Student Account of Elite University Indoctrination

[Programming Note: I'm going to try to have a movie-related post soon.]

Via View from the Right is this first person account of PC indoctrination at Yale. A student describes his freshmen orientation in 2006:

The freshman counselor set the tone, and then student after student performed a series of variations upon a single theme: white men are bad, Islam is fabulous and judgment is bad. We need to be eternally vigilant and morally courageous in the face of the innumerable male WASP bigots around us.

I still remember the looks of shock and disgust on the faces of my classmates and my freshman counselor, as, losing caste, I found myself labeled a bigot and a political pariah. Questioning the narratives of the self-appointed leaders of 'disempowered' groups was not acceptable, and the next day I found myself on the receiving end of suspicious looks of the Dean and Master to whom my freshman counselor was expected to report.

Pretty standard stuff in our elite university system. For my orientation, there was a MANDATORY presentation on diversity, oppression, and discrimination. Each person was assigned a session during orientation week. The sessions presented potential "bias" situations where white, heterosexual, Christian males always seem to be the bad guys and gays/NAMs are always the "normal" ones. A discussion followed where moderators pushed discourse in the "proper" direction.

At the time I was mostly an apathetic moderate conservative (and a non-HBDer), but I refused to participate. Over the first month and a half of school, I got an almost daily e-mail from the "Diversity Office" demanding that I attend a session and reminding me it was mandatory of all incoming students. They mentioned the difficult adjustment for "people of color", the embracing of diversity, and the need to meet "new" people. Of course, this is all code for "White people are racist." They also warned us that any speech deemed "discriminatory" would result in expulsion from the dorms.

To the elite university system, only racial diversity matters, not that of opinion or independent thought (especially from a non-PC, conservative perspective).

Shifting the Discusson on Auster: Does Social Conservatism or HBD have more Explanatory Power?

Update [8/31/09]: I sent this post to Mr. Auster yesterday and he failed to respond. I will resend it today. For common objections, please see the comment sections where I respond to some of them. Also, note that social conservatism is not only a value system, but a process to revive and preserve traditional institutions in order to better society.

Update 2 [9/1/09]: Mr. Auster responded claiming I sent him an extremely long post that he didn't know what to do with. He has buried my post at the end of this comment thread.

From my perspective, Auster mainly objects to the HBDers purported willingness to engage in biological reductionism. He contends that such a dispassionate, wholly un-human foundational basis precludes any larger crusade, such as saving the West or preserving the white race.

Yet, with all this philosophical rumination, one misses the actual objective of both the social conservatism espoused by Auster and the bioconservatism championed by myself, Mangan, The Undiscovered Jew, and Sailer. In the end, intellectual concerns, like if HBD is reductionist, remain picayune with respect to pragmatic solutions. Thus, the most important aspect of the debate isn't internal consistency of the given belief system (whether Auster has adequately proved HBD's inconsistency is tangential to my point). Rather, the final deciding factor in this debate is whose system applies most accurately to real-world phenomenon.

So, do the edicts of social conservatism predict and explain how human groups (and subgroups) function? Or does HBD, with its supposed biological reductionism, provide the best descriptive and predictive tools for how people will act? That's all that matters. Government structures need practical results and they need theoretical models that best capture the complexity of social interactions. The system implemented for societal change must identify the social ill and institute reforms to combat these issues. While the ongoing debate about religion vs. genetic determinism may be interesting, it amounts to intellectual masturbation.

I contend that the structures of HBD, stressing the importance of individual IQ, racial IQ differences, and racial psychological differences, can more accurately describe social phenomenon than the bedrock of social conservatism, such as adherence to religion and traditionalism. Social conservatism, with its focus on religion, fails to accurately diagnosis many problems of the West and thus can offer only a limited strategy for reform. (However. their approach does have some merit as HBDers and socons share many opinions.)

In fact, such an assertion is testable. Let's look at one of the most universal and basic pathologies of humanity: crime. Which belief system, social conservatism or HBD, can best describe and expound upon the existence of crime? The most important aspect of social conservatism is religious belief, so a comparison between that and IQ (the basis of HBD) in regards to crime rate would be appropriate.

In a paper entitled "Does Religion really Reduce Crime?", Paul Heaton of the University of Chicago finds:

Abstract: I find a negligible effect of religion on crime and a negative effect of crime on religion.

Conclusion: I find no statistically significant relationship between religious adherence and property crime or violent crime.

It's clear that religious adherence has no explanatory power in predicting or evaluating crime. How about IQ? In IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Lynn offers a chart summarizing the relation between IQ and crime/delinquency. For delinquency, the correlation coefficient is 0.45 and for crime, the correlation coefficient is a little above 0.20. So, I think it's obvious who wins there. An analysis of racial crime rates would likely prove even more illuminating.

For the housing bubble that caused this economic crash, a comparison between religion and race, as predictive measures, would be appropriate. Here's an interesting working paper that attempts to explain the housing crisis:

the housing cycle should be more muted in areas with high concentrations of households whose beliefs or 'values' make them less prone to participating in a speculative mania.

To do so, they looked at population share of Evangelical protestants. As Evangelical Protestants tend to be highly religious, this would be a good indicator of how religiosity can predict housing price volatility. Here's the graph:


There's a relationship, but not exactly a rock solid one. How about race? Sailer has written extensively on the "Diversity Recession". Here's the subprime foreclosure rates by race:

I think HBD wins again. That constitutes just two examples, of which there are many more (e.g. while Hispanic immigrants tend to be highly religious Catholics, their failure to assimilate is due to HBD and racial psychological differences). So while Auster can pontificate about HBD's intellectual hypocrisy, HBD clearly presents a far more accurate depiction of human interactions than social conservatism. Insofar as restructuring society, that's what matters.

Machines making Moral Judgments

Researchers are now trying to imbue machines with morality.

Researchers from Portugal and Indonesia describe an approach to decision making based on computational logic in the current issue of the International Journal of Reasoning-based Intelligent Systems, which might one day give machines a sense of morality.

Can machines make moral decisions? Can something be moral if it's not based on human thought, but a proxy of human cognition defined by predetermined computer instructions? This will be yet another situation where materialists and social conservatives will argue. Likely, the Darwinian materialists will contend morality is merely an evolutionary adaption intended to create stable communities and increase reproduction. Social cons will contend morality is a spiritual edifice based on the divine and thus non-human structures are unable to comprehend moral dilemmas.

Auster and Social Conservatives on HBD

Larry Auster of View from the Right has now shifted from Game to HBD. Frequent commenter TUJ started the conversation and yet another clash between social cons and "biocons" (are we legitimate enough to have our own name?) has commenced. Auster mainly argues that HBD is a reductionist ideology too focused on the biological aspects of humanity while ignoring the social and (most importantly) spiritual facets of man. While he seems to accept the conclusions of HBD, he resents the supposed materialist basis of our "movement". [Note: The godfather of HBD, Steve Sailer, is a practicing Catholic.]

Parallel to this discussion, Beta Prime has an ongoing series intending to allay discord between the two groups. In response to the VFR thread, Mangan penned a great rejoinder dispelling the reductionist myth of HBD:

HBD, broadly speaking, is a point of view that says that the facts of human biology have been massively overlooked or suppressed as explanations in politics, education, sociology, criminology, sex relations, war, sports, and just about any other field of human endeavor. As such, it possesses great explanatory power for the problems that plague the world, and even manages to suggest a few solutions. But that it is reductionist is no more true of HBD than it is for, say, economics.

Towards the beginning of blogging, I discussed a similar argument in regards to liberal creationists. HBD denialists often assert that HBD is too simplistic and that the interweaving of culture, technology, and oppression provide a more thorough explanation. But as I show below, even incredibly complex human systems can be reduced to a single parameter.

Basketball is a multifaceted game that requires its participants to have quickness, agility, strength, endurance, toughness, and athleticism. Each game is fast-paced, unpredictable, and each move is subject to numerous variables. Let's engage in a thought experiment. Take 1,000 random white men (control for race and gender) above 5'10'' and 1,000 below 5'10''. Split them into teams of 5 and have a round robin tournament. I guarantee the teams comprised of the taller men will have a higher winning percentage than teams comprised of the shorter men. We can contribute this to a number of external factors, such as the taller men probably have more playing experience or the shorter men might have been subject to stereotype threat.

But it's rather obvious, even in such a complex system as a game of basketball with multiple external factors, one simple number basically explains the entirety of the data: height. The taller men were conferred a tremendous, inherent advantage due simply to their height.

IQ (and its relation to race) functions in the same manner as height in the above analogy. Finally, as Mangan and I both note, HBDers don't reduce humanity and his functioning to an entirely biologically based existence. The generally accepted nature/nurture split is around 70/30. That means 30% of human outcome is predicated on some nebulous combination of culture, luck, parenting, and a multitude of other factors. Here is where Auster's argument fails and where social cons can more satisfyingly accept HBD. In this remaining 30%, social conservatives can interject their spiritual and faith-based concerns. In such a formulation, HBD does NOT reduce to only the empirical; as a result, Auster and his ideological peers can describe humanity through both the material and the incorporeal.

NYT Editorial: What about the Smart Kids?

The media almost never mentions the forgotten gifted students in educational reform plans. For example, No Child Left Behind was explicitly aimed at helping the lowest scoring students and almost entirely ignored the top students. Today's New York Times features an unfortunately rare occurrence in educational media. The author argues that smart kids deserve equal attention.

So what does all of this mean? It is clear that No Child Left Behind is helping low-achieving students. But it is also obvious that high-achieving students — who suffer from benign neglect under the law — have been making smaller gains, much as they did before it was enacted. Alas, this drug is producing no miracles.

The rest of article counters the claim that high scorers have improved as much as low achievers. He bemoans the lower gains (about half) of the top percentiles as opposed to the bottom percentiles.

While admirable, there is a possible flaw in the author's argument about high scorers having smaller gains. It's plausible that the gains amongst the lower percentiles resulted from better preparation in rudimentary skills learned through memorization and repetition. The highest scores are likely more dependent on g and thus changes would be unattainable through classroom instruction. Thus, even a modest relative gain amongst the high scorers is cause for celebration.

The article is a welcome deviation from the normal bromide of "We must raise the dumb/NAM kids' scores" illuminated in yesterday's post. He even skewers this type of reaction:

No doubt, some will claim victory: We are closing the achievement gap between our top and bottom students! But is that our only national goal in education?

But despite this anti-establishment take, he wanders into odd (OK, maybe not) territory at the end of the editorial:

What might happen if federal law encouraged educators to improve the performance of all students? Our analysis of the federal data identified tens of thousands of high achievers who are black, Hispanic or poor. They are excelling at their studies, often against great odds. Shouldn’t we be addressing their educational needs?

It seems he attempts to legitimize his argument by saying, "Hey, you should help the highest achievers because a bunch of them are poor NAMs!" Adding this statement implies that if exclusively whites and Asians comprised the highest scorers, the motivation to address their needs wouldn't be as imperative. Sad end to a good article.

OneSTDV's 2009 NFL Predictions

The NFL season starts in mid September (very late this year). I'm a rabid football fan and I have a blog. This qualifies me to predict the outcome of the upcoming NFL season. Below are what I believe will be the final divisional standings, with a short blurb about each team. I''m not sure how many readers are NFL fans, so I'll add a "Read more" link.

NFC East
1. Philadelphia Eagles: Five out of last six years McNabb has finished the season upright, Eagles have made the NFC Championship Game. Don't pick Westbrook for fantasy as he's hit the 30 year-old wall. Vick will be used in the Wildcat and as a decoy.
2. New York Giants: Without Plaxico, their offense is nothing, as they showed late last season. Derrick Ward is huge loss as well. Defense is still stout, but it won't be enough without offensive firepower besides Jacobs.
3. Dallas Cowboys: Romo will inevitably combust in December. Offense will still be explosive without THE distraction. Witten and the three headed RB (Tashard Choice, Barber, and Jones) are scary. Defense is inconsistent, but Ware is someone to watch.
4. Washington Redskins: Campbell isn't the QB they were hoping for. Portis will carry them until fading around midseason. Won't make much noise, probably will finish 7-9.

NFC North
1. Chicago Bears: Cutler isn't a savior, but he's a major upgrade over Orton. Defense is always their foundation. Nice running game with 2nd year RB in Forte. Hester should go back to return duties as he's only a mediocre receiver.
2. Green Bay Packers: Rodgers' great season was overlooked last year due to the Farve hoopla. Had trouble finishing games and their defense was atrocious. Look for those problems to go away. Could be trouble as a wild-card team.
3. Minnesota Vikings: Farve is the most overrated player in NFL (or sports) history. Worst decision maker alive. Taking the ball out of Peterson's hands and into Farve's will be their downfall. Farve's INT's will doom their season. 8-8, will miss playoffs.
4. Detroit Lions: Probably 3-4 wins. Maybe they'll get the number one pick again. Wouldn't start Stafford until midseason. Don't ruin the guy like the Texans did with David Carr.

NFC South
1. Carolina Panthers: Williams and Stewart will carry this team to a division title and possibly a championship game appearance. Delhomme needs to reduce turnovers and manage the game. Peppers is done and they paid too much for him.
2. New Orleans Saints: Bush is well on his way to being a bust, if not one already. Defense hasn't been good in years. Brees is becoming Dan Marino of his generation.
3. Atlanta Falcons: Cinderella from last year won't be able to duplicate success. Michael Turner will be completely worn down from his record setting carries last season (much like Jamal Anderson, Priest Holmes, Larry Johnson, etc..). Teams will have figured out Matt Ryan.
4. Tampa Bay Bucs: New QB. New coach. Legendary choke job last year. It'll be worse before it gets better in Tampa.

NFC West
1. Arizona Cardinals: I see them improving on their 9-7 record by going to the run more. Defense is pretty bad, but Warner, Fitzgerald, and Boldin make up for it. Around 11 wins.
2. San Francisco 49ers: Singletary seemed to improve this team dramatically when he took over. Gore is one of the best, and underrated, running backs in the league. Defense is led by great LB in Patrick Willis. Alex Smith is a legitimate bust.
3. Seattle Seahawks: Should be in rebuilding mode, but in denial. Will be immensely boring to watch. Don't expect much. Possible that Wallace takes over for Hasselbeck towards midseason.
4. St. Louis Rams: Some talent, but can't put it together. Bulger seems to have lost it.

AFC East
1. New England Patriots: Most overrated player (besides Farve) returns from knee injury. Moss and Welker will continue to make him look good. Defense is getting old, but Mayo is a beast. Belicheck still the best coach around. Probably 12 wins.
2. Miami Dolphins: Will regress now that everyone knows about the Wildcat. I still don't know how they won 11 games last year. I doubt they'll win more than 9 this year.
3. New York Jets: Starting Sanchez is probably the best decision. Leon Washington and Thomas Jones will carry the offense and the defense should look good with Rex Ryan at the helm. Won't make playoffs.
4. Buffalo Bills: TO is way past his prime and they still don't have a QB. Will be another year that Buffalo doesn't win a playoff game.

AFC North
1. Baltimore Ravens: Flacco will be asked to do a lot more in his second season. They'll build on last year and approach the game conservatively. While they lost Scott and Leonard to the Jets, they still have Suggs and Reed anchoring the defense. McClain and McGahee make for a good RB by committee. I put them above the Steelers because of Flacco's assumed improvement.
2. Pittsburgh Steelers: They won't repeat. I didn't even think they were that good last year, but they found ways to win behind that formidable defense. Parker can't be an every down back so Mendenhall (who was out last year with injury) better step up.
3. Cincinnati Bengals: Only interesting thing about Bengals is Ochocinco's name change.
4. Cleveland Browns: Doesn't matter who wins QB battle. They'll probably only win 4 games.

AFC South
1. Indianapolis Colts: Lost Harrison, but still have Manning. He'll always find a way to win until the playoffs. Last year, many of their wins were pure luck, so I'm unsure where they're going this year. I put them as division winners because until they prove otherwise, they always dominate the regular season.
2. Tennessee Titans: That huge playoff upset last year will still hurt them (much like the streak of SB losers not making the playoffs the following year). Chris Johnson is an amazing talent, but Collins is yet another year older. Defense will miss Haynesworth.
3. Houston Texans: Won't make playoffs, but will be competitive. Dumbest signing of the offseason by picking up that QB from Lions. Andre Johnson is the best WR in football.
4. Jacksonville Jaguars: Garrard turned out to be mediocre. I doubt Del Rio will last until next year.

AFC West
1. San Diego Chargers: Rivers just got huge contract and he'll be worth the money. Gates and Jackson are explosive receiving threats. They'll improve on their eight wins from last year as many of them were on unlucky bounces. Tomlinson will continue his freefall and Sproles can't handle the load either. They get Merriman back.
2. Kansas City Chiefs: Cassel won't replicate his success without Moss and Welker. New coach looks promising, but they lost Gonzalez and I don't see much talent there (besides WR Bowe). Seven wins will be a successful campaign.
3. Denver Broncos: New coach. Mediocre QB in Orton, who might lose his job to Chris Simms. Their defense is horrible and their choke last year was one for the ages.
4. Oakland Raiders: Laughingstock of the league, though they ended last year on a good note. I'm not convinced Russell is anything special, same with McFadden. In the running for the top pick in 2010.

Playoff Teams (with two best listed first):

NFC: Eagles, Panthers, Bears, Cardinals, Packers, Giants
AFC: Patriots, Ravens, Chargers, Colts, Steelers, Titans

Super Bowl Champs: [I can't jinx my team like that, sorry]

Explanation of Decline in SAT scores: Human Biodiversity

The media is absolutely shocked that SAT scores have fallen once again. Many just can't understand why their Great Society educational programs are failing:

Many observers Tuesday viewed the flat results of recent years as discouraging in light of a more than 25-year effort to improve U.S. education. "This is a nearly unrelenting tale of woe and disappointment," said Chester E. Finn Jr., president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank. "If there's any good news here, I can't find it."

Lots more HBD denial:

College Board officials said that Asian-American students appeared to do better at all income levels. Officials said that was because they tend to take more Advanced Placement and other rigorous courses, and their families place a strong value on success in education.

Yes, nothing to do with IQ. Nothing to see here folks.This article almost gets it right:

We are tremendously encouraged by the increasing diversity," said College Board president Gaston Caperton. The report also noted that scores often decrease when a larger, more diverse pool of students take the test.

So "diverse" is now the new code word for more blacks and Latinos. Remember white is the absence of color, so it means nothing. And I wonder why scores seem to decrease with more "diversity"?

An astute reader who wishes to remain anoymous sent me an e-mail yesterday regarding the 2008-2009 SAT score decrease. He broke down the average scores by race and noted the change in number of test takers of each race [edit: Fixed 8/28/09]. From the chart below, it's obvious that increase in NAM test takers is the sole reason for the SAT decrease. This is apparent from a simple weighted average: the more NAMs, the more their lower scores count as part of the overall average.
Once again, HBD explains all. I don't think they're listening though:

As a country we must do better at providing students of every background equal access to education, equal access to the best teachers, and equal access to the best counseling.

The bottom line is the country is changing dramatically. Unless minority kids are educated better, we are going to be in trouble because pretty soon they are going to be the majority.

Part Two of Educational Reform Series: College Admissions

Note: This Educational Reform series was inspired by Charles Murray's Real Education.

This is part two of four in my Educational Reform Series. Part One is here. Each post will highlight a (non-exhaustive) set of potential reforms, with a brief description of each suggested change.

This post deals with the elite college admissions process.

Reduce subjectivity: I previously discussed the issue of subjectivity here. Elite colleges increasingly diminish the importance of standardized scores and objective accomplishments like AMC math. Wake Forest, one of the South's best schools, is probably the most prominent school to become test-optional, following a slew of SWPL liberal arts colleges. Take a guess as to their reasoning:

By making the SAT and ACT optional, we hope to broaden the applicant pool and increase access at Wake Forest for groups of students who are currently underrepresented at selective universities.

Elite schools have replaced accurate measures of ability with easily manipulated and highly subjective measures like character, talent, personality, and leadership. Classroom performance and grades, mostly a reflection of diligence and ingratiating oneself to teachers, are emphasized. It's reasonable that elite colleges aren't entirely comprised of nerds who can't affect change because they lack the social tools. But, the current admissions process too often overlooks high scholastic achievement for absurd indicators of "personal vibrancy". Please explain to me how not participating in the Key Club or not volunteering as a math tutor prohibits one from having a congenial demeanor.

I'm not advocating we adopt a Chinese-style, one test and you're in process. But surely, we need to reform this black-box process.

Eliminate social engineering objectives and affirmative action: It's not a surprise why elite colleges have implemented these subjective measures. Elite colleges believe they can engender widescale reform simply by admitting the "underrepresented" and "underpriveleged". Such a process is based on the quixotic concept of intellectual egalitarianism. Two years ago, the New York Times published this article on a recent Amherst College Graduate. Elite college administrators play the status game, thinking they're such wonderful men for using nice, hard-working people like Anthony Jack as pawns.

Tony Jack with his pure intelligence — had he been raised in Greenwich, he would have been a 1500 [he got a 1200 and a full ride to U of Florida!] kid,” said Tom Parker, the dean of admission. “He would have been tutored by Kaplan or Princeton Review. He would have had The New Yorker magazine on the coffee table.”“Tony Jack is not an anomaly,” he added.

Since the subject of affirmative action has been so overdone, I'll refrain from focusing on it. The common view of affirmative action is that it's merely a tiebreaker between equally accomplished students. Rather, the racial gap at elite universities is generally around 170 SAT points (on old 1600 scale). Anecdotally, Mr. Jack was awarded a full scholarship to the University of Florida, while my friend, who had almost a perfect score on the SAT, was awarded 3,000 dollars to a similarly selective public university.

Myth of College Counseling and SAT Tutoring: This will be quick. College counselors trick wealthy helicopter parents. There exists an inordinate amount of college admissions information online, especially at College Confidential. SAT Tutoring is a similar ruse. Private tutors charge thousands of dollars for a product that can be obtained for 20 bucks and a little self-motivation.

Who gets in?: In this arbitrary admissions game, who actually gets admitted? I've categorized the accepted applicant pool into five types:

1. NAMs or females applying in engineering/science
2. "Leader of the world" types, even better if you come from a rich family. "Leaders of the world" were president of student government, wrote articles in their local paper, went to Model UN and Boys State, etc. John Roberts epitomized this type.
3. Be a huge nerd with perfect scores and perfect grades. Be in every single science/math club, but you must have some national or state level recognition, like really high place in Math League or participating in Intel Science Competition. The key to this is NATIONAL or state level achievement. Since the quota for smart kids is depressed through affirmative action and subjectivity, these kids must set themselves apart somehow.
4. Athletes: Elite colleges will significantly lower their standards for athletes, especially in the money sports of basketball and football (and lacrosse for the Ivy League).
5. Miscellaneous: There are very few of these. This person probably was accepted for a fantastic essay, lots of volunteering, joining every club imaginable, and high scores. Recommendations probably helped, most likely portraying the person as a kind hearted individual.
   

To illustrate how the college admissions process fails: this applicant was rejected from Harvard, Princeton, MIT, and Duke. This person represents the epitome of excellence yet he couldn't even garner acceptence to one top school.

Part Three: The problems of higher education

Guy White Gets it Right on Whites

GuyWhite wonderfully sums up the racial attitudes of most HBDers. Here's just a snippet. It's definitely worth a read as it accurately reflects my position as well:

We want the traditional America where our country is portrayed positively in the media and in schools; where whites can be proud of themselves; where regular folks can live in city centers (”inner city”) without being crime targets.

Galileo's Telescope and the Greatest Physicist Ever

Galileo's telescope turns 400 today. Galileo was the first scientist I ever learned about and it took me awhile to realize he actually had two names, not just one that was always spelled two different ways. Following Kepler and Copernicus, Galileo essentially invented modern science and astronomy:

He first observed the moon, and saw that its surface was marred by craters, mountains and valleys. Nor was it perfectly spherical, as Aristotelian dogma held would be true for heavenly bodies. Turning his telescope to Jupiter, he discovered its moons Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto. Observing the Milky Way, he noted that he could see 10 times the number of stars that were visible to the naked eye.

Galileo suffered for his scientific breakthroughs. While Einstein and Schrodinger were scientific heretics, the Catholic Church considered Galileo an actual heretic. He died in captivity for his blasphemous views concerning heliocentricity.

Galileo belongs in the pantheon of physics legends, right up there with Newton, Einstein, Maxwell and Gauss. I've always been partial to Newton because he created two of the most important fields: calculus and quantitative physics. I'll give the nod to Newton because he was the ultimate pioneer, seeing mathematical order where others could not.

Who do you think was the greatest: Einstein, Newton, Maxwell, Gauss, Galileo, or someone else?

The Beta Revolution Will Fail

On a daily basis I read two blogs, In Male Fide and Beta Revolution, seeking to restore order to Western Civilization. In their view, modern society has relegated the betas, those supplicant provider men constituting the intellectual and moral backbone of society, to an unsatisfying sexual existence. By norming the hypergamic urges of women and supporting this female hedonism through socialistic policies and anti-male divorce/custody decisions, the West has enervated the beta male by stripping him of his only sexual capital: his ability to stabilize and provide. Their solution, from In Male Fide:

The chief problem of our modern society is the sexual starvation of beta males. Denied the possibility of procreation, these men are dropping out of society and leaving it to fall apart. The long-term political goal of conservatism is to undo the governmental and social institutions that have forced these men into the shadows. Until then, however, these men need a way to sate their lusts. Game is the best way, in my opinion, to help them do this. By helping these men solve their personal problems, we can thus win their support for our political goals.

Such a solution seems elegant. Game allows the beta to adopt the mannerisms and demeanor of the alpha. In turn, betas satisfy their base sexual urges, while simultaneously underwriting the progress of civilization. But such a view, while accepting a man's sexual wants, implicitly rejects them when viewing Game as a means for society's revival.

As stated above, the "long-term political goal of conservatism is to undo the governmental and social institutions that have forced these men into the shadows". So in essence, Gamers advocate a return to the nuclear family, traditionalism, proper gender roles, and limited government intervention. We currently live in a society dominated by libertine females, gladly eschewing motherhood and family, basking in their government and affirmative action economic freedom. To the Beta Revolution, the concept of Game will allow the efficient order of Western Civilization to return, as stated by F. Bardamu:

Western civilization is uniquely superior to all other societies because it was built by and for betas, harnessing their physical and mental power to create advanced technology, stable systems of governance, and economic prosperity.

Yet, what will become of these reformed betas, those transformed by Game into sexually desirous alphas? If the disconnect of betas results from a lack of sexual satisfaction, then why does the Beta Revolution think he'll be satisfied with a return to provider status. Game affords him a plethora of women, while his mental and moral tools provide him a comfortable and independent living. In addition, men's relatively slow physical aging allows him access to fertile women well into his 60's. The formerly beta man has no incentive to return to provider status, besides some nebulous connection to a cultural renaissance. Rather, it's conceivable these former betas devolve into hedonistic and nihilistic Roissy-ites, dismissing the larger repercussions of sexual deviancy in order to pursue personal sexual satisfaction.

The Beta Revolution errs in assuming these betas will act in the manner which supports societal reform and not in the manner that motivated them to pursue Game in the first place. With the success of Game, their sexual desire and confidence will only increase, making them increasingly unlikely to settle down with a rapidly aging baby-maker. Thus, the Beta Revolution ultimately fails because it converts a class of productive men potentially satisfied with a traditional family existence into a cohort of productive men who shirk the duties of stability and reproduction. The Beta Revolution will depress the reproduction of betas by inviting them into a world of sexual gratification and excess. Thus, the beta foundation of society will reproduce even less and the proposed solution fails.

More Thoughts on White Ethnostate

Two previous posts here and here have discussed important racial issues concerning American whites, notably the formation of a white ethnostate. A few issues brought up in the comment sections remain unresolved, so I'll attempt to deal with them here.

al fin: If you include / exclude on the basis of a combined IQ and Executive Function score, you are far more likely to achieve viability in your micro-state than if you go by pure ethnic criteria.

This is an important question. If a state intends for long term productivity, why not target the best individuals rather than the best ethnic or racial populations? For the short-term, the former strategy is surely more efficient; individual merit of employees or residents will create the most stable societies. Indiscriminate choices by race will have a trivial effect on success. But in this discussion, the germane institution is the formation of a long-term state or country. Thus, subsequent generations must be considered. If only IQ is considered, regression to the mean will affect all populations, but especially so for NAM groups where the initial IQ filtering will prove futile. Look at these SAT scores by parent's educational attainment. Note the children (1st generation!) of graduate degree blacks are slightly less economically useful than the children of white/Asian high school graduates. That means if you recruit a large number of black lawyers and doctors, their cohort of children will become blue collar workers; while the children of whites/Asians will likely be comfortably middle and upper class.

Mark said: What benefit is there to keeping a sizable Asian population? Do you like Chinese food that much? :)

mike said: More productive and law-abiding, yes, but still, ultimately, looking out for their own co-ethnics above whites.

I like the joke, Mark. But their food has too many carbs and I don't have "yellow fever" either. Why do I consider Asians to be supportive? 'mike' basically said it: "they're productive and law-abiding". It's that simple. And perhaps they engage in racialism, but a strong individualistic and capitalistic system makes pleas for racial quotas and ethnic placation futile. I do agree that Asian immigration should be limited, per Sailer's "citizenism" and the arguments in my last post.

Jobling, 'mike', and 'ASDF' ask: Why does a White Ethnostate NEED to be justified?

Perhaps they have a good point. If the formation of this white ethnostate constituted American whites moving to an uninhabited piece of land, then surely, there's nothing immoral about wanting to live with similar persons. Yet, a white ethnostate implies exclusion of others and here's where the main need for justification comes. If a smart, kind, hard-working black man like Thomas Sowell or Will Smith wants to join the country and he's excluded for a dumb, criminal white man, I think there should be reasoning behind that besides "We're keeping our country white". Such an assertion ignores the concept of individual, completely dismissing a black man's individual merit merely on the basis of his blackness. But excluding him can be justified given my previous arguments and the need for cultural preservation. It's not the black man himself, but the repercussions of a large black population that justifies a white ethnostate.

Second, every country requires a "mission statement". In America, this is expressed in Article I of the Constitution and continues as an endlessly repeated fundamental truth in current society:

All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

I get chills reading that. So what is the mission statement of a white ethnostate? "Just because"? No, you have to provide some underlying principles for your state. I think Jason's statement here makes a good case, as well as the two I provided in the last post: "Every race and ethnic group should have the right to have its own place under the sun for the sake of its own racial and cultural preservation." Like freedom and liberty for the individual, do racial collectives have the right to exist? I'd have to think about that longer and get down to the first principles of such an argument, but it seems reasonable.

Likely Problems With a White Ethnostate

1) What about the SWPL's?

A white ethnostate isn't going to be filled entirely with Buckley and Reagan conservatives. Inevitably, it will include many SWPL's. Looking at the "whitest" voting blocs, 47% of white voted for Obama, he of the anti-white pastor and animus towards whiteness. Even amongst the "whitest" voting group, Evangelicals, Obama obtained a full quarter of their votes (26%).

2) Ethnic Nepotism

As 'al fin' said, American whites are a rather heterogeneous group, comprised of ethnic groups with a history of conflict. To assert that a white ethnostate would be devoid of group and identity politics ignores all the lessons of history. Even amongst a racial collective, individuals will form subgroups based on ethnic culture and bonds. It's foreseeable that ethnic conflict between Italians and WASPs, Germans and French, or Catholics and Protestants become heightened as now those differences manifest without the need for the wider racial category of "white" (as a distinction from "black" or "Asian"). Besides social turmoil, political and economic representation might arise. And when one group starts fighting for their share of the pie, this will inevitably be taken from another.

Let me finish with a few passages from Sailer's defense of "citizenism". It summarizes my opposition to white racialism:

This is the conundrum at the heart of white nationalism—that it encourages white Americans to act less like white Americans and more like nonwhites.

Over the last millennium, something perhaps unique in world history occurred in Europe, especially in its northwestern quadrant (and, in later years, in its offshoots like America): a movement away from the fractiousness of clan and tribe, but without the usual congealment into despotism.

By inventing nationalism, this corner of the world managed to figure out how to make possible the squaring of the circle of combining individual freedom with cooperation on an enormous scale. The results of nationalism included enormous military power, domestic (but not always international) peace, wealth, cultural glories, and at least the possibility of self-rule and personal liberty.

The only problem with the above passages is the coming white minority. The argument against immigration is pretty simple: look at their home countries. We can't blindly ignore the need for America having a significant portion of whites. Name one successful country with a 50% NAM population. Without a majority white population, this is no longer the America landing on the moon or winning the Cold War without firing a shot. Similarly, if Japan became white, Italy became British, or Panama became Asian, those constitute the same country in name only.

Does this view imply whites are the supreme race? No, racial value is an illogical construct, only individual value exists. But have white societies proven to be, by far, the most successful? Yes and HBD offers several reasons to explain this.

Question to my readers: Am I veering into extremism? Or are these arguments supported by HBD?

Vampire Trend in Pop Culture

It seems like vampires are the new "it" trend. HBO's critically acclaimed True Blood just started its second season, the New Moon trailer has created huge buzz following the immensely popular Twilight book series, and The Vampire Diaries premieres this fall on the CW. I haven't seen any of the aforementioned works, so I can't comment on what they're about. But, why are people so enamored with this genre? Is this a trivial fad, like all those quiz shows in the early 2000's, or indicative of some cultural zeitgeist?

I imagine the theme is attractive to writers because allegorical motifs are so easily created. Maybe this flexibility creates wildly entertaining drama. Anybody actually watch this stuff?

Conservatism/HBD Posters

I'm looking to buy some posters and I'd like to have one of them reflect my particular worldview. This would be the politically incorrect, center-right, free market, HBD perspective. Of course, finding even one poster to represent this has proven extremely difficult. I do not want a Republican, Reagan, nor an Obama themed poster.

Anybody have suggestions? I looked for a poster of Francis Galton but none exist.

Can the Formation of a White Ethno-state be Justified?

This is probably my most controversial post, even within the Steveosphere. Writing posts on OneSTDV has forced me to more thoroughly consider some polemical HBD/race issues. One of these is white nationalism (WN).

First, let me distinguish between white racialism and white nationalism. When HBDers use the term "WN", I think they're actually referring to white racialists. These individuals are explicitly pro-white, advocating policies that give highest value to white racial success even in spite of more equitable alternatives. A significant portion of WN's fit this description, but in its purest form, WN's simply want a homogeneous white ethnostate entirely comprised of American whites. This post will deal with the latter definition of white nationalism.

Second, there is a significant portion of WN's who just don't like non-whites. Blind hatred is never a valid justification for belief.

Third, I will make the arguments, but I don't necessarily agree with them. This is not, and never will be, a white nationalist website. In my opinion, a nation needn't be entirely homogeneous to serve the same purposes, described below, as a WN America. A hypothetical (but unrealistic) example previously mentioned would be an 80/20 white/Asian split. Further, the process of forcefully extracting a WN nation from current America encounters moral issues such as displacing innocent people and how a white secession would negatively affect hard-working, productive NAMs.

Fourth, there are additional reasons for having a white (or any racial group) ethnostate. One of the most potent is the preservation of culture. Yet, such an argument presupposes that culture has inherent value outside facilitating a common narrative amongst individuals. I don't necessarily think culture has objective value, so I'll refrain from making such a statement.

So here are the two justifiable and reasonable reasons for creating a white ethnostate:

1) Humanity depends on continued existence of whites: Even the most deluded liberal assumes human life, and humanity in general, has inherent value. Thus, it's a desirable goal to see that humanity's existence continues. Given the threat of natural disaster (asteroids, sun radiation, volcano eruptions) and the problems associated with a growing population, humanity must continue to progress to meet these new challenges. Looking at the five major racial groups, blacks, Latinos, and Arabs will almost assuredly not contribute to progress. Asians and whites have shown to be the only peoples capable of technological advancement and stability. Yet, as Satoshi Kanzawa points out, Asians apparently can't do science. It's probably not the best strategy to depend on Asians for monumental scientific and technological breakthroughs, outside of robotics. Thus, the existence of humanity, from a technological standpoint, rests on the shoulders of European-descended peoples.

It's imperative that Europeans are given the proper social context to not only work productively, but to reproduce enough offspring to sustain their population. A white ethnostate might provide the most appropriate, and efficient, means for white productivity. Given the already entrenched aspects of American individualism, industriousness, and scholarship, an American based white ethnostate seems best suited for this purpose. Further, whites have built the most efficient cultural structures that support stable societies. Unlike the overly conformist Asian civilizations and the destitute NAM/Arab civilizations, European based societies have stressed the most efficient economic and cultural mores (e.g. capitalism). Unfortunately, the West has increasingly yielded to feminist and multiculturalist zealotry, movements that could actively undermine civilization.

2) Racial psychological differences makes peaceful cohabitation virtually impossible: This is an argument often used by "The Undiscovered Jew" to support whites-only immigration. Intelligence differences constitute just one subset of psychological differences between the races. Rushton summarizes them in Race, Evolution, and Behavior. The fact that individuals generally gravitate towards individuals of the same race is a byproduct of biology and not just cultural similarities. Thus, it's reasonable to assert the gulf between the different races makes social turmoil inevitable. It also explains why Asians and whites seem to coexist better than blacks and whites.

To illustrate, I'll provide an analogous example. Take a huge number of eight year-olds (Group A) and a huge number of six year-olds (Group B). Note that it must be a huge number because the importance of distributions only applies to large sample sizes, such as those representing population demographics. Put Group A and Group B in the same social setting. There is significant overlap between the two groups. They listen to much of the same music, watch many of the same television shows, have similar psychological development and perspectives. Yet, while some individual Group A members will pair up with Group B members, the two groups will likely form homogeneous subgroups. The two groups will not coalesce despite the huge overlap in characteristics. There will be intractable gaps that preclude such cohesion and it's possible an "us" vs. "them" mentality arises. For a display of this, go to any daycare center. They group together by age and almost all competition/friendship is predicated on this.

This situation is almost identical to blacks, whites, and Asians. A multicultural society might fail because personality and psychological differences make coexistence too difficult. Racialism and identity politics will create animus amongst the groups. Thus, a white ethnostate eliminates racially based (although, not ethnically-based) problems.

Let me reiterate: I still don't agree with WNism. I think a capitalistic economy, a strong, unequivocally American cultural narrative, a majority white population, and a discouragement of racialist politics can save this country.

SWPLs and Working Out

Apparently, stomach fat is in amongst the SWPL crowd. Surprisingly, this article gets it right, offering similar analysis as below.

THIS summer the unvarying male uniform in the precincts of Brooklyn cool has been a pair of shorts cut at knickers length, a V-neck Hanes T-shirt, a pair of generic slip-on sneakers and a straw fedora. Add a leather cuff bracelet if the coolster is gay. In truth this get-up was pretty much the unvarying male uniform last summer also, but this year an unexpected element has been added to the look, and that is a burgeoning potbelly one might term the Ralph Kramden.

The SWPL mindset is inherently anti-traditionalist. It repudiates almost any aspect of traditional culture, especially that of gender roles. That's why SWPL's are so overrepresented amongst herbs, those men disgustingly subordinate to females. The prototypical male physique, defined by musculature and stoutness, is seen as a physical reflection of lunk-headed conservatism. An SWPL acquaintance of mine frequently disparages regular gym workouts (that's for meathead tools!), especially those focusing on weightlifting and muscle building exercises. If the SWPL is actually interested in working out, he invariably advocates a cardio-intensive routine, seeking to eliminate fat because "why would I want to be all bulky?". His tight shirts are actually a proud advertisement of distaste for gaining muscle.

For the record, I train exclusively with (free) weights, drink two protein shakes daily (Optimum Nutrition), and own 25 wife beaters. Unfortunately, my ectomorph genetics have limited me to the buff-skinny physique.

Holograms You can Feel

SingularityHub describes an innovation allowing visual AND tactile perception of holograms:

Ladies and gentlemen, we are one step closer to having a fully functional holodeck. Thanks to the Shinoda Lab at theUniversity of Tokyo, you can now touch holograms. Concentrated blasts of ultrasound are used in conjunction with traditional holography to give you the impression of feeling the objects you see. It’s an amazing concept and will allow an entirely new way to interact in virtual reality.

But in prognosticating on this technology's future, the blog misses what will surely push its growth:

Interacting with visual object is going to be a big development in the fields of computing, gaming, and art. Just looking at the AUTD from the video you can see how they could be easily adapted into a multi-directional 3D setup.

Once the technology becomes sufficiently advanced, it's not hard to figure out what industry will pounce on it (just as they had a huge part in spreading VCR's and the Internet).

Part One of Educational Reform Series: Elementary and Secondary Schooling

This is part one of four in my Educational Reform Series. Each post will highlight a (non-exhaustive) set of potential reforms, with a brief description of each suggested change.

This post deals with elementary and secondary education.

Implement Tracking: The flat bell curve is a myth perpetrated by educational romantics and liberals. A distribution of ability exists for mental acumen in every subject area. The general intelligence factor, g, is an accurate approximation of overall intelligence and is reflected in student performance. Education must begin accepting innate differences in intelligence by instituting tracking. Tracking places students in different classes based on exhibited ability.

This groups students with similar peers, encourages benign competition, and allows a curriculum to be tailored appropriate to the class' average ability. In America, tracking only appears during high school; yet measures are even underway to undermine this positive aspect of education (stuffing AP classes with underqualified NAMs). Tracking should begin in first grade. It should be flexible so that late bloomers are accounted for. The tracks should be based primarily on mid-year and end of year standardized tests that largely reflect g and some measure of learning. Individual tracks will study different material in a different fashion, with higher tracks stressing more creative critical thinking and lower tracks focusing on learned skills.

The only reasonable opposition to tracking is that some rare students will lose out. Possibly, their emotional well-being negatively affected school performance or extreme test anxiety underestimated their actual ability. This will undoubtedly occur, but education spending should be viewed as an investment in the country's future. In accordance with this, rare individual sacrifices for a greater utilitarian benefit must be accepted.

Increase and Encourage Vocational Training: College prep represents an imminent path to failure for the left half of the Bell Curve. The 'college for everyone' brigade falsely imbues these children with the idea that they're capable of rigorous intellectual challenges. Rather, their potential success in a blue-collar position is wasted as they struggle through meaningless, esoteric academia. Education, at any stage, should provide a means for success later in life and for many, that doesn't mean a college education. Vocational and real-world apprenticeships will prove beneficial for a large portion of the population. Vocational training is a more seasonable avenue than wasting four years meandering through Hawthorne and trigonometry.

Why is vocational training scoffed at by elites? As a means to justify their own egos, elites consider intelligence and intelligence based activities as the zenith of value and sophistication. By denigrating practical education and glorifying academia, their constructed value system depicts them as the paragon of esteem.

Instill basic values: silly girl and others have advocated this objective for elementary and secondary education, especially with regards to the left half and their social dysfunction. While religion largely remains the supposed bastion and purveyor of morality, educational institutions could provide a secular, practical indoctrination of values. This does not entail any moral teachings on contentious issues that will remain the domain of personal choice. Rather, the values considered here would include cooperation, discouraging aggressive responses, teaching future time orientation, and withstanding completion of tedious tasks. To live as productive and functioning members of society, the left half must learn discretion, patience, and the consequences of violent outbursts. Will this have any lasting effect, given the natural tendencies of those with low IQ? I'm not sure, but it's worth a shot. Currently, we have groveling teachers afraid to condemn "special kids", desperately shirking helicopter parents, and using teaching methods designed to coddle students, not mold them.

Increase use of rote memorization and repetition: For many topics, the left half is largely unable to process the nuances of intellectual discussion. In opposition to educational ethos, this is inconsequential in learning. For example, take long division. Even the smartest kids barely understand the rationale behind the algorithm, yet through repetition, they master the process. The left half needn't understand the proof of Pythagorean theorem or the reasoning underlying the supply/demand economy. Rote memorization has been unfairly demonized in spite of its efficacy.

Streamline curriculum by discarding useless material: I'll refrain from suggesting when school should end. Some believe gifted children can handle college material at age 16. I'll remain agnostic on the issue. Rather, in implementing the above reforms, the curriculum must be streamlined. Right now, students meander through tons of useless tasks, many of which become lost in a haze of boredom. History is a necessary component of education, but stick with the important stuff, not the creation myths of the ancient Mayas or some obscure treaty from 1300's France. Students must understand literature, but how many essays on transcendentalism can a hormonal 15 year old handle? Most of math, the subject supposedly ubiqutious throughout our lives, is superflous. The solving of the quadratic formula, the number of degrees in an n-sided polygon, and rotating a function around a given axis to find the volume of a 3-d object all fit this description.

Let me qualify this last suggestion briefly. This overabundance does not always apply to the highest tracks, those likely pursuing technical and intellectually loaded fields, as their future depends on understanding high level concepts. Rather, the left half suffers most intensely from such insipid study of almost no use in the practical world.

Part Two: How the college admissions process is failing.

The Inevitable Doom of Human Civilizations

At In Mala Fide, Beta Revolution, and Mangan's, there's been talk about societal decline and how Game and bioconservatism/HBD relate to that problem. Yet, much of the discussion tacitly assumes controlled civilization is a sustainable model of human interaction. Rather, it's quite possible all human societies, structured under common law and a set of social contracts, are doomed to failure. First, the current state of affairs hints at the relative difficulty of creating a productive and stable communal society.

In all of human history, up until the present, only two races, Asians and Europeans, have successfully constructed a productive society where wealth creation and transference exist, where social networks between families, towns, and larger nodes facilitate communal bonds, and where pathological dysfunction is minimized. The current state of Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East show that even modern technology can not counteract base urges.

Second, while institutions like government, police, and religion have attempted to mitigate our animalistic urges, they still exist. Our desires for sexual pleasure, individual prosperity, and violent aggression are an undeniable element of humanity. For the most part, the human psyche was forged prior to the selection pressures of agragian culture and our hunter-gatherer past largely rewarded these carnal carvings. So, how can societies attempt to "nurture" a group of people harboring characteristics corresponding to an uncivilized past?

In the downfall of civilization, we see men and women attempting to subvert mores that encourage social stability. Invariably, primal desires take precedence over actions that provide for or buttress the common good. If wealth inequality pervades a region, such as in South America, men will murder and steal to appropriate wealth for themselves. If power becomes available, men like Stalin and Pope Gregory IX will claim it, implementing ruthless strategies to sustain their rule. If social norms preclude the shaming of old maids, women, motivated by their hypergamic urges for an alpha-male hunter, will waste their fertile years and end up childless as they hold out for a higher status mate.

Through religious morality, Communism, secular constitutions, and other pseudo-religions, humans have attempted to contain ourselves. Yet, each great empire reaches a seminal shift or a complete collapse. Common themes continually arise in each situation, such as a power hungry rulership depleting its citizenship, a change in sexual norms (such as promotion of polygamy where alphas dominate breeding) leading to decreasing birth rates or dsygenic fertility, a religious organization championing violent crusades or war, a moral decay undermining family structures, or progressive social attitudes depicting having children as an unnecessary chore. In most situations, we failed to keep our primal desires in check and the populace seeking to satisfy these impulses led to societal decline.

Often, idealistic measures are thought to be sufficient for societal stability. Yet, a crack in these foundational standards can spread until the entire system is threatened. Is liberalism, with its libertine social attitudes, betrayal of the beta male, and dismissal of HBD racial truths, causing our downfall? It's possible we're seeing the modern West succumb to the same fate as all other great civilizations.

Usain Bolt: Prominent HBDer

Usain Bolt destroyed the 100 meter world record on Sunday. He lowered his time by 0.11 seconds to 9.58 seconds.

Bolt has actually alluded to racial physical differences in explaining the black dominance of sprinting. In this interview, he attributes Jamaica's running prowess to genetics.

Interviewer: What do you think sets Jamaican athletes apart from the rest? Is it the beautiful climate or the training methods?

Bolt: ...I think over the years what makes Jamaica different is because of slavery really. I think it really helped, back in the days of Africans being good runners. So I guess it's just been from slavery. The genes are very strong.

Bolt doesn't make it clear whether he believes African domination resulted from localized evolution in Africa or artificial selection by Caribbean slave traders. Nonetheless, he surely supports a "nature"/HBD explanation, as well as stressing the importance of training and work ethic.

A Jamaican doctor supports the slave trade hypothesis. Funny, he wasn't Watsonified for such heterodoxy. He also mentions this relates to high crime rate, traffic accident and fatality rate, and levels of promiscuity. Can someone bring this guy to the U.S.?

Since Jamaica was one of the last stops to be made by the slave ships it ensured that only the most resilient and fittest of slaves were alive to disembark in Jamaica.

Even more interesting is that as one goes westward within the Caribbean, sprinting prowess becomes more prevalent and reaches its peak by the time Jamaica and Bahamas are reached.

I haven't seen the slave trade/artificial selection hypothesis too often amongst the HBD community. Most stick with the natural selection model. It's possible natural selection on the African continent created higher physicality amongst Africans and the slave trade represented an additional selection pressure for physicality.

How Babies Develop Intelligence

Apparently, babies can learn by themselves. New studies show that babies have a instinctual understanding of probability, cause and effect, and unfamiliar phenomena. The studies show babies learn from unfocused exploration prompting the author to warn against programs like Head Start.

Many think that babies, like adults, should learn in a focused, planned way. So parents put their young children in academic-enrichment classes or use flashcards to get them to recognize the alphabet. Government programs like No Child Left Behind urge preschools to be more like schools, with instruction in specific skills.

The author mentions something relevant to IQ testing and adoption studies.

Moreover, the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that controls the directed, planned, focused kind of intelligence, is exceptionally late to mature, and may not take its final shape until our early 20s.

This likely explains why adoption and environmental effects take until the start of college to entirely dissipate.

Thoughts on Important Racial Topics: American Whites, High-IQ NAM Immigration, and Asian Demographics

In this post on opposition to immigration, 'Anonymous' asked some questions concerning my opinion on racial demographics. Since these represent important general issues with respect to race, America, immigration, and HBD, I'll answer them at length. I made an initial attempt at these types of questions here: Pro-White?.

Do you care at all about the ethnic genetic interests of American Whites?

I have a somewhat contradictory answer to this question. First, I have absolutely no vested interest in the success of the larger white racial collective. I care exclusively about the success and happiness of my family and friends. It's rather inconsequential to me whether a given white person or a given group of whites prosper.

Second, I place strong value on equality, opportunity, merit, and freedom. I care that these values continue to underpin our society and aren't eroded through racialist based programs like affirmative action or diversity programs. Merit-based processes should define our society. As a result, whites will likely hold their status due to HBD. Further, it's imperative that whiteness doesn't become inexorably linked with blandness, emptiness, and lack of value, a situation increasing in prevalence. Whites must challenge the progressively dominant rhetoric that whiteness implies not only a void, but an inimical disposition, such as inherent racism or cultural destitution.

Third, I find the notion of white racialism somewhat hypocritical given the pervasive criticism of black racialism. If blacks supporting affirmative action due to their own self-interest is an unjust strategy, then why is the same situation acceptable for whites. Further, while random whites are more likely to harbor similar personality traits due to HBD, the notion that a social bond inevitably exists between random white people so as to justify caring about an expansive white collective doesn't resonate with me.

Fourth, and now to contradict myself, I do have a strong passion for the perseverance of Western Civilization, of which I consider America to be the crowning achievement. While I hold almost no tribalistic racial urges, I have a deep reverence for Western Civilization (its science, literature, history, and philosophy) and feel disheartened that its foundation erodes through NAM/Muslim immigration, anti-Western academia, and unnecessary progressive movements like feminism. A contradiction arises because Western Civilization is ostensibly the society and achievement of Europeans, so the sustaining of it would imply a sustaining of whites. I'll refrain from attempting to resolve that issue. I will state though that any immigration, even that of Asians, would unavoidably alter the foundation of Western Civilization. Culture and genetics link through a feedback loop; thus, a change in demographics would lead to a shift in cultural mores and other aspects of society.

Or are you okay with non-White immigration as long as the immigrants have high IQs -- like Northeastern Asians?

For my view on Asian immigration, I wrote a three part series: Part 1, 2, 3. I had previously supported high-IQ NAM immigration, but regression to the mean, a statistical inevitable over large groups, shows their children and, surely, their grandchildren would have little economic worth above our current population.

Would you be perfectly fine with the idea of America being a White-Asian society?

I wouldn't mind a hypothetical America with an 80% white, 20% Asian split. A society with many similarly sized racial groups, like the one we may witness in 2050, could prove disastrous. A society with a large white majority and an industrious, quiet, and law-abiding Asian minority seems attractive to me. We would have to avoid the PC, multiculturalism glorification, assure our national narrative remains undeniably "American" (can't define it, but I know it when I see it), and swiftly confront any rumblings of identity politics. But the unique Asian culture and notorious Asian work ethic could positively support a dominant white cultural and political structure.

Myth of Media's Racial Bias

While searching for articles on media racial bias, I found this by Salim Muwakkil (hmm, wonder what his parents were like?) where he uses the same tired arguments to show that the media and society are biased against black people. Let me briefly comment on the double standard of media held by racialist NAMs. On one hand, the media's lack of diversity, such as no black actors on Friends, and supposed negative portrayal of blacks have a grave effect on black self-esteem. Yet, the endless instances of cultural colorblindness and media pro-black bias (I'll provide evidence below) are seen as insufficient. So, to racialists, media is both a powerful tool of suppression and a trivial motivator of social change.

The long line of statistics that point to continuing racial inequities—in health care, incarceration, poverty, education, employment and more—are often marginalized as aberrations in a land of opportunity.

These differences are marginalized? Really? CNN has put out two programs on Black in America and there's a forthcoming third installment along with Latino in America in October. One of the main goals of No Child Left Behind was decreasing the racial achievement gap. Almost every day, I hear another story about how horrible these gaps are.

[T]hese [racial] biases are so deeply embedded in U.S. institutions and attitudes that most of the white Americans who share them often can’t detect them.

Yes, it's so subtle no one even notices.

Media-driven stereotypes tend to drive social policy. I have no doubt that media stereotypes of black criminality help account for the incarceration epidemic afflicting black youth.

Media stereotypes drive social policy and behavior, but The Cosby Show was just a television program, ya know the number one rated program for five straight years that portrayed the stable family life of a black doctor. Guy White wrote this post debunking the "conspiracy" against black males.

These cultural synonyms ["young black males" and "criminal"] have helped create a social system of racial disparities in which, according to a report by Human Rights Watch, there are five times more white drug users than black ones, but African Americans are imprisoned at several times the rate of whites.

Does anyone else notice the absolutely mind-bogglingly horrible display of rudimentary math ability here? He compares a total number (of drug users) with a rate (of imprisonment). Once again, liberals don't understand math.

Race bias is still a fact in America, and media too often facilitate it.

Here's a list off the top of my head concerning evidence that media/culture isn't anti-black:

-The Cosby Show: number one program for 5 straight years
-Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, ranked in the top 25 shows throughout its run and still played frequently in syndication, shows upper-middle class Banks family, led by a Princeton graduate and judge.
-Family Matters, one of the most well-known shows for anyone under 30, shows brilliant nerd Steve Urkel constantly irking stable family man and cop, Carl Winslow.
-That's So Raven was a tween phenomenon from 2003-2007, the first Disney Channel show to last more than two years. It portrayed the stable life of a black middle class family. Every single white person on the show is depicted as a clueless idiot.
-The Bernie Mac show was a popular sitcom about a middle class black man who adopts his sister's three children.
-Since 1996, the cover of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition has contained a NAM woman six (3 black, 3 Hispanic) out of 14 years.
-BET exists.
-CNN's obsession with black people.
-Magic Negro movie character.
-Will Smith is most popular movie star.
-Vanessa Williams won 1983 Miss America
-Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods are the most marketable athletes.
-Hip-hop dominates all areas of music, even showing up in country.
-Has Law and Order ever had a black criminal on it? I watch it regularly and here are some recent professions of the criminals: lawyer, rich kid (2), son of prominent doctor, drug company CEO, TV producer, psychiatrist, physicist, computer programmer, powerful politician, eye doctor, child prodigy. The entire series is one big example of the "Great White Defendant".
-James Watson getting "Watsonified".
-Obama's treatment by the media.

But yea, media hates black people. Obviously.

Study Supports "Game" Concept of Pre-Selection

A well known concept within the PUA or Game community is "pre-selection". When a man is attached to a woman, through a relationship or accompanying one at a party, other females' attraction to this man increases. The pre-selection of a woman is considered one of the most successful demonstrations of higher value. Once again, science proves a hypothesis of evolutionary pyschology. I consider Game a subset of evolutionary psychology focusing on gender relationships.

This study shows that single woman tend to prefer attached men.

Specifically, when researchers described the man [matched by computer as an ideal romantic partner] as single, 59 percent of single women were interested in pursuing him. However, when they described the exact same man as being in a committed relationship, 90 percent of the women were interested.

Unsurprisingly, the concept of pre-selection has empirical support. Woman were largely ignorant of their own natural desires:

According to a recent poll in Women’s Health magazine, most women who mate poach don’t believe the relationship status of the man influenced their behavior, but this study proves that belief to be false.

So, Game works and women have no idea what's happening.

Argument Against Immigration: Look at their home countries

The anti-immigration argument is often viewed in two ways:

1) Proponents of limited immigration believe vast numbers of (mostly Hispanic) immigrants will erode the America's cultural structures.

2) Proponents of limited immigration are racists who just want to hinder the browning of America.

Neither of the above two explanations capture the rather simple argument against NAM immigration. The idea that cultural traditions MUST be preserved constitutes an unnecessarily nostalgic view of yesteryear. While cultural heritage and societal norms allow a common narrative to develop (imagine Chicago without the ivy walls of Wrigley), sustaining them should not override other concerns. The main objective of a civilization is to prolong its stable functioning and prosperity. Culture aids in this process, but other aspects of society that directly promote its functioning, like economics and human capital, should often take precedence over that objective.

If the main goal is to promote society's success, then we must identify the primary means to that end. Studies like IQ and the Wealth of Nations suggest that the people who comprise one's society are the main variable in success. Why should we want to limit the browning of America? Take a look at Africa and Latin America. Do you see any wealth producing, socially stable societies on those two continents? It doesn't make sense to import entire groups of people who can't create productive countries themselves. Why import the turmoil of Mexico and Africa into our backyard?

Article on "Accuracy" of The Time Traveler's Wife

The Time Traveler's Wife is the latest time traveling-themed story. Physicist Dave Goldberg explains some aspects of "realistic" time travel. In regards to the idea you can't kill your own grandfather:

As Kip Thorne writes, "something has to stay your hand as you try to kill your grandmother. What? How? The answer (if there is one) is far from obvious, since it entails the free will of human beings." If pool balls can be forced to succumb to their destiny, so can people. This fact is very easy to ignore if you don't know what the future will bring; it certainly seems like you've got free choice. But if you've already seen what your destiny is, then the future is already written.

As crazy as it sounds, Dr. Goldberg seems to suggest something would actually force you to not kill your grandfather. This deterministic, "future has already been written" notion of time travel was used last season on Lost. A lot more interesting suppositions in the article link.

Upcoming Series on Education Reform

I'll soon start a four part series on educational reform. The series will be divided as below:

• Elementary and Secondary Education: Issues discussed here will include, but not limited to, the negative impact of IQ-denial, the paucity of vocational training, and the lack of discipline indoctrination.
  
• College Admissions Process: Issues discussed here will include, but not limited to, the subjectivity and social engineering aspects of the admissions "game", the impact of affirmative action, and the four main types of elite college admits.
• College: Issues discussed here will include, but not limited to, college as merely social capitol, uselessness of most curriculum even for subjects like engineering, impact of the growing foreign population, and the Ivy League myth.
• Marketplace: Issues discussed here will include, but not limited to, the pervasiveness of credentialism, the actual irrelevance of the college degree in real world occupations, and advice for recent graduates.

This initial post will serve as a comparison between my suggested reforms and those of the Obama administration. Surprisingly, their proposals aren't all bad, but the fundamental ignorance of both racial and IQ differences is problematic.

• Early childhood education. The recently signed stimulus bill includes $5 billion in new funds for Head Start and Early Head Start, Obama said. Head Start is a waste of money and the gains quickly fade, almost entirely gone by adulthood. This will produce only phantom gains. Not a secret who Head Start targets.
• K-12 improvements. He said 4th grade readers in Mississippi are scoring nearly 70 points lower than students in Wyoming, yet both sets of students are getting the same grade. Wonder where the disparity comes from? Though, standardized scoring is a good idea. Obama called for "world class standards" in math and science, as well as "21st Century skills" such as "problem-solving and critical thinking, entrepreneurship and creativity." This is hand-waving. Creativity is not a highly learnable skill and neither is critical thinking (especially at the level of technological progress).
• Recruiting and keeping better teachers. We've heard this before. They'll help, but ultimately, the students are what matter. And enough with this Hollywood concept of the inspiring teacher. In China, the teachers are dispassionate robots and the kids do fine. Surprisingly, Obama advocates merit pay, which is a good idea if controlling for innate student ability.
  
• Promoting innovation and excellence. He wants more charter schools. Again, that's good, but the kids matter most. He says we have an "epidemic" of rising dropout rates. Hmm, we also have a rising amount of menial labor Latino immigrants.
• Higher education. He wants more Pell grants to offset rising tuition. Not the worst program, but scholarships should be given based on merit, not income. He also advocates everyone goes to college or post-secondary training. A significant portion going to vocational training isn't a bad idea, but there's no way everyone is equipped for that work. Some people have to make burgers, that's just the way it is.
  

Final point: Our educational system and its underlying philosophy is deeply flawed, but characterizing it as a failure is somewhat inaccurate. We are failing the gifted by ignoring their potential and the left-half by not funneling them into appropriate work. But our schools aren't necessarily failing. Most see us failing because our spending has increased twofold, but the scores remain stable, there's a racial achievement gap, and we lag Asian countries in testing scores. Yet, any student of HBD and IQ can easily explain these results.