Galton's Birthday Celebra-- Oops
RSS
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
This tweet was not up to our usual standards. While Galton played an inportant role in developing the science of genetics, he also advocated eugenics, a completely discredited set of ideas with no scientific basis.
— The Royal Society (@royalsociety) February 17, 2020
Follow @steve_sailer
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
And look at that smirk!
Self hating English people
If you want to know who they really hate figure out who exactly it is they’re working this hard to dissociate themselves from. It wouldn’t do for Royals to be seen as too familiar with such people.
Can we get a “then and now” meme for the Royal Society? They are literally responsible for many of humanity’s greatest scientific advancements, but today…
Just think of the great history of the National Geographic Society. I can picture the meetings and lectures in London by Englishmen who just came back from exploring parts of the world that nobody had ever seen and reporting it all to the eminent scientists and interested laymen. Then, the wonderful magazine, later full of beautiful glossy color photographs, could be read by all, even the colonists across the pond.
Now, we've got Nat-Geo with Shark-Fest week, and a magazine full of guilt for our sins of hurting Mother Earth with every breath we take.
Then there were the astronomers. What glorious scientific discovery went on!
This has all been noted and grieved for in Peak Stupidity's "Nat-Geo and the once great Royal Scientific Societies" - see Part 1 and Part 2.
“Completely discredited with no scientific basis, I tell you!”
Under minoritarianism our public discourse has devolved to something like 3rd grade level. This is just stupid.
Every society has some sort of "eugenic" or "genetic" policy whether they like it or not. What provision is made for the mentally ill? for the poor? What health care is available to the sick, the chronically ill? How are criminals dealt with--or not dealt with? What incentives are imbedded in tax policy? Who is allowed or encouraged to breed with whom? What are the cultural practices around marriage and mating? What cultural messages do young women--especially smart capable young women--receive?
We just happen to have an at best "do whatever" and at worst actively stupidly disgenic genetic policy.
And--like pretty much everything else from this corner--minoritarian/PC/"woke" foot stomping does not change reality. Nations that face eugenics squarely and put in place sound eugenic polices will become more healthly, smart, conscientious, capable, productive and stronger. I.e. nations that practice eugenics will win.Replies: @Desiderius
You think it’s themselves they hate? How precious!
If you want to know who they really hate figure out who exactly it is they’re working this hard to dissociate themselves from. It wouldn’t do for Royals to be seen as too familiar with such people.
Sad to see the institution so important for the propagation and acceptance of the scientific method using such sloppy and inaccurate writing.
Is eugenics “a completely discredited set of ideas?” Absolutely. The idea of restricting people’s right of free association by controlling with whom they can procreate is abhorrent.
Does eugenics “have no scientific basis?” I doubt that. If society went insane and banned reproduction by blue eyed people and their offspring, I think the science of genetics would guarantee the elimination of blue eyed people.
Methinks he doth protest too much. If it was REALLY discredited you wouldn’t need all those adjectives, etc.
If Galton goes down, Darwin goes with him. Remind everyone of that.
Is eugenics “a completely discredited set of ideas?” Absolutely. The idea of restricting people’s right of free association by controlling with whom they can procreate is abhorrent.
Does eugenics “have no scientific basis?” I doubt that. If society went insane and banned reproduction by blue eyed people and their offspring, I think the science of genetics would guarantee the elimination of blue eyed people.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @RichardTaylor, @ben tillman, @Jack D
You just lost all the Confederates here.
Sad that the Royal Society has fallen so far. Didn’t they have something to do with excellence in science once?
https://royalsociety.org/
But let’s take a stroll down memory lane.
In 1856 (at the age of 34) elected a fellow of the Royal Society.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Francis-Galton
Text of Galton’s speech at the Royal Society dinner after receiving the Gold Medal of the Society in 1886:
http://galton.org/bib/JournalItem.aspx_action=view_id=348
Knighted in 1909:
https://www.famousscientists.org/francis-galton/
Won the Copley Medal in 1910 for his research in heredity:
https://www.britannica.com/science/Copley-Medal
An obituary from 1911:
https://www.therai.org.uk/archives-and-manuscripts/obituaries/francis-galton
May the cringing goodthinker who wrote that tweet (the second one, obviously) have a tiny fraction of that success in zir life.
P.S. “inportant” was a nice touch.
This tweet was not up to our usual standards. While Galton played an inportant role in developing the science of genetics, he also advocated eugenics, a completely discredited set of ideas with no scientific basis.
This from people who know damn well that they consciously practice assortative mating strategy.
In my teens when i read about the Salem Witch Trials, The Inquisition (esp wrt Galileo) and even the Red Scare it seemed like those people were SO backward, and I was glad that we’re a lot smarter and freer now.
Now, nobody’s rounding up HBDers yet, but, with the hysterical reactions and denouncements, you can really see how it might go down.
And I’ve really gotta wonder about the double-think that anyone screaming about evolution(vs. creationism) must be engaging on this topic. Natural Selection and “eugenics” are biologically the same thing.
Is the real reason some people want to ban Animal Agriculture is that us hicks prove eugenics works?
“Winston, how many fingers am I holding up?”
“Discredited” is certainly the term of abuse de jour. It’s intended to convey the impression that a specific hypothesis has been objectively proven to be false. But it really means “currently unpopular and thus subject to de-platforming”
The Royal Society could have editorialized that any public policy to improve the gene pool should now be considered “socially unacceptable” or “immoral.” But the concept of eugenics is obviously not “without a scientific basis.”
So once again, science is made to lie and be stupid by an infusion of PC.
Look people, if you measure stuff, you might write it all down. And that would make easier to remember and lead you to study it further in the future. And then you might start drawing conclusions from it. And that might lead you to take guesses at how other measurements might relate to one another. And then you might start coming up with new ideas based on those guesses and how you might prove those ideas based on a different set of measurements. And that might lead you to conclude that the way we do things now is wrong compared to what those new ideas and the measurements that prove them tell you to think.
And that would be so not scientific.
There’s that, also non animal foods aren’t well tolerated by humans plus there’s no fortunes to be made in rearing cattle compared to growing cereals and vegetables.
More important avenue of scientific inquiry: what are today’s intellectuals and public figures propagating that will be discredited in the future?
The left has done a good job so far of shifting blame for Darwinian ideas they don’t like onto Galton, leaving their hero unblemished.
That said, I think the left’s love affair with Darwin is coming to an end. Minorities tend to be religious, and as they increase in numbers and power, old white leftists who defend Darwin are going to find themselves in an increasingly difficult position.
Seems to be another instance of a recently popular bit of rhetorical trickery: historical strawmanning.
What you do is you scour history for moments when you opponents ideas were taken to a much more difficult to defend extreme, and then treat that as the only possible definition of what it is they believe. So now eugenics is the 1920s American fairground variety with parades of the genetically superior and so forth, and only that. Not the self-evident truth that with selective breeding you can get rid of some genetic traits and do the opposite with ones you do like.
Sort of depressing that the Royal Society would stoop to that, but on the other hand they have to eat too, and I’ve always suspected it has been a pretty political club since the start.
#SAD!
Just think of the great history of the National Geographic Society. I can picture the meetings and lectures in London by Englishmen who just came back from exploring parts of the world that nobody had ever seen and reporting it all to the eminent scientists and interested laymen. Then, the wonderful magazine, later full of beautiful glossy color photographs, could be read by all, even the colonists across the pond.
Now, we’ve got Nat-Geo with Shark-Fest week, and a magazine full of guilt for our sins of hurting Mother Earth with every breath we take.
Then there were the astronomers. What glorious scientific discovery went on!
This has all been noted and grieved for in Peak Stupidity‘s “Nat-Geo and the once great Royal Scientific Societies” – see Part 1 and Part 2.
Is eugenics “a completely discredited set of ideas?” Absolutely. The idea of restricting people’s right of free association by controlling with whom they can procreate is abhorrent.
Does eugenics “have no scientific basis?” I doubt that. If society went insane and banned reproduction by blue eyed people and their offspring, I think the science of genetics would guarantee the elimination of blue eyed people.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @RichardTaylor, @ben tillman, @Jack D
But what about our moral obligation to the children? If a mentally disabled person is capable of having offspring, I see no reason not to restrict that. What about the fate of a child that comes from 1,000 generations of Indo-European stock suddenly given half her genes from Sub-Saharan Africa? Are we being “moral” to just let that happen, regardless of the Hell we’ve just created for someone?
Waitaminute - encouraging assortive mating to promote biological traits (in this case, “vibrancy”) that you consider beneficial to society, while eliminating those traits (whiteness) you blame for all of mankind’s ills?
TinyDuck is a eugenicist. Doesn’t he know those ideas have been discredited?
I have known such people and theirs was not a happy lot. I was in a band with one who was a great keyboard player, but could not stay out of drugs and 'thug life' as he had an inner demon to "be more black". He got killed in a drug deal gone bad. He did not have the street smarts to be a good criminal, even.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
“Debunked” is the even better version. It’s shorthand for “we wish this weren’t true but we can’t actually refute it, so we’re going to pretend somebody already did offstage somewhere and hand-wave the details away.”
Enjoy the Galton Board:
Explained with help from Pascal and Pisano (aka Fibonacci):
How stupid! Do you get your nuts back after you tell a lie like this? Or do you lose your dignity forever? If so, what’s the point of abasing yourself in this way?
Is eugenics “a completely discredited set of ideas?” Absolutely. The idea of restricting people’s right of free association by controlling with whom they can procreate is abhorrent.
Does eugenics “have no scientific basis?” I doubt that. If society went insane and banned reproduction by blue eyed people and their offspring, I think the science of genetics would guarantee the elimination of blue eyed people.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @RichardTaylor, @ben tillman, @Jack D
That’s not what eugenics is.
That’s not even what The Royal Society thinks it is.
Those who are already generally well born don't get tied up in knots over this. It never even crosses their mind.
Sadly, it seems we must now conclude that the Royal Society is “completely discredited” and “with no scientific basis”.
All this angst over eugenics shows clearly who fears their own known ignobility would be subject to flushing from the gene pool. They know they should not, and perhaps because they are so defective, cannot, breed.
Those who are already generally well born don’t get tied up in knots over this. It never even crosses their mind.
1) Most people that know statistics respect Galton. I’ve seen his contributions cited favorably many times in quality publications. In stats textbooks you will also see names like Fisher, Pearson, Spearman. And whaddaya know pretty much all of these guys are highly “problematic.” Fisher and Pearson were eugenicists. Spearman is credited with factor analysis which he came up in the context of intelligence research (g factor).
2) Twitter is another planet. You get these mobs that prowl for stuff like this to cry about, but it in no way reflects broad opinion or probably even true academic opinion. It looks like the whole world has this beef with Galton, but you click through and you see it’s just a bunch of freaks with pronouns in their bios.
3) It amazes me that these organizations cuck out so easily. Come on, Royal Society.
“Completely discredited with no scientific basis, I tell you!”
Under minoritarianism our public discourse has devolved to something like 3rd grade level. This is just stupid.
Every society has some sort of “eugenic” or “genetic” policy whether they like it or not. What provision is made for the mentally ill? for the poor? What health care is available to the sick, the chronically ill? How are criminals dealt with–or not dealt with? What incentives are imbedded in tax policy? Who is allowed or encouraged to breed with whom? What are the cultural practices around marriage and mating? What cultural messages do young women–especially smart capable young women–receive?
We just happen to have an at best “do whatever” and at worst actively stupidly disgenic genetic policy.
And–like pretty much everything else from this corner–minoritarian/PC/”woke” foot stomping does not change reality. Nations that face eugenics squarely and put in place sound eugenic polices will become more healthly, smart, conscientious, capable, productive and stronger. I.e. nations that practice eugenics will win.
Before WWII, most intellectuals were eugenicists – even socialists such as H. G. Wells. They realised that, in a wealthy, socialist society, a “neutral” position would be dysgenic. They did not want the unlimited growth of the underclass, or as Marxists called them, the lumpenproletariat.
They were neither debunked nor discredited, but out-Hitlered.
Is eugenics “a completely discredited set of ideas?” Absolutely. The idea of restricting people’s right of free association by controlling with whom they can procreate is abhorrent.
Does eugenics “have no scientific basis?” I doubt that. If society went insane and banned reproduction by blue eyed people and their offspring, I think the science of genetics would guarantee the elimination of blue eyed people.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @RichardTaylor, @ben tillman, @Jack D
It’s only abhorrent because of the slippery slope argument, just like restricting abortions even for late term fetuses is “abhorrent” because it restricts the mother’s “reproductive freedom”. In reality, freedom is not absolute – the interests of the individual and of society need to be balanced. Is it really abhorrent to sterilized those with severe mental retardation, who are likely to give birth to disabled children and who will in any case be unable to care for them. Yes, the Nazis did this but they also ate dinner every night – do we ban dinner because the Nazis used to eat dinner?
As Another Dad points out, whether we intend it that way or not, the stuff that the government does, the stuff that societies do, is either eugenic or dysgenic. In the modern context, apparently “eugenics” (the bad kind) consists of actually having an awareness of, and taking in to account, the effect that government and social policy has on breeding. We are apparently supposed to carefully disregard the elephant in the room. So in Scandinavia, high IQ white women are having few children and low IQ immigrants are having more, they are virtuous because they are not practicing eugenics. “Virtue” of this sort has a price that will be paid later on.
The UK where privilege and supremacy is legally hereditary as embodied in the royal family, but intelligence and other abilities are not. At what point will it dawn on these people that you can’t have royalty without the stench of eugenics.
Simple enough.
Over three and a half centuries is a pretty good run. No wonder Moldbug wants another Stuart Restoration.
Under minoritarianism our public discourse has devolved to something like 3rd grade level. This is just stupid.
Every society has some sort of "eugenic" or "genetic" policy whether they like it or not. What provision is made for the mentally ill? for the poor? What health care is available to the sick, the chronically ill? How are criminals dealt with--or not dealt with? What incentives are imbedded in tax policy? Who is allowed or encouraged to breed with whom? What are the cultural practices around marriage and mating? What cultural messages do young women--especially smart capable young women--receive?
We just happen to have an at best "do whatever" and at worst actively stupidly disgenic genetic policy.
And--like pretty much everything else from this corner--minoritarian/PC/"woke" foot stomping does not change reality. Nations that face eugenics squarely and put in place sound eugenic polices will become more healthly, smart, conscientious, capable, productive and stronger. I.e. nations that practice eugenics will win.Replies: @Desiderius
Do whatever and woke are opposite ends of the spectrum. Woke us so stupid exactly because too many of the non-stupid are still stuck on do whatever.
Our friend TinyDuck would call this “progress”.
Waitaminute – encouraging assortive mating to promote biological traits (in this case, “vibrancy”) that you consider beneficial to society, while eliminating those traits (whiteness) you blame for all of mankind’s ills?
TinyDuck is a eugenicist. Doesn’t he know those ideas have been discredited?
The Queen is entitled to her position by her birth, but a working class white Englishman is entitled to nothing over a Paki or Hindu by virtue of his. In other words, peasants have no consideration of rights and Royals do.
Simple enough.
Many mixed race people are horribly conflicted by their own inner and outer conflicts as well as their often untenable position in the society they inhabit. If you are the offspring of Peggy Lipton and Quincy Jones and move in Hollywood circles and are given an irrevocable trust fund on birth, life might not be too miserable, but if you are the offspring of a misguided white liberal college graduate and a ghetto negress, you are in a world of hurt from the start.
I have known such people and theirs was not a happy lot. I was in a band with one who was a great keyboard player, but could not stay out of drugs and ‘thug life’ as he had an inner demon to “be more black”. He got killed in a drug deal gone bad. He did not have the street smarts to be a good criminal, even.
What are the usual standards for a “tweet”?
The term isn’t very reassuring, is it?
They had plenty back when they still attended church– by law:
I’m stunned to see Forbes quoting Mercatornet, but here it is:
That’s what Saharas– and Atlantics– are for. To prevent that sort of thing.
There are four lights!
I have known such people and theirs was not a happy lot. I was in a band with one who was a great keyboard player, but could not stay out of drugs and 'thug life' as he had an inner demon to "be more black". He got killed in a drug deal gone bad. He did not have the street smarts to be a good criminal, even.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
The late Peggy Lipschitz was the common-law mother-in-law of both LL Cool J and Tupac Shakur. That’s impressive, but not in any good way.
Subhadra Das Retweeted:
https://twitter.com/DrAnneHanley/status/1231165248759107584