Individuals who exceed a racial average do not change the fact that you think racial genetics might predispose you to inferiority. You think genetics are responsible for racial intelligence gaps, endorse racial nationalism, believe that the atrophy of particular races will be to humanity’s collective benefit—but you’re not a “racist.” Truly extraordinary. Why are you so afraid of it? Your arguments already put you outside the pale of polite society. What motive do you have to deny the label that Lynn proudly owned? Truly extraordinary, I mean it. You’re specimens.
Wasn’t Earl Browder canceled by Stalin? Adherence to a dictionary definition of racism is just adherence to a tautology. Calling Lynn’s work “scientific racism” and comparing it to Nazism is an ad hominem--a low brow tactic worthy of the Stalinist Browder himself.
Racism has had more than one definition for a long time, at least a century, though you have to weed through racialism, race theory, etc to get a full picture. Checking the various dictionaries and encyclopedias, it can mean 1) belief in one race's superiority, or 2) it can refer entirely to actions (even subtle ones) that discriminate against one or more races, or 3) it can mean believing that races have distinct and intrinsic attributes., without comment on advantage or superiority.
Accusations of racism usually lump all these together without distinction, as if they were one thing. As it is effective in public argument, this is hardly surprising. I prefer distinctions. When one of my patients was told he had outstanding charges, I didn't congratulate him on having done so remarkably well.
You may not be aware of this but dysgenics is popularly accepted as a catastrophe among lion populations. One of the arguments lion conservsationists give for being very against canned hunting in South Africa (ie breeding lions to be shot during budget safaris) is that the quality of lion genetics deteriorates rapidly. This is known to happen in just a few generations. Given that lions breed every 4-5 years, it suggests that 3-4 generations is all it takes for dysgenic effects to impede lion survival.
What is considered as self evident truth with one species is thought crime with another.
Fascinating.
Any recommended reading?
-- Matt
Excellent piece old chap.
I didn't expect to find much humour in an article on Dissident Psychologists however this little snippet gave me a proper little chuckle :
" Picture the type of person who spends their finite time on Earth anonymously editing Wikipedia as social justice warfare and you’ve pictured precisely the type of person natural selection would long ago have purged..."
Abso-bloody-lutely spot on observation !
I shall be stealing those lines for further use they are too good to waste.
Excellent interview. Absolutely fascinating. Thank you for posting.
Excellent article! One minor quibble: I believe HBD stands for Human Biodiversity.
Thanks!
I've heard both. I prefer Differences because diversity is such an annoying word now.
-- Matt
True. Understanding Human Biodiversity is our strength!
“If believing that any differences between the races, like, let’s say, skin colour, are principally genetic, then I am a big fat racist, which annoyingly makes the truth…racist.”
But the difference between races his work focuses on isn’t skin color, is it, it’s intelligence. And yes, believing that there are genetically determined intelligence gaps between races is racist, by definition. Not some weird CRT loosey goose definition of “racism,” like, the 1950s Webster definition.
Why can’t you just own what you believe? What sniveling cowards you people all are.
First thing: don’t name call, otherwise you’ll be banned.
Second: how is it racist to say part of the black-white IQ gap or white-Asian IQ gap or Ashkenazi-Jew-and-everybody-else IQ gap is likely genetic?
If it’s true, it’s true. The truth cannot be racist.
Racism is me not giving Dave a job because he’s black. Racism is not giving Dave an IQ test, finding out that he scores the mean for his genetic ancestry, and not giving him the job. He doesn’t get the job because he doesn’t meet the standard.
What do you disagree with?
You can go ahead and ban me. I really don’t mind. Racism is the belief that one race is inherently superior to another. Literally the dictionary definition. And the common sense one. And the one any child could give you.
You believe this racist precept is true. Okay, you think racism is correct. That makes you a racist. You think science proves it’s correct? You’re a scientific racist, which means Wikipedia was right, despite all your whining. At least Lynn had the modicum of integrity necessary to own that label. So did the Nazis. The KKK. What’s the matter, you don’t like the company? Why can’t you just admit what you believe: you think some races are superior to others, which is the definition of racism. If you can’t admit that (and again feel free to ban me), you’re cowards.
I don’t think Ashkenazi Jews are inherently superior to everybody else because of a group average on one particular trait. That’s not just wrong, it’s utterly illogical (because even if it were true, it’s a group average).
If you’re open minded, I’m happy to continue the discussion, because there are actually interesting ethical points about superiority we could talk about. However, I’d first like you to accept that, by your own definition, nothing I have said in this article is racist.
Incredible. No, nothing you have said exonerates Lynn from racism, as that word is universally understood. Individuals who exceed a racial average do not change the fact that you think racial genetics might predispose you to inferiority. You think genetics are responsible for racial intelligence gaps, endorse racial nationalism, believe that the atrophy of particular races will be to humanity’s collective benefit—but you’re not a “racist.” Truly extraordinary. Why are you so afraid of it? Your arguments already put you outside the pale of polite society. What motive do you have to deny the label that Lynn proudly owned? Truly extraordinary, I mean it. You’re specimens.
I’m tired of being told what I think rather than asked questions. Let me know if you’d like to talk again like two normal adults.
Sincerely wish you the best.
Thanks,
Matt
Wasn’t Earl Browder canceled by Stalin? Adherence to a dictionary definition of racism is just adherence to a tautology. Calling Lynn’s work “scientific racism” and comparing it to Nazism is an ad hominem--a low brow tactic worthy of the Stalinist Browder himself.
> And yes, believing that there are genetically determined intelligence gaps between races is racist, by definition.
It's also true. Now if you believe the truth to be racist just say so explicitly.
Racism has had more than one definition for a long time, at least a century, though you have to weed through racialism, race theory, etc to get a full picture. Checking the various dictionaries and encyclopedias, it can mean 1) belief in one race's superiority, or 2) it can refer entirely to actions (even subtle ones) that discriminate against one or more races, or 3) it can mean believing that races have distinct and intrinsic attributes., without comment on advantage or superiority.
Accusations of racism usually lump all these together without distinction, as if they were one thing. As it is effective in public argument, this is hardly surprising. I prefer distinctions. When one of my patients was told he had outstanding charges, I didn't congratulate him on having done so remarkably well.
"The consequences of 3,500 plus million years of mutational purging potentially grinding to a halt are outweighed by mosquitos and bed nets."
I think we are, soon enough, about to pay the price for our collective altruism.