This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I keep getting surprised that a Professor Garrett Jones hasn’t been canceled for wrongthink. Granted. He works for George Mason which has been different for decades now.
He just released a new book, “The Culture Transplant: How Migrants Make the Economies They Move To a Lot Like the Ones They Left”
I think the title is self-explanatory and it’s going to be Maga supporting and argue to keep certain cultures out from immigrating. His last book “Hive Mind: How your nations IQ matters so much more than your own”. Basically made the point that a lot of low IQ people in a nation will lead to a low trust society and poor government performance.
While he does appear to avoid saying it directly - don’t let in a lot of low IQ immigrants into your country or your country will fail; I believe any rational person would come to that conclusion.
Longer term there will not be assimilation with certain groups and it will cause governance issues. America seems to have different results with assimilation. African Americans outside of a tiny subset never become blended Americans. All kinds of Europeans ended up for the most part blending in. Hispanic people seem to do both - assimilate and at times stay seperate.
It does seem that certain cultures do well anyway. Like Jews or Han Chinese who end up retaining a lot of their culture.
I’m surprised he hasn’t yet been Charles Murrayed because his arguments I believe are based on similar beliefs. And then explaining why allowing more low IQ individuals into a country will lead to bad results.
I obviously can't address any specifics since the book hasn't come out yet, but the entire premise seems absurd on its face. First, I don't know what he means when he says that they "make the economies they move to look a lot like the ones they left". Does he mean that an industrialized economy will revert to an agricultural one? That a capitalist economy will become socialist? That one centered around banking will switch to auto manufacturing? That aside, though, by any definition, I can't think of a single example of a high-immigrant country that has had its economy transformed by high immigration in such a way that the host country started to look like the country from which the immigrants came.
Is there any empirical evidence for this? I can't speak to countries, but we can look at various areas around the United States. You don't make it clear which countries specifically you are referring to as "low IQ", but given that most of the HBD discussion as it pertains to immigrants centers around Mexico let's start there, with the caveat that blacks also have low IQs as well. Thus, we should assume that the most successful parts of the country will be the ones with the most non-Hispanic whites. Except this obviously isn't true. I live pretty close to West Virginia, and I can tell you that there are very few people there who aren't non-Hispanic whites (less than 10%, per the 2020 census), yet it ranks 48th in GDP per capita. The state with the highest GDP per capita, on the other hand, is New York, despite being only 54% non-Hispanic white. But maybe that's not fair since West Virginia is rural while New York (and California, and Texas) have big cities that allow them to have high GDPs despite a large number of undesirable low-IQ minorities. So let's compare the cities themselves.
I live in Pittsburgh, one of the whitest cities in the US. Blacks are only 8% of the metro population (compared with 16% in New York and Chicago and 45% in Atlanta), and there is practically no Hispanic population to speak of. Even the housekeepers and restaurant workers are white. All in all, the metro is 83% non-Hispanic white. The only other metro with a population over 2 million that even comes close is Cincinnati, at around 75%. Yet Pittsburgh and Cincinnati sit at 24th and 25th, respectively, in GDP per capita among the 35 US metros with populations of 2 million or more. Again, you could argue that other factors account for this, namely deindustrialization in the rust belt (although other rust belt cities with larger minority populations have higher GDPs) but that's just making my point for me: Even if all of this were true, it's obvious that the average IQ of the ethnicities that inhabit an area has little influence on the economic situation compared to other factors. As a final thought, if the entire population of Mexico were to immigrate to the US tomorrow, it would go from being 18% to Hispanic to 38% Hispanic. That's still lower than the Hispanic populations of Los Angeles, Houston, Phoenix, and San Antonio are currently. I think the US will be fine.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link