I can’t afford to think about that.

I can’t afford to think about that.

Wed 20 Aug 2014 16:50

West Hunter has a blog post about the consequences of being publicly interested in HBD: I can't afford to think about that.

Summary:

People in human genetics generally know that ‘the race/IQ issue is toxic to anyone who touches it’. They can’t risk being involved.

So I'm just wondering why you choose to write anonymously or under your own name (whichever is applicable)? And if you have any thoughts about or experiences with the consequences of either.

I've decided to not use my own name for simple career reasons; not really my own career either. Anyone working with me (and who has been very kind and patient with me) would likely be impacted.

I'm hoping the scientific climate will become a little less repressive once we have enough alleles to conclude that IQ either is or isn't differentially distributed genetically amongst human groups, but wouldn't bet on it.

Ps. I'm a pretty standard liberal on all issues, so I do not think I have any unpalatable opinions on anything except purely empirical questions, but I still suspect I'd feel the wrath from the point and sputter crowd.

Emil O. W. Kirkegaard

Wed 20 Aug 2014 17:07

Admin

I am generally contrarian and refuse to give up my rights of freedom of speech directly and indirectly for speaking about anything that others may not like. Hiding behind pseudonyms, while prudent for safety reasons (both immigrants and 'antiracist' extremists may physically attack you or your property) and career reasons, means that they win. If everybody keeps doing this, it becomes the norm and there is de facto censorship. I believe in a free society where things can be discussed and I will set an example even with moderate costs to myself. See also one of my absolute favorite essays. What you can't say (Paul Graham).

The scientific climate will not become less repressive before people stop hiding, tabooing the subject etc. I think it may get worse as it is due to further problems with massive immigration.

As for politics, I actually cofounded a party (Internetpartiet) and wrote hundreds of pages of text on it (in Danish). It's generally a transhumanistic/techno-positive party with freedom advocating policies on social matters (e.g. legalize drugs and sex work) and center-right on economic matters (by Danish standards).

For problems of immigration, I advocate 1) expelling hard criminals (e.g. rapists), 2) IQ entrance testing for everybody (i.e. western immigrants too) at the individual level, 3) language testing (Danish and English since these are the useful languages to speak in Denmark).

As for racial matters, I am advocating race-blind policies, so there is nothing racist in any proper sense there. Since I advocate individualized policies, my or anyone else's research on group matters have no relevance on my policies. You either are smart or dumb, whichever group you happen to belong to has no effect on that. Group averages are a matter of probabilities and there are smart and dumb people of every group (race, sex, hair color, sexual preference, etc.).