Portrait of a Racial Neurotic
By • 4/22/08I’ve written about the phenomenon of race denial in the past in an effort to discover why so many people deny with such passion the existence of obvious racial differences in behavior. Some explanations I’ve come up with have been the desire for Utopia and class snobbery. However, an encounter with a blogger yesterday suggested another complementary explanation, which I will call racial neurosis.
A racial neurotic is someone who suspects that we “racists” are right and feels guilty about that suspicion. His public denunciations of “racism” are his attempt to convince himself and others that he is not one of us. Racial neurotics are violent in their repudiation of “racism” because the thought that they might be guilty of it themselves terrifies them.
I came up with my theory of racial neurosis after reading and conversing with Robert Lindsay, a counter-cultural blogger whose posts consist, by turns, of far-left bomb-throwing, anxious navel-gazing, and William S. Burroughs-style hallucinations. Although his writing is generally tongue-in-cheek and self-consciously wacky, he appears to be serious on the topic of race, as he has made clear in a series of posts on race realist, pro-white writers, including myself.
In writing about me, Lindsay takes the tone of disgust that is standard in mainstream discussions of “racists.” After making some comments about how I look too nice to be a “leader of the White Revolution,” Lindsay provides a link to my site for readers who “can handle this sort of thing without gagging or wanting to leave the page. I can’t read too much of this nasty stuff anymore, I don’t know about you.”
He also denies ferociously that permanent racial gaps in IQ exist:
The notion that there are permanent achievement gaps, and permanent IQ differentials between Blacks and Whites must be fought with ferocity…This is one of the most ferocious lies of all that White people tell about Blacks, so it is one of the ones that needs to be resisted most ferociously.
Judging from these passages, you might be tempted to write Lindsay off as a standard “anti-racist,” but you would be wrong to. His views on race are, in fact, very complex, even tormented. In Stupid White Nationalist Tricks, he confesses that one of the reasons he hates “racist” websites is that he feels they might win him over:
I am getting tired of these White racist websites, and I do not think it is healthy to go to them very often if you’re not a White racist. It seems like it’s not good for your soul, and it seems like after a while, the sites start turning you racist yourself.
The reasons for his fatal attraction can be discerned in the following stunning passage:
It is true that in my opinion, Black children are very difficult to teach. I taught them for many years in Los Angeles, and I do not want to do it again. Many of them are rambunctious, wild, crazy, violent, loud, and have no interest in learning anything whatsoever. At the lower grades, the fighting is not so bad, and often involves boys versus girls.
Up to junior high school, things truly get horrible to the point where I simply refuse to teach Black students ever again. Maybe it’s my fault. Perhaps I just never figured out how to deal with them. Admittedly, the very worst ones of all are in the ghetto, but among middle class Blacks, it was not much better.
There is often a very serious problem keeping them in their chairs. They are always up, bouncing around, walking around the room, talking very loudly, chatting, this and that. You spend most of your time yelling at them to stay in their seats. I’m starting to think it might be better to educate Black kids standing up.
I actually liked quite a few of them, even some of the ones that acted bad. You got the impression that they just could not control themselves at all. One thing that seems to characterize Black kids at all grade levels is an utter indifference to learning.
Lindsay’s language here is far more colorful than any I would ever use myself for fear of my reputation. It was after reading this that I decided he was a racial neurotic.
I took my theory up with him in the comments on this post. I quoted the passage above and said (with slight edits):
These paragraphs show that you’re already a “race realist” (or a “racist,” as you would call it) no matter how much you complain about sites like American Renaissance and The Inverted World. You’re like a homosexual in denial who rails against “faggots” because he can’t accept what he is…
So come out of the closet, Robert, and admit it! You’re one of us!
His response:
I’m a race realist. I hate racism. Learn the difference. I have to live with these people and be civil and treat them like human beings. There’s a world of difference between you all and Fred on Everything. Fred lives in Mexico and loves it. Could you? Of course not. Think about it…
Those statements are common knowledge amongst most White teachers who teach Blacks, but most of them are not really racists at all…
I do admit that I had no racism against Blacks at all until I taught them in school, and after a few years I was ready to join the KKK. I’ve calmed down since, but then I don’t live around many Blacks. There’s a 56 year old alcoholic Black lady who is over here a lot. She’s presently one of my best friends. Racism just won’t work in my world. I need to get along with folks and be nice.
I responded to the blogger who was once sorely tempted to burn crosses:
Well, Robert, it seems that you cannot live around blacks and love it. You find the world they create hellish. You admit that the only reason you have recovered your peace of mind about racial issues is that you isolated yourself from blacks.
You find various ways of averting your eyes from the racial reality that you understand all too well. You loudly protest that one of your best friends is black. You also taunt people like me, who remind you of your true self.
Both of us have seen hell. I sit with my eyes fixed on it day after day, but you run away from it, and lash out at anyone who makes you aware of your cowardice.
His response:
Truth is, Jobling most folks who call themselves anti-racist and non-racists are exactly like this. Most of them don’t want to live around large numbers of Black people. Right now, my town has about 4% Blacks, mostly somewhat ghetto. Being 4% of the population is highly beneficial to these Blacks, as I fear that in a ghetto, a lot would just drown down to the lowest common. For ghetto type Blacks, 4% is about right. Once it starts getting a lot higher, things get a hell of a lot dicier. I once lived in a town 7% Black, and it was ok too, but it was a large city and there were homicides at the local liquor store. I have no intentions of living in a heavy Black area, and I think most Blacks actually feel the same way. A Black a block! Spread em out and civilize em!
You guys are simply not capable of having any Black real friends, and that is all that there is to it. The only ones you like are the Black separatists. I’m not willing to write off an entire race like you all are, and that is all the difference in the world.
Most non-racists and antis around here are pretty much like me. You guys can’t seem to get your minds around that one, can you? You always stick on this one, every time.
My response:
“Truth is, Jobling most folks who call themselves anti-racist and non-racists are exactly like this.”
So what you’re saying is that most people are living in bad faith, just as you are, denying what they know deep down to be true. If that’s the case, then people like me are sure to win some day, when people can no longer afford to maintain their illusions.
He hasn’t responded to that one.
Anyway, I’d like to know what you think of my theory of racial neurosis. Do you think cases like Lindsay are common, as he claims? And if they are, does that mean that we realists will eventually win, as I suggest?
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Click here to join the Inverted World mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever IW publishes new entries.
The bottom line is that Mr Lindsay has a belief system that is inconsistent. That is to say, what he writes seems to imply that, at least for some propositions P, he believes both that “P” and that “not-P”.
It is not all that uncommon to hold mutually conflicting (or fantastic) beliefs. It only causes a problem when one is expected to act upon these beliefs. If I believe that stars are made of cotton wool then what difference will this make to my everyday life? If, when I am called to act upon these beliefs I do the opposite to what is expected, then I will perhaps be called a hypocrite. Thus (and this is the best example there is), white liberals will preach the beefits of diversity, but ensure that their own children attend an all white school.
I have an even more curious speculation than Mr Jobling’s. having read the (left wing) Guardian and the Observer in the UK for mant years, a few articles have given me the impression that some so-called liberal or left wing journalists have a wish, perhaps an unconscious wish, that the BNP should do well, and are yearning for white people to come to the defence of western values and civilisation.
By on 4/22/08 at 7:34 pm
You are exactly right. Everyone I know who protests about my very realistic view of race admits that they don’t want to live around very many blacks, and some of them have never associated with blacks at all. Another interesting thing, despite the fact that my views on race are well known among everyone who knows me more than just in passing, not a single one of them has stopped associating with me because of my views. That tells me that deep down inside, they actually agree with them, but they cannot bring themselves to say so out loud. It’s the biggest silent majority out there. The only problem is is that things will have to get a lot worse before they’ll declare themselves openly.
By on 4/22/08 at 7:47 pm
Ian, these posts made me laugh out loud! Robert is quite a character. I almost feel sorry for him. The lies and contradictions that he must grapple with are evident in his odd emails to you. But I do think he has a point. I believe most whites are like this, but they are better at suppressing these thoughts than he is. At least he is honest about it. As the situation deteriorates, I think more whites will find the courage to come clean about their true beliefs. Ian, don’t you have better things to do with your time than exchange messages with this character? Then again, maybe you’re on a mission of mercy, to convert one white American at a time? 
By on 4/22/08 at 8:03 pm
Ian,
I’ve made quite a few comments on Robert’s site over the past months or so, and I think you have touched upon something here that’s important to discuss. Nice work.
By on 4/22/08 at 9:01 pm
Because I generally dislike online psychiatry (especially to the very considerable extent that it is a common argument-substitute in the arsenal of our opponents) I have long held my tongue about Lindsay’s obvious, er, problems. But what’s the point, at this stage? Dr. Jobling and others are right, of course, about the intellectual incoherence of what Lindsay writes. His first appearance on Amren was his hilariously incompetent article claiming that, according to the Census of 1825 (no such thing), whites in the early 19th century were a minority in the United States (obviously untrue). He was called on the many howlers in the piece immediately, and his hurried cover-up, editing, re-editing and re-re-editing was either funny or sad, depending upon one’s perspective. In the comments attached to the same article, he hopes for the “extinction” of white people (I have not gotten him to reveal whether he still hopes for this) and asserts that the world’s “greatest civ” was created in 14,000 BC by “Nubian blacks” (no word on whether he’s still part of the Flying Black Pharoahs cult).
In short, there’s no reason at all to take Lindsay as anything other than a mildly deranged, confused leftist of the sort one encounters now and then in graduate seminars.
By on 4/22/08 at 9:32 pm
Ian, interesting theory. However, I think you can plug your concept into a psychiatric defense mechanism called Projection. Simply, it is the attribution of one’s undesired impulses onto another. For example, an angry spouse accuses their partner of hostility. (1) In this case, “Robert” is having undesired “racist” impulses and projecting them onto you. This relieves his internal turmoil and allows him to live free from guilt as he plays and works in a White haven.
Here is a link to the most common defense mechanisms. Indeed, once you learn them it’s easy to spot a race denier desperately trying to free their mind of collective guilt. Truly a sad sight to behold. (1) http://www.planetpsych.com/zPsychology101/defensemechanisms.htm
By on 4/22/08 at 9:36 pm
Considering how close your correspondent, Robert Lindsay, was to your own position, you had (have) a pretty good chance of “converting” him. That means engaging him on his own terms, and especially avoiding the kind of “gotchas” you had in your replies to him. It also means not calling him a neurotic.
What you call a “race neurotic” is pretty much any white who’s had extensive experience with blacks but neither identifies with blacks nor shares your (our) political views on race. I used to be one of those people myself. If you’d explain to them that no, you don’t object to having black friends, and no, you honestly don’t hate blacks or wish them ill, that might go a long way.
There’s one point on which Lindsay was totally wrong, but you didn’t call him on it. Most “anti-racists” are not like he is. Unlike him, most have had little real contact with blacks, and most really do believe the illusions which he does not believe. So even if you were to win over every single one of these “racial neurotics” (to use your awful, condescending term), the impact would be slight.
By on 4/22/08 at 9:56 pm
All this Freudian psychobabble about neurosis, projection, etc. is nonsense. Robert Lindsay’s beliefs and attitudes on race may be incorrect, but as he says they are consistent with what he calls his race realism. If you can’t see that, then that says something about your own willingness or ability to understand him, not about his views per se.
As I said in my other comment, I used to feel pretty much as he did, after prolonged and very extensive experience with blacks. Maybe that’s why I find your pop-Freudian analysis somewhat annoying (a defense mechanism, no doubt!). While my current political views are much closer to Inverted World than to Lindsay, my sympathies are more with him in this thread.
By on 4/22/08 at 10:12 pm
Ploni - I think it is important to understand why Whites like Robert say things they don’t really mean. (At least in this instance I feel he is doing just that) Is it because they are incorrect in their beliefs about race? Is it that they just don’t know any better? No - I think far more often they know the “real deal” but are too invested in politically correct ideology to share their true thoughts.
Call it “psychobabble” if you like but I feel Whites like Robert desperately hold onto their belief system for deeper reasons other than lack of knowledge.
By on 4/23/08 at 6:51 am
Interesting to me how Ian sees what he wants to see in Lindsay’s writing. If Lindsay says that too much exposure to racism can be dangerous, I take it to mean that the human mind can be distorted and influenced by determined, constant indoctrination. It’s the old “tell a lie often enough” observation. Many of the commenters here are a case in point, IMO. The descriptions of the behaviour of black kids in his classes are not offered with any conclusions, such as the ones Ian seems to leap towards. It may have been confined to his area, or school, it may have been cultural, it may have been he happened to get the most unruly students assigned to his class. And we tend to amplify the negatives of experiences in our memories, while minimalizing the positives. Human nature, from my perspective. The truth is there just isn’t evidence that whites are inherantly any different than non-whites. You can post all the pseudo/junk-science you like, it’s futile. You’ll find no credible, respected, accomplished scientist that will make the case that there is. Just as you’ll find none that dispute that there’s accelerated global warming and we are the culprits.
By on 4/23/08 at 11:08 am
If Ploni has a problem with the Freudians then we can say that Robert is suffering from Cognitive Dissonance (a non Freudian term) - which is a state of agitation where one consistantly acts (condeming racism) contrary to one’s innermost beliefs (racism).
By on 4/23/08 at 11:14 am
Right on, Dr. Jobling! Racial Neurosis is a winner.
Mr. Lindsay is almost in a panic when he discusses race. There seems to be no level-headed conclusions in his thinking. Like most liberals, he is at war with himself but uses “us” as the villain to void the side effects of his own “pretend” game.
He already knows the truth, he is simply avoiding it.
By on 4/23/08 at 12:28 pm
Dano,
It’s just not true that there are no reputable scientists who believe in innate racial differences. People like Richard Lynn, Arthur Jensen, Linda Gottfredson, J. P. Rushton, and so forth are tenured professors and all of them get published in the most distinguished psychology journals and even serve on their editorial boards.
Please read What Is Race Realism? and The Reality of Racial Differences before you comment on this topic again.
By on 4/23/08 at 6:20 pm
William of OC wrote, “Ian, don’t you have better things to do with your time than exchange messages with this character?”
I know you’re just joking, but it’s a terrible mistake not to comment on every website you can find that deals with racial issues, even off-the-wall ones. Commenting on websites is without doubt one of the most the effective ways of publicizing our ideas. Because of this exchange with Robert Lindsay, dozens of people have come to Inverted World to confront a perspective that they had never taken seriously before.
I’ve said this before, but I was once a standard academic Marxist. My case proves that no-one is hopeless.
The MAIN PROBLEM of race realists is that our position is not sufficiently publicized. Any publicity that you give to race realism at all helps the movement, and we should all be doing everything we can to spread our message.
By on 4/23/08 at 6:27 pm
Dano, I have been involved in education all my working life and I can indeed confirm that blacks tend to be far more unruly than non-blacks in classrooms, and frequently unteachable. (I could a tale unfold…)
As for there being no evidence of any differences between the races. That’s your opinion, but I prefer to listen to what doctors and scientists tell us, as well as the evidence of my own senses, - all the athletes in the Olympics 100m sprint final are usually black.
Dano, where do you live? More tellingly, what school do your children atttend?
By on 4/23/08 at 7:14 pm
William of OC, why can’t Dr. Jobling enjoy a little boxing match with an opponent on occasion?
There are many differences between the races and it doesn’t take a doctor or a scientist to figure them out. Just an honest person. Besides differences don’t necessarily mean that one must be positive and one must be negative.
Stating that “I don’t object to black friends” is just as ridiculous as “I have a black friend.” Hmmmm, I wonder if blacks refuse affirmative action because they have a white friend?
By on 4/23/08 at 8:53 pm
Cognitive Dissonance. This term is used to describe the affect of two competing ideas on one’s psyche. For example: a smoker desires cigarettes but knows that possibly they may kill him, and certainly hurt him in the long run. He understands this… but he likes smoking. The mind cannot tolerate dissonance so it subconsciously rationalizes one belief against another. In this case the smoker may reason that studies are inconclusive so may continue smoking.
The ideas of race, multiculturalism and immigration follow the same pattern. All children, as was I in school, are taught from kindergarten through university that the pursuit of a colour blind society and multiculturalism are the highest ideals in life. Then, either through experience with various ethnicities or wider reading, the student gleans another view of these liberal ideals. Depending on how deeply ingrained are these ideas through years of pedagogic brain-washing – the candidate may experience cognitive dissonance. Now the brain will sub-consciously rationalize the prime belief, i.e.: the virtues of multiculturalism, in order to maintain psychological harmony – just as the smoker rationalizes smoking. Since it is done subconsciously, one may actually “believe” it. Convincing such people is extremely difficult and facts and statistics don’t work, especially with uber-liberals who use their money and status to avoid anything which may bring them in contact with people and places that contradict their ingrained notions. Thus, for them, only hard experience can sometimes change their mind, and as they avoid such experiences, it is unlikely that they ever will.
Cheers,
Vox Populi Vox Dei
By on 4/23/08 at 9:10 pm
The willful lack of understanding by Ian and the commenters here is stunning, and I say that as someone who shares the basic views of this website. Lindsay’s factual description of African-Americans’ lack of learning ability and motivation and of the social dysfunction in black communities—at least what’s quoted here—is the same as what you could read by highly respected liberal and leftist social scientists in the 1960s and 1970s, when there was a bit more free speech on the issue. Of course they attributed it to social causes like racism, slavery, etc., not to genes. Those environmentalist theories are probably wrong, but they’re neither logically contradictory nor irrational. Nor does Lindsay’s description of black problems logically imply the policies espoused on this website. No pop psycho-analysis called for.
Got that, folks? Lindsay’s description of black dysfunction used to be common among liberals who supported desegregation, affirmative action, etc. See some of the quotes from Michael Levin’s Why Race Matters. By the way, I recommend that book for exactly the sort of clear thinking on the relation between fact and policy that’s conspicuously absent here.
By on 4/23/08 at 9:20 pm
I don’t know about ‘racial neurosis’ but ‘racial schizophrenia’ seems like a better description. Lindsay says, “Most antis are like this -you can’t get your minds around it, can you?”.
No, quite frankly I can’t. I find it impossible to hold to conflicting opinions in my head at the same time - therein lies madness.
By on 4/24/08 at 7:44 am
But, then again, I do congratulate Mr. Lindsay for his honesty (in admitting to all this), and his refreshing openess and candor in the discussion (most ‘anti racists’ would rather admit to pedophilia than this). It’s very rare to find a leftist admitting openly to hostile strangers of anything that can be construed as doubt or weakness.
Well done Robert Lindsay!
By on 4/24/08 at 7:47 am
Yes, that’s true, Foxbark. Lindsay is to be congratulated for his willingness to make the contradictions in his thinking about race apparent.
By on 4/24/08 at 8:05 am
Ian wrote: “Dano,
It’s just not true that there are no reputable scientists who believe in innate racial differences. People like Richard Lynn, Arthur Jensen, Linda Gottfredson, J. P. Rushton, and so forth are tenured professors and all of them get published in the most distinguished psychology journals and even serve on their editorial boards.
Please read What Is Race Realism? and The Reality of Racial Differences before you comment on this topic again.”
OK, I read it. I read the links and embedded attributions too.
Like I said before, please don’t offer up junque-science and fringe researchers as evidence to support your hypos. Your entire argument is supported by only a small handful of researchers out of literally 1000’s, and those few produce work that is not mainstream, not unbiased by unsavory connections, unchallenged by the majority, or widely respected. A mere few. That’s hardly suprising, there are a few self-described scientists that maintain there’s no human-activity component to the catastrophic global warming trend. They’re funded by the same industries that stand to lose from measures to alleviate the problem, of course. Suprise! 
If you care to have my rebuttal in detail, I can oblige. But you haven’t made ur point.
By on 4/24/08 at 2:31 pm
Uh… Dano…
Call this merely anecdotal, if you like, if that’s your cup of reality-denial meat: a younger male sibling of mine, a far (and I mean far) leftist, desperate for work, took a temp job a couple of years back, teaching in a black middle class suburban middle school - teaching…you know… tweens (about 8 to 12 years of age). The hellish experience Robert Lindsey describes can not have been worse than the brutal peek into hell my relative had in this “teaching” experience.
I am always amused by those who seek to obfuscate truth, e.g., “It may have been confined to his area, or school, it may have been cultural, it may have been he happened to get the most unruly students assigned to his class. And we tend to amplify the negatives of experiences in our memories, while minimalizing the positive” Twiddle.
For some, Mr.Reality must indent his cold and factual teeth, deeply indeed into their deriers before they confront unwelcome truth.
I am competely of Mr. Lindsey’s attitude in refusing to deny the humanity of black folk. To any on this, or any other race realist site who would do so, I am in complete opposition. I also share Lindsey’s view that blacks do best when spread thinly, avoiding critical mass. That was the experience of my youth, in the 1950’s and 1960’s, outside of Philadelphia. Integration existed for me for my whole life, but in small, digestable numbers (even then, blacks made trouble… they just couldn’t cause mayhem).
All of this is no more than what the post-pubescent, mature, stable man can cope with, i.e., life in the REAL world. The recognition of TRUTH, even truth about the shortcomings of our fellow man, does not render one a moral cretan.
By on 4/24/08 at 5:47 pm
Dano wrote:
“Like I said before, please don’t offer up junque-science and fringe researchers as evidence to support your hypos. Your entire argument is supported by only a small handful of researchers out of literally 1000’s, and those few produce work that is not mainstream”
Incorrect. Jobling’s science is mainstream within the relevant scientific discplines:
1.) 1,020 scientists within these fields of psychology, sociology, cognitive science, eduction, and genetics were surveyed and it was found that 53% of them thought that the black-white gap was partially genetic, and only 17% thought that it was entirely environmental. See here for further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SnydermanandRothman_(study)
2.) A statement by Linda Gottfriedson (published in Intelligence in 1997), which included the assertion that a purely nongenetic hypothesis for the black-white IQ gap is implausible, was signed by 52 experts in the fields of behavioural genetics, psychometrics, and educational psychology.
3.) A survey of eastern European anthropologists found that 75 percent of them agree with the statement: “there are biological races within the species Homo sapiens.” (Kaszycka, 2003).
4.) A survey of American anthropologists found that 69 percent of them accepted the concept of biological race (Leiberman and Reynolds, 1996).
By on 4/24/08 at 6:48 pm
“Anyway, I’d like to know what you think of my theory of racial neurosis. Do you think cases like Lindsay are common, as he claims? And if they are, does that mean that we realists will eventually win, as I suggest?”
I think you’ve nailed it. I believe it is very common. In retrospect I now believe I was married to one of these racial neurotics. And her entire family fit the mold, too. As far as winning them over goes, it will take a sudden external shift in the tectonic plates of their very perception before we can say “we win.” Neurotics are by their very nature maddeningly stubborn.
By on 4/24/08 at 6:51 pm
Dano:
Arthur Jensen is not a “fringe scientist”. He is listed as one of the most eminent psychologists by S. J. Haggbloom in The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century (2002). “This empirical study used six criteria including citations, surveys, and awards to rank the eminence of psychologists,” according to Wikipedia. (Other eminent psychologists listed in the study were race realists Hans Eysenck and Raymond Cattell.)
By on 4/24/08 at 6:54 pm
I am reading “Common Sense” by Thomas Paine, and I am seeing a bit of a similarity between what Paine experienced and this anti-racist. Those in America that wanted to remain a part of the British Empire made similar excuses for not wanting to join with the American rebels. In my mind it seems that people just do not WANT to move away from long held cherished beliefs.
I also see the inverse square law working in people like this. As the distance between this anti-racist and the ghetto is doubled his irritation is cut by a factor of four, even though he retains his negative memories. But as the distance is cut in half his irritation will increase by a factor of four.
By on 4/24/08 at 7:25 pm
This goes along with my article above about Thomas Paine. Smash the anti-white idol. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard179.html
By on 4/24/08 at 7:52 pm
In actual fact, the classic hard-left approach to ‘race’, that goes back as far as the time of Marx and Engels, is to regard ‘race’ as completely irrelevant - as of much significance as shoe size, for example.What is stressed is the ancient concept of the ‘brotherhood of man’ - that is that all human beings are strugglers locked in together in travails of humanity. This is also the position of Christianity and Islam. Superficially, this approach is very attractive to all thinking and huminatarian persons - I have a profound respect for it myself…BUT…Uunfortunately evidence leads me to believe that the entral premise of the thesis is wrong and goes against the grain of nature. Simply put Robert Lindsay CANNOT be a Marxist and hold the opinions that he has. To be a good Marxist he must deny and expunge these impulses.
By on 4/25/08 at 6:22 am
JRC wrote: “1.) 1,020 scientists within these fields of psychology, sociology, cognitive science, eduction, and genetics were surveyed and it was found that 53% of them thought that the black-white gap was partially genetic, and only 17% thought that it was entirely environmental. See here for further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SnydermanandRothman_(study)
2.) A statement by Linda Gottfriedson (published in Intelligence in 1997), which included the assertion that a purely nongenetic hypothesis for the black-white IQ gap is implausible, was signed by 52 experts in the fields of behavioural genetics, psychometrics, and educational psychology.
3.) A survey of eastern European anthropologists found that 75 percent of them agree with the statement: “there are biological races within the species Homo sapiens.” (Kaszycka, 2003).
4.) A survey of American anthropologists found that 69 percent of them accepted the concept of biological race (Leiberman and Reynolds, 1996).”
My response: “1. The Snyderman and Rothman study uncovered supposed liberal bias in reporting on race and intelligence. Mark Snyderman who has written one article for the conservative magazine National Review[1] and Stanley Rothman who has written for National Review and Public Interest, a neoconservative magazine argued in their joint paper in 1988 that media coverage of intelligence-related research is often inaccurate and misleading. They surveyed the opinions of journalists and science editors and intelligence experts (not necessarily with knowledge about race), including scholars in the subfields of psychology, sociology, cognitive science, education, and genetics.”
“Forty-five percent believe the difference to be a product of both genetic and environmental variation” “Synderman and Rothman’s findings may not point to bias in the media but rather to bias and lack of consensus in the scientific community.”
So a 30 yr old small sampling reveals some opinions, not based on evidence, and not from people with evident knowlege about race.
Irrelevant.
“The methodology and results of this and other similar studies have been criticized by the Columbia Journalism Review[7] and Fair.org.[8]”
2: So a statement by Gottfriedson that isn’t sourced, may have been 20 pages long, and may have contained 300 different unrelated points, mentions that she thinks there might be a genetic component to the difference in IQ scores, and 52 out of 1000’s of researchers sign it, which again we can’t examine to read any notes or clarifications or disclaimers, and this is offered as authoritative support? C’mon.
3: Irrelavent to this discussion.
4: Irrelavent to this discussion.
You’ll have to do better than that to make a compelling argument.
By on 4/25/08 at 11:08 am
JRC wrote: “Arthur Jensen is not a “fringe scientist”. He is listed as one of the most eminent psychologists by S. J. Haggbloom in The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century (2002). “This empirical study used six criteria including citations, surveys, and awards to rank the eminence of psychologists,” according to Wikipedia. (Other eminent psychologists listed in the study were race realists Hans Eysenck and Raymond Cattell.)”
He’s a fringe researcher. He has unsavory connections. He is challenged by experts.
Arthur Jensen: “CIR has close links to racist libertarians of the far right. The organization’s federal tax returns reveal that on three occasions in the early nineties CIR received funding from the Pioneer Fund, which supports “research asserting the genetic superiority of whites,” according to The Independent of London. Pioneer was founded in the thirties by a millionaire who advocated sending blacks back to Africa. The foundation’s charter set forth its mission as “racial betterment” and aid for people “deemed to be descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the original 13 states prior to the adoption of the Constitution.”
Recent Pioneer Fund grant recipients include race scientists Arthur Jensen and Roger Pearson. In New York, CIR helped Pioneer Fund grantee Michael Levin in his dispute with the City College. Levin, you may recall, is the philosophy professor at the CUNY Graduate School who argued that blacks are less intelligent and less law-abiding than other races, and who sympathized with advocates of separate subway cars for violence-inclined black men. http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990308/flanders
“My argument in this presentation has been that Jensen and a whole heap of others, both his supporters and his adversaries, have overlooked the problem of the IQ scoring system applied to school populations. I also challenge you to find any discussion (as distinct from brief mention) of age distributions and their effects in any of the numerous texts on the IQ debate. Neither Jensen nor Shuey nor any of the New Zealanders reporting a 10-point gap between Maori and European have shown that the age differences between the samples were the same from site to site or sample to sample.
The weight of evidence is that age relationships do and have changed, often to the disadvantage of one race. If pupils end up at lower grade levels an age sample will not be able to produce group item scores to compensate for the depressing effect of these lower grades on score levels. Working to one’s level of schooling is a far more plausible reason for what Jensen interpreted as the massive washout of gains from early intervention, an interpretation which led to his claims that attempting to raise IQ by intervention programmes was not possible because the differences were genetic.
… Yet another bit of educational folklore.
The idea of a stable age difference in IQ scores between one race and another is extremely unlikely given the way in which IQ scoring systems work and the way in which education systems spread children of one age across levels. In view of the evidence of instability in distributions of age by grade presented in this paper and the failure by those presenting the genetic viewpoint to check age distributions, I do not think the arguments for genetically determined race differences in IQ have any claim to scientific rigour. Stability in age differences on the basis of race over time and from site to site seems most unlikely. Furthermore, none of the twin studies that I am aware of has sampled monozygotic twins at different grade levels. My conclusion is that stable gaps indicating genetic difference are little more than educational folklore.”
http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/mcd99773.htm
“…nowhere have I “claimed” an “innate deficiency” of intelligence in blacks. My position on this question is clearly spelled out in my most recent book: “The plain fact is that at present there exists no scientifically satisfactory explanation for the differences between the IQ distributions in the black and white populations. The only genuine consensus among well-informed scientists on this topic is that the cause of the difference remains an open question” (Jensen, 1981a, p. 213).”
“Statements made by Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, and other investigators in the late 1960s and early 1970s about race and IQ or social class and IQ rapidly passed into currency in policy discussions. Many of these statements were proved wrong..” M. Konner
“Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson of New York University wrote in 2005 that Jensen has largely ignored evidence that fails to support his position that IQ test score gaps represent a genetic racial hierarchy unwaveringly for over 30 years.[11] During this time Jensen has received more than a million dollars from the often-criticized Pioneer fund.[12]”
“Paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, attacked Jensen’s work in his 1981 book The Mismeasure of Man. Gould writes that Jensen misapplies the concept of “heritability”, which is defined as a measure of the variation of a trait due to inheritance within a population (Gould 1981: 127; 156-157). Jensen uses heritability to measure differences between populations. Gould also disagrees with Jensen’s belief that IQ tests measure a real variable, g, or “the general factor common to a large number of cognitive abilities” which can be measured along a unilinear scale.”
By on 4/25/08 at 11:24 am
Dano,
The statement that JRC was alluding to, “Mainstream Science on Intelligence,” was published in the Wall Street Journal—I don’t know if it was also published in Intelligence, as JRC claims. A link to the full text is here. The text dealt exclusively with the nature of intelligence, between-group differences, and their causes. The 52 signers include the most eminent and respected names in behavior genetics and intelligence testing, including Robert Plomin, Thomas Bouchard, and David Lykken. Plomin is the author of a widely used textbook on behavior genetics. Mainstream enough for you?
The existence of papers that argue against the race realist hypothesis does not prove that it is wrong. Certainly, guilt by association does not either.
By on 4/25/08 at 6:01 pm
Ian, tks for the link to the article. As I’ve said, it doesn’t support the contention that genetics plays a role in the IQ score difference between blacks and whites. That is a mis-characterization. It merely says that there may be a genetic component to differences in human intelligence. That’s very different.
“There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ acrossracial-ethnic groups. The reasons for these IQ differences betweengroups may be markedly different from the reasons for why individualsdiffer among themselves within any particular group (whites or blacks orAsians). In fact, it is wrong to assume, as many do, that the reason whysome individuals in a population have high IQs but others have low IQs must be the same reason why some populations contain more such high (or low) IQ individuals than others. Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too.”
“Almost all Americans who identify themselves as black have white ancestors — the white admixture is about 20%, on average — and many self-designated whites, Hispanics, and others likewise have mixed ancestry. Because research on intelligence relies on self-classification into distinct racial categories, as does most other social-science research, its findings likewise relate to some unclear mixture of social and biological distinctions among groups (no one claims otherwise).”
Plomin btw, is very unhappy that his research is quoted by those on the political right.
The other stuff about blacks being more impulsive, promiscuous and most Arabs supporting “terrorists” is silly. Just look at the test the “realist” quotes. Decades ago some guy gets black and white kids together for a study. We don’t know who funded the study or if it was even actually carried out and the researcher just pocketed the grant. Anyway, the setup is a small candy bar and a large candy bar were put in front of the kids. The kids were told they could have the small candy bar now, or wait till the end of the week and get the big candy bar. Here’s the kicker. The researcher claims the “little negroes” jumped for the small bar immediately, while the white kids opted to wait for the big one. BUPKIS! C’mon. Common sense folks. Not a single kid opted to wait. No way. Who would actually believe this? It’s bogus. Even to those who don’t have a refined BS radar like me. As for the terrorist supporting arabs, show me the survey. Show me. Show me where it says “Do you support terrorists?” ( ) yes … ( ) no. This stuff is nutty.
Children come into this world as a blank slate. They don’t know who they are, where they are, what color they are or how they should behave. All of that they must learn, and it is what they learn that determines their behavior.
By on 4/25/08 at 10:13 pm
No, Dano, the passage from the WSJ statement that you quoted clearly states that the majority of experts believe that racial differences in IQ could be due in part to genetics. Read it again. Now, if the majority of experts think that what race realist psychologists are saying may be true, then race realism can hardly be counted as fringe science, can it?
It’s plain that no evidence can ever convince you that innate behavioral racial differences exist. If the science contradicts you, you’re even willing to say the scientist just made it up to save your case. It isn’t possible to have a rational discussion with someone like you, so I’m not going to try to do so anymore.
By on 4/25/08 at 10:58 pm
Dano is the polar opposite to Robert lindsay, who was the point of the discussion. At least Lindsay is honest and candid enough to actually admit to the undeniable realty he sees around him,even though the cost in terms of violating closely-held ideological dogma is enormous. Dano still plays the game of open dishonesty and word-spinning rather than actually admit that his core-beliefs are in fact erroneous.
By on 4/26/08 at 8:02 am
I’ve dealt with Lindsay on his blog. Even the most dispassionate an d rational attempts to discuss race and IQ from a hereditarian perspective results in all manner of emotionally charged invective. If you persist, he’ll just ban you. It says very much about his position that it requires silence from all opposition.
By on 5/2/08 at 8:40 am
Ian,
Look at it this way. You walk into a room of liberals reading the New York Times and say to one of them “You know, Japanese aren’t very smart.” They would give you a funny look. Say “Arabs aren’t very smart,” and at least some people may be offended. Say “Blacks aren’t very smart,” and the room would exlode.
Its the same way you can tease a skinny girl for eating too much but not a fat one. People get mad when you tell them stuff they fear may be true.
By on 5/2/08 at 7:35 pm
I’ve been reading your comments back and forth and I must say, I’m impressed with the level of knowledge displayed here. Samuel Moltke’s comment about liberals and their sensibilities regarding blacks vs. other groups really hits the nail on the head.
My strategy, being more of a layman than most of you, is to politely ask the race-denier to provide proof that the black/white/Asian I.Q. gaps are purely environmental. After all, we see the scholastic disparity before our very eyes every day. Furthermore, since public policy is based upon the nurture model, the onus is upon the liberals to support their position. So far, they’ve been defining those who disagree with them as outcasts and then turning around and saying, “you can’t trust him! He’s an outcast.” A circular argument if ever there was one. We don’t have to prove that there is a genetic component to racial average differences in I.Q. They have to prove that there is no genetic component. So far, they’re not even trying.
By on 7/9/08 at 11:59 pm
However folks try to twist and spin this subject, facts are facts and cannot (!) be denied. Because two generations of Americans have been hammered with the politically-correct version of others that are not White, they will never believe they have been lied to and that this entire psychologcal attack on our emotional and mental outlook to feel guilty about going against the ordered thinking is frightening. How often I have heard ‘peer pressure’, and you read about the hammering any scientist takes to bring up the facts….that is conditioning. People have innate and instinctive likes and dislikes, and we are made to feel that is WRONG. You wonder why people are on anti-depressants? They are having to choke down their true feelings and made to feel an outcast! The difference in the races will always be smacked down to hide the truth. What is sad is that we can live side-by-side with others in spite of our differences. Some of us are doers, others are observers, and human nature is what it is, period!
By Helen on 4/22/08 at 7:27 pm