My prediction is that you will never win the debate as long as women are in academia and other elite institutions. They don’t even like denouncing after the ideas themselves, but rather try to damage the reputations of the people involved. Women do this and they are naturally egalitarian.
I do think that popularization is impossible, but I think that if enough people believe it, normal professors could criticize research on the grounds that the blank slate is implicitly assumed, which would be massive.
Literally everyone who tried to argue against HBD (Gusev, Rutherford, and a few others) is male. Having an anti-HBD position rather than just slandering HBDers is quite rare tbh. Most social science departments are female dominated. They won’t even engage with the topic.
My thesis is that the decline in racism was a matter of propaganda, and that the answer to this is:
A) Undermine the authority of the consensus-building institutions (Mission accomplished!)
B) Counter-propaganda.
As such, it becomes a marketing question where you try to relate what you're selling to the cardinal human motivations. Stuff like:
-Status
-Certainty/Control
-Autonomy
-Belonging
-Fairness
-pain avoidance (or annoyance, disgust, etc)
-Profit
-Belonging seems like the thing that racism most obviously appeals to: "I don't want to feel like a foreigner in the country my ancestors built." The flip side is that "trusting consensus" is a matter of conformity so that has to be minimized.
-Certainty: low-trust/diverse environments are unpredictable and maybe violent whereas you know what you're dealing with if everyone is a particular type of person
-Autonomy: Freedom of association
-Fairness: Harrison Burgeron, national self determination
-pain avoidance: indians smell bad, latinx spanish is annoying, black DMV workers are infuriating
-Profit: IQ & GDP
-Status:
--1. "If Whites became higher status, I, a White person, would be higher status"
--2. FOMO of being a late adopter. "We can't keep writing the federal budget with the assumption that Santa Claus exists!" here, "trusting consensus" is reframed as being the last kid in class to catch on that Santa Claus isn't real, as that's an embarrassing position to be in.
--3. For some people, it's a matter of ego that they be rational and believe correct theses.
--4. In local e.g. gaming groups it's possible to become a majority and make it a matter of conformity to signal the majority view. Just because blue team is currently dominating on agar.io doesn't mean that there aren't areas of the map where red team can grow. As online spaces increasingly decentralize into one-off facebook groups and discord servers, it goes from a matter of inertia to a matter of how skilled you are at playing this dynamic.
Even academics who took a pro-HBD discourse after that they get denounced and demonized by mainstream (Noah Carl, Bo Winnegard, Richard Lynn, Steve Sailer, Richard Hannania, Jean-Francois Gariepy etc...), you can see that on Wikipedia, BBC, Washington post, New York Times etc...
My prediction is that you will never win the debate as long as women are in academia and other elite institutions. They don’t even like denouncing after the ideas themselves, but rather try to damage the reputations of the people involved. Women do this and they are naturally egalitarian.
I do think that popularization is impossible, but I think that if enough people believe it, normal professors could criticize research on the grounds that the blank slate is implicitly assumed, which would be massive.
Literally everyone who tried to argue against HBD (Gusev, Rutherford, and a few others) is male. Having an anti-HBD position rather than just slandering HBDers is quite rare tbh. Most social science departments are female dominated. They won’t even engage with the topic.
The most famous anti-HBDer (thanks to her book) is probably Kathryn Paige Harden so litteraly not "literally everyone".
My thesis is that the decline in racism was a matter of propaganda, and that the answer to this is:
A) Undermine the authority of the consensus-building institutions (Mission accomplished!)
B) Counter-propaganda.
As such, it becomes a marketing question where you try to relate what you're selling to the cardinal human motivations. Stuff like:
-Status
-Certainty/Control
-Autonomy
-Belonging
-Fairness
-pain avoidance (or annoyance, disgust, etc)
-Profit
-Belonging seems like the thing that racism most obviously appeals to: "I don't want to feel like a foreigner in the country my ancestors built." The flip side is that "trusting consensus" is a matter of conformity so that has to be minimized.
-Certainty: low-trust/diverse environments are unpredictable and maybe violent whereas you know what you're dealing with if everyone is a particular type of person
-Autonomy: Freedom of association
-Fairness: Harrison Burgeron, national self determination
-pain avoidance: indians smell bad, latinx spanish is annoying, black DMV workers are infuriating
-Profit: IQ & GDP
-Status:
--1. "If Whites became higher status, I, a White person, would be higher status"
--2. FOMO of being a late adopter. "We can't keep writing the federal budget with the assumption that Santa Claus exists!" here, "trusting consensus" is reframed as being the last kid in class to catch on that Santa Claus isn't real, as that's an embarrassing position to be in.
--3. For some people, it's a matter of ego that they be rational and believe correct theses.
--4. In local e.g. gaming groups it's possible to become a majority and make it a matter of conformity to signal the majority view. Just because blue team is currently dominating on agar.io doesn't mean that there aren't areas of the map where red team can grow. As online spaces increasingly decentralize into one-off facebook groups and discord servers, it goes from a matter of inertia to a matter of how skilled you are at playing this dynamic.
Ok let me explain the problem with your stategy:
Even academics who took a pro-HBD discourse after that they get denounced and demonized by mainstream (Noah Carl, Bo Winnegard, Richard Lynn, Steve Sailer, Richard Hannania, Jean-Francois Gariepy etc...), you can see that on Wikipedia, BBC, Washington post, New York Times etc...
By the way which is the name of the YT Channel?