This is less than really helpful for the matter at hand. No one is seriously arguing that there isn’t some degree of genetic diversity that is roughly approximate by race (Tay-Sachs and sickle-cell anemia would be obvious single-gene examples). The issue in question is whether certain specific statistical differences today in psychometric testing and social behavior across racial groups are due to simple genetic differences that are primarily environmentally invariant. This leaves the vast majority of your sources as unhelpful. Meanwhile many of the sources listed in the most relevant categories “HBD & IQ” (which incidentally is a bad title since some of the sources talk about other metrics of intelligence than IQ), and “HBD & Crime” include sources from Time, the Wall Street Journal, and the Daily Mail. These are not exactly sources of scientific rigor.Other sources included in other categories are bordering on irrelevant or best so hopelessly out of date that they appear to be there more for padding and for an appearance of intellectual rigor than anything else (what for example is at all gained from including Kant?).
Edit: I’d also be curious to hear what the category listed as “Ethnocentrism & Ethnic Genetic Interests” even has to do with any of the issues at hand other than as some sort of implicit argument that people have a tendency to support people from their own racial groups and therefore doing so is ok. Since this has an obvious naturalistic fallacy, it seems charitable to presume that there’s some other intent here. What is it?
And what’s the point of listing articles like “India Graduates Millions, but Too Few Are Fit to Hire”? Supposedly about “HBD & IQ”, actually about education systems and education levels...?
Frankly, it looks like a list the compilation of which was motivated less by a stoic devotion to hard truths and more by an enjoyment of reading about how great white people are.
Human biodiversity is real, very real:
http://humanbiologicaldiversity.com/
This is less than really helpful for the matter at hand. No one is seriously arguing that there isn’t some degree of genetic diversity that is roughly approximate by race (Tay-Sachs and sickle-cell anemia would be obvious single-gene examples). The issue in question is whether certain specific statistical differences today in psychometric testing and social behavior across racial groups are due to simple genetic differences that are primarily environmentally invariant. This leaves the vast majority of your sources as unhelpful. Meanwhile many of the sources listed in the most relevant categories “HBD & IQ” (which incidentally is a bad title since some of the sources talk about other metrics of intelligence than IQ), and “HBD & Crime” include sources from Time, the Wall Street Journal, and the Daily Mail. These are not exactly sources of scientific rigor.Other sources included in other categories are bordering on irrelevant or best so hopelessly out of date that they appear to be there more for padding and for an appearance of intellectual rigor than anything else (what for example is at all gained from including Kant?).
Edit: I’d also be curious to hear what the category listed as “Ethnocentrism & Ethnic Genetic Interests” even has to do with any of the issues at hand other than as some sort of implicit argument that people have a tendency to support people from their own racial groups and therefore doing so is ok. Since this has an obvious naturalistic fallacy, it seems charitable to presume that there’s some other intent here. What is it?
And what’s the point of listing articles like “India Graduates Millions, but Too Few Are Fit to Hire”? Supposedly about “HBD & IQ”, actually about education systems and education levels...?
Frankly, it looks like a list the compilation of which was motivated less by a stoic devotion to hard truths and more by an enjoyment of reading about how great white people are.