The Far Left Opposes Science Even When They Think Its True
Vox typically takes the stance that differences in race based statistics are due to environmental factors. But in the past they have published a few op-eds that argued in favor of race realist beliefs but simply argued they were morally wrong to pursue. We have had a few issues of political take downs of scientific articles in the past week or so and this led me to look at why the Left would push for articles to be unpublished. It would seem that even though they might agree with the science they view it as morally wrong.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Over the past week or so, there have been a couple stories about scientific research studies that were polled for political reasons.
We had one story about rapid-onset gender dysphoria get taken down because of activism.
Now there's another story from Quillette about a study on greater male variability being taken down for political reasons.
And a lot of people are saying that this is because of angry feminists.
But I do believe that the left and the right can be both equally anti-science, for different reasons.
We're tribal.
We're going to support data if it benefits our opinions or our view of the world, and so you'll see people cherry-picking data to suggest they are in fact correct, when in reality most situations are more nuanced, and I don't think any individual has a wide enough view to understand everything.
In doing research on these stories, I found something that I believe to be rather disturbing.
Maybe disturbing isn't the right word, because I don't want to get too political.
But there are articles from Vox.com that essentially argue there are inherent traits to certain races, that may be the case or may not be the case, and that they do believe that IQ is at least partly heritable.
And that may be true.
Science may believe this to be true.
But what's shocking to me is that typically I find the left disagrees with this notion that IQ could be based on race.
And it seems like Vox is kind of taking that position, but kind of at the same time not.
So let's take a look at the story they did, and take a look at this issue of science denial among the left and the right, and I'll just give you some of my thoughts on the whole situation.
In this vlog from Reason, it says, A mathematics paper, two math journals were mow-mowed into
suppressing.
Academic discourse is increasingly under threat from activist professors.
According to Professor Ted Hill, Amy Wilkinson, a senior professor of mathematics at the University
of Chicago, launched a successful campaign to get one mathematics journal that had accepted
his paper withdraw its acceptance, and a second journal to unpublish the paper
after publishing it online. Apparently, because discussing even mathematical models of hypothetical
sex differences is forbidden if someone might interpret the discussion as conflicting with
feminist orthodoxy.
The saga is recounted in the linked story.
And this is the story from Quillette.
Academic activists send a published paper down the memory hole.
I am increasingly worried about politics in science because science is relatively apolitical but becomes infected by political agendas.
You can see certain organizations funding specific research so that they can have their specific cherry-picked data and try and make people believe that certain things are true.
And then you have the postmodernists and people on the far left who, because of this, Believe there is no objective truth because people can just frame things specific ways to make you believe things and create the truth.
But rest assured, there is an objective truth.
Like, if you throw a glass bottle, there is a strong probability it will break.
We don't want to make everything seem absolute because there's always a margin of error and there is great variability, but it's worrying to me that people try to use science for political advantages.
Like this story, it seems that for political reasons, science is under attack.
But in researching the story from Quillette, I came across this story from the American Enterprise Institute by Christina Hoff Sommers in 2010.
Are there more girl geniuses, she asks, which was interesting to me to see, because this is sort of the opposite of the greater male variability hypothesis.
The general idea is that among men, the bell curve for intelligence is much wider, meaning that there are substantially more male idiots, but substantially more male geniuses relative to women.
And for political reasons, it looks like this study was pulled, but I was surprised to see Christine Hoff Summers making an article about the inverse.
It would seem that it's not so much a scientific point, but a political one, because in the article she talks about standardized tests disadvantaging boys, creating the illusion that there are more girl geniuses.
In the article, she states, The reformers believed this open and consistent procedure
would yield a more ethnically diverse group of students.
So far, it has not.
It has yielded more girls than boys.
As the Times reports, The test is more verbal than other tests, and it plays to
girls' strengths.
Boys are especially disadvantaged by the necessity to sit quietly for one hour and focus exclusively on the test.
And this is an argument that I see among the far left when it comes to IQ tests between races.
That if white people are creating IQ tests, it's meant to conform to a white male view of the world, and thus people who are raised outside of that culture are not going to do as well if they are female or of a non-white race.
So there have been attempts to control for this by having women and minorities create these tests.
But in doing further research, I came across something that I found really interesting.
Vox.com arguing that IQ is at least partly inheritable, and that white people do score better on IQ tests.
In an op-ed published by Vox, it says, there's still no good reason to believe black-white IQ
differences are due to genes.
Our response to criticisms.
The article seems kind of contradictory.
While they state they don't believe intelligence differences are due to genetics,
they entertain the possibility it might be, which to me was strange to see coming from a left-wing
publication.
Now, I want to point out, this is an op-ed from Vox's Big Think.
These are outside contributors and may not reflect the actual opinions of Vox.
The article states, All three of us are academic psychologists who have studied
human intelligence, and it is our contention that Murray's views do not
represent the consensus in our field.
And they're referring to Charles Murray, who appeared on Sam Harris's blog,
and Charles Murray wrote a book called The Bell Curve, that says there may be genetic factors for differences in
intelligence.
They state, We start by noting that we accepted as facts many claims
that are controversial in the academy, if not in psychology.
That IQ exists.
That it predicts many life outcomes.
That there is a gap between black IQ scores and white IQ scores.
That IQ is at least partly heritable, as is almost every human trait.
We rejected the conclusion that Murray and Harris say is virtually inescapable, that it follows that the black-white difference in IQ must be partly genetic.
I find this strange, because although they're saying they reject this notion that it must be partly genetic, they actually state in the same paragraph that there is a difference in scores, that IQ tests predict life outcome, and that IQ is at least partly heritable.
I would state, based on these two statements alone, that if they are claiming IQ is at least partly heritable, and there is a gap between black and IQ scores, then they are stating there is at least a possibility it is true that this difference is due to genetics, though they are saying they don't want to come to the conclusion.
It's kind of confusing, but what I, maybe I misunderstood this, but it sounds like they're saying Murray is wrong to conclude it as fact.
That there is a genetic factor, but their stance is that it is possible.
What was also really strange to me, and I would admit rather worrisome, is how they talk about Jewish people.
Admittedly, the author of this purports to be Jewish, too.
I'll get to this, but what I want to point out is, if the far left is going to claim that there should be policy based on race, and then admit there is a possibility That there are differences in intelligence based on race, and then go even further than that, I'll show you that article next.
It's worrying to me that we're going to see people who deny individualism in favor of collectivism, but then openly accept the possibility of race-based differences.
If they want an equality of outcome, but are straight up saying they believe there are inheritable traits based on race, then it sounds to me like they're advocating discriminatory practices, and they do believe that certain races are inferior or superior, or at least it's It's possible that they are.
As I mentioned earlier, everyone, including myself, will accept or deny science if it benefits their view of the world.
I am certainly no exception.
There are certain things that conflict with my view of the world and my morals, but I'm going to read these next two paragraphs because they were published by Vox.com, a left-wing outlet, as they say.
To convince the reader that there is no scientifically valid or ethically defensible foundation for the project of assigning group differences in complex behavior to genetic and environmental causes, I have to move the discussion in an even more uncomfortable direction.
This sentence is again interesting, because to me, I interpret this article as very contradictory.
They're saying they want to convince the reader there's no scientifically valid or ethically defensible foundation for the project of assigning group differences, but then they go on to assert it might be true.
He says, Consider the assertion that Jews are more materialistic
than non-Jews.
One could try to avoid the question by hoping that materialism isn't a measurable trait like IQ,
except that it is.
Or that materialism might not be heritable in individuals, except that it is nearly certain it would be if someone bothered to check.
Or perhaps that Jews aren't really a race, although they certainly differ ancestrally from non-Jews.
Or that one wouldn't actually find an average difference in materialism, but it seems perfectly plausible that one might.
What is important to point out here is that he is saying he is of the opinion that even though no one bothered to check, he believes they would find that Jews are inheriting a drive for materialism.
I don't understand how he could say this in the same sentence and have it in the same article where he's claiming he doesn't believe genetics play a factor.
But what's even more shocking to me is that he then includes this sentence In case anyone is interested, a biological theory of Jewish behavior by the white nationalist psychologist Kevin Macdonald actually exists and links to it.
There was a really interesting post a few months ago about why the left is so concerned with the definition of words.
And what it said was, because they believe the same thing as the alt-right, as it pertains to race realism and identitarianism, they have to change the definition of words so they can protect themselves from their own policies.
The reason they say only white people can be racist is because they believe literally the same thing as the alt-right, but need to protect themselves from being called racist, so they can say if only white people are racist, they can do the same things.
They can believe in the same things, but you can't call them racist.
In this article, This person is claiming that although apparently no one bothered to check if materialism would be inherited by Jewish people, he's arguing that it would be the case.
This is an article published by Vox.com, a left-wing website that is uncritically linking to white nationalists and arguing that it is plausible to assume materialism is an inherently Jewish trait.
But, strangely, then goes on to contradict himself and say it isn't.
If you were persuaded by Murray and Harris's conclusion, that the black-white IQ gap is partially genetic, but uncomfortable with the idea that the same kind of thing might apply to the personality traits of Jews, I have one question.
Why?
Couldn't there just as easily be a science of whether Jews are genetically tuned to different levels of materialism than Gentiles?
I don't know why any of this is or isn't, I'm not a scientist, but I do find it interesting that Vox has this article that I was struggling to understand as it was so contradictory.
The idea that they state there is a difference in IQ scores between black people and white people, and that IQ is at least partially heritable, suggests that it might be a reason for the difference.
Though they say that Murray shouldn't conclude that to be the case, they entertain its possibility, which is something I typically don't hear from the left, so I was shocked to see that.
And what this says to me is that, yes, the individual should be considered in all circumstances.
That's what we should do.
Because it doesn't make sense to take an extremely wealthy individual who happens to be Asian and say they should be afforded certain protections.
It doesn't make sense to say we want to protect the minorities but then discriminate against Asian people at universities.
I'm particularly worried that we're heading towards an extremely segregated future.
Because you have people on the left arguing for segregation.
You do.
It's not even diversity.
There have been instances numerous times where activists have segregated races because they believe that somehow that's going to make things better.
I honestly don't.
But you have the alt-right and the regressive left who believe Essentially the same things.
And it's very strange to see this in the mainstream left.
I made a video about identitarianism within mainstream digital publications and it seems like this is the case.
Maybe this is actual science and maybe they're right, but maybe I'm just really confused by the whole thing.
And why don't you guys comment below and let me know what you think.
We'll keep the conversation going.
How do you feel about Vox's stance on this?
How do you feel about Charles Murray and the whole conversation?
And do you think that, for the most part, people are just going to cherry-pick data to make it seem like they're right regardless of what is actually happening?
Is that what Vox is doing?
Is it what Charles Murray is doing?
Maybe.
Comment below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Twitter at TimCast.
Stay tuned.
New videos every day at 4 p.m.
And new videos on my second channel, youtube.com slash TimCast, coming up around 6 p.m.
