The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Slate: "Stop Talking About Race and IQ"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In Slate, veteran William Saletan writes:

POLITICS
Stop Talking About Race and IQ
Take it from someone who did.
By WILLIAM SALETAN

APRIL 27, 20181:42 PM

The race-and-IQ debate is back. The latest round started a few weeks ago when Harvard geneticist David Reich wrote a New York Times op-ed in defense of race as a biological fact. …

I’ve watched this debate for more than a decade. It’s the same wreck, over and over. A person with a taste for puncturing taboos learns about racial gaps in IQ scores and the idea that they might be genetic. He writes or speaks about it, credulously or unreflectively. Every part of his argument is attacked: the validity of IQ, the claim that it’s substantially heritable, and the idea that races can be biologically distinguished. The offender is denounced as racist when he thinks he’s just defending science against political correctness.

I’ve noticed the opposite phenomenon more often: a person with, ironically, a very high opinion of his own IQ (and often a high opinion of his own ethnic group’s average IQ) sets out to prove the racist white trash morons wrong by exploding the entire concept of intelligence and/or race.

Then after awhile, he notices that his credulous and unreflective arguments aren’t sweeping his opponents before him. So he loses interest and goes off and does something else that’s more fun than losing arguments.

After awhile a new champion of the conventional wisdom arises and the cycle repeats.

I know what it’s like to be this person because, 11 years ago, I was that person. I saw a comment from Nobel laureate James Watson about the black-white IQ gap, read some journal articles about it, and bought in. That was a mistake. Having made that mistake, I’m in no position to throw stones at Sullivan, Harris, or anyone else. But I am in a position to speak to these people as someone who understands where they’re coming from. I believe I can change their thinking, because I’ve changed mine, and I’m here to make that case to them. And I hope those of you who find this whole subject vile will bear with me as I do.

Here’s my advice: You can talk about the genetics of race. You can talk about the genetics of intelligence. But stop implying they’re the same thing. Connecting intelligence to race adds nothing useful. It overextends the science you’re defending, and it engulfs the whole debate in moral flames.

I’m not asking anyone to deny science. What I’m asking for is clarity. The genetics of race and the genetics of intelligence are two different fields of research. In his piece in the Times, Reich wrote about prostate cancer risk, a context in which there’s clear evidence of a genetic pattern related to ancestry. (Black men with African ancestry in a specific DNA region have a higher prostate cancer risk than do black men with European ancestry in that region.) Reich steered around intelligence where, despite racial and ethnic gaps in test scores, no such pattern has been established.

You know, vast amounts of DNA data are in various pipelines right now.

Genome scanning has undergone a fall in price that makes computer chips during the good old days of Moore’s Law seem like Old Masters.

I’m just sayin’ …

It’s also fine to discuss the genetics of IQ—there’s a serious line of scientific inquiry around that subject—and whether intelligence, in any population, is an inherited social advantage. We tend to worry that talk of heritability will lead to eugenics. But it’s also worth noting that, to the extent that IQ, like wealth, is inherited and concentrated through assortative mating, it can stratify society and undermine cohesion. That’s what much of The Bell Curve was about.

The trouble starts when people who write or talk about the heritability of intelligence extend this idea to comparisons between racial and ethnic groups. Some people do this maliciously; others don’t. You can call the latter group naïve, credulous, or obtuse to prejudice. But they might be open to persuasion, and that’s my aim here. For them, the chain of thought might go something like this: Intelligence is partly genetic, and race is partly genetic. So maybe racial differences on intelligence tests can be explained, in part, by genetics.

There are two scientific problems with making this kind of inference. The first is that bringing race into the genetic conversation obscures the causal analysis. Genes might play no role in racial gaps on IQ tests. But suppose they did: To that extent, what would be the point of talking about race?

Why can’t your racist scientists be like the Obama Administration and never bring up the topic of race?

Oh … ok, well I guess the Obama Administration did mention the topic of race all the time, but that was solely in the context of blaming white people, like those evil white racist lady teachers in Minnesota who were disciplining black students three times as often as white students.

But the Obama Administration wasn’t being racist for bringing the might of the federal government down on the heads of Minnesota nice white lady schoolteachers. Instead, the Obama Administration was just pointing out one of the infinite ways in which White People Are Bad.

Since we know from Science that everybody is genetically identical, then any statistical patterns showing blacks behaving badly is simply scientific proof of white racism.

Some white kids, some black kids, and some Asian kids would have certain genes that marginally favor intelligence. Others wouldn’t. It’s still the genes, not race, that would matter.

This is a rare point of consensus in the IQ debate. In his interview with Harris, Murray notes that in The Bell Curve, race was a crude proxy for genetics. Since the book’s publication in 1994, our ability to assess genetic differences has come a long way. Today, scientists are evaluating thousands of genes that correlate with small increments in IQ. “The blurriness of race is noise in the signal,” Murray tells Harris. “It’s going to obscure … genetic differences in IQ.”

“Race science,” the old idea that race is a biologically causal trait, may live on as an ideology of hate.

For example, noted Ideologue of Hate David Reich, the Harvard geneticist, recently published an entire book documenting recent discoveries in the racial prehistory of the world.

But as an academic matter, it’s been discredited. We now know that genes flow between populations as they do between families, blurring racial categories and reshuffling human diversity.

For example, David Reich’s own genes are a mishmash of black, Thai, Chinese, American Indian, and European. Oh, wait, sorry, that’s Tiger Woods.

Reich himself says he didn’t bother scanning his own genes because he’s sure he’s got pretty much the same basic genes as other Ashkenazis.

Genetic patterns can be found within groups, as in the case of prostate cancer. But even then, as Ian Holmes notes in the Atlantic, the patterns correlate with ancestry or population, not race.

Yes, but race correlates with ancestry or population, in fact to such a high degree that the three words are pretty close to synonyms. Reich was able to use self-identified race from boxes checked by medical patients to find certain gene variants from West Africa that make African-Americans more prone to prostate cancer.

In other words, scientists use “race” to save lives.

S0mething must be done about this scandal! We progressives cannot rest easy until concept of race being related to ancestry and genes is driven out of the public mind. We can finally celebrate our triumph when we have proof that more black guys are dying of prostate cancer again than after Reich meddled in this field. Are a few hundred dead black guys a sacrifice that needs to be made to keep white progressives from feeling as smug as ever despite being, technically, wrong?

Seriously, can somebody point out some examples used by white progressives to illustrate important real world distinctions between the words?

When you finally get white liberals to offer examples of what they mean by these pronunciations, they mean that some African-Americans shouldn’t be called black because they have a lot white ancestry. (They also like to imagine that Republican voting whites in the South also have a touch of the tarbrush, those losers!)

Not surprisingly, white intellectuals haven’t had much success with this line of argument in persuading people who self-identify as African American to stop doing that and to celebrate instead the diversity of their ancestry. In fact, these arguments are almost never aimed at blacks, who tend to be proud of being black and who enjoy being blacked. Instead, these arguments are intended to befuddle fellow whites.

When you drag race into the IQ conversation, you bring heat, not light.

We need to go back to talking about cool Science ideas like White Privilege and Unbearable Whiteness.

The second problem with extending genetic theories of IQ to race is that it confounds the science of heritability. …

It’s one thing to theorize about race and genes to assist in disease prevention, diagnosis, or treatment, as Reich has done. But before you seize on his essay to explain racial gaps in employment, ask yourself: Given the dubiousness of linking racial genetics to IQ, what would my words accomplish? Would they contribute to prejudice? Would they be used to blame communities for their own poverty? Would I be provoking thought, or would I be offering whites an excuse not to think about the social and economic causes of inequality?

We need less discourse in Slate about hocus-pocus like IQ and genetics, and more about genuine Scientific facts like Invisible Backpacks!

 
Hide 110 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. What can I expect once I sign on to the program of not questioning the establishment? Victimization by violent crime, followed by police refusing to help, and mass media figures saying simultaneously that it didn’t happen but, of it did happen, then it was all my fault? Getting locked out of jobs as near-Eastern levels of nepotism become inescapable? Fighting in wars that have nothing to do with our national interest and are based on thoroughly refuted lies? Watching my neighborhood become an unliveable hellhole, while being unable to move out? Choking on known side effects from poisonous medications that thegovernment let through the testing process? Constant legacy media beratings, punctuated by cooing worship of the powerful? Getting mutilated by “doctors” who are not doctors and who were hired because of their skin color? Divorce rape? The loss of all Constitutional rights, and the promise of all those privileges that the State accepts that I can be temporarily licensed for provided the criteria are met? Infrastructure collapse and airports that can’t pay an electrical bill? Forty different streamed shows about trannies? The upcoming Abba record?
    I mean jeepers, what kind of unreasonable person can say “no” to that?

    • Replies: @Mishra
    Welcome aboard comrade!

    Wait a minute. Did you say a new ABBA record?

    What's ABBA? What's a record? It's something racist, right?

    , @TomSchmidt
    Mendacity, as spoken in cat on a hot tin roof. It's everywhere.
    , @Colleen Pater
    "and race is partly genetic. So maybe racial differences on intelligence tests can be explained, in part, by genetics.

    There are two scientific problems with making this kind of inference. The first is that bringing race into the genetic conversation obscures the causal analysis. Genes might play no role in racial gaps on IQ tests. But suppose they did: To that extent, what would be the point of talking about race?"

    You know Im a steamfitter with who never pretty much dropped out of school in 8th grade my IQs a modest 125-130. I get the people that write this stuff and rule the world have decades more education and are maybe 145> but when i read sentences like "race is partly genetic" "what would be the point of talking about race" I reall think maybe those tests i took are wrong or maybe the ones they took I mean Im sure by second grade i knew enough to know how incredibly stupid those statements are how can a adult educated hicog even write them without pulling out a gun and shooting himself
  2. Anon[379] • Disclaimer says:

    Saletan had a near death experience when he published his “Liberal Creationism” (nice coinage, that) series in Slate in 2007, for all practical purposes a Bell Curve endorsement. Somehow he hadn’t gotten the memo. The reaction caused his life to pass before his eyes.

    He quickly wrote a lukewarm mea culpa (mainly just that he had cited data that was tainted by the eugenicists at the Pioneer Fund and so on), and he kept his job as Slate Editor. But as the years went on he has published increasingly shrill articles attacking any sort of noticing of racial group differences. I think he fears that as standards change, his series will be rediscovered, his mea culpa will be determined to have been inadequate, and his career will go toiletsville.

    But let us remember the good old days of his three part series:

    Last month, James Watson, the legendary biologist, was condemned and forced into retirement after claiming that African intelligence wasn’t “the same as ours.” “Racist, vicious and unsupported by science,” said the Federation of American Scientists. “Utterly unsupported by scientific evidence,” declared the U.S. government’s supervisor of genetic research. The New York Times told readers that when Watson implied “that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn’t a scientific leg to stand on.”

    I wish these assurances were true. They aren’t. Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there’s strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It’s time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true.

    If this suggestion makes you angry—if you find the idea of genetic racial advantages outrageous, socially corrosive, and unthinkable—you’re not the first to feel that way. Many Christians are going through a similar struggle over evolution. Their faith in human dignity rests on a literal belief in Genesis. To them, evolution isn’t just another fact; it’s a threat to their whole value system. As William Jennings Bryan put it during the Scopes trial, evolution meant elevating “supposedly superior intellects,” “eliminating the weak,” “paralyzing the hope of reform,” jeopardizing “the doctrine of brotherhood,” and undermining “the sympathetic activities of a civilized society.”

    The same values—equality, hope, and brotherhood—are under scientific threat today. But this time, the threat is racial genetics, and the people struggling with it are liberals.

    Evolution forced Christians to bend or break. They could insist on the Bible’s literal truth and deny the facts, as Bryan did. Or they could seek a subtler account of creation and human dignity. Today, the dilemma is yours. You can try to reconcile evidence of racial differences with a more sophisticated understanding of equality and opportunity. Or you can fight the evidence and hope it doesn’t break your faith.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/features/2007/created_equal/liberalcreationism.html

    Also, this, same idea he’s pushing now, but by John McWhorter a while back:

    Stop Obsessing Over Race and IQ
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/race-iq-debate-serves-no-purpose/

    • Replies: @DFH
    I can feel the cowardice oozing out of that last link
    , @Seamus Padraig
    Thanks for that link, Anon. Even before reading it, the powerful similarity between modern-day Liberals who refuse to accept genetics, and old-fashioned Christians who just as staunchly refused to accept Evolution, was already on my mind. Many Liberals today who would laugh at Bryan (our 41st Secretary of State) as an illiterate bumpkin--or even as a 'hater'--would be surprised to learn that he was actually a sensitive individual who opposed Darwinism precisely because he feared it would inevitably lead to social Darwinism.
    , @ThirdWorldSteveReader
    Make Slate Great Again.
  3. But even then, as Ian Holmes notes in the Atlantic, the patterns correlate with ancestry or population, not race.

    What a dork.

    OK. OK. Fine. Have it your way. We’ll talk about “Ancestry” and “Population” and drop the R-word.

    Instead of saying “black students” in learned journals we will force researchers to say “students of Sub-Saharan ancestry”. Happy now?

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "as Ian Holmes notes in the Atlantic"

    One idiot quotes another for support.

    Reminds me a lot of social "science", where one unsupported statement in Paper A (1972) gets cited in papers B-M (1972-1998), which themselves get cited in Papers N-ZZZ (1998-The Current Year).
  4. “I know what it’s like to be this person because, 11 years ago, I was that person. I saw a comment from Nobel laureate James Watson about the black-white IQ gap, read some journal articles about it, and bought in. That was a mistake.”

    Because I almost lost my career and now I am eating shit on a daily basis. What was I thinking?

    Is this Stockholm syndrome? Was he sent to a prison camp?

    • Replies: @Malcolm X-Lax
    Notice he dropped "the legendary biologist" part from his new description of Watson.
    , @SMK
    Saletan's article is an exercise in sophistry, mendacity, obfuscation, incoherence, evasiveness, double-talk. 11 years ago, he apparently thought the average IQ's of Africans and Haitians was partly or even largely genetic in causation. Now he knows or affects to believe that the average Haitian IQ of 67 is purely environmental, wholly an effect of history, politics, and culture. The paramount reason it's imperative for whites to argue that the average IQ of Negros is largely genetic in causation is to create a society in which the maladies and problems of blacks are not blamed on whites and "racism" and "the legacy of slavery and segregation" but viewed as largely self-inflected and immutable. Imagine how salutary and liberating, for whites, but it will never happen, because of whites like Saletan and the tens of millions of whites they've browbeat and inculcated into believing or affecting to believe that race "beneath the skin" is an "artificial social construct" and that Negros are connately as intelligent as Europeans and "Asians" and even Jews.
    , @e
    Because I almost lost my career and now I am eating shit on a daily basis. What was I thinking?

    Pathetic Saletan, for whom I once had respect. He simply has chosen to hang around with the wrong people and can't accept how morally bankrupt they are, how phony they are. He's become one of them.

    I don't feel sorry for him that his career has tanked. He could do what Steve does if he had any balls or any respect for truth.

    , @Alfa158
    No, I think it was more like the intellectual equivalent of the room 101 rat-mask. This whole essay was basically his celebration of how he has at last mastered the art of Crimestop, and how much he loves Big Brother.
    , @Tom Nicholson
    It would be interesting to know if he was explicitly told to write this current piece or if he has been so well-trained that he did it on his own.
    , @Brutusale
    He's representative of a common breed of journalist: Pavlov's Mouthpiece.
  5. Anonymous[352] • Disclaimer says:

    I think that most of us would be happy to stop talking about race and IQ. But that needs to be part of a package deal that includes:

    Stop talking about race and employment category discrepancies by race

    Stop talking about race and disproportional representation in jobs where intelligence is important

    Stop talking about race and student gaps, tracking, gifted programs, school discipline, and racial makeup of classes

    Stop taliang about race and housing where housing decisions may be based on factors that correlate with intelligence

    In general, stop having your cake and eating it. If you want to use race to gain special treatment, you need to prove that you are being discriminated against in the first place and that it’s not just a fair outcome due to intelligence after having received an equal opportunity.

    • Replies: @Lot
    That's all correct.

    "To that extent, what would be the point of talking about race"

    The point of talking about race and IQ is that low non-white/non-asian performance is falsely blamed on whites. This is then used to justify discrimination against whites and asians. It is also used to justify desperate impact theory lawsuits against businesses and local governments. IQ egalitarianism is also used to justify taxes whites to educate non-whites, and to justify mass migration from the third world.
    , @Anon
    OT: why doesn't anyone know/remember that the correct phrase is "eat your cake and have it too"? It's an injunction, from Olde Tymes, to not eat up everything you have now,lest tomorrow bring famine. A lesson for greedy little children, too. Joseph in Egypt, etc.

    You can't eat your cake and have it too; for IF you eat your cake THEN you will not have it. What's the point of "have your cake and eat it too"?Pray, how would you eat a cake you didn't have?

    Also, it's feed a cold, starve a fever; meaning IF you eat while having a cold, THEN you will fuel a fever.

    You're welcome.
    , @Gringo
    Stop talking about race and disproportional representation in jobs where intelligence is important.
    Stop talking about race and student gaps, tracking, gifted programs, school discipline, and racial makeup of classes.


    For example, for decades there has been a big push to get blacks admitted to elite colleges and universities and also a push to get blacks into various STEM majors and professions. However, judging by SAT scores, there is a pronounced dearth of qualified black students- or better said a dearth of black students whose qualifications are comparable to other students. While students at an elite college may average 1400-1500 SATs, a student with 1200 SATs will most likely be able to do the work at an elite college. Nonetheless, is it really fair to reject 1500 SAT students and admit 1200 SAT students in the interest of racial equity or "diversity" -especially when students getting this break most likely come from middle class homes?

    For some numbers, refer to Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (2006): The Widening Racial Scoring Gap on the SAT College Admissions Test.

    For admission to the very highest ranked, brand-name schools such as Princeton or MIT, applicants need scores of 750 to be considered for admission. Yet, as we shall see, only a minute percentage of black test takers score at these levels. Thus, if high-ranking colleges and universities were to abandon their policies of race-sensitive admissions, they will be choosing their first-year students from an applicant pool in which there will be practically no blacks.

    Let's be more specific about the SAT racial gap among high-scoring applicants. In 2005, 153,132 African Americans took the SAT test. They made up 10.4 percent of all SAT test takers.....
    If we raise the top-scoring threshold to students scoring 750 or above on both the math and verbal SAT — a level equal to the mean score of students entering the nation's most selective colleges such as Harvard, Princeton, and CalTech — we find that in the entire country 244 blacks scored 750 or above on the math SAT and 363 black students scored 750 or above on the verbal portion of the test. Nationwide, 33,841 students scored at least 750 on the math test and 30,479 scored at least 750 on the verbal SAT. Therefore, black students made up 0.7 percent of the test takers who scored 750 or above on the math test and 1.2 percent of all test takers who scored 750 or above on the verbal section.

     
    My high school class of about 170 students had, as best I can count, 9 students who scored 750 or above on the Math SAT. Compare that to 244 blacks nationwide- out of 153,132 blacks who took the test. That is a illustration of the dearth of high-scoring blacks. For those who point out that scores aren't everything, that "grit" counts, I would agree. However, which cohort is more likely to produce engineers or Ph.D. scientists- those with 500 Math SATs or those with 750 Math SATs?

    Ignore group IQ- fine. We should judge people as individuals, not as members of races. But by the same token, that would mean that blacks should no longer be given the "bump" of 100-200 points on their SAT scores for admission to elite colleges.

    Consider the issue of school discipline. Some progs maintain that the higher rates of school discipline- such as detentions, suspensions or expulsions- meted out to blacks are the result of racism, and as such schools should not be as "severe" on misbehaving blacks. But anyone who has actually taught in classrooms knows full well that that black students misbehave more than other students. Ignoring race would mean that misbehaving students would be given appropriate consequences- regardless of race.
    , @ThirdWorldSteveReader
    I think this sums it up as well as possible.
  6. Interesting article.

    William Saletan does not want to talk about race and IQ because talking about it can get you into a lot of trouble with the great and the good. But instead of coming clean on why he does not want to talk about the subject–he is a coward–he decides to go the SJW route and do an awful lot of virtue signaling about the perils of racism. Definitely not a portrait in courage or intellectual honesty.

    If we do not talk about race and IQ, gaps in black and brown achievement will always be attributed to white racism.

    Perhaps if the blame whitey game could stop, explorations into the causes of racial IQ differences might become less important.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    At the core of nearly every Progressive idea, you'll find a logic pattern that goes like this:

    Those fact-based arguments that explain our observations very well and succinctly are off the table because they're racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, islamophobic, etc. sooooo.... barring those, here is a highly convoluted explanation to show off my intelligence that, if you look too closely, only does a half-a** job at best of explaining what we observe and grows more and more complicated over time to try and explain it's way around the contradictions, hypocrisy, and unexplained phenomena that we observe. But hey, I said we should hate white guys, so that makes me good!
  7. @J.Ross
    What can I expect once I sign on to the program of not questioning the establishment? Victimization by violent crime, followed by police refusing to help, and mass media figures saying simultaneously that it didn't happen but, of it did happen, then it was all my fault? Getting locked out of jobs as near-Eastern levels of nepotism become inescapable? Fighting in wars that have nothing to do with our national interest and are based on thoroughly refuted lies? Watching my neighborhood become an unliveable hellhole, while being unable to move out? Choking on known side effects from poisonous medications that thegovernment let through the testing process? Constant legacy media beratings, punctuated by cooing worship of the powerful? Getting mutilated by "doctors" who are not doctors and who were hired because of their skin color? Divorce rape? The loss of all Constitutional rights, and the promise of all those privileges that the State accepts that I can be temporarily licensed for provided the criteria are met? Infrastructure collapse and airports that can't pay an electrical bill? Forty different streamed shows about trannies? The upcoming Abba record?
    I mean jeepers, what kind of unreasonable person can say "no" to that?

    Welcome aboard comrade!

    Wait a minute. Did you say a new ABBA record?

    What’s ABBA? What’s a record? It’s something racist, right?

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    They're recording again. Bill Gates has called for new preparations for a global pandemic. The Koreas are talking. Infer from this what you will.
  8. My fellow whites! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

  9. @asdf
    "I know what it’s like to be this person because, 11 years ago, I was that person. I saw a comment from Nobel laureate James Watson about the black-white IQ gap, read some journal articles about it, and bought in. That was a mistake."

    Because I almost lost my career and now I am eating shit on a daily basis. What was I thinking?

    Is this Stockholm syndrome? Was he sent to a prison camp?

    Notice he dropped “the legendary biologist” part from his new description of Watson.

  10. Anonymous[264] • Disclaimer says:

    “Stop naming nuts!”

  11. What an utter coward Saletan is. He makes Shania Twain look like William Wallace.

    As others have pointed out: we’ll stop talking about race and IQ when leftists stop treating inequality of outcome as a priori proof of “white supremacy” and “privilege.”

  12. @Mishra
    Welcome aboard comrade!

    Wait a minute. Did you say a new ABBA record?

    What's ABBA? What's a record? It's something racist, right?

    They’re recording again. Bill Gates has called for new preparations for a global pandemic. The Koreas are talking. Infer from this what you will.

    • Replies: @Mishra
    This is what I read on an audio forum about ABBA's plans:

    Interesting twist - plan is to do a tour, but use digital avatars of their 70's selves on stage. On the bright side, their fans won't have to be embarrassed watching their idols tripping over their chins on stage while they toddle about on their walkers
     
    It's Bill Gates that scares me, but I guess he's not as scary as Zuck & Bezos. I guess.
  13. Given the dubiousness of linking racial genetics to IQ, what would my words accomplish? Would they contribute to prejudice?

    Such words would contribute to fighting against the prejudice that scapegoats whites as the cause of every inequality.

    Would they be used to blame communities for their own poverty?

    There would be no “blame” since people aren’t responsible for their biology. If we thought Tay Sachs was caused by rabbis, but later learned it was genetic, we wouldn’t be blaming anyone. We would be removing blame from an unfairly slandered group.

    Would I be provoking thought, or would I be offering whites an excuse not to think about the social and economic causes of inequality?

    It would offer whites a basis to defend themselves from the current blood libel they are subjected to.

    • Agree: MEH 0910
    • Replies: @RonaldB
    Here are some other unintended consequences of suddenly recognizing racial differences:

    1) Blacks would no longer be accepted into schools for which they are not qualified through affirmative action slots. They would be able to take classes suited to their real intelligence, and actually learn something, since the pacing of classes is very important for learning.

    2) A much higher proportion of blacks would be imprisoned for criminality, thus leaving blacks who are actually honest, law-abiding, and productive in safe and secure neighborhoods.

    3) Blacks would no longer be given mortgages they were obviously not able to maintain, and thus those blacks who bought houses would be able to maintain not only their mortgage payments, but their credit rating.

    4) Blacks would no longer be treated by incompetent black doctors who were admitted, promoted, and graduated from medical schools because of affirmative-action pressures. The black patients might have to suffer the indignity of being treated by competent white doctors, but then again, they would have more years of life to nurse their disappointment.

    5) Blacks in urban areas, particularly majority-black areas, would no longer be guaranteed black mayors, councilmen, and congressmen, no matter how stupid, unqualified, and incompetent, but would actually have the opportunity to elect and be served by, competent public officials, although still suffering the indignity of getting services from a competent white, rather than an incompetent black.
  14. Anonymous[527] • Disclaimer says:
    @lavoisier
    Interesting article.

    William Saletan does not want to talk about race and IQ because talking about it can get you into a lot of trouble with the great and the good. But instead of coming clean on why he does not want to talk about the subject--he is a coward--he decides to go the SJW route and do an awful lot of virtue signaling about the perils of racism. Definitely not a portrait in courage or intellectual honesty.

    If we do not talk about race and IQ, gaps in black and brown achievement will always be attributed to white racism.

    Perhaps if the blame whitey game could stop, explorations into the causes of racial IQ differences might become less important.

    At the core of nearly every Progressive idea, you’ll find a logic pattern that goes like this:

    Those fact-based arguments that explain our observations very well and succinctly are off the table because they’re racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, islamophobic, etc. sooooo.… barring those, here is a highly convoluted explanation to show off my intelligence that, if you look too closely, only does a half-a** job at best of explaining what we observe and grows more and more complicated over time to try and explain it’s way around the contradictions, hypocrisy, and unexplained phenomena that we observe. But hey, I said we should hate white guys, so that makes me good!

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    Very good! I think we should call your unique contribution to the study of logical fallacies argumentum ad virtue-signalling.
    , @lavoisier
    Excellent!!
    , @lavoisier
    Yes.

    Explaining that whitey is the reason why the Third World is the Third World or why people of color have never put a man on the moon is kind of like trying to explain the movement of the planets using the Ptolemaic system.

    A lot of epicycles and hate whitey memes have to be put into the equation in order to square the circle.

    What I find fascinating is the willingness of scientific illiterates like Klein or Yglesias to weigh into these issues in the first place.

    Why should anyone care what a liberal arts major has to say about the genetics of intelligence?

    I have never seen these fools express an opinion on quantum mechanics or the multidimensional universe predicted by string theory.

    But bring up any subject that has racial connotations and all of a sudden they become world class geneticists and statistical experts.

  15. These clowns have no relationship with reality.

  16. SMK says: • Website
    @asdf
    "I know what it’s like to be this person because, 11 years ago, I was that person. I saw a comment from Nobel laureate James Watson about the black-white IQ gap, read some journal articles about it, and bought in. That was a mistake."

    Because I almost lost my career and now I am eating shit on a daily basis. What was I thinking?

    Is this Stockholm syndrome? Was he sent to a prison camp?

    Saletan’s article is an exercise in sophistry, mendacity, obfuscation, incoherence, evasiveness, double-talk. 11 years ago, he apparently thought the average IQ’s of Africans and Haitians was partly or even largely genetic in causation. Now he knows or affects to believe that the average Haitian IQ of 67 is purely environmental, wholly an effect of history, politics, and culture. The paramount reason it’s imperative for whites to argue that the average IQ of Negros is largely genetic in causation is to create a society in which the maladies and problems of blacks are not blamed on whites and “racism” and “the legacy of slavery and segregation” but viewed as largely self-inflected and immutable. Imagine how salutary and liberating, for whites, but it will never happen, because of whites like Saletan and the tens of millions of whites they’ve browbeat and inculcated into believing or affecting to believe that race “beneath the skin” is an “artificial social construct” and that Negros are connately as intelligent as Europeans and “Asians” and even Jews.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    He had it right when he said liberals are struggling with the truth of heritability of IQ as much as Christians are struggling with the concept of evolution. The current frenzy of progressives in denying uncomfortable truths is reaching a fever pitch...sort of like how a citrus tree will explode in blooms and fruit the year before it dies. I think they dread the thought of those of us race-realists being proven right more than anything.

    It's always struck me as highly ironic how people on the political Left can be all-in on evolution but somehow believe (or fool themselves into believing) that the outcome of evolution is perfect equality in IQ, or can believe that someone with XY chromosomes screaming from every cell in his body can mutilate himself, put on an evening gown, and force everyone to call him "Miss". They are worse than the most literal-believing Christians in their denial of reality.

    It may be that our abilty to engineer genetics will make this issue go away without having to ever be comfronted openly, but I tend to think not. Regardless, I think Kipling expressed it well -- it's the white man's burden.

  17. Oh my god I thought Steve was making a rhetorical paraphrasing the of title!

    ‘Stop Talking About Race and IQ!’: Take it from somebody who did.
    *Writes long editorial on Race and IQ.

    That can be Slate’s new tagline like The Washington Post: ‘Democracy Dies In Darkness’.

    Slate: ‘Stop Talking About Race and IQ!’

    But as an academic matter, it’s been discredited. We now know that genes flow between populations as they do between families, blurring racial categories and reshuffling human diversity.

    No further comment is necessary Slatetan is clearly a well-informed man.

  18. Are a few hundred dead black guys a sacrifice that needs to be made to keep white progressives from feeling as smug as ever despite being, technically, wrong?

    You joke, but this is what desegregating the military was. Insane religious fanaticism knows no limit but that imposed by the powerful. When stoked up by the elite it leaves only corpses.

  19. “This is what happens when you deny reality. First you lose your senses, then your mind, then your soul.”

    –William Saletan

  20. Anonymous[229] • Disclaimer says:

    The New Bolsheviks are ready to flush the entire western continuum down the tubes — just like the Old Bolsheviks.

    Socratic dialogue? Scientific method? Freedom of speech?

    “It’s all bullshit! Hey. Ho. Western Civ has got to go!”

    THESE PEOPLE ARE VANDALS. DELINQUENTS. WRECKERS.

    They don’t have any better ideas, just jealous rage. They are angry mental midgets pretending to be intellectuals.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    That’s it. Barbarians. Destroyers. For the sake of destruction, with a fairyland cover story.
  21. @Anonymous
    I think that most of us would be happy to stop talking about race and IQ. But that needs to be part of a package deal that includes:

    Stop talking about race and employment category discrepancies by race

    Stop talking about race and disproportional representation in jobs where intelligence is important

    Stop talking about race and student gaps, tracking, gifted programs, school discipline, and racial makeup of classes

    Stop taliang about race and housing where housing decisions may be based on factors that correlate with intelligence

    In general, stop having your cake and eating it. If you want to use race to gain special treatment, you need to prove that you are being discriminated against in the first place and that it's not just a fair outcome due to intelligence after having received an equal opportunity.

    That’s all correct.

    “To that extent, what would be the point of talking about race”

    The point of talking about race and IQ is that low non-white/non-asian performance is falsely blamed on whites. This is then used to justify discrimination against whites and asians. It is also used to justify desperate impact theory lawsuits against businesses and local governments. IQ egalitarianism is also used to justify taxes whites to educate non-whites, and to justify mass migration from the third world.

    • Replies: @wren
    Some disparate impact lawsuits are indeed desperate.
  22. @Lot
    That's all correct.

    "To that extent, what would be the point of talking about race"

    The point of talking about race and IQ is that low non-white/non-asian performance is falsely blamed on whites. This is then used to justify discrimination against whites and asians. It is also used to justify desperate impact theory lawsuits against businesses and local governments. IQ egalitarianism is also used to justify taxes whites to educate non-whites, and to justify mass migration from the third world.

    Some disparate impact lawsuits are indeed desperate.

  23. I agree, there is no link between race and intelligence. So all this talk of Ashkenazi’s high IQ is racist and must end now. It’s time for people to accept the truth, that the Jews’ dominance in business, banking, media, academia, politics, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, etc. is solely due to their ruthlessness, dishonesty and clannishness, nothing more. Any group can achieve the same success if they adopt these practices.

    • LOL: utu
  24. @J.Ross
    They're recording again. Bill Gates has called for new preparations for a global pandemic. The Koreas are talking. Infer from this what you will.

    This is what I read on an audio forum about ABBA’s plans:

    Interesting twist – plan is to do a tour, but use digital avatars of their 70’s selves on stage. On the bright side, their fans won’t have to be embarrassed watching their idols tripping over their chins on stage while they toddle about on their walkers

    It’s Bill Gates that scares me, but I guess he’s not as scary as Zuck & Bezos. I guess.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Gates is the most benevolent of the three by far.
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    I believe there's a Roy Orbison tour currently running using an "avatar" - don't think it's a true hologram, more a Pepper's Ghost.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper%27s_ghost

    http://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/roy-orbison-hologram-heritage-tours-2233785
  25. If you do not believe (government bureaucrat) scientists like Michael Mann and James Hansen about Global Warming………….you’re a science denier.

    If you do believe (nobel-prize winning) scientists like James Watson about race differences in IQ…………………………..you’re a science denier.

    • Agree: Nicholas Stix
  26. Well maybe Saletan might have a point if liberals were only hostile to the idea that IQ differs between races. However, they are hostile to the whole idea that intelligence and genetics are linked and they usually attack anyone who doesn’t accept blank slate thinking. Liberals tried to make out that the Bell Curve was a “racist” book that was primarily about race and intelligence, when most of the book was about the heritability of IQ and only a small part of the book dealt with race.

    Left liberals hate the whole idea that intelligence can be influenced by biology. It undermines their self-serving argument that people are blank slates that can be improved by manipulating the environment. Saletan must know this so it hard to believe he is being sincere in his appeal to appease them.

  27. “But I am in a position to speak to these people as someone who understands where they’re coming from. I believe I can change their thinking, because I’ve changed mine, and I’m here to make that case to them.”

    He reminds me of Winston Smith at the end of 1984.

    He loves Big Brother.

    • Agree: ic1000
    • LOL: BB753
    • Replies: @ic1000
    The word of the day for William Saletan is "taboo."

    For Slate, the Atlantic, and the other Progressive house organs, there can never be too much said in defense of our taboos against infidels, unbelievers, heretics, and apostates. And there's no such thing as a bad argument, if it can be deployed to mock their wrong thinking.

    Little boy Steve is the most accessible of those remarking on the haute couture of the Emperor, and xir retainers. This blog is a parade of examples of the ill effects of Western elites' preference for fantasy over reality. Ongoing massive waste of resources in addressing public policy issues is the least of them.

    It's not only Saletan who loves Big Brother. Everybody else on the guest list professes the same. Engage with Sailor or his ilk on a level playing field: nice social life and career you got there, it would be a shame if anything happened to them.
    , @candid_observer
    Yeah, I was thinking of Stockholm Syndrome.

    Sad.
  28. Saletan doesn’t fully grok the potential of genetic research to blow up the status quo even if everyone in the reality based community stops talking about race and IQ. Consider, for example, the impact if genetic estimates of IQ become readily available.

    The next time applicants belonging to a particular group allege cultural bias or whatever with some g-loaded test they did poorly on, you take cheek swabs of them and determine that their scores were predicted by their genotype and dismiss their grievance. You can do this while conceding for rhetorical purposes that “race” is not a real thing and is not linked to genes, if you want.

    You can do the same thing with immigration. Use cheek swabs of visa applicants to determine their genetic IQ estimates, and reject the ones whose IQs suggest they and their progeny would be unlikely to be net tax payers. If they allege racism, you can say it was based on their genotype, not their race, which isn’t real anyway.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    You can do the same thing with immigration. Use cheek swabs of visa applicants to determine their genetic IQ estimates, and reject the ones whose IQs suggest they and their progeny would be unlikely to be net tax payers. If they allege racism, you can say it was based on their genotype, not their race, which isn’t real anyway.

    I am not sure if there are tests for altruism and honesty (or perhaps their inverses, e.g. perhaps a criminal record is an easier test) but it will be linked to genes. A good thing to test for at the border.
  29. e says:
    @asdf
    "I know what it’s like to be this person because, 11 years ago, I was that person. I saw a comment from Nobel laureate James Watson about the black-white IQ gap, read some journal articles about it, and bought in. That was a mistake."

    Because I almost lost my career and now I am eating shit on a daily basis. What was I thinking?

    Is this Stockholm syndrome? Was he sent to a prison camp?

    Because I almost lost my career and now I am eating shit on a daily basis. What was I thinking?

    Pathetic Saletan, for whom I once had respect. He simply has chosen to hang around with the wrong people and can’t accept how morally bankrupt they are, how phony they are. He’s become one of them.

    I don’t feel sorry for him that his career has tanked. He could do what Steve does if he had any balls or any respect for truth.

  30. Actually, I think Saletan is zigging when he should be zagging. The leftists are no longer fighting to deny but looking for a way to accept some form of IQ research (and even — gulp — race research!) but of course without abandoning their social and economic positions like massive cash spending on their pet causes, current and future. They are playing for time and will switch once there is a suitable way to long-term spin and neuter these results.

    Unfortunately, the net outcome is thus likely to be disappointing to those who thought HBD acceptance would change anything by itself. Left-discomforting truth seeking will still be hated and suppressed. All programs will remain or be amplified. Leftism will still reign supreme. Whitey will still be hated by government officials all through the land. However, we will at least have the satisfaction of having been right.

    • Replies: @Anon
    If you read Saletan's piece closely, he is weirdly well-informed and up to date on intelligence and race research, including esoteric stuff like like the unpublished papers that James Thompson discusses. He comes across as someone who is fascinated by the subject, has to maintain his anti-HBD creed, and as a result has major cognitive dissonance.
    , @RonaldB
    Damn!

    I think you're right on the money. The bureaucrats and race-profiteers jettisoned logic in claiming discrimination, conscious or unconscious, determines observed differences if the behaviors of different races. They claimed that there were no genetic differences between the races.

    Now, that the argument about null genetic differences becomes untenable, they simply dig different foxholes a bit back from the previous front. Having already jettisoned logic, it is not necessary for them to defend the refuted theory of null differences, and yet continue behaviors that make no sense.
  31. @Anon
    Saletan had a near death experience when he published his "Liberal Creationism" (nice coinage, that) series in Slate in 2007, for all practical purposes a Bell Curve endorsement. Somehow he hadn't gotten the memo. The reaction caused his life to pass before his eyes.

    He quickly wrote a lukewarm mea culpa (mainly just that he had cited data that was tainted by the eugenicists at the Pioneer Fund and so on), and he kept his job as Slate Editor. But as the years went on he has published increasingly shrill articles attacking any sort of noticing of racial group differences. I think he fears that as standards change, his series will be rediscovered, his mea culpa will be determined to have been inadequate, and his career will go toiletsville.

    But let us remember the good old days of his three part series:


    Last month, James Watson, the legendary biologist, was condemned and forced into retirement after claiming that African intelligence wasn't "the same as ours." "Racist, vicious and unsupported by science," said the Federation of American Scientists. "Utterly unsupported by scientific evidence," declared the U.S. government's supervisor of genetic research. The New York Times told readers that when Watson implied "that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn't a scientific leg to stand on."

    I wish these assurances were true. They aren't. Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there's strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It's time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true.

    If this suggestion makes you angry—if you find the idea of genetic racial advantages outrageous, socially corrosive, and unthinkable—you're not the first to feel that way. Many Christians are going through a similar struggle over evolution. Their faith in human dignity rests on a literal belief in Genesis. To them, evolution isn't just another fact; it's a threat to their whole value system. As William Jennings Bryan put it during the Scopes trial, evolution meant elevating "supposedly superior intellects," "eliminating the weak," "paralyzing the hope of reform," jeopardizing "the doctrine of brotherhood," and undermining "the sympathetic activities of a civilized society."

    The same values—equality, hope, and brotherhood—are under scientific threat today. But this time, the threat is racial genetics, and the people struggling with it are liberals.

    Evolution forced Christians to bend or break. They could insist on the Bible's literal truth and deny the facts, as Bryan did. Or they could seek a subtler account of creation and human dignity. Today, the dilemma is yours. You can try to reconcile evidence of racial differences with a more sophisticated understanding of equality and opportunity. Or you can fight the evidence and hope it doesn't break your faith.
     

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/features/2007/created_equal/liberalcreationism.html

    Also, this, same idea he's pushing now, but by John McWhorter a while back:

    Stop Obsessing Over Race and IQ
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/race-iq-debate-serves-no-purpose/

    I can feel the cowardice oozing out of that last link

    • Replies: @hhsiii
    I assume you say that because it’s National Review, but I don’t think John McWhorter, who is black, is cowardly for addressing the issue this way. And much better reasoning than Saletan, who tries to muddle the science more than McWhorter does.
  32. Anonymous[905] • Disclaimer says:

    Nothing stops Britain’s lefty/liberal/Economist elite from incessantly banging on about just how ‘I’ll educated’ and ‘thick’ ‘white working class ‘ Brexit voters were.

    Of course, amongst certain circles in Britain it’s totally right on and ‘cool’ to throw any sort of vile insult that you can – including questioning IQ scores – at whites, the ‘wrong sort’ of whites that is, whilst offering the most lavish tea & sympathy upon the truly vile acid throwers and strangers of the designated victim melanin enriched classes.

  33. It’s funny how the people who just can’t stop talking about the IQ-Race connection aren’t the ones who have the highest IQ. I don’t see jews and east asians obsessing over this pseudoscience. It’s the white supremacists who hang out at Stormfront, Daily Stormer, Vdare, Unz.com etc. How does that compute in their brains? How does not having the highest IQ support their claims to racial supremacy? Ridiculous…

    • Replies: @Alfa158
    The Chinese and Jews don’t talk about it as much because they take their racial intellectual superiority as a given. In the case of the Chinese they are taking it further and are the world leaders in scientific research to identify the genetic markers for intelligence and engineer themselves into a bigger lead.
    They know the science is real even if some people are too stupid to face up to the truth.
    , @J.Ross
    Can you believe that anyone other than the Sultan of Brunei presumes to follow financial news?
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    "How does not having the highest IQ support their claims to racial supremacy?"

    Because people at Unz don't make claims to racial supremacy?

    "I don’t see jews and east asians obsessing over this pseudoscience"

    https://www.cog-genomics.org/about

    "BGI created the Cognitive Genomics Lab in 2011 with the goal of investigating the genetics of human cognition. Current projects include prosopagnosia ("face blindness") and general intelligence."
    , @TTSSYF
    Jews and Asians haven't been blamed for the past 40+ years for the shortcomings of non-Asian minorities as white Christians have been. Joe Six-pack is sick of it.
    , @diegodepaloma
    Brilliant, people who disagree with me are stupid.
    , @Svigor
    The vast majority of the people obsessed with obscuring the realities of race are Jews.
  34. @asdf
    "I know what it’s like to be this person because, 11 years ago, I was that person. I saw a comment from Nobel laureate James Watson about the black-white IQ gap, read some journal articles about it, and bought in. That was a mistake."

    Because I almost lost my career and now I am eating shit on a daily basis. What was I thinking?

    Is this Stockholm syndrome? Was he sent to a prison camp?

    No, I think it was more like the intellectual equivalent of the room 101 rat-mask. This whole essay was basically his celebration of how he has at last mastered the art of Crimestop, and how much he loves Big Brother.

  35. @Big Bill

    But even then, as Ian Holmes notes in the Atlantic, the patterns correlate with ancestry or population, not race.
     
    What a dork.

    OK. OK. Fine. Have it your way. We'll talk about "Ancestry" and "Population" and drop the R-word.

    Instead of saying "black students" in learned journals we will force researchers to say "students of Sub-Saharan ancestry". Happy now?

    “as Ian Holmes notes in the Atlantic”

    One idiot quotes another for support.

    Reminds me a lot of social “science”, where one unsupported statement in Paper A (1972) gets cited in papers B-M (1972-1998), which themselves get cited in Papers N-ZZZ (1998-The Current Year).

  36. @Bliss
    It’s funny how the people who just can’t stop talking about the IQ-Race connection aren’t the ones who have the highest IQ. I don’t see jews and east asians obsessing over this pseudoscience. It’s the white supremacists who hang out at Stormfront, Daily Stormer, Vdare, Unz.com etc. How does that compute in their brains? How does not having the highest IQ support their claims to racial supremacy? Ridiculous...

    The Chinese and Jews don’t talk about it as much because they take their racial intellectual superiority as a given. In the case of the Chinese they are taking it further and are the world leaders in scientific research to identify the genetic markers for intelligence and engineer themselves into a bigger lead.
    They know the science is real even if some people are too stupid to face up to the truth.

  37. @Mishra
    This is what I read on an audio forum about ABBA's plans:

    Interesting twist - plan is to do a tour, but use digital avatars of their 70's selves on stage. On the bright side, their fans won't have to be embarrassed watching their idols tripping over their chins on stage while they toddle about on their walkers
     
    It's Bill Gates that scares me, but I guess he's not as scary as Zuck & Bezos. I guess.

    Gates is the most benevolent of the three by far.

    • Replies: @Mishra
    Yeah, but his benevolence takes forms such as facilitating Africa's population explosion.
  38. @Bliss
    It’s funny how the people who just can’t stop talking about the IQ-Race connection aren’t the ones who have the highest IQ. I don’t see jews and east asians obsessing over this pseudoscience. It’s the white supremacists who hang out at Stormfront, Daily Stormer, Vdare, Unz.com etc. How does that compute in their brains? How does not having the highest IQ support their claims to racial supremacy? Ridiculous...

    Can you believe that anyone other than the Sultan of Brunei presumes to follow financial news?

  39. @Mishra
    This is what I read on an audio forum about ABBA's plans:

    Interesting twist - plan is to do a tour, but use digital avatars of their 70's selves on stage. On the bright side, their fans won't have to be embarrassed watching their idols tripping over their chins on stage while they toddle about on their walkers
     
    It's Bill Gates that scares me, but I guess he's not as scary as Zuck & Bezos. I guess.

    I believe there’s a Roy Orbison tour currently running using an “avatar” – don’t think it’s a true hologram, more a Pepper’s Ghost.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper%27s_ghost

    http://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/roy-orbison-hologram-heritage-tours-2233785

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    More like 'seance' than tour.
  40. @Bliss
    It’s funny how the people who just can’t stop talking about the IQ-Race connection aren’t the ones who have the highest IQ. I don’t see jews and east asians obsessing over this pseudoscience. It’s the white supremacists who hang out at Stormfront, Daily Stormer, Vdare, Unz.com etc. How does that compute in their brains? How does not having the highest IQ support their claims to racial supremacy? Ridiculous...

    “How does not having the highest IQ support their claims to racial supremacy?”

    Because people at Unz don’t make claims to racial supremacy?

    “I don’t see jews and east asians obsessing over this pseudoscience”

    https://www.cog-genomics.org/about

    “BGI created the Cognitive Genomics Lab in 2011 with the goal of investigating the genetics of human cognition. Current projects include prosopagnosia (“face blindness”) and general intelligence.”

  41. It’s funny that when Jews and Asians do better than Whites it’s because of their superior intelligence and industriousness, but when Whites do better than Blacks it’s because of racism.

    I guess genes only work on some peoples?

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
  42. So, there’s no such thing as race, there’s only populations that differ genetically. By that argument, there’s no such thing as giraffes, either.

  43. @DFH
    I can feel the cowardice oozing out of that last link

    I assume you say that because it’s National Review, but I don’t think John McWhorter, who is black, is cowardly for addressing the issue this way. And much better reasoning than Saletan, who tries to muddle the science more than McWhorter does.

    • Replies: @DFH
    So just pure ethnic self-interest in continuing the exploitation of whites then?
    , @3g4me
    @45 hhsiii: ". . . I don’t think John McWhorter, who is black, is cowardly for addressing the issue this way."

    Bull feces. McWhorter started out writing books noticing uncomfortable patterns, such as his Negro students, regardless of family income or place of birth or purported IQ, did not apply themselves or study as much as his White or other students. Neither did they speak standard English other than as a foreign language - again, regardless of socioeconomic factors.

    Now McWhorter argues that the genetic basis for IQ and other differences is, even in the 'unlikely' event it's true, unnecessarily socially divisive. He also argues that ebonics is a perfectly legitimate and useful dialect.

    Like the majority of the alt-lite or purported 'honest' non-Whites, McWhorter is not merely a coward; he's also a media whore.
  44. @J.Ross
    Gates is the most benevolent of the three by far.

    Yeah, but his benevolence takes forms such as facilitating Africa’s population explosion.

  45. @Anonymous
    At the core of nearly every Progressive idea, you'll find a logic pattern that goes like this:

    Those fact-based arguments that explain our observations very well and succinctly are off the table because they're racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, islamophobic, etc. sooooo.... barring those, here is a highly convoluted explanation to show off my intelligence that, if you look too closely, only does a half-a** job at best of explaining what we observe and grows more and more complicated over time to try and explain it's way around the contradictions, hypocrisy, and unexplained phenomena that we observe. But hey, I said we should hate white guys, so that makes me good!

    Very good! I think we should call your unique contribution to the study of logical fallacies argumentum ad virtue-signalling.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    I ought to know this term and do not, but the Romans were such a pragmatic and not-suffering-fools-gladly people that they must have had a near equivalent term for virtue signalling. I am certain there are several condemnations of empty courtesy but maybe there isn't a single word.
  46. @Simon in London
    "But I am in a position to speak to these people as someone who understands where they’re coming from. I believe I can change their thinking, because I’ve changed mine, and I’m here to make that case to them."

    He reminds me of Winston Smith at the end of 1984.

    He loves Big Brother.

    The word of the day for William Saletan is “taboo.”

    For Slate, the Atlantic, and the other Progressive house organs, there can never be too much said in defense of our taboos against infidels, unbelievers, heretics, and apostates. And there’s no such thing as a bad argument, if it can be deployed to mock their wrong thinking.

    Little boy Steve is the most accessible of those remarking on the haute couture of the Emperor, and xir retainers. This blog is a parade of examples of the ill effects of Western elites’ preference for fantasy over reality. Ongoing massive waste of resources in addressing public policy issues is the least of them.

    It’s not only Saletan who loves Big Brother. Everybody else on the guest list professes the same. Engage with Sailor or his ilk on a level playing field: nice social life and career you got there, it would be a shame if anything happened to them.

  47. @Anon
    Saletan had a near death experience when he published his "Liberal Creationism" (nice coinage, that) series in Slate in 2007, for all practical purposes a Bell Curve endorsement. Somehow he hadn't gotten the memo. The reaction caused his life to pass before his eyes.

    He quickly wrote a lukewarm mea culpa (mainly just that he had cited data that was tainted by the eugenicists at the Pioneer Fund and so on), and he kept his job as Slate Editor. But as the years went on he has published increasingly shrill articles attacking any sort of noticing of racial group differences. I think he fears that as standards change, his series will be rediscovered, his mea culpa will be determined to have been inadequate, and his career will go toiletsville.

    But let us remember the good old days of his three part series:


    Last month, James Watson, the legendary biologist, was condemned and forced into retirement after claiming that African intelligence wasn't "the same as ours." "Racist, vicious and unsupported by science," said the Federation of American Scientists. "Utterly unsupported by scientific evidence," declared the U.S. government's supervisor of genetic research. The New York Times told readers that when Watson implied "that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn't a scientific leg to stand on."

    I wish these assurances were true. They aren't. Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there's strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It's time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true.

    If this suggestion makes you angry—if you find the idea of genetic racial advantages outrageous, socially corrosive, and unthinkable—you're not the first to feel that way. Many Christians are going through a similar struggle over evolution. Their faith in human dignity rests on a literal belief in Genesis. To them, evolution isn't just another fact; it's a threat to their whole value system. As William Jennings Bryan put it during the Scopes trial, evolution meant elevating "supposedly superior intellects," "eliminating the weak," "paralyzing the hope of reform," jeopardizing "the doctrine of brotherhood," and undermining "the sympathetic activities of a civilized society."

    The same values—equality, hope, and brotherhood—are under scientific threat today. But this time, the threat is racial genetics, and the people struggling with it are liberals.

    Evolution forced Christians to bend or break. They could insist on the Bible's literal truth and deny the facts, as Bryan did. Or they could seek a subtler account of creation and human dignity. Today, the dilemma is yours. You can try to reconcile evidence of racial differences with a more sophisticated understanding of equality and opportunity. Or you can fight the evidence and hope it doesn't break your faith.
     

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/features/2007/created_equal/liberalcreationism.html

    Also, this, same idea he's pushing now, but by John McWhorter a while back:

    Stop Obsessing Over Race and IQ
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/race-iq-debate-serves-no-purpose/

    Thanks for that link, Anon. Even before reading it, the powerful similarity between modern-day Liberals who refuse to accept genetics, and old-fashioned Christians who just as staunchly refused to accept Evolution, was already on my mind. Many Liberals today who would laugh at Bryan (our 41st Secretary of State) as an illiterate bumpkin–or even as a ‘hater’–would be surprised to learn that he was actually a sensitive individual who opposed Darwinism precisely because he feared it would inevitably lead to social Darwinism.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    A lot of the Scopes Monkey Trial was about Nietzsche more than Darwin. Bryant represented a lot of the Nice Germans with pacifist inclinations who left for America in the 1800s. Bryant didn't like how the German Army had issued a pamphlet of Nietzsche extracts to all soldiers to make them more bloodthirsty during the Great War.

    Darrow and Mencken were fans of Nietzsche.

    , @Rapparee

    Even before reading it, the powerful similarity between modern-day Liberals who refuse to accept genetics, and old-fashioned Christians who just as staunchly refused to accept Evolution, was already on my mind.
     
    One of the odder things about American-style Fundamentalism is that, despite its reputation for being "old-fashioned", it's not actually an old religion at all- choosing a birthday is a little arbitrary, but The Fundamentals were published from 1910 to 1915, and the Niagara Bible Conference wrapped up in 1897. There are obviously much earlier antecedents, but the distinct elements that we now call Fundamentalism weren't firmly assembled together until just before 1920. Unitarianism, Christian Science, and Mormonism are arguably older.

    Traditional Christianity approached apparent scientific statements in Scripture as prescribed by St. Augustine in De genesi ad litteram- in short, holding that the Bible exists to teach faith and morals, not astronomy, biology or geology, and Christians who insist otherwise in the face of obvious facts are just making themselves and the Bible look stupid.
  48. The left wants to duck this issue because their entire political program revolves around the idea that environment is king and thus society can be molded so that everyone is equal – and any disparities can only be attributed to malign phenomena like white supremacy, the dark side of the force, or whatever.

    But long before we got to the current state of affairs where even good-thinking progressive cannot deny that there is a very strong link between IQ and one’s genes, it’s been obvious that social welfare policies intended to improve outcomes really don’t affect things much. Now it is getting harder to avoid the fact that the traditional environmental bogeymen are not to blame for the most part.

    Even more painful – and which Saletan appears to tiptoe up to – is the effect of assortive mating. If we are seeing stratification in society because winners pair off with winners (and this has a racial component) then the implication is that the large and growing underclass are genetic losers having kids with other losers. Even the left recognizes this but cloaks its concern in its full-throated support of abortion and birth control because it cannot admit a significant part of its base and it’s cultural habits are undermining whatever good their social welfare proposals could have on society.

  49. @SMK
    Saletan's article is an exercise in sophistry, mendacity, obfuscation, incoherence, evasiveness, double-talk. 11 years ago, he apparently thought the average IQ's of Africans and Haitians was partly or even largely genetic in causation. Now he knows or affects to believe that the average Haitian IQ of 67 is purely environmental, wholly an effect of history, politics, and culture. The paramount reason it's imperative for whites to argue that the average IQ of Negros is largely genetic in causation is to create a society in which the maladies and problems of blacks are not blamed on whites and "racism" and "the legacy of slavery and segregation" but viewed as largely self-inflected and immutable. Imagine how salutary and liberating, for whites, but it will never happen, because of whites like Saletan and the tens of millions of whites they've browbeat and inculcated into believing or affecting to believe that race "beneath the skin" is an "artificial social construct" and that Negros are connately as intelligent as Europeans and "Asians" and even Jews.

    He had it right when he said liberals are struggling with the truth of heritability of IQ as much as Christians are struggling with the concept of evolution. The current frenzy of progressives in denying uncomfortable truths is reaching a fever pitch…sort of like how a citrus tree will explode in blooms and fruit the year before it dies. I think they dread the thought of those of us race-realists being proven right more than anything.

    It’s always struck me as highly ironic how people on the political Left can be all-in on evolution but somehow believe (or fool themselves into believing) that the outcome of evolution is perfect equality in IQ, or can believe that someone with XY chromosomes screaming from every cell in his body can mutilate himself, put on an evening gown, and force everyone to call him “Miss”. They are worse than the most literal-believing Christians in their denial of reality.

    It may be that our abilty to engineer genetics will make this issue go away without having to ever be comfronted openly, but I tend to think not. Regardless, I think Kipling expressed it well — it’s the white man’s burden.

  50. Stop Talking About Race and IQ

    … because stopping talk about facts makes the facts magically disappear.

  51. @Bliss
    It’s funny how the people who just can’t stop talking about the IQ-Race connection aren’t the ones who have the highest IQ. I don’t see jews and east asians obsessing over this pseudoscience. It’s the white supremacists who hang out at Stormfront, Daily Stormer, Vdare, Unz.com etc. How does that compute in their brains? How does not having the highest IQ support their claims to racial supremacy? Ridiculous...

    Jews and Asians haven’t been blamed for the past 40+ years for the shortcomings of non-Asian minorities as white Christians have been. Joe Six-pack is sick of it.

  52. “. . . and whether intelligence, in any population, is an inherited social advantage.”

    This is secondary line of defense they are setting up. First, they say stop talking about it. They are hopeful, but deep down they sense this won’t work. So they are setting up intelligence to be an unfair and unearned advantage, to justify redistribution in its various forms.

    • Replies: @ThirdWorldSteveReader
    And the funny part is, they could have done that from the begining. Their moral system is wide enough to accommodate endogenous group differences and still ask for wealth transfer - I mean, the whole idea used to be that the bottom should be getting more dignity and money than they can produce.

    There was no need to scream against science and trap themselves in a corner, but they did it anyway.
  53. Anonymous[905] • Disclaimer says:
    @YetAnotherAnon
    I believe there's a Roy Orbison tour currently running using an "avatar" - don't think it's a true hologram, more a Pepper's Ghost.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper%27s_ghost

    http://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/roy-orbison-hologram-heritage-tours-2233785

    More like ‘seance’ than tour.

  54. @Simon in London
    "But I am in a position to speak to these people as someone who understands where they’re coming from. I believe I can change their thinking, because I’ve changed mine, and I’m here to make that case to them."

    He reminds me of Winston Smith at the end of 1984.

    He loves Big Brother.

    Yeah, I was thinking of Stockholm Syndrome.

    Sad.

  55. Anon[811] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    I think that most of us would be happy to stop talking about race and IQ. But that needs to be part of a package deal that includes:

    Stop talking about race and employment category discrepancies by race

    Stop talking about race and disproportional representation in jobs where intelligence is important

    Stop talking about race and student gaps, tracking, gifted programs, school discipline, and racial makeup of classes

    Stop taliang about race and housing where housing decisions may be based on factors that correlate with intelligence

    In general, stop having your cake and eating it. If you want to use race to gain special treatment, you need to prove that you are being discriminated against in the first place and that it's not just a fair outcome due to intelligence after having received an equal opportunity.

    OT: why doesn’t anyone know/remember that the correct phrase is “eat your cake and have it too”? It’s an injunction, from Olde Tymes, to not eat up everything you have now,lest tomorrow bring famine. A lesson for greedy little children, too. Joseph in Egypt, etc.

    You can’t eat your cake and have it too; for IF you eat your cake THEN you will not have it. What’s the point of “have your cake and eat it too”?Pray, how would you eat a cake you didn’t have?

    Also, it’s feed a cold, starve a fever; meaning IF you eat while having a cold, THEN you will fuel a fever.

    You’re welcome.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Is this true? It's not a satirical criticism of Marie Antoinette?
  56. @J.Ross
    What can I expect once I sign on to the program of not questioning the establishment? Victimization by violent crime, followed by police refusing to help, and mass media figures saying simultaneously that it didn't happen but, of it did happen, then it was all my fault? Getting locked out of jobs as near-Eastern levels of nepotism become inescapable? Fighting in wars that have nothing to do with our national interest and are based on thoroughly refuted lies? Watching my neighborhood become an unliveable hellhole, while being unable to move out? Choking on known side effects from poisonous medications that thegovernment let through the testing process? Constant legacy media beratings, punctuated by cooing worship of the powerful? Getting mutilated by "doctors" who are not doctors and who were hired because of their skin color? Divorce rape? The loss of all Constitutional rights, and the promise of all those privileges that the State accepts that I can be temporarily licensed for provided the criteria are met? Infrastructure collapse and airports that can't pay an electrical bill? Forty different streamed shows about trannies? The upcoming Abba record?
    I mean jeepers, what kind of unreasonable person can say "no" to that?

    Mendacity, as spoken in cat on a hot tin roof. It’s everywhere.

  57. Anon[222] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pericles
    Actually, I think Saletan is zigging when he should be zagging. The leftists are no longer fighting to deny but looking for a way to accept some form of IQ research (and even -- gulp -- race research!) but of course without abandoning their social and economic positions like massive cash spending on their pet causes, current and future. They are playing for time and will switch once there is a suitable way to long-term spin and neuter these results.

    Unfortunately, the net outcome is thus likely to be disappointing to those who thought HBD acceptance would change anything by itself. Left-discomforting truth seeking will still be hated and suppressed. All programs will remain or be amplified. Leftism will still reign supreme. Whitey will still be hated by government officials all through the land. However, we will at least have the satisfaction of having been right.

    If you read Saletan’s piece closely, he is weirdly well-informed and up to date on intelligence and race research, including esoteric stuff like like the unpublished papers that James Thompson discusses. He comes across as someone who is fascinated by the subject, has to maintain his anti-HBD creed, and as a result has major cognitive dissonance.

  58. @J.Ross
    What can I expect once I sign on to the program of not questioning the establishment? Victimization by violent crime, followed by police refusing to help, and mass media figures saying simultaneously that it didn't happen but, of it did happen, then it was all my fault? Getting locked out of jobs as near-Eastern levels of nepotism become inescapable? Fighting in wars that have nothing to do with our national interest and are based on thoroughly refuted lies? Watching my neighborhood become an unliveable hellhole, while being unable to move out? Choking on known side effects from poisonous medications that thegovernment let through the testing process? Constant legacy media beratings, punctuated by cooing worship of the powerful? Getting mutilated by "doctors" who are not doctors and who were hired because of their skin color? Divorce rape? The loss of all Constitutional rights, and the promise of all those privileges that the State accepts that I can be temporarily licensed for provided the criteria are met? Infrastructure collapse and airports that can't pay an electrical bill? Forty different streamed shows about trannies? The upcoming Abba record?
    I mean jeepers, what kind of unreasonable person can say "no" to that?

    “and race is partly genetic. So maybe racial differences on intelligence tests can be explained, in part, by genetics.

    There are two scientific problems with making this kind of inference. The first is that bringing race into the genetic conversation obscures the causal analysis. Genes might play no role in racial gaps on IQ tests. But suppose they did: To that extent, what would be the point of talking about race?”

    You know Im a steamfitter with who never pretty much dropped out of school in 8th grade my IQs a modest 125-130. I get the people that write this stuff and rule the world have decades more education and are maybe 145> but when i read sentences like “race is partly genetic” “what would be the point of talking about race” I reall think maybe those tests i took are wrong or maybe the ones they took I mean Im sure by second grade i knew enough to know how incredibly stupid those statements are how can a adult educated hicog even write them without pulling out a gun and shooting himself

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    A lot of what we are seeing comes from education being credentialism, and the fact that these idiots don't rule the world, they just inherited. A while back NPR had a female scientific authority explaining that we need to talk less about experiment and attempts at disproving things, because science had largely explained everything, so science is now about the consensus of the experts.
  59. I’m not saying anything new here, but some of us would love to stop talking about race, but the Left just won’t let it go. How about we start by ending affirmative action?

  60. @Drake

    Given the dubiousness of linking racial genetics to IQ, what would my words accomplish? Would they contribute to prejudice?
     
    Such words would contribute to fighting against the prejudice that scapegoats whites as the cause of every inequality.

    Would they be used to blame communities for their own poverty?
     
    There would be no "blame" since people aren't responsible for their biology. If we thought Tay Sachs was caused by rabbis, but later learned it was genetic, we wouldn't be blaming anyone. We would be removing blame from an unfairly slandered group.

    Would I be provoking thought, or would I be offering whites an excuse not to think about the social and economic causes of inequality?
     
    It would offer whites a basis to defend themselves from the current blood libel they are subjected to.

    Here are some other unintended consequences of suddenly recognizing racial differences:

    1) Blacks would no longer be accepted into schools for which they are not qualified through affirmative action slots. They would be able to take classes suited to their real intelligence, and actually learn something, since the pacing of classes is very important for learning.

    2) A much higher proportion of blacks would be imprisoned for criminality, thus leaving blacks who are actually honest, law-abiding, and productive in safe and secure neighborhoods.

    3) Blacks would no longer be given mortgages they were obviously not able to maintain, and thus those blacks who bought houses would be able to maintain not only their mortgage payments, but their credit rating.

    4) Blacks would no longer be treated by incompetent black doctors who were admitted, promoted, and graduated from medical schools because of affirmative-action pressures. The black patients might have to suffer the indignity of being treated by competent white doctors, but then again, they would have more years of life to nurse their disappointment.

    5) Blacks in urban areas, particularly majority-black areas, would no longer be guaranteed black mayors, councilmen, and congressmen, no matter how stupid, unqualified, and incompetent, but would actually have the opportunity to elect and be served by, competent public officials, although still suffering the indignity of getting services from a competent white, rather than an incompetent black.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    You’re right or nearly right on one through four. Re five, blacks will always want to be governed by blacks even if there are is a downside to it. Fair enough. I want to be governed by whites.
  61. @Pericles
    Actually, I think Saletan is zigging when he should be zagging. The leftists are no longer fighting to deny but looking for a way to accept some form of IQ research (and even -- gulp -- race research!) but of course without abandoning their social and economic positions like massive cash spending on their pet causes, current and future. They are playing for time and will switch once there is a suitable way to long-term spin and neuter these results.

    Unfortunately, the net outcome is thus likely to be disappointing to those who thought HBD acceptance would change anything by itself. Left-discomforting truth seeking will still be hated and suppressed. All programs will remain or be amplified. Leftism will still reign supreme. Whitey will still be hated by government officials all through the land. However, we will at least have the satisfaction of having been right.

    Damn!

    I think you’re right on the money. The bureaucrats and race-profiteers jettisoned logic in claiming discrimination, conscious or unconscious, determines observed differences if the behaviors of different races. They claimed that there were no genetic differences between the races.

    Now, that the argument about null genetic differences becomes untenable, they simply dig different foxholes a bit back from the previous front. Having already jettisoned logic, it is not necessary for them to defend the refuted theory of null differences, and yet continue behaviors that make no sense.

  62. Stop Talking About Race and IQ

    As Paul Graham (correctly but probably regretfully) said, people don’t tell you not to say something because it is wrong, but because it is right.

  63. jb says:

    What I find most frustrating about people like Saletan is their adamant refusal to address the real issue: What if it’s true?

    In particular, if it’s true, then what are the consequences? One could conceivably argue that there are no important consequences, but Saletan & co. don’t try to make that argument, because it’s such obvious rubbish. Much of our social policy is founded on the assumption that blacks and whites are equally intelligent, and therefore in a just society they ought to have equal outcomes. If that assumption isn’t true the consequences are enormous! It would mean we are wasting our resources pursuing a goal that can in principle only be attained in an unjust society: i.e., a society that has institutionalized permanent racial preferences. The people who would be on the permanent losing end of such policies must at least be allow to question the underlying assumptions!!!

  64. Sounds like the lefty favorite, a circular firing squad is forming. LOL I really hope it is.

  65. @asdf
    "I know what it’s like to be this person because, 11 years ago, I was that person. I saw a comment from Nobel laureate James Watson about the black-white IQ gap, read some journal articles about it, and bought in. That was a mistake."

    Because I almost lost my career and now I am eating shit on a daily basis. What was I thinking?

    Is this Stockholm syndrome? Was he sent to a prison camp?

    It would be interesting to know if he was explicitly told to write this current piece or if he has been so well-trained that he did it on his own.

  66. @Anonymous
    I think that most of us would be happy to stop talking about race and IQ. But that needs to be part of a package deal that includes:

    Stop talking about race and employment category discrepancies by race

    Stop talking about race and disproportional representation in jobs where intelligence is important

    Stop talking about race and student gaps, tracking, gifted programs, school discipline, and racial makeup of classes

    Stop taliang about race and housing where housing decisions may be based on factors that correlate with intelligence

    In general, stop having your cake and eating it. If you want to use race to gain special treatment, you need to prove that you are being discriminated against in the first place and that it's not just a fair outcome due to intelligence after having received an equal opportunity.

    Stop talking about race and disproportional representation in jobs where intelligence is important.
    Stop talking about race and student gaps, tracking, gifted programs, school discipline, and racial makeup of classes.

    For example, for decades there has been a big push to get blacks admitted to elite colleges and universities and also a push to get blacks into various STEM majors and professions. However, judging by SAT scores, there is a pronounced dearth of qualified black students- or better said a dearth of black students whose qualifications are comparable to other students. While students at an elite college may average 1400-1500 SATs, a student with 1200 SATs will most likely be able to do the work at an elite college. Nonetheless, is it really fair to reject 1500 SAT students and admit 1200 SAT students in the interest of racial equity or “diversity” -especially when students getting this break most likely come from middle class homes?

    For some numbers, refer to Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (2006): The Widening Racial Scoring Gap on the SAT College Admissions Test.

    For admission to the very highest ranked, brand-name schools such as Princeton or MIT, applicants need scores of 750 to be considered for admission. Yet, as we shall see, only a minute percentage of black test takers score at these levels. Thus, if high-ranking colleges and universities were to abandon their policies of race-sensitive admissions, they will be choosing their first-year students from an applicant pool in which there will be practically no blacks.

    Let’s be more specific about the SAT racial gap among high-scoring applicants. In 2005, 153,132 African Americans took the SAT test. They made up 10.4 percent of all SAT test takers…..
    If we raise the top-scoring threshold to students scoring 750 or above on both the math and verbal SAT — a level equal to the mean score of students entering the nation’s most selective colleges such as Harvard, Princeton, and CalTech — we find that in the entire country 244 blacks scored 750 or above on the math SAT and 363 black students scored 750 or above on the verbal portion of the test. Nationwide, 33,841 students scored at least 750 on the math test and 30,479 scored at least 750 on the verbal SAT. Therefore, black students made up 0.7 percent of the test takers who scored 750 or above on the math test and 1.2 percent of all test takers who scored 750 or above on the verbal section.

    My high school class of about 170 students had, as best I can count, 9 students who scored 750 or above on the Math SAT. Compare that to 244 blacks nationwide- out of 153,132 blacks who took the test. That is a illustration of the dearth of high-scoring blacks. For those who point out that scores aren’t everything, that “grit” counts, I would agree. However, which cohort is more likely to produce engineers or Ph.D. scientists- those with 500 Math SATs or those with 750 Math SATs?

    Ignore group IQ- fine. We should judge people as individuals, not as members of races. But by the same token, that would mean that blacks should no longer be given the “bump” of 100-200 points on their SAT scores for admission to elite colleges.

    Consider the issue of school discipline. Some progs maintain that the higher rates of school discipline- such as detentions, suspensions or expulsions- meted out to blacks are the result of racism, and as such schools should not be as “severe” on misbehaving blacks. But anyone who has actually taught in classrooms knows full well that that black students misbehave more than other students. Ignoring race would mean that misbehaving students would be given appropriate consequences- regardless of race.

  67. (Black men with African ancestry in a specific DNA region have a higher prostate cancer risk than do black men with European ancestry in that region.)

    Who are these black men with European ancestry? Italians? I kid! I kid! But seriously who are these black men with European ancestry? Haven’t we learned from the Rachel Dolezal kerfuffle that Europeans are not allowed to be black. Where do these black men get off claiming to be of European ancestry? When they say ‘Black men with African ancestry in a specific DNA region’ , what is a specific DNA region? Are they referring to ‘tragic dirt’ or do they have the same risk on ‘magic dirt’ as well? I would guess they are talking about mulattoes but it seems mulattoes would still have an increased risk just from the African DNA they carry or are they saying that just a little bit of white makes everything alright? This is all very confusing.

    • Replies: @Peter Johnson
    You are way off in your comments and misunderstand "DNA region." A person's DNA is an extremely long string of genetic information which can be usefully examined at local regions on the string. DNA is inherited in random blocks of local regions from the two parents DNA, so a mixed-race African-American could have a European-typical block in a DNA region rather than an African-typical block in that DNA region. Nothing to do with tragic dirt, etc.
  68. anonymous[543] • Disclaimer says:

    “Reich himself says he didn’t bother scanning his own genes because he’s sure he’s got pretty much the same basic genes as other Ashkenazis.”

    Whose average IQ–that’s AVERAGE mind you!– is supposedly 114, which is 14 clicks above the median of 100. Guess he didn’t want to call attention to himself (and the rest of The Tribe). Which indicates that he, like all the others, appears to be turning himself into a pretzel, possibly for fear of losing grant money by virtue of having strayed off the reservation.

  69. @Bliss
    It’s funny how the people who just can’t stop talking about the IQ-Race connection aren’t the ones who have the highest IQ. I don’t see jews and east asians obsessing over this pseudoscience. It’s the white supremacists who hang out at Stormfront, Daily Stormer, Vdare, Unz.com etc. How does that compute in their brains? How does not having the highest IQ support their claims to racial supremacy? Ridiculous...

    Brilliant, people who disagree with me are stupid.

  70. @asdf
    "I know what it’s like to be this person because, 11 years ago, I was that person. I saw a comment from Nobel laureate James Watson about the black-white IQ gap, read some journal articles about it, and bought in. That was a mistake."

    Because I almost lost my career and now I am eating shit on a daily basis. What was I thinking?

    Is this Stockholm syndrome? Was he sent to a prison camp?

    He’s representative of a common breed of journalist: Pavlov’s Mouthpiece.

  71. @Seamus Padraig
    Thanks for that link, Anon. Even before reading it, the powerful similarity between modern-day Liberals who refuse to accept genetics, and old-fashioned Christians who just as staunchly refused to accept Evolution, was already on my mind. Many Liberals today who would laugh at Bryan (our 41st Secretary of State) as an illiterate bumpkin--or even as a 'hater'--would be surprised to learn that he was actually a sensitive individual who opposed Darwinism precisely because he feared it would inevitably lead to social Darwinism.

    A lot of the Scopes Monkey Trial was about Nietzsche more than Darwin. Bryant represented a lot of the Nice Germans with pacifist inclinations who left for America in the 1800s. Bryant didn’t like how the German Army had issued a pamphlet of Nietzsche extracts to all soldiers to make them more bloodthirsty during the Great War.

    Darrow and Mencken were fans of Nietzsche.

  72. This really isn’t that complicated. We all know what race is. And we all know what intelligence is. The noise is just concerted obfuscation. And we know why they do it.

    Personally though I agree (for the wrong reasons) that race and IQ is overemphasized as it neglects other aspects of race and is sometimes used to falsely suggest that multiculturalism would work fine among high IQ populations.

    If you read any of the old-timey racialist writings, there’s a broader interest in the qualitative aspects of racial character, not merely intelligence. Consider Madison Grant’s description of the Nordic race:

    The Nordics are, all over the world, a race of soldiers, sailors, adventurers and explorers, but above all, of rulers, organizers and aristocrats in sharp contrast to the essentially peasant and democratic character of the Alpines. The Nordic race is domineering, individualistic, self-reliant and jealous of their personal freedom both in political and religious systems …

    The mental characteristics of the Mediterranean race are well known and this race, while inferior in bodily stamina to both the Nordic and the Alpine, is probably the superior of both, certainly of the Alpines, in intellectual attainments. In the field of art its superiority to both the other European races is unquestioned, although in literature and in scientific research and discovery the Nordics far excel it.

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
  73. Dr. Strangelove

    or

    How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Dumb.

    by William Saletan

    I’ve noticed the opposite phenomenon more often: a person with, ironically, a very high opinion of his own IQ (and often a high opinion of his own ethnic group’s average IQ) sets out to prove the racist white trash morons wrong by exploding the entire concept of intelligence and/or race.

    Then after awhile, he notices that his credulous and unreflective arguments aren’t sweeping his opponents before him. So he loses interest and goes off and does something else that’s more fun than losing arguments.

    After awhile a new champion of the conventional wisdom arises and the cycle repeats.

    Yeah. Your typical race-realist is like that Marvin guy from Sin City, all grizzled and scarred and swole, with big giant knuckles from beating the crap out of leftist mopes for years; he’s literally forgotten more about race than even well-versed leftists will ever know.

    Leftists are great at the pre-fight trash-talk and advertising, so their audience believe the posters showing Marv as a 90-lb weakling. A few rounds in the ring with the real Marv quickly discourages them.

    But I do notice race-realists sometimes playing dumb to suck in leftists, a-la-rope-a-dope.

  74. @Bliss
    It’s funny how the people who just can’t stop talking about the IQ-Race connection aren’t the ones who have the highest IQ. I don’t see jews and east asians obsessing over this pseudoscience. It’s the white supremacists who hang out at Stormfront, Daily Stormer, Vdare, Unz.com etc. How does that compute in their brains? How does not having the highest IQ support their claims to racial supremacy? Ridiculous...

    The vast majority of the people obsessed with obscuring the realities of race are Jews.

  75. @Tom Nicholson

    (Black men with African ancestry in a specific DNA region have a higher prostate cancer risk than do black men with European ancestry in that region.)
     


    Who are these black men with European ancestry? Italians? I kid! I kid! But seriously who are these black men with European ancestry? Haven't we learned from the Rachel Dolezal kerfuffle that Europeans are not allowed to be black. Where do these black men get off claiming to be of European ancestry? When they say 'Black men with African ancestry in a specific DNA region' , what is a specific DNA region? Are they referring to 'tragic dirt' or do they have the same risk on 'magic dirt' as well? I would guess they are talking about mulattoes but it seems mulattoes would still have an increased risk just from the African DNA they carry or are they saying that just a little bit of white makes everything alright? This is all very confusing.

    You are way off in your comments and misunderstand “DNA region.” A person’s DNA is an extremely long string of genetic information which can be usefully examined at local regions on the string. DNA is inherited in random blocks of local regions from the two parents DNA, so a mixed-race African-American could have a European-typical block in a DNA region rather than an African-typical block in that DNA region. Nothing to do with tragic dirt, etc.

  76. If you read Saletan’s piece closely, he is weirdly well-informed and up to date on intelligence and race research, including esoteric stuff like like the unpublished papers that James Thompson discusses. He comes across as someone who is fascinated by the subject, has to maintain his anti-HBD creed, and as a result has major cognitive dissonance.

    We should all be on the lookout for leftists smuggling race-realism into the mainstream. Like Richard “I sure hope no one reads KEVIN MACDONALD” Dawkins, or William “gosh this RACE REALISM SURE SEEMS PERSUASIVE UNTIL YOU READ A LOT OF IT” Saletan.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Patton Oswalt (I am told) reads Jim Goad. We should watch for this but maintain our resentment that they have their samizdaty and read them too. A few gun-grabbing panics back there was a nice trick of calling out celebrities on twitter who depended on guns in their media products but attacked the right to bear arms in real life, eg, Brian Cranston.
  77. Steve, I would like to know what you think you’re achieving by supporting stuff like ‘race and IQ’. Have you not yet realised crackpottery like this just demonises anti-immigration populism? There are legitimate concerns and anxieties about immigration hence the rise of anti-immigration populist parties, then the ‘race realist’ loons (e.g. Emil Kirkegaard, Mikemikev, John Fuerst etc) come along and demonise sensible opposition to immigration by talking about race and IQ, brain sizes and other nonsense that is totally unpalatable with ordinary people, i.e. voters.

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    Where in this post did Steve even mention immigration? Before you came along, we were talking about science here, not immigration. Or is that Steve (and, by inference, us) is not allowed to have opinions on more than one subject at once? Seriously, Oliver, ditch the gate-keeping. That's how they control us.
    , @MBlanc46
    There’s more to life than being anti-immigration.
  78. @hhsiii
    I assume you say that because it’s National Review, but I don’t think John McWhorter, who is black, is cowardly for addressing the issue this way. And much better reasoning than Saletan, who tries to muddle the science more than McWhorter does.

    So just pure ethnic self-interest in continuing the exploitation of whites then?

  79. @Seamus Padraig
    Very good! I think we should call your unique contribution to the study of logical fallacies argumentum ad virtue-signalling.

    I ought to know this term and do not, but the Romans were such a pragmatic and not-suffering-fools-gladly people that they must have had a near equivalent term for virtue signalling. I am certain there are several condemnations of empty courtesy but maybe there isn’t a single word.

  80. @Svigor

    If you read Saletan’s piece closely, he is weirdly well-informed and up to date on intelligence and race research, including esoteric stuff like like the unpublished papers that James Thompson discusses. He comes across as someone who is fascinated by the subject, has to maintain his anti-HBD creed, and as a result has major cognitive dissonance.
     
    We should all be on the lookout for leftists smuggling race-realism into the mainstream. Like Richard "I sure hope no one reads KEVIN MACDONALD" Dawkins, or William "gosh this RACE REALISM SURE SEEMS PERSUASIVE UNTIL YOU READ A LOT OF IT" Saletan.

    Patton Oswalt (I am told) reads Jim Goad. We should watch for this but maintain our resentment that they have their samizdaty and read them too. A few gun-grabbing panics back there was a nice trick of calling out celebrities on twitter who depended on guns in their media products but attacked the right to bear arms in real life, eg, Brian Cranston.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Oswalt admitted he reads Sailer.
  81. @Anon
    OT: why doesn't anyone know/remember that the correct phrase is "eat your cake and have it too"? It's an injunction, from Olde Tymes, to not eat up everything you have now,lest tomorrow bring famine. A lesson for greedy little children, too. Joseph in Egypt, etc.

    You can't eat your cake and have it too; for IF you eat your cake THEN you will not have it. What's the point of "have your cake and eat it too"?Pray, how would you eat a cake you didn't have?

    Also, it's feed a cold, starve a fever; meaning IF you eat while having a cold, THEN you will fuel a fever.

    You're welcome.

    Is this true? It’s not a satirical criticism of Marie Antoinette?

  82. @Oliver D. Smith
    Steve, I would like to know what you think you're achieving by supporting stuff like 'race and IQ'. Have you not yet realised crackpottery like this just demonises anti-immigration populism? There are legitimate concerns and anxieties about immigration hence the rise of anti-immigration populist parties, then the 'race realist' loons (e.g. Emil Kirkegaard, Mikemikev, John Fuerst etc) come along and demonise sensible opposition to immigration by talking about race and IQ, brain sizes and other nonsense that is totally unpalatable with ordinary people, i.e. voters.

    Where in this post did Steve even mention immigration? Before you came along, we were talking about science here, not immigration. Or is that Steve (and, by inference, us) is not allowed to have opinions on more than one subject at once? Seriously, Oliver, ditch the gate-keeping. That’s how they control us.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    I'm not an ordinary poster of this website; I joined to criticize it and debate someone after they mentioned my name/requested to debate. I'm just unsure what the purpose of this website is - it achieves absolutely nothing? It's just an online playpen for basement dwellers? I'm aware no mention of immigration was made in this article, but Steve often mentions this in other articles and I thought most posters on this website are against immigration. My point is if that is the case - writing endless articles on race and IQ, race etc, is achieving nothing because ordinary people don't care or vote on those issues and they are toxic. If you put out a leaflet with race realism pseudo-science on it in an election, you wouldn't get 5 votes. What exactly is the purpose then of mentioning this race and IQ nonsense here? These discussions only attract basement dwellers, you also aren't 'converting' anyone. No one reading Steve's articles is going to change their mind on anything. Sorry for failing to understand what this weird website's purpose is...
  83. @J.Ross
    Patton Oswalt (I am told) reads Jim Goad. We should watch for this but maintain our resentment that they have their samizdaty and read them too. A few gun-grabbing panics back there was a nice trick of calling out celebrities on twitter who depended on guns in their media products but attacked the right to bear arms in real life, eg, Brian Cranston.

    Oswalt admitted he reads Sailer.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    He got a Sailer post out of it, which reprints a twitter conversation in which he convinces his fans that he can read Sailer without being a Sailerite, and ends with a funny exchange between Rob Schneiderino and Eddie Griffin.
    https://isteve.blogspot.com/2014/01/patton-oswalt-political-correctness-is.html?m=1
    (I don't know how "authentic" it is, but there is a Walloon restaurant near Detroit that serves chicken and waffles.)
    But this is from along time ago.
  84. @hhsiii
    I assume you say that because it’s National Review, but I don’t think John McWhorter, who is black, is cowardly for addressing the issue this way. And much better reasoning than Saletan, who tries to muddle the science more than McWhorter does.

    @45 hhsiii: “. . . I don’t think John McWhorter, who is black, is cowardly for addressing the issue this way.”

    Bull feces. McWhorter started out writing books noticing uncomfortable patterns, such as his Negro students, regardless of family income or place of birth or purported IQ, did not apply themselves or study as much as his White or other students. Neither did they speak standard English other than as a foreign language – again, regardless of socioeconomic factors.

    Now McWhorter argues that the genetic basis for IQ and other differences is, even in the ‘unlikely’ event it’s true, unnecessarily socially divisive. He also argues that ebonics is a perfectly legitimate and useful dialect.

    Like the majority of the alt-lite or purported ‘honest’ non-Whites, McWhorter is not merely a coward; he’s also a media whore.

  85. @Seamus Padraig
    Where in this post did Steve even mention immigration? Before you came along, we were talking about science here, not immigration. Or is that Steve (and, by inference, us) is not allowed to have opinions on more than one subject at once? Seriously, Oliver, ditch the gate-keeping. That's how they control us.

    I’m not an ordinary poster of this website; I joined to criticize it and debate someone after they mentioned my name/requested to debate. I’m just unsure what the purpose of this website is – it achieves absolutely nothing? It’s just an online playpen for basement dwellers? I’m aware no mention of immigration was made in this article, but Steve often mentions this in other articles and I thought most posters on this website are against immigration. My point is if that is the case – writing endless articles on race and IQ, race etc, is achieving nothing because ordinary people don’t care or vote on those issues and they are toxic. If you put out a leaflet with race realism pseudo-science on it in an election, you wouldn’t get 5 votes. What exactly is the purpose then of mentioning this race and IQ nonsense here? These discussions only attract basement dwellers, you also aren’t ‘converting’ anyone. No one reading Steve’s articles is going to change their mind on anything. Sorry for failing to understand what this weird website’s purpose is…

    • Replies: @BB753
    "Sorry for failing to understand what this weird website’s purpose is"

    Some people are curious about human behavior and the way human societies work. That's all.
    , @MEH 0910

    I’m just unsure what the purpose of this website is – it achieves absolutely nothing?
     
    Trump employed the Sailer Strategy to win the Presidency.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/steve-sailer-invented-identity-politics-for-the-alt-right.html
    , @J.Ross
    Textbook concern troll in a wall of text. But I love that Ron Unz, man, Ron's got to get with the program, I mean, shucks, what has this interweb blogpage ever done anyway, gosh, I mean [puts on Everest U sweatshirt], I'M TRYIN' TO HELP YOU, THIS IS FOR YOUR FUTURE, AND YOU'RE SITTIN' THERE LIKE IT DOESN'T MATTER. Come on, Ron. Look at all the tangible and productive things that Best Gore and Eight Chan and A Holy Wind and Pissing Dot Com have brought into the world, and here you are with letters and words that people read. P'shaw, sir.
    , @Seamus Padraig
    Mr. Unz himself does a pretty good job of explaining what this site is about: http://www.unz.com/masthead/

    Here's the skinny: by providing readers with a decent survey of alt-right, alt-left, and--dare I say it?--alt-center viewpoints that are ignored by the MSM, Unz hopes to fight the cognitive-bubble effect.

    But at the end of the day, it's just a website; Unz.com is not in any sense a 'movement'. Of course, people associated with a great many movements customarily gather here to swap ideas, stories and opinions, but we're not a political party, nor are we associated with one.

    Enjoy!

    , @ScarletNumber

    Sorry for failing to understand what this weird website’s purpose is…
     
    You don't seem sorry
    , @Svigor
    1. Who bothers telling people what they're doing is useless? In my experience, that's usually a fig leaf/psyop tactic covering for "I don't like what you're doing and want you to stop."

    2. It doesn't matter if the Constitution was written by the Founding Fathers or a basement-dweller, it's still the Constitution.

    3. The toxic thing had a lot more weight before Trump and the Alt-right.

    4. Hey, maybe it would get 4 votes; no amount of votes will make appeals to authority or popularity persuasive to intelligent, educated people, though.

    5. You're repeating yourself with the "purposeless" and "basement dwellers" thing; don't you great and good types have superior composition skills?

    6. Nobody's perfect. E.g., I don't understand what your weird comment's purpose is...

    P.S., to answer your question: race-realism has predictive power. That gives strong-minded people an edge. People like edges. All of which doesn't bode well for your predictions...

    , @MBlanc46
    Ollie, baby! There’s more to life than achievement.
  86. @Dave Pinsen
    Oswalt admitted he reads Sailer.

    He got a Sailer post out of it, which reprints a twitter conversation in which he convinces his fans that he can read Sailer without being a Sailerite, and ends with a funny exchange between Rob Schneiderino and Eddie Griffin.
    https://isteve.blogspot.com/2014/01/patton-oswalt-political-correctness-is.html?m=1
    (I don’t know how “authentic” it is, but there is a Walloon restaurant near Detroit that serves chicken and waffles.)
    But this is from along time ago.

  87. @Oliver D. Smith
    I'm not an ordinary poster of this website; I joined to criticize it and debate someone after they mentioned my name/requested to debate. I'm just unsure what the purpose of this website is - it achieves absolutely nothing? It's just an online playpen for basement dwellers? I'm aware no mention of immigration was made in this article, but Steve often mentions this in other articles and I thought most posters on this website are against immigration. My point is if that is the case - writing endless articles on race and IQ, race etc, is achieving nothing because ordinary people don't care or vote on those issues and they are toxic. If you put out a leaflet with race realism pseudo-science on it in an election, you wouldn't get 5 votes. What exactly is the purpose then of mentioning this race and IQ nonsense here? These discussions only attract basement dwellers, you also aren't 'converting' anyone. No one reading Steve's articles is going to change their mind on anything. Sorry for failing to understand what this weird website's purpose is...

    “Sorry for failing to understand what this weird website’s purpose is”

    Some people are curious about human behavior and the way human societies work. That’s all.

  88. @Oliver D. Smith
    I'm not an ordinary poster of this website; I joined to criticize it and debate someone after they mentioned my name/requested to debate. I'm just unsure what the purpose of this website is - it achieves absolutely nothing? It's just an online playpen for basement dwellers? I'm aware no mention of immigration was made in this article, but Steve often mentions this in other articles and I thought most posters on this website are against immigration. My point is if that is the case - writing endless articles on race and IQ, race etc, is achieving nothing because ordinary people don't care or vote on those issues and they are toxic. If you put out a leaflet with race realism pseudo-science on it in an election, you wouldn't get 5 votes. What exactly is the purpose then of mentioning this race and IQ nonsense here? These discussions only attract basement dwellers, you also aren't 'converting' anyone. No one reading Steve's articles is going to change their mind on anything. Sorry for failing to understand what this weird website's purpose is...

    I’m just unsure what the purpose of this website is – it achieves absolutely nothing?

    Trump employed the Sailer Strategy to win the Presidency.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/steve-sailer-invented-identity-politics-for-the-alt-right.html

  89. @Anon
    Saletan had a near death experience when he published his "Liberal Creationism" (nice coinage, that) series in Slate in 2007, for all practical purposes a Bell Curve endorsement. Somehow he hadn't gotten the memo. The reaction caused his life to pass before his eyes.

    He quickly wrote a lukewarm mea culpa (mainly just that he had cited data that was tainted by the eugenicists at the Pioneer Fund and so on), and he kept his job as Slate Editor. But as the years went on he has published increasingly shrill articles attacking any sort of noticing of racial group differences. I think he fears that as standards change, his series will be rediscovered, his mea culpa will be determined to have been inadequate, and his career will go toiletsville.

    But let us remember the good old days of his three part series:


    Last month, James Watson, the legendary biologist, was condemned and forced into retirement after claiming that African intelligence wasn't "the same as ours." "Racist, vicious and unsupported by science," said the Federation of American Scientists. "Utterly unsupported by scientific evidence," declared the U.S. government's supervisor of genetic research. The New York Times told readers that when Watson implied "that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn't a scientific leg to stand on."

    I wish these assurances were true. They aren't. Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there's strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It's time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true.

    If this suggestion makes you angry—if you find the idea of genetic racial advantages outrageous, socially corrosive, and unthinkable—you're not the first to feel that way. Many Christians are going through a similar struggle over evolution. Their faith in human dignity rests on a literal belief in Genesis. To them, evolution isn't just another fact; it's a threat to their whole value system. As William Jennings Bryan put it during the Scopes trial, evolution meant elevating "supposedly superior intellects," "eliminating the weak," "paralyzing the hope of reform," jeopardizing "the doctrine of brotherhood," and undermining "the sympathetic activities of a civilized society."

    The same values—equality, hope, and brotherhood—are under scientific threat today. But this time, the threat is racial genetics, and the people struggling with it are liberals.

    Evolution forced Christians to bend or break. They could insist on the Bible's literal truth and deny the facts, as Bryan did. Or they could seek a subtler account of creation and human dignity. Today, the dilemma is yours. You can try to reconcile evidence of racial differences with a more sophisticated understanding of equality and opportunity. Or you can fight the evidence and hope it doesn't break your faith.
     

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/features/2007/created_equal/liberalcreationism.html

    Also, this, same idea he's pushing now, but by John McWhorter a while back:

    Stop Obsessing Over Race and IQ
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/race-iq-debate-serves-no-purpose/

    Make Slate Great Again.

  90. @Anonymous
    I think that most of us would be happy to stop talking about race and IQ. But that needs to be part of a package deal that includes:

    Stop talking about race and employment category discrepancies by race

    Stop talking about race and disproportional representation in jobs where intelligence is important

    Stop talking about race and student gaps, tracking, gifted programs, school discipline, and racial makeup of classes

    Stop taliang about race and housing where housing decisions may be based on factors that correlate with intelligence

    In general, stop having your cake and eating it. If you want to use race to gain special treatment, you need to prove that you are being discriminated against in the first place and that it's not just a fair outcome due to intelligence after having received an equal opportunity.

    I think this sums it up as well as possible.

  91. @william munny
    ". . . and whether intelligence, in any population, is an inherited social advantage."

    This is secondary line of defense they are setting up. First, they say stop talking about it. They are hopeful, but deep down they sense this won't work. So they are setting up intelligence to be an unfair and unearned advantage, to justify redistribution in its various forms.

    And the funny part is, they could have done that from the begining. Their moral system is wide enough to accommodate endogenous group differences and still ask for wealth transfer – I mean, the whole idea used to be that the bottom should be getting more dignity and money than they can produce.

    There was no need to scream against science and trap themselves in a corner, but they did it anyway.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It hugely undermines the strength of their case though.

    It reminds me of the arguments over global warming. The major controversy over GW isn't whether it's happening, but whether the western countries are to blame for it. The progressive consensus is that they are, and so should pay to support the countries impacted by it.

    You can believe the world is warming and that Western countries aren't to blame, but it then becomes much more difficult to get those countries to pay.

    Of course, rich and fortunate countries should support poor and unfortunate ones, just out of common human charity, but appeals to charity are a much weaker motivation than accusations of guilt.

  92. You can talk about the genetics of race. You can talk about the genetics of intelligence

    Thanks, Grand Inquisitor; good to know we made so much progress; five years ago, we could talk about neither without commiting a hate crime.

    Connecting intelligence to race adds nothing useful

    Certainly not useful to some lobby groups; for the rest, not a matter of usefulness.

  93. @Oliver D. Smith
    I'm not an ordinary poster of this website; I joined to criticize it and debate someone after they mentioned my name/requested to debate. I'm just unsure what the purpose of this website is - it achieves absolutely nothing? It's just an online playpen for basement dwellers? I'm aware no mention of immigration was made in this article, but Steve often mentions this in other articles and I thought most posters on this website are against immigration. My point is if that is the case - writing endless articles on race and IQ, race etc, is achieving nothing because ordinary people don't care or vote on those issues and they are toxic. If you put out a leaflet with race realism pseudo-science on it in an election, you wouldn't get 5 votes. What exactly is the purpose then of mentioning this race and IQ nonsense here? These discussions only attract basement dwellers, you also aren't 'converting' anyone. No one reading Steve's articles is going to change their mind on anything. Sorry for failing to understand what this weird website's purpose is...

    Textbook concern troll in a wall of text. But I love that Ron Unz, man, Ron’s got to get with the program, I mean, shucks, what has this interweb blogpage ever done anyway, gosh, I mean [puts on Everest U sweatshirt], I’M TRYIN’ TO HELP YOU, THIS IS FOR YOUR FUTURE, AND YOU’RE SITTIN’ THERE LIKE IT DOESN’T MATTER. Come on, Ron. Look at all the tangible and productive things that Best Gore and Eight Chan and A Holy Wind and Pissing Dot Com have brought into the world, and here you are with letters and words that people read. P’shaw, sir.

  94. @Oliver D. Smith
    I'm not an ordinary poster of this website; I joined to criticize it and debate someone after they mentioned my name/requested to debate. I'm just unsure what the purpose of this website is - it achieves absolutely nothing? It's just an online playpen for basement dwellers? I'm aware no mention of immigration was made in this article, but Steve often mentions this in other articles and I thought most posters on this website are against immigration. My point is if that is the case - writing endless articles on race and IQ, race etc, is achieving nothing because ordinary people don't care or vote on those issues and they are toxic. If you put out a leaflet with race realism pseudo-science on it in an election, you wouldn't get 5 votes. What exactly is the purpose then of mentioning this race and IQ nonsense here? These discussions only attract basement dwellers, you also aren't 'converting' anyone. No one reading Steve's articles is going to change their mind on anything. Sorry for failing to understand what this weird website's purpose is...

    Mr. Unz himself does a pretty good job of explaining what this site is about: http://www.unz.com/masthead/

    Here’s the skinny: by providing readers with a decent survey of alt-right, alt-left, and–dare I say it?–alt-center viewpoints that are ignored by the MSM, Unz hopes to fight the cognitive-bubble effect.

    But at the end of the day, it’s just a website; Unz.com is not in any sense a ‘movement’. Of course, people associated with a great many movements customarily gather here to swap ideas, stories and opinions, but we’re not a political party, nor are we associated with one.

    Enjoy!

  95. @Anonymous
    At the core of nearly every Progressive idea, you'll find a logic pattern that goes like this:

    Those fact-based arguments that explain our observations very well and succinctly are off the table because they're racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, islamophobic, etc. sooooo.... barring those, here is a highly convoluted explanation to show off my intelligence that, if you look too closely, only does a half-a** job at best of explaining what we observe and grows more and more complicated over time to try and explain it's way around the contradictions, hypocrisy, and unexplained phenomena that we observe. But hey, I said we should hate white guys, so that makes me good!

    Excellent!!

  96. @Anonymous
    At the core of nearly every Progressive idea, you'll find a logic pattern that goes like this:

    Those fact-based arguments that explain our observations very well and succinctly are off the table because they're racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, islamophobic, etc. sooooo.... barring those, here is a highly convoluted explanation to show off my intelligence that, if you look too closely, only does a half-a** job at best of explaining what we observe and grows more and more complicated over time to try and explain it's way around the contradictions, hypocrisy, and unexplained phenomena that we observe. But hey, I said we should hate white guys, so that makes me good!

    Yes.

    Explaining that whitey is the reason why the Third World is the Third World or why people of color have never put a man on the moon is kind of like trying to explain the movement of the planets using the Ptolemaic system.

    A lot of epicycles and hate whitey memes have to be put into the equation in order to square the circle.

    What I find fascinating is the willingness of scientific illiterates like Klein or Yglesias to weigh into these issues in the first place.

    Why should anyone care what a liberal arts major has to say about the genetics of intelligence?

    I have never seen these fools express an opinion on quantum mechanics or the multidimensional universe predicted by string theory.

    But bring up any subject that has racial connotations and all of a sudden they become world class geneticists and statistical experts.

  97. @Oliver D. Smith
    I'm not an ordinary poster of this website; I joined to criticize it and debate someone after they mentioned my name/requested to debate. I'm just unsure what the purpose of this website is - it achieves absolutely nothing? It's just an online playpen for basement dwellers? I'm aware no mention of immigration was made in this article, but Steve often mentions this in other articles and I thought most posters on this website are against immigration. My point is if that is the case - writing endless articles on race and IQ, race etc, is achieving nothing because ordinary people don't care or vote on those issues and they are toxic. If you put out a leaflet with race realism pseudo-science on it in an election, you wouldn't get 5 votes. What exactly is the purpose then of mentioning this race and IQ nonsense here? These discussions only attract basement dwellers, you also aren't 'converting' anyone. No one reading Steve's articles is going to change their mind on anything. Sorry for failing to understand what this weird website's purpose is...

    Sorry for failing to understand what this weird website’s purpose is…

    You don’t seem sorry

  98. @Dave Pinsen
    Saletan doesn't fully grok the potential of genetic research to blow up the status quo even if everyone in the reality based community stops talking about race and IQ. Consider, for example, the impact if genetic estimates of IQ become readily available.

    The next time applicants belonging to a particular group allege cultural bias or whatever with some g-loaded test they did poorly on, you take cheek swabs of them and determine that their scores were predicted by their genotype and dismiss their grievance. You can do this while conceding for rhetorical purposes that "race" is not a real thing and is not linked to genes, if you want.

    You can do the same thing with immigration. Use cheek swabs of visa applicants to determine their genetic IQ estimates, and reject the ones whose IQs suggest they and their progeny would be unlikely to be net tax payers. If they allege racism, you can say it was based on their genotype, not their race, which isn't real anyway.

    You can do the same thing with immigration. Use cheek swabs of visa applicants to determine their genetic IQ estimates, and reject the ones whose IQs suggest they and their progeny would be unlikely to be net tax payers. If they allege racism, you can say it was based on their genotype, not their race, which isn’t real anyway.

    I am not sure if there are tests for altruism and honesty (or perhaps their inverses, e.g. perhaps a criminal record is an easier test) but it will be linked to genes. A good thing to test for at the border.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    A genetic test for that sort of thing would be helpful because a lot of third world countries don’t have reliable enough records to make background checks accurate.
  99. Anonymous[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @ThirdWorldSteveReader
    And the funny part is, they could have done that from the begining. Their moral system is wide enough to accommodate endogenous group differences and still ask for wealth transfer - I mean, the whole idea used to be that the bottom should be getting more dignity and money than they can produce.

    There was no need to scream against science and trap themselves in a corner, but they did it anyway.

    It hugely undermines the strength of their case though.

    It reminds me of the arguments over global warming. The major controversy over GW isn’t whether it’s happening, but whether the western countries are to blame for it. The progressive consensus is that they are, and so should pay to support the countries impacted by it.

    You can believe the world is warming and that Western countries aren’t to blame, but it then becomes much more difficult to get those countries to pay.

    Of course, rich and fortunate countries should support poor and unfortunate ones, just out of common human charity, but appeals to charity are a much weaker motivation than accusations of guilt.

  100. @Oliver D. Smith
    I'm not an ordinary poster of this website; I joined to criticize it and debate someone after they mentioned my name/requested to debate. I'm just unsure what the purpose of this website is - it achieves absolutely nothing? It's just an online playpen for basement dwellers? I'm aware no mention of immigration was made in this article, but Steve often mentions this in other articles and I thought most posters on this website are against immigration. My point is if that is the case - writing endless articles on race and IQ, race etc, is achieving nothing because ordinary people don't care or vote on those issues and they are toxic. If you put out a leaflet with race realism pseudo-science on it in an election, you wouldn't get 5 votes. What exactly is the purpose then of mentioning this race and IQ nonsense here? These discussions only attract basement dwellers, you also aren't 'converting' anyone. No one reading Steve's articles is going to change their mind on anything. Sorry for failing to understand what this weird website's purpose is...

    1. Who bothers telling people what they’re doing is useless? In my experience, that’s usually a fig leaf/psyop tactic covering for “I don’t like what you’re doing and want you to stop.”

    2. It doesn’t matter if the Constitution was written by the Founding Fathers or a basement-dweller, it’s still the Constitution.

    3. The toxic thing had a lot more weight before Trump and the Alt-right.

    4. Hey, maybe it would get 4 votes; no amount of votes will make appeals to authority or popularity persuasive to intelligent, educated people, though.

    5. You’re repeating yourself with the “purposeless” and “basement dwellers” thing; don’t you great and good types have superior composition skills?

    6. Nobody’s perfect. E.g., I don’t understand what your weird comment’s purpose is…

    P.S., to answer your question: race-realism has predictive power. That gives strong-minded people an edge. People like edges. All of which doesn’t bode well for your predictions…

  101. @Seamus Padraig
    Thanks for that link, Anon. Even before reading it, the powerful similarity between modern-day Liberals who refuse to accept genetics, and old-fashioned Christians who just as staunchly refused to accept Evolution, was already on my mind. Many Liberals today who would laugh at Bryan (our 41st Secretary of State) as an illiterate bumpkin--or even as a 'hater'--would be surprised to learn that he was actually a sensitive individual who opposed Darwinism precisely because he feared it would inevitably lead to social Darwinism.

    Even before reading it, the powerful similarity between modern-day Liberals who refuse to accept genetics, and old-fashioned Christians who just as staunchly refused to accept Evolution, was already on my mind.

    One of the odder things about American-style Fundamentalism is that, despite its reputation for being “old-fashioned”, it’s not actually an old religion at all- choosing a birthday is a little arbitrary, but The Fundamentals were published from 1910 to 1915, and the Niagara Bible Conference wrapped up in 1897. There are obviously much earlier antecedents, but the distinct elements that we now call Fundamentalism weren’t firmly assembled together until just before 1920. Unitarianism, Christian Science, and Mormonism are arguably older.

    Traditional Christianity approached apparent scientific statements in Scripture as prescribed by St. Augustine in De genesi ad litteram– in short, holding that the Bible exists to teach faith and morals, not astronomy, biology or geology, and Christians who insist otherwise in the face of obvious facts are just making themselves and the Bible look stupid.

  102. @Anonym
    You can do the same thing with immigration. Use cheek swabs of visa applicants to determine their genetic IQ estimates, and reject the ones whose IQs suggest they and their progeny would be unlikely to be net tax payers. If they allege racism, you can say it was based on their genotype, not their race, which isn’t real anyway.

    I am not sure if there are tests for altruism and honesty (or perhaps their inverses, e.g. perhaps a criminal record is an easier test) but it will be linked to genes. A good thing to test for at the border.

    A genetic test for that sort of thing would be helpful because a lot of third world countries don’t have reliable enough records to make background checks accurate.

  103. @Anonymous
    The New Bolsheviks are ready to flush the entire western continuum down the tubes -- just like the Old Bolsheviks.

    Socratic dialogue? Scientific method? Freedom of speech?

    "It's all bullshit! Hey. Ho. Western Civ has got to go!"

    THESE PEOPLE ARE VANDALS. DELINQUENTS. WRECKERS.

    They don't have any better ideas, just jealous rage. They are angry mental midgets pretending to be intellectuals.

    That’s it. Barbarians. Destroyers. For the sake of destruction, with a fairyland cover story.

  104. @RonaldB
    Here are some other unintended consequences of suddenly recognizing racial differences:

    1) Blacks would no longer be accepted into schools for which they are not qualified through affirmative action slots. They would be able to take classes suited to their real intelligence, and actually learn something, since the pacing of classes is very important for learning.

    2) A much higher proportion of blacks would be imprisoned for criminality, thus leaving blacks who are actually honest, law-abiding, and productive in safe and secure neighborhoods.

    3) Blacks would no longer be given mortgages they were obviously not able to maintain, and thus those blacks who bought houses would be able to maintain not only their mortgage payments, but their credit rating.

    4) Blacks would no longer be treated by incompetent black doctors who were admitted, promoted, and graduated from medical schools because of affirmative-action pressures. The black patients might have to suffer the indignity of being treated by competent white doctors, but then again, they would have more years of life to nurse their disappointment.

    5) Blacks in urban areas, particularly majority-black areas, would no longer be guaranteed black mayors, councilmen, and congressmen, no matter how stupid, unqualified, and incompetent, but would actually have the opportunity to elect and be served by, competent public officials, although still suffering the indignity of getting services from a competent white, rather than an incompetent black.

    You’re right or nearly right on one through four. Re five, blacks will always want to be governed by blacks even if there are is a downside to it. Fair enough. I want to be governed by whites.

  105. @Oliver D. Smith
    Steve, I would like to know what you think you're achieving by supporting stuff like 'race and IQ'. Have you not yet realised crackpottery like this just demonises anti-immigration populism? There are legitimate concerns and anxieties about immigration hence the rise of anti-immigration populist parties, then the 'race realist' loons (e.g. Emil Kirkegaard, Mikemikev, John Fuerst etc) come along and demonise sensible opposition to immigration by talking about race and IQ, brain sizes and other nonsense that is totally unpalatable with ordinary people, i.e. voters.

    There’s more to life than being anti-immigration.

  106. @Oliver D. Smith
    I'm not an ordinary poster of this website; I joined to criticize it and debate someone after they mentioned my name/requested to debate. I'm just unsure what the purpose of this website is - it achieves absolutely nothing? It's just an online playpen for basement dwellers? I'm aware no mention of immigration was made in this article, but Steve often mentions this in other articles and I thought most posters on this website are against immigration. My point is if that is the case - writing endless articles on race and IQ, race etc, is achieving nothing because ordinary people don't care or vote on those issues and they are toxic. If you put out a leaflet with race realism pseudo-science on it in an election, you wouldn't get 5 votes. What exactly is the purpose then of mentioning this race and IQ nonsense here? These discussions only attract basement dwellers, you also aren't 'converting' anyone. No one reading Steve's articles is going to change their mind on anything. Sorry for failing to understand what this weird website's purpose is...

    Ollie, baby! There’s more to life than achievement.

  107. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Colleen Pater
    "and race is partly genetic. So maybe racial differences on intelligence tests can be explained, in part, by genetics.

    There are two scientific problems with making this kind of inference. The first is that bringing race into the genetic conversation obscures the causal analysis. Genes might play no role in racial gaps on IQ tests. But suppose they did: To that extent, what would be the point of talking about race?"

    You know Im a steamfitter with who never pretty much dropped out of school in 8th grade my IQs a modest 125-130. I get the people that write this stuff and rule the world have decades more education and are maybe 145> but when i read sentences like "race is partly genetic" "what would be the point of talking about race" I reall think maybe those tests i took are wrong or maybe the ones they took I mean Im sure by second grade i knew enough to know how incredibly stupid those statements are how can a adult educated hicog even write them without pulling out a gun and shooting himself

    A lot of what we are seeing comes from education being credentialism, and the fact that these idiots don’t rule the world, they just inherited. A while back NPR had a female scientific authority explaining that we need to talk less about experiment and attempts at disproving things, because science had largely explained everything, so science is now about the consensus of the experts.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS