NexxtLevelUp

The Truth behind the HBD cult prt 2

Virgle Kent January 29, 2013 Everything Else 121 Comments

Last week our guest writer T, started hist guest series on the HBD which soon became the most popular post here at NLU racking up over 100 comments. He returns today to back up that post and dig deeper into the world of HBD. After reading the following you’ll ask yourself which group do you belong to and question if the finding in the research is true or not. I wont give much away instead I will step aside and let the Professor do what he does best…. school people

The following video is NSFW because of tiggs

 

Last week I discussed scientific racism movement known as human biodiversity (HBD) and how the psychological concepts of shame and guilt apply to HBD believers. My theory is that HBD followers in the manosphere have intense shame issues, and overcompensate against them by manifesting extremely narcissistic traits. You can read the piece here, but the main points are that shame is a much more primitive and immature feeling than guilt, that shame has to do with feeling bad about your very identity, your state of being, rather than your actions, and that shame is the underlying motivation behind narcissism. Since several people last week asked for citations about the history and evolution of shame research, I would refer you to six books. These books not only summarize much of the research, but they have bibliographies that will lead you to more than enough papers and other books that will allow you to dig deeper into the topic of toxic shame. For more layperson-oriented books, you can try Healing the Shame that Binds You by John Bradshaw, The Addictive Personality by Craig Nakken, or Willpower’s Not Enough by Arnold Washton. For more technical books, and The Mask of Shame and The Hidden Dimension by Leon Wurmser and Shame: The Underside of Narcissism by Andrew Morrison, which goes into great detail tracking the evolution of shame research. The bibliographies of those books will lead you to dozens of other books and hundreds of psychological studies.

A key part from last week’s piece:

Shame, which is more toxic and primitive, is when you think there is something wrong with what youare. Guilt, which is healthier and more mature, is when you think there is something wrong with what you’re doing. Shame-prone people will think “I am wrong” while guilt-prone people will think “I did something wrong.” Shame-prone people will think “I am stupid” while guilt-prone people think “I made a mistake.” For a guilt-prone person, an action at the end of the day is an action, but for a shame-prone person, an action is a commentary on their very being. For a guilt-prone person, since an action is simply an action, when they commit a faulty action, the way to fix it is to confess, come clean, and try to take corrective actions. For a shame-prone person, since each action is a determination on their very worth as a person and a commentary on their whole identity, faulty actions must be concealed, explained away, blamed on others, rationalized, repressed, or dealt with using any number of popular defense mechanisms. Admitting mistakes is very hard for a shame-prone person, because in their mind doing so is the same as admitting that their whole self is defective.

To put it another way, for a shame-based person, their main battle throughout their lives is with who or what they fundamentally are, whereas for a guilt-based person, their main battle throughout their lives is with the quality of their actions. Even when a shame-based person is concerned with actions on the surface, and appears to be exhibiting guilt, in actuality they are only concerned with what those actions reveal about their identity and what their actions reveal about whether or not they’re fundamentally defective. Their sense of guilt is inextricably fused to shame…

When you’re shame-based, you have this constant fear of finding evidence confirming to yourself that you really are defective, as well as a constant fear of being exposed as defective or as inferior to other people. There are three faulty coping mechanisms neurotic people use to handle shame. They either avoid and try not to think about or dealing with anything that triggers those feelings, surrender and just give in to the idea that they’re inferior and accept defectiveness as their core identity and live their lives accordingly, or they overcompensate and crowd any such feelings of inferiority out of their conscious awareness by filling their minds with grandiose, over-the-top ideas of superiority. Since the basic fear underlying shame is being defective and inferior to others, those who overcompensate against shame go into overdrive convincing themselves and onlookers of the opposite, that they’re perfect and superior to others.

This week I want to discuss how I believe HBDers developed their shame issues by pointing to the research of an American psychologist Carol Dweck, along with the research of many other psychologists who work in similar areas. What was interesting about Dweck’s work is that while it was not explicitly billed as shame and guilt research, her findings end up working largely in parallel to the findings of shame research and confirm many of those findings. Dweck has two books, 2000’s Self-theories, which is her more technical, academic work with the extensive bibliography, and 2007’s Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, her more mainstream book for lay readers covering the same research material.

Dweck attracted a lot of attention after a profile piece in New York Magazine titled “How Not to Talk to Your Kids,” which summed her research to promote the 2007 book. I’m sure anyone who has dealt with many of the HBD blogs and commenters will immediately recognize much of their behavior and attitudes in a certain type of student Dweck describes. I highly recommend you read the actual article and don’t just go by my summary of it. It will make things clearer. So will a reread of last week’s piece.

Dweck’s work deals with students who identify as being smart, versus students who identify with being hard workers, and here are some of the findings from one of her experiments.

Dweck and her researchers would take 5th graders out of a classroom one at a time to perform a nonverbal IQ test of a series of puzzles. The puzzles were deliberately chosen to be easy to excel at. When each child finished the test, they received their score, and were given a single line of praise. One group of kids was praised for being intelligent. The other group was praised for hard work. The students were offered a choice between two tests for the second round. One test was described as being more difficult than the first puzzle, but more rewarding because the kids would learn a lot from trying it. The other test was described as an easy test, similar to the first. Of those who received the “hard work” praise, 90 percent chose the harder set of puzzles. Meanwhile, a majority of the kids praised for being smart chose the easy test.

In a later round, there was no choice given. All the 5th graders were offered the same test, one that was more difficult and made for 7th graders, with the predictable result that all the kids failed it. The kids who were earlier praised for hard work assumed they just needed more preparation.

“They got very involved, willing to try every solution to the puzzles,” Dweck recalled. “Many of them remarked, unprovoked, ‘This is my favorite test.’?” Not so for those praised for their smarts. They assumed their failure was evidence that they weren’t really smart at all. “Just watching them, you could see the strain. They were sweating and miserable.”

A final round of tests were given to the 5th graders after the round deliberately designed for all of them to fail. This final round was made to be as easy as the first round. The “hard work” group of students significantly improved their first score by an average of 30%. The “smart” kids did worse than they had at the beginning, by around 20%.

Why did this happen? “When we praise children for their intelligence,” Dweck wrote in her study summary, “we tell them that this is the name of the game: Look smart, don’t risk making mistakes.” And that’s what the fifth-graders had done: They’d chosen to look smart and avoid the risk of being embarrassed.

Dweck’s research calls the mindset of the “smart” students the fixed mindset, and she calls people who believe in the fixed mindset entity theorists. The mindset of the “hard work” students is called the growth mindset, and people who believe in the growth mindset are labeled incremental theorists. I believe at some point in their lives, for whatever reason, the people who are attracted to HBD began to identify with their high IQ rather than with being hard workers, and as a result adopted the fixed mindset of entity theorists. The more research you do into the fixed mindsets of entity theorists, the more tendencies of HBD believers you will recognize (unless of course you’re an HBD believer yourself).

Dweck focuses a lot on students who become entity theorists and develop fixed mindsets as a result of being praised for being naturally smart. These people start believing that if they do start exerting effort, that effort will undermine that early praise by proving they aren’t so smart after all, because they hard to work at it. Not only do they not want to exert effort and ruin their self-image of superiority, they want to believe effort period, for anyone. This is because they consider their forte to be effortless intelligence, thus if effort does matter in the real world, then this devalues what they consider to be their main strength and is another way their image of superiority gets threatened. You see much of this described behavior in HBDers. I don’t know if they developed this entity theorist fixed mindset from being praised by parents and teachers for being naturally smart or if they arrived at it some other way, but what matters is that that’s what they believe in now: that being smart is a matter of being born that way, and that hard work can’t change your intelligence level, and if you do have to work harder to get the same results it’s a negative commentary on your intelligence level.

As this PDF describes, emphasis added by me:

Entity theorists tend to think that human characteristics are fixed. Incremental
theorists are inclined to believe that characteristics are malleable.

These two theories profoundly affect motivation. “If my traits are fixed, then I can’t do
much to change. I’m stuck with who I am. The best I can do is to validate what strengths I
might already have and hope that they will help me win approval and avoid rejection. There is
no sense in trying to promote growth in others either, as they will remain who they are despite
my best efforts. On the other hand, if my traits are malleable, I have the potential to improve.”
This mindset encourages us to look for ways to grow, to solve our problems, and to remedy our
weaknesses. It also encourages us to look for potential in others and help them grow.

Or in Dweck’s own words:

We’ve found that when people have a fixed mindset they often shy away from challenges. For them, deficiencies are permanent and so they are afraid to reveal them. People with fixed mindsets are also not as resilient in the face of setbacks because, again, they see setbacks as impugning their underlying abilities. Challenge-seeking and resilience are key factors in success. As a result, people with fixed mindsets often don’t achieve as much in the long run.

People with a growth mindset don’t necessarily believe everyone is the same or that anyone can be Einstein, but they understand that everyone can develop their abilities and that even Einstein wasn’t Einstein until he put in decades of dedicated labour. These people see a challenge as something that helps you learn, and a setback as something that ultimately helps develop your ability. For this reason, people with a growth mindset often accomplish more in the long term…

Each mindset creates a whole psychological world or a “meaning system” for people. It’s called a “meaning system” because mindsets change the meaning of what happens to us. First, as I’ve suggested, the mindsets change the meaning of challenges. In a fixed mindset, a challenge is threatening because it can reveal deficiencies. In a growth mindset, a challenge is an opportunity to get better at something. Next, mindsets change the meaning of effort. Those with a growth mindset think if you have natural ability you shouldn’t need that much effort. Their belief is that things should come easily to people if they’re really smart. But those with a growth mindset understand that even geniuses have to work hard for their great discoveries and that effort, well-applied, will increase your abilities over time. Finally, mindsets change the meaning of failure. In a fixed mindset a failure is the worst thing that could happen. It discredits your ability, it’s something to run from, something to hide and even, we find in our research, to lie about. But in a growth mindset failure, while not welcome, is something you learn from.

What’s very interesting is that if you read a lot of the research on shame, and compare it to the findings of the line of research developed by Dweck and her peers, you see that a lot of it corresponds. The kids who identify with being smart, who make high IQ into their identity, are shame-based. They are focused on what their inherent identity is, and live life as if they’re trying to make a case proving that identity is true and always comparing themselves to others. The kids who identify with being hard workers, who focus on the quality of their action, are guilt-based and focus more on comparing their current selves to their past selves than to other people.

Another sign that the fixed mindset corresponds to shame is that when the entity theorists face an ego threat and overcompensate against it, they end up behaving very narcissistically, and as I described in the last installment, narcissism is an overcompensation against shame. A key element of narcissism is rigidity, and one can argue that rigid is another word for fixed. Fixed mindset entity theorists, like narcissists, become more interested in protecting their image of intelligence and avoiding any effort that carries with it a risk of failure that will ruin that superior image. They also become obsessed with comparing themselves to others and making them look worse, so that their own images can look better [emphasis added by me]:

Dweck’s research on overpraised kids strongly suggests that image maintenance becomes their primary concern—they are more competitive and more interested in tearing others down. A raft of very alarming studies illustrate this.

In one, students are given two puzzle tests. Between the first and the second, they are offered a choice between learning a new puzzle strategy for the second test or finding out how they did compared with other students on the first test: They have only enough time to do one or the other. Students praised for intelligence choose to find out their class rank, rather than use the time to prepare.

In another, students get a do-it-yourself report card and are told these forms will be mailed to students at another school—they’ll never meet these students and don’t know their names. Of the kids praised for their intelligence, 40 percent lie, inflating their scores. Of the kids praised for effort, few lie.

When students transition into junior high, some who’d done well in elementary school inevitably struggle in the larger and more demanding environment. Those who equated their earlier success with their innate ability surmise they’ve been dumb all along. Their grades never recover because the likely key to their recovery—increasing effort—they view as just further proof of their failure. In interviews many confess they would “seriously consider cheating.”

Image maintenance, with in the case of HBDers is displayed by always trying to win arguments online at any cost and never admitting when they’re wrong and by constantly trumpeting their own benefits. Being focused on competition, which in the case of HBDers is racial IQ competition. Tearing down others, which in the case of HBDers means other races. Constantly examining how others rank rather than focusing on what types of actions they can take to make concrete improvements in themselves? Look at all the blog posts and articles they do that dwell on the state of Black America or the third world rather than organizing any type of platform that discusses plausible real-world political action. Willingness to cheat or lie to save face. You can see this in the intellectual dishonesty an HBDer will do during an argument, no matter how transparently disingenuous, in order to avoid ever conceding a single opponent’s point, such as when blogger Chuck Ross seriously claimed in last week’s installment that his Blacks Behaving Badly series of posts were not an example of gloating over racial superiority when he was called on it. All of this is textbook shame thinking and narcisissism.

Dweck’s book Mindset has the following passage:

In one study, seventh graders told us how they would respond to an academic failure—a poor test grade in a new course. Those with the growth mindset, no big surprise, said they would study harder for the next test. But those with the fixed mindset said they would study less for the next test. If you don’t have the ability, why waste your time? And, they said, they would seriously consider cheating! If you don’t have the ability, they thought, you just have to look for another way.

What’s more, instead of trying to learn from and repair their failures, people with the fixed mindset may simply try to repair their self-esteem. For example, they may go looking for people who are even worse off than they are.

College students, after doing poorly on a test, were given a chance to look at tests of other students. Those in the growth mindset looked at the tests of people who had done far better than they had. As usual, they wanted to correct their deficiency. But students in the fixed mindset chose to look at the tests of people who had done really poorly. That was their way of feeling better about themselves.

Dweck, Carol (2006-02-28). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (pp. 35-36). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

I point out the shame and guilt research and the mindset research not just to psychoanalyze why HBDers are the way they are, although admittedly I find that important. I also point out these findings to challenge the idea that widespread acceptance of their ideas would create a better society. They think it would make them less angry and feel better, but it would just train a whole generation to develop the same narcissistic frustration, bitterness, self-sabotaging, and blaming tendencies. By encouraging shame-based, incremental theory growth mindsets, they would just create more similarly discontented people. Furthermore, the shame and growth research offers much plausible proof that their beliefs about effort being worthless in increasing intelligence and innate ability being all-important is simply wrong.

The final reason for showcasing all of this is to show the half-truth involved when HBDers keep insisting that the science backs them and that what they say must be true because it’s based on a study or statistics. Anyone can lie with true statistics. It’s even the name of a famous book. The two problems with HBDers is that take studies that may show some support for their views, and downplay the ones that don’t, to create an illusion that science creates an airtight case for their cause, so airtight that the only reason why anyone could possibly have a problem with their conclusions is hurt feelings or political correctness. As you can see, the science is not quite as clear-cut and one-sided as they would like to portray. And even the studies and stats that do support their views, they still exaggerate the significance of the findings and extrapolate to outrageous conclusions unsupported by the data. These mischaracterizations, exaggerations, and extrapolations will be the focus of future installments.

To read more on Dweck’s work:

Like this Article? Share it!

About The Author

Been in the game since 2005 and still learning everyday. But now I feel comfortable giving back and sharing wisdom with guys looking to improve one or two things in their lives that could increase their self confidence and the chance of having a favorable outcome in any romantic interaction with women. When you step to her you know you've already put in that work on your end. Nothing is left to chance.

121 Comments

  1. Virgle Kent January 29, 2013 at 8:47 am

    Wow, this is very fascinating. So a real world example of fixed mindset and how a connection to HBD would work, let’s hypothetically say there was a HBD blogger who got a degree in finance with no problem. He then went on to get a masters Degree with no problem as well believing and being told that because of his excellent academic skills he would have no problem getting a job in his industry when he graduated. So when he graduates behold there isn’t a job waiting for him despite being told being smart and having a MA would make him a shoe in for success in life. Turns out if he had gotten an internship and “worked hard at it” during his school years he would have had a better shot. Turns out even if it took some time after his bachelor and he got a job, he should have taken the lesson of how hard it was to find that job reduced his hours getting the MA while working and getting experience at the same time. Sure it would have been “hard work” but now he has to settle of waiting tables. Meanwhile he spends his time studying HBD grouping himself and comparing himself to others groups to feel fulfillment and worthwhile. The realization that with his high IQ and ability to study and take tests well, that doesn’t translate to work in the real world. So HBD is how he reminds himself that he’s a better person compared to others in a lower IQ group than himself.

    The irony is if there was some crazy test out there that compared the average IQ or intelligence of waiters and people who worked in the service industry to those of people who worked in other industries say science or finance and it turns out that people who work as waiters “on average” have lower IQ scores than people that are say Nuclear physicist therefore anyone who works as a waiter should be treated as inferior to those that work in more lucrative industries, I wonder how that person would feel. (EVEN THOUGH I KNOW THAT’S NOT THE CASE)…. maybe internally that’s how the person feels right now. Being stuck in a industry where most people assume incorrectly that the people in that industry are uneducated and not intelligent. Sure most people in the service industry may not have high school or college degrees but there are also plenty of people in the same industry that don’t fit that mold. You can’t just judge the whole industry based on the average…. can you?

    Oh well, what do I know, me and my low IQ with my humble bachelors degree has to run to my boring finance job that I got because of affirmative action.

    • haha!! January 29, 2013 at 9:27 am

      haha great example VK..haha! great start to my morning.

    • Chuck Ross January 29, 2013 at 11:23 am

      Or, as a waiter, observations about patterned differences and also free time to spend on the internet brings those differences to light. And the curiosity of said intelligent waiter leads him to investigate these differences and the causes of these differences.

      This silly analysis would carry much more weight if it weren’t for the fact that there are those observable differences between blacks and whites. And as I mentioned in the previous thread, the fact that there is such a refusal to even entertain the possibility that there are deeply-rooted biological causes for the differences makes it all the more interesting.

      • Virgle Kent January 29, 2013 at 11:36 am

        The question of differences has already been agreed upon by everyone over and over again, between race, IQ anyone with two eyes can see the difference.

        The question is in the mindset of those people who know that there is a difference and make themselves feel better or superior because of said difference. Because you scored better on a test or you belong to a group that does better on a test means your better than the others that didn’t? The need of those who become wrapped up in HBD to group and compare themselves to other people. To start a series, call it blacks behaving badly and point to a group of people lower down the ladder than yourself. No that’s not racist it’s earth shattering news that some black people commit crime and do terrible things and in your mind those black people represent all if not a majority of blacks. But pat yourself on the back for using your free time on the internet to point out the obvious.

        I mean if we want to group people in a class and judge the intelligence of said class based on the average or lower scale of that group, ignore the circumstances that put people in that group, or the individuals that are in that group but score higher…. what could be said about the average IQ of people in the service industry?

        (Side note: I grew up in the service industry)

        • Robert January 29, 2013 at 12:13 pm

          “The question of differences has already been agreed upon by everyone over and over again, between race, IQ anyone with two eyes can see the difference.”

          So then you’d admit that economic inequality between racial groups is partly the result of genetics, right?

          • T. AKA Ricky Raw January 30, 2013 at 12:28 pm

            Dude, he’s answered this a bunch of times already, check the comments in the last installment too. Again, NO ONE IS DENYING THERE ARE GENETIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE RACES AND THAT THE GENETIC DISPARITY IN IQ HAS A GENETIC COMPONENT TO IT.

            We disagree with the idea of genetic determinism and that notion that the genetic component is something that dooms blacks to permanent inferiority, that can’t be helped with hard work, and many of the other assertions HBDers arrive at by extrapolating way beyond the scope of what the data actually says and then presenting those extrapolations as fact.

            I know this comment, like the many other similar ones VK and I made will make no difference and someone else will keep asking us “So do you admit there is a difference between races?” “So do you admit that genetics matter?” Geez.

          • Robert January 30, 2013 at 4:29 pm

            @T.

            “No modern reputable scientist, policy maker, or intellectual truly believes in a blank slate.”

            The Standard Social Science Model is still dominant. Think women serving combat roles in the military or the agitation to apply Title IX to STEM fields in colleges.

            If you were a white, you could lose your job if you publicly stated that you thought there are non-trivial genetic differences between races.

        • science January 29, 2013 at 12:29 pm

          It’s important because public policy is being based on the blank slate view and that’s destroying lives and communities on a mass scale. HBD is tied up in government and social policies that are attacking people and their ways of life. Naturally they want to defend themselves. I’ve read Ricky’s response on this issue and its flawed.

          The reply from some is, “get rich any way you can so you can isolate yourself from the disasterous effects of these policies and fuck all those you leave behind.” It’s just so narcisistic and selfish to only care about yourself and not care about your nation, community, tribe, tradition, culture, etc.

          • T. AKA Ricky Raw January 30, 2013 at 12:32 pm

            It’s important because public policy is being based on the blank slate view and that’s destroying lives and communities on a mass scale.

            Public policy is not being based on blank slate view. HBDers, because of black-and-white thinking, a hallmark of narcissism, can’t understand anything grey or in the middle. To them, if you prove that genes matter, than you have somehow proved that genes are all that matter. So similarly, if anyone asserts that environment and culture matters, in an HBDer’s eyes that person is a mythical “blank slater,” a person who ONLY believes in environment and totally denies that genes matter.

            No modern reputable scientist, policy maker, or intellectual truly believes in a blank slate. They may disagree about the extent that genetics matter, but the mythical modern blank slater is a strawman.

        • Chuck Ross January 29, 2013 at 1:18 pm

          The average IQ of the service industry is relatively low. See, it wasn’t hard for me to admit that, was it?

          Since you do admit these differences, what you and T. are then arguing is that HBD types spend an unhealthy amount of time focused on the topic of these differences. You read shame into this unhealthy focus. But you’ve not even set the parameters of when something becomes an unhealthy obsession. Who, specifically, are you talking about? How much time could they spend on this topic and still be considered having just the right amount of interest in it? Do you know how much time they spend on other topics or are you just looking at the posts and comments they make online – in an arena that provides only a small glimpse into them as a multitudinous being? Are they allowed to notice differences at all before they are considered to be wrecked with shame?

          • Virgle Kent January 29, 2013 at 2:04 pm

            I can not speak for T. Also I don’t think parameters need to be set as to something being an unhealthy obsession, the term “unhealthy obsession” explains it all.

            Maybe the questions that should be raised is, “why is the individual so concerned with HBD” is it a scientist, sociologist or in a related field (or a random person) that trained in research that finds the differences bring them up in the hope to improve society and the groups involved? Or is it an individual that uses HBD to feel superior about himself and point out faults in other groups. Using their free time to find new studies and statistics to highlight the fault in others groups of people while pointing out how their class is better while at the same time not accomplishing much themselves… in the real world. This isn’t an attack on the discussion of diversity it’s about those people who need to use those findings to feel better about themselves.

          • science January 29, 2013 at 2:58 pm

            There are all sorts of reasons to care about HBD from a public policy POV, but lets skip that for now.

            Maybe people are just curious. Why do people look for patterns in sports statistics and then debate who was better then who? Why do they spend a lot of time reading about the history of the roman empire. It’s fun. It’s fun to learn more about the world and how it works.

            This particular topic is suppressed in the maintstream. I see little reason why people wouldn’t be curious about it.

          • Mr. Rational January 29, 2013 at 7:27 pm

            Or is it an individual that uses HBD to feel superior about himself and point out faults in other groups.

            Are you claiming that the truth of a proposition depends on the motivation of the person putting it forth?

            Is it sufficient to wish to defend one’s self against charges of “racism” (enough to canonize Omar Thornton when he killed his boss and several others after being fired for theft) and hostile actions like “disparate impact” sanctions when color-blind test results don’t sort out in racially-proportionate ways, or do you need something else to be legit?

            Maybe you’d just like not to be the next victim of a “polar bear hunting” attack?  C’mon, give us some hints here.

          • T. AKA Ricky Raw January 30, 2013 at 12:35 pm

            @science:

            There are all sorts of reasons to care about HBD from a public policy POV, but lets skip that for now.

            Like what? What great public policy improvements will come about from HBD acceptance?

            Like I’ve said in the past, the HBD mindset seems to be this variation on a South Park joke:

            Step 1: Get HBD accepted.
            Step 2: ????
            Step 3: UTOPIA!

            I’ve yet to see a convincing step 2 argued yet.

          • Mr. Rational January 30, 2013 at 2:59 pm

            I’ve yet to see a convincing step 2 argued yet.

            For what value of “convincing”?
            Try this instead:
            Step 1:  Get HBD accepted.  Stop blaming YT for everything that’s wrong or just different with Black, Mexican, etc. people and subcultures.
            Step 2:  Accept that lots of things aren’t going to come out in racially-proportionate ways, and that there is no injustice involved.  Abolish AA, “disparate impact” law, and all the other things springing out of the “blank slate” theory of social science.
            Step 3:  Get on with business with less overhead, and a LOT less screaming and finger-pointing.  It’s not utopia… but nobody promised one, either.
            Let’s see if paragraph tags work (hoping, hoping…)

          • GreenDolphinStreet January 30, 2013 at 4:17 pm

            @Rational

            That’s a pretty woeful roadmap.

            1.Your step 1 is basically “mend white peoples’ feelings” and has nothing to do with actual public policy, unless you are talking about what affirmative action implies (addressing perceived minority advantages), in which case your first step is the same as your second step.

            2. Ok, get rid affirmative action, but that only addresses black populations that are at least somewhat qualified for what they applying to. What about the greater underclass? There’s a correlation between not reading on grade level by 3rd grade and future incarceration. Along those lines, there are research-proven early reading programs that close the reading gap between minority populations and white children by 3rd grade, and can be implemented at public schools for only marginally increased cost. They are often shut down due to political motivations of superintendents (from the left and right). Wouldn’t implementing programs that increase the verbal abilities of black children help to quell some of the criminality problems caused by naturally lower iqs? Somehow I don’t think you’re concerned by such a thing, because:

            3. Your step three is basically your step one in more vague language. Honestly, Your post doesn’t debunk the idea the HBDers of Roissysphere basically believe that the steps of implementing HBD are essentially “make white people feel better about themselves, let everyone else rot.” Doesn’t sound like a path to utopia.

          • T. AKA Ricky Raw January 30, 2013 at 10:00 pm

            @ Mr. Rational, your step 2 is STILL a step 3.

            You wrote:

            Step 2: Accept that lots of things aren’t going to come out in racially-proportionate ways, and that there is no injustice involved. Abolish AA, “disparate impact” law, and all the other things springing out of the “blank slate” theory of social science.

            How does HBD acceptance lead to abolishment of AA, “disparate impact” law and all the other things springing out of the “blank slate” theory of social science (which no one today actually believes anyway, but that’s another story)?

            So, allow me to rephrase, but with your step 2 rephrased as what it actually is, a step 3:

            Step 1: Get everyone to accept HBD.
            Step 2: ???????
            Step 3: Accept that lots of things aren’t going to come out in racially-proportionate ways, and that there is no injustice involved. Abolish AA, “disparate impact” law, and all the other things springing out of the “blank slate” theory of social science.

            How does HBD acceptance create this world you’ve come up with where Affirmative Action just gets dismantled, all programs designed to fight racism and enforce egalitarianism are just dismantled and blacks just accept their role as inferior and doomed to have less of the pie? How does HBD produce these results? You’re still engaged in magical thinking.

            For example, how do you know that establishing blacks as a permanent cognitive underclass won’t lead to increased entitlements for blacks since people would now think that blacks are genetically doomed to be unable to live productive lives on their own? For all you know, entitlements may INCREASE. I already described to you in this comment how HBD acceptance could plausibly strengthen Affirmative Action. It’s not the guaranteed AA-killer you imagine it to be. Also, in your world of HBD acceptance, would blacks still be allowed to vote? Because first off, just like you would never accept the notion that you have an inborn deficiency, I don’t see blacks as a whole just accepting it, and even if they did, I don’t see them just starting to vote against their own interests as a result. Are blacks going to now start voting in favor of the education policies that HBDers recommend where their kids are assumed to be a lost cause unless they can prove they’re anomalies? As long as blacks keep voting, and can vote against people who try to hurt their interests, how would you get politicians to create your ideal HBD world when they’re going to keep needing black votes?

            I still don’t see a realistic Step 2, dude.

          • Mr. Rational January 31, 2013 at 12:05 am

            Rats, not even <p> tags work here; they are stripped out and replaced with single line breaks.  This blog has declared war on both White people AND white space!  I’m going to try one last thing, and then it’s time to counter-attack with torches, pitchforks, and “The Elements of Style”!

            Your step 1 is basically “mend white peoples’ feelings”

            Are you saying that both the social ethos AND public policy should blame people of European ancestry for the lesser achievement of certain other racial groups?  Do you realize that, as public policy, that is a form of collective punishment and arguably contrary to Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which prohibits same?

            Black mob attacks and “flash mobs” are certainly terrorism, also a war crime if committed by an organized army.  “Flash robs” are pillage, ditto.

            Ok, get rid affirmative action, but that only addresses black populations that are at least somewhat qualified for what they applying to. What about the greater underclass?

            What do you want ME to do about them?  They think they’re fine as they are, but you expect them to take my moral hectoring about the need for education and morals to heart?  The people who labelled Bill Cosby an “Uncle Tom” after the pound cake speech?  Get real.

            there are research-proven early reading programs that close the reading gap between minority populations and white children by 3rd grade, and can be implemented at public schools for only marginally increased cost.

            Okay, tell me:  why aren’t these universally applied across all applicable groups of students in public schools?  I’m all for phonics; the edu-fads of “look-say”, “whole word”, “balanced literacy” and “invented spelling” came from ed school professors, aka PC/MC cultural Marxists.

            Wouldn’t implementing programs that increase the verbal abilities of black children help to quell some of the criminality problems caused by naturally lower iqs?

            Sorry, you’re asking me to speculate about something about which I have no evidence.  Got any decent studies to support that idea?  I’ll admit, you’ll have to color me skeptical; when tests of self-control (future vs. present time preference) at age 4 are a strong predictor of success in life, I’m not sure that vocabulary qua vocabulary is going to be a major factor.  On the other hand, the more patient and focused a child is, the more likely they are to work at understanding of new words:  future time preference may lead to a large vocabulary, as well as non-criminality.

            Somehow I don’t think you’re concerned by such a thing

            Thanks for the amateur psychoanalysis.  Whether I’m concerned about something, and whether I think public policy can meaningfully influence it in the absence of personal effort, are two completely different things.

            … basically believe that the steps of implementing HBD are essentially “make white people feel better about themselves, let everyone else rot.” Doesn’t sound like a path to utopia.

            I’m sorry, did you miss where I said “it’s not utopia… but nobody promised one, either”?  Humans are flawed, some more than others.  Are you so deluded as to believe that personal failings can be fixed by social engineering?  You CAN “define deviancy down” so that they’re more (forcibly) accepted, but that’s just a race to the bottom.  The overwhelming majority become losers.

            If you want better results, they have to be produced by people.  Bureaucrats writing regulations and levying fines for “insensitivity” and “disparate impact” only sap morale, creating the dystopian malaise they then pretend to try to remedy.  That’s the key insight you’re missing.

          • Mr. Rational January 31, 2013 at 10:22 am

            I have found a way to out-fox the deleter of paragraph breaks!  I have called off the Strunk and White air strike.

            How does HBD acceptance lead to abolishment of AA, “disparate impact” law and all the other things springing out of the “blank slate” theory of social science (which no one today actually believes anyway, but that’s another story)?

            Wait just a minute here.  The original claim was that Blacks, “Hispanics”, etc. were victims of past discrimination and merely needed a leg up to remedy its effects.  Now you’re saying that nobody actually believes that… even the proponents of AA?  What’s it for, then?  Is it to be a permanent prop to offset permanent, immutable deficiencies?  But if those deficiencies are immutable, they cannot be the legacy of past discrimination, and the whole justification for AA disappears.  You can’t have it both ways.

            HBD acceptance says that, if AA was ever justified, it was ONLY as a temporary measure.  50 years is more than temporary, and it’s time for it to be terminated.  If there are permanent, immutable differences which create advantages and disadvantages in various spheres of society, that’s just how things are.  Or would you want to be mentally crippled by a neurosurgeon so that you don’t have any unjust advantage of birth over someone with Down’s syndrome?  How about having nerves in your legs damaged so short, chubby Mexicans can compete equally with you in basketball?

            The termination of AA, “disparate impact”, and the rest is NOT an end, it’s a means.  It’s a means to a society where the finger-pointing stops, where the people holding jobs are the ones who earned them and do them well rather than having the right skin color (IOW, unlike BHO), where college admissions offices don’t pat themselves on the back for their “enlightenment” in creating a “diverse” freshman class of which so many of the “diverse” students flunk or drop out and never get the credentials to repay their student loans.  Yes, affirmative action has non-White victims too.  Acting on lies seldom serves one well.  Ending AA/”disparate impact”/”diversity” means more civility, because anti-White racial hostility in schools and workplaces will no longer have “victimhood” protection.  And last, ending affirmative action means the end of White resentment for being passed over for someone of lesser merit or ability.  Believe me, you do NOT want to keep feeding this resentment.

            all programs designed to fight racism and enforce egalitarianism are just dismantled and blacks just accept their role as inferior and doomed to have less of the pie?

            What do you mean, “racism”?  It’s the modern witch; you can’t find it but you’re certain it’s there and responsible for whatever misfortune occurred.  It can’t be that Shitavious is illiterate, can’t apply the simplest arithmetic to problems he might encounter on the job and thinks his compensation should be augmented by stealing whatever’s in the office, it’s “racist” not to hire him anyway?  That is more or less what mass-murderer Omar Thornton appears to have believed, you know.  Am I racist for saying that people who steal from their employers deserve to be fired, regardless of the color of their skin?  How about if I say they should be arrested and removed by police, to prevent them coming back into the building with a gun and shooting their ex-bosses and erstwhile co-workers… as Thornton did?  Does that cross the line into racism?  Or is it just common sense?

            Is it racist to insist that you have a right to keep your would-be murderers away from you?

            I’m also not quite sure what you mean by “enforce egalitarianism”.  Are you talking equality of opportunity, or of results?  Are you going to split the med-school admissions “equally” between the guys who have mastered anatomy and biochemistry, and those who can’t state the difference between a vasodilator and a vagina?  (I’ll be happy to cripple all the Black thugs until they are no more than equal to me in my ability to inflict physical mayhem, how about that?  That would make the world a better place!)

            how do you know that establishing blacks as a permanent cognitive underclass won’t lead to increased entitlements for blacks since people would now think that blacks are genetically doomed to be unable to live productive lives on their own? For all you know, entitlements may INCREASE.

            Gosh, did I just see you ADMIT that Blacks would form a permanent cognitive underclass, and that “the legacy of past discrimination” has nothing to do with their capabilities today?  Further, how does putting people of any race into jobs they can’t do improve matters?  If you’re paying someone to do a job and it doesn’t get done, the organization which relies on the job being done starts to break down.  If it’s a business, it starts to fail.  If it’s government, it fails to provide the services it’s legally chartered to provide.  If you admit that competence matters but insist on equal pay for unequal work, why should anyone take on the hard jobs when the easy ones pay just as well?  I know why you like the idea of “racial justice”, but it’s corrosive to the greater good.

            Let me say that nothing is permanent or without exceptions.  All the various extant strains of Homo sap came from one common gene pool a million years ago or less; some of the differences we see today appear to have evolved in less than 500 years.  There’s also the fact that each population isn’t uniform, but has characteristics distributed on a bell curve.  Even a population of slower wits can give rise to a genius.  I think it would be wrong to FAIL to recognize genius where it exists.  However, it’s much more wrong to fail to recognize the virtue of a society which is broad-minded enough to recognize genius that is not its own.

            To answer your question more directly, recognizing that the Black IQ bell curve peaks about 15 points lower than the White one doesn’t justify entitlements.  It justifies the specialization of Blacks into jobs which suit their capabilities and temperaments.  If you think that this should NOT be done, would YOU want to be treated by a Black M.D. passed through school on a racially-lowered bar at every step?  Really, you want them on the football field and playing blues instead.  And yes, they should all be working.  Paying people to sit around has never failed to be a disaster.

            As long as blacks keep voting, and can vote against people who try to hurt their interests, how would you get politicians to create your ideal HBD world when they’re going to keep needing black votes?

            I still don’t see a realistic Step 2, dude.

            I’m afraid that YT is fed up and about to start marching under a banner like “No Fairness, No Peace”.  Black people voting themselves the stuff that White people create cannot go on forever, so it won’t.  You have a choice of ways to reform it, but if you succeed in using the ballot box to take away from YT so you don’t have to work you are going to find out that YT picks up the cartridge box to stop your parasitism.

          • science January 31, 2013 at 10:42 am

            The only countries to:

            1) Restrict immigration
            2) Eliminate affirmitive action

            are countries that embrace HBD. You ask how understanding HBD helps, just look at Asia. Again, Asia is a giant gaping hole in your entire thesis. People and governments in Asia are highly racist. HBD awarness is the norm. Yes, it does work. HBD awarness is part and parcel with getting rid of these policies.

          • GreenDolphinStreet February 1, 2013 at 4:52 pm

            @ Mr. Rational,

            This is the reading program I’m talking about with a list of the peer-reviewed research: http://www.successforall.org/Research/Research-Archive/

            It appears that some form of cooperative learning with aggressive parental engagement gets results in closing the reading score gap and improving the school culture.

            As far your other points, I want to focus on the Bill Cosby comment and your response to T. It seems the natural result of HBD policy would be some form of ethnic cleansing. Adopting a policy that states blacks are naturally inferior, coupled with disinvestment in social services, is probably gonna cause mass social unrest. How do you see it happening any other way? I know T wants to avoid invoking Roissy, but the implementation of HBD only sounds like fuel to the race war fantasy fire.

    • sfer January 29, 2013 at 4:12 pm

      The real life example Dweck gives in her book “Self-theories” for those kids who are told they are smart and then have difficulties when they hit harder problems are girls who have a real hard time with algebra.

      • T. AKA Ricky Raw January 29, 2013 at 4:42 pm

        The real life example Dweck gives in her book “Self-theories” for those kids who are told they are smart and then have difficulties when they hit harder problems are girls who have a real hard time with algebra.

        You say “the real life example” as if that is the only example she gives in all her work to back up her point. So let me get this straight, you are trying to imply that in almost four decades of research, two books, dozens upon dozens of studies that she authored or co-authored, that’s the only real-life example she has to back up her theory about kids who grow up believing they’re “smart” having trouble later on in life? Girls and algebra?

        Or did you just go through the material just looking for whatever part of it you could isolate and discredit out of context, so that you could make her work look more ridiculous than it actually was, thereby allowing yourself an excuse not to delve into and intellectually engage the actual research and findings? Because I find it hard to believe that’s the only example you could discover in her research.

    • Alfonso Dupont January 29, 2013 at 5:48 pm

      I don’t know what to say about a site that uses black text on a gray background with a small serif font and then wants me to read some huge rambling pseudo-intellectual rant about a PUA who said something to someone once.

      • T. AKA Ricky Raw January 29, 2013 at 6:39 pm

        Udolpho/Pleasureman/Alfonso, coming from the creator of MyPostingCareer, and a textbook example of what I’m discussing, that’s a huge compliment.

    • David Moore January 30, 2013 at 3:34 am

      This is a good post which sufficiently calls out those in the “manosphere” with resentful, narcissistic beliefs. But that’s the issue, resentment and narcissism, not racism from a specific group of people or the methods and findings of elements of such a community. Racism itself is a problem but separate from the issues of resentment and narcissism.

      The author of this post elects not to talk about the Minnesota NAACP demanding a racial quota for the NBA Timberwolves because “blacks are just good at this sort of thing.”

      Another issue frequently discussed in the “manosphere” is the double standards when it comes to women. Many elements of society elect not to take on the traditional feminist narrative of sex differences, rape and women in the workplace and so puts out false information in order to generate power for female interests regardless of its truth value.

      Maybe the author has done extensive research on the HBD community and has found that it is linked only to reactionary blogs like Roissy’s Chateau, Taki’s Mag, or GLP. However, the author/commenters places Evolutionary Psychology and Games, White Males, and sociobiology as part of a conspiracy of group racism purely based in resentment and narcissism.

      The irony is that leftwing social theories especially “white male privilege” are frequently used by the narcissistic to avoid improving their lives so they can maintain an image of themselves as oppressed when they are not. This exclusive oppression is then corralled and projected outward as resentment to make those disinterested in improving themselves or helping others feel better about themselves and maintain power at the expense of growth.

      So the author/commenters capture HBD resentment and weakness and then projects it inaccurately onto disciplines (Sociobiology, Manosphere, PUA) generally which allows maintenance of left-wing social theories capable of similar resentment and narcissism.

      • Virgle Kent January 30, 2013 at 8:05 am

        Wow, this is interesting. I complete disagree with everything you wrote. That’s all. You had your say though

  2. K January 29, 2013 at 10:34 am

    This is spot on. Their sense of inferiority is obvious to anyone paying attention. White guys with real achievements don’t need to latch onto the achievements of other whites or point out the failures of people who aren’t white.

    I’m reminded of a racist German-American I knew.
    Dave: Germans have achieved great things, what have your people ever done?
    K: Dave, I published my first scientific article when I was 19, what have you ever done? Those Germans who achieved great things, I have more in common with them than you do.

    He STFU after that. Naturally, he was a loser. He eventually dropped out of college. This spic from the projects eventually earned his PhD.

    p.s. I still won’t call them HBDers, otherwise HBD will have to go back to calling itself anthropology. Let’s just call them bitches.

  3. science January 29, 2013 at 11:09 am

    Another entire article about HBD which doesn’t discuss the science behind HBD, but rather how the author feels about HBD.

    The author, unable to refute the actual facts of the matter, simply attacks the source. Like any idea there are all sorts of people talking about it. From the most successful of our age (Lee Kuan Yew, most Asian elites, James Watson the discoverer of DNA, etc) to people of all ethnicities and genders (there are black and female HBD proponents) to even the “losers” Raw rags on the HBD movement is a huge movement. I’m sure he can find individual members to look down on and then, rather then address the arguement, simply say that a particular member is the embodimient of HBD and then use shame to avoid addressing the arguement.

    • JayMan January 29, 2013 at 10:12 pm

      “Another entire article about HBD which doesn’t discuss the science behind HBD, but rather how the author feels about HBD.

      The author, unable to refute the actual facts of the matter, simply attacks the source.”

      Yeah, when someone begins their argument with logical fallacies (in this case, making his entire argument one), I know that we’re not headed to good places.

      You guys might want to head to Wikipedia some time and read up on common fallacies, like the ad hominem.

      Adding the Dweck dreck doesn’t help your case much. See here.

      • T. AKA Ricky Raw January 30, 2013 at 12:48 am

        JayMan, I’m confused. How does the study you just posted refute Dweck in any way?

        • JayMan January 30, 2013 at 3:58 pm

          T, see here.

          Dweck found an example of what the study I cited found: part of the poor outcomes of low IQ individuals stem not just from their lower IQ, but from their lower average innate determination. Duckworth found that if you properly motivate the low IQ, you can improve their scores (some). Dweck’s work was just another way of motivating the low IQ. It probably won’t translate into lifelong success nor does it invalidate innate IQ (as Duckworth’s work shows).

          • T. AKA Ricky Raw January 30, 2013 at 4:50 pm

            JayMan said

            “Dweck found an example of what the study I cited found: part of the poor outcomes of low IQ individuals stem not just from their lower IQ, but from their lower average innate determination. Duckworth found that if you properly motivate the low IQ, you can improve their scores (some). Dweck’s work was just another way of motivating the low IQ. It probably won’t translate into lifelong success nor does it invalidate innate IQ (as Duckworth’s work shows).”

            Again, how does this invalidate what Dweck said or my argument? From the article, in Dweck’s own words:

            People with a growth mindset don’t necessarily believe everyone is the same or that anyone can be Einstein, but they understand that everyone can develop their abilities and that even Einstein wasn’t Einstein until he put in decades of dedicated labour.

            In this article there was no claim that you can dramatically turn low IQ people into Einstein IQ levels, just that hard work and determination does play a role that helps raise intelligence and hapiness levels, particularly in children. There was no claim that IQ doesn’t matter. The claim is that high IQ alone is not enough, and that even high IQ people need to do hard work to succeed. Also, neither Dweck, nor I, were trying to invalidate the concept of innate IQ. The point is that the mindset of basing your identity around your innate IQ is ALL THAT MATTERS and that hard work will somehow invalidate said identity is the problem. There was never a proposition by Dweck or myself that innate IQ doesn’t exist.

            So again, I ask how does your study invalidate Dweck’s findings?

            Since you like to educate people on fallacies, maybe you should reread your own post and see if you can find Strawman argument and Bifurcation fallacy. Someone arguing that hard work matters is not the same as someone saying that innate IQ doesn’t exist, that genetics can place limits on what you can do, or that you can turn everyone into Einsteins.

            It’s the equivalent of someone saying that anyone who says that hard work in the gym can improve anyone’s physique to some degree and that even the people with the best bodybuilding genetics still have to work hard in the gym. Just because the person is saying that hard work in the gym can improve anyone’s physique and that hard work is very, very important no matter what your innate genetic gifts doesn’t somehow mean that person must believe that genetics don’t matter and that everyone has the genetics to get the exact same physiques.

            Stop trying to condescendingly concern troll and educate other people about fallacies if you insist on falling prey to them yourself.

          • JayMan January 30, 2013 at 10:57 pm

            @Ricky Raw:

            T, I hope you’re not taking any of this personally, because I actually enjoy my discussions with you. You’re obviously a smart guy, and appear to be quite interested in this topic, so it’d great if you were to investigate it.

            “In this article there was no claim that you can dramatically turn low IQ people into Einstein IQ levels, just that hard work and determination does play a role that helps raise intelligence and hapiness levels, particularly in children.”

            Let’s be clear: the greater success they encounter might be making them more happy, but it’s not raising their intelligence.

            “There was no claim that IQ doesn’t matter. The claim is that high IQ alone is not enough, and that even high IQ people need to do hard work to succeed. Also, neither Dweck, nor I, were trying to invalidate the concept of innate IQ. The point is that the mindset of basing your identity around your innate IQ is ALL THAT MATTERS and that hard work will somehow invalidate said identity is the problem. There was never a proposition by Dweck or myself that innate IQ doesn’t exist.”

            And there was never a claim by me that you made any such claim.

            “So again, I ask how does your study invalidate Dweck’s findings?”

            I was just addressing Dweck’s work; specifically, that while her findings may be interesting, they’re probably not that horrendously significant in the big picture, but of course your mileage there may vary.

          • T. AKA Ricky Raw January 31, 2013 at 3:22 am

            Let’s be clear: the greater success they encounter might be making them more happy, but it’s not raising their intelligence.

            Dweck’s studies report actual increases in IQ scores, not just happiness. It’s in her studies if you follow the links. Teachers following her advice also claim to have added up to 30 points in IQ scores, although to be honest I haven’t done the work of substantiating those teacher claims. I have read her studies though about increasing IQ scores.

            Some of the other studies, for example Aronson and Good’s, discuss significant increases in math and verbal achievement test scores. These are not IQ tests, but presumably getting better at them is evidence of becoming smarter. The NY magazine article discusses a study by Blackwell (co-authored by Dweck) documenting rises in math scores among 700 students, with many minorities. The students with the growth mindsets improved their actual grades.

            Blackwell’s study can be found here and in it she mentions other similar studies that show increases in grades and standardized test scores. Blackwell’s study also is significant because it had high levels of participation by black and hispanic students.

            Why did you say that Dweck was only raising happiness levels and not intelligence? Unless what you mean is that IQ scores and improved math and english grades are not evidence of increased intelligence? I’m a little confused?

          • JayMan February 1, 2013 at 7:02 pm

            @Ricky Raw:

            “Dweck’s studies report actual increases in IQ scores, not just happiness. It’s in her studies if you follow the links. Teachers following her advice also claim to have added up to 30 points in IQ scores, although to be honest I haven’t done the work of substantiating those teacher claims. I have read her studies though about increasing IQ scores.”

            Please point me in the direction of where this finding was reported.

            “Blackwell’s study can be found here and in it she mentions other similar studies that show increases in grades and standardized test scores. Blackwell’s study also is significant because it had high levels of participation by black and hispanic students.”

            I read this study. She doesn’t follow the students of her experiment long enough to show if the effect she found lasted (I would strongly suspect that it would not).

          • T. AKA Ricky Raw February 2, 2013 at 8:30 pm

            JayMan said:

            Please point me in the direction of where this finding was reported.

            As I said in my original comment, I have not chased down and substantiated how the findings were compiled, but as for the claim, you can find the 30 points added to IQ scores claim here:
            http://teacherstoolbox.co.uk/T_Dweck.html

            I read this study. She doesn’t follow the students of her experiment long enough to show if the effect she found lasted (I would strongly suspect that it would not).

            She followed the students for two years. That’s pretty long. Two years is at least strong enough to admit the idea deserves further consideration rather than just dismiss it out of hand. Especially since over the two years, the improvement gap between the fixed mindset kids and the growth mindset kids continued to widen. That means toward the end of the two years the trend showed no signs of slowing down or dissipating.

            Also, given what research shows about the neuroplasticity of young brains, even up until teenage years, there is no reason not to suspect the trend would not have lasted. Those years are among the ages when brain plasticity is very, very high. So long as they kept up the work ethic and the incremental mindset, there is no reason to speculate that these changes would not have continued after the two years measured. There was another study conducted by neuroscientists that included brain scans of teens and tracked their IQs across four years. The study shows that not only did some students raise their IQ scores significantly over four years while some students had IQ scores drop, which shows that IQ score performance actually can rise or fall, regardless of earlier performance, they noticed that among teens whose IQ scores went up, there were actual physical brain changes that suggest that the changes would be lasting, so long as the children kept up the work of exercising and challenging their brains. I can’t find the study for free online, but here is a synopsis:
            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111020024329.htm

            Also, I don’t understand why you would take a study that covered a group of students over two years and showed that the trends were not slowing down across that two year gap and just breezily dismiss it with “that wasn’t long enough, doesn’t count” then add as proof that the changes wouldn’t last the sentence “(I would strongly suspect that it would not)” Just “strongly suspecting” something is meaningless as a basis for refuting something. For example I can point to a study that shows that when teen students raise their IQ scores over a four year period, their brain has significant structural changes via neuroplasticity. I don’t just say “I strongly suspect the changes will last.” Taken alone, our “strong suspicions” are meaningless when it comes to supporting or debunking anything and are evidence of nothing.

            If you have some study that shows that teen students, when experiencing significant gains in IQ scores, eventually lose those gains even when they maintain the same lifestyle that helped them achieve those gains in the first place, I’d gladly read the study, but just declaring “I strongly suspect” a study is flawed as a refutation with nothing else added doesn’t really give me much to work with in terms of responding.

          • JayMan February 6, 2013 at 10:29 pm

            “I have not chased down and substantiated how the findings were compiled, but as for the claim, you can find the 30 points added to IQ scores claim here:”

            Here’s the problem with that:
            “Explicit coaching – ‘teaching to the test’ – works even better.[5] When students repeatedly take identical versions of the same test, their scores skyrocket.”
            “The other major worry about the effect of education on IQ, however, is completely pragmatic. Suppose for the sake of argument that IQ were a perfect measure of genuine intelligence. When IQ goes up, genuine intelligence automatically rises in sync. Even in this scenario, a large effect of education on IQ would only be impressive if it were durable. In the short story ‘Flowers for Algernon,’ a mentally retarded man named Charlie Gordon receives an experimental treatment to cure his disability.[12] Charlie’s intelligence eventually rises to the level of genius. Tragically, though, the transformation is short-lived. By the end of the story, all of Charlie’s intellectual progress evaporates. In one sense, the experiment worked. In a deeper sense, the experiment failed.

            ‘Flowers for Algernon’ is science fiction, but life mirrors art. Making IQ higher is easy. Keeping IQ higher is hard. Researchers call this ‘fade-out.’ We see fade-out in early childhood education programs. After six years in the famous Milwaukee Project, experimental subjects’ IQs were 32 points higher than controls’. By age fourteen, this advantage had declined to 10 points.[13] In the Perry Preschool program, experimental subjects gained 13 points of IQ, but all of this vanished by age 8.[14] Head Start raises pre-schoolers’ IQs by a few points, but the gains disappear by the end of kindergarten.[15]”

            “She followed the students for two years. That’s pretty long. Two years is at least strong enough to admit the idea deserves further consideration rather than just dismiss it out of hand. Especially since over the two years, the improvement gap between the fixed mindset kids and the growth mindset kids continued to widen. That means toward the end of the two years the trend showed no signs of slowing down or dissipating.”

            Two years is hardly enough time, because the heritability (and the validity) of IQ increases with age, particularly over the childhood years, reaching maximal level in adults. Will these effects be still evident when the children grow up?

            “Also, given what research shows about the neuroplasticity of young brains, even up until teenage years, there is no reason not to suspect the trend would not have lasted.”

            Yes there is, as we see above. It would be advisable to familiarize yourself with the research before making such grand (and grossly erroneous) proclamations.

            “Those years are among the ages when brain plasticity is very, very high.”

            Actually, with all due respect, that’s largely bullshit.

            “There was another study conducted by neuroscientists that included brain scans of teens and tracked their IQs across four years. The study shows that not only did some students raise their IQ scores significantly over four years while some students had IQ scores drop, which shows that IQ score performance actually can rise or fall, regardless of earlier performance, they noticed that among teens whose IQ scores went up, there were actual physical brain changes that suggest that the changes would be lasting”

            First of all, a change over time, even a demonstrable physical change, doesn’t imply “plasticity”. Such changes could be completely genetic in nature. My hairline has changed considerably over the years, and those changes were largely genetically predetermined.

            Indeed, as noted in said article:

            “It is possible that the differences are due to some of the subjects being early or late developers”

            “Also, I don’t understand why you would take a study that covered a group of students over two years and showed that the trends were not slowing down across that two year gap and just breezily dismiss it with ‘that wasn’t long enough, doesn’t count'”

            The reason is that I’m familiar with the evidence on the nature of IQ. As I’ve noted, the totality of the evidence weighs strongly against what you’re trying to claim about Dweck’s work.

    • T. AKA Ricky Raw January 30, 2013 at 12:43 pm

      Another entire article about HBD which doesn’t discuss the science behind HBD, but rather how the author feels about HBD.

      I discussed plenty of research that pertains to HBD beliefs, including the belief you asserted in this comment thread that the HBD or fixed mindset is one that leads to better public policy.

      What you mean is “The author is not discussing the science that my favorite HBD blogs have provided me talking points for.”

      This is also relevant to Dweck’s research. She says how people with a fixed mindset are more concerned with looking smart and protecting their self-image than with trying new challenges. You want research discussed that you already have read about and have talking points ready for, just like the kids in Dweck’s study with the fixed mindset would rather keep taking the same test they knew inside and out over and over again than try a new, more challenging test they were unsure about because they might attempt it and fail it. Similarly, you don’t want to intellectually engage any study you already don’t know the talking points against. If you try it and fail, that threatens the self-image.

      I’ve provided links that will lead you to hundreds of studies, but you keep stamping your feet and complaining because I’m not providing the studies YOU prefer to talk about. If so, that’s fine, but don’t pretend I’m not providing any research or studies. Just say you don’t want to engage them for whatever reason.

  4. Robert January 29, 2013 at 11:35 am

    Can any HBDers point me to research about the heritability of extremely high black self-esteem?

    T. comes off like this one idiot cousin of mine who’s convinced of his own intellectual superiority even though he flunked out of college and works for his dad.

    • Abe January 29, 2013 at 2:35 pm

      I think the Dunning-Kruger effect sums it up pretty nicely. A bunch of people with zero scientific background telling themselves they know how heritability works better than the man who discovered DNA.

      • The Specimen January 30, 2013 at 2:54 am

        Oh, the irony…

        Watson was a structural biochemist. He and his collaborators solved the crystal structure of DNA. A lot has happened since then. Do you even know what modern geneticists do? Question for the HBDers, why don’t you work in genetics/biomedical informatics? It’s currently one of the hottest fields going on and pays very well. They give your spot at MIT to some low IQ gangbanger on some affirmative action shit?

        • T. AKA Ricky Raw January 30, 2013 at 12:48 pm

          The Specimen, exactly. Watson discovered the structure of DNA. It doesn’t mean that somehow every assertion he makes about genetic potential is now irrefutable. Watson gets in trouble for being a real-life troll that says inflammatory things based on extrapolations that go beyond the scope of the actual data. Being an expert on the structure of DNA doesn’t make him an expert on everything else associated with genetic potential and how it relates to public policy.

          Not just that, but even if one wants to rely on appeals to authority, there are plenty of scientists who have publicly decried Watson’s proclamations. Of course, HBDers will just say that Watson as a scientist was saying what he said based on hard science and uncomfortable truths, while the scientists who decried him were doing so solely on the basis of political correctness.

          • JayMan January 30, 2013 at 4:07 pm

            T, once again I refer you to my recent blog post.

            You are committing a double fallacy in your argument.

            My fiancee says that people don’t like it when one points out their logical fallacies, but knowledge intellectually sound and honest discourse is critically important.

            “Science” wasn’t saying that HBD is correct because Watson (or anyone else) says so. It is correct because of the evidence. You are accusing him of appealing to authority, which he isn’t doing. At the same time, by trying to say that Watson isn’t knowledgeable about HBD for whatever reason is committing an ad hominem. The truth of a claim doesn’t rest on the person making the claim, and attacking the person making the claim doesn’t invalidate said claim (just the same, a claim isn’t automatically true just because someone said it, even if that person is an expert talking in his field).

            This is fairly basic stuff. Please take heed when you seek to debate.

          • T. AKA Ricky Raw January 30, 2013 at 11:27 pm

            JayMan said:

            My fiancee says that people don’t like it when one points out their logical fallacies, but knowledge intellectually sound and honest discourse is critically important.

            You do realize when you presume to publicly educate me on the basics of debate and logical fallacies like I’m a child you’re engaging in the fallacy of Argument by Condescension? I didn’t see it in your list of fallacies and debate tactics, but you can see it at this link. Remember, honest discourse is critically important, so engaging in thinly veiled condescension via concern trolling by pretending to just be out to “help” and “educate” me should be off-limits. Don’t want to disappoint your fiancee, right?

            “Science” wasn’t saying that HBD is correct because Watson (or anyone else) says so. It is correct because of the evidence. You are accusing him of appealing to authority, which he isn’t doing.

            First off, I was responding to “Abe” not science, and that’s exactly what Abe was doing. His exact words were “A bunch of people with zero scientific background telling themselves they know how heritability works better than the man who discovered DNA.” That’s pretty much a textbook appeal to authority.

            At the same time, by trying to say that Watson isn’t knowledgeable about HBD for whatever reason is committing an ad hominem. The truth of a claim doesn’t rest on the person making the claim, and attacking the person making the claim doesn’t invalidate said claim (just the same, a claim isn’t automatically true just because someone said it, even if that person is an expert talking in his field).

            I never said Watson wasn’t an expert on HBD. As I think HBD is a discipline using sloppy reasoning to extrapolate conclusions not supported by the real data, I am quite sure he is a very big expert in it actually.

            Watson doesn’t get in trouble just for saying that IQ is heritable or that IQ evolved differently among different races in different country. Plenty of people say that and don’t get in as much trouble. Jared Diamond wrote a whole book on that premise. There are tons of studies, the ones that HBDers cite, that say different races have evidence of different average IQ levels and that say that IQ is heritable, yet the people conducting those studies don’t seem to attract as much controversy and sanctions as HBDers do. This is because many of these people don’t use these conclusions to troll, the way HBDers often do, by saying deliberately inflammatory and provocative statements, by baiting their peers at conferences during speeches, by stating their findings in the more careless, offensive ways possible. Watson’s constant real-life trolling and the faulty public policy statements he makes based on his data he is the cause of his problem more than his beliefs on DNA. Like he discussed genetic black potential then says things like “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”

            It’s like when people rewrite history and say Galileo was mistreated bad just because people didn’t agree with his science, when in fact many did agree with is theory and what actually got him in trouble was he did a lot of inflammatory, unnecessary baiting of important people.

            That’s what I meant when I said in my post that Watson’s problems did not stem from just sticking to established facts in his areas of expertise, it came from the public policy conclusions and inflammatory rhetoric he’s engaged in based on his findings. Simple research into all of his controversies will show that.

            That is not the same as an ad hominem argument, which is what you accuse me of.

            This is fairly basic stuff. Please take heed when you seek to debate.

        • Abe February 3, 2013 at 12:03 pm

          Watson is best known for discovering the structure of DNA, just as Pauling is best known for discovering alpha/beta sheet conformations. Are you presuming to tell me that both these chemists made no other contributions to science? I work in biochemistry – rna folding if you must know – and would happy to debate you on the science, but I doubt there would be any use. From your posts, I woud guess that you are in the statistical side of bioinformatics. Don’t confound your work with that of geneticists.

  5. science January 29, 2013 at 12:39 pm

    Robert,

    Ultimately to explain the gap in achievement you have to turn to nature or nurture. Either “the man” is keeping blacks down or they just are what they are.

    The standard black view is like my old black girlfriend. Whenever she failed at something it was because someone was racist and sexist. Got a bad grade? Certainly wasn’t because I was with you last night and all you did was watch TV and have sex instead of studying. It’s because the professor is a racist. Everything that went wrong in her life was someone elses fault. Racist sexists were everywhere.

    Either you believe in the science (that black people don’t achieve equal to whites because of their genes) or you have to buy into that girls worldview that the reason for continued black failure generation after generation is because of some white dude conspiracy. Even if you endorse some mixed view it doesn’t change much.

    T talks about HBDers blaming others for failures. Yet, the people I most associate this behaivor with are blacks who believe in ever present racism to explain the state of their community.

    The most sophisticated HBDers in America are successful upper middle class people with strong backgrounds in science and math. On top of that nearly all of Asia, including its elites, are proponents of HBD. Isreali elites and most citizens are HBD advocates as well. Really, the second you get out of the anglo-sphere everyone is HBD aware.

    • T. AKA Ricky Raw January 30, 2013 at 12:59 pm

      @science:

      “Robert,
      Ultimately to explain the gap in achievement you have to turn to nature or nurture. Either “the man” is keeping blacks down or they just are what they are.”

      You know, just choosing the screenname “science” doesn’t magically make your assertions more authoritative or scientific you know. And this statement of yours is a prime example of the black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking you find in narcissism.

      You have to turn to nature OR nurture to explain something. You have to choose “racism” or “genetic deficiency.” It can’t be a combination of nature AND nurture. It can’t be dozens and dozens of real-life factors at play, it can only be racism OR genetics, and out of those you can only choose ONE.

      This thinking is very important to notice, because if someone thinks like this, it affects all their arguments. If it has to be nature OR nurture, and the two are mutually exclusive and can’t both be possible, the person then thinks that he’s proven his point just by providing a study proving genetics matters. Someone who realizes that genetics AND environment and hard work matters can see a study saying that genetics is important and say “Hey, that’s fine, but proving genetics matters still doesn’t disprove that hard work and environment doesn’t matter as well.” If you’re operating under the all-or-nothing, one-or-the-other fallacious style of thinking, you believe that just by having studies proving the importance of genetics, you have just “proven” that nurture and hard work are irrelevant, since only one or the other can possible be true in such a mind. Keep this in mind whenever you read the commenter “science” claim that science proves the HBD point. To him, proving genetics matters, something none of us anti-HBDers debate, is the same as proving it’s the main or only thing that matters.

      Similarly, if you have an all-or-nothing, one-or-the-other fallacious way of thinking, you can never admit the other side has a valid point at all, because in such a mind admitting the important of nurture would somehow be the same as proclaiming that the “blank slaters” win.

      There is an interplay between genetics and environment that is very hard to segregate, as the area of epigenetics shows us increasingly the more we study it.

  6. Lara January 29, 2013 at 12:45 pm

    VK,
    There are still many people who completely reject any differences between the races as racism. I know these people.

    • Virgle Kent January 29, 2013 at 12:56 pm

      Lara,

      Agreed. But I don’t think they reject the differences they reject that nothing can be done about it. There are those people who believe there isn’t a difference in ability to learn or attempt to learn or even fucking try. I think what get’s me is people who believe in HBD and write other groups off as a lost cause all together. Because one group isn’t as good as another in an IQ test means we should forget about them all together. Let’s not waste any resources in educating that class of people, let’s not waste time trying to find out how to help them learn in another way or a more effective way, let’s just write them off from the start because of an IQ test which means EVERYTHING fuck any social circumstances. Let’s just sit back and feel good about ourselves that we are not them.

      “Sometimes” it looks like HBD believers think that there can be a society where the group with the highest IQ can separate themselves and move on and function apart from the lessor group. But I’m old school and naive. I guess with my low IQ I believe that as a society, you’re only as strong as your weakest link.

      • Spoos in August January 29, 2013 at 3:51 pm

        IQ is not the strongest predictor of success: doubling the weight of the verbal section on the AFQT gives a better correlation than the standard AFQT, or indeed non-verbal IQ tests like Raven’s Progressive Matrices.

        However, you’d have to figure out how to get lower-IQ kids with generally low future time orientation (and attention spans) to read more, and write more. Articulate presentation of an idea is key to success in most fields.

        A big part of the problem is that the blank-slate guys and gals think we can socially engineer our way to a homogenous society; this approach to policy has undoubtedly compromised the futures of many young men (and women) via misguided approaches to education, and government-funded destruction of family integrity and shared cultural values. They’re not helping the left side of the bell curve (our growing permanent dependent class), even though they think they are.

        And if you disagree with the statist progressives, you’re a racist, a fascist, or a bitter clinger whose family needs a drone-strike posthaste.

  7. Eryximachus January 29, 2013 at 12:56 pm

    Robert:

    It’s the dunning kruger phenomenon. Dumb blacks and whites and everyone behave this way. As much as I’m disappointed with Ricky’s inability to address the obvious injustice of blaming white people for the failures of low-IQ blacks, I’ll be the first to say many of the criticisms of blacks are not specific to them really. The problem is about 25% of whites are dumb, but it’s more like 50% for blacks. So it seems much worse.

    But the problem is people on the left hand of the bell curve don’t have the intelligence to understand their own weaknesses because they can’t imagine being better. I’ve met plenty smart blacks who are as insecure as any nerd. In some ways, it’s probably worse for smart blacks.

    Which probably explains Ricky’s take here.

  8. science January 29, 2013 at 1:46 pm

    “In some ways, it’s probably worse for smart blacks.

    Which probably explains Ricky’s take here.”

    Bingo. I wouldn’t want to admit to HBD if it hurt the status of myself and my tribe either. Whatever my disagreements with Jayman you have to respect his committment to reality based science.

    I feel bad for the guy, but I feel worse for the vast majority that are being hurt by blank slatist public policy.

  9. Aurini January 29, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    While I’m a huge fan of your writing on personality disorders, this article smacks of ad hominem… despite the fact that I completely agree with you.

    I generally construct my rejection of White Nationalism as being a rejection of cultural marxism (given that I write more about politics than personality), but cultural marxism in all its forms ultimately stems from a damaged amygdala, with an accompanying Schedule II affect (this is true for the leaders, anyway – there are many useful idiots duped into supporting it). The Stormfront crowd in particular can be aptly described as a bunch of loser whites who can only feel better about themselves by bashing blacks.

    That being said, there is a huge amount of evidence to support HBD (as you admit yourself in the comments above), and you’re implicitly lumping in *all* of those who write about it under the same umbrella of crazy.

    I can think of several who don’t strike me as deeply flawed: John Derbyshire spoke courageously, offering good advice about raising his kids, despite the effect on his career; the blog “Those Who Can See” has the subtitle “Human Biodiversity meets humane, sensible public policy.”

    These are not hateful, evil people writing this, but rather, sane and compassionate ones who often care about the welfare of other races.

    Meanwhile those who attack HBD are unprincipled manipulators, out to advance a social agenda for their own benefit. Are there occasional ego problems amongst the HBDers? Certainly – but their enemies are the most destructive sorts of sociopaths out there.

    In this post you’re attacking the powerless, and adding ammunition to the powerful. Doing so is easy, and a cheap way to win accolades.

    I’m going to end this here before I turn your ad hominem back onto you – I prefer to let my arguments stand for themselves.

  10. YOHAMI January 29, 2013 at 2:19 pm

    Good stuff.

  11. YOHAMI January 29, 2013 at 2:27 pm

    ..still doesnt mean HBD is wrong. I dont know anything about them, and didnt really learn anything about their theories or why they are wrong. I learned that they might be sick and shame fueled individuals, prone to bullshitting and lying.

    Still, as in the case with feminists, capitalists, marxists, leftists, rightigsts etc, I’d prefer to examine the actual ideas and debunk them, rather than debunking the people expressing the ideas via shame attacks.

    • T. AKA Ricky Raw January 30, 2013 at 12:19 pm

      @yohami

      ..still doesnt mean HBD is wrong. I dont know anything about them, and didnt really learn anything about their theories or why they are wrong. I learned that they might be sick and shame fueled individuals, prone to bullshitting and lying.

      That’s not all I’m doing.

      First, one of the things HBDers claim is that IQ differences are unchangeable and that IQ levels are impossible to raise. Some of Dweck’s studies I listed above that involved young children showed the opposite result. There were kids who improved their IQ scores with a growth mindset while kids who started out with high IQ scores had them stall or even drop the more they committed to their fixed mindsets. So that’s at least one belief they have that may or may not be wrong. I’m not saying these findings automatically debunk everything the HBDers believe, because I’m not an all-or-nothing thinker like them, but it does show that the science isn’t as one-sided in their favor as they pretend.

      Second, a major HBD premise is that if people bought into their ideas about genetic determinism, and based public policy on this fixed mindset based on genetic determism, it would be some kind of great utopia and the improvements would be incredible. Thus, showing that fixed mindsets cause more problems than they fix, both for those who have fixed mindsets centered around an identity of being superior and those who have fixed mindsets centered around an identity of being inferior (the focus of the next installment) proves the opposite of a major HBD belief.

      Third, HBDers are notorious “concern trolls,” and often try to win over people by a narrative that they are just unbiased, objective people crusading to push uncomfortable truths because the science is irrefutable and denying these truths is harming society far more than helping it. It would be like trying to work with someone you think is an independent, objective investigator to find the facts to clear your name, only to find out he’s secretly working for the prosecuting attorney and has an agenda of seeing you go to jail. It’s VERY important to know someone’s agenda before even bothering to debate them, which is why I am starting with this angle. Since you like game blogs, I’ll provide a game example: say someone has a narcissistic, drama queen girlfriend who picks fights all day with him over trivial shit. Would you focus first on advising him on how to gather evidence and better engage in the petty arguments such as proving he statistically does leave the toilet seat down more often than he leaves it up? Or would you rather advise him to realize that his girlfriend is a narcissistic drama queen and to engage the arguments is just to feed her need for drama, and that what the argument is supposedly about is not what it’s really about, but rather it’s about her narcissistic need to get validation and to dominate through drama and shaming? You need to understand someone’s goals in an argument before choosing to engage in the argument, are they arguing because they’re trying to resolve a truth or are they just trying to win an argument at any cost?

      So three major HBD beliefs are addressed in this post, and research is provided against them:

      (1) that hard work doesn’t matter nearly as much as natural ability does,

      (2) HBD policies of basic public policy on and institutionalizing fixed mindsets would improve society immensely, and

      (3) HBDers are altruists interested in helping society and are not motivated by self-interest or racism. This last point is not a minor one. Debating someone without understand their true goals or what they consider to be rules of fair play in a debate is insane.

      • Adam January 30, 2013 at 11:27 pm

        Do HBDers really say that IQ levels are impossible to raise? Considering IQ levels seem to have risen over time, that would seem to be an over exaggeration of their beliefs. As you keep saying, it’s not an all or nothing situation. IQ obviously is a large determining factor in life success, but it’s hardly the only one.

        You and Virgle both insist that you agree that genetics plays a certain role in development, so you’re not specifically disproving HBD. If anything, it seems as though you would agree with parts of it.

        Is this really an attack on HBD, or just on the people that use it to feel better about themselves and push a racist agenda? Because, so far, there’s been a lot of discussion about the psychology of HBDers and little on the specifics of the study itself.

        I’m curious; are there parts of this field that you find valid?

  12. GreenDolphinStreet January 29, 2013 at 2:28 pm

    Let’s all be real here: the target of this post series is Roissy and his followers. I don’t think an ad hominem attack is necessarily illegitimate in regards to Roissy, because 1. He’s clearly a narcissist, and 2. His interpretations of studies are often very lazy, 3. He’s a big hypocrite, as evidences suggests that he hangs and profits off of the very SWPL crowd he claims to despise. and no; just because he would probably admit that himself doesn’t let him off the hook.

    If it’s not blacks he’s claiming to be superior to, than it’s “herbs”; than it’s feminists; than it’s mainstream conservatives; than it’s white proles, etc.

    And T, I think even absent of HBD, the manosphere has a habit of masking their own social failures by claiming it’s the result of some brave political agenda, whether it’s standing up against minorities, feminists, or what is perceived to feminized men. Here is a prime example of how one’s “red pill” thinking is used to assert superiority to mask personal failure: http://apocalypsecometh.com/red-pill-isolation/

  13. YOHAMI January 29, 2013 at 4:00 pm

    “Let’s all be real here: the target of this post series is Roissy and his followers.”

    Ah.

  14. Mark Manson January 29, 2013 at 8:34 pm

    Man, you could keep going and going with this… a few other things research has shown that these manosphere clowns don’t get:

    – IQ is arbitrary and highly criticized as a useful form of cognitive measurement.
    – In longitudinal studies, IQ correlates very little with professional success, and not at all with happiness or well-being.
    – IQ is not entirely genetic. A child’s environment, both physical and emotional can raise and lower his/her IQ as they develop.
    – Neuro-plasticity and epigenetics have shown that not only does our neurological wiring change throughout our lives based on our environment and experiences, but our genetic code itself can be influenced over a lifetime.
    – Developmental psychologists almost uniformly subscribe to the idea of “multiple intelligences” these days.
    – Ironically, low IQ is correlated with racist and sexist beliefs.

    I’m glad someone is starting to call out the manosphere on their bigotry and pseudo-science. It’s a bunch of angry white men who sound like they know what they’re talking about, but when you really dig into it, their knowledge of the science is flimsy and/or non-existent.

    • JayMan January 29, 2013 at 10:22 pm

      “IQ is arbitrary and highly criticized as a useful form of cognitive measurement.”
      Wrong.
      “In longitudinal studies, IQ correlates very little with professional success, and not at all with happiness or well-being.”
      Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
      “IQ is not entirely genetic. A child’s environment, both physical and emotional can raise and lower his/her IQ as they develop.”
      A bad environment (say with malnutrition or with lead poisoning) can
      lower IQ, a “good” environment can’t raise it past its genetic potential, however.
      “Developmental psychologists almost uniformly subscribe to the idea of “multiple intelligences” these days.”
      Wrong, see above.
      “Ironically, low IQ is correlated with racist and sexist beliefs.”
      True, but so what?

    • science January 30, 2013 at 1:25 am

      Every bullet point here is refuted by the actual science. If you actually want to know more there are several sites that explore HBD issues with a fine scientific lense. I recommend Jayman, hbdchick, Steve Hsu, Razib Kahn, Audacious Epigone, and many others if you want.

      Many of your objections are actually the results of only reading parts of studies. For instance, Steve Hsu’s blog will discuss different intelligence metrics in depth. There are better ways of measuring intelligence then some of the older IQ tests (Steve will talk about ‘g’ or general intelligence factor). However, these results are pretty well correlated with the old IQ and the results of measuring ‘g’ accross races will be roughly the same as talking about IQ. This additional research helps a great deal in understanding certain intelligence strengths of the different races (say which is better at verbal or mathematical reasoning), but all it will do for your purposes is confirm the basic HBD narrative of Jew>Asian>White>>Hispanic>>Black for ‘g’.

      In addition Steve will discuss the high correlation between ‘g’ and both academic and life success. He will back it up with hard data, not opinions or wishing what he wants to see. In fact many of his conclusions will be that the world doesn’t work the way we wish.

      Of course we all know this stuff already. When I went to smart kid school the vast majority of my classmates were Jews and Asians with one black kid and zero hispanic kids (despite the president of our school being hispanic). We all have steryotypes of Asian kids that are good at math. Steryotypes are steryotypes because they tend to be true. And now we have the science to back up what we see and experience in the real world every single day of our lives.

      HBD denial, which is basically asking people to pretend that their experience and observations are completely wrong, is bound to fail eventually.

      • T. AKA Ricky Raw January 30, 2013 at 11:55 am

        For the umpteenth time, no one is denying that there are genetic differences in races. What we’re denying is the immutability issue and this idea that that’s how it’s always doomed to be no matter what actions people take.

        • Mr. Rational January 30, 2013 at 1:10 pm

          no one is denying that there are genetic differences in races. What we’re denying is the immutability issue

          Are you saying you can turn Congoids into Swedes without swapping out the genes?  Please, cite an example!  Social policy in many countries has been to try to turn Africans and aborigines into Europeans through acculturation.  The results of this have been far below expectations.

          we’re denying … this idea that that’s how it’s always doomed to be no matter what actions people take.

          Can we agree that having every NAM child adopted and raised by an advantaged White family is an impossible level of effort, let alone anything beyond that?  Show of hands?

          I ask that, because that is exactly what was tested on a small scale in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, and not only did the racial differences in IQ persist… they roughly followed the expected trend with regard to blended racial heritage.  In other words, an extreme of effort far beyond what we can do in general failed to eliminate the racial differences.  That means EXACTLY that this is how things are fated (“doomed”, in your words) to be.  They are immutable.

          This means that the entire basis of Affirmative Action and “disparate impact” law is wrong and unjust, and they must be abolished post haste.

          • T. AKA Ricky Raw January 30, 2013 at 2:22 pm

            Mr. Rational said:


            Are you saying you can turn Congoids into Swedes without swapping out the genes?

            GEEZ

            Once again, this is the all-or-nothing, black-or-white thinking I’m discussing. If I believe that hard work matters, then that must mean according to you I believe in a hypothetical as extreme as you express? I had JUST finished saying that I agree that genes matter, but where I disagree is with the premise that genes are all that matter and can’t be compensated for, and you immediately respond with a hypothetical THAT CAN ONLY BE BELIEVED BY SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES GENES DON’T MATTER, A PREMISE I JUST FINISHED SAYING (AGAIN) THAT I DON’T BELIEVE.

            But see, this is a key to the all-or-nothing, black-and-white, rigid thinking of narcissists. Narcissistic people have a hard time simultaneously holding and effectively reconciling conflicting evidence into a workable synthesis.

            Thus, if I say hard work matters, I must somehow be saying that genetics don’t matter at all in the mind of Mr. Rational. So he comes up with a totally ridiculous hypothetical that can only be believed by someone who thinks genetics are totally irrelevant and that hard work can accomplish anything. No matter how many times VK and I say that there are genetic differences between races and that genetics play a role in things, he responds to that comment with “OH YEAH? THEN YOU MUST OBVIOUSLY BELIEVE IN THIS HYPOTHETICAL I’M PROPOSING THAT SUGGESTS THAT GENETICS PLAY ZERO ROLE AND THAT HARD WORK IS EVERYTHING!”

            I can’t emphasize this enough, because it so proves my point. I JUST said that genetic differences between races exist, and that genetics matter, and the hypothetical he immediately responds with that he thinks illustrates what I just said is one where genetics are totally irrelevant! Is this a reading comprehension issue? Intellectual dishonesty? Maybe, but I think it’s just narcissistic thinking.

            Not only can he not do anything that isn’t black-or-white, all-or-nothing thinking, he projects his mindset onto others and assume they have the same black-or-white, all-or-nothing thinking as well. So no matter how I say I believe both genetics AND hard work play a role and it’s an interplay between the two, he immediately responds with a “blank slate” hypothetical that no one who believes in both genetics and environment like I said I do would possibly endorse.

            This is why these guys keep trying to convince VK and me that there are genetic differences and that genes matter, despite us acknowledging over and over that they do, and why they act as if getting us to admit that would somehow validate ALL of their premises, even though that isn’t the case. See, because VK and I acknowledge the role of hard work and environment, their minds can’t help processing it as us saying that we reject everything about the importance of genetics. Because they think in either-or, all-or-nothing terms, they can’t fathom that we don’t as well. And because in the either-or, all-or-nothing mindset accepting one premise a person has means you must accept ALL of their premises, that people are either all good or all bad (also called splitting, a common narcissistic defense), this is why they believe that getting us to accept one HBD premise, that genes matter, somehow will obligate us to accept ALL their premises. Like all narcissists, they can’t fathom that other people’s minds can work differently than theirs.

          • science January 30, 2013 at 8:19 pm

            If the share of the responsiblity attributal to culture so swamped genetics we would have expected black achievement to improve by now. Certainly it improved for other previous oppressed groups (Asians, even my own Irish people). However, we have a reason to explain that (genetics).

            Small genetic difference I’ll give a break on. But we are talking about a massive black/white differential in IQ. There is no cultural solution to that in terms of closing the socio-economic achievement gap.

            I can understand how people were optimistic in the 60s/70s. It is a product of culture and genetics, and was hard to tell how much of each. We didn’t know as much about genes and we knew the cultural practices seemed cruel. So we did what we thought was the right thing. My own father marched for civil rights even back when that meant getting the hose and the dogs. He was a big believer.

            However, its been decades and there has been no progress. With all that has changed, with all the advantages offered, you’d think you’ld see some progress (as you did with Asians). However, its actually gone in reverse. Blacks are worse then ever by any metric you use. Even my Dad pretty much lose hope on this and changed his mind. Its hard to keep attributing this to racism or culture after all this time. Combine that with undebatable (if you would put the effort into researching the science) advances in genetic knowledge and the following statement isn’t up for debate much more:

            Whatever the actual split in wieght between cultural and genetic factors responsible for the black/white achievement gap in socio-economic performance it is clear that the genetic component is large and unchanging enough to be a substantial consideration at the public policy level.

          • T. AKA Ricky Raw January 30, 2013 at 9:53 pm

            science said:

            “Combine that with undebatable (if you would put the effort into researching the science) advances in genetic knowledge and the following statement isn’t up for debate much more”

            A word to the wise “science.” Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they didn’t put the effort into doing the research. That’s egotistical thinking, the idea that your logic is so infallible and so evident that the only way someone can possibly disagree with you is if they lacks the same evidence you did or lacks the intellectual horsepower to process that evidence. Believe it or not, it’s possible for someone intelligent to read the same evidence you do and come to contrary conclusions. Especially if they are not approaching the evidence purely from a viewpoint of advocacy like you are but as a truthseeker.

            For example, I’m sure we’ve read a lot of similar research. Unlike you, however, I’m not only interested in reading research when it helps my cause. I try to synthesize all research into my thinking rather than treat uncomfortable research as something I must prepare a plausible defense against. Hence, maybe our difference in opinion isn’t from me “avoiding” the science but from me avoiding less science than you so I have a more rounded view.

            For example we’re at over 70 comments now and you are arguing as passionately as ever, yet you still have not seriously engaged a single piece of research I’ve linked to in the article nor have shown any interest at all in doing so. If you were to look at all the things I linked to, then look at the bibliographies of those studies and books, you would end up with hundreds of peer-reviewed research articles and studies and dozens of books. You’ve still shown no interest in anything but steering me to talk about studies and examples you already have ready as talking points and are obviously comfortable with (and I’ve still engaged them anyway).

            So who is the one “avoiding” research and science again?

          • science January 31, 2013 at 1:28 pm

            I’ve responded to your claim below.

          • Mr. Rational February 1, 2013 at 3:07 am

            If I believe that hard work matters, then that must mean according to you I believe in a hypothetical as extreme as you express? I had JUST finished saying that I agree that genes matter, but where I disagree is with the premise that genes are all that matter and can’t be compensated for

            I would NEVER argue that hard work does not matter.  But the ability to focus, and to defer pleasure, is going to be a big factor in that hard work, no?  This is why people with future time preference come out on top.

            Then there’s “compensation”.  Obviously, if you’re going to teach compensatory strategies for an advantage that’s distributed unequally between races, that compensation has to be taught only to those lacking the advantage… which means discriminating racially (or at least “disparate impact”).  Last, how do you keep those who have the genetic advantage from just amplifying it using whatever methods work for them?  The only way you’d make Mexicans equal to Blacks at basketball would be with growth-enhancing hormones.  How would you keep the Blacks from using growth enhancers too?  You can see that this quickly becomes a nightmare.

            But see, this is a key to the all-or-nothing, black-and-white, rigid thinking of narcissists. Narcissistic people have a hard time simultaneously holding and effectively reconciling conflicting evidence into a workable synthesis.

            There you go with the ad hominem; when someone takes you to task with pointed questions, you label them “narcissistic” and dismiss the rest of the argument.  That’s the essence of all the things from the “studies” you’ve quoted, too.  Everything is all “HBD-believers have personality disorders” and are otherwise Bad People… trying to prevent anyone from noticing that not one shred of evidence has been marshalled to show that HBD doesn’t exist, which is merely assumed.  If HBD does exist, its proponents are merely recognizing a truth that is currently taboo among the Left.  “Personality disorder” is a kinder, gentler way of saying “heretic”.

            Thus, if I say hard work matters, I must somehow be saying that genetics don’t matter at all in the mind of Mr. Rational.

            Not at all.  There is just the inconvenient fact that willpower is a limited resource, and hard work applied to one thing cannot be spent elsewhere; there are only so many hours in a day.  There’s also the fact that if hard work is required to do something, there are people who simply won’t.  Those who can do it easily will be far less likely to fail due to lack of strong motivation.

            I can’t emphasize this enough, because it so proves my point. I JUST said that genetic differences between races exist, and that genetics matter, and the hypothetical he immediately responds with that he thinks illustrates what I just said is one where genetics are totally irrelevant! Is this a reading comprehension issue? Intellectual dishonesty? Maybe, but I think it’s just narcissistic thinking.

            Yet you’re the one claiming there ought to be “egalitarianism” without defining exactly what you mean, but implying you expect equality of outcomes rather than opportunities.  In practice, that means all sorts of coercive and even punitive “levelling” measures; communist systems have never worked without them.  Just because you don’t mention them explicitly doesn’t mean you can ignore the lessons of history.

            If you wouldn’t allow such things, I’d love to see what you have in mind and what you’d do if the results turned out less egalitarian than you wanted them to be.

            Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they didn’t put the effort into doing the research. That’s egotistical thinking, the idea that your logic is so infallible and so evident that the only way someone can possibly disagree with you is if they lacks the same evidence you did or lacks the intellectual horsepower to process that evidence.

            Yet your first post is a load of psychoanalytical claims asserting major character flaws in people who only make factual assertions, which ought to be addressed on their merits and need to be proven false before any claim of lack of character can be properly considered.  It seems you haven’t gotten over your own bar yet.

  15. JayMan January 30, 2013 at 12:32 am

    Here you go, written for you guys and others who argue similarly:

    Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit « JayMan’s Blog

  16. ben316 January 30, 2013 at 1:36 am

    “Image maintenance, with in the case of HBDers is displayed by always trying to win arguments online at any cost and never admitting when they’re wrong and by constantly trumpeting their own benefits. ”

    You will find this behavior among anyone arguing politics online.

    “Being focused on competition, which in the case of HBDers is racial IQ competition. Tearing down others, which in the case of HBDers means other races”

    Hbders don’t tear down other races. Hbders write about the differences between the races. For example: White HBD bloggers don’t shy away from discussing West African superiority at short distance; or discussing East African Superiority at long distance; or discussing Jewish achievement ; or discussing Asian achievement.

    • T. AKA Ricky Raw January 30, 2013 at 11:47 am

      Hbders don’t tear down other races. Hbders write about the differences between the races. For example: White HBD bloggers don’t shy away from discussing West African superiority at short distance; or discussing East African Superiority at long distance; or discussing Jewish achievement ; or discussing Asian achievement.

      What HBDers give with one hand, they take away with the other. Blacks have higher testosterone so they are better at sports an HBDer will say on one hand, but they will also argue that blacks have so much testosterone that it’s arguably too much, leading to increased criminality, uglier women, increased aggression, etc. So the net effect is still that blacks are inferior, because even though they have more testosterone on average, for every good result it provides blacks, it provides lots more bad results. Similarly, Asians are acknowledged to be smarter, but HBDers also point out that they are almost too smart to the point that it renders them social misfits, also despite their higher IQs, they are not good at innovation and tend to excel just at rote memorization, plus because they are so low in testosterone they will never be “alpha” enough,

      I call this the Goldilocks Tactic: “Blacks have higher testosterone, but it’s actually TOO much. Meanwhile, Asians have too little. White guys? Just right. Asians have higher IQs, but it’s actually TOO high and they don’t use it well. Blacks have too little IQ. White guys? Just right.”

      So stop that junk about “Oh, but we acknowledge strengths of other races, therefore we are not racist.” Even when acknowledging the strength of other races, you still find a way to turn that strength into a weakness and make yourselves look good.

      • Virgle Kent January 30, 2013 at 12:21 pm

        Ouch!

      • science January 30, 2013 at 7:46 pm

        “What HBDers give with one hand, they take away with the other”

        Because different environments promoted some traits and hindered others. This is at the core of HBD. Why is this a surprise?

        IQ is expensive in evolutionary terms. Should we be at all surprised there was some trade off? This seems to fit right in with HBD theory.

        Again, this is non-controversial in other parts of the world. In Japan when I talk to people there they take it as a given that Japanese are better at math then whites but less creative. That they are more disciplined and harmonious but less individualistic. This isn’t “racism” (omg evil) in Asia. It’s just the basic facts of life anyone can see with their eyes.

        People in Japan understand that their own culture is optimized for the evolved cognitive and social inheritence of their people. They understand that it has strengths and weaknesses. And they also understand that because they are unique compared to others that others may not fit in well with thier system which has been optimized for their own people. That’s why they don’t allow immigration.

        Japanese understand that people are fundamentally different at cultural, ethnic, and yes even genetic levels. They craft public policy with that in mind.

        Are Japanese people superior or inferior to whites? Well, they are better at some things and worse at others. It’s probably better to say they are different rather then better or worse. They built modern first world countries that do well in all sorts of metrics we say we care about. And I feel a lot better about their future then ours. Any honest conversation you have with close Asian friends nearly everyone will agree with this.

        Blacks are clearly better at some things then other races. They are clearly worse at some things then other races.

        When we discuss whether a race is better or worse it is not based on the characteristics of the race (those are genetically given and unchangeable). It’s based on the value you assign to those characteristics. So 2000 years ago IQ mattered for shit and being athletic mattered a lot. Today not so much.

        If your complaining that people are judging other races for better or worse its because you’ve assigned low value to your races positive characteristics and high value to its negative characterstics. This is easy to do in a world where socio-economic success is pretty much the main way we measure success and blacks have failed in this metric either in other cultures or in creating their own in the modern age. However, its the decision you made. And its a decision public policy makers are making (to the detriment of many).

        The science dictates the characteristics. Your the one that decided that means some are superior or inferior as people based on those characteristics. I make no claims about peoples existential worth, but I do understand that certain public policies have different effects based on the traits of the population they are being implemented on.

  17. FredR January 30, 2013 at 10:14 am

    I suppose any group of people that spends a lot of time talking about taboo topics is going to be psychologically abnormal in some way.

  18. T. AKA Ricky Raw January 30, 2013 at 3:00 pm

    Mr. Rational said:

    “Can we agree that having every NAM child adopted and raised by an advantaged White family is an impossible level of effort, let alone anything beyond that? Show of hands?”

    First off, I’d have to agree with the premise that advantaged, white families adopting and raising black children is the only or even best possible option for improving black performance. Since I in no way believe that, it’s totally irrelevant to me whether or not it’s possible for every white family to adopt black children.

    Mr. Rational said:

    I ask that, because that is exactly what was tested on a small scale in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, and not only did the racial differences in IQ persist… they roughly followed the expected trend with regard to blended racial heritage. In other words, an extreme of effort far beyond what we can do in general failed to eliminate the racial differences. That means EXACTLY that this is how things are fated (“doomed”, in your words) to be. They are immutable.

    First off, I am going to discuss such findings in a later installment, but I’ll touch on it here in the comments:

    This is what I mean when I say that HBDers take data and extrapolate unsupported conclusions from that data, then when people object to it they claim that the people are against science or data, when what they’re actually against is cherrypicked, sloppily-analyzed data and the unsupported conclusions that the sloppiness leads to.

    You make the declaration that “this proves immutability” like it’s an established fact, when that’s not what all the data shows.

    Consider this for example: African and Caribbean immigrants often outperform on average African-American children. Many of them grew up in all-black families, in all-black communities, and were educated by black teachers. They come to this country and not only outperform many African-American students, including middle-class African-Americans raised by white middle-class families.

    i>If it was all about genes and racial makeup, why would this be, especially given that African-Americans often have far more Caucasian genes in them than African and Caribbean students? There are plenty of examples around the world of all-black communities where education is highly valued and where people from those communities are able to be competitive in challenging programs in American universities.

    So the data only says what you says it does when you look at it selectively and sloppily. When you gather all the data with an open minded, you actually see it’s not as open-and-shut, closed case as HBDers make out. Now you can plausibly consider other factors, like do the kids in foreign countries not operate under the same stereotype burdens that domestic African-American children labor under? Stereotypes are another form of fixed mindset, except in the negative sense, so then once again Dweck’s research comes into play. Another factor is, what are the family value systems in the African and Caribbean countries that contribute? What are differences in self-perception in Africans and Caribbean students and in African-American students that may account for the differences? And so on and so on.

    The point is, if Africans and Caribbeans have a higher proportion of black genes on average than African-Americans and are raised in black families and taught by black teachers, they should be faring worse academically than African-American students who are raised in either black or white households according to the HBD premise of genetic immutability.

    Also, studies show that with the children of African and Caribbean immigrants who are born in America, the achievement gap is less and these American-born children start performing closer to the African-American counterparts. By the time one looks at grandchildren of black immigrants, the gap is even smaller. Same genes, yet changes in environments and circumstances change results.

    However, if you’re an HBDer, you just take one transracial adoption study, use that bit of data that makes you feel good, and declare case closed! Immutability proven! Intellectually lazy, intellectually dishonest, self-serving to the ego, and typical HBD tactics.

    Mr Rational said:

    This means that the entire basis of Affirmative Action and “disparate impact” law is wrong and unjust, and they must be abolished post haste.

    First off, it doesn’t conclusively prove genetic determinism and immutability once you acount for other data and observations, as I’ve already demonstrated.

    Second, even if it did, I disagree with the premise that Affirmative Action is based on a hard work, incremental mindset anyway. If anything, Affirmative Action is more based on a theory of genetic inferiority than on a premise of equal capacity.

    Under Affirmative Action, an Asian or Indian person who immigrates to this country and barely speaks the language at all and is totally unacquainted with the culture does not need special help at all, in the least. Meanwhile, the black person who is born in this country, knows the culture, speaks the language, and has been educated from birth in this country DOES need special help. This remains the case even if he was adopted by a white family his whole life.

    So what’s the implication there, even though no one who makes policy explicitly says it? The implication is that there is a natural deficiency in black students that is not present in other races. The implication is that no matter what his circumstances, the black person will always need help and be challenged.

    If anything, an agenda of pushing that black people are capable of many of the things white people are capable and that achievement gaps can be improved upon would actually HURT the Affirmative Action movement more than help it.

    This idea that HBD is needed in order to get rid of Affirmative Action simply doesn’t make sense. If anything the opposite is true. I think HBDers just say that to give their quest for white self-esteem a more noble, real-world purpose on the surface.

  19. JayMan January 30, 2013 at 4:11 pm

    “Consider this for example: African and Caribbean immigrants often outperform on average African-American children. Many of them grew up in all-black families, in all-black communities, and were educated by black teachers. They come to this country and not only outperform many African-American students, including middle-class African-Americans raised by white middle-class families.

    i>If it was all about genes and racial makeup, why would this be, especially given that African-Americans often have far more Caucasian genes in them than African and Caribbean students?”

    African and Black Caribbean immigrants (like my folks) aren’t representative of their population of origin. They are often quite a degree smarter than the average person home, primarily because of the formidable barriers a person from these impoverished countries faces when trying to immigrate to the West.

    • science January 30, 2013 at 8:08 pm

      Heh, was just going to say this and you beat me to it.

      Immigrants are a self selected group. Why would you believe immigrants are representative of the home country? Black people have a bell curve too. And immigrants, especially from far away, tend to be very different from the mean. This is a well documented fact.

      For instance native Indian IQ in India is fairly low. However, its pretty high amongst immigrants to the US. The reason is that most immigrants to the US come from the intellectual castes in India. India was a strict caste system for thousands of years with little interbreeding. So each caste evolved differentely. Smart people kept breeding with other smart people in the smart caste and they got smarter and smarter. Then the modern day comes around and while the average Indian can’t even raise the money for transport the smart caste Indian gets a job as a computer programmer in Manhatten. Self selected groups can’t be used to extrapolate to the general population.

      This is really basic statistical analysis logic and you are just botching it in your quest to find a gotcha to HBD. I can guarantee Jayman (and dozens of others) have put a lot more rigorous thought into this then you. I know because I’ve read the blogs, seen the data, and do this kind of stuff for a living.

      • T. AKA Ricky Raw January 30, 2013 at 8:52 pm

        “science” said:

        Heh, was just going to say this and you beat me to it.

        Immigrants are a self selected group. Why would you believe immigrants are representative of the home country?

        I like how you add that little “heh” as if you stumbled across some irrefutable counterargument. It’s kind of like how you think just using the name “science” is making your arguments less sloppy and scientific lol

        Anyway, being that I never said they are representative of their home country, I don’t know why you are arguing that I do believe that. Not just that, but even if they are self-selected, which I think is , it still doesn’t disprove my point at all. They could be self-selected, and STILL be proof of a bunch of other factors. Again, all or nothing thinking fallacy. You think if you point out that they are self-selected, you have magically disproven all other possible explanations and have no need to explore them.

        This is not how science works “science.” Scientists take every possible and plausible explanation and go about testing each one and keep only the explanations that pass the test.

        They don’t just stop the inquiry when they find a plausible explanation that supports their agenda, ignore all the other plausible explanations and then declare the case closed. That’s what advocates do. You are about advocacy, not “science.” Sticking feathers in your but doesn’t make you a chicken any more than calling yourself “science” changes the fact you’re an advocate, the equivalent of a defense attorney for your cause and a prosecuting attorney against anyone that speaks ill of it. All you care about is winning the argument, not actually reaching a higher truth or anything involved with real scientific inquiry.

        Now, I’ll ask you and JayMan another question related to one of the points I did bring up.

        Let’s start with your premise that genetics trumps everything, and IQ genes are far more important than environment, culture, belief systems. Now let’s add your theory that the African and Caribbean immigrants are simply an example of self-selection in action.

        What then explains the statistics that when African or Caribbean immigrants come to America and have American-born children, the achievement gap is smaller and those children have academic performance closer to that of African-American children. And that the academic performance for the grandchildren of immigrants is even closer to that of African-Americans?

        Why would their academic performance and IQ testing of African and Caribbean immigrants become similar to those of African-Americans the more those genetics are exposed to similar environments and life experiences of African-Americans? Shouldn’t the IQ genes these children and grandchildren are inheriting from their self-selected immigrant ancestors trump the change in environment and culture they experience and keep them performing at the same academic level?

        Second, even if the self-selected aspect of African and Caribbean immigrants is true, why do you act like that magically disproves that all other contributing explanations are now false? For example, say that the conditions that African and Caribbean immigrants must overcome to come to this country creates a self-selection process where only the cream of the crop makes the voyage. Okay, fine. Does that admission somehow resolve the question of HOW the African and Caribbean immigrants who are good enough to overcome the obstacles and immigrate BECAME good enough to do so? Isn’t it plausible that they had different conditions than the African and Caribbean people who didn’t have the IQ and motivation to do so? Different family life, whether or not they had both parents in the house, what education was available to them, nutrition, lifestyle, family dysfunction, etc, etc.

        Just declaring they were self-selected and were thus cream of the crop and not typical of their countries proves NOTHING. You still haven’t resolved the question of WHY they weren’t typical of their country and WHY they were the cream of the crop that self-selected. Thus, the relative contributions of nature and nurture in how they turned out is still an open question. So once again, science and data do not “prove” the HBD viewpoint as conclusively as claimed.

        Again, the fallacy of bifurcation, or false dilemma, black-or-white thinking, either-or thinking, where you believe if you can successfully point to ONE cause, you have somehow effectively disproven ALL others and thus don’t need to intellectually engage those competing hypotheses or test any of them. That doesn’t sound like a scientific approach to me, personally.

        • JayMan January 30, 2013 at 10:40 pm

          “What then explains the statistics that when African or Caribbean immigrants come to America and have American-born children, the achievement gap is smaller and those children have academic performance closer to that of African-American children. And that the academic performance for the grandchildren of immigrants is even closer to that of African-Americans?

          Why would their academic performance and IQ testing of African and Caribbean immigrants become similar to those of African-Americans the more those genetics are exposed to similar environments and life experiences of African-Americans? Shouldn’t the IQ genes these children and grandchildren are inheriting from their self-selected immigrant ancestors trump the change in environment and culture they experience and keep them performing at the same academic level?”

          Regression to the mean. Each subsequent generation will, in aggregate, move closer to their population mean (believe me, I’m all too aware of this fact with regard to my own eventual children).

          That, and likely intermarriage with American Blacks.

          • T. AKA Ricky Raw January 31, 2013 at 12:00 am

            Yes, regression to the mean is a plausible explanation. I will give you that. However the idea that sharing similar environments brings about similar results in similar genes is also still plausible, even with acceptance of the fact that regression to the mean may be at play. This interplay between environments and gene expression is a major focus of epigenetics currently. Pointing out one plausible theory doesn’t automatically rule out another plausible contributing theory unless you can prove the premise that both plausible theories are mutually exclusive.

            The point is, you can’t just use a plausible theory as proof the case is conclusively decided in one direction and one direction only so long as there are plausible counter-theories that still have not been conclusively tested and disproven. The questions I raise about performance of African and Caribbean immigrants raise reasonable doubts in Mr. Rational’s claim that immutability of black potential has been firmly decided and shows the jury is still out for now.

            And there is no reason why both of us can’t be right. That part of the reason is regression to the mean and part of the reason is change in environment.

          • JayMan February 1, 2013 at 7:11 pm

            “Yes, regression to the mean is a plausible explanation. I will give you that. However the idea that sharing similar environments brings about similar results in similar genes is also still plausible, even with acceptance of the fact that regression to the mean may be at play.”

            It would be plausible if this case existed in isolation, without other evidence. However, that’s not the case, as there is lots of other evidence that racial and ethnic differences in average IQ has a strong genetic basis.

            “The point is, you can’t just use a plausible theory as proof the case is conclusively decided in one direction and one direction only so long as there are plausible counter-theories that still have not been conclusively tested and disproven.”

            True, but, as noted, you can only come to this point if you cherry-pick the evidence.

            “The questions I raise about performance of African and Caribbean immigrants raise reasonable doubts in Mr. Rational’s claim that immutability of black potential has been firmly decided and shows the jury is still out for now.”

            Not really, as seen above. Evidence strongly suggest, that (at this level of technological ability), Blacks in America are very close to their maximum genetic potential in terms of achievement.

        • JayMan January 30, 2013 at 10:44 pm

          “Does that admission somehow resolve the question of HOW the African and Caribbean immigrants who are good enough to overcome the obstacles and immigrate BECAME good enough to do so?”

          No, but we weren’t claiming that it did. I was just addressing YOUR claim that the higher ability of African/Black Caribbean immigrants somehow disproves the notion that their home populations have lower average IQs than Westerners (by showing that it doesn’t).

        • T. AKA Ricky Raw January 30, 2013 at 11:48 pm

          JayMan said:

          No, but we weren’t claiming that it did. I was just addressing YOUR claim that the higher ability of African/Black Caribbean immigrants somehow disproves the notion that their home populations have lower average IQs than Westerners (by showing that it doesn’t).

          Please quote the passage where I claimed that the higher ability of African/Black Caribbean immigrants somehow disproves the notion that their home populations have lower average IQs than Westerners.

          My argument was against Mr. Rational’s point that no matter what environment you place blacks in, with the optimal environment presumably being white middle class families, those blacks would still underperform. My point with the West Indians and African immigrants is that there are apparently some combinations of conditions and environments that interact with African genes to regularly produce blacks who do perform competitively versus blacks raised in the American environment. I never recall claiming that I was bringing those groups up to prove that average IQ in the Caribbean and Africa is high.

          So you were actually bringing up self-selection to refute a point I never actually made. Yet somehow I’M in the wrong for assuming you were, you know, actually bringing up arguments to refute statements I was actually making rather than to respond to imaginary ones I didn’t?

          • science January 31, 2013 at 10:54 am

            “Please quote the passage where I claimed that the higher ability of African/Black Caribbean immigrants somehow disproves the notion that their home populations have lower average IQs than Westerners.”

            Right here, where you are responding to the claims of the twin adoption studies:

            “Consider this for example: African and Caribbean immigrants often outperform on average African-American children. Many of them grew up in all-black families, in all-black communities, and were educated by black teachers. They come to this country and not only outperform many African-American students, including middle-class African-Americans raised by white middle-class families.

            i>If it was all about genes and racial makeup, why would this be, especially given that African-Americans often have far more Caucasian genes in them than African and Caribbean students?”

            These are you claims.

            1) Black African immigrants have higher IQs then American blacks.

            2) Black Africans have the same genes (this is not true, because they are a self selected immigrant group, but it is your claim we are debating here).

            3) Therefore the difference in IQ must be because blacks don’t have low IQ but because black Africans have better culture that raises their IQ (strange considering the IQ of all black Africans, not just the immigrants, is not high).

            These are you claims in black and white. They are soundly refuted.

          • T. AKA Ricky Raw February 1, 2013 at 4:22 am

            WOW. That was breathtakingly dumb.

            “science,” I challenged someone to find and quote any place where I said that the average African IQ WITHIN THEIR HOMELAND was higher than Western IQ averages, because that wasn’t what I was saying. I then pointed out that what I was actually saying was that African and Caribbean IMMIGRANTS consistently outperform African-American blacks as well as many other types of Westerners.

            Can you follow this? Because you seem to have trouble keeping up. Let me repeat again, with caps to help you. JayMan claimed I was making the argument that AVERAGE IQ IN AFRICA WAS HIGHER THAN THAT OF WESTERNERS. I then responded no. my argument was about AFRICAN IMMIGRANTS, AND HOW THEY MAY BE EVIDENCE THAT UNDER THE RIGHT CONDITIONS, AFRICAN GENETICS CAN PRODUCE COMPETITIVE IQs.

            Are you with me? One more time: Jay Man says I claimed AVERAGE AFRICAN IQ WAS HIGH. I respond, “no I didn’t, please quote where I said that. What I said was AFRICAN IMMIGRANTS are high performers, therefore the implication from the adoption study that African genes always underperform even under the best circumstances obviously isn’t true.”

            One last time: I was accused of making a statement about the NATIVE CARIBBEAN POPULATION HAVING HIGH AVERAGE IQ. I ask for someone to quote where I said that. Then I repeat, no I was responding to claim that black genes underperform in even the best environments by pointing out African and Caribbean IMMIGRANTS, who I never claimed where the norm for the country.

            So what do you do? Not only do you fail to quote what I challenged someone to quote, which was any instance of me saying the average African IQ was high, you proceed to quote the passage that I had just finished saying was my actual argument, which is about African IMMIGRANTS.

            I’ll restate it even simpler for you. I was accused of making a statement about ALL AFRICANS. I responded no, quote where I said ALL AFRICANS. I actually only said AFRICAN IMMIGRANTS. You’re “sound refutation” to my claim that I was talking about just AFRICAN IMMIGRANTS RATHER NOT ALL AFRICANS was to quote me talking about exactly what I said I was talking about: AFRICAN IMMIGRANTS RATHER THAN ALL AFRICANS.

            If “soundly refuting” in your Bizarro world means totally backing up my point and proving me right, I suppose you did “soundly refute” me. On earth though, that’s not how it works.

            I don’t know why I’m bothering to walk you through this, because we have a Dunning-Kruger problem here, meaning if you were smart enough to understand why what you just quoted actually proved my point, you would never had been dumb enough to make such an obvious, basic mistake anyway.

            I can see why you need to believe and prove that just being white is evidence of having a high IQ. Based on your reading comprehension and debate skills, I strongly suspect you couldn’t actually prove it by, you know, actually excelling on an official IQ test.

            I still can’t believe I read that response.

  20. Robert January 30, 2013 at 5:01 pm

    @T.

    Can effort in an optimal environment change racial differences in brain size? Does brain size not matter?

    You should look into the Abecedarian Project. If we try really hard, we can maybe raise average black IQ by 5 points, which is a significant gain.

  21. J Doe January 30, 2013 at 6:59 pm

    I don’t know how someone can be so proud of things that they haven’t actually done, or use those accomplishments to boost their sense of self worth and still call themselves men. HBD seems like a lot of entitled pussies in my opinion. Some white guy did something and you consider it a reflection of yourself? Climb back in your moms pussy, loser.

  22. Ben316 January 30, 2013 at 9:27 pm

    “What HBDers give with one hand, they take away with the other”

    I cannot fault your observation. It’s true. However, what if the people you’re observing are also true?

    Some question that HBDers try to answer are:

    1. Are all races equally capable at developing and maintaining a civilization on par with what the West has achieved?

    2. Is the West only possible under European populations?

    It is in this context that HBDers give with one hand and take with the other. For if it is true that the West is only possible under European populations, then European populations are genetically “just right’ for it, and other races are not.

    So when A HBDer says that Asians are smart but not creative, he is stating that, while Asians are smart, smartness itself may not be enough to maintain and create civilization on part with the West. Similarly, when a HBDer says that African Americans are too masculine and that Asians are too feminine and that whites are just right, he is assessing what degree of masculinity is required for the maintenance and creations of civilization on par with the West.

    • science January 31, 2013 at 10:59 am

      Except Asians have built modern civilizations. In fact they are quite good, I’ve lived in them.

      As with all things, they have their plusses and minuses. The debate of whether Asia would have had the enlightenment or industrial revolution eventually is academic fun but ultimately useless. It happened and they adopted it fairly quickly and successfully.

      When people say Asians aren’t creative they are usually talking about it in a way that effects them (because they have to work with them, or because the rather restricting style of their culture doesn’t appeal to them personally). I don’t think anyone is claiming Asians haven’t built admirable cultures. In fact I think they have a much better chance of surviving and thriving then ours.

  23. Mick O'Malley January 30, 2013 at 9:29 pm

    The only people being doomed to anything, are white people. Unlimited immigration into every white country and only white countries, will result in the genocide of my race.

    Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

    The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

    Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

    How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

  24. Mike Steinberg January 30, 2013 at 10:26 pm

    I came to HBD simply as an extension of reading about evolutionary biology and evo-psych. Simply put: different environments (cultural and geographic) may favor different physical and behavioural traits.

    The best discussions of HBD I’ve seen are by Professor Steve Hsu on his Information Processing site. For example, he links a video by MIT Professor Robert Weinberg which provides an interesting discussion of where genomic research may lead.

    Professor Peter Singer in “A Darwinian Left” has also written well on the topic. David Friedman also notes “Who is Against Evolution” in discussing some of the implications.

    Ultimately, it’s about understanding the world as it is. That’s what we should all strive to do right?

  25. T. AKA Ricky Raw January 31, 2013 at 12:09 am

    So we’re 80 comments strong so far. How many of you people who have accused me of avoiding the science and running from the evidence have read any of Dweck’s research yet and are ready to engage the findings at length?

    • DB January 31, 2013 at 2:18 am

      I’ve not only read Dweck’s research; I’ve also gone out of my way to introduce others to it.

      Yet I’m as strong a HBD believer as anyone. Why?

      Because they’re two sides of the same coin. There really still is room for improvement in how we raise our kids; they won’t always improve test scores, but there are many other dimensions that matter. But there are also limitations imposed by genetics… and this is the century where we can finally remove them.

      The HBD folks who emphasize the immutability of group differences are deserving of mockery; what century do they think they’re living in, the 18th? But I think you owe an apology to those, like myself, who study group differences toward the end of eliminating the problematic ones once and for all.

      • science January 31, 2013 at 11:03 am

        Genetic engineering is a very interesting possibility. Perhaps one day we can simply fix black peoples low IQ by changing them at a genetic level artificially. When that happens HBD won’t matter because natural selection evolution and group difference won’t matter.

        However, until that day comes I’m not going to fuck around with people’s lives implementing policies based on if its already here. When my Dad grew up we were supposed to have flying cars and cities on the moon by now. Instead we got twitter. I’m very skeptical of nearly all public policy whose grounding is, “this is totally unsustainable and dangerous but its ok because technological singularity X coming in the future sometime will solve everything.”

  26. Keoni Galt January 31, 2013 at 12:35 am

    The genetic expressions of the human genome are variable, but at it’s core, WE ALL BLEED RED.

    I put all my apples into the nurture basket….and that involves culture and society more than anything.

    Nutrition plays an enormous role in the development of any child’s intelligence and other traits. Most black children in the USA for the past half-century+, are born to single mother households and raised on WIC- subsidized bottle formula. That fact alone would account for such a huge variance in IQ’s of black vs. white populations. Even if a poor black mother breast feeds, her own diet is probably nutritionally inferior due to her EBT shopping.

    NURTURE. I see the exact same shit here in Hawaii. From ALL races. The Welfare dependent masses who check out at the grocery store or walmart with carts full of processed snacks and junk food, paid for with the EBT cards. We have a virtual rainbow of diversity here…Black, White, Hawaiian, Samoan, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Laotian, Thai, Hispanic, Filipino, Micronesian…you name it, we got it. I know of many individuals in both socio-economic classes – educated and affluent, intelligent and brilliant vs. ignorant and dependent on entitlements and short-term thinking. Race (nature) ‘aint got nothing to do with it. It’s nurture. Culture, diet, familial structures and the cultural paradigm the individuals follows.

    White folks in the US have had a much longer succession of generations of Patriarchy and large nuclear families and the emotional, NUTRITIONAL and material stability it provides for the children to benefit and develop.

    Subsidized nutritional deficiencies of the welfare ghetto classes equals lower IQ’s of children gestated and raised on such garbage. The real difference in statistical comparisons between populations is that American welfare blacks have been on the welfare dietary scourge for several generations longer than all the poor whites.

    Have no fear, HBD’rs. More and more crackers are becoming dependent class welfare recipients and single mother households…which means more and more white kids are being raised on formula instead of breastmilk from nutritionally nourished mothers, and then weaned on EBT subsidized, processed junk food. The more Whites we see adapt to welfare-ghetto culture, the more dumbing-down you’ll see of the ‘white race.’

    Speaking of the “white race,” ya’all are ignoring the entire history of “WHITE” immigration to the US.

    Every successive generation of ethic Europeans arrived to the country and became the new niggers.

    The Mics. Polacks. Wops. Krauts. Kikes.

    White race? What fucking white race? You mean the mongrel-ized hybridization of generations of Europe’s poor white trash that migrated and miscengenated in the great American melting pot….ya’all are now suddenly considered a single, homogeneous race?

    Hah.The first generation “Whites” who came to America certainly didn’t think so. Blond German migrants hated the newly arrived, red-haired (but still white skinned!) Irish as much as any Klansmen hates teh blackz.

    The enemy of us all are the elite power brokers (the 1%) who seek to enslave us all under the power of a centralized Governmental authority, and their favorite tactic to defeat we the sheeple is DIVIDE AND CONQUER.

    When are we all going to finally stop falling for it?

  27. Nelson January 31, 2013 at 2:30 am

    From sampling a few of the papers you’ve linked to (no I haven’t read ‘em all; need some time for that), it seems you’re trying to highlight the attribution biases of HBD’ers – namely, that those who espouse HBD attribute flaws in others (say in intelligence) to “rigid” causes like a person or group’s biological and genetic makeup while using the same factors to “amplify” positive qualities about themselves (layman terms: positive in-group attribution; negative out-group attribution). You claim they do this to mask their shame – they make themselves feel better by putting others down.

    In making this claim, however, you yourself are committing a fundamental attribution error. You criticize HBD’ers for extrapolating study data to support claims not necessarily supported by the same, yet you’re extrapolating the results of the Dweck studies to “support” your claims about HBD’ers! I must state once again that some look into HBD out of curiosity – that is, they want to learn about the biological/genetic similarities and differences between (and within) groups for understanding’s sake, not to proclaim their own superiority or others’ inferiority. That is, not everyone who believes in HBD is racist, narcissist, or using such belief to cover up their shame (I’m certainly not!)…

    I’ll respond to other points in your post (particularly your points on entity vs. incremental theorists) later; it’s late and I’ve a busy day ahead…

  28. bojangles January 31, 2013 at 6:32 am

    some of the most intellectual men to live were still slaves to their masters, no matter their race. I’m not sure about HBD but me stereotyping and looking at a few Eastern cultures and their intellectual talents on mass I can see there could possibly be some genetical link.

  29. K January 31, 2013 at 7:24 am

    Whenever these racist bloggers write about blacks being better at sports, it’s just a diversion so people won’t call them out on their racism. It’s like “hey look, I think blacks are good at basketball, so I can’t possibly be racist.”

    If they really cared about human biodiversity, they wouldn’t concentrate so much on black IQ and crime. There’s a lot more to diversity than IQ and crime. There’s a lot more science out there that these racists don’t really care about. We have found very few genes linked to IQ, Those genes are there and we’re trying to find them, but as of right now, we know very little. These racists are just speculating in order to justify their own world vision. That’s not science.

    They suck at life, but they can’t admit that, so they try to make themselves feel better by associating themselves with a successful group, whites. Whites are good so anyone who is white must be good as well. Good is relative, so they have to find a group that is bad. In comes the evil black man.

    If we’re going to generalize and concentrate on groups rather than individuals, why don’t we talk about the good and the bad qualities of each group? I’ve never seen one of these racists write about Black Americans’ contributions to music. Every single form of popular music in the 20th century was created by Americans blacks. Jazz, Rock, Hip-hop. American music is one of the reasons American culture is so popular around the world. White racists always talk about how black people are ruining this country, but what level of influence would American culture have around the world if it wasn’t for Black Americans? How dull would American pop culture be?

  30. science January 31, 2013 at 11:13 am

    “If they really cared about human biodiversity, they wouldn’t concentrate so much on black IQ and crime.”

    These issues matter a lot to people that are effect by them.

    “There’s a lot more to diversity than IQ and crime.”

    Indeed, but that stuff actually increases the HBD case. For instance, I’d love to see social policies that consider the needs and abilities of the entire bell curve. I do care about the right half a lot. Working class people are actually where I come from.

    However, diversity is the enemy of such things. First because it destroys things that matter to these people (culture, tradition, trust, etc). It makes the kind of economic, social, and cultural policies that lead to egalitarian harmonious societies impossible. When I look at all the things I admire about Japan nearly all hinge on the fact that Japan is all Japanese. You couldn’t take what they do over there and apply it over here because we are a multi-cultural society and much of it wouldn’t work as a result.

    HBD denial is bad from the POV of things like AA or lack of good crime policy, but it is indeed about a lot more then that. Its also reponsible for denial of the entire bell curve. It’s why a country like Japan can retain the kind of skilled industrial jobs that give gainful employment to the working class instead of assuming that everyone can graduate college if they just work hard enough (they can’t, there is an IQ barrier much of the population can’t pass). That leads to crushing debt, instability, and wasted lives. HBD denial is at the heart of all sorts of negative things, because we can’t acknowledge the bell curve since that would mean acknowledging blacks place on it.

  31. science January 31, 2013 at 1:22 pm

    I’m not planning on reading through Dweck’s study and responding. This is, after all, just something I do in my spare time. I can’t be an expert on every single study published ever and refute every single piece of bad science you put up. If I debunked Dweck you would just find another.

    I’ve read many studies that are anti-HBD before and they have been disproven. This idea of improving IQ is actually a well worn topic. It’s also Steve Hsu’s little pet project. You will find a lot of data on his site for similair things, maybe even for Dweck’s work itself. At the end of the day the perponderonce of evidence there shows that with the exception of malnutrition you can’t really raise IQ all that much.

    Untold studies are published every year. You seem to be of the idea that if you can find one of many that says something else its our responsibility to sit around debunking every single one. It isn’t. Our responsiblity is look to the vast majority of overwhelming evidence. And that evidence is pretty convincing.

    Morever, the burden of proof is on the blank slatist. Remember that common sense is on our side. HBD is proven to us every single day with our eyes. We see its effects every single day. The burden of proof is on the person who says our eyes are lying to us.

    When I watched the NFL last year I might have noticed that such and such a team had a hard time running off tackle to the right side. That’s what I saw with my eyes. Then when pro football focus puts out its prospectice I can see from their detailed statistical analysis that they indeed had a hard time running off tackle to the right side. The numbers confirm what I saw with my own eyes.

    Now, there are any number of sports morons that will disagree with that assessment. And they may even offer all sorts of out of context or incorrect statistics. Is it my responsiblity to correct the bad stastics usage of every single sports moron? No. I saw something with my eyes and a very in depth statistical analysis I understand and trust supported it. That’s good enough evidence for me.

    That’s why so many people who go to your site are HBD believers. For the longest time they were told by the authorities that X was true. However, they kept seeing Y with their eyes. Then they found out that the statistics actually backed up the Y they were seeing, not the X. For many it starts with things like the difference between men and women, but the exact same logic applies to race. You don’t make the connection because you don’t want to make the connection, not because it isn’t there. It’s hard to notice the evolutionary differences between men and women and not also notice the evolutionary differences between races.

    And truth be told its not controversial. Only in the west is there a strong anti-racist religion amongst the elites complete with inquisition. Again if you go to Asia everyone believes in HBD. Are you telling me two billion people and whole countries are just shame based losers? What about all the successful HBDers? Steve Hsu is risking his career publishing this stuff under his own name. He’s a renowned physics professor, martial arts expert, and heavily involved in the tech start up community. Are you telling me this guy is doing this because he’s got shame issues? He’s 10,000 times more successful then you. They guy just wants his co-ethnics to stop getting the shaft in college admissions, and he is willing to risk his career promoting HBD to make it happen.

    Black people deny HBD because it sucks for them. White people deny HBD because its a status signal to do so in our society. However, take away those incentives (as is the case in Asia) and everyone simply takes what they see as what it is and trust the mountains of data showing their eyes aren’t deciecing them.

    • T. AKA Ricky Raw February 1, 2013 at 5:37 am

      I tried to figure out how to do paragraph breaks, but couldn’t. Oh well.

      science wrote:

      I’m not planning on reading through Dweck’s study and responding.

      Wow, the guy who calls himself “science” refuses to read studies that go against what he wants to believe. Yes, that is really how science works. Scientists just routinely ignore research papers because they don’t like the conclusions and don’t bother trying to understand and refute them and would rather only read the papers that they like.

      I deliberately posted no supporting material or studies on the last post because I wanted to get the predictable HBDer responses: “Where are your studies” “I guess you have no research” “HBDers are only repeating what the science says, don’t blame us blame the science” “You’re avoiding research” etc, etc.

      That way when I posted THIS week’s installment and put up all the studies and text sources that supported last weeks post AND all the studies and text sources that supported THIS week’s post and all the HBDers would make excuses not to read them or even open them, they would be exposed as not really caring about being objective and only following the natural path of all the available science and research.

      And sure enough, you, one of the people talking the most about how you can’t fight the research and accusing people of being research dodgers, openly admit you refuse to read the research! Simply because you don’t like what it says.

      This is, after all, just something I do in my spare time.

      You read lots of HBD bloggers apparently based on how well you know their talking points and claim to know their supporting studies. So you have time for that. You have time to doggedly argue with me in the comments section both this week and last week, digging in your heels and answering every claim. Yet when it’s time to read an opposing study, suddenly your time is so limited? RIIIIIGGGGHHT…..

      I can’t be an expert on every single study published ever and refute every single piece of bad science you put up.

      YOU JUST ADMITTED YOU REFUSE TO EVEN OPEN IT OR READ IT! HOW DO YOU KNOW IT’S BAD RESEARCH?! How does that even make sense?

      I’ve read many studies that are anti-HBD before and they have been disproven.

      Think about what you’re admitting here. It’s something I’ve already figured out, but I’m shocked you were careless enough to admit. YOU ONLY READ ANTI-HBD STUDIES THAT YOU FEEL ARE DISPROVEN. So what does that mean? I’m guessing what you do is that you just read HBD sites all the time, and you only ever end up “reading” the opposing anti-HBD studies when one of your favorite HBD bloggers is “disproving” it. This is the equivalent of a journalist reporting on a case, and he acquaints himself with the prosecutors side by reading the prosecutors arguments, then he acquaints himself with the defense’s side of the case by only reading the prosecutor’s characterization of the defense’s case and the prosecutor’s responses to the defense.

      The moment you have to actually read a study that has not been filtered through one of your favorite HBD bloggers and have to think it through for yourself, you chicken out. It’s just like what Dweck says. People with a fixed mindset become afraid of challenges where they might end up looking dumb because they’re more interested in protecting their image of looking smart over challenging themselves and risking failure. You only want to tackle studies you already know that have already been debunked by your favorite HBD bloggers and that you already have repeated talking points prepared for, just like the kids with the fixed mindsets in Dweck’s studies kept choosing to retake old tests they already knew they could excel at but choked at the idea of taking a new type of test they never faced before.

      It’s also Steve Hsu’s little pet project. You will find a lot of data on his site for similair things, maybe even for Dweck’s work itself.

      So you won’t read my data, because you’re too good to, and it’s beneath you, and you somehow divine it’s bad without even reading it. Yet you tell me to go over to Steve Hsu’s site and read his “proof.” Do people see what I mean when I call HBDer’s narcissists? That arrogant do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do double standard is textbook narcissism.

      Also, this is further proof of what I said about you proving Dweck’s point about fixed mindset people and how they act. YOU claim to be too good to bother refuting Dweck’s studies, and you work on saving face by avoiding engaging it and finding out you can’t debunk it, yet you send me over to your HBD hero to see if HE has debunked what you are unwilling or unable to. I’m supposed to not only read your research sources when you refuse to read mine, I’m even supposed to find the evidence the refuting evidence that you’re too lazy to find yourself. NARCISSISTIC ENTITLEMENT.

      You seem to be of the idea that if you can find one of many that says something else its our responsibility to sit around debunking every single one. It isn’t. Our responsiblity is look to the vast majority of overwhelming evidence. And that evidence is pretty convincing.

      You have already displayed that you only selectively read evidence and that you only read opposing studies when they are characterized and already “debunked” by HBD bloggers! How can you claim to know what a majority of the evidence is or how overwhelming it is? If I filtered out evidence the way you did, I’d think it was far more overwhelming than it actually was too.

      However, the burden of proof is on the blank slatist.

      Who is a blank slatist? I never said that genes don’t matter. I never claimed that environment can work miracles, just that it has an effect that can’t be ignored. I totally admit that environment has limits and that genetics places ceilings on potential. So why do you claim I’m a blank slatist, despite my saying I’m not plenty of times in this thread?

      Because you suffer from black-or-white, all-or-nothing, rigid thinking. Again, it’s a hallmark of narcissism. Narcissist engage in this thinking, which leads to the popular narcissistic defense of splitting. No appreciation of grays. Everyone is either all good or all bad. If anyone was to click here they’d see what I mean. To you anyone who is not a genetic determinist must be a blank slatist. If anyone admits that environment is important, they must be a blank slatist. No middle ground allowed.

      Remember that common sense is on our side.

      You’re increasingly proving that you are in no way qualified to talk about common sense.

      The burden of proof is on the person who says our eyes are lying to us.

      First off, I’m glad you admit that you think of this as a court case and see yourself as an advocate, and have finally dropped the pretense of acting like a truthseeker by calling yourself “science.” That you chose a courtroom analogy is very telling. So you admit you see yourself as an advocate chasing a conclusion, similar to a lawyer, rather than a truthseeker chasing the truth, like a scientist. Therefore, like a lawyer you see it as your duty to minimize, ignore, suppress, or argue down any opposing evidence, rather than behave like a truthseeker or a scientist and try to examine all evidence equally, reality test and disprove competing plausible theories, and synthesize all available information. Thanks for that moment of intellectual honesty.

      But actually, even if I see myself as an advocate, and saw this as a courtroom, which I don’t, you’re still wrong. Actually, the burden of proof is on the accuser prosecuting the theory of the case. The defense just has to provide reasonable doubts. HBDers like you claim that the evidence about the immutable, fixed nature of black IQ is overwhelmingly one-sided and that it is clearly, unequivocally, undeniably in your favor and can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that anyone who claims otherwise is ignoring the evidence. The defense just has to provide reasonable evidence that it’s not and that there are many other plausible and likely alternatives, and that the accuser has failed to meet the standard for his case. Of course your job is easier because unlike a prosecuting attorney, you apparently can just ignore any evidence that you don’t like.

      hen I watched the NFL last year I might have noticed that such and such a team had a hard time running off tackle to the right side. That’s what I saw with my eyes…That’s good enough evidence for me.

      So hundreds of studies by Dweck and her colleagues, a textbook, a nonfiction book, 40 years of clinical experience by Dweck, all that is not good enough for you or worth reading. But, watching the NFL is, because you can somehow twist that to support what you want to believe?

      Ladies and gentlemen…”science.”

      hat’s why so many people who go to your site are HBD believers. For the longest time they were told by the authorities that X was true. However, they kept seeing Y with their eyes.

      Maybe they keep seeing Y with their eyes instead of X because when someone does present them with X, they throw a tantrum and say they refuse to read it. Like you.

      Black people deny HBD because it sucks for them. White people deny HBD because its a status signal to do so in our society.

      More textbook narcissism. Reframe all bad feedback into the most self-flattering interpretation possible. If someone doesn’t like you, it’s because they’re jealous or a hater. If someone rejects you, it’s because they’re threatened. In the narcissist’s mind, no one can ever dislike or disagree with them on a valid ground, only for a self-serving reason, because as people who only do things for self-serving reasons they project that same mentality onto everyone else too. Blacks only disagree out of hurt feelings. Whites only disagree out of status whoring. Never mind that “science” won’t actually entertain any opposing evidence that isn’t pre-debunked in order to tell if the black or white person has a valid ground for disagreement beyond hurt feelings or status whoring. No, like all narcissists, why risk ruining an explanation that suits his ego?

      trust the mountains of data showing their eyes aren’t deciecing them.

      You’ve lost all credibility to say what the data overwhelmingly does and does not say the moment you exposed yourself as being someone who only entertains data that proves his point and will ignore hundreds of studies that don’t.

  32. Obsidian January 31, 2013 at 4:51 pm

    T, VK,
    Gotta thank you both for this very interesting – and provocative! – series. I’m chomping at the bit to join the fray, but I want to wait until T has had the chance to fully lay out his case and make his argument(s). I think this is something long overdue – let’s face it, there IS a “racism” problem in the Manosphere, regardless as to whether it’s linked to “HBD” or not. Black and other Men of Color aren’t necessarily welcomed into the wider (and Whiter, to be frank) Manosphere; no, this isn’t true of every Manosphere denizen, but it is true in the aggregate. One gets the sense that, at best, the Manosphere overall merely tolerates us (I include myself here), if not out and out fosters contempt for us. Which is fine, they have every right to do that – but doing so goes right back to one of the central arguments T has been making: how then are they, i.e. the Manosphere, going to actually get anything done? If it’s something along semi-sociopolitical lines, how do they propose to do that which even the GOP has failed to do – which is appeal first and foremost, to White males? Without coalition building, the Manosphere is lost along these lines. I’ve written about this over at my blog, “The End of White Men” and I invite everyone taking part in the current discussion to check it out:

    http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/108728

    Lastly, one of the commenters upthread rightly broached the 1000lb gorilla in the middle of the room: Roissy aka Heartiste. While I personally think he’s immensely talented, I also think he’s more than merely narcissistic, hypocritical, misogynistic (and I don’t take nor use that term lightly) and racist (same), what’s worse than all these put together is that he’s just downright meanspirited, and unnecessarily so at that. Even Machiavelli talked about the dangers of being gratuituously cruel and what can happen when you do. Well, as Machiavelli rightly predicted, Roissy went a bridge too far and came *this* close to having it all come tumbling down on his head, in a most ironic fashion at that. What amazed me about that whole affair, and everyone here knows what I’m talking about, is how everybody pretended like nothing ever happened and kept right on getting up – all in the name of his purportedly “keepin’ it real”. And yes, I am talking to and addressing my White brothers in this very forum right now – where were you when the time came to openly and directly, call Roissy on any of this?

    As you can see, I have a lot to say about all of this, and what I’ve just touched on is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. I am deeply grateful to both T and VK for getting a much needed, and long overdue, conversation started.

    More to come – count on it…

    O.

    • T. AKA Ricky Raw February 1, 2013 at 4:25 pm

      Obsidian, you’ve done a lot of good writing on the subject and I look forward to whatever you have to add to the discussion. Plenty of people want us to make this about Roissy, but there are several reasons why I don’t. First, the HBD thing is bigger than just Roissy. Second, if I was to use a blogger as an example, I’d rather talk about one who is purely or primarily HBD, rather than a mix of a bunch of other things like PUA and antifeminism, because that just muddies the water of the debate more. People will start debating PUA stuff, feminism, past beefs and scandals, and a bunch of other stuff that I think would take the comments in a whole different direction, especially because he’s so polarizing. If this was intended to be a general manosphere conversation rather than one specifically about HBD that would be a different story. Third, in the last installment a lot of HBDers in the comments try to disown him and claim he’s not a “real” HBDer, and that therefore to attack him I would be attacking a straw man. I don’t want to give them the opportunity to dismiss this on those grounds.

      I’m not intending to make this a debate about the whole manosphere, because there are plenty of manopshere people who aren’t HBD, and HBDers who don’t consider themselves part of the manosphere. That’s not saying that a discussion of the manosphere isn’t long-coming and needed, just that that’s not the intent of this present series.

  33. T. AKA Ricky Raw February 1, 2013 at 4:25 am

    Testing parapraph breaks.

    Test
    Test

  34. Obsidian February 2, 2013 at 10:31 am

    Hey T,
    You make some legit points about the potential pitfalls of derailing the conversation by obstensibly focusing on one man, in this case Roissy/Heartiste; to be sure, he isn’t the only player, pardon the pun, involved here. Having said that though, it is fair to say that he IS a major player, if only because his reach is wider than guys who’ve been banging on about HBD forever – Steve Sailer easily comes to mind. I’ve been reading him since the late 90s, and I can tell you that he doesn’t have the same kind of appeal and reach that Roissy/Heartiste does/did. Indeed, the latter’s big claim to fame was mixing Game with his own particular psuedo-political musings, mashed up with what he considers to be HBD “insights”. The result?

    And entire “universe” of blogs which have grown up around him – there’s even a name for it: the “Roissysphere”. Many, if not most, of the very eyes reading this right now would probably not be so if were it not for him, would not had heard of HBD were it not for him. So, while I hear what you’re saying, I must respctfully disagree. Roissy plays a role. He must be rightly called to account.

    Looking forward to part 3 of your series!-and thanks so much the kudos!

    O.

  35. JayMan February 6, 2013 at 10:33 pm

    Note, there is a comment from me from a few days ago in the spam filter somewhere. I don’t remember what I said, but it was in response to one of T’s comments. Thanks.

  36. Dante February 20, 2013 at 3:32 am

    To Ricky Raw:

    Ricky Raw says:
    “Like I’ve said in the past, the HBD mindset seems to be this variation on a South Park joke:
    Step 1: Get HBD accepted.”

    Like it or not.. I think it is tacitly accepted (to some degree..) by a substantial portion of the American public. (And I’d say even more so in Asia and by Asian immigrants..) It is just considered offensive to be explicit in many circles.

    “Step 2: ????
    Step 3: UTOPIA!”

    “I’ve yet to see a convincing step 2 argued yet.”

    I’ll offer a step two. (But it’s not utopia..) Stop outsourcing (through tariffs etc..) stop cheap in-sourcing (illegal immigration…) This will force employers to deal with a domestic labor force and not overlook large portions (of any race..) from the left side of the curve. Not utopia but from the time the immigration door was shut in 20s to 1970 the US saw dramatic gains in civil rights for Blacks and substantial gains in wealth in the Black community. (Black wealth in 1967, really before affirmative action had any real effect and just on the heels of Jim Crow… was 18% of White wealth, now Black Wealth is 4% of White wealth…)

  37. alfaonline.com December 12, 2013 at 4:23 pm

    jorok bangetss from the left side of the curve. Not utopia but from the time the immigration door was shut in 20s to 1970 the US saw dramatic gains in civil rights for Blacks and substantial gains in wealth in the Black community. (Black wealth in 1967, really before affirmative action had any real effect and just

Leave A Response