This conversation helped me to articulate my intuition that wokism won’t go away anytime soon: the belief in the blank slate is too deeply rooted in our culture.
Specifically, Blankslatism is the current scientific dogma in the mainstream West. A luxury belief that rots the culture. But Non-Western European cultures, or Asian ones do not hold this belief.
Why do most races aspire to be "white" whether directly and indirectly? Are there AnitBlackisms too? Is that why most ethnicities or races look down on darker skinned peoples? This fact is empirically salient and historically extant. I defend anyone discriminated against. I am also a veteran, ex US Army soldier however watch the film Mudbound where the bigoted individuals had the gall and temerity to ask the black veteran soldier returning from duty in WW2,a war hero I might add as his white counterpart in the story, to go through the back door of the general store after fighting a f******* war, laying his life for his country/homeland but still abused. We have to examine everything. I understand the excessive "wokism" claims and toxicity as well notwithstanding the deontological egalitarian efforts I don't entirely dismiss as pejorative simultaneously. I think it's whining and crying. Nobody is trying to hear all that. lol I guess blacks are told to get over it. I would assume this applies to the other as well.Join the club.lol
It's a lot worse than that. Where I am people like myself who grew up with an awful background including destitution and violence who then grew up still managing to develop well in an area to be in one of the top percentiles of performance are not just discriminated against but actively attacked so to damage us and reduce our performance. The problem is that if it is innately natural that one group performs better than another in some given exercise but you refuse to acknowledge this and insist that the performance should be the same so keep trying to make it so then the only thing you can do which will in a data driven and results orientated approach is to damage the performance of the better group. You can't increase the innate IQ of a person so that they can perform at the level of someone with a higher innate IQ. It's very easy to inflict brain damage or similar to reduce someone's IQ for scores to then be equal. This is what is now happening in my country. Not many people notice it. People in a high category in terms of performance such as myself do. It's not discriminating against all people of my group. Only the top ten percent or less who are particularly talented or skilled.
Indeed. Were I to believe that lack of success for My Group was intentionally caused by Your Group, that morally sanctions any amount of violence on My Group's part.
1:17:00 I don't know if he is more naive or more dangerous. A profoundly stupid comment, as if gene splicing is like swapping lego pieces. Such blind faith in the brightest in society - the same people who gave us gain of function, lock downs, quarantining, the great recession, the great depression, World War I & II, etc etc... Clearly not a student of unforseen consequences.
Why do most races aspire to be "white" whether directly and indirectly? Are there AnitBlackisms too? Is that why most ethnicities or races look down on darker skinned peoples? This fact is empirically salient and historically extant. I defend anyone discriminated against. I am also a veteran, ex US Army soldier however watch the film Mudbound where the bigoted individuals had the gall and temerity to ask the black veteran soldier returning from duty in WW2,a war hero I might add as his white counterpart in the story, to go through the back door of the general store after fighting a f******* war, laying his life for his country/homeland but still abused. We have to examine everything. I understand the excessive "wokism" claims and toxicity as well notwithstanding the deontological egalitarian efforts I don't entirely dismiss as pejorative simultaneously. I think it's whining and crying. Nobody is trying to hear all that. lol I guess blacks are told to get over it. I would assume this applies to the other as well.Join the club.lol
@@JasonHarris777 Oh, so we're supposed to just get over it because of...a movie that made you feel bad? And being told to go through a back door, I find hard to believe would cause a reduction in IQ of one whole standard deviation. I mean, that's on par with severe malnutrition and decades of solitary confinement. I get that there are certain personality types that have a pathological need to feel sorry for other people, probably as a proxy for their own depressive self-pity. But there needs to be more of an explanation.
I breed dogs and types of dogs have very different tendencies. Why would humans be the same? It’s not even possible that separate breeding population would be mentally the same. Especially when they evolved in completely different climates. And when modern groups of humans have varying amounts of Neanderthals Denisovans and other archaic humans in their genes. Obviously those proto humans have different brains and some Eurasian’s are as much as 10% those groups and some Africans are as much as 20% some proto human that we haven’t yet identified. It’s just common sense and a scientific certainty that the minds of different populations would be different.
It's possible, at least in theory, to create two dog breeds that look and behave more or less identically, just by selecting the same traits consistently for long enough.
I love how we're allowed to recognise race realism when it comes to fast twitch muscle fibre, sprinting, Agility, long distance running, even fallous size (albeit that's a misconception, apparently the Dutch average 6.35, whilst the West African only averages 5.16😢) but when it comes to something like intelligence on pattern recognition, emotional control, suddenly its a cobapuracy theory and we're all the same.
People dismiss genetics but it is fair to say that it's not all genetics. Lifestyles are very different in these environments. In Europe the lifestyle does not push people to their physical limits but instead does tend to focus on intellectual advancement. This is roughly the reverse in places such as sub-Saharan Africa. We do know that if you were to raise a mixture of people all the same, the gap in athletic performance between for example light and dark would quite likely narrow a fair amount. Even then, we still expect to see some marked differences on account of genetics especially across different activities.
@@FirstLast-rb5zj A fair amount? I find that hard to believe. "Lifestyles" are the products of the adaptations, not the other way around. The "lifestyle" you build, as in the kind if civilization and culture you create, will be a product of the kind of people you already are. That of course is shaped by the environment, but that takes tens of thousands of years to produce.
Of course race is real. With that said, love for one’s own race doesn’t need to include hatred for another’s race. AntiWhiteism has been allowed to spread like a cancer. But, we all have the power to stop it from metastasizing further.
Why do most races aspire to be "white" whether directly and indirectly? Are there AnitBlackisms too? Is that why most ethnicities or races look down on darker skinned peoples? This fact is empirically salient and historically extant. I defend anyone discriminated against. I am also a veteran, ex US Army soldier however watch the film Mudbound where the bigoted individuals had the gall and temerity to ask the black veteran soldier returning from duty in WW2,a war hero I might add as his white counterpart in the story, to go through the back door of the general store after fighting a f******* war, laying his life for his country/homeland but still abused. We have to examine everything. I understand the excessive "wokism" claims and toxicity as well notwithstanding the deontological egalitarian efforts I don't entirely dismiss as pejorative simultaneously. I think it's whining and crying. Nobody is trying to hear all that. lol I guess blacks are told to get over it. I would assume this applies to the other as well.Join the club.lol
Race realism is in no way a threat to traditional Christianity. Christians -- traditional ones -- see equality in terms of a soul's inherent worth before God, not as a a matter of equal intelligence, athletic prowess, etc. Race realism and equality before the law can go together perfectly, as do race realism and treating all humans with equal dignity.
Not all people deserve dignity as they lack the prerequisites for that through their own behavior. Give respect where respect is due. Does BLM deserve respect? No. But Dirty Harry. That's what they deserve.
@@robertpatter5509 I'm not talking about respect for actions, but the value of their souls when they were born, their souls in themselves, their equality before the law, equality of opportunity, etc. In these things, they are equal. In behaviors, we're obviously not equal.
Statistical descriptions characterizing a given population do not predict specific characteristics of any particular individual within that population.
@@soulfuzz368 Such as " What's wrong with white people?" A question Jared actually asked. Could be interesting to discover what it is. I think I know what it is ,but it escapes him.
@@soulfuzz368 I saw some interviews with Jared in which that happened. He was born and grew up in Japan, travelled through Africa, was a jazz musician... He had a very interesting life and his manners are amazing, a truly likeable nice gentleman who was demonized.
There is clearly obvious differences between races. Try to hide and dismiss those differences is destructive to all races. Denying in group preference is absurd.
Of course genes are more important than nurture. Admitting that truth is problematic because people fear racism, oppression, and potentially eugenics. We also want to believe that all people are equal and interchangeable, that we control outcomes merely by taking the appropriate action.
@@doctorfox1592I'd say its more of a moral darwinism. So it went from scientific darwinism, to social darwinism to a present moral darwinism. However, in reality this is really just a moral Lysenkoism, as no one flourishes under so called progressivism.
Seems Nathan has caught the ire of the compassionate, accepting inclusive crowd by providing facts. Welcome, Nathan... looking forward to the truth of wrong-think 🐱
I like Quayshawn Spencers work on the subject. Also, while I hear the matter has been settled, it is a social construct, everybody agrees, OR ELSE, the 'Stanford Encyclopia of Philosolphy' page on it reflects considerable disagreement.
Hey Cat, I’m gonna copy a comment of mine here for your convenience: Intrusive thoughts and *actionable suggestions* ahead: I just had a vision of a calmversation™️ with _this_ audio but the video has Jim-Henson-èsque puppets of host and guest. And then a different calmversation, where you’re replaced by uncanny valley dolls. *& claymation!* - _Claymation Canoe meeting!_ You’ve got a diverse catalog, you could revizualize it lots of ways! *You could have Nina Paley animate her appearances!* is there enough cat b-roll footage to make a 100% cat video for your chat with Kara Dansky, where the cats’ behaviors and áffect match the theme and tenor of the calmversation? There must be! *100% cats version of your whole catalogue* even - your hatewatchers and parasocial paramours could watch them all on mute. 🐈⬛🐈🐈⬛😿🙀😻😹🐱
I remember thinking about this when I was about 15. Wondering how people know that all races have equal intelligence even though they vary in other ways and after a while I just stopped thinking about it because I know it was a "bad" though to have, but I didn't start thinking about it because of some outside source. The thought just independently popped into my head one day. I think it is just an unfortunate truth. I have never come across a counter argument that I though was convincing. The best counter argument I have seen is that IQ tests aren't accurate or don't measure all aspects of intelligence, but this still doesn't negate the simple observation that different peoples differ in lots of ways so why wouldn't they differ in intelligence to some lesser or greater extent. The thing is I don't even like thinking about this. The only reason I have trouble not thinking about it is that i can't see how it's not true and yet most people don't believe it and will treat you with scorn if you even broach the subject. Yet it seems so obvious.
The Korean example is happening in real time: the German example. There are still differences in living standard and various outcomes 34 years after reunification.
I fear that change can only come from either serious legal consequences and internal group criticism. Affluent blacks would respond rather quickly. It’s the other sub-group within the black community that would be a problem.
Great chat. Got kinda dicey at the end when it came to transhumanism and genetic engineering. I think it could be argued that it's possible that there already is a move by the global elite to strip us of our wealth (and health) which links to social mobility and strip us of our intellectual and critical thinking through pushing social media, social emotional learning and D.E.I. programs, basically appealing to our basest instincts and exploiting them. I agree that it does come down to personal accountability and taking action to protect oneself from these forces but there is a lot of stuff coming at us from every angle all at once. You could just call it modern life and survival of the fittest but that might be over simplifying it. Idk. Great chat tho. Thx.
Big thumbs up broaching the topic of Race. Of note it is with a member of that group of people that has spent the last 100 years obliterating the ethnic self identification aspect in Europeans. Attributed to Disraeli in his writings is the phrase "All is Race." And he would know because that is primary driver that motivates those he is biologically linked to. The most ethno centric group in the world runs the Israeli state as an ethno state, pours untold funds in ethnic protectionism within Western countries and ensures that their laws prevent the descendents of those settler ancestors from bringing attention to this ethno-trait that no European is allowed to espouse. Next guest Mr Jared Taylor? Or Charles Murray? or Ricardo Duschene? That would balance the discussion nicely.
Why do most races aspire to be "white" whether directly and indirectly? Are there AnitBlackisms too? Is that why most ethnicities or races look down on darker skinned peoples? This fact is empirically salient and historically extant. I defend anyone discriminated against. I am also a veteran, ex US Army soldier however watch the film Mudbound where the bigoted individuals had the gall and temerity to ask the black veteran soldier returning from duty in WW2,a war hero I might add as his white counterpart in the story, to go through the back door of the general store after fighting a f******* war, laying his life for his country/homeland but still abused. We have to examine everything. I understand the excessive "wokism" claims and toxicity as well notwithstanding the deontological egalitarian efforts I don't entirely dismiss as pejorative simultaneously. I think it's whining and crying. Nobody is trying to hear all that. lol I guess blacks are told to get over it. I would assume this applies to the other as well.Join the club.lol
The problem with this conversation is that there's no actual hard gene/culture separation, either in measurement, or in actuality. Further, if race/subculture has any effect on outcomes, then equality of opportunity will always produce unequal outcomes.
Equal outcomes will only come from tyrannical action. Even within cultures and races, some individuals are better than others. Infinite coercion is required for equal outcome. In other words, the only possible way for equity to exist is everyone is six feet under.
It was brought up in the conversation that equality of opportunity will always produce unequal outcomes, because populations are not equal in terms of ability, intelligence, athleticism etc. Just because there is no actual hard gene/culture separation, at least in Western societies, does not mean we can’t clearly see patterns in different populations/subcultures even when there is a great amount of admixture around the edges. You could say there’s no hard gene or culture separation, but at the very least, most people know what box they can and should check for race on job and scholarship applications!
As I watch this (excellent episode) one important thing to keep in mind: these trait differences among racial groups only describe the MAJORITY of ppl in a group. So, do they only hold true for 51% of group members? It will usually be more than that, and can be more or less depending on specific traits and groups. Also, context matters. In a highly selective college for example (the colleges of yesteryear) most ppl will be very high IQ, regardless of race. If you're at a monster truck rally for example, you might encounter lots of "R strategists," regardless of race. Many factors like these make prejudgements complicated. Besides the fact that fair-minded ppl don't want to prejudge individuals anyway, this is why it's generally difficult to do so, and this type of research usually can't be effectively applied on an individual basis. Now, if we zoom out the lens to a wider demographic level, for policies etc. dealing with society on the macro scale, that's a different story. That's where the findings have explanatory power. That's NOT to say that we should somehow be prejudiced against countries, and just not individuals. But, it might actually be information that informs how geopolitics is conducted, this is too nuanced for our current leaders. It informs how policies are constructed for large groups in a society. You're doing wrong imo if you ruthlessly suppress groups of R strategists, but you're also doing wrong if you treat them like they'll spontaneously become K strategists. Society's complicated, we now better understand how these kinds of variables enter the equation.
that's (more or less) the same as the 2+2 discussion. With the imposition of some low probability conditions, 2+2 does not =4; however in the vast majority of conditions, 2+2 does =4. A person operating on the assumption of high probability conditions will have an existential advantage.
@@Jules-Is-a-Guy I’ll clarify (in case you thought I was being a wiseass -I wasn’t). In my reading of your analysis, I just thought consideration of the normal distribution might fit in really nicely between your two paragraphs. As I believe it also goes a long way to help understand the interactions of r strategy groups and K strategy groups “coexisting” in the same society. But I guess I was trying to be pithy with my overly terse reply. Cheers!
@@stvbrsn Thnx dude, no I totally got it, my reply was actually unironic, I'm basically just expressing statistical information implicitly in the form of a sentiment, because I'm lurking in a normie comment section, because I appreciate this medium. Double cheers.
Haven't watched this yet, was just commenting abt this last episode. This is an important topic, but highly divisive, hope you can tread carefully Benjamin! Ed Dutton whom you had on previously, is to the right of you and me, but is a good faith interlocutor with an informative channel, and I'm a fan of his work.
Are you saying that you don’t understand how you feel? How you’re supposed to feel? Think about those words for a minute. We don’t *understand* how to feel. We just feel. The understanding comes later, if it comes at all. Every single time without exception.
It's funny how this 'race realist' has trouble saying the words "higher IQ" and instead talks about people who are "more thoughtful" and "more humane/moral". How do you measure thoughtfulness and humaneness"? There's people who read a lot of books and give to charities whom I would consider neither. In fact, this characterises the average academic nowadays.
Well judging by how in African countries treat a minority of white people in their country (killing and raping them, burning their homes) and how in western White countries minorities are generally given insanely good opportunities, nowadays often even better ones than the natives or original colony peoples. I think that shows a pretty big difference generally. But I’m sure your few magical individuals you can think of override every singe average and discount the majority of what happens.
@@fishsteak3246versus the US when they were lynching African Americans in thousands merely 3 years after slavery was abolished and killing African-Americans in the thousands in lynches with the last lynching happening in the 80s? How about when King Leopold killed millions upon millions of Congolese peasants just 'cause? Or the many protest massacres that happened under the decision of the South African Apartheid authorities? And speaking of Apartheid, how about the systemic killing and displacement of Africans and Coloureds off their lands just to appease the White Afrikaner populace, or even the fact that only just in living memor, Apartheid was eneded in the 90s? And let's not forget the many civil wars and coup d'états directly influenced by imperialist forces to overthrow African governments of elected leaders (Patrice Lumumba), or that the people wanted (Thomas Sankara) just because it wouldn't benefit imperialist neoliberal interests, only to the detriment of said people? Btw, those same minorities that you lament about coming to many of these Western countries generally come from the same countries that were occupied by the countries that formerly colonised them. Just because you house your abused ones, doesn't mean the atrocities from the past (and now) never happened. Do not kid yourself on the selctive "benevolence" many in the West show to these minorities, so you can get off from the high horse from where you smell your own farts from, while patting yourself on the back.
I think a question you should ask is what impact does this social bullying have on people who are simply realistic because they are inherently honest and are genuinely scientific in their approach? What happens when you are treated like a daily stormer simply for being reasonably intelligent and intellectually honest? I have slipped into catastrophic alcoholism and depression as a result of unchecked bullying against people like me who are simply factually correct rather than politically correct. The life expectancy for someone who is intellectually honest but lack the ability to go along with consensus or lie rarely goes beyond 50 years. If you doubt that then consider that to be intellectually honest means that you will be treated exactly as though a neo-nazi, member of the KKK, etc. You'll be treated as a criminal with a stigma often worse than that which people who do certain inappropriate things with young children receive. You often become unemployable. I want reparations for the extreme persecution, discrimination and prejudice that I have received.
Sow how about this. I grew up in an academic family well aware of genetic differences and that was the main reason behind different outcomes. But we were also raised by the Christian principals that we are all equal before God and you should never consider anyone "lower in status" as not your equal in the grand scheme of things and their dignity and worth as humans were just as much as theirs. That worked perfectly. Have yo Mr. Cofnas spoken to enough "intellectual" Christians who find it naturally to follow this?
Being capable of deception is a big part of "intelligence" but it's not in the interest of humanity if we want to prosper as a social species. We need to get rid of deception and become honest.
Intelligence looks like slyness to the less intelligent: Is that maybe, what you're trying to articulate? That delusory perception lies behind some of the worst evils to beset humanity throughout history. Please try to think
Very interesting talk. I think the taboo over intelligence and its heritability has probably done a lot of harm to the way we design educational systems and curricula. It's a very disagreeable reality to face, but I think it's important for courageous (or even disagreeable!) scholars to face these questions empirically. I wish reality wasn't like this, but given that it probably is, it seems wise to study it and not cry and cancel anyone who investigates the topic.
The real issue with this topic, or a huge one, is what colemen hughes brought up. He, personally, and likely many if not near all black people, cannot bear, socially, to be in a society that considers black identifying people as "inferior" in that way. These feelings by them make it impossible to just discuss, as they will feel really badly, and there is all of the gynocracy and leftists to try to make them feel better. Even if it was just a small or tiny amount, they cannot bear it. Straight from Coleman's mouth in I believe it was his talk with the bell curve dude.
Here's my imperfect heuristic, for politics and philosophies from left to right: Progressive = deontologist ... Libertarian = utilitarian ... Conservatarian = consequentialist ... Conservative = virtue ethicist Also, something similar to this next part has actually been established, primary traits from left to right: neurotic ... disagreeable ... agreeable ... conscientious US Liberals probably used to include everyone except Conservatives, Classical Liberals probably used to include both centrists (Libertarian and Conservatarian). The reason Progressives are implicitly deontologists, is because they have an absolute ruleset based on certain morals, applied in all cases (which I've heard has been linked to Unitarianism). Libertarians lean more toward a ruleset, with less moralizing, Conservatarians more toward balancing competing virtues/consequences, with less moralizing. Personally, I'm almost an exact centrist. Although Conservatarianism seems more realistic to me, I generally tend toward center-left, which might be where Libertarians reside.
I'm reading my own comment from yesterday, and left this part out: Libertarians are a smaller, minority subset, and get incorporated into the other factions, imo because there are different kinds of utility-maximizing functions. Deontologist Libertarians combine with the Progressive left, hence we hear abt the 'unholy alliance' btw wokeists and Libertarian tech bro's nowadays. Consequentialist Libertarians combine with the Conservatarian center, hence the strong Libertarian connotation associated with the Independent affiliation. Classical Libertarians combine with the Conservative right, hence the classic connotation of Libertarianism with the right.
That's an interesting breakdown. The Conservatives at least used to be mostly Christian, and thus almost entirely deontological. If your categorization is correct, that's an interesting shift, because now the deontologists are on the complete opposite side.
I can accept the premise. As a black American, I want to say that it is complicated. One, Nathan is assuming that black culture is monolithic. Forgetting Affirmative Action and the like, I think his premise pose a bigger problem. If he’s correct then I could see some black leaders argue for eugenics. It wouldn’t be the fast time that black leaders advocated for eugenics.
The most important and effective form of eugenics is the smart people (in any group) choosing to have more children, and the second most important form is simply people who want to have children valuing intelligence when choosing a mate. If any group can do those two things and avoid war (which takes out fit men and is thus destructive), that group's intelligence should rise.
Why do most races aspire to be "white" whether directly and indirectly? Are there AnitBlackisms too? Is that why most ethnicities or races look down on darker skinned peoples? This fact is empirically salient and historically extant. I defend anyone discriminated against. I am also a veteran, ex US Army soldier however watch the film Mudbound where the bigoted individuals had the gall and temerity to ask the black veteran soldier returning from duty in WW2,a war hero I might add as his white counterpart in the story, to go through the back door of the general store after fighting a f******* war, laying his life for his country/homeland but still abused. We have to examine everything. I understand the excessive "wokism" claims and toxicity as well notwithstanding the deontological egalitarian efforts I don't entirely dismiss as pejorative simultaneously. I think it's whining and crying. Nobody is trying to hear all that. lol I guess blacks are told to get over it. I would assume this applies to the other as well.Join the club.lol
54:23 This would be the most sensible strategy. Freedom of association should mean I should be able to choose to live with, work with, and associate with whoever I want for whatever reason. Forced diversity goes against our basic civil rights. If someone would prefer to live in an all white community, why would anyone non-white want to live around such people anyway? I wouldn’t choose that myself. But just because I don’t want to live with only other white people, that doesn’t mean other people shouldn’t have that option. Just let people live the way they want so long as they aren’t hurting other people.
It's the "work with" part that is the main problem. No one cares if white people want to live separately. But when talking about employment or really anything that has real world effects or could potentially affect someone's livelihood then that becomes an issue. "Freedom to work with whoever you want" can easily be translated to "Freedom to only hire those like me", in this case whites. This of course means less opportunities for blacks or other races, so what are they supposed to do then? That's going to cause way more problems for you in the long run when every business is able to only hire whites and the poverty rate begins to grow in black/brown communities. And at that point you won't be able to say it's a result of genetics since businesses would be actively and openly discriminating against a specific group of people. There are blacks just as smart as everyone else, or smarter. Those who are engineers, doctors, businessmen/women, etc. Are you saying given an educated and competent black person, you still wouldn't want to work with them? If your answer is yes, then that proves you're just racist and not a "race realist" where the main focus seems to be outcomes based on intelligence.
Genes vs environment is somewhat a false dichotomy. All traits are an expression of genes in response to the environment. Some traits are more responsive to environment than others. But it is always genes + environment
True enough. But if you don't have the genes to be a genius, all the environmental enrichment in the world isn't gonna have ya solving calculus in kindergarten.
Interesting how when you ask your guest about his politics he refers to conservatives and liberals - apparently not a very sophisticated understanding of political philosophy.
Or he is just trying to speak in the terms that many people think in, which is the liberal/conservative dichotomy. Most people use those two points to describe their politics…in a left to right spectrum.
This is a proposition and a hypothesis. More importantly however, the narrative being formed above the discussion that certain people are having about this data (i.e. Mr. Murray and thyselves) is quite disingenuous and near-sighted; intentionally so. The truth is there have been massive efforts to suppress people of African descent in the Americas, as well as in-continent if not in recent years (which I would not hesitate to say so), then certainly in previous years. This disturbs and preoccupies the cognitive faculties, and functioning, of said peoples from familiarizing itself with said concepts measured in these tests. Why is it that so many years later, many "minority" students express disdain for the education system? Colonization has a nasty effect of alienizing an already dehumanized people. Asia and its many nations have enjoyed large periods of peace, despite a certain illustrious war history as well. The reality of slowly homogenizing populations throughout the course of time is that appellations for peace in societies causes education to prosper, for the sake of community. Europeans and Middle Easterners warred a lot, but also enjoyed many periods of peace and prosperity in which education could prosper. The truth about Africa is that it was always antagonized by Middle Eastern nations, and even northern European nations. A derogatory attitude towards the people of this region is found even in the religious teaching of Europeans and Middle Easterners (I can point out examples of racism, genocide, and more in all three major religious texts of said regions today). The Christian gospels profess that it is a difficult thing for Ethiopians to understand them, and a man (Phillip) being miraculously taken into heaven for "managing to teach one". Nonetheless, even African nations have enjoyed peace, prosperity, and much of their educational accomplishments served as the foundations for what the Greeks and Romans would implement and expound upon. European Americans considered Black Africans 3/5ths of a person when they all arrived here, at the start of this now modern society, and while European culture could flourish and prosper with two systems in play for their enrichment in America (democratic-republican capitalism and feudal serfdom multiplied in the form of chattel slavery), African descendents were facing the worst effects of the worst colonization efforts in history; and the West is a history of colonization efforts and profitting from other people's, and populations' downfalls-- between Europe, the Middle East, and to a lesser extant Africa (Egypt was a colonizer, as was Carthage.) Omission from rites in ancient times is akin to remission of education in modern times. One more thing: "Black Wall Street." African-American, and "minority" prosperity, has been the target of Supremacists many times throughout the course of American history. Considering the relative peace that said people have enjoyed within these societies, and their quantity as a population within these societies: I think it is only a beginning statement to many more people's analysis of this data that it does not faithfully describe people's realities.
Historical narratives aren’t evidence. This is an empirical question, so you’re going to need to base your conclusion on empiricism. Ask yourself this: Is it possible that Africans were oppressed historically, and also differ in intelligence from other races due to genes? In other words, is it possible that a group can have lower genotypic intelligence and be oppressed? If that’s the case, then bringing up historical oppression doesn’t disprove anything. Empiricism is based on disproving hypothesis, and so far you’ve only buttressed your own hypothesis with plausible explanations. You haven’t shown anything to be false.
@@Doll-db1gc I disagree. IQ tests present a high correlation with wealth and communal prosperity (social positioning). Thus, by the Law of Equivalency wealth and social positioning is highly correlated with IQ. Now wealth and social positioning is directly attached to cultural history and social events of that nature. At the time of the Roman Empire the Germanic peoples and the Nords were tribal people, much like West African populations. The only difference was their environment and their genetic adaptations to said environments. The Middle Eastern (Southern European, North African, Egyptian, and Middle Eastern populations) were the most advance because of their frequent borrowing from one another, and battling each other. Here we find the key to IQ differences: the powerful have access to information and did not share it with the "profane commoners" in order to continue profitting from said populations. When Christianity and the Crusades established some sense of unity between Northern and Southern Europe the Muslim age of cultural and intellectual prosperity would succumb to the European presence in the Holy Lands and they in turn had their periods of intellectual and culture prosperity. The Slave trade absolutely was an intent to diminish human intelligence in West Africans, as they were killed for reading then, and said people are making fantastic strides in closing the gap with what they have access to since the last century.
It will never be not upsetting to see comments demonizing your race and insulting the people you know and love. No one can control their race, no one earns it, but because we’ve been brainwashed to think race means something… it means that you’ll always be included and maligned for actions individuals in your race commit if you’re a minority. Individuals who would also hurt you…but you have to be included with them.
His premise is undeniable, but his presentation lacks nuance and is a bit delusional. Perhaps it’s because, and I say this, with no disrespect, he’s on the spectrum and doesn’t recognize that pure logic in this very emotional world doesn’t rule.
I agree that he is likely on the spectrum and indeed people on the spectrum tend not to feel the need to add nuance about things that to them seem perfectly straight forward. It took me a while to learn how to understand them but once I figured out that - oh right these people don't care too greatly about emotions and sensitivities while beating about the bush is not in their DNA - it all made perfect sense to me. With that said, I don't quite see where you got the delusional part? Delusional about what? Nothing he said is not backed by fact or seems unrealistic, where do you get the delusion from? As for pure logic, the world would be a much better place if there was more logic in it and less emotion. I think he's got the right idea, this conversation has to be brought to the fore fully hashed out and done with yesterday, and if not with pure logic then how? Playing some silly game of emotional manipulation or propaganda to get people to understand will only make things worse and will eventually backfire. The raw truth and nothing but the truth backed up by science is what is needed at this juncture.
A whole lot of people don't concern themselves with their instinctive self or even think about what instincts are and I would like to make a effort in revealing just how profoundly important it is to understand because it is defining us a a level that sits beneath al the things we learn after we are born and it influences all decisions we make during our lifetime. The things we learn can be anything, objectively true, false or otherwise. This implies that the thing all humans have in common are our instincts that we inherited from our pre-human ancestors and it contains millions of years of evolutionary knowledge about how to survive (nurturing of our children) and how to be as prosperous as possible (make the best use of available ressources). I will emphasize one key important thing about humans and that is our lack of huge canines that we had some 7 million of years ago but had almost "lost" some 2 million yeas ago before we aquired our additional cognitive neurons on top of our instinctive primate neurons. The only sensible reason for that is that our female ancestors began to see aggressive behavior as a thread to the wellbeing of their children which slowly shifted their male mating preferences towards the lesser aggressive and for obvious reasons that made males with smaller canines more attractive. In comparison it has to be empathized that gorillas for instance have huge canines even though the only eat greenery, fruits and berries, because they rely on aggressive behavior to attract females for mating. Another key important feature is that it is almost contradictory to becoming cognisant to have predetermined knowledge built-in into that cognitive neural structure and everything therefore has to be learned and propagated culturally through teaching of our children. Our cognitive neurons are capable of suppressing our instinctive neurons and it is almost impossible to think that our instinctive neurons will not be painfully affected by bad/non-instinctive behavior of our cognitive neurons and that this response to bad/deviant behavior will not be felt back by our cognitive neurons. Because our cognitive neurons has to learn everything they will not know why they sense this discomfort and they must somehow interpret it as either they are doing something wrong (because they believe they are fully in control of everything) or they must project that feeling outward and put the blame on something in the environment (likely other humans). This is a description of an internal battle between an unknown "enemy" that is our non-cognitive instincts and our unaware "cognisant" neurons that can in worst case lead to us believing that we are evil at the core and make us become very aggressive towards others. The bonobos that live at the Congo river is only 1.3% genetically different from humans and they are without any doubt our closest instinctive relatives. Not only are they instinctively non-aggressive but they also behave sexually in a manner that every human can relate to if we removed the information that has been pased culturally through thousands of generations, which is highly dependent on where you were born. There is only one way to evolve culturally successfully and that is to understand our instinctive origin and the reason we unavoidably became mentally upset while becoming cognisant capable. We should acknowledge that, religions created by amazing philosophers trying to explain good vs evil in many different atempts throughout our planet, were in reality trying to explain our internal battle between cognitive- and instinctive neurons. They just didn't have the luxury of all the combined knowledge about religion, philosophy, anthropology, archeology, history, psychology, psychiatry, biology, genetics, neurology and other fields of understanding that we have today. If we can do that we will have a very prosperous future as Homo Sapiens 2.0, which is the truely self-aware Homo Sapiens that will be able to survive indefinitely. If everything we do is for the future of all of our children, we will have no further significant problems and we can create a planet that is a cognisant star in the universe.
You've made a very articulate case, but with all due respect... *"There is only one way to evolve culturally successfully"* Successfully evolve the culture and bring it to me, and then we can talk about how many ways you think there are. Until you do that, you are just one of many competing priests.
Americans really have walled rhemselves off with their political model. I have never understood why "conservatism" is considered a right of centre and "liberal" a left of centre belief/value system. Liberalisms left and right wings are differentiated not by the degree to which change is needed or to be resisted, but the degree to which the state should interfere where the free market appears to be failing. A lot of conservatism is just as interventionist as liberalism. Trump's 10% tarif on Chinese imports for example, is very left of centre. Roe vs Wade is a very right of centre. The state's reach into people's private lives was very clearly pulled back. Ancap is the true right wing of liberalism, the left wing is local collectivism with property rights and rule of law. The whole political discourse is pointless because of this irrational distinction. Rand Paul recently remarked to Russel Brand that his senator father (1970s) told him how when senior bipartisan committees were put together senior members of both sides were indistinguishable.
Part of the problem is that it isn’t just one continuum, it is (as you imply) a web of intersecting spectra. “Liberal” and “conservative” do not occupy opposite poles on the same continuum, as many seem to believe. The opposite of conservative would be better characterized as “progressive,” whereas the opposite of liberal would be authoritarian. Me personally? As long as you (or the policies you promote) are far away from the authoritarian end, I couldn’t care less where you are on the progressive/conservative scale.
@@AndyJarman I don’t know what you’re referring to. I didn’t criticize spelling or anything. I was reiterating your point. Oh well, apology accepted I guess, even if I don’t know why you’re apologizing (in a seemingly facetious way)
You posit libertarianism as the center; it isn't. The terms "left" and "right" have a history, and neither stems from their place relative to libertarianism.
I have always thought race realism to some extent was unavoidable. My understanding is that there are 3 main family trees. 2 of which whites and the asian peoples bred with Neanderthals and the other with what they call Dirivains (?) The African people stayed within their group for the most part, leading to a genetic bottle neck. So, when I look at the other mammals like dogs for example they have very distinct traits. Its not just intelligence its a bunch of different traits. From anxeity to aggresion. They are predictably different based on their breed. Looking back to humans we have 3 genetic family trees that are very different from each other. So, why wouldnt we expect to see different traits among them? If this is true , it may turn out that this "woke" crusade is doomed to fail and will only accomplish the destruction of the system which was built. A system that has given us so many things man never had before. Its clear to me that these people have no end. You give them one thing they simply lose their shit on the next thing and on and on it goes. All the while they eat their own for not being radical enough....
46:35 @benjaminaboyce the reason why the conservatives have an IQ problem is that they lost the free trade argument in the Corn Law debates in the early to mid 1800's in the UK where all the British Conservative Intellectuals moved to the left wing. The only people left were the farmers and Benjamin Disraeli. We had the same thing happen to us in the 1930's to 1990's when we exported farming and manufacturing to the rest of the world. All the conservative intellectuals became free market liberals. Bill Clinton "It's economics stupid." Robert Peele, the leader of the Conservative Party at the time, turned his second in command said "You're going to have to debate them. I think they're right and I agree with them."
I'm willing to believe that Christianity may be relevant when it comes to the egalitarian ethos you find in western countries, but egalitarian societies have existed in other parts of the world, and there are some popular theories that egalitarianism is original to us. I don't know if there's any truth to "race realism" as it relates to IQ, but if there is, one way of creating a sense of greater equality would be to increase the value of different kinds of intelligence and capacities over the kinds of intelligences that are utilised in STEM and certain professions.
Great interview! Not least because, thanks to Nathan Cofnas, I now know the correct way to pronounce Neven Sesardic's name! I'd been saying it wrong for years.
People are afraid. Some races are more prone to violence and you don't want to provoke them now that populations are so close in proximity. They have Stockholm Syndrome.
Hmm, what about the Nigerian Vs African American argument? I live in Australia, the Aboriginal people here are stymied by their group ethic (no private property is justified) and they look to and identify with the African American experience/culture. Chinese Vs Taiwanese/Hong Kongers ? I always thought the Philosopher King in Plato's Republic was fatally flawed because the master race could never be sealed off from the generation before it without being seriously damaged by the experience.
"Chinese Vs Taiwanese/Hong Kongers ?" Those are geographic categories. I'm not sure why you chose to denote Taiwanese/Hong Kongers like that because they are separate islands and are as different from each other as they are from the Mainland. They are not interchangeable for each other any more than they are interchangeable for the mainland. In terms of race, the majority population of all three regions are of the Han race.
@@Zidana123 because in chapter 13 of The Bell Curve, Charles Murray records a significant IQ difference between those under Communist rule and those who are self reliant capitalists working under a predictable rule of law. Marxism favours the compliant, not the ingenious. Mainland China only developed the technology for manufacturing ball point pens in 2016.
@@AndyJarman Ah. you are referring to something like average IQ being like ~103 for the Mainland and ~113 for Taiwan? Murray has made the classical error there of taking the average IQ of Mainland China as a whole and not accounting for _regional_ IQ differences within Mainland China itself. And you yourself compound the error by attributing it to market systems. At this time, please have a look up of a more detailed regional IQ map for yourself by typing "Chinese iq by province" into your favorite search engine As you can see, the IQ of the Mainland runs on a gradient. As you move East, toward the coast, the IQ rises, into the same 110 - 120 range of Taiwan. And as you move West, the IQ drops towards the 80-90 range which is also seen in Central Asia. This phenomenon of the Mainland IQ being on a regional gradient now becomes less attributable to market systems. Because if it were caused only by the difference in market systems, all of the Mainland would have the same lower IQ... but it doesn't. Instead it shows that the Mainland coastal populations which are more closely genetically related to the Taiwanese population have a similar IQ to the Taiwanese population. _And_ it shows that these IQ similarities largely ignore economic and government types.
There's a ton of genetic variability in Africa, though. Whites and blacks in America have more in common than most of the African peoples to each other. The Nigerian immigrants coming over to America are also the upper and middle classes fleeing political upheaval, meaning they are going to be a lot of highly educated or hard working people. So that's another thing to take into account when doing the math. We are comparing their best to our everyone.
I agree it would be helpful to normalize hereditarianism, with three important caveats. First, no serious hereditarian would claim that environments plays no role in shaping ability or behavior. There is some mix with environment.. Second, science remains truly unsettled about the degree to which heredity is primary,and what if anything could most accurately measure this. And in this debate, those who minimize heredity have some strong arguments to make, at the very least worthy of consideration. Third, reducing inequality of outcome as much as possible will still remain a liberal goal, given that environment and culture plays at least some role. So, yes, good ahead and talk about it, but it’s not a magic bullet against wokism.
Why do most races aspire to be "white" whether directly and indirectly? Are there AnitBlackisms too? Is that why most ethnicities or races look down on darker skinned peoples? This fact is empirically salient and historically extant. I defend anyone discriminated against. I am also a veteran, ex US Army soldier however watch the film Mudbound where the bigoted individuals had the gall and temerity to ask the black veteran soldier returning from duty in WW2,a war hero I might add as his white counterpart in the story, to go through the back door of the general store after fighting a f******* war, laying his life for his country/homeland but still abused. We have to examine everything. I understand the excessive "wokism" claims and toxicity as well notwithstanding the deontological egalitarian efforts I don't entirely dismiss as pejorative simultaneously. I think it's whining and crying. Nobody is trying to hear all that. lol I guess blacks are told to get over it. I would assume this applies to the other as well.Join the club.lol
From my observations, I believe that the quality of racism is often associated with evil and human suffering in it's totality, which is why many of those who are in the new left carry an attitude of sacrilege whenever their beliefs are questioned. To me it is the same logic that the common people in Salem Massachusetts had when it came towards paganism and occult beliefs, that quality of investing in those beliefs could lead towards drastic action towards what they perceive as evil, as seen with new left believers and their attitude on twitter. To me I think where evil truly lies stems from the instance that we indulge in ignorance, rather than to see nuance in our actions, the worst things that post civil war america brought towards African Americans lie primarily in the hands of those who were rife with ignorance, and were primal in their utmost essential behavior, which reflects many of the behavior of the modern new left.
The absolute egalitarian/equalitarian makes an observable falsehood that “we’re all one human race” means “we’re all one human species” in such a rash fashion that it will be laughed about centuries from now. We wouldn’t put wolfs and coyotes in the same pen, nor would we put polar bears and grizzly bears in the same bear exhibit at a zoo, yet we are doing this in the West at such a scale that it will repeat history like that of Babel. It doesn’t make any race bad, it just means we were all tuned for different continents, different environments and different social structures and especially different variabilities of in-group preferences.
@28:00. The "environmental problem" is the best explanation of current progressive approaches to race relations. The issue is the environment has bern fixed and relations supposedly have not changed. (meaning it's either a grift or psychological).
I think the Doc saying that the lower classes will keep doing it the "old fashioned way", is the point. They do a lot of the "old fashioned way" stuff, and if the intelligent make up 1 percent of the society it is a dangerous situation.
I wonder if Nathan realizes that he is describing how debate about the topic is socially denied, while participating in the mechanism of social denial, in the same podcast. E.g. the presumption that anyone who consumes certain taboo websites is not worth taking seriously. The key to group self-taming and enforcing overton windows is, imo, overloading the feeling of disgust and the instinctual behaviors associated with it. We associate disgust with contagion, so we don't want to touch anything the disgusting person touches, and so on. And we don't think rationally about it, we just get away.
I noticed that as well. People seem to have this tendency to try to keep their social bona-fides "I have some unorthodox beliefs that are a social taboo, but I'm not like all those other guys who have unorthodox beliefs. Those are the real bad guys. I'm one of the good ones." See also: nearly every public intellectual's "boy, the left sure has gone crazy, but I could never vote for Donald Trump." As long as there's someone "worse" that they can point at to disassociate from, they think they'll get to stay in good graces.
People in this thread seem to overlook the simple fact that there is more variation within each race than there is between races, an inconvenient fact that undermines any argument for any racial group interest rooted in racial realism. There is far greater diversity within the white American population than between any other group.
It’s much easier psychologically to fall back into simple statements and explanations (that support our beliefs) to explain certain phenomena, rather than acknowledging the answer is not simple/easy and requires hard work to combat and understand
You are misunderstanding the statement" there is more variation within each race than there is between races" . This statement refers to the fact that if you look at a single location in a human's DNA , say rs17288108 , then there a person could have one variant, say a thymine base at that location , or they could have a different variant adenosine at that location , and for most locations if you compare two races, then the frequencies won't be very different, so for most dna locations 47% of subsaharan africans might have the Adenosine variant whereas 53% of Europeans might have the Adenosine variant. However , this figure is only telling you about the average across all different dna locations and is boiling down all that multi-dimensional information to a single dimensional number. In the process , this throws out the information that those slight differences in variant frequencies between different locations are actually correlated within different races. What this means is that if you only look at one gene location, yes usually Europeans have a 55% vs 45% split between the two possible variants while Africans have a 45% vs 55% split between the two possible variants, so it would be impossible to correctly classify someone as European or african looking at only one typical dna location. BUT when you look at many thousands of dna locations at once those slight differences in gene variant frequencies are correlated which lets you predict which ancestral group someone belongs to with more and more confidence and accuracy , until there is essentially 0 chance that an indigenous European would be incorrectly identified as an indigenous subsaharan african from looking at their DNA. This is called lewontin's fallacy. I think you also misunderstand the idea of racial interest. Our interests as organisms is to increase the number of our genes into the future. The reason we're behaviourally predisposed help family members more than strangers is because they are less genetically distant i.e. more genetically similar to each other than strangers because we have a more recent common ancestor with our family members. This is the basic idea. The exact same thing is also true for members of our ethnic group compared with people from totally different continents. We're more genetically close/similar to members of our ethnic group because we have a more recent common ancestor (like how we're more genetically close to other humans than we are to chimpanzees because we have a more recent common ancestor with other humans than with chimpanzees) , So I'll be helping people who are genetically more similar to me survive if I help them instead of strangers from other continents , so I'll be helping more of my genes survive.
The race realism narrative reminds me of the "discrimination is responsible for all disparities" narrative, i.e., both are narratives and there are useful bits of evidence or information that can be used to try and support them. They also both remove the need to think carefully and in a nuanced way - x is the answer for everything - case closed. Oh and let's take action based on this belief - because that always ends well...
The topic of this conversation is very complex and there are so many tangents you can take. While you can argue that Hitler wasn't drawing from evolution and Darwin(I would disagree), the zeitgeist of the early 20th century was absolutely applying evolution and Darwinism to eugenics, racial hierarchies, and plenty of practices we would hopefully not look to return to. Secondly, I think the world view of Dr. Cofnas does take on many assumptions which sterilizes and atomizes the issue while reducing resolution. He cannot prove that IQ is not a consequence of nurturing, parental assertion of values which encourage the tools which raise IQ, and ethnic, cultural, and social institutions which form children. His stance is rooted in a subjective lens that memetic and historical forces do not color or complicate evolution. He cannot prove or disprove that the evolution of humans is different than finches. While I agree with the thrust of his points: tempering the fundamentalist race-based equality, I think that this is a simplified view that ignores a lot of the social, cultural complexities that aren't "testable".
Cognitive dissonance theory explains a lot of this. It's not exactly what most think, and is a huge aspect of moral, cultural, behavioral psychology. In that, all the 'races' of the human species are the same, it's our cultures that are the variants. We know we're a social species that cooperates to survive. CDT explains homogenous moral frameworks, aka, religions, ideologies. A way to look at morality is to compare the authoritarian tactics outlined in Robert Lifton's 8 to any cultures homogeneous moral framework. An anti authoritarian moral framework seems to thrive to an insane degree. It's obvious in our cultures insane production of everything, our insane scientific and technological advances. Our historic anti authoritarian development going back to the magna carta, John Locke basic human rights/property rights, free, voluntary trade, the idea that testimonial truth is a virtue. Our traditional culture's homogeneous moral framework is what we'd expect if evolution is doing its thing. Cooperation. The intelligence by race factor? It's cool, but doesn't matter much in North Korea, Russia or China compared to their potential. According to Thomas Sowell blacks had nearly caught up to whites economically shortly after WWII.
There are more recent realist accounts of race in philosophy, that argue against both biological realism and social constructivism, and may be motivated by a woke politics of racial realism. The "philosiohy of race" it comes under.
Benjamin...it's as easy as realizing that if you carry through on heredity characteristics of Personality, and that Personality characterisitics and their domination within haplo groups were dependent on evolutionary success...then you're going to see a commonality that results in the development of entire civilizations...and the stagnation of entire civilizations.
This guy has a nice heavy hammer, he's got a good strong swing and he's got a tough sharp nail, and he's swinging away but he keeps just missing the nail, or just delivering glancing blows. He's so close, but he might bend the nail if he's not careful.
What a hotchpotch of challenging ideas and facts on the one hand and outright lay weir and confused conclusions on the other. This guy needs have his brain sorted out.
The biggest problem facing a "race realist world" is that in advanced nations with robust welfare states there is far too little environmental pressure to normalize IQ between disparate groups. Those that have more brains will probably stay somewhat close to where they've been for a while due to better available nutrition and cleaner water, etc., and then stagnate and start to see dysgenic effects where IQ decreases (this is already happening, I'm just laying it out there), while those with lower average IQ will also stagnate and in some cases potentially also see IQ decrease in the worst case scenario. Racial average IQ isn't some fixed thing that cannot improve, but it won't if there's no pressure for it to do so. Without war and famine and childhood disease, we live too long and with zero real checks on our populations and the competencies of those populations. Some like the use of abortion to put upward pressure on IQ by selectively culling the undesirable, but I'm not sure that's having the intended effect either. It looks to me like we've painted ourselves into a corner with very few sources of upward lift to apply to the problem of IQ but I'm open to ideas as to how we get around this quandary without returning to the bad old days where greater cleverness much more often meant the difference between death or survival.
Glenn Lowry and Jonathan McWhorter are two black men who talk about this. Unfortunately they're the only ones who can talk about it without being canceled.
Be great to hear Bret Weinstein responding to some of his points. The trouble with Cofnas is that he doesn't like to address counterarguments (I took the time to reply to a Substack piece he had written and he responded to all the comments there but mine). Not a sign of a man who is confident in his arguments - only in his beliefs : /
Why do most races aspire to be "white" whether directly and indirectly? Are there AnitBlackisms too? Is that why most ethnicities or races look down on darker skinned peoples? This fact is empirically salient and historically extant. I defend anyone discriminated against. I am also a veteran, ex US Army soldier however watch the film Mudbound where the bigoted individuals had the gall and temerity to ask the black veteran soldier returning from duty in WW2,a war hero I might add as his white counterpart in the story, to go through the back door of the general store after fighting a f******* war, laying his life for his country/homeland but still abused. We have to examine everything. I understand the excessive "wokism" claims and toxicity as well notwithstanding the deontological egalitarian efforts I don't entirely dismiss as pejorative simultaneously. I think it's whining and crying. Nobody is trying to hear all that. lol I guess blacks are told to get over it. I would assume this applies to the other as well.Join the club.lol
@@JasonHarris777 I'm not sure a race can aspire to be anything.... a race is not an animate being with will or desire. What are you talking about? Individuals?! If so then I don't think most individuals do aspire to be white. What a bizarre and unfounded assumption! (If I've understood you correctly).
@@just_another32 The White westerner did create our western society and have been consistent major contributors to global advancments in most areas of life,not to mention,I might add, are the dominant culture of our society. If you can't see or acknowledge that, I am afraid you're living in a delusion. I don't,or anyone, doesn't need to feel inferior but there are some subtle acculturations that make one indirectly aspire the "white" work ethic and feats of monumental achievement and excellence.
@@JasonHarris777 I am still not sure of the point you are trying to make mate! Do you not see us all as human? Why do you like to divide into racial categories? I find it weird.
1:28:55 Benjamin oddly asked a very insightful question and qualifies it with... 'I know this is a technical a stupid question' .... ah no dude... this is a good question... I doubt many people have thought of this before...
squaring the circle of nat .select "giving morality " is one of those pie in the sky tower of babel projects that promises the transcendent knowledge but never quite delivers.
These conversations are dangerous because they exclude the bright individuals amongst ethnic minorities. It may have been worth discussing some basic statistics for the uneducated audience. Moreover, IQ is a mystery, we don’t fully yet understand the extent to which environment can effect it. And I think a reconsideration of IQ is required to account for this view, I assume you could appreciate the concern of the theory IQ being a measure of general fitness and adaptability.
Imagine thinking that a mere exchange of words and thoughts which in no way call for violence or harm of said minorities is dangerous. You with that statement alone have revealed that you are not above the supression of data or research if it does not fit your political ideology or preconceived worldview. Discussion of the bightest amongst minorities, which they did discuss if you actually listened to the video which I doubt you made it beyond 15 minutes, doesn't change the fact that groups differ on average. You are capable of understanding differences between the average and the exceptional right? Are we to argue that Einstein or Newton is a good representation of a European mind? No, they were the most exceptional amongst us. An exceptional person of african descent doesn't change the fact that they preform worse on average despite decades and billions spent on trying to close that gap and reaching a point of stagnantion because what gap remains is obviously to some degree of significance related to genetic composition. IQ is not a mystery. IQ is the biggest predictor of success. There's a clear reason for that. With that being said there are clearly more ways that just intellectual ability which contributes to a humans worth in society.
Great guest, I have a pretty loaded question, so hopefully he's reading this or you could pass it along: 1. He's using "Natural Selection" rather loosely as a catchall for current evolutionary thought -- accepting that premise (tho it is arguable from a practical standpoint), by using "race" as a sort of classification process, are we not omitting the predominate mid-20th century revelation that the term "race" itself was traditionally misunderstood/didn't actually encompass the scale of ethno-cultural inheritance it was erroneously adopted to represent? [for clarity, see Julian Huxley's position on race and realignment of definitions leading into Modern Synthesis/the re-establishment of "Natural Selection" as an empirical standard - see also "We Europeans" 1935] 2. Accepting Julian's position as predominate... Your question about ethics being resolved through Natural Selection to provide an ethical basis seems to fundamentally challenge your conflicting views on race with Sir Julian (mentioned above) being that he used his grandfather's work to flesh out the entire argument for this course of scientifically based ethical systems in [see: Touchstone for ethics, 1893-1943] 3. If 1&2 are addressed then the conceptual boundaries of your argument have all but diminished and we can move onto the most pressing matter, #3: "it's not genes, it must be environmental" arguments have only recently (1990 ->) been attributed to any sort of "racial injustice". The actual argument (by actual, I mean non-ideologically/less politically motivated argument) is that pollutants, contaminants, and influences such as long time exposure to diseases (malnutrition, lead exposure, ETC) are responsible for many/most of the intellectual deficiencies being attributed to race. Conclusion: Accepting that 1-3 are true/valid questions/concerns (they are, I have plenty of evidence) I find your assessment that "this is what wokeism is, taking the equality assessment seriously" either under-studied or utterly lacking in its diagnostic aptitude. Firstly, you're conflating several different and at times opposing forces as the same thing. Then, you're asserting that these forces are seeking "an equality that doesn't exists" over "an equality which can exist" in a way which implies that you don't truly seem to grasp the "controlled evolutionist" position/argument. All that said, maybe I'm wrong; a concern which leaves me to ask a two-part question: 1. Do you feel that Evolution by Natural Selection is both empirical and an important touchstone for ethics? 2. Given the importance of genetic diversity implied by the modern synthesis of Natural Selection, is it more or less important to prioritize environmental factors over racialized categorization?
Sure, we realized that we had some ideas about what we called race that were presumptuous and arrogant, but it isn’t 1943 anymore. I’m all for changing the word, I hear people starting to use the term population group more often these days
We acknowledge that African descent often yields certain physical advantages, but mental differences are off the table. I'm no expert, but research into this clearly too taboo. We will never know the truth anytime soon.
@@Ariel-q7n Maybe the entire woke enterprise was a blessing. There were plenty of people who were perfectly willing to blithely go through life believing in blank-slate equality without examining it, because it cost them nothing. Now they are being forced to face the actual ramifications of that belief, and if that forces them to question it, all the better.
Rather than screening for the perfect embryo and initiating genetic manipulation (1:12), it would of more use to focus on lower hanging and far more impactful fruit, such as the health of the mothers producing the embryos and growing the resulting infants. Once the infant is born, environmental factors are a major factor in the development of that child's IQ. A Jewish child born in a stable family is likely to develop a higher IQ when being exposed to superior nutrition, probably multiple languages, positive role models, critical thinking and all sorts of skill building. Contrast this with a ghetto single black mother who has poor eating habits and neither exhibits or encourages self control or a good work ethic. Comparing successful or unsuccessful individuals across races rather than the overall average success of any racial group would likely provide a more accurate answer as to how much genetics are a factor in IQ. I suspect that it would be very hard to measure, and provide little useful information.
It's a taboo because it's stupid, vicious, and not actually realistic. If you are going to say that a given race is "dumb" and another race is "smart," good luck even defining any given individual person by race. But what really matters is that Benjamin gets to be "bold" and "heretical."
Its not about saying “x is dumb y is smart”, its about saying generally, there are tendencies that one group is just more commonly smarter, for example. There are always going to be individuals who are outliers, you need to account for both the you’re saying isn’t a win like you think it is. Its just statistics, theres a reason there is an average. It’s not the be all and and all but it’s still very significant. You wouldnt bat an eyelid at someone saying “Dutch people are generally tall”, why cant those general traits of demographics apply to other things?
@@fishsteak3246 So tell me, O superior one: If we say for the sake of argument that this has some validity, what are the implications in practice? Are we assuming that people who appear to belong to the "dumb" group are best left to die off or to be helped to die off? Can we abandon what's left of the social safety net because it only serves to bail out the"dumb" people? Maybe you should measure skulls in job interviews. If you are going to do these things, you are a monster. If you are not, than you're an unserious egotist trying to stroke your own sense of yourself as superior by birth.
@@AH-uq8nv I never claimed to be superior, you weirdo. You seem to like dehumanizing and talking down to people for having different opinions though. Apparently saying some groups have talents that lie in different areas is monstrous for some reason???? God forbid you say Billy is better at running and Bobby is better at writing, ooh no that would be calling Billy superior, bigot!!!! Frankly, if anything, it shows your bias towards what you consider superior. The great part is you don't have to do anything. Nature is self regulating, if something doesn't work it won't survive. Every different group alive provides a different perspective and value. There's a reason we have mutations and randomness in genetics. That doesn't mean these groups will always work well together, sometimes they achieve individual things better apart, and sometimes they work very well together but what is wrong with acknowledging that?
@@AH-uq8nv Aww my reply got shadow banned. I’ll keep it short this time, I never said I was superior, you weirdo. What is wrong with different people having skills in different areas? If someones good at running and someones better at writing by your own admission you’re admitting your own bias that you believe the one who is better at writing is superior instead of just better at different things.
This conversation helped me to articulate my intuition that wokism won’t go away anytime soon: the belief in the blank slate is too deeply rooted in our culture.
Specifically, Blankslatism is the current scientific dogma in the mainstream West. A luxury belief that rots the culture. But Non-Western European cultures, or Asian ones do not hold this belief.
agreed. Blank slate woke-ists won’t deviate from their equality/equity narrative.
Why do most races aspire to be "white" whether directly and indirectly? Are there AnitBlackisms too? Is that why most ethnicities or races look down on darker skinned peoples? This fact is empirically salient and historically extant. I defend anyone discriminated against. I am also a veteran, ex US Army soldier however watch the film Mudbound where the bigoted individuals had the gall and temerity to ask the black veteran soldier returning from duty in WW2,a war hero I might add as his white counterpart in the story, to go through the back door of the general store after fighting a f******* war, laying his life for his country/homeland but still abused. We have to examine everything. I understand the excessive "wokism" claims and toxicity as well notwithstanding the deontological egalitarian efforts I don't entirely dismiss as pejorative simultaneously. I think it's whining and crying. Nobody is trying to hear all that. lol I guess blacks are told to get over it. I would assume this applies to the other as well.Join the club.lol
This guy is saying what I have been thinking/saying for years, you can't fix the issue if you do not recognize it.
It's a lot worse than that. Where I am people like myself who grew up with an awful background including destitution and violence who then grew up still managing to develop well in an area to be in one of the top percentiles of performance are not just discriminated against but actively attacked so to damage us and reduce our performance.
The problem is that if it is innately natural that one group performs better than another in some given exercise but you refuse to acknowledge this and insist that the performance should be the same so keep trying to make it so then the only thing you can do which will in a data driven and results orientated approach is to damage the performance of the better group.
You can't increase the innate IQ of a person so that they can perform at the level of someone with a higher innate IQ. It's very easy to inflict brain damage or similar to reduce someone's IQ for scores to then be equal.
This is what is now happening in my country. Not many people notice it. People in a high category in terms of performance such as myself do. It's not discriminating against all people of my group. Only the top ten percent or less who are particularly talented or skilled.
This is the hill to die on. Public knowledge of these differences needs to happen, otherwise the current woke insanity will just spread.
Indeed. Were I to believe that lack of success for My Group was intentionally caused by Your Group, that morally sanctions any amount of violence on My Group's part.
1:17:00 I don't know if he is more naive or more dangerous. A profoundly stupid comment, as if gene splicing is like swapping lego pieces. Such blind faith in the brightest in society - the same people who gave us gain of function, lock downs, quarantining, the great recession, the great depression, World War I & II, etc etc... Clearly not a student of unforseen consequences.
This knowledge has been actively suppressed for about fifty years, despite the fact that it's true, important and valuable.
Why do most races aspire to be "white" whether directly and indirectly? Are there AnitBlackisms too? Is that why most ethnicities or races look down on darker skinned peoples? This fact is empirically salient and historically extant. I defend anyone discriminated against. I am also a veteran, ex US Army soldier however watch the film Mudbound where the bigoted individuals had the gall and temerity to ask the black veteran soldier returning from duty in WW2,a war hero I might add as his white counterpart in the story, to go through the back door of the general store after fighting a f******* war, laying his life for his country/homeland but still abused. We have to examine everything. I understand the excessive "wokism" claims and toxicity as well notwithstanding the deontological egalitarian efforts I don't entirely dismiss as pejorative simultaneously. I think it's whining and crying. Nobody is trying to hear all that. lol I guess blacks are told to get over it. I would assume this applies to the other as well.Join the club.lol
@@JasonHarris777 Oh, so we're supposed to just get over it because of...a movie that made you feel bad? And being told to go through a back door, I find hard to believe would cause a reduction in IQ of one whole standard deviation. I mean, that's on par with severe malnutrition and decades of solitary confinement. I get that there are certain personality types that have a pathological need to feel sorry for other people, probably as a proxy for their own depressive self-pity. But there needs to be more of an explanation.
Seems a bit risky for Bens channel. Good for him.
Less risky than in the past. I think we're gaining some ground here.
@@bradfordlangston836 Yeah, racist think like you do, so.............
Knowing there are plenty of people smarter than me, and some not so smart, plus other variables from nature, is a way to be humane and grounded.
I breed dogs and types of dogs have very different tendencies.
Why would humans be the same? It’s not even possible that separate breeding population would be mentally the same.
Especially when they evolved in completely different climates.
And when modern groups of humans have varying amounts of Neanderthals Denisovans and other archaic humans in their genes.
Obviously those proto humans have different brains and some Eurasian’s are as much as 10% those groups and some Africans are as much as 20% some proto human that we haven’t yet identified.
It’s just common sense and a scientific certainty that the minds of different populations would be different.
It's possible, at least in theory, to create two dog breeds that look and behave more or less identically, just by selecting the same traits consistently for long enough.
because dogs are man made while humans are made by nature.
human beings have not evolved since we came on the scene.
I love how we're allowed to recognise race realism when it comes to fast twitch muscle fibre, sprinting, Agility, long distance running, even fallous size (albeit that's a misconception, apparently the Dutch average 6.35, whilst the West African only averages 5.16😢) but when it comes to something like intelligence on pattern recognition, emotional control, suddenly its a cobapuracy theory and we're all the same.
Ever notice how few Black QBs there are? The thinker of the team...
Dutch are also the tallest
"Cobapuracy" has to be the best typo ever
People dismiss genetics but it is fair to say that it's not all genetics. Lifestyles are very different in these environments. In Europe the lifestyle does not push people to their physical limits but instead does tend to focus on intellectual advancement. This is roughly the reverse in places such as sub-Saharan Africa.
We do know that if you were to raise a mixture of people all the same, the gap in athletic performance between for example light and dark would quite likely narrow a fair amount. Even then, we still expect to see some marked differences on account of genetics especially across different activities.
@@FirstLast-rb5zj A fair amount? I find that hard to believe. "Lifestyles" are the products of the adaptations, not the other way around. The "lifestyle" you build, as in the kind if civilization and culture you create, will be a product of the kind of people you already are. That of course is shaped by the environment, but that takes tens of thousands of years to produce.
Of course race is real. With that said, love for one’s own race doesn’t need to include hatred for another’s race. AntiWhiteism has been allowed to spread like a cancer. But, we all have the power to stop it from metastasizing further.
-allowed- encouraged to spread
So true.
Why do most races aspire to be "white" whether directly and indirectly? Are there AnitBlackisms too? Is that why most ethnicities or races look down on darker skinned peoples? This fact is empirically salient and historically extant. I defend anyone discriminated against. I am also a veteran, ex US Army soldier however watch the film Mudbound where the bigoted individuals had the gall and temerity to ask the black veteran soldier returning from duty in WW2,a war hero I might add as his white counterpart in the story, to go through the back door of the general store after fighting a f******* war, laying his life for his country/homeland but still abused. We have to examine everything. I understand the excessive "wokism" claims and toxicity as well notwithstanding the deontological egalitarian efforts I don't entirely dismiss as pejorative simultaneously. I think it's whining and crying. Nobody is trying to hear all that. lol I guess blacks are told to get over it. I would assume this applies to the other as well.Join the club.lol
Sounds good! I'm proud of Western culture!
Good girl, I mean you're 100% right, as in correct, ma'am. 👍
Race realism is in no way a threat to traditional Christianity. Christians -- traditional ones -- see equality in terms of a soul's inherent worth before God, not as a a matter of equal intelligence, athletic prowess, etc. Race realism and equality before the law can go together perfectly, as do race realism and treating all humans with equal dignity.
Not all people deserve dignity as they lack the prerequisites for that through their own behavior. Give respect where respect is due.
Does BLM deserve respect? No. But Dirty Harry. That's what they deserve.
@@robertpatter5509 I'm not talking about respect for actions, but the value of their souls when they were born, their souls in themselves, their equality before the law, equality of opportunity, etc. In these things, they are equal. In behaviors, we're obviously not equal.
You took the words out of my mouth.
Statistical descriptions characterizing a given population do not predict specific characteristics of any particular individual within that population.
@@nunyabizness3777yep, pro-life means anti-extinguishing life’s flame, anti-destroying the vessel of the soul, and the vessel is what it is
Also get us Jared Taylor (he talks with everyone who is willing to talk).
I think it would be fun to get him on and talk about something completely random and unrelated to what everyone would expect
@@soulfuzz368 Such as " What's wrong with white people?"
A question Jared actually asked.
Could be interesting to discover what it is. I think I know what it is ,but it escapes him.
@@soulfuzz368 I saw some interviews with Jared in which that happened. He was born and grew up in Japan, travelled through Africa, was a jazz musician... He had a very interesting life and his manners are amazing, a truly likeable nice gentleman who was demonized.
@@robertpatter5509 the correct answer is self introspection.
Brilliant suggestion
There is clearly obvious differences between races. Try to hide and dismiss those differences is destructive to all races. Denying in group preference is absurd.
Of course genes are more important than nurture. Admitting that truth is problematic because people fear racism, oppression, and potentially eugenics. We also want to believe that all people are equal and interchangeable, that we control outcomes merely by taking the appropriate action.
I can see eugenics coming back in vogue. But I would argue that eugenics never left the public conscious.
I mean, we’re in the midst of a medical industry / queer marxist mass sterilization of a generation of youth, so…
@@doctorfox1592I'd say its more of a moral darwinism. So it went from scientific darwinism, to social darwinism to a present moral darwinism. However, in reality this is really just a moral Lysenkoism, as no one flourishes under so called progressivism.
@@BenjaminABoyce It is a form of passive eugenics. The individual voluntarily surrenders their biological imperative to pass on their genes.
@@doctorfox1592eugenics has been in vogue since a cavewoman paired off with a caveman who hunted slightly better than the caveman next to him
Seems Nathan has caught the ire of the compassionate, accepting inclusive crowd by providing facts. Welcome, Nathan... looking forward to the truth of wrong-think 🐱
I like Quayshawn Spencers work on the subject. Also, while I hear the matter has been settled, it is a social construct, everybody agrees, OR ELSE, the 'Stanford Encyclopia of Philosolphy' page on it reflects considerable disagreement.
Hey Cat, I’m gonna copy a comment of mine here for your convenience:
Intrusive thoughts and *actionable suggestions* ahead:
I just had a vision of a calmversation™️ with _this_ audio but the video has Jim-Henson-èsque puppets of host and guest.
And then a different calmversation, where you’re replaced by uncanny valley dolls.
*& claymation!*
- _Claymation Canoe meeting!_
You’ve got a diverse catalog, you could revizualize it lots of ways!
*You could have Nina Paley animate her appearances!*
is there enough cat b-roll footage to make a 100% cat video for your chat with Kara Dansky, where the cats’ behaviors and áffect match the theme and tenor of the calmversation? There must be!
*100% cats version of your whole catalogue* even - your hatewatchers and parasocial paramours could watch them all on mute. 🐈⬛🐈🐈⬛😿🙀😻😹🐱
Ninja, why do you think Helena Blavatsky hasn’t commented yet?
1) she’s skipping this one
2) she’s *late*
@@miroirs-jumeaux ... She''s crafty, that one... She has a plan 🤔
@@miroirs-jumeaux .. RE: _Hey Cat,_ : You had me at "... enough cat b-roll footage to make a 100% cat video..." 😸
I remember thinking about this when I was about 15. Wondering how people know that all races have equal intelligence even though they vary in other ways and after a while I just stopped thinking about it because I know it was a "bad" though to have, but I didn't start thinking about it because of some outside source. The thought just independently popped into my head one day. I think it is just an unfortunate truth. I have never come across a counter argument that I though was convincing. The best counter argument I have seen is that IQ tests aren't accurate or don't measure all aspects of intelligence, but this still doesn't negate the simple observation that different peoples differ in lots of ways so why wouldn't they differ in intelligence to some lesser or greater extent. The thing is I don't even like thinking about this. The only reason I have trouble not thinking about it is that i can't see how it's not true and yet most people don't believe it and will treat you with scorn if you even broach the subject. Yet it seems so obvious.
The Korean example is happening in real time: the German example. There are still differences in living standard and various outcomes 34 years after reunification.
Unless we think there is a genetic difference between East and West Germans, then it seems the differences are accounted for by environment.
Forget about (inalterable) genetic differences. Let's start by lowering the absent father rate for Black kids from 75% to, oh, "only" 50%...
Let's not forget about them, but the cultural aspects should be addressed, too
I fear that change can only come from either serious legal consequences and internal group criticism. Affluent blacks would respond rather quickly. It’s the other sub-group within the black community that would be a problem.
Father absence is also probably partly if not mostly ganatic.
@@רבקהרבינוביץ-ב7מ indeed, it's indicative of an r selective strategy.
@@reasonablyserious how does culture develop?
Great chat. Got kinda dicey at the end when it came to transhumanism and genetic engineering. I think it could be argued that it's possible that there already is a move by the global elite to strip us of our wealth (and health) which links to social mobility and strip us of our intellectual and critical thinking through pushing social media, social emotional learning and D.E.I. programs, basically appealing to our basest instincts and exploiting them. I agree that it does come down to personal accountability and taking action to protect oneself from these forces but there is a lot of stuff coming at us from every angle all at once. You could just call it modern life and survival of the fittest but that might be over simplifying it. Idk. Great chat tho. Thx.
Big thumbs up broaching the topic of Race. Of note it is with a member of that group of people that has spent the last 100 years obliterating the ethnic self identification aspect in Europeans.
Attributed to Disraeli in his writings is the phrase "All is Race." And he would know because that is primary driver that motivates those he is biologically linked to. The most ethno centric group in the world runs the Israeli state as an ethno state, pours untold funds in ethnic protectionism within Western countries and ensures that their laws prevent the descendents of those settler ancestors from bringing attention to this ethno-trait that no European is allowed to espouse.
Next guest Mr Jared Taylor? Or Charles Murray? or Ricardo Duschene?
That would balance the discussion nicely.
Cope harder confederate L taker 😂
Why do most races aspire to be "white" whether directly and indirectly? Are there AnitBlackisms too? Is that why most ethnicities or races look down on darker skinned peoples? This fact is empirically salient and historically extant. I defend anyone discriminated against. I am also a veteran, ex US Army soldier however watch the film Mudbound where the bigoted individuals had the gall and temerity to ask the black veteran soldier returning from duty in WW2,a war hero I might add as his white counterpart in the story, to go through the back door of the general store after fighting a f******* war, laying his life for his country/homeland but still abused. We have to examine everything. I understand the excessive "wokism" claims and toxicity as well notwithstanding the deontological egalitarian efforts I don't entirely dismiss as pejorative simultaneously. I think it's whining and crying. Nobody is trying to hear all that. lol I guess blacks are told to get over it. I would assume this applies to the other as well.Join the club.lol
Next guest... Jared Taylor I would appreciate. But to truly "balance it", perhaps Kevin MacDonald would be better? Or even David Duke? 🙂
The most important and most censored topic in... THE SCIENCE.
The problem with this conversation is that there's no actual hard gene/culture separation, either in measurement, or in actuality. Further, if race/subculture has any effect on outcomes, then equality of opportunity will always produce unequal outcomes.
Equal outcomes will only come from tyrannical action. Even within cultures and races, some individuals are better than others. Infinite coercion is required for equal outcome. In other words, the only possible way for equity to exist is everyone is six feet under.
It was brought up in the conversation that equality of opportunity will always produce unequal outcomes, because populations are not equal in terms of ability, intelligence, athleticism etc. Just because there is no actual hard gene/culture separation, at least in Western societies, does not mean we can’t clearly see patterns in different populations/subcultures even when there is a great amount of admixture around the edges. You could say there’s no hard gene or culture separation, but at the very least, most people know what box they can and should check for race on job and scholarship applications!
Benjamin, try to get Charles Murray on the show.
Absolutely, he's a gem!
Murray is great. He just did an interview with John stossel and it was top notch
@@brianmeen2158 I saw that! Was indeed excellent
As I watch this (excellent episode) one important thing to keep in mind: these trait differences among racial groups only describe the MAJORITY of ppl in a group. So, do they only hold true for 51% of group members? It will usually be more than that, and can be more or less depending on specific traits and groups. Also, context matters. In a highly selective college for example (the colleges of yesteryear) most ppl will be very high IQ, regardless of race. If you're at a monster truck rally for example, you might encounter lots of "R strategists," regardless of race. Many factors like these make prejudgements complicated. Besides the fact that fair-minded ppl don't want to prejudge individuals anyway, this is why it's generally difficult to do so, and this type of research usually can't be effectively applied on an individual basis.
Now, if we zoom out the lens to a wider demographic level, for policies etc. dealing with society on the macro scale, that's a different story. That's where the findings have explanatory power. That's NOT to say that we should somehow be prejudiced against countries, and just not individuals. But, it might actually be information that informs how geopolitics is conducted, this is too nuanced for our current leaders. It informs how policies are constructed for large groups in a society. You're doing wrong imo if you ruthlessly suppress groups of R strategists, but you're also doing wrong if you treat them like they'll spontaneously become K strategists. Society's complicated, we now better understand how these kinds of variables enter the equation.
that's (more or less) the same as the 2+2 discussion. With the imposition of some low probability conditions, 2+2 does not =4; however in the vast majority of conditions, 2+2 does =4. A person operating on the assumption of high probability conditions will have an existential advantage.
You’ve heard of *normal distribution* right?
I like how when the episode is extra smart, the replies are extra smart.
@@Jules-Is-a-Guy I’ll clarify (in case you thought I was being a wiseass -I wasn’t).
In my reading of your analysis, I just thought consideration of the normal distribution might fit in really nicely between your two paragraphs. As I believe it also goes a long way to help understand the interactions of r strategy groups and K strategy groups “coexisting” in the same society.
But I guess I was trying to be pithy with my overly terse reply. Cheers!
@@stvbrsn Thnx dude, no I totally got it, my reply was actually unironic, I'm basically just expressing statistical information implicitly in the form of a sentiment, because I'm lurking in a normie comment section, because I appreciate this medium. Double cheers.
I never heard ethnic distribution of NBA players should be corrected through interventions of any kind.
Haven't watched this yet, was just commenting abt this last episode. This is an important topic, but highly divisive, hope you can tread carefully Benjamin! Ed Dutton whom you had on previously, is to the right of you and me, but is a good faith interlocutor with an informative channel, and I'm a fan of his work.
Group Culture is mysteriously missing from this convo. Very surprising to me
That's the real red pill right there. Group dynamics. If they discover this then a certain group is discovered too.
@@robertpatter5509Very nice and subtle! 👍
@@robertpatter5509”I’m an individual bro! I promise!”
Am glad both you commenters noticed. Group dynamics is a very ignored subject.
I definitely don’t understand what’s going on - how to feel. I guess I need to watch the full thing.
Are you saying that you don’t understand how you feel? How you’re supposed to feel?
Think about those words for a minute.
We don’t *understand* how to feel. We just feel.
The understanding comes later, if it comes at all. Every single time without exception.
Obvious facts. We all know it.
We HAVE to deal with reality.
It's funny how this 'race realist' has trouble saying the words "higher IQ" and instead talks about people who are "more thoughtful" and "more humane/moral". How do you measure thoughtfulness and humaneness"? There's people who read a lot of books and give to charities whom I would consider neither. In fact, this characterises the average academic nowadays.
What is your point?
Oh you're trolling to promote your docos. nice one.@@LiamPorterFilms
Well judging by how in African countries treat a minority of white people in their country (killing and raping them, burning their homes) and how in western White countries minorities are generally given insanely good opportunities, nowadays often even better ones than the natives or original colony peoples.
I think that shows a pretty big difference generally. But I’m sure your few magical individuals you can think of override every singe average and discount the majority of what happens.
@@fishsteak3246versus the US when they were lynching African Americans in thousands merely 3 years after slavery was abolished and killing African-Americans in the thousands in lynches with the last lynching happening in the 80s? How about when King Leopold killed millions upon millions of Congolese peasants just 'cause? Or the many protest massacres that happened under the decision of the South African Apartheid authorities? And speaking of Apartheid, how about the systemic killing and displacement of Africans and Coloureds off their lands just to appease the White Afrikaner populace, or even the fact that only just in living memor, Apartheid was eneded in the 90s? And let's not forget the many civil wars and coup d'états directly influenced by imperialist forces to overthrow African governments of elected leaders (Patrice Lumumba), or that the people wanted (Thomas Sankara) just because it wouldn't benefit imperialist neoliberal interests, only to the detriment of said people?
Btw, those same minorities that you lament about coming to many of these Western countries generally come from the same countries that were occupied by the countries that formerly colonised them. Just because you house your abused ones, doesn't mean the atrocities from the past (and now) never happened. Do not kid yourself on the selctive "benevolence" many in the West show to these minorities, so you can get off from the high horse from where you smell your own farts from, while patting yourself on the back.
@@TomTabaczynski He just asked what your point is you old weirdo lol
I think a question you should ask is what impact does this social bullying have on people who are simply realistic because they are inherently honest and are genuinely scientific in their approach? What happens when you are treated like a daily stormer simply for being reasonably intelligent and intellectually honest?
I have slipped into catastrophic alcoholism and depression as a result of unchecked bullying against people like me who are simply factually correct rather than politically correct. The life expectancy for someone who is intellectually honest but lack the ability to go along with consensus or lie rarely goes beyond 50 years.
If you doubt that then consider that to be intellectually honest means that you will be treated exactly as though a neo-nazi, member of the KKK, etc. You'll be treated as a criminal with a stigma often worse than that which people who do certain inappropriate things with young children receive. You often become unemployable.
I want reparations for the extreme persecution, discrimination and prejudice that I have received.
Sow how about this. I grew up in an academic family well aware of genetic differences and that was the main reason behind different outcomes. But we were also raised by the Christian principals that we are all equal before God and you should never consider anyone "lower in status" as not your equal in the grand scheme of things and their dignity and worth as humans were just as much as theirs. That worked perfectly. Have yo Mr. Cofnas spoken to enough "intellectual" Christians who find it naturally to follow this?
Being capable of deception is a big part of "intelligence" but it's not in the interest of humanity if we want to prosper as a social species. We need to get rid of deception and become honest.
Intelligence looks like slyness to the less intelligent: Is that maybe, what you're trying to articulate?
That delusory perception lies behind some of the worst evils to beset humanity throughout history.
Please try to think
Affirmative Action based on Quality, aptitude, talent, rather than Quantity and filling blind quotas.
Very interesting talk. I think the taboo over intelligence and its heritability has probably done a lot of harm to the way we design educational systems and curricula. It's a very disagreeable reality to face, but I think it's important for courageous (or even disagreeable!) scholars to face these questions empirically. I wish reality wasn't like this, but given that it probably is, it seems wise to study it and not cry and cancel anyone who investigates the topic.
The real issue with this topic, or a huge one, is what colemen hughes brought up. He, personally, and likely many if not near all black people, cannot bear, socially, to be in a society that considers black identifying people as "inferior" in that way. These feelings by them make it impossible to just discuss, as they will feel really badly, and there is all of the gynocracy and leftists to try to make them feel better. Even if it was just a small or tiny amount, they cannot bear it. Straight from Coleman's mouth in I believe it was his talk with the bell curve dude.
Here's my imperfect heuristic, for politics and philosophies from left to right:
Progressive = deontologist ... Libertarian = utilitarian ... Conservatarian = consequentialist ... Conservative = virtue ethicist
Also, something similar to this next part has actually been established, primary traits from left to right:
neurotic ... disagreeable ... agreeable ... conscientious
US Liberals probably used to include everyone except Conservatives, Classical Liberals probably used to include both centrists (Libertarian and Conservatarian).
The reason Progressives are implicitly deontologists, is because they have an absolute ruleset based on certain morals, applied in all cases (which I've heard has been linked to Unitarianism). Libertarians lean more toward a ruleset, with less moralizing, Conservatarians more toward balancing competing virtues/consequences, with less moralizing.
Personally, I'm almost an exact centrist. Although Conservatarianism seems more realistic to me, I generally tend toward center-left, which might be where Libertarians reside.
I'm reading my own comment from yesterday, and left this part out:
Libertarians are a smaller, minority subset, and get incorporated into the other factions, imo because there are different kinds of utility-maximizing functions.
Deontologist Libertarians combine with the Progressive left, hence we hear abt the 'unholy alliance' btw wokeists and Libertarian tech bro's nowadays.
Consequentialist Libertarians combine with the Conservatarian center, hence the strong Libertarian connotation associated with the Independent affiliation.
Classical Libertarians combine with the Conservative right, hence the classic connotation of Libertarianism with the right.
That's an interesting breakdown.
The Conservatives at least used to be mostly Christian, and thus almost entirely deontological. If your categorization is correct, that's an interesting shift, because now the deontologists are on the complete opposite side.
I can accept the premise. As a black American, I want to say that it is complicated. One, Nathan is assuming that black culture is monolithic. Forgetting Affirmative Action and the like, I think his premise pose a bigger problem. If he’s correct then I could see some black leaders argue for eugenics. It wouldn’t be the fast time that black leaders advocated for eugenics.
The most important and effective form of eugenics is the smart people (in any group) choosing to have more children, and the second most important form is simply people who want to have children valuing intelligence when choosing a mate. If any group can do those two things and avoid war (which takes out fit men and is thus destructive), that group's intelligence should rise.
Why do most races aspire to be "white" whether directly and indirectly? Are there AnitBlackisms too? Is that why most ethnicities or races look down on darker skinned peoples? This fact is empirically salient and historically extant. I defend anyone discriminated against. I am also a veteran, ex US Army soldier however watch the film Mudbound where the bigoted individuals had the gall and temerity to ask the black veteran soldier returning from duty in WW2,a war hero I might add as his white counterpart in the story, to go through the back door of the general store after fighting a f******* war, laying his life for his country/homeland but still abused. We have to examine everything. I understand the excessive "wokism" claims and toxicity as well notwithstanding the deontological egalitarian efforts I don't entirely dismiss as pejorative simultaneously. I think it's whining and crying. Nobody is trying to hear all that. lol I guess blacks are told to get over it. I would assume this applies to the other as well.Join the club.lol
54:23 This would be the most sensible strategy. Freedom of association should mean I should be able to choose to live with, work with, and associate with whoever I want for whatever reason. Forced diversity goes against our basic civil rights. If someone would prefer to live in an all white community, why would anyone non-white want to live around such people anyway? I wouldn’t choose that myself. But just because I don’t want to live with only other white people, that doesn’t mean other people shouldn’t have that option. Just let people live the way they want so long as they aren’t hurting other people.
It's the "work with" part that is the main problem. No one cares if white people want to live separately. But when talking about employment or really anything that has real world effects or could potentially affect someone's livelihood then that becomes an issue. "Freedom to work with whoever you want" can easily be translated to "Freedom to only hire those like me", in this case whites. This of course means less opportunities for blacks or other races, so what are they supposed to do then? That's going to cause way more problems for you in the long run when every business is able to only hire whites and the poverty rate begins to grow in black/brown communities. And at that point you won't be able to say it's a result of genetics since businesses would be actively and openly discriminating against a specific group of people. There are blacks just as smart as everyone else, or smarter. Those who are engineers, doctors, businessmen/women, etc. Are you saying given an educated and competent black person, you still wouldn't want to work with them? If your answer is yes, then that proves you're just racist and not a "race realist" where the main focus seems to be outcomes based on intelligence.
Genes vs environment is somewhat a false dichotomy. All traits are an expression of genes in response to the environment. Some traits are more responsive to environment than others. But it is always genes + environment
True enough. But if you don't have the genes to be a genius, all the environmental enrichment in the world isn't gonna have ya solving calculus in kindergarten.
Very brave man, to state the obvious
Interesting how when you ask your guest about his politics he refers to conservatives and liberals - apparently not a very sophisticated understanding of political philosophy.
Without fail everyone I’ve ever met with a sophisticated understanding of political philosophy is a complete asshole
Or he is just trying to speak in the terms that many people think in, which is the liberal/conservative dichotomy. Most people use those two points to describe their politics…in a left to right spectrum.
This is a proposition and a hypothesis. More importantly however, the narrative being formed above the discussion that certain people are having about this data (i.e. Mr. Murray and thyselves) is quite disingenuous and near-sighted; intentionally so.
The truth is there have been massive efforts to suppress people of African descent in the Americas, as well as in-continent if not in recent years (which I would not hesitate to say so), then certainly in previous years. This disturbs and preoccupies the cognitive faculties, and functioning, of said peoples from familiarizing itself with said concepts measured in these tests. Why is it that so many years later, many "minority" students express disdain for the education system? Colonization has a nasty effect of alienizing an already dehumanized people.
Asia and its many nations have enjoyed large periods of peace, despite a certain illustrious war history as well. The reality of slowly homogenizing populations throughout the course of time is that appellations for peace in societies causes education to prosper, for the sake of community.
Europeans and Middle Easterners warred a lot, but also enjoyed many periods of peace and prosperity in which education could prosper.
The truth about Africa is that it was always antagonized by Middle Eastern nations, and even northern European nations. A derogatory attitude towards the people of this region is found even in the religious teaching of Europeans and Middle Easterners (I can point out examples of racism, genocide, and more in all three major religious texts of said regions today). The Christian gospels profess that it is a difficult thing for Ethiopians to understand them, and a man (Phillip) being miraculously taken into heaven for "managing to teach one".
Nonetheless, even African nations have enjoyed peace, prosperity, and much of their educational accomplishments served as the foundations for what the Greeks and Romans would implement and expound upon.
European Americans considered Black Africans 3/5ths of a person when they all arrived here, at the start of this now modern society, and while European culture could flourish and prosper with two systems in play for their enrichment in America (democratic-republican capitalism and feudal serfdom multiplied in the form of chattel slavery), African descendents were facing the worst effects of the worst colonization efforts in history; and the West is a history of colonization efforts and profitting from other people's, and populations' downfalls-- between Europe, the Middle East, and to a lesser extant Africa (Egypt was a colonizer, as was Carthage.) Omission from rites in ancient times is akin to remission of education in modern times.
One more thing: "Black Wall Street."
African-American, and "minority" prosperity, has been the target of Supremacists many times throughout the course of American history.
Considering the relative peace that said people have enjoyed within these societies, and their quantity as a population within these societies: I think it is only a beginning statement to many more people's analysis of this data that it does not faithfully describe people's realities.
Historical narratives aren’t evidence. This is an empirical question, so you’re going to need to base your conclusion on empiricism.
Ask yourself this: Is it possible that Africans were oppressed historically, and also differ in intelligence from other races due to genes? In other words, is it possible that a group can have lower genotypic intelligence and be oppressed? If that’s the case, then bringing up historical oppression doesn’t disprove anything. Empiricism is based on disproving hypothesis, and so far you’ve only buttressed your own hypothesis with plausible explanations. You haven’t shown anything to be false.
@@Doll-db1gc I disagree. IQ tests present a high correlation with wealth and communal prosperity (social positioning). Thus, by the Law of Equivalency wealth and social positioning is highly correlated with IQ. Now wealth and social positioning is directly attached to cultural history and social events of that nature.
At the time of the Roman Empire the Germanic peoples and the Nords were tribal people, much like West African populations. The only difference was their environment and their genetic adaptations to said environments. The Middle Eastern (Southern European, North African, Egyptian, and Middle Eastern populations) were the most advance because of their frequent borrowing from one another, and battling each other. Here we find the key to IQ differences: the powerful have access to information and did not share it with the "profane commoners" in order to continue profitting from said populations. When Christianity and the Crusades established some sense of unity between Northern and Southern Europe the Muslim age of cultural and intellectual prosperity would succumb to the European presence in the Holy Lands and they in turn had their periods of intellectual and culture prosperity.
The Slave trade absolutely was an intent to diminish human intelligence in West Africans, as they were killed for reading then, and said people are making fantastic strides in closing the gap with what they have access to since the last century.
Fascinating thermal camera! 👍😼 Nocturnal cats always surprise us in their lives while we sleep... 🌠🌠❤
It will never be not upsetting to see comments demonizing your race and insulting the people you know and love. No one can control their race, no one earns it, but because we’ve been brainwashed to think race means something… it means that you’ll always be included and maligned for actions individuals in your race commit if you’re a minority. Individuals who would also hurt you…but you have to be included with them.
His premise is undeniable, but his presentation lacks nuance and is a bit delusional. Perhaps it’s because, and I say this, with no disrespect, he’s on the spectrum and doesn’t recognize that pure logic in this very emotional world doesn’t rule.
I agree that he is likely on the spectrum and indeed people on the spectrum tend not to feel the need to add nuance about things that to them seem perfectly straight forward. It took me a while to learn how to understand them but once I figured out that - oh right these people don't care too greatly about emotions and sensitivities while beating about the bush is not in their DNA - it all made perfect sense to me. With that said, I don't quite see where you got the delusional part? Delusional about what? Nothing he said is not backed by fact or seems unrealistic, where do you get the delusion from?
As for pure logic, the world would be a much better place if there was more logic in it and less emotion. I think he's got the right idea, this conversation has to be brought to the fore fully hashed out and done with yesterday, and if not with pure logic then how? Playing some silly game of emotional manipulation or propaganda to get people to understand will only make things worse and will eventually backfire. The raw truth and nothing but the truth backed up by science is what is needed at this juncture.
A whole lot of people don't concern themselves with their instinctive self or even think about what instincts are and I would like to make a effort in revealing just how profoundly important it is to understand because it is defining us a a level that sits beneath al the things we learn after we are born and it influences all decisions we make during our lifetime. The things we learn can be anything, objectively true, false or otherwise. This implies that the thing all humans have in common are our instincts that we inherited from our pre-human ancestors and it contains millions of years of evolutionary knowledge about how to survive (nurturing of our children) and how to be as prosperous as possible (make the best use of available ressources).
I will emphasize one key important thing about humans and that is our lack of huge canines that we had some 7 million of years ago but had almost "lost" some 2 million yeas ago before we aquired our additional cognitive neurons on top of our instinctive primate neurons.
The only sensible reason for that is that our female ancestors began to see aggressive behavior as a thread to the wellbeing of their children which slowly shifted their male mating preferences towards the lesser aggressive and for obvious reasons that made males with smaller canines more attractive. In comparison it has to be empathized that gorillas for instance have huge canines even though the only eat greenery, fruits and berries, because they rely on aggressive behavior to attract females for mating.
Another key important feature is that it is almost contradictory to becoming cognisant to have predetermined knowledge built-in into that cognitive neural structure and everything therefore has to be learned and propagated culturally through teaching of our children.
Our cognitive neurons are capable of suppressing our instinctive neurons and it is almost impossible to think that our instinctive neurons will not be painfully affected by bad/non-instinctive behavior of our cognitive neurons and that this response to bad/deviant behavior will not be felt back by our cognitive neurons. Because our cognitive neurons has to learn everything they will not know why they sense this discomfort and they must somehow interpret it as either they are doing something wrong (because they believe they are fully in control of everything) or they must project that feeling outward and put the blame on something in the environment (likely other humans).
This is a description of an internal battle between an unknown "enemy" that is our non-cognitive instincts and our unaware "cognisant" neurons that can in worst case lead to us believing that we are evil at the core and make us become very aggressive towards others.
The bonobos that live at the Congo river is only 1.3% genetically different from humans and they are without any doubt our closest instinctive relatives. Not only are they instinctively non-aggressive but they also behave sexually in a manner that every human can relate to if we removed the information that has been pased culturally through thousands of generations, which is highly dependent on where you were born.
There is only one way to evolve culturally successfully and that is to understand our instinctive origin and the reason we unavoidably became mentally upset while becoming cognisant capable.
We should acknowledge that, religions created by amazing philosophers trying to explain good vs evil in many different atempts throughout our planet, were in reality trying to explain our internal battle between cognitive- and instinctive neurons. They just didn't have the luxury of all the combined knowledge about religion, philosophy, anthropology, archeology, history, psychology, psychiatry, biology, genetics, neurology and other fields of understanding that we have today.
If we can do that we will have a very prosperous future as Homo Sapiens 2.0, which is the truely self-aware Homo Sapiens that will be able to survive indefinitely.
If everything we do is for the future of all of our children, we will have no further significant problems and we can create a planet that is a cognisant star in the universe.
You've made a very articulate case, but with all due respect...
*"There is only one way to evolve culturally successfully"* Successfully evolve the culture and bring it to me, and then we can talk about how many ways you think there are. Until you do that, you are just one of many competing priests.
Americans really have walled rhemselves off with their political model.
I have never understood why "conservatism" is considered a right of centre and "liberal" a left of centre belief/value system.
Liberalisms left and right wings are differentiated not by the degree to which change is needed or to be resisted, but the degree to which the state should interfere where the free market appears to be failing.
A lot of conservatism is just as interventionist as liberalism.
Trump's 10% tarif on Chinese imports for example, is very left of centre.
Roe vs Wade is a very right of centre. The state's reach into people's private lives was very clearly pulled back.
Ancap is the true right wing of liberalism, the left wing is local collectivism with property rights and rule of law.
The whole political discourse is pointless because of this irrational distinction.
Rand Paul recently remarked to Russel Brand that his senator father (1970s) told him how when senior bipartisan committees were put together senior members of both sides were indistinguishable.
Part of the problem is that it isn’t just one continuum, it is (as you imply) a web of intersecting spectra.
“Liberal” and “conservative” do not occupy opposite poles on the same continuum, as many seem to believe.
The opposite of conservative would be better characterized as “progressive,” whereas the opposite of liberal would be authoritarian.
Me personally? As long as you (or the policies you promote) are far away from the authoritarian end, I couldn’t care less where you are on the progressive/conservative scale.
@@stvbrsn my deepest apologies to you for the horrendous spulchock errors in my post! Fixed now.
@@AndyJarman I don’t know what you’re referring to. I didn’t criticize spelling or anything. I was reiterating your point. Oh well, apology accepted I guess, even if I don’t know why you’re apologizing (in a seemingly facetious way)
You posit libertarianism as the center; it isn't. The terms "left" and "right" have a history, and neither stems from their place relative to libertarianism.
@@stvbrsnwould you prescribe a bit of authoritarianism to enforce a nations border?
I have always thought race realism to some extent was unavoidable. My understanding is that there are 3 main family trees. 2 of which whites and the asian peoples bred with Neanderthals and the other with what they call Dirivains (?) The African people stayed within their group for the most part, leading to a genetic bottle neck.
So, when I look at the other mammals like dogs for example they have very distinct traits. Its not just intelligence its a bunch of different traits. From anxeity to aggresion. They are predictably different based on their breed.
Looking back to humans we have 3 genetic family trees that are very different from each other. So, why wouldnt we expect to see different traits among them?
If this is true , it may turn out that this "woke" crusade is doomed to fail and will only accomplish the destruction of the system which was built.
A system that has given us so many things man never had before. Its clear to me that these people have no end. You give them one thing they simply lose their shit on the next thing and on and on it goes. All the while they eat their own for not being radical enough....
46:35 @benjaminaboyce the reason why the conservatives have an IQ problem is that they lost the free trade argument in the Corn Law debates in the early to mid 1800's in the UK where all the British Conservative Intellectuals moved to the left wing. The only people left were the farmers and Benjamin Disraeli. We had the same thing happen to us in the 1930's to 1990's when we exported farming and manufacturing to the rest of the world. All the conservative intellectuals became free market liberals.
Bill Clinton "It's economics stupid."
Robert Peele, the leader of the Conservative Party at the time, turned his second in command said "You're going to have to debate them. I think they're right and I agree with them."
How is that globalism going for you
Your friend/enemy distinction measurer is off boyo.
Ben ... you're looking especially spiffy today... whats the deal? Looking fit, well groomed and focused. etc. Keep it up.
I'm willing to believe that Christianity may be relevant when it comes to the egalitarian ethos you find in western countries, but egalitarian societies have existed in other parts of the world, and there are some popular theories that egalitarianism is original to us.
I don't know if there's any truth to "race realism" as it relates to IQ, but if there is, one way of creating a sense of greater equality would be to increase the value of different kinds of intelligence and capacities over the kinds of intelligences that are utilised in STEM and certain professions.
Equality is a false god.
rap intelligence
I ran a physiognomy check - both of these chads passed
What were you searching for? Cofnas is Jewish and Benjamin is "white".
@@carlotapuigwhat are you on about? I’m talking jaw lines
@@carlotapuig And both are raycist douchebags. 😂😂
Cheers!🍸
🤭😆🤣
Great interview! Not least because, thanks to Nathan Cofnas, I now know the correct way to pronounce Neven Sesardic's name! I'd been saying it wrong for years.
Sad how ignorant the comments section is dismissing this out of hand. Shows how well the social climate and indoctrination work.
People are afraid. Some races are more prone to violence and you don't want to provoke them now that populations are so close in proximity. They have Stockholm Syndrome.
Hmm, what about the Nigerian Vs African American argument?
I live in Australia, the Aboriginal people here are stymied by their group ethic (no private property is justified) and they look to and identify with the African American experience/culture.
Chinese Vs Taiwanese/Hong Kongers ?
I always thought the Philosopher King in Plato's Republic was fatally flawed because the master race could never be sealed off from the generation before it without being seriously damaged by the experience.
selection bias maybe? the ones who make it to america are probably not randos from some slum of lagos
"Chinese Vs Taiwanese/Hong Kongers ?" Those are geographic categories. I'm not sure why you chose to denote Taiwanese/Hong Kongers like that because they are separate islands and are as different from each other as they are from the Mainland. They are not interchangeable for each other any more than they are interchangeable for the mainland.
In terms of race, the majority population of all three regions are of the Han race.
@@Zidana123 because in chapter 13 of The Bell Curve, Charles Murray records a significant IQ difference between those under Communist rule and those who are self reliant capitalists working under a predictable rule of law.
Marxism favours the compliant, not the ingenious.
Mainland China only developed the technology for manufacturing ball point pens in 2016.
@@AndyJarman Ah. you are referring to something like average IQ being like ~103 for the Mainland and ~113 for Taiwan?
Murray has made the classical error there of taking the average IQ of Mainland China as a whole and not accounting for _regional_ IQ differences within Mainland China itself. And you yourself compound the error by attributing it to market systems.
At this time, please have a look up of a more detailed regional IQ map for yourself by typing "Chinese iq by province" into your favorite search engine
As you can see, the IQ of the Mainland runs on a gradient. As you move East, toward the coast, the IQ rises, into the same 110 - 120 range of Taiwan.
And as you move West, the IQ drops towards the 80-90 range which is also seen in Central Asia.
This phenomenon of the Mainland IQ being on a regional gradient now becomes less attributable to market systems. Because if it were caused only by the difference in market systems, all of the Mainland would have the same lower IQ... but it doesn't. Instead it shows that the Mainland coastal populations which are more closely genetically related to the Taiwanese population have a similar IQ to the Taiwanese population. _And_ it shows that these IQ similarities largely ignore economic and government types.
There's a ton of genetic variability in Africa, though. Whites and blacks in America have more in common than most of the African peoples to each other.
The Nigerian immigrants coming over to America are also the upper and middle classes fleeing political upheaval, meaning they are going to be a lot of highly educated or hard working people. So that's another thing to take into account when doing the math. We are comparing their best to our everyone.
Don't forget that evolution stops at the neck and actions stop at the individual.
I agree it would be helpful to normalize hereditarianism, with three important caveats. First, no serious hereditarian would claim that environments plays no role in shaping ability or behavior. There is some mix with environment.. Second, science remains truly unsettled about the degree to which heredity is primary,and what if anything could most accurately measure this. And in this debate, those who minimize heredity have some strong arguments to make, at the very least worthy of consideration. Third, reducing inequality of outcome as much as possible will still remain a liberal goal, given that environment and culture plays at least some role. So, yes, good ahead and talk about it, but it’s not a magic bullet against wokism.
Why do most races aspire to be "white" whether directly and indirectly? Are there AnitBlackisms too? Is that why most ethnicities or races look down on darker skinned peoples? This fact is empirically salient and historically extant. I defend anyone discriminated against. I am also a veteran, ex US Army soldier however watch the film Mudbound where the bigoted individuals had the gall and temerity to ask the black veteran soldier returning from duty in WW2,a war hero I might add as his white counterpart in the story, to go through the back door of the general store after fighting a f******* war, laying his life for his country/homeland but still abused. We have to examine everything. I understand the excessive "wokism" claims and toxicity as well notwithstanding the deontological egalitarian efforts I don't entirely dismiss as pejorative simultaneously. I think it's whining and crying. Nobody is trying to hear all that. lol I guess blacks are told to get over it. I would assume this applies to the other as well.Join the club.lol
From my observations, I believe that the quality of racism is often associated with evil and human suffering in it's totality, which is why many of those who are in the new left carry an attitude of sacrilege whenever their beliefs are questioned. To me it is the same logic that the common people in Salem Massachusetts had when it came towards paganism and occult beliefs, that quality of investing in those beliefs could lead towards drastic action towards what they perceive as evil, as seen with new left believers and their attitude on twitter. To me I think where evil truly lies stems from the instance that we indulge in ignorance, rather than to see nuance in our actions, the worst things that post civil war america brought towards African Americans lie primarily in the hands of those who were rife with ignorance, and were primal in their utmost essential behavior, which reflects many of the behavior of the modern new left.
The absolute egalitarian/equalitarian makes an observable falsehood that “we’re all one human race” means “we’re all one human species” in such a rash fashion that it will be laughed about centuries from now. We wouldn’t put wolfs and coyotes in the same pen, nor would we put polar bears and grizzly bears in the same bear exhibit at a zoo, yet we are doing this in the West at such a scale that it will repeat history like that of Babel. It doesn’t make any race bad, it just means we were all tuned for different continents, different environments and different social structures and especially different variabilities of in-group preferences.
I don't understand anything that this guy is saying, but it makes me feel more intelligent listening to it 😀
@28:00. The "environmental problem" is the best explanation of current progressive approaches to race relations. The issue is the environment has bern fixed and relations supposedly have not changed.
(meaning it's either a grift or psychological).
I think the Doc saying that the lower classes will keep doing it the "old fashioned way", is the point. They do a lot of the "old fashioned way" stuff, and if the intelligent make up 1 percent of the society it is a dangerous situation.
I wonder if Nathan realizes that he is describing how debate about the topic is socially denied, while participating in the mechanism of social denial, in the same podcast. E.g. the presumption that anyone who consumes certain taboo websites is not worth taking seriously.
The key to group self-taming and enforcing overton windows is, imo, overloading the feeling of disgust and the instinctual behaviors associated with it. We associate disgust with contagion, so we don't want to touch anything the disgusting person touches, and so on. And we don't think rationally about it, we just get away.
I noticed that as well. People seem to have this tendency to try to keep their social bona-fides "I have some unorthodox beliefs that are a social taboo, but I'm not like all those other guys who have unorthodox beliefs. Those are the real bad guys. I'm one of the good ones." See also: nearly every public intellectual's "boy, the left sure has gone crazy, but I could never vote for Donald Trump."
As long as there's someone "worse" that they can point at to disassociate from, they think they'll get to stay in good graces.
56:27
Think of all the intellectual energy that has been wasted in trying to discover truth while trying to deny the existence of God.
People in this thread seem to overlook the simple fact that there is more variation within each race than there is between races, an inconvenient fact that undermines any argument for any racial group interest rooted in racial realism. There is far greater diversity within the white American population than between any other group.
It’s much easier psychologically to fall back into simple statements and explanations (that support our beliefs) to explain certain phenomena, rather than acknowledging the answer is not simple/easy and requires hard work to combat and understand
The same applies to other races. We are mostly a mixture of ethnicities and races anyway. Race theory and eugenics is a product of a limited mind set.
You are misunderstanding the statement" there is more variation within each race than there is between races" . This statement refers to the fact that if you look at a single location in a human's DNA , say rs17288108 , then there a person could have one variant, say a thymine base at that location , or they could have a different variant adenosine at that location , and for most locations if you compare two races, then the frequencies won't be very different, so for most dna locations 47% of subsaharan africans might have the Adenosine variant whereas 53% of Europeans might have the Adenosine variant.
However , this figure is only telling you about the average across all different dna locations and is boiling down all that multi-dimensional information to a single dimensional number. In the process , this throws out the information that those slight differences in variant frequencies between different locations are actually correlated within different races.
What this means is that if you only look at one gene location, yes usually Europeans have a 55% vs 45% split between the two possible variants while Africans have a 45% vs 55% split between the two possible variants, so it would be impossible to correctly classify someone as European or african looking at only one typical dna location.
BUT when you look at many thousands of dna locations at once those slight differences in gene variant frequencies are correlated which lets you predict which ancestral group someone belongs to with more and more confidence and accuracy , until there is essentially 0 chance that an indigenous European would be incorrectly identified as an indigenous subsaharan african from looking at their DNA.
This is called lewontin's fallacy.
I think you also misunderstand the idea of racial interest. Our interests as organisms is to increase the number of our genes into the future. The reason we're behaviourally predisposed help family members more than strangers is because they are less genetically distant i.e. more genetically similar to each other than strangers because we have a more recent common ancestor with our family members. This is the basic idea. The exact same thing is also true for members of our ethnic group compared with people from totally different continents. We're more genetically close/similar to members of our ethnic group because we have a more recent common ancestor (like how we're more genetically close to other humans than we are to chimpanzees because we have a more recent common ancestor with other humans than with chimpanzees) , So I'll be helping people who are genetically more similar to me survive if I help them instead of strangers from other continents , so I'll be helping more of my genes survive.
It's not about variation, it's about distribution.
Populations have overlapping bell curves, and the real differences show up at the tails.
@@scathatch _eugenics is a product of a limited mind set._
Really? You don't think that having smart healthy parents is a leg up in the world?
C. 9 min:
You can't "borrow and not pay back" as this would not be borrowing!
The race realism narrative reminds me of the "discrimination is responsible for all disparities" narrative, i.e., both are narratives and there are useful bits of evidence or information that can be used to try and support them. They also both remove the need to think carefully and in a nuanced way - x is the answer for everything - case closed. Oh and let's take action based on this belief - because that always ends well...
The topic of this conversation is very complex and there are so many tangents you can take. While you can argue that Hitler wasn't drawing from evolution and Darwin(I would disagree), the zeitgeist of the early 20th century was absolutely applying evolution and Darwinism to eugenics, racial hierarchies, and plenty of practices we would hopefully not look to return to. Secondly, I think the world view of Dr. Cofnas does take on many assumptions which sterilizes and atomizes the issue while reducing resolution. He cannot prove that IQ is not a consequence of nurturing, parental assertion of values which encourage the tools which raise IQ, and ethnic, cultural, and social institutions which form children. His stance is rooted in a subjective lens that memetic and historical forces do not color or complicate evolution. He cannot prove or disprove that the evolution of humans is different than finches. While I agree with the thrust of his points: tempering the fundamentalist race-based equality, I think that this is a simplified view that ignores a lot of the social, cultural complexities that aren't "testable".
Cognitive dissonance theory explains a lot of this. It's not exactly what most think, and is a huge aspect of moral, cultural, behavioral psychology.
In that, all the 'races' of the human species are the same, it's our cultures that are the variants. We know we're a social species that cooperates to survive. CDT explains homogenous moral frameworks, aka, religions, ideologies.
A way to look at morality is to compare the authoritarian tactics outlined in Robert Lifton's 8 to any cultures homogeneous moral framework. An anti authoritarian moral framework seems to thrive to an insane degree.
It's obvious in our cultures insane production of everything, our insane scientific and technological advances. Our historic anti authoritarian development going back to the magna carta, John Locke basic human rights/property rights, free, voluntary trade, the idea that testimonial truth is a virtue. Our traditional culture's homogeneous moral framework is what we'd expect if evolution is doing its thing. Cooperation.
The intelligence by race factor? It's cool, but doesn't matter much in North Korea, Russia or China compared to their potential. According to Thomas Sowell blacks had nearly caught up to whites economically shortly after WWII.
Boy the dancig around the topic is amazing 😂
There are more recent realist accounts of race in philosophy, that argue against both biological realism and social constructivism, and may be motivated by a woke politics of racial realism. The "philosiohy of race" it comes under.
the Fastest _Isræli,_
the Richest *Jamaican;*
you might be surprised by
which one _won’t_ eat *bacon!*
57:57 😂
Je me suis bien amusé, au moins.
Benjamin...it's as easy as realizing that if you carry through on heredity characteristics of Personality, and that Personality characterisitics and their domination within haplo groups were dependent on evolutionary success...then you're going to see a commonality that results in the development of entire civilizations...and the stagnation of entire civilizations.
Impressive to interview the second most influential millennial philosopher called Nathan.
You should invite Nathan Wynn for the next one.
th-cam.com/video/7gDKbT_l2us/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ADoyHu3B-q2EoA8W&t=15m15s
1:13:40 he’s NRX based on the tenets he holds
I think most Race Realists have joined this camp.
This guy has a nice heavy hammer, he's got a good strong swing and he's got a tough sharp nail, and he's swinging away but he keeps just missing the nail, or just delivering glancing blows. He's so close, but he might bend the nail if he's not careful.
They still got him
What a hotchpotch of challenging ideas and facts on the one hand and outright lay weir and confused conclusions on the other. This guy needs have his brain sorted out.
The biggest problem facing a "race realist world" is that in advanced nations with robust welfare states there is far too little environmental pressure to normalize IQ between disparate groups. Those that have more brains will probably stay somewhat close to where they've been for a while due to better available nutrition and cleaner water, etc., and then stagnate and start to see dysgenic effects where IQ decreases (this is already happening, I'm just laying it out there), while those with lower average IQ will also stagnate and in some cases potentially also see IQ decrease in the worst case scenario. Racial average IQ isn't some fixed thing that cannot improve, but it won't if there's no pressure for it to do so. Without war and famine and childhood disease, we live too long and with zero real checks on our populations and the competencies of those populations. Some like the use of abortion to put upward pressure on IQ by selectively culling the undesirable, but I'm not sure that's having the intended effect either. It looks to me like we've painted ourselves into a corner with very few sources of upward lift to apply to the problem of IQ but I'm open to ideas as to how we get around this quandary without returning to the bad old days where greater cleverness much more often meant the difference between death or survival.
Bro take a nap
Glenn Lowry and Jonathan McWhorter are two black men who talk about this. Unfortunately they're the only ones who can talk about it without being canceled.
Be great to hear Bret Weinstein responding to some of his points. The trouble with Cofnas is that he doesn't like to address counterarguments (I took the time to reply to a Substack piece he had written and he responded to all the comments there but mine). Not a sign of a man who is confident in his arguments - only in his beliefs : /
Why do most races aspire to be "white" whether directly and indirectly? Are there AnitBlackisms too? Is that why most ethnicities or races look down on darker skinned peoples? This fact is empirically salient and historically extant. I defend anyone discriminated against. I am also a veteran, ex US Army soldier however watch the film Mudbound where the bigoted individuals had the gall and temerity to ask the black veteran soldier returning from duty in WW2,a war hero I might add as his white counterpart in the story, to go through the back door of the general store after fighting a f******* war, laying his life for his country/homeland but still abused. We have to examine everything. I understand the excessive "wokism" claims and toxicity as well notwithstanding the deontological egalitarian efforts I don't entirely dismiss as pejorative simultaneously. I think it's whining and crying. Nobody is trying to hear all that. lol I guess blacks are told to get over it. I would assume this applies to the other as well.Join the club.lol
@@JasonHarris777 I'm not sure a race can aspire to be anything.... a race is not an animate being with will or desire. What are you talking about? Individuals?! If so then I don't think most individuals do aspire to be white. What a bizarre and unfounded assumption! (If I've understood you correctly).
@@just_another32 The White westerner did create our western society and have been consistent major contributors to global advancments in most areas of life,not to mention,I might add, are the dominant culture of our society. If you can't see or acknowledge that, I am afraid you're living in a delusion. I don't,or anyone, doesn't need to feel inferior but there are some subtle acculturations that make one indirectly aspire the "white" work ethic and feats of monumental achievement and excellence.
@@JasonHarris777 I am still not sure of the point you are trying to make mate! Do you not see us all as human? Why do you like to divide into racial categories? I find it weird.
@@just_another32 I am being the devil's advocate. I agree with you.😉
1:28:55 Benjamin oddly asked a very insightful question and qualifies it with... 'I know this is a technical a stupid question' .... ah no dude... this is a good question... I doubt many people have thought of this before...
I don't understand how he got to see equality of opportunity as camouflaging an equite core, really don't
28:57 Where is the evidence that race plays a role in intelligence. There is far more evidence that it is down to environment.
I read a study paper claiming that a White kid raised in a Black family will still have a higher IQ than his Black siblings...
Oh goodness, am I ready for this?
squaring the circle of nat .select "giving morality " is one of those pie in the sky tower of babel projects that promises the transcendent knowledge but never quite delivers.
Dammit I meant to say morality on my snarky last quip.
The tidal wave of science can only be held back for so long.
"Equality of outcomes is Marxism."
The confidence with which people that have clearly never read Marx say things like this is baffling.
Anything "taboo" has got to be worth watching.
These conversations are dangerous because they exclude the bright individuals amongst ethnic minorities. It may have been worth discussing some basic statistics for the uneducated audience. Moreover, IQ is a mystery, we don’t fully yet understand the extent to which environment can effect it. And I think a reconsideration of IQ is required to account for this view, I assume you could appreciate the concern of the theory IQ being a measure of general fitness and adaptability.
Imagine thinking that a mere exchange of words and thoughts which in no way call for violence or harm of said minorities is dangerous. You with that statement alone have revealed that you are not above the supression of data or research if it does not fit your political ideology or preconceived worldview.
Discussion of the bightest amongst minorities, which they did discuss if you actually listened to the video which I doubt you made it beyond 15 minutes, doesn't change the fact that groups differ on average. You are capable of understanding differences between the average and the exceptional right? Are we to argue that Einstein or Newton is a good representation of a European mind? No, they were the most exceptional amongst us. An exceptional person of african descent doesn't change the fact that they preform worse on average despite decades and billions spent on trying to close that gap and reaching a point of stagnantion because what gap remains is obviously to some degree of significance related to genetic composition.
IQ is not a mystery. IQ is the biggest predictor of success. There's a clear reason for that. With that being said there are clearly more ways that just intellectual ability which contributes to a humans worth in society.
Great guest, I have a pretty loaded question, so hopefully he's reading this or you could pass it along:
1. He's using "Natural Selection" rather loosely as a catchall for current evolutionary thought -- accepting that premise (tho it is arguable from a practical standpoint), by using "race" as a sort of classification process, are we not omitting the predominate mid-20th century revelation that the term "race" itself was traditionally misunderstood/didn't actually encompass the scale of ethno-cultural inheritance it was erroneously adopted to represent? [for clarity, see Julian Huxley's position on race and realignment of definitions leading into Modern Synthesis/the re-establishment of "Natural Selection" as an empirical standard - see also "We Europeans" 1935]
2. Accepting Julian's position as predominate... Your question about ethics being resolved through Natural Selection to provide an ethical basis seems to fundamentally challenge your conflicting views on race with Sir Julian (mentioned above) being that he used his grandfather's work to flesh out the entire argument for this course of scientifically based ethical systems in [see: Touchstone for ethics, 1893-1943]
3. If 1&2 are addressed then the conceptual boundaries of your argument have all but diminished and we can move onto the most pressing matter, #3: "it's not genes, it must be environmental" arguments have only recently (1990 ->) been attributed to any sort of "racial injustice". The actual argument (by actual, I mean non-ideologically/less politically motivated argument) is that pollutants, contaminants, and influences such as long time exposure to diseases (malnutrition, lead exposure, ETC) are responsible for many/most of the intellectual deficiencies being attributed to race.
Conclusion: Accepting that 1-3 are true/valid questions/concerns (they are, I have plenty of evidence) I find your assessment that "this is what wokeism is, taking the equality assessment seriously" either under-studied or utterly lacking in its diagnostic aptitude. Firstly, you're conflating several different and at times opposing forces as the same thing. Then, you're asserting that these forces are seeking "an equality that doesn't exists" over "an equality which can exist" in a way which implies that you don't truly seem to grasp the "controlled evolutionist" position/argument.
All that said, maybe I'm wrong; a concern which leaves me to ask a two-part question: 1. Do you feel that Evolution by Natural Selection is both empirical and an important touchstone for ethics? 2. Given the importance of genetic diversity implied by the modern synthesis of Natural Selection, is it more or less important to prioritize environmental factors over racialized categorization?
Sure, we realized that we had some ideas about what we called race that were presumptuous and arrogant, but it isn’t 1943 anymore. I’m all for changing the word, I hear people starting to use the term population group more often these days
His own moral biases are a little too apparent.
We acknowledge that African descent often yields certain physical advantages, but mental differences are off the table. I'm no expert, but research into this clearly too taboo. We will never know the truth anytime soon.
The tide is turning faster & picking up speed. Reality is harshly waking many up.
@@Ariel-q7n Maybe the entire woke enterprise was a blessing. There were plenty of people who were perfectly willing to blithely go through life believing in blank-slate equality without examining it, because it cost them nothing. Now they are being forced to face the actual ramifications of that belief, and if that forces them to question it, all the better.
Absolute rubbish.
Madame Blavatsky hasn’t commented yet… Is she skipping it🤔, or is she laaaaate⏰?
Ws... all of you
Rather than screening for the perfect embryo and initiating genetic manipulation (1:12), it would of more use to focus on lower hanging and far more impactful fruit, such as the health of the mothers producing the embryos and growing the resulting infants.
Once the infant is born, environmental factors are a major factor in the development of that child's IQ. A Jewish child born in a stable family is likely to develop a higher IQ when being exposed to superior nutrition, probably multiple languages, positive role models, critical thinking and all sorts of skill building.
Contrast this with a ghetto single black mother who has poor eating habits and neither exhibits or encourages self control or a good work ethic. Comparing successful or unsuccessful individuals across races rather than the overall average success of any racial group would likely provide a more accurate answer as to how much genetics are a factor in IQ. I suspect that it would be very hard to measure, and provide little useful information.
But 'you know who' people invented rap music 🎶🎵
Is intelligence a dominant gene?
1:30:45 "properly realized" ... hmm that was a big statement there.... lol
It's a taboo because it's stupid, vicious, and not actually realistic. If you are going to say that a given race is "dumb" and another race is "smart," good luck even defining any given individual person by race. But what really matters is that Benjamin gets to be "bold" and "heretical."
Its not about saying “x is dumb y is smart”, its about saying generally, there are tendencies that one group is just more commonly smarter, for example. There are always going to be individuals who are outliers, you need to account for both the you’re saying isn’t a win like you think it is. Its just statistics, theres a reason there is an average. It’s not the be all and and all but it’s still very significant.
You wouldnt bat an eyelid at someone saying “Dutch people are generally tall”, why cant those general traits of demographics apply to other things?
@@fishsteak3246 So tell me, O superior one: If we say for the sake of argument that this has some validity, what are the implications in practice? Are we assuming that people who appear to belong to the "dumb" group are best left to die off or to be helped to die off? Can we abandon what's left of the social safety net because it only serves to bail out the"dumb" people? Maybe you should measure skulls in job interviews. If you are going to do these things, you are a monster. If you are not, than you're an unserious egotist trying to stroke your own sense of yourself as superior by birth.
@@AH-uq8nv I never claimed to be superior, you weirdo. You seem to like dehumanizing and talking down to people for having different opinions though.
Apparently saying some groups have talents that lie in different areas is monstrous for some reason???? God forbid you say Billy is better at running and Bobby is better at writing, ooh no that would be calling Billy superior, bigot!!!! Frankly, if anything, it shows your bias towards what you consider superior.
The great part is you don't have to do anything. Nature is self regulating, if something doesn't work it won't survive. Every different group alive provides a different perspective and value. There's a reason we have mutations and randomness in genetics.
That doesn't mean these groups will always work well together, sometimes they achieve individual things better apart, and sometimes they work very well together but what is wrong with acknowledging that?
@@AH-uq8nv Aww my reply got shadow banned.
I’ll keep it short this time, I never said I was superior, you weirdo. What is wrong with different people having skills in different areas? If someones good at running and someones better at writing by your own admission you’re admitting your own bias that you believe the one who is better at writing is superior instead of just better at different things.
@@fishsteak3246 Oh, so you're just about "Free to be you and me." Nice try.
Interesting but hard to listen to
Eventually you get used to him LOL