The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
My Review of Adam Rutherford's "How to Argue with a Racist"
🔊 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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From my new book review in Taki’s Magazine:

Occam’s Butter Knife
Steve Sailer

February 19, 2020

In contrast to Angela Saini’s acclaimed but dismal 2019 work of science denialism, Superior: The Return of Race Science, Adam Rutherford’s 2020 book How to Argue With a Racist: History, Science, Race and Reality benefits from Rutherford’s lively prose style. The British science writer likes to illustrate his arguments with interesting examples, a stratagem that wouldn’t seem too much to ask of an author, but which is increasingly difficult to find these days as conventional wisdom (which Rutherford labors hard to embody) becomes ever more anti-empirical. …

In fact, I find Rutherford’s writing rather like mine in form. Of course, the difference is that I point out facts in order to increase knowledge, while Rutherford is trying to decrease knowledge by denying realities.

Read the whole thing there.

 
Hide 88 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. The British science writer likes to illustrate his arguments with interesting examples, a stratagem that wouldn’t seem too much to ask of an author, but which is increasingly difficult to find these days as conventional wisdom … becomes ever more anti-empirical. …

    This is what “intellectuals” have done for centuries (especially in the social sciences). They claim the observations of dirty working people haven’t been properly filtered through the hocus pocus lens that they alone possess.

    The more bizarre their interpretations the better. It proves how elite and esoteric the Professor Priesthood is.

    • Agree: Sick of Orcs
  2. So, he’s a better liar than Saini?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  3. In regards to black pitchers: black pitchers start losing velocity at a younger age than white pitchers on average; I’ve read it’s almost a two year difference. There are also more cases of rapid decline in black pitchers than white pitchers, when adjusted for height [smaller guys are the first ones who tend to lose it all at once.] I’d also hypothesize they are more prone to devastating shoulder and knee injuries; whereas white pitchers tend to suffer more elbow ligament damage. Some of that is due to coaching&nurturing but body differences can’t be ruled out either. Guys like Satchel Paige and Bob Gibson were exceptional but also exceptions.

    The opposite is true for positions players. In non-stress repetitive positions, black players maintain peak performance for longer, on average. An exception would be Ken Griffey Jr., who got old and fat in a hurry. Junior was also injury prone even at peak; so in hindsight, that one is something people should have seen coming. He also had several more years of wear&tear as he was physically mature enough to be in the major leagues by 18 years old.

  4. dearieme says:

    I demur from ‘the crude categorizations used colloquially (black, white, East Asian etc.)’ Those may be the main colloquial usages in the US because there is a US obsession with black/white and it doubtless seems reasonable to extend the list a bit.

    But in fact “race” has a huge range of meaning in colloquial speech and writing. The widest meaning is in ‘the human race’. Narrower meanings take you through white race to European race to Northern European race to German race to Bavarian race. For all I know someone somewhere has written that the south eastern Bavarians are a different race from the north western.

    Consequently I laugh derisively at scientists – or even more “science writers” – who try to tell me what “race” really means. Its use over the years means that it can means distinction at all those levels – what it is now fashionable to refer to as a “granularity” issue.

    Of course this factual analysis of what the word “race” has been used to mean has little relevance to Mr Rutherford because he is a dealer in porky pies. Who needs facts when he has a living to make, fame to seek, and a need to kowtow to the Woke and powerful?

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Forbes
  5. keypusher says:

    According to the late sportswriter Paul D. Zimmerman, in 1984 centers had the second-highest average IQ scores (108) on the Wonderlic test that the NFL makes all draft prospects take. (The lowest scores are for running backs.)

    The age of this cite shows one of the more powerful weapons progressives have: simply denying access to the relevant data.

    • Agree: gregor
    • Replies: @res
  6. Dan Smith says:

    Steve, thanks for reading it so I don’t have to!

  7. How do you guys contend with the fact that almost all geneticists and scientists disagree with the theory that genetics play a role in group differences ?

    There is a reason no one takes race science and people like Charles Murray seriously. There is s reason there are no conservatives in academia.

    The truth and the data are not on your side.

  8. Slightly OT, but your Twitter antagonist Prof David Curtis, MA, MD, PhD, FRCPsych, who says eugenics “simply would not work*”, has a blog with major crimethink i.e. he agrees with you.

    I think his points are good enough to use in a debate, followed by “well take that up with Professor David Curtis, MA, MD, PhD, FRCPsych, moron!!”.

    https://davenomiddlenamecurtis.blogspot.com/

    “For all useful intents and purposes sex can be regarded as binary. Scientists understand that the term “spectrum” refers to something which changes quantitatively and smoothly in one dimension so that any value on the range is equally possible. With sex, there are only two categories, male and female, and even if we want to take account of disorders of sexual development we cannot say that this produces anything like a spectrum. It would be a bit like saying that because some people can have nine fingers and others eleven, the number of fingers is a spectrum. Except that at least with number of fingers we are talking about a quantitative measure whereas with sex we are talking about two different categories.

    Again, for almost everybody sex is observed, not assigned. Of course it may well be observed before birth in an ultrasound scan. For almost nobody is it “assigned”. We assign names to our children, but not sex. Only in extremely rare cases is there any doubt about the sex of a baby and only in these cases might there be some need for sex to be “assigned”.

    Because the issues about sex tend to come up when trans people are being discussed, the next thing to say is that these exceptions to normal sexual development have nothing at all to do with being trans. It’s something of a mystery why they get brought up, it seems often to be to muddy the water. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever even heard of anybody who was trans who did not have completely normal sexual development and was not obviously chromosomally, genitally and anatomically either male or female. Of course, theoretically it could happen but I’m just saying that the two issues have nothing to do with each other.

    Trans people have a gender identity which is discordant with their biological sex. Hormone treatments and/or surgery can modify physical characteristics to some extent in order to produce an approximation to an alternative anatomical sex, but of course have no effect on the underlying chromosomal sex. Such interventions do not result in a change of biological sex, which is immutable. Whether anybody wants to say that they have “changed sex” depends entirely on definition and if one defined sex according to approximate anatomy then one might say this. My view is that biologists in general would not declare that the results of medical and/or surgical treatment could result in a change of sex.”

    * reason #1 is that “humans have long generational times and small numbers of offspring. This would make any selective breeding process extremely slow. “

    That doesn’t imply it wouldn’t work, it implies that it wouldn’t work quickly.

    #2 “most of trait variation is not due to genetic factors but to differences in environment. One consequence is that it makes it hard to identify subjects who have desirable genetic characteristics.

    Is that true? I thought twin studies said different. Obviously true at the extremes, a child who was starved or fed alcohol through childhood wouldn’t be as bright, as quick or as healthy as his better raised twin.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    , @NOTA
  9. Re: Occam’s Butterknife: Check in to Kennewick Man – very interesting actions by the fedgov in destroying the discovery site and turning over the entire skeleton to indigenous peoples to bury, in an undisclosed location, to prevent further study of a reconstructed skull that looks like Jean-Luc Picard…

    • Replies: @gregor
  10. Am unable to see my comment on Kennewick man – did it post…?

  11. Most of this stuff could be avoided if participants simply knew the rules of logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

    But, let’s have fun.

    Most ordinary contentions are common sense statements; some can be verified, some not. Let’s take some usual “controversial” ones.

    1. women are more emotional than men. I’d agree, but it depends on how you define “emotions”.

    2. leftists, in the modern affluent world, tend to be more dogmatic & intolerant toward others’ opinions, in comparison with centrists & rightists. I’d say yes, if we glance at the media- but how could this be empirically verified?

    3. blacks are better sprinters than whites. Yes, just check the stats. You can analyze things further if you wish.

    4. east Asians are better in math than whites. Ummm.. the statement is not clear enough. Which levels of math? What about other factors? Where?

  12. Sounds all alright. Great examples! Thanks. Rutherford still is Rutherford. The remaining big question is: What about the social consequences of racial differences?

  13. duncsbaby says:

    So the arguing w/race realists like myself and the calling of us as racists, does that come before or after the part where they punch us for being a Nazi?

    • Replies: @Forbes
  14. Anonymous[224] • Disclaimer says:

    Yep:

    Apparently, it *IS* possible to argue that ‘black is white’.

  15. Nice job.

    Rutherford is smart enough to know better. If he had to bet his fortune or his life on one 100m dash, and had to pick from either a random African or an Indian, who would he pick? How about for a math test, an African or a Chinese person? Maybe this keeps him up at night, or maybe he is a just a grifter or a snake-oil salesman.

  16. I find it scarcely comprehensible that Rutherford can claim to be a rugby fan and yet not see the immense raw ability of Polynesians and Melanesians at that sport.

    I can only say that while he has a New Zealand father, truly he watches rugby like an Englishman!

    I can’t work out how he can explain it away.

    Great review.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  17. a reader says:

    Steve, your new home looks terrific !

  18. Anon[119] • Disclaimer says:

    As a television presenter and writer for periodicals he is one un-woke sentence away from a new job as a barista. Or, God forbid, a writer at Unz. No tenure for him.

    Life is easier if you just give in to Stockholm syndrome.

    • Agree: HammerJack, R.G. Camara
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @R.G. Camara
  19. The book we need is How To Argue With A Race Denier.

  20. Rutherford got a front-page feature on the BBC yesterday as his book is being accompanied by a 5 – part BBC radio programme in which ‘Dr Adam Rutherford deploys science as a weapon against prejudice’.

    These ‘five racist myths’ are well-trodden cliches, that – 1. The DNA of white and black people is completely different (…did anyone ever claim that?) 2.
    There is such a thing as “racial purity” 3. England is for the English 4. A genealogy test can prove someone is 100% white 5. Black people are better at running than white people.

    The ‘debunking’ explanations are surprisingly weak and even slightly undermine each other or even themselves (eg ‘debunking’ that black men run faster involves admitting we know about the ACTN3 gene but ‘never mind here’s some unsatisfying fudge to obfuscate things so you see nothing is really proven after all’), something which seems to be mentioned in your review of the full book too.

    The one that triggers me the most though is point 3, ‘England is for the English’, which is a political position that can apparently be debunked by weaponised science; the presence of prehistoric fossils (‘with dark skin’, naturally) and societies on this island thousands and thousands of years ago, before ‘England’ or the English language or even the people who went on to create all that existed as distinct entities, is somehow supposed to ‘scientifically’ refute the rights of the latterly formed ethnic group to advocate retaining their own country after having created it.
    This is outside Rutherford’s self-proclaimed remit as the bringer of SCIENCE!, being more fit for the murkier realms of politics, is basically advocating ethnocide, and is revealing of what really motivates him to write on the subject (… and it’s not science, in case you had any doubts).

  21. martin_2 says:

    When arguing with a race denying fantasist, why do people always bring up the black white IQ gap, why not argue this way…

    (1) MRI scans of living human brains have now revealed that Orientals, that is Chinese, Japanese and Koreans, have brains that are on the average one cubic inch larger than white European brains.

    (2) Orientals average about 105 on IQ tests, whilst whites average about 100. Orientals do all those things, when living in the West, that we associate with people having high intelligence.

    Academic success and professional qualifications.
    Low rates of criminality.
    Low rates of substance abuse.
    Low rates of unemployment.
    Low rates of poverty and welfare dependency.
    Low rates of sexually transmitted disease.

    Generally, they are close to or at the top in respect of positive social indices and close to or at the bottom in respect of negative social indices.

    Thus there is no reason to doubt the IQ data, since the world is exactly as one would expect it to be if the IQ data were true.

    (3) The core argument of Darwin ‘s Theory of Evolution, a theory broadly accepted by most people, is that separate colonies of the same species, separated by some contingency such as the search for resources, or some natural disaster such as flood, will, over time, and by virtue of the different environmental pressures they are severally subjected to, begin to diverge in their characteristics, so that over a sufficiently long period of time a new species might even evolve. The obvious physical features that enable us to tell apart, say, a Chinese man from an English man are exactly what one would expect to see if evolution is indeed true.

    …If the race fantasist denies any of the above then he is saying something positive about white people and therefore worse than Hitler.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  22. @Cowboy shaw

    I find it scarcely comprehensible that Rutherford can claim to be a rugby fan and yet not see the immense raw ability of Polynesians and Melanesians at that sport.

    Success in rugby correlates highly with how much your people hate the English. Rugby is license to pummel them, anti-colonialism by other means.

    Why else would France, Argentina, and South Africa be so good?

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  23. The bit about the genetic similarity, however slight, between Andaman Islanders and some tribes in Amazonia is intriguing. I also note that the Andaman Islands are to the east of the Indian subcontinent, facing Indonesia and, ultimately, the Pacific. Access to the Pacific Ocean–and eventually South America–is not inconceivable.

    If not in fact, could Thor Hyerdahl may have been right after all at least in theory?

    • Replies: @dearieme
  24. J.Ross says:

    The title tells you that he is a credentialled imbecile. There is no such thing as arguing in the sense that he means. Actual debate depends on near-total overlap in accepted premises and nobody converts positions because of This One Wierd Trick. If he were right, he’d be concerned with rectitude, and instead he’s presenting himself as a witchfinder who can defeat the bogey.

  25. J.Ross says:

    Second paragraph is wrong and should be amended: “all ‘I %$#&ing love science’ pundits should be shot into Alpha Centauri because our sun deserves better.”

    • LOL: kaganovitch
  26. anon[400] • Disclaimer says:
    @Vince Dennis

    How do you guys contend with the fact that almost all geneticists and scientists disagree with the theory that genetics play a role in group differences ?

    Oh, Tinys!
    How do you deal with the fact that genetics plays a clear role in the differences between ducks?

    • LOL: Kratoklastes
  27. @Vince Dennis

    Whatever your going by td, you’re still dumb. Most scientists aren’t giving opinions on this topic at all. Furthermore if you ask for money to study group differences, you will not get it, period. If you persist you will get blackballed and your academic career will get ended.

    This tends stop research into the topic, so only few scientists turned journalists like Saini and Rutherford will get write books on the topic, and their takes will be predictable PC talking points. Charles Murray isn’t taken seriously by social scientists? The same people who can’t replicate any of their findings? Those “scientists”?

  28. If people of West African ancestry have a genetic advantage, why are there few West African sprinters…?

    They keep running into trees!

    For example, Blackfoot Indians near the Canadian border tend to be quite tall, while Guatemalan Indians tend to be quite short.

    But the Blackfeet are closer to the center of the Earth, so the opposite should be true. (Or does it? Less mass to pull them down…)

    Chimborazo in Ecuador, not Everest or Mauna Kea, is Earth’s high point. This should be [ahem] common core knowledge.

    For example, the Himalayas create a quite sharp racial divide between East Asians and South Asians.

    Who was there first, man or mountain? The Himalayas didn’t exist when dinosaurs stomped the world. The Indian island hadn’t slammed into the Eurasian continent yet.

    Americans can’t agree on whether to call our biggest cat a cougar, a panther, a painter, a mountain lion, or a puma

    Catamount! Catamount!

  29. @Reg Cæsar

    “Success in rugby correlates highly with how much your people hate the English.”

    No need to worry about Scottish Nationalism then 😉

    (on a more serious note, its more likely to be the other way round. When your teams get hammered by England every time, be it soccer or rugby, one outlet for nationalism is closed and politics may be all that’s left. In the days when Scotland could beat England at soccer, the Scots Nats were a bit of a joke. Wales teams are doing pretty good at present, Welsh Nats not so good)

  30. Muggles says:
    @Vince Dennis

    >>There is a reason no one takes race science and people like Charles Murray seriously. There is s reason there are no conservatives in academia.

    The truth and the data are not on your side.<<

    Yes, so the Comrades keep saying. And always have.

  31. @James Speaks

    It already exists, albeit not under the title you propose;

  32. MEH 0910 says:


    ******


    ******

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    , @mikemikev
    , @MEH 0910
  33. @Vince Dennis

    “the theory that genetics play a role in group differences”

    Eh? If NW Europeans on average are taller than Japanese on average (they are) and if height is known to be under genetic influence (it is), then genetics is playing a role in this group difference, isn’t it? Are there credentialed geneticists who say no? Got a name?

    • Thanks: HammerJack
    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  34. Rob says:

    The most common example of race being a social construct, that Brazilians call mulattoes white, but Americans call mulattoes black, is mighty weak tea. As, if the word were allowed, I am sure most Americans would classify mixed white and black people as mulatto, but I’m not sure about Brazilians.

    A stronger example would be some early anthropologists classifying Ethiopians as Caucasian. Baker, in his book Race, said the aethiopids were hybrids between Euopids with some negrid admixture, but other authorities considered them Negrids with some Europid admixture. He said it was possible that they were the descendants of a race from with both derived. Supposedly, this was based on craniofacial features, but I have seen Ethiopians, and they don’t look like dark skinned Europeans. Coon* thought there were Caucasian’s in East Africa, though now mixed with negroes.

    Have I seen a biased selection of ethiopes? Do the Amhara actually look like black white people? Or at least mixed? I think they were called part-Caucasians because they had a civilization in ancient and medieval times, and avoided colonization. If they don’t look somewhat Caucasian, this would seem to me like a much better example of the social construction of race.

    *Don’t whim me, bro! That was his name. Also, The Races of Europe is available at archive.org: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.222580/page/n4/mode/2up

  35. MEH 0910 says:
    @MEH 0910

  36. mikemikev says:
    @MEH 0910

    Someone should make a Bollywood movie about this Woman of Color citation crisis.

  37. @John Derbyshire

    Hey John,

    You never get back to commenters here with 1000’s of comments on UR over the years who ask you a question… but then respond to an obvious sock puppet/troll with a whopping three comment history, spouting boilerplate from the Tiny Duck book of rhetoric?

    Come on, man.

    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
  38. MEH 0910 says:
    @MEH 0910

    Dr Adam Rutherford Retweeted:

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  39. jb says:
    @Vince Dennis

    Two hundred years ago almost all educated Westerners agreed with the theory that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. (Anyone who disagreed risked being, um, deplatformed).

    So, how do you account for that? Can you wrap your head around the possibility that the conventional wisdom might not always be right — especially when powerful moral and political prejudices are involved?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @dearieme
  40. Forbes says:
    @dearieme

    Well said.

    Winston Churchill was fond of referring to both his “Island race” and “English race,” if memory serves.

  41. MEH 0910 says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    ******
    Not that we would agree with liberal science professor Jerry Coyne about every detail in the battle against the Woke:

    Chivers also explains that Dawkins’s tweet, which seemed to appear out of nowhere, was actually aimed at Andrew Sabisky, a nasty piece of work and a former advisor to Boris Johnson (he appears to have just resigned over racist remarks).

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
  42. Forbes says:
    @duncsbaby

    Good point.

    Those claiming race doesn’t exist are the first to name-call others as racists. The punch seems optional…depending on how imposing you are, and how wimpy they are…

  43. @James Speaks

    Don’t

    That’ll be $39.95

    Available in Hardcover for $59.95

  44. @jb

    So, how do you account for that?

    (a) It’s a true statement.

    (b) Those living in that Truth have more courage to pursue other truths.

    (c) The abandonment of that Truth is why we are where we are.

    (d) It’s still there and effective for those who embrace it.

    • Agree: XYZ (no Mr.)
    • Replies: @jb
    , @Glaivester
  45. @Anon

    If easy mode is all you can handle I suppose that is in fact the case. Likewise there are shelf-stocking jobs and the like for the retarded.

    Most men, and the women who love them, aspire to something more.

  46. OT
    The Hair Wars are heating up. A non-binary thingy has been misunderstood in a salon!

    The license serfs are not pleased. At this very moment the government is considering decriminalizing non-payment of the license fee, so of course the professionally obtuse double down on the stupid.

  47. @Mister.Baseball

    Black pitcher Ferguson Jenkins was one of those rare players who seemed to benefit from drug use. Apparently, he was a huge cokehead, and even had an open door policy with teammates—-anyone could come into their room and use as much of his coke as they wanted, but no one could leave with any. He’d be lackadaisical on the mound when no one was on base, but bear down hard with runners on. He was one of those rare pitchers who could throw a 9-hit shutout.

    Anyway, the lack of black pitchers dovetails with the lack of black fathers following the massive expansion of the welfare state under Johnson and the Cultural Marxism brought in the 1960s. As pitching became more focused with the post-1960s reliever system (and TV preventing pitchers from openly throwing batting practice late in the games to get everyone home early), kids with good fathers into baseball were pushed into pitching, which became more lucrative and specialized with each passing year.

  48. @Anon

    Here here. When everyone on the Left is losing their heads and spewing nonsense, despite seemingly being rational on other matters, its likely that they are being paid to spew such irrationality. Adam Schiff’s impeachment coup makes sense if you think of him as a person being paid an awful lot–or threatened with an awful lot—to run with it.

  49. Here’s the sort of puff piece that HBD queen living life on Easy Mode Angela wrote while at Cambridge:

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/mrs-bulletin/article/hightemperature-materials-increase-efficiency-of-gas-power-plants/A4E6A955FC4C6D6B506D5FC4CF6168B0

    Basically collect a bunch of quotes from people doing actual STEM work and throw some word salad in-between to connect them.

    This is the STEM article equivalent of cotton candy, which is well-known to be nutritional trash.

    And using a Gmail account when you’re at Ye Olde Cambridge? Bush. League.

    When can we stop pretending that Cambridge is still a good school?

    • Replies: @keypusher
  50. @MEH 0910

    Dawkins’s latest kerfluffle is just that he needed attention, so he said something “shocking”.

    Like most public intellectuals, Dawkins isn’t really impressive outside his baliwick. He spent years become a dominant intellectual force in his area of academic science, and was therefore surrounded by yes men and grad students begging to be his personal servants, and it all went to his head and he decided he was an expert on everything else. And then he liked the attention he got, so now he’s hooked.

  51. Corvinus says:

    “Of course, the difference is that I point out facts in order to increase knowledge, while Rutherford is trying to decrease knowledge by denying realities.”

    You mean, Mr. Sailer, you are a slave to confirmation bias, as evident by linking to your own articles. But that is other than surprising, as we all have that cross to bear. Perhaps you could invite the author to counter your assertions on this article by way of Twitter.

    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
  52. Corvinus says:
    @Mister.Baseball

    “In regards to black pitchers: black pitchers start losing velocity at a younger age than white pitchers on average; I’ve read it’s almost a two year difference. There are also more cases of rapid decline in black pitchers than white pitchers, when adjusted for height [smaller guys are the first ones who tend to lose it all at once.]”

    Sources?

  53. jb says:
    @Desiderius

    You’ve missed the point of my argument, which was to demonstrate that the conventional wisdom can easily be wrong, not to claim that it is always wrong. (In fact it very often isn’t wrong!)

    If you think that Christian Europe had Truth™ then fine, just transfer the setting to the Ottoman Empire, or the Soviet Union. They thought they had Truth™ with every bit as much certainty as the Europeans, yet I think we would both agree that they did not. Vince Dennis is probably too conventionally minded to ever understand this point, but I’m not really writing for him, I’m writing for comment readers who might be a little inclined in that direction, but are still open minded enough that they are occasionally willing to Question Authority.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  54. res says:
    @keypusher

    The age of this cite shows one of the more powerful weapons progressives have: simply denying access to the relevant data.

    But it also makes possible one of the more powerful meta-rules for figuring out who is telling the truth in a debate like this. Whoever is denying access to better data is probably lying.

    • Agree: keypusher
  55. @Vince Dennis

    There are very few conservatives in academia not because being conservative reflects stupidity, or even ignorance, but, rather, for precisely the opposite reason: intelligent, conservative people take two routes. Some maintain a façade, publicly agreeing with, or at least not refuting, the idiocy (they become crypto-conservatives, as it were) so they can get on with teaching medicine or investigating quasars or what have you (this route is more viable for scientists and engineers).

    Alternatively, they get fed up and just leave to go work in the private sector, where if self-employed they are freed entirely, but even if working for salaries the bologna is not so pervasive and invasive (they just sigh and suffer silently through the quarterly seminar admonishing them to DIE, and they chuckle wearily as they delete each new e-mail inviting them to march with the company’s contingent in the parade for pride in sodomy or to join Paco and Luis from the Latinx Employees Association in the kitchenette for horchata to commemorate Cinco de Mayo or whatever nonsense.

  56. @MEH 0910

    “As regards this subject…?”

    Not long ago, one had to be able to competently write sentences before being paid to write books….

  57. @Vince Dennis

    Slow night at the bathhouse? Not enough tops to go around?

    Doesn’t the steam seep into your smartphone? Or do you have a Lifepoof?

  58. gregor says:
    @Steve Luce

    The Feds tried to turn it over immediately for reburial back in the 90s (i.e., destroy the specimen) but some tenacious anthropologists sued the government to make it available for scientific study and they eventually won and were able to do at least some analysis on it. In 2015 DNA samples were analyzed and the results came out Amerindian. (Y haplogroup: Y-M3; mitochondrial: X2a). They turned it over to the tribes in 2017, so now it’s gone forever.

    Regarding the puzzle of the Caucasoid features, I wonder if it could be the ANE (Ancient North Eurasian) connection?

  59. just as a glass is both part full and part empty simultaneously

    Um, no. ‘Fraid not.

    All glasses are always completely full; they might not be completely full of the substance of interest, but the local atmosphere makes up the gaps.

    Part-empty-ists are just wrong on the science.

    Part-empty glasses are a social construct (but not part-full glasses, because 100% of a thing is still a part of the thing).

    If you don’t recant and repudiate your anti-scientific view on the part-empty question, you’re anti-science, and that must call into question everything else you’ve ever said, written, thought, observed, noticed or heard.

    .

    See how easy Saini types have it? They’re just operationalising Richelieu…

    Qu’on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j’y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.

    Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, and there I’ll find why [i.e., the/a reason] to have him hanged

    .

    HAIL KEK

  60. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:

    Why even pay any attention to Adam? I am with Greg Cochrane on this: Adam Rutherford is basically stupid. He consistently makes mistakes that a half-decent grad student will not make.

  61. Anon[316] • Disclaimer says:

    OT

    New York Magazine on Los Angeles private schools, traveling sports teams, etc.:

    NBA 90210: The children of LeBron James and Dwyane Wade play on the same L.A. prep-school basketball team

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/sierra-canyon-basketball-team.html

    Skrumbis remembers Gordon saying, “I don’t want this to be a school for rich white Jewish kids from Hidden Hills.” (Gordon himself is a Jew living in Hidden Hills, the ultraexclusive gated community in the Valley.) Sierra Canyon has a strong academic reputation, and several parents told me the school’s relative diversity, at least compared with other L.A. private schools, was a big factor in their decision to enroll their children. “Even though it’s a lot of celebrity kids, at the same time it’s really diverse,” Cedric the Entertainer, whose daughter is a student, told me.

  62. Anonymous[356] • Disclaimer says:
    @Redneck farmer

    You are aware, of course, that the gentleman’s name is correctly pronounced “Rutherfraud.

  63. Marty says:
    @Mister.Baseball

    You know nothing about baseball. Loads of white pitchers lost their careers or star status to shoulder injuries: Dick Radatz, Gary Nolan, Wayne Simpson, Mel Stottlemyre, Frank Tanana, Mark Fidrych, Don Gullet, Steve McCatty, Noah Lowry, Chien-Ming Wang … Jeez.

  64. @martin_2

    When arguing with a race denying fantasist, why do people always bring up the black white IQ gap, why not argue this way…

    Because race isn’t about traits. It’s about ancestry.

    • Replies: @anon
  65. anon[304] • Disclaimer says:
    @ben tillman

    Does MAOA affect traits? Is it part of ancestry?

  66. @Marty

    You’re going to lose a lot of people here if you continue to insist that Chien-Ming Wang is a white pitcher.

    • Replies: @Marty
  67. @Vince Dennis

    There is a reason no one takes race science and people like Charles Murray seriously.

    Charles Murray based his book on data collected by others. It’s not something he just made up. I think a lot of people misunderstand (or purposely misconstrue) this point. I think they just imagine a couple of crackpots one day for no reason whatsoever wrote down some offensive theories in a book that has now been debunked. That’s completely wrong, though. A lot of what’s in The Bell Curve was generated by others. Almost all of it is scholarly: the paperback version is 576 pages with dozens of illustrations and tables, 7 appendixes totaling over 100 pages, 112 pages of notes, and 58 pages of references.

    There is a reason why the likes of Angela Saini resort to name calling: they can’t rebut the evidence at hand, which is immense, well-reasoned, and totally beyond their expertise; they can’t even talk about it because they don’t understand it. Thus, they resort to ad hominem in the hopes they can brow-beat others with actual knowledge into confessing belief in the professed religion of the day — progressive egalitarianism.

    The truth and the data are not on your side.

    Intelligence Gaps by Ethnicity:

    https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/ethnic-group-differences-in-cognitive-ability-in-employment.pdf

    Global Ancestry and Cognitive Ability:

    Using data from the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort, we examined whether European ancestry predicted cognitive ability over and above both parental socioeconomic status … We also found large race differences for the means … This finding confirmed a Jensen effect acting on ancestry-related differences.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/psych1010034

    Historical farming practices differentially affect personality traits in the present:

    https://www.sciencenews.org/article/china-coffee-shop-habits-show-cultural-differences-tied-farming

    Disease susceptibility may vary by race:

    We calculated the incidence, mortality, and case fatality rates for Caucasians and non-Caucasians during 19th century yellow fever (YF) epidemics in the United States and determined statistical significance for differences in the rates in different populations. … host factors were examined and could not explain these large differences. We propose that the remarkably lower case mortality rates for individuals of non-Caucasian ancestry is the result of human genetic variation in loci encoding innate immune mediators.

    https://mbio.asm.org/content/5/3/e01253-14

    Animals, dog behaviors like aggression and fearfulness are linked to breed genetics:

    https://www.sciencenews.org/article/dog-breed-behavior-genetics

    Dietary preference, dietary response, medication response, cancer rates, reaction times, cranial volumes, etc etc etc

    Popular books on the subject written by the world’s then foremost expert, Arthur Jensen:

    Genetics & Education: 335 pages, 33 pages of references

    Educability and Group Differences: 365 pages, 20 pages of references

    The G Factor: 544 pages, 38 pages of references, multiple appendices

    Straight Talk About Mental Tests: 233 pages

    Bias In Mental Testing: 715 pages, 28 pages of references (~50% more per page compared with Genetics & Education).

    To put this into perspective, the Left’s champion on the subject, Stephen Jay Gould, wrote only one pseudo-scholarly book on the subject in question, The Mismeasure of Man. In that book, he lied about Samuel Morton’s cranial measurements* and devoted only a short blurb — a few pages — to Arthur Jensen’s work. Several of the claims he made in the 1981 edition were later removed in subsequent editions. Gould published practically nothing else on the subject and wasn’t an expert in any of the areas involved — not really. He died the year before the first human genome was fully sequenced.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould

    *Note:

    In a 1981 book, “The Mismeasure of Man,” the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that Morton, believing that brain size was a measure of intelligence, had subconsciously manipulated the brain volumes of European, Asian and African skulls to favor his bias that Europeans had larger brains and Africans smaller ones.

    But now physical anthropologists at the University of Pennsylvania, which owns Morton’s collection, have remeasured the skulls, and in an article that does little to burnish Dr. Gould’s reputation as a scholar, they conclude that almost every detail of his analysis is wrong.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html

    There is s reason there are no conservatives in academia

    The reason is simple: they are biased, like all people. That doesn’t make them right. The data and the conclusions that must be drawn from them are obvious. Even if you don’t agree with them, you can’t say they aren’t well-reasoned.

    As a case in point, Buss and von Hippel highlight the recent book Testosterone Rex: Unmaking the Myths of Our Gendered Minds by psychologist Cordelia Fine – a text that argues against biological differences between the sexes (and in favour of sociological explanations) and which won wide praise from journalists and left-leaning scientists around the globe, while at the same time receiving scathing criticism from evolutionary biologists and psychologists with relevant expertise in evolutionary science.

    https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/11/27/many-social-psychologists-are-impeded-by-their-ideological-aversion-to-evolutionary-psychology/

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  68. @Marty

    I didn’t say white pitchers do not suffer shoulder and knee injuries (or that they don’t diminish, or that the gap is all that great for that matter); I hypothesize that black pitchers are more prone to devastating shoulder and knee injuries over the span of a career, little leagues on up. I think there is enough data out there (maybe on down to high school level) to test it out. Otherwise, naming European and Asian MLB pitchers who’ve suffered injuries is neither here nor there. It’s like saying all pitchers are capable of pitching into their 40s because Ryan, Moyer, Colon and Niekro have done it.

  69. @Mister.Baseball

    So David Price isn’t going to pitch the Dodgers to a World Championship?

  70. HoekomSA says:

    It is interesting that the powers that be (those whoe can not be mentioned) have decided to use indians in promoting mass immigration into the west.
    The indians have an incentive to obtain additional lebensraum beyond their hot, stick and overpopulated subcontinent, even if only to get away from the stink. https://youtu.be/V35Vw29tay0.

    What make the Indians particularly useful is their reasonably high intelligene, particularly of those in western countries, but an aspect of Indian culture. Mr Mclleland, a harvard psychologist who worked on motivation noted in his book Power that in Indian culture, Indians express their power by talking, by dominating the conversation. They fill the conversation with endless talking. Stoicism is not a virtue in Indian culture.
    Razib Khan put it nicely in a recent column “anyone who has spent time around subcontinentals and East Asians is aware of the difference. To be frank, we brown people can kind be annoying dicks, lacking in grace and civility. This is evident in comments on this weblog. But these antisocial tendencies happen to be good for selecting CEOs of major American companies.”
    https://www.brownpundits.com/2020/02/19/brown-privilege-in-the-american-executive-suite/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=brown-privilege-in-the-american-executive-suite
    This enables “the Powers that be” to maintain control of the narrative and have allies in the destruction of the west.

    • Agree: mikemikev
  71. dearieme says:
    @Prester John

    “If not in fact, could Thor Hyerdahl may have been right after all at least in theory?”

    No, he had South Americans sailing west into Polynesia.

    Anyway he found the journey impossible from South America and so had to be towed some distance from the coast before he could set out.

  72. dearieme says:
    @jb

    “Two hundred years ago almost all educated Westerners agreed with the theory that Jesus Christ was the Son of God.” You’re a bit off with the timing. The Enlightenment had happened.

    Anyway, how can we know what they believed? We know only what they paid lip service to. Hell, I know a moslem who doesn’t believe a word of “his” religion. but for obvious reasons has told only a few friends – perhaps only non-moslem friends.

  73. @jb

    No, I missed nothing at all*. I addressed the more salient point. You addressed the less salient one perfectly well the first time.

    Questioning authority is fine when one is truly questioning in pursuit of truth. Legitimate authority only arises from true authorship. If all one does is question that one has missed the point of life altogether.

    * – see my political pundrity if you’d like some misses.

  74. @Glaivester

    Indeed He is for those with ears to hear, hear the Gospel, for we two are, somewhat miraculously, gathered together here, here in His Holy Name.

  75. keypusher says:
    @The Wild Geese Howard

    You know, I just had an epiphany — writing/researching race- and sex-difference denialism is going to be the easy area of STEM, kind of like the HR department at the average corporation. So just by existing, we’re doing our bit to promote diversity in STEM.

    No doubt Saini and her friends are annoyed that Adam Rutherford has already grabbed some of the best real estate, just like whatever-his-name reviewer was angry that Jared Diamond’s latest tome can still grab the front table at the airplane bookstore.

  76. NOTA says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    There’s no biological reason why selective breeding of humans can’t work, but there are lots of practical reasons why it probably wouldn’t work out in practice–mostly the difficulty of keeping such a program going consistently for enough human generations to start having much effect.

  77. Marty says:
    @Pincher Martin

    If you’re not black, you’re white. C’mom, you know that. Besides, I forgot Wally Bunker and Steve Busby.

  78. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:
    @Divine Right

    Exactly right!

    “Divine Right” seems to be a recent user on Unz.com but clearly deserves a star and a golden frame.

  79. MEH 0910 says:

  80. Anti-HBD says:

    You don’t see Harvard geneticist David Reich announcing that, say, unbeknownst to all previous observers, it turns out that the closest living relations to Samoans are actually Mohawks and Basques, while Tongans are most closely linked to Inuit, Samaritans, and Khoisan.

    But are you not just describing isolation by distance here? Does any geneticist or anthropologist disagree that Tongans and Samoans are more closely related than Samoans and Mohawks?

  81. @Mister.Baseball

    Love of baseball always starts the same way for everybody: with a game of catch with Dad in the back yard. Before sandlots or schoolyards or gym classes or little league teams or anything else, that’s where it starts.

    So if Dad isn’t around, the kid does not play baseball. And if black fathers aren’t around much to play catch with their kids, then years later there won’t be as many black MLB players, especially pitchers.

  82. MEH 0910 says:

  83. @MikeatMikedotMike

    Bourbon poster. Not the dynastic kind. Old Crow if I remember correctly.

  84. MEH 0910 says:

    Thread:


    [MORE]

  85. MEH 0910 says:


    [MORE]

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

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS