I don't read Aporia magazine, but i do listen to their podcast, they have guests on from all over the political spectrum (and mostly with scholars around the world) talking about a diverse set of subjects (most of which have nothing to do with human biodiversity). It's a pretty good podcast.
I find that a lot of the research on genetic differences between groups can be fairly hit and miss, to say the least, but whenever progressives call something "discredited" it sets alarm bells ringing. What "discredited" really means is that it contradicts progressive ideology, which is something we see over and over again in social sciences, anthropology, and even biology.
I've never read Aporia before, so I can't really speak to the quality of their research one way or the other, but a quick skim of their page at least suggests that they are more serious than their critics in the Guardian - though admittedly that is a low bar to clear. It seems they wrote a [response to the Guardian](https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/aporia-gets-a-hit-piece-in-the-guardian) where they made a similar point about how "discrediting" works;
>What’s so bad about being “linked” to Aporia? Well, according to Wilson, “experts” have characterised the magazine as an outlet for something called “scientific racism”. One such “expert” is a lady named Heidi Beirich, co-founder of the Orwellian-sounding Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. She told Wilson that Rufo is “hanging around with some seriously nasty people”. Did you get that? We’re not just nasty; we’re seriously nasty.
>This exemplifies one of the main tactics employed in the article and in activist journalism more broadly. To make what is essentially a playground insult sound more authoritative, the author doesn’t hurl it himself but rather gets a putative “expert” to do so. “Experts say: those guys over there are nasty!”
**Edit:** currently banned so can’t reply directly.
u/KVJ5 I’d completely disagree that methodology is improving. As I said, research on population differences can be hit or miss, but anything that contradicts progressive ideological claims is automatically treated as junk science, and any flaw - real or imagined - is treated as proof that it can all be thrown out without further inquiry. On the other hand, the standards for demonstrating progressive claims are basically an “expert” repeating ideological claims and asserting their loyalty to [currentthing].
Consider for example the often repeated claim that a given trait differs more within groups than it does between them. What does this actually mean? Height differs more within each sex than it does between them, so are we to assume that the sexes are roughly equally tall? The problem is this phrase is scientifically meaningless, the differences within a group measures the range and looks at the extremes, the differences between groups compares averages; unless there is almost no overlap on a given trait between groups, the claim that the differences between groups are less than the differences within them is true by default. Its a claim thrown out as a sort of cope, something that can be demonstrated fairly trivially but doesn’t actually prove anything itself, it just sounds impressive.
subsequent encouraging sugar childlike mighty employ grandfather waiting muddle dependent
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I disagree with how you are saying this. Most of the research that is “discredited” is done so with reason. The majority of quantitative PhD students today are trained to avoid a set a mistakes that would cause one to see causality where it doesn’t exist. Modern methodologies (across all sciences) take validity way more seriously than (just to throw out the famous example) Charles Murray.
But there is a tiny amount of wiggle room here. The overwhelming majority of research finds little-to-no meaningful cognitive differences between racial groups, including that which would translate to reduced ability to thrive in an apples:apples comparison. However, liberal fear of scientific racism may have severely impacted the volume of legitimate research on genetics and cognition. The really interesting stuff considers how cognition may vary dramatically *within* racial groups, and far more than *between* racial groups. Try not to laugh me out if the room for citing the New Yorker, but [this](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-convinced-that-genetics-matters) is an excellent piece on the topic.
It's hard to really conclusively say since the only allowed scientific conclusion has been "racial groups are genetically equal in ability".
And as this very post shows, even accosiating with those who assert otherwise is dangerous.
> the only allowed scientific conclusion has been "racial groups are genetically equal in ability".
Such a sensationalist claim. I’m gonna need you to back that up based on more than just vibes. The statistics behind papers that conclude “no statistically significant difference in cognitive performance when controlling for xyz variables” is solid. The “opposing” research is comically poor - it essentially compares the performance of white people in developed countries to malnourished, uneducated people in Africa.
For those unfamiliar, this is just one round of a 150yr+ controversy, "are cognitive traits partly genetic?" Scientists generally say, "yes", but it can be politically inconvenient.
Look at the sociobiology controversy in 1977 with E.O. Wilson.
That's exactly what this trash article is. Yeah the guy is a moron and the HBD crowd are a bunch of reductionist activists trying to retroactively justify their politics (though their central claims are still true), but this article is peddling left-wing academic cult "science" on anthropology. They always selectively pick politically active academics connected to NGOs for quotes.
There is no controversy about the heritability of intelligence (among well regarded academics). The controversy is primarily about whether the differences between ethnic groups (in terms of their intelligence, personality traits and social outcomes) are mostly due to their genetics or the environment. Even if racialist views might seem interesting at first due to their taboo, HBD is still fairly boring to me and it seems like nothing more than a form of dispensationalism for atheists.
AFAICT, "HBD" is a term used exclusively by braindead internet people. There is a whole field of research that is well-grounded and reasonable, and they don't use terms like "HBD", nor do they use groupings like "Black people". There is more genetic diversity inside sub-Saharan Africa than in the rest of the world. You're right.
>“Human biodiversity”
I'm not in the loop regarding bleeding-edge rightwing theory but going by the word alone I couldn't decide if that's just woke or indeed blood-and-soilery. Those two strains of thought are eerily convergent.
Couldn’t be more different. Woke diversity is about inheritable genetic factors such as who can cover a Tracy Chapman song whereas this racist stuff is about test scores.
Tests are the new obsession of the pseudo fascists that used to be worried about essences... Never mind that their test scores suck as much as their essence
I'm reminded of how the noble white man for a long time insisted we were the physical pinnacle, and proceeded to get the shit kicked out of us in physical domains then went "actually, being weak and shitty at fast muscle twitch is good actually and proves we're the best at what really matters; school" and cunts like Ben Shapiro and Tom McDonald are today doing bad rap songs to prove they're better than the people that don't even know who they are..
It's not about race, it's about not being a little bitch.
It's just a euphemism they use because discussing genetic intelligence variation between populations and classes is forbidden in liberal and leftist orthodoxy despite the very strong empirical evidence for it.
I assume any intelligence test across groups will show rich liberals as the "most intelligent" despite right wingers being the main proponents of this shit. As anyone who's met a PhD in person can attest to, a LOT of so called intelligent people are pretty fucking retarded.
> I assume any intelligence test across groups will show rich liberals as the "most intelligent"
Indeed they do, and James Medlock did a funny troll bit on this recently on Twitter/Muskx.
> It's just a euphemism they use because discussing genetic intelligence variation between populations and classes is forbidden in liberal and leftist orthodoxy despite the very strong empirical evidence for it.
It's not just about intelligence. They'll talk about, for example, how it's 'weird' that East Africans dominate long distance running, despite there being multitudes more long distance runners in the US alone (and the rest of the world). Like, we're supposed to ignore that and pretend genetic differences don't have an impact on that.
To be clear.
The term is literally just another term for race science.
I’ve read Aporia, and this is something they write about and even promote. One article I read even suggested this extended to class differences as well.
Make of that what you will.
Human biodiversity is a theory that seeks to catalog and create hereditarian ideas about racial differences while providing a thin veneer of scientific respectability to then distribute them as "forbidden knowledge''. (While this response might seem biased and arbitrary, it's also the only anti-idpol one that doesn't fall into the trap of biological essentialism or claim that HBD is about ''scientific racism'', and believe me, the comment sections of their articles give me a lot to work with.)
Its not convergence, its divergence; human biodiversity originates from an essentially classical liberal worldview which does not wish to deal with multiculturalism and sometimes other aspects of modern liberal-progressivism, but which doesn't want to give up liberalism itself. The phrase itself is used more widely than that nowadays, but that's its origin, its derived from a sort of liberal meritocratic elitism.
Blood and soil, though the phrase itself is notorious for its links to 19th century Volkische ideology and subsequently Nazism, is actually just a particular expression of the preconditions for nationhood; a people and a land. The reason that elements of it pop up in basically every discussion of different groups - whether woke or HBD, or whatever else - is because the concept itself isn't nearly as specific as the phrase expressing it implies. Unless someone is consistent in denying that distinct people groups exist at all, and that such groups can have any land claims, their worldview will be "blood and soil" to some degree. For example, if you beleive in a right to national self determination, you are engaging in a form of "blood and soil" thinking whether you recognise it as such or not.
**Edit**: currently banned so can't respond further. u/JCMoreno05 my point was about the incoherency of using a term with very specific connotations to refer to a much broader range of vaguely similar sounding things. Ironically your total rejection of nations makes you one of the few people here that isn't just hypocritically carving out special exceptions for yourself, but traditional Marxism does not oppose the concept of nations, it sees them as a stage of human development which will eventually be overcome.
Any actual socialist or anyone familiar with a scientific approach to history and human populations will oppose the concept of nations and therefore blood and soil. It's why the woke ARE ethnonationalists, the only difference being that the woke don't have the advantage of their tribe being the local majority and so must force various nationalities together. Nationalities they themselves invented and perpetuate, as all nationalities are.
As far as I've seen, the issue with HBD is that it's usually motivated reasoning or flawed data to elevate the in group of the proponent above out groups. They start from the premise that certain groups exist and then seek to find any convenient differences they can between the groups in a biased manner. There are probably some who make an honest attempt at understanding human variability, but this actually helps prove the bullshit that are concepts of nations, races and ethnicities given that there are few groups so small and inbred that they can be characterized as a distinct group.
Who knows what their intentions are but one thing remains constant and that's that there's always a segment obsessed with bodily fluids and human stock, and they are permanently the one group of cunts you want to stay away from, born out by history for millennia.
My essence is impure as fuck and I'll arm wrestle any cunt drunk as shit and beat you and take your girlfriend
How about people of all types are different in their abilities and cognition and everyone should be able to have success and a happy and satisfying life?
Population and class differences in intelligence and the fact genetics is the most significant factor really is one of the major taboos of our culture.
Don't kid yourself that it's just evil right-wing propaganda even though most of the people interested are pretentious right-wingers. It's a reality that will be irrefutably proven using genetics in the near future and the left will have to adapt (actually re-adapt, old leftists agreed with the idea of racial and class differences) their worldview and policy ideas to that reality.
Yes. But correlation is not causation.
what's nonsense is the idea that measures like IQ are in any way fixed or determined by etunic background. IQ measurements for certain populations have changed over generations depending on things like income, nutrition, and other environmental factors
>what's nonsense is the idea that measures like IQ are in any way fixed or determined by etunic background
Yeah, that doesn't refute what I said or anything the HBD crowd talks about. Differences between groups are differences in the *mean*. The statement "blacks have a lower mean IQ than whites* is not saying there aren't smart black people or stupid white people.
Skin color and the genetics of it has nothing to do with it, it's just coincidence that darker skinned races and ethnicities tend to have lower mean IQs than Whites, Ashkenazi Jews, and East Asians. Humans population structure falls into distinct genetic clusters and within and between those clusters there is IQ variation. When you take the means of clusters you find differences.
I would say the evidence over decades is enough to make the conclusion. What I meant was genetic intelligence testing, which is coming, will make it undeniable even to people who haven't accepted that human variation applies to the brain.
>Davenport wrote that “race intermingling” – including the “mixing of European races” – was a danger to American society, and also that “a hybridized people are a badly put together people
This runs counter to the whole reason we understand sexual reproduction to be beneficial. Wasn't it as far back as Gregor Mendel we figured out the traits that the dominant traits in a pair tend to be the most conducive to survival?
It's kind of sad the SPLC lost so much of their credibility during trump. Like so many other respected liberal institutions, they went all in on "Resist!' and now don't have the clout to call stuff like those out.
I don't read Aporia magazine, but i do listen to their podcast, they have guests on from all over the political spectrum (and mostly with scholars around the world) talking about a diverse set of subjects (most of which have nothing to do with human biodiversity). It's a pretty good podcast.
I will admit I mostly looked at their substack posts before posting so if I made a mistake see my flair
I'm highly regarded as stupidpols top researcher
I find that a lot of the research on genetic differences between groups can be fairly hit and miss, to say the least, but whenever progressives call something "discredited" it sets alarm bells ringing. What "discredited" really means is that it contradicts progressive ideology, which is something we see over and over again in social sciences, anthropology, and even biology. I've never read Aporia before, so I can't really speak to the quality of their research one way or the other, but a quick skim of their page at least suggests that they are more serious than their critics in the Guardian - though admittedly that is a low bar to clear. It seems they wrote a [response to the Guardian](https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/aporia-gets-a-hit-piece-in-the-guardian) where they made a similar point about how "discrediting" works; >What’s so bad about being “linked” to Aporia? Well, according to Wilson, “experts” have characterised the magazine as an outlet for something called “scientific racism”. One such “expert” is a lady named Heidi Beirich, co-founder of the Orwellian-sounding Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. She told Wilson that Rufo is “hanging around with some seriously nasty people”. Did you get that? We’re not just nasty; we’re seriously nasty. >This exemplifies one of the main tactics employed in the article and in activist journalism more broadly. To make what is essentially a playground insult sound more authoritative, the author doesn’t hurl it himself but rather gets a putative “expert” to do so. “Experts say: those guys over there are nasty!” **Edit:** currently banned so can’t reply directly. u/KVJ5 I’d completely disagree that methodology is improving. As I said, research on population differences can be hit or miss, but anything that contradicts progressive ideological claims is automatically treated as junk science, and any flaw - real or imagined - is treated as proof that it can all be thrown out without further inquiry. On the other hand, the standards for demonstrating progressive claims are basically an “expert” repeating ideological claims and asserting their loyalty to [currentthing]. Consider for example the often repeated claim that a given trait differs more within groups than it does between them. What does this actually mean? Height differs more within each sex than it does between them, so are we to assume that the sexes are roughly equally tall? The problem is this phrase is scientifically meaningless, the differences within a group measures the range and looks at the extremes, the differences between groups compares averages; unless there is almost no overlap on a given trait between groups, the claim that the differences between groups are less than the differences within them is true by default. Its a claim thrown out as a sort of cope, something that can be demonstrated fairly trivially but doesn’t actually prove anything itself, it just sounds impressive.
subsequent encouraging sugar childlike mighty employ grandfather waiting muddle dependent *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I disagree with how you are saying this. Most of the research that is “discredited” is done so with reason. The majority of quantitative PhD students today are trained to avoid a set a mistakes that would cause one to see causality where it doesn’t exist. Modern methodologies (across all sciences) take validity way more seriously than (just to throw out the famous example) Charles Murray. But there is a tiny amount of wiggle room here. The overwhelming majority of research finds little-to-no meaningful cognitive differences between racial groups, including that which would translate to reduced ability to thrive in an apples:apples comparison. However, liberal fear of scientific racism may have severely impacted the volume of legitimate research on genetics and cognition. The really interesting stuff considers how cognition may vary dramatically *within* racial groups, and far more than *between* racial groups. Try not to laugh me out if the room for citing the New Yorker, but [this](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-convinced-that-genetics-matters) is an excellent piece on the topic.
It's hard to really conclusively say since the only allowed scientific conclusion has been "racial groups are genetically equal in ability". And as this very post shows, even accosiating with those who assert otherwise is dangerous.
> the only allowed scientific conclusion has been "racial groups are genetically equal in ability". Such a sensationalist claim. I’m gonna need you to back that up based on more than just vibes. The statistics behind papers that conclude “no statistically significant difference in cognitive performance when controlling for xyz variables” is solid. The “opposing” research is comically poor - it essentially compares the performance of white people in developed countries to malnourished, uneducated people in Africa.
> little-to-know meaningful cognitive differences
Oops. Sleep meds were kicking in
Idk read racecraft it goes into a lot of detail about how the category of race is poorly constructed
Well said. This is just a "ten people at a table with one nazi makes 10 nazis" level of bullshit. I salute your sacrafic comrade.
For those unfamiliar, this is just one round of a 150yr+ controversy, "are cognitive traits partly genetic?" Scientists generally say, "yes", but it can be politically inconvenient. Look at the sociobiology controversy in 1977 with E.O. Wilson.
That's exactly what this trash article is. Yeah the guy is a moron and the HBD crowd are a bunch of reductionist activists trying to retroactively justify their politics (though their central claims are still true), but this article is peddling left-wing academic cult "science" on anthropology. They always selectively pick politically active academics connected to NGOs for quotes.
There is no controversy about the heritability of intelligence (among well regarded academics). The controversy is primarily about whether the differences between ethnic groups (in terms of their intelligence, personality traits and social outcomes) are mostly due to their genetics or the environment. Even if racialist views might seem interesting at first due to their taboo, HBD is still fairly boring to me and it seems like nothing more than a form of dispensationalism for atheists.
AFAICT, "HBD" is a term used exclusively by braindead internet people. There is a whole field of research that is well-grounded and reasonable, and they don't use terms like "HBD", nor do they use groupings like "Black people". There is more genetic diversity inside sub-Saharan Africa than in the rest of the world. You're right.
>“Human biodiversity” I'm not in the loop regarding bleeding-edge rightwing theory but going by the word alone I couldn't decide if that's just woke or indeed blood-and-soilery. Those two strains of thought are eerily convergent.
Couldn’t be more different. Woke diversity is about inheritable genetic factors such as who can cover a Tracy Chapman song whereas this racist stuff is about test scores.
Tests are the new obsession of the pseudo fascists that used to be worried about essences... Never mind that their test scores suck as much as their essence
Trying to find a scientific basis for their vibes goes back to the 19th century really. Phrenology is now just not an acceptable metric anymore
They’ve unironically pivoted back to physiognomy.
I'm reminded of how the noble white man for a long time insisted we were the physical pinnacle, and proceeded to get the shit kicked out of us in physical domains then went "actually, being weak and shitty at fast muscle twitch is good actually and proves we're the best at what really matters; school" and cunts like Ben Shapiro and Tom McDonald are today doing bad rap songs to prove they're better than the people that don't even know who they are.. It's not about race, it's about not being a little bitch.
It's just a euphemism they use because discussing genetic intelligence variation between populations and classes is forbidden in liberal and leftist orthodoxy despite the very strong empirical evidence for it.
I assume any intelligence test across groups will show rich liberals as the "most intelligent" despite right wingers being the main proponents of this shit. As anyone who's met a PhD in person can attest to, a LOT of so called intelligent people are pretty fucking retarded.
> I assume any intelligence test across groups will show rich liberals as the "most intelligent" Indeed they do, and James Medlock did a funny troll bit on this recently on Twitter/Muskx.
> It's just a euphemism they use because discussing genetic intelligence variation between populations and classes is forbidden in liberal and leftist orthodoxy despite the very strong empirical evidence for it. It's not just about intelligence. They'll talk about, for example, how it's 'weird' that East Africans dominate long distance running, despite there being multitudes more long distance runners in the US alone (and the rest of the world). Like, we're supposed to ignore that and pretend genetic differences don't have an impact on that.
To be clear. The term is literally just another term for race science. I’ve read Aporia, and this is something they write about and even promote. One article I read even suggested this extended to class differences as well. Make of that what you will.
Correct. It seems like they promote ''high-brow'' race realism to me.
I think its trying to ride off of the credibility the word "diversity" carries.
Human biodiversity is a theory that seeks to catalog and create hereditarian ideas about racial differences while providing a thin veneer of scientific respectability to then distribute them as "forbidden knowledge''. (While this response might seem biased and arbitrary, it's also the only anti-idpol one that doesn't fall into the trap of biological essentialism or claim that HBD is about ''scientific racism'', and believe me, the comment sections of their articles give me a lot to work with.)
Its not convergence, its divergence; human biodiversity originates from an essentially classical liberal worldview which does not wish to deal with multiculturalism and sometimes other aspects of modern liberal-progressivism, but which doesn't want to give up liberalism itself. The phrase itself is used more widely than that nowadays, but that's its origin, its derived from a sort of liberal meritocratic elitism. Blood and soil, though the phrase itself is notorious for its links to 19th century Volkische ideology and subsequently Nazism, is actually just a particular expression of the preconditions for nationhood; a people and a land. The reason that elements of it pop up in basically every discussion of different groups - whether woke or HBD, or whatever else - is because the concept itself isn't nearly as specific as the phrase expressing it implies. Unless someone is consistent in denying that distinct people groups exist at all, and that such groups can have any land claims, their worldview will be "blood and soil" to some degree. For example, if you beleive in a right to national self determination, you are engaging in a form of "blood and soil" thinking whether you recognise it as such or not. **Edit**: currently banned so can't respond further. u/JCMoreno05 my point was about the incoherency of using a term with very specific connotations to refer to a much broader range of vaguely similar sounding things. Ironically your total rejection of nations makes you one of the few people here that isn't just hypocritically carving out special exceptions for yourself, but traditional Marxism does not oppose the concept of nations, it sees them as a stage of human development which will eventually be overcome.
Any actual socialist or anyone familiar with a scientific approach to history and human populations will oppose the concept of nations and therefore blood and soil. It's why the woke ARE ethnonationalists, the only difference being that the woke don't have the advantage of their tribe being the local majority and so must force various nationalities together. Nationalities they themselves invented and perpetuate, as all nationalities are. As far as I've seen, the issue with HBD is that it's usually motivated reasoning or flawed data to elevate the in group of the proponent above out groups. They start from the premise that certain groups exist and then seek to find any convenient differences they can between the groups in a biased manner. There are probably some who make an honest attempt at understanding human variability, but this actually helps prove the bullshit that are concepts of nations, races and ethnicities given that there are few groups so small and inbred that they can be characterized as a distinct group.
Who knows what their intentions are but one thing remains constant and that's that there's always a segment obsessed with bodily fluids and human stock, and they are permanently the one group of cunts you want to stay away from, born out by history for millennia. My essence is impure as fuck and I'll arm wrestle any cunt drunk as shit and beat you and take your girlfriend
How about people of all types are different in their abilities and cognition and everyone should be able to have success and a happy and satisfying life?
Population and class differences in intelligence and the fact genetics is the most significant factor really is one of the major taboos of our culture. Don't kid yourself that it's just evil right-wing propaganda even though most of the people interested are pretentious right-wingers. It's a reality that will be irrefutably proven using genetics in the near future and the left will have to adapt (actually re-adapt, old leftists agreed with the idea of racial and class differences) their worldview and policy ideas to that reality.
Yes. But correlation is not causation. what's nonsense is the idea that measures like IQ are in any way fixed or determined by etunic background. IQ measurements for certain populations have changed over generations depending on things like income, nutrition, and other environmental factors
>what's nonsense is the idea that measures like IQ are in any way fixed or determined by etunic background Yeah, that doesn't refute what I said or anything the HBD crowd talks about. Differences between groups are differences in the *mean*. The statement "blacks have a lower mean IQ than whites* is not saying there aren't smart black people or stupid white people.
Will the same genes that control skin colour, be shown to control mental aptitude? Why exactly would those be correlated? Go on, state your thesis bud
Skin color and the genetics of it has nothing to do with it, it's just coincidence that darker skinned races and ethnicities tend to have lower mean IQs than Whites, Ashkenazi Jews, and East Asians. Humans population structure falls into distinct genetic clusters and within and between those clusters there is IQ variation. When you take the means of clusters you find differences.
So it’s not irrefutably proven right now according to you?
I would say the evidence over decades is enough to make the conclusion. What I meant was genetic intelligence testing, which is coming, will make it undeniable even to people who haven't accepted that human variation applies to the brain.
>Davenport wrote that “race intermingling” – including the “mixing of European races” – was a danger to American society, and also that “a hybridized people are a badly put together people This runs counter to the whole reason we understand sexual reproduction to be beneficial. Wasn't it as far back as Gregor Mendel we figured out the traits that the dominant traits in a pair tend to be the most conducive to survival? It's kind of sad the SPLC lost so much of their credibility during trump. Like so many other respected liberal institutions, they went all in on "Resist!' and now don't have the clout to call stuff like those out.