Skip to content
April 19, 2013 / JayMan

Before we go too far, something to think about…

Many commenters in the HBD world are claiming that one upside of the Boston bombings being perpetrated by Muslim Chechen immigrants is that it may shut down momentum for immigration amnesty that is currently under works. Perhaps it might. Perhaps discussion of the terrorists’ acts might even spark conversation on the wisdom of immigration from Muslim countries. That might be a positive result of this tragedy (and make no mistake, it is a tragedy in the classic sense of the word). But, should that happen, as with discussion of public awareness HBD in general, here’s one potential pitfall as elucidated by the sage Chris Rock (coarse language warning):

Whatever ideas based on a realistic understanding of human differences that advocates want to put forward – should we find a public that is more receptive to hearing them – we want to be sure we don’t go too far and that the most extreme voices don’t dominate the conversation. This is a general problem with public awareness of HBD, and something I will address in more depth in a future post.

Advertisements

20 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. Luke Lea / Apr 19 2013 11:34 PM

    I predict the whole incident will be quickly forgotten.

    • JayMan / Apr 19 2013 11:37 PM

      Maybe. I made a similar remark about the Ft. Hood shooter. (Notice how quick that went away?) This I think may be harder to bury thanks to the disruption that occurred in the Boston area. But I could be wrong.

    • Luke Lea / Apr 20 2013 9:40 AM

      Yeah, the way they shut down the whole city of Boston. That might linger a lot longer. But that goes to the question of whether we are over-reacting to the threat of terrorism, not immigration, I think.

    • JayMan / Apr 20 2013 1:45 PM

      It’s definitely a reaction to terrorism, but I suspect it will spill over into the immigration debate. As I said over at the Lion’s, what becomes of this will say a lot about what’s in store for the future.

  2. ACalmedRationalMind / Apr 20 2013 11:35 AM

    Jayman,

    Sorry for hatejaculating all over your blog, some truths are so powerful they shake the very foundation of your whole being and leave you a husk of the person you thought you could be. Their repercussion echo far into the future, and their reasons extend far into the past – which we can do nothing about. But the future – that is our territory, if we wish to seize it.
    I’ve seen several ways to increase average IQ by about 12 points, if following Prof. Cochran’s method of stopping the bottom ~95% from reproducing, but this is morally repugnant.
    What about the results that BGI will come up with in the near future?
    Would you be willing to serve as a population intelligence enhancement official for the government of a low-IQ country or a private enterprise in such a country providing subsidized embryo selection services?

    • JayMan / Apr 20 2013 1:41 PM

      some truths are so powerful they shake the very foundation of your whole being and leave you a husk of the person you thought you could be. Their repercussion echo far into the future, and their reasons extend far into the past – which we can do nothing about. But the future – that is our territory, if we wish to seize it.

      That may be so. But the truth is still the truth.

      I’ve seen several ways to increase average IQ by about 12 points, if following Prof. Cochran’s method of stopping the bottom ~95% from reproducing, but this is morally repugnant.

      Yup…

      What about the results that BGI will come up with in the near future?
      Would you be willing to serve as a population intelligence enhancement official for the government of a low-IQ country or a private enterprise in such a country providing subsidized embryo selection services?

      As one Sean Combs once said, “I am at the country’s disposal if they need me.

  3. Staffan / Apr 21 2013 7:29 AM

    Sure, we shouldn’t lose track of the fact that racism is real. This is easily done when you have all these liberals calling anyone they disagree with racist (thereby trivializing a problem they pretend to care soo much about).

    Like me, you’ve probably bumped into some false friends when discussing these sensitive issues. The only thing to do is to avoid encouraging them and stick to the truth-over-harmony attitude regardless of whether you address a PC liberal or an overt racist.

    • JayMan / Apr 26 2013 1:22 PM

      It is the best we can do…

  4. panjoomby / Apr 21 2013 3:02 PM

    chris rock: “crime – i’m conservative. prostitution – i’m liberal!”
    amen, brother rock. immigration & terrorism – i’m conservative. especially knowing about mean population differences in “g” (tho someone can be from any population subset & be a genius, etc.) it would be nice if US news reporting (& even history books!) would acknowledge average ability level has some impact on the chaos level of other countries – instead we’re stuck with wishful thinking – allowing people into the US will magically transform them. i was about to say we’d be better off letting in only triple digit IQ types – BUT – then i realized those young Chechens – no doubt have (had) triple digit IQs. therefore i’ll go with: our country (the US) already has enough people. no vacancy. especially no muslim vacancies. & no more 2 digit IQ vacancies.
    “but our country was founded on the principle of letting in all those who…”
    yeah, but, in reality, our country was founded by triple digit non-muslims, so let’s stick with the horse we rode in on. cheers!

    • JayMan / Apr 22 2013 5:25 PM

      Yup…

  5. Chuck / Apr 23 2013 8:21 PM

    “Whatever ideas based on a realistic understanding of human differences that advocates want to put forward – should we find a public that is more receptive to hearing them – we want to be sure we don’t go too far and that the most extreme voices don’t dominate the conversation”

    I don’t buy it — the point which you are missing is that racial egalitarians are in control. Who is in control means everything. If the egalitarians can train people to not recognize race differences despite those differences existing, why wouldn’t they be able to trait people to not discriminate, despite recognizing race differences? I have made this point numerous times before:

    “Of course, to the extent value- laden behavioral genetic HBD is true, reality reflects this. And to the extent reality reflects this, forcing people to see otherwise is unnatural. It’s a perceptual distortion — and yet, again, to the extent HBD is true — this distortion is not only occurring but is prevalent. So the simple animal logic of racial supremacism need not be feared. It can be contained just as the simple animal tendency of observing the tendencies of the world (e.g., HBD) can be constrained. Instead of focusing their energy on making people not see what is and not connect the dots, the establishment would have to focus their energy on making people mentally differentiate between e.g., intrinsic and extrinsic differences. And, imaginably, this is what they will do when value-laden HBD is established.”

    Apparently you disagree with my reasoning. Why?

    • Chuck / Apr 25 2013 4:59 PM

      I meant “Why?” as an actual question — not as a challenge. I was kind of hoping for a response…. Generally, I am convinced that the vast majority of people can be trained to think about this as you do — (my own thinking has become more wild and unruly and somewhat irrational but that’s because my mind is being destroyed by a brain disease). I am pretty sure that the average person can be trained to think about individual and group differences in a reasonable manner just as easily as they can be trained to not think about group differences. As it is, the literature on stereotype accuracy indicates that people do tend to think “properly” in the case of knowledge of group differences — they rely mostly on individual level information and little on group generalizations. I think that the problem would be in the transition between mental frames — between: no statistical differences treat everyone individually, statistical differences treat everyone individually. But I could be wrong.

    • JayMan / Apr 26 2013 1:20 PM

      I don’t buy it — the point which you are missing is that racial egalitarians are in control. Who is in control means everything. If the egalitarians can train people to not recognize race differences despite those differences existing, why wouldn’t they be able to trait people to not discriminate, despite recognizing race differences? I have made this point numerous times before

      Perhaps you’re right. It’s very hard to know. Eventually I plan on devoting a whole blog post to this. But, one connection seems clear. In the age when race realism was widely accepted in Western society, society was also openly racist. Is it possible to have one without the other?

      Generally, I am convinced that the vast majority of people can be trained to think about this as you do … I am pretty sure that the average person can be trained to think about individual and group differences in a reasonable manner just as easily as they can be trained to not think about group differences. As it is, the literature on stereotype accuracy indicates that people do tend to think “properly” in the case of knowledge of group differences — they rely mostly on individual level information and little on group generalizations. I think that the problem would be in the transition between mental frames — between: no statistical differences treat everyone individually, statistical differences treat everyone individually.

      A lot depends on who controls the message. Ideally, it would be best if liberals were the ones to catch on to HBD and release the message to the masses, since they’d be most likely to handle the message responsibly (i.e., without discriminatory overtones). If we can more Steven Pinker types out there to handle to new narrative, that would be best.

      This could very well be how this comes to play. The elites have done a fine job of stamping out any hint of group differences, perhaps they can also release the knowledge and keep it regulated.

      The big thing however is that tribalism, even among Whites, is a powerful thing. The elites may have one idea in mind, but that’s a different story from what the average Joe chooses to do…

  6. panjoomby / Apr 25 2013 7:46 PM

    Chuck, I was very impressed by your insight – & have been pondering it ever since – you’re right – & yet I think large political bodies prefer that we all practice magical thinking – & continue on the path of the deterioration of Western civilization via idealism (“suicide by idealism”) – whereby we just keep making policies that contribute to our destruction based on magical thinking. I don’t know why that happens – & I don’t know why I had previously never thought of what you stated so well – if we can be trained to believe in the patently false, we certainly can be trained to believe in the true. Perhaps whatever is in our nature to make sacred certain ideas is being used against us? or perhaps it’s just an accident, & that combined with the US being an experiment as much as it is a country – means our trained belief in social engineering is leading to our deterioration (i hesitate to say destruction). I assume we’ll just limp along with more of us tax slaves propping up the rest of the country.

    • JayMan / Apr 26 2013 1:22 PM

      For the record, embracing false ideas and denial of what obviously true has never been a problem for people, contrary to what some people in the HBD community would like to have us believe. Case in point: religion.

  7. panjoomby / Apr 25 2013 9:11 PM

    PS to Chuck – thinking of societal viewpoints that have changed 180 degrees in the last 60 years (smoking: was acceptable, now disapproved of — HBD: was acceptable, now disapproved of, etc.) the change was wrought through bullying by media bombardment, legislation & litigation – some people would say through “education” – but, i’m not confident 2-digit IQ’ers are educated by facts. Education is overrated for making changes in 2-digit-ers. It takes bullying via government & media propaganda. (maybe what i call bullying, others call education:) i’m sure others can think of other viewpoints that have changed extremely in the last 60 – 70 years — & then figure out how/why those changed…

  8. erica / May 7 2013 2:10 AM

    “A lot depends on who controls the message. Ideally, it would be best if liberals were the ones to catch on to HBD and release the message to the masses, since they’d be most likely to handle the message responsibly (i.e., without discriminatory overtones). ”

    Jeez, Jayman, I enjoy your work on other topics, but you think “liberals …..[would] be most likely to handle the message responsibly”? Surely you jest. Liberals hate truth because the truth isn’t what they want it to be. Science has become their enemy because data do not support their silly notions. They’ve grown from being tolerant in the best sense of the word into being arbiters of what you and I and others should and shouldn’t tolerate, which means they’re not tolerant at all. They’re damn bigots. I don’t want them handling a damn thing, especially this issue.

    • JayMan / May 7 2013 9:37 AM

      Jeez, Jayman, I enjoy your work on other topics, but you think “liberals …..[would] be most likely to handle the message responsibly”? Surely you jest. Liberals hate truth because the truth isn’t what they want it to be.

      Their acceptance of the facts is a separate issue from what they’d do after they’ve accepted the facts. The latter is of course dependent on the former, but indeed, it’s entirely possible the former won’t happen (at least any time soon; it must happen eventually).

      My point is about the liberal reaction presuming they’ve acknowledged the reality of HBD. I believe they’d handle it more responsibly than conservatives would.

    • asdf / May 10 2013 10:48 PM

      Jayman,

      Since liberals goals are self advancement, I can’t see how that would handle it well. HBD is denied because it helps liberals gain social status at the expense of their nearby tribe members (other whites). Liberal HBD denial comes from a place of hate and greed. If they ever acknowledged HBD it would only be because they found some new way to advance their interests at the expense of others (presumably because there was nothing left to steal from middle class whites).

Comments are welcome and encouraged. Comments DO NOT require name or email. Your very first comment must be approved by me. Be civil and respectful. NO personal attacks against myself or another commenter. Also, NO sock puppetry. If you assert a claim, please be prepared to support it with evidence upon request. Thank you!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: