It will be interesting to see whether the taboo against HBD will weaken as the evidence for it accumulates. So far, the trend seems to be the opposite of what one would expect: the more plausible HBD has become, the more taboo it has become as egalitarianism strengthens its hold on the culture. I hope I will live long enough to see how this taboo evolves over the 21st century.
I agree with the others here. The taboo will become even stronger the more evidence we have. This is not about evidence or rationality or truth. It's about the left's political objective of winning by any means necessary.
I see a future where China starts making IVF embryo selection for IQ more accessible because eugenics is a good thing in much of Asia. The west will condemn it but they cannot stop it. Just watch as babies that average 2+ SD start dominating the technological landscape. And eventually wealthy westerners will travel to Singapore, South Korea, or Japan to do this as well.
At least in the USA, embryo selection for cognitive ability is not illegal. I think that people will not have to travel. The situation is more complicated in Europe from what I understand, not certain, with some prohibitions on sex selection and other traits.
I'm not aware of any companies doing preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) that offers cognitive ability screening. Can you name them? They're all afraid of getting the "eugenics" label so most of them won't even give you height data, much less educational attainment.
China isn't doing it either, because the technology isn't there. Once the technology becomes really useful, people will do it in the West. Parents in the West move neighborhoods/cities or pay fortunes into private schools to improve their child's chances, so the idea that they won't be attracted to the idea of effectively raising their child's IQs is preposterous, we're just not there yet.
The thing is, everyone knows that Asians and Jews are smarter than gentile whites who are smarter than blacks - just like everyone knows that men are different from women, and 'transgender women' are not real women.
Building up the scientific evidence for these things is good and important, but also beside the point, as the conflict is essentially religious in nature. Anti-wokes would be better off studying how and why, say, Catholics and Protestants either succeeded or didn't succeed in taking over various countries in post-Reformation Europe.
Anti-wokes who understand the power of genes should spend time advocating for research, subsidy, and social acceptance of genetic enhancement technology.
Starting at 25:15 in the linked video, Turkheimer states that because individual differences in intelligence are mainly polygenic, concordant polygenic differences could not "come together" to produce interracial differences in intelligence. That flies in the face of the general conclusion that between species phenotypic differences are based on polygenic differences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6M0LRIALpg
Turkheimer seems to be sufficiently ideologically biased that he can dismiss natural selection's ability to create something new, as Palearctic levels of human intelligence are, from a substrate of polygenes. He seems to be yet another Lewontin, even to his Jewish ethnicity. His father ran a public relations business. If you set out to imagine a not-credible figure, you couldn't make this stuff up.
Good find. He may be thinking that the only way that polygenic group intelligence differences can happen is through random genetic drift, without considering natural selection.
Emil, you are wrong to describe it as 'sociopathic' which refers to very specific mental disorder. Kevin's behavior is reinforced by society, there's nothing sociopathic in it.
Kevin is the one person who genuinely makes me reconsider free speech. Summarily banning him from every public platform would be unambiguously good for the world.
From the order of authorship, can one infer that the graduate student was responsible for initiating the paper and setting its rhetorical tone? Giangrande posted on his Twitter an article about the firing of Brian Pesta, evidently proud that he took his first scalp. He's also retweeted pro-censorship material. Evidently, Giangrande does not have enough emotional intelligence to eschew bragging which weakens his rhetorical position.
It will be interesting to see whether the taboo against HBD will weaken as the evidence for it accumulates. So far, the trend seems to be the opposite of what one would expect: the more plausible HBD has become, the more taboo it has become as egalitarianism strengthens its hold on the culture. I hope I will live long enough to see how this taboo evolves over the 21st century.
I agree with the others here. The taboo will become even stronger the more evidence we have. This is not about evidence or rationality or truth. It's about the left's political objective of winning by any means necessary.
I see a future where China starts making IVF embryo selection for IQ more accessible because eugenics is a good thing in much of Asia. The west will condemn it but they cannot stop it. Just watch as babies that average 2+ SD start dominating the technological landscape. And eventually wealthy westerners will travel to Singapore, South Korea, or Japan to do this as well.
At least in the USA, embryo selection for cognitive ability is not illegal. I think that people will not have to travel. The situation is more complicated in Europe from what I understand, not certain, with some prohibitions on sex selection and other traits.
I'm not aware of any companies doing preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) that offers cognitive ability screening. Can you name them? They're all afraid of getting the "eugenics" label so most of them won't even give you height data, much less educational attainment.
China isn't doing it either, because the technology isn't there. Once the technology becomes really useful, people will do it in the West. Parents in the West move neighborhoods/cities or pay fortunes into private schools to improve their child's chances, so the idea that they won't be attracted to the idea of effectively raising their child's IQs is preposterous, we're just not there yet.
The thing is, everyone knows that Asians and Jews are smarter than gentile whites who are smarter than blacks - just like everyone knows that men are different from women, and 'transgender women' are not real women.
Building up the scientific evidence for these things is good and important, but also beside the point, as the conflict is essentially religious in nature. Anti-wokes would be better off studying how and why, say, Catholics and Protestants either succeeded or didn't succeed in taking over various countries in post-Reformation Europe.
Anti-wokes who understand the power of genes should spend time advocating for research, subsidy, and social acceptance of genetic enhancement technology.
Evidence is irrelevant. The taboo won't weaken unless there's some kind of deep political shift that makes HBD popular and respectable.
Starting at 25:15 in the linked video, Turkheimer states that because individual differences in intelligence are mainly polygenic, concordant polygenic differences could not "come together" to produce interracial differences in intelligence. That flies in the face of the general conclusion that between species phenotypic differences are based on polygenic differences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6M0LRIALpg
From Kenneth Mather 80 years ago, "The application of this criterion leads us to the conclusion that species differences are polygenic, i.e. depend on quantitative characters whose variation is controlled by many genes. These genes have individual effects which are both similar to one another and small when compared with non-heritable fluctuation." https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1943.tb00287.x#:~:text=The%20application%20of%20this%20criterion,compared%20with%20non%2Dheritable%20fluctuation.
And more recent empirical data, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BoK9aydv6PvtVDaytLCuYRoikyAWo_1D/view
Turkheimer seems to be sufficiently ideologically biased that he can dismiss natural selection's ability to create something new, as Palearctic levels of human intelligence are, from a substrate of polygenes. He seems to be yet another Lewontin, even to his Jewish ethnicity. His father ran a public relations business. If you set out to imagine a not-credible figure, you couldn't make this stuff up.
Good find. He may be thinking that the only way that polygenic group intelligence differences can happen is through random genetic drift, without considering natural selection.
What is the best current “State of the Research” paper or article, akin to “The Facts That Need to Be Explained?” Is it Warne 2021?
Emil, you are wrong to describe it as 'sociopathic' which refers to very specific mental disorder. Kevin's behavior is reinforced by society, there's nothing sociopathic in it.
Kevin is the one person who genuinely makes me reconsider free speech. Summarily banning him from every public platform would be unambiguously good for the world.
From the order of authorship, can one infer that the graduate student was responsible for initiating the paper and setting its rhetorical tone? Giangrande posted on his Twitter an article about the firing of Brian Pesta, evidently proud that he took his first scalp. He's also retweeted pro-censorship material. Evidently, Giangrande does not have enough emotional intelligence to eschew bragging which weakens his rhetorical position.
Certainly Turkheimer's idea. Grad student doesn't appear bright enough to do this kind of thing. Clinical psychologist.
Interesting read! Good job!