Category: pseudoscience

Data Replication and Sociocultural Change

In the gray area between science and pseudoscience.

By continuing to focus on the necessity for replication, psychological science misses an important and all-pervasive psychological phenomenon: the impact of social and cultural change on behavior. Or put otherwise, our discipline misinterprets failure to replicate behavioral results if we do not consider that social and cultural change can produce systematic shifts in behavior. Data on the connection between social change and behavioral change point to a new role for “replication”: not to show that results can be duplicated, but to reveal behavioral effects of sociodemographic and cultural change in the intervening years between original and replicated procedure, whether those be surveys, standardized behavioral procedures, or intelligence tests.

The argument is fine as far as it goes, but it begs several questions.  If psychometric data cannot be effectively replicated because of “social and cultural change,” what are we to do then?  Accept single point data as definitive for a given period of time, and accept that changes in findings are definitely associated with changes in society and culture?  How do we distinguish sociocultural-driven data change from experimental error, or faulty design, or fraud, or whatever?  And if “social and cultural change” is really that pervasive and rapid as to make replication of results (replication attempts are typically, but not always, performed not very long after the initial study), then what is that telling us?  Is this change good?  Dangerous?  Do we know what the long-term impact is going to be?  And why view such change as some sort of inevitable “force of nature” (very subtly implied, intentionally or not, in Greenfield’s comments), when much of this change is being forced upon us by (typically self-interested) group agendas?


SLC News, 4/17/18

More rightist news and commentary.

A decent video.

One picture is worth a thousand words.

Read this nonsense.

Left to its own devices, science tends ever downward.

Hmmm. What tends ever upward?  I know…gnostic esoteric traditionalism and theosophical scifi/fantasy!

The pyramids of Atlantis were built with psychokinesis!  The Titans are Marching! Ostara!  Ostara!  Kali Yuga!  Guenon!  The men who can’t tell time!  The Age of Tungsten!  HBD!  French Army Surgeon!  The Spectral!  The Spectral! 

The anti-scientific bent of the Right was, is, and remains, an embarrassment.

Yes, science is a tool and is not “on anyone’s side.”  That said, the totality of the current evidence derived from science does in fact strongly support the general viewpoint of White racialism (which is not the same as the specific viewpoints of Der Movement, Inc.).

Why then isn’t science being effectively utilized to support the Far Right position?

1. The Right traditionally (no pun intended) has been hostile to science, derived from reactionary/religious/traditionalist tendencies tied to Rightist thought, tendencies that frown upon the ability of science to trash long-established myths and traditions; the Right hates the transgressive ability of science to cut through established, fossilized memes and get to the facts of the matter. The Right is a socially hostile environment for scientists and the science-minded in general; the Right has been, and continues to be, hostile to empiricism and scientific materialism.  The Far Right has always been more interested in theosophical nonsense, esoteric fantasies, and pseudoscience (e.g., of the HBD or ethnic fetishist varieties) than in genuine hard science.

2. When scientists do (rarely) speak the truth, they get subject to social pricing from the System; there is a reason why “Watsoned” is a verb (originally coined by me and not Sailer).

So, the Left has a monopoly on the scientific enterprise, which they twist for political purposes, while the Right is left gibbering in a corner about Atlantis, Kali Yuga, and Ancient Egypt as a “Nordic Desert Empire.”

Who on the Far Right has a “hard science” background?  Yes, there are academics, but I’m talking about the core STEM fields, at the level of, say, MD or PhD or MD/PhD. Today, insofar as I know, only the “crazy and bitter” Ted Sallis.  In the past, Pierce.  I did know of one STEM college professor in the 90s who was a NA member, and there are possibly some today, but no one I know of who is active, even under a pseudonym.  This absence of STEM in the Far Right is more of an indictment of the Right than it is of STEM.  A “movement” that takes seriously the likes of Jorjani and Kemp, and rants about “the pyramids of Atlantis,” cannot reasonably expect to be an attractive destination for the science-minded. And regards science, I’m talking the authentic variety, not HBD pseudoscience (most of which is peddled by “social science” types anyway).

Speaking of HBD pseudoscience.

The fruits of HBD.

But if Indians aren’t the right choice for merit-based immigration, then who—Chinese? A Chinese friend of mine who recently visited Taiwan told me that Taiwanese are increasingly siding with Mainland China because they want to be on the side of a country growing in wealth and power. This person said trying to talk to them about human rights, freedom, and democracy was like trying to upload a new brain to a robot.
This friend agreed that the combination of an ancient culture and new wealth tends to give both Indians and Chinese an arrogant feeling of superiority—that they have nothing to learn from Americans about individual freedom and democracy. They are here to make money. They don’t want to assimilate and become real Americans.

Never forget: when all is said and done, and one looks at the core consequences of ideas, then HBD is simply a political movement to advantage Asians (including Jews) over Whites.  It is Asian Supremacism.

Donate to the Happy Penguins because of…VennerIs this a new low in tin cup panhandling?

Laugh at this (by the way, more Sailer real estate posting).

What kind of name is “Zasloff?”  

What kind of idiot thinks that Whites – Whites with children at any rate – will “integrate” “vibrant” areas for $10,000?  How about some of these Jewboys show the way?

In Der News, 4/15/18

Some news.

MACA: Make America Cucked Again.

Are the homoerotic fanboys off the Trump Train yet?

I’m sure cuck nagger Roissy will regale us with all sorts of evidence of how Trump is striking against the “Globohomo” regime, by doing such world historical activities such as spewing forth insulting tweets or “negging” an old French cradle-robbing hag. Are all you guys “tired of winning yet?”  More concern about the borders of Syria than the borders of America – did we elect John McAmnesty?

The Yeastbucket Tax

In a fundamental sense, these programs are equivalent to the cuckolding of all tax-paying men. Cuckolding is when a woman has a child by one man but convinces a second that it is his in order to deceptively gain access to his accumulated resources. Men with self-respect and dignity do not pay for the children of other men. Welfare programs are similar except deception is not required because the state acts as the coercive middle man who makes the cuckolding mandatory. It is also less obvious than the personal case because the costs are dispersed among all productive men and they generally never interact with the single mothers directly to see their money being wasted. This wealth, which would be better spent by productive men providing for their own biological children, is forcibly taken from them to pay for women who have made extremely poor personal decisions in their lives and produced children statistically much more likely to be involved in criminal and disorderly behavior. The increased criminality of children of single mothers is a large externality which costs a society a great deal in terms of increasing police and prison spending on top of the direct wealth transfer programs.
The recent introduction of the “affordable” health care act also acts as a wealth transfer from working-age men to women. Men go to the doctor and need medical care much less frequently than women. Before the new health care law, insurers were able to adjust prices based on gender to reflect actual costs. No more. Now men and women cannot be charged differently based on actual medical care use and single men are even required to pay for personal coverage which can only benefit women, such as maternity coverage. The result is that healthcare costs for young men have increased substantially more than for women of all ages. The average increase was 56% for men compared to 4% for women though in specific areas the average increase for young men has been as high as 200%.[vii]  Car insurance shows the opposite pattern where men are made to pay more due to their greater likelihood of getting into catastrophic crashes (women are more likely to have an accident, but those are usually minor). Unsurprisingly, there has been no attempt to enforce “equality” in this situation.

Listen to this. What was the ethnicity of Justice Frankfurter?  HuWhyte.

Brown vs. Board of Education: A Jewish-Negro alliance against White interests.  Curiously, greasy low–IQ Afrowops and hora-dancing Romanians were not players in that fiasco.

How Darwin differed from HBD.  The relevant parts are highlighted:

There is a contradiction between Darwin’s methodology and how he described it for public consumption. Darwin claimed that he proceeded “on true Baconian [inductive] principles and without any theory collected facts on a wholesale scale.” He also wrote, “How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!” The scientific method includes 2 episodes. The first consists of formulating hypotheses; the second consists of experimentally testing them. What differentiates science from other knowledge is the second episode: subjecting hypotheses to empirical testing by observing whether or not predictions derived from a hypothesis are the case in relevant observations and experiments. A hypothesis is scientific only if it is consistent with some but not other possible states of affairs not yet observed, so that it is subject to the possibility of falsification by reference to experience. Darwin occupies an exalted place in the history of Western thought, deservedly receiving credit for the theory of evolution. In The Origin of Species, he laid out the evidence demonstrating the evolution of organisms. More important yet is that he discovered natural selection, the process that accounts for the adaptations of organisms and their complexity and diversification. Natural selection and other causal processes of evolution are investigated by formulating and testing hypotheses. Darwin advanced hypotheses in multiple fields, including geology, plant morphology and physiology, psychology, and evolution, and subjected them to severe empirical tests.

SLC News: Science Edition

Better: pseudoscience.

Why people with no background in science shouldn’t blithely assume they are qualified to embarrass themselves by rambling on subjects they so obviously do not understand.

And why Der Movement needs genuine scientists to do quality control on sweaty “movement” ramblings.

Hint: scientific “materialists” understand more about organism development that what is implied in this retarded essay.

Another hint: the fact that all facts are not yet known doesn’t mean you are free to invent whatever fantastic fantasies you wish.

Having said that, the essence of real science is open-mindedness, testing hypotheses – hypotheses that have real explanatory power.  I do not dismiss “morphogenetic field theory” out of hand.  Who knows?  It may be true.  But we need evidence, not “movement” solipsism.  And the need for such a theory has to be based on real gaps in existing theory, not imagined gaps that do not exist, or small gaps that are rapidly closing.

A last hint: interesting similarities between separated identical twins could well be genetics, random chance, and confirmation bias.  There are no doubt separated identical twins who lead completely different lives with no overlap – but we do not hear about those, as they are not interesting.

I’m not surprising that Der Movement finds someone like Sheldrake seriously.  If I recall correctly, this hasn’t been the first time his “work” has been brought up by some uninformed Type I idiot.

Let’s reverse the course, and have someone like me write long rambling essays about “traditionalism” and “theosophic philosophy” without knowing a damn thing of what I’m talking about.  I’m sure all the Trad-Nutizis wouldn’t like that at all.

Roissy weeps.


Greg Cochran is doing a fundraiser at West Hunter to pay him to review “Who We Are” in depth.

That’s the sound of a tin cup being rattled around.

Disgusting. How about just reviewing the book for, like you know, nothing?  For free?

Better yet: Ignore it.  How many times do the same leftist lies on race have to be refuted again and again?  But if you are so motivated, go to it.  For free.

The Debate Challenge

I support the challenge.

Why don’t any of the great leaders of the Alt Right, Alt Wrong, etc. take up The Movement Critic on his debate challenge?  That would at least be an insightful contrast of viewpoints, as opposed to Beavis-and-Butthead sniggering or pompous “metapolitical” rambling.

As more evidence (as if you needed it) for the intellectual and moral vacuity of Der Movement, Inc. read this.  

Jorjani likes to speak elliptically, making wide and often demonstrably false academic claims. Some are absurd, like his belief that the pyramids in the lost city of Atlantis were built through collective psychokinesis…

If I had to pick one fundamental defining element of Der Movement, it would be bad judgment, which encompasses and explains all of the varied manifestations of “movement” problems.  If it wasn’t enough of a red flag that a person is a half-Iranian “Indo-Aryan” fetishist who identifies with his Iranian half, then promoting bizarre esoteric fantasies and genuine (as opposed to leftist designated) pseudoscience should have been the clincher.  Then again, remember that Der Movement accepts, with nary a moment of uncertainty, the “work” of Richard “make the data fit the hypothesis” Lynn, Phil “French Army Surgeon” Rushton and the Joe Pesci look-a-like Artie “Ancient Egypt was a Nordic Desert Empire” Kemp, so the support for Jorjani’s rambling is not surprising at all.

He needed to find a publisher for his book “Prometheus and Atlas,” so he Googled the term “archeofuturist,” which he thought was an original phrase that described his work. He found that an Arktos-published writer had beat him to the term, but he also realized that Arktos might be interested in publishing his book — and that’s what happened. The book was well-received in extremist circles. A review on the website of the white nationalist publishing house Counter Currents compares it to “Moby Dick,” and anoints Jorjani as the movement’s “‘pagan harpooner’ folded in the flag of Ahab.”

Jorjani’s work compared to Moby Dick?  Well, you can tear out pages from Prometheus and Atlas to use as bookmarks when you read Moby Dick, but the connection doesn’t extend past that, I fear.  Jorjani as a “pagan harpooner?” – yes, I guess it would be this one, no?

Der Movement needs people with hard science backgrounds (biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, mathematics) to do quality control on the flotsam and jetsam that spews forth from retarded “movement” discourse. And, no, there is no “scientific conspiracy” to “hide the truth” about “the spectral.”  There is instead a justifiable contempt toward the type of solipsism that exists in “movement” circles – “The Lathe of Heaven Syndrome” – in which people think things are true simply because they believe that they are true.

Real problems with science are discussed here.

Sweaty fantasies about “Atlantis” make the situation worse, not better.  We need to take the high ground, not fester in the fever swamps of “movement” lunacy.

Cheddar Man: More Anti-White Race Denying System Stupidity

Der Movement isn’t much better.

Read this.  As Madison Grant would say, that ancient Briton was “suspiciously swarthy.”

The first ancient Britons had black skin, dark curly hair and blue eyes, according to DNA tests.

The ‘extraordinary’ findings were made by cutting-edge genetic tests and facial reconstruction techniques carried out for the first time on the bones of ‘Cheddar Man’ who died 10,000 years ago.

The bones, found in Somerset’s Cheddar Gorge, are the oldest near-complete human skeleton ever found in Britain and scientists said they were surprised to discover that the earliest Briton would be considered ‘black’ if he lived today.

The research suggests the first inhabitants of the British isles developed white skin later on than previously thought.

Experts also revealed that Cheddar Man is directly related to 1 in 10 people living in the UK today.

The first ancient Britons had black skin, dark curly hair and blue eyes, DNA tests show. The findings were made by genetic tests carried out for the first time on the bones of ‘Cheddar Man’ who died 10,000 years ago. The bones are the oldest near-complete human skeleton ever found in Britain

Let’s deal with the race denial in the article and the implied idea that “this ancient Briton looked ‘Black’ therefore why object to dark migrants into Britain.”

Assuming these data are correct, and further assuming that this sample is representative of the whole, and that there is an ancestral connection between the sample and modern Britons, what does it mean?  It means that the “high trust hunter gatherers” that Der Movement undergoes onanistic heavy breathing about had certain phenotypic traits not representative of modern Britons.  However, the ancestral connection means what?  Undoubtedly – and can we see THAT data please? – any analysis of genetic distance (or, better, genetic kinship) will demonstrate that this ancient Briton is genetically most similar to modern Europeans – particularly those European ethnies most strongly derived from hunter-gatherers (spontaneous “movement” orgasm at this point) – and not at all genetically similar to, say, sub-Saharan Africans.  

The ancient Briton was simply an old European with a few phenotypic traits different from what is found today. The overall ancestry, broadly defined, is similar to modern Europeans, but a few selected traits have changed, for whatever reasons (sexual selection? selective pressure from the environment as suggested in the article?) – So what?  As to where the altered alleles came from?  Mutation?  From the outside – those dastardly Neolithic farmers perhaps?  [Joke on Der Movement: were the Neolithic farmers more “White” in physical appearance than the hunter gatherers? Apparently so.].  It in no way invalidates race; simply, racial traits can change over time, and this also of course has no bearing at all on any justification for modern Britons accepting their genetic replacement by alien peoples. You know, humans are descended from Home erectus as well  – who looked quite different from non-Negro humans, and this means what?  Should Chinamen then accept race replacement by other races?  Did Ancient Chinese look exactly the same as their modern counterparts?  Why this constant search for ever more bizarre and relevant rationales for race replacement of indigenous Europeans – and for Europeans only?

Yes, I know, the time frames comparing Homo erectus and Mesolithic Britons are radically different but the principle is the same.  People today are what they are, they have ethnic interests today, genetic interests look forward not backward in time, and modern Britons have the right to self-preservation regardless of what their ancestors looked like.  

And again what about genetic similarity and kinship?  The idea propagated by the pseudoscientific frauds interviewed for this article is that the original Britons were generically completely unlike those of today – hogwash. There were obviously differences in alleles affecting certain aspects of phenotype.  And of course, there are going to be genetic changes in any population over 10,000 years.  But once again I ask this question: to which modern populations is Cheddar Man most closely related, genetically?  Is he, for example, closest to Nigerians?  Can we learn more about his overall autosomal genome rather than hearing System talking points for British race replacement?

Of course, on the other hand, all of this should bring some reflection on Der Movement and their Ultima Thule Ostara racial fantasies, and it should also bring reflection that we cannot depend on Der Movement narratives to understand what ancient indigenous European phenotypic traits were, where white skin came from, etc.

Born Neandertal

Biological realities.

Read here.  Neandertals were born, not ”made.”  

Neandertal and modern human adults differ in skeletal features of the cranium and postcranium, and it is clear that many of the cranial differences—although not all of them—are already present at the time of birth. We know less, however, about the developmental origins of the postcranial differences. Here, we address this deficiency with morphometric analyses of the postcrania of the two most complete Neandertal neonates—Mezmaiskaya 1 (from Russia) and Le Moustier 2 (from France)—and a recent human sample. We find that neonatal Neandertals already appear to possess the wide body, long pubis, and robust long bones of adult Neandertals. Taken together, current evidence indicates that skeletal differences between Neandertals and modern humans are largely established by the time of birth.


That’s interesting.  More relevant to issues of interest to this blog is the following from the same paper:

Adult European Americans and African Americans differ, on average, in the shapes of their long bones, with European Americans having thicker shafts and larger articulations relative to shaft length.

But, but, but…aren’t racial differences all “skin deep” – just about color – and that other than such trivialities, we are all “exactly the same?”  You mean, there are actual anatomical differences between the races (never mind the genetic gulf)?

Race denial is a farce.  Real racial science is caught between the laughable lies of the Left and the HBD pseudoscience and crazed ethnic fetishism of the Right.  Fighting the former doesn’t mean we have to accept the latter.  Both are wrong (but, admittedly, the former is more dangerous).

And speaking of the Left, and getting back to the main article, did anyone truly believe that extreme Neandertal robustness was somehow the result of lifestyle?  Is anti-genetic leftism so entrenched in science that it goes to that extreme of ludicrousness?   Were the Neandertals constructing makeshift barbells out of boulders and tree trunks and engaging in Ice Age powerlifting routines?  Granted, yes, I understand (unlike Der Movement) that things need to be demonstrated empirically, and not just assumed.  But still, one cannot pretend that a demonstration that Neandertal robustness was an inborn trait is any sort of grand discovery.  Only leftists would be surprised by this finding.