The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Economist: James Watson Is Bad Because Reasons
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

From The Economist:

James Watson: A pioneering biologist is reprimanded for unscientific, offensive views
A great career comes to a sad end

Print edition | Science and technology, Jan 17th 2019

… Dr Watson’s views about race and intelligence seem to stem from his keen interest in “The Bell Curve”, a book published in 1994 by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, that, among other things, argued African-Americans were less intelligent than white Americans and genetic differences between ethnicities played a role in the difference. Modern genetic research has largely discredited these ideas.

Biologists know that there is a substantial genetic component to intelligence. Depending on the precise measure of intelligence being studied and the statistical model being used, it can range anywhere from 20-60%. And observational research from the 1980s, cited by the authors of “The Bell Curve”, showed that, if you ask people to self-identify on the basis of ethnicity and then measure their mental performance in some way, for example iq or the number of years in education, you will find differences in the mean attainment levels between different groups.

Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney, director of the European Bioinformatics Institute, in Cambridge, because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry. “African-Americans have a substantial amount of European genetic ancestry—you should in fact call them ‘African-European-Americans’,” observes Dr Birney.

A lot of people seem to find this a persuasive argument, even though a moment’s thought suggests it’s backwards from what they want it to imply. The fuzziness of racial self-identification almost certainly doesn’t inflate the correlation between race and IQ, it reduces it. Doing 23andMe-style ethnic admixture tests on people taking IQ tests would likely increase the correlation between race and IQ.

Dr Watson has easy access to these scientific insights, which are emerging thick and fast in a field of research that he helped invent.

Citation needed.

 
Hide 178 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry. ”

    That reminds me of my friend who is a self-identified Korean-American. He took 23andme, and turns out he’s genetically half Polish and half Irish! Happens all the time people have no idea what continental racial grouping their genes come from.

    • Replies: @Moses
    Rachel Dolezals are far more powerful and common than you think.

    TNC is actually an albino White woman who identifies as a Black man. Map his genetics and see if they matter, I dare you!
    , @rufus
    The tests are substantially bullshit.

    There is a trend to throw in African for genes that are found everywhere. You can be born and raised in the shetland islands for 15 gnerations and the commercial tests will tell you to believe you are 3 % african

    Of course to this day, virtually no one from Africa has ever been near the place.
    , @Forbes
    https://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2019/01/image004-2.jpg?w=370&ssl=1
    , @niteranger
    The tests are not extremely reliable and depend on the accumulated people in their database. Certain groups such as South East Asians and others often receive genetic profiles that are laughable. Add a little political correctness and you get the results they want...not what is actually present.
    , @reiner Tor
    Once someone took a genetic test, and turns out, even though that person self-identifies as a lesbian furry (fox) woman, that person was actually a white American male, no fox or female genes at all...
    , @Anonymous

    That reminds me of my friend who is a self-identified Korean-American. He took 23andme, and turns out he’s genetically half Polish and half Irish!
     
    How is that even possible?? Is your comment sarcastic?
  2. What’s sad isn’t that this sort of thing is willfully foolish bilge; it’s that this willfully foolish bilge now appears in what were once intelligent journals and newspapers.

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks, res
    • Replies: @dvorak

    What’s sad isn’t that this sort of thing is willfully foolish bilge; it’s that this willfully foolish bilge now appears in what were once intelligent journals and newspapers.
     
    Your willfully foolish bilge is my communist party line. Your once intelligent journals and newspapers have fellow-traveled with communism from inception.

    h/t Moldbug
    , @Steve in Greensboro
    When was the Economist last an "intelligent journal"?

    It might have been once, but that was decades ago.
  3. African-European-American? Taking “black” and making it into a seven syllable word is silly enough, without turning it into an eleven syllable word.

  4. Either that, or “discredited” means the opposite of what I always thought it meant.

    • Replies: @Keypusher
    In modern journalism, “discredited” means “unpopular.” “Controversial” means “true, but disagreeable.”

    One of many bits in that excerpt on the spectrum from disingenuous to downright lying was that “observational data from the 1980s” showed racial differences in intelligence. Pretty much all data from all time shows such differences.
  5. Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney, director of the European Bioinformatics Institute, in Cambridge, because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry.

    Genetics cannot be the main reason for IQ differences because not all humans fit neatly into 1 racial category?

    This is like saying “Dog breed cannot be any reason for different temperaments between individual dogs because some dogs are mixed breed.”

    Gobbledygook nonsense.

    They’re gonna need more cowbell to keep the doublethink straight on this one.

    • Replies: @Moses

    Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney, director of the European Bioinformatics Institute, in Cambridge, because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry.
     
    You could used the same faulty "logic" for any statement. E.g.:

    "Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences in sprint speed because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry."

    "Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences in susception to sickle cell anemia because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry."

    "Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences in eye color because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry."

    Try it, it's fun!

    (This is another in a long line of examples why I canceled by subscription to the Economist many years ago. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was when Economist blamed Europeans for Africans piling into leaky boats and drowning in the Mediterranean.)
    , @AnotherDad

    Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney, director of the European Bioinformatics Institute, in Cambridge, because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry. “African-Americans have a substantial amount of European genetic ancestry—you should in fact call them ‘African-European-Americans’,” observes Dr Birney.
     
    Yeah Moses that popped for me too.

    The "cannot" there is just blitheringly stupid and illogical. It's amazing--and depressing--that we have "scientists" who spout such openly illogical nonsense. It's logic 101 that a failure of proof for something does not prove that it is false.

    Then his claim that "ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry". In fact it actually does quite well. Sure mixes are mixed but so what. Accept that as a mixed ethnicity and move on.

    And then thirdly the point Steve makes. The mixed character of African-Americans would actually work to make Watson's point about Africa ... even stronger.

    And this guy is some big swinging dick? Geez, i realize these guys need to keep their heads down to avoid getting Watsoned, but seriously just lie in a way that is not grotesquely misleading and scientifically embarrassing: "We don't yet know."
  6. @Lot
    "because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry. "

    That reminds me of my friend who is a self-identified Korean-American. He took 23andme, and turns out he's genetically half Polish and half Irish! Happens all the time people have no idea what continental racial grouping their genes come from.

    Rachel Dolezals are far more powerful and common than you think.

    TNC is actually an albino White woman who identifies as a Black man. Map his genetics and see if they matter, I dare you!

  7. “Victory or Bolshevist Chaos!”

    We exist in the latter timeline 🙁

  8. @Moses

    Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney, director of the European Bioinformatics Institute, in Cambridge, because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry.
     
    Genetics cannot be the main reason for IQ differences because not all humans fit neatly into 1 racial category?

    This is like saying "Dog breed cannot be any reason for different temperaments between individual dogs because some dogs are mixed breed."

    Gobbledygook nonsense.

    They're gonna need more cowbell to keep the doublethink straight on this one.

    Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney, director of the European Bioinformatics Institute, in Cambridge, because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry.

    You could used the same faulty “logic” for any statement. E.g.:

    “Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences in sprint speed because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry.”

    “Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences in susception to sickle cell anemia because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry.”

    “Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences in eye color because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry.”

    Try it, it’s fun!

    (This is another in a long line of examples why I canceled by subscription to the Economist many years ago. The straw that broke the camel’s back for me was when Economist blamed Europeans for Africans piling into leaky boats and drowning in the Mediterranean.)

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    (This is another in a long line of examples why I canceled by subscription to the Economist many years ago. The straw that broke the camel’s back for me was when Economist blamed Europeans for Africans piling into leaky boats and drowning in the Mediterranean.)
     
    I stopped reading the Economist when I realized that just about every single thing they wrote about America was wrong. I came to wonder if their "American correspondents" had ever actually even set foot in America. I then figured that the same probably applied to every other part of the Globe about which they always spoke in confident knowing tones.
    , @Mr McKenna

    self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry
     
    What's more, when they say "easily" they mean "really really easily" or more to the point "perfectly" according to whatever standards, strictures, and qualifications they wish to apply at the moment.

    The upshot is that people don't have any idea what their racial makeup is, unless each time they are asked, they can recite prehistoric dates, locales of origin and percentages to a few decimal places.

    It reminds me of some of the objections raised against Ron Unz's Meritocracy study. If we don't like the science, it must be absolutely perfect to the nth degree. If we do like the science, all we have to do is abuse those who dare to question it. Or is that religion?

    , @Moses
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

    -Upton Sinclair

    Updated version for the Current Year:

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand IQ largely is a function of heredity, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
    , @larry lurker
    The Derb made the same observation in the latest Radio Derb - by this logic you could argue that there can't be a genetic basis for differences in skin color. Pants-on-head retarded.
  9. Biologists know that there is a substantial genetic component to skin colour. … if you ask people to self-identify on the basis of ethnicity and then measure their skin colour in some way… you will find differences in the mean reflectance between different groups.

    Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney, director of the European Bioinformatics Institute, in Cambridge, because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry. “African-Americans have a substantial amount of European genetic ancestry—you should in fact call them ‘African-European-Americans’,” observes Dr Birney.

    People think Fox News is dumb because there is no charismatic TV man to mock the ways the left is typically more wrong, and then smugly mug for the camera; doing so would make you a bad person—there’s no percentage in it.

  10. WASP biology must be stamped out as being antithetical to the globalist spirit.

    – (not) Phillip Lenard

  11. Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney, director of the European Bioinformatics Institute, in Cambridge, because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry. “African-Americans have a substantial amount of European genetic ancestry—you should in fact call them ‘African-European-Americans’,” observes Dr Birney.

    Has this Birney guy ever actually been to the United States? Some American blacks clearly have some european ancestory. Some clearly have very little to none. And guess which of those categories correlates with IQ.

    Does a guy who is a director of a bioinformatics institute not realize that european genetic ancestry is not uniform among blacks in America?

    • Replies: @anonymous
    There's a substantial distinction between the quoted words:

    > “African-Americans have a substantial amount of European genetic ancestry—you should in fact call them ‘African-European-Americans’,” observes Dr Birney.

    and the preceding paraphrase:

    > Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney[.]

    I wonder what Dr. Birney actually said to the Economist.

    Much of what appears in Establishment media is grade B+ dissembling. The goal is to gull the readers. But this also allows the interviewee later to Facecriminally wince outside public view and feel relieved of responsibility for the lynching of a target like Dr. Watson, while the "journalist" can tell himself that he's merely reported what someone above his pay grade thinks. One hand dirties the other.

    This system of cowardly lying both to oneself and others is essential to replacing facts with Truth.
    , @rufus
    The tests are substantially bullshit.

    There is a trend to throw in African for genes that are found everywhere. You can be born and raised in the shetland islands for 15 gnerations and the commercial tests will tell you to believe you are 3 % african

    Of course to this day, virtually no one from Africa has ever been near the place.
  12. A lot of people seem to find this a persuasive argument

    In any society the elite and their functionaries are the most unthinking adopters of received wisdom, but at this stage cognitive dissonance is the main thing.

    Doing 23andMe-style ethnic admixture tests on people taking IQ tests would likely increase the correlation between race and IQ.

    http://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-6/chomsky-on-iq-and-inequality

    [Moreover], the question of the relation, if any, between race and intelligence has very little scientific importance (as it has no social importance, except under the assumptions of a racist society) … As to social importance, a correlation between race and mean I.Q. (were this shown to exist) entails no social consequences except in a racist society in which each individual is assigned to a racial category and dealt with not as an individual in his own right, but as a representative of this category … In a non-racist society, the category of race would be of no greater significance [than height]. The mean I.Q. of individuals of a certain racial background is irrelevant to the situation of a particular individual, who is what he is. Recognizing this perfectly obvious fact, we are left with little, if any, plausible justification for an interest in the relation between mean I.Q. and race, apart from the ‘justification’ provided by the existence of racial discrimination.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    Per Chomsky:

    In a non-racist society, the category of race would be of no greater significance [than height].
     
    He's right. If we were a "colorblind" society people could be sorted for merit without any reference to their racial category.

    But we are a profoundly "racist" society because we distribute resources according to the false racial theory that all differences in outcomes must be caused by unfair racism, and must therefore be reversed by a countervailing form of "fair" racism.

    Proof of the underlying biological differences is the only way to defend against this redistributive racism. So, of course, that defense must be banned.
    , @anonymous
    "In any society the elite and their functionaries are the most unthinking"

    Noam Chomsky used to say it was impossible to explain things to PhDs in Boston but if he went on some radio station in bumfuck, Montana the blue collar listeners were able to understand him and engage his ideas with perfect clarity.
    , @dvorak

    Chomsky: In a non-racist society, the category of race would be of no greater significance [than height].
     
    Height is of enormous significance in men's mating prospects. Race is of substantial significance in men and women's mating prospects.

    Except for Nikola Tesla-like driven geniuses/careerists, mating and its consequences are the meaning of life for men and women.
  13. @Moses

    Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney, director of the European Bioinformatics Institute, in Cambridge, because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry.
     
    You could used the same faulty "logic" for any statement. E.g.:

    "Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences in sprint speed because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry."

    "Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences in susception to sickle cell anemia because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry."

    "Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences in eye color because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry."

    Try it, it's fun!

    (This is another in a long line of examples why I canceled by subscription to the Economist many years ago. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was when Economist blamed Europeans for Africans piling into leaky boats and drowning in the Mediterranean.)

    (This is another in a long line of examples why I canceled by subscription to the Economist many years ago. The straw that broke the camel’s back for me was when Economist blamed Europeans for Africans piling into leaky boats and drowning in the Mediterranean.)

    I stopped reading the Economist when I realized that just about every single thing they wrote about America was wrong. I came to wonder if their “American correspondents” had ever actually even set foot in America. I then figured that the same probably applied to every other part of the Globe about which they always spoke in confident knowing tones.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I noticed the same thing: When reading the Economist, I always felt like I must be getting the inside scoop on Slovenia and Zambia, but they didn't seem terribly well informed about the USA.
    , @Forbes
    I gave up my subscription in the late '90s as their perspective became recognizable as a monotone slant or bias. Their perspective had been unique in print media with deeper reporting and little hectoring, but they soon got aboard the globohomo (as Heartiste renders it) train.

    I doubt their American correspondents ventured outside the Acela corridor. As such, they were indistinguishable from the NYT, WaPo, et al.
    , @J.Ross
    On 4chan a standard form response emerged: "you're not talking about 'America,' you're talking about 'black people.'"
    , @Roland
    I have long noticed that the better I know a subject, the more I see that media are wrong about it. There should be a Sailerean law for this.
  14. Well Mr. Anderson.

    You know that

    Modern genetic research has largely discredited these ideas.

    … and what good is a phone call if you can’t … speak?

  15. It’s simple. Whites worship Blacks as their racial superiors and master race due to naturally lower is a and extraversion. Natural Alphas. Dumbly self confident and gregarious.

  16. @Moses

    Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney, director of the European Bioinformatics Institute, in Cambridge, because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry.
     
    You could used the same faulty "logic" for any statement. E.g.:

    "Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences in sprint speed because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry."

    "Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences in susception to sickle cell anemia because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry."

    "Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences in eye color because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry."

    Try it, it's fun!

    (This is another in a long line of examples why I canceled by subscription to the Economist many years ago. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was when Economist blamed Europeans for Africans piling into leaky boats and drowning in the Mediterranean.)

    self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry

    What’s more, when they say “easily” they mean “really really easily” or more to the point “perfectly” according to whatever standards, strictures, and qualifications they wish to apply at the moment.

    The upshot is that people don’t have any idea what their racial makeup is, unless each time they are asked, they can recite prehistoric dates, locales of origin and percentages to a few decimal places.

    It reminds me of some of the objections raised against Ron Unz’s Meritocracy study. If we don’t like the science, it must be absolutely perfect to the nth degree. If we do like the science, all we have to do is abuse those who dare to question it. Or is that religion?

    • Replies: @res

    If we don’t like the science, it must be absolutely perfect to the nth degree. If we do like the science, all we have to do is abuse those who dare to question it.
     
    There is a name for that (in keeping with the ongoing iSteve Sapir-Whorf theme): isolated (or selective) demands for rigor. Extended discussion about that at https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/
  17. James Watson isn’t branded as bad because of nonsense reasons. He’s being branded as bad for a very good reason: He’s lending authority and credibility to the premise of a biological link between race and intelligence which would undermine many past + present left wing political efforts.

    It’s interesting seeing a political news and op-ed magazine assert itself over a great scientist and bad mouth him so aggressively. James Watson is arguably the greatest living scientist and the greatest scientist of the last hundred years. The left is stripping him of all titles and honors because he won’t bow down their views. I’m actually surprised that James Watson has the will to defy such powerful and dominant ideology.

    I presume this crowd is interested in the biological link between race and intelligence precisely because it undermines many left-wing political initiatives, which many have good resent to resent.

    • Replies: @Sean
    Slavery was not ended because whites thought blacks were of equal intelligence to whites. Deep down everyone still knows they are not. I would not be so sure that blacks would cease to get affirmative action if Watson was accepted to be articulating a scientific fact.
    , @byrresheim
    The Left.

    The Economist as a leftist rag?

    Try again, please.

    (If you are unable or unwilling to correctly describe the problem, you will find it very hard to solve it)
    , @Bliss

    James Watson is arguably the greatest living scientist and the greatest scientist of the last hundred years.
     
    Well, unfortunately for your racist propaganda, James Watson is 16% African and 4% Asian. And Einstein’s mother looked like this:

    https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/pauline_koch.jpg
  18. @Mr. Anon

    (This is another in a long line of examples why I canceled by subscription to the Economist many years ago. The straw that broke the camel’s back for me was when Economist blamed Europeans for Africans piling into leaky boats and drowning in the Mediterranean.)
     
    I stopped reading the Economist when I realized that just about every single thing they wrote about America was wrong. I came to wonder if their "American correspondents" had ever actually even set foot in America. I then figured that the same probably applied to every other part of the Globe about which they always spoke in confident knowing tones.

    I noticed the same thing: When reading the Economist, I always felt like I must be getting the inside scoop on Slovenia and Zambia, but they didn’t seem terribly well informed about the USA.

    • Replies: @Larry, San Francisco
    I read the Economist for over 40 years but I finally gave up in disgust. They are now no different from the crappy NY Times and not even that amusing anymore.
    I never read it that much for their US coverage (although when Michael Kinsley was American editor in the 90's it was fun). However, I did learn some important things probably the most important was the huge war in Congo that killed 10 million people. When I mention this, no one knows what I am talking about. I had a Japanese friend who I asked about their coverage and she told me it was pretty good.
    , @Redneck farmer
    They're still smarting about 1775-1783, then needing us 1914-1918 And 1939-1945.
    , @Space Ghost
    This is called the Gell-Mann amnesia effect, courtesy of Michael Crichton.

    Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect
    , @sb
    I do rather have the impression that many people who read The Economist find themself quite dismissive of what it has to say about their own country but for some reason take quite seriously it's views on other countries .
    I include myself among this group

    The victory of style over substance

  19. Anonymous[298] • Disclaimer says:

    OT: Oh hell yeah Trump bounced back today with an awesome tweet…

    “After all that I have done for the Military, our great Veterans, Judges (99), Justices (2), Tax & Regulation Cuts, the Economy, Energy, Trade & MUCH MORE, does anybody really think I won’t build the WALL? Done more in first two years than any President! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

    Crazy disconnect between the talk and the action. He also tweeted that the actual number of illegals is at least twice the bogus 11 mil referenced Friday.

    The plot thickens ….. let’s hope the villain Kushners get run out of town.

    • Troll: Forbes
  20. Is the ability of major media outlets to shamelessly express willful (and obvious) stupidity to this degree a new development?

    It’s one thing to take an arguable position for ideological reasons. But just stating a transparent logical non sequitur as a scientific fact is nothing but embarrassing. Even biased journalists and “scientists” should be able to devise a better logical fallacy than this.

    Why not just avoid an issue if you are political prohibited from saying anything intelligent about it?

    I mean, if this is the way it operates, how much credibility is anyone supposed to accord the Economist when it opines about trade policy or the yield curve, or whatever?

  21. @Steve Sailer
    I noticed the same thing: When reading the Economist, I always felt like I must be getting the inside scoop on Slovenia and Zambia, but they didn't seem terribly well informed about the USA.

    I read the Economist for over 40 years but I finally gave up in disgust. They are now no different from the crappy NY Times and not even that amusing anymore.
    I never read it that much for their US coverage (although when Michael Kinsley was American editor in the 90’s it was fun). However, I did learn some important things probably the most important was the huge war in Congo that killed 10 million people. When I mention this, no one knows what I am talking about. I had a Japanese friend who I asked about their coverage and she told me it was pretty good.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    I never read it that much for their US coverage (although when Michael Kinsley was American editor in the 90’s it was fun).
     
    Kindley was American editor of the Economist? You sure?

    I had a Japanese friend who I asked about their coverage and she told me it was pretty good.
     
    Their coverage of what? What is the relevance of your Japanese friend?
    , @Stan d Mute

    probably the most important was the huge war in Congo that killed 10 million people. When I mention this, no one knows what I am talking about
     
    Perhaps because the single most important factor in media and politics (or second most important after the maxim “Jews have never had any agency in anything bad that happened to them”) - “nothing may ever reflect poorly on the degree of sophistication or civilization of the sacred Negro.”

    Nobody ever gets my references to General Butt Naked either. The concept of an African running around naked thinking he’s bulletproof because he dismembers and eats his enemies strikes just a bit too close to home for any media outlet (except Vice and I expect they’d memory hole it if they could) to touch upon. Any news from Africa or Haiti is always obfuscatatory and presented as if either a simple natural unavoidable disaster or as a result of evil whitey being racist against angelic Africans.

    I’m pretty sure these two maxims are the first and last things taught in Journalism Schools. Whitey is bad fulfills the balance of the syllabus.
  22. @Sean

    A lot of people seem to find this a persuasive argument
     
    In any society the elite and their functionaries are the most unthinking adopters of received wisdom, but at this stage cognitive dissonance is the main thing.

    Doing 23andMe-style ethnic admixture tests on people taking IQ tests would likely increase the correlation between race and IQ.
     

    http://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-6/chomsky-on-iq-and-inequality

    [Moreover], the question of the relation, if any, between race and intelligence has very little scientific importance (as it has no social importance, except under the assumptions of a racist society) … As to social importance, a correlation between race and mean I.Q. (were this shown to exist) entails no social consequences except in a racist society in which each individual is assigned to a racial category and dealt with not as an individual in his own right, but as a representative of this category … In a non-racist society, the category of race would be of no greater significance [than height]. The mean I.Q. of individuals of a certain racial background is irrelevant to the situation of a particular individual, who is what he is. Recognizing this perfectly obvious fact, we are left with little, if any, plausible justification for an interest in the relation between mean I.Q. and race, apart from the ‘justification’ provided by the existence of racial discrimination.

     

    Per Chomsky:

    In a non-racist society, the category of race would be of no greater significance [than height].

    He’s right. If we were a “colorblind” society people could be sorted for merit without any reference to their racial category.

    But we are a profoundly “racist” society because we distribute resources according to the false racial theory that all differences in outcomes must be caused by unfair racism, and must therefore be reversed by a countervailing form of “fair” racism.

    Proof of the underlying biological differences is the only way to defend against this redistributive racism. So, of course, that defense must be banned.

    • Agree: ben tillman, ic1000
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    And if Chomsky doesn’t understand this, he’s either a lot less intelligent than I thiink he is or is just playing dumb for ideological reasons.
  23. @Massimo Heitor
    James Watson isn't branded as bad because of nonsense reasons. He's being branded as bad for a very good reason: He's lending authority and credibility to the premise of a biological link between race and intelligence which would undermine many past + present left wing political efforts.

    It's interesting seeing a political news and op-ed magazine assert itself over a great scientist and bad mouth him so aggressively. James Watson is arguably the greatest living scientist and the greatest scientist of the last hundred years. The left is stripping him of all titles and honors because he won't bow down their views. I'm actually surprised that James Watson has the will to defy such powerful and dominant ideology.

    I presume this crowd is interested in the biological link between race and intelligence precisely because it undermines many left-wing political initiatives, which many have good resent to resent.

    Slavery was not ended because whites thought blacks were of equal intelligence to whites. Deep down everyone still knows they are not. I would not be so sure that blacks would cease to get affirmative action if Watson was accepted to be articulating a scientific fact.

    • Replies: @Massimo Heitor

    Slavery was not ended because whites thought blacks were of equal intelligence to whites.
     
    Slavery was ended because it is morally wrong.


    Deep down everyone still knows they are not. I would not be so sure that blacks would cease to get affirmative action if Watson was accepted to be articulating a scientific fact.
     
    So, not just deep down, on the surface, I see some obvious truths. I have a strong recoil to meanness. Even if demographic X scores low on aptitude tests, I don't want to publicly harp on that, or make that group feel bad or insult them. I believe in truth, but I also believe in constructive goals and helping others.

    I would bet against affirmative action surviving. I would also bet on the political left playing dirty regardless of whatever science says.
  24. @Moses

    Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney, director of the European Bioinformatics Institute, in Cambridge, because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry.
     
    You could used the same faulty "logic" for any statement. E.g.:

    "Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences in sprint speed because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry."

    "Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences in susception to sickle cell anemia because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry."

    "Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences in eye color because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry."

    Try it, it's fun!

    (This is another in a long line of examples why I canceled by subscription to the Economist many years ago. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was when Economist blamed Europeans for Africans piling into leaky boats and drowning in the Mediterranean.)

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

    -Upton Sinclair

    Updated version for the Current Year:

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand IQ largely is a function of heredity, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

  25. @Steve Sailer
    I noticed the same thing: When reading the Economist, I always felt like I must be getting the inside scoop on Slovenia and Zambia, but they didn't seem terribly well informed about the USA.

    They’re still smarting about 1775-1783, then needing us 1914-1918 And 1939-1945.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    They’re still smarting about 1775-1783, then needing us 1914-1918 And 1939-1945.
     
    And that’s exactly why we are such fools to listen to anything the Cuck Islanders have to say today. Our existence and our success is as humiliating to them as Western Civilization is humiliating to Africans, Indians, Mesoamericans, and the rest.
  26. The Economist doesn’t believe in supply and demand when it comes to wages, why should we be surprised if it doesn’t believe in group differences, especially for IQ?

  27. This stopped being science decades ago. The suicide of the West is all about turning our backs on Darwinian reality.

  28. @Moses

    Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney, director of the European Bioinformatics Institute, in Cambridge, because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry.
     
    You could used the same faulty "logic" for any statement. E.g.:

    "Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences in sprint speed because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry."

    "Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences in susception to sickle cell anemia because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry."

    "Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences in eye color because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry."

    Try it, it's fun!

    (This is another in a long line of examples why I canceled by subscription to the Economist many years ago. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was when Economist blamed Europeans for Africans piling into leaky boats and drowning in the Mediterranean.)

    The Derb made the same observation in the latest Radio Derb – by this logic you could argue that there can’t be a genetic basis for differences in skin color. Pants-on-head retarded.

  29. Proof of the underlying biological differences is the only way to defend against this redistributive racism. So, of course, that defense must be banned.

    The defence draws whites out. Do you really think that the liberals want HBDers to shut up because they might conceivably win? I don’t.

  30. Giraffes are just horses who spent 10,000 hours stretching out their necks to reach tall trees.

    • Agree: Sean
  31. @Steve Sailer
    I noticed the same thing: When reading the Economist, I always felt like I must be getting the inside scoop on Slovenia and Zambia, but they didn't seem terribly well informed about the USA.

    This is called the Gell-Mann amnesia effect, courtesy of Michael Crichton.

    Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

    • Agree: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @kihowi
    Hey whaddayaknow, there's a name for that. I've been surrounded by clever people all my life who would triumphantly point out how those journalists got it all wrong about their specialist subject, and the next moment get grumpy at me for being cynical about the rest of the paper.

    These are journalists, Kihowi! They went to school for this! The arrogance to think you know better! The man in the byline is well known and has written books! What have you done?

    Oh alright Aunt Constance.

    , @El Dato
    Should the surgeon general demand that Newsmags put an appropriate warning on the cover?
    , @ThreeCranes
    And the same people have no doubt that George Bush lied about yellowcake, aluminum tubes, babies being bayonetted in maternity wards etc, but suspend their disbelief when gawking at Obama's and Hillary's stage flats depicting Syrian gas attacks, Russian election machinations and the like.

    "Still, a man hears what he wants to hear And disregards the rest."
    Simon and Garfunkel

    , @ben tillman
    Well, they do almost always get the scores of sporting events right, with all that implies in this context.
    , @anon
    Mark Gell-Mann Twain -

    https://americanliterature.com/author/mark-twain/short-story/how-i-edited-an-agricultural-paper

    "Turnips should never be pulled, it injures them. It is much better to send a boy up and let him shake the tree."

    "Now, what do you think of that—for I really suppose you wrote it?"

    "Think of it? Why, I think it is good. I think it is sense. I have no doubt that every year millions and millions of bushels of turnips are spoiled in this township alone by being pulled in a half-ripe condition, when, if they had sent a boy up to shake the tree—"

    "Shake your grandmother! Turnips don't grow on trees!"

    "Oh, they don't, don't they! Well, who said they did? The language was intended to be figurative, wholly figurative. Anybody that knows anything will know that I meant that the boy should shake the vine."
    , @Nicholas Stix
    About a year ago, I read the exact same thought as a comment on a blog. I recall neither the commenter nor the blog. The commenter must have ripped off Crichton--his comment was almost word for word the same.

    This is the most profound criticism I have yet to read about the press. I have no answer to it.

    If anything, the Internet has made things worse, as thousands of "journalists" and bloggers in the echo chamber plagiarize the original liar.

    Somehow, the truth is much less often ripped off, and repeated via the echo chamber.
  32. If you take all blacks in the US what is the white European component? I think it is at 25%. Related is how many light (skin) black women we now have installed as our harpy commentariat on MSNBC/CNN/TV and internet. Beyonce and the Beyonce phenomena, gave them a large boost in daring and confidence to “come out” of the closet, then licence to spew their inner conflicts onto our common culture.

    The Becky haters. The extreme jealousy, maladjustment and anger of light black women, who are almost there except for that drop or two or three.

  33. self-identify

    Since I have personally been born, I’ve never self-identified as anything. If I ever do, I’ll commit suicide on myself.

  34. @Space Ghost
    This is called the Gell-Mann amnesia effect, courtesy of Michael Crichton.

    Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

    Hey whaddayaknow, there’s a name for that. I’ve been surrounded by clever people all my life who would triumphantly point out how those journalists got it all wrong about their specialist subject, and the next moment get grumpy at me for being cynical about the rest of the paper.

    These are journalists, Kihowi! They went to school for this! The arrogance to think you know better! The man in the byline is well known and has written books! What have you done?

    Oh alright Aunt Constance.

  35. Do any of these articles on Watson reach out to Watson for comment. It would seem extraordinary if they didn’t. A flagrant breach of standard journalistic methods.

    By the way, is this an authentic Watson account?

    • Replies: @Henry's Cat
    Visiting there came this:

    Caution: This account is temporarily restricted

    You’re seeing this warning because there has been some unusual activity from this account. Do you still want to view it?
     
    I don't know if that's a point pro or contra its authenticity.
  36. Sigh. The Economist used to be a quality publication.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Maybe it was never quality and you've just evolved.
  37. @Space Ghost
    This is called the Gell-Mann amnesia effect, courtesy of Michael Crichton.

    Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

    Should the surgeon general demand that Newsmags put an appropriate warning on the cover?

  38. Anonymous[374] • Disclaimer says:
    @Larry, San Francisco
    I read the Economist for over 40 years but I finally gave up in disgust. They are now no different from the crappy NY Times and not even that amusing anymore.
    I never read it that much for their US coverage (although when Michael Kinsley was American editor in the 90's it was fun). However, I did learn some important things probably the most important was the huge war in Congo that killed 10 million people. When I mention this, no one knows what I am talking about. I had a Japanese friend who I asked about their coverage and she told me it was pretty good.

    I never read it that much for their US coverage (although when Michael Kinsley was American editor in the 90’s it was fun).

    Kindley was American editor of the Economist? You sure?

    I had a Japanese friend who I asked about their coverage and she told me it was pretty good.

    Their coverage of what? What is the relevance of your Japanese friend?

    • Replies: @Lurker
    I took that to mean that their coverage of Japanese matters was good. Or seen as good by the Japanese friend.
  39. Only those damned unspeakable arrogant fools at The Economist magazine can have the sheer effrontery and impudence to label James Watson, undoubtedly the world’s greatest living scientist, as ‘unscientific’.

  40. @tsotha
    Sigh. The Economist used to be a quality publication.

    Maybe it was never quality and you’ve just evolved.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Right! Before the Internet, the MSM could get away with anything. Their job was telling pretty lies. Now, we know better.
    , @MEH 0910
    2009:

    https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2009/07/18/twelve-questions-for-john-derbyshire

    Twelve questions for John Derbyshire
    Jul 18th 2009 | by The Economist | NEW YORK
     
    2011:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/economist-explains-john-derbyshire/

    The Economist Explains
    By John Derbyshire
    May 4, 2011

    I’ve been a subscriber to The Economist since the 1970s, but I think we’re going to have to part company. The magazine just keeps getting weirder.

    The April 23rd issue had as its theme: “Where did California go wrong?” There was a 1,200-word leading article followed by a 16-page (15-page without the ads), 11,000-word “Special Report.”
    ......
    This struck me as very strange. I knew of course that The Economist is open-borders libertarian; but 11,000 words on California’s problems with barely a mention of the Mexifornia Factor? Come on.
     
    2017:

    http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/economist-watch-reading-the-mouthpiece-of-anti-trump-globalism-so-you-dont-have-to/

    ECONOMIST Watch: Reading the Mouthpiece of Anti-Trump Globalism So You Don’t Have to
    John Derbyshire • August 23, 2017
     
    , @ben tillman
    Indeed.
  41. anonymous[751] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    A lot of people seem to find this a persuasive argument
     
    In any society the elite and their functionaries are the most unthinking adopters of received wisdom, but at this stage cognitive dissonance is the main thing.

    Doing 23andMe-style ethnic admixture tests on people taking IQ tests would likely increase the correlation between race and IQ.
     

    http://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-6/chomsky-on-iq-and-inequality

    [Moreover], the question of the relation, if any, between race and intelligence has very little scientific importance (as it has no social importance, except under the assumptions of a racist society) … As to social importance, a correlation between race and mean I.Q. (were this shown to exist) entails no social consequences except in a racist society in which each individual is assigned to a racial category and dealt with not as an individual in his own right, but as a representative of this category … In a non-racist society, the category of race would be of no greater significance [than height]. The mean I.Q. of individuals of a certain racial background is irrelevant to the situation of a particular individual, who is what he is. Recognizing this perfectly obvious fact, we are left with little, if any, plausible justification for an interest in the relation between mean I.Q. and race, apart from the ‘justification’ provided by the existence of racial discrimination.

     

    “In any society the elite and their functionaries are the most unthinking”

    Noam Chomsky used to say it was impossible to explain things to PhDs in Boston but if he went on some radio station in bumfuck, Montana the blue collar listeners were able to understand him and engage his ideas with perfect clarity.

    • Agree: Sean, byrresheim
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Noam Chomsky used to say it was impossible to explain things to PhDs in Boston but if he went on some radio station in bumfuck, Montana the blue collar listeners were able to understand him and engage his ideas with perfect clarity.
     
    And disagree with them, I would imagine. Or hope.
  42. @Anonymous
    Maybe it was never quality and you've just evolved.

    Right! Before the Internet, the MSM could get away with anything. Their job was telling pretty lies. Now, we know better.

  43. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney, director of the European Bioinformatics Institute, in Cambridge, because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry. “African-Americans have a substantial amount of European genetic ancestry—you should in fact call them ‘African-European-Americans’,” observes Dr Birney.
     
    Has this Birney guy ever actually been to the United States? Some American blacks clearly have some european ancestory. Some clearly have very little to none. And guess which of those categories correlates with IQ.

    Does a guy who is a director of a bioinformatics institute not realize that european genetic ancestry is not uniform among blacks in America?

    There’s a substantial distinction between the quoted words:

    > “African-Americans have a substantial amount of European genetic ancestry—you should in fact call them ‘African-European-Americans’,” observes Dr Birney.

    and the preceding paraphrase:

    > Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney[.]

    I wonder what Dr. Birney actually said to the Economist.

    Much of what appears in Establishment media is grade B+ dissembling. The goal is to gull the readers. But this also allows the interviewee later to Facecriminally wince outside public view and feel relieved of responsibility for the lynching of a target like Dr. Watson, while the “journalist” can tell himself that he’s merely reported what someone above his pay grade thinks. One hand dirties the other.

    This system of cowardly lying both to oneself and others is essential to replacing facts with Truth.

    • Agree: Kaganovitch
    • Replies: @Joseph Doaks
    "I wonder what Dr. Birney actually said to the Economist."

    Good point.
    , @another fred

    This system of cowardly lying both to oneself and others is essential to replacing facts with Truth.
     
    Well said, and worth repeating.
    , @Ragno

    One hand dirties the other.
     
    As long as we're putting excerpts on plaques...
  44. Why isn’t James Watson suing his former laboratory? Perhaps it’s time for Round 2 of the Scopes Monkey Trial to assert the right to speak up about how Darwinian evolution has created different races with differing mental capacities.

    • Agree: sayless
  45. “The Bell Curve”, a book published in 1994 by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, that, among other things, argued…

    “Among other things” referring to the first eleven chapters, or the bulk of the book, which didn’t mention race at all.

  46. Anon[343] • Disclaimer says:

    I have a slightly different view. I think this article and the statements by the experts quoted therein are code or dog whistles meant to communicate different things to different audiences.

    Birney’s quote for instance on the surface soothes social justice readers, but read with any sort of critical senae, by science inclined readers or by his colleagues, is so stupid that you cannot believe he means what he’s quoted as saying, thus sending the message to that subset of readers that it’s just CYA.

    And even the journalist seems to be dog whistling.

    “The Bell Curve … argued African-Americans were less intelligent than white Americans and genetic differences between ethnicities played a role in the difference. Modern genetic research has largely discredited these ideas.”

    “Largely” is a weasel word. And is it the role of genetic differences or the fact of less intelligence or both that is discredited? He’s admitting genetic difference right there, and he leaves it open that intelligence is less in blacks the way he phrases it, and he weasles the genetic role with “largely,” I’m not so sure this statement is that far away from what Watson thinks or what the Bell Curve Says.

  47. @Colin Wright
    What's sad isn't that this sort of thing is willfully foolish bilge; it's that this willfully foolish bilge now appears in what were once intelligent journals and newspapers.

    What’s sad isn’t that this sort of thing is willfully foolish bilge; it’s that this willfully foolish bilge now appears in what were once intelligent journals and newspapers.

    Your willfully foolish bilge is my communist party line. Your once intelligent journals and newspapers have fellow-traveled with communism from inception.

    h/t Moldbug

  48. @Sean

    A lot of people seem to find this a persuasive argument
     
    In any society the elite and their functionaries are the most unthinking adopters of received wisdom, but at this stage cognitive dissonance is the main thing.

    Doing 23andMe-style ethnic admixture tests on people taking IQ tests would likely increase the correlation between race and IQ.
     

    http://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-6/chomsky-on-iq-and-inequality

    [Moreover], the question of the relation, if any, between race and intelligence has very little scientific importance (as it has no social importance, except under the assumptions of a racist society) … As to social importance, a correlation between race and mean I.Q. (were this shown to exist) entails no social consequences except in a racist society in which each individual is assigned to a racial category and dealt with not as an individual in his own right, but as a representative of this category … In a non-racist society, the category of race would be of no greater significance [than height]. The mean I.Q. of individuals of a certain racial background is irrelevant to the situation of a particular individual, who is what he is. Recognizing this perfectly obvious fact, we are left with little, if any, plausible justification for an interest in the relation between mean I.Q. and race, apart from the ‘justification’ provided by the existence of racial discrimination.

     

    Chomsky: In a non-racist society, the category of race would be of no greater significance [than height].

    Height is of enormous significance in men’s mating prospects. Race is of substantial significance in men and women’s mating prospects.

    Except for Nikola Tesla-like driven geniuses/careerists, mating and its consequences are the meaning of life for men and women.

    • Replies: @bomag
    Absolutely key point.

    Chomsky might not think height is important; he might not think race is important; but the evidence from the rest of the world says otherwise.
    , @Sean
    Race does indeed have a profound effect on one's mating prospects. Females view men who tell them that blacks are less intelligent about as favorably as men who are cruel to animals.
  49. @Joe, Averaged
    Either that, or “discredited” means the opposite of what I always thought it meant.

    In modern journalism, “discredited” means “unpopular.” “Controversial” means “true, but disagreeable.”

    One of many bits in that excerpt on the spectrum from disingenuous to downright lying was that “observational data from the 1980s” showed racial differences in intelligence. Pretty much all data from all time shows such differences.

  50. @Massimo Heitor
    James Watson isn't branded as bad because of nonsense reasons. He's being branded as bad for a very good reason: He's lending authority and credibility to the premise of a biological link between race and intelligence which would undermine many past + present left wing political efforts.

    It's interesting seeing a political news and op-ed magazine assert itself over a great scientist and bad mouth him so aggressively. James Watson is arguably the greatest living scientist and the greatest scientist of the last hundred years. The left is stripping him of all titles and honors because he won't bow down their views. I'm actually surprised that James Watson has the will to defy such powerful and dominant ideology.

    I presume this crowd is interested in the biological link between race and intelligence precisely because it undermines many left-wing political initiatives, which many have good resent to resent.

    The Left.

    The Economist as a leftist rag?

    Try again, please.

    (If you are unable or unwilling to correctly describe the problem, you will find it very hard to solve it)

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    The Left.

    The Economist as a leftist rag?

    Try again, please.

    (If you are unable or unwilling to correctly describe the problem, you will find it very hard to solve it)
     
    Yes, The Economist is a Leftist rag. What do you prefer to call it, and why?
    , @Massimo Heitor

    The Left.

    The Economist as a leftist rag?

    Try again, please.
     
    The real life friends I know that read the Economist are fanatical Democrats. The Economist has strongly endorsed the Democratic Presidential candidate in the last four US Presidential election cycles.

    Clearly, on racial issues like this, they are left. But more moderate than many radical leftists.

    On immigration, The Economist is fanatically open borders, however the immigration issue doesn't fall on the traditional left-right scale. CATO and many libertarians also support a similar position and I wouldn't categorize those as left.

    The Economist is generally pro-market. They aren't the Bernie Sanders or AOC left. On health care, a quick cursory look shows they lean slightly left, although I haven't investigated this heavily.

    I think left is a reasonable categorization for The Economist that many would agree with. Categorizations, however, are always subjective.
  51. @anonymous
    There's a substantial distinction between the quoted words:

    > “African-Americans have a substantial amount of European genetic ancestry—you should in fact call them ‘African-European-Americans’,” observes Dr Birney.

    and the preceding paraphrase:

    > Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney[.]

    I wonder what Dr. Birney actually said to the Economist.

    Much of what appears in Establishment media is grade B+ dissembling. The goal is to gull the readers. But this also allows the interviewee later to Facecriminally wince outside public view and feel relieved of responsibility for the lynching of a target like Dr. Watson, while the "journalist" can tell himself that he's merely reported what someone above his pay grade thinks. One hand dirties the other.

    This system of cowardly lying both to oneself and others is essential to replacing facts with Truth.

    “I wonder what Dr. Birney actually said to the Economist.”

    Good point.

  52. @Steve Sailer
    I noticed the same thing: When reading the Economist, I always felt like I must be getting the inside scoop on Slovenia and Zambia, but they didn't seem terribly well informed about the USA.

    I do rather have the impression that many people who read The Economist find themself quite dismissive of what it has to say about their own country but for some reason take quite seriously it’s views on other countries .
    I include myself among this group

    The victory of style over substance

  53. “The fuzziness of racial self-identification almost certainly doesn’t inflate the correlation between race and IQ, it reduces it.”

    You are thinking of random errors in self-identification, which would indeed understate the correlation. But what if smarter people consistently tended to mis-identify as white, and dumber people consistently and falsely thought of themselves as black? That would indeed overstate the correlation.

    Is that possible? Perhaps in a largely mixed-race population, where the identity choice was hard and stereotypes very powerful.

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    I find his sentence to be confusing. So my identification isn't accurate? Or, I think I'm white but I'm really 8% Cherokee and 2% African? How does my racial mis-identity cause a correlation to inflate or reduce?

    Just give me a real world example to illustrate what you're getting at.
    , @Steve Sailer
    Dear Henry:

    Yes, good point.

    Kirkegaard's next paper has a graph of genetic admixture and IQ for 1369 children. There just aren't that many people in the mid range. I'll post it pretty soon.

  54. @Space Ghost
    This is called the Gell-Mann amnesia effect, courtesy of Michael Crichton.

    Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

    And the same people have no doubt that George Bush lied about yellowcake, aluminum tubes, babies being bayonetted in maternity wards etc, but suspend their disbelief when gawking at Obama’s and Hillary’s stage flats depicting Syrian gas attacks, Russian election machinations and the like.

    “Still, a man hears what he wants to hear And disregards the rest.”
    Simon and Garfunkel

  55. Disturbing, like a lot of things these days. Either the Economist boys are really stupid enough to think they wrote a coherent sentence, or they’re corrupt enough not to care.

    If it’s the first, then it’s just another example of our elites not being so elite. We need to replace them with a different elite.

    • Replies: @Ragno

    It’s just another example of our elites not being so elite. We need to replace them with a different elite.
     
    See, we're not the only Americans who can be painlessly replaced. An idea whose time has come!
  56. “African-Americans were less intelligent than white Americans and genetic differences between ethnicities played a role in the difference. Modern genetic research has largely discredited these ideas.”

    Isn’t this last sentence the exact opposite of what is going on today?

    • Agree: Peter Johnson
    • Replies: @415 reasons
    It is galling that these weasals can publish straight up lies about the state of science in the most “prestigious” newspapers and magazines that supposedly pride themselves on fact checking and get away with it. At least the global warming deniers have the temerity to engage with the data and propose that the scholarship in the literature is wrong and biased. These genetics of intelligence deniers just ignore the data and tell bald faced lies in the media claiming that their world view has never been contradicted by data.

    Somebody should contact the editors at Nature Genetics and let them know that Lee et al. 2018 needs to be retracted. Also someone should contact the authors of the 50 papers that have cited Lee et al. since it came out 6 months ago and let them know that work has been discredited. Because the idea of genetic variation between populations is actually quite well established despite this liar dissembling about it. Modern admixture analysis can give a complex, accurate snapshot of what populations people descend from. So if that piece of his rationale for why Watson must be wrong is invalid, then it must be the ability to infer intelligence from genes that is faulty and discredited.

    And in fact even the door is closing on these kinds of arguments. Since that paper was published it was just a matter of time until someone used the polygenic scores to show polygenic intelligence scores differing between populations. And it seems like that has now been done in the Wisconsin longitutidinal study cohort. So even their last potential principled objection to the science, that the variants associated with intelligence don’t vary systematically between populations, looks like it is being empirically invalidated.

    The science isn’t yet definitive and I’m not aware of a study looking at the variation and effect in the educational attainment polygenic risk score that compares the most politically explosive sets of populations, but with the published studies we have a strong prior about what the data will look like, if anyone is every brave enough to look and then publish it. But this article claims the exact opposite, that the data is so strong in the other direction that it contradicts, indeed, discredits Watson’s statements. That is just a lie and a failure of fact checking to characterize the current state of the research like that.

    , @ben tillman

    “African-Americans were less intelligent than white Americans and genetic differences between ethnicities played a role in the difference. Modern genetic research has largely discredited these ideas.”

    Isn’t this last sentence the exact opposite of what is going on today?
     
    Yeah, since 1871 all the science has supported the conclusion that blacks evolved to be less intelligent than whites (whether or not the concept of "genes" had yet entered the discussion). Everything to the contrary has been politically motivated falsehoods, including the last sentence you quote.
  57. A lot of people seem to find this a persuasive argument . . . .

    I don’t believe anyone finds that persuasive.

    • Replies: @Forbes
    If not a persuasive argument, then...a belief? Plenty of people appear to find it agreeable. Or are sympathetic to it, as an emotional consideration, i.e. they want it to be true.

    At least that's my experience, YMMV.
  58. Biologists know that there is a substantial genetic component to intelligence. Depending on the precise measure of intelligence being studied and the statistical model being used, it can range anywhere from 20-60%.

    20% — LOL. That’s why we see a broad range of IQ’s from 20 to 300 among genetically “normal” humans.

  59. @Anonymous
    Maybe it was never quality and you've just evolved.

    2009:

    https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2009/07/18/twelve-questions-for-john-derbyshire

    Twelve questions for John Derbyshire
    Jul 18th 2009 | by The Economist | NEW YORK

    2011:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/economist-explains-john-derbyshire/

    The Economist Explains
    By John Derbyshire
    May 4, 2011

    I’ve been a subscriber to The Economist since the 1970s, but I think we’re going to have to part company. The magazine just keeps getting weirder.

    The April 23rd issue had as its theme: “Where did California go wrong?” There was a 1,200-word leading article followed by a 16-page (15-page without the ads), 11,000-word “Special Report.”
    ……
    This struck me as very strange. I knew of course that The Economist is open-borders libertarian; but 11,000 words on California’s problems with barely a mention of the Mexifornia Factor? Come on.

    2017:

    http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/economist-watch-reading-the-mouthpiece-of-anti-trump-globalism-so-you-dont-have-to/

    ECONOMIST Watch: Reading the Mouthpiece of Anti-Trump Globalism So You Don’t Have to
    John Derbyshire • August 23, 2017

  60. @Space Ghost
    This is called the Gell-Mann amnesia effect, courtesy of Michael Crichton.

    Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

    Well, they do almost always get the scores of sporting events right, with all that implies in this context.

  61. @Arclight
    "African-Americans were less intelligent than white Americans and genetic differences between ethnicities played a role in the difference. Modern genetic research has largely discredited these ideas."

    Isn't this last sentence the exact opposite of what is going on today?

    It is galling that these weasals can publish straight up lies about the state of science in the most “prestigious” newspapers and magazines that supposedly pride themselves on fact checking and get away with it. At least the global warming deniers have the temerity to engage with the data and propose that the scholarship in the literature is wrong and biased. These genetics of intelligence deniers just ignore the data and tell bald faced lies in the media claiming that their world view has never been contradicted by data.

    Somebody should contact the editors at Nature Genetics and let them know that Lee et al. 2018 needs to be retracted. Also someone should contact the authors of the 50 papers that have cited Lee et al. since it came out 6 months ago and let them know that work has been discredited. Because the idea of genetic variation between populations is actually quite well established despite this liar dissembling about it. Modern admixture analysis can give a complex, accurate snapshot of what populations people descend from. So if that piece of his rationale for why Watson must be wrong is invalid, then it must be the ability to infer intelligence from genes that is faulty and discredited.

    And in fact even the door is closing on these kinds of arguments. Since that paper was published it was just a matter of time until someone used the polygenic scores to show polygenic intelligence scores differing between populations. And it seems like that has now been done in the Wisconsin longitutidinal study cohort. So even their last potential principled objection to the science, that the variants associated with intelligence don’t vary systematically between populations, looks like it is being empirically invalidated.

    The science isn’t yet definitive and I’m not aware of a study looking at the variation and effect in the educational attainment polygenic risk score that compares the most politically explosive sets of populations, but with the published studies we have a strong prior about what the data will look like, if anyone is every brave enough to look and then publish it. But this article claims the exact opposite, that the data is so strong in the other direction that it contradicts, indeed, discredits Watson’s statements. That is just a lie and a failure of fact checking to characterize the current state of the research like that.

  62. @Anonymous
    Maybe it was never quality and you've just evolved.

    Indeed.

  63. @Arclight
    "African-Americans were less intelligent than white Americans and genetic differences between ethnicities played a role in the difference. Modern genetic research has largely discredited these ideas."

    Isn't this last sentence the exact opposite of what is going on today?

    “African-Americans were less intelligent than white Americans and genetic differences between ethnicities played a role in the difference. Modern genetic research has largely discredited these ideas.”

    Isn’t this last sentence the exact opposite of what is going on today?

    Yeah, since 1871 all the science has supported the conclusion that blacks evolved to be less intelligent than whites (whether or not the concept of “genes” had yet entered the discussion). Everything to the contrary has been politically motivated falsehoods, including the last sentence you quote.

    • Replies: @Arclight
    It's just so brazen - we are finding more and more evidence that intelligence is hereditary to a large extent, so to say that genetic research is not pointing in the direction that there are hereditary advantages that occur far more often in some groups compared to others is just a lie.

    But at some point the evidence will be too overwhelming for even the NYT, Economist, etc. to ignore...at which point they will switch to the argument that the effects of colonialism, racism, etc. produced selective pressures that dumbed down some people relative to others, so we need reparations/massive social welfare to account for that. Some might then realize that selective pressure could start the admittedly multi-generational process it would take to raise the median IQ, but no one wants to really explore what that might entail.
    , @Bliss

    Yeah, since 1871 all the science has supported the conclusion that blacks evolved to be less intelligent than whites
     
    Unfortunately for your delusion, black Americans have a higher IQ than all the “white caucasian” nations of the Middle East.

    Good luck reconciling that with your race fantasies....
  64. @anonymous
    There's a substantial distinction between the quoted words:

    > “African-Americans have a substantial amount of European genetic ancestry—you should in fact call them ‘African-European-Americans’,” observes Dr Birney.

    and the preceding paraphrase:

    > Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney[.]

    I wonder what Dr. Birney actually said to the Economist.

    Much of what appears in Establishment media is grade B+ dissembling. The goal is to gull the readers. But this also allows the interviewee later to Facecriminally wince outside public view and feel relieved of responsibility for the lynching of a target like Dr. Watson, while the "journalist" can tell himself that he's merely reported what someone above his pay grade thinks. One hand dirties the other.

    This system of cowardly lying both to oneself and others is essential to replacing facts with Truth.

    This system of cowardly lying both to oneself and others is essential to replacing facts with Truth.

    Well said, and worth repeating.

  65. @Larry, San Francisco
    I read the Economist for over 40 years but I finally gave up in disgust. They are now no different from the crappy NY Times and not even that amusing anymore.
    I never read it that much for their US coverage (although when Michael Kinsley was American editor in the 90's it was fun). However, I did learn some important things probably the most important was the huge war in Congo that killed 10 million people. When I mention this, no one knows what I am talking about. I had a Japanese friend who I asked about their coverage and she told me it was pretty good.

    probably the most important was the huge war in Congo that killed 10 million people. When I mention this, no one knows what I am talking about

    Perhaps because the single most important factor in media and politics (or second most important after the maxim “Jews have never had any agency in anything bad that happened to them”) – “nothing may ever reflect poorly on the degree of sophistication or civilization of the sacred Negro.”

    Nobody ever gets my references to General Butt Naked either. The concept of an African running around naked thinking he’s bulletproof because he dismembers and eats his enemies strikes just a bit too close to home for any media outlet (except Vice and I expect they’d memory hole it if they could) to touch upon. Any news from Africa or Haiti is always obfuscatatory and presented as if either a simple natural unavoidable disaster or as a result of evil whitey being racist against angelic Africans.

    I’m pretty sure these two maxims are the first and last things taught in Journalism Schools. Whitey is bad fulfills the balance of the syllabus.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    A great deal of Western admiration of Putin (which Acela corridor idiots find baffling enough to suggest magical Facebook ads) can be traced to a Trumpish remark he made about Africans eating each other. The lying press had a fit and, when Putin proved to be entirely correct, quietly slinked away.
  66. @ben tillman

    “African-Americans were less intelligent than white Americans and genetic differences between ethnicities played a role in the difference. Modern genetic research has largely discredited these ideas.”

    Isn’t this last sentence the exact opposite of what is going on today?
     
    Yeah, since 1871 all the science has supported the conclusion that blacks evolved to be less intelligent than whites (whether or not the concept of "genes" had yet entered the discussion). Everything to the contrary has been politically motivated falsehoods, including the last sentence you quote.

    It’s just so brazen – we are finding more and more evidence that intelligence is hereditary to a large extent, so to say that genetic research is not pointing in the direction that there are hereditary advantages that occur far more often in some groups compared to others is just a lie.

    But at some point the evidence will be too overwhelming for even the NYT, Economist, etc. to ignore…at which point they will switch to the argument that the effects of colonialism, racism, etc. produced selective pressures that dumbed down some people relative to others, so we need reparations/massive social welfare to account for that. Some might then realize that selective pressure could start the admittedly multi-generational process it would take to raise the median IQ, but no one wants to really explore what that might entail.

  67. @Redneck farmer
    They're still smarting about 1775-1783, then needing us 1914-1918 And 1939-1945.

    They’re still smarting about 1775-1783, then needing us 1914-1918 And 1939-1945.

    And that’s exactly why we are such fools to listen to anything the Cuck Islanders have to say today. Our existence and our success is as humiliating to them as Western Civilization is humiliating to Africans, Indians, Mesoamericans, and the rest.

  68. @Lot
    "because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry. "

    That reminds me of my friend who is a self-identified Korean-American. He took 23andme, and turns out he's genetically half Polish and half Irish! Happens all the time people have no idea what continental racial grouping their genes come from.

    The tests are substantially bullshit.

    There is a trend to throw in African for genes that are found everywhere. You can be born and raised in the shetland islands for 15 gnerations and the commercial tests will tell you to believe you are 3 % african

    Of course to this day, virtually no one from Africa has ever been near the place.

    • Replies: @Lot
    My 23andme was quite accurate. 100.0% Euro. Most people I shared with are 100% or 99.9% Euro.

    I haven't done the other ones.

    Black ancestry isn't common in US whites, but it does happen.
  69. @Mr. Anon

    Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney, director of the European Bioinformatics Institute, in Cambridge, because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry. “African-Americans have a substantial amount of European genetic ancestry—you should in fact call them ‘African-European-Americans’,” observes Dr Birney.
     
    Has this Birney guy ever actually been to the United States? Some American blacks clearly have some european ancestory. Some clearly have very little to none. And guess which of those categories correlates with IQ.

    Does a guy who is a director of a bioinformatics institute not realize that european genetic ancestry is not uniform among blacks in America?

    The tests are substantially bullshit.

    There is a trend to throw in African for genes that are found everywhere. You can be born and raised in the shetland islands for 15 gnerations and the commercial tests will tell you to believe you are 3 % african

    Of course to this day, virtually no one from Africa has ever been near the place.

  70. @Sean
    Slavery was not ended because whites thought blacks were of equal intelligence to whites. Deep down everyone still knows they are not. I would not be so sure that blacks would cease to get affirmative action if Watson was accepted to be articulating a scientific fact.

    Slavery was not ended because whites thought blacks were of equal intelligence to whites.

    Slavery was ended because it is morally wrong.

    Deep down everyone still knows they are not. I would not be so sure that blacks would cease to get affirmative action if Watson was accepted to be articulating a scientific fact.

    So, not just deep down, on the surface, I see some obvious truths. I have a strong recoil to meanness. Even if demographic X scores low on aptitude tests, I don’t want to publicly harp on that, or make that group feel bad or insult them. I believe in truth, but I also believe in constructive goals and helping others.

    I would bet against affirmative action surviving. I would also bet on the political left playing dirty regardless of whatever science says.

    • Replies: @Sean
    Immigration is the ultimate form of affirmative action, and it is a type of class war.
    , @gda
    "I have a strong recoil to meanness. Even if demographic X scores low on aptitude tests, I don’t want to publicly harp on that, or make that group feel bad or insult them."

    Agree entirely, and I believe any reasonable, intelligent, caring person would feel the same way.

    But we're talking about reducing the expectations of many who have come to believe that the ONLY reason they cannot "get ahead" is because of the racist system. Because if everyone is the same. or at least has the same potential to achieve success, what other reason could there be?

    So we've spent the last 50+ years denying reality while promising unachievable results to demographic X.

    Who's to blame for this "error", which has cost us trillions BTW? All so we could avoid telling the hard truth and ultimately leading to false expectations for untold millions.
  71. @Mr McKenna

    self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry
     
    What's more, when they say "easily" they mean "really really easily" or more to the point "perfectly" according to whatever standards, strictures, and qualifications they wish to apply at the moment.

    The upshot is that people don't have any idea what their racial makeup is, unless each time they are asked, they can recite prehistoric dates, locales of origin and percentages to a few decimal places.

    It reminds me of some of the objections raised against Ron Unz's Meritocracy study. If we don't like the science, it must be absolutely perfect to the nth degree. If we do like the science, all we have to do is abuse those who dare to question it. Or is that religion?

    If we don’t like the science, it must be absolutely perfect to the nth degree. If we do like the science, all we have to do is abuse those who dare to question it.

    There is a name for that (in keeping with the ongoing iSteve Sapir-Whorf theme): isolated (or selective) demands for rigor. Extended discussion about that at https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/

    • Agree: M. Hartley
  72. Ya. Watson is unaware that some blacks inter-marry. What a maroon.

  73. @Henry Canaday
    "The fuzziness of racial self-identification almost certainly doesn’t inflate the correlation between race and IQ, it reduces it."

    You are thinking of random errors in self-identification, which would indeed understate the correlation. But what if smarter people consistently tended to mis-identify as white, and dumber people consistently and falsely thought of themselves as black? That would indeed overstate the correlation.

    Is that possible? Perhaps in a largely mixed-race population, where the identity choice was hard and stereotypes very powerful.

    I find his sentence to be confusing. So my identification isn’t accurate? Or, I think I’m white but I’m really 8% Cherokee and 2% African? How does my racial mis-identity cause a correlation to inflate or reduce?

    Just give me a real world example to illustrate what you’re getting at.

  74. @Lot
    "because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry. "

    That reminds me of my friend who is a self-identified Korean-American. He took 23andme, and turns out he's genetically half Polish and half Irish! Happens all the time people have no idea what continental racial grouping their genes come from.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    I don't get it. How is that supposed to make her not African-American? Who is supposed to find that convincing?
    , @Prodigal son
    True , but she is much more similar to American Blacks than Obama and less white than Obama.
    Her African DNA most likely came from western African slaves , like Black Americans.
    , @BB753
    Kamala needs better weaves or a different hair-stylist.
  75. @Massimo Heitor
    James Watson isn't branded as bad because of nonsense reasons. He's being branded as bad for a very good reason: He's lending authority and credibility to the premise of a biological link between race and intelligence which would undermine many past + present left wing political efforts.

    It's interesting seeing a political news and op-ed magazine assert itself over a great scientist and bad mouth him so aggressively. James Watson is arguably the greatest living scientist and the greatest scientist of the last hundred years. The left is stripping him of all titles and honors because he won't bow down their views. I'm actually surprised that James Watson has the will to defy such powerful and dominant ideology.

    I presume this crowd is interested in the biological link between race and intelligence precisely because it undermines many left-wing political initiatives, which many have good resent to resent.

    James Watson is arguably the greatest living scientist and the greatest scientist of the last hundred years.

    Well, unfortunately for your racist propaganda, James Watson is 16% African and 4% Asian. And Einstein’s mother looked like this:

    • Replies: @BB753
    D'ya mean Einstein's mother was a man?
    , @Anonymous
    Was she Jewish? Doesn't look it.
    , @BB753
    Can you cite a genetic autosomal analysis of Watson?
    , @Anon
    She looks like an aborigine.
    , @Anonymous

    Well, unfortunately for your racist propaganda, James Watson is 16% African and 4% Asian.
     
    Even if true-there were those who figured Revilo Oliver had a touch of the tar brush in there too-it doesn't change the overall facts. Blacks have some good qualities but as a group can not run a modern civilization, and average 1 SD or more lower in cognitive levels.

    I always figured Ava Gardner had a little black in there. Didn't stop Frank.

    Carol Channing-a great actress that got fucked out of two key film roles (Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and Hello Dolly-was more than a touch black. Livet to ninetysomething, died a week or two ago. Was working into her eighties.

    Lots of blacks do well in entertainment and athletics, more have basically decent blue or working-white collar lives, but as a group they are a liability.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    And Einstein’s mother looked like this:
     
    And one of his two sons was schizo. The other one was smart and taught at Berkeley, and has been called "the world's foremost expert on sediment transport".

    Which is kind of what you're involved with, too, in a way.
    , @Massimo Heitor

    Well, unfortunately for your racist propaganda, James Watson is 16% African and 4% Asian. And Einstein’s mother looked like this:
     
    Am I writing racist propaganda? I love many black people in real life. I oppose meanness in general. There is a piece of this race/IQ argument that is mean towards black people that I oppose, even if it's true. There is a piece of the Economist type response that is also mean and vicious and from the broader left that I also oppose...
  76. @Mr. Anon

    (This is another in a long line of examples why I canceled by subscription to the Economist many years ago. The straw that broke the camel’s back for me was when Economist blamed Europeans for Africans piling into leaky boats and drowning in the Mediterranean.)
     
    I stopped reading the Economist when I realized that just about every single thing they wrote about America was wrong. I came to wonder if their "American correspondents" had ever actually even set foot in America. I then figured that the same probably applied to every other part of the Globe about which they always spoke in confident knowing tones.

    I gave up my subscription in the late ’90s as their perspective became recognizable as a monotone slant or bias. Their perspective had been unique in print media with deeper reporting and little hectoring, but they soon got aboard the globohomo (as Heartiste renders it) train.

    I doubt their American correspondents ventured outside the Acela corridor. As such, they were indistinguishable from the NYT, WaPo, et al.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Indeed, The Economist is now one of the leading organs of the Globohomo State. The ideal Economist reader - the reader for whom the whole magazine now seems to be written - would be a gay investment banker living in London.
  77. @ben tillman

    “African-Americans were less intelligent than white Americans and genetic differences between ethnicities played a role in the difference. Modern genetic research has largely discredited these ideas.”

    Isn’t this last sentence the exact opposite of what is going on today?
     
    Yeah, since 1871 all the science has supported the conclusion that blacks evolved to be less intelligent than whites (whether or not the concept of "genes" had yet entered the discussion). Everything to the contrary has been politically motivated falsehoods, including the last sentence you quote.

    Yeah, since 1871 all the science has supported the conclusion that blacks evolved to be less intelligent than whites

    Unfortunately for your delusion, black Americans have a higher IQ than all the “white caucasian” nations of the Middle East.

    Good luck reconciling that with your race fantasies….

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Unfortunately for your delusion, black Americans have a higher IQ than all the “white caucasian” nations of the Middle East.

    Good luck reconciling that with your race fantasies….
     

    Black Americans have a high proportion of White admixture.
    , @Lurker
    Your straw man is on fire there!
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Unfortunately for your delusion, black Americans have a higher IQ than all the “white caucasian” nations of the Middle East.

     

    Which is why Somalia fits just right in the Arab League. And why we don't want those "white caucasian" nations here, either.
  78. @ben tillman

    A lot of people seem to find this a persuasive argument . . . .
     
    I don't believe anyone finds that persuasive.

    If not a persuasive argument, then…a belief? Plenty of people appear to find it agreeable. Or are sympathetic to it, as an emotional consideration, i.e. they want it to be true.

    At least that’s my experience, YMMV.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    A lot of people find that belief agreeable, but that belief doesn't come from the cited "argument".
  79. @Bliss

    James Watson is arguably the greatest living scientist and the greatest scientist of the last hundred years.
     
    Well, unfortunately for your racist propaganda, James Watson is 16% African and 4% Asian. And Einstein’s mother looked like this:

    https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/pauline_koch.jpg

    D’ya mean Einstein’s mother was a man?

  80. @Bliss

    James Watson is arguably the greatest living scientist and the greatest scientist of the last hundred years.
     
    Well, unfortunately for your racist propaganda, James Watson is 16% African and 4% Asian. And Einstein’s mother looked like this:

    https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/pauline_koch.jpg

    Was she Jewish? Doesn’t look it.

  81. @Bliss

    James Watson is arguably the greatest living scientist and the greatest scientist of the last hundred years.
     
    Well, unfortunately for your racist propaganda, James Watson is 16% African and 4% Asian. And Einstein’s mother looked like this:

    https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/pauline_koch.jpg

    Can you cite a genetic autosomal analysis of Watson?

    • Replies: @Bliss
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/is-james-watson-black/

    Well, a correction is called for in my previous post. Watson is 9% asian, not 4% as I mis-remembered. So he is actually 25% non-white based on the analysis of his genome by deCODE Genetics.
  82. @rufus
    The tests are substantially bullshit.

    There is a trend to throw in African for genes that are found everywhere. You can be born and raised in the shetland islands for 15 gnerations and the commercial tests will tell you to believe you are 3 % african

    Of course to this day, virtually no one from Africa has ever been near the place.

    My 23andme was quite accurate. 100.0% Euro. Most people I shared with are 100% or 99.9% Euro.

    I haven’t done the other ones.

    Black ancestry isn’t common in US whites, but it does happen.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    My 23andme was quite accurate. 100.0% Euro. Most people I shared with are 100% or 99.9% Euro.
     
    Any Jewish? What was the Euro breakdown?
  83. @Lot
    My 23andme was quite accurate. 100.0% Euro. Most people I shared with are 100% or 99.9% Euro.

    I haven't done the other ones.

    Black ancestry isn't common in US whites, but it does happen.

    My 23andme was quite accurate. 100.0% Euro. Most people I shared with are 100% or 99.9% Euro.

    Any Jewish? What was the Euro breakdown?

  84. @Forbes
    https://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2019/01/image004-2.jpg?w=370&ssl=1

    I don’t get it. How is that supposed to make her not African-American? Who is supposed to find that convincing?

    • Replies: @M. Hartley
    The point is that righteous African Americans descended from American slaves. Their families have been in the USA since before the Civil War.
    , @Forbes
    What's the problem? Reading comprehension? It's a statement of facts and circumstances. If that doesn't inform you, that's on you.

    Plenty of things people won't be convinced of because they hold beliefs--religious, fantasy, spirit, myth, fictional, emotional, preference, et al. Or they're stubborn and resistant to facts. Again, that's on them.
    , @Kaganovitch
    Didn't you see, it said "Facts:"? What could be more persuasive than Facts:?
  85. @byrresheim
    The Left.

    The Economist as a leftist rag?

    Try again, please.

    (If you are unable or unwilling to correctly describe the problem, you will find it very hard to solve it)

    The Left.

    The Economist as a leftist rag?

    Try again, please.

    (If you are unable or unwilling to correctly describe the problem, you will find it very hard to solve it)

    Yes, The Economist is a Leftist rag. What do you prefer to call it, and why?

    • Replies: @Peter Johnson
    The Economist is dogmatically Globalist, but not Leftist. Not all Leftists have adopted Globalism, e.g., Jeremy Corbyn of the UK Labour Party is a Leftist but not really a committed Globalist. Some Globalists are right wing in their views on economic policy such as tax policy.
  86. @ben tillman
    I don't get it. How is that supposed to make her not African-American? Who is supposed to find that convincing?

    The point is that righteous African Americans descended from American slaves. Their families have been in the USA since before the Civil War.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    Black Jamaicans are descendants of American slaves. Yes, Jamaica is part of the Americas. Not that that matters, since she is in the "real" America now anyway and is still a descendant of slaves.
  87. @ben tillman

    The Left.

    The Economist as a leftist rag?

    Try again, please.

    (If you are unable or unwilling to correctly describe the problem, you will find it very hard to solve it)
     
    Yes, The Economist is a Leftist rag. What do you prefer to call it, and why?

    The Economist is dogmatically Globalist, but not Leftist. Not all Leftists have adopted Globalism, e.g., Jeremy Corbyn of the UK Labour Party is a Leftist but not really a committed Globalist. Some Globalists are right wing in their views on economic policy such as tax policy.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    The Economist is dogmatically Globalist, but not Leftist.
     
    How so? How is that possible? Empire is always "Left".
  88. @Bliss

    James Watson is arguably the greatest living scientist and the greatest scientist of the last hundred years.
     
    Well, unfortunately for your racist propaganda, James Watson is 16% African and 4% Asian. And Einstein’s mother looked like this:

    https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/pauline_koch.jpg

    She looks like an aborigine.

    • Replies: @Bliss

    She looks like an aborigine.
     
    She certainly doesn’t look European. Her daughter Maja, Einstein’s sister, sported a soft Afro aka jewfro.

    https://i.pinimg.com/236x/e4/5d/ff/e45dff5f9434720dad1b8fbed5dc4edf.jpg

    .......

    Albert Einstein belonged to Haplogroup E1b1b, which is of African origin:

    https://haplomaps.com/y-haplogroup-e/

    E1b1b is the most common E sub-clade amongst East African Maasai, Somalis, Eritreans, Ethiopians also North African Sudanese, Egyptians, Berbers and Arabs. It’s also common in Western Asia, from where it spread into the Balkans and then further into Europe.
  89. @Moses

    Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney, director of the European Bioinformatics Institute, in Cambridge, because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry.
     
    Genetics cannot be the main reason for IQ differences because not all humans fit neatly into 1 racial category?

    This is like saying "Dog breed cannot be any reason for different temperaments between individual dogs because some dogs are mixed breed."

    Gobbledygook nonsense.

    They're gonna need more cowbell to keep the doublethink straight on this one.

    Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney, director of the European Bioinformatics Institute, in Cambridge, because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry. “African-Americans have a substantial amount of European genetic ancestry—you should in fact call them ‘African-European-Americans’,” observes Dr Birney.

    Yeah Moses that popped for me too.

    The “cannot” there is just blitheringly stupid and illogical. It’s amazing–and depressing–that we have “scientists” who spout such openly illogical nonsense. It’s logic 101 that a failure of proof for something does not prove that it is false.

    Then his claim that “ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry”. In fact it actually does quite well. Sure mixes are mixed but so what. Accept that as a mixed ethnicity and move on.

    And then thirdly the point Steve makes. The mixed character of African-Americans would actually work to make Watson’s point about Africa … even stronger.

    And this guy is some big swinging dick? Geez, i realize these guys need to keep their heads down to avoid getting Watsoned, but seriously just lie in a way that is not grotesquely misleading and scientifically embarrassing: “We don’t yet know.”

    • Replies: @M. Hartley

    seriously just lie in a way that is not grotesquely misleading and scientifically embarrassing: “We don’t yet know.”
     
    You're looking for intellectual integrity while they're thinking about how to get their name in lights.

    Particularly for academics, who often labor in relative obscurity, the opportunity to collect MSM mentions can equal really nice things like tenure, endowed chairs, and endowed co-eds.
    , @jbwilson24
    "The “cannot” there is just blitheringly stupid and illogical. It’s amazing–and depressing–that we have “scientists” who spout such openly illogical nonsense. It’s logic 101 that a failure of proof for something does not prove that it is false."

    Well, from experience I have not been much impressed with biologists as far as logic goes. I've met many who didn't know the basic fallacies of deductive inference. My molecular genetics prof had to lecture her TAs on affirming the consequent, which is sad.

    As Vox Day stated, most biologists are butterfly counters. Their knowledge of inductive and deductive inference is so atrocious that the best they can do is tap out a few lines of code in R. I've never met one who knew even basic symbolic logic, let alone any more advanced system (e.g., predicate calculus). Same for probability theory, never met one who knew measure theory or more advanced probability/stats. At most they have a vague understanding of linear models.

    I think systems biologists are maybe the exception, as they often know differential equations and systems thinking. Most biologists are logic and math illiterates, in my experience.

  90. Anon[147] • Disclaimer says:

    Right, we can’t trust people to correctly identify themselves as black even if they look black, but we can trust people to correctly identify themselves as female even if they are 6’3″, 200 lbs., thick neck, broad shoulders, small hips and wears a beard. This is why I stopped reading TE years ago.

    The Economist has gotten so full of themselves they don’t even bother quoting sources anymore. It’s time for this 3rd rate Rothschild mouthpiece to correctly identify themselves as The Globalist.

  91. @Anonymous
    Do any of these articles on Watson reach out to Watson for comment. It would seem extraordinary if they didn't. A flagrant breach of standard journalistic methods.

    By the way, is this an authentic Watson account?

    https://www.twitter.com/JamesWatsonIQ

    Visiting there came this:

    Caution: This account is temporarily restricted

    You’re seeing this warning because there has been some unusual activity from this account. Do you still want to view it?

    I don’t know if that’s a point pro or contra its authenticity.

  92. @Mr. Anon

    (This is another in a long line of examples why I canceled by subscription to the Economist many years ago. The straw that broke the camel’s back for me was when Economist blamed Europeans for Africans piling into leaky boats and drowning in the Mediterranean.)
     
    I stopped reading the Economist when I realized that just about every single thing they wrote about America was wrong. I came to wonder if their "American correspondents" had ever actually even set foot in America. I then figured that the same probably applied to every other part of the Globe about which they always spoke in confident knowing tones.

    On 4chan a standard form response emerged: “you’re not talking about ‘America,’ you’re talking about ‘black people.’”

  93. @Stan d Mute

    probably the most important was the huge war in Congo that killed 10 million people. When I mention this, no one knows what I am talking about
     
    Perhaps because the single most important factor in media and politics (or second most important after the maxim “Jews have never had any agency in anything bad that happened to them”) - “nothing may ever reflect poorly on the degree of sophistication or civilization of the sacred Negro.”

    Nobody ever gets my references to General Butt Naked either. The concept of an African running around naked thinking he’s bulletproof because he dismembers and eats his enemies strikes just a bit too close to home for any media outlet (except Vice and I expect they’d memory hole it if they could) to touch upon. Any news from Africa or Haiti is always obfuscatatory and presented as if either a simple natural unavoidable disaster or as a result of evil whitey being racist against angelic Africans.

    I’m pretty sure these two maxims are the first and last things taught in Journalism Schools. Whitey is bad fulfills the balance of the syllabus.

    A great deal of Western admiration of Putin (which Acela corridor idiots find baffling enough to suggest magical Facebook ads) can be traced to a Trumpish remark he made about Africans eating each other. The lying press had a fit and, when Putin proved to be entirely correct, quietly slinked away.

  94. anon[490] • Disclaimer says:

    Doing 23andMe-style ethnic admixture tests on people taking IQ tests would likely increase the correlation between race and IQ.

    Here’s a new study from Kirkegaard et al. where they found a positive correlation between white ancestry and IQ in African Americans. See this graph in particular. Small sample, but significant (r=.30, see table 13).

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    This kind of study is very important because...

    a moment’s thought suggests it’s backwards from what they want it to imply. The fuzziness of racial self-identification almost certainly doesn’t inflate the correlation between race and IQ, it reduces it.
     
    ...Steve is only correct if we start from the assumption that IQ is primarily genetic and from the assumption that fractional Europeans are scoring higher. The comments he's criticizing would actually be correct if percent European ancestry wasn't correlated with IQ.

    If you had a group that was split in two based on self-identification but split in three based on admixture and the only discernable IQ gap correlated with self-identification, it would be valid to conclude the gap was not genetic, and Steve would be wrong.

    However, as you point to, the correlation is not with self-identification but with admixture.
  95. @ben tillman
    I don't get it. How is that supposed to make her not African-American? Who is supposed to find that convincing?

    What’s the problem? Reading comprehension? It’s a statement of facts and circumstances. If that doesn’t inform you, that’s on you.

    Plenty of things people won’t be convinced of because they hold beliefs–religious, fantasy, spirit, myth, fictional, emotional, preference, et al. Or they’re stubborn and resistant to facts. Again, that’s on them.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    She has African ancestry, and she's an American. That makes her African-American.
  96. @Massimo Heitor

    Slavery was not ended because whites thought blacks were of equal intelligence to whites.
     
    Slavery was ended because it is morally wrong.


    Deep down everyone still knows they are not. I would not be so sure that blacks would cease to get affirmative action if Watson was accepted to be articulating a scientific fact.
     
    So, not just deep down, on the surface, I see some obvious truths. I have a strong recoil to meanness. Even if demographic X scores low on aptitude tests, I don't want to publicly harp on that, or make that group feel bad or insult them. I believe in truth, but I also believe in constructive goals and helping others.

    I would bet against affirmative action surviving. I would also bet on the political left playing dirty regardless of whatever science says.

    Immigration is the ultimate form of affirmative action, and it is a type of class war.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Immigration is the ultimate form of affirmative action, and it is a type of class war.
     
    Affirmative action for whom?
  97. @AnotherDad

    Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney, director of the European Bioinformatics Institute, in Cambridge, because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry. “African-Americans have a substantial amount of European genetic ancestry—you should in fact call them ‘African-European-Americans’,” observes Dr Birney.
     
    Yeah Moses that popped for me too.

    The "cannot" there is just blitheringly stupid and illogical. It's amazing--and depressing--that we have "scientists" who spout such openly illogical nonsense. It's logic 101 that a failure of proof for something does not prove that it is false.

    Then his claim that "ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry". In fact it actually does quite well. Sure mixes are mixed but so what. Accept that as a mixed ethnicity and move on.

    And then thirdly the point Steve makes. The mixed character of African-Americans would actually work to make Watson's point about Africa ... even stronger.

    And this guy is some big swinging dick? Geez, i realize these guys need to keep their heads down to avoid getting Watsoned, but seriously just lie in a way that is not grotesquely misleading and scientifically embarrassing: "We don't yet know."

    seriously just lie in a way that is not grotesquely misleading and scientifically embarrassing: “We don’t yet know.”

    You’re looking for intellectual integrity while they’re thinking about how to get their name in lights.

    Particularly for academics, who often labor in relative obscurity, the opportunity to collect MSM mentions can equal really nice things like tenure, endowed chairs, and endowed co-eds.

  98. 23andMe-style ethnic admixture tests on people taking IQ tests would likely increase the correlation between race and IQ

    Highly highly unlikely that anyone in the West would ever undergo such an undertaking. The personal risk to anyone conducting the study or underwriting it, is far to great.

    Otherwise, it would cast a great deal of light on HBD.

    • Agree: Peter Johnson
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Highly highly unlikely that anyone in the West would ever undergo such an undertaking. The personal risk to anyone conducting the study or underwriting it, is far to great.

    Otherwise, it would cast a great deal of light on HBD.
     
    Could some independent person (like Steve) do it on their own? What resources would it take?
  99. @Massimo Heitor

    Slavery was not ended because whites thought blacks were of equal intelligence to whites.
     
    Slavery was ended because it is morally wrong.


    Deep down everyone still knows they are not. I would not be so sure that blacks would cease to get affirmative action if Watson was accepted to be articulating a scientific fact.
     
    So, not just deep down, on the surface, I see some obvious truths. I have a strong recoil to meanness. Even if demographic X scores low on aptitude tests, I don't want to publicly harp on that, or make that group feel bad or insult them. I believe in truth, but I also believe in constructive goals and helping others.

    I would bet against affirmative action surviving. I would also bet on the political left playing dirty regardless of whatever science says.

    “I have a strong recoil to meanness. Even if demographic X scores low on aptitude tests, I don’t want to publicly harp on that, or make that group feel bad or insult them.”

    Agree entirely, and I believe any reasonable, intelligent, caring person would feel the same way.

    But we’re talking about reducing the expectations of many who have come to believe that the ONLY reason they cannot “get ahead” is because of the racist system. Because if everyone is the same. or at least has the same potential to achieve success, what other reason could there be?

    So we’ve spent the last 50+ years denying reality while promising unachievable results to demographic X.

    Who’s to blame for this “error”, which has cost us trillions BTW? All so we could avoid telling the hard truth and ultimately leading to false expectations for untold millions.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    What if there is no thing, nice or mean, that we can ever do to break the faith of the miserable in their modified dolchstosslegende? We can switch off the gibs and police the ghetto, but they will be teaching their children forever to resent us.
    , @Massimo Heitor

    Agree entirely, and I believe any reasonable, intelligent, caring person would feel the same way.
     
    This is the type of moral neo-reactionary that I like.

    But we’re talking about reducing the expectations of many who have come to believe that the ONLY reason they cannot “get ahead” is because of the racist system. Because if everyone is the same. or at least has the same potential to achieve success, what other reason could there be?

     

    Right. So, I see lots of political propaganda blaming the problems of black people on white people. White people should resent that and they do. And resentful white people are drawn to this racial IQ argument as a retaliation to the propaganda. I'm sympathetic to white people who are often guilted by a dominant political culture in government run schools. I'm also sympathetic to black people who don't want to be insulted about their racial IQ. Both are absolutely compatible.

    I see the Economist as a bully here. They are applying political pressures to the world of science and education. They are obviously bullying James Watson, who is famous enough to not feel bad for. But they are also intimidating others away from a certain viewpoint.

    So we’ve spent the last 50+ years denying reality while promising unachievable results to demographic X.

     

    This is a mistake. This *we* is imaginary. I haven't been alive for fifty years. And of the years I have been alive, I'm not denying reality or promising unachievable results to anyone.


    Who’s to blame for this “error”, which has cost us trillions BTW? All so we could avoid telling the hard truth and ultimately leading to false expectations for untold millions.
     
    Who is wasting millions/trillions? If someone is making you waste money, then you are justified in fighting it.
  100. Here is yet another study bearing out frequently attested and widely known yet forbidden knowledge. Recall the woman on twitter who observed that, if a guy rapes her but he’s hot and rich, he’s getting her phone number, or the joke about Fifty Shades books that if the sadist character was not a billionaire they would be a follow-on to Silence of the Lambs.
    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/reconsidered-rape/

    Executive Summary: [High Sexual Market Value] alpha males are given a rape pass, [Low SMV] beta and omega males get the book thrown at them for daring to look below a girl’s chin.

    Relevance: are they going after Watson and not, say, Pinker, because Watson is no longer useful to them? Are there proposed attacks on Pinker that are squashed because Pinker is not yet ready to be retired?

    • Replies: @Peter Johnson
    Sorry to disagree but I believe that you are wrong in this. Pinker is much, much more careful and circumspect in what he admits publicly about HBD, whereas Watson has always been known (his whole career) as a tactless loudmouth. That is the reason for their disparate treatment, not a female conspiracy based on their hair-dos and relative sex appeal. We need people like Watson to have the temerity to shake things up, and people like Pinker to work quietly undercover!
  101. @ben tillman
    I don't get it. How is that supposed to make her not African-American? Who is supposed to find that convincing?

    Didn’t you see, it said “Facts:”? What could be more persuasive than Facts:?

  102. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bliss

    James Watson is arguably the greatest living scientist and the greatest scientist of the last hundred years.
     
    Well, unfortunately for your racist propaganda, James Watson is 16% African and 4% Asian. And Einstein’s mother looked like this:

    https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/pauline_koch.jpg

    Well, unfortunately for your racist propaganda, James Watson is 16% African and 4% Asian.

    Even if true-there were those who figured Revilo Oliver had a touch of the tar brush in there too-it doesn’t change the overall facts. Blacks have some good qualities but as a group can not run a modern civilization, and average 1 SD or more lower in cognitive levels.

    I always figured Ava Gardner had a little black in there. Didn’t stop Frank.

    Carol Channing-a great actress that got fucked out of two key film roles (Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and Hello Dolly-was more than a touch black. Livet to ninetysomething, died a week or two ago. Was working into her eighties.

    Lots of blacks do well in entertainment and athletics, more have basically decent blue or working-white collar lives, but as a group they are a liability.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Carol Channing-a great actress that got fucked out of two key film roles (Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and Hello Dolly-was more than a touch black. Livet to ninetysomething, died a week or two ago...
     
    ...just shy of her 98th birthday. Doris Day is still going at 96. For the more literarily inclined, Beverly Cleary is still kicking at 102. So is Kirk Douglas.
  103. @Bliss

    James Watson is arguably the greatest living scientist and the greatest scientist of the last hundred years.
     
    Well, unfortunately for your racist propaganda, James Watson is 16% African and 4% Asian. And Einstein’s mother looked like this:

    https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/pauline_koch.jpg

    And Einstein’s mother looked like this:

    And one of his two sons was schizo. The other one was smart and taught at Berkeley, and has been called “the world’s foremost expert on sediment transport”.

    Which is kind of what you’re involved with, too, in a way.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    There is sediment rotting in the river deltas!
  104. @Anonymous

    Well, unfortunately for your racist propaganda, James Watson is 16% African and 4% Asian.
     
    Even if true-there were those who figured Revilo Oliver had a touch of the tar brush in there too-it doesn't change the overall facts. Blacks have some good qualities but as a group can not run a modern civilization, and average 1 SD or more lower in cognitive levels.

    I always figured Ava Gardner had a little black in there. Didn't stop Frank.

    Carol Channing-a great actress that got fucked out of two key film roles (Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and Hello Dolly-was more than a touch black. Livet to ninetysomething, died a week or two ago. Was working into her eighties.

    Lots of blacks do well in entertainment and athletics, more have basically decent blue or working-white collar lives, but as a group they are a liability.

    Carol Channing-a great actress that got fucked out of two key film roles (Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and Hello Dolly-was more than a touch black. Livet to ninetysomething, died a week or two ago…

    …just shy of her 98th birthday. Doris Day is still going at 96. For the more literarily inclined, Beverly Cleary is still kicking at 102. So is Kirk Douglas.

  105. @Sean
    Immigration is the ultimate form of affirmative action, and it is a type of class war.

    Immigration is the ultimate form of affirmative action, and it is a type of class war.

    Affirmative action for whom?

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    For the immigrants. They are "underrepresented" in our country, so the government brings them here in the same way that a business brings in members of "underrepresented" groups.

    When Asians complain about affirmative action in college admissions, they're being stupid or dishonest ethnoactivists. Their very presence in this country is affirmative action writ large.
    , @Sean
    Borders and nationality have disparate racial impact. It is not usually put like that by jurists, but the principle is implicit in much of what they say.
  106. Anonymous[204] • Disclaimer says:
    @George Taylor

    23andMe-style ethnic admixture tests on people taking IQ tests would likely increase the correlation between race and IQ
     
    Highly highly unlikely that anyone in the West would ever undergo such an undertaking. The personal risk to anyone conducting the study or underwriting it, is far to great.

    Otherwise, it would cast a great deal of light on HBD.

    Highly highly unlikely that anyone in the West would ever undergo such an undertaking. The personal risk to anyone conducting the study or underwriting it, is far to great.

    Otherwise, it would cast a great deal of light on HBD.

    Could some independent person (like Steve) do it on their own? What resources would it take?

  107. @Mr. Anon

    (This is another in a long line of examples why I canceled by subscription to the Economist many years ago. The straw that broke the camel’s back for me was when Economist blamed Europeans for Africans piling into leaky boats and drowning in the Mediterranean.)
     
    I stopped reading the Economist when I realized that just about every single thing they wrote about America was wrong. I came to wonder if their "American correspondents" had ever actually even set foot in America. I then figured that the same probably applied to every other part of the Globe about which they always spoke in confident knowing tones.

    I have long noticed that the better I know a subject, the more I see that media are wrong about it. There should be a Sailerean law for this.

    • Replies: @res
    What you describe is related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect
    , @Lurker
    “Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true except for the rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge.”
  108. @Forbes
    https://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2019/01/image004-2.jpg?w=370&ssl=1

    True , but she is much more similar to American Blacks than Obama and less white than Obama.
    Her African DNA most likely came from western African slaves , like Black Americans.

  109. @Colin Wright
    What's sad isn't that this sort of thing is willfully foolish bilge; it's that this willfully foolish bilge now appears in what were once intelligent journals and newspapers.

    When was the Economist last an “intelligent journal”?

    It might have been once, but that was decades ago.

  110. @Lot
    "because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry. "

    That reminds me of my friend who is a self-identified Korean-American. He took 23andme, and turns out he's genetically half Polish and half Irish! Happens all the time people have no idea what continental racial grouping their genes come from.

    The tests are not extremely reliable and depend on the accumulated people in their database. Certain groups such as South East Asians and others often receive genetic profiles that are laughable. Add a little political correctness and you get the results they want…not what is actually present.

  111. @Forbes
    What's the problem? Reading comprehension? It's a statement of facts and circumstances. If that doesn't inform you, that's on you.

    Plenty of things people won't be convinced of because they hold beliefs--religious, fantasy, spirit, myth, fictional, emotional, preference, et al. Or they're stubborn and resistant to facts. Again, that's on them.

    She has African ancestry, and she’s an American. That makes her African-American.

  112. @Anonymous

    Immigration is the ultimate form of affirmative action, and it is a type of class war.
     
    Affirmative action for whom?

    For the immigrants. They are “underrepresented” in our country, so the government brings them here in the same way that a business brings in members of “underrepresented” groups.

    When Asians complain about affirmative action in college admissions, they’re being stupid or dishonest ethnoactivists. Their very presence in this country is affirmative action writ large.

  113. @M. Hartley
    The point is that righteous African Americans descended from American slaves. Their families have been in the USA since before the Civil War.

    Black Jamaicans are descendants of American slaves. Yes, Jamaica is part of the Americas. Not that that matters, since she is in the “real” America now anyway and is still a descendant of slaves.

  114. @Peter Johnson
    The Economist is dogmatically Globalist, but not Leftist. Not all Leftists have adopted Globalism, e.g., Jeremy Corbyn of the UK Labour Party is a Leftist but not really a committed Globalist. Some Globalists are right wing in their views on economic policy such as tax policy.

    The Economist is dogmatically Globalist, but not Leftist.

    How so? How is that possible? Empire is always “Left”.

    • Replies: @unpc downunder
    Without qualifiers, "left" and "right" are pretty meaningless terms, since they have no predictive power. If someone says they are "on the right," that could mean they are an open borders libertarian, or a nationalist who believes in a whites only immigration policy. On the other hand, more precise terms like "economic right" and cultural left" are much more predictive. If someone says they are on the "economic right" it is highly unlikely they believe in high taxes and generous welfare spending. If someone is on the "cultural left" it is highly unlikely they believe in outlawing gay marriage or abortion.
  115. @Forbes
    If not a persuasive argument, then...a belief? Plenty of people appear to find it agreeable. Or are sympathetic to it, as an emotional consideration, i.e. they want it to be true.

    At least that's my experience, YMMV.

    A lot of people find that belief agreeable, but that belief doesn’t come from the cited “argument”.

  116. @Bliss

    Yeah, since 1871 all the science has supported the conclusion that blacks evolved to be less intelligent than whites
     
    Unfortunately for your delusion, black Americans have a higher IQ than all the “white caucasian” nations of the Middle East.

    Good luck reconciling that with your race fantasies....

    Unfortunately for your delusion, black Americans have a higher IQ than all the “white caucasian” nations of the Middle East.

    Good luck reconciling that with your race fantasies….

    Black Americans have a high proportion of White admixture.

    • Replies: @Bliss

    Black Americans have a high proportion of White admixture.
     
    Black Americans are on average ~20% white. So how do you reconcile 80% Africans having higher IQ than all the nations of the Middle East, such as Iran, Lebanon, Syria etc, which are far less African?

    Sierra Leone in West Africa which is almost 100% black african has an IQ higher than 4 European nations, all of MENA, all of South Asia, all but 2 of Latin America. How does that fit into the racist narrative?
  117. @Roland
    I have long noticed that the better I know a subject, the more I see that media are wrong about it. There should be a Sailerean law for this.
  118. @byrresheim
    The Left.

    The Economist as a leftist rag?

    Try again, please.

    (If you are unable or unwilling to correctly describe the problem, you will find it very hard to solve it)

    The Left.

    The Economist as a leftist rag?

    Try again, please.

    The real life friends I know that read the Economist are fanatical Democrats. The Economist has strongly endorsed the Democratic Presidential candidate in the last four US Presidential election cycles.

    Clearly, on racial issues like this, they are left. But more moderate than many radical leftists.

    On immigration, The Economist is fanatically open borders, however the immigration issue doesn’t fall on the traditional left-right scale. CATO and many libertarians also support a similar position and I wouldn’t categorize those as left.

    The Economist is generally pro-market. They aren’t the Bernie Sanders or AOC left. On health care, a quick cursory look shows they lean slightly left, although I haven’t investigated this heavily.

    I think left is a reasonable categorization for The Economist that many would agree with. Categorizations, however, are always subjective.

  119. @Bliss

    James Watson is arguably the greatest living scientist and the greatest scientist of the last hundred years.
     
    Well, unfortunately for your racist propaganda, James Watson is 16% African and 4% Asian. And Einstein’s mother looked like this:

    https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/pauline_koch.jpg

    Well, unfortunately for your racist propaganda, James Watson is 16% African and 4% Asian. And Einstein’s mother looked like this:

    Am I writing racist propaganda? I love many black people in real life. I oppose meanness in general. There is a piece of this race/IQ argument that is mean towards black people that I oppose, even if it’s true. There is a piece of the Economist type response that is also mean and vicious and from the broader left that I also oppose…

  120. @gda
    "I have a strong recoil to meanness. Even if demographic X scores low on aptitude tests, I don’t want to publicly harp on that, or make that group feel bad or insult them."

    Agree entirely, and I believe any reasonable, intelligent, caring person would feel the same way.

    But we're talking about reducing the expectations of many who have come to believe that the ONLY reason they cannot "get ahead" is because of the racist system. Because if everyone is the same. or at least has the same potential to achieve success, what other reason could there be?

    So we've spent the last 50+ years denying reality while promising unachievable results to demographic X.

    Who's to blame for this "error", which has cost us trillions BTW? All so we could avoid telling the hard truth and ultimately leading to false expectations for untold millions.

    What if there is no thing, nice or mean, that we can ever do to break the faith of the miserable in their modified dolchstosslegende? We can switch off the gibs and police the ghetto, but they will be teaching their children forever to resent us.

  121. @gda
    "I have a strong recoil to meanness. Even if demographic X scores low on aptitude tests, I don’t want to publicly harp on that, or make that group feel bad or insult them."

    Agree entirely, and I believe any reasonable, intelligent, caring person would feel the same way.

    But we're talking about reducing the expectations of many who have come to believe that the ONLY reason they cannot "get ahead" is because of the racist system. Because if everyone is the same. or at least has the same potential to achieve success, what other reason could there be?

    So we've spent the last 50+ years denying reality while promising unachievable results to demographic X.

    Who's to blame for this "error", which has cost us trillions BTW? All so we could avoid telling the hard truth and ultimately leading to false expectations for untold millions.

    Agree entirely, and I believe any reasonable, intelligent, caring person would feel the same way.

    This is the type of moral neo-reactionary that I like.

    But we’re talking about reducing the expectations of many who have come to believe that the ONLY reason they cannot “get ahead” is because of the racist system. Because if everyone is the same. or at least has the same potential to achieve success, what other reason could there be?

    Right. So, I see lots of political propaganda blaming the problems of black people on white people. White people should resent that and they do. And resentful white people are drawn to this racial IQ argument as a retaliation to the propaganda. I’m sympathetic to white people who are often guilted by a dominant political culture in government run schools. I’m also sympathetic to black people who don’t want to be insulted about their racial IQ. Both are absolutely compatible.

    I see the Economist as a bully here. They are applying political pressures to the world of science and education. They are obviously bullying James Watson, who is famous enough to not feel bad for. But they are also intimidating others away from a certain viewpoint.

    So we’ve spent the last 50+ years denying reality while promising unachievable results to demographic X.

    This is a mistake. This *we* is imaginary. I haven’t been alive for fifty years. And of the years I have been alive, I’m not denying reality or promising unachievable results to anyone.

    Who’s to blame for this “error”, which has cost us trillions BTW? All so we could avoid telling the hard truth and ultimately leading to false expectations for untold millions.

    Who is wasting millions/trillions? If someone is making you waste money, then you are justified in fighting it.

  122. @anonymous
    There's a substantial distinction between the quoted words:

    > “African-Americans have a substantial amount of European genetic ancestry—you should in fact call them ‘African-European-Americans’,” observes Dr Birney.

    and the preceding paraphrase:

    > Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney[.]

    I wonder what Dr. Birney actually said to the Economist.

    Much of what appears in Establishment media is grade B+ dissembling. The goal is to gull the readers. But this also allows the interviewee later to Facecriminally wince outside public view and feel relieved of responsibility for the lynching of a target like Dr. Watson, while the "journalist" can tell himself that he's merely reported what someone above his pay grade thinks. One hand dirties the other.

    This system of cowardly lying both to oneself and others is essential to replacing facts with Truth.

    One hand dirties the other.

    As long as we’re putting excerpts on plaques…

  123. @BB753
    Can you cite a genetic autosomal analysis of Watson?

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/is-james-watson-black/

    Well, a correction is called for in my previous post. Watson is 9% asian, not 4% as I mis-remembered. So he is actually 25% non-white based on the analysis of his genome by deCODE Genetics.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Which was almost certainly wrong.
    , @BB753
    So why aren't they cutting some slack for a scientist of color?
  124. @Bryan
    Disturbing, like a lot of things these days. Either the Economist boys are really stupid enough to think they wrote a coherent sentence, or they're corrupt enough not to care.

    If it's the first, then it's just another example of our elites not being so elite. We need to replace them with a different elite.

    It’s just another example of our elites not being so elite. We need to replace them with a different elite.

    See, we’re not the only Americans who can be painlessly replaced. An idea whose time has come!

  125. @ben tillman

    The Economist is dogmatically Globalist, but not Leftist.
     
    How so? How is that possible? Empire is always "Left".

    Without qualifiers, “left” and “right” are pretty meaningless terms, since they have no predictive power. If someone says they are “on the right,” that could mean they are an open borders libertarian, or a nationalist who believes in a whites only immigration policy. On the other hand, more precise terms like “economic right” and cultural left” are much more predictive. If someone says they are on the “economic right” it is highly unlikely they believe in high taxes and generous welfare spending. If someone is on the “cultural left” it is highly unlikely they believe in outlawing gay marriage or abortion.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    Yes, I'm trying to fix the confusion after Steve started the process of clearing things up.
  126. @Hypnotoad666
    Per Chomsky:

    In a non-racist society, the category of race would be of no greater significance [than height].
     
    He's right. If we were a "colorblind" society people could be sorted for merit without any reference to their racial category.

    But we are a profoundly "racist" society because we distribute resources according to the false racial theory that all differences in outcomes must be caused by unfair racism, and must therefore be reversed by a countervailing form of "fair" racism.

    Proof of the underlying biological differences is the only way to defend against this redistributive racism. So, of course, that defense must be banned.

    And if Chomsky doesn’t understand this, he’s either a lot less intelligent than I thiink he is or is just playing dumb for ideological reasons.

  127. @J.Ross
    Here is yet another study bearing out frequently attested and widely known yet forbidden knowledge. Recall the woman on twitter who observed that, if a guy rapes her but he's hot and rich, he's getting her phone number, or the joke about Fifty Shades books that if the sadist character was not a billionaire they would be a follow-on to Silence of the Lambs.
    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/reconsidered-rape/

    Executive Summary: [High Sexual Market Value] alpha males are given a rape pass, [Low SMV] beta and omega males get the book thrown at them for daring to look below a girl’s chin.
     
    Relevance: are they going after Watson and not, say, Pinker, because Watson is no longer useful to them? Are there proposed attacks on Pinker that are squashed because Pinker is not yet ready to be retired?

    Sorry to disagree but I believe that you are wrong in this. Pinker is much, much more careful and circumspect in what he admits publicly about HBD, whereas Watson has always been known (his whole career) as a tactless loudmouth. That is the reason for their disparate treatment, not a female conspiracy based on their hair-dos and relative sex appeal. We need people like Watson to have the temerity to shake things up, and people like Pinker to work quietly undercover!

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    That's very possible and many have pointed that out. But the damn thing moves, doesn't it? What is acceptable now will not be acceptable in a few years. Pinker will eventually be enjoying Victory gin with complementary bitters. I predict this will only be after some retirement or signal of limited usefulness. If I could prove it, this would show that the whole thing is programmatic and hypocritical. Larry Summers was "taken out" while in a "retirement gig."
    , @Chrisnonymous
    I think Watson is primarily being targeted for his comment about black employees.

    He said a thing that reflects the lived experience of many people, but it was not a scientific statement. And more importantly, it connected the rarefied world of genetic and psychological research with the kind of speaking people used to do before the Civil Rights movement. Pinker never makes comments like that.
  128. @Anonymous

    I never read it that much for their US coverage (although when Michael Kinsley was American editor in the 90’s it was fun).
     
    Kindley was American editor of the Economist? You sure?

    I had a Japanese friend who I asked about their coverage and she told me it was pretty good.
     
    Their coverage of what? What is the relevance of your Japanese friend?

    I took that to mean that their coverage of Japanese matters was good. Or seen as good by the Japanese friend.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You are probably right. But that conflicts with the theme of people who know a subject best finding coverage of that subject substandard.
  129. @AnotherDad

    Genetics, however, cannot be the main reason for any observed differences, says Ewan Birney, director of the European Bioinformatics Institute, in Cambridge, because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry. “African-Americans have a substantial amount of European genetic ancestry—you should in fact call them ‘African-European-Americans’,” observes Dr Birney.
     
    Yeah Moses that popped for me too.

    The "cannot" there is just blitheringly stupid and illogical. It's amazing--and depressing--that we have "scientists" who spout such openly illogical nonsense. It's logic 101 that a failure of proof for something does not prove that it is false.

    Then his claim that "ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry". In fact it actually does quite well. Sure mixes are mixed but so what. Accept that as a mixed ethnicity and move on.

    And then thirdly the point Steve makes. The mixed character of African-Americans would actually work to make Watson's point about Africa ... even stronger.

    And this guy is some big swinging dick? Geez, i realize these guys need to keep their heads down to avoid getting Watsoned, but seriously just lie in a way that is not grotesquely misleading and scientifically embarrassing: "We don't yet know."

    “The “cannot” there is just blitheringly stupid and illogical. It’s amazing–and depressing–that we have “scientists” who spout such openly illogical nonsense. It’s logic 101 that a failure of proof for something does not prove that it is false.”

    Well, from experience I have not been much impressed with biologists as far as logic goes. I’ve met many who didn’t know the basic fallacies of deductive inference. My molecular genetics prof had to lecture her TAs on affirming the consequent, which is sad.

    As Vox Day stated, most biologists are butterfly counters. Their knowledge of inductive and deductive inference is so atrocious that the best they can do is tap out a few lines of code in R. I’ve never met one who knew even basic symbolic logic, let alone any more advanced system (e.g., predicate calculus). Same for probability theory, never met one who knew measure theory or more advanced probability/stats. At most they have a vague understanding of linear models.

    I think systems biologists are maybe the exception, as they often know differential equations and systems thinking. Most biologists are logic and math illiterates, in my experience.

  130. @Roland
    I have long noticed that the better I know a subject, the more I see that media are wrong about it. There should be a Sailerean law for this.

    “Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true except for the rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge.”

  131. @Reg Cæsar

    And Einstein’s mother looked like this:
     
    And one of his two sons was schizo. The other one was smart and taught at Berkeley, and has been called "the world's foremost expert on sediment transport".

    Which is kind of what you're involved with, too, in a way.

    There is sediment rotting in the river deltas!

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    There is sediment rotting in the river deltas!

     

    I couldn't care loess.
  132. @Bliss

    Yeah, since 1871 all the science has supported the conclusion that blacks evolved to be less intelligent than whites
     
    Unfortunately for your delusion, black Americans have a higher IQ than all the “white caucasian” nations of the Middle East.

    Good luck reconciling that with your race fantasies....

    Your straw man is on fire there!

  133. @Anon
    She looks like an aborigine.

    She looks like an aborigine.

    She certainly doesn’t look European. Her daughter Maja, Einstein’s sister, sported a soft Afro aka jewfro.

    …….

    Albert Einstein belonged to Haplogroup E1b1b, which is of African origin:

    https://haplomaps.com/y-haplogroup-e/

    E1b1b is the most common E sub-clade amongst East African Maasai, Somalis, Eritreans, Ethiopians also North African Sudanese, Egyptians, Berbers and Arabs. It’s also common in Western Asia, from where it spread into the Balkans and then further into Europe.

  134. @Bliss
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/is-james-watson-black/

    Well, a correction is called for in my previous post. Watson is 9% asian, not 4% as I mis-remembered. So he is actually 25% non-white based on the analysis of his genome by deCODE Genetics.

    Which was almost certainly wrong.

    • Replies: @Bliss

    Which was almost certainly wrong.
     
    How could it be “almost certainly wrong” when it is so easy to prove it certainly wrong but no one has done it?

    His beloved grandmother certainly looked mixed race...
  135. @Lurker
    There is sediment rotting in the river deltas!

    There is sediment rotting in the river deltas!

    I couldn’t care loess.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    As an Iowan, I get that one, Reg.

    You're on a roll today.
    , @Stan d Mute

    I couldn’t care loess.
     
    Brilliant. I’d give an LOL, but I’m maxed out at the moment.

    BTW did anybody else know you can also max out on “commenters to follow” and “commenters to ignore”?
    , @Ozymandias
    Gneiss one. Finer than your usual schist.
  136. @Anonymous

    Unfortunately for your delusion, black Americans have a higher IQ than all the “white caucasian” nations of the Middle East.

    Good luck reconciling that with your race fantasies….
     

    Black Americans have a high proportion of White admixture.

    Black Americans have a high proportion of White admixture.

    Black Americans are on average ~20% white. So how do you reconcile 80% Africans having higher IQ than all the nations of the Middle East, such as Iran, Lebanon, Syria etc, which are far less African?

    Sierra Leone in West Africa which is almost 100% black african has an IQ higher than 4 European nations, all of MENA, all of South Asia, all but 2 of Latin America. How does that fit into the racist narrative?

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Black Americans are on average ~20% white. So how do you reconcile 80% Africans having higher IQ than all the nations of the Middle East, such as Iran, Lebanon, Syria etc, which are far less African?
     
    And Whites are about 4% Neanderthal, for example. Apparently, a small amount of admixture can make a big difference.
  137. @Bliss
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/is-james-watson-black/

    Well, a correction is called for in my previous post. Watson is 9% asian, not 4% as I mis-remembered. So he is actually 25% non-white based on the analysis of his genome by deCODE Genetics.

    So why aren’t they cutting some slack for a scientist of color?

    • LOL: Bliss
  138. @Steve Sailer
    Which was almost certainly wrong.

    Which was almost certainly wrong.

    How could it be “almost certainly wrong” when it is so easy to prove it certainly wrong but no one has done it?

    His beloved grandmother certainly looked mixed race…

  139. @Forbes
    https://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2019/01/image004-2.jpg?w=370&ssl=1

    Kamala needs better weaves or a different hair-stylist.

  140. @Peter Johnson
    Sorry to disagree but I believe that you are wrong in this. Pinker is much, much more careful and circumspect in what he admits publicly about HBD, whereas Watson has always been known (his whole career) as a tactless loudmouth. That is the reason for their disparate treatment, not a female conspiracy based on their hair-dos and relative sex appeal. We need people like Watson to have the temerity to shake things up, and people like Pinker to work quietly undercover!

    That’s very possible and many have pointed that out. But the damn thing moves, doesn’t it? What is acceptable now will not be acceptable in a few years. Pinker will eventually be enjoying Victory gin with complementary bitters. I predict this will only be after some retirement or signal of limited usefulness. If I could prove it, this would show that the whole thing is programmatic and hypocritical. Larry Summers was “taken out” while in a “retirement gig.”

  141. @Reg Cæsar

    There is sediment rotting in the river deltas!

     

    I couldn't care loess.

    As an Iowan, I get that one, Reg.

    You’re on a roll today.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    As an Iowan, I get that one, Reg.
     
    The other end of northern Iowa is in the Driftless, so they probably wouldn't.
  142. By all accounts James Watson is an equal opportunity jerk. This guy has collected a bunch of his offensive statements, here’s a few:

    https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2018/05/18/james-watson-in-his-own-words/

    “Disabled individuals are genetic losers”

    “If we knew our son would develop schizophrenia, we wouldn’t have had him”

    “My former colleagues are pinkos and shits”

    “[X University]- it used to be such a wonderful place. And then they started admitting women!”

    “East Asian students [tend] to be conformist, because of selection for conformity in ancient Chinese society”

    “[Linus Pauling] was probably always half-insane”

    “[Rosalind Franklin] was a loser”

    “The wider your face, the more likely you are [to be violent].. Senator Jim Webb has the broadest face I’ve ever seen on any man”

    “[The] historic curse of the Irish.. is not alcohol, it’s not stupidity.. it’s ignorance”

    “[Rosalind Franklin] had Aspergers”

    “People ask about [Rosalind Franklin] and I always say ‘autism’”

    “[Francis Crick] may have been a bit autistic”

    “Indians in [my] experience [are] servile.. because of selection under the caste system”

    “People who have to deal with black employees find [that they are equal] not true”

    “Some anti-Semitism is justified”

    “Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them”

    “Japan should be bombed for dragging its feet on supporting the Human Genome Project”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    What is "jerk-like" about any of those statements?
    , @Massimo Heitor

    By all accounts James Watson is an equal opportunity jerk. This guy has collected a bunch of his offensive statements, here’s a few:
     
    Those are funny, witty, and they are inappropriate for a leader figure, especially in that cherry picked format.

    Here's a 2007 interview with him:
    https://youtu.be/QPQKHckwqEM

    He sounds much more kind, moderate, reasonable, but also witty and edgy and funny. The first question said he should be a stand up comedian.
  143. @Forbes
    I gave up my subscription in the late '90s as their perspective became recognizable as a monotone slant or bias. Their perspective had been unique in print media with deeper reporting and little hectoring, but they soon got aboard the globohomo (as Heartiste renders it) train.

    I doubt their American correspondents ventured outside the Acela corridor. As such, they were indistinguishable from the NYT, WaPo, et al.

    Indeed, The Economist is now one of the leading organs of the Globohomo State. The ideal Economist reader – the reader for whom the whole magazine now seems to be written – would be a gay investment banker living in London.

  144. @Henry Canaday
    "The fuzziness of racial self-identification almost certainly doesn’t inflate the correlation between race and IQ, it reduces it."

    You are thinking of random errors in self-identification, which would indeed understate the correlation. But what if smarter people consistently tended to mis-identify as white, and dumber people consistently and falsely thought of themselves as black? That would indeed overstate the correlation.

    Is that possible? Perhaps in a largely mixed-race population, where the identity choice was hard and stereotypes very powerful.

    Dear Henry:

    Yes, good point.

    Kirkegaard’s next paper has a graph of genetic admixture and IQ for 1369 children. There just aren’t that many people in the mid range. I’ll post it pretty soon.

  145. Steve,

    To understand Watson you’ve got to understand that he is proud to claim one-quarter Irish heritage. One of the tip-offs was that his mother was an active but non-Catholic member of Chicago’s Irish-American political machine!

  146. @Lurker
    I took that to mean that their coverage of Japanese matters was good. Or seen as good by the Japanese friend.

    You are probably right. But that conflicts with the theme of people who know a subject best finding coverage of that subject substandard.

  147. Anonymous[168] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bliss

    Black Americans have a high proportion of White admixture.
     
    Black Americans are on average ~20% white. So how do you reconcile 80% Africans having higher IQ than all the nations of the Middle East, such as Iran, Lebanon, Syria etc, which are far less African?

    Sierra Leone in West Africa which is almost 100% black african has an IQ higher than 4 European nations, all of MENA, all of South Asia, all but 2 of Latin America. How does that fit into the racist narrative?

    Black Americans are on average ~20% white. So how do you reconcile 80% Africans having higher IQ than all the nations of the Middle East, such as Iran, Lebanon, Syria etc, which are far less African?

    And Whites are about 4% Neanderthal, for example. Apparently, a small amount of admixture can make a big difference.

  148. @Bliss
    By all accounts James Watson is an equal opportunity jerk. This guy has collected a bunch of his offensive statements, here’s a few:

    https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2018/05/18/james-watson-in-his-own-words/

    “Disabled individuals are genetic losers”

    “If we knew our son would develop schizophrenia, we wouldn’t have had him”

    “My former colleagues are pinkos and shits”

    “[X University]- it used to be such a wonderful place. And then they started admitting women!”

    “East Asian students [tend] to be conformist, because of selection for conformity in ancient Chinese society”

    “[Linus Pauling] was probably always half-insane”

    “[Rosalind Franklin] was a loser”

    “The wider your face, the more likely you are [to be violent].. Senator Jim Webb has the broadest face I’ve ever seen on any man”

    “[The] historic curse of the Irish.. is not alcohol, it’s not stupidity.. it’s ignorance”

    “[Rosalind Franklin] had Aspergers”

    “People ask about [Rosalind Franklin] and I always say ‘autism’”

    “[Francis Crick] may have been a bit autistic”

    “Indians in [my] experience [are] servile.. because of selection under the caste system”

    “People who have to deal with black employees find [that they are equal] not true”

    “Some anti-Semitism is justified”

    “Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them”

    “Japan should be bombed for dragging its feet on supporting the Human Genome Project”

    What is “jerk-like” about any of those statements?

  149. Much like “Pope condemns Christ as a homophobe, but offers to make him a Bishop if he repents.”

    Counterinsurgency

  150. @Anonymous

    Immigration is the ultimate form of affirmative action, and it is a type of class war.
     
    Affirmative action for whom?

    Borders and nationality have disparate racial impact. It is not usually put like that by jurists, but the principle is implicit in much of what they say.

  151. @dvorak

    Chomsky: In a non-racist society, the category of race would be of no greater significance [than height].
     
    Height is of enormous significance in men's mating prospects. Race is of substantial significance in men and women's mating prospects.

    Except for Nikola Tesla-like driven geniuses/careerists, mating and its consequences are the meaning of life for men and women.

    Absolutely key point.

    Chomsky might not think height is important; he might not think race is important; but the evidence from the rest of the world says otherwise.

  152. @Peter Johnson
    Sorry to disagree but I believe that you are wrong in this. Pinker is much, much more careful and circumspect in what he admits publicly about HBD, whereas Watson has always been known (his whole career) as a tactless loudmouth. That is the reason for their disparate treatment, not a female conspiracy based on their hair-dos and relative sex appeal. We need people like Watson to have the temerity to shake things up, and people like Pinker to work quietly undercover!

    I think Watson is primarily being targeted for his comment about black employees.

    He said a thing that reflects the lived experience of many people, but it was not a scientific statement. And more importantly, it connected the rarefied world of genetic and psychological research with the kind of speaking people used to do before the Civil Rights movement. Pinker never makes comments like that.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Watson came up with a big initiative in the 1970s to employ blacks as workers in his lab. He's speaking from hard experience.
    , @Sean
    What would be a scientific statement? The mainstream scientific consensus seems to be that no conclusion can be drawn from IQ testing results or actual performance in intellectually demanding occupations as regards what the cause of differences between blacks and whites. Which is fair enough I suppose, but then they switch feet and say those differences mandate affirmative action, which is a gift to blacks that is enforced at the expense of whites.
  153. @Chrisnonymous
    I think Watson is primarily being targeted for his comment about black employees.

    He said a thing that reflects the lived experience of many people, but it was not a scientific statement. And more importantly, it connected the rarefied world of genetic and psychological research with the kind of speaking people used to do before the Civil Rights movement. Pinker never makes comments like that.

    Watson came up with a big initiative in the 1970s to employ blacks as workers in his lab. He’s speaking from hard experience.

    • Replies: @res

    Watson came up with a big initiative in the 1970s to employ blacks as workers in his lab. He’s speaking from hard experience.
     
    No good deed goes unpunished.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    I don't doubt that Watson 's comments are motivated by dispassionate experience rather than unfounded prejudice. That is the character of a scientist. And I would prefer to live in a world where people wouldn't get Watsoned for saying, "Everybody knows..." or " It's obvious that... ". I am not justifying his treatment.

    Wax was also attacked for putting black-white differences in a real-world context and speaking based on her perception rather than research results. That kind of "keeping it real" is more "triggering".
  154. @Reg Cæsar

    There is sediment rotting in the river deltas!

     

    I couldn't care loess.

    I couldn’t care loess.

    Brilliant. I’d give an LOL, but I’m maxed out at the moment.

    BTW did anybody else know you can also max out on “commenters to follow” and “commenters to ignore”?

    • Replies: @res

    BTW did anybody else know you can also max out on “commenters to follow” and “commenters to ignore”?
     
    What are the limits?
  155. @The Last Real Calvinist
    As an Iowan, I get that one, Reg.

    You're on a roll today.

    As an Iowan, I get that one, Reg.

    The other end of northern Iowa is in the Driftless, so they probably wouldn’t.

  156. @Bliss
    By all accounts James Watson is an equal opportunity jerk. This guy has collected a bunch of his offensive statements, here’s a few:

    https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2018/05/18/james-watson-in-his-own-words/

    “Disabled individuals are genetic losers”

    “If we knew our son would develop schizophrenia, we wouldn’t have had him”

    “My former colleagues are pinkos and shits”

    “[X University]- it used to be such a wonderful place. And then they started admitting women!”

    “East Asian students [tend] to be conformist, because of selection for conformity in ancient Chinese society”

    “[Linus Pauling] was probably always half-insane”

    “[Rosalind Franklin] was a loser”

    “The wider your face, the more likely you are [to be violent].. Senator Jim Webb has the broadest face I’ve ever seen on any man”

    “[The] historic curse of the Irish.. is not alcohol, it’s not stupidity.. it’s ignorance”

    “[Rosalind Franklin] had Aspergers”

    “People ask about [Rosalind Franklin] and I always say ‘autism’”

    “[Francis Crick] may have been a bit autistic”

    “Indians in [my] experience [are] servile.. because of selection under the caste system”

    “People who have to deal with black employees find [that they are equal] not true”

    “Some anti-Semitism is justified”

    “Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them”

    “Japan should be bombed for dragging its feet on supporting the Human Genome Project”

    By all accounts James Watson is an equal opportunity jerk. This guy has collected a bunch of his offensive statements, here’s a few:

    Those are funny, witty, and they are inappropriate for a leader figure, especially in that cherry picked format.

    Here’s a 2007 interview with him:

    He sounds much more kind, moderate, reasonable, but also witty and edgy and funny. The first question said he should be a stand up comedian.

  157. @Lot
    "because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry. "

    That reminds me of my friend who is a self-identified Korean-American. He took 23andme, and turns out he's genetically half Polish and half Irish! Happens all the time people have no idea what continental racial grouping their genes come from.

    Once someone took a genetic test, and turns out, even though that person self-identifies as a lesbian furry (fox) woman, that person was actually a white American male, no fox or female genes at all…

  158. The very last quote is ominous, indeed.

    To have the doctrinal Establish claiming Cultural Anthropology and Environmental Determinism explain human outcomes, puts them in a wrong but time-worn sort of place. Quite simply put: “Genes play no part in the determination of Culture, Personality, Intelligence. So genetics isn’t relevant.” But the claim that Jim Watson’s domain, i.e., molecular genetics supports the Establishment position is both false and scary – it threatens a new Lysenkoism, i.e. a domain of State-sponsored genetics. The really great philosophers of science, e.g. CS Peirce and I Lakatos are right: ultimately the truth will out. But ultimately can be a long time, especially when research programmes are culled by a politically correct Establishment of grant monitors. If things really go to hell and websites like this are banned as Hate Speech, this will come to pass-

  159. @Lot
    "because self-identification of ethnicity does not easily map onto genetic ancestry. "

    That reminds me of my friend who is a self-identified Korean-American. He took 23andme, and turns out he's genetically half Polish and half Irish! Happens all the time people have no idea what continental racial grouping their genes come from.

    That reminds me of my friend who is a self-identified Korean-American. He took 23andme, and turns out he’s genetically half Polish and half Irish!

    How is that even possible?? Is your comment sarcastic?

    • Replies: @Lot
    Yes.
  160. @Chrisnonymous
    I think Watson is primarily being targeted for his comment about black employees.

    He said a thing that reflects the lived experience of many people, but it was not a scientific statement. And more importantly, it connected the rarefied world of genetic and psychological research with the kind of speaking people used to do before the Civil Rights movement. Pinker never makes comments like that.

    What would be a scientific statement? The mainstream scientific consensus seems to be that no conclusion can be drawn from IQ testing results or actual performance in intellectually demanding occupations as regards what the cause of differences between blacks and whites. Which is fair enough I suppose, but then they switch feet and say those differences mandate affirmative action, which is a gift to blacks that is enforced at the expense of whites.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    You're confusing the science of research with the science of "Because Science!"
  161. @Steve Sailer
    Watson came up with a big initiative in the 1970s to employ blacks as workers in his lab. He's speaking from hard experience.

    Watson came up with a big initiative in the 1970s to employ blacks as workers in his lab. He’s speaking from hard experience.

    No good deed goes unpunished.

  162. @dvorak

    Chomsky: In a non-racist society, the category of race would be of no greater significance [than height].
     
    Height is of enormous significance in men's mating prospects. Race is of substantial significance in men and women's mating prospects.

    Except for Nikola Tesla-like driven geniuses/careerists, mating and its consequences are the meaning of life for men and women.

    Race does indeed have a profound effect on one’s mating prospects. Females view men who tell them that blacks are less intelligent about as favorably as men who are cruel to animals.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Women do not even see men who worry about being offensive. The impact of race on mating prospects has been seriously studied and diagrammed: tldr nobody likes black chicks.
  163. @Bliss

    Yeah, since 1871 all the science has supported the conclusion that blacks evolved to be less intelligent than whites
     
    Unfortunately for your delusion, black Americans have a higher IQ than all the “white caucasian” nations of the Middle East.

    Good luck reconciling that with your race fantasies....

    Unfortunately for your delusion, black Americans have a higher IQ than all the “white caucasian” nations of the Middle East.

    Which is why Somalia fits just right in the Arab League. And why we don’t want those “white caucasian” nations here, either.

  164. anon[183] • Disclaimer says:
    @Space Ghost
    This is called the Gell-Mann amnesia effect, courtesy of Michael Crichton.

    Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

    Mark Gell-Mann Twain –

    https://americanliterature.com/author/mark-twain/short-story/how-i-edited-an-agricultural-paper

    “Turnips should never be pulled, it injures them. It is much better to send a boy up and let him shake the tree.”

    “Now, what do you think of that—for I really suppose you wrote it?”

    “Think of it? Why, I think it is good. I think it is sense. I have no doubt that every year millions and millions of bushels of turnips are spoiled in this township alone by being pulled in a half-ripe condition, when, if they had sent a boy up to shake the tree—”

    “Shake your grandmother! Turnips don’t grow on trees!”

    “Oh, they don’t, don’t they! Well, who said they did? The language was intended to be figurative, wholly figurative. Anybody that knows anything will know that I meant that the boy should shake the vine.”

  165. @Steve Sailer
    Watson came up with a big initiative in the 1970s to employ blacks as workers in his lab. He's speaking from hard experience.

    I don’t doubt that Watson ‘s comments are motivated by dispassionate experience rather than unfounded prejudice. That is the character of a scientist. And I would prefer to live in a world where people wouldn’t get Watsoned for saying, “Everybody knows…” or ” It’s obvious that… “. I am not justifying his treatment.

    Wax was also attacked for putting black-white differences in a real-world context and speaking based on her perception rather than research results. That kind of “keeping it real” is more “triggering”.

  166. @Sean
    What would be a scientific statement? The mainstream scientific consensus seems to be that no conclusion can be drawn from IQ testing results or actual performance in intellectually demanding occupations as regards what the cause of differences between blacks and whites. Which is fair enough I suppose, but then they switch feet and say those differences mandate affirmative action, which is a gift to blacks that is enforced at the expense of whites.

    You’re confusing the science of research with the science of “Because Science!”

    • Agree: Nicholas Stix
  167. @anon

    Doing 23andMe-style ethnic admixture tests on people taking IQ tests would likely increase the correlation between race and IQ.
     
    Here's a new study from Kirkegaard et al. where they found a positive correlation between white ancestry and IQ in African Americans. See this graph in particular. Small sample, but significant (r=.30, see table 13).

    This kind of study is very important because…

    a moment’s thought suggests it’s backwards from what they want it to imply. The fuzziness of racial self-identification almost certainly doesn’t inflate the correlation between race and IQ, it reduces it.

    …Steve is only correct if we start from the assumption that IQ is primarily genetic and from the assumption that fractional Europeans are scoring higher. The comments he’s criticizing would actually be correct if percent European ancestry wasn’t correlated with IQ.

    If you had a group that was split in two based on self-identification but split in three based on admixture and the only discernable IQ gap correlated with self-identification, it would be valid to conclude the gap was not genetic, and Steve would be wrong.

    However, as you point to, the correlation is not with self-identification but with admixture.

  168. @Sean
    Race does indeed have a profound effect on one's mating prospects. Females view men who tell them that blacks are less intelligent about as favorably as men who are cruel to animals.

    Women do not even see men who worry about being offensive. The impact of race on mating prospects has been seriously studied and diagrammed: tldr nobody likes black chicks.

  169. @anonymous
    "In any society the elite and their functionaries are the most unthinking"

    Noam Chomsky used to say it was impossible to explain things to PhDs in Boston but if he went on some radio station in bumfuck, Montana the blue collar listeners were able to understand him and engage his ideas with perfect clarity.

    Noam Chomsky used to say it was impossible to explain things to PhDs in Boston but if he went on some radio station in bumfuck, Montana the blue collar listeners were able to understand him and engage his ideas with perfect clarity.

    And disagree with them, I would imagine. Or hope.

  170. @Anonymous

    That reminds me of my friend who is a self-identified Korean-American. He took 23andme, and turns out he’s genetically half Polish and half Irish!
     
    How is that even possible?? Is your comment sarcastic?

    Yes.

  171. @Reg Cæsar

    There is sediment rotting in the river deltas!

     

    I couldn't care loess.

    Gneiss one. Finer than your usual schist.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    Damn! I was going to use Schist.
  172. @Stan d Mute

    I couldn’t care loess.
     
    Brilliant. I’d give an LOL, but I’m maxed out at the moment.

    BTW did anybody else know you can also max out on “commenters to follow” and “commenters to ignore”?

    BTW did anybody else know you can also max out on “commenters to follow” and “commenters to ignore”?

    What are the limits?

  173. @Space Ghost
    This is called the Gell-Mann amnesia effect, courtesy of Michael Crichton.

    Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

    About a year ago, I read the exact same thought as a comment on a blog. I recall neither the commenter nor the blog. The commenter must have ripped off Crichton–his comment was almost word for word the same.

    This is the most profound criticism I have yet to read about the press. I have no answer to it.

    If anything, the Internet has made things worse, as thousands of “journalists” and bloggers in the echo chamber plagiarize the original liar.

    Somehow, the truth is much less often ripped off, and repeated via the echo chamber.

  174. @Ozymandias
    Gneiss one. Finer than your usual schist.

    Damn! I was going to use Schist.

  175. @unpc downunder
    Without qualifiers, "left" and "right" are pretty meaningless terms, since they have no predictive power. If someone says they are "on the right," that could mean they are an open borders libertarian, or a nationalist who believes in a whites only immigration policy. On the other hand, more precise terms like "economic right" and cultural left" are much more predictive. If someone says they are on the "economic right" it is highly unlikely they believe in high taxes and generous welfare spending. If someone is on the "cultural left" it is highly unlikely they believe in outlawing gay marriage or abortion.

    Yes, I’m trying to fix the confusion after Steve started the process of clearing things up.

  176. anon[177] • Disclaimer says:

    “Black Americans are on average ~20% white. So how do you reconcile 80% Africans having higher IQ than all the nations of the Middle East, such as Iran, Lebanon, Syria etc, which are far less African?”

    Duh. You said it yourself. American blacks are ~20% white – a racial group much smarter than your average Arab. That’s not uprising. In any case, the average American black IQ is around 85, so they aren’t that much better than your average Arab anyway. And the Middle East is very poor compared with the West. The figure given for Middle Eastern IQs likely represents a score below its maximum in an ideal environment (half nature, half nurture). The American black mean IQ likely represents the maximum possible for that group or somewhere close. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that Arabs who move to the United States and who then had Arab children suddenly find their descendants having IQs higher than contemporary American blacks. How do you explain that? Same environment, after all.

    “James Watson jerk…”

    All of those comments were taken out of context. It doesn’t surprise me that an SJW would immediately lie about someone and then take his words out of context to make him sound mean.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution