Does anyone know of this guy, or agree with his statements on racial differences in IQ?

by Sugar Shane 104 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • MeanMrMustard

    @recovering: I understand, and I’ll get back to you.

    But to be clear, you are saying that because she took money from this group she changed the results of her research to match the goals of the fund?

  • recovering

    She definitely had a conflict of interest. The Pioneer fund really wanted to prove the superiority of whites to blacks. In fact their founder and director 1937 - 1972 wanted to repatriate blacks to Africa , supported segregation and vehemently opposed civil rights legislation.

  • MeanMrMustard
    But she didn’t change her results?
  • never a jw
    never a jw

    I never thought that I would see the day when Republicans and Democrats would agree on something as important as race. Democrats had been pushing the idea of "race matters" for decades. Now Republicans are coming on board and agreeing that "race matters" That's progress... towards a unified racist society. Let's give credit where credit is due, thank you Trump!! United we fall!

  • MeanMrMustard


    You wrote:

    She definitely had a conflict of interest. The Pioneer fund really wanted to prove the superiority of whites to blacks. In fact their founder and director 1937 - 1972 wanted to repatriate blacks to Africa , supported segregation and vehemently opposed civil rights legislation.

    I promised I would take a look at the referenced in greater detail. You referenced the Wikipedia article here:

    You are right, she took money from this fund. So did Charles Murray - also referenced in the list of videos I posted before. Charles Murray responded to accusations that this implies he is a racist:

    "Never mind that the relationship between the founder of the Pioneer Fund and today's Pioneer Fund is roughly analogous to the relationship between Henry Ford's antisemitism and today's Ford Foundation. The charges have been made, they have wide currency, and some people will always believe that The Bell Curve rests on data concocted by neo-Nazi eugenicists."

    I have to be honest, I am a bit tired of the "guilt by association" strategy that seems to be deployed against anyone making an argument that you may not like. On the other hand, I don't think you (or anyone) should tolerate the idea of finding a way to prove the "superiority" of whites.

    With that said, I decided to go out and find these scientists defending themselves against these attacks. I did this because if they really are the racists that you suspect, you aught to be able to tell by what they say. Heck, maybe what you suspect is true and I would find a quote or a statement, or even better, a video, showing their opinions to be right in line with your stereotypical racist.

    But again, as with the attack on SM, I watched video after video, and even people really critical of these two (later I have reference to an Ezra Klein debate, and he really tries), fail to really make the case. So, since I went down the rabbit hole a bit deeper, I am posting these videos with the hope that maybe you'll actually watch some of this too, and heaven forbid, actually listen to what they say before you label them a neo-Nazi, as so many others do.

    One of the most telling videos I came across was an interview between Charles Murray, and none other than Sam Harris. I really suggest that you listen to this video first, since it is Sam Harris, and you would be hard pressed to think he is a racist. As Sam explains in the beginning, he always stayed away from Murray, thinking that he was exactly the type of guy you probably suspect him to be. When Sam Harris started to come under attack from the left (a side he thought he was on), it made him think that maybe he should actually check out Murray's arguments. He read The Bell Curve and found what he actually said was quite measured and reasonable. He invited him onto the podcast. Here is the exchange:

    I cite this first because ... it is Sam Harris. It is Sam Harris looking at Murray's actual material, and agreeing with him. And Murray agreeing with Sam. Notice how Sam can see Murray has been demonized. Also notice, that he agrees (around timestamp 3:0) that the idea of IQ tests just testing someone's "ability to take IQ tests", or the idea that IQ tests are culturally biased, are, in fact, myths. (See a previous question example that is neutral in all respects).

    Interestingly enough, just doing this podcast landed Sam Harris on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of hate groups/individuals, in much the same manner as Dave Rubin is now on the SPLC's hate monger list. Several scientists piled on, labeling Sam Harris alt-right and putting him in the camp of the Nazis. Sound familiar? Ezra Klein wrote a smear article, and Sam, being the reasonable person he is, invited him on the podcast for a discussion, in good faith. It went as expected:

    Ezra actually endorses identity politics, and suggests that everyone is doing and should do their own version of identity politics. It is actually very postmodern. But, in this discussion, Sam makes a good point: If you don't address the facts, they will keep coming up. These patterns are in the data and if you don't face them, like adults, you will literally hand the narrative over to the real racists. You want to address the data and make the case, as Murray did in the previous video, that you can't assume anything about intelligence of individuals from these data.

    To finish it up, Jordan Peterson has also commented on it. IQ tests are within the realm of his discipline:

    This all leads up to what I posted before:

    None of this means you are a superior human. And that is the real issue, isn’t it? The very hint of a topic like this quickly degrades into talk of “superior” vs “inferior”. And from there, we are just a hop, skip, and a jump to concentration camps. Right?
    Wrong. Pointing out IQ differences between groups - not just races, but counties, sexes (or is it genders?) - is not to declare one group as superior over another. It’s to actually help the disadvantaged.
    Look, when you hear that the average IQ of Haiti is 67, what does that say to you? What does that imply?

    This is exactly along the lines of what Harris, Murray, Gottfredson, and even Moloneux have said. There are good reasons to address reality. So if you want to continue the thread, then OK. But I would like to address content rather than labels.

Share this