After 1964 and the Civil Rights Act, the Solid Democratic South became the Solid Republican South. There was no sea change rearing up in any direction. It was a wholesale, pretty much instant conversion. It’s very hard to draw out any regional/political, urban/rural, conservative/liberal, Dem/GOP relationships corresponding to any election since that watershed year.

If someone in the Solid South voted Democratic prior to 1964, would it mean that they were more liberal? Or just that they were still following the Confederate mind/set which would rather die than vote Republican? If someone voted Republican in that region, would it have meant that they were conservative, or that they were voting against the Dixiecrats? Would party voting tell us anything about urban/rural differences or similarities? There would be no way to distinguish between two sorts of motivation, so no conclusions about that region could be drawn, at least not in the same way as afterwards.

Wouldn’t the German portion of Texas be another one of these pockets?

> we should be encouraging smart women to not go to school.

As a certified Mensa guy, all I can say is: all that have received the gift should come to the conclusion that it is best applied not for intellectual pursuit, but for procreation.

If IQ was 100% random, it’s OK to use it up for discovery.

If IQ is 100% hereditary, it is best to multiply it and let the offspring do the discovery.

And I would hope intelligent women would come to the same conclusion.

Swedes (as well as Germans) are also heavy drinkers and Norwegians are teetotalers. A big split in the American Lutheran Church happened because of Norwegian American support for prohibition as opposed to German and Swedish Lutherans who did not support it.

From the picture it appears that he has decided to go with cloning.

This is the reason why I consider dysgenics to be an overstated problem. I think dysgenics is being used by certain political factions as justification to browbeat people who don’t want kids into having them. Since I don’t like to be browbeated for any reason at all, anyone who wants to browbeat me (whether they be PC greenie left or social conservative right) can go screw themselves,

Elon Musk should offer to be a sperm donor for hundreds of women, particularly in his homeland of South Africa 🙂

This study finds a slight negative correlation between fertility and intelligence:

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-reproduction-of-intelligence.pdf

Looking forward to it.

Ah, thanks. Missed the link on my first pass.

Regarding the Idiocracy post, what’s the variance in parental age at first child and total children, especially at the 9-10 WORDSUM level?

Or freeze their eggs…

I was thinking something along the same lines.

*by

I notice that all of your examples are men. I believe some of the analysis that the Audacious Epigone has done agrees; as I recall he found a modest eugenic trend for men, though a dysgenic one for women. The dysgenic one for women is driven my education, not intelligence, however, so the takeaway would be that we should be encouraging smart women to not go to school. 😉

Is FBD cousin marriage? If so the trend in the Islamic World is that it is an outdated practice, virtually noone educated and under 30 does it anymore. I am not sure how long it would take for the abandonment of cousin marriage to impact IQ scores, maybe you have an idea?

We should also remember that most Muslims did not choose Islam, it was imposed through a military conquest. In fact most of the people in the Roman World (Syria, North Africa, etc.) actually chose Christianity, though it is true that Islam was not available as a choice at that time.

It is too early to tell what affect the internet and globalization will have on belief in the developing world. But Islam has already become very westernized and is virtually unrecognizable from it’s original form which seems to only be practiced by fringe groups like ISIS. The West will turn Muhammad into a hippie before they are through with him.

You are probably correct that people in the Islamic World are genetically predisposed to be more likely to believe in inaccurate, feel good ideologies. However I would not say that they are hardwired to believe in Islam in particular. i.e. The Maltese are genetically similar to Arabs and they are devout Catholics. In my opinion Islam is the most dangerous of all “false ideologies�, far more dangerous than other religions and far more dangerous that Leftist Blank Slatism. So the work that New Atheists do in trying to convert people out of Islam is more important than the work you do in trying to convert people out of Leftist Blank Slatism. You are ahead of your time and most of the world is not ready to accept the truth that you post. First dangerous ideologies such as Political Islam need to be abandoned, and I am more confident than you that this can be achieved. Already educated Muslims have turned the image of Muhammad from a ruthless warlord to a new age hippie that preached peace and tolerance. Western ideology always wins in the end.

Take a look at this!

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/genetic_maps_of_europe.shtml

Protestantism seems to correlate with fair hair, fair eyes and Germanic Y-DNA haplogroups

I’m confused here. On one hand Jayman is saying that black fertility is dysgenic. On the other hand, the 15 pt IQ gap between white and black has been consistent. So if the less intelligent blacks are bringing down IQs, why isn’t the black-white IQ gap widening?

”It’s only too bad that there isn’t a highly effective non-surgical long-term contraceptive for men, but considering the fellow in the previously linked article, an option for voluntary sterilization for individuals who seem to sire more children than they can support might not be that politically unpalatable.”

Not anymore there is now a herbal based birth control pill invented in indonesia:
http://jakarta.coconuts.co/2014/11/24/indonesia-about-start-producing-male-birth-control-pill-going-change-world

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/indonesia/141124/indonesia-new-male-birth-control-pill-effective#ixzz3Kqgez8gP

Jayman

I can’t remember if we’ve had this discussion before. If we have, please forgive the redundancy.

If a child of South Asian Hindus is adopted by North European Protestant Christians, isn’t she more likely to grow up Christian than Hindu? I agree that the child’s general level of piety might be genetic, but surely you can only join a religion you’re actually exposed to. (Religions need direct human transmission. No one in the western hemisphere became a Christian simply by opening their heart to God. Christians first had to arrive from Europe and explain what Christianity was.)

As well as the religiosity/scepticism variable, there’s also a conformity/nonconformity variable. In the past, many people will have been religious simply because they were conformists. Now conformism may actually make them atheists.

It seems that unbelief has grown in the West. Did it really grow, or is it simply that the stigma against admitting it declined? In other words, that the current figures simply reflect Western peoples long-term revealed opinions, now that duress has been removed?

Christopher Hitchens points out that Psalm 14 opens: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.� This shows that, even under bronze age Jewish theocracy, with every possible stigma against denying God, there were some who didn’t believe, and the Psalmist was aware of it.

Within Islam, there are some who don’t believe, but who feel unable to reveal their opinions. This may even be true of some Media Muslims in the West. One British Muslim I rather like is Sarfraz Manzoor. He doesn’t show any obvious signs of Islamic piety. It sometimes feels as if he retains the Muslim moniker simply because it makes him more marketable than if he was just another Brit of South Asian heritage.

It’s hard to know how many nominal Muslims don’t actually believe, but are dissimulating for the sake of a quiet life. One reason for the Charlie Hebdo massacre was probably to frighten such people back into the closet. There’s a pretty direct connection; that if people aren’t frightened of ridiculing Islam, people won’t be frightened of leaving Islam.

“While they may have deleted my comment out of some silly rule against self-promotion (which is a bullshit policy anyway)�
But Jayman, you only think this becuase you don’t have the innate, genetic distaste western Europeans have for self-promotion.

This is very interesting. For the last few years I have been coming to the conclusion that religion, as a part of most reasonably advanced cultures, is, at least, genetically supported, and that each racial group may, in fact, have wet-ware support for a particular style of religious experience (however, it is intriguing that various flavors of Christianity have made some inroads into East Asian groups and it would be interesting to find out what aspects of Christianity have been highlighted or whether there are just a subset of East Asians to who the Christian message appeals.)

I have also been coming to the conclusion that the modern myths function as a replacement for traditional religion, even among the more intelligent.

I am White (mostly) and officially Irreligious, growp up in Mexico, yet of the religions the one I can’t give up is Hinduism 🙂 it reasonates perfectly with my desire for rich stimulation (the idols and huge literature), Christianity after a while seems dull to me.

Hi JayMan, just discovered this gem of a blog by a comment you left on Dawkins’ Twitter. What a tremendous post!

As an agnostic theist, it has been a minor spiritual experience in and of itself reading your post and coming to the inspiring revelation that there exist atheists such as yourself who think critically about the neurological evolutionary factors at play in the formation and sustained belief of religion. I can’t even express how frequently and how strongly your insights took me by surprise as you examined the true nature of HBD-induced belief-lust and how New Atheism has grown to fill that hole as contentedly as theism grew to fill it in ages past.

Looking back, it’s clear to me that my only experience with atheists has been of the new atheist flavor, which impressed upon me the disheartening belief that atheists in general existed in a fog of low consciousness, unable to muster any respect or clarity surrounding the biological underpinnings of consciousness — and doing so from a comfortable armchair of unprecedentedly-high ego (which, of course, considering the fog and general lack of cognition, is completely undeserved). I honestly came to this post expecting to see the usual fog and general lack of critical thought, but boy, was I surprised!

You do yourself and the entire atheist community a tremendous service by sharing this kind of clarity and ego-death-induced wisdom. Of course, it’s clear that you’re more intelligent than most of the others that I’ve met, but I honestly think every man of lesser intellect — atheistic or not — could come to a massively-heightened level of understanding by undertaking the simple task of letting go of his own ego and embracing the beautiful world of truth that exists in open-mindedness.

I also find it interesting how so many of the comments here are written by users who are clearly of superior intellect. Great minds attract others, I suppose. Very happy to have stumbled on this little sanctuary of open, critical thought at 8am — it really made my morning 🙂 Well done to all involved.

Take care and do keep sharing your thoughts, Jay!
~Josh

Ireland’s fertility rate has been falling. I see one source gives it as 2.01 for 2013:

http://www.indexmundi.com/ireland/total_fertility_rate.html

I suspect ‘liberal’ isn’t the core issue, but that feminism is. Obviously the quest for gender equality leads to a situation in which the man is supposed to not pursuit his career a 100% but to take time of to take care of kids and the household. The open minded men probably agree with this in principle….but…when they think a little longer they realize that they really don’t like to do it…because it goes against their instincts, they’re men. So they make up all kinds of reasons why it is not the time to have kids yet. They just don’t want to face the fact that the only ‘solution’ to their aversion to being tortured by having to take care of little children is to have a traditional marriage because that would get into trouble with their spouse.

This is a strange “straw vulcan” perspective on rationality.

Rationality is not a synonym for selfishness – An irrational belief is at odds with the evidence. An irrational action is at odds with producing likely outcomes that you value. An irrational value is… not a coherent concept. In other words you can believe something irrationally, you can do something irrationally, but you can’t *want* something irrationally, provided it is at least coherent. I want the future world to be a good one, even if I don’t get to see it, and that isn’t irrational.

Do you genuinely model religious people as thinking “Oh I’ll do this good thing, even though the outcome will happen after I die, because I’ll be able to watch the outcome from heaven and feel happy about it then”? That the only reason for it is your own personal enjoyment decades from now in the afterlife? I don’t think religious people think that way at all, I think they think “I’ll do this because it’s a good thing, even though I won’t see the outcome, because I know it’s a good thing to do and that makes me happy now”. And I think atheists think in the exact same way.

Oh, I see you dealt with this by pointing out that in the absence of immigration, the population shrinks leading to lower housing costs which boosts fertility.

“Now, at this point, I know one criticism that will be leveled at me is that the increase in the non-White share of the population will make it unlikely that Republicans will be able to capture the presidency, as was the main rant after the last election. However, I think it’s unclear if that will be the case. ”

“However, it’s my suspicion that the non-White vote that buttresses the Democrats can only hold out so long against an increasingly Right-leaning White populace.”

Why? Non-white fertility rates project to be higher than white ones well in to the period when the US becomes a majority-minority country.

Plus, another key issue is the proportion of children who become more liberal than their parents vs. more conservative. Certainly on social issues, there has been more of a shift left than right when you go down through the generations since WWII.

just… awesome blog. awesome.

High IQ individuals are much better for society than low IQ people are bad. The positive contribution to society that a great scientist provides is way more than the drain on society that a person on welfare causes. Even if there were twice as many people the US with an IQ < 75 their drain on society would be substantial but technological progress would march on at rate not so much lower than the present since there would still be just as many scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs.

This is pretty critical, reducing the fertility rate of immigrants and low IQ people is fine but if you can't simultaneously boost the fertility rate of high IQ people it won't do society much good. That second step is ridiculously hard and I don't know how to solve it. The problem is that for a high IQ individual, the opportunity cost of having a child is enormous. Even if having a child was free, you still have to give up a very large amount of earning potential to have one.

That’s because the southern racists joined the GOP.

That tidal wave is confine to the south because the whites up north come from a different culture. Have you noticed that the GOP has been losing (not gaining) seats in the north since a generation ago?

Isn’t the upper Midwest a bit of a swing region. I think Sailers whole “keep republicans relevant another cycle or two” strategy involved going after white voters in those regions. They are still swing states.

Ronald Reagan came from not far from the Midlands region of the Midwest, from Dixon, Illinois. He probably is the most prominent representative who exemplifies the temperament of the region. There were some utopian communities setup in that part of the country, such as the Amana one in Iowa, so those might have been liberal-minded, after a fashion. However, I would hazard a guess that the only real reason why some Democratic voters have remained in such parts–for now–would relate back to the fact that a tidal wave of sea change has been rearing up from the South, and will continue well North. Remember when the “Solid South” meant Democratic?

“I could easily see middle Americans embracing a socialist system if they think it would help them.”

I think you make an interesting point. Look at the Progressive era. Look at William Jennings Bryan, George Norris, and Henry A. Wallace. Look at the prairie populism during the depression that produced the only socialist banking system in the US (The Bank of North Dakota). I think ‘middle America’ will always be a bit socially conservative. Economic conservatism, on the other hand, does not have a lock on the region.

You have to consider what words like “liberal” and “conservative” mean. You say you are liberal, but most liberals, I believe, would disagree. There are three main “political” issues that I look at when talking about the the left-right divide. There is the divide between “nationalists” and “internationalists.” There is the divide between cultural liberals and cultural conservatives on attitudes toward sex and marriage. And then there is economics. Which one of those things is not like the other? A feminist who wants a society where women will be promiscuous wants that because THAT is her utopia. A conservative who believes in traditional marriage wants that because THAT is her utopia. The feminist and the traditional conservative want radically different ends. In contrast, most fiscal conservatives and fiscal socialists honestly believe that their system will help the poor better. They disagree on the means, but they agree on the ends. I could easily see middle Americans embracing a socialist system if they think it would help them. I don’t think fiscal conservatism is programmed into them.

Hey WP-

I’m probably the ‘whitest’ guy possible, genetically speaking. I ancestry.com’d my family last year back to 1200’s Sweden. (The nick I’m using is one of my ancestors.) I do get what you’re trying to say, though separating out the prescriptive from the descriptive is a bit difficult for me. And I do understand that there are some issues with too multiculturalism as an ideal. For one thing, there’s Gause’s Law of Exclusion where different species can not occupy the same space at the same time, and that this can apply to human races as well as species. Multicultural societies are ephemeral, fleeting things. The brief flame burns brightly.

But I don’t think you can look to Scandinavian Midlanders or the Midlands in general to hop on board for any of this “White unitary nationalismâ€� stuff. In fact, with respect, that kind of talk weirds me the hell out. Just speaking for myself, I feel more affinity for my neighbor, for my city, for my region and for my country than a set of 30-100 proposed genes that code for an oxidative tyrosine derivative expression that we collectively decide to call “raceâ€�. I think if you look at the history of the Midland…if some full-on “race warâ€� erupts or whatever it is you’re warning about, we’ll most likely become a refugee belt, a new Trail of Tears where people without enough melanin in their skin make their way to the only place they can live in peace. Kind of the purpose we’ve always served. You realize that we have more in common with Ontario, Canada (both “mosaic societiesâ€� founded by the same exact settler cultures)? So maybe the Midlands will be re-united again, our brothers in the north joining us again, and we can be a safe haven for anyone who wants to work hard, pay their fair share, and try to lead a decent life, regardless of whatever the Bitter Ulcer of White Rage thinks about the matter.

Jayman —

My sense is that these attitudes are likely to change, rapidly. After all, massive Mexican immigration is hitting even upper Yankeedom and New France, as well as lots of Africans and such. Dump a bunch of Somalis into Vermont, and even the most hard-core liberals don’t like being the victim of vibrancy. Then there is the financial aspect. Not only does massive vibrancy bring person security issues to places that did not have them, and cause mental stress on avoiding crime-think as to the causes, it means radically decreased opportunity for one’s kids as “Public Ivies” turn into say, UCI, when went from nearly all-White enrollment in the 1980’s to about 17% today. And that’s Irvine California.

Now you have the Obama Administration full onto Agenda 21 including massive wealth transfers, and the new HUD policy aimed essentially at Section 8 housing everywhere but Malibu and the Upper East Side. If the economy were constantly rising and people could afford a new house every ten years, no problem. Uh oh.

My view is we will shortly test Roissy’s theory of Diversity + Proximity = War. And also see a rise in White unitary nationalism, i.e. New England Nation, Yankeedom, the Midlands, New Scandinavia etc. will all dissolve into White Nation as most of the White Middle Class is smacked with diversity, pays the price literally and figuratively for vibrancy, and sees the upward ladder not only kicked out but faces downward mobility. Which is the classic definition of pre-Revolutionary conditions.

White rural liberals existed because they did not face defacto ethnic cleansing by non-Whites. That is no longer the case, and the ethnic cleansing comes not in the 1950’s-60’s era of rising income, but declining. Meaning loss of a home to anti-White crime (think 5,000 Somalis dumped in Burlington VT) can’t be mitigated into a nicer house in the suburbs. It means a nasty apartment somewhere else for those cleansed who take a permanent loss. You know what Machiavelli advised regarding this. The traditional ethnic “nations” of America have never before faced such massive, and inescapable non-White stress.

Look at the Upper Piedmont. The inescapable conclusion is that Whites in high-density areas vote “White” (aka non-Liberal) to prevent transfer of resources away from themselves to … Blacks. And resources are not just monetary. Take the attitude towards guns. Non Liberal Whites view guns as a weapon of last resort against murder, torture, robbery, and rape, not necessarily in that order, by non-Whites. This represents real history of Indian, Mexican, and Black attacks, as well as Mixed-Race non-Whites (like say John Murel, the “Land Pirate” whose treasure formed the basis of Tom Sawyer’s treasure, Twain in Life on the Mississippi quotes figures Murel may have murdered over 4,000 men as the leader of his group).

So far, social peace has been purchased by social mobility, and the ability of Whites including Scandinavians and Yankees and such to avoid the impact of mass Non-White presence and defacto privilege. The “Knockout Game” aka Polar Bear Hunting, by Black “teens” and “youths” is now nationwide, fueled by Youtube and WorldStarHipHop dot com, making social attitudes under severe pressure.

John Derbyshire worries about the elites “turning racist.” Far more likely IMHO is a sudden “snap” in attitudes by Scandinavian, Yankee (who are Scandi lite essentially), Midlands, and other peoples. Those not elite and knowing they are not on the elite ladder (no opportunity loss).

Interesting stuff. For what it’s worth, I actually consider many of these issues — including a discussion of Woodard — in my forthcoming book (http://www.taylorandfrancis.com/books/details/9781138017740/). I should note that, while white Americans remain divided politically along ethnic lines, these divisions are shrinking — the political differences between WASPS and other whites are now much smaller than they were as recently as 1970. Whereas the gap between white Americans of British descent and Eastern and Southern European whites was once huge when it comes to party identification, it is smaller today.

Er, Warren Buffett that is…

I have family in both the really blue part of Iowa and the really red part of Nebraska, so this is a bit anecdotal. I’d probably second the notion that Scandinavian ancestry seems to be a factor in how ‘community minded’ someone is. (I’ve joked that you can guess someone’s political party here in Omaha by whether a person’s name ends in “-senâ€�, but that’s probably not accurate.) It’s hard to say what effect German ancestry might have. Honestly, I’ve never met anyone around here who’s full-blooded German without a bit of Danish or Swede or Scots in them. Everyone’s a mutt around here, many times over. So self-reported ancestry can be a bit tricky. Another complication is that most of the German culture of the Great Plains is Volga German, which is something totally different. The Worst Hard Time has a good bit on how they imported a frontier spirit forged on the Russian steppes onto the American prairie. You know that tumblin’ tumbleweed? That’s Russian thistle, brought by those crafty Germans from Russia. Their sociopolitical orientation was mostly your standard ‘live and let live’ variety, the opposite of the totalitarian mindset that too often finds its place in German intellectual circles. In fact, there’s actually actually a strong pacifist tradition among them, since many Volga Germans were Mennonite conscientious objectors. They were closer to being Amish than being Commies or Nazis. (Though not for lack of Hitler and Stalin trying. But that’s a tangent.)

Anyway, back to the Scandinavian influence. I wonder if Woodard might be underestimating the role that the code of Jante might be playing in Midlands culture. (Its stress on egalitarianism, thoughtfulness, living quietly, helping your neighbor, etc.) for example. At least that’s what I was always told as to why my family does things the way they do. But if that’s true, it’s a kind of mutated strain of Jante, different from the old country. There’s an undeniable and rigid commitment to fairness and equality, but virtually no emphasis on conformity that Staffan referred to. There’s the taboo against showing off, but no real respect for hierarchy, position, or authority.

I dunno. Just my two cents. Ultimately, if you want to try and understand the Midlands, just look at Warren Buffet. There’s probably no one alive who better encapsulates its values, and its bizarre myriad contradictions.

Yes, one might wonder about different Germans in different places. The Germans in Minnesota, ND and SD lean strongly to the right.

A lot of German communists fled Germany during the 19th Century crackdowns and ended up in Wisconsin.

It’s not relaxing to me, in the sense that most people don’t get it and may not be capable of getting it, so they will continue attempting to turn everyone else into them through whatever means they fancy. So much wasted effort, so much pointless argument.

~S

Jayman: “the heritable roots of these differences mean that the divisions among White Americans are largely intractable, and the divides we see will be with us – in one form or another – for a long time to come.”

Somehow I find that relaxing. We can forget about changing other people’s minds.

I’m guessing it might be like in Scandinavian countries where the overwhelming majority are liberal, so even when the most liberal leave for the city there is no dramatic change. We don’t have any conservative rednecks.

It might also be a matter of climate. I’m toying with the idea that sun people have evolved a pathogen avoidance along with the conservatism that is so clearly a part of it. Perhaps the climate contributes in a short-term as well in that it might trigger this avoidance. There is a rough correspondence between Big Five conscientiousness and heat index (heat and humidity) in America. I’d love to see some state-level stats on Haidt’s Purity foundation since that would be a more direct measure than conscientiousness, but I haven’t found anything so far.

Swedes are highly conformist, much more so than Norwegians. Many rooted for the Nazis when they looked as if they might win but then abruptly shifted to democratic socialism after the war.

I took a look at the counties in the Dakotas and Minnesota that went either Republican or Democratics in the last few presidential elections.

Counties in the Dakotas that tended to go Democratic in a presidential election were either:
1. Heavily Norwegian
2. Had a large Amerindian population.

Counties in the Dakotas that went Republican tended to have a large German population.

Counties in Minnesota that tended to go Democratic in a presidential election were either:
1. Heavily Norwegian
2. Had a large Amerindian population.
3. Had a very diverse population, particularly in the Twin Cities area, but also places like Deluth.

Counties in Minnesota that went Republican tended to have a large German population.

Surprisingly, in neither place did Swedes make much of a difference.

More white ancestry = higher skin color (less stereotype threat), higher education, etc. But why is the black IQ variance less than the white IQ? Africans have more genetic diversity AND american blacks have a wider range of racial admixture, but whites have more socieoeconomic diversity. To see a narrower distribution of IQ in blacks suggests environment.

The dysgenic trend was happening longer in the West than other cultures, so africans should have slightly higher IQ once you fix their environment (not sure about black americans). Currently, the trend is GLOBAL. I am not referring to the overall world negative correlation between IQ and fertility, since that reflects economic development. I am referring to within correlations WITHIN american, nigerian, chinese, etc communities. Any exceptions? Un-contacted tribes!

If I am defending religion, it is not any particular religion, except the negation of materialism (or scientism). Other minds are a problem for such a viewpoint, quite independent of the problem of induction.

To be clear, I don’t take wave-particle duality to be a reductio or anything, but I do take it as an example that science is far from common sense, and that we cannot judge the truth or falsity of a particular claim based on knee-jerk intuitions.

As far as I can tell, you have chosen some non-scientific principles to believe in (other minds, the general correspondence between appearance and reality, induction) and others not to believe in (God). I deny this is a principled distinction. And it’s certainly not one for which you have reason to be proud of holding, as if it represents some more sober or grown-up,view of reality.

Are you a materialist? I can’t tell. You seem to be a materialist-plus-other-things (other minds, etc.). Materialism is clearly bankrupt as a metaphysic. But I don’t see the argument for all and only what you’ve let in through the back door.

The point of the quantum physics example is that science makes demands on our belief systems that strain credulity at least as much as non-scientific beliefs do.

You have misunderstood the argument. The problem of other minds is more than just wondering how we can know we aren’t in the Matrix. The fact is you do believe in other minds. And not for any scientific reason. This is just one, though an important one, of the non-empirical things you believe.

In additition, I do not grant that the world is as we see it. If science shows us anything it shows us that it is not. Indeed, science does not show us minds at all, to say nothing of minds “as they are,” whatever that would be.

“The physical world is all that exists,” is not a scientific conclusion. There is no evidence for it. It is a simplifying assumption. And no one can live a normal human life and even really pretend it is true. Yes, “it works,” for a certain medium-sized subset of observed phenomena, if you don’t ask too many questions.

But if fails to explain all that is–even all that atheists believe in. It doesn’t “work” for all of reality. And it’s some combination of arrogance and absurdity to pretend that it does.

“Apply [science] to the putative existence of *other minds.* What conclusion do you reach?”

A true scientist is obligated to be a solipsist.

—

Objection: we have evidence of other minds, when we observe other human behavior: laughing, smiling, joking.

Response: that may be evidence of *something*, but it’s not evidence of other minds. It’s not evidence that there’s something “inside” those other bundles of flesh that has subjective experiences like you do. And yet try to deny that you believe in other minds. You do believe it, even though its a completely unscientific belief.

Just as you may count a multitude of experiences as evidence for other minds, a believer may count a multitude of experiences as evidence of the divine. What the divine really is may well be unknowable. But then, science gets to that point to, if you push hard enough. Or are you really capable of believing that light is both a particle and a wave at the same time. Is that any more plausible than the idea that God could be three and one at the same time?

In the final analysis, atheism is a position of extreme arrogance, as well as over confidence in what deep scientific explanations really look like. At the edges of science we don’t find certainty, but mystery. “I can’t explain it,” said Richard Feynman, “because I don’t understand it. But that’s how it is.” That, my friends, is a statement of faith.

Or do you know science better than Feynman?

>The goal of science to seek truth. What you’re describing is how it goes about doing that. Don’t confuse the two.
Thank you for defining science as you see it more clearly but I disagree, to me and some others the models are the end and implying the we can infer something beyond modeling is overreaching what the methodology is capable of.

>Let’s define atheism thusly: holding the position that, since there is no evidence for their existence, supernatural beings or deities likely do not exist, but that remains open to revision should such evidence emerge.
Yes that is the roughly the definition I was using when I made may assessment, that assessment remains unrevised because there is no change in input. I can only work within the limitations of the methodology and what data available to me. Even holding a position of open lack of belief is functionally indistinguishable from any other position to me in abstract terms.

I cannot agree with any of the positions being consistent with scientific methodology because as you said there an inherent probability assessment, “likely” in your own words, which is not possible in the absence of data.

I the same way I do not assess the likelihood of nappe in a sedimentary basin without pertinent data. And of course there is the complication that the nature of the question may in fact preclude anyone from ever acquiring data.

I’m guessing that you are reluctant to tell me your profession to maintain anonymity. Please understand I don’t want anything terribly specific like the school you attended, just the year of your degrees, type of degrees, and current profession or trained profession. Nothing that could ever be used to identify you. Without such data this exchange really serves no purpose to me as I cannot complete a favor, that is if I find anyone interesting on the internet I should collect data for my associate.

If this is impossible or undesirable for any reason simply say so and I will end this exchange.

>a truth seeking tool.
Once again I must disagree with this assertion at a practical methodological level. Science is about making predictive models not seeking “truth� or “knowledge� which as not objectively definable.

>requesting assessment
Utilizing merely the scientific method with no other with no subjective impositions or divinations or whatever you want to call them?

(result) code 600: no input
From my understanding of the application of the methodology the positions of apatheism, theism, atheism, and any other self described position are co-equivalent and not even really definable as distinct from one another at the abstract level.
I suppose I could assess the behaviors of the adherents to those positions but that is not the same thing as an analysis of the abstract concepts themselves.

And yes I realize that all actors have subjective goalsets, mine are merely to breed and ensure the indefinite survive of my bloodline to the best of my abilities. But I think that there is evidence that any feeling any emotional sentiment when collecting or assessing data, even curiosity, can create errors. Now subjective bullshit and errors are inevitable but minimizing them is at least in our economic interests assuming our models bring us profit in some way.
I have to ask again as a favor to a group of 5 other scientists including my wife who I talk with regularly: what is your profession in the sciences, background in academia if any, and year of post graduate or bachelor degree. I only ask because this information was not displayed anywhere on the blog.

I’m not looking down my nose at you or anything, this goes into a half-assed spreadsheet one of them is making which is trying to collate answers from various professionals and academics regarding their socio-political views and position regarding how the scientific method should be utilized. He takes my hypothesis more seriously than I do an actually wants to make a model whereas my interest only extended so far as creating the hypothesis. I can see no fiscal gain to be had from supporting or refuting it.

I merely state my views with regards to how to best use scientific methodology in hopes of eliciting more complete answers from you. Your counterpoint tells me a great deal general view of science as an institution. Normally I would not impose so much but it is pertinent to this thread so I figured it would not be out of place.

I would have to disagree with the idea that that atheism is some empty groundstate resulting from an absence of data. There is no empty ground-state other than being unable to conceptualize the question and therefore unable to make a determination. Theism, apatheism, and atheism are all based on subjective determinations. Once the question has been asked and conceptualized their is no objectivity to be had.

Hence why science is not on the side of any of the aforementioned. Science is not atheistic because it is not a person any more than a hammer is a person, it is merely a tool and is no longer a philosophy and hence has no opinions or subjective values.

This is the scientific method as it was taught to me and I have seen some evidence that those that hold this position make better predictive models than more “old fashioned” scientists who have rationalist inclinations.

I only bring this up to ask a question of you. What if any is your particular background in the natural sciences in academia and any professional application of the scientific method in you utilize in your daily life?

I ask this merely because despite your often quite objective there are occasionally tinges of emotionalist sentiment in your arguments and plans you put forward, your consideration that happiness and sensations hold some value for instance.

I also wish to know when you were educated. As the elimination of rationalism and philosophical underpinnings in the education of professional natural scientists only occurred very recently in the United States. If you were educated prior to 2002 this is quite understandable.

I want to assess your individual case in comparison to the increasing religiosity among american scientists under the age of 35, which I hypothesize is the result of normalization with the sentiments of the general population in the absence any pro or anti-theistic political indoctrination in the natural sciences.

At least in my own experience in geology there is currently no political or religious leaning in the education of american geologists. This may be due to the economic focus of the field though which makes political leanings toward the left or right of less importance when it comes to acquiring funding.

– “Benjamin, while you’re more than welcome to post here, you have to realize that there are certain standards of evidence and rational discourse that are practiced here.”

I would hope that we share the standard of science. My only point is that scientists debate this topic. I would hope I’m welcome to discuss science in your blog. If not, just say so.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-Darwinian_evolution

“One could say that, as one can say anything. But they can’t say it with any justification (HBD Fundamentals).”

You misunderstand me. I didn’t state that HBD isn’t scientific. I merely pointed out that it isn’t the consensus opinion of mainstream scientists. That is fine. I have never claimed that makes all other alternative theories invalid. That is why I like scientific debate.

“No Ben, that’s not how it works. Truth is not determined by what the “scientific communityâ€� accepts, even if that is a shortcut used by non-scientists. Truth is established by what we have evidence for, and nothing less. While research into “non-Darwinianâ€� evolution is on-going, the evidence for Lamarckian epigenetic inheritance and the like is, at current, lacking. By contrast, the evidence for HBD is strong. “Controversyâ€� is a poor way of judging the truth of a proposition.”

Yes, actually that is part of the scientific method. Scientists research such things as non-Darwinian evolution, they publish in peer-reviewed journals, they present their theories at scientific conferences and they debate. It doesn’t matter what you or I think about non-Darwinian evolution. It doesn’t even matter what the consensus of scientists think. It is an alternative theory and needs no other justification. Of course, like HBD, a lot more research will have to be done to prove it. That is fine. Science is always developing.

“All propositions should be challenged. Any claim needs to be met with due skepticism. This is the nature of science.”

This is why I generally have a skeptical attitude. I skeptically look at all positions that seem worthy, but that is always partly a subjective judgment.

“Fair enough. I’d say you still have a way to go on your journey, though… ”

Same back at you. We all have a long way to go. Science too has a long way to go. None of us has it all figured out. That is the fun of science.

– “I’d argue that agnosticism and atheism (in the weak sense) are equivalent.”

I might be considered a weak atheist and I have at times thought that way, but I don’t know that it captures my full experience. Part of the problem for me is that belief seems like a strange concept. I sense that the world is a strange place, stranger than present mainstream scientific thought allows for. But it is hard for me to pinpoint any specific beliefs I have in relationship to this sense.

“Don’t be so sure about peers. Indeed, it’s true parents have minimal influence. However, most of the evidence for peer effects are not much better than family studies that purports to show the effects of parents. Namely, it is confounded by heredity. Do peer groups take on similar attitudes because like-minded peers seek each other out, for example?”

You could be right or you could be wrong. As for the example of a multicultural environment, that would be an environmental factor that isn’t chosen by the child. Those kinds of examples interest me the most. I find it immensely interesting that a particular gene for liberalism increases probability of being expressed simply by a child having lots of friends. However, the gene doesn’t determine any of that for there are kids with that gene who didn’t have lots of friends and so later on were less likely to express liberalism. It makes one wonder how much of genetic expression is determined by environment.

“Yeah, that stuff is all bullshit.”

One could say the same thing about HBD, if one were so inclined. My point was that scientists research and debate non-Darwinian evolution. Like HBD, non-Darwinian evolution isn’t mainstream consensus and yet it is still part of the scientific process. All theories that are mainstream consensus began outside of mainstream consensus. Sometimes mainstream consensus changes toward supporting a new theory and sometimes not. Time will tell, for both non-Darwinian evolution and HBD. I’ll go on considering alternatives because I find it interesting to do so, but you are of course free to do otherwise.

“It’s not just theoretical:”

I was also thinking about the possibility of evolution happening over shorter periods of time, even just a few generations. We know from breeding that traits can be established very quickly. There are possibly natural conditions that can direct evolution with similar quick results as breeding.

“By contrast, there’s a lot we did know a long time ago that is coming back to light today, and a lot we would have known now had the social sciences not been taken over by political correctness.”

Actually, political correctness would guide one to not challenge natural selection as the only route of evolution. The people who challenge Darwinian evolution tend to be those challenging political correctness or else, such as with Creationists, challenging the entire scientific enterprise. If I was worried about political correctness, I wouldn’t touch non-Darwinian evolution or HBD with a 10 foot pole.

Most basically, I’m an agnostic (which is an issue of knowledge). However, I’m neither atheist (which is an issue of belief for or against) nor anti-religious.

I simply don’t know from the perspective of radical skepticism, but I’m evenly split between an impulse of doubt and an impulse of belief. My radical skepticism is driven by a nature of seeking. I partly doubt everything simply out of curiosity to question and wonder but also partly to test all viewpoints to find one worthy of belief.

I sometimes call myself an agnostic gnostic, one who doesn’t know but wants to know.

The genetic angle could possibly explain my mixed up nature.

My mother’s family is full of fundamentalists. Frm the family members I know, it seems a basic religiosity, some of it more authentic and other parts more superficial unquestioning groupthink. My mom probably has never had a doubt about God in her life. If she did, she wouldn’t likely admit it, even to herself.

My fathers’ family is very different. His mother was born and raised Southern Baptst, but as an adult became involved in New Age Spirituality and New Thought Christianity. She was a spiritual seeker forever seeking. His father was a minister who had doubts about God’s existence and had trouble sticking to proper theoloical doctrine. My dad went through an agnostic phase for many years before becoming a believer, although he still tends toward heretical thinking such as a predisposition toward Universalist theology and maybe Unitarian theology.

I have often wondered about inherited genetics. Although less spiritual, I’m very much like my grandmother in being a seeker forever seeking. She too was a liberal-minded thinker and artistically creative, as I am. I barely knew her since she died when I was a very small child. If not genetics, how did I develop so many traits similar to hers?

However, environment is also a powerful influence. Research has shown peers have more influence on children than do parents, except I suppose when parents isolate their children such as with homeschooling. I may have liberal genetics, but also had very liberal environments growing up. I see a lot of traits in my dad that seem potentially liberal and yet he grew up very conservative. Moving to South Carolina brought out a right-wing side in my dad. Even so, that liberal potentiality every so often pops up as semi-libertarianism. Unlike me, my dad didn’t grow up in a liberal environment and so his liberal potentiality has never fully expressed.

I’m speculating here based on the research. It has been shown that genes don’t necessarily become expressed without specific environmental factors. Many conservatives are walking around with genes that correlate to higher rates of liberalism, but these people would never know this potential exists within. These people pass these liberal enes onto their children who, if they experience a liberal environment, will then express liberalism. Also, the children with liberal genes inherited from liberal-expressed parents are less likely to become liberals themselves if they don’t experience a liberal environment.

Researchers have only begun to discover the genes correlated to ideology. And researchers have only begun to unlock the complex relationship between nurture and nature. New research has, for example, shown the plausibility of non-Darwinian evolution and behavior/trait inheritence: Neo-Lamarckianism, epigenetics, Baldwin effect, etc. Even within natural selection, research has shown it can sometimes happen a lot faster than previously thought. It has been theorized that modern society is speeding up evolution.

There is so much we don’t know right now. Many estblished theories are being challenged and revised.

” “Hinduismâ€� isn’t a coherent set of beliefs, but a whole bunch of different beliefs which have all been lumped together because they happen to be believed in by Hindus. Buddhism came out of Hinduism, but we label it differently because its chief practitioners are ethnically different. And heaven forbid you tell an Urdu speaker that their language is basically Hindi. ”

Where on earth do you get your misinformation?

”What country are you from?”

Hindu Observer,
i’m from Brazil.
Here, be reactionary is the same to be ”liberal”. It is a ”right party” or a non-leftist type party.

“It’s not so much that religion correlates with ethnicity, IMO, as that ethnic identity *creates* religious identity.”

And the physical environment shapes the religious and philosophical thought. That’s why South Asian philosophies are so complex, varied and compelling.

It’s not so much that religion correlates with ethnicity, IMO, as that ethnic identity *creates* religious identity. Most religious people don’t sit down and work out exactly what they believe, then look at all of the available religions and pick the one which suits them; they believe what their parents believe, what their community believes, and their common beliefs and practices and norms and values are all part of a way of life for them. To reject their religion is like rejecting their entire family.

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, when you look back at their very beginnings, were quite similar religions all springing from the same well. Muslims even believe that Jesus was a prophet, that he was crucified, etc. Mormonism, by contrast, is quite different, beliefs-wise, from mainstream Christianity–Mormons are polytheists, there’s that business with the planets, etc. And yet Mormons view themselves as Christians, while no one views Muslims as Christians. Why? Because Mormons come from the same ethnic stock as Christians, while most Muslims and Christians have been from different ethnic groups for over a thousand years. “Hinduism” isn’t a coherent set of beliefs, but a whole bunch of different beliefs which have all been lumped together because they happen to be believed in by Hindus. Buddhism came out of Hinduism, but we label it differently because its chief practitioners are ethnically different. And heaven forbid you tell an Urdu speaker that their language is basically Hindi.

I was a very religious child–much more religious than the parents who raised me. (I was raised by my biological mother and step-father.) They’re fairly religious folks, but in a sort of dreamy, ‘we like Jesus, Jesus is comforting,’ not very rigorous kind of way. I was always a little more fanatical than them–in fact, I wanted to be a priest.

Like many folks who take their religion very seriously, I began studying Christianity, along with some comparative religion and basic science. And like a lot of people who actually bother to read the Bible, I quickly became an atheist.

Anyway, some time later I found my biological father, whom I hadn’t seen since early childhood. Unlike the parents who raised me, he is deeply religious. In fact, he’s a minister.

So that’s where it came from!

The difference between me and my dad, I suspect, is that I came of age at the same time as the internet. My dad says, “hey, did you hear about this ancient Hebrew inscription in the southwest,” I google it and email him, “looks like it’s a hoax; dude who “found” it committed other archaeological frauds and it doesn’t look like something that old ought to look.” We can fact-check instantly, now. Heck, I was just reading an article about Mormons discovering inconvenient truths about their religion via the internet, like the fact that their founder was a child-raping racist who stole wives from other men. Classy dude. I already knew all that, but then, I’m not a Mormon, and I like reading Wikipedia.

I still have this “god shaped hole” inside of me. I just know there isn’t any god out there.

What country are you from?

This is one place where I think the older Eastern religions have the advantage, likely earned from many thousands of years of human experimentation. Isn’t it interesting how so many of them work in a continuum from full theism with lots of basic ritual all the way up to nearly or fully atheistic sects, yet all are considered Hindu or Buddhist, no matter what the internal truth is for the person. The simple folk practice and connect with each other and those with a more questioning mind have avenues to explore that still keep them in harmony with the whole. Very slick, much smarter than the binary way Westerners do things: You are theist and believe until you have a crisis and reject it all, often going through years of venomous anti-religion that some atheists never leave.

~S

Sorry, ”they are” no…
I do not know HBDer therefore can not infer anything about. But I think what a person Trotskyite-Marxist is doing on a blog that talks about human inequality, ooops, human diversity.

No, they are not clearly leftist, trust me.
I see the Jayman several conservative traits. The HBD people are successful hybrid of what is best in both conservatism as liberalism.
I myself am one of them. I have no problems in dealing with ‘diversity’ (provided that such ‘diversity’ is functional) while fully supporting the pro-white movement. I am for those people who want to live in a country according to its principles, they do not get embarrassed and run after your dreams. The world will be a better place when a leftist person accept the convictions and lifestyle of conservatives and vice versa and this can only happen when both types are far from each other.
For curious information, here in my country, is that right-wingers are called liberals.

The Abrahamic concept of a personal “father god” is what is problematic. However other religions, traditions and philosophies deal with metaphysical possibilities in a much more compelling way.

Isn’t Jayman both an HBDer and a Leftist simultaneously?

I think people HBD are new CHOSEN ONES.
I speak for myself, I’m sure the amount of people who think like me in the area where I live are very, very few. The vast majority of so-called smart here, end becoming leftists. Perhaps this is related to divergent thinking, the ability of people to believe in things on their own, and not just follow the herd.

I don’t like the New Atheists because they give bad arguments, but I don’t see anything wrong with trying to convince people — either academics or the public — of your viewpoint. To say that reasoned discussion of religion is “futile” seems far too strong a statement, even if we grant (as I do) that genetics influences belief. I presume that belief in HBD or any particular theses you defend in your blog posts are also influenced by genetics, but that doesn’t stop you giving reasons for those theses. Nor should it. We ought to strive to be objective and rational, even if our genetics (and environment) predispose us to be biased toward certain views.

For my part, I grew up Christian, questioned my faith, and then carefully studied the historical evidence for Christianity, coming away from this task convinced that it was quite strong. I of course can’t be sure that my own Christianity isn’t primarily a result of my genes (or environment) rather than reasoning, but similar careful study of HBD, politics, and other areas has led me to form beliefs firmly at odds both with my previous beliefs and others in my family, so I think I have some evidence that I am more rational/objective than most in my beliefs.

“B. Don’t be so sure. That was a different time then. If the scientific knowledge and cultural framework had been available to them, they may have well been staunch atheists.”

There’s a strong historical case to be made that for many important scientists (e.g., Kepler, Newton, Boyle), religion was not just an optional “add-on,” but one that deeply influenced their scientific work. For instance, Newton’s belief in an orderly universe arguably flowed out of his theism — he viewed God as the cause of the laws of the nature.

Are you hardcore hereditarian, thinking that genes account for 100% of observed variation in human characteristics? I am not; I think that “predilection to be religious type” may depend on many gene combinations, as such most likely normally distributed. In addition, I think that such predilection may simply push some people more strongly, and some less strongly for being religious. This is not something controversial, I think; the 50% genes/50% environment is pretty well-established for many characteristics and I think there is no reason that similar contributions are made by genes in environment (in our modern, western societies) in determination whether someone ends up as atheist or not.

In other words, there is possibility tat my genes would incline me to be religious type, but unique environmental events caused that those genes had no chance to express fully.

“The duality of thought characteristic of the West, is not all bad, is to emphasize that science is also derived in this way of thinking because the linear thinking determines the possibility of classification, taxonomy. However it is advisable for you to have a thought in the oriental style that proclaim the superior functionality of their philosophical school must also abide by the linear thinking can not be either good or bad, because otherwise it will be betraying their Buddhist beliefs. So that the world becomes a sphere humanly perfect, should join the two schools of thought, as liberals and conservatives should learn from each other. The opposite of you should not be something totally repulsive, however, is precisely what is lacking in you.”

I’m not a Buddhist.

Anyway, there is plenty of linear thinking in our South Asian Hindu, Buddhist and Jain philosophies also. A straight line is the shortest distance between two sides of the sphere. 😉

Our sages already made sure to include that – thousands of years ago.