The Perversity of Human Biodiversity, a.k.a. “Scientific” Racism

"Look at my graph, and don't blame racism, cuz racism is a thing of the past. Hmm, I wonder if I can dryclean my white shirt and white hood together.""

After years of debating and exploring “Human Biodiversity” (HBD), a.k.a. “Scientific” Racism, I thought it might be good for me to say my final word–much as I did with the Pick Up Artist debate. I’m under no illusions: I’m sure there are more words that people will share as the years go on. As long as there is an IR disparity, there will be PUA, and as long as there is racism, there will be scientific racists, so I know that this discussion will most likely continue long after this post. But it’s been some time since the HBDers have brought anything new to the table, so it’s unlikely that my views will change much on this topic in the future. It’s time to settle up.

In the following LONG blog post, you can read about my history with HBD, the full history of HBD, why there are so many Asian American male HBD proponents, and what we need to do going forward to deal with the HBD problem.

Here’s my brief history:

I first ran into scientific racism in the excellent book “The Closing of the American Mind” by Allan Bloom. Bloom was not a racist, but he was a strong advocate for open-mindedness towards people with different views, and he believed it was in our best interest to listen to those who believed in unpolitically correct theories, such as scientific racism. I ran into scientific racism again with the Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray. The Bell Curve wasn’t nearly as racist as people made it out–the race thing was only a small part of the book–but it was a turning point for the resurgence of the movement. Years later, I first saw the term “Human Biodiversity” years ago when I read Steve Sailer’s “Is Love Colorblind“–which pushed a common theory on why there are more AF/WM and WF/BM couples than WF/AM and BF/WM couples. I’d heard the theory before, but this was the first piece I’d seen on the web (although to be fair, it was my first time reading about the “long hair” theory which separated Asian women and black women.)

HBD is exactly the same thing as scientific racism, the key difference is the focus: HBDers push the ideas that black people will never be smart enough to run their own countries, and that while Asian people are smart, the men aren’t as “alpha” as other races. As one prominent young Asian American HBD proponent says:

I believe Asian females gravitate towards white males because of a combination of genetics and the natural laws of attraction. In a multicultural society, these two groups of individuals will come together, far more often than an Asian male with a white female. This is part of HBD [human biodiversity]. I accept it. Even with copious amounts of game, there is not much a 5-7 beta Asian can do when pitted in a fight for an Asian female with an Alpha Aryan. Hell, there’s not much he can do against a beta Jew (BTW,this is not me, I’m 6-1 and athletic). Additionally, Asian female visual-spatial IQ=white male visual-spatial IQ, another reason why the two groups are so compatible.

Of course, we’ve had our own talks about Human BioPerversity…er Biodiversity…on this site. We had an interesting podcast with an Asian American Human Bidiversisist (is that the word?), and during his time here, we had a few conversations online as well (see here and here).  I had no idea that there were so many Asian American guys who were adherents of this internet HBD movement. Outside of the expected angry White dudes who perpetuate this stuff, there is a HUGE cohort of angry Asian American men who think like the gentleman above–blacks are mentally inferior, Asians are mentally superior, and Whites are comfortably in the middle. Blacks are physically more masculine, Asians are physically more feminine, and Whites are comfortably in the middle.

The Origins of Scientific Racism

As many have pointed out, HBD is similar to Intelligent Design in that it’s an old idea repackaged with a new name. Just as Intelligent Design IS Creationism, HBD IS scientific racism. There’s no difference. Which is why I cringe every time some Asian American male HBDer starts spouting off pseudo-scientific nonsense as if it were something brand new to the world. It’s like, “Dude, that’s so 1800’s.” Actually there is a difference between racists in the 1800’s and now, but we’ll get to that later.

Racism started in Europe, and actually began within the realm of science. In The End of Racism, Dinesh D’Souza writes (p.27 of the 1995 hardcover edition):

“Although it can be found in embryonic form among the Chinese and the Arabs in the late Middle Ages, racism is a modern and Western ideology. Racism developed prior to slavery although it was later reinforced by slavery. Far from being the product of irrationality, fear and hatred, racism developed in Europe as a prodcut of Enlightenment, part of a rational and scientific project to understand the world.”

Contrary to the oft-heard-but-incorrect HBD proponents’ claim that “Intellectuals have not attempted to embrace the idea of HBD,” intellectuals started “HBD.” Only it wasn’t called HBD back then, and most of them were simply playing with ideas which were not part of their main body of work. D’Souza later goes on to discuss how many scientists and scientific racists back then were the same people. Some of them were among

“…the greatest thinkers of the Enlightenment. Hume, Voltire, Montesquieu, Kant, and Hegel were among the many who entertained racist views, although these did not make up the main part of their philosophy.” (p.62-63)

Gobineau was the writer who most accurately expressed European racism with his book “The Inequality of Human Races.” From there we see that many intellectuals of that age began measuring heads and doing other “scientific” things to rate the races. Intellectuals did in fact embrace HBD–it just so happens that they ended up rejecting after generations of examination.

Is It True?

Now you will hear many times how scientific racists say that we don’t know that the races are equal. You’ll often hear the strawman argument of:

“Well, if we tested people across different populations, I really doubt you’d get equal results! You’re just afraid to test!”

Indeed, it’s impossible to test across different populations fairly, as one would have to compare populations of equal wealth, education, etc. But even if it were possible…few people think that the results would be equal. If I compared population heights, vertical jumps, IQ, bowling scores, head sizes, or whatever, it’s highly unlikely that I’d get the exact same results. It’s a strawman.

Another common diversionary tactic is the assertion that IQ is genetic:

“Look at these twins studies. IQ is heritable!”

Well…hardly anyone is arguing with that. Some may claim that IQ is totally not heritable, but most people accept that there is at least some genetic component to intelligence. I don’t know of many people making the argument that intelligence is 100% environmental. More likely it’s a combination of environment and genetics.

The real question is whether these tiny differences mean anything. If my IQ is 125 and yours is 123, does that mean I’m gunning for success and you’re doomed to failure? What if I come from a poor family and had no school…if I have an IQ of 90 as a result of malnutrition, is it fair to say that it’s genetic? Also, the skills that are important for survival change from one generation to the next. They change depending on where you live. The ability to have strong gaman and to take nonsense is great if you’re a Japanese or American government bureaucrat, but it’ll tank your career if you’re an American or Chinese entrepreneur, or it could get you killed if you’re a Chinese entrepreneur against the Communist party. Populations and power also swing from one period to another–at one time Europeans looked up to Arabs as men of learning, and Europe has only be ascendant for the last 500 years or so–before that, the Chinese dominated in technology and culture.

It’s especially hard to get an unbiased view these days with the mass media. The mass media tells our stories. As Noam Chomsky wrote, it “manufactures consent.” As any political strategist will tell you, you can change the world with 30 second commercials and sound bites. With the influence of Hollywood, even intellectuals fall under the sway of the mass media. It’s easy for the media to get persuade people that dumb black men and weak Asian men are the norm, that it’s somehow genetic.

We can’t prove the nonexistence of genetic limits, but given the existence of the media and culture surrounding the decisions of those studying HBD and our population, it’s hard to deny the effect of culture. There is more evidence that indicates that we are limited more by a toxic past and present culture than by genetics.

For example, we know that IQ is malleable–people can study for such tests. As the one HBD proponent acknowledged (and actually told us) in our podcast, the IQ gap between Whites and Blacks has in fact narrowed over time. We know that perceptions of masculinity and beauty change over time–there have been times in the past when fat women were glorified, whereas many (but not all!) men now prefer thin.

Just look at how the races have grown closer in the last 200 years. In 1811, was it even feasible that there would be a black man who could be editor of the Harvard Law Review and then become President? Was it feasible that the 2012 ticket might see this man run against another black man, a former CEO of a huge pizza chain? We’ve narrowed the gap.

Furthermore, we know that belief is a reflexive property. Sports psychologists will tell you that believing you can succeed can often create success. People who believe they are less capable may fail because of that belief. As of yet, no one has successfully used science to prescribe the limits of race. There have been great Asian athletes such as Liu Xiang and Manny Pacquiao, and there have been great black intellectuals like Thomas Sowell and Claude Steele. There has so far been NO indication that most black people cannot succeed in school, or that most Asian people cannot train to be decent athletes, or that they cannot be on par with one another.  Liu Xiang is a perfect example. Who would’ve thought that the top hurdler in the world would be a Chinese man?

It’s easier to believe in limits because it’s a lazier way of thinking. It’s easier to believe that stereotypes are true, and that the future will always be the same as the past. But history proves change can happen. My MacBook didn’t exist before Steve Jobs and Apple created it, and the U.S. didn’t exist before people decided that they would make it exist. Slavery had never been abolished before countries abolished it. No one was able to run a four minute mile before Roger Bannister broke the four minute mark, and now ALL elite middle-distance runners can break it. No one punched like Tyson before Tyson. It takes imagination and hard work for any change. If you lack either imagination or the ability to work hard, it’s easier to believe in a retroactive system like HBD.

Most teachers who teach in Africa believe in the African people. They’ve been there. Anyone who goes to Asia can see that despite the fact that Asians still suffer from a cultural inferiority complex, Asian women in Asia still like and often prefer Asian men, rejecting the trajectory of the Asian Female Celebrity Club. It will take imagination and hard work to raise the test scores of African Americans. It will take imagination and hard work to raise the cultural/masculine capital of Asian men. Just because it didn’t exist before doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

Why So Many Asian American Male HBD Proponents?

It’s somewhat unbelievable, given the information that I just presented above, that there are so many Asian American men who believe in HBD. We’ve seen historically how better living conditions yields better opportunities for everyone, we’ve seen things change drastically for black people between the 1800s and now. The gap hasn’t closed, of course, but the path of history has yielded enormous gains for all minorities, relative to where we were before. Accepting HBD requires a renunciation of equality, an acceptance of the status quo where White people lead and minorities follow. So why do so many Asian American men, despite all evidence that contradicts the hierarchical racial theories, accept scientific racism?

My theory is that that the AM acceptance of HBD is a form of little man complex. Admittedly, we’ve been crushed in the whole IR marketplace–an Asian dude has to make $24k more than a White dude to be viewed as equally attractive among Asian women. The AFCC and the American media have beaten us worse than those cops beat Rodney King. Because it’s easier to get stuck in the past, a lot of Asian men live neither in the present nor see the future. Many of our Asian brothers are therefore seeking to boost their self-esteem by focusing on what even White racists will acknowledge–that we’re smart. It’s much easier to roll with the punches–“You say my race is smart but feminine? Fine, I agree! (Except for me, since I’m 6’1 and athletic and deserve to be the superintendent of minorities.).” It’s easier to think retroactively than to see possibility. It’s a lazy man’s way of thinking, a defensive way of thinking, and with the power of the Ku Klux Klan and White supremacist institutionalized racism behind them, these HBD supporting Asian men think they can win. They don’t realize that they’re being used. They don’t realize that they’re capable of much more than what White racists have defined as Asian limitations.

Think about it–have any of you ever met an Asian guy with a high emotional EQ, who expresses himself freely, who has an entrepreneurial mind, and who also believes that groups of people face limits because of their race? No. Most HBD people hide behind the anonymous internet, scared of the light of day.

Indeed, no one ever got ahead by believing in limitations. We’ve seen limits crushed throughout time. And in almost all cases, these limits usually get knocked down by people who didn’t believe in them. Believing in racial limitations is a lazy man’s way of thinking. Believing in HBD makes you a worse person. We’ve seen the Asian American HBD believers on this site. They have little faith in humans, little in the way of dreams, and little in the way of proactive creative thinking. They’re victims of emotion. And unless they push themselves to think outside of a box created by 19th century racist European guys, they’ll be stuck there forever.

For Asian American men, it’s especially important that we see possibility. There are a lot of areas where we can improve–the arts, politics, dealing with the Asian American Female Celebrity Club--and we’re not going to get there if we’re mentally stuck in the past. We also won’t get there if we’re not open to learning from the world, if we let our little man insecurities get in the way of our developing intelligence.

We’ve been co-opted by racists. If you look at history, it’s a classic strategy of appointing a house slave to oversee and keep the rest of the minorities in check. The racists find vulnerable high-IQ Asian men to be their stooges, convincing them to deny the effect of institutional racism and mass media on our minority populations, convincing them that sexual equality is out of their reach, ascribing their failures in life to genes rather than circumstance. The irony is that these racist ideas have been within the culture for the last 200 years, and minorities as a whole have improved a lot since then, far past the limits that the enlightened racists of the nineteenth century ascribed to us.

Then and Now

In closing, there is a difference between racists of the 19th century and racists today. Racists of the 19th century never had the opportunity to see what we know today–that education and media could change the world for people of all races. There is no evidence that people have genetic limitations. Most people who believe in limitations do have limitations–for themselves.

There is perversity in Human Biodiversity–it kills the soul and cuts off a proponent’s ability to think. Already we’ve seen the low EQ and desperation morals of some of their proponents. With a full historical perspective, it’s impossible to say that one group has limitations while another doesn’t. People who don’t believe in limitations are often those who defeat limitations. To prepare ourselves to defeat limitations–both for ourselves personally and for those who we lead and inspire–it’s important that we cast aside the fictions of the racist past. Scientific racism has no basis in fact, no basis in reason. While it’s fine for people to explore scientific racism, as Allan Bloom recommended, it’s equally important that we keep our eyes on the future rather than getting mired in ideas of the past.

Now let’s put this topic to rest.

524 thoughts on “The Perversity of Human Biodiversity, a.k.a. “Scientific” Racism

  1. Nice post. I will add that some of Europe’s ideas of racial superiority and the inherent right to rule over “lesser” races shows up in the writings of classical Greece 2500 years ago. In regard to Asians, you can find references to them as being effeminate and with a subservient, nature even in the writings of people like Aristotle. Of course, he, and other Greek thinkers, were referring to Persia (and perhaps even India) but I think that during the enlightenment these ideas were given new life, and updated and are what ultimately informed colonial attitiudes towards Asians and Asia.

  2. Nicely posted and well pointed on the contradictions..

    On the part you mentioned about “it will take imagination and hard work to raise the cultural/masculine capital of Asian men. ”

    Two things I can see could happen without imagination.
    Asian males could adhere to the masculine standards of the west (being White male default) or these ideas surrounding white male masculinity are abandoned as the norm and people grow towards a much broader perspective on the definition of male masculinity.

  3. “Additionally, Asian female visual-spatial IQ=white male visual-spatial IQ, another reason why the two groups are so compatible.”

    I saw her in that bar and our eyes met, but it was only once I realized how alike our visual-spacial IQs were that I knew we were destined to be together…

  4. @ Ben Efsaneyim

    Would you mind pointing us to those ancient sources? That would be great information to have. I was under the impression that the Greeks saw “Asians” basically as Near East/Middle Eastern peoples, and that true east Asians did not arrive until Attila attacked Rome with his Hun army.

  5. I think it’s all due to some sort of complex. Like how white people are fascinated with the size of our genitals.

    Or white dudes in Asia wanting to liberate women.

  6. Byron, can you define to us what makes a better or worse person? This gets thrown around so much that it’s basically meaningless, same with the accusatory “Racist!” remark.

    I don’t think HBDers actually believe in limits (to an extent) or question an individual’s capabilities, as most of their evidence is purely statistical. Genius black people and athletic Asian people exist, but they are many standard deviations from the norm. However, having an IQ of 70 is definitely a limit when it comes to understanding pure mathematics.

  7. King….

    Yes, you are correct. The “Asiatics” that were discussed by the Greeks did refer to the people of the near east. But I think that some of their ideas about race have persisted and have been carried forward by the race thinkers of the 18th and 19th centuries and I believe were applied by these thinkers to the people of east Asia. I believe that even Gobineau – whom BWW mentions in the OP – in his essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, mentions the feminine qualities of East Asian civilizations, and his mention of the effects of climate on Tibetan civilization is a strong clue that his ideas derive partly from the ancient Greeks who also saw climate as a major factor in determining the racial characteristics of various peoples.

    As you might notice in these links, the authors are drawing clear distinctions between themselves (Greeks) and the lesser peoples of Asia and – most ironically – of northern Europe, which puts forward the idea that the Greeks are most suited to rule. You’ll also notice the stereotypes of femininity and subservience being formulated.
    http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/airwatpl.12.12.html

    http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/airwatpl.16.16.html

    http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D3%3Asection%3D1285a

    http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D7%3Asection%3D1327b

  8. @ Ben
    Thank you. Hypocrites is always full of good information.

    “Yes, you are correct. The ‘Asiatics’ that were discussed by the Greeks did refer to the people of the near east. But I think that some of their ideas about race have persisted and have been carried forward by the race thinkers of the 18th and 19th centuries and I believe were applied by these thinkers to the people of east Asia.”

    You may be right, of course, but I wonder… If the “Asiatics” that the Greeks encountered were merely Persians, Turks, Arabs and Indians, I might feel more sure that this impression may have persisted. HOWEVER, when the West did first encounter the East Asians it was the fearful specter of Ghengis Khan’s Mongol Empire that they faced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mongol_Empire_map.gif
    No more fearsome threat to Europe had ever existed. A warlike empire far greater than Rome had ever been. It would seem difficult to ascribe an air of femininity to such a fearsome enemy.

  9. Eurasian,

    “I saw her in that bar and our eyes met, but it was only once I realized how alike our visual-spacial IQs were that I knew we were destined to be together…”

    Haha!

    It’s another idea that was a Steve Sailer-ism that many Asian guys have repeated.

    If I were an Asian American HBDer who was looking for a White “Alpha Aryan” male leader to be my Fuehrer, and the Aryan I chose said that similar visual-spatial IQ was a primary cause of attraction between the sexes of any race, I’d be looking for a new Fuehrer.

  10. Thanks, Hertsel!

    King and Ben,

    Great discussion!

    One point that D’Souza makes is that prior to the Enlightenment, there was xenophobia and prejudice against outsiders, but he says that there wasn’t racism as we usually think of it today. It was more of a culturalism. That is to say that the Greeks would think, “Those Easterners are very quiet and subservient,” but it had nothing to do with race but rather with culture/origin/etc. They probably thought of Persians and Chinese as being similar since they both came from the East. It wasn’t until the nineteenth century that the idea that it was genetic/unchangeable came into being, which is why D’Souza says that Europeans invented racism.

  11. “Byron, can you define to us what makes a better or worse person? This gets thrown around so much that it’s basically meaningless, same with the accusatory “Racist!” remark.”

    Dali, I’m glad you asked.

    I think it’s probably easier to begin with where HBD doesn’t hurt. If you begin to study HBD and convert, it probably won’t hurt your abilities in math or science. Your IQ won’t go down. You’ll still do well on those tests, and if you become a scientist, it probably won’t affect you.

    But it will make you a worse person in every other way. Want to become a manager? This will stop you cold in your tracks. You won’t be able to see the good in people and instead will reduce them to stereotypes. Want to be an innovator? You’ll only be able to see inspiration in European sources–less than a quarter of humanity, only a small part of history. Want to study literature? You’ll only be able to see things from a White man’s point of view. Want to be a great parent, community leader, musician, thinker, etc? Good luck.

    Look at Steve Jobs, for example. Instead of college, he went to India to LEARN from them, people who HBDers disrespect because of stupid stereotypes and meaningless test data. He studied calligraphy because he loved it, something that has nothing to do with IQ. If he were an HBDer, his beliefs would’ve poisoned him. He would’ve learned nothing even if he went, because he’d only see things from the lens of racism.

    Check out the old HBD podcast. I remember reading something aloud from an HBDer who laments not being able to think about anything else but HBD when he met people. It’s a real human tragedy.

  12. “I don’t think HBDers actually believe in limits (to an extent) or question an individual’s capabilities, as most of their evidence is purely statistical. Genius black people and athletic Asian people exist, but they are many standard deviations from the norm.”

    What is a nerdy hobby to you like philately is actually a loaded puppy to some others.

    First comes the debate on all the pseudo-scientific minutae. When that is done and settled with out comes mentally ill people like Asian of Reason, who will then quip all over the place about the benefits of sterilisation campaigns against black people and other assorted racist stuff. You see, the perceived legitimacy of HBD is THEIR excuse to continue propagating racist ideologies that they would otherwise be unable to spread.

    Go do a search for Cho – I mean Asian of Reason’s posts on here to find some of his zingers.

  13. “One point that D’Souza makes is that prior to the Enlightenment, there was xenophobia and prejudice against outsiders, but he says that there wasn’t racism as we usually think of it today. It was more of a culturalism. That is to say that the Greeks would think, “Those Easterners are very quiet and subservient,” but it had nothing to do with race but rather with culture/origin/etc. They probably thought of Persians and Chinese as being similar since they both came from the East. It wasn’t until the nineteenth century that the idea that it was genetic/unchangeable came into being, which is why D’Souza says that Europeans invented racism.”

    The historical origins of scientific racism that you brought up is very important. I think far too many people exist in a “bubble of the present” today, unknowing of how decisions and acts in the past shape the present, so they take for granted that everything they know now is as everything has always been. So they argue their pet theories as if they were some kind of divine inspiration and innovation, rather than just fallible hypothesis.

    “Science” is not as rational and noble a profession people make it out to be. It has always been dependent on funding, the field is rife with the politics of recognition and largesse, and most of all, scientists are just like non-scientists whose drives and desires shape and motivate their work.

    It’s just too bad when the experts involved are hobbyists and pseudo-intellectuals with not very high IQs, severe social stuntedness, and mental illnesses to boot. :(

  14. “But it will make you a worse person in every other way. Want to become a manager? This will stop you cold in your tracks. You won’t be able to see the good in people and instead will reduce them to stereotypes. Want to be an innovator? You’ll only be able to see inspiration in European sources–less than a quarter of humanity, only a small part of history. Want to study literature? You’ll only be able to see things from a White man’s point of view. Want to be a great parent, community leader, musician, thinker, etc? Good luck.”

    This is BS. It’s true that whites invented modern science. The Scientific Revolution went down in Europe. We should thank whites for it, not complain. Why don’t you just throw away your computer if you have a problem with white inventions.

    But it doesn’t mean that we champion our own race. North Asians are now making all kinds of Scientific Discoveries. Our IQs are slightly higher than whites. And the IQ of Western countries is declining because of third world immigration. North Asian country average IQs are remaining high.

    You know, before studying HBD, I used to love white women… but after HBD, I realized it would better increase my inclusive fitness to marry a nice Asian girl. (I’ll pass on more of my own genes by reproducing with an Asian girl than with a white girl — my kids will look like me.) Anyway, using PUA, I found the perfect Asian girl and married her.

    My life is wayyyy better because of HBD and game.

  15. “You know, before studying HBD, I used to love white women… but after HBD, I realized it would better increase my inclusive fitness to marry a nice Asian girl. (I’ll pass on more of my own genes by reproducing with an Asian girl than with a white girl — my kids will look like me.) Anyway, using PUA, I found the perfect Asian girl and married her.”

    Lol, tryhard troll is a tryhard troll.

    Do you really believe making such inane posts would provoke anybody here?

  16. “You know, before studying HBD, I used to love white women… but after HBD, I realized it would better increase my inclusive fitness to marry a nice Asian girl. (I’ll pass on more of my own genes by reproducing with an Asian girl than with a white girl — my kids will look like me.)”

    Well ain’t you just the hopeless romantic?

    In terms of HBD making you a worse person… I don’t know enough HBD disciples to make a conclusive judgement. But if we judge based on Asian of Reason, Half Sigma and the like – whose favourite pastime is to point out how everyone else is intrinsically shitter than they are due to race/IQ/looks/not being alpha enough – then the evidence speaks for itself.
    It’s arguable whether HBD and PUA make you more successful in life, but they are almost guaranteed to make you more of a douche.

  17. Xuan:

    “My life is wayyyy better because of HBD and game.”

    You may have been in trouble to begin with. And again, we’re seeing the HBD/PUA connection. The two internet Religions!

    Dali,

    Check out, for example, what Xuan says about computers. If you’ve ever been to Apple, Microsoft, Intel, etc., it’s not all just White people who work in those places. These companies make a point of looking for diversity to make sure they get the best ideas.

    One can assign all these achievements to White people, but one would be wrong in doing so. It’s HBD again, exerting its influence and causing people to err on the side of Whiteness.

  18. @xuan

    You’re really just siegfried in disguise right?

    I’ve never ever heard an Asian guy using the phrase ‘nice Asian girl’ before and definitely never about wanting to marry an Asian girl to passed down genes.

    Unless you’re 60 or something. Your post sounds like something right out of a Max Houston novel that tries to cheapen AF/AM relationships.

  19. @ King….

    That’s a good point, but don’t forget that the Persian empire began slightly prior to the era we now accept as the beginning of the classical Greek period, and that it was also a powerful military entity. Prior to the Persians there were powerful Hittite, Assyrian, and Babylonian empires in the region, all of which were extremely aggressive conquering powers. It seems that like a lot of stereotyping, the ancient Greeks pulled their ideas of near eastern asiatic femininity out of their own asses!

    I do think that it is logical to trace modern attitudes of east Asian femininity to the greeks via enlightenment thinkers and 18th/19th century race scientists. These people saw themselves as the heirs to classical Greek wisdom, and I believe that it helped to form the framework to justify attitudes of superiority towards East Asians. As I pointed out, Gobineau and ilk, used such eerily similar language to that of the Greeks when writing about east Asians that it would seem most likely that they had adopted their ideas and expanded them to include far east Asians.

    BWW…

    I agree, I don’t think it can be said that the Greeks were racist in the sense that we might use the term today. They did, however, seem to formulate a kind of vague “archaic” notion of heredity of racial characteristics, that seems to pre-sage the more sophisticated race ideologies of the 18/19th centuries. Whether this aspect of Greek race ideas was borrowed by modern race scientists I don’t really know.

    This all shows that Western racist ideas are part of a very distinguished intellectual and philosophical tradition stretching back millenia.

  20. @Ben

    I thought it’s a bit ironic that ancient Greeks are the ones that introduce eastern asiatic femininity. They are afterall, the ones famous for doing anything on two legs and having very strange relationships with their ‘squires’

  21. You mean the pederasty, of course, which is a new word people had to come up with, to make homosexual sex with young pre-teen boys seem less vile.

  22. N…

    That was weird. In some ways they are many straight man’s worst nightmare – an aggressive and warlike people who perhaps saw same-sex anal penetration as masculine! No wonder the Persians fought so hard to defeat them!

  23. I don’t think the ancient greeks were very aggressive at all… they were more like farmers and merchants… not to diminish their achievements.

    Also they did not so much as rape enemy combatants as much as cultivated their own young boys for fellatio.

  24. I was raised in USA which is why it was harder for me to find a Chinese girl to marry and why I had to roll out the PUA. If I was I in China, it wouldn’t have been hard.

    People need to lighten up. HBD is real and it isn’t going away. Trying to deny HBD is like trying to wish gravity away.

    Right now it is mostly whites discussing HBD but this is changing fast… I know of quite a few North Asians (most. Chinese and Japanese) who recently became very interested in HBD.

  25. Contrary to the oft-heard-but-incorrect HBD proponents’ claim that “Intellectuals have not attempted to embrace the idea of HBD,” intellectuals started “HBD.”

    When people say that intellectuals are against the idea of HBD, they are of course talking about contemporary intellectuals. Everybody knows that HBD used to be mainstream.

    If I compared population heights, vertical jumps, IQ, bowling scores, head sizes, or whatever, it’s highly unlikely that I’d get the exact same results. It’s a strawman.

    The strawman is all yours. The HBD view is that there are socially significant heritable differences between races and sexes.

    The real question is whether these tiny differences mean anything. If my IQ is 125 and yours is 123, does that mean I’m gunning for success and you’re doomed to failure?

    Another strawman. It’s not about a difference of a couple of points between high-IQ individuals, but about mean differences between groups which can be as large as a standard deviation or more. Differences of that magnitude have huge societal effects, something which even anti-hereditarian researchers admit. For example, sociologists Christopher Jencks and Melanie Phillips have written that “reducing the black-white test score gap would do more to move America toward racial equality than any politically plausible alternative”.

    As any political strategist will tell you, you can change the world with 30 second commercials and sound bites. With the influence of Hollywood, even intellectuals fall under the sway of the mass media. It’s easy for the media to get persuade people that dumb black men and weak Asian men are the norm, that it’s somehow genetic.

    Are you seriously arguing that Hollywood tries to persuade people that black men are dumb? Do you live in some alternate universe where Hollywood movies are NOT populated by brilliant black scientists and professionals and where 95%+ of murderers and other criminals in movies are not white? As to Asian men, there are too few of them in Hollywood movies for them to have any kind of effect on public perceptions.

    For example, we know that IQ is malleable–people can study for such tests.

    IQ is just a measure of intelligence. It’s not intelligence itself. Studying for an IQ test may improve your score, but it does not make you smarter because the superior performance is not transferred to other tasks.

    The heritability of IQ in adults is currently as high as 80 percent in the West. This suggests that eliminating all trait-relevant environmental differences between people would reduce the variation of intelligence only by 20 percent, i.e. the vast majority of IQ differences would remain even if everyone grew up in an identical environment.

    It’s easier to believe in limits because it’s a lazier way of thinking.

    Actually, it’s much easier to believe in limitless malleability because that’s what you’re supposed to believe in these days. Public discourse is premised on the unproven and highly improbable idea that groups do not differ in their genetic potential, and anyone who publicly challenges this will face sanctions. Anti-HBD is the safe, unimaginative approach, which however is constantly being threatened by the failure of the reality to conform to it, necessitating the postulation of conspiracy theories like “institutional racism”.

    Think about it–have any of you ever met an Asian guy with a high emotional EQ, who expresses himself freely, who has an entrepreneurial mind, and who also believes that groups of people face limits because of their race?

    Why do you refer to EQ, a highly dubious if not downright pseudoscientific construct? Anyway, Steve Hsu might fit your bill.

    Believing in racial limitations is a lazy man’s way of thinking. Believing in HBD makes you a worse person. We’ve seen the Asian American HBD believers on this site. They have little faith in humans, little in the way of dreams, and little in the way of proactive creative thinking.

    So, you think HBDers such as Hume, Darwin, Galton, Crick, Stockley, and Watson were terrible underachievers?

    HBD is simply the recognition that genetic variation influences human outcomes. It’s the complement to human cultural variation. Without HBD, you cannot fully comprehend human behavior.

    Of course, no hereditarian believes that practise does not improve one’s performance or that cultural and environmental differences are not relevant, so your argument is another strawman.

    There is no evidence that people have genetic limitations.

    Okay, show me someone capable of self-propelled flight, or telekinesis. Or, more mundanely, show me a dwarf performing a slam dunk (not this kind of dwarf;). It’s patently obvious that people have genetic limitations.

  26. Haha!

    Man, I can probably answer most of what the dude above says with three letters: LOL!

    But let me start with my favorite quote:

    As to Asian men, there are too few of them in Hollywood movies for them to have any kind of effect on public perceptions.

    I’m framing this and putting it on my wall. Because someone believes that too few of us in the media has no effect on public perceptions.

    “So, you think HBDers such as Hume, Darwin, Galton, Crick, Stockley, and Watson were terrible underachievers?”

    I really really really think you should read about some of these people. “The End of Racism” is a good start. Most of these people lived a long time ago, when as I said–and as you acknowledged–things were different, and racism was the norm. Darwin really wasn’t racist by the standards that HBD people are saying. Seriously, read up on him. He may have subtly agreed with some racist stuff, but he didn’t really push it. Same with Tocqueville. Same with most people of the time, achiever or not. Hume was most definitely racist, but as D’Souza points out, it wasn’t really a main part of a philosophy that he pushed.

    I’ve never read anything about Crick being a racist, but if he was, feel free to share.

    I also don’t know why you’re claiming Stephen Hsu. Some HBDers keep claiming him, and Stephen Hsu has said that the whole idea is complicated, but to my knowledge, he has never has he claimed anything remotely suggestive of what most HBDers claim.

    “Okay, show me someone capable of self-propelled flight, or telekinesis.”

    You know what I meant. Read the context. Let’s not get all crazy here and think of ridiculous exceptions. We’re talking about differences between races, not differences between people and superheroes in comic books. I never claimed that people were superheroes (although by looking at the way some Asian male HBDers worship White people, maybe they do think other people can walk on water, fly, heat stuff up with heat vision, etc.) I know you look down on EQ from your description above, but it’ll help you to better understand context.
    http://www.bigwowo.com/2011/10/emotional-intelligence-and-eq/

    Xuan,

    People need to lighten up. HBD is real and it isn’t going away. Trying to deny HBD is like trying to wish gravity away.

    So HBD is as obvious to you as gravity?

    Man, we gotta bring the scientific method back into our education system!

  27. Ben,

    “Whether this aspect of Greek race ideas was borrowed by modern race scientists I don’t really know.”

    I don’t know either, but given that education in the West has always included a reading of the Greeks, they probably did borrow such ideas.

    I personally think that people ought to be judged at least in part on the context of when they lived (going back to that EQ thing). Being a racist during the 1800s was the norm, and it especially makes sense if people think about what it must be like living in that time period. The Civil War only ended in 1865. The Civil Rights Movement didn’t take place until the 1960’s–100 years later. So even though some of these racists were preaching racism, and even though these philosophies have resulted in billions of lives being destroyed, my focus has always been on the here and now.

    In this day and age, especially given the history of the last couple hundred years, there’s no excuse to cling to the religion of HBD/Scientific Racism.

  28. <<>>>

    So PUA helps AM living in the US out cause of HBD? My whole family, Dad’s side and Mom’s side, all got here when we were very young from ages 2-10. EVERYONE is married with kids. Maybe 3 out of 40 isn’t. The only ones who aren’t married are female on my Dad’s side. I just think this Asian males being left out thing is a marketing tool to scare people to buy into PUA which has not at all proven to work.

  29. By the way D’Souza is Indian. The average IQ of India is only 81, which is why he hates whites and North Asians. He’s jealous.

  30. I’m framing this and putting it on my wall. Because someone believes that too few of us in the media has no effect on public perceptions.

    Why would the absence of Asians in Hollywood movies cause them to be thought of as weak for genetic reasons? There are plenty of other groups of people with little Hollywood visibility, but stereotypes about them are often quite different.

    Most of these people lived a long time ago, when as I said–and as you acknowledged–things were different, and racism was the norm.

    Shockley died in 1989, Crick in 2004, and Watson is still alive. They’re quite contemporary figures.

    Darwin really wasn’t racist by the standards that HBD people are saying. Seriously, read up on him.

    I’ve read plenty of Darwin’s original works. He would probably face criminal prosecution for hate crimes in the UK if he were alive today. This is a funny but truthful take on Darwin’s racial views.

    I’ve never read anything about Crick being a racist, but if he was, feel free to share.

    I’ve never read about Crick being a racist, either, but he seems to have been an HBDer. I will quote from a letter he wrote to a colleague during the controversy surrounding Arthur Jensen’s research on race and IQ in the 1970s:

    Unlike you and your colleagues I have formed the opinion that there is much substance to Jensen’s arguments. In brief I think it likely that more than half the difference between the average I.Q. of American whites and Negroes is due to genetic reasons, and will not be eliminated by any foreseeable change in the environment. Moreover I think the social consequences of this are likely to be rather serious unless steps are taken to recognize the situation.

    ————-

    I also don’t know why you’re claiming Stephen Hsu. Some HBDers keep claiming him, and Stephen Hsu has said that the whole idea is complicated, but to my knowledge, he has never has he claimed anything remotely suggestive of what most HBDers claim.

    This is a very good post by Hsu on the topic. Sapienti sat.

    But if you want another example, how about Lee Kuan Yew:

    Lee is also apparently the only politician who has read and used the results of intelligence research in his politics. In speeches he has cited Thomas Bouchard and Richard Lynn (Chan & Chee, 1984), and he is the only statesman, who has seen that intelligence enhancement not only needs an improvement in the environment (like in educational policy) but also in demographic policies, because parents transfer cognitive ability to their children by creating a stimulating environment (especially by education and modeling) and by transmission of their genes.

    ————–

    I know you look down on EQ from your description above, but it’ll help you to better understand context.

    For psychological constructs to be useful they must be reliable and valid in the psychometric sense. EQ is neither. Personality traits naturally contribute to variation in social outcomes, but to think that your could capture much of relevant non-cognitive psychological variation with a single variable like EQ is nonsense. This site contains lots of pertinent criticisms of Goleman’s unscientific approach.

    You know what I meant. Read the context.

    I do not know what you meant. The claim that “there is no evidence that people have genetic limitations” is obviously wrong.

  31. The HBD-deniers are the flat-earthers of our day. Some of them are just politically correct morons. The smarter ones know HBD is real but for political reasons want to keep up the political illusion that HBD isn’t real.

    In grad school a professor (evolutionary biologist) admitted to me once that HBD was completely real but to say so publicly would ruin his career. Well, this is the world we’re living in.

    Luckily China isn’t so PC and already is engaging in studies on HBD.

  32. I think the most accurate term to describe the error of many HBD adherents is “Conflation.”

    They correctly observe that humans (obviously) demonstrate a certain level of biological diversity—but nobody is arguing that this is not true. Clearly people look different, and not everybody in the world is born with the same disposition or intelligence. But these AREN”T REALLY THE ISSUES.

    The fact that people have some differences is a given. The question is wether or not all of those differences manifest *genetically* along phenotypical/racial boundaries. In other words, just because people happen to share some external physical attributes, and as a category, tested higher or lower than certain other similarly categorized groups does not make that difference genetic. You can get the same kinds of differences testing across regions geographic with members all of the same “race.” The key is not *difference,* but what causes thee differences. And unless you have a direct genetic marker, then your just extrapolating.

  33. JL:

    “I do not know what you meant. The claim that “there is no evidence that people have genetic limitations” is obviously wrong.”

    You really thought we were talking about superheroes? I was talking about people. I never mentioned superheroes. We were talking about this world, dude. EQ, baby, read the context.

    This is why racists are always losing the debates. You keep mixing your belief in superheroes and fantasy with real life.

    “For psychological constructs to be useful they must be reliable and valid in the psychometric sense.”

    Who was talking about psychology? I was talking about intelligence. Emotional Intelligence. I wasn’t talking about Emotional Psychology.

    Crick was a racist from what you posted; thanks for letting me know. Watson is very old. Crick wrote that letter in 1971, less than a decade after the Civil Rights movement. Shockley has been dead for over 20 years and was born in 1910. He was in his fifties during the Civil Rights Movement.

    Hsu would be a contemporary, but…we go through this all the time. You post a link on Stephen Hsu, where he CLEARLY says he doesn’t know all the answers, and you expect people to think that he subscribes to your beliefs. You’ve got a link that references Lee Kuan Yew, but even in the reference, he doesn’t talk about race, nor is he quoted. Your links prove nothing about his views on race–which is what HBD is.

    It’s a waste of time to debate by just flinging stuff at people without reading it. It may be a good way to win arguments if your debate opponent isn’t paying attention, but you should be looking for truth, not just looking to win a debate.

    Don’t you agree? Can we agree on this?

  34. Xuan,

    “By the way D’Souza is Indian. The average IQ of India is only 81, which is why he hates whites and North Asians. He’s jealous.”

    You’re saying D’Souza hates people of certain races? You need to link that one up. That’s a pretty vile thing to say about someone without proof, even if you’re just joking.

  35. @Xuan: And the IQ of Western countries is declining because of third world immigration.
    Really? So ‘third world immigrants’ bring down the IQ of Western countries? Please clap for yourself, you are just amazing in your reasoning.

  36. Isn’t Dinesh D’Souza a religious fundamentalist? Doesn’t he believe the earth is 4,000 years old? Doesn’t be belong to some Indian / African sect of voodoo Catholicism? Does anyone care what this clown thinks?

  37. You really thought we were talking about superheroes? I was talking about people. I never mentioned superheroes. We were talking about this world, dude. EQ, baby, read the context.

    This is why racists are always losing the debates. You keep mixing your belief in superheroes and fantasy with real life.

    You lost the debate, and, as usual, you then resort to ad hominem tactics. The claim that “there is no evidence that people have genetic limitations” is simply nonsense.

    Who was talking about psychology? I was talking about intelligence. Emotional Intelligence. I wasn’t talking about Emotional Psychology.

    Why are you pontificating on this when you do not even understand the meaning of common words like ‘psychology’? Do you not realize that Daniel Goleman is a psychologist and his “emotional intelligence” is a psychological theory?

    You post a link on Stephen Hsu, where he CLEARLY says he doesn’t know all the answers, and you expect people to think that he subscribes to your beliefs.

    Hsu says that “The predominant view among social scientists is that [anti-HBD] is obviously correct and [HBD] obviously false. However, this is mainly wishful thinking.” It’s not difficult to understand what he is saying here. He also says that he does not know the answer “with high confidence”, but it’s obvious to which direction he strongly leans (remember, “wishful thinking”). As I said, sapienti sat.

    You’ve got a link that references Lee Kuan Yew, but even in the reference, he doesn’t talk about race, nor is he quoted. Your links prove nothing about his views on race–which is what HBD is.

    HBD is about both individual differences and group differences. Lee has quoted Lynn’s international IQ data. Here’s a couple of quotes from the book “Lee Kuan Yew: the Man and His Ideas”:

    “The Bell curve is a fact of life. The blacks on average score 85 per cent on IQ and it is accurate, nothing to do with culture. The whites score on average 100. Asians score more … the Bell curve authors put it at least 10 points higher. These are realities that, if you do not accept, will lead to frustration because you will be spending money on wrong assumptions and the results cannot follow.”

    “I started off believing all men were equal. I now know that’s the most unlikely thing ever to have been, because millions of years have passed over evolution, people have scattered across the face of this earth, been isolated from each other, developed independently, had different intermixtures between races, peoples, climates, soils… I didn’t start off with that knowledge. But by observation, reading, watching, arguing, asking, that is the conclusion I’ve come to.”

  38. Is bio diversity why AFC AMs want to go after the hot “white” girl. Sooo, when they have kids, they’ll be a mix of Asian Smarts and White Alphaness? Aren’t native Americans suppose to be originally Asian? If that’s the case, don’t many people in this country have some Asian blood in them. Also, does that make Mexicans the most well rounded since they are a mix of both? It all makes sense now.
    I know I’m trying to be funny but I just can’t take seriously anyone who worships the idea of HBD. It’s just another way for one group of people to look down on another group of people. Both HBD and PUA are similar because they both adhere to finding solutions to the way things are based on simplicity.

  39. “Check out, for example, what Xuan says about computers. If you’ve ever been to Apple, Microsoft, Intel, etc., it’s not all just White people who work in those places. These companies make a point of looking for diversity to make sure they get the best ideas.”

    Byron, let me tell you a bit of my personal experience. These companies are full of whites, Asians (mostly southern Chinese, from HK or Taiwan), and occasionally Indians with H1-B visas, though that practice is a little less common and a lot of Indians who have been here long enough are naturalized. It’s been said that the debacle that is Windows Vista is the result of Indian engineers. At tech conferences, it’s more or less the same, except with more Japanese/Korean presence.

    There is in fact the occasional diversity hire, usually in a non-technical position like HR, but the value creation jobs are taken by whites and Asians. Exceptional black people do exist, as I have seen a black engineer before, but that was very rare. You may also want to take note of the demographic of San Jose to see who is leading the tech sector.

  40. All this talk of “exceptional blacks”, “exceptional Asians”…the kind of nonsense when your measuring yardstick is ‘exceptional whites’

    as I have seen a black engineer before, but that was very rare… It’s statements like this that make me wish I had endless income to buy you a PLANE TICKET so that YOU can see outside of your current environment.
    Because the fact is, there are EXCEPTIONAL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

  41. I think there’s a few misconceptions of ideas to point out that hopefully add to this dicussions.

    First a commentary. BigWowo, stop saying EQ, as much tried to note that EQ is not an insult because a person can gain more in your mind, it is still insulting to say that in dismissal of a person’s argument. Instead, explain the flaw.

    For example, on the argument point of “There is no evidence that genetic limitations” which one responds “That wrong, we can’t be superheroes! Our genes never gave us wings or muscles made of iron for it! We are limited by our genes!” Well, the flaw of that counter argument is BigWowo’s point is taken too literally. One need to think of that line as being about the individual or the group context.

    —-

    Now that said, I think I’ll put my two cents that comes to my mind reading this.

    I’m going to make this statement. I have thoughts that HBD may exist in some form. Seeing that you quoted me, I guess you already view me as a full-on proponent. But I take those arguments in previous comments because I find your arguments against it so fallacious. Arguing that HBD bloggers remain hidden behind pseudonyms in the web as evidence that HBD is not evidence they are right or wrong Saying how “expressive, entrepreneurial, high EQ” person doesn’t agree is fallacious in that there’s no evidence if such a group does or not and how does one that one particular group would have any more authority than any other group of people. Being more expressive or more entrepreneurial doesn’t denote greater authority or more likelihood they are right.

    I also cannot agree that HBD is created to “keep us down” like they are conspiring against us. I believe it is a genuine thought posed by such bloggers. Not a plan to co-opt us like a appointing a house slave to his own brethren. Half Sigma genuinely believe his ideas, not trying to break the force of will of Asians or other races to keep trying to succeed at whatever their endeavor they wish.

    Arguments like that makes me write comments questioning your statements and increasingly side more with their ideas.

    ———-

    Now that said, I also think you have a some points, though not worded in a way I would like or would word it myself.

    HBD may exist, but it doesn’t mean the gaps that exist right now can’t be closed. It also being misapplied. Many individuals would look at themselves and say “Those HBDers are right… my genes makes me too Beta to attract girls.” Major misapplication, to take a quote from Roissy/Rollo Tomassi (two game bloggers, former is more of a paraphrase),” Alpha is a state of mind, not a demographic.” Or perhaps in BigWowo’s examples, we apply stereotypes and assume the person rather than figure out the person. Nobody fits exactly to a stereotype and it becomes especially unfair to those who really buck the stereotype too.

    It can also be misapplied to general ideas too. Bigwowo’s is right with his point behind his examples of Mike Tyson or the 4 minute mile. Don’t assume all potential is already met, losing our thought there more possibility exist. In applying to Asian Issues, the IR situation sucks, but it doesn’t mean we can’t remedy it on some level. If enough consciously or unconsciously increase our success rate, it does affect the trends (ideally through game or some other means, not by making $24k more on average).

    I would like this dedicate this paragraph to note that I would use better examples than Mike Tyson or the 4 minute mile for arguments about the general sense. As they are examples of the extremes instead of the average. A better example is the history of African American in general and quite individual in nature. My understanding of their history that despite institutional segregation, less educational resources, and openly hostile people (my understanding of HBD is open thought about potential between races, not outright desire to see a person or group fail), they were more functional as a community. Homes were better maintained, kids stayed in school more with a greater desire to learn, and the men were willing to work. While the educational gap remains and the workers can’t get promoted much, the community was functional. This is in contrast to today where so many drop out of schools, remain unemployed, and dysfunctional homes. Basically, full potential is not being met and we can see that with their history. They are also an example of a paradigm shift in patterns of a race (to the negative unfortunately).

    I think HBD does exist on some level. It seems to apply to other things like diseases susceptibility and height following races, so what physical or biological law prevents IQ or personality following races on some level. However, it doesn’t mean we don’t have more potential, nor can lazily apply stereotypes to individuals (or ourselves), nor are our is already destiny is already set before us.

  42. dreamer, what it comes down to, is that HBDers are lacking the actual genetics, which are the heart of their argument. They keep saying look at this, of look at that! To which we say, do you have a smart gene (or gene set) or don’t you? And the answer is

    “No we do not.”

    Always followed by a great deal of pie-in-the-sky, guesswork, and correlations that they believe is actual proof – which it decidedly is not.

  43. “EXCEPTIONAL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD.”

    Cool, that doesn’t refute anything as statistical outliers do exist and do not affect the median of a race in any significant way.

    I think most Asians believe in a milder form of HBD. East Asians not only look down upon South/SE Asians for their weaker economies and lesser academic acheivement, but also for their shorter statures and darker skin. HBD just seems so obvious but nobody wants to say it, because it’s far more optimistic to believe that everyone is capable of everything (a patently naive assumption).

  44. ^^Actually, I remember a few articles that come out that the evolution can occur relatively fast instead of million of years. A new sudden pressure (like the rise of cilization) could theoretically accelerate natural selection leading to a divergence of genes rather than just different gene expressions to different types of environments.

    Always followed by a great deal of pie-in-the-sky, guesswork, and correlations that they believe is actual proof – which it decidedly is not.

    You’re right there’s “no theory of genes that one can pinpoint saying if you have this, you’ll be a genius!” But it doesn’t mean I can just dismiss the idea of HBD. I can’t just call them a religion, assume they lacking “EQ,” or say Asian supporters are just looking for an excuse while the white racists are looking to demoralized minorities without some reason. Xuan’s link to the graph doesn’t prove there must be IQ or personality differences, but if the graph have shown that genes just goes everywhere, it would have definitely disproved the idea. Well for me at least.

  45. “You’re right there’s “no theory of genes that one can pinpoint saying if you have this, you’ll be a genius!” But it doesn’t mean I can just dismiss the idea of HBD.”

    Dreamer, I think you’re looking at this a bit skewed. When somebody comes up with a new theory on genetics, yet nobody who is prominent in the field of genetics agrees with it, then you should take pause. You should say, “Well, that’s an interesting theory, and if you ever come up with any actual proof, then we can talk about it.” Because as long as there is not genetic proof for a genetic theory, there is NOTHING to believe in. You can’t even believe in a “mild version,” because science is not based on casual observation, and correlations devised by people who are not even in the field of genetics.

    Would you believe in a theory that supposed that there was an invisible, inhabited, planet between Mars and Jupiter if none of the leaders in the field of Astronomy supported it, and all of the theorizing was done by a physicist, an ophthalmologist, and a psychologist?

    You don’t have to totally dismiss HBD, just believe in it as much as the invisible planet.

  46. First, “believe in” implies faith. Believing something is correct and believe in something must be kept separate.

    Second, the invisible, inhabited planet example is not a true equivalent to the HBD idea. You got the parallelism correct that the biggest advocates is not by the people who are considered the trusted experts, but one can turn to a few simple laws of physics to logically provide the planet idea false. Like the theory of matter means no planet can be invisible or the theory of the habitable zone means even if a planet does exist, it can’t hold sentient life. Such laws of physics easily shows it is absurd, even if a group of astronomers decided to advocate it all of a sudden. There isn’t any biological or physical law that prevents the possibility of HBD like the invisible planet idea.

    Now on the field of geneticist, that I think have a valid point. There are a few I seen on this blog itself that had scientists (some guy a K like Karawasha or something, I recall he not a geneticist, but still within the biological area) and I recall there’s that Watson guy (which I may add, arguing he’s old is not an argument, it’s another type of argument that I find myself siding with HBD more). It’s not totally convincing, there’s several examples I can recall of the minority opinion turns out to the correct one. But it is something that I should keep in mind in giving a balanced thought on its validity.

  47. There are so many errors and misconceptions in this post I don’t know where to begin and frankly don’t have time to address them.

    You wrote: “Racism started in Europe, and actually began within the realm of science. ”

    I disagree. Different tribes have always fought each other and assigned characteristics to those tribes which may or may not be negative.

  48. JL:

    You lost the debate, and, as usual, you then resort to ad hominem tactics.

    Oh, wow.  “As usual.” Are you someone that I’ve spoken with before? Man. It just baffles me how some people can’t say no to this site.

    I’m not going to take back something which is obvious to everyone else, but I’ll state it here for those who don’t get it: This post was not about superheroes. And Cain Velasquez weighs over 200 lbs., but it’s only because we’re not weighing him on the moon, where he would be under 50 lbs. And this is a web site, although it has nothing to do with a site where spiders weave webs.

    It would save so much more time if people were interested in finding truth rather than nitpicking by finding excuses to dismiss facts. I’m not going to take back what I wrote because it’s still true. At this point, it clearly doesn’t matter.

    “Why are you pontificating on this when you do not even understand the meaning of common words like ‘psychology’? Do you not realize that Daniel Goleman is a psychologist and his “emotional intelligence” is a psychological theory?”

    The book is about intelligence. Let’s look at what intelligence means:
    http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/intelligence

    noun
    [mass noun]

    1 the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills:an eminent man of great intelligence
    [count noun] a person or being with the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills:extraterrestrial intelligences

    This definition works with Goleman’s thesis. It’s not about psychology. If it were, the book might be called “Emotional Psychology.” But it’s not. It’s called “Emotional Intelligence.” There were references to psychology in the book, but I’m not talking about those references. I’m talking about the title topic.

    Hsu says that “The predominant view among social scientists is that [anti-HBD] is obviously correct and [HBD] obviously false. However, this is mainly wishful thinking.” It’s not difficult to understand what he is saying here. He also says that he does not know the answer “with high confidence”, but it’s obvious to which direction he strongly leans (remember, “wishful thinking”). As I said, sapienti sat.

    Read it again. He says it’s “wishful thinking” that it’s obvious, not it’s “wishful thinking” that HBD is false. Read what he writes, not what you want him to write. I’ve got nothing against him doing whatever research he wants. He clearly says he doesn’t know. If he knew, I’m sure he would say so. And he would provide proof. But you’re ready to jump the gun.

    So go ahead and jump. I can’t help you.

    Anyway, that’s my closing statement. You’ve obviously got your beliefs, and you’ll stick with them no matter what comes your way. Peace out.

    Dreamer,

    First a commentary. BigWowo, stop saying EQ, as much tried to note that EQ is not an insult because a person can gain more in your mind, it is still insulting to say that in dismissal of a person’s argument. Instead, explain the flaw.

    I did explain the flaw. Check above. I explained it the same way I explained that “objective” doesn’t mean “measurable” in the Satoshi Kanazawa thread. Some people aren’t looking for explanations. They’re looking to throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks.

    Arguments like that makes me write comments questioning your statements and increasingly side more with their ideas.

    Then I can’t help you, man. Sorry. And you just said the fact that Watson is older and comes from another era makes you side with HBD more too. I can’t help you with that either.

    I also can’t help it you’re upset that people aren’t allowed to anonymously attack people. Go to 8A and try it; they’ll ban you without even thinking twice. Does their site policy make you lean more towards HBD? This site has one of the most lenient commenting policies anywhere. The anonymous coward rule has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of these race theories, so if it bothers you to the point that you’re leaning more towards HBD, I truly don’t know what to say. Sorry. I’m out of ways to fight you on this.

    Fun,

    “I disagree. Different tribes have always fought each other and assigned characteristics to those tribes which may or may not be negative.”

    Sigh. I was referencing D’Souza’s book. If you don’t want to read his book (which I highly suggest), just read my comments above:
    http://www.bigwowo.com/2011/10/the-perversity-of-human-biodiversity-a-k-a-scientific-racism/#comment-15382

  49. Dali,

    “Byron, let me tell you a bit of my personal experience. These companies are full of whites, Asians (mostly southern Chinese, from HK or Taiwan), and occasionally Indians with H1-B visas, though that practice is a little less common and a lot of Indians who have been here long enough are naturalized.”

    I’m cosigning on what Catwalq said.

    However, the main reason why I brought that up was Xuan’s linking of the computer with Whiteness.

    Can you agree that there are minorities at these companies, and that it’s not a bastion of pure Whiteness? Even Bill Gates spoke about his early competition with Wang Laboratories (and while Microsoft wasn’t all White, Wang Laboratories wasn’t all Asian.)

    I’d like to say more, but I’m just getting my small victories where I can. Can we agree that things are more complicated than describing the computer as an example of “white inventions.”

  50. Dreamer, I used the term “believe in” precisely because without genetic proof, you must take HBD on faith… A faith that today’s theories still someday be bourse out by tomorrow’s geneticists.

    And not to get too far afield on my example, but Planet X might be invisible because of
    A) An unexplained scientific phenomenon that we have not before observed, and do not understand the laws that govern it.
    B) The inhabitants of the planet may possess superior technology which works to visually conceal the planet from our observation.

    Neither of these statements can be falsified because neither is based on scientific observation and testing, but on theory–just like HBD is.

  51. “By the way D’Souza is Indian. The average IQ of India is only 81, which is why he hates whites and North Asians. He’s jealous.”

    Comment of the week, only because it demonstrates exactly the way HBDers think. Biological determinism is everything.

  52. I’d like to say more, but I’m just getting my small victories where I can. Can we agree that things are more complicated than describing the computer as an example of “white inventions.”

    Byron, you missed my point. The point of contention here isn’t whether whites did this or Asians did that. Who is missing from this picture? This isn’t about white vs. Asian, as HBD would actually put Asian mean IQ above white mean IQ.

    Black, Hispanic, SE Asian (to a lesser extent) people are underrepresented in tech and related value creating fields. Extrapolate what you will from that, be it a lack of cultural emphasis on higher education (not entirely true in the case of SE Asians), lower genetically inherited IQ, problematic diet, etc. I’d like to think that it’s a mix of all of the above.

    The logical conclusion of HBD is eugenics, though I could think of far less humane ways of going about it. That reminds me actually, in high school my friends talked about which continent would they wipe out in an instant if they had to pick one, hypothetically of course. “Africa.” Not even Antarctica for the sake of being humane.

  53. I believe if you pick a black dude from the ghetto, a redneck from the south and a farmer from rural China and test them, they will equally be as bad as each other.

  54. I think that people associate HBD with scientific racism because so much of the discourse around it bears a strong resemblance to what racists have and do say. Some people insist that HBD simply reflects a statistical reality based upon observation, which seems dishonest because many of the non-scientist followers of the theory insist on putting forward social/political policy changes that they believe should reflect their apparent genetic superiority. So even though there may be some who have a genuine objective scientific curiosity about it, there are others who have indeed taken to it like an acolyte to a cult.

    To me it seems like a moot point to say that social policy should be defined by a belief in fixed genetic possibility simply because evolution is always occurring, and people are always evolving. If we were to take Steve HSu’s idea to map genes of different populations on a matrix, then we may well see that genes for various traits do cluster along racial lines. But then we might notice that there are a few people, like Liu Xiang, or Dr Mark Dean that lie outside of the expected cluster. HBDers would dismiss this as perhaps a minor variation within a population, whereas a more objective view might suggest that these outliers actually reflect a drift towards a new trend wherein there are traits of higher intelligence or athleticism within populations that may not have exhibited those traits.

    The biggest problem for HBD activists is epigenetics. There is an increasing body of evidence and research that suggests that environment can affect an individual, who can then pass these traits onto his offspring without altering genes, even up to several generations later. If this is the case, then it is reasonable to assume that intelligence can be negatively impacted by generations of poverty.This is problematic for those who want to base social policies on genetic causation of intelligence. Even more interesting is a small but increasing amount of evidence that suggests that evolution of major traits can occur in an extremely short period of time.

    This study on lizards who developed cecal valves after only 3 decades is strong evidence that organisms can evolve dramatically in a short period of time. Some scientists believe this is an example of epigenetic factors causing normally dormant genes in these lizards to be expressed. For those who cite HBD as a reason for things like eugenics, or whatever, this is a problem because it means that low IQ and whatever problems that come with it could possibly be addressed with more investment in improving environments, nutrition, family support systems and so on. And these changes could have a positive affect in a very short period of time. The couple or so HBD bloggers that I’ve read who have written about epigenetics, generally tend to try to unconvincingly hand-wave it away.

  55. Guys, too many of you are making statements that seem to half believe in HBD, believing it to be “one factor” if not THE factor. That is illogical.

    If a theory is a) scientifically unproven, and is b)summarily rejected by ALL of the leaders in that scientific field, it is illogical to simply assume that its part of ANY explanation.

    That is the same as taking my Planet X (the invisible planet) into account as PART of what creates high tides, or earthquakes. If it is unproven, you should not be accepting it as ANY part of any explanation.

  56. King, since IMHO HBD is more probable than not, it should be the default assumption. No scientists have been adequately ever to disprove it. And BTW, the correlations we see in HBD studies are statistically generally quite high by the standards used in the social sciences.

  57. What I cannot understand is how anyone can accept a theory that any group of people are inferior to another based on race.
    As to the person that argued earlier that racism did not start in Europe because tribes always fought, I will say that tribes fought not because of a concept of ‘race’. For instance in my country that is now, thanks to European meddling, a coalition of many kingdoms, I come from the Yoruba tribe and from the river-rine area of Lagos. We think we are the shit because we are close to the water, dominated in trade etc. The land locked Yoruba people of old Ife think we have no culture. There’s even a proverb that says “Eko (now Lagos) has the money, but Oyo (old Kingdom) has the King (tradition and culture). So what do two self respecting men/women of both cultures do in an arguement? They fight, hurl insults on each other and call each other, descendants of rats or something. Nowhere was there a, ‘because of the colour of your skin, shape of your face, colour of your eyes, length of your nose, girth of your behind, ” a basis for the insults.
    And when you sit there and try to encourage an ‘open mind’ towards accepting that kind of ideology as a basis for classifying people, you don’t even realise that you have bought into a WHITE MAN’s concept designed to elevate his own status.

    I cannot quote books and scientific magazines. All I will say is –and Wowo-ites excuse my bad language– that it is all bullshit.
    Someone here keeps mentioning technologies of the recent centuries as proof of advancement and how in career fields located in predominantly white countries, the non-whites are given the back seat as possible proof that discrimination is based not in racism but on the possible fact that they are somehow genetically incapable of getting the job done. Msstsssthw!n(that’s a hiss by the way, spelled by my racially non-creative African self)

    Please try and wipe out Africa. I think the ‘superior WHITES’ and their HBD minions have been trying for a while. I wonder why their ‘superior thinking skills, technologies and concepts’ have not quite done the job…should be a breeze, with us, ‘lowly primates of the dark continent’. No? What with all the poverty and diseases and corruption and illiteracy and ….

    *sigh* I am going to get some breakfast.

  58. If HBD’ers were so smart, they’d know that you can’t prove a negative. Prove to me that God doesn’t exist.

  59. Dali,

    “Byron, you missed my point. The point of contention here isn’t whether whites did this or Asians did that. Who is missing from this picture? This isn’t about white vs. Asian, as HBD would actually put Asian mean IQ above white mean IQ.”

    It was I, bigWOWO, who made a point by bringing up the example of Microsoft, Apple, Intel, etc. It sounds like you agree with me. So can you at least say that you agree, if you do? That the computer I have on my desk is not just a White invention, as the other guy said? That the computer, in fact, was at least in part a collaboration?

    I could go into King’s posting of the black scientist, but how about a small victory here? Even if you don’t want to give props to that black guy, am I at least right that it’s not a pure White invention?

  60. And Dali,

    Why would you want to wipe out Africa? Why would you even say that?

    Check out Catwalq’s post. And react! Please! I want to know what you have to say about that. It could be just internet communication, but I wonder why my point about assigning inventions to Whites somehow turned into something specifically about blacks.

    Eurasian,

    “Comment of the week, only because it demonstrates exactly the way HBDers think. Biological determinism is everything.”

    I’d frontpage it, but this post really is the end of an era!

    Notty,

    “If HBD’ers were so smart, they’d know that you can’t prove a negative. Prove to me that God doesn’t exist.”

    I’m telling you, it’s a RELIGION! Look at the commenter Fun above. Doesn’t his argument look similar to that Intelligent Design thing, saying that God is more likely just like HBD is more likely?

  61. “20,000 years is hardly enough time for the kind of “evolution””

    Oh yea? You need to read the book _10,000 Year Explosion_. Much evolution has taken place among humans in the past 10,000 years, some even in the past 1,000 years.

    There are certain genes regulating the brain (found in Europeans and North Asians but in no one else) that are only 5,000 years old:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/science/08cnd-brain.html?ei=5094&en=7f83ee9b96d40611&ex=1126238400&partner=homepage&=&adxnnlx=1126212523-Sy51vhmKhac0/YQeUBpASA;hp=;amp=&pagewanted=print

  62. “I think most Asians believe in a milder form of HBD. East Asians not only look down upon South/SE Asians for their weaker economies and lesser academic acheivement, but also for their shorter statures and darker skin.”

    But the data backs this up. India only has an average IQ of 81… and these people are part negrito / Australoid black. They are the blacks of Asia.

  63. But several experts strongly criticized this aspect of the finding, saying it was far from clear that the new alleles conferred any cognitive advantage or had spread for that reason. Many genes have more than one role in the body, and the new alleles could have been favored for some other reason, these experts said, such as if they increased resistance to disease.

    Even if the new alleles should be shown to improve brain function, that would not necessarily mean that the populations where they are common have any brain-related advantage over those where they are rare. Different populations often take advantage of different alleles, which occur at random, to respond to the same evolutionary pressure , as has happened in the emergence of genetic defenses against malaria, which are somewhat different in Mediterranean and African populations. If the same is true of brain evolution, each population might have a different set of alleles for enhancing function, many of which remain to be discovered.

  64. More scientists are learning HBD is real..but they are frightened by it.

    From 2009 article in the Economist:

    “Human geneticists have reached a private crisis of conscience, and it will become public knowledge in 2010. The crisis has depressing health implications and alarming political ones. In a nutshell: the new genetics will reveal much less than hoped about how to cure disease, and much more than feared about human evolution and inequality, including genetic differences between classes, ethnicities and races.”

    http://www.economist.com/node/14742737

  65. ^As usual. Proves nothing. Nowhere in the article does it say that “More scientists are learning HBD is real.”

    You HBDers should all get together and hire a fact checker to check your words against the articles you cite.

  66. In private, though, the more thoughtful GWAS researchers are troubled. They hold small, discreet conferences on the “missing heritability” problem: if all these human traits are heritable, why are GWAS studies failing so often? The DNA chips should already have identified some important genes behind physical and mental health. They simply have not been delivering the goods.

    They simply have not been delivering the goods

    Certainly, GWAS papers have reported a couple of hundred genetic variants that show statistically significant associations with a few traits. But the genes typically do not replicate across studies. Even when they do replicate, they never explain more than a tiny fraction of any interesting trait. In fact, classical Mendelian genetics based on family studies has identified far more disease-risk genes with larger effects than GWAS research has so far.

    Why the failure? The missing heritability may reflect limitations of DNA-chip design: GWAS methods so far focus on relatively common genetic variants in regions of DNA that code for proteins. They under-sample rare variants and DNA regions translated into non-coding RNA, which seems to orchestrate most organic development in vertebrates. Or it may be that thousands of small mutations disrupt body and brain in different ways in different populations. At worst, each human trait may depend on hundreds of thousands of genetic variants that add up through gene-expression patterns of mind-numbing complexity.

    Interesting how the author mentions this and then goes on to to say this anyway because it suits his view as a capitalist:

    If the shift from GWAS to sequencing studies finds evidence of such politically awkward and morally perplexing facts, we can expect the usual range of ideological reactions, including nationalistic retro-racism from conservatives and outraged denial from blank-slate liberals. The few who really understand the genetics will gain a more enlightened, live-and-let-live recognition of the biodiversity within our extraordinary species—including a clearer view of likely comparative advantages between the world’s different economies.

    No, the capitalist dude has no bias.

  67. @ Fun9876

    But that’s just it. There should be no “default assumption.” This is science – it’s OK to say, “We don’t know.” The default position should be neutral.

    In science we never give as proof the idea that no other scientists has been able adequately ever to disprove it.

    After all, no scientist could adequately disprove my invisible planet theory either. Non scientific theories are not always falsifiable using scientific means. That is why it is always incumbent upon the proponents of any theory to PROVE THEIR THEORY CORRECT — not the other way around.

  68. “I’m telling you, it’s a RELIGION! Look at the commenter Fun above. Doesn’t his argument look similar to that Intelligent Design thing, saying that God is more likely just like HBD is more likely?”

    I just use that as my default assumption as it lets me form a hypothesis. From there I look to see if I can disprove my hypothesis in addition to looking for collaborating evidence. As it stands I am convinced that HBD holds strong validity based on scientific evidence and personal experiences.

    Let’s remember that acknowledging the validity of HBD is not merely confined to race but also encompasses gender. I believe that even you believe in HBD to a certain extent and you should at least concede a couple points concerning your own belief in HBD. 1) Women tend to be shorter than men. 2) Women tend to be less physically strong then men. 3) Men tend to be faster runners than women.

  69. “Fun”:

    “As it stands I am convinced that HBD holds strong validity based on scientific evidence and personal experiences.

    Let’s remember that acknowledging the validity of HBD is not merely confined to race but also encompasses gender. “

    I’m interested in hearing more about your “personal experiences” that confirm your belief in HBD. Care to share?

    HBD has nothing to do with gender. Everyone acknowledges gender differences. Men have penises while women do not. It’s a fact of life. Your HBD religious leaders didn’t discover this, believe it or not.

  70. I reject the notion that HBD is a religion rather than a scientific movement as a religion implies faith whereas HBD is grounded in science.

    Well, actually HBD does encompass the differences between the sexes. I am comfortable with this definition of HBD over at Urban Dictionary:

    “An acronym that stands for human biodiversity. It is the acknowledgement and study of how humans differ from each other on both the individual and group levels because of differences in genotype. Differences include, but are not limited to, personality traits, athletic ability, intelligence, height, health, and physical appearance.”

    Based on your statements you too believe in some tenants of HBD.

    Honestly I do not have time to go into many of my personal experiences as I am a busy MBA student. But they come from viewing different races and men and women in public settings, in school, the workplace, including my interactions, all of which has allowed me to witness the truth of most stereotypes up close and in person. I know that’s vague but I at the moment I will leave it at that.

  71. By the way I am assuming you agree with the 3 HBD-grounded assertions I made above regarding average differences between the sexes?

  72. Argh!! Fun9876 you’re falling headlong into the conflation problem I wrote about above.

    1) Women tend to be shorter than men.
    2) Women tend to be less physically strong then men.
    3) Men tend to be faster runners than women.

    These are not issues that everyone doesn’t already agree with. The very definition of “gender” indicates that males and females do not have the exact same biology. We also understand that people groups look different from one another in certain ways. These observations aren’t even in dispute.

    The problem with HBD is when it makes assumptions about gender, such as, “Males are genetically predisposed to be more intelligent than women,” or “This Race is genetically predisposed to be more intelligent than that race.” Those are the issues and assumptions that we are talking about.

  73. IQ tracks more by race than gender. Other than the exceptional high-IQ genius men, men and women have comparable IQS, often diverging only by a couple points. For instance, white and North Asian females have much higher average IQs than black men.

    In general, people seem to be more motivated by race than by gender:

    “race usually trumps sex. Consider O.J. Simpson vs. Mark Furhman. When O.J. would beat up Nicole Simpson and she would dial 9-11, the responding cops’ typical response over the years would typically be along the lines of “Hey, it’s The Juice! Can we get a picture of you and us and your Heisman? Do the Heisman pose!” The one cop out of the many who came by their place on Brentwood who didn’t get wrapped up in the jock-sniffing extravaganzas and who actually worried about the welfare of Mrs. Simpson was Mark Fuhrman.

    As you’ll recall, the only individual convicted of a felony in connection with the evenutal murder of Nicole was … Detective Fuhrman.

    As feminist prosecutor Marcia Clark found out when she tried to pack the OJ jury with women and Johnnie Cochran tried to pack it with blacks, and they ended up in a compromise packing it with black women, race trumps sex in modern American identity politics.”

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/07/question-for-feminists.html

    Or think of Oprah abandoning feminist Hillary to support not-so-feminist Obama.

  74. “Fun”

    “By the way I am assuming you agree with the 3 HBD-grounded assertions I made above regarding average differences between the sexes?”

    King answered this above. I’m just going to cosign on it since it’s obvious to everyone outside of your religion. It’s got nothing to do with HBD, even if the HBD gurus claim it.

    But they come from viewing different races and men and women in public settings, in school, the workplace, including my interactions, all of which has allowed me to witness the truth of most stereotypes up close and in person. I know that’s vague but I at the moment I will leave it at that.

    I want to know how your personal experiences tell you that it’s in the genes. Unless you’ve surpassed your “genetic limitations” and have superpower microvision that lets you see DNA.

    Again, we’re not talking about superheroes. And I don’t believe you’re a superhero.

  75. Xuan,

    What does any of the stuff you just posted have to do with intelligence and genes?

    Sheesh, I didn’t even have to post this HBD thread. You people prove it’s a religion all by yourselves.

  76. Never thought of the correlation between PUA and HBD till it was brought up on this thread. So True.

  77. @ Xuan

    “IQ tracks more by race than gender”

    Yes, but the salient question here is whether the tracking is based on genetic causation or non-genetic correlation. No other question is really pertinent, and to this you have no answer.

  78. “As long as there is an IR disparity, there will be PUA”

    LOL..I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read this.

    “That is to say that the Greeks would think, “Those Easterners are very quiet and subservient,”

    Too bad the ancient Greeks weren’t able to see the ruthlessness of the Ottoman Turks many centuries later!

    Byron, I thought you and Raguel weren’t into this gungho attitude of Asian guys improving their image anymore.

  79. Trillions of dollars have been spent over the past four decades to close the racial gap in tests/educational performance that exists between Blacks & Hispanics and Asians & Whites yet Asians and Whites continue to significantly outscore Blacks & Hispanics. And with the Black illegitimacy rate having rose to a staggering 71% with the Hispanics rate at 51% the future looks very, very grim.

  80. “I want to know how your personal experiences tell you that it’s in the genes.”

    Well here’s just one example. When I go to the gym or to the mall or anywhere Black men tend to look more muscular than White men. I don’t think that Black men necessarily work out more than White men; in fact, I see a lot of the same White dudes in the gym that I go to and a lot of the same Black dudes again and again and from what I can tell these guys put just as much effort into lifting, taking supplements (based on conversations with them), etc., yet the Black dudes look more muscular with lower amounts of body fat. I’ve been a member of over 5 gyms, and this has been constant. It does not seem likely to me that the White guys got poorer nutrition growing up; genetics is therefore the most plausible answer, like “King,” a Black man, even suggested in a comment on another post, hence affirming one belief in HBD.

  81. “I could go into King’s posting of the black scientist, but how about a small victory here? Even if you don’t want to give props to that black guy, am I at least right that it’s not a pure White invention?”

    Computers may not be purely white people inventions, but that’s besides the point, the inclusion of Asians in recent technological innovation and a few individual NAMs I’ll agree with. But sometimes, what isn’t said is more important than what is said. Telling a half-truth such as “computers weren’t white inventions” is pretty dishonest, it’s taking credit away from key innovators, Babbage, Turing, Ritchie, Torvalds, the list could go on. Could you honestly claim that computers were black, Hispanic, or Asian inventions? Somehow I doubt that the scientists who created the first computers in the UK, US, and Germany were racially diverse.

    I’ll assume that Catwalq is black and has taken personal offense to what I’m saying. I don’t remember the entire conversation but some points that recurred among some high school peers were that blacks in Africa have an extraordinarily high fertility rate, ensuring that some of their children will starve to death or otherwise suffer from malnourishment. African lack of cultural values on education and overall lower IQ leads to higher poverty and crime. And yes, they even thought black girls weren’t attractive (remember Satoshi Kanazawa?)

  82. “Well here’s just one example. When I go to the gym or to the mall or anywhere Black men tend to look more muscular than White men.”

    Don’t you see the weakness in this argument?

    The vast majority of men of ANY race are not “buffed out.” So you’re using a measure that only applies to a minority of men in each race. You can’t simply say that the percentage of muscular men is higher among Blacks, so therefore, it must be genetic racial characteristic among ALL (or most0 Blacks.

  83. Fun,

    To add to what King says, maybe you just notice the black guys because you’re afraid of them!

    (Personally, I have seen a lot of black dudes who work out. But I don’t know if I can claim that that’s univerals wherever one goes.)

  84. Dali:

    “Computers may not be purely white people inventions, but that’s besides the point, the inclusion of Asians in recent technological innovation and a few individual NAMs I’ll agree with. But sometimes, what isn’t said is more important than what is said. Telling a half-truth such as “computers weren’t white inventions” is pretty dishonest, it’s taking credit away from key innovators, Babbage, Turing, Ritchie, Torvalds, the list could go on. Could you honestly claim that computers were black, Hispanic, or Asian inventions? Somehow I doubt that the scientists who created the first computers in the UK, US, and Germany were racially diverse.”

    Xuan told me throw out the computer off my desk if I didn’t like “white inventions.” King posted a link to a black guy who had three patents on components in computers. I happen to also know of an Japanese dude who gets paid royalties for his work on the CD-ROM drive. I pointed out that there are LOTS of minorities working at the big computer/software companies, which I thought you agreed with. I never said that there weren’t White people working at these companies, nor would I say that White people weren’t leading most of them–although companies such as Wang, Sony, Hitachi, and Toshiba were run by Asians.

    NEVER did I say that computers were black, Hispanic, or Asian inventions. Why do you have to put a label on it anyway?

    I hope you’ll admit that the computer sitting on top of my desk, which Xuan thinks I should throw away, isn’t a pure “white invention.” To say that it’s a White invention is to discount the efforts that non-White people put in, efforts that these so-called “White” companies still pay on for patents, etc. Why would “White” companies have to pay royalties if they independently created the intellectual property?

    So I’m not going to say that it’s a black invention or Asian invention, but can we at least agree that it’s erroneous to just say it’s a White invention? I think THAT is the half-truth. I’m struggling with why you can’t agree with this, given that you just posted a lot about the Indians and Asians who work for tech companies.

    I’ll assume that Catwalq is black and has taken personal offense to what I’m saying. I don’t remember the entire conversation but some points that recurred among some high school peers were that blacks in Africa have an extraordinarily high fertility rate, ensuring that some of their children will starve to death or otherwise suffer from malnourishment. African lack of cultural values on education and overall lower IQ leads to higher poverty and crime. And yes, they even thought black girls weren’t attractive (remember Satoshi Kanazawa?)

    African cultural values? What about Nigerian cultural values? I happen to know a lot of Africans where I live, and they ALL come from Nigeria. They all make shitloads of money for high end jobs like accounting and finance. I recently asked a Nigerian why so many successful immigrants come from Nigeria, and he said it’s because of the education system.

    Sorry if I’m coming down on you, but I just don’t get this conversation. It seems like we agree on the facts, but you just seem to be coming back to the “bad black” and “good white” themes. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I really would like to understand.

  85. I’d like to bring this up too. I’m not saying this applies to everyone but I’ve notice a certain “jealousy” some AM have toward BM. They wonder why do BM do so well with women. (that in itself is a stereotype that I’m not even so sure of) It rips them some of them up inside when they see a WF with a BM because they feel it’s their right to have that because they are supposedly “genetically’ better (smarts,etc). You will find a lot of these bitter, loveless AM seeking things like PUA or HBD. Been reading some of the message boards lately and I’d say 80% of AM going to PUA sites are seeking WFs. APB isn’t stupid. He knows that’s the case, that’s why he markets his site toward that. In the end, you read all their message boards 90% people who post, they get nowhere with anybody and it ends up being much ado about nothing.

  86. Then I can’t help you, man. Sorry. And you just said the fact that Watson is older and comes from another era makes you side with HBD more too. I can’t help you with that either.

    What the… I said…

    there’s that Watson guy (which I may add, arguing he’s old is not an argument, it’s another type of argument that I find myself siding with HBD more).

    How does that say I am siding with him because he’s old? I said “arguing he’s old is not an argument” as in that dismissing Watson’s thoughts because he’s an old man from a different time is a fallacy. I’m not going to or be in agreement of dismissing him by that justification. If you look up “Fallacious Arguments” it matches the definition of “Argument of Age.”

    What is a good argument is how Watson’s thoughts are flawed, not talk about how he is old.

    I also can’t help it you’re upset that people aren’t allowed to anonymously attack people. Go to 8A and try it; they’ll ban you without even thinking twice. Does their site policy make you lean more towards HBD? This site has one of the most lenient commenting policies anywhere. The anonymous coward rule has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of these race theories, so if it bothers you to the point that you’re leaning more towards HBD, I truly don’t know what to say. Sorry. I’m out of ways to fight you on this.

    Huh? How did I said I advocate personal attacks? I said with a few quotes in focus:

    …. I don’t condone personal attacks, I can’t agree on this rule that a person cannot retain anonymity while making commentary. Granted, what I can see, this is about insulting another commentator’s looks, but the rule seems to be about that one cannot criticize without revealing one’s identity… .

    …To my understanding of fair play, ad hominem personal attacks are wrong, anonymous commentary is not. Not willing to reveal one’s identity is not wrong and is not unfair play.

    So how did those words said I take offense to not allowing anonymous attacks? I took offense to your use of instigating a rule called “anonymous cowards,” offense to anonymity, not attacks. If a person personally attack someone with his full name an address, does it make it any better? No. You can argue that being anonymous encourage more boldness and willingness to attacks, but that’s doesn’t make anonymity in and of itself wrong.

    In a later comment I said that you should invoke a “personal attacks rule” and/or “trolling rule” against Reader or any other person who act like that. Your response was that you already have those rules and you a person should earn some cookie points for taking a stance with an identity exposed. Which was large fine to me. But, the rule you invoked and wrote about is anonymity.

    My understanding of your issue is anonymity. Which I took issue on that. I do not in anyway condone or encourage personal attacks or insults. I do not condone or encourage to my understanding of Reader’s actions to go after their photo and make fun of her that add nothing to the discussion. I do not condone or encourage AOR actions of going after your family which adds nothing to the discussion.

    Speaking of anonymity, a few weeks back, I stumble on this article which fits well to that post. It reminded me of that post, but I never bothered to link it because the thread is already dead. But since you brought it up, let me link to this article of Christopher Poole’s criticism to Mark Zuckerberg’s statement about anonymity.

    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/4chan-founder-to-facebook-ceo-youre-doing-it-wrong/785

    I guess this is enough of a divergence…

  87. @Dali:

    some points that recurred among some high school peers were that blacks in Africa have an extraordinarily high fertility rate, ensuring that some of their children will starve to death or otherwise suffer from malnourishment. African lack of cultural values on education and overall lower IQ leads to higher poverty and crime. And yes, they even thought black girls weren’t attractive (remember Satoshi Kanazawa?)

    First, I am going to take a deep breath, because as they say in that cultural-value-lacking place that I come from, if you engage in a fight with the village idiot and you both end up naked in the market place, how will anyone intervening be able to tell the difference?

    Now, back to you. So, in your high school, at the peak of your fine adolescence, you and your classmates were trading fun facts about Africans whom most of you do not know or interact with? Pray tell, what fine establishment does your o'level certificate hale from? I want to start my children's high school fund now so that they too can get some intellectual and cultural development.

    African culture advocates for many children because 1) most were agrarian communities that needed farmhands to ensure resources and 2) it thus became a sign of wealth to be able have many children as most men kept many wives. Which then meant that 3) our men and women found each other so freaking attractive, we boink the hell out of each other.

    Low education? The first time I would meet an individual who was a first generation college student was when I came to YOUR country. I am going to assume you are an American. Education is a highly coveted experience for the average African, be it western or traditional. And for your information, knowing how to read and write in English does not an education make, it just means you are literate. Africans were reading and writing in their own traditional text and even Arabic before your high IQ's Europeans came totting along.

    Satoshi Kanazawa did not find black girls attractive? And your point is what? Once we can get Satoshi's sexual endorsement, we are good to go?

    I hope when you look in the mirror, you like yourself. Because, if you can buy into so much ignorance about other people, I wonder what you first bought into about yourself.

    And for your information, I am not 'personally' offended. I am irritated.

  88. Oops, I think I messed up with the italics. I guess, I have to concede to Dali. Surely, my inability to format my comment properly is a sign of a low African IQ.
    Dear me, my bride price just reduced a couple cows.

  89. “Dear me, my bride price just reduced a couple cows.”

    This made me choke and spit coffee on my computer monitor, I was laughing so hard. Since I am unable to read and drink coffee at the same time, I, too, am probably not worth many cows.

  90. I want to make a point with Catwalq based around this

    African culture advocates for many children because 1) most were agrarian communities that needed farmhands to ensure resources and 2) it thus became a sign of wealth to be able have many children as most men kept many wives. Which then meant that 3) our men and women found each other so freaking attractive, we boink the hell out of each other.

    From many HBD comments and I can remember a blog post from somewhere, some made an argument that HBD is shown by Africans continued multiplication in face despite how it would produce famine. Which is a flawed argument to make as culture continue to advocate producing as many children as possible. It wasn’t too long ago China, before the government realized the possible overpopulation catastrophe and instigation of the 1 child policy, was just as growing as rapid. The rest of the world followed the same pattern though a bit earlier.

    Catwalq’s quote makes a good point that we can’t forget to consider other very major points to certain behaviors that it’s a good poke that a flawed HBD argument.

  91. @Catwalq I still can’t figure out how to use Block quotes in this blog. Last time I used it, I ended up with a super double post. I just use italics now.

    —-

    Also a few grammar fixes. I meant to write “was growing just as rapid” (which maybe a split infinitive, come to think of it) not the nonsensical “was just as growing as rapid.”

    I also meant to write “it’s a good poke at a flawed HBD argument.”

  92. @ Moro……You are definately correct about how some AMs are jealous of BMs when it comes to White women. On the same token, many BMs envy AMs because they are a lot more successful when it comes to career and financial matters.

    I think many AMs suffer from the dating world because of one major flaw. Physique. Most Asian men will continued to be judged by their unattractiveness by Western society. I noticed many AMs get treated as second class soley because of their looks. An Asian dude with more “Western” features will not suffer the same fate, but this kind of guy is not the average joe.

    Regarding PUA and APB, did you know that WFs are the least receptive of AMs when it comes to interracial dating partners? Maybe that’s why these guys don’t get anywhere, yet ABP sells it otherwise.

  93. Byron – There is really no need to bring up African and Carribean Black immigrants. Some of them tell me why Black Americans are “dumb” and lazy, because of one fucking factor – Americanization.

    “African cultural values? What about Nigerian cultural values? I happen to know a lot of Africans where I live, and they ALL come from Nigeria. They all make shitloads of money for high end jobs like accounting and finance”.

  94. Bruce Lahn’s studies show that Europeans and North Asians have certain brain-related genes not present in other people. I’m sure it’s just a matter of time before other things are found.

    The next big discovery will probably be that backs have certain genes making them more aggressive. For most of African history, such genes would have been adaptive and necessary for survival in Africa. It’s not merely “economic” that blacks make up 12% of the population in the US but commit most of the crimes.

    A couple interesting pieces on blacks.

    “The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States”

    “In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.”

    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=26368

    “What is it Like to Teach Black Students?”

    “Until recently I taught at a predominantly
    black high school in a southeastern
    state.

    The mainstream press gives a hint of
    what conditions are like in black schools,
    but only a hint. Expressions that journalists
    use like “chaotic” or “poor learning
    environment” or “lack of discipline” do
    not capture what really happens. There
    is nothing like the day-to-day experience
    of teaching black children and that is
    what I will try to convey.

    One of the most immediately striking
    things about my students was that they
    were loud. They had little conception of
    ordinary decorum. It was not unusual
    for five students to be screaming at
    me at once.

    It did no good to try to quiet them and
    white women were particularly inept at
    trying. I sat in on one woman’s class as
    she begged the children to pipe down.
    They just yelled louder so their voices
    would carry over hers.”

    Continue reading: http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2009/06/white-teacher-speaks-out-what-is-it.html

    Blacks more than likely are wired differently from whites and North Asians (and whites and North Asians aren’t wired completely the same as each other).

    Blaming the obvious failures of blacks on “economics” is absolutely retarded, since blacks are the largest beneficiaries in education:

    “The Myth of Racial Disparities in Public School Funding”

    “Abstract: Achievement disparities among racial and ethnic groups persist in the American education system. Asian and white students consistently perform better on standardized tests than Hispanic and black students. While many commentators blame the achievement gap on alleged disparities in school funding, this Heritage Foundation paper demonstrates that public education spending per pupil is broadly similar across racial and ethnic groups. To the extent that funding differences exist at all, they tend to slightly favor lower-performing groups, especially blacks. Since unequal funding for minority students is largely a myth, it cannot be a valid explanation for racial and ethnic differences in school achievement, and there is little evidence that increasing public spending will close the gaps.”

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/04/The-Myth-of-Racial-Disparities-in-Public-School-Funding

    HBD is the Occam’s Razor that cuts through the environmental lies. HBD is obvious and, modern genetics and evolutionary thought is showing, true.

  95. “Humans Have Spread Globally, and Evolved Locally”

    “Last year Benjamin Voight, Jonathan Pritchard and colleagues at the University of Chicago searched for genes under natural selection in Africans, Europeans and East Asians. In each race, some 200 genes showed signals of selection, but without much overlap, suggesting that the populations on each continent were adapting to local challenges.

    Another study, by Scott Williamson of Cornell University and colleagues, published in PLoS Genetics this month, found 100 genes under selection in Chinese, African-Americans and European-Americans.

    In most cases, the source of selective pressure is unknown. But many genes associated with resistance to disease emerge from the scans, confirming that disease is a powerful selective force. Another category of genes under selective pressure covers those involved in metabolism, suggesting that people were responding to changes in diet, perhaps associated with the switch from hunting and gathering to agriculture.

    Several genes involved in determining skin color have been under selective pressure in Europeans and East Asians. But Dr. Pritchard’s study detected skin color genes only in Europeans, and Dr. Williamson found mostly genes selected in Chinese.

    The reason for the difference is that Dr. Pritchard’s statistical screen detects genetic variants that have become very common in a population but are not yet universal. Dr. Williamson’s picks up variants that have already swept through a population and are possessed by almost everyone.

    The findings suggest that Europeans and East Asians acquired their pale skin through different genetic routes and, in the case of Europeans, perhaps as recently as around 7,000 years ago.

    Another puzzle is presented by selected genes involved in brain function, which occur in different populations and could presumably be responses to behavioral challenges encountered since people left the ancestral homeland in Africa.

    But some genes have more than one role, and some of these brain-related genes could have been selected for other properties.

    Two years ago, Bruce Lahn, a geneticist at the University of Chicago, reported finding signatures of selection in two brain-related genes of a type known as microcephalins, because when mutated, people are born with very small brains. Two of the microcephalins had come under selection in Europeans and one in Chinese, Dr. Lahn reported.

    Even more strikingly, Dr. Williamson’s group reported that a version of a gene called DAB1 had become universal in Chinese but not in other populations. DAB1 is involved in organizing the layers of cells in the cerebral cortex, the site of higher cognitive functions.

    Variants of two genes involved in hearing have become universal, one in Chinese, the other in Europeans.

    The emerging lists of selected human genes may open new insights into the interactions between history and genetics. “If we ask what are the most important evolutionary events of the last 5,000 years, they are cultural, like the spread of agriculture, or extinctions of populations through war or disease,” said Marcus Feldman, a population geneticist at Stanford. These cultural events are likely to have left deep marks in the human genome.

    A genomic survey of world populations by Dr. Feldman, Noah Rosenberg and colleagues in 2002 showed that people clustered genetically on the basis of small differences in DNA into five groups that correspond to the five continent-based populations….

    ….

    The new scans for selection show so far that the populations on each continent have evolved independently in some ways as they responded to local climates, diseases and, perhaps, behavioral situations.

    The concept of race as having a biological basis is controversial, and most geneticists are reluctant to describe it that way. But some say the genetic clustering into continent-based groups does correspond roughly to the popular conception of racial groups.

    “There are difficulties in where you put boundaries on the globe, but we know now there are enough genetic differences between people from different parts of the world that you can classify people in groups that correspond to popular notions of race,” Dr. Pritchard said.””

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26human.html

  96. “The average IQ of African blacks is around 70, much lower than American blacks:

    http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf

    …a gene called DAB1 had become universal in Chinese but not in other populations. DAB1 is involved in organizing the layers of cells in the cerebral cortex, the site of higher cognitive functions”.

    So what accounts for that fact that African immigrants do better economically than most American blacks in our big cities?

    So what accounts for the Chinese immigrants to be less polished than the White natives in the western lands?

    The whole IQ argument doesn’t hold out in many scenarios.

  97. “NEVER did I say that computers were black, Hispanic, or Asian inventions. Why do you have to put a label on it anyway?”

    No, but you did claim that “computers aren’t white inventions,” therefore they are non-white inventions (which could only be the other races). It’s like saying “the Chinese didn’t invent guns because white people improved on it with their rifled bores, gas operation, etc.” Of course the Chinese discovered gunpowder and made the first rudimentary firearms, and the fact that non-Chinese people made modern guns later doesn’t take any credit away from the Chinese for their invention.

    @Catwalq:

    “African culture advocates for many children because 1) most were agrarian communities that needed farmhands to ensure resources and 2) it thus became a sign of wealth to be able have many children as most men kept many wives. Which then meant that 3) our men and women found each other so freaking attractive, we boink the hell out of each other.”

    1.) Is this still true today? Are most Africans today still rural peasants who need more farmhands? There’s an large amount of foreign aid in Africa to meet basic needs, not to mention imported Western technology, so the fact that this condition is no longer exists and yet the birth rate is still so high invalidates this argument.
    2.) “most men kept many wives?” This is mathematically impossible. Assuming that there is a roughly 50/50 male-female population, you cannot have even half of the men with two or more wives. I think you meant to say “a select minority of males impregnated the majority of females similar to how a wolf-pack or other animal tribe reproduces.”
    3.) Low impulse control.

  98. “Bruce Lahn’s studies show that Europeans and North Asians have certain brain-related genes not present in other people. I’m sure it’s just a matter of time before other things are found.

    The next big discovery will PROBABLY be that blacks have certain genes making them more aggressive.”

    Xuan, once again, this is NOT science.

    Science is not guessing and/or hoping what you think the next development is going to be. Science is dispassionately looking at the evidence and coming to conclusions only when the data has led you to its inescapable conclusions.

    Bruce Lahn’s studies on Microcephalin (MCPH1) were inconclusive, and NEVER found any link to either higher or lower brain function. That is a red herring if ever there was one.

  99. Dali:

    “No, but you did claim that “computers aren’t white inventions,” therefore they are non-white inventions (which could only be the other races).”

    Everything that comes after “therefore” is your words, not mine. I didn’t put a color on it. Do you have to put a color on it?

    It’s like saying “the Chinese didn’t invent guns because white people improved on it with their rifled bores, gas operation, etc.” Of course the Chinese discovered gunpowder and made the first rudimentary firearms, and the fact that non-Chinese people made modern guns later doesn’t take any credit away from the Chinese for their invention.

    The Mac that sits on my desk is not made only by White people. There are inventions within its body that don’t come from White people. Therefore telling me to throw out the computer on my desk if I don’t like White inventions (which is what Xuan said) is fallacious–it’s not a White invention.

    Similarly, for me to tell a guy to throw out his Beretta if he doesn’t like Chinese inventions would also be fallacious. It’s a different machine than the ones the Chinese invented.

  100. Dreamer:

    You caught me in a misstatement. Apologies. I meant to say what you said:

    “there’s that Watson guy (which I may add, arguing he’s old is not an argument, it’s another type of argument that I find myself siding with HBD more). ”

    So let me restate it.

    Why does it make you side with HDB when I argue that Watson is old and therefore has views that come from another generation?

  101. Moroboshi:

    Sorry, forgot to respond to you. You hit the nail on the head, man!

    Dali:

    1.) Is this still true today? Are most Africans today still rural peasants who need more farmhands? There’s an large amount of foreign aid in Africa to meet basic needs, not to mention imported Western technology, so the fact that this condition is no longer exists and yet the birth rate is still so high invalidates this argument.

    First of all, you can’t think of Africa as a country. It’s not a country. Things are different depending on which country you’re talking about.

    Second, I think there are still a lot of rural areas in many African countries. It’s certainly still true in parts of China, so I imagine it’s the same in Africa. Also, sometimes the aid doesn’t get to the people, if you know what I mean.

    2.) “most men kept many wives?” This is mathematically impossible. Assuming that there is a roughly 50/50 male-female population, you cannot have even half of the men with two or more wives. I think you meant to say “a select minority of males impregnated the majority of females similar to how a wolf-pack or other animal tribe reproduces.”

    Yes, that’s obviously what she meant.

    BUT…why the comparison to animals? The same thing goes on in the Middle East. The same things used to go on in China. Actually, the same thing still goes on under wraps for some of the rich guys in China these days.

    3.) Low impulse control.

    Dude, she was kidding about the boinking thing.

    MOO!!!

  102. I meant USA.

    And I don’t see ethnicly Chinese or Koreans (which forms my main social circle) are particularly smart. The smartest people I know ar ethnic vietnamese.

    And I’ve definitely seen a lot of dumb white Americans.

  103. “From many HBD comments and I can remember a blog post from somewhere, some made an argument that HBD is shown by Africans continued multiplication in face despite how it would produce famine. Which is a flawed argument to make as culture continue to advocate producing as many children as possible. ”

    This argument that birth rates cause famine and poverty is a specific type of racism used against poor minorities. Famine in Africa has more to do with European instigation and support of warfare than it does with the birth-rate of Africans. In fact if it weren’t for the birth-rate, let’s say that in the place of Africans were mentally retarded Asian HBD proponents instead, I would bet that the latter would be completely wiped out.

  104. “I didn’t put a color on it.”

    You started it with your “computers aren’t white inventions” claim.

    Let me rephrase that for you in case you didn’t get the analogy:

    It’s like saying “white people didn’t invent computers because Asian people improved on it with their optical storage, manufacturing processes, etc.” Of course white people made the first electronic computers, and the fact that non-white people made faster computers later doesn’t take any credit away from certain white people for their invention.

    I think you are confusing production with invention.

    “The same things used to go on in China. Actually, the same thing still goes on under wraps for some of the rich guys in China these days.”

    The Party these days is very corrupt. They are using their power to-
    *dies*

  105. “First of all, you can’t think of Africa as a country. It’s not a country. Things are different depending on which country you’re talking about.”

    I did mean Africa as a continent. Okay, maybe with the possible exception of South Africa.

    “why the comparison to animals?”

    Because that sort of behaviour is associated with animals. Civilized people in a functional society (keyword: functional) have monogamous marriages and societal pressure to stick with one partner. It’s not happening so much anymore, but the decline a different issue…

    “The Mac that sits on my desk…”

    You would own a Mac… sigh.

  106. A little off-topic here, but I refuse to buy Apple products, partly because their WM/AF advertising has left a bitter taste in my mouth. I wouldn’t even have noticed it if you hadn’t pointed it out on your blog, so thanks for that.

    There’s nothing special at all about Apple hardware since they switched to x86, other than the fact that it comes in a nicer looking package. Their OS is basically a modified version of FreeBSD. However, they command a price premium with their clever marketing and you suckers buy it.

  107. @ Dali

    ““why the comparison to animals?”

    Because that sort of behaviour is associated with animals. Civilized people in a functional society (keyword: functional) have monogamous marriages and societal pressure to stick with one partner. It’s not happening so much anymore, but the decline a different issue”

    Cultural and moral bias, much? Monogamy and the convolutions of morality centering around it is a recent, and CHRISTIAN innovation.

    You live in a bubble of the present and so your ideas are nothing more than those force-fed to you by your own select choices.

  108. “There’s nothing special at all about Apple hardware since they switched to x86, other than the fact that it comes in a nicer looking package. Their OS is basically a modified version of FreeBSD. However, they command a price premium with their clever marketing and you suckers buy it.”

    In fact I support Apple’s competitors. I foresee that Apple’s market share in the non-Americanised Asian countries will drop significantly.

  109. @ Dali:
    “Because that sort of behaviour is associated with animals. Civilized people in a functional society (keyword: functional) have monogamous marriages and societal pressure to stick with one partner.”

    Clearly, advanced and intelligent races of people like the Chinese (IQ 105 apparently) would never do such animalistic things.
    Oh wait…
    (from http://www.beijingmadeeasy.com/beijing-history/concubines-of-ancient-china)
    “Concubines are women who cohabit with men but are not married to them. In ancient China it was common for successful men to have several concubines – the Chinese Emperors often kept thousands. Concubines’ situation ranged from pseudo-wives to poorly treated prostitutes.
    Concubines do not officially exist in modern China, but ‘Ernai’ or ‘second wives’ are increasingly common. Unlike in the West, keeping a mistress is not always frowned upon in China. The CCP tried to stamp out concubinage, which they saw as a feudal vice, but among China’s new breed of super-rich businessman, keeping a young, fashionable, spoilt young woman as a mistress can gain you face – which in turn is good for business. Concubinage was not abolished in Hong Kong until 1971.”

    Savages.

  110. @Dali:

    Is this still true today? Are most Africans today still rural peasants who need more farmhands? There’s an large amount of foreign aid in Africa to meet basic needs, not to mention imported Western technology, so the fact that this condition is no longer exists and yet the birth rate is still so high invalidates this argument.
    2.) “most men kept many wives?” This is mathematically impossible. Assuming that there is a roughly 50/50 male-female population, you cannot have even half of the men with two or more wives. I think you meant to say “a select minority of males impregnated the majority of females similar to how a wolf-pack or other animal tribe reproduces.”
    3.) Low impulse control.

    Good morning.
    1. Most African communities were agrarian. Which means, that cultural patterns formed aeons today still prevail amongst the people. The same way certain foods are eaten in the US at a certain time because historically there were no means of preservation and so those foods had to be eaten quickly.
    If you are going to make certain deductions about a people, you have to know their history and their ways of thinking, the motivations behind their actions before you attribute certain things to IQ and brain function. There are many things that are a function of culture passed down over time, mutating, growing and manifesting as a slightly different thing.
    As for foreign aid, I can tell you that the percentage of people in my country relying on foreign aid is less than 0.5%. I have never needed ‘foreign aid’ and neither has anybody I know and thanks to our ‘breeding styles’ which you have so eloquently expounded upon, I do know ALOT of people.
    You are reacting to statistics based on articles that you have read in heavily biased publications. And just so you know, if a country says that it made X amount of dollars in donations to a particular country, it actually meant that it made X – ‘a large amount necessary for its internal administrative costs needed to process the transaction of donation’ to said ‘African country’ so before you go spouting figures you pulled from AIDS/etc organisation, know that the actual amount of funding ever directed at any cause is less at least 30%. If not more.

    2) Most men kept many wives. The average king had at least 30. All of whom would have been married according to traditional laws and customs. Both my grandmothers were wife number 3 and wife number 5 respectively. And there was never a man in the community who wanted for a wife.
    Go and research “POLYGAMY’ and not the perverse kind of your WHITE AMERICAN thinking but how one man, marries and maintains multiple women. Women have always outnumbered men in our culture and so men always had access to many accepting possibilities of spouses. The increase in number of girls over boys is mostly because the girl child is significantly stronger than the male child. I mean, she is destined for a life of struggle in one way or the other, so she hits the ground running. That is why, Yoruba male children are named on the eight day after their birth and girl children on the seventh. The need for that extra day to find out if the boy is going to make it or not before giving that child a name became a cultural practice. Now, even if that child is born in the most advanced hospital in the world, as long as he is a Yoruba boy, he is not given a name until the eight day. To get western authorities of their backs, the child is listed as Baby X (X being the last name of the family) till the name is decided upon.
    Now, if you worked in that hospital where the child is born, you would attribute that wait to superstition and thus a function of a ‘low African IQ’. You know why? Because you don’t know anything and based on your limited cultural knowledge and your unwillingness to acquire any, you will make a generalisation, follow that up with a publication and before you know it, there are a hundred mini-Dali’s out there spouting the same nonsense.

    3)Low impulse control? Africans are by nature conservative.

    I will leave you at this. I think you have read too many documents that are well structured to push a certain agenda. One in which superiority is attributed to a certain race. As for giving Asians a ‘high IQ rating’, you will soon find that when your fellow ‘IQ-raters’ are pushed to the test, they will say that those same high IQ Asians only use it for sinister, non-civilised behaviour. Take this sudden preoccupation with ‘China’s move to take over the world’. The trouble with saying certain people are this and that is that even with the ‘exceptions’, the 2nd place will never be let into the 1st place spot. Ever.
    You need to actually meet people, do some research and find out why certain things happen the way they do. Most likely, people did things that way for so long, it became the only way to do things. Someone somewhere will change and then the technique evolves as well. Open your mind.

    Oh, on monogamy: That is some bullshit Christians came up with to control resources. That’s why your high IQ’d people are having so many, many affairs. Monogamy is not too natural. If it was, you will want only one pair of shoes and have only one pair of shoes. Me, I have….i will leave you to imagine how many ‘shoes’ my bad-low-impulse-having self has.

    And, why is South Africa not part of the continent? You one of those people that classifies Egypt, Morroco, Libya, Tunisia etc as belonging to middle east and mediterreanean Europe because Africans can never be that fair or have the IQ to build such monuments….?

  111. I think Catwalq is making sense. Particularly pay heed to her point #1, and it will explain to you the phenomenon of “social inertia.” A car doesn’t stop when you hit the breaks, it BEGINS stopping. The car actually comes to a full stop, hundreds of feet down the freeway as it decelerates to a resting point.

    Societies are the same way, they don’t just stop moving in a given direction, at a given speed when you slam on the breaks.

  112. “Clearly, advanced and intelligent races of people like the Chinese (IQ 105 apparently) would never do such animalistic things.”

    I would have hardly considered Imperial China as a functional society to be honest. There was mostly stagnation during that period. Of all Asian countries, only Japan was forced in the 19th century to modernize itself, giving them a huge head start in terms of human development.

    @Catwalq:

    1.) “Were” agrarian. Can you honestly say that the same economic conditions from centuries ago apply today?
    2.) Either you cannot understand basic maths, or you choose to ignore the majority of males with no wives at all. For your situation to occur, male deaths would have to vastly outnumber female deaths, in order to create this skewed gender ratio you’re talking about. Let’s suppose that all females marry and the average married man has 30 wives in your example, then an equivalent statement would be “only (1 / 30) = 3.3% of males get married.” (this is probably more representative of African Americans, with most males opting out of marriage entirely)
    “The need for that extra day to find out if the boy is going to make it or not before giving that child a name became a cultural practice.”
    I would attribute it to cultural preference towards r-selection over K-selection.
    3.) “Monogamy is not too natural.” I agree with you there: monogamy definitely is not natural and it takes societal pressure and deferred gratification to make it happen, which is clearly not the case in Africa.

    “And, why is South Africa not part of the continent? You one of those people that classifies Egypt, Morroco, Libya, Tunisia etc as belonging to middle east and mediterreanean Europe because Africans can never be that fair or have the IQ to build such monuments….?”
    Apartheid, mostly.

  113. @ Dali
    You totally missed half the things Catwalq said, which already answer your questions.

  114. @Dali
    *sigh* you exhaust me

    1) no, economic conditions have changed but alot of the cultural practices have not. You made a very uninformed statement about the reason for large families within African culture. I explained one of the reasons. You refuse to acknowledge it, as is your right.
    Africa is not an impoverished continent as your western media would like you to think. The diseases and political situations that we experience, are not unique to us alone. Otherwise, everytime there is a sickness or some strife, it is a sign that the community’s collective IQ has dropped two digits.

    2) I think you have African men confused with a kind that sits at home and says that “Oh boy, the king has twenty wives and concubines, I have not one woman of my own. So, I am going to sit here, cry and whine.” No sirree, if there was a shortage in any village, you went to the next one within the kingdom. That’s why children inherit from their father’s side because while the mother can come from anywhere, the father is stationary and gives them their ties to the land.
    So, no marriages and procreation were not a product of faulty economics maths. They were of common sense

    3) No, monogamy is societal pressure and societal guilt. And inherited European fairytale ideals. Has nothing to do with IQ or race.

  115. Dali,

    Saying that “computers aren’t white inventions” is NOT putting a color on it. It’s saying that they are NOT white inventions. Therefore there is NO color on it because it is NOT White. I really don’t know how to be more clear on this.

    “It’s like saying “white people didn’t invent computers because Asian people improved on it with their optical storage, manufacturing processes, etc.” Of course white people made the first electronic computers, and the fact that non-white people made faster computers later doesn’t take any credit away from certain white people for their invention.

    I think you are confusing production with invention. “

    I’m not confusing anything. To say a White person invented the first computer would be fine, but to say that MY computer is a White invention is totally wrong. Read what Xuan wrote. We’re talking about me throwing away the Mac that sits on my desk, NOT thowing away some difference engine. It’s the same with guns. My Chinese friend’s Glock is not a Chinese invention, even if the Chinese invented the gun.

    The Mac is just not an improvement, it’s a whole different animal.

    I could say that the Chinese invented the calculator because of the abacus and that you should throw out your calculator if you don’t like Chinese inventions, but it’s not even close to being the same thing.

    I could say that the Indians invented martial arts so that you should give up Brazilian Jujitsu if you don’t like Indian inventions, but BJJ is nothing close to what the original martial arts were.

    We’re specifically talking about the “computer” as Xuan described it–the little flat silver thing that sits on my desk and lets me type stuff.

    Hey, if you want to qualify by saying that the first computer was a White invention, fine. But if we’re talking about what’s on both MY desk and YOURS, give credit where credit is due. Don’t tell me to throw away my computer because it’s a White invention. Give credit where credit is due. The technology (and not just the externals either) has been multiculturally created for a long time.

    There’s nothing special at all about Apple hardware since they switched to x86, other than the fact that it comes in a nicer looking package. Their OS is basically a modified version of FreeBSD. However, they command a price premium with their clever marketing and you suckers buy it.

    That’s what a lot of PC users say. Have you ever tried podcasting with a PC? Designing? Would you do it again?

    By the way, I use both PC and Mac. Up until 2008, I was a PC user for all of my computer-using life. (I had to throw in “computer-using” so that some dork doesn’t claim that I couldn’t use a computer when I was two years old). I still use a PC, both at work and (sometimes) at home. I notice the difference.

    This is kinda like your words about Africa, man. You should experiencing it before making a decision. And Apple has come up with some AM/AF ads since we broke that story. If someone could dig up the original link, I’ll post it.

  116. Dali,

    “Let’s suppose that all females marry and the average married man has 30 wives in your example, then an equivalent statement would be “only (1 / 30) = 3.3% of males get married.” “

    Catwalq has already referenced this, but let me just point to one thing in particular: In the original example, Catwalq wrote: “The average king had at least 30.” The “average married man” in an country within Africa is not a king.

    Even bigWOWO.com only has one King.

    Oh, and by the way, check out these pictures of Nairobi:
    http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-51356.0.html

    It looks pretty modern to me.

  117. @King:

    Conditions in Africa have changed, African people have not. That much I understand. Their behaviour patterns are the same as they were centuries ago, not only because of cultural values, but also heriditary traits.

    @Catwalq:
    “I think you have read too many documents that are well structured to push a certain agenda.”
    This is true, in my adolescent years, I have read many liberal arguments in support of racial equality and anti-discrimination, before I realized it was all bullshit.
    “Monogamy is not too natural. If it was, you will want only one pair of shoes and have only one pair of shoes.”
    How it really works: you will still want a ton of shoes, but a monogamous society will restrict you to only one pair and you’re either happy with it or not.

  118. Catwalq:

    “no, economic conditions have changed but alot of the cultural practices have not. You made a very uninformed statement about the reason for large families within African culture. I explained one of the reasons. You refuse to acknowledge it, as is your right.”

    Also, do they have retirement/medicare/social security in Nigeria? I know a LOT of people in Asia who depend on kids for retirement since there’s no net. The reason China’s babymaking slowed down is due in large part to the one-child policy. Lots of Chinese may be running into problems if their one child doesn’t make enough to support them. China was agrarian, and this behavior is also in the culture. (It’s also one reason the savings rate is so high, but that’s another topic.)

  119. ““Oh boy, the king has twenty wives and concubines”

    That is a GROSS exaggeration! I only have 19 wives and concubines!!!!

  120. @ Dali

    “Conditions in Africa have changed, African people have not. That much I understand. Their behaviour patterns are the same as they were centuries ago, not only because of cultural values, but also heriditary traits.”

    Dali, as I explained above, that phenomenon is known as “social inertia.” It explains why Europe has so many cathedrals, yet hardly anybody there goes to church. It explains why the English and Americans have not converted to the metric system. It explains why men pay for dates and why women do most of the cooking.

    YES, some realities may change in societies, but HABITS often do not change for generations afterward. This is not true only in Africa, but everywhere in the world.

    Where is your proof that this has anything to do with genetics? Answer: You have no proof—you only think that because you’ve spent too much time reading HBD websites, so naturally it’s the first thing that pops in your head as an explanation.

  121. @BigWowo: nope, no social security/ medicare/ retirement fund….that’s what family is for.

    @King: Your highness, I apologise for the mistake. I only imagined that because of the cows you sent to Mr. Odinma’s house….(and his daught…) *clears throat* again, I apologise.

  122. @ Catwalq

    Apology accepted.
    About the cows – I was only looking, not ready to eh… steak a claim.

  123. “The “average married man” in an country within Africa is not a king.”
    So you are conceding that “most men do not have many wives,” counter to what Catwalq said. See, if a minority of males got married and had many wives then by definition it is not “most men,” and if most men got married and had many wives it would be mathematically impossible.

    You could show me photos of any modernized city around the world and I’d think that the country must be doing okay, but of course this is a false attribution. For example, you could show me photos of the capital of the Ivory Coast and I’d think they’re doing fine, except for the genocide, ethnic cleansing, disease, very recent civil wars, and poverty.

  124. @Dali: The average man has two or more wives
    The average king has twenty or more wives.
    Basically, men have many women. because they are outnumbered and the culture allows it. The result, many children. And even in the case of one woman, many children are desired even if she decides that she will have only one or two.
    If you cannot fathom a man with many women, that is your problem. In Africa, there are and they are very common. Most of my uncles are polygamous

    Ivory coast was doing fine, until 2001, it was a vacation spot for many. Genocide and ethnic cleansing was in Rwanda specifically. last I checked.
    Go to the country before saying dense things
    Show me the picture of New York and I would think it was amazing too save for the crime, diseases, violence, filthy transit system…or is that where the low IQ’d Americans live exclusively?

  125. For example, you could show me photos of the capital of the Ivory Coast and I’d think they’re doing fine, except for the genocide, ethnic cleansing, disease, very recent civil wars, and poverty.

    Or Sarajevo a few years back… as another “example.”

    http://bosniangenocide.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/siege-of-sarajevo-bosnian-genocide-photo-38.jpg

    or Chechnya

    http://www.allrussias.com/images/chechnya14.jpg

    or Ireland during “the troubles”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00118/TROUBLEPA_118181t.jpg

  126. “The Mac is just not an improvement, it’s a whole different animal.”

    I LOL’d. That’s just their clever marketing. “This changes everything. Again.” And again, and again…

    “to say that MY computer is a White invention is totally wrong.”

    Your computer would not exist as it is without key innovations from decades before. Sure, your computer is made by basically slave laborers at Foxconn and designed by SWPLs at Apple, but it is just a miniaturized electronic computer that white people pioneered in a previous era.

    “That’s what a lot of PC users say. Have you ever tried podcasting with a PC? Designing? Would you do it again?”

    I’ve never tried podcasting, but how difficult could it be really? It’s just recording audio and posting it on the interwebs. A ton of graphic designers use Macs and that was a huge chunk of their original userbase, but I don’t think it’s because Macs did anything that PCs couldn’t, it just looks nicer and follows design principles whereas the Windows interface is comparatively uglier and less sleek. For the record, I use Linux primarily and will occasionally use Windows for gaming.

  127. @Chr
    You are right there are probably BM jealous of AM and their perceived financial success but the thing is, I don’t see many of them going on message boards posting messages that are very similar to what you’d find in white supremacist sites.
    When you say AM getting treated second class, what do you mean by that?

    What people are treating AMs second class solely because of their looks?
    Do you mean attractive white women? Those women get approached by everyone. They treat not just Asians but every guy they aren’t interested in like that. Everywhere you go, there are going to be douche bags who aren’t friendly to you. That’s just life and not cause you’re Asian. In terms of going into public places, I think AMs are treated for the most part very well. I noticed this for the first time when being in college, I went w a friend who happened to be black shopping in a mall. We both had bags and when we walked into a store, my friend automatically gave his bag to the front.

    BTW, APB doesn’t believe WFs are not receptive to AM when it comes to dating partners. His whole sale is, he can teach you how to approach them. The only thing is I question the validity of not just him but all PUA Gurus on what they teach. Just read the field reports on any site. Most don’t get anywhere with anyone.

    Anyway, my point has always been, don’t be so picky. Don’t just go looking for the sexy girl next door white cheerleader that we are “suppose” to desire. We all grew up watching movies, TV etc on the ideal beauty we believe we should get. We get brainwashed into thinking all it takes is being a romantic, good with words and the beautiful women will flock. That’s not reality. It’s almost like those lose weight quick schemes. Paying someone to give you a shortcut to get something instead of you going out there and earning it. I have a friend who hikes 5 miles every morning, works out 1 hour at night. Saw a huge difference, girls started to pay more attention to him. BTW, he is Asian and 5’8″

  128. @ Dali

    I don’t think that Catwalq or I are trying to say that there is no poverty or war in I.C. But if you look around the world, there are plenty of places where poverty exists—look at Eastern Europe. But also, you have to understand that poverty (beyond the most basic definition) is always relative. People are poor in comparison to other people, but may be fully able to feed, clothe, and house themselves. To that extent, some “poverty” is a question of custom or lifestyle choices. If a person chooses to be a nomad merchant, or a subsistence farmer, they will always fall beneath a certain income level, but they may not define themselves as living a “poor” life, so much as a “simple” life. It really depends on intent and perspective.

  129. Dali, Dali, Dali:

    “So you are conceding that “most men do not have many wives,” counter to what Catwalq said.”

    Catwalq answered this, but no, I’m not conceding that. I was simply saying that it’s ludicrous to assume every man is a king with 30 wives. Even the King here only has 19.

    “I LOL’d. That’s just their clever marketing. “This changes everything. Again.” And again, and again… “

    Try to do a podcast with a big room of vacuum tubes. You can’t do it.

    My computer might not exist as it is without key innovations from decades before from White people, but it also wouldn’t exist as it is without key innovations from non-White people either. That was my point.

    “I’ve never tried podcasting, but how difficult could it be really?”

    That’s what I want to know! Why are PCs so horrible at handling podcasts? Freezing, crashing, etc. It ain’t worth it.

    By the way, Dali…how many times have you been to Africa? How many times have your friends who want to wipe it out been there? When you were there, what were you doing–studying, vacationing, working with the government or NGO? I’m not asking this question entirely to be facetious, but I would like to know. If you haven’t been there, don’t speak the language, and don’t know the history of the people, it’s impossible to understand the culture.

    I mean, seriously. When people do business in a country or study a country, they go there. They study it. They work with the people. They don’t just read VDare or the National Review and draw conclusions based on words by other people who don’t know the culture.

    You won’t acknowledge that my computer isn’t a White invention, and I don’t know why. But can you acknowledge that a person who comes from Africa, speaks the language, and grew up there might know something about the continent that you might not?

  130. Correct that to make sure it’s not misunderstood: ludicrous to think that SHE meant every man was a king with 30 wives.

  131. “but it also wouldn’t exist as it is without key innovations from non-White people either. That was my point.”

    Another farce. The transistor, which made microchips possible, was also discovered by white people. We’ve been making them on smaller manufacturing processes since.

    Anyways, I could visit some nice tourist-y places in Africa and I would be none the wiser. I doubt any of my peers are SWPL enough to do NGO work in Africa, so I don’t know. But I guess my question is can you acknowledge that someone who’s never been to Africa know something about the continent that an African native does not?

  132. @king

    Lol, that was hilarious. Can you give us any geographical details of your kingdom? And does your coat of arms have an i-phone in it.

  133. Dali:

    “AbigWOWO, I think you fail to see the innovation since so much technology is taken for granted.”

    I think YOU fail to see the innovation. Have you ever been to a place where the innovation takes place?

    I live in Portland, where the biggest private employer is Intel, where they are the leader in creating the chips that you are talking about. It’s where the innovation takes place. You can’t throw a rock in the place without hitting a non-White minority. It’s like this now, it was like this ten years ago, it has been like this for a long time. There are managers who are from India, China, and the Middle East. They’ve worked their way up over the YEARS…it’s not a recent phenomenon. It’s an incredibly diverse place.

    When I was a kid, I visited IBM. It too was diverse. And the minorities just aren’t janitors; they’re high level designers and engineers.

    You didn’t answer my question about how many times you’ve been to India (though I’m guessing it’s somewhere between 1 and -1), but let me ask this: how many times have you been to Intel?

    Anyways, I could visit some nice tourist-y places in Africa and I would be none the wiser. I doubt any of my peers are SWPL enough to do NGO work in Africa, so I don’t know. But I guess my question is can you acknowledge that someone who’s never been to Africa know something about the continent that an African native does not?

    Here’s the thing. If I say, “No,” JL or some other HBD evangelical wiseass will say something absurd, irrelevant, and out of context like, “Well what if we’re comparing a 1 day old Nigerian baby with an undergraduate in America who has studied African history for four years?”

    If I say yes, it gives JL or some other wiseass the excuse to remain stupid and ignorant by going to VDare for his info rather than actually educating himself. “Hey, I read up on Africa!”

    The truth is better expressed this way: it’s impossible to become any kind of authority on Africa or African people without actually going there. It’s the same of any culture. Without actually being there and seeing what the culture is like, you cannot even know what questions to ASK.

    So let’s talk about the situation here.

    This debate is about people and about the cultures of people in Africa. “They breed like crazy” or “they have low impulse control” or “their behaviour patterns are the same as they were centuries ago, not only because of cultural values, but also heriditary traits” are statements about people that you CANNOT possibly know unless you’ve actually been there with the people. I mean, really, do you personally know a single African in Africa who has low impulse control? A better question: do you personally know a single African who lives in Africa, low impulse control or not?

    I hope I’m not coming down on you too hard. But you’re making unfair (and in my opinion, wrong) assumptions about people based on what other people have told you, either in conservative mags or silently conveyed through media. You’re making obtrusive and unsubstantiated comments (which is allowed by exception, since it’s an HBD thread) about Catwalq’s culture, even though you’ve never bothered to check it out yourself, even though she spent half her life there. Even though Allan Bloom (whom I referenced in the OP) was a strict social conservative, this was exactly what he was talking about–you can’t know truth unless you are willing to expose yourself to it.

  134. “There are managers who are from India, China, and the Middle East.”

    Nobody is contesting the accomplishments of Asiatic peoples. I’ve family who work in tech, particularly Chinese offices of Intel, IBM, etc. However, my point is that none of the major technological breakthroughs that gave rise to modern computing happened in Asia, the research and development wasn’t there at the time. There haven’t been any major paradigm shifts in computing for a while (okay maybe ARPANET but that was white people too), or at least none on the scale that the transistor was.

    If anything, the mainstream media sources, whether they are lieberals or neocons, all pitch the same egalitarian ideals. I don’t watch TV or the follow mainstream news much.

    Unlike you bigWOWO, I’m not swayed by emotional or anecdotal arguments. I admit that what I personally observe is and always will be limited to a degree (I cannot meet and get to know every person in Africa in order to authoritatively say that their fertility rate is through the roof due to x, y, and z). But my limited observation combined with statistical inference leads me to think that most of HBD is likely true.

    I know next to nothing about Nigeria as a country other than the fact that it has one of the highest fertility rates in the world and its GDP per capita is among the world’s lowest, which at least says something about two aspects of its people and possible a lot more.

  135. All this talk about who invented computers, etc, leads me to think about all the other inventions that have happened throughout the world by different races. Didn’t the chinese invent gunpowder? Didn’t someone in the Middle East invent paper? Etc, etc.

    It seems to me that every nation has had it’s ascendancy and eventual decline, and some have been around for thousands of years. The West, particulary the U.S., is a relative newcomer in the large scheme of things

  136. It seems to me that every nation has had it’s ascendancy and eventual decline, and some have been around for thousands of years. The West, particulary the U.S., is a relative newcomer in the large scheme of things

    Not literally every nation, but definitely a lot of non-white nations have created things that revolutionized the world.

  137. Dali,

    YOU are contesting the accomplishments of Asiatic peoples. I’ve been telling you about what goes on/has gone on in labs for a long time, but you still won’t say that the modern computer isn’t a just a White invention. What have all those Asian people in the labs been doing all these years?

    Unlike you bigWOWO, I’m not swayed by emotional or anecdotal arguments.

    I agree with your statement (both about yourself and me), but when it comes to African people, you’re not swayed by logical arguments either. How can you tell me what the culture and people are like without having seen them? That’s not an emotional argument; that’s a logical argument. Any management consultant will tell you that you can’t make judgments about a culture without seeing it. 100% of management consultants will tell you the same thing. As will 100% of academics who study cultures.

    I admit that what I personally observe is and always will be limited to a degree (I cannot meet and get to know every person in Africa in order to authoritatively say that their fertility rate is through the roof due to x, y, and z). But my limited observation combined with statistical inference leads me to think that most of HBD is likely true.

    I know next to nothing about Nigeria as a country other than the fact that it has one of the highest fertility rates in the world and its GDP per capita is among the world’s lowest, which at least says something about two aspects of its people and possible a lot more.

    I agree you cannot meet and get to know every person in Africa, but from this discussion (although you didn’t answer the question directly), it seems you have not met or got to know a SINGLE person in Africa. I don’t know if I’d call that a “limited” observation. It’s not an observation at all. Literally.

    I really don’t know what else to say. You’re in college, and you likely have greater access to more diverse people in college than you’ll ever have for the rest of your life–and yes, you have better access to people than Steve Sailer and the other HBDers who are reduced to panhandling on their blogs for money. I do hope you’ll take advantage of the situation. There’s just a really big world out there. (And yeah, this probably sounds hokey, but it’s true.)

  138. Pingback: Asian Men, Black Men, and the Competition for White Women | bigWOWO

  139. By the way, I’ve been watching Hawaii Five O, where they talk about “HPD”–the Honolulu Police Department. It sounds too much like HBD. I was going to cleanse HBD from my vocab, but then I realized–I don’t even like Five O these days. So I’m quitting the show instead.

  140. Actually bigWOWO, earlier this year, I was taking a black studies course to fulfill a GE requirement. The professor was African, and a large portion of the class was black, though I dropped it since I stopped attending out of complete lack of interest. The same messages were repeatedly stated in variations, “slavery is bad, abolition good, slavery tore black families apart, etc.” We discussed Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which I thought was poorly written. I suspect the only reason it got so popular is because of the subject matter.

    So there. I’ve already fulfilled my token duty of interacting with Africans. Happy now?

    “I’ve been telling you about what goes on/has gone on in labs for a long time…What have all those Asian people in the labs been doing all these years?”
    Making shit smaller and faster and more convenient.

    Any management consultant will tell you that you can’t make judgments about a culture without seeing it. 100% of management consultants will tell you the same thing. As will 100% of academics who study cultures.
    Where did you pull this 100% figure from? [citation needed]

  141. @Dali: Slavery was good? It built black families?
    An African studies course covers your requirement for interractions with African people?

    I fear for you o

  142. It’s 100%, Dali. I used to work in the industry. You won’t find any exceptions, anywhere. And if you do happen to dig up some dude who wants to just be unique, it’s a negligible amount. Say the opposite aloud: “I can judge a culture without ever seeing it.” It sounds (and is) ridiculous.

    Making shit smaller and faster and more convenient.

    You mean so it can fit on a desktop, fast enough to blog and listen to music, and Xuan can tell me to throw it out? Cool!

    So there. I’ve already fulfilled my token duty of interacting with Africans. Happy now?

    If you’re happy with just a token duty, be happy with just a token duty. It’s not up to me to be happy or to not be happy over your choices. I just pose the questions. :)

  143. “You mean so it can fit on a desktop, fast enough to blog and listen to music, and Xuan can tell me to throw it out? Cool!”
    bigWOWO, a desktop computer from the early 90’s would be adequate enough to browse the web and have a processor fast enough to decode MP3s to play back in real time. But there haven’t been any groundbreaking breakthroughs in computing for a while. We’re still using Unix-based systems and x86 processors with the same modes of thought from the 70’s. Computers were invented by some smart white people in a previous era and all we’ve done since is take what they did and make it faster. The problem is that all of the research that goes into making computers faster is futile. It won’t change how we use computers 10 years from now, if all they can do is run 100x faster (see my comparison between a 486 and a modern desktop).

  144. I think that we’re at an impasse in terms of computing, or at least no clear progression. It’s 2011 and what we’re using computers for is not different than 20 years ago. Where’s the innovation? When I was a kid, I was thinking that something like The Matrix could have become reality by now. Instead, we got Second Life. Lame.

    Ok, tying this all back to HBD: only white people of the post-war era had the brains, motivation, and intellectual curiosity to develop the basis for these magical devices called computers, and their mode of thought of how we deal with computers has persisted today, largely unchanged.

  145. LOL! Once again it is proven what Asian HBD’ers lack:

    Normal sexual desires, and the intelligence to match their own aspirations.

    XD

  146. “only white people of the post-war era had the brains, motivation, and intellectual curiosity to develop the basis for these magical devices called computers”

    Tell me why didn’t say, Croatia or New Zealand or Argentina become giants in the field of computing? They are all basically white nations… or are the people there some sort of defective white people with brain anomalies? What does HBD tell you is the answer for that?

  147. Just because most white people did not have anything to do with the invention of modern computers doesn’t mean that some white people didn’t. You’re asking a silly loaded question there. If I say yes there’s something wrong with them, then you’re going to point out “but they did this and that, truly not something defective white people can do.” If I say no then you’re going to ask why they didn’t invent computers then.

    The truth is more like some white people exclusively in major players of WW2 invented modern computing, and in the decades after, developed the modes of thought of how we use computers.

  148. Just because Dali never has sex with women does not mean he needs to despise Africans for having reproductive urges. He’s losing his wits here, and he doesn’t even know it.

    The truth is and it’s plain for all to see: Dali is just another HBD bum who’s attracted to the field (if it could be called such) not because of its discoveries, but because of its implications. HBD in particular is PREGNANT with the implications Dali so desperately wishes were true. Taking that away from him would cause him to give up on life and himself.

    This is why instead of gaining real knowledge and understanding about the wider world, he “specialises” in HBD, and ends up sounding like a brain-damaged evangelist whose entire existence centres around sophism and sollipsism to cover up his own profound ignorance. :D

  149. “Tell me why didn’t say, Croatia or New Zealand or Argentina become giants in the field of computing?”

    Lol! Maybe it wasn’t their “Whiteness” that was the factor, and therefore crediting the entire “race” with the discovery is bad logic. (as if the White janitor and the White computer scientist are somehow both together on it, because they share the same skin color)

  150. Dali:

    So you think that the teams developing computers have only diversified in the last 20 years or so? You think that these computer companies were all-White before 1990?

    I’m sorry, Dali, but that just isn’t the case. If you look at the actual history of the development of the computer, Gates and Microsoft were competing with Wang very early on. It’s not like I read about this from some biased source; I learned about this competition from Bill Gates’ own mouth where he said that he succeeded because he decided to focus on the workstation, and that he was lucky Wang didn’t make the same decision before him.

    Here’s a little history from wiki:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Laboratories

    “The Wang LOCI-2 (an earlier LOCI-1 was not a real product) was introduced in 1965 and was probably the first desktop calculator capable of computing logarithms, quite an achievement for a machine without any integrated circuits.[1] The electronics included 1275 discrete transistors. It actually performed multiplication by adding logarithms, and roundoff in the display conversion was noticeable: 2 times 2 yielded 3.999999999.

    From 1965 to about 1971, Wang was a well-regarded calculator company. Wang calculators cost in the mid-four-figures,[2] used Nixie tube readouts, performed transcendental functions, had varying degrees of programmability, and exploited magnetic core memory. One model had a central processing unit (the size of a small suitcase) connected by cables leading to four individual desktop display/keyboard units. Competition included HP, which introduced the HP 9100A in 1968, and old-line calculator companies such as Monroe and Marchant. One little documented “feature” of these calculators was that you could predictably lock-up the calculator display heads, getting the Nixie tube display to endlessly “roll” numbers, by entering the sequence 30311142.59 [Enter] 99 [Enter] 9 [Enter].”

    If you look at An Wang’s wiki, there was at least one other Chinese guy who was working with him:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Wang

    Keep in mind that I know about Wang only because he owned his own company and had a Chinese name. If Gates had been competing with a Chinese guy named Lee, I wouldn’t have thought twice.

    Also keep in mind that this is only one example. I knew non-White people (not just Asian) who worked for IBM during the 70’s. I don’t know of where to find any historical record of them, but I know they were there; I met them personally. I met their friends, who also worked with them.

    So yes, computers haven’t changed all that much since 1990. But non-Whites have been working in the computer industry since way before the 1990s.

  151. I’m from the video game generation, so I will say that Asians/Asian Companies –
    Nintendo, Sega and Sony contributed significantly to the advancement of computer graphics and interactive technologies than any other companies.

    It’s funny how people think all the Asian companies are copying apple.
    But none of those (predominately white) X-Box owners care about how the X-Box is stealing ideas/technology from all the Asian predecessors.

  152. bigWOWO, I never said that, only talking about from the 40’s to early 60’s. Sure there were non-whites who caught onto modern computing after the fact, so you are merely setting up a strawman argument.

    @Raguel:
    - Comment about whites inventing computers
    – Ad hominem, questioning of sexuality tangential to the subject matter

    @N:
    Sure, but Spacewar, Pong, etc. were on the scene years before.
    Microsoft is a terrible example, they take what’s already on the market and copy it. It’s part of their business model and it works for them.

    Some very inane things have been said about me personally just because they don’t like my argument. That is a level I will not stoop down to.

  153. @ Dali:

    the point of my point about those other white countries is that what they did or didn’t do has little or nothing to do with their genes.
    To invent and innovate things, it helps to be smart, but most importantly, you need to be in the right place, right time and with the right circumstances and context.

    The Pre-Columbian Americas boasted several civilizations that were highly advanced in many ways. Yet they never invented the wheel. Why not? No livestock suited to pulling carts.

    Throughout most of history, Japan drew almost all its technological and cultural advances from China. If the Japanese people had hypothetically ended up in Australia instead of Japan, would they have reached the same level of development? It’s highly doubtful.

    Historically, some cultures were lucky enough to live in regions where they could absorb useful advancements and influences from nearby centres of civilization, and some weren’t. Most Western advancements stem from the Fertile Crescent, and it was easy for Europeans to absorb these, but there is a huge desert in northern Africa that limits the flow of cultural innovations. Indeed, West Africans actually developed agriculture independently (sorghum, yams, millet, etc), while Europeans only borrowed the idea from the Middle East.

  154. Dali,

    “bigWOWO, I never said that, only talking about from the 40′s to early 60′s. Sure there were non-whites who caught onto modern computing after the fact, so you are merely setting up a strawman argument.”

    Strawman? Look above. YOU said, “It’s 2011 and what we’re using computers for is not different than 20 years ago.” You also said, “bigWOWO, a desktop computer from the early 90′s would be adequate enough to browse the web and have a processor fast enough to decode MP3s to play back in real time. But there haven’t been any groundbreaking breakthroughs in computing for a while.” I mentioned the 90’s because you mentioned the 90’s.

    In any case, An Wang fits your criteria (worked in the 40’s to early 60’s). and I’m willing to bet he wasn’t the only one. Actually we know he’s not, since the wiki references one of his Chinese classmates. Not only was he an innovator, he was also a leader. Check out the wiki link. Also check out the history of the desktop computer. He was a real player.

    Also, Eurasian makes some very good points.

  155. @Eurasian:
    I’ve read all those same points in Guns, Germs and Steel. It doesn’t contradict anything about human biodiversity.

    @bigWOWO:
    I only used the 90’s as an example because that’s about as far back in terms of hardware as you can get and still be able to run modern web browsers and decode music in real time.

    This Wang guy may have been a success in the early days of modern computing simply because he made a more precise calculator ahead of competitors, a business he exited in the early 70’s. It’s about as big as the jump between 32-bit computing and 64-bit computing was: not a game-changer. After that he made word processors in the 70’s, an already existing market.

  156. @ Dali,

    But in “Guns, Germs and Steel”, Jared Diamond is directly contradicting HBD. For HBD proponents, EVERYTHING seemingly has an origin in evolutionary biology. Or at least it does when it comes to speculating on the reasons for the inferiority of NAMs, which is of course the favoured pastime of said HBD proponents.

    (I realise that not everyone who is into HBD believes exactly the same thing, but what it seems to come down to again and again is trying to explain why there is something “wrong” with certain races of people. Take Xuan’s comment above about D’Souza being jealous of whites and NE Asians because he is Indian and Indians only have 81 IQ.)

  157. By the way, since I’m already talking about PUA, I think that the connection between PUA and HBD is very tenuous at best. Not even the clowns that call themselves PUA Gurus now have expressed the views the HBD’ers are expressing here.

  158. Dali,

    Actually, you were more correct the first time. The 90’s is more relevant to our discussion, since we were talking about my computer. I was just throwing in the Wang example because we’ve done much more than even help to make my Mac.

    This Wang guy may have been a success in the early days of modern computing simply because he made a more precise calculator ahead of competitors, a business he exited in the early 70′s. It’s about as big as the jump between 32-bit computing and 64-bit computing was: not a game-changer. After that he made word processors in the 70′s, an already existing market.

    See Snowlipsism (not a comment on you personally, but more a comment on a phenomenon of ignoring non-Whites in DRAMATIC favor of Whites.) Then read ANY history of the desktop computer. They will all mention Wang. He was most definitely a game changer.

    http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/wang.html

    Everyone gives him credit.

    I’ve read all those same points in Guns, Germs and Steel. It doesn’t contradict anything about human biodiversity.

    Co-sign on Eurasian’s comment.

    Incidentally, Dali, this is why I consider HBD a religion. You’ve got a guy like Jared Diamond who has done lots of research, and despite the fact that you have never set foot in Africa, and in your whole life have met (it sounds like) only a single African whose class you didn’t even complete, you accept HBD. You accept it, basically sight unseen!

    I’m not saying you don’t have a right to your beliefs; you do. But there’s so much more you could be examining before making your decision! Like, for example, actually seeing the people of Africa whom you’re critiquing.

  159. Pingback: An Wang and the Politics of Getting Credit | bigWOWO

  160. Why does it make you side with HDB when I argue that Watson is old and therefore has views that come from another generation?

    Okay, I’m willing to accept your stab at me was only a misstatement. I’ll answer it. Statements like dismissing Watson because he is old along with other stuff makes me more sympathetic to HBD because it seems your hostility to HBD is based more on your worldview than because you see flaws in your argument (rather you’re trying to look for flaws to justify your worldview).

    There’s skepticism and then there’s hostility. I would like to keep a policy to skepticism, be critical of some arguments, but also agree when it seems convincing. There’s some stuff that raised my eyebrow (one of the most memorable one was Half Sigma’s speculation about the Vancouver Riots, his idea seems biased and heavily absurd to a more simple reasoning to why it happened).

    Watson’s should be scrutinized as per the idealism of skepticism, but also given consideration seeing he is a Nobel prize winning geneticist. Saying he’s wrong because he’s old makes me more skeptical of your arguments and ideas.

    On the topic of Jared Diamond. I want to mentioned that I think he’s right (but I should also mentioned that it doesn’t exclude HBD, except in the sense that white people 20,000 years ago had smarter genes that lead this point in history, it’s possible that the subsequent 20,000 years was the divergence, if it happened). If you go back in time and teleport all the Native Americans to Europe and all the Europeans to the Americas, the end result would still likely be a more prosperous Europe than than the majority of the Americas (though there’s are a few other major factors, I speculate that the success of colonization to the point of replacement had a bit of luck involved. The Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas might have faced a scenario more akin to China in the 1800’s than what went down if a few key events was changed).

  161. Dreamer,

    I didn’t take a stab at you. Why do you think I took a stab at you? I think it’s perfectly logical to assume that old people have different values from younger people. In “Bowling Alone,” Robert Putnam talks about social change that takes place when older people and older values die off.

    Plus, Watson may be an eminent geneticist, but his statement didn’t come from any work he did in genetics.

    In any case, it should be a non-issue, given that Watson apologized:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/science/19watson.html

    Here’s his quote: “I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said. There is no scientific basis for such a belief.

  162. Maybe I’ll try saying this another way.

    HBD (Human Biodiversity) can reasonably be divided into two categories:

    True HBD: It is *obviously* true that males and females are biologically different. Females do not have penises, and males cannot gestate embryos. Races also look superficially different from one another—different skin pigments, hair color/texture, eye color, etc. This is all clearly true and unchallenged by science and common sense.

    False HBD: The objectionable form of HBD goes far beyond the obvious and begins to speculate on what else might be genetically different, specifically between the races. It specifically relies upon anecdotal evidence, undeveloped logic, and extrapolated suppositions. THIS is branch of HBD which most of the world have called out as false and have summarily rejected. It’s primary problems are:

    1) Arguing from the exceptions: For example, many HBDers concede that Blacks are faster runners, and hold this as a genetic racial quality. What they do not say is that most of the Olympic sprinting champions have their roots in northwest Africa, and even there, world class sprinters are rare athletes. It’s not as if every African country has been producing world-record sprinters all of these years, just a few. And yet, most of the record holders are from immigrated West Africans in the U.S., Canada, Britain, and Jamaica. Hardly any directly from West African countries themselves.

    Now, that is not to say the fastest sprinters have not been mostly Black in recent decades, but it is to say that fast sprinting is NOT a Black “racial trait”—it may be a regional trait that manifested in particularly in West Africa, among certain Black people groups. But it is no more an evolutionary racial differentiator than heavy weightlifting is for White females, due to all those years of East German female weightlifting Olympic champions.

    Misunderstanding what race is and isn’t: Most HBDers do not understand that the term “White race” is and invention with many additions and exceptions along the way. The Italians (now accepted pretty much as White) were lynched in the U.S. by crowds of “White people.” The Greeks, and middle easterners were also not considered to be “White.” The Slavic peoples were considered to be an amalgamated and inferior breed of White people.

    HBDers seem to believe that the racial definitions have been static, and have always appeared much as they are today. Yet, the original Romans and Greeks were said historically, to look closer to the complexion of todays Mexican Mestizo population. The process of whitening the Italian population began in the days of the Roman Empire, when Goths were hired as mercenaries to fight for Rome. Rome has had a steady flow of “White” immigrants coming in and mixing with the native population ever since. Some of the most foundational accomplishments of White people were not from people who were even considered to be White at the time.

    Misunderstanding the implications of gender: The biological differences between genders is MUCH more significant than any difference between races. The brains of males and females are different, right down to brain size and chemistry. Yet, it is supposed that these much greater biological differences produces nearly equal intelligence between men and women. Yet, when much smaller genetic variations are discovered between races, they are seen as some kind of wondrous and promising development in the effort to prove that high intelligence or some other trait is genetic.

  163. @ Nottyboy:

    You really have to think you are less than shit to buy into this stuff as a minority.

    I guess some people like to see themselves as being the “right” kind of minority.

    Asian HBD devotees remind me of the pigs in Animal Farm… historically they’ve been just another of the “animals”, but then spend the later parts of the story trying to get the farmers to accept them as one of their own, since they are “better” than all those other “animals”.

  164. @ES

    Agree again.

    The pigs also reminds me of individuals who wears ‘I am assimilated’ as a badge of honor and tries to distance themselves to FOBs (inclusive of their family) to show that they are more ‘American”.

  165. Like I said to our HBD representative, I wonder what he had bought into about himself before he bought into his thinking about everybody else.

    And I am sure that most HBD supporters never leave the comfort of their homes where they read materials that have been brought to them via articles, biased media and publications. That’s why they know nothing of the origins of certain characteristics or attributes of certain cultures. They buy into stereotypes and misinformation as a way of distancing and “elevating” themselves “above” others.

    Very sad. Very disturbing. But also very “white”

  166. @Eurasian:

    I guess some people like to see themselves as being the “right” kind of minority.

    That’s probably it. Still, from what I’ve read, HBD’ers still rank Northeast Asians as being below Whites. Even as they concede that NA’s IQ scores are higher, they find reasons to justify why “White is Right” (from my debunking link above):

    In other writings (Rushton and Horowitz 1999), Rushton speculates upon temperamental differences that might disadvantage ‘Orientals’ in scientific and cultural achievements vis-a`-vis ‘Whites’. In the theories of modern racial scientists, the higher IQ scores of ‘Mongoloids’ cannot be held to imply significant intellectual superiority over ‘Caucasoids’.

    It just seems illogical to me that one would submit to that kind of thinking—but then again, I’ve seen super smart people submit to some crazy beliefs before.

    @Catwalq: I’m wondering the same thing! What kind of trauma does one have to go through in order to believe in one’s own inferiority. I think there is a need for a crisis hotline to help minority HBD’ers, similar to those suicide prevention hotlines.

  167. Ah, I feel dumb, lol. I have to admit, I don’t read much literature. The only famous works I’ve read are Don Quijote, Lolita and Mobydick. Liked the first two, struggled to finish the third one. :)

  168. I said stab because saying I was siding with him because he was old (also ironic as my point is you seem to find him wrong just because of his age rather considering if he is actually wrong or not). Perhaps it is too strong, but I think we can let this go by this point. More focus on Watson. It is perfectly logical to assume people of a different background like age would have different values. It is not logical to argue if it is right or wrong by only considering the context of his age. It is also not logical to argue is something right or wrong if a statement is said as a researcher rather than a personal value (until that quote, it was a reasonable thing to argue).

    Also, I want to there’s no need to cite Putnam on something like people of “a different age have different values.” I find that bit overkill on such a reasonable and obvious point and doesn’t having anything to do with the larger point in assessing an idea.

    Now that said, you have also put forth a new piece of evidence. His retraction, assuming it is said completely honestly considering the blowback he received, seems to state his idea is from his background rather than his research. Which makes discussion about his background rather than his research more logical. Which, unless he voice differently, makes this topic moot. Except to talking about which value is (more) right, but I’m not going to argue about that. My main objection was dismissal of an idea posed as a geneticist dismissed by age, not dismissal posed as a value by dismissed by age.

  169. Dreamer,

    Alright, fair enough.

    Notty,

    You should read Animal Farm. It’s a short book and can be done in probably two or three sittings. There are a lot of gems in the book, such as “Some animals are more equal than others.”

  170. Who in their right mind would believe in HBD unless it benefits them? Completely absurd. To some extent, it reminds me of the objectivism philosophy. (don’t want to bring up that can of worms) Again, when I see this stuff, I am reminded of how many Asians are too analytical in their way of thinking. There MUST be an answer to everything. There MUST be a formula to be scoring with the hot white babes. That’s why PUAs believe in canned lines or a set formula in getting women. In the end, as we all know, life is never that simple. A guy can be an introvert 30 years, walk to the liquor store and meet the woman who will become his wife without ever taking any PUA classes.

  171. Just found this link from Eurasian’s blog, and it makes me wonder:

    Half Sigma: Spreading the truth through lies

    According to a quote there, Halfsigma advocates the following:

    Use the power of sock puppets. Don’t get into online arguments with people. It’s much more powerful to simply log in as a different user and say that you agree with yourself, but you would only say so on the internet or you would be fired from your job as a school teacher. This creates the illusion that many people believe in HBD.

    Makes you wonder about some of the claims of HBD’ers here as to who they are, etc.

  172. This from the An Wang thread:
    http://www.bigwowo.com/2011/10/an-wang-and-the-politics-of-getting-credit/#comment-15832

    The standard HBD response would be something like “whites are creative, inventive people” and Asians are “conformists unwilling to break the mold” with genetics being the main factor. While opponents may say that culture and environment have a great deal to do with it, it’s likely that culture/genetics are intertwined.

    I agree that certain peoples may have evolved differently, hence black people have more melanin than white people. The question is whether genes create a significant difference. In the case of our discussion about computer innovations, An Wang acted like any other American entrepreneur–he wasn’t any more tentative or risk-averse than anyone else.

    As for the reason there weren’t more AA business owners back then–it’s probably because there weren’t as many AAs in this country! Oh, and racism was pretty bad at that time prior to the Civil Rights Era.

  173. Don’t forget, the Chinese Exclusion Act wasn’t repealed until 1943. And in the period of time directly preceeding 1943, life in China didn’t afford most of its people a good environment for invention.

  174. The other thing about HBD (aside from it being completely wrong) is that it doesn’t seem to be good for anything. I mean, what if HBD were completely true? Then what? how would that change anything for the better?

  175. “I mean, what if HBD were completely true? Then what? how would that change anything for the better?”

    Public policy would change for the better. Society would still dole out welfare, but in exchange for sterlization. This may sound cruel, but people have to voluntarily accept welfare, and those who seek it are likely not the sort of people who keep society running. It may also seem like it has nothing to do with race, but it would weed out mostly NAMs and some prole whites and Asians (I personally don’t know any Asians on welfare).

    We would stop foreign aid entirely. It’s just throwing money at a problem. If anything, the export of basic goods to Africa has likely increased their birth rate, and without it they wouldn’t cross the Malthusian limit of growth. It may seem like a good, humanitarian cause to donate to African aid, but all it’s done is increase the number of low IQ, malnourished people in the world.

    We’d stop worrying so much about academic gaps between the races and stop giving people handicaps based on their race, affirmative action style. AA has served to disadvantage intelligent Asian and white people based on their race.

    There are so many things that could change if HBD is accepted, it’d be the opposite of not being good for anything.

  176. @ King:
    The other thing about HBD (aside from it being completely wrong) is that it doesn’t seem to be good for anything.
    Wrong, King. Very wrong.
    Without HBD, someone who advocates a system to “weed out mostly NAMs and some prole whites and Asians” and views Africans as problems rather than people, would be regarded as a callous sociopath with no f*cking heart at all. But now, thanks to HBD, he’s a scientific thinker.

  177. “Public policy would change for the better. Society would still dole out welfare, but in exchange for sterilization.”

    Well, what’s stopping you from doing that right now? That doesn’t really have anything to do with HBD, does it?

    “We would stop foreign aid entirely. It’s just throwing money at a problem. If anything, the export of basic goods to Africa has likely increased their birth rate, and without it they wouldn’t cross the Malthusian limit of growth”

    Again, you could just as easily do this without HBD. Either the money we spend in foreign aid advances our worldwide interests or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, then payments can be stopped. That would be the case whether HBD were true of not.

    “We’d stop worrying so much about academic gaps between the races and stop giving people handicaps based on their race, affirmative action style. AA has served to disadvantage intelligent Asian and white people based on their race.”

    That doesn’t seem logical. Since the academic gaps have been closing statistically, over the last 50 years, I see no reason why the reality of HBD would mean that educators would not continue trying to close the gaps as much as possible. Affirmative action would probably be even more necessary, in order to address the many people who are in disadvantaged groups, but who are exceptions to the rule.

    In the end, you’d just have to test EVERYONE anyway. It’s no good hiring dumb Asians and dumb White people is it? No sense in getting rid of the smart Blacks and smart Hispanics, right? So regardless of HBD, you’re still left testing people’s individual intellect. But that makes HBD pretty useless, because then it’s not about race, it’s just about your test score or other pre-qualification.

    If someone is qualified for a job, then they can have it—no matter what their skin color. How does HBD help here? ANSWER: It doesn’t, it’s actually pretty useless.

  178. Dali,

    “This may sound cruel, but people have to voluntarily accept welfare, and those who seek it are likely not the sort of people who keep society running. It may also seem like it has nothing to do with race, but it would weed out mostly NAMs and some prole whites and Asians (I personally don’t know any Asians on welfare). “

    You don’t know any Asians on welfare? You should come to Oregon. Also, check out Lac Su…errr…DOCTOR Lac Su, since he has a PhD. His whole family was on welfare. Read my review, and then read his book.

    http://www.bigwowo.com/2010/01/review-of-lac-sus-i-love-yous-are-for-white-people/

    J.K. Rowling was also on welfare.

  179. Sorry bigWOWO, but I live in Southern California where I am obviously shielded from the rest of the world. Seriously though, sterlization for welfare seems to be the only [humane] way to reduce unwanted population growth.

    “Well, what’s stopping you from doing that right now? That doesn’t really have anything to do with HBD, does it?”
    In order for such a policy to become reality, people have to accept that the wrong people are using welfare to their advantage. It won’t ever happen without the mindset to enact it.

    “Again, you could just as easily do this without HBD. Either the money we spend in foreign aid advances our worldwide interests or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, then payments can be stopped.”
    It’s not that simple. Donating food, water, and SWPLs to Africa does not develop nations. Throwing money at any problem isn’t going to solve it.

    “That doesn’t seem logical. Since the academic gaps have been closing statistically, over the last 50 years, I see no reason why the reality of HBD would mean that educators would not continue trying to close the gaps as much as possible.”
    If HBD were true and people accepted it, we would not be trying to “leave no child behind” or improve inner city schools since there would be a lower ceiling for them. We’d focus educational spending on gifted education, and affirmative action would be abolished.

  180. Umm… arguments about know how many Asian friends are on welfare is Anecdotal evidence everyone…

  181. Dali,

    Southern California? That’s where Lac Su is from! And his entire family. So you should know at least some Asians who are on or have been on welfare!

    Dreamer,

    Sure, but in this case, it doesn’t matter if it’s anecdotal or not. The point is that if someone had started a eugenics/sterilization program based on welfare, Lac Su, a brilliant guy who has done tons to further arts and education, might not have kids. Had his parents immigrated before having him, there might not be a Lac Su.

  182. @bigWOWO:
    It’s meant to make people think twice about living off of the public dole, their way of not becoming a bigger burden on others, not necessarily to force sterilization.

    “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so” – James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA

    Nobel Prize-winning co-discoverer of DNA doesn’t believe in egalitarianism either, and had some things to say about the intelligence of the average African. He was accused of racism, which is like 10 times worse than being called a baby-killing Nazi.

    @Eurasian:
    “Without HBD, someone who advocates a system to “weed out mostly NAMs and some prole whites and Asians” and views Africans as problems rather than people, would be regarded as a callous sociopath with no f*cking heart at all. But now, thanks to HBD, he’s a scientific thinker.”
    Yup, I’m a callous, heartless sociopath. Right…

  183. To those who believe in HBD?

    What’s your point?

    If your thesis is correct, if there are substantial biological differences between races, then what policy, pray tell, should we endorse? If those of African descent really are slated to have low IQs, then should we not level all income so that the knowledge laborer Asian makes as much as the African manual labor? Should we not invest in a massive welfare system so those who are lesser gifted by biology are able to share in the fruits of society?

    Or do you think isolation, segregation, separation is the answer? Anti-pluralism, anti-cosmopolitanism, ghettoization? Banning interracial marriages, banning interracial relations of any form, one nation for every race?

    What exactly is your point?

  184. My mistake, I did see your suggested policies above.

    And why would we cut off welfare and foreign aid? Would HBD confirm that these nations need extra help? By all means, we should send them more aid! As for education spending- we already provide special needs classes for students with learning disorders. Why should we spend more for the gifted when it turns out there’s entire populations of kids who apparently can’t learn as quickly as the Asian kids? Clearly we must invest double in the slower races.

    Why does HBD mean that we have to take the more unpleasant route and punish people for their genetics? HBD isn’t just scientific racism, it’s apparently Social Darwinist, too.

    My guess is the whole reduction of ethnicities and races into sub-species is dehumanization. “Oh, those blacks can’t learn anything, well let’s just let them be poor.”

    Honestly, if HBD was to confirm that races were inferior or superior in whatever metric, why should we reward the superior races over the inferior ones? If all HBD is applying science and finding patterns in statistics, where the hell does sterilizing welfare seekers come from?

    This all sounds like bleeding heart egalitarian talk, but- 1) why would your policies be better for society, and 2) what does HBD have to do with it?

  185. “Wrong, King. Very wrong.
    Without HBD, someone who advocates a system to “weed out mostly NAMs and some prole whites and Asians” and views Africans as problems rather than people, would be regarded as a callous sociopath with no f*cking heart at all. But now, thanks to HBD, he’s a scientific thinker.”

    And…. what are the odds that said sociopath has sexual pathologies as well?

    BADA-BING!

  186. “If HBD were true and people accepted it, we would not be trying to “leave no child behind” or improve inner city schools since there would be a lower ceiling for them. We’d focus educational spending on gifted education, and affirmative action would be abolished.”

    If HBD and your pet projects ever become accepted, it will be me who will euthanise you.

  187. King: “Well, what’s stopping you from doing that right now? That doesn’t really have anything to do with HBD, does it?

    Dali:In order for such a policy to become reality, people have to accept that the wrong people are using welfare to their advantage. It won’t ever happen without the mindset to enact it.”

    Again, you seem to be unaware that you’re talking about two different concepts and assuming a non-existent relationship between them. If the “wrong people” are using Welfare, then that would be the case whether people are *genetically* disadvantaged or not. Welfare is not implemented because of some theory of genetic equality, it is implemented in order to provide a safety net for people who can’t take care of themselves, much as Social Security is. Genetics has no bearing on it at all.

    King:Again, you could just as easily do this without HBD. Either the money we spend in foreign aid advances our worldwide interests or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, then payments can be stopped.

    Dali: It’s not that simple. Donating food, water, and SWPLs to Africa does not develop nations. Throwing money at any problem isn’t going to solve it.”

    Your answer is completely non-responsive to the stated issue. Donating supplies to Africa makes sense or not, based on it’s own merits. Whether or not the people there are *genetically* disadvantaged or *socially* disadvantaged does not make much difference. A belief in HBD does NOT mean that conditions cannot improve in any given location. If we accepted your “theory” (which is utter nonsense anyway) that would only mean that there is an aptitude gap between certain races—it does not mean that certain areas are impossible to improve.

    You don’t seem to be able to follow the implication of your own logic.

    “King:That doesn’t seem logical. Since the academic gaps have been closing statistically, over the last 50 years, I see no reason why the reality of HBD would mean that educators would not continue trying to close the gaps as much as possible.

    Dali:If HBD were true and people accepted it, we would not be trying to ‘leave no child behind’ or improve inner city schools since there would be a lower ceiling for them. We’d focus educational spending on gifted education, and affirmative action would be abolished.”

    Again, you’re logic is seriously slipping.

    Firstly, HBD does not mean that EVERYBODY of a certain color or location has a lower ceiling. It only deals with percentages and generalities. There would still be a percentage of Blacks and Hispanics who score higher than most Whites and Asians. HBD is not a color-coded indication of any individual’s intelligence. Therefore, you would actually NOT be able to simply lower the achievement/expectation ceiling on people who have a certain skin color, or who live in ‘the inner city.’ You’d have to test each individual, as I’ve already said. This means that regardless of HBD, the line is drawn by ability rather than by color, making HBD pretty much a waste of time, policy wise.

    Secondly, even if this were not so, the reality that there were two different achievement ceilings, would not mean that it would take *less money* to get “inner city” kids to their achievement ceiling. The idea of spending money in education is to invest so as to get the best possible skill set outcome for each student. Meeting that outcome would still mean spending money to get students there, whatever the level.

    These are the two overarching and general problem with HBD:
    1) Firstly, it does not prove true scientifically.
    2) But even if it had, most of the policies that HBD proponents suggest are illogical and poorly developed—based more on emotion than on the actual facts of the issue.

  188. Not just emotional, plain disturbing. If HBD was a reality, why would sterilization of peoples be a natural policy that follows? Why would we choose to punish ‘inferior’ populations by getting rid of aid to them? If HBD isn’t eugenics in disguise, it sure isn’t doing a good job of changing that image.

  189. @ Honest Observer

    Because it’s illogical. Dali and AOR (if they’re not the same person) both have this hard-on for Eugenics. They have bought into the usual right wing claptrap that they’re somehow being held down financially because of Welfare money being spent on worthless Black people!!

    Black are about 12% of the U.S. population according to 2010 census figures. About 40% are on Welfare. That’s about 4.8% of the total U.S. population.

    So that’s the BIG weight around their necks. That Black 4.8%, of the U.S. population who are on welfare are ruining them financially!!! If Blacks could just reduce that percentage to about 2% then they could keep half of their paychecks!!!

    Again, it’s an illogical emotional response from people who like to sound like they are dispassionate and scientific.

  190. I think it’s pretty telling that HBD thought seems to be composed of:

    1. Race is a real thing provable by science.
    2. Implement racist policies to ignore, isolate, or otherwise screw over the races that are now “objectively” inferior while protecting and benefiting our race… I mean, the “objectively” superior race.

    The whole concept is incredibly appalling.

  191. Dali:

    “@bigWOWO:
    It’s meant to make people think twice about living off of the public dole, their way of not becoming a bigger burden on others, not necessarily to force sterilization. “

    Do you think it’ll work? Those high IQ executives who mismanaged the subprime mortgage business have created a far bigger burden on others, far bigger than any single welfare recipient has created. The politicians who have cheated Americans by creating pro-free-market immigration policies have screwed Americans by making it hard to gain employment, and they’ve screwed our economy because unemployment means lower demand and therefore less business. But no one ever talks about sterilizing them or whether their genes should be eliminated.

  192. Speaking of which, what does HBD say about dishonesty? Bernie Madoff seriously destroyed some people. If Bernie Madoff is dishonest, is there a gene that would cause his children and grandchildren to be the same? Is there a “dishonest” gene?

  193. Yes, I would assume that there are genes that predispose people to dishonesty. Dishonesty probably has allowed certain people to gain Darwinian fitness, but if taken to the extreme it works against Darwinian Fitness.

    We know that certain personality traits run through families; dishonesty is one of many personalty traits. For example, twins who have been separated at birth, upon finding one another, are often strikingly similar is many behavioral/personality traits.

    I hope this helps answer your questions. Regards.

  194. “Do you think it’ll work? Those high IQ executives who mismanaged the subprime mortgage business have created a far bigger burden on others, far bigger than any single welfare recipient has created”

    Actually, the dollar figure for the 2008 financial collapse (precipitated by the mostly white Wall Street crowd) has cost the tax payer MORE MONEY THAN ALL WELFARE PAYOUTS SINCE THE PROGRAM WAS INSTITUTED several times over.

    The Welfare system was begun in the 1930s during the Great Depression and the system systematically excluded Black people as recipients for until the 1966 (Welfare Reform Act of 1966). It was not until then that Blacks were even elligable to receive Welfare payouts. That’s 40 years when Welfare was exclusively for White people, even though Black people were paying taxes, just like everyone else.

    None of this is ever brought up by HBD racists. Their petulant whining is very selective, and only applies to “approved” non-white grievances.

  195. …and I bet you that somehow White people will have just the right amount of moral genetic fiber compared to others. The others will be either too much or too little, just like Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

    By the way, I’m not against paying people to sterilize themselves. I’d be happy to organize a pool to pay HBD’ers to weed themselves out of the planet.

  196. @king

    Can’t agree more. I love how the right-wingers will blame all their woes on POCs…and still questions Obama’s birth certificate.

  197. @bigWOWO:
    I am not sympathetic to either the 1% or the lumpenproles. The fact that the 1% can continue to rob the US and global economies under everyone’s noses without any real opposition is quite a feat. It’s not like we’ll be seeing the public lynching of Goldman Sachs executives, Qaddafi style.

    @King:
    Doubling down on affirmative action if HBD is true is ridiculous. The whole premise of AA assumes that intelligence across races are equal and it is only socioeconomic factors that determine academic acheivement.
    There’s a correlation between welfare and black people, welfare has much to do with genetics. I guess it’s the same with the prison population.

  198. Ah, but if HBD is true, then AA must be altered as well, to better give opportunities to the lesser races who would otherwise lose out due to their unfortunate genetics.

    Why not? HBD, if it was true, would embolden liberals tenfold. Because it would give a clear mandate proven by science that it is the privileged genetic man’s burden to help the genetic lessers. We don’t sterilize the infirm, the handicapped, the misborn. That is because our society tries not to give up on any of its members. If HBD was proven true, why should we do any different?

  199. @DishonestObserver:

    If HBD is accepted, AA would be abolished because its premise would be debunked.

    However, if HBD would “embolden liberals tenfold,” then why are we arguing about it? Wouldn’t it be a hallelujah moment if most ghetto black students got accepted to Harvard, at the expense of the genetically gifted?

  200. AA wouldn’t be abolished. Its premises would simply shift from being based on socioeconomic disparity and historical grievances to genetic realities and socioeconomic disparity. Heck, genetic realities might as well be the same thing as historical grievances when human beings are compared. Such a shame that caveman Ugga did not see fit to share his superior IQ potential genes with the Urkh?a tribe.

    We are arguing about it, of course, because the natural tendency of HBD believers and eugenicists seems to be to propose policies not unlike those practiced by Godwin-triggering historical regimes. Most believers in HBD are not liberals. The very fact that you’re framing it as a question of “ghetto blacks” and “genetically gifted” shows the hidden agenda behind HBD.

  201. “Most believers in HBD are not liberals.”
    No shit, Captain Obvious? The idea that people are more than superficially different by race disturbs them, and is incompatible with their belief system.

  202. Ah, but why should it be? If HBD was true, why should we immediately jump to dismantling the welfare system and start sterilizing people? Instead why shouldn’t we be trying to help those with poorer genes. After all, they either live in our nation. Or they live on the same planet. They are still the same species as us, aren’t they?

  203. Welfare is dysgenic. Sterilization is eugenic. In the interest of making the next generation of humans less stupid and ugly, welfare would be doled out in exchange for sterlization.

  204. Dali:

    “@bigWOWO:
    I am not sympathetic to either the 1% or the lumpenproles. The fact that the 1% can continue to rob the US and global economies under everyone’s noses without any real opposition is quite a feat. It’s not like we’ll be seeing the public lynching of Goldman Sachs executives, Qaddafi style.”

    King and I both already asked, but is this genetic? If so, why aren’t HBDers calling to sterilize these people? We agree that they are doing bad things. Isn’t dishonesty “dysgenic” too?

    Assuming we are working on the “those-who-harm-society” model, they’re far more culpable than some guy who lost his job and needs temporary help.

    Also–I still don’t see why you’re racializing it. I would think that get-rid-of-dumb-people or even get-rid-of-poor-people would be a far easier sell than get-rid-of-people-from-a-certain-race.

    Welfare is dysgenic. Sterilization is eugenic. In the interest of making the next generation of humans less stupid and ugly, welfare would be doled out in exchange for sterlization.

    Whoa whoa whoa here. Now we’re talking ugly? When did this come in?

    In a head-to-head battle of Asian man vs. Black man–or Asian man vs. any-other-group-of-men, for that matter–we know who’s winning that battle.

    http://www.bigwowo.com/2009/05/podcast-urb4n-talks-about-ir/

    Let’s just say that black guys aren’t dealing with a $24,000 income gap with their own women. I think for the sake of equality, you ought to call for HBDers to eliminate Asian men. After all, if ugly is what we need to be eliminating, nothing spells ugly like the fact that an Asian man needs to make an additional $24k of annual income to be on par with an otherwise equal White man among his own Asian women.

  205. @bigWOWO:
    “I think for the sake of equality, you ought to call for HBDers to eliminate Asian men.”
    On the flip side, Asian women are in high demand and Asian men are necessary to make Asian girls. The $24k difference isn’t necessarily resting on Asian men’s looks, but also their lower social status in society.

    “Also–I still don’t see why you’re racializing it. I would think that get-rid-of-dumb-people or even get-rid-of-poor-people would be a far easier sell than get-rid-of-people-from-a-certain-race.”
    Getting rid of poor and dumb people would be equivalent to getting rid of mostly NAMs.

    “King and I both already asked, but is this genetic? If so, why aren’t HBDers calling to sterilize these people? We agree that they are doing bad things. Isn’t dishonesty “dysgenic” too?”
    There’s a fine line between someone who behaves dishonestly at the moment, and someone who is just a shady character. It would be too tough to call. Other attributes of a person such as intelligence and looks are not as temperamental however.

  206. Why should society’s aim be to breed people who are less stupid and ugly, when we have the technology to make people less stupid and ugly after they are born? And even if you we did not have the capacity to do that, why should we bother trying to breed better people? What gives society the right to collectively prevent people from being born?

  207. “Doubling down on affirmative action if HBD is true is ridiculous. The whole premise of AA assumes that intelligence across races are equal and it is only socioeconomic factors that determine academic acheivement.
    There’s a correlation between welfare and black people, welfare has much to do with genetics. I guess it’s the same with the prison population.”

    Actually that is not what Affirmative Action assumes at all. Affirmative action does not care one iota about uniform genetic potential. All AA is concerned with is whether people who are qualified to perform a given job are being excluded from that opportunity because of prejudice. That has nothing to do with HBD, as do most of your assertions.

  208. On the flip side, Asian women are in high demand and Asian men are necessary to make Asian girls. The $24k difference isn’t necessarily resting on Asian men’s looks, but also their lower social status in society.

    Why bother having Asian men in the long run, when we can simply cull the sperm of prominent and high-achieving Asian men in the present generation, and keep them in circulation for impregnating Asian women? That way we would know that the genetic material comes from sure winners instead of betas. Actually, this approach can probably be used for every race.

    Furthermore, why the focus on intellect and looks? What about health? Should we not also sterilize those with histories of medical ailments?

  209. @DishonestObserver:
    “What gives society the right to collectively prevent people from being born?”
    In the interest of self-preservation, society would allow those who make it function to reproduce and let its parasites die off.

    “Why bother having Asian men in the long run, when we can simply cull the sperm of prominent and high-achieving Asian men in the present generation, and keep them in circulation for impregnating Asian women?”
    Harem societies are dysfunctional. Nothing for men to strive for, if they’re getting laid for doing nothing. As much as women hate beta males, they are necessary for a functional society.

    @King:
    “All AA is concerned with is whether people who are qualified to perform a given job are being excluded from that opportunity because of prejudice.”
    What sort of prejudice is AA concerned with? RACIAL prejudice. I don’t want to argue semantics with you. Race is genetic.

  210. According to HBD, people with MENTAL ILLNESS should certainly be sterilized.

    Dali doesn’t care though, because he’s already a neuter. :D

    I’ll take it a step further and insist that he be euthanised for the public good.

  211. The Dali Lamer seems to forget that a big part of physical attraction for women is height. Asian men are not known for being tall (and neither are Hispanic men). If one is to make humans more attractive, we’d need to get rid of shorties too. Say bye to Mediterranean men in Europe, Hispanic men, and Asian men who are not from some regions where they tend to be tall.

  212. There’s a fine line between someone who behaves dishonestly at the moment, and someone who is just a shady character. It would be too tough to call. Other attributes of a person such as intelligence and looks are not as temperamental however.

    An intangible like “intelligence” is judged in stark black and white notions of genetic, yet something that is even less intangible like “honesty” is dependent on factors other than genetics. How convenient and typical of HBD’ers.

    I think that HBD’ers genetics are deficient in the field of intellectual honesty.

  213. Height may be a big factor in physical attraction, but there is an even bigger and more important factor.

    MENTAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING.

    On that grounds should HBD be the defining state ideology I propose that it works from the ground up and people like Dali and Cho Seu- I mean Asian of Reason, be euthanised to relieve them of their suffering and to protect the public from their menace. Why should we suffer these mentally handicapped people to exist? The food they eat and the air they breathe is better reserved fore fitter people. :D

  214. ^ @ Notty

    Also, notice the very baseless assumption that these were dishonesties “of the moment” rather than long-held life/career trends.

    Does anyone really believe that these Wall Street bankers had not been breaking the law and stealing people’s money for years? This is the blind spot of HBDers and many white-is-right advocates. It was addresses in the Snowlipsism thread. These guys see a White (or Asian) guy in a suit, and immediately believe that because he’s going to work every day and is wearing Brooks Brothers that he must be basically honest and hard working. The fact that these guys are working hard at stealing many people’s lifelong investments seems to escape them. A Black drug dealer is primarily affecting 1) his own drug using clients, 2) his drug selling competition. There are, of course, some secondary effects on the whole community at large, and some innocents, are effected at varying levels. But the Wall Street thieve’s primary TARGETS are innocent people who are just trying to save money for their retirement.

    This is why HBD is more of a religion than a science. It’s based on a blind belief that causes them to excuse away the obvious, and faithfully affirm the ridiculous.

  215. This is why HBD is more of a religion than a science.

    Yup. The Dalai Lama spreads the message of Buddhism, and the Pope Catholicism. The Dali Lamer spreads the religion of HBD.

  216. You guys can’t even discuss the argument anymore, it’s devolved into personal attacks on me. I’ve won here.

  217. You fired the first insult by mocking HonestObserver:

    @DishonestObserver:

    If HBD is accepted, AA would be abolished because its premise would be debunked.

    However, if HBD would “embolden liberals tenfold,” then why are we arguing about it? Wouldn’t it be a hallelujah moment if most ghetto black students got accepted to Harvard, at the expense of the genetically gifted?

    Your intellectual dishonesty gene is limiting you again. Why don’t you do the eugenic, humane thing and become celibate?

  218. “You guys can’t even discuss the argument anymore, it’s devolved into personal attacks on me. I’ve won here.”

    In HBD you don’t teach mentally retarded psychologically damaged neuter Asians who argue in circles.

    You just EUTHANISE them.

  219. Dali: The reason people are throwing personal insults at you is because your belief in HBD in itself is a personal insult to many on this board. The outrageous things you talk about, basically getting rid of who you believe isn’t fit to live definitely is going to piss some people off.

    Also, why are discussions based on winning or losing? Aren’t we on these boards to learn?

  220. Whoa, what did I miss? :)

    “On the flip side, Asian women are in high demand and Asian men are necessary to make Asian girls. The $24k difference isn’t necessarily resting on Asian men’s looks, but also their lower social status in society. “

    Dali,

    If you think it has to do with society, you’re using an environmental argument. It looks like Notty alluded to this, but didn’t Steve Sailer himself say that the Asian men were losing the dating game because we were genetically less masculine and shorter?

    I’m just wondering if you’re being selective on when you look at nature and when you look at nurture. You’re also saying that intelligence is not temperamental like honesty. Not sure on where you got that idea–my past experience has told me that dishonest people are generally dishonest in many areas of their lives over the course of many years–but what I will say is that if you take a smart guy and put him in an environment where his talents are not used, he will in the end be less “intelligent” because of everything going on in his life. In a way, it’s temperamental because he may not necessarily have been born that way.

    Asian men may be necessary to make those high-demand Asian women, but black men are already high-demand without the extra step. And besides, many in the AFCC don’t want to create more Asian babies anyway.

    I guess we should agree to disagree on the racializing thing. You can say, “Getting rid of poor and dumb people would be equivalent to getting rid of mostly NAMs,” but I still don’t know why racializing it makes it either better or easier.

  221. For those of you who are lacking in reading comprehension, here’s some ad hominems about me before I slighted “HonestObserver” for his self-serving name:

    Raguel:
    “Dali never has sex with women”
    “brain-damaged evangelist whose entire existence centres around sophism and sollipsism to cover up his own profound ignorance.”

    Eurasian:
    “callous sociopath with no f*cking heart at all.”

  222. Actually I believe that this is Eurasian’s full text here:

    “Wrong, King. Very wrong.
    Without HBD, someone who advocates a system to “weed out mostly NAMs and some prole whites and Asians” and views Africans as problems rather than people, would be regarded as a callous sociopath with no f*cking heart at all. But now, thanks to HBD, he’s a scientific thinker.”

    I don’t see anywhere where he points at any one person here. He was simply describing a shoe… it was up to you to decide if the shoe fits.

  223. Hmm, I think that the Dali Lamer has a few defective logical thinking genes as well.

    But maybe I’m wrong. Is it logical and sane to attack person ‘C’, who never did anything to you, because person ‘A’ and ‘B’ offended you?

  224. @bigWOWO:

    “didn’t Steve Sailer himself say that the Asian men were losing the dating game because we were genetically less masculine and shorter?”
    Yes. Despite improved nutrition, East Asians are on average shorter than other races. Less masculine? Statistics show that Asians do have smaller penises. Anyways, just saying that the $24k difference could be a wide variety of things, including Asian womens’ propensity to seek wealth.

    “I’m just wondering if you’re being selective on when you look at nature and when you look at nurture.”

    A low IQ person can’t turn into an intellectual the next day (or month, or year, and so on). That person will probably have the same level of general intelligence tomorrow. The same can’t be said about honesty: I could lie all day today, and tell only truths tomorrow.

    HBD is false! HBD is true! HBD is false! HBD is true!

  225. @King:

    “I don’t see anywhere where he points at any one person here. He was simply describing a shoe…”

    Bullshit.

    Well I do think that someone who goes by a royal-sounding name on this blog is an asshole. But that couldn’t have been directed at any one person here. Nope.

  226. You might as well get used to it Dali

    HBD is a looser religion, and if you are a follower of it, you’re going to spend your life being called out as a fool and a buffoon. HBD is never going to be accepted by most people. It is not accepted my 99.9% of geneticists. You might as well be pushing flying saucers or Elvis is Alive T-shirts. Outside of the little HBD groupie bubble, the things you are espousing will just make you a village laughingstock.

    You can’t even answer half of the questions that have been put to you in this thread. It’s time to rethink your theology.

  227. “HBD is never going to be accepted by most people. It is not accepted my 99.9% of geneticists.”

    Well then, I guess you’ll have to exclude James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA in that 99.9%

    The heliocentric model of the solar system was not accepted by most people and not accepted by 99.9% of the clergy. Your point?

  228. Actually, Watson is part of the 99.9% Occupy WOWO.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/science/19watson.html

    “I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said. There is no scientific basis for such a belief.

    Yes. Despite improved nutrition, East Asians are on average shorter than other races. Less masculine? Statistics show that Asians do have smaller penises. Anyways, just saying that the $24k difference could be a wide variety of things, including Asian womens’ propensity to seek wealth.

    Well, the IQ gap could be a variety of things as well, considering blacks on average are more likely to live in poverty, come from single parent homes, etc.

    And Sailer wasn’t talking about penises. He was talking about physique. He probably never met our favorite HBD blogger, who is 6’1 and athletic. Then again, most Asian HBD religionists who met Sailer probably wouldn’t be showing their full height, as they most likely would be kowtowing and kneeling in front of the “Alpha Aryan.”

    A low IQ person can’t turn into an intellectual the next day (or month, or year, and so on). That person will probably have the same level of general intelligence tomorrow. The same can’t be said about honesty: I could lie all day today, and tell only truths tomorrow.

    I can have a bad day and mess up my SATs, and then do better tomorrow. I guess a dishonest person could become honest, but quite honestly (and I’m being honest), I’ve never seen this happen. How many people did Madoff cheat? Did he cheat one and do well for everyone else? I don’t think so.

    Also, I don’t think Eurasian was talking about you specifically. He was just using your words as an example of how people regard people who use HBD rhetoric. I mean, he’s right, isn’t he? Most people who said that would not be popular.

  229. “Well then, I guess you’ll have to exclude James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA in that 99.9%’

    Then you guess totally wrong then—as usual. When somebody recants their previous statement, and then says that is was not based on scientific fact, that’s usually a pretty good sign that you also should stop trying to use it as a HBD proof text:

    Dr. James D. Watson: “I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said. There is no scientific basis for such a belief.”

    “The heliocentric model of the solar system was not accepted by most people and not accepted by 99.9% of the clergy.”

    Yeah, but the heliocentric model WAS ACTUALLY TRUE.
    HBD can’t even be made to make minimal sense. Lol!

  230. “Actually, Watson is part of the 99.9% Occupy WOWO.”
    Oh come on, bigWOWO. Don’t you see any underlying motive, such as the fact that he risked his career on that statement and it would be expedient of him to publicly apologize to keep his job? Galileo didn’t repent, he earned a lot of punishment for that. Anyways, Francis Crick, the other co-discoverer of DNA made statements regarding eugenics and racial intelligence in letters, but he’s dead now. I suppose we should reanimate Crick and make him apologize for what he said about race and IQ now.

    “He probably never met our favorite HBD blogger, who is 6’1 and athletic.”
    I’m 6′ and athletic. Oh wait…

  231. ^ So, what we should take away from Watson unreservedly withdrawing his statement is that he really still believes what he says he was totally wrong about.

    You see originally, he had the courage to “speak the truth,” but then to his utter shock, he found that the “truth” was unpopular—He had no idea that there might be repercussions!! So he quickly scrambled back up to the podium and lied! No no… I got it ALL wrong! So sorry! It’s not scientific.

    So you see, whenever there is an uproar about something, and a person reconsiders their position, we must ALWAYS understand that they can only be changing their minds because of the pressure. NOT because the uproar of contrary opinion caused them to reconsider their assumptions in any way

    Hahahaha! Good old non-falsifiable reasoning.

  232. It’s pretty funny that Watson and Crick are mentioned in this argument as ineffable MEN OF SCIENCE, given how they stole the data of Rosalind Franklin. Appeal to authority much?

    I notice that you never deigned to answer any of my follow-up questions. Regardless of HBD’s validity, it’s pretty telling that the natural policy suggestions HBD-supporters bring up are eugenics.

    Again, why should human society bother to consider dysgenics vs. eugenics? Why should we try to artificially create a genetically superior society?

  233. “Why should we try to artificially create a genetically superior society?”
    Human entropy. There’s studies that show global IQ has been decreasing slowly. I don’t know about you, but I’d hope that the future is brighter, not dumber.

    The conclusion of HBD is indeed eugenics. Crick wrote about eugenics and how it has historically had a bad name partly due to Nazism, and he advocated for policy based on racial intelligence. He also argued that the politics of racial equality interfered with science.

    In Galileo’s time, it was the Church that was eventually shown to be mistaken. In our time, it’s the secular religion that is egalitarianism. We do not know a priori that the races are equal, but there is evidence of the opposite.

  234. “In Galileo’s time, it was the Church that was eventually shown to be mistaken. In our time, it’s the secular religion that is egalitarianism. We do not know a priori that the races are equal, but there is evidence of the opposite.

    Actually there is NO evidence of the kind. What we refer to as “race” is rather arbitrary and is NOT based on broad genetic similitude between related people’s, but is entirely defined by superficial looks and shared culture. There are people in the same “race” with very different genetics, even though they may look quite similar. HBD is a combination of casual observations, and clumsily misapplied statistics. One must take it entirely on faith that that which is now woefully unproven will one day be justified.

  235. Regarding what I said about certain people who may or may not be similar to Dali:

    Well, I guess that was something of an ad hominem. But partly I said it because I couldn’t believe Dali was actually being for real; going around saying that stuff is kinda trollish. Most intelligent thinking people (and Dali is obviously one of them) don’t usually desire for dark-skinned people to be “weeded out”, just because their alleged lack of intelligence is some kind of personal affront to the genetically awesome. So I thought Dali was just kinda talking shit to get a reaction. Apparently he wasn’t.

    Anyway…

    “sociopath” – I was being hyperbolic.
    “no f***ing heart at all” – I’m not a doctor, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
    “callous” – hell yes. Alleging that Dali is callous is like alleging Stephen Hawking speaks kinda funny.

  236. Dali,

    I understand WHY people appeal to authority, but in this case, HBDers are way off.

    The HBDers claim that James Watson is pro-HBD, although he clearly said, “I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said. There is no scientific basis for such a belief.”

    He doesn’t even remember saying it! But more to the point, he uses his scientific background to say that his prior statement is not founded in science. I don’t know how much clearer he can be. HBDers are using Watson as an authority on HBD, even though he said science doesn’t support HBD.

    It’s laughable. The whole premise of using an authority is to go by what a person says. In the case of Watson, HBDers are saying the opposite of what he says and then justifying it by basically calling him a liar.

    Does that make any sense? The truth is you have no idea what is going through Watson’s mind. You can only go by what he said; you can’t go off some unsupported supposition on the politics of his career.

    It’s kinda like the dork who earlier in this thread brought up Stephen Hsu, who clearly says that he doesn’t know if HBD is correct. The dork seemed to be making the unsupported argument that even though Hsu clearly said he didn’t know, he really knew but just didn’t want to tell us.

    This HBD religion is 0-2 with Watson and Hsu.

    Hey, that rhymes.

    O in 2 with Watson and Hsu!

  237. This is biological reductionism of the worst kind. Why should human beings base morality upon science? Why should we base the destiny of our species around propagating better genes and “fighting entropy”? We are not dumb animals. We can choose to be sentimental and allow the weaker among us live or better themselves. We have the technology to do that. Propagation of the best genetic material is unimportant. This just goes to show that the policies you propose, along with many other HBD supporters, is nothing short of Social Darwinism. If you’re going to sterilize the lesser races, why even bother caring for the sick, or the old? Their genes must not matter either.

    Even if IQ’s are growing lower, so what. First, who says the IQ tests of today are undeniably accurate? Second, a happy and prosperous future is what human society should strive for, not necessarily a “bright” one. How happy are you? Third, one can be a productive member of society without a high IQ. Does IQ correlate with law-abiding? Do you have a chart for that?

    Finally, you say egalitarianism is a religion. Well, let’s say that Mustapha Mund in Brave New World was right and men are “physico-chemically equal”, and nothing more. HBD is right and there are races that are smarter or stronger than others. So what? Why should we then change our morality around that reality? When has any system of ethics been based on cold science? Human beings are not machines of logic. Why should we change the rules of society based on your arbitrary ideas of genetic superiority?

    It seems that HBD is nothing more than an excuse for racial bigotry. If HBD is true and eugenics is the answer, then why eliminate only certain races? Why not eliminate them all except a select few? Why not kill or neuter yourself, Dali, unless you really think you fit the entrance requirements for your grand society? What makes you think you’re superior? Why not build a true sci-fi dystopia out of GATTACA or Huxley and bioengineer everyone to have the best genes with the highest IQ’s and the biggest dicks and the strongest bodies, and kill the rest? Why stop at sterilizing welfare receivers?

    Sure, this may be the snowball fallacy, but much of the policies suggested by HBD supporters show that their policies don’t seem to be based on any firm rationale. They call for the elimination of inferior genetic groups, of inferior races, based on what? Is it any wonder that the rest of society finds their ideas questionable and reprehensible?

  238. @bigWOWO:

    Fine then, you don’t have to believe that Watson thought about the correlation between race, IQ, and genetics. However, there is a better record of Watson’s partner, Crick, making statements regarding HBD on paper.

    On black people:
    “In brief I think it likely that more than half the difference between the average I.Q. of American whites and Negroes is due to genetic reasons, and will not be eliminated by any foreseeable change in the environment. Moreover I think the social consequences of this are likely to be rather serious unless steps are taken to recognize the situation.” – Francis Crick (http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/B/N/M/)

    On the politicization of genetics:
    “The most distressing feature of your letter is that it neither gives nor refers to any scientific arguments, but makes unsupported statements of opinion. This, I need hardly remind you, is politics, not science. The voice of established authority, unsupported by evidence or argument, should have no place in science, and I am surprised to find that you, of all people, should put your name to a letter of this character written to the Academy on a matter of scientific research. I am cure you will realize that if the Academy were to take active steps to suppress reputable scientific research for political reasons it would not be possible for me to remain a Foreign Associate.” – Francis Crick (http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/B/N/M/)

    On affirmative action:
    “As to racism, what about negative racism? That is, the acceptance by Universities (like Harvard) of students with considerably lower standards merely because they are black. This policy is certainly going to lead to trouble. – Francis Crick (http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/B/M/V/_/scbbmv.pdf#xml=http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov:8080/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=View&VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2F%2Fprofiles%2Enlm%2Enih%2Egov%2FSC%2FB%2FB%2FM%2FV%2F%5F%2Fscbbmv%2Epdf&doctype=xml&Collection=SC&QueryZip=shockley)

    It’s too bad he’s dead, otherwise we’d force an apology out of him, amirite?

    You can get a victim to say anything you want through torture or deprivation, doesn’t mean it’s true or that the victim means it.

  239. “For those of you who are lacking in reading comprehension, here’s some ad hominems about me before I slighted “HonestObserver” for his self-serving name”

    Those are not ad hominems, those are FACTS. I saw right through you from the very beginning. Some of the guys here are indulging you and humoring you to see what else you can pull out of your sleeve, even as they bring to light and poke holes in the tremendous inadequacies and fallacies in your arguments and beliefs. They CHUCKLE to themselves even as you go round and round in circles proving EVERYTHING they have already said about HBD proponents.

    They are still too polite, more polite than you deserve. According to HBD, mental handicaps like you shouldn’t be coddled or taught. Your mental functions are permanently impaired, there is NO CURE for this. Don’t you agree? Don’t you often feel stupid and frustrated, unable to understand the world around you?

    The very air that you breathe could be better served breathed by someone worthier. Your shitty internet posts and blogs are not the equal of Gallileo’s discoveries. They are a waste of space and are fit only to be kept within the archives of a psychiatric paper, and even then your case study would be just one among millions of a similar type. You deserve only to be EUTHANISED. :D

  240. @Raguel:
    you mad bro?

    @DishonestObserver:
    “First, who says the IQ tests of today are undeniably accurate?”
    They are merely a proxy for estimating general intelligence, nobody claims that they are undeniably accurate. Since a small percentage of the population is either extremely smart or extremely dumb, IQ measurements can get fuzzy beyond a few standard deviations. However, they are accepted as being correlated with g, and it would be hard to argue that an IQ 70 person could be an intellectual or a that IQ 130 person could be mentally retarded.

    “It seems that HBD is nothing more than an excuse for racial bigotry.”
    If that’s the case, why would those bigoted white HBD proponents admit that East Asian IQ is higher than white IQ?

    “Why not build a true sci-fi dystopia out of GATTACA or Huxley and bioengineer everyone to have the best genes with the highest IQ’s and the biggest dicks and the strongest bodies, and kill the rest?”
    I don’t know if you’re just namedropping but Huxley envisioned in BNW a stratification of society (not just big dicks and strong bodies), though his version involved varying quality of prenatal care and a rigid caste system. It was intentionally dysgenic in order to make people easier to control. That’s why it’s a dystopia, clearly not intended to be a positive model for society.

    “They call for the elimination of inferior genetic groups, of inferior races, based on what? Is it any wonder that the rest of society finds their ideas questionable and reprehensible?”
    I don’t care if a few or even most people disagree with me. It doesn’t make them more right, that would be argumentum ad populum.

  241. However, they are accepted as being correlated with g, and it would be hard to argue that an IQ 70 person could be an intellectual or a that IQ 130 person could be mentally retarded.

    But what is the basis for eliminating people on the lower end of the scale? Higher IQ does not equal contributor to society. Does it even mean tendency to abide by the rules of society? Hell, I doubt Bernie Madoff had a low-IQ to be able to pull off his schemes.

    If that’s the case, why would those bigoted white HBD proponents admit that East Asian IQ is higher than white IQ?

    They then turn around and say Asians are more effeminate or not as assertive or lack street smarts, or so on.

    I don’t know if you’re just namedropping

    I’m just namedropping because there are any number of wild dystopias where the government actively pursues policies to ensure the population is born a certain way. It is my view that many HBD proponents, if not all, support that sort of demented ideal.

    I don’t care if a few or even most people disagree with me. It doesn’t make them more right, that would be argumentum ad populum.

    Whether or not the howling marauding mob that is humanity is going in the right direction, fortunately that direction is not and will never be directed by you.

  242. “Whether or not the howling marauding mob that is humanity is going in the right direction, fortunately that direction is not and will never be directed by you.”

    When HBD is implemented this guy will be the first to be eliminated. XD

  243. “On black people:
    “In brief I think it likely that more than half the difference between the average I.Q. of American whites and Negroes is due to genetic reasons, and will not be eliminated by any foreseeable change in the environment. Moreover I think the social consequences of this are likely to be rather serious unless steps are taken to recognize the situation.” – Francis Crick”

    Crick’s letter referred to a letter sent by John T. Edsall and six other scientists to the president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Philip Handler, on August 21, 1970, in which the signers set forth their “opinion that Dr. [William] Shockley’s proposals [that the Academy sponsor research into hereditary factors in intelligence and educational achievement of different races] are based upon such simplistic notions of race, intelligence, and ‘human quality’ as to be unworthy of serious consideration by a body of scientists.”

    In the last paragraph of their letter, singled out by Crick, the signers stated that:

    “Each individual is genetically unique; there is not a single important trait for which there is not a wide overlap between different human populations. It is basically vicious to evaluate individuals on the basis of the group to which they belong.”

    In the last 40 years of continuing genetic research, Edsall and his colleagues’ interpretation of G factor as dynamic, complex, overlapping, and fluid, have been accepted as the norm, whereas Crick’s beliefs remain wholly unsupported by the results of further investigations.

    At the time, Crick was floating a hypothesis. He didn’t have any discovery that led him to believe this. He never pointed to anything in the DNA that supported it. It was a theory… one which he never was able to support with fact.

    Yet Dali chooses to believe Crick’s now displaced theory, without on shred of genetic proof of it, and in the face of it’s wholesale rejection as untrue by modern geneticists. Instead he holds on the the ridiculous hope that this may be another example of the “Heliocentric” debate.

  244. Plus the Dali Lamer seems to ignore the era from which these scientists come. It is ridiculous to assume that their racist beliefs would not bias the unproven hypothesis they were trying to push.

  245. When I said anecdotal evidence, I meant it to both sides. Sayings like “I never seen an asian on welfare,” then retorting “I know a few” are both anecdotal. While the argument itself is fine, as if one choose to pose anecdotal evidence, an anecdotal evidence in response is reasonable. It is not evidence to prove or persuade either side.

    On my two cents on the 1% thing. That reminds me of a post an a blog called Advocatus Diaboli (if you think Half Sigma or other HBD blogs are bad, you should read him, he’s depressing). One of his less extreme post make a good point about HBD and “parasites” of society. The the sociopaths of the 1% does far more damage to society than any individual (or possibly combined) damage of a person taking welfare and contributing nothing to society.

  246. “When I said anecdotal evidence, I meant it to both sides. Sayings like “I never seen an asian on welfare,” then retorting “I know a few” are both anecdotal. While the argument itself is fine, as if one choose to pose anecdotal evidence, an anecdotal evidence in response is reasonable. It is not evidence to prove or persuade either side. ”

    Why not? That a policy eliminates a good and productive human being at the recommendation of a dubious and unproven religion should be a good reason not to do it. It’s good enough to convince me.

  247. @ Dreamer – “One of his less extreme post make a good point about HBD and “parasites” of society. The the sociopaths of the 1% does far more damage to society than any individual (or possibly combined) damage of a person taking welfare and contributing nothing to society”.

    The corporate CEO embezzler and the welfare cheat represents the 2 extremes of sociopathic behavior of class division. One is on top of the pyramid scheme, and the other one is at the bottom. Both are parasitic nevertheless, the CEO takes more than his share, and often at the expense of his minions (employees of the company), while the welfare sucker does it at the expense of society in general. I don’t think we can say the CEO is more destructive, since welfare recepients are more prone to criminality and a host of other undesirable behaviors not conducive to a well functioning, and productive state.

  248. Dali,

    “You can get a victim to say anything you want through torture or deprivation, doesn’t mean it’s true or that the victim means it.”

    I’m sorry. What are we talking about? How did torture or deprivation get into this discussion? If we’re talking about Watson, he wasn’t tortured or deprived.

    I think Notty and King hit the nail on the head. You’re talking about a guy who was born in 1916. He was a product of his times. He was expressing a possible theory (not a proof) because he was a product of his times. If you polled most people born in 1916, you’d find lots of prejudice.

    You do agree that different generations have different values, right?

  249. “If we’re talking about Watson, he wasn’t tortured or deprived.”

    Watson risked his career and professional reputation on a single statement. If you were in such a position, regardless of the truth value of the statement, wouldn’t you recant to save yourself?

  250. “Watson risked his career and professional reputation on a single statement. If you were in such a position, regardless of the truth value of the statement, wouldn’t you recant to save yourself?”

    Watson only risked his career, because he publicly stated an unfounded and unpopular scientific conclusion without having any SCIENCE to back him up. If this is not so, then please point us all to Watson’s scientific study that he based his conclusion upon.

    I’ll wait…

    Watson would have taken some fire for bringing to light a scientific conclusion that was unpopular, but he would have survived had he simply pointed to the science which it was based on. If the science proved sound, it would be very difficult to destroy his career. Sure, some Universities, and some grants would not want to be associated with him, but that is part of being a groundbreaking scientist. Not everybody is going to agree with you or like you.

    But that is NOT what happened. This romanticized version of the would-be martyr to truth, who changed his mind at the last minute never occurred. Because when Watson was asked what informed these conclusions HE HAD NOTHING! A big goose egg! ZERO! No proof at all. What Watson had done was to take a personal social belief, and declare it, while lending to it the vestiture of science. He was called on it, and quickly apologized when ha was asked to back up his claim.

    It was a personal and professional embarrassment. Yet, clueless HBDers cling to this one retracted statement, like a baby to her mother’s breast. And why? because they have NOTHING else. This retracted error is the closest they can come to a fact. It’s pitiful.

  251. The key modifier here is regardless of the truth value of the statement. Whether or not you are right, you will suffer if you do not recant. There was no chance that Galileo could have convinced the clergy that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and there is little to no chance that I or anyone else could convince egalitarians that race is more real than they imagine.

    An objective study on Race and IQ will not be carried out in the West in the foreseeable future. Crick was one of the first to propose such an experiment, but of course his proposition was met with censure. Both discoverers of DNA at least suggested a correlation between race and intelligence, though there is more of a written record on Crick. Even if such a study is carried out, the politics of science today demand that only politically correct conclusions are accepted.

    Just to remind you, we’re talking about anthropology and not mathematics. I could show a correlation between people of African descent and darker skin, it seems intuitively obvious but doesn’t prove anything. Demanding a “proof” of HBD is ridiculous. All you have to do is look at the statistics. Dodging the facts with leftist statements such as “race is a social construct” etc. is just another way of intentfully ignoring genetic, biological correlations among groups of people.

  252. @King

    I’m wondering if the hypothesis was “White Americans are stupid” (which is the view of most people outside America), would he still be so willing and passionate about linking that hypothesis to race? Why is it so convenient that the conclusion is again “White Americans are the perfect balance”?

    Then again, I think most academics/theorist are full of shizzzzzzzzzzzzzz anyway.

  253. Dali:

    “Watson risked his career and professional reputation on a single statement. If you were in such a position, regardless of the truth value of the statement, wouldn’t you recant to save yourself?”

    Me personally? I don’t know. Maybe I would. But we’re not talking about me. We’re talking about Watson.

    Is that what happened to Watson? Did he recant just to save his job? Did you ask him personally if this is what happened? From reading his first statement, it seemed like he was just speaking off the cuff without even thinking scientifically, but if you have proof that he was lying in order to get out of a sticky situation, please share.

    Otherwise I think it’s only fair to him if you take him at his word.

    “Demanding a “proof” of HBD is ridiculous. All you have to do is look at the statistics.”

    What statistics? You have statistics that show that IQ differences are based on genes? Or that Asian men are inherently less attractive based on genes?

  254. “I’m wondering if the hypothesis was “White Americans are stupid” (which is the view of most people outside America), would he still be so willing and passionate about linking that hypothesis to race?”

    Good point! Somehow I doubt in, N. lol!

  255. “What statistics? You have statistics that show that IQ differences are based on genes? Or that Asian men are inherently less attractive based on genes?”

    “Based on” isn’t the right phrasing there. Statistics show correlation, not necessarily causation. I could show you an ton of statistics on correlations between race and IQ:
    http://www.velesova-sloboda.org/antrop/lynn-race-differences-in-intelligence.html

    Being black does not imply low intelligence (that would be causation), but it is highly correlated with it. The semantics don’t matter though. I bet that even if I showed you overwhelming evidence of lower overall African IQ, you’d still intently ignore it because numbers can’t convince you.

  256. I’m wondering if the hypothesis was “White Americans are stupid” (which is the view of most people outside America),

    Where is your evidence that “most people outside America” believe that?

  257. @truth be sold

    The Bush era pretty much started it off. ‘Stupid Americans’ is a very common phrase used outside the states if you actually travel around.

  258. @ Dali

    “Just to remind you, we’re talking about anthropology and not mathematics.”

    So it’s not mathematics.

    “All you have to do is look at the statistics.”

    So… Inferential Statistics is also not mathematics? Tell me just how do you calculate all those bell curves and project for margin or error? Do you use non-math?

    “I could show a correlation between people of African descent and darker skin, it seems intuitively obvious but doesn’t prove anything.”

    Yes of course, correlation is NOT the same as causation.
    It seems you have been listening.

    ” Demanding a “proof” of HBD is ridiculous. All you have to do is look at the statistics.”

    This is dummy talk. Of course you have to “prove” a genetic component to a racial intelligence theory. NOBODY just “looks at the statistics” and assumes that the correlation = genetic causation. Nobody but a dummy.

    “just another way of intentfully ignoring genetic, biological correlations among groups of people.”

    It seems you have not been listening after all.
    Back to square one.
    Correlation is NOT causation.

    Chinese people like white rice.
    Chinese people live in China
    Obviously living in China changes people’s genes so that they crave white rice.

  259. Dali,

    “Being black does not imply low intelligence (that would be causation), but it is highly correlated with it. The semantics don’t matter though. I bet that even if I showed you overwhelming evidence of lower overall African IQ, you’d still intently ignore it because numbers can’t convince you.”

    Where is the genes connection? When Asian men are viewed as less attractive, why do you highlight culture, but when Black people do poorly on IQ tests, you highlight genes (and completely ignore culture)?

    In any case, correlation doesn’t mean much. Michael Bisping is not a great MMA fighter, but he’s the best from Britain by far.

    http://www.bigwowo.com/2011/02/ufc-127-dana-white-says-bj-won-michael-bisping-proves-hes-an-affirmative-action-case/

    Why do the British suck at MMA fighting? Does this mean that living on an island makes you suck at fighting? Or does it mean that talking with a British accent makes you suck? Something about eating fish and chips?

    Or is it because British sports culture doesn’t emphasize wrestling, which is the most important foundation in MMA competitions that use Unified Rules inside a cage? And is it because the UFC is based in the USA, far away on the other side of the Atlantic?

  260. Also, I still don’t associate performance on a single test with “intelligence.” As I mentioned before, there’s IQ and EQ. And people whose cultures tend to put a lot of emphasis on scoring highly on tests will tend to do better, simply because they care more about tests.

  261. @King:
    I’m highly reserved about using the word “proof” in any non-rigorous context such as this. You guys are demanding an infallible proof of HBD when you cannot even rule out the possibility of genetics being a factor of intelligence.

    However, here are the facts: blacks have an overall lower IQ, in Africa, out of Africa, in poor countries, and in well-to-do countries. There is no evidence that any significant population of blacks anywhere in the world has an average IQ of over 90.
    http://www.velesova-sloboda.org/antrop/lynn-race-differences-in-intelligence.html#_13
    Look at the summary and tell me, can you honestly say that Sub-Saharan Africans in the US possess as much general intelligence as East Asians in the US? Can you provide any counter-evidence to show that blacks are equally intelligent as other races?

  262. @bigWOWO:
    Also, I still don’t associate performance on a single test with “intelligence.”
    You don’t have to, there’s a wide variety of general intelligence tests.

    “And people whose cultures tend to put a lot of emphasis on scoring highly on tests will tend to do better, simply because they care more about tests.”
    I think I can safely say that the Arctic peoples have no history of putting emphasis on written tests, neither do the Aborigines of Australia, yet their average IQs differ by 2 standard deviations.

    “When Asian men are viewed as less attractive, why do you highlight culture, but when Black people do poorly on IQ tests, you highlight genes (and completely ignore culture)?”
    What do you mean by attractive? I’ll concede that the stereotypes of Asian men being shorter and poorly-endowed are true. I’m not discounting the fact that African culture doesn’t place a high value on intellectualism or academic acheivement, but that much should be obvious right?

    Regarding Brits, I don’t watch MMA, so I have no idea.

  263. “I’m highly reserved about using the word “proof” in any non-rigorous context such as this. You guys are demanding an infallible proof of HBD when you cannot even rule out the possibility of genetics being a factor of intelligence.”

    That is simply not true. All we are asking is that HBD claims be held to the same standards of rigor as any other scientific claim. You simply cannot make ANY scientific claim based on, “Well that’s what it LOOKs like to me!” What you are arguing is that the correlation can simply become the “proof” without any further investigation into the cause. That is lazy, impatient, and inaccurate.

    Spontaneous generation was once a very widespread and broadly-accepted scientific belief involving the the every-day origination of life from inanimate matter. The theory was developed from observations by great minds like Aristotle, and it held sway for two millennia.

    If you put out a piece of meat and took too long to eat it, out of nowhere, maggots seemed to appear in the meat. It was thought that maggots spontaneously sprung forth from rotting meat. They simply were not aware that the flies that were buzzing around were also laying eggs in the meat. That wasn’t obvious to their thinking, so they missed it. It was not until the 19th Century that spontaneous generation was ultimately disproven in the by the scientific work of Louis Pasteur.

    That (and many other similar scientific examples) is why we don’t allow correlation to be confused with causation… EVER. In the case of Blacks, there are many extenuating circumstances worldwide that contribute to lower test scores. There is a long list of factors that almost certainly have an effect. The unscientific conclusion that the ONLY EXPLANATION is genetics is clearly not the case. This is why 99% of professional geneticists, and 100% of all leading geneticists agree that the genetic explanation is unwarranted based on current evidence.

    You can’t bend the rules of science simply because you so badly want to believe in an unproven explanation. The argument has never been that Blacks do not currently score lower when tested. The question is whether this is genetic or based on non-genetic factors. Geneticists currently are leaning to non-genetic factors based on the evidence.

  264. I’m highly reserved about using the word “proof” in any non-rigorous context such as this. You guys are demanding an infallible proof of HBD when you cannot even rule out the possibility of genetics being a factor of intelligence.

    This is like the second or third time that a member of the HBD Muppet Show has asked that detractors prove a negative. How exactly do you do that? Going through every single gene and gene combinations in human beings and ruling them out?

    What I’d like to see is the GENETIC EVIDENCE that indicates Whites are innately smarter. Please show us the gene or genes that have been found in Whites that give them an advantage in intellectual capacity.

  265. Notty,

    The HBD Muppet Show! LOL!

    Dali,

    King said much of what I want to say. No one said that intelligence isn’t heritable; in fact, it’s in my OP above. No one ever claimed that Asians didn’t outscore Africans on tests; check out anything on this site, or check out the original podcast with AOR.

    There is a wide “variety” of IQ tests, but they are all very similar and measure the same thing, much the same way there is a wide “variety” of SATs. They aren’t necessarily comprehensive, which is why a lot of expensive private schools don’t use a lot of multiple choice testing.

    I think I can safely say that the Arctic peoples have no history of putting emphasis on written tests, neither do the Aborigines of Australia, yet their average IQs differ by 2 standard deviations.

    Oh man, not this AGAIN. We established upthread that you basically have met ONE African your entire life, a guy whose class you didn’t even finish. How many Arctic people do you know? How many Aboriginal Australians? So basically you think that the cultures are exactly the same and are comparable because…I don’t know…just because?

    Dude, this is just lazy. I’ll bet you ANYTHING that Eskimos and Australian Aborigines have different cultures that contribute to different ways that they see the world. But you’ll never know that because you’re taking a lazy man’s explanation without knowing anything about what you’re comparing.

    What do you mean by attractive? I’ll concede that the stereotypes of Asian men being shorter and poorly-endowed are true. I’m not discounting the fact that African culture doesn’t place a high value on intellectualism or academic acheivement, but that much should be obvious right?

    Regarding Brits, I don’t watch MMA, so I have no idea.

    No proof of genes that cause shortness in all Asia, no (or shoddy) proof of the penis thing.

    What I REALLY REALLY don’t get is this: When it comes to HBD religious dogma, you and the other Asian HBDers are ready to “concede” to anything that these White guys say. I mean, really, how is it possible for all those White racists to say so much without you guys even raising a word of challenge? But when confronted with actual logic–such as correlation is not causation, such as the fact that you’ve never stepped foot in Africa and don’t know any of the cultures, such as an IQ test doesn’t examine genes–you fight us minority men like rabid coyotes. I don’t get it. I mean, yes, I’ve known for a while now that HBD is a religion, but really.

    Man, you’re at a university. A place of higher learning. You’ve got more access to learning the truth about cultures than most of us here do. But you flat out refuse to take advantage of it, relying instead on the word of ignorant White racists on the Internet. Like King said, it’s LAZY. If you want to know the truth, why not search for the truth?

    And not watching MMA, imho, is unforgivable. How can you not want to watch two martial artists beat the crap out of one another?

  266. There was an old western protoscience/religion known as Alchemy. Alchemists believed in the unity of man and nature but were most famed for their claims of transmutation: the ability to turn common metals into noble metals like silver and gold. They also were known to concoct certain natural solutions known as panaceas that were supposed to act as remedies that could cure all diseases and prolong life indefinitely. Alchemists were widespread in influence, and were highly respected both in Christian and Muslim states. Pope Innocent VIII was an alchemist, and Martin Luther applauded alchemy for its consistency with Christian teachings.

    But, in all the centuries that Alchemy was known and practiced, how many tons of lead was transmuted into gold? In all of those years, how many cure-all medicines were produced that allowed people to live on indefinitely? Not a single one.

    SO how can we account for this? After centuries of failure, why weren’t these false practitioners driven out as cheats and pretenders? Because people WANTED to believe in what they were selling. People wanted so badly for there to be a ‘magical’ way to become rich, healthy, and immortal, that they could not see that centuries of failure to produce on their claims. The hope was that in the near future all of these claims would be realized, ushering in a golden age of wealth and health.

    Does this sound familiar? It’s should, because HBD is a kind of modern Alchemy. No matter how many times it is refuted, not matter how many of their own “heroes” apologize and and admit that they were wrong, it’s practitioners still believe that in the near future all of their theories will be proven correct.

    And what is the motivation? The same. They WANT to believe that they were right, a correct but oppressed minority of clear thinkers—rather than a gaggle of ignorant bigots. They WANT to see their enemies (Black people, and Hispanics) controlled, degraded, and marginalized. They won’t admit this directly, but every time you ask them what the implications of their theory is, it comes down to eugenics, and the immediate withdrawal of resources from these groups.

    That is the real reason that HBDers won’t listen to clear reason, even when it’s right in front of them. It’s not about reason, its about their religion.

  267. @Nottyboy:
    “Please show us the gene or genes that have been found in Whites that give them an advantage in intellectual capacity.”
    Cranial size is genetic, no? Whites have been consistently found to have significantly larger cranial cavities than blacks, while East Asians have slightly larger cranial cavities than whites.
    http://www.velesova-sloboda.org/antrop/lynn-race-differences-in-intelligence.html#_16

    @bigWOWO:

    In fact I was quite liberal and left-leaning in high school. I voted for Democrats in ’08, at the tender age of 18, and I had no clue what to think other than what was drilled into me. It was only until my second year in college that I realised I’d been indoctrinated. Political correctness and leftist ideals are pushed in high school and college without critique. Most people keep on believing it, and in many ways it’s no different that religious indoctrination.

    “You’ve got more access to learning the truth about cultures than most of us here do… If you want to know the truth, why not search for the truth?”
    99% of humanities professors and their students are left-leaning, multi-culti, feminist, environmentalist, Occupyist, so it’s pretty difficult to get another perspective on campus. I don’t have the time or motivation to seek out like-minded people in meatspace.

    I don’t watch MMA because it’s still a staged fight where two combatants pace their moves. Granted, a “real” fight wouldn’t last more than 15 seconds, but it’d still be more entertaining to me than watching a few minutes of UFC.

    @King:
    “That is the real reason that HBDers egalitarians won’t listen to clear reason, even when it’s right in front of them. It’s not about reason, its about their religion.”
    Fixed that for you.

  268. Brain size is inconclusive:

    http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/brain-size2.htm

    Albert Einstein may be a perfect example that it may not be overall size that matters, but size of certain sections beyond just the frontal lobe. ­Einstein, for example, had a perfectly normal-size brain, but certain parts of it were larger than normal, including the inferior parietal region, which affects mathematical thought [source: Wanjek].

    And, apparently, brain size, if it matters at all, can be affected by things outside of genetics:

    It’s also worth noting that the strangest things seem to increase brain size. Scientists have found that the brains of London’s cab drivers enlarge and change as they learn complicated routes. Cab drivers who have been navigating the streets for years had significant structural changes, as they exhibited a larger posterior hippocampus and a slightly smaller front hippocampus

    Byron: Forget chess. Driving around the city is the way to go. :) Though, I’ve coincidentally seen that a lot of cabbies also play chess, and are very good!

  269. @Nottyboy:
    Cranial size is more indicative of mental capacity, not actual intelligence. Two points of evidence isn’t going to sway the statistics. Since bone stops growing past a certain age, I am highly skeptical of a brain growing more than its cranial cavity can fit. Even the title of the article you failed to cite puts “grow” in quotes.

    From the researcher in the article:
    “The hippocampus has changed its structure to accommodate their huge amount of navigating experience… The front of the hippocampus was smaller in the taxi drivers compared to the controls.”
    So the structure has changed, but overall size would be about the same, compensating for the smaller frontal hippocampus.

  270. Oh come on! …Not Craniology/Phrenology!!!
    What is this the 19th Century?

    Nobody believes that intelligence is based on skull shape and size anymore! Get into your time machine and push the “forward” button why don’t you. Besides, skull sizes fall along a continuum of measurement within races, and the interracial size variations are relatively minute. Also, having a minutely larger cranial capacity doesn’t necessarily mean that your actual brain size is larger within that space.

    And again, there has been no correlation shown between people who have the largest heads and smartness. You may have a large mellon of a skull and be a complete dope. You may have a smaller skull size and be a rocket scientist. There is just no direct correlation between cranial capacity and intelligence or cranial capacity and criminology.

    Here is yet another red herring—a blast to the past when scientists didn’t know any better. All of this is because you cannot come up with the ACTUAL GENETIC PROOF for your theory.

  271. Ahh… I forgot to add this above.

    Most of the brain is busy keeping our bodies running properly, balancing systems, and regenerating depleted assets. This is why craniology was determined (long ago) not to be a good indicator of intelligence OR of mental capacity. What you are measuring in craniology is the hole in your skull where your brain once sat. But when it copes to cognitive capabilities, most of that is associated primarily with the prefrontal cortex in the forebrain.

    Measuring the cavity in your head tells you nothing. If anything, the better measure would be of the frontal lobes of the brain, where cognition actually takes place, but even this may not be a certain indicator of cognitive ability.

  272. Dali wrote: “99% of humanities professors and their students are left-leaning, multi-culti, feminist, environmentalist, Occupyist, so it’s pretty difficult to get another perspective on campus. I don’t have the time or motivation to seek out like-minded people in meatspace.”

    So the answer is to make comments about Eskimos or Africans or Aborigines without bothering to learn about who they really are? Even without even speaking to one? Or learning from racists who have never spent time getting to know these people?

    Not sure how a professor’s political views are going to influence how you learn Swahili or Inuit linguistics, but…okay. You’re the one paying those tuition dollars, not me.

  273. @Dali: I’m not discounting the fact that African culture doesn’t place a high value on intellectualism or academic acheivement, but that much should be obvious right?
    Each time you open your mouth, your ancestors weep for shame.

  274. @bigWOWO:
    The answer is to troll egalitarians over the interwebs from the safety of my desk, of course.

    bigWOWO, does that mean I can’t say that South Korean men have the smallest penises in the world? Do I have to “get to know them,” inspect each one and calculate the mean, in order to make such a claim?

    @King:
    “What is this the 19th Century?”
    Indeed. But in contrast with that era, we have the mixture of science with politics and suppression of politically inconvenient conclusions.

  275. “The answer is to troll egalitarians over the interwebs from the safety of my desk, of course.”

    Since you refuse to educate yourself about people, I guess that’s all that’s really left to do. I think you’re a logical guy and a smart guy, but when it comes to race, you allow your emotions to take the place of intellectual curiosity. But I thank you for not going the AOR route.

    “bigWOWO, does that mean I can’t say that South Korean men have the smallest penises in the world? Do I have to “get to know them,” inspect each one and calculate the mean, in order to make such a claim? “

    I’d get some data before making such a claim, and not the specious garbage that the HBDers get from God knows where.. But that’s just me.

  276. Dali, I’m sorry but measuring someone’s cranial cavity to determine their level of intelligence is like measuring someone’s garage to figure out how fast their car can go.

  277. “bigWOWO, does that mean I can’t say that South Korean men have the smallest penises in the world? Do I have to “get to know them,” inspect each one and calculate the mean, in order to make such a claim?”

    ROFL!!! You’d love to do that, wouldn’t you? So why the pretense of asking our opinion? :D

  278. “So the answer is to make comments about Eskimos or Africans or Aborigines without bothering to learn about who they really are? Even without even speaking to one? Or learning from racists who have never spent time getting to know these people?”

    We do know that the only notable invention of Aborigines is the boomerang and that they were still hunter-gatherers before Whites came to Australia. Also, Aborigines got 7% of their genes from the Denisova hominin, while I and the rest of you didn’t. Similarly, we got around 5% of our genes from Neanderthals, while Blacks didn’t. The heart drug Enalapril doesn’t work on Blacks and the heart drug Bidil doesn’t work on Whites.

    So, there you go. Proof that we are NOT equal; not on the outside and also definitely not on the inside. Sticking to a belief that all groups of humans are equally intelligent in light of this knowledge is a sure sign of dogmatism and religious (liberal) indoctrination. Any non-indoctrinated person need only look at the sorry state of the Black continent after decolonization, as well as the orderly manner in which the Japanese handled the nuclear crisis, to conclude that HBD is true. Also, HBD predicts a disproportionate amount of crime committed by Blacks, which – sure enough – is what we observe in reality. Asian people are the least likely to engage in violent crime, followed by Whites. Asian people are also disproportionately represented in American universities, despite the Affirmative Action policies which discriminate against the more intelligent races.

  279. “Dali, I’m sorry but measuring someone’s cranial cavity to determine their level of intelligence is like measuring someone’s garage to figure out how fast their car can go.”

    Yet our ancestors, like Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus, had smaller cranial cavities than we do. If intelligence had nothing to do with skull size, than it would serve no evolutionary purpose to have larger skulls, as it would only make childbirth more difficult.

  280. Dali: “bigWOWO, does that mean I can’t say that South Korean men have the smallest penises in the world? Do I have to “get to know them,” inspect each one and calculate the mean, in order to make such a claim?”

    Raguel: ROFL!!! You’d love to do that, wouldn’t you? So why the pretense of asking our opinion?

    Yes, he would. That’s why he brought it up. Just wanted bigWOWO’s validation so that it’s an “intellectual” exercise rather than a personal one. LOL.

  281. Why not? That a policy eliminates a good and productive human being at the recommendation of a dubious and unproven religion should be a good reason not to do it.

    No it doesn’t. For two reasons. First, an HBD policy doesn’t necessary equate to discrimination. It could. It very well could be used to justify a policy that some guy with a come kind of adequate talent, ability, or skills could be deemed inadequate by inspection of skin or some other quality. However, a policy could be applied differently. I recall Michelle Rhee, the resigned superintendent reformer of Washington DC, she caught a lot of flack and praise. Some flack was some accused of her being racist for failure to close the gap (she manage to raise test scores for all races, but the gap between the races remained the same or even greater). Reading that didn’t pleased me.

    The second reason for me, and the more important one, is one of the main rule of statistics. Anecdotal evidence cannot prove a rule (though it can disprove absolutes). Saying something is morally reprehensible (that’s assuming HBD can only be morally reprehensible, I mentioned above that I don’t think the only use is only justification of discrimination) doesn’t mean anecdotal evident is somehow acceptable.

  282. @dreamer

    The only stats that can really work is if we lock up 1000 kids of each race and lock them up in their little cells for 20 years. Give them the same academic stimulations and test them.

    That’s the kind of info that is needed to prove that HBD exists.

  283. @ Jstele,

    Lol, it all makes sense now. Dali was just killing time while waiting for his flight to Korea. XD

    @ N,

    Actually there are many ways for HBD to prove its legitimacy. (Have a look at the questions posed by Byron and King). It’s just sad that HBD cannot even fulfil just one. XD

  284. @ Eugenick:
    “We do know that the only notable invention of Aborigines is the boomerang and that they were still hunter-gatherers before Whites came to Australia.

    Australian Aborigines were almost completely isolated from the rest of the world, in a place without easily domesticable animals and plants. Their culture arose in response to what limited resources they had to work with.

    Asian people are the least likely to engage in violent crime, followed by Whites.

    Yeah, those peaceful Asians, wouldn’t hurt a fly. Genghis Khan, anyone? And who committed the Rape of Nanjing, again?

    If we are talking about crime rates, here’s a factoid from Australia, where I live. the top 6 ethnic groups by rate of serious crime are (in order): Tongans, Samoans, Romanians, Vietnamese, Sudanese and Lebanese. Yet, Kenyans, Filipinos and Greeks, who genetically are very similar to some of those groups, have lower than average rates of serious crime. So you tell me, is that genetics, or sociological factors?

  285. All the anti-egalitarianism rhetoric is a red herring. Even if HBD was true, there is no reason to abandon the moral principles of equal rights for all and so on. Human beings are already unequal in many ways besides biology. Why would HBD force society to abolish egalitarianism? Why would discovering that races are biologically different force our society to adopt eugenics? What is the moral imperative to do so?

  286. Eugenick,

    Thos are all nice statistics/facts, but remember, your burden of proof is to show a causal relationship between genes and intelligence, not simply to describe history or statistics.

    Dreamer:

    “Why not? That a policy eliminates a good and productive human being at the recommendation of a dubious and unproven religion should be a good reason not to do it.

    No it doesn’t. “

    We were talking specifically about the policy in question, that is, the one where HBDers sterilize welfare recipients. Lac’s dad was a welfare recipient. Therefore, it would have eliminated Lac–who is a good and productive human being.

  287. Skimming through the HBDsphere, one finds an internet cesspool of not only bigotry but a lot of depressing, nihilistic, misanthropic bloviating. To be fair, not necessarily the “scientific” people leading it such as Steve Sailer are all pathetic husks, but entries such as these:

    http://lagrandeanse.com/beta/?p=251 – (an apparently emotionally unstable self-proclaimed black beta male hates against his own race during church)

    http://thecoldequations.blogspot.com/2009/11/liberal-hbd.html – an HBD proponent takes a look at “liberals” who believe in HBD and conclude that eugenics, sterilization, and all that nasty stuff is inevitable and necessary.

    I’ve spent too much time watching this stuff from a distance. It was kind of amusing at first in a perverse way, but this is just getting disturbing and sad. What a freak show. Happy Halloween, y’all.

    I think any conclusion that can be made is that whatever possible scientific or policy merit that HBD might have (and I would argue none), their online presence is pretty gross and that (as well as the rank bigotry) will always undermine it as a niche movement. It’s interesting that there seems to be quite a big overlap between HBD, PUA, “Men’s Rights Activism”, and pop evopsych. It’s not hard to imagine that most adherents, at least the bloggers, are self-hating beta geeks escaping to psuedoscience to justify their own inadequacies.

  288. The most prominent HBD bloggers I know are Steve Sailer and Half Sigma. Not those two guys. Though I have heard of the Beta Railfan guy, be aware that he is so negative and other issues that even other HBD and Game (I blogs have become hostile to him. I don’t know if they banned him I found that those blogs rarely ban commentators and it would be hypocritical as they criticizes blogs who do outside of trolling and flaming), but he doesn’t seem to be very active commentating anymore.

    That said, I do notice that HBD and Men’s Rights blogs have an element of negativity and despair. One blogger that I follow (conservative type, though he does believe in HBD) regularly criticized that trend (he calls it “despair porn) and brought it up again just recently http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2011/10/two-commercials-one-good-one-bad.html.

    Though I can agree that their presence do undermine HBD (though I would argue that they may have merit, this doesn’t necessarily mean eugenics).

    I do hope at the very least, that you’re aren’t concluding Men’s Rights as bunk. Of all the movements, I give them the most seriousness as their grievances is most justified. I can’t be hostile to a bunch of guys who want to be there for their kids, but find the law to be hostile to the father. There’s also plenty schisms between the movements, they recognize either other, but have butt heads.

    Like MRA vs PUA: http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/game/chateau-bullshit/

    Or MRA vs I-Don’t-Know-What-This-Blog-Stands-For: http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/10/28/mens-rights-activists-are-spineless-pussies/

    I also believe Game (not necessarily PUAs, but this blogs seems to dance at the line Game and PUA treated separately or together) have merit. As logic does argue that some behaviors should have better results than others. Also from posts like this: http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/whats-your-problem/

    Seriously, though, for guys who are really against PUA and Game altogether. I am really curious of the counter argument against reasoning like rational male’s post.

  289. We were talking specifically about the policy in question, that is, the one where HBDers sterilize welfare recipients. Lac’s dad was a welfare recipient. Therefore, it would have eliminated Lac–who is a good and productive human being.

    Oh, I was just talking about the idea of hypothetical HBD policy which could a wide range. On review, I guess the discussion was something like “sterilization requirement to go on welfare will not hurt fellow Asians as Asians don’t go on welfare.” I kinda doubt that’s the true direction of the idea when he stated that he never met an Asian, but the statement itself is an absolute. So one example is acceptable to disprove that statement.

    Personally, I find that cross too many ethical lines to even reach practical consideration, which would fail based defeating the intended purpose. But an argument can be made that many are abusing it, there still many who used it as it intended, as a safety net. Making the requirement for welfare to be sterilization defeats that purpose.

  290. A Good Day to All.

    It seems a lot has happened here since my absence. I have read through most comments by now, and I wish to reply to several posters and this thread in general.

    [Dreamer:
    I do not condone or encourage to my understanding of Reader’s actions to go after their photo and make fun of her that add nothing to the discussion. ]

    I feel you have misattributed me here. Please reread the comments where that has occurred. I have never insulted or attacked anyone personally over the internet except for one instance, which most certainly did not occur here. Perhaps someone was also using the handle of “Reader” here. I do not know because I was absent for at least a month here. Honestly, I am and will continue to be an infrequent visitor of bigWOWO.com. My favorite site in the AA-sphere was the now defunct MinorityMilitant site.

    [Dali:
    There’s nothing special at all about Apple hardware since they switched to x86, other than the fact that it comes in a nicer looking package. Their OS is basically a modified version of FreeBSD. However, they command a price premium with their clever marketing and you suckers buy it.]

    Exactly! I have tried several Apple computers and am not impressed by them. Linux is better.

    [bigWOWO:
    That’s what I want to know! Why are PCs so horrible at handling podcasts? Freezing, crashing, etc. It ain’t worth it.]

    You should try Linux. Or if you have, why not stick to it? They don’t suffer the typical problems that Windows does and it’s free.

    [HonestObserver:
    To those who believe in HBD?

    What’s your point?]

    Not that I believe in HBD, but my point (and hopefully some HBD proponents’ point) would be the pursuit of knowledge itself.

    To bigWOWO and this thread in general:

    I think you have based your arguments too much on emotional appeal and attacks on the person or persons supporting HBD. I would have preferred if you attacked the ideas of HBD based on its logical merits solely. In my opinion, you have understated the weakest link in the HBD theory which forms the crux of the arguments: currently, there is no “universally” accepted, scientifically rigorous definition of race.
    This fact alone heavily undermines HBD.

    And so, after some ~300 comments later, no one’s position has changed. I would like to end my participation in this topic with a quote. There are more important matters I am interested in than HBD. Interpret however you like.

    “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”

    -Max Planck

  291. The new generation SHITS on HBD, and its proponents will live out sad lives to the end of days.

  292. Though in my defense, if I were Japanese, I probably would’ve chosen a cat avatar and called it bigNYANYA.

  293. Wow, a lot of responses to this thread. I’m not sure why people find HBD so outrageous. Groups were in different geographic and cultural environments for thousands of years, it would be more surprising if they all had identical distributions of traits!

    Mark Snyderman & Stanley Rothman surveyed 661 members from groups like the APA, Behavioural Genetics Association, Cognitive Science Society, on the heritability of cognitive abilities and also whether group differences were entirely environmental. Amongst the 661 returned questionnaires, 14% declined to answer the question, 24% voted that there was insufficient evidence to give an answer, 1% voted that the gap was “due entirely to genetic variation”, 15% voted that it “due entirely to environmental variation” and 45% voted that it was a “product of genetic and environmental variation”. According to Snyderman and Rothman, this contrasts greatly with the coverage of these views as represented in the media, where the reader is led to draw the conclusion that “only a few maverick ‘experts’ support the view that genetic variation plays a significant role in individual or group difference, while the vast majority of experts believe that such differences are purely the result of environmental factors.”

    More recently, it seems that scientists are trying to explain that this wouldn’t be the end of the world. Bruce Lahn & Lanny Ebenstein’s paper in Nature “Let’s Celebrate Human Genetic Diversity” is along these lines (Nature 461, 726-728 (8 October 2009). Princeton bio-ethicist Peter Singer has also written on this topic. Also, Professor Weinberg at MIT in this final lecture for Biology 7.012 in 2004:

    “Whatever ability you want, valued or not so valued, what if those alleles begin to come out? And here’s the worse part. What if somebody begins to look for the frequency of those alleles in different ethnic groups scattered across this planet? Now, you will say to me, well, God has made all his children equal. But the fact is if you look at the details of human evolution, some of which I discussed with you a week ago, last week, you’ll come to realize that most populations in humanity are the modern descendents of very small founder groups.

    … So the fact is it’s inescapable that different alleles are going to be present with different frequencies in different inbreeding populations of humanity or populations of humanity that traditionally have been genetically isolated from one another.

    It’s not as if all the genes that we carry have been mixed with everybody else’s genes freely over the last 100,000 years. Different groups have bred separately and have, for reasons that I’ve told you, founder affects and genetic drift, acquired different sets and different constellations of alleles. So what’s going to happen then, I ask you without wishing to hear an answer because nobody really knows?”

    http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/05/forbidden-thoughts.html

    http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/05/forbidden-thoughts.html

  294. @ Kiwiguy:
    one reason people find HBD so “outrageous” is that its agenda is pretty transparent.

    It’s not so different to the way the Right in the US right now is trying to promote the image of rich people. We are meant to celebrate the super-wealthy as possessed of some sort of special genius which is lacking in the rest of us, who should just be grateful if our wealthy betters allow a bit of their loose change to trickle down upon us.
    The alternative view is that the super wealthy may be smart and have worked hard, but also got a lot of lucky breaks and were in the right place at the right time.

    Likewise, with HBD, its disciples look at the disparity in wealth/success/advancement between ethnicities, and decide that it has nothing to do with luck, and that it is purely down to the sheer awesomeness of certain approved groups of people.

    It is basically an excuse for the haves of this world to fellate their own egos by telling them they are evolutionarily better than the have nots.

  295. People find HBD outrageous because it’s a trojan horse to push eugenics and sterilisation campaigns targeting certain races and the endemic poor.

  296. @ Raguel,

    Even if that were the case, and I don’t believe it is, it wouldn’t have any bearing on whether HBD were correct or not.

  297. Kiwi,

    Nice to meet you (assuming you aren’t one of the same dudes who debated above).

    So…do you believe in HBD? The reason I ask is that the links that you provided, along with your statement that people are different, do not prove or claim to prove the validity of HBD. People are different; yes, we agree. People have different genes; agree there too. Intelligence is partially genetic; yup.

    HBD is when you push it, saying that it IS the case, saying that certain races will never succeed or will succeed less often because they are inferior, while patting yourself on the back for not being born in one of the races that the HBD religion deems inferior. Simply saying it’s possible for people to be genetically different isn’t HBD.

  298. @ Kiwiguy:
    perhaps my point wasn’t clear. HBD is just another way for those who currently have an advantage to convince themselves that it is because they are intrinsically better, rather than lucky.

    HBDers tend to think that “NAMs” are not as successful as Europeans and East Asians because there is something innately inferior about their genes. That certain cultures did not achieve the same level of technological advancement because they are innately less intelligent or whatever. But to do this you have to completely ignore social context, as the Right do when they pretend society is a pure meritocracy.

    Parts of Europe and East Asia developed the most technologically advanced civilisations not because of their genes, but because they were lucky, in terms of available resources and access to the innovations of others. The medieval Japanese and English learned how to make swords, but the Maori and Andamanese didn’t. Is that due to intelligence, or because the Japanese and English happened to live near to other people that made swords?

  299. But you know what?
    Another reason people don’t like HBD is that most HBDers come across as sheer assholes who are looking for a pseudo-intellectual justification for their prejudices against other races. Let’s face it, if your hobby is arguing on the internet that white people are just so much more awesome than brown people, chances are you are probably a fucking jerk. And no nice person wants to be associated with a fucking jerk.

  300. But you know what?
    Another reason people don’t like HBD is that most HBDers come across as sheer assholes who are looking for a pseudo-intellectual justification for their prejudices against other races. Let’s face it, if your hobby is arguing on the internet that white people are just so much more awesome than brown people, chances are you are probably a fucking jerk. And no nice person wants to be associated with a fucking jerk.

    ‘Cause “anti-racists” are the very model of civility. What a laff. Again, you guys get the arrow of causation reversed. I’ve been arguing this stuff for 10 years. I learned real quick not to tiptoe around so-called “anti-racists.” These fuckers lie, slander, obfuscate, play dumb, and pull every other dirty trick they can get their hands on. Ridicule and censorship are their main weapons. I developed a thick skin, increased my tendency not to suffer fools, and stopped worrying about trying to correct their constant straw men (like your stupid “it’s all about proving whites are better than browns” shit).

    I don’t respect you. I don’t respect “anti-racists”. Why should I pretend I do? Do this long enough and you learn to skip the small stuff or you go insane. In short, I don’t care if your feelings are hurt. Your hurt feelings are too similar to a common leftoid tactic for me to worry over them.

  301. “People need to lighten up. HBD is real and it isn’t going away. Trying to deny HBD is like trying to wish gravity away.”

    So HBD is as obvious to you as gravity?

    Man, we gotta bring the scientific method back into our education system!

    Nothing especially egregious about this little bit of typical leftoid slipperiness (or deliberate obtuseness, take your pick), but it’s a great example of why it’s a waste of time arguing with you people (don’t ask me why I’m doing it anyway – maybe I’m in a masochistic frame of mind). Why the need to deliberately misinterpret/distort/rewrite the guy into a straw man? NO, he didn’t say “as obvious,” YOU did. Then you use your straw man as a foundation for your ridicule about the education system, when you’re really just making yourself look like a jackass. Obviously, the guy was just saying that both will exist whether you recognize them as “scientifically sound” or not. But you couldn’t just respond honestly, you had to twist and play games and fill people’s mouths with words they did not say (which constitutes the lion’s share of the woefully ignorant arguments I get from “anti-racists.”).

    But I’m supposed to not be a dick to you people? Get a grip on yourselves.

  302. LMAO! Omg the circus never stops! XD

    “Have fun gnashing your teeth. Ask yourselves, what’s sexier? I.e., what will speak to people? Maverick individualism, critical thinking, and reality, or wishful thinking, PC, and orthodoxy? Just food for thought on the “where are things going from here?” subject.”

    What’s sexier? Writing a long dumb-ass reply and posting a link that nobody here will be bothered to click on? Or arguing this stuff for TEN years?

    “I’ve been arguing this stuff for 10 years.”

    NERD

    “Nothing especially egregious about this little bit of typical leftoid slipperiness…”

    There’s nothing especially egregious about your typical mongoloid butthurt either.

    “I don’t respect you. I don’t respect “anti-racists”. Why should I pretend I do? Do this long enough and you learn to skip the small stuff or you go insane. In short, I don’t care if your feelings are hurt. Your hurt feelings are too similar to a common leftoid tactic for me to worry over them.”

    Of course, of course. “Skipping the small stuff” of course means writing a long, rambling diatribe to something you REALLY REALLY shouldn’t be bothered about, because you have a thick skin and all. Of course you don’t see the glaring contradictions between your words and actions, that’s too similar to the mongoloid condition you probably suffer.

  303. Svigor:

    “Why the need to deliberately misinterpret/distort/rewrite the guy into a straw man? NO, he didn’t say “as obvious,” YOU did.”

    That ain’t no strawman, dude! Why do you think it’s a strawman? It’s exactly what he said, comparing the truth of gravity to the unproven and unsubstantiated HBD. If I have something totally scientifically unproven, and I compare it to the obvious truth of gravity, I’m taking a leap into space with nothing supporting my argument. It’s not a strawman–that’s what he said.

    Here’s an article that’s going to piss you off and make you scream “exceptions! exceptions!” until your HBD voice gets raspy. Three black boys under the age of 14 have attained “Master” level in chess. Have you seen Searching for Bobby Fischer? Waitzkin was also “Master” level, which gives you an idea of how high that is. These kids could kick the shit out of most people in chess while wearing a blindfold and calling out moves.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/crosswords/chess/chess-three-young-african-americans-earn-recognition-as-masters.html?_r=2&src=tp&smid=fb-share

  304. This is from my experience but the first time I truly heard about HBD was from this one guy who I went to high school with and connected with 10 years later. He was saying how different races were smarter genetically ,etc and all the other poppycock. Well this guy is one guy to talk, he had no steady job. Living off his older, overweight girlfriend who had a kid from a previous relationship, and is as lazy and unmotivated in his life as he was in high school. I really believe some HBD followers follow because they need something to make them feel better about themselves since their life is such garbage due to their own actions like in this case, laziness. It took me a couple months hanging around this guy to realize why I stopped hanging out with him in high school. People like that are a drag to hang out with.

  305. @ Svigor:

    …stopped worrying about trying to correct their constant straw men (like your stupid “it’s all about proving whites are better than browns” shit).

    Straw man? You should read some HBD blogs sometime.

    In fact, even better: read your own. To quote from the post that you linked:

    Looking for the same thing in black men is a total waste of time, in my experience. Asians would do well to understand this fact, assuming they do have the “honesty gene” or whatever. (If you want something more rigorous, look into the intersection of sociopathy and race; sociopaths don’t give a fig for honesty or truth – words are weapons. And blacks are more sociopathic than whites or yellows. The kind of honesty and truth-seeking you get with HBD-ers is exceptional for whites and yellows, and practically non-existent in blacks.

    To paraphrase Rick Perry on your behalf: “Oops”.

  306. Hahaha! what a clod Svigor is…

    “And blacks are more sociopathic than whites or yellows. The kind of honesty and truth-seeking you get with HBD-ers is exceptional for whites and yellows, and practically non-existent in blacks.”

    Geez, what history book has this dimwit been reading?

  307. That ain’t no strawman, dude! Why do you think it’s a strawman? It’s exactly what he said, comparing the truth of gravity to the unproven and unsubstantiated HBD.

    Wow, so you’re actually the world’s dumbest Asian then?

    King, if I wanted to say anything interesting about you, I’d have to consult people who know you. They have a chance in hell of assessing you with a shred of honesty. First question I’d ask: “have you ever, in your life, observed “King” making an apology that sounded genuine?”

    Personally, despite growing up around blacks and long experience with them, I’ve yet to observe that particular, still-theoretical event. Protip: next time you hear a black man apologizing, listen to the tone, as well as the words, and ask yourself: 1) did he just apologize, or say “fuck you” with “sorry” somewhere in the title? As in, “oh, I’m sorry if I offended you” in that way that really means, “fuck you, I ain’t sorry for shit”. 2) Did he just apologize, or say “goddamn, I’m so great I really don’t ever have to apologize for anything”? As in, “sorry, but you,” or, “sorry, but I,” etc.

    Just food for thought.

    But talking to you about your race’s faults? Total waste of time.

    To anyone else who ad-hommed me: no, I didn’t miss the fact that all you got is ad hom. Lol. Must be frustrating, being on the losing end of an argument by choice (even if someone else made it; hell, especially if someone else made it).

  308. Svigor,

    “Wow, so you’re actually the world’s dumbest Asian then?”

    I hope not. Because if I am, it means that the world’s dumbest person of specific race understands the concept of “strawman” better than you do. Are you, as the Asian HBD’ers like to say, going to “accept it?” I see these Asian HBDers bowing down so much, that I’d like some reciprocity, y’ know what I’m saying?

    “next time you hear a black man apologizing, listen to the tone, as well as the words, and ask yourself: 1) did he just apologize, or say “fuck you” with “sorry” somewhere in the title?”

    King, I don’t know what people of your race did to this man to make him so angry and bitter, but I think you owe him an apology– a black man’s “fuck you” apology.

  309. @ BigWowo:

    You should thank Svigor, he’s actually done us a favor. We can write paragraph on paragraph on the odd mentality of HBDers, but Svigor’s comments directed at King encapsulate that mentality brilliantly.

    I mean, you and I have been interacting with King for a while now on this and other blogs, and I personally find him to be one of the sharpest and “realest” commenters around. But Svigor, having been here for all of 2 seconds, is far better placed to diagnose King with chronic dishonesty and sociopathy, which is apparently a given because King is black. Somehow we overlooked that all this time. Fortunately we have Svigor’s brilliant white mind to point out how inferior King is, otherwise we would never have noticed.

  310. Haha!

    Well you know, I was thinking about how Asian HBDers, despite some of their lack of emotional control, still manage to be somewhat cogent. You can tell they have high IQs. They acknowledge that African Americans have written great works of literature, and they can acknowledge that there are great black scientists.

    But man, this dude Svigor is just out of control. I mean really, look at what he wrote:

    “On a serious note, I’ve never had anything of use come out of a discussion with a black man. They basically don’t give a shit about truth for it’s own sake. EVERYTHING comes down to the personal for them, and whether they win or lose. E.g., I can admit that people of northeast Asian descent have about 5 points in mean IQ on people of northwest European descent, basically because like a lot of white guys, I have an inherent disposition toward honesty.”

    I’ve got a solution for him right now. He can talk to any of those three 13 year old black kids while playing chess. I can guarantee that these kids won’t take it personally when they administer what Quinton Jackson calls “whoopin’ yo’ ass.”

  311. Obvious trolling is obvious. Nobody responds to comments OBVIOUSLY calculated to get you a BIG response. Move on…. you have failed.

  312. For any of you claiming a lack of evidence of a correlation between genetics, race, and IQ, I suggest you do a little reading: http://www.v-weiss.de/C2orf16.pdf

    @Kiwiguy:
    “I’m not sure why people find HBD so outrageous.”
    The idea that not all men are created equal clashes with the egalitarian belief system.

    Clearly there has been a lot of outright hostility against HBD proponents, and Kiwiguy probably doesn’t want to come out as an HBD proponent out of fear.

    bigWOWO has succeeded in his attempt to provoke, while having a circlejerk of egalitarian commenters contribute nothing but ad hominems and fallacies targetted at dissenters. Successful troll is successful.

  313. “For any of you claiming a lack of evidence of a correlation between genetics, race, and IQ”

    I guess you don’t know the difference between correlation and causation.

  314. “The idea that not all men are created equal clashes with the egalitarian belief system.”

    The egalitarian belief system, in turn, clashes with the “my people are better than black people” belief system, which has also had some historical popularity.

  315. The Mankind Quarterly. Never heard of it, but wow.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mankind_Quarterly

    “During the “Bell Curve wars” of the 1990s, the journal received attention when opponents of The Bell Curve publicized the fact that some of the works cited by Bell Curve authors Herrnstein and Murray had first been published in Mankind Quarterly.[9] In the New York Review of Books, Charles Lane referred to The Bell Curve’s “tainted sources,” noting that seventeen researchers cited in the book’s bibliography had contributed articles to, and ten of these seventeen had also been editors of, Mankind Quarterly, “a notorious journal of ‘racial history’ founded, and funded, by men who believe in the genetic superiority of the white race.”[10]“

    In any case, Mr. Volmar (from Dali’s link) acknowledges that he hasn’t proven anything related to causation. There’s always a catch!

    “If it could be confirmed that C2orf16 I774V is the major
    gene locus of IQ, it would be a major breakthrough. And if
    not, this paper remains an example of the possibilities of
    data mining, which in the future could be applied to copy
    number variations and the genetics of microRNA, on which
    population data are entirely lacking in the current databases
    which still contain a lot of deficiencies, inconsistencies and
    simply errors.”

    In any case, it’s better than the method used by other HBD proponents (whose names we won’t mention), which is to link something that has NOTHING to do with genes and then claim that HBD is real.

  316. “Here is the study’s abstract.

    Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic
    G Davies, A Tenesa, A Payton, J Yang, S E Harris, D Liewald, X Ke, S Le Hellard, A Christoforou, M Luciano, K McGhee, L Lopez, A J Gow, J Corley, P Redmond, H C Fox, P Haggarty, L J Whalley, G McNeill, M E Goddard, T Espeseth, A J Lundervold, I Reinvang, A Pickles, V M Steen, W Ollier, D J Porteous, M Horan, J M Starr, N Pendleton, P M Visscher and I J Deary

    Abstract
    General intelligence is an important human quantitative trait that accounts for much of the variation in diverse cognitive abilities. Individual differences in intelligence are strongly associated with many important life outcomes, including educational and occupational attainments, income, health and lifespan. Data from twin and family studies are consistent with a high heritability of intelligence, but this inference has been controversial. We conducted a genome-wide analysis of 3511 unrelated adults with data on 549 692 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and detailed phenotypes on cognitive traits. We estimate that 40% of the variation in crystallized-type intelligence and 51% of the variation in fluid-type intelligence between individuals is accounted for by linkage disequilibrium between genotyped common SNP markers and unknown causal variants. These estimates provide lower bounds for the narrow-sense heritability of the traits. We partitioned genetic variation on individual chromosomes and found that, on average, longer chromosomes explain more variation. Finally, using just SNP data we predicted ~1% of the variance of crystallized and fluid cognitive phenotypes in an independent sample (P=0.009 and 0.028, respectively). Our results unequivocally confirm that a substantial proportion of individual differences in human intelligence is due to genetic variation, and are consistent with many genes of small effects underlying the additive genetic influences on intelligence.”

  317. Federally funded gene therapy is the ONLY way to really help close the gap in intelligence that exists between Asians/White on the high end and Blacks on the low.

  318. I’m not going to. They will just have the option to do so so if they choose to. It would only be fair. If a parent knows his child will have one or two genetic strikes against him/her I think a parent would seriously consider it. Some children are born with intellects like a VW Beetle, some come with a Porche. If there was multi-generational low-achievement within my own family I would seriously consider giving my children an edge (if I had them).

  319. ^
    You react with emotion & you insult me by calling me a “clown.” How mature, original and sophisticated of you! Since you have invited name calling, you are surely a fool. Did you even read what I wrote? Not once did I talk about euthanizing (which you misspelled by the way). I talked about gene therapy. It would help equalize outcomes, and would benefit the poor more than anyone else. I’m not above saying that I would not mind if my IQ was higher, as a higher IQ would be beneficial to anyone.

  320. Listen, Gollum. I know what you are. You’re a liar. In one of your other posts, you said you were black after making some racially provocative remarks. But black people don’t talk like you do. Only bored white nerds do. You will be here for years just like that other white nerd Siegfried. You don’t have a future, so all you do is try to exist.

    Nothing you say bothers me, nothing you say makes me care. I merely step on you as systematically as I would on an ant, because ants, what they need is to be stepped on.

  321. ^
    You are wrong on many accounts and continue to react with affect — how predictable. And you have chosen to attack the person rather than engage the person (e.g. “You don’t have a future, so all you do is try to exist.” (WTH?)).

    I’m pretty sure the comment section of this blog is supposed to be geared towards constructive dialogue (e.g. in the spirit if Hodler’s comment “let’s have a conversation about race”), but you have decided to engage in petty name-calling and other childish behaviors.

  322. You have nothing to contribute towards any dialogue, Gollum. Your sole motivation is to get attention. Were you neglected as a child? How do you like the attention now?

  323. Let’s get back to topic.

    There’s loads and loads of people that think black people are not ‘smart’ enough to play quarterback. It that science or an idiotic assumption?

  324. It’s not “science” nor necessarily an “idiotic assumption,” to use your language; that presents a false dichotomy, actually.

    The NFL uses an IQ test when it looks to recruit new players. It is called the Wonderlic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonderlic_Test

    A Wonderlic score of 20 is used to indicate average intelligence. The average Wonderlic score for Quarterbacks is 24 and most teams want a least a 21 for this particular position. Roughly 16% of USA Blacks score above 100 on an IQ test (Wonderlic score of 20). However we are dealing with a biased sample when we examine Blacks drafted out of college since we are dealing with a group that is not representative of the general population and therefore their IQ standard deviation gap between them and Asians, Whites, & Hispanics will be comparatively narrower.

    But to answer your question more succinctly many Blacks are capable of being quarterback based on their respective cognition. However a smaller percentage of Blacks score over 21 compared to members of other racial groups. I hope this provides the clarity you are seeking. Thanks for not being a troll like Raguel, by the way.

  325. I am just curious, how old are you N? I am guessing you are in your early teen years (no offense if you are not).

  326. Well, first you have to know how to read an abstract, and know what an abstract is:

    An abstract is a shortened version of the paper and should contain all information necessary for the reader to determine:
    (1) what the objectives of the study were;
    (2) how the study was done;
    (3) what results were obtained;
    (4) the significance of the results.

    An abstract is NOT PROOF OF ANYTHING. If a scientist were to posit that the moon was made of bleu cheese, there would be an abstract for the study that you could find on the internet. However, the existence of that abstract would not prove the cheese theory, if would simply explain why the scientist believed that the moon was made of cheese, and how he had gone about substantiating it. There may well be 1000 abstracts to 1 that say that the moon is NOT made out of cheese. People who attempt to use minority opinion abstracts as a proof of anything are dummies, and are themselves teetering on the edge of the shallow end of the intellectual gene pool.

    Secondly, even if the conclusions of this particular paper represented the universal and unassailable truth on this issue, you would still have to understand what the study is saying. The fact that a portion of intelligence can be inherited does NOT mean that higher intelligence is segregated between certain races. Smart Asian people may inherit SOME of their intelligence from their parents. Smart White people may inherit SOME of their intelligence from their parents. Smart Black people may inherit SOME of their intelligence from their parents. But that has NOTHING to do with the idea that entire races inherit superior or inferior intelligence based on some vague notion of race.

  327. It fascinates me how often HBDers don’t research their own sources and miss the obvious. I guess, if you want to believe something badly enough, a little thing like the truth isn’t likely to deter you.

  328. Pingback: Civilization: The West and the Rest by Niall Ferguson (Review) | bigWOWO

  329. @King

    I was actually waiting for a comeback from him, then I’m about to list the Black QBs that are participating in this year’s college bowls.

  330. N:

    You are arguing that Blacks can be quarterback and that the Wonderlic is “useless,” if I am correct. I agree with the former while disagree with the latter. True, there is debate over its usefulness however the general consensus among the NFL community is that it has predictive power; hence, that is why it has been used for decades.

    Low-IQ people can be successful in the quarterback position (e.g. Marino) but all else being equal it is a disadvantage; analogously, a man who is only 5′ 9” might be able to be successful as a QB but all else being equal will tend to be at a disadvantage to the man who is 6′ 2.”

    The average QB in the NFL has an IQ of 108 with most teams wanting an IQ of 102 for this position, which is very modest. The relative proportion of big strong low body fat Black males with a lot of fast-twitch muscles ensure many will be well-suited for the position of QB despite their tendency to perform worse on the Wonderlic compared to test-takers of different racial ancestral origin.

  331. N:

    You may be asking yourself, “why do Asians perform so much better on tests of intelligence when compared to other groups?” The primary reason of course is that racial groups have taken different evolutionary paths which have facilitated differences.

    In BigWOWO’s post “How Asians Age”( http://www.bigwowo.com/2011/01/how-asians-age/ ) for example, he suggests that evolution may explain why Asian women age slower than women of other racial origins. Evolution triggered a vast array of other differences too, including those under the skin.

  332. “You may be asking yourself, “why do Asians perform so much better on tests of intelligence when compared to other groups?” The primary reason of course is that racial groups have taken different evolutionary paths which have facilitated differences.”

    How about “They study harder and more often.”

  333. why does bigWOWO still allow this albino eugenics chimp asian of reason aka fun9876 to post on here? feed the troll, much?

  334. “trolldetector,”

    So answering someone’s question honestly somehow makes me a troll?

    You imbecil.

    It is you who are the troll, contrary to your handle.

  335. If the only kick you get out being on here is getting a rise out of asians who want to discuss their own issues online by bringing up white eugenics theorys and white superiority disguised as fact that just sums up what a sad neglected existance you have.

    Noone gives a shit about your crap on here, thats why you are always ignored. but like the spoilt little privileged white boy who deludedly thinks he can outsmart minorities with his redundant crap doesnt want to give up.

    Dont take this personally, but thats really fucking sad.

  336. ^
    I have never specified my racial ancestry so it is you who are making assumptions, my son.

  337. @ Fun9876:

    So in order to clear up any future misunderstandings, why not just specify it now? Most regular commenters on here are pretty clear about their ancestry. No need for the “maybe I am, maybe I’m not” games.

    Of course, you are welcome to choose not to, but that just adds fuel to the allegation that you are merely trolling to get a rise out of Asian people here.

  338. I cosign on what Eurasian said. It would be that much easier just to disclose. By disclosing what you are, you still wouldn’t be disclosing who you are, so it should be no big deal.

  339. Ok, ok guys, I’ll disclose. I am a single lesbian Black mother from a poor background. And no, I am not a rice chaser, cracker, albino eugenics chimp, white nerd, Gollum, nor many of the other pleasant names I have been called. :-)

  340. Don’t believe it. Sorry. And it definitely adds fuel to the allegation that you’re a troll.

    Try again?

  341. I think AOR tried something like that once, claiming to be a black female lesbian, just to show how funny he is. Most people here prefer not to waste their time, and most people don’t find it funny.

  342. Don’t know if you saw this, but lying about who/what you are is considered despicable.

    http://www.bigwowo.com/2011/01/david-duke-and-dukian-doppelgangers/

    Even if you’re joking, it’s terrible. Especially when you’re using a fake identity to push a disgusting racist religion like Human Biodiversity. You really need to think long and hard about your writings and how they affect people who read them. People come here to learn or to make friends. They don’t come here to get insulted by people pretending to be others.

    There are LOTS of other sites where you can do this. Half Sigma even advised people to use sock puppets. Maybe you could go there. They might be looking for someone claiming to be a black lesbian HBD fan. But not here, man.

  343. ^
    BWW: The above post is the ONLY time in which I misrepresented my race ever on this blog. It was not lying because it was obvious that it was just in jest.

    I prefer to be racially ambiguous okay? As it is I have been subjected to slurs and I don’t want to encourage that sort of behavior. And I want my comments to be viewed through the paradigm of ideas versus who I am.

  344. Fun just revealed his race/profile!
    All you need to do is look at the exact opposite of what he claimed to be.

    White, male, single and from a privileged family.

  345. In response to King who posted over on this thread:

    http://www.bigwowo.com/2011/12/finally-a-community-victory/

    Contrary to King’s assertion at the above thread people with the most genetic diversity are not necessarily the most genetically fit; moreover it not a signifier of being backwards in evolutionary terms, another one of his assertions.

    To the contrary genetic archaeology shows that as people have evolved we have had the tendency to become genetically LESS diverse; so, evolution within humans has had a tendency to decrease genetic diversity within population subgroups.

    We know that modern people have evolved from Bushmen. They are actually considered to be among the most genetically diverse peoples on the earth, having some of the earliest forms of Y-chromosome haplogroups, for example. 60,000 years ago we all basically looked like Bushmen. Pretty interesting, huh?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1364074/Modern-man-evolved-southern-African-bushmen.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmen#Genetic_studies

    In addition to hybrid vigor there is also something called within-group vigor. Within mammals, for example dogs, if we were to mate a greyhound with a poodle and compare its offspring with the offspring of two greyhounds, which would tend to be faster? What are we selecting for? Speed or something else? What we typically see in these cases is an “averaging effect” where the resultant offspring are midway between the two parents. And sometimes there can be a negative net loss with when a hybrid is produced depending on the genetic traits of the parents; again, it depends on what traits are being selected for and what is deemed germane.

    As to hybrid vigor I see no evidence to it conveying a benefit compared to within-group vigor, for example, compared the results of Chinese and Chinese pairings, Brit and Brit, Japanese and Japanese, etc., and this is because these ethnic groups tend to not be exceedingly genetically homogeneous.

    On the other hand hybrid vigor can be an advantage IF it is compared to a pairing where two people are very closely related (e.g. first cousins). The Ashkenazim tend to be among the most closely-related groups out there (fairly inbred) and because of this certain pairings can result in offspring that can have debilitating genetic diseases like tay sachs. For this reason Ashkenazim often have themselves genetically tested before marrying one another. But even within the Ashkenazim most would not be considered exceedingly closely related to the point where marrying one another would be disadvantageous relative to marrying someone from another group; again, it depends on what traits are taken into consideration and this is subjective.

    If we were to compare the resultant offspring of an Asian woman who had a child with a Black man, for example, we would typically see the “averaging effect” where the resultant offspring would have traits of both parents. However certain alleles are considered dominate, for example tightly coiled hair. Using the example of the Asian woman and the Black man the child would likely have tightly coiled hair and not something half-way in-between (e.g. wavy). (Not hatin’ on coiled hair just sayin,’ using it as an example.) Yao Ming is an interesting product of this “averaging effect.” Both of his parents were very very tall and very talented basketball players and just look at what they produced — no surprise, really. The odds that they would produce a short nonathletic man would seem exceedingly low.

    I am not so sure that the genetically diverse Bushmen, most of which have had no contact with outsiders, are any more genetically fit than say the Ashkenazi, Japanese, Brits, or Chinese for that matter, who are more closely related to one another.

  346. America just got fucked in the ass by its senators a few days ago and now I don’t even have the inclination to shit on a fucking clown like you. Compared to the broader and more critical issues you’re just a slow, retarded gnat who will lose its one chance at life for the sin of being too slow and dumb to avoid the hand that naturally slaps it into paste.

    Before I relegate you to a footnote in a distant memory though, please allow me to complete my understanding of who you are. How is it that you are able to go on and on about all this nonsense even when something major has occurred? Do you live a sheltered life with little human interaction and where all your basic needs are automatically provided for? Do you sleepwalk through this world deaf, dumb and blind to everything but your own pet theories that so many people have already left behind or moved on from? Are you autistic?

    Help me to understand, Fun9876. Don’t worry, although I am judgemental you can tell me anything. I can read between the lines of what you tell me and although I’m no saint I can accept what you really are.

  347. Actually you have another option, Fun. If your mental depravities and perversions are too private to talk about you also have the option of SHUT THE FUCK UP.

    We’ve got bigger things to worry about. You’ll be unmolested on your way out.

  348. Stop trolling Raguel.

    If you don’t want to talk about HBD don’t post here. Your mind is devoid of rational thought; you are not capable of holding a mature conversation. Go post on some other thread you reprehensible creature.

  349. Hey fun9876 I found a thread for you to troll on

    http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/23/20-being-an-expert-on-your-culture/

    ‘White people can also take passing interest in film, politics, music or art from these countries. When they actually meet someone from that country, or at least who has parents from that country they cannot wait to engage you in all the details that they have learned.

    “Have you heard the new Andy Lau CD? It’s awesome!”

    It is imperative that you recognize how special and unique this white person is for knowing about your culture. Acceptable responses include “Wow, I’ve never seen a white person order chicken feet,” or “How did you find about that film? I didn’t think they had dubbed it yet.”

    These responses will fill white people with that self satisfaction they need. Also, they consider a reminder that they are not racist, which also makes them feel terrific.’

    haha

  350. I think some of the HBD stuff is over the top when it comes to dating and such, but most of the material discussed by people like Steve Sailer is pretty solid. Why wouldn’t we expect genes to play a role in human behavior? Around half of personality and perhaps 80% of IQ is determined by genes, so if you think in terms of population genetics, of course human populations may vary, in aggregate, in these dimensions.

    It’s a mistake to rule out, a priori, the possibility of HBD. Dogs vary, why not humans? Now, as to the “alpha male”, “beta male” stuff, I think it’s a bit overdone, especially when it comes to race. Most people date and marry within their own race. And if you are a “beta” (and I guess most of us are), then it sucks whether you have other races around or not.

  351. Sorry about the delay in responding, but things got uncharacteristically busy at the office toward the end of the year. I almost always have enough time to nake brief responses and comments, but if things are busy, I sometimes am delayed at making longer responses to more complex arguments:

    “Contrary to King’s assertion at the above thread people with the most genetic diversity are not necessarily the most genetically fit; moreover it not a signifier of being backwards in evolutionary terms, another one of his assertions.”

    My statement was not that individuals were necessarily the most genetically fit. That would be incorrect, because nothing is 100% and there may be other mitigating factors. However, all things being equal, people who have greater genetic diversity tend to be statistically MUCH MORE fit (in the evolutionary sense of the word) than persons with a less diverse genetic exposure. That is not an OPINION, that can be confirmed by anyone reading almost any source, from Wikipedia to the Encyclopedia of Genetics, by Sydney Brenner, and any other authoritative source in between.

    “To the contrary genetic archaeology shows that as people have evolved we have had the tendency to become genetically LESS diverse; so, evolution within humans has had a tendency to decrease genetic diversity within population subgroups.”

    Again, untrue. Genetic archeology has shown that as certain population groups have migrated and become more isolated that they have naturally become less genetically diverse, due to a lack of access to a larger cross-section of the human gene pool. The incorrect assumption by Fun9876 is that since 1) time is passing, and if 2) human are accumulating knowledge and developing technology that “Evolution” must be occurring. This supposition is patently false.

    For a simple example, the progress made in computer technology since the 1050s to 2012 is not the result of evolution any more than the newest Playstation is an example of evolution over the older Xbox. These are examples of advances in cumulative technical knowledge and ingenuity, but not in an evolutionary genetic alteration in the human brain that allows for these advances. The same is true of architecture, animal husbandry, and agriculture. None of the advances that we have seen in the past few millennia have been an indication of genetic evolution.

    You see, people like Fun9876 have almost no idea what evolution actually is. They think that evolution is a magical improvement elixir that just makes things get better and better, in the main. They believe that evolution is like a benevolent grandfather, who actually WANTS things to improve, and works to make sure that they do… sure, certain kinds of people will fall behind (Blacks and Mexicans), but surely man will just get better and better forever! He has no idea that evolution could care less and that man (or any other species) could just as easily devolve as evolve. In fact, that is much more likely.

    But then… not to get too far afield. Suffice it to say that as people have become less diverse, they have NOT evolved genetically—as Fun9876 blindly assumes—they have just continued to build on past human achievements.

    “We know that modern people have evolved from Bushmen.”

    There is not 1 in 10,000 geneticists who believes that the Bushmen are a lower form of human that modern people have “evolved from.” However, it can be correctly said that geneticists confirm the diaspora of modern humans have descended from the Africans, who are no lower on the evolutionary scale than are Anglo Saxons or Han Chinese.

    In addition to hybrid vigor, yada yada, yada

    Hybrid vigor is a term that simply describes that sometimes, when taking two breeds together as a hybrid that there is an improvement in the offspring. This is decidedly NOT THE SAME THING as talking about the principle of broad genetic diversity as a benefit against diseases and genetic disorders. Hybrid vigor is what they call it only when it works out, but it doesn’t aways work that way. On the other hand, genetic diversity *within the single human breed* is a proven benefit against diseases and defects– in other words, “fitness.”

  352. @king

    I think the first part is leaning on dangerous territory. Like you said before, humans are almost genetically identical, while different breeds of dogs are much more different. While cross breeding in dogs ‘may’ lead to dogs that are more adaptable to the world in terms of survival, I will suggest that the same applying on humans cannot be validated.

    Let’s not give HBD more credit than it deserves. Policies based on giving power to the people with superior ‘genetics’ had been tried and failed – that’s what the class and caste systems are, the assumption that nobles will continue to breed nobles and they should rule over the inferior. Hasn’t really worked out in modern times, has it?

  353. Oh no, N—I’m totally in agreement with you. Genetic diversity doesn’t make you any smarter or better, it just makes you more resistant to diseases and disorders. That is all that I meant by “fitness.”

  354. Pingback: Selfish Reasons To Have More Kids by Bryan Caplan (Review) | bigWOWO

  355. Here’s an interesting suggestion coming out of MIT:

    Connectome by Sebastian Seung
    http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/connectome-sebastian-seung/1100273446?r=1&ean=9780547508184&cm_em=naru_hodo@yahoo.com&cm_mmc=Other-_-Merch-_-120208_MI01_BOOKSELLERS_GUIDE-_-b4ppbk

    “Sebastian Seung, a dynamic young professor at MIT, is at the forefront of a revolution in neuroscience. He believes that our identity lies not in our genes, but in the connections between our brain cells—our own particular wiring. Seung and a dedicated group of researchers are leading the effort to map these connections, neuron by neuron, synapse by synapse. It is a monumental effort—the scientific equivalent of climbing Mount Everest—but if they succeed, they will uncover the basis of personality, identity, intelligence, memory, and perhaps disorders such as autism and schizophrenia. Seung explains how this new map of a human “connectome” might even enable us to “upload” our brains into a computer, making us effectively immortal.”

    Hey, we may be able to upload Siggy and make him immortal.

  356. Not only could he be uploaded, but he could be shared across the cloud. Now that would be a virus!

  357. From the Broke Girl thread. Feel free to continue.

    http://www.bigwowo.com/2012/02/1-broke-girl-and-one-asian-web-master/#comment-21016

    “Hitler” wrote:

    “Look, man, I’m not “HBD.” Let me tell you the truth about “HBD:”

    HBD is an ideology that is in the same category as Neoconservatism, by which I mean it is an ideology used by Zionists to assert Jewish supremacy. Before you accuse me of being an just a crude anti-Semite (lol), let me explain what I mean. Neoconservatism was a doctrine of “Western” supremacy promoted by people with names like Wolfowitz and Perle. It sought to expand supposedly “Western” institutions—like liberal democracy, etc.—across the world, most famously in Iraq and Middle East. It justified a promotion of Israel’s interests in the name of defending a bulwark of “Western civilization” in the Middle East. It sought to usher in a new era of supposedly “Western” values—Christian/Jewish values—across the world. But it was always “Western,” “Universal” values that they espoused, never “White” or “European” values. These people, you see, weren’t racist. Or at least that’s what they wanted you to think.

    Now, think about what the difference is between White/European values and “Western” values? It is this: Jews were historically excluded from the former, but have enmeshed themselves in the latter. Before recently, Jews were always considered an alien presence in European life, an enclave of “Oriental” (i.e. Middle Eastern) people living among the Europeans. It is only recently that the mainstream has embraced them as the twin pillars, along with the Greeks, of Western Civilization—thanks, in no small part, to self-promotion by Zionists.

    So, what does this have to do with HBD? Simple: HBD is an ideology that was, if not created, certainly promoted by Jews who were excluded from White Nationalism. Just like how Neoconservatism, by promoting supposedly “Greco-Jewish Western Civilization,” was an attempt to become accepted as a part of the European society that always rejected them. Have you noticed the disproportionate number of Jews who are into this HBD thing? HBD was a chance to be accepted as part of the White Race, and to have their chance at dumping on Blacks, Mestizos, and (occasionally) Asiatics without the guilt of being on the same side of, supposedly, big, bad, anti-Semitic White Nationalists who instigated the Holocaust, etc. etc. Better yet (for the Zionists), they get to claim to have the highest IQ in the world, the main contributor to European science, etc. In short, HBD is Jewish supremacy, and calling me an HBD is just laughable.

  358. And also, if you click on the link Funderwall posted, it shows nothing about earning gap disappearing.

    We should just ban Steve Hsu linking. He’s got so many HBD fan boys who can’t seem to understand his posts.

  359. ^
    *Ahem.*

    Take a closer reading, Boy Genius. I quote Professor Steve Hsu: “IIRC (from some earlier work), controlling for IQ (AFQT score) in this dataset (NLSY) eliminates almost all the earnings differential between blacks and whites.”

    Ant notwithstanding your insipid & specious remark if you peruse the comments you will run across this link by Professor Satoshi Kanazawa which addresses the myth of racial discrimination in pay in the USA:

    http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/MDE2005.pdf

  360. And to quote Kanazawa’s executive summary:

    “The analyses of the General Social Survey data from 1974 to 2000 replicate earlier findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth that racial disparity in earnings disappears once cognitive ability is controlled for. The results are robust across many alternative specifications, and further show that blacks receive significantly greater returns to their cognitive ability than nonblacks. The trend data show that there was no sign of racial discrimination in the United States as early as 1970s. The analyses call into question the necessity of and justification for preferential treatment of ethnic minorities.”

  361. Haha…I like this comment from the comment section:

    “Is there any system that discourages obsessive white nationalists/neo-Nazis from infesting every single Steve Hsu thread on affirmative action here? I’m guessing probably not…”

  362. @ King,

    There’s nothing wrong with Kanazawa other than that he broke some taboos and highly vocal groups got upset. It seems to me that this link supports provides support to his stance:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/black-women-heavier-and-happier-with-their-bodies-than-white-women-poll-finds/2012/02/22/gIQAPmcHeR_story.html

    @ littleWOWO,

    That’s a red herring, & actually incorrect, too. But to go back to my earlier point, it really is amazing that these earning gaps virtually vanish once IQ is controlled for.

  363. ^^ He is utterly ridiculous

    You really should go here:

    http://www.bigwowo.com/2011/05/satoshi-kanazawa-says-black-women-less-physically-attractive-than-other-women/

    Article: Oh come on!! Geez, everyone knows that Black women are heavier than White women in the U,S. It’s diet/culturally related but has nothing to do with genetic beauty. African-Americans males, by and large, are more accepting of (and even often prefer) women with more generous proportions.

    http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l84ywznVcA1qcs2woo1_500.jpg

    http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l89oab2Op21qzq16eo1_400.jpg

    http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg42/scaled.php?server=42&filename=491d3bb90149c.jpg&res=medium

    But in the end, beauty and body shape are not the same thing. YES, some are truly obese and that is generally not culturally preferred. But even when they are not, many African-American women will be curvier and heavier than their White American counterparts. That is all that the survey indicates.

  364. LOL. :)

    BTW, Funderoo, I did reopen that Kanazawa thread. So once again, you can comment there if you’ve got strong feelings about the subject. But do read through the comments. You can see that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and beholders have different tastes.

  365. These are very nice pictures…. I can’t stop thinking about impregnating these women. +_+’

  366. ^ I don’t think that Wonder, Hitler, Fun, or Satoshi Kanazawa would approve!!!!!

  367. A brilliant example of doublethink in use in the article, by the way.

    From the Guardian UK: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/mar/14/human-engineering-climate-change-philosophy?newsfeed=true

    From the advocates own mouth, the purpose of the paper and articles was to put out the ideas about genetic modification and use of mind control drugs on the population in order to achieve specific aims. They want to break the “taboo” on such discussion.

    I’m sure the ideas are only for discussion, ROFL.

  368. Proponents of HBD are of the same camp as “investigators” of the so called “Bastard studies” where race bigots including Eugen Fischer, Rita Hauschild, and Yun-kuei Tao were divided the globe into research sectors to study interracial relationships. It’s disgusting that an Asian would be party to such garbage.

    Interestingly, during the mid to late 20th century there was very little interest in Asian female/white male pairings. In fact, popular media even featured several instances of Asian female/black male couples on TV e.g. Night Court and a sit com named ER. In the late 1990s there became a greater interest in white male/Asian female pairings. After 2008 where a man of black and white heritage (with a sister sister who was of Asian and white heritage) was elected to the US presidency, Asian female/black male pairings were immediately and aggressively covered up in the media.

    I bring this up because as AF/WM became popularized in the media (late 1990s to present), Asian male/white female pairings were not given the same media attention.

    All of this is that the eugenics movement uncovered something after the human genome was mapped – something which unsettled and upset them to the point that they did a 180 degree turn from the anti-miscegenation that was common to eugenics in the late 19th century up through the mid 20th century – especially with regard to intermarriage with whites and any non white race – to what you see now which is the aggressive promotion of Asian female/white male and to a lesser extent black male/white female.

    My hunch is that a prominent biracial with a close relative of mixed Asian descent greatly undermines their plans. Indeed, the objective of eugenicists has always been to improve the human (white) gene pool and the subtle differences between European DNA when compared to that of Africans and Asians compels them to draw in the nonwhite DNA in such a way as to create “better” whites and even two classes of interracial populations – Asian/white mix and black/white mix – all for the purpose of creating a class of rich and poor. (Years ago I did read about a professor in California who spoke of a futuristic “eurasian elite” and boasted of his own pairing with an Asian female.)

    See them for what they are: eugenicists.

  369. Eugenics has a history that is more than a hundred years long, and despite having some very powerful proponents, backers and believers, just about every eugenic ideal save one has proven to be either undoable or unattainable.

    There has not been a single Olympic athlete nor genius produced from any of the elite families that have supported eugenics over the ages. Considering the timescale, if eugenics had any merit at all, surely there would be a concentration of power in the individual’s attributes within the bloodline. The eugenics quest to create a “better” human has been an abject failure.

    On the other hand, the other aspect of eugenics has borne fruit, mainly the aspect which concerns itself with eliminating the right of “undesirables” to exist. Eugenic initiatives to govern the reproductive rights of people have made considerable progress, to the point where various experiments have been carried out all over the world with varying degrees to success, whether it is the one child policy in china or the sterilisation pogroms against various disenfranchised groups all over the world.

    Based on its history of successes, eugenics should be seen for what it plainly is: a war against the right of people to exist.

  370. Excellent roundup. I have taken on these “biodiversity” types myself over the years and have debunked them in detail, including Steve Sailer. Below is comprehensive data destroying their claims..

    Comprehensive debunking of bogus “Biodiversity” race theories …
    http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2009/11/blog-post_5570.html

    JP Rushton, Michael Levin, Richard Lynn debunked. Weaknesses of Jared Diamond;s approach.
    http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2010/04/blog-post_1818.html

    Nonsensical human “biodiversity” race evolution model debunked
    http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2010/05/blog-post.html

    Race, IQ, Intelligence, Asian superiority
    http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2010/04/blog-post_1948.html

    In the Blood- debunking the Neo-Nazi appropriation of ancient Egypt based on blood type
    http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2009/11/blog-post_29.html

  371. Hello, you who believe that some races are inferior and that some are superior. As a Black (in particular African) female, it seems to me that the intention is not to prove a point or point to truth, but rather to have people like myself believe and accept that we are stupid and ugly, (amongst other several negative things – but I will restrict myself to the dominant two themes). That so many people go to so much trouble everyday on the internet to convince others of their inferiority is so remarkable that I’m going to presume that it’s fun. I too will try my hand at it:

    I trust that our wannabe scientists will realize, probably to their great consternation, that in spite of all the “research” concluding the opposite, I am un-fathomably and un-deniably thriving inferior person. Everyday, I flaunt my supposed ugliness. I parade my supposed stupidity. Simpleton, un-wanted, me. Yet I am still, most perplexingly, HERE. I’m even encouraged on occasion to persist in my apalling brand of existence! I take up vital space, oxygen, and I (how dare I!) contribute to the economy. I shit into our sewer systems. I comment on our blogs. Oh, “inferiority”, WHERE IS THY STING!!

    You scientific racism asshats, please: tell us once and for all, what is to be done with the inferior people who so sully your version of the world. I like to plan ahead, you know? Being as I’ve traits that “correlate” so well with being inferior. Go on. Shake your gonads in our faces, so we at least know you’ve got ‘em. You stand like you want to pee.

  372. That motherfucker blinks too much. Is this the best interview out there with regards to HBD?

    My patience for this nonsense is as short as the stubble on my chin, and I have just shaved today.

  373. Yah, I can’t get into this on the weekend either. Especially over the summer. I should go outside and enjoy the sunshine. Oh, that’s right, I’m in Portland. Never mind.

  374. I have been dreaming a lot of tropical rains, crytal clear waters and colorful marine life and “just right” sun recently. I think I need a holiday too. If I can’t get one soon I shall go mad.

  375. Ugh… I suppose someone should answer.. OK, I’ll try to make this relatively quick.

    Steve Sailer has made an art of oversimplification for years. For example, who has not heard of his tired old example of the Olympic 100 meter dash athletes? He argues in the above “Fascinating HBD Talk” that he noticed that all the finalists, in this event, for the past decade were Black and of West African decent. He thinks that this is a proof of HBD and demonstrates that race in not a sociological construct. He believes this only because he is a dummy who has begun to believe that he isn’t one, based on the popularity of his harebrained theories among other dummies.

    To begin with, the fact that he realizes that these sprinters are all of “West African” decent should register somewhere in his depleted noggin. “West African” isn’t a race is it? So the idea that this automatically applies to the large category of all”Blacks” should be already suspect. I mean, let’s say that the majority of tankless deep-water diving competitions were all won by Italians… well Italians are White right? So that must mean that all White people must have a genetic diving advantage!! Does that even make minimal sense to you?

    You see, the argument against HBD has never been that people cannot inherit traits from their parent or more distant ancestors, the point has been that these inherited traits are not consistent along broad RACIAL divisions. Just because the fastest sprinters in recent years have been “Black” doesn’t mean that this is a Black trait that is shared as a racial feature of “blackness.” For all we know, the average speed of a Black non-athelete may be slower than that of the average Asian shopkeeper. A small group of elite athletes does not prognosticate the characteristics of the entire racial group to whom they are assigned.

    There are several other obvious holes in Sailer’s above assertions… but why waste time pointing them all out?

  376. King,

    You wrote:

    “To begin with, the fact that he realizes that these sprinters are all of “West African” decent should register somewhere in his depleted noggin. “West African” isn’t a race is it?”

    He probably got confused. Even though “West African” isn’t a race, West Africans or people of West African descent who are in the 100 m dash are competing in a race. English is a tricky language like that, you know? If you ever catch this racist or any of his HDB nuthugger-followers MASTURbating in a karate studio, they may act cocky because they feel they are karate MASTERs.

    I wonder if he would have been less confused had he been a native speaker of Chinese or French, where there are two completely different terms to describe a racial category of people and a competition to determine who can run faster. I’m also wondering if he’d think differently if he were speaking Swahili. I’d pay money to watch him debate in Swahili or Yoruba.

  377. I’d pay money just to see him not blink so much, as if even he knows his entire body of work is nothing but a lie and is on the verge of being found out.

    I also wonder if this is yet another moment when Dreamer will conveniently wander off somewhere and then pop back in much later to accuse us of maligning HBD.

  378. I also wonder if this is yet another moment when Dreamer will conveniently wander off somewhere and then pop back in much later to accuse us of maligning HBD.

    I been trying to stay away from posting more in this topic and I resent this statement.

  379. Pingback: Sun Yang and Ye Shiwen of China win Olympic gold | bigWOWO

  380. Pingback: A Papal Bull from Daily Kos: On Permissible and Impermissible Sciences @ Helian Unbound

  381. “To begin with, the fact that he realizes that these sprinters are all of “West African” decent should register somewhere in his depleted noggin. “West African” isn’t a race is it?”

    Race is a category that captures the genetic relatedness shared by people of common geographic ancestry. As Stanford Professor Neil Risch Said, ‘two random Caucasians are more genetically similar than are a random Caucasian and a random Korean.

    Thus, West Africans, who hail from west Africa, are more similar to one another than they are to East Africans, but if you look at Africa on a macro level, then Africans are more similar to one another than they are to Caucasians.

    Though this is not always true. Research has shown that Ethiopians fall into Caucasian clusters. This is likely due to their geographic location, which is between Africa and the middle east, thus Caucasian admixture is pushing them into Caucasian clusters.

    The same Professor who I cited above was involved in research that successfully partioned a few thousand random individuals into groups which (a) were concordant with self-identified ancestry , and (b) were divided into common-sense continental groups.

    You often hear the mantra that there is more variation within then between racial groups , but this is misleading. Clearly this is false when you look at skin colour, so why could it not also be false when you look at traits like intelligence? In fact, if any trait is going to differ between racial groups, it would most likely be intelligence, which is far more consequential to survival and propagation.

    Actually, race does not have much at all to do with skin colour, though the strawman is very popular.

    When you look at a random individual and attempt to assign him into a racial category, you don’t look at one trait and ignore all other traits. What you do is simultaneously take into account several traits. The reason you do this is because physical traits are correlated.

    Furthermore, alleles are correlated. What this means is that members who share geographic ancestry are likely to share the same alleles (or, alleles which produce similar outcomes) across several loci.

    This correlation is totally ignored by Lewontin’s analysis, and it’s the reason that Rish, Rosenberg and others have been able to partion individuals into groups that are highly concordant with self-identified ancestry.

    On a population level, one can say that racial groups are differentiated by allele frequency across several loci.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy#cite_note-4

  382. You often hear the mantra that there is more variation within then between racial groups , but this is misleading. Clearly this is false when you look at skin colour, so why could it not also be false when you look at traits like intelligence?

    This is EXACTLTY the type of unscientific, bone-headed extrapolation that makes HBD such a wasteland of pseudoscientific ignorance.

  383. Considering how ignorant HBD makes even pseudoscience, I think that HBD should be called pseudo-quasiscience.

  384. “This is EXACTLTY the type of unscientific, bone-headed extrapolation that makes HBD such a wasteland of pseudoscientific ignorance.”

    It’s true that we often hear that there is more variation within than between, but only a bone-headed pseudo-scientist would believe that there is more variation, in respect to skin colour, within White Australians and Bantus than between them.

    So clearly the fact that, on average, there is more variation within than between does not preclude the possibly that on some traits, there is more variation between than within.

    And speaking of pseudoscience, how unscientific of you to ignore 3/4 of my comment. I take it that your lack of a response to 3/4 of my comment meant that you were unable to square what I said with what you believe.

  385. You’re talking about the amount of melanin in one’s skin, a simple factor controlled with probably just a handful of genes, with intelligence, for which there are endless combinations of genes, while trying to measure intelligence, something that even tests don’t fully measure accurately.

  386. And speaking of pseudoscience, how unscientific of you to ignore 3/4 of my comment. I take it that your lack of a response to 3/4 of my comment meant that you were unable to square what I said with what you believe.

    That would be an incorrect assumption. A selective response to any statement does not imply anything about about the portion of the statement that was not responded to.

  387. To be honest, your statements are so general and so misleading, that I would hardly know where to begin.

    Race is a category that captures the genetic relatedness shared by people of common geographic ancestry. As Stanford Professor Neil Risch Said, ‘two random Caucasians are more genetically similar than are a random Caucasian and a random Korean.”

    What is a race? Can you name a few races?

  388. You know what’s scary is Ben316 is perfect example of Dunning-Kruger effect in action. The logical leap he makes is so unscientific and is pure sophistry in action, but he can’t even begin to see it. Instead he just doubles down and commits to it further, thinking that the problem is that he didnt argue the point clearly or forcefully enough, rather than being able to take a step back and realize we totally get his point, it’s just stupid and fallacious. The same mental block that keeps him from realizing how silly his analogy is is the same mental block that allowed him to make the ridiculous analogy in the first place.

    And the reason people ignored 3/4 of your post was because that 3/4 was nothing but set up for a sloppy analogy. It would be as if I wrote a post about HBDs and 3/4 of the post discussed the history of Nazis, their rise to power, the sheer amount of evil and carnage they inflicted and all of it was relatively accurate. Then I added “since HBD people are just like Nazis, isn’t it reasonable that HBDers gaining power could lead to a new holocaust and World War?” If people disagree with my analogy comparing HBDers to Nazis, then it makes no sense to debate how well I described Nazis.

  389. @T. AKA Ricky Raw

    Iv’e read what you’ve had to say, Ricky, and it’s effectively ad hominem. Unless you can tell me why a psychoanalysis of HBDers effects the truth value of their statements, I have nothing further to say to you.

    @bigWOWO

    My point was not to posture that, since skin color varies more between Bantus and white Australasian than it does within White Australians and Bantus, intelligence,too, could vary more between than within in respect to the two different races I mentioned above, Ipso Facto .

    No, my point in making that claim was to highlight the wrongness of lewontin’s argument. The other 3/4 of my comment further disused the substantive issues of lewontin’s fallacy.

    Here goes for the second time:

    You often here that, since, on average, there is more variation within a race than between a race, there cannot be any (A) significant racial differences (e.g., no non-morphological differences, and (b) that race does not exist.

    (A) is wrong, since there is no reason to preclude non-morphological differences, and, in fact, we have found plenty. Take your pick from lactose intolerance to sickle cell anemia! This is where my original analogy, which you attacked, arose from. Since there are clearly morphological differences between the races, (and even non morphological differences {e.g., lactose intolerance}), why do you assume that it’s impossible for an intelligence differential to exist?) Indeed, most genes are expressed in the brain, after all. (As i later found out, you assumed that intelligence differentials cannot exist because intelligence is polygenic. Why do you make this assumption?) Surely, since intelligence is polygenic, it cannot vary between species either, according to your logic!)

    (B) is wrong since Lewontin’s argument ignores the correlation structure that exists across multiple loci. As I said before, alleles are correlated across several loci, and on a macro level, on can say that geographic groups (races) are differentiated by allele frequency across several loci.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy

    Because of the above correlation, scientists like Risch and Rosenberg have been able to partion 1000s of individuals , which (a) are partioned into groups that are 99.99 % correlated with self identified ancestry, and (b) partioned into common sense-continental groups.

    How can you respond to studies by Risch and Rosebnerg with the reply that race does not exist? They clearly showed it does through their studies.
    http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007
    @ king

    You ask what is race. Race is, as I said in my first comment, a category which captures genetic relatedness between humans.(Gentic relatedness is found in the correlation structure of alleles across multiple loci, lewotin’s fallcy.) As Risch has shown, people who hail from the same geographical region fall into racial groups and are more similar, genetically.

    How many races there are comes down to how many genetic loci one includes in their analysis. Genreally, the more loci that one uses to partion individuals, the more fine grained the clusters will be.

    In theory, if one used N loci, where N = the total number of loci, people would only cluster with themselves.

    I think Risch answers your question adequately, king.

    “A natural question arises as to the number of loci required to categorize individuals into ancestrally defined clusters. The answer depends on the degree of genetic differentiation of the populations in question. Two groups with ancient separation and no migration will require far fewer markers than groups that have separated more recently or have been influenced by recent migrations and/or admixture…
    These results also indicate that many hundreds of markers or more would be required to accurately differentiate more closely related groups, for example populations within the same racial category.”

    Thus, it’s easier to distinguish groups that hail from between continents, than groups that hail within a continent. This was the point in made above.

    You told me to name a race:

    Bantu.

  390. “You ask what is race. Race is, as I said in my first comment, a category which captures genetic relatedness between humans. As Risch has shown, people who hail from the same geographical region fall into racial groups and are more similar, genetically.”

    OK, but you could say the same thing about “Family” or “Tribe” or “Clan.” For example, if I considered my own extended family to be “My Race” then we would all be more genetically related than any non-family member and our “Race.” And we would be about 50 people, all told. On the other hand, I could also consider myself a part of the “Human Race, “and consider all genetic variations to be relatively minor, considering.

    So I ask you again. Who is it who defines how broad or narrow a “Race” is, and why is their definition any more valid than a rival definition?

  391. Oh… sorry, I forgot.

    Bantu is a description of between 300–600 ethnic groups in Africa (depending on how you draw the lines) who speak the Bantu family of languages. They are not a genetically homogenous race if people.

  392. @ king, yes, if you read all my comment, you would have seen that I said the following:

    “In theory, if one used N loci, where N = the total number of loci, people would only cluster with themselves.”

    So yes, it’s true that if enough markers are analysed, people would cluster into families. But here’s the interesting thing: Before we even get to the level of family, geographical clusters form which correlate with consequential phenotypes (e.g., lactose tolerance, sickle cell anemia (maybe intelligence?) )

    Now, it might be useful to know that a particular family has a high susceptibility to a disease. If geographical races also differed in frequency to susceptibility to disease, would it not be useful information? It would, and it is. As per this article.

    http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007

    Btw, you are correct that one could view the human race as one race if one compares humanity with other species. However, it is also possible to do intra-species comparisons which yield useful information , which i described above.

    As for you comment on Bantus, well they are considered a population that derive from a common geographical location, and they are considered a population separate from other African ones in this study:
    http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007

    But i understand your concern that it may be an ethnicity more so than a biological race. So if you don’t find that adequate , i can name a plethora of other races. What about Ashkenazi jews? What about Ethiopians (who, actually, cluster with Caucasians!)

  393. Well, for instance, Ethiopia is a country. Ethiopians are people who live in that country.

    So, this woman is Ethiopian.
    http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/anyka/anyka1208/anyka120800042/14827402-smiling-ethiopian-woman-in-traditional-costume-offering-an-apple.jpg

    But so is this man
    http://www.abbaymedia.com/Image_Bank/Ethiopian_Farmer.jpg

    And this Prime Minister
    http://www.addislive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ethiopian_pm_meles_zenawi.jpg

    And this elderly gentleman
    http://www.ethiopianrestaurant.com/images/ethiopian_jews_photos_6.jpg

    So, you are saying that these people are all Caucasians?

  394. @ king, the Ethiopian comment was a really minor point. I don’t get why you need to create new comments to address irrelevant and minor points. All it does is distract from the other information that comprismsed a good 3/4 of my comment. Anyway, yes it’s true that Ethiopians cluster with caucaisans. This is because Ethiopia is in between the middle east and Africa. I am simply reporting the findings of Risch, tang, etc..

    It’s all in here.

    http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007

    “so you are saying all these people are caucaisn”

    When i said caucaians, i meant arab as well as european. But yes, this is what the sicence has found on the subject. Just goes to show that race is not simply skin deep as many of your allies (and perhaps you) would say.

  395. When i said caucaians, i meant arab as well as european. But yes, this is what the sicence has found on the subject. Just goes to show that race is not simply skin deep as many of your allies (and perhaps you) would say.

    Actually, that’s not what I would say. In fact, you have yet to name a “real” race up to now. First you named an ethnic language group, then you named a nationality, then you used the term “Caucasian” which is so broad that it takes in Arabs, Indians, Ethiopians, and a whole variety of people from all over Europe who are not even remotely related and lumps them into the same racial pot. The term “Caucasian” itself is a term that does not mean today what it meant 300 years ago.

    But if you look at all of the cultures and ethnicities that come under that banner, it soon becomes glaringly apparent that their technology is not the same, they do not test the same, their cultures do not have the same levels of achievement, yet you believe that somehow they are operating under the same “genetically ordained intelligence quotient!”

  396. @king

    “Actually, that’s not what I would say. In fact, you have yet to name a “real” race up to now. First you named an ethnic language group, then you named a nationality, then you used the term “Caucasian” which is so broad that it takes in Arabs, Indians, Ethiopians, and a whole variety of people from all over Europe who are not even remotely related and lumps them into the same racial pot.”

    As I have said multiple times, the more loci that are included in the analysis, the finer the grain of the clusters. This point is made repeatedly by Risch, and I even quoted him on the point in my previous comment (which you have not responded to).

    Thus, in an analysis that uses insufficient loci to differentiate between Arabs and Europeans, they would cluster together, thus, they can be though of as one race. But, if you do another analysis using more loci, then you will begin to be able to differentiate between Arabs and Caucasians and even among different European populations.

    Risch had this to say :

    “These results also indicate that many hundreds of markers or more would be required to accurately differentiate more closely related groups, for example populations within the same racial(continental) category.”

    So on one level Caucasians are a race, but it’s possible to differentiate between Caucasians , and pariton them into groups like Ashkenazim , Norwegians, etc.. And, as i previously said, if you use even more loci, then you can even get down to the family level!

    —–

    As I said before, knowing that a particular family has a higher than average susceptibility to a certain disease would be useful information. Likewise, knowing that Ashkenazim had a higher susceptibility to Tay Sachs than a Norwegian would also be useful information.

    Finally, Ethiopians are a race because they from their own cluster if enough loci are examined. It turns out that they cluster closer to Caucasian though, and this is expected because of their geographical location , which is in between Africa and the middle east. (This is a very simply point, and I think the confusing arose from the definition of Caucasian. For the purpose of the study that Risch cited, (Wilson et al., Nat Genet 2001,), Caucasian was defined as Arab and European. Obviously, when insufficient loci are used to differentiate between Arabs and Europeans , they will cluster together. This should be obvious by now!)

    So your claim that I have not identified any races is flat out wrong. I have identified Ethiopians, Ashkenazim Jews, and, controversially, Bantus. You tell me that Bantus are not a race, but rather an ethnicity. Well, i will grant you that, but it does not detract from my argument. The fact is that I have identified plenty of races, and i can identify more:

    Norwegians
    Sephardi
    North East Asians
    ….etc…

  397. @ King

    Most Ethiopians wouldn’t pass the Caucasian litmus test.

    Can we label our current President as “Caucasian” just because he’s part White? Even better, how about the average Black American who has Caucasian features, suggesting some White ancestry?

  398. I guess it’s unfortunate that everyone is putting in some much effort to make their point and I just read them and think: “looney number 1 and looney number 2…,” “Oh, they can be ‘causiasian’ until…something smells like curry, something explodes or the lights go out someone is impossible to find in the dark.”

    …Did I just say (type) that out loud? Sorry. “_”

  399. @king, why are you getting bogged down by Ethiopians? It’s irrelevant to my point.

    I Will just quote Dr. Risch:

    The one population in their (Wilston et al.,2001) analysis that was seemingly not clearly classified on continental grounds was the Ethiopians, who clustered more into the Caucasian group. But it is known that African populations with close contact with Middle East populations, including Ethiopians and North Africans, have had significant admixture from Middle Eastern (Caucasian) groups, and are thus more closely related to Caucasians [14]
    http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007

    Does this settle it for you? Can we move on?

  400. Ben the only reason that I pointed out Ethiopians is because you gave it as a “Race” category, when in reality, Ethiopians are pretty diverse racially speaking (which you yourself have already said)

    Everything that you have posted or pointed to, at this point, concedes that race is fuzzy. Yes, we all get that there is some utility in using racial descriptives and divisions to aid in some aspects of medical work. But that says very little about the overall reality of how race has been perceived by most these past few centuries.

    This all began because YOU began making ludicrous claims about skin color and intelligence. And that is the heart of my objection. The ancillary discussions are of limited interest, and none of the articles you’ve linked truly speak to your main claim.

  401. Ethiopians are a race because they will cluster together when sufficient loci are used in the analysis. This was pointed out by Risch in the paper I linked. So tell me where you get the evidence to refute this claim.

    Secondly, I am glad that you concede that race has some utility. We’re making progress!

    Thirdly, you still don’t understand what I mean by skin colour and intelligence. Let me explain:

    First, look up what the word ‘ipso facto means.’

    It means that something is true in an of itself. When I said that skin color varies more within than between, I did not claim that this fact ipso facto proves that intelligence varies between races: I meant that there is no reason to preclude the possibility that intelligence could differ between races.

    In response to that last point, bigwowo told me that intelligence was different to skin colour, and thus could not differ between races; and the difference is that intelligence is is polygenic. I responded to this by asking him why a trait being polgygenic affects its ability to differ between races. So far, no answer from him.

    I hope you understand.

  402. * correction, you’re actually correct about Ethiopians. I was unfamiliar with them, and it turns out that they are a diverse population. Apparently only 62% of Ethiopians fell into the caucasin cluster in the Wilston et al. study.

    So you can cross ethiopains of the list as a race. Still leaves plenty.

  403. Ben, I would think you could just look at Ethiopians and tell that they are a diverse population. They don’t even look alike.

  404. However, you make the same mistake in naming Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews as “Races.” By what means?

  405. In Wilson et al, 2001, the number of loci that were used in the analysis produced a cluster which compromised of ashkenazi jews, ethiopians(62%) and norwegians. If more loci had been used in the analysis, then ashkenazi jews would form their own cluster, and so would norwegians.

    And this is exactly what happened in this study:
    http://genomebiology.com/2009/10/1/R7

    In the above study, Ashkenazi jews could easily be differentiated from gentile Europeans.

    As for Sephardi, i have no idea whether they would cluster distinctively from ashkenazi. As of now, there has been no study dealing solely with that question. Here is what the above study had to say on Sephardi:

    “Finally, one of the two subjects reporting partial Sephardic ancestry did not cluster clearly with the other Jewish subjects. Considering also that 90% of American Jews are Ashkenazim [3], we conclude that this axis is specific to Ashkenazi Jews, and that we cannot make any conclusions about other types of American Jews (for example, Sephardic, Mizrahi) from these data.”

    So whether or not Sephardi are a race is actually an open question. So you can retract that from the list, too.

  406. “So whether or not Sephardi are a race is actually an open question. So you can retract that from the list, too.”

    @ ben

    I also have problems (although less so) with the Ashkenazim. To begin with, there are several ways to categorize Ashkenazi Jews.
    -By religious tradition (those formulated by the Jews in Eastern Europe)
    -By culture (Ashkenazi Jews can be identified by their distinctions of Yiddishkeit)
    -By ethnicity (Genetics-as you have pointed out)
    -By political categorization within the State of Israel (General Euro/Jewish Category)

    So with this many ways of being considered Ashkenazi, the “self-identification” method becomes problematic. Add to that the fact that, although for centuries Jews remained a genetically isolated breeding population, that changed dramatically in the 20th Century when religious and cultural sensibilities where significantly softened to allow many unions between Ashkenazi’s and Gentiles. This began particularly after millions of Ashkenazim were exterminated during WWII.

    I’m not saying that a level of genetic parity does not still exist between ethnic Ashkenazi but the leap is often made to try and then link prominent people who were “self-identified” as Ashkenazi, or who were “known” to be Ashkenazi without any gene testing to determine if these individuals are even fully GENETIC Ashkenazi.

    The next step is to start theorizing that Ashkenazi have a smartness gene (totally unsupported by science) and if other people have “dumbness genes” etc. etc. and so you begin to degrade into the morass of HBD tom foolery.

  407. @king, you’re right. All those factors could totally render the racial concept of Ashkenazim obsolete. But they don’t. If every neocon who supported israel began to identify as an ashkenazim, then it would break down. But that doesn’t happen; and apparently nothing like what you’ve suggested has happened, since the study i linked found it easy to differentiate Ashkenazim and European gentiles. \

    Also, a recent convert to judaism would never call themselves an ashkenazim. They would call themselves a jew. Ashkenazim is reserved for people whose ancestors were european jews.

  408. I forgot to address your point on intelligence. Well, why could Ashkenazim not be more intelligent?

    Cochran and Harpending hypothesize that, since Ashkenazim were, due to the religious and cultural environment of Europe, forced to work white collar jobs, intelligence was selected for over a period of about 1200 years.

    We know that wealthier people (e.g., white collar professionals) had more children (higher fitness) over people who were less wealthy. So we have situation in which almost 90% of Jews were working white collar jobs — all of which required intelligence to excel in. The Jews who could not excel in these jobs had fewer children that those who could, so if intelligence is heritable (let’s assume it has a heritability of 0.3), then IQ could rise by 1/3 of an IQ point per generation.

    Over the 1200 years, that amounts to almost an IQ of 115.
    http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/ashkiq.webpub.pdf

  409. “I forgot to address your point on intelligence. Well, why could Ashkenazim not be more intelligent?”

    I’m not saying that they are not. What I am saying is that there is no evidence that it is the effect of a genetic predisposition for it.

    Cochran and Harpending hypothesize that, since Ashkenazim were, due to the religious and cultural environment of Europe, forced to work white collar jobs, intelligence was selected for over a period of about 1200 years.

    If you’ve noticed, I’m trying not to discuss this based on the siting of scientific position papers because it makes any real conversation very difficult to follow for others. If you post a link, then I post a link and soon, in order to make sense of what we’re saying a reader hast to read 12 pages of linked abstracts. That’s not a criticism, I’m just explaining to you why I’m not arguing study for study, link for link.

    However, you’ve explained the basic idea set forth in Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence. But that is, of course, only one hypothesis (and a very improbable one) among many.

    The first question that you should ask yourself is whether evolution is even needed to make the hypothesis work? The answer is no. If Ashkenazi Jews were narrowly focused on filling a niche within Europe for banking, money lending, and mercantile, then a strong CULTURAL (non-genetic) precedent would be set for raising and educating children to fit within this niche. Parents would raise their offspring with strong expectations and instruction to strongly focus on certain fields. The cultural precedent makes the genetic explanation unnecessary.

    I can explain further, but surely you see this?

  410. Wow, what an interesting discussion. But sad. I agree with the original posting: the position or movemnt that’s claimed the name of “Human Biodiversity” or HBD is indeed, nothing but scientific racism in new clothing. People who advocate it are acting out of a combination of ignorance and unknowable personal motives, which I won’t speculate on.

    My only reason for coming here was that, never having heard of the HBD movement, I had actually very much liked the phrase “human biodiversity” to describe human variation, which science does try to study in a rational way. Biodiversity is a word with huge positive connotations, for good reason. Life on Earth depends on biodiversity; beautiful and healthy ecosystems on our planet are based on biodiversity, i.e. in plants, animals, all forms of life. Gardeners, biologists, and ecologists love biodiversity, and in our gardens we seek the most possible variety and the rarest treasures. Why shouldn’t we likewise treasure human biodiversity? I’m very disappointed to see that racists have appropriated what should be a positive term.

    In my research on human phylogenetics (mainly of the Y chromosome), as a non-professional, “citizen scientist,” I’ve been one of those who gravitates toward studying the rarest, exceptional cases, which lead us toward discoveries we couldn’t make in the DNA of those belonging to larger majorities. I’m trying to describe this in a way that won’t raise the hackles of anyone who doesn’t see the study of human variation as anything but a racist preoccupation. My point is that it’s the underlying assumption that all variation, difference, or diversity is negative, and must be categorized by a placing a higher or lower value on certain groups or traits, or anything else that varies, is the problem — not the identification of variety.

    It’s in knowing and understanding the vast variety of nature that we can most love and appreciate it. Please see the Tree of Life project: “The Tree of Life Web Project (ToL) is a collaborative effort of biologists and nature enthusiasts from around the world. On more than 10,000 World Wide Web pages, the project provides information about biodiversity, the characteristics of different groups of organisms, and their evolutionary history.” From an early age, I eagerly learned the names and characteristics of the plants growing around me, how they grew, whether they were good to eat, etc., and at a slightly age, began to learn botanical taxonomy. Some of us just have this insatiable curiosity about everything, including our own species — in a positive way.

    I completely reject the notion that there are human races — a misguided concept by any scientific criteria. All human variation is clinal, and most important is that we are all a MIXTURE — there is never any “purity.” The old view of separate, distinct branches of humans is more out of date all the time.

    If we agree with the argument that there are many kinds of differences among humans, we remove the racists’ ability to use that fact, by itself, as a supposed justification for their put-downs of people of color, or those who have different appearance or ancestry from themselves. Then they’ll be forced to try to prove that specific differences exist that somehow would make one group superior, or entitled to rule over, oppress, or control another. I think that will be a much harder — impossible — argument for them to make.

    Our DNA reflects a heritage that’s not even 100% Homo sapiens sapiens. Genus and species designations are still meaningful, but gene flow happens across different groups all the time (i.e., if people can make babies, they surely will). We’re now realizing that all non-Africans have traces of Neandertal in our genomes, and discoveries I took part in (see American Journal of Human Genetics, Mar. 2003, p 454) have helped to confirm that Africans, too, include their archaic bits of DNA. (Our findings only helped to confirmwhat had already been found in separate autosomal studies by Mike Hammer and Sarah Tishkoff.)

    In all such cases, these ancient genes (outside of the Y chromosome) were very likely retained because of their adaptive value, for example for immunity. I’ve never seen anyone express a sense of shame over their 2.5% Neandertal DNA! At the same time, we’re learning that a huge percentage of our body weight is actually made up of the microorganisms that live in us. We are a mosaic, through and through. We need to get used to it and embrace it.

    My radical new suggestion is that we not base anti-racist arguments on any supposition that we are all “the same.” I have seen this kind of thinking promoted by well-intentioned progressives who are a little bit in denial about the degree of genomic diversity that does exist among humans (i.e. especially in structural variations, CNVs, rather than only individual SNPs). Difference is not bad. Inbreeding makes us weaker; narrow exclusivity of ideology makes us blinder. Diversity makes us stronger, and more adaptive to the challenging changes we face.

  411. Whoa, that was suppposed to read Mar. 2013, not 2003! Sorry! Page owner could correct that, if possible.

  412. @Bonnie

    I hope you’re not referring to marrying/having kids with someone of the same race is somehow ‘inbreeding’.

  413. @ Bonnie,

    I don’t know that the anti-racist argument has ever been that we are exactly all the same. Obviously there is some level of genetic diversity among humans. Or perhaps there is just a diversity in how human genes are “expressed” based on different long-term stimuli. But either way, we were never saying that human populations around the world were phenotypically identical. It’s just that the differences cannot be broken down based on the traditional “race” divisions that had become so popular in the 19th and 20th centuries.

  414. @King,
    “…phenotypically identical. It’s just that the differences cannot be broken down based on the traditional “race” divisions that had become so popular in the 19th and 20th centuries.”

    I am not sure what you mean. The phenotypes I can identify based on the standard race classifications. Though my opposition to HBD (whatever little I know about it) is for a completely different reason.

  415. @ John Doe

    Perhaps I could have expressed that more clearly. But let me try again.

    We were never saying that global human populations were phenotypically identical.

    Meaning that anti-racists were never making the point that everyone on earth shares
    the same identical phenotype (thus no races).

    It’s just that the differences cannot be broken down based on the traditional “race” divisions

    I should have said that all of the non-phenotypical differences cannot be matched up to the traditional phenotypical divisions. Example: Many groups around the world inherit foot speed, but foot speed is not a phenotypical characteristic “Negroes.” Some Blacks have it, some don’t.

  416. ITT: Insecure white guy, butthurt because of scientific racism. Featured word: SCIENTIFIC. You act like the “racism” part of that word pair disqualifies it as BS. An intelligent man knows that if something is scientific, it’s unlikely to be bullshit.

    This is just classic knee jerk liberal cocksuckery. “WAAAH, this vindicates what my boogeymen used to say it MUST be bullshit.”

  417. ^ Ha! Yes, using the word “Scientific” in the title means that it can’t be possibly be BS… What a nincompoop!

  418. Omg. Omg. I love this blog. I love this post. It was so dense I couldn’t even get through it all in one sitting because I haven’t had my green smoothie yet. (I’m big woowoo.)

    I fell down the rabbit hole of HBD, which I just started researching today. ::shudder:: Since graduating from my Race, Sexuality and Performance concentration in college I no longer write about this kind of stuff because it gives me a headache and makes my TMJ worse. But I’m so glad that you’re doing it. That SOMEONE’s doing it intelligently.

  419. Hey Sophia! Glad to see some new blood here that’s NOT some troll like The Blah or Siegfried.

  420. Asian HBDer: “White ppl are just so…..SUPERIOR! But at least I’m smarter than them blacks…”

  421. I notice that your “analysis” is suspiciously lacking in any kind of scientific, empirical or any other type of hard data.

    It’s all just conjecture. HBD, on the other hand is backed by plenty of science…reams and reams of it, in fact.

    I realize this theory is very uncomfortable to your PC kum-bay-ah philosophy, but that doesn’t make it any less true.

    Major fail.

  422. The “science” of HBD has already been refuted and exposed as pseudo-science. HBD is not science, it’s a religious pretext followed by dumb people.

  423. MacSchmoogle,

    My post was stating that there is no science behind it, or none that I’ve seen in my years of discussing this subject with the top HBD authorities. If I’m wrong, feel free to post the “reams and reams” of science that back it up.

  424. I notice that your “analysis” is suspiciously lacking in any kind of scientific, empirical or any other type of hard data.

    And I notice that your reply is suspiciously (although predictably) lacking in run-of the-mill intelligence. There is NOT ONE major university in the entire world that accepts and teaches HBD as science. In fact they ALL propagate a point of view directly opposing the cardinal theories of HBD. If you want the science behind WOWO’s position just pen any science textbook and it’s right there.

    But of course, that’s not good enough… because every science department in every major university on the entire planet has been duped, or knows the real truth and is hiding it. So what we should be looking at instead are people’s blog sites – especially those who do not specialize in genetics. That’s all the proof we need!

  425. what is this fascination with HBD from all of you?

    for, the guys who believe in HBD. “races” such as black, white, asian are composed of seprate and discrete people. those “good” or “bad” characteristics (physical, intelligence, temperament) may show up in different FREQUENCIES in various “races”. i have a hard time believing any particular race has a causation effect with certain attributes outside of skin color and eye color.

    basically, it’s pointless to make any decisions on HBD if you use the argument that X race is scum or superior based on certain “tests and studies”. if you’re trying to select for a group of people that is intelligent, good physical characteristics etc., than SELECT for those characteristics.

    im beginning to believe that HBD is just an excuse to say minorities are stupider.

  426. You pretty much have it figured out asianguy. Just replace the word “stupider” with “inferior.” For instance, Asians aren’t necessarily “stupider” than Whites, they’re just non-creative and don’t make good leaders. They are great as nerds and eggheads, but you can’t expect them to be a Steve Jobs or a Bill Gates! Let them stick to math and test tubes.

  427. im beginning to believe that HBD is just an excuse to say minorities are stupider. – See more at: http://www.bigwowo.com/2011/10/the-perversity-of-human-biodiversity-a-k-a-scientific-racism/#comment-207265

    Not just any minorities. Apparently genes that affect melanin are also inextricably linked to genes that affect “intelligence”. So, you know, HBD’ers will go as far as saying that Asians score higher on IQ, BUT there’s always a ‘but’, isn’t there? You see, you get an admission that Asians have higher IQs but then they’re also “not as creative” as Whites, or they’ll even say that maybe Asians are gaming the system.

    The whole point of HBD is to show that Whites are the golden mean.

  428. Stereotypes are always negative against minorities, whereas they don’t even exist for the majority. They serve as a convenient tool to invalidate a group. The baseball managerial position thing was one example. By invalidating blacks, that frees up more slots for whites to get covetable managerial positions in baseball.

    Stereotypes are not benign. They are a way of “justifying” resource acquisition. It is all about getting privileges in the end.

    The same goes for Asian male stereotypes. Calling Asian men having no personality, weak, etc. is just another way Caucasian males can have greater access to more women, by invalidating the competition. It’s all about putting yourself in a better position than the next guy.

  429. You know, this is all about ideology. The kum-bay-ay’ers, and PC manboobs such as yourself always claim to be all about science. Except of course when it makes you look bad. HBD is really just a case of basic, high-school biology.

    Organisms develop and naturally select for survivability in a certain set of environmental pressures. For the hippies and various other morons, I’ll use an example. Animals that live in the sweltering hot jungle do not develop thick coats of fur to keep them warm. Thick fur, as that of say a polar bear, would not benefit an animal living in a sweltering hot jungle, and most likely would be a hindrance. Are you PC manginas still with me? Ok, good.

    Homo sapiens are subject to the exact same environmental forces. We all developed, over tens of thousands of years living in different environments. Most populations, until very recently, in terms of the timescale of homo sapiens on this planet, had no contact with one another and no means to travel great distances. Some populations developed in very hot, arid climates, others in hot, damp climates, others in very cold climates, and still yet others in temperate climates with very stark seasonal changes. The availability of food, water, shelter, predation, populations of other humans as competition and any other myriad factors that would place evolutionary pressures on these disparate populations varies wildly from region to region, and continent to continent.

    We would expect, again as a tenet of BASIC biology that organisms would develop different characteristics over the generations to help them compete and survive in these varied conditions.

    Now here’s the question I’d like you to answer. All of the things I’ve stated above are the facts of very BASIC biology.

    Why would humans be any different? Why would we not, as different populations, with no contact with one another, NOT develop different characteristics for survival particularly suited to the environmental pressures that we were faced with?

    This is where your PC jackassery, and need to not hurt anybody’s feeeeeeeeeelings falls flat on its face.

    Where it becomes racism is to say one race is BETTER. HBD does not do this, it says the races are DIFFERENT. Different strengths and weaknesses, in response to different pressures.

  430. Indieking wrote: Stereotypes are always negative against minorities, whereas they don’t even exist for the majority. They serve as a convenient tool to invalidate a group. The baseball managerial position thing was one example. By invalidating blacks, that frees up more slots for whites to get covetable managerial positions in baseball.

    Well Black men have gotten chances to manage baseball. Maybe not as much as we’d like to see but certainly much more times nowadays than the time that interview took place.

    I think there are good stereotypes, Smart and close knit family Asians, Athletic, good singing Blacks, etc but the problem is, when you accept a good stereotype, you have to be willing to accept the bad ones as well. You can’t cherry pick just the good stuff.

  431. Did humans have enough time to “evolve” significant differences? OK, so there is some pigmentation difference, but that is just due to different levels of sun exposure across the spectrum of people’s closeness to the equator. Seems like most humans have overall similar intellectual and physical capacities. If you point to different societies and their differences, what about climate? People like you often point to Africa and S. America as being underdeveloped— ever consider that those continents have the most inhospitable climates and intraversible waterways on the face of the planet? Ever try studying in any climate above 70 degrees F? It ain’t going to happen. People like you underplay how climate affects societal progress.

    You don’t have enough evidence to make such an overriding claim about HBD being accurate. Besides, eugenics was always more about creating differences, and justification for segregation — rather than the science itself. It’s more of a social construct than a science. I can accept people have different amounts of melanin being produced (melanocytes are essentially equivalent in all humans), but you’ve got a long long ways to go to prove that there are intellectual differences. Even with African Americans known to have slightly more fast twitch muscle fibers and higher serum creatinine levels, overall I think you can say that physically there isn’t too significant of a difference amongst all races, not enough to make a societal difference.

    We are all homo sapiens, the other human types have died out. So your attempt to further break us down doesn’t warrant any merit from an antropological standpoint. These claims are more useful for dividing each other for the purpose of resource distribution and setting up false bottlenecks (whites are superior, so we should get the best jobs; make the most money).

  432. What exactly are bad stereotypes for Caucasians? There aren’t any, or nothing terrible. Stereotypes seem like a useful tool for categorizing minorities.

  433. Well not the whole white race but different ethnicities like there are many negative stereotypes for Jewish People and Irish and Scottish people are stereotyped as being alcoholics. Italians are considered loud and obnoxious and their women are hairy. Polish people being dumb.

    .

  434. “Did humans have enough time to “evolve” significant differences? OK, so there is some pigmentation difference, but that is just due to different levels of sun exposure across the spectrum of people’s closeness to the equator ”

    It seems like you answered your own question, dipshit. Sun exposure is one environmental pressure. We developed different skin pigmentations to deal with it. Just like Asians developed epicathic eye folds over the generations.

    “If you point to different societies and their differences, what about climate?”

    I addressed climate, it’s one of the major driving forces.

    Nobody is answering my question, though. Why would homo sapiens be any different from EVERY, SINGLE OTHER SPECIES ON THIS PLANET in that they develop different characteristics in response to different environmental pressures?

    You can talk about eugenics, racism and any other kind of PC blather you want to. This is just science.

  435. We are not arguing about whether there are any differences, we are arguing about EXTENT. You haven’t given me enough evidence to show that human beings operate substantially differently from one another based on race. From what I’ve observed, people of different ethnicities pretty much operate on overlapping spectrums, when you account for environmental and socioeconomic differences. The much more evident, obvious problem that I am trying to explain to your infantile mind are the social motives for making claims such as yours. Do you understand that I am saying by making your claims about SUBSTANTIAL differences amongst human beings, you are basically setting the stage for justified racism — for the sake of resource partition?

    No, I doubt that you would, actually.

    Also, if you want to address skin color, pigmentation differences probably would have evolved much quicker than say, intelligence. If you have to be out in the sun all day and you don’t have enough melanin to protect yourself from UV, you get cancer. Therefore, in parts of the world with more sun, darker individuals are instantly selected for. Can you say the same for intelligence? There’s not as much as a biological pressure to select based on pure intelligence, especially when mates are selecting for other more “important” factors, like immune system strength. So without the filter known as “DEATH” selecting for individuals, how can you argue that one ethnicity is more different intellectually, or even physically, than another? So skin color may have evolved quickly, but you have nothing on other more “important” features.

  436. You want to talk about theories? OK, here’s my theory on why Western hegemony runs the world (for now…) in our modern era. Europe had the ideal climatical and geographical features to make it a success. Waterways / rivers that allowed for communication, yet natural boundaries – like the Pyrenees and the English Channel — to set up boundaries to allow for different civilizations to grow and compete with each other. A temperate climate to allow for contemplation. These were the features that allowed Europe to be a success.

    Now, with the advent of modern technology and transportation, we slowly see these advantages erode. It is inevitable that Western dominance, White hegemony eventually fall — and a multipolar world ensue in its collapse.

    Deal with the facts, McLovin. You want to talk about reality? This is reality.

  437. Stop being so PC, McLovin, and pretending that there’s actually anything called “White-Superiority”. Accept that the West only has done well because of geographical luck, and that the rest of the world is overtaking this temporary advantage and will eventually overcome Western dominance.

    Accept that there is no inherent advantage or societally significant difference in being White– other than the artificial status you give it, and as societies develop, modernize, and improve their infrastructure, the Western societies will eventually acquiesce to the rest of this multipolar world. Stop being a PC crybaby, and accept the facts.

    You still with me, you HBD jackassery maninga? Try to keep up boy.

  438. What exactly are bad stereotypes for Caucasians?

    Other than “White men can’t jump” or “White people have no rythm”, I can’t think of any. And, of course, Woody Harrelson already disproved the first stereotype.

  439. The great thing about the internet is that you can debunk this pseudo-scientists and their questionable theories instantly, before they take try and take it any further.

    I could say more, but McLovin would have to check the Ad Hominem section for further details.

  440. Why do people come to this thread and keep bringing up the same old arguments that have already been answered earlier on the thread? Can HBDers not read? There is nothing different or original in what McLovin is saying that hasn’t already been answered and discussed already. Just READ the comments before posting the same questions over and over!!!

  441. @ Eric:

    it needs to be mentioned also that European/Western dominance has only been happening for about 500 years, and came about through military conquest. HBDers tend to think “whites-on-top” just kinda happened that way, like it’s the natural order of things.

    If we step back a few centuries, it was the Mongols and associated peoples who ran the world’s most dominant empire, taking up almost all of the Eurasian landmass. Are HBDers pondering what particular genetic advantage was conferred by the Mongol steppe that made them so intelligent that they were able to dominate virtually everyone they came into contact with?

  442. “Do you understand that I am saying by making your claims about SUBSTANTIAL differences amongst human beings, you are basically setting the stage for justified racism — for the sake of resource partition?”

    This is neither here nor there. It has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with HBD. What you are talking about is what is done with the facts, not the facts themselves. And don’t kid yourselves, these are facts.

    And of course we have ‘overlapping’ tendencies. We are the same species. But to say that there aren’t differences in intelligence, physical prowess and other, less tangible characteristics like temperament is beyond idiocy.

    “I could say more, but McLovin would have to check the Ad Hominem section for further details.”

    Translation from “Eric” into semi-intelligent life form: “I got nothin’.”

    You can talk about social motives, and blah blah blah all you want. It has nothing to do with the hard, scientific, testable data.

    Still notable that nobody has answered the question: Why are homo sapiens exempt from the laws of evolution?

    You PC morons are too funny.

  443. Also note that I have said absolutely nothing about whites being better, superior, or ‘on top.’ Nor have I said anything about blacks or Asians being inferior, dumber or anything else.

    That is an inference that all you scared-of-your-own-shadow, white guilt PC pillowbiters are saying.

    All of that has nothing to do with HBD, those are conclusions that others (read: racists) have drawn based on the scientific facts.

  444. Eric,

    I just read the rest of your first post in reply to me and it’s hard to understand how you have lived this long, because with your level of intelligence it has to be difficult to get food from your hand to your mouth. Complete. Raving. Moron.

    Yes, mate selection does play a role. Please do tell me how an ancient female homo sapien would look at the population of sexually available males and determine the ones with healthy immune systems. We didn’t even understand the causes of disease until the last 100 years you fucking toolbag.

    Intelligence, on the other hand, is easy to select for. Organisms that are dumb as fucking posts die off. (Except for in modern times, as is evidenced by your very existence.)

    But not all environments would naturally select for high intelligence, because it would not be necessary in all situations. Take for example, where food was plentiful, the climate was temperate and steady year-round, outside competition was low, and risk of predation was low.

  445. “I just read the rest of your first post in reply to me and it’s hard to understand how you have lived this long, because with your level of intelligence it has to be difficult to get food from your hand to your mouth. “

    Ha, and this coming from a guy who hasn’t even read the thread that he’s commenting on! This is the low level of intelligence of most HBDers. They show up from across the internet, on their blog to blog crusade, wherever their precious religion is being attacked, and then don’t even bother to read what is being said about it. Instead they simply start making religious statements about their belief system. No need to read anything else, we have the TRUTH. These HBD missionaries cannot be reasoned with.

  446. King,

    It’s just amazing how ALL of these statements have been made again and again on this blog. I think we were lucky to have met Oriental Right/Asian of Reason. HE specifically brought up every single argument that HBD’ers have, and the rest was just repeating what he said. Of course, AOR was repeating what Steve Sailer said, who was just repeating what the other racists said before him. There’s been nothing new under the sun on this topic for at least the last few hundred years.

    McShmoogal,

    King actually addressed your point about HBD and science above, after you first posted here. You should read the previous comments as King suggested, but even the most recent ones address your points. King wrote:

    There is NOT ONE major university in the entire world that accepts and teaches HBD as science. – See more at: http://www.bigwowo.com/2011/10/the-perversity-of-human-biodiversity-a-k-a-scientific-racism/#comment-207379

    And yet just a few posts later, you’re equating HBD with evolution. There is not one major university in the entire world that teaches HBD, but there is not one major university in the entire world that DOESN’T teach evolution. I’m sure you know this.

    If you’re trying to convince people that evolution is scientifically valid, no need to waste your time. Everyone already agrees with that.

    Also note that I have said absolutely nothing about whites being better, superior, or ‘on top.’ Nor have I said anything about blacks or Asians being inferior, dumber or anything else. That is an inference that all you scared-of-your-own-shadow, white guilt PC pillowbiters are saying. All of that has nothing to do with HBD, those are conclusions that others (read: racists) have drawn based on the scientific facts. – See more at: http://www.bigwowo.com/2011/10/the-perversity-of-human-biodiversity-a-k-a-scientific-racism/#comment-207379

    I don’t know what “scientific facts” you’re talking about (mostly because you keep refusing to post these “facts”), but if you’re not ranking the races by intelligence and athletic ability, and you’re simply saying that different people evolved in different environments, you’re preaching to the choir. Again, that’s not HBD; that’s evolution. All major universities and all major books identify it as such.

  447. Pingback: Deflection Coaching: new entry in bigWOWO lexicon | bigWOWO

  448. Pingback: » Podcast Episode 272013: Single women, Race Realism & other Constitutional amendments Charles Carroll Society

  449. Pingback: ¿Se puede ser progresista y apoyar la tesis de la biodiversidad humana? | dronte.es

  450. Hi there! This blog post could not bee written much better!
    Reading through this article reminds mee of mmy previous roommate!
    He continually kept preaching about this. I most certainly will sen this information to him.

    Fairly certain he’ll have a great read. Many thanks for sharing!

  451. Pingback: One post on scientific racism (HBD) | A world gone to hell

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


7 + seven =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>