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!

~ PINKERITE TALKS TO ANTHROPOLOGISTS ~
The Brian Ferguson Interview
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, May 14, 2021

The FAIR Board of Advisors - more lousy with right-wingers than ever


When we last looked at the advisory board of FAIR it was even lousier with right-wingers than at its founding, a mere month earlier

Now, another month later, even more changes are afoot with the Board, which seems pretty odd for an organization less than a year old.

So Helen Pluckrose is no longer on the board. However, Inaya Folarin Iman, "journalist, writer" is now in, and she's Pluckrose's political twin as can easily be seen by Pluckrose's appearance on the home page of The Equiano Project, of which Iman is the Founder and Director. The Equiano is your absolutely standard right-wing project, pretending to care about Black people while relentlessly attacking and lying about critical race theory, "wokeness" and Black Lives Matter.

Iman is also a pal of Douglas Murray, "conservative British political commentator" and named member of the Intellectual Dark Web who is also, surprise! another new member of the FAIR board of advisors.

The third new member of the board is Erec Smith who is, surprise surprise, an author at right-wing, race science-promoting Quillette.

So the Board lost one right-winger but added three more which means the FAIR board of advisors, which pretends to be, per Trump-loving Board member Christopher Rufo, a coalition of liberals, moderates and conservatives, is even more right-wing than ever. 

And with Pluckrose gone, the Board of Advisors is down to only one member - Boghossian - of the unholy trinity of shameless grifting weasels: Boghossian/Lindsay/Pluckrose.

Thursday, May 13, 2021

Is "man/boy love" what the IDW means by "Western Civilization"?

Pinkerite has previously noted that Camille Paglia is the Intellectual Dark Web's idea of a feminist and I suggested it was likely because she's a "feminist" who hates women. There is no clearer expression of Paglia's pure contempt for women as helpless losers than her statement that:

If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.

Sexual Personae (1990)

This is why the IDW loves her. Because they agree with her - and in the case of Quillette's founder Claire Lehmann, with the above statement, explicitly.

Steven Pinker in "The Blank Slate, " published in 2002, praised Paglia as a real feminist in contrast to Gloria Steinem. As the NewYork Magazine review of The Blank Slate notes:

Pinker musters his vast armies of intellectual allies (these range from Kant to the editors of The Onion) and goes back into the past in search of enemies. He air-drops Camille Paglia into a dispute over rape with Susan Brownmiller...

But we shouldn't let Paglia's misogyny prevent us from noting her support for child rape. 

Here is the web site of the North American Man/Boy Love Association proudly displaying her support for their cause

In case you don't want to give the NAMBLA site more hits, here is what it says:

These days, especially in America, boy-love is not only scandalous and criminal, but somehow in bad taste. On the evening news, one sees handcuffed teachers, priests and Boy Scout leaders hustled into police vans. Therapists call them maladjusted, emotionally immature. But beauty has its own laws, inconsistent with Christian morality. As a woman, I feel free to protest that men today are pilloried for something that was rational and honorable in Greece at the height of its civilization.

~ Camille Paglia, activist and author

          in Sexual Personae (New York,Vintage Books1991).

Quillette author Chloe Valdary has recently been singing the praises of Camille Paglia and even gave a heads-up about her to Trump-adoring Koch employee Christopher Rufo



Dear Camille:
For many of us children of the '60s, the recent death of Allen Ginsberg was a major loss. But some critics contend that Ginsberg's legacy is stained by his support for the North American Man-Boy Love Association. What are your feelings about Ginsberg? What do you think of his pro-NAMBLA stand? 
San Francisco hippie

Dear Hippie:

Allen Ginsberg, along with Marshall McLuhan and Norman O. Brown...

...As far as Ginsberg's pro-NAMBLA stand goes, this is one of the things I most admire him for. I have repeatedly protested the lynch-mob hysteria that dogs the issue of man-boy love. In "Sexual Personae," I argued that male pedophilia is intricately intertwined with the cardinal moments of Western civilization. Donatello's historically pivotal bronze sculpture, "David" (1430), was my main exhibit -- a languidly flirtatious work that would get the artist arrested for kiddie porn these days. In "Vamps & Tramps," I said that Western moralism and hypocrisy have driven the matter underground and overseas, where impoverished Third World boys now supply the sex trade.

Allen Ginsberg was the apostle of a truly visionary sexuality. Like the expansive, sensual, democratic Whitman but unlike the twisted, dishonest, pretentious Foucault, he saw the continuity between great nature and the human body, bathed in waves of cosmic energy. Seen from this pagan perspective, Ginsberg's celebration of boy-love was pure and sinless, demonstrating the limitations of Judeo-Christian paradigms of sexuality.


The last line is especially amusing considering Valdary tweets that Paglia "gives an incredible defense of religion." Which religion is Valdary talking about, paganism? From Paglia's point of view, Judeo-Christianity is limited by its refusal to sanction male pedophilia (except of course for the decades of allowing rapist priests to run wild.)

But more importantly, it's clear that Paglia is not merely an apologist for child rape, she considers it admirable and states flat out: "I argued that male pedophilia is intricately intertwined with the cardinal moments of Western civilization."

And she doesn't have a problem with the Third World sex trade. Rather, she seems to feel that if only "moralism and hypocrisy" hadn't driven the underage sex trade underground here, pedophiles wouldn't have to travel so far to get their boy-raping done. 

Paglia published this in 1997. Pinker was praising her as an "equity feminist" in 2002

Steven Pinker is ready to jump down the throat of Taylor Swift for the misuse of the word "literally" but Paglia's support of child rape does not faze him in the least. Pinker praises her. He considers Paglia an ally.





I haven't been able to find Christopher Rufo's opinion of Camille Paglia, but his employer Charles Koch apparently adores her because Koch's City Journal promotes Paglia without mentioning her love of "man/boy love." I doubt Rufo would speak out against Paglia's admiration for male pedophilia as long as his pay-master forbids it.

So what is the deal with people like Steven Pinker and Chloe Valdary and other members of the Intellectual Dark Web? Do they really not care that Paglia is a vocal defender of child rape? Do they think supporting child rape is no big deal? Do they agree with Paglia that child-rape is a critical building block of their beloved "Western Civilization"?

Are they really that evil?

Sunday, May 2, 2021

Rutherford's takedown of the Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence (NHAI) paper

Gregory Cochran is offered money to 
review "How to Argue with a Racist"




Pinkerite has often mentioned with approval the takedown of NHAI by anthropologist Brian Ferguson, and I was very pleased that Adam Rutherford also criticizes the very bad science involved in NHAI, in his book "How to Argue with a Racist."

Gregory Cochran is one of the two still-living authors of NHAI and is still involved in promoting race science (the third author was the late white nationalist Henry Harpending.) 

I have written about Cochran in the past year, noting his hostility towards Ferguson. So I wondered if Cochran was trash-talking Rutherford too. But the only mention of Rutherford I found on Cochran's West Hunter blog was the comment, displayed above. The West Hunter blog post that rgressis commented on demonstrates Cochran's continued obsession with race, and is entitled Black Doctors, Black Babies

Cochran wrote:

There’s a paper out claiming that black infant mortality is much higher when they’re treated by white doctors, rather than black doctors.

Could it be that MCAT scores have negative predictive value?

No, there’s a simpler explanation: the report is nonsense.  A metaphorical cee-gar to the first person to explain why.

And the next question is: why do the pinheads that authored this paper have jobs?


Cochran doesn't explain why the authors are pinheads nor why the report is nonsense. He does offer a metaphorical cigar to his followers, but does not, as far as I can tell, award it, for the "simpler explanation." So his problem with the paper (other than the conclusion) is still unknown.

I had to laugh though, as I scrolled along, to see Cochran complaining about the professional status of the authors of the paper:

gcochran9 says:

For some reason I assumed the authors were MDs. Not so: business school, public health. I can only hope that they become more familiar with how medicine actually works – much more familiar, and soon.

---------------------

As I noted in my first post about Cochran, he taught anthropology without a degree in anthropology, but instead was described by the Los Angeles Times around the time of the publication of NHAI (2006) as "a physicist and genetics buff" 

And of course the godfather of contemporary race science is neither a biologist nor a geneticist: Charles Murray is a political scientist whose literary career has been supported by right-wing plutocrats plus studies funded by the racist Pioneer Fund.

Now to the take-down. I have transcribed this from the audio book. Curiously Rutherford never provides the full name of the paper, Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence, and just refers to it as "the paper" throughout.

...'winnowing through persecution' is another suggestion in the paper. Somehow acts of oppression and tyranny resulted in survival of the smartest. The authors however are clear in the paper that they can't explain how that would work, as no such effect is seen in other persecuted people. I find it most strange that you'd include such guesswork in a scientific study...

...Cochran et. al describe money-lending and other forms of commerce that are presumed to be the preserve of Jews as "cognitively demanding jobs" and that "the Ashkenazi niche was so specifically demanding of accounting and management skills." Presenting this as evidence also sounds pretty sketchy to me. Medieval money-lending is not exactly rocket science and it's definitely not medieval brain surgery. 

They also cite specific biological factors and physiological effects that could increase intelligence. In the ancient days of 2006, we knew less than we do today about neuroscience and how biochemistry and cells relate to thought and action. But not that much less. Neuroscience is a vibrant field, but the truth is that we still really have very little idea of how neuronal growth and connectivity relate to cognition. If I have succeeded in convincing you that genetics is bewilderingly complicated, apply that to the development of the physical brain and the esoteric nature of thought, and you face one of the great frontiers in science. The suggestion that some disease genes have specific effects on the growth of neurons in a way that might enhance IQ reflects a profoundly simplistic view of neurological development...

...the model they are copying is that of sickle-cell anemia... the disorder is often thought of as being specific to Black people and therefore an example of how biology recapitulates race. But this is not correct. Sickle-cell trait has the effect of being protective against malarial infection. But the price of this protection is a terrible disease. Its existence corresponds not with ethnicity but with the geographical distribution of malaria, because they have evolved along side each other. It is indeed common among people of recent African ancestry, but only those whose descent co-locate with malaria zones, which represent a slice across the middle of the African continent. Similarly, sickle cell disease and traits exist at a high frequency in Greece, Turkey, the Middle East and India in a passim which mirrors the range of malaria. The suggestion by Cochran et al is that the cost of selection for genes involved in intellectual prowess is a high frequency for a handful of diseases (Tay Sachs etc.) that might be important in brains. As carriers of the disease genes occur at measurable frequencies in the population with little disease effect, it is suggested that these genetic variants are evidence for a genetic basis for enhanced intellect...

...the complexities of the arguments for and against the potential intellectual benefits of these particular genetic conditions are a total mess in terms of different studies arguing in support of selection, against selection, or for founder effects, genetics bottlenecks, or neutral drift where changes in DNA are neither beneficial nor detrimental. Cochran et. al. suggest other genes or bits of DNA that may be involved in promoting growth of neurons or the dendrites that grow out of them, and link to other brain cells. 

They didn't know this at the time of writing their paper but we now know that the genes associated with intellectual capability are myriad and are very small but cumulative effect. Pixels on a colossal screen. Of the genes identified so far, and remember that while we know these genes are important, we don't know what they do and therefore why they are important, many are expressed in the brain as indeed are thousands of genes and therefore may well have a direct effect on intellect. There are databases that list hundreds of GWAS results and thousands of genes. You can enter a gene and ask the database to pull out studies that indicate the gene is associated with any one of dozens of types of traits, from height to mortality to bones, as well as cognitive and neurological. I checked the current databases for the disease genes that Cochran et. al suggest might be driving selection for Jewish  brains, to see if at the time of writing they associated with brains or cognitive abilities. The result - not one of them does.

Speculation is sometimes an important part of science. Trying to dream up an explanation for an observation can be a productive way of honing a scientific question in the absence of data that explains it. But not in this case. This one paper has a resounding echo and continues to foster influence and discussion. It was championed by the then-science editor of the NYTimes, Nicholas Wade, in multiple articles and subsequently in a book that was almost universally derided by the genetics community as error-strewn and specious. But celebrated by racists. 

The celebrity psychologist Jordan Peterson uncritically cited Cochran's work in February 2019 when writing about the disproportionate success of Jews in intellectual pursuits. I don't pretend to know the motivations of people publishing controversial work which does not fare well against the ruthlessness of scientific scrutiny. In my opinion, the Cochran study may appear to be pursuing scientific truth in the face of political correctness, instead it reads as political but neither true nor scientifically correct...

...to my mind commitment to these fingers-crossed speculations says more about the people that hold these views so tenaciously than it does about Jews, Blacks or any ethnic group. Some of the scientists and race-fixated ideologues are actual racists. Others merely contrarians or skeptics convinced they have unearthed some secret knowledge that has been quelled by a conspiratorial majority.
 
Arguments that the presence of brain disorders at high frequency in Ashkenazi Jews might explain the enrichment of genes that boost brains is woolly conjecture. And can be abandoned with current data to hand. Winnowing through persecution is also merely idle speculation and has no place in a decent scientific paper. These are fractionally more sophisticated versions of the evolutionary crime that we call adaptationism, also referred to as panglossism, after Voltaire's character Dr. Pangloss... it's the assumption that natural selection is responsible for specific human behaviors rather than happenstance or processes that are neither positive nor negative but have simply drifted into existence. In the genomic age we are capable of actually seeing the parts of the genome where selection has taken place and there are population-specific mutations that indicate positive selection of particular genes as adaptations to the local environment. Pigmentation, specific diets, resistance to diseases such as malaria and other traits are demonstrably local adaptation that are part of humankind's success of colonizing the world. 

Adaptationism is an error because in many cases it results in untestable hypotheses, but ones that are appealing because they sound superficially convincing: Blacks are good sprinters because of selection during slavery; Jews are intellectually gifted because their history of persecution enriched genes associated with brains. The evidence for selection of genes for intellect in Jews is weak. Is it not simply more scientifically parsimonious to suggest that a culture that values scholarship is more likely to develop scholars... 

...money-lending is a common stereotype not least because of Shakespeare's Shylock. In fact money-lending was a trade that was extremely limited in time and space within Jewish culture in Europe and by the end of the 15th century had largely vanished from Jewish populations. Yet the implication of Cochran et. al's scientific speculation is that business and financial acumen has driven the evolution of Jewish brains...
 

Rutherford mentions something I also mentioned recently - that in spite of NHAI being roundly criticized by the genetics community, people like Jordan Peterson (and Steven Pinker) keep promoting it as if it is settled science.

Strict adaptationism, described by Rutherford as "the assumption that natural selection is responsible for specific human behaviors..." is the foundation of evolutionary psychology which, like race science, is sociobiology. In this excellent video PZ Myers addresses the problems with evolutionary psychology and why adaptationism is wrong.

Thursday, April 29, 2021

This was too easy

 



The publication that the Quillette gang has been waiting for, for at least a couple of years, appeared the other day, The Journal of Controversial Ideas. I will be talking about the Journal soon but want to talk about the interview with one of the three official editors, Peter Singer.

The interview was in The New Yorker, which is rarely a good omen for race science supporters, and so...

NEW YORKER

A lot of your works cite white male academics who, for lack of a better phrase, take up a lot of space in intellectual conversations: Joshua Greene, Steven Pinker, Timothy Garton Ash, Michael Sandel, Benedict Anderson, John Rawls, to name a few. Because so much of your work is fundamentally about equity, I wonder if that is something that’s on your radar.

SINGER

That’s the manner in which I was educated, I suppose, and which still is very influential in the ideas that I’m involved with. I’ve certainly worked with a lot of philosophers who are not male, but they have been white generally. I’ve got a project now about the issue of global population, with Alex Ezeh, a demographer of Nigerian origin at Drexel University. I worked with Pascal Kasimba when I was at Monash University, who is of African descent, on a project relating to in-vitro fertilization. I have also co-authored things with people of Asian descent, with Yew-Kwang Ng, for instance. But, I have to say, I want to work with people whose ideas are, you know, at a level of discussion that I’m interested in, and that I’m progressing. If you’re thinking of the work of Africans, for example, I don’t know the work of many of them that is really in the same sort of—I’m not quite sure how to put this—participating in the same discussion as the people you’ve just mentioned. 


Now that I've looked at Singer's activities, I think it's likely Singer likes to cite Pinker - who is not a philosopher - so often because Singer also supports race science. More about that soon.

Wednesday, April 28, 2021

The Isopoint & Adam Rutherford

 

I'm really enjoying geneticist Adam Rutherford's How to Argue with a Racist and I found this video of Rutherford that is relatively brief but covers some of the important items from the book. The item that I find especially interesting is "the isopoint" which is described in Wikipedia as:

...genetic isopoint is the most recent point in a given population's past such that each individual alive at this point either has no living descendants, or is the ancestor of every individual alive in the present.

 You can jump to minute 4:10 in the video to get Rutherford's explanation. One of the fun facts that comes out of the isopoint concept is that, because Viking contact with Europe comes before the European isopoint, that means that anybody with European ancestry is a descendant of Vikings.

Rutherford is very critical of commercial genetics testing companies like 23 and Me but nevertheless I found something interesting in my list of 23 and Me relatives a few years ago.

...it's clear that the human family tree is even more tangled than I realized.

The new feature "DNA Relatives" displays everybody in the 23 & Me database with DNA in common. I have a total of 1151 DNA relatives.

The closest relatives are two first cousins, one "MR" on my father's side and Sean on my mother's side.

I share 12.4% DNA with Sean and 6.36% DNA with MR. Curiously, I share more DNA with one of Sean's daughters, 8.66% than I do with my own paternal first cousin.

But what's even odder is that my maternal and paternal cousins are related to each other. In the table below there is my paternal cousin's name, MR (name redacted) in the first column, then my connection and percentage shared DNA in the second column, then Sean's connection to MR, which, true, is only "Distant Cousin" at 0.07% but still that is weird.

So 23 and Me can't be all bad, seeing as it provides evidence of the convergence that ends in the isopoint.

Rutherford is a celebrity in the UK but he's hardly known at all in the US, which is surprising. He's attractive, charismatic, funny and has a beautiful voice with a plummy British accent, which Americans can't resist. I assume he's not a science celebrity here through his own choice, I can't imagine any US science organization missing the chance to have Rutherford as a host of a science program.

In any case, I am very glad Rutherford is explicitly critical of race science, he is performing a very important service to humanity.

Another great video of Rutherford is the time he was asked by Humanists UK to deliver "The Voltaire Lecture" and was given the Voltaire medal.

In the middle of the Voltaire Lecture, Rutherford dumps on Voltaire for being "a hideous racist." 

There is much more to the video than that, but I laughed out loud at that point. The dumping begins at 26:40 in the video.

Monday, April 26, 2021

Has Cathy Young read Quillette?

Recently on Twitter, fellow critics of the IDW were discussing the fact that Lee Jussim (who is not a fan of Pinkerite) was once a critic of race science. I was surprised by this, I had assumed he was always a race science promoter, pushing terms from the segregationist south like "Equalitarianism" and forming a mutual admiration society with biosocial criminologist John Paul Wright.

But one of the fellow critics shared with me some threads from the time of Jussim's opposition to race science and I was surprised by this exchange. Cathy Young asked Jussim if he would turn his anti-race science argument into an article and said that Quillette would be an "obvious choice" for the submission.

Which is why I wonder if Cathy Young, who has written for Quillette has ever read Quillette. In all the years I've been tracking Quillette, I have not detected any evidence that it's ever published an article that argues against race science. It's always been clear to me, in spite of Quillette's claim to be about "free thought" that in fact it is dedicated to right-wing positions, including race science.

It would be surprising if they did run a critique of race science, since one of the people listed in Quillette's Who We Are (described elsewhere as "Quillette's team"), Bo Winegard, has a career that appears to be built entirely on a foundation of race science, in addition to the fact that he is a racist. I doubt Claire Lehmann, who has nurtured and defended the career of Winegard would suddenly turn on his very raison d'être.

The timeline of Jussim critiquing race science is curious. The screen cap of the argument I posted is from August 11, 2019, but Jussim was already declaring his admiration for biosocial criminologist John Paul Wright some time before June 2019, which is when I wrote about the Jussim-Wright connection. 

But could Quillette really have published an anti-race science piece and I somehow missed it? I tweeted to everybody on Quillette's Who We Are page (if they were on Twitter and hadn't blocked me) to ask. No response, of course.




I've been listening to Adam Rutherford's "How to Argue with a Racist" and he addresses Bo Winegard's "blacks are better at basketball" trope. I will be talking about Rutherford's work soon.

Saturday, April 24, 2021

Crikey catches Claire Lehmann in a lie

According to Crikey

The right’s finest minds 
Yesterday, The Australian reported on the emergence of a new journal of “controversial ideas” led by Professor Peter Singer, which will (sigh) push back against cancel culture, in part by allowing researchers to publish under pseudonyms — thus freeing them to discuss difficult ideas without putting their careers in jeopardy or “suffering intimidation on social media”.
Today comes an approving think piece from Claire Lehmann, founder of “intellectual dark web” publication Quillette. Under the heading “What’s in a pen name? Freedom to think in the age of Digital Big Brother”, Lehmann argues pseudonyms are a great way of withholding data from big tech and that “there are often good reasons for people to conceal their identities that have nothing to do with abuse or trolling”. 
 
Fair point. But then she goes on to say:

We have published writers under pseudonyms at the online magazine I founded, Quillette, but only after verifying the author’s real identity. 

Which would have been a really easy thing to not specifically say. Back in 2019, Quillette published a piece under the byline “Archie Carter”. Carter described himself as a Marxist-Leninist construction worker and his argument was that the Democratic Socialists of America was doomed as an organisation, partly because of (you guessed it) a fixation with “inclusivity”, pronouns and “feminist procedures” were alienating to the fellow working men he brought along to meetings. In other words, a slice of fried gold for a publication so averse to identity politics and leftist orthodoxy.
You see where we’re going with this. Carter was a fake name and the article was a hoax, an attempt by some guy in Chicago to pass the “ideological Turing test”.


UPDATE - while poking around Twitter archives I found this exchange, which I missed the first time. Here we see Claire Lehmann demonstrating both the rigorous editorial standards and the civility that the Quillette/IDW gang are always patting themselves on the back for.



Friday, April 23, 2021

The American Humanist Association should take back Steven Pinker's humanist award too

As usual, PZ Myers has a great response - and I missed that Pinker
quoted Toby Eugenics Young Quillette editor, in his letter to the AHA


To nobody's surprise the right-wing/IDW/Quillette gang has come out in support of long-time bigot and obnoxious creep Richard Dawkins, because the American Humanist Association withdrew Dawkins' Humanist of the Year award.

The Friendly Atheist provides the details. Many of the usual suspects are supporting Dawkins and his anti-human bigotry: Ayaan Hirsi Ali (IDW, far-right, bigot); Shermer (IDW, race science, creep); Peter Boghossian (grifter, creep); Jerry Coyne (race science, Steven Pinker's #1 fanboy); Sam Harris (IDW, race science, dummy).

The article also flagged a number of atheist organization types who I will have to check out to see how much they support right-wing/race science/IDW beliefs.

And of course, Steven Pinker.


Pinker points out that other problematic people have received Humanist of the Year awards. He should be included in that list.

My question is, what took the AHA so long? Dawkins has been an incredible anti-Muslim, anti-woman bigot for years now. He only recently started attacking transexual rights, probably because all his friends are doing it. 

As for Pinker, this blog attests to Pinker's unconscionable career of promoting race pseudo-science, evolutionary psychology pseudo-science, Quillette, a rag for race science and anti-trans and other reactionary positions and Pinker has even promoted professional racists like Steve Sailer and Bo Winegard.

As usual, PZ Myers has a good response: Idolatry of the atheist kind is just as repellent as any other


Thursday, April 22, 2021

Possibly the most racist thing that Quillette employee Bo Winegard has said yet

We know that when Winegard uses the term "group differences" he means race.

Now so far there's no evidence that Caliper Claire Lehmann approves Winegard's tweet. On the other hand there's no evidence she has any intention of firing him from Quillette. The reason why is most likely because she agrees with him. 

And that's what Quillette is.

 


Monday, April 19, 2021

Andrew Sullivan cries defamation because someone said he supports race science, then doubles-down on race science

When we last saw Andrew Sullivan here on Pinkerite, he was praising the Bari Weiss-promoted Brearley dad letter that said there has been no systemic racism since the 1960s. 

Well the Brearley dad controversy has yielded dividends. On one of the threads about the dad letter, Andrew Sullivan cried defamation because someone pointed out that he supports race science, a pseudo-science that claims that Black underachievement proves the Black "race" is evolutionarily less intelligent than other "races."

Sullivan then followed up by doubling-down on race science.


I was not surprised to see him retweeting Bo Winegard, professional racist.


Tom Scocca noted the absurdity.



Jamelle Bouie weights in.



Now we may all have fun laughing at the logic fail of Andrew Sullivan but it's important to note that  Andrew Sullivan is now an Advisor for an organization, FAIR, which believes in the biological reality of race so strongly that it coined a term "Neo-racism" which includes only those who believe race is a social construct in this new definition of racism. And this organization is devoted to litigation.

I wonder if Bari Weiss, also a FAIR Advisor, tweeted the Brearley letter for the consideration of the FAIR legal experts as a possible legal action. 

Yes people like Bari Weiss and Andrew Sullivan are stupid and laughable, but it's likely they are backed by right-wing plutocrat money, like their pal Conor Friedersdorf.




Sure it's fun to laugh at dummies like Weiss and Sullivan, but it's quite possible for dummies, backed by a lot of money, to do a lot of harm on behalf of right-wing extremists.


Saturday, April 17, 2021

What Bari Weiss believes

To understand why the Right and the Intellectual Dark Web and the Quillette gang hate the 1619 Project so much, you have to understand that they believe systemic racism ended in the United States in the 1960s, in spite of a mountain of evidence that shows otherwise. The anti-1619 forces are ignorant of Black history and wish to stay that way.

Bari Weiss just published on her substack the letter of a man Weiss names as Andrew Gutmann, who is yanking his kid out of private Brearley school.

Part of his letter.








If he can afford to send his kid to a private school then Andrew Gutmann must surely know how Google works and could have found these articles (my highlights):

December 2019:

This Is What Racism Sounds Like in the Banking Industry

This year, researchers for the National Bureau of Economic Research found that black mortgage borrowers were charged higher interest rates than white borrowers and were denied mortgages that would have been approved for white applicants.

An investigation reveals widespread housing discrimination against blacks and other minorities in New York’s suburbs, more than 50 years after the Fair Housing Act.

North Carolina’s third-largest city, officers pulled over African-American drivers for traffic violations at a rate far out of proportion with their share of the local driving population. They used their discretion to search black drivers or their cars more than twice as often as white motorists — even though they found drugs and weapons significantly more often when the driver was white.

Officers were more likely to stop black drivers for no discernible reason. And they were more likely to use force if the driver was black, even when they did not encounter physical resistance.

--------------------

It took me ten minutes to find these articles showing indisputable evidence that in policing, banking and real estate, there is systemic racism. 

And on top of that, there is the issue of the compounding effects of systemic racism that looted black wealth prior to the 1960s and left a legacy of immiseration

If you don't believe there is systemic racism NOW it's because you are refusing to look or you don't wish to believe it.

Andrew Sullivan approves the Brearley dad message, of course.



Saturday, April 10, 2021

FAIR - more right-wing than ever

A little over a month ago I wrote about how FAIR, the organization touted by Trumper toady Christopher Rufo as bi-partisan has a board of Advisors that is distinctly right-leaning. 

More recently I wrote about how phony bi-partisanship is apparently a preferred Koch organization strategy.

FAIR has added two more people to its Advisors board. 

Let's meet them:


So FAIR is even more right-wing than before!

UPDATE - I just noticed the FAIR Advisors lost Andrew Doyle, the talentless right-wing satirist who was paid by Koch to run the Spiked "Unsafe Space Tour" so the further tilt to the right isn't as extreme as I thought but Kenny Xu more than makes up for the loss of Doyle in terms of right-wing views. And Ajouz gave money to TED CRUZ.

Tuesday, April 6, 2021

So why is Koch so bad?

Illustration from The Economist article Kochtopus's Garden

I make a big deal about all the connections between Steven Pinker and his friends and Charles Koch. But why? What's so bad about Koch

I was first alerted to the awfulness of Charles Koch - or rather the Koch brothers because David Koch was still alive then - thanks to Jane Mayer's 2010 New Yorker piece
Covert Operations The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama

From the piece:

The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation. These views dovetail with the brothers’ corporate interests. In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.” The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus.

And...

The brothers realized that their brand of politics didn’t sell at the ballot box. Charles Koch became openly scornful of conventional politics. “It tends to be a nasty, corrupting business,” he told a reporter at the time. “I’m interested in advancing libertarian ideas.” According to Doherty’s book, the Kochs came to regard elected politicians as merely “actors playing out a script.” A longtime confidant of the Kochs told Doherty that the brothers wanted to “supply the themes and words for the scripts.” In order to alter the direction of America, they had to “influence the areas where policy ideas percolate from: academia and think tanks.”

And...

The Kochs have long depended on the public’s not knowing all the details about them. They have been content to operate what David Koch has called “the largest company that you’ve never heard of.” But with the growing prominence of the Tea Party, and with increased awareness of the Kochs’ ties to the movement, the brothers may find it harder to deflect scrutiny. Recently, President Obama took aim at the Kochs’ political network. Speaking at a Democratic National Committee fund-raiser, in Austin, he warned supporters that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Citizens United case—which struck down laws prohibiting direct corporate spending on campaigns—had made it even easier for big companies to hide behind “groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity.” Obama said, “They don’t have to say who, exactly, Americans for Prosperity are. You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation”—or even, he added, “a big oil company.” 

The Kochs were not happy about the article and tried to retaliate against Mayer according to a NYTimes article What Happened to Jane Mayer When She Wrote About the Koch Brothers.

Eleven years later, David Koch is dead but Charles Koch is still at it. And it appears that what Charles Koch has decided is that since voters don't like libertarian ideas, the real problem is democracy itself. Mayer recently wrote again for the New Yorker about Koch:

A recording obtained by The New Yorker of a private conference call on January 8th, between a policy adviser to Senator Mitch McConnell and the leaders of several prominent conservative groups—including one run by the Koch brothers’ network—reveals the participants’ worry that the proposed election reforms garner wide support not just from liberals but from conservative voters, too. The speakers on the call expressed alarm at the broad popularity of the bill’s provision calling for more public disclosure about secret political donors. The participants conceded that the bill, which would stem the flow of dark money from such political donors as the billionaire oil magnate Charles Koch, was so popular that it wasn’t worth trying to mount a public-advocacy campaign to shift opinion. Instead, a senior Koch operative said that opponents would be better off ignoring the will of American voters and trying to kill the bill in Congress.

But they have a plan - phony bipartisanship:

On the call, McKenzie, the Koch operative, cited one “ray of hope” in the fight against the reforms, noting that his research found that the most effective message was arguing that a politically “diverse coalition of groups opposed” the bill, including the American Civil Liberties Union. “In our message example that we used, we used the example of A.C.L.U., Planned Parenthood, and conservative organizations backed by Charles Koch as an example of groups that oppose H.R. 1,” he said. “I think, you know, when you put that in front of people . . . they’re, like, ‘Oh, conservatives and some liberal groups all oppose this, like, I should maybe think about this more. You know, there must be bigger implications to this if these groups are all coming together on it.’ ”

However, that test message was inaccurate. Planned Parenthood does not oppose the For the People Act. It is, in fact, on a list of organizations giving the legislation their full backing. And the A.C.L.U. supports almost all of the expansions of voting rights contained in the bill...

I think Koch flunkies got the memo. Just recently I noted that Koch employee and Trump supporter Christopher F. Rufo was trying to pass off FAIR as a bipartisan group when it is clear it is far right-leaning and full of people who take money from Koch-supported organizations.

Mayer and the New Yorker are national treasures for their reporting on Koch. It's curious that the New Yorker is also one of the few media outlets that isn't baffled by Steven Pinker's bullshit - or the bullshit of other Koch-funded grifters.

Monday, April 5, 2021

Steven Pinker and his other connections

I've mentioned here on occasion that Pinker fanboys freak out because I created a diagram (with associated text which they never seem to read) demonstrating Pinker's connections to the Right and/or purveyors of race "science." 

I've also noted previously on this blog that Steven Pinker appears to be a sacred cow of the media, and has escaped serious blow-back for his support of race science in a way that Andrew Sullivan, for example, has not. 

How did Steven Pinker, "celebrity intellectual" achieve this? Even after another celebrity intellectual, Malcolm Gladwell, called out Pinker's promotion of professional racist Steve Sailer, 12 years ago.

I've speculated on this before, suggesting it could be the Pinker PR machine or his lack of intellectual integrity, but another likely reason is that Pinker has the right connections.

In addition to his connections through colleges and connections to rich guys like Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Gates, Pinker is or has been, according to his CV on boards of 76 scientific, scholarly and public interest organizations - most of them are current.

Editorial Boards of Scientific and Scholarly Journals

  1. American Journal of Bioethics: Neuroscience
  2. Canadian Psychology, 2003-.
  3. Cognition, 1982-2008.
  4. Cognitive Science, 1991-1996.
  5. Daedalus, 2002- .
  6. Developmental Review, 2019- .
  7. Earth & Sky, 2007- .
  8. English Linguistics, 2003- .
  9. Essays in Philosophy of Humanism, 2012– .
  10. Evolution and Human Behavior, 1998- .
  11. Evolution and Culture, 2020- .
  12. Evolutionary Psychology, 2001- .
  13. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2014- .
  14. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2003- .
  15. International Journal of Bilingualism. 1996- .
  16. Journal of Child Language, 1994-2004. 
  17. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 2000- .
  18. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 2014- .
  19. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2008- .
  20. Language Acquisition, 1990-2004; Advisory Board, 2004- .
  21. Language and Dialogue, 2010- .
  22. Mind & Society, 2002- .
  23. PLoS ONE, 2006-2015.
  24. PsyCh Journal, 2018- .
  25. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2014- .
  26. The Evolutionary Review, 2008- .
  27. The Humanist, 2007- .
  28. The Scientific Study of Literature, 2010-.
  29. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum: An International Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies, 2000- .
  30. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2000-2010.
  31. Words, 2002- .

Advisory Boards of Scientific, Scholarly, and Public Interest Organizations

  1. Apolitical, 2018- .
  2. Breakthrough Institute, Senior Fellow, 2018- .
  3. Campus Freedom Network, 2009- .
  4. Cellular Agricultural Society, 2020- .
  5. Center for Empathy in International Affairs, 2015- .
  6. Center for Inquiry Canada, 2016- .
  7. Center for Research on Language, Mind, and Brain, McGill University, 2003- .
  8. Cognitive Neuroscience Society, 1994- .
  9. Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, 1979- .
  10. Counterweight, 2021- .
  11. Cybereditions, 1998- .
  12. The Decade of Behavior, 2003-2005
  13. Diamond Sky Productions/The Day the Earth Smiled, 2013- .
  14. E. O. Wilson Foundation, 2007- .
  15. Endangered Language Fund, 1998- .
  16. English for the Children, 2001-2004.
  17. Environmental Progress, 2016– .
  18. Ford Hall Forum, 2012- .
  19. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 2007- .
  20. The Foundations Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, and Max Planck Society, 2019- .
  21. Global Secular Council for the Scientific Study of Nontheism, 2014- .
  22. HumanProgress.org
  23. Institute for Science and Human Values, 2010- .
  24. International Academy of Humanism, 2010- . 
  25. International Association for the Study of Attention and Performance, 1992- .
  26. Kärnfull Energi, Sweden, Pro Bono Advisory Board, 2020- .
  27. National Writing Project Writers Council, 20106– .
  28. Naturalism Research Project, Center for Inquiry.
  29. NSF Science of Learning Center at Gallaudet University, 2011- .
  30. Office of Public Policy, Center for Inquiry, Washington DC, 2006- .
  31. Origins Project, Arizona State University, 2009- 2018.
  32. Oxford University Press, Heretical Thought series, 2013- .
  33. Paul G. Allen Institute for Brain Science, 2001- .
  34. Peace Research Endowment, 2012- .
  35. Planet Word Museum of Language Arts, 2016- .
  36. Potential Energy, 2019- .
  37. Rock-It Science, 2008- .
  38. Secular Coalition for America, 2007- .
  39. Sesame Workshop, 2012- .
  40. Science for Peace, 2009- .
  41. Science and Entertainment Exchange, National Academy of Sciences, 2008- .
  42. Society for Evolutionary Analysis in Law, 2009- .
  43. Society for Language Development, 2003- .
  44. Student Achievement and Advocacy Services, 2002- .
  45. World Science Festival, New York, 2006- .

In addition to those, he's an Advisor to FAIRHonorary President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation; on the Board of Directors of Ideas Beyond Borders, and likely more.

I see two of the organizations listed by Pinker also have connections to the Right, including Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) funded by Koch - I mention FIRE in my Pinker diagram, and Human Progress, also Koch-funded. There are probably more.

I should have been paying better attention because I just noticed Pinker is publishing a new book due in September, Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters. I can't wait for the New Yorker magazine review - the New Yorker is one of the very few publications that isn't baffled by Pinker's bullshit. 

But then, Pinker isn't a New Yorker advisor nor a board member.

Saturday, April 3, 2021

The Human Strategy: You Are What They Ate

The latest installment of the column Marvin Harris wrote for Natural History, in 1972, "The Human Strategy." He talks about the significance of humans having grinding-type teeth and how that demonstrates that early human diets were primarily vegetarian. 

Harris opens by mentioning his son which is sad, because his son died young.









 

Thursday, March 25, 2021

FAIR and "Neo-racism'


NHAI co-author Gregory Cochran expressing
his contempt for anthropologist R. Brian Ferguson

for daring to notice that NHAI is a bunch of BS.



According to Eugene Volokh, a Koch employee, the goal of FAIR, which I wrote about recently, is litigation. 

Volokh quotes the FAIR site:

FAIR supports students, teachers, and employees who are being compelled to affirm principles with which they disagree, who are stopped from expressing their true views, and who are being punished and silenced if they do not comply. To that end, FAIR is building a nationwide network of independent attorneys who can offer advice and, if necessary, pursue litigation. If you are a lawyer with civil litigation experience and would like to join FAIR's legal network, please contact letitia@fairforall.org.

As always with this kind of thing, the issue is how far they are willing to stand by people and the principles with which those people disagree. I think we can rule out Nazis - I doubt FAIR will come to the legal aid of a Nazi who was fired for publishing a manifesto on the company web site in which they declare that Jews likely can't do work for the company as well as non-Jews, due to biologically-innate tendencies. 

Although I suspect the FAIR Advisors - a right-leaning group that includes Trump supporters, Koch employees and race science supporters - would gladly stand by someone making the same claim about women, in place of Jews, as several of them did in the case of the James Damore memo

But some of the Advisors believe that there are innate biological differences between Jews and everybody else - Andrew Sullivan is clearly still a believer in the Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence (NHAI) hypothesis, as can be seen in a relatively recent interview published by the New York Times:

But he also can’t quite stop himself, even as I sat there wishing he would. “Let’s say Jews. I mean, just look at the Nobel Prize. I’m just saying — there’s something there, I think. And I’m not sure what it is, but I’m just not prepared to accept the whole thing is over.” 

Steven Pinker also seems to be a fan, still, of NHAI as seen in his joining with other Koch-connected individuals to complain that Bret Stephens was criticized for citing NHAI as a reference in one of his NYTimes op-eds, and the citation was redacted.

Anthropologist R. Brian Ferguson debunked the NHAI paper, a fact that Pinker and other NHAI supporters resolutely ignore. Although it did lead to Cochran insulting Ferguson on a few occasions, without, of course, any attempt to address Ferguson's points.

Racists believed in Jewish intellectual superiority long before Harpending and Cochran came along. As segregationist Henry E Garrett wrote in the notoriously racist Mankind Quarterly in 1961:

...By almost any criterion, the Jews have produce a disproportionate number of intellectually gifted persons and this despite the handicaps under which they have often lived and worked. Did "culture" alone produce these outstanding men or was there better native endowment to begin with?
I think it's safe to say that the current approach at least the approach for in recent decades was to deny the existence of intelligence. I mentioned the Mismeasure of Man as the foremost example to deny the existence of genetically distinct human groups. There is a widespread myth that there is no such thing as race whatsoever that there are that it's purely a social construction and to call the people who don't do this Nazis but on the other hand there is a quotation I don't know who's responsible for it: reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it.

I thought of that while reading the FAIR web site's glossary of terms which includes this FAIR neologism:

neo-racism noun
neo-rac·ism | \ nē-ō-ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm 
1a. : a belief that race is a real and inescapable social construct that determines an individual’s identity, agency, beliefs, ability, or culture, such that members of different race groups can never understand each other due to intrinsic and insurmountable cultural differences.

1b. : prejudice, discrimination, stereotyping, or antagonism directed against a person or people based on this belief.

2 : discrimination, behavior or attitudes toward individuals or groups that reflect and foster the belief that members of some race groups are permanently subordinate to members of other race groups.


It's a curious insertion "a real and inescapable social construct." Why not write "...a belief that race determines an individual’s identity, agency..." What is the point of inserting a clause about social construct? Wouldn't the belief be racist without that inclusion?

Ah, but that's where the "neo" comes in. I think it's likely some number of FAIR advisors - foremost Andrew Sullivan and Steven Pinker - want to suggest that the belief in biological race has no negative implications - it's those who believe race is a social construct who are the real racists. 

If that is the case, it's truly sleazy, but sleaziness is the hallmark of race science, as discussed recently in the New Yorker:

In 2020, a paper appeared in the journal Psychological Science that examined how I.Q. was related to a range of socioeconomic measures for countries around the world. Unfortunately, the paper was based on a data set of national I.Q. estimates co-published by the English psychologist Richard Lynn, an outspoken white supremacist. Although we should be able to assess Lynn’s scientific contributions independently of his personal views, his data set of I.Q. estimates contains some suspiciously unrepresentative samples for non-European populations. For instance, the estimate for Somalia is based on one sample of child refugees stationed in a camp in Kenya. The estimate for Haiti is based on a sample of a hundred and thirty-three rural six-year-olds. And the estimate for Botswana is based on a sample of high-school students tested in South Africa in a language that was not their own. Indeed, the psychologist Jelte Wicherts demonstrated that the best predictor for whether an I.Q. sample for an African country would be included in Lynn’s data set was, in fact, whether that sample was below the global average. Psychological Science has since retracted the paper, but numerous other papers and books have used Lynn’s data set.

The last part is especially important - in spite of a retraction, in spite of the obvious problems with Lynn's data, his work is still being used. Just as NHAI is still being defended by Pinker and Sullivan.

And that's why race science is not actually science, but a blatant attempt to "biologize inequality" as anthropologist Marvin Harris said.

Monday, March 22, 2021

The Human Strategy: How Green the Revolution

The Pinkerite mission requires focus on the race science swillers of the Intellectual Dark Web, Quillette and related organizations like the ironically named Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism  (FAIR) which includes as Advisors two of the most prominent race science promoters, Steven Pinker and Andrew Sullivan, plus Megyn "Jesus was white" Kelly.

But sometimes it's good to focus on the good guys, like anthropologists who offer alternatives to sociobiology and evolutionary psychology which are the bases of the IDW belief system. In particular anthropologists who are influenced by "infrastructural determinism" which is the key to cultural materialism, a research strategy developed and promoted by anthropologist Marvin Harris, a huge influence on Pinkerite. I've interviewed two of his former pupils, anthropologists R. Brian Ferguson and Maxine Margolis

Marvin Harris died almost 20 years ago now, but his work is hugely important and I refer people to his books whenever I can. Last year another former Harris student, anthropologist David Price organized a guide to Harris' papers at the Smithsonian and through that I discovered that Harris had written a column called "The Human Condition" for Natural History Magazine in 1972. The column entries are available on Archive.org but are hard to find so I'm finding them and posting them on this web site. I've shared three so far:

It's been awhile since I posted one and so figure it's time.

"How Green the Revolution," published in the June/July issue, discusses the problems of industrial farming associated with the Green Revolution, which led not only to pesticides poisoning the environment and the dangers of monoculture, but also economic changes that drove farmers off their land and into cities. Harris focuses on the Philippines which was in the early years of the disastrous reign of corrupt dictator Ferdinand Marcos.