Featured Post

PZ Myers dissects evolutionary psychology: brief, sharp and fabulous

I admit I LOL'd at the part about lighting up "like a Christmas tree." WATCH AND LEARN all IDWs!

The Brian Ferguson Interview

Sunday, July 5, 2020

How racist are Stefan Molyneux, Jared Taylor and Biosocial Criminologists?

Although Molyneux's been booted off YouTube, you can still find a small number of his YouTube videos on Archive.org.

This video, titled "An Honest Conversation About Race" Molyneux talks to infamous white nationalist Jared Taylor.

At minute 26, Molyneux says that successful Blacks are successful by countering "the narrative of insurmountable white racism" to which Taylor replies:

Well two points there. First of all, even when you do control for IQ, there are residual differences (between Blacks and whites). These can perhaps be attributed to differences in the willingness to forgo present satisfaction for future gain. There seems to be an independent variable along those lines as well. Blacks, have, I never can remember if there's a greater or lesser ti-... how that works out according to the lingo - 
Less capacity to defer gratification I think would probably be the easiest way to put it. I have that problem too. 
They are less able to sacrifice now for future benefit. And this is found from childhood on. Even when you control for IQ. But I agree with you, IQ is really the fundamental differential...

Molyneux smiles and nods vigorously. I haven't watched the whole thing because  it is revolting to have to look at Taylor's smiling smug face while he peddles, with total self-confidence, mind-boggling bullshit.

Jared Taylor's publication, the white nationalist American Renaissance has republished several articles that first appeared in Quillette.

Now Taylor and Molyneux are infamous racists and not considered part of the mainstream. But what's important to realize is that Taylor is saying the exact same things as "biosocial criminologists" who hold positions in several American colleges. 

In the 2015 book published by Sage,  The Nurture Versus Biosocial Debate in Criminology: Origins of Criminal Behavior and Criminality, the chapter Human Biodiversity and the Egalitarian Fiction,  co-written by John Paul Wright and Mark Alden Morgan echoes Taylor (my highlight):
...Lynn (2002), in a comprehensive investigation of psychopathology, presents evidence that Native Americans, Blacks, and Hispanics score higher on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventorys (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 outcomes 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.
Important items to note about this passage:
  • Although a major point of the essay is that "race" is a biological phenomenon and therefore test scores are genetics-based "racial" traits, the Lynn citation in fact demonstrates that race science and biosocial criminology claims are based on cultural race categories. 
"Latinos across the Americas have differing proportions of Native American, African, and European genetic ancestry, shaped by local historical interactions with migrants brought by the slave trade, European settlement, and indigenous Native American populations."
The paper is co-authored by David Reich, whom race science supporters erroneously believe is one of them.

 So in effect the alleged biological race classifications per Lynn, Wright and Morgan are Black, White, East Asian, Native American, and (Black/White/Native American in unspecified combination who speak Spanish.)

But it's even worse than that. 

As Carl Zimmer (who used the Reich paper as a source) noted in the New York Times article White? Black? A Murky Distinction Grows Still Murkier in 2014: 
The scientists also have been developing software that learns to recognize the origins of the short segments of DNA that make up our genomes. Recently they used their program to calculate what percentage of each subject’s genomes was inherited from European, African or Native American forebears. 
“This year we saw that we were in a great position to do the analysis,” said Joanna L. Mountain, senior director of research at 23andMe. 
On average, the scientists found, people who identified as African-American had genes that were only 73.2 percent African. European genes accounted for 24 percent of their DNA, while .8 percent came from Native Americans.
So genetically, in Lynn's study, "black" does not mean 100% Sub-Saharan African it means a combination of African, European and Native American that varies from one person to another culturally identified as "black."

Although the Zimmer article references information from 23andMe, it doesn't mention what I think is the worst blow of all to race science claims of test scores and biological race: East Asians and Native Americans are close enough genetically that 23andMe groups them together as a single "global population" which is as close as 23andMe gets to race categorization. 

The 45 Ancestry Composition regional populations are organized in a hierarchy, which reflects the genetic structure of global populations. For example, British & Irish is a part of Northwestern European, which is part of European.
In April 2018, we added over 115 new recent ancestor locations which reflect specific countries where your ancestors likely lived during the last 200 years. These recent ancestor locations are noted in each of the regional populations below. You can learn more about Recent Ancestor Locations here. Currently, there are over 150+ recent ancestor locations in the Ancestry Composition Report.
The global populations available in Ancestry Composition are:

What this means is that genetically, East Asians and Native Americans are as close to each other as Europeans are to other Europeans. 

So the biological racial classifications according to Richard Lynn are, in terms of 23andMe's global populations:
  • White (European)
  • Black (Sub-Saharan African, European and (East Asian & Native American) in various combinations per individual)
  • East Asian (East Asian & Native American)
  • Native American (East Asian and Native American)
  • Hispanic (European, Sub-Saharan African and (East Asian & Native American) in various combinations per individual.)
Demonstrating that race "science" is a pseudo-scientific mess. It is an ideology pretending to be science, using science-sounding language promoted by biosocial criminology college professors.

I'm not the first to notice the scientific failures of biosocial criminology. The 2018 article Biosocial criminology and the mismeasure of race by Julien Larregue of Institute des Science Sociale du Politique and Oliver Rollins, Assistance Professor University of Louisville notes (my highlight):
...We focus on the way biosocial criminologists operationalize race to outline the sociological consequences of what we see as a renewed commitment to the bio-criminalization of race. Biosocial criminologists do not reject that race is socially constructed, but in practice they disregard the main consequences and raison d’ĂȘtre of this postulate. Though biosocial criminologists praise the incorporation of cutting-edge science into criminology, the research programme’s actual findings concerning race do not necessarily align with views from genetic and neuroscientific research. Instead, we argue that biosocial criminology solicits social constructionism as a shield to re-insert antiquated biologic notions of race through a guise of bio-sociality.
Richard Lynn in 2002 did not have access to genetic findings via 23andMe, but John Paul Wright and Mark Alden Morgan, in their 2015 article in an allegedly scholarly publication, certainly did - the Carl Zimmer article I cited is from 2014.

Now if Stefan Molyneux and Jared Taylor were hired by American colleges, there would be a  controversy. So why is there not a peep about the fact there are colleges employing people who are teaching criminology theories based on the same unscientific race theories that are peddled by people like Jared Taylor and Stefan Molyneux?

Biosocial criminologists who have endorsed the racist ideology also promoted by Jared Taylor and Stefan Molyneux includes:
I can't help but laugh at the bitter irony of Brian Boutwell, a fervent believer in race science and a practiced denialist of environment in general and the impact systemic racism has had on Black Americans in particular, being associate dean of a "college for public health and social justice."

There are more race science-swilling biosocial criminologists which I will add as I confirm them. It is unknown whether these colleges endorse the race beliefs of their teachers, whether they don't think it's a big deal that their students are being taught by peddlers of pseudo-scientific garbage, or if they are completely ignorant of the situation.

The colleges:
  • Boise State University
  • Florida State University
  • Iowa State University
  • Miami University
  • Saint Louis University
  • University of Cincinnati
And of course there are other college promoters of race science who aren't officially biosocial criminologists - Ben Winegard has coauthored race science-promoting articles with Brian Boutwell, but is Professor of Psychology at Carroll College.

Blog Archive