Inductivist

We HBD-ers are in an unfair situation.  I'll explain it with an analogy.  My wife is a beautiful woman, but let's imagine she's ugly as sin. And let's add she would make a good Jerry Springer guest.

Now, imagine we're at a dinner party, and all the attractive people there make her feel inadequate. So she gets upset with me and starts yelling about how I am never willing to pay for high-quality cosmetics, gym memberships, or expensive cosmetic surgery. I'm very embarrassed that she is making a scene in public, but she has just slandered me, so I proceed to explain to everyone that I have paid for attractive clothing, cosmetics, gym memberships, and plastic surgery, but the simple truth is that my wife is ugly, and nothing will change that. And how does the crowd react? Do they chide her for making false, nasty accusations in front of everyone? No, the crowd turns on me and thinks I'm an asshole for saying out loud that my wife is ugly.

People who report the facts about human diversity get the same kind of treatment. Liberals denounce whites publicly all the time for keeping minorities poor and dysfunctional. When we explain that the causes of minority problems are internal--for example, that they are due to lower intelligence--and that they don't have much to do with us, the crowd doesn't see the accusers as really nasty and unfair; instead, they turn on us as being insulting and abusive. And for the Left, being rude reveals that one is filled with hate.

I know that many HBD advocates preach truth first, middle, and last. I have another view.  If my wife were ugly, I wouldn't say it even though it's true. I would be diplomatic. I would only speak of it if I really needed to--perhaps if she were packing her bags to devote her life to becoming a Hollywood starlet. You speak unpleasant truths if you need to defend yourself, or it's the only way to help; if it's really necessary. And you don't go on about it.

The only reason I go on about HBD issues all the time is because the Left is destroying our society with its lying, irrational race obsession. I'm trying to help. I'll shut up when they do.

A reader at iSteve's thinks that many atheists accept HBD. The logic seems to be that atheists are clear-thinking, tough-minded people who see through sentimental views.

A large sample (6,613) of whites were asked by the GSS about their belief in God, and about whether or not they believe that blacks are innately less intelligent than whites. 4.6 percent of atheists answered yes; 13.6 percent of those who "know God exists" said they believe in innate racial differences.

This pattern is consistent with the view that atheism encourages liberalism, not realism.

In yesterday's post on the popularity of HBD, readers raised the reasonable concern that a person might be unwilling to tell an interviewer face-to-face (that's how the GSS is done) that he thinks that blacks are innately less intelligent than whites.

Fortunately, the GSS allows us to vary interview conditions in two ways: 1) was it a face-to-face interview or one done over the phone; and 2) was the interviewer white or black?

Here are the percentages who agreed that blacks are innately less intelligent:

Percent answering yes--white sample (N = 2,044)

White interviewer over the phone 3.4
White interviewer in home 8.5
Black interviewer over the phone 7.7
Black interviewer in home 4.4

Not much evidence here for the view that people are responding to the conditions of the interview. Whites should feel most comfortable giving the pro-HBD response to a white interviewer over the phone, but this condition gets the fewest affirmative responses. Myself, I would have the hardest time expressing my position to a black person, but the second-highest rate of positive response was given to black interviewers over the phone.

On the other hand, interviews over the phone are uncommon, so cell sizes are low. If we focus only on the in-home interviews, there is more support for the idea that people tend to give socially approved answers. 8.5 percent of respondents answered yes to a white interviewer at home, compared to only 4.4 percent of those responding to a black person. The difference, however, is not statistically significant. Whites might be responding to conditions, but keep in mind that only 9 percent of interviews were given by blacks.  

Steve Sailer wonders if there is a Silent but Sensible Majority out there when it comes to HBD-related issues like racial differences in academic performance. The GSS convinces me that the answer is definitely no.

Beginning in 1977, survey particpants were asked: "On the average, blacks have worse jobs, income, and housing than white people. Do you think these differences are because most blacks have less in-born ability to learn?"
 
Here are the percentages who answered yes by year:
 






There were quite a few race realists in the 70s, but the number has dropped to around 10 percent. Things have only gotten worse post-Bell Curve (1994).
 
Yes, but it's educated opinion that really matters. Perhaps they have more sense (the graphs shows 4-year college grads or higher):
 
Educated people didn't believe blacks differ innately three decades ago; even fewer do now.
 
Verdict: public opinion doesn't follow the data in the least. It is irrational; it follows fads.

It's fun to see life and art conforming to the HBD view of social reality. The script for The Social Network could have been written by someone from this corner of cyberspace. We see Internet innovation dominated by young white males. Especially Jewish ones. Not a woman or NAM in sight. But the innovators are nerds who cannot get a date until their creativity brings recognition and social status. They hit it off with smart Asian girls in particular. Ethnic differences are portrayed as well. You have high-minded, athletic WASPs and shrewd Jews. Good stuff--didn't look at my watch even once.     

Illegal immigration is the fire at the door: Recently, there was an interesting discussion over at OneSTDV concerning policies that HBD-ers should advocate.

Let me add that of all our concerns, nothing currently touches illegal immigration in importance. (In Europe, it's Islamification). Everyone's political efforts should be focused on this issue.

HBD priorities should be set in terms of an issue's: 1) practicality, and 2) immediacy. Blocking amnesty is practical. Many Americans are already fired up about it, the country is currently in no position to be handing out its precious jobs to foreigners, and health care reform is going to make it harder to get some kind of amnesty legislation passed because illegals will become legal residents eligible for whatever health care benefits are available to the rest of us.

The villains here are employers. We need to join forces with those on the left who are concerned with worker exploitation, and we should direct our anti-amnesty ire against the companies that are driving the problem. Those who hire illegals should get prison sentences in my opinion. When the jobs dry up, folks will pack their own suitcases and head home.

Not only can we make real gains here, but the problem is immediate and must be dealt with now. If the millions of illegals end up here, the country gets them and their descendants from now until the sun burns out. And they will make every effort to get their relatives over here, and the cycle will continue forever.

Much of the HBD discussion is connected in one way or another to differential reproduction. While all of that is very important, it's important on a scale of centuries. We're talking about evolutionary processes here, and they are slow by definition. As John Derbyshire writes in his new book We are Doomed (everyone buy a copy--it rocks) we might not make it to 2022, forget about the population composition in 2200. Thinking about feminism, the family, eugenics, and all that is needed, but illegal immigration is the fire at the door.

As a follow-up to the last post, I wanted to add that conservatives can draw on biological research without emphasizing evolution (Reader David expresses a similar idea). The point is that there is genetic diversity--whatever its source. It explains what nurturism cannot, and it's not going anywhere fast.

The graph shows two things: 1) a sizeable minority of Americans--I included all races--think that genes play a major role in determining personality; and 2) Republicans are a bit more open to the idea than Democrats. As the science continues to come out, conservatives would do well to sing the results from the rooftops. Leave Darwin out of it.


UPDATE: David Hume looks at belief in genes by demographic groups here.

Darwin, God, and politics: I see that the HBD-ers and social conservatives are currently duking it out. Since I consider myself to be both, I suppose I should punch myself in the face.

It seems to me that what is essential for a viable political movement is that it tells a persuasive, coherent story to a large segment of the population. I say coherent, but I didn't say something that was so internally tight, it must have been developed by Aristotle. Conservatism, I don't think, has ever claimed such internal consistency. It's more like a stance.

We can't all be Burkes. Someone needs to do the market research: I volunteer. This time around, let's look at the two Men who people seem to be siding with: God or Darwin. A movement needs to either: 1) favor a thing; 2) oppose it; or 3) shut up about it. The data indicate that in America, on the question of Darwin and God, it's probably best to shut up about both of them, but if we need someone to rally around, just make sure he's not Nietzsche.

In 2000, 1,023 Americans (GSS) were asked: 1) their confidence in the existence of God; and 2) how true is the statement that humans evolved from animals. Here are the top ten most common combinations of answers:


Percent of all respondents

1. Knows God exists--Evolution definitely not true 33.0
2. Knows God exists--Evolution probably true 14.7
3. Knows God exists--Evolution probably not true 11.5
4. Believes but doubts--Evolution probably true 7.7
5. Knows God exists--Evolution definitely true 5.8
6. Believes but doubts--Evolution probably not true 4.1
7. Some higher power--Evolution probably true 3.7
8. Believes but doubts--Evolution definitely true 2.9
9. Some higher power--Evolution definitely true 2.5
10. No way to know--Evolution definitely true 2.0
10. Doesn't believe in God--Evolution definitely true 2.0


Any American who likes to push atheism or likes to criticize believers must enjoy having no political voice whatsoever.

People are divided, on the other hand, when it comes to evolution. It's not popular with most people--my students think the whole thing stinks, as much as I push it--and it's especially unpopular among folks on the Right. On the other hand, it's intellectually satisfying to smart people.

So what's the solution? It looks to me like the only realistic way to go is for conservative elites to inform their worldview by sneaking peaks at HBD stuff when no one is looking, but they will have to fashion their ideas in a way that appeals to the common man. Does that sound like lying? Of course it does because that's what politics is, or haven't you noticed?