The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewFred Reed Archive
Catching Flak
Disjointed Ruminations of a Web Critter
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

This ill-tempered eructation is probably in bad taste. My childhood made me do it.

Should you want to earn a doctorate in aberrant psychology, you might instead try writing a column on the web, at least if you write about third-rail subjects. The response you receive from readers will be a cross between Guy Fawkes Night and a home for rabid dogs.

The subjects engendering the sharpest ire are race, IQ, and evolution. I could write that six-year-old girls should be taught to engage in anal sex with HIV-positive feral hogs, and the response would be mildly against, almost as an afterthought. “Probably not a really great idea, Fred. Maybe we ought to think it over.” But IQ—hoo-boy. Say that Jews are way smarter than ordinary whites (which the evidence certainly suggests) or that East Asians represent an evolutionary advance over Caucasians in intelligence (even though everything from test scores to brain size suggests as much) or especially that Latin Americans may not be stupid as hoped, and the squalling would take paint off a wall. Do not ever suggest that IQ may not be an accurate measure of genetically determined intelligence unless you are ready to go into hiding.

And evolution: People actually become angry if you do not share their faith in the miraculously accidental provenance of weird segmented crawly sea-bugs with a thousand eyes that scuttled about in the Cambrian ( i.e., trilobites). Why, for God’s sake? Trilobites would seem to have exiguous influence on our trajectory through this vale of strangeness in which we inexplicably find ourselves. Couldn’t people get upset over something else—mortgage rates, maybe?

Some of these folk are exceedingly intelligent and well-read, such as Steve Sailer, Razib Khan, my fellow race-traitor John Derbyshire, and Peter Frost in Canada (the latter not being a distressing medical condition but an anthropologist). All of these may be found on my favorite website, The Unz Review. They are well worth reading—carefully.

But those appearing in the Comments sections are chiefly noise, fellow travelers boiling with comic but often vapid indignation. You would think I had molested their sisters, all beause of trilobites. If commenters were restricted to those who had done basic reading, I suspect they would be much fewer and perhaps not so angry.

I suggest that people who want to talk about evolution ought to have a reading knowledge of elementary biology, a familiarity not just with the metaphysics of Richard Dawkins but with the sweep and phenomenal complexity of life. I mean (if the reader will bear with me) such things as:

Basophils, eosinophils, neutrophils. Descemet’s membrane, ciliary body, suspensory ligaments, retinal pigmented epithelium (the eye being of evolutionary interest). Peptide pituitary hormones, vasopressin and oxytocin. Osteoclast, osteoblast. Nephrons, glomerulus, Loop of Henle. Axon, dendrite, sodium in-potassium-out depolarization, neurotransmitters, receptor sites. Rough and smooth endoplasmic reticula, Golgi apparatus, lipid bilayers, hydrophobic and hydrophilic tails, lysosomes, ribosomes, epitopes, m-RNA, t-RNA, transcription, translation. Restriction enzymes, DNA polymerase. Purines adenine and guanine and pyrimidines cytocine and thymine (well, uracil in RNA). Degeneracy of the codon alphabet. Nucleotides, nucleosides, adenosine triphosphate, indels, mitochondrial cristae, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, polymerase chain reaction, restriction-fragment length polymorphism, electrophoresis. Luciferin, (and Luciferout?) luciferase, ATP. X chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA. Peptide bonds COOH to NH 2, water molecule extruded. Socially important compounds like 2, 4, 6- trinitrotoluene, toluene being benzene with a CH 3 group, bond resonance in benzene, pH, the negative log of the hydronium ion content. Levo- and dextro- isomers. Alkanes, alkenes, alkynes, al gore. Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian. Purported transitional forms: The Ichthyostegids of, if memory serves, upper Permian sediments of eastern Greenland; Archaeopteryx, Bavaria 1861; coelacanth, Marjorie Latimer, sort of 1937 I think; and my favorite, Piltdown Man. The amniote egg. Saurischian and Ornothiscian dinosaurs. Sauropods, pseudopods, copepods. Etc.

While I am no expert, on anything, I have done the minimal reading. Since many questions regarding evolution depend on details rather than vague and sweeping theories, detail is important.

And accessible. Anyone who chooses can find an organic-chemistry text, a university text on biochemistry, a med-school physiology book, one on comparative anatomy, and a similar tome on paleontology, which provide what seems to me a necessary background.

I don’t think a little reading is too much to ask of the wrought-up and hostile. The material is inherently easy, requiring little beyond a fair memory. Most of biology is more terminology than content—that is, simple ideas wrapped in scary jargon.

For example, doctors speak of “systole” and “diastole,” whereas if they said “pulse” and “interpulse,” the meaning would be instantly clear to all of us rubes. Or: If I say “Acetylcholine, a major neurotransmitter except in the post-ganglionic sympathetic system, diffuses across the synaptic gap and binds to receptor sites, the excess being removed from the gap by acetylcholinesterase,” it sounds frightfully important and mysterious.

If however I say, “In a restaurant, cigarette smoke drifts from one table to the next, whose inhabitants get red-eyed and annoyed, and fan the smoke away with a menu,” it is as puzzling as potatoes. Yet conceptually the two are identical. Big words, small ideas.

So much for the infuriosi of evolution. The other theme that upsets commenters is, as mentioned above, race. In this, blacks are largely incidental. Involved instead is a massive intellectual edifice of strict materialism from the Big Bang through formation of galaxies, planets, seas, the appearance of life, evolution, and finally genetics as the determinant of practically everything. It is not a calm understanding thoughtfully held. Its materialism is categorical and all-inclusive, so that anything not explained by material interactions would call the whole structure into question. Since it serves many of the functions of a religion, any doubt draws the reactions usual to heresy.

Benetah a disingenuous objectivity, its adherents are emotional, and become become enraged by dissent, and often personally hostile. I am regularly told in terms condescending or insulting, that I am stupid, ignorant, and “anti-science.” Sure. Any day now.

ORDER IT NOW

Genetic—that is, materialistic—explanations come naturally also to the commenters, even to those who could not distinguish between a gene and a back hoe. Thus the profound belief that the various races, however defined, have fixed intelligences that forever determine their place in the world. For example, India has a mean IQ of 81, relegating the country to eternal insignificance.

Maybe, and maybe not. But the apostles of uber-materialism, sure that everything is genetic, take a beating from the liberal media, sure that nothing isIn opposing one political correctness, they have constructed another, equally intolerant. . An embattled ideologue is a rigid ideologue. There is also palpable in this a large dollop of good old-fashioned racial animosity. Thus the eruptions of dyspepsia, marvelous (and fun) to behold.

See? I told you this would be disjoined.

(Republished from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology 
Hide 62 CommentsLeave a Comment
62 Comments to "Catching Flak"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    You write as if the questions you pose about evolution aren’t the tired repetitions of evangelical Christians the world over. If you were really sincere you could easily access detailed rebuttals for every claim you make. The only unsolved evolutionary question is abiogenesis and frankly I don’t really understand why the absence of complete proof of something requires the assumption of divine intercession. At one point or another virtually every unanswered question about the natural world has resulted in a claim that the absence of explanation is a sign of supernatural intervention. So far every one of these claims, that has been resolved, has been resolved through reason.

  2. The problem with IQ and race is people don’t seem to understand the Bell Curve. For example, there are 1.5 Billion Indians so that fact that their median IQ is – 81 or 91 or whatever – still means you have 100s of millions of very smart Indians. The same thing is true with Mexico.

    IOW, some people can’t understand numbers and stats let alone genetics vs. environment.

    And of course environment and culture play a part. Black culture seems to dismiss reading and learning in general while East Asians place a high premium on it. No doubt its PART of the reason for the large gap in IQ between East Asian Americans and Blacks or Gentiles and Jews.

  3. Bruce says:

    Trinitroluene- socially important Down South at noisy parties.

  4. Rich says:

    The problem with the assertion that Jews have higher IQs than other whites is that it simply isn’t true. The average IQ of Jews in Israel is under 100. There is said to be a variant among certain Jewish groups, but this would be similar to finding a subset of Irishmen, say Corkmen, who have a higher IQ than other Irishmen, and basing an assertion on that subset. It’s a good excuse for why the Jewish kid scored higher on the test than you kid, but it simply isn’t true. Comes down to hard work, that’s all.

  5. Fred – you seem to be betting long on Meso-American genetics.

    Can you explain why so many Meso-Americans go several thousand dollars in debt to get away from their countrymen? Isn’t this really the ruling class hidalgos offloading their left-side IQ distribution on the US?

    Why haven’t US entrepeneurs relocated to the beautiful coastlines of Central and South America and taken advantage of all this great human capital? Why haven’t Meso-American societies developed the institutions that make this a good decision?

    I’ll meet you half way: Meso-Americans are less violent, more intelligent, harder working and libertarian than negroes. Beyond that, they are completely stagnant. Give them a hammer and they’ll dutifully hammer nails until their bodies give out. Give them a nail gun and they’ll do the same. Set them in front of a TV and they’ll watch big-titted weathergirls and absurd costume dramas, no better than white trash.

    In what areas do you see Meso-American supremacy? Why haven’t their talents improved life in their homelands to the point that they are net-immigrant societies? Why are Indigenous and European phenotypes so persistent despite 500 years of co-existence?

    • Replies: @SFG
  6. Oldeguy says:

    As usual , first rate column from Fred; he missed his vocation- he would have made a marvelous teacher. His cardiology and Biochem translations were better than anything I received in my training. His comments regarding ( at least some ) commentators are sadly true: too much emoting – too little analytic thought. Why anyone should care to listen to the self pitying whining of my generation who are leaving a Country quite possibly screwed up beyond redemption is a mystery.
    I will say this for the Ron Unz Review: it is well written, honest, non agenda driven, non PC thought provoking material. I have had to reassess some long held opinions in view of what I have read here and that is a sure sign that I am not wasting my time seeking conformation of my pre existing prejudices- I seek to replace them with new ones ! Thanks.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  7. Priss Factor [AKA "Andrea Ostrov Letania"] says:

    “East Asians represent an evolutionary advance over Caucasians in intelligence (even though everything from test scores to brain size suggests as much)”

    Asian intelligence is narrower and more rigid due to constricted personalities and beta-personalities.
    This is why Asians lack the bold kind of intelligence of someone like Nietzsche and Shakespeare.

    So, Asian intelligence is an evolutionary advance only in a narrow direction. It’s not well-rounded intelligence grounded in nerves and daring.

    • Replies: @SFG
    , @Priss Factor
    , @dcite
  8. SFG says:
    @Priss Factor

    Have you read any of the Chinese philosophical or literary classics, like the Analects or the Dream of the Red Chamber, in Mandarin? If you read them in translation, do you think a Chinese person reading Shakespeare in Mandarin translation can appreciate the music of his words?

    The Tao Te Ching set off our entire ridiculous New Age movement, which may not seem like much of an achievement, but does point to it having something Westerners are missing.

    I’m not denying Asians seem to be prone to conformism in general, but I’m not sure their intelligence is really of an inferior sort. I never like to underestimate the Chinese.

  9. SFG says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Unlike sub-Saharan Africans, Mesoamericans actually did maintain a few complex societies–the Olmec, Inca, Maya, and Aztecs. They lost to the Spanish, but that was as much due to Europe’s superior resources as anything else. (And no, I am not arguing equivalence, particularly morally–I do NOT want to live in a society where we rip people’s hearts out for religious reasons.)

    Still, I think you’re right overall–the achievements of Latin America are intermediate between Africa and Europe. You can even see a gradient where the whiter countries like Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile do a little better than the others. Uruguay in particular seems to be engaging in traditionally white vices like gay marriage and pot. 😉

    • Replies: @Frederick
  10. pyrrhus says:
    @Rich

    I’m sure that Fred meant to say Aschkenazi jews (who are about 50% European), since everyone who has read anything about genetic anthropology knows they are the only exceptional group of Jews.

  11. pyrrhus says:

    But Fred, while you are complaining about others’ poor scholarship, you set up India as a straw man without understanding your subject.
    India has multiple castes, multiple religions, and multiple ethnicities that result in at least 90 breeding groups(I didn’t say race, did I?) that don’t interbreed much. So India’s average IQ doesn’t mean much for the top two castes, who tend to be quite intelligent, or for the Jains, a religious group that is grossly overrepresented in the professions and may well be smarter than even those dread test takers, the Northeast Asian. Since these highly intelligent groups run India and provide most of the intellectual firepower, the fact that the average IQ of the rest of the country is 80 or less may not present a big problem.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  12. mh505 says:

    Dear Fred –

    I am amazed that you feel the need to defend yourself. Why should you worry what the rabble has to say? The Austrians – or rather, the Viennese – have a great saying “No net amol ignorieren” which is not really translatable but in this case means: don’t read the comment section!

  13. @Anon

    You write as if the questions you pose about evolution aren’t the tired repetitions of evangelical Christians the world over. If you were really sincere you could easily access detailed rebuttals for every claim you make.

    Classic.

    Evangelicals deny that science is truth, or can ever be truth. The HBD whack-jobs misinterpret science (consistently and insistently).

    Never the twain.

  14. @Rich

    It’s a good excuse for why the Jewish kid scored higher on the test than you kid, but it simply isn’t true. Comes down to hard work, that’s all.

    But, the official line is that you can’t study for an IQ test — intelligence is immutable, and finitely definable as a number. “Hard work” can’t make you smarter.

    But prep tests and tutors sure do seem to make a difference. Darn, huh?

    • Replies: @Rich
  15. @Oldeguy

    I will say this for the Ron Unz Review: it is well written, honest, non agenda driven, non PC thought provoking material. I have had to reassess some long held opinions in view of what I have read here and that is a sure sign that I am not wasting my time seeking conformation of my pre existing prejudices

    Beatsahellouta Takimag, doesn’t it? Too bad the comment system is defective, although that factor does keep the comment count in low double-digits, discouraging, as it does, strident arguments between strident individuals.

  16. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    The assertion that would be supported by evidence is that Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQ’s than other Jews and European Gentiles. Ashkenazi Jews, whom population genetic studies demonstrate to be predominantly a mixture of Levantine and southern European components, make up a majority of the U.S. Jewish population but are only around 40-45% of Israeli Jews. Other Jewish populations have somewhat different population genetic histories. The common thread for most is a Levantine substrate, but most Jewish groups also have some degree of local admixture. The major exceptions are Yemeni Jews, who are genetically closer to peninsular Arabs than to other Jewish populations and Ethiopian Jews, who are genetically closer to Ethiopian non-Jews than to Jews. Both groups appear to be predominantly descended from converts.

  17. Rich says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    You’re right and doesn’t it seem that the more urban a society becomes, up to a point, the higher its national IQ? I’m not trying to pick on the Irish but I’ve read that IQs in Ireland went up 13 points in 30 years. Does that have something to do with an improved education system or did a bunch of Japanese move to the Emerald Isle?

  18. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    Could it be the Flynn Effect?

  19. @Rich

    Around here somewhere is an Unz treatise on outlier factors of just that sort (if “outlier” can be construed as applicable), i.e. facts that fly in the face of ….errr….shall I say “IQ determinism”?

    IQs in Ireland went up 30 points in direct correlation to what? Improved education? Could be. Another call-out is to observed that IQs of Irish immigrants to the USA, at one point in time, averaged 20-30 points higher than their 1st and 2nd cousins who remained in Ireland (such scores as were officially on record at the time) .

    Also noted in the referenced Unz article was the measured stats for IQ (not sure if it was Ireland) scores jumping 15-30 points, where the only discernible factor was a generational increase in nutrition (having enough nutritious food to eat).

    Consider, if you will, that the undeniably supported-by-fact Richwine dissertation used a preponderance of general-classification test scores from Army inductees (volunteers, not draftees). Can you say “Sampling bias”?

  20. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    East Asians represent an evolutionary advance over Caucasians in intelligence (even though everything from test scores to brain size suggests as much)

    Dude, Caucasian achievement in science and the arts overwhelms that of East Asians by 10:1. Get a grip.

  21. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    They lost to the Spanish, but that was as much due to Europe’s superior resources as anything else.

    Resources in the Americas are as good if not better than those of Europe. Perhaps you meant “superior technology”–but technology is an outgrowth of intelligence.

  22. Jim says:
    @Rich

    You don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

    • Replies: @Rich
  23. Stogie says: • Website
    @Anon

    I have read all of Fred’s essays on evolution, and none of them are “the tired repetitions of evangelical Christians.” Further, none of Fred’s essays claimed divine intervention. He did quote J.B.S. Haldane, who said “the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” I agree with Haldane. There are forces in nature that are beyond our understanding, and probably always will be.

    Having studied evolutionary theory several times in college science courses, I eventually came to the same conclusions as Fred. I came to discount evolutionary theory, due to its implausibility. If evolutionary theory is wrong, some other process or processes created the myriad life forms we see on earth. What were those processes? I don’t know and neither does Fred.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  24. Rich says:
    @Jim

    With facts and data like that, you’ve convinced me, I don’t know what I’m writing about.

  25. Priss Factor [AKA "Andrea Ostrov Letania"] says:
    @Priss Factor

    “Have you read any of the Chinese philosophical or literary classics, like the Analects or the Dream of the Red Chamber, in Mandarin? If you read them in translation, do you think a Chinese person reading Shakespeare in Mandarin translation can appreciate the music of his words?”

    Analects are fragments of fortune cookie wisdom with stuff like ‘too much music no good for king’, ‘ruler must be wise, not stupid’, ‘son must respect father or get beat up’, etc.

    I didn’t read RED CHAMBER but I think it’s about tiny-wankered Chinese guys having sex with flabby yellow women with bound feet. I’ll pass.

    Shakespearean puns won’t translate, but the power comes across in other languages and foreign adaptations. Take THRONE OF BLOOD by Kurosawa. Some say the best Shakespeare films are Russian adaptations of HAMLET and KING LEAR.

  26. Bill says:

    An embattled ideologue is a rigid ideologue.

    This. Biologists are endlessly tiresome to listen to. This seems to be bacause, first, they aren’t very bright, and, second, they see themselves, against all evidence, as some kind of embattled minority of truth-seekers holding back Christian barbarism with their bare hands.

    That conspicuously thoughtless and dim Dick Dawkins is the best champion they can muster tells you a great deal.

  27. iffen says:

    Fred

    There is no ID.

    If there was ID, we would have three arms.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  28. @Oldeguy

    With all due respect to you, Dr. Oldeguy, Fred has not missed his calling; he seems to be just now discovering it. He is a stimulating teacher, and one who encourages his “student” readers to think for themselves. There is so much political correctness and nonsense in contemporary “education” that the place for free and unfettered inquiry is perhaps now more often outside of the Academy than in it. Fred is an intelligent and courageous man Socratically posing barbed questions at the Sophist Know-it-Alls; of course he rouses ire.

    And, Mr. Reed, remember: “Aquila non captat muscas”

  29. Dave37 says:

    Ouch, felt like I got a rap across the keyboard. Seems to me, regardless of the subject, blog comments from scientific theories to Bigfoot (if you encounter a bigfoot, my advice is don’t tell anyone) all follow a formula of responses which are perhaps more fun for the commenters than the subject being discussed. I’d guess blog comments, not counting the people or agencies that purportedly comment to harrass or change opinion, fall into the human nature catagory as I’ve surprised myself with things I would never ordinarily say. Perhaps if there were two catagories of blog responses, one for those anonymous people who are apparently afraid of the government butterfly net, to talk among themselves on a particular subject and one for those who would use their real names to ask the author questions. If nothing else being able to like or dislike an Article or comment might disuade unecessary comment.

  30. @iffen

    There is no ID.

    If there was ID, we would have three arms.

    At least. And don’t get me started on how many penises we would have.

  31. syonredux says:

    Ah, another piece by Fred! Once again he goes off to manfully struggle against the evils of materialism, natural selection, and IQ tests (Yes, the three subjects seem to blend together in his brain). Let’s see how Fred does this time:

    “But IQ—hoo-boy. Say that Jews are way smarter than ordinary whites (which the evidence certainly suggests)”

    Off to a bad start. Not all Jewish groups have IQs that are over the the White American mean of 100, Fred. We don’t, for example, find high IQs among the Falasha.The elevated IQs are found among Ashkenazi Jews. Here’s some salient data from Cochran and Harpending:

    Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group for which there are
    reliable data. They score 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the general European
    average, corresponding to an IQ 112-115. This has been seen in many studies (Backman,
    1972; Levinson, 1959; Romanoff, 1976), although a recent review concludes that the
    advantage is slightly less, only half a standard deviation Lynn (2004). This fact has socialsignificance because IQ (as measured by IQ tests) is the best predictor we have of success
    in academic subjects and most jobs. Ashkenazi Jews are just as successful as their tested
    IQ would predict, and they are hugely overrepresented in occupations and fields with the
    highest cognitive demands. During the 20th century, they made up about 3% of the US
    population but won 27% of the US Nobel science prizes and 25% of the ACM Turing
    awards. They account for more than half of world chess champions.

    And Fred, who are “ordinary Whites”? Do you mean European Gentiles?

    “or that East Asians represent an evolutionary advance over Caucasians in intelligence (even though everything from test scores to brain size suggests as much)”

    Fred, there is no such thing as “evolutionary advance.” That’s importing the Whig theory of history into biology. Evolution is about change, nothing more, nothing less.

    “or especially that Latin Americans may not be stupid as hoped,”

    Which Latin Americans, Fred?The Amerinds? The Mestizos? The Whites? The Blacks? It’s a big area, Fred, with a lot of different people in it. I’m sure that you must know that, given your deep familiarity with the place…..On the other hand, you did think that Perez-Reverte was from Latin America….

    As for hoping that the Amerinds and Mestizos who are streaming into the USA are stupid, who thinks that way, Fred? People fear the fact that the Amerinds and Mestizos who are crossing our borders have IQs that are below the White American mean. I, for one, do not want to live in an America where the mean IQ is, courtesy of massive Amerind and Mestizo immigration, , 95.

    “and the squalling would take paint off a wall. Do not ever suggest that IQ may not be an accurate measure of genetically determined intelligence unless you are ready to go into hiding.”

    Accurate enough, Fred. Let’s run a thought experiment. Fred, you’ve been pulled out of a major auto wreck. You need surgery, badly. Two doctors are ready to operate. The only thing that you know about them is that one has an IQ of 145 while the other has an IQ of 115. Which one gets to cut you open, Fred? Since you are an IQ skeptic, I’m sure that you would just flip a coin….

    “It is not a calm understanding thoughtfully held. Its materialism is categorical and all-inclusive, so that anything not explained by material interactions would call the whole structure into question.”

    What is not, ultimately, a result of material reactions Fred?Do you believe in non-material intelligence? Ghosts? Angels?Demons?

    “Genetic—that is, materialistic—explanations come naturally also to the commenters, even to those who could not distinguish between a gene and a back hoe. Thus the profound belief that the various races, however defined, have fixed intelligences that forever determine their place in the world. For example, India has a mean IQ of 81, relegating the country to eternal insignificance.”

    Fred, this is pure straw man; who does not think that IQ is subject to evolutionary change? Greg Cochran certainly does not. Cf, for example, his paper on Ashkenazi IQ, where he argues that it is a product of the last 1500 years of evolution.

  32. Frederick says:
    @SFG

    Chile isn’t as White as often claimed:

    An autosomal DNA study from 2014 found out Chile to be 44.34% (± 3.9%) Native American, 51.85% (± 5.44%) European and 3.81% (± 0.45%) African.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25052264

    As luck would have it, Chile’s IQ has risen about 25 points over the last thirty years:

    Coeficiente intelectual de los chilenos subió 25 puntos en 30 años
    Un análisis realizado por el profesor Ricardo Rosas, revela que esta alza es superior incluso a la que se vivió en Dinamarca y Estados Unidos.

    EL ANÁLISIS EN CHILE: 75 vs. 100
    ¿Qué puntaje alcanzarían los niños de hace 30 años si contestaran hoy un test de Coeficiente Intelectual? Esa es la pregunta que responde el científico estadounidense James Flynn al momento de cuantificar el aumento de las capacidades intelectuales en los países. Y también fue el método que utilizó el profesor de la Universidad Católica, Ricardo Rosas, para obtener los resultados chilenos.

    Según explica el sicólogo, en cualquier país y en cualquier época el CI promedio siempre tendrá asignado el nivel 100. Pero el 100 de hoy es muy distinto al 100 de hace tres décadas y para ejemplificarlo recurre a lo que sucede con la PSU: si, por ejemplo, un año el promedio de respuestas correctas de los alumnos que rinden la prueba es 20, todos quienes tengan ese número de preguntas contestadas adecuadamente tendrán 500 puntos. Y si al año siguiente el promedio de respuestas correctas sube a 25, es ahí donde se fijan los 500 puntos. Pero la diferencia de rendimiento entre una generación y otra es evidente.

    http://www.latercera.com/contenido/741_121763_9.shtml

  33. Bliss says:

    Thus the profound belief that the various races, however defined, have fixed intelligences that forever determine their place in the world. For example, India has a mean IQ of 81, relegating the country to eternal insignificance.

    That same bible of HBDers reports that african-american IQ is 85, higher than India’s and equal to middle-easterners (who are classified as white caucasians by the US Census Bureau).

    Somehow race realists always manage to overlook this IQ comparison…

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  34. Bliss says:
    @pyrrhus

    So India’s average IQ doesn’t mean much for the top two castes, who tend to be quite intelligent, or for the Jains, a religious group that is grossly overrepresented in the professions and may well be smarter than even those dread test takers, the Northeast Asian. Since these highly intelligent groups run India and provide most of the intellectual firepower, the fact that the average IQ of the rest of the country is 80 or less may not present a big problem.

    Anyone who has been to India will laugh at your self-serving claim that India is run by highly intelligent people, seeing what a hellhole/shithole it actually is.

    And the worst states in India are the ones in the aryan heartland, the north-central region, where the great majority of these highly intelligent upper caste hindus are found…

  35. Bliss says:

    The most potent argument against the atheist materialist gang is simply this: they cannot explain consciousness.

    Which is more fundamental: the objective world of matter-energy, or the subjective awareness of it? Can the dream be more fundamental than the dreamer?

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  36. syonredux says:

    The most potent argument against the atheist materialist gang is simply this: they cannot explain consciousness.

    Which is more fundamental: the objective world of matter-energy, or the subjective awareness of it? Can the dream be more fundamental than the dreamer?

    MMMM, seems to me that I could terminate your consciousness by removing portions of your frontal cortex….That would seem to indicate that the meat in your head is of rather fundamental importance….

    That same bible of HBDers reports that african-american IQ is 85, higher than India’s and equal to middle-easterners (who are classified as white caucasians by the US Census Bureau).

    Somehow race realists always manage to overlook this IQ comparison…

    Who ignores it, dear boy? It’s endlessly discussed (environmental factors, White European admixture, etc).On the bright side, if one discounts admixture as a factor (the average Black American is around 20% European in ancestry), the Black American mean indicates that higher standards of living might do wonders in India and the Middle East. Why, just imagine what iodine supplements could do.Low hanging fruit, dear boy.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  37. syonredux says:
    @Stogie

    I have read all of Fred’s essays on evolution, and none of them are “the tired repetitions of evangelical Christians.”

    Yes they are, dear fellow. He even uses some of the same examples (cf his use of the hoary metamorphosis conundrum). Fred is, at the very least, a creationist fellow traveler.

    If evolutionary theory is wrong, some other process or processes created the myriad life forms we see on earth. What were those processes? I don’t know and neither does Fred.

    Which, of course, allows the Big Guy in the Sky to enter into the equation. God is in the gaps, etc. Old stuff.

  38. @Bliss

    The most potent argument against the atheist materialist gang is simply this: they cannot explain consciousness.

    Lulz. Nor can you.

    Which is more fundamental: the objective world of matter-energy, or the subjective awareness of it? Can the dream be more fundamental than the dreamer?

    That would be the objective world, which is verifiable across multiple, even billions, of “consciousnesses”.

  39. @Bliss

    ” (who are classified as white caucasians by the US Census Bureau). ”

    What sort of fool allows his world view to be polluted by a federal bureaucrat?

  40. Harold says:

    Fred: Ha ha ha losers! Jews and Asians have higher IQs than you.

    Said losers: Mexicans have lower IQs than us.

    Fred: Na-ah! And plus, IQ isn’t a good measure of intelligence anyway.

  41. Bliss says:
    @syonredux

    seems to me that I could terminate your consciousness by removing portions of your frontal cortex….That would seem to indicate that the meat in your head is of rather fundamental importance….

    Syon you silly boy, why do you need to perform a lobotomy to make your point? Speak from your own experience. Does the meat in your head disappear every night when you fall into deep unconscious sleep? Does the meat magically reappear when you start dreaming, or awaken?

    The brain matter can at best explain the mind, but who is it that watches the activities of the mind?

    Consciousness is a mystery that science remains clueless about. You are seriously deluded or brainwashed if you think otherwise.

    • Replies: @DissidentMan
  42. syonredux says:

    Syon you silly boy, why do you need to perform a lobotomy to make your point? Speak from your own experience. Does the meat in your head disappear every night when you fall into deep unconscious sleep? Does the meat magically reappear when you start dreaming, or awaken?

    Darling, the termination of consciousness during sleep is a physical process; instead of confirming the immateriality of consciousness, it proves its materiality.

    The brain matter can at best explain the mind, but who is it that watches the activities of the mind?

    Are we going to go into infinite recursion, dear boy?

    Consciousness is a mystery that science remains clueless about. You are seriously deluded or brainwashed if you think otherwise.

    Science would only be “clueless” about consciousness if stones and trees started displaying consciousness, dear boy. Consciousness is a product of the meat in your head; when the meat is destroyed, so is your consciousness.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  43. Bliss says:
    @syonredux

    Are we going to go into infinite recursion, dear boy?

    Silly boy, where the heck do you see an infinite recursion? The questioning ends with consciousness. There is no such thing as consciousness of consciousness. Consciousness is the ultimate observer. Capische?

    Which highlights the fact that consciousness lies outside the purview of science. Science is all about observing. You cannot observe consciousness, which is the observer itself. You cannot measure consciousness. So the how the hell can you brainwashed materialists claim to be able to explain it???

  44. syonredux says:

    Silly boy, where the heck do you see an infinite recursion? The questioning ends with consciousness. There is no such thing as consciousness of consciousness. Consciousness is the ultimate observer. Capische?

    MMM, well I could bring up Hofstadter at this point…..

    Which highlights the fact that consciousness lies outside the purview of science. Science is all about observing. You cannot observe consciousness, which is the observer itself. You cannot measure consciousness. So the how the hell can you brainwashed materialists claim to be able to explain it???

    I don’t know, dear boy. Seems to me that consciousness is quite observable. After all, stones and trees are not sentient…..

    • Replies: @Bliss
  45. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    “finding a subset of Irishmen, say Corkmen,”

    Corkonians.

  46. Bliss says:
    @syonredux

    Seems to me that consciousness is quite observable. After all, stones and trees are not sentient…..

    You really are a very silly boy. When you observe stones, trees….or humans you are not observing consciousness. You are observing a material object. You cannot observe consciousness. Why is that so hard for you understand?

    • Replies: @syonredux
  47. syonredux says:

    You really are a very silly boy. When you observe stones, trees….or humans you are not observing consciousness. You are observing a material object. You cannot observe consciousness. Why is that so hard for you understand?

    MMMM, on the other hand, dear boy, humans exhibit empirical evidence of consciousness, whereas stones and trees do not…..

    • Replies: @Bliss
  48. syonredux says:
    @Bliss

    You really are a very silly boy. When you observe stones, trees….or humans you are not observing consciousness. You are observing a material object. You cannot observe consciousness. Why is that so hard for you understand?

    MMMM, are you attempting to argue that stones and trees are conscious, dear boy? After all, if empirical signs of consciousness are, as you say, valueless…..

    • Replies: @Repma
  49. @Bliss

    The brain matter can at best explain the mind, but who is it that watches the activities of the mind?

    Are you saying that we each have our own watcher or are you implying some kind of universal watcher?
    If we each have our own watcher then you are just complicating things with no gain. The universal watcher idea doesn’t work because the watcher would be watching what everyone sees at once, but we don’t see everything at once.

  50. Repma says:
    @syonredux

    @syon. Listen up, zion, your racist slave-mocking is beginning to grate. Can it, will you.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  51. @DissidentMan

    The universal watcher idea doesn’t work because the watcher would be watching what everyone sees at once, but we don’t see everything at once.

    Buuuutt…..the Watcher DOES see everything at once. The Watcher knows everything about everything, all the time, from the beginning of time to the end of time (yup, even if time is eternal).

    Gotta be true, else the Watcher is not omnipotent, omniscient and immanent. Gawd forbid that happen.

  52. “For example, India has a mean IQ of 81, relegating the country to eternal insignificance.”

    Yes, you’ve harped on India before. As I remember in a previous column, your ‘evidence’ against Indians having an average IQ of 81 was to basically state that you don’t believe it, and to point to all the bright Indian MDs, computer programmers, etc we see in the US.

    The problem is, you fail to understand the concept of sampling error. The average Indian lacks a contiguous border with the US, so can’t conveniently self-select themselves into the US the way that the average Mexican, with an aiding and abetting US government, can. What you see in the US are not representative of the average Ganges swimmer, but the cream of the crop, those who had the talent and wherewithal to achieve an advanced degree in a STEM or medical program, and their children. If you looked only at the best and brightest of the US, and used that average as your basis for drawing conclusions about the average US citizen, you’d draw quite different conclusions about the US citizenry.

  53. syonredux says:
    @Repma

    Listen up, zion, your racist slave-mocking is beginning to grate. Can it, will you.

    Dear fellow, I have the utmost sympathy for slaves.

    And if I laugh at any mortal thing,
    ‘Tis that I may not weep.

  54. Bliss says:
    @syonredux

    humans exhibit empirical evidence of consciousness, whereas stones and trees do not…..

    Stubbornly silly boy. Empirical evidence involves observation and experimentation. You cannot observe consciousness nor can you conduct experiments on it. You are assuming consciousness in other humans and the lack of it in rocks and trees because you are a human and you know you are conscious. That is not empirical evidence. That is not science. Can you prove scientifically that all humans have consciousness?

    Do you think animals have consciousness?

    • Replies: @syonredux
  55. Bliss says:
    @DissidentMan

    Are you saying that we each have our own watcher or are you implying some kind of universal watcher?

    I implied neither. The point I am making is that consciousness cannot be explained by science.

    But the universal watcher makes more sense to me than multitudes of individual watchers. Science tells us that ultimately the objective universe is one entity, therefore the ultimate observer of this unitary entity has to be one as well.

    Einstein: Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

    • Replies: @DissidentMan
  56. syonredux says:
    @Bliss

    Stubbornly silly boy. Empirical evidence involves observation and experimentation. You cannot observe consciousness nor can you conduct experiments on it. You are assuming consciousness in other humans and the lack of it in rocks and trees because you are a human and you know you are conscious. That is not empirical evidence. That is not science. Can you prove scientifically that all humans have consciousness?

    MMM, seems to me that someone is unaware of the fact that the scientific method depends upon inductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning depends on probabilities, not certainties. Hence, although I am not certain that other humans are sentient, the empirical evidence makes it quite probable that they are.

    Do you think animals have consciousness?

    As with my fellow humans, I can only judge according to empirical evidence (brain structures, behavior, etc). And, using that standard, the higher mammals (apes, dolphins, etc) seem to be sentient. Which further supports the fact that consciousness is material in nature.It’s all about having the right kind (and amount) of meat in your head, dear boy.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  57. Bliss says:
    @syonredux

    seems to me that someone is unaware of the fact that the scientific method depends upon inductive reasoning

    You must be unaware of the fact that inductive reasoning begins with observation, otherwise why would you act like I haven’t already pointed out that consciousness is not something that can be observed; it is the observer itself. If you can’t observe consciousness how the heck can you apply the scientific method to it’s inquiry?

    consciousness is material in nature

    You can repeat that materialist mantra till you are blue in the face, it won’t change the patent fact that consciousness is subjective not objective, it is the observer not the observed. The idea that a certain combination of molecules can suddenly become aware of itself is utterly absurd. On what observation do you base this conviction?

    You observe the activities of your brain, therefore your mind itself is an object. The real you is a deeper, more fundamental entity.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  58. Bliss says:

    Icon of atheists, Sam Harris, sees the light:

    http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness

    The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience.

    If we look for consciousness in the physical world, all we find are increasingly complex systems giving rise to increasingly complex behavior—which may or may not be attended by consciousness. The fact that the behavior of our fellow human beings persuades us that they are (more or less) conscious does not get us any closer to linking consciousness to physical events.

    To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle.

    Worth pointing out here that Sam Harris is a practitioner of buddhist meditation. I totally agree with him that spirituality needs to be liberated from religion. That is exactly what Buddha’s goal was 2500 years ago. I also believe that is what Jesus set out to do 500 years later, his mission being thwarted by the forces of religion. There are good reasons why many scholars see commonality in the gospels of Buddha and Jesus…

    • Replies: @DissidentMan
  59. @Bliss

    But the universal watcher makes more sense to me than multitudes of individual watchers. Science tells us that ultimately the objective universe is one entity, therefore the ultimate observer of this unitary entity has to be one as well.

    In some posts you imply that you are an advocate of Buddhism but this universal watcher idea is more of a Vedantist position. Buddha considered conciousness to be phenomenal in nature, and he considered that there is more than one type of conciousness (the senses each have their own type of conciousness according to Buddha).

    Einstein: Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

    Why is Einstein being brought into this?

  60. @Bliss

    Worth pointing out here that Sam Harris is a practitioner of buddhist meditation. I totally agree with him that spirituality needs to be liberated from religion. That is exactly what Buddha’s goal was 2500 years ago.

    Hmmm. Buddha’s stated goal was to show others the path to enlightenment. From the damapada (perhaps the most central Buddhist scripture of all):

    This is the path, no other’s there
    for purity of insight,
    enter then upon this path
    bemusing Mara utterly.

    Yes, Buddha may have knocked some things down but only because he believed had something positive to replace them with, and that doesn’t even mean that Buddha was some kind of anti-religious crusader.

  61. syonredux says:
    @Bliss

    You must be unaware of the fact that inductive reasoning begins with observation, otherwise why would you act like I haven’t already pointed out that consciousness is not something that can be observed; it is the observer itself. If you can’t observe consciousness how the heck can you apply the scientific method to it’s inquiry?

    Yes, dear boy, but the only way that I know that you are sentient is via the signs of sentience that you display. Now, I could be in error; as any philosophy undergrad could point out, I can only be certain (in the absolute sense) of my own existence. But inductive reasoning is not about certainties. It is about probabilities. And it if a thing displays the signs of consciousness, it probably is conscious.

    Frankly, dear boy, I leave the ding an sich stuff to the Germans.

    You can repeat that materialist mantra till you are blue in the face, it won’t change the patent fact that consciousness is subjective not objective, it is the observer not the observed. The idea that a certain combination of molecules can suddenly become aware of itself is utterly absurd. On what observation do you base this conviction?

    MMM, I seem to recall reading somewhere that life is absurd…..At any rate, dear boy, the notion that meat can be sentient seems much less absurd to me then the notion that my carcass is being animated by a ghost in the machine…

    You observe the activities of your brain, therefore your mind itself is an object. The real you is a deeper, more fundamental entity.

    Hardly, dear boy. The “real me” is an epiphenomenon; I am nothing more (and nothing less) than meat.

  62. dcite says:
    @Priss Factor

    Nietzsche? There are countless better examples than he in the realms of science, technology, and social innovation.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave