The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Thompson Archive
Scientific Racism
🔊 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

Group 5 fists hold closely together

“Scientific Racism” is an oxymoron. The truth cannot be racist, and lies cannot be science. If you say something truthful about a racial difference then that is true, not a lie, and not racism. If you say something about racial groups which is untrue, then that is not science, it is false, and science has to correct mistakes as soon as possible.

Scientific racism is a contradiction in terms.

Nonetheless, the epithet “scientific racism” is often thrown at any study of racial differences as if, whatever the outcome of the research, the mere investigation transgresses some a priori truths. The argument seems to be: “we know that racial differences do not exist, so those who argue against that view are wrong, whatever their investigations may suggest”. In simple terms, if a person can be considered a racist, then the fact that they “do science” is simply another one of their fiendish tricks. The scientific part becomes an additional outrage, a vain attempt to prove true something already known to be wrong.

The blanket condemnation of evidence-seeking is not always applied to differences which have medical connotations. Race-based differences in vulnerability to illnesses is often exempt from hostile criticism. A welcome respite. However, the evolutionary processes which affect the organs of the body are not guaranteed to leave the brain above the audit, somehow exempt from selection. If one genetic group differs in one regard it is worth studying if they differ in other regards.

It may not be obvious at first, but if you want to combat racism and sexism you need the benchmark of open discussion about racial and sexual differences. Otherwise, how do we know which claims about group differences are clearly wrong and which are right? These are empirical matters and you need to establish the truth before you can demonstrate what deviates from it. The most effective way to find the truth is free and open inquiry into all group differences. We should be on the side of those who want to know more, not those who want to know less. We should oppose those who want other people to know less, while they are free to find out as much as they can, and then decide what to hold back.

I know that some researchers will want to hold back findings which they believe will halt their careers. It is a tough choice. I sympathize with their dilemma, and look forward to the day when they can all publish their findings openly.

The study of racial differences has been criticized as pseudo-science. Of course, one should be against pseudo-science, as one should be against pseudo-journalism, and pseudo-outrage and pseudo everything. But why should one branch of science be called pseudo, and another not? All branches of science depend on maintaining scientific standards whatever the topic is. Any errors need to be corrected by better methods. There is as much scope for error when comparing racial groups as when comparing social class groups. Selection criteria are rarely pure, and can be subject to confounding.

We should aim for high standards in everything we investigate. One way to achieve that is to examine the ideas we love with as much ferocity as the ideas we find repellent. That will keep us closer to the truth.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Academia, Political Correctness, Racism 
Hide 170 CommentsLeave a Comment
170 Comments to "Scientific Racism"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. res says:

    I strongly agree with your post, but I think it is important to note that I believe you are in fact proposing a definition of racism (in your third sentence). I happen to agree with that definition, but also acknowledge that it is not the definition one will find in dictionaries or in common use (IMHO).

    Here is a sample from a quick Google search of “racism”. I have bolded words I think make that definition difficult to interpret.

    the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

    But basically I think the problem can be summed up as trying to reconcile two beliefs (axioms).

    1. What is true is not racist.
    2. Observations that races are different (whether couched as “on average” or absolute statements, though those two things are very different) in meaningful ways are racist.

    Not sure how to even attempt someone who believes either one of those to change their mind. Any thoughts?

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  2. res says:
    @Noah Carl

    Thanks for the link to your paper. Very interesting. Can you give some idea of the response it has received? I did a quick search and only saw mention in Emil’s twitter and a single Reddit thread.

  3. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re stuck in a time warp, Mr. Thompson. The “open inquiry” into “race” was several decades ago and debate (pro/against) was completely open, e.g. Livingstone vs. Dobzhansky:

    On the Non-Existence of Human Races

    Frank B. Livingstone and Theodosius Dobzhansky

    Current Anthropology

    Vol. 3, No. 3 (Jun., 1962), pp. 279-281

    Redefining Race: The Potential Demise of a Concept in Physical Anthropology [and Comments and Reply]

    Alice Littlefield, Leonard Lieberman, Larry T. Reynolds, Eliane S. Azevêdo, Kenneth L. Beals, C. L. Brace, Stanley M. Garn, P. A. Gloor, Arthur R. Jensen, Jack Kelso, Teresa Łaska-Mierzejewska, Frank B. Livingstone, Ashley Montagu, Steven Rose, Wenda R. Trevathan and Linda D. Wolfe

    Current Anthropology

    Vol. 23, No. 6 (Dec., 1982), pp. 641-655

    So-called “race realists” today have a fake persecution complex like creationists.

    The debate about race was decades ago; race was discredited and replaced with clines.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism

    If you’re defending race in 2018, then yes you’re a pseudoscientist and have ignored the past 50+ years.

  4. @Noah Carl

    Indeed. Captures the dilemma very well.

  5. ‘Racism’ is much more than just a belief in racial differences. ‘Scientific racism’ is the use of scientific findings to advance or bolster normative racism. Eg, science proves that whites are more intelligent than blacks, therefore whites should separate from blacks (or rule over blacks, or what have you).

    Still, I suppose there is some mileage to be gained from claiming that scientific racism is an oxymoron, so go for it.

    Personally, I think it’s more profitable to accuse race-deniers of equalitarian pseudoscience, or pseudoscientific race-denial, or pseudoscientific anti-white race-denial. (Offense is the best form of defense, right?)

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Realist
  6. From the linked paper:

    For example, Kitcher (1985) writes,

    Everybody ought to agree that, given sufficient evidence for some hypothesis about humans, we should accept that hypothesis whatever its political implications. But the question of what counts as sufficient evidence is not independent of the political consequences. If the costs of being wrong are sufficiently high, then it is reasonable and responsible to ask for more evidence than is demanded in situations where mistakes are relatively innocuous

    If that logic were actually adhered to, the kooky hypothesis of racial equality would never have received a hearing, much less been accepted and enshrined as the law of the land. After all, the costs of getting that wrong have clearly been monumental.

    (In contrast, the costs of proceeding on the assumption that racial differences were real in the case that they were actually false would have been comparatively trivial.)

    • Replies: @dearieme
  7. Sean says:

    If you say something about racial groups which is untrue, then that is not science, it is false, and science has to correct mistakes as soon as possible.

    This sounds like the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. I think one can be a scientist doing science and simply get it wrong. The racial theorists known as anti-racists who believe in genetic equality of the races happen to have a wrong theory.

    https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/leviathan-and-air-pump-highlights

  8. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @Noah Carl

    Carl, so why is it proponents of race (racialists) and hereditarians are always far-right? Do you not find that suspicious? You mention individuals like Jensen in your article, but don’t mention their white nationalist views etc.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Arthur_Jensen

    https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/arthur-jensen

    Jensen in 1992 was interviewed by the white nationalist Jared Taylor for American Renaissance and both of them agreed on numerous things that are common beliefs or goals of white nationalists; Jensen also sat on the Editorial Board of the German neo-Nazi journal Neue Anthropologie (NA).

  9. Anonymous[279] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Non-Existence of Human Races

    Even a random 3-year old can see what you’ve trained yourself to not see. How does it feel? Did you actually pay for this “education”? Are you still paying for it? Lol!

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  10. More ‘reasonable’ people who claim ‘Scientic Racism’ is a thing say that so-called ‘scientific racists’ wanted to rank the races… so, it’s the RANKING part that makes it a pseudo-science. My understanding is that it’s not a scientific endeavour to rank races into ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’, because science is not teleological (as Carl Linnaeus thought it was); I’m not saying that there is no ‘superiority’ in the races (maybe yes, maybe no), what I’m saying is that that’s not a SCIENCE question, but a PHILOSOPHY one.
    Rushton, for example, NEVER said (I guess, at least) that his r/K thesis applied to the races makes a race ‘better’ or ‘worse’; it’s just…different.

    [English isn't my mother tongue, sorry for any error.]

  11. @Anonymous

    Good questions. You might have also asked why it is that race-deniers are always anti-white immigration enthusiasts. Isn’t that suspicious? (It’s like they believe that since all races are equal, then whites – and only whites – simply must be wiped out through immigration. It’s some kind of moral imperative they apparently derive from their race-denial.)

  12. Alfa158 says:
    @Anonymous

    My operating definition of a racist is a person who believes that race is real, just as a deist is a person who believes God or gods are real. You can be a Racist without thinking any race is inferior or superior, but just different.
    I would be happy to describe myself as a Clinist instead but I think that will just confuse people unless the term clines comes into general usage.

  13. Not sure how to even attempt someone who believes either one of those to change their mind. Any thoughts?

    1) Vey first thought – way back in my head, almost little, but clear nevertheless: What Hunter S. Thompson wrote about Nixon…

    2) Second thought: Patience, clarity, and a stubborn persistence are the best weapons (cf. Immanuel Kant – who was a funny guy too, at times, even though most of his readers never got this. But it’s true, actually – take the title of his famous essay “Eternal Peace” – which he had chosen after remembering a pub-sign, and this pub – and this is funny, isn’t it: Was situated near a cemetery…so the sign meant not least: Be careful, what you wish for, if you speak about eternal peace…

    3) Then I think of the witches. I live in a region, where witch-craft was very popular until 1700 ca. It disappeared then and ok – : – The humanistslike Erasmus in Freiburg and Basel did help to make this happen, but if you look closer, you’ll find: The humanists and enlightenment men achieved their goal not least by making compromises with the spooky mindset. Erasmus for example, the famous Erasmus from Rotterdam never really (=openly) condemned which-craft and the like, but nevertheless and at the same time never ceased to articulate scepticism concerning these supernatural powers.

    3b) Then think of humor – Erasmus liked it (maybe less than people would think nowadays, but anyhow: he did like it (and he did write a well-known satire even). But – what might have really killed the fear of the witches was something which gradually happened to the whiches themselves: They more and more became figures of the local carnival (= Fasnet or Fasnacht in the Black Forest and the Lake of Constance region in Southern Germany). People started to mock the witches and transform them into something cruel – and funny at the same time and voilà: They were still there, but – – – there was no reason any longer to be afraid of them.

    Same with science, by and large, I guess (= I hope).

    To sum this up: Scientific questions are often times not only scientific questions – they have to be culturally accepted, too – be played with, to speak with Schiller (and Goethe – think of Faust I & II).

    PS

    There just might not be a fast way to achieve these (necessary, in my mind too) transformations.

  14. anon[628] • Disclaimer says:
    @silviosilver

    Eg, science proves that whites are more intelligent than blacks, therefore whites should……(…or rule over blacks)……..

    how does one get to that conclusion?

    because i think jews have been using that using that excuse on the rest of us for a long time

    why 5% thinks they have the right to rule Russia or Hungary etc but of course if its some other 5% in say South Africa, all of a sudden it becomes a BIG PROBLEM

  15. phil says:
    @Anonymous

    rationalwiki is hardly a respectable source.

    As David Reich put it in his book (with additional statements in the NYT, of all places), he bet his career, and won the bet, on the idea of significant biological differences between races. If you wanted to make a serious argument, you would have discussed his book.

    At a certain point a difference in degree is a difference in kind. Malaysians and Finns share the same land mass, but there are significant racial differences between the two, with Finns being more intelligent, on average.

  16. phil says:

    Using the word “racism” in the term “scientific racism” represents an effort to obfuscate and discredit legitimate scientific inquiry. As Steven Pinker has observed, the research into group differences in intelligence does replicate, but political activists hate the message: that there are racial differences in intelligence. And intelligence is highly heritable.

    Ditto for the term “pseudo-science.” It represents an effort to discredit legitimate scientific inquiry. When Ezra Klein (VOX) kept up such rhetoric, he was properly chastised by the editor of Intelligence, Rich Haier, who challenged Klein to write a formal essay to defend his views. Klein backed down because he knew he was over-matched.

  17. Anonymous[279] • Disclaimer says:
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    Rushton, for example, NEVER said (I guess, at least) that his r/K thesis applied to the races makes a race ‘better’ or ‘worse’; it’s just…different.

    It makes them better or worse at creating and maintaining 1st World environments. It’s as simple as that.

    Most humans would appreciate living in cold Norway (100 IQ) and run away from warm Somalia (68 IQ) if given a chance. There’s no mystery.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  18. @Vergissmeinnicht

    BTW, may someone REPLY to me? I’m very curious how much ‘off’ I am.

  19. Utterly ignorant article. “Science” is not some great, ideal, perfect thing. What kind of sucker cluck believes that? It’s a bunch of lying, cheating, back-stabbing semi-autistic little weasels arranging “studies” that prove whatever gets them the most cachet or approval, or that justifies their own prejudices. And scientific racism is when such weasels go scrambling around cooking up some nonsense “statistics” (read: “damned lies”) to prove their already-agreed-upon stupid nonsense prejudices. Grow up.

  20. FYI, there is more variation within the races than between them. Go slock on that for a while.

    • Replies: @anon
  21. EH says:
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    Any philosophical argument from whatever angle goes in implicitly valuing being right. Intelligence is the measure of how hard the questions are that a person can be expected to get right, so valuing correct argument on the most difficult questions, such as those of philosophical ethics, implicitly requires either valuing intelligence or being indifferent at best to being wrong. Any logically consistent ethical system (or any argument where being right matters) must prefer intelligence to any other factor or method that correlates less highly with being right than intelligence does. Any such factor or method would be a better measure of intelligence rather than something that didn’t correlate highly with intelligence and its present measures. So intelligence, by whatever its best possible measure is, is the unique good that all possible self-consistent systems of ethics must put first as being needed to answer such hard questions correctly.

  22. phil says:

    You make it sound like there was no point to additional research after 1962. Of course, the Human Genome Project and research in population genetics is quite recent. The research makes clear that gene frequencies vary across population groups, e.g., continental ancestry groups, and that the results cluster in accordance with everyday concepts of race.

  23. MBlanc46 says:

    There’s not much point in arguing with them about the meaning of “racism”. It’s their word. Let them have it. When one of them calls me a racist, I just say, “Thanks for noticing”.

  24. anon[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @obwandiyag

    what’s your take on “global warming”?

  25. On the one hand we hear that IQ testing is racist pseudoscience and a mismeasure of man.

    Yet on the other hand we hear that President Trump appeals to low IQ whites.

    Apparently IQ testing mysteriously becomes good science when it supports the agenda of the elites which want to discredit and dispossess populist white populations.

  26. I don’t know. And neither does anybody else. But that doesn’t stop them from making categorical pronouncements about it. Saying they don’t know is what smart people do.

    I figure something is probably going on. Don’t quote me on that, but I just kind of suspect it. But one thing I can assure you. It doesn’t work like they say it does. It never does.

    I do know that James Hansen supports nuclear power, which puts the absolute kibosh on all of HIS so-called authority.

  27. anon[693] • Disclaimer says:
    @obwandiyag

    Big deal. What counts is the percentage of the population over various thresholds. Taking the standard deviation of IQ to be 15 for everyone:

    In a population with a mean IQ = 90, 63% of the population has an IQ over 85 (roughly the minimum required for the military) and 0.04% have an IQ over 140 (high-end scientific research/mathematics).

    In a population with a mean IQ = 100, 84% of the population has an IQ over 85 and 0.4% has an IQ over 140.

    Yes, “there is more variation within races than between them” is true in the narrow sense that 10 < 15. But these back of the envelope calculations explain certain gaps and under representation pretty nicely.

  28. anon[693] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    From your link:

    It remained virtually unchallenged until the 1930s-1960s, when genetics showed it to be erroneous.

    Yes, right, because our understanding of genetics reached full maturity in the 1960s. Nope, nothing new in that field AT ALL.

  29. @obwandiyag

    Sigh.

    Just imagine what the late, great planet Earth will be like when there are four billion of these numskulls scurrying over its surface.

  30. Realist says:
    @silviosilver

    ….therefore whites should separate from blacks….

    But of course White should be able to separate from Blacks.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  31. dearieme says:
    @silviosilver

    Consider this from the passage you quoted: “But the question of what counts as sufficient evidence is not independent of the political consequences.” As a matter of science that statement is entirely wrong.

    The statement might be reasonable if it addressed how the body politic might assess the evidence.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  32. @Realist

    I agree, of course. But I certainly don’t need the aid of racial science to reach that conclusion. And, equally, one could accept the findings of racial science but adamantly refuse to separate from blacks.

    • Replies: @Realist
  33. @Noah Carl

    Thanks for the link – it is encouraging to see this type of paper published. Is that a reputable journal? Not my area so I do not know.

  34. @dearieme

    I would agree with him with respect to certain subjects that science studies, such as race and IQ. In this case, it is very clear to me that racial equalitarians reject the evidence for racial differences – which is overwhelming – for subjective reasons.

    But it’s idiotic to claim that science is unable to tear itself away from subjectivity, as though the theory of gravity is only accepted because it makes most scientists feel good. That’s pure po-mo bs.

  35. APilgrim says:

    The psychology of individual differences has been suppressed for decades.

    I studied the subject, at university, nearly half a century ago.

    The differences are real, and quantifiable.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    , @silviosilver
  36. Galileo pursued scientific astronomism and just look at what happened….

    Didn’t he know that all stars are created equal?

  37. Realist says:
    @silviosilver

    And, equally, one could accept the findings of racial science but adamantly refuse to separate from blacks.

    Of course….but Whites are not allowed to separate from Blacks.

  38. dearieme says:
    @APilgrim

    I learnt much of the little I know about psychology by reading Eysenck’s paperbacks, written in the 50s and 60s. Not all that much has changed. Later I learnt more, much of it to the disadvantage of the psychologists concerned, by courting a lass who worked with such people. Poor soul.

    The most conspicuous change is perhaps that the nazi anti-Nazis seem to offer violence more readily.

    I am grateful to Doc T for his elegantly written reviews of topics that take his interest.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  39. The truth cannot be racist, and lies cannot be science.

    Fantastic line!

  40. @Anonymous

    race was discredited and replaced with clines

    LOL.

  41. @obwandiyag

    The black butt hurt personified

    Good news is that you can increase the intelligence of blacks by having your smartest have more children.

    The power to change is in your hands.

    Stop blaming whitey.

  42. Anon[337] • Disclaimer says:

    And then there is “race science”:

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/02/the-unwelcome-revival-of-race-science

    The claim that there is a link between race and intelligence is the main tenet of what is known as “race science”

    The idea that certain races are inherently more intelligent than others is being trumpeted by a small group of anthropologists, IQ researchers, psychologists and pundits

    The claim that there is a link between race and intelligence

    claim there are evolutionary bases for disparities in social outcomes – such as life expectancy, educational attainment, wealth, and incarceration rates – between racial groups.

    the notion of “race” corresponds to profound biological differences among groups of humans; that human brains evolved differently from race to race; and that this is supported by different racial averages in IQ scores.

    The Guardian does a pretty good job of making the case for “race science.” There seems to be a complete lack of awareness about how people who are not true believers will be affected by their article.

  43. P.S.: I don’t even know if the so-called ‘scientific racists’ of yore, Spencer, Galton, Grant et al., REALLY did ‘ranked’ the races, or that’s just libel against them.

    BTW, have y’all looked at the sources Wikipedia uses for its ‘Scientific racism’ entry¹? A ‘black feminist’ called Patricia Hill Collins, William H. Tucker (who, as far as I know, is the guy payed by the SPLC to slander Raymond Cattell) and, of course, Gould’s ‘The Mismeasure of Man’!

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

  44. Dan Hayes says:
    @Anonymous

    Anonymous[151]:

    Thank you for offering the rationalwiki.org Rogues Gallery of offensive non-PC thinkers. Perusing the gallery I was struck how formalistic they were. It seems that the biographies were just spewed out after turning the crank!

  45. @APilgrim

    The psychology of individual differences has been suppressed for decades.

    Perhaps not as much as you think.

    I recently listened to a lecture series on individual differences by one Mark Leary (a psychologist of some renown), produced by the popular “Teaching Company.”

    Throughout the series, Leary stresses again and again that the personality difference under discussion has a genetic component (usually quoting an estimated percentage).

  46. @dearieme

    Thanks. Will you be writing a discreet memoir about this liaison of yours?

    • Replies: @dearieme
  47. dearieme says:
    @James Thompson

    Reader, I married her. And we lived happily ever after.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  48. res says:
    @Anonymous

    Thank you for making clear just how biased rational(ha!)wiki is.

    BTW, how exactly do hit pieces like that work in the context of the stricter libel laws in the UK? Conveniently the user Octo (who seems to be behind these pages) is in Wales so is under the same jurisdiction. Seems like a ripe target for a defamation lawsuit by someone in the UK targeted by one of these hit pieces.

    http://kellywarnerlaw.com/uk-defamation-laws/

    It is interesting that they feel it necessary to include this on the Talk pages:

    Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
    Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
    If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

    As a sample of how well referenced these hit pieces are, the first reference on https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Aurelio_J._Figueredo
    is a bad link. Nice work.

    https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/08/24/us/ap-us-university-eugenics-foundation.html

    How exactly does one prove someone is a “pseudoscientist” anyway? It certainly is a defamatory term though.

  49. Anonymous[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    Now THAT is a gofundme that I would contribute to!

  50. @dearieme

    Worth a film, then. My congratulations.

  51. Physical differences or mental differences?

  52. @res

    “How exactly does one prove someone is a “pseudoscientist” anyway?”

    A pseudoscientist is someone who practices pseudoscience.

  53. anarchyst says:

    “Racism” is a made-up word that was introduced by the inventors of communism . . . in order to destabilize non-communist cultures and make them ripe for takeover.
    True “racism” is desirable as it promotes the advancement of the culture and forges a “common bond” between the members of the race. True “racism” does not connote either superiority or inferiority, merely commonality of purpose among like-minded individuals with a common culture.
    Every race is expected to promote and advance its own culture; hence, the NAACP and “congressional black caucus” for blacks, the ADL and $PLC for jews and la raza and mecha for hispanics.
    It is the unique sense of white externalized altruism that has made so-called “civil-rights (for some)” laws possible. “Affirmative action”, contract set-asides and preferences, other government “programs” for minorities only unrestricted immigration from third-world countries while white immigrants “need not apply”. . .and other unequal treatment has resulted in more-qualified whites being denied opportunities that would rightly be theirs. This is white altruism in action. . . NO OTHER RACE has EVER given people of other races a “break” . . . It has never happened in the history of humanity, save our own. . . white altruism will spell the demise (and destruction) of the white race. . .
    It is only whites that are expected to shed all vestiges of racial cohesiveness.
    Guess which race maintains the most racial and cultural insularity and cohesiveness yet decries racial cohesiveness by whites??
    I will leave it to the gentle readers to figure it out . . .

  54. @res

    How exactly does one prove someone is a “pseudoscientist” anyway?

    After writing an equation on the board, they will emit an evil laugh.

  55. JLK says:

    The New York Times has been doing meta gymnastics avoiding the obvious conclusions on a story it has been covering lately about admissions to the NYC elite public high schools.

    Admission is determined by the scores on a standardized test. Of course most of the Brahmins and the Jewish kids are in private schools. This leaves the two groups at the extreme ends of the distribution curve, the Asians and the African-Americans. Some of these magnet schools are 90% Asian even though the Asians are the poorest group in the city. The school system is trying to devise ways to rationalize making them more diverse, and the Asians unlike the neutered remaining whites in the city aren’t having any of it.

  56. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    Most those RationalWiki articles are created by a very deranged individual named Michael Coombs who uses the online alias Mikemikev (google it); Octo is one of his accounts and he’s Welsh.

    The bizarre thing is Mikemikev is a neo-Nazi himself, but he has some form of mental illness and pretends to be an Antifa or communist at same time. https://kiwifarms.net/threads/mikemikev-michael-coombs-twinkle-toes-velcro-pants.17243/page-704

    • Replies: @res
  57. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    The truth cannot be racist, and lies cannot be science.

    Ism means belief. Race + Ism should mean belief in the reality of race and racial differences.

    Race-ism is truth. The real scandal is that ‘racism’ has been defined wrongly.

    Ism doesn’t mean supremacist hatred. It means belief.

    Be a race-ist. Take it from the only true race-ist.

  58. res says:
    @Anonymous

    I have run into mikemikev (assuming it is the same person) here and he seemed reasonable (check his comment history). What makes you think he is Octo? I can’t decide if the quote here makes that more or less likely: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Coombs#OK

    This page identifies Octo as an Oliver D. Smith sockpuppet which seems much more plausible to me: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/anglo-pyramidologist/responding-to-oliver-smith-on-encyclopedia-dramatica/checkuser-evidence/

    I have also run into Oliver D. Smith here and his comments seem much more in line with the Octo RationalWiki pages: http://www.unz.com/comments/all/?commenterfilter=Oliver+D.+Smith

    In particular, note this comment: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/rationalwiki-hagiography/#comment-2210182
    and this comment: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/rationalwiki-hagiography/#comment-2197267

    2. The only people I’ve united against me are crazies and pseudo-scientists whose RationalWiki entries I created or edited for past 6 years. Predictably, these sorts of people are disgruntled losers, who now stalk me across the web – mad or upset about their RationalWiki articles because they are too childish to accept someone can criticise them (freedom of speech). Go cry some more?

    He seems to have a particular problem with Emil.

    One notable thing about his comment history is he managed to get flagged as a troll by four different people in just 65 comments.

  59. @res

    How exactly does one prove someone is a “pseudoscientist” anyway?

    Is the person white, and does he prefer to racially live on (than racially die off)? It’s almost case closed.

  60. @res

    I answer in No 15 to this comment of yours.

    • Replies: @res
  61. res says:
    @Dieter Kief

    Thanks. I saw that but no immediate responses came to mind. Your 2 and 3b particularly resonate with me.

    I definitely agree with the paragraph before the PS.

    P.S. Regarding 1, I’m not sure which specific thing you mean. I assume it is from this? https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-a-crook/308699/

  62. “Scientific Racism” is an oxymoron. The truth cannot be racist, and lies cannot be science.

    Look like a younger philostrophy student dreaming about their self-projection of reality….

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  63. @Santoculto

    ”your”

    in every piece of this RETARDED childishly ”muh, right or left wink” we can see how idiotic white tra$$h can be… your beautiful eyes no longer bewitch me.

  64. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    Mikemikev has spent the past 5 years impersonating Smith:

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oliver_D_Smith

    “(mikemikev, no reason to allow this account to edit ever again)”

    It’s impossible to tell who is actually Smith, or Mikemikev impersonating him. Also, it could be Mikemikev posting as Smith’s name here since anyone can comment using someone’s name.

    Smith also denies owning these RationalWiki accounts:

    https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Talk:Mikemikev#Mikemikev_continues_to_blame_his_RationalWiki_socks_onto_me

    Notice also that Mikemikev has a long history of impersonating people:

    • Replies: @res
  65. res says:
    @Anonymous

    Do you believe the “Oliver D. Smith” who is feuding with Emil is the real one?

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net/anglo-pyramidologist/oliver-d-smith/

    That personality is very much in line with the RationalWiki pages.

    If the Oliver D. Smith account here is a fake I would expect the real person to make an issue of it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  66. Anonymous[329] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    No idea. “Coldfusioncommunity” however belongs to: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax

    Lomax’s feud with Smith is because he apparently banned him from all Wikipedia-related wikis by the Wikimedia Foundation: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Abd And then banned him from RationalWiki. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Abd

    Smith is a huge “wikisperg” since he’s an admin or sysop on about a dozen wikis; people have been complaining not only about his RationalWiki edits, but Wikiversity, Wikia, Wikipedia, etcetc.

    http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2018/09/oliver-d-smith-mediawiki-poster-boy/

    Someone like this who is so unpopular is inevitably going to pick up disgruntled people creating fake accounts of him. I believe this is why Smith got his Kiwi Farms thread removed, because no one could tell who was the real Smith.

    • Replies: @res
  67. res says:
    @Anonymous

    Thanks for the additional information. Based on what I see I think the person who is feuding with Emil is the same person who made those RationalWiki edits and the Oliver D. Smith comments on unz.com. My sense is that is the real Oliver D. Smith. If it is not I think he needs to clear this up. I think Ron Unz would be very receptive to dealing with a fake account. Ron hates sock puppets.

    https://www.unz.com/announcement/record-traffic-but-too-much-sockpuppetry/

    P.S. I suspect a defamation lawsuit filed under UK jurisdiction would be a good way to clarify all of this ; ) That final link of yours looks like useful information for anyone inclined to sue him.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  68. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    I’m reliably informed Emil Kirkegaard is suing Smith over his RationalWiki article and also some comments made elsewhere. However, Kirkegaard hasn’t done himself any favours. If you’re suing someone for alleged defamation – the worst thing you can do is create an article smearing the person you claimed has defamed you. I noticed Kirkegaard created an article on his website viscously attacking Smith filled with silly insults such as “he’s ugly”, dubious claims of mental illness and unemployment, that Smith has blocked on search-engines after sending legal complaints about defamation. According to Smith, he’s not living on welfare and isn’t mentally ill – Kirkegaard made all this up and doesn’t provide any evidence.

    https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/15681005

    This will surely back-fire on Kirkegaard in court.

  69. Mr. XYZ says:

    Great post! :)

    That said, though, I want to make one additional point here: One shouldn’t base opposition to racial discrimination on the belief that all races have the same average IQ. After all, if this turns out not to be the case, then some people could conclude that racial discrimination is justified. We certainly don’t want that–do we?

    • Replies: @JLK
  70. JLK says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    If one believes that IQ is mostly heritable (and identical twin studies have placed heritability at about 75%), being blessed with a high IQ has little to do with merit. It is like having a good hand in a poker game that you get to keep for your entire life. It is good fortune, not a product of virtue.

    Even on this site, the biggest “Myth of Meritocracy” remains unchallenged.

    • Replies: @4Racism.org
    , @JackOH
  71. 4Racism.org says: • Website

    “the truth cannot be racist”? Of course, the truth is racist. If we define “racism” as it is being used in modern usage. Of course, the definition of “racism” is dishonest obfuscation. “Racism” is defined ad hoc, whenever needed to attack a person

    See the link to 4Racism dot org, and check the idea that racism is a term that needs to be reclaimed, because it is true.

  72. I disagree that science is balanced enough to be considered truth. There is a formal process for verifying hypotheses that has the capacity to remove error. However, hypotheses do not emerge from the ether through some pure intellectual process. We investigate what is funded. What is funded reflects our economic and social priorities. People with a particular point of view will test hypotheses that confirm their world view. Science will disprove false hypotheses but scientists may chose to ignore or not investigate inconvenient ideas. So Truth is a large claim for Science. Investigation can be directed. Areas of study can be defined as unthinkable. Scientific Racism can exist as can Scientific Anti-Racism, both choosing only to see what they want to see.

    Suppression of the debate is however, the deeper problem.

  73. Anonymous[755] • Disclaimer says:

    Emil Kirkegaard, James Thompson, Noah Carl et al have published a paper in their pseudojournal responding to the criticisms on the RationalWiki article.

    The funny thing, is it doesn’t rebut any of the criticisms, especially the main one that virtually all referees for the pseudojournals are hereditarians.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:OpenPsych_pseudojournals

    “They rebut absolutely nothing and its a total BS response. The main issue they don’t even address i.e. all referees/peers for their journals are proponents of hereditarianism and biased towards that view. As noted on the pseudojournal article: “In real science, the peers look to pick holes in a paper’s methodology or substance for the purpose of improving the field. In pseudojournals, the peers exist to reinforce the advocacy of the pseudoscience in question.” In fact a former referee named Meng Hu left the OpenPsych pseudojournals after noting the lack of impartiality of referees and that they’re all hereditarian racialists.Punisher (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)”

    • Replies: @res
  74. res says:
    @Anonymous

    Emil Kirkegaard, James Thompson, Noah Carl et al have published a paper in their pseudojournal responding to the criticisms on the RationalWiki article.

    I believe you are incorrect about James Thompson being an author of that paper.

    especially the main one that virtually all referees for the pseudojournals are hereditarians.

    As opposed to virtually all referees in the main stream journals being genetic denialists? I like the way the page you link trumpets the 17% of experts that believe U.S. black-white differences in IQ have a genetic component of 0%. Given the current state of IQ genetic research and the knowledge from studies like 1000 Genomes of the population distribution of SNPs I believe the 0% position is untenable and a good indicator of bias itself.

    In real science, the peers look to pick holes in a paper’s methodology or substance for the purpose of improving the field.

    You realize that one of the most notable things about the OpenPsych Journals is their commitment to sharing data and code allowing replication of their work, right? If you are truly committed to what you say then I think your time would be better spent working to make the other journals live up to that standard.

    Link to the paper: https://openpsych.net/paper/57

    • Replies: @James Thompson
    , @Anonymous
  75. 4Racism.org says: • Website
    @JLK

    According to your logic, Olympic champions don’t deserve the medals, because they were born with great bones, fast twitch muscles, and inborn drive and ambition.

    Merit includes your genetic inheritance. If you are the inventor of Penicillin, you merit a Nobel Prize for saving millions of lives. The ones that were born with low IQ and lazy attitude and thus dropped out of high school, that is sad for them, but they do NOT deserve a Nobel Prize

    • Replies: @JLK
  76. @res

    Res – you are right that I was not the author of that paper.
    Like you, I am in favour of open science, and in favour of propositions being considered on their own merits.
    Furthermore, it is no refutation of an argument that the proponent is left-wing, or right-wing, because that presupposes you have an over-arching argument that refutes either of those positions. If so, you should reveal that argument, and marshal it against the proposition in question.
    In fact, the argument from motive is based on another supposition, which is that most people are so biased that independent and objective assessment of facts and arguments is impossible.
    I think that it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that some bridges are better engineered than others, some planes and airlines are safer than others, some medicines are more effective than others, and some pollutants more dangerous than others.
    Facts are important.

    • Replies: @res
  77. JackOH says:
    @JLK

    JLK, insightful comment with which I agree. I’m a skeptic about HBD/IQ ideas having the political merit claimed for them. I can readily see political gamesmen turning politicized HBD/IQ into something like “unearned advantage and an ‘affirmative action’ by heritability”. Would be an ugly mess of a debate.

    • Replies: @JLK
  78. res says:
    @James Thompson

    I think that it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that some bridges are better engineered than others, some planes and airlines are safer than others, some medicines are more effective than others, and some pollutants more dangerous than others.

    I agree. Having an engineering background I am always shocked by how much of soft science (and business) consists of never resolved disputation of opinions. With either the HiPPO (Highest Paid Person’s Opinion), best persuasion skills, or most prestige winning. It must be traumatizing for people from that world to enter worlds where provable truths exist (or bridges fall, etc.). I actually think this observation explains much of the behavior we are seeing regarding the genetic questions we are discussing here.

    I wonder how many of these people are going to react when cherished assumptions underpinning their world views are proven wrong beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Facts are important.

    !!!

  79. JLK says:
    @4Racism.org

    Merit is defined as “the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward.” Value systems differ among individuals and groups, but most people would associate worthiness with effort and hard work more than they would with with aptitude.

    IQ tests and the highly g-loaded part of college admissions tests (such as the PSAT/SAT Verbal) measure pure aptitude (g-loaded means having a high correlation with IQ). They have nothing to do with strength of character or work ethic.

    The National “Merit” Scholarship Qualifying Test that almost all academically-inclined high school juniors in the US take (outside of a swath of the upper midwest where the ACT predominates) double-weights the g-loaded verbal PSAT part relative to the math part to create a selection index that correlates very highly with IQ. With some adjustments for geographic diversity, it effectively screens out the students who have something around 140+ IQs and identifies them as “semifinalists.” Some of them are diligent students, and some are not.

    The system has been very good to me, by the way. I was a national merit semifinalist and had my 15 minutes of fame as a teenager with my photo in the local paper. It propelled me into a good school and a nice professional career. To be perfectly honest, though, my work habits and study skills in high school weren’t as good as some of the other students who didn’t get this recognition of “worthiness.”

    The strong assumption in our society that equates intellectual aptitude with “merit” and hence worthiness has led to a sense of entitlement among the cognitive elite. It affects social policy. It makes social inequity easier to rationalize and defend. It helps keep marginal income tax rates low. The implicit attitude among many is that high wage earners with Ivy League pedigrees are “worthy” and the guy who gets up at 4 AM to pick up their trash or the checker at Wal-mart who is on her feet all day just fell by the wayside at some point by not paying attention to their studies. Considering that it might be the end result of the genetic lottery would make it seem too unfair.

    I suspect that far more senior policymakers and commentators than are willing to admit it know that Murray and Herrnstein hit the hammer squarely on the head in The Bell Curve. They just don’t like where the logical progression might lead in terms of policy, e.g more wealth distribution and a re-examination of attitudes on a variety of different issues.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  80. JLK says:
    @JackOH

    I don’t think there should be “affirmative action” for those having lesser aptitude. Society is more efficient with the most talented people in the right places.

    I do believe that high IQ is a result of good fortune, not worthiness. Those who have been blessed with it should be trained to take responsibility for the less fortunate as in other matters of charity.

  81. dearieme says:
    @JLK

    ‘The implicit attitude among many is that high wage earners with Ivy League pedigrees are “worthy” and the guy who gets up at 4 AM to pick up their trash or the checker at Wal-mart who is on her feet all day just fell by the wayside at some point by not paying attention to their studies.’

    That attitude is not only stupid, in the sense of ignoring the facts, but bloody ill-mannered.

    We must allow for upbringing, I suppose. Mrs Clinton’s parents presumably should take some blame for bringing her up to despise deplorables. If I’d shown any evidence of that as a child my father would have skelpt my arse. He wanted us to be realistic, not dismissive.

  82. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    All the referees/peers for OpenPsych are hereditarians. This is why Meng Hu left, criticizing the pseudojournals as biased:

    “One problem with OP is that most (if not all) reviewers have an “hereditarian side”. I would like to see reviewers hostile to the genetic theory. Otherwise, people may think OP looks like a Mankind Quarterly bis.”

    So it’s equivalent to a young earth creationist pseudojournal like Answers Research Journal. None of the referees/peers of OpenPsych are impartial.

    And why would anyone take these journals serious when their founders are known alt-right political activists? https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_Kirkegaard#Alt-right

    • Replies: @res
  83. res says:
    @Anonymous

    I like the way you failed to address anything I said. Cheers.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  84. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    Your arguments are already rebutted on the RationalWiki article e.g. “As opposed to virtually all referees in the main stream journals being genetic denialists?” — they aren’t. For example, there’s a large amount of psychologists who argue for a small percentage of genes, not 0%.

    “Many researchers who are primarily interested in environmental differences associated with racial and ethnic differences in intelligence would not be at all perturbed by an ironclad demonstration that, say, 3% of the [black-white] gap is due to genetic differences.” (Hunt, 2010)

    I provided Loehlin et al. as an example who in Race Differences in Intelligence (1975) are critical of Jensen’s hereditarianism hypothesis (50-75% genes), but estimate between-group heritability at 12.5%, although this is probably an overestimation. Similarly, Earl Hunt in Human Intelligence (2010) rejects both hereditarianism (as 50-75% genes) and 0% genes, instead arguing there is likely a low percentage of genes (e.g. 3%) involved in between-group heritability, emphasising environmental factors.

    Anyway, “genetic denialists” is pretty much a straw man invented by hereditarians. Furthermore, when you find someone arguing for 0% genes: “Theorists such as Lewontin have never denied the possibility of genetic influences; what they have denied is that there is any convincing evidence of any genetic influences.” (Knapp et al. 1996)

  85. res says:

    say, 3%

    LOL. At least they are making a small concession to reality (that’s actually a good thing. the slope is very slippery as I expect they will find). Let’s just wait for the evidence to come in then we can evaluate how accurate that was.

    BTW, page 435 of Hunt’s Human Intelligence (the source of your quote) is a masterpiece of talking around the issue. Which, given the lack of definitive evidence at this time, is a very reasonable stance IMHO. I do believe the writing is on the wall though.

    estimate between-group heritability at 12.5%, although this is probably an overestimation.

    Any evidence or reasoning to back that “overestimation” up?

    Anyway, “genetic denialists” is pretty much a straw man invented by hereditarians.

    Projection. The 17% arguing for a 0% genetic component in that survey makes very clear it is a real position and not a straw man. That is over 3x as many as the 5% who thought 100% of differences were due to genes. https://figshare.com/articles/2013_survey_of_expert_opinion_on_intelligence/1295234
    (I am baffled by both extreme positions, there are clearly both genetic and environmental differences between US Blacks and Whites and good reason to think at least some of both affect IQ)

    Looking forward to how the research on this plays out over the next few years. I hope you like being wrong. I wonder how the goodthinkers (like you) will like having played the role of the Inquisition in this intellectual drama? (if I turn out to be right) If you don’t like that last sentence, take another look at the Rogue’s Gallery you proudly published in comment 42 and think about it.

    P.S. I think Hunt’s conclusion on pp. 435-436 of Human Intelligence is less supportive of your position than you seem to think. It actually seems pretty well aligned with what I think (genetic differences are real and significant, but there are complexities) except I don’t soft pedal things (e.g. I argue vigorously against the 0% genetic position, and those who demonize people who are doing actual data based research).

    This summary will probably not satisfy those who have taken strong stands on either side of the debate over racial and ethnic differences in intelligence. Bold hypotheses “rally the troops” and make great entrees for television talk shows. People who take intermediate positions are said to be “wishywashy” or “afraid to say what they really think.” Nevertheless, the issue is complex, and oversimplifications do not help. There are group differences in intelligence, they are important, and there are both scientific and social reasons for trying to understand them. Plausible cases can be made for both genetic and environmental contributions to differences in intelligence. The evidence required to quantify the relative sizes of these contributions to group differences is lacking. The relative sizes of environmental and genetic influences will vary over time and place. Some of these influences may be amenable to change, while others will be resistant to change. The relevant questions can be studied. Denials or overly precise statements on either the pro-genetic or pro-environmental side do not move the debate forward. They generate heat rather
    than light.

    One point that is worth emphasizing (which Hunt covers in the excerpt above) is that the magnitudes of environmental and genetic differences will vary between any two different populations. The survey focused on the Black-White difference in the US.

    • Agree: James Thompson
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  86. JLK says:

    The identical twin studies seemed like pretty good methodology to me. Statistically compare the IQ correlations between identical twins raised together with those raised apart, and you can isolate the environmental influence. The heritable component was determined to be about 75%.

  87. But why should one branch of science be called pseudo, and another not?

    Steven Goldberg did a fascinating essay explaining that astrology was about as bad as science can get, but it was still wrong to call it “pseudoscience”. To do so would put the early stages of more valid sciences under suspicion as well. It’s collected in When Wish Replaces Thought.

    He was forced to explain over and over to both skeptics and believers that he did not put any stock into this bad science himself. One wonders how well even smart people can read.

    • Replies: @res
  88. res says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Thanks for the pointer. There is a TOC at http://www.goldberg-patriarchy.com/also.html
    Do you recommend that book overall? Was he convincing in making his case regarding astrology?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  89. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    Genetic “denialism” is a straw man since Lewontin. Nisbett, etc who argue for 0% genes do not deny the possibility of genes; instead they’re simply saying there’s no current evidence for genes and they’re correct since the null hypothesis (= default hypothesis) of 0% genes has never been falsified. So proponents of the 0% genes view consider it to be the most logical.

    “P.S. I think Hunt’s conclusion on pp. 435-436 of Human Intelligence is less supportive of your position than you seem to think” — Hunt clearly rejects hereditarianism i.e. 50-75% genes (Rushton, Jensen etc) and states he thinks Rushton & Jensen (2005) are wrong. Not sure why you think this is less supportive of my position. While he doesn’t argue for 0% genes, he emphasises environmental factors and states something like 3% is an estimate many researchers would be comfortable with; 3% is of course a lot closer to 0% (Lewontin, Nisbett) than 50-75% (Jensen, Rushton), again this supports my position, not yours…

    The main problem is similar to the weakening of ‘race realism’ (covered in a bunch of papers by Adam Hochman), that hereditarians are now re-defining hereditarianism to a much weaker position — to the extent it can become confused with anti-hereditarianism. Jensen (1973) originally defined hereditarianism as at least 50% between-group heritability, not 3%; yet now some hereditarians realise the former is not tenable and try to change the definition of hereditarianism to include very low percentages of genes (which would mean bizarrely classifying anti-hereditarians like Loehlin et al. = 12.5% genes as hereditarians). Similarly, Hochman criticised the weakening of the race concept by ‘race realists’: “The problem with weak versions of racial naturalism [race realism] is that they do not contrast with anti-realism about biological race. When race naturalists weaken their position they end up agreeing with their opponents about human biology, and defending a trivialised definition of race.” (Hochman, 2014)

    When someone starts weakening their position, you know they’re wrong. And I see no weakening of my position, only yours. Your side is clearly loosing this debate.

    • Replies: @res
  90. res says:
    @Anonymous

    Genetic “denialism” is a straw man since Lewontin. Nisbett, etc who argue for 0% genes do not deny the possibility of genes; instead they’re simply saying there’s no current evidence for genes and they’re correct since the null hypothesis (= default hypothesis) of 0% genes has never been falsified. So proponents of the 0% genes view consider it to be the most logical.

    That paragraph seems pretty logic challenged to me. I was using “genetic denialism” to refer to the assertion of 0% genetic contribution to the differences (if you don’t like my use of the former, substitute the latter). You are using it differently. I stand by my words given my definition. Pro tip: a statement is not a straw man if a substantial number of mainstream researchers are making it.

    Hunt clearly rejects hereditarianism i.e. 50-75% genes (Rushton, Jensen etc)

    It is great fun to watch the goalposts move (0% to 3% to less than 50%). Do you keep them on wheels for convenience?

    Where exactly do you see Hunt rejecting 50-75%? On page 435 he criticizes the 80% stance, but even there he qualifies: “The 80% default hypothesis is an extreme and excessively precise statement. It is based on the assumption that the factors that contribute to the between-group differences are the same as the factors that contribute to within-group differences. This is doubtful.”
    BTW, I think he is strawmanning to a certain extent there. I doubt anyone thinks the value is EXACTLY 80%. Besides that, I agree with his statement there. You will notice he does not assert the contribution is less than 80%. Rather he just thinks the rationale is “doubtful” (notice how vague that word is BTW). I think 80% for those reasons makes a good default hypothesis (hence why they call it that), but acknowledge Hunt’s arguments against it.

    I think you also need to parse Hunt’s words more carefully concerning how he sees 3%. Nowhere does he assert agreement with that as far as I see.

    When someone starts weakening their position, you know they’re wrong. And I see no weakening of my position, only yours. Your side is clearly loosing this debate.

    LOL!!! I love the projection. See my moving goalpost comment above (in reference to going from 0% to 3% to less than 50%). Where exactly have I weakened my position? Please provide quotes. And yes, the position weakening observation is a valuable clue (at least we agree on something).

    P.S. “loosing” is classic. Try to be better than that. I’m pretty close to deciding this is a waste of my time. I think I have made my points adequately already in this thread. But I do so delight in engaging with people who clearly don’t understand the references (Hunt here) they are using.

    P.P.S. Stop trying to shove me into your hereditarian strawman box so you can use your canned arguments (sad that they aren’t any better given that they are canned). Respond to my actual statements.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  91. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:

    lol. Peter Frost’s and Noah Carl’s political views and biases are hardly surprising.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/OpenPsych_pseudojournals#Carl_et_al._.282018.29

    Carl “likes” Nigel Farage, Enoch Powell and a bunch of hard right-wing conservative groups on his Facebook page, while also liking the right-wing magazine Quillette founded by Claire Lehman (who worked for the alt-right The Rebel Media in 2017) while Peter Frost openly supports far-right and right-wing populist parties, and believes in the white genocide conspiracy theory popular among white nationalist cranks.

  92. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    How are you defining hereditarianism? I define it as first outlined by Arthur Jensen:

    “All the major facts would seem to be comprehended quite well by the hypothesis that something between one-half and three-fourths of the average IQ difference between American Negroes and whites is attributable to genetic factors, and the remainder to environmental factors and their interaction with the genetic differences” (Jensen, 1973)

    Also note Jensen & Rushton (2005) clarify that hereditarianism must mean a “substantial” % of genes (e.g. 50% or more):

    “The hereditarian position originated in the work of Charles Darwin (1859, 1871) and then was elaborated by his cousin Sir Francis Galton (1869, 1883). Based on research models used in behavioural genetics, this view contends that a substantial part (say 50%) of both individual and group differences in human behavioural traits is genetic… a 50% genetic–50% environmental etiology for the hereditarian view“.

    So my point is it’s a fallacy to try to re-define hereditarianism to include low percentages above 0%, but this is what I’m now seeing from some hereditarians. There’s not much point in denying this since it’s in posts on this website from other users and Charles Murray is also notorious for using this fallacy.

    BTW, I think he is strawmanning to a certain extent there. I doubt anyone thinks the value is EXACTLY 80%. Besides that, I agree with his statement there. You will notice he does not assert the contribution is less than 80%. Rather he just thinks the rationale is “doubtful” (notice how vague that word is BTW). I think 80% for those reasons makes a good default hypothesis (hence why they call it that), but acknowledge Hunt’s arguments against it.

    The default hypothesis is the null hypothesis (0%) not 80%.

    Where exactly do you see Hunt rejecting 50-75%?

    He clearly identifies as someone taking an “intermediate position” (p.435) and rejects both hereditarianism and 0%; to see what figure he has in mind, he gives two examples. Note they’re both low: 3% and 5-15%; the latter comes from Fst, i.e. “between-group correlation at from 5% to 15% of the total variation within the human genome”. However, all this is tentative because he says evidence to try to quantify the exact % is currently lacking (p.436).

    • Replies: @res
  93. @res

    He made sense. Ever since, I’ve taken charges of “pseudoscience” against all sorts of things with a grain of salt.

    Another chapter is titled “What Is Normal? The Question of Homosexuality”. In fact, the whole table of contents is here:

    https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/20893170?q&versionId=24809098

    • Replies: @res
  94. @Anonymous

    Most humans would appreciate living in cold Norway (100 IQ) and run away from warm Somalia (68 IQ) if given a chance. There’s no mystery.

    How long will a country that conscripts women and allows men to “marry” one another remain “first world”?

    Is the best use of those 32 extra IQ points throwing common sense to the wind? If Somalis can easily see through such voodoo, why can’t Norwegians?

  95. res says:
    @Anonymous

    How are you defining hereditarianism?

    I prefer not to use the word since it is so ill defined and so subject to strawmanning. I believe the only sense I have used it here was in the context of “your hereditarian strawman” which relies on whatever your definition is. Which is of course chosen to be favorable to you. Of course, the word positively litters your comments (I had not realized how frequently you used it until I did a search just now).

    Fighting over word definitions is the second lowest form of debate IMHO (with ad hominems being the lowest). Sometimes it is necessary to achieve clarity, but much better to favor more precise terms (here numbers). Your Jensen definition seems reasonable if you insist on using the word.

    So my point is it’s a fallacy to try to re-define hereditarianism to include low percentages above 0%, but this is what I’m now seeing from some hereditarians.

    Citation? I think we have already established that your unsupported assertions are pretty much worthless. And how exactly does that matter to THIS conversation? I am not doing that. Stop redirecting from my points to your canned responses to something else.

    The default hypothesis is the null hypothesis (0%) not 80%.

    There are different defaults depending on your priors. 0% and 70-80% seem the most common with the latter being better justified because it is at least based on the within group heritability rather than wishful thinking. 50% is another possible default hypothesis as you also noted (Steve Sailer tends to like this one in various contexts, and I think it works well for false dichotomies in general). Hunt himself referred to “The 80% default hypothesis” though I think he is clear that it is not his default.

    He clearly identifies as someone taking an “intermediate position” (p.435) and rejects both hereditarianism and 0%; to see what figure he has in mind, he gives two examples. Note they’re both low: 3% and 5-15%; the latter comes from Fst, i.e. “between-group correlation at from 5% to 15% of the total variation within the human genome”. However, all this is tentative because he says evidence to try to quantify the exact % is currently lacking (p.436).

    Longer form quotes would be helpful. Agreed about him identifying with an “intermediate position.” I believe it is quite clear that he does not take a numerical position for himself beyond: “The 80% default hypothesis is an extreme and excessively precise statement.” and “Rushton and Jensen (and Lynn) are correct in saying that the 100% environmental hypothesis cannot be maintained. ” I see nowhere that he says anything about the 50-75% range (which was what you asserted).

    I did a search in Hunt’s book for “hereditari” and only see it mentioned in one place (page 286). I don’t see a definition there, but he seems to use it as a synonym for “genetic.” Nowhere do I see him “rejecting hereditarianism” (i.e. you need a reference to support that).

    Are you capable of separating your own opinions from what Hunt actually wrote? Because I am not seeing that in this conversation. I might make the same complaint about your interpretation of what I write as well.

    While I’m on pp. 434-435, one thing I do disagree with Hunt about is:

    Many researchers who are primarily interested in environmental differences associated with racial and ethnic differences in intelligence would not be at all perturbed by an ironclad demonstration that, say, 3% of the gap is due to genetic differences.

    If that is so why do they so adamantly argue for 100%? Though I suppose if you define “many” as “some” then anything is possible.

  96. res says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Thanks. It does not seem to be easily available in libraries near me. Trying to decide whether to chase down my own copy.

  97. @res

    Thank you for this discussion. Over the last decade I discussed and debated many matters with Buz Hunt, who had a very sharp mind, and a courteous but firm approach to debates. He was by inclination and training an experimentalist. I knew his work in the 60s and 70s as being written by EB Hunt, but didn’t meet him till 2007. In his arguments he stuck closely to the points in question, and was formal in his approach, a stickler for protocol and procedure.

    His general approach was environmentalist, and he was seen as opposed to the hereditarian position. By the way, these are exaggerations. Environmentalists generally accepted a small amount of genetic effect, say less than 15% of the variance. Hereditarians usually accepted that 50% of the difference was environmental. In some arguments Rushton and Jensen put it as low as 20%, but they often argued the 50/50 position, which is seen as the default mainstream position among psychometric researchers who have worked on this topic.

    Buz was an assiduous reviewer, and he went through all drafts, including the hereditarian-leaning papers with sharp criticisms, in my view to very good effect. He was an avid fact-checker. I should see if I can find some of those reviews. I generally said to the other authors: “Buz has a point, let’s change that part”. We had meals together at conferences, and talked widely about many subjects outside psychology. He and his wife were good hosts. Privately, he was critical of Jensen’s work on reaction times, rating him a poor experimentalist. He never picked fights in discussions, but he and I argued our positions in public. For example, he argued that an IQ score did not give you insight into the processes that brought about the result, and I said it was not intended to, and the score was not the less for this fact.

    By the end of his life, Buz Hunt was seen by some hereditarians as having come round at least partly to the hereditarian position. This was partly evident in his book, and also in his later statements and discussions. This was a matter of emphasis. When you actually meet all the main protagonists they are far more flexible in their positions than their public statements would imply. As new findings come in researchers adjust their positions, not immediately, but by degrees and with qualifications.

    Such a pity I can’t say to him now, what with the new genetics papers “How would you rate the racial group issue now?” I think he would still be critical, and argue the environmentalist position to some extent, but who knows?

    • Replies: @dearieme
    , @res
  98. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    If that is so why do they so adamantly argue for 100%? Though I suppose if you define “many” as “some” then anything is possible

    Do you mean 0%? As I explained, that is the null/default hypothesis and since that’s never been falsified — a significant number of psychologists argue for 0% (but this is different to them being what you call “genetic denialists” since they don’t deny the possibility of genes, only that there’s no as-of-yet proof). There’s absolutely no current empirical evidence for genes hence “there’s still no good reason to believe black-white IQ differences are due to genes.” (Turkheimer et al. 2017)

    Concerning Hunt, anyone can read the two pages mentioned to see he was against hereditarianism, writing it is “doubtful” (p.435). As I said, he rejects the 0% (Nisbett, 2005) and 50% or 80% (Rushton & Jensen, 2005) for an “intermediate” position.

    And on the subject of race, Hunt argued race is social construct, but he’s someone who shares your views right? lol. I’m not sure why you’re trying to distort Hunt to align him with your views, when he’s closer to mine; I don’t though agree with everything he said.

    • Replies: @res
  99. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    those who demonize people who are doing actual data based research

    Hereditarians attack anti-hereditarians as “SJWs”, “egalitarians” etc and also post ad hominem. So I don’t loose sleep attacking these people back.

    • Replies: @res
  100. dearieme says:
    @James Thompson

    “Environmentalists generally accepted a small amount of genetic effect”: that’s interesting. I said above that little seemed to have changed since Eysenck’s day, but that clearly has. In his day the Nurture people denied any genetic influence whereas the Nature people did allow that environment could matter.

    But once you allow that genetics matters you have sold the pass. You can no longer accuse Nature people of evil; they simply differ from you on a matter of percentages.

    • Replies: @res
  101. res says:
    @Anonymous

    Let me know when hereditarians put up a body of work like that RationalWiki collection. Or when they succeed in getting research suppressed and/or causing problems for academics doing something they don’t like.

    I assume you are aware of the False Equivalence fallacy? If not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

    P.S. Not sure if English is your first language, but the word you are looking for is “lose” (also see “loosing” earlier). https://www.grammarly.com/blog/loose-lose/
    Also see: https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/lose+sleep

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  102. res says:
    @dearieme

    But once you allow that genetics matters you have sold the pass. You can no longer accuse Nature people of evil; they simply differ from you on a matter of percentages.

    Indeed. A quote often attributed to Churchill comes to mind: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/300099-churchill-madam-would-you-sleep-with-me-for-five-million

    For those who care deeply about correct quote attribution this might be of interest: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/07/haggling/

  103. res says:
    @Anonymous

    Do you mean 0%?

    Good catch. I carelessly switched terminology.

    but this is different to them being what you call “genetic denialists”

    NO. It is exactly what I meant. It is different from how YOU interpret the phrase “genetic denialist.” I was very clear about this above.

    And on the subject of race, Hunt argued race is social construct, but he’s someone who shares your views right?

    I’m not a big fan of people trying to put words into my mouth. What I actually wrote was:

    I think Hunt’s conclusion on pp. 435-436 of Human Intelligence is less supportive of your position than you seem to think. It actually seems pretty well aligned with what I think (genetic differences are real and significant, but there are complexities) except I don’t soft pedal things…

    Which was clearly about the passage in question rather than Hunt himself. And I stand by those words.

    As I said, he rejects the 0% (Nisbett, 2005) and 50% or 80% (Rushton & Jensen, 2005) for an “intermediate” position.

    As I said before, I don’t believe he says this (and certainly not in the portion of his book we are discussing) and you need to provide a specific citation and quote. The way you simply reassert points I have already challenged without providing additional evidence is tiresome.

    One of the problems I see is you split this into a false dichotomy of “hereditarians” and “environmentalists” (I assume those map to evil and good) and see Hunt as the latter. Therefore he is on your side and must agree with you about everything (an exaggeration, but it sure seems that way at times). I think Dr. Thompson’s comment provides a good counterpoint to that.

    One of the best signs of a reasonable person is the ability to come to an agreement on a limited subset of facts (or just statements) with someone with whom they fundamentally disagree. Another good sign is the ability to separate what they consider provable and what they consider likely. Sometimes we need to act based on imperfect information.

    P.S. I like the way you tried to put Hunt on your “team.” That was revealing of how you think.

  104. res says:
    @James Thompson

    Thank you for that elaboration on Buz Hunt! Very much appreciated. I share your curiosity about how he would have reacted to the recent genetic work.

    I wish more people in this debate shared his overall approach (whether or not I agree with their conclusions).

    For those who would like more formal background:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_B._Hunt

    https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/remembering-earl-b-buz-hunt

    Any thoughts on his other books? These two in particular?

    https://www.amazon.com/Will-Smart-Enough-Cognitive-Workforce/dp/0871543923

    https://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Behavior-Earl-Hunt-ebook/dp/B001APRYTE

  105. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:

    This seems like one of those thesis-antithesis things. Without genes there is no intelligence, and without environment (eg including diet/nutrition etc) there is no intelligence. Only the continual interplay of appropriate configurations of both results in the useful synthesis, intelligence.

    And there’s the rub. Just what are those appropriate configurations?

    Instead of depicting or graphing as additive or supplementary (ie, 50% of one, or some other number, that both genes and environment will sum to 100% of one’s intelligence) try depicting in another, or some other dimensionality space, such that for an individual example, genes could be 98%, and environment could be 98 % also. Or for some other individual, genes could be 75% of maximal, and environment could be 92% of maximal, for example. That is, a dimension for (good or whatever) genes, and a dimension for (good or whatever) nutrition and dimensions for other environmental factors. This could get complex, as environment is multidimensional, as is/are genes. And so we need some sort of hyperspace graphing, several axes for environment, as there are several diet axes, and several education axes, and several experience axes, and several pollutant axes….

    And so to simplify, since genes and environment are viewed as orthogonal, then the ‘how much of each’ concept is void. They are different dimensionalities, and so do not sum (eg to 100% of one’s intelligence). They each have their own spaces/ dimensions. There never has been a coherent argument between genes vs environment, because they are in their own non-overlapping spaces/dimensions. The coherent view would seem to be to examine each dimension on it’s own merits. And not try to add them up linearly.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  106. @Anon

    Interesting proposal with many aspects worth exploring, but consider the practical question faced by any employer: should I select for ability and pay extra for it, or relax selection and put my money into training? Even posing that question shows a dilemma in one space, not multiple spaces. The trade-offs may vary by industry, but the output measure makes it possible to measure the relative contributions of ability and training (which would be considered the environment).

  107. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    Sure thing:

    https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/15681005

    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AEmilOWK&type=block

    The hereditarians I’ve met so far, have engaged in doxing, cyberstalking and defamation for the ‘crime’ of RationalWiki documenting their pseudoscience and crackpot beliefs.

    • Replies: @res
  108. res says:
    @Anonymous

    Any examples where the person in question was not attacked first? That does make a difference.

    Also, one example versus the 9 you gave in comment 42.

    It is clear who is the aggressor here. And you are one of them based on your comment 42.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  109. Emil Kirkegaard did put up a defence of twin studies as evidence of direct genetic causation, on his blog:

    http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=7361

    His argument is that the Wilson effect is evidence for regression to genetic setpoint.

    I do not think his argument holds water. One can produce such effects without regression to genetic setpoint, using either (or both of) direct genetic causation and/or genetically variable sensitivity to environment. Of course, one could also produce the effects using his model (regression to genetic setpoint), though in the case of his weight data, one would need the “wrong” sign, perhaps divergence from genetic setpoint. To see this, one needs to derive the MZ twin correlations in terms of causal random variables, and use age-relevant standard deviations of length or weight. See e.g.

    https://www.who.int/childgrowth/en/

    The relevant assumption is that the standard deviations are representative of genetic variation. Note also that the standards refer to children in healthy environments—they find little interethnic variation. Thus, at least to five years age, interethnic variation in growth, to the extent that it is genetically affected, is due to genetic variation in sensitivity. Up to that age, healthy children show no major difference in growth distribution. This could mean convergent evolution, if different genes are responsible in different ethnic groups, or the genetic variation could be mainly intraethnic, with little selective pressure.

    One obvious problem with age-adjusted IQ is that the standard deviation is standardized to 15, so that developmental increase in population intelligence’s standard deviation is obscured. This fact is in no way alleviated by interage correlation in IQ.

    Another peave is calling inferred random variables (e.g. ‘g,’ and its inferred causes, environmental and/or genetic) as factors. The usage makes some sense in the context of so-called factor analysis, where both the inferred random variable and its correlations with various tests are factors, i.e. multiplied together, but the random variable inputs to e.g. any particular ‘g’ are surely added (various genetic and environmental random variables), and should thus be called terms rather than factors.

    • Replies: @res
  110. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    John Fuerst of OpenPsych was also banned for doxing and harassment; he showed up on RationalWiki on about a dozen accounts and was blocked on all of them.

    The RationalWiki articles are factual, while Emil Kirkegaard and to a less extent John Fuerst go around the internet posting outright lies and smears about the article editors.

    Oliver Keyes (a PhD student at University of Washington) is another editor of Kirkegaard’s RationalWiki article; if you go to Kirkegaard’s website you find defamatory claims Keyes is “mentally ill”, the same smears Kirkegaard invented about Oliver Smith. Basically anyone who criticizes or debates Kirkegaard ends up smeared on his blog and falsely accused of having schizophrenia or another mental illness. Bizarre to say the least.

    • Replies: @res
  111. res says:
    @Johan Meyer

    Very interesting. Could you elaborate on how “regression to genetic setpoint” differs from “direct genetic causation”? And on how “genetically variable sensitivity to environment” matters to the analysis?

    Regarding the Wilson data, I am seeing three different effects, all of which are intriguing:
    1. MZ twins become more similar with age (and finish with correlations ~ 0.9).
    2. DZ twins become less similar with age (and finish with correlations ~ 0.55).
    3. DZ twins are more similar than MZ twins at birth.

    I think the parsimonious explanation for all of this is consistent with Emil’s argument and has three components:
    A. MZ and DZ twins have different genetic expectations (I think that is a better term than “setpoint”, it is not deterministic). They converge towards those as age progresses (the age 4 correlations don’t seem that different from adult).
    B. A mechanism exists for making DZ twins more similar than their genetic expectations would indicate. Wilson covers this in the excerpt below.
    C. A mechanism exists for making MZ twins less similar than their genetic expectations would indicate. This is of large enough magnitude to overcome the effects noted for DZ twins and make the MZ twins substantially less similar than DZ twins!

    Wilson has this to say:

    The present paper appraises the degree of concordance in physical growth for monozygotic (MZ) twins and dizygotic (DZ) twins. The genotype is expected to play a substantial role in growth, leading to greater concordance for MZ twins, but this expectation is tempered by several other factors which would affect birth size and subsequent growth. The twins in each pair, whether MZ or DZ, share many prenatal influences and are delivered at the same gestational age, which should increase their similarity in birth size. For DZ twins, this might make them more concordant at birth than predicted on the basis of genetic overlap alone.
    By contrast, about 70 per cent of MZ twins are born with monochorionic placentas, and most of these placentas are subject to varying degrees of vascular anastomosis (Bulmer, 1970; Strong and Corney, 1967). If the anastomosis results in unequal nutrition being supplied to the twins, it would accentuate the within-pair differences in birth size. Naeye, Benirschke, Hagstrom and Marcus (1966) have reported greater within-pair variability for monochorial twins, and on occasion a dramatic example of this transfusion syndrome may be found (e.g. Falkner, 1966).
    From this perspective, a sample of MZ twins might exhibit less concordance for birth size than would be expected from the common factors of genotype, gestational age, and prenatal environment. In postnatal growth, however, M Z twins would be expected to converge while D Z twins would diverge until an intermediate level of concordance was reached.

    Of my observations above, I find the ones I labeled 3 and C most interesting. In particular, that the correlation for MZ twins is not only lower than their genetic expectation it is lower than that for DZ twins.

    The monochorionic placenta effect seems likely, but given that those are only ~70% of MZ twins it must be even larger than the Wilson data makes it appear! It would be interesting to see an analysis like this that separates out the monochorionic and dichorionic MZ twins. How would the three different groups compare? Are the dichorionic MZ twins even more similar than their genetic expectations?

    Not sure if distinguishing monoamniotic and diamniotic MZ twins (within the 70% monochorionic) would be worthwhile as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monochorionic_twins#Amniocity_and_zygosity
    This link says monoamniotic twins are only 1-2% of MZ twins, so probably not worth distinguishing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin#Monozygotic_(identical)_twins

    I think this graphic is a good quick overview for all of those terms.

    Regarding your statement:

    they find little interethnic variation.

    Where are you finding that at your WHO link? Are they observing it or assuming it?

    P.S. Wilson also looked at mental development:

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/1128900

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/1129693

    Has anyone looked at how multiple trait variation occurs within and between twin pairs? Do twins generally experience the same effect on each trait (variations of same sign and similar Z-score) or is the variation more random than that?

  112. res says:
    @Anonymous

    John Fuerst of OpenPsych was also banned for doxing and harassment; he showed up on RationalWiki on about a dozen accounts and was blocked on all of them.

    So a group of people who maintain a collection of hit pieces banned someone who came and argued with them in their forum. Utterly unsurprising. Has he set up a site dedicated to criticizing them? Full of vague accusations like “pseudoscientist”?

    BTW, is it not obvious that the way people like you are treated here differs dramatically from the way people you deem hereditarians are treated over at RationalWiki? That says something.

    I repeat (and I am tired of your nonresponsiveness making me have to repeat myself), any examples where the person was not attacked first? I believe the Fuerst example fails to meet that metric as well.

    And understand the difference between a single person’s website (more accurately, a small number of pages on that website) and a group effort that claims to be objective while maintaining a library of related hit pieces about their opponents. And even includes “Rational” in its name. LOL!!!

    And all of this ignores the balance of criticism coming from the mass media. Where (the overwhelming balance) the environmental view is lauded and the genetic view scorned.

    The RationalWiki articles are factual,

    I think we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  113. @res

    The full link to their (WHO) technical report, regarding development:

    http://www.who.int/childgrowth/standards/Technical_report.pdf

    They studied infants in six countries, iirc, going on my notes.

    As to the derivation that is needed, one needs to random variables to model the effect of the monochorionic placenta, to wit displacement from direct genetic causation (average of the two twins, as the varying parameter), and intra-twin displacement by the effect of the monochorionic placenta. Hint: when calculating the variance and intratwin covariance, you should end up with a term containing the square of the probability of monochorionic placenta, multiplied by the average of the twin displacement from genetic causation (average over population of average over twin pairs).

    The concept of regression to genetic setpoint implies (at least to me) that environmental effects, whether mediated by genetically variable sensitivity or not, should be diluted as the developing body grows. Define a (monthly) regression coefficient \alpha_m, where $m$ denotes age in months, then the total environmental effect in month $m+1$ is

    ENV_{m+1}=ENV_m\,(1-\alpha_m) + \Delta ENV_{m+1}

    Finding the variances and squares of means of the two random variables that go into modeling the monochorionic effect then becomes an exercise in algebra, in terms of the twin correlations at birth.

    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    , @res
  114. @Johan Meyer

    Two randoms variables, link to full technical report, ffs. Google auto-error insert FTW in the first instance.

  115. res says:
    @Johan Meyer

    Thanks for the link! Some things worth calling out:

    Primary growth data and related information were gathered from 8440 healthy breastfed infants and young children from widely diverse ethnic backgrounds and cultural settings (Brazil, Ghana, India, Norway, Oman and USA). The MGRS is unique in that it was purposely designed to produce a standard by selecting healthy children living under conditions likely to favour the achievement of their full genetic growth potential. Furthermore, the mothers of the children selected for the construction of the standards engaged in fundamental health-promoting practices, namely breastfeeding and not smoking.

    That sounds like good methodology, though I wonder if there is any chance that by imposing those constraints they are picking up genetically distinct subpopulations for some groups.

    A second feature of the study that makes it attractive as a basis for an internationally applicable standard is that it included children from a diverse set of countries: Brazil, Ghana, India, Norway, Oman and the USA. By selecting privileged, healthy populations the study reduced the impact of environmental variation. Assessment of differences in linear growth among the child populations of the MGRS shows a striking similarity among the six sites, with only about 3% of variability in length being due to differences among sites compared to 70% due to differences among individuals (WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study Group, 2006a). Thus, excluding any site has little effect on the 3rd, 50th, and 97th percentile values, and pooling data from all sites is entirely justified. The remarkable similarity in growth during early childhood across human populations is consistent with genomic comparisons among diverse continental groups reporting a high degree of inter-population homogeneity (Rosenberg, 2002; King and Motulsky, 2002; Jorde and Wooding, 2004). Nevertheless, the MGRS sample has considerable built-in ethnic or genetic variability in addition to cultural variation in how children are nurtured, which further strengthens the standards’ universal applicability.

    Which very clearly backs up what you said. Though I wonder why they only mentioned length when they also looked at weight.

    What strikes me as odd is they talk so much about ethnic background in the summary, but barely mention it in the body of the 336 (!) page report.

    I am very reluctant to take for granted summary statements that are not backed up by more detailed data (if I missed that I would appreciate a pointer). Especially in a potentially controversial area like this.

    Do you know how they defined ethnic background? Most of the group statistics I see are country based, and I don’t know how representative those are given they are looking at elites in some countries (assumption given the constraints I quoted above).

    The concept of regression to genetic setpoint implies (at least to me) that environmental effects, whether mediated by genetically variable sensitivity or not, should be diluted as the developing body grows. Define a (monthly) regression coefficient \alpha_m, where $m$ denotes age in months, then the total environmental effect in month $m+1$ is

    ENV_{m+1}=ENV_m\,(1-\alpha_m) + \Delta ENV_{m+1}

    I was unable to tell (for certain) which parts of this correspond to your own views and which parts corresponds to the view you are questioning. I agree with your dilution assessment.

    In your equation how is ENV_m defined? A value between 0 and 1 corresponding to relative balance with genetic?

    I am reluctant to apply mathematical models (and the finer grained the more reluctance I have) to this beyond thought experiments because there is so much complexity and uncertainty. For example, I would posit there are both local (temporal) and global environmental effects. Compare a temporary food deficit which impairs current functioning with a long term deficit which damages development.

    Finding the variances and squares of means of the two random variables that go into modeling the monochorionic effect then becomes an exercise in algebra, in terms of the twin correlations at birth.

    I would prefer a simpler model which looks at birth and final correlations for the three groups: MZ_MC, MZ_DC, DZ_SS (same sex)

    Such a model should give values for the correlations with a linear model for both the DZ/MZ_DC effect (those two are rough equivalents, except for genetics) and the MZ_DC/MZ_MC effect (those two are genetic equivalents but differ environmentally).

    The correlations aren’t the most meaningful quantities to work in, but I can’t think of a better way to express this.

    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    , @Johan Meyer
  116. @res

    I am reluctant to apply mathematical models (and the finer grained the more reluctance I have) to this beyond thought experiments because there is so much complexity and uncertainty. For example, I would posit there are both local (temporal) and global environmental effects. Compare a temporary food deficit which impairs current functioning with a long term deficit which damages development.

    Your reluctance leads precisely to this impasse. To wit: correlation realism, rather than correlation magnitudes arising from relative sizes of standard deviations of various effects. That reluctance is fundamentally a rejection of scientific realism, hence hobbling further (scientific realist) investigation. Note that the models that I have set up are precisely provisional, subject to modification in the face of new evidence of phenomena, while the HBD crowd speaks of twin correlations as if they can in principle not be a function of time and place, despite variations in the relative magnitudes of various underlying variances. Your final paragraph is sufficiently unclear as to make it obscure even what kinds of variables you have in mind. More to the point:

    In your equation how is ENV_m defined? A value between 0 and 1 corresponding to relative balance with genetic?

    Strictly, it should be ENV_{n,m}, n iterating individuals, where ENV is the environmental contribution (cm, or kg, depending on the problem). Using such a definition, one may trivially derive (using scientific realism) the twin correlations—there will be a similar direct genetic contribution term, and taking the expectation of height (mass) and height (mass) squared, reduces to a grade eight algebra problem at most, when one keeps in mind the ultimate expected identity between population estimates and sums or integrals over the distribution functions.

    The uncertainties provide no greater problems than in selecting a capacitor for a two element low pass filter. The models that one sets up are then subject to falsification (application of the modus tollens, along the lines of proof by falsification in Euclidean geometry, although application of the modus tollens does have a cultural status in North America akin to apostasy in Saudi Arabia), and thus can be rejected when shown to be wrong. Your approach would disallow even the design of a low pass filter, according to any given theory, and thus disallow the experimental discovery of error in a theory. That is, you reject such basic experimental preparation theory that is unremarkable in the natural sciences.

    I also have to wonder, and this, including the above, is not to pick on you (thee) in particular, but is a more general concern: to what extent have you (and the psychologists more generally, regardless of ideology, position on HBD etc.) studied random variables, e.g. Papoulis and Pillai?

    • Replies: @res
  117. @res

    In the final analysis, by avoiding meaningful quantities, the practitioner defends his theories from falsification, not through robustness, but through obscurantism.

    • Replies: @res
  118. @res

    Thanks for this very informative contribution.

  119. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    I contacted Nuffield College and complained about Noah Carl using his university email on his OpenPsych papers. Within 12 hours he’s now removed it at OpenPsych and is using a Hotmail. Nuffield College clearly sees OpenPsych as racist pseudoscience.

    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    , @res
  120. @Anonymous

    You subscribe, or at least pretend to subscribe, to the notion that administrators are subject field experts. I take it that the dean of admissions will next provide peer review of a quantum chromodynamics paper. One need not be an HBD proponent to see that you are engaged in a political witch hunt. Your conduct has its precedents in the 1930s.

  121. res says:
    @Johan Meyer

    That reluctance is fundamentally a rejection of scientific realism

    I disagree. Taking a step back, my objection is more along the lines of attempting to make a fine grained model of how trajectory changes at each age for each group, which comes out to say 10-20 unknown variables. I think that is too many variables to resolve reliably and risks losing the important effects because of the uncertainty that introduces.

    I don’t have much experience of the Papoulis and Pillai sort, but I do have a fairly extensive background in modeling and simulation. Please don’t take my comment as a rejection of attempts to make meaningful mathematical models. More a matter of questioning how much they can be trusted. And how important the choice is of what effects to model and at what level of complexity.

    Do you have a problem with the model I proposed?

    Your approach would disallow even the design of a low pass filter, according to any given theory, and thus disallow the experimental discovery of error in a theory. That is, you reject such basic experimental preparation theory that is unremarkable in the natural sciences.

    I think you are interpreting my approach inaccurately.

    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    , @Johan Meyer
  122. res says:
    @Johan Meyer

    If this is the impression you have of me then I am doing a poor job of presenting what I believe.

  123. res says:
    @Anonymous

    It’s funny that the same people who do things like this tend to be the ones who simultaneously claim there is no censorship of unpopular views.

    Are you proud of yourself? I can’t wait until there is enough evidence to prove your contentions wrong. It should happen in the not too distance future unless people like you succeed in completely shutting down research into group differences.

    And to build on Johan Meyer’s response, your conduct long predates the 1930s. As I noted above, you would be right at home helping with the Inquisition, or for an even older example, prosecuting Socrates.

  124. @res

    I apologize for getting annoyed to the point of rudeness.

    However, I do think strongly that your approach (which is roughly that of Kirkegaard and in fact psychology more generally, regardless of ideology), is wrong. The “fine-grained” aspect is incidental—fine-grained interpretation of such models is not what I am after.

    Moreover, the apparent fine-grained aspect becomes rather irrelevant, as a model constrained by only the MZ and DZ correlations have several degrees of freedom, and further assumptions are needed before one can draw any provisional conclusions.

    Rather—this is in part my prejudice related to being indoctrinated in graduate level electrical engineering—I feel strongly that anyone working on stochastic phenomena, IQ included, should be able to set up Monte Carlo models to test whether a given phenomenon necessarily arises from a specific cause. By Monte Carlo, I have specifically in mind setting up individual scores by using psuedo random numbers as z-scores to create mock data for hypothesis testing.

    The models that you regard as fine-grained serve only to show that the Wilson effect can arise without regression to genetic setpoint.

    • Replies: @res
  125. @res

    More to the point of my problem with your model. The environmental effect must be diluted, and the resulting increase of correlation should be a mere consequence. Kirkegaard (and you, if I understand correctly) treats the correlation as the effect. This amounts to an algebraic naivete as to the structure of the correlation coefficient, due to various hypothetical effects. Yet the necessity of various conclusions drawn from the correlation coefficients is precisely dependant on the presence or absence of various effects, that cannot (at least yet) be excluded, e.g. on Occam’s razor grounds.

    • Replies: @res
  126. res says:
    @Johan Meyer

    I apologize for getting annoyed to the point of rudeness.

    No problem. I hope I am not doing so as well, but my dander is up a bit in this (overall) thread so I may be.

    a model constrained by only the MZ and DZ correlations have several degrees of freedom, and further assumptions are needed before one can draw any provisional conclusions.

    I am focusing on a simple descriptive model. Fewer variables is a feature because it allows determining them (# equations >= # unknowns). I am failing to see how fewer variables results in more degrees of freedom and further required assumptions.

    this is in part my prejudice related to being indoctrinated in graduate level electrical engineering

    I have some similar indoctrination ; )

    anyone working on stochastic phenomena, IQ included, should be able to set up Monte Carlo models to test whether a given phenomenon necessarily arises from a specific cause.

    I strongly agree with the value of using MC to check model plausibility and sensitivity to variation. I am not as sure about using it as a way to check causality. Could you elaborate?

    By Monte Carlo, I have specifically in mind setting up individual scores by using psuedo random numbers as z-scores to create mock data for hypothesis testing.

    But how do you generate your pseudo random numbers without assuming a mechanism?

    The models that you regard as fine-grained serve only to show that the Wilson effect can arise without regression to genetic setpoint.

    I am honestly not seeing this. If what you mean is you can create a mathematical model which generates the same stream of numbers, then I think that is easily explained by your model’s flexibility. This seems analogous to the overfitting problem. Do you have an alternate causal mechanism to propose?

    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
  127. res says:
    @Johan Meyer

    The environmental effect must be diluted, and the resulting increase of correlation should be a mere consequence.

    I think that is conceptually true, but prefer to think of it as the environmental effect being statistically averaged away over time (I think this corresponds pretty well to the alpha in your model).

    One analogy might be to a construction project with variable material availability and quality. The genetic contribution controls how capably (e.g. quality, efficiency) the materials are turned into structure. There is opportunity to store materials for the future and/or improve earlier subpar work (but those opportunities are limited). So vastly different environmental (material) trajectories might result in similar outcomes.

    There is vast complexity here in terms of GxE effects over the full course of time, but the additive genetic model seems to work quite well over a broad range of environments encountered in first world countries.

    Kirkegaard (and you, if I understand correctly) treats the correlation as the effect.

    I can’t speak for Emil, but I think of the correlation as the outcome. For me it is the most important variable we have easy access to. What I really care about are things like:
    - Determining genetic expectation (e.g. GWAS) and its degree of importance (e.g. heritability).
    - Assessing environmental sensitivity. The Wilson data is interesting here because it shows both evidence of a strong prenatal effect AND how much that is diluted over time.
    - Optimizing the environment. For me this is the most important from a practical point of view.

    This amounts to an algebraic naivete as to the structure of the correlation coefficient, due to various hypothetical effects.

    I’m not sure what this means, but think it may relate to what I was trying to say with: “The correlations aren’t the most meaningful quantities to work in, but I can’t think of a better way to express this.” It’s worth calling out weaknesses, but please don’t confuse naivete with pragmatism.

    Yet the necessity of various conclusions drawn from the correlation coefficients is precisely dependant on the presence or absence of various effects, that cannot (at least yet) be excluded, e.g. on Occam’s razor grounds.

    I think much of our apparent disagreement stems from a difference in how we prioritize things for the application of Occam’s razor. Perhaps you could elaborate on some possible other effects and how they expose the shortcomings of my approach?

    P.S. For a brief return to the original topic of this thread. I think this statistical averaging is similar to what we see when looking at group vs. individual differences. Looking at group differences means that much of the individual variability is averaged away (e.g. environment, measurement error). IMHO this is the most compelling argument for the possibility of a large genetic effect on group differences. For example, if environments are fairly comparable, I think this creates the possibility of values larger than heritability (which is subject to the noise I mention). As I mentioned above, the proportion of differences due to genetics depends on the relative magnitude of the environmental and genetic differences between the two groups. The supreme irony in this debate is that if the egalitarians achieve their goals with respect to equalizing environments then the genetic proportion will increase.

    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    , @Johan Meyer
  128. @res

    It is a case of underdetermination of phenomena by the correlation coefficients (MZ and DZ). The correlation coefficients are determined by the causal phenomena (direct genetic contribution, environmental contributions with and without genetically variable sensitivity). Adding such a variable does change, but not overdetermine, the correlation coefficient. The intuition that such an additional variable should overdetermine the correlation coefficient is precisely a consequence of naivete regarding the algebraic structure of the correlation coefficient. An example structure is

    R_{mz}=\frac{\sigma_{genetic,direct,m}^2+\sum_n \mu_{dose,n,m}^2\sigma_{uptake,n}^2\beta_ n^2}
    {\sigma_{genetic,direct,m}^2+\sum_n \mu_{dose,n,m}^2\sigma_{uptake,n}^2\beta_ n^2+\sum_n \mu_{uptake,n}^2\sigma_{dose,n,m}^2\beta_n^2}

    Where m denotes the month. Note the lack of overdetermination, and the underdetermination of the inverse problem. The environmental terms would be multiplied by regressors

    \prod_m (1-\alpha_m)^2

    in the regression to genetic setpoint case. One may produce the Wilson effect from the first equation, i.e. the correlation coefficient in the absence of regression to genetic setpoint, does allow, as an outcome (though not the only possibility) the production of the Wilson effect data.

    Including regression to genetic setpoint also allows one to produce the Wilson effect data, as one of several outcomes, depending on parameters chosen.

    Thus the Wilson effect cannot be used to select one model over the other. And the Wilson effect cannot even constrain either model to determining all parameters.

    By working in a naive sum model of the correlation coefficient, one can avoid realization of the mathematically unnecessary nature of regression to genetic setpoint, and produce models unrelated to underlying causes.

    There is a time and place for such models, namely when one simply needs such data or relations to hold for the purpose of another model, in which the first is merely a component, but it strikes me as wholly inappropriate for attempting to understand the cause of the phenomenon.

  129. @res

    The whole point is that the Wilson effect can be produced without reduction of environmental effect (i.e. regression to genetic setpoint) by diluting the proportion that the environmental variance presents in the total variance, as the genetic variance increases with age (hence my linking the WHO growth standards), hence increasing its fraction of the total variance, thus linearly increasing both the numerator and denominator of the correlation coefficient. In the limit as this variance (genetic) goes to infinity, the correlation goes to unity.

  130. @res

    Assessing environmental sensitivity. The Wilson data is interesting here because it shows both evidence of a strong prenatal effect AND how much that is diluted over time.

    Let regression to genetic setpoint’s truth value be R.
    Let the truth value of necessary conditions to obtain the Wilson effect with regression to genetic setpoint be X.

    Let the necessary conditions to obtain the Wilson effect in the absence of regression to genetic setpoint be Y.
    Let the truth value of the Wilson effect be W.

    Then

    R AND X IMPLIES W

    (NOT R) AND Y IMPLIES W

    We have W. You want to infer R. Rather than set up a scientific realist model, which allows both premises, you create a non-scientific realist model that allows only the first, thus making the problem with affirmation of the consequent invisible.

  131. @anon @res

    I support freedom of speech; I just find it hypocritical some Nazis on OpenPsych (eg. Kirkegaard) are now threatening to sue me when they claimed themselves to be pro-freedom of speech. Of course the legal threats are probably bogus anyway. As far as I’m aware no one is taking me to court; no legal proceedings have been issued against me. I merely received a Pre-action Protocol for Defamation/”cease and desist” letter — which anyone can send. Also, the statements and allegations in that letter were completely false, so I’m not bothered by it. Perhaps Kirkegaard is unware I’ve received nonsense like this for about a decade for editing wikis like RationalWiki (including from religious fundamentalist creationists). So if he thinks I’m threatened by it, he’s mistaken.

  132. @res

    As far as I’m aware Mikemikev hasn’t impersonated me here, however he’s done it on many other websites. I can’t be bothered to go through all my comments to check though and I’ve not posted here in something like 7 months before now and only responded because someone alerted me to this discussion.

    As for “flagged as a troll by four different people in just 65 comments.” — this is because I highlighted the hypocrisy of posters on this website who want to restrict immigration but (a) have children (b) or want to increase ‘white’ birth/fertility rates, or (c) both. If we look at most populists who want to restrict immigration e.g. Trump has 4 kids, Nigel Farage 4 kids, Rees-Mogg, 5 or 6 kids etc. They’re all part of the overpopulation problem with not only children, but large families. I simply highlighted this hypocrisy. I don’t take serious xenophobes or racists who moan about immigration but who are pro-natalists.

    • Replies: @res
  133. Some funny stuff going on at OpenPsych:

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noah_Carl#OpenPsych

    In response to RationalWiki exposing the fact Carl reviews some of his own OpenPsych papers, he’s rushed to delete this evidence, not realising there is a screenshot.

    “Carl has published several papers in OpenPsych and is a referee/peer for one of their journals, Open Quantitative Sociology & Political Science. Rather humorously, which sums up why OpenPsych are pseudojournals not to be taken serious – Carl has reviewed one of his own paper submissions i.e. he is listed as a co-author and reviewer of a paper published on Nov. 2, 2018.[16] Similarly, Emil Kirkegaard who founded the journals, reviews many of his own submissions and is editor of two OpenPsych journals he self-publishes. In other words, OpenPsych are a bunch of racists who review their own racist pseudoscience papers.

    In response to this RationalWiki page documenting the fact Carl reviews some of his own OpenPsych papers, Carl has tried to cover up the evidence. However, an archived screenshot shows before (and after) the deletion.”

    Proof Carl reviews his own OpenPsych paper submissions since he lists himself as a reviewer and author of a paper dated Nov. 2, 2018. Carl would later delete this, not realising there was a screenshot.

    – Mr. Carl and Emil Kirkegaard are among the most dishonest individuals I’ve ever come across on the internet.

  134. res says:

    They’re all part of the overpopulation problem with not only children, but large families. I simply highlighted this hypocrisy. I don’t take serious xenophobes or racists who moan about immigration but who are pro-natalists.

    I think both of those opposing positions are intellectually consistent (internally, not between them, of course). People who want to preserve their own society worry about immigration but are pro-natalist among their own group. People who worry about overpopulation worry about natalism worldwide but may feel either way about immigration.

    When framed by those two aspects, the position that seems odd to me is the current norm of highly encouraging to immigration, supportive of non-local natalism (at very high rates) while at best indifferent to local natalism (already at a low rate).

    Some things missing from your framing are the aspects of the cost of labor (employees and employers having opposite priorities) and resource consumption (a big part of the reason I worry about overpopulation). High birth rates in the third world coupled with high immigration to the first world from there is a disaster from the resource consumption POV.

    It is also worth mentioning the widely different birth rates by country. You seem to consider any argument for increased birth rates among Americans (whites only or ?) to be unacceptable pro-natalism while I think it is quite reasonable for a group to want at least replacement fertility. On the other hand, I don’t see (did I miss it?) you criticizing sky high birth rates in Africa and elsewhere. That seems like hypocrisy to me. If overpopulation is truly the problem it seems “fairest” to limit all groups to a similar maximum birth rate.

    My guess would be you were being called a troll as much for your presentation as your position. Some of the people who did that are actually fairly level headed commenters. Coming to a forum and presenting an against the grain position in a provocative way, especially without really backing it up, is a pretty good definition of one form of troll IMHO.

    P.S. Regarding hypocrisy, I think that term is much more relevant when someone applies inconsistent standards using their stated metric (e.g. high birth rates for me but not for thee because of overpopulation), but less so when seemingly inconsistent positions are easily reconciled by looking at the metric actually in use (e.g. high birth rates for me but not for thee because of resource consumption, and my group uses much less per person). In the natalism case the different metrics might be relative change in birth rates vs. their absolute values.

  135. Anon[152] • Disclaimer says:

    Emil Kirkegaard has written some offensive and twisted things, he has some explaining to do.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_Kirkegaard

    “Kirkegaard wrote a post on his website that disturbingly said a “compromise” for paedophiles is to drug and rape sleeping children since: “if they don’t notice it is difficult to see how they could be harmed, even if it is rape.”

    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
  136. @Anon

    If the rationalwiki version is correct, then if rationalwiki and you fail to report it to the relevant police force, that is abetting after the fact. If the rationalwiki version is false, it may explain any lacks of statements to the police. Could you supply a case number, and the police force to whom you reported the matter, along with the criminal violations perpetrated? Even incitement to violate a section of a criminal code would do.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Oliver D. Smith
  137. Let me all tell you racists here something. I am a proud Muslim man. I was involved in a private debate with Mr Emil Kirkegaard over email and on twitter recently. He ended up called me a “Mini Bin Laden” and a “Muhammad pants”, he insulted my religion and my peoples. He said all Muslim are terrorist and publicly posted on his twitter that all followers of our prophet Muhammad are pedophiles.

    I am filing a defamation case against Mr Kirkegaard. He can expect to hear from my lawyers.

    Aabdar Bacchus بدر

  138. res says:
    @Johan Meyer

    The pedophile quotes are taken out of context. Here is a response from Emil to the whole RationalWiki page about him: http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034

    For some reason that page is having trouble loading, so here is the most recent version from the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20181017182102/http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034

    It will be interesting to see if anything comes out of all the legal shenanigans people here claim are happening.

    P.S. Does anyone know how RationalWiki manages to get their page on Emil as the top hit on searches of his name? It is instructive to see whose statements are amplified by the megaphone.

  139. @res

    The tactic that is being used is to compel the target/victim to explain himself. Centrist apologetics used it a fair bit on the left, e.g. Bogdanor on Chomsky. Then in explaining oneself, because the bulk of the audience will not have the background to make sense of the explanation, the explanation makes one sound guilty.

    I turned the tables back on them. Because sex crimes, especially against minors, are such a serious matter, and because they make it sound like Emil Kirkegaard advocated for that, I rely on that impression in the audience to put the spotlight back on the accusers—if EK is such an apparent criminal, are they not abetting him? Now the accusers must explain, and look guilty in doing so.

    I do think that EK’s gedanken experiment in question (iirc, as I read about it and RW’s misrepresentation thereof some months ago on his blog) is poorly considered. Much of the psychological trauma is in the realisation of violation, rather than only in the direct experience per se.

  140. It may not be obvious at first, but if you want to combat racism and sexism you need the benchmark of open discussion about racial and sexual differences.

    Herr Doktor Doktor Thompson doesn’t know who the real enemy is. He’s arguing with dupes not those who dupe them.

    Heads up: The purpose of the inundation of propaganda against “racism”, “sexism”, etc. is to distract from economic issues. If critics of economic inequality, the concentration of wealth and power can be labeled “anti-semites” or “racists”, and if the doubleplusgoodthinful white British snobs can be made to hate working class white British then mission accomplished.

    The ruling class KNOWS there are differences which can NEVER be remedied, thus by focusing on irremediable differences, discussion of economic inequality per se is avoided.

    The UK is the least meritocratic country in the developed world.

    Blair and Clinton substituted identity politics for progressive economic policies, because they were and are 100% corrupt. At least Thatcher and Reagan didn’t pretend not to be retarded. They were just dumb. The Blair-ites and Clinton-ites are 100% pure evil.

    Investigation into racial differences in psychological traits is pseudoscience, because psychology is a pseudoscience. It’s got nothing to do with political correctness.

  141. The only political consequences of a determination that groups differ is an end to affirmative action. What else? Coercive birth control? But that should apply to dumb white British too. If black African immigrants or Afro-Caribbean immigrants to the UK must meet the same standards as other immigrants, then those there are will not be a problem. They will be the best of their kind.

    As Chomsky has said, “Even supposing such differences are real, they only matter in a racist society where people are judged by their race rather than as individuals.”

  142. @res

    Note also the fake new user, whose purpose is to distract from what has been shown, using a cringe-inducing meme as handle, and a fake quote by someone to whom (NC) I made reference. The fake quote was likely produced by the postmodern essay generator.

  143. @res

    Nothing is actually taken out of context, for example take this sentence:

    “One can have sex with some rather young ones (say, any consenting child in puberty) without any moral problems, especially when one is young oneself.” http://archive.is/c3Vy8

    Puberty begins on average in 10-11 in girls, and 12 in boys. Thus we have Kirkegaard supporting sex with underage children. He has no legal case against me since all I’ve ever done is quote his own comments. I’ve also got legal advice of my own, and they agree.

    In contrast, the defamation is by Kirkegaard against me: https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/15681005

    Where’s the evidence I’m schizophrenic, autistic, asexual, an “former Nazi”, SJW, “stalker” etc? Kirkegaard just made all this up. He’s knows nothing about me, but has gone around the internet maliciously lying about my mental health, sexuality, politics and pretty much everything else about me for past 2 years. He did exactly the same thing to an individual named Oliver Keyes who he also smears as “mentally ill” (who isn’t).

  144. @Johan Meyer

    The alt-right and its HBD pseudoscience movement is filled with paedophiles, so I don’t expect any decency from you people since your movement is notorious for defending paedophiles and paedophilia apologists.

    Chris Brand

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Brand#Paedophilia

    When Chris Brand argued that sex with a 12 year old is not harmful, virtually no one in the HBD community criticized or distanced themselves from him. People like Richard Lynn even wrote statements in his defence.

  145. Anon[681] • Disclaimer says:

    “As well as his involvement in neo-Nazi politics, Kirkegaard has written posts that justify the rape of children” – Journalist David Barnes

    https://rantt.com/eugenics-white-nationalists-continue-to-turn-to-the-false-theory-of-genetic-supremacy/

    “Kirkegaard. He’s one of those anti-semitic ‘white genocide’ lunatics, but that’s not even the worst part of his character: he has a way to justify raping children”. – Biologist PZ Myers

    https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/01/10/chloroform-consenttheyre-both-the-same-thing-right/

    In September 2012, Kirkegaard wrote a post on his website that disturbingly said a “compromise” for paedophiles is to drug and rape sleeping children since: “if they don’t notice it is difficult to see how they could be harmed, even if it is rape”.

    Kirkegaard has never offered an apology for his sickening post, instead still arguing he thinks there will be no harm to raped children, if they are asleep:

    “My remark was simply that if you have sex with someone [children] while they are asleep and somehow don’t wake up from it and they never discover it later somehow, it is not likely for there to be any causal effects on mental health. How would there be.” – Emil Kirkegaard 2017.

    So Mr Kirkegaard thinks a ‘compromise’ is for pedophiles to rape children whilst asleep. Is this one of your white nationalist “heroes” Mr James Thompson? I see you still have him added on your personal Twitter.

    Mr Kirkegaard failed to present any evidence Muhammad was a pedophile in his tweets.

    Here is what the Student Rights website says:

    “Disturbingly, the conference also featured an organiser who has argued in favour of raping children. Emil Kirkegaard, a blogger who has written about the defects of miscegenation (race-mixing) and explored the idea of a Jewish conspiracy, has claimed that “having sex with a sleeping child without them knowing it” could be a potential “compromise” for paedophiles.”

    http://www.studentrights.org.uk/article/2490/ucl_investigates_secret_eugenics_conference_promoting_racism_on_campus

    Please explain Dr James Thompson and fellow unz racists why you defend this man.

  146. Since Oliver Smith keeps lying and harassing me, here’s the explanatory note I attached to my blogpost initially before being advised to depublish it by my lawyers.

    Historical note (January 2018). Since another round of dishonest critics are now quote mining this blogpost in the mass media, some further clarification is apparently needed. The blogpost is a thought experiment. It describes hypothetical scenarios and courses of action, not any actions endorsed or recommended by me either then or now. Selectively quoting it is dishonest and libelous in many jurisdictions and the same is true for misrepresenting my views. Having sex with sleeping or drugged persons is immoral.

    Historical note (April 2017). Since some people went around my blog looking for dirt and found this old post, it seems appropriate to add some disclaimer. I had forgotten all about this post until I found I was called a ‘pedophilia apologist’ by my SJW critics. The main idea of this post should be obvious to anyone who has studied ethics/meta-ethics: it’s a straightforward application of utilitarianism to a hot issue. Given that some people are pedophiles, what is the best way to reduce the amount of problems this causes? This discussion is no different from Peter Singer’s other candid discussions of similar taboo topics, e.g. in Practical Ethics. Not considering harm reduction approaches because one considers something wrong to begin with is foolish. Consider many countries’ ‘zero tolerance’ approach to drugs. Because of these policies they refused to provide free needles to addicts, and this had the obvious result that HIV and other diseases spread easily, including into the general population, causing massive damage. For the record, I don’t advocate legalization of pedophilia (sex between ‘legal adults’ and prepubescents), changing the age of consent or any other typical policy proposals of pedophile organizations. This is not an issue that’s of particular interest to me which is also why there’s a total of 2 blogposts on this topic out of 903 (as of now). I do, however, advocate frank discussion of pedophilia-related issues just as I advocate frank discussion of any other taboo topic.

    For record, the quote about having sex with a young teenager referred to countries such as Denmark where the age of consent is 15, or Germany where it is 14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

    Oliver Smith was well aware of the above clarification but continues to misrepresent my views. My views on pedophilia are not particularly unusual in that I support the existing legislation about age of consent in European countries, endorse policies keeping convicted pedophiles away from children by force and background checks. Getting into this trouble is the result of writing a poorly phrased blogpost more than 6 years ago. Keep in mind that my blog was not widely read in 2012 when I was a fairly unknown university student who was mostly interested in formal logic and meta-ethics.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  147. Anon[427] • Disclaimer says:

    Mr Emil Kirkegaard

    You wrote in your own words:

    “Perhaps a compromise is having sex with a sleeping child without them knowing it (so, using sleeping medicine). If they dont[sic] notice it is difficult to see how they cud[sic] be harmed, even if it is rape.”

    Do you still believe in this “compromise”?

    You also posted on twitter you believe Muhammad was a pedophile, can you explain why you think that is. I take it you have never read the hadith literature or Quran.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  148. Anon[427] • Disclaimer says:

    Mr Emil Kirkegaard are you suing Biologist PZ Myers, Journalist David Barnes, The Guardian, Telegraph, Daily Mail etc, because they have all called you a pedophile-apologist in some way or another. And why are you suing people – is this not against the American way of freedom of speech?!

    Your “poorly phrased” blog post entertained the idea of sleeping child rape as a “compromise”, therefore it is not really “libel” to point this out or claim you support such a thing. Your lawsuits will never make it to court. You spoke ill words and they have come back to haunt you, it is your own wrong-doing, not anyone else.

  149. @Emil O. W. Kirkegaard

    Anyone can see you’re lying and revising the original context of your blog post to damage control. The sentence I quoted mentions nothing of “young teenager”, but “consenting child in puberty” (and you even used the word child) and this refers as young as 10-11 when puberty starts in females, or 12 in males. “The average age for girls to begin puberty is 11, while for boys the average age is 12.” https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/sexual-health/stages-of-puberty-what-happens-to-boys-and-girls/

    You now laughably threaten to sue me when all I ever did is quote your own words, which you now claim were “poorly phrased” (this is the first time you’ve said this). Secondly, you posted a “compromise” for paedophiles is to drug and rape sleeping children, which you’ve never even apologised for. On the contrary, you showed up on RationalWiki in 2017 and defended your sickening child-rape post, writing that you think there will be “no mental harm” to a raped child in his/her sleep.

    You can hardly blame people for calling you a paedophile or paedophilia-apologist when you wrote sex with children in puberty (young as 10-12) is acceptable, even moral, and then suggested a “compromise” for paedophiles is to drug and rape sleeping children, later writing you think there will still be no mental harm. You clearly have severe mental issues, which is why all the libel you spread about me across the internet e.g. that I’m schizophrenic or a “mentally ill stalker” is more damage control to your reputation.

  150. @Anon

    The claim Muhammad was a paedophile is primarily made by paedophilia-apologists, and this argument shouldn’t be made. One of the Hadith indeed describes Muhammad as marrying Aisha at 6, and having had sex with her when she was 9 years old. However, this is almost certainly an impossibility and there’s various historical evidences which contradict this and show she was at least 15 at the time of the consummation of the marriage as argued by prominent Islamic scholars. Similarly there’s apocryphal writings that state Mary was 12 when she married Joseph, yet this is contradicted by other sources, arguing she was a lot older.

    Paedophilia-apologists of course argue Joseph and Muhammad had sex with 9-12 year olds to try to argue these things were “normal” in the ancient and medieval world, so they should be today. I assume Kirkegaard is tweeting Islamophobic statements such as Muhammad is a paedophile to try to damage control and make out he is suddenly now against paedophilia given his history of writing obscene statements about child-rape. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_Kirkegaard#.22Mohammed_is_a_pedophile.22 However, by calling Muhammad a paedophile – he’s actually making an argument used by paedophilia-apologists.

  151. Anonymous[681] • Disclaimer says:

    “Here’s the explanatory note I attached to my blogpost initially before being advised to depublish it by my lawyers.”

    “The blogpost is a thought experiment. It describes hypothetical scenarios and courses of action”

    Ok firstly which normal person would invent a “thought experiment” that discusses pedophilia and publish it online? Secondly which normal person would write “perhaps a compromise is having sex with a sleeping child” and post it online? THINK about that line for a second PLEASE. It is INSANE.

    The answer to the above is not a normal person. Normal people do not write such things. Emil Kirkegaard did. Regular everyday people do not do such things. Standard psychology says something would have to be wrong with someone to write such a thing…. (!) A Google search reveals this individual is a white supremacist.

    Now he is trying to sue people for quoting things he previously wrote in 2012 and 2017 and his lawyers have asked him to delete those posts. Any judge would throw a case like this out of court.

    Let’s all laugh at this lolcow suit. (lots of laughter).

    Anti-fascist organisations such as Hope Not Hate and Anti-Defamation League monitor Kirkegaard’s racist internet Behavior and they would easily testify in defense of Oliver D. Smith, Oliver Keyes, PZ Myers, David Barnes or any other individual Kirkegaard is threatening to sue. End of discussion.

    PS. If by magic any of these alleged lawsuits materialize into a legit court case, the media will have a field day about it and Kirkegaard’s reputation will be even more rock-bottom than it is now. If I new which lawyer firm he was using I would tip off the press about this and every anti-fascist organization in the UK. How about this for media headlines.

    “Law firm called ___ defending white supremacist Emil Kirkegaard who wrote a compromise is having sex with a sleeping child”

  152. JLK says:
    @GrammarCommie

    A full list of hereditarian cranks https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hereditarianism

    And your scientific credentials are?

    • Replies: @Oliver Keyes
  153. Oliver Keyes [AKA "Frank Dux"] says:
    @JLK

    The above GrammarCommie account is likely an impersonation of Mikemikev (Michael Coombs). Mikemikev has a history of impersonating rationalwiki admins, as well as impersonating Oliver Smith and Emil Kirkegaard to cause conflict between the two.

    Mikemikev is a neo-nazi from the UK:

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs

    Mikemikev is also a self confessed pedophile

    “I admitted I’m attracted to 15 year olds. I have something called integrity.” http://archive.is/9oDUI (Michael Coombs)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  154. res says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    I see I missed an attribution here. Comment 139 was a response to comment 137 (sometimes when I respond to the most recent comment I forget to hit reply first). I was wondering why Oliver D. Smith did not respond to my attempt to engage in a substantive conversation with him and just continued repeating “paedophile” over and over. Sounds like an obsession to me.

    FWIW there seems to be a great deal of Motte and Bailey going on with definitions of “pedophile.” Which is humorous since RationalWiki actually has a pretty good page on that fallacy: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey

    • Replies: @Anon
  155. Anonymous[748] • Disclaimer says:
    @Oliver Keyes

    If you go to “Mikemikev sockpuppet investigations” you find Mikemikev has been blocked impersonating Emil Kirkegaard and several other people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mikemikev/Archive

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emil_Kirkegaard

  156. Anon[222] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    res you complain about others not replying to you but you didn’t respond to my reply.

    “Ok firstly which normal person would invent a “thought experiment” that discusses pedophilia and publish it online? Secondly which normal person would write “perhaps a compromise is having sex with a sleeping child” and post it online? THINK about that line for a second PLEASE. It is INSANE.”

    “The answer to the above is not a normal person. Normal people do not write such things. Emil Kirkegaard did. Regular everyday people do not do such things.”

    What is your answer?

    I understand you are a friend of Emil and will defend him to the end of the earth, but do you think his comments are normal? You think this sort of thing is acceptable to publish online? After a busy days work (I take it you work) would you say something like that at the dinner table with your family or at the pub with your friends?

    A simple yes or no would do. Also do you believe that a compromise for pedos is to rape children whilst they sleep? Your friend Emil does. Yet you are best friends with this individual. Why would someone invent a thought experiment that makes compromises for pedophiles in the first place? I mean who the HELL would do that? You have to be (a) a pedophile or (b) totally deranged or (c) both. So which is it? Emil Kirkegaard clearly isn’t a normal individual. If anything he is damaging your “white nationalist” community. The media deems the far-right as a bunch of weirdos. Rightly so.

    • Replies: @res
  157. Oliver Keyes [AKA "Jamie"] says:

    Mikemikev has been impersonating people for years. He impersonated Andrew B. Chung and used the name “MU” from 2008-2012 to troll usenet groups and many forums.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:MU_(internet_troll)

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_B._Chung/archive1

    MU!! (aka Mikemikev) has been trolling numerous websites and newgroups, Usenet in particular, for over a decade. Do a Google search on names like “Ari Silverstein”, “Frank Camper”, or “wilburn” (preferably in combination with “Usenet”, e. g. ["Ari Silverstein" Usenet], ["Frank Camper" Usenet], [wilburn Usenet]) to see the full dimension of his trolling.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  158. Emil Kirkegaard has been creating defamation articles about me. Kirkegaard has described me as an SJW with mental illness.

    I will be taking legal action against Kirkegaard if he does not stop.

  159. Anon[295] • Disclaimer says:

    res / Johan Meyer if your white supremacist buddy Emil Kirkegaard was convicted of child rape next week would you still defend him on here or would you man-up, do the right thing and denounce him? You alt-righters seem to defend each other no matter what. Richard Spencer wife beater yet the alt-right still love him. The alt-right isn’t a good place to be. You guys are not moral.

  160. res says:
    @Anon

    I complained about not responding to an attempt to engage in a substantive conversation. I don’t consider a detailed critique of Emil’s old blog post accompanied by various things being read into it to be worth engaging in here. I think Emil’s response (which I referenced) serves well enough.

    FWIW I thought Emil’s post showed poor judgment (especially with the benefit of hindsight), but is easily understood as a philosophical thought experiment.

    If the people slamming Emil here are “normal” or “non-weirdos”, well let’s just say I have no interest in being like that.

  161. mikemikev says:
    @Oliver Keyes

    The Andrew Chung incident involved Darryl Smith, Oliver’s brother, right?

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  162. Anon[951] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    Mikemikev should not be aloud to comment at unz. He admitted in his own words he is attracted to 15 year old school girls when he is 40 years old:

    “I admitted I’m attracted to 15 year olds. I have something called integrity”

    ”I think most men are attracted to underage girls. Did you ever have sexual thoughts about 15 year old for example?”

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs

    Unz needs to tighten up its policy on commenters like Mikemikev.

  163. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    Why are you impersonating Emil Kirkegaard, Oliver Smith etc?

    You’re also someone who has been banned from every major wiki:

    https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Special:Contributions/mikemikev

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mikemikev

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mikemikev

    https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Mikemikev

    Your behaviour seems to be completely deranged, to say the least.

  164. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @mikemikev

    You claim Smith is a communist or “Antifa”, do you have any evidence for this?

    All I see is you creating fake accounts of Smith with “Antifa” in the title.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oliver_D_Smith_Antifa

Current Commenter
says:

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


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Thompson Comments via RSS