You should give that man a samizdata byline. Veryretired is already one of the most consistently interesting and level-headed writers on this site.

Posted by Harry Powell at March 4, 2006 02:05 PM

A race-based individualist would be a hard thing to be.

Posted by guy herbert at March 4, 2006 02:34 PM

Racists may only come in the collectivist flavor, but collectivists come in many flavors. Some times it helps to state the sometimes not so obvious.

Posted by Midwesterner at March 4, 2006 02:44 PM

I should point out that there is a lot of fascinating stuff about genetics, and I certainly do not disparage the study of this topic, or indeed do I turn a blind eye to its possible implications for our understanding of the mind, human nature, ethics and so forth. But there is no reason why arguments for individual liberty, capitalism etc are in any way threatened by genetics. Some reactionaries tend to pray it in aid to attack individualism and the idea that humans have volition.

Interestingly, these same folk tend also to sneer at transhumanism, even though transhumanism makes use of genetics as a source of knowledge. But of course racists are not interested in science if it can be used to enhance liberty rather than crush it.

Posted by Johnathan at March 4, 2006 04:03 PM

very retired,
That line is a peach. You've nailed it. Goddamn it you really have. It covers everything from the modern BNP back to Huck Finn's father.

Posted by Nick M at March 4, 2006 05:45 PM

Absolutely agree!!!
Spot on Veryretired!
There a folks I like and folks that I don't but the colour of their skin has nothing to do with it.
It's all down to how they think and act as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by RAB at March 4, 2006 06:27 PM

Well I don't know..

"You may not be interested in war but war is interested in you".

The same could be said about race..
I'm all for individualism if everyone else is playing by the same rules. But they are not..
The riots in France not long ago was just one example.

Posted by Dave at March 4, 2006 08:34 PM

Dave,

Many people like to say that the riots in France were to do with Islam and that it was not racist to be rude about Muslims because they are a religious rather than a racial group.

Meanwhile, in the real world race is becoming less and less important as people intermarry, move around and generally blur the boundaries. The fastest growing racial group in the US is the group which classifies itself as being mixed race.

Posted by ResidentAlien at March 4, 2006 09:37 PM

My observation is that people who tout the superiority of their own race are frequently among the worst examples of it.

Posted by Billll at March 5, 2006 12:23 AM

I often read Randall Parker on FuturePundit. He puts some interesting things together there. On his other blog, ParaPundit, he'll go into great depth about group differences.

Sure, with a free society, genetics mean little. He'll say that the costs of certain immigrants to the US in the form of higher crime, lower performance in education, higher propensity to use government resources like welfare and medicaid etc.

The benefits of free movement of individuals are clear. His argument is that the costs outweigh the benefits, and it has little to do with a free society. It mainly has to do with programs the government sets up which make the whole 'free society' thing a bit watered down.

I tend to disagree with him because the individuals who come to the US are coming to a more free society, where their worth can be actualized. This tapping of a greater amount of “the ultimate resource" is important. Government wasting money is not really caused by immigrants, and certainly isn't stopped by limiting immigration. That said, if the restrictions on immigration continue, I would prefer they weren’t quota based, but IQ based.

Anyway, just thought I'd point out someone who might be called a racist because he pays attention to studies that show group differences in IQ and looks at government programs statistics and crime rates. I wouldn’t call him a crackpot.

Posted by IKbot at March 5, 2006 12:31 AM

Veryretired makes an excellent point about racists claiming their race as their most important asset. This is certainly a part of the identity polics of race. The term racism has become so smudged that it has blurred meaning. I would add to Veryretired's definition the claim of said racist to be victimized by "the other".

The worst incidences of "racism " in the last century were probably better described as tribalism. In Nazi Germany Jews were scapegoated as having stabbed the German volk in the back. All Jews are not of a single race, but a religion (I hear screaming and hollering, but this can be argued both ways). All Moslems are definitely not of a single race. But the Tutsi and Hutu in Rwanda are. I see the most virulent strain of what is called racism, tribalism.

Posted by Mark McGilvray at March 5, 2006 12:33 AM

Matt Hale gave a lecture in our town before his imprisonment. He and his entourage furnished some rather unconvincing examples of the idea of racial superiority; in fact, they themselves constituted a reductio ad absurdum of their ideas.

Posted by Mitch at March 5, 2006 02:07 AM

Just ran across this entry and am flattered by the generous comments. TY.

Where did you find this? For the life of me, I can't remember the context of writing it, although it sums up my feelings on the matter pretty well.

And, to give credit where credit is due, it's pretty much a paraphrase of one of Rand's comments in which she expressed her disdain for racism as "the crudest form of collectivism".

That about sums it up for me, especially the crude part.

Posted by veryretired at March 5, 2006 04:08 AM

Has it occurred to veryretired that he has just described not so much the indigenous Britons, but the ethnic minority groups, who seem unable to function in this country without a whole mess of organisations pandering to their ethnicity? Examples include the state-funded teaching of Urdu/Punjabi etc, the endless festivals, all these Sikh/Hindu/Jamaican community halls, the diversity officers, the Race Relations Board, Black History Month, the new members of the House of Lords, endless consulation groups etc, etc, etc ad nauseam. The UK concerns itself with race nothing but race. It infantilises the minority groups by turning them into self-absorbed and demanding children, unable to play nicely with the rest of the class because they must have all the grownups' attention all the time. It is positively tribal for Heaven's sake. It is also so insanely BORING!

If the indigenous Britons have started playing this race game you can hardly blame them since it has been so lucrative in garnering both political power and money for the tribe most sucessful at playing it. The Indigenes are being discriminated against at every level - I even heard of a cricket club whose attempts to gain a modest government grant to help coach the children was knocked back because they didn't have enough ethnic minority players - this in a rural area with about 99.9% white people. It creates resentment and it encourages race identification.

You are busy creating a Northern Ireland in your own mainland except that instead of having two tribes fighting for political control you seem to have dozens. Thank God I live in a grown-up multicultural country where most people subsume their racial differences into a common culture.

Posted by Expatriate at March 5, 2006 07:57 AM

...the ethnic minority groups, who seem unable to function in this country without a whole mess of organisations pandering to their ethnicity?

Rot. People of all types function perfectly well in this country. The organisations you refer to are not generally pandering to ethnicity, but pimping it to politicians and bureacrats. At bottom, 'community relations' experts and leaders of various sorts are saying to the corporatist establishment: "Give me and my friends money, and our organisation status, and I will deliver you compliant people of group X."

Posted by guy herbert at March 5, 2006 09:56 AM

Very few 'racists' are actually 'supremacists', but survivalists. And I see nothing wrong in wanting to preserve ones unearned genetic and cultural heritage, or human bio-diversity in general for that matter. It would be a very dull world otherwise.

Posted by Jeff at March 5, 2006 10:46 AM

Johnathan Pearce is rather ungracious not to mention me by name (ditto in his post about Harry Browne's death, to which I alerted him) but FYI here is a flavour of what this 'rather sad' person (I'm actually quite a cheerful soul; having low expectations of humanity does that for you) wrote in an earlier thread:

The implications of DNA are not a 'supreme breakthrough' (typical silly strawman stuff) but they are going to hit us like a tidal wave in a few years, raising problems of personal liberty far more momentous than ID cards or ASBOs. Reacting to every attempt to ventilate these questions with a "Get thee behind me, Nazi!" doesn't answer.

The Chinese, the Indians and Japanese are going full steam ahead on making fitter and cleverer people-- and a lot of this activity is private sector and voluntary. Some weeks back when I mentioned this, and asked how the West should respond, you *immediately* jumped down my throat with your libertarian bell, book and candle, assuming (which I never said) that I was all for compulsory state engineering of the genome. You give the impression of trying to stifle discussion at the outset by tying on the 'collectivists and racist bigots' label.

Time to decide. Libertarianism is very much on the back foot these days. Do you want to dwindle into a collection of grumbly old men stopping your ears, or will you engage with the apostles of genetic and racial realism?

Note that I have not said that I am such an apostle and I have never talked about any one race being 'superior' to another. As Jeff implies immediately above, such an absurd claim is incompatible with the idea that subspecies isolated for many generations have developed measurable and substantial differences. No one race could be equally adapted to all environments.

What I *did* argue is that the implied absolutist model of human biology posited by Samizdata in its constant quest for 'individual freedom' is scientifically outdated, and that this explains why libertarians are, if anything, losing ground in public debates.

Evolutionary psychology and materialist mensuration of differences between populations suggest that the varieties of homo sapiens may be diverging *more* rapidly because of the differential ability of higher and lower IQ societies to control their environments which has emerged since the Middle Ages. The idea that there is a single universal standard of rationality, expressed in a particular set of political values, towards which the whole world is converging is not borne out by history or the present state of the world.

All I am asking is that Samizdata addresses these objections to its own brand of one-size-fits-all thinking, instead of spluttering about 'collectivists'.

"His [Randall Parker's] argument is that the costs outweigh the benefits, and it has little to do with a free society. It mainly has to do with programs the government sets up which make the whole 'free society' thing a bit watered down."

Harry Browne made the same case. He was alarmed about the scale and indiscriminate nature of US immigration, but argued that it would soon be stemmed (and the less valuable incomers go away) if the welfare 'Welcome Wagon' wasn't put out for immigrants.

The idea that libertarianism is compatible with the desire to preserve a particular cultural ethos (which is ultimately based on shared ancestry) has been made by Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Michael Levin.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran at March 5, 2006 11:16 AM

I see you point out that “The Chinese, the Indians and Japanese are going full steam ahead on making fitter and cleverer people”

Even here you see things not as genetics, but race. A person truly pursuing genetic improvement would not be worried about which race is ahead. A person truly advocating genetic improvement would see our future transcending race, not segregating it into competitive teams. You didn't mention the Russians. They probably were/are studying eugenics, too. But they're white? So that makes them on 'our' side?

You claim that we are ignoring genetics. No. The great advantage of DNA science is that we are now identifiable down to the individual level. You have heard of DNA evidence used in courts? The evidence the can tell any two people apart? Not just identify race?

What you want to do is take us backward in time to when race was the way we categorized people. If any one here is ignoring the benefits of DNA research, it's you.

Your closing statement sums you up rather well.

“apostles of genetic and racial realism?”

“Apostles”. How very scientific that sounds. Your history on this site is one of racism. You only use the word 'genetic' to make your bilge more palatable. 'Racial Realism' is what you're preaching.

Posted by Midwesterner at March 5, 2006 12:52 PM

Matt O'Halloran,
I read your post twice (I think it was twice - it all kinda blurred) and have not the slightest idea what the bloody hell you are wittering on about. I feel I must quote you.

Evolutionary psychology and materialist mensuration of differences between populations suggest that the varieties of homo sapiens may be diverging *more* rapidly because of the differential ability of higher and lower IQ societies to control their environments which has emerged since the Middle Ages.

Any meaning this peerless statement actually has is doubtless objectionable.

Posted by Nick M at March 5, 2006 01:38 PM

Nick,

What I think he's saying is that North Koreans are really really dumb and South Koreans are really really smart because they are racially superiour.

This is why South Korea is so much wealthier.

It has nothing to do with this.

South Korea

Article 10 [Dignity, Pursuit of Happiness] All citizens are assured of human worth and dignity and have the right to pursue happiness. It is the duty of the State to confirm and guarantee the fundamental and inviolable human rights of individuals.

North Korea

Article 63 In the DPRK the rights and duties of citizens are based on the collectivist principle, One for all and all for one.

Posted by Midwesterner at March 5, 2006 02:05 PM

I'm with Jonathan, Midwesterner et al on this.
While there are significant gaps among the economic success of different racial groups, if you choose to classify people in that way, those groups correlate very strongly with different cultures. I believe it is the culture - attitude to work, to learning, family, the place of women in society, beliefs about money and the levels of trust between business partners which are critical influences in economic success. Race is often correlated with religion but not always. Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims are all significant groups where significant numbers of people are of Indian origin. Largely the same racial group, different cultures and different social outcomes.

if the restrictions on immigration continue, I would prefer they weren’t quota based, but IQ based.

Who contributes the most benefit to society - a Marxist sociology professor with a high IQ, paid by the taxpayer or a rather dimwitted immigrant who gets a job in a sandwich shop and spends his day providing a service people want and are willing to pay for while never claiming a penny in benefits?
Posted by Wolfie at March 5, 2006 04:10 PM

"What you want to do is take us backward in time to when race was the way we categorized people."

But who is 'us' ?
It is the 'multi-cultural' West that is trying to deny race. Most other people don't have a problem with categorizing people around race(& religion) at all. The blank-slate fantasy is a Western political idea, in other parts of the world kinship is much much stronger. Matt wouldn't be taking them backwards, its what they already believe.

Individualism is a two way thing. If one tribe is ruled by Jonathan Pearce and other other by Mugabe, Jonathan can make the rules of his tribe be as individual as he likes until Mugabe attacks in which case you would have to regroup as a tribe to defend yourselves! or be wiped out. As Jeff said racialism/tribalism is about survival.

Posted by Dave at March 5, 2006 04:27 PM

Wolfie, you are wrong, Indians are not largely of the same racial group at all.

"India is a country remarkable for its diversity; biological and human."
(Link)

Posted by Dave at March 5, 2006 04:50 PM

Wolfie, you are wrong, Indians are not largely of the same racial group at all.

"India is a country remarkable for its diversity; biological and human."
(Link)

Posted by Dave at March 5, 2006 04:51 PM

"I see you point out that “The Chinese, the Indians and Japanese are going full steam ahead on making fitter and cleverer people”

Even here you see things not as genetics, but race. A person truly pursuing genetic improvement would not be worried about which race is ahead."

Do you think Chinese genetic research is being undertaken in order to benefit all of humanity as a whole, or the Chinese race in particular?

Posted by Yobbo at March 5, 2006 06:15 PM

Everyone needs a few handy shortcut methods with which to make quick decisions about people and situations.

Some people use race.

I use a few simple rules depending on the situation:

Never watch a movie with Sylvester Stallone;

Never walk into a burning room;

Always say yes when SWMBO asks if I would like to take a nap on Saturday afternoon;

Always ignore any argument if it includes classifying people by race;

Never pass up a chance to go to a t-ball game or watch mite hockey;

Buy 2 year old used cars.

There's more, but I also have a rule that says---never tell all your secrets, let other people tell you theirs.

Posted by veryretired at March 5, 2006 06:47 PM

Matt, it is true that your comments did prompt me to quote VeryRetired's excellent and accurate remark. Take that as a compliment of sorts.

Even if some of what you say about genetics is true, how does any of that affect directly the arguments in favour or against a liberal, capitalist order, or any of the other political issues that we write and argue about? How would it inform the argument, say, about the case for legalising drugs, or the case for trial by jury, or free trade?

I suspect, also, that many people tend to pick on those scientific ideas that they think bolster their existing political views. I am honest in stressing the means by which our understanding of the world can enhance human liberty and bring out the benefits of human differences and uniqueness. I actually think that the more we know about the world and our place in it, the freer we will be. You seem to be a sort of determinist, at least on a superficial reading, arguing that group differences, DNA or whatever somehow trump arguments for free will and rationality. But I don't see that as necessarily following at all.

I have recently read people like Daniel Dennett and Stephen Pinker, and neither of them would, for a second, see their views as undercutting the case for understanding man as a rational, choice-making creature. Quite the reverse.

I would be more willing to grant Matt O'Halloran and other such folk the benefit of the doubt had he not been so snarky and dismissive of libertarianism and arguments for liberty generally. I smell a rat, and I continue to do so.

Posted by Johnathan at March 5, 2006 08:28 PM

I don't know, veryretired, it sounds like you're gettin' the hang of this 'homespun' stuff right quick!

Posted by Midwesterner at March 5, 2006 08:43 PM

In theory is should be possible to have a rational reasonable discussion about race and genetics as it is a legitimate subject of enquiry like everything else.

In the real world however my experience is that there is Peason's coefficient of damn near 1 between racist loony toons and anyone who keeps discussing the subject. I have met a couple people (literally two) in the last few years who bucked the numbers and proved to be rational civilised people who really had no interest in defending The Volk against the non-white peril of the day... but as a general rule if you assume anyone discussing racial intelligence is crypto-fascist wacko (and generally obsessive about the subject), you will very rarely be proven wrong. And no, I am not a great fan of Hans-Hermann Hoppe either, even if we agree (to some extent) about democracy.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at March 5, 2006 10:05 PM

Perry,

With your much wider connections, it's not too surprising that you're two people ahead of me on that tally sheet. Otherwise, agree with you 100%.

Posted by Midwesterner at March 5, 2006 11:02 PM

Pearce: "You seem to be a sort of determinist, at least on a superficial reading, arguing that group differences, DNA or whatever somehow trump arguments for free will and rationality. But I don't see that as necessarily following at all."

A very superficial reading, yielding another either/or strawman. I wrote that our heredity *largely* governs how we turn out-- the current psychometric consensus is that by adulthood 80% of stabilised general intelligence is attributable to the genetic contribution of our parents, and 'g' is an immensely valuable predictor of all sorts of outcomes apart from what job we do and how much we earn. But the remaining 20% *may* be under our control, or at least not susceptible to prediction. And when 6 billion 20%s collide, it leaves a fog of uncertainty in which we can rationalise our blunderings as the fetterless exercise of free will.

Which brings us to what you call 'rationality', which I suspect you measure by how far one agrees with libertarians. This ought not to be opposed to genetic influence. The brain is an organ of the body like any other, and our swiftly improving understanding of how it functions (the materialist London School of psychology is still in the vanguard of this) leads one to doubt that most 'rationality' is more than a fairly low-grade, moment-by-moment apprehension of what benefits us in everyday life. Most people just don't have the IQ to ratiocinate further.

Libertarianism is an unusually cerebral political philosophy. Its attractions cannot be crisply summarised in a form attractive to the generality of mankind, or at any rate have not been thus summarised so far. (Perhaps Ayn Rand in the 1950s came closest, but she's a museum exhibit now. Harry Browne got no further.) Purporting to free us all, in practice libertarianism seems to appeal most to self-consciously isolated, rather haughty intellectuals in coteries.

I am proposing that the post-HGP biological model of human nature, which is much less malleable than libertarianism requires to flourish, goes far to explain why the creed does not resonate with the masses anywhere on Earth. (See, I can be a good multiracial generaliser too.)

You can sniff as many rodents as you like, but the facts of your failure to convert your fellow Man are stark and multiplying as he flees into the womb of the State, clutching his biometric ID card. You must be less proud and less Luddite. If libertarianism does not take evolutionary psychology on board, it will go the way of all the other heresies and variants of 'Enlightenment' wishfulness. If it reaches an accomodation with what geneticists and psychometricians know, it may become a formidable, because informed, counter-irritant.

If, as you say, you have read Pinker's The Blank Slate, you will find my musings elaborated there. Libertarianism as preached by the Objectivists is the most extreme statement of blank-slatery I know of, give or take the odd Pol Pot. I have called it the autism of politics; behaviorism (BF Skinner's kind) might be a more suitable metaphor.

I might add that Euan Gray, your much derided but infintely patient commenter, is articulating in terms of political practicality a vision of Man's capabilities and limits which well fits the Pinkerian model. Yet Pinker is a liberal. No course of action is dictated by appreciation of what science is telling us about our make-up. That's where all those 20%s come in.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran at March 6, 2006 01:26 AM

Nick M: Are you perchance an admirer of Germaine Dulac?

The sentence you quote alludes to the divergence in civilisational accomplishment snce c. 1492 between Europe and the Far East.

Half a millennium ago the Chinese were as prosperous as the peoples of the West, and if anything more technologically accomplished (printing, rockets, gunpowder, the Great Wall etc). How did the Caucasoids forge ahead?

For some reason(s) China decided to seal itself off from contact with foreign barbarians just as Europeans were venturing beyond the world's known limits. Europeans exposed themselves, often with initially disastrous results, to all sorts of unfamiliar environment and adapted thereto, so that in time they could plant their urban civilisations in places such as Sydney, Johannesburg and San Francisco, even surpassing the mother countries on some measures in these faraway places.

To transplant themselves and survive, Europeans had to learn new methods of prophylaxis, cultivation and defence which constituted an evolutionary crash course in adaptation and enabled them to multiply transmittable knowledge, accelerate transport and sharpen their wits. Conceivably the result over the past 25 or so generations has been a widening IQ gap between whites and most Asiatics or Africans, the stay- at-homes of the planet. At any rate, the gap is present today and proving very hard to close.

Where non-whites equal or slightly exceed Europeans in average IQ, as northern Chinese, Japanese and northern Indians do, they have eventually managed to imitate and now hope to surpass western accomplishments. But they are cramped by their heritage of unadventurousness, since their scatter of IQ scores around the median is narrower than among whites: they produce fewer dolts but fewer geniuses, and this conformity may have cramped their style as innovators. (The Japanese have been open to the West for 150 years, but still reprove themselves for not blazing enough trails or throwing up enough charismatic world leaders.)

There is nothing in the hap-map to make such an East/West divergence implausible. Significant genetic mutations, e.g. lactose tolerance, can occur in far less than 500 years. The magnetic resonance imaging of brains and culture-free reaction testing which is now proceeding apace is finding systematic racial differences in cranial capacity (absolute and relative to body size), in structure and in processing speeds. These variances may help explain why most important inventions and innovations have come from people of white European descent, whereas most blacks retain their traditional African social structures (extended families with low-investment parenting) even after several generations living alongside whites.

This is not to say that today's dispensation cannot alter; genetics may furnish an answer to the riddle of how we can make human subspecies more equal in performance. Such an answer has to be at least as credible as the failed environmentalist interventions-- such as foreign aid, special schooling and 'enrichment' programmes for young children-- which have poured so much money down the drain since the early 1960s. But we do the world's less fortunate no favours by telling them that all their woes are due to their own lack of will power or a malign 'culture', or are the results of their being oppressed and exploited by us.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran at March 6, 2006 01:58 AM

Yes, Meanwhile, in the real world race is becoming less and less important as people intermarry, move around and generally blur the boundaries. The fastest growing racial group in the US is the group which classifies itself as being mixed race.

Posted by Ipoife at March 6, 2006 02:54 AM

A few comments without even attempting any sort of point by point response to MOH, partly because I don't understand much of what he is claiming.

Liberterianism is a modern response to the progressive/statist resurgence of the late 19th-early 20th century in the US. It is a restatement of the classical liberal theories of government which undergirded the establishment of a world wide commercial empire for the British, and formed the philosophical basis for the constitutional government of the US.

Since those theories, as incomplete and flawed as they were, were the societal structure that led to one of the most influential empires since Rome, and the establishment of a network of representative governments around the globe, and the establishment of the richest and most powerful nation in history, and its subsequent cultural domination of the globe, it is a distinctly odd and counterfactual position which asserts that these ideas are ineffectual and futile.

Regardless of one's opinions about the supposed determinent value of racial or genetic heritage, it is a very well documented fact that the differences in genetic composition between one racial group and another is utterly inconsequential in any scientific sense.

It has also been documented in the genetic record that there have been several times in human history when the genetic pool was reduced to only a few thousand people, especially a very significant bottleneck aout 180,000 years ago, when the genetic pool was less than 10,000.

The assertion that genetic mutations have occurred from that period until now which are significant enough to enable us to classify whole segments of the species on the basis of their superficial racial characteristics is not in any way supported by any legitimate genetic or mitochondrial analysis.

Such a claim of legitimacy for a purely political statement is a malignant attempt to resurrect the race and blood theories of the psuedo-science of the 19th century, theories which have had every bit as disastrous an effect on civilization as the equally bogus claims of economic determinism, or the current multi-cultural claims of cultural determinism.

Men and women are influenced and affected by any number of factors, beginning with their genetic heritage, and extending through their entire lives as experiences and ideas combine and intertwine with a complexity and variation in effect that no theory can possibly predict or adequately explain.

I, personally, believe that the extreme variablility of climate and prey animals due to the recurring ice ages in the northern hemisphere led the northern peoples to develop a set of cultural values rewarding innovation and adaptation that did not always occur in other parts of the globe. But that is a discussion for another time and place.

I know some things with the same certainty that I know the sun will rise in the east and set in the west.

The first of those things is that I, me, my essence, that element that is me and no other, demands that I be addressed, considered, treated, and respected as an individual first, last, and always. And so I must regard any human that I encounter.

If I am a rational man, then I can do no other.

Posted by veryretired at March 6, 2006 03:46 AM

These reams of comment on the subject of Race are laced with much that I do not understand. I know of DNA & genetics & IQs etc. but in such a simple way that I am unable to compete with our experts. Clear beyond doubt is that the "interest" seems tinged with guilt, either personal or by association & that it is "Caucasian" whiteys & honkies whom you all mention that are wearing the black hats. Au bloody contraire as my travels have educated me. And which of you hasn't been a tad surprized when introduced to a non-honkey business partner?.....no surface tension but a query sent hot to your subconscious. Time has ingrained the distrust of strangers; especially if they're green...........to everyone.
More years ag than I care to count and having lived in The Gold Coast, as it the was, I joined a very mixed student group in a major city in England. One of the students was a very charming & educated young Ganaian who introduced ne to his English Rose girlfriend. Later,getting to know him a little better I asked if he intended to marry his amorata. "Good gracious no," he replied, "she's White!

Posted by permanent expat at March 6, 2006 04:38 AM

please forgive the spelling errors......I have only one functioning eye at the moment.

Posted by permanent expat at March 6, 2006 04:45 AM

But the remaining 20% *may* be under our control, or at least not susceptible to prediction. And when 6 billion 20%s collide, it leaves a fog of uncertainty in which we can rationalise our blunderings as the fetterless exercise of free will.

That is jolly sporting of you.

I must say I share Perry's experience. I once met a genetics buff who actually was a radical libertarian.

Posted by Johnathan Pearce at March 6, 2006 08:44 AM

If, as you say, you have read Pinker's The Blank Slate, you will find my musings elaborated there. Libertarianism as preached by the Objectivists is the most extreme statement of blank-slatery I know of, give or take the odd Pol Pot. I have called it the autism of politics; behaviorism (BF Skinner's kind) might be a more suitable metaphor.

Incorrect. Ayn Rand believed man has a certain type of consciousness, requiring the exercise of volition. She did not, as far as I know, deny that humans differed in their capacities or IQs, but she did deny that a huge amount of our rational capacities are hardwired from birth.

I might add that Euan Gray, your much derided but infintely patient commenter, is articulating in terms of political practicality a vision of Man's capabilities and limits which well fits the Pinkerian model.

Euan can no doubt speak for himself. I have read him enough to know that he is not a fan of genetic "realism", and in fact I distinctly recall him denouncing it on one occasion. You're on your own, mate.

Posted by Johnathan Pearce at March 6, 2006 08:49 AM

M O'H writes,

["Non-whites" in some societies with higher mean IQ] are cramped by their heritage of unadventurousness, since their scatter of IQ scores [...]

Well, I've come across some odd claims for the predictive capacity of IQ tests, but never before heard it suggested that IQ is correlated with 'adventurousness' or other personality traits - even on an individual level, never mind for groups (which need not follow). Is there any evidence for it?

Posted by guy herbert at March 6, 2006 11:34 AM

I might add that Euan Gray, your much derided but infintely patient commenter, is articulating in terms of political practicality a vision of Man's capabilities and limits which well fits the Pinkerian model

Hmm. Mr O'Halloran, it seems to me that you are one of these "scientific" racists, so I'm not entirely comfortable with your comment here. I don't generally comment in threads related to race, but I think I'll make an exception this time. I'll say at the start that I haven't read Pinker's "The Blank Slate" and can only go by reviews I've read.

I do not subscribe to the tabula rasa view of humanity. I don't think it's entirely fair to say all libertarians do subscribe, either, although it does seem to be a popular and ideologically convenient notion for many of them.

It is trivially true that man's genetic inheritance limits what he can do, but only what he can do directly and only in gross terms - for example, we cannot fly like the birds, but we can build machines that can fly much better than the birds. I suppose it's possible, even probable, that in many cases the reason an individual human is less or more intelligent than the average may have a genetic component, but I doubt very much that the science is at the stage where it can say this with any certainty, still less do anything about it. I doubt even more that there is the slightest genetic influence on intelligence at the ethnic level - i.e. no justification for saying blacks are less intelligent than whites, or for this notion of "IQ scatter."

Humans are of course born with a certain programming, as are all animals. Ours is a bit more complex than most, but not that much more than some. There is no difference in this programming between human ethnic groups, nor is there a difference in the capacity for reason, abstraction or any other attribute between ethnic groups. We aren't blank slates, but the writing on the slates is pretty much the same in all ethnicities.

But even if it wasn't, does it bloody matter?

Pretending that some ethnicities have a greater capacity for reason than others, or have a tighter statistical spread of IQ results, is risible. It's just an attempt to clothe naked racism in pseudo-scientific robes. Then again, you have the right to your view.

I, however, have the right to laugh at your view, and to condemn it as nothing more than the philosophical manifestation of your insecurities about people who are different than you.

EG

Posted by Euan Gray at March 6, 2006 01:18 PM

Euan, well bloody said. Well said indeed. (And I meant that!).

Posted by Johnathan Pearce at March 6, 2006 01:21 PM

permanent expat,

I can't speak for others on this site but, far from guilt, my interest is tinged with anticipation. I see an individualist future, not a collectivist one. And for your concern that only “whiteys & honkies” are wearing the black hats, I think the modern western world and the commenters on this site are actually the most determined to see equal opportunities for all. For reasons of optimism, not guilt.

“And which of you hasn't been a tad surprized when introduced to a non-honkey business partner?”

All I can say is, well traveled and educated or no, I hope you never represent my business interests with that frame of mind. I want someone who searches out opportunities, not obstacles.

More years ago than I care to count, I too, had a friend from Ghana (Earlier Gold Coast). He was also charming and educated. The difference is, he married his white girlfriend. Last I saw him, they had a beautiful daughter named Holly and, I think, another on the way.

The difference is not what their color is. The difference is not where they came from. Maybe the difference is where they came to. Maybe the difference was not who he left, but who he joined.

Posted by Midwesterner at March 6, 2006 02:48 PM

Dave wrote,

I'm all for individualism if everyone else is playing by the same rules.

Please, please tell me you were watching Monty Python's Life of Brian when you wrote that (Brian: You are all individuals, Crowd [in unison]: Yes, we are all individuals). The whole point of individualism is that you do not require anyone else to play by the 'rules'. That's why its called individualism.

Posted by Julian Taylor at March 6, 2006 03:00 PM

Matt O'Halloran,

I've never heard of Germaine Dulac.

Neither have I heard of any good whatsoever coming from trying to compile a league table of "smarts" by race or nationality.

But, there is another thing, which is perhaps the hidden reason the samizdatistas don't take you seriously. Your arguments are essentially determinist. Libertarians believe in freedom which is the antithesis of determinism. We believe that certain individuals can make enormous differences by being smarter, luckier or quicker on the draw than their contemporaries.

Lets look at just one example. The Battle of Midway. Now, you might like to think the US trounced the Japs there because they were intrinsically more adventurous (however one measurse that). I prefer to think in terms of my knowledge of military history. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway
It seems far more compatible with Occam's razor to believe that the US won because Chester Nimitz made better decisions than Isuroku Yamamoto and he also had a bigger slice of luck than some far-fetched theory of racial intelligence.

Before the Pearl Harbour attacks the US DoD Intelligence believed, like you, that the Japanese were genetically unsuitable (citing in particular poor eyesight, amongst other factors) for modern air warfare. I guess the guys who produced that report didn't stay in their jobs much beyond December 7, 1941.

Posted by Nick M at March 6, 2006 04:16 PM

I've just looked up Germaine Dulac. I'm sorry Matt, but you have managed to obscure your point even more. Hats off to you for that. I thought it impossible.

Is your (I assume willful) obscurantism a cover for the fact that you're really just a nasty little neo-fascist? A shaven-headed guttersnipe who's read a book on genetics? A racist with a bit of knowledge of "hap maps" and mitochondria? Am I getting warm? Perhaps you could enlighten us with your pontifications on the "gay gene" or genes for criminality?

Tomorrow doesn't belong to you.

PS. Midwesterner, loved your comparison of the two Koreas. Spot on!

Posted by Nick M at March 6, 2006 04:29 PM

Meanwhilst, "in the real world", Blacks get together to filch from Whites, Mestizos get together to make American open borders a fait accompli, and Arabs get together to preach radical, anti-West jihad.

Oh, and as to your post-racial fantasies: have you noticed that the greater the number of inter-breds, the less liberty there is in a place? Deprived of any other identity, mongrels attach themselves to the all-powerful state to find some sort of belonging.

You state that believing in racial differences is the product of a sense of personal inferiority. Yet, if racial differences do exist, and judging by the performance of Blacks on just about any metric they do, then they should be believed in.

You state that the success of a nation is the result of its freedoms, not its race. But a nation's freedoms are the product of its race. Why was classical liberalism only ever tried in the West?

You claim to libertarians: well, then, presumably you are oppossed to social engineering. Yet, that is precisely what is necesary to convince the people to welcome every etnicity under the sun into their embrace. The misegenation you celebrate is the direct result of half a century of government propoganda to the effect that "if it feels good, do it".

Every self-governing people in history has resisted large scale immigration. It is the empires, the late Romans and the Persians and the Mongols and the Soviets, which welcomed the great unwashed mass, caring as they did not for their people but for their military might.

"Diversity, tolerance, araciality" are the swan song of every civilization, and the beginning of many a dictatorship.

Is it possible to be a race-based libertarian? If you consider oppossing govvernment propoganda, socila engineering and the whims of emperors to be libertarian, it most certainly is.

Posted by Alex Zeka (from Majority Rights) at March 6, 2006 05:19 PM

Oh, and as to your post-racial fantasies: have you noticed that the greater the number of inter-breds, the less liberty there is in a place?

No, I haven't noticed any such thing, old boy. In fact, I doubt whether there is much of a correlation between how racially varied a nation is and how free it is. Is Japan, a racially fairly homogenous country, freer than say, the United States? I doubt it.

But a nation's freedoms are the product of its race

Paranoid garbage.

Posted by Johnathan Pearce at March 6, 2006 05:38 PM

EG, you seem to pretty much be saying race doesn't exist?

veryretired " it is a very well documented fact that the differences in genetic composition between one racial group and another is utterly inconsequential in any scientific sense. "

Thats just MSM nonsense mate. The human genome is made of about 3 billion DNA base pairs, when the MSM say there is only 0.1-0.2% difference between races at most, they are trying to make it sound like a small figure, but 0.1 percent of 3 billion "is" big. And with genetics very small differences can have a very big effects. Such as the gene alteration that gives people 5 fingers.

veryretired also suggests genetic differences can't happen quickly, thats just not true, straight from wikipedia.
"Dogs were first domesticated from wolves at least 15,000 years ago, but perhaps as early as 150,000 years ago. In this time, the dog has developed into hundreds of breeds with a great degree of variation."

Ofcourse these dog breeds are not real, only a right-wing racist fantasy!

veryretired "I, personally, believe that the extreme variablility of climate and prey animals due to the recurring ice ages in the northern hemisphere led the northern peoples to develop a set of cultural values rewarding innovation and adaptation that did not always occur in other parts of the globe. But that is a discussion for another time and place."

I don't see why its for another place, you are admitting the enviroment affected the cultural values and therefor by implication it also affect natural selection leading to evolution. Which is exactly what we are talking about, did one group of people get natural selection pressures that others didn't get leading to a distinctiveness for that group.
Does that distinctiveness affect the political attitudes of that group compared to another, I don't know the answer but I don't think the idea can be dismissed so easily.

Posted by Dave at March 6, 2006 05:51 PM

And aren't those 'racial' categories odd? I was under the impression that being an Arab was a matter of language and culture, and that 'mestizo' was a social label for vastly varied groups across Latin America meaning different things in different places. All "Blacks" to Mr Zeka fall into one category in his "real world", whereas skin colour is just one very obvious, extremely variable, phenotypic variation.

Posted by guy herbert at March 6, 2006 05:55 PM

Dave, Alex, and any more like you,

I really, sincerely can't be bothered with you. You operate at a level of ignorance that is impenetrable.

Posted by veryretired at March 6, 2006 06:20 PM

veryretired,
Right with you on that. There is no point arguing the toss with cretins.

I can't resist this though. Genetically, Israeli Jews are very similiar to middle-east Arabs. They are essentially the same "race". How then can "race" be used to explain the existence of a vibrant capitalist democracy in Israel, compared to the appaling statist or Islamicist tyrannies in the rest of the region. Given the closeness, genetically, of the Brits and Germans, how come the Brits invented liberalism and the German's Nazism?

I greatly dislike the way some people have taken this thread, though it's good to see enough of us laughing at them.

Posted by Nick M at March 6, 2006 07:38 PM

Oh, and as to your post-racial fantasies: have you noticed that the greater the number of inter-breds, the less liberty there is in a place?

Nope. Often quite the contrary, as the mingling of different cultures opens the host culture to new ideas, which is usually a Good Thing (tm).

Immigration is good and healthy. Selective inbreeding amongst the host population results in recessive genetic disorders and is bad and unhealthy. Ever heard of Tay-Sachs disease?

EG, you seem to pretty much be saying race doesn't exist?

Pretty much, yes. To the extent it is a valid concept, it really doesn't mean very much. Sure, some people have darker skin than others, some have straighter hair. So bloody what?

The human genome is made of about 3 billion DNA base pairs, when the MSM say there is only 0.1-0.2% difference between races at most, they are trying to make it sound like a small figure, but 0.1 percent of 3 billion "is" big

I'll take you're word for 0.1 to 0.2%, although to be perfectly frank I really can't be bothered to check. However, if you want to chuck some DNA statictics around, ponder this:

All life on this planet that we know if is related. All of it. Man shares 99.5% of his DNA with the bonobo chimp, so I'm sure you'll take that as meaning that our African cousins (actually, brothers) are that bit more simian. I mean, look at the flat noses and the fuzzy hair, like apes, innit? Did you know that man also shares 70% of his DNA with Drosophila melanogaster, our friend the common fruit fly? Did you know also that man shares 40% of his DNA with the humble cabbage?

The interesting question here is, are you 0.2% closer to a cabbage than me?

More seriously, we can view life as just something that happens, or we can see it as a minor miracle of complex organisation. Either all life is special and important or none is. For me all life is special, and frankly I don't give a tuppeny fuck what colour it's skin is.

Ofcourse these dog breeds are not real, only a right-wing racist fantasy!

Humans aren't dogs, although I suspect you'd treat them as if they were. Dogs come in many shapes and sizes, it is true, but the funny thing is that they are, for all their differences, *still dogs* A toy poodle is genetically compatible with a St Bernard, although arguably there are some mechanical difficulties to overcome if they want to have pups.

Interesting thing about dogs is that they do indeed show that selective inbreeding does give rise to genetic defects, just as it does with humans.

The bulldog, for example, is notoriously stupid, even by canine standards. And the bulldog is the symbolic mutt of the British racist crowd. How apt, I've always though.

I should say now that I'll be changing my ISP in the next couple of days to Bulldog, so that will appear in my email address. Given the content of this thread and the distressing tendency of racist cretins to turn up here, I'd like to state in advance that it has nothing to do with any racist or Nazi organisation, just in case anyone wondered.

Does that distinctiveness affect the political attitudes of that group compared to another

No.

I don't think the idea can be dismissed so easily

I do and it can. I suspect if you keep posting comments like this then you'll be dismissed pretty easily, and permanently too. The editors don't seem to like racists, for some unaccountable reason probably grounded in taste and decency (you may have heard of the concepts), so I'd watch it if I were you.

Now you've made me be rude, which almost everyone here will testify is most uncharacteristic for me, so why don't you just fuck off and take you deluded dog-breeding fantasies with you. And remember, if it's true that blacks are less intelligent than whites, maybe it's also true that they have larger penises - is that the root of your insecurity?

My apologies to everyone else for my intemperance.

EG

Posted by Euan Gray at March 6, 2006 08:25 PM

I have said nothing at all racist, Euan Gray. I agreed with some people who questioned if different ethnicities may generally respond differently to certain ideas. I never claimed one group to be superior to the other.

You make my point for me. Humans share 99.5% of his DNA with the bonobo chimp, and is significantly different to a chimp in reality.
Small difference big effect.

I simply mentioned dog breeding as proof that evolution can make rapid changes in a short space of time. Nothing to do with comparing humans to dogs as you well know. Nice try though.

Posted by Dave at March 6, 2006 09:47 PM

Matt and Alex do not deserve your opprobrium for seeking the survival of their own peoples. This is normal behaviour everywhere in the world except the West. It was normal behaviour here too until 1945. What changed? Our politics became Marxised and, as Alex points out, social engineering on an heroic scale has been brought to bear upon us.

It has worked. You are the proof of it, obediently repeating "correct" opinions - which you dress up with your disdain for "statism" or "collectivism" - and using that special epithet, "racist!" as well as any Morris Dees or Johan Hari.

I wonder that you don't have more rebellion in your supposedly free spirits. But you are only liberals.

I am puzzled by what you think you have to fear from traditionalism? It won't stop you being "free". On the contrary, freedom exists because society is stable, not because a bunch of really radical 120 IQ Randians bravely declare themselves sovereign and selfish individualists. Actually, there was more freedom in England for 120 IQers in any time since the reign of Charles II than there is today. Read some English history.

Some posters and commenters to this blog do not belong to the Caucasian peoples of the West. But their people will survive no matter what happens to us over the next 50 to 100 years. Their objections to our survival are cheap and can be dismissed.

No, it is the others of whom the question must be asked: why do you cheer on the extinction of your own people? What benefit do you think will accrue to you from this grotesque thing?

Finally, to EG ... you are not a lost cause but you are in the grip of received wisdom, my friend. MRI research and the genetics of human biodiversity which you so disparage are breaking the grip of that fast. I urge you to update yourself. Alex Zeka's blog is one place you can do it.

Posted by sj at March 6, 2006 11:47 PM

Another good site is Gene Expression (www.gnxp.com).

Honestly, the level of ignorance about intelligence research and population genetics among these libertarians is abysmal. Now they're banning the messengers.

Posted by The Mighty Mole at March 7, 2006 01:10 AM

Would just like to offer a hearty second to everything Euan Gray said in his last post. (Bet THAT doesn't happen twice...)

My apologies to everyone else for my intemperance.

No need, the guy totally deserves it.

The point about all these racial studies is that there is a lot more variation within races than between them. Certain people who have posted here need to go read up on statistical significance. It is not enough for a statistical comparison to take the means of two populations and compare them. You also have to look at whether the difference in these two means meets certain requirements. Generally speaking, when there is large amounts of variation about a mean present, you have to be more careful of your conclusions. You have to be especially careful when there is large variation about both means, as is transparently the case in most matters pertaining to race.

Another thing to keep in mind is that statistics only ever tell you about correlation, not causation. Responsible scientists use them mostly as a method for sniffing out where explanations are likely to be found, but the point is that you still have to find an underlying explanation. Good luck sorting through millions of gene combinations!

Also, even if you could prove that one race was superior to another to some statistically significant extent in, say, IQ scores, it would still be silly to discriminate against all members of the "lesser" race on this basis. It isn't as though there's a "IQ > 120" gene that is completely absent in a particular race so that you can aways be 100% certain that any job applicant from that race isn't qualified for certain positions. That is, even if it could be proven that some races are better than others in certain areas, the variation would still ensure that many members of the "better" race scored lower than many members of the "lesser" race. It would be both immoral and stupid to allow a general average to dictate one's opinion of every individual he encoutered.

To put this in perspective - there are certain regions of Africa that consistently produce great runners. Should the US or UK Olympic teams recruit only from people who have this ancestry? Surely not! Surely the measure of a good runner is...well, in how well he runs. It would be ridiculous in the extreme to throw out the result of a sprint because a white athlete bucked the statistical average and won against a black opponent. The winner is who won, not who the fastest black runner was. By this logic, if and when I am in a position to hire people, I will simply hire people that I think are suitable for the job. The racists on this site are free to hire only whites if that's what floats their boat, but I predict my company will kick their company's ass as a result of having a greater hiring pool.

Posted by Joshua at March 7, 2006 02:14 AM

Euan, I really enjoyed that. I went back and read it after Joshua's comment. That was one of the funniest take downs I've read in a while.

Kudos. (What am I saying?)

It is curious how all these race roaches can come crawling out of the electronic woodwork.

Posted by Midwesterner at March 7, 2006 04:29 AM

banned. deleted. just changing your name aint going to work Mr. Racist Jackanapes.

Posted by sj at March 7, 2006 07:39 AM

In any event, try to understand that the "pondlife", "racist scum" and "roaches" have a deep intellectual grounding which is supported by emerging science. You are living in a fantasy world

No, it is people like you living in a fantasy world. One thing we have pointed out repeatedly on this thread (by VeryRetired, Euan, Josh, and others) is that there is a lot more variation within supposed racial sets than between them. And yet you never seem to accept that point, I suspect because it does not suit your paranoid purposes.

As Guy Herbert said, when many people use race to describe such issues, what they are really talking about is culture. Fine. I am dead against multi-cultural posturing, am an unashamed supporter of Western, post-Enlightment values.

Some of the posters here seem to labour under the delusion that because this is, broadly speaking, a libertarian blog, that the hosts of it will cut a lot of slack to race or genetic "realists". Biiiig mistake. While it is theoretically possible to have a reasonable discussion about genetics and race, as Perry has said, in my experience nearly all those who try to draw political implications from the subject are crackpots and bigots who simply want to use race as a pretext for collectivist coercion.

I am glad we have had this thread. It has given me the pleasure of seeing a cracking piece by Euan Gray and show that most libertarians out there have zero tolerance for bigotry. That is obviously a mite upsetting to some people.

Posted by Johnathan Pearce at March 7, 2006 08:26 AM

Oh and Euan, no need to apologise for any rudeness. Sometimes rudeness is the only morally correct response to hate-filled bigotry.

I particularly liked the line about the Bulldog. Heh.

Posted by Johnathan at March 7, 2006 08:55 AM

Johnathan, you really are a specialist in insult, aren't you? What is the reason for that? Where are your substantive arguments? Within-race genetic variation isn't one. That's Lewontin - the manoeuvrings of a Jewish nationalist and self-professed Marxist. Culture isn't one, because it is not true. Full stop. You don't have children, do you, or you would know that family and extended family has a meaning that is not cultural.

If you, or anybody reading this, is in the slightest inclined to honesty, at least bear in mind that the sentiments of Alex, Matt and Mighty Mole were endemic throughout the Western world and thought entirely normal, healthy and natural ... until 1945. Then biiiig change, to use your so grown-up language.

Why was that, do you think? Why did the normal and natural become "bigotry" for "pondlife". Cui bono?

Answer that question, please - without more pettiness. And then tell me whether the Han Chinese, who are fiercely particularist (see John Derbyshire), and the Indians, who operate an official Brown India immigration policy (see Peter Brimelow), are not equally "pondlife". They are, of course, merely human ... like us.

You won't answer, of course. You will fall back on yet more opprobrium - apparently in the belief your own people's (?) natural instincts are "coercive". Crazy.

Actually, this leftist anti-racism of yours is an obediently Pavlovian response to the moral consensus on race which was manufactured after the war. That, I may say, was a genuine coercion.

Posted by sj at March 7, 2006 10:16 AM

Johnathan, you really are a specialist in insult, aren't you? What is the reason for that? Where are your substantive arguments? Within-race genetic variation isn't one. That's Lewontin - the manoeuvrings of a Jewish nationalist and self-professed Marxist. Culture isn't one, because it is not true. Full stop. You don't have children, do you, or you would know that family and extended family has a meaning that is not cultural.

When it comes to insults, I try my best. Glad to see my skills get appreciated. They are genetically inherited, you know.

you, or anybody reading this, is in the slightest inclined to honesty, at least bear in mind that the sentiments of Alex, Matt and Mighty Mole were endemic throughout the Western world and thought entirely normal, healthy and natural ... until 1945. Then biiiig change, to use your so grown-up language.I

I wonder what happened up to 1945? Anyone hazard a guess?

Actually, this leftist anti-racism of yours is an obediently Pavlovian response to the moral consensus on race which was manufactured after the war

Yes, I write my words not of my own conviction because I am a "Pavlovian" dog.

There is no point arguing with the likes of you any more. You consistently want to draw out the determinist side of genetics, while consistently failing to address the point that knowledge can be empowering for individuals. You dismiss culture because it does not suit, etc. How lame.

Posted by Johnathan Pearce at March 7, 2006 11:23 AM

Johnathan,

Absolutely nobody eliminates culture from the equation. Nobody determines solely on the basis of genetics. If you don't know that, you don't know anything.

I suspect you have alighted on a 100% (or near 100%) culturally determinist description of Man because it facilitates the rest of your worldview, and your mind is closed on the matter. This is arse about front, and that's your problem. Man does just not fit the description your type of freedom demands, and you can't adjust your type of freedom to the fact of Man.

Thus, I am calling upon you to be unbigoted, Johnathan. I am calling upon you to learn about the world and how it works.

I have not, incidentally, called you a Pavolian dog. That would be unjust and insulting, which is how you play the game, not me. But I do think there is much mechanicity in Man, and submission to the general assumptions of the age is a very clear and sound indication that that is what's going on. Freedom is not to be found here.

By contrast, understanding those countless aspects of yourself and your fellow Man which do indeed arise from Nature - and not declaring a hopeless war on them on the basis that they are "unchosen" - carries no negative implications for human freedom. On the contrary, out of peace and stability flows the very freedom you desire, if you did but know it.

You don't. Or won't. I am sorry for you. "Pondlife" that I am, I think myself freer than you.

Posted by sj at March 7, 2006 12:09 PM

I suspect you have alighted on a 100% (or near 100%) culturally determinist description of Man because it facilitates the rest of your worldview, and your mind is closed on the matter.

You can suspect what you like. I don't take a "determinist" view of culture, either. I am not a determinist, full stop. I think we have in us a speck of volition, or free will, that makes the difference between human beings and lumps of meat.

I am calling upon you to learn about the world and how it works.

Sure. I am willing to learn about a lot of things. Just don't expect me to reach the same conclusions after studying said things.

I have not, incidentally, called you a Pavolian dog.

You used the word "pavlovian" in the first place, so perhaps you should be a bit more careful in your use of words.

By contrast, understanding those countless aspects of yourself and your fellow Man which do indeed arise from Nature - and not declaring a hopeless war on them on the basis that they are "unchosen" - carries no negative implications for human freedom. On the contrary, out of peace and stability flows the very freedom you desire, if you did but know it.

Blather. I don't declare a "war" on whatever inherited characteristics I may, or may not, have. I am pretty comfortable with my own skin, in fact, and fascinated by some of the new ideas being thrown up by science. I make no bones about the fact, that, however, I want the insights of science to maximise the freedoms we have, and not the reverse.

I trust you share that objective.

Posted by Johnathan Pearce at March 7, 2006 12:23 PM

I suspect you have alighted on a 100% (or near 100%) culturally determinist description of Man because it facilitates the rest of your worldview, and your mind is closed on the matter.

Oh, for Heaven's sake! No one here is denying that an individual's genetic makeup plays a role in determining his abilities and success in life, etc. What we're denying is that this correlates with race in any way that allows useful predictions. Certainly there is a genetic basis for IQ to some significant extent. Certainly one arbitrarily defined group will have a higher average IQ than another. But there is no just basis from any of this for concluding that all individuals from one group are superior to all individuals from another on any measure. In plain English - the most intelligent Japanese people and the most intelligent Europeans and the most intelligent Africans will have more in common with each other than they will with other less intelligent members of their own races. If you're looking for a genetic explanation for which nations are successful you're unlikely to find it because all races, as far as we know, have both intelligent and stupid, lazy and diligent members. What seems to matter is how a society divides its labor - whether
suitable people fill suitable roles. It is in this sense that affirmative action is an abomination - because it forces jobs etc. to be apportioned on the basis of superficial and irrelevant characteristics. The problem with affirmative action is, in short, that it lets membership in an arbitrarily defined race trump actual ability --- which is pretty much what you're advocating, as far as I can tell (only for white people, so that somehow magically makes it ok???).

I repeat one thing I said earlier: we can put this to the test in the real world. You go out and form a company and handicap yourself by only accepting white staff, no matter how qualified other job candidates may be. I'll form a company and hire anyone from any race who can do the job I need done well. My company will do better 9 times in 10 because it has a greater pool of talent from which to draw.

I repeat one thing Midwesterner said that I haven't heard
ya'll give a good answer to yet: if race is the primary determinant of how successful a country is, then why does South Korea boast the 12th largest economy in the world while North Korea has one of the worst? Why is South Korea a net exporter of technology while North Korea can't even feed itself? This divide is even greater than you might expect when you consider that in 1949, when NK went its own way, the lion's share of industry was in and around Pyongyang, NOT Seoul. North Korea started with the better hand and has managed to piss away its advantage in spectacular fashion, while South Korea literally pulled itself out of the mud. And all this with the same race on both sides of the DMZ.

Posted by Joshua at March 7, 2006 12:59 PM

Johnathan,

The natural sciences do not exist to maximise freedoms. They exist to explain the universe and our place in it. You may not be 100% culturally determinist, as you claim. But, nonetheless, you reject those scientific explanations that don't suit your ideology. Not only that, you employ slander against those, like myself, who quote them. How is this consonant with freedom, never mind the goals of science?

On the other hand, you lavish praise on poor, hapless EG because he thinks black IQ has not yet been measured in all the thousands of psychometric studies! Or if it has, it can't be right!!

But any "pondlife" can tell you that average African cranial capacity and brain weight fits the IQ disparity very well. Sadly, there is no doubt that Africans have, on average, small, light brains. When, finally, will you people take truth seriously, whether or not it fits your political interests? You aren't Marxists, after all. You don't have to rely on the tabula rasa.

Don't self-censor the science you encounter because its conclusions are awkward for you. Change your worldview.

Returning to where I began, I will be happy to duel with you anytime on the nature of freedom rather than on race realist issues. There, too, you are on extremely shaky ground - always assuming, of course, that you are of European descent (this is important and not "racist" etc. Precisely the opposite - it is to protect us against racial animosity.)

You say, "I think we have in us a speck of volition, or free will, that makes the difference between human beings and lumps of meat". But you do not understand anything of will. You think it is the power of choice, don't you. I know it is the ability to "do", to create out of the material of life. You are playing on a penny whistle.

Posted by sj at March 7, 2006 01:02 PM

The natural sciences do not exist to maximise freedoms. They exist to explain the universe and our place in it.

I always thought that knowledge gave us freedom, rather than doomed man to live in a sort of determinist pre-set order.

Posted by Johnathan Pearce at March 7, 2006 02:09 PM

Joshua's point on the difference between North and South Korea is a good one. I notice that it has yet to meet with a reasoned response.

Posted by Johnathan at March 7, 2006 02:20 PM

The "white supremacists" who call themselves race realists say that not only Jews but northern Chinese and Japanese are slightly cleverer than whites on average. Funny, that.

Moreover, the site I mentioned called Gene Expression is run by a Bangladeshi-born American and is full of Asian contributors.

When The Economist can run a piece about how Ashkenazi Jews' higher intelligence can be linked to their greater susceptibility to some diseases, and both are put down to selective breeding in the past, it does not seem to me that Samizdata can dismiss the research that is now piling up in the aftermath of the human genome being charted.

It may turn out that we have more free will than some ev-psych theorists say. Only, how can we know if we don't go on testing and investigating? (BTW E.O. Wilson, the founder of sociobiology, is a mild leftist.)

People take these things too personally. Nobody is making blanket judgements about individuals being hopelessly handicapped or whatever, but in all politics and social policy you have to work with aggregates, averages and probabilities.

Few but the most extreme feminists still think women and men are capable of doing all things equally well, so why should the rather smaller potential differences in aptitudes between human subspecies be so hard to credit? Because if we admit them, Hitler will rise from the grave? Come on, get real.

Posted by The Mighty Mole at March 7, 2006 02:51 PM

Few but the most extreme feminists still think women and men are capable of doing all things equally well, so why should the rather smaller potential differences in aptitudes between human subspecies be so hard to credit? Because if we admit them, Hitler will rise from the grave? Come on, get real.

As I have said over and over, I would be willing to believe in the intellectual honesty of people who harp on about this if they did not also go on about "protecting the species", as several have done in this thread. That implies that there are clear and coercive political implications to what they say, such as discrimination laws (either positive or negative) in relation to certain groups, defined on the basis of a certain scientific classification.

Of course I accept men and women are different (thank god). I also accept that there are behavioural differences between the sexes that could be worth studying, and I would certainly not want to shut that down. Ditto for stuff on IQ. But with all these things, one should not get bogged down indentifying any one factor as the key driver of human motivation, which is what i see constantly in the determinist-flavoured remarks here.

If it is just part of an ongoing research project, great. I can think of a lot of good that can come out of this, such as cracking certain diseases, improving plant resistance to disease, possibly finding a cure for cancer, and much else.

Posted by Johnathan Pearce at March 7, 2006 03:17 PM

Matt, SJ etc,

I have followed this thread with interest, and see the normally civil and logical samizdata types descend into ad-hominem insults and shut-downs on further discourse in some cases.

It seems that people who wish to live in a nation consisting of people of common culture, language, and common descent are the most vilified people on earth, though for the life of me I can see only good things about this wish, which has been common sense for millennia. We need a context within which to live, that is the nation, but this is being steadily snuffed out and there are people on here who should know better who are helping the left out with their programme of a single distopia made up of fragmented peoples with no power and thereforeno real power or democracy.

I am reminded of the quote by Thomas Carlyle:

"It is strange indeed how prepossessions and delusions sieze upon whole communities of men: no basis in the notion they have formed, yet everybody adopting it, everybody finding the whole world agree with him in it, and accept it as an axiom of Euclid: and, in the universal repetition and reverberation, taking all contradiction of it as an insult and sign of malicious insanity, hardly to be borne with patience. "

This quote applies perfectly to the multicultural samizdatans on this thread.

Andy

Posted by Andy at March 7, 2006 04:32 PM

"aggregates, averages and probabilities."

Yes. Well, in each race there are substantial numbers of members who fall outside the "aggregates, averages and probabilities." of all races.

Given a large enough sample group and enough refining of data, you will be able to create "aggregates, averages and probabilities." for each race.

The predictive effect of these measures on quality of life and productive capacity, and every other measure of success, is microscopic compared to even minor adjustments in the laws that govern them.

Posted by Midwesterner at March 7, 2006 04:36 PM

Andy, I have never claimed to be other than a cultural supremacists. I have never believed in anything but one-language government.

“people of common culture, language, and common descent”

Your arguments for race as a factor are so lame that the only way you can defend them is by tying them into the legitimate factors of culture and language.

Even your closing argument is just one more effort to hitch your false and undefendable claims to other ideas of merit.

Race is bogus and you have all been totally unable to prove otherwise. This is why you are compelled to tie your bigotries onto ideas that actually have substance.

Posted by Midwesterner at March 7, 2006 04:52 PM

"one should not get bogged down indentifying any one factor as the key driver of human motivation"

Agreed.
But why try to specifically exclude one 'possible' factor?

There is a lot of hypocrisy regarding race. As Mighty Mole says, no one has a problem mentioning higher than average IQ in Jews. But as soon as almost any other racial group is mentioned its considered some kind of sin.

The North vs South Korean is simple. They only split 50-60 years ago its not enough time to indicate a general trend.
And while North Korean was dragged down by 'help' from the Chinese, South Korean was supported by America.
You guys know this better than I do, the question is disingenous.

Posted by Dave at March 7, 2006 05:46 PM