Race and IQ | Nathan Cofnas

Nathan Cofnas argues that distinct populations have developed specific cognitive abilities due to varying environmental challenges.

The conversation explores the definition and validity of racial categorization from a biological perspective, addressing whether certain physical and cognitive differences among races have a genetic basis.

Nathan argues that acknowledging these differences does not necessitate negative social implications but rather an honest recognition of human biodiversity. The dialogue delves into the controversy surrounding race realism in academia, including censorship, accusations of racism, and the consequences of denying or accepting biological differences among races.

00:00 Introduction to Race Realism Discussion
00:27 Exploring Human Evolution and Genetic Diversity
02:52 Debating the Reality and Definitions of Race
06:16 The Semantic vs. Metaphysical Nature of Race
12:53 Genetics, Intelligence, and Race
27:26 Addressing Criticisms and Misunderstandings
37:22 Social Implications and Policies on Racial Differences
39:27 The End of Wokeism and the Future of Society
40:14 Quotas and Representation: Navigating the Complexities
41:37 The Role of Environment in Intelligence
46:32 Race, Genetics, and Intelligence: A Controversial Intersection
56:58 The Political and Social Implications of IQ and Race Research
01:06:06 Navigating Academic Freedom and Controversy

Presenters: Mark Oppenheimer and Jason Werbeloff
Editor and Producer: Ella Coleman

Contact us: Mark.Oppenheimer[at]gmail and Jwerbe[at]gmail

[pinkharrier]

I love the way one of the interviewers kept saying "Your claim.." as if to make light of overwhelming facts.

[bracedgod]

If skin, muscle fibers, and bone density can have differing general ceiling-floor ranges among different groups, why would brain matter/intelligence be any different?

[haydnthomas]

I appreciate and admire your willingness to platform controversial views.

[stevealba]

🎯 Key points for quick navigation:

00:00 *🌍 Nathan Cofnas introduces the discussion on race realism by proposing a thought experiment on human evolutionary history.*
00:25 *🧬 He suggests that distinct human populations developed unique traits through adaptation to different environmental challenges.*
00:51 *🌐 As humans spread across continents, geographic and reproductive isolation led to divergent physical and cognitive developments.*
02:17 *📚 Cofnas discusses how cultural adaptations and intelligence were crucial for survival in diverse environments.*
02:43 *🔍 He raises the question of how to ethically and scientifically deal with observed differences in cognitive abilities among races.*
04:17 *🧐 The term "race realism" is defined and discussed in terms of its implications for recognizing biological differences among human groups.*
05:23 *📉 Cofnas claims that racial differences are not only biological but correlate significantly with sociologically important traits like intelligence.*
06:07 *📖 He critiques the philosophical pursuit of a true definition of race as largely a semantic rather than a metaphysical issue.*
07:00 *💬 Discussion shifts to how race is often misrepresented or oversimplified in philosophical and public discourses.*
08:59 *🔄 Darwin's views on race are revisited, emphasizing gradual variation over sharp distinctions among human groups.*
11:02 *🧩 Cofnas criticizes arbitrary racial classifications and supports a more nuanced understanding based on genetic similarities and ancestry.*
12:40 *🧬 He discusses the practicality of using genetic data for racial classification.*
13:50 *🌏 Genetic clusters and common racial classifications are claimed to align well with one another, suggesting a biological basis for common race concepts.*
15:40 *🤔 The conversation explores misunderstandings in public perceptions of race, emphasizing the difference between folk and scientific concepts of race.*
17:17 *🧠 Phenotypical features are debated as the primary means by which people categorize races in everyday interactions.*
18:51 *👶 Childhood perceptions of race are discussed, highlighting essentialist intuitions and the role of phenotype in racial identification.*
21:41 *📚 Cofnas defends the utility of folk racial categories by relating them closely enough to scientific categories to be useful in everyday discourse.*
25:08 *🧠 General intelligence is discussed as a beneficial trait, positively correlated with desirable outcomes across populations.*
27:34 *📉 The potential social implications of differences in general intelligence among racial groups are considered.*
30:18 *📉 Discusses the Flynn effect, noting the historical rise and recent decline of IQ scores in Western societies.*
32:09 *🧠 Highlights the use of controlled studies like cross-racial adoption to explore genetic influences on intelligence differences.*
33:20 *❌ Notes the failure of intensive early intervention programs aimed at closing IQ gaps, suggesting a potential genetic component.*
34:01 *🔍 Mentions physiological evidence such as differences in brain size correlating with general intelligence across races.*
35:10 *♟️ Analyzes gender disparities in chess as a parallel to discussing intelligence differences, questioning the relevance of IQ in specialized skills.*
36:31 *📚 Discusses the concept of 'grade inflation' and its analogy to potential issues with global IQ comparison metrics.*
37:26 *📈 Considers the implications of hereditary intelligence differences for social policy and discrimination.*
38:04 *⚖️ Suggests reevaluating societal disparities traditionally attributed to racism in light of genetic data.*
39:25 *🔄 Describes the cultural and social dynamics underpinning 'wokeism' and its relation to perceptions of racial inequality.*
40:19 *🏛️ Proposes considering quota systems for ensuring diversity in influential societal roles despite potential genetic differences in intelligence.*
41:03 *🤔 Invokes the broader philosophical, ethical, and political implications of acknowledging genetic differences in intelligence.*
44:14 *📈 Explores the change in IQ heritability from childhood to adulthood, supporting genetic influences over environmental factors as individuals mature.*
46:26 *🌍 Considers the global consistency of intelligence studies, challenging the dismissal of genetic explanations as politically motivated.*
48:45 *🔬 Differentiates between the influence of race and specific genetic markers on intelligence, proposing a nuanced interpretation of data.*
50:23 *👥 Suggests that acknowledging genetic factors linked to race does not require accepting broad racial categorizations as determinants of intelligence.*
52:25 *🧐 Challenges the dismissal of racial categorizations as merely superficial, advocating for a recognition of deeper biological and genetic realities.*
54:26 *🗣️ Compares racial classifications to language classifications, illustrating the fluidity and utility of both concepts despite their ambiguities.*
57:23 *🧠 Discusses the hypothetical moral implications of enhancing intelligence via hypothetical interventions, highlighting societal discomfort with openly discussing IQ disparities.*
59:01 *⚖️ Highlights the dangers of racial hierarchies that have historically led to extreme mistreatment and injustices like apartheid and slavery.*
59:42 *🌍 Suggests maintaining the idea of equal moral worth among people, regardless of differences in abilities or attributes.*
01:00:12 *🚫 Mentions the establishment of societal taboos around discussing race and intelligence due to historical abuses of such discussions.*
01:02:00 *⚠️ Raises concerns about the "noble lie" of racial equality potentially exacerbating racial tensions if not addressed honestly.*
01:03:13 *📖 Notes that historical genocides were often based on pseudoscience rather than sound scientific data.*
01:04:24 *🧠 Argues that understanding genetic differences shouldn't lead to negative outcomes, as society already supports individuals with various innate capacities.*
01:06:28 *🔍 Discusses the academic resistance and strategies employed against politically incorrect ideas, emphasizing the lack of engagement and open discussion.*
01:07:38 *🚷 Highlights debates within academia about restricting research on cognitive differences due to potential societal implications.*
01:09:23 *🆘 Details personal experiences with academic backlash, including attempts to retract published papers and damage reputations.*
01:11:36 *📚 Engages in a debate about theories claiming Judaism is an evolutionary strategy, illustrating the contentious nature of discussions on group differences.*
01:13:08 *📢 Expresses frustration with the tendency within the philosophical community to attack individuals personally for controversial scientific positions.- **58:18** 🚫 Discusses the historical misuse of racial science to justify maltreatment, making contemporary discussion of race and IQ controversial.*
59:01 *⚖️ Examines how racial theories have historically led to discriminatory policies like apartheid and Jim Crow.*
59:16 *🛑 Explores the dangers of political structures built on the premise of racial differences in ability.*
01:01:07 *📚 Describes the shift in societal beliefs towards equality post-WorldWar II as a conscious educational choice.*
01:02:00 *🔍 Considers the potential negative effects of maintaining the "noble lie" of racial equality in intelligence and ability.*
01:02:28 *🏛️ Contrasts the historical impact of egalitarian vs. hereditarian views, noting both have led to extreme outcomes.*
01:03:13 *📉 Critiques the Nazi rejection of scientific approaches to race, highlighting their reliance on pseudoscience and ideology.*
01:04:24 *🧠 Discusses societal investments in supporting individuals with lower IQs through special education, arguing against fears of discrimination based on intelligence.*
01:05:20 *🌐 Reflects on the consequences of denying biological differences, suggesting it may lead to unexplained social disparities.*
01:06:14 *⚠️ Highlights academic resistance to controversial research on intelligence differences, noting the suppression of debate.*
01:07:25 *📖 Discusses the academic push to restrict research on cognitive differences due to potential social implications.*
01:08:06 *🚫 Details personal experiences of academic backlash for researching controversial topics, including attempts to retract work and smear reputations.*
01:09:11 *📘 Reviews the author's publication defending free inquiry in intelligence research, which faced significant opposition.*
01:11:09 *🤔 Engages with the concept of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy in a scholarly debate, illustrating diverse reactions within academia.*
01:12:55 *📚 Chronicles the retraction of a peer's controversial paper despite efforts to defend academic freedom, showing the challenges of contentiousresearch in the current scholarly environment.*

Made with HARPA AI

[wexomixo]

On this planet we can easily observe behavioral differences (not just cultural) between human population groups that correspond with phenotypic traits. It makes sense to assume the possibility that the genetic differences causing the phenotypic differences are also at least partially responsible for the differences in behavioral traits, and indeed that was the scientific consensus for a long time. It was the post-war radical social constructivists that managed to convince the world that these correlations were a coincidence, much like how they are now trying to convince the world that sex is not binary.

[nkambakusiame]

As an African I agree that there should'nt be any forbidden questions in science, especially if the dicusssion is respectfull and based on facts like in this video. Alot of the time you get racist undertones with participants seemingly gleeful about making the claim. I had a few issues with Mr Cofnas' arguement....

1. I agree that there are differences in traits between groups with different ancestry, this is obvious and shouldn’t even be a debate.

2. I think we need to separate the concepts of race and ethnicity. Kenyans are good long distance runners but central African pigmies are not, West Africans are good sprinters but Zambians are not. San bushmen have fairly light skin while Nilotic people have pitch black skin. It would be a stretch to expect every sub Saharan ethnicity to have similar average IQ scores. At most we can make conclusions about African Americans specifically. I know tests have been done with other African groups but like Mr Cofnas said, unless we use babies from every African ethnic group adopted by western parents we can’t make overreaching conclusions for all black people from those tests.

3. Dont be like the man who drowns in a stream with an average depth of 1 inch. Averages are useful measures but they're not the whole story. Obviously I havent read the study Cofnas references but it would be nice to see the distribution of the African American IQs. Is it a normal distribution, is it skewed in any way that may indicate other factors?

4. I can never support pushing equality of outcome. Even if we ever did confirm differences in average IQ we should just let people succeed at what they are good at. The idea of ethnic groups will become obsolete in a few decades anyway.

[jamesoneill]

As a postgrad philosophy student this channel is an applied philosophy goldmine! Aside from the excellent specific subject matter; the seemless interactions between the hosts and guests, and the willingness to hear controversial opinions and challenge them are refreshing. You guys do an incredible job, please don't change the way you run and interact on the channel. Can't recommended it enough.

[SlowPeace]

"The truth is both uncomfortable and unfortunate."

-Gustav Wagner

[zoltanschreter]

Trying to solve a difficult problem like race relations by lying about the cause and pretending that races are equal in their abilities - as suggested by the long-haired host - is an absolutely horrible idea. But, in fact, this is exactly what is happening right now in our societies, led by woke elites.
Has this pretending that races are equal solved any problems? No, on the contrary, racial resentments and tensions have been growing for years. The reason is that pretending that races are equal in their abilities does not make it true. The inequalities remain in place, and, as Nathan explains, force many people - who swallowed this idea of racial equality - to look for reasons like racism by whites.
A real solution for the racial issues can only come if we acknowledge reality and try to make the best out of it, as Nathan suggests.

[north-sea]

The tidal wave of science can only be held back for so long.

[evanbrown]

Discussing 'Race" and IQ and understanding the issue for what it is and what it isn't, is itself an IQ test. Nathan seems to be a very intelligent person who frames the issue well. No one wants to talk about it, and some very smart people who do use some very poor arguments to sidestep the issue.

[hansmaus]

From what I've seen: 1. On the topic of group differences in intelligence, the average person will deny that IQ measures intelligence (cf. Taleb). 2. On the topic of group categories, the average person will say that genetic differences constitute a continuum, so group categories cannot be delineated, making them illegitimate (cf. Lazaridis). So I don't see how a new consensus can be reached at this moment.

[jacobderin]

This topic has always been deeply uncomfortable for me because it feels like you have to choose between acknowledging facts and commitments to pluralistic liberal values. I’d hope that we as a species are morally advanced enough to hold the competing ideas in our minds that: 1) people have different levels of intellectual ability, 2) some of that variation is explained by genetics and 3) none of this implies anything about the moral worth of individuals. But time and time again we’ve proven ourselves incapable of maintaining a commitment to believing all three. It gets even more nasty when you add race into the picture because of our inherently tribal nature.

But I think the key lies in the metaphysical/semantic distinction brought up at the beginning. The idea of “race” as a metaphysically real entity separate from us that we discover is very hard to defend. What’s much closer to the truth is that it’s a category we impose on objective facts about human ancestry to better understand them. The best analogy I’ve heard is to the idea of family. Races are like extended families, and where you choose to draw the boundaries is somewhat arbitrary (is your 5th cousin 3 times removed part of your family?). But nobody disputes that terms like “mother” and “father” reflect actual biological facts about important relationships between human beings.

I think that these distinctions will become less and less important over time as the reproductive isolation which came to define racial groups ceases to exist. Nothing stops people from China having children with people from Africa now that it’s easy to fly between those two places in less than a day. And this is a very good thing because genetic diversity is a tremendous good. Just ask the British royal family how maintaining “blood purity” has worked out for them (ironically not so well for their blood).

[somepersonalconsiderations]

There is a problem, though, because it seems you exclude from environment the condition of the fetus. We all know that a stressed mother, smoking, taking drugs can have an incredibily heavy impact of the fetus's central nervous system. Are this variable been studied and then excluded while in studies comparing adopted children?

[kce]

It seems inconceivable that with all the obvious physical differences between the races, that non-visible characteristics (such as general intelligence) would be identical. Within all animal species subgroups, there are measurable physical and cognitive differences. Why would humans be different?

[lIlIlllIlllIlIlI]

왜 인류역사 30만년동안 흑인만 바퀴, 종이, 문명, 과학, 철학을 발명하지 못했나요? 심지어 아프리카는 동아시아보다 자원이 많고 이웃국가들이 많습니다 😅

[seanxing]

Anything controversial might be because it is objectively true.

[stageprophet]

You knowk I took an exam and was admitted to Stuyvesant H.S. It was a cauldron of intellectual ferment - exciting but competitive and I was bright but was sitting next to geniuses. Literally. Teens can be very merciless and it became clear to me that if you couldn't keep up you were left in the dirt. And that's exactly what happened to the POC's that were admitted. On the other hand, while we were treated and primed as if we were the next leaders of the free world - the fact is that an old boys network of nepotism still exists and when I went to a 25th year reunion there were very few stellar achivements: one mathematic treatise, the brightest kid got into Yale and became the producer of all the Ninja Turtle films - silly stuff like that. But no opportunities for future world leaders - once in a gen someone like a Clinton comes along and becomes a Rhodes Scholar etc. but it's extremely rare. So in the end there was a bit of a chimera to all of it. Still, it was the most rigorous academic environment I ever came across. One time there was a strike (?) and I was sent to local H.S. Ft Hamilton - a good school - and we had name tags on so the teacher asked a question and said 'Oh you. You're from Stuyvesant. What's the answer?'. I mumbled something that passed for an intelligent answer (thank god) but nobody wanted to be a 'brown nose' or teachers pet in front of the girls so there was pressure to be stupid. Back at Stuy there was no doubt that every kid wanted to be the smartest kid in the room. Big difference. BTW. One final anecdote: R. Selle won 1st prize in the NYC Science Fair 2 yrs in a row and I would accompany him out t S.I. and help with his science projects : 1 was on the ecology of The Serpentine Quarry. He was like a walking encyclopedia on flora and fauna. Years later I bumped into him on a street in Manhattan canvassing people : he had become a Moonie.
Artistic Director
The Great American Play Series

[TheErolind]

Height is not intrinsically tied to “race”. Why would IQ be? The Dutch of Europe and Dinka tribe of Sudan are the tallest humans in the world, yet they are 2 separate races. Their environment/culture placed selective pressure for height, why didn’t this happen with their neighbours 2 miles away who are the same race?
The Aztecs were highly advanced, while North American tribes were hunter gatherers, yet they’re the same race and more genetically similar than Europe combined. The Indian caste system created different IQ levels between populations yet they are the same race. If Height isn’t tied to race, IQ shouldn’t be either.

[jamesstewart]

So how does Cofnas scientifically define races? I have watched him go through this several times, and I haven't seen him make any concrete demarcations on any scientific basis. "That's not what race was supposed to be." "The race is the ancestry." Genes are a basis for race? What are his clear definitions of each race. Sub-Saharan Africans are not genetically isolated from other groups. Common sense racial classifications? What are they? Used in common speech. Sounds like social constructions. "Black is used in different ways." Because race is a are social construct. Who says races are supposed to b based on genetics, when the term race came up, they didn't have the ability to track DNA. He says its not a social construct, but defines them bases on "common sense" and "what is supposed be race." Especially since in another video, Cofnas asks "Why is racism assumed to be bad." I don't know about this. "Hispanic isn't a scientific thing." Neither is Black or White."