I admire your patience with these people. Much of the race-IQ debate seems to be babysitting people who cannot reconcile their moralistic biases with obvious scientific truths.
But, in a way, they might be right. If you accept the obvious fact of race differences in socially important traits, a moral hierarchy in practice is likely inevitable. More truth thus means more racism.
Thus, they have to deny reality. The interesting part here is whether they do this consciously or subconsciously.
Polygenic testing is just complementing what we already know from other sources. All those sources point to the same conclusion, just with different magnitudes. If you are reading this blog, it's reasonable to assume you have a decent overview of the evidence. If that evidence didn't convince you, there's low likelihood anything will.
Gusev and the like will never accept race realism. It's not a matter of evidence, it's a matter of an overriding moralistic bias that governs their minds.
You're proving my point. Your mind is hijacked and you're not even aware of it. The article and my comments were not about polygenic scores. They were about other streams of evidence. Do you know which? Did you even read the article?
I try to bring you back on track but you keep going on about polygenic testing and latest nitpicking strategies the leftist minds broken by moralistic fallacies can cling to.
It's not your "fault" you're confused. Your mind is "normal". You're asserting the norms (and facts conflated with them) you've been conditioned with from childhood. In this environment, only innately racist minds or minds biased toward facts (as opposed to morals) can accept the truth.
"Lynn like Jensen was very apolitical." Writing for American Renaissance under the pseudonym "Hippocrates" and speaking at three of their conferences does not count as political activity?
Not the right way of looking at things. Take a broad look at Lynn's work. 99% of it is data papers. Now once in a while he gets invited to talk somewhere or asked to write some piece for AmRen. It's a weird game, where when I say someone is very apolitical, this gets translated into "never said anything political ever and never spoke at any conference with political leanings". That's not what it means.
Maybe this is a language barrier because apolitical does not refer to a quantitative threshold of activity. The semantics of this question are very clear in standard American English. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
On a scale of "never said anything about politics and holds no opinions" to "spends 100% of life engaging in political advocacy", Lynn is far to the left side. That's what being apolitical means.
There are apolitical people, and they are rare. Splitting the population into a 50-50 binary on this question is not useful. People who never write articles for political groups or never attend political conferences could be justly called "Apolitical," not Lynn.
Good point. Not only was he right on the science part, but his moral compass was also spot on. The politics of race egalitarianism collapses societies, as we are just witnessing.
Race egalitarianism need not only relate to general intelligence. It also means that one person is replaceable by another as a producer/consumer - which is, interestingly, how you choose to frame your right to live in Britain (you pay taxes - and despite not being native to Britain or belonging to the people who created Britain, you were born there and "contribute").
Many of us out there in the world - inside and outside of Britain - do not like liberal democracies, yes, this is true. We value our own moral judgment - and wish to reclaim our own sovereignty outside of systems where a majority, no matter who that majority is or isn't, decides. Many of us also value the cohesion of our own familial groups, and wish to live among our own - as defined by those familial groups and our heritage. We value racial and ethnic differentiation. We think this makes the world interesting and beautiful and, for ourselves, we wish to exist. As David Hume put it (roughly anyway), our existence makes us want to exist - and this in itself gives us our moral right to exist. This is as true for an Estonian or Scot, just as much as it is for a Yazidi or a Tibetan.
In the end, such as we need not prove our own right to our own concepts of what morality is and is not to such as yourself. Access to us and what we create in the world isn't a right. Forced association is an immoral idea which has encumbered and enchained us, and we find ourselves colonized in our own nations. We don't need to "prove" anything at all regarding the legitimacy of IQ and testing for it for us to still wish to exist, still wish to live among our own familial groups, and to reclaim our nations.
One might argue that the Aztecs, Turks, Han, Bantu Zulu, the Iroquois, Mongol, and Maori colonized others but somehow it's only relevant to speak of the evils of conquering and colonizing of Native Europeans and the European diaspora - and therefore, colonizing of Whites today in nations Whites created somehow is fine - legitimate. Kosher. But make no mistake about what's happening in Liverpool, Melbourne, Bergen, Vancouver, Cologne, and Boise, Idaho - Whites are being colonized. Differentiation among median IQ - which is heritable and differs by heritage - is just ONE of the reasons Whites oppose this. And again, in the end - we don't have to justify our opposition to it whatsoever to anyone. We can simply oppose it. We can simply identify as White, as Native European, and oppose being colonized because we wish to live among our own and for our own - being friendly penpals with others, and visitors of other nations. As my friend in Taif, Saudi Arabia put it, "I am so happy to be your friend, but I would not want you to move here, live here forever. That would change everything."
**Exceptions exist** - everywhere - and genetic battles go on inside as well as outside of groups. That said, if "exception" within group XYZ requires access to group ABC and what group ABC has created in order to achieve and actualize as an exception, then what kind of exception are they really? Exceptions don't entitle access; they bootstrap on what Whites have built. Individuals don't exist in nature. Exceptions prove the rule.
I'm not a proponent of the White Man's Burden. Either foreign out-groups need us or they don't. If they do.... If they don't.... either way, I'm correct.
His speeches and writings for AmRen were all related to his research, nothing political. There were very few outlets where he was able to talk about these topics
If I research economics and I write for CATO that’s political. You are twisting definitions to defend a semantic internet point which is not an honest or good faith characterization.
The entire point about him being apolitical is weak and should be conceded. The argument should be over whether he was right, not whether he was apolitical. Lying about this weakens your case.
His interest is demonstrated through writing and attendance. You could say he is less political, but not apolitical. This is like calling someone "uninvolved with sports" because they only attended a few sporting events. It's *categorically* untrue and semantic hairsplitting over this word weakens your arguments.
That's what I mean too. If Lysenkoism becomes THE official state doctrine, then obviously remaining an unreconciled classical geneticist becomes something eminently political.
You haven't chosen it that way, but you will be regarded as a political state enemy because you stick to your convictions. In case of Richard Lynn, if you in addition help in organizing resistance by speaking to American Renaissance, so much worse!
I admire your patience with these people. Much of the race-IQ debate seems to be babysitting people who cannot reconcile their moralistic biases with obvious scientific truths.
But, in a way, they might be right. If you accept the obvious fact of race differences in socially important traits, a moral hierarchy in practice is likely inevitable. More truth thus means more racism.
Thus, they have to deny reality. The interesting part here is whether they do this consciously or subconsciously.
Polygenic testing is just complementing what we already know from other sources. All those sources point to the same conclusion, just with different magnitudes. If you are reading this blog, it's reasonable to assume you have a decent overview of the evidence. If that evidence didn't convince you, there's low likelihood anything will.
Gusev and the like will never accept race realism. It's not a matter of evidence, it's a matter of an overriding moralistic bias that governs their minds.
You're proving my point. Your mind is hijacked and you're not even aware of it. The article and my comments were not about polygenic scores. They were about other streams of evidence. Do you know which? Did you even read the article?
I try to bring you back on track but you keep going on about polygenic testing and latest nitpicking strategies the leftist minds broken by moralistic fallacies can cling to.
It's not your "fault" you're confused. Your mind is "normal". You're asserting the norms (and facts conflated with them) you've been conditioned with from childhood. In this environment, only innately racist minds or minds biased toward facts (as opposed to morals) can accept the truth.
Has anyone ever studied why they want Africans to be smart so badly?
Recent Aporia article is related: https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/why-are-intelligent-people-more-liberal
"Hey ChatGPT write me a rebuttal to Lynn that debunks race and IQ"
"Lynn like Jensen was very apolitical." Writing for American Renaissance under the pseudonym "Hippocrates" and speaking at three of their conferences does not count as political activity?
Not the right way of looking at things. Take a broad look at Lynn's work. 99% of it is data papers. Now once in a while he gets invited to talk somewhere or asked to write some piece for AmRen. It's a weird game, where when I say someone is very apolitical, this gets translated into "never said anything political ever and never spoke at any conference with political leanings". That's not what it means.
Maybe this is a language barrier because apolitical does not refer to a quantitative threshold of activity. The semantics of this question are very clear in standard American English. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
On a scale of "never said anything about politics and holds no opinions" to "spends 100% of life engaging in political advocacy", Lynn is far to the left side. That's what being apolitical means.
There are apolitical people, and they are rare. Splitting the population into a 50-50 binary on this question is not useful. People who never write articles for political groups or never attend political conferences could be justly called "Apolitical," not Lynn.
I didn't say to split the population into 50-50. It's a continuum and Lynn was close to the apolitical end of the spectrum.
How many people have attended conferences and written political essays? Less than 50% I'm sure.
Good point. Not only was he right on the science part, but his moral compass was also spot on. The politics of race egalitarianism collapses societies, as we are just witnessing.
Are we witnessing a collapse? That seems hyperbolic.
Race egalitarianism need not only relate to general intelligence. It also means that one person is replaceable by another as a producer/consumer - which is, interestingly, how you choose to frame your right to live in Britain (you pay taxes - and despite not being native to Britain or belonging to the people who created Britain, you were born there and "contribute").
Many of us out there in the world - inside and outside of Britain - do not like liberal democracies, yes, this is true. We value our own moral judgment - and wish to reclaim our own sovereignty outside of systems where a majority, no matter who that majority is or isn't, decides. Many of us also value the cohesion of our own familial groups, and wish to live among our own - as defined by those familial groups and our heritage. We value racial and ethnic differentiation. We think this makes the world interesting and beautiful and, for ourselves, we wish to exist. As David Hume put it (roughly anyway), our existence makes us want to exist - and this in itself gives us our moral right to exist. This is as true for an Estonian or Scot, just as much as it is for a Yazidi or a Tibetan.
In the end, such as we need not prove our own right to our own concepts of what morality is and is not to such as yourself. Access to us and what we create in the world isn't a right. Forced association is an immoral idea which has encumbered and enchained us, and we find ourselves colonized in our own nations. We don't need to "prove" anything at all regarding the legitimacy of IQ and testing for it for us to still wish to exist, still wish to live among our own familial groups, and to reclaim our nations.
One might argue that the Aztecs, Turks, Han, Bantu Zulu, the Iroquois, Mongol, and Maori colonized others but somehow it's only relevant to speak of the evils of conquering and colonizing of Native Europeans and the European diaspora - and therefore, colonizing of Whites today in nations Whites created somehow is fine - legitimate. Kosher. But make no mistake about what's happening in Liverpool, Melbourne, Bergen, Vancouver, Cologne, and Boise, Idaho - Whites are being colonized. Differentiation among median IQ - which is heritable and differs by heritage - is just ONE of the reasons Whites oppose this. And again, in the end - we don't have to justify our opposition to it whatsoever to anyone. We can simply oppose it. We can simply identify as White, as Native European, and oppose being colonized because we wish to live among our own and for our own - being friendly penpals with others, and visitors of other nations. As my friend in Taif, Saudi Arabia put it, "I am so happy to be your friend, but I would not want you to move here, live here forever. That would change everything."
**Exceptions exist** - everywhere - and genetic battles go on inside as well as outside of groups. That said, if "exception" within group XYZ requires access to group ABC and what group ABC has created in order to achieve and actualize as an exception, then what kind of exception are they really? Exceptions don't entitle access; they bootstrap on what Whites have built. Individuals don't exist in nature. Exceptions prove the rule.
I'm not a proponent of the White Man's Burden. Either foreign out-groups need us or they don't. If they do.... If they don't.... either way, I'm correct.
Again, access to us isn't a right. It never was.
His speeches and writings for AmRen were all related to his research, nothing political. There were very few outlets where he was able to talk about these topics
If I research economics and I write for CATO that’s political. You are twisting definitions to defend a semantic internet point which is not an honest or good faith characterization.
The entire point about him being apolitical is weak and should be conceded. The argument should be over whether he was right, not whether he was apolitical. Lying about this weakens your case.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/apolitical
1. not political; of no political significance.
2. not involved or interested in politics.
(2) is right for Lynn.
His interest is demonstrated through writing and attendance. You could say he is less political, but not apolitical. This is like calling someone "uninvolved with sports" because they only attended a few sporting events. It's *categorically* untrue and semantic hairsplitting over this word weakens your arguments.
That's what I mean too. If Lysenkoism becomes THE official state doctrine, then obviously remaining an unreconciled classical geneticist becomes something eminently political.
You haven't chosen it that way, but you will be regarded as a political state enemy because you stick to your convictions. In case of Richard Lynn, if you in addition help in organizing resistance by speaking to American Renaissance, so much worse!
Obviously, Lynn's conclusions are of extreme political significance. For example on deciding whether to resettle Somalis in Minnesota, lol.