The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"Is Science Racist?"
🔊 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

In 1995 leftist anthropologist Jonathan Marks coined the term “human biodiversity” in his book of that name. I came up with the phrase independently but second in history, as I immediately discovered by entering the phrase into the early Alta Vista search engine. In the later 1990s, Dr. Marks and I agreed to propose to magazines that we debate whether race exists for the edification of their readers. But, it turned out, editors were not as enthusiastic about the idea as he and I were.

Anyway, Marks has another book out called Is Science Racist? The book is reviewed by Cody Moser in Aero. In the comments, A New Radical Centrism writes:

A New Radical Centrism (@a_centrism) says:
January 18, 2019 at 9:10 pm

This review only flits around the reason that I believe that the scientific method is coming under intensified and coordinated attack from the activist left in academia –- and that reason is preemption. It has to do with cutting off the opposing army before it can land the final devastating and humiliating blow: Direct evidence for the genetic basis of important group differences.

2018 was a year in which you began to get the sense that the environmentalists in the nature-versus-nurture debate on differences in individual cognitive and behavioral traits finally threw in the towel. Huge genome-wide-association studies (GWAS) and tools like polygenic risk scoring took over where twin studies had fairly convincingly left off, but added the coup de grace –- hundreds of specific genes and variants were identified and associated with traits and outcomes like cognition and educational attainment

As the year faded, standard bearers for the left like the New York Times, the Guardian, and New Statesman -– each aggressively hostile over the years to genetic arguments (the case of Nicholas Wade at the NYT is an example of what happens when you dare to go against the environmental orthodoxy) –- began to start to walk a tightrope across the chasm between what their readers (indoctrinated in the pleasantries of the blank slate religion) wanted to read and what science was actually saying. Sometimes you had to read between the lines, but the message was clear: We’ve got some bad news for you. To be able to maintain any credibility among the scientists doing the most important research, these papers all realized that they had to back down from their pro-environment positions, and they did.

And so, with respect to individual differences in these traits, the verdict appeared to be in: Genes had finally won. This was especially true with respect to intelligence. It is now estimated -– based upon large studies conducted over the last several years — that by mid-adulthood about eighty percent of individual differences in intelligence can be explained by genes. With respect to certain executive cognitive functions, a large study found that up to 100 percent of these are heritable.

But the genes-versus-environment battle over individual differences isn’t the big one for the left. The big one -– potentially Armageddon –- is the battle over group differences. A genetic basis for the consistent and significant gaps in IQ between racial groups (e.g., a staggering twenty-point difference between African Americans and Asian-Americans) has the potential of destroying the foundation upon which much of the progressive-left project in the US has been built, leaving it no more excuses, no more facile blame-throwing at “oppressive social forces.” The statistical and empirical evidence for a genetic basis for racial IQ gaps –- called “circumstantial” by the left –- is already overwhelming, consisting as it does of IQ data from over 500,000 persons obtained through a variety of different scientifically-validated tests (some actually deliberately designed to skew toward blacks or against Asians), adoption studies, racial admixture studies, controlled-for-SES studies, brain studies, and so on. The desperation of the left, evidenced in tactics such as its endless smear campaigns against honorable and respected scientists like Arthur Jensen, suggests that it quietly (and perhaps even subconsciously) suspects that the worst is true. Otherwise, why would it so aggressively fight against the idea of funding for rigorous scientific research which should, to their way of thinking, ultimately produce the promised egalitarian result?

If 2018 was the year in which the genes-versus-environment battle over individual differences was finally decided in favor of genes, then 2019 is already shaping up as a year in which a preemptive strike by the activist left in the battle over group differences is going to be launched. Is Science Racist? is just a bit player in this spectacle. Most of it is going to play out in places like the New York Times, which in the past two weeks alone has gone after after James Watson (low-hanging fruit) and now –- predictably after his courageous NYT op-ed back in March 2018 attacking the scientific validity of the notion of race as a purely social construct — even the formidable David Reich. The attacks will be shameless, involve diversions and strawmen like “white supremacy” — shouldn’t it be “northeast Asian supremacy” or “Ashkenazi Jewish” supremacy, anyway? — and, as always, be thin on the actual science. Politically-motivated hacks like Amy Harmon, the NYT’s hitwoman (a science reporter with no training in a scientific field), will interview third-rate scientists with deep activist resumes (or will simply avoid interviewing scientists at all) and avoid eminent figures (like Richard Haier or even James Flynn) who she knows will tell her things that she and her editors and readers don’t want to hear. Institutions like the Times may believe that morality and compassion are on their side, but their fervor and desperation suggest that they already know that science isn’t.

 
Hide 125 CommentsLeave a Comment
125 Comments to ""Is Science Racist?""
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. I don’t think the science is racist, but the math is.

    • LOL: Bubba
    • Replies: @Trevor H.
    , @tyrone
    , @RobRich
  2. JimB says:

    Social justice can be used interchangeably with IQ handicapping.

  3. To ask the question is to answer it; refer yourself to the nearest Party consciousness-raising seminar, you racist.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  4. Science is White.

    • Replies: @Anon7
    , @jbwilson24
  5. WeGood morning, I guess. With regard to the remark on the “enforcer” Amy Harmon, I remember seeing science reporters on the 1/2 hour national news back in the day with no real scientific background. Maybe one had gotten through self-paced Astronomy, at best.

    These people really don’t mind reversing the Enlightenment and bringing on a new Dark Age. It’s well worth it, they reckon.

    • Agree: bomag
    • Replies: @Altai
  6. I see stupid everywhere, no exceptions.

  7. Thurston says:

    @a_centrism’s piece is excellent. Can he/she be persuaded to add footnotes and citations? I’d like to read them and then use them to thrash baizuo within an inch of their goodthinking lives.

  8. A large majority of geneticist teams working in GWAS have taken a softly-softly approach to discussing or investigating the links between race (more accurately, continental ancestral lines) and the genetic components of educational attainment, measured intelligence, risk-taking, and other behavioral traits. They work on accumulating the evidence of genetic explanations of cross-sectional variation in these behavioral traits, restricting their modeling to within racial groups. This restriction to within races makes the analysis easier both statistically and politically.

    Modeling the across-race genetic differences and linking them to the cross-race average behavioral difference is career, lab financing, and political suicide.

    There is such a strong incentive to avoid examining the big differences in observed average traits across racial groups! Even if an individual geneticist is brave and curious enough, he/she needs to work within a big team, and needs massive funding. The funding agency are strongly SJW and also extremely skittish. The vast majority of active researchers are probably correct that for them individually the softly-softly approach is the only way to make continued progress.

    It is up to others, like Steve Sailer, to carry the implicit message to a broader audience. It is an important message that society and political leaders need to hear, but not one that the genetics community can convey, except very indirectly in their research findings. The truth of HBD is becoming incredibly obvious to those who can read this research literature and related research in the social sciences.

    The openly anti-HBD community will soon consist solely of extremely ignorant people and delusional ideologues who cannot think straight due to their blind devotion to SJW dogma.

    The silent (or reticent to speak) non-openly-HBD community is more nuanced. Many of them just want to get on with research without facing up to the difficulties that open-HBD advocacy entails.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
  9. Lot says:

    “the scientific method is coming under intensified and coordinated attack from the activist left in academia”

    Betsy DeVos has had enormous power as Secretary of Education to defund the beating heart of the left: non-STEM academia. She hasn’t done anything. 2017, 2018, 2019, we keep paying taxes by the hundreds of billions to fund people who hate America and want to destroy what remains of our ways of life and traditions.

    Scott Walker took on Big Ed in Wisconsin and won: elected, beat back recall, then reelected. It can absolutely be done.

  10. Trevor H. says:
    @Redneck farmer

    To this point: who’s worse at math, generally speaking, than women and negroes? Roughly no one. I’d say this constitutes prima facie evidence that mathematics is indeed a white supremacist construct intended to keep the aforementioned groups down.

    Of course,the issue is complicated by the fact that many Asians and even some Jews outperform many whites in math. Not to mention that four black women were the first people on the moon, roughly speaking. We need a few more Hollywood movies to work all of this out for us. Won’t be long.

  11. Altai says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Not to forget the greatest science journalist of all time.

  12. I guess the ironic part is that most of these scientists doing the serious work on HBD seem to lean to the left politically in the first place. That they are able to set those personal beliefs aside and pursue the actuality (I hesitate to use the terms “truth” and “reality” anymore) is a credit to them.

    The word racism is a phony word, invented by phonies in order to substantiate phony arguments.

  13. Tyrion 2 says:

    “My feelings are real, so when your science doesn’t conform to them, you’re false.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  14. bjdubbs says:

    Can somebody explain how Marks can write a comment like this and at the same time on his blog he bashes all of the people who appear to agree with him? How does he square those two things?

    • Replies: @Elsewhere
  15. Anon[210] • Disclaimer says:

    One data point that is consistent with the commenter’s prediction for 2019 is that at the end of her New York Times opinion piece after Carl Zimmer’s report on the n=1 million GWAS educational attainment study, progressive psychologist Kathryn Paige Harden let loose that she had a book coming out called “The Genetic Lottery.”

    I think Harden’s line of thinking is that IQ is an unearned random privilege, so its benefits must be redistributed to the have-nots.

    If this means a guaranteed minimum income, but you could the fire all the affirmative action people and kick the holistic tribe out of university STEM courses, I would support it. But I fear that the wonderful benefits of diversity will be invoked to justify keeping boneheaded blacks in jobs that they are not qualified for.

  16. It has to do with cutting off the opposing army before it can land the final devastating and humiliating blow…

    This line evoked an image of Kamikaze pilots. Could we be so fortunate that some “journalists” sacrifice their careers for the cause?

  17. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:

    BEHOLD THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT
    ALL MEN ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL
    they evolved in geographical and so sexual isolation, selected by different geographical environments, and hybridized with entirely different hominids they met in these environments, they became uber animals as their intelligence increased followed by consciousness. This set the stage for culture, responding culturally in different ways to their environmental challenges began a new era in evolution, cultural selection. Selected differently by their biocultural feedback loop. There is no nature vs nurture it is all nature at root and at flower. Now we enter the third stage where we transcend not only natural selection and cultural selection and proceed to technological selection, even so Gnon will have his due and for every selection there will be a counter selection there is no opting out or out engineering evolution no escape, evolve a more advantageous (superior) bio carrier or perish.Maybe one branch of the earth life will escape bioism entirely and become like gods uber mensch, it seems to be what we intend and we euros seem to always end up where we intend with this god like will of ours.

  18. clyde says:

    Steve- Nice to see that Jonathan Marks has moved over to your way of thinking. Vindication. But being cited here might hurt his career.

    wikipedia sez — Marks has also served on the Board of Directors of the Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism, Nixon, Nevada.[3]

    What?!

  19. unit472 says:

    Even blacks and leftists in their heart of hearts know the truth. Ruth Bader Ginsberg does not head over to the Howard University College of Medicine to get checked out. She goes to the National Institute of Health for her personal needs where the only graduates of Meharry or Howard U. Medical colleges will be found in ‘Public Health or some other non specialist field.

    I’ll never forget taking a phone call from an irate black women dissatisfied with our service. She demanded that we send a technician over to her house and ‘don’t you send another ni**er!”

  20. Q. Is ______ racist?

    A. Yes.

  21. theMann says:

    Is Science factual?

    If so, then Racist.

  22. Anonymous[920] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    That’s the position of the vast majority, obviously, but I wonder if in this case there is an ‘inner party’ of sorts that knows the score, scientifically, but feels they are in a desperate to lock in the changes to society that they want before the truth penetrates too deeply. This would be some combination of people at the top of academia,

  23. Anon7 says:

    An interesting related question is asked at Slashdot today:

    Ask Slashdot: Why Are Scientists Constantly Surprised By What They Discover?

    Slashdot reader dryriver asks about “the sheer number of times scientists consider something to be ‘scientifically impossible’, are badly disproven by some kind of new finding or discovery a few years later, and then express ‘surprise’ that ‘X is indeed possible’.”

    If you do a Google News search for the keywords “scientists were surprised” or similar, a huge number of science-related news articles contains a passage about “scientists being surprised” by what they discovered. There seems to be a great disparity between the mindset of inventors — who always try to MAKE new things become possible — and the mindset of many scientists, who seem unable or unwilling to consider that what “science holds to be true today” may not turn out to be quite so true tomorrow.

    I personally think that the surprises are due to the fact that there is an emphasis on stories that are told, and not on an enumeration of facts. Stories tend to fill in all sorts of details that are missing in the data, and that are felt to be socially relevant at the time. Like the idea that all people are created equal, therefore differences are due to bigotry rather than natural ability.

    • Replies: @RobRich
  24. Anon7 says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Science is also male.

    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk
  25. Russ says:

    “The statistical and empirical evidence for a genetic basis for racial IQ gaps –- called “circumstantial” by the left –- is already overwhelming”

    And thus is the war ultimately won, immediate battle outcomes notwithstanding. Same goes for the parallel question: Is artificial intelligence racist? James Watson et al will be lauded as martyrs once the sun sets on the Neo-Know-Naughts … and set it surely will.

    • Agree: Peter Johnson
  26. AndrewR says:

    IDK about you guys, but I, for one, will keep clinging to my saccharine delusion that this can be solved peacefully.

    • Replies: @gcochran
  27. It might be worth trying an academic exercise with doubters: “IF science has demonstrated that genes explain most intelligence differences, how would a civilized society handle it? What are the worst-case and best-case scenarios and how can we ensure the latter?”

    This 1. Gets people to start facing up to the un-face-up-to-able, and 2. Provides progressives with an outlet for their White Knight desires: ensuring the transition into a post-delusion society doesn’t lead to mass victimization.

    Just a thought.

    Playing “What if?” is a good way to advance the ball down field.

  28. Altai says:

    I think it’s funny that initially there was some concern about certain ‘primitive’ groups being offended that their creation myths were being undermined or that say, the Han Chinese would be offended by this undermining elements of their own place in the world. (Not just Peking Man but rather the apparent short period of time their forebears have actually been living in China)

    Little did they know that it was actually the religious sensibilities of those writing such pieces in the NYT that would be hardest hit. Could be a good movie, Benedict Cumberbatch could play the vicar-like cultural anthropologist bracing at all this. It could follow a Jeff Bezos ‘No More Mr Nice Guy’ arc as he went the other way and embrace his inner barbarian.

  29. megabar says:
    @Lot

    > Betsy DeVos has had enormous power as Secretary of Education to defund the beating heart of the left: non-STEM academia. She hasn’t done anything.

    Excellent point.

    When Trump was elected, I hoped for 3 things, all of which focus on the long game and ignore the short. 1) Supreme court justice appointments. Check. 2) Education reform to stop funding propaganda of our best and brightest. Nothing. 3) Serious immigration reform. Nothing (yet).

    1 out of 3 isn’t nothing, but it’s disappointing nonetheless. And the SCOTUS appointments would have been made by any Republican. But hey, we got a tax cut.

    There is still time….?

  30. The theory of science research is that by looking at some construct, how it behaves, and exists under a certain set of conditions — one can make predictions about said behaviors or structural changes. The power of science and its methodology gained favor as applied to the physical world. The more static the data sets the more accurate the science — usually, assuming the modeling and data valuations were correct. And no less important — the smaller the interpretation , the more the data speaks for itself.

    The validity of science decreases with increased subjective components of the construct and the mechanisms to reach conclusions. In which more subjectivity, the increased chance of error by any number of factors. Which is why crucial in the debate is to know how genetics works to the subjective. That is the crucial construct – hence the search for genetic markers to x.

    That marker is a “missing link” for lack of a better term.
    That further means that one’s model must be rooted through narrower strains of glasses. One cannot merely Select Franke from Poland and Francois from France administer and IQ test and conclude x, z, and p. And certainly sample size matters, but one has to choose samples sizes similar to construct. If color from genetic to IQ. Then one has to eliminate all the variables that might would muddy the line to conclusion.

    — Biology is static isolating said variables is still a very tough
    — IQ is subjective I have no idea what the magnitude of difficulty is isolating the variables subjective or otherwise to this subjective, but it’s a safe bet its even harder — that is of course once you define a standard of IQ across the board.

    At the moment what constitutes IQ is one imposed via a subjective western world view. That is the nexus point of contention despite not being discussed very clearly. I walk into your home and I say this is what morality means. I examine your lifestyle and make conclusions about what constitutes moral ethos and behavior. Well, suppose that families definition of understanding of morality simply doesn’t fit your own — it would be presumptuous to conclude that the differences mean — that said family is more moral or less moral based on the definition I impose.

    Suppose Bill has no inclination to build an air conditioner. He is quite content to deal with the heat.
    Suzy hates the heat and struggles to find a means of existing in something of a cooler environment and designs and builds an air conditioner. You and I might conclude that Suzy is smarter than Bill. That may or may be the case, but it would be a peculiar test given that Bill did not see the heat as an issue and saw no need to do anything about it. If it was that simplistic, then the blacks who built the plantations would be understood to have been smarter than the whites. Because the blacks used systems of building they brought with them, that now serve as pre-planned housing, to include internal methods of aerating cooler air throughout the homes. And it’s safe bet that that plantation owners saw in home heat an issue worth resolving, but didn’t (Lessons from visiting plantations in Louisiana).

    Surely DNA is the conerstone of who we are in the physical world. Sure IQ (intelligence) is derived from our DNA. But a quotient to superiority — that is an entirely different discussion and far more complex than I built a TV and my brother didn’t therefore I am smarter and by virtue of the same superior.

    Further, complicating that dynamic is that intra-relations among civilizations regarding the ebb and flow of power and control, much of which is not determined at all by IQ. It’s hard to argue that the Romans were ,less technologically advanced and by western mode of thinking of higher IQ than the Germanic Tribes, yet at the end of the day — German tribes prevailed. Based on much of the rhetoric here — clearly the Germans were a superior people.

  31. In the article the position is claimed that most geneticists originally favored environment, but under pressure than favored genetics.

    In either case what I hear is that conclusions are responding to the social pressures – not the science.

  32. bomag says:
    @Lot

    It can absolutely be done.

    Yes.

    It’s rather astonishing that many of these issues (immigration restriction; gay marriage; etc) poll majority but generate little traction for opposing the activists.

    As pointed out, the Left has hacked academia; the Arts; bureaucracy; and the courts; but there should be plenty of room for some political victories for the good guys.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  33. Arclight says:

    As has been repeatedly noted, the left’s entire ideology and its prescriptions to perfect society depend on blank slatism. If it can be proven that much of the undesirable disparities we see between different groups such as educational achievement, earnings power/net worth, criminality, etc. are beyond the reach of social justice shaming and interventions by the state in daily life to correct, then all they have left is a redistributionist program based entirely on resentment (and yes, I realize that’s a big part of their motivation already) and no promise that it will change anything at all. At least right now they can say that if only society would do what they want, in the glorious future we’d see massive leaps forward for the oppressed in terms of economic security and so on. The left also believes that whites aren’t really better than anyone else, they have just gotten ahead through oppression, and if that were removed we’d find many of the diverse are actually capable of more than Western civilization has put forth – Wakanda would be real, and exist not just in Africa but in Latin America, the Middle East, and so on.

    And let’s be honest – if you are an overachiever from an underachieving group, do you really want to internalize the idea that your upper middle class existence means you are an outlier and not an example of what most others from your group could attain?

  34. There is one elephant in the room here that never gets discussed — by either side.

    Intelligence didn’t always used to be seen as the preeminent virtue — or even necessarily a virtue at all. Back in Victorian times, in at least some circles, being ‘brainy’ was not a compliment.

    If one goes back further, in the Song of Roland, Roland’s Muslim adversary has to be clever — not at all coincidentally, diabolically clever. Roland is frankly dumb as an ox. He doesn’t need to think. Since he’s good, God will guide his actions. Courage, loyalty, piety — these are the virtues.

    So one can ask: just when did intelligence become the sole and undisputed criterion for human worth — at least, the only one that is commonly offered up in public discourse?

    Personally, I suspect it all has to do with the rise of public education. After all, sixteen years of continuous schooling is bound to leave one with a tendency to equate human worth with intelligence. Then too, the more anti-semitically inclined might be inclined to draw a connection between the rise of Jews in our culture and the increased emphasis on intelligence.

    I don’t mean to exempt myself — I too think intelligence and whatever demonstrates it is the end-all and be-all. However, I am a child of my times, and I suspect I merely accord it such importance because of that.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  35. @Arclight

    ‘…And let’s be honest – if you are an overachiever from an underachieving group, do you really want to internalize the idea that your upper middle class existence means you are an outlier and not an example of what most others from your group could attain?’

    I’d guess if you are such an individual, you already have internalized the idea.

    I think that whether they explicitly acknowledge it or not — even to themselves — people’s choices reveal that they know whites and Asians are smarter, men are braver, women will care more, and so on.

    Nobody asks me for hugs. They do pick me when they want directions. This is fine; I’d much rather give directions than hugs.

  36. Right.

    The fundamental misunderstanding of the Enlightenment West when confronted with the accusaion of “White privilege” is that the various ethnic groups have any choice whatsoever about whether they can participate in Enlightenment industrial society. They don’t. “White privilege” is the ability to exist in the Enlightenment Industrial society of the West, no more, no less.
    Hicks [1] gives a good history of the Counter-Enlightenment, which is the history of Eastern Europeans who could not live with Enlightenment industrialization from c.a. AD 1800 to c.a. AD 1960, and a contemporary account of the New Left in the USA after c.a. AD 1960. Hicks stays away from HBD and religion (good move, shows he’s not a “charge the machine guns” type). Note that omitting religion is something only an advocate of the Enlightenment would even consider. Every other group on the planet considers religion as extremely important (even if the religion is only Emperor worship (e.g. PRC, many of the Third World one man dictatorships)).
    The effect of Hick’s omissions are failure to consider the following:
    HBD: If group IQ is 86, or below (average IQ for the world, we’re told [2]), then about 40% of the group’s population has an IQ under 83 [3] and _can’t do anything of economic value_. In an Enlightenment industrialized economy, that _entire group_ has a bit under _half_ of its members in dire poverty, essentially living by selling their vote.[4] That vote will be against the industrial society that supports them (enough to stop riots) but has no place for them, that they do not understand, and that they fundamentally disagree with. Their representatives will attempt to dismantle Enlightenment industrial civilization, even if they have no alternative.
    Religion: The Enlightenment has disregarded religion in favor of Reason [5]. It has proven impossible to actually worship Reason. Christianity has been driven from political discourse by a coalition of rival religions. Christianity can tolerate industrial society far better than the coalition that defeated it, and the coalition cannot live in Enlightenment industrial society. The coalitions representatives will then attempt to dismantle Enlightenment industrial civilization.

    HBD and Religion interact. People who have followed the same religion (even Emperor worship or Clan worship) for a millennium or more will have trouble with Enlightenment industrialization [6]. Its population will have been selected for the social environment maintained by that religion.
    In some cases (Universal Unitarians, for example, a fairly new religion as such things go) the religion itself changes into a religion that cannot tolerate Enlightenment industrialization. In that case also, Enlightenment industrialization will be opposed by the group’s representatives and quite often by individual members of the group. Hypothetically, the new religions could change to accommodate Enlightenment industrialization, this seems to have been rare since WW II ended.

    So: Enlightenment industrialization is fighting HBD while denying that HBD exists, and fighting various Religious wars without having an religion of its own, and trying simultaneously to deny that religion can be important.

    No wonder Enlightenment industrialization is losing.

    You may remember an idea called “netcentric warfare”, from c.a. AD 2000. Great idea, works well invideo games, but _to date nobody has figured out how to get enemy forces to wear ID transponders accessible to friendly forces”. Netcentric warfare failed because _it couln’t identify the enemy_.
    The entire West, which depends on Enlightenment Industrialization for its existence, also cannot identify the enemy (although it is subject to enemy spoofing that results in blue on blue casualties).

    To finish: The failure of Enlightenment Industrialization would lead to a severe reduction in world population. That would be too bad, the more so since I’d be one of the losses. However, such reductions are quite common in human history. _Please_ don’t anyone say that it can’t happen on this time horizon. Or if somebody does, please, somebody _else_ correct them. Writing is hard, and I’m tired. I’ll simply note that, at least in Zimbabwe, the locals have been through a mass starvation, and still don’t want Enlightenment Industrialization back. Seems they think its not a taste they can acquire.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] Hicks.
    _Explaining Postmodernism_
    Search Amazon.com for title, or YouTube.com for “Hicks postmodernism 2018”.

    2] http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-worlds-iq-86/

    3] Probability that IQ <= 83 given mean IQ of 86 and IQ standard deviation of 12.

    4] Actually, the votes of the 40% are cast indirectly. Non-voting population is used to determine how many representatives an area has (or, perhaps, how large the voting precincts are). Extreme example: If a precinct is dominated by one ethnic group, a million strong let's say, and only three people vote in that precinct, two for candidate A, and one for candidate B, then the representation of the entire million people will be determined by the two voters who elect A. _The non-voting population has given each of the two voters the representation of half a million voters!!!_ The local political organization thus finds it will be more represented by bringing in _more_ non-voting residents. Which it does, hence our immigration rates.

    5] Reason with a capital R. The French Revolution tried to replace Catholicism with a synthetic religion that actually worshiped the goddess Reason. They even had literal graven images of Reason that looked a deal like the Catholic statues of saints.

    6] I keep writing "Enlightenment Industrialization". To date, Enlightenment Industrialization is the only kind that has a positive return on investment. Every other kind of industrialization so far, including various intervals of Chinese industrialization, has eventually been abandoned by its sponsoring society. Quite often, the restrictions put on industrialization to stabilize the parent society have made industrialization uneconomic.

  37. Altai says:
    @Arclight

    And let’s be honest – if you are an overachiever from an underachieving group, do you really want to internalize the idea that your upper middle class existence means you are an outlier and not an example of what most others from your group could attain?

    You mean Taleb?

  38. That is an extremely well-written and devasting case against the anti-science reactionaries at the Times.

    The problem is that such obviously true facts can only be expressed in an anonymous comment to an obscure book review.

    The case for gentically determined group IQ differences has been overwhelming for 40 years at least. So is there any reason to believe that the real science can’t be kept out of the public policy debate for another 40 years?

    The Left sees ideas as a struggle based on power rather than truth. And sadly, they have mostly been right.

    • Agree: ic1000, TTSSYF
  39. Anonymous[385] • Disclaimer says:

    OT: The mask is off! Amnesty Don emerges, takes over potus twitter account…

    “Amnesty will be used only on a much bigger deal, whether on immigration or something else. Likewise there will be no big push to remove the 11,000,000 plus people who are here illegally”

  40. Alice says:

    But the right is equally hamstrung by the reality of innate group differences, and that’s why both sides keep telling everyone who notices to shut up.

    If group differences in intelligence, delayed gratification, conscientiousness, charitableness toward other, prudence, stability of sexual relationships, etc. are a result of genes, then the conservative argument that people should just try harder to behave falls apart. The argument for the poor just pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps falls apart. The argument for self governance through social institutions falls apart. As does libertarianism. Self managed retirement accounts won’t help, and neither will school vouchers. In fact, it’s not clear subsidiarity works at all for certain groups.

    If this word “culture” finally takes on a reasonable meaning (the collective behavioral phentoypes of the group), the right would have to have admit that not only are some cultures better than others, but wishing the inferior to become so won’t work.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  41. AndrewR says:
    @Arclight

    “if you are an overachiever from an underachieving group, do you really want to internalize the idea that your upper middle class existence means you are an outlier and not an example of what most others from your group could attain”

    This is an interesting question. Obviously, there would be a wide range of opinions among this group (overachievers from underachieving ethnic groups). I’m not cynical enough to believe that most of these people could never be convinced of the more bitter realities of HBD.

  42. anon[328] • Disclaimer says:

    I noticed that the Areo reader comment which Steve Sailer is quoting was written by A New Radical Centrism.

    A few weeks ago, A New Radical Centrism went after Amy Harmon of the New York Times on Twitter after she started her campaign against James Watson. Tweet by tweet, he demolished her.

    I had no idea who this guy was, so I tracked him through his Twitter page to a Facebook group he moderates called A New Radical Centrism. From what I can tell, this forum is mostly an attack on the left’s Blank Slate way of thinking. There are lots of links to studies in scientific journals, that sort of thing. I’m not even sure I knew what the Blank Slate was until I found this group.

    This is probably the best expression of what this guy is about, and I think he might be on to something:

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/242266202906909/permalink/522346678232192/

    He seems to think that the only way to do anything about the social justice warrior types is to go after the unscientific basis of their ideology by attacking The Blank Slate. He think it’s their biggest vulnerability.

    It’s strange though because I don’t normally expect political centrists to be as candid and relentless as this guy is about things like race and genetics. I think this is a good sign.

  43. tyrone says:
    @Redneck farmer

    No,no,no just look at g**gle images for American mathematicians .they’re all black ,except one white dude…….they probably felt sorry for.

  44. Science is racist. So we should stop doing it.

    Is comedy racist? It is if you’re doing it right.

    Another serious, state-of-comedy article, explaining why sanctimonious, woke monologues are the Future:

    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/jan/19/is-standup-comedy-doomed-future-of-funny-kevin-hart-louis-ck-nanette

    The writer trashes Louie, but he’s got the only funny line in the whole piece. Which is full of quotes from woke comics.

    After allegations of sexual misconduct appeared last year, however, the comic seemed to react with horror at a new world that threatened his unexamined patriarchal mindset. According to reports, at a recent New York show CK made jokes about survivors of gun violence and minorities such as non-binary teens. When some listeners appeared shocked, he allegedly responded: “Fuck it, what are you going to take away, my birthday? My life is over, I don’t give a shit.”

    The piece goes on to promote “Chloe Petts, Jodie Mitchell, Kemah Bob and Sara Barron,” as well as other woke comics like “Hannah Gadsby, Nish Kumar, Sara Pascoe, Mark Watson, Sophie Duker, Mae Martin.” Anyone sense a theme?

    Well, unfunny Danish rugmuncher and podcast host Sofie Hagen explains, these comics ‘work harder,’ and have addressed their privilege and educated themselves and stuff like that.

    The article points to two two new festivals that prove woke comedy is ascendent: ‘FOC it up!’ featuring ‘Femmes of Color’ and ‘the LOL Word’ ( for non-binary and queer women), ie Homosexuals and Homosexuals Of Color.

    Variety! Diversity! Forced, neurotic Laughs! Tears! And a lot to think about on the drive home.

  45. Luke Lea says:

    Make believe doesn’t make good policy. Can I trademark that sentence? No, but Steve might make it his mantra.

  46. cthulhu says:

    A Philip K. Dick quote: “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” The Blank-Slaters are in the process of getting mugged by reality.

    FWIW, Pinker’s masterpiece The Blank Slate has excellent discussion of how the progressives could be relevant in an HBD world, but it all starts with throwing out all of the Blank Slate crap and everything descended from it. We’re probably in a Kuhnian paradigm shift on the topic, and likely have another twenty years or possibly more to go before the old guard is mostly dead.

  47. You people believe, and I mean believe, like believing religion, in other words without proof, on faith, in some crude childish baby’s cartoon of this incredibly vague and non-existent abstraction you treat as a concrete thing and call, wait for it, “Science!” da-da-da-da!

    “Science,” like every other word applied to the activities of human beings, is just another word for people fuking up.

  48. Here’s a comment to a book review in Aero by Cody Moser of Is Science Racist? by Marks:

    Sorry, Steve… but this sentence construction makes my head hurt.

  49. jon says:
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    In related news, Family Guy has decided to stop making any gay jokes. Wonder what that means for Stewie?

    https://boundingintocomics.com/2019/01/16/family-guy-goes-pc-will-phase-out-gay-jokes/

  50. lhtness says:

    There are lots of easy ways of seeing how racist science is:

    1) There are a lot more white scientists than black scientists, which is obviously proof of white supremacy. If you ask “Then why are there so many East Asian scientists?”, that just proves you’re racist.

    2) Scientific standards require not having the answer before you do the research, which means it might find things that violate Progressive religious beliefs (and indeed has done so many times). Which is the very definition of racism.

    And if neither of those convinces you, the next argument is irrefutable.

    3) Everything is racist, therefore science is racist.

  51. Mr. Anon says:
    @Lot

    Betsy DeVos has had enormous power as Secretary of Education to defund the beating heart of the left: non-STEM academia. She hasn’t done anything. 2017, 2018, 2019, we keep paying taxes by the hundreds of billions to fund people who hate America and want to destroy what remains of our ways of life and traditions.

    How would she do that, exactly? Her agency’s budget, like that of most all government agencies, is appropriated by Congress – it is, in effect, the law. She probably has relatively little discretion as to how to spend the money. What changes could she make by herself?

    • Replies: @Lot
  52. @Buzz Mohawk

    “Science is White”

    Not anymore. I was just poking through the research literature looking for info on thermal conductivity in polymers. (I’m not a materials scientist or a physicist, for the record). Didn’t see a whole lot of white names. It was basically all Chinese researchers, whether at US universities or Chinese ones.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  53. Mr. Anon says:
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    Nothing better captures the realities of Clown World than the new trend of stand-up comedy being taken over by fat lesbians. The only people permitted to make “jokes” are the same people who became famous for the phrase “That’s not funny!”

    And the whole “fat-positive” movement is ridiculous and grotesque. Sure, it’s perfectly healthy to be morbidly obese – tell us that when your wheezing, facing adult-onset diabetes at the age of 35, and standing on your second artificial knee.

  54. Anonym says:
    @Lot

    Betsy DeVos has had enormous power as Secretary of Education to defund the beating heart of the left: non-STEM academia. She hasn’t done anything. 2017, 2018, 2019, we keep paying taxes by the hundreds of billions to fund people who hate America and want to destroy what remains of our ways of life and traditions.

    I like this idea. How would you implement it?

  55. Anonym says:
    @Hypnotoad666

    That is an extremely well-written and devasting case against the anti-science reactionaries

    That is a great term, using the language of the left against itself. I would use the term Luddite as well.

  56. bomag says:
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    How does one know when to stop clapping at such events?

  57. Jack D says:
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    We saw the same thing in the Soviet Bloc with respect to literature, music, art, etc. As long as creators were trying to cling to official approval, all they turned out was crap that met the official standards of correctness. The comedy was not funny. The drama was melodramatic, the paintings were formulaic. It was only when their lives were destroyed and they were outcast from official society that could they start creating something worthy. There was a whole underground cottage industry called samizdat where unofficial literature would get copied (sometime literally by re-typing it letter by letter – they kept close control of copying machines) and passed from hand to hand. Sometimes manuscripts would be smuggled out of the country and published in the West. Will comics like Louis CK be circulating in “underground” formats here soon? Will his podcasts be hosted on Russian websites?

    • Replies: @inertial
    , @Mr. Anon
  58. @Lot

    Betsy DeVos has had enormous power as Secretary of Education to defund the beating heart of the left: non-STEM academia. She hasn’t done anything. 2017, 2018, 2019, we keep paying taxes by the hundreds of billions to fund people who hate America and want to destroy what remains of our ways of life and traditions.

    Well said Lot.

    Everything else is orders of magnitude below immigration, but #2 would be tackling the education blob. “Education” is pretty openly at war with conservatism, Christianity, Western civilization, whiteness.

    Vouchers isn’t wildly popular with the suburban Republican base because a lot of people have already “invested” in their kids schooling by buying a house in a district with “good schools”, and often have a civic rooting interest/attachment to their school. But it’s a nut that can be cracked with true vouchered support. Long run giving the parents back control–which is now pretty minimal through nominal republican school board elections–is good for conservatives. Parents are more likely to be “conservative” as having children–raising a next generation–is inherently an attempt at conserving.

    As I’ve written several times, breaking the college stranglehold with some sort of certification exam process, energizing on-line learning, is another big win–at multiple levels: defunding, easing the financial burdern of college on parents, eliminating debt allowing faster family formation.

    There are multiple ways a nationalist/conservative government can get to work for the nation’s actual people. (Your/my proposal for a huge dependent child tax deduction is another.)

    Unfortunate that education–like much else–is an area where the Trump administration just hasn’t done anything to reward its voters.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @ic1000
    , @Anon
    , @Lot
  59. @Hypnotoad666

    The case for gentically determined group IQ differences has been overwhelming for 40 years at least. So is there any reason to believe that the real science can’t be kept out of the public policy debate for another 40 years?

    Yes, Hypnotoad I believe there is.

    The old data–particularly twin studies and the sheer scale of the black-white performance gap, even when limited to blacks at the highest level of income and SES sharing the small schools–was very compelling to honest fair-minded people. But it was all social science, that a) most people would never ever hear about and b) was buried in an avalanche of bogus blame-whitey ideological social science.

    In contrast this genomics stuff is science science and it’s flowing from the great “big science” project of our day–the Human Genome Project–and is can’t be buried from the common mans’ sight because of popular interest in genealogy services and in medical indications/interventions.

    And the other thing is China. We aren’t yet–and may be a good generation or two–at real technological “use”–enhancement. But realistically that’s where this thing is headed. And that can’t be headed off because China will proceed regardless of whatever prohibitions the left tries to impose in TWWFKATW (That which was formerly known as the West).

  60. Sean says:

    Science is not racism (or antiracism) unless you can get an ought from an is.

  61. ziggurat says:

    Perhaps, the Left can say that the epigenetic impact of slavery has caused the group differences in IQ. Thus, whites are still obligated to address the inequities. It may not be due to modern-day bigotry, but it’s due to ancestral bigotry, which has unfairly advantaged one race over another.

    But they seem too lockjawed on their “racism-everywhere” theory to pivot anywhere else.

    Also, it would be hard to acknowledge an enduring inequality in intellectual ability between racial groups, as they’ve always pounced on that as proof-certain of racism (as we have seen with the James-Watson treatment).

    Also, they don’t think of people as individuals, but rather as groups. And they think that intelligence is one of the most important measures of the value of a person. So, to acknowledge this racial difference would be like saying the imaginary boogeymen (“white supremacists”) were right. In other words, in their minds, they’d have to start believing that whites are currently superior to blacks, although perhaps the epigenetic damage could eventually be fixed with more research.

  62. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    Problem with vouchers is that violent black and dumb as rocks Hispanic kids get them too. So violent blacks often get vouchers to bully beat and harsss White kids. Plus the day long screeching and cursing

    Why bother trying to get your kids into a so called “ good” public school when there are so many private school that are safe from the vicious violent blacks.

    Are you aware that the public schools no matter how “ good” don’t teach cursive or printing past kindergarten any more? When the kids are old enough to get s drivers license library card credit card or bank account they can’t write their own name.

    Printing is taught in kindergarten and first few months of first grade but not after that.

    The “ good” public schools teach hatred of Whites pro holidays anti Americanism pro gay presch sbortion have transgender bathrooms false history Martin Luther king worship hatred of Trump and the rest of the liberal crap.

    Why bother getting your kid s voucher for that especially as violent vicious blacks will get vouchers for the same school?

    Old French saying, save yourself if you can. Save your kids from the public schools if you can. The secular and Protestant schools are as liberal as the public schools. The catholic and schools that call themselves Christian at least don’t preach abortion trans gender and homosexuality.

  63. inertial says:
    @Jack D

    As long as creators were trying to cling to official approval, all they turned out was crap that met the official standards of correctness. The comedy was not funny. The drama was melodramatic, the paintings were formulaic.

    And you know all of this how?

    Westerners know jack squat about the Soviet culture (except the 0.1% of it that was somehow useful for anti-Soviet propaganda.) And that’s fine. What gets me is not that they know nothing but that they think that they do.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @Jack D
  64. ic1000 says:
    @AnotherDad

    With his “Free College For All” pledge in 2016, Bernie displayed a typical Smart-Old-Left pattern — right diagnosis (college is too expensive), wrong cure.

    One idea would be to make student debt dischargeable in bankruptcy. That would highlight the risk of loaning lots of money to students who choose low-market-value majors or crummy schools.

    Since universities have a pimp/pusher role in the current system, these institutions should be held responsible for half of student-loan defaults. Shouldn’t be a problem as they can always ask their donors for more money.

  65. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    Griggs vs Duke Power Nixon’s Philadelphia plan and Kaiser vs Weber destroyed the merit exam certification process forever in America.

    The capitalist scum have always gone along with affirmative action discrimination against Whites. The capitalist scum Ford Rockefeller Carnegie and many other capitalist scum foundations funded and propagandize affirmative action

    The capitalist scum doesn’t want White workers any more than LaRaza NAACP ADL AJC or any other liberal organizations do.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  66. who she knows will tell her things that she and her editors and readers don’t want to hear

    A more accurate version:

    who she knows will tell her things that she and her editors don’t want their readers to hear

    The thing about cults is that the laity are as gullible as fuck, so you have to make sure that they don’t get competing messages.

    It would also be nice if anyone had linked to any of the ‘studies’ mentioned. Maybe that was done on the NYT page… but going to the NYT site is, for me, the intellectual equivalent of watching “Two Girls, One Cup” on constant replay.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  67. @Arclight

    if you are an overachiever from an underachieving group, do you really want to internalize the idea that your upper middle class existence means you are an outlier and not an example of what most others from your group could attain?

    Why not? Wouldn’t that just make you all the more exceptional? Wouldn’t you prefer to be the smartest negro on the block rather than just an average negro who got lucky?

    • Replies: @EvolutionistX
  68. ic1000 says:

    I haven’t read Marks’ book, but the Aero review makes it sound interesting. “Is Science Racist?” Book Review, by Cody Moser. Fair-use extract:

    Marks’ concern isn’t so much that the content of science is racist as it stands, but that it is constructed in such a way as to allow what he views as evil factual premises into its knowledge base. He highlights four of the foundational pillars of science that he views as epistemological vulnerabilities. These are: (i) naturalism, the idea that the natural world can be comprehended without recourse to the supernatural (which Marks claims is impossible due to the characteristics of human thought, while riffing on creationism); (ii) experimentalism, the idea we can study the world in controlled settings (which Marks says is impossible because things are different everywhere); (iii) rationalism, the idea that reason should govern scientific practice; and (iv) accuracy, the idea that scientific ideas should be factually correct.

    Marks claims that all these premises are unusual and do not make for a better mode of thought when compared to other modes of thinking. This argument is, frankly, bizarre, given that Marks concedes that science must pronounce authoritative facts about the world.

    Reviewer Moser adds:

    So, if all of science’s four pillars are wrong, what does science have to contribute? In the era of open access, gridlocked academia and open code, Marks claims that the only thing science is good for is gatekeeping. Gatekeeping has its values, but what are they without independent verification through experimentation and a focus on accuracy, which Marks claims is impossible.

    Here is Full Professor Jonathan Marks’ self-written profile at the UNC-Charlotte website. Emphasis added:

    …[Marks’] primary training is in biological anthropology and genetics, but his interests are broad, and he has published widely across the sciences and humanities on the general topics of human origins and human diversity. In 2006 he was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In 2012 he was awarded the First Citizen’s Bank Scholar’s Medal from UNC Charlotte. In recent years he has been a Visiting Research Fellow at the ESRC Genomics Forum in Edinburgh, at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin, and a Templeton Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study at Notre Dame. Although he has written books called What it Means to be 98% Chimpanzee and Why I am Not a Scientist, he would like it to be known, for the record, that he is about 98% scientist, and not a chimpanzee.*

    According to Moser’s review, Marks rejects the pillars of Science, while robing himself with its authority. High-status, secure, and lucrative work, if you can get it. Having your cake and eating it, that’s livin’ the dream.

    * Erratum: For the record, Marks is 98% chimpanzee, and not a scientist.

    • Replies: @Faraday's Bobcat
    , @ic1000
  69. @Hypnotoad666

    The case for gentically determined group IQ differences has been overwhelming for 40 years at least.

    I think you’re off on your math there by a few orders of magnitude.

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @Peter Johnson
  70. Alfa158 says:

    Steve, you forgot the latest fall-back defensive trench being being dug out by writers like Nassim Taleb: It doesn’t matter if IQ differences are genetically based, and even if the distributions are measurably different between racial groups. IQ doesn’t actually measure intelligence except at the very left side of the curve where it can identify stupid people, and is therefore a meaningless parameter. After all what about all those 150 IQ janitors?

  71. ic1000 says:

    If you like your Jonathan Marks updates to be on the conventionally stupid side, NBC News is here to help. ‘Is Science Racist?’: New Book Takes on Race as Cultural Construct by Mashaun D. Simon, Aug. 18, 2017. Here is Simon quoting Marks:

    “An East African is more closely related to a West Asian than to a West African; geographic distance is the main determinant of similarity in the human species. In order to make these formal categories we have to create cultural rules like the ‘one-drop of blood rule’ in defiance of natural patterns in our species,” [Marks] adds. “The category ‘Hispanic’ also shows that biology is a distraction. It is a linguistic category if your ancestors spoke Spanish. But those ancestors could be from Mexico and look Native American; or from the Philippines, and look Asian; or from Dominica and look African; or from Spain and look European. Yet most Americans nevertheless consider it to be a racial category.”

    Embarrassing for both of them.

  72. @Ghost of Bull Moose

    Although Hannah Gadsby is an Australian, it’s important not note that all this ‘woke comedy’ shit is specifically an American thing, and it’s like watching seagulls fighting over leftover chips.

    Think of the targets vs the ‘weaponised SJW’ comics.

    Targets: Chappelle (slightly protected because black); Bill Burr; Doug Stanhope; CK; Ricky Gervais… frankly, I would actually pay actual money to see those guys, because they’re actually funny. In fact I did actually pay for CK’s ‘pay whatever, or nothing‘ downloadable gig a few years back. Kevin Hart has fallen foul of the Rainbow-Flag Warriors, which is sad, but fuck him coz he ain’t funny.

    These dudes all have something in common (apart from having material that runs afoul of the SJW Shamans): they’re rich as fuck, and the controversy will not change their fan base or their ticket sales.

    Burr might well be the least-well-known of all of them, and he just upgraded to a $4.7 million house – that shows you that he produces material that plenty of people will pay for.

    The interesting thing – to me – is that the SJW ‘woke comedy’ crowd is trying to use #BDS strategies – with the type of ham-fisted incompetence that befits a group whose primary lifetime achievement is a GPA of 2 in undergraduate Grievance Studies.

    And here in Oz we have some pretty good female comics, even though I’m not mad on woman standup comedians generally – their schtick is almost always
    Ⓐ “vagina-vagina-vagina” “so once I was blowing this guy I just met” – Amy Schumer
    ⓑ “kids kids kids”

    With that said, Kitty Flanagan and Celia Paquola are hilarious. Stanhope/Burr hilarious.

    Good comics make a good living; shit comics need to fight the seagulls.

    • Replies: @Lot
  73. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:

    no one will read this because steve and ron like to rabbit hole my comments which being the bad thinking bad boy i have to say to be banned by sailor and unz for bad think is pretty cool no hard feelings nick the marxist cuck land also banned me and half the dark enlightenment cuz i get the implications and im blunt- and since i can write im an easy target but we know its not my lack of punctuation i get banned for
    ANYWAY
    Prime has a watson doc i just started and was thinking the leftys that watson him have their whole lives been tearing down the church and west civ for watsoming galileo and socrates etc do you think it ever crosses their minds ” hey Im doing to watson what they did to galileo “

  74. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kratoklastes

    The thing about cults is that the laity are as gullible as fuck, so you have to make sure that they don’t get competing messages.

    One of my best friends lived in an area where door to door preachers and missionaries were especially thick. He would invite them in, listen to their spiel and get as much literature as he could from each group once. Next time one of them came in, he’d listen to them a little while then pitch one of the others’ religions to them with equal intensity. They’d vamoose of course.

    I used to do that with phone solicitors in the pre-Caller ID days. I’d especially enjoy carpet cleaning places. They’d pitch their carpet cleaning service a while then I’d ask…

    “Do you use the wet or dry method of carpet cleaning?”

    They’d have to go ask since the callers were solicitors in boiler rooms who had never cleaned a carpet in their life.

    They’d come back with one of two answers, wet (steam or shampoo) or dry.

    “Well, I’m glad you called me today, _____. Because you see, I’m the local area director for the Von Schrader (wet or dry, the opposite of what she said) method of carpet cleaning. I’m going to come over to your office tomorrow and clean your carpet to show that you can realize greater profits and higher customer satisfaction with our syste,. i have an appointment at 9:30 or 3 pm tomorrow, which would wo…”
    “Click!”

    Not one ever called my bluff and asked me to come out. So I knew the industry was full of shit.

  75. Yeah, someone really needs to break down the cui bono on this one for me: Why would a coalition of whites and jews–who dominate the “Left”– come together to suppress fact showing that they have higher IQs than others???

    I mean, I could see why they’d want it suppressed if it showed that blacks had higher IQs but vice versa? Makes little sense.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Mr. XYZ
  76. L Woods says:
    @Lot

    The social sciences should be captured rather than destroyed. They may be worthless at best as they currently stand, but they need not inherently be so.

  77. @ic1000

    (ii) experimentalism, the idea we can study the world in controlled settings (which Marks says is impossible because things are different everywhere);

    Gosh, I never thought of that before! There might be some conditions during our experiments that are not exactly like what occurs in other situations? This Marks fellow is quite a thinker. I’m going to quit science and join a traveling carnival.

  78. Lot says:
    @AnotherDad

    Yes we’re definitely on the same page on tax, immigration, and education policy.

    Vouchers aren’t a bad idea in some places, but K-12 education isn’t the problem people claim in the USA. Our rich suburban public schools are often the best in the world. Once you adjust by race, American kids test quite well in international comparisons.

    One of the few good things Obama did was cut off fed loans to the colleges with the worst repayment and student outcome records. He even shut down a few “law schools” that were created by private equity sleazebags that had 80% bar exam fail rates, plus the awful Corinthian College chain that used boilerroom tactics to hook people who often didn’t make it to high school graduation.

    Obama’s rule was too weak, but the structure of the rule made a lot of sense. It was and still is within Trump’s power to ramp up the rule and then sit back and watch the layoffs and shutdowns of leftist viper-nests.

    Instead DeVos undermined the rule to please scammy for profit schools that spend a lot of money bribing both parties.

  79. Lot says:
    @Kratoklastes

    I watched the entire CK, Gervais, Rock and Seinfeld chat that was in the news recently because of CK’s n-bombing. It was great to see them all together, great chemistry.

  80. Lot says:
    @Stan d Mute

    “I think you’re off on your math there by a few orders of magnitude.”

    Hume got it basically right in the mid 1700s. He speculated Italians were smarter than British on average but had a lower rate of genius.

    I think it was Carlyle who first got the NE Asian>Euro>Afro ordering right.

    I never looked for older examples, but the first guy who seemed to notice Jewish IQ I know of was Mark Twain. He didn’t argue for it so much as notice and joke about it, so maybe it was something he assumed his readers were aware of. Did Galton ever mention the topic?

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    , @Lot
    , @Stan d Mute
  81. @Anon

    Griggs vs Duke Power Nixon’s Philadelphia plan and Kaiser vs Weber destroyed the merit exam certification process forever in America.

    Griggs was a disaster, and an–yet another–example of the insanity of letting judges unconstitutionally make social policy. But it didn’t destroy all testing or certification.

    Most obviously Griggs pushed lots of employers to use a college degree as some metric–with various majors, grade point providing scale–of IQ and conscientiousness. But it’s obviously a very expensive metric. Tech companies offer all sorts of certifications as do occupational orgs for all sorts of trade. Lower down lots of employers use a high school diploma as a gate. And the GED is still there.

    My proposal is essentially to provide more scale. You could think “college level GED”, except it is straightforward to do much much better and provide much more scale and breath–from basic literacy, through various levels of mathematical competency through to “field competency” in a bunch of college majors.

    Seriously we have the tools to give the college racket a huge whack upside the head.

    And doing that is not impacted by Griggs at all. Employers using those tests is impacted by Griggs, by not necessarily moreso than when they use a college or high school diploma as a screen now. Providing these certifications will actually be a good whack at the Griggs debacle.

    • Replies: @Lot
  82. @Captain Tripps

    To ask the question is to answer it; refer yourself to the nearest Party consciousness-raising seminar, you racist.

    Depends on the meaning of “racist”.

    The old school meaning–i.e. when I was kid–implied a level of “bad feeling”. I don’t and never have had that. I wish all races, ethnic groups, nations to do well–and have eugenic fertility to boot. (The world would be a lot better if people were getting smarter, more conscientious and all around less douchebaggy.)

    But the new definition is anyone who doesn’t believe everyone’s the same. (Or more specifically that you can’t believe any group is inferior in anything to white people.)

    Under that definition, i’m a super-duper “racist”. And so is reality. Which means so is “science”, as the job of science is to try and uncover and inform us about reality.

  83. @Lot

    I never looked for older examples, but the first guy who seemed to notice Jewish IQ I know of was Mark Twain. He didn’t argue for it so much as notice and joke about it, so maybe it was something he assumed his readers were aware of. Did Galton ever mention the topic?

    Twain came up with “goyishe kopf”? Who knew!

  84. ic1000 says:
    @ic1000

    I’m trying to reconcile Professor Marks’ assertion “I am Not a Scientist” with his assumption of the mantle of authority to interpret, discuss, and debate science as a public intellectual. In his faculty profile, he lists his notable achievements, including:

    * His primary training in biological anthropology and genetics.
    * That he has published widely across the sciences on the topics of human origins and human diversity.
    * That in 2006 he was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
    * That he was recently a Visiting Research Fellow at the ESRC Genomics Forum in Edinburgh.
    * That he was recently a Visiting Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science.
    * That despite authoring Why I am Not a Scientist, he would like it known that he is about 98% scientist.

    If my uncle convinced me that he doesn’t know anything about molecular diagnostics, I wouldn’t want to hear his technical interpretation of my cancer test results. But this is the sort of game that Marks is playing. He’s not bending the ear of a hapless nephew, he’s getting paid to write books, jet off to prestigious institutes, and give keynotes at scientific meetings.

    Seems to me that Marks intends for his familiars to interpret I am Not a Scientist as I am a Heretical Scientist, and one who stands up against orthodox scientists and their racist viewpoints.

    Reminiscent of the schtick of a Las Vegas flim flam artist, where the marks are actually willing confederates. Who cares if Marks is inconsistent and contradictory, he’s our guy, spouting our nonsense.

  85. Mokiki says:

    It’s time to appoint Vonnegut’s “Handicapper General”.

  86. @Alfa158

    Steve, you forgot the latest fall-back defensive trench being being dug out by writers like Nassim Taleb: It doesn’t matter if IQ differences are genetically based, and even if the distributions are measurably different between racial groups. IQ doesn’t actually measure intelligence except at the very left side of the curve where it can identify stupid people, and is therefore a meaningless parameter.

    Interesting point – but then the question arises, why doesn’t Taleb devise a test that works over the rest of the IQ range?

    The answer, of course, is that he knows perfectly well that the group differences that so embarrass him would persist in any new intelligence test that he might invent.

  87. Lot says:
    @Lot

    An 89 year old but lucid Galton was interviewed in a Jewish newspaper in 1910:

    http://galton.org/essays/1900-1911/galton-1910-jewish-chronicle-eugenics.pdf

    Also in 1910 Galton invited Harold Leski, a 17-year-old Jewish boy, to tea after reading Leski’s article in the Westminster Review titled “The Scope of Eugenics.”

    From two letters Galton wrote:

    “A particularly good article in the Westminster Review on “The Scope of Eugenics,” signed by H. J. Laski, was sent me among other Press cuttings. The name was unknown to me, so I wrote to him “Care of the Editor,” and bear from Laski this morning in a very nice, modest letter that he is a school-boy at Manchester, aged 17! It is long since I have been so much astonished. The lad has probably a great future before him and lie will make a mark if he sticks to Eugenics, which he says has been his passion for two years”

    “My wonderful boy Jew, Laski by name, came here with his brother to tea. Eva was out, but Miss Savile fortunately called and did the necessary. The boy is simply beautiful. She is an artist and quite agreed. He is perfectly nice and quiet in his manners. Many prodigies fail, but this one seems to have stamina and purpose, and is not excitable, so he ought to make a mark. The two boys are grandsons of a famous Russian Rabbi, a mystic and a great Kabbalist. They told me much about the Kabbala; how only the initiated in it know the proper pronunciation of Jahovah. I told them about Professor Robertson Smith, who knew it, and on pronouncing it before a great Rabbi visitor at Cambridge was cursed by him from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet, and withered and died within three months!”

    One year later, Laski, at age 18, married a 27 year old Christian woman and renounced Judaism. After another year he stopped studying eugenics and switched to economics, and then taught at Harvard, Yale, and LSE. He later became an influential member of the left-wing faction of the Labour Party and supporter of Indian independence, becoming the chairman of the party in 1945, but was forced out the next year by the more moderate Attlee after he became PM.

    https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/26th-july-1945-london-england-a-picture-of-economist-harold-laski-a-picture-id79046087

    • Replies: @RobRich
  88. Lot says:
    @AnotherDad

    Griggs didn’t actually ban use of IQ tests in hiring, but only required a specific reason related to the open position. That’s not hard to do!

    It is also unlikely to be good law anymore. The cultural leftism of the Warren court remains, but all of its economic leftism has been repealed whenever it inconvenienced big business. If they were really bothered by Griggs, they’d have gotten it changed by now.

    I think this is more a matter if big business feeling like it is unseemly to explicitly hire based on IQ testing.

    • Replies: @keypusher
  89. dfordoom says: • Website
    @bomag

    As pointed out, the Left has hacked academia; the Arts; bureaucracy; and the courts; but there should be plenty of room for some political victories for the good guys.

    But who are the good guys? In the Anglosphere at least they sure as hell are not the supposedly conservative right-wing political parties. Those parties, the Republicans and the Tories and their ilk, are solidly cultural marxist. They care about nothing except their own class interests and they’ve decided that cultural marxism is very much in their own class interests. So in the political sphere there aren’t any good guys.

  90. inertial says:
    @Jack D

    And? You just made my point about propaganda. Can you even name three Soviet Socialist Realist painters without googling? Let alone recognize their paintings.

    But I am more interested in how you knew that “comedy was not funny.”

  91. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Colin Wright

    Courage, loyalty, piety — these are the virtues.

    They were right to think that way. Intelligence is of minor importance. We need a very small number of smart people but for the majority of the population a high IQ is a handicap. It makes people vulnerable to intellectual fads and silly fashionable theories with no basis in reality.

    The intellectual class is not actually needed. By and large we’d be better off without intellectuals.

  92. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Alice

    If group differences in intelligence, delayed gratification, conscientiousness, charitableness toward other, prudence, stability of sexual relationships, etc. are a result of genes, then the conservative argument that people should just try harder to behave falls apart

    If group differences in intelligence, delayed gratification, conscientiousness, charitableness toward other, prudence, stability of sexual relationships, etc. exist then the welfare state is an absolute necessity.

    And democracy will always be unworkable.

  93. Leftists are usually the ones celebrating science in all of its manifestations, even naming their political philosophies, like scientific socialism, after science. In the Eighties / Nineties psychobabble chat-show culture, liberals and progressives treated the social sciences—often derisively called “soft sciences”—like the gospel. Liberals might embrace the soft sciences because they are easier to manipulate for political purposes than the hard sciences. Many liberals and progressives major in the soft sciences, ending up in government work, where they can influence the public debate, getting quoted by the media as representatives of authoritative, objective, scientific government sources.

    You are right that today’s journalists cherry pick their guests to support their narrative, even applying that propaganda tactic to something that is supposed to be objective like science. It does look like an avoidance strategy, possibly because leftists are afraid their days of pretending to be Sidney Poitier, magnanimously delivering the Great White Hope to the untapped blank-slate geniuses in oppressed groups, are numbered if the evidence on IQ and groups gets out, albeit many scientific topics seem to still be open to debate, not that the public gets to hear much real debate from true experts in the manipulative, watered-down mainstream media.

    Leftists see environmental factors—the nurture over nature—as an excuse for bad behavior, while rightists usually believe in the non-science-based concept of individual choice. Liberals treat environmental factors like scientific predictors of bad behavior, while conservatives treat bad behavior as a moral issue, grounded in human choice, not in science. You are right that the left’s rejection of a nature-based explanation for human behavior contradicts their preference for science-based explanations over religious / moral explanations, but then, the closed system of biological reductionism seems kind of incompatible with the notions of individual liberty, free will and picking oneself up by one’s bootstraps, associated with conservatism. By asserting that the blank slate is pre-written, conservatives may be providing progressives with the perfect excuse for full-scale socialism.

  94. @Stan d Mute

    Thing is, you need a group you can join.

    I can look at my background, note a lot of Poor Whites, thank my lucky stars I didn’t grow up in a trailer park, and then go back to being accepted as a perfectly normal middle class intellectual.

    What do you do when there’s really no one else from your culture around? Seems really isolating.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
  95. @jbwilson24

    I know “not anymore.” White people don’t manufacture TVs anymore either. But all this stuff came from a way of thinking that was pioneered by the White Man. He perfected the art, and it has spread around the world.

    I can pick up Chinese food virtually anywhere, but I don’t call it anything but Chinese. I will not call science Chinese, because it isn’t.

  96. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Jack D

    Compared to most of the art produced in the West in the 20th century I think that’s pretty good.

  97. keypusher says:
    @Lot

    It’s very much good law, and it’s very hard to get around.

  98. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jack D

    We saw the same thing in the Soviet Bloc with respect to literature, music, art, etc.

    The music was still good, even during the height of Stalinist repression.

  99. @Alfa158

    IQ doesn’t actually measure intelligence except at the very left side of the curve where it can identify stupid people, and is therefore a meaningless parameter. After all what about all those 150 IQ janitors?

    He’s an idiot.

  100. @Stan d Mute

    Arthur Jensen published his research paper “How Much Can We Boost I.Q. and Achievement?” in the Harvard Educational Review in 1969, and within ten years from that date, anyone who cared to look honestly and objectively at the evidence could see his argument was very strong and comprehensively supported by the data. So that would be 40 years ago. The evidence has never stopped accumulating since that date; of course with a few wobbles like James Flynn’s work showing the time trend in some intelligence test performance averages. The evidence continues to accumulate, and eventually the blank slate edifice will crumble, despite its strong political appeal.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    , @Mr. XYZ
  101. I just found out that James Watson was pictured on one of the books that got me interested in science:

    My parents had the Life Science Library on our shelves, and I ate it up. I started reading it when Apollo 8 orbited the moon on Christmas Eve.

    That’s Watson on the cover of one of the volumes, The Scientist. I remember the book, but I had no idea that was him and his bald spot.

    That was a time when the American government, media and schools were promoting science. The effort started in 1957 with the Russian launch of Sputnik. Typically, Americans then suddenly thought they were behind in science and education. (Or at least they were being told they were. Maybe it was like the “missile gap” used by the “military industrial complex” to promote its interests?)

    Anyway, it was far better as a boy to have science pushed at you, rather than social justice, hatred of white males, and retconned history.

    • Replies: @Lot
  102. Lot says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Student loans numbers aren’t capped. As many go out as there are qualified willing borrowers. Limit student loans to colleges and graduate programs whose graduates get real jobs and pay them back would probably cut the number of loans by a third if done aggressively enough.

    As I noted, Obama actually did this on a small scale. Corinthian (similar to University of Phoenix) and the fake law schools hoovered up billions of student loan dollars. Then he cut them off, and they had to close because nobody would pay their own money.

    His DoE didn’t need Congress’s permission because it already has the authority to set minimum standards.

  103. Lot says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I loved those too. Had the same set (out of date but still great).

    The Childcraft encyclopedia set was also great, I read the entire thing.

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

    The “Mathemagic” book was by far the most interesting math book and instruction I read as a child.

    Here’s a review from a homeschool mom:

    https://www.plumfieldandpaideia.com/childcraft-mathemagic/

  104. RobRich says: • Website
    @Redneck farmer

    I first heard the term ‘Human Biodiversity’ in 1969 from the then teen-age Michael Gilson De Lemos (MG) who presently curates the Libertarian International and who co–developed both the Libertarian and Green parties. He had in mind a body of thought including an eminent libertarian anatomist-anthropologist (I forget the name) who had written several books on how much people varied physically and mentally. I remember being stunned on reading these books.

    MG’s point was that many ills came from extremist ideologies and lazy science that simply underestimated the extent of human variation in IQ, temperament, physiology, sexuality, needs, etc. which variation Libertarianism understood and sought to protect. At the same time, they want to help people take conscious control of the process, hence their concept of humans with 500+ IQ, which sure flips the script IMHO.

    The left picks up a lot from L/libertarians then re-packages it in distorted form and then claims credit. I’m just saying.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    , @Stan d Mute
  105. RobRich says: • Website
    @Lot

    Laski was an evil man.

  106. @RobRich

    Interesting, thanks.

    I first heard the term “biodiversity” from Edward O. Wilson, likely in the late 1980s or 1990s, who was the main man in the Save the Rainforests movement.

    But it could well have been in existence before then.

  107. RobRich says: • Website
    @Anon7

    I asked a journalist about this once. He said that it was the journalists who added it in, no one would read about science couched in careful terms. Plus many leftist journalists hated real science and wanted to make scientists look like absent-minded clucks.

    He called it ‘Gee-Whiz Journalism.’

  108. @Peter Johnson

    Arthur Jensen published his research paper “How Much Can We Boost I.Q. and Achievement?” in the Harvard Educational Review in 1969

    Since Neolithic times if not tens of millennia earlier still, it’s been damned obvious to anyone with functioning senses. Jensen simply proved the case in scientifically recognized terms.

  109. @Lot

    My point was:

    “Omigosh, I just discovered that Africans aren’t as smart as (insert ethny of choice here)!”

    —Said exactly nobody since the invention of language

  110. @RobRich

    I wouldn’t be the least surprised if your MG picked up the term from Desmond Morris in 1967:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Morris

  111. Elsewhere says:
    @bjdubbs

    Marks didn’t write the comment. It was an anonymous comment on a book review of a book by Marks.

    I was confused by Steve’s wording, too.

  112. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @Nigerian Nationalist

    Because it undermines the blank slate, which is the basis of leftism.

    • Replies: @Nigerian Nationalist
  113. @EvolutionistX

    Thing is, you need a group you can join.

    What do you do when there’s really no one else from your culture around? Seems really isolating.

    Are you suggesting that there aren’t enough exceptional negro clubs? No negro doctors of America? Negro lawyers of America? Negro (fill in the blank) of America clubs?

    Being part of the talented tenth of any race is isolating to some extent, but the rest of us seem to manage okay without a smart crackers club don’t we?

  114. rob says:

    Is ‘a radical new centrism’ the radical centrist who comments here?

  115. @Anonymous

    Fair enough, but it also legitimises the power of most of the “Elite” who we can assume will have high IQ scores.

    Maybe, it’s ’cause I’m from a more selfish culture but in their shoes, I wouldn’t be as committed to the blanket denials.

  116. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Peter Johnson

    What’s interesting about the Flynn effect is that it doesn’t seem to have narrowed racial IQ gaps much, if at all–especially in recent years.

    It would be like seeing women’s average height increase from 150 cm to 165 cm and men’s average height increase from 165 cm to 180 cm. The women would now be the same average height that men previously were, but this doesn’t mean that women and men have equal potential in regards to their height. Indeed, in this scenario, the gap between men’s and women’s heights remained exactly the same as it previously was.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  117. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Nigerian Nationalist

    They might be afraid of Blacks and Hispanic mobs chasing them down out of anger that they will never be able to live as well as Whites and Jews do.

    • Replies: @Nigerian Nationalist
  118. Mr. XYZ says:
    @Peter Johnson

    It looks like we need someone prominent–such as in politics–to openly talk about HBD in front of the American people. Might President Trump be that person–especially if/after he loses reelection in 2020?

    • Agree: Peter Johnson
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Anonymous
  119. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Mr. XYZ

    It looks like we need someone prominent–such as in politics–to openly talk about HBD in front of the American people. Might President Trump be that person–especially if/after he loses reelection in 2020?

    It would certain be a splendid way for him to end his political career. And to ensure that no anti-immigration candidate ever gets elected in the future.

  120. Anonymous[290] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    Indeed, in this scenario, the gap between men’s and women’s heights remained exactly the same as it previously was.

    Not really. It has narrowed in relative terms.

  121. Anonymous[290] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    Do you think he will lose re-election?

  122. @Mr. XYZ

    That’s what soldiers, mercs and autonomous firing platforms are for. I mean, Bobby Mugabe, Omar Bashir and every run of the mill African dictator seem to do fine with mobs hating them.

    Like I wrote, I really don’t see how it’s beneficial.

Current Commenter
says:

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


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
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
The evidence is clear — but often ignored