The Rogue Fishermen Back in my early public defender days, one of the niche misdemeanors I’d be periodically appointed to was for unlawful fishing. Typically the offense took place at a beach, involving someone harvesting dozens and dozens of shellfish beyond the allowable amount while a Fish & Wildlife officer hides in the trees with binoculars meticulously counting how many individual clams went into what particular bag. Out of the dozen or so cases I've handled, every single defendant —100%— was a Cambodian man.
I think the fixation on group differences is driven by a widespread belief that differences in outcome are attributable to discrimination. The progressive understanding of the world is that socioeconomic inequalities are the product of unfair treatment of marginalized groups by the oppressor groups. Empirical findings about IQ and genes call this narrative into question. Society is very concerned about these differences, so it seems reasonable to provide a counterbalancing narrative if it is actually true.
Having a better understanding of the world and embracing the truth is itself a good thing, but there are other advantages.
1. False narratives about oppressor groups. It's bad when people think Jewish success is a conspiracy or exploitation. It's also bad if whites aren't the cause of socioeconomic disparities, to blame it on them. https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/hereditarian-hypotheses-arent-more
2. False narratives undermine good systems/measures. The reason we probably don't have more IQ screening is because it produces disparity and has been labeled biased. Using testing can actually make selection more fair, rather than less. Meritocracy and race-blind submissions are good. The demographics of organizations should not be driven by DEI concerns, or penalize people for their race/sex. Universities should not penalize Asians and whites for the color of their skin.
3. Interventions premised on false causal beliefs will be ineffective or harmful. For example, replacing white teachers with black teachers/ compensatory education. Those could work, but we need to rigorously investigate it and if it doesn't work, then we need to search for different solutions. DEI and what flows from it is a waste of money, time, resources, and it's probably somewhat harmful. It wouldn't surprising if it created backlash and made race much more salient in people's minds.
4. A resistance to accounting for genetic confounding, which undermines a lot of social science research and makes finding actual environmental solutions difficult. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000033
I know progressives don't like this, but you can persuade highly intelligent and honest people. If you actually want to change the world for the better and promote the truth, you'll face resistance. If everyone remains quite about controversial issues, then the censors win. It's possible to change elite opinion quietly and slowly.
I've tried to formulate a vision for a biorealist progressivism (https://www.parrhesia.co/p/compassionate-biorealism). I don't know if you'll agree but at least you can maybe say I have coherent proposals :).
Thanks for the thoughtful engagement with a taboo subject.
It has been my experience that HBD is almost always simplistic tribalism masquerading as data-driven scientific inquiry. You cannot get anybody to shut up about it no matter how strongly you affirm the potential validity of their hypothesis unless you are willing to sign off on some flavor of regressive ethnocentrism, eugenics, etc. as an inevitable corollary.
No Mott-and-Bailey has ever had quite so much success as this one at making me angry enough to chuck a hair dryer into a public swimming pool.
"Oh, so what you really meant by human biodiversity is the idea that different tribes are essentially and indelibly incompatible, and you're only willing to entertain solutions that accept these presuppositions as true."
In general, it feels like HBD proponents are just another manifestation of a sort of "pop psychology enthusiast", who thinks that a few studies showing an effect of one variable on another is THE explanation for disparate outcomes.
Anyone who's done actual research in social sciences knows that any complex phenomenon like "poverty", "intelligence", or "clam fishing" is multiply determined, with a billion tiny predictive factors all wrapped up in a huge convoluted circular network of causation. It's very rare to find One Thing That Explains [abstract noun]. But for the casual reader, they see some paper that says "power posing before interviews makes you better at negotiating" and thinks this means that One Weird Trick can reduce the male/female wage gap or similar.
Most intelligence researchers accept that intelligence is highly heritable, but all get pretty squeamish about between-group differences. To HBDers this seems like a failure to acknowledge the big effect sizes of IQ differences, but it seems more downstream of methodological limitations in intelligence research. A lot of the early studies estimating heritability of intelligence were twin and adoption studies, which only really get you within-family effects, not between-group effects. It's super difficult to identify the *cause* of between-group differences when those groups are very different in a billion other ways.
The problem is that there may be future studies that find some small between-group effects after rigorously controlling for confounders and the like, and HBDers will claim these studies validate their beliefs. But their beliefs are so "big" -- they think between group differences in intelligence explain *a lot* about other disparate incomes in stuff like poverty or criminality -- so big that a potential future finding of a couple IQ points difference isn't nearly big enough to warrant them.
The gulf between the Motte ("I think humans are diverse!") and the Bailey ("immigration has poisoned The West's genetic heritage and causing the collapse of society") is so immense
For most of us old school liberals who've dedicated part of our lives and careers to eradicating invidious discrimination, the first step is identifying the problem. It's often hard and unpleasant, as it requires a harsh view of reality that we would prefer not to admit or accept. But without it, we indulging in fantasy fixes that accomplish nothing because they ignore the real problem in favor of problems that align with acceptable orthodoxies.
Calling bullshit is necessary, but rarely makes one any friends and, at least these days, doesn't seem to accomplish much as the unduly passionate don't want to hear it. Oh well, all we can do is try.
"Progressives consistently exhibit a very bizarre combination of presenting racial minorities as both uniquely victimized and materially unaffected"
Somewhat disagree. It's true that they don't want to scream 13/52 or 13/90 to rally against environmental racism, but it's not necessary disbelief it. If you find such progressive in good faith discussion they certainly can talk about it. And I'm pretty sure they do believe it
I think the fixation on group differences is driven by a widespread belief that differences in outcome are attributable to discrimination. The progressive understanding of the world is that socioeconomic inequalities are the product of unfair treatment of marginalized groups by the oppressor groups. Empirical findings about IQ and genes call this narrative into question. Society is very concerned about these differences, so it seems reasonable to provide a counterbalancing narrative if it is actually true.
Having a better understanding of the world and embracing the truth is itself a good thing, but there are other advantages.
1. False narratives about oppressor groups. It's bad when people think Jewish success is a conspiracy or exploitation. It's also bad if whites aren't the cause of socioeconomic disparities, to blame it on them. https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/hereditarian-hypotheses-arent-more
2. False narratives undermine good systems/measures. The reason we probably don't have more IQ screening is because it produces disparity and has been labeled biased. Using testing can actually make selection more fair, rather than less. Meritocracy and race-blind submissions are good. The demographics of organizations should not be driven by DEI concerns, or penalize people for their race/sex. Universities should not penalize Asians and whites for the color of their skin.
3. Interventions premised on false causal beliefs will be ineffective or harmful. For example, replacing white teachers with black teachers/ compensatory education. Those could work, but we need to rigorously investigate it and if it doesn't work, then we need to search for different solutions. DEI and what flows from it is a waste of money, time, resources, and it's probably somewhat harmful. It wouldn't surprising if it created backlash and made race much more salient in people's minds.
4. A resistance to accounting for genetic confounding, which undermines a lot of social science research and makes finding actual environmental solutions difficult. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000033
5. A rejection of genetic enhancement technology, something that could change the world for the better by reducing disease, and increasing happiness and IQ. https://www.parrhesia.co/p/the-effective-altruist-case-for-using
I know progressives don't like this, but you can persuade highly intelligent and honest people. If you actually want to change the world for the better and promote the truth, you'll face resistance. If everyone remains quite about controversial issues, then the censors win. It's possible to change elite opinion quietly and slowly.
I've tried to formulate a vision for a biorealist progressivism (https://www.parrhesia.co/p/compassionate-biorealism). I don't know if you'll agree but at least you can maybe say I have coherent proposals :).
Thanks for the thoughtful engagement with a taboo subject.
It has been my experience that HBD is almost always simplistic tribalism masquerading as data-driven scientific inquiry. You cannot get anybody to shut up about it no matter how strongly you affirm the potential validity of their hypothesis unless you are willing to sign off on some flavor of regressive ethnocentrism, eugenics, etc. as an inevitable corollary.
No Mott-and-Bailey has ever had quite so much success as this one at making me angry enough to chuck a hair dryer into a public swimming pool.
"Oh, so what you really meant by human biodiversity is the idea that different tribes are essentially and indelibly incompatible, and you're only willing to entertain solutions that accept these presuppositions as true."
Thanks.
In general, it feels like HBD proponents are just another manifestation of a sort of "pop psychology enthusiast", who thinks that a few studies showing an effect of one variable on another is THE explanation for disparate outcomes.
Anyone who's done actual research in social sciences knows that any complex phenomenon like "poverty", "intelligence", or "clam fishing" is multiply determined, with a billion tiny predictive factors all wrapped up in a huge convoluted circular network of causation. It's very rare to find One Thing That Explains [abstract noun]. But for the casual reader, they see some paper that says "power posing before interviews makes you better at negotiating" and thinks this means that One Weird Trick can reduce the male/female wage gap or similar.
Most intelligence researchers accept that intelligence is highly heritable, but all get pretty squeamish about between-group differences. To HBDers this seems like a failure to acknowledge the big effect sizes of IQ differences, but it seems more downstream of methodological limitations in intelligence research. A lot of the early studies estimating heritability of intelligence were twin and adoption studies, which only really get you within-family effects, not between-group effects. It's super difficult to identify the *cause* of between-group differences when those groups are very different in a billion other ways.
The problem is that there may be future studies that find some small between-group effects after rigorously controlling for confounders and the like, and HBDers will claim these studies validate their beliefs. But their beliefs are so "big" -- they think between group differences in intelligence explain *a lot* about other disparate incomes in stuff like poverty or criminality -- so big that a potential future finding of a couple IQ points difference isn't nearly big enough to warrant them.
The gulf between the Motte ("I think humans are diverse!") and the Bailey ("immigration has poisoned The West's genetic heritage and causing the collapse of society") is so immense
This general argument and its effects on educational policy is the gist of “The Cult of Smart” by Freddie deboer. Great read
For most of us old school liberals who've dedicated part of our lives and careers to eradicating invidious discrimination, the first step is identifying the problem. It's often hard and unpleasant, as it requires a harsh view of reality that we would prefer not to admit or accept. But without it, we indulging in fantasy fixes that accomplish nothing because they ignore the real problem in favor of problems that align with acceptable orthodoxies.
Calling bullshit is necessary, but rarely makes one any friends and, at least these days, doesn't seem to accomplish much as the unduly passionate don't want to hear it. Oh well, all we can do is try.
Interesting piece. Collective intelligence, like collective guilt or innocence, is bs.
"Progressives consistently exhibit a very bizarre combination of presenting racial minorities as both uniquely victimized and materially unaffected"
Somewhat disagree. It's true that they don't want to scream 13/52 or 13/90 to rally against environmental racism, but it's not necessary disbelief it. If you find such progressive in good faith discussion they certainly can talk about it. And I'm pretty sure they do believe it
> an overwhelming of who we are
Typo, I think it's missing the word "amount".