The video of Jonathan Haidt’s talk on tribal moral communities (see here), has some interesting additions to the NYTimes report. He says that when scholarly articles that contravene the sacred values of the tribe are submitted to academic journals, reviewers and editors suddenly become super rigorous. More controls are needed, and more subjects. It’s not a representative sample, and the statistical techniques are inadequate.
This use of scientific rigor against theories that are disliked for deeper reasons is a theme of Chapter 2 of The Culture of Critique where it was also noted that standards were quite lax when it came to data that fit the leftist zeitgeist.
Franz Boas is Exhibit A:
Boas was the quintessential skeptic and an ardent defender of methodological rigor when it came to theories of cultural evolution and genetic influences on individual differences, yet “the burden of proof rested lightly upon Boas’s own shoulders” (White 1966, 12). Although Boas (like Freud; see Ch. 4) made his conjectures in a very dogmatic manner, his “historical reconstructions are inferences, guesses, and unsupported assertions [ranging] from the possible to the preposterous. Almost none is verifiable” (White 1966, 13). An unrelenting foe of generalization and theory construction, Boas nevertheless completely accepted the “absolute generalization at which [Margaret] Mead had arrived after probing for a few months into adolescent behavior on Samoa,” even though Mead’s results were contrary to previous research in the area (Freeman 1983, 291). Moreover, Boas uncritically allowed Ruth Benedict to distort his own data on the Kwakiutl (see Torrey 1992, 83). (pp. 27-28)
Boas may well have gone beyond scientific ethics completely by falsifying his famous data purporting to show environmental influences on skull size—data intended to undermine nativist fears about immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe.
Another example of an advocate of methodological rigor in service of the left is Richard Lewontin, the Jewish population biologist who used his position at Harvard to carry on a campaign against sociobiology and human behavior genetics. Also from Chapter 2 of CofC (pp. 45-46):
Lewontin rejects reductionistic scientific methods, such as quantitative behavioral genetics or the use of analysis of variance procedures, because they inevitably oversimplify real processes in their use of averages (Segersträle 1986, 2000). The result is a hyper-purism that settles for nothing less than absolute certainty and absolutely correct methodology, epistemology, and ontology. …
By adopting this philosophy of science, Lewontin is able to discredit attempts by scientists to develop theories and generalizations and thus, in the name of scientific rigor, avoid the possibility of any politically unacceptable scientific findings. Segersträle notes that, while using this theory as a weapon against biological views in the social sciences, Lewontin’s own empirical research in population biology has remained firmly within the reductionistic tradition.
Gould and Lewontin’s (1979) critique of adaptationism may also be viewed as an exemplar of the skeptical thrust of Jewish intellectual activity. Acknowledging the existence of adaptations, the argument effectively problematizes the status of any putative adaptation. Gould (e.g., 1994a) then goes from the possibility that any putative adaptation may simply be a “spandrel” that, like the architectural form from which its name derives, results from structural constraints imposed by true adaptations, to the remarkable suggestion that the human mind be viewed as a collection of such nonfunctional spandrels. … Gould’s larger agenda is to convince his audience that the human brain has not evolved to solve adaptive problems—a view anthropologist Vincent Sarich (1995) has termed “behavioral creationism.”
Ah yes, Stephen Jay Gould. To his credit, Haidt singles out Gould, another villain discussed extensively in Chapter 2 of CofC. At 41’00″, Haidt notes Gould’s statement that “there’s been no biological change in humans in 40,000 or 50,000 years. Everything we call culture and civilization have been built with the same body and brain.” As Haidt says, “Liberal politics demands that there be nothing more than trivial genetic differences between groups.”
Haidt then cites a paper co-authored by Henry Harpending (also a contributor to Frank Salter’s important On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethny, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration) showing that in fact human evolution has speeded up in the last 20,000 years, from 10 to 100 times faster than previously. Critically, these changes are the result of natural selection, not random processes: The genetic changes function to make humans better adapted to their environments, doubtless including traits like intelligence. ”Gould got it exactly wrong.”
In 1994 I went to a lecture by Gould to a large audience of developmental psychologists where he said pretty much the same thing. He made this statement with absolute confidence — as something so obviously true that no sane person could possibly doubt it. His lecture was full of razzle dazzle—three screens of slides with constantly changing visually interesting material and delivered with all the showmanship of a circus ringmaster. The audience ate it up—except for me. I was looking around gauging the expressions of credulity among the audience. Like a group of teenagers, this audience of Ph.D’s was enormously impressed by Gould’s pyrotechnics and presumably by his position as a famous Harvard professor of biology. The medium is the message.
Haidt explicitly advocates research on race differences and says that allowing conservatives into the field would result in a whole lot of research that is not being done now. Exactly right. The problem with social psychology is not so much sins of commission as sins of omission. When Gould was asked whether his “passion against human sociobiology was linked to the fear that it was yet another tool which could be used for anti-semitic purposes, [he was] inclined to think that the opposition stemmed more from Marxism, and as it so contingently happens, most American Marxists are from Eastern European Jewish families” (see Ch. 2 of CofC, p. 31). What exactly was going on in Gould’s brain when he said that? Social psychologists could begin to examine Jewish deception and self-deception on all kinds of issues. How does Jewish ethnicity influence statements of leftist universalism by people like Gould? We already have ample evidence that in fact most Jewish leftists had very strong ethnic commitments under a veneer of universalism (Ch. 3 of CofC), but the topic should be explored using the methods of social psychology.
And its not only Jewish leftists. I’d love to see the neocons hooked up to an MRI when they are expressing their heartfelt beliefs that the policies they advocate are in the interests of the United States and not at all influenced by their passionate attachment to Israel.
And it would nice to see the dozens of articles on how Whites are biased against Blacks balanced with articles on ethnocentrism among ethnic minorities, including Jews. How would Jews respond on tests of implicit associations—the tests where dozens of studies have shown that most Whites take longer to associate positive traits with Black people than with White people? How hard would it be for Jews to associate positive traits with Christian symbolism as opposed to Jewish symbolism? How hard would it be for Jews to associate positive traits with people who have blond hair? With people identified as German? Is it harder for Jews to associate positive traits with Christianity than it is for non-Jews to associate positive traits with Judaism? I’d be willing to bet the house on that one.
This doubtless relates to ethnic networking among Jews. How does Jewish ethnic networking operate at the psychological level, say when interviewing job applicants for positions in a company or in university admissions? What are the subtle differences in facial, postural, and vocal cues and in MRI brain patterns when Jews interview Jews versus people from European backgrounds?
Haidt’s lecture is a step in the right direction. But it’s clearly going to be a long while before social psychology begins to examine the many taboo subjects that don’t fit with their liberal world view. And if someone did such research, it would surely be rejected because it failed to meet the lofty scientific standards of the social psychology tribal moral community.
Facing the Future as a Minority
Was the Immigration Act of 1924 Illiberal?
Bang, zoom! McDonald hits another one out of the park…!
Bravo, magnificent!
Haidt explicitly advocates research on race differences and says that allowing conservatives into the field would result in a whole lot of research that is not being done now. Exactly right.
This is one of the more hopeful signs I have seen in academia in a long time. It is just a beginning to be sure, but it’s the kind of thing that may represent a subtle inflection point in the direction of social psychology.
I would also note that Haidt’s last book “The Happiness Hypothesis” sold quite well and he is a respected researcher. So this is no lightweight advocating for a change in direction. Evolutionary Psychology based in race and sex realism also has another advantage: It is infinitely more interesting than the thin gruel that passes for thought among most social scientists.
As Haidt said, this is the place to be for the next decade if you wish to make a name for yourself. That may provide motivation to a few intrepid souls.
An area I’ve gotten much interested in just recently is what’s been brought out about the human brain shrinking. It wasn’t entirely new as I recall reading decades back that the modern human brain was smaller than Cro-magnum’s, but I’d seen nothing on that since.
Now again, decades back, I recall reading what was given as fact that while first generation plant hybrids tended to be superior, succeeding generations tend to be progressively inferior. My knowledge of biology and genetics is minimal at best so maybe I’m making an unwarranted leap: but does anyone think maybe the plant thing is the reason for our shrinking brain?
Especially if feminine-brained. All those in this area need is a cat-walk and awards ceremony to complete the dire, narcissistic, picture.
Thanks for providing some evidence for an earlier post.
Remark upon this ever so prevalent behaviour at one’s peril though, as hell hath no fury as a narcissist exposed/scorned.
OK David, why are you insulting people that have an interest in social sciences? That was a gratuitous shot at all of them. It seems to me people like Haidt are trying to put their subject on firmer ground that is to be encouraged.
I mean, this post of yours served no purpose other than to engage in juvenile insult.
You ask, so I will explain once again. It serves an important educational purpose.
I write this way in the vain hope that some people here, probably people far more discerning and attentive than you have proven to be, i.e those who have paid some attention to what I have been explaining about language and the logical absurdity of trying to talk about intensions in the way that people continue to do in these soft areas of psychology etc (which are pseudo-science), despite clear explanations long ago (cf. Quine 1960 ch. 6) as to why this is all misguided, do not get seduced by the eloquent nefarious rhetoric which many in these areas continue to pass off as science, in order to hold on to their jobs and make a living. It is like people making and peddling fake watches, or other badge engineered products which have some of the trappings of the real original, but are not the same thing at all. They appropriate the words because they think this makes what they do look good. It is not.
Sometimes, being told what one is doing is wrong is not insulting. It is just a matter of fact. People who can not learn from such corrective feedback tend to be either not very bright and/or have incorrigible Axis II Cluster B disorders of personality.
is that quite clear now? If not, I suggest you go back to comments from early January, and work through them diligently, as what I am saying is true, and widely shared in science, because it is true, whether you find it ‘insulting’ or not. Most of this work is creative writing, and nearly all good applied professionals have to knock this nonsense out of new recruits if they are to be let lose on the real world. Something which is proving ever more difficult these days, with dramatic costs in terms of lost opportunities and adverse consequences alas.
Take note: your verbal behaviour is quite typical.
It’s great that Professor Jonathan Haidt is promoting affirmative action for conservatives in pyschology research. But I don’t think it’s a good idea to plaster his face on your website. Does making him the poster boy of tribal psychology (especially on a website so focused on Jews) help him fight the establishment? I don’t think so. By all means link to him, but please make his life easier by removing his embedded face from your website. He’s already been (incorrectly) accused of professional misconduct – unsurprisingly by another professor with a foreign accent. Haidt’s a liberal, not a conservative, and a genuine nice guy, so hopefully he will survive. But we know how easy it is for professionals to get fired, or give up because of pressure, when challenging politically-incorrect topics. Think about it.
That’s like a whore charged with immorality cluelessly protesting her innocence. Is it logically possible for people working in non-truth functional domains to ever professionally report the truth? Being non truth-functional domains they traffic almost entirely in intensions, so charges of lying are presumably as perversely comical as accusing J K Rowling of making up her stories!
Interesting point, Michael, and interesting link. I was just about to ask where Haidt stood on racial-realist thought and the consequences, or lack of consequences, he’s faced in the psychological community from his controversial position. (Needless to say, I’m not a psychologist.)
For one of his peers to suggest that the lack of conservatives in the field of psychology is analogous to the lack of short people in the NBA is absurd to an almost unbelievable degree. I doubt even Haidt himself could have come up with a better example of sacred thinking among psychologists.
I don’t know how I feel about his picture being on TOO’s sight. I see your point, but Haidt seems to be a liberal in the most noble sense of the word. (Intolerance of “intolerance” is still intolerance.) He, of all people, should understand that guilt by association is one of the tools that any community of people will sometimes use to subvert different or unconventional ideas. Also, I’m not sure it was even TOO’s intent to have his picture up here – I think it may be part of Haidt’s own slide show that KM linked to.
On the other hand, this is the real world we’re living in, and we know how other less principled people can be. Making his life more difficult is certainly not something any of us would want to do.
“Haidt explicitly advocates research on race differences and says that allowing conservatives into the field would result in a whole lot of research that is not being done now.”
I don’t get this. How are conservatives kept out?
jews were not welcomed into any of our institutions but they managed to get in anyway. These are OUR institutions, so how are conservatives kept out – this I would like to understand.
Off topic but I thought everyone would like to know that you can read Which Way Western Man online for free.
http://www.solargeneral.com/library/which-way-western-man/index.html
Barbara,
Thanks for bringing up William Gayley Simpson and his book.
Simpson made some observations that need further consideration in light of Haidt & Harpending’s proposition that human evolution is speeding up.
Specifically, Simpson observed the “soul destroying” character of working as a Ford factory drill press operator circa 1914 or so. The noise literally precluded any thought. On it went for 8-10-12 hours per day. Man was reduced to merely being a cog in the machine rather than being a master of it. He himself only stayed at that job a few months.
That however was not true of many millions who did stay at such work for many decades. And they used their incomes from such “soul destroying” work to reproduce and pass on their genes. In fact, we are into 3d, 4th & 5th generations of descendants of “drill press operators”.
What would it require to stay at such work for 40 years until a pension? I propose that exceptional passivity and near instinctive submissiveness to authority are high on the list of required traits.
This is something that should be considered when contemplating the obvious white passivity even in the face of imminent extinction and actively contrived slow roll genocide.
If one discriminates more finely, one begins to notice that many of those so-called ‘Leftists’ in the West were (and still are) predominantly Jewish Trotskyites and their helpers and not Stalinists. The former (e.g Neoconservatives) do not like statists, as the latter ousted them from the USSR in the 1930s, and fsr too fond of policies which are bad for their free-market, which is presumably why so many ousted Trotskyites/anarchists set up home in the USA and Western Europe (and came from there in the first place). They were (and still are, if one looks at the consequences of their actions bearing in mind the fact that Trotskyites use entryism (see Militant Tendency in the UK in the past) and deception as political techniques of infiltration and subversion) Libertarians, i.e deregulating anarchists. This serves a clear political agenda, i.e that of deregulating the state (Public Sector) in favour of the Private Sector; promoting competition, and letting free-markets determine value (populism aka grass-roots democracy). Class or group conflict is just one tool for achieving this. This is why ethnic conflict was carefully avoided in the former USSR by population management. Libertarians and their organizations actively subvert other organisations which are contrary to their economic interests, thus keeping ‘Liberals’, with their large Public Sectors and regulators (s.eg the FSA and SEC) disorganised, poorly staffed etc, and thus at bay.
People like Karl Pearson and many other eugenicists are worth looking into (and carefully, not believing all that is said about them in modern Libertarian-Democracies), as many were Communitarians, not Libertarians.
One has to look very closely at this, as Trotskyites deceive, sometimes wittingly, most often just through their self-centred lack of spatial awareness and poor attention to the evidence I suspect (see Edwards on the Lewontin Fallacy). I advise interested readers to read my comments from early January onwards for more on this alternative way of looking at these matters. Why have Libertarians been so interested in hiding the genetic basis of behavioural diversity do you think? This has been covered at length in mnay of my earlier comments, but it does it not register. Post WWII Libertarian (denazification) propaganda has been very effective because a lot of money and effort was spent supporting the Libertarian American Dream in opposition to what was described as The Evil Empire.
Sadly, the American Dream is now turning into an American Nightmare and it’s at he hands of Libertarians, not ‘Liberals’.
@ Longley
In the United States, the Stalin types are just as Jewish as the Trotsky types. The only differece being the Stalin types are a little more connected, or more correctly “were” a little more connected to popular White American culture back in the 1930′s i.e. organized labor unions, music & movies.
You could honestly say, that the Trotsky types who you speak of, morphed into Republicans & neo-conservatives, while the Stalin types stayed in the orbit of the Democratic Party.
Are you absolutely sure about that? Jewish people don’t seem to like Stalinists, they are bad for business. Jewish Trotskyites and their helpers were purged from the USSR in the 1930s and don’t get on at all well with the regulars, (who are best probably seen as Old Labour Fabian Socialists or Communitarians).
Indeed and I have said much about the formers’ (Trotskite) entryism on both sides of the Atlantic, except that one should note that they have always been welcomed by Libertarians, if not fielded by them in the early C20th to topple Russia at the end of WWI. As to the Democrats being much different, I doubt it. Like New Labour here, under Clinton US Democrats behaved as Libertarians just with a different wrapper. See repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 and the love of the ‘Socialist’ International. There was nothing obviously Communitarian about New Labour (or your Democrats alas), as can be seen by New Labour’s policies and who it rewarded. New Labour behaved as a cross Atlantic Republican/Conservative Party (many of its key players having been groomed over in the USA), sweeping up bemused (feminsed/dumbed down) dissenters over here, simply because they were not The Conservative Party and had Labour in their name! The same has been done via other post WWII ‘Social Democratic’ parties in Europe and the Far East. They were all Libertarian parties arguing over minutiae to distract a befuddled public. The contrast is with the PRC and N Korea. Note how little is aired about how they actually govern? The PRC is led by engineers – contrast that with the Libertarian Democracies. It’s run by those trained in the highly verbal humanities and social sciences. So are most of the senior Civil Servants (many now female) which has kept strong governance at bay, thus facilitating the markets and Private Sector ‘growth’.
@ Longley
Yep, absolutely sure about it here in the USA.
Another incisive article, Kevin. It is hard to fathom how any sentient person can buy into irrational liberal thinking. To witness these deluded, erstwhile ‘intelligent’ people internalize fantasy, delusion and outright lies, is simply mind-boggling. It is amazing how gullible the Anglo/White intelligentsia really is. Programmed, indoctrinated and herded as they are, a Razzle-Dazzle Fest hosted by the likes of Gould, Lewontin, Montagu, Diamond or whoever, is simply a group therapy reinforcement session for Jewry’s Golem. All part of keeping the White Amerikinder in their liberal democratic play pens.
Indeed. Who would fathom any sentient person buying into irrational Liberal thinking? Do you think they might buy into irrational Libertarian thinking instead? ;-)
Are you an anarchist Junghans? A lot of effort was put into encouraging anarchism in Germany etc after WWII.
Speaking of irrationality, do you any connection between that sort of tribal allegiance and the behaviour of people (usually exciteable males) supporting their favorite football/baseball/basketball team?
Meanwhile, who’s making the money, selling the merchanidise?
The arguments of science are very good and naturally I appreciate as much as we can get on our side. But honesty compels me to admit if every proven fact went against my viewpoint on race it would not change my mind one iota. Basically I believe the fundamental principle of the world is self-interest, that altruism is a myth even in the examples Haidt gave. The fundamental principle is “eat and be eaten” and I neither run from or make apologies for that.
Some ( like Haidt) are capable of acknowledging that ‘progressives’ are actually discriminating against conservatives in academia but get this line of argument
“What exactly was going on in Gould’s brain when he said that? Social psychologists could begin to examine Jewish deception and self-deception on all kinds of issues.”
The world-view of diaspora jews is that they’re living behind enemy lines. Thinking that way makes deception second nature (and i believe raises verbal IQ).
Deception is a lot easier if you utilise partial self-deception as a tool. If you half-convince yourself you believe something then you become more believable. If you have the ability to compartmentalize enough then you can convince one part of yourself you believe something completely. So semi conscious self-deception could become second nature also.
I’d expect studies of undercover police officers (if there are any) would shed light on this as would studies of method acting.
“If you have the ability to compartmentalize enough then you can convince one part of yourself you believe something completely.”
If you have the ability to compartmentalize enough then it becomes easier, also, to be a sociopath, and you go to sleep with a clear conscience believing you did nothing immoral, illegal or unethical…even if everyone else around you knows you have.
Or if it comes naturally (i.e genetically), see comments and links on brain-gender and the spatial/verbal tilt by sex and by group. This is a key point which I have been making for several weeks now with respect to our increasingly feminised culture. Here’s Trivers again, but in audio, and be sure to look up some of his exchanges with Dershowtiz which got rather heated, as exchanges over Gaza and Lebanon are prone to do.
It doesn’t matter – what maters is the nonsense he wrote, i.e. his verbal behaviour.
What exactly was going on in Gould’s brain when he said that?
A fully legitimate question, since his external behavior, including his verbal actions, are very much influenced by the processing going on inside his brain.
A fully legitimate question, since his external behavior, including his verbal actions, are very much influenced by the processing going on inside his brain.
We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future. You are interested in the unknown… the mysterious. The unexplainable. That is why you are here. And now, for the first time, we are bringing to you, the full story of what happened on that fateful day. We are bringing you all the evidence, based only on the secret testimony, of the miserable souls, who survived this terrifying ordeal. The incidents, the places. My friend, we cannot keep this a secret any longer. Let us punish the guilty. Let us reward the innocent. My friend, can your heart stand the shocking facts of grave robbers from outer space?
It doesn’t matter – what maters is the nonsense he wrote, i.e. his verbal behaviour.
How do you figure?
Are you a follower of B.F. Skinner by any chance?
A fully legitimate question, since his external behavior, including his verbal actions, are very much influenced by the processing going on inside his brain.
Jason,
I see now that your weirdly tautological statement was a response to Longley’s now hidden pomo-esque comment denying that what goes on in Gould’s mind is salient.
That makes it more understandable.
No problem Reginald, I suppose my statement did look a bit odd standing there all alone!
What’s this ‘follower’ business? Is this how people in the USA are now educated? To follow leaders/gurus?
Stop looking behind the words for hidden meanings. They are not there. Meanings are intensions, i.e myths, like ‘senses’ – they are mental fabrications. They are redundant. People refer to them because they can not grasp behaviours and referents which are not immediately in front of them, i.e because they have rather limited horizons on their grasp of behaviours in the world.
Skinner was an biological engineer in all but name. I suggest you go the SEAB website, and search for “A Tribute to the Harvard Pigeon Lab (1948–1998)” and see some of the images, whilst reading about what they actually did and why. Then look up the 1990 Herrnstein paper which I’ve referenced. And thengive some thought to race, class, intelligence and the current highly topical issues of Behavioural Economics. Herrnstein didn’t fully understand Skinner on some of the biological roots of Operant behaviour I hasten to add, and some of us found that most peculiar, as it was all pretty much spelled out in the 60s Science paper on ontogeny and phylogeny. Operant Behaviour is emitted and is selected, i.e reinforced by its consequences, which is just how Natural Selection works. Skinner was, if you like, the Darwin of Behavioural Science. This muddle of Herrnstein’s showed up in a quite peculiar exchange with Skinner in the 1970s which Skinner put down the stress which Herrnstein was under after his book on IQ when people (probably Libertarians if one looks at the account Herrnstein gave in his book 1971;73 about the events) were threatening his life! As I have said, this stuff is bad for some people’s business. This is not ‘academic’, it really is what goes on. It’s how the real world works.
What many people here don’t understand may seem ‘academic’ to them only because it’s seems alien to them. A bit like Jews, Blacks, Hispanic and Muslims perhaps? Just remember, Herrnstein was Jewish and the Libertarians went ‘gunning’ for him too!
My advice: try to look beyond Jews to Libertarians, in general, it will swept up a lot of Jewish people too of course as many of them as a group have done well by it, but so have many non Jews.
Sorry, David, I’m no anarchist. The intimidation and brain washing of post war Germany was and is truly criminal; yet, anti-climactilly, the English speaking White world has now come to believe its own vile propaganda, and it is destroying them too. We are all swirling around the bottom of the racial drain now.
I do think that team sports are a tribal identification substitute, that act as a pressure relief valve for pent-up tribal emotions. The Judeo-plutocratic interests are no doubt quite happy to deflect this visceral tribalism into such venues, and cash in on it as well. They probably dread the thought of those stadiums someday being full of racially motivated, national political rallies. A reawakened people, no longer amused by, or interested in silly games, but intent upon controlling their future, or racial destiny, if you will.
Does anyone have any comments upon the peculiar case of the Berlin Wall and how it was presented to those in the West for decades? It pretty much encircled West Berlin did it not (which was an enclave within East Germany)?
Today we see immigration and differential fertility removing what little is left of any states in Europe generally, as massive flux and low ability renders organised statism economically unsustainable through anarchism and Permanent Revolution. No doubt those who do well out of the Libertarian Democracies through the resulting market volatility, would also like to tear down the Bamboo Curtain, for essentially the same reason? How many Americans or Europeans see how this actually worked against their own collective best interests, in favour of a minority?
It is just a little odd how Britain allegedly went to war against National Socialism in 1939, only to vote for ‘Socialism in One Country’ in 1945. The USA Government, acting in the economic interests of business, wasn’t happy about that, and made nationalisation of the UK means of production, communication and exchange difficult over subsequent years, just as they did elsewhere in Europe even though, for a while after 1941, the USSR was its ally.
Who were the bad guys back then, and who are they today? Why do so many people keep voting for a system which is statistically clearly not in their best interests? It’s like betting on a the lottery.
A supplement.
“No doubt those who do well out of the Libertarian Democracies through the resulting market volatility, would also like to tear down the Bamboo Curtain, for essentially the same reason?”
Well – who was it David? Who benefited?
Jewish oligarchs perhaps?
It is just a little odd how Britain allegedly went to war against National Socialism in 1939, only to vote for ‘Socialism in One Country’ in 1945.
I don’t seem to recall anybody during World War II criticising Germany for having a Socialist government.
It was much more that they criticised them for being expansionist, killing “the weak”, things like that.
I distinctly recall seeing an old movie the English made to try to get America into the war and it involved a propaganda scene where some German showed some non-German this place where people with hereditary illness were being wiped out, and then some line of dialog about how “there’s no place for them in our new order”.
The point was to make people against the German regime by offending their basic sense of Christian ethics, I suppose.
Now and again nowadays you’ll have some silly Republican ignoramus attack the National Socialist for being socialist, but that isn’t why anybody went along with the idea of fighting them at the time.
After all, America was in the midst of turning socialist itself under FDR!
They were hardly in a position to throw any stones through that glass window.
Haidt’s presentation was like a breath of fresh air. It’s always refreshing to see a scholar use facts and common sense awareness to expose the moral forcefield created over the last five decades by Jewish ethnocentricity, though without actually mentioning Jewish involvement that’s responsible for creating it. And since his presentation actually impedes upon the moral forcefield of suggesting that we investigate taboo topics, I’m fairly certain that his work will be ignored or condemned, because here’s the irony; it’s well known that Jews have the most ardent moral forcefield when it comes to protecting their tribe, so any factual findings or suggestions for them to relinquish any gains made against the WASP establisment simply won’t happen. Sympathy or understanding isn’t in their vocabulary or open to rationale discussion.
“Tribalism” (or moral communities) is a well known phenomenon in academic circles – throughout the West, not only among psychologists. People used to think of academia as the epitome of rationality, tend to “forget” some very unpleasant truths about universities.
Geiseric said: “People used to think of academia as the epitome of rationality, tend to “forget” some very unpleasant truths about universities.”
I keep the following quotation from H L Mencken affixed to the wall above my computer monitor. I’ve copy and pasted it into these comments sections before:
“Consider [the pedagogue] in his highest incarnation: the university professor. What is his function? Simply to pass on to fresh generations of numbskulls a body of so-called knowledge that is fragmentary, unimportant, and, in large part, untrue. His whole professional activity is circumscribed by the prejudices, vanities and avarices of his university trustees, i.e., a committee of soap-boilers, nail manufacturers, bank-directors and politicians. The moment he offends these vermin he is undone. He cannot so much as think aloud without running a risk of having them fan his pantaloons.”
Think of the trials and tribulations Professor MacDonald has had to suffer at the hands of his fellow professors – a motley collection of demonstrably stupid and wilfully ignorant people who have wormed their way into well-paying positions of trust by mindlessly repeating what they’ve been indoctrinated to say and think.
Reason? Who needs Reason when artless and cynical self-promotion suffices to move your career forward?
Here is a sample of the phony methodology employed by the Tribe where anyone who disputes any of the positions the Tribe want to push is held to a ridiculously rigorous standard of proof which they then exempt themselves from, relying on the power of assertion abusing and misusing their elevated position of elite academic status to blindside and discredit any opposition and to push their own warped agenda.
In the case below the post-grad thesis of a Canterbury Uni, New Zealand student Joel Hayward was subjected to the full rigor and vigor of the standard thought-crime format rolled out on such occasions as they did not want someone “off-message” being accepted into a prestigious position in academia because he had written some years earlier that he could see no proof of their ever being a master plan to exterminate God’s Self-Chosen by the National Socialists.
Joel Hayward has preserved his struggle on a website dedicated to his travails.
http://www.joelhayward.com/theeveningstandardarticle.htm
Sample quote:
“The complainants paid a significant amount to employ the services of Cambridge Professor Richard Evans, who had previously testified in a London trial initiated by David Irving……………My key defence was that Professor Evans was judging my decade-old thesis by far too high a standard.
I was, after all, only in my fourth year of tertiary study when I had written the thesis. I was not a doctoral student, much less an established scholar with a string of books to my name.
Professor Evans was judging me by that very highest of standards, as even a member of the Working Party let slip on one occasion.”
“My principal defence was not on issues of fact or interpretation, although I did identify several errors in Professor Evans’s own work and the other complainants’ papers.”
Excellent example. Would also recommend the History Now article by Thomas A. Fudge on the subject, available at the same website.
During the sociobiology debates in the 1970′s, conservatives generally supported Gould over Wilson because most conservatives don’t believe in evolution. So clearly, getting more conservatives involved in social psychology will not mean much.
I think there are no conservatives in social psychology research because conservatives aren’t that interested in it. Conservatives tend to go into fields like engineering and business where there are immediate practical applications. Liberals see the value in the indirect but ultimately more powerful theoretical disciplines. I think what Haidt is really driving at is that liberals (like himself) should start studying racial issues more seriously. That’s a good sign. Racialism and eugenics were closely associated with the “progressive” movement in the early 20th century and I see no reason why it couldn’t be that way again.
What should perhaps have been seen as more odd at the time was that so many of the views which became controversial in the context of sociobiology and IQ/race work in the 1970s and later had been de rigueur in the 1930s and beyond. People should have wondered why there was so much controversity, and especially after The Bell Curve was published in 1994. The facts are indisputable. But note, these were Libertarian times, not Liberal times. People were primarily interested in making money not the state. As I keep saying, why might anyone not want the genes and behaviour work aired too much? Why would it be ‘Liberals’ (socialists) who opposed? They accepted diversity to the best of my knowledge (and especially here) and have long insisted upon the more able regulating those who would otherwise take advantage of the vulnerable, whilst managing populations in the interest of all via statism.
The social sciences are a discipline stuck in muckiness of words. How does one define evolved? Why would domesticated foxes be more evolved than wild foxes? It seems inescapable that there is a value judgment involved. A domesticate pig can become a wild boar in several month. Has it evolved?
And why, tribal-morality? Why not simply say belief system; social psychologists share a tendency for a similar belief system.
It’s interesting, apparently being domesticated means being dependent on humans for survival. So that might be a more or less objective criterion. And I believe the concept comes from biology, not the social sciences, so it’s a bit more solid. The other thing they mention in biology about “tame” animals is the retention of juvenile features into adulthood – like floppy ears on dogs. So I think the concepts that come from biology are on good ground.
Read the Meehl 1978 article referenced elsewhere. If anything has changed, it’s just got worse.
A sound, but sadly all too rare, post to this blog.
“allowing conservatives into the field would result in a whole lot of research that is not being done now”
Conservatives should be allowed into every field, especially the media. Even when liberals are honest, they sin by omission, and they cannot give a conservative point of view.
“standards were quite lax when it came to data that fit the leftist zeitgeist.”
Everyone should know about liberal double standards (and about Jewish double standards) in order to better understand :
- when scientific rigor is de rigueur, and when it is not
- what is hate speech, and what is not
- what is a social construct, and what is not
- when generalizations are allowed, and when they are not
- what is a phallic symbol, and what is just a cigar
- what is historical inevitability, and what is just a fluke of history
and so on.
These double-standards are INTENTIONAL double standards. See Chapter 6 of ‘Word and Object’ (1960). One finds them wherever one finds the intenSional idioms of propositional attitude, which means that they abound in the language of the so-called social ‘sciences’ and politics. Just how radical, and pervasive a problem this actually is, few fully appreciate. Those who make the most egregious use of these idioms tend to be those with more feminised brains. Pursuit of Truth tends to be alien to those who traffic in this domain, and the consequences, whilst predictable, are demonstrably dire, and probably incorrigible, whilst our present Libertarian democratic systems prevail.
If much of the behaviour in this blog is statistically representative of those upset by what they see happening to the USA and EU etc, one can only expect matters to get worse I fear, as most will not hear what they are being told the root of the problem is, namely themselves. :-(
Here’s something which is sure to warm the neurones of some folk’s brains here. Be sure to set aside an hour and 10 mins for this and let it settle…it will be worth it. It’s from the early 70s.
The New York Times excerpt and LINK:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/de-tribalizing-academe/28606?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
The Chronicle of Higher Education
De-Tribalizing Academe
February 15, 2011, 3:28 pm
By Peter Wood
On February 8, New York Times science reporter John Tierney paid prominent attention to a social psychologist at the University of Virginia, Jonathan Haidt, who had stirred things up at a San Antonio meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. Haidt had presented a talk, “The Bright Future of Post-Partisan Social Psychology,” on January 27, in which he characterized the contemporary field of social psychology as a “tribal-moral community.” He meant that social psychologists are more concerned with keeping certain “sacred values” from being questioned than they are in advancing scientific understanding. Essentially Haidt offered a fresh view on how and why an academic field becomes closed-minded and hostile to nonconforming opinions.
It kind of amazes me (although I do, sadly, understand the behaviour) that anyone would will think otherwise, as it just isn’t truth-functional work and b) most of them literally don’t know what they are talking about (so can’t be shown to be right or wrong as a consequence). Just read some of the talks/papers or Power Point Presentations and judge for yourself.
Next, look at the gender ratio in those going to study Psychology in general, and have a look at the mean SAT scores (see maths vs verbal too) compared to other subjects, especially the sciences. Look carefully.
It won’t make any difference of course. People will still keep doing this 9for a living), ignoring the facts of the matter, getting ‘offended’ , ‘outraged’ etc etc. It’s all drama.
What’s the point of arguing about matters which can not ever be shown to be right or wong by their very (intensional) nature? It’s like arguing over whether blue cheese is better than Camembert (still, at least you can weight cheese I guess).
Anyone even bother to read the Meehl 1978 paper? How about Dawes, Faust and Meehl 1989 in Science?
No?
So how do you all process the fact that Jonathan Haidt is Jewish?
Wow – another powerhouse article by Kevin McDonald.
Professor – would YOU be interested in starting your OWN university? I would attend as would many others on this page.
@Sunshine: Quite easily. I would simply assume that Mr Haidt is an intellectually honest Jew who is brave enough to challenge sacred cows.
Mr. Haidt is honestly pointing out a double standard – that liberal faculty tend to demand rigorous standards from academic papers which challenge the liberal orthodoxy while applying lax standards to papers which take the conventional view.
In my understanding, it is Mr. MacDonald – not Jonathan Haidt – who then expands this concept to include Jewish enthocentrism.