I started this blog exactly one year ago and I tried to publish a post a week for at least a year. The year has now concluded and I almost matched my goal. In the final months I couldn’t quite keep up the frequency so we are still a few posts short to match the number of weeks in a year.
The motivation for the blog was to publish investigations and thoughts into HBD. Human Bio-Diversity is an important topic that explains big parts of the geopolitical picture of economic and scientific progress as well social dynamics, crime and education within countries. It is, however, so villified that I couldn’t easily trust existing sources. My own independent investigations and ideas seemed worth publishing.
Given that I analysed a lot of data before I actually started the blog and then also proceeded to put out the most interesting ideas as quickly as possible, it is maybe inevitable that I couldn’t keep up the quality of earlier posts. Analysing original data takes a lot of time, with no interesting result guaranteed. Instead, when time was short I made do with „Random thoughts“.
I would have preferred to stick with data and scientific and mathematical ideas. „Random thoughts“ veered too easily into the political realm and if not seen in the context of pushback against increasingly woke discourse also might give a distorted impression of my persuasions.
Readership has been low, with little effort of mine to drive it up. Feedback has been very complimentary.
I am unsure about the future of the blog. On the one hand I hate quitting. On the other hand I should probably put this effort into one of my many other fields of interest, where I can actually reap some personal and professional benefit. A wise course of action would probably be to relax my publishing schedule. Given that I haven’t inspired much of a dedicated following, this also doesn’t disappoint anybody. However, it is unclear to me at the moment whether publishing once a month is actually easier than once per week. Maybe I’ll just post more ad libitum whenever I have something interesting to discuss.
Chanda Chisala has been challenging the hereditarian hypothesis in a series of posts ,,. These posts deserve to be taken seriously because he doesn’t engage in name-calling, which is the usual way to attack hereditarian positions, but instead provides data that seems to run counter to the assumption that differences in cognitive ability between racial groups are to a significant part due to genetic endowment.
His posts are nonetheless on the polemic side and he likes to set up and knock down strawmen that don’t do justice to a more sophisticated hereditarian position. Firstly, he likes to conflate measured IQ and genetic IQ insinuating that hereditarians think the genetic IQ ob Subsaharan Africans is only 70, because this is the average IQ of Subsaharan Countries in several databases curated by Lynn, Vahanen, Becker or Rindermann. Secondly, he claims that the hereditarian position is that African Americans IQ of 85 significantly above 70 is due to white admixture. And thirdly, he doesn’t seem to allow for any differences between African countries, despite the fact that Africa is famously genetically diverse and measured IQ varies quite a bit between African Countries.
In actual fact, white admixture can at most explain a four point boost to African American IQ. This puts the average 100% African African American IQ at roughly 80. Which can be taken as close to the „genetic“ IQ, because African Americans live under first world conditions, in fact have better living conditions than many European countries. This still doesn’t mean that the average Subsaharan African genetic IQ has to be 80, but it is much more reasonable estimate than 70. Adoption studies likewise show that around half of the IQ difference to first world countries is due to environmental deprivation.
In Europe, which is much less genetically diverse than Africa (or apparently Iran, or a random Indian village), IQ differences between ethnic groups can be up to a standard deviation in size (1 stddev = 15 points). So assuming any fixed value for genetic IQ to hold in all Subsaharan ethnic groups is absurd. In Nigeria for example there is massive affirmative action to boost university participation of the Northern tribes (for example the Fulani), while Igbo and Yoruba have to perform on a much higher level to get a place at a university. The economic divergence between the backward North and the more developed South hints at a IQ difference of at least a standard deviation. This observation alone would justify the assumption that some Subsaharan ethnic groups have genetic IQs at least in the high eighties or low nineties.
Chanda Chisala’s two arguments are that a) the world class performance of Africans in the mental sport scrabble rules out a low genetic IQ and b) the kids of some groups of African immigrants outperforming white schoolchildren in the UK does likewise.
As I have already argued in this blogpost , to see that Africans can outperform other ethnic groups at the manipulation of words you don’t have to look at scrabble. Rap music would suffice. Not every cognitive task is strongly g-loaded. The evidence seems to show that Africans overperform their IQ in certain types of sequential processing (i.e. verbal and musical abilities, see stand-up comedians, musicians, etc), while NE-asians underperform in these tasks . In many endeavors, being extremely self-confident, quick, having great verbal abilities and a reasonable high IQ will trump having an extraordinarily high IQ.
For the UK schoolchildren the only question is whether the results can be explained by the explanation that explains most seeming deviations from hereditarian expectations: Sampling. Is it plausible that some African immigrants to the UK are so strongly selected, that their children have IQs above 100?
According to statistics unearthed by Greg Cochran roughly 60% of all Nigerian immigrants to the UK had a tertiary education . Given that university students are selected by standardized testing that qualifies a certain percentile of each ethnic group and given that only 2-5% of modern Nigerians manage to qualify for university, this puts a Nigerian university student roughly 2 standard deviations out from the mean of his ethnic group in standardized testing.
If we assume a genetic IQ in the high 80ies or low 90ies for Igbo, Yoruba or other high-performing groups and we take a regression towards the mean of roughly 50% into account, we would expect Nigerian children in the UK to perform one standard deviation above the genetic IQ of their ethnic group. This is easily enough to close the gap to an IQ of 100 and above. Interestingly Chisala puts the average gap compared to natives for all African immigrant children in the UK (not just the high performing ones) at 7 points. If we assume that the selection is equally strong across the board and we add a standard deviation to these 7 points, we are again at a genetic IQ of roughly 80 as a Subsaharan average. So for now, Chisala’s interesting data does little to make me question the hereditarian hypothesis.
It is unclear whether Google’s AGI moonshot subsidiary Deepmind is as wokefied as Google itself. Judging by recent blogposts „Strengthening the AI community“ and „Causal Bayesian Networks“ they are not far off. „Strengthening the AI community“ is about including members from underrepresented groups into AI research, despite the reason for the underrepresentation being that very few member of these groups show the ability to contribute to top research.
„Causal Bayesian Networks – a flexible tool to enable fairer machine learning“ is potentially much more sinister than that. It basically describes a tool to introduce ideological biases into machine learning models. To quote from a figure caption: „Figure 2b: In the second scenario, female applicants apply to departments with low acceptance rates due to systemic historical or cultural pressures, and therefore the path G —>D is considered unfair (as a consequence, the path D —>A becomes partially unfair).
Of course whether this is the case „requires expert knowledge“.
Open AI – the other big outfit stating AGI as the explicit goal and actually producing ground breaking research plays a very similar tune. Its Open AI scholars – a mentored internship of sorts – have the key qualification of not being white men.
These tries to increase diversity in AI come with the expressed goal of bringing many more people to the table in a future where AI or even AGI has a huge impact on how the world is run. In the extreme case a superintelligent machine would be created that is imbued with certain values and due to its vastly superior intellect starts calling the shots.
The values chosen to be imparted on this machine, if such a thing is even safely possible, are supposed to be representative of all of mankind. And not just a small subset of white men, who for some reason seem to always be the ones to create steam engines, cars, nitrogen fixation, airplanes, nuclear bombs, antibiotics, computers and maybe finally also AGI.
When this topic is brought to the table I always wonder whether this is just completely politically motivated or whether they actually believe this to be a sensible idea. I mean, let’s assume you have certain values, for example female emancipation, liberal democracy and the scientific worldview. And you are about to create an AGI that will make sure that the arc of history will bend towards the values it is seeded with.
Now, if you bring other people with other values to the table you are going to have to make compromises. Female emancipation, yes, but not for Saudis. Liberal democracy, ok, but uploaded Putin will be Russian Zar forever. A scientific worldview only inasmuch as it doesn’t conflict with various religious dogmas.
I only see two reasons why somebody would honestly propose to bring in lots of other people to figure out the values by which the future will be built.
Either they think that their values are self-evidently correct and everybody else will fall in line. In which case, A) they are wrong and B) why bring them to the table at all? That’s just an empty gesture.
Or they are cultural relativists and honestly believe that other peoples values are just as valid and good as their values. Which of course means that they don’t have any values.
Often it will be a mixture of the two enabled by muddled thinking. This is especially clear when the people with different, but just as good or even better values, are future generations. Here, the argument is being made that locking in certain values by seeding a superintelligent machines with them is a horrible thing, because it doesn’t allow future generations to develop their own set of values.
Proponents of this argument seem to imagine that future generations will be wiser and nicer than we are and that all value differences are consequently going to be of the variety that if confronted with a well-argued version of the new values we immediately understand that we are wrong (we kind of deep down knew it all along).
In this case I would argue there wasn’t really a value difference. Just possibly deeper understanding or clearer thinking.
They never seem to take the possibility into account that future generations develop into a less benign direction. Maybe they begin to see the benefits of slavery, cannibalism and genocidal warfare. If you think we should program the AGI to avoid these directions, than you don’t really believe that it is horrible to lock the future humanity into one set of values.
To bring this full circle let’s take a look at OpenAI’s company outing. Employees together with significant others, possibly family members as well. You will find some Indians, quite a few North-East-Asians and a lot of white men.
In sports we often have incredibly dominant athletes, that for a while make it very clear who is on top. In chess that is particularly noticeable with Carlsen topping the rating list for almost ten years now, Kasparov before him being head and shoulders above everyone else and many other champions enjoying long undisputed reigns (Karpov, Casablanca) or at least short extremely dominant stretches (Alekhine, Fischer).
But the same holds for many other sports as well. Federer, Klitschko, Tiger Woods, Carl Lewis, etc. etc. I recently realized that this is at least partly a direct consequence of abilities being normally distributed. In a normal distribution the number of athletes within an ability bucket of a certain size drops exponentially the farther out from the mean you look. Intuitively this means that the top athlete might get his very own bucket, while the preceding bucket is already filled with, let’s say, ten rivals. Consequently the average distance to the next best athlete must be exponentially smaller the closer you get to the mean.
This exponentially bigger distance to the next best rival is what we call dominance. Counterintuitively this entails that the stronger the competition in a given sport the more dominant the top athlete is likely to be. Simply because the top in a very competitive field is going to be farther out from the mean. Of course this mathematical relationship doesn’t hold as strongly in teams sports. In teams sports dominance is more likely to result from winner-takes-all dynamics.
I Modern dating apps and sites have given us data to quantify differences in mate choice between men and women. Specifically, female hypergamy, that is the preference of women to date the highest status men, can now be observed in hard data. It turns out that average man is really not attractive to the average women. Instead 80% of the women chase after 20% of the men. This is in itself worrisome if one regards falling birth rates and disenfranchised men as a problem.
II It is also the reason why I think polyamory would be a very bad social norm. Polyamory is the habit or norm of having multiple partners at the same time. Its proponents argue that it would solve the disenfranchised men’s problem, because they could still become secondary or tertiary partners. Why women would want a secondary or tertiary partner that is not attractive to them is anybodies guess. Instead polyamory solves the problem for the female conundrum: Suddenly the attractive 20% of the men can be available to 80% of the women.
III In the end polyamory makes the mating market more efficient. Just like dating apps or dating sites. Unfortunately, making the mating market more efficient just means that the messed up female preferences make life miserable for both men and women.
I Bloggers like HBDchick and increasingly mainstream scientist and authors argue that the unusual history of (partly Church mandated) outbreeding, certain societal structures / customs and the steady replacement of the lower classes by the middle class has changed Europeans genetically to exhibit higher intelligence, more moral behavior induced by a stronger propensity for guilt, less nepotism, less violence and more empathy, altruism and trust for strangers than basically any non-European ethnicity. This is the putative origin of the WEIRD psychology.
II I don’t know to which degree this is correct, but it is definitely not a non-starter. One can leverage a lot of data to show the trait differences of WEIRDoes compared to the rest of the world. There is some data to imply a genetic cause of the observed differences and the evolutionary stories at least sound somewhat plausible.
III Now HBDchick is likely a lovely person with no bad intent, but her work can of course be used to argue for some form of white supremacy. This, however, quickly leads to a funny contradiction, which seems to me to be the central contradiction of white supremacy: Along every dimension white supremacists are more like the rest of the world and less like the WEIRD.
IV They are less intelligent, to a degree that the right generally has a recognizable human capital problem. They abhor the „pathological“ altruism exhibited by their co-ethnics. They are certainly more violent and would have a hard time to argue for moral superiority. One could go so far as to say that Western leftism is exactly the quintessence of what makes Europeans different from the rest of the world!
In a Q&A a few years back, Jordan Peterson opined that there are 6 or 7 bad trends, which if unchecked could lead to very bad things. I’m paraphrasing, I don’t remember the exact words. But I would have loved to get the opportunity to ask him which trends he was talking about. The picture of seven bad trends stayed with me and occasionally I try to come up with my own list.
Following the scientific and technological progress in fields like AI, genomics and spacefaring closely, can leave the strong impression that mankind is quite close to making very big strides. Strides that would take us to a position from which our current problems are (easily) solvable.
I call that „reaching escape velocity“. The point where our technological and scientific acumen accumulates faster than our problems compound.
Of course when you are sitting in a rattling box of metal that accelerates into the impenetrable mist ahead, it is very unclear whether you are ever going to reach escape velocity. Maybe you’ll crash and burn instead. Or just sort of putter out.
Climate change can serve as a stand-in for all kinds of environmental degradation and resource exhaustion. Mass migration and birth rate collapse together lead to a population turn-over in the countries that historically have been the engine of scientific and technological growth.
This alone might stall the global growth machine, but on top of it there is dysgenic decline going on in almost all countries at the rate of probably 1 IQ point per generation possibly more. That the ongoing population replacement also engenders ethnic conflict only makes it more likely that the Western world will not be able to continue to drive innovation.
It is unclear how much automation already plays a role. We can also use it as a stand-in for all economic forces that squeeze the little man. So far mostly globalisation. Next to the population replacement this is the other big driver of political polarization. Which ultimately feeds into ethnic conflict. On the one hand because almost all violent group conflict is between ethnic groups and on the other hand because very concretely left wokeness is largely based on ethnic hate and the right-wing reaction to it is no stranger to racism either to put it mildly.