Monday, December 1, 2014

Reaction to Fred Crosses the Racial Rubicon

A few days ago I reprinted Fred Reed's essay, "Fergusons in Perpetuity: Thoughts on the Unfixable" HERE. One half of this blog team, Rex May, posted a link to it on a libertarian forum, and the following exchange resulted. I've left out the irrelevant parts, and my own commentary on this is in brackets:

Matt Treasonous Bailey Now, before people begin to roast Rex alive for posting this, I'm going to ask the (generally intelligent) members of this group to stick with cold logic instead and answer three questions:

1. What part(s) of this piece do you believe to be *factually incorrect*?

2. If the author is factually correct, what good can be served by viciously suppressing anyone who discusses what amounts to a serious problem for the United States?

3. Most importantly, what can ordinary people like you and I realistically do to stave off the worst effects of these problems in our own lives?

William Stone III I am extremely conflicted by this piece.

I have never considered myself a racist. I don't think I notice skin color except on some subconscious level.

[Two points here: "Racist" is not defined, and it always should be, every time it's used, because there are many conflicting definitions of it, and many people really have no definition, and simply use it as a meaningless pejorative. Second, the use of "skin color" and "color of skin" as a synonym for "race" is extremely misleading. Skin color is a very minor component of race, and other characteristics are much more significant. Here in the United States, lightness of skin is a rule of thumb to distinguish cacausoids from congoids, but do note that many non-caucasoids have light skin — to include many mongoloids and the amerindian subdivision of mongoloids — and many caucasians, like those from India, have quite dark skins.]

But the near-unanimous support of Michael Brown by black people has me wondering if racism -- against blacks -- isn't simply a pragmatic reaction.

[This figures into the definition of racism. Obviously, an objective evaluation of the behavior of Black Americans on the average isn't any kind of -ism except possibly realism. To insist that Black Americans don't differ significantly from White Americans behaviorally is the -ism in this case — Political-Correctness-ism if you will. So William's unconsciously letting the enemy set the parameters of the discussion, accepting that any kind of awareness of racial differences is "racism."]

According all scientific evidence, Brown initiated force against Wilson. Period. It doesn't matter that Wilson was a cop: Brown initiated force against him.

That so many people with darker skin than mine wish to commit arson, riot, and loot in the name of a force initiator has made me wonder.

I dislike being in this position. I dislike having to explain how Brown initiated force: it should be obvious.

Yet they won't listen. And the ones who won't listen unfortunately tend to have darker skin.

I don't like this. I don't like having my faith in equal rights of all human beings shaken like this. I don't like finding myself in agreement with any of Reed's positions.

In fact, I f*cking HATE it.
But there it is:

Michael Brown initiated force. Darren Wilson defended himself -- and I can't fault him.

Yet there is arson, rioting, and looting (and, thankfully, some peaceful protests) -- IN DEFENSE OF A FORCE INITIATOR.

I don't like this. Please, in the sake of your preferred deity, PLEASE will black people stop this?

[William is frustrated here precisely because his perception and logic are at odds with the Zeitgeist, which insists on blindness to racial differences. He doesn't want to acknowledge that Blacks are behaving characteristically because he's been taught from childhood that such thinking is taboo.]

Matt Treasonous Bailey William: I believe that every person is entitled to the same individual rights. That is my primary political ideal. Racial differences do strain this ideal a bit, however. I can also honestly say that I don't care about skin color. I care about IQ, criminality, etc. People (of any race) with IQs of 100 or greater are demonstrably rarely a problem for civilization. People with IQs in the 80s or below predictably cause problems in a modern nation. Problematically, IQ is not distributed equally among different genetic groups. And the different "breeds" of the human species if you will, they seem to cluster around one of two points as regards average IQ: About 85 for people of sub-Saharan African descent, and in the neighborhood of 100 for most other groups of Americans. This is what statistics about IQ have consistently indicated for years, and it is why multicultural/melting pot situations sometimes work, when they don't involve Blacks in large numbers. For instance, Whites and Asians, two groups of people who are very different visually, yet generally they get along in the modern United States. Asians are more intelligent and less criminal on average than Whites, but the margin is not so large so the two groups don't hate each other. If the gap were very large, I think that inevitably Whites would come to hate Asians for their greater success and Asians would come to fear and resent Whites for their criminality and dependence.

 "I dislike being in this position. I dislike having to explain how Brown initiated force: it should be obvious. Yet they won't listen. And the ones who won't listen unfortunately tend to have darker skin."

No, they tend to have lower IQ. Their skin color is irrelevant, except insofar as their low IQ leads them their thinking to be White cop shoots Black person=I must believe everything Sharpton says. There are some Black people with genius level IQs, and I guarantee you that none of them are currently burning stuff in Ferguson. There is a certain IQ one must possess to understand any logic, to choose thinking over feeling. You may have noticed that Libertarians are almost without exception very intelligent compared to the general population. It is predictable that people who can think deeply about issues will be Libertarian, because you know, we're right and all. It is also predictable that people who have great difficulty making their way in a modern economy because of low IQ will favor redistribution. You also would steal before you'd see your children starve.

"I don't like having my faith in equal rights of all human beings shaken like this."-Belief in equal rights has never and can never be based on believing all humans are actually equal in every capacity. You don't initiate force against other people or their stuff because it's immoral. Whether they are smart or stupid, impulsive or restrained, etc, has nothing to do with it.

" I don't like finding myself in agreement with any of Reed's positions."

William Stone, Fred Reed is a good writer, obviously thoughtful and very intelligent, with a great deal of life experience, including Vietnam and the cop beat of major cities, a man who "irrationally hates" other races so much that he prefers inhabiting Mexico to the United States, sings the praises of Latin culture in many cases, and has made his life with a Mexican woman and her daughter. Pray tell, what is so hateful about finding yourself in agreement with such man about something?

William Stone III Matt Treasonous Bailey, it's very difficult for me to accept that -- as a group -- people with a darker skin tone than mine generally have a lower IQ:

1. That's extremely collectivist. If you can't see why, I guess we're done, here.

[Ayn Rand once said that racism is collectivist, and this notion has permeated libertarianism, alas. Again, this depends on one's definition of "racism." If believing that Black Americans average an IQ of 85, while Whites average 100 is "collectivist," then reason itself it collectivist, because that's what reason says. If she meant "racism" to mean the notion that all Blacks are exactly alike, then she might have a point. But I've never met anybody or heard of anybody who believes that. That's what leftists (and deluded people like Rand) say that their opponents believe.]

2. Are you aware of any studies that would lend credence to the notion that people with darker skin tones than mine generally have a lower IQ? I would need to see such studies and examine them in detail before I would accept the idea.

There are studies, for example, that show black men are more susceptible to sickle cell anemia. Are there similar studies regarding average IQ of people with darker skin tones?

[As Matt says, all studies done over more than a century have come to the conclusion, approximately, that Black Americans average 85 IQ, while White Americans average 100 IQ. Nobody has ever managed to skew a study to show anything different.]

3. I shouldn't be wary of finding myself in agreement with someone who states that people with darker skin than mine have a lower IQ? And the reason I shouldn't be wary is because Reed is a good and thoughtful writer with experience?

[Again, it has nothing to do with people "with darker skin than" William's. It has to do with congoids, who, coincidentally, tend to have dark skins, but who differ from caucasoids like William (I assume) in a multitude of physiological and psychological ways.]

I would mention that both Hitler and Marx were good and thoughtful writers with experience. Should I not be wary if I find myself in agreement with them?

[No, because everybody else from their era and before agreed pretty much with them about race — this includes Jefferson, Darwin, and even Margaret Sanger ;)]

4. Libertarians are neither smarter nor dumber than those of other political leanings. Indeed, I would say from my experience of the last couple of decades, libertarians tend to suffer from psychological disorders at a much higher rate than non-libertarians.

[I think William is right, except that psychological disorders are not equivalent to "dumb," nor do they have much of a correlation with intelligence. Lots of self-identified libertarians are stupid, though, and some are insane or at least eccentric. This has a lot to do with the fact that marginal sociopolitical movements attract wacky people. I agree with Matt that self-identified libertarians average more intelligent than other people, though often very silly and impractical as well.]

And here I cannot -- and will not -- be specific. I've considered being specific. I have drafts of TLE articles dating back a couple of years suggesting that to be taken seriously, we need to dump those who are clearly insane.

Unfortunately, to point out some individuals' personality disorders would both anger them and ostracize me. I want access to the non-crazy parts of libertarianism, and calling out the nuts would end that.

Libertarians are not smarter. In many ways that matter, we're pretty frakking crazy -- and not in a good way.

5. Allow me to offer an alternative theory that might account for the situation -- and indeed, the one I cling to rather desperately at this point:

For my entire life, black people -- both individually and as a group -- have been propagandized that they are being held back by white people. This has resulted in a black culture that rejects everything white -- and that includes education.

[This is true, of course, but it wasn't true a century ago, and the intelligence test scores haven't changed. It seems to be irrelevant. And, of course, it's the standard liberal/neocon position — that all human differences are caused by environment, and that all Black disfunction is caused by White racism. Interestingly, the offspring of wealthy Black Americans continue to score lower than the offspring of Whites from the lowest classes.]

Indeed, I just finished teaching at the college level for three years and was rather appalled to discover that all but the most intelligent students were illiterate, regardless of skin color.

We have produced an entire generation of illterate ignorami.

This is neither a black nor white issue: they're ALL illiterate. However, when combined with decades of propaganda, the end result are black people who outright reject the idea of literacy and learning.

Without literacy and learning, you're left with ... well, what we have.

As I say, this is an alternate theory that would fit current facts without resorting to what seems to be a rather racist position.

[Only because the MAG (media, academia, government) has declared that any deviation from the official egalitarian dogma is a racist position. And, as I said above, it does not fit all the facts.]

Matt Treasonous Bailey 

" 1. That's extremely collectivist. If you can't see why, I guess we're done, here."

The fact that some groups are less intelligent than others on average is not an argument for any sort of abbreviation of anyone's rights. Everyone already knows individuals vary widely, so logically any policy that sets forth every individual being the same as a prerequisite is doomed to failure.

2." Are you aware of any studies that would lend credence to the notion that people with darker skin tones than mine generally have a lower IQ? I would need to see such studies and examine them in detail before I would accept the idea."

Actually Asians, people who are also considered to have darker skin tones than Whites, appear to also have slightly higher IQs than Whites on average. Stop with the disingenuous implications. No one literally has a problem with skin tone. 

EVERY study of IQ finds these average racial differences. Experts debate the causation, but the debate is undeniable. The relative positions of Asians on top, Whites trailing slightly, and Blacks trailing far behind has been documented since serious studies of the issue began. This appears to be a valid result. It is hard to imagine someone skewing the results out of racism towards Blacks, yet then bizarrely showing Asians to have a higher average IQ. You can find them for yourself on the interwebs quite easily.

3. " I shouldn't be wary of finding myself in agreement with someone who states that people with darker skin than mine have a lower IQ?"-First, you are misstating the position. What is actually being posited is that Blacks on average have a lower IQ than both Whites and Asians, a thing which IQ testing has shown again and again. Again, no one was argued that skin tone causes intelligence, and no one is arguing that every single White is smarter than every other Black or the like nonsense. We are talking about well-documented average tendencies. Second, you are essentially asserting that it doesn't matter whether it is true or not, I don't like the idea therefore it should not even be considered.

4. The average IQ for Libertarians does in fact tend to be higher, a thing obvious to anyone who has actually interacted with them. The association between Libertarianism, sci-fi, and other "nerd" interests is not coincidental. This should not surprise you if you believe Libertarian policy to be generally the correct policy. The Triple 9s, a group for people with elite intelligence, surveyed their members on various issues and found that the overwhelmingly majority of members took the libertarian position on these issues.

William Stone III Matt, I don't suggest that there aren't differences between races. As I mentioned, there's ample studies and empirical evidence to show that black men are more succesptible to sickle cell anemia.

I'm unaware of any studies that associate higher or lower IQ with skin color.

[This is because, of course, such studies are denounced, suppressed, called names, and those who do the studies or comment on them lose their livelihoods and reputations.  See the latest on the co-discoverer of DNA HERE. And, again we're talking race, not skin color.]

I'm a computer scientist -- emphasis on the SCIENTIST part. I trust empirical evidence and little else. Find me credible studies showing that people with darker skin than I are generally less intelligent, and I'll have a look. In absence of that, I will remain utterly skeptical.

If you have such evidence, please provide links or references, and I'll examine them.

Similarly, I've never seen studies that libertarians tend to be more intelligent than other persuasions. If you have such evidence, please provide links or references and I'll examine them.

Again, I cling to my previously-stated explanation:

For my entire life, black people -- both individually and as a group -- have been propagandized that they are being held back by white people. This has resulted in a black culture that rejects everything white -- and that includes education.

Indeed, I just finished teaching at the college level for three years and was rather appalled to discover that all but the most intelligent students were illiterate, regardless of skin color.

We have produced an entire generation of illterate ignorami.

This is neither a black nor white issue: they're ALL illiterate. However, when combined with decades of propaganda, the end result are black people who outright reject the idea of literacy and learning.

Matt Treasonous Bailey William: I would the "The Bell Curve" by Hernstein and Murray. I would also suggest the writings of Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen. Note that the existence of consistent gap between Asian, White, and Black performance is *not* a matter of factual debate, merely the root causes of these differences. The nature/nurture thing can be argued up and down, but in a practical sense it is of little consequence. Whether by nature or nurture, apples don't fall far from trees.

Oh, and if anyone assumes that this difference is the product of evil White supremacist researchers falsifying data for their own purposes, one has to ask why these villains would manipulate the data so that *Asians* consistently appear to be more intelligent on average than Whites. That would be odd indeed for individuals acting purely out of racial chauvinism, aye?

[There's more, but this is the meat of it. Interestingly, it's almost like we've been trained to say "skin color" instead of "race" like Victorian ladies were taught not to say "leg."
----------
Quibcag:  Not sure about the others, but the illustration on the first quibcag is Sera Masumi, from Detective Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン)

1 comment:

  1. Perhaps the Traven owes something to Joe Sobran?

    http://www.sobran.com/fearofjews.htm

    " As I observed in my own small contribution to
    the book, an "anti-Semite" used to mean a man who hated
    Jews. Now it means a man who is hated *by* Jews."

    ReplyDelete