something’s rotten in the state of denmark

i really don’t know how the danes can claim they’re the happiest people in the world year after year, when the place must STINK to high heaven thanks to how very rotten the place has apparently become.

in an unbelievably nightmarish case of déjà vu, professor helmuth nyborg has been watsoned for crimethink. again. in happy, happy denmark.

professor nyborg has come under fire for a paper which he published in 2012, The decay of Western civilization: Double relaxed Darwinian Selection. (no, i haven’t read it.) dr. james thompson has the details here on his blog: Helmuth Nyborg gets Watson’d (see also My letter to Scientific Dishonesty Minister).

in short what has happened this time is that three girlie men — and they must be girlie men, because real men — real scientists — would’ve just submitted a rebuttal paper to Personality and Individual Difference, the journal in question here — but, noooo — these three girlie men, these three harpies, complained to a committee about professor nyborg’s paper.

see? girlie men.

professors jens mammen, jens kvorning, and morten kjeldgaard took it upon themselves to complain to the danish ministry of love’s science, innovation and higher education’s danish committees on scientific dishonesty (dcsd) about what they viewed as problems with nyborg’s paper. these included accusations of plagiarism. there were, if i understand it correctly, six original charges. the dcsd has found professor nyborg guilty of two of them. you can read the decision and the entire case here [pdf] — if you read danish. a reader at dr. thompson’s blog has given a brief synopsis of the decision.

most amazingly: “Denne afgørelse kan ikke påklages til anden administrativ myndighed, jf. § 34 i lovbekendtgørelse nr. 1064 af 6. september 2010 om forskningsrådgivning m.v.”

google translation: This decision can not be appealed to any other administrative authority under § 34 of Act No. 1064 of 6 September 2010 on research consultancy, etc.”

wtf, denmark?!

these danish committees on scientific dishonesty have a colorful history. from wikipedia:

“Previously obscure, the DCSD became embroiled in controversy after its January 2003 decision that the 2001 book The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjørn Lomborg was ‘clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice’, due to the author’s systematically biased choice of data, and objectively was scientifically irredeemable, but Lomborg himself could not be subjectively convicted of intentional or gross negligence. Lomborg had argued in his book that claims by environmentalists about global warming, overpopulation, deforestation, and other matters are not scientifically substantiated. The DCSD further held that because of Lomborg’s lack of scientific expertise, he had not shown intentional or gross negligence, and acquitted him of the accusations of scientific dishonesty.

“In February 2003, Lomborg filed a complaint with the Ministry, and in December 2003, the Ministry found that the DCSD’s handling of the investigation in the case had been improper, and remitted it for re-examination. In March 2004, the DCSD stated that since its finding had been to acquit Lomborg of the charges of scientific dishonesty (although they had criticized his biased selection of data), there was no basis to re-open the investigation, and dismissed the case.

“The original DCSD decision about Lomborg provoked a petition among Danish academics. 308 scientists, many of them from the social sciences, criticised the DCSD’s methods in the case and called for the DCSD to be disbanded.” (see also nature.)

ah ha! i see. so the dcsd is the place to go in denmark if you want to whine about some politically incorrect research/opinions and hope to scupper the career of whomever the crimethinker happens to be. gotcha.

from that wikipedia article, we learn that professor mammen, one of the whiners to the dcsd this time, was formerly a member of this board of inquisitors the dcsd, but he resigned in a huff the last time professor nyborg was brought before the committee to recant…er…i mean, defend himself:

“The DCSD was involved in another controversy investigating a paper on sex and intelligence authored by Helmuth Nyborg. After the DCSD cleared Nyborg of the charges of scientific misconduct, two Aarhus University professors, Lise Togeby and Jens Mammen resigned from their positions in the DCSD, citing that the DCSD operated from too narrow of a framework.”

maybe they were disappointed that they couldn’t test whether or not professor nyborg would float.

we’ve recently been discussing on the blog here authoritarian personality types and behaviors — including left-wing authoritarianism which van hiel, et al., found in the populace in flemish belgium, but only in extreme left-wing parties like the communist and stalinist(!) parties of that country. i think that, perhaps, we may be seeing an example of left-wing authoritarianism in action in this case.

van hiel, et al., only looked at willingness to use violence and willingness to submit to a strong leader as characteristics of left-wing authoritarianism, and i’m certainly not accusing any of these men of being willing to use physical violence against anybody (there’s no evidence at all for that) — however they do seem willing to go to some extreme measures to shut nyborg up. rather than simply provide evidence that his conclusions are wrong, which is what a scientist ought to do, they attack him in the danish media (apparently) and drag him repeatedly before ridiculous committees. in other words, they have been trying to destroy his reputation and his career, rather than to engage with his arguments.

all of this sounds extreme to me — left-wing authoritarian, in fact. and — surprise, surprise! — one of these three fellows, professor mammen, was actually a member of a communist party in denmark for fourteen years (1974-1988) [in danish]. not that there’s anything wrong with that! he’s perfectly entitled to belong to any party he wants. but a communist party, according to van hiel, et al., is exactly where we should expect to find left-wing authoritarians in western europe.

professor kjeldgaard has also acted in some extreme ways wrt professor nyborg. he, in fact, keeps an entire blog/website devoted to tracking nyborg. yeah. weird. google translation:

“The most advanced eugenics (eugenics) advocacy in Denmark is Emeritus Professor Helmuth Nyborg, a former employee at the Department of Psychology, University of Aarhus.

“Eugenik.dk dedicated to documenting the international network of eugenicists, their scientific tinkering, and the so-called ‘Nyborg case’ a case of scientific misconduct raised by Aarhus University against Helmuth Nyborg in 2002.”

again, he’s perfectly entitled to be weird like this imho, but it does come off as rather…stalker-ish. (why not just write rebuttal articles??)

i am tired of these watsonings, richwinings, derbyshearings, and nyborgizations. GROW UP PEOPLE!! act like academics engaged in the search for facts and the truth for a change!

someone over at dr. thompson’s blog quoted steven pinker on the last time professor nyborg was watsoned. i think i’ll quote him, too:

“I am writing to protest the shocking and disgraceful treatment of Dr. Helmuth Nyborg following publication of his report on possible gender differences in average IQ scores. Dr. Nyborg may be mistaken, but the issue he is addressing is a factual one, and can only be evaluated by an open examination of the evidence. To ‘investigate’ him, shut down his research, or otherwise harass him because his findings are politically incorrect is unworthy of an institution dedicated to the understanding of reality. It is reminiscent of the persecution of Galileo, the crippling of Soviet science and agriculture under Lysenko, and the attempt of the American religious right wing to inhibit the teaching of evolution in the schools.

“No one has the right to legislate the truth. It can only be discovered by free inquiry, and that includes investigations that may make people uncomfortable. This is the foundation of liberal society, and it is threatened by attempts to interfere with Dr. Nyborg and his research. If he is incorrect, that will be established by a community of scholars who examine his evidence and arguments and criticize them in open forums of debate, not by the exercise of force to prevent him from pursuing his research. These are the tactics of a police state, and bring shame on any institution that uses them.”

hear, hear!

update: see also – Danish Government Tries to Censor Science it Doesn’t Like by helmuth nyborg @american renaissance (thanks, elijah!).

previously: “to disbelieve in witchcraft is the greatest of heresies”

(note: comments do not require an email. girlie men.)

Advertisements

why human biodiversity is true…and why jason richwine is right

human biodiversity — the set of biological and genetic differences between (and within) groups — is true because The Theory of Evolution is true, and since The Theory of Evolution is true, human biodiversity must be the case. (of course, The Theory of Evolution might be wrong. if so, everyone will have to head back to the drawing boards. but all the scientific indications are that The Theory is correct, so now it’s simply a matter of working out all the details.)

most of the hysteria surrounding jason richwine’s crimethink (i.e. that hispanics have a lower average iq than whites) is coming from the politically correct chattering classes — most of them on the left of course, but there are plenty of examples to be found on the right as well. these are people who probably claim to be smart (and most of them are probably pretty smart, actually), modern, and well-read. many of them are likely skeptics and atheists, too. most all of them no doubt “believe” in evolution. the problem is that they don’t understand evolution.

if they did understand evolution, they would know that, thanks to natural selection, genetic differences between populations having had long histories of developing in different types of environments are inevitable. and if they understood anything at all about biology (perhaps i’m asking too much), they would know that dna contributes to (not determines) variance in all sorts of traits in humans and other animals like personality, physique, and yes … intelligence. frankly, we’d be one really WEIRD species if there were NO differences between us all! (the pc-crowd would all probably be horrified to learn that this evolution in humans has sped up in the past 10,000 or so years thanks to the hugely increasing sizes of our populations — i.e. the more individuals you have, the more mutations there’s gonna be, and the more on which natural selection can work.)

so, the fact that the average iq of hispanics has been found, by many psychometricians btw, to be lower than the average iq of whites — and, i’ll note, that the average iq of whites has been found to be lower than the average iq of east asians — should not be surprising. that is, that there are differences between the average iqs of these different groups should not be surprising. those are the sorts of differences you’re gonna get with EVOLUTION.

do these differences mean that some peoples should be considered superior or inferior to others? no. do these differences mean that some peoples should be treated differently before the law (or in our daily lives for that matter)? of course not. do these differences mean that we should give pause for thought when considering which groups — and, perhaps more importantly, how many of any one group — to allow to immigrate to our country? absolutely!

jason richwine was right in his ph.d. thesis to suggest that we ought to consider the natures of the peoples we allow to immigrate to the u.s. if we want america to remain american in nature, since different peoples are different by nature. the addition of large numbers of foreigners to any country changes the culture and the workings of that country. jason has apparently said that immigrants to the u.s. in the past — the irish and the italians, for instance — successfully assimilated, while hispanics will not. i would suggest that what, in fact, happened was that the irish and the italians, et al., while assimilating to a certain degree also changed the nature of the country. perhaps less so than tens of millions of hispanics will do, but they altered it from a mostly anglo-saxon nation into a more generic western european nation.

all mass immigration serves to alter recipient nations to some degree or another. even the slightest bit of rational thinking based upon an understanding of evolution would lead anyone to realize that is an inevitable consequence of human biodiversity.

sadly, we live in irrational times.
_____

see also:
White v. Hispanic cognitive gap across 39 studies with 5,696,529 sample size from steve sailer.
Generations of Exclusion from greg cochran via steve sailer.
NYT: Dr. Richwine guilty of not being oblivious to the obvious from steve sailer.
“Burn The Witch!” Heritage Foundation Scuttles Away From Jason Richwine — And The Cold Hard Facts – from john derbyshire.
Christopher Jencks – “Who Should Get In?” – New York Review of Books from steve sailer.
The Crucifixion of Jason Richwine – from michelle malkin.
Jason Richwine and a bottle of Rich Wine from james thompson.
Jason Richwine’s Racial Theories Are Nothing New @the atlantic.
The IQ Test @slate.

further reading on human biodiversity:
– jayman’s hbd fundamentals
hbd bibliography

update: see also “to disbelieve in witchcraft is the greatest of heresies”

(note: comments do not require an email. two minutes of hate.)

watsoning martin sewell

sewell’s obviously a warlock who must be burnt at the stake. h/t jayman!:

“Martin Sewell, Cambridge Don, Urged To Resign Over ‘Racist And Sexist’ Views”

“A Cambridge academic responsible for mentoring students has come under pressure to resign over his controversial views which have been dubbed by some as racist, sexist and pro-Hitler….”

i like his response – a LOT:

“Sewell told HuffPost in an email: ‘I am neither sexist nor racist, nor am I pro-Hitler.

“‘The real fascism lies with attempting to compromise an academic’s career on the basis of his synthesis of peer-reviewed scientific research. The university has a long tradition of ground-breaking science and freedom of speech, which Cambridge University Students’ Union (CUSU) would do well to respect….'”

i guess the story of this evil, evil man was first brought to light by cambridge university’s student newspaper:

Cambridge Economics supervisor criticised for racist and sexist views

“Exclusive: Students have raised concerns about articles written by Martin Sewell, supervisor in Economics and research associate in Land Economy.

“Though Sewell clearly and frequently references the work of other academics, some of his statements have been considered as contentious, offensive or explicitly racist.

“For example, when writing on the significance of race in conjunction with crime, Sewell states, without reference to academic sources:

“‘The most likely reason for the high incidence of black crime is blacks’ lower intelligence and greater impulsivity, which themselves are probably biological in origin….'”

first they say he gives references and then they say he does not. i’m confused. afaics, he’s got plenty of references on his website’s race page — most of the pages seem to have biblographies, in fact. plus, it’s not as though we’re talking about an academic publication here. it’s his private website. and if someone were to have a question about a specific statement on his website, they could just email him for more details.

i hope sewell sticks to his guns! (figuratively, of course.)

here’s his website.

(note: comments do not require an email. watsoning.)

the time bill hamilton almost got watsoned

well, he actually wasn’t anywhere near being watsoned since he committed his politically incorrect faux pas in the early 1980s, but he did get a good telling off. he definitely would’ve been booted out today, though.

he thought political correctness was stupid, and his swpl-lady-accuser — well, i dunno what he thought of her, but i think she’s stupid. what on earth would he have made of our situation today?

from “Narrow Roads of Gene Land, Vol. 2” [pgs. 303-04, 307-09]:

“By 1984 two aspects of life in the USA had made me feel differently [about moving back to the uk]. One was the level of violence — this was felt even in a seemingly rural university town like Ann Arbor….

“The other main incentive for the move was also a ‘rising level’ and this had changed in the 2 years [since the last offer of a job in the uk], and was about as depressing for me as the violence. I see it now as the beginning of what came to be called ‘political correctness’, but then it just seemed an increasing intolerance about how others lived and spoke, a rising pressure to conformity. Mountain men in remote valleys might escape the new social climate but one couldn’t in Ann Arbor….

“While the ‘anti-smoke’ pollution of human freedom was one factor pushing me to Britain in the early 1980s it still wasn’t the most significant event telling me I was getting seriously out of touch with America and was going to find it difficult just to be myself if I remained there. Rather it was the experience of being telephoned by a lady academic…”

… ugh. you just know it’s going to be bad …

“…to talk to me about a letter I had sent to her department recommending one of my graduate students for an advertised post. She told me that phrases I had used were very harmful both to the student’s chances and to my own reputation. Because I had taken great care in writing the letter and considered it to contain, in fact, the strongest support I had ever given to any student, I was immediately dismayed and puzzled. I was soon enlightened by her where the trouble lay. I had written to the effect that the student was ‘exceptionally strong on the theoretical and statistical side and with an ability especially remarkable in view of her sex and non-mathematical background’….”

… heh …

“…The offending words will be obvious to anyone today: my informant made it clear to me that I ought to have treated the student as if I had never noticed its gender.

“Hundreds of experiences have taught me that women are not as good on average at maths and spatial problems as men. This matter seemed really to need no statistical tests although plenty have been recorded. In a related field, day-to-day orientation, many women seem almost to boast about their tendency to get lost in towns and buildings: very few men do. The entire sweep of history as I knew it suggested to me the same things, and the difference continues even right up to the present in spite of all the recent equalizing forces that have been applied. Even in rats females have been shown to be less good at spatial and route-finding tasks than males although why this should be is still largely a mystery. As always, of course, the overlap of abilities is wide and there are innumerable women who are much better mathematicians and visualizers than innumerable men — I could name many who are better than me. For sure also, plenty of good women engineers, physicists, and the like are qualifying where there exists the will to enter these activities. Still, the average difference remains for me striking and is confirmed through a multitude of channels. Aptitude tests performed on small children are just the start of them. Nowadays some parents make a special point of trying to override any cultural bias that may have existed in erstwhile courses of infancy and childhood and I, too, have made my own small intrafamily attempts, out of interest, to see if the tendency could be overridden (diagrams of theorems of Euclid pinned inside the hood of one daughter’s perambulator formed a part of one experiment). But neither I nor others who have tried it, I think, can record much success (my daughter, however, did pass advanced-level school maths).

“Anyway, consequently I didn’t believe the theory that the difference comes wholly from cultural factors, and I assumed that, in spite of all the outcry of a few based so far as I could see on very flimsy evidence and excuses, most intelligent people of both sexes would interpret my letter the same way as I meant it. Holding this expectation, I had wanted to be sure my student would not be automatically devalued by a reader of my letter who might interpret it as a more vague complement: ‘Exceptional,’ he says, but he means no doubt ‘as women go’ — who wouldn’t leave this unsaid of his own student?’ I had added the phrase to forestall this, to make clear that I was aware of the average difference and nevertheless gave unqualified praise. I assumed any ‘search’ committee would understand this and that it would raise, not lower, my student’s chance. I still can hardly credit that what I wrote would be interpreted in any other way…. But in the gathering new climate — in which, by analogy, I suppose you are not supposed to mention in a letter that you happen to have noticed that a student has the handicap of being blind — they were not harmless: some acid remarks from the person on the phone made this plain when, amazed, I tried to explain what I had meant….

“The end result was that I decided, rather as I had done at Cambridge when I had been told there was no possible connection between genetics and social anthropology, that I should try to pursue my career as a misogynist somewhere else with the corollary to this decision that I needed to be careful about taking on more graduate students generally if my best efforts were going to harm them in ways I had become too socially blind to see.”

reading this account reminded me of something pat buchanan wrote just the other day — The Equality Racket:

“And here is the unvarying argument of the left since Karl Marx: If you give us power, we will take from the rich who have so much and give it to you who have so little. But before we can do that, you must give us power.

“This is the equality racket. As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:

“‘The sole condition which is required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community, is to love equality, or to get men to believe you love it. Thus the science of despotism, which was once so complex, is simplified, and reduced … to a single principle.’

When they come preaching equality, what they want is power.

uh-huh.

(note: comments do not require an email. find x.)

ANOTHER watsoning in the air?!

i see from altright that kanazawa is now being “investigated” by the lse for his “controversial” blog post.

jesus h. christ!

how many watsonings have there been so far?: james watson, larry summers, chris brand, lazar greenfield … charles murray certainly didn’t have an easy time over “the bell curve.” i’m sure i’m forgetting someone.

now, maybe, kanazawa?

this is ridiculous. thinking people cannot put up with this anymore. it really is a full-blown witch-hunt. there’s no other way to describe this behavior.

edit: or inquisition, i guess.

previously: the offensive mr. kanazawa

update 05/21: see also dennis.

(note: comments do not require an email.)

another day…

…another watsoning.

this time it’s a (once) respected doctor by the name of lazar greenfield. here’s what he wrote that’s gotten him into hot water — this was in his st. valentine’s day editorial in the official newspaper of the american college of surgeons:

“As far as humans are concerned, you may think you know all about sexual signals, but you’d be surprised by new findings. It’s been known since the 1990s that heterosexual women living together synchronize their menstrual cycles because of pheromones, but when a study of lesbians showed that they do not synchronize, the researchers suspected that semen played a role. In fact, they found ingredients in semen that include mood enhancers like estrone, cortisol, prolactin, oxytocin, and serotonin; a sleep enhancer, melatonin; and of course, sperm, which makes up only 1%-5%. Delivering these compounds into the richly vascularized vagina also turns out to have major salutary effects for the recipient. Female college students having unprotected sex were significantly less depressed than were those whose partners used condoms (Arch. Sex. Behav. 2002;31:289-93). Their better moods were not just a feature of promiscuity, because women using condoms were just as depressed as those practicing total abstinence. The benefits of semen contact also were seen in fewer suicide attempts and better performance on cognition tests.

“So there’s a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there’s a better gift for that day than chocolates.”

ok. so maybe the closing joke is a little tasteless for a professional journal. but that, of course, is not what the good doc is in deep sh*t for. apparently, everyone’s now questioning if he — AND the whole american college of surgeons — is sexist, racist, hates gays & lesbians, pulls the wings off flies and kicks small dogs. ok, ok. not the last two. but the rest — i kid you not!:

“While women now make up almost half of all entering medical school classes in the United States, fewer than a third choose to go into surgery, in part because of a perceived male bias, negative attitudes of surgeons and a lack of female mentors. Once in practice, studies have shown, well over half of all women surgeons report feeling demeaned, and nearly a third say they have been the objects of inappropriate sexist remarks or advances….

“It is less clear what attitudes Dr. Greenfield or other leaders of the organization have toward the college’s gay and lesbian members. ‘I think race and religion have made a lot more progress in the college than women, and particularly gay women or men,’ Dr. Brophy said. ‘This is probably the first time I’ve ever seen the word ‘lesbian’ used in a piece or associated with the college. Ever.'”

ok. now even i got why watson was watsoned. i mean, i didn’t understand it, of course — but even i know that you can’t say anything even remotely implying any differences between the races, especially if it reflects badly on non-whites, and even if your intentions are good.

but i really don’t get how what greenfield said was politically incorrect. ok. the joke at the end was a bit tasteless (i found it funny, tho — of course, that prolly confirms that it’s tasteless!) — but the rest of it is sound, afaics. if people have a problem with the FACTS, why don’t they go and try to disprove them?! (that’s a rhetorical question. don’t worry. i get it. we’re talking about power and political correctness here.) i mean, here’s the original research about depression in women and semen. GO TEST THE HYPOTHESIS AGAIN and see if it holds up or not!

sheesh.

and what the h*ck did he say about lesbians (and gays) that was offensive? just that their menstrual cycles don’t synchronize when they live together? (i never knew that.) what — WHAT — is offensive about pointing out that (apparent) FACT?!

i know, i know. we’re ALL THE SAME! heaven forbid someone points out any differences between people. ’cause then it will be TEOTWAWKI!!!!

(*roll eyes*)

(note: comments do not require an email.)