OK, so which prominent "Liberal intellectuals" have claimed that "People are equal in their capacities, capabilities or inclinations." I've not heard any myself. — Pseudonym

The position that people are equal in their capacities, capabilities and inclinations is implicit in any drive to equality of outcome. It's not actually often explicitly stated, because it's so obviously stupid.

For example, a big one today would be the gender pay gap; but any form of affirmative action, or move to proportionate representation in a field, presupposes that the sole cause of imbalance in group representation must necessarily be some sort of intrinsically wonky social structure or biased ("racist," "sexist") social circumstances ("white privilege"), even when no actual, verifiable racists or sexists or privileged white people can be found doing anything wrong or obstructive.

But all that goes out the window if it's simply a fact that (to take the racial angle) Jews are on average smarter than Asians, who are on average smarter than Whites, who are on average smarter than Browns, who are on average smarter than Blacks, and if these groups on average have strongly-genetically-influenced inclinations to different kinds of social interaction, different reproductive strategies, different political preferences, different preferences for how they spend their time, different capacities for deferred gratification, different proclivities in relation to violence, etc., etc.

I see, what constitutes an attempt, in your view? — Pseudonym

Oh "you see" do you? :)

Start with, oh I don't know, the hullabaloo against the Bell Curve and Charles Murray, and work your way down to the contemporary kerfuffles on American campuses re. conservative speakers, Alt Right speakers, etc.. You're not living that sheltered a life are you? ;)

If you have perchance been living in an igloo at the North Pole without access to media or the internet for the past 30 years or so, a good starting point would be the work of Jonathan Haidt on the current horrendously biased state of the academy. Other thinkers who are also center-Left or independent, whose investigations have led them to similar conclusions would be Steven Pinker and Sam Harris. (The Right of course has been banging on about this for decades - a recent famous public figure who's center-Right who rails against what I'm talking about would be Jordan Peterson. Other starting points would be Thomas Sowell, and further to the Right Ben Shapiro, David Horowitz and others along similar lines.)

Start with, oh I don't know, the hullabaloo against the Bell Curve and Charles Murray, and work your way down to the contemporary kerfuffles on American campuses re. conservative speakers, Alt Right speakers, etc.. You're not living that sheltered a life are you? — gurugeorge

That book is demonstrably racist. See:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-real-problem-with-charles-murray-and-the-bell-curve/

That book is demonstrably racist. See:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-real-problem-with-charles-murray-and-the-bell-curve/ — Posty McPostface

Well-poisoning, ad hominem twaddle.

But all that goes out the window if it's simply a fact that (to take the racial angle) Jews are on average smarter than Asians, who are on average smarter than Whites, who are on average smarter than Browns, who are on average smarter than Blacks, and if these groups on average have strongly-genetically-influenced inclinations to different kinds of social interaction, different reproductive strategies, different political preferences, different preferences for how they spend their time, different capacities for deferred gratification, different proclivities in relation to violence, etc., etc. — gurugeorge

Right, so where's the incontrovertible evidence you talked about?

All you've done is listed books and thinkers who've commented on these abhorrently racists and sexist ideas, give me examples of where someone has attempted to "silence" them. Not 'disagree' with them, not say that they are not welcome on private property, not tell them that their language breaches rules of a private company who has every right to set whatever rules they like. Actually attempting to silence them.

As far as I can see,

'The Bell Curve' is freely available on Amazon.

Jonathan Haidt is frequently published, still holds his professional position and has several influential roles in academia.

Steven Pinker and Sam Harris are both tenured academics whose books are freely available and who are frequently published and cited in academic literature.

Jordan Peterson maintains his academic position, he's barely off the television these days and YouTube is littered with his obnoxious ranting.

Thomas Sowell is currently Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, he writes columns for Forbes and has several published books and papers in free circulation.

The Ben Shapiro podcast is downloaded 10 million times each month. Ben Shapiro's ban from DePaul was the result of an incident with a previous incendiary speaker in which two people stormed the stage. If you're seriously suggesting that two people constitute a mass conspiracy, then you're more paranoid than I thought.

David Horowitz is editor of a publish, wide circulation magazine, author of several books still in print and his foundation still sponsors events on campuses across the US.

So where is all this silencing you're going on about?

But all that goes out the window if it's simply a fact that (to take the racial angle) Jews are on average smarter than Asians, who are on average smarter than Whites, who are on average smarter than Browns, who are on average smarter than Blacks, and if these groups on average have strongly-genetically-influenced inclinations to different kinds of social interaction, different reproductive strategies, different political preferences, different preferences for how they spend their time, different capacities for deferred gratification, different proclivities in relation to violence, etc., etc. — gurugeorge

So, I'm not going to directly deny any of this because I think it is technically true. BUT, and this is a big caveat in the reading of any of this research, how can you say a difference in IQ isn't entirely an environment creation. Humans have not had the time nor show any anatomical differences in their brain to back up any of these supposed changes genetically. As far as I can tell the 5 human races show slight differences in outward appearance but would not have had the time to undergo speciation. My point is, Homo sapiens sapiens, is the classification humans have as a species. How are any of those differences relevant in a interconnected and constantly mixing world? It would be like observing North Koreans are on average shorter than South Koreans. Then concluding that there is something genetic that makes it so without looking at the evidence of the environment ( in this case malnutrition as children ).

Note: I did not actually find "The Bell Curve" to be racist. It is an observation, but that doesn't mean anything without context. The same way the height of Koreans only makes sense in context. Whites in Rural Areas have a lower IQ than Whites in Suburban Areas (taking into account the Flynn Effect). Why do you think that is? Would you say Rural Whites are less intelligent than Suburban Whites? Or is that environment? If yes, why isn't that also the case for all the other races?

Right, so where's the incontrovertible evidence you talked about? — Pseudonym

Why are you sneaking "incontrovertible" in here? I didn't use the concept.

All you've done is listed books and thinkers who've commented on these abhorrently racists and sexist ideas, give me examples of where someone has attempted to "silence" them. — Pseudonym

https://www.thecollegefix.com/bulletin-board/professor-injured-charles-murray-melee-ignorant-colleagues-tried-shut-us/

https://www.thefire.org/cases/?limit=all

Why are you sneaking "incontrovertible" in here? I didn't use the concept. — gurugeorge

Because without it being incontrovertible, it is you who are attempting to shut down debate. If it's not incontrovertible, then it is just informed opinion. Why are people who have a different informed opinion to you deserving of "contempt" exactly?

And some minor college sub-rules and a handful of scuffles do not constitute an attempt to "silence" the thinkers you mention. In fact none of them were involved in any of the cases you cite, so I will ask again, where is your evidence that any of the thinkers you have listed have had any serious attempts made to "silence" them?

BUT, and this is a big caveat in the reading of any of this research, how can you say a difference in IQ isn't entirely an environment creation. — yatagarasu

The consensus seems to be that variance has varying degrees of genetic vs. environmental causes - for example with political preferences, the variance is around 40-50% heritable, with intelligence something like 60-70% heritable. The usual source for these kinds of claims are twin studies and other types of behavioural genetics studies. Obviously environmental factors like nutrition and parental encouragement are extremely important, that's factored in to these kinds of studies.

How are any of those differences relevant in a interconnected and constantly mixing world? — yatagarasu

Races come from longish periods of relative isolation (usually by geography) - they were mostly formed in a span anywhere from tens of thousands of years to a few hundred thousands of years.

it is you who are attempting to shut down debate. — Pseudonym

Now you're just being silly.

And some minor college sub-rules and a handful of scuffles do not constitute an attempt to "silence" the thinkers you mention. — Pseudonym

They're pretty major and intimidating to the people who were subjected to them.

The thinkers I mentioned, I mentioned (as a hopefully educational response to your question "what constitutes an attempt?") as people who were starting to broach the subject in the public arena, not necessarily people who had themselves been subjected to attempts at silencing or harassment (although some of them have - for example Ben Shapiro has had recent troubles).

Well-poisoning, ad hominem twaddle. — gurugeorge

Know your fallacies; stating a book is clearly racist isn't an ad hominem or poisoning the well. If you would make a racist comment and I'd say "that's a racist comment" I'm not making an ad hominem attack or poisoning the well. In fact, the implied argument is still not a fallacy:

1. Racist people make racist comments and write racist books.
2. Charles Murray wrote a racist book.
3. Therefore, Charles Murray is a racist.

That's an entirely valid argument.

Now, an ad hominem looks like this:

1. Charles Murray argues that IQ score data shows that blacks have lower IQs.
2. He would say that because he's a racist.
3. Therefore IQ score data doesn't show that blacks have lower IQs.

Can you spot the differences?

They're pretty major and intimidating to the people who were subjected to them. — gurugeorge

Good, that was the intention I think. If you're going to spout some racist bullshit dressed up as some socio-political theory, then you'd best be prepared for some pretty intimidating displays of hatred. People do, quite fairly, hate that stuff. It's caused not only years of violent oppression in America, South Africa an India, but also the deaths of six million Jews. I think a few scuffles is an extremely polite response in the circumstances.

1. Racist people make racist comments and write racist books.
2. Charles Murray wrote a racist book.
3. Therefore, Charles Murray is a racist.

That's an entirely valid argument. — Benkei

While that clearly isn't ad hominem, and it may also have some inductive validity, it is deductively invalid. Benkei may have meant the first premise to read something like "Only racist people make racist comments and write racist books." In that case, it would be deductively valid.

Thanks for fixing that.

I agree with a lot of the people who have responded, who stated that yes, the USA does have a problem with anti-intellectualism, but so do many other countries as well. In the USA, we have some nutters, who have gained some political power, since our current president is both a science-denier and an advocate for conspiracy theories. Yet, I see nuts like David Icke, who is British; Ken Ham is a nut in America, but he came from Australia, Jim Carey is a nutty anti-vaxxer, but he was raised and educated in Canada. I can go on, but anyone who thinks this is solely an American problem is not paying attention. Every one of us who believes in liberty, science, reason, needs to join together in this fight against those who seem all too willing to burn civilization to the ground based on purely idiotic ideas.

The consensus seems to be that variance has varying degrees of genetic vs. environmental causes - for example with political preferences, the variance is around 40-50% heritable, with intelligence something like 60-70% heritable. The usual source for these kinds of claims are twin studies and other types of behavioural genetics studies. Obviously environmental factors like nutrition and parental encouragement are extremely important, that's factored in to these kinds of studies. — gurugeorge

How does that make any sense? How would a brain that is anatomically no different and still classified as modern human be any less or more intelligent genetically? Hunt, Earl (2010). Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press, and Mackintosh, N. J. (2011). IQ and Human Intelligence (second ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press both agreed that there are no genes identified with general intelligence, mainly socio-economic aspects. Also a heitability of 1 would not mean that it is 100% heritable as this picture illustrates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#/media/File:Heritability_plants.jpeg

I'm mainly against it because it makes no sense over that short of a time. Humans are physically different but they have maintained similar brain structures. That should tell you all you need to know about the heritability vs environment argument. This doesn't mean that IQ is 100% environmental, which means we may find genes but the differences don't see to be that significant. (as many peer reviewed studies are have articulated)

Races come from longish periods of relative isolation (usually by geography) - they were mostly formed in a span anywhere from tens of thousands of years to a few hundred thousands of years. — gurugeorge

Yes. I am aware. First of all, the timetables don't seem to be large enough to explain the IQ differences for genotypic variation. Second, those barriers have been broken and are obsolete at this point. People are mating from all walks of life and races, so any genetic "differences" (if they exist) will be irrelevant in this globalized world.

Charles Murray is a racist though. And his work was so over-the-top unscientific, it's only still known because racists love it. Murray is a political scientist. That means he is completely unqualified to issue any statements regarding race, or on whether IQ scores reflect actual innate intelligence, and the relationship between the two. The facts are most geneticists believe races do not exist among humans, and for excellent reasons. There is also no evidence that IQ testing reveals any innate intelligence, because no one has yet to devise any question for an IQ test that does not depend on prior learning.

Murray is one of the fake libertarians, like Ron Paul, and Stephen Molyneaux, who just want to reduce the protection of civil rights, so small enclaves of racists can get together and persecute non-whites in their little utopian paradise. So, it's not a coincidence that they all love racist ideals, while claiming to belong to an ideology that considers racism unjustified "collectivism." It's a scam.

the point of establishing that blacks are stupid is to inform the intelligent white man not to procreate with blacks. Or something like that. I really have no clue what the point is every time this "other races are stupid" is brought up again. Unless we're planning on treating stupid people wildly different only then would it be interesting. Since that's never advanced the truth of the matter is totally uninteresting. So not only is it not true it is also totally irrelevant if it were. Those who do think it's relevant are mostly racists looking for ways of expressing their racism in acceptable ways, e.g. camouflaged as science. Kudos then to you for showing the falsity of those claims with actual science thereby laying bare racism.

Edit: also, we should all bone Jewish girls and get on with the creation of the ubermensch.

There is also no evidence that IQ testing reveals any innate intelligence, because no one has yet to devise any question for an IQ test that does not depend on prior learning. — LD Saunders

This is a strong argument to make. I don't think it's entirely true though. But, since IQ tests have little to no predictive power on anything else than education, then what's the point then? We already discriminate in the West based on the innate ability of some children who get into gifted programs or magnet schools.

Although, there is some merit to Murry's book. One standard deviation is equivalent to an increase in productivity by 1.5... So, as long as you guide the gifted child through the whole process of education, then your set.

But, I don't see the value in trying to produce more intelligent people, (yeah, eugenics existed in the US also) but rather focus on character traits which are more predictive and malleable on/of educational and economic success.

How would a brain that is anatomically no different and still classified as modern human be any less or more intelligent genetically? — yatagarasu

What on earth are you talking about?

similar brain structures. — yatagarasu

Similar but not identical, there are differences between individuals and average differences between racial/ethnic groups in terms of brain "build" that are subtle and slight, but make for relatively big differences in speed of problem solving, etc.

Our genes are "similar" to chimpanzees', but small differences at the genetic level make for big differences in body/brain structure. Same for intelligence. Depending on the "grain" of your investigation, you could truthfully say that the brain of Einstein and the brain of a moron are similar too. The similarity means they can both perform janitorial functions (for example), but the slight differences mean that only one of those two brains has the headroom to discover deep principles of physics.

Fine-grained investigation of the genetic basis for intelligence is proceeding apace in the current year.

this globalized world. — yatagarasu

The world isn't "globalized" in any meaningful sense genetically - there's a bit of miscegenation at the fringes due to globalization obviously, but there always was mixing at the edges to some extent (cross-border. cross-race trade and mixing isn't something new), and indeed that's what keeps the larger racial/ethnic gene pools healthy.

Well, negative Eugenics was based on a pseudoscience, not actual science, which is one of the reasons it failed so miserably. To the extent genetics is a cause for some trait, there are usually hundreds of genes, each providing a little impact, and how the genes work is also determined largely by the environment. So, unless you can have all people being raised in the same environment, you cannot select for genotypes based on phenotypes. Imagine if Einstein had been raised by drug addicts in a gang ridden neighborhood? His genes would have likely been weeded out of the gene pool, by a eugenics movement, despite the fact he may have been the greatest scientific mind of all time.

The thing is there are no races, so Murray could not have possibly known how to arbitrarily divide people into some so-called racial groups for classification. And IQ tests have varied widely over time with respect to the same group of people taking them. Look at how well newly arriving Jews from southern Europe did on IQ tests, compared to how well they do today? There is no way genetics could account for the difference in test scores.

What on earth are you talking about? — gurugeorge

I'm talking about that fact that there are no differences between the races. When I studied neuroscience I didn't have a section labeled "black brains", "white" brains, "asian" brains. Any minuscule differences do not matter as only populations evolve. Individuals do not. So if it was the case there would be something to see. There isn't.

There are no genes identified at this point that contribute to intelligence. I've already given you links as to why genetic hertibility does not prove anything. The fact that you are still waiting for evidence of a genetic basis for intelligence should say enough. I'm linking peer reviewed studies to back up my claims. Where is your evidence? I am completely open to changing my mind given enough evidence. I do concede that there is most likely a genetic implication to intelligence but it is nowhere near enough to explain the IQ differences.

The world isn't "globalized" in any meaningful sense genetically - there's a bit of miscegenation at the fringes due to globalization obviously, but there always was mixing at the edges to some extent (cross-border. cross-race trade and mixing isn't something new), and indeed that's what keeps the larger racial/ethnic gene pools healthy. — gurugeorge

It isn't? Could have fooled me! How do you explain the identical brains then? Speciation does not occur if boundaries are not significant. Did they trade or not? Did they have boundaries or not? Globalization just makes it even more impossible to maintain purity. Not to mention that the same humans that left Africa are the ones that made it Europe, Asia, and the Americas. We have genetic evidence that backs this up and nowhere enough time to see intelligence differentiate.

Take care. : )

There are no genes identified at this point that contribute to intelligence. — yatagarasu

Obviously people have varying degrees of innate intelligence, none of which would be identifiable by brain analysis. Even should I accept your conclusion regarding equality of intelligence among the races (a conclusion I'm not averse to), I can't see your implied argument holding that no two people (even of the same race) are congenitally smarter than others because no single intelligence gene nor specific brain structure has been identified to explain it.

My assumption is that we could not analyze muscular structure and determine the best tennis player, yet one person clearly will be superior. The question of tennis superiority is either innate or learned, but no amount of analysis of physical (including brain) structure will reveal it. That does not mean everyone is equal at tennis. It simply means that physical analysis of structure doesn't provide us the information we need.

I mean to say that it doesn't matter in the end. That these slightly difference between individuals is not significant enough to attribute to one race or another. In an ever connected world it serves no purpose but to divide us. The differences are not significant enough or important enough to discuss. I can take an Asian and put him in the ghetto, they will probably score less on average on the IQ. I can adopt a white person from that same ghetto and increase his "racial IQ" by putting him in an affluent environment. That is the only evidence we really have at this point and everything else is just speculation and hard to separate from those factors. There probably is a minute difference but I don't think it matters. Jamaicans have more muscle twitch fibers than the average person. This helps them in athletics. But even with that help they only finish slightly faster than other populations of runners. That's how small of the difference there might be. All of it changeable by environment.

Any minuscule differences do not matter as only populations evolve. — yatagarasu

Miniscule differences are what get weeded out by evolution. A fraction of a second's poor physics calculation avoiding a predator can mean the difference between life and death. A tiny error in abstract thinking can make the difference between winning a Nobel prize and cleaning the halls like a schlub. Repeat that across a relatively isolated populations coping with particular types of environment in given geographical regions, and you get average spreads of traits across races, which then get amplified in the cultures those races create.

Again, yes brains are largely similar, individuals brains are largely similar, all human brains are largely similar, but the tiny differences matter in given contexts, both for individuals and for races. Brains may be 99% similar, because they can all do the tremendously sophisticated calculations needed to walk, talk, chew gum, find food, eat it, etc., etc. - that vast iceberg is shared, true. But it's the differences at the tip that count, both for the natural environment, and for the social environment. There's no reason to expect an intelligent brain to look all that different from a dumb one (although size does matter a bit).

There are no genes identified at this point that contribute to intelligence. [...] I'm linking peer reviewed studies to back up my claims. — yatagarasu

I linked to an article about peer-reviewed studies to back up my claim too, and you are flatly wrong, science is starting to identify the genes that contribute to intelligence (about 40 of them according to that meta study). Obviously there is controversy in this field - mainly because there's still a hangover of influence from the early 20th century pseudo-science of Boasian anthropology in general, and the more recent influence of Marxist hacks like Gould, Lewontin, etc., as well as the chilling effect of the contemporary PC cult - but there are peer-reviewed studies on all sides, and science is far from settled in favour of your position.

It is impossible to study any specific person and figure out how much of their intelligence is due to genes versus the environment. The human population overall, can be studied, and from what I have seen, the evidence is roughly 50% of intelligence is inherited, which means 50% is not, and that is huge. I'm referring to Adam Rutherford's latest book on the History of Everyone, I'm not sure the exact title, but he is a geneticist and basically gave an overview of human evolution and what modern genetics tells us about how we evolved. He specifically denied any races among humans, and explained in detail why this was true. Every other book I have read by a geneticist takes this position. I have a beginning biology textbook used in colleges, it is about ten years old, and it specifically states no races exist, as well. The American Anthropological Association takes the position that no races exist.

The only people I am aware of who make the claim that races exist and there are differences among them regarding intelligence are non-scientists, like the journalist who authored the book, The Troubling Inheritance. His book was so full of errors that Scientific American thrashed it on its website, and Massimo Pigliucci, a man with two Ph.Ds in biology and one in philosophy also wrote a blog post shredding it. Basically, the racists have no hard-core science backing them up, but rely upon ignorance and prejudices people hold.

Yet, I see nuts like David Icke, who is British; Ken Ham is a nut in America, but he came from Australia, Jim Carey is a nutty anti-vaxxer, but he was raised and educated in Canada. — LD Saunders

I don't think these are good examples of anti-intellectualism. The existence of nutters is regrettable, but those they follow and follow them are more anti-science.
Anti-intellectualism is not about nutters who over think things without regard to facts. Anti-intellectualism is more a response against thinking at all. Anti-intellectualists are those that fear the effort needed, the labour required to properly think things through, to argue, and consider another perspective.
Icke, and Carey are not guilty of not wanting to think. They are guilty of thinking too much.

Charleton: How are the followers of people like David Icke not against those who think? After all, a basic understanding of physics would have made him aware that no higher-dimensional beings could come to our four-dimensional spacetime, without losing all higher-dimensional aspects. It would be like a person trying to live in a two-dimensional physical space. We would simply die in an instant. Icke watched some science fiction as a kid where some one from an allegedly higher dimension just walks through a portal, and voila, there they are, entirely whole, without any worries. Could a person so easily materialize and exist in a two-dimensional physical space? No. And neither could any being from a higher dimension come to our dimensional space and survive. Not to mention his gross distortions of history, economics, politics, the law, and endorsement of anti-Semitism. All signs of anti-intellectualism. If he were all alone and had no followers, I would agree with you, but the problem is he has millions of fans and can fill up sizeable venues when he gives a public talk.

Thank you for the link to the study. I thought it was just an article about the studies to be done, not that actual studies have been done already. Next time just link the study directly. : ) I think I missed it while reading the first link. XD This is all fairly new research and it's nice seeing work actually moving forward in this area.

Miniscule differences are what get weeded out by evolution. A fraction of a second's poor physics calculation avoiding a predator can mean the difference between life and death. A tiny error in abstract thinking can make the difference between winning a Nobel prize and cleaning the halls like a schlub. Repeat that across a relatively isolated populations coping with particular types of environment in given geographical regions, and you get average spreads of traits across races, which then get amplified in the cultures those races create. — gurugeorge

I wouldn't go as far as the second example but I would agree about the way populations would evolve over time. I just don't see where the particular selection and isolation comes from. Not many populations have been so separated as to create the conditions for population evolution (not individual evolution). I stand corrected with the idea of genes not being located. I wasn't really in the right mindset while writing my response. Sorry for that. I agree that there are probably genes that influence it but I don't think they are drastic enough to matter in the future. Globalization will do that. I don't see how it will stay relevant to be honest. Even if we find that half of your intelligence is linked to genetics or more. I also probably wouldn't support a future that focused that much on the genetic differences. Mainly because of the implications of eugenics and also partially for discrimination. I don't know, we'll see.

Again, sorry for the errors and thanks for the studies. I'll have to look them over tonight when I have more time. : )

you just fell for the switch. Yes, about 52 genes have been identified recently as indicators for intelligence. No, that doesn't rule out the effects of nurture and no, that's no proof that blacks are now more stupid than whitey.

Edit : reading more, scientists that discovered this last May say the effect of those 52 is minuscule and intelligence is ultimately genetically influenced by thousands of genes.

Feel for the switch? I didn't say it ruled out the effects of nurture, in fact, I think it is still the most important part of determining intelligence. I just wouldn't be surprised to find some genetic influences. It still doesn't matter imo. It's just a useless way to divide humans.

Edit : reading more, scientists that discovered this last May say the effect of those 52 is minuscule and intelligence is ultimately genetically influenced by thousands of genes. — Benkei

Yeah. I would agree but that still means there maybe a genetic influence, even if it's minute.