On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:16:52 -0700, Allen Esterson wrote: >On the subject of the forthcoming UK Channel 4 programme >on IQ Mike Palij wrote: >>Of course, as unpleasant as all this is, one can say the Daily >>Mail's handling of the topic is quite moderate, whereas the >>Telegraph forthrightly pronounces: >> >>>Scientists claim black people less intelligent than whites in >>Channel 4 show > http://tinyurl.com/ygbdz67 >> >>And if scientists make that claim, it has to be true, eh? > >Who would guess from Mike's representation of the Telegraph >piece that the very first sentence of the article reads: "Anti-racist >groups said the broadcaster was giving legitimacy to discredited >'pseudo science' which was 'irresponsible'." And that considerably >more space is given to opponents of the thesis than proponents.
Actually, the first sentence below the headline (or the "lede") is: |Campaigners have criticised Channel 4 over plans to screen a |controversial documentary in which scientists claim ethnic minorities |are less intelligent than their white counterparts. But Allen is right, after one is past the headline and the lede, a serious reader will have gone through the news article, unbiased by the biasing emphasis provide in the headline and lede, and focus on the (few) reasonable points made in the article. By the way, headlines and ledes have become important entry points for readers of mass and social media, as pointed on in the following blog on writing ledes: http://thefuturebuzz.com/2009/01/22/the-art-of-the-lede/ Quoting the blog's quote of Peter Kim: |…people don’t read every word anymore. They skim – and |most people don’t even do that.” The same behavior applies to |social media, especially where Twitter has users trained on 140 |character sound bites. Which raises the question of when is the twitter version of Myers' texts coming out? >Mike writes: >>guess who should be in power and controlling the other groups?. > >Taking Mike's presumption as given, it must be "North-East Asians >from parts of China, Japan and North and South Korea". That is, if one buys into the nonsense of Richard Lynn and others that IQ scores can be interpreted this way. But one is drawn to this conclusion if one follows Murray & Herrnstein thesis that the IQ determines one's position in society, that IQ is related to merit and in a meritocracy, the "brightest" will lead the others in society because they are in the position to make the "smartest" deicisions for society. Of course, today we realize that this is a naive view and that it is the ability to acquire great power through wealth and/or popular influence will bring people into leadership positions in society, not their intelligence. For example, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a very smart guy but I doubt that he is the smartest guy in NYC (or even in Manhattan) but he is the richest man living in NYC. >From his position of power and wealth he has been able to overturn term limits for the mayor's position (limited to 2 consecutive terms) and is currently running for a third term. We are reminded of this in NYC because Bloomberg is spending millions of his own money to continually remind us through radio and TV commercials as well as increadible amounts of junk snail mail that (a) highlight what a great benovelent mayor he has been (though he has not been able to make the subways run on time) and presenting his opponent (the current NYC comptroller) as an incompetent boob who was responsible for the all of the failures of NYC school system when he was its president. It doesn't hurt that Bloomberg also has a great media empirse ranging from a cable TV channel to radio stations to websites. I believe that his company recently bought the magazine "Business Week". I think he could buy the New York Times if he wanted to but he probably thinks its a money losing proposition. In related news, John Liu is running for the comptroller's job, the first Asian-American in NYC history running for city-wide governmental office and he is likely to win because he is on the Democratic ticket. Is this the thin edge of the Asian takeover of NYC and other major metropolitan areas as predicted by Richard Lynn and other IQ proponents? We'll see. :-) >Mike heads the thread "The British Continuing Obsession". >So, Mike, please provide evidence that >(a) this is an obsession in the Britain Let's see, let me provide some evidence for this assertion but I am sure those who have studied Brtiish eugenics more seriously than I will be able to provide more details (as well as correcting misstatements): (1) Sir Francis Galton was the first to employ the term "eugenics" in the service of explaining differences among groups of humans. Quoting the Eugenics entry on Wikipedia (standard disclaimeers apply): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics |Galton first used the word eugenic in his 1883 Inquiries into Human |Faculty and Its Development,[46] a book in which he meant "to touch |on various topics more or less connected with that of the cultivation of |race, or, as we might call it, with 'eugenic' questions." He included a |footnote to the word "eugenic" which read: | |That is, with questions bearing on what is termed in Greek, eugenes |namely, good in stock, hereditary endowed with noble qualities. This, |and the allied words, eugeneia, etc., are equally applicable to men, |brutes, and plants. We greatly want a brief word to express the science |of improving stock, which is by no means confined to questions of |judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes |cognizance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree |to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance |of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would |have had. The word eugenics would sufficiently express the idea; it is |at least a neater word and a more generalized one than viticulture |which I once ventured to use.[47] | |In 1904 he clarified his definition of eugenics as "the science which |deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also |with those that develop them to the utmost advantage."[48] Thus, one can make the claim that the term eugenics originated in Britain, was developed into various theoretical forms, even though the conceptual basis for distinguishing among groups/races precede Galton's formuation (indeed, Galton used his cousin Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection as an inspiration though eugenics thinking can be traced back to ancient history, in all likelihood, to the first time that a distinction was made between "leaders" and "followers", "royalty" and "commoners"). (2) Continuing support for eugenics prior to World War II has been written about by various authors. Again, quoting Wikipedia: |In Britain, eugenics never received significant state funding, but |it was supported by many prominent figures of different political |persuasions before World War I, including: Liberal economists |William Beveridge and John Maynard Keynes; Fabian socialists |such as Irish author George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells and |Sidney Webb; the future Prime Minister Winston Churchill; and |Conservatives such as Arthur Balfour.[15] Furthermore, its emphasis |was more upon class, rather than race.[51] Indeed, Galton expressed |these views during a lecture in 1901 in which he placed the British |society into groups. These groupings are shown in the figure and |indicate the proportion of society falling into each group and their |perceived genetic worth. Galton suggested that negative eugenics |(i.e. an attempt to prevent them from bearing offspring) should be | applied only to those in the lowest social group (the "Undesirables"), |while positive eugenics applied to the higher classes. However, he |appreciated the worth of the higher working classes to society and |industry. | |Sterilisation programmes were never legalised, although some were |carried out in private upon the mentally ill by clinicians who were in |favour of a more widespread eugenics plan.[51] (Sterilization had, |in fact, been carried out to prevent masturbation in mentally ill patients |since the 1820s, long before the eugenics movement.) Indeed, those |in support of eugenics shifted their lobbying of Parliament from enforced |to voluntary sterilization, in the hope of achieving more legal recognition.[51] |But leave for the Labour Party Member of Parliament Major A. G. |Church, to propose a Private Member's Bill in 1931, which would legalise |the operation for voluntary sterilization, was rejected by 167 votes to 89.[52] | |The limited popularity of eugenics in Britain was reflected by the fact that |only two universities established courses in this field (University College |London and Liverpool University). The Galton Institute, affiliated to UCL, |was headed by Galton's protégé, Karl Pearson. To be honest, eugenics was supported to a much greater degree in the U.S., both in propoganda and action such as passing and impelementing forced sterilization among "defectives" or the "unfit". Of current relevance is the following, again quoting from Wikipedia: |However, methods of eugenics were applied to reformulate more |restrictive definitions of white racial purity in existing state laws banning |interracial marriage: the so-called anti-miscegenation laws. The most |famous |example of the influence of eugenics and its emphasis on strict |racial segregation |on such "anti-miscegenation" legislation was Virginia's |Racial Integrity Act of 1924. |The U.S. Supreme Court overturned this |law in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia, and declared anti-miscegenation laws |unconstitutional. Apparently some in Louisiana have not heard of this. (3) Even after WW II, support for eugenics, though diminished, endured (indeed, how could a program like the one on Britain's Channel 4 draw much interest if there weren't contemporary figures involved?). As briefly noted in the Eugenics entry on Wikipedia: |However, some prominent academics continued to support eugenics |after the war. In 1963 the Ciba Foundation convened a conference in |London under the title “Man and His Future,” at which three distinguished |biologists and Nobel laureates (Hermann Muller, Joshua Lederberg, and |Francis Crick) all spoke strongly in favor of eugenics.[112] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics Other relevant individuals involved in Post-war activity include: Sir Cyril Burt; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Burt Quoting: |Sir Cyril Lodowic Burt (3 March 1883 – 10 October 1971) was an |English educational psychologist who contributed to [1] educational |psychology and claimed to have developed the method of factor analysis |in psychological testing,[2] although his mentor and predecessor as chair |of the psychology department at University College London, Charles |Spearman actually did so.[3] Burt is known for his studies on the effect |of heredity on intelligence. Shortly after he died, his studies of inheritance |and intelligence came into disrepute after evidence emerged indicating |he had falsified research data.[2] Some scholars have asserted that Burt |did not commit intentional fraud Richard Lynn, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn Quoting: |Richard Lynn (born 1930) is a British Professor Emeritus of Psychology |at the University of Ulster [1][2] who is known for his views on racial |and ethnic differences.[3] Lynn says that there are race and sex differences |in intelligence. And |Lynn's psychometric studies were cited in the 1994 book The Bell Curve |and were criticized as part of the controversy surrounding that book. |His article, "Skin color and intelligence in African Americans," 2002, |Population and Environment, concludes that lightness of skin color |in African-Americans is positively correlated with IQ, which he claims |derives from the higher proportion of Caucasian admixture.[6] And |Lynn's 2006 Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis[11] |is the largest review of the global cognitive ability data. The book organizes |the data by nine global regions,[12] surveying 620 published studies from |around the world, with a total of 813,778 tested individuals. Lynn's |meta-analysis lists the average IQ scores of East Asians (105), Europeans |(99), Inuit (91), Southeast Asians and Amerindians each (87), Pacific |Islanders (85), Middle Easterners (including South Asians and North |Africans) (84), East and West Africans (67), Australian Aborigines (62) |and Bushmen and Pygmies (54). Lynn has previously argued at length |that nutrition is the best supported environmental explanation for variation |in the lower range,[13] and a number of other environmental explanations |have been advanced (see below). Ashkenazi Jews average 107-115 in |the U.S. and Britain, but lower in Israel.[14] Lynn argues the surveyed |studies have high reliability in the sense that different studies give similar |results, and high validity in the sense that they correlate highly with performance |in international studies of achievement in mathematics and science and with |national economic development. | |Following Race Differences in Intelligence, Lynn co-authored a further |paper[15] along the lines of IQ and the Wealth of Nations with Jaan Mikk |(Šiauliai University, Lithuania) - in press in Intelligence - and has co-authored |a second book on the subject with Vanhanen, IQ and Global Inequality, |which was published later in 2006.[16] | |Lynn's most recent book is The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ, and Inequality |Worldwide, published in June 2008.[17] In describing the book, Lynn says |"it concludes that IQ is a key explanatory variable for the social sciences, |analogous to gravity in physics."[18] It has already been reviewed by J. |Philippe Rushton.[19] Honorable mentions to: Reginald Ruggles Gates, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Ruggles_Gates Quoting: |He had a long interest in eugenics, but it was after this book onward |that his reputation as a eugenicist become prominent. He considered |racial differences to be great, but did not necessarily believe in a pure |form of Caucasian. That stated he believed African Americans to be |mentally inferior and attempted to prove this. He maintained his ideas |on race and eugenics long after World War II, into the era when they |were deemed anachronistic.[2] He was a founder of Mankind Quarterly, |which at that time was associated to the International Association for |the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics. J. Philippe Rushton (born and educated in England but has spent most of his academic career in Canada) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton Quoting: |Rolling Stone magazine (1994) quotes Rushton: "It's a trade off, |more brains or more penis. You can't have everything." [9] And |Articles in the Canadian press based on interviews with Rushton's |first-year psychology students reported that Rushton had surveyed |students in 1988 by asking "such questions as how large their penises |are, how many sex partners they have had, and how far they can |ejaculate."[32] First-year psychology students at UWO are required |"to participate in approved surveys as a condition of their studies. |If they choose not to, they must write five research papers. Also, |many students feel subtle pressure to participate in order not to offend |professors who may later be grading their work. However, if a study |is not approved, these requirements do not apply at all."[32] For not |telling them they had the option to not participate without incurring |additional work, Rushton was barred by the university where he is |tenured from using students as research subjects for two years.[32] | |Also in 1988, Rushton conducted a survey at the Eaton Centre mall |in Toronto where 50 whites, 50 blacks, and 50 Asians were paid to |answer questions about their sexual habits. For not receiving permission |of the university committee where he is employed, the administration |at the University of Western Ontario reprimanded Rushton, calling |his transgression "a serious breach of scholarly procedure," said |University President, George Pederson.[32] Hans Eysenck, see: |By far the most acrimonious of the debates has been that over the |role of genetics in IQ differences (see intelligence quotient#Genetics |vs environment), which led to Eysenck famously being punched on |the nose during a talk at the London School of Economics.[10] And |In 1994 he was one of 52 signatories on "Mainstream Science on |Intelligence," an editorial written by Linda Gottfredson and published |in the Wall Street Journal, which defended the findings on race and |intelligence in The Bell Curve.[14] And |Despite this strongly scientific interest, Eysenck did not shy, in later |work, from giving attention to parapsychology and astrology. Indeed, |he believed that empirical evidence supported the existence of paranormal |abilities.[15] >(b) that the topic comes up in the news more often than in the States. I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this question. The subject line says "continuing obsession" not "pervasive obsession". Historically, I think that it can be documented that the issues of eugenics, whether different ethnic and racial groups differ in significant ways on measures of moral and intellectual abilitiy, represent a consistent intellectual tradition in Great Britain. This is not to single out Britain as primary or even outstanding in this area (after Nazi Germany, the U.S. seems to be in contention but has very serious competition from other countries). The point that I wanted to emphasize is the presentation of scientists as supportive of eugenic/racialist/racist views. This has an impact far beyond what one might initially assume. For example, there are a number of Christian websites that assert (a) according to the Bible, racism is a sin because we are all descended from Adam and Eve (misinterpretations of the situation involving Ham and Canaan have confused Christians about the role of distinguishing among different racial groups), and (b) the racial distinctions that many people currently have have been imposed by science starting with Darwin; for example see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/are-there-different-races Such a viewpoint ignores certain historical facts, especially in the U.S., where the process known as reconstruction helped to promote White supremacist thinking and action as in the creation of the Ku Klux Klan which conflated white supremacy, racial differences, and Christianity; see: http://books.google.com/books?id=XmaYR8E5UNsC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=bible+%22christian+racism%22&source=bl&ots=7tYdXlYAwz&sig=lc6X0NLO7IPNqmBkfSMEQ21EgLc&hl=en&ei=XwPaSrvWOIrT8AaY2KG3BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=25&ved=0CFkQ6AEwGA#v=onepage&q=bible%20%22christian%20racism%22&f=false or http://tinyurl.com/yz7mjz3 I'm not sure that I've adequately answered your questions but it is the best I could do on short notice. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
