The logic of Woke censorship is very similar to the logic of historical censorship by the Catholic Church (e.g., the Index of Forbidden Books), and it actually makes a fair amount of sense. It goes like this: The truth of our doctrines is obvious and undeniable, in the same way that it is obvious and undeniable that 1+1=2. Only the foolish could be pursuaded otherwise! If a writer or a social movement were successful in pursuading the foolish that 1+1 did not equal 2 it would lead the foolish to do things that would cause great harm to the foolish themselves and to society as a whole; therefore suppressing such writers or social movements is always justified, as their words can only lead to harm, never to good.

Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? It’s hard for me to think of realistic examples of ideas so dangerous that I personally would want to suppress them (denying that 1+1=2 doesn’t really cut it for me), but if you are convinced that wrong thinking can send people to Hell, or turn them into a Nazi zombies, suppression really does seem warranted. (I am reminded of a capsule description I saw somewhere of Herbert Marcuse’s Repressive Tolerance, which essentially went “A world in which the Holocaust is possible is a world in which it is too dangerous to allow conservatives to have freedom of speech”).

Chick’s got balls.

The rise in anti-white hate truly baffles me since many/most of the hate promoters are themselves white.

Why do they think, as did the old Bolsheviks, that they will be spared come the revolution they so loudly espouse?

Censorship research typically explores dark psychological underpinnings such as intolerance, authoritarianism, dogmatism, rigidity, and extremism…. But censorship can be prosocially motivated.

Wuh? The current ‘prosocial’ agenda seems totally intolerant, authoritarian, dogmatic, rigid, and extreme.

What it really means is intolerant, authoritarian, dogmatic, rigid, and extreme anti-racism is preferable to moderate and rational racialism.

much contemporary scientific censorship aims to protect vulnerable groups

Are such ever the victims of black violence and crime?

Censorship research typically explores dark psychological underpinnings such as intolerance, authoritarianism, dogmatism, rigidity, and extremism…. But censorship can be prosocially motivated.

Calling absolute b.s. on their “but” and “prosocial”.

There is not anything “pro-social” about this social science censorship. It is precisely “intolerance”, “authoritarianism”, “dogmatism” (especially), “rigidity” and “extremism”.

This censorship is simply to protect the minoritarian–anti-white gentile–narrative, which these people hold as essentially a religious virtuous, axiomatic, non-falsifiable dogma.

And minoritarianism is deeply anti-social. It is–by design–an attack upon the host societies/nations of the West.

~~~

Their whole section beneath the more tag. In their defense, I do think the “But censorship can be prosocially motivated” is at least in part to try and flatter some of their intended audience and help their message get a wider read and more traction.

It may be reasonable to consider potential harms before disseminating science that poses a clear and present danger, when harms are extreme, tangible, and scientifically demonstrable, such as scholarship that increases risks of nuclear war, pandemics, or other existential catastrophes.

LOL. Bell Curve might cause earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, World Wars 3-4-5-6, and plague of locusts.

Did it ever occur to these hysterics that the suppression of science might lead to continuation of policies that may well bring about the fall of Western Civilization to barbarism and savagery?

I agree with the woke fearmongers that these science discoveries could have a profound impact on the future. But whatever crises they may unleash, a future based on truth is ultimately preferable to one based on lies that is unsustainable.

It may well be that these scientific findings may lead to a war.
But denying those realities will also lead to war as the current policies are unworkable.

So, if we had to choose between war & violence for truth and war & violence for lies, we’ll take the former.

PETE TOWNSHEND: Yuck, that was a bit of a bother. I just got finished doing “Tommy” and pretty much being THE SMARTEST ROCK AND ROLLER NORTH OF JOHN FUCKING LENNON, and now what do I do for a breakfast break? Why, I create “Who’s Next”, the OTHER greatest rock n roll record of all time! Top THAT, assholes!!!

https://www.allmusic.com/album/whos-next-mw0000022790

From Steve’s article: “Scientific censorship appears to be increasing. Potential explanations include …. the growing proportion of women in science ….”

Natural selection has provided women with a psychological mechanism that encourages them to go with the flow so they’ll just be enslaved and raped rather than killed by raiders from other tribes. I call this the “Rahab Effect” to honor of the prostitute who betrayed her neighbors in Jericho to Joshua and his vicious Hebrew horde. The willingness of women to jump on board the censorship bandwagon is likely yet another manifestation of this female psychological trait.

The 21st Century is Hyperfeminization of All The Things. And as such, severe decline across many important dimensions.

Looking at the paper linked in the Taki article.
Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301642120

I found Figure 1 interesting.

In particular, the relative balance of Left/Right of target cases (after thinking about this, probably explained by the average professor/possible target being fairly far left). Activists was a particularly right biased category–which I find hard to believe. Another interesting aspect is each panel shows the left/right split. Except for the incidents by year panel. Perhaps that is a clue. So let’s take a look at the reference they give for that data (this appears to be a slightly older version missing early 2023 data).
Scholars Under Fire: Attempts to Sanction Scholars from 2000 to 2022
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/scholars-under-fire-attempts-sanction-scholars-2000-2022

Looking at their PDF report it appears a disproportionate number of the right based sanctions are coming from a single source.

Of 213 sanction attempts in 2021, 111 came from the right of the scholar and 99 came from the left.23 Sanction attempts initiated from the right in 2021 occurred primarily in response to race-related expression (56, or 50%), partisan expression (44, or 40%), and/or institutional policy (24, or 22%). Sanction attempts initiated from the left were similarly motivated. Over half of them occurred in response to race-related expression (49 of 52 attempts, or 94%). A number of sanction attempts from the left were also motivated by gender (23, or 23%), institutional policy (19, or 19%), and/or partisan expression (17, or 17%).

Notably, two-thirds of the 111 attempts from the right came from a specific source: Turning Point USA’s Professor Watchlist, whose goal is to “expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom,”24 (61 sanction attempts, or 55%). To accomplish this, Professor Watchlist maintains a list — an academic blacklist — of hundreds of professors across the country who they believe are indoctrinating students with left-wing ideas.

FIRE, along with others,25 is concerned that being featured on the Watchlist can have a chilling effect on a scholar’s expression. However, we also do not believe that mere inclusion on the Watchlist represents a sanction attempt against a scholar. So, if a scholar is listed on Professor Watchlist, what warrants inclusion? At the bottom of the pages of some of the featured professors, TPUSA calls on students and parents to contact the professors’ institutions, and provides the phone numbers for them to do so. We consider this a sanction attempt because listing this information on some, but not all, profiles strongly suggests that the purpose of listing it is to spur complaints and demands for sanctioning these specific scholars.

On the basis of Professor Watchlist calling on parents and students to contact specific professors’ institutions, we added a total of 95 sanction attempts (including the 61 from 2021) to the Scholars Under Fire database. Thus, the peak of 213 sanction attempts in 2021 is somewhat illusory. If these 61 attempts were excluded from 2021 the total number of sanction attempts would be 152, one more than the 151 in 2020 and seven more than the 145 in 2022.

The PNAS paper mentions 486 cases between 2000 and June, 2023. So those 91 are almost 20% of all cases (though more cases are discussed in the FIRE PDF so not sure what is counted where). For a watchlist. Hardly seems fair to compare that to something like firing someone. I am curious how consistent they are about looking for watchlists created across the political spectrum.

Another example is the case they choose to show as the example on their database page.
https://www.aaup.org/report/academic-freedom-and-tenure-virginia-state-university

Supposedly this is motivated from the right. Yet looking at the link we see the scholar characterized as:

Professor Cobbs has claimed that the reasons for these actions—and for the actions discussed below that were taken against her during the 2003-04 and 2004-05 academic years—involved her political beliefs and affiliations and her race and were also in retaliation for filing EEOC complaints and for testifying in support of a faculty colleague’s lawsuit against the university. Professor Cobbs describes herself as a politically conservative African American who has been active in Republican Party circles at the local and state levels for many years. She claims that over the years, she incurred the displeasure of her administrative superiors for having challenged decisions they made and actions they took with regard to the program in social work.

So are we to believe a college administration is right of a Republican? Does anyone know enough about VSU to clarify?

One interesting point from the FIRE PDF.

Males comprise less than half of full- and part-time faculty (671,952 of 1,386,105 full- and part-time instructional staff nationwide, or 48%), yet they are nearly two and-a-half times more likely than females to face sanction attempts (765, or 71%, male scholars; 309, or 29%, female scholars).34

Note 34:

34 6 scholars identified as trans or non-binary

Page 20 has a figure with neither/left/right sanction attempts from 2000-2022.

Page 26 has a table of universities withe greatest number of sanction attempts along with more details.

The worst campuses include Harvard (23 sanction attempts), Stanford (22), UCLA (19), and Georgetown (16).

Page 31 has a table of sanction attempts and terminations by race.

Rates of termination were also highest among scholars who are male and scholars who are White. More than twice as many male scholars were terminated as female scholars (151 male scholars; 74 female scholars). And 8 in 10 terminations involved White scholars (181 of 225, or 80%).

Pages 34-42 cover a number of specific sanction attempts. Including Amy Wax’s case (5 separate attempts!) in some detail.

I wish the PNAS paper had a version of Figure 1 which only covered successful sanction attempts.

P.S. This National Review article about FIRE and the ACLU supplies some context.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/fire-does-what-the-aclu-no-longer-will-defend-free-speech/

You know that these 39 decent scientists didn’t really do their study and write the paper in order to advance the literature on the matter and convince anybody of anything, don’t you? That’d be naive to think that.

These guys got together to write this to show solidarity. That’s a lot of heavyweights who are rightly following the “You can’t fire all of us” strategy. If nothing else, their study can be evidence in a class action lawsuit. Jack D, what say you?

Ha! I started reaading from the bottom, saw all that data and the time put into it, and figured “That’s gotta be Res!” Nice job with that, and thanks for taking the time with the detailed analysis.

Re, the top right bar graph, I noticed that “Trainings” is one of the types of punishment. I AGREE. It used to be that learning something new on someone else’s dime (hopefully) was kind of a nice thing. Nowadays those DIE “trainings” are truly punishing. I’d rather take a slight pay cut.*

.

* Unless I can turn the volume down all the way and write unz comments and still get through it. That’s always acceptable.

I would say that the Bell Curve hypothesis is that the IQ gaps will not be eliminated by social policies. They are probably mostly genetic, but even if they are not, there is no easy fix that is going to eliminate the gaps.

@isteve
none of these illustrious anti-censorship academics dare to mention the half century-old censorship rules imposed on Western media and, by extension, everyone else from police to school teachers, parents, all …

#PCGagOrder: Everyone must conceal any negative “minority …
https://sincerity.net/media-codes-expand/
#PCGagOrder: Everyone must conceal any negative “ minority ” performances, to avoid stirring up prejudices. *hate speech laws and Facebook and twitter …
#PCGagOrder

—
Even Steve Sailer seems blissfully unaware that hiding the race of the criminal suspect is a feature. It is institutionalized in writing, in media ethics codes like the German #PresseKodex12. 1. Also in (dishonest) US media codes by NYT, AP, that feign race blindness, but even explicitly, in writing, demand to remove race info as soon as the suspect has been apprehended. All this in order to avoid prejudice against “minorities”. Then this #PCGagOrder was simply extended and generalized.

#PCGagOrder: Everyone must conceal any negative “ minority ” performances, to avoid stirring up prejudices.

Our site sincerity .net is dedicated to this topic, Steve, I really appreciate you reading and commenting. This institutionalized anti-racist gag order is also a very parsimonious explanation for almost all you observe and describe.

3) although progressives are often less censorious than conservatives, egalitarian progressives are more censorious of information perceived to threaten historically marginalized groups; and 4) academics in the social sciences and humanities (disciplines especially relevant to humans and social policy) are more censorious and more censored than those in STEM.

Let me translate this into truth: 3) Most people in academia, as elsewhere, have no principles. 4) It’s easier to pick on people whose papers you can actually read, plus there are not so many Communists anywhere around the Engineering and math buildings who would even know what goes in there.

Thus, it seems reasonable to balance knowledge risks against the costs of censorship (and resulting ignorance)

It might be reasonable, but it’s not principled. Pussies.

… by creating empirical and transparent measures of purported harms, …

… blah, blah, blah. They just got done writing about the expansion of the definition of harm. This is self-defeating BS.

This sounds like an ideal application for blockchain technology. Every submission, journal, peer review, and rejection letter could be recorded in the blockchain with an anonymized version available to everyone via a public key, and deanonymized versions available with authorization via a private key. Perfect transparency from now on. Instead of generating speculative shitcoins that the world doesn’t really need, why don’t we put the technology to good use?

It’s notable that none of the geniuses who signed onto this paper seem to have thought of that. CTRL+F “blockchain” = 0/0.

Rioters who are Angry about the Stabbing Attack by an Algerian Immigrant against a Elementary School earlier today in Dublin, Ireland have reportedly set Fire to a Holiday Inn within the City which is being used to as a Housing Facility for Immigrants. pic.twitter.com/kmY5YXz5xn

— Narendra Maurya (@narendra483) November 24, 2023

3) although progressives are often less censorious than conservatives,

That is false, but we need to start a project to catch up on censoring left-wing stupidity.

Antiwhite hate is a huge and growing topic for brave social scientists to investigate.

Yes, and anti- anti-white bigotry will have a warm reception in the academy.

We need a national divorce.

I hadn’t thought of that possibility, and in fact wondered how they got it published in PNAS of all places; maybe the wokies hadn’t completely gotten to that the way they got to Nature and Lancet. I had thought it was more of a final stand against the oncoming tide–so when the literature goes even more left wing as the millennials and zoomers move into positions of power, future historians after the collapse or in China or something will be able to understand why science became so unreliable in the early 21st century.

There’s a saying, though, “you’re not arguing to convince the other guy, you’re arguing to convince the audience.” You now have a peer-reviewed paper arguing that scientists have essentially been lying for (their perception of ) the greater good rather than impartially seeking truth. That may not convince their enemies at Harvard and Yale, but you can see, say the board of overseers at the state universities of Texas or Florida paying attention.

High minded appeals to reason and openness amongst the intellectual class is all well and good, but what really needs to happen is proscriptions against certain topics need to be openly defied by people with large public/media followings to create space for politicians (who are generally spineless and follow the herd) to act. There are some green shoots, but not nearly enough – yet.

I don’t know, from my more left-surrounded perspective, I see it as an audacious salvo. They basically got a major journal to admit scientists were lying (concealing information, but that’s just another way of lying–if I tell you a wine you’re about to drink is almond-flavored and it’s almond-flavored with six drops of cyanide, I am telling the truth but giving a very false impression) for the greater good rather than impartially seeking truth–and remember, more than half the country doesn’t agree what the greater good *is* with these people, and everyone knows it.

Now everyone from David Brooks to Andrew Anglin can point to this thing and say, “See? They’re lying, they admitted it!”

Antiwhite hate is a huge and growing topic for brave social scientists to investigate.

We should go back to using Caucasian. It’s more accurate. It’s more respectful. And it’s a mouthful. Try saying “Caucasian supremacist” or “Caucasian privilege” or “Caucasian fragility” with a straight face.

Notice it wasn’t “African-American Lives Matter”. Catchiness is key.

“Truth is the lie you happen to believe” or something.

I would say that this reply of yours fits better, IMO, with the Michael Bernstein and April Bleske-Rechek study, basically a game of mad-lib trickery, that showed how duplicitous college students are with their opinions. They agree with both Adolf Hitler and Robin DiAngelo, when the statements of the two are directed against White people.

Personally, I think the latter two should have co-authorship on the paper too. Bernstein, Bleske-Rechek, DiAngelo, Hitler, et al. That’d be a hoot, huh?

It just seems one could throw this in their face with more effect.

“You people agreed with Hitler!”

or, at least,

“You people agreed with Bernstein, Bleske-Rechek, DiAngelo, Hitler, et al.!”

Yes, I suppose Andrew Anglin would want to tout the study too…

Something occurs to me that might be an undiscussed cofactor in the science-censorship phenomenon. Breakthroughs in science – – true Eureka-moment insights – – usually occur when the scientist is quite young. Now, a 30-year-old is a different psychological, social, and economic creature than a 50-year- old. The former is just beginning his career ladder, maybe has recently gotten married, has some toddlers at home, bought a house and has a fresh mortgage. A Eureka-moment scientist in this younger cohort might, quite understandably, feel extremely vulnerable to what cancellation would mean to his life. A scientist in the latter cohort might figure “Oh, what the heck!” about cancellation – – but wait – – such an oldster scientist is unlikely to have a Eureka insight to begin with. And so, the Eureka insights are lost; mute, inglorious Eureka discoveries that would have benefited mankind.

(And yes, Achmed, Res is the most rigorous professor here at Sailer University and Pub. I have to work hard to grasp his material, but it is always worth the effort. I usually get it, but sometimes not completely, and this would kill my GPA here at Sailer University, so it’s a good thing Res is pass/fail.)

From the other thread

HammerJack says:
Next New Comment
November 23, 2023 at 9:15 am GMT • 20.7 hours ago • 100 Words ↑
@ic1000

This allows us to know for the first time that black men around age 30 in 2010 were imprisoned three to ten times more than young white men whose parents had exactly the same incomes in the 1990s.

“Three to ten times more” is a really big swing. Why?

Albert Einstein’s 1916 paper on his theory of general relativity, the great theoretician said that while he couldn’t prove his audacious insight that gravity resulted from the curvature of space

My layman’s understanding is that the curvature of space results from gravity, not the other way around. Which is it?

And can anyone explain to this non-physicist why mass results in gravity anyway?

Gravity. It’s not just a good idea, it’s the law!

So say thousands of YouTube videos. But why does mass produce gravity? Then, my other question.

At first I thought that this was just another we-the-undersigned letter, but it’s a pretty extensive paper, with original research results.

Of course, these findings do not prove once and for all what we might call the Bell Curve hypothesis that the sizable racial gaps in cognitive performance and law-abidingness are due to both nurture and nature rather than solely to social construction alone.

Oh geez, here goes brave Steve, making sure everyone knows that he only wants to protect the process, of looking for the truth. But don’t worry, it’s totally safe to keep looking because the truth can never be found.

Like Zeno’s paradox, we just get closer and closer to meeting the burden of proof. But we can never close the last infinitesimal gap to scientific certainly. It will always be a mystery if genes actually play a role in IQ or if it’s 100% nurture.

Man, with “hereditarns” like this, who needs blank slaters.

(And no, it’s not a legitimate dodge to try to mix in something speculative like “law-abindingness,” which can’t be objectively measured like IQ).

‘…A scientist in the latter cohort might figure “Oh, what the heck!” about cancellation – – but wait – – such an oldster scientist is unlikely to have a Eureka insight to begin with. And so, the Eureka insights are lost; mute, inglorious Eureka discoveries that would have benefited mankind…’

One also — unless one gets one’s snout really firmly rubbed in the contrary — tends to just accept the shibboleths one is raised with. You’ll literally veer away from having that ‘Eureka’ insight. Looking back, it should have been perfectly obvious to me from the age of nine that blacks could not be treated as one treats others. Nevertheless, it wasn’t until I was twenty two or so that I consciously formulated the thought. The insight wasn’t particularly brilliant; the evidence was right there. Yet I simply wouldn’t consciously articulate the thought.

A Jewish white supremacist verbally abused a random halal cart guy for 2 weeks.

this man is continuing to berate and harass the halal cart vendor. He ends the video with “if we killed 4,000 palestinian kids? It wasn’t enough”. pic.twitter.com/yhu4HSvIEZ

— Layla 🪬 (@itslaylas) November 21, 2023

balance knowledge risks against the costs of censorship

“Knowledge risks.” Really?

Is there an official Academic doctrine defining when “you can’t handle the truth?” As you say, even allowing this argument makes these guys pussies instead of principled truth seekers.

But I guess an alternative interpretation is that they are subtly exposing and shaming the “you can’t handle the truth” people by patronizing them. Or maybe that’s too cute. Reasonable minds can differ.

Hypnotoad666 wrote:

[Sailer] Of course, these findings do not prove once and for all what we might call the Bell Curve hypothesis that the sizable racial gaps in cognitive performance and law-abidingness are due to both nurture and nature rather than solely to social construction alone.

[Hypno] Oh geez, here goes brave Steve, making sure everyone knows that he only wants to protect the process, of looking for the truth. But don’t worry, it’s totally safe to keep looking because the truth can never be found.

Like Zeno’s paradox, we just get closer and closer to meeting the burden of proof. But we can never close the last infinitesimal gap to scientific certainly. It will always be a mystery if genes actually play a role in IQ or if it’s 100% nurture.

There is no doubt of course that genes play a role in IQ. There never has been a doubt. For millennia, people have known that smart parents have a tendency to have smart kids.

But how do you show conclusively that this explains the Black/White IQ gap?

McWhorter has argued that the anti-academic, anti-intellectual culture prevalent among many Blacks seriously depresses their ability to succeed academically. Do you doubt that there is such a culture?

How do you show that that does not fully explain the Black/White IQ gap so that no genetic explanation is needed?

What are the odds? Bayes’ theorem says that probably both matter.

But with an emphasis on the word “probably.”

The Flynn Effect and the regression to the mean, noted by Flynn, of Asian-Americans after generations in the States show that culture really is important.

So, how do you show that the “McWhorter Effect” does not fully explain the Black/White IQ difference?

A lot of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

We should go back to using Caucasian. It’s more accurate.

Wrong, it’s far less accurate: Your “Caucasian” link goes to an article about the “The Indo-European language family” which includes many non-Whites, spanning a vast geographical area far into Asia. Redneck Farmer goofed with his agree.

Try saying “Caucasian supremacist” or “Caucasian privilege” or “Caucasian fragility” with a straight face.

Try saying “I’m Caucasian” with a straight face.

Notice it wasn’t “African-American Lives Matter”. Catchiness is key.

Notice it wasn’t “It’s Okay To Be Caucasian”. Catchiness is key.

Oh geez, here goes brave Steve, making sure everyone knows that he only wants to protect the process, of looking for the truth. But don’t worry, it’s totally safe to keep looking because the truth can never be found.

Steve’s position is strategically sound: If one can’t disprove that identifiable biological hereditary groups (races) have differing inherent average g, then an automatic assumption of negative racial ‘disparate impact’ outcomes due to unfair racism cannot be taken seriously.

For example, merit-based racism, like requiring a high standard of aptitude/knowledge to pass a necessary standardized exam, could not then automatically be blamed on evil/racist intent. The racist outcome is a normal side effect of screening for g-loaded merit, similar to divergent crime stats for murder, where higher arrest and conviction rates reflect inverse group merit.

So, how do you show that the “McWhorter Effect” does not fully explain the Black/White IQ difference?

This is Arthur Jensen‘s “X-Factor,” outlined in chapter 29 of Warne’s book, black only, pervasive IQ effect, equal impact, and causal impact. There is serious research on this that has identified candidates and set probable bounds. Discrimination/racism, involuntary minority status, Flynn Effect, and stereotype threat have been looked at. Nothing really pans out, so we’re at the “lots of tiny effects” stage (0.2 IQ points lost to hair touching?).

‘…3x at the lowest percentile of national income, 10x at the highest percentile…’

The variation from lowest to highest seems to imply things — I’m not sure what.

That economic deprivation — at least economic deprivation relative to others — does indeed drive up crime? The difference between poor white and poor blacks is less marked than that between wealthy blacks and wealthy whites? Of course, even a 3X difference implies whites will always be more likely to refrain than blacks.

That blacks will always tend to criminal behavior regardless of income? The OJ Simpson syndrome? To put the same idea differently, given enough wealth, whites will refrain from crime almost completely — after all, they can almost always just buy ‘it,’ whatever ‘it’ is. Blacks, though, will still tend to just take it, or just do it, whatever ‘it’ might be.

…I wonder what the numbers for East Asians are like? Do they cease to be law-abiding below some point? Do they commit detectable crime at all if they’re wealthy?

And Black Fridays good news: a black immigration heretic gets another one in the nuts:

New York City Eric Adams has been accused of sexually assaulting a woman in 1993, according to a filing late Wednesday in the state Supreme Court of Manhattan.

Wot? No statute of Limitations?

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/nyc-mayor-eric-adams-accused-sexual-assault

There is not anything “pro-social” about this social science censorship. It is precisely “intolerance”, “authoritarianism”, “dogmatism” (especially), “rigidity” and “extremism”.

The first rule of the left: re-define every term as its antonym.

But how do you show conclusively that this explains the Black/White IQ gap?

We know IQ gets passed down in families, and races are just extended families. So why is there even a question that group differences would have a different mechanism. It’s like hypothesizing that the rules of physics are different in different families.

In any event, there’s no point reciting all the evidence because your word “conclusively” is just one big escape hatch that makes proof impossible. Nothing can ever be “conclusive” if merely stating a zero-evidence, magical “McWhorter hypothesis” is enough to refute it. “Hey, maybe it’s something else,” is not a refutation.

Heck, Steve is willing to say with confidence that Lee Harvey Oswald acted totally alone and that anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. So he’s capable of making truth/falsity distinctions without getting hung up on philosophical questions of epistemological doubt. Why not apply his JFK assassination fact-finding burden of proof to the IQ Gap?

OT but quite amusing – Russia seem to be sending their illegals to the Estonian and Finnish borders, where the promised land of the EU or maybe a boat to Dover awaits.

For once the Guardian fails to see the positive side and aren’t thinking of the enrichment and increased choice of cuisine…

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/23/estonia-accuses-russia-weaponising-immigration-europe-borders

Since the beginning of November about 800 refugees and migrants have entered Finland, according to the Finnish border guard, prompting authorities to close all but one border crossing and accept support from the European border guard agency Frontex. Estonia accused Moscow of mounting “a hybrid attack operation” on Europe’s eastern border on Wednesday after 75 people attempted to enter the country in the space of a few days, a significant increase on the usual numbers.

At a press conference in a grand room at Karlberg Palace in the Swedish capital, Pevkur said: “Regarding the migrant flow, this is fully state-orchestrated. In Russia there is a border zone you cannot enter without permission from the FSB. So by accident, all these hundreds of migrants have ended up in one border crossing point in Finland with bicycles during the winter? Come on, seriously.”

He added: “They are coming from Yemen, they are coming from Syria, they are coming from Somalia, and at the end of the day they end up somewhere in the high north at the border crossing point with Finland … This is not very plausible.”

Praising Finland’s reaction, Pevkur said countries should “act as the situation evolves”. He claimed: “These are not asylum seekers; this is weaponised illegal immigration.”

Meanwhile in the UK the Guardian are fully on board with weaponised illegal immigration:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/24/relatives-of-27-who-drowned-in-channel-boat-sinking-demand-answers

“The relatives of 27 people who died in the worst mass drowning in the Channel for decades have marked two years since the disaster by issuing an open letter demanding answers over what happened.

Signed together with dozens of refugee NGOs, the letter states that the families still have no explanation as to why French and British authorities failed the people onboard a sinking dinghy who repeatedly called for help.

At least one pregnant woman and three children were among the 27 bodies recovered after the dinghy sank. Four people remain missing.

The letter states: “We will never let the lives lost that night, or those of loved ones lost since, be forgotten. We demand justice and change. We long for people seeking safety on British shores to be seen as human beings, deserving of rights, compassion and dignity.

“Tragedies like this occur because of the ‘othering’ our politicians insist on – of the dehumanising of sons and fathers, mothers and daughters, friends and family members.”

The letter calls for safe routes for all refugees wishing to come to the UK and improved resettlement and refugee family reunion schemes. “That is the only way these tragedies will end,” it says.”

And yes, Achmed, Res is the most rigorous professor here at Sailer University and Pub. I have to work hard to grasp his material, but it is always worth the effort. I usually get it, but sometimes not completely, and this would kill my GPA here at Sailer University, so it’s a good thing Res is pass/fail.

Commenter “res” is an absolute treasure on Unz.

There are those among the commenters who spew assertions with little to nothing to back them. Then there are those who cite misleading or selected data and facts to “prove” their positions. These people are easy enough to expose and refute. Then there are those commenters and even authors who try to bullshit by burying their interlocutors with arcanae of statistics. “Res,” because he is thorough, persistent, fair-minded, and statistically knowledgeable, will often chase down the citations and the appended data and discover (and present) the actual nitty-gritty of the cited sources, either confirming or refuting the associated assertions.

He does this all the while (generally) remaining above the fray of ad hominem and interpersonal rancor, which are common occurrences here (of which offense I am also occasionally guilty). He makes this site a much better, more truthful, and informed place.

This inevitably leads me back to my very favorite subject ever, namely, the life, times, exploits, works and heroics of Keith Moon, the late lamented and celebrated drummer to the Who, and who was possibly the greatest Englishman of the later 20th century.

One particular ‘stunt’ of Moon’s comes to mind at this juncture. Picture the scene, a very upmarket wine bar in the west end of London in the mid 1970s. The time is early evening and the place is abuzz with superior types drinking, socializing and braying to each other. One very attractive, well dressed young woman enters the wine bar and takes her place at the bar. A few minutes later she is followed by another attractive young woman, then another, then another. More minutes pass, then, suddenly a rather ridiculous looking figure, made up to look like an Italian operatic tenor of the 19th century, complete with false moustache burst through the doors loudly announcing ‘Make Way, Make Way for the Great Moonio!!!’. As if on cue the ladies in unison to proceed to sit on the bar, hitch up skirts, down pantyhose and panties, and sit legs akimbo. To the shock and horror of the patrons ‘The Great Moonio’ proceeds to ‘orally pleasure’ each of the waiting ladies in turn.

Needless to say, The Great Moonio – and his girls – was frogmarched out of premises by ‘blue in the face’ management.

One stunt, which for absolute certainty, can never ever be topped.

Steve, excellent article.

“Over 50 percent of the college students agreed with the ideas of Hitler and DiAngelo when they were framed as defaming whites…”

Maybe @CynicalPublius is right and 2023 Democrats are fascists.

“Listed below are attributes and practices that all 20th Century fascists have in common with the Democrat Party of 2023:

1. Laws promoting the seizure of guns from law-abiding citizens and/or the denial of gun ownership rights for law-abiding citizens.
2. Censorship of free speech by pretending such censorship protects the citizenry from faulty information.
3. Government control of industry.
4. Government control of the mass media.
5. Children belong to the State and not their parents.
6. Political dissidents are to be persecuted for “crimes” under the color of law through the courts.
7. Political dissidents are locked up for months/years without a trial.
8. All policies are to be based on a fierce adherence to a preferred ideology.
9. Control of the entertainment industry as a means of propaganda.
10. Accuse dissidents of the very crimes you yourself commit.
11. Justify all of it for the “common good.”

The Democrat Party of 2023 is a fascist party.”

Margaret Mead?

Why do they think, as did the old Bolsheviks, that they will be spared come the revolution they so loudly espouse?

Because they are no smarter and have no more imagination than the old Bolsheviks did a century ago in Russia or Germany.

Out of push-button responses here, Hypno, but I think the former.

As a reply to SFG also here, let me say that it’s not like I think these guys have some well-thought-out plan to have this out there for a lawsuit or something. I’m sure they enjoy doing data-crunching on something that proves the Conservative White man is getting screwed by censorship and cancellation more than anybody else. (It’s pretty damn obvious without the study – just, as an academic, think what YOU can say and what THAT PURPLE-HAIRED LADY can say.)

I am sure that those who wrote the paper together – all 39 (why do you need 39?) – did this to help become unified against the Woke Commies of academia. That’s the main thing.

What I meant before is that NOBODY on the ctrl-left that even deigns to read this will be swayed by the conclusion. They may even be convinced – “yeah, nice work laying this out, works for me”, but that’s not swayed. I.e., it’s not gonna stop them from working hard to censor and cancel the next Conservative White man to speak out. That’s just how the ctrl-left rolls. People need to learn that.

Finally, regarding this:

It may be reasonable to consider potential harms before disseminating science that poses a clear and present danger, when harms are extreme, tangible, and scientifically demonstrable, such as scholarship that increases risks of nuclear war, pandemics, or other existential catastrophes.

So, let’s see, not a good idea to work on dangerous viruses in cooperation with the Chinese, eh? Yeeeahhh.

I know that in science and engineering, even if one knows that the new results found from some work might easily be used for nefarious purposes, in general one keeps going. Why? The work is built on previous work. Someone else is going to do it pretty soon anyway, and they’ll get the credit. You can’t bury the whole scientific process. Note the part about “nuclear war”, and thing back to 1945.

Now as far as the Social Sciences, the papers are usually BS anyway, so if it were “harmful”, other people may never come up with the same BS. Why? Because you have cancelled them to discourage the others…

“You forgot to add a gigachad image.”

It makes you wonder if a lot of research will have to be based outside the US. They can use American technology and maybe even capital, but the actual work on “forbidden” topics may have to be done elsewhere.

So women are more likely to lie. Nobody doubts that.

“future historians after the collapse or in China or something will be able to understand why science became so unreliable in the early 21st century.”

Those future folks, those sage historians, are always so, so very wise and so, so conveniently in agreement with everything I believe and say. And those future Chinamen, so very preoccupied with white cowardice and dysfunction. Lolcow.

Conor McGregor retweeting Keith Woods.

2023 is wild.

Buckle up, kids. Shit is getting real

I think they just increased it, which is why all this is coming out now.

The letter calls for safe routes for all refugees wishing to come to the UK and improved resettlement and refugee family reunion schemes.

By “safe routes” they mean “safe one-way routes”.
By “refugees” they mean “economic migrants”.
By “improved resettlement schemes” they mean “something even better than an unlimited stay in a four-star hotel”.
By “improved family reunion schemes” they mean “unlimited chain migration”.

As for “demanding answers”, the answer is glaringly obvious. It is suicidally dangerous for 31 people to attempt to cross 22 miles of open sea in an overloaded rubber dinghy.

Wot? No statute of Limitations?

New York State passed a temporary reprieve to the statute of limitations on sexual assault last year. It was at least partly intended as another avenue for attacking Trump.

In theory, this was sort of “reverse amnesty” where all previous “sexual assaults” [notoriously vague category] that were barred from court for the “technicality” of being older than the statute of limitations would get aired out. In practice it has been a giant invitation to file frivolous lawsuits.

I think they just increased it,

Not exactly. In 2019, New York extended the statute of limitations on civil suits arising from claims of sexual harassment from three years to twenty, but that extension was not retroactive, so it would not affect the suit against Eric Adams.

The spate of civil suits filed on Nov 23rd are the result of a one-time piece of legislation, the Adult Survivors Act, which provided a one-year “lookback window” wherein the statute of limitations was affectively held in abeyance from 11/24/22 to 11/24/23. This allowed people to file sexual harassment suits on alleged events in the past regarding which the statute of limitations had already expired, but it is over now.

Any new allegations, of course, will have a twenty-year window in which to file.

The PNAS paper mentions 486 cases between 2000 and June, 2023. So those 91 are almost 20% of all cases (though more cases are discussed in the FIRE PDF so not sure what is counted where). For a watchlist. Hardly seems fair to compare that to something like firing someone. I am curious how consistent they are about looking for watchlists created across the political spectrum.

This is a key point. Of course the hiring process for the whole academy is one giant watchlist of leftist boogeymen, so it is not even possible to become an academic and risk later sanction if you evince any trait on the leftist watchlist. But since the left didn’t make the mistake of making their watchlists public and transparent as Turning Point USA did, the authors of this paper totally omit this enormous thumb on the scale.

As Achmed said, by accepting the left’s framing, this weak-tea indictment is self-defeating.

They possess a death wish. Cults surrounding death are not rare in human history. They will die martyrs in their eyes. If they take you with them, all the better.

When you see women, and their adjacent men, cut their hair short, dye it blue, pierce and tattoo themselves all over, you see someone who hates beauty and life and joy. Such person cannot conceive of any form of love such as for God or kin or country.

The rise in anti-white hate truly baffles me since many/most of the hate promoters are themselves white.

The closer one’s ancestry is to the English Channel, the more likely one is able to think for oneself.* This is not a quality many bosses want in their underlings. As Alden said, Hispanics are desired because they are “docile”. At least on Election Day. Come to think of it, no one is more docile on Election Day than blacks. Whereas we Channel people are rarely more volatile.

We’re the only ones who ever riot in the voting booth.

*Without taking this too far, that is, e.g., Greece, India. (Hmm, that could have been abbreviated “…i.e., e.g.”…)

I agree. But even more important than “doing harm to one’s self and others,” the Catholic church centuries earlier (and today’s woke equivalents) didn’t (and don’t) want to relenquish power and authority.

… by creating empirical and transparent measures of purported harms …

It's important to remember that these people's definition of "harm" includes mean tweets and AI-generated anime women with large breasts.

— Just Loki (@LokiJulianus) November 23, 2023

So, how do you show that the “McWhorter Effect” does not fully explain the Black/White IQ difference?

First, I will note that the “McWhorter Effect” (FWIW I think his version of this is a big part of what eventually got Bill Cosby cancelled) is almost as verboten as the genetic explanation. Which is incredibly sad because it would be so much easier to address.

I see two threads of evidence responsive to your point.

1. The SAT results for blacks vs. whites across the income spectrum. I think the negative causes McWhorter cites vary with income (for all races) as well as race. A subsidiary of this is looking at other black cultures (e.g. Nigerians) with less of those causes.

IMO that is less persuasive than:

2. Admixture studies. Here is a discussion of one by one of the authors. Note references to Warne’s book.
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2023/06/a-plethora-of-evidence-for-genetic-influence-of-american-race-ethnic-gaps-in-intelligence/
Steve has written about the family of ABCD studies a number of times. Searching his work for “ABCD” is worthwhile.
Also see this post and its comments.
https://www.unz.com/runz/the-forbidden-topic-race-and-iq/?showcomments#comment-6116326

P.S. Anon’s reference (and elaboration) to Russell Warne’s book is excellent. In addition to chapter 29 see chapter 28. From the TOC.
28 Racial/Ethnic Group IQ Differences Are Completely Environmental
in Origin 247
29 Unique Influences Operate on One Group’s Intelligence Test Scores 264

I would call this negative evidence (note how Warne frames his argument as burden of proof on environmentalists) regarding your point while the admixture studies are positive evidence.

Thanks. That is an illuminating sub-point I had missed.

The SAT results for blacks vs. whites across the income spectrum

Basically, the most affluent black students score similarly as the poorest whites.

The only ethnic names and resume research I have seen has compared stereotypically black names (underclass) with stereotypically white English names . D’quan Jackson and John Whitaker.

It would get interesting if you tried it with mainstream culture but probably black names like James Washington vs D’Quan Jackson vs John Whitaker vs Declan O’Malley.

Ethnically ambiguous names like Wayne Roberts. African names like Kwame Abade. Haitian, Jacques Baptiste.

Then, try white ethnic names. Easy to pronounce and relatively familiar like Peter Svenson. Now cross the Baltic and try Domantas Vasiliauskas.

Kevin Chin vs Huang Chin. Shigeki Fujioko vs Huang Chin. Muhammed Choudury vs Syed Choudury vs Adarsh Patel vs Adarsh Balikrishnan.

Haven’t even considered Jews, Armenians, Hispanics, Italians….

Now…look at the ethnicity of the HR first reviewer after the resume purge software.

Ms. Denise Harris vs Ms. Divya Atal vs Ms. Donna Mazucco vs Ms Mimi Stein.

Familiarity, pronunciation ease, diversity efforts, stereotyped competence perception, stereotyped affability/extroversion perception, stereotyped English language competence/ accent perception, stereotyped conscientiousness, coethnic preference conscious and unconscious, interethnic preference conscious and unconscious, religious and caste preference.

So much granularity you could look at . But much easier to write about D’quan and John, much likelier to get published academic journals or popular press.

Then there’s this. Could be, advantage, D’quan.

https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/just-6-percent-of-new-sp-jobs-went-to-white-applicants-in-the-wake-of-george-floyd-analysis-shows/

This is exactly the same thing happening with those people who want to preemptively censor A.I. algorithms because they’re worried that they won’t be able to control the results. A human scientist can be cowed and threatened, but the whole appeal of an A.I. is that itcan’t be coerced into giving the “right” wrong answer. Otherwise, what’s the point of creating an uber efficient and proficient computer program if you hamstring it and prevent it from ever doing that in the first place?

In a way, A.I. could provide cover for human scientists to say the stuff they want to say but can’t. I mean, we all intuitively know what the right answers are before we ever ask the computer, right? The leftists can’t have that, so it’s Newspeak and Doublethink all the way down.

In some contemporary Western societies, many people object to information that portrays historically disadvantaged groups unfavorably, and academia is increasingly concerned about historically disadvantaged groups.

These liberal authors accept the idea of “historically disadvantaged groups” even as they try to defend genetics research that shows these groups are not disadvantaged by history but by genes. Better to reject “historically disadvantaged” as an explanation for anything and get on with it.

Censorship research typically explores dark psychological underpinnings such as intolerance, authoritarianism, dogmatism, rigidity, and extremism

Again the liberal authors take a swipe at the Evil Right, their true enemy.
I long ago tired of reading liberal appeals to their far-left friends to be more reasonable.

I think it is a different phenomenon.

Old Bolsheviks did not hate their own kind. Actually, although some of them were of aristocratic background, they tried to annihilate a society based on class exploitation & during the revolution, their intent was to create a classless society without social stratification. In reality, it resulted in despicable measures where sons and daughters of well off families, who stayed in the Soviet Union, were socially downgraded (for instance- they couldn’t get into institutions of higher learning. For our anti-judaists, this measure applied to bourgeois Jewish apolitical families, too). So, this was a sort of class genocide & oppression. Just, they- Bolsheviks- didn’t ever think they would become oppressed any time- neither “racially”, nor ethnically, nor socially,…. not even ideologically. They wanted to eliminate “others”, but these “others” did not include their own kind, as they defined it- except a few fanatics, but they are irrelevant.

With anti-white activism of many whites in the US, we have an entirely different stuff- they are not heroic lunatics, but opportunists. They think that white race is doomed & they will be spared as some kind of fellow traveling Quislings. So, they’re basically prostitutes of social activism.

The lead author on the paper is one Cory Jane Clark, who is sticking her neck out a bit (maybe more than a bit) by putting her name as lead author on a paper that, although not as full-throated anti-crazy as one might like, is still a significant milestone in calling academe to account for its intellectual malfeasance over the last decades. Hell, she’s explicitly saying that women are more censorious than men! That’s pretty ballsy.

One suspects her extensive co-author list (mostly men well-established in academia and some, like Pinker and Jussim, who have proven their abilities and willingness to stare down the cancel culture ayatollahs) is partly there to provide top cover and partly there to provide sheer mass, as in “you can’t fire all of us” as you said in another comment.

And I looked at her webpage; she has pictures of her as an Ohio University cheerleader! For a woman in social science, at an Ivy no less, celebrating one of the most unwoke things a woman can do nowadays…again, pretty gutsy to put that out there. From what I’ve seen, as Glenn Reynolds might say, I like the cut of her jib.

It’s in the story. One year window (ending now) to nail the guy who got away thirty years ago.
The Supremes should throw it out.

“JOHN FUCKING LENNON”

Yoko was the brains of that outfit.

“PETE TOWNSHEND”

You’re absolutely correct. He’s royalty. Very few can touch his output. If one can’t manage a boner whilst listening to Won’t Get Fooled Again then one won’t be allowed to appear on the telethon. It’s that simple.

Caucasian is cool.

Try saying Abkhazian fragility. An example?

Or Mingrelian supremacy…..

I skipped the SAT and took the ASVAB. Much easier. My score was such that I ranked in the genies category.

“Three to ten times more” is a really big swing.

It’s also shaky English. Literally taken, it would translate as “four to eleven times as”.

The closer one’s ancestry is to the English Channel, the more likely one is able to think for oneself.* This is not a quality many bosses want in their underlings. As Alden said, Hispanics are desired because they are “docile”.

When is the last time you worked in a physical-economy profession? Have you ever supervised a crew of Mexicans?

‘The rise in anti-white hate truly baffles me since many/most of the hate promoters are themselves white.’

How many are Jewish? It’s reasonable to ask.

Wot? No statute of Limitations?

He must have really pissed in somebody’s Wheaties, because heretofore the No statute of Limitations statute applied only to DJT and associates.

‘McWhorter has argued that the anti-academic, anti-intellectual culture prevalent among many Blacks seriously depresses their ability to succeed academically. Do you doubt that there is such a culture?’

But surely such a relationship would be inevitable. Wouldn’t a group of people conscious of their intellectual inferiority and inability to succeed academically be anti-academic and anti-intellectual?

Conversely, blacks are athletically gifted: they really can run faster and jump higher — and I dare say that small head is an advantage when it comes to boxing.

…and not very surprisingly, blacks place a great deal of value on athletic achievement.

At the end of the day, I do think cultural factors must have some slight effect on IQ. Blacks — not expecting success — wouldn’t bother to try very hard on a test. At the other extreme, I would guess your average Jew or Han Chinese is just going to try harder on a test — and that will inevitably bump his score a bit. Where a gentile will just shrug and pick (b), a Jew will try to squeeze out some reason to pick one letter rather than another. So if you’re going to take a guess as to what an IQ score means about actual intelligence, I’d tend to drop five points from the high averages and add five to the low ones.

I think it’s interesting that this website is somewhat ignoring the current organic resistance the people of Ireland are beginning to mount against the globalist efforts to flood their country with nation wrecking primitives.

I mean, we read quite a bit of lamenting about the Palestinian cause here, in articles and in comments that stretch far back before this latest escalation of hostility. The “we are all Palestinians now” trope is almost as ubiquitous as a few other reflexive, cliche virtue signaling terms such as “Thank you for your service” or “God bless you.”

These lamentations are from a mostly white collection of commenters, almost all of whom identify jewish influence as major source of the current dysfunction affecting the West.

One of the avenues of that influence, the programming through education and media to hate one’s own ethnic/racial identity, culture, and history, as well as to prioritize the needs and goals of other races/ethnicities over their own, is well understood to those commenters here.

However, even among these same commenters, the programming installed by that same jewish influence reveals itself to be successful when these same white commenters prioritize the needs and fate of Palestinians over those of their own kind. The events concurrently taking place in Ireland and Palestisrael reflect this: Day after day at TUR, the front page stories are all about the latter, but nothing about the former.

Funny how the Irish are often cited as the least intelligent of the Western European nations, and maybe so, but they seem more aware of their own destiny (and are willing to fight for it) than these really smart people in England, Germany, France, etc.

But then I think about the term “We are all palestinians now” or whatever. Are we? Because I think white Americans have it worse than Palestinians. The hostility directed at Palestinians is direct, in-your-face, us against them, hostility. The hostility directed at white Americans by jewish influence is subtle, subversive, slow, disguised, agonizing. Metaphorically, the Palestinian gets the headshot, while the American white gets the gut shot and is left to die only after horrific pain and suffering.

Palestinians are shot, bombed, sanctioned, starved. These are terrible things. But they do not hate themselves. They are not under attack from millions of third world shock troops as well as the enabled unique and feral American negro, that we also taught to worship. They do not have millions of their working class men addicted to opioids. they do not have thousands of their daughters forced into sex slavery (such as in England) by immigrants or tricked into interracial degeneracy. The Palestinians do receive some support and aid from the international community. The American white male is pretty much a global pariah. At least the Palestinians can shoot back at the IDF. Can I shoot back at the Sacklers? or the Kagens? or the Pritzgers? Or the justice system? Or Hollywood? The Palestinians are unified if by nothing else a clear and identifiable common enemy. American whites are divided and pacified.

Further, aside from their right to exist, I don’t find anything particularly worthwhile about the entire group. I certainly don’t want any of them here. They don’t belong nor can they function in the West. But that goes for the entirety of the peoples that inhabit what’s known as the ME: Turks, Armenians, Kurds, Arabs, Israelis, Lebanese, etc, etc.

Our country crumbles to the ground around us yet we waste 1000’s of words on the Palestinians. Suicidal self marginalization.

Wot? No statute of Limitations?

The statsuppressed it, at least for rape, back when you-know-who was their US Senatrix. Any self-awareness or sense of irony was surpressed.

One of the X accounts covering this Irish revolt against the globalist-tainted elite that runs their wee country posts footage of busloads of “military age foreign men” dropped off in Dublin. This is a tactic used by other Western governments, including the United States, to implement their strategy of chaos and discord to achieve their sinister end.

She, and I, are talking about their political behavior. You elided my next sentence (fragment): “At least on Election Day.”

I skipped the SAT and took the ASVAB. Much easier. My score was such that I ranked in the genies category.

OT but IMHO pretty damn important.

World steel production figures:

https://worldsteel.org/media-centre/press-releases/2023/may-2023-crude-steel-production/

Top 5 steel-producing countries, millions of tons

China 90.1

India 11.2

Japan 7.6

United States 6.9

Russia 6.8

China is the United States circa 1935, only with greater industrial dominance.

The PNAS study, about prosocial motivations to suppress reasoned opinion, is welcome and heartening.

It’s only half the story though. James Lindsay (and colleagues) have shown at nauseating length how the multiplication of journals and professional associations creates bubbles of mutual affirmation of unfalsifiable nonsense. Members of those bubbles peer-review each other’s mediocre work and accumulate promotion points that entrench them with tenure in higher education, where they spawn followers to populate the next generation of dogmatists.

Those folks (/s) do not suppress reasoned opinion because they are afraid it might be right and because right would harm the vulnerable somehow. Rather, they are confident that they know the truth, and that those who disagree with them are wrong, are evil, and that their works and careers should be destroyed.

This is a reversion to the authoritarian pre-Enlightenment doctrine that everyone should enjoy freedom of speech, so long as they speak the truth. Also, prior to the Enlightenment, suppression of free speech was justified on grounds that falsehoods would harm the vulnerable. The ignorant masses must be protected from what today is alleged to be “misinformation.”

Yes, there were precursor documents, but the U.S. Bill of Rights is a high point in human history.

Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (1888)

We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press….Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State.

The excesses of an unbridled intellect, which unfailingly end in the oppression of the untutored multitude, are no less rightly controlled by the authority of the law than are the injuries inflicted by violence upon the weak. And this all the more surely, because by far the greater part of the community is either absolutely unable, or able only with great difficulty, to escape from illusions and deceitful subtleties, especially such as flatter the passions.

He does yeoman work for the simple satisfaction of getting to the truth…kinda like what science should be in the first place!

When you’re offered a rock ‘n roll moment.

History of science was regarded largely as a story of success until
the students at UC Berkeley in the late 1960s began to refer to
scientists as “whores in the service of the military-industrial
complex.” Soon in 1979 the French philosopher Lyotard famously
defined the Postmodern Condition as “incredulity towards
metanarratives,” esp. the metanarrative of (scientific) progress.
Thus scientists are no longer seen as figures of authority. Hence skepticism
about climate change, vaccinations, etc. It’s hard to view science
as unqualified success when science has given us weapons of mass
destruction, specifically chemical, nuclear, biological, and lately
possibly AI WMD’s.

Many people now believe that we left Modernity around
1970 (famously, the individuals born in 1870 who died in 1970
are said to have experienced more scientific and technological
change than any human beings before), and we are now gingerly
moving through Postmodernity. The Cost/Benefit ratio for progress
in science now appears to be greater than 1 – rapid scientific progress
is no longer worth the trouble. Nobel Prize winners in science are no
longer admired. Even Einstein suffered a precipitous drop in fame and
prestige ever since his name has become associated in the public mind
with the atom bomb. Some thinkers are even beginning to claim that
every new discovery and every new invention brings us closer to self-
annihilation, thus explaining the Fermi Paradox – our Galaxy is filled with
the corpses of past civilizations, and we are on our way to join them.
Very high IQ people are now seen as potentially extremely destructive,
with the implication that people of average intelligence, say 85-115,
need to start thinking about how to protect humanity from people
whose IQ’s are, say higher than 145, i.e., how to put the pathologically
high IQ, left-brain individuals on a short leash.

I’m obviously just hitting highlights here and focusing on trends, but any
claim can be fleshed out to make it as detailed as anyone would wish.
Needless to say, many claims in this post will be seen as extreme.
Clearly, science in the hands of superior beings would be a boon to
humanity, but as John Gray reminds us, we’re not superior beings –
we’re lowly weapon-making predatory primates, and in our current primitive
state the earth would be better off without us. I personally believe we
can evolve beyond our present primitivism, but the next 200-300 years
will be very challenging.

If one can’t manage a boner whilst listening to “Won’t Get Fooled Again”

Warmed-over Orwell is an aphrodisiac? Do you get off on those urine stains on the sleeve, too?

…then one won’t be allowed to appear on the telethon.

Look at us we’re humid,
Look at us, we’re tumid
We, who’d never got it up before…

Very few can touch his output

As with his cybermate Gary Glitter, few would want to.

You sure you were talking to the Mrs? It’s been known for a while that Mr. and Mrs. share that handle.

https://www.unz.com/isteve/irish-anhedonia/#comment-6278293

But to answer: No, no you have not.

So, how do you show that the “McWhorter Effect” does not fully explain the Black/White IQ difference?

Research has placed the brain’s prefrontal cortex, a region just behind the forehead, as providing for 5 percent of the variation in intelligence between people. The research from Washington University targets the left prefrontal cortex, and the strength of neural connections that it has to the rest of the brain. They think these differences account for 10 percent of differences in intelligence among people. The study is the first to connect those differences to intelligence in people :

https://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/26/8988.abstract

The differences in thickness of the supragranular layers of the cortex of White and Negro brains is the difference between civilization and savagery. DR. WESLEY CRITZ GEORGE, Head Dept. Anatomy, U. N.Carolina.

“The supragranular layers in the dog are 1/2 the thickness of those in the ape, and the ape’s only 3/4 the thickness of White man. The Negroe’s are 14% thinner than White man.” CARLTON PUTNAM, LLD, Princeton, “Race and Reality”.

“The size of the human brain is related to a capacity for performance in thinking, planning, communicating, and behaving in groups, as leader, follower or both…In living individuals and populations differences are found in the regular size of the lobes and in the surface areas of the cortex; the size of the surface area varies with the complexity and depth of the folds on the inner and outer surfaces of the hemispheres. The larger a brain is the greater the cortical surface area, both proportionately and absolutely.”

DR. CARLTON COON, Prof. of Anthropology, Harvard.

“The human cerebral cortex is the specific organ of civilization…Foresight, purpose and ideals toward which we strive as individuals and as nations are functions of this cortical gray matter.”

PROF. C. JUDSON HERRICK, University of Texas.

Black Friday

Anyone else not shopping today?

Earlier I watched Planes, Trains and Automobiles and I didn’t see a single black person in the entire movie. I’m halfway through Home Alone and I just saw my first character of African origin – a cardboard cutout of Michael Jordan.

Actually, it’s really creepy to think about Macaulay Culkin’s relationship with Michael Jackson.

OT: Saw a Coulter’s Law headline out of Dublin, but with even less information than one might expect in such a situation. Some stabbing, leading to some rioting, far right to blame, yada yada yada.

Now we have the official angle:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/caio-benicio-heroic-brazilian-stopped-the-dublin-stabbing-that-led-to-far-right-riot

Knife attack by still unidentified individual on school children and teacher thwarted by… an immigrant from Brazil, who was working for a food delivery app and knocked the individual out with his helmet! Far right lunatics owned! We’ll take a few million please and thanks.

BTW Irish lads, don’t get any ideas. If this guy was one of yours they’d be looking at him for whacking the perp more than was warranted. Vigilantes are not who we are.

Reg, sometimes you need to take a look into the mirror and say: “It’s me. I’m the creep.”

Colin Wright wrote to me:

[Dave] ‘McWhorter has argued that the anti-academic, anti-intellectual culture prevalent among many Blacks seriously depresses their ability to succeed academically. Do you doubt that there is such a culture?’

[CW] But surely such a relationship would be inevitable. Wouldn’t a group of people conscious of their intellectual inferiority and inability to succeed academically be anti-academic and anti-intellectual?

Yes, that is a plausible hypothesis.

But my point — and I think Sailer’s point — is that all of these — the McWhorter effect, a racial genetic difference in IQ, and the “Colin Wright Effect” — are all plausible hypotheses. But none is established science, and, most importantly, it is very, very difficult to measure their relative importance, given that all may play a role, as I myself suspect they do.

CW also wrote:

At the end of the day, I do think cultural factors must have some slight effect on IQ. Blacks — not expecting success — wouldn’t bother to try very hard on a test. At the other extreme, I would guess your average Jew or Han Chinese is just going to try harder on a test — and that will inevitably bump his score a bit.

Yeah. I know by various measures that I am fairly bright. But I also know that I am very, very aggressive at psyching out the test-makers and milking every last point out of a test. I have done well on tests on subjects on which I knew I was fairly ignorant, just by being “test-wise.”

Of course, at one level, that is just one more sign that I and other “test-wise” people are smart. But at another level, it does raise our test scores compared to people who are equally smart but who just don’t give a damn about tests (I mean, why should they if the test has no significant consequences — but I still do).

Hypnotoad666 wrote to me:

[Dave] But how do you show conclusively that this explains the Black/White IQ gap?

[Hypno] We know IQ gets passed down in families, and races are just extended families. So why is there even a question that group differences would have a different mechanism. It’s like hypothesizing that the rules of physics are different in different families.

Because we do know that there are also other factors within families besides genetics — identical twins do not have identical IQs.

And it is more than plausible that those other factors play a greater role between races than within families.

I’m not hypothesizing new and implausible factors — we know these other factors exist.

The question is which of these factors are important and/or dominant in the Black/White IQ gap.

My guess is that all of them matter.

But that is a guess.

And a guess is not science.

Scientifically, we really just do not know.

I realize that in a discussion on the Web, “Gee, you know, we just don’t know!” is not considered a forceful, convincing riposte.

But, in matters of natural science — from global warming to dark matter to superstring theory to, yes, the Black/White IQ gap — it often happens to be the only scientifically honest answer.

Bullshit rules supreme on the Web. But it is not science.

res wrote to me:

[Dave] So, how do you show that the “McWhorter Effect” does not fully explain the Black/White IQ difference?

[res] First, I will note that the “McWhorter Effect” (FWIW I think his version of this is a big part of what eventually got Bill Cosby cancelled) is almost as verboten as the genetic explanation. Which is incredibly sad because it would be so much easier to address.

Yeah. McWhorter, who is a pretty even-tempered guy, is actually quite angry about this — he basically thinks that “Black culture” has, in effect, lobotomized a lot of young Black people.

I’d add that the bizarre phenomenon of White kids during the last few decades aping the worst aspects of the Black subculture has had a similar effect, though probably of smaller magnitude.

McWhorter, by the way, is a big fan of classic Broadway musicals, classic movies, etc. — he has civilized tastes when it comes to pop culture. The good news is that I know young people under thirty who have similar tastes.

The bad news is that they seem to be a minority, among both Whites and Blacks.

Reg, on this topic, you should stay silent and be thought perhaps a fool, instead of opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

It has been thoroughly and conclusively shown that Townshend was telling the truth about the child sexual abuse images situation, i.e., he believes he was the victim of child sexual abuse, and by using his credit card to access a specific website, he was trying to show that British banks were knowingly benefiting from child sexual abuse images. As it turned out, the website couldn’t be confirmed to have child sexual abuse material in the first place, and zero material incriminating to Townshend was found during an extensive investigation. All this is public record. Bad judgment – absolutely. Pedophile – absolutely not.

Not only that, the only US ally on that list is Japan, who is economically more reliant than ever on China.

If more Japanese were to read Steve Sailer’s blog, they might realize that they are usually just lumped in with the other “Asians”, or even “non-whites”. And often abused with high-fives and schadenfreude about nukes having been dropped on them.

The Assassin's Veto played a bigger and bigger role in Japan between the wars, with young Army officers murdering moderate statesmen.

Fortunately, that turned out well for the Japanese.

Oh, wait, it ended up with them getting a science fiction weapon unleashed on them.

— Steve Sailer (@Steve_Sailer) June 21, 2020

Japan’s political tradition is Gekokujō 下克上（げこくじょう）”the low overcomes the high”. It would be rather dramatic if they were to pull a gekokujō on the US, in favor of China.

You know what movie has zero token negroes in it? My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

Yeah. I know by various measures that I am fairly bright. But I also know that I am very, very aggressive at psyching out the test-makers and milking every last point out of a test. I have done well on tests on subjects on which I knew I was fairly ignorant, just by being “test-wise.”

Of course, at one level, that is just one more sign that I and other “test-wise” people are smart. But at another level, it does raise our test scores compared to people who are equally smart but who just don’t give a damn about tests (I mean, why should they if the test has no significant consequences — but I still do).

In focusing too much on culture Americans are being pseudo-scientific sort of like Soviet Lamarckists. Brain scans and computer algorithms will probably eventually replace IQ tests.

Differences, in intelligence, is probably significantly more genetic. AFAIK, there are zero black Fields medal winners ; in mathematics, there is not much you can do to attain greatness. Those men and women who attain it manage to do so through their uncanny “feeling” for the subject. There is nothing you can do to leam this “feeling.” You can, to be sure, work hard enough at mathematics make yourself into a competent even learn to be a comptent ressearch mathematician. But you cannot learn to do mathematics the way the great mathematicians do, any more than you can leam to throw a fastball or to run 100 yards in ten seconds. You can or you cannot. If you can, you will know it early. If you are an adult and you are not already a great mathematician then you are not going to be.

^ So why isn’t the case that blacks know they are stupid just like most people know they won’t be a great mathematician so they just don’t try ? What came first the chicken or the egg ?

Bonobo Chimps share 98.7% of their DNA with humans :

Genetic Distance to: Han_Shanghai

0.84961959 Yoruba

Genetic Distance to: English (native English people average )

0.77467278 Yoruba

Charles Darwin on Blacks

From his book “The Descent of Man”

“The American Aborigines, Negros and Europeans are as differant from each other in mind as any three races that can be named.”

“I could not have believed how wide was the difference between savage and civilised man.”

They seemed to possess “insufficient powers of reasoning” to discern nonobvious connections between moral laws and public welfare, and they lacked self-discipline; “Their utter licentiousness, not to mention unnatural crimes, is something astounding.”

“Their language scarcely deserves to be called articulate, their houses are like what children make in the Summer with boughs of trees, nor were these homes graced by affection between husband and wife.”

“I feel quite a disgust at the very sound of the voices of these miserable savages.”

“Their judgements are in error, yielding patterns of behavior that are pointless, if not, indeed, in complete opposition to the true welfare and happiness of mankind.”

The late Dr Albert Scweizer, who spent almost his entire life in Africa, working to uplift the Black man, received the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1952. He also held several doctorate degrees.

This is what he said shortly before his death:

I have given my life to alleviate the sufferings of Africa. There is something that all white men who have lived here, must learn and know; that these individuals are a sub-race; they have neither the intellectual , mental or emotional abilities to equate or share in any of the functions of our civilisation.

I have given my life to try to bring unto them the advantages which our civilisation must offer, but I have become well aware that we must retain this status; white, the superior, and they the inferior; for whenever a white man seeks to live among them as their equal, they will either destroy him or devour him, and they will destroy all his work; and so for any existing relationship or for any benefit to this people let white men from anywhere in the world who would come to help Africa remember that you must continually retain this status; you the master, and they the inferior, like children that you would help or teach. Never fraternise with them as equals, never accept them as your social equals ; or they will devour you; they will destroy you.

Amid sluggish steel demand caused by slowdown in new home constructions and shrinking overseas demand for Chinese manufactured goods, whether any government-mandated steel output cuts could be implemented strictly would be crucial for the steel industry to contain steel output and maintain healthy profit margins for 2023, market participants said.

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/metals/041023-chinas-huge-steel-capacity-beleaguers-steel-market-government-to-order-output-cuts-soon

You know what movie has zero token negroes in it? My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

The sequel did however have a token homosexual.

And the most recent sequel (came out this year) had a “non-binary” character, although it was mostly soft-pedaled and the character in question was not some weird “It’s Pat” amalgam but was quite clearly a woman.

The first one wasn’t bad. The next two were a chore. My wife liked these movies, so I know more about them than I care to.

BTW, Nia Vardalos is a pretty woman, although she kind of has “The Crazy Eyes”.

You might want to check out Jensen’s “Method of Correlated Vectors,” a tool to evaluate these kinds of hypotheses about populations differences in g related to proposed causes:

https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/11/arthur-jensens-method-of-correlated-vectors/

OT – The Bay Area is now so lawless that it has actual piracy:

Crime In San Francisco Is So Bad, There’s Now Actual Pirates In The Bay

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/crime-san-francisco-so-bad-theres-now-actual-pirates-bay

Because we do know that there are also other factors within families besides genetics — identical twins do not have identical IQs.

Sure. This is actually super-well understood.

First things first. Intelligence is based on an assumed biological ability labeled g. But this is only measured imperfectly by one’s rankings in variously culturally mediated and sometimes noisy tests. Some are better than others, some are more “g-loaded” than others, some are more culturally loaded than others. But once they’ve been normed they are pretty internally and externally valid, because people tend to get the same scores when they take the tests multiple times (correlation @.85), and they also correlate highly with external measures like academic achievement. Ok, so that’s just to separate the “map from the terrain” with regard to the measurement issue.

Heritability Within Families Generally
To the extent IQ is genetic, an individual’s expected IQ is the average of his parents’ IQs, averaged with the relevant population mean. But for each set of parents there is a bell curve of variance for the expected IQs of their kids. Ok, so far not controversial.

Because fraternal siblings get all their genes from both parents, they are more highly correlated in IQ than strangers. And because identical twins get the same genes from each parent they are even more highly correlated. “[I]n 111 original studies in the United States. The mean correlation of IQ scores between monozygotic twins was 0.86, between siblings 0.47, between half-siblings 0.31, and between cousins 0.15.[78]” So, to your point that two identical siblings are somewhat different in IQ score — it appears they are no different than the same person taking a test twice. In other words, they are about as identical in IQ as our measurement can record. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#:~:text=The%20mean%20correlation%20of%20IQ,0.31%2C%20and%20between%20cousins%200.15.

So these super-clear correlations between genetic-relatedness and IQ actually “prove” IQ is determined by genetics within families. People are usually willing to admit this and it’s socially acceptable to say so.

But so far these are all people raised by the same parents in the same family/cultural environment. But that’s no biggie to isolate. You just keep genetic relatedness constant and vary the family environment. It turns out that adopted kids’ IQs are 95% determined by the IQs of their biological parents, but not their adoptive parents. [I can’t find the studies off-hand, but this is pretty well-established]. Environment, except in extremis, has just about nothing to do with IQ.

Heritability Within Black Families is the Same

There’s nothing different about all these phenomena for blacks. They have IQs that are the average of their parents, averaged with the mean. And the genetic heritability based on all the sibling and twin, adoptive vs not adoptive, etc., relationships are all the same. So they inherit IQ exactly like everyone else does. The only difference is that in each and every generation, the parents tend to be one SD below the white mean, and the kids inherit this lower average IQ (subject to all the the statistically expected variance), and pass it on to the next generation, where the process replicates again, exactly as expected by a genetic explanation.

The obvious inference is simply that the observed B/W Gap is because the genes being passed along average one SD below the white mean. The only alternative is that each and every generation of black families just happens to be uniformly subject to some “mystery factor” that just happens to exactly depress IQ for every individual to one SD below the white norm.

That’s a pretty heroic and implausible claim. But so what. Anyone can take their pick of factors and hold everything else constant, and see what happens. Income doesn’t work (i.e., blacks keep inheriting the regressed average of their biological parents’ IQ regardless of income). Enriched pre-school doesn’t work, alleged “discrimination” doesn’t work. (Whatever the mystery factor might be, it shows up before about 7 years-old, which also cuts down on plausible environmental candidates.) Nothing that’s ever been tried can move the needle away from the biologically predicted result.

It’s like we were trying to prove that a known genetic trait like sickle cell disease or skin melanin content was based on parental income or personal psychological factors, but every study kept getting a big fat zero for any non-genetic effect on group differences. We would eventually pack it in and say: “Call us if you find anything, but in the meantime we are treating the group genetic differences as the settled cause of the group phenotype differences in heritable trait X.”

But acceptance of the clear facts is just never allowed to happen. Instead, we are supposed to pretend that group genetic differences are not the cause of group phenotype differences . . . because . . . well, there just literally is no reason.

I havent finished the article; so, does iSteve find the olde LGBT fantasies of M. Mead more “scientific” than those more modern Ibram Kendy ones about Wakanda?

Like, who of the two was “in pursuit of knowledge”? (Neither , Id say).

Also, prior to the Enlightenment, suppression of free speech was justified on grounds that falsehoods would harm the vulnerable. The ignorant masses must be protected from what today is alleged to be “misinformation.”

Pre-internet there was also more of a geographic aspect to speech. If the Puritans in one New England town didn’t appreciate your brand of heresy, they might say “Maybe you’ve got a right to say that, but just not around here you don’t.” So the heretic would move 20 miles down the coast to maybe found a new town, which would start kicking it’s own heretics down the coast a-ways in due time.

Oops, I must have gotten my notes slightly mixed up :

This is mostly definitely correct :

“The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named”

And the others seem mostly correct but only in the paraphrase sense.

Also , there is this famous one :

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. ‘Anthropological Review,’ April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. ”

A 19th century racist or another surely would deliver ample quotes along these lines.

Moreover, in 19th century there was quite similarly scientific literature about Women (Weininger etc.) and ((Them)) (Drummont etc.).

All three kinds of 19th century prejudices are since disproved. Or, rather, made irrelevant by the technological progress. Women can work on easy jobs which is now the majority of jobs, Negroes can run their countries in Africa and Latin America not much worse than Jews can run their countries (yes, both cases relying on international aid and occasional genocides) .

Ultra high IQ and psychosis that goes with it are now less needed. And less rewarded. And so, a maniac like A. Schweizer can go ride a coach, so to speak; his Negroes now have Android phones he didnt have.

Hypnotoad666 wrote to me:

[Dave] Because we do know that there are also other factors within families besides genetics — identical twins do not have identical IQs.

[Hypno] Sure. This is actually super-well understood.

First things first. Intelligence is based on an assumed biological ability labeled g.

It is an unproven — and extremely doubtful — hypothesis that g is biological, or at least that it is solely or overwhelmingly biological (of course, almost everything is at least partially biological).

“g” is simply the observation, not all that surprising, that different sorts of intelligence have significant correlations with each other.

Why? An interesting question to which there is not yet a definitive answer.

What are the underlying mechanisms for “g”? Well, probably both short-term and long-term memory matter. And mental processing speed. And the ability to make connections among different ideas. And skill at symbol manipulation and handling long chains of reasoning. Oh, and spatial visualization — which actually includes several distinct skills.

And a bunch of things I haven’t thought of.

And how much of all of that is biological vs. educational, etc.?

No one really knows.

I know there is this tendency on the part of some intelligence researchers to do principal component analysis, pull out a “g” factor, and think they have discovered a real thing.

That is pseudo-scientific nonsense.

What they have discovered, which is indeed interesting, is that whatever the actual underlying mechanisms are, there is some spillover among different intellectual skills in terms of how they are affected by (some of) those underlying mechanisms.

And, yes, I have read Warne’s book.

I am an actual scientist: I understand how to analyze data better than most psychologists.

Who are not actual scientists.

Hypno also wrote:

So these super-clear correlations between genetic-relatedness and IQ actually “prove” IQ is determined by genetics within families.

That is known beyond any sane doubt to be false. IQ is not “determined by genetics within families,” or identical twins would have identical IQs.

They don’t.

IQ is influenced by genetics and by many other things also.

Very, very different from “determined”!

Hypno also wrote:

The obvious inference is simply that the observed B/W Gap is because the genes being passed along average one SD below the white mean.

Sorry, but that is again pseudo-scientific nonsense.

Actual science considers alternative hypotheses and tries to rule out all but one.

One hypothesis here is that the White/Black IQ gap is solely genetic. Other hypotheses include the possibility that it is partially genetic and partially cultural.

It is very, very hard to rule out that second hypothesis. Until that is done, the issue is, as a matter of science, unsettled.

If I were making a similar point about global warming or dark matter (as I have indeed done in the past), I doubt you or most commenters here would be arguing with me.

I am just applying the same criteria to intelligence research that I apply to physics.

I don’t see why we should be less demanding of claims in one field than the other.

Bullshit remains bullshit.

To be sure, without bullshit, there would not be much content on Web discussion forums like this one!

Pendragon wrote to me:

The differences in thickness of the supragranular layers of the cortex of White and Negro brains is the difference between civilization and savagery.

[Etc.]

Don’t you think some of your sources are just a wee bit outdated?

Just a wee bit?

Sciences does progress, you know!

Though psychology, not so much.

I find it amusing that most commenters here, who would be rightfully disdainful of most of the bullshit research published by contemporary psychologists, nonetheless take certain claims relating to Black vs. White intelligence as Holy Writ.

Sorry, but I actually am a scientist. And, again, yes, I have read Warne’s book.

Actual science considers alternative hypotheses and tries to rule out all but one.

I am just applying the same criteria to intelligence research that I apply to physics.

Really? So you refuse to believe in general relativity unless you have first conclusively rejected the hypothesis that the equations don’t work on Saturday? On that they depend on the income of the person doing the calculations? “Nope, still some alternative hypotheses out there, can’t rule ’em out.”

Where’s this evidence of black culture depressing IQ by any meaningful amount? If a total lack of evidence doesn’t “rule it out,” then what are you waiting for? The fact that you find a hypothesis emotionally appealing doesn’t mean squat in science.

You’ve also moved the goalposts from proving the IQ Gap isn’t “100% environmental” (Steve’s original formulation) to proving that it’s “100% genetic” (Whatever, let’s say it’s 95%, instead).

You’re just being an emotional arm waiver, not a scientist. That’s why this issue is so pointless, too many people are emotionally and socially attached to being in doubt.

Sorry, but I actually am a scientist.

You keep telling people that as a substitute for actual facts or logic — which is a very unscientific appeal to alleged authority.

Natural selection has provided men with a psychological mechanism that encourages them to go attack other races and create mixed race babies by rape, bring back enemy men and women slaves into their societies and create mulatto quadroon octoroon and 16tharoons to pollute their people’s ethnic purity.

Natural selection has made women significantly smaller and weaker than men. Thus able to be raped more easily and thus propagate the species.

Christopher Columbus sailors on the first expedition brought syphllis to Europe. As recorded in his log by Dr Bernal the ship’s doctor. Syphillis that could only have come from the native Caribbean women. Or men. If the Carib women gave the White sailors syphllis the White sailors could have given a few of the women mixed race babies.

Some famous AmericansWhite fathers black Indian whatever mothers:

The first known was the son of John Rolfe and Pocahontas. Moving forward to 1620 mulatto babies born of White Jamestown men and African women who arrived in 1619.

Whoever the father or fathers of quadroon Sally Hemings 6 octoroon children was or were the fact is they were fair skinned some red heads. And resembled the Jefferson family. Thomas, Randolph some other Jefferson White man her children were 88 percent White 12 percent black. DNA can’t prove Thomas but it does prove a Jefferson White man.
Sally’s father was White so was her grandfather and great grandfather

Frederick Douglas the black former slave recruited by the abolitionists as spokesman for abolition of slavery. His father was the White owner of his black mother. He was a mulatto.

18th and 19th century European visitors to the American south and Washington DC were astonished at the numerous light skinned blacks. Including light skinned blacks in the slave auctions. Reaction was; how could a man sell his own children at auction?

Love vs Virginia 1968. That was the case ACLU ADL and other Jewish communist front groups brought against the state of Virginia plaintiffs Mr and Mrs Love a White man black woman couple. Love overturned the miscegenation laws of Virginia.

Mr Love was pure White. But in Virginia who knows who his White man ancestors were making babies with. Mrs Love was a pass for White quadroon In fact they lived in a White Washington DC neighborhood and their children attended a segregated White school.

Black activist hustler Jesse Jackson. Yes his fathers are very Bantu. But his skin is pale yellow, the color of lemon. How do I know this? We saw him twice. Must have been before he got his private planes to jet about stirring up trouble. In airlines first class lounges. He and entourage strutted in. Lemon colored skin The story was that his father was an older married black neighbor who couldn’t leave wife and marry jacksons 16 year old mom. Cover up and lie father was a teen age White boy. Whose father was a politician the elected county sheriff. Or what parent Jackson got both his lemon colored skin and political talent.

Strom Thurmond the long term senator. Around 2000 it was revealed he had an octoroon daughter retired Los Angeles school teacher. Another teen Romance. His family sent her to college. Strom had a lifelong relationship with her. At least one White father of an illegitimate black kid did the right thing.

Last but not least the famous communist black panther Angela Davis. The black panther/college professor who bought the guns used to kill 11 people in a California county courtroom. Soon became vice president of a university. Her maternal grandfather was White. Her great grand fathers were White. Plus she’s descended from one of the White men who arrived on the Mayflower.

White woman black man porn is the most popular porn of White men you’re probably a White dork nerd who’s never got laid in his life who watches White woman black man porn 14 hours a day. Burn in hell forever and ever.

Bad judgment – absolutely.

Alright, I’ll cut him some slack on this. All that Glitters is not ghoul. Still, he posed for the Who’s Next cover, and for the one before it, outputs any normie is in no hurry to touch:

Pedophile – absolutely not.

I’ve said a few times here that Mohammed’s last marriage was a matter of political calculation and nothing more. (Just like his first.) So, yeah, I can accept your take on Townshend. Even I have a copy of Parrish’s Daybreak.

But corrections are always below the fold, getting their boots on while the original story is halfway around the world.

Straw man much ? I told you that brain scans and computer algorithms will probably replace IQ tests :

https://www.unz.com/article/the-vindication-of-james-watson/

Sciences does progress, you know!

Yes, it progresses that is why I told you the genetic differences between bonobos and homo-sapiens then showed you the genetic distance between Yorubas, Han Chinese from Shanghai and Yorubas and the English. The latter’s genetic distance , from Yorubas, is about roughly half the genetic distance of Bonobos from homo-sapiens.

Sorry, but I actually am a scientist. And, again, yes, I have read Warne’s book.

I am not impressed in the slightest since most scientists are merely mediocre like most mathematicians. A supergenius knows both science e.g. quantum physics and philosophy and you probably know zero about philosophy.

Re: Irish resisting mass immigration, lack of discussion

Several people entered comments yesterday and today about the dust-up in Dublin. You don’t see that very often, hence people don’t discuss it.

Palestinians get more comments from the many Jew haters posting here. The Irish are almost completely free from Jews (with almost none living in Ireland).

I doubt that these people actually like Palestinians per se, but “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Black Friday

Anyone else not shopping today?

My boys are in online school. They get next Monday off. Cyber Monday. The Internet is just too slow that day. Brick-and-mortar sister got last Monday off, which they didn’t.

Interesting.

I wrote that comment as a response to this:

We were given tickets to the stage version of The Lion and Witch and the Wardrobe. It was terrible. I was waiting to see what SJW stuff would be included. It started with about eight or so army guys, and only one of them was black, so I thought maybe we will be lucky… then the kids walked out. They were black. It was abysmal. Although it did put a different spin on a few of the lines – like when Mr Beaver is asking if they’re human or not…

The kids got to the house after being evacuated from London, and one of the two housemaids was a big burly man with a beard. He was wearing a maid’s outfit. It was grotesque. They stripped away all Christian references and undertones, which was impressive in an awful way given the subject material.

They even removed Santa. He was now Sinta Klause, and looked like a fat Turkish man who had been caught in an explosion at a fabric factory.

I thought it was an iSteve comment but it was actually from Vox Day:
https://voxday.net/2023/11/24/mailvox-the-post-morten-convergence-of-cs-lewis/

‘Sciences does progress, you know!’

But at least of late, in which direction?

Who now would be suicidal enough to confirm these findings and their significance?

They could be spurious — or they could be valid.

In Miami the public schools gave the kids the whole week off. That’s unprecedented.

I enjoying telling Jews Hitler was a liberal.

1 Serious environmentalist and nature lover.
2 Not just animal lover but Animal Rights.
3 Socialist
4 Expanded government jobs to solve unemployment.
5 The first freeways and other public works to solve unemployment and subsidize big medium and small business and create prosperity. Also known as John Keynes economics
6 Numerous what are known as enrichment programs for children and teens. After school programs sports summer camps expanded secondary education “Stay in school and out of trouble”
7 Government health care for all.
8 Affirmative action
9 Blaming any and all of the countries problems on one specific demographic.
10 Demonizing that demographic
11 Anti tobacco
12 Health foods vegetarian
13 Alternative medicine
14 Anti tobacco drug addict

On the other hand, at least as of 2000, you could go to rural South Carolina and see blondes with blue eyes waiting the tables and coal-black negroes in the kitchen; both groups having been there two centuries-plus.

Jesse Jackson… his skin is pale yellow, the color of lemon. How do I know this? We saw him twice. Must have been before he got his private planes to jet about stirring up trouble. In airlines first class lounges.

I saw him arrive back from some conference in Africa in the 2000s. No doubt out of private-plane range. He was with a single underling, who was trying to sort out their connection at the ticket desk. That left the Rev’m bored, and he said “How ya doin’?” Wow, I’m one degree of separation from MLK!

‘…White woman black man porn is the most popular porn of White men you’re probably a White dork nerd who’s never got laid in his life who watches White woman black man porn 14 hours a day. Burn in hell forever and ever.’

Calm down.

Hypnotoad666 wrote to me:

[Dave] Sorry, but I actually am a scientist.

[Hypno] You keep telling people that as a substitute for actual facts or logic — which is a very unscientific appeal to alleged authority.

There is nothing wrong with an appeal to authority: The “argument from authority fallacy” is itself a fallacy.

This is generally known to anyone familiar with logic.

Or common sense.

In any case, I have presented detailed arguments.

Some people here are just not intelligent enough to grasp them.

I can also give detailed arguments explaining General Relativity, which, again, most people here are probably not intelligent enough to grasp.

Human beings are not intellectually equal: that, again, is another fallacy prevalent on the Web.

Colin Wright wrote to me:

[Dave] ‘Sciences does progress, you know!’

[CW] But at least of late, in which direction?

Who now would be suicidal enough to confirm these findings and their significance?

They could be spurious — or they could be valid.

Well, part of my point is that psychology is not, and never has been, much of a science.

A fact that most natural scientists take for granted, of course.

Physicists are happy to talk of chemists or geologists as fellow scientists.

But if “social scientists” or “behavioral scientists” come up… well, we try not to be unnecessarily rude.

Pendragon wrote to me:

Yes, it progresses that is why I told you the genetic differences between bonobos and homo-sapiens then showed you the genetic distance between Yorubas, Han Chinese from Shanghai and Yorubas and the English. The latter’s genetic distance , from Yorubas, is about roughly half the genetic distance of Bonobos from homo-sapiens.

I assume that is a lame attempt at a joke.

Pendragon also wrote:

Straw man much ? I told you that brain scans and computer algorithms will probably replace IQ tests :

Well… another joke, I suppose.

I don’t think you are very smart, now are you? Or funny.

Pendragon also wrote:

A supergenius knows both science e.g. quantum physics and philosophy and you probably know zero about philosophy.

Well, probably more than you. But, let’s be frank: most philosophy ranges from utter nonsense to pure bullshit.

You might try reading the evaluation of philosophy by the late Aussie philosopher David Stove “What Is Wrong With Our Thoughts”: see here. And, yes, Stove was a bit off himself, which confirms his thesis!

Simple rule of thumb: when someone like you appeals to philosophy to buttress his point, it really, truly is time to start laughing!

“Antiwhite hate is a huge and growing topic for brave social scientists to investigate.”

Well, so much for that.

Were Japan ever to switch sides, “our” side would be up that creek where no paddle may be found.

No precision stepper motors for ASML in Holland, no ultra-pure silicon and other chemicals for Taiwan – and as we know, they have most of Boeing’s secrets.

There is though the small matter of over 100 US military bases in Japan, although some of these are small comms stations. If they were politely asked to leave, and the US said “no”, what could Japan do?

“White woman black man porn is the most popular porn of White men”

Is it really? Maybe it’s just me, but I have my doubts. Who produced that stat, the ADL?

I was sort of kidding about Margaret Mead, as I didn’t know who you were referring to, Mr. Cthulhu. Thank you for this description of the, yes, ballsy, Cory Jane Clark. Now, I might have to go search for her cheerleader pics, which I’m sure she wouldn’t mind either.

I agree with your Instapundit standard phrase too. (He’s got a dozen of them or so. Totally O/T here, but unfortunately Professor Reynolds cannot help himself from being one big Neocon. I’d thought he’d gotten over that, but it has come out of remission.)

In Miami the public schools gave the kids the whole week off. That’s unprecedented.

Same in our district. So one kid got nine days off, the others only five. And the latter don’t even get snow days! (Nor do yours– Miami has seen flurries once in the past century.)

In the service, we got five-and-a-half days, knocking off at noon on Wednesday. Except the duty crew(s). I can’t remember if our schools had a whole or half day on Wednesday. Our family spent Thanksgivings in four different states to boot. Thank God not in a Canadian province, where it’s celebrated on a Monday. That’s alien.

(Advice: never, ever visit Canada on our Columbus Day weekend. We made that error in 2007. The cities empty and the roads are packed.)

‘…Physicists are happy to talk of chemists or geologists as fellow scientists.

But if “social scientists” or “behavioral scientists” come up… well, we try not to be unnecessarily rude.’

! I’d describe that as unnecessarily arrogant, if not precisely rude.

That they deal with matters that aren’t subject to absolute verification or precise interpretation doesn’t make the social sciences less valid. Much about it remains unclear, but the First Crusade indubitably occurred. Past a point, you just have to accept the lack of clarity, and make an educated guess. There may be a truth, but you can’t have it. Not with certainty; that has to be accepted.

Moreover, the dogmatism and assumption that absolute certainty is possible that marks the physical scientists can be literally obstructive when it comes to gaining a valid understanding of human affairs; this is part of what is objectionable in Jered Diamond, for example. He doesn’t shed light so much as he fosters delusion. Now the reader understands it all.

Human affairs are more nebulous than that; and an equally ‘soft’ sense of how their affairs usually go is of more use than a quest to decide whether Pope Urban II did or did not ‘start’ the First Crusade with his call to arms at Clermont.

Of course this attitude also opens the door to bias and even intellectual fraud: some of the arguments about Moorish Spain illustrate this all too well, and see Joan Peters’ From Time Immemorial. However, it decidedly does not improve matters when ex-physical scientists wade into the fray with their implicit assumption that it can all be reduced to exactly one process and that process defined with absolute certainty.

At least when it comes to history, you just need to learn about it, and as I have, I’ll insist that just as I’ll defer to your judgement about relativity, you should defer to mine about National Socialism.

Dave, are you going to respond to the admixture studies point?

‘Well, probably more than you. But, let’s be frank: most philosophy ranges from utter nonsense to pure bullshit.’

As I recall, it tends to boil down to not being able to determine much of anything. I have vague memories of thrashing through one proof of God’s existence; okay, you’ve done it, but in the process, you’ve redefined God so that he is simply reality. Great: reality exists. That kind of follows from the fact that we’re around to discuss it.

And? Not much more, in the end. I tend to a more subjective view of things. Because I feel it, morality exists — for me. A cat doesn’t feel it — and so it’s absurd to judge him by it. This of course opens up the door to unending conflict, but maybe that’s just the way it is.

You’ve also moved the goalposts from proving the IQ Gap isn’t “100% environmental” (Steve’s original formulation) to proving that it’s “100% genetic” (Whatever, let’s say it’s 95%, instead).

Playing games with that false dichotomy is extremely common in discussions involving genetics and IQ (both racial and otherwise). It became tiresome long ago.

The “argument from authority fallacy” is itself a fallacy.

The nuance is whether a claim to “authority” has been earned or whether it’s based on nothing more than an exalted title. With all due respect, I don’t think having “physicist” in your anon handle makes the cut for purposes of deferring to your opinions on genetics.

I don’t know. I am told by a Jewish friend that there was once an important question to answer in Belfast. “Are you a Protestant Jew or a Catholic Jew”. It matters in Glasgow too I believe.

Playing games with that false dichotomy is extremely common in discussions involving genetics and IQ (both racial and otherwise). It became tiresome long ago.

It is tiresome, indeed. On one side of the “debate” is a huge body of facts establishing that IQ is overwhelmingly heritable for all human populations — not just Europeans. On the other side is a lot of tap dancing about definitions and burdens of proof, and “what does it really mean to ‘know’ something, anyway?”

There literally isn’t even a serious, falsifiable hypothesis on the other side that one can debate. Their belief system boils down to: “I choose not to believe, and you can’t make me.” Ok, fine. But don’t pretend this is science.

What are the underlying mechanisms for “g”?

I have to also point out that this is irrelevant. You don’t need to know precise mechanisms to know how things work. You don’t know the mechanism for gravity, but that doesn’t mean you can’t know when and where the planets will be. No one said: “We need to scrap the Moon landings because we don’t know the mechanisms of gravity, and therefore the observed rules of gravity might be different on the Moon.”

Likewise, the rules of genetics could be largely established by observation before the DNA-transmission mechanism was discovered. And medicine would be decades behind if doctors had to work out exact biological mechanisms before they could perform life-saving treatments that are proven to work. Etc., etc.

Anyway, the problem isn’t the degree of granular precision in knowing mechanisms, but being able to set and respect consistent rules for when a logical conclusion must be admitted (at least provisionally) as a scientific “fact.”

Dave, are you going to respond to the admixture studies point?

The admixture studies are, of course, further confirmation of genetic group-differences. (Although, it would be nice if they had a lot more admixed people evenly spread along the cline from 19%-100% European). But environmentalists can always avoid drawing any unwanted conclusion from the admix data by just positing an evidence-free hypothesis like “what if being part white changes your environment in some way that also changes your IQ?”

As long as unfalsifiable, mystery environment factors can prevent conclusions from being drawn, the scientific method is not operable.

Cool your jets, Tiny Duck. Your depiction of the WOKE’s underlying insecurity and envy of White heterosexual men is too spot on to amount to effective lampooning.

Tell me again the one about the Ghost Cities, Grandma !

I’d like to offer some additional precision to Colin Wright’s point about the human sciences.

I learned it from cognitive scientist/philosopher’s “fundherentist” (observations are fundamental, theories are evaluated by coherence) philosophy of science, particularly his Conceptual Revolutions, which rescues and corrects Kuhn. His webpage links to almost all of his articles.

Thagard examines the Copernican and the Darwinian revolutions and the emergence of Newton’s mechanics, Lavoisier’s oxygen theory, Einstein’s theory of relativity, quantum theory, and the geological theory of plate tectonics. He discusses the psychological mechanisms by which new concepts and links between them are formed, and advances a computational theory of explanatory coherence to show how new theories can be judged to be superior to previous ones.

Suppose we measure coherence of a theory on a measure of -1.0 to +1.0. If you have millions of observations, mostly of high precision, the most coherent theory after some while will account for almost all of the observations, +o.98 (there are still anomalies that, should they accumulate, could justify a new leading theory in the future). Rejected theories will be near zero, or negative (mildly to fully incoherent).

In contrast, in the human sciences there are far fewer observations, and they are usually more ambiguous. Thagard’s toy parallel-constraint-satisfaction model illustrates how that paucity and noisiness of observations can result in not a single supported theory but several with greater or lesser meaningful support and other theories clearly rejected. For example, an informed investigator could find right-liberalism 60% coherent with observations and left-liberalism coherent with 30% of observations, but monarchy, fascism, communist would score negatively and be completely rejected. He’d think right-liberalism best supported but not certain, and also think left-liberalism is less supported but not rejectable.

You can say, ick, that’s not like physics, but applying the scientific method to yield imperfect results still will outperform Thanksgiving-table arguments and opinion journalism.

I’ll stop there, if interested see Thagard.

On one side of the “debate” is a huge body of facts establishing that IQ is overwhelmingly heritable for all human populations — not just Europeans.

I mostly agree, although “overwhelmingly heritable” might be a bit strong. The stuff I’ve seen says that if you’re looking within a population, the source of the variation in what so-called g-loaded tests measure is about 50% genes, 10% shared environment, and 40% unshared environment. There is significant evidence this breakdown is valid across populations, but the impression I get is that the across-population comparison is not as robust as the within-population results. That’s not to say it’s wrong though. And admittedly I haven’t been looking at the research on this in the last several years, so I may be out of date.

Given the results I’m aware of, the huge unknown here is what constitutes the unshared environment. There seems to be agreement that things like peer group are major portions of the unshared environment, and many parents tacitly understand this – hence the competition among parents to find safe and civilized places to raise their children. (These places tend to have better schools too, but the impact of better schools, beyond safe environments and non-thuggy students, is unclear.) But it seems clear that the unshared environment must involve family things too, such as how parents treat individual children, competition among siblings, and other fine-grained elements of growing up. I predict it will take a long time to unravel this, because most social “scientists” aren’t good enough or motivated enough to do the work, and (getting back to Steve’s original post) academia won’t tolerate it so it will only get done by a few lone wolves and/or those who are at the point in their careers where they no longer have any fucks to give.

(And that 10% shared environment is probably closer to 0%, but few people are willing to state it quite that baldly. And it goes without saying that these results are all applicable for situations where the kids aren’t being abused, have enough to eat, etc.)

Corpse Tooth is my pirate name.

The first one was a decent and lighthearted ethnic study (produced by the Greatest Patriotic American That Ever Lived: Tom Hanks (and his wife) ) – but the underlying message is the boilerplate replacement message pushed on whites. A clannish, self segregating, opportunistic ethnic group immigrates to the US, breeds like crazy, does not assimilate, looks down on the host population, and where a clearly patriarchal family requires a native white male to submit to their cultural lifestyle in order to marry a daughter (in contrast to most historical situations). the interloping male’s family is portrayed as cartoonishly uptight, dull, dry, humorless WASP snobs, that is, until they are exposed to the vibrant diversity of the family of their daughter in law.

Blonde haired blue eyed white girls are mean to Tula because of course they are direct descendants of Hitler’s youth.

The father Gus (the actor who play’s him is outstanding, no doubt) is a Greek exceptionalist which immediately begs the question: If Greece is so great, and Greeks are so advanced, why did you have to come to the US at all?

Yes I know it’s just a movie. But it is one more brick in the wall of the anti-white narrative pushed in movies since their creation.

Yes I know it’s just a movie. But it is one more brick in the wall of the anti-white narrative pushed in movies since their creation.

Interesting review. Thank you. I had no idea that Hollywood’s anti-White content went back that far. I assumed it was the result of a recent coup. Who is pushing this narrative, and why?

Soviets went under not when Russians were asked to leave, but when Russian SFSR wanted out.

Also, today happens to be the anniversary of the last gekokujō in protest of American occupation:

But I wouldn’t worry about a repeat of such 😉 China puts out enough of anti-Japanese propaganda to keep Japan into US’ orbit.

Sailer’s Weltanschauung of “us whites” or “us gentiles” doesn’t really function in geopolitics. Not just Japan, Germany is ever more reliant on China, and that’s despite some allegations of cyberattacks

Beijing is training a new cyber army on 40 square kilometers in Wuhan. An exclusive study now shows how dangerous China’s cyber warriors are for German companies.

https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/china-wie-chinesische-hacker-angriffe-auf-europa-vorbereiten/29511428.html

VW is moving the development of new electric cars to Hefei. 3,000 Chinese developers are supposed to catch up with BYD, Tesla and Co. There is no sign of a move away from China in the German auto industry – on the contrary.

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/vw-entmachtet-wolfsburg-und-staerkt-china-entwicklung-neuer-elektroautos-19336897.html

Berlin and Tokyo follows the lead of Washington and Wall Street, because of the latter’s rapprochement with China, so they are.

Sailer’s Weltanschauung of “us whites” or “us gentiles” doesn’t really function in geopolitics.

Sailer doesn’t have that outlook.

‘You can say, ick, that’s not like physics, but applying the scientific method to yield imperfect results still will outperform Thanksgiving-table arguments and opinion journalism.’

But will it? In a world dominated by a successful National Socialism, wouldn’t that be self-evidently the most successful model?

…and ditto for absolute monarchy. Consider Europe circa 1750. Well, what’s working? Peter the Great, or Poland?

This is the fun bit about the social ‘sciences.’ Unlike, say, physics, the ultimate measure is man — and all the subjectivity that flows therefrom. For example, many of the arguments for modern Western secular democracy boil down to saying ‘we are better at living up to our own values than anyone who has preceded us.’ Try telling Roland about your egalitarian social-democratic paradise. For that matter, try telling his sister. They’d both gaze at you with incomprehension mixed with revulsion. Their serfs might be inclined to give it a whirl — but who cares what serfs think? My God! What abomination are you advocating?

…and indeed. In that day and age, it would have been an abomination. I can’t see any good coming of it at all.