The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
AntiScientific American Lauds Angela Saini's Science Denialism
🔊 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From [Anti]Scientific American:

How Can We Curb the Spread of Scientific Racism?

A new book examines the insidious effects of scientific investigations into race

By John Horgan on October 17, 2019

A dozen years ago I flew to Europe to speak at a conference on science’s limits. The meeting’s organizer greeted me with a tirade about James Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix, who had just stated publicly that blacks are less intelligent than whites. “All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours,” Watson told a journalist, “whereas all the testing says not really.”

At first I thought my host, a world-famous intellectual whose work I admired, was condemning Watson.

After all, what has James Watson ever done for science?

But no, he was condemning Watson’s critics, whom he saw as cowards attacking a courageous truth-teller. I wish I could say I was shocked by my host’s rant, but I have had many encounters like this over the decades. Just as scientists and other intellectuals often reveal in private that they believe in the paranormal, so many disclose that they believe in the innate inferiority of certain groups.

That 2007 incident came back to me as I read Superior: The Return of Race Science by British journalist Angela Saini (who is coming to my school Nov. 4, see Postscript). Superior is a thoroughly researched, brilliantly written and deeply disturbing book. … Saini calls “intellectual racism” the “toxic little seed at the heart of academia. However dead you might think it is, it needs only a little water, and now it’s raining.”

Saini argues that racism is implicit within the concept of race. “Race is at its heart the belief that we are born different, deep inside our bodies, perhaps even in character and intellect, as well as outward appearance,” she writes. “It’s the notion that groups of people have certain innate qualities” that can “define the passage of progress, the success and failure of the nations our ancestors came from.” Yes, that’s what Watson was saying.

Like sexism, racism is a personal topic for Saini, who is of Indian descent. …

But scientific racism–an oxymoron if ever there was one–is a relatively recent, localized phenomenon. It emerged in Europe during the so-called Enlightenment and accelerated after the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.

After all, what did the Enlightenment or Darwin’s Origin of Species ever do for science?

“It is no accident that modern ideas of race were formed during the height of European colonialism,” Saini writes, “when those in power had already decided on their own superiority.”

“The Negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises above the trifling.” That was Kant. Darwin came from a family of abolitionists and was progressive for his era. He nonetheless believed, as Saini puts it, that “men were above women, and white races were above all others.” Thomas Henry Huxley, Darwin’s bulldog, supported abolition but said, “The highest reaches in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins.”

Race science has nonetheless recently re-emerged, heartening white supremacists, neo-Nazis and other bigots. Saini shows how wealthy benefactors and organizations such as the Pioneer Fund, founded in the 1930s to promote “race betterment,” have enabled this resurgence. They fund and help disseminate research—via journals such as Mankind Quarterly and websites such as Unz Review–that supposedly establishes the innate inferiority of certain races.

Those who espouse this ideology call themselves “race realists.” …

Race, as Saini shows, has always been an arbitrary way to categorize people, motivated primarily by political rather than scientific goals. Yes, some genetic markers and heritable diseases, like sickle cell anemia, tend to be associated with certain populations, a fact exploited by 23andMe and Ancestry.com and by scientists tracing human evolution. But numerous studies have revealed that there is far more genetic variation within than between races, however they are defined. A 2002 study found that 93-95 percent of the genetic variation occurs within rather than between geographically distinct populations.

Individuals within one subracial group (e.g., Swedes) tend to be about as similar to each other genetically relative to the rest of the human race as a Swedish uncle is to his Swedish nephew or a grandparent to a grandchild compared to the rest of the Swedes.

Is that a lot?

No, when compared to how similar two identical twins are. Yes, more or less, compared to most other factors in human life and society, which, as I may have mentioned once or twice, tends to be quite complicated and multi-factorial.

Given this enormous variability, it is absurd to make gross generalizations, as racists do, about the character and capabilities of certain groups. “The racial categories we are used to seeing on census forms don’t map onto the true picture of human variation,” Saini writes.

That’s why the Obama Administration trashed those old racist Census categories during its 8 years in power. Oh, wait, it didn’t do that.

She herself can be categorized as black, brown or Caucasian. The concept of race “is useless, pernicious nonsense,” geneticist Mark Thomas tells her.

David Reich, a much more productive geneticist, however, told her the opposite.

… Saini also worries about the insidious effects of identity politics and of ancestry testing, which has “helped reinforce the idea that race is real.” “Have pride in where you live or where your ancestors come from if you like,” she says, but “don’t be sucked into believing that you are so different from others that your rights have more value.”

Good luck, Angela, with your Eurasian privileged hair.

“Race realists” have viciously attacked her, as she disclosed in her recent Scientific American column “The Internet Is a Cesspool of Racist Pseudoscience.” (For a similar view, see this New York Times essay, “Racists Are Recruiting. Watch Your White Sons.”)

But I believe, and hope, that Superior will provoke others, including progressives, to re-evaluate their attitudes toward race. She has certainly made me re-evaluate my views. I now see research on racial differences in an even more negative light than I once did, which I didn’t think was possible. As long as racism still infects our societies, it confounds attempts to disentangle the relative contributions of genes and environment to racial inequality.

I once suggested that, given the harm done by research on alleged cognitive differences between races, it should be banned. I stand by that proposal. I also agree with Saini that online media firms should do more to curb the dissemination of racist pseudoscience. “This is not a free speech issue,” she writes in Scientific American, “it’s about improving the quality and accuracy of information that people see online, and thereby creating a fairer, kinder society.”

Both Angela Saini and Amy Harmon are ladylike “Well! I never …” pearl-clutchers who subscribe utterly to the conventional wisdom of their era and have never had an idiosyncratic thought.

 
Hide 179 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. My favorite Watson quote was the one where he was like “i’m still waiting to see that data” when he was asked if he still thinks this way.

    Angela, we are all waiting on that data we keep hearing has debunked our pseudoscientific ideas. Where’s it at and what’s the hold up? Apparently it’s kept in a secret room only special people have access to. I think it’s due time to show James the data. He’s waited long enough and he’s been fired from all his jobs. And maybe you can show Steve afterwards.

    • Agree: Mr. XYZ
  2. anon[590] • Disclaimer says:

    I once suggested that, given the harm done by research on alleged cognitive differences between races, it should be banned.

    That cannot be sufficient. Some people might continue to think about it. It is obvious that inquiries must be made into what people believe. An international organization of inquisitors is obviously needed. Perhaps it could be based in Spain.

    • LOL: Realist
    • Replies: @Jack D
  3. Just as scientists and other intellectuals often reveal in private that they believe in the paranormal, so many disclose that they believe in the innate inferiority of certain groups.

    Interesting, I’ve never heard of this. I wonder if this is Aesopian language, if Horgan is hoping the hoi polloi will take it literally, while “scientists and intellectuals” will see it as a hint that maybe there is a reason so many people secretly believe in one “pseudoscientific” doctrine and not the other.

    • Replies: @Alfa158
  4. By John Horgan

    Horgan proved long ago that he has terrible judgment when he endorsed Patrick Tierney’s disgraceful attack on Napoleon Chagnon and James Neel.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
  5. Scientific American became a sad joke after it was taken over by some uber-PC German publishing concern in the 1980s. I canceled my long-time subscription just after that. They still publish some decent articles but the overall SJW/PC/virtue signalling/anti-science crap that clogs the rag’s pages now compels me not to subscribe or buy individual issues as a matter of conscience. The smug stupidity of John Horgan, on display here, is all too typical of the (Anti-)Scientific American of the past several decades.

  6. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    I once suggested that, given the harm done by research on alleged cognitive differences between races, it should be banned.

    What harm was done based on this research? The African slave trade predated it, and the Nazis weren’t big fans of IQ tests.

    • Replies: @william munny
    , @BB753
  7. Kronos says:

    Plenty of geneticists are still sitting on their hands in regards to talking realistically about race and IQ. Most of them are STILL sore about humans having around 20,000 genes instead of 100,000. (It would’ve made IQ-gene research much easier.) So each gene may have 5 different purposes on average.

    Many believe honest discussions will only occur when effective medical treatments are available for cognitive enhancement. Thus making the black-white IQ gap moot.

    But that technology is still way off. You have Behavioralists (today) going on systemic purges to protect the old 1960s paradigm. Geneticists need to bust a move, and fairly soon.

    • Replies: @Spangel
    , @Alfa158
    , @Moses
  8. Spangel says:
    @Kronos

    That’s the crux of the problem. We will identify genetic correlates with racial iq differences long before we have a remedy. Few are comfortable with humanity just sitting on its hands for 30 years or so while believing that blacks are on average innately disposed to being less intelligent while not being able to do anything about this predicament.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    , @Anonymousse
  9. J.Ross says:

    Just as scientists and other intellectuals often reveal in private that they believe in the paranormal

    Einstein was willing to go along with Reichian orgone accumulation at least being possible until his assistants pointed out that Einstein’s own experiment had failed to turn up evidence and that other science obviated it. I don’t know who these alleged secret ghostbusters are but they’re probably in the same situation, holding on to something which cannot be substantiated but has also not been totally knocked out, so I imagine that, if they were presented with a solid rebuttal, they would gracefully drop it like Al. None of this applies to race realists, race realists are on the other side of the threshold of substatiation. The “scientists” best described by “you can’t prove it wasn’t a poltergeist” are the race denialists, and they’re generally journalists, sociologists, administrative types, and professional activists, not scientists.

    • Replies: @oddsbodkins
    , @Pericles
  10. dearieme says:

    Angela Saini and Amy Harmon … have never had an idiosyncratic thought.

    Crimethink, you mean?

  11. If race doesn’t exist, then it is impossible to tell two races apart.

    If it is impossible to tell two races apart, it is impossible to be racist in practice.

    Tberefore, racism cannot exist.

    • Replies: @Neuday
    , @Mr McKenna
    , @dr kill
  12. Gunther says:

    How long will it be before ‘believe’ in genetics is not kosher?

  13. “disentangle the relative contributions of genes and environment to racial inequality”

    Wait, after all that groveling at the altar of wokeness, the article concludes with the exact same kind of language that gets people branded as scientific racists?

    • Agree: Dtbb, Mr McKenna
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  14. Flip says:

    “And yet it moves.”

    These people are the equivalent of flat-earthers.

  15. Both Angela Saini and Amy Harmon are ladylike “Well! I never …” pearl-clutchers who subscribe utterly to the conventional wisdom of their era and have never had an idiosyncratic thought.

    They must be so unbelievably boring to talk to.

  16. anonymous[244] • Disclaimer says:

    “given the harm done by research on alleged cognitive differences between races, it should be banned. I stand by that proposal. I also agree with Saini that online media firms should do more to curb the dissemination of racist pseudoscience. “This is not a free speech issue,” she writes in Scientific American.”
    Don’t laugh. She means it. People like this are genuinely dangerous, if they outnumber you.

  17. JVenter says:

    So compared to whites, blacks are more athletic and have bigger penises but are identical in intelligence? Sick deal bro!

    Obviously the reason they haven’t won more Nobel Prizes in STEM fields is because of pernicious white racism.

    • Replies: @jon
  18. Neuday says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    It’s not that it’s impossible to tell the races apart, but to do so is discrimination, and that’s bad. You sound like that kind of guy who notices all the TV doctors are black, which is purely coincidental.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Moses
  19. J.Ross says:

    Is Google censoring old crowd pics to avoid acknowledging that the West was historically — and recently — mostly white?
    https://postimg.cc/Hj0x7sdf

  20. syonredux says:

    But scientific racism–an oxymoron if ever there was one–is a relatively recent, localized phenomenon.

    You know, like calculus or heliocentrism…..

    “Race is at its heart the belief that we are born different, deep inside our bodies, perhaps even in character and intellect, as well as outward appearance,”

    MMMM, genes are kinda, you know, deep inside….

    “It’s the notion that groups of people have certain innate qualities” that can “define the passage of progress, the success and failure of the nations our ancestors came from.” Yes, that’s what Watson was saying.

    Well, Europeans haven’t been very successful in terms of reproduction in the Altiplano….”Innate qualities” might have a little something to do with it…

    “It is no accident that modern ideas of race were formed during the height of European colonialism,” Saini writes,

    But, on the other hand, it was totally an accident that Maxwell’s equations were developed during the same era….

    … Saini also worries about the insidious effects of identity politics and of ancestry testing, which has “helped reinforce the idea that race is real.” “Have pride in where you live or where your ancestors come from if you like,” she says, but “don’t be sucked into believing that you are so different from others that your rights have more value.”

    So affirmative action is wrong?OK….

    “The racial categories we are used to seeing on census forms don’t map onto the true picture of human variation,” Saini writes.

    So, the One Drop Rule isn’t scientific. Sure, I’ll go with that…..

    I once suggested that, given the harm done by research on alleged cognitive differences between races, it should be banned. I stand by that proposal.

    In other words, you know that the results will tell you something that you don’t want to hear….

    I also agree with Saini that online media firms should do more to curb the dissemination of racist pseudoscience. “This is not a free speech issue,” she writes in Scientific American, “it’s about improving the quality and accuracy of information that people see online, and thereby creating a fairer, kinder society.”

    See, we’re just denying people the right to be wrong. What’s bad about that?

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    , @dr kill
  21. @Neuday

    I’m not buying their “logic”, just taking it out for a test drive.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  22. Dan Hayes says:

    Steve,

    I strongly suspect that Publisher Ron relishes the fact that the UR earned Horgan’s (and [Anti]Scientific American’s) official disapproval! It’s gratifying that Ron’s tinker toy is deservedly being noticed, even if for undeservedly earned reasons!

    • Agree: jon
  23. @J.Ross

    Great scientists sometimes get attached to some idea and just can’t let it go for emotional reasons, no matter what evidence they are presented with. Just like everybody else.
    Linus Pauling and vitamin C, Thomas Gold and abiogenic oil, for examples.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  24. Cortes says:

    Horgan?

    Sounds like a (qv) soup taker.

  25. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    They kicked Forrest Mims out for antiscientificism, but they put in equalitarians whose beliefs are far nuttier, and have never been called to account.

  26. Alfa158 says:
    @Alexander Turok

    “Just as scientists and other intellectuals often reveal in private that they believe in the paranormal, ”
    Pretty sure he made that up about scientists. But then he subscribes to opinions based on wishful thinking and evidence which he can’t cite, but he’s sure it has to be out there somewhere.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Dieter Kief
  27. @Jus' Sayin'...

    I think John Horgan has been working there for quite a while, since at least the early 1990’s, and yes, he is the worst kind of moron, a self assured one. The only issues I have bought since the 90’s were special issues that were compilations of their best articles on a particular topic ( Written by actual scientists, not the reporters at the magazine ). I haven’t bought any regular issues since around the early 90’s time frame because of the constant spread of PC/SJW in the magazine. Everytime I check them online they seem to have gotten worse than the previous visit, they are a joke now.

    • Replies: @Simon
    , @lavoisier
  28. Alfa158 says:
    @Kronos

    On present trends, cognitive enhancement, if it is possible at all, will be used by the Chinese to enhance theirs. Nobody in the West will touch it unless and until it is done somewhere else first for fear of being Galileo’d.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Kronos
    , @Ahem
  29. @Sergeant Prepper

    Agree! The attacks on Chagnon were egregious, and BTW correlate quite well with those in the discipline who pushed the American Anthropological Association to professionally eschew science. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss.

  30. If Swedes – or any other cohesive ethnic group – are that interrelated, that would impact things like adoption. If a Swede randomly adopts some other Swede, it really is like taking a member of your extended family in.

    I wonder about the loss of connection most Americans feel now. How much of the pleasure of life has been destroyed by mass 3rd world immigration and forced diversity. As more and more genetically distant people are forced together, will we show the compassion to each other common in places like India? Which is to say very little.

    • Replies: @anon
  31. eah says:

    …subscribe utterly to the conventional wisdom of their era and have never had an idiosyncratic thought.

    It’s not necessary to have ‘idiosyncratic thoughts’ — you must possess enough intellectual curiosity to seek out and examine the evidence from the quantitative social sciences, and increasingly molecular genetics; ‘notice’ its general correlation to anecdotal accounts (eg “bad schools” and the need for affirmative action in higher education); also the intellectual integrity, perhaps even moral courage, to accept the obvious conclusions — inability to do this is a personal failing — but when it happens on such a large scale, as it does today, it is also a sign of a societal problem, a phenomenon the Germans call a Gesinnungsdiktatur.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    , @Dieter Kief
  32. Nick Diaz says:

    Steve Sailer:

    “After all, what did the Enlightenment or Darwin’s Origin of Species ever do for science?”

    The Enllightenment preached tolerance, universal moral values, and *individual* right and not the supremacy of nations and “races”, which is the opposite of your belief ssystem.

    And the Origin of Species elucidates the mechanism of how life evolves, by a process of natural selection. It has nothing to do with race.

    “Race” is not the product of Darwin’s Theory, but the misuse of it. “Race” is an incorrect extrapolation of the concept of species, which is a an actually valid scientific concept.

    “Race” was created by Europeans in the 19th century, based on Darwinn’s Theory, to jusify their superiority over their colonials, the whole “whte man’s burden”. Europeans created the concept of race by misusing the science of taxonomy, which was created to classify *species* . “Race” is a social construct with no scientific validity. Species is a valid concept; race is not.

    “Individuals within one subracial group (e.g., Swedes) tend to be about as similar to each other genetically relative to the rest of the human race as a Swedish uncle is to his Swedish nephew or a grandparent to a grandchild compared to the rest of the Swedes”

    Kinship has no meaning beyond the second or third degree of relatedness. Using reductio ad absrudum, all life on Eearth descends from a single original living organism, probably some anaerobic bacteria living next to some deep ocen vent 3.7 billion yeara ago. Where does it end?

    But let’s accept, just for the sake of the argument, that “race” is just a continuation of family. It is as vague and irrelevant a concept as you can get, but let’s accept it just for the sake of the discussion. Ok. So what are the practical implications of this? A swede that has a certain blood type that is a minority, for instance, is genetically closer to people that carry his own type of blood who were born in the middle east, and he suffers an accident and needs a blood transfusion, he might be better served by having those people around. A Swede that has the gene for lactose tolerance, for instance, is genetically closer to a Bantu that carries this trait than another Swede who is lactose intolerant when it comes to this particular genetic trait.

    Then, there are the implications in Society, which are null. People do not form relationships based on how genetically close they are too each other, but rather on personality traits, intelligence and inclinations, which vary far more between individuals than between nations or “races”. For instance, a Swede who is agreeable might connect more with a foreigner who also has this personality trait rather than another Swede who is rumbunctious.

    So what are the actual practical implications in Society, of your definition of “race” that would make “race” be taken into consideration when determining who can be a member of Society? None.

    “Good luck, Angela, with your Eurasian privileged hair.”

    Morphological, physiological and phenotypical characterristics such as hair type and color are definitely biological. But “race” is not.

    “Race” is an arbitrary social construct, where certain phenotypical characteristics, but not others, are used to categorize a group of humanss. In this case, it is skin color. For instance, you could say that people that have blue eyes are a “race”. In that case, a black man with blue eyes(I have seen several), would be lumped together with a Swede that also has blue eyes, while a Sswede with white skin but brown eyes would be lumped in another race. It is 100% arbitrary and irrelevant.

    “Race” was created in the 19th century by misusing taxonomy, and the motivation for it was colonialism, to justify the exploitation of colonies. It is a social construct because it has no valid scientific definition, it is arbitrary, and it is flexible – who is “white” can be expanded in time to encompass more and more people as these people become economically more successful.

  33. Moses says:

    Isn’t Saini a high-caste Indian? High-castes, ah, kinda believe they are superior to the low-castes. And they discriminate like hell.

    Those who live in glass houses and all that.

    White people bad!

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    , @PiltdownMan
  34. Moses says:
    @Kronos

    Many believe honest discussions will only occur when effective medical treatments are available for cognitive enhancement. Thus making the black-white IQ gap moot.

    Erm, if Whites have a higher g baseline than Blacks, won’t Whites still be higher when both groups are “enhanced”?

    Unless, of course, cognitive enhancement for Whites ist verboten, but for Blacks is mandatory.

    I, for one, welcome our new “Flowers for Algernon” overlords.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    , @Realist
  35. Moses says:
    @Neuday

    You sound like that kind of guy who notices all the TV doctors are black, which is purely coincidental.

    And the judges are all Black women. Don’t forget them, bigot.

    • LOL: SunBakedSuburb
  36. @Reg Cæsar

    Neuday was just playing along. Quite cleverly, I think.

  37. @Reg Cæsar

    “Have pride in where you live or where your ancestors come from if you like,” she says, but “don’t be sucked into believing that you are so different from others that your rights have more value.”

    The irony here is that the notion that their ‘rights have more value’ is precisely what animates the Woke Nations among us. Lest there be any doubt, simply try declaring aloud that “All Lives Matter” and see how long you keep that little job of yours.

  38. Darwin came from a family of abolitionists and was progressive for his era. He nonetheless believed, as Saini puts it, that “men were above women, and white races were above all others.” Thomas Henry Huxley, Darwin’s bulldog, supported abolition but said, “The highest reaches in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins.”

    Isn’t the proper lesson to learn from this that belief in genetic racial differences on cognitive traits is no barrier to moral progress?

    Which is of course the exact opposite from the conclusion Horgan and Saini draw.

  39. @Alfa158

    Nobody in the West will touch it unless and until it is done somewhere else first for fear of being Galileo’d.

    Or germlined.

  40. @syonredux

    Brilliant and comprehensive as usual. I really need to make a practice of seeking out Syon’s contributions before offering my own.

  41. MEH 0910 says:

    • Replies: @El Dato
    , @El Dato
    , @Anon
  42. Anon[117] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alfa158

    Michael Crichton believed in spoon bending.

  43. Simon says:
    @Unladen Swallow

    And let’s not forget that the magazine hired Leonard Kamin — a longtime enemy of Richard Herrnstein — to review The Bell Curve.

  44. In space, all female heads elicit hair-touching lust.

  45. El Dato says:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/john-horgan7/

    But I believe, and hope, that Superior will provoke others, including progressives, to re-evaluate their attitudes toward race. She has certainly made me re-evaluate my views. I now see research on racial differences in an even more negative light than I once did, which I didn’t think was possible.

    I once suggested that, given the harm done by research on alleged cognitive differences between races, it should be banned. I stand by that proposal.

    Who shall do the banning and why? Oh yeah, the League of Fabulous Goodthinkers. Yeah. Science is all fine and dandy until it becomes controversial, then it’s off to the gallows.

    This is the state of the “scientific mind” these days!

    What should be banned from writing in the sadly decrepit SciAm is John Horgan, Science Journalist, identifying as cat lady.

    Horgan’s 1996 book The End of Science begins where “The Death of Proof” leaves off: in it, Horgan argues that pure science, defined as “the primordial human quest to understand the universe and our place in it,” may be coming to an end. Horgan claims that science will not achieve insights into nature as profound as evolution by natural selection, the double helix, the Big Bang, relativity theory or quantum mechanics. In the future, he suggests, scientists will refine, extend and apply this pre-existing knowledge but will not achieve any more great “revolutions or revelations.”

    Especially as those might be banned.

  46. @Moses

    Saini’s mom and dad are from different religions, probably Hindu and Sikh, so Grandparents Cry. That’s why her book is dedicated to her mother and father: all the ancestors I’ll ever need.

    So she’s very South Asian racialist but not Hinduist.

    As I’ve said before, she’s a pretty normal lady with normal emotions, which tend to dominate her thinking in obvious ways.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  47. anon[242] • Disclaimer says:
    @RichardTaylor

    If Swedes – or any other cohesive ethnic group – are that interrelated, that would impact things like adoption. If a Swede randomly adopts some other Swede, it really is like taking a member of your extended family in.

    That was the real secret sauce in the famous “third way”. Turns out that it’s a whole lot easier to have a welfare state with generous benefits shared between 3 million cousins, all the same religion, than it is between 300 million strangers.Diversity is not strength, it is divisive, as the Swedes are finding out.

  48. El Dato says:
    @MEH 0910

    “of discredited Bell Curve fame”

    Repeating things will make them true.

    As for dumb AI, to a leftist mind, there is no real world behind language. It’s all language all the time.

    is terrified that I might review his new book

    Thinking that gently mocking all-too-predictable developments involving the NYT is “being terrified”.

    I must be doing my job right.

    “My job — guard the doors of doom lest they be thrown open to Science Sauron Himself.”

    I hope at least she can cook.

  49. J.Ross says:
    @oddsbodkins

    Right but do you know hard science professionals who attend seances? Is Linus Pauling being largely-correct-but-too-excited about vitamin C a big deal that should impugn his earlier work or justify an Iran-style public shaming? This is a nonsense illustration from a sloppy, lazy liar, and it shouldn’t be tolerated, it’s Bernaysian advertising language like “Your Favorite X.”

  50. El Dato says:
    @Nick Diaz

    The Enllightenment preached tolerance, universal moral values, and *individual* right and not the supremacy of nations and “races”, which is the opposite of your belief ssystem.

    Tells us more about what brings you here.

  51. anon[372] • Disclaimer says:
    @Nick Diaz

    Race biology is really very simple.
    Some genes and the traits that go with them get distributed more frequently in one place than in another, for whatever reason.
    It could be that the genes are for light colored skin and get distributed in cold dark climates more frequently than they are distributed in warm sunny climates, because the lighter skin is healthier in the cold dark climate.
    It could be that the genes help you fight off malaria and get distributed more frequently in the hot climate that has lots of malaria, but distributed not so much in the cold place without the malaria.
    The genes can determine physical traits like skin color and immune systems and yes, genes can also determine behavioral traits like smarts, self-control, future-time orientation, etc.
    It may be that all the genes and all the traits can be found in people in all the places.
    But that does not mean that the genes are found in all the people in all the places.
    In one place 20% of the people might have this gene, but in another place 60% of the people might have this gene.
    So the gene is in both places, but it is found in more people in one place and in fewer people in another place. See?
    So the group of people in one place have different averages than the people in the other place.
    Different group averages because of diffferent distributions. See?
    So –
    Law-adibing blacks and law-abiding whites are performing the same behavior, perhaps caused by the same genes.
    Criminal blacks and criminal whites are performing the same behavior, perhaps caused by the same genes.
    Groups of blacks will have higher crime rates than groups of whites, perhaps caused by the different distribution of the genes in the two groups.
    So don’t be a racist who blames whites when blacks commit more crimes. Be a race realist who blames the individuals who commit the crimes, and looks at place of origin (race) group averages to understand why so many of the criminals are African.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    , @BB753
  52. El Dato says:
    @MEH 0910

    • LOL: Redneck farmer
  53. Anonymous[154] • Disclaimer says:

    I, for one, preferred the Not So… stylization.

    There’s several steps between being “proud of where you come from” and seeking to “deny others’ rights” that Ms. (Mrs?) Saini may have missed. Of course, however, there is the Zeroth amendment, so you can’t go around denying that. You certainly cannot deny that Right to Ms. Saini’s cousins, or deny it to people who, when compared to the rest of the world, are as much alike to she and her cousins as she and her cousins are alike when compared to that same group.

  54. Kronos says:
    @Moses

    I’m all for helping anyone get over the 100 IQ bump. If it’ll stream black crimes rates toward the white/Asian rate that’s a good thing.

    I still remember this from my real estate binge from two years ago…

    https://vdare.com/articles/black-crime-the-immigration-dimension

    The costs imposed by the post-1960 moral collapse of the lower stratum of African-Americans have been borne by more than those poor blacks themselves, but by all of American society. Arguably, the decay of the black underclass was the worst disaster suffered by America in the second half of the 20th Century. The heightened number of murders committed by blacks during the great crime wave of roughly 1965 through 1995 is about twice the total American fatality toll in Vietnam.

    We more or less lost one great American city, Detroit, which looks today as if all the terrorists in history and imagination had done their worst to it.

    I also just found this precious gem. That photo is the whitest thing ever!

    https://vdare.com/posts/my-new-taki-column-gates-obama-and-the-black-overclass

    • Replies: @Kronos
  55. Lot says:

    “ She herself can be categorized as black, brown or Caucasian.“

    Or, correctly, as a dark-skinned caucasoid.

    The three major groups were correctly identified 150 years ago, and genetic testing proved the old classifications right.

    Bushmen and Australoids were also correctly identified as different enough to be separate races, and just are not very numerous compared to the big continental races.

    The biggest classification mistake from 100 years ago was probably grouping the “negrito” groups in S and SE Asia with Africans based on their similar hair, skin color, and occasional horizontal booties. This mistake was discovered in the 1950s however.

  56. Kronos says:
    @Spangel

    There’s also the nefarious nature of the Behaviorist camp. (I know, pretty funny right?)

    A few years ago, a Ivy League school performed a poll to see how many students support the idea of “designer babies.” The majority didn’t support the idea. The writer (I can’t find it) gave the typical stuff about racism/eugenics and that the kids were completely moral in that decision.

    But I assume those kids were against it for an entirely different reason. That they (typically) won the genetic lottery and don’t want real competition. One thing of the last 60 years is the pursuit of maximizing privileges while minimizing responsibility. Everyone wants it all.

  57. @Steve Sailer

    Literally Rootless Cosmopolitans, every last one of them. I don’t know why we’d expect anything different.

  58. Mr. Anon says:

    I once suggested that, given the harm done by research on alleged cognitive differences between races, it should be banned. I stand by that proposal. I also agree with Saini that online media firms should do more to curb the dissemination of racist pseudoscience. “This is not a free speech issue,” she writes in Scientific American, “it’s about improving the quality and accuracy of information that people see online, and thereby creating a fairer, kinder society.”

    Two journalists – Horgan and Saini – presume to lecture actual scientists about what is and is not science, and wish to proscribe a whole area of inquiry. All within the pages of some rag that fraudulently calls itself “Scientific American”.

    • Replies: @Prester John
  59. Mr. Anon says:
    @Nick Diaz

    And the Origin of Species elucidates the mechanism of how life evolves, by a process of natural selection. It has nothing to do with race.

    You mean Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life?

    I gathered you wrote some other stuff, but I have no idea what – I certainly can’t be bothered to read whatever ridiculous twaddle a stupid nitwit like you writes. Idiot.

    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
  60. Mr. Anon says:
    @anon

    Race biology is really very simple.

    Yes, but Nick Diaz can’t understand something that is really very simple. He is a moron.

    • Replies: @ATBOTL
  61. “This is not a free speech issue…”

    No, it’s just a typical 2nd-quintiler’s desire to prevent the dissemination of ideas that run counter to a weltanschaaung that people like Saini pretend is theirs.

    She’s using this shit to raise her public profile and make bank – which is fair enough as far as it goes.

    Why did this woman become a journalist? Why doesn’t she mention her field of specialisation in the Oxon MSc?

    That’s The Dog That Didn’t Bark in this.

    She was a BBC journalist from 2006-2008, which hints that she was a non-scientist from the age of ~26 onwards. (I am assuming that the BBC gives journo slots to 20-somethings who lob in the door with no experience).

    If she did a standard undergraduate degree starting at 18 (3yrs FT), and then did her always-mentioned-for-Oxbridge-cred MSc (2yrs FT) she would have gone pretty much straight from studying ‘Engineering Science’ to being a journalist.

    WHY? If she was interested in journalism, why didn’t she study it? If she was interested in ‘Engineering Science’, why was her career in the field apparently minimal?

    Has anyone ever heard her mention her undergrad?

    I ask because her backstory is very specifically crafted, and telling by what it omits.

    It reminds me of Sarkozy constantly claiming to have been a ‘lawyer’, when he was a political apparatchik (fronting for organised crime in Neuilly-sur-Seine) before he even finished his law degree… and he practised law for about six months.

    Entry to Oxon MSc and DPhil in Engineering Science only requires an upper second, coupled with willingness to shell out whatever portion of £7k a year isn’t funded by scholarships or UK-citizen grants.

    Something approaching 75% of UK students get an upper second or better – I kid you not. The proportion of HIIA-or-better was lower at the time when Saini would have been graduating, but was above 45% in 1995.

    Contrast that with what it meant to get an HIIA at my alma mater (a Go8 university in Australia) in the same year: less than 10% of the 3rd year class were considered worth permitting to proceed to the Honours year, and less than 10% of the Honours class got HIIAs. (5 people got Firsts in my department that year – which was very high for the time, and slightly less than 1% of the entry cohort. It was worse in Law: only about 25 people in a graduating class of ~400 got Hons).

    I would not listen to the bottom 95% of the HIIAs in my year (or any year, frankly), even on their subject of putative expertise: if they then went on to become journalists, I would just assume that they found life easier in a cognitively-less-demanding discipline.

  62. Anon[224] • Disclaimer says:

    No amount of biochemical raising of blacks’ IQ will work to make them equal to whites as long as they, as a group, are vastly more criminal than whites. Whites, even the most liberal, will not tolerate a violent and brutal people living in close proximity to them. IQ is a minor issue. Everyone’s had classes with dumb students, and it’s a trivial matter. It’s black crime that really concerns whites, not black brains.

    • Replies: @Ganderson
  63. Anon[224] • Disclaimer says:
    @MEH 0910

    Murray is taken seriously by those who really understand IQ, and those who don’t believe that genes determine intelligence are simply an echo chamber talking to itself in an attempt to reassure itself.

  64. I am heartened that this NYT writer linked in this article is worried about her white sons’
    vulnerability to “Nazi” internet “propaganda”. I do hope she has something to worry about

  65. John Horgan was known for his possibly serious criticism of science, but he now degenerated into leftist ideology. How sad that SciAm is no longer able of avoiding ideological garbage. US should thank diversity if their scientific institutions must now pretend they believe in politically correct nonsense.

  66. I once suggested that, given the harm done by research on alleged cognitive differences between races, it should be banned. I stand by that proposal. I also agree with Saini that online media firms should do more to curb the dissemination of racist pseudoscience. “This is not a free speech issue,” she writes in Scientific American, “it’s about improving the quality and accuracy of information that people see online, and thereby creating a fairer, kinder society.”

    This from a man of science? Oh wait, John Horgan is a science journalist.
    Still, is he so bereft of self-awareness that he would ban research on a very legitimate scientific subject? I guess this is another example of that settled science we keep hearing more and more about.

    • Replies: @Pericles
  67. “This is not a free speech issue,” she writes in Scientific American, “it’s about improving the quality and accuracy of information that people see online, and thereby creating a fairer, kinder society.”

    And this, from Saini. What is she, a science writer?
    When did such a concept as “creating a fairer, kinder society ” become relevant in the quest for scientific knowledge?

  68. Kronos says:
    @Kronos

    I’m all for helping anyone get over the 100 IQ bump.

    Looking back, I realize that’ll simply renormalize the overall IQ score but at least the bell curve distribution will go in the “right” direction.

  69. Kronos says:
    @Alfa158

    Likely one of the best interviews I’ve ever encountered concerning genetics and IQ.

    Also, the book is very good! Chronicles a bit of the history of IQ and neuroscience.

    -He presents Arthur Jensen research in a good light, but views the 1960s Harvard Education Review paper as a poorly planned bombshell with negative repercussions.

    -It’s been historically easier to get grant money to study low IQ (Down Syndrome) compared to high IQ research.

    Haier also believes the mathematical problems with studying the relationships between genetics and IQ are “finite” thus apparently solvable with enough time and scientific investment. (Nassim Taleb believes it’s infinite and thus impossible.) regardless, there’s stuff to learn along the way.

  70. The research that shows variations within a race / group is far wider than similarities, and hence the average of any group is meaningless given how wide the spread is and how flat the bell curve is, is fascinating. If that’s true, then there’s more variability within one group than similarities — which I’m sure exist but loosely and apply to fewer members of the race than sometimes indicated.

    Are there good articles or books that explore this? I know this group by and large tends to believe in the biodiversity theory and that sexes and races behave more or less like a monolith, but I’m curious and would love if any of the commentators here who are more well-researched than I am on this topic, could point me to more evidence-based / scientific exploration of the contrary position (ie, angela’s Position… but from a scientists perspective).

    • Replies: @SFG
    , @Pericles
    , @mikemikev
  71. Dan Hayes says:
    @JudgeSmails

    JudgeSmails:

    It’s just a reconstituted “kindler, gentler nation” provided to us by war-criminal GW Bush.

    • Agree: sayless
  72. Anonymous[428] • Disclaimer says:

    Curiously, none of these big-mouthed low-browed pompous pontificators would ever dream for one moment about relocating lock, stock and barrel, to Lagos Nigeria or even Kingston Jamaica. Or even Delhi India.

    I really really can’t think what their rationalizations might be. After all the dollar stretches a long way in those parts.

  73. mikemikev says:
    @Nick Diaz

    “Race” is an arbitrary social construct, where certain phenotypical characteristics, but not others, are used to categorize a group of humanss. In this case, it is skin color.

    Do you really think that? Where did you get that definition? Blumenbach defined it by ancestry, under the influence of Kant. Blumenbach used a set of non-metric skull traits to infer ancestry, since they tend to run through lineages idiosyncratically, free of selective influence. Darwin echoed the genealogical definition. And of course modern methods using genomic similarity replicate the groupings they came up with. I’m not aware of any credible scientist defining it by “skin color”. Where did you get this idea? Does your study of the matter extend to reading an article in The Guardian?

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  74. Well, this would explain the support for affirmative action. If they believe race doesn’t exist, they need a hand up for reasons of intellectual disability.

  75. eugyppius says:

    This article was written by John Horgan, who is such an egregiously clueless idiot that mathematicians conceived and named the parodic Horgan Surface for him. Here he is being butthurt about it:

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-horgan-surface-and-the-death-of-proof/

    There he writes about how daunting it is to report on things like mathematics having majored in English and basically not knowing anything.

    I am always amazed at how terrible science journalists are. Is the reporting this bad in any other arena of human endeavor? I mean we’re talking about people who cannot even understand simple papers in the social sciences. Every article they write is some shade of wrong.

  76. @Alfa158

    If you discuss factual truths, it does not matter at all, in what state of mind they have been found. He confuses motivational (psychological) questions with factual ones. That’s standard procedure in our narcissistic times (see: The Coddling of the American Mind/ Haidt//Lukianoff).

    • Agree: Prester John
  77. @JudgeSmails

    “creating a fairer, kinder society”

    What’s to object to? I’m pretty sure that just about everyone here is strongly in favor of creating a fairer society.

    (BEAT)

    Ohhh, she meant the OTHER kind of “fairer”. Well, good luck with that.

    It’s an utter catastrophe that our present society is so unfair and so unkind that nobody wants to barge in here uninvited and live amongst us, unwanted, yet mysteriously also not sent home via catapult.

  78. Intelligence is in the eye of the beholder.While I was originally an uncritical fan of Crick and Watson in my high school years my perception of their relative infallibilty changed over time.I also came to look down upon Stanford Nobel laureate William Shockley and his glorification of Stanford University’s ‘IQ’ test as well.
    Below is to me a very funny experiment involving humans and monkeys and a computer game in which the monkeys come out on top.I have often felt that monkeys and our fellow apes who we are driving to extinction were and are by Darwin’s standards of survival genetically superior to us who are driving them and perhaps ourselves to extinction by our own over cleverness which destroys the very biophere that created and nurtured us.
    It is also interesting to consider that monkeys and apes such as those we train to play computer games in the first place probably would have a very hard time re adapting to the jungle habitat that their genes evolved in and would be seen as stupid go their fellow monkeys if reintroduced into the jungle habitat because they have no experience in foraging from the jungle for food and are only adapted to playing computer games for ‘banana pellets’.

    [MORE]

    Asians are now scoring higher on our own ‘white man’s’ IQ tests than many of us are but does this increase their long term survival in the biosphere ? They are also burning more fossil fuels to maintain themselves and their newly industrialized economies and societies and are spewing out toxic industrial petrol based molecules that they mainly learned from us .And they have forgotten many old traditional rice agriculture techniques and now depend more and more on mining fertilizer such as phosphates and industrial nitrogen fixation requiring natural gas rather than relying upon growing beans for nitrogen that in turn rely on bacteria or perhaps blue green algae in rice paddies.
    And bacteria and blue green algae provide nitrogen for protein without the environmental and energy problems that accompany industrial nitrogen fixation,etc. Can we really say Asians have become smarter because they now score higher on western IQ tests or even that western Jews who now score higher on such tests than they did in the past are really smarter ? Probably not.
    Also regarding Crick and Watson it appears to me that they would never have developed their double helix model without the X-ray cristolography images they filched from Rosiland Frankiln.

    https://www.livescience.com/monkeys-outsmart-humans.html?utm_source=notification

    Game Over: These Monkeys Just Crushed Humans on a Computer Game
    By Nicoletta Lanese – Staff Writer a day ago Animals

    While playing a game, monkeys switched strategies each round, while humans stuck to a set of inefficient rules.

    When it comes to winning games and solving puzzles, sometimes monkeys play smarter than humans.

    Monkeys may show off their physical flexibility as they clamber over tangled tree branches, but the animals also display impressive “cognitive flexibility,” or the ability to quickly change how they think about, and work to solve, a problem. Whereas monkeys can think on their feet, humans often become set in their ways and cling to inefficient strategies for problem solving, according to new research.

    “We are a unique species and have various ways in which we are exceptionally different from every other creature on the planet. But we’re also sometimes really dumb,” study co-author Julia Watzek, a graduate student in psychology at Georgia State University, said in a statement. For the research, published Sept. 13 in the journal Scientific Reports, Watzek and her colleagues pitted capuchin and rhesus macaque monkeys against undergraduate students in a game of wits — in other words, a simple computer game. .

    In the game, four squares appeared on screen during each trial: one striped, one spotted and two blank. In training sessions, players learned that clicking the striped square and then the spotted square would cause a blue triangle to pop up in place of one of the blank squares. Clicking the blue triangle produced a reward — in this case, an auditory whoop for humans to indicate that they had solved the puzzle, and a banana pellet for monkeys. ……

  79. Realist says:

    Scientific American has had nothing to do with science for decades.

  80. Pericles says:
    @J.Ross

    I assume Horgan by ‘paranormal’ means ‘religion’.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  81. Realist says:
    @Moses

    Erm, if Whites have a higher g baseline than Blacks, won’t Whites still be higher when both groups are “enhanced”?

    Bingo.

  82. Pericles says:
    @JudgeSmails

    Perhaps we should ban science journalism about the topic?

  83. SFG says:
    @ConfirmationBias

    Right, but even if the difference between the groups is smaller than the difference within the groups, differences in mean become salient at the extremes of the distribution due to the position of the tails.

  84. @eah

    (Un)Scientific American (that’s a Charles Murray quote)
     
    Ok eah, it is no easy task, to understand what findings in the hard (0r nomological, to use a rather old but quite telling nonetheless term) sciences mean.

     Usually, this is a two-step process:

    1) Are the findings themselves methodically sound etc. = are they right?

    2) Interpretation of those findings: What consequence do they have in real life? – What do we do with them?

    Science as an open process is by its very nature disturbing – it always has been. Because it is a) structurally insecure and has b) nothing to do with customs, tradition, culture, etc. science by its very nature is a threat to our life-world (Husserl).

    Therefore Kant stated, that it takes courage, to seek the scientific truth.

    That sems to be still true. – To the astonishment of many of our contemporaries.

    What helps us as a society to keep this risky process of the discovery of new, and at times at least at first sight even appalling insights afloat, is free speech. So – Angela Saini does hit something quite important with her diatribe.

    Kant knew that – and he knew, that this basic architecture of our modern discourse will always cause trouble.

    He concluded that it at times could mean too much trouble, to tell the truth.

    At his point he made an important point: If under personal pressure, it might be ok to hold back some truths, one has found.

    What is always wrong though, according to Kant, is to say things, which are obviously false – which are contradicting the facts. I think it is here, where lots of scientists and journalists fail big scale in not playing their part when people like John Harmon, Angela Saini, Adam Rutherford and Stephen Fry in Adam Rutherford’s  footsteps (!) conquer center stage, so to speak.

  85. @eah

    (Un)Scientific American (that’s a Charles Murray quote)
     
    Ok eah, it is no easy task, to understand what findings in the hard (0r nomological, to use a rather old but quite telling nonetheless term) sciences mean.

     Usually, this is a two-step process:

    1) Are the findings themselves methodically sound etc. = are they right?

    2) Interpretation of those findings: What consequence do they have in real life? – What do we do with them?

    Science as an open process is by its very nature disturbing – it always has been. Because it is a) structurally insecure and has b) nothing to do with customs, tradition, culture, etc. science by its very nature is a threat to our life-world (Husserl).

    Therefore Kant stated, that it takes courage, to seek the scientific truth.

    That sems to be still true. – To the astonishment of many of our contemporaries.

    What helps us as a society to keep this risky process of the discovery of new, and at times at least at first sight even appalling insights afloat, is free speech. So – Angela Saini does hit something quite important with her diatribe.

    Kant knew that – and he knew, that this basic architecture of our modern discourse will always cause trouble.

    He concluded that it at times could mean too much trouble, to tell the truth.

    At his point he made an important point: If under personal pressure, it might be ok to hold back some truths, one has found.

    What is always wrong though, according to Kant, is to say things, which are obviously false – which are contradicting the facts. I think it is here, where lots of scientists and journalists fail big scale in not playing their part when people like John Harmon, Angela Saini, Adam Rutherford and Stephen Fry in Adam Rutherford’s  footstpes (!) conquer center stage, so to speak.

  86. Pericles says:
    @ConfirmationBias

    Regarding ‘books that explore this’, you might start with looking at the spread of a continuous bell curve (say, go take a first course in probability) and regarding differences in means, a book on statistical inference.

    The phenomenon you adore is sometimes called ‘Lewontin’s Fallacy’.

    • Replies: @ConfirmationBias
  87. Use of calling the faint of heart “pearl-clutchers” is getting cliched and trite.

    I recommend now saying “they have The Vapors”. Please.

  88. @Dave Pinsen

    The most severe form of harm possible – it hurts people’s feelings.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  89. mikemikev says:
    @ConfirmationBias

    There’s more variation in junk DNA within races. This is irrelevant to variation on individual traits. Selected genes are often distributed in racial patterns.

    There’s a sleight of hand going on when they say “there’s more variation within groups”. Rarely do they clarify that’s in overall genomic variation, including the lion’s share portion which is neutral, only. It has no bearing on the distribution of important genes. Such genetic patterns are normal among other subspecies or infrasubspecific divisions, and this lame but standard argument is never used in non-human taxonomy to impugn them. Any population which is geographically separated will begin diverging on a minority portion of variation. Divisions are about that portion which is different, irrespective of whether it’s a minority or majority of the total.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  90. dr kill says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Be True to your School.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  91. dr kill says:
    @syonredux

    If she was to say the Big R Rights are universal, (some would argue God-given), I would agree. Cultural values and government – granted or majority – determined rights, not so much. E.g., just take that Hindu cow reverence .

  92. A Texan says:

    I would like some of those smart ‘scientist’ explain to me then why Africa is still a massive shit hole and we have no records of blacks in the past writing any philosophy or even ocean voyages. Seems like they have always been low IQ violent tribal cannibals.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
  93. mikemikev says:
    @Dieter Kief

    Stephen Fry appears unaware of pedigree collapse.

  94. @william munny

    The most severe form of harm possible – it hurts people’s feelings.

    That is true – science can hurt feelings. And that’s Angela Saini’s and Adam Rutherford’s and Stephen Fry’s and the NYT’s and Stephen Jay Gould’s secret weapon. They belabor these feelings.

    And feelings are a forceful weapon especially in a society and a public sphre, which are determined to turn each and every controversy into a battle over feeling – these are “Weird Scenes Inside the Gold Mine” – the Western*** Gold Mine, which is reigned over now overwhelmingly by Coddled Minds. Cf. Dave Rubins “The Regressive Left”.

    *** Nobody in Asia seems to care about our racial controversy. In Russia too, as far as I can see.

    • Replies: @Amerimutt Golems
    , @J.Ross
  95. @Moses

    Sainis have been around a long while. They claim that the Indian king Porus, who was defeated by Alexander the Great, was a Saini, and that the Greek historian Megasthenes, talked about the tribe of Sainis. Whatever the truth of that, they’ve been around a long while.

    https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Saini

    Angela Saini’s mother, Santosh Gupta, is from a trader/bureaucrat middle caste in Central India.

    http://www.quarterly-review.org/eternal-recurrence/

  96. From WP:

    John Horgan (born 1953) is an American science journalist best known for his 1996 book The End of Science. He has written for many publications, including National Geographic, Scientific American, The New York Times, Time, Newsweek, and IEEE Spectrum. His awards include two Science Journalism Awards from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Association of Science Writers Science-in-Society Award. His articles have been included in the 2005, 2006 and 2007 editions of The Best American Science and Nature Writing. Since 2010 he has written the “Cross-check” blog for ScientificAmerican.com.[1]

    Horgan graduated from the Columbia University School of Journalism in 1983. Between 1986 and 1997 he was a senior writer at Scientific American.[1]

    So, no actual experience practicing or applying the scientific method, then. As the great Bobby Knight once said of journalists: One step up from prostitution.

  97. Ganderson says:
    @Anon

    We do tolerate it, though.

  98. Tony Ryals says: • Website

    Monkey ‘IQ’ Beat Humans In Computer Game

    Intelligence is in the eye of the beholder.While I was originally an uncritical fan of Crick and Watson in my high school years my perception of their relative infallibilty changed over time.I also came to look down upon Stanford Nobel laureate William Shockley and his glorification of Stanford University’s ‘IQ’ test as well.

    Below is to me a very funny experiment involving humans and monkeys and a computer game in which the monkeys come out on top.I have often felt that monkeys and our fellow apes who we are driving to extinction were and are by Darwin’s standards of survival genetically superior to us who are driving them and perhaps ourselves to extinction by our own over cleverness which destroys the very biophere that created and nurtured us.

    [MORE]

    It is also interesting to consider that monkeys and apes such as those we train to play computer games in the first place probably would have a very hard time re adapting to the jungle habitat that their genes evolved in and would be seen as stupid go their fellow monkeys if reintroduced into the jungle habitat because they have no experience in foraging from the jungle for food and are only adapted to playing computer games for ‘banana pellets’.

    Asians are now scoring higher on our own ‘white man’s’ IQ tests than many of us are but does this increase their long term survival in the biosphere ? They are also burning more fossil fuels to maintain themselves and their newly industrialized economies and societies and are spewing out toxic industrial petrol based molecules that they mainly learned from us .And they have forgotten many old traditional rice agriculture techniques and now depend more and more on mining fertilizer such as phosphates and industrial nitrogen fixation requiring natural gas rather than relying upon growing beans for nitrogen that in turn rely on bacteria or perhaps blue green algae in rice paddies.

    And bacteria and blue green algae provide nitrogen for protein without the environmental and energy problems that accompany industrial nitrogen fixation,etc. Can we really say Asians have become smarter because they now score higher on western IQ tests or even that western Jews who now score higher on such tests than they did in the past are really smarter ? Probably not.

    Also regarding Crick and Watson it appears to me that they would never have developed their double helix model without the X-ray cristolography images they filched from Rosiland Frankiln.
    Watson was not very kind to Rosiland Franklin to say the least but his Nobel would never have been possible without her.

    https://www.livescience.com/monkeys-outsmart-humans.html?utm_source=notification

    Game Over: These Monkeys Just Crushed Humans on a Computer Game

    By Nicoletta Lanese – Staff Writer a day ago Animals

    While playing a game, monkeys switched strategies each round, while humans stuck to a set of inefficient rules.

    When it comes to winning games and solving puzzles, sometimes monkeys play smarter than humans.

    Monkeys may show off their physical flexibility as they clamber over tangled tree branches, but the animals also display impressive “cognitive flexibility,” or the ability to quickly change how they think about, and work to solve, a problem. Whereas monkeys can think on their feet, humans often become set in their ways and cling to inefficient strategies for problem solving, according to new research.

    “We are a unique species and have various ways in which we are exceptionally different from every other creature on the planet. But we’re also sometimes really dumb,” study co-author Julia Watzek, a graduate student in psychology at Georgia State University, said in a statement. For the research, published Sept. 13 in the journal Scientific Reports, Watzek and her colleagues pitted capuchin and rhesus macaque monkeys against undergraduate students in a game of wits — in other words, a simple computer game. .

    In the game, four squares appeared on screen during each trial: one striped, one spotted and two blank. In training sessions, players learned that clicking the striped square and then the spotted square would cause a blue triangle to pop up in place of one of the blank squares. Clicking the blue triangle produced a reward — in this case, an auditory whoop for humans to indicate that they had solved the puzzle, and a banana pellet for monkeys. ……

  99. @Mr. Anon

    I know zilch about either of those two people. I presume, therefore, that they are NOT scientists, right?

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  100. Tony Ryals says: • Website

    Monkey ‘IQ’ Beats University Educated Humans In Computer Game

    Intelligence is in the eye of the beholder.While I was originally an uncritical fan of Crick and Watson in my high school years my perception of their relative infallibilty changed over time.I also came to look down upon Stanford Nobel laureate William Shockley and his glorification of Stanford University’s ‘IQ’ test as well.

    Below is to me a very funny experiment involving humans and monkeys and a computer game in which the monkeys come out on top.I have often felt that monkeys and our fellow apes who we are driving to extinction were and are by Darwin’s standards of survival genetically superior to us who are driving them and perhaps ourselves to extinction by our own over cleverness which destroys the very biophere that created and nurtured us.

    [MORE]

    It is also interesting to consider that monkeys and apes such as those we train to play computer games in the first place probably would have a very hard time re adapting to the jungle habitat that their genes evolved in and would be seen as stupid go their fellow monkeys if reintroduced into the jungle habitat because they have no experience in foraging from the jungle for food and are only adapted to playing computer games for ‘banana pellets’.

    Asians are now scoring higher on our own ‘white man’s’ IQ tests than many of us are but does this increase their long term survival in the biosphere ? They are also burning more fossil fuels to maintain themselves and their newly industrialized economies and societies and are spewing out toxic industrial petrol based molecules that they mainly learned from us .And they have forgotten many old traditional rice agriculture techniques and now depend more and more on mining fertilizer such as phosphates and industrial nitrogen fixation requiring natural gas rather than relying upon growing beans for nitrogen that in turn rely on bacteria or perhaps blue green algae in rice paddies.

    And bacteria and blue green algae provide nitrogen for protein without the environmental and energy problems that accompany industrial nitrogen fixation,etc. Can we really say Asians have become smarter because they now score higher on western IQ tests or even that western Jews who now score higher on such tests than they did in the past are really smarter ? Probably not.

    Also regarding Crick and Watson it appears to me that they would never have developed their double helix model without the X-ray cristolography images they filched from Rosiland Frankiln.

    https://www.livescience.com/monkeys-outsmart-humans.html?utm_source=notification

    Game Over: These Monkeys Just Crushed Humans on a Computer Game

    By Nicoletta Lanese – Staff Writer a day ago Animals

    While playing a game, monkeys switched strategies each round, while humans stuck to a set of inefficient rules.

    When it comes to winning games and solving puzzles, sometimes monkeys play smarter than humans.

    Monkeys may show off their physical flexibility as they clamber over tangled tree branches, but the animals also display impressive “cognitive flexibility,” or the ability to quickly change how they think about, and work to solve, a problem. Whereas monkeys can think on their feet, humans often become set in their ways and cling to inefficient strategies for problem solving, according to new research.

    “We are a unique species and have various ways in which we are exceptionally different from every other creature on the planet. But we’re also sometimes really dumb,” study co-author Julia Watzek, a graduate student in psychology at Georgia State University, said in a statement. For the research, published Sept. 13 in the journal Scientific Reports, Watzek and her colleagues pitted capuchin and rhesus macaque monkeys against undergraduate students in a game of wits — in other words, a simple computer game. .

    In the game, four squares appeared on screen during each trial: one striped, one spotted and two blank. In training sessions, players learned that clicking the striped square and then the spotted square would cause a blue triangle to pop up in place of one of the blank squares. Clicking the blue triangle produced a reward — in this case, an auditory whoop for humans to indicate that they had solved the puzzle, and a banana pellet for monkeys. ……

  101. @Dieter Kief

    “Science as an open process is by its very nature disturbing – it always has been. Because it is a) structurally insecure and has b) nothing to do with customs, tradition, culture, etc. science by its very nature is a threat to our life-world (Husserl).”

    Well put, especially the “disturbing” part which is abundantly in evidence. Progs, for example, have made science a god but recoil at its downside. Can’t have it both ways.

    Yep, the truth hurts sometimes.

  102. @eugyppius

    This answered a question I had put in an earlier reply. So Horgan is NOT a scientist but an “English major.” All I/we need to know…the rest takes care of itself.

  103. Jack D says:
    @anon

    Given the harm done by research on alleged cognitive differences between races (it can lead to genocide) I think it is appropriate to make an exception to our general opposition to the death penalty, just as Israel made an exception to their laws in the case of Eichmann. The appropriate form of execution for violating the ban would be burning at the stake. The fire could be fueled by the prohibited research papers.

    Just as with Eichmann, it’s important to choose a high profile figure to bring international attention to genocide so I suggest that we start with Watson. His war crimes trial would bring badly needed attention to this neglected subject. The actual execution would be triggering to many survivors of domestic abuse and would not itself be streamed or televised, but the trial most certainly would be. I, Angela Saini, feel that it would be my duty to testify at this trial as to the harm done to my fellow people of color. I will also be available for press interviews afterward.

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @bigdicknick
  104. Jack D says:
    @Dieter Kief

    Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

    This is known as “bad luck.”

    – Heinlein

  105. Jack D says:

    Just as scientists …. often reveal in private that they believe in the paranormal

    They do? Does Horgan have any data to back this up or is this more anecdotal bullshit? How much is “often”? I think that blogging and the internet encourage diarrhea of the mouth – back in the old days, this kind of fact free rambling would never have seen the light of day – Horgan could spout nonsense like this with his drinking buddies at the pub but no editor would have allowed it to be set in type. If Horgan was putting this crap on his personal blog then fair enough, but he has the imprimatur of the (once) prestigious Scientific American behind him and they should be ashamed. But they aren’t – SciAm went full lefty a long time ago. Never go full lefty.

    PS I notice that this blog entry has zero comments. I don’t know whether this means that no one bothers to read his drivel or that the comments were so negative that SciAm blocked them.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  106. ATBOTL says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Nick Diaz is on the level of Dr. Nick from the Simpsons

  107. Tony Ryals says: • Website

    Intelligence is in the eye of the beholder.While I was originally an uncritical fan of Crick and Watson in my high school years my perception of their relative infallibilty changed over time.I also came to look down upon Stanford Nobel laureate William Shockley and his glorification of Stanford University’s ‘IQ’ test as well.

    Below is to me a very funny experiment involving humans and monkeys and a computer game in which the monkeys come out on top.I have often felt that monkeys and our fellow apes who we are driving to extinction were and are by Darwin’s standards of survival genetically superior to us who are driving them and perhaps ourselves to extinction by our own over cleverness which destroys the very biophere that created and nurtured us.

    [MORE]

    It is also interesting to consider that monkeys and apes such as those we train to play computer games in the first place probably would have a very hard time re adapting to the jungle habitat that their genes evolved in and would be seen as stupid go their fellow monkeys if reintroduced into the jungle habitat because they have no experience in foraging from the jungle for food and are only adapted to playing computer games for ‘banana pellets’.

    Asians are now scoring higher on our own ‘white man’s’ IQ tests than many of us are but does this increase their long term survival in the biosphere ? They are also burning more fossil fuels to maintain themselves and their newly industrialized economies and societies and are spewing out toxic industrial petrol based molecules that they mainly learned from us .And they have forgotten many old traditional rice agriculture techniques and now depend more and more on mining fertilizer such as phosphates and industrial nitrogen fixation requiring natural gas rather than relying upon growing beans for nitrogen that in turn rely on bacteria or perhaps blue green algae in rice paddies.

    And bacteria and blue green algae provide nitrogen for protein without the environmental and energy problems that accompany industrial nitrogen fixation,etc. Can we really say Asians have become smarter because they now score higher on western IQ tests or even that western Jews who now score higher on such tests than they did in the past are really smarter ? Probably not.

    Also regarding Crick and Watson it appears to me that they would never have developed their double helix model without the X-ray cristolography images they filched from Rosiland Frankiln.

    https://www.livescience.com/monkeys-outsmart-humans.html?utm_source=notification

    Game Over: These Monkeys Just Crushed Humans on a Computer Game

    By Nicoletta Lanese – Staff Writer a day ago Animals

    While playing a game, monkeys switched strategies each round, while humans stuck to a set of inefficient rules.

    When it comes to winning games and solving puzzles, sometimes monkeys play smarter than humans.

    Monkeys may show off their physical flexibility as they clamber over tangled tree branches, but the animals also display impressive “cognitive flexibility,” or the ability to quickly change how they think about, and work to solve, a problem. Whereas monkeys can think on their feet, humans often become set in their ways and cling to inefficient strategies for problem solving, according to new research.

    “We are a unique species and have various ways in which we are exceptionally different from every other creature on the planet. But we’re also sometimes really dumb,” study co-author Julia Watzek, a graduate student in psychology at Georgia State University, said in a statement. For the research, published Sept. 13 in the journal Scientific Reports, Watzek and her colleagues pitted capuchin and rhesus macaque monkeys against undergraduate students in a game of wits — in other words, a simple computer game. .

    In the game, four squares appeared on screen during each trial: one striped, one spotted and two blank. In training sessions, players learned that clicking the striped square and then the spotted square would cause a blue triangle to pop up in place of one of the blank squares. Clicking the blue triangle produced a reward — in this case, an auditory whoop for humans to indicate that they had solved the puzzle, and a banana pellet for monkeys. ……

    • Replies: @Jack D
  108. “and have never had an idiosyncratic thought.”

    This reminds me of a line from literature somewhere, but I can’t put my finger on it.

  109. @Dieter Kief

    Gould was motivated by tribal reasons.

    This Indian woman seems to have unpleasant memories growing up in formerly ‘hideously white’ Britain.

  110. @Jus' Sayin'...

    Those darn pesky all-powerful anti-science Christians are at it again.

    We really should malign them more so they will stop all this anti-science. Stalin knew how to treat those Christians, maybe we could copy his playbook.

  111. J.Ross says:
    @Jack D

    That unedited, unchecked, unproofread free $500 from the Monopoly game bank is actually the whole game in one image. All their shock horror forcememes fit that format:
    >As you know, white male college students live to rape
    >As you know, blacks wrongly singled out by evil police
    >As you know, Trump’s personal “racism”
    >[the TV show How To Get Away With Murder]

  112. J.Ross says:
    @Dieter Kief

    Nobody in Asia seems to care about our racial controversy. In Russia too, as far as I can see.

    Asians (of all kinds) here are intensely concerned about The Evil White Person Problem, and only incidentally interested in what happens to the stuff of the Evil White People. When you are introduced to otherwise intelligent Russians as an American the first memorable question they ask is why we barbeque negroes.

  113. @Jack D

    I have no doubt some of these people who campaign to have watson or Charles Murray executed if that was socially acceptable.

  114. ‘Ladylike Pearl-clutchers’. 3 Great Minds think alike Steve.

    Nietzsche, BGE, 172, says the exact same think. Only White/NEA Men are capable of science.

  115. BB753 says:
    @anon

    Excellent summary for laymen! But you can’t convince people who won’t be convinced by rational arguments. Also, most minds are impervious to stats.

  116. BB753 says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Crimethink. Thoughtcrime. Wrongthink. It can’t be allowed to happen, not on THEIR watch.

  117. Mr. Anon says:
    @Prester John

    I know zilch about either of those two people. I presume, therefore, that they are NOT scientists, right?

    Right. Both journalists.

  118. Nick Diaz says:
    @Mr. Anon

    No, YOU are the idiot. Race has literally no clear semantic definition. It is scientifically meaningless. During Darwin’s time, it was believed that race was a scientifically valid concept, but then it wasn’t. Newsflash: things evolve, you stupid baboon. That’s how science works.

    Scientists are not infallible, but the product of their times. Newton, for instance, bleieved that the Bible was literally true.

    “Race” is pseudo-science at it’s best. It wss literally invented in the 19th century as incorrect extrpolations of Evolution and the misuse of the legitiminate science of taxonomy. The motivation was literally to justify colonialism.

    And it doesen’t surprise me at all that you haven’s read it, because you are an illiterate baboon. You wouldn’t be able to counter anything I wrote. I would demolish you intellectually and you know it. However, I suspect you did read it, and can’t respond. That is because you are an imbecille who is far less intelligent than me, and has a vastly inflated opinion of yourself. Shut your mouth, dumass.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @Mr. Anon
    , @Eduardo
  119. Jack D says:
    @Tony Ryals

    Monkeys do display impressive physical dexterity. I remember seeing the Barbary macaques at the top of the Rock of Gibraltar and even the babies were effortlessly executing death defying leaps that were beyond the capability of a parkour champion. You need to have impressive processing power to compute the correct trajectory and ample strength and coordination to be able to execute on it with just the right amount of force. Clearly a large part of their brains must be devoted to this.

    However, that monkeys can outscore humans on this one simple computer task literally means nothing. Let me know when monkeys build a cathedral or an airplane or the computer itself.

    • Replies: @Tony Ryals
  120. mikemikev says:
    @Nick Diaz

    Race has literally no clear semantic definition.

    The definition is shared ancestry.

    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
  121. Mr. Anon says:
    @Nick Diaz

    Race was a valid concept in Darwin’s day. It is perfectly valid today as well. Most real biologists think it to be so, whether they admit to it or not.

    You wouldn’t be able to counter anything I wrote. I would demolish you intellectually and you know it.

    You couldn’t intellectually demolish the arguments of an eight year-old, you bloviating retard. Everything you’ve ever written on this site is ridiculously stupid. You are a prating dips**t.

    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
  122. Mr. Anon says:
    @mikemikev

    You just don’t understand. Nick Diaz is a world-historical genius. He has five Masters degrees and speaks eight languages. Or vice-versa. Whatever, doesn’t matter. The important point is – he’s a really, really smart guy who would “own” you or “totally destroy” you, or whatever other hollow boast that basement-dwelling incels are fond of making these days.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Nick Diaz
  123. anon[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Anon

    The superiour reasoning of Nick Diaz is clearly displayed by regularly resorting to namecalling. Only the true intellectual elite know when to call someone else a baboon…illiterate or otherwise.

    We are all beneficiaries of his powerful logic. Be grateful.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  124. jon says:
    @JVenter

    So compared to whites, blacks are more athletic and have bigger penises but are identical in intelligence?

    Which raises the obvious question of how it was possible for the physically inferior and mentally merely equal whites to dominate them throughout all of recorded history.

  125. Nick Diaz says:

    “Race was a valid concept in Darwin’s day. It is perfectly valid today as well. Most real biologists think it to be so, whether they admit to it or not.”

    You got caught making a strawman, you monkey. I *never* stated that race wasn’t a valid concept in Darwin’s day; quite the opposite, I stated that “race” is not a valid scientific concept today, and that it was in Darwin’s time because it wasn’t clear back then how species was defined. It is now. I furthermore stated that it resulted from incorrect extrapolations of Darwin’s Theory, and the misuse of taxonomy.

    “You couldn’t intellectually demolish the arguments of an eight year-old, you bloviating retard. Everything you’ve ever written on this site is ridiculously stupid. You are a prating dips**t.”

    I can easily do that, and I just did to you. Not that this is flattering to me. I mean owning an inbred monkey retard like you is something that I could do as an eight year-old.

  126. Nick Diaz says:
    @mikemikev

    We all share ancestry with everything that is alive on Earth. That definition is too vague and too all0encompassing to be scientifically valid.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    , @mikemikev
  127. Ahem says:
    @Alfa158

    It is certainly possible with today’s technology.

    As at 2017 FBI labs, using specialized analyzers, can perform a DNA blood analysis in less than six hours and can identify the half dozen or so significant genetic markers associated with various aspects of IQ.

    This test can be performed on a woman pre conception and post conception as little as six weeks after conception, at which time the fetus is a very tiny blob of protoplasm (apple pip size).
    The result of a DNA blood analysis of the fetus can be separated out from the mother’s and a reasonably accurate prediction made of the future child’s expected academic potential.

    If the predicted IQ of the future child falls below the current population mean of IQ 100, the future mother would be at liberty to make either (1) a sensible choice, or (2) a senseless choice.

    The solution is easy. All that’s required is the will and some investment in suitable facilities, not neglecting the need to hire many heavily armed security guards.

    Here’s a golden opportunity for teams of health professionals to make a fortune.

  128. White people are evil and privileged, and all racists.

    Race does not exist at all biologically; it is merely a social convention.

    More research must be done to prevent and cure diseases like sickle-cell anemia which essentially affect only Negroes.

    You are not white if you speak Spanish. Unless it is not your first language.

    Experiencing other cultures’ traditions and activities is imperative for enlightenment.

    Partaking in other cultures’ traditions and activities is evil “appropriation.”

    Women are the equal of men; indeed, they are superiour.

    Standards requiring physical strength for activities like military service and firefighting must be changed to accommodate women, because they are not as strong as men, and this is because of sexism (not sexual dimorphism).

    It is wrong to discriminate against anyone due to his race.

    It is imperative to discriminate against white people – but when doing so, discrimination does not occur (merely affirmative action).

    On and on with this kind of bullshit.

    The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them. —Philip K. Dick

  129. @dr kill

    Be True to your School.

    That sounds fishy.

  130. @anon

    The superiour reasoning

    C’mon, they don’t even spell it that way in Thunder Bay.

    Only the true intellectual elite know when to call someone else a baboon…

    These strutters are closer in type to mandrills:

    Or perhaps geladas:

  131. Tony Ryals says: • Website
    @Jack D

    I like archeological ruins myself and they could be considered the ultimate in advanced stone age which in many ways is esthetically superior to our modern ‘Trump Towers’.And almost without exception these are a product of the invention of agriculture,something our presumably stupider ape relatives never invented or engaged in.
    An old favorite book of mine from the University of Oklahoma titled,Topsoil and Civilization’ does a very good documentation of erosion and collapse that accompanied virtually everyone of these advanced stone ageagricultural societies.This soil destruction is something our ape ancestors never contributed to.I don’t like nor do I find many good biblical analogies but the story of Adam and Eve eating of the fruit of knowledge and the corresponding invention of agriculture is in my opinion precisely what brought an end to the biosphere’s gardens of Eden.
    You will note that I pointed out that the monkeys who beat the humans at their own computer game had,as a result of their domestication , become so dependent upon humans that if they were returned to their natuiral environment would probably not survive for very long.And ‘wild’ monkeys of the same species brought into the lab would probably not sit quietly and play a computer game with any humans.
    And while Chinese may not have scored so high on William Shockley’¡s,et.al.’s Stanford University ‘IQ’ test as their progeny do today,at least they could grow rice and beans and feed themselves. So which of them is smarter the 9ld Chinesee or the new Chinese who are copying the European man’s industrial cuture of burning foissil fuels to make iron and steel and using it to run ever more industrial machinary.Even the computer you are so proud of requires burning fossil carbon
    to move metal to generate the flow of electrons.We are basically running on 18th centurty British technology of burning fossil carbon to make metal move.
    But it gets worse.We are also using some of that fossil carbon propelled metal to mine the elements of life ,particularly phosphate and potassium and using methane to fix nitrogen from the air.
    In fact tge Reverend Malthus would have been proven correct with the collapse of soil and agriculture in the 19th century had not Justus Von Liebig and his British counterparts discovering that soils could grow plantseven when depleted based upon application and eventual industrial scale mining of fossil phosphate deposits,etc.. Thus population grew exponentially but not on soil but on fertilizer mining operations.
    I could go on and on but the most important comparison between monkeys,apes and bumans is not intellectual or brain intelligence but genetic intelligence. Whereas we are making monkieys and chimps who were here long before we came along exrtinct and just possibly in the bargain making ourselves extinct as well because our brains are not in synchrony with the genes that have made us. This is not the case of monkeys.Monkeys have a higher genetic intelligence than we do and our genes have made brains that are not in synchrony with and for enhancing the survival of our genes. Monkeys don’t make ‘agent orange’ or plastic,etc. – we do ! So we are basically much stupider which is why we have caused plastic to fill the oceans and even in the air we breathe.An Einstein is a moron compared to and with a monkey and like the Chinese scoring higher on western IQ tests – we are in fact genetic morons because our genes are making brains that are out of synchrony with our genes.
    I know this might be hard for you to grk and in fascyt imagine most humans don’t want to.We have become so ‘smart’ that we are definitely a danger to other apes and quite3 probably in the end very dangerous to ourselves as well. All this might have been alright had we unlike porpoises not evolved with hands along with our out of control brains.

  132. @eugyppius

    Is the reporting this bad in any other arena of human endeavor?

    Yes.

    Think of a very specific subject that you know a lot about, and see how badly it is explained in any possible news articles that you come across on it.

  133. Nick Diaz says:
    @Mr. Anon

    “Race was a valid concept in Darwin’s day. It is perfectly valid today as well. Most real biologists think it to be so, whether they admit to it or not.”

    You got caught making a strawman, boy. I *never* stated that race wasn’t a valid concept in Darwin’s day; quite the opposite, I stated that “race” is not a valid scientific concept today, and that it was in Darwin’s time because it wasn’t clear back then how species was defined. It is now. I furthermore stated that it resulted from incorrect extrapolations of Darwin’s Theory, and the misuse of taxonomy.

    “You couldn’t intellectually demolish the arguments of an eight year-old, you bloviating retard. Everything you’ve ever written on this site is ridiculously stupid. You are a prating dips**t.”

    I can easily do that, and I just did to you. Not that this is flattering to me. I mean owning an inbred retard like you is something that I could do as an eight year-old.

    • LOL: res
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    , @res
  134. Nick Diaz says:
    @Mr. Anon

    You are one to talk about incels. I bet you are a 5’6 pasty nerd who is 35 and never even kissed a girl in your life. You, my friend, are the poster boy against incest.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  135. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Unladen Swallow

    I think John Horgan has been working there for quite a while, since at least the early 1990’s, and yes, he is the worst kind of moron, a self assured one.

    Well said.

    These characters are incredibly remarkable for being simultaneously totally clueless about their subject while at the same time filled with absolute certainty and self-regard.

    Modern day book burners with no redeeming virtues.

  136. @WowJustWow

    “disentangle the relative contributions of genes and environment to racial inequality”

    Yeah, WowJustWow, the article is full of half-assed strawmen. But this sentence isn’t even that, it’s a pure contradictory muddle.

    Take this in and roll it around in your brain:

    I now see research on racial differences in an even more negative light than I once did, which I didn’t think was possible. As long as racism still infects our societies, it confounds attempts to disentangle the relative contributions of genes and environment to racial inequality.

    I once suggested that, given the harm done by research on alleged cognitive differences between races, it should be banned. I stand by that proposal. …

    This bozo is precisely claiming that there are *no* racial genetic differences relevant to manifest racial inequality. (In fact, signing onto Saini’s nonsense that race is bogus.) And he’s manifestly against any attempt to scientifically investigate such differences–the whole point of the article.

    So give that, what is there, what could be there be in his world to “disentangle”? How can you disentangle racial differences that he asserts do not exist? He’s both asserting that there is no tangle and is against disentangling!

    Basically:
    — racism is bad
    — race doesn’t exist
    — meaningful genetic racial differences do not/can not exist (trust me)
    — disentangling genetic and environmental contributions to race differences … too hard, because racism!
    — ban investigating genetic race differences
    => science!

    • Replies: @lavoisier
  137. @Jus' Sayin'...

    And many university libraries these days expend nearly half of their budgets on journal subscriptions and commercialized electronic access fees. And each year it seems that there are fewer floors holding books — good old stacks of physical books — and more dedicated to “study spaces.”

    It’s true that we don’t need physical books as much as we used to, but what a loss.

    Back in the day, wandering the stacks in a decent library was full of serendipitous wonders. Not sure what today’s kids know about Chaucer, Dostoevskii, Kant, Russell, Tolstoy, Twain. The safe bet is to assume that students know nothing.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymousse
  138. Mr. Anon says:
    @Nick Diaz

    A lot of projection there, pendejo.

  139. Mr. Anon says:
    @Nick Diaz

    You don’t even understand simple written English. Race is a valid category today, just as it was in Darwin’s time. Just as it always has been, because it is a biological reality.

    You sound like a stupid person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like. Whenever you open your pie-hole you confirm everyone’s opinion of you, namely that you are a blustering idiot.

    You are a clown – a source of amusement to us.

    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
  140. Mr. Anon says:
    @Nick Diaz

    We all share ancestry with everything that is alive on Earth. That definition is too vague and too all0encompassing to be scientifically valid.

    A ridiculous assertion. You truly are astoundingly stupid.

    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
  141. @Nick Diaz

    “Race” is an arbitrary social construct, where certain phenotypical characteristics, but not others, are used to categorize a group of humanss. In this case, it is skin color. For instance, you could say that people that have blue eyes are a “race”. In that case, a black man with blue eyes(I have seen several), would be lumped together with a Swede that also has blue eyes, while a Sswede with white skin but brown eyes would be lumped in another race. It is 100% arbitrary and irrelevant.

    Nick, seriously, even you can not be this thick.

    The Enllightenment preached tolerance, universal moral values, and *individual* right and not the supremacy of nations and “races”, which is the opposite of your belief ssystem.

    You’ve hung out here long enough that you must know Steve is precisely a “citizenist”. His interest in HBD is both intellectual–understanding the world as it is–and practical–crafting wise policies rather than stupid ones. Both all solidly placing him within–really at the heart of–the enlightenment tradition. (“Knowledge is good”)

    In fact, it people like you who have this strident, hysteric and totalitarian reaction against the notion of the citizens of this nation controlling *their* borders for the benefit of themselves–the wholly natural and logical point of “nation”–which seems–clearly in your case–to be motivated by self-esteem/ego issues with your own “race”.

    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
    , @Mr. Anon
  142. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kibernetika

    I love good old books. It’s best if you can have them in physical form but a .pdf is way better than nothing.

    http://www.tubebooks.org/

    https://www.vintage-radio.info/heathkit/

    https://www.americanradiohistory.com/index.htm

  143. anon[827] • Disclaimer says:

    Race does not exist. Some races are special and better than others.

  144. @Spangel

    People having different capacities is not a “predicament”. Diversity REALLY is a good thing.

    The problem is that THEY don’t believe in diversity at all, but want everyone in the world to drink craft beer, read the new yorker, listen to NPR, be non specifically homosexual, vote for elizabeth warren, and have a degree in english from Brown. THEY cannot reconcile themselves to the notion that this is not the highest and sole form of human existence available. They believe that the brown hordes must be allowed here so that they will finally be able to live this way.

    It’s interesting that whites create Sweden and blacks Masai villages. It’s good that chinese are the best at ping pong and west africans great sprinters. It’s good that black guys play bass guitar and asian kids win piano competitions. Some people like playing football and others like to read Kierkegaard. There is space and worth for all these things.

    Let’s not accept the premise that people being different is a problem. It’s when we try to make people that are different BECOME the same and exist in the SAME PLACES with the same CULTURE that the insurmountable problems have arisen. The solution is not to torture the human species at a genetic level until it reaches the tasteless and bland homogeneous efficiency of cheap grocery store tomatoes.

  145. @Kibernetika

    It’s true that we don’t need physical books as much as we used to, but what a loss.

    I suggest we need physical books a lot more right now. There are increasingly complete monopolies on electronic publishing developing and they are now openly memory holing more badthink books all the time. A future where they can remotely delete or revise electronic badthink is not just easy to imagine it’s basically here already.

    Just you try to locate an old children’s book from the beforetime… you’ll discover that the Hardy Boys, Noddy, Tin Tin, Nancy Drew, etc have mysteriously changed and only rare physical copies prove that they were ever less than party approved.

    • Agree: HammerJack
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @Kibernetika
  146. Nick Diaz says:
    @Mr. Anon

    “You don’t even understand simple written English. Race is a valid category today, just as it was in Darwin’s time. Just as it always has been, because it is a biological reality.”

    Wrong. Race is NOT a valid scientific concept today. How do you even define it? Saying that it is who your family is asinine. Familes have no meaning beyond the third degree od relatedness. Otherwise, where does it end? Using reductio ad absurdum, all llife on Earth is family.

    “You sound like a stupid person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like. Whenever you open your pie-hole you confirm everyone’s opinion of you, namely that you are a blustering idiot.
    You are a clown – a source of amusement to us”

    STFU, kid. I couldn’t care less about your opinion on me. But for what it’s worth here is my opinion on you: you are SOB inbred who has a vastly inflated opinion about your own intelligence. I am not one bit impressed by you. I am in fact, vastly more intelligent than you.

    • Troll: Anonymousse
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    , @Anonymousse
  147. Nick Diaz says:
    @Mr. Anon

    So all life on Earth did not precede us genetically? No, YOU are astoundingly stupid.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  148. Nick Diaz says:
    @AnotherDad

    “Nick, seriously, even you can not be this thick.”

    Ditto to you…you are thicker than mud.

    “You’ve hung out here long enough that you must know Steve is precisely a “citizenist””

    He is trying to argue that race is real. His politics are completely irrelevant.

    “His interest in HBD is both intellectual–understanding the world as it is–and practical–crafting wise policies rather than stupid ones. Both all solidly placing him within–really at the heart of–the enlightenment tradition. (“Knowledge is good”)”

    No, his interest in HBD(what a cheesy term BTW) is to justify discrimination against people based on their ethnbic background, when what should matter is their individuality.

    And the Enlightenment preached *individual* rights. “Nations” and ethnicities take a back seat in importance. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

    “In fact, it people like you who have this strident, hysteric and totalitarian reaction against the notion of the citizens of this nation controlling *their* borders for the benefit of themselves–the wholly natural and logical point of “nation”–which seems–clearly in your case–to be motivated by self-esteem/ego issues with your own “race”

    “Nations” are arbitrary political and geographic cocnstrucct with no meaning. I rather judge people individually rather on what arbitrary piece of land they were born.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
  149. mikemikev says:
    @Nick Diaz

    We all share ancestry with everything that is alive on Earth. That definition is too vague and too all0encompassing to be scientifically valid.

    But organisms share more or less ancestry vis a vis other organisms, and can be grouped. Europeans share ancestry versus Africans.

  150. anon[394] • Disclaimer says:

    Nick Diaz: “No, YOU are the idiot. … You got caught making a strawman, you monkey. … I can easily do that, and I just did to you. Not that this is flattering to me. I mean owning an inbred monkey retard like you is something that I could do as an eight year-old.”

  151. @Pericles

    I know how stats work. That’s not my question. I’m seeking deeper examination of the data and a level of granularity that’s robust – I’m not seeking deeper exploration of statistics and probability theory.

    But if we had actual raw data and perhaps charts etc that shows the perf of the different races across different parameters (IQ tests, SAT scores in math vs verbals etc) and ideally the ability to dissect within the race too so that I can compare (statistically significant volumes of) race 1 vs race 2, within certain income brackets or parental-education level etc, so keeping all other variables as constant as possible, I’d be interested in exploring that.

    The answer can be whatever it is: I have no preconceived notions, just curiosity. I do however want to start hypothesis-driven, but ultimately verify / invalidate with actual data that’s observed in a robust way. Maybe I should start with Reich’s book.

    • Replies: @Pericles
  152. Eduardo says:
    @Nick Diaz

    Nick, damn fucking ape, you have no clue what you’re talking about.
    Racism did not arise as a justification for colonization.

  153. Mr. Anon says:
    @Nick Diaz

    Huh? I don’t even know what you are gibbering on about. Your posts are a stew of non-sequiturs. You are a babbling nitwit.

  154. Mr. Anon says:
    @Nick Diaz

    STFU, kid. I couldn’t care less about your opinion on me.

    “Of me”, dips**t, not “on me”. Anyway, yours is a wise life strategy, given that probably just about everybody’s opinion of you is that you are a f**king moron. Everyone’s here is. Given that you loudly proclaim your stupidity with every post, what other conclusion could they come to. As I said, you sound like what a stupid person thinks a smart person sounds like.

  155. Mr. Anon says:
    @AnotherDad

    Nick, seriously, even you can not be this thick.

    You haven’t been here long, have you? Yes – Nick Diaz really is that stupid.

  156. J.Ross says:
    @Pericles

    Not an acceptable save, they’re two completely different things, it would be like if I used the word “philosophy” and expected it to be understood for “science.”

    • Replies: @Pericles
  157. J.Ross says:
    @JudgeSmails

    “When did such a concept as ‘creating a fairer, kinder society’ become relevant in the quest for scientific knowledge?”

    We seek the happiness of the whole world.

    This is how truly evil people talk, third world noble-patrons, Stalinist bureaucrats, to throw off the scent of something truly repugnant.

  158. J.Ross says:
    @Anonymousse

    This is an excellent point.

  159. @A Texan

    I would like some of those smart ‘scientist’ explain to me then why Africa is still a massive shit hole

    Because racism is racist

    we have no records of blacks in the past writing any philosophy or even ocean voyages.

    Because of racism

    Seems like they have always been low IQ violent tribal cannibals.

    Except for in Wakanda. The rest is because of racism.

  160. @Nick Diaz

    This guy is a more petulant and less humorous version of Tiny Duck, I’m not sure why otherwise intelligent people are engaging with him.

    Presumably everyone here has extensive familiarity with the NPC’s scripted dialogue trees.

  161. Pericles says:
    @ConfirmationBias

    But if we had actual raw data

    OK, in that case I’d recommend you contact our Prof James Thompson (blog on the right hand side of this page) and see if he can introduce you to the guys who collected the data. Then you’ll have to convince them to part with their preciouss, but c’est la science. Good luck!

  162. anon[195] • Disclaimer says:
    @Nick Diaz

    “Nations” are arbitrary political and geographic cocnstrucct with no meaning.

  163. res says:
    @Nick Diaz

    To be clear. I am laughing at Nick, not with him.

    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
  164. Pericles says:
    @J.Ross

    Depends, if Horgan is one of those atheists he might not mind giving the theists a condescending tweak.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  165. anon[297] • Disclaimer says:
    @Nick Diaz

    “Nations” are arbitrary political and geographic cocnstrucct with no meaning.

    http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/china-population/

  166. Nick Diaz says:
    @res

    I find you to contemptible to laugh at. You only induce pitty on me.

    • Replies: @res
  167. @Anonymousse

    I suggest we need physical books a lot more right now. There are increasingly complete monopolies on electronic publishing developing and they are now openly memory holing more badthink books all the time. A future where they can remotely delete or revise electronic badthink is not just easy to imagine it’s basically here already.

    Just you try to locate an old children’s book from the beforetime… you’ll discover that the Hardy Boys, Noddy, Tin Tin, Nancy Drew, etc have mysteriously changed and only rare physical copies prove that they were ever less than party approved.

    Can’t argue with that. There was a book titled How the Irish Saved Civilization a few decades back, and content aside, the premise was important.

    Just this evening I was thumbing through a book owned by one of my great uncles (maternal grandma’s brother), who died around 1922. I’ve had to reduce my physical library recently, but it’s books like that that I keep. Crazy physical marginalia from ancestors is priceless.

    One of my gramps worked in traditional publishing, and I’ve been around both the traditional and digital side for a long time.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_dark_age

  168. res says:
    @Nick Diaz

    I find you to contemptible to laugh at. You only induce pitty on me.

    Only 14 words (only 3 of which should be longer than four letters) and 3 spelling or grammar errors. Now that is impressive.

  169. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    I find you to contemptible to laugh at. You only induce pitty on me.

    The 14 Words (Nick Diaz Version).

  170. anon[161] • Disclaimer says:

    I find you convertible to laugh at. You only induce putty on me.

  171. Anti-HBD says:

    Well, the science debunking race-realism has been there for a while now, but you refuse to look at it.

  172. Anti-HBD says:
    @mikemikev

    What about all the historic gene flow that has been going between races?
    Authors like Templeton and ancient Dna analysis makes it clear humans are very mixed.
    There is no European race.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  173. lavoisier says: • Website
    @AnotherDad

    Excellent analysis!

    A comprehensive assessment on the absurdity of fools.

  174. J.Ross says:
    @Pericles

    Again, that doesn’t work because it’s just a category error in an otherwise non-satirical article. If you heard someone using “math” to specifically mean “aeronautical engineering,” you wouldn’t think they were jovially emphasizing a scholastic requirement, you’d think they were careless.

  175. mikemikev says:
    @Anti-HBD

    The fact that there has been gene flow doesn’t change the fact that Europeans share ancestry versus Africans. Does “historical gene flow” invalidate any other subspecies? How stupid. Templeton is a fraud.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
    , @Anti-HBD
  176. @Pericles

    Actually thank you for that, some of his writings get into a little more detail, which is helpful. I still wonder if that data exists that shows what the bell curve looks like within vs between races. And IQ scores by race, but within similar income groups and parental education levels etc. I’m sure it exists somewhere; it just requires wading thru a lot of ‘soft science’ articles to get there.

  177. Anti-HBD says:
    @mikemikev

    How is he a fraud?
    And also, yes it does invalidate other subspecies. It is not even a concept frequently used in biology any more.
    There has been extensive gene flow throughout human history as showed by his simulations and modern ancient DNA research.

  178. Anti-HBD says:
    @mikemikev

    For example of shared European and African ancestry read McEvoy et al, 2011 “Human population dispersal “Out of Africa” estimated from linkage disequilibrium and allele frequencies of SNPs”

  179. @Pericles

    Actually thank you for this! I did find what I was looking for… at least wrt the bell curve, and it’s not fat like how I wondered it might be, but in fact narrower. So interestingly, between scores for whites vs blacks, it’s not just the mean which is lower for blacks, but a lower standard deviation as well. Now I’m curious if the findings still hold good when you filter out lower-income / single-parent households from both races, and compare scores between like-to-like environments.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 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 Steve Sailer Comments via RSS