TRIGGERnometry - August 26, 2026


The Controversial Race Scientist Who Exposed Jason Arday - Nathan Cofnas


Episode Stats


Length

1 hour and 55 minutes

Words per minute

132.05

Word count

15,283

Sentence count

689


Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
00:00:00.800 You are the best in the world in terms of the research that you do.
00:00:06.000 Jason Arday has resigned following a row about plagiarism.
00:00:11.120 This is breaking news. Professor Jason Arday has been found dead.
00:00:15.600 One of the leading people campaigning against him was Nathan Kaffner.
00:00:22.960 A white Jewish man who is a white supremacist.
00:00:26.160 This is a story of corruption, of people who knew the truth, who used to threat legal intimidation
00:00:34.780 to silence people, including journalists who tried to tell the truth.
00:00:39.740 Nathan Kofnus, welcome to Trigonometry.
00:00:43.160 Trigonometry is proudly independent and sponsors like Hillsdale College make that possible.
00:00:48.080 Access their free library of world-class educational courses at hillsdale.edu slash trigger.
00:00:56.160 Many of you have commented that you are seeing too many ads in our videos. We've listened to
00:01:01.000 your feedback and disabled YouTube ads in the middle of our interviews. Can we ask you a favor
00:01:05.380 in return? According to our analytics, most of you who watch our show are not subscribed to the
00:01:10.920 channel. Please help us to continue bringing you fantastic content by subscribing today,
00:01:15.960 hitting that like button, and leaving a comment with your thoughts on this video.
00:01:20.240 Nathan Kofnus, welcome to Trigonometry.
00:01:23.460 Thank you for having me.
00:01:24.580 you are of course the quote-unquote controversial race scientist who was involved in bringing
00:01:32.740 attention to jason ardy's various false claims about his work and other things and you have now
00:01:39.760 yourself become the subject of intense media scrutiny and i'll be honest with you in fact i
00:01:44.700 said this to you when we invited you on the show that uh the subject of your research which we will
00:01:49.880 talk about is not something that we're desperate, necessarily, to cover on the show or have ever
00:01:54.940 been. Partly because it's one of those rare things where it's, on the one hand, extremely
00:02:00.700 toxic and controversial. On the other hand, neither Francis or I are particularly qualified
00:02:05.500 to assess the scientific accuracy or veracity of the things that you say. But we'll talk about it
00:02:10.900 and see how we can discuss it. But the reason we had you on is I'm just not prepared to swallow
00:02:16.420 the hypocrisy that's on display, whereby we've just had a week since Jason Ardley tragically
00:02:22.900 took his own life, where we've been told that it was the media scrutiny and the criticism and the
00:02:28.400 negative attention that caused him to do that. And yet the very people who've been talking about
00:02:34.340 that are now doing exactly the same thing that they said is murderous to you. And I just thought
00:02:39.340 it's outrageous that you're not allowed to even express the things that you're trying to communicate
00:02:44.120 and being shouted down.
00:02:46.300 So that's why you're here.
00:02:48.020 Thank you for coming on.
00:02:49.300 Before we get into both Jason Adi and your research,
00:02:52.640 can you tell us, kind of give us a brief overview
00:02:55.420 of your career today and how you've ended up
00:02:57.860 in the position you've ended up?
00:03:00.820 So to begin, I should say that I'm not here
00:03:05.940 as a quote-unquote race scientist
00:03:07.680 representing Ghent University
00:03:09.880 or in my capacity as an employee at Kent University.
00:03:15.320 Now, okay, my background is in the philosophy of biology.
00:03:21.340 I'm interested in evolutionary theory and how it applies to various questions in science
00:03:27.020 and philosophy, and that includes the questions concerning human evolution and how natural
00:03:33.680 Social selection has created differences in the distribution of traits among human populations
00:03:42.580 that have been separated for an evolutionarily significant period of time.
00:03:47.020 So that's a kind of long way of saying race differences.
00:03:53.680 Now, that's not the only thing I work on, certainly, but that's...
00:03:59.920 That's the less controversial stuff.
00:04:03.320 Can you tell us a little bit about your career?
00:04:06.440 Because the scrutiny you're receiving now is not the first time, perhaps unsurprisingly,
00:04:12.400 given the areas that you research, that you've had various run-ins with various university authorities.
00:04:18.240 Just tell us a little bit about how your actual career has progressed today.
00:04:23.020 So my first mobbing actually was by the right, not the left.
00:04:27.820 It was in 2018 when I published a critique of the evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald,
00:04:38.760 who argues that Judaism is a group evolutionary strategy and that Jews are genetically and culturally adapted to undermine Gentile society for their own benefit.
00:04:50.980 He was the intellectual godfather of the alt-right, which was sort of at its tail end in 2018.
00:04:57.820 when I published the first academic critique of his theory.
00:05:04.060 And it was retweeted by Jordan Peterson,
00:05:09.800 who at the time was wrongly suspected
00:05:15.360 of being sympathetic to the anti-Semitic wing of the alt-right.
00:05:22.140 And then when he outed himself as not an anti-Semite,
00:05:25.960 And there was a huge backlash against him, and then it turned on me.
00:05:33.060 And then after that, actually, the leftists also pounced on me because they said that
00:05:40.780 by responding to Kevin MacDonald's theory, I was legitimizing him.
00:05:44.800 And anyway, my own explanation for Jewish prominence and Jewish overrepresentation in
00:05:52.540 certain fields was itself racist, so I was sort of getting it from both sides from 2018.
00:06:03.940 Then in December 2019, when I was a doctoral student at Oxford, I published a paper in
00:06:16.740 a respected philosophy journal called Philosophical Psychology, where I simply argued that we
00:06:24.660 ought to be allowed to study all possible causes of group differences in intelligence,
00:06:32.420 including genes.
00:06:34.280 And then this triggered a huge backlash.
00:06:37.180 petition to retract the paper, and it got very ugly. And some activist scholars lobbied the
00:06:49.680 editorial board to accept their comment on my paper bypassing the normal peer review process
00:07:00.020 and then denying me the right of reply. In response to that, one of the editors-in-chief
00:07:06.100 of philosophical psychology resigned in protest the other um then apologized for publishing the
00:07:13.220 paper but was fired anyway and uh uh there there are there are a few more there are a few more
00:07:22.220 controversies uh between now and then when i was the biggest one before the r day affair
00:07:28.960 was when i was a lever hume early career fellow in the faculty of philosophy at cambridge after i
00:07:35.260 I received my doctorate from Oxford, I published a paper, first, I published my first essay on
00:07:45.800 Substack in January 2024, which was called Why We Need to Talk About the Right Stupidity Problem.
00:07:53.920 And I presented several lines of evidence that the right people who, although I myself am on
00:08:04.760 the right. People who identify as being on the right tend to be lower human capital than those
00:08:10.220 on the left, that elites lean overwhelmingly left and woke. And I had, even though I think
00:08:17.140 wokeism is incorrect, I explain why this is the case and what the political implications are.
00:08:26.400 Now, no one at Cambridge had any problem with that. No one asks, well, how would a conservative
00:08:31.880 student feel in your, you know, if they heard that you said conservatives have lower IQs,
00:08:40.160 silence from Cambridge. Then a month later, I published an essay called A Guide for the
00:08:47.680 Hereditarian Revolution, where I explained that wokeism is the ideology that stems from
00:08:55.720 the denial of group differences. The only way to stop wokeism is to talk about differences
00:09:01.460 and it included a frank discussion of what the differences are and what the consequences would
00:09:07.320 be in the United States if there were no affirmative action, what the consequences
00:09:12.380 would be for representation of certain groups, particularly African-Americans.
00:09:18.740 And there was a huge backlash to that. And the university placed me under investigation for a
00:09:26.460 year and a half, although ultimately exonerating me, my college, which was a manual college,
00:09:33.060 terminated my unpaid affiliation with them on the grounds that my essay is or could be construed as
00:09:43.900 a rejection of the values of diversity, equality, and inclusion. And I've sued them for belief
00:09:51.180 discrimination and that case is still ongoing okay nathan before we francis one second sorry
00:09:58.120 before before francis gets into the jason ardy affair with you can i just ask a bit of a kind
00:10:05.220 of personal like what why do you do this clearly you're going around upsetting everybody left right
00:10:10.840 up down center with your uh opinions and the facts that you believe are important to bring to the
00:10:19.260 table. What motivates you to do all of this? So the first, the understanding group differences,
00:10:33.720 the simply the fact that there are different distributions and different means of socially
00:10:40.040 relevant traits between different groups, besides being, in my opinion, intrinsically interesting
00:10:46.160 and as a way of something that's key to understanding
00:10:49.740 the evolution of intelligence and human evolution in general
00:10:53.200 is key to understanding so many social phenomena.
00:10:57.020 Like, the world makes no sense.
00:10:59.120 If you think that the average person in the Congo
00:11:02.220 is born exactly the same as the average person in Japan,
00:11:06.340 the world makes no sense.
00:11:08.000 It's very...
00:11:08.840 The only conclusion is that there are some mystical forces
00:11:12.540 of injustice that are permeating the earth
00:11:17.300 and depriving huge groups, billions of people,
00:11:22.940 the opportunity to reach their full potential.
00:11:26.740 And if you're a morally sensitive person,
00:11:30.640 then the most urgent task is to correct the environment,
00:11:37.560 which in practice means white racism, colonialism,
00:11:41.660 something like that.
00:11:42.540 and bring about a quality of outcome.
00:11:45.880 Create a world where everyone can achieve
00:11:47.640 their full potential.
00:11:50.040 So there will be no peace
00:11:53.140 until people learn to accept
00:11:57.440 that certain, not all differences,
00:11:59.700 but sometimes there are differences
00:12:02.480 between groups, on average,
00:12:05.300 that are no one's fault,
00:12:06.680 that are simply the result of nature,
00:12:10.180 And we can learn to be okay with that.
00:12:15.880 So, Nathan, your name became intertwined in the mainstream
00:12:20.540 with the Jason Arde case for obvious reasons.
00:12:23.380 But before you published that substack,
00:12:26.740 how did you first encounter Jason Arde and his work?
00:12:32.080 Like many people, I read the headlines in 2023
00:12:35.580 when he was hired and touted as being this formerly illiterate,
00:12:44.580 somebody who had various accomplishments,
00:12:48.920 seemingly implausible accomplishments in athletics and other fields,
00:12:54.140 and was now the youngest Black professor
00:12:59.140 in the history of Cambridge University,
00:13:00.900 and not only a professor, but a chair professor,
00:13:03.100 in a very exalted position.
00:13:05.580 So I assumed that it was just a regular DEI hire
00:13:12.180 and I didn't think much of it.
00:13:16.260 Then on June 13th,
00:13:20.520 I was contacted by a whistleblower
00:13:23.640 on the faculty at Cambridge
00:13:25.300 who told me that it has been known
00:13:29.140 by the majority of professors at Cambridge
00:13:32.560 for more than a year
00:13:33.680 that Arday is a plagiarist and a fabulist
00:13:36.800 and totally unqualified for his job.
00:13:39.680 But the rumor, the knowledge of these facts
00:13:45.360 has not escaped Cambridge
00:13:47.100 because everyone is intimidated by the administration.
00:13:51.660 They fear being called racist
00:13:53.060 or that the administration will retaliate against them
00:13:55.660 if they say anything.
00:13:56.720 There wasn't so much as a single tweet,
00:13:58.460 even though thousands of people knew about this story.
00:14:01.480 And of course, as everyone knows,
00:14:02.720 There were journalists who tried to write about it, most notably Jack Grove at Times Higher Education, who were then shut down with threatening lawyers, defamation lawyers, who were making veiled legal threats against, if you would publish this information, you're harming Professor Arday, and it's based on racism.
00:14:26.460 Racism is the only reason somebody would criticize Arday.
00:14:30.000 So, I started looking into it after I got this tip, and it was very easy to discover first the claims that Arday was making about his personal life were absurd or impossible and or contradicted publicly available evidence.
00:14:53.000 evidence. Now, in my expose, I didn't take a definitive position on whether he had actually
00:15:02.340 run 600 miles in six days and whether he had really been nonverbal until age 11. I just
00:15:09.520 said, like, this doesn't seem to add up, but I'm going to focus on the plagiarism and
00:15:15.500 the quality of his work, because that's something that I can say a comment on, given the evidence
00:15:21.540 available to me at this moment.
00:15:25.000 And you have to note that when I published the essay on July 21st, it was very different
00:15:37.340 on that morning calling Jason Arde a fraud than it is today.
00:15:43.320 He was a respected professor backed by dozens of prestigious institutions and Cambridge
00:15:51.060 And all I knew is that somebody had tried to write about it and got shut down by legal threats, which meant that they thought that the threats had some sort of merit, right?
00:16:03.140 And who knows what Arde can do?
00:16:05.160 Like, he could get some fake doctor to claim that, yeah, I saw Arde and he couldn't speak until age 11.
00:16:12.440 And, you know, then I'm in court under cross-examination trying and having to prove a negative.
00:16:18.200 So I thought that there was a more than 50% chance that I would be dragged to court with a vexatious lawsuit, either by Arday or Cambridge.
00:16:31.060 But it turned out that within a few days, popular opinion kind of turned favorable to my position that Arday had, in fact, was a fraud.
00:16:48.200 A few weeks ago, we pointed you toward Hillsdale's free course on the Odyssey.
00:16:52.140 The course has been so popular that when they told us they'd built a follow-up course on Homer's Iliad,
00:16:57.220 we wanted you to hear about it first.
00:16:59.360 Hillsdale College's new free online course is taught by Professor Stephen Smith.
00:17:03.060 It's not a highlight reel, and it's not Homer for beginners.
00:17:06.640 It's a proper walk through the text.
00:17:08.940 Honor, courage, leadership, friendship, sacrifice, and what it means to live a noble life.
00:17:14.740 You come away understanding why Achilles' real fight isn't with the Trojans, it's with himself.
00:17:19.380 This is one of more than 40 free courses Hillsdale offers on the Constitution,
00:17:24.300 the Roman Republic, the American Founding, Genesis, the Second World War, and more.
00:17:28.900 All built the same way, taught properly, and not dumbed down.
00:17:32.020 I couldn't recommend Hillsdale courses more highly.
00:17:34.840 Go to hillsdale.edu slash trigger to enroll for free.
00:17:38.500 That's hillsdale.edu slash trigger.
00:17:40.840 So Nathan, because people have been using this word plagiarism to describe Jason Arde's work,
00:17:49.640 let's delve into that. Exactly what did he plagiarize and how many instances were there
00:17:58.420 of this plagiarism? So in the exposé, I had been tipped off that there was plagiarism in
00:18:04.720 the dissertation that he had copied extensively from another PhD student at Brunel University
00:18:10.080 London, Paula Zwazdiek Myers.
00:18:14.560 So her dissertation was published in 2009, our days in 2015.
00:18:21.960 So that was what I started with.
00:18:23.320 So I just ran his dissertation through copy leaks, and then, you know, out pops, it flags
00:18:30.540 a bunch of plagiarism, not only to Paula, but also to a bunch of other sources.
00:18:36.780 So of course, I had to check everything with myself manually. So I went through passage by passage, and I put Arde's words on one side and then the plagiarized words, which are either bipolar or somebody else on the other side.
00:18:54.340 And I just highlighted in yellow the verbatim text that was copied, in green the lightly
00:18:59.800 paraphrased text.
00:19:01.900 And there's now an industry of hard-day plagiarism denial.
00:19:11.440 Even some supposedly respectable people have participated in this.
00:19:16.860 As Simon Baron Cohen says, it looks to the naked eye like plagiarism.
00:19:21.780 looks to the naked eye, but he was actually already investigated by Liverpool John Moores
00:19:28.540 University where he got his PhD and they said it wasn't plagiarism.
00:19:33.200 So there, but well, yeah, it looks like to the naked eye, you see the plagiarism.
00:19:38.180 So I don't know what else to say.
00:19:41.900 It's page after page of plagiarism.
00:19:44.560 So that was from the, the dissertation.
00:19:47.760 Now I also, because, you know, I didn't want to go through everything that Arde has published.
00:19:54.880 So on his faculty website, his Cambridge faculty website, he has a section on his website
00:20:02.380 called Principle in Recent Publications.
00:20:07.480 So these are the publications that he considers his most significant work on the basis of
00:20:12.720 which he was hired to be a chair professor at Cambridge.
00:20:16.440 And they range in publication date from 2018 to 2023.
00:20:21.740 So that's the year he published his first paper to the year he got hired by Cambridge.
00:20:27.940 So there are 10 papers there.
00:20:29.560 I went through each one considering whether it's plagiarized.
00:20:36.640 If it's not plagiarized, does it employ something that could resemble scholarly methods?
00:20:44.260 And also, was Arday actually involved in the writing of the paper at all, or was he one
00:20:51.280 of 20 authors and with evidence that he wasn't really an active participant in any way?
00:21:00.420 So like four, around four papers had plagiarism in them.
00:21:08.500 The ones that were not plagiarized and that appear to have been written by Arday.
00:21:14.260 were, uh, autoethnographies like he would just rail against his colleague who had micro-aggressed
00:21:23.800 against him with no real point or no scholarly kind of conclusion or methods or anything,
00:21:30.140 just saying people are racist against me.
00:21:33.740 Or he would interview what he euphemistically calls a convenience sample, which actually
00:21:39.720 just means his friends.
00:21:42.520 example, in one of his papers, he interviews three black or minority ethnic professors
00:21:49.520 in the UK who are a convenience sample and in his network. So just three black academics that he
00:21:57.820 knows. He asks them questions. Then he prints their answers, quoting them at great length.
00:22:04.460 And then he has some commentary about how racism is a big problem and we need to continue fighting
00:22:10.420 it. We're talking about a chair professor at Cambridge. Leaving aside that these are
00:22:19.660 replete with typos, he doesn't really grasp principles of punctuation or spelling. It's
00:22:34.340 It's just not something that any reasonable person could consider to be real scholarship.
00:22:42.100 Okay, so there are numerous, there are multitude of instances of plagiarism in his work right
00:22:51.200 the way through his career.
00:22:53.060 You then write this substack in July.
00:22:58.380 What happens?
00:22:59.380 Is it an instantaneous explosion?
00:23:01.860 Is it a slow burn?
00:23:04.340 Within hours, it was blowing up on Twitter.
00:23:09.180 It's a juicy story.
00:23:14.220 Now, my...
00:23:15.980 The source, the whistleblower from Cambridge who contacted me
00:23:21.120 thought that if I would write the story first,
00:23:24.960 then the mainstream press would take it as permission
00:23:28.560 to cover the story, too.
00:23:31.500 And that is exactly what happened.
00:23:34.340 Were you surprised? Sorry, I was going to say, were you surprised by the reaction? Because this became the biggest story in the country. And I mean, look, I'm not denying that it's an important story and we need to talk about the corruption within academia. But nevertheless, I mean, this was front page everywhere. It went around the world. I had mates messaging me from South America and Francis, what's going on with this?
00:24:00.220 Yeah, but for me, the story was never about Jason Arday.
00:24:08.060 I really don't care that an academic plagiarized.
00:24:13.020 I don't care about Arday.
00:24:14.220 I don't think that he's a terrible person.
00:24:16.780 I mean, look, he was guilty of some wrongdoing.
00:24:22.140 It's not important, really, to me.
00:24:25.340 I mean, the punishment that Arday received was totally disproportionate to whatever he did.
00:24:34.300 The international humiliation and ultimately paying the ultimate price.
00:24:42.380 For me, the story was about DEI, the cover-up, the fact that people think that DEI means just
00:24:52.620 increasing looking for qualified applicants from different groups when in reality it means Jason
00:24:59.320 Arde and it means holding people to totally different standards or even no standards based
00:25:04.980 on characteristics like skin color. So it went completely viral. It became the breakout news
00:25:15.100 story of that week. Everybody was talking about it. Then what happened?
00:25:22.620 So, a couple weeks into it, I went to London, and I did a bunch of interviews with, including
00:25:33.200 on mainstream outlets like Times Radio, and I got a very positive response.
00:25:44.440 And actually, at that time, there were a number of journalists who were writing me out of
00:25:51.040 story in order to take credit for it themselves. So that, for example, The Telegraph never
00:25:57.980 mentioned my name until, I think they have recently. So now people are saying, oh, Kaffner
00:26:03.000 started this because it ended badly. But, and in fact, the British Union of Journalists
00:26:11.220 published a statement, as everyone knows, Arde committed suicide on, I think, the 14th
00:26:18.800 of August. So the British Union of Journalists published a statement on the death of Jason
00:26:28.460 Arday, which meant after they had written 249 articles about him. I wrote one article
00:26:36.900 about Jason Arday, which was really, it was about him and about Cambridge and the cover-up.
00:26:42.780 article the british press wrote 249 articles about our day almost all of them just attacking our day
00:26:49.900 and picking apart his whole life since he was a child every lie he ever told 249 articles in 22
00:26:56.940 days two-thirds of those 249 articles were written after he already resigned from cambridge so there
00:27:04.140 was really no more story because everyone on earth knew that our day was a fabulous but this statement
00:27:10.860 by the British Union of Journalists,
00:27:12.740 mentioned one person by name
00:27:15.120 to single out for criticism, which is me,
00:27:18.200 for writing a totally 100% factual article.
00:27:22.200 No credible person has accused me
00:27:25.960 of even making one mistake in that article.
00:27:29.880 And this is worth...
00:27:31.460 Sorry, go for it, Nathan.
00:27:33.880 Well, now, I've...
00:27:35.960 Because it ended badly for Cambridge.
00:27:38.720 So Cambridge, for two weeks,
00:27:40.860 They said that this was a vile campaign.
00:27:45.000 That's what they said about the people criticizing Arde,
00:27:47.540 obviously insinuating that we're racist.
00:27:50.340 The Good Law Project, an activist organization,
00:27:55.420 had this huge petition which explicitly accused us of being racist.
00:28:03.100 Then finally, they had to admit that Arde, after setting him up,
00:28:09.500 Because Cambridge knew about Arde's plagiarism since at least 2023, within months of Arde's being hired.
00:28:20.040 If they didn't know about it before, there was another academic at Plymouth Marathon University named Dave Harris who sent them evidence, the administration evidence of Arde's plagiarism.
00:28:31.560 That was in 2023. So they knew. Beside the fact they must have known that he was unqualified because any anyone can see that, that there was a huge scandal waiting to happen and that our day was being set up for humiliation.
00:28:48.840 They definitely knew about his fabulism since at least a year ago, because that was when he submitted a complaint. He reported that he had been attacked by a racist with a knife in his Cambridge office twice, and Cambridge investigated and took it very seriously.
00:29:09.320 but this racist could not be found on CCTV.
00:29:13.120 So at least since then, they've known he's a fabulous,
00:29:16.380 probably earlier.
00:29:19.920 And the, sorry, keep going.
00:29:22.640 Yeah, and they chose to cover it up.
00:29:24.520 They chose, so they knew the truth.
00:29:26.560 The Cambridge administration knew the truth
00:29:28.280 and they decided to cover it up
00:29:29.820 and intimidate people into not telling the truth.
00:29:32.600 And when the truth came out,
00:29:34.780 instead of saying, okay, you know, you got us,
00:29:38.040 They imply that they say we're vile, vile, storing up hatred against us, which has become very serious now.
00:29:49.200 Now, they have three years to figure out a solution, maybe move Arde to a non-research position or something like that,
00:29:57.900 create another professorship for public understanding of racism in academia where he
00:30:04.860 isn't expected to write serious papers or something and then just park him there for
00:30:10.520 the rest of his career. But their impulse was to lie and to remain committed to the lie of DEI
00:30:17.860 and the lie that no black person can do anything wrong. Go ahead.
00:30:27.100 Yeah. So that being the case, everything that has happened now has happened. They printed,
00:30:34.240 your name went public and everybody said, well, this is down to Nathan Kofnass. I mean,
00:30:41.820 this is where the story gets really ugly from your perspective, because there were demonstrations
00:30:47.720 against you, which to me was just insane. So just explain to us a little bit of what it was like
00:30:54.480 being in the eye of that media storm. So it was in everybody's interest not to take responsibility
00:31:00.620 for their actions. There was Cambridge, who was most obviously at fault, if you're going to blame
00:31:07.220 somebody for what happened. Cambridge set Arday up for humiliation. Then once Arday
00:31:14.360 became an embarrassment to Cambridge, they just stopped protecting him. And they said,
00:31:23.420 okay, we're going to place you under investigation.
00:31:25.420 They didn't, Cambridge didn't learn anything new.
00:31:27.800 Nothing changed. They already knew he was a plagiarist.
00:31:30.180 They already knew he was a fabulist.
00:31:32.180 So what changed on August 5th,
00:31:37.180 when they placed him under investigation
00:31:39.680 and then he resigned a few hours later?
00:31:42.180 What changed was that they were embarrassed
00:31:44.760 and they were protecting themselves.
00:31:46.760 So they tell, essentially, Arde to, you know,
00:31:49.260 pack your things and go home.
00:31:50.760 And then, meanwhile, the British press is completely gratuitously writing article after
00:32:01.160 article.
00:32:02.160 Now, I'm not saying that the press doesn't have a right to cover public figures and say
00:32:06.600 negative things about them, but you can still ask the question whether it was a nice thing
00:32:10.860 to do, whether they ought to have chosen to do what they had a right to do.
00:32:18.600 And really, so, but I think that what the press did
00:32:25.920 can certainly be subject to moral, if not legal, critique.
00:32:30.840 I don't agree with shutting down the press,
00:32:33.160 using the law to shut down the press,
00:32:35.420 but morally, what they did was very questionable.
00:32:39.720 They don't want to take responsibility for that.
00:32:41.660 Cambridge doesn't want to take responsibility for that.
00:32:44.220 So who are they going to blame?
00:32:46.500 well you know i'm i'm the uh super stimulus scapegoat everything about me says you know
00:32:55.460 scapegoat it's uh if you own gold you probably bought it for the same reason i did because you
00:33:02.820 looked at what central banks are doing to currencies and decided you wanted something
00:33:07.220 they can't print good reasoning but here's the thing nobody talks about after you make that
00:33:11.700 decision your gold is just sitting there it's not doing anything you're paying to store it you're
00:33:16.420 paying to insure it and in the meantime it earns precisely nothing until now what you're about to
00:33:22.420 hear is not a normal gold advert today's sponsor is monetary metals they've figured out something
00:33:28.420 that once you hear it seems obvious but almost nobody in the gold world is doing it monetary
00:33:34.180 metals connects gold owners with productive businesses refiners jewelers companies that
00:33:40.420 actually need physical gold to operate those businesses lease your gold and pay you a yield
00:33:45.940 not in dollars not in pounds in gold so instead of your gold sitting in a vault costing you money
00:33:52.340 it's out in the real economy doing something useful and you're earning more ounces of gold
00:33:57.780 for it up to four percent annual yield paid in gold if you already own gold this is the logical
00:34:03.540 next step. Visit monetary-metals.com slash trigonometry or click the link in the description.
00:34:10.540 See how your gold can stop costing you money and start earning you more gold. That's
00:34:15.120 monetary-metals.com slash trigonometry. Well, I think one of the things that says
00:34:20.400 scapegoat about you, Nathan, is the area of research and the conclusions you draw from it,
00:34:25.020 which is what I'd like to turn to, because I do think it's important. It's something that's come
00:34:29.420 under a lot of attention in recent weeks because you're being blamed solely for Jason Arde taking
00:34:37.200 his own life. So let's talk about it. Let me summarize it as concisely as I can, and you
00:34:44.420 correct where you think I'm misrepresenting if I am at all, okay? So your central thesis,
00:34:49.780 as I understand it, is that there are differences between different groups, including racial groups,
00:34:55.340 in many things including intelligence which we'll talk about and define later and that it's the
00:35:02.720 failure to accept this reality that gives us wokeness because if you live in a world where
00:35:09.180 everyone believes what you call the equality thesis which is the idea that all groups are
00:35:13.600 effectively equal on average there are no differences between you know asians and black
00:35:18.980 people and white people and jews and so on um if everyone believes that and they look out at the
00:35:24.840 world and they see that these different groups have very different outcomes on average in certain
00:35:30.880 fields in particular, then the natural conclusion from that is, well, if everyone's equal but the
00:35:36.460 outcomes are not, there must be something nefarious going on, i.e. institutional racism,
00:35:43.460 structural discrimination, whatever label you want to put on it. And it's therefore naturally
00:35:49.660 our moral duty to address those things by DEI, other forms of wokeness, etc. And what you say is,
00:36:00.320 because everyone believes the equality hypothesis or the equality thesis, which isn't true,
00:36:05.560 that is effectively where we've ended up. And what we should be doing is going,
00:36:10.520 looking at the reality of group differences, and then we'll talk about what policy prescriptions
00:36:16.980 you advocate for on that basis, but if we just accepted that there are groups that differ in
00:36:22.740 terms of their intelligence and other factors in the same way that we might say accept physical
00:36:28.020 differences between groups that clearly manifest in sporting achievements, for example, in sports
00:36:32.700 like basketball, American football, etc., then that would solve many of the problems that we
00:36:39.780 currently got socially and culturally. Is that a fair summary of your views?
00:36:43.800 Exactly. I would just add an important qualification, which is that not all groups, that races themselves are not homogeneous. So not all white populations of white people are identical with each other. Whites in Appalachia are not the same as whites in Massachusetts, and that's partly due to genetic differences.
00:37:10.380 um uh african immigrants in the united kingdom are are different from african americans
00:37:19.420 and they have different outcomes in some respects which are also due to genetic differences so it's
00:37:26.520 not saying that all black people are part of the same population with the same characteristics and
00:37:32.980 or whites, or Asians, it's just a hereditarian perspective, a biological way of understanding
00:37:41.660 how populations differ from each other.
00:37:44.220 Explain what hereditarian means to people who are not scientists, Nathan.
00:37:48.140 So hereditarianism, with respect to group differences, refers to the idea that genetic
00:37:54.800 differences play a non-trivial role in average differences in socially relevant traits, such
00:38:00.700 as intelligence.
00:38:01.940 That's it.
00:38:02.980 And what is your claim about how significant the genetic part of it is
00:38:08.540 versus cultural, you know, environmental, et cetera?
00:38:15.780 I don't think hereditarianism, to be considered hereditarianism,
00:38:22.620 it's just to be a significant amount.
00:38:24.760 So what number you choose, how heritable exactly a trait should be
00:38:30.260 for that to be considered hereditarianism.
00:38:35.660 I don't know.
00:38:36.860 I think it should be the majority of differences.
00:38:40.740 So over 50%.
00:38:42.420 Yeah.
00:38:43.400 So intelligence is over 50% heritable
00:38:48.540 and the differences between groups are a reflection of that.
00:38:53.680 So, there are all sorts of subtleties that I'm leaving aside about how to calculate
00:39:04.440 heritability.
00:39:06.480 And heritability of a trait is tied to a particular environment and a particular population.
00:39:11.760 It can change over time.
00:39:13.700 But what I'm saying is that when raised under comparable conditions, you will tend to get
00:39:20.860 certain patterns of differences between population representative groups of different races.
00:39:27.100 So you have the same patterns of sub-Saharan African, European, East Asian, for example,
00:39:36.580 will manifest all over the world.
00:39:42.360 Even though when these groups are subject to very different histories, when they're
00:39:46.020 living under different cultural conditions, with different incentives, different economic systems,
00:39:51.860 you always find the same pattern of differences, and that's for two genetic differences.
00:39:59.740 Okay. And so I'm just getting us to define the scope of what we're discussing, and then we'll
00:40:05.100 get into the different conversations about it. What is your claim about what the differences
00:40:10.240 are between the various groups that you would classify?
00:40:18.120 So the most significant is variation in general intelligence, so IQ score.
00:40:27.300 IQ, there's a big discussion to be had about IQ.
00:40:32.160 You know, many people think that IQ tests are just asking you, you know, to distinguish between different kinds of yachts or to what kind of wine goes with bass.
00:40:50.620 And, you know, but anybody who actually looks at it for five minutes can see that that's not true.
00:40:56.700 It's, these are, um, IQ tests are asking about rotating shapes, uh, uh, recognizing patterns.
00:41:07.180 Now there, there is a cultural component to your performance on IQ tests, right?
00:41:12.440 If you give an IQ test, there was an attempt by psychometricians to invent so-called culture
00:41:18.760 fair IQ tests that you could give even to an illiterate hunter-gatherer and just test
00:41:28.360 their innate intelligence.
00:41:30.520 And we know that's impossible.
00:41:33.080 It doesn't work.
00:41:35.220 Your ability to take IQ tests depends on your familiarity with the concept of testing and
00:41:41.160 all sorts of background, cultural knowledge, but the IQ tests.
00:41:48.760 test knowledge that anyone who goes to public school in a country like the United States
00:41:59.680 will have been exposed to. And it's not just a bunch of culturally by a test of your cultural
00:42:06.620 knowledge. Differences between individuals are meaningful. They correlate with a wide range of
00:42:16.000 life outcomes. And not only in the classroom, but everything from your chance of getting into a car
00:42:25.760 crashed, your probability that you resort to criminal activity. Differences between people
00:42:34.020 are meaningful. It's not just a test of culture. And there are stable race differences in average
00:42:43.840 Let me just summarize this in simpler language for people listening, and correct me if any of this is inaccurate, but what you're saying is intelligence tests, yes, there's a cultural dimension, and we'll delve into this because there's questions about this, but they measure your ability to reason effectively.
00:43:00.720 If you've gone to public school in the Western society, or maybe even most of the rest of the world, you have been given enough to be able to take a test and for that score to be meaningful.
00:43:13.960 And that people who score higher or lower on IQ tests, that correlates quite strongly with their life outcomes, both negative and positive.
00:43:23.440 So if you score higher on an IQ test, on average, your lifetime earnings will be higher, you will be less likely to commit crime, you will be less likely to get into a car accident, and there's probably a bunch of other metrics you could give. Is that accurate so far?
00:43:39.960 Yes.
00:43:41.080 Okay. So what are the racial differences in IQ then?
00:43:44.440 So, in the United States, the African-American IQ is between 82 and 85.
00:43:55.040 The average white IQ is 100.
00:43:58.060 The average East Asian is a few points above the white mean.
00:44:05.080 You'll hear some people say that the African-American white gap has been closing in recent years,
00:44:13.640 is untrue. That's based on achievement tests, which are not IQ tests. The actual IQ tests,
00:44:23.480 which are not measuring just acquired knowledge, but are measuring actual reasoning ability,
00:44:30.440 continue to show approximately one standard deviation or a 15-point gap between blacks
00:44:37.640 and whites in the United States. And what about Hispanics and Ashkenazi Jews?
00:44:42.200 hispanics um are intermediate between blacks and whites so 90s somewhere in the 90s and uh
00:44:53.200 ashkenazi jews uh there the uh there's a huge debate about this and the uh the online right
00:45:03.920 There are a lot of Jewish IQ truthers, but in reality, there have been some studies with very small samples made potentially unrepresentative, which showed extremely high, implausibly high numbers.
00:45:25.440 but the best IQ test studies for Ashkenazim have come around 110 to 112.
00:45:36.720 Okay. So can I ask you some questions about the validity of IQ testing and the hereditarian
00:45:46.180 notion more generally? So the first one I wanted to ask you is,
00:45:51.100 if we accept that environmental factors will affect people, even if they have a certain
00:45:58.640 biological predisposition, I'll give you an example of height, right? There are population
00:46:05.000 genetics that determine height. But if you have a population that's consistently malnourished,
00:46:10.660 you will get a population whose height is not the same as it would have been if they had been given
00:46:15.640 proper nutrition. And you see this, for example, from what I understand in the difference between
00:46:20.860 the average high of South Koreans and North South Koreans, North Koreans, genetically the same,
00:46:26.280 but different outcomes in terms of height purely because of the nutrition that they've received
00:46:31.640 for decades and over generations. If a group of people are effectively given poor intellectual
00:46:40.800 nutrition over generations, i.e. they're denied access to education or have reduced access to
00:46:47.080 education. They have a disproportionate likelihood to come from, to have intergenerational single
00:46:53.480 parenthood. They have a poorer nutrition, which I imagine contributes ultimately, if you, particularly
00:46:59.020 in childhood, to somebody's life outcomes, et cetera, et cetera. And if this sort of environment
00:47:05.300 is intergenerationally locked in, wouldn't that have exactly the effect on people's IQ that
00:47:12.560 poor nutrition intergenerationally would have on people's height?
00:47:17.080 Well, height is a good example of a trait which is highly heritable, but is still
00:47:23.160 malleable over time within a generation.
00:47:27.620 So if you look within North Korea, height actually in a country like North Korea would
00:47:35.140 probably be less heritable than it is in the South because the North has a class system
00:47:41.540 where the party members or the people in the elites
00:47:46.080 will have access to much better nutrition,
00:47:48.940 and then you have the rest of the population.
00:47:52.180 So their height will be...
00:47:54.180 They'll be taller for environmental reasons
00:47:57.220 than the plebeians.
00:48:01.440 But in South Korea, you know,
00:48:03.320 everybody has, like, similar access to food.
00:48:05.640 So because variation in nutrition
00:48:08.340 doesn't vary as much in the South,
00:48:11.160 It's only genes that will be left to explain the rest of the difference.
00:48:17.160 So, you know, intelligence is the same way.
00:48:21.420 You know, our grandparents would have scored lower, like surprisingly low on IQ tests.
00:48:29.200 Isaac Newton would have scored like average on an IQ test because they just weren't familiar,
00:48:36.740 not because they didn't have the same genes for intelligence,
00:48:40.680 they just weren't familiar with that.
00:48:42.280 They didn't have the training to make the kind of classifications
00:48:49.220 or engage in the kind of scientific thinking
00:48:52.420 that is tested by IQ tests.
00:48:56.540 Well, Nathan, that's exactly what I'm getting at.
00:49:00.300 So if you're saying, well, the average black IQ is in the mid-80s
00:49:04.620 and the average YIQ is in the hundreds,
00:49:07.740 wouldn't black people be just effectively
00:49:10.640 intellectual North Koreans in this comparison,
00:49:13.940 whereby for generations they have been denied
00:49:16.920 the things that would have helped them improve their IQ
00:49:20.080 from nutrition to education, to familiarity with testing,
00:49:24.800 to a safe environment in which to grow up and study,
00:49:28.080 to access to parents who could look after you
00:49:30.980 and give you the time and guidance to be able...
00:49:32.940 all of these things, wouldn't that have a very significant detrimental impact on your IQs?
00:49:39.360 Because let's be honest, you may have had the Civil Rights Act in the United States,
00:49:43.760 which has addressed formalized legal discrimination.
00:49:47.260 But that's not to say that everybody gets the same start in life.
00:49:50.720 And if you go around the black ghetto, you can clearly see that if I'd grown up in that environment,
00:49:56.980 my IQ would have also been lower as a result of that.
00:50:00.040 Well, this is the kind of thing that can actually be investigated.
00:50:06.360 I mean, one shouldn't just kind of rely on intuitions.
00:50:09.740 I mean, of course, one can have intuition about what kind of hypotheses to explore,
00:50:15.240 but then to conclude, one has to investigate.
00:50:17.420 But has this been explored is what I'm asking you.
00:50:19.640 So I would say this is the most studied question in the history of social science, is the cause
00:50:26.120 of the black-white IQ gap in the United States.
00:50:29.220 We have every remotely plausible hypothesis has been studied, has been tested multiple
00:50:37.820 times at an enormous expense.
00:50:41.460 And the conclusion is early childhood interventions will raise IQ in the black population, and
00:50:53.800 they can raise it significantly.
00:50:56.540 And over time, there's what's called a fade-out effect.
00:51:01.880 So IQ shoots up in early childhood, and then they start getting lower and lower until finally,
00:51:12.860 in early adulthood, mean IQ, after intensive intervention, reverts to the African-American
00:51:21.400 mean.
00:51:22.860 And there's been a very, there's been a cross-racial adoption study, the Minnesota study of the
00:51:33.080 twins reared apart, which where black adopted children were raised by middle-class white
00:51:41.760 families in childhood, their IQs were much higher.
00:51:47.020 And by adulthood, the fade out effect occurs.
00:51:50.480 This is consistent with intelligence being much less heritable in childhood.
00:51:57.200 The exact reason for that is partly because childhood IQ tests are more likely to test
00:52:03.560 acquired knowledge than general reasoning ability, which is compared to adult IQ tests.
00:52:11.880 But anyway, when IQ is less heritable, during the period of life when IQ is less heritable,
00:52:19.980 You can increase IQ, but by early adulthood, everything that any intervention that we know
00:52:26.460 how to make doesn't have lasting effects. Let me say this because I know I'm not alone. At some
00:52:34.000 point, your body just stops bouncing back the way it used to. You train hard, you travel, you push
00:52:39.160 yourself and suddenly recovery takes longer. You wake up stiff, joints complain, skin, hair, nails,
00:52:44.820 things don't look or feel quite right anymore. So many people listening to this know exactly
00:52:49.720 what I'm talking about. What surprised me is that this isn't just getting older in some vague sense.
00:52:55.480 A huge part of it is collagen. Your body starts producing less of it from your mid-twenties
00:53:00.300 onwards. Collagen is basically the glue that holds everything together. So when your levels drop,
00:53:05.780 you feel it everywhere. That's why I started using Bubz Naturals Collagen Peptides. And I've stuck
00:53:11.920 with it. Since I've added it to my routine, recovery is noticeably better, joints feel
00:53:16.180 stronger, and my skin and hair have improved. I genuinely feel better now than I did a few years
00:53:21.240 ago, and that's not a placebo effect. It's fixing something fundamental. It's also effortless. I put
00:53:28.080 it in my tea, coffee, or any drink. No taste, no smell, no clumps. You forget it's even there.
00:53:34.100 And Bubz isn't just another supplement brand. It was created in honor of Glenn Bub Doherty,
00:53:40.280 a former Navy SEAL who was killed saving Americans in Benghazi. The brand is built around discipline,
00:53:45.340 self-improvement and doing things properly. They also donate 10% of all profits to charity through
00:53:51.300 the Glenn Doherty Memorial Foundation. The product itself is clean. No sugar, no fillers, third-party
00:53:57.960 tested, NSF certified for sport, Whole30 approved. Sustainably sourced from grass-fed pasture-raised
00:54:05.180 cattle. Over 100,000 people use it and it was named Best Collagen of 2024 by Health.com. If you
00:54:13.820 recognize yourself in what I've just described, this is worth trying. Live better, longer. For a
00:54:19.960 limited time, get 20% off your entire order at bubsnaturals.com with code TRIG or click the link
00:54:27.480 in the description of this episode. That's B-U-B-S naturals.com, code TRIG. And when they ask
00:54:35.560 where you heard about them, tell them Trigonometry sent you. Once more for 20% off, use code TRIG
00:54:41.560 at bobsnaturals.com. Okay. And so I'm just getting us to define the scope of what we're
00:54:50.340 discussing, and then we'll get into the different conversations about it. What is your claim about
00:54:55.560 what the differences are between the various groups that you would classify?
00:55:02.960 So the most significant is variation in general intelligence.
00:55:09.960 So IQ score.
00:55:11.960 IQ, there's a big discussion to be had about IQ.
00:55:17.960 You know, many people think that IQ tests are just asking you, you know,
00:55:23.960 you know, to distinguish between different kinds of yachts or to what kind of wine goes with bass.
00:55:36.900 And, you know, but anybody who actually looks at it for five minutes can see that that's not true.
00:55:42.920 It's these are IQ tests are asking about rotating shapes, recognizing patterns.
00:55:53.340 Now, there is a cultural component to your performance on IQ tests, right?
00:55:58.660 If you give an IQ test, there was an attempt by psychometricians to invent so-called culture fair IQ tests that you could give even to an illiterate hunter-gatherer and just test their innate intelligence.
00:56:16.400 And we know that's impossible.
00:56:18.680 It doesn't work.
00:56:19.940 your ability to take IQ tests depends on your familiarity with the concept of testing and
00:56:26.820 all sorts of background cultural knowledge. But IQ tests test knowledge that anyone who goes to
00:56:41.840 public school in a country like the United States will have been exposed to. And it's not just
00:56:49.920 bunch of culturally by a test of your cultural knowledge. Differences between individuals
00:56:56.880 are meaningful. They correlate with a wide range of life outcomes, and not only in the classroom,
00:57:05.840 but everything from your chance of getting into a car crash, your probability that you resort to
00:57:16.240 criminal activity. Differences between people are meaningful, it's not just a test of culture,
00:57:23.440 and there are stable race differences in average scores.
00:57:30.400 Let me just summarize this in simpler language for people listening, and correct me if any of
00:57:34.800 this is inaccurate, but what you're saying is intelligence tests, yes, there's a cultural
00:57:39.280 dimension, and we'll delve into this because there's questions about this, but they measure
00:57:44.800 your ability to reason effectively. If you've gone to public school in the Western society,
00:57:50.040 or maybe even most of the rest of the world, you have enough, you have been given enough
00:57:56.660 to be able to take a test and for that score to be meaningful. And that people who score higher
00:58:02.380 or lower on IQ tests, that correlates quite strongly with their life outcomes, both negative
00:58:09.080 and positive. So if you score higher on an IQ test, on average, your lifetime earnings will
00:58:14.740 be higher, you will be less likely to commit crime, you will be less likely to get into a car
00:58:19.540 accident, and there's probably a bunch of other metrics you could give. Is that accurate so far?
00:58:26.180 Yes. Okay. So what are the racial differences in IQ then? So in the United States, the African
00:58:34.140 American IQ is between 82 and 85. The average white IQ is 100. The average East Asian is a few
00:58:47.340 points above the white mean. You'll hear some people say that the African American white gap
00:58:57.760 has been closing in recent years which is untrue that's based on achievement tests which are not
00:59:04.960 iq tests the actual iq tests which are not measuring just acquired knowledge but are
00:59:14.720 measuring actual reasoning ability continue to show approximately one standard deviation
00:59:21.040 or a 15 point gap between blacks and whites in the united states
00:59:25.200 And what about Hispanics and Ashkenazi Jews?
00:59:29.600 Hispanics are intermediate between blacks and whites, so 90s, somewhere in the 90s, and Ashkenazi Jews, there's a huge debate about this in the online right.
00:59:50.120 There are a lot of Jewish IQ truthers, but in reality, there have been some studies with very small samples made potentially unrepresentative, which showed extremely high, implausibly high numbers.
01:00:11.660 but the best IQ test studies for Ashkenazim have come around 110 to 112.
01:00:22.940 Okay. So can I ask you some questions about the validity of IQ testing and the hereditarian
01:00:32.400 notion more generally? So the first one I wanted to ask you is,
01:00:37.320 if we accept that environmental factors will affect people, even if they have a certain
01:00:44.860 biological predisposition, I'll give you an example of height, right? There are population
01:00:51.220 genetics that determine height, but if you have a population that's consistently malnourished,
01:00:56.880 you will get a population whose height is not the same as it would have been if they had been given
01:01:01.860 proper nutrition. And you see this, for example, from what I understand in the difference between
01:01:07.080 the average high of South Koreans, North Koreans, genetically the same, but different outcomes in
01:01:13.860 terms of height purely because of the nutrition that they've received for decades and over
01:01:19.660 generations. If a group of people are effectively given poor intellectual nutrition over generations,
01:01:28.980 i.e. they're denied access to education or have reduced access to education, they have a
01:01:34.820 disproportionate likelihood to have intergenerational single parenthood. They have
01:01:41.200 poorer nutrition, which I imagine contributes ultimately, particularly in childhood, to
01:01:46.120 somebody's life outcomes, et cetera, et cetera. And if this sort of environment is intergenerationally
01:01:53.340 locked in, wouldn't that have exactly the effect on people's IQ that poor nutrition intergenerationally
01:02:01.460 would have on people's height.
01:02:03.940 Well, height is a good example of a trait
01:02:06.180 which is highly heritable,
01:02:08.240 but is still malleable, right?
01:02:10.520 So over time, within a generation.
01:02:13.760 So if you look within North Korea,
01:02:17.500 height, well, height actually,
01:02:20.060 in a country like North Korea,
01:02:21.160 would probably be less heritable
01:02:23.480 than it is in the South,
01:02:24.900 because the North has a class system
01:02:27.180 where the party members or the people in the elites
01:02:32.300 will have access to much better nutrition
01:02:35.160 and then you have the rest of the population.
01:02:38.420 So their height will be,
01:02:40.380 they'll be taller for environmental reasons
01:02:43.440 than the plebeians.
01:02:47.380 But in South Korea, everybody has similar access to food.
01:02:52.000 So because variation in nutrition
01:02:54.560 doesn't vary as much in the South,
01:02:56.360 the it's only genes that will be left to explain the rest of the rest of the difference
01:03:00.680 so um you know intelligence is the same way you know our our grandparents would have scored lower
01:03:13.160 like surprisingly low on iq tests isaac newton would have scored like average on an iq test
01:03:19.460 because they just weren't familiar not because they weren't didn't have the same genes for
01:03:25.880 for intelligence so they just weren't familiar with that they didn't have the training they
01:03:30.020 to make the kind of um sign the kind of classifications or scientific engage in the
01:03:37.620 kind of scientific thinking that is tested by by iq tests well that that's what i mean nathan that's
01:03:45.200 exactly what i'm getting at so if you're saying well the average black iq is in the mid 80s
01:03:50.840 and the average YIQ is in the hundreds,
01:03:53.960 wouldn't black people be just effectively
01:03:56.880 intellectual North Koreans in this comparison,
01:04:00.160 whereby for generations they have been denied
01:04:03.120 the things that would have helped them improve their IQ
01:04:06.380 from nutrition to education, to familiarity with testing,
01:04:11.020 to a safe environment in which to grow up and study,
01:04:14.300 to access to parents who could look after you
01:04:17.200 and give you the time and guidance to be able...
01:04:19.160 all of these things, wouldn't that have a very significant detrimental impact on your IQs?
01:04:25.580 Because let's be honest, you may have had the Civil Rights Act in the United States,
01:04:29.980 which has addressed formalized legal discrimination.
01:04:33.480 But that's not to say that everybody gets the same start in life.
01:04:36.940 And if you go around the black ghetto, you can clearly see that if I'd grown up in that environment,
01:04:43.180 my IQ would have also been lower as a result of that.
01:04:46.260 well these these this is uh the kind of thing that can actually be investigated i mean we one
01:04:53.360 shouldn't just kind of rely on intuitions i mean of course one can have intuition about what kind
01:04:59.660 of hypotheses to explore but then to conclude one has but has this been explored is what i'm asking
01:05:05.400 so i would say this is the most studied question in the history of social science is the cause of
01:05:12.560 black-white IQ gap in the United States. We have every remotely plausible hypothesis has been
01:05:21.680 studied, has been tested multiple times at an enormous expense. And the conclusion is
01:05:30.080 early childhood interventions will raise IQ in the black population and they can raise it
01:05:40.480 significantly. And over time, there's what's called a fade-out effect. So IQ shoots up in
01:05:52.800 early childhood, and then they start getting lower and lower until finally, in early adulthood,
01:06:00.880 mean IQ, after intensive intervention, reverts to the African-American mean.
01:06:07.920 And there's been a cross-racial adoption study, the Minnesota study of the twins reared apart,
01:06:21.980 where black adopted children were raised by middle-class white families in childhood.
01:06:30.000 Their IQs were much higher, and by adulthood, the fade-out effect occurs.
01:06:35.700 This is consistent with intelligence being much less heritable in childhood.
01:06:43.020 The exact reason for that is partly because childhood IQ tests are more likely to test acquired knowledge than general reasoning ability, which is compared to adult IQ tests.
01:06:57.340 But anyway, when IQ is less heritable, during the period of life when IQ is less heritable, you can increase IQ. But by early adulthood, any intervention that we know how to make doesn't have lasting effects.
01:07:16.780 It's slightly different to what I'm asking you, because you're talking about early childhood
01:07:21.220 interventions. What I'm talking about is attempting to explain the gap. And what I'm asking you is,
01:07:27.180 isn't it possible that intergenerational deprivation in various forms would lead
01:07:33.780 partially to an IQ gap, which you attribute to genetics?
01:07:37.660 well there look in in science there's never a single experiment right that proves the case
01:07:48.280 you're looking at the totality of the evidence against kind of the given in the context of
01:07:57.580 a theory about what what kind of explanation is plausible i mean people who who promote like
01:08:06.720 environmentalist explanations of race differences will, for example, say that it's due to
01:08:14.820 epigenetics. It's epigenetics. But then how come epigenetics doesn't affect Jews? Jews
01:08:22.840 weren't affected by epigenetics in ghettos and concentration camps, pogroms, and no effect
01:08:29.860 at all so and uh is that true isn't it true that jews whose iqs were measured in the early 20th
01:08:37.300 century united states scored very low on iq tests same with irish and other italians as well these
01:08:44.160 were basically people who didn't speak very good english and so they scored lower on iq tests
01:08:48.820 because iq test was designed for english speakers who'd had a certain type of education
01:08:53.580 There was a notorious statement by an early intelligence researcher in like the 1920s who administered tests in English to some immigrants who didn't speak English and then made some silly statement about how their IQs are very low.
01:09:09.460 And he himself recanted and said that he made a stupid mistake. I've never seen an academic admit that he's wrong in such unequivocal terms.
01:09:22.300 I cite him in my sub-stack essay, Thomas Sowell's Wishful Thinking About Race.
01:09:29.580 Yeah, I was very triggered by that because, as you know, I'm a big fan of Thomas Sowell.
01:09:33.360 But just come back to this point with me that if you have a population that have to live
01:09:39.180 in intergenerational deprivation, poverty, poor education, etc., that is likely to a
01:09:46.080 significant extent to affect their average IQs even down the generations, particularly
01:09:51.680 for the reasons that i gave which is even today when formal legal discrimination is no longer in
01:09:57.760 place that does not mean that everybody starts in the same place if you go to an inner city black
01:10:02.640 school in some american cities where only seven percent of kids can read to the right level by
01:10:08.240 the time of their 13 or something i don't remember the exact statistic but something like that where
01:10:12.660 you're basically getting a terrible education would that not affect your life outcomes including
01:10:17.920 as measured by a general intelligence test uh well it might so this this the adoption studies
01:10:24.240 that i referred to look at uh kids who are adopted by basically at least lower middle class families
01:10:34.880 uh because you you have to meet some conditions in order to adopt a child
01:10:39.920 uh and you have to be have a at least provide evidence that you have can provide a stable home
01:10:46.400 in a stable upbringing. So if you're running a crack house, then you would not be allowed
01:10:53.500 to adopt a child. You wouldn't be part of the study. So, okay. So we know that if you're raised
01:10:58.920 in at least the kind of middle class to upper class environment, the differences between your
01:11:06.640 in parenting style or income or anything like that, that doesn't really have any detectable
01:11:13.020 effect on your adult IQ. Now, if you're in a genuinely, really deprived environment,
01:11:19.160 it's very possible that that will... Although Thomas Sowell himself, who I disagree with
01:11:25.300 him on that one point, he's obviously a brilliant guy. He himself came from an extremely deprived
01:11:31.020 background. I mean, there are a number of other Black luminaries, intellectuals who
01:11:38.360 did as well. I think Glenn Lowry also came from a deprived background. But yeah, I don't deny that
01:11:45.440 that's a disadvantage in life to come from a very deprived background. Yeah, disadvantage is a
01:11:51.280 different point. I think the point I'm trying to make, and maybe what you're saying is there hasn't
01:11:54.960 been enough research on this, but I'll give you an example, and maybe scientifically not accurate,
01:12:03.740 But just my dad, so my grandfather grew up without a dad who was killed in World War II, right?
01:12:10.760 My dad grew up with a dad who was kind of there and not there.
01:12:14.680 And then I grew up with a dad.
01:12:16.740 It wasn't perfect or whatever.
01:12:18.040 But I can see the massive differences between all three generations, depending on whether they had a dad in the house, right?
01:12:27.040 Now, and those, I don't know if those correlate to a lower or higher IQ.
01:12:32.240 They probably don't.
01:12:33.020 But the point I'm making is if your people, your group, as you talk about, for generations has been denied access to good nutrition, education, etc., etc., I think it's credible to assume that that would have an impact on your IQ scores, particularly, as you say, because they are somewhat culturally effective.
01:12:52.720 well the thing is we have no memory of what happened there's no biological memory of what
01:13:01.300 happened two generations ago there's some minor epigenetic effects that last one generation it
01:13:09.140 doesn't there's no plausible evidence that that epigenetic effects but that's why i brought up my
01:13:17.940 my dad and my granddad because my dad i can see it in him has in him the consequences of being
01:13:25.300 raised by a dad who had no dad right whereas i don't and my children don't in the same way if
01:13:33.700 that makes sense so you might not have a memory but being raised by people who were themselves
01:13:39.080 raised by people who experienced certain things and lacked certain things will have an impact on
01:13:44.500 how you grow up i mean so okay i agree one can can formulate hypotheses that seem intuitively
01:13:52.740 right and maybe are consistent with anecdotes about people that we observed or or our family
01:13:58.580 but then then test test the theory like okay what about this theory been tested is what i'm that's
01:14:04.920 what i've been asking you this entire time uh because for you to make the bold claims that you
01:14:09.560 do, it seems to me that this is something that might be worth testing.
01:14:14.600 So we have, for example, adoption studies, where you're raised from early childhood by somebody
01:14:22.600 who doesn't have all those experiences. So we also have regression to the mean, which is
01:14:29.240 is really impossible to explain on the environmentalist assumption.
01:14:36.060 So if you, because a trait, your value of a trait is determined by both genes and either
01:14:51.960 environmental or kind of random environmental factors.
01:14:55.860 So your particular, your height, your IQ is determined by a combination of those, of those things. If you have a very, if you depart, if you're very far from the mean, then it's likely that that was due to, in part, to good, let's say you have a very high IQ.
01:15:20.460 So that's probably due to a combination of genes for IQ and a very favorable environment for IQ.
01:15:29.640 Now, you're passing on only the genes to your genetic offspring.
01:15:36.380 So their IQ is more likely to be closer to the mean than your IQ.
01:15:42.540 So that's regression to the mean.
01:15:44.300 And the same way, if you have a very low IQ, your children are more likely to be a little
01:15:49.680 bit smarter than you.
01:15:51.980 So African-Americans regress to mean 85 and white Americans regress to mean 100.
01:16:04.540 So even the children of high socioeconomic status, black Americans, tend to get lower
01:16:13.820 scores on the SAT than white Americans or Asian Americans from low socioeconomic status.
01:16:27.100 That is, I mean, that is impossible to explain on the assumption that this is some intergenerational
01:16:32.780 inheritance, cultural inheritance, because that's just the biological thing.
01:16:42.860 Yeah, that makes sense. I wanted to ask you about the genes part of this. So I went on
01:16:47.640 Venice AI, which we use for researching things, and what it came up with is it says,
01:16:52.000 no specific genes have been found that explain the racial IQ gap. Genome-wide association studies
01:16:59.160 have identified genes correlated with educational attainment.
01:17:02.740 But researchers, including some hereditarians,
01:17:05.680 note that polygenic scores derived from mostly European samples
01:17:08.860 don't reliably predict outcomes across populations.
01:17:11.960 And none of this research has found genes for IQ differences
01:17:15.060 that track with racial categories
01:17:16.820 in the way that the hereditarian argument requires.
01:17:20.120 Do you disagree with this?
01:17:23.080 This is just to bamboozle people.
01:17:26.040 I mean, there was a hope that this issue could be resolved, that we would just find, you know, single nucleotide polymorphisms that are associated with intelligence, and we would just check how they're distributed from one race to the other, and then that would be the end of it.
01:17:46.920 But it turned out to be a lot more complicated than people hoped.
01:17:52.880 And these genetic variants, so polygenic scores, so just looking at variants that are associated
01:17:58.100 with intelligence in one group, which allows you to predict the IQ or height or other traits,
01:18:05.540 say within Europeans who are generally the population that's most studied and for which
01:18:12.900 we have the most reliable polygenic scores for a variety of traits, they often produce
01:18:21.020 invalid results or at least less valid results when applied to Africans or Asians.
01:18:31.160 But these variants, they are different, but we know that there are genetic variants that
01:18:42.760 are expressed in the brain that vary between racial groups uh there are like what no i don't do
01:18:51.100 the uh i'm sorry a fly i've been besieged by a fly which just landed in my tea but okay sorry
01:19:00.320 that's a very dramatic way of putting it now uh well anyway at least the fly won't bother
01:19:09.440 bother me anymore. So it's, I think it's safe to drink the tea.
01:19:15.320 It's a very unscientific conclusion there, but carry on. What are, what are some of the things
01:19:20.420 that differ in brains between groups? So I can't, I can't comment on the details of the science.
01:19:27.100 That's not my, my area. I'm not at the forefront of, of population genetics, but this is
01:19:35.880 uncontroversial, just, I'm just reporting
01:19:39.080 uncontroversial results.
01:19:43.560 It's well known that just a few months ago,
01:19:46.440 David Rice Laboratory at Harvard published a paper
01:19:51.360 in the journal Nature, so, you know,
01:19:53.800 the most prestigious university
01:19:55.640 in the most prestigious journal,
01:19:58.720 showing, based on an analysis of ancient DNA,
01:20:03.720 that there has been selection for genetic variants
01:20:09.920 associated with intelligence and educational attainment
01:20:13.580 in West Eurasians in the last several thousand years.
01:20:19.040 So the idea that evolution stopped 200,000 years ago
01:20:27.100 or something like that
01:20:29.900 is just not consistent with mainstream science.
01:20:33.720 Okay, there's a few other things I wanted to ask you. What do you think, if we accept your thesis that these things are genetic, presumably they're the consequences of evolution? Is that fair?
01:20:53.180 Well, I mean, evolution, some either natural selection or some random drift.
01:20:59.900 Okay, I'm not a scientist, so I'm perhaps speaking imprecisely about this, but what I mean is these IQ differences are the result of adapting to different environments over very long periods of time. Is that accurate?
01:21:13.920 Well, that would be the difference between races would be due to becoming adapted to different environments over a long period of time. But of course, you get different population differences between groups based on migration patterns. For example, migration can be elite. African immigration to the UK is highly selected.
01:21:36.960 So the reason black Africans, for example, do well in education in Britain is that we're getting the cream of the crop of the African continent who are coming here. So we're getting that self-selecting high IQ population from a continent that you would argue on average has a lower IQ. Is that right?
01:21:58.940 Yes. And it's unlikely to be cultural. Some people say, well, that's just African culture. But then why doesn't Africa have the same results in Africa? It's just if you take very intelligent Africans and you form a group of those people, then you get a high-performing group.
01:22:18.200 Makes sense. What would be the reason that certain groups would not evolve to have as high an
01:22:30.360 intelligence as another group? For example, the two groups that you've talked about today.
01:22:37.880 So when you speculate about this, people will get angry and say that it's pseudoscience and
01:22:43.520 these ideas haven't been tested. I mean, this is the kind of thing that academics should be working
01:22:47.480 on, right? That's such an interesting question. There should be theories that which anthropologists
01:22:55.400 and geneticists should collaborate to test what are the historical conditions that seem
01:23:04.800 to have selected for differences in various traits, including intelligence, but also specific
01:23:10.240 intelligences so you know we we don't have a huge amount of data to go on it's been speculated and
01:23:21.700 there's some prima facie evidence that encountering winter is is a relevant condition for selecting
01:23:33.140 for certain kinds of intelligence,
01:23:35.260 that the challenge of dealing with a period of time
01:23:39.100 where you have to prepare in advance for winter
01:23:45.000 where you won't have easy access to food,
01:23:49.040 that that selects for intelligence.
01:23:51.300 Farming also appears to select for intelligence.
01:23:59.460 So things involving planning, effectively.
01:24:02.220 If you have to plan to survive, you're likely to evolve intelligence, whereas if you don't and food is readily available, you might evolve characteristics and traits that are helpful to hunting or gathering the food in the moment without necessarily evolving adaptations that are useful for planning for the entire year. Is that what you're saying?
01:24:23.880 It seems very plausible that that's a big part of the story, if not necessarily the whole thing, but a big part.
01:24:30.480 Okay. And if I ask you, so there's obviously a big conversation in both the United States and Europe about the underperformance in education of poor working class white boys in particular. What would be your explanation? Would you say that they are genetically lower IQ or is that a cultural thing?
01:24:53.760 There may be some cultural aspect to it, but there are, you know, this is also, this is wokeism just, you know, making whites into the victim, right?
01:25:07.880 They're using the same woke logic as, you know, as blacks do in other contexts.
01:25:15.060 So they're saying the whites are not doing as well as African immigrants, therefore whites are being discriminated against.
01:25:21.820 But that's not necessarily the case.
01:25:23.580 There are genetic differences between people of different socioeconomic status.
01:25:35.540 It's not only cultural.
01:25:37.100 But you can see how to somebody encountering your views, it would seem counterintuitive to believe that if you said there's a massive racial gap between white people and black people,
01:25:45.940 and suddenly you have white people really underperforming
01:25:50.560 in things that are highly IQ correlated,
01:25:52.980 that would be odd, right?
01:25:56.020 Well, I would hope people can appreciate
01:26:00.240 a little bit of subtlety.
01:26:03.580 Hereditarianism isn't saying that it's a law of nature
01:26:07.800 that all groups of this ancestry
01:26:13.420 have and ancestry a b and c have the same pattern of differences like under under all conditions
01:26:23.540 right because these populations can be divided into different into smaller groups like
01:26:28.020 again like whites in appalachia are clearly different for they're they have a different
01:26:35.960 culture and and that may have something to do with it but they're not exactly the same on average as
01:26:42.560 whites from, you know, I use the example of Massachusetts, where all the fancy universities
01:26:49.620 are, or Connecticut.
01:26:51.460 Okay, it makes sense. So that all being the case, Nathan, we've prodded around, and let's say that
01:26:58.300 we, for the sake of argument, accept that your view of this is accurate. You mentioned right at
01:27:05.760 the top of our interview that the reason you were doing all of this is that the world won't make
01:27:11.960 sense. And in fact, you mentioned we won't have peace until we accept this worldview, which means
01:27:17.580 that behind it, you have, I guess, a set of policy prescriptions to address the realities that you're
01:27:24.160 pointing to. What is that set of policy prescriptions? What should we do about the fact
01:27:29.520 that different groups have different average IQs and therefore different average life outcomes?
01:27:36.580 KK, just before Nathan answers that question, I think there might be an interesting question to
01:27:40.900 talk about classification how do we classify groups if someone's a good point go for it yeah
01:27:46.700 so nathan here's my question to you everybody can now drink so i'm like half south american
01:27:53.440 half british i think people would look at me and say oh he's white british i'm not like i've
01:27:59.820 actually come from a very multiracial background i'm oppressed as you can see so my point is this
01:28:05.440 how do we how do we classify certain people if they're half black half white are they black
01:28:12.600 if someone's half latino half black or puerto rican what does that mean because particularly
01:28:19.380 when you're talking about latin americans and african americans there's a lot of racial mixing
01:28:24.520 going on there. So is Dutch the same language as German? I mean, they can sort of understand each
01:28:36.240 other and, you know, how far do you have to go into the hills of Appalachia until hillbilly twang
01:28:48.960 becomes its own dialect. And where does dialect end and language begin? In South Korea, they've
01:28:58.560 borrowed thousands of words from English. And in North Korea, they've borrowed thousands of words
01:29:05.360 from Russian. Are they speaking the same language? It's exactly the same with populations. There's no
01:29:15.680 sharp lines separating English and Mandarin. And Mandarin uses some English words and vice versa.
01:29:25.000 They borrow grammatical structures, expressions. But you can still say that Mandarin and English
01:29:31.400 are different. It's not a meaningless statement. So I see race as being exactly the same way.
01:29:38.500 There are populations that are distinguishable from each other, but there's overlap and they
01:29:43.380 blend into each other and there are populations that are that are a combination of one population
01:29:48.860 the other that doesn't mean that there aren't there isn't a pattern of differences that really
01:29:53.720 exists in the world now how you categorize those patterns whether for example you would be
01:30:00.180 categorized as white or something else like whether i'm white so the the the leftists say
01:30:06.840 that I'm bad. I'm white. The right says that I'm not white. Kofnus isn't white. He's pretending to
01:30:13.640 be white. He's a Jew. So there's no objective answer to what I am or why I'm bad. It's just
01:30:27.120 how you classify even languages, how you classify languages as a dialect, as a different language
01:30:34.240 reflects your kind of personal interests or political realities or whatever.
01:30:41.500 But again, it's still the point isn't what words we use to describe or where we draw the lines
01:30:49.720 around this category or that category. The important point is that the underlying reality,
01:30:56.420 which is that there are patterns of differences. You said at the beginning of our interview
01:31:02.340 that the reason that you're doing the work that you're doing
01:31:05.240 and doing the research that you're doing
01:31:06.680 is that you think there won't be peace
01:31:10.180 and it's very difficult to understand the world
01:31:12.720 unless we accept the thesis that you're putting forward.
01:31:15.920 Let's say for the sake of argument,
01:31:17.720 we accept the thesis that you're putting forward.
01:31:20.300 If we were to do that,
01:31:22.640 what would be the policy prescriptions
01:31:24.660 to address the racial IQ gaps
01:31:27.800 and to create a better society as you would see it?
01:31:32.340 So, the first thing, most obviously, is that you undermine the empirical premise of wokeism.
01:31:41.340 So you make wokeism impossible.
01:31:44.400 The world is no longer seen as permeated with the injustice of past or present racism.
01:31:54.740 Now, I'm not saying that people need to turn on the television and hear about a lecture about hereditarianism every day or that this necessarily needs to be taught to elementary school students.
01:32:08.540 But what my idea is that a critical mass of the elites will just kind of come to understand that this is the way it is, even if they're not going around talking about it all the time.
01:32:21.520 and you know i get all that nathan i totally get it what let's what i'm saying is the elites and
01:32:27.120 in fact the ordinary person has a broad understanding of what you're saying which is
01:32:31.780 when different groups have different outcomes it's because of nature it's not because of the
01:32:36.660 system or the government or the man who or the oppressor or whatever now what we've you said
01:32:41.860 yourself in one of your substacks that if we were to have a purely meritocratic system that would
01:32:47.120 mean that there would be almost no black representation, for example, in academia.
01:32:53.320 Likewise, there would be almost no X representation in Y. If you had a purely meritocratic system,
01:32:59.360 the world would look very unfair, quote unquote, based on the equality thesis that we currently
01:33:06.700 hold. Okay, the world has accepted that you are right about this, hypothetically. What do we do
01:33:12.800 now in a society where these groups have such different outcomes? Well, I should say an important
01:33:18.200 qualification. It's not that there would be almost no blacks in higher education. It's just at that
01:33:24.920 very highest level at some place like Harvard, it would be under 1% representation. There would
01:33:30.880 still be brilliant black scholars, but there's no question about it. Of course, because there are
01:33:35.040 outliers within every group. But what I'm getting at is you would have a society that is, by your
01:33:40.920 assessment, there would be huge disparities in people being, quote-unquote, represented
01:33:50.320 in important fields of human endeavor, right?
01:33:53.720 So now, I, as a Birkin conservative, don't really...
01:34:02.680 I'm cautious about issuing recommendations about how society ought to be arranged in any great detail.
01:34:14.920 I think that it's necessary to go through a process of absorbing this truth
01:34:21.520 and then slowly adjusting the institutions to align with this new understanding.
01:34:29.280 Adjusting in what direction? What would we do differently?
01:34:32.460 That's what I'm asking.
01:34:33.600 So my lodestar is meritocracy.
01:34:37.380 I think that ideally people should be treated as individuals
01:34:42.080 and that on average everyone benefits
01:34:47.600 when the person who is best qualified for a job is given the job.
01:34:52.100 I do recognize there's a competing value,
01:34:55.600 which is representation and people feeling
01:34:59.980 that they're participating in society in a meaningful way and that their group and their
01:35:04.860 interests are represented in a way that is visible to them. So that's a value that can be in conflict
01:35:11.600 with the value of a pure meritocracy. And I think that one may need to find a balance between these
01:35:19.040 things. So I've... So less DEI, but still some DEI. So there'd be no DEI because DEI refers to
01:35:27.400 the ideology of addressing the history of injustice. So what I'm saying is not DEI. It's
01:35:34.060 saying, look, it's like the United Nations. Every country gets one vote. Like, that's not DEI.
01:35:41.960 That's just, you know, everyone gets represented, even though some countries are more important.
01:35:47.420 Yes, but the inclusion in the United Nations is based on identity. It's not based on your
01:35:52.620 ability to do a job, whereas employment at a university is. And so if you're only higher on
01:35:58.320 merit, you are, as you said yourself, in direct conflict with representation. So you either
01:36:04.320 have some thumb on the scale, or you have a pure meritocracy in which, you know, representation
01:36:11.680 goes out of the window. And there'll be plenty of people who would be okay with that. I'm asking if
01:36:17.140 you are. So I'm okay with some level of quotas or something like that. You know, in the case
01:36:26.880 of the United Nations, I think it's very possible that, you know, if you took the, I think there
01:36:41.760 There are 193 countries in the United Nations and two observer states, if I remember correctly.
01:36:48.140 If you selected the 193 most able statesmen in the world to govern the world most effectively
01:37:03.320 and it was a meritocracy, it's very possible that Micronesia would not be represented there.
01:37:11.080 it would be mainly from the United States and China or something like that.
01:37:18.600 But we reckon part of the... Okay, so the United Nations is a special institution,
01:37:23.960 so I don't want to push that analogy too far.
01:37:25.640 Yeah, it's very different.
01:37:27.800 I'm just saying in principle...
01:37:31.880 Why can't you just say you want a meritocracy? What's the hesitation?
01:37:35.560 Because a meritocracy is the logical conclusion of what you're talking about.
01:37:39.880 Because there are two things that I recognize as being values, which are meritocracy and
01:37:46.200 feeling represented. So those are two good things. Now, the two good things, you can't have both of
01:37:52.440 those things to the maximum degree at the same time. So right now, we are destroying the meritocracy
01:38:03.320 in favor of feelings and putting feelings of representation above everything else.
01:38:10.840 And we're doing that under the banner of fighting injustice, which I say is largely imaginary.
01:38:18.040 Not that there wasn't injustice in the past and all of that, but
01:38:21.960 we're fighting the injustice that is affecting people today in the way claimed by the wokesters.
01:38:29.080 so i think do you then believe in some quotas for jews in the nba then i mean this is this is
01:38:35.740 kind of where this is the thing that doesn't work about dei is like you have quotas for some people
01:38:42.960 for some areas but they only sort of work in one direction you don't seem to have quotas for women
01:38:49.760 to to be been women and and other things of that nature it's it's all about certain types of jobs
01:38:57.280 but nobody seems to be advocating for more Ashkenazis or more Muslims
01:39:01.320 or more white people in sports teams.
01:39:04.940 Do you see what I'm getting at?
01:39:06.580 Yes, I could...
01:39:09.360 There could be a quota for a Jew in the 100-meter dash in the Olympics,
01:39:17.080 and then I could watch him coming in last in order to feel represented.
01:39:22.420 but i mean that i don't think that that would make me feel very good but i but the thing is
01:39:30.080 but this is my point though is it's so unrepresentative it's so unhelpful rather but
01:39:34.980 sport is an area where it actually objectively doesn't matter if you add another lane for the
01:39:40.900 jewish guy at the end of the hundred meter final and there's now nine guys and all of them run it
01:39:45.860 in under 10 seconds and he said to take about five minutes like no one loses out from that
01:39:51.900 but when you i could do a solid 14 seconds when i i'm sure you could if you if you have that in
01:39:59.780 academia where you have people like the person about whom we started this conversation who are
01:40:05.420 teaching and doing research and indoctrinating the next generation that is actually damaging
01:40:11.140 right? So I don't understand how anyone who could, who particularly with your worldview would come
01:40:16.780 out in favor of quotas. Well, quotas doesn't mean representation that's proportionate to the
01:40:24.880 representation in the population. So 14% of blacks, I'm saying the two values have to be balanced
01:40:30.500 against each other. You have A is good, B is good, but you can't have both of them, you know,
01:40:36.700 a hundred percent. Okay. So what if you have 30% of B and 70% of A? So let's say the quota system
01:40:47.160 is, uh, you know, 3% black at Harvard, right? They'll get qualified people. They'll get good,
01:40:54.280 uh, black applicants. They won't be ridiculously unqualified. Uh, and, uh,
01:41:00.980 So you just want, but this is why I said you just want less DEI.
01:41:04.220 You want DEI, but pulled back somewhat, right?
01:41:08.920 But again, I don't call it DEI because DEI has the connotation of wokeism being based.
01:41:14.600 Fine, fine.
01:41:14.920 You want racial quotas that are not as extreme as what we have now.
01:41:18.700 You just want everyone to accept that the reality is there's big differences between different groups.
01:41:25.140 Because this is the reason that nobody wants to touch this stuff, Nathan,
01:41:27.780 is you're kind of advocating slightly less of what we have,
01:41:31.040 but everyone to accept a really toxic thing
01:41:34.540 to be part of the public discourse.
01:41:36.700 That's why people don't want to talk about this.
01:41:39.920 Well, if we don't talk about it...
01:41:41.360 The game doesn't seem worth the sacrifice.
01:41:43.640 The alternative is that we perceive disparities
01:41:47.380 as the result of injustice, and that's wokeism.
01:41:50.040 And we'll be dealing with wokeism forever.
01:41:52.760 So that's also toxic.
01:41:54.220 So which kind of toxicity...
01:41:55.720 The alternative isn't that, in my opinion.
01:41:56.800 the alternative is the alternative is you say we're going to identify discrimination where it
01:42:03.080 exists and eliminate it but other than that we will accept that people are going to be treated
01:42:08.400 on their merits and whatever is the outcome of that is the outcome of that and we don't have to
01:42:13.220 get into trying to prove that some racial groups is more stupid than others because that seems to
01:42:18.480 me like a very toxic path to go down from a just a communication perspective not least given that
01:42:23.960 the outcome that you're advocating for is actually very tame based on the very strong
01:42:29.020 claims you're making about human intelligence.
01:42:33.880 Well, you can say that you would like to have a meritocracy, but what is the consequence?
01:42:40.120 If we actually have your meritocracy, Harvard will be less than 1% black.
01:42:44.740 People are going to notice that, and then they're going to demand an explanation.
01:42:48.800 And if you haven't, if they think that...
01:42:51.140 The explanation is different groups have different aptitudes for different things.
01:42:54.880 End of story.
01:42:55.440 Well, okay, so you would say hereditarianism and pure meritocracy, no quotas.
01:43:03.960 Now, if people are willing...
01:43:05.320 I wouldn't say hereditarianism.
01:43:06.760 I'd just say, look, different people have different outcomes for different things.
01:43:11.360 All we can do is focus on, can we eliminate discrimination?
01:43:15.200 Has this Jewish man not achieved his position in the 100-meter final
01:43:19.380 based on merit or discrimination?
01:43:21.140 We have found no discrimination against Jews in athletics.
01:43:24.740 Therefore, we can conclude reasonably there's no Jews in the 100-meter final
01:43:28.620 because whatever, and we move on with our lives.
01:43:31.520 Instead of delving into the stuff where we're really getting into the difficulties
01:43:36.340 for most people of having this conversation morally.
01:43:40.440 We've seen that it doesn't work.
01:43:42.720 We've been trying that.
01:43:43.820 mainstream conservatives have been trying this approach for decades. And we see that the vast
01:43:49.880 majority of intelligent and morally sensitive people do think it's a moral emergency to correct
01:43:55.940 the environment and achieve equal outcomes, because they think that, again, the average
01:44:05.180 African, the average Asian, the average European, they're all born with exactly the same potential.
01:44:12.100 There's no reason that the whole world can't be turned into Singapore.
01:44:17.060 So it's just the most important thing is to figure out how to do that.
01:44:23.100 And so much moral energy is channeled into this hopeless project.
01:44:30.620 And this whole idea about wokeism being over is just not, this is just based on Twitter vibes.
01:44:39.800 All the survey data shows that the opposite is true. The younger generations are far worse on
01:44:48.760 every measure than the older. Gen X is worse than the boomers. Millennials are worse than X.
01:44:57.800 Zoomers are worse than millennials by a long shot. This isn't going away. We can't just say,
01:45:06.040 let's treat everyone as individuals and ignore this disaster of group disparities, it isn't
01:45:14.000 working. And once the boomer and Gen X gatekeepers are phased out, it's going to be really bad
01:45:27.260 unless we find a new strategy. Okay. I mean, I think that's a fair response.
01:45:34.520 The only question is, if you accept that the next generation is even worse, how do you persuade those people to believe that there's IQ differences between races?
01:45:45.680 That does not seem like a realistic prospect to me.
01:45:48.340 How do you persuade a woke 20-year-old girl that what you're saying is true?
01:45:55.840 There are many people who will not be persuaded by anything.
01:45:58.760 Uh, that's just, uh, but that was true of the taboos of previous generations, where
01:46:06.400 people would not consider the atheist, uh, woke, anti-racist college girl today who won't
01:46:17.140 listen to anything about hereditarianism, uh, in a previous generation, she would have
01:46:23.580 hated you if you questioned Christianity or if you said that homosexuality should be okay.
01:46:30.780 These taboos change over time. The taboo of your generation, of whatever generation one is living
01:46:38.540 in, seems like a law of nature, but it really isn't. And you defeat the taboo. You know,
01:46:45.900 Darwin himself said that when he first told his friend about that he had rejected the idea of
01:46:55.820 special creation, as he said, it felt like I was confessing a murder. To propose the theory of
01:47:04.180 evolution was so outrageous in the mid-19th century. And now it's not controversial at all.
01:47:12.400 You have to make the case, and you have to explain the reasons why hereditarianism is correct, and persuade those who are capable of being persuaded, and the information will spread.
01:47:29.820 so Nathan the final question is always the same I'm going to be honest with you it feels a little
01:47:35.280 bit redundant in this episode but nevertheless what's the one thing that we're not talking about
01:47:41.260 that we really should be before Nathan answers the final question at the end of the interview
01:47:46.740 make sure to go to triggerpod.co.uk where you'll be able to see this has Jason Arday become a martyr
01:47:54.320 and so beyond criticism.
01:47:56.960 In academia, you survive by publishing,
01:47:59.260 but you can only publish if you discover something
01:48:01.760 or have positive results.
01:48:03.580 This makes people very risk-averse
01:48:05.140 as every project has to work from a master's to a postdoc.
01:48:09.760 How can we re-include the ability to fail?
01:48:15.000 What's the one thing that we're not talking about
01:48:17.400 that we really should be?
01:48:18.520 i mean i don't know i i i have to give the least surprising answer
01:48:28.040 uh in the history of the show it's just we have to talk about hereditarianism
01:48:33.600 uh well i'll tell you i'll give you a little bit uh maybe a more surprising answer
01:48:42.420 which is related to reditarianism but was the title of my first substack essay which was why
01:48:49.260 we need to talk about the right stupidity problem and the fact that the resistance
01:48:57.460 to wokeism has been so ineffective and the fact that the right is totally unable to create
01:49:06.320 serious, effective institutions. This is something that people don't want to talk about
01:49:13.960 on the right. Give us a little bit more of what you're talking about, Nathan. So
01:49:20.060 what is the right stupidity problem exactly? I've seen people on Twitter showing research
01:49:27.880 to sort of support the anecdotal claim that basically the problematic people on the left
01:49:34.040 are mentally ill and the problematic people
01:49:35.880 on the right are stupid.
01:49:37.080 Is that kind of what you're getting at?
01:49:39.720 I don't know about the mental illness.
01:49:42.480 I think it could be that leftists are just more likely
01:49:44.780 to be diagnosed with mental illness
01:49:46.480 because that's become like its own identity,
01:49:48.960 kind of left-coded identity.
01:49:51.600 But definitely, there's a problem that
01:49:54.600 the intellectual elites lean left and woke.
01:49:59.560 Now, there isn't a definitive study that proves that, but there are several lines of evidence
01:50:09.840 that indicate strongly that this is the case.
01:50:14.100 In the General Social Survey, which surveys a representative sample of Americans regularly
01:50:24.340 for the last few decades, finds that on abbreviated intelligence tests, whites who identify as
01:50:38.500 very conservative do worse than those who identify as conservative, do worse than those
01:50:45.820 who identify as liberals, and the very liberals do the best.
01:50:49.920 Wow.
01:50:50.600 It's consistent with, well, stereotype accuracy.
01:50:55.020 So stereotype accuracy, you can't prove something just by saying that it's a stereotype, but
01:51:00.780 it is a generalization that stereotypes tend to be, you know, not totally based on nothing.
01:51:06.800 And, you know, in the United States, the Republican Party is known as the stupid party.
01:51:11.820 And the stereotype in other countries of right-wing parties is generally similar.
01:51:16.300 You have the fact that conservatives have not managed to control one single serious university in the United States, and that includes Brigham Young University, which is still majority non-conservative, and universities even in deep red states are still staffed primarily by liberals.
01:51:42.480 this is not what you would expect now okay it's true a lot of what goes on at the universities
01:51:49.720 isn't serious it's just a bunch of left-wing activism but still they are there is real
01:51:55.520 like intellectual work being done at a lot of universities and conservatives are just not
01:52:00.100 well represented and if conservatives really cared just as much as liberals about
01:52:06.140 knowledge and scholarship and they were just as smart and capable as liberals, you would expect
01:52:13.880 them to have at least one university or even they could just create a new university. But even that
01:52:19.840 is something that they're seriously struggling with. And in terms of the intellectual culture
01:52:27.400 on the right. It's just a disaster. Now, I think the right stupidity problem is related
01:52:39.640 to hereditarianism because I think that without hereditarianism, it's impossible to have an
01:52:45.160 intellectually coherent right, a right-wing philosophy that appeals to smart and intelligent
01:52:51.880 people. I mean, okay, there are smart, intelligent people on the right who deny hereditarianism,
01:52:57.380 they exist, but it's just statistically smart, morally sensitive, thoughtful people are more
01:53:05.580 likely to be on the left and woke if they accept the equality thesis and the taboo on hereditarianism.
01:53:16.900 So that is actually a big taboo on the right. It's not a taboo on the left, but it's a taboo
01:53:22.240 on the right to point out that conservatives have very little scholarship. They have very little
01:53:29.240 art. You remember the... In American football, they have the halftime show where they feature
01:53:39.500 the latest homosexual artist doing some flamboyant performance, as I say.
01:53:48.200 And so conservatives are very triggered by that.
01:53:52.780 So they wanted to prove that they are just as good at art as liberals.
01:53:57.840 So then there was the competing conservative halftime show.
01:54:01.180 And the star of the halftime show was this guy who was beyond parody.
01:54:07.220 He was like, I just want to wear my boots and walk my dog.
01:54:12.220 Did you see this?
01:54:14.220 It was like last year ago.
01:54:16.600 and they say how come anybody say that conservatives are not as good at art as liberals
01:54:24.680 um well i think one of the things i think jordan who you mentioned earlier has described is
01:54:30.620 the temperament difference smart people on the right tend to go into business not academia
01:54:35.740 not least because from a financial perspective that's a much smarter decision that you know if
01:54:40.580 you run a business and you're good at it you're going to make way more money and have way more
01:54:44.420 freedom than you would if you if you became a professor at university um all right nathan well
01:54:50.800 thank you for your time uh we're going to go to triggerpods.co.uk now where our audience will get
01:54:56.720 to ask you their questions what evidence would convince you that average group differences in
01:55:03.920 cognitive ability are environmental rather than partly genetic
01:55:14.420 We'll be right back.