I've been making the point that conspiracy hypothesis is the appropriate term, in terms of how 'conspiracy theory' is generally used, for a while - glad to see you say that, too. It isn't just pedantry, but is a useful corrective for two reasons. First, it then implies reality testing - is the specific hypothesis under discussion correct? Second, it re-opens 'conspiracy theory' to appropriate redefinition, that being a general framework within which to understand the function of conspiracy in human society (and which can be drawn upon to examine any given conspiracy hypothesis).
So much for that. The specific subject matter of this essay was very interesting. Your perspective is eminently sensible. Yes, HBD is real, including for cognitive and behavioral traits; no, it is not fully determinative, to the contrary adaptations of custom and social structure can compensate for these differences and ameliorate their worst effects. If our society simply acknowledged these differences as a basic fact of reality, we could proceed from there to a frank discussion about how to correct for them. An obvious implication is that the different groups must be allowed to organize themselves internally to find the practices that work for them in order to succeed within contemporary society. Rather than, as is currently the case, being (dis-)organized by external actors. So for example, blacks should almost certainly adopt customs that strongly incentivize two parent, patriarchal family structures, with robust community enforcement against violent crime, and these norms should be enforced more strictly within their community than they are in groups with e.g. greater executive function. Of course there's an argument that the propensity towards female dominated low-attachment r-selection is also biologically influenced, this being the ancestral form; but if so that simply reinforces the argument that the social correction needs to be that much more strongly incentivized.
If there are biological group differences, which there are, it follows that what works fine for one group won't for another. Attempting to force the same social solutions for all groups is a recipe for disaster.
As to group "essences", well again - if there are biologically grounded behavioral and cognitive tendencies, then yes, there are such group level essences.
Perhaps you have some concrete examples of social solutions that would work for one group and not the other? I think I have an idea of what you mean, but I can’t put my finger on what sort of differences might come out.
One obvious example is policing. If Eurasians have greater executive function, they don't need the same degree of policing in their communities, because they're much better at policing themselves internally, as it were. Applying the level of policing optimized for East Asians (which is pretty minimal) would probably lead to European communities being a bit more anarchic than Europeans prefer, and intolerably chaotic and violent for Africans. Conversely, applying the level of policing necessary to maintain a reasonable level of order in African communities to European or Asian communities makes the latter feel like tyrannical police states.
In general though I think it's difficult to be really specific about these kinds of things, since differences tend to be of degree rather than of kind. It's not a matter of 'policy X works for group A but absolutely does not work for group B'; rather it's more a matter of what mix of ingredients is best for one group versus another. This is why local or national autonomy (using nation in the original sense of the word) is so important, as it enables each group to work out for itself the set of arrangements that best suit their collective temperaments.
>What you are proposing is ramping up racial strife by uniting even more against whites, who for some racist guilt reason are not allowed to unite back.
I said nothing of the sort.
>To stop race problems, you have to deal with individuals, not groups.
By ignoring group level differences? That's absurd.
>Because from evolutionary perspective, groups exist to fight other groups, not for internal unity for mutual help in absence of external enemy.
That's simply untrue. Intergroup competition is merely one mode in which group cooperation is favored. There are others. Ask the Amish about it.
There is no conspiracy by WEF, Bilderberg etc. It is all entirely in the open.
What is happening is that the opponents of Internationalism are being attacked everywhere for creating conspiracy theories and hence dismissed as being lunatics. Undoubtedly there are lunatics out there but those opposed to Internationalism are routinely simply dismissed as being lunatics on the fringe and not having valid opinions. The accusation of "conspiracy theorist" is one of the principle weapons used by those who favour globalism. I think you make this point in your article.
The real problem is what we found in the UK during the "Brexit" debate. The Internationalists simply could not imagine how anyone could support leaving the EU. The top presenter in the BBC at the time said: " "Bosses, almost to a man and woman, could simply not grasp how anyone could have put a cross in the Leave box on the referendum ballot paper." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/21/john-humphrys-says-bbc-simply-could-not-grasp-anyone-would-vote/
The belief in Internationalism is so strong that it is like a religious faith.
Living in a rural area, I agree that there may be more intact 2 parent homes. However, in my community, most intact 2 parent homes are white, Asian or hispanic. The vast majority of children of African decent live in a single parent home headed by mom or grandma. At least in my community, I think the difference is connections. Everyone knows everyone and all their business. Most importantly, there are a number of adult male “father figures” who lead young boys through youth sports, church, boys and girls club, dad “watch dog” group in the public schools, coaches in secondary sports, etc. My boys have a 2 parent home but also benefited immensely from the exposure to and guidance from these amazing men. They range in age from 20 something to over 60. They have a variety of life experiences from being a dad/grandfather in the home or not in the home, to being a certified educator to having have served jail time for offenses such as possession of drugs, armed robbery, dui who are now struggling with the consequences of their choices in employment opportunities and they talk frankly with the kids about their mistakes. In my experience, the connection of people who are “somewheres” in a small town is a HuGE plus in raising up young men.
Great point and Raj Chetty’s team has provided supporting data for that, at least in the sense of importance of present fathers benefiting even kids who do not have fathers at home.
I really enjoyed this essay. I was wondering if there was a bait and switch happening at the beginning, but it tied together nicely. I especially appreciated your focus on the urban/rural divide; I have long thought that there was something especially wrong with cities, but this really crystallized the nature of the problem for me. Thank you!
well, I like that you at least point to some hopeful solutions, but why the emphasis on inherent difference? It seems the sociohistorical and socioeconomic context of large metros gets you to the same place and solution space.
1. Freedom of association. You can hire, enroll, sell to, have sex with anyone you want but don't expect the rest of to pay for the consequences. Those who live by sword, die by the sword.
2. No sexual or racial quotas.
3. Benign neglect, per Daniel Patrick Moynihan circa 1970.
Lorenzo, and sorry to comment on such an old article, but I find the idea of an Australian writer with such a black name writing racist 1920s/1930s style articles absolutely hilarious. As I continue my own research and own stories, I'd like you to know that you will be in my mind as I imagine the caricature of the typical racist writing as intelligent of an article as he can with such a narrow way of thinking. Your stats here have actually also been beneficial. And also my favorite part of your article is very quickly moving away from the best argument against everything you're saying as "nonsense". Never stop writing. You sir are extremely entertaining!
The entire point of the article is that race is such a poor lens to analyse anything. That different populations have different distributions of traits is obviously true—and an elementary consequence of different populations having different selection pressures and genes mattering—but way less follows from this than is often claimed. While turns out to not be correct as Cubbin et al claim that African-Americans and Euro-Americans have the same homicide rates in rural US, the rates do diverge far less than in the most urbanised areas, so clearly “race” is a very weak explanation. Because crime is such a “power law” phenomenon, a slightly larger higher physical robustness + weaker executive function tail can generate noticeable differences in crime rates. (East Asians have lower violent crime rates than Sub-Saharan Africans everywhere that you have significant populations of both groups: e.g. Sweden.) But African diaspora populations have wildly different homicide rates in different places, which means, as studies have repeatedly shown, locality (in practice, levels of effective policing) is a key factor. A change in policing can result in dramatic falls in crime rates. So, of course, can falls in the teenage/young male population. Lazily calling inconvenient truths “racist” is vastly unimpressive.
I can’t accept the conclusion that a difference in genetic expression plays a huge role in anything because science doesn’t agree. The idea isn’t anything new and has few supporters. East Asia and Africa have very different historical contexts that I won’t even try to compare them. I believe effective “policing” (policing that actually affects communities) is being implemented right now in Baltimore and New York where policing isn’t harassment. Calling it an inconvenient truth makes it no more true than it is ridiculous.
I don’t typically respond to any Internet conversation but, although I said it sardonically at first, I really do like your writing so I actually want to invite you to further discussion of the topic through a different medium, like online video chat because these comments would never do it justice.
The scientific evidence does not disagree all that much. There is enormous social pressure against noticing genetic evidence, but that there is a considerable genetic influence on both distribution of traits and behaviour is clearly true. That we can clearly seen genetic effects from the development of farming—indeed, genetic effects from much shorter time periods—shows that selection pressures on different human populations is clearly going to be a thing.
Effective policing is policing that reduces crime rates. Yes, that means certain forms of interactions with local communities do, or do not, work. But there is a great deal of ideological nonsense written in the US on these matters. For example, higher rates of police killing unarmed persons is negatively, not positively, correlated with the African-American share of the population. While the most rigorous study found no evidence of a higher rate of African-Americans being killed by police.
Oh wow, didn't expect to see this, but I like it! We're at the point that no conspiracy is needed, simply a wrongheaded mass belief with no correcting factor. The truth can be papered over with sufficient media indoctrination and government program dollars, and you will like it!
I have my own version of these concepts that may be of interest, though they're basically the same:
I am afraid I mainly reached my conclusions by reading various scholarly articles rather than books. No particular book comes to mind. Though anything by Thomas Sowell that touches on the subject is worth reading.
I've been making the point that conspiracy hypothesis is the appropriate term, in terms of how 'conspiracy theory' is generally used, for a while - glad to see you say that, too. It isn't just pedantry, but is a useful corrective for two reasons. First, it then implies reality testing - is the specific hypothesis under discussion correct? Second, it re-opens 'conspiracy theory' to appropriate redefinition, that being a general framework within which to understand the function of conspiracy in human society (and which can be drawn upon to examine any given conspiracy hypothesis).
So much for that. The specific subject matter of this essay was very interesting. Your perspective is eminently sensible. Yes, HBD is real, including for cognitive and behavioral traits; no, it is not fully determinative, to the contrary adaptations of custom and social structure can compensate for these differences and ameliorate their worst effects. If our society simply acknowledged these differences as a basic fact of reality, we could proceed from there to a frank discussion about how to correct for them. An obvious implication is that the different groups must be allowed to organize themselves internally to find the practices that work for them in order to succeed within contemporary society. Rather than, as is currently the case, being (dis-)organized by external actors. So for example, blacks should almost certainly adopt customs that strongly incentivize two parent, patriarchal family structures, with robust community enforcement against violent crime, and these norms should be enforced more strictly within their community than they are in groups with e.g. greater executive function. Of course there's an argument that the propensity towards female dominated low-attachment r-selection is also biologically influenced, this being the ancestral form; but if so that simply reinforces the argument that the social correction needs to be that much more strongly incentivized.
If there are biological group differences, which there are, it follows that what works fine for one group won't for another. Attempting to force the same social solutions for all groups is a recipe for disaster.
As to group "essences", well again - if there are biologically grounded behavioral and cognitive tendencies, then yes, there are such group level essences.
There are also individuals of course.
Both of these things are true.
I don't know why this is hard.
Perhaps you have some concrete examples of social solutions that would work for one group and not the other? I think I have an idea of what you mean, but I can’t put my finger on what sort of differences might come out.
One obvious example is policing. If Eurasians have greater executive function, they don't need the same degree of policing in their communities, because they're much better at policing themselves internally, as it were. Applying the level of policing optimized for East Asians (which is pretty minimal) would probably lead to European communities being a bit more anarchic than Europeans prefer, and intolerably chaotic and violent for Africans. Conversely, applying the level of policing necessary to maintain a reasonable level of order in African communities to European or Asian communities makes the latter feel like tyrannical police states.
In general though I think it's difficult to be really specific about these kinds of things, since differences tend to be of degree rather than of kind. It's not a matter of 'policy X works for group A but absolutely does not work for group B'; rather it's more a matter of what mix of ingredients is best for one group versus another. This is why local or national autonomy (using nation in the original sense of the word) is so important, as it enables each group to work out for itself the set of arrangements that best suit their collective temperaments.
>What you are proposing is ramping up racial strife by uniting even more against whites, who for some racist guilt reason are not allowed to unite back.
I said nothing of the sort.
>To stop race problems, you have to deal with individuals, not groups.
By ignoring group level differences? That's absurd.
>Because from evolutionary perspective, groups exist to fight other groups, not for internal unity for mutual help in absence of external enemy.
That's simply untrue. Intergroup competition is merely one mode in which group cooperation is favored. There are others. Ask the Amish about it.
There is no conspiracy by WEF, Bilderberg etc. It is all entirely in the open.
What is happening is that the opponents of Internationalism are being attacked everywhere for creating conspiracy theories and hence dismissed as being lunatics. Undoubtedly there are lunatics out there but those opposed to Internationalism are routinely simply dismissed as being lunatics on the fringe and not having valid opinions. The accusation of "conspiracy theorist" is one of the principle weapons used by those who favour globalism. I think you make this point in your article.
The real problem is what we found in the UK during the "Brexit" debate. The Internationalists simply could not imagine how anyone could support leaving the EU. The top presenter in the BBC at the time said: " "Bosses, almost to a man and woman, could simply not grasp how anyone could have put a cross in the Leave box on the referendum ballot paper." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/21/john-humphrys-says-bbc-simply-could-not-grasp-anyone-would-vote/
The belief in Internationalism is so strong that it is like a religious faith.
See "The Globalist Threat" https://therenwhere.substack.com/p/the-globalist-threat
Living in a rural area, I agree that there may be more intact 2 parent homes. However, in my community, most intact 2 parent homes are white, Asian or hispanic. The vast majority of children of African decent live in a single parent home headed by mom or grandma. At least in my community, I think the difference is connections. Everyone knows everyone and all their business. Most importantly, there are a number of adult male “father figures” who lead young boys through youth sports, church, boys and girls club, dad “watch dog” group in the public schools, coaches in secondary sports, etc. My boys have a 2 parent home but also benefited immensely from the exposure to and guidance from these amazing men. They range in age from 20 something to over 60. They have a variety of life experiences from being a dad/grandfather in the home or not in the home, to being a certified educator to having have served jail time for offenses such as possession of drugs, armed robbery, dui who are now struggling with the consequences of their choices in employment opportunities and they talk frankly with the kids about their mistakes. In my experience, the connection of people who are “somewheres” in a small town is a HuGE plus in raising up young men.
Great point and Raj Chetty’s team has provided supporting data for that, at least in the sense of importance of present fathers benefiting even kids who do not have fathers at home.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/38086/why-fathers-matter-to-the-future-of-young-black-men
I really enjoyed this essay. I was wondering if there was a bait and switch happening at the beginning, but it tied together nicely. I especially appreciated your focus on the urban/rural divide; I have long thought that there was something especially wrong with cities, but this really crystallized the nature of the problem for me. Thank you!
well, I like that you at least point to some hopeful solutions, but why the emphasis on inherent difference? It seems the sociohistorical and socioeconomic context of large metros gets you to the same place and solution space.
Idk, really enjoyed the "don't go there" piece.
Here's my solution, simple but elegant:
1. Freedom of association. You can hire, enroll, sell to, have sex with anyone you want but don't expect the rest of to pay for the consequences. Those who live by sword, die by the sword.
2. No sexual or racial quotas.
3. Benign neglect, per Daniel Patrick Moynihan circa 1970.
Good luck fellas, you're going to need it.
Interesting imsights
Lorenzo, and sorry to comment on such an old article, but I find the idea of an Australian writer with such a black name writing racist 1920s/1930s style articles absolutely hilarious. As I continue my own research and own stories, I'd like you to know that you will be in my mind as I imagine the caricature of the typical racist writing as intelligent of an article as he can with such a narrow way of thinking. Your stats here have actually also been beneficial. And also my favorite part of your article is very quickly moving away from the best argument against everything you're saying as "nonsense". Never stop writing. You sir are extremely entertaining!
The entire point of the article is that race is such a poor lens to analyse anything. That different populations have different distributions of traits is obviously true—and an elementary consequence of different populations having different selection pressures and genes mattering—but way less follows from this than is often claimed. While turns out to not be correct as Cubbin et al claim that African-Americans and Euro-Americans have the same homicide rates in rural US, the rates do diverge far less than in the most urbanised areas, so clearly “race” is a very weak explanation. Because crime is such a “power law” phenomenon, a slightly larger higher physical robustness + weaker executive function tail can generate noticeable differences in crime rates. (East Asians have lower violent crime rates than Sub-Saharan Africans everywhere that you have significant populations of both groups: e.g. Sweden.) But African diaspora populations have wildly different homicide rates in different places, which means, as studies have repeatedly shown, locality (in practice, levels of effective policing) is a key factor. A change in policing can result in dramatic falls in crime rates. So, of course, can falls in the teenage/young male population. Lazily calling inconvenient truths “racist” is vastly unimpressive.
I can’t accept the conclusion that a difference in genetic expression plays a huge role in anything because science doesn’t agree. The idea isn’t anything new and has few supporters. East Asia and Africa have very different historical contexts that I won’t even try to compare them. I believe effective “policing” (policing that actually affects communities) is being implemented right now in Baltimore and New York where policing isn’t harassment. Calling it an inconvenient truth makes it no more true than it is ridiculous.
I don’t typically respond to any Internet conversation but, although I said it sardonically at first, I really do like your writing so I actually want to invite you to further discussion of the topic through a different medium, like online video chat because these comments would never do it justice.
The scientific evidence does not disagree all that much. There is enormous social pressure against noticing genetic evidence, but that there is a considerable genetic influence on both distribution of traits and behaviour is clearly true. That we can clearly seen genetic effects from the development of farming—indeed, genetic effects from much shorter time periods—shows that selection pressures on different human populations is clearly going to be a thing.
Even foragers can have different selection pressures. See https://storage.prod.researchhub.com/uploads/papers/2024/01/04/Arctic_Instincts_8_1.pdf
Effective policing is policing that reduces crime rates. Yes, that means certain forms of interactions with local communities do, or do not, work. But there is a great deal of ideological nonsense written in the US on these matters. For example, higher rates of police killing unarmed persons is negatively, not positively, correlated with the African-American share of the population. While the most rigorous study found no evidence of a higher rate of African-Americans being killed by police.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_analysis_tables_figures.pdf
Oh wow, didn't expect to see this, but I like it! We're at the point that no conspiracy is needed, simply a wrongheaded mass belief with no correcting factor. The truth can be papered over with sufficient media indoctrination and government program dollars, and you will like it!
I have my own version of these concepts that may be of interest, though they're basically the same:
my quaspiracy:
https://open.substack.com/pub/argomend/p/i-am-a-proud-quaspiracy-theorist?r=28g8km&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcome=true
my vampires:
https://open.substack.com/pub/argomend/p/vampire-society?r=28g8km&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcome=true
My God, your ignorance of blacks is appalling wishful thinking reminiscent of the 1960s. Whites have learned nothing in over half a century.
I am afraid I mainly reached my conclusions by reading various scholarly articles rather than books. No particular book comes to mind. Though anything by Thomas Sowell that touches on the subject is worth reading.