Category: Lynn’s method of pseudoscience

The Corruption of American Science

On the scientific method and the corruption of the American scientific enterprise.

I’ve written before on how the late Dr. Harpending defined science in this video; focus in on around the 8:00-9:15 time marks.  Harpending – who was absolutely correct there – was of course talking about the Popperian (*) epistemology – the “scientific method” many of us leaned in school and which many scientists pay superficial lip service to.  That is, come up with a hypothesis, and then try to DISPROVE it, and whatever idea can withstand repeated attempts at falsification is – for the time being, and for the time being only – believed to the extent of “this is the best available hypothesis we have now, but we are prepared to dispose of it if the data say otherwise, at which point a new hypothesis needs to be devised and tested.”  The Kuhnian (**) epistemology, in contrast, considers the scientific enterprise as being subjective, affected by the worldviews and underlying biases of scientists themselves.  In this approach to science, paradigms exist, and scientists attempt to make the data fit into the paradigm, into their already existing preconception.  They attempt to PROVE, rather than disprove, their hypotheses.  Over time, a sort of cognitive dissonance develops, in that trying to fit square pegs into round holes, real data into faulty hypotheses, becomes untenable; then the old paradigm collapses and a new one emerges – the so-called paradigm shift.

Observing how science is actually performed supports Kuhn’s observations and criticisms; in reality, Harpending is being too generous, or naive, in his implication that most scientists are objectively skeptical.  He mentions “true believers” and also “global warming” – isn’t it true that the vast majority of scientists support the idea of anthropomorphic global warming and become hysterical over any criticism about it (***)?

In a sense, we can say that Popper was being prescriptive rather than descriptive; Kuhn the opposite.  Popper was telling us how things should be done; Kuhn how they are actually done.  Although both Popper and Kuhn were Jewish, one could view the more objective Popperian approach as more Western, and thus be tempted to blame the current emphasis on Kunhianism on the influence of Jews and Asians in science.  Truth be told though, White Gentiles are often Kuhnian of their own initiative, and there have always been scientific Kuhnians among Whites even before the Jew-Asian influx.  It is human nature to become enamored by, and defensive of, one’s own hypotheses and theories, to promote one’s ideas, and it is good for career advancement to do so as well.  

A perfect example of Kuhnian science veering into pseudoscience is HBD; have you ever seen an HBDer critically examine, and attempt to falsify, their pet theories?  Or do they hysterically defend failed hypotheses and attempt to shoehorn data where it simply doesn’t fit?  The Lynn-Rushton school is the “poster-boy” for this: the paradigm of IQ-GDP-racial/ethnic differences in intelligence,“estimating” IQ from nationally reported knowledge tests, brain size vs. penis size, r vs. k selection applied to everything from bad weather to the price of milk (a useful concept over-interpreted), etc. – when have any of these guys ever admitted even the remotest possibility of being wrong about anything?

So, I cannot honestly blame Jews and Asians for the Kuhnian approach to science that is extant everywhere, although they certainly enthusiastically practice it themselves.

Where Jews and Asians have corrupted (American) science is through three major mechanisms.  First, we have ethnic nepotism, which is actually more of an issue with Asians, particularly Chinese and Indians, than with Jews (who do practice it, but whose career-mongering often conflicts with a degree of collectivist ethnocentrism less pronounced than Asians, so Jews in science sometimes engage in bitter and hateful feuds against each other).  With respect to hiring, grant reviewing, and paper reviewing, Asians in particular favor their own (and will, when necessary, equally disfavor outgroup competitors).  Whites of course reject and eschew ethnic nepotism for themselves; in fact, quite the opposite – I observe that many Whites in science favor Asians over their fellow Whites.  The net result of this is the dispossession of White Americans from the American scientific enterprise, a situation amplified by the fact that the alien influx depresses wages, lowers prestige, and creates hostile environments foreign to the native White ethny.  The ethnic nepotism, corrosive as it is to merit-based advancement, also makes fraud and mediocrity more prevalent, and thus inhibits genuine scientific and technical advancement.

The second mechanism of corruption is the Jew-Asian promotion of rampant “careerism” in science – the idea that shameless self-promotion, rent-seeking behavior, and shallow career metrics should trump genuine scientific and technical advancement.  To be fair, careerism has always been present, giant egos among tops scientists have always been present, the desire for advancement, fame, and money has always been present.  But Jews and Asians – led by the Jews but amplified by Asian ethnic nepotism and anti-Faustian Asian greedy materialism – have made an entire entrenched culture out of this.  It’s all about grant money, getting papers published in “big journals,” prestige and status – and the actual science, the actual integrity of the science, and the actual contribution to human progress, be damned.  It’s all shallow and incremental “gains” (taking intellectual risks is frowned upon; why take genuine scientific risks when the entire purpose of careerism is to ensure a safe and steady stream of money and promotion, with prestige built upon an edifice of quantity over quality, shameless self-promotion of incremental progress, and ethnic horn-blowing to trumpet mediocrity as the equivalent of fundamental discoveries?).  In careerism, grants and papers are not means to an end (funding important science and them disseminating the knowledge thus created) but ends in themselves, or, perhaps, means to selfish ends. “Grantsmanship” is a euphemism for Semitic-Asiatic flim-flam, “suggesting reviewers” for papers is a euphemism for ethnic nepotism, and no one really cares for the scientific enterprise as a vehicle for the Faustian urge to overcome, as a means to ascend, as a path to human progress.  You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, and the ethnoracial types swarming into American science today come from backgrounds foreign to the entire Faustian impulse.


The third mechanism?  That’s the one that the “movement” talks most about, and which is primarily the responsibility of Jews: the politicalization of science to distort fact, confuse interpretation, and obfuscate reality, in order to promote a leftist (and usually anti-White) agenda.  The “work” of Gould and Lewontin are typical examples of this genre.  Much has been written on this particular subject, so I need not dwell on it further here.


Well, I could actually extend this and cite a fourth mechanism as well, which is related to the second mechanism discussed above.  Jewish/Asian science is inherently anti-Faustian, not surprising coming from ethnies outside of the Western High Culture.  Thus, the Jewish/Asian-influenced American scientific enterprise stresses small, incremental, and “safe” projects, and essentially scorns “high risk/high reward” projects that could, if successful, lead to real conceptual breakthroughs.  Also, American science has become overly descriptive and insufficiently “interventionist” (prescriptive).  For example, a typical successfully funded grant in, say, the field of biomedicine would feature an incremental and narrow project, drilling into (already studied) minute (and almost irrelevant) details on the mechanisms of some disease – description, as opposed to, say, a novel gene therapy approach to actively address the disease by targeting the mechanisms – intervention/prescription.  Further, and a perfect example of anti-Faustianism, there is a knee-jerk reaction of calling extremely revolutionary ideas “impossible” – this would be prevalent, for example, in the realm of physics, energy research, space travel/propulsion, cosmology, etc.  There’s always an inward, navel-gazing, small-minded, “can’t do” attitude with Jewish/Asian-influenced science.  Finally, “who/whom” is emphasized, and not only for ethnic nepotism.  A mediocre idea by a “rock star” scientist is given precedence over a cutting edge idea by a relative unknown. “Appeal to authority” wins every time.

Thus, the corruption of science.

Notes:

*Popper was a despicable Jew, whose “paradox of intolerance” writings were the archetype of disgusting self-contradictory Orwellian Semitic flim-flam, and his overall political philosophy was anti-“Aryan.” Nevertheless, his views on science were fundamentally sound, although one can always quibble about details, for example, his defense of the Jew Einstein against the European Bohr, re: quantum mechanics (by Popper’s own scientific method, Bohr’s views on the subject have been repeatedly validated, and Einstein’s views refuted).

**Kuhn being another Jew.  It’s disturbing that we had two racial/cultural aliens defining and debating the structure of Western science; is this perhaps another focal point of corruption?

***I’m not expressing an opinion here, one way or the other, about “man-made global warming,” but rather casting doubt about mainstream scientific objectivity on the subject.  However, one must say at this point that there are some facts that have been so reliably and reproducibly verified, and have so strongly resisted falsification, that we can more or less accept their veracity (while always, in theory, being willing to change with new data).  It would be silly to label as a “true believer” someone who accepts that the Earth is (more or less) spherical and not flat.  The reality of biological differences between ethnies, including genetic differences, is of a similar nature.  Being skeptical is one thing, ignoring nature is another.

Advertisements

Der Movement in Der News, 2/7/17

Several items, the last one being the most important.

Reynolds on free speech.

That’s all good.  And I’ve hears Mr. Dilbert is cutting Berkley off – Whites should put their money where the mouth is; that’s good as well.  But, you know, God Emperor Trump – Roissy’s wet dream – is now President and he as the power to take action in this direction.   But so far it seems he’s more interested in tweeting about SNL and Celebrity Apprentice. We must have our priorities!

A good movie review.  Indeed, I remember some Negro activist on a PBS news program openly scoffing that anyone ever did actually land on the moon (sort of like Der Movement’s conspiracy theorists) – enraging a White astronaut (Aldrin?) who was also a guest.

I don’t want Iranians in Der Movement, but I also don’t want the typically stupid “movement” dogma either.  Take a look at this nonsense from AltRight.com:

That Iranians could in any way contribute to Western civilisation is simply not true. In Sweden, their overrepresentation in crimes such as gang rape, the drug trade, murders and assaults are profound. They are parasiting on a host civilisation they cannot aspire to ever embed themselves in. The avg IQ of Iran is 85 vs the European avg IQ of 100. Any claims of close genetic relationship must also be disputed, the typical Iranian DNA contains large amount of sub-saharan haplogroups, something which led to the medieval Persian reversal after the extensive sexual mating with black slaves, and since it has been a culture in apathy and permanent decline. They are just a bunch of mongrels. President Trump’s branding of Iran as enemies to the USA and Western world at large is apt and to the point. Altright should endorse this view point and disengage from this sandmonkey,

Where did that “IQ score” come from – Tricky Dick’s “work?”  If Iran really had an average IQ of 85, we wouldn’t be worried about them developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.  And don’t give me the “outliers on the bell curve” nonsense – do any of Der Movement’s Nutzis believe that “American” Negroes, on their own, could develop ballistic missiles and atom bombs?  Please.  Now, true, Iranians obviously aren’t as bright as North Koreans (“muh HBD”) – the Koreans were able to develop plutonium implosion bombs (technically more difficult but easier to obtain the fissile material), while the Iranians are seemingly stuck trying to develop the technically simpler uranium gun bombs, which require the purification of high grade U235 – all those centrifuges and the like. But, hey, as the HBDers tell us, we all can’t be as big-brained as dem dere Northeast Asians.  This whole idea of past Aryan glories ruined by “Black admixture” leading to absurdly low IQs is another of Der Movement’s Ostara-like fantasies.  I don’t believe Iran has an IQ of 85, and I don’t believe that they were ever “Aryans” as Der Movement envisions them (e.g., Dolph Lundgren as Cyrus the Great).  

The issue with Iranians is not with their IQ or haplogroups or anything else like that – it is instead that they are a NEC people from Asia that have been enemies of Europe since the time of Ancient Greece.  They are not only not “us” but have actually been historically opposed to us; indeed, Stoddard identified Iran as the spiritual center of “Brown Man’s Land” – an identification with merit. Who are, after all (stupidity such as the comment above aside), the most intelligent, most militant, and most technically capable of the NECs?  The answer is obvious.  The long-term solution is the same as for “Yellow Man’s Land” – peaceful coexistence and peaceful competition.  The various Civilizations can progress in parallel and each can achieve its own specific destiny.

But this goes back to the whole madness of having a representative of this anti-European people rising high in the councils of the Alt Right.  And this is a perfect example of why I’m not a fan of the Alt Right, and why I object in the strongest possible terms to any identification of White nationalism “being the Alt Right.”  White racial nationalism cannot be held hostage to the whims and poor judgment of the Pepe-Kek-Undercut-Millennial snark crowd.  To the extent that the Alt Right is its own separate group/groupuscule, I don’t care what they do.  But you know that’s not the case.  They have delusions of grandeur and illusions of subsuming the totality of (at least American) White racial nationalism, and the general public shares the perception of those illusions.  Therefore, it is incumbent upon non-Alt Right WNs to speak out against Alt Right error for as long as the idea is peddled – by both Right and Left – that the Alt Right and WN are synonymous.

Against Lynn: First RLP Blog Post Reproduced Here

Answering Amren lies.

I see that Lynn has been defending his Italian IQ nonsense against Unz, which found its way on Amren in August 2012 – Amren of course always being willing to attack gentile white ethnics while being hysterically reticent to feature anything even remotely negative about Jews. Lynn’s understanding of population genetics and racial history is very poor, and features outrageous cherry-picking and misinterpretation of single locus data, along with a reliance on studies from the mid-1990s, along with the false claim that published findings agree with his Kempian cartoon-like imaginative “history.” Reality can be better observed with this more recent autosomal work, which is by Northern Italian authors who themselves use Lynnian rhetoric, but show data not compatible with Lynn’s misinterpretations and distortions. See here.

It is clear that Northern Italians have less of the Northern European-like component and more of the Near Eastern-like component than do Northern and Western Europeans. Central Italians have less of the Northern European-like component and more of the Near Eastern-like component than do Northern Italians and Southern Italians have less of the Northern European-like component and more of the Near Eastern-like component than do Central Italians. This in fact shows a very clear cline of gene frequencies, similar to what has already been shown by Novembre and colleagues (as well as others since then) – genes vary with geography. Looking at the data, it is clear that the three Italian groups are much more similar to each other than any are to the Northern and Western Europeans to the left or the Middle/Near Eastern and North African groups to the right. The relatively small differences are in the proportions of the genetic components and, again, it is clear that despite the differences, the Italian groups are remarkably similar to each other. Fst data from the same work support this; as is expected from clinal differences, Southern Italians are a bit closer to the Middle/Near East than are Northern Italians, but again, all Italian groups are very close to one another, and Southern Italians are genetically closer to Northern and Western European populations like CEU and French than to the Middle Easterners. 

Given the relatively small differences among Italian groups (looking at the data and not the breathless writing in the aforementioned manuscript), it would seem that if “low-IQ” Southern Italians are substantially “admixed” with Middle Easterners and North Africans, then the “high-IQ” Northern Italians are as well, albeit to a slightly lesser extent. But one does not need to invoke modern admixture to account for the bulk of these intra-European differences. This work [UPDATED NOTE: no longer online] suggests the possibility that Southern Europeans are predominantly of Neolithic European “farmer” origin and that Northern Europeans are a mix of that and earlier Mesolithic peoples, who had some affinities with East Asians.

From that work, the authors make the following conclusions about the overall genetic history of Europe:

1. The arrival of Neolithic farmers probably from the Middle East.

2. Nearly complete replacement of the indigenous Mesolithic southern European populations by Neolithic migrants, and admixture between the Neolithic farmers and the indigenous Europeans in the north.

3. Substantial population movement into Spain occurring around the same time as the archaeologically attested Bell-Beaker phenomenon (HARRISON, 1980).

 4. Subsequent mating between peoples of neighboring regions, resulting in isolation-by-distance (LAO et al., 2008; NOVEMBRE et al., 2008). This tended to smooth out population structurethat existed 4,000 years ago.


Thus: increased “Middle Eastern” Neolithic ancestry in Southern Europe, decreasing in a cline going northwards, and “isolation-by-distance” creating the smoother clines of gene frequencies observed in Europe today, and which are clearly shown in the Italian genetic data.

Now, one could argue that the Eurasian Mesolithic hunter gatherers were under greater selective pressure for intelligence, and, hence, populations with greater Mesolithic origin have higher IQs than the more Neolithic European groups. But there’s no need to invoke a mass, widespread historical admixture with modern Middle/Near Eastern and/or North African populations. Southern Italy no doubt has a bit more such modern admixture than Northern Italy, but the levels are small and cannot be invoked to explain Lynn’s purported IQ differences. Most of the genetic differences within Europe were likely in place by the end of the Neolithic.

With respect to the IQ issue, Lynn’s reliance on achievement tests and self-administered online IQ tests is laughable. gloaded IQ testing has shown that Sicilian children did not have lower IQs than Northern Italian children. Another group mentioned in the same link, using a cognitive assessment test, found IQs of 100.5, 101.2, and 103.1 in Northern, Central and Southern Italy, respectively. That’s not the final word on the subject, and it may well be possible that Northern Italians, with greater Mesolithic origins, do have a bit higher IQ than Southern Italians. But that has to be established via careful IQ testing, not Lynn’s bizarre use of non-g tests and online self-administered test data.  It’s unlikely that when the “dust settles” that Lynn’s conclusion of a 2/3 of a SD difference in IQ between Northern and Southern Italy will hold.  Lynn’s dogmatic and close-minded insistence on his original IQ claims, and the fanciful ancestry tales spun around those claims, does not reflect well on his commitment to serious academic scholarship.


But that’s to be expected from someone who “estimates” Irish IQ by averaging results from one test given to Irish children, with scores in the high 80s, and a different test given to Irish adults, with scores in the high 90s – giving an “average” in the low 90s. The almost comical absurdity of this – which may pass as “scholarly” in the oxymoronic “social sciences” – doesn’t past muster in real science, where averaging can be done only on real replicates.  You cannot average completely disparate data sets!

How would Lynn measure racial differences in running speed I wonder? Average Olympic sprinting times with that of five year olds running potato sack races in Kindergarten? The responsible approach to the Irish IQ data would be to attempt to evaluate why the findings were so different and which are more accurate. Even better – give the same standardized test to both Irish children and adults. But, no. As long as the “estimated” score falls into a preconceived notion of an IQ-GDP/achievement correlation, there’s no need to seek the truth. It’s all a shame, since the study of racial differences in intelligence and behavior is important, and needs to be carefully examined by real scientists, not by biased, addled ideological demagogues, who are “enabled” in their shocking pseudoscience by a cheering section with a vested interest in the “findings” thus generated.   IQ fetishists on the right and IQ deniers on the left are two peas in a pod. Neither deal in real science and scholarship.

Lynn’s Method of Pseudoscience

In seven easy steps.

1. You come up with a hypothesis, such as the idea that GDP varies with IQ, and that there is a casual relationship so that national IQ determines national GDP (and other measures of national success and productivity).
2. Instead of being a proper scientist and viewing your hypothesis with skepticism, and attempting to falsify the hypothesis, you instead desperately try to find data points to support your hypothesis, including cherry picking data and “estimating” (i.e., fabricating) IQ scores based on some achievement test data (tests that are not necessarily g-loaded and tests that Asians are known to cheat on).
3. In order to explain the ludicrously low IQs “estimated” in this fashion, you invent “intermediate racial clines” in European populations, based upon laughably misinterpreted single locus data and/or outdated studies, while openly ignoring the established fact that autosomal DNA studies irrefutably reject the idea that the relevant populations are some sort of “intermediate racial cline” significantly different from other “non-intermediate” European populations (including those in the same nation state).  The data instead show the usual, known gradual genetic clines that exist within Europe along the North-South and East-West axes, so that there are gradual and proportional shifts in ancestry proportions moving along, for example, the North-South axis of of the Italian state.  Thus, S. Italians are slightly “less Northern European” and slightly “more Near Eastern” than are N. Italians, but are hardly some sort of mid-way, intermediate racial cline spanning between N. Italians and Near Eastern/North African populations.  In the same manner, one would not label Russians and Finns as “intermediate racial clines” between Europeans and Asians, just because they are a (small) bit “more Asian” than are NW European Celto-Germanic populations. Gradual genetic clines and low levels of admixture exist across Europe, and these do not define intermediate populations with IQs marginally higher than that of American Negroes.
4. You then ignore, or spin away, actual IQ data that completely refute the “estimates” you’ve “calculated.”  After all, your “estimates” fall neatly on a linear regression of IQ-GDP (actually, correlation, but since you assume causation, it’s akin to a [invented] linear regression), while the real IQ data present a more complicated and nuanced story.  So the real data must be “wrong.”

5. Instead of admitting that you are wrong, or even just admitting the possibility of being wrong, you double down on your errors, obstinately defending data and explanations that do not, and cannot, support your hypothesis.
6. Then someone on The Mankind Quarterly advisory board writes a fawning review of your work, with the interesting fact that you yourself are the Assistant Editor of the journal reviewing your own work (no conflict of interest there, certainly).  That review is then breathlessly reproduced at a pro-Jewish “racialist” site (that has previously described its viewpoint as “yellow supremacist”), despite the fact that site knows full well that the work is highly controversial and is hardly supported by iron-clad facts.
7. The most charitable explanation of all this is that Lynn is emotionally invested in his hypothesis, and identifies his entire career and his professional reputation (such as it is) on that hypothesis and its supporting theories being correct.  Therefore, he’ll refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence of being wrong (particularly on the population genetics data, about which there is no doubt), and he’ll be enabled in his pseudoscience by HBDers and Nutzis.