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
Neurotic Leftists Mobbing Noah Carl, Un-PC Cambridge U. Researcher—Establishment Right Dithers
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Medieval, a finishing school for the British aristocracy, site of numerous vital discoveries (IVF, the structure of DNA), you don’t get much more prestigious than Britain’s University of Cambridge. So imagine the Leftist gnashing of teeth when Noah Carl, a 28 year-old sociologist who has argued in a high-impact journal that researchers must be allowed to discuss the relationship between “race” and “intelligence” [How Stifling Debate Around Race, Genes and IQ Can Do Harm, Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2018], was given a job there. Unfortunately, Establishment Right defenses of Carl’s academic freedom have been less the impressive.

Carl has also published an article entitled Net opposition to immigrants of different nationalities correlates strongly with their arrest rates in the UK, [Open Quantitative Sociology and Political Science, 2016]; spoken (though not on race) at the London Conference on Intelligence where fearless academics met up, beneath the radar, at University College London; and signed a letter publicly defending the intellectual rigor of that conference. [Communicating Intelligence Research, By Michael Woodley of Menie et al., Intelligence, 2018]

In October, Carl was appointed Toby Jackman Newton Trust Research Fellow at St Edmund’s College, Cambridge. With an MSc and DPhil in Sociology from Oxford University and an impressive publication portfolio for one so young, in any free society such an appointment would be entirely unremarkable.

But Britain is not a free society. Its university campuses are increasingly akin to the Soviet Union. Comedians booked to entertain students on British campuses must sign contracts agreeing not to make jokes about a raft of subjects: nationality, sexuality, transsexuality, disabled people…[Comedian pulls out of charity show at SOAS after he was asked to sign extensive “safe space” contract, By Ella Wills, Evening Standard, December 11, 2018]

By November, word of Carl’s appointment had spread. Students bravely gave anonymous interviews to a student newspapers, complaining that St Edmund’s was being described “the college with the eugenics researcher.” A particularly pious SJW returned his funding rather than be associated with such a place. Carl’s elevation had led to a “packed” “emergency meeting” of the college’s student union.

St Edmund’s was pressured to launch an “investigation” [“He has been able to speak all his life.” For two weeks, Eddie’s students questioned Dr Carl’s appointment, By Noella Chye, Varsity, December 12, 2018,] into Carl’s appointment.

And to make sure St Edmund’s did launch this investigation, Cambridge Leftists went public: on December 7th , the front page of the London Times announced Cambridge dons revolt over ‘racist’ fellow’s role, (by Catherine Lally & Rosemary Bennett). An Open Letter, signed by over 200 academics including 78 at Cambridge, and which anyone could sign online, demanded the inquiry.

“A careful consideration of Carl’s published work and public stance on various issues, particularly on the claimed relationship between ‘race’, ‘criminality’ and ‘genetic intelligence’, leads us to conclude that his work is ethically suspect and methodologically flawed,” the Open Letter opined. Signers were “deeply concerned that racist pseudoscience is being legitimized through association with the University of Cambridge”—meaning they had no interest, obviously, in whether or not Dr Carl’s findings were empirically accurate.

The Open Letter continued:

This fellowship was awarded to Carl despite his attendance at, and public defense of, the discredited “London Conference on Intelligence,” where racist and pseudoscientific work has been regularly presented.

It’s unclear who “discredited” it, but apparently if you’ve attended such a conference you should, therefore, be excluded from academe.


Carl’s work has already been used by extremist and far-right media outlets with the aim of stoking xenophobic and anti-immigrant rhetoric…this kind of pseudoscientific racism runs the serious risk of being used to justify policies that directly harm vulnerable populations.

Open Letter: No Place for Racist Pseudoscience at Cambridge

Some U.K. newspapers reporting The Times’ article did suggest here might be something suspect about the petition: “The public condemnation comes amid increasing concerns about free speech on campuses” wrote the Mail Online [More than 200 academics sign open letter accusing Cambridge don of publishing “racist pseudoscience” in row over academic free speech, By Sami Quadri , December 7, 2018]

But Carl’s libertarian defenders could have been more effective.

Journalist Toby Young, whose attendance at the London Conference on Intelligence in 2017 led to its discovery by the Main Stream Media, did describe what was happening as an appalling “mobbing,” pointing out that the Open Letter presented no evidence of academic misconduct, and that few of the signatories seemed to actually be experts in science, with one of them, Professor David Graeber [Tweet him] merely asserting that Carl’s research is flawed because it draws upon the concepts of “intelligence”, “criminality” and “race” that he claimed were inherently flawed. Young finished with a link to pro-Carl petition, and defenses of him by various unbiased academics [Academics’ Mobbing of a Young Scholar Must be Denounced, Quillette, December 7, 2018.]

But Robert Verbruggen in National Review [Hundreds of Academics Attack Young Researcher, December 9, 2018], while agreeing that Carl must be defended, empathized with those who reacted emotionally to the appointment: “After a quick Web search it’s really not a mystery why Carl is controversial.”

Of course, Carl’s work is “controversial” only to the kind of people who signed the petition: Leftist ideological thugs in university gowns, something Quillette and other Carl supporters really should have gone into a lot more.

More recently, Washington Post token libertarian columnist Megan McArdle [Tweet her]has complained about the abuse heaped on her by anti-Carl mobsters she questioned—but ends up concluding “research into race and IQ should stay off limits.” Some libertarian! [Who should decide what topics are off-limits?, December 15 2018].

The Open Letter’s lead signer does not even work at Cambridge. He is Professor Arjun Appadurai [Email him] an Indian cultural anthropologist based at New York University. Anthropology has become nakedly political, seeing its purpose as the empowering of the disempowered. Buried beneath its postmodern verbosity, truth is culturally subjective, environment is everything, and acceptable research involves someone observing pretty much any group of people they’re interested in and writing their feelings about it.

So the whole anti-Carl campaign has been spearheaded by an anti-science postmodernist, who may also be unable to treat Carl’s research objectively because he is non-white. Appadurai has spent much of his career looking at the supposed evils of “colonialism,” presumably including his own university education.

Appadurai is followed by David Roediger [Email him] of the University of Kansas, author of such tomes as Towards the Abolition of Whiteness: Essays on Race, Class and Politics. He is also a professor of “American Studies.” If a subject includes the word “Studies” it will basically be Leftist ideology dressed-up as scholarship.

Third signer is David Graeber quoted above, a New York-raised anthropologist whose father was a member of the Young Communist League and who himself was a leading early figure in “Occupy Wall Street”.

Other signatories include mathematician Chandler Davis, born 1926, a former member of the Communist Party of America jailed for his subversive activities and non-cooperation with House Un-American Activities Committee in 1954 and who, as editor of the Mathematical Intelligencer,was influential in the suppression of a recent Math paper which looked into sex differences. [Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole, by Theodore P. Hill, September 7, 2018]

Going down the list, it is indeed clear that hardly any of the signatories are actually scientists who would have the training and knowledge to discern “flaws” in Carl’s work. Their PhDs in pseudo-subjects with no objective standards, such as English Literature. They are simply aggressive virtue-signaling postmodernists (in many cases non-white, as well) intent on bullying the new boy until hopefully, he cries.

How can such intelligent people behave like this? Being a Humanities type, in contrast to a science-type, is associated with high Neuroticism (feeling negative feelings, such as anxiety and hatred, strongly), low altruism, poor impulse control, and high “Openness”. [Personality and interests as predictors of educational streaming and achievement, By F. De Fruyt & I. Mervielde, European Journal of Personality, 1996] High “Openness” involves a relatively high placing on the schizotypy spectrum at one end of which is “schizophrenia” and at the other extreme of which is “autism”. [Mentalism and Mechanism, By C. Badcock, Human Nature and Social Values, 2003]

Autism involves an obsession with systematizing but poor empathizing, hence it is associated with the best scientists [See The Genius Famine, By Edward Dutton & Bruce Charlton, 2015]. Schizophrenia involves such extreme empathy that you are obsessed with people’s feelings and read far too much into cues of them, meaning you see paranoid conspiracies everywhere. You are very bad at systematizing, so your worldview will tend to be, empirically, nonsense. If you add to this the Humanities scholar’s high anxiety (meaning you desperately need a clear world view) and his being aggressive and unkind, then you have precisely the pseudo-intellectual bullies who have signed the anti-Carl petition.

These bullies’ hatred of Dr Carl goes well beyond his ideological non-conformity. Dominic Caddick, who describes himself as “Left economics student @ Cambridge,” snarked on Twitter:

Not surprising to see Toby Young behind [the pro-Carl petition], maybe he has an affinity for people who bluff their way into Oxbridge? Should we bring up Noah Carl’s parents are both academics here.

Carl’s father is Princeton-educated Peter Carl who was Professor of Architecture at Cambridge until 2009 while his mother is Mary Ann Steane, currently a Senior Lecturer in Cambridge’s Architecture Department.

In other words, Caddick hates Carl because he believes he is a product of nepotism. If Carl is not, of course, then it implies that intelligence may be strongly genetic among individuals and races—probably, from Caddick’s point of view, even worse!

And there is another interesting aspect to Carl which hasn’t been remarked upon in the MSM. In its December 7 piece, the Mail Online noted that: “In pictures on his Facebook profile [specifically his “Cover Photo”], Dr Carl is seen practising yoga in stone circles with a young boy.” What it omitted is that this “young boy”, whom Carl has his arm round in one photo in the montage, is, from the look of him, a White-East Asian mixture.

The boy is, presumably, either a relative or the son of a close friend. If “actions speak louder than words” (which they don’t only in the world of SJW self-righteousness and hypocrisy) Carl is clearly no “racist.” He goes where the data takes him, but he treats people according to “the content of their character.”

St Edmund’s College needs to realize that universities don’t remain “prestigious” forever. They rise and fall based on the class of students they attract and the importance of the research they publish. Genius research is published by those who autistically go where the data goes and don’t think about people’s feelings: it was Francis Crick, just such as a person, co-discovered the structure of DNA at Cambridge. Get taken over by dogma and you’ll go into decline, like the University of Baghdad, once the greatest in the world.

Every single person who signed the anti-Carl petition is Hell-bent on making Cambridge University more like the University of Baghdad and, in shutting down free speech, making Britain more like an Islamic state.

These Neurotic quasi-schizophrenics are the enemies of civilization.

In January, when the “investigation” is complete, we’ll know if the authorities of St Edmund’s College, Cambridge—specifically its Master, Matthew Bullock [Email him]—should be added to the Open Letter’s handily available list of signatories.

I don’t think much of Megan McArdle either.

Lance Welton [Email him] is the pen name of a freelance journalist living in New York.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Academia, Political Correctness, Race and Iq 
Hide 120 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. At least by some measures, perhaps the intellectual abilities of quite a few “academics” are vastly overrated.

    Over an extensive range of studies and with remarkable consistency, from Physicians to Professors to CEOs, the mean IQ of intellectually elite professions is about 125 and the standard deviationn is about 6.5. For example, Gibson and Light found that 148 members of the Cambridge University faculty had a mean IQ of 126 with a standard deviation of 6.3. The highest score was 139. J.D. Matarazzo and S.G. Goldstein found that the mean IQ of 80 medical students was 125 with a standard deviation of about 6.7. There was one outlier at 149, but the next highest score was 138. This means that 95% of people in intellectually elite professions have IQs between 112 and 138 99.98% have IQs between 99 and 151.

    By dividing the distribution function of the elite professions’ IQ by that of the general population, we can calculate the relative probability that a person of any given IQ will enter and remain in an intellectually elite profession. We find that the probability increases to about 133 and then begins to fall. By 140 it has fallen by about 1/3 and by 150 it has fallen by about 97%. In other words, for some reason, the 140s are really tough on one’s prospects for joining an intellectually elite profession.

    Lots of “professors” are midwits.

  2. Anonymous[116] • Disclaimer says:

    The Open Letter’s lead signer does not even work at Cambridge. He is Professor Arjun Appadurai

    Ugh. Another professional non-white pretending to be a non-white professional.

    We will have to deport this trash soon.

  3. Giuseppe says:

    This controversy demonstrates that science is definitely not a dispassionately empirical discipline. It’s just another leftist social construct.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  4. eah says:

    He sounds like an intelligent guy who can defend himself, which as the person most familiar with his own work he must do in any case.

    For a laugh, read the ‘RationalWiki’ page on him.

    • Replies: @anon
  5. El Dato says:

    Dominic Caddick, who describes himself as “Left economics student @ Cambridge,” snarked on Twitter…

    That’s what Twitter is for. Nonentities announcing their political leanings pretending to study “economics” which is supposed to be a science? Say it ain’t so!

    The author missed snarkily weaving “Chronicles of Caddick” into this excellenet essay.

  6. The conflict of science with politics and religion is as old as the world.
    Even in 1600 the pope asked the Roman authorities to burn Giordano Bruno alive for heretical views.
    Around the same time Calvin did the same to Servetius.
    The Dutch criminologist Buikhuisen was removed from university for his research into hereditary aspects of criminality.

    One of the present taboos is stating that we whites are intellectually superior, despite scientific and technical progress since about 1600, when the church lost its grip on science.
    The steam engine is a relatively simple machine, did any other group of people invent it ?

    It is flabbergasting that in all discussions about racism, colonialism, slavery, whatever, we whites never explain that it was western knowledge and technology that made large parts of the world prosperous, that ended slavery because energy all of a sudden became cheap.
    Slaves are expensive.

    The essential question for me is ‘how is it possible that, in stead of being proud on what we gave the world, many in the west feel that we must excuse ourselves ?’.
    Of course, gaining European control of the larger part of the world did cause misery, but does anyone think that ‘great’ ancient empires were founded without misery ?
    One of the most brutal conquerors seems to have been the Assyrian king Sargon.
    The much admired Roman empire, one of the worst police states that ever existed.

    Who is interested in how the for example Maoris exterminated each other
    F E Maning, ‘Old New Zealand’, 1887, 1980, Auckland

  7. @dc.sunsets

    In my opinion the significance of the result of an IQ test is highly overrated.
    I knew some very high IQ people, did not find them very intelligent.
    But of course, just a subjective idea.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
    , @Wally
  8. “… research into race and IQ should stay off limits.”

    Yes, why would anyone want to understand a possible relationship between the two, as doing so might lead to improvements.

    “Every single person who signed the anti-Carl petition is Hell-bent on making Cambridge University more like the University of Baghdad ….”

    I’m pretty sure UoB is more tolerant than most Western institutions of higher education these days, as Western Academics are now more orthodox than the Taliban when it comes to their dogma and enforcement of it.

  9. Miro23 says:

    And on BQ (Bravery Quotient) they’re more likely 2 standard deviations below average.

  10. Realist says:

    At least by some measures, perhaps the intellectual abilities of quite a few “academics” are vastly overrated.

    If you eliminate the non STEM “academics” you would find that the remaining have an underwhelming IQ

  11. Tom Welsh says:

    “An Open Letter, signed by over 200 academics including 78 at Cambridge, and which anyone could sign online…”

    If anyone could sign it, how can we be sure they are all “academics”?

  12. Tom Welsh says:

    “The best is the enemy of the good”. Extremely clever and creative people have often had a very hard time, due to the less intelligent resenting their superior gifts (and often failing to understand what they are talking about).

    I have been studying the life and work of Alan Turing – an excellent case in point. I have no idea what Turing’s IQ was – it probably was never tested – but I imagine it was off the scale. Consequently he went through life being almost universally misunderstood. On more than one occasion, British men in authority referred to him as “of that type” or “of the professor type”, implying that one could never predict or understand what crazy thing such people would do next. (One can imagine a chimp thinking similar things about its human handlers).

    There are also hints that people of high intelligence may suffer a variety of handicaps – especially social and corporate. Being disorganized I cannot lay my hands on references (apart from the one below), but I have seen reports that very clever people are somewhat prone to “mental illness” (perhaps more properly seen as depression at the state of the world and the imperfection of human nature). It can be hard to fit in when one wants to talk about serious matters and everyone else is chattering about gossip, celebs and scandal. And I do remember one study that concluded precisely that an IQ of up to 130 was helpful to a boss, but higher IQ than 130 was progressively more of a handicap. Perhaps the difficulty of communication grows? One thing people always said about Turing was that they had difficulty following what he said or wrote, and that he seemed impatient and unwilling to slow down and spell things out.

    Lastly, I believe that intelligence is a human attribute that we, as a species, have not yet come to terms with or learned to handle. I could cite a dozen famous quotations about how most people fear thought as much as death – if not even more so. Very clever people often (not always) tend to be loners, and that may contribute to a risk of tying themselves in mental and emotional knots. We very much need to work out ways of coping with this greatest and most valuable of gifts, rather than – as too often in the past – managing to turn it into a liability.

    • Agree: niceland
  13. Trevor H. says:
    @Tom Welsh

    Yes. Intelligence is definitely beneficial to a point, beyond which it often becomes a handicap. But that point varies with social and professional environment, among other factors.

    Likely as not, the happiest among the super-intelligent occupy themselves with work which engages their higher skills and talents, and are able to surround themselves socially with others of reasonably similar capacities.

  14. @Tom Welsh

    Turing’s great misunderstanding in life was that he assumed that anyone could be convinced by rational arguments
    He also did not understand that one’s position on the social ladder has little to do with being clever, but depends mainly on social behaviour.
    His great success in WWII, despite these handicaps, was caused by the fact that at the time he was the only one in the world capable of decrypting German messages.
    Jones, of GB scientific counter espionage, had similar experiences, but he survived.
    If Turing was murdered, or driven to suicide, for me the moral difference is nil.

    • Replies: @Bombercommand
    , @Che Guava
  15. @Giuseppe

    ” science is definitely not a dispassionately empirical discipline “

    the other way round:
    a dispassionately empirical discipline is definitely science

    • Replies: @Giuseppe
  16. I am glad Lance Welton has raised this case. It is another example of how the tide of Cultural Marxism from the US is now washing up on the shoreline of British academia (along with other linked phenomena such as the Israeli inspired and financed suppression of BDS and pro-Palestine speakers)

    As an Oxbridge historian, it was devastating to me to see volume after volume of anti-Putin hysteria masquerading as academic political treatises on the shelves of Basil Blackwell last year. The whole of academia is under threat from conformism and SJW activism in a way that it has not been for at least 150 years. I see no end to it.

    In retrospect the activities of Richard Evans of Cambridge University in denigrating the work of David Irving may be seen as a watershed moment in the politicization of academia. Not thatvof course it did his career any harm.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  17. @jilles dykstra

    As a follow up, we have recently had a group of 200 BAME bigwigs writing to the Governor of the Bank of England asking that a black scientist should be included on the back of the new 50 pound note. The only problem is that there are bo famous black British scientists. However to this group Mary Seacole a Caribbean born nurse in the Crimean War is a good candidate.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  18. Miro23 says:
    @Tom Welsh

    “The best is the enemy of the good”. Extremely clever and creative people have often had a very hard time, due to the less intelligent resenting their superior gifts (and often failing to understand what they are talking about).

    There is this aspect, but there’s probably a lot more to it.

    For example, having recently read Colonel David Hackworth’s “About Face: The Odyssey of an American Warrior”, a few things stand out.

    He was no academic, and went through Korea and Vietnam (taking a long time before becoming an officer), developing high skills at platoon level , involving tactics, organization, physical fitness, personal bravery and group motivation/loyalty. When he rose through the ranks (eventually arriving in the Pentagon) he mostly found bureaucratic battles for self advancement, and little interest in the problems of troops on the ground.

    The intelligent crowd of Pentagon Generals and Colonels were experts in office politics, self interested friends of the MIC, and a fine collection of two faced liars – aiming at advancing their careers (including sacrificing fighting troops when necessary).

    Hackworth had superior gifts as a fighting soldier (that didn’t help him at the Pentagon) but crucially, he also had had the years of experience that allowed him to appreciate problems that they weren’t aware of. He comes across as of average to good intelligence, but no IQ genius.

    BTW A more usual interpretation of “The best is the enemy of the good” is to not waste time striving for perfection. e.g Economist George Stigler saying “If you never miss a plane, you’re spending too much time at the airport.”

  19. Giuseppe says:
    @jilles dykstra

    That is the ideal. The reality is quite different, otherwise we wouldn’t be reading this article about the abandonment of dispassionate empiricism, would we.

  20. anon[206] • Disclaimer says:

    so much trash

    ” research flawed because it draws upon concepts deemed unacceptable to those who have the power to deem ” Control and power, are they not the mark of Jewish Teachings?

    Martin Luther 1492 those who control high the truth in non relevant language..

    The past President of Iran says “let all voices be heard” .. but Cambridge, a closed shop.. supports narrowness of mind as a mark of its educated ..

    No wonder the Cambridge educated want to stay in the EU.. A venture outside of the box could expose education to the harsh truth of reality.. I have always said : Education is a bureaucracy, learning is a biological activity and experience is the only teacher.

    I think differentiation by IQs will always produce a zero, because Artificial Intelligence is soon t/b a plug-in to equate the minds of everyone to the minds of everyone else.. Science has resolved intelligence to a constant.

  21. @Malaysian Truther

    The first universities were connected with the church, theology.
    Thus, in my opinion, church propaganda organisations.

    Western science is seen to having begun again, after some 1600 years of absence of science, with Galileo.
    Maybe we should consider the matter otherwise, how was it possible that for a few hundred years an abstract concept as truth was seen as the essence of science ?

    Very few people understand how fundamental scientific research was the basis of becoming prosperous.
    It is a miracle how huge sums have been, and still are, invested in CERN Geneva, without any concrete prospect of ever benefitting humanity.
    I trust that it will, but this trust is just based on that much fundamental research yielded results, results not foreseen by anyone.

    About Irving, having never been at university, as Martin Middlebrook, yet being one of the best WWII historians, can it have caused some envy with ‘real’ historians ?
    My copy of Hitler’s War is second hand, I did not read well the description of the book, when I ordered it.
    It comes from a British countryside library, has literally been read to pieces.

    Middlebrook’s book ‘The first day on the Somme’, title from memory, must have deeply offended British military
    Robin Neillands, ‘The Great War Generals on the Western Front 1914-1918’, 1999, 2004, London
    an academic effort to rehabilitate these foolish mass murderers

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  22. utu says:
    @Tom Welsh

    Alan Turing’s brilliance and then his role in deciphering of Enigma is exaggerated.

    • Replies: @sarz
    , @Seminumerical
  23. @jilles dykstra

    Incorrect that Turing “was the only one in the world capable of decrypting German messages”. The mythos of Blechtley Park and Alan Turing is a combination of typically dishonest British war history and the contemporary gay parade. It was the Polish Cypher Bureau that initially cracked Enigma beginning in December 1932. The Polish Cypher Bureau continued to refine their technique until in 1938 they constructed the “Bomba” decryption machine. The Government of Poland kept its research secret until the deteriorating political situation caused them to share their knowledge, including examples of the Bomba, with France and England on July 25, 1939. Blechtley Park was founded shortly after using the accumulated Polish knowledge, the British “Bombe” machine simply a copy of the Polish. Without The Polish Cypher Bureau there would be no “Ultra” or Bletchley Park. Marian Rejewski, Henryk Zygalski, and Jerzy Rozycki are prominent names in the successful Polish program to break Enigma.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  24. Che Guava says:
    @jilles dykstra


    Whilst I would certainly agree that Turing was both brilliant and later grossly mistreated, the British *did* have more than a slight advantage in having had an Enigma machine delivered to them, at great risk, by Poles.

    Seeing the mechanism, it was not difficult to crack. I had an Enigma emulator to run on a Gameboy, am sure that PC emulators are readily available. If you are curious and have not, I recommend downloading one and to look at how it worked.

    It was the ancestor of modern ciphers (not codes) like RSA, SHA, etc.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  25. Che Guava says:
    @Malaysian Truther

    Why not Florence Nightingale? OIC …

  26. wayfarer says:

    An interesting fact regarding this POTUS.

    John G. Trump a professor at MIT was the uncle of Donald Trump. He was a physicist, electrical engineer, inventor, an expert on Van de Graaff generators – and assisted the FBI in assessing Nikola Tesla’s papers, inventions, and high-voltage technologies.


  27. Hail says: • Website
    @Tom Welsh

    an IQ of up to 130 was helpful to a boss, but higher IQ than 130 was progressively more of a handicap.

    Perhaps the difficulty of communication grows

    If the +/-2 standard deviation communication rule is true, someone at IQ140 cannot effectively communicate with anyone but IQ110plus’ers, or 25% of the general population (given a standard assumed IQ100 mean, 15 standard deviation).

    The talented, mid-high IQ110-120 set with whom the IQ140’er can reasonably communicate is important but it is more crucial to communicate with larger, mid-IQ set. It is a question of numbers; something like IQ95 to IQ110 (38% of us) ‘man the trenches’ of most important socially important roles in society, the people one must successfully deal with along the way towards any success.

  28. Anon[277] • Disclaimer says:

    While commenters, and to an extent the author, are taking the opportunity for the usual snark about “relatively low-IQ non-STEM” folks, they seem to miss the larger issue: complaining about the lack of ETHICS among academics seems to involve Philosophy, does it not? A room full of high-IQ STEM chaps is putty in the hands of the evil X Studies major. (Compare, super smart Asians, being conformists, quickly figure out espousing PC is the way to the top) Bad ethics, bad science (ask James Watson).

    • Agree: Hail
  29. Anon[224] • Disclaimer says:

    You certainly have a point re. cretins in fine arts, and ‘liberal studies’ aka ‘humanities’.

    I was and am on the higher end, sure, there.

    Fuck MENSA, and the idiot who had it set as his byline.

    The truth is, if you have a bad experience that makes you fail a few courses in one semester, (in my case, an attack by mud-slimes), you suddenly are slipping from first-class honours to barely passing, after having repeated the course.

    Then, some recovery, and a good ending, but too late. STEM employers do not like a gap in the twenties, I was doing other things for some years, but still have high scores.

    None of the humanities people I knew back then were intelligent at all, one who is now a ‘professor’, IQ must be well under 100, faked it by claiming to be dyslexic. Dyslexic, my arse. He is simply stupid, but has cultivated a fruity uppes-class accent.

    If you escape to the lands that they rule, they will, as far as possible, tear you down, because they know that they are essentially morons, and the only way to protect themselves is to persecute higher IQ in terms of employment.

    If they have a bureaucrtic control position, they will set it up for discrimination against intellegence.

    I am somewhat fortuna, finding a niche, but is no thanks to the western bullshit artists

    • Replies: @anon
  30. sarz says:

    Alan Turing’s brilliance and then his role in deciphering of Enigma is exaggerated.

    Rubbish. Just one of his contributions, the idea of the ‘Turing machine’, assures his intellectual immortality.

    • Agree: jim jones
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @utu
  31. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    How can such intelligent people behave like this?

    What possible grounds are there for calling these people “intelligent”? Some of them may be intelligent, but if so, they are intellectually dishonest bastards who should be booted from academia for spewing poisonous propaganda.

    But academia in the Western world is now crapademia, so its game over for the West. The young are being indoctrinated with garbage made up by pseudoscholars who are either revolutionaries or idiots or in most cases both. The only hope for those seeking a real education is home schooling, i.e., reading a bunch of books, old books that is, books that record the wisdom of the West.

  32. TheOldOne says:

    Free speech is associated with liberalism, so it’s rather curious that people who want to ditch liberalism (including me) want to keep free speech; just sayin.

  33. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Rubbish. Just one of his contributions, the idea of the ‘Turing machine’, assures his intellectual immortality.

    You have to take account of Utu’s scale of values. He regards Newton as a fraud and Einstein a plagiarist, so on that scale, aside perhaps from Utu himself, it’s hard to find a real genius.

    Turing’s machine is interesting not only as a design for a computing engine but, as mechanical demonstration of Goedel’s incompleteness theorem, for which purpose it was conceived.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    , @utu
  34. @jilles dykstra

    My late brother had a MENSA level IQ. His problem was a character flaw – he thought he was smarter than everyone else. Although he probably was, his assumption was that others couldn’t see through his bullshit, which they could. Many of his “friends” despite having a lower IQ, wint on to be very successful, and most commented on how stupid they thought he was.
    In short, you are correct. A high IQ is only a sign of the ability to process information, often in a narrow field. How the individual uses that ability is in his character. Isn’t that why most psychopaths are highly intelligent?

    • Replies: @eah
    , @CanSpeccy
  35. @jilles dykstra

    If I recall correctly, Irving was/is trashed by academia because of his penchant for finding and using original source material rather than quoting academic studies/authors.
    In the world of academia, not giving credence to one of their own is akin to a crucifix and garlic bulb held up to Dracula.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  36. @Che Guava

    The Enigma machine was nothing special, it was sold commercially, forgot the name of the firm.
    What the Poles did was the conceiving the beginning of decrypting, alas, why, I do not understand, after WWII all machinery of Bletchly park was destroyed.
    As far as I know nobody knows exactly how the decryption functioned, to this day.
    The only reason for the destruction I’ve been able tot think of is that the British did not want to lose the monopoly on decrypting.
    Darker possibilities I can imagine, but then pure speculation.
    These possibilties may have lead to the death of Turing.
    He had no idea what he knew, meaning ‘he could have changed history’, just like the suicided Spandau man.

    • Replies: @Wally
  37. @Bombercommand

    The Polish machine was no more than the first stage of decryption.
    What Turing added was the first programmable computer.

    • Replies: @Bombercommand
  38. @utu

    I spent one summer in the early 80s haunting the university library, looking up amongst other things, all of Turing’s papers on computing. The entire Bletchley thing is irrelevant to his brilliant work.

    I was surprised to find there was another Alan Turning who published papers on Chemistry.

    I was even more surprised to find that the two Alan Turings were actually one person.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @jilles dykstra
  39. @Curmudgeon

    He won the trust of Milch, Luftwaffe commander, condemned at Neurenberg to a prison sentence, he was freed in 1953, or so.
    Milch had suitcases full of documents, stored at a bank, that he showed Irving.
    David Irving, ‘The rise and fall of the Luftwaffe’, Londen, 1973, 1976 (Die Tragödie der Deutschen Luftwaffe, Aus den Akten und Erinnerungen von Feldmarschall Erhard Milch, 1970, 1975, Frankfurt/M)
    It was his first book, if I remember correctly.
    One more thing, Irving was fluent in German, after WWII he went to Germany to work as a factory worker, but in fact to learn the language.
    Middlebrook had to do his interviews with Germans through an interpreter.

  40. eah says:

    My late brother

    Thanks for the anecdotal example, sample size 1, completely unverified — which is akin to saying eg you know someone who’s smoked 2 packs/day for 40 years and has yet to be diagnosed with lung cancer — so disregard the significant statistical association of smoking with cancer (not just lung cancer), and smoke away.

    It’s a fact that, statistically, high(er) IQ is strongly correlated with positive life outcomes, including most prominently: academic success; professional/job success; and good health, including a longer than average lifespan.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Curmudgeon
    , @eah
  41. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    I was surprised to find there was another Alan Turning who published papers on Chemistry.

    There was another Alan Turing who published papers in biology. He proposed the mechanism (later confirmed) whereby a tiger gets his stripes and a leopard his spots.

    • Replies: @Seminumerical
  42. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    A high IQ is only a sign of the ability to process information, often in a narrow field.

    A high IQ demonstrates an exceptional ability to do IQ tests and perform IQ-test-like tasks in the real world. IQ test scores are not, however, indicative of wit, judgement, charisma, imagination, artistic, musical or athletic talent. A high IQ is not even indicative of a measure of common sense.

    IQism illustrates the lamppost fallacy. It is based on the premise that whatever an IQ test does not measure is not intelligence.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @obwandiyag
  43. @Seminumerical

    ” The entire Bletchley thing ”
    You have no idea how important the Bletchley thing was in WWII, militarily, convoy protection, but also politically, Churchill more or less blackmailing FDR with his knowledge.
    After Germans had changed codes decryption often was not possible, sometimes for weeks.
    Churchill then became very angry

    • Replies: @Seminumerical
  44. Anon[117] • Disclaimer says:

    IQ test scores are not, however, indicative of wit,

    I’ve known a lot of “witty” ghetto niggers. “Wit” is both relative (to IQ and social group) and over-rated as a human trait. In addition, higher IQ wit will be better than low IQ wit. To test, take your middling IQ and try to find a legitimately witty person with an IQ of between 70 and 85 or so. Good luck.


    Judgement precisely follows from IQ when there are unknown variables that need to be modeled for the decision to occur. You know, situations for which the word “judgement” is actually appropriate in contrast with situations where a lower IQ person is recalling learned behavioral cues from memory in response only to revealed variables.


    That’s wrong. Low IQ people are not charismatic to higher IQ people. In fact, most people can only successfully relate to others within a specific IQ range from their own. Charisma being a social measurement, this limited range would especially apply to it.

    If you want to speak in absolute terms, there are always popular individuals in mentally retarded groups. Within these groups, these individuals are considered to be charismatic. And apparently to you as well, which no other normally functioning person will understand. A parallel phenomenon exists within all social groups.


    Not measurable, but also wrong.


    Subjective, but also wrong within any expressive constraint (ie: the IQ range for Jazz, classical painting, etc).


    See above

    or athletic talent.

    Apes also have large muscles and are very athletic, and who cares?

    A high IQ is not even indicative of a measure of common sense.

    With your colloquial “common sense” term that is all but meaningless in reality, you are likely referring to the prior mentioned learned behavioral responses. Even low IQ animals can learn and recall from memory their experiences. This attempted “common sense” sleight toward higher IQ individuals mostly refers to when lower IQ individuals observe those higher IQ individuals learning in an environment in which the lower IQ individual has experience (ie: “da hood”) but the higher IQ individual does not. Conversely, the lower IQ person would make many “common sense” mistakes in the environment of a wealthier high IQ person.

    Given equal experience, the “common sense” lower IQ individual will become the “no common sense” higher IQ individual’s bitch (employee, debtor, etc) over time in “da hood”. As we can observe throughout the world.

    Look, the IQ discussion is over. You lost. The information was not successfully suppressed and the toothpaste is not going back into the tube. Hunker down and prep for the future.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  45. A Jew and a Hindoo… trying to screw the white man!

  46. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    I’ve known a lot of “witty” ghetto niggers. “Wit” is both relative (to IQ and social group) and over-rated as a human trait. In addition, higher IQ wit will be better than low IQ wit. To test, take your middling IQ and try to find a legitimately witty person with an IQ of between 70 and 85 or so. Good luck.

    Spoken like a true IQist: racist, evidence-free, not interesting, not even wrong.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  47. Che Guava says:

    Jilles, you are very knowledgable but not correct on this point.

    There was no programmable computer anywhere except in Germany (the Zuse machines) until a little after that war, when both the Brits and Yanks developed machines that could be said to be, at first to a very small degree, programmable.

    Sure, there were analogue computers (or computors, as the spelling for the machines was at the time, computers were the people working out log tables and similar) for artillery, etc., and very impressive they were.

    Turing’s important early work on computation was theoretical mathematics and hypotheses.

  48. @jilles dykstra

    I am well aware of the importance of the work at Bletchley. But Turing was justly famous before the project was declassified in the 70s. His name would live on if it had never been declassified or if he had never been involved in that massive and important project.

    Various leftists have built Turing up into this massive thing: “chemically castrated” homosexual war hero who committed suicide. I think Doug Hoftstader helped build up this caricature. Also silly plays by those self obsessed with faggotry, and a false portrayal of him in a movie.

    Turing’s enduring legacy is his work in theoretical computer science. I knew who he was before I ever knew he was homosexual, or before I heard of Bletchley, where he was just one of many brilliant men.

    And he died by accidentally poisoning himself with with cyanide trying to electroplate plastic.

  49. @CanSpeccy

    Your “biologist” Alan Turing triggered a memory more than 30 years old. I remember reading about that Turing also.

    And … all three Turings are the one man.

    Turing’s proof that a program can’t always determine if another program will halt (not run on-and-on computing forever) was concise and elegant.

    While I am at it, Turing’s papers on computing are quite readable. Textbooks on the subject can be maddeningly dry. But he was not trying to impress. He was trying to explain, to persuade.

  50. Che Guava says:


    You may be interested in looking further into Einstein as a plagiarist. There is no proof, but there is much prior work to demonstrate the likelihood, and circumstancial evidence.

    Last week. I briefly enjoyed (about two mins) talking with a couple of friends about his famous visit to Japan, that it was really part of a world tour, and that he was the show pony of Theodore Herzl, whose world tour it really was.

    … but nobody much has heard of Herzl.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @CanSpeccy
  51. utu says:

    Alonzo Church did it before Turing.

    A Turing machine that is able to simulate any other Turing machine is called a universal Turing machine (UTM, or simply a universal machine). A more mathematically oriented definition with a similar “universal” nature was introduced by Alonzo Church, whose work on lambda calculus intertwined with Turing’s in a formal theory of computation known as the Church–Turing thesis. (Wiki)

    The lambda calculus was developed in 1928 – 1929 by Alonzo Church (published in 1932).

    Alan Turing was Alonzo Church’s Ph.D. student at Princeton from 1936 – 1938.

    Turing machines and the lambda calculus are equivalent in computational power: each can efficiently simulate the other.

    Why do people are so naive and infantile that they need heros and geniuses in the narrative of the world while obviously the narrative is always overhyped just like in the case of Turing whom Brits and gays will overhype which is understandable.

  52. utu says:

    Read about Alonzo Church. And in terms of incompleteness theorem the sequence of papers was as follows: Godel, Tarski, Church, Turing. Specifically it was Church who proved Hilbert’s Entscheidungsproblem is unsolvable and later Turing proved the same that ” there is no algorithm to solve the halting problem.” Anyway, Church’s lambda calculus covered it and it was from Church that Turing learned about the issue as he was Church’s Ph.D student in Princeton, while Church learned about the problem form the horse’s mouth as he was in Göttingen when Hilbert posed it.

    Church through a fault of his character of not being a faggot was written out of history. The fact that Alonzo Church was deeply religious Presbyterian did not help either. It is actually remarkable that Godel as not being Jewish or gay was not written from the history as well. Or was it because the next candidate to fame Tarsky (Teitelbaum) was an amphetamine addict.

  53. @jilles dykstra

    Well, Heron of Alexandria (who may have been Greek, but was probably a Hellenized Egyptian) was most of the way there in the first century CE.

    Prior to that, Ctesibius (another Bubble or Bubble-ised Gyppo) did some solid work, as did Vitruvius (phew – we got to an unambiguously white guy).

    Are Gyppos white? Are Bubbles white?

    (‘Bubble’ = “Bubble & Squeak” = Greek; ‘Gyppo’ = Egyptian; ‘Bubble-ised’ = Hellenised)
    But for the rise of Christianity (administered almost exclusively by white guys) and the resultant suppression of any knowledge that wasn’t in their stupid book of nonsense, it’s highly likely that humanity would have entered the Age of Steam before the 5th century.
    As to the idea that Maori ‘exterminated’ each other: there was a certain amount of unpleasantness, to be sure – but given what Whites were doing to each other a century later, it might pay to dial back the pearl-clutching about the nasty brown people… it strikes the reader as a bit of “pot calling the kettle black” (badup… tssssh).

    A few bare-assed tattooed brown men clubbing each other to death hand-to-hand, is also qualitatively different to, say, the fire-bombing of Dresden or the battle of Verdun.

    Pretending that collective violence is evidence of primitivism is as stupid as decrying the spread of Islam by conquest in the 7th century… in light of the ‘Christian on Christian’ (and ‘white on white’) action of the Siege of Beziers that happened in the 13th, or the chaos between groups of religiously-opinionated whites during the reign of Henry VIII in the 16th.

  54. @utu

    Another strike against Tarski was his conversion to Catholicism (however calculated it may have been) and subsequent refusal to be part of the Jewish pack, either in Poland or later at Berkeley.

    • Agree: utu
  55. utu says:
    @Che Guava

    While in Japan Einstein carelessly introduced a crack into his story by mentioning that Michelson experiment played a role in the formulation of 1905 Relativity Theory which he always denied in the past. The denial of knowledge of Michelson was very important because it was Lorentz who for many years worked on consequences of Michelson experiment and eventually derived the Lorentz transforms (named as such by Poincare) while Einstein derived Lorentz transforms from the postulate of constancy of the speed of light and always claimed he was not aware of Poincare and Lorentz work. The postulate of constancy of the speed of light is imbedded in Lorentz transforms and Lorentz got his transforms from the postulate of relativity that Poincare formulated in 1900 that Maxwell equation must be invariant between inertial frames. Galileo transforms did not preserve the invariance of Maxwell, so Lorentz derived transforms that did preserve Maxwell. Einstein to cover his tracks threw a red herring by introducing the postulate of constancy of speed of light so he could claim he never heard of Lorentz and Poincare and by extension of Michelson. This postulate makes the Theory of Relativity clunky and not in accordance with spirit of physics where one does not postulate facts that could be empirically verified. The Special Theory of Relativity is nothing else then stating that the Lorentz Transform are applicable and must be obeyed. Everything else is implicated mathematically from it.

    That Einstein was supporting Zionism and that Zionist were using him is not an issue here. He was a Jew and had a right to be strong on Zionism. However it is possible that he realized, after all he was clever and savvy, that he owed his fame to media after the WWI which by then were pretty much in line with the Zionist cause. Particularly in case of The Times after the premature and strange death of Viscount Northcliffe. Einstein knew he was cast as a Jewish icon and played this role. There was a big pressure to give him a Nobel Prize which he got in 1921 but not for the Theory of Relativity but for the photoelectric effect. Too many physicists then knew about the priority of Poincare and Lorentz but they kept quiet however the Nobel committed was let known. Einstein however had chutzpa to devote his Nobel lecture to the Theory of Relativity. There is no word about the photoelectric effect in it.

    Do not think that Einstein was some fuddy-duddy absent minded Herr Professor who was not street smart. This is just an image that was purposefully cultivated. He was unscrupulous and viscious when it came to claiming his credit and denying the credits to all those many good mathematicians who helped him along the way. Then came the historians and biographers (pretty much all Jewish) who did the cleansing of archives and large foundation purchasing all notes and letters to solidify the impeccable image of the Jewish Saint Albert.

    It is possible that Einstein had some character flaw because totally unnecessarily alredy after his Nobel prize and when he was more famous than any other physicist before him in 1927 he plagiarized 1926 paper of Oscar Klein that lead to the Kaluza-Klein theory. But he was caught and the editor of the journal forced Einstein to write a statement that everything he showed was done year earlier by Klein. That’s why we have the Kaluza-Klein theory and not Kaluza-Klein-Einstein or Einstein only theory. Furthermore there is a proof that Einstein had a copy of Klein paper because he praised it in a letter to Ehrenfest. What does it tell you about him? Why? Was he some kind of psychopath? Kleptomaniac? Sense of impunity? Entitlement? One journal dared to review his paper and had it rejected. Einstein was furious. Wrote a furious letter that “you do not review my papers” and he never tried to publish in the same journal again.

  56. @jilles dykstra

    Wrong again j.d., Turing did not design ” the first programmable computer”, that would be Colossus by Tommy Flowers and the staff of the Post Office Research Station(and it was not programmable in the contemporary sense). Although you are attempting to belittle the “Polish machine”, called the “Bomba”, it was used by the British to develop their “Bombe” which did the same task, determine Enigma rotor positions. Turing was very important for design of the “plugboard” and use of “cribs”, but Welchman’s “diagonal board” was equally important. In practice, “Turing’s Bombe” was little used, it was the US Navy’s Bombe for four rotor Enigma and the US Army’s Bombe, that discarded Turing’s “drums” for telephonic relays, for three rotor Enigma, that did all the work. And to return to the achievements of the Poles, without whom no one would have had anything, the Poles created and built an “Enigma double”(more complex military type) and delivered same to the British and French.

    • Replies: @utu
  57. lysias says:

    I have read Graeber’s book on the history of debt and been impressed by it. I have several degrees in the study of classical antiquity, including a B.A. with First Class Honours from Oxford and a Harvard Ph.D. So I think my opinion of Graeber’s book on the history of debt counts for something. But what he says is controversial, and I wish he were willing to allow others to say what he does not like. Plenty of things that used to be regarded as pseudoscience are now considered true.

    This Cambridge does not sound like the Oxford I studied at 1972-4.

  58. schrub says:

    We have a similar problem right here in in the USA which could end up being far more serious.

    Tucker Carlson of Fox TV is presently losing many of his advertisers because of attacks and threats by people with same mentality.

    The biggest company which caved into this pressure and stopped their advertising on Carlson’s program is the Toronto and Dominion Company which owns the TD Bank and the TD Ameritrade Brokerage Company.

    Contact them and voice your displeasure.

  59. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Che Guava

    You may be interested in looking further into Einstein as a plagiarist.

    Of course Einstein exploited the ideas of others. That’s what every scientist does. Hence Newton’s comment “if I have seen further than others it is because I stood upon the shoulders of giants.”

    The thing is, Einstein put so many things together before anyone else got around to it, which indicates genius of a high order.

    • Replies: @anon
  60. @utu

    How was Church written out of history?

    In the 1970s my Westmount High School library had numerous books that referred to him. I knew his name before Gödel or Turing.

    • Replies: @utu
  61. CanSpeccy says:

    Hi, Utu,

    Interesting what you say, although the reading you suggest is probably well over my head. My comment about Turing was based on what I recall my son, a pretty fair mathematician, told me. But I’ll mention the connection you indicate between Goedel and Turing.

    Perhaps Goedel’s prominence owes something to Einstein. Einstein, who apparently walked each day to the Institute for Advanced Studies in Goedel’s company, acknowledged Goedel’s help with his math. After such an endorsement, it would be hard to write the fellow altogether out of history.

    Happy Christmas.

    • Replies: @utu
  62. CanSpeccy says:

    Re: the origins of special relativity

    Interesting. I had an idea that there was a connection between Michelson Morley and the theory of the constant velocity of light, but being no physicist, I have never clearly thought it through.

    Certainly Einstein provides evidence of the absence of a strong connection between IQ and judgement (if it is accepted, as I suppose it is by most people, that Einstein must have had an at least moderately high IQ). This is evident not only from his rather vacuous philosophizing, but in the pointed remark of George Kennan, America’s leading post-war geostrategist and a scholar with Einstein at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Research:

    “I did not know his subject and knew it. He (Einstein) did not know my subject and did not know it.”

    • Replies: @utu
    , @utu
  63. utu says:

    Obviously mathematicians know but for those who are exposed to the Turing meme constructed by the popular culture they end up believing that there was no other mathematicians expect Turing.

  64. utu says:

    I was kind of joking. Goedel was the first. The other three came later. Turing was the last so he is the most derivative from Goedel. I doubt that Goedel’s popularity owes anything to Einstein.

    And when it comes to Goedel incompleteness theorem I have a mixed feeling. First the proof is done by constructing a sentence, however complex which is self referential like Russel’s “set of all sets” antinomy, which allows to obtain the proof a contrario. There is a school of thought (Brouwer) among mathematicians to which I am partial to that a contrario proofs are not really the same as the constructive proofs. So it feels like a hand waving because Goedel result is unable to point to and identify the statements that are not decidable in the incomplete system

    I need to look up Hilbert and find out what was his reaction to Goedel result. Was he disappointed that such relatively trivial proof undermined his program? Goedel is all overhyped, IM(nH)O. When Russel came with really simple and trivial counterargument to Frege’s theory (btw, Frege remains the greatest logician) Frege just accepted it as a matter of fact and proceeded with his work

    • Replies: @utu
  65. utu says:

    I found this in internet that is close to my own misgivings about Godel incompleteness theorem.
    Best of all was the debunking. I have long felt that Godel’s theorem is overhyped, and it was wonderful to read Franzen’s takedowns of a number of half-baked arguments (Penrose and Chaitin in particular). In my opinion, Godel’s theorems bear a strong resemblance to Anselm’s ontological proof of the existence of God. In both cases, a slick piece of a priori logic seems to have huge implications in the real world. I don’t trust such arguments. To me they smack of scholasticism. It’s as though people were to invest the Liar’s Paradox (“this sentence is false”) with some deep significance, and spend decades arguing about its applications to the real world. The blunt truth is that the Liar’s Paradox (and Godel’s theorems, which closely resemble it) have no applications in the real world. My theory: we will learn about consciousness and the brain the hard way, by actually studying it empirically, not by divining its secrets with fascinating, but ultimately trivial, bits of logic.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  66. Wally says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra

    “The steam engine is a relatively simple machine, did any other group of people invent it?”

    Per your mention of steam engines, it’s interesting that at Nuremberg a detailed forensic ‘report’ on the claimed mass extermination of Jews in steam chambers was presented by the communists and accepted without challenge as fact.

    Clearly ‘academia’ has regressed to Nuremberg levels of science and ‘proof’.

  67. Wally says:
    @jilles dykstra

    “I knew some very high IQ people, did not find them very intelligent.”

    How would you know if they were intelligent or not?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  68. Wally says:

    “It’s a fact that, statistically, high(er) IQ is strongly correlated with positive life outcomes, including most prominently: academic success; professional/job success; and good health, including a longer than average lifespan.”

    Well stated and obvious fact.

  69. Wally says: • Website

    IOW, your IQ is not very high and you have a major resentment going.

  70. Wally says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Per your mention of Bletchley Park, note that not a single British Bletchley Park intercept of secret German messages to and from Auschwitz and the other so called ‘death camps’ ever mention gas chambers, killing Jews, or anything holocaust-like.

    There are many which do mention transporting large numbers of Jews out of these labor camps.

    Also note that the outbound train records from the camps which were kept have disappeared while the inbound records have not; to no surprise.
    Concentration Camp Vital Statistics:

  71. anon[199] • Disclaimer says:

    London Conference on Intelligence papers
    See the main article on this topic: London Conference on Intelligence

    Does intelligence explain the over representation of liberals and leftists in American academia?

    Speaker: Noah Carl

    uh oh, he’s onto them

  72. utu says:

    I like the quote.

    Let me add two more bits to my previous post.

    (1) Plagiarism in 1905 paper, yes or no? We have no definitive proof. But circumstantial evidence is very strong that I think a jury of unbiased physicists would find him guilty beyond the reasonable doubt. The problem is one won’t find such a jury. Anyway I have spent considerable amount of time reading all relevant papers of Lorentz and Poincare and I a pretty convinced that Eisntein lifted everything fro Poincare and Lorentz and then covered his tracks. There is also a case of Voigt who almost derived Lorentz transforms before Lorentz and he used exactly the same notation later used by Einstein.

    (2) Cleansing of the archives. As you know there was a controversy also concerning the General Theory of Relativity in which Einstein was helped by several mathematicians but still could not get the final equation right so he turned to Hilbert for advice. There was an exchange of correspondence and the card (yes they were using post cards because stamps were cheaper) that Hilbert sent with the solution is missing. Then in 1990s there was a printer copy of Hilbert paper found that could be decisive in determining whether Hilbert had priority or not. A team of physicist/historians got hold of it and wrote a paper which got great media coverage (NYT…) that they finally determined that after all Einstein was first. It seems that the authors got full backing of Max Planck Institute. But there were some Germans who did not go along with it. Apparently some Germans (physicists and historians of physics) still have balls. Actually one of them was a woman. They began to look closer and found that the printer copy has a cut out with a missing crucial equation. Somebody cut out with razor the equation that Hilbert wrote. One German physicist/historian of very good reputation wrote a book in German (still not translated into English) refuting the previous findings. Also one physicist from Zurich wrote a paper that gave a very convincing scenario how and when the printer copy was altered.

    We are dealing here with a mafia of cult believers who are determine to do whatever it takes to maintain the narrative of impeccable, all knowing Einstein, the Jewish Saint Albert.

  73. @eah

    Well here’s another one for you, all anecdotal, of course. I spent 33 years working in Labor Relations in the health care field. I dealt with hundreds of MDs and PhDs. Outside of their chosen field, most of them didn’t know shit from shinola, and that was particularly the case with the PhDs. Virtually all of them had egos so big that they couldn’t find a hat to wear. When they fucked up, it was always someone else’s fault, and refused to acknowledge they played any part in the fuck up, just like my brother
    All anecdotal of course.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  74. anon[199] • Disclaimer says:

    Fuck MENSA, and the idiot who had it set as his byline.

    MENSA qualified since 1972, lol

  75. anon[199] • Disclaimer says:

    Of course Einstein exploited the ideas of others. That’s what every scientist does. Hence Newton’s comment “if I have seen further than others it is because I stood upon the shoulders of giants.”

    kudos to Newton

    did Einstein say anything like that?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  76. anon[199] • Disclaimer says:

    It is possible that Einstein had some character flaw because totally unnecessarily alredy after his Nobel prize and when he was more famous than any other physicist before him in 1927 he plagiarized 1926 paper of Oscar Klein that lead to the Kaluza-Klein theory. But he was caught and the editor of the journal forced Einstein to write a statement that everything he showed was done year earlier by Klein.

    how common was this plagiarism in science back then?

    was it a big scandal or went relatively unnoticed?

    • Replies: @utu
  77. @CanSpeccy

    Nice. I remember an IQ test question: Bill can send a memo to Nancy, but not to Sally. Sally can send a memo to Charlie but not to Fred. Fred can send a memo to Nancy but not to Ephraim . . . and so on and so on. Then you were supposed to figure out how to get a memo from one of them to another of them. I said, why, walk across the room and give it to her.

    IQ is the remarkable ability to think boring things are interesting and unimportant things are important.

    • LOL: CanSpeccy
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  78. @Curmudgeon

    I know a PhD and department head who just contradicts everything you say. Kind of like going to the “Arguments” room in Monty Python. If you say up, he says down. If you say in, he says out. Once I got him. When I said “sky god,” he said, “earth god.” And I said, “No, the opposite of sky god is not earth god, stupid. It’s no god.” Shut him right up.

  79. As usual, you guys attack the wrong villains. The villains are not the students, or any of the actual agitators for speech suppression. The villains are the people paying for the brainwashing that makes them that way.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  80. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    did Einstein say anything like that?

    When asked during a visit to Cambridge University if he stood upon the shoulders of Newton, he is reported to have replied, no, I stand upon the shoulders of Clerk Maxwell. But from what Utu relates, he should have added a bunch of other names too.

  81. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Thank you for your kind words. They are much appreciated as I was feeling a bit down after Wally declared for all the world to know, just how low my IQ really is — a revelation that was news to me as I have not before been informed as to what my IQ actually is.

    But in view of your encouragement I feel that, despite a low IQ, my contribution here may not be entirely worthless. Indeed it may prove my point that IQ bears no clear relationship with wit, judgement, charisma, imagination, or artistic, musical or kinaesthetic ability.

    Not, of course, that I claim great ability in all or even most of those realms. But still, maybe I judge some things as well or even better than Wally, and I did once run against David Hemery who won gold in the the 400 metres hurdles at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics. True, he beat me, but still, I was right there behind him, which showed very good coordination, a CNS attribute that in some circumstances can be a good deal more important than being able to solve the National Post’s evil sudoku.

  82. CanSpeccy says:

    The villains are the people paying for the brainwashing that makes them that way.

    Yes. How the education establishment has become so corrupt is hard to understand, but as the Chinese are said to say, the fish rots from the head down.

    In the past, in Britain, the universities were kept straight in large part by the appointment of very distinguished people to the position of Chancellor. The Chancellor’s role was, I believe, largely titular. However, when you are the President of the Royal Society, say, and a Nobel Prize or Fields Medal winner, as in the case of the Chancellor of the small English University that I attended at the time I was graduated there, you don’t need much formal authority to exercise discipline if you believe the administration is going off the rails.

    But that tradition in Britain has been abandoned, with a bunch of political scum appointed to university chancellorships by Tony Blair and his successors, so that now my old school is headed by a former community college lecturer turned politician who served as one of Tony Blair’s sidekicks. No wonder we see a transition from academia to crapademia.

    UK (former) Ambassador Craig Murray wrote informatively of this corruption of the British Universities at the time he resigned as Rector (i.e., elected by students) of the University of Dundee.

    Here in Canada, the universities have always been run on the Blair model, and probably as in the states, have the prime function, in the view of the business-friendly board of governors, of generating contracts for the construction industry, the cost of which are then placed on the backs of students in the form of ever increasing loan-funded fees.

  83. utu says:

    Let me add two more points.

    (1) Why French physicists were so passive and did not stand up behind Henri Poincare? It is possible that it had something to do with the Dreyfus affair which totally polarized the French society audits intelligentsia in particular. Now it gets complicated. Henri Poincare had famous cousin Raymond Poincare who at the time of Dreyfus affair was a minster in the government (finances and education) who later became a president of the Republic. Supposedly he had doubts about the guilt of Dreyfus but did not speak out about it despite of being urged by many letters and appeals, so many believed that he was a part of the nationalist, traditionalists, Catholic, anti-Semitic anti-Dreyfus camp. OTOH Henri Poincare himself helped Dreyfus when he wrote an expert opinion on probability that helped to undermine other expert evidence implicating Dreyfus. This action of Henri Poincare helped Dreyfus on appeal. But Henri Poincare was not know for political activism and he did not sign afaik any letters on behalf of Dreyfus as many other scientists did. Basically he was not virtue signaling.

    Here comes Paul Langevin most known for the affair with Marie Curie and for his great support for Einstein. He is responsible for popularization of the Twin Paradox and defense, sometimes incorrectly, to all objections raised against the Paradox. He marched for peace with Einstein in Berlin in 1923. He was big ‘progressive’ and early supporter and activist on the behalf of Dreyfus. He sign letters and so on. His work overlapped with the theory of electron of Lorentz and Henri Poincare travelled with him to St. Louis conference in the US. Also he dutifully cited Paul Langevin work in his papers and books. But Langevin did not reciprocate and did nothing, though he was familiar with Poincare work, to promote Poincare’s results.

    (2) Where did the Aryan and Jewish physics meme really come from? I did not research this issue sufficiently because one would have to get to primary sources as the narration that is in the mainstream can’t be really trusted now. Was it really Phillip Lenard and Johannes Stark who started it or did the meme of it existed earlier? Anyway I am considering a possibility that any innuendos floated about Einstein Jewishness that could be construed as anti-Semitic actually worked in Einstein favor. It was like pulling a race card that would stifle and paralyze potential critics of Einstein work. Nobody really wanted to be in the same camp with the anti- Semites, right?

  84. utu says:

    was it a big scandal or went relatively unnoticed?

    I haven’t heard of any repercussion then (1927) but it’s possible that everything was covered up and sanitized since then. One would have to go to primary sources if they do exist like letters and original unedited memoirs. All those sources, everything related to Einstein are owned by various Einstein libraries and archives in the US, Israel and Germany.

    how common was this plagiarism in science back then?

    Nobody really studied it and came with some metrics but I would believe it was rather very rare. People were more civil and more proper then than now, I think. It was gentleman’s profession. The community of physicists was small. They knew each other but there was a competition among them and animosities and it went along the national lines. It is believed that Hilbert was jealous of Poincare who was really prolific and had philosophical depth. Brits against Germans and French against Brits and so on.

    I suspect that the sense of propriety kept people from making any accusation. Slander or libel would be a very serious charge. But more importantly I think people then did not encounter blatant in the face deceptions so they were not accustomed to it and did not know how to handle it. So if somebody had chutzpah to pull it off they would not know how to respond and most likely would rather prefer not to trust their own senses.

    There is this French theory that the 1905 paper was actually written by a group of mathematicians from Gottingen and preempt the French. Einstein was the front man and the fall guy selected by Max Planck who knew Einstein because (1) Einstein did reviews for journal Planck was an editor of and (2) Einstein published his thermodynamics papers there that could be construed as borderline plagiarisms of American physicist Josiah Willard Gibbs work. They did not show much promise. So Einstein would be a perfect front man. Clever, savvy and no scruples. Personally I find this theory too cumbersome.

    However what we know now is that already in 1905 before Einstein and Poincare publications it is claimed that also Minkowski worked on the Relativity Theory. So when Einstein published Minkowski was upset and taken aback and had some doubts because he taught Einstein mathematics in Zurich and did not have high opinion on his abilities. In the first version of Minkowski paper there are references to Poincare but then in the final version they are removed. Supposedly, what is interesting, Minkowski learned about Einstein work from Max Born from Breslau who was applying for assistantship with him and Born in turn learned about “the new prophet” from some lesser known Jewish physicist from Cracow who visited him in Breslau. Very soon after publication Minkowski died of appendicitis. And Poincare died at age 58 in 1912. These two deaths helped to solidify Einstein’s narrative. Lorentz was making some noises but was rather meek. Also Sommerfeld initially but then he changed his position.

    It is claimed that the only reason Einstein did not get novel prize for relativity is because Lorentz was alive. And Einstein would not share it with Lorentz and still then the Special Relativity Theory or relativistic mass were referred to as Einstein-Lorentz or Lorentz-Einstein. But it was a British mathematician Edmund Taylor Whittaker who refused to buy to the official narrative and his book gave credit to Lorentz ad Poincare (1953):

    He describes Einstein’s 1905 paper on the subject as one which “set forth the relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz with some amplifications, and which attracted much attention”, and he credited Einstein only with being the first to publish the correct relativistic formulas for aberration and the Doppler effect.

    His position is considered unorthodox. If it was true that Einstein was not familiar with Lorentz and Poincare as he claimed Whittaker’s position would be accurate. But I believe it is much worse that that.

  85. @utu

    Searching for “Oskar Klein Einstein plagiarism” and the like hasn’t found the story you relate. Could you provide good links please.

    • Replies: @utu
  86. Anonymous[381] • Disclaimer says:

    Haha, good point.

    Jilles dykstra, CanSpeccy and other anti-IQ contributors show no sign of understanding what intelligence means. It’s almost certain that their own IQ scores underperformed expectations so now we’re subjected to desperate anti-IQ mental gymnastics in every related – or unrelated – thread.

    We can all observe consistently “extremely dumb” and consistently “extremely bright” persons in our lives – and every shade in between – but JD and CS absolutely refuse to believe that this can be measured and quantified while being observed. A century of scientific, statistical and empirical proof is swept away by the power of their feels. They’ll keep talking about “wisdom”, “knowledge”, “inspiration” or even “athletic ability” until everyone sane (smart?) decides to ignore them on this particular topic.

    • LOL: CanSpeccy
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  87. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    You won’t find it.

    (1) Find a copy of “Zu Kaluzas Theorie des Zusammenhanges von Gravitation und Elektrizität. Erste Mitteilung” (1927). And you will find the disclaimer that the editor Hr. H. Mandel forced Eisntein to write:

    Hr. H. Mandel macht mich darauf aufmerksam, dass die von mir hier mitgetcilten Ergbnisse nich neu sind. Der ganze Inhalt findet sich in der Arbeit vo O. Klein (Zeitschr. f. Physik 37, 12, 1926, S. 895). Man vergleiche ferner Fochs Arveit (Zeitschr. f. Physisk 39, 226, 1926).

    (2) Then get yourself

    Introduction to Volume 15 of The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. The Berlin Years: Writings and Correspondence June 1925 – May 1927

    where you will find the following:

    “Both Ehrenfest and Lorentz urged Einstein to come to Leyden and join their meetings with Klein. Einstein wrote that he had to finish some things before vacationing with his sons (Doc. 319), but asked to see Klein’s paper two and a half months after he had been first informed of it (Doc. 356). Most likely at Ehrenfest’s suggestion, Klein wrote to Einstein directly in late August 1926 (Doc. 363). He sent Einstein not only the manuscript of his paper (Klein, O. 1926), but also proposed how he wanted to develop the theory further. In particular, he explained his idea of assuming a periodicity of the fifth coordinate, averaging over it, and reconceptualizing Schrödinger’s wave function as a component of the five-dimensional metric by effectively dropping the sharpened cylinder condition and using the same version of the condition that Kaluza had used seven years earlier.”

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Wizard of Oz
  88. eah says:

    Reversion to a mean for dummies.

  89. Che Guava says:


    I think by Michelson, you mean Michelson-Morley.

    The Kaluza-Klein, I had not read of, it is late here, soon must sleep, but will.

    I think that his touring the world as Herzl’s show pony was only that, a cheap show pony.

    He also wrote a letter urging atomic bombings of Germany.

    … and a dirty man, as in he didn’t like to bathe.

    The many hurls by his coethnics into pop culture (like Dr. Know in the execrable AI by Spielburg) are sickening.

    However, although I know they are from earlier sources, I have enjoyed working through Einstein’s maths on SR, I know he plagiariazed the concepts, but he is expressing them well, as for GR, his predecessors had it all, and in more interesting ways.

    • Replies: @utu
  90. Che Guava says:

    Posting in a loop, amusing if that was the intention.

  91. utu says:
    @Che Guava

    as for GR, his predecessors had it all

    What are you talking about?

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  92. anon[266] • Disclaimer says:

    these kind of items weren’t in Einstein’s wikipedia page for some reason

    there isn’t even a “controversies” section

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Che Guava
  93. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    We can all observe consistently “extremely dumb” and consistently “extremely bright” persons in our lives – and every shade in between – but JD and CS absolutely refuse to believe that this can be measured and quantified while being observed.


    Of courser cleverness can be measured. A person graduates with the faculty prize in mathematics. That’s a measurement.

    There’s someone with Williams Syndrome, Gloria Lenhoff, with an IQ of 60, who knows numerous operas in many languages, which she sings with a perfect accent. She plays accordion as if it were an extension of herself, effortlessly absorbing new pieces into her repertoire of more than 1,000 songs. She speaks in half a dozen languages, including sign. While performing for a large audience representative of Southern California’s cultural diversity, Gloria bandied niceties in Spanish, Hebrew, French and Japanese.

    Those are all measurements. Measurements of intellligence that refute the validity of IQ as a universal measure of intelligence. IQ is simply a measure of the intelligence required for performing IQ-test-like tasks, which are actually not that common, especially in the lives of poor Africans and other classes of mankind upon whom the IQ-ists heap their contempt.

    One could continue endlessly, to reveal the limitations of IQ tests as a measure of useful ability, but nothing will penetrate the child-like simplicity of the mind of an IQist, so I will desist.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Anonymous
  94. @utu

    Thank you for taking the trouble. I presume the typos in the German were the result of manual copying?

    A fully fedged antisemite wouldn’t have left any typos 🙂

    • Replies: @utu
  95. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:

    Actually, the criticism of Noah Carl is all valid – he published a bunch of dodgy papers in a dodgy journal. OpenPsych isn’t peer-reviewed and was founded by Emil Kirkegaard a white nationalist who has said he wants to ban Muslims from entering Europe and has described Muslim immigration as “self-destructive”. It also turned out Kirkegaard reviewed Carl’s Islamophobic papers in OpenPsych and Carl’s data source was an anti-Islam conspiracy theory website.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @anon
  96. @CanSpeccy

    I have some very high IQ relations who are extremely foolish and I have given quite a lot of enjoyable speculative thought to the causes of the Flynn Effect so I don’t think I count as an IQist. But I wonder how you would explain (if, as I suppose, it is the fact) African undergraduate students testing very low on Raven’s Matrices – prima facie culture fair – and also how you would assess whether recently premodern Africans who, as you note, had little need to be able to deal with IQ type tests, are going to be able to develop modern, prosperous, democratic, law abiding countries.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  97. Anonymous[166] • Disclaimer says:

    especially in the lives of poor Africans and other classes of mankind upon whom the IQ-ists heap their contempt.

    I’ve lived and worked in Africa for many years. You’re obviously clueless. Your convictions can’t be traced to anything found in real life or real research. Get a passport, Speccy, and experience vibrants in their natural habitat before teaching us how the real world works (hint: it’s very different from what your favourite Internet influencer proclaimed).

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  98. Anonymous[166] • Disclaimer says:

    was founded by Emil Kirkegaard a white nationalist who has said he wants to ban Muslims from entering Europe and has described Muslim immigration as “self-destructive”.

    I see no problem with those views. White nationalists simply want to preserve their white nations. This is perfectly reasonable (and smart).

  99. anon[266] • Disclaimer says:

    OpenPsych isn’t peer-reviewed and was founded by Emil Kirkegaard a white nationalist who has said he wants to ban Muslims from entering Europe and has described Muslim immigration as “self-destructive

    wow, that’s crazy talk

  100. Dannyboy says:

    One day soon we will feed the Leftists/Jews and their brats into industrial chippers and blow them out into pig pens.

  101. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Get a passport

    LOL. So much for evidence.

    You actually have none, or you’d cite it. There is no scientific evidence as far as I am aware and as far as has been cited here to show any relationship between IQ and the faculties of mind that I listed including wit, judgement, etc.

    Indeed, such evidence would be hard to obtain. Anecdotal evidence, however, overwhelmingly supports my claim. Consider humor: Mark Zuckerberg’s, for example. We can assume he has a reasonably high IQ. But is he funny. Well, in the way a duck may seem to be funny, I suppose. But as a wit? Most unlikely, I should think. Or Mark Twain, who was certainly a wit, was he a man of judgement? Certainly not in business affairs it would seem since he lost all his considerable inherited and earned wealth on speculative investments.

    But for the IQists, the idea that IQ measures intelligence of every kind is simply an article of faith unsupported by any body of scientific information. It is a belief reminiscent of religious faith. It is the faith of those drawn naturally to highly authoritarian systems since it ranks every person once and for all. To those of superior IQ, deference is owed, to those of inferior IQ, submission is demanded.

  102. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    I have some very high IQ relations who are extremely foolish

    Sort of the reverse of Aleksei Tolstoy, a relative of Leo Tolstoy and a Russian novelist of the Soviet era who was observed by an acquaintance to “possess an astonishing combination of enormous natural gifts with a complete lack of brains.”

    As to the question you raise, I would say:

    First, having read almost every published word by Charles Darwin, I have no doubt that human populations that have long existed apart and under different sets of environmental, social and economic conditions will show heritable differences in both mental and physical characteristics. Therefore, I have no doubt that Africans, as a group, are distinctly different in both mental and physical traits from, say, the Chinese.

    Second, although some of the physical differences among the races of mankind are obvious, we really don’t have good tools for measuring the mental, including both intellectual and emotional, differences. And as you note, the genetic basis of those differences are obscured by environmental factors that manifest in, among other ways, the Flynn effect.

    Third, I heard someone talking of the administration of Raven Matrices to South African university students and saw some of the questions on which the Africans performed more poorly than the white students, and I was left with the suspicion that the differences in black/white performance could be largely if not entirely attributed to the Flynn effect. For example, it was critical in answering some questions to note differences in the type of shading of different graphical symbols. Now such differences might seem obvious to a well educated white person, but then a well educated white person has had massive exposure to printed figures and diagrams and therefore knows the potential relevance of differences in shading to the interpretation of illustrations, e.g., pie charts or bar graphs. How certain can we be that black students in South Africa really do have the same exposure to that kind of experience? They may have thought the shading was purely decorative. Certainly, I do not see the IQ tests as compelling evidence.

    Therefore, whether Africans are capable of developing something like Western civilization (before Western went to the dogs) is I believe something that remains to be seen. But before a conclusion is possible it will be necessary for the years of African education to be raised from an average of three to at least something like the duration of Western education common in the time of our parents’ generation — say eight years. In addition, time will be required for the necessary African society to evolve. The English, after all, required many centuries after the Norman conquest to achieve Parliamentary government and the near universal rule of law. And the Brits were fortunate in being shielded from foreign interference by the English channel, whereas Africa is subject to large scale intervention by foreign corporations and also the intervention of US and other foreign military forces. Under those conditions, the development of any but a most deformed and corrupt African civilization may be difficult if not altogether impossible.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  103. @CanSpeccy

    Thank you. First run through I can’t think of a quibble except perhaps to say your Tolstoy description could apply to my irritating relations who have squandered natural talents.

    Well before Ron did/commissioned deadly work on some of Richard Lynn’s figures (and by extension at least Phil Rushton’s), or I had taken the Flynn Effect on board, I had been deeply sceptical about the meaning of some of the really low figures like 70 for Sub Saharan Africans or 63 for Australian Aborigines (though, come to think of it, the correlations with money incomes was not surprising). Then Ron really blew it up by reference, as I recall it, particularly to the Irish and Slovenians. It was only later that I began to take note of the huge genetic variety in Africa and the existence of clans and castes which further complicated the picture.

    None of which makes me think my country or any modern one should hubristically think they can let in an uncontrolled immigration of Africans and expect integration and net value added within an acceptable time. In an uncertain world I would, if it were possible to bet on it, only count Malaysian Chinese as, on average, a definite plus, though I suppose most Europeans are OK given the skills criteria needed to be able to immigrate and the likelihood of assortative mating before and after immigration.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  104. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    A fully fedged antisemite wouldn’t have left any typos

    What do you mean? What does “fedged” mean?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  105. utu says:

    You should not be surprised. A lot of effort went to sanitize Einstein biography. Nobody will dare to touch it. The case of the strange plagiarism in 1927 is not mentioned anywhere. I know about it form a physicist who knew about it form another physicist and so on. Perhaps one might bee hopeful that eventually somebody will write about it. German historian Daniela Wuensch wrote a book on Einstein-Hilbert priority dispute taking side of Hilbert and she also wrote about Kaluza theory so she is in right position to bring up the issue of Einstein sticking his nose into the Kaluza-Klein theory.

  106. Che Guava says:

    SR: (theory of) special relativity

    GR: general (theory of) relativity

    In the case of the former, I find Einstein’s formulation easier to work through than those he plagiarised.

    In the case of the latter, the opposite.

    • Replies: @utu
  107. Che Guava says:

    There were massive fights over it, I was personally igniting one that was lasting for two days (FUN), but that was over ten years ago, and I was making no other post than the one that started it, at the time I was enjoying all of the know-nothings fighting over it, but wikipedia Jews won.

    So, since a certain type of Jewish person has control over content in the wikipedia, there is no mention. It did go back-and-forth for some years.

    I dislike WP even more now, but never participate, so I don’t know, I would guess, for example, that any mention of the Michael (‘Martin’) Luther King’s plagiarism in his doctor of divinities thesis are also gone or covered by weasel words (a legal term in WP’s sick system) on that site, if they remain at all.

  108. utu says:
    @Che Guava

    Which parts of GR do you consider plagiarized?

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  109. @utu

    “fledged” (just in case)


  110. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    None of which makes me think my country or any modern one should hubristically think they can let in an uncontrolled immigration of Africans and expect integration and net value added within an acceptable time.

    Oh don’t worry. Africans will easily settle the Western lands if they are invited to. Here in Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hates Canadians and has declared Canada to be no longer a nation. It is now a place where all and sundry are welcome and where “Diversity is our strength.” Thus Africans have begun showing up across the land and are doing fine. Sure, they’re not farmers or mine laborers from the Central African Republic. One I saw in the supermarket yesterday was a young woman, good looking, about six feet tall (although with hair piled on top looking about seven foot six), well dressed and completely self-assured. A graduate in engineering from the University of Cape Town perhaps. Some that I’ve dealt with recently have included a hotel receptionist who took my money with polite efficiency, and the salesman at an appliance store where I had gone to buy a gasket, who prevailed upon me to make a survey of kitchen ranges, refrigerators, etc. during which he displayed a most thorough knowledge of the products for sale. His only mistake was in assuming I could afford any of it without trading in my car or mortgaging the house.

    The question I have is why do the Western nations wish to replace themselves with Africans, settler Muslims, or smart Chinese and Hindus. Africa, three times the size of Oz and vastly more fertile, is surely big enough for Africans. And why must every Latin American have a right to live in North America? The Hispanics have a continent of their own. It’s no more densely populated that North America and surely as richly endowed in natural resources. If their governments are crap, why should they not stay home and fix the problem in the normal way by raising a revolution, rather than dumping it on the dying Europeans people of the North.

    Perhaps its time for the much despised white male to push back against the Fenimazis. We could begin by handing out white feathers to women over 25 without children. Or more practically, we should make child bearing pay. Off hand, I’d propose a 25% tax break for both parents for every child, the benefit to be paid in cash to the mother for life. This would help tip the balance between motherhood and careerism. And indeed it would make it possible for women who raise a family early in their adult life, to make up for lost income on returning to employment in their late thirties.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  111. @CanSpeccy

    I couldn’t agree with you more about getting serious about incentives for smart young women to have children. I have had my comparable tax designs ready for adoption for decades. But when I put it to our Federal Treasurer, whom I knew well, at a Budget breakfast or some such that it would be good politics to relieve graduate women of half their HECS debt on having a child under the age of 30 and then a quarter for the next two children he cheerily dismissed it as “elitist”! I had pointed out that it could be pitched as something we do to reward or compensate women who have devoted their 20s to becoming, say, medical specialists.

    Of course the more elaborate version is to give tax deductions or devise a tax system that recognises that a highly qualified professional couple who have put off everything till they are 30 ish and on the threshold of high earnings will naturally want to buy a substantial house in a good suburb and probably pay up for their children’s education (and child care) so shouldn’t be discouraged by those expenses from having children immediately and in number 3, 4 or more. The obvious way to go is to have the higher rates in the shape of a personal consumption tax which excludes child care and education expenses in particular.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  112. Che Guava says:

    All of it.

    Riemann’s algebraic geometry in particular. Einstein, as his early career demonstrates, was an intellectual pygmy suddenly shoved forward to stand on the shoulders of giants.

    I do not need to list them. None are jewish.

    My statement that his ‘world tour’ was as a show-pony for Herzl is undeniable, but it is presented in mythology as if it was his own world tour.

    Merry Christmas, utu.

    • Replies: @utu
  113. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    Good to know that the realities of demography are at least occasionally drawn to the attention of our masters and that, in particular, attention is drawn to the fact that demographic destiny depends critically on the landscape of economic incentives.

    I suppose your Treasurer was right to think it elitist to be concerned about the inverse relationship between female fertility and intelligence. But then it could be said that elitism is the essence of evolution by natural selection, at least when it is operating in a creative fashion, rather than producing parasites and zombies.

    But perhaps your Treasurer was concerned only with public perception of the matter, and there I suppose he has a point, although it can be addressed, as you indicate, by creative redesign of the tax system without diminishing the scope for incentives to smart women who raise kids.

  114. Crimson2 says:

    Yeah, that was the problem with the Soviet Union: burdensome comedy contracts.

  115. utu says:
    @Che Guava

    “All of it.” – I get an impression you do not now GR at all.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  116. Che Guava says:

    You have an impression?

    Ever studied physics? Diff. calculus? Latter in 3-D? Sorry, I have.

  117. Okechukwu says:

    You promoters and defenders of all this pseudoscience should have one singular objective: Prove it. Prove it with hard scientific facts.

    Do not present ridiculous theories and cooked “data” as proof.

    Do present irrefutable, repeatable and unfalsifiable scientific evidence as proof.

    Do not cherrypick the data you like, while running like hell from the data you don’t like. To do this is to engage in junk pseudoscience.

    The only way to stem the censure and outrage your racialist beliefs incite is to prove them. If you can prove them, your opponents will be completely disarmed and helpless.

    Now stop crying and go into your labs and PROVE IT. Haha. Good luck.

  118. Anonymous[590] • Disclaimer says:

    “I said, why, walk across the room and give it to her.”

    Why is someone with your incredible gifts pretending to be a nitwit?

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
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Lance Welton Comments via RSS
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2