Here's what RationalWiki has to say about her:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hbdchick

But i have absolutely no idea whether to trust RationalWiki or not. I tend to assume anything with "rational" in the name is anything but (unless it's about fractions).

RationalWiki is a liberal alternative to Conservapedia. Liberal atheists will find there a lot of ammunition for fighting online battles. Other people may get the impression that the wiki comes with its own set of biases.

Generally, the wiki tries to promote science and oppose pseudoscience, and often does a good job. The problem is with politically charged topics, where politically correct ideas are automatically presented as science, and politically incorrect ideas as pseudoscience.

Unlike Wikipedia, the idea of impartiality is considered a joke at RationalWiki. As soon as you decide that an idea is pseudoscientific, you are allowed and actually encouraged to use the "snarky point of view", which provides an excuse for exaggerations or straw men, because if anyone objects, hey, I was just joking, don't you understand a joke? Of course the articles do not distinguish the factual and the snarky parts, so everyone is free to make their own guess.

I think she is tangential to some completely unobjectionable stuff as well as some (to me) objectionable stuff. The things she talks about the most which I find interesting are the internal-to-Europe differences in family patterns (family size, manorialism, adoption, etc.) and how those have changed population genetics within europe over time (culture impacting genetics; unclear the extent genetics impact culture). Also that in England and other NW Europe the most violent people were executed for crimes fairly aggressively, and only elites had large numbers of children, leading to a long-term improvement in genetics with time.

If this is true and significant then it does not imply a long-term improvement so much as a specialisation towards (a) not being caught for crimes and (b) being able to become an “elite,” potentially by violence, cruelty, manipulation, and other traits one likely would not consider desirable.

On crimes I disagree, because committing violent crimes and being caught for them tend to be fairly correlated; crime is rarely a one-time thing, and criminals get unlucky or are stupid too.

As for elites -> more children, since there were various routes into "elite" for smart/competent/etc. people (the church in various roles, not all of which precluded reproduction; skilled trades/guilds, etc.), it did have a positive effect in amplifying traits (intelligence, etc.) which I think people broadly support (I do). Similar to the assortative mating issues with colleges and elite workplaces today.

Her “about” on her blog confirms all this. Specifically when she speaks about race.

Foremost I'd like to excuse myself for my laziness as I'm more engaged by the presumption of words like "racist" being thrown at the innocent and less by reading up individual political leanings - but could you please name some examples that prove what "rationalWiki" says, that she's a racist. Quoting Charles Murray often shouldn't count. And I didn't found an "about" page, just this: https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/my-politics/

I keep looking but i cannot find this confirmation. Would you mind posting a link?

Here is an interview of HBDchick by the Hoover Hog:

http://hooverhog.typepad.com/hognotes/2013/02/rebel-girl-an-...

HBDchick is an advocate of Human BioDiversity theory, which, very simply, states that the distances between various populations of humans over time have lead to statistically relevant and measurable differences in both mind _and_ body (this is the crux of the issue). While this is intuitive within the whole of mammalian evolutionary biology, there are some very sensitive conclusions that any party could arrive at if one accepts that different groups of humans have evolved different traits that reflect both strengths and weaknesses in modern society. She is not alone in this assertion, but the status quo of politically motivated science has tacitly decided that exclusion and censorship are the best response to an admittedly uncomfortable possible interpretation of reality. There is a huge amount of reading on the topic, but i refuse to use throwaways and i do not want to be banned so feel free to DM me if you'd like to know more. IANAB.

Genetic variation by region is well known. That genetics affect mind and body is known. The fact that combining those facts is bannable is nuts. Although I suspect it is all guilt by association, with some prominent bigot parroting a half-correct interpretation. Can we get a comment from HN where the line is discussing these issues to put commenters at ease? It seems a tricky precipice to tread, online and off, yet an important one if equality is truly our goal.

To be clear, it is not HN that is the issue, it is the subject of HBD. There are many examples of this discussion drawing in folks whose main mission is astroturfing, gaslighting, FUD, and race hate. Looking at the link another poster added should show you just how easy it is to color perspective and change the nature of the discussion.

The sad part is that while HBD is a magnet for extremist internet warriors on any given side of any given issue, there is a very real issue concerning the capacity of the human mind. While very intelligent, economically well off people debate whether IQ is a fair way to measure, low capability people* are force fed a doctrine that says a college degree is the only path to happiness. While we talk about equity and fairness, people who would be better off as apprentices are accruing massive debt as bad students. And the worst, IMO: while we debate racial incarceration data, whole communities are being torn out in the middle by obtuse welfare programs, inscrutable methodology, and despicable political posturing.

As i said before, IANAB, but i cannot shake the feeling that a one-size-fits-all approach to intellectual acumen and cognitive capability is relegating huge portions of society to debt prison while simultaneously stunting scientific, technological, and sociological progress. It is more than a bit frustrating.

*low should be read as "short list of," and is in no way intended as a value judgement.