HBD: Human Biodiversity

On Debating Race

It sounds as if The History of White People, reviewed by Kevin Lamb, is more of the same PC nonsense we’re used to on race.  

Reading Lamb reminded me of how dishonest and incoherent I find the “No Such Thing as Race” (NOSTAR) arguments.  Once we notice that people look different, whether there are important inherent cognitive or behavioral differences becomes an empirical question.  Race is socially constructed?  Ok, in that case, I believe that those we happen to “socially construct” as white are on average naturally smarter and less criminal than those we “socially construct” as black.  We can look at the evidence and see whether I’m right, but there’s no way one can argue that the question is meaningless.  

Another favorite of the NOSTAR crowd is Lewontin’s Fallacy.  Richard Lewontin argued that most human variation occurs within a population.  One can read the Wikipedia article to see where he went wrong.

When arguing against HBD smart people make logical mistakes they would see right through if they were discussing any other topic. 

I’ve found that it’s relatively easy to convince people of HBD one on one and difficult to do so in front of a crowd or say on a blog.  In cases where there are three or more people in a discussion, there will always be at least one who has drunk the Kool-Aid and will right away turn the scientific questions into moral ones. If you’re in a crowded lecture hall, somebody will groan or mumble something.  Most people are unsure about their own intellects, so they’ll go along with ideas which they wouldn’t defend with their own intuitive reasoning one on one if those opinions are held by a majority in the room they happen to be sitting in. 

Another interesting thing I've found is that many race realists say that “The day is coming soon when there will be no way anybody can deny race differences.” For example, Sailer has quoted James Watson as telling the President of Harvard that within fifteen years the latter's successor would have to "handle this very hot potato" due to advances in genetics.  There have even been articles about scientists forming rapid response teams to go to the media and explain to everybody why they can still be liberals if/when there’s conclusive proof.  I disagree.  As is, there isn’t anything in the social sciences more proven than black/Eurasian differences in intelligence.  How many other questions in sociology or psychology can give you the same answer when looking at the problem from ten different angles and remain controversial?  If one day we wake up and find that genetics has made the case 100 instead of 99 percent certain I don’t think that Harvard, NBC and the NYT are going to throw their hands up and say “oh, they’ve got us now!”  They'll have to do little more than adjust a few of their lies, distortions and logical fallacies, none of which will be much more ridiculous than the ones they rely on now.