Why Pinker? Why "Pinkerite"?

Hello and welcome to Pinkerite. Pinkerite (will be) a podcast (and this related website) looking at race science and the Intellectual Dark Web with a focus on Steven Pinker. Why Pinker? According to Bari Weiss, who wrote the definitive article about the Intellectual Dark Web for the New York Times in May 2018, Pinker is the exemplar of Intellectual Dark Web respectability. She wrote: More

Sunday, February 17, 2019

Quillette - Molyneux connections

A glance at Stefan Molyneux’s subscriber count (650,000+) on YouTube suggests that he is a charismatic, persuasive and influential individual. A skilled propagandist and an effective communicator within the racist “alt-right” and pro-Trump ranks, his promotion of scientific racism and eugenics to a large and growing audience is a serious concern. Molyneux has been delivering “race realist” propaganda, based on pseudo-scientific sources, to his audience on an ongoing basis for over two years, and thus has encouraged thousands of people to adopt his belief in biological determinism, social Darwinism and non-white racial inferiority. Molyneux puts considerable effort into cloaking the practical implications of these beliefs across his media platforms.

Quillette authors who have appeared on Stefan Molyneux's YouTube channel
  1. Kevin M. Beaver - May 2015 & May 2016
  2. Peter Boghossian - July 2012 #1July 2012 #2, October 2013,  December 2013,
  3. Brian Boutwell
  4. Richard Haier
  5. David M. Haskell
  6. Adam Perkins 
  7. Michael Shermer
  8. John Paul Wright

Guests on Stefan Molyneux's YouTube channel defended and/or promoted by Quillette

This list will be updated as more information is available.

Saturday, February 16, 2019

Jerry Coyne is not really the best judge of who is a misogynist

I'm unsure of whether or not to classify Jerry Coyne as a member of the "Intellectual Dark Web" - he's not mentioned in the Bari Weiss article and he tends to avoid writing for right-wing media like Quillette, although he is a fan, but if he's not actually a member of the IDW he is certainly its biggest cheerleader.

He also appears to be Steven Pinker's publicist. Last week Coyne was sharing with the world Pinker's views on an article critical of the work of Steven Pinker (spoiler alert - Pinker & Coyne agree the criticism was bad and wrong and driven by nefarious motives) and this week he's pondering whether "New Atheism" is dead. Of course Coyne shares Pinker's thoughts with his blog audience.

Coyne shares his own thoughts:
Three articles bashing New Atheism have recently been published (here, here, and here). I already criticized the Guardian piece, and am not going to waste my time on the others. After all, we know the tropes, which have been repeated ad infinitum: New Atheism used to be a lively and going concern, then four old white men (Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris [who’s not old]) arrogantly proclaimed themselves leaders of the movement, with at least three of those men being bigoted and/or misogynistic, as well as adherents to the alt-right (Dennett manages to escape those labels). That, goes the narrative, drove people away from New Atheism, an egress that could have been avoided if New Atheism had properly aligned itself with social justice. Now, because of the fault of its leaders and its rejection of wokeness, New Atheism is dead. 
I don’t agree with this narrative on several grounds. Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris never proclaimed themselves “leaders of New Atheism”. They became spokespeople for atheism because they all had bestselling books and were also eloquent speakers.  They are not bigots or misogynists, though I admit that Dawkins was sometimes hamhanded in his use of Twitter.
It seems to never occur to Coyne that there's a good reason why Daniel Dennett has escaped being called bigoted and/or misogynistic - because he isn't on the record making bigoted and/or misogynistic statements.

It doesn't occur to Coyne because he doesn't know what bigoted and misogynistic statements are.

Hitchens is most famous outside of New Atheist circles as the guy who said women aren't funny. His long-time colleague at The Nation, Katha Pollitt made clear how much contempt Hitchens had for women - and he was anti-abortion too.

Dawkins is infamous as an Islamaphobe, going so far as to suggest that Christianity is superior to Islam, in spite of Christianity being, you know, a religion that also glorifies crimes against humanity in its sacred texts.
“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.”
Richard Dawkins is old enough to remember the IRA blowing up buildings for the sake of Catholic Ireland against Protestant England.

The Christians predictably loved Dawkins comments about Christianity. Dawkins doesn't mind giving aid and comfort to Christians in exchange for bashing Islam.

It's very likely Dawkins will be remembered as much for his part in Elevatorgate as anything else. The vicious threats against Rebecca Watson from Dawkins' fanboys gives plenty of evidence of the fundamental misogyny at the heart of the "New Atheist" movement.

And then there's Sam Harris, named as a member of the IDW, along with Pinker, in the Weiss article. I have blogged about his Islamaphobia, his misogyny and his support for Charles Murray and race science

Coyne gives the whole misogynist game away when he doubts that Muslim women are able to make their own choices:
Today’s Jesus and Mo strip is a good one, particularly timely, and speaks directly to the notion of the degree to which Muslim women “choose” to be covered. When a Western Muslimah (not one in Iran or Saudi) declares that she wears the hijab “by choice,” I never accept that claim at face value. Was she brought up wearing one? Did she go to school where other girls wore them? Are her friends mostly hijabis? This whole notion of “choice” in Islamic dress needs to be examined, yet I haven’t seen a single article on it. It’s the rhino in the room.
I was brought up Catholic and sent to Catholic school and told not to use birth control. I was able to decide to quit the Catholic church and use birth control. So yeah,  if I can make decisions in spite of my upbringing, then I guess I can accept that Muslim women can make their own choices. Even if I don't agree with their choices.

If women are forced to wear something then yeah, we need to fight for their right to make their own decisions. Otherwise it's not our business.

Coyne is unable to understand why feminists in a pluralist society support Muslim women's rights to wear something that signifies their religion - even if the feminists in question don't agree with some of the things the religion says. In a free society we must accept some people will make personal choices we don't like. Coyne is not comfortable in such a society. Because he believes women who make choices he doesn't like are incapable of making their own choices.

Because Jerry Coyne is a bigot. And a misogynist.
So no, I don't think Coyne is a reliable source of who is and is not a bigot and misogynist. 

Sunday, February 10, 2019

Support the Southern Poverty Law Center

You can tell how effective the Southern Poverty Law Center is at opposing "race science" by how hostile members of the "Intellectual Dark Web" are towards it.

Here is Claire Lehmann urging Sam Harris to sue the SPLC for a straight-up piece of factual reportage.




The IDW is a collection of the most fragile snowflakes - as the SPLC observed Christina Hoff Sommers can't take a single line of criticism
Sommers, an American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholar, took to Twitter and claimed that the SPLC “denounced” her as an “enabler of male supremacy.” She told the Weekly Standard that the SPLC was “blacklisting in place of engaging with arguments. They blacklist you, rather than try to refute you.” An email to Sommers’ assistant asking for clarification went unanswered.

And if Christina Hoff Sommers believes a thing you know her Reason Magazine and Gamergate comrade, the toxic Cathy Young, won't be far behind.






Steven Pinker, of course, is also on the record in opposition to the SLPC.  It should be noted that not only is Ayaan Hirsi Ali (named as a member of the IDW in the Bari Weiss article) famously hostile to Islam, she's married to Niall Ferguson who in 2018 created a controversy pulling a fairly typical IDW "free speech grifter" stunt:
In Spring of 2018, Professor Ferguson was involved with College Republican leaders at Stanford to oppose a Left-leaning student take over of the Cardinal Conversations initiative. In leaked emails, he was quoted as asking for opposition research on the student involved. He later apologized and resigned from the said initiative when emails were leaked revealing his involvement in the events. "I very much regret the publication of these emails. I also regret having written them," Ferguson wrote in a statement to The Daily.[118]



Maajid Nawaz managed to get a few million dollars out of the SPLC for expressing an opinion that Nawaz didn't agree with. Opinions are of course protected under the First Amendment, but Nawaz isn't American and the SPLC no doubt settled because no matter the ruling, had it gone to trial, it would have been more expensive than settling. 

McInnes’s complaint against the SPLC – posted online by his lawyer G Baron Coleman – says that that McInnes was “successfully targeted for personal and professional destruction by a self-appointed enforcer of [political] orthodoxy”.
Later, the complaint alleges that the SPLC is responsible for “the termination of Mr. McInnes’s employment, an almost complete deplatforming and defunding and subjecting him to employment discrimination based on his lawful non-employment recreational activities”.
 
In a statement Monday, the SPLC president, Richard Cohen, said: “To paraphrase FDR, judge us by the enemies we’ve made”, continuing: “The fact that he’s upset with SPLC tells us that we’re doing our job exposing hate and extremism. His case is meritless.”
It’s not the first time McInnes has criticized the SPLC. Last June, he told the Guardian at a New York City rally supporting Tommy Robinson, the far-right founder of the English Defence League, that the SPLC was a “pernicious group that preys on old Jewish people … (with) cultural PTSD because of what happened in world war II”.

The FBI has characterized McInnes "Proud Boys" as an extremist group:
The FBI now classifies the far-right Proud Boys as an “extremist group with ties to white nationalism”, according to a document produced by Washington state law enforcement.
The FBI’s 2018 designation of the self-confessed “western chauvinist group” as extremist has not been previously made public.
The Proud Boys was founded by the Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes. McInnes has insisted that his group is not white nationalist or “alt-right” but the Proud Boys have a history of misogyny and glorifying violence. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) lists them as a hate group.

Does McInnes plan to sue the FBI too? 

McInnes was predictably welcomed back in to the far-right Canadian fold - rejoining Rebel Media, founded by scary Trudeau obsessive Ezra Levant.
And so as first reported by Mediaite, McInnes is now back at The Rebel, where he is presumably free to resume sharing his wide-ranging theories about Jews, this time as his “SJW” alter-ego “Miles.” 
I wonder if Claire Lehmann will be reuniting with Rebel Media. Here she is doing an episode with McInnes back when she was a Rebel Media regular. The Intellectual Dark Web is nothing if not extremely tight-knit. And I've no doubt other members of their little group will be tangling with SPLC in the future.

And that's why it's so important to donate to the Southern Poverty Law Center. I send them money every month.

Saturday, February 9, 2019

The undeniable conservative slant of Quillette - race and gender

Misogyny and racism often go hand-in-hand so it's no surprise that the people in Quillette who support "race science" are having a meltdown over the concept of "toxic masculinity."

I haven't investigated the issue much myself - it's clear that men are overall more violent than women, but there are enough exceptional men - like Fred Rogers for instance - that it appears there is nothing inevitable about individual men being violent.

In any case people like Christina Hoff Sommers are paid by the Koch brothers (who fund Reason magazine among other right-wing media) to defend male cultural/economic hegemony and so of course they're going to jump on this issue.

But what this article makes clear is that Quillette has by no means dropped its devotion to race science, in spite of its increasing notoriety. The introduction to the masculinity melt-down is written by John Paul Wright the most blatantly racist "biosocial criminologist."


Just as many conservatives believe the real problem in our society is anti-white bigotry, Wright believes our society is in the grip of anti-male bigotry.

It's clear that in spite of Wright's academic credentials his real passion is conservative politics, made crystal clear by his book and associated web site Conservative Criminology.

John Paul Wright is the perfect exemplar of Quillette "scholarship."

He's also possibly, if my web analytics are correct, the most devoted reader of Pinkerite so far. 

Thursday, February 7, 2019

IDW vs Loving vs Virginia

To demonstrate how lazy - or mendacious - the IDW is, one need only read Razib Khan's Areo article in which he alleges that:
In the United States one hundred years ago, segregation was a fact of law, and there were black Americans and white Americans. Today, it is not a fact of law—and there are black Americans and white Americans. There was no scientific difference between then and now. There has been a historical and moral process of change and development.
 and then consider all he had to do was read Wikipedia's article on Loving v Virginia.

Khan compares the segregation system of a hundred years ago to now, which is odd considering that:
In 1967, 16 states, mainly Southern, still had anti-miscegenation laws.[6]
So fifty-two years ago sixteen states were so opposed to black and white people having children together they had laws against it, and as the Loving case demonstrated were fully prepared to enforce the law.

And you have to wonder what exactly Khan is trying to say with the statement that "there was no scientific difference between then and now" when, as Wikipedia reports:
After Loving v. Virginia, the number of interracial marriages continued to increase across the United States[39] and in the South. In Georgia, for instance, the number of interracial marriages increased from 21 in 1967 to 115 in 1970.[40] At the national level, 0.4% of marriages were interracial in 1960, 2.0% in 1980,[41] 12% in 2013,[42] and 16% in 2015, almost 50 years after Loving.[43]
So in other words, contrary to Khan's suggesting that the issues is "historical and moral process" in contrast to the persistence of racial categories, in fact the historical and moral process does lead to more sexual interactions - and presumably children - between people designated as "black" and those designated as "white."

And the fluidity of "race" identification is demonstrated by Mildred Loving herself:
During the trial, it seemed clear that she identified herself as black, especially as far as her own lawyer was concerned. However, upon her arrest, the police report identifies her as "Indian". She said in a 2004 interview, "I have no black ancestry. I am Indian-Rappahannock." A possible contributing factor is that it was seen at the time of her arrest as advantageous to be "anything but black". There was an ingrained history in the state of the denial of African ancestry.[8] 
How easy to counter Khan's implication that segregation was only an issue one hundred years ago.

Could Razib Khan really be that careless? Or is the article part of the IDW project to erase African American history?

Wednesday, February 6, 2019

More carelessness from Razib Khan

Razib Khan, writing for Areo, the only slightly less right-extremist race science twin of Quillette says:
Our intuitions about race are in many ways imperfectly related to the genetic realities from which they emerge. And those intuitions are embedded in the social histories of our cultures. In the United States one hundred years ago, segregation was a fact of law, and there were black Americans and white Americans. Today, it is not a fact of law—and there are black Americans and white Americans. There was no scientific difference between then and now. There has been a historical and moral process of change and development. 
The dream of the beige future obviates the need to emphasize the moral and ethical aspect of the way we organize societies—in both its urgency and its difficulty. The dream is that science and the march of history will magically make the problems of racism disappear because racial distinction will disappear.
In the first paragraph quoted above he claims there is no "scientific difference" between 1918 and 2018. Since science has so manifestly changed in a hundred years, we can probably safely throw out a perfectly legitimate reading of the sentence "There was no scientific difference between then and now."

But what can that sentence really mean? There's no genetic difference between the population who was "black" a hundred years ago, compared to now? Or that "black" and "white" as classifications haven't disappeared and therefore there is no "scientific difference"?

But before talking about that, there's the issues of Khan's claim that "one hundred years ago, segregation was a fact of law."

As Ezra Klein had to clarify to the equally careless Sam Harris:
Segregation, my mom was alive in segregation. Charles Murray was alive during segregation. We’re talking, I think, it’s within the week of the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s assassination. This is not ancient history, it is recent history.
So actually the time-span of post-segregation is HALF of Khan's example. I would believe cynically that Khan deliberately said a hundred years instead of fifty years in order to bolster his claim about the rock-solid boundaries of race, but knowing Khan's work as I do, it could be simply that Khan is a bad writer and a lazy thinker. But being a recipient of wing nut welfare will do that to you.

This isn't the first time Khan has reassured his readers that racial boundaries are distinct. And we do know that Khan feels that history tells us much less than genetics when it comes to human culture.

And then there's the issue of the tenuous connection between "black" and "white" and science, never mind "scientific differences." I'll talk about that next.

Thursday, January 31, 2019

The gob-smacking brazenness of Steven Pinker

Pinker's response to being caught
misrepresenting others' views
To witness the shamelessness and intellectual laziness of the Intellectual Dark Web/Quillette gang, you only need to review Jerry Coyne's publication of Steven Pinker's response to Phil Torres' Salon article.

IDW people are never the subject of critiques but rather, always, the poor beleaguered victims of "hit pieces" from those with illegitimate motivations.

Coyne writes:
Torres’s piece, I conclude, is not an act of judicious and scholarly criticism, but an anti-Pinker hit job motivated by things other than a concern for factual accuracy.
Both Coyne and Pinker demonstrate what I have begun to think of as the rhetorical trademark of the Intellectual Dark Web: when you are confronted with an argument you can't refute: ignore it or dismiss it.


They went with dismissal in this case.

First Coyne shows how it is done:
When I read Torres’s piece, I wasn’t impressed, as Pinker’s “errors and false assertions” seemed to consist mainly of quotations used in EN that, claimed Torres, don’t accurately represent the actual views of the quoters (Torres contacted some of them). 
Coyne prefaces an admission that Torres caught Pinker misrepresenting others' views ("Torres contacted some of them") by saying "I wasn't impressed."

And then Pinker:
The rest of Torres’s complaint consists of showing that some of the quotations I weave into the text come from people who don’t agree with me. OK, but so what? 
Even though I've recognized for many years that Steven Pinker is a weasel, I was astounded. "so what?" I was going to write my own response but found this piece by Olle Häggström via Phil Torres' Twitter feed. I admit I was relieved to find it. Pinker's dismissal of Torres' valid point was so shameless I wondered if I misunderstood somehow.

But no, Pinker really is that brazen.
...Pinker has now written a response to Phil's essay, and had it published on Jerry Coyne's blog Why Evolution is True. The response is feeble. Let me expand a little bit on that. 
After a highly undignified opening paragraph with an uncharitable and unfounded speculation about Phil's motives for writing the essay, 1 Pinker goes on throughout most of his response to explain, regarding all of the quotes that he exhibits in his book Enlightenment Now and that Phil points out are taken out of context and misrepresent the various authors' intentions, that... well, that it doesn't matter that they are misrepresentations, because what he (Pinker) needed was words to illustrate his ideas, and for that it doesn't matter what the original authors meant. He suggests that "Torres misunderstands the nature of quotation". So why, then, doesn't Pinker use his own words (he is, after all, one of the most eloquent science writers of our time)? Why does he take this cumbersome detour via other authors? If he doesn't actually care what these authors mean, then the only reason I can see for including all these quotes and citations is that Pinker wants to convey to his readers the misleading impression that he is familiar with the existential risk literature and that this literature gives support to his views.
It seems that although the IDW likes to promote the idea that its critics are all "postmodernists" Steven Pinker is the biggest postmodernist of all - words can mean whatever he says they mean.

IDW regular Michael Shermer celebrates Pinker squashing the cockroach Torres. Which of course didn't happen unless unless you live on Bizarro World with the rest of the IDW gang, where words mean whatever Steven Pinker says they mean and misrepresentation is quickly dismissed with a brazen "so what?"


Monday, January 28, 2019

Critique of "Enlightenment Now"

This article in Salon about Steven Pinker's most recent publication "Enlightenment Now" mentions so many things about Steven Pinker's work that I have noticed too - his shallowness and carelessness, embedded in excess text.

The article begins with a bang:
In a recent article for Quillette, the “Intellectual Dark Web’s” online safe space, Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker offers some reflections on his most recent book, "Enlightenment Now," one year after it was published. Pinker notes that EN (as I will abbreviate it), a pollyannaish paean to Enlightenment "progressionism," has been the target of “irate attacks from critics on both the right and the left.”
The author, Phil Torres, used an approach to critiquing Enlightenment Now that I had to adopt for "Better Angels"
The problems were so pervasive that I ended up writing an extended critique of just a few pages of the chapter. (Examining the entire book would have been simply overwhelming.)
After detailing Pinker's carelessness and misrepresentation Torres writes:
...Pinker borrowed a quote from Bailey, who didn’t cite the original source and who lifted the quote from its original context to mean the opposite of what Zencey had intended. This led Zencey to confess to me, “how this guy [i.e., Pinker] managed to become a public intellectual in fields so far removed from his expertise is something to wonder at.”
The article concludes:
Let me end with a call for action: Don’t assume that Pinker’s scholarship is reliable. Comb through particular sentences and citations for other hidden — or perhaps intentionally concealed — errors in "Enlightenment Now." Doing so could be, well, enlightening.
Here is what I concluded about Pinker's work:
 Pinker fails to have any kind of intelligible organizing principle - he just bops around talking about whatever he feels like talking about, so if he finds vegetarianism in Great Britain more interesting than how the Spanish treated indigenous Americans, well that's what he's going to talk about, regardless of the relative significance of each phenomenon to the history of violence. 
The result is that for all his words, Pinker provides no useful explanation for anything.

Wednesday, January 23, 2019

The reliance of biosocial criminology race science on the Pioneer Fund

Just discovered that SAGE makes virtually an entire book of biosocial criminology race science available for free online: The Nurture Versus Biosocial Debate in Criminology: On the Origins of Criminal Behavior and Criminality from 2014.

As always, John Paul Wright is the most blatant about his belief that not only is race a biological and not just sociological phenomenon, but "black" people are the worst race. And anybody who doesn't agree with John Paul Wright is a filthy leftist. From his chapter co-written with Mark Alden Morgan entitled Human Biodiversity and the Egalitarian Fiction:
 Lynn (2002), in a comprehensive investigation of psychopathy, presents evidence that Native Americans, Blacks, and Hispanics score higher on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory's (MMPI) Psychopathic Deviate scale compared to Whites, while East Asians score lower. Furthermore, Lynn argues that this racial trend extends to a host of related social outcome measures including childhood conduct disorder, ADHD, recklessness, aggression, criminality, the ability to delay gratification, marriage rates, and even moral understanding. Across the multitude of studies analyzed, a clear pattern emerges where Blacks score the worst on these measures, Whites intermediate, and Asians the best even when controlling for the effects of age and IQ.
Lynn is Richard Lynn, the godfather of race science. According to his Southern Poverty Law Center profile:
Lynn is the current president of the notoriously racist Pioneer Fund. Prior to becoming president in 2012, he received hundreds of thousands of dollars in Pioneer Fund grants, both directly, and through the Ulster Institute for Social Research. Lynn is the founder and president of the Ulster Institute, “a think tank for the support of research on social issues and the publication of works by selected authors in this field.” According to its website, “The Ulster Institute for Social Research specialises in the application of psychology to the analysis of social problems,” which translates to promoting racist research by Lynn and several of his colleagues and collaborators.
Lynn isn't the only Pioneer Fund associate cited by Wright and Morgan - they also cite J.P. Rushton. From SPLC:
Since 2002, Rushton has been president of the Pioneer Fund (Rushton died in 2012), which has for decades funded dubious studies linking race to characteristics like criminality, sexuality and intelligence. Pioneer has long promoted eugenics, or the “science” of creating “better” humans through selective breeding. Set up in 1937 and headed by Nazi sympathizers, the group strove to “improve the character of the American people” through eugenics and procreation by people of white colonial stock. Pioneer has financed a number of leading race scientists, lavishing large sums each year on those who work to “prove” inherent racial differences that the vast majority of scientists regard as nonsense.
Linda Gottfredson is also cited. From SPLC:
Following a long tradition of scientific racism, Gottfredson argues that racial inequality, especially in employment, is the direct result of genetic racial differences in intelligence. Relying heavily on money obtained from the white nationalist Pioneer Fund, Gottfredson has worked tirelessly to oppose any and all efforts to reduce racial inequality in both in the workplace and in society as a whole.
And of course, inevitably, Charles Murray and "The Bell Curve":
Many criticisms of The Bell Curve, most notably Charles Lane’s thorough takedown in The New York Review of Books, have pointed out that Murray’s attempts to link social inequality to genes are based on the work of explicitly racist scientists. In an afterward to the book, Murray rejects criticisms that rest on the fact that “we cite thirteen scholars who have received funding from the Pioneer Fund, founded and run ([Lane] alleged) by men who were Nazi sympathizers, eugenicists, and advocates of white racial superiority.” Murray contends that the racist pseudo-scientists he cites “are some of the most respected psychologists of our time” and that “the relationship between the founder of the Pioneer Fund and today’s Pioneer Fund is roughly analogous to that between Henry Ford and today’s Ford Foundation.” 
In fact, the Pioneer Fund’s ties to eugenics and white supremacy are not nearly as historically remote as Murray would have his readers believe. The president of the Pioneer Fund at the time The Bell Curve was written was Harry Weyher, who was a personal friend of the Fund’s founder, Wickliffe Draper, and shared his supposedly archaic views on race; just two months after the initial publication of The Bell Curve, Weyher gave an interview in which he argued, among other things, that desegregation had “wreck[ed] the school system.” Another of the Pioneer Fund’s board members at the time Murray was writing, John Trevor Jr., was also an officer of Coalition of Patriotic Societies, which, during his membership, was indicted for sedition over “pro-Nazi activities” and called for the release of all Nazi war criminals. Despite Murray’s claims, the Pioneer Fund continues to support “research” into race differences conducted by outright white supremacists. 
In a similar vein, Murray whitewashes the individual people who provided the intellectual foundation for The Bell Curve. To take only one example, Murray and Herrnstein described Richard Lynn, whose work they relied on more than any other individual, as “a leading scholar of racial and ethnic differences.” In his many subsequent defenses of Lynn, Murray neglected to mention the many serious methodological criticisms of Lynn’s work, or his contributions to white supremacist publications including VDARE.com, American Renaissance and Mankind Quarterly, the last of which Lynn also serves on the editorial staff of.
John Paul Wright constantly whines about the Left, but where would biosocial criminology be without racists and Nazi sympathizers?

Monday, January 14, 2019

Steven Pinker goes full alt-right, publishes in Quillette

Quillette and Steven Pinker have long had a mutual admiration society, but this is the first time I am aware that Pinker has a byline in Quillette.

The text in the Pinker diagram will be updated to reflect his intensified connection to "race realism."

Infamous promoter of eugenics, Toby Young, celebrates Pinker going the full Quillette.



Wednesday, December 26, 2018

Journal of Criminal Justice - where proponents of "race science" hang out

I hadn't been paying much attention lately to John Paul Wright or Brian Boutwell, both of whom have made appearances on race science proponent Stefan Molyneux's channel to complain that their theories on the genetic intellectual and moral inferiority of "blacks" were considered racist by most people.

Molyneux of course was very sympathetic to their plight.

Turns out what they have been up to is taking over the latest issue of the Journal of Criminal Justice which they are calling The Dr. Norman White special issue on criminal justice scholarship & race.

It's not surprising that Wright and Boutwell have been allowed to use the Journal of Criminal Justice to focus on their favorite topic, race, given that Boutwell is on the Journal's editorial board and Wright's co-author of Conservative Criminology, Matt DeLisi, is the Journal's editor-in-chief.

What is surprising is that Norman White who died in 2017 was an associate professor of criminology and criminal justice in Saint Louis University’s College for Public Health and Social Justice according to his obituary and was African American.

It's hard to believe that an African American would go along with John Paul Wright's beliefs about African Americans as stated in Biosocial Criminology: New Directions in Theory and Research:

Page 149:
...Areas afflicted by crime and other social pathologies are more frequently black than white, and even less frequently Oriental. Part of the reason for these visible and dramatic differences may have to do with the differential abilities of races to organize socially.
Page 150:
From the available data it would seem ludicrous to argue that "race" is a construct devoid of a biological or evolutionary backdrop. That evolutionary forces have produced biological variance across races is now scientifically undeniable. That many of the characteristics that define races appear to be universal and time stable is also undeniable. Evolution can produce many forms of adaptations, but it cannot produce equality. 
The connection between race and criminal behavior is clearly complex and involves a range of historical, social, psychological and individual variables. Evolution however, provides a powerful mechanism to understand the development of human races and the distribution of traits and behaviors within and across races. It helps explain why races would appear and under what conditions races would appear. It helps to explain why certain traits would be beneficial and why these traits such as higher IQ, would be unequally distributed across races. Moreover evolutionary theory helps explain why race-based patterns of behavior are universal, such as black over-involvement in crime. No other paradigm organizes these patterns better. No other paradigm explains these inconvenient truths.

John Paul Wright said of Black Lives Matter:

So, I’m inclined to see BLM as movement that is largely immoral even if it contains individuals who are moral.  I’m inclined to view their general claims as largely hollow even if the occasional case supports their view.  And I see more and more how their rhetoric and their actions are brining (sic) harm to people.

We have come to live in the light shed by the death of Michael Brown. We understand the depths of racial inequality and inequity that exists not only in St. Louis but across America and the world. Since then, voices have risen that were not being heard; a new civil rights era began. Although there are some who are troubled by the movement’s descriptor “Black Lives Matter,” the truth is that many have felt for far too long that they didn’t.
So why would the "special issue on criminal justice scholarship & race" be named after Norman White? My initial assumption is that it is a cynical political move on the part of Boutwell and Wright to use Norman White as a shield. Especially since non-criminologists Bo and Ben Winegard have an article listed. Both are strong proponents along with Boutwell of "human biodiversity" - they co-authored a piece for Quillette, the publication that is ground zero of the "Intellectual Dark Web" per Bari Weiss.

I'm not willing to spend 50 bucks charged by Elsivere to get a peek at the Journal of Criminal Justice but did find the first page of an article by Norman White that the Journal printed called An inconvenient truth: Biology matters. History and the social structure it produced does too.

It appears plain that White was very much opposed to the biological explanations for black crime championed by John Paul Wright, Brian Boutwell and Matt DeLisi:
...Not only is (Walsh and Yun's) argument weakened by the dismissal of social structure, their assumption that racial discrimination in America is distributed equally among minority groups represents an additional limitation. It ignores history and the story it tells. They assume that while structure doesn't matter, African Americans exhibit cultural deficiencies that create the social conditions they experience and promote a culture of violence. In essence, the violence has nothing to do with a racist social structure or racialized institutions that perpetuate in- equality. Rather, it is because of the way they act. It would seem in their estimation if there is fault to be placed, it rests squarely on the shoulders of the African American community and can further be explained by biological differences that have been heralded for centuries...

Saturday, December 1, 2018

Mankind Quarterly, The Pioneer Fund and The Bell Curve

I only just  recently learned of Mankind Quarterly and The Pioneer Fund in reference to The Bell Curve. Although the current archives of Mankind Quarterly only go back to 1982 and only provide abstracts, without a login, Unz Review, the former employer of evo-psycho bro Razib Khan and current employer of alt-right Steve Sailer, provides issues of Mankind Quarterly all the way back to the beginning, 1960, and you can download them in PDF format. They don't appear to be full issues, just individual articles.

And there are some doozies in there. I found a dire warning against race mixing in an article entitled Ales Hrdlicka on Race Deterioration and Race Destruction by Donald A. Swan from the January 1977 issue of Mankind Quarterly. Here is how it ends. I emphasized the last paragraph. WOW.
Nearly half a century has passed since the presentation of Professor Hrdlicka's paper on race deterioration and race destruction. During that time considerably more scientific evidence has been accumulated of the existence of large and significant differences between the primary races of man in cerebral morphology and on a variety of measures of behavior and intelligence. Specialized research designed to investigate the causes of these observed racial differences has demonstrated that genetic factors underlie these behavioral differences to almost the same degree as racial differences in anatomical, physiological, and biochemical traits. On the basis of these studies, it is evident that the white and yellow races are biologically more advanced and have attained a higher level on the evolutionary scale than the more primitive negrid and austrolid races. Consequently, mixture between the more advanced northern races and the more primitive tropical races can only be of disadvantage to the former and result in their racial deterioration.
For the United States of America, Hrdlicka's warning of nearly 50 years ago is still valid today—" assimilation of the colored population into the white is the one real cause of anxiety to those who contemplate the future of the American people."
Who is Donald A. Swan? Well now, let's see what Wikipedia says:
In 1966, Swan was arrested on mail-fraud charges. During the raid on Swan's apartment in Queens, New York, the police found Nazi memorabilia, weapons and ammunition.[2] 
A book by George Lincoln Rockwell of the American Nazi Party was also found, as well as a photograph depicting Swan with American Nazi Party members.[3] 
Swan died in June 1981. After his death, Swan's papers were purchased and donated to Roger Pearson at the Institute for the Study of Man, under a Pioneer Fund grant of $59,000.[2][4]
I'd love to see the Pioneer Fund's financial statements. I did find an archived copy of the most recent, now defunct Pioneer Fund web site via the Wayback Machine.

I also found articles by Richard Lynn in Mankind Quarterly including this one, The Evolution of Racial Differences in Intelligence which provides details on the Northern Superiority hypothesis (I'm not aware of an actual name for it so I came up with one).

Lynn, like evo-psycho bro Brian Boutwell, is a guest at Stefan Molyneux's media outlets.

This is the same Richard Lynn who I discussed here, who claimed that the Irish are less intelligent than the English. Although I haven't found out how that fits in with his Northern Superiority hypothesis yet.

Friday, November 30, 2018

The New Yorker and The Better Angels

As far as the Quillette gang is concerned, evolutionary psychology - which they often conflate with evolutionary biology in order to paint skeptics as anti-science - contains The Absolute Truth about women and about non-whites. And anybody who doesn't go along 100% with the claims of people like Steven Pinker is in denial of human nature and - per Pinker - reality itself.





Here we see another low-nutritional-value piece of work in Hackette: It’s Time for Evidence-Based Gender Policy written by Teresa Gimenez Barbat.

She references Pinker indirectly:
We still don’t have a way to liberate political decision-making from ideologies, interests and emotions. I have been a member of the EU Parliament since November 2015, when I joined a liberal political group with a particular ideological orientation – ALDE – but for now there is no such thing as an autonomous intelligent robot doing the hard job for us. We have a bounded rationality and a political nature. This implies that political reasoning obviously does not operate from a “blank slate”, but in the context of the existing social institutions, constrained by a set of evolved adaptations, biases and inherited orientations that vary individually.
And she references Pinker directly:
I am persuaded that the Rights Revolution of the past few decades, including the fight for cultural delegitimization and legal prosecution of violence against women, carried out by the feminist movement, represents a clear example of moral progress. At the same time, I think a new “twist of the screw” is needed to include all the real victims – women, men, and children of both sexes – as Steven Pinker suggests in a chapter of his book The Better Angels of Our Nature


Kolbert writes:
Pinker names thinking itself as the ultimate pacifier. “One would expect that as collective rationality is honed over the ages, it will progressively whittle away at the shortsighted and hot-blooded impulses toward violence, and force us to treat a greater number of rational agents as we would have them treat us,” he writes.
Both evolutionary psychology (aka sociobiology) and the belief that ideas drive behavior - "idealism" are what Marvin Harris called "research strategies" which he contrasted with his own approach to understanding human culture, "cultural materialism."

Harris criticizes idealism - sometimes called "structuralism" here:
The intuition that thought determines behavior arises from the limited temporal and cultural perspective of ordinary experience. Conscious thoughts in the form of plans and itineraries certainly help individuals and groups to find a path through the daily complexities of social life. But these plans and itineraries merely chart the selection of preexisting behavioral "mazeways." Even in the most permissive societies and the richest in alternative roles, the planned actions - lunch, a lovers' tryst, an evening at the theater - are never conjured up out of thin air but are drawn from the inventory of recurrent scenes characteristic of that particular culture. 
The issue of behavioral versus mental determinism is not a matter of whether the mind guides action, but whether the mind determines the selection of the inventory of culturally actionable thoughts. As Schopenhauer said, "We want what we will, but we don't will what we want." Thus the human intuition concerning the priority of thought over behavior is worth just about as much as our human intuition that the earth is flat. 
To insist on the priority of mind in culture is to align one's understanding of socio-cultural phenomena with the anthropological equivalent of pre-Darwinian biology or pre-Newtonian physics. It is to believe in what Freud called "the omnipotence of thought." Such a belief is a form of intellectual infantilism that dishonors our species-given powers of thought. (Cultural Materialism, pp. 59 - 60)
Harris criticizes sociobiology (evolutionary psychology's identical twin) here:
It took billions of years for natural selection to create specialized adaptations for fishing, hunting, agriculture; for aquatic terrestrial and aerial locomotion; and for predatory and defensive weaponry, such as teeth, claws, and armor. Equivalent specialities were developed by cultural evolution in less than ten thousand years. The main focus of human sociobiology ought therefore to be the explanation of why other species have such minuscule and insignificant cultural repertories and why humans alone have such gigantic and important ones. 
But sociobiologists conceive their task to be something else - namely, the identification of the genetic components in human cultural traits. This represents a fundamental misdirection for human social science and a diversion of resources from the more urgent task of explaining the vast majority of cultural traits that do not have a genetic component. (Cultural Materialism, pp. 125)
As I demonstrated yesterday, Steven Pinker has no qualms in The Blank Slate about claiming any cultural phenomenon, even artistic fashions can be explained through evolutionary psychology. 

But he seems to have given up using that as the only explanation in Better Angels. But Pinker is still a sociobiologist at heart. So he uses both sociobiology and idealism and switches up whenever he wants.

Using more than one research strategy is what Marvin Harris calls "eclecticism":



I generally like the work of Marvin Harris because he advances clear and testable explanations, and I cite him favorably in several places in How the Mind Works. But his view of human nature is too narrow — everything boils down to calories. People have to eat, but they have to do other things as well, such as winning sexual and parenting partners, and that doesn’t fit into his one-dimensional, quasi-Marxist-materialist view of human nature. If he acknowledged that man does not live by bread alone, he would have contributed even more to anthropology.
Which reveals that Pinker understands fuck-all about cultural materialism. Which does not surprise me. Although at least he acknowledges Harris's clear and testable explanations, something you sure can't say about Better Angels. Kolbert writes:
Those developments which might seem to fit into his schema—a steady rise in the percentage of Britons who identify themselves as vegetarians, for instance—are treated in detail. Yet other episodes that one would think are more relevant to a history of violence are simply glossed over. Pinker is virtually silent about Europe’s bloody colonial adventures. (There’s not even an entry for “colonialism” in the book’s enormous index.) 
This is a pretty serious omission, both because of the scale of the slaughter and because of the way it troubles the distinction between savage and civilized. What does it reveal about the impulse control of the Spanish that, even as they were learning how to dispose of their body fluids more discreetly, they were systematically butchering the natives on two continents? Or about the humanitarianism of the British that, as they were turning away from such practices as drawing and quartering, they were shipping slaves across the Atlantic? And what does it say about the French that they liked to refer to their colonial project as la mission civilisatrice?
This demonstrates how Pinker fails to have any kind of intelligible organizing principle - he just bops around talking about whatever he feels like talking about, so if he finds vegetarianism in Great Britain more interesting than how the Spanish treated indigenous Americans, well that's what he's going to talk about, regardless of the relative significance of each phenomenon to the history of violence.

The result is that for all his words, Pinker provides no useful explanation for anything.