While I agree with the notion that hight IQ people may be more "valuable" to a society when considering their greater potential contributions to fields like science, medicine and technology, having spent a lifetime in academia surrounded by high IQ folks, I can say that many of them are among the most unethical, amoral and fascistic scumbags you'll find anywhere. If you want to know what living in a high IQ society would feel like, image being ruled over with an iron fist by the faculty senate of your friendly neighborhood university.
Academics (i.e., people who never want to leave school) might not be representative of the high-IQ population. Also, many of them are not actually so intelligent.
The post you linked is largely a justification of race realism and a discussion of what must be done in order to make it mainstream. You don't weigh the consequences of making it mainstream at all. You advocate for this, but you've never discussed whether it would be a net benefit to society or how beneficial it would be. Do you have any other writings about that topic?
I'm not sure how much of it you read, but the post includes an extensive discussion about how mainstreaming race realism will end the DEI regime and create the conditions for a new moral/political equilibrium. It explicitly addresses the question of whether race realism is more dangerous than wokism.
I read it all. You mention that Hanania predicts unforeseen consequences, but there's no discussion about what those could be, or whether the result would be preferable. You discuss whether race realism could lead to the same (or worse) consequences as wokism, but I'm more interested in how you actually envision society changing after you achieve your goal.
A mainstream belief that effectively dehumanizes at least 14% of the population (at least in their view) and cuts off their access to elite institutions would surely cause significant social unrest. Liberal-minded allies worldwide would oppose the policies, and prestige would be lost.
My question is how specifically do you see it all playing out? Your vision could very well produce a worse society than the one we currently have. If you've ever discussed that, I'd be interested to read what you have to say.
AI automation seems like it will mostly automate lower skilled white collar workers, rather than blue collar workers, since robotics hasn't kept up with software improvements.
While I agree with the notion that hight IQ people may be more "valuable" to a society when considering their greater potential contributions to fields like science, medicine and technology, having spent a lifetime in academia surrounded by high IQ folks, I can say that many of them are among the most unethical, amoral and fascistic scumbags you'll find anywhere. If you want to know what living in a high IQ society would feel like, image being ruled over with an iron fist by the faculty senate of your friendly neighborhood university.
Academics (i.e., people who never want to leave school) might not be representative of the high-IQ population. Also, many of them are not actually so intelligent.
Hey I saw this week critique of Richard linens can I ask you to respond https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-else/201210/the-pseudoscience-race-differences-in-penis-size
Many thanks for not paywalling your content. These conversations deserve a large audience!
Suppose we accept your beliefs as a society. OK, now what? What actions should be taken, and what benefit does that acceptance bring?
https://ncofnas.com/p/a-guide-for-the-hereditarian-revolution
The post you linked is largely a justification of race realism and a discussion of what must be done in order to make it mainstream. You don't weigh the consequences of making it mainstream at all. You advocate for this, but you've never discussed whether it would be a net benefit to society or how beneficial it would be. Do you have any other writings about that topic?
I'm not sure how much of it you read, but the post includes an extensive discussion about how mainstreaming race realism will end the DEI regime and create the conditions for a new moral/political equilibrium. It explicitly addresses the question of whether race realism is more dangerous than wokism.
I read it all. You mention that Hanania predicts unforeseen consequences, but there's no discussion about what those could be, or whether the result would be preferable. You discuss whether race realism could lead to the same (or worse) consequences as wokism, but I'm more interested in how you actually envision society changing after you achieve your goal.
A mainstream belief that effectively dehumanizes at least 14% of the population (at least in their view) and cuts off their access to elite institutions would surely cause significant social unrest. Liberal-minded allies worldwide would oppose the policies, and prestige would be lost.
My question is how specifically do you see it all playing out? Your vision could very well produce a worse society than the one we currently have. If you've ever discussed that, I'd be interested to read what you have to say.
The root moral question: do people with higher IQs WANT to have any economic use for people with lower IQs?
We've lost the luxury of having no choice but to need them, thanks to mechanization & automation.
We're loosing the rat race to increase demand faster than productivity.
AI automation seems like it will mostly automate lower skilled white collar workers, rather than blue collar workers, since robotics hasn't kept up with software improvements.