Wise Tim, Crime, and HBD: Part 1, an introduction to the HBD-osphere

Frequent poster unknown128 (okay, I’ve got to give you a nickname–you’re now Leuconoë,) has asked me to weigh in, from an HBD-perspective, on several studies about race, crime, poverty, etc:

What is your opinion of the “racial invariance hypothesis” which says that poor whites have about the same crime rate as poor blacks and that if you control for socioeconomic status all the differences between the races in crime go away?

This thesis is mainly backed by these studies: Poverty, not race, tied to high crime rates in urban communities, Homicide in Black and White (pdf.)

Since poor whites have a generally higher IQ as equally poor blacks this would also contradict the idea that lower IQ leads to more crime.

Basically I wonder why none in the HBD/Nrx/alt Right hasnt confronted these studies. …

Also this piece by a radical leftist: Nazis Can’t Do Math: Reflections on Racism, Crime and the Illiteracy of Right-Wing Statistical Analysis.

Well, Leuconoe, This might take a while.

We’re going to have to start with basic definitions: What are HBD, NRx, and the Alt-Right?

These are separate but obviously somewhat overlapping spheres of thought.

Nobel-prize winner and personal hero, James Watson
Nobel-prize winner and personal hero, James Watson

HBD, or Human Bio-Diversity, is the somewhat disreputable (by mainstream standards) end of normal human genetics/evolutionary theory. We start with a scientifically accepted point–evolution is true–and propose that evolutionary pressures have affected recent human development, including the development of personality traits.

If different groups of people are exposed to different environmental pressures, then evolution will select for different traits in different groups of people. “Groups” here can refer to men, women, social classes, isolated tribes, entire races, cultures, etc.

This is the short version. If you want the long version, try the Human BioDiversity Reading List. It is long. It goes into A LOT of detail. Any topic you think HBD-ers haven’t addressed is probably addressed in there somewhere.

The most controversial HBD-related claims are that that racial differences in IQ and criminality are probably genetic. James Watson got watsoned for saying as much, proving that no amount of scientific reputation or expertise in the field will save your reputation from the shrieking accusation of “racism.”

source

NRx, or Neo-Reaction, is a set of political ideas/philosophies popularized by Mencius Moldbug. This is hard to summarize, but one of the core underlying ideas is the application of evolutionary theory to systems, groups, countries, ideas, and ideologies.

NRx asserts that  Democracy creates bad long-term incentive structures. In particular, democracies are liable to trade off long-term well-being for short-term votes, increase the franchise to get more votes, and create ethnic strife by pitting different groups against each other. It also claims that the basic idea underlying democracy, that “All men are created equal,” is basically untrue–some men are smarter than others, some are taller, some are more conscientious, etc.–and that society should recognize natural hierarchies.

source
source: Introduction to Reaction Times

Or as Wikipedia puts it:

The Dark Enlightenment, or the neoreactionary movement (also simply neoreaction; abbreviated NRx by proponents), is an anti-democratic and reactionary movement that broadly rejects egalitarianism and Whig historiography.[1][2] The movement favors a return to older societal constructs and forms of government, including support for monarchism and traditional gender roles, coupled with a libertarian or otherwise conservative approach to economics.[3] Some critics have labeled the movement as “neo-fascist“.[2][4]

Most neo-reactionaries probably believe in at least some version of HBD.

The Alt-Right can be defined narrowly or broadly. Narrowly speaking, the term refers to white identitarian (ie, white nationalist or white supremacist) groups. Most of these groups, traditionally, had little to do with NRx, which they see as having been started by autistic Jews. However, some NRxers are white identitarians, and vice versa. Likewise, some alt-rightists believe in HBD, but it’s not required, and some HBDers are white identitarians, but not all.

Broadly defined, the alt-right includes everyone who is not a liberal nor a traditional, mainstream GOP conservative. This is an umbrella term that defines people more by what they are not than what they are. Lots of folks who probably aren’t identitarians, such as Steve Sailer, Roosh V, and Pat Buchanan fall into this category.

Almost everyone in HBD is, very broadly speaking, alt-right, because mainstream conservatives are actively hostile to “evolution” and mainstream liberals are hostile to the idea of genetic or even cultural differences between different groups. Some of them, however, aren’t really traditionalists or identitarians, and some seem to be otherwise pretty liberal. HBDers are an eclectic lot.

source
Also lived from Reaction Times

The point of all of this verbiage is that you’ll probably get a different answer to your question depending on whether you ask someone who’s primarily interested in NRx, HBD, or white identity.

The white identitarians will probably tell you to fuck off, concern troll, they don’t care. They don’t care that much whether the causes of ethnic differences are genetic or cultural–they just prefer being around whites to being around non-whites and the rest is just details.

The NRxers would probably say that this is more egalitarian propaganda and besides, they’ve figured out a way to align incentives so that criminals get punished and society becomes more peaceful over time.

And the HBDers would say, yes, they have heard of this “environmental” hypothesis, here are a few reams of data on the subject, would you like to read Lynn’s IQ and the Wealth of Nations?

Yes, I am being a bit flippant. But if you’re wondering why so few of us have looked at these specific studies/posts, it’s just because we’ve already looked at a whole bunch of data on the subject and aren’t necessarily interested in yet one more study. Personally, I consider IQ and criminality basically settled issues. They vary by race and gender, they have a genetic component, and I’m not sure how much more you can say about that without getting repetitious.

But sometimes it’s a good idea to discuss things things again, so we’ll take a look at these other theories (tomorrow next week.) 🙂

Advertisements

47 thoughts on “Wise Tim, Crime, and HBD: Part 1, an introduction to the HBD-osphere

  1. Poor Whites don’t have the same crime stats as the diversity, especially violent crime
    Otherwise the murder rate of Appalachia would be on the news right along with Chicago, Baltimore and where have you

    I grew up in the 6th poorest County in America with a thriving drug trade. No drive bys, no random gang violence etc. Appalachia is still poor, with fewer government services and high rates of out of wedlock births but no murder sprees.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I have grown increasingly skeptical of some of HBD’s “positions” over time. The relationship between IQ and national wealth seems very tightly bounded by timing (parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa have had levels of wealth inconsistent with IQ at various times; high IQ seems like a prerequisite for particularly awful governance, which kills wealth). The whole outbreeding/Hajnal line thesis is junk when looked at historically. That said, if a person still believes in a causal link between poverty and crime, he is either intellectually timid or an idiot.

    Like

    • HBD: we throw theories at the wall and see if they stick.

      I know homeless people who try to avoid committing crimes. The idea that merely being poor (and to be fair, much of what we now call “poverty” is pretty darn good compared to the hunger and disease people face throughout much of the world/history) suddenly drives otherwise moral people to go kill each other is stupid.

      Like

    • The relationship between IQ and national wealth seems very tightly bounded by timing (parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa have had levels of wealth inconsistent with IQ at various times; high IQ seems like a prerequisite for particularly awful governance, which kills wealth).

      You can say the same about birthrates. However, the introgression of deleterious neanderthal alleles caused a 1 percent decrease in history fitness in Eurasia. Another 1 percent decrease in fitness occured due to the population bottleneck coming out of Africa. So in total, there is a two percent decrease in historic fitness when Eurasians are compared to Africans.

      https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/06/15/neanderthals-inbreeding-and-rk-selection-theory/

      Looking at it from a modern context, national wealth correlates around .75 with IQ. We are talking about modern day societies, after all.

      The whole outbreeding/Hajnal line thesis is junk when looked at historically.

      The Hajnal Line is a fancy phrase for climate. I’m not too convinced by it to be honest.

      That said, if a person still believes in a causal link between poverty and crime, he is either intellectually timid or an idiot.

      Evolutionary psychology says that men commit crimes in order to attain more possessions to acquire more mates to pass on their genes. On the surface, it makes sense. But race is a better predictor of crime than poverty is.

      Like

      • I expected to argue, but I’m pretty sure we agree completely on this. What exactly does “introgression of deleterious neanderthal alleles caused a 1 percent decrease in history fitness in Eurasia” mean, though?

        Non-Africans seem to compare favorably on most metrics, and it seems that TFR was at least as “fit” until recently, as well. Wealth seems to be death to most groups, but I’m skeptical that it is a pure genetics-wealth interaction; IQ interacts with memes, and a powerful meme seems necessary to stave off the deleterious effects of wealth.

        Like

  3. Totally off topic, but you reposted a quote about learning local flora and how it changes the way one perceives his environment. I had that same experience after owning my first house for a couple of years. I think most people are inclined to dive deep into a topic as it comes into focus and never take the time to investigate other areas. Knowing just enough to see many things is the path to wisdom, in my experience.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Completely off topic

    What do you nerds think about the 7 kinds of intelligence deal?

    On the one hand it makes sense. I know guys who are gifted but aren’t otherwise particularly intelligent. One of the guys i ride with is a very talented artist, won some awards for his tattoo work, regularly sells some paintings etc and is a better than average musicians. However it also seems like it’s part and parcel of the blank slate cult trying to say the wannabe rap start is as intelligent as a guy designing payloads for delta 4 rockets

    Like

    • Steve Sailer has suggested that this sort of thing only matters at high IQ. As an anecdote, my brother and I have nearly identical IQs, took an identical prerequisite test for a specific learning program, were both enrolled, and ended up with very different outcomes.

      Like

    • Like a lot of things, it’s kind of 50/50.

      Obviously (some) people have talents, and often people are particularly talented in one area but not others. And people vary in skills–few people get identical grades in all subjects.
      But last time I checked, the 7 intelligences all generally correlate. (Yes, even kinesthetic–I thought athletes were dumb until I looked up stats on the subject, and it turns out that really talented athletes are actually pretty smart.)

      Most of us aren’t idiot savants whose brains do one thing really well but poop out on everything else; most of us have brains that toss all of our thinking skills at whatever problem we’re facing; our ancestors had to be flexible to survive. (Also, much of the difference between “average” and “dumb” is an unfortunate collection of deleterious genes that make a brain just run less efficiently, which tend to affect pretty much everything people try to think about.)

      The story on “learning styles” is similar. Obviously people have variations in how they learn, but brains have never had the luxury of being picky about information sources. (“Sorry, could you put that warning about the tiger by the watering hole in writing? I’m more of a visual than an auditory learnaaaaaaauuuugh–“)

      Like

      • “as it currently stands” I interpreted to mean right now, for humans.

        So, two different thigns:
        1. Obviously all animals engage in competition with each other, stealing their resources, killing each other, eating each other, etc. This is the core of evolutionary theory. The animal that succeeds gets to reproduce.
        When we do things like take the sharks out of a large aquarium exhibit because we’re softies who don’t want fish to die, we end up with a lot of sick, retarded fish (see: Dory) because the sharks aren’t culling the weak anymore. Sharks are critical to the health of marine ecosystems.

        We can call this “Eugenic” if we want to but it seems a lot easier to call it “evolution.”

        Among humans, there’s been a lot of low-scale endemic warfare between tribes like the Yanomamo and their neighbors, and certainly the Yanomamo are shaped by warfare (those who kill have more children than those who don’t) and I’m sure the Yanomamo are quite physically robust and healthy as a result, but I’m not inclined to call this “eugenic;” it certainly doesn’t result in a society that I actually like or want replicated to the rest of the world.

        That said, in the cases where one group actually manages to completely conquer the other, which we’ve seen a lot of since the invention of the chariot, superior technology is often (one of) the deciding factors.To refer to Columbus and the Taino, obviously the Spaniards (and Italians) had better technology and were smarter than the Taino, whom they conquered almost instantly. The Aztecs, who’d already conquered their neighbors, were a much more formidable enemy (and here a bit of good luck, like diseases and horses, were on the Spaniards’ side.) Long term, even without these advantages, I think the Spaniards would have still won due to superior technical expertise (IQ.)

        But I don’t know if Mexico today is actually better off than it would have been without the Spaniards. (Well, aside from ending the human sacrifice). The Aztecs had built (supposedly) one of the greatest cities in the world before the Spaniards got there, and Mexico city, while big, is definitely not one of the greatest. The smartest Aztecs may have been eliminated.

        Then we have things like the Mongol conquests, which definitely don’t seem eugenic, or WWI & WWII, which just destroyed the crap out of a bunch of otherwise nice countries.

        So some wars do end with the smartest, most technologically advanced people on top, and some not so much. But in the modern world, modern warfare is so expensive that just engaging in trade and having the smarter people succeed that way seems much more efficient than firebombing Dresden.

        Like

  5. “Poverty” is a non-sensical word that depends on moving the goalposts. To realize how this is so, note how your American Welfare Queen has by all actual standards lived a life with more options (be it in food, drink, or entertainment) than just about anybody short of the Patricians in the city of Rome.

    With this accounted for, expect Timmy Boy or his fellow SJWs to say that Appalachia or any other European filled area isn’t “poor” enough and so that adresses all any crime gaps between them and areas with more Darkies.

    Like

  6. Is Neoreaction even much of a thing right now? I heared it was on the decline beind overwhelmed by the alt-right?

    “The white identitarians will probably tell you to fuck off, concern troll”

    I think thats a quiet fitting description. I noticed that it is almost impossible to have an intelectual conversation about the truth of things with the alt-right. It seems to encourage a fanatical belief in its tenants and see doubt as subversion or weakness. In this case it is the mirror imege of the SJW, bouth see themselves in a war and bouth see doubt as weakness or intentional subversion of the cause. The arch-SJW Arthur Chu did for instance claim that he constantly purges himself of doubts or “mindkills” himself to be 100% devoted to the cause. I think many alt-rightists do so as well. And thous who dont pretend to to not apear weak.

    I cant do this though and I always tend to seek weaknesses in any narrative I encounter (my brain does it automatcly even if I dont want that). This made me doubt the left, but this is also what dosnt make me fully comfortable with the right either. The lack of a clear side to feel righteous to belong too clearly isnt good for once mental health.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Internet communities come and go. Neoreaction has been on the decline ever since Moldbug stopped posting, IMO.

      There’s still Nick Land (http://www.xenosystems.net/) who is definitely NRx, he’s just… cryptic. And if you aren’t familiar with it, Social Matter hosts other Nick B. Steve’s This Week in Reaction: (http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/12/14/week-reaction-20161211/) which is probably the go-to place if you’re looking for NRx bloggers.

      That said, “alt-right” definitely has the momentum and audience right now, especially since Hillary Clinton gave a speech on the dangers of the “alt-right” and not on “Mencius Moldbug.” And let’s face it, NRx is spergy and written with a high-IQ audience in mind, while pretty much anyone who hates other races can find something in the “alt-right.” Alt-right draws from a bigger pool of people than NRx.

      Personally, I don’t think *any* ideology is ultimately right; ideologies are like maps, and maps all distort reality in some way. Ideological extremism of any sort is likely to go down a holiness spiral that leads to inaccuracies.
      Rather, I prefer to focus on where I feel comfortable/whom I trust. Who is going to attack me? The other day, in a *conservative* forum, I noted that fashion articles are aimed at women and was called sexist. The alt-right has at least stepped away from this madness.

      Of course, you don’t have to accept someone else’s ideology. Take the best elements of what you see and make your own. 🙂

      Like

    • (Large parts of) Neoreaction went into occlusion to avoid “reddit-ification”. It’s still a live and active thing, just not a publicly advertising one.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s