Genuinely amazed that anyone could think the sports differences we see by race are entirely cultural. West Africans dominate sprinting because they’re more interested in it-while nobody else cares about it-but then those same West Africans tune out of track events around the 800m race and up. Meanwhile, the East Africans run run run all day and everywhere but mysteriously none of them has considered it might be fun to try the 100m. Black people don’t play hockey for obvious cultural reasons; there’s nothing to say they wouldn’t be competitive if they grew up playing it in large numbers. William of Ockham in shambles.
"Anytime you hear some peckerwood saying shit like problematic or intersectionality or cultural appropriation you know you're dealing with an overeducated moron who spent a great deal of time and effort cultivating a stupidity too advanced to be founded in mere ignorance" -Eli Harman
I think this was an interesting convo, but it went off the rails with Henrich talking about Kenyan running culture. I don’t believe he could be that misguided. Not at his age or with his background
It also went off the rails when he talked about IQ. He desperately wants to live in a world where all humans are born with the same horsepower. We are, of course, not...& our differences show up, because of evolution, in groups.
I think he genuinely believes these things and takes his cultural evolutionary perspective as a confirmation for his blank-slatism. In fact I would venture to guess part of his professional academic motivation in perusing that field of study might be to be able to present theories that can successfully disprove geneticist/heritability perspectives (that are potentially racist).
@@NP1066i don’t think that’s the case , dual inheritance theory perfectly merges nature vs nature discussion it’s not one vs the other it’s both . And there is lots of evidence that in most parts culture is they way bigger factor than genes for explaining differences among humans . Does not mean that Henrich is 100% accurate on everything and where these percentages lie . Certainly isn’t for sport performance
24:48 "There’s all kinds of situations when you need to be... you need to have spatial navigation or raw pattern recognition, all of which people with high IQ aren’t that good at" The what now hey? How is this man a professor at Harvard University and yet apparently never seen an IQ test such that he doesn't know those things are all about pattern recognition? Is this a joke?
No more of a joke than the idea that IQ can't be genetic because there have been environmental improvements, or that IQ is infinitely malleable and just changes according to society's requirements as if modern society wouldn't be better off with an average IQ of 130, or that people in other parts of the world such as Latin America and Africa have low IQs because they don't have schools like the West, or that immigrant groups assimilate in the West when we know that in Europe this is not the case with Third World immigrants, or that West Africans and East Africans excelling at different running sports is not due to genetics, or that hundreds of years of selection don't change the genetics of a group, and so on. Henrich knows what he has to say to not be threatened with cancellation.
He might have been just mis speaking. Maybe he meant that high iq ppl aren’t always good with spatial awareness? Idk if that’s true either but it’s a different claim.
The worse argumentative style ever, imo, is when an intellectual says "Well, hey bud, have you read so & so? Have you read this one obscure study that I know you haven't read, thus I keep it in my back pocket to throw at people like you so that I can then claim to be more learned on this topic, even though the thing I'm referring to doesn't necessarily prove anything, but it appears to when your reply to me is "Oh, uh...no, I haven't read that"?....Well, I guess I win & you lose then." Go to 22:40ish...it's gross, then the look on Joe's face at 22:48, it just couldn't be more inappropriately smug. I'm over-commenting on this video, but it's just getting my darn goat to see Joe's performance here...everything he's saying is designed to fit into his world view of wanting to explain away group differences instead of following data earnestly.
I found Joe's IQ reasoning to be reaching/grasping at wokeness. He obviously defined IQ as he did in order to explain away group differences. The bottom line, of course, is that the measurement of "G", or IQ is very highly correlated to general cognitive horsepower...in other words, how naturally smart you are. There are consistent group differences that play out in myriad trackable & quantifiable ways, & all of this stuff is inarguable. Joe's "take" on this stuff is laughable, & I hate to say that because the last thing I want to do is dunk on someone. When he talks about Kenyon runners....my goodness, I mean, why?? Why say these things? We're all grown people here, let's just stay within the confines of objective reality. Because of evolution, different groups of people have different average IQs, heights, all sorts of abilities...why isn't it OK to just say that obvious truth?
Lol. He just supports a nurture versus a nature explanation of group differences in intelligence. That in and of itself does not constitute “wokeness”.
@ricomariarico8213 My hypothesis is that his reason for choosing nurture over nature IS the "woke" bit, for lack of a less cringy term. It sure appears to me that the reason he's bending over backwards by saying ridiculous things like Kenyons dominate running because their culture just really digs running, is because what he's really interested in being able to say is that black Americans do not have lower IQs because of genetic group differences, it's because of systemic racism. Because of that dogma, we throw billions at all the wrong policy when we could throw those billions at all the correctly aimed policy & I don't know, actually improve the people's lives that he claims to care about. The objective truth always matters because it always has consequences. Thanks for not calling me an "idiot" or some other cruel interwebs comment stuff, enjoy your Sunday.
Of course there are genetic differences in sport performance. Anyone who was ever involved in any sport certainly knows that . Henrich is right on 99% of his points but here he is off
Been deep diving Richard lately. The substance he and his guests bring compared to other political commentators is embarrassing for the other political commentators 😂
So in 2023 Rich still believes the propaganda about the Iraq War (I sincerely hope the professor isn’t just as moronic)? How is that even possible? 🤦♂️ Good place to stop I guess…
Hanania is obviously correct and Henrich is obviously running from the woke mob. IQ explains why East Asians are the only group of non-Europeans to get rich. IQ also explains European success, in addition to Henrich's ideas about social trust and individualism, which helps explain why Europeans are more creative than East Asians. Henrich is also delusional if he thinks that IQ is not genetic because there have been environmental improvements. The idea that sports don't involve genetics is also ridiculous and so on. It was a list of politically correct nonsense that Henrich produced.
I found this professor to be so ostentatiously wrong about group genetic differences....no, it's not that I found him to be so, he just is. We all have to reside within objective reality, where facts are things, & he's just making stuff up, trying to explain away genetic group differences.
Genuinely amazed that anyone could think the sports differences we see by race are entirely cultural. West Africans dominate sprinting because they’re more interested in it-while nobody else cares about it-but then those same West Africans tune out of track events around the 800m race and up. Meanwhile, the East Africans run run run all day and everywhere but mysteriously none of them has considered it might be fun to try the 100m.
Black people don’t play hockey for obvious cultural reasons; there’s nothing to say they wouldn’t be competitive if they grew up playing it in large numbers.
William of Ockham in shambles.
It’s something so dumb that only an academic could believe it.
"Anytime you hear some peckerwood saying shit like problematic or intersectionality or cultural appropriation you know you're dealing with an overeducated moron who spent a great deal of time and effort cultivating a stupidity too advanced to be founded in mere ignorance" -Eli Harman
No one claims that there inst genetic variation but that's not behaviour
The quality of guests is astounding.
I think this was an interesting convo, but it went off the rails with Henrich talking about Kenyan running culture.
I don’t believe he could be that misguided. Not at his age or with his background
Probably because of 0 sports background. Also his theory' also alows for it
It also went off the rails when he talked about IQ. He desperately wants to live in a world where all humans are born with the same horsepower. We are, of course, not...& our differences show up, because of evolution, in groups.
I think he genuinely believes these things and takes his cultural evolutionary perspective as a confirmation for his blank-slatism.
In fact I would venture to guess part of his professional academic motivation in perusing that field of study might be to be able to present theories that can successfully disprove geneticist/heritability perspectives (that are potentially racist).
@@NP1066i don’t think that’s the case , dual inheritance theory perfectly merges nature vs nature discussion it’s not one vs the other it’s both . And there is lots of evidence that in most parts culture is they way bigger factor than genes for explaining differences among humans . Does not mean that Henrich is 100% accurate on everything and where these percentages lie . Certainly isn’t for sport performance
24:48 "There’s all kinds of situations when you need to be... you need to have spatial navigation or raw pattern recognition, all of which people with high IQ aren’t that good at" The what now hey?
How is this man a professor at Harvard University and yet apparently never seen an IQ test such that he doesn't know those things are all about pattern recognition?
Is this a joke?
No more of a joke than the idea that IQ can't be genetic because there have been environmental improvements, or that IQ is infinitely malleable and just changes according to society's requirements as if modern society wouldn't be better off with an average IQ of 130, or that people in other parts of the world such as Latin America and Africa have low IQs because they don't have schools like the West, or that immigrant groups assimilate in the West when we know that in Europe this is not the case with Third World immigrants, or that West Africans and East Africans excelling at different running sports is not due to genetics, or that hundreds of years of selection don't change the genetics of a group, and so on. Henrich knows what he has to say to not be threatened with cancellation.
He might have been just mis speaking. Maybe he meant that high iq ppl aren’t always good with spatial awareness? Idk if that’s true either but it’s a different claim.
The worse argumentative style ever, imo, is when an intellectual says "Well, hey bud, have you read so & so? Have you read this one obscure study that I know you haven't read, thus I keep it in my back pocket to throw at people like you so that I can then claim to be more learned on this topic, even though the thing I'm referring to doesn't necessarily prove anything, but it appears to when your reply to me is "Oh, uh...no, I haven't read that"?....Well, I guess I win & you lose then." Go to 22:40ish...it's gross, then the look on Joe's face at 22:48, it just couldn't be more inappropriately smug. I'm over-commenting on this video, but it's just getting my darn goat to see Joe's performance here...everything he's saying is designed to fit into his world view of wanting to explain away group differences instead of following data earnestly.
I found Joe's IQ reasoning to be reaching/grasping at wokeness. He obviously defined IQ as he did in order to explain away group differences. The bottom line, of course, is that the measurement of "G", or IQ is very highly correlated to general cognitive horsepower...in other words, how naturally smart you are. There are consistent group differences that play out in myriad trackable & quantifiable ways, & all of this stuff is inarguable. Joe's "take" on this stuff is laughable, & I hate to say that because the last thing I want to do is dunk on someone. When he talks about Kenyon runners....my goodness, I mean, why?? Why say these things? We're all grown people here, let's just stay within the confines of objective reality. Because of evolution, different groups of people have different average IQs, heights, all sorts of abilities...why isn't it OK to just say that obvious truth?
Lol. He just supports a nurture versus a nature explanation of group differences in intelligence. That in and of itself does not constitute “wokeness”.
@ricomariarico8213 My hypothesis is that his reason for choosing nurture over nature IS the "woke" bit, for lack of a less cringy term. It sure appears to me that the reason he's bending over backwards by saying ridiculous things like Kenyons dominate running because their culture just really digs running, is because what he's really interested in being able to say is that black Americans do not have lower IQs because of genetic group differences, it's because of systemic racism. Because of that dogma, we throw billions at all the wrong policy when we could throw those billions at all the correctly aimed policy & I don't know, actually improve the people's lives that he claims to care about. The objective truth always matters because it always has consequences. Thanks for not calling me an "idiot" or some other cruel interwebs comment stuff, enjoy your Sunday.
Of course there are genetic differences in sport performance. Anyone who was ever involved in any sport certainly knows that .
Henrich is right on 99% of his points but here he is off
I found him also way way off on his thoughts about IQ. I'm only about half way through this podcast right now, so....ya.
@@scottsherman5262 no he is not , it's the only way iq makes sense in a historical perspective
Been deep diving Richard lately. The substance he and his guests bring compared to other political commentators is embarrassing for the other political commentators 😂
So in 2023 Rich still believes the propaganda about the Iraq War (I sincerely hope the professor isn’t just as moronic)? How is that even possible? 🤦♂️ Good place to stop I guess…
Professor throwing lifeline after lifeline to save Rich from drowning in pseudoscience, but Rich can’t help but refuse it. 😂
Hanania is obviously correct and Henrich is obviously running from the woke mob. IQ explains why East Asians are the only group of non-Europeans to get rich. IQ also explains European success, in addition to Henrich's ideas about social trust and individualism, which helps explain why Europeans are more creative than East Asians.
Henrich is also delusional if he thinks that IQ is not genetic because there have been environmental improvements. The idea that sports don't involve genetics is also ridiculous and so on. It was a list of politically correct nonsense that Henrich produced.
I found this professor to be so ostentatiously wrong about group genetic differences....no, it's not that I found him to be so, he just is. We all have to reside within objective reality, where facts are things, & he's just making stuff up, trying to explain away genetic group differences.