Liberals Deny Science, Too

Chris Mooney, Washington Post, October 28, 2014

Conservatives often face a lot of questions–and controversies–for their views on science. {snip}

Liberals get a lot less flack, in general, for ignoring scientific findings. Yet there is also reason to think they, too, are susceptible to allowing their political biases influence their reading of certain scientific questions. And now, a new study just out in the journal Sociological Spectrum accuses them of just that.

The study is far from the authoritative word on the subject of left wing science denial. Rather, it is a provocative, narrow look at the question. In particular, the study examined a group of left wing people–academic sociologists–and evaluated their views on a fairly esoteric scientific topic. The specific issue was whether the evolutionary history of human beings has an important influence on our present day behavior. In other words, whether or not we are “blank slates,” wholly shaped by the culture around us.


The new study, by University of Texas-Brownville sociologist Mark Horowitz and two colleagues, surveyed 155 academic sociologists. 56.7 percent of the sample was liberal, another 28.6 percent was identified as radical, and only 4.8 percent were conservative.  Horowitz, who describes himself as a politically radical, social-justice oriented researcher, said he wanted to probe their views of the possible evolutionary underpinnings of various human behaviors. {snip}

Sure enough, the study found that these liberal academics showed a pretty high level of resistance to evolutionary explanations for phenomena ranging from sexual jealousy to male promiscuity.

In fairness, the sociologists were willing to credit some evolutionary-style explanations. Eight-one percent found it either plausible or highly plausible that “some people are born genetically with more intellectual potential than others,” and 70 percent ascribed sexual orientation to “biological roots.” Meanwhile, nearly 60 percent of sociologists in the sample considered it “plausible” that human beings have a “hardwired” taste preference for foods that are full of fat and sugar, and just under 50 percent thought it plausible that we have an innate fear of snakes and spiders (for very sound, survival-focused reasons).

Yet the study also found that these scholars were less willing to consider evolutionary explanations for other aspects of human behavior, especially those relating to male-female differences. Less than 50 percent considered it plausible that that “feelings of sexual jealousy have a significant evolutionary biological component,” for instance, and just 36.4 percent considered it plausible that men “have a greater tendency towards promiscuity than women due to an evolved reproductive strategy.” While it is hard to be absolutely definitive on either of these issues (we weren’t there to observe evolution happen), evolutionary psychologists have certainly argued in published studies that people exhibit jealousy in sexual relationships in order to ensure reproductive fidelity and preserve the resources that come from a partner, and that men are more promiscuous because they are not constrained in how often they can attempt to reproduce.

So is this proof positive that academic sociologists are science deniers? Not at all. Still, it’s certainly noteworthy that a substantial minority of these scholars are resistant even to the least controversial evolutionary explanations, such as those involving hardwired tastes for certain foods or innate fears of poisonous critters.


There’s no doubt that many left leaning academics have historically been quite skeptical about evolutionary psychology, presumably out of the fear that ascribing certain traits to biology suggests that they cannot be changed–and thus, can perpetuate inequality. The famed Harvard cognitive scientist Steven Pinker extensively challenged their “blank slate” view in a bestselling 2002 book. Going back further, in the storied “sociobiology” wars of the 1970s, evolutionary thinkers like Harvard’s E.O. Wilson sought to apply their understanding of humankind’s origins to modern human behavior–and fell into a ferocious row with broadly left-leaning scholars who attacked biological or genetic “determinism,” and defended the idea that social factors explain most of what we need to know about why people do what they do.

Asked to comment on Horowitz’s study, Pinker had this to say:

I’m not surprised by the findings of the study. Sociology itself is a divided discipline, with radically diverging views on the role of science in general and of course evolution and genetics in particular. Nor am I surprised that gender is the bloodiest shirt. Together with race, gender has always been the biggest impetus for believing in the blank slate, and since the Larry Summers affair almost a decade ago, that has only intensified. (Pinker defended Summers here.)

 The prominent New York University social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, author of the bestselling book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided Over Politics and Religion and known for criticizing his fellow scholars for their liberal biases, had a similar take:

When the facts conflict with . . . sacred values, almost everyone finds a way to stick with their values and reject the evidence. On the left, including the academic left, the most sacred issues involve race and gender. So that’s where you find the most direct and I’d say flagrant denial of evidence. I think the results of this study do clearly show that political concerns influence the willingness of sociologists to consider a major class of causal factors in human behavior.


Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • MekongDelta69

    The combined IQ of college sociologists approximates an October day in Anchorage, Alaska.

    And their combined common sense comes in even lower on that scale.

    They have an AGENDA – and they will not allow any FACTS to get in their way of destroying this country.

    • E7 sharp 9

      I wonder how it will work out for the “Liberals” when they achieve all their genocidal goals. Will they then consume themselves, like the snake eating its own tail?

      • JENNIFER7

        @disqus_AtEpbALXDm:disqus my friend’s step-aunt makes $71/hr on the computer. She has been without a job for 5 months but last month her payment was $18800 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on,….CashStored.cₒm

      • me

        Nope. Then they wait for their ‘king’ to rule over the kali yuga. It has been proclaimed, so it shall be.

    • Interested Party

      This article reminds me of a social psychology course I attended. The course instructor, who was a PhD in clinical psychology, openly confessed that most social psychologists have a social agenda that influences their convictions. To back up her claim, she cited the first chapter of the course textbook in which the author openly admitted his agenda. Thus, in social psychology, facts are not as important as beliefs.
      In one example of how this works, the author of the textbook included several newspaper stories about politically incorrect behaviour and then he would write comments such as “It is hard to believe people in this day and age still behave or think that way”. However, the newspaper articles were only vaguely related the studies or subject matter that was presented. Thus, for every study that was presented, I received a helping of propaganda.
      It got worse in grad school. I literally had to read about how white privilege interferes with the delivery of psychotherapy and consultations. Fortunately, the author of that text included a procedure I could follow that would make me aware of my unfair race-based advantages and help me to overcome it. This is the absolute truth. What is even more remarkable is that nobody in the class challenged it.

      • archer

        Yes, I have friends like this, I call them “ideologues”.

        • propagandaoftruth

          “The new study, by University of Texas-Brownville sociologist Mark Horowitz and two colleagues, surveyed 155 academic sociologists. 56.7 percent of the sample was liberal, another 28.6 percent was identified as radical, and only 4.8 percent were conservative.”

          Self filtering ideological pseudo science – Boasian ideologues.

          Less than 5% “conservative”…

        • me

          Me, too. I just call them ‘idiots’.

        • I used to have friends like that. They weren’t the sort of friends who would help a fellow move; they would just tell me things.

    • Publius Pompilius Quietus

      Please don’t use ad hominem fallacies like this. It is infantile and reflects poorly on us.

      • none of your business

        It is the absolute truth. Liberals totally ignore any truth and facts we present. So why not have a little fun? They won’t believe whatever we write.

      • me

        Where did you wander in from? And who is this ‘us’ of which you speak? Another champion of the First Amendment, I see….
        Go away!

        • Stan D Mute

          I didn’t just wander in and I agree with him.

    • Stan D Mute

      I know it’s easy to say our enemies are just stupid and that explains things, the facts don’t support the charge. There are some very smart people who embrace the lie of racial equality and for a variety of reasons. I’ll need to look into this study some more, but one thought immediately is that if the Q/A wasn’t 100% anonymous that the results are unreliable. Admitting you believe in genetic determinism in an academic institution, especially a sociology or anthropology department, is career and social suicide. Also, I’ll post a thought experiment of my own as a separate comment and will be interested to learn your take on it.

  • DaveMed

    Science is the province of Old White People.

    And Asians, but they are only “people of color” when appropriate for the Left’s purposes.

    • Publius Pompilius Quietus

      That may indeed be the Left’s argument one day if cognitive differences between the races are ever scientifically proven.

      • Stan D Mute

        If they’re proven? How much more evidence do you need?

  • AmericanCitizen

    I always thought that the way Lib/Progs embrace “science” was highly selective. They’ll tell you the science is settled concerning global climate change, they’ll tell you all about the gay gene and evolution is unquestioned, as is their unshaken knowledge that religion is all a false charade.

    Yet these same Progs will deny any type of genetic/hereditary/different races when it concerns humans. Any evidence showing racial disparities that could be from genetics is instantly denounced as “racist” – which we all know means the Prog doesn’t have a factual argument. If the data is unimpeachable and unassailable, well then the scientist himself is a racist, or he has some nefarious secret agenda for publishing the data and exposing himself to a media firestorm.

    On a side note, ever notice how the political Lib experts who know all about global warming or genetics or racial equality know this because of their educational background: a liberal arts degree that’s 30 years old.

    • MannyR

      I once worked with a guy who had just graduated with a masters degree in philosophy. I asked him why he choose that degree and he admitted to me it was so he could become a college professor and get tenure. His whole goal in life was to sit around and read books while making 150 k a year. They are no different than the lawmakers of Rome. Upper class useless trash living off society while we struggle

      • none of your business

        They are not really upper class and because jobs as philosophy profs are so rare they end up making lower middle class wages but think they are upper class because they have elite upper class opinions.

      • redpill99

        isn’t it difficult to be a philosophy professor? what is their average salary at a state school?

    • Stan D Mute

      First off, there is a spectrum on the left just like there is on the right. That spectrum is split by belief and also by intellect of the believer. For example, a 70 IQ Bantu who believes in complete racial equality isn’t the same as 140 IQ WASP’s who (claim to) believe the same. The same is true for the 85 IQ rump pounder who insists gays must have all the rights and privileges of the heteros raising families and the 135 IQ Chinaman hetero who votes the same ticket.

      The binary political system we have is a big part of our problem today I think. It might have worked in a representative republic (not sure on that one either), but it’s a disaster in the sort of direct democracy we’ve devolved into today. Into which party would one fit if he thought HIV patients should be quarantined and drugs legalized? Does one vote Democrat if he strongly supports social welfare programs, but happens to think welfare recipients should be rendered unable to reproduce? Is one a Republican if he is fanatically pro laissez-faire capitalist and just as fanatically pro abortion? How about the voter who is pro Union but utterly opposed to desegregation?

      Second, how much of one’s public stance is genuine? Could any non-tenured professor so much as hint that negroes may have diminished intellect versus other races? Could any tenured professor make such a comment and still have friends on campus or classes he’s allowed to instruct?

      Third, what if someone knows negroes have very limited cognition, but strongly believes everyone is entitled to the same human rights, dignity, and respect? Could he abide a society where all but a tiny percentage of negroes are employed as fruit and vegetable pickers or ditch diggers – where being a negro means a 1 in a hundred chance of escaping abject poverty while whites have a vast middle class?

      • You are correct, in that the modern left-right American political spectrum is really strange. Not only for the reasons you state, but also for the fact that it’s about the only one in the world that’s a libertarian-authoritarian spectrum and not the kind most of the rest of the white world uses, a universalist-particularist spectrum.

        The only thing that keeps the disparate elements of the left together is their common contempt for “white bread America” for whatever disparate reasons they hold us in contempt. The only thing that keeps the greater “right” somewhat together is the fear of the left.

        • Stan D Mute

          That’s an interesting observation. How do issue voters like hard-core Unionists or pro-choicers or gun rights/gun grabbers fit? I think there are a whole lot (or used to be anyway) of Union guys who are social conservative. Government rent-seekers may be the new form of social conservative but fiscal liberal and voting left for their livelihood.

          You’re right of course for the gays, negroes, mestizos, Asians, and self-hating anti-whites. But I still think there are enough single issue outliers who could tip the balance. Plus we have truly vast numbers of non-voters. What’s your take on that? Disaffected real conservatives with no place to go?

          • The blue team has pretty much given up on white people who are in labor unions who work in manufacturing or heavy industry. Politically, they either vote mostly Republican or they don’t vote. The life and 2A issues — Those are easy to see how they fit in the contrived left-right: Pro-choice and anti-gun go on the left because those who feel that way think that pro-life and pro-2A are positions of traditional white bread America.

  • Mary

    Sociologists are generally wedded to the blank slate theory with full-fledged zealotry. I remember the one college Sociology course I was made to endure. The textbook (black child on the cover, of course) stated point-blank that the only male-female difference was reproductive. I rolled my eyes and sighed with disgust. Now that I’m raising three boys, the idea that males and females are fundamentally the same aside for reproductive systems is
    so utterly, laughably absurd. So absurd, only a leftist academic could possibly believe it.

    • me

      Genitals are a social construct! Get with the ‘progrom’, comrade!

    • Stan D Mute

      And yet in our system, being fanatically “pro-choice” means you vote for male/female “equality” whether you know it to be true or false.

      • Anonymous

        no it doesn’t. I am fanatically pro-choice but it has nothing to do with equality and womens rights. The vast majority of women who get abortions are low IQ, low class, low education, low income, Black or Hispanic, and very young. Why would anyone want people like that to have more kids?

        The only way I would ever turn pro-life is if IQ 140 women with Phds, husbands, and six figure incomes got abortions all the time. The fact is, among high IQ women, they either practise abstinence if they are good, or they use contraception meticulously if they are naughty.

    • Anonymous

      Males and females are fundamentally different from each other…ON AVERAGE. If you are saying that men and women only have differences and that men and women never overlap in any measurable trait, you are just as wrong as the liberals and feminists.

      Example: The average man is taller than the average woman. That being said, each height distribution has a standard deviation. That’s why 5’10” women exist and 5’4″ men exist.

      • Mary

        No, Anonymous, that is not my belief. And, yes, anyone who would deny overlap would be dead wrong. My point was that leftist sociologists are so militantly egalitarian in their beliefs that most will not concede that many male/female differences are largely innate. They believe that literally all male/female AVERAGE differences are due to social conditioning and never biology. Many are intractable in their beliefs. I believe that there is a complex interplay between biology and social conditioning/environment. Of course, this will sometimes result in outcomes that deviate from the average.

        • Anonymous

          I won’t criticise you on this since you are not the one who is a militant “gender realist”. A lot of MRA’s are basically having a kneejerk reaction to liberalism and feminism. They basically state the exact opposite of what the feminists are saying, and then both sides end up being factually incorrect.

  • shatwood

    The facade can only last for so long.

    • me

      Speaking of facades….Nice avatar! Sad, sad tale of Twisty! Those evil dwarves!

      • shatwood

        Ha! I still got to watch the episode, but I did know Twisty’s days were numbered.

  • LHathaway

    Like anthropology and sociology, evolutionary psychology is also a fraud. For all three of these fields, it’s not about ‘science’ but releasing information meant to influence the public.

    • me

      The protocols must be followed, comrade!

  • Luca

    Liberals believe whatever they believe fits their agenda. They are never swayed by empirical evidence, facts, logic reasoning or common sense. Liberalism is a cult and you can’t expect cult followers to be swayed by anything other than what they have been programmed to believe.

    • evilsandmich

      For example:
      skeptical about evolutionary psychology, presumably out of the fear that ascribing certain traits to biology suggests that they cannot be changed

      Riiight. Remember how outraged lefties were when someone found that homosexuality could be “treated”. Someone getting chemical treatment to become a tranny is perfectly cool, but to imply that thosr in their favorite victim groups might find their way out (if they so desire) is heresy against the PC church.

      • Luca

        They thrive on representing victims. Where victims do not exist, they create them.

    • JohnEngelman

      That is not true of all liberals. It is true of many conservatives. Strong opinions occupy weak minds.

      • Luca

        Well, that is certainly a catchy phrase but are you saying it is impossible for strong minds to have strong opinions?

        Liberals love to chant slogans when they have nothing to say.

        • JohnEngelman

          A problem with strong opinions is that they frequently muscle facts to the ground that discredit them. An intelligent, well informed person understands the complexity of situations, and has opinions moderated by an appreciation of nuance.

          What you say about liberals is only true of some liberals, as it is true of many conservatives.

          • Luca

            That’s because some liberals are quasi-liberal like yourself.

            Strong opinions are fine if they are steeped in empirical evidence, facts, and common sense.

            If you opine that the sun is hot, is that really complex or up for debate?

          • JohnEngelman

            No, but there is plenty of evidence, some of which I have posted here, that the U.S. economy usually does better when a Democrat is president.

          • me

            And being the ‘genius’ that you are, you should know all about money manipulation and how it would affect ‘genius’ voters, no?

          • Luca

            John, you remind of the die hard fascists in Italy, who when confronted with the facts that Mussolini was a tyrant, a puppet of Hitler, had ruined the Italian economy, entered into meaningless wars, and lead Italy down the wrong path, would respond with the phrase: ” Yes, but he made the trains run on time.”

            Your cherry-picked, micro-managed statistics do not win the argument or save the day for Democrats.

            I am not a party-line guy. I think JFK got it right, LBJ got it all wrong, Nixon was a jerk on the economy and a few other fronts as well and I am not a fan of either of the Bushes. I believe Clinton did well on the economy mostly because he benefited from a peace time, post cold-war economy, his hand was forced by a Republican senate on many issues, especially welfare spending and he was in office while a business technology revolution was taking place. Regardless, the economy was good under Clinton.

            So please stop telling everyone here that the Democrats made the trains run on time. There is more to that story.

          • Clinton had a Republican House of Representatives for six years, too. That’s where spending bills originate.

          • me

            Is that your strong opinion?

    • Stan D Mute

      So liberalism is a religion?

      • Luca

        Religions tend to do something worthwhile some of the time and allow there followers to leave or enter at will. Liberalism is a cult. Cults demand that you follow strict rules without question and serve no other purpose than to glorify its leaders and agenda.

        Probably every person who followed Jim Jones and drank the kool-aid was a liberal.

        • Stan D Mute

          One could as easily label any religion a cult. Islam? Cult. Christianity? Cult. Their leaders dress in fancy clothes and make great money while the followers may starve for all the leaders care. Isn’t “cult” really the same as “racist”? A term for those whose beliefs anger you, but against whom you have no real factual case, you just “know” you’re right and they’re wrong?

          No, that’s too simplistic. Liberalism may be a cult for some, perhaps the most fanatic, but for most I think it is religion. They genuinely believe that they are improving the world. They are genuinely appalled at negroes being treated differently than whites or men telling women “what to do with their bodies”.

  • When we see “science,” we think it means “science.”

    When the left sees “science,” they think it means “left wing politics.”

    • Stan D Mute

      The left ignores facts that don’t fit its narrative. But then doesn’t the right do the same?

  • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

    Intellectually honest people are a very small minority of the population and the two most obvious issues where people tend to go with what makes them feel good over siding with the facts are religion (death denial) and race.

    • Lion’s Mane

      And nowadays, people will follow religious leaders who tell them that it’s “god’s will” for their children to be given to other races in marriage. Religion, when it comes alive, takes over, and everything else in life is secondary. Reason is silenced when it does not support unsubstantiated dogma.

      • none of your business

        What religion tells people it is God’s will to give their children to other races in marriage?? I’m interested.
        Liberalism is a religion; religious fanaticism.

        • Lion’s Mane

          Note: I did not say that a given religion itself necessarily tells this to people, but rather that today’s religious leaders often do. Unlike in earlier times, very few are the pastors and clergymen today who do not teach that “racism” and “White Pride” are “sin,” and that racial intermarriage is harmless and innocent in the sight of God, if not also virtuous. Miscegenation is the most obvious public demonstration of a religious person’s acceptance of this teaching.

          MLK, for example, told White people at a high school in Michigan that if they did not approve of intermarriage of Whites and Blacks, that they would, in the end, perforce commit genocide against Blacks.

          Also, I have heard that Islam teaches that “racism” is sin and forbids it. However, I’m no authority on this question.

        • Lion’s Mane

          Today’s Christianity.

          ” Billy Graham himself recently told white Christians they had a moral duty to foster total racial integration ‘in our homes, in our worship services, even in our marriages.’ ”

          Google – The Christian Doctrine of Nations by H. A. Scott Trask

          Trask adds: “It would be hard to overestimate the extent to which churches have surrendered to the leftist worldview.”

          • Sad irony: The preacher who brought a young Billy Graham to Christ was a dyed in the wool racialist and segregationist.

          • Were I religious and attending a service in which that was said, I would have stood up, walked out and driven home. I’m partly Amerind and married to a Japanese, but I understand remarks like that to suggest mating with blacks. I regard that as bestiality with the completely unfortunate aspect that we are inter-fertile.

            If that is what religion is about, I utterly reject it. I’m glad I was never baptised. At this rate, nobody in my family ever will be.

          • Anonymous

            The pro-segregation folks aren’t just implying their opposition to Black-White race mixing. They are against your existence because you are mixed race, and they are against the existence of your child. The way I see it, at least Black people aren’t telling me who I can and cannot marry and have a child with.

    • Luca

      ..and politics.

    • guest

      Religion = Death Denial? Hmmm. Humility before the mysteries that envelop us is not so much hedonism as prudence–part of the basic matter of protecting ourselves from ourselves. Tradition underscored both the wisdom of acknowledging our envelopment within Nature and the wisdom of observing in our acts and omissions the evolved biological differences among humans. As some presenters in the earlier AR Conferences pointed out, Christianity is not the enemy. The philosophical egoism of such people as Revilo Oliver and William L. Pierce has done huge detriment to our interests.

  • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

    “…these scholars were less willing to consider evolutionary explanations for . . . male-female differences.”


    Harald Eia is a Norwegian comic who produced a devastating documentary on the hugely funny fanatics of gender equality in Norwegian academia and media.

    Eia’s documentary was so effective he inspired liberal/left Norway to defund various gender equality projects. It is only 39 minutes. You owe it to yourself to watch it — subtitles in English and all. At YouTube type:


    • LHathaway

      The gender equality paradox is that we must find new ways to convince men to be garbage collectors and construction workers, because while the male-female gap in regards to education and income has narrowed, in some cases even tipping in the favor of women, the garbage collector and construction worker gap has not narrowed one bit. Women can’t be fooled into thinking these jobs are something they want to do and that doing them consists of a ‘breakthrough’. Another failure in these gender equality efforts is that women will not marry a man who is smaller and weaker than her, and no matter their income gains, they won’t marry men who make little money. Challenging gender roles, and efforts to reduce domestic violence (against women) have limits, apparently.

      I’m a bit undecided when I hear the evidence of gender differences even among small children, like that shown in the documentary you post. I wonder if it is part of an effort to fill these jobs, but I think it more likely an effort to sell men’s right’s – to open the door to men’s right’s – to the right thinking and progressive. I suspect this because left wing news publications will discuss boys difficulties as being 100% biological. More centrist publications, that print an odd men’s right’s type article, will suggest boys difficulties are 75% biologically based. Right wing news sources will attribute this 50% to genetics and 50% to environment.

      Whether they are trying to fill construction worker jobs or not, leftists will never go back on their fundamental goal of protecting and improving the condition of women and girls (who they know, more than anything else, are victims in our society). I suspect it’s the only way (for now) to get the right-thinking at least open minded about men’s rights issues. That’s my opinion.

      • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

        “The gender equality paradox is that we must find new ways to convince (wo)men to be garbage collectors and construction workers, because while the male-female gap in regards to education and income has narrowed, in some cases even tipping in the favor of women, the garbage collector and construction worker gap has not narrowed one bit.”
        I think you men “women” in the first sentence. If so, interesting angle. But I doubt if Harald Eia has any hidden agenda to sell “men’s rights” from a progressive viewpoint. I’ve seen others of his documentaries, including one of “race” which was featured here on Amren.

        • LHathaway

          No. I meant exactly what I wrote, “we must find new ways to convince men to be garbage collectors and construction workers”

          Why would you have difficulty comprehending that? I’m all for your, or anyone’s, efforts to convince women to become garbage collectors. Good luck with that.

          These news articles are attempting to sell men’s rights TO a liberal audience. Yes, I watched the other one on race also.

    • me

      All of his documentaries are excellent. I highly recommend them.

    • Luca

      I subscribe to his YouTube channel. The Norwegians are breathtakingly brainwashed into the liberal sphere of influence. They are beyond reach. Their sociologists will tell you homosexuality is perfectly normal and anyone can chose either gender at any time.

  • Adolf Verloc

    Believers in the Blank Slate have no choice but to hold the line about ANY attribution of traits to evolution. This includes fierce denunciations of the ideas that East Africans dominate long distance running or Asians tend to do poorly in sports involving strength because of their genes.

    I have had Blank Slaters claim to me that sickle-cell trait is not related to the evolutionary history of those who have it. Pointing out that it is not strictly a black trait, but a trait that increases in populations exposed to malaria, has no effect.

  • Evette Coutier

    Because science must always conform to political doctrine.

    • Kenner

      The iron curtain has shifted a bit. Drat those plate tectonics!

  • The conservative professors I worked with in academia were as married to their ideologies as the lefties. Only a handful of people I met could be described as genuine truth seekers.

    Thus, ALWAYS take academic studies skeptically. As one of my independent minded profs, J. Ernest Tanner, used to say, you always run your research results through the sieve of common sense.

    Common sense says that the races differ in significant ways that do not vary with the society they live in. Thus, DNA must play a GIANT role in human behavior.

    • I am very glad my old work was in laboratory chemistry. Various reagents don’t care whether they were historically oppressed or tragically misunderstood. They just do what they do.

  • JackKrak

    Remember when the Halfrican in Chief told us that he would “restore science to its rightful place” at his first coronation to thunderous applause?

    These are the same people who will look at you in genuine bewilderment if you suggest there might be a scientific background to racial and gender differences. Their pretend scientific enlightenment is strictly limited to laughing at you for denying “climate change” – ask them about anything else & they will stick their fingers in their ears.

    • MannyR

      Every time one of them brings up climate change I suggest we should definitely do something to drastically bring down C02 emissions, like stopping all monetary and food aid to Africa so that nature can take its course.they shut up quick and move on.

    • Frank_DeScushin

      They also laugh at religious Conservatives who don’t believe in evolution. When you then apply evolution to the races of humans, however, they become enraged. Apparently, evolution affected all species of animals creating the differences among species and subspecies, but evolution absolutely, positively created no differences among the races of humans other than the physical differences we can see. They will hold to this insanity, and smugly walk away believing they are far more intelligent than the ignorant racist they were just talking to. It would be funny if it wasn’t so infuriating.

    • Max

      “I do believe in spooks. I do I do I do”!

  • Frank_DeScushin

    “Eight-one percent found it either plausible or highly plausible that “some people are born genetically with more intellectual potential than others,”

    Ha! Ha! These college professors are allegedly supposed to be intelligent, but yet about a fifth of them don’t think its plausible that some people are born with more intellectual potential than others. It’s so self evident that some people have more intellectual potential than others that only the person most lacking in academic ability would believe otherwise. Either that are someone so blinded by their ideology.

    • Valmont

      Shakespeare’s forehead, all by itself, should be enough evidence to prove this.

      • Max

        Hydrocephalic idiots can have a high forehead. Appearance alone can be deceiving.

    • Science is not a matter of public opinion, so whether 81% of the population believes that the moon is made of green cheese is completely irrelevant.

  • Guest

    When I was very young, I wanted desperately to have an awesome singing voice and be a great singer. However, Nature did not endow me with that talent. It’s just something I’ve had to learn to live with. We all have to accept many disappointments in life. The same holds for any kind of human ability, be it athletic or intellectual, etc. It’s part Nature, part Nurture — but DNA clearly has a substantial “say” in these matters.

  • Ike Eichenberg

    A person can have immense brain power, such as John Nash, and still suffer from mental illness.
    Many liberals are not lacking in intelligence, just afflicted with a mental disorder that prevents facts from penetrating the delusions.

  • De Doc

    Unfortunately sociology has fallen victim to the whims of Leftist political views with science being shelved when it brings forth uncomfortable truths. Sure, most sociologists have little problem with evolution in general, but not when it flies in the face of egalitarian idealism for all humankind.

    • JohnEngelman

      Secular liberals use evolution as a weapon against white Protestant Fundamentalists, whom they dislike. Then they deny the evolutionary implications of race realism in order to defend blacks, whom they like.

      • none of your business

        Who they like. Whom is the object of a preposition of whom for whom.

  • none of your business

    I call it all fraudology Sigmund Freud is Dr Fraud. His bogus invention if Fraudian psychology. Sociologists are like Judges the Vicars of Satan on earth, they just make it up as they go along. Most had to pay someone else to take their statistics exam.

    • guest

      Broad brush and smeary paint, here, I believe. The task is to sift out of the remarkable “depth psychology” of Mesmer, Braid, Charcot and Janet and of Morton Prince, et al.–the insights to subconscious dynamics as distinct to the really remarkable( if ingeniously offensive) literary metaphysic that Freud used to claim it all for himself. It is apt irony that the repressions today regarding race and gender distinctions are in many ways similar to the repressions of the Victorian era regarding sexual passion. It is a big, big mistake to make a pin cushion out of the realities of subconscious dynamics. BTW, a very real “fraudology” , as Thomas Szasz underscored, is the pervasive “chemical lobotomy” that calls itself “medication”.

  • redpill99

    i have a question, why is sociology so leftwing radicalized? were they student radicals who entered into sociology or were they radicalized by sociology? how sound is sociology as a science?

    • Evette Coutier

      People major in sociology because it’s a blow off curriculum and they don’t have the smarts to survive a real major. It’s 1/2 a step above black studies.

    • none of your business

      It is easy plus they can use it to further their latest ideology. But being a lefty is an imperative part of the prof employment process. There was a natural red head with pale as snow skin teaching biology at Santa Monica college. Last name was Anderson from Minnesota. She stated loudly and clearly “blonde hair and blue eyes are mutations and the sooner they are bred out of humanity the better”
      Their are probably some racially rational people hidden in STEM departments.

      • redpill99

        so um what’s her first name is she single? i’ll make sure she has some more blonde babes 🙂

        • me

          Don’t! Your children will be insane! Insanity is also genetically inherited in some families, and she must be from a long line of weak-minded people.

      • Lion’s Mane

        On YouTube, this matter of blue eyes is explained. Just enter: Why Do Our Hair And Eye Color Change?

        Now, biology teachers who advocate “breeding out” some human trait should be called out for RACISM. We all know that it would be an outrage to say this of any other hair and eye and skin color — the ‘people of color’ spectrum. Yet teachers can abuse Whites with no fear of consequences. How is this possible?

    • guest

      For one thing, it is part of a general cultural “lobotomy” by which respect for tradition
      erodes to the point of a fringe viewpoint. What passes for an emphasis upon science (“physics envy”) creates a two dimensional world limited to what can be seen, touched, and counted. It is friendly to the senses, but rather alien to genuine
      perception. It is friendly to “knowing” here-and-now linkages but rather alien to
      ramifications and appreciation. A fetish about being “scientific” in this field leads to
      studies that are data processing sophisticated but that focus on knowing more and more about less and less. There need be no dichotomy between scientific studies and field studies/commentaries. But there is.

  • Tarczan

    To borrow the words of the climate changers, this is settled science to me. Everyone admits that evolution is real, yet somehow it doesn’t occur in humans. Two populations of humans separated for 50,000 years and 8,000 miles, which are in completely different environments are somehow not expected to evolve differently.

    • Valmont

      Following your climate change analogy, there must be a great “deniers” label to attach to lefties who dispute evolutionary impact on human intelligence and behavior. What kind of deniers are they?

  • JohnEngelman

    A problem with sociology is that it lacks a generally agreed upon method of proving hypotheses. For a body of knowledge claiming to be a scientific, this is fundamental shortcoming.

    Many sociologists openly state that they are trying to advance leftist goals. It is one thing to try to learn about the reasons for poverty in order to try to alienate it. Unfortunately, an agenda like that often causes them to idealize the poor, especially the black and Hispanic poor, while demonizing those who are not poor.

    An explanation of Ebola that found Ebola sufferers to be morally superior to those unaffected by the disease would not slow the spread of Ebola. It would not help find a cure to save the lives of those Ebola sufferers.

  • JohnEngelman

    Attacks on The Bell Curve remind me of defenses of The Book of Mormon. They are over the heads of those who want to agree with them. Nevertheless, they use so many multisyllabic words and complex sentences that those who want to agree conclude that they are so profound that they must be true.

    • Got some Mormon neighbors here. When she saw me working on the vegetable garden on a Sunday morning, she asked me whether I was some sort of atheist. I thought that was pretty funny, and said my ex-father was a failed Catholic and my mother is a failed Methodist. It was once suggested that I get baptised and become a Presbyterian, but I’d probably screw that up, so I won’t bother. They haven’t said anything other than “Hi, Mike” since then. I like them, but they seem to age very quickly.

      • JohnEngelman

        When I was nineteen two Mormon missionaries proselytized me for six months. I was able to prove beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that their religion is untrue. That is not possible with other religions. They base their authority on miracles that happened long enough in the past that they cannot be proven or disproved.

        I am a Christian, but I cannot prove that Jesus rose from the dead. I was not there.

        I am surprised that the Mormons you know “seem to age pretty quickly.” Mormons are usually pretty healthy because they do not drink or smoke.

        I like Mormons. They are high on the good statistics, and low on the bad statistics. I wish their religion was true.

        • Max

          I would be plenty happy to live among them. Despite the theological differences I have found them to be exceptionally well-behaved, personable and fastidious.

  • JohnEngelman

    Most people allow their likes and dislikes to influence their judgment of what is true and false. I do too, but I try not too. One should be aware of one’s prejudices.

  • Touchstone, King of Fools (for

    “a fairly esoteric scientific topic. The specific issue was whether the
    evolutionary history of human beings has an important influence on
    our present day behavior. In other words, whether or not we are “blank
    slates,” wholly shaped by the culture around us.”

    I don’t know if its esoteric to anyone interested in psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, politics, demographics or philosophy. Its pretty basic to the “nature v. nurture” question, which in turn dictates a person’s positions on most issues.

  • LaughsAtHumans

    Honestly, I’ve known about this phenomenon for a while – and it bothers the hell out of me.

    I get browbeat from “my own kind” for pulling on Muslims the same thing that was popularly pulled on the worst, most nastiest fundamentalist Christians back in the 1990s, on FidoHolysmoke:

    “You want accommodation for your religious belief? Then first produce your god. Then let it own up to or deny any words attributed to it, and then it let demonstrate both willingness and ability to carry out any threats it owns up to. Otherwise, an atheist doesn’t have to take you any more seriously than s/he has to take some known mental nutbar who hears voices that tell him he needs to have sex with his neighbour’s horse or the world will come to an end.”

    But science always loses when ideology gets in the way …. I got paid to write about that sort of point once, 20 years ago now, but I had to couch it in some really wild mythology.

    In a way, it kind of proves a private psychological theory of humans when I see opposite sides acting the same as each other in the end …. humans are nuts, and will deny the worst of reality if it offends their sensibilities – and enhance overmuch the good points that they like.

    And yes, we do tend to sometimes go overboard with the reverse side of the coin – but it’s generally considered better to err on the side of caution, right?

    Though that sort of thinking also seems to be limited to humans. If a cow or chicken sneezes, every member of any related race/species gets slaughtered within a hundred-mil radius. Ebola? Yeah, let people go where they will, hey, humans are special, right?

  • Liberals and Science don’t mix.

    • LaughsAtHumans

      No. Ideologues and science don’t mix.

      • Anonymous

        Your opinion just confirms my theory that WNs are just as into race idealism as liberals. Liberals can’t stand to bear that White men are better at some things than other peoples. WNs can’t stand to bear that non-Whites and White women are better or just as good at other things.

        • I am wolf

          Wait, wait, wait. I never said anything about INDIVIDUAL accomplishment.

          would you admit that a lab rat is smarter and more accomplished at
          whatever it’s forced to do, than some human Down’s Syndrome case who is
          allowed to just hurr-durr through its life, doing things less
          complicated than the rat is forced to do? You can still go on believing
          that humans are overall superior, but is it fair to dis all rats as
          being inferior, when some of their individuals can clearly outshine some
          of ours – even if most of ours normally outshines most of theirs?

          Individual accomplishment must be recognized, no matter in what sort of body it resides in.

          Or are you completely throwing aside individual accomplishment?

    • Luca

      Liberals do not have a scientific mind. That is why they have “Liberal Arts” courses in college. Science involves observing or testing before forming or proving an opinion. Liberals believe in unproven or fallacious theories because they sound good and fit their agenda.

      • I always tried to get my chemistry students to do what I called a quick “reality check”. If their suspicions implied nonsense, there was obviously something wrong. I miss teaching.

  • IKUredux

    Yo, here is the truth of the matter: Generally, men are smarter than women. That of course does not mean that ALL men are smarter than ALL women. White people are smarter than black people. That of course does not mean that all white people are smarter than ALL black people. I.Q. tests tell us that asians score higher than Whites. The fact that asians have essentially done NOTHING technology wise,(other than riffing off of White inventions), is somewhat indicative that I.Q. might not explain everything. And, then, we come to the Red Sea Pedestrians. How to explain them? They are smart, but, think about it, if it weren’t for Thomas Edison, there would be no Hollywood. They are quick to realize and take advantage of others’ genius.This pattern exists today. They invented pretty much nothing. They took advantage of White Christian innovation. They excell at words. Not technology. WORDS!

    • LaughsAtHumans

      But Words are Man’s greatest technology – are they not?

      • IKUredux

        Wow. Great supposition. I like it. Words are in fact a great advancement. You, however, have assumed, words are universal. They are not. You are assuming that words from one culture can be completely understood in another culture.Mathematics IS universal. There is no pause to consider the feeling behind a calculation. Math is what it is. And, although I can appreciate what you said, the bottom line is this: No words , no matter how eloquently expressed, will turn on a light bulb. Or, in fact, make your car run.

        • LaughsAtHumans

          While math is universsal, language is supposationial.


          But would you take suppositional human-like creatures, over the mathematics of a local “beast race”?

          Would you tale logcaacal argument as well as it came out of a snout as well as it came out of a black man’s snoot?

          • LaughsAtHumans

            And I know humans would take the counsel of treacherous black snoot, than they would a furry, scaly, or feathery muzzle that spoke truth.

      • Max

        If you hook up with males who beat you up you may not be as clever as you must imagine yourself.

        • I am wolf

          Of course. But hey, words – man’s greatest invention, that are used differently between cultures.

          Muslims can’t even use the word “martyr” right.

          And as for “feminisim” y’all know it’ll be dead once non-Western cultures take over, right?

          Yet we still deny the “Word” to those non-humans that can use them the same way we understand them – because, maybe, chimps and gorillas are easier to assimilate than Muslims?

  • Gary John 金白龍

    Communism slowly cementing itself…

    Not long now.

  • LHathaway

    No, lets throw it out. Every year the local library here sells books out on the street to raise money. Perhaps many see it as civic project. I always see it as a book burning.

  • Castle Moon

    Actually this was not as bad as one would have thought. I presume that the “eight-one” percent was a typo for “eighty-one” percent believing that there is a genetic component to intelligence.

  • how do you confuse a democrap and liberals, Give them facts and stats. They get lost in real truthful information. then back it up with past studies that span in 10-20yrs. too much for simple minded to comprehend. Thus a liberals are lost to reality of life. Must be nice to live in a world where life is full flowers and cartoon characters. Most call it ignorance via by choice or lack of education.

  • me

    ‘Myths’, according to the Leftist/Socialist school of mental defectives….




    National Sovereignty

    White/Western superiority

    Intelligence differences


    ‘Truths’, according to the Leftist/Socialist school of mental defectives…



    animals are people, too

    Gaia before people

    Brown/Black/Red/Yellow people-great

    White people-evil



    White men-evil

    White people-‘privileged’, even in poverty and sickness


  • Stan D Mute

    Here’s a thought experiment we can all (I hope) try for ourselves. Please give this some serious thought and reply below.

    Try to imagine a world where racial differences were openly and honestly acknowledged. In this world, identical to our own up until today, suddenly everyone admitted and agreed that negroes have an average IQ of 65 to 85 depending on their non-negro admixture and environment, mestizos have an IQ of 90, white an average of 100, East Asians an average of 105, and Jews an average of 110. In other words, reality is accepted. Further, it’s acknowledged that there are significant differences in traits such as violence, morality, work ethic, hygiene, etc. How exactly does this world then differ from ours in practice. What changes do you think would occur?

    • Lion’s Mane

      This socialist egalitarian government would no longer be able to justify its attempts to “fix” human nature by neglecting bright students, thus deliberately holding them back in order to “close the learning gap.” (Liberal educators expect that bright students tutor the less academically endowed, rather than invest time in their own education and development.) Education, like basketball, would be sorted according to proven ability. All students might be placed into classes and schools which work for them, addressing their real needs and abilities, rather than try to make them all “equal.” And, ultimately, there would be a lot less anxiety and frustration in education.

      • helmut

        meh. I had an elementary school teacher tell me that its is the same amount of work to teach either tail of curve (more) than the peak. mediocrity is king

      • Stan D Mute

        Do you think the negroes would accept their true position in a fully meritocratic system? Remember that half of them in America have IQ’s below 85 which is really too low to be educable in a modern technological society. Let’s be generous and say 10% have IQ scores over 100 and may be able to work as cops or clerks or mechanics. Also keep in mind that many studies have shown negroes are the one group that consistently overestimates its own abilities. Wouldn’t there be some social “problems” that came with our new meritocracy?

        • Guest

          I cannot be sure, since this is only a theoretical situation. I’d say that not all, perhaps, but most of them might accept their position, if the status were not presented to them as disgraceful or inferior. And another good result is that more of them would want their own schools and institutions, in which it has been demonstrated that they can, when properly governed, perform better than in integrated schools.

  • Stan D Mute

    Liberals will publically deny. Privately? I find among the ones I’ve known the brighter they are the less likely they are to actually believe the equality fantasy.

  • Garrett Brown

    I always argue that Republicans (thus misguided conservatives) are much closer to actual science than Liberals simply because more Republicans believe in racial differences. And that’s really the most important truth you will find in the field of science. It’s how the world operates.

  • Jimmy Joseph

    Liberals fear biological differences because understand that the “IQ debate” will occur very rapidly.

    This will be used to show the difference in races concerning these issues.

  • Luke

    Even the atheist or anti-theist will have their gods to worship. For many, their view of reality, whether it is the natural good of mankind, the value of massive centralized government, or something called “equality” they will believe in it regardless of any facts to the contrary.

    It is one thing if your belief system leads you to acts of independent charity. It is entirely another if your religion tells you to forcibly remake society in your image.

  • helmut

    meh. iq testing is most accurate after puberty. most testing (western world) is in primary school; though boys may not on average be any smarter than girls, men on average test +5points higher than women–especially on g-loaded tests

    • Anonymous

      That is only because the dumbest young men are either already dead or in prison.

  • SlizzardAjeosshi

    “Sure enough, the study found that these liberal academics showed a pretty high level of resistance to evolutionary explanations…”

    Sure enough everybody shows a pretty high level of resistance to anything that threatens their job.

    Especially when it’s a job whose purpose nobody really understands

  • Chemistry effectively solved the problem in my case. With 79 US and foreign patents, I now work out of the house making fishing tackle, metalworking, and repairing cars. The microelectronics industry has fled here (even Intel pulled out), I’ll never have a security clearance due to my felony conviction, so since I won’t leave, I have to do something else.

  • guest

    It is helpful to keep in mind that persons working in “the sausage factory”
    have inklings about the presumed equality of men and women regarding
    “IQ”. I refer, of course, to the test publi$hing indu$try in the U.S and to
    the testing–adoption/adaptation/ discarding–of test items in IQ tests along
    lines of whether they discriminate differently in the dimension of gender..
    There are subtle dual standards that manage to erode the realities of gender differences in the construction/ standardization/ of mental ability tests. For a time in the UK in the 70’s, some of the AH series of mental tests explicitly acknowledged slightly dual norms at the adolescent level.
    But this standard of honesty soon washed out even over there.
    But it is standard Yank practice to plow under the evidence. While not an IQ test as such, the leading child development rating scale long in use in the 1980’s and beyond had plowed over and obscured male / female differences along at the kindergarten level. In fact, the great and courageous child development research pioneer, Arnold Gesell, noted clearly–with moving picture records–the notable degree of earlier female maturation in aspects of development that help explain why females in elementary grades have always had markedly less early reading problem than males have had.
    The war against evolved human distinctions has saturated ever portion of
    American life.