The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPeter Frost Archive
Behaviorism and the Revival of Antiracism
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
John B. Watson conditioning a child to fear Santa Claus. With a properly controlled environment, he felt that children can be conditioned to think and behave in any way desired. Credit: Wikimedia Commons
John B. Watson conditioning a child to fear Santa Claus. With a properly controlled environment, he felt that children can be conditioned to think and behave in any way desired. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

After peaking in the mid-19th century, antiracism fell into decline in the U.S., remaining dominant only in the Northeast. By the 1930s, however, it was clearly reviving, largely through the efforts of the anthropologist Franz Boas and his students. But a timid revival had already begun during the previous two decades. In the political arena, the NAACP had been founded in 1910 under the aegis of WASP and, later, Jewish benefactors. In academia, the 1920s saw a growing belief in the plasticity of human nature, largely through the behaviorist school of psychology. The founder of behaviorism was an unlikely antiracist. A white southerner who had been twice arrested in high school for fighting with African American boys, John B. Watson (1878-1958) initially held a balanced view on the relative importance of nature vs. nature. His book Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist (1919) contained two chapters on “unlearned behavior”. The first chapter is summarized as follows:

In this chapter, we examine man as a reacting organism, and specifically some of the reactions which belong to his hereditary equipment. Human action as a whole can be divided into hereditary modes of response (emotional and instinctive), and acquired modes of response (habit). Each of these two broad divisions is capable of many subdivisions. It is obvious both from the standpoint of common-sense and of laboratory experimentation that the hereditary and acquired forms of activity begin to overlap early in life. Emotional reactions become wholly separated from the stimuli that originally called them out (transfer), and the instinctive positive reaction tendencies displayed by the child soon become overlaid with the organized habits of the adult.

By the mid-1920s, however, he had largely abandoned this balanced view and embraced a much more radical environmentalism, as seen in Behaviorism (1924):

Our conclusion, then, is that we have no real evidence of the inheritance of traits. I would feel perfectly confident in the ultimately favorable outcome of a healthy, well-formed baby born of a long line of crooks, murderers and thieves, and prostitutes(Watson, 1924, p. 82) [...]

Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief, and yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. I am going beyond my facts and I admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of years. (Watson, 1924, p. 82)

Everything we have been in the habit of calling “instinct” today is a result largely of training—belongs to man’s learned behavior. As a corollary from this I wish to draw the conclusion that there is no such thing as an inheritance of capacity, talent, temperament, mental constitution, and characteristics. These things again depend on training that goes on mainly in the cradle. (Watson,1924, p. 74).

Why the shift to extreme environmentalism? It was not a product of ongoing academic research. In fact, Watson was no longer in academia, having lost his position in 1920 at John Hopkins University after an affair with a graduate student. At the age of 42, he had to start a new career as an executive at a New York advertising agency. Some writers attribute this ideological shift to his move from academia to advertising:

Todd (1994) noted that after Watson lost his academic post at Johns Hopkins, he abandoned scientific restraint in favor of significantly increased stridency and extremism, such that there were “two Watsons—a pre-1920, academic Watson and a post-1920, postacademic Watson” (p. 167). Logue (1994) argued that Watson’s shift from an even-handed consideration of heredity and environment to a position of bombast and extreme environmentalism was motivated by the need to make money and the desire to stay in the limelight after he left academia. (Rakos, 2013)

There was another reason: the acrimonious debate in the mid-1920s over immigration, particularly over whether the United States was receiving immigrants of dubious quality. Rakos (2013) points to Watson’s increasingly harsh words on eugenics and the political background: “It is probably no coincidence that only in the 1924 edition of the book—published in the same year that Congress passed the restrictive Johnson-Lodge Immigration Act—did Watson express his belief that behaviorism can promote social harmony in a world being transformed by industrialization and the movement of peoples across the globe.” Eugenics is mentioned, negatively, in his 1924 book:

But you say: “Is there nothing in heredity-is there nothing in eugenics-[...] has there been no progress in human evolution?” Let us examine a few of the questions you are now bursting to utter. Certainly black parents will bear black children [...].

Certainly the yellow-skinned Chinese parents will bear a yellow skinned offspring. Certainly Caucasian parents will bear white children. But these differences are relatively slight. They are due among other things to differences in the amount and kind of pigments in the skin. I defy anyone to take these infants at birth, study their behavior, and mark off differences in behavior that will characterize white from black and white or black from yellow. There will be differences in behavior but the burden of proof is upon the individual be he biologist or eugenicist who claims that these racial differences are greater than the individual differences. (Watson, 1924, p. 76)

You will probably say that I am flying in the face of the known facts of eugenics and experimental evolution—that the geneticists have proven that many of the behavior characteristics of the parents are handed down to the offspring—they will cite mathematical ability, musical ability, and many, many other types. My reply is that the geneticists are working under the banner of the old “faculty” psychology. One need not give very much weight to any of their present conclusions. (Watson, 1924, p. 79)

The last quote is indeed strange, since Watson no longer had any faculty position, either new or old.

Conclusion

Antiracism did not revive during the interwar years because of new data. Watson’s shift to radical environmentalism took place a half-decade after his departure from academia. It was as an advertising executive, and as a crusader against the 1924 Immigration Act, that he entered the “environmentalist” phase of his life. This phase, though poor in actual research, was rich in countless newspaper and magazine articles that would spread his behaviorist gospel to a mass audience.

The same could be said for Franz Boas. He, too, made his shift to radical antiracism when he was already semi-retired and well into his 70s. Although this phase of his life produced very little research, it saw the publication of many books and articles for the general public. As with Watson, the influence of external political events was decisive, specifically the rise of Nazism in the early 1930s.

In both cases, biographers have tried to explain this ideological shift by projecting it backward in time to earlier research. Boas’ antiracism is often ascribed to an early study that purported to show differences in cranial form between European immigrants and their children (Boas, 1912). Yet Boas himself was reluctant to draw any conclusions at the time, merely saying we should “await further evidence before committing ourselves to theories that cannot be proven.” Later reanalysis found no change in skull shape once age had been taken into account (Fergus, 2003). More to the point, Boas continued over the next two decades to cite differences in skull size as evidence for black-white differences in mental makeup (Frost, 2015).

Watson’s radical environmentalism has likewise been explained by his Little Albert Experiment in 1920, an attempt to condition a fear response in an 11-month-old child. Aside from the small sample size (one child) and the lack of any replication, it is difficult to see how this finding could justify his later sweeping pronouncements on environmentalism. There were admittedly other experiments, but they came to an abrupt end with his dismissal from John Hopkins, and little is known about their long-term effects:

Watson tested his theories on how to condition children to express fear, love, or rage—emotions Watson conjectured were the basic elements of human nature. Among other techniques, he dropped (and caught) infants to generate fear and suggested that stimulation of the genital area would create feelings of love. In another chilling project, Watson boasted to Goodnow in summer 1920 that the National Research Council had approved a children’s hospital he proposed that would include rooms for his infant psychology experiments. He planned to spend weekends working at the “Washington infant laboratory.” (Simpson,2000)

Watson did apply behaviorism to the upbringing of his own children. The results were disappointing. His first marriage produced a daughter who made multiple suicide attempts and a son who sponged off his father. His second marriage produced two sons, one of whom committed suicide (Anon, 2005). His granddaughter similarly suffered from her behaviorist upbringing and denounced it in her memoir Breaking the Silence. Towards the end of his life Watson regretted much of his child-rearing advice (Simpson, 2000).

References

Anon (2005). The long dark night of behaviorism, Psych 101 Revisited, September 6
http://robothink.blogspot.ca/2005/09/long-dark-night-of-behaviorism.html

Boas, F. (1912). Changes in the Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants, American Anthropologist, 14, 530-562. Fergus, C. (2003). Boas, Bones, and Race, May 4, Penn State News
http://news.psu.edu/story/140739/2003/05/01/research/boas-bones-and-race

Frost, P. (2015). More on the younger Franz Boas, Evo and Proud, April 18
http://www.evoandproud.blogspot.ca/2015/04/more-on-younger-franz-boas.html

Rakos, R.F. (2013). John B. Watson’s 1913 “Behaviorist Manifesto: Setting the stage for behaviorism’s social action legacy, Revista Mexicana de analisis de la conducta, 39(2)
http://rmac-mx.org/john-b-watsons-1913-behaviorist-manifestosetting-the-stage-for-behaviorisms-social-action-legacy/

Simpson, J.C. (2000). It’s All in the Upbringing, John Hopkins Magazine, April

http://pages.jh.edu/~jhumag/0400web/35.html

Watson, J.B. (1919). Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist,
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2009-03123-000/

Watson, J. B. (1924). Behaviorism. New York: People’s Institute.
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=PhnCSSy0UWQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=behaviorism+watson&ots=tW26oNvzjs&sig=YtDpYTYq3hE80QHJfo1Q4ebsuPI#v=onepage&q=behaviorism%20watson&f=false

(Republished from Evo and Proud by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 56 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Bruce says:

    >”‘the geneticists are working under the banner of the old ‘faculty’ psychology’

    The last quote is strange, since Watson no longer held any faulty position, either new or old.”

    Watson means what Sam Johnson meant by ‘my faculties’ or ‘my five wits’. Taste, touch, smell, hearing, and a common sense. Very old theory- Aquinas, Aristotle.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pfrost/behaviorism-and-the-revival-of-antiracism/#comment-944941
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Stogumber says:

    Watson’s skepticism against “depth psychology” and its unproven presuppositions was a sane reaction. Watson helped a lot to transform psychology into a science. And Watson’s obsession with efficiency and social engineering was a symptom of the era – Watson did in fact a meritous work when he promoted social engineering to middle America; it might otherwise have become an exclusive business for power-hungry minorities.

    And social engineering by behaviourist “conditioning” works, of course, in many ways we are used to – like, for example, advertising. It even is the state of the art, especially in the rearing of pets and of mentally handicapped children.

    I admit that “scientific” antiracism at that time was rather crude, but so was “scientific” racism – at the moment scientists wrote books for the broader public.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. D. K. says:

    It is “Johns Hopkins,” not “John Hopkins”– unless the former ‘s’ was recently razed or looted by the mob…!?!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. I think this article is misguided, and unfortunately so, because I have seen some decent articles from you before.

    First, regarding anti-racism in the 1800s. This was caused in large part by the fact that american whites were somewhat afraid of being slaves again. What is largely unknown today is that a lot of white americans in the 1800s had ancestors who were defacto slaves in the 1600s and 1700s. The so-called indentured servants of that time were basically slaves. There are several books on the subject. Plus a lot of servants and so-called bonded men and women were basically slaves. Also, by the mid 1800s a lot of white northerners were becoming aware of the fact that many of the black slaves in the south were mostly white, a trend helped along by the fact that many slaveowners were breeding their female slaves and selling the near-white daughters to bordellos. The abolitionists publicized this fact to white northerners, and that was perhaps the major factor in building popular support for the war among northern whites–they were afraid of being made slaves, themselves. See Tenzer’s book THE FORGOTTEN CAUSE OF THE CIVIL WAR.

    Antiracism did indeed die out. After the war the white working class consolidated power, and forced the implementation of jim crow.

    Anti-racism in the 20th century was in effect a cultural coup created by the upper class and business. The immigration moratorium of 1920 etc was put in effect by the upper class/business in order to stop the importation of anarchist leftism and socialism being brought into america by european immigrants. That moratorium led to a labor shortage (and eventually the Golden Age of Labor in the 1950s).

    In order to increase the supply of labor, the upper class started feeding money into nonprofit foundations so as to create ideological propaganda that was calculated to subvert Leftism and modify it, to change leftism to a new ideology. This new Leftism was borne of academia, activism and writers, who were funded by the rich and who created propaganda that shifted leftism to a pro-nonwhite, anti-white stance.

    Over decades this pro-nonwhite, anti-white multiculturalist propaganda seemed into the educational curriculum and it shaped young minds that went out to the supreme court and congress etc. That led eventually to the civil rights era and the new anti-racism. Racial integration combined with mass immigration increased the supply of labor, depressed wages and grew the consumer base, thus making the rich richer. It was a growth strategy.

    See, e.g. Roelofs’ book FOUNDATIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY: THE MASK OF PLURALISM. See also Wolf’s review online of Francis Stonor Saunders’s book THE CULTURAL COLD WAR.

    Behaviorism is the basis for the ideological propaganda that created our culture. So, yes, it works.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    Thanks for a post far more insightful and knowledgeable, and far less error prone (none that I could detect) than the original item. I learned nothing from Mr. Frost in this instance -- in fact had some I can't-believe-he-wrote-that moments -- but am very glad I read your follow-on.

    I tend to confuse Watson and Skinner when reading anecdotes from their lives. Skinner was pretty much the post-WW II prophet of behaviorism. His experimental method famously involved training pigeons. He's notorious for his belief that human language was conditioned behavior. Chomsky and other linguists got enormous, easily obtained pleasure, knocking holes in this rather silly idea. Skinner had his children spend considerable time as infants in a so-called Skinner Box. But he was evidently a much better human being and father than Watson and as I recall his children grew up into healthy adults who remembered him fondly. Perhaps heredity.....

    , @unpc downunder
    "In order to increase the supply of labor, the upper class started feeding money into nonprofit foundations so as to create ideological propaganda that was calculated to subvert Leftism and modify it, to change leftism to a new ideology. This new Leftism was borne of academia, activism and writers, who were funded by the rich and who created propaganda that shifted leftism to a pro-nonwhite, anti-white stance."

    After reading Kerry Bolton's "Revolution From Above," it's hard to deny there isn't some truth to this, but just how much is pretty hard to say, as direct evidence of the aims and opinions of those funding think tanks is often hard to come by.

    Take the Ford Foundation for example. It didn't start out explicitly anti-white or pro-feminist (Henry Ford was a very mixed bag on these kind of issues) but it's gradually got that way over time. Hence, it's hard to see if it is driving left-liberalism or simply going with the times.

    When I lived in New Zealand in the mid-1980s we had a government come to power that was explicitly neo-liberal on economic issues and left-wing on social and defense issues, but such a blatantly left libertarian style government is pretty rare. The closest thing in the US/UK would be the pro-free trade/ anti cold war Clinton administration of the 1990s, or Tony Blair's Labour administration, with its love of free trade and open borders.
    , @Livemike
    ". The abolitionists publicized this fact to white northerners, and that was perhaps the major factor in building popular support for the war among northern whites–they were afraid of being made slaves, themselves."
    Utter rubbish. Support for the war DROPPED when it was perceived to be about freeing the slaves. Nobody proposed enslaving whites, how could they conclude it was going to happen? Did they imagine that someone was going to go back in time and make some of their ancestors black? And why would this fear make them anti-racists, rather than abolitionists?

    "racial integration combined with mass immigration increased the supply of labor, "
    How the hell does racial integration increase the supply of labor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. It would hardly be surprising that someone (Watson) who’d pursued and/or proposed this:

    Watson tested his theories on how to condition children to express fear, love, or rage—emotions Watson conjectured were the basic elements of human nature. Among other techniques, he dropped (and caught) infants to generate fear and suggested that stimulation of the genital area would create feelings of love. In another chilling project, Watson boasted to Goodnow in summer 1920 that the National Research Council had approved a children’s hospital he proposed that would include rooms for his infant psychology experiments. He planned to spend weekends working at the “Washington infant laboratory”

    Would in his own life see result along the lines of this:

    Watson did apply behaviorism to the upbringing of his own children. The results were disappointing. His first marriage produced a daughter who made multiple suicide attempts and a son who sponged off his father. His second marriage produced two sons, one of whom committed suicide

    What else would one reasonably expect? Using the example of Watson, who admittedly terrorized infants, to attack environmentalism in relation to positive outcomes in child-rearing method, is a ‘straw man’ approach, worthy of little more than satire:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/07/23/scooby-doo-on-lyndon-ladouche/

    Peter Frost had a lucid moment in Russia and then fully re-immerses in his insanity

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Modern research on behavioral genetics shows that "shared environment" which includes things like family structure, SES, etc. seems to have little effect. Human behavior seems to result from a mixture of genetic factors and something called "non-shared environment". For human psychology "non-shared environment" seems to be like dark matter in cosmology. It's important but nobody knows what it is. It doesn't seem to have much to do with traditional "nurture".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @leftist conservative
    I think this article is misguided, and unfortunately so, because I have seen some decent articles from you before.

    First, regarding anti-racism in the 1800s. This was caused in large part by the fact that american whites were somewhat afraid of being slaves again. What is largely unknown today is that a lot of white americans in the 1800s had ancestors who were defacto slaves in the 1600s and 1700s. The so-called indentured servants of that time were basically slaves. There are several books on the subject. Plus a lot of servants and so-called bonded men and women were basically slaves. Also, by the mid 1800s a lot of white northerners were becoming aware of the fact that many of the black slaves in the south were mostly white, a trend helped along by the fact that many slaveowners were breeding their female slaves and selling the near-white daughters to bordellos. The abolitionists publicized this fact to white northerners, and that was perhaps the major factor in building popular support for the war among northern whites--they were afraid of being made slaves, themselves. See Tenzer's book THE FORGOTTEN CAUSE OF THE CIVIL WAR.

    Antiracism did indeed die out. After the war the white working class consolidated power, and forced the implementation of jim crow.

    Anti-racism in the 20th century was in effect a cultural coup created by the upper class and business. The immigration moratorium of 1920 etc was put in effect by the upper class/business in order to stop the importation of anarchist leftism and socialism being brought into america by european immigrants. That moratorium led to a labor shortage (and eventually the Golden Age of Labor in the 1950s).

    In order to increase the supply of labor, the upper class started feeding money into nonprofit foundations so as to create ideological propaganda that was calculated to subvert Leftism and modify it, to change leftism to a new ideology. This new Leftism was borne of academia, activism and writers, who were funded by the rich and who created propaganda that shifted leftism to a pro-nonwhite, anti-white stance.

    Over decades this pro-nonwhite, anti-white multiculturalist propaganda seemed into the educational curriculum and it shaped young minds that went out to the supreme court and congress etc. That led eventually to the civil rights era and the new anti-racism. Racial integration combined with mass immigration increased the supply of labor, depressed wages and grew the consumer base, thus making the rich richer. It was a growth strategy.

    See, e.g. Roelofs' book FOUNDATIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY: THE MASK OF PLURALISM. See also Wolf's review online of Francis Stonor Saunders's book THE CULTURAL COLD WAR.

    Behaviorism is the basis for the ideological propaganda that created our culture. So, yes, it works.

    Thanks for a post far more insightful and knowledgeable, and far less error prone (none that I could detect) than the original item. I learned nothing from Mr. Frost in this instance — in fact had some I can’t-believe-he-wrote-that moments — but am very glad I read your follow-on.

    I tend to confuse Watson and Skinner when reading anecdotes from their lives. Skinner was pretty much the post-WW II prophet of behaviorism. His experimental method famously involved training pigeons. He’s notorious for his belief that human language was conditioned behavior. Chomsky and other linguists got enormous, easily obtained pleasure, knocking holes in this rather silly idea. Skinner had his children spend considerable time as infants in a so-called Skinner Box. But he was evidently a much better human being and father than Watson and as I recall his children grew up into healthy adults who remembered him fondly. Perhaps heredity…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Immigrant from former USSR [AKA "Florida Resident"] says:

    Derbyshire gave a strong talk in 2008 about Boas and his ideology:

    http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/equality.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Enrique Cardova
    Derbyshire misunderstands Boas however. Boas didn't argue much for any "blank slate" principle. It is not a "Boasian viewpoint" as claimed by Derbyshire. Indeed says Pinker of Blank Slate fame:

    "For all his emphasis on culture, Boas was not a relativist who beleived that all cultures are equivalent, nor was he an empiricist who believed in the blank slate.(2002:23)"
     
    Peter correctly grasps Boas' essential position in the examples he posts, not Derbyshire. Some of those coming AFTER Boas, like Margaret Mead etc could be called exponents of cultural relativism, but as Peter shows, Boas was not.

    .
    Jim says:
    Modern research on behavioral genetics shows that “shared environment” which includes things like family structure, SES, etc. seems to have little effect. Human behavior seems to result from a mixture of genetic factors and something called “non-shared environment”. For human psychology “non-shared environment” seems to be like dark matter in cosmology. It’s important but nobody knows what it is. It doesn’t seem to have much to do with traditional “nurture”.

    Maybe but keep in mind that there is plenty of modern research on behavioral genetics that shows things like family structure, etc have an effect on how children turn out. Non shared environment is an increasingly important plyer gaining notice. For example, for antisocial behaviour in adolescence, shared environment accounts for ~15% of the total phenotypic variance, although even here non-shared environment accounts for much more of the variance, ~40%. - says one study. It also says:

    Non-shared environment also seems to be the major source of environmental influence for other diseases such as diabetes, ulcers, childhood eczema, asthma and allergic rhinitis, although these domains are not nearly as well studied.16 Examples of other domains in which non-shared environmental influence has been shown to be important include: longevity,17,18 psoriasis,19 stress urinary incontinence,20 menstrual symptomatology,21 abdominal aortic aneurysms,22 serum vitamin D status,23 serum lipids and apolipoproteins,24 uric acid and liver enzymes,25 and collectin surfactant protein D serum levels.26 Non-shared environmental factors may be important even for infections in the family.27–29
    http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/3/582.full

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Jim says:
    @Ronald Thomas West
    It would hardly be surprising that someone (Watson) who'd pursued and/or proposed this:

    Watson tested his theories on how to condition children to express fear, love, or rage—emotions Watson conjectured were the basic elements of human nature. Among other techniques, he dropped (and caught) infants to generate fear and suggested that stimulation of the genital area would create feelings of love. In another chilling project, Watson boasted to Goodnow in summer 1920 that the National Research Council had approved a children’s hospital he proposed that would include rooms for his infant psychology experiments. He planned to spend weekends working at the “Washington infant laboratory”
     
    Would in his own life see result along the lines of this:

    Watson did apply behaviorism to the upbringing of his own children. The results were disappointing. His first marriage produced a daughter who made multiple suicide attempts and a son who sponged off his father. His second marriage produced two sons, one of whom committed suicide
     
    What else would one reasonably expect? Using the example of Watson, who admittedly terrorized infants, to attack environmentalism in relation to positive outcomes in child-rearing method, is a 'straw man' approach, worthy of little more than satire:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/07/23/scooby-doo-on-lyndon-ladouche/

    Peter Frost had a lucid moment in Russia and then fully re-immerses in his insanity

    Modern research on behavioral genetics shows that “shared environment” which includes things like family structure, SES, etc. seems to have little effect. Human behavior seems to result from a mixture of genetic factors and something called “non-shared environment”. For human psychology “non-shared environment” seems to be like dark matter in cosmology. It’s important but nobody knows what it is. It doesn’t seem to have much to do with traditional “nurture”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West

    Modern research on behavioral genetics shows that “shared environment” which includes things like family structure, SES, etc. seems to have little effect. Human behavior seems to result from a mixture of genetic factors and something called “non-shared environment”. For human psychology “non-shared environment” seems to be like dark matter in cosmology. It’s important but nobody knows what it is. It doesn’t seem to have much to do with traditional “nurture”
     
    Terrorize children and you're going too have screwed up adults more often than not. Think environment has nothing to do with inter-generational violence? That a nurtured child will turn out no better than a neglected or abused child? That shared environment of dysfunctional families will have little or no effect? The simple and known necrotic social phenomena, inter-generational violence, rampant in Western (or 'Westernized') culture, shoots your 'behavioral genetics' down.

    If "nobody knows what it is" causing human behavior, I suggest all of your 'nobodies' look at why and how it is the Israelis treat the Palestinians similar to how the Ashkenazi had been treated by the Nazis. What's actually happening with human behavior isn't rocket science.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Kat Grey says:

    I suggest that the real reason behind the Abolishionist movement was not moral indignation over the lot of the slaves but rather fear that the light-skinned mixed race offspring of slaveowners and their black concubines would keep passing undetected into northern white communities and through intermarriage bring black blood into the veins of prominent families.

    Read More
    • Replies: @leftist conservative
    this was a stanza from a popular tavern song before the civil war:

    Why, it's as clear as figgers
    Clear as one and one makes two
    Fella that'll make a black slave o' n*ggers
    Will make a white slave o' you!


    The abolitionists had discovered that there were large percentages of nearly-white slaves in the south. Close to 10 percent in some locales could possibly pass for white.

    The slaveowners got over 2000 dollars from the bordellos for a young, nearly white female slave.
    So they were breeding them for money, not to work in the fields, but for sale to bordellos.

    The abolitionists publicized all this to the northerners. The northerners back then knew that the north america colonies has been at first populated mainly by white slaves, often stripped naked and sold at auction off the transport ships.

    And of course "bonded" quasi slave whites were still quite common.

    There are a number of books on this, but these facts have all been shoved down the memory hole in favor of making whites look evil so as to induce white race guilt so that the elites can import cheap nonwhite labor from the third world.

    Anyway, the southern landowners still wanted more slave labor. Their newspapers in the south trumpeted that "Capital Shall Own Labor!", implying that whites should be slaves, too.

    Well, that was how the white northerners were scared into war.

    See Tenzer's book for more on this.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @Jim
    Modern research on behavioral genetics shows that "shared environment" which includes things like family structure, SES, etc. seems to have little effect. Human behavior seems to result from a mixture of genetic factors and something called "non-shared environment". For human psychology "non-shared environment" seems to be like dark matter in cosmology. It's important but nobody knows what it is. It doesn't seem to have much to do with traditional "nurture".

    Modern research on behavioral genetics shows that “shared environment” which includes things like family structure, SES, etc. seems to have little effect. Human behavior seems to result from a mixture of genetic factors and something called “non-shared environment”. For human psychology “non-shared environment” seems to be like dark matter in cosmology. It’s important but nobody knows what it is. It doesn’t seem to have much to do with traditional “nurture”

    Terrorize children and you’re going too have screwed up adults more often than not. Think environment has nothing to do with inter-generational violence? That a nurtured child will turn out no better than a neglected or abused child? That shared environment of dysfunctional families will have little or no effect? The simple and known necrotic social phenomena, inter-generational violence, rampant in Western (or ‘Westernized’) culture, shoots your ‘behavioral genetics’ down.

    If “nobody knows what it is” causing human behavior, I suggest all of your ‘nobodies’ look at why and how it is the Israelis treat the Palestinians similar to how the Ashkenazi had been treated by the Nazis. What’s actually happening with human behavior isn’t rocket science.

    Read More
    • Replies: @marge
    What's your answer to the obvious question, "why don't the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and other rich arabs simply demonstrate how they can treat the Palestinians a hundred times better than the Israelis?"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @Kat Grey
    I suggest that the real reason behind the Abolishionist movement was not moral indignation over the lot of the slaves but rather fear that the light-skinned mixed race offspring of slaveowners and their black concubines would keep passing undetected into northern white communities and through intermarriage bring black blood into the veins of prominent families.

    this was a stanza from a popular tavern song before the civil war:

    Why, it’s as clear as figgers
    Clear as one and one makes two
    Fella that’ll make a black slave o’ n*ggers
    Will make a white slave o’ you!

    The abolitionists had discovered that there were large percentages of nearly-white slaves in the south. Close to 10 percent in some locales could possibly pass for white.

    The slaveowners got over 2000 dollars from the bordellos for a young, nearly white female slave.
    So they were breeding them for money, not to work in the fields, but for sale to bordellos.

    The abolitionists publicized all this to the northerners. The northerners back then knew that the north america colonies has been at first populated mainly by white slaves, often stripped naked and sold at auction off the transport ships.

    And of course “bonded” quasi slave whites were still quite common.

    There are a number of books on this, but these facts have all been shoved down the memory hole in favor of making whites look evil so as to induce white race guilt so that the elites can import cheap nonwhite labor from the third world.

    Anyway, the southern landowners still wanted more slave labor. Their newspapers in the south trumpeted that “Capital Shall Own Labor!”, implying that whites should be slaves, too.

    Well, that was how the white northerners were scared into war.

    See Tenzer’s book for more on this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @unpc downunder
    On the other side of the Atlantic, there was also a very slow and apathetic response to combating white slavery in North Africa.

    The Brits and or Dutch had the firepower to wipe it out by the 1680s if they wanted it to. However, the British continued to ignore appeals to end the white slave trade until 1816, when they finally started to start doing something about it. Interestingly this was after the Brits had already decided to take a stand against the Atlantic trade in Black slaves (in 1807).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. David says:

    To illustrate how long heredity of character has been observed: according to Procopius, Belisarius said, “[Children] are expected to inherit the disposition of those who bore them.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. marge says:
    @Ronald Thomas West

    Modern research on behavioral genetics shows that “shared environment” which includes things like family structure, SES, etc. seems to have little effect. Human behavior seems to result from a mixture of genetic factors and something called “non-shared environment”. For human psychology “non-shared environment” seems to be like dark matter in cosmology. It’s important but nobody knows what it is. It doesn’t seem to have much to do with traditional “nurture”
     
    Terrorize children and you're going too have screwed up adults more often than not. Think environment has nothing to do with inter-generational violence? That a nurtured child will turn out no better than a neglected or abused child? That shared environment of dysfunctional families will have little or no effect? The simple and known necrotic social phenomena, inter-generational violence, rampant in Western (or 'Westernized') culture, shoots your 'behavioral genetics' down.

    If "nobody knows what it is" causing human behavior, I suggest all of your 'nobodies' look at why and how it is the Israelis treat the Palestinians similar to how the Ashkenazi had been treated by the Nazis. What's actually happening with human behavior isn't rocket science.

    What’s your answer to the obvious question, “why don’t the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and other rich arabs simply demonstrate how they can treat the Palestinians a hundred times better than the Israelis?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West

    What’s your answer to the obvious question, “why don’t the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and other rich arabs simply demonstrate how they can treat the Palestinians a hundred times better than the Israelis?”
     
    The obvious answer to a dumb question is, people here are in as much denial as the Israelis:

    “For refugees, camps were shelters for the reconstruction of personal and social life, but were also seen as sites of great political significance, the material testimony of what was destroyed and ‘all that remains’ of more than four hundred cities, towns and villages forcefully cleansed throughout Palestine in the Nakba of 1947-9. This is the reason refugees sometimes refer to the destruction of camps as ‘the destruction of destruction.’ The camp is not a home, it is a temporary arrangement, and its destruction is but the last iteration in an ongoing process of destruction.

    “This rhetoric of double negation – the negation of negation – tallies well with what Saree Makdisi, talking about the Israeli refusal to acknowledge the Nakba, has termed ‘the denial of denial’, which is, he says, ‘a form of foreclosure that produces the inability – the absolutely honest, sincere incapacity – to acknowledge that denial and erasure have themselves been erased in turn and purged from consciousness.’ What has been denied is continuously repeated: Israel keeps on inflicting destruction on refugees and keeps on denying that a wrong has been done”
    –Eyal Weizman: ‘The Least Of All Possible Evils’ (Humanitarian Violence From Arendt To Gaza)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Luke Lea says: • Website

    Nice article. Pay no mind to those commenters who say otherwise. Almost everything you write is worth reading, sensible, well-informed, and often original or not widely known. At least in my judgment.

    I must say behaviorism was all the rage among academic psychologists when I was in college in the 1960′s. And surely even now I think there must be something to the idea of operant conditioning, if only in the way cultures and societies inculcate (enforce?) the norms of what one must and must not think: not only political correctness today but theological correctness in previous centuries. Most members of society don’t merely pretend to believe what is acceptable, they really do believe, if only to remain in good standing with their friends, peers, and colleagues.

    But none of this necessarily conflicts with Jayman’s position that all human traits are highly heritable, and that most “non-shared environmental effects” might be nothing more than random noise, does it? Fate and fortune, as the ancients use to say. Character, luck, “good breeding” . . . are other words traditionally used to designate these truths.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. @marge
    What's your answer to the obvious question, "why don't the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and other rich arabs simply demonstrate how they can treat the Palestinians a hundred times better than the Israelis?"

    What’s your answer to the obvious question, “why don’t the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and other rich arabs simply demonstrate how they can treat the Palestinians a hundred times better than the Israelis?”

    The obvious answer to a dumb question is, people here are in as much denial as the Israelis:

    “For refugees, camps were shelters for the reconstruction of personal and social life, but were also seen as sites of great political significance, the material testimony of what was destroyed and ‘all that remains’ of more than four hundred cities, towns and villages forcefully cleansed throughout Palestine in the Nakba of 1947-9. This is the reason refugees sometimes refer to the destruction of camps as ‘the destruction of destruction.’ The camp is not a home, it is a temporary arrangement, and its destruction is but the last iteration in an ongoing process of destruction.

    “This rhetoric of double negation – the negation of negation – tallies well with what Saree Makdisi, talking about the Israeli refusal to acknowledge the Nakba, has termed ‘the denial of denial’, which is, he says, ‘a form of foreclosure that produces the inability – the absolutely honest, sincere incapacity – to acknowledge that denial and erasure have themselves been erased in turn and purged from consciousness.’ What has been denied is continuously repeated: Israel keeps on inflicting destruction on refugees and keeps on denying that a wrong has been done” –Eyal Weizman: ‘The Least Of All Possible Evils’ (Humanitarian Violence From Arendt To Gaza)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Sean says:

    I think it is important to note that Watson had achieved the highest professional eminence by 1915 for his experimental work with animals. Later he said humans were quite different to instinct-lead animals, and expounded on social issues in the media. Oddly, for all his later period insistence that humans were different, he did not believe conscious thought was important so this was environmental determinism without room for the kind of ideological-ethical progress that Steven Pinker attributes the fall in violence to. I think John Gray is right that such ideas do not progressively improve people. Watson’s ideas were contradictory, and seem to have come to him especially after he was sacked from Johns Hopkins for an affair in 1920 and switched to advising advertisers and pop psychology in the media about humans. I am afraid I detect the cloven hoof of Lamarckianism again.

    FINALLY, the fact that Watson initially accepted Lamarckian evolution (Watson, 1914a), and that Lamarckian evolution was essentially discredited by 1917 (Stocking, 1968), may help to explain Watson’s attribution, after 1916, of most of human behavior to environmental factors.

    I think Boas and Watson couldn’t openly espouse Lamarckism in the 20′s. Scientists like Boas and Watson never shook off the influence of the ideological environment they were trained in.

    Antiracism got a boost partly out of humanists’ revulsion at the deterministic explanations of Watson

    This raised the alarming prospect that scientists might not be able to infuse public culture with new ideas. These activities served to strengthen the public’s association of science with materialism and immorality.

    Lester Frank Ward’s ideas were the sort more amenable and flattering to the chattering classes. [He] “emphasized the importance of social forces which could be guided at a macro level by the use of intelligence to achieve conscious progress.

    The humanist outrage at all science with lack of a place for personal responsibility and morality was crucial.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Art says:

    I see “antiracism” is wrong because these two – Boas and Watson – have less than stellar academic characters.

    Boas (a Jew) twisted his own science in order to conspired with other Jews to gain political power over white America. And the disgruntled Watson wrote pseudo science in order to bolster his advertising career – claiming that as an enlightened advertiser he could condition everyone to buy advertized products.

    Is the author claiming that “antiracism” is invalid because these two dishonest characters promoted it?

    Is the author claiming that racism is about the differences between the races and not about hate?

    Really! Now that is a fine twist of words.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Livemike
    "I see “antiracism” is wrong because these two – Boas and Watson – have less than stellar academic characters."
    Nobody said that.

    "Is the author claiming that “antiracism” is invalid because these two dishonest characters promoted it?"
    No learn to read.

    "Is the author claiming that racism is about the differences between the races and not about hate?"
    No, again learn to read. Also racism isn't about "hate" it's about a percieved difference (or a pretence of such) between the races. Hate is not a necessary element.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @leftist conservative
    this was a stanza from a popular tavern song before the civil war:

    Why, it's as clear as figgers
    Clear as one and one makes two
    Fella that'll make a black slave o' n*ggers
    Will make a white slave o' you!


    The abolitionists had discovered that there were large percentages of nearly-white slaves in the south. Close to 10 percent in some locales could possibly pass for white.

    The slaveowners got over 2000 dollars from the bordellos for a young, nearly white female slave.
    So they were breeding them for money, not to work in the fields, but for sale to bordellos.

    The abolitionists publicized all this to the northerners. The northerners back then knew that the north america colonies has been at first populated mainly by white slaves, often stripped naked and sold at auction off the transport ships.

    And of course "bonded" quasi slave whites were still quite common.

    There are a number of books on this, but these facts have all been shoved down the memory hole in favor of making whites look evil so as to induce white race guilt so that the elites can import cheap nonwhite labor from the third world.

    Anyway, the southern landowners still wanted more slave labor. Their newspapers in the south trumpeted that "Capital Shall Own Labor!", implying that whites should be slaves, too.

    Well, that was how the white northerners were scared into war.

    See Tenzer's book for more on this.

    On the other side of the Atlantic, there was also a very slow and apathetic response to combating white slavery in North Africa.

    The Brits and or Dutch had the firepower to wipe it out by the 1680s if they wanted it to. However, the British continued to ignore appeals to end the white slave trade until 1816, when they finally started to start doing something about it. Interestingly this was after the Brits had already decided to take a stand against the Atlantic trade in Black slaves (in 1807).

    Read More
    • Replies: @leftist conservative
    you wrote:

    On the other side of the Atlantic, there was also a very slow and apathetic response to combating white slavery in North Africa.

     

    It is interesting how the internet bloggers and commentators and the Dissident Right has suddenly become so aware of white slavery in north africa, but has basically ignored the real and quasi-white slavery that provided most of the labor in early colonial north america.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @unpc downunder
    On the other side of the Atlantic, there was also a very slow and apathetic response to combating white slavery in North Africa.

    The Brits and or Dutch had the firepower to wipe it out by the 1680s if they wanted it to. However, the British continued to ignore appeals to end the white slave trade until 1816, when they finally started to start doing something about it. Interestingly this was after the Brits had already decided to take a stand against the Atlantic trade in Black slaves (in 1807).

    you wrote:

    On the other side of the Atlantic, there was also a very slow and apathetic response to combating white slavery in North Africa.

    It is interesting how the internet bloggers and commentators and the Dissident Right has suddenly become so aware of white slavery in north africa, but has basically ignored the real and quasi-white slavery that provided most of the labor in early colonial north america.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Non-shared environment: personal perceptions?? The way as we perceive and inculcate habits based on own limited plasticity or response, action and reaction + intelligence level + personality (genetic behavioural background)??

    Shared-environment: structural social factors as lost all your economies during great depression, commit suicide and leave 3 kids alone. Human social environments are complex and produce a unique and complex interactions, specially in individual levels. Long term human life is not perfect for most. Environmental factors are not genetic factors, but how we Interact with environments, specially, those ‘we’ build.

    Human interactions with their habitats: environment factors. Real behaviorism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. @leftist conservative
    I think this article is misguided, and unfortunately so, because I have seen some decent articles from you before.

    First, regarding anti-racism in the 1800s. This was caused in large part by the fact that american whites were somewhat afraid of being slaves again. What is largely unknown today is that a lot of white americans in the 1800s had ancestors who were defacto slaves in the 1600s and 1700s. The so-called indentured servants of that time were basically slaves. There are several books on the subject. Plus a lot of servants and so-called bonded men and women were basically slaves. Also, by the mid 1800s a lot of white northerners were becoming aware of the fact that many of the black slaves in the south were mostly white, a trend helped along by the fact that many slaveowners were breeding their female slaves and selling the near-white daughters to bordellos. The abolitionists publicized this fact to white northerners, and that was perhaps the major factor in building popular support for the war among northern whites--they were afraid of being made slaves, themselves. See Tenzer's book THE FORGOTTEN CAUSE OF THE CIVIL WAR.

    Antiracism did indeed die out. After the war the white working class consolidated power, and forced the implementation of jim crow.

    Anti-racism in the 20th century was in effect a cultural coup created by the upper class and business. The immigration moratorium of 1920 etc was put in effect by the upper class/business in order to stop the importation of anarchist leftism and socialism being brought into america by european immigrants. That moratorium led to a labor shortage (and eventually the Golden Age of Labor in the 1950s).

    In order to increase the supply of labor, the upper class started feeding money into nonprofit foundations so as to create ideological propaganda that was calculated to subvert Leftism and modify it, to change leftism to a new ideology. This new Leftism was borne of academia, activism and writers, who were funded by the rich and who created propaganda that shifted leftism to a pro-nonwhite, anti-white stance.

    Over decades this pro-nonwhite, anti-white multiculturalist propaganda seemed into the educational curriculum and it shaped young minds that went out to the supreme court and congress etc. That led eventually to the civil rights era and the new anti-racism. Racial integration combined with mass immigration increased the supply of labor, depressed wages and grew the consumer base, thus making the rich richer. It was a growth strategy.

    See, e.g. Roelofs' book FOUNDATIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY: THE MASK OF PLURALISM. See also Wolf's review online of Francis Stonor Saunders's book THE CULTURAL COLD WAR.

    Behaviorism is the basis for the ideological propaganda that created our culture. So, yes, it works.

    “In order to increase the supply of labor, the upper class started feeding money into nonprofit foundations so as to create ideological propaganda that was calculated to subvert Leftism and modify it, to change leftism to a new ideology. This new Leftism was borne of academia, activism and writers, who were funded by the rich and who created propaganda that shifted leftism to a pro-nonwhite, anti-white stance.”

    After reading Kerry Bolton’s “Revolution From Above,” it’s hard to deny there isn’t some truth to this, but just how much is pretty hard to say, as direct evidence of the aims and opinions of those funding think tanks is often hard to come by.

    Take the Ford Foundation for example. It didn’t start out explicitly anti-white or pro-feminist (Henry Ford was a very mixed bag on these kind of issues) but it’s gradually got that way over time. Hence, it’s hard to see if it is driving left-liberalism or simply going with the times.

    When I lived in New Zealand in the mid-1980s we had a government come to power that was explicitly neo-liberal on economic issues and left-wing on social and defense issues, but such a blatantly left libertarian style government is pretty rare. The closest thing in the US/UK would be the pro-free trade/ anti cold war Clinton administration of the 1990s, or Tony Blair’s Labour administration, with its love of free trade and open borders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Enrique Cardova
    leftist conservative says:
    First, regarding anti-racism in the 1800s. This was caused in large part by the fact that american whites were somewhat afraid of being slaves again.

    Questionable. The fact is that even white indentured servants rapidly adopted racism as those higher up played them against black slaves who also started out as indentured workers, but quickly found their condition made into permanent, multi-generational slavery. Unlike the white indenture who was free after he served his fixed time, the black man for the most part had no way out- and his progeny were condemned to future generations of bondage. Indeed the strongest racism in America is found in the white lower classes- who whatever their miserable condition, could always take pride in not being black. White elites deliberately played on this to "divide and rule". The white lower class were the mainstay of the Confederate states to which they rendered fulsome service, and after the Civil War were the foremost supporters of racist Jim Crow. Likewise in the north, the white lower class,es, which made up the foundation of the ex-indentures, were among the strongest vicious opponents of black progress and equal rights.


    .
    In order to increase the supply of labor, the upper class started feeding money into nonprofit foundations so as to create ideological propaganda that was calculated to subvert Leftism and modify it, to change leftism to a new ideology. This new Leftism was borne of academia, activism and writers, who were funded by the rich and who created propaganda that shifted leftism to a pro-nonwhite, anti-white stance.

    This is dubious. How would feeding money to non-profit foundations increase the supply of labor? Where and when? Give a concrete example where this happened as a result, and what the actually labor increase was.

    And while leftism gravitated more towards minority concerns, particularly as the Civil Rights Movement accelerated, in many respects white Leftism remained quite pro-white- though not as open as segregationists. In fact this is one thing that caused the split in the civil rights coalition of the 1960s- the dominance of white left wingers. There are many books on this- see Stokley Carmichael's "Ready For Revolution" for example, or the many critiques of Malcolm X re the white left, including what he felt was disproportionate self-serving white Jewish influence.

    .
    Over decades this pro-nonwhite, anti-white multiculturalist propaganda seemed into the educational curriculum and it shaped young minds that went out to the supreme court and congress etc. That led eventually to the civil rights era and the new anti-racism.

    Even more dubious. Anti-white multicultural prop did not lead to the civil rights era. The Civil Rights era started long before lefty multiculturalism. Civil Rights has been ongoing since the 19th century. The particular phase of the movement spearheaded by King in 1957's Montgomery Bus Boycott, had little to do with any multiculturalism, and boycotts and st-ins were done by others long before King appeared- albeit with less publicity as every credible history of the movement shows.

    .
    Racial integration combined with mass immigration increased the supply of labor, depressed wages and grew the consumer base, thus making the rich richer. It was a growth strategy.
    Again dubious. Racial integration did not depress wages. In fact, during the civil rights era wages rose across the board for everybody. And the consumer base was already booming before King and his boys got up to speed. The loosening of WW2 price and wage controls, and the conversion of the giant factories from war material to consumer goods more than stimulated a mass consumer base from millions of returning veterans. White leftism or multiculturalism has little to do with these phenomena.

    .

    UNPCdown undr says:
    but just how much is pretty hard to say, as direct evidence of the aims and opinions of those funding think tanks is often hard to come by.
    Take the Ford Foundation for example. It didn’t start out explicitly anti-white or pro-feminist (Henry Ford was a very mixed bag on these kind of issues) but it’s gradually got that way over time. Hence, it’s hard to see if it is driving left-liberalism or simply going with the times..

    Exactly. Numerous of leftiCon's assertions up above are questionable, and aren't borne out by the actual facts. How for example did racial integration"depress" wages during a booming post-war economy that saw wage increases for most Americans?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Peter says:
    Why the shift to extreme environmentalism? It was not a product of ongoing academic research. In fact, Watson was no longer in academia..
    Quite possibly he did little future research to substantiate his turn to radical environmentalism, although rigid behaviorism also fell out of favor because new data showed its limits. For example, medical studies showed chromosomes and hormones (testosterone) influence our behavior too, in addition to the environment. Some behaviorists also argued that when born our mind is a blank slate. This has been proven not to be true, and reducing all behaviors to stimulus and response as in some models also fell short. Nor was behaviorism nearly as objective as some proponents made out- they were working from certain biases and assumptions.

    .
    In both cases, biographers have tried to explain this ideological shift by projecting it backward in time to earlier research. Boas’ antiracism is often ascribed to an early study that purported to show differences in cranial form between European immigrants and their children..

    Most likely true as to those scholars, but other research undermined many of the sweeping racial claims and models of anthropology, psychology etc. The once well accepted “Hamitic Hypothesis” for example, which held that everything of value in Africa was brought in, or originaed by some outside force, collapsed under its own absurdity- not merely because of Boasian liberalism, but hard data showed it to be shaky. Napoleon’s scientific surveys after his Egyptian conquest in 1798 for example demonstrated that African Egypt was a far older civilization than Greece or ROme, and didn’t need to wait on these European “role models” to do what it did.

    Excavations in the 1920 and 1930s routinely reclassified “Negroid” specimens into a “Mediterranean” category to explain away why some Africans had narrow noses, but even then, some cast doubt on alleged “Caucasoid” races sweeping into Africa. Linguistic studies showed reputed “Caucasoid” tribes who were “supposed” to be speaking Caucasian languages actually spoke “Negro” languages, and vice versa, another line of evidence that debunked the theory. Just as absurd were the number of “races” conjured up to explain native African variation, with white scholars even asserting “Mongol”, “Australoid” or Red Indian migrants into the Nile Valley, to explain why all Africans didn’t look like they were “supposed” to. As early as 1905, British scholar Sir Arthur Keith “complained that the literature at that time included hopeless contradictions of three, six, one and two races.”

    In short Boas or Watson didn’t need to be liberals for much of the “race” work of their day to collapse under its own contradictions, once better data and more objective analysis was applied.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. For “faculty” psychology, read Poe’s The Black Cat. Is the writer unaware of 19th century “faculty psychology,” or is the phrase a poor play on words?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. @unpc downunder
    "In order to increase the supply of labor, the upper class started feeding money into nonprofit foundations so as to create ideological propaganda that was calculated to subvert Leftism and modify it, to change leftism to a new ideology. This new Leftism was borne of academia, activism and writers, who were funded by the rich and who created propaganda that shifted leftism to a pro-nonwhite, anti-white stance."

    After reading Kerry Bolton's "Revolution From Above," it's hard to deny there isn't some truth to this, but just how much is pretty hard to say, as direct evidence of the aims and opinions of those funding think tanks is often hard to come by.

    Take the Ford Foundation for example. It didn't start out explicitly anti-white or pro-feminist (Henry Ford was a very mixed bag on these kind of issues) but it's gradually got that way over time. Hence, it's hard to see if it is driving left-liberalism or simply going with the times.

    When I lived in New Zealand in the mid-1980s we had a government come to power that was explicitly neo-liberal on economic issues and left-wing on social and defense issues, but such a blatantly left libertarian style government is pretty rare. The closest thing in the US/UK would be the pro-free trade/ anti cold war Clinton administration of the 1990s, or Tony Blair's Labour administration, with its love of free trade and open borders.

    leftist conservative says:
    First, regarding anti-racism in the 1800s. This was caused in large part by the fact that american whites were somewhat afraid of being slaves again.

    Questionable. The fact is that even white indentured servants rapidly adopted racism as those higher up played them against black slaves who also started out as indentured workers, but quickly found their condition made into permanent, multi-generational slavery. Unlike the white indenture who was free after he served his fixed time, the black man for the most part had no way out- and his progeny were condemned to future generations of bondage. Indeed the strongest racism in America is found in the white lower classes- who whatever their miserable condition, could always take pride in not being black. White elites deliberately played on this to “divide and rule”. The white lower class were the mainstay of the Confederate states to which they rendered fulsome service, and after the Civil War were the foremost supporters of racist Jim Crow. Likewise in the north, the white lower class,es, which made up the foundation of the ex-indentures, were among the strongest vicious opponents of black progress and equal rights.

    .
    In order to increase the supply of labor, the upper class started feeding money into nonprofit foundations so as to create ideological propaganda that was calculated to subvert Leftism and modify it, to change leftism to a new ideology. This new Leftism was borne of academia, activism and writers, who were funded by the rich and who created propaganda that shifted leftism to a pro-nonwhite, anti-white stance.

    This is dubious. How would feeding money to non-profit foundations increase the supply of labor? Where and when? Give a concrete example where this happened as a result, and what the actually labor increase was.

    And while leftism gravitated more towards minority concerns, particularly as the Civil Rights Movement accelerated, in many respects white Leftism remained quite pro-white- though not as open as segregationists. In fact this is one thing that caused the split in the civil rights coalition of the 1960s- the dominance of white left wingers. There are many books on this- see Stokley Carmichael’s “Ready For Revolution” for example, or the many critiques of Malcolm X re the white left, including what he felt was disproportionate self-serving white Jewish influence.

    .
    Over decades this pro-nonwhite, anti-white multiculturalist propaganda seemed into the educational curriculum and it shaped young minds that went out to the supreme court and congress etc. That led eventually to the civil rights era and the new anti-racism.

    Even more dubious. Anti-white multicultural prop did not lead to the civil rights era. The Civil Rights era started long before lefty multiculturalism. Civil Rights has been ongoing since the 19th century. The particular phase of the movement spearheaded by King in 1957′s Montgomery Bus Boycott, had little to do with any multiculturalism, and boycotts and st-ins were done by others long before King appeared- albeit with less publicity as every credible history of the movement shows.

    .
    Racial integration combined with mass immigration increased the supply of labor, depressed wages and grew the consumer base, thus making the rich richer. It was a growth strategy.
    Again dubious. Racial integration did not depress wages. In fact, during the civil rights era wages rose across the board for everybody. And the consumer base was already booming before King and his boys got up to speed. The loosening of WW2 price and wage controls, and the conversion of the giant factories from war material to consumer goods more than stimulated a mass consumer base from millions of returning veterans. White leftism or multiculturalism has little to do with these phenomena.

    .

    UNPCdown undr says:
    but just how much is pretty hard to say, as direct evidence of the aims and opinions of those funding think tanks is often hard to come by.
    Take the Ford Foundation for example. It didn’t start out explicitly anti-white or pro-feminist (Henry Ford was a very mixed bag on these kind of issues) but it’s gradually got that way over time. Hence, it’s hard to see if it is driving left-liberalism or simply going with the times..

    Exactly. Numerous of leftiCon’s assertions up above are questionable, and aren’t borne out by the actual facts. How for example did racial integration”depress” wages during a booming post-war economy that saw wage increases for most Americans?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Sean says:

    ‘Behaviorist, publicist and social critic: the evolution of John B. Watson’:

    Although no definitive conclusion can be reached, Watson’s bitter social criticism seems to relate to unfair treatment from a puritanical society and from his colleagues in psychology who did not fully understand his situation after he was forced to resign his chair at John Hopkins University, [...] I had learned how to write what the public would read, and, since there was no longer opportunity for me to publish in technical journals, I saw no reason why I should not go to the public with my wares.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. Fred Reed says:

    Judging by the results with his own kids, he was not so much writing on a blank slate as forcibly overwriting instincts which came back to bit him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. fnn says:

    Maybe Judith Rich Harris is wrong and you really *should* be careful about child-raising:

    http://www.isegoria.net/2015/05/early-academic-training-produces-long-term-harm/

    By age 15 those in the Direct Instruction group had committed, on average, more than twice as many “acts of misconduct” than had those in the other two groups. At age 23, as young adults, the differences were even more dramatic. Those in the Direct Instruction group had more instances of friction with other people, were more likely to have shown evidence of emotional impairment, were less likely to be married and living with their spouse, and were far more likely to have committed a crime than were those in the other two groups. In fact, by age 23, 39% of those in the Direct Instruction group had felony arrest records compared to an average of 13.5% in the other two groups; and 19% of the Direct Instruction group had been cited for assault with a dangerous weapon compared with 0% in the other two groups.[4]

    What might account for such dramatic long-term effects of type of preschool attended?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Hello, fnn !
    I tried to reach for the original research paper re the subject discussed by you, and failed.
    "In reference of previous reference is a review of ... ."
    Can _you_ find it ?
    Respectfully, F.r.
    , @Enrique Cardova
    The article continues:
    "Those in classrooms that emphasized academic performance may have developed lifelong patterns aimed at achievement, and getting ahead, which—especially in the context of poverty—could lead to friction with others and even to crime (as a misguided means of getting ahead). "

    ^This seems unconvincing, as do the small sample sizes of the rather dated studies. (68 kids in 1967 Michigan for example). In addition the Direct Instruct approach is often tried with at risk, lower income populations to begin with. So a finding that some of this low income, already at-risk sample has more problems after their PRE-SCHOOL DI experience years earlier is hardly conclusive unless there were controls for other factors. None of the studies seem to have made such controls. Were the DIkids in more fatherless homes compared to the play instruction kids for example? And the time gap is simply too large to make sweeping conclusions. There is a world of difference between PRE-SCHOOL activities and 15 years later at the street level for example.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Immigrant from former USSR [AKA "Florida Resident"] says:
    @fnn
    Maybe Judith Rich Harris is wrong and you really *should* be careful about child-raising:

    http://www.isegoria.net/2015/05/early-academic-training-produces-long-term-harm/

    By age 15 those in the Direct Instruction group had committed, on average, more than twice as many “acts of misconduct” than had those in the other two groups. At age 23, as young adults, the differences were even more dramatic. Those in the Direct Instruction group had more instances of friction with other people, were more likely to have shown evidence of emotional impairment, were less likely to be married and living with their spouse, and were far more likely to have committed a crime than were those in the other two groups. In fact, by age 23, 39% of those in the Direct Instruction group had felony arrest records compared to an average of 13.5% in the other two groups; and 19% of the Direct Instruction group had been cited for assault with a dangerous weapon compared with 0% in the other two groups.[4]

    What might account for such dramatic long-term effects of type of preschool attended?
     

    Hello, fnn !
    I tried to reach for the original research paper re the subject discussed by you, and failed.
    “In reference of previous reference is a review of … .”
    Can _you_ find it ?
    Respectfully, F.r.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn
    You mean this one?:
    http://jenni.uchicago.edu/Spencer_Conference/December4th&5th_Papers/Schweinhart_High-Scope%20at%20Age%2023.pdf

    I can't figure out why you couldn't find it-so you probably mean something else.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. fnn says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR
    Hello, fnn !
    I tried to reach for the original research paper re the subject discussed by you, and failed.
    "In reference of previous reference is a review of ... ."
    Can _you_ find it ?
    Respectfully, F.r.

    You mean this one?:

    http://jenni.uchicago.edu/Spencer_Conference/December4th&5th_Papers/Schweinhart_High-Scope%20at%20Age%2023.pdf

    I can’t figure out why you couldn’t find it-so you probably mean something else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Yes, this one. Thank you very much.
    Your F.r.
    , @Immigrant from former USSR
    Dear fnn:
    Looks like Lawrence J. Schweinhart and David P. Weikart are serious researchers, who wrote many books.
    But the level of the article is well above understanding by a dilettante like me.
    What I mean is that there may be some subtleties, which would be understandable to a professionals in sociology, like Dr. Charles Murray, some "gimmicks",
    but I can not say if there are any.
    Thank you for your reaction.
    Your F.r.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @fnn
    Maybe Judith Rich Harris is wrong and you really *should* be careful about child-raising:

    http://www.isegoria.net/2015/05/early-academic-training-produces-long-term-harm/

    By age 15 those in the Direct Instruction group had committed, on average, more than twice as many “acts of misconduct” than had those in the other two groups. At age 23, as young adults, the differences were even more dramatic. Those in the Direct Instruction group had more instances of friction with other people, were more likely to have shown evidence of emotional impairment, were less likely to be married and living with their spouse, and were far more likely to have committed a crime than were those in the other two groups. In fact, by age 23, 39% of those in the Direct Instruction group had felony arrest records compared to an average of 13.5% in the other two groups; and 19% of the Direct Instruction group had been cited for assault with a dangerous weapon compared with 0% in the other two groups.[4]

    What might account for such dramatic long-term effects of type of preschool attended?
     

    The article continues:
    “Those in classrooms that emphasized academic performance may have developed lifelong patterns aimed at achievement, and getting ahead, which—especially in the context of poverty—could lead to friction with others and even to crime (as a misguided means of getting ahead). “

    ^This seems unconvincing, as do the small sample sizes of the rather dated studies. (68 kids in 1967 Michigan for example). In addition the Direct Instruct approach is often tried with at risk, lower income populations to begin with. So a finding that some of this low income, already at-risk sample has more problems after their PRE-SCHOOL DI experience years earlier is hardly conclusive unless there were controls for other factors. None of the studies seem to have made such controls. Were the DIkids in more fatherless homes compared to the play instruction kids for example? And the time gap is simply too large to make sweeping conclusions. There is a world of difference between PRE-SCHOOL activities and 15 years later at the street level for example.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Livemike
    "In addition the Direct Instruct approach is often tried with at risk, lower income populations to begin with. So a finding that some of this low income, already at-risk sample has more problems after their PRE-SCHOOL DI experience years earlier is hardly conclusive unless there were controls for other factors."
    You mean like the fact that the other two groups had exactly those factors?

    "Were the DIkids in more fatherless homes compared to the play instruction kids for example? "

    " The assignment was done in a semi-random way, designed to ensure that the three groups were initially matched on all available measures. "

    "And the time gap is simply too large to make sweeping conclusions. "
    Why? If there was a positive effect it would certainly have been treated as a result of DI. The idea that what happens in early childhood affects later life is so well-established as to be a cliche. Why would you doubt that an effect would persist for such a long time, considering THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TRAINING?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Immigrant from former USSR [AKA "Florida Resident"] says:
    @fnn
    You mean this one?:
    http://jenni.uchicago.edu/Spencer_Conference/December4th&5th_Papers/Schweinhart_High-Scope%20at%20Age%2023.pdf

    I can't figure out why you couldn't find it-so you probably mean something else.

    Yes, this one. Thank you very much.
    Your F.r.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Anonymous says: • Website • Disclaimer

    Hii Peter,
    You have explain in a good manner about behaviorism and antiracism.Looking forward to your next update.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. Immigrant from former USSR [AKA "Florida Resident"] says:
    @fnn
    You mean this one?:
    http://jenni.uchicago.edu/Spencer_Conference/December4th&5th_Papers/Schweinhart_High-Scope%20at%20Age%2023.pdf

    I can't figure out why you couldn't find it-so you probably mean something else.

    Dear fnn:
    Looks like Lawrence J. Schweinhart and David P. Weikart are serious researchers, who wrote many books.
    But the level of the article is well above understanding by a dilettante like me.
    What I mean is that there may be some subtleties, which would be understandable to a professionals in sociology, like Dr. Charles Murray, some “gimmicks”,
    but I can not say if there are any.
    Thank you for your reaction.
    Your F.r.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Livemike says:
    @leftist conservative
    I think this article is misguided, and unfortunately so, because I have seen some decent articles from you before.

    First, regarding anti-racism in the 1800s. This was caused in large part by the fact that american whites were somewhat afraid of being slaves again. What is largely unknown today is that a lot of white americans in the 1800s had ancestors who were defacto slaves in the 1600s and 1700s. The so-called indentured servants of that time were basically slaves. There are several books on the subject. Plus a lot of servants and so-called bonded men and women were basically slaves. Also, by the mid 1800s a lot of white northerners were becoming aware of the fact that many of the black slaves in the south were mostly white, a trend helped along by the fact that many slaveowners were breeding their female slaves and selling the near-white daughters to bordellos. The abolitionists publicized this fact to white northerners, and that was perhaps the major factor in building popular support for the war among northern whites--they were afraid of being made slaves, themselves. See Tenzer's book THE FORGOTTEN CAUSE OF THE CIVIL WAR.

    Antiracism did indeed die out. After the war the white working class consolidated power, and forced the implementation of jim crow.

    Anti-racism in the 20th century was in effect a cultural coup created by the upper class and business. The immigration moratorium of 1920 etc was put in effect by the upper class/business in order to stop the importation of anarchist leftism and socialism being brought into america by european immigrants. That moratorium led to a labor shortage (and eventually the Golden Age of Labor in the 1950s).

    In order to increase the supply of labor, the upper class started feeding money into nonprofit foundations so as to create ideological propaganda that was calculated to subvert Leftism and modify it, to change leftism to a new ideology. This new Leftism was borne of academia, activism and writers, who were funded by the rich and who created propaganda that shifted leftism to a pro-nonwhite, anti-white stance.

    Over decades this pro-nonwhite, anti-white multiculturalist propaganda seemed into the educational curriculum and it shaped young minds that went out to the supreme court and congress etc. That led eventually to the civil rights era and the new anti-racism. Racial integration combined with mass immigration increased the supply of labor, depressed wages and grew the consumer base, thus making the rich richer. It was a growth strategy.

    See, e.g. Roelofs' book FOUNDATIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY: THE MASK OF PLURALISM. See also Wolf's review online of Francis Stonor Saunders's book THE CULTURAL COLD WAR.

    Behaviorism is the basis for the ideological propaganda that created our culture. So, yes, it works.

    “. The abolitionists publicized this fact to white northerners, and that was perhaps the major factor in building popular support for the war among northern whites–they were afraid of being made slaves, themselves.”
    Utter rubbish. Support for the war DROPPED when it was perceived to be about freeing the slaves. Nobody proposed enslaving whites, how could they conclude it was going to happen? Did they imagine that someone was going to go back in time and make some of their ancestors black? And why would this fear make them anti-racists, rather than abolitionists?

    “racial integration combined with mass immigration increased the supply of labor, ”
    How the hell does racial integration increase the supply of labor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Enrique Cardova
    Nobody proposed enslaving whites, how could they conclude it was going to happen? Did they imagine that someone was going to go back in time and make some of their ancestors black? And why would this fear make them anti-racists, rather than abolitionists?

    He is arguing from the book White Cargo which shows thousands of whites were in semi slavery or near slavery as (time limited) indentured servants, and jumping from there to say a major cause of opposition to slavery was fear this white indentured servitude would make more white people slaves. But this is weak ground to claim any sort of anti-racism. For one thing while abolitionists did use a talking point about white slavery, this was a talking point in speeches, not any actual reality that formed a basis for any significant anti-racism.

    And the same book "White Cargo" shows that White indentures were already winding down at the War of Independence period. White America did not intend to go back to that period Instead it seized on and consolidated a much more lucrative source of labor- black slaves who could be kept in chains for multiple generations. And they began this process and differential treatment, over a century before the Independence period. While some white indentures were tricked into more terms of service, they generally walked free after their assigned time. By contrast, there was no way out for the black man. His condition was permanent, and that of his children. Tens of thousands of whites were in virtually slavery through indentures. But compared this to millions of blacks.

    Furthermore many former white indentures quickly became very racist once they were free, and indeed elites deliberately played them against blacks. Interracial marriages or unions that were once legal for example were forbidden. Occupations that both black indentured and white indentured servants had worked at were segregated to lock out blacks and favor whites. Land ownership rights in some areas became "white only." The white lower classes in the North were one of the groups most bitterly opposed to abolition of slavery- they fought it anyway the could- including later immigrant groups like the white Irish. This was the reality on the ground. So it is difficult to see any wave of white anti-racism emerging out of fear of more white indentured servitude, particularly when white indentured situations were withering away around the War of Independence period. In fact the former indentured folk were often among the most racist opponents of blacks, as they relished the privileges and advantages of whiteness now conferred on them. A few talking points thrown out by abolitionists in their speeches does not change this reality.

    As one book review says:


    The problem is that Tenzer wants to argue that antebellum Americans did not think of slavery in racial terms. His methodological shortcoming is that while his documentary evidence is undisputed, he does not balance it against other evidence or try to assess whether it was central or a derivative part of more important arguments. To be specific, the whole South--with the exception of some strange folk like George Fitzhugh--justified slavery on the basis of race and claimed that white liberty depended on black slavery.

    More important, northern Democrats only sustained southern institutions because of race. If white slavery had indeed been a pervasive fear, northern Democrats would have reacted to it--and they did not. Tenzer is correct that slavery and its legal definition posed problems in regard to skin color, but the whole of the documentary evidence is that southern slavery was African slavery and white Americans knew it. "
     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Livemike says:
    @Art
    I see “antiracism” is wrong because these two - Boas and Watson – have less than stellar academic characters.

    Boas (a Jew) twisted his own science in order to conspired with other Jews to gain political power over white America. And the disgruntled Watson wrote pseudo science in order to bolster his advertising career – claiming that as an enlightened advertiser he could condition everyone to buy advertized products.

    Is the author claiming that “antiracism” is invalid because these two dishonest characters promoted it?

    Is the author claiming that racism is about the differences between the races and not about hate?

    Really! Now that is a fine twist of words.

    “I see “antiracism” is wrong because these two – Boas and Watson – have less than stellar academic characters.”
    Nobody said that.

    “Is the author claiming that “antiracism” is invalid because these two dishonest characters promoted it?”
    No learn to read.

    “Is the author claiming that racism is about the differences between the races and not about hate?”
    No, again learn to read. Also racism isn’t about “hate” it’s about a percieved difference (or a pretence of such) between the races. Hate is not a necessary element.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    "Also racism isn’t about “hate” it’s about a perceived difference (or a pretence of such) between the races. Hate is not a necessary element."

    Is the elite academics discussion hurtful to some people – does it put them down - does it say I am better then you? At what point does “injury” take over the discussion?

    "It is a principal of human nature to hate those whom we have injured." -- Gaius Cornelius Tacitus

    Clearly the author of this article does not like “antiracism.” Why?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Livemike says:
    @Enrique Cardova
    The article continues:
    "Those in classrooms that emphasized academic performance may have developed lifelong patterns aimed at achievement, and getting ahead, which—especially in the context of poverty—could lead to friction with others and even to crime (as a misguided means of getting ahead). "

    ^This seems unconvincing, as do the small sample sizes of the rather dated studies. (68 kids in 1967 Michigan for example). In addition the Direct Instruct approach is often tried with at risk, lower income populations to begin with. So a finding that some of this low income, already at-risk sample has more problems after their PRE-SCHOOL DI experience years earlier is hardly conclusive unless there were controls for other factors. None of the studies seem to have made such controls. Were the DIkids in more fatherless homes compared to the play instruction kids for example? And the time gap is simply too large to make sweeping conclusions. There is a world of difference between PRE-SCHOOL activities and 15 years later at the street level for example.

    “In addition the Direct Instruct approach is often tried with at risk, lower income populations to begin with. So a finding that some of this low income, already at-risk sample has more problems after their PRE-SCHOOL DI experience years earlier is hardly conclusive unless there were controls for other factors.”
    You mean like the fact that the other two groups had exactly those factors?

    “Were the DIkids in more fatherless homes compared to the play instruction kids for example? ”

    ” The assignment was done in a semi-random way, designed to ensure that the three groups were initially matched on all available measures. ”

    “And the time gap is simply too large to make sweeping conclusions. ”
    Why? If there was a positive effect it would certainly have been treated as a result of DI. The idea that what happens in early childhood affects later life is so well-established as to be a cliche. Why would you doubt that an effect would persist for such a long time, considering THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TRAINING?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Enrique Cardova
    You mean like the fact that the other two groups had exactly those factors?
    But did the 2 groups have the same factors 5 years later when they hit 4th grade? There is a lot that can intervene in that time. Hence what are the controls used 5 yr later? Were they all fatherless 5 years later? What about their poverty status? Or family status? Or intervening school settings? What are the controls for intervening variables, over that time span? Your link does not say.

    .
    Why? If there was a positive effect it would certainly have been treated as a result of DI. The idea that what happens in early childhood affects later life is so well-established as to be a cliche. Why would you doubt that an effect would persist for such a long time, considering THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TRAINING?

    The cliche you speak about is not so simple. What happens in early childhood does not necessarily represent a neat path to some claimed outcome. Head Start studies for example document early gains but some of these vanish as time goes on. Why automatically assume that just because something is early childhood programming it will leave lasting gains? The real world conveys no such automatic beneficence. In such things you have to control for or look at the multiplicity of variables that can affect results years later, to get a truer picture. If not you run the risk of erroneous results. As for a positive effect of DI,the same cautions would apply. With 5 intervening years and multiple variables that impact results, the same questions would apply to DI.

    The above caveats aside, personally I am not too enthusiastic about the idea of a canned behaviorist "scripting" controlling these toddlers, and I am glad the more natural play format, assuming that is correct shows better results. I once saw a documentary on Red China many years ago, and the robotic "processing" of the very young, complete with communist slogans to chant. It was a bit creepy to see the rigid regimentation of little ones so young. I am sure there was some behaviorist methods built into that level of regimentation. Do you have more links to recent research?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Sean says:

    Watson was always a wayward character, see here

    Rakos: [Watson thought] The objectionable people in the world are those who want to be kings and queens but who will allow no one else to be regal…many of our orthodoxies — codes of conduct, our rules of politeness — are build up for the purpose of letting him who is king and rule-maker remain king and rule-maker.

    Watson’s sexual experimentee cum assistant and second wife was from a rich family, her uncle was the first Jewish senator in the US. Watson obviously had some useful contacts, and he was angry at traditional society.

    Литература и революция):”It is difficult to predict the extent of self-government which the man of the future may reach or the heights to which he may carry his technique. Social construction and psycho-physical self-education will become two aspects of one and the same process. All the arts – literature, drama, painting, music and architecture will lend this process beautiful form. More correctly, the shell in which the cultural construction and self-education of Communist man will be enclosed, will develop all the vital elements of contemporary art to the highest point. Man will become immeasurably stronger, wiser and subtler; his body will become more harmonized, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical. The forms of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above this ridge new peaks will rise.”

    Trotsky in 1924 was saying much the same as Watson. And both were basically the same as the ideologues who inspired the French Revolution.

    THE French view of culture posited a kind of upward movement fueled by the development of ideas, as needs arise, and by their subsequent direct transmission. It is precisely the biological equivalent of this view that Lamarck proposed

    As I see it, scientific theories that would provide a mechanism for improvements in ethics and morality to be passed on resulted from political and philosophical ideas, not the other way about .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. @Livemike
    ". The abolitionists publicized this fact to white northerners, and that was perhaps the major factor in building popular support for the war among northern whites–they were afraid of being made slaves, themselves."
    Utter rubbish. Support for the war DROPPED when it was perceived to be about freeing the slaves. Nobody proposed enslaving whites, how could they conclude it was going to happen? Did they imagine that someone was going to go back in time and make some of their ancestors black? And why would this fear make them anti-racists, rather than abolitionists?

    "racial integration combined with mass immigration increased the supply of labor, "
    How the hell does racial integration increase the supply of labor.

    Nobody proposed enslaving whites, how could they conclude it was going to happen? Did they imagine that someone was going to go back in time and make some of their ancestors black? And why would this fear make them anti-racists, rather than abolitionists?

    He is arguing from the book White Cargo which shows thousands of whites were in semi slavery or near slavery as (time limited) indentured servants, and jumping from there to say a major cause of opposition to slavery was fear this white indentured servitude would make more white people slaves. But this is weak ground to claim any sort of anti-racism. For one thing while abolitionists did use a talking point about white slavery, this was a talking point in speeches, not any actual reality that formed a basis for any significant anti-racism.

    And the same book “White Cargo” shows that White indentures were already winding down at the War of Independence period. White America did not intend to go back to that period Instead it seized on and consolidated a much more lucrative source of labor- black slaves who could be kept in chains for multiple generations. And they began this process and differential treatment, over a century before the Independence period. While some white indentures were tricked into more terms of service, they generally walked free after their assigned time. By contrast, there was no way out for the black man. His condition was permanent, and that of his children. Tens of thousands of whites were in virtually slavery through indentures. But compared this to millions of blacks.

    Furthermore many former white indentures quickly became very racist once they were free, and indeed elites deliberately played them against blacks. Interracial marriages or unions that were once legal for example were forbidden. Occupations that both black indentured and white indentured servants had worked at were segregated to lock out blacks and favor whites. Land ownership rights in some areas became “white only.” The white lower classes in the North were one of the groups most bitterly opposed to abolition of slavery- they fought it anyway the could- including later immigrant groups like the white Irish. This was the reality on the ground. So it is difficult to see any wave of white anti-racism emerging out of fear of more white indentured servitude, particularly when white indentured situations were withering away around the War of Independence period. In fact the former indentured folk were often among the most racist opponents of blacks, as they relished the privileges and advantages of whiteness now conferred on them. A few talking points thrown out by abolitionists in their speeches does not change this reality.

    As one book review says:

    The problem is that Tenzer wants to argue that antebellum Americans did not think of slavery in racial terms. His methodological shortcoming is that while his documentary evidence is undisputed, he does not balance it against other evidence or try to assess whether it was central or a derivative part of more important arguments. To be specific, the whole South–with the exception of some strange folk like George Fitzhugh–justified slavery on the basis of race and claimed that white liberty depended on black slavery.

    More important, northern Democrats only sustained southern institutions because of race. If white slavery had indeed been a pervasive fear, northern Democrats would have reacted to it–and they did not. Tenzer is correct that slavery and its legal definition posed problems in regard to skin color, but the whole of the documentary evidence is that southern slavery was African slavery and white Americans knew it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Art says:
    @Livemike
    "I see “antiracism” is wrong because these two – Boas and Watson – have less than stellar academic characters."
    Nobody said that.

    "Is the author claiming that “antiracism” is invalid because these two dishonest characters promoted it?"
    No learn to read.

    "Is the author claiming that racism is about the differences between the races and not about hate?"
    No, again learn to read. Also racism isn't about "hate" it's about a percieved difference (or a pretence of such) between the races. Hate is not a necessary element.

    “Also racism isn’t about “hate” it’s about a perceived difference (or a pretence of such) between the races. Hate is not a necessary element.”

    Is the elite academics discussion hurtful to some people – does it put them down – does it say I am better then you? At what point does “injury” take over the discussion?

    “It is a principal of human nature to hate those whom we have injured.” — Gaius Cornelius Tacitus

    Clearly the author of this article does not like “antiracism.” Why?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Sean says:

    It should be acknowledged that Watson married into a wealthy and connected Jewish family (one of his second wife’s relatives being turned away from a hotel had led to nationwide headlines). And he how to promote himself, as he was part of the advertising industry.

    I am going beyond my facts and I admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of years. (Watson, 1924, p. 82)

    He implied his standpoint was a lonely one, but even with good Jewish community contacts, sympathetic media and public relations skills, how could he have had an influence unless he had been arguing something that struck a chord in society, or at least in the parts of it that mattered most?

    Watson saw himself as opposing an unjustified hierarchy of ‘Kings and Queens’ using traditional codes to maintain their position, a venerable view among the intelligentsia since the Enlightenment, which had begun with repugnance for rule by actual royalty. Voltaire (who, like Watson criticised the basis of his society after suffering public humiliation) and others reacted against royal and aristocratic pretensions to superiority and justified domination of society so strongly that they denied all inherited differences and not just within the human species; they were quite surprised that chimps and orang-utans could not learn human language. People say cultural evolution is Lamarckian, but actually Lamarck started with assumptions stemming from his culturally deterministic milieu, and created a theory whereby ideas, such as those of the Marquis de Condorcet about the limitless perfectibility of the human mind were given scientific credibility.

    Lamarckism was discredited by 1917, but that does not mean that the scientific mainstream became Darwinist. It was 20 years before the Modern evolutionary synthesis actual explained the mechaism. Hence I’m not sure Watson was really influential in altering opinion, because Lamarckian-style beliefs,about the plasticity of humans under cultural conditioning or environment seem to have persisted among public intellectuals throughout in the 19th century in the US, and biological eugenicists often held similar views well into the thirties (Ernest Hooton’s views on immigrants morphing into Old Americans without intermarriage show this clearly). The explicit invocation of such concepts by mainstream scientists disappeared long before the Darwinian synthesis, but concepts similar to ‘changes in an organism arise in response to a felt need’ hung around for two decades after explicit Lamarckism ceased to exist, because the mechanism by which Darwinian evolutionary theory to work was not clearly explicated until 1937 at the earliest.

    Steven Pinker is no Lamarckian, however, when I read Pinker scoffing at John Gray’s naysaying of meliorism (that humans are not limited by their biological natures and that advances in ethics and politics are cumulative in the same way as advances in science and technology) I wonder exactly what Pinker is suggesting. Gray knows a thing or two about the history of the ideas Pinker attributes the decline in violence to, but it seems very nebulous what possible mechanisms Pinker is proposing. Claims for rising IQ are similar. If there is no proposed mechanism it is, like excellent evidence for the paranormal, dubious. There is something about Darwinism that melioristic intellectuals heirs of the Marquis de Condorcet can’t accept as a cause for the important stuff behind the advances in civilisation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. @Livemike
    "In addition the Direct Instruct approach is often tried with at risk, lower income populations to begin with. So a finding that some of this low income, already at-risk sample has more problems after their PRE-SCHOOL DI experience years earlier is hardly conclusive unless there were controls for other factors."
    You mean like the fact that the other two groups had exactly those factors?

    "Were the DIkids in more fatherless homes compared to the play instruction kids for example? "

    " The assignment was done in a semi-random way, designed to ensure that the three groups were initially matched on all available measures. "

    "And the time gap is simply too large to make sweeping conclusions. "
    Why? If there was a positive effect it would certainly have been treated as a result of DI. The idea that what happens in early childhood affects later life is so well-established as to be a cliche. Why would you doubt that an effect would persist for such a long time, considering THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TRAINING?

    You mean like the fact that the other two groups had exactly those factors?
    But did the 2 groups have the same factors 5 years later when they hit 4th grade? There is a lot that can intervene in that time. Hence what are the controls used 5 yr later? Were they all fatherless 5 years later? What about their poverty status? Or family status? Or intervening school settings? What are the controls for intervening variables, over that time span? Your link does not say.

    .
    Why? If there was a positive effect it would certainly have been treated as a result of DI. The idea that what happens in early childhood affects later life is so well-established as to be a cliche. Why would you doubt that an effect would persist for such a long time, considering THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TRAINING?

    The cliche you speak about is not so simple. What happens in early childhood does not necessarily represent a neat path to some claimed outcome. Head Start studies for example document early gains but some of these vanish as time goes on. Why automatically assume that just because something is early childhood programming it will leave lasting gains? The real world conveys no such automatic beneficence. In such things you have to control for or look at the multiplicity of variables that can affect results years later, to get a truer picture. If not you run the risk of erroneous results. As for a positive effect of DI,the same cautions would apply. With 5 intervening years and multiple variables that impact results, the same questions would apply to DI.

    The above caveats aside, personally I am not too enthusiastic about the idea of a canned behaviorist “scripting” controlling these toddlers, and I am glad the more natural play format, assuming that is correct shows better results. I once saw a documentary on Red China many years ago, and the robotic “processing” of the very young, complete with communist slogans to chant. It was a bit creepy to see the rigid regimentation of little ones so young. I am sure there was some behaviorist methods built into that level of regimentation. Do you have more links to recent research?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Immigrant from former USSR
    Derbyshire gave a strong talk in 2008 about Boas and his ideology:
    http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/equality.html

    Derbyshire misunderstands Boas however. Boas didn’t argue much for any “blank slate” principle. It is not a “Boasian viewpoint” as claimed by Derbyshire. Indeed says Pinker of Blank Slate fame:

    “For all his emphasis on culture, Boas was not a relativist who beleived that all cultures are equivalent, nor was he an empiricist who believed in the blank slate.(2002:23)”

    Peter correctly grasps Boas’ essential position in the examples he posts, not Derbyshire. Some of those coming AFTER Boas, like Margaret Mead etc could be called exponents of cultural relativism, but as Peter shows, Boas was not.

    .
    Jim says:
    Modern research on behavioral genetics shows that “shared environment” which includes things like family structure, SES, etc. seems to have little effect. Human behavior seems to result from a mixture of genetic factors and something called “non-shared environment”. For human psychology “non-shared environment” seems to be like dark matter in cosmology. It’s important but nobody knows what it is. It doesn’t seem to have much to do with traditional “nurture”.

    Maybe but keep in mind that there is plenty of modern research on behavioral genetics that shows things like family structure, etc have an effect on how children turn out. Non shared environment is an increasingly important plyer gaining notice. For example, for antisocial behaviour in adolescence, shared environment accounts for ~15% of the total phenotypic variance, although even here non-shared environment accounts for much more of the variance, ~40%. – says one study. It also says:

    Non-shared environment also seems to be the major source of environmental influence for other diseases such as diabetes, ulcers, childhood eczema, asthma and allergic rhinitis, although these domains are not nearly as well studied.16 Examples of other domains in which non-shared environmental influence has been shown to be important include: longevity,17,18 psoriasis,19 stress urinary incontinence,20 menstrual symptomatology,21 abdominal aortic aneurysms,22 serum vitamin D status,23 serum lipids and apolipoproteins,24 uric acid and liver enzymes,25 and collectin surfactant protein D serum levels.26 Non-shared environmental factors may be important even for infections in the family.27–29

    http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/3/582.full

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Thank you for your comments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Immigrant from former USSR [AKA "Florida Resident"] says:
    @Enrique Cardova
    Derbyshire misunderstands Boas however. Boas didn't argue much for any "blank slate" principle. It is not a "Boasian viewpoint" as claimed by Derbyshire. Indeed says Pinker of Blank Slate fame:

    "For all his emphasis on culture, Boas was not a relativist who beleived that all cultures are equivalent, nor was he an empiricist who believed in the blank slate.(2002:23)"
     
    Peter correctly grasps Boas' essential position in the examples he posts, not Derbyshire. Some of those coming AFTER Boas, like Margaret Mead etc could be called exponents of cultural relativism, but as Peter shows, Boas was not.

    .
    Jim says:
    Modern research on behavioral genetics shows that “shared environment” which includes things like family structure, SES, etc. seems to have little effect. Human behavior seems to result from a mixture of genetic factors and something called “non-shared environment”. For human psychology “non-shared environment” seems to be like dark matter in cosmology. It’s important but nobody knows what it is. It doesn’t seem to have much to do with traditional “nurture”.

    Maybe but keep in mind that there is plenty of modern research on behavioral genetics that shows things like family structure, etc have an effect on how children turn out. Non shared environment is an increasingly important plyer gaining notice. For example, for antisocial behaviour in adolescence, shared environment accounts for ~15% of the total phenotypic variance, although even here non-shared environment accounts for much more of the variance, ~40%. - says one study. It also says:

    Non-shared environment also seems to be the major source of environmental influence for other diseases such as diabetes, ulcers, childhood eczema, asthma and allergic rhinitis, although these domains are not nearly as well studied.16 Examples of other domains in which non-shared environmental influence has been shown to be important include: longevity,17,18 psoriasis,19 stress urinary incontinence,20 menstrual symptomatology,21 abdominal aortic aneurysms,22 serum vitamin D status,23 serum lipids and apolipoproteins,24 uric acid and liver enzymes,25 and collectin surfactant protein D serum levels.26 Non-shared environmental factors may be important even for infections in the family.27–29
    http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/3/582.full

     

    Thank you for your comments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Sean says:

    Post is giving Watson’s methods too much credit. His lifelong waywardness; fights in high school, seducing and leaving his wife for the graduate student whose influential family were financially supporting his Johns Hopkins research, and making extravagant claims for his methods in the popular media are quite consistent with a completely hereditarian explanation for his own children’s incidence of being parasitical and making attention seeking gestures, such as suicide.

    Watson averring that ‘he can raise any healthy child “to become any type of specialist I might select — doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief…regardless of … race of his ancestors” ‘ was at least consistent with an environmental explanation. Watson was saying the average member of each human group were equally pre-adapted to becoming professors of mathematics. Pygmies, Aboriginal Aborigines and Kalahari Bushmen: all were equally capable of what was completely different to anything any of their ancestors could have been selected for.

    What happened several generations ago is totally irrelevant for a true environmental explanation of a racial difference. Equalitarians who explain poor outcomes for contemporary young adults by pointing to the hundreds of years of racial discrimination their group suffered are not just saying that groups with different gene pools are more or less equivalent (quite likely unless one group has been subjected to selection that the other has not), they are implicitly positing the failing group’s lifestyle and circumstances have driven retrogressive evolution, which became genetically fixed by Lamarckian inheritance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Sean says:
    What happened several generations ago is totally irrelevant for a true environmental explanation of a racial difference.
    Who is making this argument, the equalitarians? If so, who specifically?

    .
    Equalitarians who explain poor outcomes for contemporary young adults by pointing to the hundreds of years of racial discrimination their group suffered are not just saying that groups with different gene pools are more or less equivalent (quite likely unless one group has been subjected to selection that the other has not),

    Centuries of racial discrimination do definitely have a negative impact, that may or may not be offset by such things as numerical or cultural reinforcement from their home countries, etc. Groups may be equivalent in the sense of having suffered from societal discrimination, though again, not all groups are positioned in the same geographic location, have the same cultural reinforcements etc etc. For example despite their long history and presence in the booming Southwest, from which they were never totally “ethnically cleansed”, and despite a home country for many just across the border which allowed continual reinforcement (including a government willing to speak up for them sometimes against mistreatment), portions of Mexican American income or progress for example were suppressed for decades under discriminatory laws and practices.

    .
    they are implicitly positing the failing group’s lifestyle and circumstances have driven retrogressive evolution, which became genetically fixed by Lamarckian inheritance.
    I frankly can’t think of any equalitarians making such an argument, but could be. Can you cite some specific published equalitarian/leftist/sources where this retrogressive evo with genetic lock-in argument is made? True Marxists certainly make no such argument.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. Kat Grey says:

    How do you explain Scottish ingenuity and their rather spectacular list of inventions?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Enrique Cardova
    The Scots prospered as part of their connection with a larger world, a bigger framework- and that bigger framework was England, and its empire. If the Scots had kept to themselves, speaking mostly Scottish, and rejecting any significant intercourse or engagement with England, they would not have had the wide influence they do today. Not all the engagement was voluntary of course. The English overlords wreaked havoc in some places and created many injustices. But overall, on the balance, the Scots gained most from the exchange, one-sided as it has been at times, and they even surpassed their supposed English betters on some counts.

    This is not an unusual historical situation. Isolated tribal peoples, or different peoples involved in trade exchanges, drawn into the orbit of a greater hegemon, can prosper, or gain new ideas and techniques that cause them to progress. In Ancient Egypt according to Yale Egyptologist RIchard Darnell, Phoenician speaking people learned how the Egyptians did they writing, and over time adapted the idea of having symbols stand for language sounds into their own languages, and simplified the process. The result was the alphabet used by most of today's Europeans.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Sean says:

    Marxist like Trotsky certainly thought they could transform the “coagulated Homo sapiens” through new conditions of life. Although explicit Lamarkianism was not espoused after 1917, scientists (antiracists and the most prominent eugenicists) were using a theory of Darwinian selection with what amounted to Lamarckian inheritance up until 1937. It should not surprise that many scientists who supported antiracism were not dismissive of the genetic differences between races, because while Lamarck’s theory remained tenable genetic differences were of less importance.

    Watson was a true equalitarian and environmental determinist. Watson said with a perfect environment he could take an average new-born of any race and them make into anything. When people nowadays cite data for average intelligence increases they don’t seem to cite any cases of, for instance, a full-blood Australian aborigine being adopted at birth and making a jump to functioning as a lawyer or engineer in a single generation. But there ought to be many such cases, because unless Lamarckian inheritance is implicitly posited, it ought not take generations to function at such a level.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. Sean says:

    The egalitarian-environmentalists and leading theoreticians of Marxism (Trotsky) were in effect Lamarckians. The WASP establishment were also in the grips of a confused Lamarckism.

    As for the supposedly racist views of scientists up until the 30′s, they were not as usually portrayed. In 1892 Boas had said mixed race offspring were taller and more fertile. See here. In 1915, three years after publishing his seminal paper on the influence of the environment on heredity’ Boas argued for the equality and in some respects superiority, of mixed race children.

    Czech immigrant Aleš Hrdlička formed the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. He specifically said immigrants would not negatively affect the capacity of the average American, it may be remembered that Hrdlička called Appalachians the “sore on the American Continent,” in an anthropological sense.

    Ernest Hooton who some regard as “the father of American physical anthropology” wrote a statement protesting at Germany’s racial hygiene law. In 1935 Hooton was still in agreement with key aspects of Boas’s crypto Larmarkian rationale for alleging race mixing increases the white race’s proportion of the total population see here: (“…the impossibility of simple Mendelian interpretations … the most important aspect of race mixture is the social selection of types which operates in favor of those showing a preponderance of the physical features of the superordinate race.”)

    In an article headlined “Breed War Strain Out of Germans” in the New York daily newspaper P.M., January 4, 1943, Ernest Hooton laid out an “outbreeding” plan that would “destroy German nationalism and aggressive ideology while retaining and perpetuating desirable German biological and sociological capacities.” (See also: Benjamin Colby, ‘Twas a Famous Victory, 1974, p. 131.)

    The Harvard University professor’s proposal called for genetically transforming the German nation by encouraging mating of German women with non-German men, who would be brought into the country in large numbers, and of German men, forcibly held outside of Germany, with non-German women. Ten to twelve million German men would be assigned to forced labor under Allied supervision in countries outside of Germany to rebuild their economies. “The objects of this measure,” wrote Dr. Hooton, “include reduction of the birthrate of ‘pure’ Germans, neutralization of German aggressiveness by outbreeding and denationalization of indoctrinated individual.”

    The Modern eveolutionry sythnesis removed Lamarckian inheritance from all serious discussion. It coincided with the Hitler regime, but I think that the looming necessity of fighting Nazi Germany wasn’t the key moment for antiracism in the West; it was the developments in scientific theory that made biology thoroughly Darwinian and hence incompatible with social progressivism. As John Gray puts it “Such a melioristic approach to human life cannot help encouraging unreal hopes of the human future “.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. Dutch Boy says:

    Parents have always used a rough and ready behaviorism in child rearing (you can’t do much about those genes, after all). Praise them when they’re good, smack them when they’re bad and let the chips fall where they may!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    "Parents have always used a rough and ready behaviorism in child rearing"

    Among other techniques, he dropped (and caught) infants to generate fear and suggested that stimulation of the genital area would create feelings of love. In another chilling project, Watson boasted to Goodnow in summer 1920 that the National Research Council had approved a children’s hospital he proposed that would include rooms for his infant psychology experiments.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Sean says:
    @Dutch Boy
    Parents have always used a rough and ready behaviorism in child rearing (you can't do much about those genes, after all). Praise them when they're good, smack them when they're bad and let the chips fall where they may!

    “Parents have always used a rough and ready behaviorism in child rearing”

    Among other techniques, he dropped (and caught) infants to generate fear and suggested that stimulation of the genital area would create feelings of love. In another chilling project, Watson boasted to Goodnow in summer 1920 that the National Research Council had approved a children’s hospital he proposed that would include rooms for his infant psychology experiments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Kat Grey
    How do you explain Scottish ingenuity and their rather spectacular list of inventions?

    The Scots prospered as part of their connection with a larger world, a bigger framework- and that bigger framework was England, and its empire. If the Scots had kept to themselves, speaking mostly Scottish, and rejecting any significant intercourse or engagement with England, they would not have had the wide influence they do today. Not all the engagement was voluntary of course. The English overlords wreaked havoc in some places and created many injustices. But overall, on the balance, the Scots gained most from the exchange, one-sided as it has been at times, and they even surpassed their supposed English betters on some counts.

    This is not an unusual historical situation. Isolated tribal peoples, or different peoples involved in trade exchanges, drawn into the orbit of a greater hegemon, can prosper, or gain new ideas and techniques that cause them to progress. In Ancient Egypt according to Yale Egyptologist RIchard Darnell, Phoenician speaking people learned how the Egyptians did they writing, and over time adapted the idea of having symbols stand for language sounds into their own languages, and simplified the process. The result was the alphabet used by most of today’s Europeans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Enrique Cardova
    Correction- John Darnell- not Richard. And its not Phoenician speakers, but Semitic speakers (who may or may not have been Phoenician). Anyway, he shows how Semitic speakers in Egyptian working with native scribes, simplified formal pictographic Egyptian writing and modified the symbols into an early alphabet using a semi-cursive form commonly used in the Middle Kingdom. See book "Language Visible," by David Sacks. These Semitic speakers had been drawn into the larger orbit of the Egyptians state which had links and influence from Mesopotamia to the Sudan. Once there, they made modifications based on what they learned, adjusted, tweaked and kept going. Centuries later what they developed would in turn be used by others. The Scots were not as advanced as the British hegemons when the two peoples first met significantly, but they likewise took what they learned and used it to effect throughout the larger orbit of the British empire. Obviously the comparison is not exact, but that's the basic idea- a smaller group drawn into a larger orbit, can prosper there.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @Enrique Cardova
    The Scots prospered as part of their connection with a larger world, a bigger framework- and that bigger framework was England, and its empire. If the Scots had kept to themselves, speaking mostly Scottish, and rejecting any significant intercourse or engagement with England, they would not have had the wide influence they do today. Not all the engagement was voluntary of course. The English overlords wreaked havoc in some places and created many injustices. But overall, on the balance, the Scots gained most from the exchange, one-sided as it has been at times, and they even surpassed their supposed English betters on some counts.

    This is not an unusual historical situation. Isolated tribal peoples, or different peoples involved in trade exchanges, drawn into the orbit of a greater hegemon, can prosper, or gain new ideas and techniques that cause them to progress. In Ancient Egypt according to Yale Egyptologist RIchard Darnell, Phoenician speaking people learned how the Egyptians did they writing, and over time adapted the idea of having symbols stand for language sounds into their own languages, and simplified the process. The result was the alphabet used by most of today's Europeans.

    Correction- John Darnell- not Richard. And its not Phoenician speakers, but Semitic speakers (who may or may not have been Phoenician). Anyway, he shows how Semitic speakers in Egyptian working with native scribes, simplified formal pictographic Egyptian writing and modified the symbols into an early alphabet using a semi-cursive form commonly used in the Middle Kingdom. See book “Language Visible,” by David Sacks. These Semitic speakers had been drawn into the larger orbit of the Egyptians state which had links and influence from Mesopotamia to the Sudan. Once there, they made modifications based on what they learned, adjusted, tweaked and kept going. Centuries later what they developed would in turn be used by others. The Scots were not as advanced as the British hegemons when the two peoples first met significantly, but they likewise took what they learned and used it to effect throughout the larger orbit of the British empire. Obviously the comparison is not exact, but that’s the basic idea- a smaller group drawn into a larger orbit, can prosper there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kat Grey
    Prior to 1707 Scotland was an independant kingdom whose history stretched back well into the Middle Ages; it was not a collection of kilt-wearing tribes speaking "Scottish". I think you imagine Braveheart to have been factually correct. However, I agree that Scotland prospered under the Union of the Crowns. By the way, Scotland was never absorbed into England but was and remains an integral part of Great Britain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Kat Grey says:
    @Enrique Cardova
    Correction- John Darnell- not Richard. And its not Phoenician speakers, but Semitic speakers (who may or may not have been Phoenician). Anyway, he shows how Semitic speakers in Egyptian working with native scribes, simplified formal pictographic Egyptian writing and modified the symbols into an early alphabet using a semi-cursive form commonly used in the Middle Kingdom. See book "Language Visible," by David Sacks. These Semitic speakers had been drawn into the larger orbit of the Egyptians state which had links and influence from Mesopotamia to the Sudan. Once there, they made modifications based on what they learned, adjusted, tweaked and kept going. Centuries later what they developed would in turn be used by others. The Scots were not as advanced as the British hegemons when the two peoples first met significantly, but they likewise took what they learned and used it to effect throughout the larger orbit of the British empire. Obviously the comparison is not exact, but that's the basic idea- a smaller group drawn into a larger orbit, can prosper there.

    Prior to 1707 Scotland was an independant kingdom whose history stretched back well into the Middle Ages; it was not a collection of kilt-wearing tribes speaking “Scottish”. I think you imagine Braveheart to have been factually correct. However, I agree that Scotland prospered under the Union of the Crowns. By the way, Scotland was never absorbed into England but was and remains an integral part of Great Britain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Michael Faraday, Englishman, is the love of my heart.
    God keep in Heavens James Clerk Maxwell (Scott by origin), not only for Maxwell equations, but for Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.
    William Hamilton (Irishman) to be remembered forever, not so much for quaternions,
    and not even for conical refraction, which has impressed so much his contemporaries,
    but for canonical equations of Classical Mechanics.

    Kumbaya (attempt of self-irony about sincere feelings) !!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Immigrant from former USSR [AKA "Florida Resident"] says:
    @Kat Grey
    Prior to 1707 Scotland was an independant kingdom whose history stretched back well into the Middle Ages; it was not a collection of kilt-wearing tribes speaking "Scottish". I think you imagine Braveheart to have been factually correct. However, I agree that Scotland prospered under the Union of the Crowns. By the way, Scotland was never absorbed into England but was and remains an integral part of Great Britain.

    Michael Faraday, Englishman, is the love of my heart.
    God keep in Heavens James Clerk Maxwell (Scott by origin), not only for Maxwell equations, but for Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.
    William Hamilton (Irishman) to be remembered forever, not so much for quaternions,
    and not even for conical refraction, which has impressed so much his contemporaries,
    but for canonical equations of Classical Mechanics.

    Kumbaya (attempt of self-irony about sincere feelings) !!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Philip Neal says: • Website

    “Faculty psychology” is nothing to do with university faculties. It refers to a school of psychology which aimed to identify discrete mental faculties such as memory and reason – “faculty” as in “I’ve still got all my faculties”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. After peaking in the mid-19th century, antiracism fell into decline in the U.S., remaining dominant only in the Northeast.

    Antiracism was nowhere close to dominant in the Northeast.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
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 Peter Frost Comments via RSS