May 29, 2014

Nicholas Wade defends "A Troublesome Inheritance"

From the Huffington Post:
By Nicholas Wade

In Defense of A Troublesome Inheritance
Posted: 05/29/2014 6:02 pm EDT Updated: 56 minutes ago  
Three attacks on my book A Troublesome Inheritance have appeared on The Huffington Post's blog this month. For readers puzzled by the stridency and personal animus of these compositions, I'd like to explain what is going on. 
The issue is how best to sustain the fight against racism in light of new information from the human genome that bears on race. 
My belief is that opposition to racism should be based on principle, not on science. If I oppose racism and discrimination as a matter of principle, I don't care what the science may say because I'll never change my position. As it happens, however, the genome gives no support to racism, although it does clearly show that race has a biological basis, just as common sense might suggest. 
Many social scientists, on the other hand, have long based their opposition to racism on the assertion that there is no biological basis to race. I doubt they personally believe this and suspect that they oppose racism on principle, just as I do. But they believe that other people, less enlightened and intelligent than they, will not abandon racism unless told that everyone is identical beneath the skin. 
So whenever someone points out that race is obviously biological, defenders of the social science position respond with attacks of whatever vehemence is necessary to get the inconvenient truth-teller to shut up. 
For many years this tactic has been surprisingly effective. It takes only a few vigilantes to cow the whole campus. Academic researchers won't touch the subject of human race for fear that their careers will be ruined. Only the most courageous will publicly declare that race has a biological basis. I witnessed the effects of this intimidation during the 10 years I was writing about the human genome for The New York Times. The understanding of recent human evolution has been seriously impeded, in my view, because if you can't study the genetics of race (a subject of no special interest in itself), you cannot explore the independent evolutionary histories of Africans, East Asians and Europeans. 
The attacks on my book come from authors who espouse the social science position that there is no biological basis to race. It is because they are defending an ideological position with a counterfactual scientific basis that their language is so excessive. If you don't have the facts, pound the table. My three Huffington Post critics -- Jennifer Raff, Agustín Fuentes and Jonathan Marks -- are heavy on unsupported condemnations of the book, and less generous with specific evidence. 

Here's Jennifer Raff's effort. Read the comments, especially by Chuck (from whom I borrowed that Darwin quote in my last column).

Here's Agustin Fuentes' piece, and here's a picture of Professor Fuentes, who looks like he should be playing goalie for Argentina's World Cup team.

And here's Marks' piece in the HuffPo.
Despite their confident assertions that I have misrepresented the science, which I've been writing about for years in a major newspaper, none of these authors has any standing in statistical genetics, the relevant discipline. Raff is a postdoctoral student in genetics and anthropology. Fuentes and Marks are both anthropologists who, to judge by their webpages, do little primary research. 
Most of their recent publications are reviews or essays, many of them about race. Their academic reputations, not exactly outsize to begin with, might shrink substantially if their view that race had no biological basis were to be widely repudiated. Both therefore have a strong personal interest (though neither thought it worth declaring to the reader) in attempting to trash my book. 
It would try the reader's patience to offer a point-by-point rebuttal of the three reviews, so I will address just the principal arguments raised by each. Let's start with Raff, who asserts, "Wade claims that the latest genomic findings actually support dividing humans into discrete races." In fact, I say the exact opposite, that races are not and cannot be discrete or they would be different species, but it's easier to attack an invented statement. 
By denying the existence of race, social scientists are intimidating biologists from pursuing this path. This is particularly exasperating given the fallacious nature of the belief that race must be denied if racism is to be quelled. The geneticist Theodore Dobzhansky observed, "People need not be identical twins to be equal before God, before the law, and in their rights to equality of opportunity." Unlike identical twins, we are not all clones. We exist as different races by virtue of our evolutionary histories. The recovery of this history is a legitimate subject of scientific inquiry, and from this advance of knowledge unimagined benefits may accrue.

Read the whole thing there.
     

79 comments:

  1. candid_observer5/29/14, 5:23 PM

    "Their academic reputations, not exactly outsize to begin with,..."

    Ouch!

    ReplyDelete
  2. """"""""""""""""""Many social scientists, on the other hand, have long based their opposition to racism on the assertion that there is no biological basis to race. I doubt they personally believe this and suspect that they oppose racism on principle, just as I do. But they believe that other people, less enlightened and intelligent than they, will not abandon racism unless told that everyone is identical beneath the skin.
    So whenever someone points out that race is obviously biological, defenders of the social science position respond with attacks of whatever vehemence is necessary to get the inconvenient truth-teller to shut up. """""""""""""""""""



    Give 'em hell, Nick! Er, I mean, here, here!

    And so say all of us!

    ReplyDelete
  3. My belief is that opposition to racism should be based on principle

    And what principle would that be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or the Survival of Fit Races5/29/14, 7:03 PM

      Gould, Boas, Lewotin, Diamond...

      What could it be? What Kould it Yield?

      Delete
  4. OT: I just noticed that director Peter Rodger (father of the late mass murderer Elliot Rodger) looks an awful lot like German director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "And what principle would that be?"

    The principle that if I don't state that every hour then my book will be pulled from stores, boycotted and I'll be on par with David Duke.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'd like to know how Wade would define "racism."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or the Survival of Fit Races5/29/14, 7:04 PM

      Anything that defends or protects European and European derived population clusters.

      There I fixed it.

      Delete
  7. "And what principle would that be?"

    "People need not be identical twins to be equal before God, before the law, and in their rights to equality of opportunity."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good for Wade.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't quite understand why these people haven't had it dawn on them that with each passing month and year their arguments (and they) will look more ignorant, and one can hardly un-write what one has written.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Or the Survival of Fit Races5/29/14, 7:07 PM

    What we need to get beyond is defining race.

    The real question is defining what racism is. Operationally, tactically and strategically what is racism and what does it do?

    Then we can redefine it as white privilege when the entire fraud collapses.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I thought Wade was remarkably understanding in this piece, though not entirely gentle. I imagine that comes from having heard from and thought about this opposition a good deal more than I have over the last decade. I would have been rougher, but less informative.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's not a big secret that Jennifer Raff, Augustin Fuentes and Jon Marks are all far-left Cultural Marxists. If these lightweights weren't given megaphones by MSM, they would simply be ignored by anyonee with an IQ above room temp.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Raff review and subsequent discussion are very good. As one commentator noted, though, her main argument -- that human variation is clinal, not racial -- is perfectly compatible with the kinds of claims Wade makes in the second half of the book, and in general compatible with cognitive ability and behavior differences between different groups being partly genetic in origin. To what extent human variation is continuous rather than discrete is an interesting question, but the really controversial HBD claims don't depend on answering it one way or the other.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Harry Baldwin5/29/14, 7:36 PM

    The academic reaction to the ideas in Wade's book reminds me of the academic reaction to anyone who raises any questions about global warming/climate change. It's shrill, heavily vituperative, and denunciatory. Rather than feel that I'm listening to an objective scientist, I feel I'm listening to someone defending an ideological position. In this case, environmentalism takes the place of anti-racism.

    Climate-change theory : concern about the environment :: race denial : eliminating racism.

    To raise any questions about climate change means you hate the environment and want to destroy it. You're not allowed to ponder whether the situation is as severe or unmanageable as the environmentalists want us to believe; you must embrace the theory with all your heart or else the Koch brothers win. The NY Times appeared to be in pain when it had to concede that the temperature has held stable for 16-17 years now. To the Times that obviously was not good news.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Wade: "I don't care what the science may say because I'll never change my position."

    In what other field does anyone brag about opinions not being informed by the facts?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I thought Wade was remarkably understanding in this piece, though not entirely gentle. I imagine that comes from having heard from and thought about this opposition a good deal more than I have over the last decade. I would have been rougher, but less informative.

    He set the right tone, all these people are defending an intellectually weak position, but one that endures because 99.9 percent of the intellectuals in the West are scared to death of even getting within ten feet of attacking it. They feel they can go after him because he is only a journalist, but the intellectual standards of biological anthropology have fallen so much that even someone with a doctorate isn't really anymore knowledgeable than a good science reporter like Wade, because Wade is carrying so much less pseudo-intellectual baggage.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Wade's wholly unconvincing argument is that each race has evolved different but equally admirable abilities and talents. For instance, one race evolved the ability to jump high into the air. Another race evolved the ability to design a spaceship that can explore the outer limits of the solar system and beyond.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Let's not forget that I quickly set Jonathan Marks straight when he wrote his review.

    These critics of Wade must hate Disqus now, because it's been quite helpful in bringing visibility to HBD-commenters.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I don't know why you and Chuck wasted so much time on that Colin fellow. I wouldn't have. But that's probably his goal (and what he was trained to do as a lawyer) -- to wear people down by the sheer mass of his senseless sophistry.

    Maybe most people just aren't wired to get it, and there's no sense in trying to explain it to them. I've come to suspect that's just the way things are, and that's why people need religion to convince them to think and behave in an adaptive manner.

    Study the Bible and it's clear that it's largely an exercise in applied eugenics justified by a higher power.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "In what other field does anyone brag about opinions not being informed by the facts?"

    Mathematics and logic.

    ReplyDelete
  21. There will be 1000s of local adaptations that will have significant medical consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  22. So it begins, on little cat feet....

    ReplyDelete
  23. I suspect that Wade is pulling his own chicanery here to avoid career damage, in asserting that shutting down racism is the most important thing. But if blowing smoke out of his a** over this allows him to speak the truth on other verboten things, then I suppose its a good start.

    ReplyDelete
  24. It's not a big secret that Jennifer Raff, Augustin Fuentes and Jon Marks are all far-left Cultural Marxists.

    They are all anthropologists. But it seems it's the same thing. Heck, those departments are probably the last best holdouts of the Red Diaper True Believers. Somehow (well, a very deliberate somehow) the field of anthropology went off the rails. It wasn't really about dead people, was it?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Mark Caplan,

    Have you just crawled out from under a rock for the last 20 years? Are you that dense that you don't think if he doesn't couch his writing in talk like that he won't be marched at bayonet point to grovel at the feet of St.MLK the Blessed?

    I can't stand all these brave race warriors who want everyone else to sacrifice their career while they post bravely on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  26. If I oppose racism and discrimination as a matter of principle, I don't care what the science may say because I'll never change my position.

    Wade doesn't care that science says discrimination is how living things stay alive? The immune system's function is to discriminate between self and non-self and take action against non-self.

    ReplyDelete
  27. One of Wade's problems is that leftism isn't about equal opportunity anymore. He's taking the 1960s liberal position that we should all be equal under the law. But that's not the point anymore--it's to eliminate disparate impact and make everyone have equal outcomes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Precisely. Programs to create equal opportunities have not resulted in equal outcomes. Wade's critics fear that the unequal outcomes they now attribute to racism & white privilege will be attributed to biological differences and they will be forced to drop their accusations of discrimination.

      Delete
  28. OT: The general idea of the Chinese unofficially colonizing Africa. This book + review isn't anything special, I post it for the idea: https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/howard-w-french/chinas-second-continent

    I just think it's a fascinating story - the Chinese are right at home in corruption and state-of-nature politics, they're going to pwn Africa in a decade or two. Imagine, the smarts and hardnosed-ness of China with the lebensraum and resources of Africa. I expect it'll be the most unexpected and interesting story of the next decade.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It won't turn out well for us. The Chinese will more or less enslave the Africans and then we'll have to let them all move here as refugees.

      Delete
  29. http://www.vox.com/2014/5/29/5763414/racists-attack-spelling-bee-contestants

    ReplyDelete
  30. In the coming years, the number of kids attending college will drop precipitously.

    College presidents will have to cut, cut, cut.

    The won't, can't cut the hard sciences.

    Yep, sociologists and cultural anthropologists...you're going to get the ax.

    If you're young, it's time to re-train and re-think.

    ReplyDelete
  31. http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-democratic-party-and-its-internal.html

    ReplyDelete
  32. http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/29/us/bloomberg-harvard-speech/

    Pot calling kettle black

    ReplyDelete
  33. I don't know why you and Chuck wasted so much time on that Colin fellow. I wouldn't have. But that's probably his goal (and what he was trained to do as a lawyer) -- to wear people down by the sheer mass of his senseless sophistry.

    If that was a prizefight it would have been stopped about the point Colin mentioned the Atlantic Ocean. That was like watching Wepner v Liston.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Wade: "I don't care what the science may say because I'll never change my position."

    How is this not an apt characterization of Wade's detractors? Who's ignoring new evidence? Who's proudly basing their arguments on a moral assertion treated as an article of faith?
    MY GOD, ARE PEOPLE EVEN TRYING ANY MORE?!

    ReplyDelete
  35. http://youtu.be/uWgQbH9Mmuw

    Look at posters in the background.
    Lol.

    Chechen killers are more fun.

    We don't get bomb mom and babushka of doom with this case.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Women, NAMs, and beta males who care too much about what women think of them feel most threatened by HBD realism. News at 11.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "The won't, can't cut the hard sciences...Yep, sociologists and cultural anthropologists...you're going to get the ax. "

    I wouldn't be too confident about that. The decisions will be made on political grounds. I'd back the sociologists to have a better chance of surviving any cuts. Sociologists and cultural anthropologists are better adapted to living in a world of political correctness. In this case natural selection will favour them.

    ReplyDelete
  38. It's scary that the greatest crusaders against racism are the ones who don't believe in race.

    ReplyDelete
  39. The Huffington Post - the world's biggest purveyor of sheer unadulterated bullshit.

    Founded by one Ariana Huffington, nee Ariana Stassinopolous, one time presudent of the Oxford Union. Perhaps her biggest laim to fame was landing a gig on BBC TV's iconic 'Tonight' review show way back in the 1970s. She gained a great deal of notoriety for her shameless pushiness and the inpenenetrability of her accent, which caused her to be regarded as a national joke by 'Tonight's' core middle class audience.
    This sparked off a classic remark by the playwright Alan Bennett "She's so boring that you fall asleep halfway through her name".

    ReplyDelete
  40. There are a number of reviews other than these three that Wade hasn't addressed. Many of those (which Steve has linked to) make specific and substantive criticisms of the book that do not trash the main point about race having a biological basis (which should be pretty incontrovertible.)

    The speculative part of the book, where races are indicated to be proxies for cognitive and behavioral qualities, is the main point of controversy. If that is established to be factual (and Wade has not proven it to be so), it would provide a basis for racial discrimination that no principle will be strong enough to withstand (not even Wade's.) That is why more care needs to be taken before presenting unproven theories to a lay audience.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Let's not forget that I quickly set Jonathan Marks straight when he wrote his review.

    Well, you'll need to put your cape back on because these guys aren't done yet.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Perhaps her biggest laim to fame was landing a gig on BBC TV's iconic 'Tonight' review show way back in the 1970s. She gained a great deal of notoriety for her shameless pushiness and the inpenenetrability of her accent, which caused her to be regarded as a national joke by 'Tonight's' core middle class audience.
    This sparked off a classic remark by the playwright Alan Bennett "She's so boring that you fall asleep halfway through her name".


    You are correct. She got that job on ability and not gender. Can anyone else spot when the BBC started to decline?

    ReplyDelete
  43. As someone at Jim Jones' Temple would have said this koolaid tastes awful.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Laguna Beach Fogey said...
    My belief is that opposition to racism should be based on principle

    And what principle would that be?

    That all humans are equal under the law, that all humans ought to have equal opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  45. The question needs to be put to the race deniers if they would accept life saving cancer treatment if they found out it only works on white people (or black or East Asian). Or whether they would advise others diagnosed with race specific diseases to simply ignore the diagnosis because race obviously does not exist.

    As medicine moves more and more into the targeted genetic realm, these questions become more and more obvious. And the questions should be asked today. Is Cystic Fibrosis a social construct? How about Tay-Sachs? Tropical Splinomegally Syndrome is imaginary? Parkinson's is just old crackers shaking with all their pent up racism?

    And with "multi-racial" becoming a matter of pride often celebrated, are these really just multi-delusional people? I'm confused!

    ReplyDelete
  46. "It's scary that the greatest crusaders against racism are the ones who don't believe in race."

    You would think so. It reminds me of a piece of doggerel:
    'Yesterday upon the stair
    I saw a man who wasn't there
    He wasn't there again today
    I wish I wish he'd go away.'

    Anti-racists believe that if there were no races, then there would be no racism... And I suspect racists agree with them.

    Gilbert P




    ReplyDelete
  47. Simon in London5/30/14, 5:05 AM

    Good stuff. Of course he's much smarter* than they are, which helps, and he knows how to speak fluent Liberal, pretty much being one himself.

    *The lumpenintelligentsia is a real bane, these days.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Wade: "I don't care what the science may say because I'll never change my position."

    "How is this not an apt characterization of Wade's detractors?"

    I see where he's coming from. Suppose Bob has an IQ of 150 and John has 100.
    Scientifically, Bob is a lot smarter.
    But on political PRINCIPLE, I can still believe and support equal rights for both.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The speculative part of the book, where races are indicated to be proxies for cognitive and behavioral qualities, is the main point of controversy. If that is established to be factual (and Wade has not proven it to be so), it would provide a basis for racial discrimination that no principle will be strong enough to withstand (not even Wade's.)

    The market has already digested the fact of mean differences between races, and market participants apply it whenever and wherever they are allowed.

    It's why white neighbors are always more expensive.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Imagine, the smarts and hardnosed-ness of China with the lebensraum and resources of Africa.

    Better start collecting breeding pairs of magnificent African fauna, because they are doomed.

    ReplyDelete
  51. As one commenter points out, Wade's fundamental principle seems to be that governments should treat all those that they govern equally. (or as another bunch of guys once put it, "... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, [in] that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness[originally "property"]. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ... ").

    Unfortunately, among those very persons who claim that race does not exist - and also among people of Wade's current ideological persuasion - are a large proportion of those who have worked tirelessly to ensure that contemporary governments divide their citizens into classes based on race and to ensure that these same governments treat citizens in these different, racially-based classes very, very unequally in matters such as access to education, jobs, government funding and other resources; criminal and civil legal proceedings; and civil rights, including freedom of association, freedom of speech, and freedom to participate freely in their own governance.

    Wade himself is afraid to fully come to grip with the facts, proven even beyond the usual standards of accepted scientific knowledge, that large and profound group differences exist between the largest racial categories, e.g., those often denoted caucasian, sub-saharan african, asian, australian, melanesian-polynesian, and american indian; that these include significant group differences in psychological traits such as intelligence, personality structure, and the strength of basic biological drives; and that as a result there are profound group differences among these races in how well, overall, their members adapt to and participate in modern polities, economies, and societies.

    Only a few brave souls have as yet chosen to address these latter issues and their implications. I don't think that the most appropriate term for such persons is "racist", although they are inevitably branded as such. They themselves often prefer the term "race-realist" and this is probably a more reasonable term.

    Only these people have even come within spitting distance of the most profound question: How can we reconcile the foundational principles of the Declaration of Independence with the realities of racial group differences in a multi-racial polity.

    Most persons on the public stage including Wade and essentially all of his critics have studiously avoided engaging this particular question. I can't blame them. If it were even known that I had openly framed the issue in this way I would probably lose my current position. Even Galileo recanted when sufficient pressure was applied.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Realistically, there are a few different options. One is governing according to the lowest common denominator, an example of which is the TSA. We can't discriminate against the group most likely to be terrorists, so we hassle everyone.

      Three approaches taken together might have some promise:

      1) Heavily subsidize decent paying, private sector jobs for the left half of the bell curve. If Danes can make $21 per hour working at McDonalds, we should move in that direction. This is the sugar to go with the medicine that follows.

      2) Establish a voluntary eugenic policy: give poor people generous cash incentives to have 1 child or no children. Note that the fewer poor kids we have, the more generous we can be in caring for each of them.

      3) Stop net 3rd and 4th world immigration.

      4) Scrap affirmative action and disparate impact. 1) is the key to making this politically palatable for NAMs; taken together, they will be better off with 1) & 4). After all, the ones who suffer from incompetent firemen or physicians are likely to be those in NAM neighborhoods.

      Delete
  52. The Evil Dr. Marks5/30/14, 5:46 AM

    JayMan said...

    Let's not forget that I quickly set Jonathan Marks straight when he wrote his review.


    So, you think you've cornered me, JayMan? Then a trap door unexpectedly opens and I jump through it. Ha ha!

    ReplyDelete
  53. They are all anthropologists... Somehow (well, a very deliberate somehow) the field of anthropology went off the rails. It wasn't really about dead people, was it?

    Anthropologists are just Literature professors who spend time in huts. The rest of the time they are weaving narratives from a ball of wool labeled "my political beliefs." Any connection to reality that results is purely accidental and probably undesired.

    ReplyDelete
  54. elitotarianism









    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/11143#.U4iVEXJdVA0

    ReplyDelete
  55. Wade: "I don't care what the science may say because I'll never change my position."

    "How is this not an apt characterization of Wade's detractors?"

    I see where he's coming from. Suppose Bob has an IQ of 150 and John has 100.
    Scientifically, Bob is a lot smarter.
    But on political PRINCIPLE, I can still believe and support equal rights for both.

    I was assuming he was talking about Wade's book, not Wade's post re-asserting his belief in equality before the law.
    So what's he suggesting? Our own set of Nuremburg laws to account for HBD?
    If so, this is yet another reason we're doomed--wild-eyed youngsters will fulfill the left's prophecies. This guy, then, doesn't realize just whose side he's on.
    I've always naively assumed the goal was turning back the stupidity of disparate impact and all the corruption and degradation that comes with it; allowing the truth to be known and the law to be applied equally, letting the chips fall where they may. As if that was a plausible alternative. What I schmuck I am.

    Stuff like this is why I mostly checked out years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Wade is evil

    ReplyDelete
  57. "lumpenintelligentsia"

    lol

    .

    "I just think it's a fascinating story - the Chinese are right at home in corruption and state-of-nature politics, they're going to pwn Africa in a decade or two"

    Maybe. I wonder if Africa's bugs will pwn them.

    Most of Africa is a bit like Afghanistan imo - a trap for the unadapted.

    ReplyDelete
  58. The weakest spot of the blank slate nonsense and the area where the truth would do the most good is in medicine.

    Almost every ailment will have one or more significant population specific factors.

    ReplyDelete
  59. "Perhaps her biggest claim to fame was landing a gig on BBC TV's iconic 'Tonight' review show way back in the 1970s."

    And perhaps that came about because of her relationship with Bernard Levin, at the time probably the most famous UK newspaper columnist (who, as is the way with famous newspaper columnists, is now almost totally forgotten).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Levin#Arianna_Stassinopoulos_.28Huffington.29

    ReplyDelete
  60. "The won't, can't cut the hard sciences...Yep, sociologists and cultural anthropologists...you're going to get the ax. "
    _______________________
    I wouldn't be too confident about that. The decisions will be made on political grounds. I'd back the sociologists to have a better chance of surviving any cuts. Sociologists and cultural anthropologists are better adapted to living in a world of political correctness. In this case natural selection will favour them.
    _______________________________

    Well, the demands of the tech world and ironically, the demands of the eco-freaks demand advances in science.

    Very importantly, the demands of an aging population as well as an unhealthy (diabetes, for example) young and middle-aged population demand medical break-throughs.

    Hard sciences.

    ReplyDelete
  61. @ Anon 3:23 "...presenting unproven theories to a lay audience."

    The horror. It's worth noting that the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment are held to have had mixed, but net positive effects on civilisation.

    Apparently, you disagree - without realising that.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Prof. Woland5/30/14, 9:21 PM

    "Precisely. Programs to create equal opportunities have not resulted in equal outcomes. Wade's critics fear that the unequal outcomes they now attribute to racism & white privilege will be attributed to biological differences and they will be forced to drop their accusations of discrimination."
    5/30/14, 3:49 AM

    We could base affirmative action on IQ but the outcome would still be the same.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Wade's critics, and race-deniers in general, are guilty of embracing the moralistic fallacy; i.e., that what ought to be corresponds with what is. Satoshi Kanazawa spends much time in his books disabusing the reader of both the moralistic and naturalistic fallacies.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "who looks like he should be playing goalie for Argentina's World Cup team."

    Will you stop noticing, you big old noticer.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I wouldn't be too confident about that. The decisions will be made on political grounds. I'd back the sociologists to have a better chance of surviving any cuts. Sociologists and cultural anthropologists are better adapted to living in a world of political correctness. In this case natural selection will favour them.

    The problem for soc, anthro, and psych is their declining relevance for students. College is more and more a trade school. Their survival depends on sweeping deeper into the dregs to expand their market share. But the dregs do not find employment with a dumbed-down degree in soc/psych/anthro. Hence the colleges are shucking marginal programs like these in favor of more hands-on programs tied more to objective reality than politico-religious proselytizing. No 100 IQ kid takes on huge debt if his ability to pay it off depends upon getting freelance gigs writing PC book reviews like Mr. Marks & Friends.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I don't know why the likes of Raff, Fuentes, and Marks have any particular claim to object to Wade's book on scientific grounds. Anthropology is no longer a scientific discipline, if indeed it ever was one. Anthropologists themselves officially went on record that they consider science to be icky:

    Hold the Science

    ReplyDelete

  67. 1) Heavily subsidize decent paying, private sector jobs for the left half of the bell curve. If Danes can make $21 per hour working at McDonalds, we should move in that direction. This is the sugar to go with the medicine that follows.

    We already do this. The person working a minimum wage job qualifies for so many freebies that he would have to make $60k to afford all of that himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you want political support for nixing AA, etc., you've got to sweeten the pot. And make people feel wealthier / more dignified by getting them higher wages & private sector bennies rather than making them more directly dependent on government.

      Part of the equation may be tightening the labor market via restricting immigration & cracking down on overtime abuse. Part of it may be enacting a balanced trade policy to get more manufacturing jobs domestically. Part of it may simply be paying corporations to hire people at higher wages.

      Delete
  68. Wade's critics, and race-deniers in general, are guilty of embracing the moralistic fallacy; i.e., that what ought to be corresponds with what is.

    I can't agree that it's a "moralistic fallacy" when there's no moral basis for wishing that the world were different from how it actually is. Morality has to do with human behavior. How does morality apply to the actions of God?

    ReplyDelete
  69. That Jennifer Raff sure is feisty in her little comments section.

    Unfortunately, her running in and yelling something, then running out and slamming the door is creating some unintended comic results.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "Anthropology is no longer a scientific discipline, if indeed it ever was one. Anthropologists themselves officially went on record that they consider science to be icky:

    Hold the Science"




    Interesting. "Hold the science, says anthropology society", Ewen Callaway, 30 Nov 2010, Nature.com News Blog:

    "Is anthropology a science? Don’t ask the American Anthropological Association (AAA), which recently voted to strike the word “science” from its long-term mission statement. ...

    ...voted to change its long term goal statement from: “The purposes of the Association shall be to advance anthropology as the science that studies humankind in all its aspects” to: “The purposes of the Association shall be to advance public understanding of humankind in all its aspects.”

    Three other mentions of science were removed from the three-paragraph statement, while teaching and promoting public understanding were emphasized.

    ..changes have drawn the condemnation of data-collecting anthropologists...

    ...the change represents longstanding tension over whether human culture should be studied... with a more interpretative perspective that’s characteristic of humanities scholarship... "
    (emphasis added)

    Ah, the old agit-prop game. More fun than gossip!

    At least it frees up the discipline to concentrate on a narrative that really fires up the 18-year old undergrads. Facts cannot be allowed to derail the Revolution!

    I guess when it comes down to it Noticer Steve might be considered one of those data-collecting anthropologists...

    ReplyDelete
  71. "

    "who looks like he should be playing goalie for Argentina's World Cup team."

    Will you stop noticing, you big old noticer. "

    No, this isn't noticing, it is judging. Notice the "should".

    A noticing would be closer to: "who looks similar to a goalie for...". But even that would be context dependent.

    ReplyDelete
  72. "1) Heavily subsidize decent paying, private sector jobs for the left half of the bell curve. If Danes can make $21 per hour working at McDonalds, we should move in that direction. This is the sugar to go with the medicine that follows.

    We already do this. The person working a minimum wage job qualifies for so many freebies that he would have to make $60k to afford all of that himself."

    Oh for crap's sake. It isn't what someone qualifies for that counts, it's what they can use that they qualify for. And of that bit, it's what they can use that they actually jump through hoops to get that counts.

    Every chart I've seen that diagrams public sector freebies based on income fails to take into account what is actually used at median or mode.

    Whereas with a paycheck, after the mandatory deductions, you have it all whether you use it or not.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated, at whim.