considering nobody has caused monumental human suffering like white people in the past millennia. all of the things the group has done historically and contemporarily. would look to see a debate on whether or not or white people have a genetic predisposition for belligerence?
Biologically humans are a weird hive species. Like all hive species, our mutual self-interest is based on our genetic homology, but unlike insects we lack a central reproductive queen and we're K-selected. This means in order to maintain the hive benefits we have to maintain a pretty narrow / homogeneous genetic population, so evolution gives us this weird in-built in-group vs out-group mentality that encourages collaboration but only with the group likely to be genetically homogeneous with us. You all talk about government legitimacy as if it derives or should derive from individuals, but I think that's nonsense. I think this has always been a population game. Even setting aside the layers and layers of systems currently in place to mitigate the impact of most people, I don't think it's realistic to create cultural or systemic changes to subvert something that's defines our genetic success.
People will have more children when the parents are in a position where they have a labor intensive business. In essence they will make money by having children, more money than they cost.
Before watching video: No state has any responsibility to any group that are not within the country or under their rule, because every responsibility would violate the rights and freedoms of the people already living in the country of refuge. After watching video: Unfortunately no side has convinced me to change my position in either direction. Core Question: How much suffering and opportunity should be sacrificed for the benefit of another? If the beneficiary will never sacrifice for another does this change the calculation?
The concept of cussing/cursing is frustrating because most people see the morality incorrectly... We create all language and give it definition/meaning in order to easily communicate what we mean to others, so it is immoral to censor the language of others without good reason... The "reason" provided is inconsistent and unfair... Question...If you accept "gosh darn" or "f*ck" but admonish the use of a different spelling/pronunciation as needing to be censored while understanding the speaker/writer intends the exact same profane definition/meaning then why can't YOU see that your censorship of others is inconsistent, unfair, and immoral?
Chess ELO should be comparable between men and women because both groups would play most matches against men, even if the women only enter women's tournaments. It would be very weird in present day for competitive chess players not to be playing ranked games online and sex segregation only occurs in (some) tournaments 3:50
Discussing 'Race" and IQ and understanding the issue for what it is and what it isn't, is itself an IQ test. Nathan seems to be a very intelligent person who frames the issue well. No one wants to talk about it, and some very smart people who do use some very poor arguments to sidestep the issue.
Interesting arguments from the guest, and mostly morally correct, I think. Reconnecting to the drownuing child example, I don't think most people would decline to help the child it it had been pushed into the water by someone else.
And what duty does one have, or how much risk to their own life or well being should they endure? What if they also cannot swim or the condition of the water is dangerous(fast flow, ice cold, debris, burning oil, chemicals, sewage)? Whenever putting forth the "Duty to Render Aid", we must ask how much suffering should the aid provider endure for the sake of another. And does the calculation change if the person being rescued or receiving aid never be in a position to also provide aid to another. ie. an autistic person, someone on death row, a very elderly person, basically anyone who would never provide a equivalent amount of help to someone else.
Not even a question about the difference between individuals is much greater than between races?? Or why he is studying this despite that? There is only one possible agenda he has and that is anti-DEI of course. However we know that humans have bias, that is proven, which DEI aims to overcome, despite its faults.
It's such a basic take that it's not worth addressing. Some women are taller than some men, but we can still say men are taller than women without (most) people complaining. The same applies here with this topic.
so far i do not hear anything new to C Murray. And from Murrays conversations, they only considered a very few environmental factors, there were many that were not considered.
There is absolutely no truth to that. To simply but it. Whites are the last in the species of man. All civilizations borrowed. Since white people are the last they obviously borrowed the most. There was absolutely nothing of significance in the Nordic states until the romans invaded. The romans borrowed from the greeks and the greeks borrowed from the egyptains and egyptains were black. That makes your statement moot
Of course, groups can own things. Before the restructuring of kinship in Europe by the Church of Rome, that was the way things were done. A clan, or tribe, would own a territory, and it would be managed by the whole, with no individual controlling what could be done with it. The concept of "Security Companies" is nothing other than a front-loaded feudal society where patriotism is converted to a subscription service.
Height is not intrinsically tied to “race”. Why would IQ be? The Dutch of Europe and Dinka tribe of Sudan are the tallest humans in the world, yet they are 2 separate races. Their environment/culture placed selective pressure for height, why didn’t this happen with their neighbours 2 miles away who are the same race? The Aztecs were highly advanced, while North American tribes were hunter gatherers, yet they’re the same race and more genetically similar than Europe combined. The Indian caste system created different IQ levels between populations yet they are the same race. If Height isn’t tied to race, IQ shouldn’t be either.
I think they mean some races more than others had the advantage of environmental adaptation, one of those selecting for intelligence. Africans didn't face the same selective pressures as Europeans did, hence race is a simplistic way to describe that but indeed it's more nuanced than just race
What do you mean by intrinsically tied to? It's tied to your genetics and genetics differ by race. That's all that there is to it. There being variation within a group doesn't mean there isn't an average difference between groups either.
I tend to believe culture can influence IQ. What if a culture values education and technologies, then some creative and smart folks may gain more resources, then their living condition is way more better than others, so their babies may have more chance to survive. When their babies are grown up, they tend to follow their parents' path....generation after generation, IQ stratification occurs slowly but surely.
1) you don’t owe honesty to evil. 2) life boat situations are outside of the province of morality because the possibility life is limited in an emergency.
How can anyone argue there is an obligation to "tell the truth" under coercion, and thus cause the death of an innocent? One has no obligation to deal with others when threatened. It seems the questioners are bent on getting an affirmation of support for a rules based morality devoid of context (as per Kant). Values have a hierarchy. To not steal food one finds in a log cabin when starving to death, puts life at a lessor value than the very rules (don't steal) meant to enhance it.
Fascinating research! Thanks for sharing! Very interested in learning more about the light therapy treatments being done now. Came here from show on NPR This American Life broadcast this morning. I wonder about links with: sleepwalking/vivid dreaming; dissociative abilities, particularly with social anxiety (when I am in crowds faces become unrecognizable); other sensory disorders - loss of smell?
33:11 “no environmental variables”??? Really? What about sociological variables?! Direct descendants of people who were deprived of education is a non sequitur? Also who did this research? Everyone who has done psych 101, and intelligent black people who see white therapists know implicit biases are very prevalent in these domains. Just because there is research doesn’t mean it was done right. Also the education system is very monolithic. If I had not received early interventions as a young black child that needed to be taught differently in order to learn I would likely have been classified as unintelligent myself but that is not the case because I was taught my learning style early on. This is the environmental issue. If what you’re saying is true people actually need to be taught in ways that accommodate their brain configuration/genetic profile, your “findings” don’t prove unintelligence at birth.
I’m considered my self antinatalism, pessimistic and nihilistic, I think the best part of life is when you are kid after that age when you see how the reality is, is when you consider if being a life is worthy or not, life just never get better(economic, health, mentally and the list keep growing once you started to get old).
Race is definitely real. There are groups like Europeans who all have a high degree of ethnic similarity, and we naturally tend to those more racially similar. "99.9% similar DNA" only refers to our number of chromosomes, not actual similarities. Different races have different percentages of completely different hominids. These days when it's said "race is a social construct", it's usually a false statement to stop people from organizing for their interests.
"99.9% similar DNA" only refers to our number of chromosomes" No, it doesn't. It refers to genetic variation. You are also stating that people with more or less than 46 chromosomes, are not 99.9% similar to other humans. That is both bigoted and false.
Its not just IQ which is important when discussing the variability in race (yes race you can call it common genetic DNA but it's commonly referred to as race). Equally if not more important are parallel traits like delaying gratification, social dispositions, and altruism borne out the same environmental triggers selected (its deeper than selection but for the sake of argument selection) and passed down genetic lines we interpret as race.
I’m an antinatalist. Enjoyed the episode and thanks to all involved producing it! I recognise the issues that society may (or likely will) face as a result of declining birth rates, but something feels very unethical about creating new people to solve the issues we as existing people may face. Perhaps this is dis-analogous in some way that I haven’t picked up on, but it seems analogous to having a child to shift some financial debt you have onto them - alleviating to some degree your burdens but imposing them on an non-consenting third party. I’m sure most people would see that as highly unethical, and yet at the population scale an analogous approach is often encouraged by pronatalists.
You are not AN antinatalist. You are THE antinatalist. I’ve found many of your videos very interesting although obviously I don’t agree with them. I would say have a nice day but I know you think that would be an impossibility!
I don't think I have an ideology but my great grand father had 18 children with his first wife. And no more when he remarried. 16 of them died in WW1. In spite of this I feel like competing with him. I want to have at least 19 children, but... It is rather impractical to do so with one woman. So I cannot fathom the antinatalist stance. Having a mostly bad life is way better then never existing. And most people will have a moderate quality of life. I'll just watch some of your videos to learn a bit about why some people are antinatalist.
Antinatalism is usually rooted in some vague utilitarianism, which I think humans have to reject. It’s like morality invented specifically by and for robots. “Life is X suffering and Y pleasure, and if you agree with me that Y is less than X…” These calculations are nearly always just an ex post facto justification for an emotional decision, which is how humans make most of our important judgments. Do you want to hold your child in your arms? To teach them your values and way of life? To share a bond of mutual, unconditional love that will likely never be severed except by death? Then have children. If not, don’t.
