Hammer of the Witches

The Richwine witch-hunt has triggered a wave of high-quality crimethink (much gathered here (via)).

Nydwracu contributes this gem:

I don’t know whether the IQ gap will close, but I do know that, given our current political structures, we’ll never find out.

ADDED: Peter Brimelow:
Earlier this week, I was talking to a Harvard academic who is familiar with Richwine’s work. He commented that there were simply some subjects the study of which is incompatible with an academic career.
“That’s a remarkable thing in a free country,” I said.
“This isn’t a free country,” he replied.

ADDED: HBD* Chick digs deeper into the latest Puritan witch-craze.

May 11, 2013admin 18 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Uncategorized

TAGGED WITH : , ,

18 Responses to this entry

  • Anonymous Says:

    What strategic sense does it make for heritage to publish a study, let every respectable person imaginable denounce it as racist, and then disavow it? Why do they even publish it in the first place?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You can’t ask those sort of questions about conservatives, it will just drive you insane.

    [Reply]

    Thales Reply:

    It makes sense when you understand that “conservatives” are basically yesteryear’s “liberals.” The Cathedral was insane back then, too.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Incisively put. I’d add that they’re yesterday’s liberals, in shock, without a sense of direction, and blindly panicking.

    Thales Reply:

    @ admin

    That’s what happens when they loose the signal to Command.

    Posted on May 11th, 2013 at 4:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • Roundup of the Heresy of Jason Richwine: Guilty of preferring truth to PC | Occam's Razor Says:

    […] Outside In:  “Hammer of the Witches“ […]

    Posted on May 11th, 2013 at 4:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • Erich Says:

    Excuse me for not being dark enlighted enough. But as a peruvian I would suggest to Alfred W. Clark to leave 1 million of those “European Americans” babies in the worst parts of of South America. We will see then if the terrible insecurity, lack of nutrition and education quality would generate higher IQ humans than those other groups, if they were adopted in american wealthy families. This is is not cultural relativism but paying attention to material basic stuff. Thinking ethnicity of “biodiversity” aside of that I think is just naive.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    It would be strange if the environment (all the way back to intra-uterine conditions) were entirely irrelevant to the distribution of the general intelligence factor (as measured by IQ). The opposite would be no less strange, inconsistent with alpine ranges of data — all serious studies are controlled for SES — and, of course, the basic fabric of modern evolutionary biology.

    I can’t speak for AWC, but my guess would be that this discussion would be permitted at his blog, which — as we have seen — is not the case at Heritage.

    Peru is a racially-complex place. Do you really think that there are no stubborn (= heritable) patterns in the variation of cognitive ability among the population groups there? I’m not demanding an answer of course. As we have seen, honesty will get your life destroyed (and dishonesty is tedious).

    [Reply]

    Erich Reply:

    Nick I think that what I wanted to make clear was that if we agree to move beyond the distinction between the social/cultural and the natural to a unified cosmic historical process, we need to take into account that those distinctions are not just facts but processes. I just felt that the results were mentioned in a very simple way. My point is that if there is differences that does not mean that they can change or even be reverted. So acting as if thos outcomes were brute facts to legitimze certain policy is for me nothing but a contested matter. In any case, I am definitely pro discussion about those subjects and issues.

    ***

    By the way, I would like to know what are your opinions about the recent (leftist) “Manifesto of accelerationist politics” that argues that you confuse acceleration as such with speed:

    http://speculativeheresy.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/accelerate.pdf

    Sorry for the off-topic but I don’t have your email.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Thanks Erich, I appreciate the tone (civility tends to evaporate quite fast on this topic). When people feel harassed and persecuted — not an uncommon perception on either side, regardless of merits — the rhetorical consequences are generally unfortunate, and crude group-loyalty signals replace careful arguments. Not that I’m pretending to a structured argument here (I consider the basic HBD case to have been reliably established, and defer on the topic to specialists with intellectual integrity, such as these).

    I’ll take a look at the acceleration article.

    My email: ccru00@hotmail.com

    admin Reply:

    Thanks for the Accelerationist Manifesto — I enjoyed it. As you might expect, some quibbles (in rough order of importance):
    (a) Is there really an effective and sympathetic audience for this kind of program? Assuming that the only accelerating processes for which we have historical precedent have involved some kind of ‘exploitation’ (directing energies into self-reinforcing productive systems, rather than leisure consumption), how realistic is it to envisage a left-accelerationist alliance? Would this not require that the labor resources which are to be channeled into accelerating growth subjectively embrace the intensification and economization of work? This strikes me as politically implausible, in the extreme.
    (b) The acceleration / speed distinction is not very precisely described. Impressionistically, it suggests that capitalist ‘speed’ lacks some kind of qualitative openness relative to a ‘left acceleration’ — that it is too narrowly channeled. Without seeing more clearly what this missing quality might be, it is hard to respond precisely. My suspicion is that it involves a romantic attachment to some conception of productive ‘liberation’ beyond that captured by the capitalist index of economic value (which in turn reduces to the self-reference of auto-excitation, or production-for-production). Since the capitalist formula tends to capture mathematically-pure acceleration (self-referential growth) with great exactitude, it is hard to see what it is missing. (Do the Left Accelerationists really think they can drive the production trend harder? That sounds like the early-Soviet and Maoist illusions that markets slow things down.)
    (c) Is ‘collective self-mastery’ being conceived as an immanent goal of economic evolution — in Marxian fashion? No reason is given here for embracing it. Perhaps it is supposed to be self-evident, or the Left political identity is taken as a given, which then upgrades itself through accelerationist theory, without discarding prior moral commitments. In any case, it seems extraneous to the immanent accelerationist principle, which is intensification of practical self-reference on the part of the productive machine. Optimization for intelligence is intrinsically accelerative, can the same be said of ‘collective self-mastery’? Why would such ‘mastery’ be directed towards driving the process harder? Process and goal seem to be entirely disconnected.
    (d) ‘Neoliberalism’ is undefined, and given that it means everything from intense laissez-faire capitalism (when used critically by ‘Bolivarian’ Latin Americans) to mildly market-reformed New Deal social democracy (when used affirmatively by Clinton-era Democratic Party sympathizers in the United States) it is difficult to know what to make of it. The implicit idea that we are presently in a post-Keynesian epoch strikes me as preposterous. This vocabulary is a tribal rallying cry, rather than a serious contribution to political-economic analysis.
    (e) Does the preliminary eco-panic do any theoretical work? It looks like an awkward fit, to say the least.
    (f) “The future must be cracked open once again, unfastening our horizons towards the universal possibilities of the Outside.” — My PhD supervisor warned me against ‘must-aphysics’ and I’ve tried not to forget it. If it ‘must’ through some naturalistic destiny, OK (great). If ‘we’ ‘must’ ‘do it’ it sounds like silly soap-boxing. Waving guns at people might earn a ‘must’. Waving a politico-theoretical manifesto at them really doesn’t …

    spandrell Reply:

    Richwine wasn’t talking about malnourished Peruvians in the Amazon. He’s talking about Mexicans in the US. Those aren’t malnourished or mistreated during their infancy. As aren’t the millions of blacks in the US.

    Russian kids grow up in dysfunctional families full of alcoholism, drug use, violence and just plain nastiness. They still manage to score 3 figures in IQ tests.

    As a peruvian, stop repeating the same old universalist crap. It’s just not true.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “It’s just not true.” If I didn’t already agree, that certainly wouldn’t persuade me.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Pointing out that dirt poor Russians and Chinese have 100+ IQs wouldn’t?

    David Reply:

    A totalizing claim that someone else’s totalizing claim is total crap generally risks coming off as total crap.

    admin Reply:

    Counter-factuals are difficult, but it looked like a needless bar-fight brewing. It reminds me of Chan Buddhist pedagogy — unexpectedly whack someone with a stick and — *zap* — enlightenment. Does that work on the dark side? Certainly not often.

    northanger Reply:

    so that’s why we ran out of popcorn.

    Posted on May 16th, 2013 at 9:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • David Says:

    I thought the dark side was the stick.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 17th, 2013 at 5:57 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment