I think Metz's motivation for that framing was his assumption that if SA was not at least sympathetic to NRx views, he would not allow them to be such a big voice in his comments and in his community. You can argue about the reasonableness of this assumption, but he did turn out to be right.
There is zero way to say in good faith the Scott espouses or even agrees with neo reactionism.
The neo reactionary types tend to draw specific conclusions from the idea of human biodiversity, like that racial disparities in IQ are inherent and not environmental. That's a conclusion I don't think is in line with Scott's views.
Furthermore, I suggest you read the linked emails in more detail. He likes the emphasis reactionaries put on social class, and dislikes ... pretty much everything else. He explicitly states that becoming a reactionary is stupid - I'm not sure how that's meant to be read as sympathetic.
This is another case where praising even a small component of a particular movement, even when paired with explicit condemnation of the movement as a whole, is taken as an endorsement.
> The neo reactionary types tend to draw specific conclusions from the idea of human biodiversity, like that racial disparities in IQ are inherent[...]
This is a classic motte-and-bailey. The IQ view is clearly the view that he is endorsing in the emails -- he is linking Steve Sailer's blog under "HBD is probably partially correct", and he even demands the recipient "NEVER TELL ANYONE I SAID THIS" -- obviously he's not talking about height.
Scott is acknowledging that the taboo to even recognize these disparities is counterproductive: it stymied attempts to improve schooling or studying practices, because it's taboo to even recognize that there is a difference and instead people typically allege that the tests are biased. Would Scott argue that with identical environmental factors we'd still see the same disparities in IQ across ethnic groups? I don't think so, and nothing in the emails linked seem to suggest this.
1. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/analyzing-the-homework-ga...
In those emails, SA does not say he thinks these questions deserve more study -- he says they're "probably partially true". Again, in that context he's talking about Steve Sailer's views.
Yes, I'm focusing on a few sentences. Do you think he wrote those by accident? That the words came out wrong and the straightforward reading was not his intent? In the context of the rest of his emails, and his writing on e.g. Albion's Seed, I do not think that is likely.
And on a final note, I'd suggest you read the last paragraph of the screenshotted email chain, where Scott explains how it's valuable to read creationist arguments it forces him to sharpen his thinking.
> You never realize how LITTLE you know about evolution until you read some Behe and are like, "I know this correct... But why not?".
> Even if there turns out to be zero value in any a Reactionary has ever said, by challenging beliefs of mine that would otherwise never be challenged they have forced me to clarify my thinking and up my game.
I really think you've lost the forest for the trees here. Scott is praising certain parts of reactionary ideas for asserting things most people wouldn't argue, and those interactions are leading him to sharpen his thinking.
If you don't think racial IQ disparities are a significant part of NRx thought, fine, you're probably better positioned to know and I am happy to concede the point. In that case, a better comparison would be to Steve Sailor's views. I only mentioned NRx because that is the context of his emails, and I had not recognized that he was linking to Steve Sailor's blog.
I think you're reading way too much into one sentence saying human biodiversity is partially correct (which is not actually a particularly contentious idea when you explain what it is), and leaping to the conclusion he agrees with neo reactionary claims that some races have substantially lower IQ even with identical environmental factors. There's a vast disparity between "IQ disparities across races" and "IQ disparities across races, without environmental differences" that is crucial to understand.
his criticism is squarely directed at the mainstream us left that he grew up in and its core ideals, such as equality, human rights, pacifism, fighting injustice, etc. he thinks all those are bad things
he does say some things there that are entirely outside the pale and that he should have known better than, but sad to say, those particular beliefs aren't limited to neoreactionaries
i think the vast majority of racists aren't neoreactionaries, though. like literally more than 99.9%
I find it hard to believe you've been exposed to much NRx content if you don't think they consider HBD true and very important. Although don't take that as a criticism -- I would not recommend wading through their beliefs and look back on it as a waste of my time.
i remained unpersuaded in any case, steadfastly liberal
also, much to my surprise, he and i were both members of the first coworking space at spiral muse house in san francisco in 02006. but i didn't go very often, so i don't know if i ever met him; in any case that was before he revealed his identity
Anyway, I think the HBD/NRx relationship is peripheral to the discussion of the Metz article -- I just framed it that way because that's the context of Scott's emails (certainly he think's they're at least associated!). The discourse around the Metz article was that it framed Scott as holding racist views, not specifically NRx views.
If I had mentioned Steve Sailer instead of NRx, would you agree that Scott was more sympathetic to those views than he publicly let on?
(See also Scott's response: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/statement-on-new-york-times...)
"""The issue, it was clear to me, was that I told him I could not guarantee him the anonymity he’d been writing with. In fact, his real name was easy to find because people had shared it online for years and he had used it on a piece he’d written for a scientific journal. I did a Google search for Scott Alexander and one of the first results I saw in the auto-complete list was Scott Alexander Siskind."""
Reading the response, I don't think this is condeming Metz to live in infamy.
But yeah- we've deviated too far from the main topic, so let's just agree to agree.
so while probably nothing in here is literally false, it's quite likely calculated to give false impressions; read with caution
(well, it's literally false that "Greg Brockman (...) quit his role[] as (...) board chairman" but only slightly; that was the role he was fired from, as explained in the next paragraph of the article; that's not the kind of lies to watch out for)