JF- Bird

JF- Bird debate was interesting.

Interesting precisely because, Bird never actrually justifies his 100% environment hypothesis with a positive argument but claims it would be easy to do with his assumptions about economic exploitation and colonialism (which is dubious since SES does little to ameliorate the gaps we see). Instead he does what they usually do: argue you cant even inquire into this matter, that the inquiry is invalid. Like arguing that continental categories are useless because it could be more precise, or that GxE complicates heritability (and somehow I doubt it justifies 100% environment), or demanding a specific selective pressure be identified.

All of this is true, except the last one, to some extent. But it's hardly a case for 100% environment. Just makes determining the exact genetic contribution tricky. It means that true statements are still being made, just in an improper context for these ideas. Arguing that races are incoherent does not change the fact that finding partially genetic reasons for performance differences between what we call Black and White populations carries information and relevant information at that.

And in the absence of positive claims for himself it reeks of the same kind of argumentation ussed by creationists: hitting limitations in current explanatory power as an argument for their position. If these limits even truly exist here

And yes, the idea that evolution happened above the neck is the furthest thing from creationism. Arguing humans acquired the same qualities in a property we as humans happen to value highly is like intelligent design

Oh. And his argument about borders was dumb. You can call borders authoritarian but somehow forming a coalition with those immigrants for your preferred policies (since Bird is a lefty to say the least) to disenfranchise the effect native voters have on the political process isnt authoritarian at all? Pathetic.

And yea, open borders isnt identical to not being isolationist. Hell, East Asian nations are pretty close to isolationist in terms of border policy but arent inbred. Not even North Korea is. And they could always relax their rules to fix this issue at any time. But it's hard to take people away once you let them in. To use a cooking analogy, it's best to be conservative when adding salt because you can always add more but cant take it back.

And why cant we have white immigrants if inbreeding depression is a true problem? It makes sense to take people from developed nations rather than undeveloped nations anyway.

Moreover the idea that cultural exchange is equivalent to open borders or whatever was dumb
Kinda goes along with his general idea that because we cant keep things static we should consent to all changes. I guess because no group is identical to 100 years ago we should not care about what we can help at all?

What a silly goose he is.

https://archive.is/g7dRL