I agree with Daniel Schmuhl about Pinker’s attempt at refuting MacDonald. It’s weak. It’s very weak. He only comes to a half-decent point for #4 (as in, half of the point is valid), and it’s not even that good.

I have problems with MacDonald’s thesis myself, and no one seems to have made this point, so I’ll go ahead and make it: he does a terrible job at explaining the role of deception in what he sees as Jewish evolutionary strategy.

He chalks up a lot of Jewish-universalist hypocrisy to “self-deception,” but he never goes really into what self-deception actually means. He only provides a few perfunctory citations of Lerner and some other guys. This is a serious question, and I think it’s the core of what John Derbyshire is trying to say when he questions whether a “group evolutionary strategy” is a valid concept at all. The question is so important because it provides an insight into whether Jewish “evolutionary strategy” is conscious or not conscious. And if it isn’t a conscious plan, then how could such a long-lasting group of people evolve to have such extremely low introspection? If I’m going around saying everyone else needs to be a universalist except for me, and I’m not consciously aware of it, then wouldn’t that make me the least self-aware person ever? The Jews aren’t low on self-awareness, if anything they’re very self-aware about what’s going on in their minds, at least on an individual level. Who is more introspective than someone like Woody Allen?

You never really get to the bottom of this question with MacDonald, and he seems allergic to theorizing about it. He doesn’t even really discuss the mechanics of it. How does the mind deceive itself? And this is a shame, because he constantly talks about Jewish self-deception. It’s a key component to his theory of their strategy.

…

3. MacDonald’s various theses, even if worthy of scientifically debate individually, collectively add up to a consistently invidious portrayal of Jews, couched in value-laden, disparaging language.”

At least he separated these with a point in between.

“1. MacDonald’s argument implies that Jews are unlikely [among other things] to give his argument a fair hearing because that would not be good for the Jews”
“3. I refuse to engage with MacDonald’s argument because he says bad things about the Jews.”

Well, case closed then.

Anti-anti-semitism has a habit of making bad arguments that make anti-semitism look good – anti-anti-semities should really think about that.

1. The fact that Jews are less likely to accept certain ideas because of intrinsic biases is not by definition ad hominem, if anything Pinker is guilty of straw manning and misunderstanding the definition of the fallacy in question. Stating that Liberals are less likely to accept innate gender/biological differences is not a fallacy either, it is a fact.

2. MacDonald’s thesis is not contingent on group selection. W.D. Hamilton praised MacDonald’s first book and has made similar arguments without invoking group selection at all. I don’t see him saying similar things about Johanthan Haidt or David Sloan Wilson either.

3. Pinker is circumlocuting here. Pinker is saying that regardless of whether any of these theses are true, Kevin MacDonald occasionally uses value laden language (never actually makes an argument against this value laden language), and his work is bad for the Jews.

4. Kevin MacDonald actually has used control groups. He added an entire preface on other diaspora peoples to his first book for example. Pinker would know this if he actually bothered reading his books and papers.