[db-interface]

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?

[Manuel_D]

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.

[sudosysgen]

When Moldbug says HBD, he isn't saying "not all humans have exactly the same genes". HBD has a specific meaning in that context and the meaning is that some races are superior to others. That is specifically what Moldbug says when he talks about HBD, and SSC's author knows that well.

[Manuel_D]

I don't doubt that Yarvin has racist views. I do take issue with people insisting that Scott agrees with Yarvin by mere virtue of association, despite the Scott's clear explicit refutations of neo reactionaries.

[sudosysgen]

Scott's (partial) agreement with Yarvin is not from association, it's from him saying that he thinks HBD is at least partially correct, in a discussion with Yarvin where HBD means racial supremacy.

[kragen]

i've never seen yarvin mention hbd, so i think you may be misremembering this

[db-interface]

> 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]

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-ga...

[db-interface]

If your contention is that we should more frankly discuss IQ disparities, pretending we're talking about height was a strange way to go about it.

In those emails, SA does not say he thinks these questions deserve more study -- he says they're "probably partially true". Again, in that context he's talking about Steve Sailer's views.

Yes, I'm focusing on a few sentences. Do you think he wrote those by accident? That the words came out wrong and the straightforward reading was not his intent? In the context of the rest of his emails, and his writing on e.g. Albion's Seed, I do not think that is likely.

[Manuel_D]

Albion's seed is pretty much entirely focused on culture, laws, and institutions, not genetics. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be related to human biodiversity at all.

And on a final note, I'd suggest you read the last paragraph of the screenshotted email chain, where Scott explains how it's valuable to read creationist arguments it forces him to sharpen his thinking.

> You never realize how LITTLE you know about evolution until you read some Behe and are like, "I know this correct... But why not?".

> Even if there turns out to be zero value in any a Reactionary has ever said, by challenging beliefs of mine that would otherwise never be challenged they have forced me to clarify my thinking and up my game.

I really think you've lost the forest for the trees here. Scott is praising certain parts of reactionary ideas for asserting things most people wouldn't argue, and those interactions are leading him to sharpen his thinking.

[reducesuffering]

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]

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]

"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?

[db-interface]

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.

[Manuel_D]

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.

[kragen]

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

[kragen]

it would be really surprising if a writer as prolific and literate as moldbug didn't occasionally produce nuggets of gold