"He has literally written that several of his co-speakers are genetically more fit to be slaves while he, a white male, is genetically designed to be a master."
Certainly a powerful use of the word literally.
Frankly, I'm actually considering recanting. Who wouldn't rather be Galileo than Giordano Bruno? But recanting is a serious matter - it's the sort of thing you need to get right the first time.
To appear at future conferences without my fellow speakers worrying that I'll enslave them or kick off Holocaust 2.0, it'd be ideal if someone can tell me what I have to believe. I'm guessing it's either:
(a) all human beings are born with identical talents and inclinations.
(b) human beings may be born with different talents and inclinations, but these talents and inclinations are distributed identically across all living populations.
Let's face it, Strange Loop is an awesome conference - there's a reason I applied. And I think Alex's decision is totally understandable for practical reasons, as someone downthread explains. If there's a chance of being invited back next year, I could totally go for (b). But if it has to be (a), I might still be all "e pur si muove" and stuff.
> (a) all human beings are born with identical talents and inclinations.
> (b) human beings may be born with different talents and inclinations, but these talents and inclinations are distributed identically across all living populations.
Or: (c) The inter-group variation in the talents and inclinations of human beings is completely dominated by the intra-group variation.
In other words, "living populations" (= ethnic groups) don't matter. You'll have (e.g.) smart and dumb people in every group, and everything else is noise.
I'm not sure how a reasonable person could choose hypothesis (b) over (c), given the long history of hypothesis (b) proponents trying (and failing) to make the math work out for them.
As a disinterested (in both senses of the word) outside observer, I'd point out that while his (c) is pretty much the same as (b), sans the editorializing it's in no way incompatible with any of the previously mentioned Yarvin/Moldbug quotes.
Take, for example, the statement "America is richer than Mexico." By which is meant, "on average, Americans are richer than Mexicans." Someone else could say: "But there are plenty of homeless people in America, and Carlos Slim is the richest man in the world! There are vastly greater internal differences in wealth within America and Mexico than the difference between the two countries' averages."
Perfectly true. But, it doesn't then logically follow that America and Mexico must not differ in terms of average wealth, or that the difference in average wealth between the two countries is irrelevant or less relevant than their internal inequality.
This is exactly right. Unfortunately, the fallacy—often called Lewontin's Fallacy [1], after the Harvard biologist who most famously committed it—seems nigh ineradicable. Perhaps there should be some sort of Godwin's Law for it: "As an online discussion of human biological differences grows longer, the probability of someone committing Lewontin's Fallacy approaches 1."
But you've got to be careful not to make the mistake of incorrectly accusing someone of committing Lewontin's fallacy. Saying that race isn't real is clearly wrong, in the sense that people reliably fit into racial categories.
On the other hand, the other claim (race has no discernible effect on behaviour) isn't fallacious (at least if Lewontin's results are accurate). If there is much greater variance within populations than between them, then it is foolish to make decisions about people based on their race, as it gives very little information about them.
If there is much greater variance within populations than between them, then it is foolish to make decisions about people based on their race, as it gives very little information about them.
All you say is true, but it won't necessarily save you from the Thought Police. For example, the variation in strength within male and female populations is bigger than the variation between them. It may therefore be foolish to make decisions based on gender rather than on strength when hiring, say, dockworkers. But when people complain about how few female dockworkers there are, what will you tell them? Mutatis mutandis.
I don't have anything to add to this thread except to say that this is a gracious response and thank you for chiming in even while being at the center of controversy.
I don't normally get involved in these types of discussions on the Internet, but I met you when you presented Urbit in SF a couple years ago, and thought your work was very interesting.
Have you heard of "Yali's question"? [1] This is the framing of Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel. I believe this is a question that you think people are dodging, perhaps with politically correct wish-wash.
Apparently you think the answer is that some races are genetically superior to others. Jared Diamond of course has a different answer than you.
I tend to believe Diamond, as he lived among various tribes of New Guinea, studied them professionally, and wrote multiple well considered books about the topic. He also speaks simply and plainly, whereas you have a penchant for sophisticated arguments, whether they are true or not.
Let me also say that this type of thinking isn't exactly unique to whites. In my family are various Chinese academics (professors, Ph.D.'s, etc.) In this company, it's not unusual to hear an assertion that the Chinese are genetically superior to other races.
I think you should recant, but only if you have arrived at the conclusion honestly. I think you should also consider the possibility that some past emotional experience is driving all these rationalizations.
Here's the crux of the problem: Jared Diamond's answer to Yali's question is not mutually exclusive with the converse of (b). In other words, Guns, Germs, and Steel argues persuasively that environmental factors played a major role in observed group outcomes, but it does not argue persuasively (or at all) that those environmental factors left no imprint on the genomes of the groups in question.
To put it in concrete terms: Do you believe that, say, Scandinavians and Australian Aborigines have—on average or at the extremes—identical talents and inclinations for playing chess? If so, what is your basis for this belief?
This is the kind of discussion that doesn't end anywhere productive, but I don't have any reason to believe that those two groups have substantively different inclinations for playing chess. As others have said, the individual variations drown out the group differences.
Look at how superior Americans are to Europeans economically. Americans invented the iPhone, Google, and could best all of Europe combined in a military battle. Does that mean that Americans are genetically superior to Europeans? No, it's that they had access to more resources on a bare continent, which led to a positive feedback loop of wealth and creation.
You can perhaps make fuzzy statements about averages or extremes, but what matters is how you act on those beliefs. Are black people better at basketball than whites or Asians? Hard to say on average, but maybe at the extremes? Does that say anything about which races should play in the NBA? No. It's not like Larry Bird or Jeremy Lin don't exist. There might be some differences there, but they're not substantive.
The minute you start using this to justify slavery, that's when it becomes racism. If you are white, would you accept an Asian person's claim to enslave you based on the fact that their IQs are higher on average?
Even if you accept that intelligence implies a right to rule, there are plenty of dumb Asians that don't deserve to rule over a smart white person, and likewise for whites and blacks. This is a simple consequence of the fact that individual variation is greater than group variation.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments. Inspired by these discussions, I believe I've sharpened my understanding of this subject considerably. When it comes to accounting for observed differences between different groups, the following statements are the only two possible explanations:
(a) Genetic factors contribute to differences in outcomes
(b) Non-genetic factors contribute to differences in outcomes
Note that the two are not mutually exclusive. For example, when you write
Does that mean that Americans are genetically superior to Europeans? No, it's that they had access to more resources on a bare continent, which led to a positive feedback loop of wealth and creation.
you are arguing for (b). But because (a) and (b) are not mutually exclusive, this is not a valid argument against (a). Indeed, virtually the entire mainstream discussion around group differences consists of increasingly strong statements in favor (b), without ever addressing (a) directly.
This isn't to say (a) is always true, just that you need direct evidence to dismiss it. For example, given the observation that any human being with the ability to learn a language can learn any language, (a) appears to be false with respect to acquiring specific natural language (as opposed to language acquisition generally, which of course is genetically based).
So, why is it that so many otherwise clear thinkers fail to see that arguments for (b) aren't arguments against (a)? My guess is that most people who believe in (b) and only (b) implicitly apply the following reasoning:
The non-genetic factors in group differences are so numerous, egregious, and well-documented that they plausibly account for all known differences in outcomes between people of different ancestry. Therefore, genetic factors are probably irrelevant or negligible.
Unfortunately, this reasoning is faulty. For example, there is no a priori way to know how big an effect discrimination will have, and hence no way to rule out (a) without direct evidence.
As to your other points, I agree completely that we should treat people on an individual basis, without discriminating on the basis of ancestry, gender, etc. Furthermore, I believe in finding and cultivating talent anywhere it exists, regardless of background. I hope you agree.
This is too meta -- they're not exclusive, but the structure of the argument is pretty clear.
The burden of proof falls on the one making the claim. If you are claiming (a) or (b), you need to justify it. I haven't seen credible evidence for (a). I'm not refuting it because I don't have the burden of proof.
Answering Yali's question requires at least one of (a) or (b). If (b) were false, then that would imply (a). Providing evidence for (b) rules out the argument based on elimination.
No, the burden of proof is on those who claim not-(a), because it is evident at a glance that there are at least some genetic difference between groups. (Detailed genetic analysis, of course, confirms this. Noted anti-racist Henry Louis Gates Jr. has a whole show about it. [1]) There's no law of biology that says evolution only works on physical traits; quite the opposite. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the claim that any particular cognitive or behavioral characteristics have no genetic component.
Answering Yali's question requires at least one of (a) or (b). If (b) were false, then that would imply (a). Providing evidence for (b) rules out the argument based on elimination.
It is impossible to use the process of elimination when the alternatives are not mutually exclusive. I.e., this reasoning is specious: Why are men generally stronger than women? Well, men lift weights more often than women. Therefore, strength differences have no genetic basis. So it goes with Yali's question. You, and Jared Diamond, are obviously smart enough to understand this completely. But the conclusions are heretical, which is the only reason I can think of for why you fail to do so.
There are genetic differences between groups, but claim (a) is that there are such differences that contribute (substantively) to different outcomes -- as you wrote yourself. I don't know of any such evidence. It's controversial to say the least, but if you are engaging me in a discussion, you have the burden of proof on that point.
As mentioned, I don't really care for these types of discussions, because either way, it's not going to lead me to change my actions. My original motivation was to see what moldbug thinks of Jared Diamond's work (i.e. if he tries to refute it)
(a) and (b) aren't exclusive, but it could be that one contributes vastly more to the observed outcomes than the other. I happen to believe that this is the case with (b), as Jared Diamond explains. There is just much less evidence supporting (a) compared to that supporting (b).
I think you misread my last statement. Providing evidence for b means that you can't apply the argument that if b were false, then a. They are not exclusive, but at least one of them is necessary. I would assume (b) is false without evidence as well.
claim (a) is that there are such differences that contribute (substantively) to different outcomes
That is not claim (a). Claim (a) is that there are genetic factors in group differences, but makes no assertion about their magnitude. You believe that genetic factors make at most a small contribution. You may well be right. But you have offered no evidence for this assertion, and the burden of proof is on you to show it.
I would assume (b) is false without evidence as well.
Given that different groups live in manifestly different physical and social environments, this assumption is also wrong. The null hypothesis is that both (a) and (b) contribute; the burden of proof in both cases is on those who think one or the other is false. Confusing this issue, whether intentionally or unintentionally, is perhaps the most common source of crimestop on this subject. (Not that I blame you; as a crimethinker myself, I can assure you that volunteer Thought Police are everywhere, even—perhaps especially—on HN.)
Of course, in reality the discussion usually goes something like this:
"There might be genetic factors accounting for differences in group outcomes."
"I doubt it, but even if there are such factors, they're small."
"How do you know they're small?"
"Well, how do you know they're not?"
[Caught in trap] "I don't. So let's investigate the magnitude of the effect by examining the direct evidence…"
Don't fret it. Most of what you wrote as MM may be described as "what we were all thinking already, but lacked the time to express at length."
As for the "literally" bit, I suspect you experience resignation that few actually read what you've written as MM and instead rely upon executive summaries otherwise known as gossip and propaganda. As a guy whose real name sometimes appears in print, I wouldn't fret it.
For whatever it's worth, I'm on record proposing that urbit may be your most notable legacy, so keep working.
Galileo? How dare you compare the SJWs to the inquisition?
A confession detailing how you put ground glass into the (minority and female) workers' meatloaf, along with a list of your co-conspirators MIGHT be a start.
Certainly a powerful use of the word literally.
Frankly, I'm actually considering recanting. Who wouldn't rather be Galileo than Giordano Bruno? But recanting is a serious matter - it's the sort of thing you need to get right the first time.
To appear at future conferences without my fellow speakers worrying that I'll enslave them or kick off Holocaust 2.0, it'd be ideal if someone can tell me what I have to believe. I'm guessing it's either:
(a) all human beings are born with identical talents and inclinations.
(b) human beings may be born with different talents and inclinations, but these talents and inclinations are distributed identically across all living populations.
Let's face it, Strange Loop is an awesome conference - there's a reason I applied. And I think Alex's decision is totally understandable for practical reasons, as someone downthread explains. If there's a chance of being invited back next year, I could totally go for (b). But if it has to be (a), I might still be all "e pur si muove" and stuff.