Patricia Cohen, New York Times, December 1, 2007
Ever since the Nobel prize winner James D. Watson asserted six weeks ago that Africans have innately lower intelligence, fervid debates about race, genes and I.Q. have sprung up on the Web, in publications and in conference rooms.
But in recent days, along with long-simmering arguments over evidence, have come others about whether the topic is even worth studying, or whether it can be discussed openly without spurring charges of racism.
“It’s a subject that almost dare not speak its name,” said Howard Husock of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative research group, as he introduced a debate Wednesday night between James R. Flynn, the author of a new book “What Is Intelligence?” (Cambridge University Press), and Charles Murray, a co-author of “The Bell Curve,” the controversial 1994 book about intelligence that set off a previous free-for-all on race, genes and I.Q.
The risk of giving ammunition to racists or undercutting principles of equality hovers over such conversations like an uninvited dinner guest. That unwelcome visitor has been loitering at the online magazine Slate since last week, when it ran a three-part series arguing that hard science is showing that blacks’ I.Q. scores are lower than those of whites—and whites’ scores are lower than those of Asians—because of genetically based differences in intelligence.
Appearing on a site with a liberal bent and written by its generally liberal science and technology columnist, William Saletan, the articles drew particular attention—and particular scorn. {snip}
Mr. Flynn and Richard Nisbett, two noted researchers on intelligence, also criticized the Slate series as grossly one-sided. Mr. Flynn said he was most persuaded by evidence that the environment causes I.Q. differences, but added that certainty on either side is misplaced given that the research is still in its infancy.
On Wednesday, Mr. Saletan posted a fourth article labeled “Regrets,” confessing that he had not realized that J. Philippe Rushton, a researcher on whom he had heavily relied, is the president of an organization that has financed a segregationist group. He also amended his previous position, stating that it was too early to come to any firm conclusions about the causes of racial differences in intelligence.
{snip}
Mr. Saletan said he was completely unprepared for the voluminous and vehement reaction. “I did not mean to start a wildfire.”
A subject as sensitive and complicated as this deserves to have a higher level of proof, he said, adding that he erred in treating it like any other topic.
{snip}
Linda S. Gottfredson, a sociologist at the University of Delaware, insists that Mr. Saletan has nothing to apologize for. Ms. Gottfredson, who along with Mr. Flynn had been participating in a separate monthlong online debate about intelligence sponsored by the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote that Mr. Saletan “may be the first journalist to so directly acknowledge the scientific evidence” supporting a genetic explanation for racial differences in I.Q. “and to be allowed to publish his views.”
She calls the fierce response generated by the Slate articles evidence of “moral panic.” Ever since the 1970s, Ms. Gottfredson said in an interview, most researchers have steered clear of the subject altogether (Mr. Murray aside). “No one wants to stick their neck out and say what they really think for fear that they’ll get shot down like Watson or criticized,” she said. “People are in hiding.”
{snip}
Ms. Gottfredson says the cause of the black-white achievement gap is one of the most pressing social science questions, and the refusal to consider genetic causes means either blaming white racism or black culture, making it someone’s fault and placing the issue “in the moral realm.”
{snip}
To Eric Turkheimer, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia who specializes in behavior genetics, the research itself is morally weighted. Given the complex interaction between genes and the environment, Mr. Turkheimer said, “the question is fundamentally impossible to settle scientifically because we can never take people out of their environment.”
That doesn’t mean research into genetic differences in intelligence should be banned, he said, but it should be judged. “What troubled me about posts at Cato”—an exchange Mr. Turkheimer participated in—”and the tone of Saletan’s blog is the assumption that because these papers are labeled as science, they are value-neutral and they’re as deserving of respect as any other scientific hypothesis,” he said of genetic racial theories.
“But you can’t get away from what these people are trying to prove, which is exactly the basis of the stereotypical beliefs that informed segregation here for 200 years.”
{snip}
[Editor’s Note: ARNews carried parts 1, 2, and3 of Will Saletan’s article; parts 1 and 2 can be read here. Part 3 is available here. Part 4 appears below.]
Original article
(Posted on December 3, 2007)
William Saletan, slate.com, November 28
Part 3: Regrets
November 28, 2007
{snip} Most of the reaction to what I wrote has been over whether the genetic hypothesis is true, with me as an expert witness.
I don’t want this role. I’m not an expert. I think it’s misleading to dismiss the scenario, as some officials have done in response to Watson. But my attempts to characterize the evidence beyond that, even with caveats such as "partial," "preliminary," and "prima facie," have backfired. I outlined the evidence primarily to illustrate the limits of the genetic hypothesis. If it turns out to be true, it will be in a less threatening form than you might imagine. {snip}
{snip}
For the past five years, J. Philippe Rushton has been president of the Pioneer Fund, an organization dedicated to "the scientific study of heredity and human differences." During this time, the fund has awarded at least $70,000 to the New Century Foundation. To get a flavor of what New Century stands for, check out its publications on crime ("Everyone knows that blacks are dangerous") and heresy ("Unless whites shake off the teachings of racial orthodoxy they will cease to be a distinct people"). New Century publishes a magazine called American Renaissance, which preaches segregation. Rushton routinely speaks at its conferences.
I was negligent in failing to research and report this. I’m sorry. I owe you better than that.
Original article
Comments
No one wants to stick their neck out and say what they really think for fear that they’ll get shot down like Watson or criticized,” she said. “People are in hiding.”
The New Bolshevism… by the same players.
Posted by AlmostMusicPhD at 9:26 AM on December 5
Here’s an interesting tidbit indicating the extent to which this issue is exploding. Last week NPR ran an interview with Flynn in which he was given a generous amount of time to expound his environmentalist beliefs. This interview appeared on Fair Game with Faith Salie. To my surprise, the show aired a second time the following morning - the only time I have ever heard this show air in the morning. The same show aired again the following day in the evening. For all I know, it aired at other times as well when I wasn’t listening. Clearly, someone wanted this interview to be heard.
I think this may have backfired on the liberals. Flynn is a Marxist who seems to have quite convinced himself of the environmentalist position. In fact, he is so sincere that he makes no effort to conceal the magnitude of the racial differences in IQ. For him, they are simply evidence of racism. But for the general public, it is probably shocking to hear how large and consistent these differences are. And many of Flynn’s attempts to explain these differences must surely sound convoluted and unconvincing to many listeners. I had the distinct impression that the interviewer in particular was uncomfortable with the interview.
I will give one of the Flynn’s arguments as an example. He noted that American black children at 4 years old have an IQ gap of only 4.5 points with whites but that this gap increases steadily until adulthood, when it reaches 17 points. Flynn claims that such a steady progression is uncharacteristic of genetic traits. Is the general listener going to find such an argument compelling?
Posted by Tesseract at 6:12 AM on December 5
“If you are really big and have hair that resmbles a lion`s mane or about three horse tails tied together, you are smarter than any old short haired Caucasion or non-muscled Chineeze atom bomb scientist…”
Intelligence ridiculed by a man who spells Chinese with a ‘z’?
Posted by at 7:54 PM on December 4
“The Armed Forces Qualification test is an IQ test, period. They know that smarter troops are better troops, not only is it common sense, I observed it personally in combat in Viet Nam. Also, during Viet Nam, the DoD instigated a program to put 100,000 troops in the service who were below the regular IQ level. They were to be followed and measured against regular troops to determine their fitness for service, survival rate in combat, disciplinary records, achievements, etc. Well the study was never completed officially, but they went back to the prior standards and never mentioned them again.”
I have always believed that the dismal performance of blacks in Vietnam was what lead to the end of the draft. Somewhere deep in the Pentagon is a group that understands that race does matter, and to root out the worst of the blacks the all-volunteer force was born.
It’s sad, though. Think of what a unifying force a mandatory two-years of service could be, as opposed to the current situation.
Posted by William Hendershot at 5:15 PM on December 4
Getting a liberal to acknowledge logic is like trying to encourage a bird to tap-dance. When its gets too hard for them (usually after the first reconsideration heroically tries to press-fit into their brain) they fly away and alight on something else to chirp about - always something rote, something memorized, and of course, entirely irrelevant.
Posted by Gary at 5:07 PM on December 4
If genetics will be disproven as the cause of racial disparity, what will be the logically reasoned arguement that leads everyone to the same undeniable conclusion?
Posted by Reason As God at 2:40 PM on December 4
Given that the current socialist welfare system favors the breeding of the less intelligent over the responsible, zero growth breeding of Whites, where will our species be in a few hundred years. The unproductive consumers of wealth will vastly out number the creators of wealth.
This trend has been steady since at least the “Great Society” movement of LBJ and has tended to create a strong voter base for democrats and provide the right wing with the tools with which the middle and upper classes are scared into giving away freedoms in exchange for protection from this growing, festering pool of mindless feeders/breeders.
The real question posed by this research is what are we going to do to ensure our species/nation does not devolve to its least common denominator. Are we going to have the courage, while the producers are in the majority, to dismantle the welfare state that allows the least intelligent to breed the most? I sincerely hope so.
Posted by Johann at 2:27 PM on December 4
The NAACP instigated the desegration lawsuits that were combined into the Brown case in 1954. They were ready for the Supreme Court because they had all the new Social Science on their side, and with this evidence of inhumanity, they were able to go to an nine all white humane defenders of liberty and get the integration victory they wanted.
Look at the dates of the psychological studies used in Brown- several are from the 1940’s, one being from as early as 1939, which was 15 years prior to Brown, and the latest was 1951, 3 years prior to Brown.
The plantiffs had all they needed, and accumulated it over a long period of time.
Obviously, there is here exhibited a collective consciousness nexus of science and politics that knew its time had come for a Revolution against the white man’s establishment. All they needed were 9 white men to feel sorry for the plight of blacks, and they got what they wanted. Compassion and Justice- the magic sledgehammer that smashes civilization.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/11459/Appendix-Appellants-Briefs-II.html
All you racists who hope for a brighter day of freedom through racial realism had better learn from the NAACP playbook- once you have the genetic science on your side by 2054, just as they had the social science on their side in 1954, you can orgainze for filing many separate suits in far flung districts that can years later be combined into one case before the Supremes.
Do what they did…
Posted by naacp playbook at 2:14 PM on December 4
The reason that discussing average IQ matters, is not so AmRen posters can comfort themselves. If we had never heard of IQ tests we would still recognise that Blacks aren’t smart, just as all other people’s who have had contact with them for millenia have done. Average IQs are useful to our cause because they are acceptable evidence to many people, who are otherwise reluctant to believe that what they actually know about Blacks from experience is true. Obviously, our active enemies will never admit that we’re right, but we don’t need them. We need the uncertain people, who don’t know how to resolve what they see with what they’re told. Average racial IQ gives them an explanation that makes sense and relieves them of any guilt.
Posted by Schoolteacher at 2:05 PM on December 4
Brown v Board proved that whites who want to live in saftey do feel guilty about injustice- evidently, justice demands you make yourself available to violence against you.
The Uiversity of Delaware teaches that blacks have no outlet for their hostilities. Say What? Blacks are hostile?
If blacks are hostile, then why do whites feel guilty about “unrealistic” fears? Haven’t the sainted multiculturalists at Delaware now warned us about hostile blacks? Are white fears “unrealistic?” Are whites expected to commit suicide?
“Soldier, who is in charge here?”
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8552.html
snip-
“A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination. (This does not deny the existence of such prejudices, hostilities, acts of rage or discrimination.)” - Page 3
http://law.jrank.org/pages/11459/Appendix-Appellants-Briefs-II.html
Brown v Board appendix snip-
They often develop patterns of guilt feelings, rationalizations and other mechanisms which they must use in an attempt to protect themselves from recognizing the essential injustice of their unrealistic fears and hatreds of minority groups.4
Posted by never ending saga at 1:50 PM on December 4
whites will still be defenseless against the REPARATIONS NOW demands, because whites have their own genetic defect- they like to be cooperative, agreeable, and respectable. If they can tell the world they are being morally, ethically, and spiritually virtuous by paying blacks their REPARATIONS NOW, they will suicide themselves in the name of social restorative justice.
Posted by genes in the machine continued at 1:26 PM on December 4
Just the fact, lady, just the facts.
Posted by LOGIC at 12:33 PM on December 4
I have no doubt that most of those who vilify race-realism and Watson’s work are believers in Darwinian evolution. It’s double-think to accept variation and adaptation within species but limit discussion to those elements which are PC-acceptable. Physical differences such as body type and skin color are attributed to isolation of groups and the enviornment in which they live and the stresses those locales place on survival.
Yet differences regarding the development of intelligence are verboten. What evidence do they provide to validate this hypothesis? Their assertions are solely “faith” based.
In the end, their smearing of opponents is really just a cover for their own Marxist/Leninist view of humanity which claims mankind can be perfected through the efforts of a political/intellectual elite. If it’s nature NOT nurture then the elites are unnecessary and their ideology perverse.
Posted by George at 12:11 PM on December 4
Personally, I do not like the I.Q argument - White people have higher I.Q.s on ave. than the other races. It smacks of divisiveness. Further, this strategy will not end Teddy Kennedy and his Democratic Party‘s agenda to forcibly integrate us, strip us of jobs, invite hoards of new races to our country - forcing us (white people) to support them and their families in perpetuity - and, last but not least, surrendering our land to these Teddy Kennedy immigrants and refugees, who we all know damn well can NEVER, and will never, assimilate with those of European descent.
Let us get away from the I.Q argument … and concentrate on the cultural differences that separate us as races.
Posted by at 11:13 AM on December 4
After watching the eloquent African Amercians speakers at the soon to be beatified Sean taylor`s funeral, how could anyone say that African Americans are not more intelligent than white Americans or yellows?
Most of these victims of racism had fought their way out of the white man`s cultural prison and were making at least 2 million a year. They must be a lot smarter than us.
I am now convinced in what I hope will be known as the Samson syndrome. If you are really big and have hair that resmbles a lion`s mane or about three horse tails tied together, you are smarter than any old short haired Caucasion or non-muscled Chineeze atom bomb scientist.
I spent all last week in the gym and at the beach, getting ripped and bronzed. I also bought a great peruke or wig if you prefer. It has long dread locks and hangs down to the crack of my glutteous really maximus. If you can`t beat them, join them.
Charles B. Tiffany
Kissimmee, Florida
Posted by Charles B. Tiffany at 11:02 AM on December 4
Of course discussion of IQ is important. It has serious social policy implications. If we’re unable to admit there’s some genetic component for the average IQ differences between races, then we’re left with a purely environmental explanation. This “explanation” has given us such gems as affirmative action, institutional racism and of course the ever popular “white privilege”. Over the course of my time visiting AR and other sites I’ve come to believe that we have to be focused on what we can change. To me, immigration is the greatest threat to the future of America. Once European-Americans fall into minority status in our own homeland our prospects are dim. As far as the other issues often discussed here, I think it’s enlightening but isn’t going to change much. After all, European-Americans may not discuss it in polite company, but they all know the score vis-a-vis differences in race. Just look at where they choose to live and send their children to school. People being aware of the outrageous level of the urban underclass’ criminality is not going to change that criminality. Lately my pessimism regarding our collective plight has changed to optimism. Our ancestors achieved so much with so little. We will prevail. To that end I’m reminded of Sir Ernest Shackleton’s family motto: Fortitudine Vincimus (by endurance we conquer) …
Posted by seeingclearly at 9:58 AM on December 4
My two cents ~ it doesnt really matter whether sub saharan Africans have lower intelligence. Australian Abos also have lower intelligence…whats the big deal? Europe is turning into Eurabia, America is turning into Aztec land, Australia is turning yellow.
Posted by your average guy at 9:33 AM on December 4
—>Wow, how nice that Saletan’s apology (original article) gives a link to “The Color of Crime”!—as an example of how horrid we all are. Thanks, Mr. Saletan, for turning on your readers to even another racial subject of great importance. I can hear the iceberg tearing into the side of the great ship of egalitarianism, as it attempts to plow on at full steam.
Posted by H. Dumpty at 9:43 PM on December 3
Great point. Any links to The Color of Crime, or for that matter, to AR, are a plus for the cause of race realism. There are probably millions of disaffected whites who feel just as we do, but who had no idea where to find honest commentary on race.
Well, hopefully many of them have now found a home. This awakening is building, and the more links to AmRen the better.
Posted by at 9:19 AM on December 4
Saletan misses the most obvious point: Rushton is a member of the Pioneer Fund precisely because of the legitimacy and veracity of Rushton’s scientific conclusions.
It would be like discrediting Galileo’s scientific theories just becaue Galileo associated with other astronomer who — God Forbid — had the audacity to also believe that the Earth circled the Sun, not vice versa.
Posted by Kevin at 9:17 AM on December 4
” Moreover, we should be more preoccupied with the issues of immigration, the White elite power structure that is selling us out and other related issues as opposed to obsessing over IQ’s. Just a thought.Posted by Concerend for our race at 8:50 PM on December 3”
Obsessing about IQ ( and the historical accomplishments of the West ) has been the comforting teddy bear for whites, their version of “whistling in the dark.” The same for the constant villification of the “people of color.” That preoccupation allows them a mechanism for denial of the obvious truth: that all of their perceived problems, real or imagined, has absolutely nothing to do with IQ / intelligence, but rather, their inability
to trust one another to achieve a common goal, that their most powerful, implacable enemies are their own white elites, who will not hesitate to sell them out. Deep in their subconscious, whites fear their own people more than anyone else on the planet.
Posted by at 4:28 AM on December 4
The ad hominim attack is all the egalitarians have left. They refuse to deal with the scientific facts, dismissing them without refuting them and attacking the messenger by name calling or demeaning the facts because of associations.
The Armed Forces Qualification test is an IQ test, period. They know that smarter troops are better troops, not only is it common sense, I observed it personally in combat in Viet Nam. Also, during Viet Nam, the DoD instigated a program to put 100,000 troops in the service who were below the regular IQ level. They were to be followed and measured against regular troops to determine their fitness for service, survival rate in combat, disciplinary records, achievements, etc. Well the study was never completed officially, but they went back to the prior standards and never mentioned them again.
The sad thing is that Dr. Watson was right, until we move on from the equality myth, blacks and browns are doomed to fail. The bar is set too high for them, just as the National Basketball Assn. is too high a goal for all but a very few whites. Even most college basketball players are black, because the game plays to their strengths, speed and jumping ability. That doesn’t mean whites are inferior people, it just means they need to find a different career path.
We need to recognize that most blacks and browns are better suited for service, sales and blue collar jobs,like auto mechanic where the bar is not too high, instead of college english, research scientist or IT tech. No slam is intended, there is a shortage of automobile mechanics and many IT techs are out of work. Which is better to be trained for right now?
Posted by not surprised at 12:47 AM on December 4
On Wednesday, Mr. Saletan posted a fourth article labeled “Regrets,” confessing that he had not realized that J. Philippe Rushton, a researcher on whom he had heavily relied, is the president of an organization that has financed a segregationist group.
Yes, Prof. Rushton is president of is the Pioneer Fund. They are just about the only source of private funding for research into racial differences or of the relation between IQ and genetics. Since this subject is too taboo to be funded by public sources much important research, such as the famous Minnesota Twin Studies, could not have been done without them.
So thank God for the Pioneer Fund.
Nobody bats an eye that the Ford Foundation funds La Raza or that major corporations fund the NAACP, which advocates discrimination against whites, but heaven help us if one tiny foundation sends a little money to the New Century Foundation.
Posted by WR the elder at 11:42 PM on December 3
What kind of a reporter is this Mr Saletan? He is surprised to find out that research on racial differences is funded by an organization that also supports a publication that openly discusses the political, economic, and social implications of that research? Did he imagine that Professor Rushton’s work was supported by the SPLC?
It’s possible, I suppose, that he has been asked to sacrifice himself for international liberalism, by beginning the slow process of ridding them of a once useful tool, which has now become a burden: the Black race.
Posted by Schoolteacher at 11:41 PM on December 3
Wow, how nice that Saletan’s apology (original article) gives a link to “The Color of Crime”!—as an example of how horrid we all are. Thanks, Mr. Saletan, for turning on your readers to even another racial subject of great importance. I can hear the iceberg tearing into the side of the great ship of egalitarianism, as it attempts to plow on at full steam.
Posted by H. Dumpty at 9:43 PM on December 3
Given the complex interaction between genes and the environment, Mr. Turkheimer said, “the question is fundamentally impossible to settle scientifically because we can never take people out of their environment.”
Nonsense. We can isolate genes that are responsible for hereditary diseases, can’t we? And we’ve done that without reference to “environmental” factors in disease etiology. We therefore don’t need to isolate humans from their “environment” to determine which genes are responsible for intelligence, nor is the “interaction” between heredity and “environment” in determining intelligence so inherently “complex” that scientific inquiry is incapable of ascertaining the relative significance of the genetic component.
“But you can’t get away from what these people are trying to prove, which is exactly the basis of the stereotypical beliefs that informed segregation here for 200 years.”
This is the classic
ad consequentiam fallacy: You can’t make an argument or conduct a line of research because of the conclusions the argument or research
may lead to. This sort of fallacy was used to make Galileo recant his views about astronomy: it contradicted the Bible, and could lead to atheism. It is equally fallacious
and pernicious to claim that research into genetic bases for intelligence should not be pursued because the results could be used to argue in favor of segregation. Turkheimer is not a scientist, but simply a modern day Inquisitor, trying to roust heresy with pseudo-scientific, politically correct arguments.
Posted by Zorba_the_Geek at 9:02 PM on December 3
If Mr. Saletan got dumped from Slate today and tomorrow hired on else where at the same pay he would tell his tormenters to kiss his butt. The reality is if he gets dumped he not only loses that income but he is on the outs with all his lucrative so-called friends. What would you expect any sane intelligent left-winger to do? Stand up like a man?
Posted by P Noctura at 9:01 PM on December 3
I rmember reading a few posts on a related topic and I agree - some of us White nationalists spend too much time discussing and debating the issue of IQ’s. While we all know that Whites on average have a higher IQ than most other ethnic groups with the possible exception of Asians, the fact is that a person’s IQ does not always correlate with success in life. In fact, many people with very high IQ’s tend to be dysfunctional, lack commonsense and have a whole slew of psychological problems.
Moreover, we should be more preoccupied with the issues of immigration, the White elite power structure that is selling us out and other related issues as opposed to obsessing over IQ’s.
Just a thought.
Posted by Concerend for our race at 8:50 PM on December 3
LOL, younger people already know this. We know black kids are not too smart and impulsive, Asians are super smart, patient and reserved, white kids just want to be cool like black kids unless you are smart then you hang out with the Asian kids. Hispanic kids are gonna be the hands on laborers. We grew up together in school. Older people are jus starting to talk bout this?
Posted by videogamer at 8:06 PM on December 3
If, & when, they’ve ever sorted out the IQ matter, they can then go on to something even more important: the relationship between race & psychopathic behavior, which AmRen dealt with in 2004 (look it up). Every day, news headlines confirm what that article outlines. If only a lack of IQ were the only thing that stood in the way of equality.
Posted by at 7:40 PM on December 3
Since when has the truth or falsity of an empirical proposition of the form, “the world is like this” ever been dependent for its truth value on whom the person uttering it is associated with? This is what is called an ad hominum argument, a species of invalid form of argumentation. To discover whether or not the proposition is true, one must look at the world, not at the organizations the person making the claim may or may not be associated with. Such a simple logical error could only be the result of a deep seated bias and has no scientific basis. The fact that such an argument would carry any weight with anyone is a sad commentary on the general level of intelligence and the corresponding level of discussion. If anyone made such an argument in Philosophy 101, he/she would fail the course.
Posted by at 6:40 PM on December 3
Notice how William Saletan uses the fact that (a) J. Philippe Rushton has contributed to the New Century Foundation, and is president of the Pioneer Fund, as (b) proof positive that anything he has written on the connection between race, IQ, and genetics, is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Mr. Saleton, let me fill you in on something: Just because you find a theory, scientific or otherwise, to be, by your lights, morally repugnant, doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s factually inaccurate. You hand-wringing, self-hating white liberals are so wedded to your cherished beliefs about the causes of black stupidity that you see the acknowledgement of any theory that doesn’t blame “white racism” as tantamount to the downfall of society as you know it. Come to think about it, maybe it is!
Posted by Wayne Engle at 6:38 PM on December 3
