It’s a forbidden truth because scientism holds all natural things to be good.
Bizarrely, while denying Nature and uplifting Nurture….
I don’t know how well the naturalistic fallacy holds up to dolphin rape, I admit.
Comments are interesting.
I’m still uncomfortable with a philosopher (however intellectually honest) speaking for scientists, especially precise ones like psychometrics and genetics. It’s not as bad as physicists thinking they understand psychology (side-eyes Kaku), when they’re fundamentally opposed intellectual systems, not nearly as horrendous as that. It’s mildly unpleasant. He could phone interview ‘anonymous conservative’ or video interview Wade, acclaimed science expert and author of A Troublesome Inheritance, which didn’t get enough traction. Bruce Charlton would be a golden interview for the ages, you’d have about a year to cover everything superficially.
Jayman might interview, audio. He’s a well-known HBD writer, up there with HBD chick, who seems friendly on twitter.
John Haidt is a wildcard.
Ah, but what a wildcard!
I would pay to see Zizek. Let him go totally off-piece. Just let him, it’s performance ART.
(Ask him about lies in the media, including scientism, I know he’s good on it).
You could get the Asian guy who did the racial beauty study.
He mentions the phenomena of genetic load, the mutations that affect beauty (they also affect IQ). There’s a strong IQ/beauty correlate.
It was so false they blackballed him ever since.
Those would be my recommendations.
Update: after a conversation about this interview with someone from a very illustrious academic family (members have their own wiki page), the reason his plea will fall on deaf ears is simple – to appreciate truth, you must understand its full complexity and that requires IQ. Expecting a simpler person to act like NOT-simpler person is a category mistake. What you appreciate is a lesser-known aspect of IQ e.g. classical music fans are likelier to be high IQ. This informs the signalling of a 9yo desperately trying to play Mozart. This emphasis on the appearance of substance to obtain superficial goals e.g. Ivy admission, is a key example of mala fides. Technical ability (as in those stupid ego competitions that should be banned) is an empty shell without a love and appreciation of the art. You do it because you love it, not because you might get Another Fucking Trophy and a new shiny line on your CV. FACT: Professional music auditions are held blind!
Point, the second: democracy in a multicultural society is impossible, too many warring factions that rentseek.
We have a kakistocracy.
We are ‘led by shit’ or ‘led by the shit’ as in, the bottom section of society is loud and mob-rule enough to be the swing voters in elections and the likes of BBC Three celebrities are setting public topics. The populations of these people used to be naturally controlled by disease, including syphilis, poor nutrition and then war.
This inverted hierarchy makes improvements impossible to enforce because such aversion to the ‘politics of envy’ must come from the top-down.
“This is like asking a vegan for their best rib recipe. If they knew, they wouldn’t tell you – because now they hate you.”
or another gem from this person
“Everyone says about the ‘fucking elves’, ha ha, but if you had a choice, you’d be a fucking elf. You know it and if you deny it you’re a fucking liar.” re Tolkien
To which I replied, if you must know, “so a Dwarf, then?”
Want us to trust experts again? We need respectable ones, with good private conduct to boot and fine appreciation faculties, otherwise they’re parrots of the rich and powerful.