Pseudoscience is something that presents itself as science but is not true science. Examples: astrology, creationism, alchemy, ancient astronauts, scientific racism.
The big difference between science and pseudoscience lies not in what they say or how true it is – after all, science is not always right and pseudoscience can be right by accident – but in how they grow and change as a body of knowledge. It is like the difference between a living person and a doll.
Science is what your science teacher at school said it was:
- Gather facts.
- Come up with a hypothesis to make sense of them.
- Test the hypothesis.
The important thing is that the hypothesis can be tested and can fail. That gives science a way to root out its own errors.
Pseudoscience is the opposite:
- Come up with the desired conclusion.
- Gather facts that support the conclusion.
- Find excuses for the facts that do not fit.
This is called confirmation bias. Ideas are never put to a do-or-die test. Errors remain.
Science makes progress though discovery and disproof. It tries to knock down its own ideas because disproof is way easier than proof. It loves facts that do not fit because they point to new ideas and discoveries.
Pseudoscience never makes new discoveries that go against its claims. It makes excuses to discount facts that do not fit. Far from knocking down its own ideas, it sticks to them long after mainstream science has left them behind.
Some telltale signs of a pseudoscience:
- It acts as if science is divided over its main claims – when in fact nearly all scientists who work in the particular field in question believe them to be false. Example: Few geneticists support scientific racism. This leads to:
- The top experts come from other fields. Example: None of the top experts of scientific racism are biologists, much less geneticists.
- Lack of many peer-reviewed articles. There are none or the same few keep coming up over and over again. Example: present-day scientific racists depend too much on Richard Lynn. Why is that?
- Never a dull moment. Most true science is dull as dust to outsiders. Not so pseudoscience, which always seems to be promising to change our understanding of the world. Yet despite that:
- The field has changed little in the past 30 years or more. Example: Scientific racism is still saying the same thing it said 200 years ago. Biology, meanwhile, has made huge advances: evolution, genetics, molecular biology, etc.
- It makes appealing claims – stuff ordinary people would like to believe is true. Example: Scientific racism appeals to people’s prejudices.
- Serious errors in reasoning. Example: Scientific racism heavily depends on the confusion between correlation and cause. Most pseudosciences make this mistake.
A note on peer-reviewed articles: Just like with statistics and Bible verses, you can prove almost anything if you pick the right ones and present them a certain way. It gives you an air of knowing what you are talking about that few can or will challenge.
Thanks to commenter Mira for her help on this post.
See also:
Pseudoscience is extremely harmful. In some cases, it’s not just a stupid thing you can forget about or laugh at it. Some pseudoscientist and their ideas are very popular, and can do much damage.
LikeLike
Yay Mira for assisting! She’s always making us American anthropologists so proud ; ) Haha.
Anyways, I’d add to this post that pseudoscience also utilizes flawed methodology. For instance, small sample sizes, averaging downward for certain groups, and upward for others, presenting conclusions as prescriptive instead of descriptive, as well as being generally incapable of reliable testing. Also, pseudoscience is noticeable in that it over relies on confirmation as opposed rigorous attempts at refutation, lack of peer-review (which is essential in my field, because otherwise you might as well be shouting on a lonely mountaintop), and finally pseudoscientists alway cloak themselves in a mantle of respectability by using jargon and technical academese — basically misleading language — to deny, hide, or distract from their failings.
Creationists do this when they attempt to undermine the biological age of the earth by misrepresenting radio-carbon dating. Neocons do this when they’re attempting to discredit Global Warming by “teaching the controversy” that doesn’t really exist. Race-realists do this when they’re quoting psychologists about the genetic basis for IQ, even though most psychologists agree that it’s both environment and genes which contribute to an individual’s overall intelligence (as we define the term in a Western society).
You may know the pseudoscientist best by his seemingly innocuous attempts to start a debate, presenting themselves as dispassionate and curious, and then slowly revealing themselves through the course of being disproved to be extremely hateful and committed to the veracity of their delusions. I call it a pathology, because in much the same way as a degenerative disease, they refuse treatment and so increasingly get worse until either they seek immediate steps towards radical help. Or they cease to be able to function in society.
Great post, per usual.
LikeLike
Zek,
You can “prove” anything using particular data or treating correlation as a cause. It’s not a particularly difficult thing to do.
Also, pseudoscientists often deal with the things that can not be proven, or disputed.
Creationists do this when they attempt to undermine the biological age of the earth by misrepresenting radio-carbon dating.
Huh?
To be honest (and I might sound disrespectful here), but I think creationism has a lot to do with the way people understand Christianity. Here (Orthodox Christianity), what’s written in Bible is not always seen in literary terms, but often as a metaphor. What is considered important is the message (particularly Christ’s sacrifice), and not how walking on water is possible, or creating the world in 6 days. I guess it makes people easier to be both religious and believe in science.
LikeLike
Also, pseudoscience ALWAYS has a political/ideological agenda.
Now, science often does have it, too, but with pseudoscience, it’s ALWAYS present, and it’s ALWAYS the only reason for dealing with the issue. Nobody does pseudoscience just for the sake of it, or just for the sake of knowledge. There’s always a strong agenda/ideology.
That’s why pseudoscientists get angry when you ask them: so what? Ok, let’s say X are, indeed, less intelligent group than Y… So what? Let’s say X are the most ancient ethnic group in the world… So what? Etc, etc. It pisses them off.
LikeLike
Here is a comment I made on pseudoscience a few post back:
All of this race and IQ talk is just another version of the scientific racism and theories of social Darwinism that thrived in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Just look at the pathetic crap they tried to pass as science back then(which apparently worked considering it was widespread in academia at the time).
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Social_Darwinism.aspx
Craniologist who used numerous tools to classify human skulls. Ultimately concluding, not surprisingly, that White people had larger and therefore more advanced skulls. As if bigger heads make someone smarter.
The utter embarrassment that was phrenology! Claiming one can use the bumps on people’s heads to tell them their behavior/character traits. This was later applied to “races.” Belgium colonial authorities actual used this particular method to say Tutsi were genetically superior to Hutu. Ironically we now know these two populations are the most genetically similar to each other despite the ethnic inequalities that led to the genocide.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/phrenology.aspx
Anglo-Saxon myths of an Aryan race evolving separately somewhere in Iran. Tall, blonde, blue-eyed, with rounder heads(which supposedly made them smarter), conquerers, and superior rulers. Eventually moving West into Europe. Mediterraneans and other Europeans bordering Mediterranean Sea and Asia were said to be impure from racial mixing while Nordics, Anglo-Saxons, etc maintained racial purity.
This same crap that they used back then to justify colonialism is exactly what they are using now to justify their modern racism.
LikeLike
Mira,
Indeed. The correlation as causation argument is used from everything to Black crime statistics to median income to IQ results to cultural observations. In fact, I’m starting to believe that it is the fundamental difference between science, and pseudoscience.
Shoot, I still get giggles over how my intro bio-anthro professor used correlation to prove that storks were bringing babies to rural communities, merely from the interrelation between large stork populations and large numbers of births. The study was actually done in England. I’ll try to find the link…
Creationists in America have often attempted to undermine the veracity of radiocarbon dating by inflating supposed inaccuracies in the methodology, particularly by focusing on samples that have been contaminated or destroyed. Intelligent design is the more “scientific” arm of this belief.
And you’re absolutely right that it has to do with a fundamentalist and fanatical approach to Christianity (and probably other religions as well) which causes these types of pseudosciences to crop up in the first place.
Notably, I remember the debate between Unamused and Obsidian, as well as the debate on other threads here where the question was asked what does it matter/what happens next if Black people are dumber or if Whites are smarter? How does that change how we treat others? The funny thing was, the answers were not forthcoming and careful prodding revealed that they revolved around violating basic laws and principles that Americans by and large hold to be sacrosanct — even among the politically extreme.
But what is truly bizarre is that pseudoscience is so often unquestioned because it fits our “common sense”, despite the fact that common sense is rather uncommon. Astrology is one such example. We say, “oh he’s so boastful because he’s a leo.” And then just move on, never examining other possible causes.
And again, I reiterate that this is a pathological problem, especially among HBDers and race-realists. Which to me begs the question: who are these people and how do they function in contemporary American society?
LikeLike
Good post again!
LikeLike
The correlation as causation argument is used from everything to Black crime statistics to median income to IQ results to cultural observations.
Oh well. I can find a correlation between zebra’s mating and traffic accidents in London (I guess?). It’s actually a fun thing to do… But it still doesn’t make it “true” in a way pseudoscientists want it to believe.
Creationists in America have often attempted to undermine the veracity of radiocarbon dating by inflating supposed inaccuracies in the methodology, particularly by focusing on samples that have been contaminated or destroyed.
But the thing is, radiocarbon dating is just ONE dating method. It’s used in archaeology because most of the remains fall into the time period that can be measured with radiocarbon (proved the remains are organic). But it’s useless when you want to date the origins of men or creation of the Earth: radiocarbon can go about 40 000 years in past. And that’s not much when it comes to stuff like this. There are numerous other dating methods, but of course, pseudoscientists don’t know about them because they are not archaeologists/geologists.
But what is truly bizarre is that pseudoscience is so often unquestioned because it fits our “common sense”, despite the fact that common sense is rather uncommon.
Well, let’s not forget that using common sense is never a good thing in science. You should never rely on common sense for the answers, never! Because what seems like a common sense is actually a combination of your culture, ideology, the way you were raised, etc.
Even serious scientists fall into this trap: Freud, for example. Much of his talk about women having a penis envy and what not is based on “common sense”: he simply couldn’t imagine a human being not wanting to have a penis, because, in his world, being a male was extremely valued. (Ok, I oversimplifying Freud, but you get the idea. )
LikeLike
Don’t know if you can call it pseudoscience, but my father are doing a book on Alzheimer disease, and colecting and reading a lot of sceience articels on the subject. Some sceientists are fixt on one idea, and are colecting data to prove their idea right. they get blinded and discover nothing. These articels gets mainly not attention, and get sorted out as sience of no value in academica. They may get popular in some sub groups. As an editor or writher its very bad to refer to a source like that, if you want to be taken siriously.
I think it may easy to do pseudoscience, even if you not tend to do so. most people and scientists are fixed on ideas and theories and are not objective, even if they try to be objective. They have certant expetations to the outcome and are loooking mainly after this.
LikeLike
Another great and truthful post.
LikeLike
ML,
By all means, science is not perfect… It’s another issue altogether, scientists abusing the data and making mistakes.
But the main thing that separates science from pseudoscience is not truth, honesty and good intentions, but methodology. There are scientists who don’t know how to use it, so they create a bad science… But pseudoscientists never create science, any form of it.
LikeLike
@ML
Aren’t you that guy from Norway?
LikeLike
The Limitations of Science:
1) Science must deal with observable, measurable phenomena.
2) Science can only describe, not explain.
3) No experiment can be completely controlled.
4) Observationsn may be faulty.
5) Humans’ beliefs affect their judgment.
6) Science must deal with repeatable results.
7) Science cannot deal with values or morals.
Science cannot prove a universal statement.
9) Science cannot establish Truth.
LikeLike
‘The top experts come from other fields’
So says the blogger, with help from an archaeologist and an anthropologist. If the cost of entry in this debate is a PhD in either Biology or Genetics, then what makes any of you qualified to join in?
‘present-day scientific racists depend too much on Richard Lynn’.
HBDers specifically Steve Sailer, often point out the failings in Lynn’s data. They see it more as a guide than a bible, a good effort rather than the gold standard.
‘Why is that?’
HBDers would say because of the ideological climate, most people qualified to study the field of IQ, etc, are too afraid to say what they believe. They always bring up James Watson. If one of the greatest, most famous scientists in America can lose his job, especially for a comment, not a policy or a paper, then just imagine what could happen to, well, anyone else lower down than him. That was the most revered man in the field, and he was fired from his own institute. Talk about a chilling effect.
Overwhelmingly so, all of the incentives our society has in place, in terms of jobs, tenure, prestige, conformity with the ideological framework within which we live, etc., push people towards looking for, and ‘finding’, answers that conform to your side’s beliefs. People want equality to be true. Most of us want it to be true. You’re flipping around the order of ideological development and change here.
‘Never a dull moment’
I remember a blog post of yours titled ‘The hearts of white people: the science’. LOL, you’re right there!
‘It makes appealing claims’
I have never seen an HBDer say, or insinuate, that the racial difference in intelligence is an appealing proposition. The exact opposite, because it means there is little we can do to solve many of the problems our society faces because of this IQ discrepancy. I’d say the reigning emotion is despair at the intractable nature of society’s race-based problems. You think; our society is not equal because of racism, where as they think our society is not equal because we are not equal, and that we cannot change that. If they had a choice, they’d want everyone to be as equal as possible. Has any HBDer ever said, ‘I’m so glad blacks are a full standard deviation below whites’? It really makes America stronger, eh? Who wants to believe that? Specifically? Who has said ‘blacks are less intelligent, and I wouldn’t have it any other way? You fail to see this because you don’t understand how vast is the gap between the likes of Sailer and the likes of Stormfront. The former sees HBD and thinks, ‘this is terrible! But it’s the truth, and no amount of social engineering can change that, so we have to accept some inequality in our society’, while the later thinks ‘great!’.
Zek:
‘pseudoscientists alway cloak themselves in a mantle of respectability by using jargon and technical academese — basically misleading language — to deny, hide, or distract from their failings.’
That’s the most obvious case of projection I’ve seen in quite a while- thanks! A great description of you Boasians, Kevin MacDonald couldn’t have said it better!
‘fundamentalist and fanatical approach to Christianity (and probably other religions as well) which causes these types of pseudosciences to crop up in the first place.’
Most HBDers are not religious. Certainly not the blog-o-sphere. However, if by ‘other religions’ you mean ‘Judaism’ and ‘these types of pseudosciences’ you mean ‘cultural anthropology’, then yes, you are right!
‘pathologies’
It’s quite the thing to see social ‘scientists’ of your sort adopting medical, scientific terminology in which to cloak your bigotry. It shows how truly nasty you are.
BB
p.s. Do you believe in Melanin Theory Abagond?
LikeLike
Excellent post! I love it…
@zek, The Cynic, & Mira:
The pathological repetition of those pseudo-science devotees is nauseating! I applaud you (and others) who patiently try to assist with removing braincases from rectal passages – it’s an exercise in futility, true, but at least you don’t let their B.S. pass by without a pertinent comment or verbal smackdown! I laughed out loud when I saw the comment from the guy who was convinced that he’d pwned Zek…I personally didn’t see it, but I guess it helps him,her, or it to feel better about themselves and sleep better at night! 😆
LikeLike
“Science makes progress though discovery and disproof. It tries to knock down its own ideas because disproof is way easier than proof.”
This is why you do find *some* studies in the field that actually seem to support HBD beliefs. It is the job of scientists to explore ALL possibilities. So let’s say (hypothetically) that there were 1000 papers on genetics that agree that the genetic component of intelligence is NOT significant. But there may still be 60 papers out there that are exploring and trying to prove the minority viewpoint that genetics is a key factor. I admit, 60 papers seems like a lot IF you don’t know about the other 1000.
It’s certainly enough to get together and discuss, post them on your blogs, and pass them around to each other, until they become a part of your lexicon.
Just refer to http://network.Bernard_Stokes_et_al.forum
and http://science.S_locksley_hebert_gillinstein.study.usc
or even http://nature.biggims_tudor_pratt.scipost
Each, of course is a 39 page paper plus index and endnotes. And ultimately there are 60 links that you can throw at people—Just read this and it will explain everything!
But rarely do pseudoscientists say, “And just to be fair, here are the 8 direct rebuttals to this paper that I’m siting from 12 years ago.” They also rarely say, “This is 1 of 10 papers published on this particular aspect of genetics, and the other 9 papers disagree with the conclusions of this one.”
I begin to suspect that many HBDers don’t really know the scientific debate to that level of detail, and cannot truly tell you whether or not they are quoting from papers that have long ago been refuted and discarded in the course of the peer review cycle.
LikeLike
BB,
If I’m a Boasian, than does that make you Kevin MacDonald? Or just another angry
race-realistracist? Also…Most HBDers are not religious.
You do realize in that part of the conversation I was talking about Creationists, right?? Try reading my comment all the way through next time. K thx bai =P
Sepultura,
Aww, thanks =)
I’m not sure if I was “pwned” either, especially since I wasn’t even fighting anyone in particular. I think most HBDers just like claiming victory against random people on the internet to make themselves feel better about being universally despised.
Or perhaps they’re upset we’re the only people who even pay attention to them anymore.
I spoke with a few of my anthro professors, and none of them knew who Steve Sailer was, or HBD. Only one knew of Richard Lynn, and he laughed when I mentioned his attempt to link the heritability of IQ and race. (He teaches introductory courses on human variation — bio-anthro and paleoanthropology.) But the best smackdown happened when I wrote an old term paper on Philippe Rushton’s assertions regarding IQ heritability. My professor wrote in the margins: “this is how someone who’s clearly a beginning anthropology student can disprove a professor just by using an introductory book on how human genetics works.”
It really is that simple to refute nonsense ; )
LikeLike
@ Zek
Your teacher’s response towards your Rushton paper reminds me of the beating he took from Prof. Joseph Graves, when he consistently refuted Rushton’s arguments at the taped scientific discussion panel they both attended.
LikeLike
@Zek,
If you are a Boasian, than I’d be a MacDonaldite, not the man himself.
You clearly linked Christianity with ‘these types of pseudosciences’, not a singular pseudoscience. To be fair, it could be interpreted either way, but I picked it out because it’s indicative of your zest in criticising Christianity, while any reciprocal criticism of your religion’s far more zealous members is verboten by all.
‘…just like claiming victory against random people on the internet to make themselves feel better about being universally despised.’
There you go on projecting, I love it! What’s interesting to me is that Zek assumes Rushton, Lynn, and Sailer are seen in cultish terms by HBDers, like they are gods. Not true. Lynn’s work in particular has come in for criticism. These people are guides, often flawed, but not gods. In reality, HBD is a big tent idea; its unity on politics and public policy is well nigh remote. My meaning of the term indicates someone who believes things like IQ and personality have a large degree of heritability. What that specific degree is is in dispute, along with how that genetic aspect interacts with the enviroment. If you want my take, read Steve Pinker’s The Blank Slate. Going back to projection, this cultish devotion to a central leader is exactly how his Boasian cultural anthropology cult operates. ‘If thats how we operate, that’s how they operate’. Talk about deterministic and reductionist!
You aren’t studying genetics. You aren’t studying biology. Yu aren’t studying psychometrics or psychology. Studying anthropology makes you an expert in none of these fields. You have invested your intellectual abilities in an intellectually bankrupt, slavishly ideological faith that is intolerant of anything besides a 100% cultural explanation.
*Abagond, I have a vague feeling there has been another commentator who writes under BB. Just in case that person wants to continue with BB, I’m switching over to BD.
LikeLike
***I laughed out loud when I saw the comment from the guy who was convinced that he’d pwned Zek…***
Who claimed this? Certainly, Gorbachev dominated the ‘iq is 70’ thread. After complaints about a lack of expertise in biology or genetics, someone with a background in the area turned up & suggested Zek was behind the curve citing Gould & Lewontin.
LikeLike
***But the best smackdown happened when I wrote an old term paper on Philippe Rushton’s assertions regarding IQ heritability. My professor wrote in the margins: “this is how someone who’s clearly a beginning anthropology student can disprove a professor just by using an introductory book on how human genetics works.”
***
Can you share the argument?
LikeLike
“But the best smackdown happened when I wrote an old term paper on Philippe Rushton’s assertions regarding IQ heritability. My professor wrote in the margins: “this is how someone who’s clearly a beginning anthropology student can disprove a professor just by using an introductory book on how human genetics works.”
Talk about pseudoscience. Do a google scholar search for heritability and IQ. I’m getting 5,000 studies in the last 6 years. Here was a massive recent paper (N=11,000 twin pairs from the Netherlands, the US, the UK, and Australia )
Haworth, Wright, Luciano, Martin, de Geus, Beijsterveldt, Bartels, Posthuma, Boomsma, Davis, Kovas, Corley, DeFries,
Hewitt, Olson, Rhea, Wadsworth, Iacono, McGue, Thompson, Hart, Petrill, Lubinski, Plomin, 2009. “The heritability of general cognitive ability increases linearly from childhood to young adulthood”
LikeLike
Schwartz,
Citing Gould and Lewontin is actually quite mainstream. The person who suggested I was behind the curve was a sociobiology major who said he worked at a liberal media company. Hard to take him seriously since he said he had to hide his true views to avoid getting fired… But whatever. I’m not sure the argument was even about “winning” (no matter what Charlie Sheen joke waits in the wings) sine the consensus was established back when Lewontin wrote his paper. And even before, during UNESCO’s paper on The Race Question.
I would be happy to share my paper, however it’s a bit long to copy & paste into a blog comment… And also I don’t have a scanner to include my professor’s handwritten notes. Maybe I’ll do a post of it on my blog so ya’ll can check it out. Hmm…
BB,
than I’d be a MacDonaldite
So you’d be anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist?? I mean, MacDonald still believes in The Protocols of The Elders of Zion for crying out loud.
Funny enough, I grew up in Orange County (not at all like the TV shows) and had many friends who went to CSULB. Having met Professor MacDonald, I can tell ya, he’s a typical VDARE nutjob. He’s shunned by the entire faculty and staff, who look at him as an embarrassment. (Which he is.)
So yeah… hardly someone to openly compare yourself to. But okay!
Actually I am studying genetics. I study human variation right now. I take classes on bio-anthropology and paleoanthropology in addition to forensic anthropology, cross-cultural racism, and inner-city ethnography. I study these topics 5 days a week, and more on the weekends. (When I’m not working or blogging.) I have an actual name, and face, and you can probably find me if you’re determined enough to be a stalker. Unlike most of the HBD and race-realism blogging crowd, I’m not afraid to be seen, mostly because my ideas don’t involve prejudice or discrimination.
You have invested your intellectual abilities in an intellectually bankrupt, slavishly ideological faith that is intolerant of anything besides a 100% cultural explanation.
Hahaha! And may I ask what it is you study? Or do for a living? Are you a geneticist or biologist or forensic anthropologist? Do you regularly read about the complexities of human genetics? What exactly are YOUR qualifications?
And in the meantime, you can take the discredited work of Pinker, Sailer, Lynn, Rushton, American Renaissance, and all the rest of them. Seriously, take them. Nobody else wants ’em. Mainstream science has no use for academic racism. Their rejection AROUND THE WORLD isn’t some conspiracy or liberal/leftist takeover; it’s just good science.
Take for example Steven Rose, Leon Kamin, along with Lewontin (who actually is quite a part of established genetics, especially his papers with J.L. Hubby) who wrote an excellent refutation of sociobiology — in particular the more fundamentalist approaches, like scientific racism — entitled, Not In Our Genes. Oh, and also, Alas Poor Darwin, and a paper, Commentary: Heritability estimates—long past their sell-by date.
I suggest you study up BB, if you want to be at all relevant to the discussion!
LikeLike
Franklin,
Oh, Joseph Graves. He’s a pretty funny guy for a super-serious scientist. I enjoy his work immensely, but his debates are just AWESOME! I mean, it’s like watching Yoda fight Count Dooku. Too bad so many people seem to forget one of the notable BLACK scientists that argues against race-realism/HBD.
Le sigh… But I chalk it up the racists who start these debates in the first place.
LikeLike
“HBDers specifically Steve Sailer, often point out the failings in Lynn’s data. They see it more as a guide than a bible, a good effort rather than the gold standard.”
How many times have Lynns data been independantly verified by other studies or scientists?
LikeLike
@Schwartz
How did Gorbachev dominate when he barely mentioned African IQ lvls? At first he said “IF black Africans are intellectually inferior” only to later proclaim that they are less intelligent w/o explaining where his change of heart came from. That was pretty much all I saw him say that was related to the topic. He devoted more time to rape than IQ…
@Zek
Since you mentioned Rushton, and this post is about pseudoscience, it seems fitting to bring up the ridiculousness of his “Blacks have smaller brains” theory.
Check number 3 for the brain size section.
Click to access Wicherts+Reply.pdf
Turns out his proposed brain differences among blacks and whites are way too small to explain an IQ gap of 15 pts. Not to mention that Rushton based his measurements on outdated methods. I recommend reading the entire Wichert’s paper. It’s quite short(3 pgs) and pretty interesting.
LikeLike
@Hippo Chuck
Talk about pseudoscience. Do a google scholar search for heritability and IQ.
So what?
-The truth is nature and nurture work together when it comes to inheritable traits like intelligence. Virtually all of the studies checking for heritability of intelligence have been done on middle class and wealthy twins. Several recent twin studies from psychologist Eric Turkheimer and others have shown that the heritability of IQ among seven yr olds(year IQ stabilizes) at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum is only 0.10 on a scale of 1-10 and 0.75 on the same scale for those at the higher end. Fifty-four percent of the twins in this study were Black….
Click to access Turkheimer_et_al___2003_.pdf
-“If genetic influences help explain individual diversity traits such as aggressiveness, can the same be said of group differences between men and women , or between people of different races? Not necessarily. Individual differences in height and weight, for example, are HIGHLY inheritable; yet nutritional rather than genetic influences explain why, as a group, today’s adults are taller and heavier than those of a century ago. The two groups differ, but not because human genes have changed in a mere century’s eyeblink of time.
As with height and weight, so with personality and intelligence scores: Heritable individual differences need not imply heritable group differences.”(Myers 138-139)
Myers, David G. Psychology 9th Edition In Modules. New York: Worth Publishers, 2010. Print.
-Height is 75%-90% inheritable, more-so than intelligence, and yet North Koreans are a full 6 inches shorter than South Koreans.(Pak, 2004; Schwekendiek, 2008).
-The Burakumin are a social minority in Japan(genetically, racially, & ethnically the same population as majority Japanese), yet their is a 15-16 IQ gap btwn them & majority Japanese. Did I mention they were a traditionally oppressed group? In fact several traditionally oppressed minorities around the globe have lower IQs than the dominant former/current oppressor groups in their society. Arabs in Israel, Maoris in New Zealand, Roma gypsies in Europe, and several others.
Do a google books search for:Race and intelligence: separating science from myth By Jefferson M. Fish pg. 270-273.
LikeLike
***Citing Gould and Lewontin is actually quite mainstream. The person who suggested I was behind the curve was a sociobiology major who said he worked at a liberal media company. ***
Well, I think he said he held a “master’s in population genetics and evolutionary theory”.
In terms of ‘Not in Our Genes’, have you read Richard Dawkins review? Steven Pinker also pointed out in ‘How the Mind Works’ that they actually misquoted a passage from Dawkins to make it appear he was arguing a biological determinist position. Which makes a convenient strawman.
LikeLike
Cynic,
Oooh, great article! I think the brain-size argument is something which gets recycled so often as to be a “jump the shark” moment in any conversation about race, genetics, and IQ. Smaller brains don’t make people stupider. If they did, whales would dominate the planet. Brain structures are far more important, and while those are partially genetic, they are also partially developmental, as evidenced by Noam Chomsky and other linguists.
But Rushton is old hat for most undergrad anthro majors. They give him to us at the same time as Lewontin for introductory courses. High level courses focus more on Dawkins vs Gould, since that’s where the real debate occurs. If HBDers and race-realists started citing Dawkins or E.O. Wilson, it would be much harder to refute them (though still possible) because those guys are serious and pre-eminent scientists. However, they can’t, because nobody in that field says anything remotely similar to the nonsense of HBD and race-realism.
A Equals A,
Lynn’s work has been peer-reviewed, and following that it was discredited. Notably, Lynn himself is accused of falsifying results and ignoring contradictory evidence.
For example, demonstrated by Leon Kamin, “Lynn chose to ignore the substance of Crawford-Nutt’s paper, which reported that 228 black high school students in Soweto scored an average of 45 correct responses on the Matrices—HIGHER than the mean of 44 achieved by the same-age white sample on whom the test’s norms had been established and well above the mean of Owen’s coloured pupils.”
Confirmation bias via flawed methodology is nothing new to pseudoscience and scientific racism.
LikeLike
Schwartz,
Oh, now Dawkins I can understand. He’s very rarely taken a prescriptive stance on genetics, but that said he does tend to ignore cultural factors in his work (not uncommon among sociobiologists and evolutionary psychology) that often affect the data he’s measuring.
Gould vs. Dawkins is probably one of the best in scientific debates ever, yet both were actually good friends and colleagues. Why? Because Dawkins very rarely slipped into racist science. He was more about ethical research integrity.
That said, I don’t believe they misquoted Dawkins because they were pointing to a different version than the one Pinker pointed to. And Dawkin’s DOES argue a genetic/biological deterministic position. That it’s a convenient strawman is irrelevant since that’s his position.
LikeLike
@Zek
Smaller brains don’t make people stupider. If they did, whales would dominate the planet. Brain structures are far more important, and while those are partially genetic, they are also partially developmental, as evidenced by Noam Chomsky and other linguists.”
Yup, but of course this doesn’t stop HDB minions on youtube and other forums from regurgitating Rushton’s garbage. It’s funny bc the measurements he proposed are smaller than the brain size gap btwn men and women(w/ men having bigger brains). Funny bc I believe I have read that the avg IQ of Black women is higher than Black men, which coincides w/ HS graduation and college enrollment rates. Either way it doesn’t matter. There are tiny brained geniuses & big brained dodos.
LikeLike
Cynic,
Funny bc I believe I have read that the avg IQ of Black women is higher than Black men, which coincides w/ HS graduation and college enrollment rates.
Funny indeed, because I’ve seen much the same thing. Yet HBDers and race-realists also tend to misogynistic and/or fanatical MRA’s (as opposed to MRM’s) who downplay female intelligence. I wonder how they’d justify the supposedly higher intelligence of Black women compared to Black men? It’d be an interesting intersection of race and gender among that crowd. But the resulting dialogue would probably make my head explode from all the idiotic attempts to explain it.
There are tiny brained geniuses & big brained dodos.
Is it just me or do so many of the race-realist and HBD sources have large heads? Rushton, Lynn, Herrnstein, Murray… Or maybe it’s because they’re balding that they just LOOK big.
LikeLike
***Gould vs. Dawkins is probably one of the best in scientific debates ever, yet both were actually good friends and colleagues. Why? Because Dawkins very rarely slipped into racist science. He was more about ethical research integrity.***
I think this partially explains why you’ll find relatively few academics who would be prepared to openly adopt a hereditarian position. You can contrast that with the private results of the Snyderman/Rothman poll. Why would academics risk the vitriol that the likes of Jensen & co attract?
Can you imagine a colleague of Zek’s being willing to publish something that contradicted Zek’s views? It would probably harm their relationship.
In ‘Conversations with Arthur Jensen’, Jensen suggests to the interviewer, that he probably has greater capacity to tolerate criticism and abuse than the average person. Incidentally, the dust jacket to the book has a quote from EO Wilson “a brave and honest man interviewing a brave and honest man.”
LikeLike
“I think this partially explains why you’ll find relatively few academics who would be prepared to openly adopt a hereditarian position. You can contrast that with the private results of the Snyderman/Rothman poll. Why would academics risk the vitriol that the likes of Jensen & co attract?”
I think this is also the EXACT same reason that most scientists won’t admit that the world is being secretly taken over by U.F.O.s. Imagine how they would be exposed to public ridicule, and think of their relationships with mainstream colleagues! Why risk it?
LikeLike
Cosign with King
Also they would be subjected to rigid scrutiny of their claims and evidence, and if that was found lacking THEN they might be ridiculed or discredited.
THis happened inadvertently to a friend of mine who was doing research in Boston. The administrator he was working under collaborated with a Korean scientist. The Korean scientist turned out to have forged or misrepresented most of his data and his claims were discredited. He wasn’t involved with that research project but the department he was working for lost all their grants, so he had to get a job somewhere else which wasn’t as convenient as his last job in terms of his freedom and duties.
LikeLike
I think this partially explains why you’ll find relatively few academics who would be prepared to openly adopt a hereditarian position. You can contrast that with the private results of the Snyderman/Rothman poll. Why would academics risk the vitriol that the likes of Jensen & co attract?
I think relatively few academics do this because relatively few academics sincerely believe in pseudoscience.
Besides, many polls taken contain contradictory evidence that the majority of scientists don’t accept a strictly hereditarian position that advocates for HBD or race-realism.
Which is why when the argument is made that this information is widely believed and the rest of us are deluding ourselves, I cannot help but laugh because the reality is that the scientific racists are the only ones who believe this, and the rest of us are wondering why they’re so deluded.
LikeLike
@schwartz: that is pathetic, man. You suggest that most scientists agree secretly with HBDers and other nuts like that, but they are too scared to come out?? 😀 What is this, the days of inquisition? Who are these guys? Mr Racebiologist Scarypants?? 😀
You think Kopernikus did not take risks? Or Galileo? Or come to that, quite few scientists in the past. The thing is, they were into something real. “Racerealists” etc. are not.
The absolut scientifical fact is that there is no science which backs up your racist ideas. No biology, no psychology, nothing. All you have left is pseudoscience. That is why it is called pseudoscience or in layman terms, BS.
Your true base if Faith. You are not scientists, not realists, you are Believers. You Believe. You want to believe. You want something to back up your belief system, hence the pseudoscience.
History of IQ tests reveals how american racists twisted them to suit their ideology. From belgian cognitive test for school children they became american IQ tests and now, decades later, they have created their own culture and life.
Just yesterday I talked one of my old highschool friend. She has worked for some of the biggest finnish companies and for the goverment testing the personel in various ways. That is her speciality. That is what she does. She is a psychologist and an expert on testing different skills and abilities trough these tests. She has done this work for 2 decades by now. She has also been working in developing different tests in her field, also internationally. Some of you may even guess for which companies she has worked for.
I asked her opinion of the standard american IQ tests. What do they prove? She, very politely I may add, said that mostly those tests show how good someone is at those tests. I asked her weather these tests measure intelligence? She smiled and explained the no, not really. They measure who is good at thinking the same way as these tests are constructed. Finally I asked is intelligence racially genetical. She laughed out right.
She also told me that in order to really find out how intelligent some one is, it takes much more than just one standardized test. In takes several tests and interviews etc. But that takes time and money, so one test is much more convinient and cheaper, even though it really does not do what it is supposed to do. Or at least, what some people BELIEVE it does. 😀
PS. I asked could I use her as refence here, but she refused the honor. She is currently working for goverment, so…
LikeLike
Secretly the MAJORITY of scientists believe in HBD. But they are terrified of being laughed at by the small MINORITY that doesn’t believe in it.
LikeLike
I’m a bit late to the party, so I’ll just say a few things:
BB (BD): I never called myself a biologist. My involvement in this post had nothing to do with HBD, but pseudoscience in general. It’s abagond’s choice to focus on HBD (don’t get me wrong, I do believe HBD to be a pseudoscience, but sadly, it’s hardly the only pseudoscience out there).
I am not particularly familiar with the race realism and HBD. As shocking as that may sound, there are cultures, like mine, that don’t focus on race at all – not because they are oh, so open minded and colourblind, but because only one race lives there. So we don’t really discuss race here, we focus on the stuff that concern us, such as ethnicity, which ethnic group is more ancient, etc.
So obviously, you get a lot of pseudoscience in that field. There are pseudoscientists in each of the Balkan cultures claiming that their ethnic group is the most ancient on the Balkans (and for that matter, in the world – yes, you’ve read that right, in case you didn’t know, we’re the most ancient people in TEH world!) That’s the pseudoscience I have to deal on regular basis, not HBD.
That’s why I don’t comment much on HBD. However, what I’ve read about it and, most important of all, the way proponents talk about it, it reeks of typical pseudoscience problems, including, but not limited to: interpreting correlation as causation and pushing a strong political/ideological agenda.
Now, a little something about how to draw conclusion in science:
News flash!- you don’t make up a conclusion and then seek for the data that will approve it! You form a hypothesis and then you test it, to see if the data supports it. What you’re looking for is not a confirmation of your hypothesis, but quite the opposite, data that will dispute it, because it’s much easier than proving a hypothesis. One would argue you can’t really prove anything, ever – all you can do is have a strong hypothesis that stands even in multiple attempts of disputing it, and as long as data fit within the hypothesis.
Fine, you say. But what prevents a scientist from forming a hypothesis with a strong bias (such as the hypothesis that all black people are violent, or that aliens were the ones who built pyramids and not Egyptians). Sadly, nothing. However, what happens after that is very important: if you’re not seeking for ways to dispute your hypothesis, and instead focus on the data that confirms it, boy, you’re doing it wrong!
In case of HBDers: did they ever try to dispute their hypothesis? Did they have a hypothesis in the first place, or just a general “conclusion” they want to illustrate with examples?
PS- Another common problem with pseudoscientists is that they’re unfamiliar with Occam’s Razor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
(Aliens and pyramids is a typical example of this)
LikeLike
Mira said nothing to me about scientific racism. She was just helping me to understand what pseudoscience is – as someone with a training in science. But of course the striking resemblance with scientific racism did not escape my notice.
LikeLike
Hi Zek,
You said:
“Notably, I remember the debate between Unamused and Obsidian, as well as the debate on other threads here where the question was asked what does it matter/what happens next if Black people are dumber or if Whites are smarter? How does that change how we treat others? The funny thing was, the answers were not forthcoming and careful prodding revealed that they revolved around violating basic laws and principles that Americans by and large hold to be sacrosanct — even among the politically extreme.”
O: Just wanted to give you props for that one, Man. We’ve certainly had our disagreements – and I am certain we will continue to do so – but you gotta give credit where it’s due. Your mention of my debates between myself and Unamused are right on-point. I exposed quite a few lapses in his reasoning, argumentation and preparation, all of which are chronicled on my blog for anyone who’s interested. So again, thanks.
O/T: Zek, since I got you here, and since we’ve discussed this topic before, I was wondering if you wouldn’t mind my picking your brain here for a minute…
According to a recent study released by OKCupid, it seems that more IR pairings happen the older the people involved are. I am sure you are aware of the “swirling” blogger by name of Christelyn Karazin, who is a strong advocate for Black Women “expanding their horizons”. I am curious: are you aware of any data that details the ages of Black Women/Whte Men couples at marriage? Is it higher or lower than the current national average ages, and if so, by how much?
Also…
Most African American Women are highly religious, yet when it comes to the question of “swirling” this issue takes on some interesting contours and permutations. In that you are a Jew, and in that your girlfriend is Black, I am curious to know if she considers herself religious, and if so, how that jibed with your own faith tradition? I ask because a very popular refrain from Sistas in Black America is not being “unequally yoked” which is supposed to mean, not being with a Man of a differing faith. However, in practice, I’ve seen quite a few Sistas bend and twist this to suit their whims; for example, I have personally witnessed the very same Sistas who say such a thing, be with White Jewish guys such as yourself. I am wondering just how strong the religiousity of the Swirling Sista set is in relation to their non-swirling sistas, and how all this shakes out. Are you aware of any data or studies along these lines?
I realize that I am asking at least semi-personal questions and want you to know that I will completely understand if you choose to decline. Thanks!
O.
LikeLike
@king: you said it, bro, you said it! It is that terrible minority… It must be THE LEFT!!!! 😀 Those mindcontrol freaks!!
LikeLike
“I exposed quite a few lapses in his reasoning, argumentation and preparation”
Don’t recall that happening.
LikeLike
***Besides, many polls taken contain contradictory evidence that the majority of scientists don’t accept a strictly hereditarian position that advocates for HBD or race-realism.***
Not even Jensen or Rushton accept a “strictly hereditarian position”. They consider group differences are due to environmental and genetic variation.
The Snyderman/Rothman poll showed that the pure environmental explanation was held by 15% of the 661 surveyed. 45% considered genetic and environmental factors explain group differences. This is what HBD’ers think too.
LikeLike
***What is this, the days of inquisition? ***
@ Sam,
Have a read of Linda Gottfredson’s interview on her faculty page. She had an extremely unpleasant time because her research crossed into hbd related areas.
Also, how do you think Zek would react if you published something that suggested group differences are partially heritable? Academics are people too, they don’t want to be hated.
LikeLike
Swartzie, if I took every exception, reservation, and disallowment, that I’ve heard sited by HBDers, about heritable intelligence, I would easily come to the conclusion that (EVEN IF TRUE) there are enough possible x-factors, that it doesn’t translate into much actionable information. And I don’t even believe that it’s true.
LikeLike
@ Zek:
Oh, wow – I am LOLing my FAO at the Obstinate one! HIS pathology revolves around ‘swirling Sistas’ and his incessant conviction that ALL black women just LOVE Tyler Perry and Oprah shows!! 😆
Now you get to be one of the targets of his insanity, because you have the temerity to date (GASP) a SISTA!!! 🙄
LikeLike
I think this is also the EXACT same reason that most scientists won’t admit that the world is being secretly taken over by U.F.O.s. Imagine how they would be exposed to public ridicule, and think of their relationships with mainstream colleagues! Why risk it?
They are! I am living proof of this! The aliens are here for a buffet:
This what I really look like!:
This is after eating leg o’ man done over easy, cooked in garlic and butter(seared). HBDers, you’re next! I wonder if they would go good with fries? I wonder if I should boil or fry them? Any suggestions?
On a serious note; another example of pseudoscience is the cosmetics field who promote products and make claims that have been debunked time and again by scientist. Take for example skin cream:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/beauty/article3076047.ece
There is a sucker born every minute!
LikeLike
Obsidian,
I calls ’em likes I sees ’em. Obviously I still strongly disagree with your pass on the pseudoscience aspect of the debate (though since it’s not something you’re interested — as you’ve mentioned many times — that makes sense) but like I mentioned in a different post here that watching you two debate was like watching Darth Vader versus Sauron. Or, if you prefer, Godzilla versus Mecha Godzilla. Two baddies going at it is always fun to watch ; )
That said, I’m not sure your questions regarding IR’s are really… pertinent to this discussion. And OKCupid studies are hardly scientific, especially since they’re done by a for-profit corporation who’s heavily invested in getting people to date each other through their website. Honestly, in that sense they too may fall into the category of pseudoscience. But anyhoo, I’m not currently aware of anything specifically with what you’re talking about, and I’ll save my opinions for a relevant thread on the subject.
Schwartz,
This is what HBD’ers think too.
No, I disagree. HBD and race-realism have very clearly thrown their hat into the strictly hereditarian ring, with ONE caveat, any evidence which does fit their ideology is subverted with environmental exceptions to avoid creating contradictory evidence. An example would be testing that shows Black people scoring better than Whites, or Asians scoring less than Blacks, etc.
And also, most academics — of all backgrounds — support a dual hypothesis of nature AND nurture, and this has been the standard for quite some time. At least the 1950’s in many disciplines. UNESCO’s The Race Question is one such example.
Also, Also, how do you think Zek would react if you published something that suggested group differences are partially heritable? Academics are people too, they don’t want to be hated.
This seems contrary to HBDers and race-realists, who profess to ENJOY being “hated” by others, and often invite controversy by wearing their prejudice with pride. A blog entitled In Mala Fide is one such example; just check their About section.
Sepultura,
Haha, it’s funny you should say that because I’ve been writing a post about all the “props” I get from Black men here in SF seemingly BECAUSE I’m dating a Black woman (with natural hair to boot!). It’s cool, funny, and strange all at the same time. But I digress…
LikeLike
@sepultura13
Are you saying that my questions aren’t legitimate? If so, please explain why? Thanks.
O.
LikeLike
Zek,
Replies below:
Z: I calls ‘em likes I sees ‘em. Obviously I still strongly disagree with your pass on the pseudoscience aspect of the debate (though since it’s not something you’re interested — as you’ve mentioned many times — that makes sense) but like I mentioned in a different post here that watching you two debate was like watching Darth Vader versus Sauron. Or, if you prefer, Godzilla versus Mecha Godzilla. Two baddies going at it is always fun to watch ; )
O: You’d be interested in my latests posts at my blog, for reasons that should be obvious to you. If you’re of a mind, check em out.
But yea, my main reason why I didn’t take up the scientific sides of the argument was because I am not trained as a scientist and didn’t feel comfortable discussings I had little to no understanding or knowledge of. I am not qualified to discuss genetics and the like and so I am more than happy to let others who have a greater understanding of those things hash them out. I don’t see why a layman’s discussion about these things can’t be had though, and like you said, when you simply respond to the Unamused’s of the world with “so what?”, they hem and haw about exactly what they would like to see happen. In his case, he wants to do away with Affirmative Action, yet as has been pointed out here and elsewhere, the simple math doesn’t work (there aren’t enough African Americans to “takeaway” all the jobs from Whites and Asians), half of all Black boys dropout of highschool, and most Blacks don’t major in the STEM subjects, which is the bulk and mass of Asians and the kinds of White guys who makeup a goodly portion of the HBDsphere tend to major in. In sum, it simply doesn’t make rational sense once you look at it.
Of course, then Unamused goes into a “it’s the right thing to do” argument – fine, I say, but how do you sell this to African Americans and those who support them in politics, media etc? He revealed that he had zero understanding of politics, public relations, marketing and the like. People rarely do things because it’s “right” but rather, because they have something to gain out of it. May not be fair, but it is life. All it sounded like at the end of the day was yet another Angry White Guy pissed off at the world because somebody – ie, Alpha Male Whites – took his cheese. Not a problem me and mine can or should solve.
Oh, you might have heard, but recently Charles Murray gave a talk that was carried live on C-SPAN; his lecture topic? The White Underclass. In fact, he’s got a book coming out soon called “Coming Apart” and is a followup to The Bell Curve. As you can see, he is focusing solely on the WHITE UNDERCLASS, and I am just tickled pink because I wanna see what will happen in the HBDsphere. Sailer talked about it over on his blog and there didn’t seem to be as much enthusiasm about it as there is for “NAMs”. Check it out.
Z: That said, I’m not sure your questions regarding IR’s are really… pertinent to this discussion.
O: They’re not; like I said, they were completely off topic. But given that we know each other a bit and we often interact on more shall we say neutral ground, I wanted to take the chance to discuss something that I know is rather close to you.
Z: And OKCupid studies are hardly scientific, especially since they’re done by a for-profit corporation who’s heavily invested in getting people to date each other through their website. Honestly, in that sense they too may fall into the category of pseudoscience. But anyhoo, I’m not currently aware of anything specifically with what you’re talking about, and I’ll save my opinions for a relevant thread on the subject.
O: As you wish; as for OKC, I fully admit that they aren’t the best tool in this regard to use – but they’re the best we got of the lot. Unless you’re aware of another organization that conducts surveys and studies of its members, and if you do, I’m all ears. Until something better shows up, they’re gonna have to do.
O.
LikeLike
Mira: “News flash!- you don’t make up a conclusion and then seek for the data that will approve it! You form a hypothesis and then you test it, to see if the data supports it. What you’re looking for is not a confirmation of your hypothesis, but quite the opposite, data that will dispute it, because it’s much easier than proving a hypothesis.”
If I had a donkey turd for every time an HBDer came on here with a prediction of where science WOULD SOON LEAD US, I could fertilize the Sahara.
-In the years to come, the Human Genome Project WILL vindicate my belief that races are biological!
-In the future, research WILL reveal to an even greater degree that intelligence is 80% genetic!
-In time, genetic research WILL substantiate what I’ve been able to extrapolate from the I.Q. test results of different ethnicities.
NOT science.
LikeLike
Well, if we go back some 200 000 years we have a the same mitochondria mother in Africa. If we go back (was it?) 60 000 years, we have a same y-chromosome daddy in Africa. And if the genes are irreversible and unmovable and cut into stone and define who we are, like the race realists and HBDers claim, that makes us all related.
Now I have no problem with that, I think its funny. 99,9% of our genes are the same. Not bad. I have no problem with that either.
Some 2000 human beings survived one of the ice ages. That is not too much, practically one small village of humans.
When one thinks about these things and listens some race realist or HDBer or any one who tries his (usually his) best to preach how there are different human races, you can not but laugh, or at least smile. We are truly the same and here they are these guys, doing their best, trying to convince somebody that we are not. It is so funny sometimes.
@schwartz:
If Linda Gottfredson is an academic she knew what would happen in that direction. If you want to challenge the conventions of science, you better be ready to argue. You can not say ” My research prove that tomatoes are blue” and not expect some backlash or counter arguments.
If I wrote something like that, I think me and zek would have a very interesting debate or discussion of the subject. And on that note, I do believe that some group differences are heritable, culturally and environmentally that is. Not racially. 😀 A child born in Atlanta today would grow up to be a nice taleban if he would be transferred to that environment as a baby.
Well, actually there was an american taleban who turned to that thing as a young man. Was that genetic? Must have been, since the guy grew up in USA but became a taleban, hmm…
Academics are people too, yes they are indeed. They make mistakes, sleep too little, get nervous, forget things, eat just like any of us etc. I am academically educated guy. Many of my friends are academics. One of my relatives is a top class international nuclear physicist. I know they are just humans. But if you make a claim that majority of scientist agree with HBDers or race realists but are too afraid to say it, it is ridiculous.
The fact is that race realists and HBDers are beating a dead horse. You guys are like creationists. Your basic idea comes from 1800’s and it has been shredded by science ever since time and time again. The idea, race separation biologically, is an old one. You guys think that you have found something new on it. You have not. It is the same concept in new clothes with old debate techniques.
I understand that because you and some other guys here believe in it, you believe that science is showing that you are right, or that it is beginning to show that you guys are right. It is actually the opposite. The more science dives into our DNA and genetic composition, the more clear it becomes all the time how much the same we all are. I know it must be depressing and discouraging, but that is the way it is.
Now, if you, or anybody else make claims that there are separate human races with race based intelligence, be prepared to hear word Racist. That is because you are one. You may have convinced yourself that you are not, but you really are. It is a racist concept. It is that simple.
And since in our present culture racism is a negative concept, the attention towards to you guys will be negative.
So if and when you keep on holding to your beliefs, be prepared to face the criticism and even some angry rebuttal. That happens when your political stance goes against the values of the society and racism, my friend, is a political ideology. Not science.
LikeLike
@ Chuckwiththehippo
That study was funded by the John Templeton Foundation, fairly well known in the scientific community for its intermingling of science with religion. They also fund projects on the fringes of certain disciplines, allegedly even some I.D. proponents, which otherwise would not receive any funding from other science sponsors. On a related note, godandscience.org keep citing some of the scientists of that IQ paper as sources. An organisation which has a keen interest in promoting scientific refutation for the hypothesis that homosexuality has a predominant genetic component.
Here we have the scientists that show an absurd amount of zeal in trying to prove a genetic predetermination of intelligence but at the same time insisting on proving genetic insignificance in homosexuality. To put their claims in other words, if you’re born dumb you’ll even get dumber as you grow up, (if you’re black you’re hopeless anyway) but if you’re homo you’re just ill and can be “healed” and put back on “the right path”.
Can anyone smell the hypocrisy?
From the paper Chuckwiththehippo mentioned:
This is highly speculative. The credibility of all the empirical sermon before this paragraph shoots itself in the foot by the mere mention of this central point.
On the other hand, conveniently omitted in this paper, there is strong evidence from laboratory experiments that structural plasticity has a significant underlying environmental component. It has been shown that synapses rewire themselves literally in a struggle of the fittest, according to its direct usefulness in a given cognitive situation. This is also known as “the Darwinism of synapses”. Synaptic plasticity is directly observable in the laboratory and potentially behaves identically in all healthy individuals within a given species. In layman terms, the heritability of cognitive performance can be qualified for the entire species homo sapiens, as it can for other species. However any genetic predetermination cannot be quantified within current knowledge as soon as the synapses “take over” in adapting to the environment, apart from epigenetic effects.
(To the diligent HBD copiers and pasters on here, I’m sure you can find the literature yourself. There is plenty out there. You might want to start with Jean-Pierre Changeux, William Calvin, Michael Gazzaniga and William Greenough.)
LikeLike
Zek and Abagond,
You replied to none of my comments.
Zek, I said MacDonaldite in relation to your poor grammar. And he doesn’t belive in the veracity of TPOTEOZ itself, thoughhe’d probably agree with its analysis. I, however, don’t. The point was a grammatical one.
No one wants to stalk you Zek, you’re simply a narcissist. A projectionist narcissist who works at a crummy theatre called Politicized Anthropology, four block south of NeverNeverland and Righteous Indignation.
For Zek credentials reign supreme, except when they don’t. So opponents are racists, or computer salesmen, or chair makers. You always attack the person rather than the argument. Hsu’s a ‘wannabe’. Pinker is ‘discredited’. Watson is a ‘racist’. Crick, Shockley? It seems the only people who can comment on this issue are other uber lefty anthro types. Because that is how your field has operated for the past 100 years. Attack. Insult. You don’t agree, we’ll get you fired! Freedom of speech indeed. That’s your science. And yet look at Lewontin, a fraud. Montague was a liar if there ever was one. And so dated. So sad. Your lies and the culture of fear and cencorship they constructed are crumbling and there is nothing you can do about it.
Also, it just shows the sad frailty of your mind. You claim to belive in human equality yet your entire ego is wrapped up in feeling intellectually superior to everyone else. How sad. You worship your own intellect, what a penurious god. No wonder you’re so full of hate.
Zek and Abagond require there to be no differences between Sailer and Stormfront precisely because the former is such a threat. Except it’s not. Underlying all their vituperativeness is a fear that accepting the realities of race will necessarily lead to a new era of slavery. It will not.
LikeLike
Zek and Abagond require there to be no differences between Sailer and Stormfront…
HA! This from the nimrod who just penned this:
“So let’s go our separate ways. The safest, healthiest, white people are those who live far away from you, Maine, Vermont, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho. We don’t suffer from your degeneracy, and we don’t want to. All of America used to be like that. You think your compaints will achieve something. Yes, they will. Right now, you can bully and bribe whites, but one day we won’t tolerate it anymore. GO AWAY. Everyone is happy without you, away from you, it’s ot just whites, it’s every ethnic grou that has ever had the displeasure to interact with you on a large scale. Everyone. Because their fears are real, your behavior is real.
Liberalism is all about the idea that black behavior can be changed, and nobody believes that anymore, except white liberals who live far removed from the reality of your proximity.
Oh yes…. much, much, different than Stormfront.
LikeLike
King
Stormfront et al want to commit violence against you, against all minorities, Jews, etc. I wish violence on no one. When I say go our separate ways, I am talking about the way most of ous already live, not some fantastical white ethno state in the wilds of Idaho. Also, when I say.. ‘we won’t tolerate it anymore’ I mean that when the current white majority becomes a plurality, and then a minority, they will act as a block, on racial lines, the way blacks do now with the Deomcratic Party. Democrats receive about 90% of the Black vote. The day will soon come when that percentage is the same for whites and the Republican party. What does this mean? We will no longer have political divisions based on economic or ideological differences. Instead, our political differences will be almost exclusively racial expressions. And when that happens, things like AA, prefential treatment, etc, will be vote down. Possibly basic laws like Brown or the CRA64. I’d like to not see that happen, that backlash, that completely racialized politics. But I’m a cynic, I don’t see any other way. The history of multicultural empires is not a good one. With increasing division will come increasingly less to divide. Everyone will hurt from this. And, really, blaming whitey like you do only hastens the day. And, obviously, I can’t change that.
LikeLike
King
I just want to add the words you quoted above are mine, they are not Sailer’s. Using my words to refute an opposing dichotomy between Sailer and Stormfront doesn’t really make any sense. Sailer didn’t write that, I did. And I’ll add one more time, I wish violence on no one, a marked contrast from your decapitation comments.
LikeLike
“Stormfront et al want to commit violence against you, against all minorities”
That’s not true. Stormfront advocates stupidity, but not open violence. They advocate for policy changes and bemoan the legendary Jewish overlordship, but they make to call to arms.
“When the current white majority becomes a plurality, and then a minority, they will act as a block, on racial lines, the way blacks do now with the Deomcratic Party.”
I doubt it. As time moves forward, I believe that economics will drive the divisions more than race. Look at all the rats on wall street who didn’t go to jail for what they have done. Look then at all of the people who will go back to jobs that pay less than the jobs they used to have. Nobody is going to be sniveling about “which races people don’t like” anymore.
Open your eyes.
LikeLike
@ King
But note that while Stormfront likes to keep up the false image of non-violence, its community as a whole, rarely condone “I hate (insert non-WASP group here) because of…!” comments. Nor are they against cheering things like the hundreds of thousands of deaths from the earthquake in Haiti.
LikeLike
pseudo-scientist = zek j evets
LikeLike