All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 7, 2020 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
44:43
John Derbyshire: "Does Race Denialism Have a Future?"
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Our next speaker is John Derbyshire.
I think you probably all know who John Derbyshire is, so I don't think I'll even bother to talk about his career as a very popular pop math author, the fact that he's a writer of some of the most incisive opinion columns that you'll ever see,
and the fact that he's the unrivaled star of Radio Derb, and I won't mention the fact that he has a well-deserved role in prominence.
at vdare.com and the UNJREVIEW.
And I won't bother to mention his brilliant career at National Review that came to an abrupt end.
But what I will say about John is that he is the only member of our movement who was ever brought up to me when I fall into conversation with strangers.
Once, when I was on an airplane to Kuala Lumpur, of all places, I got into a conversation with a fellow sitting next to me, and he says,"By the way, have you ever heard of a fellow named John Derbyshire?" And I said,"Well, yes, I have." And he was just singing the praises of John Derbyshire,
and I sort of tentatively asked a few questions about whether he'd heard of Sam Francis or maybe this Jared Taylor.
No, no, I never heard of him.
Just a few months ago, I met a woman, and on our very first conversation, she told me that she cannot get through the week without her dose of radioderm.
You know, you have this temptation that's too strong to overcome.
You say, well, ever heard of a phone named Jared Taylor?
No. But John Derbyshire.
So, confident that his fame precedes him, let me present to you John Derbyshire.
Thank you, Jared.
Can everybody hear me all right?
I apologize for my rather battered appearance.
I've had an unfortunate encounter with the local insect life.
This was not physical violence.
When Richard Spencer saw me, he said, oh no, not you too.
And I should say, by the way, I'd like to start just by congratulating Jared on a very successful conference.
I've been following Jared for...
Nearly 25 years now, and watching him press forward doggedly through many setbacks and disappointments, and it's really very heartening to see his efforts bear such abundant fruit at last.
Thank you, Jerry.
Thank you.
Now, Jared's been getting some air time recently.
I've seen him on some videos and radio shows.
I think even a little TV since everyone started talking about the alt-right.
And when the interviewer opens up, they always ask Jared, you know, what are you up to?
What's this American Renaissance all about?
Jared's developed a two-part answer.
He says, first...
We are white advocacy.
We stand up for the interests of white people and push back against all the anti-white propaganda that suffuses our society.
So that's the first thing, white advocacy.
And the second thing, he says, is race realism.
Well, you've heard some white advocacy from Professor Nyborg, and I'm sure you'll hear some more as we go along.
I'm going to turn my plow into the other field and talk about race realism.
And the opposite thing, race denialism.
So those are our two main concerns here, white advocacy and race realism.
I'm going to talk about race realism.
Conducting and promoting honest, open discussion of race differences, exploring and debating the implications for social policies.
I'm actually going to take a quick canter through the history of race realism and race denialism.
Race realism is the point of view that Homo sapiens is just like any other species.
It has local varieties, any other widely distributed species.
And that where races show different, the races are the local varieties.
Where races show different statistical profiles on heritable traits, and we now know from twin studies and so on that almost any trait you name is heritable, The BIP traits,
behavior, intelligence, and personality.
We quantify intelligence pretty well, as Professor Nyborg was explaining.
We're not yet very good at quantifying behavior and personality, but we're getting there.
And we do know that these traits are heritable, typically at about the 50% level.
And that biological race differences help to shape social outcomes.
The opposite of race realism is race denialism.
Race denialism is the point of view that all the observed differences between local varieties of Homo sap are superficial, just like hair color or something like that.
And that the different statistical profiles we observe are entirely caused by historical and social factors.
See no biology, hear no biology, say no biology.
The intellectual climate in the West today is one of guerrilla race realism.
The commanding heights of Western society are held by race denialists.
The media, the colleges and schools, business corporations and so on, all either explicitly or implicitly race denialists.
Meanwhile, in the Maquis, if you know what Maquis is, it's the underbrush in...
Central France, where the French resistance lurked to ambush German convoys as they went past in World War II.
And here is some actual Maquis.
Those are French resistance fighters in the Maquis.
Meanwhile, in the Maquis, the guerrillas in the biological and human sciences are uncovering ever more hate facts.
A hate fact is a fact that is true.
It's a fact, but you really shouldn't talk about it.
And ever more educated, thoughtful citizens, like us, conclude that the race denialist emperor has no clothes.
There are counter-guerrilla operations.
Here's one of them.
Nicholas Wade, another Englishman, by the way, published a book in 2014 about genes, race, and human history.
It was quite audacious about race realism.
It was quite frankly race realist.
So it got terrible reviews in the mainstream press.
Here's a chap named Adam Rutherford.
You can see his picture down there reviewing it in The Guardian.
The way we talk about race has no scientific validity.
Race doesn't exist.
Racism does.
Hmm, okay.
Adam Rutherford, you can find the whole review on the internet.
Rutherford actually describes himself as a...
Partly Indian origin and somewhat swarthy.
But I don't know, as Jared says in a different context, he looks white to me.
In his review, I'm quoting here from Rutherford's review, there are genetic characteristics that associate with certain populations, but none of these is exclusive.
Well, duh.
So, for example, white skin is found everywhere.
Here's a white-skinned Nigerian.
He's actually an albino.
His skin is whiter than mine.
And here is the previous, the last but one, I think, Prime Minister of Estonia.
I forget his name.
Anybody know his name?
No, never mind.
It's a small country.
So, okay, so there are no such thing as races.
Come on.
Look at them.
And this is actually an example of what's called Lewontin's fallacy.
You have sickle cell anemia in Western Africa and you have sickle cell anemia in Italy.
Okay. But one trait doesn't make a race.
You have a whole menu of traits.
You tick off the ones that apply to population A. You tick off the ones that apply to population B. And the pattern of ticks is quite different.
That's all about the West.
In the East today, the advanced nations of East and South Asia are broadly race realist.
But really, and they're monoracial, and they want to remain monoracial, apparently.
But race realism and race denialism are just not salient topics.
People in China, Korea, Japan, India...
They really don't talk about it much.
It's not salient.
Salience is a very important thing in the social sciences.
In opinion polling, if you go out and ask people for an opinion, what do you think about global warming?
Everybody will give you an opinion.
But then if you say, well, how important is it to you?
It turns out it's number 47 on their list of important things.
It's not salient.
And you get the same thing here with race.
Here's another thing on the salience of race.
In the Western world until recently, the center of intellectual activity was Europe.
And for Europeans, race was not salient.
I grew up in a little English country town.
I didn't see a black person until I was in my teens.
It just wasn't salient.
There were other things to think about.
And here's a rather...
An example that I rather like.
This is David Hilbert, very great mathematician, the greatest mathematician of his time, actually, the late 19th, early 20th century.
And he prepared a talk for an International Congress of Mathematicians in 1928.
Mathematics knows no races.
If we look at the history of our science, we see all nations and peoples.
Taking successful and equal part in it.
Let us think of Descartes, Fermat, Pascal, Huygens, Newton, Leibniz, Bernoulli, Euler, Dallenberg, Lagrange, all these wonderful people of all these different races.
Well, here they are.
Race, as we talk about it, was not salient to him.
That's Legendre, by the way.
There's no known picture of Legendre, only this...
Cartoon. Mocking cartoon.
Which is a bit unfair because he was a very great mathematician.
And he had a rough time in the French Revolution.
But those are the breaks.
Another one on the salience of race.
This is from my grandfather's 1922 atlas of the British Commonwealth of Nations and Foreign Countries.
I come from a long line of coal miners.
A hundred years ago, if you're a working-class Englishman, you didn't have a lot of recreational opportunities.
You basically either read a lot or drank a lot.
And my family were mostly readers, so I inherited a lot of Grandad's books.
In 1922, the British Isles had that population, and British West Africa had that population.
The British Isles were 2.1 times as populous as British West Africa.
Forward to 2015, the British Isles, now the UK and the Irish Republic, have that.
And British West Africa is now those countries, and the ratio is 0.32.
So Britain to West Africa was over two times as populous in 1922, and now it's only one-third as populous.
So back in 1922, not only didn't you think about race much, you didn't have to.
There wasn't much to think about.
There weren't many people in West Africa, for example.
Not salient.
Race realism has a past.
Pre-modern, there was a lot of unsystematized knowledge about inheritance, mostly in aristocratic societies who paid great attention.
To inherited qualities like the Habsburg Chin, if you know Central European history, and all those begats in the Old Testament, who's descended from whom.
We had a sort of rough, unsystematic knowledge about that.
And also from plant and animal breeding, which human beings have been doing since the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago, we had some, again, unsystematic knowledge about that.
In the Enlightenment, systematic biological classification came up.
In the 19th century, that's the long 19th century, acceptance of evolution, the end of race slavery, a lot of theorizing, not much of it very scientific actually, but Darwin's an exception, and a lot of noticing.
Noticing. I'm sure you're all familiar with remarks on race by Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill.
I'll show you one of them in a moment.
After 1914, Population genetics came up, so we started to get a scientific handle on these issues.
The neo-Darwinian synthesis took place.
People don't realize that Darwin was rather out of favor for the first 20, 30 years of the 20th century.
Natural selection didn't have a lot of fans until Dobzhansky and Meyer really systematized it.
The decoding of DNA, of course, and psychometry from Cyril Burt, Hans Isenck, and Art Jensen, and sociobiology from E.O. Wilson.
So here's, just going back over that history, here's Linnaeus, who started us out with the traditional system of taxonomy.
What's the mnemonic for taxonomy?
King plays chess on fat girl's stomach.
Is that how you learn it here?
Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species.
King plays chess on fat girl's stomach.
So homo sap is a species.
Insects are an order, which in my opinion just right now is way overdue for extinction.
Kant had a go at it.
The great philosopher Kant had a go at it.
God knows what he knew about race.
He was the most bookish person that ever lived.
I don't think he ever left his studio for more than ten minutes.
He went for a daily walk.
It never went far from his homeland, but those were his opinions.
Jefferson. Here's some noticing.
Jefferson noticed.
Race was salient.
As I said, in the great centers of culture in Europe, it was not salient.
In the United States it was, at least in certain parts of the United States.
And there people noticed a lot, including Jefferson.
Charles Darwin, the first real scientist in this field, setting Linnaeus aside as just an observer, no offense to Linnaeus, Darwin wrote in The Races of Man, the races differ in constitution,
in acclimatization, and in liability to certain diseases.
We now know all that in much more detail.
The mental characteristics are likewise very extinct, chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual facilities.
I'm going to have a conversation with Professor Nyborg.
I think we talked too much about IQ.
I prefer to talk about what I mentioned earlier, the BIP traits, behavior, intelligence, personality.
Those are what shape human beings.
And human societies.
It's just that intelligence is the one we're best able to quantify at the moment.
In the years between the two wars, population genetics came up.
The three great names there are Wright, Fisher, and Haldane.
And they mostly didn't bother much with race, but it's all implicit in what they...
Uncovered about population genetics.
And if you want to read about it, the standard book is Hartle and Clark, and it's a very good textbook.
It has lots of exercises.
So if you sit down and burn the midnight oil, you want to know population genetics, work through that book.
It's grueling, but if you do all the exercises, you will have done a lot of population genetics.
And it doesn't mention race.
The word race doesn't occur in the index.
They say local populations.
Okay. And then psychometry.
That was a big aid to race realism, especially in the years after World War II.
Art Jensen, a big name there.
We are left with various lines of evidence which, viewed altogether, make it a not unreasonable hypothesis.
That genetic factors are strongly implicated.
Notice the softening double negatives there.
But he got into a lot of trouble for that.
That was in 1969.
Oh, now to race denialism.
Race denialism has a past, too.
Most interpretations of Christianity and other religions have been race denialist.
So you get the Brotherhood of Man and...
St. Paul telling the Romans, was it?
That there is neither June nor...
No, I think the Galatians, that there is neither June nor Greek.
In the Enlightenment, there was a vein of moral universalism and Enlightenment thinking.
I'll give you an example in a minute.
In the long 19th century, elite Protestant universalism, typified by the abolitionists of the antebellum era, We're implicitly race denialists, and so were the earliest systematic anthropologists.
And then, after World War I, race denialists conquered the human sciences altogether.
Peter Brimelow calls that Hitler's revenge, though there was more to it than that.
Here's Johnson.
Johnson translated Father Lobo's Voyage to Abyssinia.
The reader will discover...
What will always be discovered by a diligent and impartial inquirer that wherever human nature is to be found, there is a mixture of vice and virtue, a contest of passion and reason.
Implicitly, that human nature is the same.
Incidentally, Johnson, of course, was the man who said at the time of the American Revolution, how is it that the loudest yelps for liberty come from the drivers of Negroes?
And to his credit, he put his money where his mouth was.
He had a black manservant, Francis Barber, who had been born a slave and then his master died and freed him in his will.
And Johnson hired him and treated him very kindly.
And when Johnson died, he left Barber a bequest in his will.
And Barber started up a little business in England, in Staffordshire, where my family come from.
I think his ancestors still farm in Staffordshire.
Oh, and there was an overshoot from Enlightenment Universalism.
It went into an overshoot to Romantic Primitivism, the noble savage.
People living in a state of nature are not just the moral equals of us, as in Enlightenment Universalism, they're better than us!
And so you get, naturally, these modern phenomena of white ethnomazochism and reverence for the magic negro.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau generally gets blamed for this, but in fact scholars have tracked it all the way back into Greek pastoral poetry, into Hesiod and so on.
And you get the same thing in other cultures.
There's some of it in Taoism in China, and I'm guessing there's some of it in Hinduism, though I don't know enough about Hinduism to pronounce definitively.
Here's more race denialism.
Abolitionist race denialism.
I love this bit of Uncle Tom's Cabin.
Not many people read to the end of Uncle Tom's Cabin nowadays, but if you do, she ends with a heartfelt appeal to educate the freed blacks, lift them up to our level, so that when they all go to Liberia,
they can build a successful country.
I don't think the subsequent history of Liberia justifies her optimism.
But Jared could tell you he's actually been to Liberia.
Oh, now the anthropologists.
This chap, Adolf Bastien, coined the phrase the psychic unity of mankind.
Although, of course, he coined it in German.
And one of his, not really pupil, but a follower of his, Franz Boas, took all that to America.
And if you want to read about What followed and how race denialism took over the human and social sciences is a very good book called In Search of Human Nature by Carl Degler, which I recommend.
It was written in 1991, and he was much more optimistic than he would be if he wrote it now.
He shows how, after World War II, biology made a comeback.
Well, it made a comeback, but it didn't come back very far.
Now to the future, the future of race realism.
The human genome and its many varieties are now the subject of massive, lavishly funded research.
And this thing is not a luxury hotel or shape headquarters or anything magnificent like that.
That is the China National Gene Bank, where institutions like BGI, Beijing Genomics Institute, does much of their...
Work in Shenzhen, China, just over the border from Hong Kong.
Not much of this research is racially particular, although some of it is.
That is.
I just copied a piece here.
And inevitably, deeper understanding of the genetic architecture of the behavior, intelligence, personality traits, and of race differences in that architecture will emerge.
As a byproduct of this research.
And by the way, it's not only in China that this work is proceeding.
Nor is it only in big, rich nations.
The 4.7 million strong Irish population will soon be under the genomic microscope.
They're going to have one of those huge installation gene bank type things.
For Ireland.
If this was a British crowd, I could make an Irish joke at this point.
Irish jokes in England are like Polish jokes in America.
I'll do my best to resist the temptation.
Thank you.
Hold still there, Bridget.
I just want to take down your jeans.
Michael, away with your filthy talk.
See, Jared frowning.
"What, I can't tell an ethnic joke at American Renaissance?"
And also on the future of race denominations, it's harder than we thought.
I boast of having a low party number.
I don't know if you know this expression.
When the Communist Party was a new thing.
In America, that would be in the 1920s.
People who joined very early had a low party number, and that was kind of a status symbol in their set, in their crowd.
If you joined the party early when it was out of conviction, before the people started joining because it was fashionable, you had a low party number.
Well, I have a low party number in HBD, human biodiversity.
I think I was one of the founder members of Steve Saylor's HBD discussion group on the Internet.
In the late 1990s.
So I have a low party number on human biodiversity.
And there was a young geneticist in that group who used to assure us, this is, you know, 20 years ago, he used to assure us, we're going to crack the human genome any moment now, any day now, we'll know the genetic architecture of intelligence,
personality, behavior, we'll know it any time now.
Well, that young man...
Has made a fortune for himself in genetics.
He actually co-owns a company doing genetic sequencing.
But he was a little premature with his promise.
But that's no excuse for race denialism because as that young man says, you don't need to know the name and job description of every worker in the factory to know that the factory produces widgets.
So you don't need to know the precise genetic architecture down to the individual gene to know that there are genetic differences.
And here's one of them.
Nations of the world by mean IQ.
I like that.
I like that quote.
You can hit people with that when they say, oh, you don't know how the genes work.
No, we don't know how all the genes work, but you don't need to know.
Some of it you can do from the other end.
Examining the end product.
Continuing, the future of race denialism.
I'm quoting myself here.
Is HBD over?
You can read that for yourself.
It's on VDAIR.
I'm a pessimist.
I'm sorry.
I point to the power with which the human mind resists science.
When the boffins deliver some irresistible amenity, a drug, a plane, a light switch, There is grudging acceptance that the underlying principles must have some epistemic content.
In other cases, nobody's convinced.
46% of Americans deny the truth of evolution.
Scientific thinking, there are a number of books written about this.
Scientific thinking is a very unnatural way of thinking, and people resist it naturally.
The normal modes, I'm going to quote myself again from We Are Doomed.
The normal modes of human thought are magical, religious, social, and personal.
We want our wishes to come true.
We want the universe to care about us.
We want to keep our status in the various groups we belong to.
And we want to get even with that son of a bitch who dissed us at the last tribal council.
Scientific inquiry doesn't just fit in there anyway.
It's an unnatural way of thinking.
Might race denialism go away?
Well, I wouldn't bet on it.
Look, we have sex denialism.
Here's an academic.
An academic speaks.
You can actually see this on the internet.
You can see him saying this, and he's a tenured professor.
Basically, it is not correct that there is such a thing as biological sex.
Well, if you can deny sex, what about human nature can you not deny?
So I'm sorry, but I'm going to end on a pessimistic note.
I'm not optimistic.
I think the guerrillas will be with us forever, and they will gain in strength and power.
Ultimately, Probably truth will prevail, but it's going to be a long wait.
Longer than our young friend in Steve's group told us 20 years ago.
Longer than that.
I doubt I shall live to see the human sciences and the social sciences properly infused with race realism and with genetic realism at large.
I doubt I'll live to see that.
They're going to resist, and they're going to resist successfully.
We're still in the Maquis.
The human mind just resists things unless it's something as obvious as a plane or a light switch.
It just resists science and the fruits of science.
And there's Lewis Carroll saying the same thing.
Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you.
Hi. I agree with some of your doom.
Since multiculturalists are already committed to the idea that cultural diversity is real on some level, unless you say something negative, then you're a racist.
How about using cultural diversity as a proxy for race?
So, for example, saying, as a culturist, I say, we have a culture and a right to defend it.
And that includes...
How about using that angle to protect the race without discussing race if you're pessimistic about people believing in race?
Well, in the first place, because that well has been poisoned.
One of my slides showed Franz Boas, the early 20th century anthropologist, Developed a devoted clique of students who took over most of the social sciences and substituted culture as an all-encompassing explanation for everything.
Everything was culture.
In my book, We Are Doomed, I call this culturalism, not to be confused with John's book about culturism.
Now, if you talk to people about race differences, they say, oh, it's nothing biological, it's just a difference in culture.
Culture has become the all-encompassing explanation for any kind of group differences.
So, when you try to do what you're doing, you're just sort of...
I don't want to say you're going over to their side, but you're ceding ground to them.
You're saying, yes, it is...
It is just cultural.
There is no such thing as race.
There are no biological differences.
And that's not true.
I think I'm old-fashioned, and I believe that we should cleave to the truth and speak the truth.
Thank you.
Just sorry, but as a cultist, I do not believe that there are no biological differences, just that we can manipulate culture more.
We cannot manipulate race very well.
Thank you.
So I just wanted to say I really like your presentation.
Thank you.
And I was wondering, so there is a past and a future, but what do you think caused the flip from realism to denialism?
Like, what do you think is the underlying cause of that?
Again, I would recommend everybody to read Carl Degler's book, if you want to know that.
He shows how...
Biologism, that is the attributing of social outcomes in part to biology, how that waxed through the 19th century and then waned as these scholars like Bastian and Boas and Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict,
all their followers, as they took over the social sciences.
Biology was pushed into the background.
With World War II and the kind of race science pushed by the German National Socialists, biology was getting a really bad press.
I don't quite agree with Peter Brimelow that it was all Hitler's revenge.
Hitler's revenge was certainly a factor, but the trend towards denying biology was going strong in the 1920s and 1930s in the human sciences.
So it wasn't all Hitler's revenge.
Why was it going strong then?
I'm not sure.
I think a lot of it was just powerful, charismatic scholars, notably Boas, gathering around themselves a clique of admiring followers who then educated their own students and formed...
Who was it?
Max Planck said that old theories give way to new theories when the bearers of the old theories die off.
Progress proceeds funeral by funeral.
Well, something similar like that.
If somebody gets a bad idea, like everything is down to culture, and he's a charismatic person, and he can attract a coterie of followers, He can make a tremendous difference, and I think that's probably most of what happened.
Also, as I said, it's just the natural human resistance.
It's easier for ordinary people to talk about culture than it is to talk about biology and genetics, which is difficult.
If you don't think it's difficult, get that book I recommended, Population Genetics, Hartle and Clark.
It's difficult.
And waffling about culture and South Sea Islanders and this, It's a whole lot easier.
Thank you.
All right.
So I absolutely loved your talk.
I agreed with the part about focus on intelligence.
Too much of a focus on that might be counterproductive, and the BIP thing I agree with.
I have some comments on the article about Adam Rutherford.
I was actually in university a couple of years ago when he wrote it, and there was a class where the professor was saying, you know, there's a correlation between poor countries and corruption, and why...
Poor countries have so much corruption.
And I said, like, well, maybe it has something to do with evolution and genetics.
And lo and behold, I got a link, an email from him a few days later with a link to this Adam Rutherford article.
And one of the things he didn't mention, but Adam Rutherford, he wrote that Charles Darwin, first he sung up the praises of Charles Darwin to the high heavens.
And then he said that Darwin did not think that human races were separate subspecies.
When in The Descent of Man, he wrote that human...
Humans had diverged into distinct subspecies.
Yes, the Guardian actually published a correction on that.
Yeah, and I actually wrote in to the Guardian and said this.
Ah, okay.
And first they ignored it.
It's like so obvious it's black and white.
So I wrote in again and I got a little grumpy with them and finally they corrected it.
But the broader point I'm making is like why would...
Like Adam Rutherford doesn't care about fact and fiction.
Like he's saying...
Charles Darwin basically is a race denialist, and you point out, well, no, actually, he was a race realist.
Well, that doesn't...
If his argument is wrong, it should take away from the conclusion he reaches, and it doesn't one bit for him.
And there's also a gentleman from The Guardian here.
The Guardian promised that Adam Rutherford would get back to me, and I'm still waiting for that, so if the gentleman would want to tell him Rutherford, I'm still waiting for his comment.
So that's all I really have, and I don't really have a question to comment.
Yes. One of the first things you can do to point out, if you hit a race denialist, you can point out that the foundational text of the modern biological sciences, Darwin's On the Origin of Species, actually has the subtitle,
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
Now, okay, On the Origin of Species does not concern human beings.
It concerns the vegetable and the rest of the animal kingdom.
But it's right there in the title, favored races.
Races are local varieties.
That's all they are.
Yeah. Thank you.
I recently heard the phrase, tens of thousands of years of divergent evolution.
Now, how would a race-denialist academic argue that tens of thousands of years of divergent evolution Would produce exact BIP characteristics.
How could you possibly make that argument if you were a race denialist?
Well, you have to be a liar.
I mean, it's...
APPLAUSE APPLAUSE
Darwin saw sea anemones on the eastern side of the...
The Panama Isthmus.
And then he saw the same sea anemones on the western side and they were different.
And he thought, ah, so maybe this Isthmus wasn't always here.
Maybe these were the same species at some point.
Now they got separated and they've diverged.
It's what biology is all about.
And I don't know what to say to people who deny that.
Usually, when there is not some spiritual aspect, when they're not denying it for some particular religious reason, I think it's just political, excuse my being blunt,
CYA, if you're an academic.
If you're a social science academic, or even in a lot of the human sciences.
At some of the biological sciences, you have to say this stuff.
The American Anthropological Association has a mission statement that says it.
There's no such thing as race.
No, no such thing.
Figment of your imagination.
What? It's political, I'm afraid.
Yes, sir?
Actually, there is genetic evidence for your BIPs.
There is...
Correlation with your human accomplishment and IQ map of the world in that Europe has haplogroups that are longer and more organized than Africa.
So does East Asia, but in this case they're longer and organized in a different way.
So this is already genetic evidence that your BIPs are real and that they're...
Evidenced in the human genome.
And this is just beginning, but it's already out there.
Yes, that's quite true.
The problem is measuring.
To speak about anything scientifically, you have to be able to quantify it.
And it's very difficult to quantify behavior and personality.
Intelligence you can.
I think IQ tests do a pretty good job.
Personality is different.
Because really the only way to get at it is to ask a person to fill out.
You can do some of these.
They're on the internet.
Harvard has one, the IAT, Implicit Association Test.
You can do these personality tests, but they're asking you to evaluate yourself.
For example, you can fake a personality.
It's very difficult to fake an IQ test.
You can fake yourself dumber than you are.
You know, if you're headed for the chair and you want to prove that you only have an IQ of 65, you can do that if that should ever happen to you.
But you can't fake yourself to be smarter than you are.
But with a personality test, especially if you have a psychopathic personality, you can fool it.
And this conundrum has never really...
They've got much better.
Personality tests are now better than they were 20 years ago.
But it's still very hard to quantify personality.
And behavior, well, you can do it on a broad scale by looking at things like criminality and so on.
But again, and, an acknowledgement here to John, and there are cultural differences.
If you're doing a personality questionnaire and you're Japanese, and it says, do you think other people believe you have a strong personality?
Well, a Japanese person might not want other people to think he has a strong personality.
It's a very group-oriented culture.
Whereas, you know, somebody in West Africa might think, yeah, I'm the alpha male around here.
It's a different, very difficult to quantify.
But, yeah, we're starting to get a handle on that.
I mean, I was intending to ask two questions, but if there's only one more, then I'll ask.
What should we say, those of us who are race realists, what should we say to people, like, those compassionate, kind of more fair-minded people who, like, who would, like, they basically say that if you just give everybody the same environment and the same opportunities,
then they would achieve the same thing, and they don't want to believe that there are innate kind of genetic differences that affect people's achievement.
What would you say to convince people like that?
Just look them in the eye and tell them the truth, that science, of which there is now plenty, plenty, plenty, does not bear that out.
And refer them to some standard texts that tell you that, that it's just not true, that different people under the same environmental circumstances will deliver the same outcomes.
Or just tell them to look around the world.
Haiti is Haiti.
You know?
Korea is Korea.
Well, Korea is two Koreas, but they're both very smart.
People always like to bring up North Korea as an example.
Ah, you see, they're genetically the same, but totally different societies.
Yeah, and North Korea has the atom bomb.
▲
Export Selection