The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
My Review of Harden's "The Genetic Lottery"
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From my new book review in Taki’s Magazine:

Harden’s Folly
Steve Sailer

September 29, 2021

Behavioral geneticist Kathryn Paige Harden’s book The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality has been much anticipated by scientists worried that the dumbing down of discourse in the name of diversity might eventually get their funding cut.

After years of trying out on the science conference circuit her arguments for why the Woke shouldn’t be so anti-genetics, The Genetic Lottery is finally here. It turns out to be an elaborately contrived triple-bank-shot attempt to head off growing Ibram X. Kendi-style science denialism by claiming that ignoring the influence of genetics upon human differences just enables the Real Bad Guys, led by archvillain Charles Murray, to easily dunk on the libs:

When social scientists routinely fail to integrate genetics into their models of human development, they leave space for a false narrative that portrays the insights of genetics as a Pandora’s box of “forbidden knowledge.”… Why would we want to hand people opposed to the goals of social equality a powerful rhetorical weapon, in the form of a widely prevalent and easily understood methodological flaw in social research?

You see, extremists like Murray are right about the science—well, except for the part about genetics probably contributing to the IQ gap between whites and blacks. That’s totally wrong. Totally.

Or at least it’s not proven yet.

Or, if Murray is right, that just means white Americans must pay more taxes to compensate for the genetics of blacks:

But, no matter how people differ genetically, no matter how those genetic differences between people are distributed across socially defined racial groups, no matter how strongly those genetic differences influence the development of human characteristics…we are still not absolved of the responsibility to arrange society to the benefit of all people, not just the tiny slice of global genetic diversity that is people of predominantly European ancestry.

Or something. The Genetic Lottery is all over the map.

Read the whole thing there.

 
Hide 227 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Screw Charles Murray. It is deliciously rich justice that he is unfairly rejected as a pariah because that is *precisely* how he treats everyone even slightly to his right.

    Brave? He’s a devout coward and a whiny hypocrite.

    • Agree: Chrisnonymous
    • Replies: @Nicholas Stix
  2. Voltarde says:

    “… Unfortunately, the scientific establishment is attempting to crack down on such research for fear of what it may find. …”

    There will probably be new data usage consent guidelines that effectively prohibit politically unapproved research.

    The deadline is today for this RFI:

    Developing Consent Language for Future Use of Data and Biospecimens
    https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-21-131.html

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  3. So, Idiocracy was prophetic, if Hardin gets her way?

  4. Thoughts says:

    A pretty little divorced white girl who thinks she can play heavy isn’t going to save us Steve

    Dear Kathryn Paige (cuz I know you’re going to read this),

    You messed up. You bought the lies about Yourself and Your Own Nature. You tried to ignore the limitations God placed upon you and play in the big leagues. Now your life and career is over.

    There is only one way to achieve true success on this planet…and this applies to every person…

    To be the most You You possible.

    That’s it.

    And you tried to be something you weren’t. And you failed, and even caused harm to the discourse as a result.

    Congrats.

    Kanya West…though batshit crazy…is the most Him Him. He’s a good role model to have. Stop trying to be what you’re not (an intellectual) and start being the Most You You (a smart woman who wants to be pretty.)

    P.S. – Apologize to your husband and get back with him.

    Your Welcome.

  5. Oh, Paige Harden steals thoughts from here. Not nice at all.

    And yes, I agree, it’s Bentham (effectiveness as a virtue which is in the interest of all) against Rawls (being just ranks morally higher than being effective)***. – With Tiger Moms leaning clearly towards Bentham and are less inclined to honor Rawls.

    *** I’d hold that the ideas of Bentham and Rawls are not necessarily contradictive (mutually exclusive). But maybe Paige Harden would not like this remark.

    • Replies: @angmoh
  6. Pericles says:

    Editors notes, had there been one.

    When social scientists routinely fail refuse to integrate genetics into their models of human development, they leave space for a false narrative that portrays the insights of genetics as a Pandora’s box of “forbidden knowledge.”

  7. dearieme says:

    in this case self-reported race and genetic ancestry appear to converge.

    “Appear,” madam? Nay, it is. I know not “appear.”

    The girl lacks balls.

  8. Anon[175] • Disclaimer says:

    I hate that it has to be this way Steve, but it does.

    She needs to loudly mouth leftist pieties, and denounce known heretics with great force and venom before she can secure her position enough to add “however, I do think it’s worth considering that….”

    It would help her greatly if she was additionally black and a lesbian, but as a white woman this is the best way she can muster up the pokemon points with our rulers to avoid being cancelled while gently nudging people towards the blasphemous truth.

    Recognition for yourself and Murray will not arrive until long after you are dead, but you did pave the way.

  9. El Dato says:

    “So, I heard you wrote a book about the genetic lottery. Let me introduce you to some of my thoughts on that…”

    OT for later: seriously expecting price controls before winter.

    [MORE]

    From the mythical (and acausal) “savings glut” (here is the savings glut in 2020-05, where it’s not even a “glut” but a “ratio” – 33%) that was supposed to get us out of the COVID recesssion back in May or so because people would shell out on consumer goods like never before to the Grapes-of-Wrath redolent “inflation is due to evil profiteers” in a short few months:

    Inflation-Loving Governments Are Now Blaming Private Businesses for Inflation

    In the United States median wage growth has been more than offset by inflation, and in the eurozone wage growth plummeted in July. In fact, the risk in the eurozone is higher, as average hourly wages fell in year-on-year terms in the second quarter.

    Consumers see the prices of the goods and services they buy every day rise significantly faster than the official CPI shows and this, in turn, derails the economic recovery that was supposed to come from a less-than-likely consumption boom and services boost to above-trend growth in 2021. None of those Keynesian miracles happened.

    As policymakers continue to implement massive financial repression measures into the winter, the problem is likely to get worse. No government or central bank seems willing to reduce the speed of fiscal or monetary imbalances, because they benefit from rising inflation. Does anyone believe there will be strong policies to reduce inflation from the same central banks that have pushed trillions into the economy to attract inflation and the same governments that would benefit from inflation to dissolve a bit of their rising debt?

    We are now in the step where governments blame businesses. Biden blamed rising gas prices on “profiteering” and one of his main economic advisors at the National Economic Council, Brian Deese, said pork, chicken, and beef prices rose faster than normal because four companies control the supply.

    In Spain, the government blamed electricity producers for a rise in power prices that came from higher CO2 costs—a tax from which European governments will collect around €20 billion in 2021—thus the government was effectively profiting from the rise in CO2 prices and at the same time blaming businesses for it. This was also part of the heated debate in Germany. Power prices soared due to high natural gas and CO2 prices and political parties blamed speculation and power companies.

    This is what will likely intensify into the third quarter: governments blaming businesses for causing the inflation that policymakers have fueled and then presenting themselves as the solution and imposing price controls, destroying the business fabric, particularly small enterprises.

    Great. The genre of the rotten future i.e. “cyberpunk”, never envisioned reanimation of the vulgar and evil Roosevelt administration. But here we are.

    (A nice and wordy overview on the savings glut from the Chicongo FED which apparently pays people to write papers where cause and effect are purposely reversed… CTRL-F “money printing” not even found. Can you spell Yellen?)

  10. This all is a rationalization. Chesterton said of women: A woman uses her intelligence to find reasons to support her intuition.

    But, it applies to most of mankind, both sexes/genders. “Intuition” stands for world-view. This talk about cognitive abilities blah blah… is just a smokescreen.

    But essentially we are tribes, human groups with collective destiny. In the US, the core tribe are English speaking whites belonging to the Western culture & historical American traditions. All others are foreigners, minorities tolerable more or less, but aliens nonetheless.

    If core Americans are tired of responsibility, cowards, delusional…. fine. The US will then have collapsed because it doesn’t deserve to exist, let alone prosper. Blacks, Muslims, Asians…. cannot become American people in any meaningful sense. They can be more or less well-behaved minorities- but no mentally sane core nation would allow some minorities to undermine it.

    I never cared about all that IQ stuff because, for instance, if I were a Thai- I would find ways to ditch the Chinese or to keep them down until they decide to go for sunnier places. Of course, the Chinese are more able than Thais; they are certainly more intelligent etc. etc. But, they’re not my tribe, and I don’t care about all rationalizations.

    • Agree: Thea
    • Replies: @Cido
  11. They keep dancing around it without quite saying it.

    Intelligence as such is racism.

    Define intelligence as what an IQ test measures. The ability to discern patterns, grasp analogies, etc.

    We already have it that bl*cks are not racist, a proposition standard brand conservatives argue against in vain.

    Now it all fits.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  12. Anon55uu says:

    Australian diversity executives must approach their job a little differently. No vision unfortunately.

    https://news.yahoo.com/pwc-diversity-executives-mocked-chinese-214237902.html

  13. Thanks for reviewing Harden’s book and confirming that it is essentially a corollary to Sailer’s Law Of Female Journalism so I don’t have to read it. As far as her intermittent arguments that the Left should recognize genetic reality go, I can only repeat my earlier comment:

    If [Harden] ever succeeds in the quixotic quest to persuade the Left that the foundational tenet of equalism is mistaken, what will NOT happen is that the Left will say, “Ah well, we were mistaken, let us bury the hatchet and just live and let live then.”

    What WILL happen is that they will say—and they are not entirely wrong in this—is that genetics are just a part of the environment. They will conclude therefore that their real mistake in not recognizing genetic contributions was that they weren’t controlling genetics the whole time along with everything else. And they will immediately set about “remediating” this oversight.

    If you think that battling the Left over every little policy detail was bad when it was simply a matter of who gets hired, who gets promoted, and who gets fired, imagine what it will be like once it becomes a battle over who breeds with whom, who gets born and who gets aborted. …

    Welcome to state-mandated race cuckolding. How do you expect to achieve Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity if you won’t participate? What are you, A RACIST?!? There’s only one race: the Human Race, and you will do your lifelong and genewide part to raise le 56% generation of racial reparators. As our totally legitimately elected President said, white people are becoming a minority, and that’s a good thing! As Diversicrats, our job is to help a good thing along. You know, “we’re from the government, and we’re here to help,” right down to the genetic level. …

  14. Some Guy says:

    So does Harden want complete equality of outcomes or does the moral question simply boil down to different levels of redistribution, which even Murray supports in the form of UBI?

  15. The Jew is using the Black as muscle against you, and you are left there helpless. Well, what are you going to do about it, Whitey? Just sit there?

    You had to hear the truth from a 41-year-old comedy.

  16. Sean says:

    Kathryn Paige Harden
    @kph3k
    ·
    Sep 13
    a while ago I listed the top 3 things I learned from being raised by a military pilot:

    -everyone needs checklists
    -sleep is not optional
    -not deciding is deciding

    and now I’ll add a 4th:

    -you get the most flak when you’re over a high-value target

    Can do attitude, but the American Dream is a lie.

    https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/genetic-lottery-kathryn-paige-harden/ Harden and her colleagues used advanced statistical methods to find gene variants correlating to traits other than intelligence that affect educational success, such as grit, curiosity, motivation, and openness to new experiences. The results confirmed to Harden that the so-called “bootstrap mentality”—the belief that anyone can rise above adversity with enough hard work and determination—is fundamentally flawed. If grit and resilience are at least partly determined by genetics, then children can’t simply will those qualities into existence. That’s one reason she gets frustrated when developmental psychologists avoid any consideration of genetics.

    No one chooses their genes. In the light of genetic realities, the poor are not to be blamed, but the successful are hardly worthy of approbation. Were those facts to be widely accepted society would to take money from the rich and give it to the less fortunate. Now do the rich want to pay extra tax, or any tax? N0. So race is just a skirmish line out in front to the main fortifications, which are manned by the elite and their minions.

  17. Seriously, Murray is obviously a superb individual.

    His biggest fear is that White people will someday be on their own side. Superb!

  18. By the way, Asians ….

    • Replies: @Gary in Gramercy
  19. Altai says:

    When social scientists routinely fail to integrate genetics into their models of human development, they leave space for a false narrative that portrays the insights of genetics as a Pandora’s box of “forbidden knowledge.”… Why would we want to hand people opposed to the goals of social equality a powerful rhetorical weapon, in the form of a widely prevalent and easily understood methodological flaw in social research?

    You see, extremists like Murray are right about the science—well, except for the part about genetics probably contributing to the IQ gap between whites and blacks. That’s totally wrong. Totally.

    Steve isn’t being really fair here. While Murray claims he only wants to use this logical inference to better live up to a better more equitable society, the reality is he is a libertarian and almost everyone involved in IQism is a libertarian who suspects or knows that if this information were to become commonly accepted (At least among the groups least embarrassed by it) that it would mean a serious weakening of support for policies aimed at wealth redistribution and not just as it pertains to race. It might even turbo-charge the breakdown of once high trust societies into political mires like Italy or Brazil.

    By predicating the support of these policies to an idea that ‘everyone is actually the same’ you put yourself in dangerous ground is what is correctly consistently saying. You run the risk of the moral argument being buried with the rhetorical arguments designed afterwards to defend it. He is saying that you ought to come out and say ‘we have a moral duty to our fellow citizens’ rather than saying, implicitly, ‘well yes, inequality would be fine if people and groups weren’t equally smart but that just isn’t so!’ and watch your ought die with your rhetorical is when reality eventually comes around to introduce itself.

    But the bigger danger to these ideals is simply mass migration making ‘fellow citizen’ a meaningless term or one which does not stir any great sense of solidarity. Things like concern about the fate of poor blacks because they’re black and poor not because they’re poor (While poor whites are reactionary enemies!) are also toxic to it.

  20. I believe there is a pattern to be found in strongly egalitarian, left-inclined researchers, which is they wave their banners in their book titles and public statements, but at the same time make a set of footnote admissions. These often take the form of “nobody actually argued that ancestry/race/sex/ was not the cause of Some Differences”. They then go on to say that certain admissions can be made, but these admissions must not be used to justify being right-wing. And so on.
    To coin a phrase: Reality Leakage.

  21. Calling it “the Genetic Lottery” as in ‘you won the lottery’ implies it isn’t fair and wasn’t earned.

    You should feel guilty about being born to a lineage of smart people who made smart choices. You could just as easily been born Black and poor, so cough up those reparations because, there but for the random luck of the lottery, goes you.

    Lotteries pay out big bucks, so if you won, you have excess to give away.

  22. kihowi says:

    That kind of “by not doing what they want you’re actually…doing what they want!” gambit never works and every time the writer thinks they’re pulling some superhuman slight-of-hand that nobody would be able to figure out.

    Breitbart tried that a few days ago. “It may look like liberals want you to get vaccinated, but they’re only saying that so you’ll go against them and not get vaccinated and die. So…to really own the libs, you should do exactly what they want you to do and then you’ll win!”

    I think we can credit both sides of the isle with enough intelligence that they won’t fall for it. Excpect “science denialism” to continue.

  23. Dumbo says:

    no matter how strongly those genetic differences influence the development of human characteristics… we are still not absolved of the responsibility to arrange society to the benefit of all people, not just the tiny slice of global genetic diversity that is people of predominantly European ancestry.

    Why? And who’s “we”?

    As for genes vs culture and nature vs nurture… It’s sort of a false dilemma. It’s all connected. Genes influence culture, and vice-versa. You can’t separate them.

    • Agree: Kylie
    • Replies: @Ben tillman
  24. iffen says:

    Becoming red-pilled as to genetic differences and impacts does not mandate becoming a neo-Nazi, an advocate of forced eugenics, or any other reactionary ism. It is possible to hold egalitarianism as a value in spite of the fact that evolution is oblivious to the concept.

  25. D. K. says:
    @Sean

    “No one chooses their genes. In the light of genetic realities, the poor are not to be blamed, but the successful are hardly worthy of approbation. Were those facts to be widely accepted society would to take money from the rich and give it to the less fortunate. Now do the rich want to pay extra tax, or any tax? N0. So race is just a skirmish line out in front to the main fortifications, which are manned by the elite and their minions.”

    I hate America’s current Ruling Class, but the claim that they are not paying their “fair share” of taxes is as ridiculous as the claim that “the less fortunate” all have been left simply to fend for themselves.

  26. @Altai

    left wingers are almost never hereditarians because it means that the way the world is does not convene with their ideas of how it should be.

    I know I’m in the rare minority, but I am a hereditarian who is at heart left leaning. What it means is that I am willing to countenance the Rawlsian principle of allowing inequalities to persist only when they benefit those most in need.

    However science is science. Blacks are lower iq. And more impulsive. And more violent. And their instinctual family structure is based on female blood relatives sharing effort to raise children rather than the child’s mother and father raising that child together. It makes blacks unable to build wealth over time in our society and unable to compete for jobs requiring high intelligence when competition is based on merit. It makes their neighborhoods violent and undesirable to others.

    But eliminating standards of merit don’t seem to help them sincerely. Blacks are better off when the person who gets a grant to do medical research is the one who is most likely to find treatments, not the one who is black. It will mean there are fewer black clinical researchers, but it will also make blacks suffering from ailments more likely to receive an effective treatment.

    I’m fine with taxing the ultra wealthy to help raise the standard of living of the poor. I support nationalized health insurance since I don’t see why being out of work or low iq is a good reason for being unable to access healthcare. Im fine with the poor and the disadvantaged being evaluated by more lax standards up to a point (maybe undergraduate admissions is the end of that point), though a do not agree those standards should consider race rather than economic factors

    • Agree: Rob
  27. Arclight says:

    Harden’s comment that having a valuable skill set thanks to genetic effects (like her pilot dad) doesn’t necessarily make you a more virtuous person isn’t totally off base, but it’s a way of avoiding something else: that throughout history and up until the present day some groups appear to have a significantly higher proportion of individuals with attributes that produce advances in art, science, and ways of organizing society that move them much further ahead than other groups.

    Obviously there are ebbs and flows within this as well, but you have to be pretty deliberately obtuse to not recognize that the differences in human capital in different population groups have led to massive disparities in human development and achievement, and the echoes of this are seen in multiracial/ethnic societies the world over today. Likewise, even if you believe culture is more important in extracting the maximum potential out of people, our current leadership class resolutely refuses to recognize that perhaps the more successful elements of our society have a better set of values and behaviors that should be emulated, and instead insists our least successful subsets of the population and their habits cannot be examined, much less criticized.

    • Agree: Uncle Dan
    • Replies: @Jim
  28. angmoh says:
    @Dieter Kief

    Oh, Paige Harden steals thoughts from here. Not nice at all.

    Feels like it’s happening more lately. Just the other day Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution linked to isteve – a risky move for him in my opinion.

    Despite the pummelling ‘HBD’ ideas have taken politically over the last decade or so, I get the sense these kind of ideas are down but far from out.

    • Replies: @mc23
  29. @D. K.

    Thanks for posting this. I was going to make a similar comment.

    To be fair to Sean though, there is a case to be made that the upper bracket income tax payers are really just upper middle class strivers, while the truly wealthy and powerful oligarchs don’t have any apparent income—and therefore no income tax—because their wealth is already possessed and possessed within a labyrinth of trusts, shell corps, and LLCs that hides its actual ownership.

    • Agree: iffen, Lurker, Sean
  30. • Replies: @res
  31. the tiny slice of global genetic diversity that is people of predominantly European ancestry.

    More and more tiny with each passing year. Strange how that keeps happening, isn’t it? Even stranger that we’re not supposed to be mentioning it. Gets the ADL quite cross.

    Tinier and tinier, meanwhile. Soon we will be able to ignore them completely. Ignore them and whatever rights they claim to have, that is.

  32. It turns out to be an elaborately contrived triple-bank-shot attempt to head off growing Ibram X. Kendi-style science denialism by claiming that ignoring the influence of genetics upon human differences just enables the Real Bad Guys, led by archvillain Charles Murray . . .

    Ironically, Murray’s Facing Reality is itself a contrived triple-bank-shot attempt to head-off growing Harden-style science denialism by claiming that ignoring the influence of genetics upon racial differences just enables the Real Bad Guys, led by those terrible whites who view themselves as part of a distinct people and who want to do like every other race and organize politically to protect their people.

    • Replies: @ziggurat
  33. dearieme says:
    @Sean

    You’d have to be pretty dim to think that being poor and being rich are entirely matters of moral merit.

    On the other hand you’d also have to be pretty dim to think that just stealing wealth from the rich and giving to the poor won’t make everyone poorer in the long run.

    • Agree: Travis
  34. @James Thompson

    To coin a phrase: Reality Leakage.

    Harden’s book, for all of its factual and philosophical incoherence, is probably a good development. Anything that mainstreams the discussion of genetics will lead to a more truthful debate.

    Once leftists engage with the actual facts the smarter ones will eventually ask “remind me again, why is race only a social construct?”

    If they attempt to co-opt genetics as support for their world view, that’s fine. Frankly, affirmative action and welfare would be more tolerable if they were based on a philosophy of helping the less able, rather than the obnoxious rationale of being reparations for imaginary “white privilege” and “systemic racism.”

    • Agree: jamie b.
    • Replies: @Peter Johnson
  35. @Sean

    No one chooses their genes. In the light of genetic realities, the poor are not to be blamed, but the successful are hardly worthy of approbation. Were those facts to be widely accepted society would to take money from the rich and give it to the less fortunate.

    That’s the whole mentality of the left.

    First. It is moral and just to allow people to keep things other people voluntarily gave to them in trade or gift.

    Second. Under capitalism money is not just reward tokens. Money is an information transmitter. Without price society would never know how to allocate things to create more value. That includes allocating human talent, resources and effort. You are advocating undermining the function of money in a capitalistic system just to give in to your feelings of envy.

    I don;t care why one mechanic can fix my car and another can’t – genetic lottery, effort and learning, a mixture of both. I pay for the results. I am not judging how good a husband and parent the mechanic is or making a cosmic statement about his worthiness, I am paying for results.

    Capitalism does not allocate everything in life. Political power is distributed unfairly in my view, but as for producing and distributing material goods, capitalism is fantastic.

  36. It turns out to be an elaborately contrived triple-bank-shot attempt to head off growing Ibram X. Kendi-style science denialism by claiming that ignoring the influence of genetics upon human differences just enables the Real Bad Guys, led by archvillain Charles Murray, to easily dunk on the libs:

    If Charles Murray is the archvillain, what does that make you, Steve?

    You’re pretty charitable towards Paige Harden, Steve, even though she steals your ideas and would probably says you’re evil at the Hitler level if she deigned to speak of you. Coming across as a nice guy, as you (and Charles Murray) usually do, is probably smart just in terms of boosting your influence, even though it obviously does not keep you from being demonized by the anti-reality left.

    To be as charitable towards Paige Harden as I think she really deserves, I’d say she’s a vicious bitch who would be eager to destroy those who disagree with her idiotic ideas about how to organize society.

  37. D. K. says:
    @Almost Missouri

    ***

    The US federal government imposed the first personal income tax on August 5, 1861, to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War (3% of all incomes over US\$800) (equivalent to \$18,300 in 2019).[12][13][14] This tax was repealed and replaced by another income tax in 1862.[15][16] It was only in 1894 that the first peacetime income tax was passed through the Wilson-Gorman tariff. The rate was 2% on income over \$4000 (equivalent to \$109,000 in 2019), which meant fewer than 10% of households would pay any. The purpose of the income tax was to make up for revenue that would be lost by tariff reductions.[17] The US Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional, the 10th amendment forbidding any powers not expressed in the US Constitution, and there being no power to impose any other than a direct tax by apportionment.

    In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to \$5.4 billion by 1920.[18] The amount of income collected via income tax has varied dramatically, from 1% in the early days of US income tax to taxation rates of over 90% during WW2.

    ***

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#United_States

    It took an amendment to the Constitution of the United States for the federal government to have the legal power to impose an individual income tax. It would take another amendment to give the federal government the power to tax individual wealth, rather than income (cf. the Fifth Amendment’s ‘Taking Clause’).

    ***

    “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

    https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-5/

    ***

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/

    ***

    “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

    https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-16/

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
  38. @Hypnotoad666

    I agree with you that, despite Sailer’s critical review, Harden’s advocacy is probably net-positive for long-run HBD awareness. Reality Leakage is leakage, and eventually the blank-slate boat will fill up and sink. We need to encourage reality leakage wherever possible.

    I also like the phrase “cogito ergo mum”. Many knowledgeable researchers are aware of HBD evidence, but keep their mouths shut out of professional/career fear of consequences.

    • Thanks: Calvin Hobbes
  39. @Sean

    If grit and resilience are at least partly determined by genetics, then children can’t simply will those qualities into existence. That’s one reason she gets frustrated when developmental psychologists avoid any consideration of genetics.

    This distinction between receiving a “gift” and “accomplishing” a goal seems to be the core of our philosophical/psychological value judgments.

    For example, if a person is hardworking, compassionate and generous, we seem inclined to discount those traits if he was just “born that way.” Whereas someone who “works hard” to be good (and maybe even fails) is considered somehow morally superior.

    But if I’m accused of not “working hard” to be a better person, shouldn’t I be able to defend myself by saying: “Don’t blame me, it’s not my fault that I was born without personal responsibility and with no work ethic.”

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @stillCARealist
  40. Thea says:

    All this twisting and dissembling is a consequence of removing God from the central role in society. Post-enlightenment, value is attributed based on what we can see and measure and touch. The spiritual realm that we only perceive through a glass darkly holds immeasurable value. Christendom allowed us to say all human lives have a value bestowed by their Creator. Now that is lost.

    • Replies: @Peter Johnson
  41. As the double helices turn…

    High-profile autism genetics project paused amid backlash

    Study aimed at collecting DNA from 10,000 autistic people and their families has drawn criticism for failing to consult the autism community.

    by Katharine Sanderson

    A large, UK-based study of genetics and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has been suspended, following criticism that it failed to properly consult the autism community about the goals of the research. Concerns about the study include fears that its data could potentially be misused by other researchers seeking to ‘cure’ or eradicate ASD.

    Eradicate ?!? That’s Nazispeak!

    The Spectrum 10K study is led by Simon Baron-Cohen, director of the Autism Research Centre (ARC) at the University of Cambridge, UK. The £3-million (US\$4-million) project, which is funded by the London-based biomedical funding charity Wellcome, is the largest genetic study of ASD in the United Kingdom. It aims to collect DNA samples, together with information on participants’ mental and physical health, from 10,000 autistic people and their families. This will be used to study the genetic and environmental contributions to ASD, and to co-occurring conditions such as epilepsy and gut-health problems. “If we can understand why these co-occurring conditions are more frequent in autistic people, that could open the door to treatment or management of very distressing symptoms,” says Baron-Cohen.

    So Simon Baron-Cohen is unmasked as a eugenicist Nazi? Good plot twist.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02602-7

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  42. Or, if Murray is right, that just means white Americans must pay more taxes to compensate for the genetics of blacks:

    This is the crux of the matter. It has not been noticed enough here that race-realism does not in and of itself lead to any kind of social change. If everybody became a race-realist tomorrow morning, that does not necessarily imply that society would change one jot, since the rationale for things like Affirmative Action and leniency to black criminals could easily be switched to a genetic one without missing a beat. Race-realism is just as compatible with race-hustling as is race-denialism.

    With that being said, if your goal is to change society for the better, then I don’t think it does any good to talk about genetics at all. The real issue here is a fundamental question of human nature, specifically the natural right to private property from whence all other social rights and duties derive. If society demands that we redistribute goods from white people to black people, this is already wrong on its face because it violates human nature, and it does not matter if the rationale for it is genetic or environmental or historical or whatever. Such things need to be opposed as a matter of principle.

    But HBD, far from being a scientific cashing out of the principle or an anodyne hobby, is actually a great vulnerability. Any attempt to add “content” to a principle just provides the enemy with material he can use against you. Biomolecular genetics is, in any case, very poorly understood; there is precious little causation to go with any correlation; and furthermore, I consider it demonstrated (few here would agree with me) that the theoretical basis of the entire field and of its parent theory, Darwinism, is incorrect. Resting one’s case on such diaphanous evidence is going to come back to hurt you.

    In the meantime, the Left will continue to advance just as surely on this ground as they would on any other, since arguments of any sort are merely instrumental to them.

  43. The core problem is egalitarian universalism. The Progressives a century ago had very different goals than today’s Woke Left. They pushed for sterilization of genetic inferiors, closing borders to genetic inferiors, and so forth.

    As such, the current Left secretly understand where they would go if they dropped the blank slate. We would soon have birthing licenses and mandatory genetic engineering rather than natural conception. It would be soon be Neoliberal Gattaca.

  44. Anon[314] • Disclaimer says:

    The anti-gene people need to realize you cannot come up with a working model for how humans ever evolved to became smarter than the apes unless:

    1) Intelligence is heritable.

    2) Intelligence confers an advantage on those who have it.

    Otherwise, you’re left with Creationism as your explanation.

  45. Anon[314] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    “Nobody chooses their genes.”

    Everybody chooses their kids’ genes. What your kid turns out to be depends entirely on your choice of mate. You marry a dumb loser, you’re likely to get dumb losers for kids.

    You can’t determine your genes, but you can determine the genes for the next generation.

  46. Sean says:
    @Hypnotoad666

    For example, if a person is hardworking, compassionate and generous, we seem inclined to discount those traits if he was just “born that way.” Whereas someone who “works hard” to be good (and maybe even fails) is considered somehow morally superior.

    I am far from convinced there is any whereas. Working hard matters, but it doesn’t make a difference though morally speaking it ought to be. Hence John Rawls, who says one must pretend one does not know whether wehave been dealt a good genetic hand or not. In that way the gap in the real world between what is and what ought to be might be transcended.

    But if I’m accused of not “working hard” to be a better person, shouldn’t I be able to defend myself by saying: “Don’t blame me, it’s not my fault that I was born without personal responsibility

    Sure, and powers that be won’t blame you. Just fire, and imprison you. Your life will not be a long one in any case. Harden has found signs of accelerated aging in the underclass. Not due to stress (cortisol levels) , which are the same in the well of and poor, but in the reaction to stress attributable to the genetic hand you were dealt.

    This distinction between receiving a “gift” and “accomplishing” a goal seems to be the core of our philosophical/psychological value judgments

    Yes. Those value judgements are literary fairy stories created by venal elites, who are the intellectual equivalent of what seven foot basketball players are physically,

    • Replies: @res
  47. As I recall, the argument that Charles Murray made in The Bell Curve was that society was increasingly selecting for and rewarding people with high cognitive skills.

    Since blacks scored low on cognitive skills, he observed, they would get screwed in a high-cognitive society, so maybe we should start to think about it.

    It’s interesting that the welfare state model that our liberal friends champion is the one social model that is bound to Make Things Worse for people with low cognitive skills.

  48. Luke Lea says:

    Quote from the book that Steve seems to disagree with:

    “But, no matter how people differ genetically, no matter how those genetic differences between people are distributed across socially defined racial groups, no matter how strongly those genetic differences influence the development of human characteristics…we are still not absolved of the responsibility to arrange society to the benefit of all people, not just the tiny slice of global genetic diversity that is people of predominantly European ancestry.”

    But isn’t this simply an affirmation of the moral axiom upon which our American democracy was founded, namely, that all men are created equal in the sense that every citizen’s happiness and well being is equally important regardless of his or her station in life and that therefore our governments (state, local, and federal) should strive to contrive and implement policies in conformity with that axiom to the best of their abilities? Isn’t that what Steve’s concept of citizenism is all about?

    Ms. Harden is merely restating the axiom upon which our Republic was founded, an axiom which, being self-evident in Benjamin Franklin’s ingenious formulation, is simply not up for debate. To say that some American’s happiness is more important than others—as, to choose one very concrete example, to argue that all else being equal, a dollar is not worth more to a poor man than it is to a rich one—is simply un-American with no further discussion required. To question that axiom is itself un-American (which is not to say that people in this country don’t have a right to be un-American, which obviously they do).

    The practical problem here, at least in the economic sphere, is how to contrive policies which honor this principle without sacrificing the general welfare, which is what would happen for instance if you enacted taxes that destroy the incentives to enterprise on the part of the gifted, thus making everyone worse off than they otherwise would be. Everyone’s happiness being equally important is not the same as saying that everyone should be economically equal in terms of their consumption of scarce economic goods.

    Why is this so hard? So hard to understand in principal I mean. To say it is hard to achieve in practice is an understatement.

  49. @Hypnotoad666

    It’s Calvinism all the way down. How much free will do we have? Just enough to wind up in Hades.

    Can we ever get the blame or the credit for anything?

    Answer: yes to both, with lots of humility.

  50. roo_ster says:
    @D. K.

    Ah, yes, the Constitution of the USA. About as useful as a tricorn hat in a hurricane.

    Folks need to get it in their heads: The USA has not had rule of law for decades.

    • Agree: Calvin Hobbes
    • Replies: @James J O'Meara
    , @D. K.
  51. Jim says:
    @Arclight

    Like all behavioral traits adhering closely to social norms is significantly influenced by one’s genes. So your genes may very well make you more or less “virtuous”.

  52. @James Thompson

    They then go on to say that certain admissions can be made, but these admissions must not be used to justify being right-wing.

    I’d argue that they’re big fear isn’t that these admissions would be used to justify being right-wing but that they would justify whites pushing back against the various Woke theories and policies. Now, I suppose that many use the phrase “right wing” to mean “bad white people,” in which case, you’re correct.

    What most whites – and, particularly, conservatives and, God help them, libertarians – don’t seem to understand is that our society has moved from the Ideological Age to the Demographic Age. It’s not about Left or Right, socialism vs free markets, big government vs small government. It’s about tribe and splitting the pie.

    It’s similar to the debate over CRT. White conservatives keep saying that it’s Marxist or, if they dare dip their toe into demographics, racist. CRT isn’t racist or Marxist. It’s anti-white. It’s a way to bring down whites, to justify anti-white policies. It’s the same with AOC types. They’re not deep-thinking socialists. They’re using socialism to transfer from whites (and Asians, to a degree) to non-whites, except those pesky Asians. (But don’t worry, Asians are fully on board the hate whitey bandwagon.)

    As much as they might find it distasteful, whites need to stop thinking in ideological terms and and start thinking in racial terms. Failing to do so is a bit like refusing to join a gang in prison. You won’t last long.

  53. @Luke Lea

    Why is this so hard? So hard to understand in principal I mean.

    Because non-whites and Jews are tribal. They put the welfare of their race, ethnicity or those in their religion above other groups.

    Libertarians can’t understand this, which is why libertarianism has never worked in the real world. The Founding Fathers were quite race aware and understood them the society that they were creating worked for Anglo-Saxons and possibly other Europeans (maybe).

    Economics is downstream from culture which is downstream from biology. Change the biology of a population – which is exactly what our rulers have done – and you change the culture and thus the economic institutions.

    There is no going back to what we once had because the population has permanently changed.

    • Agree: Travis, RichardTaylor
  54. Luke Lea says:

    Incidentally, if I am allowed to reply to my own comment, for those who are fluent in high school mathematics below is a link to two papers I wrote when I was past the age of 70, which, between them, describe a theoretical solution to the problem of how to design a policy of public finance that reconciles the axiom of human equality with the goal of maximizing the general welfare of society as a whole. I’ve set the access to allow comments, so feel free to criticize:

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WIdVnQEWdYgYYly9iKkesWCVhfINvbtwuVq2GMOxMbw/edit?usp=sharing

    • Thanks: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  55. @D. K.

    You’re completely ignoring nominally unrealized gains and realized gains offset by phantom losses that are taxed at 0% but still translate into immense levels power, prestige, and economic consumption.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  56. Steve’s article concludes:

    But not everyone would necessarily agree with Harden’s choice to prioritize her son over her daughter. For example, when Harden’s intelligent young daughter matures into a mouthy adolescent, she may occasionally resent her mother investing more effort in her brother, as siblings often do.

    With that in mind, it’s hard not to read The Genetic Lottery less as a work of science or of politics than as Harden’s apologia to her daughter.

    BOOM.

    I’m glad Steve is willing to examine possible sad hominem motivations of why people like KPH think and speak like they do.

  57. Jack D says:
    @Almost Missouri

    It obviously won’t go this way here, but I can think of a way that the gubmint could put genetics in service of DIE – persuade black women to bear the children of white men. Even in one generation this would do wonders for black IQ and after a few generations the whole racial issue would disappear. At one time, this was the policy in many Latin American countries – it was called “blanqueamiento” – whitening, or “improvement of the race”.

    Here is blanqueamiento depicted in a painting from Argentina from 1895. You have Meghan Markle’s mom, Meghan, Prince Harry and Archie. Grandma is saying, “Praise the Lord, I have a white grandson!”

    Of course this is OK for the elites but if you do this for the masses it is “genocide”:

    https://clas.berkeley.edu/dominican-republic-bearing-witness-modern-genocide

  58. @Altai

    By predicating the support of these policies to an idea that ‘everyone is actually the same’ you put yourself in dangerous ground is what is correctly consistently saying. You run the risk of the moral argument being buried with the rhetorical arguments designed afterwards to defend it. He is saying that you ought to come out and say ‘we have a moral duty to our fellow citizens’ rather than saying, implicitly, ‘well yes, inequality would be fine if people and groups weren’t equally smart but that just isn’t so!’ and watch your ought die with your rhetorical is when reality eventually comes around to introduce itself.

    WTF am I reading

  59. @Luke Lea

    But isn’t this simply an affirmation of the moral axiom upon which our American democracy was founded, namely, that all men are created equal in the sense that every citizen’s happiness and well being is equally important [emphasis added] regardless of his or her station in life and that therefore our governments (state, local, and federal) should strive to contrive and implement policies in conformity with that axiom to the best of their abilities?

    Wrong. I believe the phrase you’re referring to is “the pursuit of Happiness”. Nothing in the Declaration or Constitution requires the realization of Happiness. Current Americans are free (well, except for pesky state and institutional violations of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th) to personally succeed or fail as hard as is humanly possible, and that’s okay.

    Here’s a Cold War take: “No Guarantees”

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @Jack D
    , @Bardon Kaldian
  60. peterike says:

    OT: Steve, you have to watch these videos on Covid. Highly recommended for all Covidiots.

    TL;DR — It’s all a gigantic fraud. Fauci needs to be put into prison. “Vaccines” are making things worse, and possibly much, much worse.

    https://www.twitch.tv/gigaohmbiological

    • Thanks: Wade Hampton
  61. Forbes says:
    @Almost Missouri

    How do you expect to achieve Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity if you won’t participate?

    That’s long been my line on LGBTQWERTY, when mere acceptance isn’t enough, when celebration isn’t sufficient, you will be required to participate in homosexual relations to prove your bona fides

    • Replies: @APL
  62. Sean says:
    @Luke Lea

    But isn’t this simply an affirmation of the moral axiom upon which our American democracy was founded, namely, that all men are created equal

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajr0RleV_Fk

    • Replies: @Ben tillman
  63. Jack D says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    In the old days, Leftists talked about “Equal Opportunity”. Of course, they were lying – what they really wanted all along was “Equal Outcomes”. The supposed assumption was that if you provided all the races with an equal opportunity then they would all rise to the same level. Of course that hasn’t happened and was never going to happen because not everyone has the same potential. Trillions of dollars spent on edjumacating blacks hasn’t moved the needle. Anti-discrimination laws haven’t moved the needle.

    Now they are tired of the pretense. Why go thru the charade of pretending that all you want is equal opportunity when what you REALLY want is equal outcomes? Sure, we should spend even MORE on education and crack down even harder on employers but let’s cut to the chase and just mandate the final outcome. Black people don’t want an OPPORTUNITY to buy a Cadillac – they want the Cadillac itself. Let’s stop pretending that’s not what they want. We can rename the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to the Equal Employment Outcome Commission. They can still call it the EEOC.

  64. I’ve written some version of this comment a number of times, but can someone show me examples of these polygenic scores unambiguously transcending ambiguous magical black box statistical abstraction that gives equal measure to DNA “known” to have plausible connection to what is being studied, “known” to have no such connection, and “known” to have no effect on anything at all and becoming something clear and concrete.

    Google translate is a crazy black box of statistical abstractions, but I can put inputs in there and be very impressed by the outputs without understanding how any of it works. Show me the equivalent for polygenic scoring. Where are the unprecedented breeding experiments that these supposedly invaluable statistical methods have allowed for? What I really want to see are ceteris paribus experiments with genes identified with these methods.

    How is this any different from the countless beautiful and plausible statistical models and analyses that seem to perfectly explain the past but then fall flat on their face when called upon to predict the future or do anything useful?

    • Thanks: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Rob
    , @Jack D
    , @utu
    , @Chuck
  65. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Steve actually does this rather frequently. But he’s such a nice guy about it, I’m not sure even his subjects realize they have an enormous shiv sticking out from between their ribs.

    E.g., https://www.unz.com/isteve/paul-wolfowitz-denounces-trump-as-security-risk-huma-shaha-dahoum/

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
  66. @Jack D

    Leftists don’t want equality of outcome either. How can anyone still think that?

    They want improved outcomes for their favored groups. They don’t have any problems with asians beating white gentiles, jews beating white gentiles, democratic voting white gentiles beating republican voting white gentiles, and women beating men. And they won’t have any problem with blacks beating white gentiles if that day ever comes (and if blacks and white gentiles still vote like they do now).

    Conservatives get so lulled into complacency by liberals telling them how great they have it that they can’t even recognize how badly they’re being beaten and that in defending the status quo they’re just arguing for the moral necessity of their own failure and dispossession.

  67. SafeNow says:

    “The two Jims” were identical twins separated at birth, and reared separately. They, and their adoptive parents, were unaware of what the other was doing. They just knew that there was a twin somewhere. They led nearly identical lives. From an article about them:

    Both Jims had married twice. The first time, they married women named Linda. When this didn’t work out and they divorced, they met (and went on to marry) women named Betty. Both Jim Lewis and Jim Springer had a son, and –I’m sure you saw this coming—both gave their boy the same name, James Alan (or James Allan in Springer’s case). Both had named their childhood dog “Toy.” Both chose the same Florida beach as the vacation spot for their families. And so on.

    I am normally very anti-anecdote. Rather, give me large studies, preferably meta-studies. But in this case, C’mon, man.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
  68. @Luke Lea

    As I understand this, it is a smoothly progressive sales tax. But how does the tax collector—be it a merchant or the government—know whether this pack of chewing gum is your first dollar of expenditure (tax ≈ \$0) or your millionth dollar of expenditure (tax ≈ \$3) this year?

    • Replies: @Luke Lea
  69. Coag says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    It’s probably more complicated than that. I don’t doubt Harden’s commitment to egalitarianism predates her having children and predates her learning that one of her children is less excellent than the other. Christian-type egalitarianism is a 2000 year meme that has by now bred a genetic proclivity among anecstral Christians and there’s no doubting that it has strongly influenced Harden, who grew up with religious Christian forebears. Plenty of billionaires, millionaires, geniuses, and other “excellent” people nurse the dull, autistic, and sometimes handicapped/incapacitated among their progeny and don’t feel the need to apologize for it, whether to their other normal children or to society as a whole.

    Plato and Aristotle and Alexander the Great were undoubtedly excellent but there is a reason the Apollonian meme of beauty and excellence gave way to Christian egalitarianism over a hundred generations and a thousand iterations. There is a certain ultimate emptiness and indifference in the Spartan ideal of worldly excellence. Spartanism is certainly not for the vast majority of people who can’t live up to golden means. And even those who do, sincerely feel the purposelessness of all of it at the end of their lives. The emptiness calls for a solution, and Christian (or Islamic, or dharmic, etc etc) mummery is as good a solution as any. Modern man has filled the emptiness with egalitarian mumbo jumbo. Certainly modern liberal society has gone overboard to celebrate the foul and the useless. But for many, the longing for egalitarianism is a sincere and deeply spiritual desire. The problem of course arises when the longing is used to rationalize and actualize Stalinism.

  70. ‘…we are still not absolved of the responsibility to arrange society to the benefit of all people, not just the tiny slice of global genetic diversity that is people of predominantly European ancestry…’

    Isn’t this essentially a cloaked suggestion that we should structure society so that blacks can play a useful role?

    You know. Block immigration, restore our manufacturing sector, force people off welfare and into employment…

  71. @Sean

    John Calhoun would not agree.

  72. @Jack D

    In the old days, Leftists talked about “Equal Opportunity”. Of course, they were lying – what they really wanted all along was “Equal Outcomes”.

    Ha! If only. No, their “Equal Opportunity” was, for most of them, a stalking horse for this timeless motivation:

    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

  73. “Science denialism”, eh?

    You mean not believing employees?

    Look, all “scientists” these days are employees.

    Ain’t got no Darwin nor Newton nor Huxley-type gentlemen scholars laying around anymore experimenting and observing around just for kicks and the betterment of mankind.

    We just have employees. And you know how employees are. They will do anything they are told in order to keep their jobs.

    Oh, yeah, maybe “science” in the abstract is pure.

    But there ain’t no abstract science anywhere to be found on this plane of existence.

    Just employees, doing and saying what they are told.

    • Replies: @jamie b.
  74. res says:
    @Sean

    Harden has found signs of accelerated aging in the underclass. Not due to stress (cortisol levels) , which are the same in the well of and poor, but in the reaction to stress attributable to the genetic hand you were dealt.

    Thanks. I had not realized how much genetics related research she has done.
    https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1557-6737

    Your description seems to match this paper:
    Analysis of socioeconomic disadvantage and pace of aging measured in saliva DNA methylation of children and adolescents
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.04.134502v1

    But I don’t see that really discussing “the genetic hand you were dealt.” Could you elaborate? I believe epigenetic clocks are different from that description.

  75. res says:
    @Jack D

    In the old days, Leftists talked about “Equal Opportunity”. Of course, they were lying – what they really wanted all along was “Equal Outcomes”. The supposed assumption was that if you provided all the races with an equal opportunity then they would all rise to the same level. Of course that hasn’t happened and was never going to happen because not everyone has the same potential.

    I think there were a significant number of people who truly believed that. I suspect much of The Current Year rage on the left is due to the cognitive dissonance involved in slowly realizing your last sentence is true. And in ways they really dislike.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  76. Old Prude says:
    @Almost Missouri

    It’s not the people making \$1 million that should be the targets. They are paying their share. How about \$360 million a year. Who needs to make that kind of dough, and, really, what are they doing to justify it? Take all but \$5 million. They won’t starve. As for the billionaires: Find way to squeeze them dry. They hide it? Then find it. That kind of wealth creates all kinds of problems for the world. We are all better off cutting those folks down to size.

    • Agree: William Badwhite
    • Replies: @Sean
  77. @Almost Missouri

    But he’s such a nice guy about it

    I dunno, sometimes Steve is downright brutalist :

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
  78. Rob says:
    @D. K.

    I’ll grant that that is true, but one has to remember that one should go fishing where the fishes is. Society is so stacked against the poor, both for natural, meritocratic reasons the “fixing” of which would be worse than the disease and due to manipulation of the markets, through both immigration and outsourcing, that there is little income to tax at the bottom of the pyramid.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  79. @Sean

    But even as we recognize that it is instrumentally useful to select pilots based on attributes such as good eyesight and spatial rotation skills, we can simultaneously recognize that those attributes, and the financial rewards that follow from having them, are not a sign of the pilot’s moral creditworthiness or virtue. Having those attributes, in combination, with living in a time and place where those skills can be put to economically valuable use in the form of flying planes, is like winning the Powerball.

    Harden is proud of her book’s title:

    A lottery is a perfect metaphor for describing genetic inheritance: the genome of every person is the outcome of nature’s Powerball.

    Harden–and many others–do not seem to understand that the “lottery” analogy–which i a fun informal way to talk about genetics–is just completely wrong for describing the relationship between people (or any living being) and their genes.

    “Lottery” implies that you are standing around waiting around as your numbers, and then finally the poweball roll down. D’oh! I’m a winner (or loser).

    But the problem is there is not some “you” that pre-exists the lottery. You are you precisely because you got your numbers–or letters GATTACA.

    And while not many people think “good eyesight and spatial rotation skills” as moral attributes. A bunch of mental traits–e.g. conscientiousness, fidelity, loyalty, cooperation, honesty, self-restraint–that people do think of as morally valuable also have a strong genetic basis.

    You can believe you are an “immortal soul”–as i’m sure Harden does. But down here on planet earth there simply is no “you” that is independent of your genes. We’re stuck here in meat space. And that’s what our political contentions are about.

    • Agree: john cronk
  80. Rob says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    possible sad hominem motivations.

    Sad hominem? That is a fantastic coinage. Bravo!

  81. SMK says: • Website

    To quote Murray, in response to the odious David French, on Twitter I belive:

    Doesn’t it make a difference to David French’s argument that two of the core problems typically ascribed to centuries of American racism -elevated black violent crime and depressed mean cognitive ability- are found wherever sub-Saharan African populations live.

    “Essentially inherent and insuperable low mean cognitive ability” would be more accurate in describing and explaining the “problems” of blacks wherever they live. That Haiti is the poorest nation in the Western hemisphere is the fault of whites they butchered well over 200 yeaars ago rather than a corollary of the inherent and insuperable “low mean cognitive ability” of sub-Saharan Africans. And, of course, the malignancy of whites rarher than the low average innlligence of blacks explains why 19 of the 20 poorest nations on earth are black-ruled. And Haiti is 19. 17 black countries in African are poorer than Haiti.

    And the irony is that they’d all be much poorer, far more primitive, far more benighted, is not for slavery and colonialism, if not for Europeans.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
  82. we are still not absolved of the responsibility to arrange society to the benefit of all people

    What a big load of leftist crap. It’s as though big government were handed down to us at Sinai.

    • The middle class, i.e. we,
    • must continually pay higher and higher taxes, i.e. arrange society,
    • so as to fund her special interest, i.e. benefit of all.

    A garden-variety, public education supporter.

  83. Rob says:
    @Guy De Champlagne

    How about when PGS indices (not sure what to call the equations from which individuals’ polygenic scores are calculated) are derived from one study, then calculated for people in another study, and have a positive correlation with the trait. If polygenic scores were BS, that should not happen. Taking the most liberal view, these correlations are something that must be explained away.

    • Replies: @Guy De Champlagne
  84. Luke Lea says:
    @Almost Missouri

    “there is a case to be made that the upper bracket income tax payers are really just upper middle class strivers”

    I think the same case can be made for mega-strivers like a Bezos or a Gates. I prefer to think of them as the draft horses of our technological civilization. Their incredible efforts combined with their genius is what drives us forward. That they get to live in mansions and own private jets is a small price to pay for their contributions to society, which enrich us all. Personally I wouldn’t want to be one of them, enthralled to a passion that Gates once described, at least in his own case, as “infinite greed.” Spur them on, I say, spur them on. Let them strain every muscle, poor things.

    • Agree: Uncle Dan
    • LOL: Sam Malone
  85. @Anon

    Dumb losers rarely marry. They fornicate and wind up with kids they never intended, and I don’t see how this ever changes, frankly.

    We need some simple guiding principles to help us weather the presence of random orphans who can’t find a place in life.

  86. we are still not absolved of the responsibility to arrange society to the benefit of all people

    Who’s this “we”, kemosabe?
    Geneticists? American soccer moms with academic tenure? Congress & Senate? The entire population of the US?
    This woman clearly regards herself and her kind (“we”) as some kind of divine pantheon, bestowing favours on all those lesser breeds without the law. If they worship and sacrifice correctly, of course.

    Silly old me, I thought it was down to the electorate.

    [I’ve come to believe that anyone with Paige anywhere in their name is giving off a warning signal almost as strong as Danger Hair, neck tattoos or Problem Glasses. My maddest and most effortlessly sociopathic ex-gf was a Page. No “i”.]

  87. Luke Lea says:
    @Almost Missouri

    Based on past spending habits. The taxpayer has an incentive to anticipate his total tax less he owe a big sum at the end of the tax year. Fortunately the formula for estimating his tax is so simple that iscan be programmed into his phone.

  88. @Rob

    Taking the most liberal view, these correlations are something that must be explained away.

    And that’s the whole other problem which even polygenic score boosters like this Harden women will bring up, which is that even if it’s finding something real that has to be explained away, we’re very very far from being able to do that explanation. For example, a legitimate polygenic score for verbal ability could just be in large part finding genetic predisposition to identify with typical english teachers and be interested in the typical english curriculum. Or some other, similarly effective, but completely mysterious and unintuitive process.

    But I question if we should even cede enough legitimacy to the process to be having that discussion.

  89. @Almost Missouri

    …the truly wealthy and powerful oligarchs don’t have any apparent income—and therefore no income tax—because their wealth is already possessed and possessed within a labyrinth of trusts, shell corps, and LLCs that hides its actual ownership.

    Subchapter-S corporations, LLCs, and limited partnerships report their income to their owners on Schedule K-1 of IRS Form 1040, and those who are beneficiaries of such entities pay taxes on them in whatever bracket their incomes put them. It’s an utter falsehood to claim that pass-through entities either hide actual ownership from the IRS or in any way shelter their owners’ incomes from taxation.

    It’s important to note that large publicly-traded corporations, called Subchapter-C corporations, pay taxes on their entire incomes, and then may pay dividends out of post-tax income to shareholders, who then pay personal income tax on the dividends. Many publicly-traded corporations retain all their earnings and pay no dividends (e.g., Facebook). Thus their owners report no income from them.

    This is in sharp contrast to pass-through entities, all of the income from which is personally taxable to their stockholders or partners in proportion to their percentage of ownership – whether that income be retained or distributed as dividends. A good way to learn what the total tax burden on business is in this country is to become a limited partner or S-corp/LLC stockholder. You may have to hire a CPA to prepare your tax filings, but when you write your checks to the IRS, you’ll understand.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Almost Missouri
  90. @Thea

    That is a thoughtful comment, and perhaps that “loss of spiritual guidance” is a key part of the explanation for the current SJW hysteria. Weird times, where everyone has to be believe in these blank slate fantasies and ignore the HBD realities right in front of their noses. The SJW movement is now really infecting science and having serious bad impacts.

  91. But the problem is there is not some “you” that pre-exists the lottery. You are you precisely because you got your numbers–or letters GATTACA.

    And while not many people think “good eyesight and spatial rotation skills” as moral attributes. A bunch of mental traits–e.g. conscientiousness, fidelity, loyalty, cooperation, honesty, self-restraint–that people do think of as morally valuable also have a strong genetic basis.

    The other issue here:

    You can be as Rawlsian as you like–making society peachy, keen and jolly for those who got a crappy genetic deal.

    But the flip side is that loot is provided by–and at the expense of–the productive and law-abiding. And both a) having relatively more of those people means “more loot” and b) it is in every way much much, much nicer to live in society that is full of productive, capable people.

    So the pretty obvious flip side of the Rawlsian veil of ignorance safety net is “let’s have fewer screwups who need the safety net”. I.e. eugenics.

    “Yeah, i want my life to be decent no matter what genetics i get. But by the same token i want to be in society where my genetics–however i rank–are pretty good.”

    • Replies: @ic1000
  92. Jack D says:
    @res

    As always you have to distinguish between the elites, who actually know what is what (do you think that Chuckie Schumer really believes that everyone is his intellectual equal?) but profit from pretending otherwise and the masses of followers who really believe this crap. This includes those who, due to the Dunning-Kruger Effect, overestimate their own competence and that of their brethren and also white women for whom Equity is the new religion which , like any faith, is not subject to falsification.

    But yes for blacks there is a lot of anger when they realize that the game is loaded – they are never going to realize the American Dream by dint of their non-existent intellectual powers and the traditional routes to at least middle class prosperity (get a job on the assembly line in the car factory) is also closed to them because the car factory is now in Nuevo Leon instead of Detroit. So looting the local Target is the next best thing.

  93. ic1000 says:
    @AnotherDad

    > But the flip side is that loot is provided by–and at the expense of–the productive and law-abiding.

    There are many examples of advanced Industrial Age advanced societies which have failed. Czarist Russia (1917) and the Austro-Hungarian Empire (1918), to name two. If progressives understood the severe and widespread suffering that resulted from these failures, they would be more cautious about policies that speed our own society ever-faster towards the cliff.

    One might think. But, actually, not.

    Beyond ignorance, perhaps there is a conviction that America — as racist and transphobic as it is — is so rich and powerful that failure is not possible. Or perhaps it has more to do with schadenfreude, since poverty and dispossession can only be visited upon history’s villians. Never the Elect.

    Let’s find out!

    • Replies: @Jack D
  94. G. Poulin says:
    @D. K.

    Ah, yes, the Constitution. The rule of law. It seems like a dream. A beautiful, far-away dream. Nine-tenths of what the federal government does nowadays is illegal under the tenth amendment, but just try to find a Supreme Court justice who is willing to say so.

  95. @Intelligent Dasein

    Any attempt to add “content” to a principle just provides the enemy with material he can use against you.

    Not if the enemy’s ‘principles’ are in large part based (at least officially) on false “content”. That content can be made radioactive to them, fully exposing them as incorrigible belligerents.

    Biomolecular genetics is, in any case, very poorly understood; there is precious little causation to go with any correlation …

    Nope. It has been well understood even before “biomolecular” and “genetics” were words: Are you saying you “don’t see race”, like Steven Colbert would say while in character?

    In the meantime, the Left will continue to advance just as surely on this ground as they would on any other

    Not quite. When push comes to shove, the Left (and Right, and Center) is neither literally bulletproof nor exempt from the usual physical deprivations that may arise when a fundamental societal argument escalates beyond rhetoric and lawfare.

  96. @Rob

    Thanks. I came up with it independently, but a Google search finds obscure antecedents.

    If you like wordplay (sometimes of the ‘dare to be stupid’ variety), subscribe to my newsletter:

    https://www.unz.com/comments/all/?commenterfilter=Jenner+Ickham+Errican

  97. @roo_ster

    “Your sad devotion to that ancient religion…”

  98. Jack D says:
    @Guy De Champlagne

    Human breeding experiments are rare and pose enormous ethical and other problems. The few that have existed have been for the most part accidental rather than any intentional effort at breeding such as is done for animals. For humans, sometimes results have to be proven by non-experimental methods such as statistical correlation – for example you can’t recruit 1,000 subjects to smoke cigarettes in order to see if they give you lung cancer, but there are other ways of figuring this out.

    As far as predictive power, we are in the early days. Plus, genetic endowments are of a nature that while they can’t be easily improved, they can be easily depressed. There are very few people who rise ABOVE their genetic potential but tons that fall short for various family or social reasons. If environmental factors explain perhaps 1/2 of differences in outcomes (everyone sane says that achievement is a combination of both nature and nurture and not just nature) then it is going to take a very strong signal to overcome the environmental noise, especially since the same people who have unfavorable genetic endowments also tend to have unfavorable environments because their parents have the same genetic endowments. Efforts to control for genetic background while varying the environment (e.g. the identical triplets who were the subject of the movie “Three Identical Strangers”) again pose enormous ethical issues.

    • Replies: @Guy De Champlagne
  99. Jack D says:
    @ic1000

    I’m not sure that the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was particularly dysgenic but I’d say that the Soviet Experiment was – Stalin quite specifically targeted the elites for extermination and on such a scale that he might have permanently shifted Russian IQ downward. Although the methods being used in the West don’t involve extermination (yet), I fear that we are doing the same. The low IQ Afghans, etc. that are being imported into the West are enormously fertile compared to high IQ Western women who nowadays barely manage to squeeze out one child. There are estimates that a high % of the recently imported Afghan females were pregnant even before they arrived. It’s nothing for an Afghan female to give birth to 4 or 5 kids. Some do much much better.

  100. jamie b. says:
    @Anon

    You can’t determine your genes, but you can determine the genes for the next generation.

    But pursuing this simple fact to the logical conclusion is the ultimate taboo.

  101. Anon7 says:

    How is there a genetic “lottery”? The tickets don’t all have the same chance of “winning”, as far as I can tell, so they’re not like any lottery tickets I know about.

    For example: one of my best friends in middle school was the youngest of four children. All four of them became doctors and I don’t think any of them had an IQ of less than 140, based on many dinner table conversations.

    As it happens, both of their parents were doctors, the father a nationally known academic expert in his field. (Not everyone’s family had copies of “Blood”, the journal of the American Society of Hematology, on their living room coffee table.)

    Did they get their “tickets” for the “genetic lottery” at the same place as kids who grew up in single mother welfare families in Baltimore?

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
  102. vinteuil says:
    @Almost Missouri

    Interesting, but puzzling, cartoon.

    “BIO TYRANNY” is a great river, so far dammed up by the barrier of “The Left’s Ignorance of genetics?”

    So far so good? Am I getting you?

    And if that barrier ever gets broken down, “FREEDOM” will instantly be swept away?

    Am I still getting you?

    But there’s nothing to worry about, ’cause “HBDers trying to persuade the New York Times” are like little children armed with…nothing much?

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  103. @Jack D

    Human breeding experiments are rare and pose enormous ethical and other problems.

    I was, I think quite obviously, referring to non human animal breeding experiments. Why can’t they breed something heretofore impossible in mice? Or breed something in an unprecedentedly small number of generations? Or just something as simple as ranking embryos BEFORE they’re born, raising and testing them all blindly, and seeing how accurate the predictions of performance are (and doing this a number of times independently in different labs, not burying unwanted results in file drawers, not selectively analyzing and publishing different parts of the experiment to get the result they want, and not falling victim to any of the other systemic problems that are known to plague this type of research but everyone here likes to forget about in this case because now these polygenic score people are somehow on “their team”).

    • Replies: @res
  104. @Bardon Kaldian

    The only other philosopher worth reading is Schopenhauer, of course. He seems to have thought politics, even political philosophy, to be beneath his notice. He has one essay called “Government” and it has his definitive take on the USNA.

    “The United States of North America exhibit the attempt to proceed without any such arbitrary basis [monarchy]; that is to say, to allow abstract right to prevail pure and unalloyed. [Muh Constitution!”] But the result is not attractive. For with all the material prosperity of the country what do we find? The prevailing sentiment is a base Utilitarianism with its inevitable companion, ignorance; and it is this that has paved the way for a union of stupid Anglican bigotry, foolish prejudice, coarse brutality, and a childish veneration of women. Even worse things are the order of the day: most iniquitous oppression of the black freemen, lynch law, frequent assassination often committed with entire impunity, duels of a savagery elsewhere unknown, now and then open scorn of all law and justice, repudiation of public debts, abominable political rascality towards a neighbouring State, followed by a mercenary raid on its rich territory,–afterwards sought to be excused, on the part of the chief authority of the State, by lies which every one in the country knew to be such and laughed at [the Mexican War: he agrees with Emerson, Thoreau, etc. on Pierce’s “WMD” justification of a sheer land grab]–an ever-increasing ochlocracy, and finally all the disastrous influence which this abnegation of justice in high quarters must have exercised on private morals. This specimen of a pure constitution on the obverse side of the planet says very little for republics in general, but still less for the imitations of it in Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia and Peru.”

    He’s even kind of woke, except he also says elsewhere that “Everyone agrees the Negro ranks lowest in intelligence” and that bit about “childish veneration of women”. So yeah, nice try guys but stop pretending you have anything to protect or restore — other than returning to the British crown.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  105. There is no ‘genetic lottery’.
    There is no ‘us’ that exists prior to ‘receiving’, or separate from, our genes.
    Rather, we ARE our genes, and our assignment is to own what we are and try to live our best life.

  106. vinteuil says:
    @Sean

    No one chooses their genes. In the light of genetic realities, the poor are not to be blamed, but the successful are hardly worthy of approbation. Were those facts to be widely accepted society would to take money from the rich and give it to the less fortunate. Now do the rich want to pay extra tax, or any tax? N0. So race is just a skirmish line out in front to the main fortifications, which are manned by the elite and their minions.

    I’ll be charitable, and assume that you don’t speak English as a first language, and attempt a paraphrase. Is this more or less what you were trying to say?

    “No one chooses their genes. In the light of genetic realities, the poor deserve no blame for their failures, and the rich deserve no praise for their successes. If these facts were widely accepted, society would take money from the rich and give it to the poor. But the rich do not want to pay extra taxes – or, indeed, any taxes at all.”

    Have I got that more or less right?

    I must admit that I am totally baffled by your conclusion:

    So race is just a skirmish line out in front to the main fortifications, which are manned by the elite and their minions.

    Wha-huh? Even substituting “of” for “to,” this is just gibberish

    • Replies: @Jehu
    , @Luke Lea
  107. APL says:
    @Forbes

    Wasn’t that an old Bob Hope joke?

  108. vinteuil says:
    @Sean

    BTW, Sean – I sympathize with your struggles with the English language. Knowing when to say “of” instead of “to” is just a total nightmare if you didn’t get used to it growing up.

  109. Uncle Dan says:

    Harden takes it as axiomatic that it is unjust that members of some groups, for genetic and cultural reasons, have better life prospects at birth than members of other groups. And, further, that these “inequities” can be corrected.

    But there’s nothing wrong with the fact that different groups have arrived at different points due to their different histories (genetic and cultural) which go back thousands of years, and the vain application of brute social force to obviate these historical differences can only result in one tragedy after another.

    Whatever the “unfair” advantage Mozart had, of good genes, the right cultural milieu, a musician father totally dedicated to promoting him, WE are the beneficiaries of this rare good fortune. Doesn’t it make more “moral” sense to express gratitude rather than resentment?

  110. And on his vacations istave like to club baby seals.

    If the fruit hung any lower, it would be potatoes.

  111. I don’t think this subject needs much discussion.
    Don’t people of any genetic pattern have access to quite a lot of aids to making their way through life in America in 2021? Isn’t the ability to stay alive greater than ever, thanks to the inventions of those with brainpower?
    Capable people catering to the whims of those who look out for, and help, nobody but themselves is simply a conceit that we arrongantly imagine we can afford to entertain.without limit while still maintaining a viable culture..

  112. lavoisier says: • Website
    @James Thompson

    Reality leakage is just another form of dishonesty.

    But really, could she get a book published and favorably reviewed by the great and the good if she just came out with an argument that genetics are important and black dysfunction is not the fault of whitey?

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
  113. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    To be fair to KPH, when you have one child as expected for the child of bright academics, and one child who’s ‘special’, that brings the idea of “the genetic lottery” extremely close to home, in fact sat by the fireside in the parlour with its feet up.

    But mostly, the genetic lottery isn’t like that – she had the equivalent of the roulette wheel coming up zero.

    No one is surprised when the child of two doctors gets into Oxbridge – it’s when the dustman’s child gets in that we are all surprised (and pleased).

    Off topic but of interest, a young man in the UK, Lewis Roberts, was hit by a car six months ago, and the doctors announced “brainstem death”, which is the signal for organ donation followed by turning off the life support machines.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstem_death

    In the United Kingdom, death can be certified on the basis of a formal diagnosis of brainstem death, so long as this is done in accordance with a procedure established in “A Code of Practice for the Diagnosis and Confirmation of Death”, published in 2008 by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. The premise of this is that a person is dead when consciousness and the ability to breathe are permanently lost, regardless of continuing life in the body and parts of the brain, and that death of the brainstem alone is sufficient to produce this state.
    Elsewhere in the world, the concept upon which the certification of death on neurological grounds is based is that of permanent cessation of all function in all parts of the brain – whole brain death – with which the British concept should not be confused.

    I must admit to having no idea that the UK was one of only 3 countries in the world to recognise this concept, which allows turning off support (and removing organs) despite the existence of brain activity.

    Anyway, this young man’s poor family signed the organ donation forms and the transplants were due to take place in a few hours, when the young man blinked and started breathing unaided (despite the diagnosis that this ability was permanently lost).

    Now how you can tell someone’s breathing unaided when they are on a life support machine I don’t know, but fair play to the doctors, they cancelled the operations and kept him going – he was still effectively paralysed and needed many interventions to keep him alive.

    A couple of weeks ago he opened his mouth and started talking.

    https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/miracle-teens-first-heart-melting-5958854

    “After six months and three weeks of not saying one thing, Lewis said not just one word but a full sentence.

    “He said ‘Mum, I love you…. you’re the best’, as clear as day.

    “As you can imagine mum is a crying, blubbering mess.

    There’s a GoFundMe to buy him a beer

    https://www.gofundme.com/f/a-pint-for-lewis?member=9665514

    But I just thought it was a heartwarming story worth sharing. In these dark times we need all the light we can get.

    • Thanks: ben tillman
  114. jamie b. says:
    @obwandiyag

    Is it possible that there still exist intelligent humans motivated by curiosity?

  115. D. K. says:
    @roo_ster

    ***

    Ah, yes, the Constitution of the USA. About as useful as a tricorn hat in a hurricane.

    Folks need to get it in their heads: The USA has not had rule of law for decades.

    • Agree: Calvin Hobbes

    ***

    So, you think that the plutocrats who now own and operate this country are going to sit back and allow all of their property to be confiscated and redistributed, through an unconstitutional act of Congress, and just say to themselves, “Ah, well, the U.S.A. has not had rule of law for decades, so what can we do about our ruling class’ [patently unconstitutional] dispossession?”?!? Sounds really plausible….

  116. Jehu says:
    @vinteuil

    I suspect what he’s saying is that the big deltas are rich vs poor, not black vs white, so white vs non-white is just a ‘skirmish line’.

    He’s saying that if most people believe that nobody has any moral right to what they have, because they just won the genetic lottery, that the rich are likely to see redistributive efforts of vastly greater intensity.

    Not sure if I agree with him—frankly, if nobody ‘deserves’ anything, that doesn’t create in my view any moral obligation at redistribution, just a fancy way of saying Who…Whom, as Lenin might.

    • Replies: @Sean
  117. Veracitor says:

    A sociobiologist (excuse me, an evolutionary psychologist) could promptly hypothesize a likely explanation for Kathryn Paige Harden lavishing much more of her efforts and resources on her disabled son than on her normal daughter, regardless of any resentment she provokes:

    Harden can expect her daughter to supply her with a statistically-normal number of grandchildren after just a minimum of support. Harden’s son, however, is unlikely to father many offspring without considerable extra support.

    Harden likely did not have to “think that through” and very possibly never did. Natural selection has already “figured it out” and encoded suitable “feelings” into our genes. If Harden were so short of resources that she could only have contrived for a single child to survive, Harden might well have sacrificed the disabled one to save the other. Since Harden had more than enough resources to raise both children, she invested the surplus in the less-fit child to try to ensure that both would reproduce.

    Humans of all races behave like that very frequently in all cultures.

    Distributing extra resources to a disabled male child makes sense for another reason: it’s easier to get grandchildren through a disabled son than a disabled daughter. A male doesn’t have to do much work to enhance his mother’s (all ancestors’, really) inclusive fitness. His female mate must carry and nurse his babies, and she or the babies’ grandparents or other relatives or even servants or friends can raise them.*

    Still, acknowledging all that does not justify a government policy of lavishing other people’s resources (non-relatives’ resources, taxpayers’ resources) on the least fit. Harden’s inclusive fitness is not your problem (unless you are closely related to her). Your inclusive fitness is reduced by taxing you to specially-subsidize her offspring. Harden can try to translate her personal fitness (especially her ability to garner more resources as a reward for her work, enabled as that is by her personal genetic endowment) to more inclusive fitness without doing you any direct harm, but when she tries (with her political allies) to simply steal your resources to support her low-fitness offspring she acts immorally (breaks the inverse Golden Rule). This logic applies to races as well as individuals.

    *This can be taken to remarkable lengths. In 2019 the parents of a West Point cadet who perished in an accident won a court order to retrieve his sperm to try to give him posthumous children so they would have grandchildren.

  118. @D. K.

    No. The ruling class does not pay taxes. You think Nancy pays 40% ? Her aids might. Teddy Kennedy famously paid 6% in income taxes. And what do you think Bezos, Musk, and Buffet pay? 25% for show, but 3.4% of 401 in new wealth. They play a different game. Income taxes are meaningless to them.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  119. utu says:
    @Guy De Champlagne

    There is not much progress in showing that polygenic scores are very predictive of complex traits. The variance explained is low and possibly tainted (over fitted) because of the stratification effect. This might be the chief reason why results from European studies can’t be extrapolated to other non-European populations. In other words GWAS findings are not causal.

    Polygenic adaptation on height is overestimated due to uncorrected stratification in genome-wide association studies
    https://elifesciences.org/articles/39702

    Our results have implications in other areas of human genetics research.

    It is already clear that polygenic scores derived from European populations do not translate across populations on a global scale (Martin et al., 2017). Our analysis further suggests that subtle population structure, especially in GWAS that are meta-analyses of independent cohorts, could be an additional source of error in polygenic scores and affect their applicability even within populations. We also note that other factors such as gene by environment interactions can be an alternative confounding factor for GWAS effect sizes and polygenic scores.

  120. Anonymous[234] • Disclaimer says:

    The trouble with Paige is that she is not smart enough. She is not even Malcolm Gladwell smart. Her academic career reveals zero new or insightful findings.

  121. D. K. says:
    @Guy De Champlagne

    “You’re completely ignoring nominally unrealized gains and realized gains offset by phantom losses that are taxed at 0% but still translate into immense levels power, prestige, and economic consumption.”

    Whatever portion of one’s wealth one chooses to consume, one no longer has that wealth. That is what “consumption” means, in the economic sense. If you do not realize your economic gains, then they cannot be consumed. One moment, the young woman was a billionaire; the next moment she was essentially broke; a short while later, she was a criminal defendant. She was able to consume exactly none of her unrealized capital gains, before they disappeared into the ether of an immense corporate scandal of historical proportions– leaving her with just her googly eyes and creepy voice.

    I understand losses offsetting gains, but please do tell me all about “phantom losses” offsetting gains. Professor Kummert seems to have skipped over that in Taxation, back in the autumn of 1983!?!

    https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/seattletimes/name/richard-kummert-obituary?pid=157147974

    I am relieved to find that I am at least not alone in my ignorance; Investopedia knows about “phantom gains”– because “phantom gain” is what shows up first when you search its site for “phantom loss[es]”– but the opposite does not appear to ring any bells, on its Web site!?!

    https://www.investopedia.com/search?q=phantom+loss

    https://www.investopedia.com/search?q=phantom+losses

    Power from wealth primarily comes from a willingness to spend what you have to get what you want. If you are wealthy but choose not to donate to a politician, you are unlikely to have much power over him. As for prestige, it is in the eyes of the proverbial beholder.

    • Replies: @Veracitor
  122. Stogumber says:

    If we distinguish between “is” and “ought”, Harden seems to have surrendered to our side about “what is” and her last line of defense against race realism is the suggestion that it really is about “what ought to be”: Yes, there are distinguishable “ancestry groups”, but those are not true “races”, because – as she pretends – “race” implies an order about what has to be done, i.e. which ancestry groups (or group members) have to be rewarded or supported to what extent.
    So she saves her skin by shifting the problem.

  123. D. K. says:
    @Rob

    “I’ll grant that that is true, but one has to remember that one should go fishing where the fishes is. Society is so stacked against the poor, both for natural, meritocratic reasons the “fixing” of which would be worse than the disease and due to manipulation of the markets, through both immigration and outsourcing, that there is little income to tax at the bottom of the pyramid.”

    Yes, the labor market is undeniably rigged, just as you say. The stock markets, however, are rigged in a wholly different way, with the prime interest rate being decided by a central bank, for reasons other than the theoretical ones. Our entire economic system, in the United States, has been based on a fiat currency, for the past fifty years.

  124. mc23 says:
    @angmoh

    These ideas haven’t gotten traction yet. The Chinese don’t care much about our Western pieties and will have no problem calling a spade a spade, no pun intended.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  125. D. K. says:
    @james wilson

    “No. The ruling class does not pay taxes. You think Nancy pays 40% ? Her aids might. Teddy Kennedy famously paid 6% in income taxes. And what do you think Bezos, Musk, and Buffet pay? 25% for show, but 3.4% of 401 in new wealth. They play a different game. Income taxes are meaningless to them.”

    Your inability to distinguish between between earned and unearned income, let alone between income and wealth, is hereby duly noted.

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unearnedincome.asp

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wealth-tax.asp

    To repeat:

    • Replies: @res
  126. Whiskey says: • Website
    @Almost Missouri

    Yes, and we are already seeing this happen. White men are told over, and over, and over again in commercials, movies, and TV that White women belong to black men. It is the constant recurring theme, along with the theme that only black men are worthy of White women. That they make the ideal husband and father, and that the only kid worth having for a White woman is a mixed race kid.

    What is sure to come is forbidding White people (of the opposite sex only) to marry, and of course have kids. I think Paraguay had this policy for decades. This would make White women quite happy — black men according to every study like Kanazawa’s are found by women of all races to be the most attractive, Asian men the least, with black women the least attractive by men of all races, Asian women the most. That black men have a huge fattie tolerance makes our feminized leadership (which is also over-run by gays, weirdos, sexual deviants, lesbians, furries, etc. but I repeat myself) very favorable to them.

    If the state can mandate you take vaccines and booster shots every few months, they can control who White people have sex with, who they have kids with, and indeed assign White women to various black men while White men get the surgery or something. I fully expect that be tried. Our leaders are mostly crazy White women. With a heaping helping of stupid on the side.*

    *Look at NY Gov. Hochul. All she had to be and do was not be Cuomo. The guy was so hated. She makes herself into some low rent liberal Jesus, saying she wants people to be her apostles and take vaccines as a gift from God, and creating a fight with the Nurse’s Union (her natural supporters) and a health care crisis (“fixed” by using the National Guard — yeah right). Which means everyone who can’t get into an ER or get surgery is going to now blame her. But the true religion of vaccines as some moral signifier is too irresistable for most innate Karens to avoid. Even a mediocre pol would have handed out goodies and let the good times roll. While blasting out the Beastie Boys “You Have to Fight for the Right to Party.”

    • Agree: Jack Armstrong
  127. Veracitor says:
    @D. K.

    The US tax system offers many ways to translate wealth to consumption while dodging taxes.

    One of the simpler ways to avoid capital-gains tax: pledge some capital asset as security for a loan; consume the borrowed funds; eventually die and let your estate forfeit the asset or repay the loan. (The musician Michael Jackson famously took this approach, refinancing his loans as his assets appreciated.)

    Or why contemplate death? Suppose you want to make a leveraged investment. You will pay a much lower interest rate on the investment funds you borrow than some middle-class slob partly because your wealth makes you seem a lower risk, and partly because the lender wants to woo more business from you and your friends. There is no tax on influence-peddling, and your investment will be more profitable because your cost of leverage is less.

    Another good if petty trick: visit a resort, let the management eager for an investment from your family office comp you a suite, usher you to a VIP tee time, run your female companions through the spa gratis…

    (Also, all those charts about Federal tax percentage by quintiles are very misleading. Tax rates are high for the upper quintiles, but much lower for the really rich, the top 0.1%, and the exclusions are what’s critical– the tax rate on taxables may seem similar, but when effective assets just aren’t taxed, they are not accounted-for in those charts.)

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @D. K.
    , @ben tillman
  128. Whiskey says: • Website
    @Jack D

    There are too many problems with that approach. First, black women don’t like White men. White men are deficient in: impulsive violence, low IQ, extraversion, endowment “down there” and all the other things that women value. White men do have higher earnings, more dutifulness, higher IQ, etc. but women don’t care and never have about those things. They compromised when forced but women never found faithfulness “sexy.” Impulsive violence yes.

    Second, black women are just not attractive in the main. White men compared to black men have a far lower tolerance for fatties, and find generally black women to masculine and off putting in the main. Giving White men the inferior model while bestowing upon black men the superior one, is going to be a source of violent resentment given male nature even outside of race.

    Racial White identity, and one in opposition to, and against blacks in particular is baked into the cake. It was the inevitable result of the Civil Rights bullet fired directly and particularly against Whites, and White males especially. And like that bullet cannot be called back. Increasingly, non Elite Whites don’t even bother to deny it. Black people are their innate enemy, and they stand against everything black. This is the mirror image of black people who view Whites as their enemy and everything White as what they are against. As more and more White elites are removed to make way for black elites, and/or their kids are denied advancement into that class and ask customers if they want a frappacino instead of being a lawyer then a judge like their parents, explicit racial White identity and the view that there needs to be minimum number of Whites in high prestige/power occupations and maximum amount of non Whites will gain momentum. Unless you buy Klaus Schwab’s plan to make everyone but blacks a dirt peon in a shipping container watching woke streaming video that makes the CW look like Shakespeare.

  129. @vinteuil

    But there’s nothing to worry about,

    There is definitely something to worry about. The dam is under much pressure, and is already visibly cracking. And now the HBDers, who are well intentioned but a little naïve about the unprincipled ruthlessness of the Left, intend to break open the dam entirely, like children with newfound tools who don’t realize the consequences this will unleash.

    Basically, the meme version of the long Beware-the-Ides-of-HBD comments I’ve been posting.

  130. @RichardTaylor

    Well, Steve does agree with Murray, so, I suppose, to Steve, Murray is a superb individual.

    Seriously, though, when will Steven stop hiding behind Citizenism. Steve should just admit that he doesn’t want whites to think and act as a people, or, if he doesn’t believe that, he should say that it’s alright if American whites want to survive as a people.

    It’s time to choose, Steve, and let the world know where you stand. I would guess that you stand with Murray – since you believe that he’s so superb and all – but you should let your readers know whether you think American whites viewing themselves as distinct people worthy of surviving and organizing politically is a good or bad thing.

    Stop hiding Steve.

    • Agree: RichardTaylor
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Chrisnonymous
  131. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    So that’s what our prison was based on.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  132. White Cook County employees will be required to acknowledge they are racist, that they behave in a biased way toward blacks and are responsible for blacks having lower average incomes than whites, according to Board President Toni Preckwinkle’s new mandated “racial equity” curriculum obtained by Chicago City Wire.

    “Module 1” assesses which employees have adequate “emotional intelligence… to be able to recognize their invisible biases in personal and professional lives towards people with protected class identities,” a workshop outline explains.

    “Outcome: recognize how bias impacts (your) daily behavioral decisions.”

    All employees will be required to take “Racial Equity 101” and “Racial Equity 102” and will be instructed in “racial equity basics” by expert trainers, funded by taxpayers.

    The curriculum is part of Preckwinkle’s new push for “embedding racial equity into local government,” part of a new policy she announced via executive order on Sept. 7. It took effect on Sept. 13.

    The policy requires “mandatory equity and inclusion training” for all Cook County employees, including “equity foundational learning” and “annual learning plans” with a goal of “organizational competency” in “equitable practices.”

    “Objectives: build on self-awareness, reflection and identity,” the outline reads. “What is bias? What are the implications of bias? What formed your biases? Which biases are good and which are harmful?”

    “An absolute economic imperative”

    Preckwinkle’s policy of “racial equity” calls for favoring black employees and contractors over white ones in pursuit of equality of outcome by racial group.

    Critics call the concept “race-based Marxism.”

    https://chicagocitywire.com/stories/608540817-racial-equity-101-preckwinkle-announces-mandated-re-education-curriculum-for-new-cook-county-employees

  133. Anonymous[365] • Disclaimer says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Being ambiguous about his feelings on white people has a lot of benefits. Many people send in donations believing he’s a comrade. At the same time, he wants to maintain credibility among the intellectual crowd.

    Maybe it’s a kind of strategic murkiness.

  134. @beavertales

    You should feel guilty about being born to a lineage of smart people who made smart choices.

    This is the same argument illegal aliens have been using for decades.

    “ You should feel guilty about being born in a wealthy nation of hard-working people who created the highest standard of living the world has ever known. So let us in so we, too, can enjoy the fruits of your ancestors’ blood, sweat and tears.”

  135. OFF TOPIC:

    (FOX 9) – A Minnesota native will be part of the first-ever all-Black American expedition to the top of Mount Everest. Their goal is to bring more diversity to the great outdoors.

    Growing up in Detroit Lakes, Eddie Taylor went to national parks with his family to enjoy the great outdoors. Now, his love of nature is about to come full circle. really excited. I know it’s going to be really hard, and I’m already mentally preparing for that, but mainly I’m just excited,” he said.

    Taylor is one of nine Black climbers who will attempt to reach the top of Mount Everest next year.

    “Not a lot of people who look like me have been up there, and I think for someone looking to do that, not seeing someone who looks like themselves out there, really makes things harder.”

    The high school science teacher and track coach, who now lives in Colorado, said that of the roughly 10,000 people who have successfully reached the world’s tallest peak, only 10 have been Black.

    In addition to the monumental achievement, Taylor hopes the climb draws attention to the barriers African Americans face to outdoor spaces and shows other members of the Black community that they belong in nature just like everyone else.

    “If you can show that we can go do this, this is at a high level, someone else can say, ‘I can go outside. I can go camping. I belong in the mountains. I belong outside climbing.’”

    Taylor says he’ll spend the next few months training for the high altitude climb before the 70-day expedition begins next March. By doing so, he hopes to take the sport he loves to new heights.

    “If we can be successful on the tallest mountain in the world [and] show our community we can be successful with this, I think it would go a long way to diversify the outdoor industry in general.”

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @duncsbaby
  136. ziggurat says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Ironically, Murray’s Facing Reality is itself a contrived triple-bank-shot attempt to head-off growing Harden-style science denialism by claiming that ignoring the influence of genetics upon racial differences just enables the Real Bad Guys, led by those terrible whites who view themselves as part of a distinct people and who want to do like every other race and organize politically to protect their people.

    Hey, triple-bank-shots are possible. However, these authors are more likely to sink the eight ball and the cue ball, while leaving the other ball on the table. But perhaps their failure is ultimately good for the cause of stopping white erasure?

  137. res says:
    @D. K.

    Have you ever seen a similar graphic done by wealth group? Would be interesting.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @D. K.
  138. @D. K.

    In 1920 everyone agreed that it required a Constitutional Amendment for the federal government to ban alcohol sale and consumption.

    By 1950 no one batted an eyelash when the federal government baned sale and consumption of marijuana, without Amendment of the Constitution.

    Everyone says the Constitution failed, the USG had the seeds of its own undoing from the start, &etc. but there is a possible other explanation. People seeking power will always and tirelessly be pushing at the boundaries you place on them. Freedom requires eternal vigilance. Perhaps we as a people were simply not vigilant enough, nothing more and nothing less.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  139. @beavertales

    Yes, the very concept of “genetic lottery” is disingenuous. Did Kathryn Paige Harden randomly insert sperm in her uterus? No. In reality she exercised an elaborate screening process, social and biological, conscious and unconscious, over which sperm would reach her eggs. As do all women.

    A friend of mine, who had just married one of the most beautiful women I’ve seen, was inveighing against “eugenics”. I asked him, “So you married your wife at random?” Fortunately he grasped my meaning right away, and I didn’t have to go into the etymology of “eugenics”. It doesn’t do for the husband of a very eu- gene-bearer to denounce what he has literally espoused.

    • Replies: @Houston 1992
  140. @Joe Magarac

    They keep dancing around it without quite saying it.

    Intelligence as such is racism.

    It’s coming.

    “Discrimination”, which is the basis of rational thought, is already “racism”.

    It didn’t start that way. It was supposed to be “discrimination of the basis of race” is racism, but gradually the “on the basis of race” part got dropped and now all discrimination is racism. Since discrimination is the basis of thought, now thought is effectively racism. From there it is only a small step to declaring that intelligence, which is the power to think, is “racism”. Intelligence is already pretty much “systemic racism” and “white privilege”, which is practically the same thing.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  141. Nice column, Steve. At this point, we’re at nigh-Maoist levels where you legit need to go back a couple decades, to get the good popular science shit. Is it inconceivable anything intelligent will be written in popular science from here on out? I was trying to read 2002’s “The Blank Slate” again and Pinker is frankly a little cringe with his certainty good science will go on to the esteemed wins. That’s not how the Pope saw it, in 1102, motherfucker, nor the powers that be, now.

    • Agree: ben tillman
  142. D. K. says:
    @res

    No, I looked for just such a chart and did not find one.

  143. Trelane says:

    reminds me of wild hickory nuts

  144. @Dumbo

    Better question: Who are “all people”?

    Utilitarians almost always act as if the utility of people-not-yet-born doesn’t count. The well-being of future humans is not served by governments’ taxing the productive and subsidizing the parasitic.

  145. “we are still not absolved of the responsibility to arrange society to the benefit of all people”

    How dumb is this concept?
    First, who is telling me what I’m ‘responsible’ for?
    Second, how could everyone benefit uniformly?
    And third, if we want a good society, its laws need only be FAIR, rather than beneficial, to everyone.

    FAIRNESS is a forgotten concept. It should be applied to criminals, too, so that we can start punishing them instead of taking on the ridiculous, over-reaching, futile task of reforming them.

  146. @Joe Stalin

    I can remember the two times very wiry prisoners escaped out the 5 inch wide windows of the Chicago federal jail. The last time they rappelled 17 stories down with a rope of tied together bedsheets.

  147. D. K. says:
    @Veracitor

    “One of the simpler ways to avoid capital-gains tax: pledge some capital asset as security for a loan; consume the borrowed funds; eventually die and let your estate forfeit the asset or repay the loan. (The musician Michael Jackson famously took this approach, refinancing his loans as his assets appreciated.)”

    Yes, dying is a simple (if not necessarily easy) out from paying back loans and paying (some) taxes. (Of course, a lot of taxes are paid up front.) The easiest way to avoid capital-gains taxes is to avoid making any investments, by simply cashing your paychecks and then putting that cash under your mattress, or in a shoe box on a shelf in your bedroom closet.

    Michael Jackson and I were born in the same place– perhaps even in the same room– as were all of our many siblings. When I moved from Gary, fifty-four years ago, he and I probably had near-identical assets. Soon, we shall probably have near-identical assets, once again.

    “Or why contemplate death? Suppose you want to make a leveraged investment. You will pay a much lower interest rate on the investment funds you borrow than some middle-class slob partly because your wealth makes you seem a lower risk, and partly because the lender wants to woo more business from you and your friends. There is no tax on influence-peddling, and your investment will be more profitable because your cost of leverage is less.”

    Is it possible that the wealthy actually are a lower risk to lenders than are, say, illegal-immigrant day laborers? Shall we ask our host, Steve, whether there might be some real-world examples of this rule of thumb in which he is well-versed, dispelling your doubts that that could possibly be true?

    “(Also, all those charts about Federal tax percentage by quintiles are very misleading. Tax rates are high for the upper quintiles, but much lower for the really rich, the top 0.1%, and the exclusions are what’s critical– the tax rate on taxables may seem similar, but when effective assets just aren’t taxed, they are not accounted-for in those charts.)”

    The “really rich” are usually “really rich” because of the appreciable assets that they own, not from any earned income that gets taxed via the federal income tax itself. Most of those appreciable assets are essentially taxed at an earlier stage, when the businesses that issued their stocks got taxed on the profits that those businesses had earned, thus lowering what their stocks otherwise would be worth. That is why many people argue that the capital-gains tax, even at rates far lower than the upper brackets of the regular income tax, amount to double-taxation of the stockholders’ appreciable assets.

  148. @Jack Armstrong

    A large, UK-based study of genetics and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has been suspended, following criticism that it failed to properly consult the autism community about the goals of the research. Concerns about the study include fears that its data could potentially be misused by other researchers seeking to ‘cure’ or eradicate ASD.

    One wonders what will happen if the Down’s Syndrome community ever notices that the eradication of Down’s Syndrome is already very far advanced.

    Strange how this trisomy genocide can take place in plain sight amidst perpetual cries of “Never again!”

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  149. @Almost Missouri

    It didn’t start that way. It was supposed to be “discrimination o[n] the basis of race” is racism, but gradually the “on the basis of race” part got dropped and now all discrimination is racism. Since discrimination is the basis of thought, now thought is effectively racism.

    It’s worse (or more direct) than that. The function of the immune system is discrimination between self and non-self. Such discrimination is essential to life, and it follows that laws prohibiting discrimination by members of a population are intended to exterminate that population.

    • Agree: AnotherDad
  150. @Whereismyhandle

    All true, but you left out arrogant and opportunistic, not that the latter trait helped him.

  151. If the Left deployed Paige Harden’s “pace and lead” tactic earlier, i.e. “ok Murray et al were right, which is why we need to distribute your wealthy even more equitably”, they *might* have pulled it off. But it seems like “too little, too late.” The smell of the witch burnings still lingers in the charnel house and they’re going to try and walk it back and *still* insist on dispossessing you? If Europeans put up with *that*, then they probably deserve what’s coming.

  152. @Veracitor

    Also, all those charts about Federal tax percentage by quintiles are very misleading. Tax rates are high for the upper quintiles, but much lower for the really rich, the top 0.1%

    Yes, exactly right.

  153. D. K. says:
    @scrivener3

    “People seeking power will always and tirelessly be pushing at the boundaries you place on them. Freedom requires eternal vigilance. Perhaps we as a people were simply not vigilant enough, nothing more and nothing less.”

    I heartily agree that “we as a people were simply not vigilant enough.” Any society contains those who, personally and collectively, will seek power that is beyond the constraints of the society’s basic laws. Any society will contain those who wish to build empires beyond their own nation’s boundaries. We now see, all too well, that there are those who genuinely wish to destroy their own nations, in order to build a New World Order under a new, worldwide government.

    Even as to the income tax itself, as I discussed, although the Sixteenth Amendment explicitly gave the United States Congress the power to lay and collect such a tax, it did not give it the power to do so in a discriminatory fashion that was otherwise counter to the Constitution as a whole. In light of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, I just do not see how the graduated, or progressive, income tax is actually constitutional!?!

  154. “She admits that because genes have been proven by twin and adoption studies as well as the new Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) to play a role in IQ and educational attainment . . .”

    you high IQ types never cease to amaze at the obious

    sure genetics plays a role in all aspects of human biology — no kidding. But being a lower IQ animal means seeking some obvious makers for example if in fact IQ is primarily dictated by genes of a very particular makeup —

    spell it out, identify the markers and the roles they play. This remains the hopscotch of the homosexual biology crowd — cause and effect

    not the markers that cause x. without them what you have is a theory. and in the case of genetics among so many unknowns you can fashion whatever rhetorical garb to a set of genetic material, of which not even half of the so called materials has been identified muchless causally understood to any aspect of cognitive human existence save that there its known to involve genes.

    well shiver me timbers — revelation of revelation.

    Dr. Harden also all but admits — we haven’t much of a clue which outweighs performance environment or genes or the strange combination of both. I have not read her text, but I suspect she has engaged in what all geneticists hell bent on advancing the science have — ignore the twin studies that contradict their premises.

    The twenty year study in which twins placed in different environments we dissimilar in psychology, social development and professional success.
    —————————————

    The reason Dr. Harden has to do this dance is because she has to admit that for all we know, there’s several Everests of what we don’t. For all of the grief given to Dr. Murray of late, it’s laudable that he acknowledges that the science of genetics has been ill used to advance social theory that has yet to be proven accurate.

    Its a strange day when one is faulted for stating something as honest as that.

    But we low IQ people tend to make that mistake — honest only counts if it affirms one’s [point of view.

  155. as if New York publishers love nothing more than manuscripts on human biodiversity

    They see, and smell, it every weekday on the subway. Who wants to deal with it at work?

    …helps us to see why modern “race science” is actually pseudoscience.

    Steven Goldberg has argued that even astrology isn’t “pseudoscience”, just really bad science. So what she’s implying is that Blumenbach, Galton, Keith, Hrdlička, Hooton, Coon, Jensen, etc., are less scientific than Jeane Dixon and Sidney Omarr.

    Harden’s New Testament-inspired egalitarian utopianism… sees no virtue or merit in a pilot (such as her father) having excellent pilot traits…

    I’m the very opposite of an egalitarian utopian, but agree with her wholeheartedly on this. What part of the word gifted don’t people understand? Those gifts came from [S]omeone else, and the individual deserves no prizes for what he is born with. His own merit derives from what he does with his gifts.

    Murray, by the way, plays poker.

    Which is why he doesn’t hang with Buffet and Gates, who play bridge.

  156. @Intelligent Dasein

    This is the crux of the matter. It has not been noticed enough here that race-realism does not in and of itself lead to any kind of social change.

    Thanks and agree. I’ve been trying to make this point for a while. Not only does race realism not in and of itself lead to any kind of social change, but given the proclivities of the Establishment Left, if it does lead to social change, it will be very dire social change.

    the rationale for things like Affirmative Action and leniency to black criminals could easily be switched to a genetic one without missing a beat.

    Just so.

    Liberalism ca. 1975: “Society is to blame.”

    Liberalism ca. 2025: “Genes are to blame.”

    Indeed, they are already more or less saying this.

    Liberalism ca. 2020: “White genes are to blame.”

    In the meantime, the Left will continue to advance just as surely on this ground as they would on any other, since arguments of any sort are merely instrumental to them.

    Yes, many fail to grasp this. There is an earnest belief that if we can just win this one argument (which, as you aver, may not be so clearly winnable as is supposed), the Left will dissipate. It was never really about the arguments. Those are window dressings of convenience for the Left.

    • Agree: Houston 1992
  157. @Anon

    Nobody chooses their genes.

    Everybody chooses their kids’ genes.

    Agree, and I would add to

    You can’t determine your genes, since your parents already did that, but you can determine the genes for the next generation.

  158. @Almost Missouri

    Indeed. If the most fundamental aspect of our identity, our birth parents, are merely a lottery, and yet the results are often pleasing……then why not not have admissions the top 40 school resemble a lottery, or why not adopt a full anti -lottery system?

  159. Sean says:
    @Jehu

    The rich are few in number. Democracy would lead to them being heavily taxed by the majority acting on their own self interest, unless the majority are made to think that the rich ought to be left in possession of their wealth. Why on earth would billionaires want it known that with their genes and money they have an embarrassment of riches? Levelling the playing field somewhat would entail preventing at least the accumulating financial fortunes being passed down. The successful people have better genes to bequeath their children. Some might say that is enough.

  160. @Jack Armstrong

    Everest is the climbing equivalent of an Interstate on a holiday weekend. To impress us, he should try K2. Or at least Granite Peak.

  161. Anonymous[293] • Disclaimer says:

    Who would have though such levels of mendacity could be reached?

    It suggests US and West in general are a theocracy. To deviate from officialdom, you must try to fool the authorities(and even yourself) that your heresy is not only in tune with but in service to dogma. Harden is like a biologist arguing before the Church that evolutionary theory, far from disproving Creationism, confirms it. The problem isn’t so much fooling the others. It’s in fooling oneself, and she seems high on her own supply. Perhaps her formative years under PC made her believe in the nonsense even as her studies indicate otherwise. Somewhat similar to some Chinese wishing to believe their much capitalized economy is still an extension of Maoism when its model is closer to Singapore. Her book ought to be called Genetic Hide-and-Seek as that’s the game she plays. Or the Genetic Shell Game.

    elaborately contrived triple-bank-shot attempt to head off growing Ibram X. Kendi-style science denialism

    But is the Kendi Man really about denialism? His only interests seems to be blackity-black, and the likes of him never complain about black over-representation and over-achievement in certain fields, especially athletics. So, to the Kendi Man, it’s not about science or genetics but “We blacks deserve everything”. It’s not about egalitarianism but privilegism by other means, i.e. blacks are owed rewards even in areas they don’t excel. Of course, the Kendi Man is just clever enough(or stupid enough, but how can one tell the difference these days?) to drudge up stuff about slavery and Jim Crow as the new dominant narrative. Name those and you don’t even have to argue. It’s like people used to quote verses from the Bible for instant holy-than-thou points.
    Saying the Kendi Man is for egalitarianism is giving him too much credit as an idealist or person of principle, however misguided. In truth, he is an arch-tribalist who, if science proved blacks are smarter, would be most happy with the finding… along with all the ‘woke’ idiots whose real religion is black-worship than racial equality. Their fixation on ‘not enough black quarterbacks’ but never on ‘not enough non-black running backs’ gives the game away. Jewishness is similarly an object of cult reverence. There can never be enough Jews in any department, but when the Jewish share of Princeton students dipped to 10%(still disproportionate given Jews are 2% of US population), that was a huge scandal.

    Harden: When social scientists routinely fail to integrate genetics into their models of human development, they leave space for a false narrative that portrays the insights of genetics as a Pandora’s box of “forbidden knowledge.”…

    Harden or Tarden is absolutely the worst. She is doubly dishonest. The race-realists are honest about race and racial differences. The anti-genetic ideologues are, at the very least, honest in their anxiety about the implications of genetic science that can overturn the very foundation of post-WWII consensus. Political Correctness isn’t honest about the science but honest in its fear of the science, just like the orangutan in THE PLANET OF THE APES isn’t honest about facts but honest in his fears. In contrast, Harden pretends the science is good for Political Correctness. She’s either a devious player of 4D chess(which I doubt) or a stupid smart person, dime-a-dozen in media and academia.

    But, no matter how people differ genetically… we are still not absolved of the responsibility to arrange society to the benefit of all people, not just the tiny slice of global genetic diversity that is people of predominantly European ancestry.

    This is doable on the national but not the global scale. Every nation has its share of smarties, middlies, and dummies. All modern systems have progressive taxation and other means to help out the dummies. This is manageable within the national setting, especially in smaller and homogeneous nations. But on a global scale, it’s like the Aesop’s tale of the dog losing its bone to grab the seemingly bigger bone reflected in the water. In trying to save the world, the nation will be neglected and destroyed. And in the end, the world won’t be saved either as it’s too big. Besides, how is a nation supposed to take care of its dummies when it keeps on taking in more people, many of them dummies from all around the world? Perhaps, some of the immigrants will work hard and pay taxes and produce more wealth to take care of the dummies. But then, the dummies will be further relegated to loser status as they have more competitors in their midst. Worse, what if many of the immigrants are dummies themselves? Sweden used to have a functional system for taking care of its dummies, but the social safety net has been fraying because Sweden chose to save Africa and Afghanistan.

    [MORE]

    Now, it’s true that the US has been somewhat different. In most European nations(in the past at least), the poor and the dumb were ethnically same as the middle and rich. But in the US, many of the poor have been blacks; worse, blacks haven’t been merely poor but problematic with crime and other pathologies. Especially following the Civil Rights Movement, black behavior fueled by black pride has been so unruly that many communities figured they would do better with immigrants than with blacks, a running theme in David Cole’s columns. L.A. with so many Mexicans may not be paradise but it sure beats Detroit.
    All these ‘progressives’ like Harden must decide if they’re more about loyalty to the Democratic Party(that gains from mass immigration) or concern for blacks. Of course, the problem with blacks is that, even minus immigrant competitors, too many fall through the cracks either due to lower IQ or lack of character(as much of black esteem is about out-hustling others than playing it straight). Also, while blacks oppose mass immigration as harmful to blacks, they identify so closely with the Democratic Party that they favor anything that is to its advantage. As the South fills up with more immigrants, Democrats are gaining over Republicans, and blacks welcome the transformation. But won’t blacks face more competition? Or, are black elites unconcerned with the black masses and care only about their own privileges accrued from Democrat domination? Or, do blacks regard non-blacks, white and non-white, as just more people to leech off and suck dry? As blacks have lagged in generating their own wealth, much of black economy depends on milking off what others create. It’s the same in Africa. Hindus and Chinese are let in to build stuff. Black elites get their cut in the form of bribes and contracts(where non-blacks actually do most of the work). And the unwashed blacks get theirs on occasion through massive looting when riots break out.

    Harden and her ilk confuse ‘palliative’ with ‘egalitarian’ or ‘equitarian'(if such term exists). At most, a free society, even at its most social-democratic-leaning, can be ‘palliatarian'(or ‘palliational’) but never truly ‘egalitarian’. If parents have two children and one is big and strong while the other is weak and wobbly, the latter can be provided with palliative care so that he can, at the very least, walk and function in life. But there is No Way he’s going to be a high school track star or football player. If a parent has a kid who is very bright and another that is retarded, palliative attention can help out the dummy kid, but he’s never going to be a smart kid, let alone a genius like Einstein. And of course, everyone knows this, but people just like to use terms like ‘equity’ or ‘egalitarian’ to either feel good about themselves, to virtue-signal, or to conceal their true obsession with elitism. Kamala Harris will yap about ‘equity’ but has been a whore to the rich, smart, and powerful all her life. Nice cover. That so many conservatives attack the likes of Harris is ‘leftist’ is to fall for the trap. She is a whore to the rich and powerful but accused of being ‘leftist’, which means her cover has worked.

    Harden pretends she’s saying something original when the modern order has long accepted the need for social safety nets and palliative measures for the poor, the sick, the old, and etc. Social Security for the old provides a measure of stability, but it’s hardly egalitarian. If Social Security made old people equal in health and ability, they would be re-entering the work force. It’s precisely because age wears down one’s ability that palliative means are provided for the retired. Same goes for the less intelligent in society. They will never succeed by mainstream standards(unless they win the lottery, the real kind), but we don’t want them starving, so they are provided with aid or trained for less demanding jobs.

    It is so tiresome to hear proposals for more programs and more funding when so much money has been wasted, is being wasted, and will be wasted on expensive public education for countless blacks, among others, who hardly respond to scholastic matters. It’s like arguing a fat person should be fed more food.

    If honest, Harden will admit the US has pretty much given up on a large sector of the black population. All this talk of ‘equity’ and the pampering of the black elite(as trophies) are really to pretend otherwise. By always pretending to be doing SOMETHING, nothing really has to be done, except by symbolic measures of erecting George Floyd status and teaching ‘woke’ catechisms to school children. Indeed, whole swaths of the black population aren’t even deemed fit for manual labor, much of which has gone to brown people from south of the border. PC is about talking one way while walking the other way.

    Harden: The fact that income, educational attainment, subjective well-being, psychiatric disease, neighborhood advantage, cognitive test performance, executive function, grit, motivation, and curiosity are all heritable… blah blah

    What really matters is this. While non-genetic factors matter, they are overwhelmed by genetic factors when (1) genetic differences are significant and (2) there is sufficient freedom for most people. If society allows women to play sports but not the men, women will dominate sports even though men are genetically more athletic. But once men are allowed to compete, they will trounce the women(even if women are afforded some slight advantages).

    PC operates on a fallacy that, because some groups were disadvantaged as a result of discrimination in the past, the removal of discrimination will result in equality. But did meritocracy in sports lead to equality between blacks and whites? Did Jewish Emancipation lead to equality between Jews and Christians in the Austro-Hungarian Empire?
    Inequality can be the result of social policy but can also result from the free reign of genetic competition, in which case social policy may come into play to narrow the gap somewhat but never totally because dumb people cannot be geniuses and paralympians cannot complete with four-limbed Olympians. Thus, social policy goes from favoring one group over another for supremacism’s sake to favoring one group over another for anti-supremacism’s sake. In Russia, removal of anti-Jewish laws accorded equality to Jews, but later, ‘affirmative action’ penalized Jews to make the playing field more equal for non-Jews.

    In a socially discriminatory order, the shift to free competition will begin to erase established hierarchies but then will erect new ones. Now, if everyone had the same IQ, same personality, same health, and same physical abilities, a non-discriminatory order may be reasonably egalitarian, but no such society has ever existed.
    This has been the story of capitalism where the old aristocracy was replaced by new elites(who became even richer and more powerful). Jews certainly got lots of money and power owing to their IQ in a liberalized order.
    Now, how come we can accept Jewish inferiority in certain areas but not black inferiority in any area? We acknowledge Jews are richer because they are smarter but also accept Jews aren’t well-represented in sports because they’re innately less athletic than Africans, Germanics, and Slavs. There’s no controversy about Jewish lack-of-success in sports. We accept Jewish advantage in one area and disadvantage in another. So, why can’t this be of blacks as well? They can run faster and jump higher, but they are relatively lacking in IQ. Besides, why should any race be the best in everything? In a way, diffusion of talent among the races makes for a kind of fairness. Indeed, the symbiotic relationship between Jews and blacks is based on Jewish business smarts and black rhythm & running. Jews superior in one area, blacks superior in another. There’s no scandal about Jews not making it as boxers, so why is there such an outcry about blacks not making it as business moguls?

    On the other hand, it’s not as if the lowbrow leftists like Ta-Nehisi Coates are losing politically and economically.

    Coates is not a leftist but a black tribalist who uses leftish-sounding socio-babble to gain more for his race, but especially for himself. When has he, or the Kendi Man, ever griped about the inequality faced by Palestinians? Just like Obama, they know they must flatter Jewish power while dumping on whitey to get their hands in the cookie jar. Calling black tribalists ‘leftists’ only muddles the issue. We can’t have clarity unless we delineate the real name of the game.

    Harden: “One-drop” social rules have guaranteed that Americans who identify as being White are very unlikely to have any genetic ancestry that is not European, so in this case self-reported race and genetic ancestry appear to converge.

    One thing for sure, one-word-rule has rendered the meaning of ‘Latino’ meaningless. Even brown people with little or no white blood count as ‘Latino'(or is ‘Latinx’) because they speak Spanish. More than anything, this clouds the race issue.

    …race (unlike ancestry) is an inherently hierarchical concept that serves to structure who has access to spaces and social power.

    Just about any concept is hierarchical because everything about mankind is. This goes for ‘class’, ‘sex’, ‘age’, ‘religion'(With God on our Side), nation, empire, and etc. ‘Education’ and ‘Academia’ are hierarchical too. Colleges are above high school, and elite colleges are above run-of-the-mill colleges. Big Business is bigger than small business.

    Also, everything is a double-edged sword. Nationalism can be used as springboard for imperialism, but it can also be a battle cry against imperialism, like in the Cuban Revolution. Race was invoked in the past to keep blacks down, but blacks used race as means of solidarity and unity. Indeed, why are blacks unwilling to adopt libertarianism and its emphasis on individualism? They know they can gain more pride, prestige, space, and social power by invoking race. ‘Race’ can be used as expression of supremacism(‘our race is better than yours’ or ‘our race has the right to rule over your race’), but it can also be used to gain and secure historical or social space(‘our race deserves to be free’ or ‘our race is deserving of dignity’, or even ‘our race has a right to preserve itself’, which is the theme of Zionism in its national manifestation). Likewise, ‘sex’ could be used to argue men should lord over women, but feminists have also built an ideology around it for “women’s liberation”.

    It’s often said the ‘pseudo-scientific’ concept of race is the product of 19th century imperialism(with roots in the Enlightenment and rationalism with its mania for classification). So, was mankind a happy lot prior to this Evil Concept? Maybe it wasn’t so bad for the peoples conquered, pillaged, and raped by Turks, Mongols, Arabs, Vikings, and Romans because ‘race’ wasn’t a thing back then.

    If race = imperialism, how does one account for the Spanish Conquest of the New World? The Spanish sent missionaries and converted the savages and there was much race-mixing, but was that a happy affair? If anything, the denial of race can be used as a tool of imperialism. It’s a denial of group identity. In other words, what right did the brown races have to defend themselves against white conquerors when, white or brown, they’re all just the same?
    Come to think of it, one way to resolve the racial issue in America is by arguing that the white race didn’t really enslave the black race since race doesn’t exist. Rather, some people who thought they were white enslaved some other people who thought they were black, but they were all just people. It was just pure fantasy. In truth, some people enslaved some people. So, just as it had been wrong for whites to regard themselves as whites lording over blacks, it’s about time blacks stop regarding themselves as blacks who were done wrong by whites. It only furthers the illusion of race.

    Now, one people who were long race-or-blood conscious were the Jews. In contrast, Christians and Muslims were less so as their big theme was converting the souls of all peoples around the world. Now, which people, the Jews or the Christians/Muslims, were more aggressive, invasive, and imperialist? True, Jews joined in the empire building but on the backs of Christians and Muslims who sought to break through the bonds of race and blood to create a one-world community united before God the Lord. One result is Latin America, a very hierarchical place. Come to think of it, if egalitarian ethos took deeper root in North America, it was precisely because it was more homogenously white, at least in the northern parts and Canada. Egalitarianism, though always out of reach, is easier to approximate with a homogenous population with a narrower range of talents. Easier among beagles than among greyhounds, beagles, pit-bulls, and chihuahuas.

    Harden: A closer look at the science of genetic ancestry makes it clear that “race does not stand up scientifically, period.”

    The statement is true and untrue depending on how one defines race. And there are varying definitions. Using the stupidest definition of race, her statement would be true. But then, the current age has no problem with stupidity when it comes to sex or ‘gender’, which has also spawned the pronoun-craze where some dope claims he isn’t only a ‘she’ but a ‘they’. Such nonsense is accepted as ‘science’ in our age. If Harden means that the human species is far more complicated than the groupings of caucasian, negroid, and mongoloid, that’s true enough. Bushmen are different from Bantu blacks. Tamils are exactly what? And though the American Indians originated from Asia, they seem to have evolved sufficiently into a new category. And Nazi racial science had its crazy side. But, any concept can be invalidated if defined by its falsities or stupidities.

    Still, if she insists the concept of race is wrong because it’s burdened with historical baggage, then give us a new term so we can use that instead. But while there’s a lot of terminological furor in rejecting the term of ‘race’, there is terminological timidity in conceiving a new concept. I don’t care if we shouldn’t use ‘race’ anymore. Just give us any term that means the existence of different groups within the species as the result of tens of thousands of evolution and geographical and climactic separation. Unless such term is provided, no one should reject ‘race’ because it’s the only term we have. Based on new scientific knowledge, what should be the new term for differences created by evolution? How about ‘scatterin’ as different races arose from organisms within the species scattered all around the world. White scatterin and black scatterin. Or just scats. (‘Scat’ means animal shit, but that’s okay because people like Harden are full of shit. How about ‘guano’ for race?)

    …in reality, you could have it exactly backwards, and the genes that matter for education could be more common in the ancestry group with worse educational outcomes.

    Likely in a socially discriminatory or orthodox order. If a group is smart but denied educational opportunities, it will have high IQ but lack in academic prizes. Or, if the group has smart people but is trapped in orthodoxy, like Jews who only studied the Talmud or Chinese who concentrated on Eight-Legged Essays, it will under-achieve in many areas. Evangelicalism and Creationism probably suppressed intellectual achievement among certain Christian groups.

    But the problem of inequality in the West is mostly the result of genetic differences. Once discrimination was ended and all groups adopted modern modes, winners and losers were largely chosen by genetics.

    For example, we now have a polygenic score for predicting the highest level of education attained. In the latest iteration announced this month, using a sample size of 3 million, those in the highest decile were nine times more likely to graduate from college than those in the lowest decile. It works pretty well for whites in the U.K., America, and New Zealand. It works less well for East Asians and worst of all for African-Americans.

    East Asians are so education-focused that many more of them than whites will engage in studies regardless of other factors. The ant-attitude defines their outlook. In contrast, blacks are so fun-focused that many more of them than whites will engage in letting the good times roll. The grasshopper attitude prevails among them. In contrast, being neither intensely ant-like or grasshopper-like, whites tend to divide more naturally between those with ant-tendency and those with grasshopper-tendency.

    Charles Murray, when Murray, as Frank Sinatra used to say about Laurence Harvey in The Manchurian Candidate, is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.

    Bad example as Sinatra was brainwashed to say that about someone whom he actually loathed.

    Seriously, Murray is obviously a superb individual.

    Maybe he’s a nice guy, but the nicest guy can have evil ideas while a nasty person can espouse humane ideas. What is better? A kindly devil or a mean angel? So, even as Murray’s critics may concede he’s a nice person to be around, they can still find his ideas to be abhorrent. But this goes for people on the Left as well. Some Stalinists were nice kindly people.

    At any rate, it doesn’t matter how nice you are in a theocracy. If you blasphemed God, you are agent of the Devil even if you’re the nicest person in town. In the current ideocracy, blacks are magical, and it’s heretical to say they are deficient in any way, or if they are, it’s all the fault of evil whites. So, no matter how nice or kindly Murray may be, he can only be a blasphemer in the eyes of the establishment.

    The real problem is Murray’s weakness. Why is he nice to people who hate him? Niceness is a virtue when shown to those who appreciate the gesture. It is a worthless vice when extended to those who hate you and mean you harm. Be nice to those who are nice to you, be mean to those who are mean to you. But Murray is nice to his enemies. Worse, he’s nicer to people who mean him harm than those who are willing to give him a hearing. He’d rather suck up to Neocons than side with people like Kevin MacDonald and Jared Taylor(who has problems of his own). Murray is a fuddy-dud with ‘dangerous’ ideas, which means he lacks the cojones to see his ideas to their conclusion. In that, he has something in common with Harden who admits certain things but draws all the wrong conclusions. Murray keeps hoping and pretending that his ideas are compatible with individualism and libertarianism when they’re not.

    She and Murray disagree over the meaning of “virtue.” Harden’s New Testament-inspired egalitarian utopianism, in the tradition of political philosopher John Rawls, sees no virtue or merit in a pilot (such as her father) having excellent pilot traits

    She is right on virtue. If talent or skill = virtue, O.J. Simpson would be a saint. In a way, the problem with the US, no less among the ‘woke’ than among the ‘based’, is the delusion of conflating success, especially associated with celebrity and fame, with virtue. People look to athletes and pop stars for ‘wisdom’. Conservatives are giddy that the rapper 50 cents be complaining about taxes and thinks of moving to Texas. And then, there was the thing with the vile Nikki Minaj. She went on a rant about her cousin’s balls and became an instant hero to the anti-vaxxer crowd.

    There is value in meritocracy per se that rewards people based on talent and hard work, but a person’s intelligence or professional success doesn’t guarantee virtue, even though one can say work ethic is a virtue compared to sloth. The US deep state has lots of of smart and diligent people, but they don’t seem very virtuous when it comes to speaking the truth. And when one of them did — Edward Snowden — , the reaction was to destroy him.

    Perhaps, meritocracy is more about fairness than virtue. It is externally applied and neutral in its lack of a priori favoritism. It observes and chooses for superior talents regardless of other factors. It’s like the referee in sports mustn’t favor either athlete and must be neutral in rewarding points and penalties. If a lowlife son-of-a-bitch is more skilled than a truly nice fellow, meritocracy favors the former.
    But all social orders have sacraments and taboos that make absolute meritocracy impossible. Even a super bright kid will not be admitted to Ivy League if it turns out he said unkind things about Jews, blacks, or homosexuals. In the past, one’s reputation could be destroyed if one badmouthed Jesus or is a homosexual. So, the rules change over time, and these rules will favor official norms and dogma over absolute meritocracy.

    Unlike mere fairness(of meritocracy), virtue goes the extra mile and is essentially an internal trait. Instead of merely being fair with mankind, it wants to do more to be a better person and/or to make for a better society, sometimes in a self-sacrificing way.

    Harden: A lottery is a perfect metaphor for describing genetic inheritance: the genome of every person is the outcome of nature’s Powerball.

    Harden is one big idiot. That’s the dumbest thing I ever read. The human equivalent of winning the powerball would be if someone is super-beautiful, super-healthy, super-personable, super-leadership-qualitied, super-intelligent, super-athletic(and in all sports from weightlifting to swimming to high jump), super-creative(in music, poetry, and act), and etc.
    Human competition isn’t about that at all. Most people are content to excel in one thing or another. For the vast majority, genetics means having just enough decent genes to finish college, have a nice job, and retire with a saving. Powerball-thinking is for likes of Elizabeth Holmes, the too-good-to-be-true nutter.

    Genetics is more like a slot-machine, a rigged one at that. Pull on the genetic lever of a smart man and smart woman, and you’re more likely to get a smart kid. Pull on the genetic lever of a dumb man and dumb woman, and you’re more likely to get a dumb kid. Of course, smart parents can produce dumb kids, and dumb parents can product smart kids, but genetics means that the game is rigged based on parentage.
    Genetics would be more like a lottery if done in the manner of Rev. Mhoon, that is by randomly pairing dummies with smarties in a mass wedding ceremony. But it’s generally not the case that smart women marry some fat guy whose ass crack shows when he bends over.

    Harden propounds a sophomoric view that intelligence is “socially valued, not inherently valuable,” and follows that up with a conspiracy theory that early-20th-century eugenicists plotted to get us:

    Harden is correct in the strict evolutionary sense. Every trait has value in relation to the environment. A shark’s fins are perfectly engineered for the ocean but useless on land. A chimpanzee’s high IQ isn’t going to do it any good in the middle of an ocean. A low-IQ fish with gills has infinitely better chance of survival.
    And even among human societies, the value of intelligence depends on the culture and social setting. While it’s good to be reasonably intelligent in any setting, high IQ would have been useless in most societies through history(and especially pre-history). A strong man who could throw spears and fight was more valued. An Einstein or Plato would have been useless to the Vikings or Zulus.
    Extreme high IQ has value only in advanced civilizations with freedom that allows such a trait to explore and express itself. And even though all societies, even the simplest, have recognized the difference between smart and dumb, admiration for high IQ began to matter only when advanced societies rose that valued specialization in intelligence.

    But Harden is probably not speaking strictly in an evolutionary sense but to virtue signal that she’s more about the heart than brains.

    Harden: …to see intelligence (as measured on standardized IQ tests) and educational success, perhaps more than any other human phenotypes, in terms of a hierarchy of inferior and superior persons is not an accident. It is an idea that was deliberately crafted and disseminated

    The more a society becomes competitive and achievement-oriented, this becomes inevitable. After all, is a great civilization possible without identifying winners from losers? Jews had their Rabbinical studies. Chinese had their Confucian exams. The Greeks were more multi-faceted as they prized not only intelligence but creativity, athletics, and beauty, which is why they were so foundational in the many pursuits that came to define the West and then the World. But the Greeks also adopted Christianity, and their highest sense of good came to be piety. Christian piety is less enamored of and even hostile to beauty(vanity), intelligence(skepticism and arrogance), athletics(brutality), and creativity(sensuality). Its emphasis on humility would seem anti-superiorist but actually provided another opportunity for superiority: holier-than-thou-ism.
    On the one hand, Harden is in the Galileo-ian world of high IQ science, but on the other, she is with the new church of PC pieties. And just like Christianity, the new theology of diversity-equity-inclusion has its own superiors and inferiors. The superiors are the Good Good People who repeat the fashionable sacraments while the Bad Bad people are those who dare to spout heresies and should be burned as witches.

    Now, is the US excessively concerned with IQ and success? If anything, many have griped that the problem of America is anti-intellectualism, populist vulgarity, blissful infantilism, and obsession with sports and pop culture than with science, math, and mental stuff. In any high school, the nerds and geeks are ignored while jocks and ‘popular kids’ get most of the attention. Judging by mass culture, Americans mainly seem interested in trashy personalities and pop stars. Most Americans would rather watch two women beat the crap out of each other in MMA than read a book by Harden or any female scientist. Also, colleges have been dumbed down over the years. It panders to popular tastes, and for all I know, they’re teaching rap poetry in colleges. The rap musical HAMILTON became cause celebre among the elites. That Donald Trump became the champion of so many Americans doesn’t say much about their intellectual curiosity either. But is he cruder than HAMILTON or the likes of Lena Dunhum promoted by the elites? Go on youtube, and the videos that get the most views are stupid or trashy as hell, or just plain dumb.

    The problem with Americans is they love success and money, which is usually the product of high IQ and diligence, but prefer to conflate them with something else. The appeal of Rock/Rap culture is the bad boy wins the girls, drives the fancy cars, and wears all the bling. Bruce Springsteen sang about high school dropouts, rebels, and road-busters, the kind of people who lose in life or end up dead. But he became very rich. Most blacks who emulate rap culture end up dead or in jail, but blacks love the idea of the rich gangsta.
    In Death of a Salesman, Willi Loman’s delusion is success comes by way of the hustle, a firm handshake and likability alone. Of course, such things matter, but it also requires hard work and real ability. Americans want to believe style should be sufficient for success. Substance is too boring and lame. Success is usually the product of intelligence and hard work, but that’s too nerdy or geeky for the American Myth of John Wayne, Elvis Presley, and 50 Cents.

    Harden says the less intelligent deserve more help, but that isn’t the real problem, especially among blacks. The problem is blacks are soul-corrupted and rebuff any sound advice about what they must do. They find hard work and diligence ‘lame’ or ‘white’. They want success to come with style alone. But how many blacks can be great athletes? (Black culture in the documentary Hoop Dreams is surely telling, which is to say depressing.) Has anyone asked Harden, “How can you help people who don’t appreciate sound advice?” The forgotten white working class is more likely to respond to any kind of useful help, but their livelihoods have been outsourced globally. Worse, it is evil for whites to care for fellow whites.

    Now, there is a segment of Americans who are IQ-and-success-obsessed, and they are the elites. Elite parents do everything to make their kids go to good schools or gain favors through connections — how George W. Bush got to be president, how Hunter Biden isn’t in jail but selling junk art for \$500,000. The rise of PC partly owes to these parents not wanting to jeopardize their kids’ chance at success. They tell their kids to toe the line or else lose it all. Harden is surely part of this IQ-and-success-obsessed class. And these people do everything to gain more wealth and privilege.
    But they don’t want to admit that they are so focused on themselves and their class, so even as they do everything to win and collect more prizes, they create this bogeyman of the ‘racist’ to fool the world(and themselves) that THEY are warriors for equality. But in fact, the likes of Jared Taylor and even Charles Murray have zero power in media and academia. All of the establishment elites are ideologically on the same page as Harden. So, if she’s honest, she will admit that the most IQ-obsessed people are the so-called ‘liberals’. But instead, she paints herself as a humanitarian fighting an uphill battle against dragon-monsters like Murray. She is really punching down, but because the White Male used to be on top, she relies on historiography to pretend she’s punching up.

    Even if Charles Murray and his ilk(and all MAGA people) vanished into the thin air this very moment, the problems associated with race, IQ, success, inequality, and etc. would exist just the same among blacks, browns, and whites like Harden… like in San Francisco and Madison Wisconsin. Indeed, without the racist-as-bogeyman, people like Harden would finally have to face the music and offer a solution to the race problem. But as long as her ilk claims to be fighting the big-bad-white-bogeyman, they can say their hands are tied at the moment and can’t really address the problem yet.

    If people like Harden are really serious, there is actually a solution. Offer more affirmative action slots for blacks in medicine, law, accounting, and other fields. And then, make sure these white ‘progressive’ types call on affirmative action talent for service. Need a brain surgery? Make sure it’s a black doctor who got his license through AA. Need a corporate lawyer? Get an AA black guy. With so many rich progressive types, this should solve the problem. And why should they complain? After all, they are the ones who say there should be more ‘inclusion’ and that blacks are just as intelligent, skillful, and diligent as any other race. They wouldn’t want to be racist, would they?

  162. @peterike

    I was originally not too concerned about the FedGov shilling for the “vaccines”. There are so many crimes that the FedGov commits against Americans every day — open borders, modern monetary theory, trillion dollar annual deficits, undermining voting integrity, etc. — that it was hard to get too excited about one more.

    Besides, the “vaccines” were optional and surely only the very stupid would take an untested drug. As Derb said, “life is an IQ test”.

    Then I realized that Fauci needed to suppress valid therapeutics like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine in order to be able to release the “vaccines” pursuant to an Emergency Use Authorization. An EUA is not available if there are capable therapeutics. So Fauci was willing to kill people by depriving them of effective therapeutics in order to be able to release his “vaccines”.

    And even ignoring the high rates of disastrous negative reactions to the “vaccines”, they aren’t even very effective. The Mayo Clinic study reported that the Pfizer is only 42% effective. So even the “vaccinated” will likely need the therapeutics that Fauci intentionally deprives them of.

    And then Biden attempts to make them mandatory.

    Fauci is a criminal.

    And “vaccinated” or not, find yourself a doctor that will prescribe ivermectin and azithromycin when you get Covid. Do this now, before you get the diagnosis. Otherwise, you might find yourself on a ventilator being murdered by the “healthcare” establishment.

  163. duncsbaby says:
    @Jack Armstrong

    He grew up in Detroit Lakes?! That’s the heart of Minnesota’s Magic Dirt country.

    https://visitdetroitlakes.com/

  164. @Voltarde

    Developing Consent Language for Future Use of Data and Biospecimens
    https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-21-131.html

    Hopefully, this will not turn out as nasty as it looks like at first sight.

  165. @James J O'Meara

    Arthur Schopenhauer paved the way for Karl Kraus, Thomas Bernhard (Wittgenstein’s Nephew, The Cheap Eaters), Ambrose Bierce, Leon Bloy (Exegesis of the Commonplaces) and other virtuosos of the dark & funny genre (John Kennedy Toole – Confederacy of Dunces)… – No wonder he loved and admired not only Baltasar Gracian but also – – – Miguel de Cervantes’ Don Quichotte. – Basic line: Mundus Vult Decipi – The world longs for betrayal.

  166. @mc23

    These ideas haven’t gotten traction yet. The Chinese don’t care much about our Western pieties and will have no problem calling a spade a spade, no pun intended.

    True – that’s my impression when talking to Chinese people. – Koreans and Japanese too.

    I’d like to know more about these debates in Asia.

    • Replies: @Hangnail Hans
  167. Chuck says:
    @Guy De Champlagne

    You can see which regions of the genome the PGS SNPs are enriched in (gene-mapping and cellular pathway analysis). They are enriched in specific neurologically associated genes one would expect to underlie cognitive functioning. Read, for example, the suppl. material of Lee et al.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Guy De Champlagne
  168. @Anonymous

    Interesting. Your solution in the last paragraph is fair.

    (I have to say though, that the attempt – which I think is not your attempt, but rather the attempt – or the notion, – – – you’re reacting to – – – : Well and this generally practiced (or established) attempt to somehow discuss the whole Faustian program (= to get what’s up with the complexity of modern societies) – . – To dig this Goethean / Faustian problem, I said, via the example of Kathryn Page Harden’s thoughts, by putting her words – almost each and every one of them – – under a microscope, so to speak: I wanted to say that this kind of intellectual – öh: Kathryn Paige Hardenism – – – – is a (necessarily) comical task. – This is the second time today that I think of Don Quichotte – and The Confederacy of Dunces. –

    PS

    I now wish that there’d be a comparative study of Hegels dialectic of the master and the servant in his Phenomenology Of The Spirit and Miguel Cervantes’ take on the interaction between Sancho Pansa and the (imaginary knight) Don Quichotte – plus, of course, Denis Diderot’s take on the dynamic between Jacques the Fatalist and His Master. – All of a sudden I have the (rather joyful!) impression, that this would be all that’s necessary to come to grips not only with Kathryn Paige Harden – but with – – her – – Kendi Man (perfect – I mean your: Kendi Man expression, anonymous 293) too.

    Hehe.

  169. Sean says:
    @Crawfurdmuir

    How much tax does Bill Gates pay on the wealth he controls? He says he is giving it all away and that his children will not inherit it. All the super-rich say that. Philanthropy is part of a strategy to avoid tax.

  170. @Anonymous

    “There’s no scandal about Jews not making it as boxers”

    I understand the general points you’re making in your very long message, but what was that? You haven’t read my acquaintance Ken Blady’s 1988 book “The Jewish Boxer’s Hall of Fame” nor seen the online list of impressive, award-winning Jewish boxers at
    https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-jews-in-boxing/famous-jews

    “Jews aren’t well-represented in sports because they’re innately less athletic than Africans, Germanics, and Slavs.”

    Okay, but some Ashkenazic Jewish baseball players made it to the major leagues per https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jews-in-major-league-baseball-mlb

    Ashkenazi Jews are actually part-Germanic and part-Slavic, among other elements.

  171. iffen says:

    You did the right thing, Steve.

    A favorable review by you would be the kiss of death with her intended audience.

  172. @Jack D

    The Sperminator doing his part
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/05/16/not-even-a-pandemic-can-stop-the-sperminator-from-spreading-his-seed/amp/

    Ari Nagel has impregnated dozens of Black women by offering them free insemination services.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  173. Handing the keys of direct power over to women was bound to end like this and to mysteriously drain their indirect power (the hand that rocks the cradle – see McAulliffe’s curriculum comments and top end TFR) at the same time. This has less to do with the quality of women in general than with the nature of female power and who rises to the top of their hierarchies.

    It ain’t Babe Didrikson and Hedy Lamarr and Marie Curie types.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  174. @Anonymous

    Well, that comment of yours went on and on and on…, but it was all relevant in pointing out how we’re swimming in an all-encompassing sea of bullshit and stupidity.

  175. @Dieter Kief

    I’d bet that the Asian elites are mighty entertained by the ways in which western societies are self-immolating.

  176. Cido says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I never cared about all that IQ stuff because, for instance, if I were a Thai- I would find ways to ditch the Chinese or to keep them down until they decide to go for sunnier places. Of course, the Chinese are more able than Thais; they are certainly more intelligent etc. etc. But, they’re not my tribe, and I don’t care about all rationalizations.

    To be white is not only about raw IQ, it’s also about distinctive psychological traits. With those traits whites conquered the world and discovered many mysteries of nature.

  177. @Crawfurdmuir

    Subchapter-S corporations, LLCs, and limited partnerships report their income to their owners on Schedule K-1 of IRS Form 1040, and those who are beneficiaries of such entities pay taxes on them in whatever bracket their incomes put them. It’s an utter falsehood to claim that pass-through entities either hide actual ownership from the IRS or in any way shelter their owners’ incomes from taxation.

    Yes, (domestic) pass-throughs do not hide ownership. OTOH, the big taxes are not on ownership, they are on income. And among big owners of corporate stuff, income tax is sidestepped by not having income, instead taking loans against ownership.

    But not all ownership is in domestic corporations. Occasional revelations like the Panama Papers show people who own significant wealth unknown to tax authorities. And for the ones we happen to know about, there are probably orders of magnitude more that we don’t know about.

    Even domestically, there is plenty of wealth that appears in no public accounting. This can be relatively benign and legal like using trusts and foundations to obscure the beneficial owners, or it can be more more illegal, like organized crime’s keeping of enormous off-book cash hoards. That “money laundering” is an industry and a crime is a backhanded testament to how much off-book wealth there is, since “money laundering” means moving money into the officially sanctioned economy rather than keeping it out, which you might think would have been the real economic and political harm.

    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir
  178. res says:
    @Chuck

    Thanks. Might be helpful to link this (based on a different paper) directly.
    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/even-more-genes-for-intelligence

    The Lee et al. Supplementary material is available at
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0147-3#Sec34
    Some pointers to the relevant portions in this comment.
    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/journey-of-1-1-million-miles/?highlight=pituitary#comment-2434372

  179. @SafeNow

    Both Jims had married twice. The first time, they married women named Linda. When this didn’t work out and they divorced, they met (and went on to marry) women named Betty.

    What exactly would you make of this? Do you imagine there is a genetic drive to marry someone named Linda? And subsequently Betty? I get that it seems vanishingly unlikely that it is coincidental, but what precisely is the alternate explanation?

    • Replies: @SafeNow
  180. The ideology of The Genetic Lottery seems motivated in sizable measure by Harden’s maternal feelings for her two very different children.

    My sense is that Razib Khan also moved leftwards in a Harden-esque fashion with regard to race issues when his (mixed race) children were born.

  181. @beavertales

    It’s related to Cartesian fallacy, as is Rawls.

    I wonder if the rise of blockchain technology will make more people based on this issue.

  182. @Almost Missouri

    “One wonders what will happen if the Down’s Syndrome community ever notices that the eradication of Down’s Syndrome is already very far advanced.”

    A Downs sufferer (am I allowed to say that?) recently went to UK court to challenge the law that allows abortion of Downs babies right up to birth, not on the grounds that killing children in the womb is wrong, but on human rights grounds (discrimination against the disabled).

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/23/woman-with-downs-syndrome-loses-uk-abortion-law-case

    She lost.

    • Thanks: Dieter Kief
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  183. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Steve doesn’t talk much about Citizenism anymore. It was an idea for pre-2000s America. Not a bad idea at all. It doesn’t mean much, however, in a country with open borders + an oligarchy.

  184. MEH 0910 says:

    • Replies: @CCZ
  185. SafeNow says:
    @kaganovitch

    The Linda/Betty/Toy choices were easy-to-identify “markers” for large personality and wiring similarities. In another pair of identical separated twins, there would be different markers. These would be much less obvious, and so would not be detected. But there will always be a constellation of markers with a vanishingly small statistical probability. I have no alternate hypothesis other than that wiring produces the statistically improbable markers; and that wiring controls our behavioral choices to a greater extent than is recognized.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
  186. MEH 0910 says:

    Amy Harmon Retweeted:

    • Replies: @ic1000
    , @MEH 0910
  187. ic1000 says:
    @MEH 0910

    The need for responsible journalism about #witches is greater than ever. How should witch-hunters & journalists work together to report on the findings of this research?

    Join the discussion with @amy_harmon @matthew_hopkins

  188. @Chuck

    If you really have a familiarity with the research please point me to clear, practical successful concrete applications of these statistical methods. Where are the supersmart mice?

    • Replies: @res
  189. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    It’s about tribe and splitting the pie.

    It is about splitting what pie?

    The pie that whites made?

    Is there some other pie?

    Who else made a pie?

    Will they be splitting their pies?

    If the low iq violent folks had no kids, this pie split could maybe work. As it is, the low iq violent folks are out-breeding everyone. They will just devour and lay waste to it all.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  190. Luke Lea says:
    @vinteuil

    Personally I prefer Sean’s to entuil’s prose style. As for the idea that race is just a skirmish line out in front of the main fortifications, I would say that identity politics in all its many forms is something that our new plutocratic ruling class encourages (or at least lets happen) as a way to distract and divide the public and keep themselves in power.

    The one thing this class does not want to see, the thing that it fear more than anything else, is a broad popular movement in favor of a radical reform of our current trade and immigration laws, which would mean putting high tariffs on the import of labor intensive, low-skilled manufactured goods from low-wage countries overseas and ending mass low-skilled immigration. Why do the members of this class oppose reform in these two areas so much? Because in their present unreconstructed form they are, as they have been for the last several decades, the source of much of their wealth and their power.

    And for that reason there is practically nothing that this class will not stoop to do, no lie they will not tell, to head off such a movement, including smearing its leaders as racists of the most despicable kind and threatening to withdraw all further financial support from any sitting Senator or Congressman who dares to vote in favor of the necessary statutory changes. And since it bankrolls both political parties and owns and controls almost all our major media, its powers of persuasion are formidable indeed.

    You can dismiss this picture as a cartoon or a stereotype if you like, but I still say there is a lot of truth in it.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  191. @SafeNow

    Do we find these similarities in non separated twins?

  192. vinteuil says:
    @Luke Lea

    Personally I prefer Sean’s to entuil’s prose style.

    Hey, who wouldn’t?

  193. Jack D says:
    @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco

    In the words of Che, two, three, a thousand Ari Nagels. All the babies will look like Chanda Prescod-Weinstein and will grow up to be physicists:

    They’ll be just like Jews but with the added ability to dance and play basketball.

  194. CCZ says:
    @MEH 0910

    Full paragraph:

    Camus provided the central clue as to how we arrived at the moral paradox of totalitarian utopias: “Philosophy … can be used for anything, even for transforming murderers into judges.” When scientists write book-length philosophical treatises on the correct moral and political implications to draw from their findings, it is worth keeping Camus’s admonition in mind. Harden and deBoer believe their egalitarian philosophy paints a vision of a kinder, more prosperous future for us all. But when I picture their vision of the future what I see is a boot stamping on a human face—forever.

    https://quillette.com/2021/09/30/the-culture-war-is-coming-for-your-genes/

  195. @lavoisier

    Not sure, David Reich’s book as far as the scientifically oriented parts isn’t particularly PC/SJW, but he tacked on three chapters at the end with enough PC stuff ( not in the the other chapters ) to cover himself. So David Reich kinda sorta did it, but Reich is at Harvard, is Jewish, and is a lot smarter than she is, so that provided him the necessary clout to do so.

  196. Harden is not the first liberal to try and inch the football by swearing she is definitely against those other Whites and all their nasty talk of race being more than superficial differences as WE ALL KNOW that no other differences could exist. Cause True Science(tm).

    I could have saved her the trouble by letting her in on what I thought was common knowledge in academia which is that liberals in the colleges already know that race exists. Even if they didn’t secretly read liberal geneporn like Unz they still see race all the time in their classrooms and it drives them mad. I once watched a left-wing prof make notes on which White students to humiliate in class for no other reason than bitterness. These left-wing women that dominate the social sciences are fully aware of race and hate everyone here with a passion for not going along with the establishment lie.

    Either that or she knows full well that her book will be rejected by academia but plans on selling copies to alt-right types and independents that are sick of the liberal gene denial game.

    I’m going to guess the former since if the goal is to merely sell books then it would be much easier to write her own gene denial novel for the establishment.

  197. MEH 0910 says:
    @Jack D


    [MORE]

  198. @YetAnotherAnon

    Thanks. Reading the decision, I see that that UK courts outdo even the US courts in clotted and impenetrable “reasoning”. Also outdo the US in alien judges (Singh & Lieven) telling the natives what is and is not allowed.

  199. res says:
    @Guy De Champlagne

    Where are the supersmart mice?

    Are you going to respond to my dairy cow comment at some point? Or are you just pretending it does not exist?

    But since this time you asked about mice specifically.

    Mice given extra gene become smarter
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/making-smart-mice/
    Full text of the underlying paper at
    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ya-Ping-Tang/publication/232778813_Genetic_enhancement_of_learning_and_memory_in_mice/links/0c96053989a9b0865e000000/Genetic-enhancement-of-learning-and-memory-in-mice.pdf

    BTW, notice the date on that article (1999).

    Here is a 2014 paper.
    Humanized Foxp2 accelerates learning by enhancing transitions from declarative to procedural performance
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265693285_Humanized_Foxp2_accelerates_learning_by_enhancing_transitions_from_declarative_to_procedural_performance

    From 2007.
    https://cen.acs.org/articles/85/i36/Well-Endowed-Mind.html

    Researchers have demonstrated that memory and intelligence can be improved genetically, creating more than a dozen varieties of “smart” mice.

    That article references the Tsien paper above as well as this.

    Cyclin-dependent kinase 5 governs learning and synaptic plasticity via control of NMDAR degradation
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3910113/

    Hopefully you understand that there is typically a time lag between research and practical applications. In any case, I look forward to playing the No True “clear, practical successful concrete applications of these statistical methods” (Scotsman) game.

    P.S. This paper attempting to measure a “g” for mice might be of interest.
    Behavioral/Systems/Cognitive
    Individual Differences in the Expression of a “General” Learning Ability in Mice
    https://www.jneurosci.org/content/23/16/6423.short

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  200. Anonymous[161] • Disclaimer says:
    @James Thompson

    That’s just old-style Jesuit equivocation. Loudly proclaiming “X” to be true on the first page of your book, then quietly proving it false hundreds of pages later. Only careful readers will understand what you are really saying.

  201. Sean says:
    @Old Prude

    https://www.unz.com/mhudson/the-great-debt-debate-michael-hudson-vs-thomas-piketty/

    [T]o tax income and wealth. This is not a threatening solution because there’s no way that you’re going to tax wealth, as long as you have offshore banking centers to conceal wealth. As long as you have what the oil industry put in place a 100 years ago, the flags of convenience pretending to make their income abroad in zero-tax enclaves.

    The fact is, the 1% don’t really make much income. Their ideal, if you’re a billionaire, you want to do what half of American corporations do: You don’t make a penny of taxable income. […] The only way that you can actually reverse this concentration of wealth is to begin wiping out the debt. If you leave the debt in place of the 99%, then you’re going to leave the 1% savings all in place. These savings are largely tax-exempt. […]

    [O] nce you have wealth taking the form of financial claims and loans to other people as debt, you have compound interest. Any rate of interest is a doubling time, and compound interest is always going to grow faster than the economy’s real growth. The way to prevent this isn’t simply to lower the interest rate, which has been done today, to 0.1%. The only solution is to wipe out the overall debts that are stopping economic growth

  202. @res

    Jesus – g for mice, res, thanks. – Bodies are biological machines – and mammals’ bodies are close relatives… – cf. René Descartes and – in his footsteps: L’Homme Machine – Julien Offray de la Mettrie, who was called by his peers Mr. Machine…

  203. @Desiderius

    Jordan B. Peterson rites and talks a lot about an aspect of what you’re thinking about here: That women are more likely to compromise and less likely to stick to the logical and systematic etc. (=the rational side) aspects of situations. He thinks that men and women differ indeed in this respect. He would like Goethe’s maxim No. 686 – Laws are made by men and old folks. The young ones and womenfolk look for the exceptions.

  204. @Almost Missouri

    Even domestically, there is plenty of wealth that appears in no public accounting. This can be relatively benign and legal like using trusts and foundations to obscure the beneficial owners,

    I suppose it depends upon what you mean by “public accounting.” The nature and amount of assets held by trusts and foundations may not always be publicly accessible, but the IRS and in some cases other Federal and state agencies would undoubtedly be aware of them.

    A testamentary trust may bypass public reporting of trust assets as part of a decedent’s probate estate, but does not exclude those trust assets from the taxable estate and the IRS (and sometimes state) reporting involved in the estate taxation process. Note also that many states have much lower estate tax ceilings than does the Federal government.

    Assets placed in an inter vivos trust, if greater than the exempt amount for gift tax, are subject to gift taxation. Even if they are not, they may use up some or all of the giver’s lifetime exemption from the combined gift and estate tax. Such trusts, also, are subject to the reporting requirements of the IRS and in some cases those of state authorities.

    I sit on the board of a charitable foundation, which this morning reviewed and approved its 2020 Form 990 return for filing with the IRS, and a comparable form for filing with the state where we operate. Part VI extensively covers governance, management, and disclosure, including the description of the foundation’s tax exempt purpose and the community benefits we provide each year. Schedule J covers compensation of the foundation’s officers and directors. All of this information is publicly accessible. Schedule B, listing the larger donors, is deemed not public, but the information provided in that schedule to the IRS enables it to match up the deductions claimed by donors on their tax returns with those the foundation says it has received during the period in question.

    There are numerous kinds of trusts, some of which do not have to pay taxes, and some that do, but all of them are required to furnish information to the IRS. Form 1041 is the income tax return used by fiduciaries filing on behalf of estates and trusts subject to income taxation. Form 5500 is used by employee retirement plans, which are not directly subject to tax, but which hold funds ultimately distributed to retirees that become taxable income to the beneficiaries when distributed.

    The notion that such entities can “obscure” the beneficial owners from IRS scrutiny could only be entertained by someone who never had to file the appropriate returns with the IRS.

  205. MEH 0910 says:

    https://merionwest.com/2021/10/07/review-the-genetic-lottery-why-dna-matters-for-social-equality/

  206. MEH 0910 says:


    [MORE]

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
  207. MEH 0910 says:
    @MEH 0910


    [MORE]

  208. MEH 0910 says:

    https://www.stitcher.com/show/razib-khans-unsupervised-learning/episode/freddie-deboer-the-hereditarian-left-87357623

    This week Razib talks to Fredrick DeBoer, author of The Cult of Smart, about the heritability of intelligence and its broader implications for society and education. The two discuss the difficulties of having fact-based conversations around the topic of heritability without being shouted down or accused of being proponents of eugenics. They also talk about how The Cult of Smart compares to Paige Harden’s book The Genetic Lottery. Freddie breaks down the evidence that heritability, rather than just environment, is a major determining factor when predicting intelligence. He cites numerous examples where early indicators of intelligence, such as standardized tests, are predictive of long-term success despite changes in the environment over time – emphasizing that these indicators as early as kindergarten can be used to predict a child’s success in college. Then, the discussion turns to the implications of heritability on academic performance and how a deeper understanding might be used to inform educational policy decisions. They discuss how policies like No Child Left Behind failed largely due to their inability to grapple with inherent differences in IQ and the impulse to view students as “blank slates” – and contrast it with the equally flawed reactionary position of doing away with standardized testing completely to focus on ‘the whole individual’ and the unintended consequences such a policy might have.

  209. MEH 0910 says:


    [MORE]

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
  210. MEH 0910 says:
    @MEH 0910


    [MORE]

  211. MEH 0910 says:

    https://www.skeptic.com/michael-shermer-show/genetic-lottery-why-dna-matters-for-social-equality-kathryn-paige-harden/

    The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality (Kathryn Paige Harden)

    Oct 10, 2021

    The Michael Shermer Show # 216

    In recent years, scientists have shown that DNA makes us different, in our personalities and in our health — and in ways that matter for educational and economic success in our current society.

    Michael speaks with University of Texas (Austin) professor of clinical psychology and Director of the Developmental Behavior Genetics Lab, Kathryn Paige Harden, about her book, The Genetic Lottery. Harden introduces us to the latest genetic science, dismantling dangerous ideas about racial superiority and challenging us to grapple with what equality really means in a world where people are born different. Weaving together personal stories with scientific evidence, Harden shows why our refusal to recognize the power of DNA perpetuates the myth of meritocracy, and argues that we must acknowledge the role of genetic luck if we are ever to create a fair society.

    Reclaiming genetic science from the legacy of eugenics, this groundbreaking book offers a bold new vision of society where everyone thrives, regardless of how one fares in the genetic lottery.

  212. MEH 0910 says:

    Kathryn Paige Harden on genetic egalitarianism

    Oct 11, 2021

    [MORE]

    Source:
    https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-kt9m7-10ff4ed

    What have genes got to do with inequality? It’s a thorny question. But it one that Kathryn Paige Harden squarely addresses in her book and in this episode of Dialogues. She explains the new science of genetics and how it can help understand outcomes like college completion. Along the way we discuss the importance of the disability rights movement, the nature of meritocracy, what luck has to do with it, designer babies, regional inequality, and how one byproduct of her Christian upbringing is an appreciation for the unique and equal value of every person.
    Kathryn Paige Harden
    Kathryn Paige Harden is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Texas, where she directs the Developmental Behavior Genetics lab and co-directs the Texas Twin Project. Harden is also a fellow at the Jacobs Foundation. Having received her Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Virginia, her work has focused on genetic influences on complex human behavior, including child cognitive development, academic achievement, risk-taking, mental health, sexual activity, and childbearing.
    More Harden
    Her thought-provoking new book, The Genetic Lottery, can be purchased here.
    Harden’s previous New York Times op-ed is a great starting place for learning more on this topic.
    Read her recent profile in the New Yorker, “Can Progressives Be Convinced That Genetics Matters?”
    For more, check out her website and follow her on twitter: @kph3k
    Also mentioned
    I referred to my paper “The Glass Floor: Education, Downward Mobility, and Opportunity Hoarding”.I write a NYT oped on the same theme, too.
    I mentioned Joseph Fishkin’s book, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity
    Harden referred to the work of Pamela Herd, specifically on the topic of Genes, Gender Inequality, and Educational Attainment
    I referred to Caroline Hoxby’s work of mapping cognitive skills by region in the United States.
    Harden mentioned a study by Abdel Abdellaoui on the geographic distribution of genetics in the United Kingdom. (See Twitter thread here).
    Harden referred to Dan Belsky’s study in Dunedin, New Zealand.
    I mentioned an article written by Toby Young, the son of Michael Young, and what he calls “Progressive Eugenics”
    The Dialogues Team
    Creator: Richard Reeves
    Research: Ashleigh Maciolek
    Artwork: George Vaughan Thomas
    Tech Support: Cameron Hauver-Reeves
    Music: “Remember” by Bencoolen (thanks for the permission, guys!)

  213. MEH 0910 says:
    @MEH 0910

    https://www.thehastingscenter.org/news/genomics-human-behavior-and-social-outcomes-a-discussion-for-journalists/

    Transcript for Genomics, Human Behavior, and Social Outcomes A Discussion for Journalists

    Moderator: Amy Harmon, Pulitzer prize-winning journalist at the New York Times covering the intersection of science and society.

    Panelist: Erik Parens, a principal investigator of “Wrestling with Social and Behavioral Genomics” and a senior research scholar at The Hastings Center.

    Panelist: Melinda Mills, a genetic scientist at the Sociogenome Project and director of the Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science (LCDS), University of Oxford.

    Panelist: Arbel Harpak, assistant professor population health at University of Texas at Austin

    Genomics, Human Behavior, and Social Outcomes: A Discussion for Journalists

    Oct 13, 2021

    New research on genomic influences on human traits such as intelligence, educational attainment, household income, and sexual behavior is newsworthy and of high public interest. But covering the research findings can be a minefield. The findings are prone to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. And they are already being misused by individuals and groups seeking to justify racist and other biases. The need for responsible journalism about genomics research is greater than ever. How should scientists and journalists work together to report on the findings of this research to the public?

  214. MEH 0910 says:

    https://thecritic.co.uk/cognitive-manoeuvres/

    Kathryn Paige Harden Retweeted:

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Hidden Information in Our Government Archives