+TODO—
+
+ 1. need to clearly define before casually using later: "cognitive repetioires", "egalitarian", "renormalized"
+
+ 2. "genders have been identified"
+
+"I realize I am writing in an LGBT era when some argue that 63 distinct genders have been identified," Murray writes at the beginning of Appendix 2. But I think this would fail to pass the [Ideological Turing Test](https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.html).
+
+The language of _has been identified_
+
+3. Loury—
+
+As economist Glenn Loury points out in _The Anatomy of Racial Inequality_, cognitive abilities decline with age, and yet we don't see a moral panic about the consequences of an aging workforce, because older people are construed as an "us"—our mothers and fathers—rather than an outgroup.
+
+ 4. * Embryo selection looks _really important_; I don't want to give amunition to racists, but I need to talk about that—and the recent Dawkins brouhaha says we can't even talk about that; and the ways I'm worried about eugenics being misused aren't even on the radar
+
+ 5. stages of HBD
+
+ 6. I have an excuse; telling the truth is a Schelling point (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tCwresAuSvk867rzH/speaking-truth-to-power-is-a-schelling-point)—and finish
+
+ 7. more examples of sex difference effect sizes, elaborate on "big" doesn't mean anything
+
+ 8. tie into farmer/forager
+
+ 9. mention "Coming Apart" thesis
+
+ 10. Jensen sources of variation
+
+ 11. colorism
+
+ 12. explain imagine self in inferior group
+
+ 13. work in individual-level stereotypes
+
+
+------
+
+
+* it's actually a _selective_ blank slate (Winegard: https://quillette.com/2019/03/09/progressivism-and-the-west/ )
+ * women and courage
+* Hyde/Fine binary notes: p. 398
+* need to talk about individual differences being non-threatening
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+http://www.xenosystems.net/five-stages-of-hbd/
+
+> Stage-4 (Depression): "Who could possibly have imagined that reality was so evil?"
+
+> Stage-5 (Acceptance): "Blank slate liberalism really has been a mountain of dishonest garbage, hasn’t it? Guess it’s time for it to die ..."
+
+
+(Okay, I was brainwashed by progressivism pretty hard, but ideologies need to appeal to something in human nature; you can't brainwash a human with random bits; they need to be specific bits with something good in them.)
+
+
+
+
+—and the people who claim not to have an agenda are lying. (The most I can credibly claim for myself is that I try to keep my agenda reasonably _minimalist_—and the reader must judge for herself to what extent I succeed.)
+
+I think this is sympathetic but [ultimately ineffective](http://zackmdavis.net/blog/2016/08/ineffective-deconversion-pitch/). Clueless [presentist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis)) conservatism of the form, "Old-timey patriarchy and white supremacy were Really Bad, but that's over and everything is Fine Now" is unlikely to satisfy readers who _don't_ think everything is Fine Now, and suspect Murray of standing athwart history yelling "Stop!" rather than aspiring to Actual Social Science.
+
+> To say that groups of people differ genetically in ways that bear on cognitive repetoires (as this book does) guarantees accusations that I am misuding science in the service of bigotry and oppression. Let me therefore state explicitly that I reject claims that groups of people, be they sexes or races or classes, can be ranked from superior to inferior. I reject claims that differences among groups have any relevance to human worth or dignity.
+
+
+
+It gets worse. Intuitively, "The moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group" seems self-evident—one cries out at the _monstrous injustice_ of the individual being oppressed on the basis of mere stereotypes of what other people who _look_ like them might statistically be like.
+
+I fear my training does not permit me to take the moral principle _literally_ as stated. The problem is _technical_ in nature: something that comes up when you try to understand people on a cognitive-scientific level, the way an AI researcher would understand her creations. (Even while "treat individuals as inviduals" might be a very good _English sentence_ to tell someone if you wanted them to behave ethically and didn't expect them to understand the technical problem I'm explaining.)
+
+When you "treat individuals as individuals", you do so on the basis of evidence about that individual's traits. If you see someone wearing an Emacs tee-shirt, you'll assume they probably use Emacs, and probably make and make use of all sorts of other implicit probabilistic predictions about them, in the sense that you [anticipate](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/a7n8GdKiAZRX86T5A/making-beliefs-pay-rent-in-anticipated-experiences) or dis-anticipate different behaviors from them than you would of someone who was _not_ wearing an Emacs tee-shirt, and those anticipations guide your decisions.
+
+[conditional probability "Emacs shirt" vs. "is female", no principled distinction]
+
+is dedicated to casting aspersions on _The Bell Curve_.
+
+
+effect size: standardized units may be practically useless (if of 1 yr of education reliably led to $1 of income)
+
+["Being Steven Pinker is a lot more fun than being Charles Murray"](https://archive.is/bNo2q)—and Pinker knows it.
+
+Similarly, being Charles Murray is a lot more fun than being J. Philippe Rushton—and Murray knows it.
+