The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Edward Dutton Archive
On Edward O. Wilson
"A Genius, So Massive And Important Was His Contribution. And The Last Of The Scientific Generation That Believed In Truth"
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show 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

Earlier, by Steve Sailer: Monica R. McLemore In The SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: How to Fix E.O. Wilson’s Racist Legacy

Recently, in April 2021, I emailed Edward O. Wilson to ask if he might consider appearing on my internet show The Jolly Heretic, where I discuss supposedly “controversial” science increasingly banned in the Woke Cathedrals that Western universities have become. He replied promptly, politely explaining that he would love to, but being very old, thus, was no longer giving any interviews. His death on 26 December, aged 92, makes even greater sense of why he was disinclined to do a live stream.

In 2006, I read Wilson’s 1975 masterpiece Sociobiology: The New Synthesis and it effectively changed my life. Making the cover of Time magazine and resulting in Wilson being awarded the National Medal of Science from then-president Jimmy Carter in 1977, it cogently argued that animal behavior, personality and intelligence, and any inter-species differences in these, were very substantially genetic, and that was as true with humans as it was with any other similar animals. Sociobiology—a term now replaced with “evolutionary psychology”—forced me to slowly realize, though I fought against it, that much of what I had learnt while training as a cultural anthropologist was not only wrong but wrong because my discipline was in the grip of intolerant dogmatism.

I devoured other brilliant books by Wilson, two of which have won Pulitzer Prizes. Consilience (1998) demonstrated that every academic discipline is part of a hierarchy, at the pinnacle of which is pure Mathematics. Theories can only be accepted if they make sense in the discipline which underpins them. Models in sociology must be reducible to psychology, which must in turn be reducible to biology, which needs to make sense in terms of Chemistry and so on.

Wilson decried the way in which academia separates into different disciplines and gets taken over by ideologues, such as the scientific fraud Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002), whom Wilson referred to as a

charlatan…seeking reputation and credibility as a scientist and writer, and he did it consistently by distorting what other scientists were saying and devising arguments based upon that distortion.

[E. O. Wilson’s Theory of Everything, by Howard French, The Atlantic, November 2011]

Academia breaks up; Wilson wanted to put it back together. Wilson argued in the same book that human behavior reflects a combination of genetic and environmental influences, meaning that free will is a scientific impossibility.

In On Human Nature [1978], Wilson explored the biological origins of many aspects of human behavior, including homosexuality and religion. This idea was inspired by Wilson’s own autistic “near obsession,” as he termed it, with ants—he was known as “The Ant Man”—and other eusocial species. Being sterile, worker ants could only pass on their genes indirectly, via aiding the survival of queens. This “group selection,” Wilson convincingly averred, made sense of so much human self-sacrificial behavior. Wilson also discovered precisely how ants communicate with each other.

In The Social Conquest of Earth (2012, p.100), Wilson explored the dynamics of group selection further. He observed that:

When in experiments black and white Americans were flashed pictures of the other race their amygdalas, the brain’s center of fear and anger, were activated so quickly and subtly that the conscious centers of the brain were unaware of the response. The subject, in effect, could not help himself.

In other words, we are evolved to be with people who are genetically similar to us, and will feel dysphoria if we are not.

As many readers will know, due to Wilson’s fearless pursuit of biology while working at Harvard (from where he retired in 1996), he was subject to one of the first serious cancellation attempts at the hands of the Leftist anti-science mob. In response to the publication of Sociobiology, Harvard colleagues Gould and Marxist Richard Lewontin, whose much-touted critique of the concept of race has been shown to be a “sleight of hand,” founded along with others the “Sociobiology Study Group,” and denounced Wilson’s “deterministic view of human society and human action” in an Open Letter [Against Sociobiology, New York Review of Books, August 7, 1975]. They emotionally asserted, as Wilson described in his 1994 autobiography Naturalist, that

All hypotheses attempting to establish a biological basis of social behavior “tend to provide a genetic justification of the status quo and of existing privileges for certain groups” and lead to the Nazi gas chambers.

In 1978, Wilson’s public lecture on sociobiology at the annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science was attacked by a Marxist group called “Science for the People.” Members managed to pour a pitcher of iced water over Wilson, before childishly declaring, “Wilson, you’re all wet!” [Anatomy Of A Fierce Academic Feud, by Colin Campbell, NYT, November 9, 1986]

The BBC obituary of Wilson refers to him as the “Leading American naturalist” and reports that some have called him the “Heir to Darwin” [Leading American naturalist EO Wilson, dubbed ‘Darwin’s heir,’ dies at 92, December 27, 2021].

I would like to go further. Wilson was a genius, so massive and important was his contribution. In 2016, I wrote a book with evolutionary psychiatrist Bruce Charlton, The Genius Famine. I believe that Wilson’s massive contribution to science is borne out of the genetic and environmental influences, and psychological type, that we find in other geniuses.

Born in 1929 in Alabama, Wilson’s reasonably intelligent parents—his father was a government accountant—split up when he was seven. Divorce was scandalous at the time, especially for Southern Baptists like them. Unable to look after him, Wilson’s mother placed this only child in the care of a family friend for a number of years. Eventually, Wilson ended up with his father, who travelled a great deal for work reasons, meaning Wilson led a peripatetic existence, constantly changing neighborhoods.

Psychiatrist Felix Post has found that a broken home correlates positively with genius [Creativity and Psychopathology, by Felix Post, British Journal of Psychiatry, 1994]. This may be true for a number of reasons. The typical genius combines outlier high IQ with autistic and psychopathological traits. This means that, low in impulse control, he thinks “outside the box” and develops original ideas. Further, lacking social awareness, or not caring about people’s feelings because “Truth” trumps all, he is happy to present these ideas, despite the fact that original ideas always offend vested interests.

These traits also predict divorce; so the genius may simply inherit these traits along with very high IQ, the latter occurring due to chance genetic combinations. Depression, which Wilson says in his autobiography he suffered from, also predicts creativity, due to desire to make sense of a chaotic world, and divorce. On the other hand, a broken home—a dangerous, unpredictable environment—can elevate these traits in the child.

Reading Wilson’s autobiography, it is clear that, from a very young age, he was interested in (in fact, autistic-obsessed with) “things”—specifically fish, and later ants—rather than people. Still, his social skills were sufficient that he married Renee Kelly, in 1955, the year he received his Ph.D. from Harvard, and stayed married, producing a daughter, Catherine.

But Wilson was undeniably obsessive. Autism is characterized by being high in systematizing but low in empathy—the extreme “male brain.” His autobiography reveals Wilson forgetting the names of families he spent weeks staying with as a child, but remembering the specific fish that he examines at the time. Aged seven, he lost his sight in one eye, due to a fish fin getting into it in an accident.

Like Isaac Newton and so many other geniuses, Wilson didn’t particularly shine at school. He focused on that which fascinated him, naturalism, and only worked hard enough to pass anything which didn’t. He only started “playing the game” when, at his military school, he was rejected from a military university scholarship due to being blind in one eye and needed the grades to get into the University of Alabama to follow his dream of being a scientist. He then began his Ph.D. at the University of Tennessee before transferring to Harvard.

Like many geniuses, Wilson had a strong sense of purpose—almost a higher calling to the Truth. Having become an entomologist, Wilson, also like many geniuses, made contributions in all kinds of other areas: human psychology, human biology, the study of religion and so on.

As I noted in The Genius Famine, this is what the high IQ creative scientist—as opposed to the run-of-the-mill, diligent, normal range intelligence, incrementalist scientist with high impulse control and high Agreeableness—does: he generates original connections. All the incrementalist can cry is, “How can he do this?! He doesn’t have a qualification in it, like me!”

Wilson was clear about his intellectual deficiencies in his memoirs, and they are those that other geniuses have had.

As I said in The Genius Famine, intelligence is like a pyramid. At the base there are abilities that are weakly associated with intelligence, such as driving a car, or catching a ball. Above this there is Language, Math, and Spatial ability. Above this there is general intelligence (g) at the pinnacle of the pyramid. These forms of intelligence all intercorrelate. People can be “linguistically tilted” but, in general, people who are good at Math are good at English and are high in g. However, as people become more intelligent, the positive relationship between the different kinds of intelligence breaks up. Super-clever people can, thus, be brilliant at Math but verbally inarticulate and especially poor at some of the abilities at the base of the pyramid. Hence, Einstein would get lost, A.J. Ayer couldn’t drive and Isaac Newton nearly failed his degree and was totally impractical.

At Harvard, Wilson tried to improve his math, but just couldn’t; admitting he was “semi-literate” in the subject. He also admitted in his autobiography to having a “poor memory”—like Newton.

But damaged, or oddly developed, brains compensate for this sort of thing by commandeering other areas, leading to unusual abilities. In Wilson’s case, he concluded in his autobiography that this was “an unusual ability to make comparisons of different objects, thus to produce syntheses of previously unconnected information.” This is the essence of originality. And its expression is added to by the fact, as Wilson was aware, “I write smoothly…I pushed these strengths and skirted the weaknesses.”

In Edward O. Wilson, science has lost a truly brilliant man; one of the last geniuses of the twentieth century.

His “unusual ability to make comparisons of different objects, thus to produce syntheses of previously unconnected information” was the essence of his genius.

Not surprisingly, it appears to have reflected the same kind of psychology, and broader biography, that is found among many other acknowledged geniuses.

Wilson’s death is one of the last of the generation of scientists who overwhelmingly held to a fundamental belief in the importance of “truth” above all else—possibly because they were raised on an overwhelmingly conservative and religious society in which something higher came above individual feelings and “truth” was sacrosanct.

The 1978 physical attack on Wilson foreshadowed the current Cancel Culture–dominated, scientific Dark Age. The people who threw iced water over Wilson then are in charge of places like Harvard now.

God help us all.

Edward Dutton [email him | Tweet him] is Professor of Evolutionary Psychology at Asbiro University, Łódź, Poland. You can see him on his Jolly Heretic video channels on YouTube and Bitchute. His books are available through his web page here.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
Hide 147 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:

    Wilson was a great naturalist and science communicator, but he certainly wasn’t a genius. He made no genuinely original, creative theoretical contributions. He did good work as an entomologist, namely empirical work on pheromones, which is precisely the kind of diligent, incrementalist science you describe as being at odds with genius level work.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Anonym_a
  2. Ron Unz says:

    I briefly studied under Wilson and while I greatly admire his work, with his Sociobiology text certainly being a landmark achievement, I think I’d have to concur.

    I’d suggest that the somewhat parallel framework developed during roughly same period by William Hamilton and Richard Dawkins was far more revolutionary and significant. I’d regard Dawkins two books as absolutely breathtaking in the way they shifted our evolutionary paradigms.

    For those interested in this topic, here’s a lengthy piece about some of these individuals we published a few years ago by Robert Trivers:

    And here’s the updated version of one of the papers I produced while I was studying under Wilson, as well as a link to a discussion of the original, very crude version written during the early 1980s:

  3. Anonymous[323] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    I’d suggest that the somewhat parallel framework developed during roughly same period by William Hamilton and Richard Dawkins was far more revolutionary and significant. I’d regard Dawkins two books as absolutely breathtaking in the way they shifted our evolutionary paradigms.

    Yes, absolutely. Dawkins has a bad reputation these days among the right and HBD types for being an outspoken liberal and atheist, but his books The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype were far more original contributions than anything from Wilson.

    • Disagree: Bert
  4. Ghali says:

    The 1978 attack on E. O. Wilson was orchestrated by Jews who are controlling the US today.

  5. Yeah, I get it. He’s the “last scientist who believes in truth” because he believes that negroes are inferior. Because that is all that matters. You don’t really care about the actual scientific investigations he does.

    You fellas don’t have no agenda or nothing. You people aren’t fixated or anything.

  6. LarryS says:

    I believe God exists and I have a soul. According to Wilson I apparently don’t have a choice.
    So don’t criticize what I believe.

  7. Dumbo says:
    @Ron Unz

    E. O. Wilson was certainly more important and interesting than Dawkins, which was/is not even right. The “selfish gene” and other evolutionary nonsense. While Wilson’s work with ants is interesting and novel. RIP.

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  8. Anonym_a says:

    According to Dutton’s criteria of genius, Jews have at least 25 times more geniuses per capita than Europeans.

    Of course Dutton himself never said that. The said criteria – academic “prizes” such as Novel prize or Fields medal or whatnot – is originally deployed by Dutton to destroy that uppity gooks mean IQ, with descriptions like “Asian bell curve is extremely(Dutton’s expression in his book) skewed toward mean” or “extremely small standard deviation” or like that. Basically Dutton was “extremely” obsessed with proving “Asian monkey’s absolute intellectual inferiority to the Great European Master Race”, but along the line, Dutton unintentionally “proved” the absolute superiority of Jewish intellectual capacity – especially at the genius level which Dutton is “extremely” obsessed with – over Europeans at the same time. It’s hilarious.

    So.. don’t get the “genius” judgment from Dutton seriously. It’s likely an ideologically(emotionally?) driven judgment rather than a serious evaluation.

    • Replies: @Wokechoke
  9. @Ron Unz

    Dawkins doesn’t have anything like the psychology of a genius and is media-obsessed (a genius never would be), though you may be right about Hamilton. Nevertheless, it was Wilson who established in evolutionary psychology, an act so fundamentally important that I think he at least qualifies as a semi-genius, if not genius. And he clearly had the psychology associated with genius.

  10. Wilson argued in the same book that human behavior reflects a combination of genetic and environmental influences, meaning that free will is a scientific impossibility.

    This is an example for a performative selfcontradiction. – Why in the world could Edward O. Wilson claim to be right, while at the same time saying that Stephen Jay Gould was a fraud if all we say follows biological necessities (= a program).

    Neither Edward O. Wilson nor Edward Dutton seem to have come across the long tradition (!) in Western thought, that allows us to discriminate between naturalism (that’s Wilson) and other forms of non-reductionist thinking.

    For further details I recommend two not too lengthy works by Jürgen Habermas:

    Justification and Application (1991)

    Between Naturalism and Religion: Philosophical Essays (2008)

  11. Clyde says:

    Thanks Mr. Dutton for your superior commentary from Finland. So far north be sure to take daily 5000 D3 and see. Even if you must import from Amazon in America. Winter is the best time to import such. Summer heat is the worst. European prices are a ripoff for D3 and all supplements.

    Old Chinese saying, “The sage lives a long life”. So for the great Edward O. Wilson.

    Aged Daoist sages become sages because they have been able to cultivate themselves throughout a long existence; their longevity in itself is the proof of their sageliness and union with the Dao. —– from the internet

    • Replies: @Irish Savant
  12. To begin with, suppose that sociobiology were more than literary nonsense. Even so, it does not grant supposedly more evolved white humans the right to kill and steal other species.
    And these crimes lower the human condition of whites, showing them as beasts and also the failure of sociobiology as an instrument of racism.
    Something else, no human species traveled to Europe to kill the whites, they were the ones who went out to kill to rob the other races, even with the blessing of their religion and that is history.

  13. Dumbo says:
    @Edward Dutton

    With this, I agree. Dawkins is to much of a media gadfly to qualify as a genius, at least in the traditional sense. But I wouldn’t call E. O. Wilson a “genius” either. And “evolutionary psychology” is mostly nonsense or guesswork, at least based on what is written about it these days.

  14. Rogue says:
    @Liborio Guaso

    no human species traveled to Europe to kill the whites

    Well, there were the Mongol and Moorish invaders, so that’s hardly true. And the ancient Huns were not entirely White either.

    But, as it is, most peoples of the Earth didn’t “travel to Europe to kill the Whites” for the simple reason they didn’t have the means, wherewithal and technology to do so.

    By contrast, Whites did.

    Not that Whites only killed and conquered subjugated peoples. Certainly, there was that, but also attempts at upliftment of these same peoples.

    • Agree: Irish Savant, SBaker, HdC
  15. @Clyde

    I thought Prof. Dutton had been run out of Finland for his Thought Crime?

    • Replies: @clyde
  16. Jon Chance says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Perhaps I’m mistaken, Sir Ron, but your profoundly erroneous dismissal of E.O. Wilson’s genius and your admiration for a mass-media charlatan like Richard Dawkins indicates the root of your numerous other errors, particularly regarding economics, American history, the Left-Right Dialectic, Communist China, the CCP, and the Plandemic.


    • Agree: Bert
  17. Wokechoke says:

    Most people know Jews are intellectually formidable. But when you look at the society that must exist to support outlying genius and incubate it you need the Shire (Oxfordshire Cambridgeshire Heidelberg Leiden) and a White population anyway. I’m all for Hindu mathematical genius but it’s only supportable in the cloisters of a greater society than Delhi can provide.

    • Agree: HdC, Bert
    • Replies: @clyde
  18. Blankaerd says:

    I have critiqued your description of a ‘genius’ many times in your videos but you never seem to respond. What you claim about the nature of a genius only seems to be true of those who are high in mathematical and verbal ability, people who score high in those areas tend to be more autistic, more psychopathic and so on.

    But the West has produced countless inventors and engineers who could easily fall into the category of genius, but who otherwise lead or have led normal and healthy lives. Werner von Braun for example, architect of probably humanity’s most complex invention ever – the Saturn V rocket – had a stable marriage and three children, and grew up in a well-to-do family with no sign of any disorders. He was not only extraordinarily intelligent – he was also very capable of leading a big team of other scientists from an early age. But does the fact that he didn’t seem to be autistic and lacked in psychopathic personality traits mean that he wasn’t a genius? Did he not revolutionize space travel? What about Henry Ford? He was not only an inventor who completely revolutionized the way we manufactured products, but he was also a highly capable businessman. What are we to make of these individuals if they’re not geniuses? It seems to me that whatever you claim about the genius does not apply to individuals who score (or would score) extraordinarily high in spatial intelligence, which we can assume engineers and inventors would, especially figures like Von Braun and Ford.

    The problem to me seems to be your definition of a ‘genius.’ According to almost any dictionary across time a genius is described as a person who is extraordinarily intelligent or has superb abilities. You seem to change the definition of genius and then cherry pick figures who fit into that new mold. This is rather ironic given that you accuse the woke people of switching/changing definitions all the time (i.e. sex and gender). Your theory just doesn’t hold up well when we discuss people outside of those you cherry pick.

    Also, my respect to E.O. Wilson, I didn’t realize he died until I read this article.

  19. @Rogue

    Not that Whites only killed and conquered subjugated peoples. Certainly, there was that, but also attempts at upliftment of these same peoples.

    The reason that there are so many more black Africans than in the centuries before is Whitey, isn’t it? Whitey (and Asians too…) enabled their numbers to boom and flourish. But everybody would prefer to rather not know this simple social truth. And I mean everybody. Whitey too. – It’s almost like a teenager getting pregneant: Shame rises it’s stubborn head about this 2oth and 21st century miracle of the sudden appearence of the Black masses in a beforehand pretty vast ‘n’ empty continent.


    • Replies: @anon
    , @Rogue
  20. @Edward Dutton

    Wilson established in evolutionary psychology

    And why would you say that this was such an important step?

    For example: Would IQ-research be any different now without Wilson? (serius question)

    Or are there better examples than this one?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  21. Nat X says:

    Just another dead yt, who cares?

  22. mcohen says:

    Well that is one way of looking at it.

    But consider my theory.The mcohen Tesla battery theory.Yes …you do not need to have attended Harvard to understand it.

    Let’s say humans originated in southern Africa.They then split up.Those that went north to explore moved to colder climates of Europe and less sun.These humans had a pale skin due to less sunshine.
    The humans that stayed behind in Africa developed a darker skin to adapt to more sunshine.

    The skin colour was a biological adaption to uv rays.Nothing to do with intelligence,just a survival mechanism.You find these adaptions throughout the animal kingdom.

    In the garden of Eden food is easier to obtain but up north you need to put more effort into keeping warm,food is harder to obtain so you need to develop ways to produce food instead of living off the land.farming was developed not in Africa but in the middle east.

    Those people that remained behind in Africa lived off the land while those that left Africa farmed the land.The rest is history.Cain and Abel stories

    The people who lived off the land down south and with nature have no need for a Tesla electric car.

    The polluters of the land up north will die from eating the batteries and other exotic food like mercury,plutonium and plastic.

    • LOL: Realist
  23. @Ghali

    No. As far as I can recall the Jewish establishment at that time was pushing for three things : Milton Friedman’s economics, the Christian-Zionist religions and cults, and sociobiology, as this time the data sociobiologists produced were favourable to the Jews and to the East Asians and proved the Whites to be not so bright. Reagan’s bedside book, Wealth and Poverty, clearly claimed of the three.

  24. @Blankaerd

    I’d propose that a genius is someone who can percieve, create or understand something of truth or beauty that no one else can up until that point in time. And that after thist time, this truth or beauty is widely acknowleged as such.

    I don’t think your examples of hyper-competent and successful leaders fits that standard.

    Henry Ford wasn’t a genius in the same way that Elon Musk isn’t one, although Ford is certainly a titan.

    Even if my definition above is correct, and genius is somewhat relative to the group, I wonder if there have ever been periods of time where there were NO geniuses at all on the planet.

    • Agree: emerging majority
    • Replies: @GMC
  25. I would put E.O Wilson on the same level as Bertrand Russell in terms of being a great writer….just read the first sentence of Biodiversity. E.O Wilson should have received the Nobel Prize for his writings.

    Somewhere out there…there is a debate between E.O. Wilson and one of those phd Cornucopian Julian Simon type economidts….E.O Wilson destroyed this cockroach economist.

    Steven J Gould was boring and bloated in his writing style…

    • Replies: @Badger Down
  26. John Wheeler and Freeman Dyson were also very talented writers….but Gould….so many words and more words to drown the reader in.

  27. David says:

    Asked to respond to Dawkins’ criticism of group evolution theory, Wilson said something like, “Dawkins doesn’t do peer reviewed science, so I simply thank him for his interest.” Well snubbed.

    Trying to pin an exact definition on “genius” is silly.

    Wilson discovered all kinds of fascinating things about bugs. He didn’t lie, which nowadays is a notable distinction for an academic. The thing about charlatans like Gould is their net contribution is hugely negative, in that others waste time learning and, hopefully, dismantling nonsense. There’s nothing to offset against what Wilson contributed, except for a couple of honest reassessments — like his changing views on kinship selection.

    The most enriching idea I got from Wilson was the tension between individualism and group cohesion in human evolution. Wilson answered what St Augustine agonized over. Why do people, especially the young, steal and vandalize even with no apparent advantage in it for them.

    We could have been morally perfect, like the ants, but it turns out that that would put us at a disadvantage towards other groups that were morally innovative.

  28. Maddaugh says:

    “A Genius, So Massive And Important Was His Contribution. And The Last Of The Scientific Generation That Believed In Truth”

    Whatever you say Eddie ! BUTT BUTT, when I look around me I dont see any geniuses, people making any important contribution, anything scientific and practically no-one who believes in the truth.

    What I see are crabs in a barrel who wake up every morning, pick a commandment and proceed to violate it at every opportunity. This world is full of cockroaches and to get your share of the kitchen garbage you have to be quick, predatory, ruthless and greedy. You must be the King Roach or you will be trampled. The higher you climb is the more vicious you must become, you must fist the guy above and keep your boot firmly in the face of the envious pretender and striving insect below you.

    A man might be born an innocent child but no matter how righteous he wants to be and strives to be the denizens who drift through his life make him grow a hard shell. To paint anyone living or dead as

    “A Genius, So Massive And Important Was His Contribution. And The Last Of The Scientific Generation That Believed In Truth”

    is to troll Maddaugh.

    Its entertaining to attend a funeral and hear the praise heaped on a corpse who while alive was a complete bastard. I doubt Edward O was any paragon of virtue, not alive at least.

    Who knows, one day even Dr Fraudchee will be venerated as a

    “A Genius, So Massive And Important Was His Contribution. And The Last Of The Scientific Generation That Believed In Truth”

    • Replies: @Badger Down
  29. Realist says:

    I am a strong adherent to Sociobiology theory. I believe that human attributes are strongly influenced by genetics…at least 80%. Nature, not nurture.

    • Replies: @Maddaugh
  30. Anonymous[895] • Disclaimer says:

    Rest in peace, E. O. Wilson!

  31. @obwandiyag

    You just can’t or won’t face the truth. I have been to Africa, where blacks are still blaming colonialism. which has been dead for 60 years. for their failings. I ‘ve lived and worked in some of your charming neighborhoods where the windows and doors are barred, and garbage is everywhere. Funny that the place I live now is full of white folks armed to the teeth, but we don’t have “stop the violence” marches. We whites also don’t have the ridiculous illegitimacy, crime and high school drop out rates of your race. Name me one well run black country on this planet. Believe me, many of us are also sick and tired of your race’s non stop whining about everything. I know Cambodians and Laotians who escaped absolutely horrendous conditions in their countries, but came here, worked like dogs and are doing well. It’s all so tiresome. Ultimately, we need to return to some sort of separation. I used to think the segregationists were just mean, but now living in the South, I understand why segregation existed. Your race is still largely unable to function in western civilizations.

    • Agree: Maddaugh
    • Replies: @Maddaugh
    , @Fart Blossom
  32. @Ron Unz

    Which two books by Dawkins?

  33. AndrewR says:

    A bit harsh but Dutton definitely embarrassed himself with this article.

    In other words, we are evolved to be with people who are genetically similar to us, and will feel dysphoria if we are not.

    While I suspect this claim is largely true, merely claiming that, in one experiment Dutton doesn’t link to, a certain subset of whites and blacks reacted negatively to photos of the other race does not remotely give sufficient evidence to make the claim Dutton did. At a minimum, we would need to control for a lot of factors. Some whites really like blacks and spend more time around blacks than whites. And some blacks really like whites and mostly spend time around whites. I imagine these people would not tend to have the dysphoric subconscious reactions to seeing people from the other race. While I don’t think race is entirely socially constructed or that racial prejudice is entirely unnatural, Dutton really tarnishes his intellectual credibility here.

  34. @obwandiyag

    because he believes that negroes are inferior.

    You must be a mind reader did you probe E.O. Wilson’s head to find out his beliefs about negroes because I can’t find anything in his writings other than his belief that their has to be a sizeable genetic influence on human behaviour. What’s so controversial about that think about the mammalian maternal instinct which extends to human females seriously you think that that is acquired or learned behaviour – no it’s too important to be left to such caprices as acquired behaviour after all the fate of the species hinges on it so that is definitely genetic.

  35. Maddaugh says:

    I am a strong adherent to Sociobiology theory. I believe that human attributes are strongly influenced by genetics…at least 80%. Nature, not nurture.

    I dont know Realist. Some of the kindest people I know are working class West Virginians. If it is a family of five and they cook a meal of 5 chicken legs and 5 potatoes and you arrive uninvited and unexpectedly they will eat less so you can sit and have a meal with them. Selflessness rules.

    Some of the biggest douche bags I know are the successful living in the big City. If it is a family of five and they cook a 12 x 24 table with the most expensive delicacies and you arrive uninvited you will be considered as trespassing and asked to leave or the Police will be called to remove you. Selfishness rules.

    A fellow from a small town in WV who moves to NY or LA must put his innate nature and nurture aside and become an animal of he expects to fit in, survive and even prosper.

    A shit bag from LA or NY who moves to WV must put aside his innate nature and nurture and become a kind contributor to the community of he expects to fit in, survive and even prosper.

    Both are difficult and most times impossible transitions. Maybe there is a great deal of truth in what you assert ie innate nature and nurture will prevail because they are so hard to overcome. What I do know is that the more “civilized” we become the worse we are as human beings.

    Its true that the most savage animals live not in the bush but in the City. Hence, anyone telling me a fellow who made it in the big City is a contributor , believes in truth and blah blah is either delusional, peddling snake oil or full of shit.

    • Thanks: emerging majority
    • Replies: @Realist
  36. Patriot says:


    You are an idiot with little understanding of the scientific process.

    Scientists conduct studies and follow the data wherever it leads, no matter how uncomfortable the answer is. Scientists are super critical and try to disprove or falsify every hypothesis.

    We now know that human races (=human sub-species) exist and that they differ in thousands of ways. This is a truth, a scientific truth. This is reality. It is better to believe in reality than fantasy.

    Ignorant, dogmatic, people militantly reject this reality and claim that race doesn’t exist and that we are all the same. Others do it for cynical selfish reasons or political gain. But against tremendous social and political pressure, Wilson stood firm for truth, even though it was hard for him. This alone makes him a great man.

    Wilson didn’t do it because he WANTED blacks to be superior at running or inferior in IQ, but because this is what the data shows.

    • Replies: @jm
    , @Bill
  37. Maddaugh says:
    @Former Liberal

    99.99999% of Afro Americans have never lived in Africa and those who have visited never went into or lived in an African slum. Even fellows like Michael Jackson, Danny Glover and Sidney Poitier chummed at the highest levels in Bunga Bunga Land and arranged their itinerary routes AROUND the shanty towns. These people when they return to the US tout their visit but neglect to tell their listeners they stayed at WHITE owned hotels and quaffed their drinks and meals at Whitey;s high end restaurants.

    Its the very same in the USA. The black elite avoid the “hood”, they either do not want to be reminded of their “roots” or be associated with the losers in the Ghetto. As soon as a black man accumulates enough dollars he moves in with Whitey.

    Yet a black American will change his name from John to Mbongo or from Peter to Abdul. They are a confused race.They hate the US while every black African would give anything to come here. They adopt a Moslem name when the blackest Moslem considers himself superior to even the black US elite much less the black hood rat.

    Every black Ghetto American who vomits up this constant bile about the US and professes unending worship for his roots in Wakanda, should visit Africa and plan to live in an African slum there for a year. I guarantee they will flee the place after 2 weeks and when they return to the US will fall on their knees and kiss US soil. For the black African, calling the US projects a ghetto would be a cruel joke.

    Afro Americans have no concept whatsoever as what the African continent is all about. As a matter of fact the majority have no concept of what the area outside of their ghetto block is all about. These people live in a fantasy dream world in their bubble heads.

    • Thanks: Marcion
    • Replies: @anon
  38. Patriot says:

    Wilson was simply a nerdy scientist studying insect societies. He found that each insect species had different behaviors and that they were mostly genetically determined and could evolve.

    He then wondered if this was also true for vertebrates, and it was.

    This led to the logical question, “Are humans the same as other animals? Is human behavior largely genetic, as in other animals?”

    It turns out that this is exactly the case. Humans are biological organisms and their behavior evolves!!

    This was his great finding. This is simply where his studies (the data) led. It had nothing to do with racism, and to assign racism to his interest in insects that led to his epiphany shows that you are ignorant and have a black heart.

  39. @Former Liberal

    …where blacks are still blaming colonialism. which has been dead for 60 years.

    Oh, you think so, do you??? What’s your definition of colonialism?

    Anyway, there may be views opposed to yours, and they may have a lot of validity,

    British historian Andrew Roberts announced this new movement in a January 8, 2005 article in the Daily Mail.

    The headline neatly sums up their philosophy: “Recolonise Africa.” (20)

    Arguing that, “Africa has never known better times than during British rule,” Roberts bluntly called for “recolonisation.” He claimed that leading British statesmen “privately” supported this policy, but “could never be seen publicly to approve it…”

    Roberts boasted that most African dictatorships would collapse at the “mere arrival on the horizon of an aircraft carrier from an English-speaking country…”

    He did not say which “English-speaking country” would be expected to provide aircraft carriers for such adventures, but I’ll give you three guesses.

    How the British Sold Globalism to America
    by Richard Poe
    Wednesday, May 5, 2021
    9:14 am Eastern Time Archives

    So, it’s far from obvious that colonialism has been dead for some time and in fact it’s obvious that the US has long been a de facto colony of the Brit “elite” ( I thnk he means banking and mercantile elite) and he makes a good case for it.

    BTW: I hope you don’t believe that slavery was abolished 150 years ago because if you, or anyone else does, I have a little Tolstoy for you. : The Slavery of Our Times.”

  40. @obwandiyag

    The jewish slave trade catapulted africans from the pre-stone age into the 21st century. In their proper “time” violence served them well because it was needed. In modern civilization, intelligence is what is needed to prosper. We are not fixated by choice…

  41. Chris Moore says: • Website

    Wilson decried the way in which academia separates into different disciplines and gets taken over by ideologues, such as the scientific fraud Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002), whom Wilson referred to as a “charlatan…seeking reputation and credibility as a scientist and writer, and he did it consistently by distorting what other scientists were saying and devising arguments based upon that distortion.”

    Isn’t that exactly how most top ((Jews)) operate, ((Gould)) being just another? They smuggle themselves in as one thing, but eventually back-stab those (often low character goyim jackasses) whom they buttered up to gain entre for the self-serving Zionist agenda and conspiracy?

    Nearly every ((Jew)) is a tribe or self-brainwashed (for the easy money) Zionist at heart, and most certainly every top ((Jew)). That includes counterfeits like supposed “anti-Zionists” ((Bernie Sanders)) and ((AOC)).

    That so many top Whites can be repeatedly “hoodwinked” by top ((Jews)) speaks to their own character flaws and warped greed. Indeed, that so many “multicults” of the ZOG/Jew World Order of brave new Globalist America can be “hoodwinked” speaks to the flaws in human nature that the ((Jews)) are always ready, able and willing to exploit to advance their depraved self interests and Zionist agenda.

  42. anon[214] • Disclaimer says:

    Wilson looks like Merrick Garland

  43. I’d like to wish y’all a Happy New Year and a big thank you to UNZ for putting up with my extreme satire and sarcasm.
    I promise to be a better person next year, I mean, seriously!!!

  44. @Ghali

    “The 1978 attack on E.O. Wilson was orchestrated by Jews …”

    Maybe those “Jews” were disturbed by Wilson’s refusal to acknowledge the inter-ant colony collectivization phenomenon that is now reaching its fruition.

    “… who are controlling the US today.”

    Don’t worry about your Jewish controllers. The new Indian managerial class is seeking to usurp Jewish power because the Jews have been slow to tackle the ant unity problem. Looks like your Indian managers will actually begin exterminating the massive continent-wide colony that has been united under one queen. So go back to your sports and canine companions, dumb white man. The dotheads have saved your fat butt.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  45. GMC says:

    Agree , many men are geniuses in their own right or trade , and they could be mechanics, electricians, engineers, builders, scientists, doctors, professors, computer techs, men with multiple of talents, etc. and they all stand out, but as far no geniuses at all on the Planet – ground zero was Washington DC. ,as far as building and stabilizing a nation for the future. And there again I Agree.

    However there were some liars, thieves and murderers that would qualify – but only in a sub human level.

  46. Realist says:

    I dont know Realist. Some of the kindest people I know are working class West Virginians. If it is a family of five and they cook a meal of 5 chicken legs and 5 potatoes and you arrive uninvited and unexpectedly they will eat less so you can sit and have a meal with them. Selflessness rules.

    Some of the biggest douche bags I know are the successful living in the big City. If it is a family of five and they cook a 12 x 24 table with the most expensive delicacies and you arrive uninvited you will be considered as trespassing and asked to leave or the Police will be called to remove you. Selfishness rules.

    I absolutely agree and have posted as much on this blog…but I don’t see what that has to do with Sociobiology…I do not see a contradiction. Assholes move to or stay in big cities good, productive people don’t.

    • Agree: emerging majority
  47. anon[214] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dieter Kief

    Whitey (and Asians too…) enabled their [black African] numbers to boom and flourish.

    at a tangent: blacks boast of their contributions to, i.e. Anglo-zionist-american war effort in bombing and killing Germans, Italians, French in world wars. That is, one of the achievements black boast of involves killing whites in large numbers.
    dumb f&%ks don’t recognize that they were incentivized to do so by (((____))), just as (((____))) are financing BLM & 1619.

    • Replies: @Chris Moore
  48. anon[380] • Disclaimer says:

    what difference does it make at this point (to paraphrase Hillary)? niggers are a problem, their existence is a curse on this planet. i could care less how “elite” a nigger is. a nigger is a nigger is a nigger.

    • LOL: Maddaugh
    • Troll: Mulga Mumblebrain
    • Replies: @Maddaugh
  49. Don’t worry. blacks will be the new scientists of the greatest advancement in science ever. Your black overlords like the moron head of WHO and/or KizJizzmekia, black female sheboon extraordinaire that invented the coof vaccine, or the world renowned big brain AA Neil Degrasse Tyson will lead the way to a new dawn. The Dark Continent wasn’t called Dark for nothing. It’s all in the chicken bones. oooga booga

    • LOL: Poupon Marx
  50. @Fart Blossom

    I agree and so does this man….. Comments are the best….

  51. Gdjjr says:

    Interesting subjects. Genius and bias. Interesting comments as well. I suspect there is “truth”- somewhere- oh wait! All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- there is no caveat in all. N.O.N.E.
    Caveats are made by those who pretend to be superior- superiority is acquired/achieved after the fact of being created and born. So, who is genius? Who is biased? The new born, or the achiever?
    Or, maybe the educated beyond their intellect- pseudo-intellectual, pretending to be somethin’ they ain’t-
    The true intellectual makes the complicated seem simple- the pseudo-intellectual pretends theirs is an esoteric endeavor and complicates the simple with verbosity-

    No, I’m not an apologist. But, I can see fairly well. My heritage? Irish Indian born and raised in Texas-
    I got a good christian raisin and an 8th grade education, ain’t no need in y’all-a-treatin me this way-
    It’s a lotta fun readin comments 😉

  52. How to define genius, that is the question. For starters let us consider some frequently overlooked realities. “Scientific Materialism” which dominates deterministic academia, is essentially an oxymoron. When minds are closed off to the biologically determinant reality of hemispheric polarity between left and right brains and cleave desperately to the logical, analytical, rationalistic side of things, my amber caution lights start flashing.

    As has been well demonstrated by Dr. Leonard Shlain in his books, the right brain is older than the left. Yet, the current ruling academicist paradigm denigrates the intuitive and insightful right side of the brain as essentially irrelevant to their preconceived precepts. They also spare no synapses in conceptualizing a role for the pineal gland, a small and little understood crystalline receiver apparatus, quite analogical to one of those early radio sets.

    “Scientistic” Materialism is reductionist at its core in its consistent and constant tendency to over-specialization and particularism. The average left brain dominant academicist may well have achieved the pinnacles of understanding in a narrowed-down little niche within a given subdivision of their general field of studied expertise. In everyday terms, they are most frequently incapable of seeing the forest for the trees. Wilson’s obsessive character is quite exemplary of that tendency. Ants in his pants, or the intellectual equivalent.

    Delving more deeply into the overall equation, contemporary Scientism is still caught up in 19th Century, deterministic Neo-Darwinism. Dialectically, this phenomenon can be encapsulated in Hegelian terms as the antithesis to the tenets and dogmas of organized religion. However, again sticking to the Hegelian approach, thesis and antithesis implies that the polarity needs resolution via a synthesis. My contention is that the missing ingredient is connective with both the right-brain and that quiet, lurking little organic object, the pineal gland. Careful observers have even had the chutzpah to label that focus of dimly conceptualized function as the “God Receiver”.

    Now, we must have a look at that most eminent of psychological theorists, Carl Jung, who conceptualized a phenomenon he called the “Universal Unconscious” and which the “Sleeping Prophet”, Edgar Cayce, described as accessing the Akashic Records. As far back as 1906, the visionary (Richard) Bucke wrote a book titled “Cosmic Consciousness”. All of these radical thinkers are onto something profound.

    More recently Rupert Sheldrake has massively upset the academicist establishment with his synthesis he terms “Morphic Resonance”. Wrapping up the lot of these paradigm-shifters; it is gradually being established that “Scientific” Materialism is a dead-end. There is no hope, no comfort, no deeper reality in their circumscribed Weltansschaung. To quote the visionary lyricist, Bob Dylan, those delusionaries are “stuck on a whale who’s married to the deputy sheriff of the jail”.

    The alternative to both the organized religion paradigm, which has dominated Western consciousness for upwards of two millennia and to the antithesis which is “Scientific” Materialism, has also been pursued by mycological spelunkers and ayahuasca explorers. What humanity craves is a sense of spiritual connectivity to all that is. THAT is the missing link as an Ariadne’s thread, leading us out of our present condition stranded in Plato’s Cave, highlighted by these leftbrain obsessives, who can be rightfully accused of thinking with only half a mind.

    To quote Pierre Teilard de Chardin: “We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spirits having a human experience”. A simple synthesis, riffing on theoretical physics is that “All are One and One is All and that the Whole is equal to, yet greater than, the sum of its parts.”

    Blessings, on this final day of 2021 Anus Dominated.

    • LOL: RedpilledAF
    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Alrenous
    , @mcohen
  53. Chris Moore says: • Website

    blacks boast of their contributions to, i.e. Anglo-zionist-american war effort in bombing and killing Germans, Italians, French in world wars. That is, one of the achievements black boast of involves killing whites in large numbers. dumb f&%ks don’t recognize that they were incentivized to do so by (((____))), just as (((____))) are financing BLM & 1619.

    Every “multicult” nigga on the planet was involved in the takedown of Western Civilization/Christendom organized by Anglo-Jewish scum. Anglo-Jewish scum is still organizing its crucifixion, the difference being the Zionists are now on the chopping block, too, organizing their own execution.

    Too clever by half. Judas was always destined for suicide. So are all the little Judas’ circling what remains of the West like the piranhas they are.

    • Replies: @Wokechoke
  54. Canute says:

    I am not familiar with Wilson’s work, though I intend be pursue this in the near future. My primary enjoyment from this article is the open declaration that Stephen J. Gould was a monumental fraud, who in the same style as Jared Steele, relied on his own declarations of “findings” and “truths” to be sufficient evidence to support whatever they wished to advance. The fact that both of them were early practitioners of the “word-salad” approach to academic communications only serves to enshrine their legacies as alchemists who blended the spurious with the specious. Today, most such frauds are called “academicians” and they are overwhelmingly Jewish. One immediately knew where Gould’s Zionist sponsorship was rooted when Public Television and CPB funded funded his documentary “educational” series – perhaps the most obvious litmus test of organizational deception in modern times.

  55. The whole debate here on what constitutes genius and what doesn’t qualify is stupid, and impossibly imprecise and subjective. If anybody does something like killing 100 of the enemy in combat despite grave injuries, inflicting by hand to hand combat, then could he be called a genius? Or someone who survives an environment or exceeds acceded limits regarded as a “miracle”. Is he a genius?

    What about Annie Oakley:

    What is pernicious here is the term is used for an abstract undertaking, e.g., mathematics, physics, science et al. That’s fine. An unacknowledged aspect of this yammering is that the accomplishments have to be measured on the impact and effect post hoc.

    I’ll end with this: if you can wipe your ass with one hand, rebuild an automotive carburetor with the other, and twirl a plate with your nose, and whistle Dixie all as the same time and write your name with a pen held between two toes, to me you deserve to be called a genius.

  56. Wilson explored the biological origins of many aspects of human behavior, including homosexuality and religion.


    • Replies: @emerging majority
  57. @Ron Unz

    Richard Dawkins was far more revolutionary and significant . .

    I doubt that anyone with a good understanding of population dynamics and genetics (specifically, meiosis / recombination, epistasis, heterosis, etc.) takes these ideas very seriously. Genes do not contribute to fitness as independent entities, but instead form complex interacting networks. So while Dawkins ideas are interesting from certain point of view, and seem to have captured popular attention, I think you are really stretching things to call them revolutionary. Having followed him a little over the past 20 years or so, he somewhat strikes me as the kind of attention seeking person Wilson describes when he comments on Stephen Jay Gould above.

    • Agree: Bert
  58. Anon[128] • Disclaimer says:
    @emerging majority

    Wonderful comment, thank you so much. I suspect that your subtle insights are wasted on the extremist black and white mentality of most of the commenters on this thread.

    Happy New Year 2022 in the emerging Age of Aquarius leaving behind all of these fishy arrogant hyper-intellectual left brain obsessive idiots!

    • Replies: @emerging majority
  59. Anonymous[146] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dieter Kief


    A characteristic of extreme genius is that it falsifies “what everybody knows” and substitutes “a new theory” that agrees with experimental results and the bulk of existing theory. Newton’s ideas concerning gravity were conceptually simple, and could be expressed in simple (although new) mathematics. They also contradicted the basics of astr0nomy in his day, largely by assuming that the planets, sun, and moon and earth all had the same sort of mass. His use of the binomial theorem to compute Pi was a complete departure from the geometric successive approximation method that had pertained since Euclid’s time. It was also much less work. And it’s simple once explained. And hadn’t been noticed since Euclid first stated the coefficient 2 version, Indian subcontinent mathematicians had developed a full blown version in the 6th Century AD, and the binomial coefficient theory had been published in Europe in 1544.

    Wilson did much the same sort of thing. The nature of human cognition had been logically pursued since the Greeks in about 400 AD, who thought that different peoples of their time thought differently and left it at that, and had gotten to the point of “blank slate”, a theory that all humans thought in the same way. Moving backwards, you might say. Wilson proved that wasn’t so, and provided a theory of how humans and other multi-cellular organisms do think. Poof- there went the entire political theory of the entire Enlightenment, and that of the French Revolution and the English Parliamentary system with it.

    Granted that Wilson wasn’t an excellent mathematician. Even Einstein needed help from his wife at the time with his math. The point is that Wilson was able to integrate facts and theory to develop a much more accurate theory. His theory upended the bases of then contemporary thought, and did so just before the more accurate theory was needed. That’s genius.

    It’s also genius in that his theory is widely denied, despite the evidence for it. Newton’s calculus was widely rejected at the time because, as contemporary philosophers pointed out, it has no foundation.

    The idea of “finding a derivative” by “gradually working towards zero/zero” is nonsense, and Newton’s calculus was put on a firm basis only in the late 20th Century. Newton’s critics were correct, but so was Newton, and his methodology was accepted largely because it gave correct answers to previously unsolved problems. By the same tokens, nobody now has the knowledge to trace the chemistry of gene expression in matters of intelligence.

    So: If Newton was a genius of historic importance, then Wilson was a genius of historic importance.

    As to IQ research, Wilson made looking for genetic effects respectable. Prior to that, it was legitimate to claim that there was no evidence whatsoever for IQ heredity, that the study of twins was contaminated by extraneous influences, or perhaps faked. At least until Woke politics started to dominate funding, Wilson made IQ heredity a legitimate subject of research. See Dutton’s works in this area, he’s on Amazon.

    • Thanks: Tony massey, Agent76
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Dieter Kief
  60. Always blame whitey as diversion from the fact of Jews controlloing 95% of media & big tech and over 90% of pundits being Jewish or shabbos goy.

  61. Wilson decried the way in which academia separates into different disciplines and gets taken over by ideologues, such as the scientific fraud Stephen Jay Gould

    But did he name the Jewish Power?

    Then, just another Angluck.

  62. Alrenous says: • Website
    @emerging majority

    I find this outright Satanic. Standard Christianity => Satanism pipeline. Not interested in the Truth in the slightest; interested in the upholding of narcissistic social mores. Inward-looking Gnosticism, not outward-looking curiosity.

    Cleverly supporting a true conclusion with false arguments leads the reader away from good epistemology, and if you accept the false arguments you end up with far more false conclusions than the one that’s used to sell the arguments. Hence, Satanism.

    Let’s disprove materialism properly real quick.
    In short, physics is math. Math isn’t conscious. 2 + 2 = 4 whether it’s self-aware or not, and a difference of no difference is not a difference. Math is not self-aware. Consciousness isn’t math; consciousness exists anyway; the universe is not limited to math. (Descartes was right.)

    Slightly less quick:
    Law of identity: if you think you’re thinking about e.g. a blue cube, you can’t be mistaken,* because believing you’re thinking about a blue cube is what constitutes thinking about a blue cube. Thoughts are ontologically subjective: their existence determines and is determined by what is believed about them, which means the Cogito generalizes. Not only can you not be mistaken about existing, you can’t be mistaken about the fundamental layer of the details of your existence.
    This also makes them epistemically subjective: one observer can observe the thoughts (and can be certain about them) and no other observer can. (Checksum: imagine two observers are both observing one thought, and one changes their mind. Who wins?)

    Physics is objective. It is ontologically objective: it continues to exist even when nobody believes in it. It is epistemically objective: everyone can observe physical phenomena, and nobody can be certain about them.

    Subjectivity != objectivity.
    Physics != consciousness, QED.

    *(Note we can be mistaken about what it’s called, but not about the thing itself.)

    P.S. Nobody knows how to make consciousness arise out of an objective world, whereas it’s nearly trivial to get objective phenomena out of a purely subjective world. Berkeleyan Idealism is more true than not.

    P.P.S. Subjective phenomena are nearly immune to peer review and all related mechanisms. If a p-zombie lies about being conscious, there is no known way to contradict (or to accidentally verify) such a claim. However, all conscious beings can trivially verify the truth of their own consciousness. If it seems like you might be, you are.

    (Technically the p-zombie isn’t misrepresenting their beliefs, because they have no beliefs. Asking one whether they’re conscious is like asking green whether it’s clockwise or widdershins.)

    • Replies: @emerging majority
  63. Maddaugh says:

    LOL, you are right. My point though is that they all bray about the Crakas but once they get up they move in with Whitey despising to even live with their own.

    They curse the US but will not return to Africa.

    The hypocrisy is quite amusing. The elite Negro abandons his own at the first opportunity….to hang with Whitey……..we have a few right here on UR

  64. Bert says:
    @Ron Unz

    Just to illustrate how silly name dropping sounds…..I briefly studied under Wilson’s most influential undergraduate professor, Ralph Chermock. What Wilson got from Chermock was a model of total dedication to biological research (see link), and probably an inchoate understanding that taxonomy was not nearly so captivating as the creation of new theoretical constructs.

    As to Wilson’s genius, his self-reported IQ was 122. Yet his impact was huge. Sociobiology and Consilience are beacons for leading the social sciences out of politically based fallacies. The Theory of Island Biogeography explained much more than just species distributions among islands; it is the foundation for preservation of biodiversity by providing principles for reserve design in terms of size and connectedness. Wilson discovered ant pheromones as the basis for colony organization, did fundamental work on allocation of colony resources among worker castes, and produced several books summarizing the biology of eusocial insects. His books on the human condition, On Human Nature and The Meaning of Human Existence, are classics. And he produced several books advocating for preservation of biodiversity, e.g., Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life. If you aren’t impressed by that, then you don’t appreciate how much the typical biologist plays it safe by sticking to a tiny area of research that is not intellectually adventurous, is very safe politically, and is of little importance for the future of humanity.

    As to your lauding Dawkins over Wilson, I must say that you are all wet. Dawkins did nothing innovative in either empirical research or theory. The Selfish Gene is essentially a scam. Dawkins took the basic concept of population genetics, that differential reproduction changes allele frequencies (a near tautology), and the question of how altruism evolved (raised initially by Darwin) and created a flawed metaphor for all of evolution. The gene-centric view is of little utility beyond explaining altruism and theorizing about non-existent “Green Beards.” The most useful book-length partially sympathetic treatment of Dawkin’s metaphor 50-years-on is The Gene’s Eye View of Evolution by Agren. The inadequacy of Dawkin’s metaphor is treated by Denis Noble in Dance to the Tune of Life.

    Wilson did far more with his middling IQ and Alabama origin than Dawkins did with his verbal virtuosity and academic politics.

    • Thanks: RobinG
    • Replies: @Anon
  65. Anonymous[146] • Disclaimer says:

    Granted that Wilson wasn’t an excellent mathematician. Even Einstein needed help from his wife at the time with his math. The point is that Wilson was able to integrate facts and theory to develop a much more accurate theory. His theory upended the bases of then contemporary thought, and did so just before the more accurate theory was needed. That’s genius.

    But Wilson did no such thing. He popularized the term “sociobiology” and compiled various biological theories for social behavior. He did not develop any original, groundbreaking theories. Moreover, he tended to emphasize vague, fuzzy epigenetic explanations.

    There seems to be a lot of motivated reasoning and bias behind these assessments of Wilson and the elevation of him to the stature of “genius” by the HBD Right. Since Wilson fought against “bad guy” out-group members like Lewontin and Gould, he must’ve been great and a “genius.”

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  66. Anonymous[364] • Disclaimer says:
    @Edward Dutton

    Dawkins doesn’t have anything like the psychology of a genius and is media-obsessed (a genius never would be), though you may be right about Hamilton. Nevertheless, it was Wilson who established in evolutionary psychology, an act so fundamentally important that I think he at least qualifies as a semi-genius, if not genius. And he clearly had the psychology associated with genius.

    This is a strange comment since Wilson wrote mainly popular science books and won Pulitzers for them, and his persona and books were quite media friendly. Furthermore, while he may not have been as strident in his polemic as Dawkins is, Wilson promoted the same sort of wooly-headed, liberal, humanistic, anti-religious views as Dawkins did:

    In a New Scientist interview published on January 21, 2015, however, Wilson said that “Religion ‘is dragging us down’ and must be eliminated ‘for the sake of human progress’”, and “So I would say that for the sake of human progress, the best thing we could possibly do would be to diminish, to the point of eliminating, religious faiths.”[57]

    Wilson did not establish any new groundbreaking theories in evo-psych. In fact, Dawkins’ ideas in The Extended Phenotype have far greater implications for evo-psych than any of Wilson’s ideas.

  67. @mick jagger gathers no mosque

    Agree, as homosexuality is a little understood aspect of human CULTURAL evolution: Consider the contributions of the likes of Plato and a host of Hellenic theorists and creators during a place and time in human history when genius was virtually ubiquitous.

    Turn next to the Italian Renaissance, when the fogs and mists of organized religion dissipated somewhat in the light of consciousness awakening in the persons of Leonardo and Michelangelo, along with numerous other highlighting luminaries of that stage of human cultural evolution.

    Though we are currently experiencing the vicissitudes of an ever-deepening cultural devolution, there were brief infusions of light emanating from the works of the likes of Beethoven and Tchaikovsky. My underlying thesis being that the Constantinian, Pauline and Augustinian corruption of the radical Jewish tenets of Jesus, the spiritual wayshower, leading ultimately into the massive cultural devolution we know as the Dark Ages, was profoundly anti-Eros and thusly destructive of the heightened levels of consciousness which characterized the essentially bisexual ethos of Classical Greece.

    Organized religion, as definitively expostulated by Sigmund Freud in “Moses and Monotheism” and by Herbert Marcuse in “Eros and Civilization”, can be regarded as a priestcraftly ossification and even petrification of the spiritual messages gifted to humanity by that individual whom Christianity as we have known it was titled. This impositional cultural devolution ensued post the Nicene Council and via further imperialization calculated as human control mechanisms.

    That which the Western world has been experiencing for upwards of 2,000 years, signifying the Age of Pisces and quite likely the Kali Yuga as well; will continue in the acceleration of its devolutionary cycle until such time as an objective, observant and creative minority of individuals serve as way-showers into the Aquarian Age and perhaps also, terminates the highly devolutionary and deeply destructive Kali Yuga.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  68. @Anon

    Thank YOU for your generous apperceptions. Granted, this site does have its culturally deficient knuckledraggers. Yet, at the same time UR does happen to be one of those rare hangouts where individuals who have lived their lives as truth-seekers (as against dogmatists) are enabled in sharing their various insights.

    Yes, those leftbrain obsessives will still have their day. Their philosophical grounding may be described in German as “Sitzfleisch Philosoph”…philosophical viewpoints engendered by sitting on their asses all day, reading musty speculations from others whose perspectives are primarily based on yet another set of musty volumes. Sometimes the voluminous velocity implicative of loss/lack of creative consciousness can be a bit overwhelming. But along with the knuckledraggers, they do serve as a matrix, where miners of shared treasures can extract scattered gems of understanding and realization.

  69. @Blankaerd

    You have a point, hard time taking Dutton self, as serious. Leaving through the back-door –genius like in Messi(soccer)?

  70. mcohen says:
    @emerging majority

    I define genius as totally, beyond a doubt, new stuff.
    In other words a concept that has no connection whatsoever to anything that already exists.
    Anything that is built on the foundation of existing knowledge is not genius.

    Let me give you an example.I wrote this poem called the sundial tree

    tis the midnight sun that shines the brightest
    bringing no rest
    while the earth turns beneath it’s watchful eye
    peering through the grey sky

    the sundial tree
    stands tall before me
    its casts a long shadow across the forest floor
    through my open door
    i welcome this shadow bower
    in this restless hour

    The shadow from the sundial tree enters the door of my home and reduces the bright light so I can sleep.The house and tree were arranged in a manner to achieve the shadow bower.

    This is genius

  71. Anon[744] • Disclaimer says:

    As to Wilson’s genius, his self-reported IQ was 122.

    Greg Cochran comments:

    I just noticed that E.O. Wilson says that his IQ was tested at 123. Having read some of his books & essays, and listened to one of his talks, I believe it.

    Math is Hard

    Definitely the case for E. O. Wilson. In a recent essay in the Wall Street Journal, he says that many of the most successful scientists are no more than semiliterate in mathematics, and if anything he’s worse than that. But, he says, you don’t really need to know much mathematics in most of biology, and it’s a pity that students are dropping out of science because they fear mathematics…

    E. O. Wilson would have benefited from having that extra sense. If he had it, he might not have suggested that ridiculous “gay uncle” theory, in which homosexuality pays for itself genetically thru gay men helping their siblings in ways that produce extra nieces and nephews. First, that doesn’t even happen – so much for field work. Second, it’s impossible. The relationship coefficients don’t work. Nephews and nieces are only half as closely related as your own kids, so you’d need four extra to break even, rather than two, as with your own kids. Maybe if Wilson had ever learned to divide by two, he wouldn’t have made this mistake…

    Speaking of which – general intelligence and math ability are fairly well correlated. Maybe a lot of these low-math types just aren’t very smart. I’ve never seen any sign that E. O. Wilson is.

    • Replies: @Bert
  72. @Alrenous

    Obfuscatory obscurantism unlimited.

    • LOL: Alrenous
  73. RobinG says:
    @Fart Blossom

    Thanks. It’s a Zombie situation.

    Colonialism is dead. Imperialism lives!

  74. RobinG says:

    ….tackle the ant unity problem.

    This will be solved when we’re all micro-chipped.

    • Replies: @emerging majority
  75. chris says:
    @Edward Dutton

    Wilson is another in the sizable list of critical world achievers, which the fraudulent Nobel prize committee seems to always bypass in favor of nonentities (others include JP II, Gandhi, etc.).

    For lay people, this is more easily noticeable in the “peace” prizes, but this type of incidental information seems to show that it’s no different in the sciences.

  76. @RobinG

    Micro-chipped and double-dipped.

  77. @mcohen

    “…Anything that is built on the foundation of existing knowledge is not genius…”

    You don’t know what Newton himself said: “”If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”

  78. Bert says:

    If you read Cochran’s replies to commenters on his website, you will find routine disparagement of their intelligence. Overweening pride that he scored highly on an IQ test, not a very admirable obsession that Cochran has. In any case, most folks regard intellectual contributions as the criterion of greatness. High IQ certainly does not automatically confer it.

    • Replies: @TorontoTraveller
  79. anon[358] • Disclaimer says:

    Science is a neutral subject .But people of all stripes try to fit the science with pre existing thoughts and ideas that are social or religious or econimic in orgin. Nazi and anti – Nazi , Marxist or anti – Marxist will try their best to rope in Wilson or Dawkins into their limited enclosed mindset.

    Thats what is called : Being misunderstood .

    Altruism is one area where Wilson opened up the possibilities of collective human interests being mediated by genes .

    Selfish genes central idea is the genes want to stay in existnece for ever and be replicated .
    To certain extent it makes sense . Because its the building block . Steel bricks,cements, glass and stones make all kinds of buildimgs,castle,shack,and condominium ,priosn complex and Bunny Ranch in Las Vegas Someone without insight to human mind will not understand what the fuss is all about enclosing just a space .

    The genes readily give in to the environments. They mutate,delete,add or disappear . Just like thefiner parts of the steel and the bricks .

    This author is in good company here . He cites broken family’s ties to geniuses ( Hello Black father ).

    He cites defects in certain cognitive fucntion as a condition that need to be exhibited for attaining ground breakimg success .

    Well FBI ‘s typical profile of a serail rapist is a white young loner with limited interest,social awakrdness and functioning below his level in certain areas but functioning above average in other areas . Serial killer, Autism, Schizophrenia, Bipolar and Genius do share some common vulnerabilities .

    Its only in the larger socail contexts built by many years of collective human efforts , these people thrive . Non human with these defieniceies will die .

    Wilson calling Gould a fraud proves nothing about Gould but about Wilson more .

    I respect both but thise who claim better individual deal from society just because of statsical association with high IQ are free riders of the worst sort .

    Very few in this UNZ understand anything about virus,epidemiology ,statistics , genetics , economy, petro dollar system , or about Sine curve ,quadratic equation,or infinite series ,or entropy of thermodynamics, or how the relation between James Webb Space Telescope and General Relativity or enchephalization of features that make us human or the importance of the social cognition,or they keep quiet because of other preocccupations .

  80. lavoisier says: • Website

    Wilson had the courage to state clearly that genes are important in human behavior.

    Why something so obvious should be seen as so revolutionary is a reflection of the power the leftist mindset has today.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  81. lavoisier says: • Website

    Gould and Lewontin were certainly leading members of that orchestra, and both were loudly praised by the media establishment for their leading witch hunts against anyone who dared to explore biological explanations for racial differences in behavior.

  82. Ron Unz says:

    Wilson had the courage to state clearly that genes are important in human behavior.

    Why something so obvious should be seen as so revolutionary is a reflection of the power the leftist mindset has today.

    That’s the exact point. Wilson was simply shifting the scientific mainstream back towards what all leading experts had firmly believed a generation or two earlier:

    It was certainly necessary and even politically courageous, but I’m not sure I would consider it “a revolutionary work of genius.” Meanwhile, his very detailed study of the ants and other insect societies was quite important, but I doubt whether taken by itself it drastically altered our understanding of the world.

    By contrast, the William Hamilton/Richard Dawkins gene-centered perspective articulated in The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype was revolutionary and dramatically altered our evolutionary framework. Perhaps a few previous thinkers such as J.B.S. Haldane had occasionally nibbled around the edge, but that’s very different than creating a radically new theoretical model. I think most ev-bio figures in the 1920s would have said “So what?” about the human-bio portion of Wilson’s book while being absolutely stunned by Dawkins’ vision.

    One really odd thing I’ve noticed over the years is so many of the HBD-rightwingers denouncing Dawkins even while they always talk about spreading “memes” and analyzing “extended phenotypes.” Probably many of those nitwits don’t even realize he coined their very terminology and created their analytical framework.

  83. @mcohen

    EVERYTHING is built on the foundation that precedes it. There is simply no getting around this fact. FR has previously replied with the quote from Newton which makes this clear.

    Mozart and Beethoven were clearly geniuses, but they had Bach’s foundation underpinning everything they wrote.

    It is the act of willful creation – voluntary or not – to bring into the sphere of human understanding something that is both previously unperceived and, upon challenge, proved true which defines genius. But this always rests upon that which man has previously established, unless you are getting into the realm of divine revelation.

    I like your poem. I hope there is more where that came from.

  84. @Bert

    Deifying IQ is a problem for a lot of folks on UNZ and in the HBD crowd in general. I think Sailer resists this because he is naturally modest. I also sense that Ron himself is gracious on this front and accommodating of people like me doing their best at 120 (ha, if I’m lucky). There are many contributors to this site who act similarly – it is kind of like watching skilled hockey players welcome bad players into their game. There is much to be gained on both sides from a welcoming and forgiving approach.

    But the point needs to be re-stated: High IQ does not equal Goodness, or Beauty, or Truth. It is simply a tool which must be wielded skillfully and ethically and considerately.

    Most of the people who Cochran skewers deserve it – he is relatively careful. But he is blunt and crude (if hilarious.) But he may on rare occasions hoist himself by his own petard. Our host is more careful than Cochran in this regard. And it is not the limitation of Twitter where many of us read Cochran to be blamed – his COVID pronouncements were stark in contrast with Ron’s, and it is Ron at the end of the day who appears to be the better prognosticator and analyst on the topic.

    • Replies: @RobinG
    , @Bill
  85. Edward Dutton: “Wilson argued in [Consilience] that human behavior reflects a combination of genetic and environmental influences, meaning that free will is a scientific impossibility.”

    No, that’s not correct.

    In Consilience he uses chaos theory and sleight of hand to try to save free will. In other words, he engages in the usual sophistry people who desire to save free will engage in. After a rather convoluted and silly argument, too long to quote in full, he concludes:

    Thus in organismic time and space, in every operational sense that applies
    to the knowable self, the mind does have free will.

    However, I think it’s clear that chaos theory can’t save free will, because even rocks and trees are affected by such things, and are in that sense nondeterministic, yet nobody would claim rocks and trees have free will. The man who insists on the existence of his own free will, if he means anything of significance at all, must mean no more than that his thoughts and actions are in no sense causally determined; that nothing forces his will in any way. If so, then the human consciousness becomes a black box which can take any input and produce any output the subject consciousness desires, which is demonstrably not the case.

    In the lead-up to this misstep Wilson reviews arguments against free will, and they are much more compelling. Indeed, it’s hard to see how there could be a biological foundation for human behavior at all if human beings actually do have free will. Science is in the business of predicting outcomes. Whether you want to call it sociobiology or evolutionary psychology, the existence of human free will would invalidate such a discipline, since it would make human behavior unpredictable even in principle.

  86. @Ron Unz

    Yes, we understand that, but it’s his endless pandering that grows irksome. For instance, he once made the public announcement that the entire Muslim world has produced fewer Nobel laureates than Trinity college. That could be said of any country other than Austria France Germany and the USA. Why is he picking on Muslims?

    • Replies: @anon
  87. clyde says:
    @Irish Savant

    I feel bad for Mr Dutton. I hope he has some independent income or some inherited moolah. Best I know his wife is Finnish and they have two children. So odds are he is still in Finland. Yes, he was run out of a university there. With a Finn wife, the PTB cannot boot him out of Finland.

    • Replies: @Badger Down
  88. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Hamiltons’ work on kin selection was very important in the field of evolutionary biology for expanding our understanding of natural selection. It also provides at least the start of a biological framework for understanding how social behaviors likely evolved.

    I thought The Selfish Gene was a remarkable book when I first read it but was struck by how many biologists minimized its importance to our understanding of evolutionary biology.

    I think Dawkins’ work will stand the test of time, however. I think his most powerful insight may be his conception of the living organism as nothing more (or less) than a gene receptacle–a tent for the night so to speak. This is an incredibly powerful and disturbing idea that at this point in time remains mostly a metaphysical concept not amenable to scientific exploration.

    Darwin brought man back to Earth and to the natural world.

    Dawkins’ work denies us even the primacy of our individuality!

    Happy New Year, Ron. Thank you for your work.

    • Replies: @BlackFlag
  89. clyde says:

    Most people know Jews are intellectually formidable. But when you look at the society that must exist to support outlying genius and incubate it you need the Shire (Oxfordshire Cambridgeshire Heidelberg Leiden) and a White population anyway. I’m all for Hindu mathematical genius but it’s only supportable in the cloisters of a greater society than Delhi can provide.

    Your comment is only semi-correct. The Jews are doing the same that you describe, now in Israel. Not at the great universities of Europe. Not as much anyways. I believe there are many visiting professor arrangements between Israel and Europe/England. Same for university research.

  90. Wokechoke says:
    @Chris Moore

    If black people did help the Allies in combat against Germany, substantially/sustained/consistent that’s news to me. How many black Americans died in ww2? Or even ww1?

    • Replies: @Chris Moore
  91. @Anonymous

    I agree with what you write about Newton.

    E. O. Wilson is a well-respected ants-scientist and a decent public intellectual in fighting wrong-headed men like Stephen J.Gould and I ‘d say that that is quite a lot already. I wouldn’t mind if people would call him a genius for these accomplishments.

    His sociobiological attempts? – Not that promising. Rather run of the mill materialism (not too far away from Marx- and – esp. – Engels and his (crude) nature-dialectic). Methodically quite limited in that he ignores the key factor in modern sociological and socio-psychological and philosophical thought – and that is, a) that people judge (=differentiate) by giving reasons for their decisions/ actions / thoughts and b) that they argue to make their reasons plausible / believed /respected etc.. The third foundation of modern thought is c), that we become individuals by taking part in a collective accomplishment by learning to use languge (and contexts/traditions…) to make us understood.

    Anonymus 146’s claim in his comment 59, that Wilson’s work was necessary to make genetic IQ-research happen just does not convince me. I’d say, that my question in my comment No.20 above is still unansewered.

    I also asked, if there’d be other (= better?) examples for the intellectual productivity of sociobiology?
    Maybe adoption would be a realm, in which sociobiology is useful to find good hypotheses which can be proven/ disproven with socio-psychological (quantitative) methods? – I’d say, that this might be the best possible use of sociobiology: To find productive questions / hypotheses.

    Moreover, he tended to emphasize vague, fuzzy epigenetic explanations.

    Aha. Here you say, that he failed in the field of genetics.

    Robert Plomin in Blueprint refers to Wilson – but to Brian Wilson from the Beach Boys, and not to Edward O. Not once. The same is true for Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending in The 10.000 Year Exlosion: Not a single reference to Edward O. Wilson.

    Harvard biologist and public intellectual Bernard D. Davis says in his essay-collection Storm Over Biology (1986) that Wilson is too easily inclined to make all kinds of prededictions about the future of ethics and war etc. which sound better than they are. I could sum up B. D. Davis’ critique of Wilson with a Habermasian term: It makes sense to look for biological causes for our actions and thoughts, but making far-reachig predictions about the future of war or religion means to overplay one’s hand as a sociobiologist. Such thinkers are being called hard naturalists by Habermas in Between Naturalism and Religion . This is a verdict. Habermas says, that hard naturalists are reductionists and don’t understand the social and cultural part of our human nature. Biological reductionism makes complicated questions of identity, selfconsciousness and acknowledgement simpler by ignoring or depotentializing (=destroying) them – a form of intellectual oversimplification.

    Maybe I should have a closer look at Edward Dutton’s work and his references to Wilson. – These questions are interesting. Jordan B. Peterson’s lobster-chapter in Twelve rules for Life is a good way to write as a soft naturalist.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  92. @mcohen

    Ah yes, poetry—distillations of emotions blended with thought. This pair was written in St. Louis on approximately this date in 1964:


    And I without a purple robe
    to drape on disappointment
    nor cellars of wine in which to drown
    the flames
    make feeble jots and jerks upon
    the scrolls which know truth
    but do not feel it.

    He looked into the glass and saw
    Two eyes

    which echoed
    the light and pleasant things
    which danced and swayed
    with the spring

    The deep and painful things
    which quivered and wrinkled
    with the storm

    And the strange and subtle things
    which spoke of other men
    and wept.

    Neither piece was titled those 57 years ago.

  93. anon[358] • Disclaimer says:
    @Happy Tapir

    This guy along with Sam Harris and one more whose name I am uanble to recall now ,captured world’s attention fora brief period by Islamophobic remarks and attitudes . This moron hasnt been heard since then because other isssues came to dominate the narrative from the time of Brexit and Trump winning. Vaunted false liberalism that these people emodied were evident to discerning eyes because of their muted button or silence on state inititated terrorism committed by Israel .
    Yes,muslims are not winning nobel . So are Ethiopians Phillipines Rumania Poland Hungary or S Afrucan . Singpore and Taiwan can be included . Modern sicence is data imtelligence and tech heavy and needs lot of money . May be the western vassal and rogue country Saudi can be blamed for not creating world class univeristy. But then this ,bastard need to be reminded where his fucking mouth was when Iraq’s 1 st class lifestyle was destroyed and Libyan state of affairs was gutted by his fellow brothers. Neither one heard one whimper about Guantanamo or rendtion on any word on treatment of Assange from them.

    These vaunted atheists had no problem in offerring supports to each and every criminal activity engaged by Israel which was based on and has been functioning following religious codes .
    Their Islamophobia had less to do with knowledge or science but more to do with what the neocons expected from them .
    These moral midgets have been forgotten by their masters because the intellectual puffery they offered ,ceased to generate any value to the lives of the neocon.

    • Agree: RobinG, RedpilledAF
  94. @TorontoTraveller

    Be wary, Oh Canada, for the floodgates have been sundered.

    In Praise of Poetry


    Poetry is the distillation of language,
    The quintillization of mind-fullness,
    An alchemical solution to the prosaic pollution
    Of commonplace rules, conventional rhymes and rhythms.

    A rescue squad for the overburdened spirit
    Cast adrift within a world of obstructive abstractions,
    Where consumption and production represent
    In their presence, a past tension of convention.

    Poetry has the power of universal solvency,
    An interstitial, interdimensional acceleration
    Into Realms undreamt by the minions of mere reason,
    Whose devolution into patterns ideological, dogmatic,
    Are catastrophic in their application to that adumbrated spirit
    Whose apotheosis stalls…..unachieved by agency
    Committed to negations of the deeper connexion
    Of human spirit to Cosmoconscious resolutions.

    Living language is a flowing, flexing fullness of apprehension,
    Inclusive of the vision where Blake comprehends
    The expression of universal unity within a grain of sand;
    Or Jesus real–izing empowerment within one single
    Mustard seed, expressing enablement
    Through the power of growth,
    The effervescence of life,
    And the living understanding that One is All,
    That All is One.

    composed in May 2019

  95. @Liborio Guaso

    Another dumbo, illiterate “anti-racist”! Tell me what happened in the The Battle of Tours and in Constantinople and why Charles Marten and Khan Tervel are called the “Saviors of Europe?

    • Agree: Zorost
  96. @War for Blair Mountain

    I agree completely. EO Wilson wrote beautiful, correct American English. Gould could not.

    • LOL: Maddaugh
  97. I sent the following letter to Richard Dawkins in 1983:

    Dr Richard Dawkins,
    University of Oxford,
    Department of Zoology,
    Oxford, OX1 2JD.

    16 September, 1983.

    Dear Dr Dawkins,

    Since I watched the Horizon programme, The Selfish Gene, on the BBC some years ago and read your popular book of the same title, there has been a question concerning the explanation of the behaviour of the social insects hanging on my mind.

    According to the neo-Darwinist view, it is the “gene”, rather than the individual organism as Darwin himself had supposed, which is the basic unit of inheritance Nature Selection acts on. This has been very successful in explaining animal behaviour as a whole.

    One of such is Kinship Altruism. This is explained by assuming that there is a “kinship gene” which, when present in an individual, will cause him to exercise altruism towards his kin. The degree of altruistic commitment would be directly related to the relatedness between him and the kin concerned. And the relatedness is defined as the probability of the two individuals sharing any particular gene, including the “kinship gene”. Hence, if the altruistic action helps his kin in survival and in raising young, the kinship gene itself will become more wide-spread in the population. The kinship gene is then said to propagate in the “gene pool”.

    In the programme as well as in your book, one behaviour of social insects, like the honey bee for example, is regarded as one form of kinship altruism. According to the theory, the worker-bees “choose” to help the queen-bee to raise their sisters rather than rearing their own offspring because each of them is more closely related to her sisters than to her potential offspring (3/4 against 1/2). Here, it is thought that the kinship gene would propagate more successfully in the gene pool if the bees work for the benefit of their sisters rather than their own offspring.

    The above argument assumes that the all-important task of a gene is to get as many as possible the number of copies of itself to exist physically in the bodies of individuals. But this is not the assumption on which the theory of population genetics is based. Rather, the task of a gene is to proliferate itself in the bodies of fertile individuals. A copy of a gene in a sterile individual cannot be considered as being in the gene pool because it cannot propagate within it. Clearly, in the case of the honey bee, if a mutant worker bee deserted its sisters, mated and reproduced in the same way as non-social insects do, the number of the mutant gene would follow the number of offspring which multiplied geometrically. The mutant gene would find itself more successful than the non-mutant type which would not propagate at all because the other worker bees died without leaving any offspring of their own.

    There are two questions which need to be examined here. The first is: how often does any queen-bee mate with drones of another colony? If the answer is not at all, then the bee in a colony ought to be considered as genetically identical. This would obviously be the case after the colony has gone through many generations. And the second is: when a queen bee dies, on average, how many queen-bees will replace her? The answer seems to be one. This suggests that an individual bee does not belong to the class of an individual organism (an individual non-social insect does). It seems that not even a colony of bees can fit into this class either. The line of argument can only be applied to the class of individuals (individual organisms) which can and will reproduce, and also each individual tend to leave more than one offspring.

    It appears that this particular behaviour pattern of the honeybee is not an example of kinship altruism. The assertion that a worker-bee favours her fellow worker-bees rather than her own potential offspring because of her closer relatedness with the former appears to be the result of a superficial analysis. For example, if someone saved an unrelated person in some dangerous situation and lost his own live in the process, we cannot call that an example of kinship altruism even though both the individuals most probably possess the kinship gene, which, by definition, only act between closely related individuals to any significant extend.

    I would like to hear your opinion on this.

    Yours sincerely,

    Dawkins gave me a short reply. He ignored my question on the “kinship gene” but merely stated that bee colonies did multiple, the queen bee did mate with drones of other colonies and also mentioned about the possibility that inbreeding gives rise to new species.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  98. @Maddaugh

    UB a Maddo, aright! I personally know hundreds of selfless people doing what they can to help other people and animals.

    “Crabs in a barrel”, you say! Now there’s some good you could do: are you vegan yet?

    • LOL: Maddaugh
    • Replies: @Maddaugh
  99. @Deep Thought

    And another letter later but I got no reply:

    Dr Richard Dawkins,
    University of Oxford,
    Department of Zoology,
    Oxford, OX1 2JD.

    22th October 1995

    Dear Dr Dawkins,

    Attached is a letter I sent to you in 1983. A copy of W D Hamilton’s paper, “Altruism and Related Phenomena, Mainly in Social Insects”, was attached with your reply.

    I remember you mentioned in your reply letter that Hamilton (?) had also suggested that inbreeding could have been a mechanism that led to the emergency of new species.

    I did not pursue further discussion on this point then, but would like to take it up now.

    I feel that there is some difficulty in this hypothesis mainly because “inbreeding” should not be able to establish itself and therefore cannot lead to the formation of new species.

    Indeed, it is often argued that the behaviour of inbreeding is not viable in evolutionary terms because, firstly, it brings out the effects of recessive inferior genes and, secondly, it reduces the chance of a superior mutant gene from spreading in a population. Both effects would reduce the fitness of the “inbreeding gene” itself. The effort of an “inbreeding gene” to propagate itself in the “gene pool” is therefore self-defeating.

    It is perhaps necessary to define the meaning of “inbreeding” more precisely. By inbreeding behaviour, we really mean the tendency to mate with the closest related individuals of the opposite sex– even when non-related individuals are available for mating.

    Suppose now a couple of animal siblings are isolated by some accident and are unable to find unrelated mates. At first, this couple has to “inbreed” in order to produce young. But as the number of their offspring multiplies, later generations will have the opportunity to choose a mate in the normal, “non-inbreeding” manner. If an “inbreeding gene” did appear in the population, it would be weeded out in the manner suggested above.

    Isolation of a small population could lead to the emergency of a new species due to the relative ease of spreading and accumulating of new mutant genes, but inbreeding itself cannot be a mechanism that leads to the same.

    I hope to hear you opinion on the above and on my anonymous response to the article in Scientific American, which is also attached.

    Yours faithfully,

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  100. @Deep Thought

    And my letter to Scientific American:

    The Editor,
    Scientific American,
    PO Box 3186,
    Harlan, IA 51593-2377,

    22 October 1995.


    I read with interest the article, The New Social Darwinists, in the October 95 issue of the Scientific American.

    This article mentioned Frank J. Sulloway’s assertion: “From a Darwinian point of view, it is just impossible that birth-order effects don’t exist” (p. 181). The “first-borns” are observed to be, in general, conservative and conformative and this behaviour is attributed to a genetic cause.

    I cannot see how the alleged “birth-order” effect could be of Darwinian origin.

    As I understand, the notion of Darwinism assumes that an individual acquires his physical/morphological and mental/behavioural characteristics by either inheriting (usually) from his parents the associated gene(s) or gaining (occasionally) the (new) gene(s) through the process of genetic mutation.

    Now, let us assume that there is a “first-born gene” responsible for causing the “first-borns” to be conservative and conformative. If the “first-borns” acquired this gene through mutation, there is no reason to suppose that the “later-borns” had less chance of doing the same.

    Alternatively, if a parent passed the “first-born gene” to his “first-born” child, it was equally likely that he would pass the same gene to each of his “later-born” children. And since there could only be one “first-born” child in a family but many “later-born” children, we should see “first-born” characteristics in a lot more “later-born” children than in “first-born” children.

    Of course, you can further assume that the “first-born gene” can “switch itself off” when being present in the bodies of “later-borns”. Then you will have to “invent” a process for this to happen.

    There is yet another difficulty for this “birth-order” hypothesis. Until well after industrialisation and the advent of modern medicine, infant mortality was usually very high. “First-borns”, in particular, were even more likely to die in infancy due to a variety of reasons, including the inexperience of their young mothers. Again, you would have to “invent” a “first-born gene” that could recognise the change of status of a “later-born” who now became a “first-born”.

    It therefore appears that if there is a “birth-order” effect in human society (and, in a statistical sense, most probably there is one) it is most likely an environmental/cultural effect, instead of a Darwinian/genetic effect.

    The above argument does not necessarily imply that parents’ favouring “first-borns” is also an environmental/cultural effect. In fact, the first part of Sulloway’s argument suggests that this might well be a Darwinian/genetic effect.


    • Replies: @anon
  101. RobinG says:
    @emerging majority

    Your hyperbolic adulation of the Great Pederasts duly noted.

    • Replies: @emerging majority
  102. RobinG says:

    “Ron himself is gracious on this front.”

    You think so? Just look at how he hands out gold borders. The 2 in this thread are for agreeing with him, not merit.

    • Agree: Bert
    • Replies: @Bert
  103. @TorontoTraveller

    Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Schubert-the ‘Divine Spark’ shone brightly. Almost all their creations, even the pot-boilers were works of genius. Today? What extinguished the ‘spark’?

  104. Thrallman says:

    E. O. Wilson was the most famous scientist in the world. How many people had ever heard of him?

    Around 2005, I was walking by a used book store and and saw a copy of Sociobiology in the top layer of a 50-yard dumpster. A clerk was busy heaving more volumes into the dumpster. I retrieved the book, and told the clerk, “You can’t throw this away.” They let me buy the book for \$1. I’ve flipped a few of its 1000 pages since but can’t claim to have got much out of it.

    Very few people have any detailed knowledge of science. A tiny minority of the population is interested in truth.

    • Agree: Bert
  105. @Rogue

    ‘Upliftment’? Where? Why?

  106. anon[358] • Disclaimer says:
    @Deep Thought

    Thank you , this is informative and raises questions about ‘ selfish gene’ . There is no consciousness gene,no first born gene and no god gene . Neither it is possible for genes coding for muscle protein or thyroid hormones or for taste bud or smell have the computational structure or intrinsic inbuilt part to make them independent unit, or help them experience any understading of self- fulfilment of any kind.
    Genes are made of codons ,codon is made of any 3 combinations of ATCZ . One codon codes for 1 amino acid . There is redundancy also. Genes are collection of codons who can be intron,exon,transposins,or iRNA producing . Genes are there with no function.
    2% human genes code for protein.

    But they work cooperatvely and also opportunistically – meaning selfishness can be part of the nature of certain genes and altruism can be feature of certain genes . Jumping genes are selfish occupying large space . They can be harmful causing cancer or hemophilia .
    We can say that selfihness is exhibited bt ATCZ along with phosphate and ribose .
    If genes wanted to be selfish ,we wouldnt have needed the paraphrenalia of sex,mitosis followed by meiosis ,and combination or jumping of genes. It cooukd have just split like the bacteris does – fission

    The very existence of evolution tells us that powerful forces have been at work guiding the behaviors of genes for a purpose . Why did ATCZ combination of 3 need so many forms of lives ? Genes coukd have evolved to be mortal. But it is not. Selfishness is not the purpose . It replicates and that replication can end up in failures or success . Not all genes survived and neither all genes changed . Neither all genes stayed same . Genes itself have evolved . Cytochrome c is conserved across any living that uses oxygen while Histone genes are practically same in each living being. But genes coding for hemoglobin has changed . Genes that shape the cognitive functions are dramatically different across species .
    Evolution itself makes a hierarchy that is not suitable for the survuval of the genes. Genes have to fight and be reasy to lose badly. Opportunities for genes getting replicated are limited in many forms of lives .


  107. @RobinG

    Hyperbolic? Well, at least it was not Hyperborean or even hyper boring.

  108. @Ron Unz

    his very detailed study of the ants and other insect societies was [very, rather, absolutely?] important, but I doubt whether taken by itself it drastically altered our understanding of the world.

    Give it a few years. Machine learning (AI) is just beginning to discover and use the genius of the swarm and the ants’ nest.

  109. jm says:

    You are an idiot with little understanding of the scientific process.

    Hands off idiots!

  110. Bert says:
    @Ron Unz

    What non-professional fans of Dawkins fail to realize is that there is a myriad of evolutionary phenomena, most of which are not illuminated by the gene-centric viewpoint. For example, lavoisier wrote, “Dawkins’ work denies us even the primacy of our individuality!” Hardly. For functionality in a species’ niche, the most fit phenotype will involve tradeoffs among many aspects of specific functions; those compromises are expressed in individuals.

    The relation of genes to individuals is part of the Units of Selection problem in the philosophy of biology. Ronald Brandon used Salmon’s concept of “Screening Off” to argue that a gene-centric viewpoint is undermined by the fact that it is the individual which interacts with the environment in a successful or unsuccessful way. This is a matter of how to ascribe causation.

    Elliott Sober critiqued Brandon’s approach, and McClamrock modified Brandon’s argument.

    There are two reasons why Dawkin’s metaphor is not important. First, it cannot be applied broadly to explain evolution because the energy-gathering level of organization is the individual, which is subject to optimization via tradeoffs. The gene-centric view is only useful in explaining some parts (altruism mostly) of social evolution. Second, Dawkin’s metaphor is Pop Philosophy of Science that was accepted by a public which is ignorant of the broad span of evolutionary phenomena as well as philosophy of science. Many biologists and philosophers of science reject Dawkin’s metaphor.

  111. Rogue says:
    @Dieter Kief

    South Africa is a case in point.

    In the very early 20th century the Black population of SA outnumbered the Whites by a ratio of about 1.5 to 1.

    Despite the White population of SA being substantially bigger today (even with high emigration), the ratio of Black to White is now about 12 to 1.

    Life expectancy for Black South Africans vastly increased, and Black infant mortality plummeted, during the course of the 20th century. All specifically under White rule.

  112. Jamesc says:
    @Fart Blossom

    You have linked to Richard Poe, who is a prize loon.

  113. Bert says:

    Jerry Coyne’s comments on the stature of E. O. Wilson

  114. Bert says:

    The comments below are from Jerry Coyne’s post to which I linked above (115). They indicate that after Carl Zimmer posted an online obituary of Wilson a reference was added to an accusation by a female ant ecologist to the effect that Wilson had tried to ruin her career.

    If you read through the comments below Coyne’s post, you will see universal agreement that Wilson was a genial and honorable man. That was my experience on the two occasions that I interacted with him. I don’t believe Deborah Gordon.

    So evidently Zimmer’s obituary was deemed too laudatory by someone, so dirt was thrown on Wilson after he was defenseless. (((They))) have no shame.

    December 27, 2021 at 2:04 pm
    Carl Zimmer’s obituary includes a sour anecdote about Wilson based on Wilson’s professional disagreement with the ant ecologist Deborah Gordon (now at Stanford). She is quoted as claiming that Wilson tried to sabotage Gordon’s career when she was a postdoc at Harvard. It’s a damning accusation if true, but kinda slanderous if not (IANAL so maybe slander is the wrong word). Gordon is the only source quoted for that story.

    I get the interest in spicing up the obituary with stories about Wilson as a person, and the desire by Carl Zimmer to not write a hagiography. But this seems petty and self-interested on Gordon’s part. It’s hard to understand why Zimmer chose to include this.

    OTOH, if that’s the worst dirt that could be dug up on Wilson as a person, then he really does seem like a gem of a man (whatever one thinks of his group selectionism).

    December 27, 2021 at 4:09 pm
    I don’t remember that anecdote being in the first version, which I read at 5 a.m., but it is something that doesn’t belong in that obit.

    December 27, 2021 at 5:52 pm
    I guess the anecdote was added to the ~1:30 PM update. I see it was updated again at 4:38 PM.

    Zimmer doesn’t link to a source for those Gordon quotes esp. her claim that Wilson tried to sabotage her career. IDK if we should believe her, or ignore her claims as petty professional jealousy. Zimmer doesn’t help us decide.

  115. Bill says:

    But he may on rare occasions hoist himself by his own petard.

    When I was paying attention to him, it wasn’t common, but I don’t know that I’d say it was rare. He tends to move from “I don’t understand what you’re saying” to “you’re a moron talking nonsense” rather too quickly.

  116. Bill says:
    @Fart Blossom

    You’re not making a lot of sense. Colonialism is dead. Also, colonialism was good for Africans. This means that a certain sort of clear-headed humanitarian wants colonialism back. Just like some people actually interested in African’s welfare want Jim Crow back.

    • Replies: @europeasant
  117. Bill says:

    You are an idiot with little understanding of the scientific process.

    Scientists conduct studies and follow the data wherever it leads, no matter how uncomfortable the answer is. Scientists are super critical and try to disprove or falsify every hypothesis.

    I guess you will No True Scotsman this claim, but it is otherwise pretty ridiculous. Actual scientists don’t, in fact, do this.

  118. BlackFlag says:

    I think Dawkins’ work will stand the test of time, however. I think his most powerful insight may be his conception of the living organism as nothing more (or less) than a gene receptacle–a tent for the night so to speak. This is an incredibly powerful and disturbing idea that at this point in time remains mostly a metaphysical concept not amenable to scientific exploration

    Don’t think it will stand the test of time cause it’s too disturbing. I couldn’t finish The Extended Phenotype cause I could feel the life-juice being sucked out of me. Still have it on my bookshelf alongside The Selfish Gene but I should probably burn them. It will be forgotten or banned by any surviving civilization.

    • Replies: @lavoisier
  119. @Badger Down

    Stephen J Gould….Turgid…Bloated….ennui inducing to the human brain….the-eyes-glaze-over….

  120. Went to see Leo Kottke in concert….many times….and here is what Leo Kottke said between tunes:‘I wrote this next tune after reading E.O Wilson’s tome on Ants….This next tune is called “ANTS”….”

    True story….Now all you Unz Review commenters go to YouTube and type in Leo Kotte ANTS….or perhaps some of you can put the video up here in this comment section…in memorial to E.O Wilson..

    • Replies: @emerging majority
  121. @War for Blair Mountain

    Well do I recall Kottke playing at the Coffeehouse Extempore on Cedar Avenue in the WestBank Cedar-Riverside neighborhood in Minneapolis. This was back in ’67-69, when the storied Extemp was Hippie-Central for the Upper Midwest. Little schooled in music at that time, I found his presentation nice, but not extraordinary. Obviously, Kottke stuck to his guns and his music matured to the point where he achieved recognition on a national basis.


    There was another feller who got his start just across the Mississippi in a neighborhood known as Dinkytown, immediately adjacent to the University of Minnesota’s main campus. This guy had the sense and the chutzpah to drop out of that institution after doing time there for a single quarter.

    Name of the coffeehouse was The Scholar, now long since razed and the site of a Golden Arches. Feller’s name was Robert Zimmerman. He took on another identity when he hit the trail to Greenwich Village and started doing gigs there, connecting up with folks like Joan Baez. By that new identity he became rather well-known, first in the Folk circuit.

    Getting booed off the stage by indignant folkies when he electrified his music at a noted New England concert, he had undergone another transformation. Virtually within months, under this assumed identity, co-opted from the name of a Welch poet, he transformed his notoriety among the Folk folks into fame, which ultimately crescendoed when he received the Nobel Prize in literature in Oslo, Norway, primarily for his lyrical masterpiece “Desolation Row”, which he included in his Highway 61 Revisited album, released in the summer of ’65.

    The environs of the University of Mn. campus were a fermenting hotbed of creative social change during the ’60’s. Today, that institution is just another impersonal, oversized diploma-mill for people on the make for well-paid positions in a make-believe world.

  122. Bert33 says:

    Genius worship is a church with false gods. Our big problem today is ‘graduating’ illiterates and innumerates, kids who can’t use numbers and can’t read competently at the 8th grade level by the time they leave high school, IF they even graduate.

    Some people are smarter than others and typically such persons will excel at what they do in life. Other people, not-so-much, and since folks in category B tend to also be in the majority, category A people tend to get carted off to special schools where supposedly they can get smarter. Sometimes, it works.

    Issac Asimov, writer, was a sharp cookie and prolific producer of literary works spanning the entire Dewey decimal system, which is no small feat. He was once approached to join MENSA, the official association of really smart people that like to compare IQ’s. He refused, declining to associate himself with intellectual snobbery which is tiresome, boring, and basically an ego massage parlor of questionable moral repute.

    There is much talk today concerning artificial intelligence, but mainly it’s a brain substitute people are carrying around because they never really developed their own mental faculties. Our public school system is pretty much a socially politicized failure with the net result that China will be running our citizens,, and thus our country, by remote control.

  123. Chris Moore says: • Website

    Who ever said “multicult niggas” are Black? Any Judas jackass doing the bidding of the ((Jews)) knowingly or unknowingly is an ignorant, worthless, multicult nigga, even bluebloods.

  124. lavoisier says: • Website

    I agree with you. It is profoundly disturbing.

  125. Anonymous[414] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dieter Kief

    Dutton’s work is well worth examining. He has a singularly clear head, and points out inescapable facts that directly affect daily human life and are are generally dismissed as too disturbing to contemplate. Informally, Dutton has a tendency to see through the doublethink.

    Methodically quite limited in that he ignores the key factor in modern sociological and socio-psychological and philosophical thought – and that is, a) that people judge (=differentiate) by giving reasons for their decisions/ actions / thoughts and b) that they argue to make their reasons plausible / believed /respected etc.. The third foundation of modern thought is c), that we become individuals by taking part in a collective accomplishment by learning to use languge (and contexts/traditions…) to make us understood.

    I suspect that the above criticism is yet another expression of the old divide between Continental and English philosophy. Continental philosophy was developed against a background of absolute government by people who badly needed a justification for being “free in their own mind”. English philosophy was developed by people who were badly in need of solving immediate practical problems.

    This was perhaps best expressed by Voltaire, who criticized the then English system as not providing community. One might as well criticize a slide rule for not providing marriage counseling– the slide rule was never intended to do that.

    As for Wilson having pushed his ideas too far — maybe so. Newton spent much of his life in Christian theology, and much as well in trying to understand chemistry through study of crystallization. His trips to blind alleys don’t make his successful work any less true.

    If you haven’t read it, you should really take a look at Aristophanes’ play “The Clouds”*. For something written about 2.5 millennia in the past, I’ve found that it does an excellent job of describing life in a University graduate school. One of my favorite scenes is this one, in which Strep is a person with grant money to award and Dis is an early map maker.

    Necessary background: Athens and its empire were, at the time of the play, in a life or death war with Sparta. Eventually, Sparta would sort of won, but could neither administer or survive the money that Spartan administrators stole, then collapsed in on itself a generation later).:

    So, here we are in a Greek graduate school, and cartography faculty explains its research to the person with grant money:


    Strep. What then is the use of this (map)?

    Dis. To measure out the land.

    Strep. What belongs to an allotment? (for surveying farmland?)

    Dis. No, but the whole earth.

    Strep. You tell me a clever notion; for the contrivance
    is democratic and useful.

    Dis. (pointing to a map) See, here’s a map of the whole
    earth. Do you see? This is Athens.

    Strep. What say you? I don’t believe you; for I do not see the Dicasts sitting (Dicasts: the judges sitting at an Athenian trial, which had a jury of about 500.).

    Dis. Be assured that this is truly the Attic (Athenian) territory.

    Strep. Why, where are my fellow-tribesmen of Cicynna?

    Dis. Here they are. And Euboea here, as you see, is
    stretched out a long way by the side of it to a great

    Strep. I know that; for it was stretched (defeated in war) by us and
    Pericles. But where is Lacedaemon (Spartan territory)?

    Dis. Where is it? Here it is.

    Strep. How near it is to us! Pay great attention to
    this, to remove it very far from us.

    Dis. By Jupiter, it is not possible.

    Strep. Then you will weep for it.


  126. Bert says:

    I find it hilarious that Mr. Unz chooses to give his approval to ill-informed and unsupported comments like #65 and #66, while not replying to my #64 and #112 that were directed to him and contained both citations and evolutionary reasoning. He is veering close to those crazies who, unable to publish in peer-reviewed journals, set up their own using the printshop down the street.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  127. Maddaugh says:
    @Badger Down

    LMAO. I also know a lot of people doing what they can to help other people and animals. Lets see, there are about 20 at the animal shelter, about another 150 at the nearby Thrift Stores and an assortment of environmentalists and tree huggers who make themselves a nuisance with climate change and the end of the world.

    ALL, are struggling, wondering whether they are going to get a 1/2 day shift to pay the bills. Who wants to live like that ? I bet you do !

    The majority of the people I know are successful. Some are cruel, some are kind but only to selected family members and long time friends.

    Unfortunately, and here is a lesson from Maddaugh, we did not get to be top species on this planet because we are nice people. Also the world you live in and enjoy was not built by people with soft hearts, tree huggers and animal shelter volunteers. It was built by those crabs I was talking about. It is an unfortunate fact of life that the strong roll right over the weak. Once can choose to be predator or prey, there is no other alternative.

    As for me I am a strict vegetarian by diet but by nature I am a meat eater. Both character traits ensure I look at this world in a cold blooded way, AS IT IS, and not as I wish it to be. A Badger is an omnivore, a handle that does not apply to you. You should choose another one and I suggest “Twinky Down” LOL

  128. Maddaugh says:
    @Badger Down

    Why are you so obsessed with child porn, prostitution, grooming and Moslem sex predators ? Are you part of the game or were you sexually abused as a child ?

    You should try to convince those gangs to help other people and animals.

    Get off it Twinky, stop acting like a victim and act like a man. Your comments are raising concerns about your mental state. Leave the past behind regardless of what happened to you.

    Eat more vegetables, it will help. LOL

    • Replies: @RobinG
  129. DaveE says:

    This was a fine piece – many thanks.

    I read some of Wilson’s work in college in the early 1980’s. I thought he was great, much to the annoyance (to put it politely) of a black friend who seemed to think I should be drawn and quartered for such “racist” approval of a demon.

    The thing I liked most about Wilson was that he is clear that intelligence EVOLVES over time. That species can become more intelligent with time – it’s not a static “given” that some races will always be more intelligent than others. When coupled with the idea of reincarnation of the soul, one might even start to understand that yes, Martha, a six-year-old may never be as smart as a mature adult BUT…… ya’ just never know what that toddler may grow up to accomplish – and that this evolution also takes place over multiple lifetimes.

    A few years later I read some of Stephen Jay Gould’s *^@#% and found it too nauseating to get through. Gould is so fixated on his own Jewish Superiority (though he doesn’t have the guts to admit it in writing) that I can imagine he is one of those who would use Wilson’s work to prove The Jew is the superior life-form, but of course this was exactly NOT what Wilson was saying. The Jew may be a little older, but Shlomo is getting old and tired and won’t be around much longer. Superior insects have replaced him.

    Anyway, thanks for this fine eulogy.

  130. RobinG says:

    Please customize your advice for commenter 74v56ruthiyj who seems to have been rejected by [a series of] intelligent women.

    “Diverting intelligent women from baby-making into office work is absolutely destructive of society, and the long term economy if that is your concern. Where are the smart people to come from if smart women don’t bear them?”

  131. @Liborio Guaso

    “Something else, no human species traveled to Europe to kill the whites”

    Oh, how they tried, but without success. One of the last times was 1681. This time they are trying by way of colonization because they can not conquer the European White man.

    “The Battle of Vienna[a] took place at Kahlenberg Mountain near Vienna on 12 September 1683[1] after the imperial city had been besieged by the Ottoman Empire for two months. The battle was fought by the Holy Roman Empire led by the Habsburg Monarchy and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, both under the command of King John III Sobieski, against the Ottomans and their vassal and tributary states”

    You should read more history to bring you up to date.

  132. @Bill

    African should stay and help build God’s paradise on earth which is is currently the continent of Africa. But they love White Man’s inventions too much plus they are very well fed in Europe and America.

  133. RobinG says:

    Even though I’m an admirer of Wilson (and I met him 10 years ago at one of his lectures), I’ve never actually read any of his books. Where should I start now? How about The Social Conquest of Earth?
    This piece (linked by Dutton) gave me the idea –

  134. Anonymous[204] • Disclaimer says:
    @Edward Dutton

    In this video David Wilson has a sophisticated criticism of Dawkins.

    Dawkins was brilliant but ultimately failed to come to terms with the dominant role of religion in driving group fitness.

    His treatment of evolutionary psychology is quite dogmatic.

    This EO Wilson has greater claim to being labeled a genius since he did not eschew the role of religion.

    Even ants have religion. Only we fail to understand it.

    • Thanks: Dieter Kief
  135. Anonymous[317] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    If I encounter instances where I find that a scientist has made discoveries that I hadn’t thought to previously connect (“Wow, he did that, too?”), then I would say he is a genius. E. O. Wilson’s contributions to sociobiology, our knowledge of ant pheromones, island biogeography, biodiversity, and r/K selection theory certainly qualify him, even if he did not necessarily originate all of those concepts. However, if we equate genius with total originality, then I fear that Dawkins does not qualify:

    The Selfish Gene is a 1976 book on evolution by the ethologist Richard Dawkins, in which the author builds upon the principal theory of George C. Williams’s Adaptation and Natural Selection (1966). Dawkins uses the term “selfish gene” as a way of expressing the gene-centred view of evolution (as opposed to the views focused on the organism and the group), popularising ideas developed during the 1960s by W. D. Hamilton and others.

    Regarding their cultural contributions, Wilson was a curious scientist and a fearless defender of the truth who was viciously schmeared for it, withstanding his Judeo-Communist critics with grace, while Dawkins has helped deconstruct the “bulwark against something worse” (in his own words) and made Western Internet discourse more obnoxious for almost a decade.

    • Replies: @Anon
  136. anon[390] • Disclaimer says:

    Hail E. O. Wilson.

    I first learned of him a couple of decades ago while researching ants. Hail Nature!

  137. Anon[189] • Disclaimer says:

    However, if we equate genius with total originality, then I fear that Dawkins does not qualify:

    The Selfish Gene was intended more for a popular audience. It is connected to its less well known sequel The Extended Phenotype which was directed to a more academic audience.and is very original. These 2 books together explicate a highly original and novel theoretical view.

  138. @Dumbo

    I read The Selfish Gene when it came out and was struck by its extreme dogmatism in support of self-evident absurdity. As I recall it argues that the only meaningful unit of selection is the “gene” in its contribution to the reproductive success of the “individual.” But which arbitrarily selected unit of DNA is a “gene,” and more importantly which arbitrarily selected unit of life is an “individual”? Is the “individual” the worker bee’s wing cell nucleus, the cell, the wing itself, the bee, the hive, the network of hives, the ecosystem featuring the networks, the planet featuring the ecosystems, or the many planetary systems teeming with life and (perhaps) occasionally exchanging it? Is the human individual the cell, the organ, the person, the family, the tribe, the confederation of tribes, the species, the ecosystem, or the ecosystem of ecosystems (ultimately the Earth and beyond)? And since “reproductive fitness” is entirely dependent on the larger context of what all the other DNA, “genes,” cell parts, cells, organs, “individuals,” groups, groups of groups, etc. etc. are doing, ultimately Dawkins explains everything by explaining nothing.

    As for Wilson, his denial of free will is almost equally absurd. Like a solipsist who obviously cannot possibly really believe in the solipsism he defends to his (imaginary?!) interlocutor, Wilson cannot possibly really believe that everything he is saying is just a script emerging from deterministic forces, or he would not bother saying it.

  139. RobinG says:

    …his denial of free will is almost equally absurd.

    My, my… gotta defend that ego, don’t we? You seem to believe that you have a “will” that acts independently of both your genetics and the total of your life experience, all you’ve seen, heard, felt, read, etc. Lol. (And your criticism of Dawkins is pretty bizarre, as well.)

  140. Kevin Barrett: “As for Wilson, his denial of free will is almost equally absurd.”

    Again, that’s not correct. See my comment #85 above. Wilson is actually quite a fan of free will. In another part of Consilience Wilson states unequivocally that he believes human will is free. He uses chaos theory to make a rather silly argument to that effect. Why ants and bees don’t have free will too then, since their nervous systems are also subject to the same sort of chaos, he doesn’t explain. He apparently is arguing that since we are at present unable to make 100% accurate long term forecasts of future brain states (a notion derived from chaos theory), that amounts to the same thing as having free will. He then uses this absurd conviction that man has free will to engage in some happy talk regarding genetic engineering:

    Homo sapiens,the first truly free species, is about to decommission natural selection, the force that made us. There is no genetic destiny outside our free will, no lodestar provided by which we can set course. Evolution, including genetic progress in human nature and human capacity, will be from now on increasingly the domain of science and technology tempered by ethics and political choice. We have reached this point down a long road of travail and self-deception. Soon we must look deep within ourselves and decide what we wish to become. Our childhood having ended, we will hear the true voice of Mephistopheles.

    I note with disappointment too that Dawkins also claims in The Selfish Gene that man has free will. He bases this opinion not on chaos theory, but on the idea that man’s culture can make him free in exactly the same way that Wilson states; free to direct his own evolution. Per Dawkins, culture liberates man from natural selection. Any reader interested in finding out the particulars can consult the 2006 edition of The Selfish Gene, wherein he expands upon the brief statement made in favor of free will in the 1976 original. See pp. 331-2. I think it’s fairly easy to demolish this argument, but to avoid a long digression I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader.

    Frankly, I find their defense of free will unscientific and poorly thought out. In my view, such hocus-pocus ought to disqualify both of them from being regarded as bona fide geniuses.

  141. hillaire says:

    I’ve noticed many geniuses are in fact imbeciles… particularly the credentialed kind, lauded by imbeciles within their own ranks (or criticized by the lesser imbeciles they tutor who are in doubt/jealous of their masters genius) for the fanciful creations they cobble together… thus giving credence to their generally nonsensical ramblings and dubious mental contortions..

    thus pats on the back all round…

    I am informed many ‘jews’ are geniuses… presumably they are the ones like Bobby Fischer…

    • Agree: simple mind
    • Replies: @simple mind
  142. @Ron Unz

    It is my understanding that Robert Trivers largely or entirely did the theoretical parts of “Sociobiology” for Wilson, since that was clearly not his forte. Trivers also wrote the original foreword for Dawkins “Selfish Gene”.

    • Thanks: Dieter Kief
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  143. Ron Unz says:
    @Unladen Swallow

    It is my understanding that Robert Trivers largely or entirely did the theoretical parts of “Sociobiology” for Wilson, since that was clearly not his forte. Trivers also wrote the original foreword for Dawkins “Selfish Gene”.

    That’s very interesting. I’d never heard that, but then I’m never been privy to that sort of inside gossip. Trivers was a junior faculty member there at the time so it certainly seems possible.

    I dug out my old copy of Sociobiology, and in the Acknowledgments Wilson especially thanks Trivers “for reading most of the book and discussing it with me from the time of its conception.” So maybe.

  144. @hillaire

    Intelligence is a meaningless attribute, just like trying to “measure” anything unreal or fantastic.

Current Commenter

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

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Edward Dutton Comments via RSS
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Becker update V1.3.2
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
How America was neoconned into World War IV