The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Lance Welton Archive
Bad Week for DAILY TELEGRAPH: Pays “Substantial” Damages to Melania Trump—and Article “Debunking BELL CURVE” Is Equally #FakeNews
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


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

The Daily Telegraph is Britain’s only serious right-of-center newspaper. And, now that the London Times’ website is imprisoned behind a paywall, it is increasingly becoming the UK’s “newspaper of record.” This makes a front-page article of this week all the more dangerous.

The piece in question, posted on the Daily Telegraph website at 10.43pm January 23 [Some are born great? No, with the right start in life we all have the same chance to succeed, by Margarette Driscoll], must rank as the most misleading and intellectually-dishonest article to ever appear on the front of a newspaper, at least in a democracy. The fact that it could ever be written is evidence either of an incredible level of scientific illiteracy, the most fanatical anti-scientific bias, or a breathtakingly naïve and sloppy journalist who has suspended all her critical faculties in the face of Social Justice Warriors masquerading as scientists . And in this case, the SJW leading the research has been proven to be dishonest as well.

Beneath a photo of smiling (white) boy, the caption reads, “Isaac Brook, 5, was part of an Oxford study that found children are born physically and intellectually equal, regardless of their race or ethnicity .” (However, for some reason a shorter version of Driscoll’s piece, published at 10.17pm, used an image of an East Asian baby, despite no babies from this race being involved in the study). Anyway, Driscoll goes on to pronounce that the debate over whether or not race differences in average intelligence are genetic is now over.

Apparently, Isaac is one of, “1,300 children in five countries—Brazil, India, Italy, Kenya and the UK—whose growth and neurodevelopment has been tracked and compared from the earliest days in the womb until the age of two.” Driscoll explains that the “Intergrowth-21st Project,” which is led by scientists at Oxford University, has “shown for the first time that children are born physically and intellectually equal, regardless of their race or ethnicity. Given good living conditions, good food and education, babies thrive, wherever they live and whatever the colour of their skin.”

This is a quite mind-blowing claim insomuch as it has been widely documented that black babies reach early developmental milestones more quickly and that they have a different average body type.

In other words, even putting aside the color of their skin, they are born being physically different from whites and, also, physically and intellectually more able when they are very young, as, at this age, physical and mental development work in parallel.

As J. Philippe Rushton has shown, blacks follow a faster “Life History Strategy,” meaning they peak, intellectually, at a younger age. Northeast Asian babies are even slower to reach early milestones, such as walking, than are whites, but they ultimately overtake whites intellectually, as seen in their high average IQ. [Race, Evolution and Behavior, by J. Philippe Rushton, p.147-148; p. 5]

Also, a big part of whether you “thrive” in life is genetic, because intelligence is about 80% heritable. There are average race differences in intelligence and these have been shown to be genetic, because there are race differences in the frequency of alleles which predict high intelligence .

So London-based freelance American journalist Margarette Driscoll’s summary, so far, is completely ludicrous. But maybe she’s misunderstood the science—journalists are notorious for their scientific ignorance [See Communicating Intelligence Research: Media misrepresentation, the Gould Effect, and unexpected forces, By Michael Woodley of Menie et al., Intelligence, 2018].So let’s look at the researchers actually have to say in her article:

“At every single stage we’ve shown that healthy mothers have healthy babies, and that healthy babies all grow at exactly the same rate,” says Prof Stephen Kennedy [Email him], the co-director of the Oxford Maternal and Perinatal Health Institute and co-leader of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project [. . . ]. “It doesn’t matter where you are living, it doesn’t matter what the colour of your skin is, it doesn’t matter what your race and ethnicity is, receiving decent medical care and nutrition is the key.”

That healthy mothers have healthy babies is not very surprising. But the children in the study were monitored from when they were fetuses to when they were aged two. That they grew at the same rate is surprising, because you would expect there to be individual differences in genetics and these would have an impact on physical and mental development, because physical and mental development are both strongly genetic.

“Curiouser and Curiouser!” cried Alice . . .

The implication of this is there are no genetic differences in intelligence between individuals—so all the twin and genetic studies that show a strong genetic dimension to intelligence are either fraudulent or have made serious errors—nor between races. Indeed, Margarette Driscoll quotes one of the researchers on this:

“There’s still a substantial body of opinion out there in both the scientific and lay communities who genuinely believe that intelligence is predominantly determined by genes and the environment that you’re living in and that your parents and grandparents were living in and their nutritional and health status are not relevant,” says Prof Kennedy. “Well, that’s clearly not the case.”

So, Driscoll hasn’t misunderstood anything. These “scientists” believe that their project has disproven the many twin and genetic studies. It seems intelligence is 100% to do with environment and so, manifestly, race differences in IQ are likewise.

And it should be stressed that these are not “social scientists,” who these days are generally little-more than PC-ideologues. These are medical scientists at a “world-leading university.” Stephen Kennedy is Professor of Reproductive Medicine at Nuffield College, Oxford University. How can these “scientists” have reached this laughable conclusion?

The answer seems be: Through their own extreme bias, meaning that they cannot see the planet-sized flaws in their study. Driscoll reports: “Where mothers of a similar social, economic and health status are compared, the Oxford team has shown, healthy Indian and African babies will grow at the same rate as healthy, well-nourished Britons.”

So, Kennedy et al. are controlling for SES. But there are big race differences in SES and SES is very significantly a matter of IQ, which predicts 50% of the variance in it. [see At Our Wits’ End, By Edward Dutton and Michael Woodley of Menie]. If you control for SES, then, due to blacks having lower average SES, the black will sample will represent an acutely intellectually elite and unrepresentative sample of blacks. The white sample will, however, be, relatively-speaking, more representative of whites in IQ terms, because whites have higher average SES, so a smaller percentage of whites are being eliminated from the sample.

But these Oxford researchers hadn’t finished their mind games yet. Apparently, at the age of two the children were given a series of cognitive tests:

“Cognitive development was also assessed by placing an attractive object under one cloth, then another, then asking the child to find it. If the child immediately lifted the second cloth, it showed they had been able to follow the sequence of moves. “There are no zero scores,” says Dr [Michelle] Fernandes [the Oxford researcher who devised the tests], “because the child is always able to do something, whether it is building a tower, but with only three blocks, or searching for the beads under the first cloth.”

In other words, the test is so simple that all the children can pass it. Which means that the test is not assessing differences in intelligence at all. If everyone in a sample of 1300 people scores 100% on an IQ test, that doesn’t mean that everyone has the same IQ. It means that the test is too easy to assess individual differences. It’s like weighing 1300 people with a scale that only goes up to 5 pounds and thus concluding that they all weigh the same.

So, due to selection bias and a terrible assessment test, these “Oxford University scientists” have proven absolutely nothing other than their own dogmatic environmental determinism and problems with basic logic.

Their “study,” by the way cannot be found online—because, clearly, no “study” has been peer-reviewed and published. The use of the word “study” is yet more misleading journalism or misinformation from the research team. The researchers appear to have simply written to a freelance journalist to tell her what they’ve found and this journalist has completely failed to in her duty to be critical.

Driscoll herself has been found to be slap-dash in previous writing, mixing-up two completely different books for example.

Consistent with how politically and personally motivated these “scientists” are, the UK’s General Medical Council—despite itself having a PC orientation [Time for radical revision at the UK General Medical Council, By James Appleyard, The Lancet, May 20, 2006]—found them guilty of academic misconduct in 2017 for stealing other people’s (specifically World Health Organization researchers’) ideas [Research misconduct and the INTERGROWTH-21st study, By Richard Horton et al., The Lancet, February 2017], something the Daily Telegraph didn’t even report.

In other words, Professor Kennedy is a liar and a thief.

Prof Kennedy is a sufficiently avid reader of the rabidly left-wing Guardian newspaper to have had letters published in it. So maybe Prof Kennedy knows his conclusions are nonsense but simply wants people to believe them for his own political reasons.

I’ve reported before on the infiltration of hard science by hard-Left fanatics. But this case really is extreme and deeply worrying.

No thinking person could conclude from story “that there are no genetic differences in individual or average racial intelligence.

The reasonable conclusion: you shouldn’t trust even some mainstream scientists, nor MSM journalists who tend to be obsequiously uncritical of them, when it comes to these crucial areas of research.

Oh, and that it is increasingly questionable to claim, as the 900-year old university does on its website, that Oxford University is a home of “academic excellence.”

Footnote: coincidentally, on January 26 the Daily Telegraphalso published Melania Trump—An Apology, a groveling apology for an earlier article (“As a mark of our regret we have agreed to pay Mrs Trump substantial damages as well as her legal costs”.) Of course, U.S. libel law was sabotaged by the Supreme Court’s 1964 Sullivan decision, judicial legislation designed to rescue a clearly-guilty Civil Rights group from a segregationist Southern sheriff. Regardless, it was a bad week for standards at the Daily Telegraph.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology, Science • Tags: IQ, Political Correctness, Racial Reality 
Hide 14 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Rational says:


    Thanks, Sir.

    Anybody who has kids (in the same home) or seen kids in a daycare will tell you they are different. They already have their own varying abilities and temperaments at a young age.

    This is another bogus lie by the liberal brainwashers, whose #1 tactic is to lie, lie, lie. These fake studies are falsely reported by the same gang of liberal liars.

    Eg. the NYT, a brainwashing machine, has been lying that open borders is good. When people laughed at them, they hired a SA alien and purchased the rights to use his name to write under and to repeat the same lies, making it look there were more loonies in the NYT madhouse.

  2. At the risk of being crushed in a commentariat maul: I have no problems with this article. I believe it to be grotesquely dishonest /ideological/stupid to not accept that BOTH environment AND genes play a role in human (& organic) development. As a non-scientist I am unable to determine the exact relative differences each factor has in specific outcomes. However, my questions ( ie I am not doctrinaire here) relate to the usefulness or not of making assertions based on averages. Yes , we can rightly say that race X has higher / lower average intelligence than race Y. So we can say there are higher/lower chances that a person from X or Y will be more or less intelligent (or athletic, eye color, suseptability to this-that disease etc, etc). When one then deals with a large group of X’s or Y’s you can make plans accordingly. But– when dealing with individuals the best you can say is that there’s a chance that the individual may conform to the average. Fairness (yes, fairness) & simple caution should still make one take each individual as you find them.
    Bias, stereotypes etc do have their uses: they can save time when time is critical. When we’ll crafted, they offer a standard to measure against. However, stereotypes etc are not an adequate substitute for observation & critical thinking.
    Incidentally, the Guardian newspaper is “rabidly” “left-wing” only in the sense of being progressive/ SJW/ PC. On most other matters it lines up nicely with establishment/elite views. In other words it’s pseudo-left.

    • Agree: byrresheim
    • Replies: @anon
    , @eah
  3. If they are right, it is all the more important for moms to stay home with their kids, cooking 3 nutritious meals per day and tending to the nurture-critical environment of their offspring. Household environment, not genes, ensures the IQ building blocks for their kids. In the automation era, this will have the added benefit of doubling the size of the dwindling US middle class, with jobs opening up for America’s surplus of underemployed college grads, as the dual-earner parents who currently hoard 2 per household of the few household-supporting jobs with benefits do their duty: ceding a family-friendly / absenteeism friendly job, going down a house size and sacrificing a few luxury trips to make sure that their progeny have high IQs.

    • Replies: @byrresheim
  4. @Endgame Napoleon


    “Unintended consequences” indeed.

  5. Anonymous [AKA "A Lobster"] says:

    Cathy Newman of Jordan Peterson fame and I went to the wrong mosque and it was a white mans fault and air conditioning is sexist woman both have written for the Telegraph.

  6. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:

    You fail to understand the appropriate uses for each type of knowledge. Since despite considerable disparity between groups within a group the distribution of the same traits vary (on a bell curve) so you are correct that a group’s average does not tell us the individual’s ability only the chance of where it might fall.It is correct to be cautious about this prejudice however the human ability to intuit these average differences is what keeps us alive, i often pet strange dogs I do not pet pit bulls even ones that i know and i know that people do have individual pit bulls that don’t maul people but i don’t like the odds.Im what you would consider a racist nazi WN, yet I live in a black neighborhood have black friends and acquaintances and give strange blacks the benefit of the doubt and am often surprised they are delightful in some way not that surprised it happens fairly often. What also happens is I play a game where i see if i can leave my house and return without seeing or overhearing something that i fairly judge i would not hear or see in a white neighborhood if i lived there 100 years, in a decade i have never one even on the 5 minute walks to the corner store in winter ever once not witnessed the unique dysfunction and difference of blacks. I don’t allow it to overwhelm my sense of individual discernment but i would be dead if i ignored the group averages.
    Group average information is the key to a sustainable civilization the state must know it in order to make all sorts of decisions and the culture must absorb it to set norms. america has proved groups as disparate genetically as say irish italian german and english were difficult but not impossible to form a sustainable civilization, because they were also similar enough that their genetic difference could be culturally overridden. because less successful groups were willing to accept the luck of the draw because disparate outcomes were not so starkly different. Blacks and other non whites can not accept that their average traits would mean that only about 1o-22% of them would reach the average and 1% would reach semi elite levels, we tried a level playing field and we got riots now we have affirmative action and the chinese laugh as they pass us.

  7. This reminds me of the New York City firemen’s exam. When the Federal Judge approved the exam, 98% of white applicant’s passed the exam and 96% of black applicants.

  8. BCB232 says:

    Differences in height can be explained away when you control for inseam length.

  9. eah says:

    As a non-scientist I am unable to determine the exact relative differences each factor has in specific outcomes.

    All available evidence indicates that genes are significantly more important than environment.

    Black children from the wealthiest families have mean SAT scores lower than white children from families below the poverty line.

    Black children of parents with graduate degrees have lower SAT scores than white children of parents with a high-school diploma or less.

  10. El Dato says:

    The feeling that

    you are in a multi-generational spaceship where there is no longer anyone in control, the life support system is in bad shape, the engineers are suspiciously moronic and looking ahead looms the Boötes Void while the ship pastors walk the halls proclaiming loudly that EVERYTHING IS OK WE WILL BE ARRIVING ANY MINUTE NOW, DON’T LOST FAITH, DON’T SPREAD RUMORS

    is intensifying.

  11. Frankly- I don’t give a hoot about IQ. What matters is tribe, looks, phenotype, culture…..

    Truth is- nobody wants to mix with Africans. And all peoples want to preserve their phenotype. Does anyone seriously think that Chinese or Japanese would become, visually, “white”- even if they could do so? Of course some use various chemicals, cosmetic surgery etc.- but no significant part of the Chinese would like to become like, say, Norwegians.

    Let’s get real.

    Whites are the standard of beauty. It doesn’t have anything to do with their historical influence & power. It seems some physiognomies are just more pleasing to look at. It reminds me of pope Gregory’s famous utterance: Non Angli, sed angeli – “They are not Angles, but angels”, when he first encountered pale-skinned English boys at a slave market, sparking his dispatch of St. Augustine of Canterbury to England to convert the English, according to Bede. Pope added: “Well named, for they have angelic faces and ought to be co-heirs with the angels in heaven.”

    Gregory’s Anglo contemporaries were, basically-savages. Nobody was treating them as equals, and sophisticated Romans of his times never considered them to be their betters. But it was physical attraction that mattered.

    Why didn’t Europeans, in past 500 years, conquer physically more attractive races than themselves?

    But, whichever the standard of beauty, culture, identity, way of life…may be- people, most of them, just want to remain as their forbears have been. In appearance, just with more power & influence. Period.

  12. anon[354] • Disclaimer says:

    “Incidentally, the Guardian newspaper is … pseudo-left.”

    It’s the state-run mouthpiece for the UK government, so that’s not surprising. I believe they were caught financing the outfit years back by buying copies.

  13. …must rank as the most misleading and intellectually-dishonest article to ever appear on the front of a newspaper, at least in a democracy.

    Oh, shuddup.

  14. Sean says:

    Nina Burleigh is a very good investigative journalist, her work on on the Amanda Knox case was superlative. She is having a very bad time of late, and probabally wishes she has checked herself.

    Interesting thread. To answer your final question, Israel, mossad, Chabad and black cube… you’re hitting the third rail of American journalism, Sarah.

    — Nina Burleigh (@ninaburleigh) January 14, 2019

    Newsweek Reporter Calls Reporting on Israel and Jewish Organizations a ‘Third Rail’
    The term ‘third rail’ refers to the deadly electrified rail on urban trains, implying that Israel-related issues are untouchable for American media

Current Commenter

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Lance Welton Comments via RSS
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.