◄►Bookmark◄❌►▲ ▼Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
The existence of a ~1S.D. B/W gap in IQ is beyond dispute.
It is probably the single most studied and replicated finding in psychometrics. The graph of all the different studies of the B/W gap themselves form a bell curve, with Black IQ centered around 85.
Here is Emil Kirkegaard’s plot of John Fuerst’s massive (although unfinished) metastudy:
The only debate now, and since the past few decades, is whether the source of this difference is primarily environmental, cultural, or genetic.
The preponderance of the evidence now indicates it is mostly the latter (at least within socio-economically homogenous countries, such as the US), and in the next 5-10 years, further GWAS will very likely confirm it.
And that is a good outcome.
If the environment was to blame, it would imply that the already huge interventions to raise Black performance to White (and Asian!) levels had barely scratched the surface, so the only option would have been to abandon any further dreams of social justice or to embark on social engineering projects on cardinally bigger, possibly dystopian, scales.
If culture was to blame, it would have validated conservative critiques of Black and Hispanic lifeways and actually constituted an argument for a intensive imposition of White (or Asian) social standards and expectations on under-performing groups.
If, however, the ultimate cause is genetics, then nobody is to blame and we can all go about in peace rationally discussing the best way we can adopt to biological realities to everyone’s mutual benefit.
Here is Charles Murray himself, the conservative/libertarian, on this topic in The Bell Curve:
If intelligence plays an important role in determining how well one does in life, and intelligence is conferred on a person through a combination of genetic and environmental factors over which that person has no control (as we argue in the book), the most obvious political implication is that we need a Rawlsian egalitarian state, compensating the less advantaged for the unfair allocation of intellectual gifts.
The liberal Steven Pinker, in The Blank Slate:
Can one really reconcile biological differences with a concept of social justice? Absolutely. In his famous theory of justice, the philosopher John Rawls asks us to imagine a social contract drawn up by self-interested agents negotiating under a veil of ignorance, unaware of the talents or status they will inherit at birth — ghosts ignorant of the machines they will haunt. He argues that a just society is one that these disembodied souls would agree to be born into, knowing that they might be dealt a lousy social or genetic hand. If you agree that this is a reasonable conception of justice, and that the agents would insist on a broad social safety net and redistributive taxation (short of eliminating incentives that make everyone better off), then you can justify compensatory social policies even if you think differences in social status are 100 percent genetic.
Robert Lindsay, that rarest of breeds, an HBD-realist Leftist:
Here is the conundrum for Left-liberalism:
Just supposing that there are differences between the races that are not caused by oppression, racism, etc. This is painfully obvious to anyone who will look. The Left refuses to look, because the reality of the whole mess is bad for the Left. So we say it doesn’t exist, unscientifically. We wish the reality away. …
Suppose Blacks had the same abilities as Whites, genetically.
All of the problems, including low IQ, were simply due the fact that they are fucking up, often on purpose. If this were true, and strangely enough, this sort of follows from liberal beliefs about genes and environment, I would argue for a harsh response to Blacks. Not necessarily cutting them off altogether, but I would certainly be a bit less likely to help them.
But there’s no evidence that that is true.
If Blacks do have low IQ due to things they cannot control, then, as a socialist, I would argue that there is no reason that the higher IQ group ought to obtain dramatically higher income, wealth, housing, living spaces and health than the lower one.
As much as possible, socialists should try to attempt to more equalize incomes, housing, living spaces and health care access for both groups, the higher IQ and the lower. …
Why should Whites be allowed to become dramatically richer, healthier, better housed, and live in better places than Blacks, simply because of how the genetic dice got rolled?
Answer: They have no such right. If both groups were equal, and Whites got that way by simply trying harder, then we could make the argument that the White position is just.
Why should Blacks be forced to become dramatically poorer, less healthy, worse housed, and live in worse places than Whites, simply because of how they were born, a variable that they had no control over whatsoever?
Answer: This is not right. It is not just. They should not be forced into these outcomes, and that they are is an outrageous injustice.
There seems to be a broad agreement across the thinking parts of the ideological spectrum that “social justice” (sanely defined) is both perfectly compatible and possibly even more defensible under an HBD-realistic lens.
However, the Pink Guards are utterly uninterested in looking at things from such perspectives, and it just so happens that neither will the Black Shirts they might eventually conjure up into being.