Suppose scientific racism is correct. How will you react? How will society?

[ApostateAbe]

So for those who believe that "scientific racism" is correct

(1) How did this hypothetical science change your general perspective of politics and society? Is this a good reason in your opinion to HATE those members of races with lower intelligence? Did you drastically change your politics? Have you joined racist organizations? How have you reacted?

It is not a good reason to hate members of races of lower intelligence, in my opinion. Before accepting the perspective of scientific racism, I was skeptical of the perspective that there is a widespread subconscious bias among whites against blacks, but now I fully accept it, as I know a plausible theoretical reason for it (not the racist history carrying on in tradition, as anti-racists so often claim). I fully accept that there is a widespread bias against blacks in hiring, in housing, in business and in the criminal justice system.

(2) What are your fears?

I expect that the confirmation of genetic racial differences in intelligence (and maybe other psychological traits commonly valued) beyond reasonable doubt will inflame racial tensions. Hard liberals and the insulted races will generally take an antagonistic conspiratorial perspective of the science of genetics, and hard conservatives will accept the science happily to justify racial oppression. There will be much more blood.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Canard DuJour, the article you meant to link to is here:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/12/17/none-of-the-above

The correction note at the end is telling:

CORRECTION: In his December 17th piece, “None of the Above,” Malcolm Gladwell states that Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, in their 1994 book “The Bell Curve,” proposed that Americans with low I.Q.s be “sequestered in a ‘high-tech’ version of an Indian reservation.” In fact, Herrnstein and Murray deplored the prospect of such “custodialism” and recommended that steps be taken to avert it. We regret the error.

Could have been worse of course, as most of those who slander such authors never get around to issuing a correction. I generally agree with the points about the Flynn effect (a term coined by Herrnstein and Murray).

 

[bilby]

It is not a good reason to hate members of races of lower intelligence, in my opinion. Before accepting the perspective of scientific racism, I was skeptical of the perspective that there is a widespread subconscious bias among whites against blacks, but now I fully accept it, as I know a plausible theoretical reason for it (not the racist history carrying on in tradition, as anti-racists so often claim). I fully accept that there is a widespread bias against blacks in hiring, in housing, in business and in the criminal justice system.

(2) What are your fears?

I expect that the confirmation of genetic racial differences in intelligence (and maybe other psychological traits commonly valued) beyond reasonable doubt will inflame racial tensions. Hard liberals and the insulted races will generally take an antagonistic conspiratorial perspective of the science of genetics, and hard conservatives will accept the science happily to justify racial oppression. There will be much more blood.

So you are saying that if scientific racism was correct, then we should expect violence and bloodshed when people find out; and yet you seem keen to pursue this dangerous knowledge.

There are four possibilities:

Scientific racism is true; People don't know because nobody checked - No change
Scientific racism is untrue; People don't know because nobody checked - No change
Scientific racism is true; People know it is true - There will be much more blood.
Scientific racism is untrue; People know it is untrue - Bigots will be limited to the irrational.

So, to support the proposition "We should try to find out whether scientific racism is true", you need to show that bigotry from rational people is currently responsible for levels of violence greater than that which will arise if it is proven to be true. This seems pretty bloody unlikely.

This is, therefore a rare example of a research topic that should not be pursued on moral grounds.

But, of course, sooner or later people discover the truth - because there are always going to be researchers who don't think through the consequences of their actions.

From the research done so far, it seems that there is a possibility of a small effect, that is swamped by the large variations within the groups being studied. So the question 'Is scientific racism true?' needs to be restructured; the real question being 'Is scientific racism sufficiently true to be useful for making predictions or decisions?'. The answer to the latter question seems to be 'No'.

Given that the answer is, from current data, very likely to be 'No'; and given that IF the answer was 'Yes' it would cause an increase in violence and bloodshed, you should perhaps be rather less surprised that people are vehemently opposed to people trying very hard to find ways to get a 'Yes' answer.

A quick thought experiment - If white folks were shown, on average, to be 20 IQ points less intelligent than black folks, then this would be of vague interest to anthropologists and evolutionary biologists; but it would not be a useful fact to anyone else - people interact with individuals, not races, and if you are (for example) looking to employ an intelligent person, the applicant pool would consist of similarly intelligent individuals due to the academic qualifications you ask for. That four of your five, or nine of your ten shortlisted interviewees are black is of zero utility to you in your selection process; it is of trivial academic interest only.

If "Scientific racism" is looked at from the POV of being scientific, then it is not useful outside a handful of narrow academic fields; If it is looked at from the POV of justifying racism in real-world situations, then it is not rational, and is unworthy of the prefix 'Scientific'.

 

[Axulus]

One quick thought - if employers value IQ, then why would they ever use race as a proxy for IQ, a horribly unreliable method even if scientific racism is true? Why not just require the applicant to submit a validated IQ score from an accredited testing agency? Why wouldn't employers push colleges to administer these tests as regular routine if the info is valuable?

 

[Axulus]

It is not a good reason to hate members of races of lower intelligence, in my opinion. Before accepting the perspective of scientific racism, I was skeptical of the perspective that there is a widespread subconscious bias among whites against blacks, but now I fully accept it, as I know a plausible theoretical reason for it (not the racist history carrying on in tradition, as anti-racists so often claim). I fully accept that there is a widespread bias against blacks in hiring, in housing, in business and in the criminal justice system.
I expect that the confirmation of genetic racial differences in intelligence (and maybe other psychological traits commonly valued) beyond reasonable doubt will inflame racial tensions. Hard liberals and the insulted races will generally take an antagonistic conspiratorial perspective of the science of genetics, and hard conservatives will accept the science happily to justify racial oppression. There will be much more blood.

So you are saying that if scientific racism was correct, then we should expect violence and bloodshed when people find out; and yet you seem keen to pursue this dangerous knowledge.

There are four possibilities:

Scientific racism is true; People don't know because nobody checked - No change
Scientific racism is untrue; People don't know because nobody checked - No change
Scientific racism is true; People know it is true - There will be much more blood.
Scientific racism is untrue; People know it is untrue - Bigots will be limited to the irrational.

So, to support the proposition "We should try to find out whether scientific racism is true", you need to show that bigotry from rational people is currently responsible for levels of violence greater than that which will arise if it is proven to be true. This seems pretty bloody unlikely.

This is, therefore a rare example of a research topic that should not be pursued on moral grounds.

But, of course, sooner or later people discover the truth - because there are always going to be researchers who don't think through the consequences of their actions.

From the research done so far, it seems that there is a possibility of a small effect, that is swamped by the large variations within the groups being studied. So the question 'Is scientific racism true?' needs to be restructured; the real question being 'Is scientific racism sufficiently true to be useful for making predictions or decisions?'. The answer to the latter question seems to be 'No'.

Given that the answer is, from current data, very likely to be 'No'; and given that IF the answer was 'Yes' it would cause an increase in violence and bloodshed, you should perhaps be rather less surprised that people are vehemently opposed to people trying very hard to find ways to get a 'Yes' answer.

A quick thought experiment - If white folks were shown, on average, to be 20 IQ points less intelligent than black folks, then this would be of vague interest to anthropologists and evolutionary biologists; but it would not be a useful fact to anyone else - people interact with individuals, not races, and if you are (for example) looking to employ an intelligent person, the applicant pool would consist of similarly intelligent individuals due to the academic qualifications you ask for. That four of your five, or nine of your ten shortlisted interviewees are black is of zero utility to you in your selection process; it is of trivial academic interest only.

If "Scientific racism" is looked at from the POV of being scientific, then it is not useful outside a handful of narrow academic fields; If it is looked at from the POV of justifying racism in real-world situations, then it is not rational, and is unworthy of the prefix 'Scientific'.

You are forgetting other implications of scientific racism being true:

1. We would expect there to be income disparities and career achievement between races in the complete absence of any individual or institutional racism and in the presence of perfect equality of opportunity for all.
2. We would expect different levels of academic achievement between races in the complete absence of the same.
3. We would expect different levels of criminality in the complete absence of the same.

Therefore, our approach to these disparities would have to change at some point, as the solution would be ineffective since the problem was not diagnosed properly. It seems like that would be useful information to have in the absence of bigots using the information to fuel their bigotry.

 

[Duke Leto]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHxEnQZi3Ow[/YOUTUBE]

 

[bilby]

So you are saying that if scientific racism was correct, then we should expect violence and bloodshed when people find out; and yet you seem keen to pursue this dangerous knowledge.

There are four possibilities:

Scientific racism is true; People don't know because nobody checked - No change
Scientific racism is untrue; People don't know because nobody checked - No change
Scientific racism is true; People know it is true - There will be much more blood.
Scientific racism is untrue; People know it is untrue - Bigots will be limited to the irrational.

So, to support the proposition "We should try to find out whether scientific racism is true", you need to show that bigotry from rational people is currently responsible for levels of violence greater than that which will arise if it is proven to be true. This seems pretty bloody unlikely.

This is, therefore a rare example of a research topic that should not be pursued on moral grounds.

But, of course, sooner or later people discover the truth - because there are always going to be researchers who don't think through the consequences of their actions.

From the research done so far, it seems that there is a possibility of a small effect, that is swamped by the large variations within the groups being studied. So the question 'Is scientific racism true?' needs to be restructured; the real question being 'Is scientific racism sufficiently true to be useful for making predictions or decisions?'. The answer to the latter question seems to be 'No'.

Given that the answer is, from current data, very likely to be 'No'; and given that IF the answer was 'Yes' it would cause an increase in violence and bloodshed, you should perhaps be rather less surprised that people are vehemently opposed to people trying very hard to find ways to get a 'Yes' answer.

A quick thought experiment - If white folks were shown, on average, to be 20 IQ points less intelligent than black folks, then this would be of vague interest to anthropologists and evolutionary biologists; but it would not be a useful fact to anyone else - people interact with individuals, not races, and if you are (for example) looking to employ an intelligent person, the applicant pool would consist of similarly intelligent individuals due to the academic qualifications you ask for. That four of your five, or nine of your ten shortlisted interviewees are black is of zero utility to you in your selection process; it is of trivial academic interest only.

If "Scientific racism" is looked at from the POV of being scientific, then it is not useful outside a handful of narrow academic fields; If it is looked at from the POV of justifying racism in real-world situations, then it is not rational, and is unworthy of the prefix 'Scientific'.

You are forgetting other implications of scientific racism being true:

1. We would expect there to be income disparities and career achievement between races in the complete absence of any individual or institutional racism and in the presence of perfect equality of opportunity for all.
2. We would expect different levels of academic achievement between races in the complete absence of the same.
3. We would expect different levels of criminality in the complete absence of the same.

Therefore, our approach to these disparities would have to change at some point, as the solution would be ineffective since the problem was not diagnosed properly. It seems like that would be useful information to have in the absence of bigots using the information to fuel their bigotry.

Indeed; but we do not live in the absence of bigots using the information to fuel their bigotry; so the harm would be greater than the benefit.

If race were a vague proxy for other things, then we would still be better served by measuring those other things directly and ignoring race. Given that it seems that race is (at best) a very vague proxy indeed for intelligence, and given that we have other, much better proxies for intelligence, such as academic qualifications, it seems that society is best served by ignoring race even if the suggested small difference in IQ was real.

So the answer to the thread title is 'Not at all, and not at all, but it isn't, so why ask?'

 

[Duke Leto]

Suppose ApostateAbe forcibly sodomizes farm animals? How would you react? How would society?

Scientific bestialitydar, among other things, is the belief that one can intuit that people like ApostateAbe really like a good tight pig rectum on a Saturday night. And I believe it. It is not an easy belief to accept. Not just because of the universal taboo against pigfucking in the western world, as though it is the distillation of all that is evil, backward and stupid. But also because of a fear of ApostateAbe Transmitted Diseases in pork and bacon products that will only get far worse with time. It means ApostateAbe will never be anything but a pigfucker. And his desire to fuck pigs will put him everlasting conflict with farmers and law enforcement. Further, when most people finally accept this reality, it seems highly likely that the consequences for society will be little more than awful. For a lover of science, it is easy to get wrapped up in the idyllic belief that: if only everyone were sufficiently educated and the taboos on human sexuality were less restrictive, we would all better solve problems and live better happier richer lives full of clean and unviolated bacon. With scientific bestialitydar, the opposite is plausible: accurate knowledge may be highly disruptive and destructive. It won't happen with a lot of decent people and pigfuckers arguing endlessly on the Internet, but it will happen when ApostateAbe is inevitably discovered in flagrante delicto, pants around his ankles, balls deep in a razorback boar with a shiteating grin on his face. Rhetoric can no longer dismiss or spin the significance of such a scientific discovery, and most people will finally be convinced.

I won't ask you to fully accept my perspective. I will put aside all the arguments about whether or not it is correct. Accept this idea temporarily only for the purpose of a thought experiment: hypothetically, ApostateAbe will be caught by multiple witness leaving genetic material in multiple pigs that matches his genome when blood is drawn by some unusually disgusted forensic investigators. And then he will do it again. And again. And again, to the inevitable conclusion that he has some fucked up genetic defect that impels him to fuck pigs.

(1) How would this hypothetical science change your general perspective on animal husbandry? Would this be a good reason in your opinion to HATE ApostateAbe and other incurable pig rapists? Would you drastically change your eating habits? Would you join PETA? How would you react?

(2) Would you expect society in general to become more divided along lines between incurable perverts and the normal? Would there be greater hatred of pigfuckers? Chronic distrust of toothless, inbred, banjo-plucking crackers? Abattoirs? Kosher laws? Really irritated farmers shooting trespassers on sight? Lynchings? Barbecue? What would be your fears?

One might, on reflection, construe the above thought experiment as a personal insult against ApostateAbe. Which would be interesting, because then, by extension, ApostateAbe's OP insulted EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of the forum who is of even partial African descent. He called them stupid, inferior, and a load on society. He proffered exactly as much actual evidence of this as I have of his being a pigfucker, that is to say, none whatsoever. So I think some speculation on his personal life is an entirely appropriate and proportionate response.

I sincerely and deeply regret causing actual zoophiles to feel belittled by my comparison of them to ApostateAbe.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One quick thought - if employers value IQ, then why would they ever use race as a proxy for IQ, a horribly unreliable method even if scientific racism is true? Why not just require the applicant to submit a validated IQ score from an accredited testing agency? Why wouldn't employers push colleges to administer these tests as regular routine if the info is valuable?

Exactly. Even if there were major racial effects an employer shouldn't look at them unless they are something the employer can't reasonably determine otherwise.

(Now, if you find that Pakistani-Tibetan cross breeds are prone to paranoid schizophrenia that might very well be a reason to not hire them. If you find they have an average IQ of 80, though, you should look at the test scores, not the race.)

- - - Updated - - -

You are forgetting other implications of scientific racism being true:

1. We would expect there to be income disparities and career achievement between races in the complete absence of any individual or institutional racism and in the presence of perfect equality of opportunity for all.
2. We would expect different levels of academic achievement between races in the complete absence of the same.
3. We would expect different levels of criminality in the complete absence of the same.

Therefore, our approach to these disparities would have to change at some point, as the solution would be ineffective since the problem was not diagnosed properly. It seems like that would be useful information to have in the absence of bigots using the information to fuel their bigotry.

You are assuming the racial difference applies to all of these.

I would expect #1 and #2 to move together but why should we figure #3 is related? Criminality is far more a matter of impulse control than intelligence.

 

[ApostateAbe]

One quick thought - if employers value IQ, then why would they ever use race as a proxy for IQ, a horribly unreliable method even if scientific racism is true? Why not just require the applicant to submit a validated IQ score from an accredited testing agency? Why wouldn't employers push colleges to administer these tests as regular routine if the info is valuable?

In the USA, private hiring based on a general intelligence test is illegal, per the Griggs vs. Dukes Power supreme court decision. The court believed that such tests could easily be an excuse for racial discrimination, since blacks tend to score so much lower. So, of course now the main hiring requirement in technical professions rests on higher education, in which colleges admit largely based on a general intelligence score, and the racial inequalities are even worse. Griggs vs. Dukes Power needs to be overturned, and that requires the thinking public having a rational perspective of the social significance of intelligence.

 

[ApostateAbe]

It is not a good reason to hate members of races of lower intelligence, in my opinion. Before accepting the perspective of scientific racism, I was skeptical of the perspective that there is a widespread subconscious bias among whites against blacks, but now I fully accept it, as I know a plausible theoretical reason for it (not the racist history carrying on in tradition, as anti-racists so often claim). I fully accept that there is a widespread bias against blacks in hiring, in housing, in business and in the criminal justice system.
I expect that the confirmation of genetic racial differences in intelligence (and maybe other psychological traits commonly valued) beyond reasonable doubt will inflame racial tensions. Hard liberals and the insulted races will generally take an antagonistic conspiratorial perspective of the science of genetics, and hard conservatives will accept the science happily to justify racial oppression. There will be much more blood.

So you are saying that if scientific racism was correct, then we should expect violence and bloodshed when people find out; and yet you seem keen to pursue this dangerous knowledge.

There are four possibilities:

Scientific racism is true; People don't know because nobody checked - No change
Scientific racism is untrue; People don't know because nobody checked - No change
Scientific racism is true; People know it is true - There will be much more blood.
Scientific racism is untrue; People know it is untrue - Bigots will be limited to the irrational.

So, to support the proposition "We should try to find out whether scientific racism is true", you need to show that bigotry from rational people is currently responsible for levels of violence greater than that which will arise if it is proven to be true. This seems pretty bloody unlikely.

This is, therefore a rare example of a research topic that should not be pursued on moral grounds.

But, of course, sooner or later people discover the truth - because there are always going to be researchers who don't think through the consequences of their actions.

From the research done so far, it seems that there is a possibility of a small effect, that is swamped by the large variations within the groups being studied. So the question 'Is scientific racism true?' needs to be restructured; the real question being 'Is scientific racism sufficiently true to be useful for making predictions or decisions?'. The answer to the latter question seems to be 'No'.

Given that the answer is, from current data, very likely to be 'No'; and given that IF the answer was 'Yes' it would cause an increase in violence and bloodshed, you should perhaps be rather less surprised that people are vehemently opposed to people trying very hard to find ways to get a 'Yes' answer.

A quick thought experiment - If white folks were shown, on average, to be 20 IQ points less intelligent than black folks, then this would be of vague interest to anthropologists and evolutionary biologists; but it would not be a useful fact to anyone else - people interact with individuals, not races, and if you are (for example) looking to employ an intelligent person, the applicant pool would consist of similarly intelligent individuals due to the academic qualifications you ask for. That four of your five, or nine of your ten shortlisted interviewees are black is of zero utility to you in your selection process; it is of trivial academic interest only.

If "Scientific racism" is looked at from the POV of being scientific, then it is not useful outside a handful of narrow academic fields; If it is looked at from the POV of justifying racism in real-world situations, then it is not rational, and is unworthy of the prefix 'Scientific'.

I am not going to be the person who convinces the world that scientific racism is correct, nor are a lot of HBDers arguing on the Internet going to do that. The progress of the science of genetics will do that. Society's reactions to that are in the hands of society. If we anticipate it, then there are things we can do to prepare. I expect that most core white liberals will simply continue to deny the science, but they will turn their anti-science perspective into an antagonistic conspiracy theory, as the anti-GMO activists and the anti-vaxxers have done. The more rational liberals can adopt these points to bring independents to their side and soften the racist politics of the conservatives:

• Races are not discrete, and most people belong to a mixture of races with an accompanying mixture of racial traits. Even historically, all races have continually mixed with their geographic neighbors, never isolating themselves for long.
• All traits are diverse within each race, such that a person can not be judged with sufficient certainty based on race alone (only rough probabilistic guesses).
• No race is further along the evolutionary path than another race. There is no "higher" or "lower" race, nor is there a "superior" or "inferior" race, regardless of natural tendencies among races.
• There is nothing wrong with race-mixing. In fact, genetic diversity is better, reducing recessive genes and enhancing selective advantages.
• Inequality of genotypes does not compel inequality under the law. The principle of equal rights has served western society very well, regardless of inequivalencies of mind and body.

There will be blood, and rational liberals should see it as their duty to lessen the flow of it.

 

[tupac chopra]

I am not going to be the person who convinces the world that scientific racism is correct,

You sound pretty sure that it will happen though.

 

[bilby]

So you are saying that if scientific racism was correct, then we should expect violence and bloodshed when people find out; and yet you seem keen to pursue this dangerous knowledge.

There are four possibilities:

Scientific racism is true; People don't know because nobody checked - No change
Scientific racism is untrue; People don't know because nobody checked - No change
Scientific racism is true; People know it is true - There will be much more blood.
Scientific racism is untrue; People know it is untrue - Bigots will be limited to the irrational.

So, to support the proposition "We should try to find out whether scientific racism is true", you need to show that bigotry from rational people is currently responsible for levels of violence greater than that which will arise if it is proven to be true. This seems pretty bloody unlikely.

This is, therefore a rare example of a research topic that should not be pursued on moral grounds.

But, of course, sooner or later people discover the truth - because there are always going to be researchers who don't think through the consequences of their actions.

From the research done so far, it seems that there is a possibility of a small effect, that is swamped by the large variations within the groups being studied. So the question 'Is scientific racism true?' needs to be restructured; the real question being 'Is scientific racism sufficiently true to be useful for making predictions or decisions?'. The answer to the latter question seems to be 'No'.

Given that the answer is, from current data, very likely to be 'No'; and given that IF the answer was 'Yes' it would cause an increase in violence and bloodshed, you should perhaps be rather less surprised that people are vehemently opposed to people trying very hard to find ways to get a 'Yes' answer.

A quick thought experiment - If white folks were shown, on average, to be 20 IQ points less intelligent than black folks, then this would be of vague interest to anthropologists and evolutionary biologists; but it would not be a useful fact to anyone else - people interact with individuals, not races, and if you are (for example) looking to employ an intelligent person, the applicant pool would consist of similarly intelligent individuals due to the academic qualifications you ask for. That four of your five, or nine of your ten shortlisted interviewees are black is of zero utility to you in your selection process; it is of trivial academic interest only.

If "Scientific racism" is looked at from the POV of being scientific, then it is not useful outside a handful of narrow academic fields; If it is looked at from the POV of justifying racism in real-world situations, then it is not rational, and is unworthy of the prefix 'Scientific'.

I am not going to be the person who convinces the world that scientific racism is correct, nor are a lot of HBDers arguing on the Internet going to do that. The progress of the science of genetics will do that. Society's reactions to that are in the hands of society. If we anticipate it, then there are things we can do to prepare. I expect that most core white liberals will simply continue to deny the science, but they will turn their anti-science perspective into an antagonistic conspiracy theory, as the anti-GMO activists and the anti-vaxxers have done. The more rational liberals can adopt these points to bring independents to their side and soften the racist politics of the conservatives:

• Races are not discrete, and most people belong to a mixture of races with an accompanying mixture of racial traits. Even historically, all races have continually mixed with their geographic neighbors, never isolating themselves for long.
• All traits are diverse within each race, such that a person can not be judged with sufficient certainty based on race alone (only rough probabilistic guesses).
• No race is further along the evolutionary path than another race. There is no "higher" or "lower" race, nor is there a "superior" or "inferior" race, regardless of natural tendencies among races.
• There is nothing wrong with race-mixing. In fact, genetic diversity is better, reducing recessive genes and enhancing selective advantages.
• Inequality of genotypes does not compel inequality under the law. The principle of equal rights has served western society very well, regardless of inequivalencies of mind and body.

There will be blood, and rational liberals should see it as their duty to lessen the flow of it.

Your list of dot points indicate that there is no reason whatsoever for racism - scientific or otherwise.

In particular, given "All traits are diverse within each race, such that a person can not be judged with sufficient certainty based on race alone (only rough probabilistic guesses)" and "There is nothing wrong with race-mixing. In fact, genetic diversity is better, reducing recessive genes and enhancing selective advantages", nothing that can properly be called 'racism' is supported by the facts; There is literally no situation where it is useful to know a person's 'race' when determining what course of action to take with regards to that person.

You appear to be convinced that Scientific Racism is true, based on proving that it is Scientific, but is not Racism.

It seems to me that you want racism to be justified scientifically; that in support of this desire, you have assessed the science; and that you have found nothing whatsoever to support your desire, but have decided to declare your findings as supportive of it anyway.

That is strange and distasteful. Is it some kind of deliberate attempt to become unpopular on your part? It seems clear to me from the points you listed that embracing racism - for anybody, white or black, liberal or conservative - is exactly the wrong thing to do if lessening the flow of blood is the objective; particularly as you have shown racism to lack any positive utility at all.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I am not going to be the person who convinces the world that scientific racism is correct,

You sound pretty sure that it will happen though.

Yes, a scientific development will convince the world. I will convince hardly anyone.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I am not going to be the person who convinces the world that scientific racism is correct, nor are a lot of HBDers arguing on the Internet going to do that. The progress of the science of genetics will do that. Society's reactions to that are in the hands of society. If we anticipate it, then there are things we can do to prepare. I expect that most core white liberals will simply continue to deny the science, but they will turn their anti-science perspective into an antagonistic conspiracy theory, as the anti-GMO activists and the anti-vaxxers have done. The more rational liberals can adopt these points to bring independents to their side and soften the racist politics of the conservatives:

• Races are not discrete, and most people belong to a mixture of races with an accompanying mixture of racial traits. Even historically, all races have continually mixed with their geographic neighbors, never isolating themselves for long.
• All traits are diverse within each race, such that a person can not be judged with sufficient certainty based on race alone (only rough probabilistic guesses).
• No race is further along the evolutionary path than another race. There is no "higher" or "lower" race, nor is there a "superior" or "inferior" race, regardless of natural tendencies among races.
• There is nothing wrong with race-mixing. In fact, genetic diversity is better, reducing recessive genes and enhancing selective advantages.
• Inequality of genotypes does not compel inequality under the law. The principle of equal rights has served western society very well, regardless of inequivalencies of mind and body.

There will be blood, and rational liberals should see it as their duty to lessen the flow of it.

Your list of dot points indicate that there is no reason whatsoever for racism - scientific or otherwise.

In particular, given "All traits are diverse within each race, such that a person can not be judged with sufficient certainty based on race alone (only rough probabilistic guesses)" and "There is nothing wrong with race-mixing. In fact, genetic diversity is better, reducing recessive genes and enhancing selective advantages", nothing that can properly be called 'racism' is supported by the facts; There is literally no situation where it is useful to know a person's 'race' when determining what course of action to take with regards to that person.

You appear to be convinced that Scientific Racism is true, based on proving that it is Scientific, but is not Racism.

It seems to me that you want racism to be justified scientifically; that in support of this desire, you have assessed the science; and that you have found nothing whatsoever to support your desire, but have decided to declare your findings as supportive of it anyway.

That is strange and distasteful. Is it some kind of deliberate attempt to become unpopular on your part? It seems clear to me from the points you listed that embracing racism - for anybody, white or black, liberal or conservative - is exactly the wrong thing to do if lessening the flow of blood is the objective; particularly as you have shown racism to lack any positive utility at all.

I take scientific racism to be a strong relevant explanatory theory for the inequalities of the world. You may be familiar with Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. The book presented as a theory that was often regarded as an alternative explanation to scientific racism, but, even if it didn't have that political use, it was a scientific theory useful for answering key questions of the world and making sense of everything. I regard scientific racism as much the same way, only better. It explains a much more diverse set of data much more powerfully. Even in light of those five points I gave, scientific racism powerfully explains economic inequalities (and other inequalities) among races. Since it touches on so many other fields of study, it will have uses we may not expect. The genetic researcher Bruce Lahn is a brilliant researcher but he was driven out of the research of brain genetics because he made uncomfortable claims about a gene for intelligence that was more common among some races than others, and he was the target of backlash that hurt his career. It is a science that has the strong potential to contribute to the cures of Alzheimer's disease and dementia, but the science is being silenced by the taboo.

 

[bilby]

Your list of dot points indicate that there is no reason whatsoever for racism - scientific or otherwise.

In particular, given "All traits are diverse within each race, such that a person can not be judged with sufficient certainty based on race alone (only rough probabilistic guesses)" and "There is nothing wrong with race-mixing. In fact, genetic diversity is better, reducing recessive genes and enhancing selective advantages", nothing that can properly be called 'racism' is supported by the facts; There is literally no situation where it is useful to know a person's 'race' when determining what course of action to take with regards to that person.

You appear to be convinced that Scientific Racism is true, based on proving that it is Scientific, but is not Racism.

It seems to me that you want racism to be justified scientifically; that in support of this desire, you have assessed the science; and that you have found nothing whatsoever to support your desire, but have decided to declare your findings as supportive of it anyway.

That is strange and distasteful. Is it some kind of deliberate attempt to become unpopular on your part? It seems clear to me from the points you listed that embracing racism - for anybody, white or black, liberal or conservative - is exactly the wrong thing to do if lessening the flow of blood is the objective; particularly as you have shown racism to lack any positive utility at all.

I take scientific racism to be a strong relevant explanatory theory for the inequalities of the world. You may be familiar with Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. The book presented as a theory that was often regarded as an alternative explanation to scientific racism, but, even if it didn't have that political use, it was a scientific theory useful for answering key questions of the world and making sense of everything. I regard scientific racism as much the same way, only better. It explains a much more diverse set of data much more powerfully. Even in light of those five points I gave, scientific racism powerfully explains economic inequalities (and other inequalities) among races. Since it touches on so many other fields of study, it will have uses we may not expect. The genetic researcher Bruce Lahn is a brilliant researcher but he was driven out of the research of brain genetics because he made uncomfortable claims about a gene for intelligence that was more common among some races than others, and he was the target of backlash that hurt his career. It is a science that has the strong potential to contribute to the cures of Alzheimer's disease and dementia, but the science is being silenced by the taboo.

Yeah, no.

You could probably be more wrong, but it would be difficult.

Scientific racism doesn't work as an explanatory hypothesis for the inequalities in the world, and if it did, it would still be insufficiently supported to qualify as a theory.

The only reason I can see for regarding Racism as better than Diamond's geographical hypothesis for explaining the distribution of technological development is that you want to be racist.

Even the information you yourself have given to 'support' your position indicates that Scientific Racism is a crock.

If you are going to be a bigot, just go with it. But don't try to pretend that your bigotry is based in reason. You are not fooling anyone.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I take scientific racism to be a strong relevant explanatory theory for the inequalities of the world. You may be familiar with Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. The book presented as a theory that was often regarded as an alternative explanation to scientific racism, but, even if it didn't have that political use, it was a scientific theory useful for answering key questions of the world and making sense of everything. I regard scientific racism as much the same way, only better. It explains a much more diverse set of data much more powerfully. Even in light of those five points I gave, scientific racism powerfully explains economic inequalities (and other inequalities) among races. Since it touches on so many other fields of study, it will have uses we may not expect. The genetic researcher Bruce Lahn is a brilliant researcher but he was driven out of the research of brain genetics because he made uncomfortable claims about a gene for intelligence that was more common among some races than others, and he was the target of backlash that hurt his career. It is a science that has the strong potential to contribute to the cures of Alzheimer's disease and dementia, but the science is being silenced by the taboo.

Yeah, no.

You could probably be more wrong, but it would be difficult.

Scientific racism doesn't work as an explanatory hypothesis for the inequalities in the world, and if it did, it would still be insufficiently supported to qualify as a theory.

The only reason I can see for regarding Racism as better than Diamond's geographical hypothesis for explaining the distribution of technological development is that you want to be racist.

Even the information you yourself have given to 'support' your position indicates that Scientific Racism is a crock.

If you are going to be a bigot, just go with it. But don't try to pretend that your bigotry is based in reason. You are not fooling anyone.

OK, let me know if you have further questions. I am happy to answer them.

 

[Trodon]

specific policies based on premises that conflict with scientific truths about human beings tend not to work. Often they do harm.

- Charles Murray

The civil rights movement was based on the assumption that black deficiencies were caused by racial discrimination, and that when the discrimination ended the deficiencies would end.

The war on poverty was based on the assumption that the poor are the same as everyone else, only less fortunate.

Both of these efforts have yielded disappointing results because the assumptions they were based on are not true.

It would be unwise to repeal the civil rights legislation. Nevertheless, that legislation should be interpreted narrowly enough to prohibit affirmative action policies and forced school busing.

In addition we should have a real conversation on race. Geneticists should be able to discuss what they have learned about the human genome, and the genetic basis for racial differences. Criminologists should be able to discuss what they have learned about racial differences in crime rates. Sociologists should be able to describe the moral chaos of the black ghetto. People of all races should be able to discuss how they really feel about people of other races. They should be able to discuss good and bad experiences they have had with people of other races.

In other words, the restrictions of political correctness should come to an end.

 

[Axulus]

specific policies based on premises that conflict with scientific truths about human beings tend not to work. Often they do harm.

- Charles Murray

The civil rights movement was based on the assumption that black deficiencies were caused by racial discrimination, and that when the discrimination ended the deficiencies would end.

The war on poverty was based on the assumption that the poor are the same as everyone else, only less fortunate.

Both of these efforts have yielded disappointing results because the assumptions they were based on are not true.

It would be unwise to repeal the civil rights legislation. Nevertheless, it should be interpreted narrowly enough to prohibit affirmative action policies and forced school busing.

In addition we should have a real conversation on race. Geneticists should be able to discuss what they have learned about the human genome, and the genetic basis for racial differences. Criminologists should be able to discuss what they have learned about racial differences in crime rates. Sociologists should be able to describe the moral chaos of the black ghetto. People of all races should be able to discuss how they really feel about people of other races. They should be able to discuss good and bad experiences they have had with people of other races.

In other words, the restrictions of political correctness should come to an end.

I don't know what your criteria is, but this to me isn't a disappointing result. It suggests there is still more gain to be had (we have not yet seen the limit of the possible gains), even if scientific racism is true:

 

[bilby]

specific policies based on premises that conflict with scientific truths about human beings tend not to work. Often they do harm.

- Charles Murray

The civil rights movement was based on the assumption that black deficiencies were caused by racial discrimination, and that when the discrimination ended the deficiencies would end.

That's probably true. One day, I hope we might find out.

The war on poverty was based on the assumption that the poor are the same as everyone else, only less fortunate.

That's probably true too. It is a shame that the war on poverty wasn't in any way able to test this idea. It is an even greater shame that you have been misled into believing that it did.

Both of these efforts have yielded disappointing results

So far

because the assumptions they were based on are not true the efforts they made to fix the problems were pitifully inadequate.

FTFY

It would be unwise to repeal the civil rights legislation. Nevertheless, that legislation should be interpreted narrowly enough to prohibit affirmative action policies and forced school busing.

Why?

In addition we should have a real conversation on race.

By 'a real conversation', I presume you mean 'a conversation in which insulting and incorrect statements do not get challenged'? Because we can and do have all the other kinds of conversations.

Geneticists should be able to discuss what they have learned about the human genome,

They can.

and the genetic basis for racial differences.

They can and do.

Criminologists should be able to discuss what they have learned about racial differences in crime rates.

They can and do.

Sociologists should be able to describe the moral chaos of the black ghetto.

Why only the black one? Ghettoes tend to be horrible places regardless of the race of their inhabitants.

People of all races should be able to discuss how they really feel about people of other races.

They can and do.

They should be able to discuss good and bad experiences they have had with people of other races.

They can and do.

In other words, the restrictions of political correctness should come to an end.

Where 'political correctness' means 'the right to persecute me by denying my right to persecute others'.

This whine sounds to me just like the Christian bitching about not being allowed to set atheists on fire any more, like they could in the good old days.

Oh, poor you, being oppressed by all these uppity folks trying to muscle in on some of your privilege.