Thursday, December 1, 2011

HBD, or Human Biodiversity

Illustration borrowed fromhttp://iranpoliticsclub.net/which is worth a look.
There isn't really any room for fundamental debate about HBD any more — HBD standing for Human BioDiversity, or the fact that human beings differ genetically, both on the individual level and the racial level, and all the levels in between, including family, clan, tribe, etc.  The arguments against this fact aren't arguments at all, just name-calling, insults, and deliberately misleading pseudo-logic and slogans. Centuries of experience and scientific inquiry has shown that human groups differ not only physically, but intellectually and emotionally as well.  Different human races have undergone widely different evolutionary pressures in different places, and the results are clear to everybody.  The stereotypes associated with different human races and national groups are, if sometimes exaggerated, by and large accurate assessments of the real differences.  Politically correct and therefore dishonest scientists haven't even tried to disprove the fact with scientific study, because they know it's impossible to do so, and consequently they use the same tactics their non-scientist brethren do to oppose the fact of HBD — the same name-calling, insults, etc.

Some liberals like Steven Pinker and Andrew Sullivan are a little too honest to deny HBD, though, and their mission would seem to be to justify their liberalism in spite of HBD, doing their best to minimize the significance of HBD while admitting its validity.

One excellent blogger, OneSTDV, has been dealing with this subject for quite some time, and points out that HBD is axiomatic to his system of thinking, which is probably why his thinking makes so much more sense than most blogs.  Read his latest post HERE.  Oops!  Cancel that.  OneSTDV has unfortunately closed his blog, so instead, check out Steve Sailer's HBD Bibliography.

7 comments:

  1. This aerospace engineer finds it to be unsurprising.

    "One wouldn’t have thought it possible, but I actually largely agree with Andrew Sullivan. The notion that intelligence is not heritable is ludicrous, and if it is, the notion that every “race” is going to be equivalent in that regard is equally so."

    http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=38761

    ReplyDelete
  2. Probably this could be tested only if you put lots of people of all "races" and origins in the same social conditions and provide them the very same opportunities and tasks to prove themselves, and that for a certain amount of time (at leat some decades). Even then you had to check if they all had a clean slate and had started from zero, what is very difficult in a real society. Then scientific measures of their abilities would have no historical influence. But right now there is no consensus even if human "races" as subspecies exist (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_races). What we know is that we all belong to the same species (all children of Adam, after all...), and if we don't like our realtives the problem is ours. By the way, intelligence is not the most important thing to make a decent person. A kind heart is much more neeed. Peace to you

    ReplyDelete
  3. There isn't really any room for fundamental debate about HBD any more — HBD standing for Human BioDiversity, or the fact that human beings differ genetically, both on the individual level and the racial level, and all the levels in between, including family, clan, tribe, etc. The arguments against this fact aren't arguments at all, just name-calling, insults, and deliberately misleading pseudo-logic and slogans.

    ^^The above of course is a strawman. No sane person disputes that human beings differ genetically. Saying "liberals" (or whatever the evildoer label of the month) are "denying differences" is totally bogus. Mere differences are not at issue. We all differ. WHat Baloo conveniently leaves out is at the heart of many debates in the field, namely: whether there are any "Races" at all in a biological sense - i.e. using the same criterion scientists use for other mammalian species. Most scientists do not find the notion of human "race" very useful at all at the biological level, because the criterion used to define other animal species at that level does not fit the fundamental genetic unity of the human species. There are more or just as much differences between people of the same population than two random people chosen from different "racial" populations, on the average.

    And one of the ways that humans stand out starkly from the rest of the animal world is precisely because of their overall genetic unity, much more so than many mammalian species. See American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race".

    Race is primarily a social construct- meaning people can make up whatever arbitrary labels they want, and sort into whatever checkboxes they arbitrarily prefer, but that does not translate into a biological basis for "Races." That is the crucial piece. Baloo merely presents a strawman above - that of alleged "liberals" supposedly "denying differences." This fantasy does not exist in the real world.


    Baloo then says:
    The stereotypes associated with different human races and national groups are, if sometimes exaggerated, by and large accurate assessments of the real differences. Politically correct and therefore dishonest scientists haven't even tried to disprove the fact with scientific study..

    ^Actually this too is misleading. Scientists note differences, but such differences are not necessarily "racial traits" biologically, and furthermore, supposedly more virtuous whites, themselves show certain traits, often in higher frequencies that "mimorities" depending on the historical era measured. White Irish criminality and violence for example much exceeded that of blacks at various times and places in history (Sowell 1981)

    In addition. too often HBDers want the stereotypes to POINT ONE WAY, to show whites in the most favorable and virtuous light. They holler "racial differences" if something negative can be said about blacks, but maintain a mysterious silence or duck and run from "racial differences" when whites appear in an unflattering light. This hypocrisy is central to HBD. For examples, whites overwhelmingly produce and consume child pornography as proven by numerous studies, and indeed US Custom seizures of child porn- most of which is produced in white countries. Is this a "racial" trait of white people? LEt's see the hypocrisy. If it were black people involved- it becomes a "racial" trait. If white people are involved, a mysterious silence. Can anyone say hypocrisy?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Scientists who want to keep their jobs find it handy to go along with the "race is a social construct" idea, when they know very well that race is a reality. More on that
    here:http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2011/05/stupid-liberal-things-to-say-theres.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. HBD reading list:

    http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steven Pinker is not very liberal!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'd call him a moderate liberal, Robert, and that mainly because he _does_ recognize HBD to some extent. But he's a lot of fun when it comes to linguistics, regardless:)

    ReplyDelete