5 comments
An ideological successor to eugenic
To be honest, I'm a eugencist. I own /s/eugenics on Poal. You can get an idea of my beliefs here and I'm not a biologist or anything, I consider myself a hobbyist of HBD. I was into HBD for a while before I got into eugenics though. While they can be companions they don't necessarily have to be. Also, I know this is a bit of a common talking point, but Planned Parenthood grew out of the eugenics movement in the US. If you really want to go after HBD for connections to eugenics would you critique Planned Parenthood?
human biodiversity (HBD) is, like eugenics (from the Greek words for “good” and “breeding”) primarily a euphemism.
You can't call it a euphemism and then say " Though it has a rational, policy-wonk zing to it, that’s just Internet forum-ese for 'you’re genetically distinct from us and should be treated differently.' " That "you’re genetically distinct" part is kind of the point and the " should be treated differently" isn't necessarily to be malevolent. If people are rather different, different treatment could be helpful. There's a good way and a bad way to treat people differently. Much like how me discriminating to hire the best candidates for a position is different than me choosing to discriminate against someone because they vote differently.
inadequacies of gay men and lesbians
This isn't terribly relevant, but I think I know what's being referred to. It's probably this. It's more about differences than "inadequacies" though. I actually enjoyed reading it, though even people who know me a bit better might find that odd. I just find it both fun and thoughtful.
Coontown runs an online resource dump and lexicon called HBD Bibliography
I plan to respond to that other post too. Probably not soon though, I have to go out for a while.
“hbd chick” runs a wide-ranging personal blog on HBD; she seems particularly consumed by the inbreeding habits of Ashkenazi Jews and the genetic makeup of Europeans.
Her interest is human mating patterns generally. Though she does have a focus on other Europeans besides Ashkenazim (I assume the author isn't the type to ignore or be ignorant of the other kinds of Jews, which is refreshing, but I can only recall HBD Chick writing on Eastern and Western Ashkenazim , though I'm sure I missed some posts). That is a clever way to imply she's an antisemite though.
Though many in the HBD community are Internet autodidacts — people with little to no scientific training who spend their free time learning the scientific argot
A little rude, but I am somewhat guilty. I like to think that I know a little more than a particular vocabulary though.
One of the hallmarks of genetics research is that it produces data that are easy to sensationalize, such as IQ scores of black people (see: “The Bell Curve” controversy) or the supposed Khazarian origin of the Jewish people.
I don't have anything to say on the Khazarian thing. I just haven't paid any attention to it and suspect it's origin is just to complain about Jews, but I probably should look into it. As for IQ, it's a powerful predictor of life outcomes and is known to be quite replicable.
the former case [IQ scores of black people], served as a license to discriminate against black people
Yes, some people do forget nuances in the pursuit of an ideological point. The average IQ of blacks is lower than the average for whites. This doesn't make all black people stupid and all whites brilliant. It's just that if there were random pairing of black and white individuals if you guessed that the white person was higher in IQ, you'd be right a good portion of the time. This doesn't mean you have to be hateful though. As a hereditarian, I think most of that is just being born that way. If given the choice, most of us would love to be geniuses ( and rich, attractive, adored, etc.).
The modern field of genetics has disavowed theories of human behavior that are all nature — i.e., based only on genes — just as sociologists and anthropologists have disavowed theories that are all nurture.
That's neat, but I'm not a genetic determinist. Most hereditarians (or HBDer if you like, but I prefer this term) aren't but people still call us that. I'll admit that a good portion of human nature (which really is more human natures, but you probably knew that) can be explained by genetics, but I wouldn't say all.
Yet HBD blogs tend to skip the last 25 years of genetics, during which epigenetics supplanted the nature versus nurture debate.
I don't recall epigenetics being magic. It doesn't make genes infinitely malleable, so I don't think that "supplanted" the nature vs nurture debate. I would guess the First Law of behavioral genetics, all human behavioral traits are heritable, changes things though. As all traits are heritable, the question is not "is there a genetic cause?" but "How much of this is due to heredity?" We answer that with heritability estimates.
distinct ethnic and geographical populations have distinct genomes and are therefore distinguishable from other groups (albeit under a microscope)
Those of us with eyes can also note skin tone and skeletal structure.
Look, I get that some people use HBD to come to cruel conclusions. I'm black so I really get it. I really wish people would just talk to me rather than just downvote me. Not everyone with an interest in HBD is some crypto-Nazi.
> An ideological successor to eugenic
To be honest, I'm a eugencist. I own [/s/eugenics](https://poal.co/s/Eugenics/hot) on Poal. You can get an idea of my beliefs [here](https://poal.co/s/Eugenics/48576) and I'm not a biologist or anything, I consider myself a hobbyist of HBD. I was into HBD for a while before I got into eugenics though. While they can be companions they don't necessarily have to be. Also, I know this is a bit of a common talking point, but Planned Parenthood grew out of the eugenics movement in the US. If you really want to go after HBD for connections to eugenics would you critique Planned Parenthood?
> human biodiversity (HBD) is, like eugenics (from the Greek words for “good” and “breeding”) primarily a euphemism.
You can't call it a euphemism and then say " Though it has a rational, policy-wonk zing to it, that’s just Internet forum-ese for 'you’re genetically distinct from us and should be treated differently.' " That "you’re genetically distinct" part is kind of the point and the " should be treated differently" isn't necessarily to be malevolent. If people are rather different, different treatment could be helpful. There's a good way and a bad way to treat people differently. Much like how me discriminating to hire the best candidates for a position is different than me choosing to discriminate against someone because they vote differently.
> inadequacies of gay men and lesbians
This isn't terribly relevant, but I think I know what's being referred to. It's probably [this](https://www.unz.com/isteve/why-lesbians-arent-gay/). It's more about differences than "inadequacies" though. I actually enjoyed reading it, though even people who know me a bit better might find that odd. I just find it both fun and thoughtful.
> Coontown runs an online resource dump and lexicon called HBD Bibliography
I plan to respond to that other post too. Probably not soon though, I have to go out for a while.
> “hbd chick” runs a wide-ranging personal blog on HBD; she seems particularly consumed by the inbreeding habits of Ashkenazi Jews and the genetic makeup of Europeans.
Her interest is human mating patterns generally. Though she does have a focus on [other Europeans](https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/) besides Ashkenazim (I assume the author isn't the type to ignore or be ignorant of the other kinds of Jews, which is refreshing, but I can only recall HBD Chick writing on [Eastern and Western Ashkenazim](https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/historic-mating-patterns-of-ashkenazi-jews/) , though I'm sure I missed some posts). That is a clever way to imply she's an antisemite though.
> Though many in the HBD community are Internet autodidacts — people with little to no scientific training who spend their free time learning the scientific argot
A little rude, but I am somewhat guilty. I like to think that I know a little more than a particular vocabulary though.
> One of the hallmarks of genetics research is that it produces data that are easy to sensationalize, such as IQ scores of black people (see: “The Bell Curve” controversy) or the supposed Khazarian origin of the Jewish people.
I don't have anything to say on the Khazarian thing. I just haven't paid any attention to it and suspect it's origin is just to complain about Jews, but I probably should look into it. As for IQ, it's a [powerful predictor of life outcomes](https://www.quora.com/What-is-more-beneficial-in-all-aspects-of-life-a-high-EQ-or-IQ-This-question-is-based-on-the-assumption-that-only-your-EQ-or-IQ-is-high-with-the-other-being-average-or-below-this-average/answer/Jordan-B-Peterson) and is known to be quite [replicable](https://www.unz.com/isteve/pinker-on-iq/).
> the former case [IQ scores of black people], served as a license to discriminate against black people
Yes, some people do forget nuances in the pursuit of an ideological point. The average IQ of blacks is lower than the average for whites. This doesn't make all black people stupid and all whites brilliant. It's just that if there were random pairing of black and white individuals if you guessed that the white person was higher in IQ, you'd be right a good portion of the time. This doesn't mean you have to be hateful though. As a hereditarian, I think most of that is just being born that way. If given the choice, most of us would love to be geniuses ( and rich, attractive, adored, etc.).
> The modern field of genetics has disavowed theories of human behavior that are all nature — i.e., based only on genes — just as sociologists and anthropologists have disavowed theories that are all nurture.
That's neat, but I'm not a genetic determinist. Most hereditarians (or HBDer if you like, but I prefer this term) aren't but people still call us that. I'll admit that a good portion of human nature (which really is more human natures, but you probably knew that) can be explained by genetics, but I wouldn't say all.
> Yet HBD blogs tend to skip the last 25 years of genetics, during which epigenetics supplanted the nature versus nurture debate.
I don't recall epigenetics being magic. It doesn't make genes infinitely malleable, so I don't think that "supplanted" the nature vs nurture debate. I would guess [the First Law of behavioral genetics](https://www.unz.com/jman/all-human-behavioral-traits-are-heritable/), all human behavioral traits are heritable, changes things though. As all traits are heritable, the question is not "is there a genetic cause?" but "How much of this is due to heredity?" We answer that with heritability estimates.
> distinct ethnic and geographical populations have distinct genomes and are therefore distinguishable from other groups (albeit under a microscope)
Those of us with eyes can also note skin tone and skeletal structure.
Look, I get that some people use HBD to come to cruel conclusions. I'm black so I really get it. I really wish people would just talk to me rather than just downvote me. Not everyone with an interest in HBD is some crypto-Nazi.
@starjello you could address this rather than downvoting.