'When communism failed, most left-wing cognitive elites gave it up.' As somebody who witnessed the fall of communist regime in an EU country I can say ... No they didn't. Not even for a second.
They don't believe in equality, they believe in everything other than the truth. tell them that women are better than men in whatever, they will be happy about it.
Regarding Cofnas’s “model of wokeness”, how much experimental evidence do you need to believe trivial human psychology, Leon?
If John believes groups are equal in innate abilities, John WILL believe differences in outcome ARE environmental or cultural (and thus not genetic) - meaning “the system” somehow disadvantages those groups.
Yes, we know the premise of equal distribution is false and thus the thesis is retarded, but that's just the way wokies and even most normies think. All westerners have been forcefed the descriptive and normative version of egalitarianism for 80 years non-stop. You must be neuro-divergent (or statistical outlier) to NOT believe it.
Secondly, you say people are not flexible enough for wokeness to be cultural/environmental. What about Hitler Germany vs Germany 1-2 generations later? How do you genetically go from Hitler to super-woke in 2 generations?
Wokeness is readily explained by Post-WW2 consensus based on guilt of WW2, facsism, colonialism, slavery & 80 years of relentless egalitarian propaganda. You just don't get enough genetic change in 2 generations to go from Hitler to Woke.
The title is 'not by genes *alone*'. There's nothing obviously 'race denialist' in it. In any case I've only read (some of) their papers, which contain much of value to anybody interested in gene-culture coevolution.
It's better not to set out to insult your readers, but since we're about it I will respond in a similarly unpleasant tone. It's you who seem a little naive. The fact that B&R 'deny' racial differences is useful: if they were redhot racists it would be difficult for others to get citations of their work past reviewers; try citing KMac in an academic paper and see how far you get (I don't make or endorse the rules). It's a mistake to expect unswerving principle from--of all people ffs--modern academics. If it weren't so, would you even be writing on substack?
Edit: oh ok I see you edited reply and toned it down a bit; it's appreciated.
I've just read chapter 1 of this book. Out of interest: where exactly do you detect explicit race denialism? Sure they don't explicitly affirm their belief in the reality of race--they never have in anything of theirs I've read--but that's not tantamount to denying it exists. On p. 4 there's even a heading 'culture is part of biology'.
Even thought normie white populists ended COVID lockdowns, defeated wokeness, gave us the sunbelt, and provided universal school choice wherever they have power...Cofnas still thinks the #1 thing blocking nerdish effeminate academics like himself from taking over the academy and ushering in Galt's Gulch with more racism is the fact that chuds don't do things that he doesn't want to defend at parties.
Would be great if embryo selection companies would start to use polygenic risk scores for wokeness
'When communism failed, most left-wing cognitive elites gave it up.' As somebody who witnessed the fall of communist regime in an EU country I can say ... No they didn't. Not even for a second.
People say you're wrong because your attitude is defeatist - but that doesn't mean you're wrong.
Cyber-Chuddy breakaway civilization when
They don't believe in equality, they believe in everything other than the truth. tell them that women are better than men in whatever, they will be happy about it.
Regarding Cofnas’s “model of wokeness”, how much experimental evidence do you need to believe trivial human psychology, Leon?
If John believes groups are equal in innate abilities, John WILL believe differences in outcome ARE environmental or cultural (and thus not genetic) - meaning “the system” somehow disadvantages those groups.
Yes, we know the premise of equal distribution is false and thus the thesis is retarded, but that's just the way wokies and even most normies think. All westerners have been forcefed the descriptive and normative version of egalitarianism for 80 years non-stop. You must be neuro-divergent (or statistical outlier) to NOT believe it.
Secondly, you say people are not flexible enough for wokeness to be cultural/environmental. What about Hitler Germany vs Germany 1-2 generations later? How do you genetically go from Hitler to super-woke in 2 generations?
Wokeness is readily explained by Post-WW2 consensus based on guilt of WW2, facsism, colonialism, slavery & 80 years of relentless egalitarian propaganda. You just don't get enough genetic change in 2 generations to go from Hitler to Woke.
How did Richerson and Boyd lie? What I've read of them seems to me at least 'objective'.
This is naive. The beginning of their most popular book begins with race denial, as if it wasn't obvious what their project was https://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Peter%20Richerson%20-%20Not%20by%20Genes%20Alone%20How%20Culture%20Transformed%20Human%20Evolution.pdf
Thanks for reply and link
The title is 'not by genes *alone*'. There's nothing obviously 'race denialist' in it. In any case I've only read (some of) their papers, which contain much of value to anybody interested in gene-culture coevolution.
It's better not to set out to insult your readers, but since we're about it I will respond in a similarly unpleasant tone. It's you who seem a little naive. The fact that B&R 'deny' racial differences is useful: if they were redhot racists it would be difficult for others to get citations of their work past reviewers; try citing KMac in an academic paper and see how far you get (I don't make or endorse the rules). It's a mistake to expect unswerving principle from--of all people ffs--modern academics. If it weren't so, would you even be writing on substack?
Edit: oh ok I see you edited reply and toned it down a bit; it's appreciated.
Wait a second now...
I've just read chapter 1 of this book. Out of interest: where exactly do you detect explicit race denialism? Sure they don't explicitly affirm their belief in the reality of race--they never have in anything of theirs I've read--but that's not tantamount to denying it exists. On p. 4 there's even a heading 'culture is part of biology'.
>Cofnas points out that socialism was replaced by neoliberalism. That was a big deal. He gives several other examples too.
I addressed this; you didn't read the full article, so banned for 30 days.
>then can it really be the case that egalitarianism is due primarily to dysgenics, as opposed to social desirability bias, etc.?
Yes due to population stratification
Even thought normie white populists ended COVID lockdowns, defeated wokeness, gave us the sunbelt, and provided universal school choice wherever they have power...Cofnas still thinks the #1 thing blocking nerdish effeminate academics like himself from taking over the academy and ushering in Galt's Gulch with more racism is the fact that chuds don't do things that he doesn't want to defend at parties.