At Least He’s Consistent
I’m not sure why National Review‘s John Derbyshire doesn’t get more attention from the blogosphere. He’s not as prominent as other conservatives but he is a fountain of misinformed cultural commentary. We talked about Derbyshire once before when he released a book and included a chapter about how women’s suffrage should be repealed. Derbyshire has also written about how the breasts of women in their 30s are hideous and women’s attractiveness is all downhill after the age of 19.
For reasons beyond my comprehension, Derbyshire was invited by the Black Law Students’ Association at the University of Pennsylvania Law School to give an address. He shared his “wisdom” with the group:
When the organizers first emailed me to suggest I appear on the panel, I told them that this is my view of the matter. I said that I was flattered to be invited to speak at such a prestigious institution, and that, having two teenage children, I am always glad to get out of the house for a few hours; but that racial disparities in education and employment have their origin in biological differences between the human races. Those differences are facts in the natural world, like the orbits of the planets. They can’t be legislated out of existence; nor can they be “eliminated” by social or political action.
How very “Bell Curve” of him. I’m amazed that the students didn’t walk out of the room after that statement. Perhaps they were curious to see how far he’d go with his hypothesis.
He tries to explain it “scientifically:”
First, the rational grounds. If a species is divided into separate populations, and those populations are left in reproductive isolation from each other for many generations, they will diverge. If you return after several hundred generations have passed, you will observe that the various traits that characterize individuals of the species are now distributed at different frequencies in the various populations. After a few ten thousands of generations, the divergence of the populations will be so great they can no longer cross-breed; and that is the origin of species. This is Biology 101.
Our species separated into two parts 50, 60, or 70 thousand years ago, depending on which paleoanthropologist you ask. One part remained in Africa, the ancestral homeland. The other crossed into Southwest Asia, then split, and re-split, and re-split, until there were human populations living in near-total reproductive isolation from each other in all parts of the world. This went on for hundreds of generations, causing the divergences we see today. Different physical types, as well as differences in behavior, intelligence, and personality, are exactly what one would expect to observe when scrutinizing these divergent populations.
I think he might be trying to say that races are different subspecies or something. I’m not sure where Derbyshire is getting his “facts” but there are many scholarly papers and books debunking the racism of books like the “Bell Curve.”
I looked online to see if there were any accounts of his speech, but could only find Derbyshire’s own account. His contention was that the moderator was mean:
My ten-minute address consisted of (a) five minutes of unfiltered race realism, right between the eyes, followed by (b) a plea to turn to good old American individualism and stop obsessing about group outcomes. This was followed by a sort of stunned silence, into which Madame Moderator interjected the remark that “Mr. Derbyshire is here as a private guest of Prof. Wax, not at the invitation of the BLSA.” This was not true. BLSA invited me, and I have the email trail to prove it. To his credit, David Williams, the BLSA officer who’d invited me, came up afterwards and apologized for the immoderate demeanor of our “moderator.”
This was followed by a sort of stunned silence – heh, I’ll bet.
Tags: John Derbyshire, NRO, racism
Wingnut welfare does not just hurt the recipient.
five minutes of unfiltered race realism, right between the eyes,
The thing about the folks who have created their pseudo-scientific justifications for their own personal bigotries (and their closely associated brethren — those who think that they are loosening the bonds of political correctness in order to express said bigotries) is that their bigotries become some kind of New Truth for these people.
Atrios smacks around the Derb pretty often, but Derb is another of a long line of these movement conservative types who are delighted to wallow in their fears and ressentiments. Which makes him a perfect NRO contributor since they are clear manufacturers of plenty of this wingnut fear and abundant nurturers of the ressentiments.
Which is an interestingly passive posture for a group of people who think that the worlds ills can be fixed with personal responsibility and pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps. There’s nothing responsible or even pro-active about stewing in your bigot juices all day.
Sometimes silence is the best rebuttal. I have never really understood this guy’s reality. I picture him at home alone with porn of 18 year old white girls wondering why his children are always at a friend’s house.
The weird part is that no one would have known how much of a social darwinist he was if he didn’t proclaim his speech. He must be proud of it.
Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing. That is what academia is suppose to be about. Congrats to the Black Law Students.
And let’s see. Those who ridicule Derbyshire know that all human attributes (including and especially important ones) are present precisely equally in all populations, including and especially all racial groups. Really? And on what evidence (contra to all the actual available evidence)? Let’s stipulate that we can exclude as evidence that we would prefer that it be so.
If you’re actually interested in learning about the subject, Harry, click on the provided link. Otherwise, keep an eye out for gruff billy goats.
Damn Harry, you’re an idiot. Where in this thread does it say “all human attributes” are distributed equally?
The question SHOULD be – “Did early humans have the capacity for higher-order thinking prior to the first migration out of Africa?”
The answer, according to people who actually studied the subject, is yes.
Just a bit of info from Wiki:
“Current research has established that humans are genetically highly homogenous; that is, the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the possibility of a population bottleneck resulting from cataclysmic natural events such as the Toba catastrophe.[39][40][41] Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen, however, primarily as the result of small groups of people moving into new environmental circumstances. These adapted traits are a very small component of the Homo sapiens genome, but include various characteristics such as skin color and nose form, in addition to internal characteristics such as the ability to breathe more efficiently in high altitudes.”
Harry doesn’t have the especially important attribute of writing a coherent sentence.
If we separate out the politics and wishful thinking, the question becomes very simple: either population groups have discernible trends that are genetically based or they do not. Those, like Derbyshire and Murray, who say that there are such trends have strong supporting evidence and are not necessarily coming from a position of malice, prejudice or xenophobia. Trends among population groups, if they exist, obviously provide very little information about individual members of those groups. It’s therefore perfectly consistent for Derbyshire to be addressing a group of black Penn Law students, who are certainly very intellectually able, and to offer the view that Blacks, taken as a group, are statistically less endowed with native intelligence. If it happens to be true that all gene pools are not equally endowed, then this fact should impel us to rededicate to the principle that the proper social unit is the individual, without regard to the individual’s group membership.
And if people say there is a trend that men named “Harry” are more likely to molest puppies, then maybe we should re-examine the idea that they should be allowed to walk the streets looking for puppies to fondle. If such trends exist.
“Those, like Derbyshire and Murray, who say that there are such trends have strong supporting evidence and are not necessarily coming from a position of malice, prejudice or xenophobia.”
If you want to argue about this, go argue with the vast number of academics who have debunked “The Bell Curve.” The link will give you a start.
“The Bell Curve’s” key claims were affirmed in the Mainstream Science on Intelligence statement signed by 52 top intelligence researchers. The attacks on the book were mostly intellectually feeble, and often made in manifestly bad faith.
Ahh, “52 top intelligence researchers.” Among the names, one jumps out.
J. Philippe Rushton.
Ring a bell? Described by a better wordsmith than I as “a crackpot professor who has equated small penises with heightened intelligence,” Rushton is an avatar of racialism that was a fad in the early Gingrich years.
The rest of the signers likewise come from a group of discredited academics who suckled at the teat of grants from the Pioneer Fund, which has spent the last 70 years been advocating eugenics and funding quasi-scientific rationalizations of racial supremacy.
The signers of the Mainstream Science document were just trying to preserve their grant applications.
I don’t think that JL should be talking much about intelligence.
There was a great thread about this the other day on DKos where someone mentioned that the students would want to hear his arguments as to better prepare the arguments in opposition.
John’s response it typical: no substantive arguments, just ad hominems.
As for Rushton, if he is such a crackpot, why have his papers been published, in the last ten years alone, in such peer-reviewed journals as Personality and Individual Differences, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Twin Research and Human Genetics, Journal of Research in Personality, Biology Letters, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Intelligence, Psychological Science, Nations and Nationalism, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Human Evolution, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, and Population and Environment? It’s blatantly clear that whatever some layman may think of his research, his colleagues regard him as a highly capable scientist.
Of the 52 signatories of the Mainstream Science statement, 14 had received funding from the Pioneer Fund, while 38 had not. Furthermore, the attacks against Pioneer are purely political. No one has ever demonstrated that Pioneer-funded studies are scientifically sloppy or biased. On the contrary: many studies funded by Pioneer, such as Bouchard’s twin studies, have been cited extensively, and are very highly regarded.
The fact is that the list of 52 professors who signed the statement is extremely prestigious. It includes several of the most influential and most frequently cited psychologists ever. It would be impossible to compile a list of intelligence researchers opposed to the Mainstream statement that would have even a fraction of the prestige that the Mainstream list has.
Before there were Birthers, there was Herrnstein. The Bell Curve was a rallying cry for a season, but it didn’t hold up to scientific scrutiny – I’d love to post Stephen Jay Gould’s takedown, but it’s behind The New Yorker’s copyright and paywall – and the Big Boys changed the subject because it’s silly and embarrassing to pick arguments on behalf of the likes of a guy who’s arguing that the longer your johnson, the dumber you are.
[Psst, Phillippe. Research shows that the wider, the dumber …]
Maher on the Birther Right: “If there’s one thing they don’t like, it’s being called racists. If there’s another thing they don’t like, it’s black people.”
None of those listed journals are legitimate scientific journals and I can’t believe anyone is still bothering with something as subjective as IQ as any kind of “scientific” argument.
Even Wikipedia has a better overview of the Bell Curve controversy than our trolls here have. Worth noting: Linda Gottfredson of the UD remains prominent in the effort to link race and intelligence (read: they aim to prove once and for all that the Lazy People Who Don’t Want To Work are inferior after all, so it’s not our fault). And of course some of the main benefactors of the UD are related to Champagne Pete and Caviar Charlie.
I cite top scientists in the field of intelligence research who publish in well-regarded peer-reviewed journals, whereas you rely on personal attacks, Wikipedia or people like Gould, a paleontologist who had no expertise in intelligence research and whose inane scribblings on the subject are the butt of jokes among experts.
You are no different from creationists and climate change denialists when it comes to this subject: when mainstream science disagrees with your personal convictions, you choose the latter.
You “cited” them how? By pointing out that they signed a statement? Hardly indicative of you actually understanding what they are talking about.
I can understand why Gould is the “butt of jokes” among your so-called “experts” — he basically took down the entire field of “intelligence” research by pointing out that whatever it is they are measuring, it’s anything but accurate to call it “intelligence.”
And you really ought to read the Wikipedia entry. As I said before, it’s far more sophisticated than your ad hominem nonsense.
The Mainstream science statement is a concise summary of what is regarded as mainstream among intelligence researchers. It is a useful reference for those who do not have the time to study the subject in a more in-depth manner. I have studied the subject, so I will not gain anything by reading Wikipedia articles on it (BTW, parts of The Bell Curve article were written by yours truly).
Gould’s book is a historical study dealing almost exclusively with the early stages of intelligence research in the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. Whatever mistakes the early reseachers did (and Gould is not a particularly reliable source on them, either) is irrelevant from the point of view of contemporary research. Science is a progressive endeavour. As David Bartholomew, a leading expert on factor analysis, has pointed out, even Gould’s well-known treatment of factor analysis is antiquated, as Gould seems to have been unfamiliar with all methodological developments since the 1950s.