Inquire is used in formal situations, such as a Public Inquiry. It's also used informally a lot of the time in America, whereas in Britain, enquire is more often used in such informal contexts; such as "May I enquire as to the flavour of your lovely looking scones?"
I@@BenjaminABoyce I think "The Enquirer" is an official American tabloid, while "The Inquirer" is frequently the name for a fake tabloid used in a movie or TV show -- but I'm just guessing here.
The IDW was always a meme. The only useful thing they ever did was act as a gateway for some people to go deeper into heterodox ideas. But the IDW was basically just “why can’t we just go back to the 90’s!?” dressed up with a little “academic” sounding jargon.
It was too far outside the overton window back in those days. Attempts to cancel JBP were occurring bimonthly. Sam Harris did interview Charles Murray & defended that interview.
You ever notice how the IDW never speaks about IQ group differences unless it's to say that Jews unquestionably have higher IQ than other groups? I wonder why that is
You ever notice how the IDW never talks about group IQ differences except for when they say that a certain tribe (which got this comment shadowbanned when I named the first time) unquestionably has a higher one than other groups. I wonder why that is?
If Sam Harris refuses to consider something true because he is afraid of the consequences, then he obviously doesn't value truth as much as something else. I'd like to learn what that something else is.
I was going to apply to Evergreen, right before Bret's ousting, for the flexible curriculum. But alas, it's replaced by free internet education, for zero credit. Professor Boyce is mad chill.
Completely agree with Coleman on reparations: our legal precedent is for paying damages to the actual individuals who suffered an injustice, not to their descendants. Therefore, I think it's wrong that those who lived under Jim Crow have not been sufficiently able to sue, and win. However, when that shrinking, elderly population is gone, I think the argument for reparations goes with them.
Oklahoma had a chance to make reparations to the last survivors of the Tulsa riots, and they refused - because the people who perpetrated it, and their children who benefited from inheritance, are also still alive, and in the legislature
@@zimzob The blacks started the Tulsa riots. It's not like there was some conspiracy to demolish the black area of town. If everyone had just stayed home and minded their own business, the "battle of Tulsa" (what it really was) would not have happened.
So called Jim Crow laws (there was no real Jim Crow btw) should not incur reparations. Jim Crow laws were simply laws to maintain segregation, but whites were just as segregated as blacks. Indeed, the purpose of those laws was to segregate white people ONLY. They did not care if peoples of color wanted to mingle with one another.
I see what you mean, however, welfare is given to people of all races so I’m not sure it qualifies as reparations. I’m of the mind that to call for reparations at this point is ridiculous. Immediately after slaves of African ancestry were freed it would have been appropriate but it is too late now. I would consider modern day affirmative action and preferential hiring to be more akin to reparations. Personally, I don’t think any amount of actual reparations would satisfy a community that seems determined to blame any and all of its struggles on slavery and the legacy thereof, which seems to include their own personal choices.
The difficulty is that people take group average statistics and apply them to individuals. It’s very hard not to especially for the majority of people who don’t even try to be objective.
The source of Woke ideology is explicitly anti-Euro racism - Woke policies weaponise empathy - as a disguise and to recruit support from the non-psychopath populace.
Gotta ask: where did you get this data that 'the majority... don't even try to be objective'? Or that they take 'group average statistics and apply them to individuals'? It seems like you are generalizing similar to what you are claiming the 'majority' are doing. Do you have data that the majority dislike individuals because of the statistics of their group? Or which majority are you talking about. If we're talking the woke, I could understand that case. They do seem to attack individuals as racist because of supposed characteristics of groups.
Bo seems a person who could converse with people anywhere and leave both parties buoyed. Personable smart guy and a good listen. Being a vegan and not a nutter is admirably based.
Yes, you are right, but it's praised as fair because a meritocracy IS self justifying and therefore there appears to be an objective, non parsimonious 'hand' at work. Free Market economics (at a macro scale) is undoubtedly non parsimonious, but applied nationwide the mass of those unable to compete are uncomfortable to live with. The Dunham Kruger effect and the naivity of the less able will inevitably lead to a sense of 'unfairness' with the state being regarded in a similar fashion to parents. So the state buffers the unsuccessful from witnessing the successful. The state becomes confused with the parent.
@@AndyJarman Great point, I think ppl confuse the State for a parent, it rly works better when it's a minimally impositional machine, that doesn't 'care abt you'. Ideally it'd be ok to just have a bare bones social safety net, to keep certain atomized workers from death and total misery. The 'parents' role in society, imo should not be institutionalized (or, nowhere near to the same extent as federal) and should involve organically formed local communities, faith groups if that's your vibe, nowadays so called "non-place based communities" like this one we're commenting on right now, though to a lesser extent for the latter, cause it's not irl.
There is a fundamental flaw in the parents concept - there is vastly more female participation in the public sector, and those women use their job as a surrogate parenting role for the public and their staff. This MIGHT be OK but many women are quite authoritarian and don't appreciate that they are exchanging legitimate concern for their job with emotional obligation for their children... the expansion of the state to the "parents" is completely inappropriate at the best of times, but it's even more dangerous at the worst of times (which is now). The state cannot stop you from ruining your life with drugs or crime. It cannot stop you ruining your life with laziness. It will fail if it tries. It can only punish your crimes, when and if they happen. They cannot provide any positive reinforcement without providing perverse incentives that interrupt free choice and capitalism.
As someone light skinned and not especially intimidating who lived in River Rouge, Lincoln Park, Melvindale, and Hazel Park, basically southern and northern borders of Detroit, I never had one violent encounter. But I did keep away from certain eastside areas. But as a 16 yr old kid there were certain bands that kept me out of the pit at the Greystone.
If you believe that two groups should be equal and they're not so you believe it's the system then that means that you'll keep trying to change the system to fix it. The only way you can achieve equality is to damage and reduce the ability of the higher performing group.
i feel like people dont discuss the fact that nutrition in early childhood has an affect on growth including the brain this is of course economy influenced
@Gingerblaze yeah you'd have to prove that though. First you'd need to prove the efficiency that it is transfered between gens and map the likelihood of it carrying through multiple gens. This is without adding in the likelihood that later gens will have different food conditions. You'd then have to prove that's how a significant amount of groups react and what the significant attributes of the diet are. Then you'd have to do familial diet tracking anytime you'd want to point this out for someone over anything else. It could turn out that easier attributes are found after proving all of that, but not necessarily. It's just so much to prove to actually rely on, and frankly I'd have doubt without investigating much further into the topic myself
The "deaf culture" point is tough, because while I appreciate their position, I imagine if I were deaf myself, I certainly wouldn't want ppl to be deaf in the future for the sake of the culture that previously arose out of necessity. Hate to say it, but honestly this reminds me of fat studies. Am I anti fat ppl? Do I want to round them up or something? Nah, but nor am I 'pro-fatness'. If ppl with physical/mental problems can improve, hopefully that can be facilitated, if not, I hope a humane society can help prevent their lives from being miserable. But, encourage fatness? Retain deafness through generations, if avoidable? Don't select (voluntarily) through embryo selection and spouse selection, for intelligence which Dutton explains, is largely definable as an optimally healthy nervous system? I suspect Benjamin was primarily posing the question for the sake of discourse, or maybe we'd disagree, but personally I think it must be seen as a disservice to future generations who could be healthier.
What happened at Evergreen is such a fricken tragedy. Idk if Boyce has reassembled the raw material he documented yet but there's a major case study ( maybe it really is like ground zero ) in the D.I.E. process there.
The closest to "aporia" would probably be something like "puzzling intellectual stalemate". Exchanging pro/con arguments about some philosophical question with Socrates for 2 hours and not coming to a conclusion.
The hierarchy these guys are talking about, the average person like myself, will almost never bump up against, unless I'm lost on a college campus and wander into a physics lecture.
@@soulfuzz368 I hear you but right now I'm more afraid of this possible 10% of the global population that are sociopaths and psychopaths influencing the hearts and minds of the lot of us.. Lol. My hierarchy comment was meant to say that this I.Q. difference is not that noticeable as life goes so don't sweat where your ethnicity is in that model. It's not like our ethnicity is going to hold us back in any real way. I could be very wrong
@@matelunddunlap2770 that still won’t change the fact that there will be people below the average on the distribution. Maybe overall we can imagine a future where all people are more intelligent but there will always be variation.
You shouldn't feel pride in your sister's accomplishment unless you feel like you contributed to it somehow, say by supporting her, tutoring her, etc. But that doesn't mean you should be indifferent to her accomplishment, you can feel delight, admiration, be impressed, etc. With pride I associate elevated self esteem. You aren't better because someone you're related to accomplished something. Do you see it differently?
One issue i have is the definition of white v the definition of black. The former assumes, I believe, 100% white but the latter varies considerably. So the question I'd be interesting in is the variety in the black population mirrored in the IQ testing?
Some of the stuff is a bit different have to take into account different, cities, countries and or zones, its generally not just one country and or many countries, some of countries have different groupings.
Dig just a bit into the primary sources and studies regarding Ashkenazi Jews. I’m now convinced it is not true they have a 115 avg IQ. Maybe a little higher verbal IQ but just slightly.
The degree of difference doesn't really matter does it? If you ringfence a population and find it has on average different characteristics that others, surely that's the very definition of a race?
You are mistaken. 110 to 112 is what the totality of the evidence points to for full blood Ashkenazis (and the number of pure breds is dropping like a rock, and Ashkenazi performance is falling with it), higher if you look at verbal only. I know there are a few people who try to argue against it. I have given them a hearing and they are full of crap, or at least they have a poor understanding of the subject.
Einat Wilf points out that Jews in Israel and in the Knesset often disagree on politically salient aspects of "what it means to be Jewish", so there's a lot of logical rational arguing going on, more heated than the US Congress, but with mutual civil respect for each other or for the process, at the end of the day. Not head chopping for blasphemy. The downside is, a tendency for specious socialist arguments, which are often untrue or crazy, but have some internal logical consistency. Such as Queer Theory, Gayle Rubin, Judith Butler.
A lot of the data indicating the IQ disparity is quite dubious. See LAC's video on it. At best the IQ differential is closer to 1-2 IQ points with a slant of about 10-15 points in favor of verbal intelligence for Ashkenazis. This makes their IQ nearly equal to Whites in every other metric.
"A positive without a negative," EXACTLY. 1:25:40 Edit: interestingly, this sentiment is reversed for individuals often, who are high in trait neuroticism. Neuroticism has many downsides, and a few important upsides in certain cases.
Bo , color blind doesn't mean to ignore race , it means treat people , as you said , as individuals , not as members of certain groups (It doesn't mean you should be stupid of dangers) ...
You can't treat everyone as an individual, especially in one-off or short term interactions. That's just a hilariously impractical fantasy. Heuristics must be used.
Sadly, the approach we are demanded to take, IS indeed one of focus on race, but don't be "ist".... treat them as a representative of a larger group who look the same, so share that same opinion on all things political / social... and to ignore the inherent biological instincts that are built into human DNA, as well as honed much sharper over thousands of years of evolution. Add to this, additional or even relaxing those more hardened instincts, depending on the specific environment we are at any given point in time. We have learned for a bunch of reasons, the inherent risk of walking down a dark alley at 2AM in the morning, as that DNA, biological drive of self-protection, as well as ingested content from news or others (fairly representative or not)... must be considered, lest greater risk of [fill in the blank] be the case. Does not mean one WILL experience consequences of that risk, but we are told to ignore them, so as not to appear "ist" . Best example as of late, was the lady who unlocked the door for a man who was 100 lbs her senior, covered neck in low-quality [ink] pretty much guaranteed to be gotten in a certain place and did not live to tell the story. Hindsight is always 20/20, but the warning signs she intentionally ignored, were there for a reason and paid the ultimate price for ignoring them. Other examples, but comes back to how "color blind" has been conflated with "hate" if you consider factors that one may not even be able to give voice, but for just a feeling. . To act in a manner in which we fear to be accused of being [-ist], for adhering, is to deny the very fiber of our being.
Ben and Bo, while Israel is a "Jewish state", and one can claim it is an ethnostate, I understand that today as a SANCTUARY STATE for descendants of the tribe of Judeans, not an apartheid state for only Judeans. The demographics of the non-jewish Arab Muslim population is 20-22%. That's compared to 12.5 % for Blacks in America. The minority likely does not enjoy perfect social equality in practice, but they DO enjoy legal equality and some state-approved benefits (akin to affirmative action). There are examples offered of Arab-Muslim business icons and Arab-Muslim govt officials (who have some power and are not mere tokens). Arabs seem to be pretty well assimilated in majority-Jewish society, or have satisfactory comforts in self-segregation. I mean you can see complaints, but you can also see Arab and Jewish neighbors with lovely friendships. Arab-Muslims enjoy FAR superior rights to access Al-Aqsa Mosque from 9 entrances, and Israeli police keep non Muslims _out_ . They asked if you are Muslim and if your answer is no, or they test you with a prayer, you are told to leave and go to the Jewish entrance, or go to the Christian church. The two Christian churches on the site do not have that power of restrictive religious apartheid. Jews get 3 hours in the morning and 1 hour in the afternoon to go on a single walkway to the Western Wall, outside of the main site, believed to be closest to the Second Temple that was destroyed by Romans, and mostly covered up by the mosque that was built on top of it. I'm not really religious, but the above differences in religious access are pretty stark.
Israel is an apartheid state because they explicitly make plans to preserve the Jewish ethnic majority, while keeping the Arab minority to point to as proof they aren't apartheid. and there is nothing wrong with this, of course they're correct that if Arabs become the majority, they would massacred the jews. The only problem is that jews demand open borders for USA and Europe but not Israel.
As a black person, I can see there are two aspects of thinking of the progressive solution of equality. You make a good point that some kind of quota system may be necessary simply because of lack representation (due to IQ and culture). On thr other hand, forced equality creates an entitlement culture (as we see today) where blacks believe they've earned something, when it was actually given to them. Though, it is the case that some blacks have earned what they've received but it's hard to know with the existence of a quota system. But in general I agree with you. Blacks should accept the reality of low IQ because it would create pressure for them to do better out of competition. PS: People don't know but prior to the 1960s and theCivil rights act that blacks had an IQ closer to that of whites and their divorce rates were lower than white families (i.e. fathers stayed in the home). Whatever culture change happened in the 60s ruined everything for us (both black and white).
Yes, Thomas Sowell deals with this a lot. Personally, I'm not against the concept of a social safety net for example, and I'm sort of agnostic on how far that goes. However, I think there are all kinds of negative downstream effects of failing to sufficiently prioritize meritocracy. It's tough, ppl often don't want to exist in perpetual competition, and to be largely driven by market incentives, especially bad ones. If this social dynamic completely dissolves local cultures and communities, it's only at that point that I yield to the Conservative argument, that it's gone too far. But I still find this to be the most realistically implementable philosophy (with some caveats) and rubric for society and governance, that's why I'm a slightly Libertarian, Classical Liberal.
@@BenjaminABoyce I absolutely ador these whte IQ pseudoscience discussions, they are hilarious. LOL!!!😂😂 You people just refuse to admit that you are racist and try to cover your behavior with race realism and pass it off as just "science." Cheers!🍸
At 5:39, there's a claim about the B-W IQ gap being 15 - 18 points. That sounds about right, but what is your source? There's a few Afrocentric folks that insist that their average is 93. They also insist that the gap is narrowing and that systemic racism is the only reason there is any gap at all. What's the story behind the 93 IQ claim?
Whoa! Ripping on cyclists! Shots fired! The Dutch would like a word! :) In seriousness, being Dutch I have no personal experience of the state of things in the various Anglophone countries, though from what I can gather I can see several things that would greatly annoy me too: I think 1) 'taking the lane', i.e. not moving over and making room for cars 2) the 'fixie culture' where you basically race though, say, NYC on a bike without brakes is, ummm, highly objectionable (destroy those bikes and charge them with reckless endangerment please) 3) coupling biking with rainbow flags, or hatred of cars. 4) Other things I forgot. We do not do any of that, but we bike a lot. It is a great improvement in quality of life and surroudings. It creates an infrastructure that is more suitable for humans, because you get shopping or other facilities within one or two miles, i.e. easily bikeable but also quite walkable. Air quality and noise pollution are greatly reduced. And of course, a three, four, five mile commute twice per day on a bike is a great health improvement over doing it in a car. And, many places over here could not function without the bike traffic, they would be completely gridlocked. Yes, many aspects of Anglophone bike culture are annoying and I would hate them too were I over there. Regrettably, dismissing biking as an alternative because of that is, in my opinion, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
In a TRULY free market, where having children is not subsidized by the state. The most successful people, who are ostensibly the most intelligent, would have the most kids… This is what drives up intelligence, there is no other answer that is ethical.
Even that may be unethical. If success is measured in financial wealth, does this mean both parents are committing their time to working at somethimg which is earning money? If so, who is caring for and raising their children?(at the expense of spending their time raising their own) Over time, how does that impact on genetics of the different groups?
Since it's all about bias, it must be possible to design a test that is so biased that Ashkenazis come out on bottom. That would easily put this debate to rest, right?
There are other biases than literally how the test is graded. For example, IQ tests in Africa would be more representative of malnutrition and childhood trauma than the natural potential of Africans. The difference is of course less pronounced in America, but the claim that the difference is solely due to racial genetics hasn't been proven.
@@thomaslacroix6011 I will always hope to find that this is the correct view. I'm certainly no expert in the field, but it seems a fair question to ask. If the test questions are somehow biased in one direction (as many apparently claim), it must be possible to rewrite them in such a way that they're biased in another. I'm not sure by "how the test is graded." I thought the questions themselves are said to be problematic.
@@Christmas-dg5xcI jumped in at the middle point, so I might have lost some context. Anyways, I think the bias in the questions is a red herring. No matter how accurate an IQ test is, it doesn't test genetic IQ, because genetics is never the only factor that's different between different individuals. So when comparing races using IQ, you're not just comparing possible genetic differences, but also cultural and environmental differences that can be changed. "Race realism" in that sense often muddy the waters by claiming the IQ difference between races is set in stone.
I wouldn't disagree with him about the nepotism if I hadn't heard it straight from their mouths time and time again. Some of them even complain about the nepotism because they're not part of the right club to be let in on it. I'd say more but you know.
@@thomaslacroix6011"it [an IQ test?] doesn't test genetic IQ, because genetics is never the only factor" I'm not sure what this means. Did you mean to say exactly this?
The ForbiddenTexts Substack did an analysis (November 26 2023) of the types of claims which have informed Bo's thinking on the topic at and around 17:20. To summarise, it's not a benign difference.
Truth be told, as a species, I think we're entering another bottleneck where only the craftiest and swiftest of mind will survive. And that's a good thing, if you think about it. It's how we all got here in the first place. Time marches on, and the new becomes old, the novel fades to passe.
We’d all rather be doing something else than having to convince people with solid arguments of that which is and has been obvious and settled for millennia.
did you hear the story of the blind individual who got a, I think it was a corneal, anyway, eye implant... he or she was at a subway station without any other assistance device... all of a sudden whatever however minimal feedback was easing interaction with the world went black, as they say, because the company unannouncedly shut down, such dependencies have other pitfalls, and attachment, adherence to deaf culture, self-reliance, is about more than pride... so much of the current age and of civil structure may obscure that fact, but finally that has become more readily apparent to more of the modern western population...
I don't think that is ever going to be do - able. Too many genes, each with very tiny (and multiple) effects, and the technology will probably never become truly precise. For every edit, it creates a bunch of incidental mutations. That might be worth risking for one gene of large effect, but not for a bunch of genes with individually tiny effects.
@@michaels4255 a good and fair point, but i do believe they have done some minor gene editing on people around 30 years ago. It was nothing massive if i recall, but if they did, there is a starting point. Combine that with lab rats and other test beds, map it out, and probably about 20-30 years, and you could have a significant road to start on. Input an A.I. for predictive modeling and oh the wonders to be.
@@michaels4255 Correct, and it isn't genes that dictate every aspect of who and what we become; editing genes would have certain effects, yet not enough to utterly alter someone's personality. Therefore, you couldn't just gene-edit your way to superhumanhood.
People either have naturally different intelligence levels. Or the whole word that s conspiring to keep blacks down. It can only be one of those 2 things. People deny this saying “but it’s culture”. And that can’t be it cause the difference is there whether it’s America, Australia, South Africa.. Brazil. Cultures are not the same and they feel very different about race. But in every county Asians have a slight advantage over whites and whites a significant one over blacks. The numbers are completely consistent the world over. We need make people understand that it’s only applicable to big groups. I’m sure Thomas Sewell has a higher IQ than I do. It’s only a subtle variation but if we do not accept differences then we must accept there’s a wide world racist cabal to hold back blacks even tho affirmative action is rampant. That alone shows the it makes no sense. Why would a racist white system give blacks +230 points on SAT tests?
What planet do you live on dude. And YES indeed Thomas Sowell has a high IQ he said it in his Autobiography lol. Why would a racist system give Blacks +230 points. 🤔 Your perspective on this will only cause you to build resentment and possibly develop racist attitudes not a good place to end up my man. Culture, and history definitely impacts IQ much more than genetics. Finally, are you implying that Black Australians i.e. indigenous Australians are comparable to Blacks in North and South of the Americas and Africa? Now, if you're going to classify indigenous Australians as Black then you might as well classify Indians as black too lol... But I guess that wouldn't fit nicely into our simple narrative.
I respect Bo's right to inquiry on this and any other subject, but it's hard to overlook his consistent leaning toward confirmation bias and or all out rejection of any reasonable counter arguments... "Race" has always been a term with a fluctuating definition and "Race Science" is looked down upon because as the study of genetics and evolution progressed, it was shown to be too loose of a categorization to continue pursuing (especially in the case of IQ) seriously. Most convincing was the advancement in our understanding of the role environment plays in development, but Bo continually overlooks the arguments which convinced previous proponents of "Race Science" that the categorization was invalid and instead reasserts the same flawed reasoning over and over while throwing his hands up like "why isn't anyone taking this seriously?" If he would simply acknowledge the refuting evidence and or engage with stronger counter arguments (instead of cherry picking bad arguments and playing into a victim mentality) then he would much better grasp the pitfalls in his own viewpoint. However, he (like most others who insist on propping up racial arguments) seems too set in his beliefs to even consider that he might be wrong. If you ever want to host a debate between Bo and myself, I'd be happy to present the arguments which convinced me how flawed this line of inquiry is and see if he is open to the counter argument or discover if by some chance Bo has managed to uncover some exonerating detail that the world's most influential geneticists, evolutionary biologists, and population statisticians must have missed.
'why would you take pride in something you didnt accomplish yourself?' well because pride is feeling good about your self for something you did. if someone else did something why should you feel good about yourself for that? if a surgeon saves someone's life, why should you feel good about your lack of contribution? 'if my sister acomplishes something i shouldnt have pride in that' correct, your should only have pride for how your actions lead to desired results. 'if my dog does something super cute and cuddles with me, i shouldnt feel pride in that?' why would a dog cuddling with you make you feel pride or smugness? why wouldnt you feel happiness or joy or awe? why would a dog cuddling with you make you feel superiority, and what would you be feeling superiority to? who would be inferior to you due to a dog snuggling with you?
Having pride in something someone the same race as you did is about as makes about as much since to me as being proud of something someone did because you have the same eye-color or height. It's weird. You probably aren't very closely related to them and don't even know them. You just have some similar features.
Hey Benjamin, check out today's Andrew Yang episode with Novoselic, it's about being an Independent, in your neck of the literal woods. The Forward Party says that ranked choice voting and open primaries, can save us from the political apocalypse.
I am totally for the idea of being lucid in our understanding of population scale hereditary intellectual potential. But this whole conversation sounds to me like a pretty simplistic take on the topic. How is it that people think that observed differences in IQ in today's Afro-American population a proper reference point for a mesure of a genetic determinant "racial intelligence". We are talking about a population that endured many generations of slavery, trauma and severe injustice until just a few generations ago. Aren't we skipping a bit fast over the consequence on a population that whole process can have culturaly or else ? I think it's still time for society to be proactively repairing the damage before taking a mesure on the innate potential of this population. Let's give it another 100 years or so, a few more generations and update our data then. Also, I would be very curious about not only genetic heredity but also epi-genetic factors at play. It is being understood recently that lived experience such as trauma or conditions during infant gestation can impact epigenetics in a way that is transmitted through heredity in different way actual genes do. Finally, all this talk of races seems to me like it is likely a thing that won't last so long in a world we're people of all origins mix together so .... I am not sure it should stay very relevant to think of people this way..
Wrote my comment half way through. Glad some of my concerns were adressed in the second part. Still... Id like to have some more evidence and demonstration of this whole supposedly "demonstrated" intelligence difference between "races".
This is a difficult argument for Americans to accept, and by cultural influence, the rest of the West as well, as the Declaration of Independence declares "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal". It feels treasonous, therefore, to follow that with "but some are more equal than others", and then to add insult to injury by adding, "some are more equal genetically in the absolute, but also relatively as a social construct within affinity groups". It creates a cognitive dissonance and doesn't lend itself to political slogans that can be used to easily shut down the arguments of those who wish to sow division.
It's because multiculturalism is taught. As if all cultures are equal. People don't know sone cultures are more successful than others which is not necessarily racial. For example, pre 1960s, bot whites and blacks accepted English culture and both were very successful in family, morals, and general life stability.
I don't think those are safe assumptions. People are definitely not equally able, and because of this, even doing the same task, not equally valuable. I think it simply refers to rights as a conscious living human, of the unalienable type, given by God, that no other human can revoke.
I think many of us complaining about DEI are in fact giving the very reason it's necessary - we'd just like to see change happen faster. I bet you that's the IQ issue, intelligent people recognize that the problems are more quickly fixed. We forget that jobs are at stake.
The USSR is a perfect example of how a dysfunctional system can limp for a long time causing pain and suffering. DEI isn't as bad as communism, for now, but it's foolish to believe it won't cause a lot of damage before it's done. Doing nothing isn't an option.
@@redrumax Every backlash against diversity is labeled by those supporting diversity as an attack against minorities coming from racists bigots. I don't believe that kind of tactic works as well as it used to, but that was a popular strategy.
@@brianmeen2158 If you want to create opportunities for those who need it, real metrics should be used, such as education level, socioeconomic background, economic status, physical or mental disabilities and other similar factors. Any measure also needs to be oriented as a path to success based on your actual potential with reasonable compromises, not as free stuff or priority access.
On "pure meritocracy," I think it's the same discussion that involves "pure capitalism," gray area, but only as much as a humane society can tolerate would be my general answer. On that same point, someone like Stephen Hicks might be needed to more precisely break down the relationship between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism, I cannot. (Despite different forms of Libertarianism, the common strain suggests leaving almost everything to the market, which translates as something close to "pure meritocracy").
My problem with race realism is that I feel that it's the commonsense position given everything we know about the natural world. As a Catholic I suspend judgement on the evolutionary theory but I do accept adaptationism, ie., the idea that organisms are adapted to their natural environment, which again seems obvious. The idea of cognitive homogeneity is the counter-intuitive idea that requires defending. Secondly, social science is at it's basis a form of social engineering. Groups develop natural ways of relating to other groups. Social science attempts to square the circle by looking for 'data' on IQ and other sorts of differences, which to my mind are way too complex to be measurable other than using very crude measures like the IQ. Third, universities and research were created in Europe for the purpose of putting brainiacs away from society so that instead of doing damage they can pursue their autistic pursuits and be somewhat productive. The idea of education and the modern university only succeeds to put people who would be most happy performing menial tasks in the same room as a bunch of useless brainiacs. Unless you deaden the brain of the low IQ students with alcohol of course they will revolt. Why would anyone think that this will result in anything other than utter disaster.
I'm more sympathetic to Sam Harris than most ppl in this audience, however on this point, I agree with Bo. (At least Sam had Murray on podcast, and recognized he was wrongly vilified, but Sam still flinches too much at this particular scary topic).
I'm definitely a fan of Coleman Hughes, but I agree instead with Bo in this case. Like with Sam Harris, I think Coleman just doesn't deal enough with this area of research. I'm reminded of a conversation on Unregistered, with Yarvin and Batya Ungar Sargon. They were asked abt this issue (I'm a fan of both) and they BOTH said the same as Coleman and Sam, even titans of discourse whom I genuinely respect, cannot touch this topic with a ten foot pole. They're not being cynical, it's just too far from their current worldview, I completely understand why it seems on its face, like historical backsliding. But it's not. The Aporians and Duttonians are heroic, they're willing to be figuratively burned at the stake for the truth, they might even be jolly in their hereticism.
I agree with you. PRETENDING that men are equal in their potential (an idea that was first articulated by Western intellectuals in the 17th and 18th centuries) when in reality they are not equal will destroy our civilization.
Like Coleman, though no longer following him as close as once did (to many other creators consuming my time), but Sam was one to which I followed pretty close for a number of years. Like many, his Cheeto Man vs. OBL vs H man, quite a few years ago now, was something I was not sure he had in him. He was since early on, clearly infected with TDS, but at that time, I was not yet aware of just how debilitating it actually is. Of course, I have seen the depths of it since 2020 (not seen how deep it CAN go, at this point!), but Sam just continues to double down against the principles he once stood very much in favor and 1a being chief among them. I am no scholar on issues of the unwell mind, but never have I born witness to the debilitating nature of that particular affliction. My own mother has it and since it is literally beyond comprehension that it is possible that anyone could support him, our relationship has gotten quite strained. I am willing to have normal rational discussions with her about anything, but if the subject matter comes within 500 intellectual miles from his name EVEN being mentioned... she will bring it up herself, begin shaking like a stage 5 Parkinson's patient and say..."that man is [equivalent to a very warm being who lives at the center of the earth] and..."we cannot talk about him.... we cannot talk about him...." over and over. . Went a bit off topic there, sorry... lol
@@NinjaKittyBonks I get what you mean, Sam gets lots of criticism, I at least partly agree, with at least some of the criticism. With Trump, I can definitely acknowledge he's done some good things (such as Abraham Accords) I would just prefer someone less demagogic, amoral, and technically criminal do those same things, and many Conservatives say the same. The main reason I can't vote for Trump is that he wants to abolish term limits, this would be a deal breaker for me with any candidate, left or right. But at this point, voting against him (by voting for Biden) to me is like taking a medication with side effects. He keeps the whole machine that Yarvin describes working, at least better than many ppl realize, (or whatever cabal pulls his strings does, anyway,) but the 'side effects' are getting relatively severe, from things like Afghanistan, to woke issues, to the lack of an immigration policy. I'm between goddam Biden, and not voting, leaning towards just checking out. I was, and remain a pretty big Andrew Yang fan, in spite of a couple minor points of disagreement. Of course, a decent candidate is impossible, welcome to America!
@@Jules-Is-a-Guy ... I too have problems with Trump, but rather rather than break them all down, suffice to say... desperate times require desperate measures. There is simply no way a politician can fix society, but POTUS can overturn the multitude of massive blunders that have catapulted the US downhill since day one of current one's admin. Even though Cheeto Man is first and foremost a business man and POTUS is really a business arrangement, NONE of what we see will be fixed, until those who have abandoned the foundational values of the West... embrace them again. There is simply no possible way a society can be sustained, as it is currently. We have probably 8% of the entire Western world, whom are 100% committed to its utter ruin, in the hopes that utopia will just spring up out of the earth, we will all own nothing and be happy. . I support Trump, because we need someone who is willing to sacrifice the entirety of a political future and burn every bridge necessary to turn this nation around to a direction that works. There is no perfect solution and not one person, including Trump can do all that needs to be done, nor do it in a way we will all agree. I will not even go so far as to say ..."lesser of two evils", as Trump is not evil, he is mostly just an ahole, who is not capable of keeping his mouth shut or thumbs idle, when the opportunity arises to say something poopy about political rival or fool. . All that said, I have big issues with Trump over some of the 2a issues he has supported, but OVERALL... his policies were monumentally better than current. If not for TDS (overwhelming number of issues are outright fabrications) Trump is, in the end... a populous. As exceedingly unlikely as it is he makes POTUS again (entirely different conversation as to why I believe this), it is my hope that Vivek be his VP. I really like Vivek and I believe he has the stones to get in Trumps face and shut down the multitude of stupid things he will say or hit "send" on social media, to make it a smoother ride than last time. . I could give probably 25 examples of the top of my head, but need look no further than a couple days ago. Trump uses [red-cell fluid in human body + tub] for a perfectly common use of the term, that has been used hundreds of time over just the last decade, but maliciously stripped of context. This action is deliberate and is kibble for TDS sufferers to "add to the pile" of other reported thing's he has said, to further cement his being "evil". One does not even have to be a Cheeto Man supporter, to take the overwhelming number of items in that pile, to take an objective eye and realize that 90% are maliciously stripped of context, two parts of a speech, with middle removed or simply NOT playing the last sentence of the statement (See "Very fine people" and "grab them by the p****) for textbook examples. . I am not an apologist for Trump, but I detest lies, regardless of where the originate. I have my bias, just as every person whom ever has, does or will exist. However, I will always engage in the conversation to challenge or put my bias to the test and will own it, should I be proven or shown to be wrong. America needs what no other politician will sacrifice to accomplish. What is unknown... is if Trump has the will and enough support to get those things that require it, done.
That's insightful, but of course they're coming from different political positions. What should be done abt the social problem, if anything? They"d have different answers. Also I think I'd disagree somewhat with Murray (and obviously with Kendi) just because Murray's identified this phenomenon, doesn't guarantee that assimilation on something like the classic definition, will completely fail in the near future. (He expressed this concern in an Aporia discussion).
Kinda, yeah. Kendi and pals essentially say that certain listed attributes that they claim constitute "whiteness", such as logic, reason, intellect, less impulsiveness or more self-control of impulsiveness, etc also constitute SYSTEMIC RACISM because of the disparate outcomes for Blacks who are on average, not individually, less likely to be able to work with the high standards that embody "whiteness". That's basically what Charles Murray argues. "Science must fall" is a protest to abolish empiricism and the scientific method (of dis-proof of faulty hypotheses), and replace those with favored narratives, accept unacceptable imprecision, and perhaps place racial sensitivity and appreciation over rigorous standards and debates. CRT or critical legal studies essentially argues that Black violent crime is normal, so criminal justice with equal treatment is racist. Some Whites and Js and others do the same, and sometimes worse, BUT are not blatantly arguing for more of that as a preference for human society.
@@gg_rider i cannot imagine what type of system or society we would have if Kendi got his way .. last I heard he wanted black students to be graded not on their performance on the test but their “willingness to learn”.. that is so bizarre to me and how would you even measure one’s desire to learn? Charles Murray just did an interview with Jon stossel and it was pretty interesting
@@brianmeen2158 in golf, it's called a handicap. I think Kendi is really telling a hidden truth about what he really thinks when he argues that academic excellence is White Supremacy.
I love how every Eugenists when asked about why people think their ideology is dangerous is just kinda like "I don't really know why, they just scared but their fears are totally unfounded." completely memory holing the evils of the Eugenics era and things like Buck v Bell.
All you have to do to see how many people equality kills is look at Communism and how many people they kill for being better or smarter than others. Let's not pretend that idea doesn't have blood on its hands.
So, there was an article a few years ago covering Winegard’s troubles in academia, and one commenter referred to exactly this obtuseness as “moral idiocy.” That has since then stuck with me as a very apt description of this particular ideology.
I can see how society at large accepting race realism could cause some issues. Most people aren't intelligent enough to grasp the differences between differences between groups and differences between individuals. However, when White and Asian students are being denied opportunities because of hyper egalitarian policies, discussions need to be had.
@@bradfordlangston836 There are no white or Asian students unable to attend college, even highly ranked colleges, or get jobs because of their race. Private universities are just that-private institutions with their own mission and values and theory of how they want to impact the world. Many people may not like their mission or values, but they are not obligated to operate in any particular manner, within the law, just as in the past they admitted whomever they chose according to however they defined worthiness. There is no lack of educational or professional opportunity that this ideology would provide for.
@@AriD2385I'm just deeply bothered by the fact that they would argue for affirmative action on the basis that it will eventually help groups become equal, but then accuse people of racism when those gaps don't close. I'd just like those schools to be honest about why they're accepting higher proportions of Black and Hispanic students than a pure meritocracy would warrant.
The gentrification of Harlem being lamented by Blacks is understood by me and me being white and a supporter of 'color blindness' lament the gentrification of Harlem as a cultural institution too and I am pretty sure many white people like me who approve of color blindness lament the possible loss of a cultural neighborhood as well ...
About 29:13, the civil rights movement is complicated. There were too many competing groups with different motivations. I’m indifferent to Affirmative Action. As a black guy, I found the whole NBA talking point to be distasteful. Not everyone looks up to athletes. In fact, money made from being an athlete counts against them in some circles. My concern is the social implications. Mr. Winegard pointed out that high status jobs require high cognitive ability. Having a status job makes it easier in some respects to enter into certain milieu of people.
@@annarboriter That depends on the women's social circle and background. This doesn't happen in a vacuum. The women who is more likely to date an accountant would be from a different social circle than the women who dates a NBA player.
Open borders is terrible, and not vetting migrants properly nor having an immigration policy, is seriously dangerous (so I'm commenting on the right channel). But I disagree with Bo on necessarily limiting immigration, drawing from Peter Zeihan, and having commented similarly on recent vid. We simply must have a certain number of ppl, to keep the economy working. We'll have enough in US, during our temporary demographic slump, as long as we bring in a sufficient number of migrants to work over the next decade. We're creating a devil's bargain for ourselves though, with TERRIBLE IMMIGRATION POLICY. If we don't have a policy to vet migrants, plus to assimilate, we'll create social problems. On the other hand, without enough workers, economic problems will become serious, and impact everyone. I'm no expert, Zeihan's only optimistic, because he says, "at least a sufficient number of migrant workers are entering the country, one way or another". He also just says, that if the worst happens and the ultra-violent Jalisco New Gen moves north of border, then the US will simply have to LITERALLY FIGHT A WAR AGAINST THE CARTEL.
0:26: 🎙️ Challenging societal norms around race and IQ, Bo Winegard discusses contentious topics with Benjamin Boyce. 10:30: 🤔 Controversial views on discussing sensitive topics and hypocrisy in criticizing Islam. 20:35: 🔍 Progressives understand race better than mainstream conservatives, debunking the myth of colorblindness in the 90s. 30:32: 💡 Challenges with current college admissions process and the need for a more transparent quota system to address inequality. 40:33: ⚖️ The importance of acknowledging and addressing inequalities in society for social cohesion. 50:56: 🧠 Controversial findings on intelligence gaps, supported by mainstream textbooks, indicate a 15-point difference in IQ scores. 1:01:39: 💭 Exploring the impact of gentrification on cultural identity and racial trauma. 1:11:24: 💭 Challenges of maintaining a multi-racial democracy with economic disparities and the need for shared responsibility. 1:21:43: 📚 Exploration of a critical review on Coleman Hughes's book challenging post-liberal constructs. 1:31:41: 🌟 Importance of ethnic pride and cultural achievement in providing a sense of belonging and transcending personal limitations. 1:41:51: 🤔 Critique of effective altruism movement towards localism and ineffective altruism proposal. 1:52:00: 🧠 Critique of embracing race realism due to moral and empirical concerns, emphasizing its biological and social nature. 2:01:51: 💡 Exploration of taboo topics like race and politics in a balanced and open manner for branding and expansion. Recap by Tammy AI
You're really missing something here in this discussion. When you're saying there's something else not just IQ well there is. It's tied into IQ but not strictly so. That is behavior, temperament, etc. Think of breeding animals. You can breed them for behavior. The intelligence is pretty much the same but the behavior makes a world of difference. Nepotism and in group preference is a very real phenomena among the Ashkenazis but it's quite common across just about all human groups. There is something you are overlooking with that group and that is that it's a much smaller one. Comparing small groups with large ones is a very common mistake. In my country if you measure one village or town then compare it to another you can get quite a large gap in IQ. No one bothers to explore this all that much.
Yes, I have been burned, but as crazy as it sounds, "sorting" newest brought the vast majority of them back. I am forced to think that YT has a "top comments" option, to remove all but the most popular (highest number of replies and probably 👍received), though this is just my suspicion. I have another issue, but simply talking about it, proves to be detrimental, so I will leave this here.
Did any IDW types actually say lets go back to the 90s? I think you put that in their mouths then called it preposterous. Although I could see 1 or 2 saying that it would be better than the current state.
People pretend to want meritocracy and equality of opportunity, but ignore the fact that to create a society that actually has equality of opportunity you have to create equal outcomes first. In other words, you can only create equal opportunity by creating circumstances that remove all environmental conditioning that would prevent rational people from not only realising their potential to be a viable candidate to take available "opportunities", but recognising the "opportunties" as real options at all. If you don't perceive something as an option it isnt one because it can literally never be chosen until it's perceived as an option.
Through embryo selection offered to those groups, whereby we select those that have the genetic markers or highest polygenic score for intelligence, we could level the field in a generation or 2 and make it all go away.
Bo looks too normal, his voice reminds me of a Gary Oldman character, he needs a 'familiar' or deshevelled clothing, or a drinkung problem to explain the impression of dis-ease in his vouce.
Bo , reasoning people use the term color blind as meaning to see people as individuals as opposed to seeing individuals as part of a group whether negative or positive ... I agree with much that you have said Bo But perhaps you do not quite grok what is meant by color blind as you keep stating color blind as a negative concept so often ...
You guys need more knowledge. Spontaneity? What you mean is acting on instinct. Lacking impulse control, instinctual behavior is part of a fast life history strategy. Higher the IQ, the less likely to act on instinct. Stems from environmental evolutionary processes. In a harsh, cold environment, you think and plan to survive. In a tropical place we're fruit is on the trees and winter never comes you don't plan. You copulate with as many females as possible so the species survives. Pump and dump. Whereas farming requires planning. Agreeableness, etc. for the community to survive. Asian rice farming required extreme collective cooperation and agreeableness. The land shapes culture and intellect, which is highly heritable.
Its really simple, we shouldnt be skin color racists, that kind of racism doesnt make sense, because skin color is mirrored over the equator and meridian. However migrational haplogroups/types exist.
Why do conservatives ALWAYS let everybody know they are conservatives, in conversations that have NOTHING at all to do about politics (e.g. I see on videos about comedy), by INITIATING some negative comment against leftists and liberals, thus making ALL conservatives SELF-IDENTIFYING conservatives? So why are conservatives so obsessed with political identity, instead of talking about and getting down to the HARD work of reading through massive amounts of data and talking about physical actions and physical consequences, over all possible actions? Why are conservatives so obsessed with claiming everything that is NOT conservative is "liberal", as if there existed only one political dimensions, as if everyone NOT conservative thinks the same thing about everything, EVEN THOUGH ALEX JONES REPEATEDLY called out the BULLSHIT of two-party dictatorship in the West and BULLSHIT that only one political dimension exists?
Because liberalism is everywhere and pervades everything, and conservatives get frustrated with it and want to point it out to people who are like fish who don't understand they are living in the water.
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
Tangential question: what's the distinction between inquiry and enquiry? Rather than google it I await your explanation.
Pinned because we need answers.
Generally, what side of the Atlantic you're on. Americans use inquire. Brits use enquire.
Inquire is used in formal situations, such as a Public Inquiry. It's also used informally a lot of the time in America, whereas in Britain, enquire is more often used in such informal contexts; such as "May I enquire as to the flavour of your lovely looking scones?"
I@@BenjaminABoyce I think "The Enquirer" is an official American tabloid, while "The Inquirer" is frequently the name for a fake tabloid used in a movie or TV show -- but I'm just guessing here.
I'm not paranoid, but how did you know I have scones???
And yes, they are lovely looking.
Ok, if you must know, blueberry lemon.
I'm thrilled to have this conversation back on the table. The IDW almost entirely failed the honesty test when it came to tackling this stuff.
The IDW was always a meme. The only useful thing they ever did was act as a gateway for some people to go deeper into heterodox ideas. But the IDW was basically just “why can’t we just go back to the 90’s!?” dressed up with a little “academic” sounding jargon.
Among other taboo subjects.
In fairness, they had a lot to tackle.
It was too far outside the overton window back in those days. Attempts to cancel JBP were occurring bimonthly. Sam Harris did interview Charles Murray & defended that interview.
You ever notice how the IDW never speaks about IQ group differences unless it's to say that Jews unquestionably have higher IQ than other groups? I wonder why that is
You ever notice how the IDW never talks about group IQ differences except for when they say that a certain tribe (which got this comment shadowbanned when I named the first time) unquestionably has a higher one than other groups. I wonder why that is?
If Sam Harris refuses to consider something true because he is afraid of the consequences, then he obviously doesn't value truth as much as something else. I'd like to learn what that something else is.
I was going to apply to Evergreen, right before Bret's ousting, for the flexible curriculum. But alas, it's replaced by free internet education, for zero credit. Professor Boyce is mad chill.
Completely agree with Coleman on reparations: our legal precedent is for paying damages to the actual individuals who suffered an injustice, not to their descendants. Therefore, I think it's wrong that those who lived under Jim Crow have not been sufficiently able to sue, and win. However, when that shrinking, elderly population is gone, I think the argument for reparations goes with them.
Oklahoma had a chance to make reparations to the last survivors of the Tulsa riots, and they refused - because the people who perpetrated it, and their children who benefited from inheritance, are also still alive, and in the legislature
Democrats passed & enforce Jim Crow. Let them pay for it. It's their legacy.
They should not have given a dime in reparations. Based
@@zimzob The blacks started the Tulsa riots. It's not like there was some conspiracy to demolish the black area of town. If everyone had just stayed home and minded their own business, the "battle of Tulsa" (what it really was) would not have happened.
So called Jim Crow laws (there was no real Jim Crow btw) should not incur reparations. Jim Crow laws were simply laws to maintain segregation, but whites were just as segregated as blacks. Indeed, the purpose of those laws was to segregate white people ONLY. They did not care if peoples of color wanted to mingle with one another.
1:08:41 the welfare state is effectively reparations.
I see what you mean, however, welfare is given to people of all races so I’m not sure it qualifies as reparations. I’m of the mind that to call for reparations at this point is ridiculous. Immediately after slaves of African ancestry were freed it would have been appropriate but it is too late now. I would consider modern day affirmative action and preferential hiring to be more akin to reparations. Personally, I don’t think any amount of actual reparations would satisfy a community that seems determined to blame any and all of its struggles on slavery and the legacy thereof, which seems to include their own personal choices.
except that every year more is paid than the net that was even arguibly owed.
Envy wears the mask of Love, and, laughing sober fact to scorn, Cries to Weakest as to Strongest, 'Ye are equals, equal-born. '
Perfect.
Community is a neighborhood in one's town, period... as it should be.
I LOVE IQ MATERIAL thanks man
The difficulty is that people take group average statistics and apply them to individuals. It’s very hard not to especially for the majority of people who don’t even try to be objective.
Very important point, this is where sociologically vital research gets instrumentalized by literal racists.
The source of Woke ideology is explicitly anti-Euro racism - Woke policies weaponise empathy - as a disguise and to recruit support from the non-psychopath populace.
@@Jules-Is-a-Guy-- Or worse, by literal "anti-racists."
Gotta ask: where did you get this data that 'the majority... don't even try to be objective'? Or that they take 'group average statistics and apply them to individuals'?
It seems like you are generalizing similar to what you are claiming the 'majority' are doing. Do you have data that the majority dislike individuals because of the statistics of their group?
Or which majority are you talking about. If we're talking the woke, I could understand that case. They do seem to attack individuals as racist because of supposed characteristics of groups.
Bo seems a person who could converse with people anywhere and leave both parties buoyed.
Personable smart guy and a good listen.
Being a vegan and not a nutter is admirably based.
This discussion turned out to be one of the most constructive I've ever seen.
Good job boys.
Agreed, I've seen a decent amount of content with him and he always came across to me as well-meaning and open-minded.
It's not even about fairness, it's about getting better results altogether.
Yes, you are right, but it's praised as fair because a meritocracy IS self justifying and therefore there appears to be an objective, non parsimonious 'hand' at work.
Free Market economics (at a macro scale) is undoubtedly non parsimonious, but applied nationwide the mass of those unable to compete are uncomfortable to live with. The Dunham Kruger effect and the naivity of the less able will inevitably lead to a sense of 'unfairness' with the state being regarded in a similar fashion to parents.
So the state buffers the unsuccessful from witnessing the successful.
The state becomes confused with the parent.
@@AndyJarman Great point, I think ppl confuse the State for a parent, it rly works better when it's a minimally impositional machine, that doesn't 'care abt you'. Ideally it'd be ok to just have a bare bones social safety net, to keep certain atomized workers from death and total misery. The 'parents' role in society, imo should not be institutionalized (or, nowhere near to the same extent as federal) and should involve organically formed local communities, faith groups if that's your vibe, nowadays so called "non-place based communities" like this one we're commenting on right now, though to a lesser extent for the latter, cause it's not irl.
There is a fundamental flaw in the parents concept - there is vastly more female participation in the public sector, and those women use their job as a surrogate parenting role for the public and their staff. This MIGHT be OK but many women are quite authoritarian and don't appreciate that they are exchanging legitimate concern for their job with emotional obligation for their children... the expansion of the state to the "parents" is completely inappropriate at the best of times, but it's even more dangerous at the worst of times (which is now). The state cannot stop you from ruining your life with drugs or crime. It cannot stop you ruining your life with laziness. It will fail if it tries. It can only punish your crimes, when and if they happen. They cannot provide any positive reinforcement without providing perverse incentives that interrupt free choice and capitalism.
As someone light skinned and not especially intimidating who lived in River Rouge, Lincoln Park, Melvindale, and Hazel Park, basically southern and northern borders of Detroit, I never had one violent encounter. But I did keep away from certain eastside areas. But as a 16 yr old kid there were certain bands that kept me out of the pit at the Greystone.
The vocal fry is out of control
I’m 2:44 in and about to turn it off. His voice is so grating. Id rather listen to RFK. a shame because it seems like this would be interesting
@@rombone1. RFK is much worse .. I’m in pain when I listen to him speak
@@rombone1Bump the speed up. It helps.
Henry kissinger was his speech coach
What the heck…. Bo is really funny and cool !!!!
Is it true that you can not burn a pride flag without being arrested? What law or jurisdiction are they talking about? 1:28:09
If you believe that two groups should be equal and they're not so you believe it's the system then that means that you'll keep trying to change the system to fix it. The only way you can achieve equality is to damage and reduce the ability of the higher performing group.
i feel like people dont discuss the fact that nutrition in early childhood has an affect on growth including the brain this is of course economy influenced
Epigenetics and Trauma's affect on self image.
It is also genetically influenced
@@soulfuzz368 epigenetics means poverty and trauma over generations has an effect on genes.
@@Gingerblaze except it’s mostly nonsense.
@Gingerblaze yeah you'd have to prove that though. First you'd need to prove the efficiency that it is transfered between gens and map the likelihood of it carrying through multiple gens. This is without adding in the likelihood that later gens will have different food conditions.
You'd then have to prove that's how a significant amount of groups react and what the significant attributes of the diet are.
Then you'd have to do familial diet tracking anytime you'd want to point this out for someone over anything else.
It could turn out that easier attributes are found after proving all of that, but not necessarily.
It's just so much to prove to actually rely on, and frankly I'd have doubt without investigating much further into the topic myself
He's spot on that the "anti-semitism" in universities basically boils down to "anti-white."
The "deaf culture" point is tough, because while I appreciate their position, I imagine if I were deaf myself, I certainly wouldn't want ppl to be deaf in the future for the sake of the culture that previously arose out of necessity. Hate to say it, but honestly this reminds me of fat studies. Am I anti fat ppl? Do I want to round them up or something? Nah, but nor am I 'pro-fatness'. If ppl with physical/mental problems can improve, hopefully that can be facilitated, if not, I hope a humane society can help prevent their lives from being miserable. But, encourage fatness? Retain deafness through generations, if avoidable? Don't select (voluntarily) through embryo selection and spouse selection, for intelligence which Dutton explains, is largely definable as an optimally healthy nervous system? I suspect Benjamin was primarily posing the question for the sake of discourse, or maybe we'd disagree, but personally I think it must be seen as a disservice to future generations who could be healthier.
"Am I anti fat ppl? Do I want to round them up or something?" - LOL! Just in case, if you run for president, I'm going on a diet!
It's the trans argument repeated. Dysfunction is abnormal, but the Queering project is to centre the margins.
I suppose it depends on if you view deafness illness.
@@Gingerblaze it is a handicap, whether or not it is an illness.
Great stuff. I would love to have seen Amy Wax join you guys.
Bo is a smart and thoughtful guy.
What happened at Evergreen is such a fricken tragedy. Idk if Boyce has reassembled the raw material he documented yet but there's a major case study ( maybe it really is like ground zero ) in the D.I.E. process there.
Spicy! Good job
Being allowed to live in the USA for so long is the only reparations they need
The closest to "aporia" would probably be something like "puzzling intellectual stalemate". Exchanging pro/con arguments about some philosophical question with Socrates for 2 hours and not coming to a conclusion.
The hierarchy these guys are talking about, the average person like myself, will almost never bump up against, unless I'm lost on a college campus and wander into a physics lecture.
This is true but you have to try and conceptualize how many people there are below average, it’s a lot.
@@soulfuzz368 I hear you but right now I'm more afraid of this possible 10% of the global population that are sociopaths and psychopaths influencing the hearts and minds of the lot of us.. Lol.
My hierarchy comment was meant to say that this I.Q. difference is not that noticeable as life goes so don't sweat where your ethnicity is in that model. It's not like our ethnicity is going to hold us back in any real way. I could be very wrong
@@soulfuzz368yes and how do we raise the below average up..? That seems like an impossible task
@@brianmeen2158Well embryo selection used with polygenic risk scores seems very promising.
@@matelunddunlap2770 that still won’t change the fact that there will be people below the average on the distribution. Maybe overall we can imagine a future where all people are more intelligent but there will always be variation.
You shouldn't feel pride in your sister's accomplishment unless you feel like you contributed to it somehow, say by supporting her, tutoring her, etc.
But that doesn't mean you should be indifferent to her accomplishment, you can feel delight, admiration, be impressed, etc.
With pride I associate elevated self esteem. You aren't better because someone you're related to accomplished something.
Do you see it differently?
One issue i have is the definition of white v the definition of black. The former assumes, I believe, 100% white but the latter varies considerably. So the question I'd be interesting in is the variety in the black population mirrored in the IQ testing?
Some of the stuff is a bit different have to take into account different, cities, countries and or zones, its generally not just one country and or many countries, some of countries have different groupings.
Bo is a good dude.
Dig just a bit into the primary sources and studies regarding Ashkenazi Jews. I’m now convinced it is not true they have a 115 avg IQ. Maybe a little higher verbal IQ but just slightly.
The degree of difference doesn't really matter does it? If you ringfence a population and find it has on average different characteristics that others, surely that's the very definition of a race?
You are mistaken. 110 to 112 is what the totality of the evidence points to for full blood Ashkenazis (and the number of pure breds is dropping like a rock, and Ashkenazi performance is falling with it), higher if you look at verbal only. I know there are a few people who try to argue against it. I have given them a hearing and they are full of crap, or at least they have a poor understanding of the subject.
Einat Wilf points out that Jews in Israel and in the Knesset often disagree on politically salient aspects of "what it means to be Jewish", so there's a lot of logical rational arguing going on, more heated than the US Congress, but with mutual civil respect for each other or for the process, at the end of the day.
Not head chopping for blasphemy.
The downside is, a tendency for specious socialist arguments, which are often untrue or crazy, but have some internal logical consistency. Such as Queer Theory, Gayle Rubin, Judith Butler.
A lot of the data indicating the IQ disparity is quite dubious. See LAC's video on it. At best the IQ differential is closer to 1-2 IQ points with a slant of about 10-15 points in favor of verbal intelligence for Ashkenazis. This makes their IQ nearly equal to Whites in every other metric.
That leather apron video and the verbal tilt meme are both hallmarks of dumb jq research.
1:00:15 it is definitely mandatory. In educational institutions from kindergarten all the way up to universities.
"A positive without a negative," EXACTLY. 1:25:40
Edit: interestingly, this sentiment is reversed for individuals often, who are high in trait neuroticism. Neuroticism has many downsides, and a few important upsides in certain cases.
True. I know a few highly neurotic people and the damage that causes is immense.
Bo , color blind doesn't mean to ignore race , it means treat people , as you said , as individuals , not as members of certain groups (It doesn't mean you should be stupid of dangers) ...
But if you are not "stupid of dangers," then you are not being color blind in that context!
You can't treat everyone as an individual, especially in one-off or short term interactions. That's just a hilariously impractical fantasy. Heuristics must be used.
Sadly, the approach we are demanded to take, IS indeed one of focus on race, but don't be "ist".... treat them as a representative of a larger group who look the same, so share that same opinion on all things political / social... and to ignore the inherent biological instincts that are built into human DNA, as well as honed much sharper over thousands of years of evolution. Add to this, additional or even relaxing those more hardened instincts, depending on the specific environment we are at any given point in time. We have learned for a bunch of reasons, the inherent risk of walking down a dark alley at 2AM in the morning, as that DNA, biological drive of self-protection, as well as ingested content from news or others (fairly representative or not)... must be considered, lest greater risk of [fill in the blank] be the case. Does not mean one WILL experience consequences of that risk, but we are told to ignore them, so as not to appear "ist"
.
Best example as of late, was the lady who unlocked the door for a man who was 100 lbs her senior, covered neck in low-quality [ink] pretty much guaranteed to be gotten in a certain place and did not live to tell the story. Hindsight is always 20/20, but the warning signs she intentionally ignored, were there for a reason and paid the ultimate price for ignoring them. Other examples, but comes back to how "color blind" has been conflated with "hate" if you consider factors that one may not even be able to give voice, but for just a feeling.
.
To act in a manner in which we fear to be accused of being [-ist], for adhering, is to deny the very fiber of our being.
Ben and Bo, while Israel is a "Jewish state", and one can claim it is an ethnostate, I understand that today as a SANCTUARY STATE for descendants of the tribe of Judeans, not an apartheid state for only Judeans.
The demographics of the non-jewish Arab Muslim population is 20-22%. That's compared to 12.5 % for Blacks in America.
The minority likely does not enjoy perfect social equality in practice, but they DO enjoy legal equality and some state-approved benefits (akin to affirmative action). There are examples offered of Arab-Muslim business icons and Arab-Muslim govt officials (who have some power and are not mere tokens).
Arabs seem to be pretty well assimilated in majority-Jewish society, or have satisfactory comforts in self-segregation.
I mean you can see complaints, but you can also see Arab and Jewish neighbors with lovely friendships.
Arab-Muslims enjoy FAR superior rights to access Al-Aqsa Mosque from 9 entrances, and Israeli police keep non Muslims _out_ . They asked if you are Muslim and if your answer is no, or they test you with a prayer, you are told to leave and go to the Jewish entrance, or go to the Christian church.
The two Christian churches on the site do not have that power of restrictive religious apartheid.
Jews get 3 hours in the morning and 1 hour in the afternoon to go on a single walkway to the Western Wall, outside of the main site, believed to be closest to the Second Temple that was destroyed by Romans, and mostly covered up by the mosque that was built on top of it.
I'm not really religious, but the above differences in religious access are pretty stark.
Israel is an apartheid state because they explicitly make plans to preserve the Jewish ethnic majority, while keeping the Arab minority to point to as proof they aren't apartheid.
and there is nothing wrong with this, of course they're correct that if Arabs become the majority, they would massacred the jews.
The only problem is that jews demand open borders for USA and Europe but not Israel.
As a black person, I can see there are two aspects of thinking of the progressive solution of equality. You make a good point that some kind of quota system may be necessary simply because of lack representation (due to IQ and culture). On thr other hand, forced equality creates an entitlement culture (as we see today) where blacks believe they've earned something, when it was actually given to them. Though, it is the case that some blacks have earned what they've received but it's hard to know with the existence of a quota system.
But in general I agree with you. Blacks should accept the reality of low IQ because it would create pressure for them to do better out of competition.
PS: People don't know but prior to the 1960s and theCivil rights act that blacks had an IQ closer to that of whites and their divorce rates were lower than white families (i.e. fathers stayed in the home). Whatever culture change happened in the 60s ruined everything for us (both black and white).
Yes, Thomas Sowell deals with this a lot. Personally, I'm not against the concept of a social safety net for example, and I'm sort of agnostic on how far that goes. However, I think there are all kinds of negative downstream effects of failing to sufficiently prioritize meritocracy. It's tough, ppl often don't want to exist in perpetual competition, and to be largely driven by market incentives, especially bad ones. If this social dynamic completely dissolves local cultures and communities, it's only at that point that I yield to the Conservative argument, that it's gone too far. But I still find this to be the most realistically implementable philosophy (with some caveats) and rubric for society and governance, that's why I'm a slightly Libertarian, Classical Liberal.
@jannyjt
If you are a blk woman, then I am Genghis Khan. LOL!!!!😂😂😂😂
Cheers!🍸
Yo i actually caught the beginning
Good work, Drew!
Way to go!
@@BenjaminABoyce I absolutely ador these whte IQ pseudoscience discussions, they are hilarious. LOL!!!😂😂
You people just refuse to admit that you are racist and try to cover your behavior with race realism and pass it off as just "science."
Cheers!🍸
@@BenjaminABoyce I have a question Benjamin, why are you guys afraid to admit that you are racist? Why beat around the bush?
Cheers!🍸
@@BenjaminABoyce Well, I guess you won't reply to my simple question Benjamin. You "so called" high IQ people are hilarious.
Cheers!🍸
At 5:39, there's a claim about the B-W IQ gap being 15 - 18 points. That sounds about right, but what is your source? There's a few Afrocentric folks that insist that their average is 93. They also insist that the gap is narrowing and that systemic racism is the only reason there is any gap at all. What's the story behind the 93 IQ claim?
I’m shocked that they blame systemic racism for the differences .. I’ve never heard that reason used before
Whoa! Ripping on cyclists! Shots fired! The Dutch would like a word! :)
In seriousness, being Dutch I have no personal experience of the state of things in the various Anglophone countries, though from what I can gather I can see several things that would greatly annoy me too: I think 1) 'taking the lane', i.e. not moving over and making room for cars 2) the 'fixie culture' where you basically race though, say, NYC on a bike without brakes is, ummm, highly objectionable (destroy those bikes and charge them with reckless endangerment please) 3) coupling biking with rainbow flags, or hatred of cars. 4) Other things I forgot.
We do not do any of that, but we bike a lot. It is a great improvement in quality of life and surroudings. It creates an infrastructure that is more suitable for humans, because you get shopping or other facilities within one or two miles, i.e. easily bikeable but also quite walkable. Air quality and noise pollution are greatly reduced. And of course, a three, four, five mile commute twice per day on a bike is a great health improvement over doing it in a car. And, many places over here could not function without the bike traffic, they would be completely gridlocked.
Yes, many aspects of Anglophone bike culture are annoying and I would hate them too were I over there. Regrettably, dismissing biking as an alternative because of that is, in my opinion, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
In a TRULY free market, where having children is not subsidized by the state. The most successful people, who are ostensibly the most intelligent, would have the most kids… This is what drives up intelligence, there is no other answer that is ethical.
Even that may be unethical. If success is measured in financial wealth, does this mean both parents are committing their time to working at somethimg which is earning money? If so, who is caring for and raising their children?(at the expense of spending their time raising their own) Over time, how does that impact on genetics of the different groups?
Actually, the answer has recently been invented, it's called embryo selection. Ppl do not yet realize how important it's gonna be.
@@Jules-Is-a-GuyEmbryo selection will create humanity that cannot create children naturally, embryo selection very bad for humans future.
Since it's all about bias, it must be possible to design a test that is so biased that Ashkenazis come out on bottom. That would easily put this debate to rest, right?
There are other biases than literally how the test is graded.
For example, IQ tests in Africa would be more representative of malnutrition and childhood trauma than the natural potential of Africans.
The difference is of course less pronounced in America, but the claim that the difference is solely due to racial genetics hasn't been proven.
@@thomaslacroix6011 I will always hope to find that this is the correct view. I'm certainly no expert in the field, but it seems a fair question to ask. If the test questions are somehow biased in one direction (as many apparently claim), it must be possible to rewrite them in such a way that they're biased in another. I'm not sure by "how the test is graded." I thought the questions themselves are said to be problematic.
@@Christmas-dg5xcI jumped in at the middle point, so I might have lost some context. Anyways, I think the bias in the questions is a red herring.
No matter how accurate an IQ test is, it doesn't test genetic IQ, because genetics is never the only factor that's different between different individuals.
So when comparing races using IQ, you're not just comparing possible genetic differences, but also cultural and environmental differences that can be changed. "Race realism" in that sense often muddy the waters by claiming the IQ difference between races is set in stone.
I wouldn't disagree with him about the nepotism if I hadn't heard it straight from their mouths time and time again. Some of them even complain about the nepotism because they're not part of the right club to be let in on it. I'd say more but you know.
@@thomaslacroix6011"it [an IQ test?] doesn't test genetic IQ, because genetics is never the only factor" I'm not sure what this means. Did you mean to say exactly this?
The ForbiddenTexts Substack did an analysis (November 26 2023) of the types of claims which have informed Bo's thinking on the topic at and around 17:20. To summarise, it's not a benign difference.
Truth be told, as a species, I think we're entering another bottleneck where only the craftiest and swiftest of mind will survive. And that's a good thing, if you think about it. It's how we all got here in the first place. Time marches on, and the new becomes old, the novel fades to passe.
We just massively expanded how is it a bottleneck to slightly contract
It is not the craftiest or the swiftest who survive, but the best adapted.
We’d all rather be doing something else than having to convince people with solid arguments of that which is and has been obvious and settled for millennia.
did you hear the story of the blind individual who got a, I think it was a corneal, anyway, eye implant... he or she was at a subway station without any other assistance device... all of a sudden whatever however minimal feedback was easing interaction with the world went black, as they say, because the company unannouncedly shut down, such dependencies have other pitfalls, and attachment, adherence to deaf culture, self-reliance, is about more than pride... so much of the current age and of civil structure may obscure that fact, but finally that has become more readily apparent to more of the modern western population...
When the gene editing for 50+ boost in processing becomes a reality, the RR will be interesting to watch thier reaction.
I don't think that is ever going to be do - able. Too many genes, each with very tiny (and multiple) effects, and the technology will probably never become truly precise. For every edit, it creates a bunch of incidental mutations. That might be worth risking for one gene of large effect, but not for a bunch of genes with individually tiny effects.
@@michaels4255 a good and fair point, but i do believe they have done some minor gene editing on people around 30 years ago. It was nothing massive if i recall, but if they did, there is a starting point. Combine that with lab rats and other test beds, map it out, and probably about 20-30 years, and you could have a significant road to start on. Input an A.I. for predictive modeling and oh the wonders to be.
@@michaels4255 Correct, and it isn't genes that dictate every aspect of who and what we become; editing genes would have certain effects, yet not enough to utterly alter someone's personality. Therefore, you couldn't just gene-edit your way to superhumanhood.
I must not pass comment, I must not pass comment, I must not pass comment.
People either have naturally different intelligence levels. Or the whole word that s conspiring to keep blacks down.
It can only be one of those 2 things.
People deny this saying “but it’s culture”.
And that can’t be it cause the difference is there whether it’s America, Australia, South Africa.. Brazil.
Cultures are not the same and they feel very different about race.
But in every county Asians have a slight advantage over whites and whites a significant one over blacks.
The numbers are completely consistent the world over.
We need make people understand that it’s only applicable to big groups.
I’m sure Thomas Sewell has a higher IQ than I do.
It’s only a subtle variation but if we do not accept differences then we must accept there’s a wide world racist cabal to hold back blacks even tho affirmative action is rampant. That alone shows the it makes no sense.
Why would a racist white system give blacks +230 points on SAT tests?
What planet do you live on dude. And YES indeed Thomas Sowell has a high IQ he said it in his Autobiography lol.
Why would a racist system give Blacks +230 points. 🤔 Your perspective on this will only cause you to build resentment and possibly develop racist attitudes not a good place to end up my man.
Culture, and history definitely impacts IQ much more than genetics.
Finally, are you implying that Black Australians i.e. indigenous Australians are comparable to Blacks in North and South of the Americas and Africa?
Now, if you're going to classify indigenous Australians as Black then you might as well classify Indians as black too lol... But I guess that wouldn't fit nicely into our simple narrative.
I was an it’s the culture person before I found this comment. Thanks.
If it was "Culture" would forcing uncultured people to sing opera get high IQ scores?
Culture is downstream from biology.
I respect Bo's right to inquiry on this and any other subject, but it's hard to overlook his consistent leaning toward confirmation bias and or all out rejection of any reasonable counter arguments... "Race" has always been a term with a fluctuating definition and "Race Science" is looked down upon because as the study of genetics and evolution progressed, it was shown to be too loose of a categorization to continue pursuing (especially in the case of IQ) seriously. Most convincing was the advancement in our understanding of the role environment plays in development, but Bo continually overlooks the arguments which convinced previous proponents of "Race Science" that the categorization was invalid and instead reasserts the same flawed reasoning over and over while throwing his hands up like "why isn't anyone taking this seriously?"
If he would simply acknowledge the refuting evidence and or engage with stronger counter arguments (instead of cherry picking bad arguments and playing into a victim mentality) then he would much better grasp the pitfalls in his own viewpoint. However, he (like most others who insist on propping up racial arguments) seems too set in his beliefs to even consider that he might be wrong. If you ever want to host a debate between Bo and myself, I'd be happy to present the arguments which convinced me how flawed this line of inquiry is and see if he is open to the counter argument or discover if by some chance Bo has managed to uncover some exonerating detail that the world's most influential geneticists, evolutionary biologists, and population statisticians must have missed.
No. The point is that biology matters but you have to navigate that tastefully.
'why would you take pride in something you didnt accomplish yourself?'
well because pride is feeling good about your self for something you did. if someone else did something why should you feel good about yourself for that?
if a surgeon saves someone's life, why should you feel good about your lack of contribution?
'if my sister acomplishes something i shouldnt have pride in that'
correct, your should only have pride for how your actions lead to desired results.
'if my dog does something super cute and cuddles with me, i shouldnt feel pride in that?'
why would a dog cuddling with you make you feel pride or smugness? why wouldnt you feel happiness or joy or awe?
why would a dog cuddling with you make you feel superiority, and what would you be feeling superiority to? who would be inferior to you due to a dog snuggling with you?
Having pride in something someone the same race as you did is about as makes about as much since to me as being proud of something someone did because you have the same eye-color or height. It's weird. You probably aren't very closely related to them and don't even know them. You just have some similar features.
Hey Benjamin, check out today's Andrew Yang episode with Novoselic, it's about being an Independent, in your neck of the literal woods. The Forward Party says that ranked choice voting and open primaries, can save us from the political apocalypse.
I am totally for the idea of being lucid in our understanding of population scale hereditary intellectual potential. But this whole conversation sounds to me like a pretty simplistic take on the topic. How is it that people think that observed differences in IQ in today's Afro-American population a proper reference point for a mesure of a genetic determinant "racial intelligence". We are talking about a population that endured many generations of slavery, trauma and severe injustice until just a few generations ago. Aren't we skipping a bit fast over the consequence on a population that whole process can have culturaly or else ? I think it's still time for society to be proactively repairing the damage before taking a mesure on the innate potential of this population. Let's give it another 100 years or so, a few more generations and update our data then.
Also, I would be very curious about not only genetic heredity but also epi-genetic factors at play. It is being understood recently that lived experience such as trauma or conditions during infant gestation can impact epigenetics in a way that is transmitted through heredity in different way actual genes do.
Finally, all this talk of races seems to me like it is likely a thing that won't last so long in a world we're people of all origins mix together so .... I am not sure it should stay very relevant to think of people this way..
Wrote my comment half way through. Glad some of my concerns were adressed in the second part. Still... Id like to have some more evidence and demonstration of this whole supposedly "demonstrated" intelligence difference between "races".
This is a difficult argument for Americans to accept, and by cultural influence, the rest of the West as well, as the Declaration of Independence declares "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal". It feels treasonous, therefore, to follow that with "but some are more equal than others", and then to add insult to injury by adding, "some are more equal genetically in the absolute, but also relatively as a social construct within affinity groups".
It creates a cognitive dissonance and doesn't lend itself to political slogans that can be used to easily shut down the arguments of those who wish to sow division.
It's because multiculturalism is taught. As if all cultures are equal. People don't know sone cultures are more successful than others which is not necessarily racial. For example, pre 1960s, bot whites and blacks accepted English culture and both were very successful in family, morals, and general life stability.
Yes, there are other ingrained beliefs. other than my example, that could thwart a majority from hearing the argument.
Equal in what sense? I think it's assumed equal means equally able, not equally valuable.
@@jannyjt2034"very successful" - but not *equally* successful. The gap is always there.
I don't think those are safe assumptions. People are definitely not equally able, and because of this, even doing the same task, not equally valuable. I think it simply refers to rights as a conscious living human, of the unalienable type, given by God, that no other human can revoke.
There is a solution.
I think many of us complaining about DEI are in fact giving the very reason it's necessary - we'd just like to see change happen faster.
I bet you that's the IQ issue, intelligent people recognize that the problems are more quickly fixed. We forget that jobs are at stake.
@@redrumaxWhen someone complains about diversity, propagandists use those complaints to legitimize DEI.
The USSR is a perfect example of how a dysfunctional system can limp for a long time causing pain and suffering. DEI isn't as bad as communism, for now, but it's foolish to believe it won't cause a lot of damage before it's done. Doing nothing isn't an option.
@@redrumax Every backlash against diversity is labeled by those supporting diversity as an attack against minorities coming from racists bigots.
I don't believe that kind of tactic works as well as it used to, but that was a popular strategy.
@@thomaslacroix6011what other system should replace DEI? Pure merit based?
@@brianmeen2158 If you want to create opportunities for those who need it, real metrics should be used, such as education level, socioeconomic background, economic status, physical or mental disabilities and other similar factors.
Any measure also needs to be oriented as a path to success based on your actual potential with reasonable compromises, not as free stuff or priority access.
Today the felines 😂 😼 🐈⬛🐈😼 were in their "chalet"!🏠 😂😂 🤗 Every day I like the presentation of "the VOICE of Reason" more!!!
On "pure meritocracy," I think it's the same discussion that involves "pure capitalism," gray area, but only as much as a humane society can tolerate would be my general answer. On that same point, someone like Stephen Hicks might be needed to more precisely break down the relationship between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism, I cannot. (Despite different forms of Libertarianism, the common strain suggests leaving almost everything to the market, which translates as something close to "pure meritocracy").
My problem with race realism is that I feel that it's the commonsense position given everything we know about the natural world. As a Catholic I suspend judgement on the evolutionary theory but I do accept adaptationism, ie., the idea that organisms are adapted to their natural environment, which again seems obvious. The idea of cognitive homogeneity is the counter-intuitive idea that requires defending.
Secondly, social science is at it's basis a form of social engineering. Groups develop natural ways of relating to other groups. Social science attempts to square the circle by looking for 'data' on IQ and other sorts of differences, which to my mind are way too complex to be measurable other than using very crude measures like the IQ.
Third, universities and research were created in Europe for the purpose of putting brainiacs away from society so that instead of doing damage they can pursue their autistic pursuits and be somewhat productive. The idea of education and the modern university only succeeds to put people who would be most happy performing menial tasks in the same room as a bunch of useless brainiacs.
Unless you deaden the brain of the low IQ students with alcohol of course they will revolt.
Why would anyone think that this will result in anything other than utter disaster.
Yeah, Aporia! Hey Bo, pls make them give me free content again, not clips.
I'm more sympathetic to Sam Harris than most ppl in this audience, however on this point, I agree with Bo. (At least Sam had Murray on podcast, and recognized he was wrongly vilified, but Sam still flinches too much at this particular scary topic).
I'm definitely a fan of Coleman Hughes, but I agree instead with Bo in this case. Like with Sam Harris, I think Coleman just doesn't deal enough with this area of research. I'm reminded of a conversation on Unregistered, with Yarvin and Batya Ungar Sargon. They were asked abt this issue (I'm a fan of both) and they BOTH said the same as Coleman and Sam, even titans of discourse whom I genuinely respect, cannot touch this topic with a ten foot pole. They're not being cynical, it's just too far from their current worldview, I completely understand why it seems on its face, like historical backsliding. But it's not. The Aporians and Duttonians are heroic, they're willing to be figuratively burned at the stake for the truth, they might even be jolly in their hereticism.
I agree with you. PRETENDING that men are equal in their potential (an idea that was first articulated by Western intellectuals in the 17th and 18th centuries) when in reality they are not equal will destroy our civilization.
Like Coleman, though no longer following him as close as once did (to many other creators consuming my time), but Sam was one to which I followed pretty close for a number of years. Like many, his Cheeto Man vs. OBL vs H man, quite a few years ago now, was something I was not sure he had in him. He was since early on, clearly infected with TDS, but at that time, I was not yet aware of just how debilitating it actually is. Of course, I have seen the depths of it since 2020 (not seen how deep it CAN go, at this point!), but Sam just continues to double down against the principles he once stood very much in favor and 1a being chief among them. I am no scholar on issues of the unwell mind, but never have I born witness to the debilitating nature of that particular affliction. My own mother has it and since it is literally beyond comprehension that it is possible that anyone could support him, our relationship has gotten quite strained. I am willing to have normal rational discussions with her about anything, but if the subject matter comes within 500 intellectual miles from his name EVEN being mentioned... she will bring it up herself, begin shaking like a stage 5 Parkinson's patient and say..."that man is [equivalent to a very warm being who lives at the center of the earth] and..."we cannot talk about him.... we cannot talk about him...." over and over.
.
Went a bit off topic there, sorry... lol
@@NinjaKittyBonks I get what you mean, Sam gets lots of criticism, I at least partly agree, with at least some of the criticism. With Trump, I can definitely acknowledge he's done some good things (such as Abraham Accords) I would just prefer someone less demagogic, amoral, and technically criminal do those same things, and many Conservatives say the same. The main reason I can't vote for Trump is that he wants to abolish term limits, this would be a deal breaker for me with any candidate, left or right. But at this point, voting against him (by voting for Biden) to me is like taking a medication with side effects. He keeps the whole machine that Yarvin describes working, at least better than many ppl realize, (or whatever cabal pulls his strings does, anyway,) but the 'side effects' are getting relatively severe, from things like Afghanistan, to woke issues, to the lack of an immigration policy. I'm between goddam Biden, and not voting, leaning towards just checking out. I was, and remain a pretty big Andrew Yang fan, in spite of a couple minor points of disagreement. Of course, a decent candidate is impossible, welcome to America!
@@Jules-Is-a-Guy ... I too have problems with Trump, but rather rather than break them all down, suffice to say... desperate times require desperate measures. There is simply no way a politician can fix society, but POTUS can overturn the multitude of massive blunders that have catapulted the US downhill since day one of current one's admin. Even though Cheeto Man is first and foremost a business man and POTUS is really a business arrangement, NONE of what we see will be fixed, until those who have abandoned the foundational values of the West... embrace them again. There is simply no possible way a society can be sustained, as it is currently. We have probably 8% of the entire Western world, whom are 100% committed to its utter ruin, in the hopes that utopia will just spring up out of the earth, we will all own nothing and be happy.
.
I support Trump, because we need someone who is willing to sacrifice the entirety of a political future and burn every bridge necessary to turn this nation around to a direction that works. There is no perfect solution and not one person, including Trump can do all that needs to be done, nor do it in a way we will all agree. I will not even go so far as to say ..."lesser of two evils", as Trump is not evil, he is mostly just an ahole, who is not capable of keeping his mouth shut or thumbs idle, when the opportunity arises to say something poopy about political rival or fool.
.
All that said, I have big issues with Trump over some of the 2a issues he has supported, but OVERALL... his policies were monumentally better than current. If not for TDS (overwhelming number of issues are outright fabrications) Trump is, in the end... a populous. As exceedingly unlikely as it is he makes POTUS again (entirely different conversation as to why I believe this), it is my hope that Vivek be his VP. I really like Vivek and I believe he has the stones to get in Trumps face and shut down the multitude of stupid things he will say or hit "send" on social media, to make it a smoother ride than last time.
.
I could give probably 25 examples of the top of my head, but need look no further than a couple days ago. Trump uses [red-cell fluid in human body + tub] for a perfectly common use of the term, that has been used hundreds of time over just the last decade, but maliciously stripped of context. This action is deliberate and is kibble for TDS sufferers to "add to the pile" of other reported thing's he has said, to further cement his being "evil". One does not even have to be a Cheeto Man supporter, to take the overwhelming number of items in that pile, to take an objective eye and realize that 90% are maliciously stripped of context, two parts of a speech, with middle removed or simply NOT playing the last sentence of the statement (See "Very fine people" and "grab them by the p****) for textbook examples.
.
I am not an apologist for Trump, but I detest lies, regardless of where the originate. I have my bias, just as every person whom ever has, does or will exist. However, I will always engage in the conversation to challenge or put my bias to the test and will own it, should I be proven or shown to be wrong. America needs what no other politician will sacrifice to accomplish. What is unknown... is if Trump has the will and enough support to get those things that require it, done.
@@NinjaKittyBonks. TDS is why I don’t want Trump to win again. He literally drives half of the country insane. I don’t want Biden to win either though
You have to get to the point where you see that Murray and Kendi are making the same point.
That's insightful, but of course they're coming from different political positions. What should be done abt the social problem, if anything? They"d have different answers. Also I think I'd disagree somewhat with Murray (and obviously with Kendi) just because Murray's identified this phenomenon, doesn't guarantee that assimilation on something like the classic definition, will completely fail in the near future. (He expressed this concern in an Aporia discussion).
Kinda, yeah. Kendi and pals essentially say that certain listed attributes that they claim constitute "whiteness", such as logic, reason, intellect, less impulsiveness or more self-control of impulsiveness, etc also constitute SYSTEMIC RACISM because of the disparate outcomes for Blacks who are on average, not individually, less likely to be able to work with the high standards that embody "whiteness".
That's basically what Charles Murray argues.
"Science must fall" is a protest to abolish empiricism and the scientific method (of dis-proof of faulty hypotheses), and replace those with favored narratives, accept unacceptable imprecision, and perhaps place racial sensitivity and appreciation over rigorous standards and debates.
CRT or critical legal studies essentially argues that Black violent crime is normal, so criminal justice with equal treatment is racist.
Some Whites and Js and others do the same, and sometimes worse, BUT are not blatantly arguing for more of that as a preference for human society.
@@gg_rider i cannot imagine what type of system or society we would have if Kendi got his way .. last I heard he wanted black students to be graded not on their performance on the test but their “willingness to learn”.. that is so bizarre to me and how would you even measure one’s desire to learn?
Charles Murray just did an interview with Jon stossel and it was pretty interesting
@@gg_riderwait, CRT teaches that black violent crime is normal? I’m still confused as to what society CRT wishes to create if they had their way…?
@@brianmeen2158 in golf, it's called a handicap. I think Kendi is really telling a hidden truth about what he really thinks when he argues that academic excellence is White Supremacy.
I love how every Eugenists when asked about why people think their ideology is dangerous is just kinda like "I don't really know why, they just scared but their fears are totally unfounded." completely memory holing the evils of the Eugenics era and things like Buck v Bell.
All you have to do to see how many people equality kills is look at Communism and how many people they kill for being better or smarter than others. Let's not pretend that idea doesn't have blood on its hands.
So, there was an article a few years ago covering Winegard’s troubles in academia, and one commenter referred to exactly this obtuseness as “moral idiocy.” That has since then stuck with me as a very apt description of this particular ideology.
I can see how society at large accepting race realism could cause some issues. Most people aren't intelligent enough to grasp the differences between differences between groups and differences between individuals. However, when White and Asian students are being denied opportunities because of hyper egalitarian policies, discussions need to be had.
@@bradfordlangston836 There are no white or Asian students unable to attend college, even highly ranked colleges, or get jobs because of their race. Private universities are just that-private institutions with their own mission and values and theory of how they want to impact the world. Many people may not like their mission or values, but they are not obligated to operate in any particular manner, within the law, just as in the past they admitted whomever they chose according to however they defined worthiness.
There is no lack of educational or professional opportunity that this ideology would provide for.
@@AriD2385I'm just deeply bothered by the fact that they would argue for affirmative action on the basis that it will eventually help groups become equal, but then accuse people of racism when those gaps don't close. I'd just like those schools to be honest about why they're accepting higher proportions of Black and Hispanic students than a pure meritocracy would warrant.
Putting Barri Weiss anywhere in a college is doomed to fail.
Good guest but the vocal fry is real
Did kitty get deleted?
He says rectify IQ 70 to IQ 130.
The gentrification of Harlem being lamented by Blacks is understood by me and me being white and a supporter of 'color blindness' lament the gentrification of Harlem as a cultural institution too and I am pretty sure many white people like me who approve of color blindness lament the possible loss of a cultural neighborhood as well ...
Perhaps the Dutch didn't like it either when Harlem started changing.
21:05 Return to Fresh Prince (´ー｀)
About 29:13, the civil rights movement is complicated. There were too many competing groups with different motivations.
I’m indifferent to Affirmative Action. As a black guy, I found the whole NBA talking point to be distasteful. Not everyone looks up to athletes. In fact, money made from being an athlete counts against them in some circles. My concern is the social implications.
Mr. Winegard pointed out that high status jobs require high cognitive ability. Having a status job makes it easier in some respects to enter into certain milieu of people.
Is a woman more likely to avail herself to an NBA player or an accountant? In the end. whatever women want is what is valued
@@annarboriter That depends on the women's social circle and background. This doesn't happen in a vacuum.
The women who is more likely to date an accountant would be from a different social circle than the women who dates a NBA player.
Open borders is terrible, and not vetting migrants properly nor having an immigration policy, is seriously dangerous (so I'm commenting on the right channel). But I disagree with Bo on necessarily limiting immigration, drawing from Peter Zeihan, and having commented similarly on recent vid. We simply must have a certain number of ppl, to keep the economy working. We'll have enough in US, during our temporary demographic slump, as long as we bring in a sufficient number of migrants to work over the next decade. We're creating a devil's bargain for ourselves though, with TERRIBLE IMMIGRATION POLICY. If we don't have a policy to vet migrants, plus to assimilate, we'll create social problems. On the other hand, without enough workers, economic problems will become serious, and impact everyone. I'm no expert, Zeihan's only optimistic, because he says, "at least a sufficient number of migrant workers are entering the country, one way or another". He also just says, that if the worst happens and the ultra-violent Jalisco New Gen moves north of border, then the US will simply have to LITERALLY FIGHT A WAR AGAINST THE CARTEL.
0:26: 🎙️ Challenging societal norms around race and IQ, Bo Winegard discusses contentious topics with Benjamin Boyce.
10:30: 🤔 Controversial views on discussing sensitive topics and hypocrisy in criticizing Islam.
20:35: 🔍 Progressives understand race better than mainstream conservatives, debunking the myth of colorblindness in the 90s.
30:32: 💡 Challenges with current college admissions process and the need for a more transparent quota system to address inequality.
40:33: ⚖️ The importance of acknowledging and addressing inequalities in society for social cohesion.
50:56: 🧠 Controversial findings on intelligence gaps, supported by mainstream textbooks, indicate a 15-point difference in IQ scores.
1:01:39: 💭 Exploring the impact of gentrification on cultural identity and racial trauma.
1:11:24: 💭 Challenges of maintaining a multi-racial democracy with economic disparities and the need for shared responsibility.
1:21:43: 📚 Exploration of a critical review on Coleman Hughes's book challenging post-liberal constructs.
1:31:41: 🌟 Importance of ethnic pride and cultural achievement in providing a sense of belonging and transcending personal limitations.
1:41:51: 🤔 Critique of effective altruism movement towards localism and ineffective altruism proposal.
1:52:00: 🧠 Critique of embracing race realism due to moral and empirical concerns, emphasizing its biological and social nature.
2:01:51: 💡 Exploration of taboo topics like race and politics in a balanced and open manner for branding and expansion.
Recap by Tammy AI
How does this conversion have no reference to Thomas Sowell or James Flynn 🤔
You're really missing something here in this discussion. When you're saying there's something else not just IQ well there is. It's tied into IQ but not strictly so. That is behavior, temperament, etc. Think of breeding animals. You can breed them for behavior. The intelligence is pretty much the same but the behavior makes a world of difference.
Nepotism and in group preference is a very real phenomena among the Ashkenazis but it's quite common across just about all human groups. There is something you are overlooking with that group and that is that it's a much smaller one. Comparing small groups with large ones is a very common mistake.
In my country if you measure one village or town then compare it to another you can get quite a large gap in IQ. No one bothers to explore this all that much.
I resorted comments, and they buried NinjaKitty for nothing, also some of my previous comments, this paper clip maximizing algorithm is out for blood.
Always keep a second browser open you're not logged into here with to verify.
Yes, I have been burned, but as crazy as it sounds, "sorting" newest brought the vast majority of them back. I am forced to think that YT has a "top comments" option, to remove all but the most popular (highest number of replies and probably 👍received), though this is just my suspicion. I have another issue, but simply talking about it, proves to be detrimental, so I will leave this here.
Initially I found Coleman Hughes very reasonable, but then in one interview his TDS became evident and I didn't bother with him any more.
Did any IDW types actually say lets go back to the 90s? I think you put that in their mouths then called it preposterous. Although I could see 1 or 2 saying that it would be better than the current state.
It's Marxist social criticism, it's not actual Marxism. It's about ideas.
It's Marxism without the economics dimension.
ID ????? I am not american, I am WASP.
People pretend to want meritocracy and equality of opportunity, but ignore the fact that to create a society that actually has equality of opportunity you have to create equal outcomes first. In other words, you can only create equal opportunity by creating circumstances that remove all environmental conditioning that would prevent rational people from not only realising their potential to be a viable candidate to take available "opportunities", but recognising the "opportunties" as real options at all. If you don't perceive something as an option it isnt one because it can literally never be chosen until it's perceived as an option.
Do we encorage anorexics to be skinny again, Do we encorage trans to mutilate sexual function, whats happy about function loss.
Through embryo selection offered to those groups, whereby we select those that have the genetic markers or highest polygenic score for intelligence, we could level the field in a generation or 2 and make it all go away.
Bo looks too normal, his voice reminds me of a Gary Oldman character, he needs a 'familiar' or deshevelled clothing, or a drinkung problem to explain the impression of dis-ease in his vouce.
I can’t listen to vocal fry.
Bo , reasoning people use the term color blind as meaning to see people as individuals as opposed to seeing individuals as part of a group whether negative or positive ... I agree with much that you have said Bo But perhaps you do not quite grok what is meant by color blind as you keep stating color blind as a negative concept so often ...
You guys need more knowledge. Spontaneity? What you mean is acting on instinct. Lacking impulse control, instinctual behavior is part of a fast life history strategy. Higher the IQ, the less likely to act on instinct. Stems from environmental evolutionary processes. In a harsh, cold environment, you think and plan to survive. In a tropical place we're fruit is on the trees and winter never comes you don't plan. You copulate with as many females as possible so the species survives. Pump and dump.
Whereas farming requires planning. Agreeableness, etc. for the community to survive. Asian rice farming required extreme collective cooperation and agreeableness. The land shapes culture and intellect, which is highly heritable.
I absolutely ador these whte IQ pseudoscience discussions, they are hilarious. LOL!!!😂😂
Cheers!🍸
Its really simple, we shouldnt be skin color racists, that kind of racism doesnt make sense, because skin color is mirrored over the equator and meridian. However migrational haplogroups/types exist.
I can’t listen to someone with vocal fry…too bad cause it’s a great topic…Stop it!
Why do conservatives ALWAYS let everybody know they are conservatives, in conversations that have NOTHING at all to do about politics (e.g. I see on videos about comedy), by INITIATING some negative comment against leftists and liberals,
thus making ALL conservatives SELF-IDENTIFYING conservatives?
So why are conservatives so obsessed with political identity, instead of talking about and getting down to the HARD work of reading through massive amounts of data and talking about physical actions and physical consequences, over all possible actions? Why are conservatives so obsessed with claiming everything that is NOT conservative is "liberal", as if there existed only one political dimensions, as if everyone NOT conservative thinks the same thing about everything, EVEN THOUGH ALEX JONES REPEATEDLY called out the BULLSHIT of two-party dictatorship in the West and BULLSHIT that only one political dimension exists?
Get yer head out of yer arse, arsehoal.
As a conservative, I reject your entire premise.
Because liberalism is everywhere and pervades everything, and conservatives get frustrated with it and want to point it out to people who are like fish who don't understand they are living in the water.
@@tux1968-- Well, he is the Ultimate Reductionist.