[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.