There's qualified individuals (both technically and credentials wise) who can and are interested in writing such a book, but who do not have Murray's comfy sinecure where he is mostly free to work on any projects he desires.
It's worth emphasizing that this would be a risky, multi-year undertaking. An advance of $20-50k would not guarantee success, but will make the appearance of such a book much likelier.
(That or credibly promising a larger sum such as $500k for the author(s) who are considered to have accomplished this within say the next 5 years. Considering Ron Unz essentially rewarded Cochran with $600k for his Magnum Opus, or more like $1M inflation adjusted, this doesn't seem like a profligate sum to me).
I thought about doing it. Someone has to follow in Arthur Jensen's footsteps. However, it would require a large amount of effort (no maybe 50% decrease in blogging for a year or two), and given that few people read books, it is hard to justify the effort. When I wrote blogposts, all the right people get them straight in their inboxes, and they gather millions of views/reads. A well done book would gather a few thousand if I am lucky.
It's a preference falsification cascade. If we change the social norm by just poasting through it, victory will follow. Most people are conformist and just look at those around them to figure out what is ok and what isn't
You are greatly underestimating how difficult it is to change people's minds. Virtually every Internet user lives in a bubble (https://expandingrationality.substack.com/p/the-modern-problems-with-conformity), so the vast majority of them are never going to see anything that you write, post, or say. You could try to invade and pop their bubbles, but they will probably just block, censor, or ban you, since they literally believe that you're evil.
I also explained that even if hereditarianism is true, lots of people will never accept it because they benefit from subsidies, demographic quotas, and special wokist privileges, and accepting hereditarianism would take away the justification for them receiving those privileges.
I explained that many people derive their life's meaning from virtue-signaling, and if they couldn't do that anymore, they wouldn't have any meaning, purpose, or identity left in their lives since they're not smart enough to do anything else, especially if they aren't focused on raising children. As I wrote in my webpage, our culture needs alternative activities for those people to do. Requiring reproduction licenses to have children would help a lot with this (https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/overpopulation-FAQs#effects-on-society), but that would be hard to implement too, since it's very taboo.
I also pointed out that even though everybody knows that disabled people are disadvantaged by definition, woke activism for increased rights among disabled people has only gotten more popular over the past few decades or so, not less. This suggests that even if racial disparities are widely recognized as mostly genetic, some people won’t stop advocating for eliminating the disparities anyway.
I find these arguments unconvincing but don't have time to thoroughly respond rn. Your race FAQ looks good though. I feel like you are over-intellectualizing issue. Lots of things become normalized by people just doing them (in all spheres of life and communication channels open to them). What's normal can change quite radical and in a non-linear way (e.g. huge cultural changes like reduction in homo- transphobia, feminism, gender, immigration etc.) You present a lot of "small" arguments that seem weak/not hugely significant.
Fair enough. However, I think that the cultural changes that you mentioned are easy to explain (https://zerocontradictions.net/civilization/social-justice#wokism-theory). Although some of them were initially morally taboo, their tabooness mainly ceased because they were consistent with the pro-altruism and pro-hedonism values of the West. Hereditarianism is currently very taboo, and since there are no widespread cultural values that could favor hereditarianism, I'm not convinced that promoting hereditarianism alone would be enough to end wokism.
To be clear, I'm not saying that we shouldn't promote hereditarianism, nor am I saying that it's not possible for hereditarianism to become more influential. What I am saying is that if we want to popularize hereditarianism, we need to do other things besides promoting hereditarianism. https://zerocontradictions.net/civilization/social-justice#ending-wokism
I checked my webserver, and it has not reported any recent downtimes. Be sure that the letters in the URL are capitalized correctly.
(If I had to my URLs all over again, I would've created them in all lowercase letters and a bit shorter, but it's kind of too late for that now since the URLs are already indexed by search engines and widely bookmarked in people's browsers.)
A book persuaded me that hereditarianism is true. This was Russell Warne's In the Know: Debunking 35 Myths about Human Intelligence. The chapters on group differences are excellent and were key to me understanding the case for hereditarianism. But the broader factors that you mentioned help: this is a reputable person who clearly knows his stuff and lays out the argument for hereditarianism in an accessible and systematic way. It's hard to dismiss.
Would love to see Emil write an accessible and comprehensive book on hereditarianism, although I'm not sure sure this would be the book that you're looking for.
I posted something similar to this on your previous stack about race & IQ - why do you believe that the relationship between polygenic scores and IQ should convince anyone that group differences in IQ are genetic?
Look, I also think these groups differences are probably genetic, but the evidence from PGS is weak.
When the data are sparse, PGSs find proxies for their target. One of the easiest things to read off of DNA is race - these are the first PCs that show up in PCA of genetic data. So the baseline expectation is that EA PGSs pick up race and just report known group differences. This can be done without any casual link between genes and EA.
Hmm. I suspect that if these PGS did become part of mainstream discourse, someone at Vox would just write about the limitations of these studies and the goalposts would move again. (not that the goalposts should have been at "population differences between PGS" in the first place, given the limitations we've both brought up)
The PGS wasn't derived from all world popluation. It was derived from Whites in USA and NW Europe. So the learning dataset is either had no lower scoring populations (for early PGS) of if they include non-Euros in later analyses, they compare PGS score against this group average.
I am pretty sure this differences will go away in one century or so. I suspect most of this is a mixture of lead poisoning in children and poor nutrition and environmental factors. To really figure out if race and IQ are causal one has to observe new born black children living in UK or Europe since 3 generations and compare their IQs
The only thing holding "discourse" back is boomer guilt. In 20 more years most of the boomers will be dead. As a codger millennial born in 1981, I have been called a racist my entire life by the elite left media and academia. Quotas have reduced our opportunities our entire lives. Most importantly, government finances will be so bad that there will not be funding for more of this nonsense.
Deep down everyone knows it's true.Thats why they promote race mixing,above all blacks getting access to white women.While the fentanyl,meth amphetamine and opoid crisis is gleefully reported as they affect whites disproportionately And 18million non white illegals have been admitted to destroy even a notion of a white population that could be measured for IQ tests
There's qualified individuals (both technically and credentials wise) who can and are interested in writing such a book, but who do not have Murray's comfy sinecure where he is mostly free to work on any projects he desires.
It's worth emphasizing that this would be a risky, multi-year undertaking. An advance of $20-50k would not guarantee success, but will make the appearance of such a book much likelier.
(That or credibly promising a larger sum such as $500k for the author(s) who are considered to have accomplished this within say the next 5 years. Considering Ron Unz essentially rewarded Cochran with $600k for his Magnum Opus, or more like $1M inflation adjusted, this doesn't seem like a profligate sum to me).
I thought about doing it. Someone has to follow in Arthur Jensen's footsteps. However, it would require a large amount of effort (no maybe 50% decrease in blogging for a year or two), and given that few people read books, it is hard to justify the effort. When I wrote blogposts, all the right people get them straight in their inboxes, and they gather millions of views/reads. A well done book would gather a few thousand if I am lucky.
The taboo will disappear if we all just keep poasting. Preference falsification cascade will occur.
Eg today, I made this chart: https://x.com/AlexejGerst/status/1840719015187984562?t=e3WgzxxC1G3H9ocI6krGXQ&s=19
Promoting hereditarianism won't be enough to end wokism. https://zerocontradictions.net/civilization/social-justice#hereditarianism-vs-wokism
New Link: https://zerocontradictions.net/civilization/wokism#ending-wokism-strategy
It's a preference falsification cascade. If we change the social norm by just poasting through it, victory will follow. Most people are conformist and just look at those around them to figure out what is ok and what isn't
Nevertheless, if you want to agree to disagree, I would appreciate it if you share my Race FAQs: https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs.
New Link: https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/race
You already said that. To some extent, that's true, but as I already explained in my webpage, it won't be enough (https://zerocontradictions.net/civilization/social-justice#hereditarianism-vs-wokism).
You are greatly underestimating how difficult it is to change people's minds. Virtually every Internet user lives in a bubble (https://expandingrationality.substack.com/p/the-modern-problems-with-conformity), so the vast majority of them are never going to see anything that you write, post, or say. You could try to invade and pop their bubbles, but they will probably just block, censor, or ban you, since they literally believe that you're evil.
I also explained that even if hereditarianism is true, lots of people will never accept it because they benefit from subsidies, demographic quotas, and special wokist privileges, and accepting hereditarianism would take away the justification for them receiving those privileges.
I explained that many people derive their life's meaning from virtue-signaling, and if they couldn't do that anymore, they wouldn't have any meaning, purpose, or identity left in their lives since they're not smart enough to do anything else, especially if they aren't focused on raising children. As I wrote in my webpage, our culture needs alternative activities for those people to do. Requiring reproduction licenses to have children would help a lot with this (https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/overpopulation-FAQs#effects-on-society), but that would be hard to implement too, since it's very taboo.
I also pointed out that even though everybody knows that disabled people are disadvantaged by definition, woke activism for increased rights among disabled people has only gotten more popular over the past few decades or so, not less. This suggests that even if racial disparities are widely recognized as mostly genetic, some people won’t stop advocating for eliminating the disparities anyway.
You have not addressed any of these criticisms.
New Link: https://zerocontradictions.net/civilization/wokism#ending-wokism-strategy
New Link: https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#effects-on-society
I find these arguments unconvincing but don't have time to thoroughly respond rn. Your race FAQ looks good though. I feel like you are over-intellectualizing issue. Lots of things become normalized by people just doing them (in all spheres of life and communication channels open to them). What's normal can change quite radical and in a non-linear way (e.g. huge cultural changes like reduction in homo- transphobia, feminism, gender, immigration etc.) You present a lot of "small" arguments that seem weak/not hugely significant.
Fair enough. However, I think that the cultural changes that you mentioned are easy to explain (https://zerocontradictions.net/civilization/social-justice#wokism-theory). Although some of them were initially morally taboo, their tabooness mainly ceased because they were consistent with the pro-altruism and pro-hedonism values of the West. Hereditarianism is currently very taboo, and since there are no widespread cultural values that could favor hereditarianism, I'm not convinced that promoting hereditarianism alone would be enough to end wokism.
To be clear, I'm not saying that we shouldn't promote hereditarianism, nor am I saying that it's not possible for hereditarianism to become more influential. What I am saying is that if we want to popularize hereditarianism, we need to do other things besides promoting hereditarianism. https://zerocontradictions.net/civilization/social-justice#ending-wokism
New Link: https://zerocontradictions.net/civilization/wokism
I get a 404 going to the race faq
Really? Are you visiting the right URL?: https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs
I checked my webserver, and it has not reported any recent downtimes. Be sure that the letters in the URL are capitalized correctly.
(If I had to my URLs all over again, I would've created them in all lowercase letters and a bit shorter, but it's kind of too late for that now since the URLs are already indexed by search engines and widely bookmarked in people's browsers.)
A book persuaded me that hereditarianism is true. This was Russell Warne's In the Know: Debunking 35 Myths about Human Intelligence. The chapters on group differences are excellent and were key to me understanding the case for hereditarianism. But the broader factors that you mentioned help: this is a reputable person who clearly knows his stuff and lays out the argument for hereditarianism in an accessible and systematic way. It's hard to dismiss.
Would love to see Emil write an accessible and comprehensive book on hereditarianism, although I'm not sure sure this would be the book that you're looking for.
I posted something similar to this on your previous stack about race & IQ - why do you believe that the relationship between polygenic scores and IQ should convince anyone that group differences in IQ are genetic?
Look, I also think these groups differences are probably genetic, but the evidence from PGS is weak.
When the data are sparse, PGSs find proxies for their target. One of the easiest things to read off of DNA is race - these are the first PCs that show up in PCA of genetic data. So the baseline expectation is that EA PGSs pick up race and just report known group differences. This can be done without any casual link between genes and EA.
It's the evidence people wanted all along. There's basically nothing more that can be requested
Hmm. I suspect that if these PGS did become part of mainstream discourse, someone at Vox would just write about the limitations of these studies and the goalposts would move again. (not that the goalposts should have been at "population differences between PGS" in the first place, given the limitations we've both brought up)
The PGS wasn't derived from all world popluation. It was derived from Whites in USA and NW Europe. So the learning dataset is either had no lower scoring populations (for early PGS) of if they include non-Euros in later analyses, they compare PGS score against this group average.
I don't have the clout or background for writing such a book, but I think more people would be receptive to race realism if they understood how underperforming demographics would benefit from accepting it. https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs#underperforming-demographics
New Link: https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/race#underperforming-demographics
I am pretty sure this differences will go away in one century or so. I suspect most of this is a mixture of lead poisoning in children and poor nutrition and environmental factors. To really figure out if race and IQ are causal one has to observe new born black children living in UK or Europe since 3 generations and compare their IQs
I read that and I don't understand why it has to be a book. Can it be a wiki written collectively by pseudonimours authors?
Which Race is Best?
https://open.substack.com/pub/billionairbear/p/which-race-is-best-its-time-to-settle-4e9?r=1g5bw0&utm_medium=ios
I think it will need to be
,and best be done, by a geneticist as primary author. One who has a simple reputation as a solid scientist.
A Dutton Documentary on his book "Making Sense of Race"?
Read it.
The only thing holding "discourse" back is boomer guilt. In 20 more years most of the boomers will be dead. As a codger millennial born in 1981, I have been called a racist my entire life by the elite left media and academia. Quotas have reduced our opportunities our entire lives. Most importantly, government finances will be so bad that there will not be funding for more of this nonsense.
Deep down everyone knows it's true.Thats why they promote race mixing,above all blacks getting access to white women.While the fentanyl,meth amphetamine and opoid crisis is gleefully reported as they affect whites disproportionately And 18million non white illegals have been admitted to destroy even a notion of a white population that could be measured for IQ tests
Could emil do it or he would get shadowcanceled/ignored
Not enough clout, plus reporters could just lift stuff from rational wiki and smear him as a pedo.