Darryl Betts

Student (in the classical sense) of philosophy and science.

[Darryl Betts @DarrylBetts4]

That's a fair comment - DEI doesn't imply that someone ONLY got their job because of their race. But ultimately if you apply ANY criteria other than merit, then the outcome you get will not be according to merit. It's like sorting a phone book into multiple sequences at the same time - it simply isn't possible.

You might then say - but if two people have equal merit, then we can use race. But then you are actually being racist - and whether you are choosing against someone because they have black skin or because they have white skin, its still racist.

You might then say that we should be racist against white people to make up for past racism against black people. But is that really ok? Two wrongs don't make a right. And even if your ancestors did do bad things (which we cannot necessarily know), is it fair for someone to discriminate against you now because of what your ancestors did?

[Darryl Betts @DarrylBetts4]

Why are people saying he's a racist? One answer is that many people simply do not understand the topic Cofnas works on, and they don't take the time to actually listen carefully to what he says. How would you feel if someone accused you of being a racist, but they hadn't actually listened properly to your views? Many people are basing their opinion on what other people say about Cofnas - not what he himself actually says.

You said "Being against DEI is indeed promoting racist outcomes in society.". That's a very big claim. The problem is that a lot of people believe the opposite - that DEI is actually racist, because you are treating people differently because of the color of their skin or some other characteristic. That's the definition of racism.

DEI also harms the person themselves - how do you think someone might feel if they know (or even just suspect) that they were given their job purely because of the color of their skin - rather than because of their ability to do that job? If you don't believe me - try telling someone they only got their job because of their skin color and see how they react.

[Darryl Betts @DarrylBetts4]

What you are referring to is "essentialism" about race, which is something different - and no educated person takes that view. No-one - certainly not Cofnas - is claiming that because you are a member of some particular race that you are inherently this or that.

The differences are in distributions and averages between groups for scientifically measurable traits. But the crucial point is that these differences aren't meaningful in relation to individuals - you, me, each individual simply has whatever traits they each as individuals have - and that's the end of it. On top of that, individuals don't even fit neatly into these groups - each individual has their own unique ancestry.

The differences in distributions and averages between ancestral population groups only show up when we look at groups. Then you start to see representations within those groups which reflect those differences - for example a disproportionate number of top runners being African.

By the way, this is not to deny that environment might sometimes play a role in differences between groups, but decades of research tells us that genetics also plays a role.

[Darryl Betts @DarrylBetts4]

I think you are probably correct that it would happen. But people have misused many things revealed by science and we don't respond to that by preventing the science from happening. If we did, we would have no science.

The term "race realism" has become a loaded term, but it merely means that "race" (qua ancestral population groups) is a scientifically meaningful category - which then allows us to study differences in averages and distributions of a wide variety of traits across these population groups. There isn't (or shouldn't be) anything controversial about this.

This knowledge is highly relevant to understanding why we see disparate outcomes - and deciding how we should respond to that. The only other game in town is blank slate thinking, which is one of the foundations of DEI. I say again - if blank slate thinking is wrong (and decades of evidence suggest it is) - then we need to know that, so we change public policies which rest upon this mistaken idea.

I will concede that we have a major problem with this topic in terms of public understanding (and also within the academy). In particular, many people do not understand that this is about groups and averages and has little or no relevance to individuals. We are individuals, not groups. What we need is better education on this topic - not bans on what questions we are allowed to ask about the world.

[Darryl Betts @DarrylBetts4]

I assume that when you say "dangerous" you are worried that someone will use differences in average IQ across groups as an excuse to privilege some groups and disadvantage (or maybe even persecute) others?

If that happens though, do you really think the problem lies with the scientists who study this topic, or is it more likely the problem is with the people who misunderstand and misuse those scientific findings?

Maybe you don't agree with me, but would you at least agree that it is a debate we should have, rather than just ruling the topic off limits?

But there is even more at stake here - because public policy across many domains is heavily influenced by blank slate thinking - and if that important premise is wrong then we need to know. We need to know because more than likely it will mean those policies don't work, and worse yet they could be harming people rather than helping.

[Darryl Betts @DarrylBetts4]

What you seem to be doing - which many others also do - is confusing the topic of group averages and distributions with the characteristics of individuals. You might descend from a population with a higher average IQ (or running ability) than the average for the population I descend from, but that tells us nothing about how your IQ or running ability compares to mine.
Your view is not surprising considering we live in an age of obsession with group identity - but in reality we are individuals not groups.

[Darryl Betts @DarrylBetts4]

You have obviously done your research when it comes to the gender identity issue. I suggest you also spend some time listening carefully to what Nathan Cofnas has to say before you make any more sweeping claims about him.

Cofnas uses the term "race" as shorthand for ancestral population group - which is an uncontroversial concept within evolutionary biology. The term "race-realism" is merely the view that races (qua ancestral population groups) are scientifically meaningful, i.e. they can be studied scientifically. Specifically, we can look at the distribution of various traits across those population groups.

The finding that average IQ varies by such population groups is not new and has been the subject of study for many years. This should not be upsetting, any more than noticing that certain population groups are better (on average) at running or producing Vitamin D.

Sadly though, these ideas are controversial only because they run counter to the "blank slate" ideology which heavily influences public policy in spite of decades of scientific evidence to the contrary.

[Darryl Betts @DarrylBetts4]

@ComAcFreedom I don't agree with the nonsense hate speech laws in the UK, however Abbott's words would easily meet the criteria for a visit from the police based on the precedent they have already set.

[Darryl Betts @DarrylBetts4]

@DrAseemMalhotra p.s. and in spite of him being an adult capable of making his own decisions, I do at the same time feel sorry for him and his family - because he was also a victim of a broken system.

[Darryl Betts @DarrylBetts4]

I greatly respect your stance towards Covid and the vaccines, but you seem to have a blind spot when it comes to this issue. The problem was severe plagiarism - which is not ok, as well as the broader systemic implications (which are very serious). The fact that he might sometimes have said things you like is irrelevant.
Your talents would be better spent discussing the problem of declining academic standards and anti-meritocratic policies.

[Darryl Betts @DarrylBetts4]

Astounding that a politician would speak without doing the bare minimum of due diligence on the information she was basing her speech on. This is beyond embarrassing - I wouldn't be surprised if this ends her political career.

She will likely also find herself on the receiving end of defamation case - and this may also warrant the police paying her a visit for "incitement to hatred" (the only crime that the UK police now seem to care about).

[Darryl Betts @DarrylBetts4]

Nathan Cofnas was far from the first person to investigate differences in average IQ between population groups. The differences are actually quite well established. These ideas are "controversial" only for those (sadly too many people) who still cling to "blank slate" ideology - which over many decades of study lacks scientific support. See Stephen Pinker's book The Blank Slate as a good starting point to learn about this.

Another thing that based on what you said might surprise you, is that universities have been artificially elevating people based on criteria other than merit for decades. For example, affirmative action is - or at least was - very common in the US. Today the anti-meritocracy problem is worse than ever - hence the declining academic standards across the countries infected by woke ideology.

You described Cofnas as a "self-decribed race-realist", is if it is some kind of slur. I suggest you do some listening to Cofnas and others in the area of philosophy of biology to help you understand what Cofnas means by the term. I'll give you a starting point - Cofnas uses the term "race" to refer to ancestral population - which is a real phenomenon (assuming you believe in evolution?). As I understand it, by "race-realist", Cofnas simply means that he doesn't deny that race (qua ancestral population) is a scientifically meaningful concept - i.e. we can scientifically study differences in distributions of particular traits across these groups. This isn't a very controversial view - nor is it surprisingly to find that there are actually differences across groups.

Finally, and it goes without saying, anyone can legitimately be the subject of scrutiny. There were legitimate reasons for Arday to come under scrutiny. Cofnas is not immune to scrutiny, but merely having the personal opinion that Cofnas' views are "concerning" is not sufficient. In this case it is obvious that people like you are just raising "concerns" over Cofnas purely to deflect from the multitude of systemic problems highlighted by the Arday affair.

[Darryl Betts @DarrylBetts4]

Yes it is sad - but you need to ask why this is being talked about the way it is. The answer is that it's because woke ideology, gender and identity obsession, anti-meritocracy, anti-conservative, anti-western, post-modernism, Marxism, University mission creep, declining academic standards, loss of freedom of speech, whatever you want to call all of this, is a big problem. All of this is depressing.

[Darryl Betts @DarrylBetts4]

You're missing the point - several of them. What made the story so big was that it had multiple hugely important aspects. It wasn't just about a case of plagiarism or of someone making seemingly exaggerated claims about their background. It was about DEI and the harm it causes, about what many believe is an ideological cancer within our universities and society in general, about the war against meritocracy, about the lowering of academic standards, and the devaluing of academic credentials, and more.
In spite of him being an adult who should be responsible for his decisions, I nevertheless feel sorry for him - because he was a victim too.

[Darryl Betts @DarrylBetts4]

After the UK government threatens people into silence, then what? https://t.co/oKyfc1tyTT

[Darryl Betts @DarrylBetts4]

I think she is in part the product of a broken system. I think there is a "type" - sadly all too many - of university student who too frequently didn't stay to the end of lectures or didn't listen or read carefully enough. They heard about various theories (e.g. utilitarianism, redistribution of resources, social contract theory, equality of outcome, cultural and truth relativism, etc.) - and thought these ideas were the answer to the world's problems. But sadly, they didn't learn about the serious problems that come with many of these ideas (with said failure to learn aided by increasingly ideologically compromised lecturers).
Crucially, they were educated in the "blank slate" and "social construction" way of thinking, with very selective (if any) exposure to biological research (and only that which didn't contravene the narrative).
All of this gave them the perfect foundation for misunderstanding and mismanaging virtually every aspect of society.

[Darryl Betts @DarrylBetts4]

@Jimjimjiminside @TheZeitgeistNZ Can you please state one conservative idea that is hateful?
(let's ignore for the purposes of this question the fact that classifying an idea as "hateful" or "conservative" isn't straightforward)

[Darryl Betts @DarrylBetts4]

What you are illustrating with your comment is the essence of the problem we currently face in public discourse. As an academic you have more culpability than most - because you should first and foremost be upholding the core principles of logic and critical thinking. Instead, you condone (or at least fail to recognize) what is in effect mob mentality - the terms "Nazi" and "fascist" being the verbal equivalent of pitch forks.

[Darryl Betts @DarrylBetts4]

After listening to endless discussions about the historical roots of woke ideology and the psychology behind the formation of beliefs, the strength and immovability of these views people are holding on to still mystifies me.
I think something has gone seriously wrong across the west in terms of people's attitude to thought, ideas and speech, and people's ability to listen carefully. I have close family members who would prefer to hold tightly to certain ideas about me rather than listen carefully to what I actually think.

[Darryl Betts @DarrylBetts4]

Actually, it is free speech. If you are concerned that protests such as this occur, think about what led to this. These protests are a consequence of a political and media class which has not allowed people to express their views, and a political class which has consistently ignored the will of the people of the UK for decades.

Personally, I am an atheist, and I do not agree with everything this speaker says. But I understand why many in the UK are unhappy with the way that their country - with its predominantly Christian culture and history, has been managed. People are adults and they can listen to speeches like this and decide what they do and don't agree with - just like you.

You call it "ethno-nationalism" as if it's a bad thing - but doesn't every country have a right to preserve its own culture and beliefs? Do you object to the people of Japan wanting to preserve Japanese culture?

And don't use idiotic comparisons like Hitler. Hitler invaded numerous other countries, and he violently suppressed opposing views - which is entirely different to the people of a country wanting to enforce their own borders and to be able to speak freely about the state of their own culture.