Thomas Sowell’s book, Wealth, Poverty and Politics, provides a thorough explanation as to why nations and groups of peoples developed at different rates, how and why they rise or fall as a group or empire. There are only a few sections which I do not find convincing, such as his arguments on group differences in IQ and his complete rejection of the genetic hypothesis.
Have you read Garett Jones' book "Hive mind"? The thesis of the book is the IQ of nations matters and matters A LOT. I respect Sowell's work but he is black and he is an economist, not a genetic scientist.
As for this statement: "In 1939, the proportion of US blacks attending Stuyvesant High School was high, but it declined to 12.9% in 1979, to 4.8% in 1995, and to 1.2% in 2012." There's probably no data on the genetic admixture of these black students at Stuvy in 1939 right?
For example, Kamala Harris identifies as black. But her mother is full blooded East Indian and her father is Jamaican of African and Irish descent. So Harris is less than 1/4 black. These days, if one only has one drop of Subsaharan African blood, one can claim to be black.
Yes you are right. But considering Sowell has so much to say in his book, I thought it would be better not to comment on every little details. The post happened to be much longer than what I wished. Looking at where my readers come from, they are likely not new to HBD, and (fortunately?) they have read a few of my articles in the past, so they might already know where I stand.
But to let you know, in case you were wondering. When reading the book, I was astonished by how brilliant he was in concluding that since geography has never made populations equal, and that equal chance does not equate equal outcome, yet despite this he was unable to think that these different conditions could have made people different genetically, and not just culturally. He does admit somewhere that genetics affect psychological traits, as he acknowledges there are such studies. But he denies somehow group differences when it comes to genetic influences. When you think about it though, it's not very different from what the majority of psychologists and geneticists say. They become egalitarians when the reality is just too ugly to cope with.
Regarding Jones' book, I haven't read it yet, but I have read tons of articles commenting it. I may look at bit though.
Most leftist choose political ideology over hard data when it comes to genetics. They refuse to accept evolutionary effects of environment (geography) on the human brain. Apparently evolution only applies from the neck down for them. Oh well.
Have you read Garett Jones' book "Hive mind"? The thesis of the book is the IQ of nations matters and matters A LOT. I respect Sowell's work but he is black and he is an economist, not a genetic scientist.
As for this statement: "In 1939, the proportion of US blacks attending Stuyvesant High School was high, but it declined to 12.9% in 1979, to 4.8% in 1995, and to 1.2% in 2012." There's probably no data on the genetic admixture of these black students at Stuvy in 1939 right?
For example, Kamala Harris identifies as black. But her mother is full blooded East Indian and her father is Jamaican of African and Irish descent. So Harris is less than 1/4 black. These days, if one only has one drop of Subsaharan African blood, one can claim to be black.
Yes you are right. But considering Sowell has so much to say in his book, I thought it would be better not to comment on every little details. The post happened to be much longer than what I wished. Looking at where my readers come from, they are likely not new to HBD, and (fortunately?) they have read a few of my articles in the past, so they might already know where I stand.
But to let you know, in case you were wondering. When reading the book, I was astonished by how brilliant he was in concluding that since geography has never made populations equal, and that equal chance does not equate equal outcome, yet despite this he was unable to think that these different conditions could have made people different genetically, and not just culturally. He does admit somewhere that genetics affect psychological traits, as he acknowledges there are such studies. But he denies somehow group differences when it comes to genetic influences. When you think about it though, it's not very different from what the majority of psychologists and geneticists say. They become egalitarians when the reality is just too ugly to cope with.
Regarding Jones' book, I haven't read it yet, but I have read tons of articles commenting it. I may look at bit though.
Most leftist choose political ideology over hard data when it comes to genetics. They refuse to accept evolutionary effects of environment (geography) on the human brain. Apparently evolution only applies from the neck down for them. Oh well.