Comments on Evo and Proud: J. Philippe Rushton (1943-2012) R.I.P.

I have written an analysis on Rushton’s theory reg...

2013-07-29T16:18:30.402-04:00

I have written an analysis on Rushton’s theory regarding brains size and mental ability of the varied races. I believe my analysis shows the fallacies in Rushton’s line of thought and approach towards his conclusions. The fact African Americans on the average score lower on IQ test cant be put into question. The reasons Rushton gives most definitely can. I'd would appreciate peoples thoughts on my break down of Rushton’s theory
http://hucipher.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/the-big-brain-cipher-brain-size-iq-and-the-fallacies-in-j-phillippe-rushtons-theory/

a scientific rationalist would have no motive to s...

2012-10-26T05:04:36.865-04:00

a scientific rationalist would have no motive to stick his neck out like MacDonald has; once you've shown yourself to be motivated by something other than rationality in the use that you put your work to, it becomes tainted no matter how true it is.

How can "rationality" be a motive? It's like saying a hammer is a carpenter's motive for making a chair, or maths was Euclid's motive for writing The Elements. Rationality is a tool. No-one is motivated by rationality to understand the world, but rationality is the best tool for doing so.

"Tainted", again, is a crypto-religious term, not a scientific one. If we're going to put morality (defined by whom?) before rationality, let's stop pretending we're doing science and appoint an Inquisitorial Panel (the Gould Squad) to examine all areas of research and decide whether they can continue or not. To me, as a scientific rationalist, what is important first of all about McDonald's claims is whether they are true. If they are true, all the name-calling in the world will not alter that fact. What conclusions flow from a set of facts is another matter, but MacDonald reaches the same conclusions from his beliefs about reality as the Founding Fathers and Winston Churchill did from their very similar beliefs. As I said, Anon doesn't care about truth: he cares about power and censorship. So who has the "tainted" motives and who is being truer to science? Anon, or MacDonald? MacDonald isn't trying to suppress anything at all: his reasoning and his conclusions are all out in the open.

Vox, a scientific rationalist would have no motive...

2012-10-23T13:51:21.580-04:00

Vox, a scientific rationalist would have no motive to stick his neck out like MacDonald has; once you've shown yourself to be motivated by something other than rationality in the use that you put your work to, it becomes tainted no matter how true it is.

"The justification of a particular act of vio...

2012-10-23T10:17:46.128-04:00

"The justification of a particular act of violence depends entirely upon whether or not it actually is necessary to serve a moral end"

Terrorist Nelson Mandela(see Church Street Bombing)is today the world's most beloved man. It doesn't matter what you do as long as you have the support of the "international community."

Vox, I'm not so sure the truth of a claim is a...

2012-10-22T05:18:58.091-04:00

Vox, I'm not so sure the truth of a claim is an absolute defence, if the motives for making it are questionable.

I don't claim it's a defence: I do claim it's relevant. Scientific rationalists generally do, when they're looking at claims about the world.

Once he began to espouse white nationalist positions, his scholarly work was viewed in a very different light.

Yes, extremist and unacceptable white nationalism -- the same kind of rabid, foam-flecked moonbattery Winston Churchill and the Founding Fathers believed in. The moderate, acceptable centre ground has been gradually pushed further and further left, until Marxism is the ruling ideology. But some "adjustments" are ahead.

Vox, I'm not so sure the truth of a claim is a...

2012-10-19T14:17:01.025-04:00

Vox, I'm not so sure the truth of a claim is an absolute defence, if the motives for making it are questionable. MacDonald's trilogy attracted very little criticism at first. Once he began to espouse white nationalist positions, his scholarly work was viewed in a very different light.

It's also odd how one can read character in br...

2012-10-18T04:43:34.110-04:00

It's also odd how one can read character in brief postings. I can easily imagine Anon working for a communist secret-police force, torturing and executing "blasphemers". Their guilt or innocence, the scientific truth or falsehood of their ideas, wouldn't actually matter: terrorizing the population is all part of the Lord's work. MacDonald would be one of the first into the torture-chamber, then one of the first up against the wall.

Sean said:

That would depend on their motives and whether the particular parts of MacDonald's work they agreed with happened to be correct.

"Correct" is not something Anon is worried about. That belongs to science and objective reality. Anon is interested in something more important: power and censorship.

That would depend on their motives and whether the...

2012-10-15T09:16:45.483-04:00

That would depend on their motives and whether the particular parts of MacDonald's work they agreed with happened to be correct.

If a person agrees with parts of what Kevin MacDon...

2012-10-15T01:38:13.600-04:00

If a person agrees with parts of what Kevin MacDonald wrote, he/she is guilty. Case closed.

It depends on which parts of MacDonald's writing. Not every utterance of MacDonald is about Darwinian anti-Semitism.

I remember that we had a long debate about Kevin's trilogy on the HBES discussion group. The consensus was that parts of it were right and that others were wrong. I have trouble imagining how someone could totally disagree with it, since much of it consists of quotes from mainstream historians.

If people agreed with parts of MacDonald's Darwinian anti-Semitism, then they would be Darwinian anti-Semites themselves, at least in part.

"I remember that we had a long debate about K...

2012-10-14T21:55:32.422-04:00

"I remember that we had a long debate about Kevin's trilogy on the HBES discussion group."

I suppose this sort of thing is private, and unavailable to anonymous internet readers?

Anon, What you're saying about Rushton is a po...

2012-10-14T16:18:41.829-04:00

Anon, What you're saying about Rushton is a political opinion. You're identifying him as a likely anti Semite on the basis of his having applied a self consciously Darwinian logic to human ethnicity.

You're taking a stand against Darwinism, but that stand is itself motivated by biological drives (the unconscious logic of Darwinism). And that's because Darwinian logic happens to be a truth about the natural world.

Rushton's peers, including many critics, award...

2012-10-14T15:19:19.119-04:00

Rushton's peers, including many critics, awarded Rushton the Guggenheim Fellowship, a most prestigious award for scholarship. Rushton continued to publish in in top-flight journals, again peer-reviewed by critics before publication. With over 300 papers to his name and over 8,000 citations, and considering his numerous distinctions including the Guggenheim Fellowship, from what perch do any of the critics here feel they are qualified to assail his research, let alone his character?
Tom Beckett

Anon, I can't help but agree with the previou...

2012-10-14T13:02:30.612-04:00

Anon,

I can't help but agree with the previous commenter. You sound like an inquisitor. If a person agrees with parts of what Kevin MacDonald wrote, he/she is guilty. Case closed. It doesn't matter whether those parts are true or not. That thought doesn't seem to cross your mind.

I remember that we had a long debate about Kevin's trilogy on the HBES discussion group. The consensus was that parts of it were right and that others were wrong. I have trouble imagining how someone could totally disagree with it, since much of it consists of quotes from mainstream historians.

But you can't say that a Darwinian must have c...

2012-10-13T22:32:19.537-04:00

But you can't say that a Darwinian must have certain political views.

I didn't say Rushton had "certain political views." I said that he appears to have been a Darwinian anti-Semite.

Anon, a Darwinian perspective would be that people...

2012-10-13T13:16:24.323-04:00

Anon, a Darwinian perspective would be that people's actions are motivated (whether they know it or not) by drives to survive and reproduce.

But you can't say that a Darwinian must have certain political views. Any more than you can say that an anti Darwinian's internet activity is not, at bottom, motivated by the deep seated genetic impulse to survive and reproduce.

It's odd how, when Rushton is accused above of...

2012-10-13T04:25:11.185-04:00

It's odd how, when Rushton is accused above of blasphemy, no evidence is offered that the alleged blasphemous belief is false. The inquisitor making the accusation seems to believe that the label of blasphemy suffices. This is religion, not science. But it's been very successful at crippling science.

People seek scientific validation for their person...

2012-10-13T03:07:45.879-04:00

People seek scientific validation for their personal beliefs. Johnson is no exception. So he's highly motivated to make Rushton look like a friend and fellow traveller.

It's true that confirmation bias exists, but it also goes both ways. People who don't want Rushton to be associated with anti-Semitism will be highly motivated to believe that Johnson is lying about his encounter with Rushton.

For Johnson and his audience, Rushton is a long familiar character and already is considered a fellow traveler. There isn't anything to gain from making up anecdotes like this, so I don't think Johnson would be highly motivated to do so.

If I had to guess, I'd say he agreed with parts of it, but not with others.

Yes, it was reasonable to suspect before ever hearing about Johnson's recollection that someone like Rushton would agree with at least "parts" of MacDonald's work. Which is why it's reasonable to believe that Johnson's anecdote is likely true. Basic Bayesian reasoning.

Sean, Even in the best of circumstances, recollec...

2012-10-12T20:24:01.602-04:00

Sean,

Even in the best of circumstances, recollections tend to be imperfect. People read more into what others say than what is actually said. In any case, Rushton was not someone who shunned controversy. If he had wanted to endorse Kevin MacDonald's work, he would have. If I had to guess, I'd say he agreed with parts of it, but not with others.

Kiwiguy,

Frankly, I can't agree with much in that paper. Africans have more genetic diversity because (a) they've stayed put in the same place longer than other populations and (b) they've intermixed more with archaic hominins. But most of this diversity is nonadaptive. It largely involves junk DNA. If we look at morphology or physiology, we don't see more variability in Africa than anywhere else.

Jprez,

What do I think about immigration? It will level the U.S. down to the social and material conditions that prevail in most of the world. The U.S., like the West in general, is an outlier. Remove all the barriers, and the outlier will disappear.

Is a population of half a billion sustainable in the U.S.? It might be, if Americans were Japanese or Germans. Even then, there'd be serious shortages of water and other basics of life. At best, it would be a high-risk gamble. At worst ...

Peter, Very funny. But um..what are your thoug...

2012-10-12T18:07:41.769-04:00

Peter,

Very funny. But um..what are your thoughts on my positions on immigration?

OT. Peter, An interesting paper which has caus...

2012-10-11T18:59:32.800-04:00

OT.

Peter,

An interesting paper
which has caused controversy despite the authors apparently completely missing work/ideas of people like Greg Clark or yourself on genetic pacification. I see that comments are allowed on the Nature site.

The Out of Africa Hypothesis, Human Genetic Diversity, and Comparative Economic Development
Quamrul Ashraf and Oded Galor:

"While intermediate levels of genetic diversity prevalent among Asian and European populations have been conducive for development, the high diversity of African populations and the low diversity of Native American populations have been detrimental for the development of these regions."

I don't believe for one moment that Johnson wa...

2012-10-11T17:18:04.018-04:00

I don't believe for one moment that Johnson was innocently inquiring about immigration when Rushton burst out about a Jewish plot to exterminate whites. It's unreasonable for Johnson to claim certainty about exactly what Rushton said. People like Johnson are almost totally ignored, he has plenty of incentive to kid himself, and he's quite capable of lying. He believes white people are victims of genocide, and that anything is justified in self defense.

Here's Greg on his 'respect' for Breivik. "Morally speaking, there is simply no valid argument against political violence per se, particularly in resistance to genocide. The justification of a particular act of violence depends entirely upon whether or not it actually is necessary to serve a moral end."

Anon, "I don't think Johnson is lying a...

2012-10-11T14:03:22.237-04:00

Anon,

"I don't think Johnson is lying about this. And there is no motivation or incentive for him to do so."

People seek scientific validation for their personal beliefs. Johnson is no exception. So he's highly motivated to make Rushton look like a friend and fellow traveller.

Jprez,

Interesting. So if you make yourself look absurd, everybody else starts to look absurd. Must be a new theory of relativity

Maybe people like Rushton are just 'born that ...

2012-10-10T14:07:23.319-04:00

Maybe people like Rushton are just 'born that way'.
The genetics of politics. On the other hand, Rushton and Jensen were both trained by Eysenck.

Discussion of HBD is interesting, for those of us afflicted with curiosity. But I'll never understand why anyone thinks public knowledge of HBD facts (which it's considered malevolent to mention) might affect policies that are being justified on moral grounds.

Most of those who are implementing an anti-white ideology are white themselves. That's why they're so self-righteous about their actions; you can't get less racist than sticking it to your own people.

"No, I didn't know that. Perhaps you'...

2012-10-10T08:22:43.111-04:00

"No, I didn't know that. Perhaps you're trying to be funny?"

No..just pointing out the absurdity of the overpopulation movement :).

***For that matter, no mainstream publishing house...

2012-10-10T04:46:52.575-04:00

***For that matter, no mainstream publishing house would ever again allow anything on that topic. ***

Yes, well it seems even Steve Hsu's musings about race and work on the genetic basis of cognitive ability has been enough to raise the hackles of some. An article about his appointment at Michigan State reports:

"Shortly after the start of classes this fall, Daniel HoSang, a professor of political science and ethnic studies at the University of Oregon, sent an email to a handful of faculty. Hsu, he wrote, “has taken a keen personal and professional interest in projects with strong Eugenicist overtones.” Because of Hsu’s position of authority at MSU, he said, he felt compelled to warn them."

Hsu in his post post on the article reveals this extraordinary comment by HoSang:

"Then Assistant Professor HoSang once publicly stated (during a social science seminar at Oregon I attended) that he would "do everything in his power" to oppose another (Sociology) faculty member's effort to explain recent genetic results to the broader field. I found this statement so odd that it stuck in my memory. The paper that elicited the threat is published here. The story behind the publication of the paper (which took something like 4 years; I have read the actual referee reports), by a faculty member who has held tenured positions at both Oregon and Dartmouth, is shocking and contributed to my comments in the last paragraph above."