Jayman

This may be a better place to start -- https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-… and https://jaymans.wordpress.com/about/. VDare tends to preach and agitate to the already converted, that is the peril of having to survive on donations. That said, while Steve Sailer is snarky, he is also reputable. He takes good care to not get things wrong. I've been following him for a while, and when some bit of news comes out, or some new policy gets announced, and the NY Times says one thing, and Sailer says another, Sailer almost always ends up getting proved right. If you want a book length treatment, Michael Hart's Understanding Human History is the complete opposite of the typical, Jared Diamond, environmentalist accounts of human society. It is worth perusing - https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/hart_-_unders…

The sources are out there, but you might not want to look. What is seen is not easily unseen: http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/start-here/ http://jaymans.wordpress.com/hbd-fundamentals/ http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/ And although the common insult for people interested in human biodiversity is "KKK", much of the research is not being done by white people. For example, the Chinese are investing huge sums of money into unraveling the genetic basis of intelligence. See: http://edge.org/response-detail/23838 I suppose this is all "filth that isn't worth the bytes its served through" though...

> "Is it really wrong to say that women could be better or worse (in general) at one thing or another? Is it sexist to even point out that men and women are different?" Yes to both questions. On the other hand, it's science[1][2]! There's lots of proven differences in personality and ability between the sexes. When the official ideology is against reality, you have to choose between being a "good person" and a good scientist. It's best for your career to choose the first. [1] http://jaymans.wordpress.com/hbd-fundamentals/#sex [2] http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/2012-sat-test-results-a-huge-gender-m…

If your curiosity is genuine I can tell you the answer. First, a casual perusal of any human biodiversity blog will tell you that they do in fact care about differences between Germans and Irish as well. Or Tamils and Gujuratis, or a variety of other groups that exhibit interesting differences. Intelligence is particularly interesting relative to other traits since it explains so many social outcomes, but many other traits are interesting. For example, clannishness: https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/09/07/how-inbred-are-europeans/ Some people just find human biology intrinsically interesting, and don't have the same negative emotional reactions to it that you do. If you want a more traditional "give me a grant" motivation, here it is: public policy. Consider racial disparities across fields. One possible cause of such disparities is disparate treatment - e.g., judging white job applicants more harshly than Asian ones. Another possibility is disparate ability - e.g. a greater proportion of Asian people than white people are smart. Different causes of disparities would significantly change what policy you would choose. For example, if disparate ability is the cause and equal outcomes is your goal, you would choose a quota system to cap the number of Asians. and to anyone who shouts them down, calls them racist and attempts to get them socially ostracized, they say, "why are you trying to hide the truth? Fixed that for you.

Not really. The most meaningful outcome for a child's life is the mate selection of the parents. Parenting generally has no effect; see the letter sent to Maher as a really good synopsis: https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/taming-the-tiger-mom-and-tack…

There are specific results that are especially unpalatable, but I'm thinking more of the general conclusion that all human behavioral traits are heritable. https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/all-human-behavioral-traits-a…

That 200,000 years of generally-isolated evolution of human population groups has resulted in distinct physical, behavioral, and cognitive traits - trait differences that a mere 3000 years of seafaring, 110 years of skyfaring, have been insufficient to eliminate. Jayman has a decent collection of references to the relevant research on his FAQ: https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-…

No, the consensus of scientists who actually study this is pretty strong, and supports the parent's post. Jayman has collected a nice sequence of citations on the matter, most of which are peer-reviewed: https://jaymans.wordpress.com/hbd-fundamentals/#Race-IQ Much effort has been made to minimize the effect of poverty, stereotyping, and other non-hereditary factors in much of the literature. Most people downvoting the parent are likely doing so because this research is uncomfortable, not because it is wrong.

Inferior is subjective. Different groups have different traits. Not an insane point of view, but definitely one that is politically incorrect, for now: https://jaymans.wordpress.com/hbd-fundamentals/ Of course we are all human beings equally deserving of compassion, no matter what our differences, but the equality myth that we are all born the same and all have the same chances of having equal outcomes in life, is a very dangerous one that is destroying the social pacts modern Europe was built on.

Because shared environment effects are typically small or trivial. You don't need a formal analysis to have a high confidence that the food preferences will be partially or mostly heritable, just like everything else. In particular, we already know that anything to do with obesity is extremely heritable and shared environment matters far less than everyone believes: see the studies in https://jaymans.wordpress.com/obesity-facts/

> Clearly, there is no substantive difference between races. http://jaymans.wordpress.com/hbd-fundamentals/

I didn't answer your question because it was not germane to the discussion. Whether or not there is are innate differences in tendency, behavior is quite malleable via the proper culture, institutions, and law enforcement. But if you really want an answer I will try to humor you. "I am asking a different question. To be blunt, which contributes more to the current lack of "civilizing influences" in inner-cities: that the actors involved are black, or that the actors involved were born into the same lack of "civilizing influences" 20 years earlier?" To be even more blunt, I take it you asking whether black genes matter more or whether the environmental conditions matter more? It is not really possible to answer that question along a comparative axis of "more or less." With most human traits, genes determine both the slope of the improvement curve and where the improvement curve plateaus. Environment determines where one is along that curve. I cannot throw a javelin 80 meters. Which matters more, genes or the fact that I have never trained to throw the javelin? That's not really a well put question. I'm sure with training I could throw it 40 meters, I highly doubt I have the genes to ever be able to throw it a world-class 80 meters. Similarly with African-American neighborhoods -- I think they have the genes to have peaceful, orderly neighborhoods because such neighborhoods have existed in the African-American population before. I am pessimistic that there will ever be an…

the fact that sexism reduces the desire of women to participate in something is established Yeah, I thought so about the influence of parenting on children's outcomes. Then I started reading things like the linked JayMan's article[1] and now I'm not so sure. There probably is some influence but it's quickly starting to look pretty insignificant compared to genetics and just... randomness, luck. Same with psychiatric drugs. Knowing nothing about psychiatry, I used to think they're really good because they're prescribed by doctors and my experience with drugs (painkillers and antibiotics) was that drugs are like miracles on demand. Only crazy people would go off them! Then I started reading articles by psychiatrists and learned that many of very popular medication help one person in 20 after months of taking, if anyone at all ever. Or that antidepressants may actually increase your chances of offing yourself. The moment you start digging anywhere outside of massive successes (antibiotics) and physics (where important research is usually 5 sigma solid, though even then...), things look nowhere near as clear cut as we're told in school or by the media. And yes, sometimes "how do you know?" is just a cop out. But lately I have been taking that seriously, how do I know? I blame the less wrong crowd abandoning their site and spreading doubt thoughtout the Internet. [1] http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/05/30/beware-armchair-psychoanalysis…