The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Topics/Categories Filter?
Science
Nothing found
 TeasersGodless@GNXP Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

From National Geographic:

Michael Phelps stands 6 feet 4 inches (193 centimeters) and weighs 195 pounds (88.5 kilograms), with the broad shoulders and slim waist common to the elite swimmer. But consider his body measurements a little closer and it becomes clearer why Phelps is dominating these Olympic Games.

He has an extended trunk and relatively short legs, a distinct advantage in the water. The inseam of his pants is reportedly 32 inches (81 centimeters), shorter than that of Hicham El Guerrouj, the great Moroccan runner, who is 5 feet 9 inches (175 centimeters) but all legs. Phelps has double-jointed elbows, knees, and ankles, which allows him to bend himself like few swimmers can. His size-14 (European-size 48.5) feet are like giant fins. Add to that the extraordinary work rate of his lungs and heart and Phelps appears almost superhuman—a different species from the rest of us.

Of course, he also trains extraordinarily hard. But so do others. To be an Olympic champion, a person’s genes must first be preset for maximal athletic performance. After all, great athletes are born, then made better.

“The best athletes in the world are a result of good genes and optimal training,” said Phillip B. Sparling, who is a professor of applied physiology at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. “A person who has great dedication, motivation, and excellent training will not rise to the world-class level unless he or she has inherited a supercharged physiological system for the sport.”

A refreshing change from the usual. See also this piece on Kenyan runners. More clips inside:

The speed of a sprinter is determined in large part by physiology. Muscle proteins, including key energy-producing enzymes, are dictated by genes, as is muscle-fiber composition. Great sprinters, like Maurice Greene and Marion Jones, have a high percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibers—fibers that contract quickly but tire quickly too.

A cyclist, in contrast, needs great lung capacity, for superior endurance, and strives for a high “VO2 max,” the maximum amount of oxygen the lungs can consume. Lance Armstrong, not surprisingly, has an amazingly high VO2 max.

Great cyclists generally have an extraordinary heart capacity. The average resting heart rate is 66 to 72 beats per minute (bpm). A well-trained endurance athlete has a resting heart rate of 40 bpm. Miguel Indurain, a five-time Tour de France winner and Olympic gold medalist in 1996, recorded a resting heart rate of 28 bpm. In the mountain stages of the Tour de France, Indurain could take his pulse rate up to 190 beats per minute and drop it back to 60 on the descent within half a minute.

To varying degree, these traits are all hereditary. As the renowned Swedish exercise physiologist Per-Olof Åstrand once said, “The most important thing an aspiring athlete can do is to choose the right parents.” …

The performance gap between men and women in sports is also due to genetics. Androgens—sex hormones such as testosterone—make males taller, heavier, and more muscular than females…

But genetics, particularlya person’s nerve system, also partly determines how well athletes can train and how successfully they can make adjustments and improve their technique…

All in all, a fascinating survey of human biodiversity – without any “racist” smears. It was particularly gratifying to see the mention of the nervous system, as usually the brain is exempted from consideration. But the first law of behavioral genetics says that all traits are heritable:

Such curiosities led Dr. Turkheimer to formulate with colleague I. I. Gottesman the “first law of behavioral genetics.” The law is: 1) All human behavioral traits are heritable. Dr. Turkheimer has since named two other laws. They are:

2) The effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of genes.
3) A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families.

Heritable is used in the technical sense, here. This includes motivation, conscientiousness, and work ethic. Psychometricians have measures for such variables, but I’m not very familiar with that literature (perhaps Beaujean can comment). See here, though.

Posted by godless at 01:40 PM

(Republished from GNXP.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science 
🔊 Listen RSS

Hilarious:

capt.dnc22007300023.cvn_celebs_dnc220.jpg

The comic potential is infinite…captions solicited. Actually, it seems like she’s really getting around:

r2741683827.jpg

Mr. Clinton seems curiously absent…

Posted by godless at 01:27 AM

(Republished from GNXP.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science 
🔊 Listen RSS

Steve Sailer asks:

Converting SAT scores into IQ scores: From the Boston Globe:To convert SAT scores from 1996 through this year to an IQ score, Professor Douglas Detterman of Case Western Reserve University provides this formula: (.095 X SAT Math) + (.003 X SAT Verbal) + 50.241 = IQ

For SAT scores before 1996 — before the “recentering,” which raised the average SAT back to 500 — Detterman provides this formula: (.126 X SAT Combined Score) – (.0000471 X SAT Combined Score X SAT Combined Score) + 40.063 = IQ. The first formula, Detterman says, was based on a highly selected sample and may not predict the full range of IQ as accurately as the second.

Unfortunately, neither of these formulas seems to make much sense. Why is the new formula almost wholly dependent on the Math score? And in the old formula, which is based more sensibly on the combined score, IQ doesn’t seem to go up fast enough as the SAT score rises.

Perhaps the newspaper fouled up the formulas. Does anybody know a better version?

The paper the article is referring to is 2003 Frey and Detterman paper, which we blogged on last year.

Much more inside:

Scholastic Assessment or g?The Relationship Between the Scholastic Assessment Test and General Cognitive Ability

There is little evidence showing the relationship between the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and g (general intelligence). This research established the relationship between SAT and g, as well as the appropriateness of the SAT as a measure of g, and examined the SAT as a premorbid measure of intelligence. In Study 1, we used the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. Measures of g were extracted from the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery and correlated with SAT scores of 917 participants. The resulting correlation was .82 (.86 corrected for nonlinearity). Study 2 investigated the correlation between revised and recentered SAT scores and scores on the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices among 104 undergraduates. The resulting correlation was .483 (.72 corrected for restricted range). These studies indicate that the SAT is mainly a test of g. We provide equations for converting SAT scores to estimated IQs; such conversion could be useful for estimating premorbid IQ or conducting individual difference research with college students.

Here is the full text PDF version for those without an academic subscription.

A couple of things to note…

They look at two different measures of IQ. The first is from the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, selected from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (yes, that NLSY). The second is vs. the Raven’s progressive matrices (RAPM) tests.
The fact that the RAPMs are designed to be nonverbal tests is probably why their second equation has such a low regression coefficient for the verbal component.
Overall, the Frey and Detterman study is really just an (important) special case of a known truth: all measures of human cognitive ability tend to strongly intercorrelate with each other. That’s the highly nontrivial and nonobvious fact at the core of the study of human (and, now, mouse) intelligence. Frey & Detterman’s contribution was in assessing the strength of the contribution – which is quite strong.

So – yes – the equations cited in the article are (surprisingly enough) the same as in the paper. I too had expected a misprint because the values for a 1600 seemed too low – giving only about 120 in their formula. But if you look at their data set, this is because they were sampling from the vast middle:

sat_vs_iq.JPG

They obtain two equations via nonlinear regression, one for SAT vs. g-derived IQ and one for the SAT vs. Raven’s matrices-derived IQ scores. You can also use the fact that the linear correlation between SAT and g-derived IQ is .82 and use a simple linear regression equation, but that is less accurate than the nonlinear fit. You could write this equation if you knew the mean and standard deviation of the SAT scores in the first sample. Then you’d have:

(IQ – 100)/15 = .82 * (SAT – mean)/std

I would just use the mean (=1025) & standard dev data (=209) from the 2003 recentered scores, but I know that they are not one-for-one comparable with the older SATs. But having dug up this info, I thought it’d be of interest. Here is the 2003 homepage for the SAT. Here is the raw data for all SAT test takers in 2003, and here is a raw data text version suitable for analysis in R, Matlab, or what have you. Here’s a plot of the distribution of scores:

sat_v_m_score_distro.jpeg

As you can see, it pretty well approximates a normal distribution – the difficulty is calibrated so that this happens.

Posted by godless at 04:43 PM

(Republished from GNXP.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science 
🔊 Listen RSS

First, a stat that may surprise you:

Jews, on the other hand, are drifting toward the GOP. In 2002, the American Jewish Committee estimated that Jews are 2.1 percent of the U.S. population and 3.9 percent of Florida, also a swing state. A poll by Steven Cohen of Hebrew University found that almost half the Jews who chose Gore over Bush are uncertain they would vote the same way today. Perhaps even more crucial, prominent Democratic donors have crossed party lines. Jack Rosen, president of the American Jewish Congress and a supporter of Democrats, wrote a $100,000 check last year to the Republican National Committee. “It would be a mistake for the Jewish community not to show our appreciation to the president,” Rosen said.

Arab Americans, however, are not a major source of campaign funds. Jews provided at least half the money donated to the DNC in the 1998 and 2000 election cycles. At the RNC, Lew Eisenberg, who is Jewish, was finance chairman until he became finance chairman of the host committee for the Republican National Convention recently. At Bush-Cheney fundraisers in Washington, California, New York and Florida, rabbis gave the invocations.

More here.

Democratic fundraisers estimate that at least half of the money donated by individuals — but excluding labor unions and political action committees — to the national committees comes from Jewish donors.

According to research by University of Akron political scientist John Green and several colleagues, “Jews accounted for 21 percent of donors to the Democratic presidential primaries in 2000,” or at least $13 million out of $62 million raised by Gore and former senator Bill Bradley (N.J.). By contrast, they said, “Jews made up 2.5 percent of all GOP presidential primary donors and contributed $3.75 million out of $150 millions raised.” Their surveys found similar patterns at the congressional level.

I’d been meaning to blog about this for a while, but David Bernstein reminded me of it. Along the same lines, consider this point and counterpoint on whether Jews should switch to Bush, and this:

Sharpton “reminds a lot of Jewish voters about what they’ve come to dislike about the Democratic Party,” Ginsberg said. “It will sharpen longstanding concerns.” Any success by Sharpton could have an especially significant impact on Jewish campaign contributors, he said.

That will be “a real problem for party leaders. Without Jews there isn’t much of a Democratic Party,” Ginsberg said, “and they’d better start saving their nickels and dimes because they’re not going to get as many Jewish dollars.”

Books like JJ Goldberg’s “Jewish Power” and Ginsberg’s Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State give much more detail, as do studies like Gabler’s and 60 Minutes’ report on Hollywood:

…60 Minutes had studied the top slots in town. Their research showed that “only” about 60 percent of the most important positions in Hollywood were run by Jews. What did I think?

I managed to disqualify myself by saying that while Hollywood was not really “run” by anyone (it’s far too chaotic for that), if Jews were about 2.5 percent of the population and were about 60 percent of Hollywood, they might well be said to be extremely predominant in that sector.

Articles like this, this, and this are all interesting, but perhaps most significant is this calculating piece by Stephen Steinlight, former Director of National Affairs at the American Jewish Committee, which I urge you to read in its entirety. Here’s one of the most eyebrow-raising excerpts:

I am of course simplifying a complex process of ethnic and religious identity formation; there was also a powerful counterbalancing universalistic moral component that inculcated a belief in social justice for all people and a special identification with the struggle for Negro civil rights. And it is no exaggeration to add that in some respects, of course, a substantial subset of secular Jews were historically Europe’s cosmopolitans par excellence, particularly during the high noon of bourgeois culture in Central Europe. That sense of commitment to universalistic values and egalitarian ideals was and remains so strong that in reliable survey research conducted over the years, Jews regularly identify “belief in social justice” as the second most important factor in their Jewish identity; it is trumped only by a “sense of peoplehood.” It also explains the long Jewish involvement in and flirtation with Marxism. But it is fair to say that Jewish universalistic tendencies and tribalism have always existed in an uneasy dialectic. We are at once the most open of peoples and one second to none in intensity of national feeling. Having made this important distinction, it must be admitted that the essence of the process of my nationalist training was to inculcate the belief that the primary division in the world was between “us” and “them.” Of course we also saluted the American and Canadian flags and sang those anthems, usually with real feeling, but it was clear where our primary loyalty was meant to reside.

Ok, so that’s a lot of data. What do I think about it? Well:

First, I think too much paranoia is unwarranted. Modern American Jews are more assimilated than those of Steinlight’s generation, as they are outmarrying at greater than 50% rates. Second, I have little patience for those who’d use the Holocaust as a way to shut down any discussion of Jewish influence. This is because other Holocausts of equal or greater destructiveness have been perpetrated in Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Armenia, Rwanda, and Bangladesh (an incomplete list). If discussion of the influence of the rich hasn’t provoked a Communist Holocaust against intellectuals like it did in Cambodia, discussion of the influence of American Jews is unlikely to produce a Nazi Holocaust. Now, that said – I do believe that an important filter that should be incorporated into an analysis of political events is “Is it good for the Jews?”. This joins a bunch of other pre-existing filters, like “Is it good for the rich” or “What will blacks think of this” or “Will Muslims protest this?”. In other words, it joins the standard filters of race, economics, IQ, etcetera. A word of caution: overapplication of this filter makes one sound like those blacks who complain about “THE MAN”. There is more to this analogy than meets the eye: the 1SD difference in IQ, the massive difference in per-capita wealth & educational achievement, the seeming political/media overrepresentation, etc. But let’s not go overboard here – this filter is not a unifactorial explanation for everything. The major difference between this issue and almost every other “race” charged iss
ue that I can think of is that the distinction between the two groups – gentiles and Jews – is invisible unless you know to look. Black-white conflicts are obvious . But Jew-gentile friction is best compared to (say) Sunni-Shiite or Brahmin-Dalit conflicts, where both groups look the same and their distinctions are invisible to outsiders who haven’t been taught the difference. That’s why you hear that the US software industry is populated by “Indians” rather than “Brahmins“, for example. Americans don’t know the difference – but Indians in India know. Still, even this comparison is inexact. Until the recent post-9/11 attention paid to Jews, Israel, and the Middle East, most Americans were probably like me: unable to discern the difference between (say) Jewish names and gentile names. This is partly because the black vote is analyzed in every election, but the Jewish vote generally didn’t come in for as much public scrutiny. Or – more appropriately – the Christian Right was analyzed, but the Jewish Left was not.

What’s the upshot? Well, I do think that the left is shooting itself in the foot by antagonizing American Jews, and that the natural drift of American Jewry is to the right. There are several issues here:

The Israel-Palestine conflict is obviously a big contributor. It has become a cause celebre among the left. American Jews are increasingly seen as the most wealthy and influential white ethnic group. Unlike (say) Martin Luther King, contemporary Hispanics, blacks, and Muslims make no other distinctions of importance between white gentiles and Jews. This impression is compounded by the high intermarriage rates between Jews and gentiles. The wealth of Jews has meant that anti-Semitism has always lurked as a motivation for the far left, and was in fact historically called the socialism of fools. In combination with the perceived militarism of Israel, Jews are now seen as the embodiment of the rich warmongers among the Indymedia set. Last but certainly not least, the enemies of America today are no longer the Communists (for whom American Jews had disproportionate sympathy for relative to the population at large). No, they are now radical Muslims. While the outliers still exist, very few Jews feel more kinship with radical Muslims than America.

There’s much more on the political move to the right of American Jews in the Forward:

However, younger Jews are far more willing than their elders to identify as Republicans and to approve of President Bush, suggesting that the Democrats’ advantage among Jews will shrink during the coming decades. Republican identification also increases markedly among the growing number of Jews who are in the highest income brackets, something that has not been shown in previous surveys, including my own…

Most striking, almost half the Jews who voted in 2000 for Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore over Republican George W. Bush are uncertain they would make the same choice today. Jews in this sample supported Gore over Bush in 2000 by a margin of 71% to 21%. The survey, conducted when Gore was still considered the Democratic front-runner for 2004, showed just 37% saying they would now vote for Gore, 22% backing Bush and 41% uncertain.

The political impact of that shift is apparent already. While Jews over 65 said they would have voted for Gore over Bush last month by a margin of 40% to 15%, with 46% undecided, Jews under 35 would split their vote evenly at 33% to 33%, with 35% undecided. Indeed, while 48% of Jews over 65 disapprove of Bush’s overall performance as president, with 26% approving, his showing is reversed among Jews under 35, with 46% approving and 31% disapproving.

Overall, Jews disapproved of Bush’s performance, but only by a slight margin — 42% disapprove, against 37% approving — considerably lower than the 60% approval ratings the president enjoys in the population at large, but far from the popular image of Jews as militantly partisan Democrats. That close margin, combined with the sharp drop in overall support for a hypothetical Democratic presidential candidacy as represented by Gore, indicates that the shift to the right is in some respects across the board and not merely age-specific.

Now, these shifts are not numerically huge, but they represent substantial shifts away from the 80-20 or 90-10 Democrat preponderance. As long as Lieberman doesn’t get the nomination (and he won’t) this trend is set to continue as younger Jews intermarry more and older paleoliberal Jews pass away.

The result of this shift is important in its own right. When taken along with the aforementioned massive shifts in Republican voter registration and the ongoing campaigns to take back our universities from the Marxist left (sponsored by right-wing Jews like Horowitz and Pipes), I think it’s safe to say that the left has problems.

There are caveats. Prime among them is the question of Hispanic immigration. Mass Hispanic immigration will increase the number of Democratic votes. However, it is my opinion that this trend is invisibly decelerating. An emerging wave of criticism of mass immigration in the mainstream media is in part due to 9/11 and in part due to the relaxation of Jews on the issue, as described by Steinlight.

In the long run, I think this rightward swing will be good for America. I don’t think we need to swing back to the 1950′s status quo, but I do think that we need to start taking back our schools and teaching our kids positive lessons about capitalism, patriotism, duty, and sacrifice. We need to correct some of the more egregiously h-bd denying policies. That means an end to penalizing cops for good police work (aka “racial profiling”) and a rational, assimilation-friendly immigration policy. And we need to preemptively shore up bedrock institutions like marriage with an ounce of prevention rather than spending hundreds of billions in social services as a pound of cure. I don’t think much progress is needed or necessary on social issues, as I doubt that things like interracial marriage or abortion rights will (or should) be threatened.

Thoughts?

PS: With all this in mind, I will probably nevertheless vote for Wes Clark if he gets the nomination, for the simple reason that Clark – unlike Bush – will paradoxically be better positioned to be fiscally conservative because Republicans won’t give him a free pass on idiocies like Bush’s Medicare or Mars bills. Think of the productive relationship between Clinton and Gingrich, and how it led to balanced budgets and general prosperity. Also, I have no qualms abou
t Clark’s patriotism, his willingness to take on the enemies of the US, or his susceptibility to the ultra-ideological neocons like Frum and Perle.

Posted by godless at 04:37 PM Comments

(Republished from GNXP.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science 
🔊 Listen RSS

NY Times tries to spin this as negatively as possible. Check the headline:

Bush Plans $1.5 Billion Drive for Promotion of Marriage…

“This is a way for the president to address the concerns of conservatives and to solidify his conservative base,” a presidential adviser said.

But better an ounce of prevention than a pound of cure…or welfare and law enforcement, as the case may be. That retrograde marriage thang actually works, and it’s cheaper than most programs:

The proposal is the type of relatively inexpensive but politically potent initiative that appeals to White House officials at a time when they are squeezed by growing federal budget deficits…

In the last few years, some liberals have also expressed interest in marriage-education programs. They say a growing body of statistical evidence suggests that children fare best, financially and emotionally, in married two-parent families.

If it’s relatively inexpensive, why put its cost in the headline? Anyway, even the Times has to grudginly admit that kids are better off in married two parent households – and so is society. The nuclear family is the bedrock of Western civilization, and long-term cohabitation and serial monogamy are very poor substitutes. Indeed, it is part of the road to serfdom:

Here I show how the welfare state’s growth can be viewed as the transfer of the “dependency” function from families to state employees. The process began in 19th-century Sweden, through the socialization of children’s economic time via school attendance, child labor, and state old-age pension laws. These changes, in turn, created incentives to have only a few, or no children. In the 1930s, social democrats Gunnar and Alva Myrdal used the resulting “depopulation crisis” to argue for the full socialization of child rearing. Their “family policy,” implemented over the next forty years, virtually destroyed the autonomous family in Sweden, substituting a “client society” where citizens are clients of public employees. While Sweden is now trying to break out of the welfare state trap, the old arguments for the socialization of children have come to the United States.

I am not as negative on smaller families, public education, and child labor as Carlson is in that article. I do think that some accomodations must be made with modernity and higher population densities. However, I don’t believe that the two-parent household is a necessary casualty of technological progress.

Posted by godless at 01:29 AM Comments

(Republished from GNXP.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science 
🔊 Listen RSS

I run Red Hat 9 on a few Linux boxes, but now that it’s been a while since they’ve abandoned the non-enterprise user, I’ve been meaning to update…which means switching. I was wondering whether any of you guys had opinions on which distribution to migrate to. I’ve been thinking about Debian. Is the install really as much of a pain as it’s made out to be? While I’m capable of getting down and dirty with idiotic installation/config/driver minutiae, I’d really prefer not to. Opinions solicited…

Posted by godless at 02:36 PM Comments

(Republished from GNXP.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science 
🔊 Listen RSS

For those of you who feel that I’m too paranoid about anonymity, or who believe that I’m somehow exaggerating the danger to my academic career by even posting here…you need to read this post.

First, some background. XSteve and One People’s Project are organizations with a history of using Nuremberg Files type tactics, by publishing the home addresses of people they disagree with to encourage violent action against them. For example, here’s their “dossier” on Sailer:

His falsified and racist writings have permeated the internet, creating many rumors and misunderstanding which have spread through many internet forums. Many unsuspecting people who have written articles on race or interracial marriages may have used Steve as a source while researching on the internet.

Steve Sailer is a white American male born in December 1958. He attended UCLA in the early 1980s and worked for several years as a businessman in Chicago after college. In the late 1990s, he and his family (white wife and two sons) moved to his birthtown, Studio City, in the Los Angeles area where he currently resides.

Ok – you get the picture. These guys are intent on suppressing (by violent intimidation, if necessary) those they disagree with. And this brings us to our current situation. Xsteve recently linked an investigative reporter’s excavation of the membership of an e-group list to which a number of people interested in behavioral genetics belong to:

Beginning in the summer of 2003, our investigators began sending us information about these “HBDG” people, their connections with Bailey, their support of his work, and their coming to his defense as his work and reputation began unraveling.

Over time we hope to fill in even more details about Bailey’s supportive network, and thus better answer such questions as “Why did he do it?” Why did he do it the way he did? What could he have been thinking? Who inspired him to think that way? Who supported the publication of his book by the National Academy Press, and defended it within Academy circles? We’d also like to further reveal how his small circle of supporters tried to defend him, desperately trying to make their defense look in the media like a larger “mainstream” defense by “unaffiliated people” (when in fact it’s been easy to link them all together, and show that only Bailey’s original supporters have come to his defense…mostly from among his key HBDG friends).

I seem to remember that Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose, and the rest of the neo-Lysenkoists were all part of an organization called “Science for the People”, a Marxist front-group devoted to overthrowing the United States Government and instituting Communism:

The radical activists, however, went ballistic on this issue. Shortly after the publication of Sociobiology, Richard Lewontin organized fifteen scientists, teachers, and students in the Boston area as the Sociobiology Study Group, which then affiliated with Science for the People. The latter, larger aggregate of radical activists was begun in the 1960s to expose the misdeeds of scientists and technologists, including especially thinking considered to be politically dangerous.

Gould was often seen on picket lines and at demonstrations. When residents of a racially mixed, working-class Cambridge neighborhood rebelled against police brutality in 1971, Gould joined a Students for a Democratic Society march to support the uprising. At around the same time, Gould joined Science for the People, one of the radical science organizations that emerged from the antiwar movement.

Later, Gould was on the advisory boards of the journal Rethinking Marxism and the Brecht Forum, sponsor of the New York Marxist School, which is dedicated to using “Marx’s uniquely valuable contributions to study conditions today and possibilities for transcending capitalism and building an emancipatory society.”

The Encyclopedia of the American Left singled Gould out as one of the “few scientists [who] have emerged as major public allies of the Left” and as “perhaps the most formidable example of a supportive presence at Left events and for Left causes.”

One People’s Project links to International ANSWER, and they too are sympathetic to Communism. Just read their position statements. But because Communism isn’t universally and reflexively acknowledged as evil (though it killed many more than Nazism), these guys have gotten a free pass – just like the “protesters” organized by Communist front groups like ANSWER. And this is just one of the reasons that the leftist takeover of academe must be stopped.

To return to our main topic – in the best tradition of the Spanish Inquisition, we are probably going to see an extensive smear campaign directed against Michael Bailey and all other non pseudonymous members of the list, including Steven Pinker. The people who’re running this particular investigation are mainly transsexuals (and are thus politically marginal), but the far larger group of “antiracists” who want to use Nazi smears on guys like Pinker[1] will love the fact that Pinker is on the same list as “the devil himself”, Charles Murray. Bet on it – the HBDG will be used like the Pioneer Fund to smear people with guilt-by-association.

This whole imbroglio is a good lesson for us. It’s easy to become complacent over here at Gene Expression or at HBDG, but anonymity is necessary in today’s political climate. To paraphrase Carl Djerassi:

The outrage of the neo-Lysenkoists was understandable. The internet promises to decentralize the provision of information to a person’s laptop, which can neither be bombed nor picketed.

Like La Griffe Du Lion, I will continue to speak the truth. All those who believe that behavioral genetics is a viable field of study are currently in the political wilderness…but give us a few years, and eventually research will vindicate us.

[0] The NKVD was the forerunner to the KGB.
[1] Pinker is Jewish, by the way.

Update:

The plot thickens. The person doing the investigating is Lynn Conway. Now, anyone who’s ever taken a class on VLSI design has heard of Conway – along with Carver Mead, she wrote the seminal text on the subject back in 1978, “Introduction to VLSI Design”.

Thing is, “she” is really a “he”. Seems like investigative reporters tracked down the fact that she was a man in her early career and exposed her. Which makes one wonder why she’d want to invade the privacy of others…

Bonus laugh

This picture is from Conway’s website.

Standing next to Conway is Brent Scowcroft, realpolitiker extraordinaire and mastermind
of the first Gulf War. Somehow, I doubt ol’ Brent would have had that smile on his face if he’d realized that Conway was a transsexual :)

(Republished from GNXP.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science 
🔊 Listen RSS

Well, if Jane Galt is putting up a picture, I guess I might be able to do so as well. Here’s a shot from the not-so-distant past, to preserve a degree of plausible deniability:

babygodless.jpg

Probably not what you expected, huh?

(Republished from GNXP.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science 
🔊 Listen RSS

This is NOT worksafe (though no nudity), but it is worth watching just to gape at how different European advertising is from American advertising. And, uh, you can gape at other things too. Wow.

(Republished from GNXP.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science 
🔊 Listen RSS

The human biodiversity revolution in discourse can not be stopped:

Mr. Baker’s observations are common sense. Does anyone really think an Eskimo would perform as well in Wrigley Field in July as someone of African ancestry who has spent all but a speck of his evolutionary history along the equator? “The single most important factor in heat toleration is body proportions,” says David Brown, a University of Hawaii anthropologist and morphology expert. “If the relative fitness levels are similar, those with more skin surface area to overall body mass–those with relatively longer limbs–are more heat efficient. It’s easier to sweat, dissipate heat and keep core body temperature steady.” Check that anthropology textbook: Africans have longer limbs and more skin surface area than whites, who have more than Asians. Stout-and-short Eskimos, who are of Asian ancestry, don’t perform as efficiently in scorching weather as whites or blacks. Is it racist to acknowledge this?

This controversy transcends sports. The era of the human genome is upon us. Geneticists are studying population-based differences in the hope of devising medicines–for multiple sclerosis that afflicts Northern Europeans, colorectal cancer that hits blacks, alcoholism which impacts Asians because of a mutated gene, or the 27 diseases that disproportionately target Jews–purely as a result of their ancestry. We need a new lexicon that appreciates human differences without playing the race card. In other words, get off Dusty’s back.

Us evolutionary realists will have the last laugh…you listening, Murtaugh? ;)

Posted by godless at July 15, 2003 09:10 AM| TrackBack | Email this article
Comments

(Republished from GNXP.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science 
🔊 Listen RSS

Ok – so anyone have any ideas on appropriate songs once we start kicking some iznass? (Yes, yes, glorifying blood-and-guts, I’ve heard it already a million times, so spare me the sanctimonious lecture…)

So far I have:

Most topical:
-Outkast “Bombs over Baghdad” (of course)
-Toby Keith “The Angry American” (we’ll put a boot in yer ass…it’s the American way….)
-Darryl Worley “Have you Forgotten” (requisite bloody shirt waving)
-Metallica “Don’t Tread on Me” (to secure peace…is to prepare for war)

Bottled Brutality
-DMX “Who We Be” (OBL, Hussein, Rafsanjani, Kim Jong Il, and of course Chirac…they couldn’t POSSIBLY fuckin’ know who we be…)
-Limp Bizkit “Rollin – Urban Assault Remix” (Let’s Roll + urban warfare)
-DMX “X gonna give it to ya” (threatening, ominous, “this is not a fucking game”)

Sardonic
-Noreaga “Superthug” (substantial in-song reference to Manuel Noriega, who – like Saddam – was a former client that we got tired of)
-Rammstein “Du Hast” (great beat, intentionally mindless lyrics – this is for the mindless masses, both the antiwar protesters and the people who think that Iraqis flew the planes)

I’m sure there are other good candidates…I’m thinking of remixing something with a phat beat (like, say, the HRH remix of Dragula) with appropriately bloodthirsty/superhawk lyrics. Maybe a riff on how Iran and NK are next – something like:

To Iran:

you better start ya prayin’ cuz the US gonna check ya
bombs torque you around till you can’t even find mecca
ya 5 pillars are toppled by that “Great Satan” gospel
cuz we’ll make you reco’nize: muhammed is a false apostle…

If the mood strikes me, I’ll do one for NK as well. would be interested in hearing reader contributions.

this guy also has some ideas…

(Republished from GNXP.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science 
No Items Found
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation