What do you think about the HBD movement or race differences in intelligence in general?

I am not going confirm or deny whether I believe that certain ethnic groups are genetically endowed with superior intelligence (thus carrying a larger proportion of alleles that increase general intelligence relative to other groups). I think it is relatively unimportant, even if it is true, for leftism in general, as we leftists should treat the economically disenfranchised with mercy and not disdain and opprobrium; even if the poor are genetically disadvantaged on average, this does not contradict that the problem of their inauspicious economic state is a systemic problem caused by the immanent moral characteristics and incentives of bourgeois capitalism rather than their person problem. As merciful leftists, we should not regard the impoverished as an inferior political species and ignore their material interests, although we can regard some of their political thoughts with contempt if they lack the capacity to elegantly articulate a coherent statement of political philosophy or list of grievances.

Moreover, it is prudent not to discuss the topic on other left-wing groups, since the topic of intractable racial differences in an important trait is taboo (as intelligence is certainly valuable in any society that apportions positions of responsibility and resources on merit -a market economic certainly does this to a certain extent, but it is imperative that a socialist society have competent administrators - and it is heartrending to acknowledge that some people cannot advance in any society because of their dearth of intellectual talent). We'll always have inequality in innate endowment, but one reason why I support a socialist society (and a social democracy when I was more liberal) is that the institutions of a socialist society should allow those who do not possess enough native talent to live dignified lives and contribute and be appreciated by their community.

Well I am guessing that your ideal society would embrace Science? I am not putting a bias here, but shouldn't science discover all that is possible and leave no rock unturned, no matter how controversial.

Although I kind of like to reference some of the future sectors of science as the dark arts. Meaning in the future, some areas of science will focus on eugenics, further advances in weaponry - biological warfare, unmanned drones, more explosive power of bombs. These are somewhat scary things, and society should decide on them.

As I've written elsewhere, I'm undecided as to whether or not I believe there are significant racial differences in intelligence, though I tend to sympathize with the skeptics. I'm also agnostic with respect to the possibility of there being a "general factor of intelligence." Nevertheless, I don't believe that individuals are equal in their intellectual endowment.

There was a time when I was something of an enthusiast of the so-called "race realist" psychometricians (Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, et al.), so I'm familiar with the Human Biodiversity "movement." My view of the individuals who constitute that community is quite poor, as I found that they are generally petit-bourgeois classists, rarely practicing in fields germane to intelligence research (e.g., psychology, behavior genetics, etc.), who are merely interested in finding scientific justifications for privilege—the confirmation bias exhibited by those people is truly astounding.

intelligence is certainly valuable in any society that apportions positions of responsibility and resources on merit

Market economies apportion resources on the basis of ownership (or lack thereof) of productive assets, luck (in workmates, tools, and the sector of the economy one works in), and, yes, genetic endowment. Socialists, however, reject this method of remuneration since income derived from ownership is fundamentally exploitative and winning the genetic lottery, as it were, is unworthy of special reward. People should instead receive from the social product according to the only attribute they have control over: effort. (The relative onerousness of ones work environment should also factor into remuneration for reasons of equity and incentive.)

As merciful leftists, we should not regard the impoverished as an inferior political species and ignore their material interests, although we can regard some of their political thoughts with contempt if they lack the capacity to elegantly articulate a coherent statement of political philosophy or list of grievances.

I find your patronizing tone here objectionable. 'Inferior' and 'superior' are inherently subjective concepts. Leftists shouldn't view themselves as a benevolent group of activists who, unlike the bourgeoisie, feel "mercy" for the the disadvantaged. We are engaged in a class struggle for social justice, not for a redistribution of resources to the allegedly inferior members of society.

Celtiberian has already dismantled your mind-numbingly nescient post, but it should be stated that innate intelligence (to whatever extent it can truly be measured) should not have and, in fact, has no bearing upon the question of economic egalitarianism and social justice in general. To quote Chomsky:

"The question of the relation, if any, between race and intelligence has very little scientific importance (as it has no social importance, except under the assumptions of a racist society) … As to social importance, a correlation between race and mean I.Q. (were this shown to exist) entails no social consequences except in a racist society in which each individual is assigned to a racial category and dealt with not as an individual in his own right, but as a representative of this category … In a non-racist society, the category of race would be of no greater significance [than height]. The mean I.Q. of individuals of a certain racial background is irrelevant to the situation of a particular individual, who is what he is. Recognizing this perfectly obvious fact, we are left with little, if any, plausible justification for an interest in the relation between mean I.Q. and race, apart from the ‘justification’ provided by the existence of racial discrimination."
Chomsky, Noam. 1972. ‘I.Q. Tests: Building Blocks for the New Class System.

The book Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond establishes quite convincingly the gradual historical forces which resulted in European hegemony. It determines that alleged advantages within the genomes of Eurasian peoples were not primary influences toward European dominance.

Celtiberian wrote:As I've written elsewhere, I'm undecided as to whether or not I believe there are significant racial differences in intelligence, though I tend to sympathize with the skeptics. I'm also agnostic with respect to the possibility of there being a "general factor of intelligence." Nevertheless, I don't believe that individuals are equal in their intellectual endowment.

There was a time when I was something of an enthusiast of the so-called "race realist" psychometricians (Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, et al.), so I'm familiar with the Human Biodiversity "movement." My view of the individuals who constitute that community is quite poor, as I found that they are generally petit-bourgeois classists, rarely practicing in fields germane to intelligence research (e.g., psychology, behavior genetics, etc.), who are merely interested in finding scientific justifications for privilege—the confirmation bias exhibited by those people is truly astounding.

intelligence is certainly valuable in any society that apportions positions of responsibility and resources on merit

Market economies apportion resources on the basis of ownership (or lack thereof) of productive assets, luck (in workmates, tools, and the sector of the economy one works in), and, yes, genetic endowment. Socialists, however, reject this method of remuneration since income derived from ownership is fundamentally exploitative and winning the genetic lottery, as it were, is unworthy of special reward. People should instead receive from the social product according to the only attribute they have control over: effort. (The relative onerousness of ones work environment should also factor into remuneration for reasons of equity and incentive.)

As merciful leftists, we should not regard the impoverished as an inferior political species and ignore their material interests, although we can regard some of their political thoughts with contempt if they lack the capacity to elegantly articulate a coherent statement of political philosophy or list of grievances.

I find your patronizing tone here objectionable. 'Inferior' and 'superior' are inherently subjective concepts. Leftists shouldn't view themselves as a benevolent group of activists who, unlike the bourgeoisie, feel "mercy" for the the disadvantaged. We are engaged in a class struggle for social justice, not for a redistribution of resources to the allegedly inferior members of society.

I thank you for your response and I agree with it in its entirety.

I bet most HBDers don't actually read the scientific papers pertaining to the heritability of intelligence; I read a few SNP microarray studies on the heritability of various traits, including general intelligence. I do not know a genetic locus that has been reliably (p < 10-8 for genome-wide significance) associated with variance (hence contributing to the heritability of the trait) in general intelligence among the population. Some suggestive loci with weak effect, including DRD2, COMT, and DTNBP1, but the effects are too small to be conclusively verified with the sample sizes employed in current GWAS for intelligence.

Most HBDers are not interested in human biodiversity in general. Ask yourself if they are mildly interested in the heritability and genetics of type II diabetes mellitus or blood pressure which are other traits that affect human health and are polygenic and moderately heritable, like intelligence.

I do harbor some contempt for the majority of the American middle and working class, but I never regarded them to be inferior people. However, when I stated that "we can [disregard] some of their political thoughts", I did not intend to emphasize or suggest that the working classes lack requisite mental faculties necessary for abstract political thinking nor do they lack the ability to analyze, process, and retain information about economics, politics, or history. It must be noted that the deluge of bourgeois and reactionary propaganda propagated through privately-owned news media and popular culture serves to dissemble knowledge and bias political perception; I must clarify that I perceive the problem of the dearth of class consciousness among the working and middle classes in "liberal" democracies to be rooted in cultural influence rather than a lack of native aptitude among the working class. Indeed, it does take a considerable expenditure of intellectual effort, devotion, and interest for one, even if he/she is highly intelligent, to acquire a revolutionary leftist understanding of political economy and deracinate the unjust nature of neoliberal globalization.

I accept your admonishment against merely advocating the redistribution of resources that is primarily motivated by the sentiment of pity because it can accommodate the oppressive and alienating institutions of capitalism. Furthermore, the sentiment of pity is merely a feeling; it is not a substitute for a sound epistemological edifice in history/politics, administrative competence, or strategic shrewdness. As revolutionary leftists, we deem it necessary to dismantle the exploitative apparatus of capitalism, thus the mere pity politics of social/liberal democracy would not suffice.

Some pragmatic capitalists certainly embrace such sentiments and temporarily grant the working class some palliative provisions (provided through the institution of the modern welfare state) that are ultimately revocable, especially in times of sovereign financial duress in the name of fiscal prudence, to quell the revolutionary aspirations of the masses. This should not be interpreted as an act of bourgeois/liberal benevolence, however. However, these reformist concessions fail renounce the integral oppressive principle of capitalism: the right for one to own private property, protected by the state, that entitles one to enjoy claims (through the possession of money) to economic resources (that are merited by either rendering a "valuable" service or providing a product to consumers or possessing ownership of financial and physical capital in the context of market economy) with little consideration on any potential adverse affects on others in the process of acquire this money or how the money can be used to consolidate political power and influence to capture the apparatus of the state and public opinion.