“If we had 100 Arthur Jensens, and Steve Sailer was appointed editor of National Review…”
The reason this doesn’t happen is because people won’t accept these views! It’s like saying we can’t know about heredity because people aren’t born in equal circumstances. But if hereditarianism is true, people won’t ever have an equal starting point because they’ll take after their parents.
What this is saying is essentially if people accepted HBD they would accept HBD.
There aren’t a hundred Arthur Jensens. There isn’t even one any more. His views were at one point discussed in major newspapers and he testified before Congress. He was a major figure in psychology. Today nobody promotes his views in the entirety of the field. That’s not an accident. It’s because society won’t accept hereditarianism absent a cultural revolution.
Like I said, most educated people don't even know that there is an IQ gap. Even fewer are aware of basic information like differences in brain size or cross-racial adoption studies. How can we be confident that a significant number of smart people wouldn't change their minds if they were presented with the evidence in a way they can understand?
I dispute the claim that we have already tried this strategy, at least in a way that has a chance of being successful. 90% of the people talking about race and IQ are deranged anti-Semites. In the end, people like Lynn, Rushton, and Eysenck discredited hereditarianism more than they helped to promote it. If we had 100 Arthur Jensens, and Steve Sailer was appointed editor of National Review—and these are things that could happen—we would soon be living in a different world.
The left sure acts as if they are terrified of the intelligent public becoming less ignorant about intelligence: witness the then-stunning cancellations of heavyweight insiders like Harvard president Larry Summers and DNA structure co-discoverer James D. Watson.
Mar 26, 2024 · 7:33 AM UTC
