What if the hereditarian hypothesis IS true?

I think quite a few people fail to get it. Consider Gray and Thompson (2004):

Many scientists find the question of group differences in intelligence to be distasteful to contemplate, let alone investigate — we are among them. But it is probably more harmful to simply censor all such work because this would set a terrible precedent of allowing an extrascientific agenda to constrain objective inquiry.

… “it’s probably more harmful to simply censor all such work.” If there are are genotypic racial differences of a practically significant magnitude (say > .5 SD), do the authors believe that these differences will go unnoticed or that they are unimportant? That they can be swept under the rug or continually attributed to white iniquity? Do they think it could be possible to avoid contemplating them — in an increasingly globalized word? How myopic can one be?

May 4. Nytimes, 2011. U.N. Forecasts 10.1 Billion People by Century’s End

The population of the world, long expected to stabilize just above 9 billion in the middle of the century, will instead keep growing and may hit 10.1 billion by the year 2100, the United Nations projected in a report released Tuesday.

Growth in Africa remains so high that the population there could more than triple in this century, rising from today’s one billion to 3.6 billion, the report said — a sobering forecast for a continent already struggling to provide food and water for its people.

Sobering indeed.

On the other hand, most of those in the HBDsphere fail to appreciate what their hypothesis, if true to the extent it is true, entails.

References

Grey and Thompson, 2004. NEUROBIOLOGY OF INTELLIGENCE: SCIENCE AND ETHICS

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to What if the hereditarian hypothesis IS true?

  1. Harmonious Jim says:

    And Nigeria alone up to over 700 million by 2100, while China dips down to 950m. Sobering indeed.

    “most of those in the HBDsphere fail to appreciate what their hypothesis, if true to the extent it is true, entails”

    Most?

    The number one thing HBD entails is a turn towards an anti-dysgenic immigration policy. What else does it entail that HBDers don’t get?

    • Chuck says:

      “Most?”

      Given the implication of HBD for a Globalized, free flowing world — a world that both modern day progressives and conservatives are committed to– it should not be shocking that liberals of all political stripes (i.e non-nationalists) either dismiss the idea as preposterous or react to it as if it were an existential threat. And yet, from what I glean from reading HBDblogs, the liberal reaction, be it dismissiveness — a mauvaise foi of sorts — or a moral disgust, is met with bewilderment, when there is nothing at all to be surprised about. This suggests to me that the implications of the hereditarian hypothesis are not being digested.

      The title of this post was “What if the hereditarian hypothesis IS true?” I was alluding to Linda Gottfredson’s similarly titled paper in which she addressed the implication of the hypothesis for US society — and asking about the implications for what we might call global society. The implication seem to be significant. We are not merely talking about 12% of the US population and the queerness of Liberal negro adulation. Given this, I would expect the hypothesis to be taken seriously by its proponents. One sign that it is not, is that few people spend time looking at the evidence, the arguments, and the counter arguments.

      This leads me to a double conclusion: Proponents of HBD don’t appreciate what their hypothesis, if true, entails because they don’t take it seriously — oddly — even though it wins them ignominy

      Now, onto the specific question. What else would the HBDsphere be expected to consider? What implications are they missing? Well, for one, there is no consideration of what the veracity of the hereditarian hypothesis would entail given Liberal sentiments. The suppositions is that, were liberals convinced of the hereditarian hypothesis, they would transform into nationalists or something absurdity like that. The reality is that the Liberal views would mutate in some unknown, but liberal, direction — just as Maxism 1 mutated into marxism 2 or political liberalism mutated into perfectionist (“anti-racist, etc) liberalism after confronting various realities (i.e. people are self interested and societies need a moral outlook). One implication of HBD, is that it would lead to a philosophical frame shift and the shift would not necessarily be in the direction we would like.

      • Harmonious Jim says:

        Thanks for clarifying.

        Liberal enmity to HBD should not be too surprising or bewildering. But I haven’t noticed HBDers feeling surprised at liberals, as opposed to feeling annoyed and exasperated.

        I agree that the implications of HBD for the world as a whole should be taken very seriously. May I say that I think the best HBD bloggers do this?

        (Maybe you could spell out what you think the worldwide implications of HBD are in some future post?)

        What would happen if HBD gained some intellectual influence? Maybe it would be a hollow victory, as you suggest, with liberalism able to incorporate and disarm it. Such things have happened.

        But why be so pessimistic? Even that diluted and defanged influence would be better that nothing.

      • chris says:

        These sites might give you an idea of what sort of permutation liberalism and HBD would/could occur.

        http://liberalbiorealism.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/first-things-first-why-even-exist/

        http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/about/

  2. Statsquatch says:

    I have my doubts that Africa will get that big. South Africa allready has close to a negative growth rate.

  3. C says:

    On straight dope there is a thread about whether South Africa will go the way of Zimbabwe. Without any knowledge of HBD it’s hard to have a reasonable discussion.

    http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13778381#post13778381

  4. Honky Dory says:

    Hey Chuck,

    Saw your comment over at my blog. As far as FB is concerned, the only person who commented on my links is now off of it. No one ever comments legitimately to debate the topic. So, for you to come on and comment would be pointless. It would just be us two repeating probably the same things to each other, without any dissenters.

  5. nikcrit says:

    RE: “The suppositions is that, were liberals convinced of the hereditarian hypothesis, they would transform into nationalists or something absurdity like that. The reality is that the Liberal views would mutate in some unknown, but liberal, direction — just as Maxism 1 mutated into marxism 2 or political liberalism mutated into perfectionist (“anti-racist, etc) liberalism after confronting various realities (i.e. people are self interested and societies need a moral outlook). One implication of HBD, is that it would lead to a philosophical frame shift and the shift would not necessarily be in the direction we would like.”

    I fully agree and spent a lot of time contending and arguing over as much at GW. Given your words above are so, that’s why I think it’s ultimately beside the point to empirically prove the Hereditarian Hypothesis in such a clinically exhaustive way —— no evidence will ever be enough to offset or overwhelm the, umm, ‘cultural’ considerations, in all their qualitative swagger and glory: in the case of the western european, said clout is a higher measure of ‘g’ in the aggregate; however, in the SSA case, it’s cultural capital in the form of a huge population demographic trend advantage (e.g., 700-million population in Nigeria, etc.) : both ‘advantages’ MUST be reckoned with and can subsume the other. Amongst HH proponents, I believe it’s this sense of vindication-withheld that consumes them and makes them somewhat, as you said, blind to the real implications of their theory being validated.

  6. nikcrit says:

    Re: my last comment:
    I would revise my opinion to say that, perhaps nuanced quantitative research confirming the HH, would be most valuable in that it could open up new avenues how to, ummm, cope, redirect or alleviate this genetic gap, rather than just confirm its existence. the measured disparities alone of the social here-and-now alone confirm as much, in my book.
    As i’ve said before, i’m of the belief that there’s already been proof of some genetically encoded causation —— it’s just a matter of to what degree.

Leave a Reply

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