Richard pretty clearly believes in some form of race realism/HBD which is just about the most unpopular view you can hold in modern society. Even MAGA won’t go near it
“Race realism” is a completely mainstream idea. People in the US routinely classify people by race, statistics do the same, medicine routinely also does so (while often using the synonym “ethnicity”) when it is medically relevant, approximately nobody doubts that “East Asian” people exist and are different from “Europeans” etc.
I have merely skimmed Richard’s RTs, but in some contexts HBD and race realism have been motivated by racial superiority and considered pseudoscientific (that said I doubt he holds such beliefs even modestly)
(confused by the downvotes here. my understanding is that in general, race science has been used towards ideological motivations, regardless of the methodologies being scientific, and that this specific use of race science is fringe nowadays)
What? This seems like a very left-leaning view. Believing in substantive relevant genetic differences between human subpopulations is really just super contested on the left. It’s also obviously correct, and e.g. Scott Alexander obviously subscribes to it.
We don’t have to go into IQ discourse, but of course Kenyan’s are faster runners than other human subpopulations, for largely genetic reasons. What on earth would it even mean to not believe in that?
To be clear by ‘race realism’ here I am just referring to the IQ discourse. I agree that other differences like the Kenyan distance running example are more widely accepted. I mean, in that Scott Alexander post you cited, the second paragraph is about how controversial the research is.
To be clear I’m basing Richard’s views on the essays in the curriculum he wrote with Samo Burja (https://www.21civ.com) which includes A Guide to the Heriditarian Revolution by Nathan Cofnas, a piece which led to Cofnas being essentially forced out of Cambridge for writing.
Cool, I agree that the IQ stuff is more controversial, but my guess is mostly downstream of the same left-leaning political forces. Also, yes, it’s very hard to accept substantial genetic differences in a huge number of human traits, but not to accept it for IQ, so in as much as the broader hypothesis here is widely accepted, trying to specifically contradict that on the IQ question seems like an uphill battle (not impossible, of course, weirder taboos have taken ahold in the past).
Richard pretty clearly believes in some form of race realism/HBD which is just about the most unpopular view you can hold in modern society. Even MAGA won’t go near it
“Race realism” is a completely mainstream idea. People in the US routinely classify people by race, statistics do the same, medicine routinely also does so (while often using the synonym “ethnicity”) when it is medically relevant, approximately nobody doubts that “East Asian” people exist and are different from “Europeans” etc.
I don’t know what you mean exactly with HBD, but opinions on race differences in intelligence are in fact quite mainstream, in fact more so than many other fairly common beliefs, e.g. that eating meat is wrong.
I have merely skimmed Richard’s RTs, but in some contexts HBD and race realism have been motivated by racial superiority
and considered pseudoscientific(that said I doubt he holds such beliefs even modestly)(confused by the downvotes here. my understanding is that in general, race science has been used towards ideological motivations, regardless of the methodologies being scientific, and that this specific use of race science is fringe nowadays)
What? This seems like a very left-leaning view. Believing in substantive relevant genetic differences between human subpopulations is really just super contested on the left. It’s also obviously correct, and e.g. Scott Alexander obviously subscribes to it.
We don’t have to go into IQ discourse, but of course Kenyan’s are faster runners than other human subpopulations, for largely genetic reasons. What on earth would it even mean to not believe in that?
To be clear by ‘race realism’ here I am just referring to the IQ discourse. I agree that other differences like the Kenyan distance running example are more widely accepted. I mean, in that Scott Alexander post you cited, the second paragraph is about how controversial the research is.
To be clear I’m basing Richard’s views on the essays in the curriculum he wrote with Samo Burja (https://www.21civ.com) which includes A Guide to the Heriditarian Revolution by Nathan Cofnas, a piece which led to Cofnas being essentially forced out of Cambridge for writing.
Cool, I agree that the IQ stuff is more controversial, but my guess is mostly downstream of the same left-leaning political forces. Also, yes, it’s very hard to accept substantial genetic differences in a huge number of human traits, but not to accept it for IQ, so in as much as the broader hypothesis here is widely accepted, trying to specifically contradict that on the IQ question seems like an uphill battle (not impossible, of course, weirder taboos have taken ahold in the past).