3 ms·

I said he was "sympathetic to NRx views" and linked emails from him stating certain views widely held by Moldbug et. al. that he is sympathetic to. Do you disag

I said he was "sympathetic to NRx views" and linked emails from him stating certain views widely held by Moldbug et. al. that he is sympathetic to. Do you disagree that "HBD" is an NRx view, or that the leaked emails express sympathy for it?

reducesuffering 3y ago
NRx views SSC as a useful blog to read in 2013-2017. Oh looks like you did too. Can't believe you're "sympathetic to NRx views."
- db-interface 3y ago
  This is obtuse. I didn't make any argument about SA reading the same stuff NRx read, or even reading NRx stuff. I linked SA's own writing that "Many of their insights seem important" and that their views have "nuggets of absolute gold".
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    "nuggets of gold" implies that the bulk of it is not gold. If reference someone, saying even a broken clock is right twice a day is that really an endorsement?
    - kragen 3y ago
      it would be really surprising if a writer as prolific and literate as moldbug didn't occasionally produce nuggets of gold
    - db-interface 3y ago
      As I mentioned in a sibling comment, the contention I intend to make is that he agrees more with the racial views of his NRx commenters than he publicly let on. That was the framing of the NYT article -- nobody thinks or would be incensed to learn that SA is a Neo-Monarchist or any of the other NRx beliefs that are orthogonal to modern US political discourse. If you don't think racial IQ disparities are a significant part of NRx thought, fine, you're probably better positioned to know and I am happy to concede the point. In that case, a better comparison would be to Steve Sailor's views. I only mentioned NRx because that is the context of his emails, and I had not recognized that he was linking to Steve Sailor's blog.
      - kragen 3y ago
        unfortunately i don't think neoreactionary views are at all orthogonal to the political discourse that is current in the usa; moldbug has his own variant of the 'cultural marxism' thesis, though naturally enough he doesn't blame it on the jews or the frankfurt school; instead, he picks the quakers, which i mostly agree with (except that of course i agree with the quakers) his criticism is squarely directed at the mainstream us left that he grew up in and its core ideals, such as equality, human rights, pacifism, fighting injustice, etc. he thinks all those are bad things
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        No, I don't think he agrees with neo reactionaries any more than he let on. In his public posts he has praised reactionaries for making observations that most shirk away from, even if they are wrong in their conclusions. This is pretty much what is expressed in the contents of those emails. I think you're reading way too much into one sentence saying human biodiversity is partially correct (which is not actually a particularly contentious idea when you explain what it is), and leaping to the conclusion he agrees with neo reactionary claims that some races have substantially lower IQ even with identical environmental factors. There's a vast disparity between "IQ disparities across races" and "IQ disparities across races, without environmental differences" that is crucial to understand.
Manuel_D 3y ago
Human biodiversity is an empirical fact. Are some populations taller than other, on average? Is red hair more prevalent in certain populations? Pretty much nobody actually rejects the idea of human biodiversity. The neo reactionary types tend to draw specific conclusions from the idea of human biodiversity, like that racial disparities in IQ are inherent and not environmental. That's a conclusion I don't think is in line with Scott's views. Furthermore, I suggest you read the linked emails in more detail. He likes the emphasis reactionaries put on social class, and dislikes ... pretty much everything else. He explicitly states that becoming a reactionary is stupid - I'm not sure how that's meant to be read as sympathetic. This is another case where praising even a small component of a particular movement, even when paired with explicit condemnation of the movement as a whole, is taken as an endorsement.
- db-interface 3y ago
  > Human biodiversity is an empirical fact. Are some populations taller than other, on average? Is red hair more prevalent in certain populations? Pretty much nobody actually rejects the idea of human biodiversity. > The neo reactionary types tend to draw specific conclusions from the idea of human biodiversity, like that racial disparities in IQ are inherent[...] This is a classic motte-and-bailey. The IQ view is clearly the view that he is endorsing in the emails -- he is linking Steve Sailer's blog under "HBD is probably partially correct", and he even demands the recipient "NEVER TELL ANYONE I SAID THIS" -- obviously he's not talking about height.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    Again, you're drawing very explicit conclusions from a few sentences. Racial disparities in IQ are indeed observed, but it's highly contentious over whether these are due to environmental factors like education and nutrition or inherent. That Asians have score higher IQs on average than whites in the US is an empirical observation. But it's also known that IQ can be increased by studying, and Asians study about twice as much as white people in childhood [1]. Scott is acknowledging that the taboo to even recognize these disparities is counterproductive: it stymied attempts to improve schooling or studying practices, because it's taboo to even recognize that there is a difference and instead people typically allege that the tests are biased. Would Scott argue that with identical environmental factors we'd still see the same disparities in IQ across ethnic groups? I don't think so, and nothing in the emails linked seem to suggest this. 1. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/analyzing-the-homework-gap-among-high-school-students/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/analyzing-the-homework-ga...

reducesuffering 3y ago

NRx views SSC as a useful blog to read in 2013-2017. Oh looks like you did too. Can't believe you're "sympathetic to NRx views."

db-interface 3y ago
This is obtuse. I didn't make any argument about SA reading the same stuff NRx read, or even reading NRx stuff. I linked SA's own writing that "Many of their insights seem important" and that their views have "nuggets of absolute gold".
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  "nuggets of gold" implies that the bulk of it is not gold. If reference someone, saying even a broken clock is right twice a day is that really an endorsement?
  - kragen 3y ago
    it would be really surprising if a writer as prolific and literate as moldbug didn't occasionally produce nuggets of gold
  - db-interface 3y ago
    As I mentioned in a sibling comment, the contention I intend to make is that he agrees more with the racial views of his NRx commenters than he publicly let on. That was the framing of the NYT article -- nobody thinks or would be incensed to learn that SA is a Neo-Monarchist or any of the other NRx beliefs that are orthogonal to modern US political discourse. If you don't think racial IQ disparities are a significant part of NRx thought, fine, you're probably better positioned to know and I am happy to concede the point. In that case, a better comparison would be to Steve Sailor's views. I only mentioned NRx because that is the context of his emails, and I had not recognized that he was linking to Steve Sailor's blog.
    - kragen 3y ago
      unfortunately i don't think neoreactionary views are at all orthogonal to the political discourse that is current in the usa; moldbug has his own variant of the 'cultural marxism' thesis, though naturally enough he doesn't blame it on the jews or the frankfurt school; instead, he picks the quakers, which i mostly agree with (except that of course i agree with the quakers) his criticism is squarely directed at the mainstream us left that he grew up in and its core ideals, such as equality, human rights, pacifism, fighting injustice, etc. he thinks all those are bad things
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      No, I don't think he agrees with neo reactionaries any more than he let on. In his public posts he has praised reactionaries for making observations that most shirk away from, even if they are wrong in their conclusions. This is pretty much what is expressed in the contents of those emails. I think you're reading way too much into one sentence saying human biodiversity is partially correct (which is not actually a particularly contentious idea when you explain what it is), and leaping to the conclusion he agrees with neo reactionary claims that some races have substantially lower IQ even with identical environmental factors. There's a vast disparity between "IQ disparities across races" and "IQ disparities across races, without environmental differences" that is crucial to understand.

Manuel_D 3y ago

Human biodiversity is an empirical fact. Are some populations taller than other, on average? Is red hair more prevalent in certain populations? Pretty much nobody actually rejects the idea of human biodiversity. The neo reactionary types tend to draw specific conclusions from the idea of human biodiversity, like that racial disparities in IQ are inherent and not environmental. That's a conclusion I don't think is in line with Scott's views. Furthermore, I suggest you read the linked emails in more detail. He likes the emphasis reactionaries put on social class, and dislikes ... pretty much everything else. He explicitly states that becoming a reactionary is stupid - I'm not sure how that's meant to be read as sympathetic. This is another case where praising even a small component of a particular movement, even when paired with explicit condemnation of the movement as a whole, is taken as an endorsement.

db-interface 3y ago
> Human biodiversity is an empirical fact. Are some populations taller than other, on average? Is red hair more prevalent in certain populations? Pretty much nobody actually rejects the idea of human biodiversity. > The neo reactionary types tend to draw specific conclusions from the idea of human biodiversity, like that racial disparities in IQ are inherent[...] This is a classic motte-and-bailey. The IQ view is clearly the view that he is endorsing in the emails -- he is linking Steve Sailer's blog under "HBD is probably partially correct", and he even demands the recipient "NEVER TELL ANYONE I SAID THIS" -- obviously he's not talking about height.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Again, you're drawing very explicit conclusions from a few sentences. Racial disparities in IQ are indeed observed, but it's highly contentious over whether these are due to environmental factors like education and nutrition or inherent. That Asians have score higher IQs on average than whites in the US is an empirical observation. But it's also known that IQ can be increased by studying, and Asians study about twice as much as white people in childhood [1]. Scott is acknowledging that the taboo to even recognize these disparities is counterproductive: it stymied attempts to improve schooling or studying practices, because it's taboo to even recognize that there is a difference and instead people typically allege that the tests are biased. Would Scott argue that with identical environmental factors we'd still see the same disparities in IQ across ethnic groups? I don't think so, and nothing in the emails linked seem to suggest this. 1. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/analyzing-the-homework-gap-among-high-school-students/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/analyzing-the-homework-ga...