The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Gregory Cochran Unloads on the NYT's Jihad to Watson Geneticist David Reich
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

At West Hunter, Greg Cochran unloads on the New York Times:

Primitive tribesmen complain about technologically superior invaders

Posted on January 18, 2019 by gcochran9

There is a new article in the New York Times Magazine (Is Ancient DNA Research Revealing New Truths — or Falling Into Old Traps?) , in which some pinhead repeats complaints about David Reich crushing his enemies [archaeologists] , driving them before him, and hearing the lamentations of their women. He doesn’t give them much respect.

They don’t deserve respect. Sure, he has a far more powerful method. Sequencing DNA gives you billions of bits, orders of magnitude more than staring at potsherds. But it is fair to look at how archaeologists did with the tools they had: terrible, horrible, no good, very bad. They really, really wanted to create detailed stories of local social change, stories that didn’t sound like something by Robert E, Howard, full of thud and blunder. Not stories about barbarian conquest, population replacement, and mating with nonhuman races.

But that’s what happened….

Aryan Invasion theory: An Aryan invasion (!) , offensive to local feelings in India, sounds almost like colonialism, blah blah blah. But correct….

And so on, and so on. They had one job…

Does this mean that David Reich is without sin? No. He occasionally genuflects to the PC powers that be, sometimes smearing the innocent in the process. Is his success going to his head – might he tend to underrate peer review when he has Nick Patterson on his side? Maybe. Should he think very carefully about sample conservation, perhaps saving some for improved future methods? Sure.

But he’s contributing to knowledge, while the archaeologists were sliding backwards, less correct in 2018 than in 1930.

Read the whole thing there.

 
Hide 267 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anonymous[300] • Disclaimer says:

    To be clear, in India the left liberals love love love the Aryan invasion theory.

    It gives them the opportunity to paint upper caste Hindus in the same brush as white South Africans, Israeli Jews and European Americans.

  2. Sean says:

    It’s not that simple, Our minds are not made to give a answer to those kinds of questions.

    Gustaf Kossinna did play a part in the early 20th century century climate in Germany, but no more than art critic Julius Langbehn. If we are talking about Hitler (whose last words were said to be “what an artist dies in me”) and without whom there would have been no Third Reich, the greatest influence was Rienzi. Romanticism and humanism is the culprit, not genetics or Robert E Howard. He did say in The Hybornian Age that blondes came from the very furthest north though. The 18, 000 year old central Siberian Afontova Gora 3 carries the derived rs12821256 allele associated with blond hair color in Europeans, making Afontova Gora 3 the earliest individual known to carry this derived allele.

    • Replies: @sleeping noticer
    , @kihowi
  3. The Z Blog says: • Website

    For the empirically minded, this is a great broadside. We like facts and reason. To the army of volunteer Torquemadas accusing scientists of blasphemy, these responses just conform their beliefs. James Watson, for example, is accused of heresy. His unwillingness to speak to the issue on moral terms is proof of his heresy. They make that plain in their indictments.

    The same will happen to Reich if he does not address the issue on moral grounds. That is, it is immoral to corrupt the search for scientific truth in order to serve a political agenda. Comparing the witch hunters to primitives is useful. Comparing them to primitive shamans, appealing to the supernatural, is even more useful.

    Facts are useless in a moral war. For the new human sciences to prevail, the current moral order must be de-legitimized and anathematized.

    • Agree: TWS
  4. OT but Steven Pinker has weighed in on the APA and masculinity.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/apa-guidelines-men-boys.html

    ““The report is blinkered by two dogmas. One is the doctrine of the blank slate” that rejects biological and genetic factors, Pinker wrote, adding that

    The word “testosterone” appears nowhere in the report, and the possibility that men and women’s personalities differ for biological reasons is unsayable and unthinkable.

    The other dogma, Pinker argued,

    is that repressing emotions is bad and expressing them is good — a folk theory with roots in romanticism, Freudian psychoanalysis, and Hollywood, but which is contradicted by a large literature showing that people with greater self-control, particularly those who repress anger rather than “venting,” lead healthier lives: they get better grades, have fewer eating disorders, drink less, have fewer psychosomatic aches and pains, are less depressed, anxious, phobic, and paranoid, have higher self-esteem, are more conscientious, have better relationships with their families, have more stable friendships, are less likely to have sex they regretted, are less likely to imagine themselves cheating in a monogamous relationship.

    In Pinker’s view, the A.P.A. guidelines fail to recognize that

    a huge and centuries-long change in Western history, starting from the Middle Ages, was a “Civilizing Process” in which the ideal of manhood changed from a macho willingness to retaliate violently to an insult to the ability to exert self-control, dignity, reserve, and duty. It’s the culture of the gentleman, the man of dignity and quiet strength, the mensch. The romantic 1960s ethic of self-expression and escape from inhibitions weakened that ethic, and the A.P.A. report seems to be trying to administer the coup de grâce.

    Pinker suggested rather that

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.

  5. If you assume the goal of the most powerful anthropologists was to discover historical truths then they did a bad job, but if you assume they had a different goal in mind then perhaps they did a pretty amazing job.

    • Agree: james wilson
  6. My OT comment disappeared during The Great Unz Database-Not-Found of 1.30 GMT, so I’ll try again. Pinker on the APA and masculinity.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/apa-guidelines-men-boys.html

    The report is blinkered by two dogmas. One is the doctrine of the blank slate” that rejects biological and genetic factors, Pinker wrote, adding that

    The word “testosterone” appears nowhere in the report, and the possibility that men and women’s personalities differ for biological reasons is unsayable and unthinkable.

    The other dogma, Pinker argued,

    is that repressing emotions is bad and expressing them is good — a folk theory with roots in romanticism, Freudian psychoanalysis, and Hollywood, but which is contradicted by a large literature showing that people with greater self-control, particularly those who repress anger rather than “venting,” lead healthier lives: they get better grades, have fewer eating disorders, drink less, have fewer psychosomatic aches and pains, are less depressed, anxious, phobic, and paranoid, have higher self-esteem, are more conscientious, have better relationships with their families, have more stable friendships, are less likely to have sex they regretted, are less likely to imagine themselves cheating in a monogamous relationship.

    In Pinker’s view, the A.P.A. guidelines fail to recognize that

    a huge and centuries-long change in Western history, starting from the Middle Ages, was a “Civilizing Process” in which the ideal of manhood changed from a macho willingness to retaliate violently to an insult to the ability to exert self-control, dignity, reserve, and duty. It’s the culture of the gentleman, the man of dignity and quiet strength, the mensch. The romantic 1960s ethic of self-expression and escape from inhibitions weakened that ethic, and the A.P.A. report seems to be trying to administer the coup de grâce.

    Pinker suggested rather that

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.

  7. A tad oversimple, no? The archaeologists cooperated with Reich but dispute his extrapolations from the very few samples he used. Are they really just guarding their comfy notions? Time will tell.

    • Replies: @gcochran
    , @utu
  8. A gentle Hegelian reminder of why we post:

    (Remember: How you react defines the general reaction)

    • Replies: @rufus
    , @keuril
    , @Reg Cæsar
    , @donut
  9. Tiny Duck says:

    Greg Cochran is a fat old white male. No one who is anyone takes him serousily.

    One more thing: you know that Gillette ad that all you right wingers are having a cow over? Well, most Men of Color see no problem with the ad. Men of Color dominate sports, are better fighters, get more romance, disproportianley serve in the military, attract more women, have better bodies, are more muscular, can dance good, have large genitals, and command respect from other men.

    Only white males seems to have a problem with the Gillette ad. Only white males are son insecure that they through a hissy fit over a commercial

    That tells you something right there.

  10. @Tiny Duck

    “disproportianley serve in the military,”

    in non-combat roles. The guys actually killing jihadis are overwhelmingly white.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  11. rufus says:
    @Pat Hannagan

    … this is one of sailer’s hoz ?

    • Replies: @Pericles
    , @BB753
  12. Yes, we all aspire to be dindus hopped up on ape testosterone. You nailed it.

  13. @BigDickNick

    See the SAS guy, in plain clothes (he was officially ‘out shopping’), taking control of the response to the latest al-Shabab terrorist attack in Kenya.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/nairobi-attack-sas-soldier-terror-pirate-badge-hotel-dusitd2-kenya-al-shabaab-a8730561.html

    • Replies: @donut
  14. Tyrion 2 says:

    I once visited a “matriarchal” tribe in the Amazon. Prior to arriving I was given the impression that it’d be knitting circles of wise old women and soft-spoken men darting around the edges. Instead, I found the hurried women toiling all day, doing every piece of work, while the men got into gangs, took drugs and had a laugh. I assume the sexual relations were not #MeToo friendly either.

    Even the hallucinogenic drug was misadvertised by Western academics. Supposedly the natives took it for peace, harmony and liberation. In actuality, the Shaman informed me that his ancestors took it to turn into magical animals and slaughter their enemies across the jungle.

    They were nice people, but perhaps if the men helped out a bit with production something might actually be produced, and they wouldn’t be so utterly at the mercy of nature.

  15. I’m all for genetic research, but I’m not sure it should be taken as the key to absolute truth.

    Sometimes, it produces results that are definitely improbable. For example, one study of Chinese DNA ‘revealed’ that there were only something like a thousand Han Chinese in 500 BC. It also determined that modern Tibetans had only diverged from the rest of Chinese around two thousand years ago or something — i.e., that’s when they emigrated to Tibet. Conventional archeologists objected that all the evidence indicated that the movement occurred more like about ten thousand years ago.

    All figures are from memory, and subject to correction. The point is that genetics research sometimes comes up with results that are at odds with the rest of the evidence or even simply improbable even taken in isolation. So should we be so unhesitating in draping the mantle of absolute certainty about its shoulders?

    Another aspect of it all is that the ‘research’ may be subject to abuse. Here I’m thinking of the reality of Jewish racial identity. Obviously, ‘Jews’ are not all the same people. Netanyahu looks a lot like many gentile Poles; he doesn’t bear the least resemblance to Yemeni Jews. And so on. Historical evidence supports this as well; Jewish populations exploded at a rate and in a manner that could only have occurred if the main engine of expansion was conversion rather than natural increase. And so on.

    And indeed, the first genetic studies of Jewry supported this. While the DNA of the descendants of the various Jewish communities were related to the DNA of the descendants of other nearby Jewish communities, it was still more closely related to the DNA of their immediate gentile neighbors. I.e., a German Jew might be a distant cousin to an Italian Jew, but his really close relatives tended to be German gentiles.

    …but now all that appears to have been mysteriously reversed. Somehow — the visual evidence, the historical evidence, and the earlier genetic evidence all notwithstanding — Jews are a race after all, most closely related to each other, be they from Tunisia or the Ukraine.

    Moreover, the studies ‘establishing’ this all seem to be done by Jews themselves.

    Theoretically, it’s possible — but isn’t it also possible that one can make the genetic data say whatever one pleases? Again, if so, can we really place so much unqualified credence in the results?

    Personally, I’m kind of a blood and thunder guy myself, and I’m perfectly happy to accept that the ancient Indo-Europeans carried out mass slaughter on a scale that dwarfs Genghis Khan and everyone since — but should we really take that as proven?

    • Agree: utu
  16. “less correct in 2018 than in 1930”

    This is the real big issue – because Howard was right about Civilisation’s tendency to fall into decadence and then barbarism, too.

  17. I figure, if somehow we just get all those inferior blacks, then everything will be a paradise forever.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  18. Moshe says:
    @Tyrion 2

    I like exploring human societies at the edges too. Is this something you do regularly? Was it cheap? I have explored many of the odd cultures in the United States, from The Nation of Islam (great stories) to various odd Polygamous Mormon split-off groups to bank robbers and cops on the beat in numerous small towns and big cities to the Satmar Rebbe of Kiryas Joel (I drove him and his nuclear family around) to Mennonites of various sorts to Spiritualists to Scientologists, etc. Beyond the borders I’ve explored less, but luckily the most interesting places tend to be the cheapest so I can speak to matters pertaining to lesser explored cultures of the Middle East pretty well too.

    But I’ve never lived with hunter-gatherers or, for that matter, been in the Amazon at all. Did you spend some time with amazonian pre-civilized societies or other uniquely interesting groups of people and was it cheap to get there and did you take any special shots or pills to stave off malaria and whatnot?

    I cannot afford special shots and pills but I’m very interested in visiting interesting or odd small societies in Africa. Does anyone have experience with that? A place sufficiently safe and cheap to get to and stay for awhile that is also very different from Western societies?

  19. @Sean

    >If we are talking about Hitler (whose last words were said to be “what an artist dies in me”)

    That’s Nero, not Hitler.

    • Agree: Mr McKenna
    • Replies: @Logan
  20. mungerite says:

    OT LOL: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/nyregion/is-a-planned-monument-to-womens-rights-racist.html

    In effect, the monument, a maquette of which is on display in Albany, manages to recapitulate the marginalization black women experienced during the suffrage movement to begin with, when, to cite but one example, they were forced by white organizers to congregate in the back during a famous women’s march, in Washington, in 1913, coinciding with Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration.

    More literally, the inclusion of the scroll and the way that the women are positioned toward it suggests they are writing the history of suffrage, which is in itself problematic because Anthony and Stanton coedited a six volume compendium — “The History of Women’s Suffrage’’ — that gave them ownership of a narrative that erased the participation of black women in the movement.

    The women behind the Statue Fund are white, well-intentioned feminists of a certain vintage.

    In the words of Kissinger, it’s a pity they can’t both lose.

  21. e says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.

    Ah, progressives will hate this, of course, especially the “self reliance” as a positive masculine virtue as it undermines Big Government right off the bat.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Autochthon
  22. Anon[204] • Disclaimer says:

    Off of the topic:

    TV food commercials target Hispanic and black youth with unhealthy snacks and sugary drinks

    Hardest hit…

    Companies target minorities because it is profitable, the report said. Asian and Hispanic people are the fastest-growing populations in the U.S., and their buying power is growing quickly as well. The report said black Americans are often targeted because “marketers view African-Americans as trendsetters who younger consumers want to emulate.”

    America’s obesity problem comes as hunger is on the rise in the country. While this may seem incongruous, the two are actually related, Berg said. “Hunger and obesity are flip sides of the same malnutrition coin,” he said. “There are complex risk factors for obesity, but there is no question that socioeconomic issues are key factors.”

    It’s perfidious that we are continually treated to insults from the “experts” on this. There is no starvation problem that coincides with an obesity problem.

    Just spell it out that you think every non-white is entitled to an unlimited EBT card at Whole Foods.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/tv-food-commercials-target-hispanic-and-black-youth-with-unhealthy-snacks-and-sugary-drinks-2019-01-17

    • LOL: bomag
  23. Flip says:
    @Colin Wright

    Many Ashkenazi Jews have blue eyes and pale skin, which implies a different ancestry than a mixture from the Middle East and Italy.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @william munny
    , @BB753
  24. @YetAnotherAnon

    ‘…Pinker suggested rather that

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.’

    I’d argue that we really have very little understanding of how culture works — so we should be extremely cautious about screwing with it.

    The average ‘progressive’ presumably lacks a clear understanding of how his computer works — so he would reluctant to pull off the case and just start ripping out whatever appears to be superfluous.

    We should approach cultural changes the same way.

    • Agree: Abe
  25. keuril says:
    @Pat Hannagan

    I’m partial to this one:

    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
  26. Sean says:
    @Tyrion 2

    They were nice people, but perhaps if the men helped out a bit with production something might actually be produced, and they wouldn’t be so utterly at the mercy of nature.

    Them being in a part of the world where nature was generous and allowed men to just advertise their sexy son genes would be the problem. In a tropical paradise where a bit of garden agriculture by women is enough for them and their children to live, the women will select the bad boys as the fathers. Where bringing up children requires a tight parental bond as in Tibet, women will require the fathers of their children to be good providers, and even then sometimes brothers have to share a wife. Tibetans are surprisingly pale for the massive amount of UV on their plateau.

    Frederique Valentin concluded years before Reich that, though they look like Papuans, Vanuatus were descended from Asians not Papuans. Now Asians once they got to a tropical paradise were under a different selection pressure and instead of women demanding they get food all the men had to do is advertise their genes by acting in a testosterone–crazed way, which probabally explains why they were selected for less Asian traits and appearance. This process of sexual selection with a certain focus is how a race is formed according to Darwin.

    If Reich tried to reconstruct the appearance of the ancient ancestors of the modern people of Vanuatu from their Asian dna he would have to assume that they looked nothing like Papuans, but in fact the Vanuatuans now do look like Papuans. They look black.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
  27. a little OT: 1989 WP article, Man Behind the Double Helix, on James Watson that was fair.

    Interesting points:
    his mother’s role in getting him a scholarship at UC. (Steve: why have universities changed their admission policies on gifted students? There must be less starting at 16 than in 1940’s…)

    his early IQ tests rated him at just 120…reminds me of Sailer’s report that Shockley failed Terman’s threshold for gifted when Shockley scored just 128.

    JW came to appreciate his portrayal by Jeff Goldblum in the Double Helix.

    His 1985 comment on women: wow, one could just apologize and move on. Not today.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/wellness/1989/09/12/the-man-behind-the-double-helix/2df96b5e-5134-4150-90e0-257f9cde8e92/?utm_term=.ef368e20db65

  28. the archaeologists were sliding backwards, less correct in 2018 than in 1930.

    Who would have guessed that elevating PC mythology over actual data would fail to advance knowlege?

    Since PC opinions are irrationally promoted in our society, the correct Bayesian prior is to presume that they are incorrect, or at least unsupported.

  29. bomag says:
    @Tiny Duck

    All that ability and nothing to show for it. Tsk.

  30. Anon[295] • Disclaimer says:
    @Flip

    Pale skin and blue eyes only imply a certain combination of recessive genetics that can be introduced at any time. They certainly do not exclude southern admixtures, nor does their introduction eliminate the contribution of prior (southern) admixtures. Most Ashkenazi Jews, even those with light hair and blue eyes, unquestionably display J1 and J2 phenotype expression in their skull structure (head, nose, jaw, etc). This is evidence of that southern admixture, which is most prevalent in modern Turkey and the Levant.

  31. @Tyrion 2

    Even the hallucinogenic drug was misadvertised by Western academics.

    I can’t wait for Mr McKenna to reply.

  32. @Sean

    In a tropical paradise where a bit of garden agriculture by women is enough for them and their children to live, the women will select the bad boys as the fathers

    Isn’t it true, though, that the “tropical paradise” is a double-edged sword? Food supplies are plentiful, but so are parasites and disease.

    So “livin’ is easy,” while it lasts. But life expectancy is short. In other words, you have to “live fast and die young,” whether you like it or not.

    The evolutionary pressure under this environment would seemingly discourage delayed gratificstion and long term investment strategies.

    Does anyone know whether hunter-gatherers in colder climates had the same patterns of warfare and violence as their topical counterparts? My guess is that the data is simply lacking as northern tribes got civilized before the records could be made.

  33. At West Hunter, Greg Cochran unloads on the New York Times

    This is a nice sentiment, but inadvertently comic, almost like an Onion Headline. In terms of relative power and reach, this the equivalent of those old “Head of American Communist Party denounces American Imperialism in Latin America!” headlines the Socialist Worker used to run.

  34. Barnard says:

    OT: The Boston Globe tracks 113 Boston valedictorians from the classes of 2005, 2006, and 2007. 25% failed to graduate college in six years. 40% current make less than $50k a year. Proposed solutions, pay off their loans for them and provide a sense of belonging. Don’t they know Raj Chetty says they just need to move to magic dirt?

    http://apps.bostonglobe.com/magazine/graphics/2019/01/17/valedictorians/

  35. @Flip

    A fair amount of redheads too.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  36. @e

    Ah, progressives will hate this, of course, especially the “self reliance” as a positive masculine virtue as it undermines Big Government right off the bat.

    Much of what progressives hate is the work of earlier progressives. Eugenics, anyone? Prohibition?

    Immigration control?

    Race science?

    • Agree: Simon in London
  37. @william munny

    A fair amount of redheads too.

    Do redheads count as “fair”?

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    , @songbird
  38. @Pat Hannagan

    Two strikes against the young lady:

    The scenery looks like Florida. Or worse, someplace farther south.

    She’s sitting close to a guy with a florid tattoo on his upper arm.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  39. @Tiny Duck

    disproportionately serve in the military

    Wrong again Tiny Troll, okay maybe if were talking about supply clerks and cooks. But when it comes to Special Forces; Seals, Rangers, Green Berets, Force Recon, Airborne the guys who have done most of shooting for last 20 years plus technical positions, pilots etc., it’s really really White. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/05/diversity-seals-green-berets/31122851/

  40. Lot says:
    @Colin Wright

    “Jews are a race after all, most closely related to each other, be they from Tunisia or the Ukraine.”

    That’s not right. All Ashkenazi groups are closely related, but they are only moderately related to Sephardis and pretty distant from middle eastern jews. Closest relatives of Sephardis are Italian Jews, Greek Jews, Anatolian Jews, and non-Jewish Iberians and Italians.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @ben tillman
  41. gcochran says:
    @Toño Bungay

    A single genome tells you a lot about the whole population it comes from. It’s not like finding one more arrowhead. And there have been more sequenced: they confirm the original results.

    Reporters don’t know much.

  42. gcochran says:
    @Colin Wright

    “Jewish populations exploded at a rate and in a manner that could only have occurred if the main engine of expansion was conversion rather than natural increase. ”

    Slower than the Amish, though. I want to hear more about all those converts ripping off their buttons.

  43. kihowi says:
    @Sean

    If we are talking about Hitler (whose last words were said to be “what an artist dies in me”)

    dude…

    Anyway, apart from the difficulty of keeping romans and nazis apart, I did read a story (might in Irving somewhere) of one of uncle adolfs friends who said that he used to be entirely apolitical, until they went out to see Rienzi in Vienna after which he had a different look in his eyes and started talking about heimats and lebensraums.

  44. @YetAnotherAnon

    YetAnotherAnon wrote (quoting the NYT quoting Pinker):

    Pinker suggested rather that

    One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.

    I keep trying to tell everyone here that Pinker (and Dave Reich and Amy Chua and Charles Murray) are among the good guys!

    I recently talked to a young woman who was on a date with a guy when one of her date’s buddies started physically assaulting her. Her date did nothing. She managed to deal with it herself.

    Needless to say, she never dated that weenie again!

    Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.

    Perhaps we are more at danger from “toxic wimpishness” than “toxic masculinity.”

  45. Pericles says:
    @rufus

    Lagertha. Keep it on the qt.

  46. J.Ross says: • Website

    Italian leftist Jews: there is no white race to save (after a Northern Italian politician said he wanted to save Europeans from Islam). Lyingpress framing it in terms of Nazism because everything is always about Nazism at all times.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20180118025918/https:/twitter.com/dureghello/status/952889048049307648

  47. @Tyrion 2

    Even the hallucinogenic drug was misadvertised by Western academics. Supposedly the natives took it for peace, harmony and liberation. In actuality, the Shaman informed me that his ancestors took it to turn into magical animals and slaughter their enemies across the jungle.

    Years ago I watched a lecture about the history of the use of psilocybin mushrooms. What I remember most is an off-the-cuff remark by the professor where he pointed out that the existence of the Aztecs – with their penchant for both entheogens and human sacrifice – should decisively explode the hippy-dippy notion that we could bring about world peace if everyone would just drop acid.

  48. actually, this is why we lose. guys like greg who can dominate the SAT and do technically important work in science, but who couldn’t even avoid getting fired and losing their job once the enemy comes doxing for them. what resistance do you actually offer if the enemy can literally laugh in your face at your stupid numbers and facts and statistics. “Who cares. The sky is not blue, you said it was, you’re fired.”

    i like greg and admire some of his work, but have you ever heard him talk. god, he’s terrible. you can’t listen to him for more than 10 minutes before tuning out. and he can’t stay on topic for long before going off on a tangent about world war 2 or some other military history that nobody on earth cares about in the moment. his sperg outs only further undermine his delivery. a bad communicator. and he doesn’t look that great either. conversely, the enemy is great at all of that, and that they are innumerate, and can’t even calculate the height of mexican invaders, is irrelevant. the mexicans ARE invading, are they not? who cares if we quoted their heights wrong.

    greg is great at physics, and biology? so what. none of that matters because there’s a million guys just like him who are highly technically capable at figuring out some difficult problem, but remain invisible cogs in some lab or corporate business unit somewhere, forever having zero effect on society. these are the guys getting steamrolled every day. highly capable spergs like james damore who are genuinely shocked when the enemy comes for them – a lot of them don’t even realize there is an enemy or that they’re in a war. even the guys who do realize this, are completely helpless, turning into irrelevant wordsmiths on the internet, blogging away more like a sideline reporter calling the play by play in a boxing match as the enemy smashes to victory after victory, rather than being a combatant in an actual back and forth battle themselves.

    and it doesn’t matter at all that greg is married and has lots of kids, either. they’ll either be indoctrinated too and turned against us, or they will become meek symbol manipulators like their father, put to work in some cubicle somewhere, solving an economic problem for a corporation or university.

    “But I’m right!” the white man shouted, as his enemies simply swarmed over him like a tidal wave, his last gurgling noise a plea for appeal to logic and reason…

    • Replies: @JackOH
  49. Anon[204] • Disclaimer says:

    Brains are like muscles. They are elastic to a point. Suppose a person who doesn’t ‘work out’ can bench-press 150 lb., but then he takes up weight-training, and he is able to bench-press 200 lbs. So, he’s gained 50 lbs in additional weight he can lift. But MORE exercise will not mean more strength. Eventually, he will reach his limit no matter how hard he exerts himself. Same goes for intelligence. Mental training with memory and logic will expand the boundaries of intelligence. A person who, under normal circumstances, has an IQ of 100 might raise it to 110, but it’s unlikely he will go beyond that no matter how much he trains his mind.

  50. @e

    GloboHomo does not mind men’s being self-reliant at all – indeed, they insist upon it by destoying family, community, church, and nation – it’s female self-reliance that will not be tolerated: males are responsible for taking care of all females’ needs and even desires; heck, that’s part of the plan regarding destroying families: women get all of the resources with none of the pesky, reciprocal responsibilities and burdens….

  51. charles murray is definitely not one of the good guys. he’s a sit on the sidelines, don’t do anything and never rock the boat fat bald loser.

    charles murray is a never trumper who would rather we all get replaced and vanish into the history books than lift a single finger to resist the total destruction of the thing he putatively claims to care about, human accomplishment. nothing sends shivers down charles murray’s spine like the idea of actually trying to resist zero human capital third world hordes from over running the west. my goodness, that would be rude to interrupt them. what matters the most is being polite while you’re being exterminated!

    the guy is useless.

    • LOL: AndrewR
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  52. I keep trying to tell everyone here that Pinker (and Dave Reich and Amy Chua and Charles Murray) are among the good guys!

    Amy Chua?

    But apart from her, are they really that “good” if their nice-guy contrarianism doesn’t get the job done?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    , @anon
  53. @PhysicistDave

    Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.

    Like the provision of resources, protection was something the females drisively opted out of when they started their suicidal ravings for “equality” and, having hijacked the state to take resources from men, incarcerate them, and rob them of their own children at the whims of the women, forfeited their claim to under the natural order.

    These modern harridans should embrace assaults by men as golden opportunities to demonstrate the myth that men are stronger than women and showcase their martial prowess; failing that, they can call the police they are so fond of calling to incarcerate and otherwise abuse the fathers of their own children when they decide they’d prefer the paycheck without the hassles of marriage. If the women are beaten, raped, and robbed, and the assailant log gone when the police show up to file a report in a half an hour, that just goes to show their feminine wisdom placing faith in the state’s paid stooges over the inferiour men they are forced to walk amongst who dare to gaze upon them each day.

    They cannot have it both ways; they are going to get more and more “equality,” good and hard, especially at the hands of the ever larger waves of the invaders they worship.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  54. songbird says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    I believe they made a kids’ movie recently where Dracula’s grandson was a redhead.

  55. J.Ross says: • Website

    Earlier today a Buzzfeed writer held up anonymous sources claimed by Buzzfeed to be claiming that Cohen was the proof of Trump’s much-discussed Rus’nost. The lyingpress was all atwitter. I thought, if this were true it would be yet more case against Mueller because he had access to this years ago and didn’t find it.
    Later today Robert Mueller’s office said this wasn’t true. Buzzfeed’s anonymous sources have not yet commented, if they ever did.
    Tomorrow at three the President will make an announcement, possibly declaring the emergency.

  56. @YetAnotherAnon

    ‘…One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.’

    I’m touched. For one, having grown up under some less-than-sheltered circumstances, and having both been a bully and been bullied, it’s pretty clear to me that displaying ‘machismo’ and a willingness to engage in violence is an excellent way of deterring aggression. Your basic bully usually doesn’t want a fight. Even if he feels confident he’ll win it, he’ll pick a victim who won’t offer resistance over one who will. I can distinctly recall both driving off some aggressors and being deterred from harassing people who physically were much smaller than me. In both cases, the operative factor was a willingness to go down fighting.

    For another, fairly obviously, those who manage to suppress their drive for dominance will wind up at the bottom of whatever pile they belong to — and worse, ruled by those who may otherwise be less fit than they to decide what should be done. If I feel confident I should be in charge, I might be right. Perhaps I should go for it.

    I think men are the way they are for some excellent reasons, and pending a far more profound understanding of human culture and its mechanisms than what we currently possess, we should be loathe to tinker with the machinery. People like Pinker won’t be doing anyone who listens to them any favors. Then too, any successful culture should really accord with human nature. If half of the species is inclined to violence, ‘machismo,’ and a will to dominate, then the thing to do is to structure society accordingly, not try to remake the people the society is for in the first place.

    • Replies: @Thea
  57. @Tyrion 2

    Many “matriarchal” societies that feminists cite are far from matriarchal (in the sense of matriarchy being a mirror image replacement for patriarchy). They are often merely matrilineal in regards to property rights.

    https://feminisminindia.com/2016/09/01/decline-matrilineal-society-kerala/

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    , @John Carr
  58. @Tiny Duck

    ‘Well, he’s just a smelly old white man, so who cares? Smelly old white men care, that’s who!’

    Oh yeah, and you know that other thing that happened in the news that you probably all find really annoying? Well it’s not, it’s GREAT, and I hope it happens even more!’

  59. @Hypnotoad666

    ‘Does anyone know whether hunter-gatherers in colder climates had the same patterns of warfare and violence as their topical counterparts? My guess is that the data is simply lacking as northern tribes got civilized before the records could be made.’

    ? Plenty of such groups still existed well into the twentieth century; in Siberia, Northern Canada, Alaska. The subject could easily be studied; the main obstacle I see isn’t a lack of data, but the importance of other factors. For example, Siberian aborigines might not fight much — but perhaps simply because they’re so thin on the ground that they don’t encounter each other that often. Matters might be otherwise in a tropical setting offering plentiful food year round.

  60. @Reg Cæsar

    ‘Two strikes against the young lady:

    The scenery looks like Florida. Or worse, someplace farther south.

    She’s sitting close to a guy with a florid tattoo on his upper arm.’

    There you go. You’ll be rescuing her.

  61. BB753 says:
    @Flip

    I bet you’ve never visited Italy. Blue eyes and pale skin are common North of Rome. And far from unusual South of it.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  62. utu says:
    @Lot

    “Sephardis are Italian Jews, Greek Jews, Anatolian Jews, and non-Jewish Iberians and Italians”

    They are all different lineages. DNA ancestry software has to use many OR’s in its programs. If you have A OR B OR C OR D…. then you are Ashkenazi and then they find a group of Jews who do not match any of it so they append another condition to the list of alternatives.

  63. L Woods says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Men protect women and children.

    Lol no thanks.

  64. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Tiny Duck

    Well, most Men of Color see no problem with the ad. Men of Color dominate sports, are better fighters, get more romance, disproportianley serve in the military, attract more women, have better bodies, are more muscular, can dance good, have large genitals, and command respect from other men.

    Some of this I agree with, particularly the sports part. I assume you acknowledge the role of natural selection in creating these advantages.

    But why do white men totally monopolize significant intellectual achievements that have advanced civilization while Men of Color are totally absent?

    Could natural selection be operational at this level too TD?

  65. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hypnotoad666

    So “livin’ is easy,” while it lasts. But life expectancy is short. In other words, you have to “live fast and die young,” whether you like it or not.

    Pete Townshend famously said ” (I) hope I die before I get old”. He did no such thing.

    He is older-by a month and a half-than this exponent of much the same thing, who also did no such thing and is doing pretty well for herself these days:

  66. utu says:
    @Toño Bungay

    “dispute his extrapolations” – Absolutely. This is a new field. The methodologies Reich and others use did not undergo independent scrutiny. There is a lot of ambiguity sand uncertainties that they circumnavigate by making ad hoc assumptions that can’t be validated. Unfortunately archeologists are not in a position to challenge them. The community to which Reich belongs is so strongly incestuous (three labs spawned by one researcher) that it is unlikely that they can police themselves. And if the cowboy demeanor of Greg Cochran is an indication of their attitude we may wait a long time before we will hear about what really is going on. They are in the hype phase now. The cold shower will come if a truly independent research is done.

  67. vinteuil says: • Website
    @Tyrion 2

    They were nice people

    How so? Do you just mean that they treated you kindly?

  68. anonymous[180] • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Shush, Petrushka, the grownups are having a conversation, and nobody wants to hear your juvenile thoughts on your favorite toy the Onion

  69. Centuries ago there was a science called chemistry that claimed all the diverse matter around us was really made of only about a hundred different building blocks. These “chemists” thought they could explain things like why steel rusts based on this crazy building block theory. Because of their mistakes, horrible things like polyester and gasoline were invented.

    Of course, we now know that all matter is different and unique as well as basically the same. A double macchiato is different in its diverse beauty than a fair-trade espresso but they’re both really coffee, which is a liquid just like vegan butternut squash bisque.

    Some areas of science are still as primitive as chemistry. Certain scientists think we can learn about people by grouping them, the way chemists used to group matter (don’t ask, they had this insane grid thing that had something to do with counting electrons). But thanks to the recent work of Amy Harmon we seem to be heading towards an understanding that people are just like liquids. Sometimes they taste great when you dunk a piece of artisanal crispbread in them and sometimes they dissolve the paint off your bike, nobody really knows why!! lol 🙂

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @res
  70. dvorak says:
    @PhysicistDave

    I recently talked to a young woman who was on a date with a guy when one of her date’s buddies started physically assaulting her. Her date did nothing.

    Bros before hoes.

    • Agree: L Woods
  71. J.Ross says: • Website
    @obwandiyag

    Simply removing blacks to someplace else would alter violent crime statistics, property values and community cohesion overnight.

  72. @Pincher Martin

    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    But apart from her, are they really that “good” if their nice-guy contrarianism doesn’t get the job done?

    Well… I guess two points:

    A) Often people cannot absorb the truth all at once; often they have to be exposed to it slowly, in bits and pieces. It’s the “Overton Window” and all that.

    B) Lies are simple; truth is often complicated. On points where you or I or other posters here might disagree with Chua, Reich, Pinker, or Murray, it could turn out that he or she is right and we are wrong. All of them are trying to push truths that the ruling elite does not want to hear. If sometimes they say something you or I do not want to hear, they might just possibly be right.

    All the best,

    Dave

  73. J.Ross says: • Website

    Pipeline explosion in Mexico. Pipeline theft has become a major issue and AMLO has taken drastic measures to attempt to curb it.
    Anon said:
    A pipeline blew up while locals were stealing fuel near the town of Tlahuelilpan, in central Mexico’s Hidalgo state. Dozens were killed and dozens more severely burned out of a crowd of around 300. This is the kind of [thing] we usually see in places like Nigeria, when desperately poor villagers swarm crashed fuel trucks. Sad to see this kind of dindu-tier behavior in Mexico:

    http://www.milenio.com/estados/explosion-toma-clandestina-hidalgo-minuto-minuto

  74. anon[354] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Pinker suffers from a serious case of the Trump Derangement Syndrome. “The Third Reich”, too. I would guess all of them do.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  75. istevefan says:

    OT – When is Buzzfeed going to get the Infowars treatment?

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  76. @Lot

    “Jews are a race after all, most closely related to each other, be they from Tunisia or the Ukraine.”

    That’s not right. All Ashkenazi groups are closely related, but they are only moderately related to Sephardis and pretty distant from middle eastern jews.

    I disagree. If you have never known a Sephardic Jew, you can move to Texas and easily identify Sephardic Jews as Jews using Ashkenazim as your prototype.

    • Replies: @Lot
  77. @istevefan

    I am shocked that Mueller’s office actually commented. Wow! I did not see that coming!

    • Replies: @istevefan
  78. Lot says:
    @Tyrion 2

    “Even the hallucinogenic drug was misadvertised by Western academics.”

    Very likely you mean ayahuasca (DMT).

    While I never tried that, I read a lot of scientific info on psilocybin online before taking it freshman year. It was quite accurate. Same for peyote. DMT is in the same class and likely quite similar.

    I guess you said “academics.” If it was chemists like Alexander Shulgin, they were accurate. If it was loopy anthropologists, that was your mistake.

  79. @Tiny Duck

    Men of Color dominate sports, are better fighters, get more romance, disproportianley serve in the military . . . .

    Yeah, they are a disproportionately SMALL portion of the military.

  80. @Anon

    Liberals feel cognitive dissonance when they see their sacred objects weighing 350 pounds and pushing shopping carts full of two-liter soda bottles, bags of Doritos, and economy-sized bags of M&Ms. Hunger! Let’s talk about food insecurity among America’s neediest!

    • Replies: @Lot
  81. istevefan says:
    @ben tillman

    They probably figure it’s best to nip this in the bud on a Friday when most people are not paying attention. Since we have MLK day on Monday, maybe the world will forget the story by Tuesday. Had they not intervened, this story would have been growing all weekend and would have become too big to contain.

    I am glad Trump just tweeted out about this. He needs to keep pushing this to discredit the last 2-plus years of the witch hunt.

    Trump even retweeted Geraldo:

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  82. anonymous[214] • Disclaimer says:

    To quote Gore Vidal, “Once again, words fail Greg.”

    Is there anyone on the internet with a higher bluster x verbal impotence OPS score than Greg Cochran?

    Most of his blog follows a simple but ass backwards template: he suggests he knows something while flagrantly avoiding actually demonstrating what he insistently implies he knows.

    It’s quite tiresomse, though clearly Steve and others are hypnotized by him calling himself a genius. After all, he is a physicist (sic) and his h-index is–wait, what’s that? His h-index is ZERO because he’s literally contributed nothing to physics? How strange for a physics genius to have never attended a decent school and never have published a serious paper. It must be a physics conspiracy against genius Greg!

    • LOL: AaronB
    • Troll: Pincher Martin
  83. Lot says:
    @ben tillman

    “I disagree. If you have never known a Sephardic Jew, you can move to Texas and easily identify Sephardic Jews as Jews using Ashkenazim as your prototype.”

    There are very few full blooded Sephardi in the USA, and the ones that are are mostly elderly or Israeli immigrants, and even many of those might be using the term in the newer “not Ashkenazi” meaning, not the historical meaning.

    For a Mexican, claiming to be Sephardi is kind of like saying great grama was a Cherokee princess in North Carolina. Indeed, NY has two young hispanic politicians who have made dubious claims of Sephardi ancestry, Ocasio-Cortez and Julia Salazar.

    Here’s some proof: name one famous American who is full Sephardi and under 50 years old. I certainly can’t.

  84. “One could argue that what today’s men need is more encouragement to enhance one side of the masculine virtues — the dignity, responsibility, self-control, and self-reliance — while inhibiting others, such as machismo, violence, and drive for dominance.”

    That sounds suspiciously like a father. Next this heretic will be calling for ‘family friendly.’

  85. donut says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    That looks like a cheap ad for more invade the world BS . I don’t know about the UK but we’ve got enough Third World shit going on right here in River City . If they want to kill each other in Kenya or Baltimore it’s OK with me . You can take your SAS heroes and stick them your ASS .

  86. @Lot

    out of those three substances, which did you prefer? do you think any tryptamine has a medical usage potential?

    • Replies: @Lot
  87. Kevin Brook says: • Website
    @Lot

    The difference between the Cherokee princess claims and the Sephardic converso ancestry claims is that the latter are usually true, verifiable by genetics, especially for Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. I have posted on this before, here and in Razib Khan’s GNXP blog. They usually do have between 0.5 and 1 percent of that kind of ancestry.

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @Lot
    , @moshe
  88. @Colin Wright

    Colin Wright wrote: “I.e., a German Jew might be a distant cousin to an Italian Jew, but his really close relatives tended to be German gentiles.”

    German ancestry is low in Ashkenazim. I have what might be the only Ashkenazic mtDNA haplogroup of German origin – one of the three Ashkenazic branches of H7. I have Full Coding Region matches with Christian German and Dutch matrilines with a separation of 3 mutations from me. Beyond that, I match more Germans and several Swedes, in my HVR2 screen.

    The only Germans who are autosomally related to Ashkenazim are those who had a Jewish ancestor who converted to Christianity within the past several centuries. The German woman who converted to Judaism lived much longer ago than that.

    “And indeed, the first genetic studies of Jewry supported this. While the DNA of the descendants of the various Jewish communities were related to the DNA of the descendants of other nearby Jewish communities, it was still more closely related to the DNA of their immediate gentile neighbors.”

    None of the autosomal DNA or Y-DNA studies ever agreed with the second part of your second sentence, except in the cases of a few isolated groups like Ethiopian Jews and Yemenite Jews and one of the Indian Jewish groups.

    Ashkenazim don’t have more than 20 percent of ancestry from northern and eastern Europeans. They don’t cluster with Poles or Germans on genetic plots.

    The data on Ashkenazic ancestry isn’t manipulated because it is easily replicable.

    • Agree: Lot
  89. FPD72 says:
    @J.Ross

    I’ve been told by oil and gas contractors who work in the Eagle Ford shale in South Texas that it is common to find private taps in natural gas flow lines.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  90. Lot says:
    @Kevin Brook

    In the case of white-ish Mexicans, their Sephardi ancestry may be as much as 5-10% based on the large number of conversos who settled there during the inquisition, as well as suggestive DNA evidence.

    But the number who are actual full blood practicing Sephardi in either Mexico or the Southwest? Very few and rapidly dying off.

  91. Lot says:
    @epochehusserl

    Psilocybin mushrooms were the best. Fun in different ways in large or small amounts. The 4 hours they last is about right too. Popping into a store in Amsterdam and getting them OTC (in a converted soda display fridge), then spending the day in art museums and parks was probably my favorite day of the trip there I took in college.

    They likely do have medical benefits when used responsibly under medical direction. There have been tons of studies about this and they mostly show stronger results than other classes of psychoactive drugs.

    • Replies: @moshe
  92. Lot says:
    @Kevin Brook

    Search my comments for Sephardi to see why I think it is much higher than 1%.

    I could be wrong, do you have contrary evidence?

    • Replies: @Lot
  93. Lot says:
    @Lot

    I see your webpage actually has confirmatory evidence!

    To clarify, it appears that up to 10% of the Iberian ancestry of Mexicans is Sephardi, but obviously few Mexicans are purely old Spanish stock.

  94. @PhysicistDave

    Men protect women and children. All of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.

    Yes we were taught that. But as society ‘progressed’ these past few decades, that ethos ran headlong into the stricture that white males must be presented as evil everywhere and always. So now we have a situation where white males are depicted in the broader culture as a threat to women and children, always and everywhere, while black males and latino males, for example, are presented as women’s and children’s best friends and protectors.

    The resulting society-wide disconnect, where what’s being presented and dramatized 24/7 is diametrically-opposed to easily-perceived reality, requires endless reinforcement from the entertainment-propaganda machine as well as instant ‘unpersoning” of anyone who points out the obvious. Our predicament today serves one useful purpose: it demonstrates that even the more far-fetched of Orwell’s paranoid fantasies are no match for a society which has been hijacked by a small, determined minority with hatred in its heart and the levers of power in its hands.

    Look around you–even here on a site which is as subversive as they come–and you’ll find a ‘healthy’ (and industrious) minority daily abusing those who question the Approved Narrative or who otherwise display evidence of independent thought.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  95. @PhysicistDave

    A) Often people cannot absorb the truth all at once; often they have to be exposed to it slowly, in bits and pieces. It’s the “Overton Window” and all that.

    I would say the evidence over the last fifty years is that they can’t absorb it all.

    A lot of conservatives mention the “Overton Window” when discussing these taboo subjects, but where is the evidence that soft-pedaling the evidence undermining these taboos – in the manner of Pinker, Murray and Reich – actually helps to do that?

    Are these subjects any more discussable today in public because of them? Nope.

    Is the public more conversant in these topics? Nope.

    Have the major media outlets become more balanced in discussing them? Nope.

    Just look at the NYT, which has gone from Nicholas Wade to Amy Harmon in the last decade. If pushing the “Overton Window” really helped, the paper should’ve moved in the opposite direction. Or at the very least, not gone backwards.

    B) Lies are simple; truth is often complicated. On points where you or I or other posters here might disagree with Chua, Reich, Pinker, or Murray, it could turn out that he or she is right and we are wrong.

    If a scholar is genuinely perplexed as to what is causing a phenomenon, then he certainly has a duty to the truth as best he sees it. But the direction and scope of their confusion is too limited to race for me to believe that these social scientists (at least for Reich, Pinker, and Chua) are really perplexed instead of just fearful.

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @PhysicistDave
  96. @anon

    Pinker suffers from a serious case of the Trump Derangement Syndrome. “The Third Reich”, too. I would guess all of them do.

    I don’t care about that at all. All of them could put politics aside, as far as I care.

    Just be honest and direct about what the evidence is telling us. If scholars conversant in these subjects are too afraid to tell the truth, who’s left? Some guys on the internet?

  97. @Tyrion 2

    Honey, that wasn’t the Amazon. That was Memphis.

  98. @anonymous

    To quote Gore Vidal, “Once again, words fail Greg.”

    The quote was much funnier and more appropriate when Vidal used it because the target was the brawling Norman Mailer, who had (once again) just been provoked by Gore into using his fists rather than his wits.

    Most of his blog follows a simple but ass backwards template: he suggests he knows something while flagrantly avoiding actually demonstrating what he insistently implies he knows.

    Horseshit. Cochran’s blog is filled with arguments for those who know how to understand them. Within just the last ten days there have been three masterpieces of polemical concision.

    “Common Deleterious Recessives: Info for Taleb”

    “More on Gene Flow”

    “Primitive Tribesmen Complain about Technologically Superior Invaders”

    Each of these pieces is suburb in advancing an argument – at least for those of us who understand what an argument looks like. You – with your inapt quotations and your use of the word “template” – clearly don’t.

  99. @BB753

    That’s just kooky. Fair skin and especially blue eyes are rare indeed in most of Italy. And sorry but I’ve spent years there; I know whereof I speak. Possibly you’ve mistaken Italy for Ireland.

    • Replies: @BB753
  100. donut says:
    @Pat Hannagan

    She’s got good teeth a nice smile and fake tits that she uses to sell memberships at a gym . Since it’s Florida her next appearance will be her mug shot on TSG . The tattoo on her co-conspirator is a minor Buddhist deity so he’s either a monstrous serial killer or a dodgy misdemeanor kind of disappointment to his striving honest working class folks . My guess is that they are on there way to film an episode of “Capt’n Stabbin” . Threat Level : STDs and wallet empty in AM. Warning Will Robinson !

  101. @Lot

    Yes, he must be talking about ayahuasca. What the shaman told him was true: they believe it’s magical and that all the things they experience with it are real. Some dummies up north here do to.

    I did ayahuasca three or four times thirty years ago. It was better than mushrooms or LSD. YMMV. When I did it with my girlfriend it was a fuckfest. We nearly broke a four-poster bed at the Stanley Hotel.

  102. @J.Ross

    Don’t let Mr Unz hear of this. He’ll be blaming Whitey.

  103. Lot says:
    @Pincher Martin

    “Reich, Pinker, and Chu are really perplexed instead of just fearful.”

    Show some respect.

    The latter two are awesome and in no way fearful.

    Reich is doing groundbreaking work on touchy subjects and has a wide audience. You really want him to mix that up with right-wing politics?

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  104. @istevefan

    Jason Leopold’s still hanging tough, right? Even though his partner in crime is now hedging the report seven ways to sunday. We need Leopold to blame the Neo-Nazis who run the MSM next. Then he can claim his Twitter was hacked, and all will be well again.

  105. donut says:

    A fond memory : On one ship , early on , I would piss and moan . You know throw my little tantrums at times . My supervisor , a slow talking southerner with an honest to God corn cob pipe would ask me ” so tell me Burke are you an only child?” Bosun’ McCoy . Like all of us someone will say his name or think of him for the last time for all eternity .

    I met a traveller from an antique land
    Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
    Stand in the desert… near them, on the sand,
    Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
    And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
    Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
    Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
    The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed;

    And on the pedestal these words appear:
    ‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings;
    Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
    Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
    Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.

    The mighty do despair . Will the meek inherit the earth ?

  106. Jason Liu says:
    @Anonymous

    Not really. Indian liberals like the Aryan Invasion theory because it counters Indian nationalist beliefs, such as the Out of India theory, or that Indian history is long and unbroken for 5,000 years, starting from the Harappan civilization. It is the same reason why white leftists endorse theories of a diverse historical Europe, or how European achievements were the result of foreign influences.

  107. Lot says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Ayahuasca requires taking an herbal MAOI, which can cause a hypertensive reaction when combined with certain foods and medication, and has its own separate non-psychedelic effects.

    Likely safe for someone young, healthy, on no other medication, and who doesn’t eat rich aged foods. But dangerous to a large part of the population in a way mushrooms are not.

  108. @Colin Wright

    mass slaughter on a scale that dwarfs Genghis Khan

    Why does everyone pick on poor Gengy? Why not use Bantus and Shaka kaSenzangakhona as the generic go to example of bloody conquest?

  109. donut says:

    From the beginning of the century ….

    And now it’s we who don’t know our place . Since white men are evil according to the Lügenpresse . Maybe for their own safety the Jews should by law be required to wear a six pointed star in public for their own safety . You know , so they don’t get mistaken for white men . To be murdered and thrown into a mass grave is an indignity and injustice I could accept , but to spend eternity listening to the winging of some jew … well I’d rather not .

  110. @Anon

    target Hispanic and black youth with unhealthy snacks and sugary drinks

    Sugar Crisp Commercials – 1950s to 1977

    unlimited EBT card at Whole Foods

    How about free 50lb sacks of wheat berries and access to a hand grinder at every post office. Then they could make their own artisan whole wheat sourdough slow-rise fermented bread at home.

  111. @Mr McKenna

    Mr McKenna wrote to me:

    But as society ‘progressed’ these past few decades, that ethos ran headlong into the stricture that white males must be presented as evil everywhere and always. So now we have a situation where white males are depicted in the broader culture as a threat to women and children, always and everywhere, while black males and latino males, for example, are presented as women’s and children’s best friends and protectors.

    However, in the case I described with the young woman I know, both the assailant and the spineless date were white males.

    Some white males are indeed “toxic males.” The problem is that the non-toxic males are spineless and unwilling to stand up to the thugs of whatever race.

    It’s as Yeats said:

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
  112. donut says:
    @Lot

    But your shit is weaker still Abraham . You know when we are alone we mock your Holohoax story , your sacred texts . We laugh because your American “allies” are as false as you . You arrogant fools . In the future we’ll have “Ann Franks Porno Komicks for Kids” . Anti-Semitism is alive and well . Believe that .

    • Replies: @Lot
  113. @Lot

    The latter two are awesome and in no way fearful.

    Reich is doing groundbreaking work on touchy subjects and has a wide audience. You really want him to mix that up with right-wing politics?

    Read my very next post to the one you responded (currently #92), and you’ll see that isn’t true. I don’t care about their politics.

    But shading and avoiding the truth to cater to the boobs should no longer be acceptable. (Chua doesn’t even belong in the company of Murray, Reich, and Pinker, by the way.)

  114. Ozz says:

    Here is an incredible news item for Steve:

    An aboriginal Australian man rapes and murders an Arab Israeli student in Melbourne:
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6609341/Prime-Minister-Scott-Morrison-meet-Aiia-Maasarwes-father.html

    He is described as an “aspiring rapper” and no media mentions that he is an aboriginal.

    • Replies: @anon
  115. johnd says: • Website

    well , this creature did plow into Cochran, Hardy and Harpending. Why give this “person” any quarter as well?

    “who is this person!….”

  116. @Pincher Martin

    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    I would say the evidence over the last fifty years is that they can’t absorb it all.

    Honestly, how many decades back do you personally remember intellectual and political debates?

    My own direct personal memory on such goes back almost exactly fifty years. Back then, serious, educated people took behaviorism (!), Freudianism, and Soviet-style socialism quite seriously. Nowadays, even self-proclaimed socialists (such as Bernie or OAC) protest that they do not really want the government to control everything the way the Soviets did. Rather than talking about behaviorism (does anyone anymore?), the public debate is about how much evolutionary psychology explains, to what degree genes control your intelligence and personality, etc. And, are there any true-blue Freudians left?

    Similarly, I remember when “continental drift” was viewed as semi-scientific speculation, when serious scientists doubted there were planets elsewhere in the galaxy, and so on. I could give a number of examples from my own field of physics (anyone interested in the evolution of attitudes in physics in the last five decades should read Adam Becker’s recent What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics, which takes arcane issues in quantum philosophy and turns them into an engaging and readable book).

    The point is that, yes, ultimately attitudes can change very dramatically but both from my personal experience and my reading of history it appears to me that it commonly takes the better part of a human lifetime: basically, the old fools have to die and then young people can start asking the forbidden questions.

    Patience, my friend.

    PM also wrote:

    Just look at the NYT, which has gone from Nicholas Wade to Amy Harmon in the last decade.

    Well, sometimes there are steps backward. Incidentally, my positive opinion on Wade was formed back around 1980 when he did some excellent reporting on fraud in mainstream science.

    PM also wrote:

    But the direction and scope of their confusion is too limited to race for me to believe that these social scientists (at least for Reich, Pinker, and Chua) are really perplexed instead of just fearful.

    Pinker seems to be a liberal with libertarian tendencies. I suspect that Reich and Chua are true liberals: their political views probably do not align with anyone here.

    But, in a way, that means they deserve more credit for trying hard to see the truth, even if it does not align with their political commitments.

    You know, Chua spoke positively of Brett Kavanaugh, simply because she honestly believes he was a decent man being subjected to a miscarriage of justice.

    Personally, I’m not sure he was a great choice for the High Court. But, I am sure that the whole affair before the Senate turned into a caricature of justice.

    No, Chua, Pinker, Reich, and Murray are not going to lead us into the Promised Land, however you define it. But neither is Sailer or Cochran or you or me or anyone else here.

    But, in the long term, one person here, one person there tells the truth just because it is the truth. And, in the end, the truth will out.

  117. anon[199] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ozz

    said:

    He is described as an “aspiring rapper” and no media mentions that he is an aboriginal.

    The Australian newspaper has a large photo of the man on it’s front page this morning.
    He appears to be about 25% Aboriginal.
    The Daily Mail has the same photo, but his skin color is quite a bit darker than in The Australian.

  118. @PhysicistDave

    And, in the end, the truth will out.

    Well, you know there is no end, except to your life and mine and the lives of descendants. It can take the truth centuries to come out.

    Yours is an optimistic (and realistic) comment, worthy of consideration.

    You mention continental drift and also your field of physics. Indeed all of that has come through steps — and continues to do so. There are even today some ideas you may think are crackpot that someday, long after we are gone, may prove to be true. A mere layman sometimes feels that you experts are lost in your favorite trees, while we are standing out here looking at a forest that doesn’t resemble what you are telling us it is.

    Yes, it could take a long time indeed.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  119. JackOH says:
    @prime noticer

    yes, pretty much agree with you. I suggested maybe a month ago that Ron come up with a sort of political campaign platform for the 2020 election whose planks might draw the good attention of the major and minor parties. There seem to me younger folks here who are hungry for political expression, and who simply have nowhere to go. Ron has actual electoral experience as a candidate and issue promoter in a very big state, so he has the talent to put together such a platform.

    Both the posts and comments here at Unz Review offer a treasure, millions of words of sharp observations and reasoned insights by very bright people, from which a few platform planks can be drawn.

    (IOW-yep, there’s a real danger that all the good talk here will end up in a 22nd century museum of archaic rhetoric, unless we can breath some life into it.)

  120. @PhysicistDave

    Honestly, how many decades [of the fifty years] back do you personally remember intellectual and political debates?

    Three. And I’ve read extensively about the other two.

    My own direct personal memory on such goes back almost exactly fifty years. Back then, serious, educated people took behaviorism (!), Freudianism, and Soviet-style socialism quite seriously.

    Yes, many intellectual fashions have fallen out of favor, but they haven’t been replaced by a commitment to the truth. They’ve been replaced by new intellectual fashions.

    This story doesn’t have a happy ending, Dave. If you read Greg closely, you should have already noted that social scientists and biologists a hundred years ago had a better idea of the biological grounding of mankind than their peers do today. And on less evidence!

    What makes you think the next hundred years are going to be any better? We’re all looking at the same evidence. Greg’s inferences don’t require the brain of Einstein to follow.

    Pinker seems to be a liberal with libertarian tendencies. I suspect that Reich and Chua are true liberals: their political views probably do not align with anyone here.

    I do not care about their politics.

    What I care about is how they coat the truth with a heavy dusting of sugar in the hope some of their opponents will find the medicine palatable and swallow it. Yet despite this tactic never working, they still don’t change their approach.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  121. @PhysicistDave

    Similarly, I remember when “continental drift” was viewed as semi-scientific speculation, when serious scientists doubted there were planets elsewhere in the galaxy, and so on. I could give a number of examples from my own field of physics (anyone interested in the evolution of attitudes in physics in the last five decades should read Adam Becker’s recent What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics, which takes arcane issues in quantum philosophy and turns them into an engaging and readable book).

    There’s no corollary between what is going on in the social sciences right now and what took place in physics or geology.

    In the social sciences, the evidence is the enemy. Many social scientists don’t want to know about it. They refuse to engage it.

    Wegener and Alvarez weren’t called “racists” or “fascists” because of their scientific beliefs. They might’ve been called “assholes” or “dumbasses,” but those insults are blessedly free of political content and policy implications.

  122. @Moshe

    “I cannot afford special shots and pills”

    You’ll need yellow fever vaccination*, pretty much mandatory for sub-Saharan Africa and most of South and Central America – some places won’t let you in without a vaccination certificate. About £80 in the UK so not outrageous.

    The NHS has a useful travel website – here’s what you need if heading for a worst-case place

    https://www.fitfortravel.nhs.uk/destinations/africa/democratic-republic-of-congo

    * not recommended for over-60s or people with compromised immune systems – a 67 year old Brit cancer specialist recently died after his jab, though that’s an extremely rare reaction.

    • Replies: @moshe
  123. @Pincher Martin

    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    If you read Greg closely, you should have already noted that social scientists and biologists a hundred years ago had a better idea of the biological grounding of mankind than their peers do today. And on less evidence!

    Well, sometimes. You know anything about the “Virginia Public Choice School” in economics — Jim Buchanan, Gordon Tullock et al.? Buchanan (who had a Nobel) once said that all they were really doing was taking what the Founders understood about politics and putting it in terms twentieth-century social scientists could understand!

    So, I take your point.

    On the other hand, some progress in areas relevant to social science is real, sometimes as a result of conceptual advances, often as a result of new (observational or historical) data:

    For example, we now understand that usually evolution works at the level of the gene, not the species. If some gene will increase the chance of its bearer passing that gene on to future generations, it will tend to spread, even if it damages the survival chances of the group of which its bearer is a member.

    This really was not that well understood until George Williams’ Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought was published in 1966.

    And the reason that a modern industrial economy could not be centrally planned was not really grasped by economists until Mises and, especially, Hayek explained the decentralized nature of economic knowledge and how that decentralized knowledge is coordinated by the price system. Of course the disastrous (mal)functioning of the Soviet central planning system was also key empirical evidence that buttressed Hayek’s analysis.

    The Minnesota twins’ study provided crucial empirical support that genes were critical not just in physical aspects of development but also in behavioral aspects.

    Doctrinaire Keynesianism died under the “stagflation” of the ’70s: yes, I wish that textbooks would stop paying obeisance of any sort to Keynes, but if you look at a modern text such as Mankiw’s, it is a little bit of Keynes and a lot of narginalist/neoclassical analysis.

    Freudianism and behaviorism collapsed under their own weight: after a few decades, it just became clear they did not work.

    PM also wrote:

    Yes, many intellectual fashions have fallen out of favor, but they haven’t been replaced by a commitment to the truth. They’ve been replaced by new intellectual fashions.

    Well… what “new intellectual fashions” have replaced the fallacies I’ve just mentioned?

    Idiots still call themselves “socialists” and from time to time Keynesian nostrums are still pushed, but neither have the definiteness and self-confidence of their forebears. The replacements for Freudianism and behaviorism are evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, and neuro-psychology: for all their ongoing problems (the replication crisis, etc. — but at least they admit there is a replication crisis!), the psych guys are somewhat saner than fifty years ago.

    More broadly, both doctrinaire religious beliefs and doctrinaire materialism are much less common than fifty years ago: as far as I can tell, most philosophers are no longer doctrinaire materialists (they are learning to say, “I don’t know” when they don’t know).

    I know that we have very, very serious problems with our society: The American imperialism and garrison state instituted by the Progressives and solidified by FDR and Truman has proven to be a disaster, but people are actually talking about this now on both Right and Left. Our monetary and financial system (thank you again, our Progressive forebears!) is intrinsically unstable. Our education system (again instituted by Progressives and gelled under FDR and Truman) is a joke, but people are starting to look for alternatives. Our medical system, the unthinking efforts to destroy traditional families, the attempts to pretend that children can function as adults… yeah, it’s all a mess.

    But… it’s all a mess because bad ideas and decisions from the past continue into effect for a long time. We are living with the consequences of idiotic ideas from the early twentieth century.

    But, I also think I have made a case above that those bad ideas are sometimes being replaced by correct ideas. Progress is possible.

    Okay, that’s my case for (long-term) optimism.

    Your turn.

    Dave

  124. @Hypnotoad666

    Plenty of warfare among the Canadian First Nations – like the Bloody Falls massacre of 1771, when Dene and Chippewa wiped out an Inuit camp.

  125. @Pincher Martin

    Pincher Martin wrote:

    Chua doesn’t even belong in the company of Murray, Reich, and Pinker, by the way.

    Have you read her recent Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations ? She is trying systematically with her books (even Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother) to warn people, ever so gently, that different cultures and ethnic groups are truly different and that ignoring that fact can lead to catastrophe.

    What does she really think about genes vs. culture? I don’t know: although she is a Chinese girl who married a Jewish guy, so I can sort of guess. I think she might say that, regardless of the relative contribution of genes vs. culture, the simple point that people need to grasp is that different cultures and ethnic groups really, truly are different.

    And, surely that is an important message for our society to hear.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  126. @Buzz Mohawk

    Buzz Mohawk wrote to me:

    Well, you know there is no end, except to your life and mine and the lives of descendants. It can take the truth centuries to come out.

    Indeed.

    Buzz also wrote:

    There are even today some ideas you may think are crackpot that someday, long after we are gone, may prove to be true.

    As a physicist, I of course have opinions on all sorts of current issues in physics — supestring theory, the multiverse/landscape, the black-hole firewall, the foundations of quantum mechanics, dark energy, the inflationary model of the universe, and various others.

    My hope is that my opinion will not turn out to be wrong on all of those issues! But, surely I will be wrong on some of them (and, in fact, my opinion changes on some of them from time to time).

    Buzz also wrote:

    A mere layman sometimes feels that you experts are lost in your favorite trees, while we are standing out here looking at a forest that doesn’t resemble what you are telling us it is.

    Can you think of any examples where you think it is likely that a layman is more likely to be right on such issues than most scientific experts?

    The obvious example is “global warming,” but what the media presents as the “scientific consensus” is actually fake: competent scientists know the research is actually unsettled.

    Anything else?

    • Replies: @BB753
    , @Almost Missouri
    , @Anon
  127. BB753 says:
    @Mr McKenna

    It depends on your definition on “rare”. My point was that Jews could have picked up the revelant genes in Italy and have them spread among their population widely through some selection constraint.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  128. BB753 says:
    @PhysicistDave

    What is your take on “global warming” and “man-made climate change”?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  129. moshe says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Thanks, YetAnother. Have you been there by the way? Or elsewhere in Africa? This blog grew out of an interest in Human Biodiversity so I would expect that there are others here who enjoy going out into the field to adventure human biodiversity out in the field.

    As for the yellow shot price, yeah, still beyond my budget. That’s kinna why the antisemitism here bothers me on a personal level. It’s based in a strong belief in overwhelming Jewish tribalism which is what antisemitism has always been based on. It has almost always begun on account of jealousy/loathing of the Elites or Rich but was simplified and made safer by changing Class Consciousness into Jew Consciousness because Jews were overrepresented among the wealthy and were more conspicuous and a safer target than the ruling class in general. So,to make a book-length point in a paragraph, local antisems increase the odds of danger occuring to me even though I’m not remotely among the ruling class.

    I consider the local general approach to The Jewish Question inaccurate inasmuch as it is a stupidification of who is really oppressing whom, but for a fella who doesn’t even generally identify as Jewish at all (but would be regarded as one by the alt-right antisems) and isn’t benefiting from the above average Jewish Household Income in the United States, this inaccuracy pisses me off inasmuch as it influences actually dangerous people and the general mind.

    It’s basically a whole lot of people stoking hatred of me because they think I have something I don’t even have. (((Jewish Privilege)))

    Back to travel and pills n’ all. I think I’m good on tetanus and I know I’m good on rabies (I actually went through a whole series of shots after being bitten by a cat in Istanbul.) My primary concern isn’t government regulations (I think Jamaica required that I have the shot after visiting Columbia but they let me through anyway) but actually getting sick and/or dying. Mosquitos and other small flies eat me like I’m made of candy which is why I have good reason to worry about catching anything they might offer. Come to think of it I may have had yellow fever inoculation before going to South Africa a dozen years ago when I was 25.

    Anyhow, are there hunter-gatherers of any kind that live in a relatively safe environment that I can stay with for a month on the cheap? Has anyone here done it?

    • Replies: @Peterike
  130. moshe says:
    @Kevin Brook

    Kevin Brook! I recognise your name. We were in touch a dozen yeats ago when I was doing some work on the Khazars. Good to see your name.

  131. Sean says:
    @kihowi

    The difficulty of keeping romans and nazis apart is not inconsiderable. Hitler’s first name meant proud wolf, he demanded “Wolf”, as a nickname and he referred to the SS as “my pack of wolves”. He had wolves on the brain, while the origin of Rome myth was about boys raised by a wolf–and the Rape of the Sabine Women. And of course the Romans exterminated those peoples who were too troublesome.

    So Hitler quoted Nero; he could quote Clausewitz by the yard. Pre Reich (the 5000 year old DNA Reich not the the storied 1000 year one) post WW2 the school of school that thought that the Dorian invasion of Greece had been from Germany, was long gone.

    However, by the 1950s Marija Gimbutas, had more or less worked out that Indo European were warlike Fuhrer-worshiping abusers of women, organised in a wolf cult, came from the steppes not Germany, and supplanted the old Europeans by rape and murder not cultural exchange.

    Spengler, who warned that the Nazis were building castles in the air if they thought the West would leave them alone, is said to have remarked about Hitler that Germany needed a hero not a heroic tenor. In his 1938 essay “Bruder Hitler”, Thomas Mann said that Hitler was an artist. Hitler spent vast amounts of time before the first world war trying to create a Wagnerian-style opera, with lots of incest and flying in it by all accounts. Just before his death he spent time fiddling with his architectural plans for Linz. Hitler was more Rienzi (and destined to meet the same fate) not about practical politics, he liked Nietzsche, who said ” to be a public utility, a cog, a function, is a natural vocation: it is the kind of happiness of which the great majority are alone capable”.

  132. moshe says:
    @Lot

    You can buy shrooms in a store in Amsterdam?

    Also, shouldn’t there be an isteve meetup so regaulars can actually press the flesh and share a drink? It strikes me as weird that I’ve read and responded to so many people whose faces I’ve never seen. Internet culture is cool but it is also quite counter to how we evolved to interact with people and causes a lot of harm that could be avoided if more people met each other. Based on nothing more than a pic on this blog I recognized Masha Gessen in the hall of Columbia University and went over to talk with her. We disagree of course but the sort of venom that is spat betwixed the lite-altright and Masha herself vanishes when two humans meet as human beings. Based on some pic I probably saw here as well I also recognized and went over to Shaun King in The Strand (bookstore) and on another occasion Malcolm Gladwell on 27th and Madison.

    People thought back in the 90s that the internet would bring us all together but rhe world of the internet is generally an ugly and lonely world. We evolved to communicate face to face and I miss that.

    Oh, in case anyone is interested, Gladwell is shorter and whiter than you would expect and also incredibly polite for someone who was interrupted while he was on the phone (he was waiting to cross the street and I was going a different way so apologetically interrupting his call for a moment was my preference). Masha Gessen isn’t a name but a person. A regular woman. One who shouldn’t be attempting to influence the world too much perhaps but just a lady and not worthy of receiving the mockery and loathing that she receives in print — or writes in print. And Shaun King was the best. I told him point blank that I pretty much disagree with everything he believes (and this at the height of the Black Lives Matter movement) but I did so as a human talking to another human and he was friendly and nice as heck. That’s why I always say that I’m sure I’d get along great even with the people who write the most odious things here and the people to whom I on occasion do the same.

    Heck, even the autists at slatestarcodex have face to face meetups around the world all the time. Come to think of it, how about we combine isteve meetups with whatever group of internet open-borders people there are?

    It would definitely be fun. Worse comes to worst we fight it out. Like men. Not anonymii with keypads.

  133. @Peter Akuleyev

    Yes, in terms of circulation and fame, you are certainly correct. Yet we may hope that in the Halls of Truth, Cochran’s voice will reverberate down through the ages while the NYT’s will be no more than … yesterday’s newspaper.

  134. Sean says:
    @Hypnotoad666

    Isn’t it true, though, that the “tropical paradise” is a double-edged sword? Food supplies are plentiful, but so are parasites and disease.

    That is true and testosterone seems to make one more more vulnerable to infections disease. So where food is easy to get the men are in competition for women that pick the high T men and the population will get more vulnerable to infectious disease.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11419954

    Evidence is presented that melanization of skin and other tissues forms an important component of the innate immune defense system. A major function of melanocytes, melanosomes and melanin in skin is to inhibit the proliferation of bacterial, fungal and other parasitic infections of the dermis and epidermis. This function can potentially explain (a) the latitudinal gradient in melanization of human skin; (b) the fact that melanocyte and melanization patterns among different parts of the vertebrate body do not reflect exposure to radiation; (c) provide a theoretical framework for recent empirical findings concerning the antimicrobial activity of melanocytes and melanosomes and their regulation by known mediators of inflammatory responses.

    So high testosterone promotes black skin.

    • Replies: @Romanian
    , @Hypnotoad666
  135. @Buzz Mohawk

    Reading your comment…

    “I did ayahuasca three or four times thirty years ago. It was better than mushrooms or LSD.”

    “better” = ?

    “When I did it with my girlfriend it was a fuckfest. We nearly broke a four-poster bed at the Stanley Hotel.”

    Oh.

    Never mind.

  136. @PhysicistDave

    “in the end, the truth will out.”

    True-ish, perhaps, but not in the way you imply.

    Truth comes out because men get it out. It doesn’t just appear by itself. The Periodic Table did not appear in a burning bush. People laboriously excavated it from the ignorant darkness.

    If we just kick back and assume, “hey, truth will out, so the current heretic burnings are no biggee”, then no, truth won’t out. Discussions at secret fringe sites like this one may temporarily preserve a little truth for a limited audience. But truth won’t triumph until the heretic burners are themselves burnt.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  137. @PhysicistDave

    Genetics and race.

    Economics.

    Anything in sociology.

    Most psychology.

    If you say, those last three aren’t real sciences, well yeah, but tell them that.

  138. Anon[219] • Disclaimer says:
    @PhysicistDave

    They are coming for the physicists. A sysmposium at Pomona College:

    https://claremontindependent.com/pomona-decolonize-physics-2018/

    From what I can tell this is mostly a mixture of “White guys, shut up in class so the holistic students don’t feel dumb and not ask questions” with “Did you see the movie Hidden Figures? Did you hear about the chick lab assistant who got her name on her ‘French’ physics prof’s paper in exchange for bonking him, and she won a Nobel Prize along with him because of it?”

    In Canada it’s more hardcore: Actual science is being taught alongside Indiginous Ways of Knowing, where molecules are replaced by really tiny polar bears.

  139. res says:
    @Faraday's Bobcat

    Atomic mass is a social construct?

  140. @PhysicistDave

    “Lies are simple; truth is often complicated.”

    Isn’t it the other way around?

    A Grand Unified Field Theory of physics would be a holy grail of simplicity, not complication.

    Police routinely suss out liars by their complicated ever-permutating, ever-ramifying stories. By contrast, a true alibi is usually pretty simple: “I wasn’t at the scene of the crime. I was at the pizzeria. Here is the receipt.”

    • Replies: @Sean
  141. Sean says:
    @Almost Missouri

    Which is an argument for making “no comment”, which is what the vast majority of scientists do. Journalist do not understand what the real consensus among scientist is on certain issues is.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  142. @PiltdownMan

    Many “matriarchal” societies that feminists cite are far from matriarchal (in the sense of matriarchy being a mirror image replacement for patriarchy). They are often merely matrilineal in regards to property rights.

    There have never been any continuously existing human matriarchies. Any true martriarchy that popped up would be quickly conquered and enjoyed by surround patriarchies.

    Seriously the closest thing to matriarchy that has ever existed is the modern West. And, yes, it’s in the process of being conquered and plundered by barbarians.

  143. @Almost Missouri

    Almost Missouri wrote to me:

    Truth comes out because men get it out. It doesn’t just appear by itself. The Periodic Table did not appear in a burning bush.

    Yes, of course. Truth is not just floating up there in the sky, waiting to rain down upon us!

    And yet… in some ways, it often does look that way. Your example of the Periodic Table illustrates my point. Some crazy dude in backward, largely illiterate, nineteenth-century Russia of all places made the discovery. Mendeleev claimed to have seen the Periodic Table in a dream. He made up a set of cards with the properties of the elements and basically played a weird game against himself trying to put them together in a sensible way. One weird dude.

    Now, of course, Mendeleev was a trained chemist: this was not some peasant kid who heard voices that gave him the answer. And, he struggled very hard to discover the answer.

    On the other hand, some crazy guy in Russia is not whom a reasoanble person would have expected to solve the problem. (I’d have bet on a German.)

    I could make a similar point about the advances in the social sciences I quoted to Pincher Martin earlier: yes, nowadays people interested in the relevant subjects recognize the names of Mises and Hayek, Thomas Bouchard, Tooby and Cosmides, etc. But, I can assure you that none of these folks were recognized leaders of their fields when they started pushing their heterodox (but true) ideas.

    Most importantly, we tend to think of intellectual battles as us (now) vs. them (now), as if the combatants are those already involved in the fray. Thankfully, there are children, who eventually grow up and join in the battles. I remember when I was one of those young people doing what I could to denounce socialism, behaviorism, and all the rest: it seemed as if I had managed to choose the losing side on just about every issue I was aware of (including in philosophy and in my own field of physics!). And, yet, on many of those issues the “fringe” views I held fifty years ago are now the mainstream views.

    How did this happen? I’m not quite sure. I think that an awful lot of social life happens “below the radar” with ordinary people thinking about things and discussing them in small groups and then, all of a sudden, it turns out that society has changed.

    The fall of the Soviet Union, the collapse of Jim Crow, Brexit, the Trump phenomenon — I have seen this happen again and again and again.

    Yes, progrss is not automatic: it depends on human action. But often even those bringing about the progressive changes do not realize they are doing it until, one day, the world is different.

    Thankfully, the course of human events can not be controlled or even predicted from the top down.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @Almost Missouri
  144. J.Ross says: • Website
    @PhysicistDave

    Some crazy dude in backward, largely illiterate, nineteenth-century Russia of all places made the discovery.

    This is a little gratuitous. While born in Siberia, Mendeleev was educated, worked, and died in St Petersburg, which was about as advanced as anywhere in Europe at the time; his family were not peasants but educators. Educated, highly literate, detail-oriented middle class people working in a major city are exactly who you expect to make scientific discoveries.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  145. Romanian says: • Website
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I wish I had an inappropriate uncle like you I could talk to during family reunions!

  146. Romanian says: • Website
    @Sean

    Darker skin. Compare an Urkel to a Bronze Age Pervert and BAP will have more than him, yet be much whiter. Comparisons are only apt within a homogeneous group.

  147. @BB753

    Isn’t it plausible that natural selection favored Jews in Northern Europe whose appearance resembled their hosts’?

    • Replies: @Lot
  148. @Pincher Martin

    (Chua doesn’t even belong in the company of Murray, Reich, and Pinker, by the way.)

    Is that supposed to be an insult? Or a compliment?

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  149. @PhysicistDave

    For example, we now understand that usually evolution works at the level of the gene, not the species.

    Except that’s a vast oversimplification. There are a number of other levels at which evolution works.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  150. @ben tillman

    Is that supposed to be an insult? Or a compliment?

    She’s not a social scientist. I suppose you can take that as an insult or a compliment. I’ve read a couple of her books and found neither one impressive on these topics.

  151. Lot says:
    @moshe

    There are about a dozen “smart shops” that sell mushrooms in Amsterdam. For reasons that are unclear to me, they now call them “truffles” which they are not.

  152. @PhysicistDave

    I don’t share your optimism, but at least you appreciate some first-rate thinkers. The Mises/Hayek insight regarding the price mechanism was impressive and influential. I read The Calculus of Consent and was impressed with the quality of the authors’ intellect. But a lot of fundamental insights are not incorporated into public policy, especially the insight that you will get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax. Yet we tax the productive and subsidize the non-productive.

  153. Lot says:
    @ben tillman

    That’s what happened. Though it was probably mostly sexual selection.

  154. @Sean

    Evidence is presented that melanization of skin and other tissues forms an important component of the innate immune defense system.

    Very interesting.

    I suppose one counter-observation is that palms and soles of feet are without melanin, although these would seemingly be the areas most likely to come into contact with pathogens.

    On the other hand, I remember reading somewhere that black men are actually a bit darker on average than black women. If true, that would be consistent with the theory that melanin is partly an immunological defense, and that this defense is more important to individuals with higher T. (But then again, if the immunological-T-melanin connection were really strong, you’d expect men in tropical regions to have a lot more melanin than the females.)

  155. Thea says:
    @Colin Wright

    If few women found machismo attractive, it would have been bred out of our lineage. Sleeping with bad boys is a surefire way to solidify their continued existence.

    On the other end, The hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world. Mothers must be nurturing some of these behaviors decried as toxic if one subscribes to the blank slate.

    Either way women can carry some if the burden for the masculinity they supposedly don’t like.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  156. @moshe

    Also, shouldn’t there be an isteve meetup so regaulars can actually press the flesh and share a drink?

    Not a bad idea. Of course, it wouldn’t be everyone’s cup of tea as a lot of people are concerned with anonymity. Maybe we need secret handshakes and a password. An iSteve (Semi) Secret Society, if you will.

    When I was a kid in the 70’s my father used to host Mensa meetings with an invited speaker and drinks/mingling afterward. Even as a kid I could tell they were an eccentric and eclectic bunch of nerds. But they seemed to have a good time.

    We even had a guy named Wozniack show up once to demonstrate some device he was working on. Wonder what ever became of that guy . . .

  157. Lot says:
    @donut

    Keep dreaming, keep losing.

    • Replies: @BB753
    , @donut
  158. Thea says:
    @moshe

    I do the posited and share isteve columns with people I already know.

    My aunt met Jesse Jackson. He was very personable and friendly but his smile did fade as she amiably told him he was a liar and a hypocrite.

  159. @PhysicistDave

    Well… what “new intellectual fashions” have replaced the fallacies I’ve just mentioned?

    Various forms of identity politics and multicultural crap, of course. They were important thirty years ago (mainly as just part of the ongoing traditional civil rights’ issues between blacks and whites), but over the last fifteen years they have moved front and center in our academic and political debates and moved far beyond the treatment of African-Americans.

    Environmentalism. I’m not kidding when I say I recently read a history of the Holocaust by Timothy Snyder – Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning – and the main lesson he wants his readers to draw from his book is that a better understanding of how Hitler killed the Jews can better prepare us for how to deal with climate change. And, no, I’m not joking.

    Animal Rights. Peter Singer has, sadly, become one of the most influential intellectuals of the last fifty years. Now that gay rights has become generally accepted in the West, don’t be surprised if bestiality, incest, and polygamy are next. A recent documentary called Dolphin Lover was covered sympathetically in the leftist online media. These guys are always pushing on the edge, no matter where that edge is at.

    All these ideas were out there fifty years ago, but they have now become prominent among lefties in the same way that ideas like economic inequality and disarmament were dominant thirty to forty years ago.

    For example, we now understand that usually evolution works at the level of the gene, not the species. If some gene will increase the chance of its bearer passing that gene on to future generations, it will tend to spread, even if it damages the survival chances of the group of which its bearer is a member.

    This is not necessarily social science. In fact, if you apply this insight to man’s genetic legacy and then work out a few reasonable inferences from it, you stand a good chance of being ostracized from any mainstream scientific group.

    As for your thoughts on economics, don’t fool yourself. Keynesian economics is dominant outside of a few schools, and it’s completely dominant in policy circles. Good luck electing a president from either party whose economic staff doesn’t advise him to stimulate the economy whenever there is even a whiff of a recession.

  160. @PhysicistDave

    I’ve read a couple of her books, but not the one you mention. She’s nothing special. First, she’s a lawyer, not a scientist, and she writes like a lawyer.

    Second, I don’t recall Chua saying group differences were innate. If you have evidence that she has done so in one of the books I haven’t read, I’d certainly like to see it. As far as I can recall, her opinion appears to be more in line with the hard cultural constructs of Thomas Sowell. And if I have to read that kind of book, I’d much rather read Sowell than Chua.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  161. Peterike says:
    @moshe

    “It’s based in a strong belief in overwhelming Jewish tribalism which is what antisemitism has always been based on. It has almost always begun on account of jealousy/loathing of the Elites or Rich but was simplified and made safer by changing Class Consciousness into Jew Consciousness because Jews were overrepresented among the wealthy and were more conspicuous and a safer target than the ruling class in general.”

    Complete nonsense. Anti-semitism has always been a direct response to Jewish behavior. Always. Yet Jews won’t even own it once, for any time or place.

    • Replies: @lavoisier
  162. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @kihowi

    Robert Griffin talks about this in his biography of William Pierce:

    August (“Gustl”) Kubizek (3 August 1888 – 23 October 1956) was an Austrian man best known for being a close friend of Adolf Hitler, when both were in their late teens. He later wrote about their friendship in his book The Young Hitler I Knew (1955).

    Another summary:

    August Kubizek met Adolf Hitler in 1904 while they competed for standing room at the opera. Kubizek describes a reticent young man, painfully shy, yet capable of bursting into hysterical fits of anger if anyone disagreed with him. But they grew close, often talking for hours on end. In 1908, they began sharing an apartment in Vienna. After being rejected twice from art school, Hitler found himself sinking into an unkind world of “constant unappeasable hunger.” Kubizek did not meet his friend again until he congratulated him on becoming Chancellor of Germany. The Young Hitler I Knew tells the story of an extraordinary friendship, and gives fascinating insight into Hitler’s character during these formative years.

    Griffin’s summation is best, and can be found in his book, readily downloadable as a free .pdf with his consent.

  163. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @FPD72

    In the old days the natural gas wells would collect a fluid called “casing head gasoline” or just “case” in the well casing. It was a nuisance but the well operators would allow all and sundry to drain some off and use it for gasoline. It was a piss poor motor fuel but Model T’s and A’s would run on the stuff and many of the old Arkies and Okies tapped the stuff off on their way to California in their jalopies.

  164. @Anonymous

    “white South Africans, Israeli jews and European Americans”

    one of these things is not like the other. one of these things just doesn’t belong.

  165. BB753 says:
    @PhysicistDave

    I’m all for feminism and empowering them wymyn. I say let them stew in their own juice. There ain’t such a thing as a free meal (male).

  166. BB753 says:
    @Moshe

    You can afford a plane ticket but not a $100 yellow fever shot? Please do not reinforce antisemitic stereoptypes, lol!
    Since you’re looking for a primitive yet safe setting, Detroit or Camden are excluded.
    Seriously, I’d avoid Africa altogether and try to approach some South East Asian or Austronesian (trigger alert!) Negrito tribe.

  167. BB753 says:
    @moshe

    ” Masha Gessen isn’t a name but a person. A regular woman. ”

    Are you sure she is a woman?

    You know, Moshe, your invitation to meet in person sounds actually creepy. Do you work for the SPLC?

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @J.Ross
  168. BB753 says:
    @Lot

    Do you understand that Schadenfreude triggers anti-Semitism? I’m not crazy about Palestinians, but where are they being carted to in your map?

    • Replies: @would smashionalist
    , @Lot
  169. Here’s a reader comment appearing under a book review today in Areo magazine that touches upon the coming attack on Mr. Reich. It’s received more “likes” than any comment I’ve ever seen on Areo. And no dislikes.

    “This review only flits around the reason that I believe that the scientific method is coming under intensified and coordinated attack from the activist left in academia –- and that reason is preemption. It has to do with cutting off the opposing army before it can land the final devastating and humiliating blow: Direct evidence for the genetic basis of important group differences.

    2018 was a year in which you began to get the sense that the environmentalists in the nature-versus-nurture debate on differences in individual cognitive and behavioral traits finally threw in the towel. Huge genome-wide-association studies (GWAS) and tools like polygenic risk scoring took over where twin studies had fairly convincingly left off, but added the coup de grace –- hundreds of specific genes and variants were identified and associated with traits and outcomes like cognition and educational attainment

    As the year faded, standard bearers for the left like the New York Times, the Guardian, and New Statesman -– each aggressively hostile over the years to genetic arguments (the case of Nicholas Wade at the NYT is an example of what happens when you dare to go against the environmental orthodoxy) –- began to start to walk a tightrope across the chasm between what their readers (indoctrinated in the pleasantries of the blank slate religion) wanted to read and what science was actually saying. Sometimes you had to read between the lines, but the message was clear: We’ve got some bad news for you. To be able to maintain any credibility among the scientists doing the most important research, these papers all realized that they had to back down from their pro-environment positions, and they did.

    And so, with respect to individual differences in these traits, the verdict appeared to be in: Genes had finally won. This was especially true with respect to intelligence. It is now estimated -– based upon large studies conducted over the last several years — that by mid-adulthood about eighty percent of individual differences in intelligence can be explained by genes. With respect to certain executive cognitive functions, a large study found that up to 100 percent of these are heritable.

    But the genes-versus-environment battle over individual differences isn’t the big one for the left. The big one -– potentially Armageddon –- is the battle over group differences. A genetic basis for the consistent and significant gaps in IQ between racial groups (e.g., a staggering twenty-point difference between African Americans and Asian-Americans) has the potential of destroying the foundation upon which much of the progressive-left project in the US has been built, leaving it no more excuses, no more facile blame-throwing at “oppressive social forces.” The statistical and empirical evidence for a genetic basis for racial IQ gaps –- called “circumstantial” by the left –- is already overwhelming, consisting as it does of IQ data from over 500,000 persons obtained through a variety of different scientifically-validated tests (some actually deliberately designed to skew toward blacks or against Asians), adoption studies, racial admixture studies, controlled-for-SES studies, brain studies, and so on. The desperation of the left, evidenced in tactics such as its endless smear campaigns against honorable and respected scientists like Arthur Jensen, suggests that it quietly (and perhaps even subconsciously) suspects that the worst is true. Otherwise, why would it so aggressively fight against the idea of funding for rigorous scientific research which should, to their way of thinking, ultimately produce the promised egalitarian result?

    If 2018 was the year in which the genes-versus-environment battle over individual differences was finally decided in favor of genes, then 2019 is already shaping up as a year in which a preemptive strike by the activist left in the battle over group differences is going to be launched. Is Science Racist? is just a bit player in this spectacle. Most of it is going to play out in places like the New York Times, which in the past two weeks alone has gone after after James Watson (low-hanging fruit) and now –- predictably after his courageous NYT op-ed back in March 2018 attacking the scientific validity of the notion of race as a purely social construct — even the formidable David Reich. The attacks will be shameless, involve diversions and strawmen like “white supremacy” — shouldn’t it be “northeast Asian supremacy” or “Ashkenazi Jewish” supremacy, anyway? — and, as always, be thin on the actual science. Politically-motivated hacks like Amy Harmon, the NYT’s hitwoman (a science reporter with no training in a scientific field), will interview third-rate scientists with deep activist resumes (or will simply avoid interviewing scientists at all) and avoid eminent figures (like Richard Haier or even James Flynn) who she knows will tell her things that she and her editors and readers don’t want to hear. Institutions like the Times may believe that morality and compassion are on their side, but their fervor and desperation suggest that they already know that science isn’t.”

  170. Here’s a comment by A New Radical Centrism appearing under a book review in Areo magazine today that touches upon the coming coordinated attack on David Reich. It already has more “likes” than any comment I’ve ever seen on Areo. Which is interesting because Areo is a left-leaning site.

    “This review only flits around the reason that I believe that the scientific method is coming under intensified and coordinated attack from the activist left in academia –- and that reason is preemption. It has to do with cutting off the opposing army before it can land the final devastating and humiliating blow: Direct evidence for the genetic basis of important group differences.

    2018 was a year in which you began to get the sense that the environmentalists in the nature-versus-nurture debate on differences in individual cognitive and behavioral traits finally threw in the towel. Huge genome-wide-association studies (GWAS) and tools like polygenic risk scoring took over where twin studies had fairly convincingly left off, but added the coup de grace –- hundreds of specific genes and variants were identified and associated with traits and outcomes like cognition and educational attainment

    As the year faded, standard bearers for the left like the New York Times, the Guardian, and New Statesman -– each aggressively hostile over the years to genetic arguments (the case of Nicholas Wade at the NYT is an example of what happens when you dare to go against the environmental orthodoxy) –- began to start to walk a tightrope across the chasm between what their readers (indoctrinated in the pleasantries of the blank slate religion) wanted to read and what science was actually saying. Sometimes you had to read between the lines, but the message was clear: We’ve got some bad news for you. To be able to maintain any credibility among the scientists doing the most important research, these papers all realized that they had to back down from their pro-environment positions, and they did.

    And so, with respect to individual differences in these traits, the verdict appeared to be in: Genes had finally won. This was especially true with respect to intelligence. It is now estimated -– based upon large studies conducted over the last several years — that by mid-adulthood about eighty percent of individual differences in intelligence can be explained by genes. With respect to certain executive cognitive functions, a large study found that up to 100 percent of these are heritable.

    But the genes-versus-environment battle over individual differences isn’t the big one for the left. The big one -– potentially Armageddon –- is the battle over group differences. A genetic basis for the consistent and significant gaps in IQ between racial groups (e.g., a staggering twenty-point difference between African Americans and Asian-Americans) has the potential of destroying the foundation upon which much of the progressive-left project in the US has been built, leaving it no more excuses, no more facile blame-throwing at “oppressive social forces.” The statistical and empirical evidence for a genetic basis for racial IQ gaps –- called “circumstantial” by the left –- is already overwhelming, consisting as it does of IQ data from over 500,000 persons obtained through a variety of different scientifically-validated tests (some actually deliberately designed to skew toward blacks or against Asians), adoption studies, racial admixture studies, controlled-for-SES studies, brain studies, and so on. The desperation of the left, evidenced in tactics such as its endless smear campaigns against honorable and respected scientists like Arthur Jensen, suggests that it quietly (and perhaps even subconsciously) suspects that the worst is true. Otherwise, why would it so aggressively fight against the idea of funding for rigorous scientific research which should, to their way of thinking, ultimately produce the promised egalitarian result?

    If 2018 was the year in which the genes-versus-environment battle over individual differences was finally decided in favor of genes, then 2019 is already shaping up as a year in which a preemptive strike by the activist left in the battle over group differences is going to be launched. Is Science Racist? is just a bit player in this spectacle. Most of it is going to play out in places like the New York Times, which in the past two weeks alone has gone after after James Watson (low-hanging fruit) and now –- predictably after his courageous NYT op-ed back in March 2018 attacking the scientific validity of the notion of race as a purely social construct — even the formidable David Reich. The attacks will be shameless, involve diversions and strawmen like “white supremacy” — shouldn’t it be “northeast Asian supremacy” or “Ashkenazi Jewish” supremacy, anyway? — and, as always, be thin on the actual science. Politically-motivated hacks like Amy Harmon, the NYT’s hitwoman (a science reporter with no training in a scientific field), will interview third-rate scientists with deep activist resumes (or will simply avoid interviewing scientists at all) and avoid eminent figures (like Richard Haier or even James Flynn) who she knows will tell her things that she and her editors and readers don’t want to hear. Institutions like the Times may believe that morality and compassion are on their side, but their fervor and desperation suggest that they already know that science isn’t.”

  171. @BB753

    Do you understand that Schadenfreude triggers anti-Semitism?

    That’s a feature, not a bug.

  172. Lot says:
    @BB753

    “Do you understand that Schadenfreude triggers anti-Semitism”

    If that’s truly the price of lulz, so be it. But I’m not so pessimistic.

    • Replies: @BB753
  173. Anonymous[215] • Disclaimer says:
    @PhysicistDave

    I recently talked to a young woman who was on a date with a guy when one of her date’s buddies started physically assaulting her. Her date did nothing. She managed to deal with it herself.

    Let me guess, the conversation turned to Trump?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  174. @keuril

    Great tune!

    Can’t understand why Twins is not on Spotify.

    Ty Segall is a modern maestro, Stevo, can’t believe you live close to San Francisco and haven’t been to see a Segall concert and reported back to us, goys.

    Instead of going to the latest intersextional SJW movement takeover-space report back to us on a love Ty Segall concert or Oh Sees concert.

    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
    , @keuril
  175. @Pat Hannagan

    After being posted at Steve Sailer’s the original Fuzz One track has been removed from Youtube.

    Only one way to beat those better than you: ban them:

  176. The only moment their music resonated and hit a spot with White disaffected university students on summer vacation

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_(They_Might_Be_Giants_album)

    Even their own music clip didn’t endear you

    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
  177. @Pat Hannagan

    Ted Nugent generations understood all

  178. @J.Ross

    J. Ross wrote to me:

    This is a little gratuitous [towards Mendeleev]

    I’m not trying to insult him: obviously, his contribution to science for otustrips anything I have done.

    But he does seem to have been on the eccentric side, and his family had serious financial hardships. Furthermore, while you say that “St Petersburg… was about as advanced as anywhere in Europe at the time” the truth is that very little came out of Russia in the sciences in the mid-nineteenth century. (Yes, Russia did go through a literary Renaissance in the nineteenth century, and, of course, there was the glorious flowering of late-Romantic music, but science, not so much.)

    I doubt that anyone would have bet that a Russian would find the Rosetta Stone for chemistry.

  179. @Anonymous

    Anonymous[215] asked me:

    Let me guess, the conversation turned to Trump?

    No, the young woman is in STEM: she is capapble of thinking logically.

  180. They Might Be Giants is to Australia
    As Edgar Allen Poe was to the French

  181. @Pincher Martin

    Pincher martin wrote to me:S

    econd, I don’t recall Chua saying group differences were innate. If you have evidence that she has done so in one of the books I haven’t read, I’d certainly like to see it.

    I think she’s carefully sterring away from that. No one can fight battles on all fronts simultaneously. As yoou say, like Sowell.

    By the way, you know, surely some group differences are cultural and not innate.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  182. @prime noticer

    “the guy is useless”

    He’s just not great in our current situation. He’s not useless per se. And you could argue that a lot of his work was a useful precursor to other people’s stuff and changing people’s minds on an individual level.

    His work on underclasses and benefit dependency, on Fishtown and Belmont, on “custodial democracy”, on assortative mating and the cognitive elite (main theme of The Bell Curve) is interesting and IMIO (in my ignorant opinion) pretty accurate – and useful and relevant today.

    “The bottom line for this accumulation of experience in America is that it is impossible to make up for parenting deficits through outside interventions. I realize this is still an intellectually unacceptable thing to say in Britain. It used to be intellectually unacceptable in the United States as well. No longer. We’ve been there, done that.

    Our grandparents’ most basic taken-for-granted understanding, which today’s intellectual and political elites find it hardest to accept, is this: make it easier to behave irresponsibly and more people will behave irresponsibly. The welfare state makes it easier for men to impregnate women without taking responsibility for them, easier for women to raise a baby without the help of a man and easier for men and women to get by without working. There is no changing that situation without reintroducing penalties for irresponsible behavior.

    This is the sticking point for every political figure in Britain, Labor or Tory. Frank Field has been miles ahead of other politicians in recognizing the growing problem of the underclass and in speaking out, but last week even he was saying: “Surely we can say that the traditional family unit is the best way to nurture children without making it a campaign to beat up single mums.”

    With respect: you cannot. If you want to reduce the number of single mums you have to be ready to say that to bring a child into the world without a father committed to its care is wrong….

    Stigma is one of society’s most efficient methods for controlling destructive behavior.”

    He’s just not the intellectual warrior some of us would like him to be – and if he were, would The Bell Curve and all his other interesting stuff ever have been published? Or would he have been Richwined long ago? He’s been called a Nazi and a racist ever since The Bell Curve as it is.

    There are all sorts of academics who have lost their jobs for pointing out racial average differences in IQ. I can think of two or three in the UK who you’ll never have heard of.

    “And some there be, which have no memorial; who are perished, as though they had never been; and are become as though they had never been born” – Ecclesiastes 44:9

  183. Logan says:
    @sleeping noticer

    Hitler couldn’t have quoted him?

  184. John Carr says:
    @PiltdownMan

    Matrilocal is a word used to describe a system where married couple live with or near the wife’s parents and is found in some societies around the world.
    Matrilinear is a word used to describe a system where each person is identified with their mother’s lineage and is found in some societies around the world.
    Matriarchal is a word used to describe a system where women hold the primary power positions and is found in a dictionary.

  185. keuril says:
    @Pat Hannagan

    Twins is on Spotify. Search for Ty Segall, then tap All Albums.
    Ty is a very rare talent, reminds me of Anton Newcombe.

  186. BB753 says:
    @rufus

    Sailer groupies, that’d be a strange social phenomenon to happen.

  187. BB753 says:
    @Lot

    Yeah, you people are only second to Gypsies in inverse popularity. Keep pushing for that first place but then don’t complain about Cossack rides and pogroms.

  188. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Moshe

    You can do these things cheaply because the countries are cheap, but you’ll have to accept a degree of serious discomfort.

    I assume you’re from the US so budget flights are possible to all over South America.

    As for medical care, I don’t personally take anti-malarials. I instead take great care not to get bit. Nonetheless, vaccinations, such as for yellow fever are crucial. Yellow fever kills half of the people who get it, while malaria is more like the flu.

    I apologise for the slow answer. It is a hard thing to reccomend without knowing the person you are reccomending to.

    While I am fine in a jungle, it is not a generally agreeable environment. I’d suggest you try and start off with a guided group or something like that. They’ll know how to look after you. Prices for those types of things are often very high, but since their costs are low it is possible to negotiate them well down.

    • Replies: @Moshe
  189. @kihowi

    difficulty of keeping romans and nazis apart

    Pledge of Allegiance 1930s video (rare palms up version)

    Beginning video is a 1930s all African-American segregated school in Kansas.

    The salute was officially replaced by the hand-over-heart salute when Congress amended the Flag Code on 22 December 1942.

  190. @J.Ross

    Listen to my story bout a man named Jose, a poor Mex-i-can barely kept his famly fed.

    Then one day he was smugglin some cocaine, and up from the ground comes a geyser of 92 octane. Gasoline that is. Cheap tequila.

    Next thing you know Jose’s fillin his bucket from that spout, and his kinfolk said “Jose, put your cigarette out!”

    Gas has high inflammibility. So they all ran away just before Jose went kablooey.

  191. @moshe

    Also, shouldn’t there be an isteve meet up…?

    No. That would mean I would have to leave my mom’s basement.

  192. Moshe says:
    @Tyrion 2

    How do you take care not to get bit by mosquitos? I’m like a mosquito magnet. As for the jungle, how extensive are your experiences? Also, yeah, replying to a guy you know in only a very narrow context is hard. Hence my suggestion upthread for meetups…that I assume I’d never actually end up attending due to not hanging out in normal places too much but it’d still be nice to meet you.

  193. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Peterike

    Complete nonsense. Anti-semitism has always been a direct response to Jewish behavior. Always. Yet Jews won’t even own it once, for any time or place.

    This is the centrality of the matter, is it not?

    But I have kind of changed over time from directing most of my anger towards the destructive actions of the Jewish elite back to the gentile whores who do their bidding.

    Jewish mischief can only go so far without the aid and abetting of far too many stupid and greedy gentiles who willingly sell out their people and their nation for the sake of a few pieces of silver.

    Look at what the whores in Congress have done recently with trying to criminalize support for the BDS movement.

    These bastards are the real traitors.

    At least the members of the tribe are loyal to their own.

  194. @PhysicistDave

    I think she’s carefully sterring away from that. No one can fight battles on all fronts simultaneously. As yoou say, like Sowell.

    I think we are losing the thread of the argument.

    You spoke of scientific progress in the social sciences. I told you there isn’t any.

    A few names of social scientists were thrown out in the discussion (Pinker, Reich, Murray). I pointed out that they consistently soft-peddle their conclusions out of fear of the academic mob.

    You also mentioned the name of Amy Chua. She is not a social scientist, and given that she does not say anything new that hasn’t been said by Thomas Sowell for the past forty years (and also by others before him), how can she represent progress?

    By the way, you know, surely some group differences are cultural and not innate.

    I do know it. But given that few people dispute this, how is it progress when Amy Chua writes about it? You want to give her credit – and claim progress in the name of social science – when she writes about something that even few non-scientists dispute.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  195. @moshe

    Dude, I’d be worried about us getting a couple of Hellfires through the windows.

  196. Sean says:

    It is unclear what if any conclusions follow from the knowledge that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence The majority of scientists in the field have always known this is true and believed it had a genetic explanation, so they if keep quiet it is quite likely because they do not think particular social policies are mandated by it.

    Amy Chua did point out that the appeal of communism for Vietnamese had much to do with their loathing for the Chinese minority who dominated the business class of Vietnam. There has been a lot written about Vietnam, but that little detail was overlooked before her. The key to the British victory over Communist guerrillas in Malaysia was the mass expulsion of the Chinese minority…

  197. anonymous[348] • Disclaimer says:
    @BB753

    BB573 – do you know that, whether or not you are on the spectrum, you could not have written a more autistic or Aspergerian reply?

    There are clinicians and therapists who can help you overcome that. If you are a vet, or have previously qualified for medicare, or if you live near a teaching hospital with a good psychiatric staff, you can probably get therapy for free.

    Stop insulting people, and people will think more highly of you.

    • Troll: BB753
  198. Anonymous[403] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    Most of his blog follows a simple but ass backwards template: he suggests he knows something while flagrantly avoiding actually demonstrating what he insistently implies he knows.

    You’re not the only one who has noticed that.

    • Replies: @gcochran
  199. Flip says:
    @Sean

    It is unclear what if any conclusions follow from the knowledge that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence

    Well, the assumption that differences in achievement are due entirely to white racism and that quotas are justified as a result would be the first thing.

  200. AndrewR says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.

    Lmao. You don’t mention your age, but one presume you are at least 65 years old. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were 80.

    Things have changed since you were a kid, gramps – a lot. Women don’t get to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted equality, they can have it.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  201. AndrewR says:
    @Thea

    Aggression is a trait that doesn’t necessarily perpetuate itself through sexual selection. In fact, it seems like the trait most tangential to sexual selection. If Ug really wants to get with Uggette, her level of attraction to him isn’t necessarily relevant.

  202. AndrewR says:
    @Sean

    Well, for starters, we can stop blaming 100% of black dysfunction on white supremacy.

    • Replies: @Sean
  203. @Sean

    It is unclear what if any conclusions follow from the knowledge that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence The majority of scientists in the field have always known this is true and believed it had a genetic explanation, so they if keep quiet it is quite likely because they do not think particular social policies are mandated by it.

    You have got to be kidding.

    I can think of half a dozen educational policies that would be changed as a result of this knowledge, not to mention the various proposals having to do with income and wealth disparities between whites and blacks. And what about criminal justice issues?

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @JackOH
  204. @BB753

    BB753 asked me:

    What is your take on “global warming” and “man-made climate change”?

    There is no doubt that the globe has warmed in the last two centuries. I first learned about this from my great-grandmother back in the 1960s, who told me that the Mississippi River used to freeze over when she was a child in the late 1800s, whereas it did not freeze over when I was a kid. (I later checked and confirmed that Grandma’s memory was correct.)

    There is also very little doubt that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have contributed to that warming. The argument is very simple: if you do not impede solar radiation coming in to the earth, but you do make it harder for the earth to re-radiate energy back into space because of greenhouse gases, then the earth has to warm up to the point where it can “punch through” the greenhouse gases and re-radiate as much energy as it receives.

    The problem, though, is that the climate also changes on its own without human forcing — the obvious examples are the Pleistocene Ice Ages but also the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age during the last millennium.

    So… how much of the warming of the last two centuries is due to natural causes and how much to human action?

    That is a very difficult question to answer!

    You build computer models, but those models have so many adjustable parameters that it is very hard to know if you have actually modeled the physical phenomena you are studying or if you have “overfitted” the historical data in a way that is not predictive.

    There is one way to “cut to the chase” to determine how good your models are: predict future climate developments and then sit back and wait and see how good your predictions are.

    So far, the models have not done that well.

    That’s not a surprise. This is how scientific research goes, lots and lots of errors and false starts before you get it right.

    The only “surprise” is that the mainstream media and some irresponsible publicity-seeking scientists have pretended that the models are better than they have proven to be and can accurately understand the past and predict the future. They can’t, at least not yet.

    By the way, I doubt that any knowledgeable, responsible scientist would privately disagree with what I have written here. Unfortunately, a handful of scientists have made a consciouos decision to publicly over-sell the value of existing models in order to frighten the public into taking what those scientists consider wise precautionary measures. That’s dishonest.

    If you want to hear much more detail, from someone enormously more knowledgeable than I, check out Judith Curry’s Climate Etc. blog. Judith gets it from both sides because she is neither a “denialist” nor a “catastrophist” but merely a scientist trying to advance the actual science.

    • Replies: @BB753
  205. @Pincher Martin

    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    I think we are losing the thread of the argument.

    You spoke of scientific progress in the social sciences. I told you there isn’t any.

    A few names of social scientists were thrown out in the discussion (Pinker, Reich, Murray). I pointed out that they consistently soft-peddle their conclusions out of fear of the academic mob.

    I think you are mixing two subthreads: my reply to your question on social science is at January 19, 2019 at 10:42 am GMT (currently shows up as comment 130 for me, though that numbering can change, as we all know).

    My comments on Pinker, Chua et al. were part of a subthread that started with YetAnotherAnon at January 18, 2019 at 2:50 pm GMT (shows up as comment 7 for me).

    I’ve been trying to keep my comments separate between those two subthreads (though I or someone else may have inadvertently intertwined them).

    Dave

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  206. Sean says:
    @Pincher Martin

    https://neuroanthropology.net/2009/04/16/raising-iq-nicholas-kristof-meets-richard-nisbett/

    Nicholas Kristof has an op-ed today, How to Raise Our I.Q. He opens with a standard version of the individual meritocracy argument, that IQ is largely inherited:

    Poor people have I.Q.’s significantly lower than those of rich people, and the awkward conventional wisdom has been that this is in large part a function of genetics. After all, a series of studies seemed to indicate that I.Q. is largely inherited. Identical twins raised apart, for example, have I.Q.’s that are remarkably similar. They are even closer on average than those of fraternal twins who grow up together. […] World-class social psychologist Richard E. Nisbett takes on the idea of intelligence as something that is biologically determined and impervious to culture— with vast implications for the role of education as it relates to social and economic development. Intelligence and How to Get It asserts that intellect is not primarily genetic but is principally determined by societal influences.

    No I am not kidding, but Richard Nisbett is. The only people that don’t believe that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence are journalists, who are exposed to much more education (ie indoctrination) than other people.

    The scientists may not say, but they already know all this stuff. The policies have nothing to do with the science. If it was admitted that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence that would make it very much more difficult to alter the educational policies, proposals having to do with income and wealth disparities between whites and blacks and criminal justice issues I think.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    , @J.Ross
  207. @Autochthon

    Autochthon wrote to me:

    Like the provision of resources, protection was something the females drisively opted out of when they started their suicidal ravings for “equality” and, having hijacked the state to take resources from men, incarcerate them, and rob them of their own children at the whims of the women, forfeited their claim to under the natural order.

    Hmmm… Y’know, Trump won white women.

    Just maybe women are individuals and it is a mistake to assume that most women adhere to the views of a very loud and obnoxious minority?

  208. @AndrewR

    AndrewR wrote to me:

    [Dave} Men protect women and children. Al of us used to be taught that this was the cardinal masculine virtue.

    [Andy] Lmao. You don’t mention your age, but one presume you are at least 65 years old. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were 80.

    Things have changed since you were a kid, gramps – a lot. Women don’t get to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted equality, they can have it.

    Well, Andy, I do have kids but I hope it is at least a few years before they present me with grandkids! No, I am nowhere near 80.

    You were not raised to understand that men protect the females who are near to them? You would not risk yourself at all to protect a wife or daughter?

    Then you have been cheated in how you were raised.

    And we can hope that American women are still wise enough to never make you a husband or a father.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @AndrewR
  209. @ben tillman

    ben tillman wrote to me:

    [Dave]For example, we now understand that usually evolution works at the level of the gene, not the species.

    [ben]Except that’s a vast oversimplification. There are a number of other levels at which evolution works.

    Well, in principle. In practice, it’s hard to make that work: selection at the level of the gene tends to trump selection at the level of the group or species (see Williams’ classic Adaptation and Natural Selection). That is why I did hedge with “usually”: I don’t kow of any plausible case of “higher-level” selection, but, yes, it is not impossible in theory.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  210. JackOH says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Yep.

    A new civil rights movement is something of a half-glimmer in my mind’s eye. Among my political consultants would be Whites who are football coaches, car wash owners, shop foremen, cafeteria managers, union shop stewards, and other Whites who have day-to-day and generally okay relations with Black folks. Purpose: to undo the damage caused by the civil rights movement that came to a head in the 1960s.

    I’d probably want to leave political hustlers, lawyers, journalists, and most academics out of things. Why? Because, in my view, their world of abstractions, legalisms, and wobbly big-picture wordsmithing has done a disservice to actual White folks and actual Black folks alike. Jus’ sayin’.

  211. Sean says:
    @AndrewR

    No, blacks’ inferiority and dysfunction is merely relative to whites, it follows from whites’ supremacy.

  212. Sean says:

    Cochran gives ground by in effect conceding the NYT’s main point: that cutting edge science is supporting and a further development of the same school of thought as Kossinna (and the Nazis).
    But this is wrong, Kossina was an exponent of the North European hypothesis in which the German people were a single racial group identical with historical the Indo Europeans and the Germans were the original denizens of north Germany.

    It had political relevance that seems much the same as the Vanuatu myths.

    The ni-Vanuatu were not accustomed to thinking about history for its own sake, instead expecting that any story you told about the past necessarily gave form and guidance to the present. If kastom told you that your people came from a stone near the lagoon, that was relevant for ongoing disputes about who now deserved to till that land. The idea that in some abstract, scientific way they were “really” from somewhere else didn’t mean anything unless there was a direct contemporary moral.

    The Nazis the NYT and the ni-Vanuatu are all in agreement then!

    Reich and others’ work was not needed to make clear that Indo Europeans weren’t from the North German plain but actually were from southern Russia.

    Ancient Fennoscandian genomes reveal origin and spread of Siberian ancestry in Europe Broadly, present-day Europeans have ancestors in three deeply diverged source populations: European hunter-gatherers who settled the continent in the Upper Paleolithic, Europe’s first farmers who expanded from Anatolia across Europe in the early Neolithic starting around 8000 years ago, and groups from the Pontic Steppe that arrived in Europe during the final Neolithic and early Bronze Age ~ 4500 years ago. As a consequence, most Europeans can be modelled as a mixture of these three ancestral populations. This model, however, does not fit well for present-day populations from north-eastern Europe such as Saami, Russians, Mordovians, Chuvash, Estonians, Hungarians, and Finns…

    Unfortunately these aboriginal northern peoples are the blondest blue eyed Europeans, while the Indo Europeans were swarthy immigrants, so the NYT will have to switch tack and write a puff piece for Reich.

  213. Sean says:
    @PhysicistDave

    It is only women who are in need of a provider that go for the cardinal masculine virtues in the father of their children. Heiresses, women making serious money, and welfare recipients will go for playboys, bad boys and even card carrying psychopaths. Women being financially independent means their genes can forget about making sure there is bread on the table and concentrate on getting into a sexy son who will spread them far and wide. Henry Harpending proposed that the welfare payments for a child should be made to its father in order to make women only have children with cardinal masculine virtue type men.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  214. AndrewR says:
    @PhysicistDave

    And now grandpa starts hitting below the belt. Sad.

    Would I protect my wife or daughter? Of course. But you’re definitely moving the goalposts here. I wouldn’t necessarily protect someone else’s daughter just because I have a Y-chromosome and she doesn’t.

    • Troll: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  215. BB753 says:
    @PhysicistDave

    So there’s no chance of scientific advances in climatology as long as it’s approached as political and self-serving economic issues. Aren’t we fast approaching an ice-age, anyway?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  216. donut says:
    @Lot

    Lots of us are dreaming Abraham , more than you can imagine .

  217. J.Ross says: • Website
    @BB753

    I had this thought also. Masha Gessen is literally an unhinged genocide apologist (not effectively but directly) who talks nonchalantly and killing millions of people and who does so because of a desire to normalize the unnatural. I don’t care what her good side looks like.
    I suppose someone else has posted it but it’s relevant to this: a stand-up comedian nobody has heard of has said he wants to see the Catholic school kids who did nothing at a rally die and be tortured. Happily, these kids have responded and talked about lawyers (which, to further joy, they can afford).
    It is time for us to be as conveniently sensitive as our enemies, and to slap down any insulting naiveté about PC lawfare not existing and free speech thriving. I had lunch recently with some boomers who pretty much just crawled out of bomb shelters.

  218. @Sean

    No I am not kidding, but Richard Nisbett is. The only people that don’t believe that blacks are on average of inferior intelligence are journalists, who are exposed to much more education (ie indoctrination) than other people.

    Sailer recently cited a poll (or GSS survey) which claimed only 23 percent of American whites think whites are more intelligent than blacks.

    So 77 percent of American whits disagree with you.

    The policies have nothing to do with the science.

    They have everything to do with it. My God, man, have you never heard of disparate impact? That kind of thinking pervades how our political class thinks about racial issues.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @PhysicistDave
  219. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Sean

    Scientists knowing but not saying means that they don’t know, except in an utterly useless and meaningless ultimate sense which can itself never be known.

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
  220. @PhysicistDave

    I think you are mixing two subthreads: my reply to your question on social science is at January 19, 2019 at 10:42 am GMT (currently shows up as comment 130 for me, though that numbering can change, as we all know).

    My comments on Pinker, Chua et al. were part of a subthread that started with YetAnotherAnon at January 18, 2019 at 2:50 pm GMT (shows up as comment 7 for me).

    They are part of the same discussion, and my duo with you began with your comment #47 and my comment #56.

    I’ve been trying to keep my comments separate between those two subthreads (though I or someone else may have inadvertently intertwined them).

    Okay. But they really aren’t separate. They are part of the same discussion concerning your optimism about the future of what we as a society will know because of what scientists are able to discuss.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  221. Sean says:
    @Pincher Martin

    23 percent of American whites think whites are more intelligent than blacks.

    A clear majority of scientists in the relevant field know that blacks on average fall short of whites, and genetics that are the most important reason for the difference. As Hans Eysenck, said decades ago, the media gave the misleading impression that anyone (such as himself) saying blacks were of inferior intelligence was a maverick outside the mainstream scientific consensus. He cited The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy as showing that there was majority support among scientists for every single one of the main contentions he had put forward, further asserting that the idea there was any real debate about the matter among the scientists in the field was incorrect.

    If an “is” (like black inferiority in intelligence) can mandate an “ought” the world would be a very different place. The mainstream balance of opinion among scientists is of the pointlessness in bringing up blacks’ lack of intelligence, considering it as a hypothesis, or debating with those who do. To change policy requires breaking a modus vivendi, which only exists in the first place because half the West, at least, will not accept scientific truth as a guide to policy. They won’t.

  222. MEH 0910 says:

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
  223. MEH 0910 says:
    @MEH 0910

  224. @AndrewR

    Crazy Andy wrote to me:

    Would I protect my wife or daughter? Of course. But you’re definitely moving the goalposts here. I wouldn’t necessarily protect someone else’s daughter just because I have a Y-chromosome and she doesn’t.

    No, I was talking about a case of a guy on a date with a girl who would not defend the girl when she was assaulted. That was the case to which you responded. You made quite clear what you would do, or rather what you would not do, in that case.

    You are an example of the decadence into which our society has fallen. I pity you. But I do understand why many young “men” like yourself, never raised to be men, end up killing themselves.

    You have been cheated, like so many of your peers. It is very sad.

    • LOL: AndrewR
    • Replies: @AndrewR
  225. @Sean

    Sean wrote to me:

    It is only women who are in need of a provider that go for the cardinal masculine virtues in the father of their children. Heiresses, women making serious money, and welfare recipients will go for playboys, bad boys and even card carrying psychopaths.

    Yeah, there is a lot to that. Although, now that our kids are (more or less) grown, I can look back and realize that it would be very hard for a single parent to raise kids on her own, even if finance were no issue. Kids really do need a mom and a dad. But, current ideology obscures that fact.

  226. @Pincher Martin

    Pincher Martin wrote to me:

    But they really aren’t separate. They are part of the same discussion concerning your optimism about the future of what we as a society will know because of what scientists are able to discuss.

    Well, you are interpreting them in a way I did not intend. Obviously, I know that Chua is not a scientist or a social scientist, and I never said she was. Sorry that you thought I was addressing your point when I was referring to other points.

    Dave

  227. @BB753

    BB753 wrote:

    So there’s no chance of scientific advances in climatology as long as it’s approached as political and self-serving economic issues.

    Oh, no. There is progress; it’s just that the mainstream media are totally lame when it comes to reporting on ongoing scientific research, especially when there are disagreements among scientists. This is true not only of climate science but also of areas such as superstring theory that have no social or political implications.

    Of course, the fact that “global warming” does have political implications makes it even worse.

    BB753 also wrote:

    Aren’t we fast approaching an ice-age, anyway?

    Could be — nobody knows, of course. There is faint evidence that we could be entering another quiet Sun period like the Maunder Minimum, which could signal another Little Ice Age.

    Or not. We don’t know.

    Of course, one of the ironies is that if we are headed towards another Little Ice Age, then anthropogenic CO2 could be exactly what we need in the short term to help stabilize the climate!

    The universe is a complicated place, but most people, especially not-very-bright journalists, yearn for a simplicity that just does not exist.

  228. @Pincher Martin

    Pincher Martin wrote:

    Sailer recently cited a poll (or GSS survey) which claimed only 23 percent of American whites think whites are more intelligent than blacks.

    So 77 percent of American whits disagree with you.

    Well, everyone knows that whites do better than blacks academically and on standardized tests (on average): the media have been inundating us with this fact and discussions of how to ameliorate it for at least half a century.

    So, either the whites answering the test were interpreting it in a somewhat different manner than you stated it (maybe it asked if they were “certain” or if they knew it was genetic?) or, perhaps, many of the whites were “virtue signalling.”

    I suspect the latter.

    • Agree: Sean
  229. @Sean

    A clear majority of scientists in the relevant field know that blacks on average fall short of whites, and genetics that are the most important reason for the difference.

    A clear majority? No. A clear plurality? Maybe. But that plurality keeps very quiet about it.

    You mention the only scholarly survey I can recall of the specific issue you claim “a clear majority of scientists in the relevant field” believe about black intelligence, but you misrepresent it.

    Here is the relevant section from the Wikipedia article you linked:

    The role of genetics in the black-white IQ gap has been particularly controversial. The question regarding this in the survey asked “Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of black-white differences in IQ?” Amongst the 661 returned questionnaires, 14% declined to answer the question, 24% voted that there was insufficient evidence to give an answer, 1% voted that the gap was “due entirely to genetic variation”, 15% voted that it was “due entirely to environmental variation” and 45% voted that it was a “product of genetic and environmental variation”.

    So only 46 percent of hundreds of scholars in various relevant fields thought that black-white intelligence differences were either wholly or partially explained by genetics. And fifteen times as many scholars believed the gap was entirely due to environmental variation than it was to genetic variation.

    And that was back in 1984. I bet if the same question was circulated today, that percentage would be lower than it was in nineteen-eighties. Many of those scholars who were surveyed by Rothman and Snyderman in 1984 would’ve been educated in the forties and fifties when such questions could still be studied dispassionately (if quietly).

  230. @Sean

    Keep in mind, Sean, that Rothman and Synderman’s survey was conducted in 1984 (and published in 1988).

    That’s 35 years ago.

    I would confidently bet that a majority of those 661 scholars and experts are now either dead or retired.

    And any of those scholars and experts who were forty-five or older at the time of the survey in 1984 were most likely educated in a very different type of university than would exist even by the late nineteen-sixties and taught by very different types of professors than those who teach university students today.

    (I can’t recall if Rothman and Synderman gave the demographic breakdown, but given the year of the survey, I bet more than 90 percent of the 661 scholars and experts surveyed were white and a majority were men.)

    Yet even with those conditions – conditions which no longer exist today – only 46 percent of these scholars and experts agreed that genetics contributes to the black-white intelligence gap.

    • Replies: @Sean
  231. AndrewR says:
    @PhysicistDave

    I wasn’t there so I don’t know what happened. I could think of any number of reasons the male date didn’t “defend” the girl. Clearly he just wasn’t that into her.

    Anyway, it’s beyond absurd to hear a boomer blaming millennials for the fact that the boomers chose not to raise their millennial kids in the same way boomers were (allegedly) raised. But boomers like you reveal yourselves to be perhaps the worst generation in history. You rebelled in an extreme fashion against your elders when you were young, and now you refuse to take any responsibility for how the younger generations have turned out.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  232. @PhysicistDave

    Haha, I didn’t know that about Mendeleev. I guess the form of the benzene molecule would be another example of revelation informing science. (Kekule said he discovered the unusual ring structure of benzene after having a dream of a snake biting its own tail.)

    But still, once the revelation is over, there is still a lot of hard and clever work to nail down the science. One percent inspiration and 99% perspiration and all that.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  233. Sean says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Eysenck said that Rothman and Snyderman found an overwhelming majority of psychologists were willing to state that they believed that individual genetic inheritance contributes to variations in inheritance within the white community, and a smaller majority expressed the same view about the high-low SES and black-white difference in intelligence.

    Rothman and Snyderman themselves said media coverage gave the impression that only a few mavericks disputed that the concept of intelligence was hopelessly biased against the poor and black, and hence the only conclusion was that media was misleading as to what the scientific balance of opinion was.

    • Replies: @Sean
  234. Sean says:
    @Sean

    …contributes to variations in intelligence within the white community…

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  235. @Sean

    Eysenck said that Rothman and Snyderman found an overwhelming majority of psychologists were willing to state that they believed that individual genetic inheritance contributes to variations in inheritance within the white community, and a smaller majority expressed the same view about the high-low SES and black-white difference in intelligence.

    Then Eysenck is wrong. Read the book.

    Rothman and Snyderman themselves said media coverage gave the impression that only a few mavericks disputed that the concept of intelligence was hopelessly biased against the poor and black, and hence the only conclusion was that media was misleading as to what the scientific balance of opinion was.

    I’ve read the book. I’m well aware of what they said. You’re reporting it inaccurately.

  236. Sean says:

    Reference is Eysenck, Hans J., Rebel with a Cause (an Autobiography), London: W. H. Allen & Co., 1990, pp. 289–291. Others can use Google Books for ‘ Rebel with a Cause (an Autobiography) Rothman and Snyderman ‘ and see for themselves what he wrote.

    The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy was not unique, there was Mainstream Science on Intelligence published in the Wall Street Journal in 1994. It was drafted by professor of educational psychology Linda Gottfredson and signed by 52 university professors “experts in intelligence and allied fields”.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  237. @Sean

    ‘…so they if keep quiet it is quite likely because they do not think particular social policies are mandated by it.’

    I’d guess scientists keep quiet because they don’t want to be subjected to the kind of pillorying inflicted on Watson and Jensen. Several social policies are obviously at least rendered arguably desirable by lower average black intelligence, if not actually mandated by it. More or less in order of radicalism, they are:

    1. An end to attempts to make just as large a percentage of brain surgeons, mathematicians, etc black as there are blacks in the general population. The notion of black intelligence being equal to that of whites and Asians abandoned, the effort becomes obviously futile and even mischievious in its effects.

    2. A conscious effort to increase the employment opportunities and the conditions of employment for stupid people. We need to have an economy that offers sufficient positions actual blacks can actually fill.

    3. Some bars against blacks serving on juries, as judges, and in other roles where a modicum of intelligence and ethical behavior is expected. As the prosecutor was overheard to say when the OJ Simpson verdict came in, ‘what do you expect from a black jury?’

    4. A more paternalistic attitude by the state towards blacks than non-blacks. Assuming perfection isn’t necessary, whites, Asians, and Hispanics can be given latitude to manage their own lives within very broad limits; blacks can’t. In other words, as far as the rest of us are concerned, the police can just back off; blacks will always require closer supervision.

  238. @Sean

    Sean, you keep posting without responding.

    Do you not understand the difference between a “majority” and a “plurality”?

    Your own Wikipedia source contradicts what you post here about The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy. It states that in 1984, 46 percent of the 661 scholars and experts (not just psychologists) surveyed stated that genetics contributed either wholly or partially to the racial IQ gap between blacks and whites.

    46 percent was NOT a majority of the experts surveyed. It was a plurality (since some refused to answer the question).

    There are other problems with your thinking, but the fact you can’t tell the difference between a majority and a plurality stands out.

    As for the 1994 letter to the WSJ, it takes no stand on the genetic contribution to the racial gap.

  239. Sean says:

    I have responded that others can make their mind up whether I was misrepresenting a source, and provided the reference so they may easily do so.

    As for the 1994 letter to the WSJ, it takes no stand on the genetic contribution to the racial gap.

    Donald T. Campbell, a former president of the American Psychological Association, included his own analysis of the Wall Street Journal statement …He remarked that the rhetorical organization of points in the statement seemed to …build up to the conclusion that the black-white racial gap had a genetic cause.

    Robert Plomin signed the Mainstream Science on Intelligence statement, he has not suffered greatly and says the climate has improved to the extent he can now write the book he was asked to 30 years ago. Of course Plomin has shown that he can be trusted not make bizarre and tendentious interpretations so he gets a little of the very scarce resources available for psychological research and can do actual science, knowledge for its own sake, as opposed to counter-productively fulminating from the sidelines.

    Mainstream Science on Intelligence was in response to the controversy over the Bell Curve. That book’s co-author, Charles Murray was cited by Paul Ryan as an authority on the causes of poverty a few years ago.

  240. I have responded that others can make their mind up whether I was misrepresenting a source, and provided the reference so they may easily do so.

    Should we include the dictionary definitions of “majority” and “plurality” just to make it easier for them?

    Donald T. Campbell, a former president of the American Psychological Association, included his own analysis of the Wall Street Journal statement …He remarked that the rhetorical organization of points in the statement seemed to …build up to the conclusion that the black-white racial gap had a genetic cause.

    Lots of laughs. Now you’re including analysis of the straightforward points given in the WSJ letter to make it seem like they are making your case even if the case itself is never explicitly made?

    What an artful dodger you are. You’ve gone from boldly stating what a “majority” of scholars believe about the racial IQ gap to citing a 35-year-old anonymous survey of scholars which showed what a plurality of scholars back then believed about the gap to citing one important psychologist’s analysis of a 25-year-old public letter about what less than 150 scholars believe about the genetic causes of the gap, but which those scholars never themselves actually state explicitly.

    I think it’s safe to say that you misspoke earlier when you claimed you knew what a majority of scholars believe about the genetic causes of the racial gap in IQ.

    • Replies: @Sean
  241. @AndrewR

    AndrewR wrote to me:

    I wasn’t there so I don’t know what happened. I could think of any number of reasons the male date didn’t “defend” the girl. Clearly he just wasn’t that into her.

    Andy, one of the things I am trying to get into your head is that if you ask a girl on a date, you have some reasonable responsibility for her safety. No, you do not literally have to take a bullet for her. But simply telling your buddy to knock it off or else… that is not exactly a Purple Heart level of courage! And he would not do even that.

    All American boys used to be taught that they had some obligation to protect girls in the neighborhood, female classmates, etc. You are making quite clear that this is no longer true.

    Andy also said:

    Anyway, it’s beyond absurd to hear a boomer blaming millennials for the fact that the boomers chose not to raise their millennial kids in the same way boomers were (allegedly) raised. But boomers like you reveal yourselves to be perhaps the worst generation in history. You rebelled in an extreme fashion against your elders when you were young, and now you refuse to take any responsibility for how the younger generations have turned out.

    I rebelled?? In his later years, my dear old dad used to say that I had never been a problem as a child at all! Not quite true, we had our conflicts (although we were more likely to argue about trade policy — I was and am a free trader and finally got him to agree — than usual teen-age issues such as curfews or loud music, much less drugs or alcohol).

    You over-generalize. A lot. The Boomers are not a monolith. Bu the way, contrary to your original claims, no Boomer is pushing 80!!!

    However, perhaps you and I are moving towards a point of agreement. Humans are not born with knowledge about the world. No one allows their children to just “follow their instincts” when it comes to eating mushrooms or pretty-looking berries.

    But, the dominant mind-set for decades now, going back to my own childhood in fact, is that we can allow “young people” to just “follow their instincts” when it comes to dating, choosing a spouse, sex, reproduction, child-rearing, etc. It does not work: humans are no more born with an instinctual grasp of how to deal well with sex, reproduction, and child-rearing than we are born with an innate ability to tell which mushrooms are safe.

    Changes in society (extended periods of education, massing of an age cohort in high school and college, greater physical mobility, etc.) as well as technological changes (most notably the Pill) were sufficient to cause adults back in the mid-twentieth century to abnegate their responsibility to guide their children with regard to dating, sex, spousal choice, etc.

    It has not worked well.

    We have, as a society, stopped teaching kids that:

    Sex is evolutionarily tied to reproduction and pair bonding.

    Because evolution is focused on passing on one’s genes (i.e., reproduction and child-rearing), evolution has put an enormous psychological weight on sex.

    Treating sex as simply a form of casual entertainment is going to be very psychologically damaging, to both young men and, especially, young women.

    Because reproduction necessarily involves a much greater burden for females than males, what males “naturally” want is not the same as what females “naturally” want.

    Some males therefore want to take a short-cut and sexually assault women.

    It is the responsibility of decent males to stop them.

    Human beings do not achieve happy lives by simply focusing on grabbing every bit of momentary pleasure that suits their fancy.

    Becoming a good, productive, responsible person will make you happier in the long term than “following your bliss.”

    All of that is just Evolutionary Psychology 101, but, more than that, it was once the common sense of civilized societies (e.g., among our Victorian great-great grandparents).

    It is regrettable that my generation and my parents’ generation failed to pass all this on to you. I have tried (and my father tried), but we were out-numbered. This is what I meant when I repeatedly said that “you’ve been cheated”: your generation has been cheated of the knowledge that human beings have had for tens of thousands of years as to what is needed to lead a worthwhile and happy life.

    What a shame!

    So, now we have a “Lord of the Flies” situation where young people school other young people without any actual understanding or experience.

    But, you are human beings. You can think and you can understand what has gone wrong. It doesn’t take a genius, just some honest thought.

    Good luck.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  242. Sean says:
    @Pincher Martin

    I suspect Eysenck knew the difference between “majority” and “plurality”, anyone can check which one he used and how. Eysenck also said when he met other professors of his rank and standing they asked him why he felt the need to say these things, which everyone in the field already knew, to the public. Eysenck did frame things in a very provocative way, but then again his mother was a film star and his father was a nightclub entertainer.

    I think it’s safe to say that you misspoke earlier when you claimed you knew what a majority of scholars believe about the genetic causes of the racial gap in IQ.

    We know, because they said it (anonymously in the 80s and signing their names to a public statement in the 90s) that the majority of leading experts in the field believe the differences in intelligence between individuals within the human species have a genetic cause. Even the Guardian admits “there’s an undoubted genetic basis to individual difference, and that is the essential point.

    Even Noam Chomsky implicitly concedes it

    http://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-6/chomsky-on-iq-and-inequality

    [Moreover], the question of the relation, if any, between race and intelligence has very little scientific importance (as it has no social importance, except under the assumptions of a racist society) … As to social importance, a correlation between race and mean I.Q. (were this shown to exist) entails no social consequences except in a racist society in which each individual is assigned to a racial category and dealt with not as an individual in his own right, but as a representative of this category … In a non-racist society, the category of race would be of no greater significance [than height]. The mean I.Q. of individuals of a certain racial background is irrelevant to the situation of a particular individual, who is what he is. Recognizing this perfectly obvious fact, we are left with little, if any, plausible justification for an interest in the relation between mean I.Q. and race, apart from the ‘justification’ provided by the existence of racial discrimination.

    When Joshua Wedgwood, a thoroughgoing genius, produced his anti slavery propaganda it was not because he thought blacks were of equal intelligence, it was because he thought they were part of humankind. When his grandson, Charles Darwin, came up with the theory of natural selection to explain the evolution of species he was obviously most aided by intelligence inherited from his grandfather (also the money, and perhaps a South American parasitic infection that caused him to brood in seclusion). In his second theory Darwin used sexual selection to explain human races as a diverging from original unity an attempt to further the emancipation of blacks (see Darwin’s Sacred Cause: Race, Slavery and the Quest for Human Origins). Resistance to giving blacks full rights came not from scientific assertions of black inferiority, but from the rising profits to be made from cotton and the suitability of blacks for working the best land, which was often malarial.

    If one analyses intelligence by racial group all scientists know what the result would be, so yes I would say that nothing about that that would surprise people in the field, although no-one in academia actually does look at data that way because it is opposed to the whole meaning and tenor of science since Darwin. It is in this sense that the anti-racists have no academics to attack except people like Gottfredson who is not saying anything that even Guardian leader writers could disagree with, yet was still dis-invited from being a speaker at an international conference last year. I don’t think Gregory Cochran is helping create a safe space for science by going on about Conanesque carnage, and mating with non human races a la the stories of HP Lovecraft.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  243. AndrewR says:
    @PhysicistDave

    I suppose I did overgeneralize and make unfounded assumptions. But I do get frustrated by Boomers (broadly speaking [there are 20 year olds with a Boomer mentality]) who refuse to acknowledge many of the societal changes that have occurred over the last few generations. Do millennials, broadly speaking, have some bad habits and toxic beliefs that are less common than among older generations? Of course, but the opposite is true too. Certainly millennials cannot be blamed for every undesirable trend to which they’re subjected/contributing. And neither of course can boomers. Much of the rot today predates boomers by a long time (the 19th amendment, anyone?). But – as the much older, much wealthier and much more powerful generation – boomers have a responsibility to be cautious about their criticisms of millennials, and they should acknowledge their own generational contribution to the rot that millennials are only recently beginning to perpetuate.

    I agree with most of the grey text you posted, although there’s one part I take exception to.

    It is the responsibility of decent males to stop them.

    Not that I disagree per se, but this is a highly oversimplistic thing to say, and you should ALWAYS take a step back and reassess your words whenever you say something that is identical to what a radical feminist would say. I will elaborate more if necessary, but I trust you yourself can figure out what I’m getting at here.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  244. @Sean

    I suspect Eysenck knew the difference between “majority” and “plurality”, anyone can check which one he used and how.

    Since I’ve read the book, I know you’re wrong. The Wikipedia article on the book which you linked here earlier is accurate. A plurality of experts who were anonymously surveyed thirty-five years ago agreed that genes were at least partially responsible for the racial IQ gap. Not a majority, a plurality.

    We know, because they said it (anonymously in the 80s and signing their names to a public statement in the 90s) that the majority of leading experts in the field believe the differences in intelligence between individuals within the human species have a genetic cause.

    This is very different from your earlier claim. And since some psychologists argue that you can’t compare individuals from different population groups and make the same claim, it’s irrelevant to the point you were trying to make earlier. In other words, those psychologists believe one can make this claim about IQ differences between individuals from the same racial group and still not believe it applies to the IQ gap between different racial groups.

    I think they’re full of shit, but that’s besides the point. They still make that argument.

    Another point you fail to appreciate is that the letter to the WSJ in 1994 was a self-selected group of scholars who may not represent the consensus in their field. At least with Rothman and Snyderman’s book, they fairly sampled the experts in various fields to discover what the field generally thought about various issues related to IQ. That’s NOT true of the 1994 letter to the WSJ.

    As to Chomsky’s point, it’s clearly and demonstrably false. Many social policies today are based on the premise that racial groups are equal in talents. So if blacks fail at tests in school, don’t get into college, don’t hold jobs, don’t hold positions of authority in ratios equal to whites, then Q.E.D. they are being oppressed, and the government has a duty to lift that oppression by squelching unequal tests (which are all of them), providing affirmative action for college and jobs, and boosting blacks to positions of authority to which they are unsuited.

  245. Sean says:

    At least with Rothman and Snyderman’s book, they fairly sampled the experts in various fields to discover what the field generally thought about various issues related to IQ. That’s NOT true of the 1994 letter to the WSJ.

    In 1994 Linda Gottfredson and Robert Plomin actually put their names to the idea that differences in intelligence between human individuals have a genetic cause, so they believed it enough to publicly stand by it. It seems to me there is an improvement since the 80s when Rothman and Snyderman thought it necessary to give the respondents anonymity.

    In other words, those psychologists believe one can make this claim about IQ differences between individuals from the same racial group and still not believe it applies to the IQ gap between different racial groups.

    Antiracist activists who prevented Linda Gottfredson from speaking at an international conference because they say she is a bigot clearly do not think that is tenable. Nor does Nathan Comfort. The question is whether Gottfredson and Plomin are talking about individual differences in intelligence having a genetic basis as a stalking horse for a SciFi Nazi- disutopian future whereby they will be free to look at intelligence in racial terms and order society accordingly, or because they think looking at it in racial terms is bizarre and unscientific in the society they are glad to find themselves in (like Chomsky).

    As to Chomsky’s point, it’s clearly and demonstrably false. Many social policies today are based on the premise that racial groups are equal in talents.

    Was slavery ended because people thought Africans were exactly equal to Europeans? No, and today equalitarianism is still more ethical pretence than based on any factual predicate, as when it is pretended that we all have our own special talents although they add up to the same value, or every individual is as physically beautiful as anyone else in their own particular way.

    Q.E.D. they are being oppressed, and the government has a duty to lift that oppression by squelching unequal tests (which are all of them), providing affirmative action for college and jobs, and boosting blacks to positions of authority to which they are unsuited.

    Maximizing the potential of blacks involves increasing the heritability of achievement for whites. It’s necessary for the sake of the country’s social cohesion, which is an important part of its strength over-against other states. We live in a world of contending states. The day when a country does not have to compromise in order to ensure domestic tranquility and better meet external challenge is so far off that it’s not worthwhile talking about it.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  246. @AndrewR

    AndrewrR wrote to me:

    I suppose I did overgeneralize and make unfounded assumptions. But I do get frustrated by Boomers (broadly speaking [there are 20 year olds with a Boomer mentality]) who refuse to acknowledge many of the societal changes that have occurred over the last few generations.

    I know, but I do think it is important to remember that “the Boomers” tend to refer to the loud-mouths who manage to dominate the media. They certainly do not represent all Boomers and may not even represent a majority.

    Most importantly, it is worth trying to get a historical perspective: none of this started with the Boomers or even the parents of the Boomers. To the degree that it can be pinned on any generation, it is the Progressives (again with the caveat that a majority of that generation may actually have opposed the Progressives’ nostrums).

    The medicalization of social and personal problems, the pressure for government to interfere with family and personal life, and, above all, the press for a one-size-fits-all education system, the “comprehensive high school,” goes back to the Progressives.

    Grace Palladino has a very readable, interesting, and even entertaining book, Teenagers: An American History, that basically lays the whole mess that has been American adolescence for the last fifty years onto the “all kids must finish high school” ideology that took off during the Depression. The “youth culture,” the youth angst and emotional disturbances, etc. that we all take for granted is not historically normal: we created this in the early twentieth century.

    (Yes, everyone, I know there has always been friction between children and adults, between men and women, between spouses and their in-laws, and all the rest, but we have specifically made the conflicts of adolescence much worse than they need be!)

    Palladino, by the way, seems to be an old-fashioned laborite leftist. But, my and my parents’ lives cover almost the entire period she discusses, and she seems to be historically accurate.

    Andy also wrote:

    Not that I disagree per se, but this is a highly oversimplistic thing to say, and you should ALWAYS take a step back and reassess your words whenever you say something that is identical to what a radical feminist would say.

    Well… part of the problem, I think, is that radical feminists are all too eager to deny the obvious fact that sometimes females need to be physically protected by males!

    Things are going badly in our country. It is going to take thought and discussion and an acquaintance with history to turn things around by rejecting some of the basic ideas that permeated the last century.

    But, humans can learn from experience,. If the Russian people could bring down the Soviet Union, surely we can abolish the scourge of Progressivism.

  247. @Sean

    In 1994 Linda Gottfredson and Robert Plomin actually put their names to the idea that differences in intelligence between human individuals have a genetic cause, so they believed it enough to publicly stand by it.

    So what? That tells you about the opinions of two people. They don’t stand for the field. Nor do the others who signed the 1994 letter.

    And once again you have conflated two separate issues. Saying that differences in IQ between individuals have a genetic basis is not the same thing as saying that differences in IQ between races have a genetic basis.

    It seems to me there is an improvement since the 80s when Rothman and Snyderman thought it necessary to give the respondents anonymity.

    It’s not because R & S specifically asked the question about the genetic basis for IQ differences between the races, which the 1994 letter does not address. This is a point you seem to keep forgetting.

    So it wasn’t an improvement. You just can’t keep track of what was being asked.

    Antiracist activists who prevented Linda Gottfredson from speaking at an international conference because they say she is a bigot clearly do not think that is tenable.

    Who cares what a bunch of protesters think? The 1994 letter is clear. The genetic basis for IQ differences among the races is never addressed in it. End of story.

    The question is whether Gottfredson and Plomin are talking about individual differences in intelligence having a genetic basis as a stalking horse for a SciFi Nazi- disutopian future whereby they will be free to look at intelligence in racial terms and order society accordingly, or because they think looking at it in racial terms is bizarre and unscientific in the society they are glad to find themselves in (like Chomsky).

    No, that’s not the question. The question is whether is has become easier or harder for social scientists to state the truth about racial differences. And the clear answer is that over the last century, the last fifty years, the last thirty years, it has become harder. Much harder.

    Having said that, it has never been easy for any scholar to state these truths since the nineteen-sixties. Jensen required an armed guard to protect him when he was at Berkeley.

    Was slavery ended because people thought Africans were exactly equal to Europeans?

    Nope. But the progressives of the 19th and early-20th centuries generally didn’t have black colleagues they had to look in the eye, black students they had to teach, and black activists on campus who they had to fear. It’s now much harder for them to state the truth.

    Maximizing the potential of blacks involves increasing the heritability of achievement for whites.

    No, it doesn’t (and your geopolitical fantasy is equally spurious).

    • Replies: @BB753
  248. BB753 says:
    @Pincher Martin

    “But the progressives of the 19th and early-20th centuries generally didn’t have black colleagues they had to look in the eye, black students they had to teach, and black activists on campus who they had to fear. It’s now much harder for them to state the truth.”

    I’d say they have more to fear now from their white colleagues, students and activists, who have weaponized black disfunction to serve their own interests.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  249. @BB753

    I’d say they have more to fear now from their white colleagues, students and activists, who have weaponized black disfunction to serve their own interests.

    Never stopped them before. It’s not as if whites didn’t argue amongst themselves about race before the nineteen-sixties.

  250. Sean says:

    Although the Bell Curve said if one was going to look at things that way it was the most tenable inference, no authoritative person including Eysenck stated what you call “the truth about racial differences” as a fact. What has been stated as a fact by world authorities is differences in intellect between individual humans are due to divergence in genes. That is the field of battle: anti-racists will not give an inch on it.

    Saying that differences in IQ between individuals have a genetic basis is not the same thing as saying that differences in IQ between races have a genetic basis.

    It is close enough, if looking at human races as if they are species is a proper way to look at the problem. Psychology saying that differences in traits including learning ability or intelligence between individuals of the human species have a genetic basis is the essential point.

    Evolutionary psychology is applicable to any organism with a nervous system, and rests on the evidence for genetic differences between species. Races within the human species could be looked at that way if there was a racial evolutionary psychology, but there isn’t. You are simply wrong to think that affirmative action for blacks would be be halted if scientists all agreed on “the truth about racial differences”.

  251. Although the Bell Curve said if one was going to look at things that way it was the most tenable inference, no authoritative person including Eysenck stated what you call “the truth about racial differences” as a fact.

    They were asked to give their expert opinion.

    In Rothman and Snyderman’s book, the specific question those 661 experts were asked was, “Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of black-white differences in IQ?” So 305 of those 661 experts were willing to say, anonymously, that genes explained at least part of the IQ gap between blacks and whites. That was in 1984.

    Ten years later, only 110 experts would sign on to public letter to the WSJ, which didn’t even address the genetic basis for the racial gap.

    And yet you call that progress.

    It is close enough, if looking at human races as if they are species is a proper way to look at the problem.

    Races aren’t species. And I’m not sure how looking at them as species is helpful to this problem in any way.

    You are simply wrong to think that affirmative action for blacks would be be halted if scientists all agreed on “the truth about racial differences”.

    It would be much harder to justify the mismatch.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  252. @PhysicistDave

    But there are levels of organization other than gene, “group”, and species. Moreover, the term “selection” obscures rather than illuminates, and the conversation is always better without it. I note that your prior comment said “evolution” rather than “selection”.

  253. @Lot

    For a Mexican, claiming to be Sephardi is kind of like saying great grama was a Cherokee princess in North Carolina.

    They never claim it. One has to figure it out. And I’m not claiming they are full-blooded, although many undoubtedly are. They are identifiable as Jews if you are able to identify Ashkenazim.

  254. @Lot

    Indeed, NY has two young hispanic politicians who have made dubious claims of Sephardi ancestry, Ocasio-Cortez and Julia Salazar.

    Ocasio-Cortez has clearly evident Jewish ancestry. She looks like a girl from Tenafly whom I went to college with. How can you miss it?

  255. @Pincher Martin

    No justification other than power is required.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  256. @ben tillman

    Even in an autocracy, rationales are always given. But can bullshit rationales work for long periods of time in a democracy? Sure. We see it all the time.

  257. Sure, there will be some pressure for a reasonable rationale. I guess I’m just pessimistic.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The evidence is clear — but often ignored