in the dark about the dark enlightenment

so, there were a couple of hit pieces on the dark enlightenment — and human biodiversity — in the telegraph this week:

“Meet The Dark Enlightenment: sophisticated neo-fascism that’s spreading fast on the net”

“It started, suitably enough, with two blogs. Mencius Moldbug, a prolific blogger and computer whizz from San Francisco, and Nick Land, an eccentric British philosopher (previously co-founder of Warwick University’s Cybernetic Culture Research Unit) who in 2012 wrote the eponymous ‘The Dark Enlightenment’, as a series of posts on his site. You can find them all here.

“The philosophy, difficult to pin down exactly, is a loose collection of neo-reactionary ideas, meaning a rejection of most modern thinking: democracy, liberty, and equality. Particular contempt is reserved for democracy, which Land believes ‘systematically consolidate[s] and exacerbate[es] private vices, resentments, and deficiencies until they reach the level of collective criminality and comprehensive social corruption.’

The neo-fascist bit lies in the view that races aren’t equal (they obsess over IQ testing and pseudoscience that they claim proves racial differences, like the Ku Klux Klan) and that women are primarily suited for domestic servitude. They call this ‘Human biodiversity’ – a neat little euphemism….

no, they don’t — or that’s not what human biodiversity means, anyway — but never let the facts get in the way of a good story, right?

“This links directly to their desire to be rid of democracy: because if people aren’t equal, why live in a society in which everyone is treated equally? Some races are naturally better to rule than others, hence their support for various forms of aristocracy and monarchy (and not in the symbolic sense but the very real divine-right-of-kings-sense).

this particular blog post (the piece appears in the telegraph’s blog section) was written by jamie bartlett who is at the u.k. think-tank demos. (demos was founded by a guy who had been editor of “Marxism Today,” the “theoretical magazine of the Communist Part of Great Britain,” so i’m sure there are no biases at demos, right??)

on twitter, and on the telegraph, bartlett describes himself as “Director of Centre for the Analysis of Social Media at Demos”. which is true. but on the demos website, he’s also — firstly — described as being the “Head of the Violence and Extremism Programme” and that his “primary research interests are: terrorism, extremism and social media analysis…”, so, you know — he’s obviously got a hard-on for The Bad Guys. (i don’t know at all whether he does or not, but i hope he’s keeping an eye on left-wing extremists, too!)

the other article (blog post) was by tim stanley:

“The ‘neo-fascist’ Dark Enlightenment is more sad than scary”

“Jamie reports that there is a ‘neo-fascist’ element to this because they ‘obsess over IQ testing and pseudoscience that they claim proves racial differences’. Presumably, this is because they are anti-egalitarian and would argue that nature makes us unequal, which is one more reason why democracy is a sham. The weak and idiotic ally together to form a majority and rip off the intelligent minority. Now, can anyone remember who John Galt is…?

“That these ‘neo-reactionaries’ admire monarchies is what makes they seem way-out and new….

“However, there is a distinctly unlibertarian note of crazy about the neo-reactionary interest in IQ. Aside from the bad science and the irony of being anti-statist yet sympathetic to the idea that you can measure intelligence and use it to justify social policy – it does also set off ‘white rights’ alarms bells….

“*There is no line to be walked between reason and racism.* Racism and biological determinism are unscientific and immoral, and they have no place in a sane philosophy.”

yeah, i know — even more confused than bartlett’s blog post. but, then, stanley is under the impression that lactose intolerance is a preference and not something biological:

tim stanley tweet

dr. stanley is an historian, which is great! i’m all for knowing and understanding as much as possible about history. but i think he really does need to put down the history books for a few weeks and read up on biology. might actually help him understand human history a bit more!
_____

so, the dark enlightenment = neoreaction = monarchism = human “bad science” diversity = neo-fascism.

NOT!

lemme see if i can help to clear this all up for these fellows.

last time i checked, which admittedly was over half a year ago, the dark enlightenment was a broad, umbrella term for several current schools of thought, one of them being neo-reaction, a subset of those being monarchists. what everyone in the dark enlightenment shares in common is an understanding and acceptance of human biodiversity, i.e. the diversity found among and between human populations that has a biological basis. (i pretty much stole that lovely, succint definition from caitlin s. i’ll be writing more on what, exactly, human biodiversity is in the coming weeks — apparently the world needs that — so stay tuned those of you who don’t know already!)

sharlach drew up a really great map of the dark enlightenment for the nsa all of us last april (there might be a more updated map — i dunno — i haven’t been following the discussion that closely – click on map for LARGER view):

darkenlightenment1

see? there’s more to the dark enlightenment than monarchist neo-reactionaries. not that there’s anything wrong with monarchist neo-reactionaries! god luv ’em. i just happen not to be one of them. (unless, of course, i get to be queen — and get to wear outfits like queen elizabeth’s. the first one, i mean.)
_____

the term “the dark enlightenment” is clearly a reference to the enlightenment, and i’ve always thought the meaning would be fairly obvious: the conclusions of the eighteenth century enlightenment thinkers were pretty much based upon ideas like “man is a rational creature” and “all men are created equal.” the problem is, today’s science is showing over and over again that neither of those two premises is correct — far from it (unfortunately)! humans are not rational and we don’t all have the same abilities. these revelations (from science) are disappointing, ergo the use of “dark” as our descriptor.

additionally, the enlightenment didn’t spawn just one political or social ideology, it gave rise to many. same with the dark enlightenment. you and i might agree on the facts of human biodiversity, but we might have different ideas as to how to apply that knowledge: some go for redistributing wealth more from the capable to the not-so-capable, some might suggest ways to improve education, others might just want to enhace their pick-up-artistry skillz. so, not everyone connected to the dark enlightenment are “neo-fascists” — although my guess is that the use of the word by bartlett and stanley was just meant as an insult.

when nick land first coined the term, many folks in these quarters of the internet objected for various reasons. i liked the term right away — still do! but, then, like this other chick, i’ve always been rather drawn to the dark side. (shut-up, roissy! (~_^) )

update: see also mr. mangan’s Criticism of neoreaction

previously: dark enlightenment roadmap

(note: comments do not require an email. …we have cookies!)

42 Comments

  1. Honestly, the Dark Enlightenment is a silly and hyperbolic term for what should be fairly uncontroversial at this point; that individual and group differences in behaviour have their roots to some important degree in biology. By now this is, or should be, standard social science, and I think actually is becoming significantly less contested. I remember reading that A.J Figueredo had a bunch of his students in Arizona re-read E.O Wilson’s “Sociobiology”, and these 2007-era students were completely shocked that the book had ever been regarded as controversial. Figueredo and his group have also published a ton of excellent papers, in PAID and elsewhere, on the measurement and validation of Rushton’s “differential K” concept.

    Somehow the term has unfortunately got tangled up with the whole Return of the King/neoreactionary business – which is what it is, I respect these people’s views, and I do think it’s important to remember that democracy has hardly had much time to prove its efficacy and sustainability. However, that group are currently never going to be regarded as anything other than quite fringe (right now at least). Their thinking may be derivative of human sociobiology, I don’t know and it doesn’t really matter: their existence should not obscure the fact that the biological model of human social behaviour and its evolution is perfectly scientifically sound.

    As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate is an awfully long time). There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences in intelligence are significantly – even mostly – genetic in origin, though the degree is of course a very serious subject of scholarly debate. That debate busily bustles on, and I’m sure we’ll have more precise answers in another 5 years or so, though whether the politicians will pay any attention is debatable. It would be nice if they did from the standpoint of immigration control (in the UK, that is).

    Reply

  2. I had made myself busy with defacing the Jamie Bartlett piece in the comment section with insults about Marxists and ignorance of science until I noticed that you and some other grown-ups had engaged with him on twitter. Whew!

    It is just that my blood boils when poorly thought out rhubarb appears in an old timey outlet, and I become inarticulate with anger, imagining blue haired British ladies clucking with disapproval over their tea and Telegraph at the doings of wicked me, and my dark monarchist thoughts.

    Actually my three remaining English and Scottish aunts are monarchists, so maybe it is not all bad. That reminds me, I owe each letter. I have not been a dutiful nephew.

    Reply

  3. so, there were a couple of hit pieces…

    As they used to say in WW2: When you get flak, you know you’re over the target.

    Their preference is to ignore ideas that threaten them. When they’re attacking you, you know that they know that you know that they’re worried.

    Tim Stanley looks like what he is: a smug narcissist with an arts degree and fathomless ignorance of science. (It takes one to know one!)

    Reply

  4. The Daily Telegraph is generally right-wing (or at least, right-of-centre) and fairly conservative. I think they must include articles or blog posts from left-wing writers, not so much to offer balance, but rather to troll their readers and generate more site traffic and clicks and create controversy and articles which go viral. Like the Daily Mail has been successfully doing.

    Reply

  5. ” “neo-fascists” — although my guess is that the use of the word by bartlett and stanley was just meant as an insult.”

    That’s all it *ever* means anymore. Except maybe when Alessandra Mussolini uses it.

    It’s like the word “social” in most discourse today, where it exists merely as a particle of negation.

    Reply

  6. “HBD” or “race realism” are just terms used by racialists/racists/fascists, which they use to sound more neutral. Even Stormfront users have adopted these terms (yes, just go take a look – most now call themselves “race realists” despite having 88 in their name).

    Online “HBD” bloggers also love to set up up the straw man that somehow there are scientists who deny human biological variation or biodiversity – a position that does not exist and never has (not even Lewontin). Clearly biological differences exist which are observable. Most scientists however study traits individually, rather than as populations. Why? Simply because virtually all traits are non-concordant. This is why the idea of “race” was abandoned from the 1960’s after Livingstone published his paper. The only populations that are studied in the sense of biodiversity are local breeding groups (a tribe, regional population or say the Amish), certainly not the “White”, “Black” or “Cockazoid” discredited “races” HBDer’s use (which are actually culturally constructed).

    ” human biodiversity, i.e. the diversity found among and between human populations that has a biological basis.”

    Individuals biologically vary also. “HBD” bloggers though do not discuss this.

    If you were really interested in human biological diversity you should know that population differences actually obscure variation more than individual traits.

    Reply

  7. “i get to be queen”

    sciencetiger, you shall have a tigertreat

    “… and I do think it’s important to remember that democracy has hardly had much time to prove its efficacy and sustainability.”

    Can’t prove it, never had it. Filmer had a pretty good handle on this in 1680:

    “The best order, the greatest strength, the most stability, and easiest government are to be found all in monarchy, and in no other form of government. The new platforms of commonweals were first hatched in a corner of the world, amongst a few cities of Greece, which have been imitated by very few other places. Those very cities were first, for many years, governed by kings, until wantonness, ambition, or faction of the people, made them attempt new kinds of regimen; all which mutations proved most bloody and miserable to the authors of them — happy in nothing but that they continued but a small time.” (Et cetera.)

    Reply

  8. Prufrock, The American Conservatives attempt at cultural commentary linked to a similar hit-piece over at the American Spectator today. The hit-piece was purile in the extreme, showing little familiarity and less depth. Why this simultaneous attack? I took the opportunity to cancel my notification link with Prufrock, and explained my reason in detail. TAC is declining precipitously as a serious journal.

    Reply

  9. When leftards start squawking “fascism(TM)” and “racist(TM)” like that it usually just means they’ve run out of child pornography.

    Reply

  10. @bulfinch – “Online ‘HBD’ bloggers also love to set up up the straw man that somehow there are scientists who deny human biological variation or biodiversity….”

    hope you’re not including me in that group (whoever they are).

    @bulfinch – “Most scientists however study traits individually, rather than as populations. Why? Simply because virtually all traits are non-concordant…. If you were really interested in human biological diversity you should know that population differences actually obscure variation more than individual traits.”

    nope.

    @bulfinch – “Individuals biologically vary also. ‘HBD’ bloggers though do not discuss this.”

    stay tuned. as i said in the post:

    “i’ll be writing more on what, exactly, human biodiversity is in the coming weeks — apparently the world needs that — so stay tuned those of you who don’t know already!”

    that individuals vary biologically will be included (it’s already in the outline).

    Reply

  11. I’ve seen nothing on HBD blogs about monarchy! True, I’m fairly new to it, but I’ve noticed few discuss politics at all. Maybe I’m concentrating on the more science-oriented blogs, which makes sense because I read political stuff all day for my regular blogging. Our readers are certainly conservative, but I’ve never heard of anyone wanting to return to monarchy. (Not that I would consider it unfit for discussion).

    There are far more “political” blogs than HBD and I’ve never seen one suggest seriously that we need something other than democracy.

    But that Communist the The Telegraph (WTF?), give me a break. I’ve read a great deal on the history of Communism and it’s grim. Horrid. Millions dead. Lives ruined. Gulags. So, I’d pay no attention to a Communist. He must be crazy.

    The variation in IQ can be touchy even for conservatives. Some are quite religious and it offends them. You have to be simply interested in going where the evidence leads, and not everyone is prepared to do that.

    Saw a story today about some marathon or long race, with Ethiopians taking all the honours. Funny how the best long distance runners all seem to come from an area in East Africa. Must be a coincidence. What else could it be?

    Reply

  12. As usual Grey hits the nail on the head in remarkably succinct style – “Their focus on anti-democracy is projection.”

    I’m reminded of Harry Potter films when they fight with wands – the aim is to turn your opponent into an insect before they can turn you into a reptile (or vice versa).

    People are being led by their emotions; people who ultimately only want to conform.

    ‘sophisticated but bizarre’ – this is not analysis but a very clever signpost to readers. The first word signals that the journalist is ‘balanced’ because he is able to make a positive of his opponent, the second word just introduces the idea of a negative, which later on is rammed home with much more negative associations.

    DE has been irreversibly, pejoratively labelled – read the words ‘rejectionist philosophy’, ‘radical anti-establishment politics’ – what the reader ends up believing is that they are surrounded by ‘barbarians’. That is not at all how human science should present itself.

    Peter Frost has distanced himself from DE and said that he is quite satisfied to rekindle the actual Enlightenment. I would say the same (but HB still gets to fly around in a cat suit if she wants to :))

    Reply

  13. “the term “the dark enlightenment” is clearly a reference to the enlightenment, and i’ve always thought the meaning would be fairly obvious: the conclusions of the eighteenth century enlightenment thinkers were pretty much based upon ideas like “man is a rational creature” and “all men are created equal.” the problem is, today’s science is showing over and over again that neither of those two premises is correct — far from it (unfortunately)! humans are not rational and we don’t all have the same abilities. these revelations (from science) are disappointing, ergo the use of “dark” as our descriptor.”

    I always figured the reason people call it the Dark Enlightenment was to project a swaggering bad-boy kind of image. The, “we’re the guys your mama told you not to hang out with” kind of image. Hence all the Dark Lord, Darth Vader, Sith, and Chtulu imagery.
    Basically, we’re the sexy bad-boys of intellectual thought.

    If the goal is to act as a continuation of the enlightenment and the illumination of knowledge and reason and science/empiricism etc, why not call it the neo-enlightenment?

    Reply

  14. Because once you realise certain things, you came to very unwelcome conclusions. Like, for example, if you like democracy AND you believe in HBD, then eventually democracy and meritocracy (without genetical engineering) will give you a society with zero or almost zero social mobility; low classes will stay permamently low, no matter what you will do. That;s why it is DARK enlightenment – because if you are idealist, the conclusions will make you quite depressed and dissatisfied, not to say cynical.

    Reply

  15. It’s probably a good idea for people who are primarily interested in blogging about controversial scientific ideas to establish and maintain a clear wall of separation from those who are primarily interested in coming up with political ideas based, in part, on those controversial scientific ideas.

    As a scientist or science blogger, you kind of have to say “I’m not rejecting the enlightenment, I’m just trying to rekindle the original enlightenment”. Otherwise, you get into questioning the philosophy of science and you make your work less palatable to other more conformist scientists. Being known as a neo-fascist scientist = instant preemptive dismissal of your work. Being a scientist who has the reputation of being associated with neo-fascists = unnecessary baggage.

    As a politics / philosophy blogger, one is much more free to riff on these ideas and take them in controversial directions, since one is doing rhetoric and philosophy, not science.

    It would be a shame if HBD somehow became linked with monarchism in the minds of a generation, the way that eugenics got linked with naziism.

    I’m sympathetic to the ideas of the dark enlightenment but I think it was a big mistake to draw visualizations that imply that HBD and techno-futurist monarchists are part of the same “movement”.

    Somehow it should have been made more clear that the techno-futurist monarchists were simply taking the apolitical scientific ideas of HBD and riffing on them in their own … ahem… unique way.

    Reply

  16. […] HBDChick does an excellent job taking the guy apart. The mere fact that the guy works for a Marxist front group disqualifies him from serious company. But, it explains the liberal use of the word “fascist” in his rants. Marxism, like all groups on the Left needs bogeymen. The Marxists call their bogeymen fascists, which is a catch-all phrase for the undifferentiated other they fear is on the other side of the door, ready to burst in and snatch them away. It says something about the world when it is OK to be a Marxist, despite the fact that cult has murdered about 100 million people worldwide. […]

    Reply

  17. That Jayman guy needs to shut it with his angry fascist white male viewpoints

    Actually JayMan claims to be black – or at least partly black. It might be that his pen name means ‘Jamaica Man’. However his recent postings of pictures of his new baby don’t support the notion that he’s of mixed race. The baby looks white. I don’t really know. But he doesn’t strike me as particularly angry either.

    The term ‘Fascist’ doesn’t seem to mean not much these days except that you don’t agree with the someone else politically. It’s like calling Nazis right wingers – or more often calling right wingers Nazis. Many HBDers are classical liberals – that is to say a liberal in the sense of the term during the Enlightenment.

    But terms change meaning over time. The Tea Party is also a group that generally adheres to 18th Century liberal ideas. Yet they are often called Nazis, Fascists and Right Wingers. Generally they believed in less government but also in less organized or established religion, a strong citizenry and a certain taste for moderate isolationism. They approve of self reliance and embrace tolerance. They oppose national imperialism or adventurism. How could anyone in good conscience think that set of principals was anything like Nazism or Fascism?

    The anti-democracy bent seen on many HBD blogs is more of an observation rather than a prescription. Democracy doesn’t seem to be working out. I deeply regret that, but it’s hard to ignore.

    American democracy in Philadelphia at the Constitutional Convention was considered an experiment. Many of the Founding Fathers would be surprised that we have done so well for so long with democracy, But recently cracks have begun to appear in the magnificent edifice we have built.

    I was politically active in the sixties as I had been in the late fifties. But even in the tumultuous sixties when you couldn’t swing a cat without hitting a Marxist revolutionary, no one really believed the Republic was is any danger of collapsing. Yet today the decline or fall of America is a common topic of discourse. I’m reading one of Steyn’s books on that topic right now. Never before could you write best sellers about the collapse of America.

    No one believed it when Khrushchev said the USSR would bury us, but everyone seems to believe now that China will soon surpass us. That’s new. American’s believe now for the first time that we are in decline.

    And American prosperity is what keeps American democracy afloat.

    No one cared much when Reagan ran up the National Debt to fund an arms build-up. But everyone is concerned today with the National Debt that is filled with ballooning entitlement payments. Congress doesn’t seem to have the will to slow the fiscal hemorrhaging. We are moving into unexplored territory. Half the nation already pays no federal taxes but collects federal welfare payments. There is no theory of government that predicts a happy outcome for democracy under those circumstances.

    We built the atomic bomb and we sent men to the moon, but no one seems very optimist about rebuilding Detroit.

    Reply

  18. “HBD” in regards to online blogging was coined by Steve Sailer – a journalist and movie critic who has no background or qualifications in science whatsoever.

    Most other “HBD” bloggers also do not have scientific credentials.

    The term “HBD” is adopted online by those with far-right views to sound neutral. Just go through HBD chick’s “hbd blogs” list. More than 90% of them are linked to scientific racism, white nationalism, holocaust denial and neo-Nazism.

    Reply

  19. a) Land can’t write.

    Neither can Moldbug. Neither can most of the “sages.”

    Land, I’ve not read. Moldbug is very verbal and intelligent, but honestly, I think he’s also a bit too clever-clever. I read his stuff and even when I agree, I don’t feel like I’ve witnessed a persuasive intellectual argument. I feel like I’ve seen some fast intellectual sleight-of-hand. But maybe I’m dumb.

    In 2009 he called Robin Hanson’s futarchy idea “retarded” and they ended up having the above live debate. At one point, he argues that futarchy is not credible because it hasn’t been tested in the real world…but that’s an argument that could have been used on any political or economic theory anywhere. All ideas were untested at some point. Hanson just keeps coming back with “yes, and I want it to be tested. That’s why I’m pushing it.” Somehow Moldbug isn’t as impressive in a live forum where he has to back his statements up.

    Reply

  20. Moldbug can write. I find his posts rather clear, and easy to understand. But dear God he needs an editor. Almost everything he writes could convey at least as much in half the space, perhaps less.

    Bulfinch is either a troll or completely ignorant, and should be sent off to read, and understand, something like Jayman’s collection of HBD fundamentals before he blithers on here.

    Reply

  21. Bullfinch, I’m thinking you don’t know what the symbols “90%” mean.

    Let me narrow things down for you. If you want science, start over at InfoProc and West Hunter. Plenty of research there.

    Good luck, and write when you get work.

    Reply

  22. Anyone who fails to recognize Moldbug as one of the greatest prose stylists of our time is a hopeless vulgarian (whatever other admirable qualities they might have).

    Reply

  23. Sorry, the last ‘anonymous’ was me — incompetence reinforced by Cambodian connectivity rather than sock-puppetry. It’s interesting to see a number of voices in the HBD sphere begin to peel the term away from ‘Neoreaction’ — but there’s more to DE than biorealism, most obviously political realism (about the lack of distinction between democratization and a social ratchet to the left).

    Reply

  24. “Jayman’s collection of HBD fundamentals”

    This is nothing more than a list of links mostly from bedroom bloggers with no scientific credentials. Of the few sources that are peer-reviewed on the list, we just have Rushton or similar discredited psychologists. No actual scientists like biologists. You’re a joke.

    The “HBD” bibliography/reading list at humabiologicaldiversity is much the same. Also the list is filled with scientists who DENY human races exist such a Cavalli-Sforza.

    Do race skeptics now count as “HBDer’s”? The person who compiled that list is an amateur and clearly hasn’t read much on there. Just another bedroom blogger I guess.

    Reply

  25. Rushton’s 1990s papers have been hugely influential here in Canada. He has never received any serious scientific criticism for his work (unless you count Boazian anthropology as science, which scientists do not). I saw his main critic, left wing Canadian media personality David Suzuki, inarticulate in a debate against Rushton.

    In the end the lefties demanded criminal charges be brought against him for his published, peer reviewed papers. Ontario’s attorney General declined to prosecute on the grounds that there were no grounds, and Rushton gained considerable respect in the scientific community for his application of r/K Selection Theory to crime rates and IQ.

    Incidentally pretending that biologists are actual scientists and psychologists aren’t is mere trolling.

    Reply

  26. @nick – “It’s interesting to see a number of voices in the HBD sphere begin to peel the term away from ‘Neoreaction’ — but there’s more to DE than biorealism, most obviously political realism (about the lack of distinction between democratization and a social ratchet to the left).”

    hi, nick! (^_^)

    yes, there’s more to the dark enlightenment than biorealism, but i thought that the political ideas coming out of the dark enlightenment are grounded in the knowledge about the biorealism. maybe i’ve got that wrong? i hope i haven’t mangled the definition of the dark enlightenment too much!

    @nick – “It’s interesting to see a number of voices in the HBD sphere begin to peel the term away from ‘Neoreaction’….”

    it’s true, i did attempt to distinguish the various elements of the dark enlightenment here, but i, personally, don’t feel a strong urge to distance hbd — as a concept and as a set of thinkers/bloggers — from the dark enlightenment, if that’s what you meant by “peel away.” just to be clear.

    Reply

  27. I know JayMan on Facebook, he is on fact black, and a nice guy and intellectually honest, though we argue like cats and dogs.

    Reply

  28. I really don’t care for the term dark enlightenment — a real turn off in my opinion. In any case I prefer the Scottish enlightenment.

    Reply

  29. “He has never received any serious scientific criticism for his work (unless you count Boazian anthropology as science, which scientists do not)”

    All of Rushton’s and Lynn’s claims have been refuted –

    Groves, C. P. (1990). “Genes, genitals and genius: the evolutionary ecology of race”. Proceedings of the Australasian Society for Human Biology. 4. pp. 419-43.
    Cernovsky, Z. (1992). “J. P. Rushton on Negroids and Caucasoids: Statistical concepts and disconfirmatory evidence”. International Journal of Dynamic Assessment and Instruction. 2:55–67.
    Weizmann, F., Wiener, N. I., Wiesenthal, D., & Ziegler, M. (1996). “Inventing racial psychologies: The (mis)uses of evolutionary theory and biology.” In: L. R. Reynolds & L.L. Lieberman (Eds.). Race and Other Misadventures. New York: General Hall.
    Relethford, J. 1995. “Review of: Race, evolution, and behavior by J. Philippe Rushton”. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 98:91–94.
    Lieberman, L. (2001). “How ‘Caucasoids’ got such big crania and why they shrank: From Morton to Rushton”. Current Anthropology. 42(1), 69–80.

    Average Sub-Saharan African IQ is not 70, but between 80 and 90 –

    Wicherts, J. M., D. C. V., Han, L . J., van der Maas. (2010). “A systematic literature review of the average IQ of Sub-Saharan Africans”. Intelligence. 38. pp. 1-20.

    No link exists between brain-size and IQ:

    “I have emerged with the conviction that vast claims have been based on insubstantial evidence. I conclude that there is no acceptable evidence for such structural differences in the brains of these two racial groups; and certainly nothing which provides a satisfactory anatomical basis for explaining any differences in IQ or in other mental and performance tests, in temperament or behavior.” – Tobias, P. V. (1970). “Brain Size, Grey Matter and Race – Fact or Fiction?”. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 32. pp. 3-26.

    There are countless more studies debunking Rushton. Bringing politics into this (claiming thoe that oppose Rushton are “lefties”) just doesn’t work, since Rushton et al have links to the far-right and white nationalists. Rushton wasn’t apolitical.

    Reply

  30. @bullfinch, you are quite mistaken. For example, on genital size: the World Health Organization delivers 40 mm condoms to east Asia, 55 mm condoms to Europe, and 70 mm condoms to Africa.

    The link between brain size and IQ is well established. Think about it. How could it be otherwise? The short gestation of pregnant women compared to other animals is so the large head can get out before it gets too big to be delivered. Even so many women die in childbirth.

    This is strong evidence that the evolutionary pressure for a larger brain must be intense.

    I have never understood why the liberal arts side of my campus insisted on taking extremely complex statements as axiomatic and then reasoning from them. The science side was always aghast. We do understand reasoning from Euclid’s five postulates (axioms) or Newtons three laws. We also understand that we can’t always put too much faith in applying the results of reasoning from sensible axioms to the real world (e.g., non-Euclidean geometry and Relativity). But to see people taking a voodoo science assertion like “race is a social construct” as axiomatic and then ignoring that it is directly contradicted in the real world is baffling.

    Go to Khayelitsha. GO to Puthaditjhaba. GO to Chicago. GO to Detroit. See for yourself. I have.

    Go to an inner city school. I did. Visit schools in Africa. I did.

    Go to Eritrea, go to Liberia, go to Uganda, go to Burundi, go to Ethiopia, go to Niger, go to Kenya, go to Nigeria, got to Guinea Bissau, go to Guinea, go to La Côte d’Ivoire, go to Zimbabwe, go to the Central African Republic, go to Haiti, go to South Sudan, go to Sudan, go to Congo, go to Sudan.

    Do you think they are failed states because of racism?

    If you can’t afford to travel, read a book. I suggest Book Three of My Traitor’s Heart by Rian Malan; or 40 Years Among the Zulus by Josiah Tyler; or Witchcraft, Violence, and Democracy in South Africa by Adam Ashforth.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s