Took me a paragraph to smell the stink of hatchetry. Pathetic and misrepresentative ideological assault pure and simple.

What, you mean it appearing in SPLC's newsletter didn't give you a pre-whiff of the rusty blunt molecular separation device wielded by maniacs who happen also to be direct mail fundraising geniuses?

Anthropology, based on Boasian assumptions, is a form of crypto-Marxism. Of course it's opposed to science.

It is essentially the same as Lysenko-ist plant biology.

It's always "scientific racism" whenever points are well-reasoned and threaten the Left's egalitarian apple cart.

Concept's such as "White Privilege" are not really pro-black, they are meme based aggressions against Whites. Even though Wade doesn't attack or demean Blacks or any other races or show anything but respect his book would discredit the linguistic charade of "White Privilege" or "Institutional Racism" or "Racist Discrimination" which explain poor social mobility, high crime, low educational ability. Blaming Whites, cultivating White Guilt, is essential to maintaining high levels of non White immigration, affirmative action, a myriad or special financial privileges.
This is not about winning a logical argument or establishing a truth. It is ultimately about using deceptive arguments to ensuring Whites are minoritised by immigration and disempowered legally and demographically.

" Although the specifics of the arguments change, what remains constant
is the idea that white people of European descent are inherently
smarter, better, more “civilized” than members of other races"

"He posits that white Europeans and East Asians are innately more
intelligent than Papuans or members of other “Stone Age societies”
because “intelligence can be more highly rewarded in modern societies
because it is in far greater demand."

"Wade decided to devote an entire chapter to the issue of Jewish intelligence and biological distinctiveness."

In the first paragraph he tells us this guy is a white supremacist, but Wade talks about how intelligent East Asians and Jews are. I doubt Wade is secretly wearing a Klan robe at home. Maybe, just maybe, this book is a balanced look at race and intelligence?

Wow, they got an impressionable young graduate student to write a hatchet job. Blatant guilt by association: the SPLC labels MacDonald a white supremacist, Cochran and Harpending write an article about Jewish intelligence, which is enough to link them to MacDonald, and Wade cites the article by Cochran and Harpending. Thus, Wade's book is fanning the flames of white supremacy.

With this kind of logic, you could also claim that all vegetarians are genocidal fascists because, you know, Hitler.

Was wondering how many caught that clumsy sleight of hand. The paper addresses "McDonald's hypothesis" ergo the work - with no involvement from McDonald - must be tainted. Nothing saying the authors ever even heard of him.

While you are at it, bring up the fact that Hitler was supposedly anti-tobacco, or so I understand. Rob Reiner is a Nazi!

Babbling from a site called Hatewatch...

Skip article...

Next...

Unintentionally a SUPER review. If I were a blank slate and read this review, I'd be nodding my head yes over and over at the parts describing theories of racial differences. I'd be shaking my head no at the reviewer for throwing in his silly, inconsequential "racist" and hater accusations. I'd be looking up this Jared Taylor fellow and all the other "racists" mentioned.

This review will will win us friends and influence those uneducated in matters of race, but who look around and see the truth with their own eyes. Too bad it's published on splc, where only self-hating, self-annihilating libtard anti-racists will read it.

Hatewatch asked Jon Phillips, a graduate student and free-lance writer who studies the history of science with a focus on politics and evolutionary biology, to review the 278-page book and its claims.

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

Here kid. Hack this up and yer in even if yer white.

Degrees of degrees, eh?

I just realized that anything called "Hatewatch" can help me fill my bookshelves better than Amazon can....

The bigotry of the race-deniers is well known. They are our modern version of those who once denied that the sun is the center of the solar system. Bigots never change, they just change their targets.

This review by a graduate student is so sophormoric and silly that taking it apart line by line to show the errors and lack of critical thinking would be like wasting your time telling a little child that his belief in the boogey man in his closet just isn't rational.

I see it more as nostalgic for a time before science became "racist." If you think about it the Left has wagered the farm on racial equality, global warming and Keynesian economics. Talk about a sucker bet! They could have squandered trillions more easily at the horse track.

One and a half correct out of three.

1. Differentiation exists between human populations.
2. The evidence in favor of climate change is staggering to the point in which intelligent debate has ceased. (Like natural selection)
3. Liberal economics works fine in a homogeneous society. (Scandinavian nations)

IF carbon dioxide where a minority gas, it could get a lawyer and sue. I shall kip further in the morning when I am less knackered.

Yup, but how homogeneous Scandinavia now?

If the social sciences were to listen to the geneticists...maybe they'd be real sciences rather than pseudo-scientific ideologies.

Too bad, I think there's much potential for the social sciences if treated as science, you know. Certainly much potential for abuse, but how much more so the ideologized orthodoxy, eh?

You seem to be serious about your discipline. Noble.

My father was a brilliant chemist and inventor. He said that the term "social science" is an oxymoron.
I once heard a social scientist say that his field pursued "the systematic study of a determinate subject matter." That description applies to a stalker.

Ha ha! If th ss's were rigorous and not ideologically bound...

There's a social scientist at MIT who's been very good at predicting future political events. I'll have to look that guy up later.

There was one who's book I read as a UCSC undergrad. It was "Encounters With the Future." I'll have to get another copy, as it has been 27 years since I read it, but two things stand out: the author correctly predicted German reunification and the breakup of the USSR.

There is only one reality. Academic disciplines should not be contradicting one another in their description of it. There should be a fair amount of consilience between any given area of inquiry. Unfortunately, many researchers work with primarily with their heart.
While eliminating this is phenomenon is impossible, we could certainly be doing a better job than we are right now.

In my Ph.D program there is a white atheist friend of mine who is also committed to a realistic perspective of the world. Him and I received considerable heat from our classmates for suggesting that certain religions (Islam) are more violent than others. We did not retract our statements in any way. Our discussions apart from our PC classmates are even more interesting. Here is a conversation him and I had pretty much verbatim.

Me: Hey [his name] I was thinking about what you said in class today. You said that it is important to be honest in all things no matter how uncomfortable the truth is.

He: Yes, I maintain that.

Me: Okay, consider this. As you know there is a considerable gender gap in the natural sciences. If you were a researcher, and you discovered that the reason for this gap was because that males and females have different IQ distributions, would you be comfortable divulging that information?

He: Well, I am not sure. However, I do think that is the case. I think that there are racial gaps as well.

Me: [My eyebrows fly up in surprise by his honesty] Yeah?!

He: Well, to be frank, yes. I think that the idea that human populations have all of their dials set on the same level despite spending thousands of years in geographic isolation from each other is insane. [While saying this he is moving his left and right hands slightly up and down from each other]. It is akin to any religious creed. Now if I was a politician, I wouldn't say any of this.

[We laugh]

Me: Why are people so afraid of difference?

He: Well as you know there is a long history of conflict based on these differences. I am not racist. I know these are just averages. I would have no problem seeing a Black doctor with an IQ of 140.

Me: I appreciate your honesty. It's a shame we can't even say things like this in from of our colleagues.

One problem is that in any science there is always the worry that what at first appears to be the main issue is really just a collection of second and third-order effects that are acting in concert. Experimental design is all about eliminating other variables. Societies are inherently complex, so this is effectively impossible. No sane researcher really wants to wreck a bunch of human societies just to publish an equally disturbed series of peer-reviewed journal articles about which independent variables in societal dysfunction are the most harmful.

With the hard sciences, this is easier. In chemistry, for example the worst that normally happens is that some expensive chemicals have been used up and some glassware hopelessly gunked-up with hardened crud. With social sciences, running multiple successive experiments is typically impossible, although sometimes it happens. For instance, we now understand almost completely that major European wars are not very productive.

You know it's me neando, right? I took this ID after a successful raid on the Nation where I told about how I "went down to the demonstration to get my fair share of abuse" - attended an "occupy" encounter encounter group and got lectured on my privilege. I was in bad shape at the time and really didn't appreciate it, you know?
Regardless I posted furiously for a few days, very politely but not meely mouthed. Got a lot of upvotes, including many fellow amrenners, but also from awakening libtards like I once was. Got some followers, thought I'd lead over here. Sociology of the internet, eh?

The most fun I had was in interacting with a couple of diversity trainers who came on and tried to fix me...heehee...

Anyway, you know I'm evil but you also know I've always respected your opinions.

You seen Dredd? Made in South Africa. Great flik. Much better than Stallone.

Where have you been? I haven't seen any of your posts in quite a while. Anyway, it's good to see that you're still around.

Thank you,

I have been trying to become more efficient with my time. Which, regrettably, means that fun stuff like making internet comments goes on the chopping block.

This is more to the point. IPCC simply ignored the pointed questions of Piers Corbyn. Electronic propaganda is not debate. And I am one who has donated one hundred and thirty greenback dollars to Sister Megan Rice. Ain't me. It's you yankee boys putting eighty year old nuns in the slammer for violating the nuclear sanctity of Oak Ridge. WaPo covered it. One's hands come together. Almost like a prayer.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

1. Differentiation exists.

2. The evidence for climate change is indeed staggering, especially since the climate has always changed. You might remember something about the ice age, of which there has in fact been several.
The big point of discussion is wether it's humanity that is causing these climate changes or not.

3. Too bad that scandinavian nations haven't really been the poster childs for liberal economics then, even back when they were homogenous. Scandinavian nations were instead some of the most social democratic ones and have the highest tax rates in the world and state monopolies in a large number of areas etc.

A hundred years of IQ testing prove races have different intelligences. A hundred years of crime statistics prove races have different cognitive functioning. Case closed.

It is dangerous to point that out publicly unless white racism is blamed.

What happened to examining new scientific evidence?

What new evidence discounts my two facts about intelligence and crime? Please speak up and let us know. We all want to know!

There were those authors examining IQ and the 'Flynn' effect. Most of the 'scientific' literature on IQ takes the 'anti-racist' position. Besides, Engelman is responsible for providing leftist factoids here, not me.

I have to take offense here. Anti-racist is the opposite of scientific debate. People like Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, serious academics, take the view that data overwhelmingly support IQ is connected to race. Economists like Thomas Sowell also state that race and crime and IQ are more than a correlation. Indeed, most of the scientific literature will not touch this issue because to speak a truth that one does not want to hear causes an end of a career.

The evidence for group and individual differences is very well established and very consistent over time, these same inherent differences between individuals and groups pop up in virtually every environment that is more or less the same for the inhabitants. And the differences are found regardless of who takes the data or does the observing etc. The evidence (intelligence tests, crime statistics) has been scrutinized for bias and confounds,and has been very carefully taken so as to exclude any bias from the data and conclusions using basic statistical and research methods.

The most ironic thing is that as far as individuals and groups are concerned differences in intelligence and personality i.e. aggressiveness, diligence, kindness, honesty, etc tend to be so obvious that anyone who makes egalitarian statements such as "all people are essentially the same" is either denying reality and duping themselves, or has a very limited ability to reason coupled with an aggressive personality and a disposition towards thinking they're entitled to everything.

No one would deny that individuals and groups look different physically and no one (who is honest and reasonable) should deny that they are different psychologically as well.

Jon Phillips, in his last paragraph, engages strictly in personality destruction by associating Wade with the likes of David Duke and Stormfront.
While avoiding the central question: Is Wade correct ?

Although the specifics of the arguments change, what remains constant is the idea that white people of European descent are inherently smarter, better, more “civilized” than members of other races, especially black Africans and their descendants. Wade’s work is no exception.

- Jon Phillips, Hatewatch, May 28, 2014

Any credible race realist acknowledges the higher average IQ's and lower crime rates of Orientals.

More credible race realists acknowledge that Northeast Asians ("Orientals") do not have higher IQ's than Europeans. In fact, Northeast Asians have lower IQ's than Europeans.

The most credible race realist I have read is Professor J. Philippe Rushton, who spoke at six American Renaissance conferences. This is what he wrote in "RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR."

Modern science shows a three-way pattern of race differences in both physical traits and behavior. On average, Orientals are slower to mature, less fertile, less sexually active, less aggressive, and have larger brains
and higher IQ scores.

http://archive.org/stream/R...

Rushton's conclusions are based on an uncritical acceptance of the findings of Lynn's research on Northeast Asian IQ. This research is seriously methodologically flawed.

In Group Differences in Intelligence (2000), the psychologist John Loehlin writes:

There is some dispute as to whether Asian Americans obtain higher average scores on IQ tests than European Americans or score at about the same level. Richard Lynn has estimated that the IQs of Asians in their native countries average around 106 but that those of Asian Americans might be a little lower (Lynn, 1991). In contrast, James Flynn has argued that many studies that have compared the test scores of various Asian-American samples with U.S. norms have involved an artifact, namely, they have failed to allow for the prevailing upward creep of IQ test performance over time (the so-called “Flynn effect”; Flynn 1984, 1996). When the results from studies using just Asian-American samples were adjusted for this effect and combined with those from studies in which both groups were simultaneously measured on the same tests, Flynn found little overall IQ difference between European and Asian Americans – perhaps a couple of IQ points in favor of European Americans (Flynn, 1991).

[…]

There is also a large difference in how effectively Asian
Americans and European Americans convert their cognitive skills into professional and occupational achievement (Weyl, 1969). Flynn estimated that Asian Americans tend to achieve at a level characteristic of European Americans with IQs 10 to 20 points higher. This is partly because a greater proportion of Asian Americans who are qualified for higher education in fact undertake it and partly due to their being able to succeed at lower ability levels by working harder (Flynn, 1991).

According to the Coleman Report (1966), Asian Americans (Chinese and Japanese) have lower IQ’s than white Americans. When the report’s final scores are converted to an IQ metric, the average scores for groups of differing ancestry were:

European Americans: Verbal: 102 Nonverbal: 102

African Americans: Verbal: 85.5 Nonverbal: 85.9

Asian Americans: Verbal: 98.2 Nonverbal: 101.5

Native Americans: Verbal: 88.9 Nonverbal: 95.0

There is plenty of evidence quite independent of the research of Richard Lynn, who has also spoken at American Renaissance conferences, that Orientals tend to be more intelligent than white Gentiles.

For example, since the school year of 1986 - 87 SAT averages for Asians in mathematics have risen faster than for whites. While whites are ahead in reading, Asians are closing the gap. Keep in mind that for many of these Asians English is a second language.

This also is true: "Top schools that don’t ask about race in admissions process have very high percentages of Asian students. The California Institute of Technology, a private school that chooses not to consider race, is about one-third Asian. (Thirteen percent of California residents have Asian heritage.) The University of California-Berkeley, which is forbidden by state law to consider race in admissions, is more than 40 percent Asian–up from about 20 percent before the law was passed."

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfact...

http://www.amren.com/news/2...

The SAT is not a pure measure of g-factor intelligence. It is no substitute for actual IQ data. You cannot accurately quantify general mental ability using educational achievement, a measure that involves, to a large extent, non-g factors. Deary et al. (2007) suggest that caution must be exercised when equating general intelligence with educational achievement:

There are various possible causes of the cognitive ability-educational achievement association. Bartels et al. (2002b) found a strong genetic correlation between cognitive ability (measured at 5, 7, 10, and 12 years) and educational achievement at age 12. In an overview, Petrill and Wilkerson (2000) concluded that genetics and shared and non-shared environmental factors all influence intelligence and education, with genetics being important in the correlation between them, and non-shared environment being important in discrepancies between intelligence and educational attainments.

Whereas the correlations indicate that around 50% to 60% of the variance in GCSE [General Certificate of Secondary Education] examination points score can be statistically explained by the prior g [general intelligence] factor, by the same token a large proportion of the variance is not accounted for by g. Some of the remaining variance in GCSE scores will be measurement error, but some will be systematic. Thus, non-g factors have a substantial impact on educational attainment. These may include: school attendance and engagement; pupils' personality traits, motivation and effort; the extent of parental support; and the provision of appropriate learning experiences, teaching quality, school ethos, and structure among other possible factors (Petrides, Chamorro-Premuzic, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2005; Strand, 2003).

Northeast Asian overrepresentation in educational institutions is easily explained by immigrant self-selection and the selectivity of US immigration policy.

Duck! There's going to be a lot of incoming shots fired.

This book’s failure as a work of popular science has been well documented by biologists and anthropologists.

- Jon Phillips, Hatewatch, May 28, 2014

To the contrary, biologists and anthropologists who are not afraid of losing their jobs have usually supported Nicholas Wade's findings.

Wade, a former science writer for The New York Times, attempts to fabricate a sense of scientific credibility for his outlandish theories with the division of his book into two very different sections...

he presents these racist, hackneyed ideas as though they are simple facts, uncontroversial and incontrovertible.

- Jon Phillips, Hatewatch, May 28, 2014

When I am trying to find where truth lies on a controversial and complex subject any appeal to emotion inclines me to give more credence to the other side.

How that economic recovery going? Are you now going to call a contraction of the economy a recovery ?