I think the most insightful part of the article is your diagnosis for the etiology of the pernicious narrative of systemic racism. After the civil rights movement, people who championed the equality of blacks and whites were soon bludgeoned by the cold, harsh reality of race disparities, thus inducing them to seek a false cause behind this unseemly disparity.
I have not read Hughes' book, but you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the concept of color-blindness is. It has nothing to do with whether race is socially constructed or biological. Nor does it mean that no one can talk about race.
I think it can best be summarized as:
"Treat people as individuals, not as members of a group"
I know that people with red hair and people with black hair have their hair color determined by genetics. That does not mean that I treat them differently because of the color of their hair.
As an aside, I really do not like the term “color-blindness.” I prefer the term “merit-based decision-making by institutions.” If it leads to disparities so be it. Everyone benefits in the long run, even those who appear to be the losers.
As I noted the in the review, the viability (and desirability) of colorblindness importantly depends on the ontological status of race. If races are reliably different, then colorblindness is not only impossible, it's also likely immoral. Do you believe that progressives would accept colorblindness, i.e., would end all affirmative action programs and favoritism for blacks and Hispanics, if the that meant that disparities between blacks and whites would balloon? What if many elites universities had 10-50 black students and almost no black professors?
The only response to huge race disparities is to care about race. And to talk about race differences. And that explicitly violates the ideal of colorblindness.
What is more, colorblindness would be used to bludgeon whites who resisted. It would not be used to discourage black and Hispanic identity.
Now of course this doesn't mean we should encourage racial nepotism, et cetera. Colorblindness is doomed to fail. But that doesn't mean it must be replaced with some sinister ideology that promotes racial hostility.
I really do not understand the logic of your point:
"the viability (and desirability) of colorblindness importantly depends on the ontological status of race"
Progressives do not actually care about the ontological status of race. They know that it is a sensitive topic because of slavery, so they want to pick at the scab. They are just focusing on the concept because it enables them to hate and virtue signal. Then they make up moral justifications for why they are doing it.
Their "ontological status of race" is just an excuse. Convincing them that their "ontological status of race" is incorrect will do nothing. They will just find another excuse to hate and virtue signal because that is their real goal.
I don't actually like the term, but I interpret "color-blindness" to mean merit-based decision-making by institutions regarding hiring, firing, and promotion that exclude race as a criteria. I do not believe that it means that we cannot talk about race, racial differences, or biology. I said that in the original comment. If Hughes believes that then I disagree with him.
Merit-based decision-making automatically leads to differences in outcomes for the individual and the group. I have no problem with the outcomes you mentioned above if universities can demonstrate Merit-based decision-making.
Groups of people can be on average different, but individuals within that group have high variance. Institutions make hiring, firing, and promotions for individuals, so it is perfectly possible to have merit-based decision-making in a society where groups have differences on average.
I am not interested in what progressives will accept.
We should get rid of affirmative action regardless of what they think. Most progressive activists want to destroy or project an image of virtue. Changing the terms of the debate will convince them of nothing.
Our goal should be to as closely approximating Merit-based decision-making as possible, not to convince people to change their minds about race:
Blacks are like a $100 bill on the sidewalk. You tell them that it's all whitey's fault and you are going to give them free goodies based on their race, and they will vote for you 90-10. With 13% of the population being black (and much higher ratios in urban centers) that is a huge electoral advantage that can be purchase relatively cheaply, provided you can neutralize white racial solidarity (via racial guilt).
Because blacks are poor and exercise high solidarity (you don't waste purchase their votes in a way that ends up 60-40 or something weak like that) their political influence is very outsized to their level of accomplishment in society and can be "purchased" relatively cheaply. I would say the same of their social/cultureal influence, blacks are pretty good at entertainment and athletics which is important for mass influence. And they are more easily willing to resort to street violence to get their way.
All of this adds up to a situation in which anyone trying to min/max democratic power, especially in certain contexts, would definitely want to use racial grievance to court blacks.
The only counter I can think of is if whites exercised a level of solidarity that said "try that shit and we will fuck you up." This is how East Asians handle things or how they were handled in the American South. They were to a lessor extent handled this way by northern Archie Bunker white ethnics before the 1960s, but the race riots drove them all into the suburbs.
"I know that people with red hair and people with black hair have their hair color determined by genetics. That does not mean that I treat them differently because of the color of their hair."
But your example is trifling. I know of no study that addresses hair color as a factor in determining traits, actions, or abilities.
Your criticism is irrelevant. Traits, actions, or abilities in no way nullify the need to treat people as individuals instead of members of a group.
I know that tall people and short people have their height determined by genetics. That does not mean that I treat them differently because of their height.
You may think it is irrelevant, but people with logic easily understand.'
"I know that tall people and short people have their height determined by genetics. That does not mean that I treat them differently because of their height."
Again, you make the same illogical argument. I know evil people, and I know good people...I sure as hell treat them differently.
I agree. And what is the ideal America that the author of this essay is imagining? Does he have any idea?
As for myself, I've often thought that if we lived in an America in which anyone, regardless of race or cognitive ability, who works hard and plays be the rules could reasonably look forward to a rich and fulfilling life, then much of the racial tension that is currently disturbing our society would simply disappear. What would such a society look like? Possibly like this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U0C9HKW
"As for myself, I've often thought that if we lived in an America in which anyone, regardless of race or cognitive ability, who works hard and plays be the rules could reasonably look forward to a rich and fulfilling life, then much of the racial tension that is currently disturbing our society would simply disappear."
That is an idealistic utopian view. Those who work harder and have advanced cognitive abilities should have a richer and more fulfilling life than those who don't...it's called meritocracy.
In a meritocracy you would see clear patterns emerging: Asians and whites filling science labs, higher ed. teaching positions and most cognitively demanding jobs. They would also tend to live in bigger, nicer houses. Meanwhile black people, and to a lesser extent Hispanics, would work more unskilled, lower-paid jobs and consequently live in smaller houses. Their residential areas would be more crime-ridden due to the nature of people living there. These patterns would be impossible to overlook but as long as you are happy with this outcome of colourblindness and treating all individuals AS individuals, that's fine. What Bo is saying is that many people in our current society (e.g. blacks, Hispanics and white saviours) WOULDN'T be at all happy with this, precisely because they have misdiagnosed the reason for the huge disparities.
Meritocracy always has differing outcomes for differing groups.
My original point to the author was “you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the concept of color-blindness is. It has nothing to do with whether race is socially constructed or biological. Nor does it mean that no one can talk about race.”
I, and probably Bo, would agree that whether race is socially constructed or biological is irrelevant to the concept of colourblindness. You can advocate for the policy of colourblindness regardless of whether you think race is socially constructed or biological. Bo talked the ideas behind race, not to define colourblindness, but merely as background to the whole debate.
I disagree that advocating colourblindness doesn't mean you can't discuss, say, disparities in outcome. Surely being colourblind means you simply don't notice race, or at least don't acknowledge doing so. Talking about race presupposes that you in fact do.
Isn't Hughes's point simply that you should treat each person as an individual first, rather than as an avatar of his or her race?
After all, even Charles Murray pointed out that racial differences refer to the mean, so you'll encounter individuals across the distribution, including standouts above and below.
So this hybrid view makes sense. Maybe it's logical that there aren't many black nuclear physicists, but it could still be racist if there aren't any at all.
"It still could be racist if there aren't any are all". No. Not if their average IQ is 85 and having quotas as you endorse means rejecting more intelligent physicists of other races.
Their ancestors didn't even invent the wheel in many cases. Why should they be physicists at all?
the wheel wasn't needed in African society. most people at the time traveled by river, so it would be unnecessary for most of their needs. Africans had other technologies, like textile production, working with iron, and writing. so the fact that they lacked a wheel doesn't mean they lacked innovation abilities. the preferred mode of transportation for everyone around the world was not the wheel, but by water and along the coastlines. this was the preferred mode of transportation for the majority of human history
Africa has a relatively poor river transport system, as I understand it- Thomas Sowell made some pretty good arguments about Africa's geography making economic development challenging, IIRC. The lack of domesticated draft animals might have had more of an impact on the wheel not being invented, although things like wheelbarrows and rickshaws are useful in almost any society, even when you're using human power.
I broadly agree that the historical record isn't the most reliable indicator of genetic intelligence, given that, e.g, northern europe wasn't especially notable for high civilisation until quite recently and agriculture & metallurgy spread to africa at around the same time, but the lack of certain innovations in the region is a bit puzzling.
"After all, even Charles Murray pointed out that racial differences refer to the mean, so you'll encounter individuals across the distribution, including standouts above and below."
That is true. However, what is also true is that the normal distribution curves are offset from one group to another. This has significant ramifications.
Coleman Hughes is a black man so will do whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to deny race differences. The real question you should ask is where these.political schools of thought originate. Who wrote Martin Luther King's speeches? Who founded the NAACP? Why is it necessary to make the white majority believe race differences don't exist?
Social status is highly predictive of biological fitness (that is, the number and survival of progeny). (For example, Napoleon Chagnon in "Noble Savages" identifies diplomacy and having killed another male in warfare as high status and high fitness amongst the Yanomamo).
The reactions to social situations that excite threats to social status, being directly relevant to fitness, are likely to be visceral. The name itself, "Black Lives Matter" encapsulates this. It explains the irrationality of indifference to the rate of black on black homicide coupled with hysteria at the minute numbers of white cop on black killings. It explains why BLM has worked only to worsen the situation of black Americans – since what is required is not improvement in conditions but a gift of higher status. Race is salient at present, disastrously attaching to an identity that must fail due to well established differences in IQ and executive function. But it disguises an underlying failure to ensure satisfactory lives and social status to those who do not possess the high (and increasing) intellect needed for higher status functioning. It is necessary to recognise the excellence of non-intellectuals, in their own fields – such as gardeners, bricklayers, hairdressers… and ensure that these too can enjoy a successful family life.
I thought this was brilliant. It's easy to write another essay raiing against the obviously untrue idea that all races are the same. It's much harder to write an essay against an enticing idea that it less obviously wrong. But this essay did it. Until I read it I too might have been tempted to accept the colourblind dogma of the 'sensible, cultured' right and left. Not now though. Terrific stuff.
Appreciate the kind comments. To date, it is my favorite piece of my writing precisely because it's difficult publicly to argue that colorblindness is doomed to fail. Of course, I could be wrong. I always could be wrong. But I don't think so : )
Agreed, this is your best writing yet - so good I have immediately sent it to many friends and lauded it as one of the most succinct yet thorough explanations of race realism. Well done and bravo!
Unfortunately the sociologists are in control of the popular and public narrative of race, specifically, non race realistic, starting with W.E.B. Du Bouis.
They reject race realism but they also reject racial color blindness because of historical systemic racism, making the aggressive implementation of black affirmative action morally justified. The differences in cognitive abilities they also of course ascribe to systemic racism. They do not entertain or allow any discussion or disagreement saying only that any aspects of racial realism have been thoroughly debunked.
This conditioning, extending to K-12 education, is going to be nearly impossible to overcome
Yes, we see color. Yes, taxonomy is a thing, so we group things together which are similar, but not exactly the same. Yes, we are prone to in/out group behavior. Yes, there are other characteristics which appear statistically in conjunction with skin color.
My question is: So what? Colorblindness is about treating people as individuals, not members of groups, however arbitrary. It is particularly pernicious when the government does it, because it alone has legal coercive power.
It is also given to large type-1 and type-2 errors. For instance, if reparations are awarded, how does one determine who get them? All black people - including recent immigrants? Or only those that had slaves as ancestors? What about those who had slaveowners as ancestors? Sometimes those are the same people. It's a never-ending game of racial conflict. And how do those not in the "black-white" paradigm fit in?
The hope is that over time, race will simply become less important. Unlike communism's "fading away of the state", race consciousness IS actually fading away. People are treated with far less regard to race than they ever were. Workplaces are more integrated. Freindship groups are as well. Inter-racial dating and marriage is increasing rapidly. There is hope.
We should distinguish between hopes and realistic expectations. You may hope that race will become less important, but with rapidly changing demographics, I doubt that hope will be realized. Of course, none of this means we should accept or promote hatred or explicit racial biases. We accept religious identity, but we do not accept religious bigotry. I think the same should apply to race. (Of course, defining "bigotry" is not easy, and the Left uses the term rather promiscuously. But that is for another article.)
I am haunted by the fear that progressives more clearly understand race than mainstream conservatives. By this, I do not mean that they accurately grasp the nature of race differences or correctly diagnose the causes of race disparities. Rather, I mean that they comprehend the power, the importance, and the inevitability of race. And thus while conservatives have attempted to alleviate racial tensions by promoting colorblindness, progressives have eagerly exploited racial politics.
That's because Liberals are racists and have been since the civil war.
I'm not colorblind, but as long as people aren't trying to kill me, I don't care how they live their lives.
But I can pass along a few things from my 14 years of Correction experience.
There are more blacks in prison than other races.
Black people are more likely (in prison or jail) to start gangs and start fights.
Black people are more likely not to listen to orders given.
Except on rare occasions when they've learned that not doing something is better than doing something.
I'm hesitant to say anything about sports since I consider them just one step higher than gladiatorial games. There are more black players in the NFL and NBA than white players, and I'm not sure as to whether that's due to skill or the fact that those leagues are closer to slavery than freedom. Granted, they pay the players well, but even there, they hire and keep players who have committed crimes and have assaulted women. Again, I'm unsure whether that's due to ability or just because they are black.
I have two mixed-race children (Adopted), and I've noticed that I've had to be more forceful with them than I do with my sister's two half-Spanish children.
Bo, people often write on race without informing readers that racial differences are not recent. Blacks formed families during slavery even though women complained that men were failing to care for children. Scrutinising history shows that the defects of black populations were prevalent in different historical periods.
Among the greatest race realism pieces I’ve ever read, and should immediately added to “the canon” alongside Lawrence Auster’s work and many others.
Furthermore, the “treat others as individuals, not as a group” maxim misunderstands the differences in self-control and self-interest between groups.
So, for example, many people - including Hughes (even in the comments) - assert that if we simply “evaluate others on an individual basis” without regard to their group, we stand the best fighting chance of a colorblind society.
However, even that particular ideology is built on Northwestern European (ahem, British) sensibilities of fairness, much like rule of law, individual Liberty, privacy, etc.
Therefore, in any modern multicultural society what you’d find is that non-European groups (particularly those of African, Middle Eastern, and South Asian descent) would immediately ignore the “treat others as individuals” paradigm that we’d hope to espouse.
You can see this in real time by simply observing the public and political behavior in Western cities of these groups.
Humza Yousef, the first minister of Scotland, has consistently and vociferously advocated against whites in positions of power, despite growing up in the white country of Scotland, Ilhan Omar’s blanket disdain for the US has followed a similar trajectory, and so on.
Even in microcosm, the “street vendor” intrusive model of capitalism espoused by Africans in Europe or Latinos in the USA wherein entire city blocks and public parks are consumed by essentially vending kiosk panhandling demonstrates a different understanding between groups in what constitutes a fair use of public spaces.
In short, while many Westerners wish for the “treat everyone as an individual” dream, non-Westerners (even those who grew up in the West) do not hold the same ideals - whether implicitly or explicitly.
If people mates by IQ in a colorblind fashion, race soon does not matter. You get the Brazilian system, that being “spectrum” instead of “border” is not a political problem. At the end, of course high IQ is good, low is bad, but decoupling with skin color is always good, isn’t it?
I think as someone interested in truth it doesn't make sense to discuss any trait consequences like IQ because people are in a different world with their understanding of race and the reality of statistical categories. If an article is necessary, it's one thats concise and lays out exactly what clusters show, why they aren't method artifacts, what objective measures like information gain tell us about clustering, amd how widely it's used.
What commensurability means, what it means to have coherent information coming from different places, why simple things like observing physical features is not trivial, why pca, k-means or dbscan are equivalent. Why it's unrealistic to treat mental group differences as a missing quadrant if you accept group scale physical differences are real. What it means for something to be mathematically real, even platonically real when it comes to not just clusters but strong statistical outcomes from other studies.
I really only care about this because I think people are brushing up against mathematical realism and rationalizing it a way or even believing falsehoods about the basics of how to interpret reality. Coleman seems to be spreading the most banal comment section type misconception about what race is. If you can make a clear breakdown of that, forget about moral consequences of any specific trait, just should why these mathematical categories aren't phantoms or artifacts or slight signals.
I think the most insightful part of the article is your diagnosis for the etiology of the pernicious narrative of systemic racism. After the civil rights movement, people who championed the equality of blacks and whites were soon bludgeoned by the cold, harsh reality of race disparities, thus inducing them to seek a false cause behind this unseemly disparity.
I have not read Hughes' book, but you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the concept of color-blindness is. It has nothing to do with whether race is socially constructed or biological. Nor does it mean that no one can talk about race.
I think it can best be summarized as:
"Treat people as individuals, not as members of a group"
I know that people with red hair and people with black hair have their hair color determined by genetics. That does not mean that I treat them differently because of the color of their hair.
As an aside, I really do not like the term “color-blindness.” I prefer the term “merit-based decision-making by institutions.” If it leads to disparities so be it. Everyone benefits in the long run, even those who appear to be the losers.
As I noted the in the review, the viability (and desirability) of colorblindness importantly depends on the ontological status of race. If races are reliably different, then colorblindness is not only impossible, it's also likely immoral. Do you believe that progressives would accept colorblindness, i.e., would end all affirmative action programs and favoritism for blacks and Hispanics, if the that meant that disparities between blacks and whites would balloon? What if many elites universities had 10-50 black students and almost no black professors?
The only response to huge race disparities is to care about race. And to talk about race differences. And that explicitly violates the ideal of colorblindness.
What is more, colorblindness would be used to bludgeon whites who resisted. It would not be used to discourage black and Hispanic identity.
Now of course this doesn't mean we should encourage racial nepotism, et cetera. Colorblindness is doomed to fail. But that doesn't mean it must be replaced with some sinister ideology that promotes racial hostility.
Bo W
I really do not understand the logic of your point:
"the viability (and desirability) of colorblindness importantly depends on the ontological status of race"
Progressives do not actually care about the ontological status of race. They know that it is a sensitive topic because of slavery, so they want to pick at the scab. They are just focusing on the concept because it enables them to hate and virtue signal. Then they make up moral justifications for why they are doing it.
Their "ontological status of race" is just an excuse. Convincing them that their "ontological status of race" is incorrect will do nothing. They will just find another excuse to hate and virtue signal because that is their real goal.
I disagree
I don't actually like the term, but I interpret "color-blindness" to mean merit-based decision-making by institutions regarding hiring, firing, and promotion that exclude race as a criteria. I do not believe that it means that we cannot talk about race, racial differences, or biology. I said that in the original comment. If Hughes believes that then I disagree with him.
Merit-based decision-making automatically leads to differences in outcomes for the individual and the group. I have no problem with the outcomes you mentioned above if universities can demonstrate Merit-based decision-making.
Groups of people can be on average different, but individuals within that group have high variance. Institutions make hiring, firing, and promotions for individuals, so it is perfectly possible to have merit-based decision-making in a society where groups have differences on average.
I am not interested in what progressives will accept.
We should get rid of affirmative action regardless of what they think. Most progressive activists want to destroy or project an image of virtue. Changing the terms of the debate will convince them of nothing.
Our goal should be to as closely approximating Merit-based decision-making as possible, not to convince people to change their minds about race:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-merit-of-merit-part-1
In democracy, everyone gets an equal vote.
Blacks are like a $100 bill on the sidewalk. You tell them that it's all whitey's fault and you are going to give them free goodies based on their race, and they will vote for you 90-10. With 13% of the population being black (and much higher ratios in urban centers) that is a huge electoral advantage that can be purchase relatively cheaply, provided you can neutralize white racial solidarity (via racial guilt).
Because blacks are poor and exercise high solidarity (you don't waste purchase their votes in a way that ends up 60-40 or something weak like that) their political influence is very outsized to their level of accomplishment in society and can be "purchased" relatively cheaply. I would say the same of their social/cultureal influence, blacks are pretty good at entertainment and athletics which is important for mass influence. And they are more easily willing to resort to street violence to get their way.
All of this adds up to a situation in which anyone trying to min/max democratic power, especially in certain contexts, would definitely want to use racial grievance to court blacks.
The only counter I can think of is if whites exercised a level of solidarity that said "try that shit and we will fuck you up." This is how East Asians handle things or how they were handled in the American South. They were to a lessor extent handled this way by northern Archie Bunker white ethnics before the 1960s, but the race riots drove them all into the suburbs.
"I know that people with red hair and people with black hair have their hair color determined by genetics. That does not mean that I treat them differently because of the color of their hair."
But your example is trifling. I know of no study that addresses hair color as a factor in determining traits, actions, or abilities.
Your criticism is irrelevant. Traits, actions, or abilities in no way nullify the need to treat people as individuals instead of members of a group.
I know that tall people and short people have their height determined by genetics. That does not mean that I treat them differently because of their height.
Did you read the article? The book clearly argues not just for colorblindness but for the concept of race not being meaningful.
Yes, I did. I am not agreeing with the book.
I am saying the concept of colored blindness in institutional decision-making has nothing to do with whether race is biological or a social construct.
Race is obviously biological. Just like height and hair color.
"Your criticism is irrelevant."
You may think it is irrelevant, but people with logic easily understand.'
"I know that tall people and short people have their height determined by genetics. That does not mean that I treat them differently because of their height."
Again, you make the same illogical argument. I know evil people, and I know good people...I sure as hell treat them differently.
Great, but that has nothing to do with race.
You judge evil by actions not by skin color.
"Great, but that has nothing to do with race.
You judge evil by actions not by skin color."
AGAIN! I ask, where do you see the words 'race,' 'skin,' or 'color' in my comment?
Answer the question and quit making inane replies.
I already answered the question. It is up to you to be clear where you disagree with me in your reply.
The article and my comment was clearly about race….
I agree. And what is the ideal America that the author of this essay is imagining? Does he have any idea?
As for myself, I've often thought that if we lived in an America in which anyone, regardless of race or cognitive ability, who works hard and plays be the rules could reasonably look forward to a rich and fulfilling life, then much of the racial tension that is currently disturbing our society would simply disappear. What would such a society look like? Possibly like this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U0C9HKW
"As for myself, I've often thought that if we lived in an America in which anyone, regardless of race or cognitive ability, who works hard and plays be the rules could reasonably look forward to a rich and fulfilling life, then much of the racial tension that is currently disturbing our society would simply disappear."
That is an idealistic utopian view. Those who work harder and have advanced cognitive abilities should have a richer and more fulfilling life than those who don't...it's called meritocracy.
Yes, richer, but not necessarily rich and fulfilling. Read the link and you'll see what I am talking about.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with race. Meritocracy is the opposite of making decisions based on race.
In a meritocracy you would see clear patterns emerging: Asians and whites filling science labs, higher ed. teaching positions and most cognitively demanding jobs. They would also tend to live in bigger, nicer houses. Meanwhile black people, and to a lesser extent Hispanics, would work more unskilled, lower-paid jobs and consequently live in smaller houses. Their residential areas would be more crime-ridden due to the nature of people living there. These patterns would be impossible to overlook but as long as you are happy with this outcome of colourblindness and treating all individuals AS individuals, that's fine. What Bo is saying is that many people in our current society (e.g. blacks, Hispanics and white saviours) WOULDN'T be at all happy with this, precisely because they have misdiagnosed the reason for the huge disparities.
I agree with all the above.
Meritocracy always has differing outcomes for differing groups.
My original point to the author was “you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the concept of color-blindness is. It has nothing to do with whether race is socially constructed or biological. Nor does it mean that no one can talk about race.”
I, and probably Bo, would agree that whether race is socially constructed or biological is irrelevant to the concept of colourblindness. You can advocate for the policy of colourblindness regardless of whether you think race is socially constructed or biological. Bo talked the ideas behind race, not to define colourblindness, but merely as background to the whole debate.
I disagree that advocating colourblindness doesn't mean you can't discuss, say, disparities in outcome. Surely being colourblind means you simply don't notice race, or at least don't acknowledge doing so. Talking about race presupposes that you in fact do.
"Yes, but that has nothing to do with race. Meritocracy is the opposite of making decisions based on race."
Where the hell do you see the word race in my comment???
That is the point of the entire article and my comment.
If you are disagreeing with me, make your point clear about what you are disagreeing with.
Lengthy review but well worth the time spent reading it.
Isn't Hughes's point simply that you should treat each person as an individual first, rather than as an avatar of his or her race?
After all, even Charles Murray pointed out that racial differences refer to the mean, so you'll encounter individuals across the distribution, including standouts above and below.
So this hybrid view makes sense. Maybe it's logical that there aren't many black nuclear physicists, but it could still be racist if there aren't any at all.
"It still could be racist if there aren't any are all". No. Not if their average IQ is 85 and having quotas as you endorse means rejecting more intelligent physicists of other races.
Their ancestors didn't even invent the wheel in many cases. Why should they be physicists at all?
the wheel wasn't needed in African society. most people at the time traveled by river, so it would be unnecessary for most of their needs. Africans had other technologies, like textile production, working with iron, and writing. so the fact that they lacked a wheel doesn't mean they lacked innovation abilities. the preferred mode of transportation for everyone around the world was not the wheel, but by water and along the coastlines. this was the preferred mode of transportation for the majority of human history
Africa has a relatively poor river transport system, as I understand it- Thomas Sowell made some pretty good arguments about Africa's geography making economic development challenging, IIRC. The lack of domesticated draft animals might have had more of an impact on the wheel not being invented, although things like wheelbarrows and rickshaws are useful in almost any society, even when you're using human power.
I broadly agree that the historical record isn't the most reliable indicator of genetic intelligence, given that, e.g, northern europe wasn't especially notable for high civilisation until quite recently and agriculture & metallurgy spread to africa at around the same time, but the lack of certain innovations in the region is a bit puzzling.
"After all, even Charles Murray pointed out that racial differences refer to the mean, so you'll encounter individuals across the distribution, including standouts above and below."
That is true. However, what is also true is that the normal distribution curves are offset from one group to another. This has significant ramifications.
Coleman Hughes is a black man so will do whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to deny race differences. The real question you should ask is where these.political schools of thought originate. Who wrote Martin Luther King's speeches? Who founded the NAACP? Why is it necessary to make the white majority believe race differences don't exist?
Social status is highly predictive of biological fitness (that is, the number and survival of progeny). (For example, Napoleon Chagnon in "Noble Savages" identifies diplomacy and having killed another male in warfare as high status and high fitness amongst the Yanomamo).
The reactions to social situations that excite threats to social status, being directly relevant to fitness, are likely to be visceral. The name itself, "Black Lives Matter" encapsulates this. It explains the irrationality of indifference to the rate of black on black homicide coupled with hysteria at the minute numbers of white cop on black killings. It explains why BLM has worked only to worsen the situation of black Americans – since what is required is not improvement in conditions but a gift of higher status. Race is salient at present, disastrously attaching to an identity that must fail due to well established differences in IQ and executive function. But it disguises an underlying failure to ensure satisfactory lives and social status to those who do not possess the high (and increasing) intellect needed for higher status functioning. It is necessary to recognise the excellence of non-intellectuals, in their own fields – such as gardeners, bricklayers, hairdressers… and ensure that these too can enjoy a successful family life.
I thought this was brilliant. It's easy to write another essay raiing against the obviously untrue idea that all races are the same. It's much harder to write an essay against an enticing idea that it less obviously wrong. But this essay did it. Until I read it I too might have been tempted to accept the colourblind dogma of the 'sensible, cultured' right and left. Not now though. Terrific stuff.
Appreciate the kind comments. To date, it is my favorite piece of my writing precisely because it's difficult publicly to argue that colorblindness is doomed to fail. Of course, I could be wrong. I always could be wrong. But I don't think so : )
Bo W
Agreed, this is your best writing yet - so good I have immediately sent it to many friends and lauded it as one of the most succinct yet thorough explanations of race realism. Well done and bravo!
brilliant and comprehensive
Brilliant article as usual. The pill is bitter, but it must be swallowed.
Unfortunately the sociologists are in control of the popular and public narrative of race, specifically, non race realistic, starting with W.E.B. Du Bouis.
They reject race realism but they also reject racial color blindness because of historical systemic racism, making the aggressive implementation of black affirmative action morally justified. The differences in cognitive abilities they also of course ascribe to systemic racism. They do not entertain or allow any discussion or disagreement saying only that any aspects of racial realism have been thoroughly debunked.
This conditioning, extending to K-12 education, is going to be nearly impossible to overcome
By the way, sociologists never deal with the problem posed by Asians to their narrative
Yes, we see color. Yes, taxonomy is a thing, so we group things together which are similar, but not exactly the same. Yes, we are prone to in/out group behavior. Yes, there are other characteristics which appear statistically in conjunction with skin color.
My question is: So what? Colorblindness is about treating people as individuals, not members of groups, however arbitrary. It is particularly pernicious when the government does it, because it alone has legal coercive power.
It is also given to large type-1 and type-2 errors. For instance, if reparations are awarded, how does one determine who get them? All black people - including recent immigrants? Or only those that had slaves as ancestors? What about those who had slaveowners as ancestors? Sometimes those are the same people. It's a never-ending game of racial conflict. And how do those not in the "black-white" paradigm fit in?
The hope is that over time, race will simply become less important. Unlike communism's "fading away of the state", race consciousness IS actually fading away. People are treated with far less regard to race than they ever were. Workplaces are more integrated. Freindship groups are as well. Inter-racial dating and marriage is increasing rapidly. There is hope.
We should distinguish between hopes and realistic expectations. You may hope that race will become less important, but with rapidly changing demographics, I doubt that hope will be realized. Of course, none of this means we should accept or promote hatred or explicit racial biases. We accept religious identity, but we do not accept religious bigotry. I think the same should apply to race. (Of course, defining "bigotry" is not easy, and the Left uses the term rather promiscuously. But that is for another article.)
Bo W
I am haunted by the fear that progressives more clearly understand race than mainstream conservatives. By this, I do not mean that they accurately grasp the nature of race differences or correctly diagnose the causes of race disparities. Rather, I mean that they comprehend the power, the importance, and the inevitability of race. And thus while conservatives have attempted to alleviate racial tensions by promoting colorblindness, progressives have eagerly exploited racial politics.
That's because Liberals are racists and have been since the civil war.
I'm not colorblind, but as long as people aren't trying to kill me, I don't care how they live their lives.
But I can pass along a few things from my 14 years of Correction experience.
There are more blacks in prison than other races.
Black people are more likely (in prison or jail) to start gangs and start fights.
Black people are more likely not to listen to orders given.
Except on rare occasions when they've learned that not doing something is better than doing something.
I'm hesitant to say anything about sports since I consider them just one step higher than gladiatorial games. There are more black players in the NFL and NBA than white players, and I'm not sure as to whether that's due to skill or the fact that those leagues are closer to slavery than freedom. Granted, they pay the players well, but even there, they hire and keep players who have committed crimes and have assaulted women. Again, I'm unsure whether that's due to ability or just because they are black.
I have two mixed-race children (Adopted), and I've noticed that I've had to be more forceful with them than I do with my sister's two half-Spanish children.
Bo, people often write on race without informing readers that racial differences are not recent. Blacks formed families during slavery even though women complained that men were failing to care for children. Scrutinising history shows that the defects of black populations were prevalent in different historical periods.
Among the greatest race realism pieces I’ve ever read, and should immediately added to “the canon” alongside Lawrence Auster’s work and many others.
Furthermore, the “treat others as individuals, not as a group” maxim misunderstands the differences in self-control and self-interest between groups.
So, for example, many people - including Hughes (even in the comments) - assert that if we simply “evaluate others on an individual basis” without regard to their group, we stand the best fighting chance of a colorblind society.
However, even that particular ideology is built on Northwestern European (ahem, British) sensibilities of fairness, much like rule of law, individual Liberty, privacy, etc.
Therefore, in any modern multicultural society what you’d find is that non-European groups (particularly those of African, Middle Eastern, and South Asian descent) would immediately ignore the “treat others as individuals” paradigm that we’d hope to espouse.
You can see this in real time by simply observing the public and political behavior in Western cities of these groups.
Humza Yousef, the first minister of Scotland, has consistently and vociferously advocated against whites in positions of power, despite growing up in the white country of Scotland, Ilhan Omar’s blanket disdain for the US has followed a similar trajectory, and so on.
Even in microcosm, the “street vendor” intrusive model of capitalism espoused by Africans in Europe or Latinos in the USA wherein entire city blocks and public parks are consumed by essentially vending kiosk panhandling demonstrates a different understanding between groups in what constitutes a fair use of public spaces.
In short, while many Westerners wish for the “treat everyone as an individual” dream, non-Westerners (even those who grew up in the West) do not hold the same ideals - whether implicitly or explicitly.
If people mates by IQ in a colorblind fashion, race soon does not matter. You get the Brazilian system, that being “spectrum” instead of “border” is not a political problem. At the end, of course high IQ is good, low is bad, but decoupling with skin color is always good, isn’t it?
I think as someone interested in truth it doesn't make sense to discuss any trait consequences like IQ because people are in a different world with their understanding of race and the reality of statistical categories. If an article is necessary, it's one thats concise and lays out exactly what clusters show, why they aren't method artifacts, what objective measures like information gain tell us about clustering, amd how widely it's used.
What commensurability means, what it means to have coherent information coming from different places, why simple things like observing physical features is not trivial, why pca, k-means or dbscan are equivalent. Why it's unrealistic to treat mental group differences as a missing quadrant if you accept group scale physical differences are real. What it means for something to be mathematically real, even platonically real when it comes to not just clusters but strong statistical outcomes from other studies.
I really only care about this because I think people are brushing up against mathematical realism and rationalizing it a way or even believing falsehoods about the basics of how to interpret reality. Coleman seems to be spreading the most banal comment section type misconception about what race is. If you can make a clear breakdown of that, forget about moral consequences of any specific trait, just should why these mathematical categories aren't phantoms or artifacts or slight signals.