Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Scientific American: Replace racial science with anti-white conspiracy theory
From Scientific American
But another part of me wonders whether research on race and intelligencegiven the persistence of racism in the U.S. and elsewhereshould simply be banned. I dont say this lightly. For the most part, I am a hard-core defender of freedom of speech and science. But research on race and intelligenceno matter what its conclusions areseems to me to have no redeeming value.
Far from it. The claims of researchers like Murray, Herrnstein and Richwine could easily become self-fulfilling, by bolstering the confirmation bias of racists and by convincing minority children, their parents and teachers that the children are innately, immutably inferior.
Why, given all the worlds problems and needs, would someone choose to investigate this thesis? What good could come of it? Are we really going to base policies on immigration, education and other social programs on allegedly innate racial differences? Not even the Heritage Foundation advocates a return to such eugenicist policies.
Perhaps instead of arguing over the evidence for or against theories linking race and IQ we should see them as simply irrelevant to serious intellectual discourse. Im sympathetic toward the position spelled out by Noam Chomsky in his usual blunt fashion in his 1987 book Language and Problems of Knowledge:
Surely people differ in their biologically determined qualities. The world would be too horrible to contemplate if they did not. But discovery of a correlation between some of these qualities is of no scientific interest and of no social significance, except to racists, sexists and the like. Those who argue that there is a correlation between race and IQ and those who deny this claim are contributing to racism and other disorders, because what they are saying is based on the assumption that the answer to the question makes a difference; it does not, except to racists, sexists and the like.
Scientists and pundits who insist on recycling racial theories of intelligence portray themselves as courageous defenders of scientific truth. I see them not as heroes but as bullies, picking on those who are already getting a raw deal in our society. Its time to put these destructive theories to rest once and for all
AA is the biggest hate crime in history. And it doesn't even work. 40 years of AA has not advanced blacks.
If you live in a dual income household, with two working parents, you should be grateful for the advances that "AA" has brought to white females in the workforce.
As evidence mounts that the differences in average intelligence between the races are largely genetic there will be more hysterical efforts to suppress this evidence. Eventually the constraints of political correctness will fall as suddenly and thoroughly as the Soviet Union, and it will be safe to tell the truth in public.
For the actual SA article - see Should Research on Race and IQ Be Banned?** | Cross-Check, Scientific American Blog Network
What brings this up is Heritage Foundation's (a v. conservative think tank - founded by Coors, Fuelner, Weyrich - the same outfit that did a lot of the strategic thinking for Prexy Reagan - you can blame "Star Wars" on this crew) study on projected economic effects of citizenship amnesty for Hispanics, by Jason Richwine. Who hastily resigned from Heritage, as his Ph.D. thesis argued that 'the average IQ of U.S. immigrants is substantially lower than that of the white native population.' (I like his use of "white native" - you have to wonder what the Native Peoples here think of it.)
That article includes a link to the Ph.D. thesis. It's not clear that there is a genetic basis for differences in IQ, since IQ is a social construct, & measures a lot of language proficiency. To say that SA knows that there's a genetic basis for such differences is a vast overstatement, MO.
In any event, it's worth tracking down the actual articles & reading them first-hand. Just to know who's saying what, & not to depend on someone's paraphrase.
Isn't Science supposed to be a search for the answers "no matter what they may be"?
Isn't Science supposed to be a search for the answers "no matter what they may be"?
Isn't Science supposed to be a search for the answers "no matter what they may be"?
In theory, yes. Nevertheless, people who are sympathetic to blacks fear that genetics research will be used to promote political policies that will harm blacks.
I believe that the findings of genetics research have legitimate policy implications. Over the years I have come reluctantly to the conclusion that Jim Crow legislation in states with large black populations was based on sound instinct.
In theory, yes. Nevertheless, people who are sympathetic to blacks fear that genetics research will be used to promote political policies that will harm blacks.
.
Isn't Science supposed to be a search for the answers "no matter what they may be"?
In theory, yes. Nevertheless, people who are sympathetic to blacks fear that genetics research will be used to promote political policies that will harm blacks.
The inventor of IQ scores - Binet - was trying to find a way to ID students who would/might need extra help with the cirriculum. He never made the claims that we in the US college admissions offices associate with IQ tests. I'm not sure it's worth pursuing this line of inquiry - as I understand it, there's v. little genetic difference among the varieties of man. But I suppose we can't resist opening Pandora's Box, even if it's just a crack, just a glimpse. What harm can it do, after all ...
Given that this can go in some pretty ugly directions.....I am still disinclined to limit research because the results might not be to somebody's liking.
If you live in a dual income household, with two working parents, you should be grateful for the advances that "AA" has brought to white females in the workforce.
Exactly. Most working women are married and their income goes into the household income and thus helps men too. AA for women is wrong but it's not nearly as wrong as AA based on race. THINK
