The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 474. Why “Anti-Racism” is the Worst Form of Racism ｜ Coleman Hughes

00:00:00.940 Hey everyone, real quick before you skip, I want to talk to you about something serious and important.

00:00:06.480 Dr. Jordan Peterson has created a new series that could be a lifeline for those battling depression and anxiety.

00:00:12.740 We know how isolating and overwhelming these conditions can be, and we wanted to take a moment to reach out to those listening who may be struggling.

00:00:20.100 With decades of experience helping patients, Dr. Peterson offers a unique understanding of why you might be feeling this way in his new series.

00:00:27.420 He provides a roadmap towards healing, showing that while the journey isn't easy, it's absolutely possible to find your way forward.

00:00:35.360 If you're suffering, please know you are not alone. There's hope, and there's a path to feeling better.

00:00:41.780 Go to Daily Wire Plus now and start watching Dr. Jordan B. Peterson on depression and anxiety.

00:00:47.460 Let this be the first step towards the brighter future you deserve.

00:00:57.420 Hello, everybody. I have the opportunity today to talk with Coleman Hughes.

00:01:13.360 Coleman has written a new book published in 2024 called The End of Race Politics, Arguments for a Colorblind America,

00:01:21.760 in which he does exactly that, to lay out his case for a return, I would say, to the classic civil rights attitude of the 1950s and early 1960s.

00:01:36.180 And that attitude was that individuals in society would be best served if we used standards of evaluation other than intrinsic group-oriented characteristics to define, select, promote, and evaluate one another.

00:01:55.020 And so what does that mean?

00:01:56.480 Well, it definitely doesn't mean race, ethnicity, sex, gender, mostly because all of those attributes are actually irrelevant, as the classic civil libertarians presumed, to complex job performance, to productivity, to contribution to society.

00:02:18.260 And so they shouldn't be considered when making those sorts of evaluations.

00:02:22.480 And if they are, it's a detriment to the people who are being selected by that means, even if it's in the service of some hypothetical reparation,

00:02:32.860 and certainly to society, in that we should always select the person who's best qualified for the position in question.

00:02:39.920 We should always select the person who can do the job in the most efficient and effective possible manner.

00:02:45.120 And that's not for them exactly, even though that's beneficial to them.

00:02:48.720 It's for everyone in our important positions.

00:02:52.060 We want the best people.

00:02:53.380 Why?

00:02:53.940 So that we can accrue the benefit of their ability.

00:02:58.040 Is it selfish?

00:02:59.840 Well, it is in a sense because, only in a sociological sense, it's because society works best when everyone is able to reap the benefits of the best in everyone.

00:03:11.960 And you don't define that racially.

00:03:13.640 And if you start to do that, you actually interfere with the selection of excellence.

00:03:18.560 And so what did we talk about today?

00:03:20.700 We talked about that.

00:03:22.680 And it's a crucial issue.

00:03:25.540 What does it mean to be colorblind?

00:03:27.120 Neither Coleman and I are naive enough to assume that that's something that can be attained easily.

00:03:32.040 People have a pronounced in-group, what?

00:03:36.240 A pronounced proclivity to in-group favoritism.

00:03:38.360 And that can certainly manifest itself in the form of a very pathological racism.

00:03:42.000 And that's something that has to be mitigated against.

00:03:45.800 But the proper solution to that, the time-honored solution, the solution that led to the emancipation of the slaves, was something approximating an attempt to establish non-prejudicial colorblindness.

00:04:01.320 And we're deviating from that.

00:04:02.720 And we also discussed why.

00:04:04.440 So join us for that.

00:04:05.720 Well, Mr. Hughes, it's been about four years since we talked.

00:04:10.100 A long time, especially now.

00:04:12.800 The whole world has twisted itself into a frenzy even more over the last four years.

00:04:19.640 So why don't we start just with an update?

00:04:21.840 Tell me, can you walk everybody through what you've been doing over the last four years and what you're doing now, what your ambitions are?

00:04:31.380 Let's position everyone so they understand where you're coming from.

00:04:35.640 Yeah.

00:04:35.900 So four years ago, I think you said we talked in December 2020.

00:04:39.880 I had just started my podcast, Conversations with Coleman.

00:04:44.640 I was still in the research phase of my book, which is now finished and has been out for a few months, called The End of Race Politics, Arguments for a Colorblind America.

00:04:54.320 And I think the most pressing issue at that time was the aftermath of the George Floyd riots, the recent election of Joe Biden, and the tricky and eventually violent transition between Biden and Trump.

00:05:17.540 So, you know, what I've been up to in the intervening years, I've been releasing podcasts for four years.

00:05:24.560 I've been going around talking about the message of my book, especially this year.

00:05:31.520 I think some of your viewers will probably have seen some of those exchanges, especially on The View with Sonny Hostin, where I tried to have a conversation about colorblindness and race

00:05:44.200 and was met with a pretty large amount of hostility from one of the hosts of that show.

00:05:53.240 And so that's really what I've been up to this year is really just trying to talk to as many people as possible about my philosophy around the issue of race.

00:06:03.240 I've also been, you know, talking to people like Joe Rogan and others who, with whom I don't see eye to eye on the Israel-Palestine issue.

00:06:14.120 And like everyone, I've been following very closely all of the 2024 election news, Biden and Kamala Harris, and more recently, Tim Walls and all of that.

00:06:28.160 So I'm happy to talk about any and all of those topics.

00:06:34.120 Well, let's start with your tour.

00:06:38.080 You said you've been touring around speaking.

00:06:40.580 Tell me about that first.

00:06:42.000 Yeah, so as you know, when you have a book come out, you know, you have a pretty punishing, grueling schedule of talking.

00:06:52.200 And my schedule has been nothing like yours have been over the years, but I've gotten to talk to a lot of different people, you know, from all over the political spectrum about the message of my book,

00:07:04.540 which is that, you know, colorblindness is the best philosophy to take with respect to racial identity.

00:07:11.740 In other words, you know, you're a white guy, I'm black and Hispanic, but those are not the features of ourselves that should ultimately matter, right?

00:07:21.960 What matters when talking about Jordan Peterson is his qualities, his values, his actions, and likewise with me.

00:07:30.080 And so our culture has become kind of deranged on this issue, especially on the left, which used to be the bastion and actually the really the founder of colorblindness.

00:07:42.080 As I explained in my book, chapter two, I devote to just a historical examination of where this idea of colorblindness comes from.

00:07:51.080 There's been a false history written that suggests that colorblindness came from conservatives and even reactionaries.

00:07:58.080 And there's kind of a kind of subterfuge, a Trojan horse for white supremacy.

00:08:05.360 This has no basis, in fact.

00:08:08.640 In fact, in my book, I go all the way back to the 1860s to a man named Wendell Phillips, who was one of the most prominent anti-slavery activists of his era.

00:08:19.560 His nickname was Abolition's Golden Trumpet.

00:08:22.180 And he was the earliest person to mention the word colorblind in the context of advocating for what he called a government colorblind, by which he meant a government that cannot and does not recognize race anywhere in the law as a reason to discriminate between people.

00:08:40.180 So that's where the idea of colorblindness comes from.

00:08:42.320 It actually comes from the most radical wing of the abolitionists.

00:08:45.420 Since the 1960s, you have seen a process that began in the academy with critical race theory.

00:08:54.360 And since 2013 or 14, has metastasized far more broadly on the left into elite left-wing institutions.

00:09:03.840 That has rewritten the history of colorblindness as if it's a bad faith idea coming from the worst corners of the far right.

00:09:14.680 To the point where, as an experiment, right before I started writing this book, I just googled colorblindness race because I wanted to see what would come up.

00:09:24.480 Nine of the ten links that came up were all articles arguing why colorblindness is bad, racist, reactionary, naive, etc.

00:09:32.800 And the tenth was a Wikipedia page.

00:09:35.900 So there's been a very successful PR campaign against the concept of colorblindness to the point where you've had celebrities that advocate for it have to walk it back and apologize publicly and so forth.

00:09:50.200 And so my goal with this book is to tell the truth about the history of colorblindness, where it came from, to tell the logic behind the principle.

00:09:58.020 Why is it such a good principle for a multiracial society?

00:10:01.040 Why is it the only path forward?

00:10:03.120 And that's been, that's really been my project for the past many months.

00:10:07.440 Modern people often ask themselves, why do I have to study history?

00:10:16.900 Well, you're a historical being.

00:10:20.140 You need to know who you are and where you came from and why you think the things you think.

00:10:26.540 That's why you have to place yourself in the proper tradition.

00:10:30.520 I'm taking four of my esteemed colleagues and you across the world.

00:10:36.900 Oh wow, this is amazing.

00:10:38.300 To rediscover the ways our ancient ancestors developed the ideas that shaped modern society.

00:10:43.980 It was a monument to civic greatness.

00:10:47.320 To visit the places where history was made.

00:10:49.660 That is ash from the actual fires when the Babylonians burned Jerusalem from 2,500 years ago. 0.62

00:10:57.080 To walk the same roads.

00:10:58.740 We are following the path of the crucifixion.

00:11:01.200 And experience the same wonder.

00:11:11.440 We are on the site of a miracle.

00:11:16.520 What kind of resources can human beings bring to a mysterious but knowable universe?

00:11:22.460 Science, art, politics, all that makes life wonderful.

00:11:27.080 Science, art, politics, all that makes life wonderful.

00:11:30.320 Science, art, politics, all that makes life wonderful.

00:11:31.320 And something new about the world is revealed.

00:11:37.460 Let me comment on that from a psychological and legal perspective.

00:11:43.980 Okay, so I spent 20 years looking for markers, for psychological markers that would predict performance.

00:11:56.000 Performance of managers, performance of students, performance of entrepreneurs, performance of creative people, and then on the negative side, predictors of antisocial behavior, criminality, proclivity, to alcohol addiction, and so forth.

00:12:13.180 Okay, and to, as part of that, was very practical enterprise, because what I wanted to do was partly financially motivated and partly motivated by curiosity.

00:12:23.000 I wanted to master the literature pertaining to the description of individuals so that they could be optimally fitted for their careers, let's say.

00:12:38.620 Or perhaps optimally diagnosed and understood if they were manifesting signs of the kinds of pathology that upset them and other people.

00:12:49.860 Typical clinical work.

00:12:51.680 Now, there's quite a body of law around this.

00:12:53.680 So imagine you're an employer and you want to screen your potential employees before you make them a job offer.

00:13:03.340 Now, you should do that, because you could make a case that you should just assign jobs randomly, because that would be the most unbiased way of doing it, right?

00:13:12.900 Like, if you just accept all comers, there's no question about differentiation, discrimination, prejudice, anything like that.

00:13:22.460 But, and so then you might say, well, why shouldn't you just hire people randomly?

00:13:27.100 Well, there's a bunch of answers to that.

00:13:28.740 The first thing is, is that people actually differ in their abilities and their talents and their interests.

00:13:34.220 And so it's in the interest of the person that you're hiring, as well as you, not to be mismatched to their job.

00:13:42.540 Now, one of the ways you might match someone is by general cognitive ability.

00:13:46.720 And you want people of higher general cognitive ability in jobs that require rapid learning and quick transformation.

00:13:55.600 Because otherwise they can't keep up.

00:13:57.380 And then you might say, well, even if they can't keep up, it's not fair to deny them a job.

00:14:03.200 And the proper response to that is, well, that means that someone else will be doing their job.

00:14:09.180 And that's hardly fair to them.

00:14:11.020 So, for example, if I hire a manager who has none of the attributes of a manager, all that means is he'll fail or she'll fail in that job, which is very painful for them.

00:14:21.040 And it will also mean that they compromise the performance of not only everyone that works for them, but everyone that they're responsible to.

00:14:28.400 And so there's just nothing in that that's good.

00:14:30.880 You want to match the person to the job.

00:14:33.420 Okay, so you can evaluate their temperament.

00:14:35.420 You can evaluate their general cognitive ability.

00:14:38.060 Those are the fastest and most efficient ways to make a determination of ability.

00:14:43.380 Merit.

00:14:43.740 Okay, now, but the other thing that's interesting is that merit is actually described in employment law.

00:14:51.720 So, for example, if I want to hire you for a position and I want to use a test to see if you're suitable, and by the way, an interview is such a test and not a very good one because interviews are not accurate.

00:15:03.440 They're very inaccurate unless they're standardized and done by a group.

00:15:07.580 So interviews are actually not without their prejudice.

00:15:11.560 So what I have to do is I have to take the job and I have to describe what it consists of.

00:15:17.380 And then I have to demonstrate that there's a statistical relate and I have to have an evaluation structure for those aspects of the job.

00:15:26.720 So say it's quantitative.

00:15:28.200 Then I have to show that my test is statistically associated with those outcomes.

00:15:34.920 So merit in that case is defined as the ability to perform whatever the job happens to be.

00:15:40.840 And then the acceptability of my screening technology is dependent on my ability to demonstrate a relationship between the technology and the outcome.

00:15:50.360 So there's a bunch of reasons for making this clear, because what that means in a sense is that there's no difference between defining a job and defining the merit that goes along with it.

00:16:03.300 Because what the merit is is the ability to do the job.

00:16:06.080 And so if there's a job, there's something that needs to be done.

00:16:08.860 And if you're meritorious, you're better at doing it.

00:16:11.660 Then the tests you use have to predict that.

00:16:14.580 Now, there's no indication whatsoever that attributes such as race or ethnicity are relevant contributors to any job.

00:16:27.360 Not in and of themselves.

00:16:29.380 So you can't screen on the basis of race because race can't be demonstrated to be relevant to the outcome of the job. 0.59

00:16:37.560 Now, the radicals say, for example, well, if you're black, you should have a black physician because only a black physician can understand your lived experience. 0.50

00:16:46.100 And there's no measure for that. 0.93

00:16:48.720 There's no demonstration whatsoever that that's the case.

00:16:52.140 No one's ever demonstrated that, even a little bit.

00:16:54.120 But certainly not in a way that a court would find acceptable and compelling if someone used that criteria for employment.

00:17:02.520 The reason I'm pointing this out is because in some ways, the psychological and the legal communities had already addressed this issue.

00:17:09.740 It's like you're actually legally mandated to be race blind.

00:17:13.360 Now, unfortunately, there are now, the law is set up now essentially so that if you hire anyone, you're probably doing it illegally.

00:17:21.420 You can be challenged no matter what you do.

00:17:24.880 So I'll give you an example of that.

00:17:26.580 So if I interviewed you and you didn't get the job, you could take me to court by claiming that an interview is not the most valid currently available means for assessing your suitability.

00:17:38.540 And as far as I know, there haven't been court cases of that type, but they would, as far as I can tell, win because the statistical evidence that interviews, unstructured interviews are unreliable and not valid is extremely strong.

00:17:53.180 So the reason I'm bringing that up is because this issue of race blindness is, in some ways, it's already embedded in our legal structures and our psychological practices.

00:18:05.940 I can't evaluate you on the basis of race because it's irrelevant to your performance.

00:18:11.240 So how do you understand the leftist objection to that?

00:18:15.620 Yeah, so you're exactly right.

00:18:17.540 Going online without ExpressVPN is like not paying attention to the safety demonstration on a flight.

00:18:24.260 Most of the time, you'll probably be fine.

00:18:26.220 But what if one day that weird yellow mask drops down from overhead and you have no idea what to do?

00:18:31.920 In our hyper-connected world, your digital privacy isn't just a luxury.

00:18:35.700 It's a fundamental right.

00:18:36.880 Every time you connect to an unsecured network in a cafe, hotel or airport, you're essentially broadcasting your personal information to anyone with a technical know-how to intercept it.

00:18:46.240 And let's be clear, it doesn't take a genius hacker to do this.

00:18:49.560 With some off-the-shelf hardware, even a tech-savvy teenager could potentially access your passwords, bank logins, and credit card details.

00:18:56.940 Now, you might think, what's the big deal?

00:18:59.060 Who'd want my data anyway?

00:19:00.600 Well, on the dark web, your personal information could fetch up to $1,000.

00:19:05.000 That's right, there's a whole underground economy built on stolen identities.

00:19:09.280 Enter ExpressVPN.

00:19:11.040 It's like a digital fortress, creating an encrypted tunnel between your device and the internet.

00:19:15.300 Their encryption is so robust that it would take a hacker with a supercomputer over a billion years to crack it.

00:19:21.380 But don't let its power fool you.

00:19:23.180 ExpressVPN is incredibly user-friendly.

00:19:25.540 With just one click, you're protected across all your devices.

00:19:28.560 Phones, laptops, tablets, you name it.

00:19:30.740 That's why I use ExpressVPN whenever I'm traveling or working from a coffee shop.

00:19:34.880 It gives me peace of mind knowing that my research, communications, and personal data are shielded from prying eyes.

00:19:40.600 Secure your online data today by visiting expressvpn.com slash jordan.

00:19:45.580 That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash jordan, and you can get an extra three months free.

00:19:51.980 Expressvpn.com slash jordan.

00:19:53.880 So many important features of the history get memory hold here.

00:20:02.540 And the one that pertains directly to your point is the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

00:20:08.220 This was the crowning achievement of the Civil Rights Movement.

00:20:12.040 It was fought over bitterly at Congress.

00:20:19.300 I mean, most of the opponents at this time would have been Southern Democrats.

00:20:24.620 This is, you know, before the voting scenario and the geographical scenario in America rearranged itself.

00:20:32.980 And this was as close to America has ever come to enshrining colorblindness in the law.

00:20:40.540 What do I mean by that?

00:20:42.280 What I mean is that when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was being debated on the Senate floor,

00:20:48.800 the lead sponsor of the bill famously said,

00:20:54.540 if a single word of this act requires you to reverse discriminate or practice affirmative action to correct for imbalances,

00:21:05.720 I will eat the entire bill page by page on the Senate floor.

00:21:09.520 That's what the lead sponsor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 said, Hubert Humphrey.

00:21:17.860 Now, if you actually read the text of the bill, it's very clear.

00:21:21.920 You just can't discriminate against anyone for any reason.

00:21:25.160 And nothing in the bill requires you to reverse discriminate.

00:21:28.060 So two plus two, that is a colorblind bill.

00:21:31.820 Really, that's, you know, that's as colorblind as you're going to get.

00:21:35.460 Now, how has it happened that in the 50, 60 years since then,

00:21:41.660 that law has been interpreted by various judicial decisions to essentially require,

00:21:50.520 to effectively require a kind of reverse discrimination in certain cases, right?

00:21:55.360 The story of that is well told in Richard Hanani's book, and people can look to that if they want the details.

00:22:04.220 But the intent of the Civil Rights Act was to be a colorblind, you know,

00:22:09.840 it was to enshrine colorblindness in employment law. 0.99

00:22:12.560 And it ended up over the decades kind of pointing in a different direction.

00:22:16.340 And that's one of the things that I think people memory hold,

00:22:19.260 because the progressive left has now long abandoned colorblindness.

00:22:25.260 And so it's an embarrassment to that fact that the entire Civil Rights Movement was premised on it.

00:22:32.320 So with respect to this, you know, question of discrimination,

00:22:35.740 this is a question I get quite often.

00:22:39.120 People ask, Coleman, is it really that there are no situations in life in which it is valid to racially discriminate?

00:22:47.500 And the way I answer that question is, is this.

00:22:51.860 If you imagine an x-axis and a y-axis, imagine four quadrants.

00:22:57.000 On the x-axis, you have stakes.

00:22:59.760 Are you in a low-stakes situation or a high-stakes situation?

00:23:03.980 A low-stakes situation would be chatting with your friend at a coffee shop, right?

00:23:09.180 A high-stakes situation would be trying to find someone on an airplane who you've just learned has a bomb, right?

00:23:19.580 And now on the y-axis, you can picture information.

00:23:24.440 How much information do you have, right?

00:23:26.320 Do you have lots of information about someone because you've been, you know,

00:23:30.560 talking to them or hanging out with them for weeks?

00:23:32.840 Or do you have no information about someone?

00:23:35.020 Is this person a total stranger to you that you can only size up by sight?

00:23:39.600 So if you picture that, three of those quadrants are situations where you really do not have a reason to racially discriminate ever.

00:23:48.680 Which is to say, if you have lots of information about someone, this goes to your point.

00:23:53.920 If you know their psychological traits, if you've IQ tested them, if you've talked to them,

00:24:00.880 if you've put them through a series of battery tests, if you've seen them under...

00:24:04.680 All of that information is way more useful to you than knowing their race.

00:24:10.760 Knowing their race adds no extra information because you've already got lots of information, right?

00:24:16.020 So right there, that eliminates two quadrants.

00:24:18.380 That eliminates both high-information quadrants.

00:24:21.000 Now, if you're in a situation where you don't know somebody,

00:24:23.760 you're at a coffee shop meeting a friend of a friend for the first time,

00:24:26.820 very low-stakes, but you don't know anything about them,

00:24:31.020 well then, rather than judge them on the basis of their race,

00:24:34.580 the smart thing to do is just to get more information about them.

00:24:37.440 And it's a low-stakes situation, so you stand to lose nothing by doing that, right?

00:24:41.400 Have a conversation with the person.

00:24:43.660 In 10 minutes, you'll know more than you would know merely from a racial stereotype.

00:24:50.100 Most of us live our lives in those three quadrants.

00:24:53.080 And so there's not a good reason to racially discriminate.

00:24:56.820 Now, if you are in the fourth quadrant,

00:24:59.080 if you're in a situation that is high-stakes,

00:25:01.380 when there's lives on the line, potentially,

00:25:03.860 and all you know is that, say, there's a terrorist on this airplane

00:25:07.880 who intends to blow up the airplane,

00:25:10.320 well then, yeah, it's valid to take race into account

00:25:13.660 because you've got no time.

00:25:16.140 And you can be pretty sure that the person with the bomb

00:25:19.680 doesn't look like an old white woman, right? 1.00

00:25:22.980 So I'm not saying there are no emergency situations 1.00

00:25:27.080 in which you've got to not be an idiot 1.00

00:25:30.260 and pay attention to stereotypes and likelihoods and so forth. 0.99

00:25:35.740 But the truth is, most of us are living our lives

00:25:38.100 in the other three quadrants 99.9% of the time.

00:25:41.340 So, from a statistical perspective

00:25:46.600 and from a psychological perspective,

00:25:49.660 the appropriate thing to do

00:25:52.020 as an industrial organizational psychologist, for example,

00:25:55.400 or a forensic psychologist,

00:25:56.560 is to take an approach that's very much akin

00:25:58.240 to the one that you just described.

00:26:00.280 So the first thing is that people default to stereotypes

00:26:03.020 when there isn't any other information.

00:26:05.480 That's how we actually think.

00:26:07.480 So when you don't know, you use a stereotype.

00:26:09.900 Is it accurate?

00:26:11.400 It's more accurate than nothing.

00:26:14.520 Right, and that would be particularly the case

00:26:16.420 in those high-stakes situations that you described.

00:26:18.700 With regards to prediction,

00:26:20.760 so I could imagine generating an equation

00:26:23.120 to decide whether I was going to hire someone.

00:26:25.560 Imagine I analyzed the performance of 200 people

00:26:28.100 and I threw in general cognitive ability,

00:26:30.120 past work history, and personality.

00:26:32.680 That'd be a pretty good start.

00:26:34.280 I might want to use some screeners of psychopathology.

00:26:36.920 I could also throw in gender and race.

00:26:39.620 Now, what I would want to do

00:26:40.700 is see if gender and race, sex and race,

00:26:44.080 sorry, sex and race,

00:26:46.460 I would want to see if they added anything

00:26:48.660 above and beyond those additional,

00:26:51.600 hypothetically more informative predictors.

00:26:53.460 And the general answer to that,

00:26:55.220 almost the invariant answer is no.

00:26:58.060 If you can control for factors

00:27:02.660 that are more well-defined,

00:27:04.360 and again, that's usually general cognitive ability

00:27:06.760 and personality,

00:27:08.040 then sex and race are irrelevant.

00:27:11.760 It's not always the case,

00:27:13.020 but it's virtually always the case.

00:27:15.440 And so that means defaulting to sex or race

00:27:18.620 makes your prediction worse.

00:27:22.680 Now, you also might want to,

00:27:24.840 people might also want to understand

00:27:26.140 that we're also not only doing this prediction

00:27:29.260 for the sake of the person who might be employed.

00:27:33.780 So, like, here's an example.

00:27:36.260 It is the case that if we made admissions

00:27:40.980 to the Ivy League universities race blind, 0.85

00:27:45.540 that there would be an overwhelming proportion of Asians.

00:27:50.020 That would happen very rapidly.

00:27:51.900 And you might say that's unfair.

00:27:53.380 Well, it depends on how you define unfair,

00:27:56.600 but I can tell you one thing that it would produce.

00:28:00.400 See, one of the things we might assume

00:28:02.880 is that society itself benefits

00:28:05.960 when we can extract the maximum value

00:28:08.700 out of the most able people.

00:28:10.900 And so it isn't exactly that we want to admit people

00:28:15.800 to Harvard because it's good

00:28:16.960 for the people who get admitted.

00:28:19.000 It's that we want to admit the people

00:28:20.880 with the most potential

00:28:22.100 because then we can extract the highest possible value

00:28:26.040 from them socially across their lifespan.

00:28:29.340 There's a huge, see, it's so interesting to me

00:28:31.440 that the argument is always from the perspective

00:28:33.120 of the student.

00:28:34.460 It's like, well, that's something

00:28:36.280 that has to be taken into account,

00:28:37.740 but that's really, from a social perspective,

00:28:40.580 that's not the fundamental point,

00:28:42.140 is you want to allocate resources.

00:28:44.160 You want to allocate scarce resources

00:28:45.920 to those who will be most productive with them.

00:28:48.920 And that's for social benefit,

00:28:50.500 not for the benefit of the person,

00:28:52.480 even though they will also benefit.

00:28:54.740 So now I want to dig into something else

00:28:58.220 that you described.

00:28:59.360 I'm going to take the side of the leftists

00:29:01.460 for this inquiry.

00:29:03.780 So, because I could say to you,

00:29:05.640 well, it's all well and good to promote colorblindness,

00:29:09.200 but it's practically impossible.

00:29:11.200 And here are the reasons.

00:29:13.720 People are ethnocentric by their innate proclivity,

00:29:20.240 which, by which I mean that

00:29:21.700 we have a pronounced in-group preference.

00:29:25.180 So, you know,

00:29:26.280 I am going to favor my wife over other women. 1.00

00:29:29.540 I'm going to favor my children over other children.

00:29:32.160 I'm going to favor my family over other families.

00:29:35.000 And I'm going to default

00:29:36.540 on the stereotypical level

00:29:38.680 to people with my ethnic

00:29:41.160 and racial and economic background.

00:29:44.120 And that's all true, you know?

00:29:45.800 Like, if you look at how people make snap judgments,

00:29:48.720 overcoming that in-group favoritism,

00:29:52.200 let's say, is very difficult.

00:29:54.220 Now, we also might ask

00:29:55.500 whether we actually want to overcome that, right?

00:29:58.480 Because you might say,

00:29:59.600 well, let's just dispense with in-group favoritism.

00:30:02.220 But what are you going to say?

00:30:03.340 That I shouldn't prefer my children

00:30:04.680 to other people's children?

00:30:06.700 Like, that means you're implying

00:30:08.740 that I have enough care in me

00:30:11.700 to love the billion children of the world

00:30:15.600 as much as I love my own two children.

00:30:18.040 And my answer to that is,

00:30:20.160 well, I don't have that much time or energy.

00:30:22.580 And also that if everyone loved their own children,

00:30:25.320 that problem would be taken care of.

00:30:27.240 So, like, we can't just dispense

00:30:29.140 with in-group favoritism.

00:30:31.020 And so the leftists,

00:30:33.360 even if we think we might,

00:30:35.400 the leftists might say,

00:30:36.500 well, your vision of a colorblind,

00:30:40.860 perceptual horizon is naive.

00:30:45.580 So there are rejoiners to that,

00:30:47.380 but I'd like to hear what yours are.

00:30:49.300 So here's what I would say to that.

00:30:51.140 First, I would totally acknowledge

00:30:53.040 human nature is what it is,

00:30:56.040 and we are never going to

00:30:57.540 and probably shouldn't want to stamp out

00:31:01.200 every aspect of our animal nature,

00:31:03.940 including tribalism.

00:31:06.340 Tribalism comes in many forms.

00:31:08.480 It comes in the strongest form

00:31:10.660 in a deep attachment to your actual kin.

00:31:15.980 I can pretend to care about your sisters

00:31:21.200 as much as my sisters,

00:31:22.460 but I can't actually do it.

00:31:23.800 I can say those words,

00:31:24.940 but I'm literally incapable of it, really.

00:31:27.980 So, and as I'm sure you agree,

00:31:32.640 every system that tries to completely deny

00:31:36.580 and rewrite human nature

00:31:38.080 fails spectacularly

00:31:39.480 and creates much more suffering

00:31:41.820 than happiness.

00:31:45.840 So the question is,

00:31:47.420 how do we deal with this aspect

00:31:49.540 of human nature, tribalism,

00:31:51.320 in particular, ethnic tribalism,

00:31:53.540 that when taken to an extreme,

00:31:58.540 when watered

00:32:00.000 and allowed to grow,

00:32:04.040 tends to cause some of the bloodiest

00:32:06.480 and most terrible outcomes

00:32:08.320 that have happened

00:32:10.140 over the course of human history?

00:32:12.960 My answer to that is,

00:32:15.580 I guess, twofold.

00:32:17.120 One is we have to use culture 0.83

00:32:22.240 to tamp down on the worst excesses

00:32:26.780 of tribalism.

00:32:27.960 By that, I mean,

00:32:29.400 we have to make certain things taboo.

00:32:32.040 We have to raise kids to think

00:32:33.860 that it's taboo to express

00:32:35.720 pure race hatred, right?

00:32:39.020 By maintaining that taboo,

00:32:41.260 you tamp down on,

00:32:44.540 you create a clear sense

00:32:46.020 for kids growing up

00:32:46.820 where the boundaries are,

00:32:47.980 where you're not allowed to go.

00:32:49.620 And then you combine

00:32:51.480 that creation of a taboo

00:32:52.900 with the allowance

00:32:54.860 of benign expressions of it, right?

00:32:58.300 What do you mean by benign expressions?

00:33:03.960 I mean that if you go

00:33:04.900 to a comedy club,

00:33:06.000 a lot of the comics

00:33:06.900 are going to make jokes

00:33:08.060 about racial stereotypes.

00:33:10.640 And if they're funny,

00:33:11.980 everyone of every race

00:33:13.200 is going to receive it

00:33:14.340 in a good way, right?

00:33:17.100 They're going to receive it

00:33:17.800 as a joke.

00:33:20.040 Dave Chappelle can make jokes

00:33:21.680 about how Black Santa Claus 0.90

00:33:23.480 would be showing up

00:33:24.200 late everywhere.

00:33:24.900 And because of the way

00:33:27.600 he says it

00:33:28.160 and how he's coming at it,

00:33:30.480 everyone can laugh at it

00:33:31.760 and make light of differences

00:33:34.900 between ethnicities and cultures

00:33:37.460 in a way that's safe and fun

00:33:39.740 and doesn't actually lead

00:33:41.680 to intergroup strife.

00:33:43.700 And the analogy here

00:33:44.840 is something like sports.

00:33:46.180 It's like clearly,

00:33:47.320 I think this is a point

00:33:48.300 you've made many times,

00:33:50.100 clearly sports are a kind

00:33:52.060 of substitute for war.

00:33:54.820 They tap into,

00:33:56.480 you know,

00:33:57.340 they tap into the exact

00:33:58.900 kind of psychological machinery

00:34:01.000 that men kind of have

00:34:03.860 inbuilt for war,

00:34:06.180 but, you know,

00:34:08.100 nobody dies at the end of it.

00:34:09.980 So it's in a way,

00:34:11.480 it's a kind of benign release valve

00:34:13.480 for that aspect of human nature

00:34:15.240 that polices the boundary

00:34:17.080 between the benign version

00:34:18.880 and the truly destructive version.

00:34:21.220 And so I think something like that

00:34:22.920 has to be true for...

00:34:24.000 Right, it highlights the distinction.

00:34:25.680 So I guess you're saying in part,

00:34:27.240 it seems to me,

00:34:28.020 Russell Peters is very good

00:34:29.220 at that too, by the way.

00:34:31.460 Starting a business can be tough,

00:34:33.000 but thanks to Shopify,

00:34:34.400 running your online storefront

00:34:35.680 is easier than ever.

00:34:37.360 Shopify is the global commerce platform

00:34:39.380 that helps you sell at

00:34:40.300 every stage of your business.

00:34:41.800 From the launch your online shop stage

00:34:43.540 all the way to the

00:34:44.260 did we just hit a million orders stage,

00:34:46.560 Shopify is here to help you grow.

00:34:48.220 Our marketing team uses Shopify

00:34:50.080 every day to sell our merchandise

00:34:51.540 and we love how easy it is

00:34:53.180 to add more items,

00:34:54.440 ship products,

00:34:55.140 and track conversions.

00:34:56.700 With Shopify,

00:34:57.500 customize your online store

00:34:58.620 to your style

00:34:59.560 with flexible templates

00:35:00.660 and powerful tools

00:35:01.720 alongside an endless list

00:35:03.400 of integrations

00:35:04.120 and third-party apps

00:35:05.080 like on-demand printing,

00:35:06.520 accounting,

00:35:07.100 and chatbots.

00:35:08.200 Shopify helps you turn browsers

00:35:09.620 into buyers

00:35:10.400 with the internet's

00:35:11.120 best converting checkout,

00:35:12.520 up to 36% better

00:35:13.900 compared to other

00:35:14.640 leading e-commerce platforms.

00:35:16.560 No matter how big

00:35:17.340 you want to grow,

00:35:18.220 Shopify gives you

00:35:18.960 everything you need

00:35:19.700 to take control

00:35:20.440 and take your business

00:35:21.460 to the next level.

00:35:23.000 Sign up for a $1 per month

00:35:24.400 trial period

00:35:25.020 at shopify.com

00:35:26.340 slash jbp,

00:35:27.580 all lowercase.

00:35:28.960 Go to shopify.com

00:35:30.180 slash jbp now

00:35:31.340 to grow your business

00:35:32.360 no matter what stage you're in.

00:35:34.200 That's shopify.com

00:35:35.600 slash jbp.

00:35:36.680 Yes.

00:35:39.740 Right.

00:35:40.020 And he's always making

00:35:40.920 ethnic jokes

00:35:41.580 and he,

00:35:42.320 it's interesting to watch

00:35:44.100 his audiences

00:35:44.680 because he picks on

00:35:46.260 every ethnic group

00:35:47.460 and if he ever misses any,

00:35:49.820 they feel left out.

00:35:51.100 And it's partly

00:35:52.020 an opportunity

00:35:52.660 for the racial

00:35:53.420 or the ethnic group

00:35:54.320 to indicate

00:35:55.040 that they can take a joke

00:35:56.380 at their own expense,

00:35:57.620 which is something

00:35:58.440 like an indication

00:35:59.300 of their civilized nature.

00:36:01.260 Right.

00:36:01.600 I mean,

00:36:02.060 when men get together

00:36:03.420 on a work crew,

00:36:04.280 one of the first things

00:36:05.260 they always do

00:36:05.880 is poke the hell

00:36:06.700 out of each other

00:36:07.440 to see if there's anyone

00:36:08.940 who can't take a joke.

00:36:10.100 And if there is anyone

00:36:10.940 who can't take a joke,

00:36:11.880 they are viewed

00:36:12.380 with extreme suspicion

00:36:13.660 immediately.

00:36:15.340 Yeah.

00:36:15.500 And so it's interesting

00:36:16.320 that that benign expression

00:36:17.800 of it's,

00:36:19.200 it's like a,

00:36:20.040 it's sort of like the jokes

00:36:21.120 that people make

00:36:21.840 about sexual impulses

00:36:23.020 as well.

00:36:23.760 So,

00:36:24.460 so the argument there

00:36:25.660 is something like,

00:36:27.000 I think the argument

00:36:28.120 we're developing

00:36:28.720 is something like

00:36:29.340 there's going to be

00:36:29.960 an implicit tendency

00:36:31.240 towards,

00:36:32.140 well,

00:36:32.640 all sorts of things

00:36:33.380 on the instinctual

00:36:34.200 level,

00:36:34.760 aggression,

00:36:36.280 lust,

00:36:37.260 gluttony,

00:36:38.480 and,

00:36:38.760 and like this,

00:36:39.780 this ethnocentrism

00:36:41.360 or in-group favoritism

00:36:42.900 that can spiral out

00:36:44.000 into actual prejudice.

00:36:45.940 And there's no denying that.

00:36:49.280 There's no escaping

00:36:51.320 from its effects

00:36:52.360 comprehensively,

00:36:53.780 but we can use

00:36:54.700 our own conscious

00:36:56.220 cultural striving

00:36:57.200 to mitigate against that.

00:36:58.860 You know,

00:36:59.040 and that can be

00:36:59.540 very successful,

00:37:00.400 by the way.

00:37:01.760 When,

00:37:02.060 so I lived

00:37:02.880 in downtown Toronto

00:37:04.200 when my kids

00:37:04.900 were little

00:37:05.320 and we sent them

00:37:07.220 to the local schools

00:37:08.560 only a block away

00:37:09.820 and the schools

00:37:10.900 at that point

00:37:11.560 in Canada

00:37:12.000 hadn't become

00:37:12.700 entirely corrupted

00:37:13.560 with politically 1.00

00:37:14.260 correct idiocy, 0.99

00:37:15.200 although some of the 1.00

00:37:16.440 writing was on the wall.

00:37:17.840 Now,

00:37:18.660 Toronto,

00:37:19.660 where I was,

00:37:20.780 was very,

00:37:21.460 very ethnically

00:37:22.220 and racially diverse.

00:37:23.200 and as far

00:37:24.920 as I could tell,

00:37:26.540 as far as the kids

00:37:27.760 were concerned,

00:37:28.380 that was irrelevant.

00:37:30.140 Like,

00:37:30.700 we had got far enough

00:37:31.860 in Toronto,

00:37:32.840 we'd actually got to the point

00:37:34.000 where people

00:37:34.460 were colorblind.

00:37:35.940 It didn't matter.

00:37:37.440 The kids,

00:37:38.160 as far as I could tell,

00:37:39.080 in the elementary

00:37:39.600 and junior high schools

00:37:40.520 in particular,

00:37:41.720 and this was even true

00:37:42.460 of the high schools

00:37:43.080 that the kids were at,

00:37:44.780 the Asians

00:37:45.640 and the blacks 0.98

00:37:46.360 and the Caucasians,

00:37:50.220 they weren't discriminating

00:37:51.880 against one another

00:37:52.660 when it came to

00:37:53.260 the establishment

00:37:53.760 of friendships.

00:37:54.680 It never seemed

00:37:55.300 to be an issue.

00:37:56.140 Now,

00:37:56.340 that's changed

00:37:56.860 to some degree

00:37:57.520 in Canada

00:37:58.000 because we've insisted

00:37:59.520 on importing

00:38:00.800 the racial tension

00:38:01.640 that characterizes

00:38:02.420 the United States

00:38:03.160 into Canada

00:38:03.720 because we're jealous

00:38:04.580 of it,

00:38:05.000 I suppose,

00:38:05.640 or God only knows

00:38:06.660 what the reason is,

00:38:07.520 but that has disintegrated

00:38:09.320 to some degree

00:38:10.060 in Toronto,

00:38:11.180 which is a very sad

00:38:12.100 thing to see.

00:38:13.360 So,

00:38:13.620 the thing is,

00:38:14.840 we have to accept

00:38:16.640 that that proclivity

00:38:18.000 towards ethnocentrism

00:38:19.380 is going to be there

00:38:20.460 axiomatically

00:38:22.380 and that that has

00:38:23.560 to be mitigated

00:38:24.280 against culturally.

00:38:25.640 You know,

00:38:26.120 now,

00:38:27.460 Woldridge,

00:38:28.240 Adrian Woldridge

00:38:28.980 wrote a great book

00:38:29.900 on meritocracy

00:38:31.620 and this is another thing

00:38:33.780 that's very much

00:38:34.340 worth highlighting.

00:38:35.080 He'd be a good person

00:38:35.800 to talk to,

00:38:36.400 by the way.

00:38:38.040 He pointed out

00:38:41.420 the historical alternatives

00:38:42.740 to meritocracy,

00:38:44.020 so that would be

00:38:44.580 like colorblind selection

00:38:46.500 because you might say,

00:38:48.020 well,

00:38:48.100 the alternative

00:38:49.140 to meritocratic selection,

00:38:51.340 which is going to

00:38:52.660 produce some biases

00:38:53.480 and outcome,

00:38:54.840 the alternative

00:38:56.400 to that might be

00:38:57.300 something like

00:38:57.840 the equity

00:38:58.360 that the radical

00:38:59.080 leftists are chasing,

00:39:00.600 but that isn't

00:39:01.460 the case historically.

00:39:03.100 The alternative

00:39:04.060 to meritocracy

00:39:04.980 has always been

00:39:05.780 twofold,

00:39:06.660 dynasty

00:39:07.060 and,

00:39:08.620 and,

00:39:09.640 what's the other word?

00:39:11.460 Nepotism.

00:39:13.020 So,

00:39:13.960 so,

00:39:14.320 you know,

00:39:14.540 and I can see

00:39:15.240 this already happening,

00:39:16.320 let's say,

00:39:16.720 at the Ivy League schools.

00:39:17.920 So,

00:39:18.220 when the universities

00:39:19.740 start to dispense

00:39:20.740 with objective testing

00:39:22.320 for selection criteria,

00:39:24.280 like the SATs,

00:39:25.340 for example,

00:39:25.900 which are a very

00:39:26.420 classic example

00:39:27.280 of an objective test,

00:39:29.120 you might say,

00:39:29.720 well,

00:39:29.820 that gives everyone

00:39:30.680 a fighting chance,

00:39:32.660 but,

00:39:33.320 first of all,

00:39:33.860 it doesn't

00:39:34.320 because if you get

00:39:35.160 into an Ivy League school

00:39:36.320 and you're not able,

00:39:37.780 you're going to fail

00:39:38.440 and that's not fun

00:39:39.580 for you

00:39:39.960 or anyone else,

00:39:41.420 but,

00:39:42.000 but there's something

00:39:42.600 more immediate

00:39:43.620 that's the case

00:39:45.100 as well.

00:39:46.880 It starts to devolve

00:39:48.400 into something like

00:39:49.380 who you know

00:39:51.160 or what strings

00:39:52.640 you can pull

00:39:53.340 and,

00:39:54.520 or what stories

00:39:55.320 being told

00:39:55.860 at the time

00:39:56.360 because

00:39:56.660 in the absence

00:39:58.200 of objective data,

00:39:59.620 there's only subjective

00:40:00.560 decision making,

00:40:01.620 right?

00:40:01.940 And then

00:40:02.500 the manner

00:40:04.200 in which

00:40:04.660 the subjective decision

00:40:05.820 is made

00:40:06.560 is dependent

00:40:07.400 on all sorts of things

00:40:08.340 that immediately

00:40:08.860 become invisible.

00:40:10.680 Now,

00:40:10.920 so it's generally

00:40:11.560 the case

00:40:12.100 in societies

00:40:13.780 that haven't managed

00:40:15.060 to produce

00:40:15.760 objective testing criteria

00:40:17.100 for,

00:40:17.580 let's say,

00:40:17.860 admission to high-stakes

00:40:19.240 institutions

00:40:19.860 that it's

00:40:21.520 who you know,

00:40:22.440 your family background.

00:40:23.540 That's what it was like

00:40:24.400 at Harvard

00:40:24.820 up until like 1960,

00:40:27.140 right?

00:40:27.680 The average IQ

00:40:28.540 at Harvard in 1960

00:40:29.740 was something like 105,

00:40:31.720 which is just above average

00:40:33.500 and the reason for that

00:40:34.300 was,

00:40:34.700 well,

00:40:34.820 it was a rich,

00:40:35.580 young,

00:40:35.900 white people's club

00:40:36.880 and you got in

00:40:38.420 because of your family.

00:40:39.540 Like it was

00:40:39.960 an aristocracy.

00:40:41.380 So Harvard

00:40:42.280 replaced an aristocracy

00:40:43.600 with a meritocracy

00:40:44.620 before they started

00:40:45.640 gerrymandering

00:40:46.480 the selection criteria.

00:40:49.280 You know,

00:40:49.480 the leftists think,

00:40:50.340 well,

00:40:50.400 we'll get rid

00:40:50.860 of the objective tests

00:40:51.840 and we'll have equity.

00:40:53.240 It's like,

00:40:53.540 no,

00:40:53.680 you won't.

00:40:54.600 You'll have

00:40:55.080 ideological selection,

00:40:57.320 nepotism,

00:40:58.360 or aristocracy.

00:41:00.720 That's what'll come up

00:41:01.840 and that's not good

00:41:03.080 for anyone.

00:41:03.560 Not if you're trying

00:41:04.400 to facilitate merit.

00:41:06.620 Right.

00:41:07.120 So,

00:41:07.920 I want to react to that

00:41:09.060 but just before I do,

00:41:10.160 I want to pick up

00:41:10.820 on what you said

00:41:11.340 about raising kids

00:41:12.900 in Toronto.

00:41:13.720 I grew up

00:41:14.620 in a very similar scenario.

00:41:16.860 I grew up

00:41:17.120 in Montclair,

00:41:17.700 New Jersey,

00:41:18.180 which is a very diverse town

00:41:19.560 and I had friends

00:41:21.160 of every race

00:41:22.000 and I did not think

00:41:23.300 of them as belonging

00:41:24.560 to a race,

00:41:25.600 right?

00:41:26.060 I literally just thought

00:41:27.500 of them by their first name

00:41:29.060 and by their attributes.

00:41:30.940 This is one of the

00:41:32.380 profound sources

00:41:33.760 of hope

00:41:34.320 is that

00:41:36.000 of all the problems

00:41:38.320 and flaws

00:41:39.920 that humans

00:41:41.100 are born with,

00:41:42.960 for instance,

00:41:44.440 you know,

00:41:44.740 children often have

00:41:45.700 to be taught

00:41:46.460 to share,

00:41:47.200 right?

00:41:47.360 That's not something

00:41:47.960 that comes naturally

00:41:48.820 to...

00:41:50.100 One thing

00:41:51.000 they're not born with

00:41:52.160 is actually

00:41:52.920 any kind of deep sense

00:41:54.820 of racial tribalism

00:41:56.640 in particular.

00:41:58.040 Kids naturally

00:41:59.000 play with

00:42:00.860 other kids

00:42:01.680 of different races

00:42:02.420 without a second thought.

00:42:04.440 It's usually not

00:42:05.360 until you get older

00:42:06.080 that the kind of

00:42:06.960 racial tribal

00:42:08.580 part of human nature

00:42:10.280 begins to show itself.

00:42:12.480 And so,

00:42:13.620 colorblindness

00:42:14.600 is actually

00:42:15.220 very intuitive

00:42:16.060 to kids.

00:42:17.540 This is one of the

00:42:18.300 big differences

00:42:18.980 between my message

00:42:20.920 and the message,

00:42:22.300 you know,

00:42:22.680 between my style

00:42:23.580 of anti-racism,

00:42:24.760 if you will,

00:42:26.240 and the kind

00:42:26.840 of anti-racism

00:42:27.920 on offer

00:42:28.540 by Robin DiAngelo,

00:42:30.560 Ibram Kendi,

00:42:31.260 et cetera.

00:42:31.960 Robin DiAngelo,

00:42:33.120 her message

00:42:33.660 is that kids

00:42:34.380 are essentially

00:42:35.120 born racist,

00:42:36.320 that they drink it in 0.95

00:42:37.440 with their mother's milk,

00:42:38.980 and it has to be

00:42:39.800 stamped out of them

00:42:40.860 at a very young age

00:42:42.320 with indoctrination

00:42:44.260 and woke kindergarten

00:42:46.380 to quote

00:42:47.460 the actual

00:42:48.780 San Francisco

00:42:49.540 program.

00:42:51.520 My view

00:42:52.160 is that

00:42:52.460 actually kids

00:42:53.320 are basically

00:42:54.160 born with

00:42:54.960 the right attitude

00:42:55.840 about race,

00:42:56.620 which is to say

00:42:57.260 they don't care,

00:42:57.980 and the best

00:43:00.120 thing to do

00:43:00.580 is to essentially

00:43:02.020 reinforce that

00:43:03.060 by show them

00:43:04.820 Martin Luther King's

00:43:06.420 famous

00:43:07.200 I Have a Dream

00:43:08.000 speech

00:43:08.440 once a year

00:43:09.480 on Dr. King Day

00:43:10.460 and live the value

00:43:14.140 of colorblindness.

00:43:15.700 You don't need

00:43:17.200 more than that

00:43:17.820 gentle hand

00:43:18.680 with children

00:43:20.060 in order to

00:43:22.240 keep them

00:43:22.900 on the right track.

00:43:24.540 Now,

00:43:24.800 I want to address

00:43:25.480 the second point,

00:43:27.460 too,

00:43:28.160 about meritocracy

00:43:29.300 and the impossibility

00:43:33.180 of equal outcomes.

00:43:34.860 Thomas Sowell

00:43:35.440 has spent

00:43:35.880 a whole career

00:43:36.640 proving this

00:43:37.820 every which way

00:43:38.660 that equal outcomes

00:43:40.160 across the board

00:43:41.020 are not on the menu.

00:43:42.140 And once you

00:43:43.720 admit that,

00:43:45.360 I mean,

00:43:45.580 just consider the fact

00:43:47.240 we live in a

00:43:47.800 multicultural society.

00:43:48.980 We celebrate

00:43:49.960 cultural diversity.

00:43:51.300 We believe that

00:43:52.280 cultures are different.

00:43:53.400 That's what

00:43:53.700 cultural diversity

00:43:55.100 means.

00:43:56.780 It's not possible

00:43:57.960 to have

00:43:58.680 different cultures

00:43:59.580 that all

00:44:00.460 behave and execute 0.72

00:44:01.920 the same.

00:44:02.740 That's a contradiction,

00:44:03.860 right?

00:44:04.080 So just

00:44:06.140 on that alone,

00:44:08.740 we should admit

00:44:09.440 that we have to,

00:44:11.120 even if everyone

00:44:11.700 gets treated equally,

00:44:12.920 there's going to be

00:44:13.500 different outcomes,

00:44:14.600 okay?

00:44:14.920 We haven't even,

00:44:15.620 in America,

00:44:16.180 we haven't even

00:44:16.920 achieved equal outcomes

00:44:19.320 between different

00:44:20.120 white ethnic groups,

00:44:21.600 which is to say,

00:44:22.360 if you compare,

00:44:23.260 you know,

00:44:23.800 white people

00:44:24.760 of Irish descent

00:44:25.520 to white people

00:44:26.080 of Russian descent

00:44:26.820 to white people

00:44:27.340 of Polish descent,

00:44:28.560 vastly different outcomes

00:44:30.240 across the board.

00:44:31.000 That's because

00:44:31.760 equal outcomes

00:44:32.440 aren't on the menu.

00:44:33.360 We have to focus

00:44:33.960 on meritocratic

00:44:35.280 processes.

00:44:36.940 And so,

00:44:38.820 to your point,

00:44:40.860 you know,

00:44:41.080 at Harvard,

00:44:41.680 when they looked

00:44:42.340 into this,

00:44:42.920 I think in the

00:44:44.020 recent affirmative

00:44:45.180 action lawsuit,

00:44:46.020 it came out in

00:44:46.580 discovery that

00:44:47.260 something like

00:44:47.800 40% of white

00:44:49.180 Harvard students

00:44:50.080 were either

00:44:51.160 the children of

00:44:51.940 professors,

00:44:53.320 student athletes,

00:44:54.760 you know,

00:44:55.140 primarily at

00:44:56.060 kind of expensive,

00:44:57.400 hard-to-access

00:44:58.040 sports like,

00:44:58.860 you know,

00:45:00.420 rowing,

00:45:02.480 or otherwise

00:45:05.480 the children of donors,

00:45:06.420 right?

00:45:06.580 So that's a huge,

00:45:07.420 that actually surprised me

00:45:09.680 because my assumption

00:45:11.720 like yours was that

00:45:13.040 Harvard used to be

00:45:14.100 like that,

00:45:14.940 but they've kind of

00:45:15.660 reined that in

00:45:16.320 to a significant degree.

00:45:17.700 Not nearly as much

00:45:19.100 as you'd think,

00:45:19.820 it turns out.

00:45:21.560 So you're right

00:45:22.540 that the alternative

00:45:23.200 to this is nepotism.

00:45:25.700 You know,

00:45:25.900 and I think

00:45:28.220 a lot of people

00:45:28.920 worry that

00:45:29.660 meritocracy

00:45:30.500 is going to hurt 0.97

00:45:31.580 Black and Hispanic 0.98

00:45:32.300 students.

00:45:33.060 I think that's

00:45:33.620 at the core

00:45:34.260 of a lot of,

00:45:35.340 a lot of people

00:45:38.440 on the left

00:45:39.040 worry about this.

00:45:41.280 So I want to give

00:45:41.840 two examples

00:45:42.620 of ways

00:45:44.520 in which it doesn't.

00:45:45.360 In fact,

00:45:45.760 it helps.

00:45:46.880 So there was a study

00:45:47.740 in Broward County,

00:45:48.780 Broward County,

00:45:49.780 Florida,

00:45:50.660 where they,

00:45:53.820 I believe they had

00:45:54.700 gotten rid of

00:45:56.320 universal IQ testing

00:45:57.600 for kids.

00:45:58.480 These are,

00:45:59.120 you know,

00:46:01.100 grade age kids,

00:46:02.120 but pre-college.

00:46:03.320 They'd gotten rid

00:46:04.100 of IQ testing

00:46:05.000 and then they

00:46:06.280 reinstituted it

00:46:07.300 and found

00:46:08.280 that there were

00:46:09.280 a lot of gifted,

00:46:11.740 just naturally gifted,

00:46:13.380 but poor 0.98

00:46:14.060 Black and Hispanic kids 0.81

00:46:15.660 that were not going

00:46:17.760 to be identified

00:46:18.520 any other way

00:46:20.100 except for

00:46:21.040 a universal IQ test.

00:46:22.400 And, you know,

00:46:24.380 my mother was

00:46:25.080 a perfect example

00:46:26.020 of this.

00:46:27.080 She was born

00:46:27.920 and raised

00:46:28.320 in the South Bronx

00:46:29.180 at the time

00:46:29.940 where that was

00:46:30.680 really one of the

00:46:32.100 worst neighborhoods

00:46:32.800 to grow up in,

00:46:34.100 in the 60s and 70s.

00:46:36.160 And she ended up

00:46:37.160 going to Stuyvesant,

00:46:38.820 the highly selective

00:46:40.520 public school,

00:46:41.940 specialized public school

00:46:42.840 in New York City

00:46:43.560 on the basis

00:46:44.540 of a test.

00:46:46.020 Now,

00:46:46.360 I can guarantee you

00:46:47.280 growing up

00:46:49.280 in the kind of

00:46:49.720 chaotic household

00:46:50.600 where she did.

00:46:53.220 Her, you know,

00:46:54.480 her mother couldn't read,

00:46:55.900 mother had a third 0.90

00:46:56.480 grade education,

00:46:57.860 crime all around her,

00:46:59.060 drugs all around her.

00:47:00.700 There was no way

00:47:01.520 she was going to be able

00:47:02.380 to do

00:47:03.000 extracurricular activities.

00:47:05.280 Okay?

00:47:05.880 She wasn't going to be

00:47:07.160 in six or seven

00:47:08.880 different clubs.

00:47:10.200 She wasn't going to be,

00:47:11.820 she wasn't going to have

00:47:13.300 necessarily the best

00:47:14.780 essays written,

00:47:16.860 written by committee,

00:47:18.260 by a committee of parents

00:47:19.440 and tutors

00:47:20.160 right?

00:47:21.140 Really,

00:47:21.760 all she had

00:47:22.480 was basically

00:47:23.740 her smarts.

00:47:25.120 She,

00:47:25.360 you know,

00:47:25.820 all she had

00:47:26.640 was a test

00:47:27.360 of really

00:47:28.480 her inner

00:47:29.660 intellectual potential.

00:47:32.120 The ironic part

00:47:33.340 about all

00:47:34.300 of these other

00:47:35.120 aspects,

00:47:36.560 the essays,

00:47:38.060 the club

00:47:40.260 memberships,

00:47:41.060 leadership positions,

00:47:42.060 is that

00:47:42.640 those favor

00:47:43.640 privileged kids

00:47:45.120 more

00:47:45.700 than

00:47:46.760 the actual

00:47:47.980 test does.

00:47:48.580 And so I'll give

00:47:49.920 one.

00:47:50.240 Yes,

00:47:50.680 clearly.

00:47:51.160 Yeah,

00:47:51.420 I'll give one

00:47:51.900 other example

00:47:52.460 of this.

00:47:53.360 There was a very

00:47:54.080 interesting study

00:47:55.160 out of Duke

00:47:56.460 University

00:47:57.040 in the early

00:47:58.200 2010s

00:47:59.080 where

00:48:00.400 they looked

00:48:01.960 at,

00:48:02.900 they essentially

00:48:05.020 looked at what

00:48:05.680 happens when

00:48:06.400 you admit

00:48:07.080 a group

00:48:07.620 of students

00:48:08.540 under a

00:48:09.420 different regime

00:48:10.540 of standards.

00:48:11.760 Okay?

00:48:11.940 And they asked

00:48:13.020 this question

00:48:13.500 in the abstract

00:48:14.180 because obviously

00:48:15.080 this is true

00:48:15.680 of Black 0.92

00:48:16.080 students that

00:48:16.760 quote-unquote

00:48:17.940 benefit from

00:48:18.900 affirmative action,

00:48:20.240 but it's also

00:48:21.260 true of

00:48:22.560 legacy admits.

00:48:24.260 It's also

00:48:24.820 true of

00:48:25.400 student athletes,

00:48:26.500 right?

00:48:26.860 So you can

00:48:27.500 actually study

00:48:28.600 as an

00:48:29.480 abstract

00:48:29.980 phenomenon

00:48:31.260 how do

00:48:33.200 kids fare

00:48:33.740 differently

00:48:34.220 when admitted

00:48:34.900 under a

00:48:35.620 different set

00:48:36.280 of standards.

00:48:36.820 And what

00:48:37.920 they found

00:48:38.500 is that

00:48:39.040 not only

00:48:39.820 Black 0.64

00:48:40.100 students,

00:48:40.700 but also

00:48:41.420 legacy admits,

00:48:42.660 also student

00:48:43.260 athletes,

00:48:44.200 which is how

00:48:44.660 they knew

00:48:45.040 it was an

00:48:45.660 effect of

00:48:46.400 being admitted

00:48:46.940 under a

00:48:47.380 different regime

00:48:47.860 of standards

00:48:48.380 rather than

00:48:48.960 say racism.

00:48:50.060 What happens

00:48:50.860 is that

00:48:51.300 you had a

00:48:52.420 very high

00:48:53.040 degree of

00:48:53.560 attrition

00:48:54.060 out of the

00:48:55.180 sciences

00:48:55.640 into the

00:48:57.300 soft majors.

00:48:59.560 And how do

00:48:59.880 they know this?

00:49:00.460 It's because

00:49:00.680 they asked

00:49:01.340 all the freshmen

00:49:02.080 on day one,

00:49:03.260 what do you

00:49:03.680 plan to major

00:49:04.360 in?

00:49:05.140 And they've

00:49:05.500 got something

00:49:06.280 like,

00:49:06.600 they've got

00:49:08.120 a ton of

00:49:09.300 Black male 0.89

00:49:09.920 students and

00:49:10.840 Black female 0.87

00:49:11.720 students interested

00:49:12.500 in studying the

00:49:13.260 hard sciences.

00:49:14.360 Everyone pretty

00:49:15.220 much had the

00:49:15.660 same rate of

00:49:16.200 being interested

00:49:16.720 in the hard

00:49:17.140 sciences.

00:49:17.900 But what

00:49:18.340 happened?

00:49:19.060 By year two,

00:49:19.820 by year three,

00:49:20.660 you found all

00:49:21.580 of those groups

00:49:22.940 of kids accepted

00:49:23.900 under lower

00:49:24.520 standards,

00:49:25.340 dropping out,

00:49:26.360 going to

00:49:26.700 easier majors,

00:49:27.720 and getting

00:49:28.300 superficially

00:49:29.060 similar GPAs.

00:49:30.520 So that if

00:49:31.120 you only look

00:49:31.680 at GPA,

00:49:32.280 you actually

00:49:32.600 don't see

00:49:33.200 the effect

00:49:33.840 of admitting

00:49:35.920 people under

00:49:36.500 lower standards.

00:49:37.340 And what

00:49:37.540 happens is, 0.98

00:49:38.720 if that Black 0.88

00:49:39.840 student that

00:49:40.460 was interested

00:49:40.980 in being a

00:49:41.580 chemistry,

00:49:42.280 an engineering

00:49:42.920 major at

00:49:43.940 Duke,

00:49:44.900 if he had

00:49:45.420 not gotten

00:49:47.660 into Duke,

00:49:48.660 gone to a

00:49:49.120 different college,

00:49:49.960 he might have

00:49:50.620 survived and

00:49:51.260 gotten a pretty

00:49:51.920 good engineering

00:49:53.100 degree at a

00:49:53.660 pretty good state

00:49:54.280 school and went

00:49:55.000 on to become

00:49:55.480 an engineer.

00:49:56.120 Instead,

00:49:57.000 just to survive

00:49:58.800 with the median

00:50:00.120 of the class of

00:50:00.960 kids that were

00:50:01.440 smarter than him,

00:50:02.100 he got some

00:50:03.500 frankly,

00:50:04.720 sorry,

00:50:05.180 kind of BS

00:50:05.740 degree that he

00:50:06.420 didn't want to

00:50:06.940 get,

00:50:07.480 and now he's

00:50:08.020 not even an

00:50:08.560 engineer.

00:50:09.080 So this is a

00:50:10.360 very real phenomenon

00:50:11.340 and there's really

00:50:12.720 no end run

00:50:16.800 around meritocracy

00:50:18.440 where you can

00:50:19.760 have your cake

00:50:20.540 and eat it too

00:50:21.220 without all of

00:50:21.900 these other

00:50:22.440 consequences.

00:50:24.060 So two things

00:50:25.120 on that.

00:50:25.780 The first is,

00:50:26.600 if you're a

00:50:27.100 parent,

00:50:27.960 you don't want

00:50:29.100 to send your

00:50:29.720 kid to a

00:50:30.880 university where

00:50:31.720 they're in the

00:50:32.400 bottom quartile of

00:50:33.440 intellectual capacity.

00:50:35.340 Now, so you can

00:50:36.000 imagine if you go

00:50:36.600 to Harvard and you

00:50:37.160 have an IQ of

00:50:37.740 120, you're pretty

00:50:38.820 smart, but you're

00:50:40.460 not smart compared

00:50:41.220 to someone with an

00:50:41.900 IQ of 145.

00:50:43.560 Like, you're not

00:50:44.380 in the same game.

00:50:45.880 And so you're

00:50:46.500 going to find

00:50:46.980 exactly what you

00:50:47.800 just described.

00:50:48.700 It's going to be a

00:50:49.420 failing game for

00:50:50.100 you and that's not

00:50:50.940 entertaining and

00:50:51.700 it's also not good

00:50:52.460 for you and it's

00:50:53.200 also not realistic

00:50:54.280 in a sense because

00:50:55.400 like the Harvard

00:50:58.160 environment, let's

00:50:59.100 say in the 1990s,

00:51:00.160 because I don't know

00:51:00.660 what it's like now

00:51:01.420 wasn't the real

00:51:02.800 world, right?

00:51:03.880 You're bringing,

00:51:04.800 they have a

00:51:05.200 tremendous capacity

00:51:06.700 to discriminate

00:51:07.320 because they have

00:51:07.980 so many applicants.

00:51:09.340 And so even with

00:51:10.000 the legacy students,

00:51:11.240 they can pick

00:51:12.080 high IQ legacy

00:51:13.160 students because

00:51:13.840 they have so many

00:51:14.820 applicants.

00:51:16.740 So, so, so then

00:51:18.900 you go there,

00:51:19.520 let's say with an

00:51:20.460 IQ of 125, which

00:51:21.800 puts you at about

00:51:22.460 90th percentile or

00:51:23.980 above, you're no

00:51:24.980 dummy, but you're at 0.97

00:51:26.300 the bottom of your 1.00

00:51:26.820 class.

00:51:27.700 Now you could go to

00:51:29.000 a decent state

00:51:29.840 school and be in

00:51:30.520 the top.

00:51:31.580 That's better for

00:51:32.660 you.

00:51:33.320 That's better for

00:51:34.160 you.

00:51:35.280 Why would you put

00:51:36.240 someone in a position

00:51:37.020 where they're likely

00:51:37.620 to fail and also get

00:51:38.980 the wrong impression

00:51:40.380 of their abilities?

00:51:42.300 Now it might mean

00:51:43.460 that, you know, if

00:51:44.340 you're going to

00:51:44.660 compete at the upper

00:51:45.640 echelons of any

00:51:46.680 discipline, let's say

00:51:47.500 you want to be a

00:51:48.040 great scientist, you're

00:51:49.580 going to need all

00:51:50.580 things considered.

00:51:51.480 You're going to need

00:51:51.960 an IQ of 145 and

00:51:53.400 you're going to need

00:51:53.900 to work flat out 80

00:51:55.680 hours a week.

00:51:56.260 And that's that.

00:51:58.360 And so if you go to

00:51:59.240 a state school and

00:52:00.100 you take a hard

00:52:00.680 science degree, you're

00:52:01.380 probably not going to

00:52:02.080 hit that upper 0.96

00:52:02.880 echelon rung.

00:52:04.040 But that doesn't

00:52:05.180 mean that there isn't

00:52:05.840 going to be all sorts

00:52:06.600 of opportunities

00:52:08.040 available to you with

00:52:09.060 that degree.

00:52:10.220 And it's much better to

00:52:11.540 be positioned in the

00:52:12.360 right place.

00:52:12.900 It's much better to be

00:52:13.680 positioned accurately.

00:52:14.720 With regards to your

00:52:15.920 comments on non-meritorious

00:52:19.580 selection.

00:52:20.140 So I did a study that

00:52:22.160 we were never allowed

00:52:22.900 to publish at the

00:52:24.680 Naval Academy with

00:52:26.200 like 4,500 people.

00:52:28.040 It took a long time to

00:52:29.100 do this study.

00:52:29.700 We gave them a full

00:52:30.660 comprehensive

00:52:31.380 neuropsychological IQ

00:52:32.880 and personality battery.

00:52:34.560 And we could predict

00:52:35.580 military performance and

00:52:37.940 academic performance

00:52:39.720 because we had those

00:52:40.480 outcome measures from

00:52:41.420 the institution.

00:52:42.840 And they preferentially

00:52:44.380 admitted athletes, not

00:52:45.820 least because Navy wants 0.99

00:52:47.780 to beat Army in the

00:52:48.620 football game.

00:52:49.300 which is actually not

00:52:50.560 that big a priority

00:52:51.940 when you're trying to

00:52:52.720 produce people who are

00:52:53.660 going to be piloting

00:52:55.100 warships worth hundreds

00:52:56.480 of millions of dollars

00:52:57.380 in very complex

00:52:58.260 situations.

00:52:59.540 And so, you know,

00:53:00.400 maybe the priorities

00:53:01.460 there were a bit askew.

00:53:03.140 And so we had the

00:53:04.020 opportunity to

00:53:04.640 investigate that.

00:53:05.420 And it was clearly the

00:53:06.120 case that people who

00:53:06.980 were admitted on any

00:53:07.940 basis other than

00:53:09.260 psychometric merit

00:53:10.260 performed much more

00:53:11.620 poorly in terms of the

00:53:12.720 evaluation criteria that

00:53:14.100 the Naval Academy

00:53:15.220 themselves had used.

00:53:17.100 Now, the argument from

00:53:18.080 the radicals would be,

00:53:19.040 well, then the assessment

00:53:20.360 criteria themselves are

00:53:22.300 prejudiced.

00:53:23.320 But that argument falls

00:53:24.920 apart if you accept the

00:53:27.380 idea that while jobs have

00:53:29.500 a quality and merit, you

00:53:32.180 know, like if you're a

00:53:33.220 linesman working for a

00:53:34.800 power company, it seems

00:53:36.420 reasonable for me to

00:53:37.880 evaluate you on how

00:53:40.400 effective you are at

00:53:44.040 generating the repairs that

00:53:45.640 you do generate.

00:53:46.820 does someone else have to

00:53:48.200 go mop in after you?

00:53:49.800 And then how many of

00:53:50.900 those operations can you

00:53:52.680 perform per day?

00:53:54.180 It's like it's the very

00:53:55.140 definition of the job.

00:53:56.380 And to be anti-merit in a

00:53:57.900 situation like that is to

00:54:00.220 make the simultaneous claim

00:54:01.700 that jobs have no content,

00:54:04.380 right?

00:54:04.560 There's no hierarchy of

00:54:05.600 ability within a job.

00:54:06.840 But that means there's no

00:54:08.160 job because the hierarchy is

00:54:10.600 there implicitly with the

00:54:11.640 job, right?

00:54:12.500 There's a job when doing

00:54:13.860 something is deemed better

00:54:15.340 than not doing it.

00:54:17.080 And then there's a

00:54:17.680 difference.

00:54:18.620 You know, it wouldn't

00:54:19.340 matter what the

00:54:19.940 competition is.

00:54:20.740 You could have four-year

00:54:22.140 olds lay on the floor of

00:54:23.640 the gymnasium and roll

00:54:24.980 horizontally towards the

00:54:26.260 other wall.

00:54:27.260 If you did that repeatedly

00:54:28.380 with a hundred of them,

00:54:29.340 you'd build a hierarchy.

00:54:30.940 Some kids would be

00:54:31.860 reliably faster.

00:54:33.580 And then you could

00:54:34.220 generate measures that

00:54:35.380 would predict which kids

00:54:36.520 could roll faster.

00:54:37.580 They'd probably be older

00:54:38.480 and stronger, for example.

00:54:40.640 You know, maybe they'd be

00:54:41.600 more competitive and

00:54:42.740 motivated.

00:54:43.420 I don't know what the

00:54:44.260 criteria would be, but if

00:54:45.960 there's any outcome, you

00:54:47.260 immediately build a

00:54:48.160 hierarchy of rank and

00:54:49.880 then you can derive tests

00:54:51.000 that will predict it.

00:54:52.040 That's essentially what

00:54:53.160 meritocracy boils down to.

00:54:55.160 And it's not in anybody's

00:54:56.380 interest to demolish that.

00:54:58.500 I think Thomas Sowell has a

00:55:01.240 great book called The

00:55:03.540 Quest for Cosmic Justice.

00:55:05.980 And I remember him saying

00:55:08.100 in that book that

00:55:09.980 meritocracy, like

00:55:12.320 capitalism, is a word that

00:55:15.160 was actually coined by its

00:55:16.420 enemies.

00:55:18.280 And often when the

00:55:23.440 enemies of the idea coin the

00:55:25.360 idea, they frame it in a way

00:55:27.380 that is dishonest, right?

00:55:30.420 So, for example, you know,

00:55:31.820 capitalism, right there in the

00:55:33.900 word, suggests that it's all

00:55:36.460 about, you know, capital

00:55:37.840 expanding itself, which

00:55:39.400 seems totally disconnected

00:55:40.980 from, you know, labor, for

00:55:44.880 example.

00:55:45.320 And now, if you actually look

00:55:47.400 into it, you find every time

00:55:48.780 capitalism has been opposed to

00:55:50.620 communism, the workers from

00:55:52.260 the communist regime are

00:55:53.400 fleeing, banging on the

00:55:54.600 doors of the capitalist

00:55:55.640 society, trying to get in,

00:55:57.100 right?

00:55:57.340 So clearly there's something

00:55:58.520 at minimum flawed about that

00:56:00.900 framing.

00:56:01.240 But the word stuck.

00:56:04.400 Meritocracy, Sowell pointed

00:56:05.940 out, implies that the

00:56:10.740 testing regime is a comment

00:56:13.760 on your worth as an

00:56:15.340 individual, your moral worth,

00:56:17.700 which it's really not.

00:56:20.360 If I do better on the SAT

00:56:22.300 than you, that doesn't mean

00:56:24.460 I'm a better person all

00:56:26.320 around.

00:56:26.880 All it means is that I'm

00:56:28.200 better at the tasks associated

00:56:29.800 with this SAT, which

00:56:31.720 predict that I'm probably

00:56:33.100 going to do better than you

00:56:34.420 at a university on almost

00:56:36.200 any subject.

00:56:37.100 I'm going to do better than

00:56:38.640 you at law school, and I'm

00:56:40.060 probably going to do better

00:56:40.920 on the LSAT.

00:56:42.080 It means that in a subset of

00:56:45.040 life that has to do with

00:56:46.360 intellectual tasks, problem

00:56:48.440 solving, quick problem

00:56:49.760 solving, quick learning,

00:56:51.360 model building, I'm better at

00:56:53.320 that than you, right?

00:56:54.640 That doesn't mean I'm a

00:56:55.580 better person than you,

00:56:56.880 okay?

00:56:57.280 It doesn't mean I'm...

00:56:57.940 That's technically true.

00:56:59.120 You know, because, well, if

00:57:01.180 you look at the personality

00:57:02.300 attributes, the two or

00:57:05.280 three that you would most

00:57:06.660 associate, let's say, with

00:57:08.160 morality, like it's tricky

00:57:09.600 and there's not a one-to-one

00:57:10.720 relationship, and I'm not

00:57:11.820 implying that, but generally

00:57:14.240 speaking, people regard those

00:57:16.140 who are conscientious,

00:57:17.640 diligent, hardworking,

00:57:19.840 reliable, industrious, as

00:57:22.320 moral.

00:57:24.260 Now, that's not the only

00:57:25.620 dimension of morality because

00:57:26.580 you also have agreeableness

00:57:27.840 when, and more people who

00:57:29.280 are more agreeable, in our

00:57:30.680 society at least, are also

00:57:31.800 deemed more moral because

00:57:32.820 they're more caring, they're

00:57:34.160 more empathic, they're more

00:57:35.580 polite.

00:57:36.540 And so, you could even see

00:57:38.720 conscientiousness as the

00:57:40.300 conservative virtue and

00:57:41.540 agreeableness as the liberal

00:57:42.860 virtue if you wanted to.

00:57:44.700 It doesn't matter.

00:57:46.420 Those are the places where

00:57:48.620 virtue seems to be captured to

00:57:50.420 some degree in the personality

00:57:51.760 models.

00:57:52.740 There's zero correlation with

00:57:54.500 IQ.

00:57:55.280 Like, zero.

00:57:56.260 Interesting.

00:57:56.700 Right, right.

00:57:57.220 So, technically, yeah, yeah.

00:57:58.760 Well, and so, another way, and

00:58:00.480 it's very important, the case

00:58:01.820 that you're making to

00:58:02.600 discriminate intellectual

00:58:04.640 capacity, let's say, or merit

00:58:06.400 from moral worth, because it's

00:58:08.680 also the case that the

00:58:10.380 intelligent have their

00:58:12.160 temptation, right?

00:58:14.800 The evil figures of

00:58:16.660 mythology are always stellar

00:58:19.520 intellects gone spectacularly

00:58:21.700 wrong.

00:58:22.260 That's why it's always the

00:58:24.160 evil scientist in the modern

00:58:25.760 mythologies, right?

00:58:27.020 All the enemies of the

00:58:28.280 superheroes are evil 0.86

00:58:29.300 scientists. 0.99

00:58:29.820 They're all evil geniuses. 0.99

00:58:31.840 And that's because, to your 0.98

00:58:34.060 point, general cognitive

00:58:36.440 ability is not only not

00:58:39.560 associated with morality per

00:58:41.660 se, it's also, it's worse

00:58:44.560 than that in a sense, I think,

00:58:45.980 Coleman, because it is

00:58:48.540 definitely the case that higher

00:58:50.200 general cognitive ability

00:58:51.580 confers upon you a tremendous

00:58:53.760 advantage in a complex society,

00:58:55.360 because you can learn faster, and

00:58:57.200 the differences are not trivial.

00:59:00.640 It's the biggest single

00:59:02.680 difference between people is

00:59:04.160 general cognitive ability.

00:59:05.660 And it's an appalling literature

00:59:07.160 to familiarize yourself with to

00:59:08.940 some degree, because it does seem

00:59:10.860 to violate the principles on first

00:59:15.000 glance of universal cosmic justice.

00:59:16.840 It's like, why is it fair for some

00:59:18.400 people to be born with an IQ of

00:59:20.360 85, which barely makes you

00:59:22.340 competent even to be a member of

00:59:24.080 the armed forces, regardless of

00:59:25.560 what role you're in, or to have an

00:59:27.240 IQ of 145, which opens the doors,

00:59:30.460 let's say, to places like Harvard and

00:59:32.100 investment banking as a career

00:59:34.020 strategy.

00:59:35.220 And it's an, it's, the cards are

00:59:37.260 dealt out in a relatively arbitrary

00:59:38.860 way.

00:59:39.660 Well, that's a very bitter pill to

00:59:41.240 swallow.

00:59:41.520 But it is also the case that those

00:59:44.600 who are intelligent have the

00:59:46.340 temptation of Lucifer, essentially,

00:59:48.400 if you think about it mythologically,

00:59:49.980 because it's very easy to worship

00:59:52.140 your own intellect, and then to

00:59:53.740 worship intellect per se.

00:59:56.040 And that's a very, very dangerous,

00:59:58.100 that's a very dangerous thing to do,

01:00:00.680 to develop that set of, that sense of

01:00:03.660 wounded intellectual pride if people

01:00:06.500 aren't bowing at your feet, or even

01:00:09.060 the presumption that merely because

01:00:11.420 you've been gifted with

01:00:12.700 intelligence, because it's not

01:00:14.580 something you earn, you've been

01:00:16.480 gifted with intelligence, that means

01:00:18.100 that you're of stellar moral

01:00:19.380 character.

01:00:20.420 That's simply not.

01:00:22.080 I was really shocked in my clinical

01:00:23.780 practice, you know, with this quite

01:00:25.800 regularly, because I had some people

01:00:28.640 in my practice who were definitely

01:00:30.800 in the lower quintile of

01:00:32.760 intelligence, let's say, very, very

01:00:35.200 impaired, unable to read, certainly

01:00:38.340 unable to use a computer, virtually

01:00:41.720 unemployable, regardless of how much

01:00:43.720 effort was poured into that, yet

01:00:47.620 often unbelievably admirable in their

01:00:51.560 ability to bear up under the complex

01:00:53.680 and stressful conditions of their life

01:00:55.900 without being bitter or resentful,

01:00:58.920 while still being of service to other

01:01:00.580 people.

01:01:01.380 It was really shocking to me to watch

01:01:03.400 that, you know, and a reminder that

01:01:06.820 just because you're intelligent doesn't

01:01:09.600 mean you're good.

01:01:10.280 And that does, we do in our culture, and

01:01:12.360 the leftists are particularly egregious

01:01:14.760 in this regard, I would say, to

01:01:16.780 casually elude general cognitive

01:01:22.860 ability with moral worth.

01:01:24.960 You know, if you have a materialist

01:01:26.220 viewpoint, that's a very easy thing to

01:01:27.800 do.

01:01:28.060 It's a very easy thing to do.

01:01:30.240 It's a hard thing to fight against.

01:01:32.360 Yeah.

01:01:32.660 But it's a pernicious, pernicious

01:01:34.660 problem.

01:01:35.100 So I have a question for you.

01:01:36.440 You said, and I think it's right, and

01:01:39.440 I feel it too, that observing the vast

01:01:43.320 difference between the intellectual

01:01:45.860 skills people are born with is a bitter

01:01:48.860 pill to swallow.

01:01:50.000 And that the more you learn about it, the

01:01:51.860 more you despair at the unfairness of

01:01:55.860 the universe in some way.

01:01:57.980 I'm curious, do you think that, I share

01:02:01.320 that reaction, do you think that reaction

01:02:03.360 is a natural consequence of learning

01:02:08.020 about that?

01:02:08.660 Or do you think it's only because we

01:02:10.940 have some deep Western background

01:02:12.840 assumptions about fairness?

01:02:16.120 Like, do you think that that would

01:02:17.120 strike a pre-Western tribe as unfair as 0.93

01:02:21.140 well as a bitter pill to swallow?

01:02:22.440 Or do you think it's really a function

01:02:23.980 of some deep kind of assumptions we

01:02:27.160 have?

01:02:27.760 Well, okay.

01:02:28.500 Well, I think there's a couple of

01:02:30.120 things going on there.

01:02:31.060 The first is that our society does

01:02:33.760 differentially award people with high

01:02:36.160 general cognitive ability because our

01:02:37.940 society is very complex and rapidly

01:02:39.840 changing.

01:02:41.040 And so in a society, in a traditional

01:02:43.280 society where roles remain unchanged for

01:02:46.480 generations, IQ is much less relevant.

01:02:48.720 So, but in our society, because look, how

01:02:54.300 fast do you have to be to stay among

01:02:58.560 those who aren't at least five years

01:03:01.680 behind the computational revolution?

01:03:05.200 Like, you have to, what, have an IQ of

01:03:07.780 95th percentile to be anywhere near the

01:03:10.660 bleeding edge?

01:03:12.340 Because things are changing so quickly.

01:03:14.420 You know, so, so we differentially devote

01:03:19.060 resources to the cognitively skilled and

01:03:22.060 our culture is set up so that that's more

01:03:24.560 and more the case.

01:03:25.520 But then there's another issue too that I

01:03:27.200 think is equally relevant.

01:03:28.820 You see, the worship of the intellect in

01:03:32.440 and of itself has this danger of pride that's

01:03:38.260 associated with it.

01:03:39.280 And it's a very big danger.

01:03:40.600 So, the way we should be conceptualizing

01:03:43.180 intelligence is the manner in which gifts

01:03:46.780 are portrayed in the gospel accounts, for

01:03:49.040 example.

01:03:49.560 So, one of the things, Christ says two

01:03:51.600 things that are in some ways contradictory.

01:03:55.000 One of them is that to those who have

01:03:57.420 everything, more will be given.

01:04:00.080 And from those who have nothing, everything

01:04:01.980 will be taken.

01:04:04.420 Okay, so that's the Matthew principle.

01:04:06.740 That's what the economists call it.

01:04:08.300 And it is a pointer to the fact that

01:04:11.360 resources accrue, regardless of the

01:04:16.520 discipline, resources accrue in the hands

01:04:18.360 of a few.

01:04:19.560 It doesn't matter what the discipline is.

01:04:21.940 And that's what Marx observed when he

01:04:23.540 said that capital would accrue in the

01:04:24.960 hands of fewer and fewer people.

01:04:26.680 Now, that's true.

01:04:27.780 It happens all the time.

01:04:28.680 It happens in every society.

01:04:30.600 And it doesn't matter whether it's a

01:04:32.580 capitalist society or a socialist society,

01:04:34.440 by the way.

01:04:34.980 And so, he attributed that to capitalism,

01:04:36.900 which meant he misdiagnosed the problem

01:04:38.700 because it's way deeper than capitalism.

01:04:41.080 But it is the case that rewards are

01:04:43.400 differentially distributed.

01:04:45.940 Okay.

01:04:46.560 And that those in the higher echelons of

01:04:49.100 the cognitive distribution are more

01:04:50.980 likely to accrue those rewards.

01:04:52.860 But there's another statement there that's

01:04:54.640 also relevant, which is that to those who

01:04:57.880 have been given much, much will be

01:04:59.460 required.

01:05:00.940 And so, this is a very useful thing to

01:05:02.880 know.

01:05:03.060 So, like, I had clients in my clinical

01:05:05.140 practice who were very creative.

01:05:07.000 Now, that's also an innate proclivity.

01:05:11.180 So, creative people, they have a wide

01:05:15.260 ideational space.

01:05:16.960 So, one idea is likely for them to

01:05:18.980 remind them of many other ideas and many

01:05:20.740 distal ideas.

01:05:21.900 And they tend to be rapid at generating

01:05:23.780 such ideas.

01:05:25.000 And that's probably something as

01:05:27.920 fundamentally biological as threshold for

01:05:31.120 co-activation of adjoining neurons.

01:05:34.340 Right?

01:05:34.600 It's that low level.

01:05:36.980 Okay.

01:05:37.300 Now, so let's say you're gifted with

01:05:39.080 creativity.

01:05:40.140 Now, let's say that you don't

01:05:43.440 exercise that responsibly.

01:05:45.240 You don't pursue your creative

01:05:46.840 mission.

01:05:49.180 It turns into your enemy.

01:05:52.000 Like, a gift that you misused turns

01:05:53.900 into your enemy.

01:05:54.740 And this is more to the justice elements.

01:05:57.280 Like, you might be rewarded.

01:05:58.440 Like, your IQ is stellar.

01:06:00.760 You wouldn't have accomplished what

01:06:01.940 you've accomplished so far had that not

01:06:03.880 been the case.

01:06:04.620 And you've been successful in multiple

01:06:06.200 different enterprises.

01:06:07.960 And so, you know, thank your lucky

01:06:10.300 stars.

01:06:11.160 Okay.

01:06:11.620 Does that make you privileged?

01:06:13.540 Absolutely.

01:06:14.380 Does it make you unfairly privileged?

01:06:16.880 It depends on what you do with it.

01:06:18.740 Like, if you bore a responsibility that

01:06:21.020 was commensurate with the talent, then

01:06:23.260 you've paid existentially for your gift.

01:06:26.380 And the warning, the classical warning

01:06:29.140 in deep religious texts is that if you

01:06:32.940 misuse a gift that you've been granted,

01:06:35.160 it will become an unbearable burden and

01:06:38.120 turn itself against you.

01:06:39.940 And like, I had plenty of people in my

01:06:41.740 clinical practice who were, they call

01:06:44.860 them, let's say, underachievers.

01:06:48.020 You know, IQ of 140 and a 20th percentile

01:06:52.640 social class position.

01:06:53.940 See, that's a recipe for extreme

01:06:56.160 bitterness.

01:06:57.100 Many of the people who I had in my

01:06:59.180 practice who were like that were

01:07:01.560 unbelievably annoyed that the world

01:07:03.860 hadn't bent itself over to bow at their

01:07:07.200 feet because of their undeniable

01:07:08.620 intellect.

01:07:09.280 And God, the Internet is crowded with

01:07:11.660 people like that.

01:07:12.460 I mean, that's what's that sitcom about

01:07:15.620 the physicists, the Big Bang Theory.

01:07:17.800 All the humor that went along with the

01:07:21.220 Big Bang Theory was essentially at the

01:07:24.120 expense of arrogant but socially 0.92

01:07:26.260 dysfunctional intellectuals. 0.96

01:07:29.060 So there is a justice.

01:07:31.660 This is what I'm pointing to.

01:07:33.500 Independent of the relationship between

01:07:35.560 your intelligence and your social

01:07:36.920 positioning, which looks unjust as hell,

01:07:39.260 there's another form of justice in

01:07:41.220 operation, which is if you're smart, you

01:07:44.460 better learn to be humble and you better

01:07:46.320 learn to be grateful for the fact that

01:07:47.980 you've been gifted and you better take

01:07:49.660 that on as a serious responsibility, like

01:07:51.760 a serious moral responsibility, because

01:07:53.940 if you don't, it will work against you.

01:07:56.080 And if you're super smart and your

01:07:57.920 intellect is working against you, you

01:07:59.920 are in serious trouble.

01:08:02.300 So that's where I see the justice

01:08:04.420 element of that.

01:08:06.240 So, OK, so you're when did your book

01:08:08.900 launch?

01:08:09.760 My book came out in February.

01:08:12.340 And how's it doing?

01:08:13.900 It's doing well.

01:08:14.500 My publishers seem happy.

01:08:16.480 I'm happy with the response.

01:08:18.160 I, you know, I frankly got I got more

01:08:20.000 of a response to it than I was

01:08:22.100 anticipating.

01:08:22.880 So I count that as a huge success.

01:08:25.720 Hmm.

01:08:26.440 Hmm.

01:08:26.980 OK, so in what way did you get a

01:08:29.100 bigger response?

01:08:29.900 And what's been the varieties of the

01:08:32.220 response?

01:08:33.200 I mean, and I guess I'm curious about.

01:08:37.940 Well, you know, you're one of the

01:08:39.540 you're a rare.

01:08:41.140 You're a rare figure politically in

01:08:44.420 some ways, I suppose, in some

01:08:46.980 manners akin to Thomas Sowell, which

01:08:49.320 is a good mantle to to have to be

01:08:52.100 cloaked in for sure.

01:08:53.540 But like what what's the most

01:08:56.180 effective criticism, would you say,

01:08:58.100 of the positions that you've taken?

01:08:59.940 If you had to steal man, the people

01:09:01.700 who are opposed to the notion of

01:09:03.080 colorblindness, I want to add one

01:09:04.720 thing to that.

01:09:05.860 You know, James Lindsay, who's not

01:09:07.980 very fond of the communists, says all

01:09:10.080 the time, and this goes to the

01:09:11.360 radical leftists, that it's always

01:09:12.680 about the revolution, you know, and

01:09:14.880 so the attack on meritocracy, let's

01:09:17.920 say, and the attack on colorblindness.

01:09:19.860 And I believe this to be the case is

01:09:21.720 just another way of furthering the

01:09:23.880 kind of race consciousness that can

01:09:26.540 be transformed into the kind of class

01:09:28.380 consciousness that can further the

01:09:30.480 anti-patriarchal and anti-capitalist

01:09:32.520 revolution.

01:09:33.660 And so I don't believe that people

01:09:35.820 like Ibram Kendi and Robin Di

01:09:37.680 D'Angelo are that much concerned at

01:09:39.780 all about fostering better

01:09:42.440 relationships between the race.

01:09:43.980 They're just using the enhancement

01:09:46.700 of race consciousness as a adjunct to

01:09:49.820 what Marx was trying to do when he

01:09:51.260 tried to foster class consciousness so

01:09:53.160 that, you know, the glorious

01:09:54.860 revolution can proceed.

01:09:56.540 And, you know, you have to break some

01:09:59.140 eggs to make an omelet, as the

01:10:01.060 communists are so much inclined to say.

01:10:03.120 And if people are disunited in their

01:10:07.220 racial identity, but that furthers the 0.94

01:10:08.960 revolution, well, you know, it doesn't

01:10:11.900 matter because the utopia is

01:10:13.300 forthcoming.

01:10:14.620 And so that's what I see fundamentally

01:10:17.960 motivating the people who oppose the

01:10:19.620 idea of colorblindness.

01:10:20.740 Like, of course, it's a difficult goal.

01:10:24.060 I mean, it's very difficult to bring

01:10:25.660 diverse people into a union, obviously.

01:10:29.820 And you also pointed to something very

01:10:31.720 interesting that's paradoxical in the

01:10:34.340 leftist formulation.

01:10:35.640 It's like, okay, it's diversity,

01:10:37.320 inclusivity, and equity.

01:10:38.840 Well, let's just toss equity out of, or 0.98

01:10:40.680 let's just toss inclusivity out of the

01:10:42.460 equation for a moment.

01:10:44.320 Diversity and equity.

01:10:47.580 Well, how do those go together?

01:10:49.340 This was your point.

01:10:50.800 I see.

01:10:51.340 So we're going to be maximally

01:10:52.900 different.

01:10:54.560 And we're going to celebrate that.

01:10:56.360 But all the differences between us are

01:10:59.060 going to be eradicated.

01:11:00.800 And we're going to do those both at the

01:11:02.460 same time.

01:11:03.340 That's the theory.

01:11:04.320 That's your theory.

01:11:06.260 You know, it's...

01:11:07.840 No, it's funny when you put it that

01:11:09.640 way.

01:11:09.900 I mean, it really is directly

01:11:12.100 contradictory.

01:11:12.980 I want to pick up on what you said

01:11:14.760 here, James Lindsay.

01:11:17.900 And I mean, the point that I hear you

01:11:20.780 making is about pretext.

01:11:23.280 I mean, often in life, we think we're

01:11:26.280 doing one thing for one reason, but

01:11:29.040 we're actually doing it for a totally

01:11:31.040 different reason.

01:11:32.340 And often that other reason is

01:11:34.240 unflattering.

01:11:36.400 You know, we claim to be doing

01:11:37.920 something out of moral concern, but

01:11:39.700 it's very quickly revealed with two

01:11:42.760 seconds of thought to be coming from

01:11:44.920 envy or revenge.

01:11:47.340 I mean, this is like human psychology

01:11:50.000 one-on-one is that sometimes we're even

01:11:52.560 blind to our own pretexts.

01:11:54.040 So more and more, I think about political

01:11:59.480 projects as pretextual because the

01:12:03.860 contradictions, you know, so often reveal

01:12:06.360 themselves.

01:12:06.760 So for example, Ibram Kendi is, you know,

01:12:09.980 his whole book is about equal results.

01:12:12.880 And the idea that, you know, if black 0.95

01:12:15.900 people are 13% of the population, black 0.85

01:12:18.400 people should be 13% of people in prison 0.87

01:12:21.360 and no more, 13% of the wealth, 13% of

01:12:24.540 the teachers, 13% of the nurses, 13% of

01:12:27.100 every single domain.

01:12:28.680 And he, he is apparently very consistent

01:12:32.280 about this.

01:12:33.200 And, and that's his worldview.

01:12:37.560 Okay.

01:12:37.760 So putting that, putting that to the

01:12:38.940 side, take it at face value.

01:12:41.360 Why is it that someone like him and the

01:12:44.700 people he disagrees with have never once,

01:12:47.960 and I really mean never once highlighted

01:12:50.940 all the domains in which white 0.72

01:12:53.400 Americans are underrepresented in good

01:12:55.980 things or are, or overrepresented in

01:12:58.600 bad things.

01:12:59.180 So for example, suicide, no small issue,

01:13:03.460 white Americans much more likely to die of 0.92

01:13:05.540 suicide than black Americans. 1.00

01:13:07.560 Um, in my alcoholism to alcoholism and 0.99

01:13:10.480 drunk driving.

01:13:11.520 And my, in my book, I list nine different 0.99

01:13:14.160 diseases that white people are more 0.97

01:13:16.120 likely to die of now is my point that 1.00

01:13:18.940 white people are on the whole worse off 1.00

01:13:20.880 than black people. 1.00

01:13:21.540 No, that's a total, it's nothing to do

01:13:23.520 with what I'm saying.

01:13:24.200 What I'm saying is that if your

01:13:26.480 philosophy at a deep level were about

01:13:30.360 equal results for equal races, then you

01:13:33.760 would expect someone like him to

01:13:35.960 highlight those disparities as well.

01:13:38.380 Right.

01:13:38.680 If it were about disparity as such.

01:13:41.180 Now, understanding that so much of human

01:13:44.200 behavior is a pretext for more base

01:13:47.380 motives, what does it tell you that they

01:13:50.740 only ever care about the disparities that 0.95

01:13:54.020 black people are on the worst end of? 0.98

01:13:56.200 I think that the whole equity, uh, uh, 0.98

01:14:00.320 campaign is a pretext for what is at base

01:14:04.140 just, you know, black and brown identity

01:14:07.340 politics.

01:14:08.780 That that's all it is.

01:14:10.000 It's, it's, it's my group.

01:14:11.920 It's, I like my group and I want us to

01:14:15.000 advance to equal or even greater than

01:14:18.420 other groups.

01:14:19.520 It's, it's, I think it's worse than that

01:14:21.900 Coleman.

01:14:22.420 I think it's worse.

01:14:23.320 I think when we're speaking about

01:14:25.460 pretexts, like there are layers of

01:14:28.180 pretext.

01:14:29.020 And I, I think it's, and I'm interested

01:14:31.320 in your view.

01:14:32.140 I think it's, I'm going to make a case

01:14:34.960 that I like my group better because that's

01:14:37.820 to my advantage and I can cover that

01:14:40.600 advantage by claiming, um, what would

01:14:43.460 you say moral superiority as an avatar of

01:14:46.260 my racial community?

01:14:47.580 That's right.

01:14:48.100 So it's like, yeah, it's my race first,

01:14:50.320 but not really.

01:14:51.260 It's me.

01:14:52.680 See, I see this with the activist types

01:14:54.780 all the time.

01:14:55.480 It's like the trans community. 0.91

01:14:57.520 Well, first of all, no, it's not a

01:14:59.500 community by any stretch of the

01:15:01.220 imagination, by any standards.

01:15:03.540 And you're actually not a

01:15:05.820 representative.

01:15:06.880 You're just happened to be a member of

01:15:08.560 that group and no one's given you the

01:15:10.620 power to do the negotiating or the

01:15:12.560 speaking on behalf of your community.

01:15:14.460 And you're clearly doing it only for

01:15:17.020 your own narcissistic advantage.

01:15:19.240 You know, and this is a very complicated

01:15:20.940 thing to sort through, right?

01:15:22.320 Because that rejoinder could be thrown

01:15:25.760 back at either of us.

01:15:27.060 You know, I could say, well, the reason

01:15:28.380 that you're promoting colorblindness is

01:15:31.020 because you have a book and now you're on

01:15:32.640 this podcast, you're, you know, sawing

01:15:35.640 the fiddle with regards to the sales of

01:15:37.580 your book and it's all about you.

01:15:40.040 It's a very dismal worldview to assume

01:15:42.360 that all human motivation can be boiled

01:15:45.920 down to, you know, narrow self

01:15:48.760 aggrandizement.

01:15:51.420 And I certainly don't think it's true in

01:15:53.460 any regard, but it's definitely the case

01:15:57.300 that much of what we see that's political

01:15:59.200 is a pretext for something that's deeper.

01:16:02.320 And I'm at the deepest levels, too.

01:16:04.940 I think it's not only self

01:16:07.220 aggrandizement that's at the root of,

01:16:10.360 let's say, the demand for equity.

01:16:11.480 It's also an envy and resentment that's

01:16:15.140 rapacious beyond comprehension.

01:16:18.140 There's no satisfying that demand.

01:16:20.340 I mean, all you have to do is think about

01:16:22.200 it technically for a minute.

01:16:23.480 It's like, OK, apart from the issues

01:16:26.900 you brought up, right, which is that

01:16:29.380 there's all sorts of situations, like

01:16:31.560 the feminists never complain about the 1.00

01:16:33.520 dearth of women in bricklaying, for 1.00

01:16:35.200 example.

01:16:35.600 It's always the C-suite.

01:16:37.560 And so you just see that everywhere. 0.94

01:16:40.660 It's like, OK, well, how black do you 0.98

01:16:43.160 have to be before the equity

01:16:45.540 distribution kicks in?

01:16:47.840 Like, and what are we going to do?

01:16:49.060 Are we going to DNA test everyone?

01:16:51.880 I think my wife is 3% African-American. 1.00

01:16:54.640 I can't remember if that's the case.

01:16:56.780 It's something like that.

01:16:57.720 So she's more black than Elizabeth 0.99

01:16:59.800 Warren was Native American when she 0.92

01:17:01.580 claimed to be Native American.

01:17:04.760 Well, but that begs the question.

01:17:08.300 It's like, well, is this a genetic

01:17:09.600 identity?

01:17:11.120 And if it's not a genetic identity, well,

01:17:12.920 is it one you can just adopt?

01:17:14.280 That's the Rachel, what was her name? 0.58

01:17:15.800 Donizel?

01:17:16.380 Dolezal, yeah.

01:17:17.020 Problem?

01:17:18.280 Dolezal, Dolezal.

01:17:19.300 Right, right.

01:17:19.920 It's like, well, if it's not, if it's

01:17:21.500 racial, is it genetic?

01:17:22.740 And if it's not genetic, is it

01:17:24.040 cultural?

01:17:24.560 And of course, the leftists insist

01:17:25.920 that everything is cultural. 0.89

01:17:27.700 So how the hell do you define black?

01:17:29.600 And the answer is, well, it doesn't 0.83

01:17:31.260 matter because that's not the issue.

01:17:33.620 Right?

01:17:33.900 The fact that that leads to all sorts

01:17:35.900 of logical contradictions and could

01:17:37.460 never be implemented is completely

01:17:38.820 irrelevant to the game that's, to

01:17:41.180 the power game that's being played.

01:17:44.140 Now, and so how do you know, how do

01:17:45.880 you know, let's take that apart.

01:17:48.380 You can ask me too.

01:17:49.560 Like, how do you know that you're not

01:17:51.220 doing exactly what you accuse, in

01:17:53.580 some ways, you accuse D'Angelo and

01:17:55.420 Kendi of doing?

01:17:56.540 Like, you know, you've been

01:17:58.180 successful for quite a long time, and

01:18:00.200 you've been successful in part because

01:18:01.920 you focused on racial issues.

01:18:03.820 Now, so that's what the harshest of

01:18:07.180 critics could say, and I'm sure that

01:18:09.100 sort of thing is being said to you.

01:18:10.360 Like, how do you personally,

01:18:12.160 it's very worthwhile to be attuned to

01:18:17.920 your own shortcomings.

01:18:19.040 Absolutely, yeah.

01:18:19.800 And to note that there's good

01:18:21.700 rationale for your, there's always a

01:18:23.960 rationalization at hand to put a moral

01:18:26.240 gloss on your comparative success.

01:18:28.680 It's like, what do you have, do you

01:18:31.420 think, in check that helps you stay on

01:18:37.100 the straight, narrow path?

01:18:38.440 Yep, so I think that the only way you

01:18:41.760 can really tell from the outside is

01:18:45.040 whether someone sticks to their

01:18:46.520 positions when it doesn't benefit

01:18:48.160 them.

01:18:49.340 And this is what you can say.

01:18:51.400 I mean, this is the, what separates

01:18:52.880 someone like Bernie Sanders.

01:18:54.820 He's the quintessential example of

01:18:56.780 this from many people that hold his

01:18:59.800 position is whatever you want to say

01:19:02.220 about Bernie Sanders. 0.99

01:19:03.120 He could be a total, total Satan in, 0.98

01:19:05.780 in your worldview.

01:19:06.600 He was saying all the things he was

01:19:09.420 saying today when it benefited him

01:19:11.680 not at all.

01:19:13.000 When, when really all, all it, all,

01:19:14.960 you know, decades ago, he was just

01:19:17.120 such a, such an outlier that he really

01:19:21.980 saw very little benefit politically and

01:19:24.300 from what he was saying.

01:19:26.500 And he just continued saying it, right?

01:19:29.600 Whereas, you know, virtual, you know,

01:19:31.920 someone like Kamala Harris, you know, 0.82

01:19:33.920 nobody knows what she actually thinks

01:19:35.580 because she has flip-flopped on every

01:19:37.560 issue just in the past month.

01:19:39.820 She was against the death penalty,

01:19:41.400 then she was for it.

01:19:42.520 And then she, you know, so she seems

01:19:44.320 much more like an empty vessel who will

01:19:45.940 say whatever she has to say to get to

01:19:48.480 the next rung.

01:19:50.040 And many politicians are like that.

01:19:51.820 I don't mean to single out Kamala Harris,

01:19:54.020 but, you know, what I can say for myself,

01:19:56.820 and I think any of my close friends would

01:19:58.860 vouch for this, is before I had any public

01:20:02.020 profile, before I was a writer of any

01:20:05.120 kind, I was annoying my friends by talking

01:20:07.540 about these same issues when all it did

01:20:10.600 was like get me a reputation for being

01:20:13.540 the, well, frankly, at Columbia, it got me

01:20:16.900 a reputation for being some kind of right

01:20:19.380 winger, which I never have been.

01:20:21.440 So when it was only really a minus in my

01:20:25.760 life, I still represented what I believed

01:20:29.860 a hundred percent.

01:20:31.140 And of course, from the outside, there's no

01:20:32.600 way to verify that, but it's true.

01:20:36.100 So.

01:20:36.980 Well, there's some, there's some ways,

01:20:38.480 there is some ways of verifying that

01:20:40.020 because, you know, we could look into the

01:20:42.400 details of your autobiographical history.

01:20:44.360 And I think you have put your finger on,

01:20:46.960 on something that's relevant.

01:20:48.320 I mean, one of the ways we do evaluate

01:20:50.760 people for their moral propriety and

01:20:53.160 reliability is their consistency during

01:20:56.300 times of distress, you know, and so, so

01:20:59.860 what I would say for myself, this is a

01:21:02.340 relevant day to discuss this because the

01:21:04.340 Supreme Court of Canada just ruled against

01:21:06.320 me today in relationship to my battle with

01:21:09.500 the College of Psychologists.

01:21:11.740 I mean, the stance I've taken, what's

01:21:14.900 happened to me is that vast fields of

01:21:18.100 opportunity have emerged for me over the

01:21:20.600 last six years.

01:21:21.580 Now, I like to think I laid the groundwork

01:21:23.280 for that for like 30 years beforehand, but

01:21:25.560 it's still the case.

01:21:28.100 But, you know, I, my job at the university

01:21:31.700 became impossible and I lost my clinical

01:21:33.620 practice and that was quite sudden.

01:21:35.880 And, you know, that, so do I believe what

01:21:39.680 I'm saying?

01:21:40.220 Well, I believed what I was saying enough

01:21:41.640 to put that on the line, right?

01:21:43.640 And I could have backed off, although not

01:21:46.140 really, but in principle, I could have backed

01:21:48.680 off.

01:21:49.140 So you're saying it's something like, I think

01:21:51.220 this is right.

01:21:51.920 It's something like the cost of the

01:21:54.320 sacrifice that's associated with the views.

01:21:56.760 This is another problem with casual

01:21:58.740 activism, you know, because if you agitate

01:22:02.140 for something and it happens and goes

01:22:04.420 cataclysmically wrong, you, you don't pay

01:22:06.820 the price for that.

01:22:08.000 The people whose lives you were messing about

01:22:12.360 with pay the price for that.

01:22:14.260 And so that false ideological activism

01:22:17.840 that's a pretext, let's say, doesn't come

01:22:20.700 along with any commensurate cost.

01:22:23.260 It just gives you the advantage of appearing

01:22:26.280 moral in the moment.

01:22:27.900 And I guess, I mean, I think the conservative

01:22:31.240 thinkers have thought about that more in terms

01:22:33.240 of skin in the game, right?

01:22:34.540 Is that if you're not risking something for

01:22:36.500 your view, then legitimate questions about

01:22:41.440 the rationale for your view can be raised.

01:22:44.960 Speaking about the view, let's talk about

01:22:47.780 what happened to you when you went on the

01:22:49.300 view.

01:22:49.720 So walk us through that story a little bit.

01:22:51.920 Yeah.

01:22:52.200 So I was, I was asked to appear on the view,

01:22:54.660 which is not a show that would be friendly

01:22:59.100 to my perspective, at least in my assumption.

01:23:01.940 Um, and I went on there and I had a good

01:23:06.580 exchange with Whoopi Goldberg where we

01:23:08.740 disagreed respectfully.

01:23:10.820 Um, and then Sunny Hauston, uh, who, you

01:23:16.060 know, she essentially asked me, kind of

01:23:19.480 accused me of this very question.

01:23:21.160 She said, um, you know, a lot of people

01:23:25.020 say that you basically been co-opted by the

01:23:28.440 far right.

01:23:29.560 And, uh, what do you have to say about

01:23:31.320 that and, and obviously her, her way of 0.97

01:23:33.680 distancing herself from the, the opinion

01:23:36.340 she was distancing, distancing herself from

01:23:38.600 opinion that she actually held.

01:23:39.920 But, and I, I, I think the reason it went

01:23:43.860 viral is because I responded in a calm and

01:23:47.260 fact-based way to what was just an evidence

01:23:51.920 free attack on my character.

01:23:53.880 Right.

01:23:54.500 They like, there's, there's no evidence

01:23:56.000 I've been co-opted by the right. 0.86

01:23:58.440 Um, there's no evidence that I'm getting Coke

01:24:01.720 money pumped into my bank account, uh, in

01:24:04.600 exchange for saying the things that I'm

01:24:06.280 saying.

01:24:06.700 And as I, as I pointed out to you, you know,

01:24:09.860 everyone who, who, who knew me years before I

01:24:13.220 had any inkling of fame knew that I was the

01:24:17.200 kind of person to hold these kinds of views

01:24:19.500 privately, um, when it was very unpopular to

01:24:23.940 do so.

01:24:24.480 So, uh, so I just pointed that out and I think,

01:24:28.500 you know, the, it was the contrast between her

01:24:31.300 deranged evidence-free character attack, her very

01:24:35.260 cable newsy click-baity, um, you know, uh, character

01:24:41.180 assassination and my calm, substantive answer.

01:24:45.140 That's something you don't see very often on

01:24:48.180 primetime television.

01:24:50.520 And just that contrast, I think, uh, went so viral

01:24:54.960 that people were coming up to me on the street

01:24:57.380 consistently for, for like two months, uh, having

01:25:00.180 seen that clip, sorry.

01:25:02.060 And then the other funny aspect I think is that

01:25:04.060 she offhandedly claimed that she, you know, knew

01:25:08.400 Martin Luther King's daughter, which I imagine is

01:25:10.700 true.

01:25:11.360 Um, and that therefore she had more kind of a

01:25:15.020 deeper insight into MLK's message, uh, than me, uh,

01:25:19.740 which is, it's a total non sequitur of course.

01:25:22.260 And she, she got Martin Luther King's views all

01:25:24.640 kinds of wrong in ways that I pointed out, but I

01:25:27.420 think people found that humorous.

01:25:30.180 Mm-hmm.

01:25:31.060 Mm-hmm.

01:25:31.660 Well, we could go back to that issue of color

01:25:33.740 blindness and, and to Toronto.

01:25:35.400 I mean, it was a lovely thing as far as I was

01:25:37.180 concerned to see that that characterized Toronto.

01:25:41.120 And at that time, so let's say that was 15 years

01:25:44.180 ago, 10 to 15 years ago, that was sort of

01:25:47.420 emblematic of Canada.

01:25:49.560 Like we'd actually done a pretty damn successful

01:25:51.580 job of that.

01:25:52.460 I mean, there's not a hundred percent, but pretty

01:25:55.300 good and really good in Toronto.

01:25:57.420 And it's really been saddening to see that

01:26:01.400 disappear.

01:26:02.400 And it has raised the question for me is, well, why

01:26:04.820 would you want to disrupt that?

01:26:06.320 And if the goal is, well, the overthrow of the

01:26:11.180 oppressive patriarchy and the freeing of the victims,

01:26:14.300 then any movement, I think it's the same thing that

01:26:17.640 happened to the bloody communists.

01:26:19.100 When capitalism, that terrible word, when the free 0.95

01:26:23.140 market endeavor turned out to actually reward

01:26:26.600 productive workers effectively enough so they

01:26:29.300 moved out of the class of poverty.

01:26:31.300 I mean, Henry Ford did a stellar job of that, right?

01:26:33.460 He famously overpaid his line workers.

01:26:37.180 He paid them enough so they could buy the cars they

01:26:39.140 were producing.

01:26:40.380 And I mean, you could hardly accuse Henry Ford of

01:26:42.780 being anything other than a capitalist because, you

01:26:45.160 know, by the leftist definition, he certainly was.

01:26:47.380 And what happened as the free market systems

01:26:49.900 expanded was that the poor got a lot richer.

01:26:53.420 The working class, the productive working class

01:26:55.500 got a lot richer.

01:26:56.920 Now, the rich got a lot richer too.

01:26:59.180 And the difference in wealth distribution remained

01:27:03.040 relatively constant.

01:27:04.180 But it's definitely the case that no other system than

01:27:07.760 the free market system has lifted people out of

01:27:09.880 poverty.

01:27:10.500 That's kind of rough on the communists because it

01:27:12.500 makes it harder to develop that kind of class

01:27:14.560 consciousness that would motivate the

01:27:17.100 revolution.

01:27:17.820 And switching that to the racial side, well, that's

01:27:20.420 pretty good.

01:27:20.940 Or the sex side or the ethnicity or gender side.

01:27:24.520 It just opens up all sorts of new axes for the

01:27:27.920 revolutionary spirit.

01:27:29.720 And it's a very effective move.

01:27:32.120 I think there's a similar dynamic going on right now

01:27:34.820 between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party,

01:27:37.460 which is to say, you know, since the great awokening of

01:27:42.960 2014, when mainstream media outlets began using terms like

01:27:48.940 systemic racism and white supremacy, tenfold,

01:27:52.720 twentyfold, what they had been for the previous many,

01:27:56.820 many decades, since the phenomenon of woke social

01:28:00.880 justice, et cetera.

01:28:02.520 What you've seen, you know, if you're on the left, what you

01:28:06.420 would have predicted is that black voters, Hispanic voters

01:28:11.360 would be going even more to the Democratic side and that

01:28:16.460 perhaps white voters would be going in the other direction.

01:28:19.360 What's happened is strangely the exact opposite, which is to

01:28:23.320 say in the past eight years, Republicans have been doing better

01:28:28.800 and better with black and Hispanic voters.

01:28:31.080 There is now no one serious who denies that that is a trend.

01:28:35.620 You can argue over how big the trend is, but you actually can't

01:28:39.540 argue that it's not a trend.

01:28:41.100 The reason that Joe Biden beat Donald Trump in 2020 was not

01:28:47.120 because he did better with black and Hispanic voters.

01:28:51.380 It was because he won a lot of white voters from Donald Trump.

01:28:55.640 So really, white voters were...

01:28:57.380 Especially women. 1.00

01:28:57.720 Yeah, and even white men in some places.

01:29:03.320 So, but this is fundamentally, I mean, similar to your point about

01:29:06.780 where workers actually vote with their feet in situations of

01:29:10.520 communism versus capitalism.

01:29:12.020 There's something very counter-narrative happening in terms of

01:29:16.840 just who people are voting for, right?

01:29:18.700 And I think it's embarrassing for Democrats.

01:29:23.900 I don't think that they understand it.

01:29:25.840 It doesn't match their model of political science.

01:29:32.320 And it's, you know, I mean, so the question is, why is that

01:29:35.800 happening, right?

01:29:37.400 Okay, so let's do this because we're running out of steam and

01:29:41.040 time here on the YouTube side.

01:29:43.440 Let's reserve our discussion of the political situation in the

01:29:46.940 U.S. for the Daily Wire side.

01:29:49.540 Cool.

01:29:49.840 So, yeah, and we can spend half an hour talking about that.

01:29:53.140 And for everybody who's watching and listening, you could turn your

01:29:55.560 attention to that additional segment of this podcast for that discussion

01:29:59.660 because that is something I wanted to delve in with you anyways, and

01:30:02.800 that'll make a nice piece in and of itself.

01:30:05.220 So let's close this up.

01:30:07.780 Tell everybody again the title of your book.

01:30:10.000 The book is called The End of Race Politics, Arguments for a Colorblind America.

01:30:15.160 You can buy it on Amazon.

01:30:16.700 You can also listen to me.

01:30:17.760 I narrate it myself on the Audible version.

01:30:22.380 Right, right.

01:30:23.080 So anybody who's interested in these issues is well advised to take that up.

01:30:27.260 And so, well, good luck with its continuing sales.

01:30:31.100 What are you, what's next?

01:30:32.880 You finished a book.

01:30:33.780 You're going around speaking about it.

01:30:35.260 That's obviously occupying a tremendous amount of your time.

01:30:37.780 You made a foray in the musical direction as well at some point in the not so

01:30:41.620 distant past, like what's on your plate over the next year or so?

01:30:47.100 What are you, what are you looking forward to in planning?

01:30:49.320 Well, I may write another book on a topic I won't disclose.

01:30:54.860 But, you know, in the next five months, in the next three months, I think I'm like many

01:31:00.940 people in our profession, you know, covering the election closely, both for the free, free

01:31:06.460 press with Barry Weiss and at CNN and on my own podcast.

01:31:11.480 So that's probably going to take up the majority of my time in the next three, four months.

01:31:16.000 Right.

01:31:16.320 Tell everybody again about your podcast, too.

01:31:18.800 It's called Conversations with Coleman.

01:31:20.760 Listen to it wherever you listen to podcasts.

01:31:24.160 All right, sir.

01:31:25.360 All right.

01:31:25.820 Well, thank you to everybody who is watching and listening today and

01:31:29.100 to the film crew here up in northern Ontario and to the Daily Wire for making these YouTube

01:31:35.920 conversations possible and well produced.

01:31:39.480 That's also a plus.

01:31:41.020 Join us on the Daily Wire side and Coleman and I are going to delve into the complexities

01:31:46.500 of the American political situation for half an hour.

01:31:49.360 And that should be very interesting.

01:31:50.760 I'm very curious about your take on what has unfolded and what's likely to unfold in the

01:31:58.920 next, at least the next three months, let's say.

01:32:03.400 Thank you, sir.

01:32:04.760 Thanks for having me.

The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - August 22, 2024

474. Why “Anti-Racism” is the Worst Form of Racism ｜ Coleman Hughes

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript