Knowing there are plenty of people smarter than me, and some not so smart, plus other variables from nature, is a way to be humane and grounded.

This conversation helped me to articulate my intuition that wokism won’t go away anytime soon: the belief in the blank slate is too deeply rooted in our culture.

This is the hill to die on. Public knowledge of these differences needs to happen, otherwise the current woke insanity will just spread.

Seems a bit risky for Bens channel. Good for him.

I love how we're allowed to recognise race realism when it comes to fast twitch muscle fibre, sprinting, Agility, long distance running, even fallous size (albeit that's a misconception, apparently the Dutch average 6.35, whilst the West African only averages 5.16😢) but when it comes to something like intelligence on pattern recognition, emotional control, suddenly its a cobapuracy theory and we're all the same.

This guy is saying what I have been thinking/saying for years, you can't fix the issue if you do not recognize it.

Race realism is in no way a threat to traditional Christianity. Christians -- traditional ones -- see equality in terms of a soul's inherent worth before God, not as a a matter of equal intelligence, athletic prowess, etc. Race realism and equality before the law can go together perfectly, as do race realism and treating all humans with equal dignity.

Also get us Jared Taylor (he talks with everyone who is willing to talk).

Of course race is real. With that said, love for one’s own race doesn’t need to include hatred for another’s race. AntiWhiteism has been allowed to spread like a cancer. But, we all have the power to stop it from metastasizing further.

There is clearly obvious differences between races. Try to hide and dismiss those differences is destructive to all races. Denying in group preference is absurd.

I breed dogs and types of dogs have very different tendencies. Why would humans be the same? It’s not even possible that separate breeding population would be mentally the same. Especially when they evolved in completely different climates. And when modern groups of humans have varying amounts of Neanderthals Denisovans and other archaic humans in their genes. Obviously those proto humans have different brains and some Eurasian’s are as much as 10% those groups and some Africans are as much as 20% some proto human that we haven’t yet identified. It’s just common sense and a scientific certainty that the minds of different populations would be different.

Of course genes are more important than nurture. Admitting that truth is problematic because people fear racism, oppression, and potentially eugenics. We also want to believe that all people are equal and interchangeable, that we control outcomes merely by taking the appropriate action.

Seems Nathan has caught the ire of the compassionate, accepting inclusive crowd by providing facts. Welcome, Nathan... looking forward to the truth of wrong-think 🐱

The most important and most censored topic in... THE SCIENCE.

The Korean example is happening in real time: the German example. There are still differences in living standard and various outcomes 34 years after reunification.

Forget about (inalterable) genetic differences. Let's start by lowering the absent father rate for Black kids from 75% to, oh, "only" 50%...

It's funny how this 'race realist' has trouble saying the words "higher IQ" and instead talks about people who are "more thoughtful" and "more humane/moral". How do you measure thoughtfulness and humaneness"? There's people who read a lot of books and give to charities whom I would consider neither. In fact, this characterises the average academic nowadays.

His premise is undeniable, but his presentation lacks nuance and is a bit delusional. Perhaps it’s because, and I say this, with no disrespect, he’s on the spectrum and doesn’t recognize that pure logic in this very emotional world doesn’t rule.

Benjamin, try to get Charles Murray on the show.

Haven't watched this yet, was just commenting abt this last episode. This is an important topic, but highly divisive, hope you can tread carefully Benjamin! Ed Dutton whom you had on previously, is to the right of you and me, but is a good faith interlocutor with an informative channel, and I'm a fan of his work.

Great chat. Got kinda dicey at the end when it came to transhumanism and genetic engineering. I think it could be argued that it's possible that there already is a move by the global elite to strip us of our wealth (and health) which links to social mobility and strip us of our intellectual and critical thinking through pushing social media, social emotional learning and D.E.I. programs, basically appealing to our basest instincts and exploiting them. I agree that it does come down to personal accountability and taking action to protect oneself from these forces but there is a lot of stuff coming at us from every angle all at once. You could just call it modern life and survival of the fittest but that might be over simplifying it. Idk. Great chat tho. Thx.

Big thumbs up broaching the topic of Race. Of note it is with a member of that group of people that has spent the last 100 years obliterating the ethnic self identification aspect in Europeans. Attributed to Disraeli in his writings is the phrase "All is Race." And he would know because that is primary driver that motivates those he is biologically linked to. The most ethno centric group in the world runs the Israeli state as an ethno state, pours untold funds in ethnic protectionism within Western countries and ensures that their laws prevent the descendents of those settler ancestors from bringing attention to this ethno-trait that no European is allowed to espouse. Next guest Mr Jared Taylor? Or Charles Murray? or Ricardo Duschene? That would balance the discussion nicely.

The problem with this conversation is that there's no actual hard gene/culture separation, either in measurement, or in actuality. Further, if race/subculture has any effect on outcomes, then equality of opportunity will always produce unequal outcomes.

Group Culture is mysteriously missing from this convo. Very surprising to me

Being capable of deception is a big part of "intelligence" but it's not in the interest of humanity if we want to prosper as a social species. We need to get rid of deception and become honest.

People in this thread seem to overlook the simple fact that there is more variation within each race than there is between races, an inconvenient fact that undermines any argument for any racial group interest rooted in racial realism. There is far greater diversity within the white American population than between any other group.

I remember thinking about this when I was about 15. Wondering how people know that all races have equal intelligence even though they vary in other ways and after a while I just stopped thinking about it because I know it was a "bad" though to have, but I didn't start thinking about it because of some outside source. The thought just independently popped into my head one day. I think it is just an unfortunate truth. I have never come across a counter argument that I though was convincing. The best counter argument I have seen is that IQ tests aren't accurate or don't measure all aspects of intelligence, but this still doesn't negate the simple observation that different peoples differ in lots of ways so why wouldn't they differ in intelligence to some lesser or greater extent. The thing is I don't even like thinking about this. The only reason I have trouble not thinking about it is that i can't see how it's not true and yet most people don't believe it and will treat you with scorn if you even broach the subject. Yet it seems so obvious.

I definitely don’t understand what’s going on - how to feel. I guess I need to watch the full thing.

As I watch this (excellent episode) one important thing to keep in mind: these trait differences among racial groups only describe the MAJORITY of ppl in a group. So, do they only hold true for 51% of group members? It will usually be more than that, and can be more or less depending on specific traits and groups. Also, context matters. In a highly selective college for example (the colleges of yesteryear) most ppl will be very high IQ, regardless of race. If you're at a monster truck rally for example, you might encounter lots of "R strategists," regardless of race. Many factors like these make prejudgements complicated. Besides the fact that fair-minded ppl don't want to prejudge individuals anyway, this is why it's generally difficult to do so, and this type of research usually can't be effectively applied on an individual basis. Now, if we zoom out the lens to a wider demographic level, for policies etc. dealing with society on the macro scale, that's a different story. That's where the findings have explanatory power. That's NOT to say that we should somehow be prejudiced against countries, and just not individuals. But, it might actually be information that informs how geopolitics is conducted, this is too nuanced for our current leaders. It informs how policies are constructed for large groups in a society. You're doing wrong imo if you ruthlessly suppress groups of R strategists, but you're also doing wrong if you treat them like they'll spontaneously become K strategists. Society's complicated, we now better understand how these kinds of variables enter the equation.

Obvious facts. We all know it. We HAVE to deal with reality.

I ran a physiognomy check - both of these chads passed

I never heard ethnic distribution of NBA players should be corrected through interventions of any kind.

I can accept the premise. As a black American, I want to say that it is complicated. One, Nathan is assuming that black culture is monolithic. Forgetting Affirmative Action and the like, I think his premise pose a bigger problem. If he’s correct then I could see some black leaders argue for eugenics. It wouldn’t be the fast time that black leaders advocated for eugenics.

Affirmative Action based on Quality, aptitude, talent, rather than Quantity and filling blind quotas.

I think a question you should ask is what impact does this social bullying have on people who are simply realistic because they are inherently honest and are genuinely scientific in their approach? What happens when you are treated like a daily stormer simply for being reasonably intelligent and intellectually honest? I have slipped into catastrophic alcoholism and depression as a result of unchecked bullying against people like me who are simply factually correct rather than politically correct. The life expectancy for someone who is intellectually honest but lack the ability to go along with consensus or lie rarely goes beyond 50 years. If you doubt that then consider that to be intellectually honest means that you will be treated exactly as though a neo-nazi, member of the KKK, etc. You'll be treated as a criminal with a stigma often worse than that which people who do certain inappropriate things with young children receive. You often become unemployable. I want reparations for the extreme persecution, discrimination and prejudice that I have received.

Fascinating thermal camera! 👍😼 Nocturnal cats always surprise us in their lives while we sleep... 🌠🌠❤

The real issue with this topic, or a huge one, is what colemen hughes brought up. He, personally, and likely many if not near all black people, cannot bear, socially, to be in a society that considers black identifying people as "inferior" in that way. These feelings by them make it impossible to just discuss, as they will feel really badly, and there is all of the gynocracy and leftists to try to make them feel better. Even if it was just a small or tiny amount, they cannot bear it. Straight from Coleman's mouth in I believe it was his talk with the bell curve dude.

Here's my imperfect heuristic, for politics and philosophies from left to right: Progressive = deontologist ... Libertarian = utilitarian ... Conservatarian = consequentialist ... Conservative = virtue ethicist Also, something similar to this next part has actually been established, primary traits from left to right: neurotic ... disagreeable ... agreeable ... conscientious US Liberals probably used to include everyone except Conservatives, Classical Liberals probably used to include both centrists (Libertarian and Conservatarian). The reason Progressives are implicitly deontologists, is because they have an absolute ruleset based on certain morals, applied in all cases (which I've heard has been linked to Unitarianism). Libertarians lean more toward a ruleset, with less moralizing, Conservatarians more toward balancing competing virtues/consequences, with less moralizing. Personally, I'm almost an exact centrist. Although Conservatarianism seems more realistic to me, I generally tend toward center-left, which might be where Libertarians reside.

Great interview! Not least because, thanks to Nathan Cofnas, I now know the correct way to pronounce Neven Sesardic's name! I'd been saying it wrong for years.

Interesting how when you ask your guest about his politics he refers to conservatives and liberals - apparently not a very sophisticated understanding of political philosophy.

Sad how ignorant the comments section is dismissing this out of hand. Shows how well the social climate and indoctrination work.

Sow how about this. I grew up in an academic family well aware of genetic differences and that was the main reason behind different outcomes. But we were also raised by the Christian principals that we are all equal before God and you should never consider anyone "lower in status" as not your equal in the grand scheme of things and their dignity and worth as humans were just as much as theirs. That worked perfectly. Have yo Mr. Cofnas spoken to enough "intellectual" Christians who find it naturally to follow this?

I wonder if Nathan realizes that he is describing how debate about the topic is socially denied, while participating in the mechanism of social denial, in the same podcast. E.g. the presumption that anyone who consumes certain taboo websites is not worth taking seriously. The key to group self-taming and enforcing overton windows is, imo, overloading the feeling of disgust and the instinctual behaviors associated with it. We associate disgust with contagion, so we don't want to touch anything the disgusting person touches, and so on. And we don't think rationally about it, we just get away.

An environment they can't and will not define

Maybe the problem is monopolization and automatation creating less opportunities or dumbing People down so no one notices the problem.

Very brave man, to state the obvious

The absolute egalitarian/equalitarian makes an observable falsehood that “we’re all one human race” means “we’re all one human species” in such a rash fashion that it will be laughed about centuries from now. We wouldn’t put wolfs and coyotes in the same pen, nor would we put polar bears and grizzly bears in the same bear exhibit at a zoo, yet we are doing this in the West at such a scale that it will repeat history like that of Babel. It doesn’t make any race bad, it just means we were all tuned for different continents, different environments and different social structures and especially different variabilities of in-group preferences.

Genes vs environment is somewhat a false dichotomy. All traits are an expression of genes in response to the environment. Some traits are more responsive to environment than others. But it is always genes + environment

Impressive to interview the second most influential millennial philosopher called Nathan. You should invite Nathan Wynn for the next one.

I have always thought race realism to some extent was unavoidable. My understanding is that there are 3 main family trees. 2 of which whites and the asian peoples bred with Neanderthals and the other with what they call Dirivains (?) The African people stayed within their group for the most part, leading to a genetic bottle neck. So, when I look at the other mammals like dogs for example they have very distinct traits. Its not just intelligence its a bunch of different traits. From anxeity to aggresion. They are predictably different based on their breed. Looking back to humans we have 3 genetic family trees that are very different from each other. So, why wouldnt we expect to see different traits among them? If this is true , it may turn out that this "woke" crusade is doomed to fail and will only accomplish the destruction of the system which was built. A system that has given us so many things man never had before. Its clear to me that these people have no end. You give them one thing they simply lose their shit on the next thing and on and on it goes. All the while they eat their own for not being radical enough....

Americans really have walled rhemselves off with their political model. I have never understood why "conservatism" is considered a right of centre and "liberal" a left of centre belief/value system. Liberalisms left and right wings are differentiated not by the degree to which change is needed or to be resisted, but the degree to which the state should interfere where the free market appears to be failing. A lot of conservatism is just as interventionist as liberalism. Trump's 10% tarif on Chinese imports for example, is very left of centre. Roe vs Wade is a very right of centre. The state's reach into people's private lives was very clearly pulled back. Ancap is the true right wing of liberalism, the left wing is local collectivism with property rights and rule of law. The whole political discourse is pointless because of this irrational distinction. Rand Paul recently remarked to Russel Brand that his senator father (1970s) told him how when senior bipartisan committees were put together senior members of both sides were indistinguishable.

Don't forget that evolution stops at the neck and actions stop at the individual.

Boy the dancig around the topic is amazing 😂

46:35 @benjaminaboyce the reason why the conservatives have an IQ problem is that they lost the free trade argument in the Corn Law debates in the early to mid 1800's in the UK where all the British Conservative Intellectuals moved to the left wing. The only people left were the farmers and Benjamin Disraeli. We had the same thing happen to us in the 1930's to 1990's when we exported farming and manufacturing to the rest of the world. All the conservative intellectuals became free market liberals. Bill Clinton "It's economics stupid." Robert Peele, the leader of the Conservative Party at the time, turned his second in command said "You're going to have to debate them. I think they're right and I agree with them."

"Equality of outcomes is Marxism." The confidence with which people that have clearly never read Marx say things like this is baffling.

It will never be not upsetting to see comments demonizing your race and insulting the people you know and love. No one can control their race, no one earns it, but because we’ve been brainwashed to think race means something… it means that you’ll always be included and maligned for actions individuals in your race commit if you’re a minority. Individuals who would also hurt you…but you have to be included with them.

54:23 This would be the most sensible strategy. Freedom of association should mean I should be able to choose to live with, work with, and associate with whoever I want for whatever reason. Forced diversity goes against our basic civil rights. If someone would prefer to live in an all white community, why would anyone non-white want to live around such people anyway? I wouldn’t choose that myself. But just because I don’t want to live with only other white people, that doesn’t mean other people shouldn’t have that option. Just let people live the way they want so long as they aren’t hurting other people.

56:27 Think of all the intellectual energy that has been wasted in trying to discover truth while trying to deny the existence of God.

A whole lot of people don't concern themselves with their instinctive self or even think about what instincts are and I would like to make a effort in revealing just how profoundly important it is to understand because it is defining us a a level that sits beneath al the things we learn after we are born and it influences all decisions we make during our lifetime. The things we learn can be anything, objectively true, false or otherwise. This implies that the thing all humans have in common are our instincts that we inherited from our pre-human ancestors and it contains millions of years of evolutionary knowledge about how to survive (nurturing of our children) and how to be as prosperous as possible (make the best use of available ressources). I will emphasize one key important thing about humans and that is our lack of huge canines that we had some 7 million of years ago but had almost "lost" some 2 million yeas ago before we aquired our additional cognitive neurons on top of our instinctive primate neurons. The only sensible reason for that is that our female ancestors began to see aggressive behavior as a thread to the wellbeing of their children which slowly shifted their male mating preferences towards the lesser aggressive and for obvious reasons that made males with smaller canines more attractive. In comparison it has to be empathized that gorillas for instance have huge canines even though the only eat greenery, fruits and berries, because they rely on aggressive behavior to attract females for mating. Another key important feature is that it is almost contradictory to becoming cognisant to have predetermined knowledge built-in into that cognitive neural structure and everything therefore has to be learned and propagated culturally through teaching of our children. Our cognitive neurons are capable of suppressing our instinctive neurons and it is almost impossible to think that our instinctive neurons will not be painfully affected by bad/non-instinctive behavior of our cognitive neurons and that this response to bad/deviant behavior will not be felt back by our cognitive neurons. Because our cognitive neurons has to learn everything they will not know why they sense this discomfort and they must somehow interpret it as either they are doing something wrong (because they believe they are fully in control of everything) or they must project that feeling outward and put the blame on something in the environment (likely other humans). This is a description of an internal battle between an unknown "enemy" that is our non-cognitive instincts and our unaware "cognisant" neurons that can in worst case lead to us believing that we are evil at the core and make us become very aggressive towards others. The bonobos that live at the Congo river is only 1.3% genetically different from humans and they are without any doubt our closest instinctive relatives. Not only are they instinctively non-aggressive but they also behave sexually in a manner that every human can relate to if we removed the information that has been pased culturally through thousands of generations, which is highly dependent on where you were born. There is only one way to evolve culturally successfully and that is to understand our instinctive origin and the reason we unavoidably became mentally upset while becoming cognisant capable. We should acknowledge that, religions created by amazing philosophers trying to explain good vs evil in many different atempts throughout our planet, were in reality trying to explain our internal battle between cognitive- and instinctive neurons. They just didn't have the luxury of all the combined knowledge about religion, philosophy, anthropology, archeology, history, psychology, psychiatry, biology, genetics, neurology and other fields of understanding that we have today. If we can do that we will have a very prosperous future as Homo Sapiens 2.0, which is the truely self-aware Homo Sapiens that will be able to survive indefinitely. If everything we do is for the future of all of our children, we will have no further significant problems and we can create a planet that is a cognisant star in the universe.

Glenn Lowry and Jonathan McWhorter are two black men who talk about this. Unfortunately they're the only ones who can talk about it without being canceled.

the Fastest _Isræli,_ the Richest *Jamaican;* you might be surprised by which one _won’t_ eat *bacon!* 57:57 😂 Je me suis bien amusé, au moins.

Oh goodness, am I ready for this?

Ben ... you're looking especially spiffy today... whats the deal? Looking fit, well groomed and focused. etc. Keep it up.

1:13:40 he’s NRX based on the tenets he holds

Anything "taboo" has got to be worth watching.

This is a proposition and a hypothesis. More importantly however, the narrative being formed above the discussion that certain people are having about this data (i.e. Mr. Murray and thyselves) is quite disingenuous and near-sighted; intentionally so. The truth is there have been massive efforts to suppress people of African descent in the Americas, as well as in-continent if not in recent years (which I would not hesitate to say so), then certainly in previous years. This disturbs and preoccupies the cognitive faculties, and functioning, of said peoples from familiarizing itself with said concepts measured in these tests. Why is it that so many years later, many "minority" students express disdain for the education system? Colonization has a nasty effect of alienizing an already dehumanized people. Asia and its many nations have enjoyed large periods of peace, despite a certain illustrious war history as well. The reality of slowly homogenizing populations throughout the course of time is that appellations for peace in societies causes education to prosper, for the sake of community. Europeans and Middle Easterners warred a lot, but also enjoyed many periods of peace and prosperity in which education could prosper. The truth about Africa is that it was always antagonized by Middle Eastern nations, and even northern European nations. A derogatory attitude towards the people of this region is found even in the religious teaching of Europeans and Middle Easterners (I can point out examples of racism, genocide, and more in all three major religious texts of said regions today). The Christian gospels profess that it is a difficult thing for Ethiopians to understand them, and a man (Phillip) being miraculously taken into heaven for "managing to teach one". Nonetheless, even African nations have enjoyed peace, prosperity, and much of their educational accomplishments served as the foundations for what the Greeks and Romans would implement and expound upon. European Americans considered Black Africans 3/5ths of a person when they all arrived here, at the start of this now modern society, and while European culture could flourish and prosper with two systems in play for their enrichment in America (democratic-republican capitalism and feudal serfdom multiplied in the form of chattel slavery), African descendents were facing the worst effects of the worst colonization efforts in history; and the West is a history of colonization efforts and profitting from other people's, and populations' downfalls-- between Europe, the Middle East, and to a lesser extant Africa (Egypt was a colonizer, as was Carthage.) Omission from rites in ancient times is akin to remission of education in modern times. One more thing: "Black Wall Street." African-American, and "minority" prosperity, has been the target of Supremacists many times throughout the course of American history. Considering the relative peace that said people have enjoyed within these societies, and their quantity as a population within these societies: I think it is only a beginning statement to many more people's analysis of this data that it does not faithfully describe people's realities.

The tidal wave of science can only be held back for so long.

Hmm, what about the Nigerian Vs African American argument? I live in Australia, the Aboriginal people here are stymied by their group ethic (no private property is justified) and they look to and identify with the African American experience/culture. Chinese Vs Taiwanese/Hong Kongers ? I always thought the Philosopher King in Plato's Republic was fatally flawed because the master race could never be sealed off from the generation before it without being seriously damaged by the experience.

The race realism narrative reminds me of the "discrimination is responsible for all disparities" narrative, i.e., both are narratives and there are useful bits of evidence or information that can be used to try and support them. They also both remove the need to think carefully and in a nuanced way - x is the answer for everything - case closed. Oh and let's take action based on this belief - because that always ends well...

28:57 Where is the evidence that race plays a role in intelligence. There is far more evidence that it is down to environment.

I'm willing to believe that Christianity may be relevant when it comes to the egalitarian ethos you find in western countries, but egalitarian societies have existed in other parts of the world, and there are some popular theories that egalitarianism is original to us. I don't know if there's any truth to "race realism" as it relates to IQ, but if there is, one way of creating a sense of greater equality would be to increase the value of different kinds of intelligence and capacities over the kinds of intelligences that are utilised in STEM and certain professions.

The topic of this conversation is very complex and there are so many tangents you can take. While you can argue that Hitler wasn't drawing from evolution and Darwin(I would disagree), the zeitgeist of the early 20th century was absolutely applying evolution and Darwinism to eugenics, racial hierarchies, and plenty of practices we would hopefully not look to return to. Secondly, I think the world view of Dr. Cofnas does take on many assumptions which sterilizes and atomizes the issue while reducing resolution. He cannot prove that IQ is not a consequence of nurturing, parental assertion of values which encourage the tools which raise IQ, and ethnic, cultural, and social institutions which form children. His stance is rooted in a subjective lens that memetic and historical forces do not color or complicate evolution. He cannot prove or disprove that the evolution of humans is different than finches. While I agree with the thrust of his points: tempering the fundamentalist race-based equality, I think that this is a simplified view that ignores a lot of the social, cultural complexities that aren't "testable".

The exclude the idea of an intelligent mind behind and intricate world makes the pursuit of trying to understand morality flawed and unscientific as not all ideas are being explored.

I think the Doc saying that the lower classes will keep doing it the "old fashioned way", is the point. They do a lot of the "old fashioned way" stuff, and if the intelligent make up 1 percent of the society it is a dangerous situation.

Very interesting talk. I think the taboo over intelligence and its heritability has probably done a lot of harm to the way we design educational systems and curricula. It's a very disagreeable reality to face, but I think it's important for courageous (or even disagreeable!) scholars to face these questions empirically. I wish reality wasn't like this, but given that it probably is, it seems wise to study it and not cry and cancel anyone who investigates the topic.

Dammit I meant to say morality on my snarky last quip.

I don't understand anything that this guy is saying, but it makes me feel more intelligent listening to it 😀

From my observations, I believe that the quality of racism is often associated with evil and human suffering in it's totality, which is why many of those who are in the new left carry an attitude of sacrilege whenever their beliefs are questioned. To me it is the same logic that the common people in Salem Massachusetts had when it came towards paganism and occult beliefs, that quality of investing in those beliefs could lead towards drastic action towards what they perceive as evil, as seen with new left believers and their attitude on twitter. To me I think where evil truly lies stems from the instance that we indulge in ignorance, rather than to see nuance in our actions, the worst things that post civil war america brought towards African Americans lie primarily in the hands of those who were rife with ignorance, and were primal in their utmost essential behavior, which reflects many of the behavior of the modern new left.

Cognitive dissonance theory explains a lot of this. It's not exactly what most think, and is a huge aspect of moral, cultural, behavioral psychology. In that, all the 'races' of the human species are the same, it's our cultures that are the variants. We know we're a social species that cooperates to survive. CDT explains homogenous moral frameworks, aka, religions, ideologies. A way to look at morality is to compare the authoritarian tactics outlined in Robert Lifton's 8 to any cultures homogeneous moral framework. An anti authoritarian moral framework seems to thrive to an insane degree. It's obvious in our cultures insane production of everything, our insane scientific and technological advances. Our historic anti authoritarian development going back to the magna carta, John Locke basic human rights/property rights, free, voluntary trade, the idea that testimonial truth is a virtue. Our traditional culture's homogeneous moral framework is what we'd expect if evolution is doing its thing. Cooperation. The intelligence by race factor? It's cool, but doesn't matter much in North Korea, Russia or China compared to their potential. According to Thomas Sowell blacks had nearly caught up to whites economically shortly after WWII.

@28:00. The "environmental problem" is the best explanation of current progressive approaches to race relations. The issue is the environment has bern fixed and relations supposedly have not changed. (meaning it's either a grift or psychological).

Benjamin...it's as easy as realizing that if you carry through on heredity characteristics of Personality, and that Personality characterisitics and their domination within haplo groups were dependent on evolutionary success...then you're going to see a commonality that results in the development of entire civilizations...and the stagnation of entire civilizations.

This guy has a nice heavy hammer, he's got a good strong swing and he's got a tough sharp nail, and he's swinging away but he keeps just missing the nail, or just delivering glancing blows. He's so close, but he might bend the nail if he's not careful.

squaring the circle of nat .select "giving morality " is one of those pie in the sky tower of babel projects that promises the transcendent knowledge but never quite delivers.

There are more recent realist accounts of race in philosophy, that argue against both biological realism and social constructivism, and may be motivated by a woke politics of racial realism. The "philosiohy of race" it comes under.

Great guest, I have a pretty loaded question, so hopefully he's reading this or you could pass it along: 1. He's using "Natural Selection" rather loosely as a catchall for current evolutionary thought -- accepting that premise (tho it is arguable from a practical standpoint), by using "race" as a sort of classification process, are we not omitting the predominate mid-20th century revelation that the term "race" itself was traditionally misunderstood/didn't actually encompass the scale of ethno-cultural inheritance it was erroneously adopted to represent? [for clarity, see Julian Huxley's position on race and realignment of definitions leading into Modern Synthesis/the re-establishment of "Natural Selection" as an empirical standard - see also "We Europeans" 1935] 2. Accepting Julian's position as predominate... Your question about ethics being resolved through Natural Selection to provide an ethical basis seems to fundamentally challenge your conflicting views on race with Sir Julian (mentioned above) being that he used his grandfather's work to flesh out the entire argument for this course of scientifically based ethical systems in [see: Touchstone for ethics, 1893-1943] 3. If 1&2 are addressed then the conceptual boundaries of your argument have all but diminished and we can move onto the most pressing matter, #3: "it's not genes, it must be environmental" arguments have only recently (1990 ->) been attributed to any sort of "racial injustice". The actual argument (by actual, I mean non-ideologically/less politically motivated argument) is that pollutants, contaminants, and influences such as long time exposure to diseases (malnutrition, lead exposure, ETC) are responsible for many/most of the intellectual deficiencies being attributed to race. Conclusion: Accepting that 1-3 are true/valid questions/concerns (they are, I have plenty of evidence) I find your assessment that "this is what wokeism is, taking the equality assessment seriously" either under-studied or utterly lacking in its diagnostic aptitude. Firstly, you're conflating several different and at times opposing forces as the same thing. Then, you're asserting that these forces are seeking "an equality that doesn't exists" over "an equality which can exist" in a way which implies that you don't truly seem to grasp the "controlled evolutionist" position/argument. All that said, maybe I'm wrong; a concern which leaves me to ask a two-part question: 1. Do you feel that Evolution by Natural Selection is both empirical and an important touchstone for ethics? 2. Given the importance of genetic diversity implied by the modern synthesis of Natural Selection, is it more or less important to prioritize environmental factors over racialized categorization?

His own moral biases are a little too apparent.

Benjamin, did you buy nightvision goggles to watch your cat?

I agree it would be helpful to normalize hereditarianism, with three important caveats. First, no serious hereditarian would claim that environments plays no role in shaping ability or behavior. There is some mix with environment.. Second, science remains truly unsettled about the degree to which heredity is primary,and what if anything could most accurately measure this. And in this debate, those who minimize heredity have some strong arguments to make, at the very least worthy of consideration. Third, reducing inequality of outcome as much as possible will still remain a liberal goal, given that environment and culture plays at least some role. So, yes, good ahead and talk about it, but it’s not a magic bullet against wokism.

The biggest problem facing a "race realist world" is that in advanced nations with robust welfare states there is far too little environmental pressure to normalize IQ between disparate groups. Those that have more brains will probably stay somewhat close to where they've been for a while due to better available nutrition and cleaner water, etc., and then stagnate and start to see dysgenic effects where IQ decreases (this is already happening, I'm just laying it out there), while those with lower average IQ will also stagnate and in some cases potentially also see IQ decrease in the worst case scenario. Racial average IQ isn't some fixed thing that cannot improve, but it won't if there's no pressure for it to do so. Without war and famine and childhood disease, we live too long and with zero real checks on our populations and the competencies of those populations. Some like the use of abortion to put upward pressure on IQ by selectively culling the undesirable, but I'm not sure that's having the intended effect either. It looks to me like we've painted ourselves into a corner with very few sources of upward lift to apply to the problem of IQ but I'm open to ideas as to how we get around this quandary without returning to the bad old days where greater cleverness much more often meant the difference between death or survival.

I don't understand how he got to see equality of opportunity as camouflaging an equite core, really don't

1:28:55 Benjamin oddly asked a very insightful question and qualifies it with... 'I know this is a technical a stupid question' .... ah no dude... this is a good question... I doubt many people have thought of this before...

These conversations are dangerous because they exclude the bright individuals amongst ethnic minorities. It may have been worth discussing some basic statistics for the uneducated audience. Moreover, IQ is a mystery, we don’t fully yet understand the extent to which environment can effect it. And I think a reconsideration of IQ is required to account for this view, I assume you could appreciate the concern of the theory IQ being a measure of general fitness and adaptability.

The Key is you can't have everything. You can't be 7 ft tall basketball player and have 105 IQ. That would be too OP. So God in his infinite wisdom gave each group of people different strengths and weaknesses so they have to work together.

1:30:45 "properly realized" ... hmm that was a big statement there.... lol

Fine. SECOND.

Madame Blavatsky hasn’t commented yet… Is she skipping it🤔, or is she laaaaate⏰?

Interesting but hard to listen to

We acknowledge that African descent often yields certain physical advantages, but mental differences are off the table. I'm no expert, but research into this clearly too taboo. We will never know the truth anytime soon.

Is intelligence a dominant gene?

Rather than screening for the perfect embryo and initiating genetic manipulation (1:12), it would of more use to focus on lower hanging and far more impactful fruit, such as the health of the mothers producing the embryos and growing the resulting infants. Once the infant is born, environmental factors are a major factor in the development of that child's IQ. A Jewish child born in a stable family is likely to develop a higher IQ when being exposed to superior nutrition, probably multiple languages, positive role models, critical thinking and all sorts of skill building. Contrast this with a ghetto single black mother who has poor eating habits and neither exhibits or encourages self control or a good work ethic. Comparing successful or unsuccessful individuals across races rather than the overall average success of any racial group would likely provide a more accurate answer as to how much genetics are a factor in IQ. I suspect that it would be very hard to measure, and provide little useful information.