The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Thompson Archive
Forbidden Fruit
Sense and sensitivity
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


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

If someone tells me I must not read something, I am tempted to give it a look. If you are reading this, you probably have the same curiosity, and the same wish to rebel against other people telling you what you may not read, and what you must not think.

In that light, here is an interesting story. Some authors who had published an academic paper on 26 June asked for it to be withdrawn. Very odd: getting papers published is difficult and very time-consuming. Most authors want them to be read as widely as possible. If other researchers have objections, they submit papers criticising the original paper. Sometimes an individual error is found and corrected in an Erratum statement. To withdraw a whole paper in this way is unusual.

Psychological Science 26 June 2020 “Declines in Religiosity Predict Increases in Violent Crime—but Not Among Countries With Relatively High Average IQ”

What mistake did the authors find which made them take down a paper which had been peer reviewed (by four reviewers, including a statistician, plus two members of the editorial team) and accepted into the public domain as a scholarly publication?

The journal, Psychological Science, says that the authors:

requested that this article be retracted out of concern that some of the measures used in the research were invalid. Specifically, they note that the National IQ data used in their analyses, largely based on Lynn and Vanhanen’s (2012) compilation, are plagued by lack of representativeness of the samples, questionable support for some of the measures, an excess of researcher degrees of freedom, and concern about the vulnerability of the data to bias. They also noted that the cross-national homicide data used in the research are unreliable, given that many countries included in the data set provided no actual data on homicides that had occurred. Instead, in these countries, homicide rates were estimated on the basis of other variables that may or may not be closely related to homicide rates. Importantly, some of the variables used to create the estimates were confounded with variables of interest in the research. When the authors re-analyzed the data without the imputed values, the reported effects were no longer apparent.

In the conclusion of their request for retraction, the authors reflected that although articles with certain types of errors may still be helpful to have in the literature, they do not believe theirs falls into that category. They explicitly expressed concern that leaving the article in the literature could “prolong the use of Lynn & Vanhanen’s cross-national IQ measures.”

So, the authors withdrew mainly because of criticisms of Lynn’s work on country IQs. Usually, once a paper has been accepted, other people read it and then write papers in reply. Those papers, like the one they are criticising, go through their own review process, and eventually get published. In that way we, the readers, see what the original authors have said, and what critics have replied. We can judge argument and counter-argument. This is usual academic practice. Debate takes time, but is done in the open.

This case is unusual. The paper was accepted on 26 June, and withdrawn 3 days later, on the basis of arguments we haven’t seen published. We haven’t even seen the re-analysis done by the authors. In fact, because of the inordinate delays imposed by academic journals, (in which authors write for free, referees referee for free, and then every student and member of the public has to pay to read) the paper was accepted “In Press” in January 2020, and caused no particular critical reaction, but as the actual publication date approached they received more criticisms in the final weeks, resulting in this withdrawal.

The Editor, Patricia Bauer, adds:

Critiques of Lynn and Vanhanen’s (2012) National IQ data were available in the literature prior to the publication of Clark et al. (2020). It is unfortunate that these critiques were not consulted, thereby potentially avoiding publication and the necessity for retraction.

Of course, this assumes that the critiques were right. Almost every paper of note generates critiques, and at best these criticisms can improve later work. At worst they throw up a lot of dust. Sometimes criticisms can be shown to be wrong, or that they selectively require standards no other research has achieved. In fact, the authors did consult David Becker, who is in charge of editing the Lynn database, which is now in a public form that allows any critic to make their own evaluations of the quality of individual papers.

We would like to thank David Becker for his helpful correspondence regarding the NIQ dataset and the relative merits of different country-level IQ measures.

You can get the database here, and download it.

Why has usual debate been circumvented? Perhaps, very late in the day, the authors have accepted criticisms which they did not accept or know about when the paper was accepted last year. That seems unlikely. Lynn’s work has been very widely criticized, often by concentrating on a few of the least representative studies. Nonetheless, the general findings been replicated by others, often in the economics literature, coming to the same conclusions without mentioning Lynn, and using different terms like “human capital” which do not arouse so many emotions as IQ. The same general pattern is observable in PISA and other international scholastic studies. Not all countries participate in those studies, but those countries sometime use PISA items in their national tests, so one can deduce what the general levels would be if they did participate.

Becker has ensured that you can compare the Lynn estimates with the scholastic estimates, and anyone can see how the different variations correlate. You can compare Lynn’s list with the shorter reference list that Becker has been able to use, and compare results.

I have read the paper, and in my view the authors are correct in their assessment of the Lynn database, that it is the best source of country intelligence results, and that in the Becker editions there are different variants (some with, and others without, scholastic data, and some with and without estimates for missing countries based on geographic neighbours). That is, they do not go overboard with it, and are aware of restrictions and short comings. On those they note:

Note also that noise in the data, if anything, should obscure our hypothesized pattern of results.

They are cautious about their measures.

Study 2 examined the interaction between country-level IQ and religiosity on homicide rates. All countries for which the relevant data could be obtained were included. Given that there are no objective best measures of religiosity and IQ nor an objective best list of relevant control variables, we conducted a multiverse analysis using three operationalizations of religiosity, three operationalizations of IQ, all possible combinations of four control variables, and additional interactions between those control variables and each operationalization of religiosity.

The author’s conclusion is very modest, and in some ways in favour of religious belief.

One-size-fits-all social prescriptions to complicated social problems may lack important nuance. And indeed, some cultural institutions (like religion, but also others such as monogamous marriage norms [see Henrich, Boyd, & Richerson, 2012]) that are denigrated as outmoded among high-IQ populations, may still serve valuable functions among other groups around the world.

Furthermore, the sample sizes in the Lynn database at 353 subjects on average are larger than the norm in psychology papers, 40 to 120 depending on subfield, (Kirkegaard 2019) so, far from this set being the worst, it is standard psychology papers which are “plagued by lack of representativeness of the samples”.

Incidentally, the Kirkegaard review recommended more up to date statistical techniques and more discussion about cultural biases, while also noting that other researchers are using similar data, and coming to the same general conclusions, and that the Lynn database has led to a very productive research program.

In response to one of their reviewers they even ran their analyses again without the Lynn data (page 15) using school assessment data only, and got the same results.

So, we are led to believe that, after submitting their paper, having it reviewed and accepted for publication, they suddenly found that the Lynn database had been subject to criticism, and must be abandoned.


One paper which influenced the authors in this judgment was Kanis et al 2017. This paper is a very interesting investigation of the methods used to record homicide rates across the world, either by direct methods in the case of well-organized wealthy countries, or by inferential modelling in the case of less-well-organized poorer countries. At the end they suggest that the directly estimated WHO figures are the best to use, and the inferred ones must be treated cautiously. Kanis et al. do not spell this out, but some dangerous places do not careful record homicides. Absence of data often means that things are pretty bad.

I don’t see this as a reason not to study international homicide rates: merely a warning that you should try to run studies with the direct data and the inferred data, and see what holds up, and (my emphasis) use your judgment about the inferences which come out of the modelling. If the Clark et al. authors did that, it would be good to see their workings.

So, how did the journal react to this retraction? One approach would have been to state it and move on. After all, the journal had accepted it for publication. In fact, the journal has gone further.

The Editor in Chief says:

In discussing their findings and their implications, the authors made a number of statements that have been interpreted as politically charged and that some members of the academic community interpreted as racist. Other members of the community questioned not only the claimed implications but also the empirical foundation on which they were based. Still others questioned how the manuscript came to be published in Psychological Science.
Concerns were also raised about the measures of national IQ used in the research; the measures tend to trend lower in non-Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (non-WEIRD) countries. Ultimately, it was these concerns that led Clark et al. to request that their article be retracted. Yet throughout the process of review and response to review (and in the now-retracted article itself), the authors defended the measures.
As social scientists, we have a responsibility to be sensitive to the political, social, and cultural issues raised by our work. We have a responsibility to clearly distinguish between the measures we use and the theoretical constructs those measures are intended to assess. To paraphrase Steve Lindsay, we have a responsibility to be appropriately modest in asserting our claims, clear in articulating the limits on the generalizability of our findings, and circumspect in our conclusions and their possible implications (S. Lindsay, personal communication, June 15, 2020). We must be especially sensitive when the topics with which we are dealing are associated with a history of injustice and when the message of our work could be inflammatory or incendiary.

My supposition was that the Editor wanted to go ahead with publication, but the authors became alarmed after receiving criticism. However, the Editor says that the journal must be “especially sensitive” about some topics because of historical injustices.

The Editor says:

We failed to recognize that the message of this article could be interpreted to have racial overtones and thus could be highly controversial. We therefore failed to act to mitigate the potential harm to which the message could contribute. We failed to provide a more direct, deliberate, and explicit alternative perspective on the data and the conclusions of the article. We should not and will not shy away from publishing articles on sensitive political, social, and cultural issues. But what we must and will do is exercise greater care in our handling of all submissions, including those on sensitive topics.

It is to be hoped that since the journal will not shy away from publishing articles on sensitive issues, they will shortly be publishing papers making the case for country intelligence research.

The authors seem to have been put in a very difficult position, and subjected to considerable pressure. There should be one standard of criticism in psychology, and that should be applied to all papers. Scholars must feel that they can examine different explanations without putting their careers at risk. Evidence must be insensitive. Lord Lindsay, founder of Keele University, said that it was for “the pursuit of truth in the company of friends”, but such high ideals are not always achieved. The authors probably came to the conclusion that the level of criticism they received was far more than would be meted out to usual psychology papers, and that it was best to withdraw their publication in the hope that they could retain their careers.

In these censorious times, it is hard to blame them for this pragmatic choice, but it makes it harder for any subsequent researcher to study national differences in intellectual and scholastic achievement. If a journal determines that a particular set of findings must be subject to special sensitivity, then new applicants submitting papers may well judge that they want their slim chance of publication not to be made even slimmer by choosing the wrong subject, or entertaining the wrong interpretation. Scholars are being warned: sensitive issues are best avoided, sensitively.

As if it were not enough that a just-about-to-be-published paper is retracted because of unpublished and unrefereed criticisms, papers that were published years ago have been retracted by editors after they have received critical petitions, even though the authors in question are dead. You might imagine that is unfair, because dead authors cannot reply to criticism, but this seems no longer relevant to editors. So, in other news:

Rushton & Templar. Do pigmentation and the melanocortin system mediate aggression and sexuality in humans as they do in other animals? Personality and Individual Differences. 53 (2012) 4-8

has ceased to exist.

The usual practice in academia is that anyone critical of any particular paper would write their own paper arguing against the original work. The new paper could then be discussed, and readers could judge what they thought of it. They might agree that the original paper was wrong, even on the available knowledge at the time of publication. That would be fair comment. The new paper would reference the old one, which would be no longer relied upon, unless of course another researcher came to its rescue, by writing a third paper, this time defending it. This is the way researchers used to work, letting you see the debate unfold, and keeping a track of the history of claim and counter-claim. That standard procedure meant that even decades later someone doing new research could look back at previous work with new techniques, and say which of the competing claims had turned out to be right. History should be the whole thing, the different views and different fashions, the agony and the ecstasy, but now work can be cancelled both before and after publication, if it offends the sensibilities of petition signatories.

Amusingly, I can remember this paper being discussed at one of our conferences, and being put aside because there were no up-to-date global studies of skin luminosity. The best way to improve papers is to improve them: better measures, more representative samples, more powerful statistical techniques should be used by all researchers, on all subjects.

Critics have deemed that the authors of the recently retracted paper have eaten forbidden fruit and must be cast out of academe.

“They, looking back, all the eastern side beheld
Of Paradise, so late their happy seat,
Waved over by that flaming brand, the gate
With dreadful faces thronged and fiery arms:
Some natural tears they dropped, but wiped them soon;
The world was all before them, where to choose
Their place of rest, and Providence their guide;
They, hand in hand, with wandering steps and slow,
Through Eden took their solitary way.”

• Category: Science • Tags: Censorship, IQ, Political Correctness, Richard Lynn 
Hide 111 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. R.C. says:

    Cowardly, but typical in these farcical days.

  2. Stargazer says:


    • Replies: @botazefa
  3. botazefa says:

    This is likely just the tip of the iceberg. Academia isn’t the only setting in which scientific studies are produced.

    If headline science publications have accepted the dogmatic view that

    … we have a responsibility to be sensitive to the political, social, and cultural issues raised by our work

    … then what are we to expect of science produced by bureaucracy that directly impacts policy? One example in the US is that the feds are unable to collect data on gun crimes because to do so would hurt the feelings of the NRA. They are a sensitive bunch.

    What happens when the hoards expand their agenda beyond IQ and genetics? Does anyone have first hand examples of this? For example, limiting drug dealing in city parks by removing basketball courts?

    If not for Unz, how would we know about these science shenanigans!

    • Agree: Alfred
  4. Your Google Drive link displays an entirely different article, so the original file has been replaced.

    It’s probably online somewhere that the censors haven’t yet scrubbed.

  5. Thank you. My mistake. Have changed it to the proper paper.

  6. dearieme says:

    Scaredy cats. Perhaps wisely so, alas.

  7. Dutch Boy says:

    I suspect the major negative association with a lack of religiosity is not crime but fecundity. High IQ countries seem to have birth rates radically below replacement levels and very low rates of religious participation. Liberalism is anti-religious and emphasizes individual fulfillment (soon degenerating into libertinism). Such people are reluctant to share their lives and resources with offspring.

  8. @Dutch Boy

    America’s Baby Boom came from parents who grew up under the liberalism of the New Deal. I suspect that when our elites starting in the late 1950’s decided to force the white population at gunpoint to accept desegregation, the artificial ideology of racism the most horrible thing in the world and coercive white-to-black wealth transfer with nothing to show for it, that exercise in stupid and damaging utopianism a role in the subsequent collapse of white fertility.

    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
    , @dearieme
    , @Alfred
  9. Philosophers have long held that the dumb common people need religion to keep them in live, while the more intelligent people, especially the philosophically enlightened, can live just fine without it. Apparently modern social science supports these ancient “prejudices.” Our allegedly ignorant ancestors got a lot of important things right the first time around, and they had to get them right to keep the human species in business in a harsh and dangerous world. We really should show these beliefs more respect instead of just dismissing them as superstition, racism, sexism, homophobia and the modern nerd term of dismissal, “cognitive biases.”

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    , @Anon
  10. The timing here is important.

    The paper shows “In press at Psychological Science as of October 11, 2019.”

    The paper was acccepted for publication Jan. 2020. Durham University placed the peer-reviewed paper on Durham Research Online 05 February 2020.

    One of the principal authors, Bo M. Winegard, was terminated by Marietta College early March, 2020.

    Could the withdrawl of the paper been more to protect the other authors, rather than an issue of data reliability? I certainly think so.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  11. Dutch Boy says:

    The elite were liberal but the masses were not. It took quite awhile for elite ideology to filter down to the average Joe and Jane. The contraceptive ideology of the elite, intended to eliminate the ethnic groups they abhorred, has instead worked to eliminate them and the nations they rule. God is not mocked.

    • Agree: Red Pill Angel
    • Replies: @Jake
  12. Being special (bright or very bright) vs. being like all the rest – that’s also (structurally) atheism vs. faith.

    Since the brighter folks are more curious. – So – this was known from the beginning: There are the brighter ones, and they are more likely to be drawn to the forbidden fruit = more likely to endanger the cohesion of all the others with them.

    – Life as a Circle Game (Joni Mitchell and Nikolaus von Kues (Cusanus)) = an eternal drama / comedy… /play (Goethe/Schiller).

    Goethe / Faust

    Schiller: Man is only then fully man when at play (that’s why Friedrich von Schiller and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe had to take their role as artists – – – – seriously. Playing in their sense only works when taste and – belonging – are part of the game).

    • Replies: @Sean
  13. vot tak says:

    “Forbidden fruit”, isn’t that what right wing “males” call the young boys chained up in their basements and why right wing females get breathless reading harlequin romance novels?

    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
  14. dearieme says:

    The New Deal wasn’t liberal, at least in the European sense. It was dilute socialism/fascism.

    • Agree: bruce county, Jett Rucker
  15. Sean says:
    @Dieter Kief

    Hobbs: neither religion or science (Hobbs wanted Boyle prosecuted for his vacuum results) is the arbiter of what is true. Only the state can have that transcending power to determine what is is the truth for all, otherwise there will be chaos as all contend to have their version of truth accepted.

    The English Civil War was hardly won before Britain successfully went to war with other countries, including the Netherlands which had been an ally of the Puritans, and conquered all over the world. Freedom from foreign interference is the vital thing and for that there has to be a strong state as arbiter, not a weak one presiding over interminable civil warring.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    , @Bill Jones
  16. That paper by Rushton and Templar can be found here:

    However, it seems to me that in dogs the conclusion cannot be very strong as I have seen quite a few black dogs that are very friendly (at least to humans.)

    • Replies: @R.C.
  17. @advancedatheist

    Philosophers have long held that the dumb common people need religion to keep them in live, while the more intelligent people, especially the philosophically enlightened, can live just fine without it.

    Corn-pone philosophers have held those things; as a strategy, it’s also stupid on its face in a world where information-control is impossible. (Both epistemically and doxastically, it’s even more stupid than Pascal’s Wager – which is saying something.)

    First, it requires iron discipline among the elect: they must filter their initiates to minimise potential defectors… which means that they miss out on the very best minds.

    It’s hard enough to maintain a partition of society into “the elect” and “the dummies” once literacy becomes sufficiently widespread.

    It becomes downright impossible when the elect can’t stop the proles from reading the output of elect-worthy individuals who repudiate the notion of an “Elect”.

    And if the dummies can find out they’ve been systematically duped, the ‘Elect’ risk a rapid decline in the rate of return on their grift.

    Noble lies and pious fictions are still clung to by charlatans, but both concepts are well and truly past their “Use By” date.


    Besides… the paper that was withdrawn was from some pretend journal aimed at psychosophasters.

    Psych journals have the scientific status of comic books, which is why the entire field is trying to distance itself from its entire gruesome, dishonest, power-serving history.

    The events describe a pre-emptive damage-control genuflection by one set of dishonest pseudoscientific charlatans to a subset of their audience who are braying philistines.

    That sounds like the definition of a storm in a teacup, with the added detail that the teacup is actually full of shit.

    So what I’m saying is that this is a storm in a teacup full of shit. It’s got about the same relevance to the 21st century world, as a religious apologia.

    The expected damage done to the sum of human knowledge: zero.

  18. @R.C.

    “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

    ― George Orwell, 1984

    • Agree: mark tapley
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  19. What a bunch of crap. Like you can predict how violence, whatever that is, will increase when religion, whatever that is, declines, however you somehow calculate that. The things people study scientifically that aren’t scientific. Sheesh.

    • Disagree: Jett Rucker
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    , @iffen
  20. A most valuable insight into the purging of the scientific record.

    During the latter part of my academic career I was well aware of the creeping self-censorship that had begun to blight scientific activity. However, I am nevertheless shocked at the extent to which censorship has become accepted as legitimate by researchers and the journals that disseminate research findings.

    The author precisely summarises the incremental nature of scientific discovery, whereby knowledge is advanced on the basis of a rigorous appraisal of current evidence, which then generates further investigations to extend and refine our understanding of phenomena of interest.

    Removing evidence from the scientific record inhibits the scientific process, making it less likely that research activity will arrive at valid conclusions. As the author points out, even flawed research is of value because, having become aware of the flaws, we are then better placed to avoid them in future research.

    A censored scientific record comprises a partial and therefore tainted legacy to future researchers.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  21. Gordo says:

    It might be an idea to publish such papers only in Latin, or nowadays Mandarin.

  22. @Sean

    Hobbes: neither religion or science (Hobbs wanted Boyle prosecuted for his vacuum results) is the arbiter of what is true. Only the state can have that transcending power to determine what is is the truth for all, otherwise there will be chaos as all contend to have their version of truth accepted.

    Luther and Zwingli got this too. Zwingli and Swiss Reformists/Protestants developed a means, which had been approved during the Reformation process in Switzerland and Germany but the Swiss refined it and – could avoid what later became one of the harshest periods in German history: The 30 Years War, which was not least about the question how to integrate two (partly) contradicting Christian belief systems into one state. Ahh, this method: Public debate! (And later in Switzerland: Public debate a integral part of Direct Democracy decision making – after at times incredibly exhausting and detailed and patient and very time-consuming – – – – informed public debate(s). This is still so as a daily political practice in Switzerland.

    Another result of this great part of the Swiss way was, that the functional gap between the nobility and the people was “communicatively made fluid” (Jürgen Habermas), the longer the more. That’s what Schiller expresses perfectly well in his play “Wilhelm Tell” – which, by the way, did invent (!) a figure which is now looked upon as the perfect representation of the Swiss mentality – the just leader of the Swiss farmers against – the tendency of the Swiss nobility to not acknowledge them properly: Wilhelm Tell. – Every year in late summer, Schiller’s play is staged en Plein air throughout Switzerland. – And mostly it’s regular guys and professionals together (at times regulars alone) who are acting.

    In an ideal world, there’d be not only philosophers and all kinds of scientists engaged in the debate about the Forbidden Fruit dynamic – but also psychoanalysts and theologists and historians and… – That there is not one prominent theologian engaged in this debate is one of the aspects of the ongoing struggles, that bugs me the most. Now that I think about it: Richard Schroeder from east Germany is such a rare bird. He is a social Democrat and not only in a big fight with his party over the incredibly successful wokeness in it, but also engaged for free speech. Unfortunately, he is a very rare bird and not visible on the international stage.

    • Replies: @Sean
  23. Alfred says:

    coercive white-to-black wealth transfer with nothing to show for it

    This transfer of resources leads directly to fewer kids by those being taxed. In France, white women work and pay hefty taxes. They cannot afford to have the number of kids they would like without a big drop in their standard of living. African immigrants don’t pay taxes and they are paid to have more kids. A totally insane arrangement. But this has been going on for 40 years.

  24. The problem with Dawkins and other evolution-focused atheists is that they don’t really believe in evolution. They will talk in a highfalutin way about the beauty of evolution, but when it comes to religion (or IQ) suddenly their language devolves and they use words like ‘evil’ etc, like some Baptist preacher. They don’t see that religion has an evolutionary function.

    In regards to the paper, my guess is that religion gets you to a certain level of culture before you can let go of it and walk on your own two legs. Think of the analogy of the father who is helps you grow up and dies when you are an adult. Or in the Bible, God would talk directly to Moses and Abraham etc in the beginning, but gradually became more distant – appearing via signs and intermediaries. And then not at all. I don’t think cultures which are currently low IQ can ever progress without religion.

    • Replies: @Curle
  25. @niteranger

    In these sentences, Geoge Orwell marks a crucial difference, which is a formative force for the identity of modern man: That time is split between past and present. – That there is more than just the naked reality right before our eyes as we understand that we – as reasonable and emphatic citizens – know about this gap and how much we are rooted in it. (Counter)Revolutions and Revolts (Herbert Marcuse) lack patience with these constitutional aspects of our modern selves – civilization is being reduced to its discontent.
    (cf. Sigmund Freud – Civilization and its Discontents and the late and somehow mild and ripe Herbert Marcuse in Die Permanenz der Kunst** (about the enduring nature of art)) .

    ** in English: The Aesthetic Dimension: Towards a Critique of Marxist Aesthetics (1978)

  26. When I read this in the popular press yesterday I wondered how it ever got through the present miasmic climate:

  27. Emslander says:

    What in the hell is this actually ABOUT?

  28. karel says:

    I do not know what was the reason for retracting the article, so there is no point commenting that fact. From what I have read of the .pdf version, the retraction is no great loss to humanity as I find such studies quite pointless. It is a typical example of sociological studies where the authors pretend that they can measure something fuzzy like religiosity or IQ with the same accuracy as physicists may measure, say the speed of light. What religiosity actually is and how to asses it? I may feel more religious on Sunday, perhaps less so on Monday, as I have to do some work, and there are frequent days when I am definitely an atheist. The authors have no idea what the error of their method is and how to measure it. Instead they try to bewitch us with statistics spewing numbers with two, sometimes even three digits behind the decimal point pretending that it may reflect an accuracy of their measurements and methodology. Their attempt to impress us with the number models, they supposedly used, only documents their uncertainty and the fuzziness of their thinking.

    It may be more interesting to investigate the link between IQ, religiosity and penis length. I can already make a prediction. Those with high scores on IQ and religiosity scales would certainly have the shortest penises. If we add GDP as a third variable, then it would be very likely negatively correlated with penis length. Should I get a grant to conduct such a study, then I promise to work strictly according to the principles of relativity to impress even more suckers. When Ghislaine is released from prison I will offer her to collaborate as she must have some special skills of how to perform certain measurements.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  29. @Julian of Norwich

    As the author points out, even flawed research is of value because, having become aware of the flaws, we are then better placed to avoid them in future research.

    That is – word by word – a Goethean thought! – In Über den Granit (About the Granite) he wrote (as the mineralogist, he was, too – besides writing about the economy, and evolutionary theory and colors and light and making experiments in this realm which are all still reproducible  and – his inquiries into psychology, he was too, amongst other things… an (awe) inspiringly good writer… – not least of all.

    Now, Goethe wrote in About the Granite: “How do we synthesize all these contradictions and find an idea which enables further observations? That’s what I try to do, nowadays; and should I not be as lucky as I wish and hope, my attempts might enable others to progress.; since with regard to observations, even errors are useful too because they make us attentive and allow the sharp-sighted ones, to practice. (My italics, DK).

    Btw. – Goethe wrote about the tendency of institutionalized science to adhere to what is established, too, and pointed out that people who make their living as paid university professors are in constant danger, to secure their earnings by playing it safe – and thus ignoring demeaning knowledge that is risky and new…

  30. @Dieter Kief

    Correction of my last sentence: Ignoring and demeaning, please.

  31. Jake says:

    In the 1970s, Solzhenitsyn noted that the West had its own forms of censorship – forms that were unofficial. They operated to prevent discussion of anything that the Elites felt could upset the post WW2 order of hardcore secular Liberal Democracy based on rampant consumerism. Solzhenitsyn saw that the West’s censorship already then was close enough to the evil of Soviet censorship to be an enemy.

    It is much worse today.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
    , @mark tapley
  32. Thank you so much. Delicious. Pity the mines he tried to save had low grade ores and weren’t worth pumping out.

  33. karel says:
    @Dieter Kief

    People who like to write because they think that they are too clever or just because they feel the urge are numerous. Unfortunately, Goethe was one of them and he wrote quite often utter nonsense, such as his supposed ”theory” of colours. There are some devious thinkers who are convinced that publishing nonsensical attacks on matters believed to be established can somehow advance our knowledge, but that is a fiction. Even his ”lighter” works like the “Italienische Reise” is in my voluminous edition not more than one kilo of boredom more suitable as a prop for disintegrating book shelves than for reading. Quite fittingly, the philosopher Ladislav Klíma called Goethe the ”old oil”.

  34. Wielgus says:

    He was too useful for anti-USSR propaganda – less congenial things he wrote were simply ignored.

  35. When the elite have an agenda involving cultural change of society it is necessary that the truth be covered up. This is done though propaganda through the gov. school system (indoctrination centers) controlled media and entertainment, to effect a politicly “correct culture” with the imposition of laws delegating more power to the state such as the unconstitutional 14th amendment, so called hate laws and antisemitism such as Trump’s recent exec. order restricting college freedom of speech. All of these measures are designed to gradually change the people so they will fit into the new designated

    Over time the people are confronted with incessant manufactured crises such as 911, staged conflicts, “war On Terror”, global warming, running out of oil, acid rain etc. and always false flag shootings such as Sandy Hook and Los Vegas , racial strife using fake Floyd , Arbery incidents and the most effective so far the fake virus to condition the barnyard animals and as a cover for the theft by the global bankers of trillions, all planned well in advance. The beliefs in the old culture are eroded and the people are molded so they become docile sheep grazing on the government plantation and easily herded into whatever pen the elite make ready for them.

    As Samuel Adams stated; If the people want freedom they must be willing to fight for their liberties. And Franklin said: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety. This is the situation we are in now. The researchers that are afraid to reveal their evidence because of their animal farm mentality are a disgrace to their profession, and people who believe the elite criminals who have have never done anything but concoct lies and fraud should be on the governments plantation. The Zionist criminal syndicate can still be thrown off. But not by people who refuse to rebel against the elites tyranny. Expose the truth, open your businesses, refuse to wear the cuck masks and be free.

  36. Jake says:
    @Dutch Boy

    Oh so true!

    Because this is the Anglosphere, and the Anglosphere has ruled the Globe as predominant power for centuries, it is most important to know which ethnic groups, and therefore which cultures, WASP Elites have most wanted to exterminate or least bludgeon into utter submission become servility.

    Irish Catholics; Scottish Highlanders; Celtic language speakers; Anglophone Protestants who exhibit affinity for anything Celtic; French and Spanish and Portuguese and Italian and Austrian and German and Czech Traditional Catholics; Serbian and Russian Orthodox, etc.

    Basically, any whites who are not WASP and are not actively serving WASP Elites are on the hit list. Obviously some are hated first and foremost.

    The Anglo-Zionist Empire is bringing Gotterdammerung because is is based on its Elites hating the vast majority of whites they rule.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  37. The message from The Diversity:
    it’s a White thing.
    We couldn’t understand.

  38. R.C. says:
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    Love the name.
    Even moreso, I hate the term, ‘commentator’.
    When I use a compass, I don’t ‘orientate’ myself; I simply ‘orient’ myself.

    • Agree: anarchyst, Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    , @botazefa
  39. @Jake

    Solzhenitsyn and the Russians were in the grip of the Zionist Jew terror as he explained in “200 years among us.” The same force has been at work here for a long time. It is the source of all our problems just as its was for Russia.

  40. Sean says:
    @Dieter Kief

    Germany had to deal with the Protestant-Catholic conflict and the accompanying interference of neighbouring countries for geopolitical reasons (Catholic France backed Protestant Sweden in its intervention in the Thirty Years War). By the Treaty Of Westphalia a modus vivendi that limited the power of the princely states was created. Eventually the German nation got fed up with foreign armies marching across its principalities and began to unify. The Weimar republic gave central government unprecedented revenue raising powers, which was a key reason for why German did so well in WW2. Just as Germany became powerful by defusing the Protestant-Catholic conflict, both the egalitarians and hereditarians of the West must deal with its own ‘transubstantiation’ issue ( IQ) by ceasing to demand a truth they espouse be recognised by all. There has to be a compromise.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  41. @vot tak

    I didn’t know the Podesta brothers were right wing. Thanks.

  42. @R.C.

    But most of us are in the Occident and may not wish to travel.

  43. @Sean

    That’s because Cromwell sold freedom of access to Britain to the Jews, banned from the Sceptered Isle since Longshanks.

    Just one more argument for Monarchy.

  44. @PNWmossback

    “Rational Wiki” is more like Hysterical Wiki.

    • Troll: Corvinus
  45. @obwandiyag

    It’s a very interesting thing to study. The UK was both very religious and pretty violent for a fair part of its history, then the Great Moderation took place in Victorian and pre-Victorian times, continuing up to WW2 and perhaps to the mid-50s. Gertrude Himmelfarb is the historian of this change . By the mid-late 50s the British had never had it so good.

    Religion has declined since then and violence increased.

    • Replies: @Gordo
  46. Trinity says:

    High IQ? Really. How many Mensa members can’t even change their own oil or even change a tire?

    High IQ? Put me out in the African Bush or even in the hills of Appalachia with just a tent, a rifle, and some water. That African Bushman or Appalachian hillbilly with the “low IQ” will survive a helluva lot longer than me and definitely a lot longer than some Rhodes Scholar dingleberry.


    And as for (((psychology))), most people in that field are bat shit crazy themselves or have some serious issues like our good friend the late (((Sigmund FRAUD.)))

    And why is it that most (((sex experts))) look like Dr. Ruth? Seriously, most of these (((sex experts))) probably have about as much sexual experience as those 1965 race experts who were born and bred in states like Minnesota and New Hampshire back in the day.

    The negro and the White man were NEVER meant to live in the same society and I don’t have to read the latest studies about IQ, sexual promiscuity, sexual habits, philosophy, psychology or any other (((hogwash))) to come up with that conclusion. I just use my two eyes and my low IQ brain to figure it out.

    • Agree: mark tapley, anarchyst
    • Replies: @Curle
  47. @Jake

    The Anglos were lured into a partnership by the Jews resulting in their own demise. Jews were infiltrating Britain all the way back to their agent Cromwell. The British plotted Germany’s destruction with the Jews and ended up losing their own empire.

    Aristocrats of all societies tend to want to enslave the lower classes as stated by our founder James Madison. This evil never made much headway until taken up by the Zionist Jews and again aided by their Gentile allies. The disastrous world wars were driven by them as well as todays “War On Terror” to fulfill the Yinnon Plan for Greater Israel to destroy the Middle East. The massive influx of Africans into the white nations of Europe is the implementation of the Warburg financed Pan Europa (Kelergi Plan) of 1923. Our own disastrous 1965 Immigration Act is the handiwork of Jew Javits.

    The Jew have always hated Christianity as stated in their filthy Babylonian Talmud. Once the White nations are turned into a lower I.Q negroid race and have forgotten their once great western culture becoming a more manageable subsaharan african mixture it will be easier for the Zionist Jews to keep the goyim penned up.

    • Agree: TheTrumanShow
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  48. @R.C.

    You can’t blame them. Their careers are the stakes.

    Which is another reason I literally laugh in people’s faces when they talk to me about freedom of anything.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  49. @karel

    Since Ghislaine is the daughter of news paper magnate and Jew Israeli spy Robert Maxwell, nothing will really happen to her regardless of what the Jew controlled MSM says. However she will no doubt be difficult to reach regarding the measurement techniques needed for your lengthy study. Let me suggest you try to contact other members of the Pedo Island Club. Perhaps Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, Bill Clinton or Donald Trump could assist in this research. Since they all seem to have been frequent flyers on Epstein’s Lolita Express they could provide critical data and reveal the truth to this important question.

    • Replies: @karel
  50. Thomasina says:
    @vot tak

    Or what the left wing Clinton called the little girls on Epstein’s plane. Or what the gender-confused boys call the frilly dress hanging in mommy’s closet.

    Mental illness.

  51. karel says:
    @mark tapley

    Dear Mark, you have problems understanding rather basic facts. First, it is not a handicap to be a daughter of a spy. Second, Ghislaine had probably handled more erected pricks than all the other people you quote have managed in their lives. Would you seriously suggests that Alan Dershowitz would be of any use for my great project? I will let him know about your nefarious proposal and he will sue you for all the money you may or may not have.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  52. SafeNow says:

    The Wikipedia entry on a Philip Roth novel contained a serious factual misconception. Roth himself tried to correct it, but Wikipedia rejected this effort by an author to be a source of information regarding his own work. When this occurred 8 years ago, I thought it was an anecdotal incident of the factual being unable to prevail over cultural bias. I did not realize how prescient it was. Now, the incident illuminates that which has become the norm.

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  53. @Dutch Boy

    Low IQ fecundity ought to be a crime as it must be a crime for high IQ population to be disinterested in procreation.

  54. Goethes Newton-critique and – his optical experiments (all of which are replicable and do show what Goethe claimed they would!) are hardly ever understood properly.

    To understand those, one can refer to Berlin mathematician and philosopher of science Olaf L. Müller’s tome – Mehr Licht – Goethe and Newton , Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt, 2015, 424 S. (More Light – about the relationship of Goethe and  Newton).

    There are quite a few expert-groups of physics mainly, who are working on and discussing the consequences of Goethe’s color theory. This development is quite new. The basic insight is, that Goethes theory is just as valid as Newton’s. One of the main theoretical obstacles against a proper understanding of Goethes Color Theory is his theoretical (=inductive) claim, that dark rays do exist – something which was unheard of in Goethes times, but is widely accepted amongst physics now. – there was a conference scheduled on this topic in Idar-Oberstein, Palatinate, on October last year – Goethe’s Colour Controversy with Newton – a Vindication 

    I appreciate your attack, Karel, because what you say is more or less what everybody else said up until a few years ago about the color-theoretician Goethe – even Kurt R. Eissler, who wrote a two volume 2200 p. biography of just two decades of Goethe’s life and deeply admired him failed to grasp the Color Theory.

    That said – his Color-<Theory is only an important part of Goethe's scientific insights. He did write quite a bit about stones and minerals and had – in his days – one of the three widely acknowledged stone-collections – – – – in Europe. The other two had been put together by geologists/mineralogists…

    And he described the intermaxillary bone and understood right away, what it is: The missing link between man and animal.

    Goethe did write much, that is true. But he achieved much too, which is not so common. 
    As a general rule when talking about men of the past, I prefer to be polite and patient. And another general rule I follow is: Don't judge too soon and too harsh. Be aware that our insights come to us quite easily because we profit from the errors and achievements of those before us.

    • Replies: @karel
  55. botazefa says:

    Even moreso, I hate the term, ‘commentator’.
    When I use a compass, I don’t ‘orientate’ myself; I simply ‘orient’ myself.

    I agree.

    Irregardless, some are orientated toward commentators.

    • Replies: @G. Poulin
    , @Dave Bowman
  56. This cannot be considered to be a scientific study because the data has been compromised through manipulation and even through blatant manufacturing, which means that this is propaganda and nothing more. Itvis just a bunch of broad generalizations without any evdence supportng the hypothesis.

  57. Anonymous[326] • Disclaimer says:
    @vot tak

    How is it that “young boys chained up in the basement” is the first thing coming into von tak’s mind. I believe Freud called it projection.

    • Agree: bruce county
  58. Anon[127] • Disclaimer says:

    “…(in which authors write for free, referees referee for free, and then every student and member of the public has to pay to read) ”

    vs :

    ‘You accepted this job on the condition of publish or perish!’ It is because of the pay aspect that people withdraw papers: their livelihood is in danger if they write ‘the wrong paper’. ‘ you’ll never get a grant in this town again!’ (you’ll never work in this town again!)

    Further: academic positions require mercenary grant seeking, that requires a publication background. No papers, no job, no grants. To get a job you need papers, to get grants you need papers. Writers self edit, aiming to satisfy editorial and funding powers.

    => authors do not write for free, and neither do reviewers review for free, as reviewing is part of the same scheme, publish or perish, no papers, no grants no jobs. No tickee no shirtee.

    And tenure won’t save you if you write a ‘bad’ paper.

    Perhaps more accurately, writing is done on a gamble. The literature is full of mediocrity, and it isn’t golden.

    • Replies: @Anon
  59. SafeNow says:

    Galileo, “I recant my Heresy. The earth does not move around the sun.”

  60. @SafeNow

    Now you got me curious, what is the factual misconception?

    • Replies: @SafeNow
  61. @karel

    It is definitely not a handicap to be Maxwell’s daughter. That is my point. Secondly, she was if anything just bringing the two parties together. it is the clients that deserve the scrutiny. And as you stated , it was your project, prick.

    • Replies: @karel
  62. karel says:
    @Dieter Kief

    I really have no idea why we are discussing Goethe here. His publication die Farbenlehre is a hard nut to crack as most of the sentences make no sense. I tried reading it many years ago but could not finish it. His statements like ”Es gibt nur zwei reine Farben, Blau und Gelb. Das übrige sind Stufen dieser Farben oder unrein.” are quite off the mark and betray the mind of a charlatan. It is not enough to conduct so called experiments with a prism, one has to know what he is doing. But in his days, Goethe probably was not the greatest fool in town.

  63. karel says:
    @mark tapley

    You cannot understand simple concepts. My intention is not to scrutinize her or Epsteins clients, nor do I need any suggestions from people like you who have problems with satire. Are you some kind or retired corporal?

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  64. SafeNow says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    The Roth/Wikipedia attempted correction was about the inspiration for Roth’s novel The Human Stain. Wikipedia wrote that the inspiration was the life of Anatole Broyard (an author and literary critic for the New York Times). Actually, as Roth tried to set straight, the inspiration was an actual witch-hunt event that besmirched a professor and friend of Roth named Mel Tumin. The actual event paralleled the book. There was no doubt about it. Tumin had been curious about two students who have not been to class all year. He asked the class, does anyone know who these two “spooks” are. Tumin (=book) was using that term not in its racial sense, but rather, because the missing students, being invisible, were like ghosts. He had never laid eyes on these students and knew nothing about them and so he could not possibly know that they were in fact black. instantly, a 40-year honorable career was destroyed. One may surmise that Wikipedia did not wish to acknowledge the fact that the incident depicted in the novel is something that happens in real life.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  65. Anon[369] • Disclaimer says:

    A problem faced in the Middle Ages was the cognitive elite going into religious life. The faith must be passed on through the family. Even today conservative religious orders draw the cognitive elite.


    Fr. Thomas Davenport, O.P.
    California Institute of Technology (B.S., physics) & Stanford University (Ph.D., theoretical physics)

    Br Daniel Benedict Rowlands O.P.
    University of Cambridge (undergraduate; doctorate in Theoretical Physics)

    Fr. Anthony VanBerkum, O.P.
    Stanford University (B.S. physics)

    Fr. Humbert Kilanowski, O.P.
    Case Western Reserve University (B.S., mathematics and astronomy)
    Ohio State University (Ph.D., mathematics)

    If you look over the several dozens friars in formation a lot of have STEM backgrounds from top schools.

  66. iffen says:

    things people study scientifically that aren’t scientific.

    Obiwan, subjects are not scientific, methods of study are.

    • Agree: Jett Rucker
    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  67. @karel

    You are the one who stated that she would have the special skills required. All I said was that since she would be unavailable, the other associates could perhaps be contacted.

  68. That was a long winded way to say that academy will no longer test by race. The brilliant brains behind this subject should take a cue from law enforcement, and just as the DOJ now lump hispanics in with whites when it comes to crime, let’s just toss the blacks in with white europeans when it is about intelligence. Re-write history; credit blacks with building the first sky scrapers, the Golden Gate Bridge, iventing the computer, replace all the CEO’s with blacks, and don’t forget rocket science. wtf? Easy peesy. But, first we have to do something about eye-witness accounts.

  69. Who runs education and who is their perceived enemy? Jews and White Christians. problem solved.May I have a peer review please.

  70. @iffen

    Bullshit. It’s not falsifiable. It’s silly. What do they do? Take surveys? “Are you more violent since you found Jesus?” You can “study” whether love conquers all if you want. But you would be an idiot and the object of your study would not be scientific. Or “accessible to scientific analysis” if you’re going to do your usual diversion by quibbling.

    • Replies: @iffen
  71. @Sean

    There has to be a compromise.

    Equality of chances is ok but does not necessarily include equality of outcome.

    Such a compromise-formula might do, mightn’t it?

    And then there would have to be a preamble which reads:

    We all are willing to defend free speech and ask any participants in public debates and science to behave politely.

    • Replies: @Lockean Proviso
  72. Gordo says:

    By the mid-late 50s the British had never had it so good.

    Religion has declined since then and violence increased.

    I don’t think you can call causation on that.

    Immigration of non-Whites, access to drugs, anti-family propaganda are the causes.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  73. Anonymous[396] • Disclaimer says:
    @mark tapley

    You do realise Jake is based in Tel Aviv. Just replace WASP with Jews and his comments will start making sense.

    • Thanks: mark tapley
  74. @Gordo

    The propagandists for immigration of non-whites, for toleration (or celebration) of drugs and the anti-family propagandists had a lot in common, and often were the same people. Ditto for the facilitators/promoters/amplifiers in media and publishing. They’re not disconnected phenomena.

  75. iffen says:

    if you’re going to do your usual diversion

    I don’t do diversion. There are no Jews in my woodpile.

    • Replies: @RSDB
  76. Anon[769] • Disclaimer says:

    And the public can often read for free on the NCBI website.

  77. G. Poulin says:

    I hate the term “irregardless”.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  78. Based Lad says:

    “Social justice” dogma has nearly completely permeated academia. The cognitive power of The West will suffer gravely in the coming decades. Our main competitor is overcome with joy beholding our scientific castration. I believe some would call this “blackpilled af”.

  79. dearieme says:
    @G. Poulin

    I could care less.

    • LOL: JackOH
  80. @Dieter Kief

    Freedom of speech is only useful to those of reasonable intelligence, both to speak and to hear new ideas or criticisms. To those with IQ below a certain threshold, free speech is confusing and threatening. They cannot think or respond logically, instead having largely emotional responses.

    As the average intelligence of Western societies falls due to mass immigration, dysgenics, and lower cultural and educational standards– changes encompassing both hereditary and environmental factors– free speech becomes less desirable both to elites and to the growing majority of the stupid. Appeals to civil liberty fall on more deaf ears as society polarizes into left and right authoritarianism. Both alignments offer to end the burden of free speech and engaged citizenship for the masses of dullards, replacing it with the taking on of these onerous tasks by authority and provision to the masses of simple answers and a predictable role to play.

    • Replies: @True, but
  81. Both alignments offer to end the burden of free speech and engaged citizenship for the masses of dullards, replacing it with the taking on of these onerous tasks by authority and provision to the masses of simple answers and a predictable role to play.

    I can firmly say that this is not happening in Austria and Switzerland. Even public broadcasting in both countries is still quite reasonable, and you find decent papers and weeklies and lots of interesting bloggers – and lots of sound workers/craftspeople with 90-110 IQs – lots of them -immigrants too! – What my native Germany is concerned – I hesitate.

    I follow Jonathan Haidt a bit and find it very good what he achieved with the Heterodox-Society. But even though, he sounds at times quite dark. – Whenever I feel a bit gloomy too, I switch from Haidt to – – – -Steven Pinker and – – – – James Thompson and – – – – – Steve Sailer.

    If this doesn’t work, I study people like the early protestant Reformator Johannes Brenz – or the German Gargantuan Johannes Fischart – – – – – or: The Barock-poet genius Andreas Grypius or I read a few pages of Hans Jakob Christoffel von Grimmelhausen’s Simplicius Simpicissimus – a comical and fresh and heartfelt novel about the extremely terrible 30-Years War… and I’m alright again!

  82. @SafeNow

    One may surmise that Wikipedia did not wish to acknowledge the fact that the incident depicted in the novel is something that happens in real life.

    The consensus tends to lean towards not noticing anything that could be understood as being offensive.

    Thing is: This is a sure method to make life boring – every day a bit more so. – A way to dehumanize societies. Because a life without humor is too safe to be a human life, I’d hold.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  83. dearieme says:
    @Dieter Kief

    You must learn to find cats and dogs amusing. But not monkeys.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  84. @Dutch Boy

    Such people are reluctant to share their lives and resources with offspring

    Clever – and persuasive, perhaps – but wholly incorrect.

    Put people in an ideological prison for long enough – especially in their own sacred homelands – and you will end up with nothing more than broken, hopeless, suicidal inmates. Those clever Jewish Bolsheviks knew that a very long time ago – hence the Gulags.

    Or, to put it another way, as I saw it expressed elegantly and eloquently some time ago in this very boutique: “…the English in particular, it is well-known, do not breed well in captivity”.

  85. @botazefa

    “Irregardless” is a non-existent word in English – even after you have invalidly created it. Please refer to any good dictionary for assistance.

    You’re welcome

    • Replies: @botazefa
  86. botazefa says:
    @Dave Bowman

    “Irregardless” is a non-existent word in English – even after you have invalidly created it. Please refer to any good dictionary for assistance.

    You’re welcome

    Try to keep up, Dave:

  87. True, but says:
    @Lockean Proviso

    There’s nothing that can be done to reverse course, since the, errr, population group that championed free speech and civil liberty, and the smart fraction of the entire world are shrinking.

    Eventually you or at best your progeny (if you have any) will have to choose a side, or will be forced to due to circumstances also related to your biology.

  88. RSDB says:

    You might be better off if there were.

    Place and time: somewhere in the Soviet Union in the 1930s.

    The phone rings at KGB headquarters.


    “My neighbor Yankel Rabinovitz is an enemy of the State.
    He is hiding undeclared diamonds in his woodshed.”

    “This will be noted.”

    The next day, the KGB goons go over to Rabinovitz’s house.
    They search the shed where the firewood is kept, break every
    piece of wood, find no diamonds, swear at Rabinovitz, and leave.

    The phone rings at Rabinovitz’s house.

    “Hello, Yankel! Did the KGB come?”


    “Did they chop your firewood?”

    “Yes, they did.”

    “Okay, now it’s your turn to call. I need my vegetable patch

  89. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:

    Thanks for the link:

    So it’s a word, but its use is still discouraged in formal writing. In 2016, NPR’s standards and practices editor at the time told staff to “just say ‘regardless.’ ” The AP Stylebook calls it a double negative. The American Heritage dictionary notes that a panel of experts “has roundly disapproved of its use.”

    In other words, a poor one.

  90. @Astuteobservor II

    Not as bad as sneezing I grant you but I hope you monitor the aerosols in your guffaws as long as we are unvaccinated.😎

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  91. dearieme says:

    Here’s an interesting one, doc, that Razib has picked up.

    It’s about evolution in humans driven by sexual selection. More mutations mean a far more rapid drop in fitness for (British) males than females. In other words women detect clues about male deficiencies. Says Razib:

    ‘Those with mutations were not as intelligent, but that can’t explain most of the effect. … The same with known conditions such as schizophrenia. Rather, what’s going on is that people are picking up on overall “genetic quality.”’

    I have no first hand experience of being a woman and appraising men, consciously or subconsciously.

    But when the boot used to be on the other foot I had a rule of fleeing if ever a girl started spouting about astrology. I don’t suppose the original paper studied hypotheses such as that.

    • Replies: @res
    , @James Thompson
  92. res says:

    But that doesn’t mean people who know better need to use it.

    I assumed you were making a joke by using it in your original comment. Was I wrong?

    • Replies: @botazefa
  93. res says:

    That was extremely interesting. Thanks.

  94. botazefa says:

    Definitely joking 👍

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  95. @dearieme

    Yes, say that one, but just tweeted about it, rather than blogged.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  96. @botazefa

    Explain to me please how Americans got to say “I could care less about [whatever]” with no sense of its illogic? It would be interesting to see whether the highly literate John Derbyshire after decades in America avoids using either version [Yes “couldn’t care less” in case you have just woken up and haven’t had your coffee]. The highly literate Steve Sailer shows no sign of embarrassment in writing as an illogical American. And can we extrapolate this American exceptionalism (Yes, I affirm the word as I claim the Indians on side) to…. well you name it…?
    Oops! Without my coffee I forgot to add the sacrifice of intensive like inflammatory.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @dearieme
  97. @Wizard of Oz

    I always wear my mask when out of the house these days. People are safe from my saliva lol.

  98. @Wizard of Oz

    Well maybe I should have said “inflammable” as my example of an intensive. Yep, I can see why counter eugenic Health and Safety rules require that word to be avoided. But my favourite, derived from an old judge who sneered at a colleague’s barbarously ignorant usage, is “inchoate” which said barbarian judge had taken to be a negative when he wrote “choate” in a judgment. Favorite? Well, I would welcome a third example so I can win Very Trivial Pursuit.

  99. @James Thompson

    If average IQ might be the best correlated biological measurement with national prosperity, what might be the second best? (So, I’m not conceding this is altogether OT).

    I suggest that it is the number of mentally (and to a lesser extent physically) demanding hours people can put into productive work. That being so it is time the question was examined thoroughly and intelligently. So….

    First let’s get in touch [?again] by email. I think it may have been in an email to you at an address I have lost that I described my acquaintance with Hans Eysenck and the circumstances of it. So…. you know I’m very much on your side. Let’s make contact by you supplying me with an email address which will reach you by way of a somewhat cute roundabout process. You just send a text message to +61410652711
    which says “Tell GPJ next door that the email address he wants is [your – JT’s – email]”.

    Back to the subject of sleep requirements on which I remember feeling a bit despondent when, as a recent graduate I remarked to a famous judge that, to my surprise, I had discovered that continuous mental work could make me physically tired. He replied grudgingly that he supposed 14 hours straight might do it!

    Over many years I have listened to and read, with irritation, repeated assertions by people formally qualified as medical doctors, that we First Worlders don’t get enough sleep and that adults need 7 to 9 hours.
    To make it worse my favourite TV medicine man, Michael Mosley, of Trust Me: I’m a Doctor fame, did a program “Keep Me Awake” which, in my opinion, botched it and leads me to ask you, inter alia, if you can use your standing to get him to revisit the subject and get it right.

    The key error in my view was in his failure to discover or even investigate the statistical distribution of sleep requirements. Given what we know about inheritance of characteristics produced by very many genes – like IQ or height – he might sensibly have started with an assumption of Gaussian Normal distribution. Instead he found an Englishman in New York who seemed to be a genuine case of a 2 hour short sleeper who showed up Mosley’s lifelong inability to do without sleep very quickly and led to nothing more than the suggestion that 20 per cent of people are short sleepers. (Apparently Mosley gave up medical practice for journalism because he hated the late night call outs, and he also cut short his investigation of the successful use of Modafinil to allow one small businessman to double his income. It wasn’t something that attracted Mosley to emulation).

    My thesis is that the average sleep requirement is in the usually postulated range but that a standard deviation of one hour is plausible. Yes that means the 2 hour a night fellow was a 5 ad man but also that great generals and Prime Ministers like Thatcher could well be 3 and 4 sd people typically. (As a woman Thatcher probably needed an extra hour or two’s vigour each day to be dominant as she was, and it is not difficult to guess what happens to battlefield generals who desperately need sleep against those who only need to snatch two or three hours to think clearly).

    My asking people how much sleep they have needed as adults tends to confirm my hypothesis. Of course I recognise that sleep performs or allows several functions so it is quite possible that, say, the physical repair and building of muscle is not matched by the consolidation of memories function. In short, someone could deploy a brilliantly productive intellect on 4 hours sleep a night but still die of dementia or heart disease prematurely or something like the opposite imbalance.

    It is an important subject even if one considers only people of average IQ and mundane abilities Do we not all benefit when plumbers with average IQs work effectively 100 hours a week or police can maintain their vigilance and cognitive abilities – even with merely average IQ – for 20 hours straight.

    So what can be done to promote proper scientific study of sleep requirements? (I might add “with and without assistance of drugs” but I am not aware of even the basics having been adequately studied).

    I am prettty confident that you won’t tell me the work has been done and the answers are clear. And, anyway, there would be add-ons like discovering that descendants of twenty generations of Chinese farmers didn’t need as much sleep as Sinhalese in the equatorial tropics where the fish jump happily I to their best and fruit is abundant year round.
    Over to you😊

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  100. @Wizard of Oz

    Isn’t 2020’s aggressive Autofill determined and opportunistic. But, apart from “ad for “sd” early on it seems to have waited to pounce near the end when I tried to say “fish jump happily into their nets”!

  101. TRM says:

    Perhaps will be the last place where I can read both sides to an issue. Sad that others are becoming so politically correct and cowardly.

    I especially enjoy the writings of Murray, Thompson, Unz, Chisala and others on all aspects the intelligence issue. I’ve been hooked on it since I read Asimov’s “Thinking On Thinking” article as a teenager.

  102. dearieme says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I don’t mind Americans speaking American English. My name is tolerance. Indeed I am so ancient that I can remember when American English was rather pleasant before it was taken over by management burble, euphemism, evasion, and verbal diarrhoea/diarrhea.

    I do object to Britons speaking American English especially when they get it wrong, or when the American expression is wordier or clumsier than the British equivalent. The expression “pretentious prats” comes to mind.

    I happily use Americanisms if we lack as good a word.

    But I have a bête noire. I can’t bear “high rate of speed”. Urgh.

    I also dislike the abuse of “impact” as anyone with a physics education ought to. And I mock “careen” used to mean “career”. At least that one is easily explained.

  103. @dearieme

    But I have a bête noire. I can’t bear “high rate of speed”. Urgh.

    American English has become highly feminized. Eg: “reach out”.

    What you quote is another example where lots of words are used badly to avoid concision and demonstrates feminization.

  104. @dearieme

    Another aspect of American English, although it seems to be more prevalent the further West you go, is that they do not understand adverbs.

    Thus, people on the Left Coast will say “Drive safe” instead of “Drive safely”.

    I wonder to what extent that is an accommodation for the lower IQ of blacks.

  105. Curle says:

    With regard to Dawkins, I recall reading in Skeptic magazine he was asked directly whether disbelief in evolution as an explanation for average group performance differences wasn’t a superstition and he agreed that it was. He may not be pushing to make headlines regarding this point, but he’s not an SJW.

  106. Curle says:

    “How many Mensa members can’t even change their own oil or even change a tire?”

    Very few I’d imagine. I’m wondering where you get the idea that they can’t?

  107. Why visitors still make use of to read news papers when in this technological globe all
    is accessible on net?

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply -

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Thompson Comments via RSS