Social psychologists are the ones doing all the research on ethnocentrism, xenophobia, and discrimination, and they are notoriously liberal. An address to their main professional society by Jonathan Haidt may at least make them a bit more self-conscious about it (NYTimes, “Social Psychologists Detect Bias Within“). Like pretty much all the faculty in the social sciences and humanities, they identify as liberal—around 80% of them liberals. And out of 1000 psychologists attending the lecture, only three had the temerity to publicly identify themselves as conservative. This .3% compares to 40% of Americans who self-identify as conservative.
It goes with saying that some in the audience may have decided that raising their hand in public would be an act of professional suicide. The intellectual left loves blacklists and social ostracism. Indeed, a student is quoted as saying that “Given what I’ve read of the literature, I am certain any research I conducted in political psychology would provide contrary findings and, therefore, go unpublished. Although I think I could make a substantial contribution to the knowledge base, and would be excited to do so, I will not.”
So much for the idea that social psychology is a science. Things are so bad that Prof. Haidt urged his colleagues to “to focus on shared science rather than shared moral values.” Real sciences don’t need such urgings. He also encouraged them to read National Review and Thomas Sowell, so don’t expect any real change soon.
Haidt points out that “If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community. They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.” Very true. Social scientists are expert at recognizing the blinders of others, such as Christian fundamentalists who reject Darwinism. But they are very poor at recognizing their own biases—an example of self-deception. Like all religious fundamentalists, what comes first is a knee-jerk emotional reaction against anything that violates their sacred values. Then they harness their cognitive abilities to fight the good fight.
What strikes me about this is that these academic tribal-moral communities are secular, non-ethnic versions of Judaism — the exemplar of a tribal-moral community whose sacred values have become enshrined in all of the moral high grounds throughout the West. They see themselves as a morally superior ingroup surrounded by their intellectual and moral inferiors—a light unto the nations. I rather doubt that any liberal attending the lecture would find it troubling that social psychologists are far less likely to be conservative than the public at large. Rather, they wear their liberalism as a badge—a sure sign that they are members of a morally and intellectually superior ingroup.
It’s interesting that whereas the views of Jewish professors are quite in line with the views of the wider Jewish community, the views of non-Jewish White professors are radically out of step with the wider White community. The White majority among these social psychologists have been recruited in a war framed in terms of moral abstractions, a war against their own people . It’s a disease that Whites are particularly prone to.
That is certainly not the case with Jewish professors whose ethnic interests as members of a Diaspora group are completely congruent with the attitudes of the academic left. It’s no accident then that Jewish academics have been vastly over-represented in departments of humanities and social sciences at elite universities and that they were intimately involved in creating the post-1960s academic left and in recruiting the new constituencies of aggrieved minorities and morally superior White people that now dominate these departments, a topic reviewed in my “Why are Professors Liberals?” (The Occidental Quarterly, Summer, 2010).
The Joys of Jihad: Islamentable, Isatrocious, Isbetrayal
Nordics versus Implicit Jews in "The Switch"
I’ve mentioned Jonathan Haidt’s work before. I think it represents a tiny breach in the smug liberal worldview that prevails in academia (he is liberal himself by the way).
He has also written that the genetic basis of ethnic differences is going to become obvious very soon and predicts a firestorm of controversy. Here is a small article he wrote on the impact of faster evolution and more ethnic differences:
http://www.edge.org/q2009/q09_4.html#haidt
Seventy years after the publication of “The Behavior of Organisms” published by someone once described as the most influential psychologist in US history, it seems that a graduate student ‘discovered’ reinforcement and its parameters, whilst the rest of the world had been using it for decades in the pharmaceutical industry and much else besides (e.g in the creation of Behavioural Economics, and all effective applied work) as the applied analysis and management of behaviour.
Observe some interesting/informative behaviour here.
Another infamous example is Miller, Gallanter and Pribram’s account of their ‘discovery’ of ‘subjective behaviorism’ at the end of their classic 1960 book Plans and The Structure of Behavior.
As today, one needs to know something about the history and peculiar politics of psychology, and its erosion as a science by the feminised-brained, to appreciate the full force of this point.
Where some just learn, others truly think they make a personal ‘discovery’. Is that not narcissism par excellence?
Alas, it is quite typical, and in some, it is an infuriating scotoma. Many females (designed genetically perhaps as gatherers rather than hunters?) tend to be rather prone to these behaviours too. Psychology has become a feminsed-brained person’s subject.
Psychologists and Behaviour Analysis do not see eye to eye. If you look up Skinner’s audio at the SEAB site, and listen to Quine there too, you will hear two of the most influential USA males in behavioural science agreeing on this on the basis of hard facts.
Whilst many people have a hard time discriminating the nature of their behaviours when they conceive of them as mental states, (perhaps because of a poorer ability to logically/perceptually discriminate due to lower spatial IQ than verbal?), actively encouraging people to be mentalists and/or to be experiential and emotional is, for reasons which I have explained elsewhere in comments to this blog in recent weeks, best regarded as predatory, Libertarian, behaviour.
Perhaps this goes some way towards explaining why so many of my comments have been given a frantic thumbs down, as my comments can be seen as bad for some people’s business?
But then again, it’s a free country… caveat emptor ;-)
I can’t make any sense of Longley’s post. Psychology has moved beyond behaviorism by dealing with internal thoughts–the cognitive revolution of the 1960s. This is not feminized psychology; it is simply reality. Behaviorism restricted itself to a tiny part of our mental life. That’s not to say it’s wrong; it’s just that it restricted itself to some very basic systems of reinforcement and punishment. Evolutionary psychology would be impossible if psychology had not moved beyond behavioral analysis. Psychology is still a science. Even Social Psychology is guilty more of sins of omission rather than sins of commission. That is, they avoid certain topics, such as real race differences in ethnocentrism, in favor of the psychology of discrimination by White people. But I for one do not doubt the basic findings in the social pscyhology of discrimination and have used them in my writing. See here, p. 1022ff: http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/EffortfulControl-PsyRev.pdf Kevin M
There is nothing to make sense of Kevin. He is jamming up the site on every post with long incoherent, dull, demoralising, incomprehensible monologues. And if anyone points this out he just links to some obscure behavioural study made on British prison inmates in 1974 and calls them an idiot.
The new comment system works brilliantly, I think however in the case of Longley, whose trollish output is so prolific and can not help but hijack every conversation, perhaps stronger measures ought to be considered. Blocking his IP address from posting for example.
Someone who must literally sit refreshing the comments page every few seconds and is salivating at all the attention he is getting will undoubtedly find a way round this, but it will cause problems for him at least.
And we can get on with discussing White advocacy.
This is probably because you hold true some falsehoods. Psychology has not advanced as a science in recent decades, much of it has been replaced by other biological sciences, as one might expect given the nature of psychological terms.
I’ll elaborate, although I have already spelled some of this out here in recent weeks. The 2006 published paper with Lynn on Jewish intelligence was to be just one of three papers we were planning, one on the Ashkenazim as a salient group within the cognitive elite, one on cognitive dysgenesis, and the other on sex/race-differences in the context of feminization of our academic curricula and its impact upon the Liberal-Democracies – my primary concern being the other end of the curve – the crime school and community rates of delinquency i.e anti-social behaviour. I decided to write to our NAA/QCA having done the research instead, Richard wanted to pub;lish and tell academics. My point was much of the data was known to government already ). But that is another matter.
You’ll have to take my word on some of this, you are wrong about Behaviour Analysis and much of modern psychology, which is largely construction just as the 1960s cognitivists set out to do.
As to the feminisation, this may surprise some but have a look at Richard’s 2010 popular article here, and bear in mind the proportions reported on here) and just ask, where is the equality in psychology, and where are all the smart men? Not in psychology anymore it would seem.
Point one I’ve already made elsewhere in comments, and is just an empirical fact which anyone can easily check out at the respective data sites: 80% of those sitting Psychology A level, and 80% of those studying psychology at University in Britain today are females. It has been that way for some decades.
From the mid 80s onwards new entrants coming into the forensic applied field was about 80% female, which, had a cost given that the PROBE (and later NOMS) national behaviour profiling and management project relies on data analytical (actuarial) and Behaviour Analytic skills. if you can’t class the behaviour, you can’t actuarially analyse it reliably.
These sex ratios are found in the applied profession (clinical, educational and forensic). Given the proportions studying in psychology at university it is inevitably much the same in academia. One will find female psychologists have preferences towards verbal and social too with aversions to other subjects, hence the avoidance of Behavior Analysis (which in the end is just empirical biological science), and that is where it moved about 40 years ago, into neuroscience and biology. The cognitve stuff in biology is glossed over by many.
The brain-gender preferences show up dramatically in subject choices at university and probably reflect genetic/hormonally driven differences. This is why there’s little science in psychology anymore I suggest, so many able males avoid or abandon it.
No, this is just factually incorrect. Psychology is not a science anymore, and there can be no science of intension for the reason that science exists by extensionalising what was once intensional (psychological). There may be a lot written as psychology, but most of it is creative narrative, i.e story telling these days, it is methodologically atrocious, Meehl wrote about this in his 1978 article and it just got worse over later years (see Dawes’ book on psychology in the 90s). The science (prediction and control over variables) is extremely poor for what should be obvious reasons – the poorer mean spatial/logical/maths ability of females (see PISA) and the shorter range. Both Skinner and Quine pointed out back in the 70s (listen to the SEAB audios), that there was no ‘revolution’, it was essentially a political, revisionist, step in the history of psychology, right back into mentalism, which made no logical sense (see the logical points on this matter made by many with respect to intention vs extension which is covered in ‘Fragments’, part of the applied PROBE project).
The substantive revolution was the technology (chip) revolution in the 70s and 80s which made much of people’s psychology largely redundant through making data management at the population level more cost effective. Hence the role of OECD PISA, School SATs (proxy IQs at the national level of 560,000 x 4 age groups every year) in the UK, over IQ test samples etc.
I challenge anyone to point to any ‘advances’ brought about through cognitive ‘science’ or psychology in recent decades. People have just translated behavioural work into mentalese and then claimed a discovery.
The most useful area of psychology remains Behaviour Analysis (in say the pharmaceutical industry, in neuroscience etc, and in the applied fields, although as I have said elsewhere most of academic psychology is practically useless as most teachers, prison staff, and doctors will tell you. One can expect a lot of redundancies in these areas in the UK shortly due to Public Sector cuts and poor evidence of efficacy.
It was never the case that Behaviour Analysis couldn’t deal with private behaviours. In fact it clearly explained why there are problems with private behaviour for everyone, i.e because it’s not open to as much control by the reinforcing (largely verbal) public community as is public behaviour.
Perhaps you are making the common mistake of confusing Behaviour Analysis with mainstream Learning Theory as Methodological (S-R) Behaviourism which morphed into Cognitive Psychology (S-o-R) in the 60s (largely under the influence of Jewish psychologists’ influence)? If so, it’s worth listening to Skinner’s ‘On Having a Poem’ audio if you can find it, or reading Quine’s critique of Chomsky which seemed to send the latter out of psychology into just being an open anarchist. Word is that Chomsky never fully read Verbal Behavior either, which shows in his infamous review.
The 60s/70s essentially just brought back mentalistic, female friendly language which coincided with the progressive demise of psychology as a serious science, and I suspect the reason for the exodus of males. It’s ‘stricty for the birds’, as Quine said at Skinner’s retirement (SEAB audio).
One question one can ask is what these cognitive psychologists actually record? Do they measure mental events, or do they measure behaviours? That normally shuts the ‘cognitivists/mentalists’ up, and occasionally makes some of them wake up.
If one looks at most of Herrnstein’s work, one sees it was mainly Behaviour Analysis. He was laying the foundations of Behavoural Economics, ending his 1990 article “Rational Choice Theory: Necessary but not Sufficient” with:
I have advised people here to look at recent events in the economies of the Liberal-Democracies, and if any don’t see the connection, they should just read some Howard Rachlin or George Ainslie.
I find it absolutely astounding that anyone could seriously entertain such views in 2011. Really, I don’t know where to begin. It’s like talking with someone who believes the earth is flat. There is much more in the human mind than dreamt of by Skinner. Take evolutionary psychology. The evolutionary theory of sex makes predictions about behavior, preferences and attitudes that could never have come out of behaviorism. Neuropsychological research shows how all this works in the brain. We now know a great deal about cutting nature at its joints and about how the various motivational systems interact, what they respond to, the top-down control of behavior via cultural input (impossible to discover without cognitive science), how all this fits well with the evolutionary theory of sex, etc. It’s not just biology. It’s evolutionary psychology. The idea that all of this is feminized non-science is beyond ridiculous.
But might you then only get to hear the sound of echoes of your own voices? Would that not risk shaping up, i.e. reinforcing, bigoty? have you noticed that when you describe verbal behaviours which you don’t like, you tend to distort them in the process of reporting them. That’s never a good sign. But that’s mentalism for you. It’s a major source of conflict and confusion for many, always has been. It’s great for anarchism/Libertarianism though, and it makes a lot of money for some at the expense of the many/unwary. For most however, it’s best exorcised, and that’s exactly what ‘Pursuit of Truth’ (aka science) is really all about, and always has been, always will be.
Psychology as a science has been in trouble ever since the introduction of postmodern thought. Psychology without a subject? I doubt it.
Haidt’s revolution: ie is replaced by eg.
I think it is always worthwhile to mention that every characterization of a ethnic group’s perception of friend and foe is necessarily a generalization; just as KM is a white (though not WASP) professor there are Jewish professors who do not go along with the delegitimation of white identity. In this connection St Lawrence Jewry is an actual thing “. “The Jewry” is not. (Another Webster typo?).
(Hmm we are going to find out that Jews would not have made good stone age mammoth hunters. They will be upset.)
Henry Harpending has said that he would never let a researcher do work on that stuff; it would be a sure guarantee of no grant support for the rest of their career. Although a full professor, Harpending was told to stop working in the field (or at least shut up about it) by the powers that be.
KM quotes Haidt :-
Haidt tries to make this oddly religious but as DS Wilson shows that propensity is there because it has been selected for, so it must be essential for a group to be grounded in self esteem (esteem which in this case is earned by delegitimizing white identity). It is a tall order to get people to go against such innate mechanisms, above all if they are universalistic whites.
White nationalists are not looking at the science before deciding that they are WNs. A powerful case could be made that Jews are morally (from the point of view of being ‘fit for purpose’) superior, science is clear that Jews are intellectually superior. I do not expect science to come up with anything that will be of real benefit to nationalism but if the culture changes then science might follow.
Are you joking?
If not, I really don’t know why you would be astounded, unless you don’t look outside your own area. Most people in the behavioural sciences hold these views and they are the majority. So perhaps you are just expressing surprise indicative of learning (but even that is behavioural defined, cf Kamin’s Blocking Effect using the CER).
I suggest you look to the wider research literature than soft psychology. As I have already explained that my earlier background was neuroscience and behaviour. Biology and Behavioural Neuroscience/Genetics takes evolution as basic, and even Differential Psychology is behavioural, always has been, having its roots in Galtonian eugenics. Intelligence research is all behavioural, the ‘g’ just being a statistical Factor, data reduced from scores on a number of behavioural sub-tests. Personality is a statistical Factor too but a rather more suspect one as a measure given that it’s based on self-reports of behaviour which are not very reliable. However, in other links, I’ve referenced Gray’s Factor Rotation of Eysenck’s model which corresponds with the volumes of work on the monoamines and behaviour, none of which is ‘cognitive’. The fact is that there has been a healthy shift in recent decades towards classing behaviours and analysing those even in clinical/forensic/educational work (cf. DSM-IV and V and earlier).
Or like listening to someone who’s telling one something one doesn’t know/believe perhaps? ;-) It can feel much the same. Ask Richard. He now accepts that psychologists (and others no doubt) are in the midst of a ‘revolution’. It’s the only thing which explains the bizarre behaviours in spite of all the empirical evidence. Perhaps even you aren’t aware of it? If so, take this as someone explicating some of it as a friend. Applied (government) scientists don’t publish much (that’s part of the job), but neglect what is being said here to your detriment I suspect.
You don’t seem to have accepted that ‘mind’ is a myth, a construction (largely constructed by Jewish psychologists in the 60s and 70s, which was being replaced by good extensional scientific research elsewhere in the life-sciences. Herrnstein succeeded Skinner remember, and as I have already suggested, it’s worth looking more closely into the work of Ainslie, Rachlin and others too, especially given the recent crisis. Some of what I am pointing out is not obvious, but it is real world behaviour science and behaviour management. Behavioural science moved out of psychology in the late 70s, pretty much in disgust, that’s all. Many set up home in biology where people were doing what they thought to be real science.
This is not true. Evolution’s impact on behaviour has been studied via behaviour analytical techniques – hence Behavioural Genetics. What’s looked at is expressed behaviours, i.e emitted Operants, and individual differences (genetic diversity). If one looks at DSM-IV one will find it is based on checklists of behaviours. if one is interested in ADHD etc, one looks for classes of frequently emitted behaviours, and work in Behavioural Genetics looks for SNiPs, VNTRs etc correlating with those (one doesn’t read psychology journals for this). It’s the same in with autism, ODD/CD etc, the affective disorders, GAD etc.
Here’s a summary of a recent Nature article. Note that rats don’t talk or give verbal accounts of their mental states. It’s all behavioural and physiological work. There may be some people who then call themselves ‘Evolutionary Psychologists’ and write narratives about it beyond the evidence, but they won’t be taken very seriously in science unless they work on observable, measurable, physical variables: i.e emitted behaviours (Operants), physiology, anatomy chemistry, genes etc.
Yes, I know about this. I’ve done it. I’m still in contact with people doing this work, see Crow, and ask Lynn. Even back in the late 70s I was explicitly told i was being moved out of psychology. In fact, I was given a very severe warning about psychologists by Shin-Ho Chung when I was at NIMR. Herrnstein owed a lot to Chung ;-)
That’s very vague narrative. It was people such as me at NIMR in the late 70s who were dragging ‘psychology’ in this direction in the. But note, that work was done in the biological sciences, often using Skinner Boxes etc (used for behavioural assays). Some people, a bit like journalists, may have written some popular misleading narratives about it all, but that was not the same as the research itself, which, if anyone looked a bit more closely, they would have sen was being done in the biological/life sciences (which were behavioural).
Psychology is feminine these days. That’s just a fact. It is largely a female subject (especially in the (UK). Look at the people doing it. Look at the figures (and the behaviours). As I’ve said, I’m not arguing, I’m just describing what is the case, trying to be helpful.
More idiocy. Behavior genetics has nothing to do with behavior analysis. It is agnostic regarding mechanisms–it works the same whether it’s a cognitive trait or a physical measurement. Any measure showing individual differences can be subjected to its techniques. It’s simply a statistical technique to model the relative contributions of nature, nurture, their interactions and correlations. Kevin M
The word agnostic seems out of place as it’s a term of belief. What is the referent exactly? You don’t say. The only terms/mechanisms which matter in science are those which provide good, replicable, control over variables so that we know what we are talking about surely? How else do you think researchers analyse, report and replicate their experiments on C.elegans, Drosophila, Aplysia, mice, rats etc and genes?
Let me try and put this another way. Often (more often than is appreciated), because of the logically problematic nature of the intensional (psychological) verbs of propositional attitude with respect to quantification in, people confuse verbally reporting what they don’t believe with what they don’t know. If someone says “I don’t believe X’ is the person reporting that they don’t hold a statement X true, or are they reporting that they just don’t know that X is true? How does one tell the difference? How do they tell the difference? I suggest you look into this serious problem with the intensional idioms of propositional attitude, as what I’ve been telling you is not ‘idiotic’, it’s what’s actually done, all over the world, i.e. it’s how scientists behave.
Behaviour Analysis (aka The Experimental and Applied Analysis of Behaviour) is not theory, it’s not an ‘ism’, it’s just practical Machian/Quinean description and analysis/management of behaviour. I think perhaps you should read the Herrnstein 1990 paper I referenced and/or have a look at the SEAB site, or some Nature or Life Sciences journals to see what I am referring to. In Quine’s hands it was termed ‘Evidential Behaviourism’ (by Roger Gibson), and when applied to other classes of observable variables (expressed as pairs or more of Observation Statements and their functional relationships), it’s just the language of the sciences (each having their own predicates). Note how it’s all physical (verbal) behaviour? That often goes unnoticed. But it is being computerised. This is woefully misunderstood by psychologists, even though we are in the wake of a major IT revolution where much that was once regarded as psychological is now coded in computer algorithms rendering actuarial judgement empirically as if not more reliable than clinical/intuitive/cognitive judgement (see Dawes, Faust and Meehl 1989). This is because reasoning itself is computational, not a psychological process.
The problem with psychology, as Fodor almost came to appreciate, is that most people in psychology don’t really know what they’re referring to (measuring) much of the time, i.e the charge was that they don’t know what they are talking about which is why so little works in the applied fields. Which is what I was explaining in comments back in early January with respect to quantifying in and group membership when I was drawing attention to the demographics of NYC, ethnicity, IQ and hegemony. People talk about classes, but what are they really talking about? Have a look at the NYC link and see if you spot what I am referring to.
That this problem of quantifying in is not sufficiently appreciated by many in psychology is, I suggest, because many in psychology do not spatially discriminate or measure very carefully, a problem which psychology suffers from like most of the social sciences these days. they are not quantitative, they are qualitative/narrative. This shows up in the very poor control over variables, is why there’s so much argument, and so little cumulative progress (as many have remarked upon over the years). These are courses which are predominantly taken by females and feminised males these days. See the figures.
By ‘agnostic’ I am simply saying that behavior genetics is a statistical methodology that is consistent with any set of actual psychological mechanisms. One could use it to try to find out the genetic influences on individual differences in speed of learning or memory or IQ or speed of processing or weight or height or anything else showing individual differences.
Behavioural Genetics, when observed in terms of what is done, is the study of the functional relationships between measures over genes (at the quantitative and/or molecular level) and emitted frequencies of behaviours. Hence the name. That statistics are used is not the point, as they are used in physics and all of the biological sciences in order to establish contingent functional relationships between measures over variables. What does not enter in any explanatory role in any of the work is anything ‘mental’ or ‘psychological’.
The other measures which you refer to (RT, weight, height, learning etc) are all physical behaviours or phenotypes you will note. Memory is a red herring, it’s always just measures of behaviours. I have already referred to the Operant work using other animal models (controversial in C.elegans) and their model system roles in Behavioural Genetics, and it’s no different with humans, just more difficult (given replication and mathematical issues). Operants are emitted (voluntary) behaviours controlled by their outcomes/consequences. There is no need to posit or refer to any hidden ‘psychological’ mechanisms. This error/subterfuge was precisely where Methodological Behaviourists (S-R Learning Theorists) went wrong and that error just received a pointless verbal makeover/translation into ‘cognitive psychology/science’ language in the 60s/70s, which is precisely where I began in this exchange with my comments on the egregious, albeit all too typical I’m afraid, ‘translation’ (see Quine on this viz Chomsky) in Plans and The Structure of Behavior and it’s revealing appendix/annex in 1960.
I pointed out the nonsense of all this to Minsky in the early noughties when he too was having some trouble grasping what Behaviour Analysis was really all about, and that Artificial Neural Nets are really just non linear regression equations. He showed he hadn’t really understood Skinner either, and this is the problem, it is deceptively simple, but powerful work. For the record, my post grad project given to me by Crow was “The Interaction of Brain Monoamines and Neuropeptides in the Control of Operant Behaviour”, but even Tim admitted to me a couple of years ago that he hadn’t appreciated Shin-Ho Chung’s background. Shin-Ho back in the late 70s and early 80s was in the same NIMR division as us (Neurophysiology/Neuropharmacology), there were only a dozen or so labs. Shin-Ho, a senior NIMR scientist at the time, was working down the corridor on auditory neurophysiology, having left psychology long ago (Shin-Ho “helped Herrnstein etc out with their maths” he once told me). Now, if Tim could make a major mistake (given Shin-Ho’s role in the quantitative analysis of operant behaviour in the 60s and its role in laying the foundations of Behaviour Economics) and Marvin too, so can you I bet Kevin – and in my assessment, from what you have written here, you have. Such is the nature of our intensional opacity (‘silo thinking’)
Check out the NYC links – they make a point ;-)
Try to judge for yourselves reference 3, especially about from 30 minutes in).
This used to be far more accessible on the web. it has become harder to find over the years…. That does not surprise me in the least and nor will it anyone else who listens.
Ironically, given the sometimes misguided exchange between Nisbett and Rushton and Jensen in recent times over ‘getting’ intelligence, this is worth a good look too, thinking back to Bem’s critique of Attribution Theory (another translation, i.e. an internalisation of the ANOVA) Attribution Theory prevailed for years as a replacement for Cognitive Dissonance – perhaps itself a poach from Quine’s Two Dogmas of Empiricism, much as like Kuhn’s popular book on scientific revolutions probably was.
The audio is worth the time, as is a careful re-reading of Plomin and Daniels 1987 (rather than the likes of Harris etc in the light of what I have said to this blog about the dismal efficiacy of all environmental interventions in the clinical, forensic and education fields, bearing in mind the dire consequences of ignoring this in pursuit of intangible intensional abstractions instead. Behavioural Genetics is quantitative and molecular. It begins with genes and classes of emitted operant behaviours.
Personality and Social Psychology is not called soft-psychology for nothing. As remarked in other comments, in the UK, 80% of those studying psychology at A Level today are female. This is also the case at university and in the profession. In the USA ‘Liberal’ refers to left-wing, but in the West we don’t really tolerate left-wingers, what we have instead are Trotskyites who refer to themselves as ‘left-wingers’ (see the Frankfurt School’s influence on social psychology). These were in practice Libertarians (anarchists) if one looks at the consequences of behaviour rather than self-ascription of labels. Self-report is notoriously unreliable – but an essential part of mentalistic Liberal-Democratic life (see polls and Focus groups etc). When a critical mass of people finally see through this subterfuge there will be a more obvious crisis.
Concise, neat, very informative, and accurate comment. Well done David.
Oh great, the troll Anglo Saxon patting another troll on the back.
This article [linked below] will provide evidence to support a key and fundamental part of David Longley’s main thesis. Published 10 Feb 2011, it appears in Britain’s notoriously petty and “feminized” print media:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8314213/Michael-Buerk-presenters-should-not-be-recruited-to-fill-quotas-of-lesbians-or-Asians.html
From an evolutionary perspective, i.e. SURVIVAL OF THE SPECIES, the soc-psych you describe are losers. Whereas the Judaics, despite what some observers might feel are surprisingly STUPID moves, are WINNERS. Their group survives and their enemy, the White, disappears. Now one has to give credit where credit is due.
I think the satisfaction White survival types will take is watching the traitors being hoisted on their own diverse petard.
Then again the Judaics survival presumes there is no GOD.
That may be the biggest assumption of all.
Michael A. Hoffman II, Sorting through the Shuttle Debris, Feb. 2, 2003
About: “tribal-moral communities are secular, non-ethnic versions of Judaism”
This is indeed very true, all such “feminist/women groups”, “gay rights groups”, NAACP, … etc., etc. all organize in a Jew-like fashion, with extreme nepotism and all the other perks of the organized jewry.
All this little revolutionary sects are modeled after the grand revolutionary himself, and behave accordingly.
MacDonald: “Like pretty much all the faculty in the social sciences and humanities, they identify as liberal—around 80%…only three had the temerity to publicly identify themselves as conservative. This .3% compares to 40% of Americans who self-identify as conservative.”
—
Given that contemporary “liberalism” in no way resembles the classical liberalism of, for example, America’s overwhelmingly Christian founders, but rather is better described as left-liberalism or doctrinaire statist liberalism; and given that this modern left-liberalism is nothing but a manifestation of statist Marxist doctrine originally contrived by Karl Marx and his Jewish Zionist guru Moses Hess as a means of instigating and implementing a pseudo-secular, totalitarian state as a sock-puppet apparatus for supremacist Jewry’s self-serving interests; doesn’t it only follow that modern, so called “liberals” are going to have an innate bias against conservatism, which is traditionally identified with “anti-Semitic” Christianity?
In other words, these fake liberal, fake intellectuals are merely lap dogs trained by Jewry via innately anti-Christian, Marxist indoctrination to loudly yap whenever they encounter the dreaded, “evil” conservatives (Christians).
(I conclude they MUST be “fake intellectuals” because they are not detached enough to figure out that they are mere tools of organized Jewry, or are not intellectually honest enough to admit it (even to themselves), both of which demonstrate serious and even fatal blind spots in their ability to think any question through clearly and objectively, no matter the subject.)
This is another interesting article by Jonathan Haidt in which he summarizes recent research into the differences between Western and non-Western people. This passage was especially illuminating.
“Others punish participants perceived as too altruistic in co-operation games, but very few in the English-speaking West would ever dream of penalizing the generous.”
The whole article is here. More evidence of different traits among various populations.
http://www.nationalpost.com/Westerners+World+weird+ones/3427126/story.html
Anyone got any thoughts on Rudolf Arnheim?
It’s hard for me to understand why these white professors are helping to destroy our people. Do they just play along to be accepted, to maintain their careers, to not get hassle??? Or do they truly believe in the melting pot idea? Either way they are most vile.
The way I see it, if you destroy the people who built America – the Aryans, then you destroy America.
Thank God for Professors like Kevin!
Indeed it is hard to understand for many. I suggest you keep and eye on both sex and ethnicity in psychology and how this has changed dramatically over the past fifty years or so, and with this the very nature of psychology. Dig out two papers by Winston on the views and behaviours of two of the major players in psychology before WWII.
David
I should have said it’s hard to believe that our people would actually be inspired and listen to non-Whites or Jews like Boas or Freud. I only look to my own people for wisdom. I was born racially aware so I think I see things differently. I don’t need 1000 psychology books to understand what’s natural and what’s un-natural – It comes naturally to me.
TT
Competitive altruism seems to play a major role ( http://www.amren.com/ar/2003/10/index.html#cover )
These egg heads in their Ivory Towers love to look down on the White Working Class who do not have degrees.
Also the fact is Psychology has been massively feminized. I work at a research level University and know this first hand. There seems to be a link between White Femininity and liberal attitudes. ‘It takes a village’ and all that.
Who are ‘our people’ though? Surely it’s best to go by what is said regardless of who says it or where it is said? If one sees and/or hears of a rule or way of doing something which works better than what one has used to date, then surely one would be foolish not to use the new rule/practice instead of the old? It does not matter who the source was. The source should be acknowledged simply so others too can find the source of the new behaviours, but this does not mean the source should be credited or rewarded for doing what they have done, as often they too have just passed on, i.e. made more public, work which is usually the joint product of many others.
Sadly, we live in a highly narcissistic, dysgenic, Libertarian society which is far too false credit and blame orientated. For all too many in Libertarian academia (like the media and elsewhere) treat knowledge just like women treat clothing, desperate to stand out, be noticed, be different and admired at all costs. It’s a very human feminized-brain peacock behaviour to attract mates behaviour, and it’s truly comical when one sees it for what it is. Male brained-people in healthy non Libertarian cultures share their skills in a more productive manner in service of the common good. The community.
Do they? First, that can only be about half the population these days if the US is anything like the UK, and many of those people will be pretty rough diamonds surely, the sort of people which some meritocrats or WNs reading and posting to this blog want to isolate themselves from (somewhere up in the N.W allegedly – would the N.W want them one has to ask?). Second, everyone is working-class if they don’t just earn their income through capital. That’s the distinction between worker and captitalist. University staff are members of the working-class. They get paid of their intellectual labour. They were defined as workers in the USSR constitution too.
Most talk of class is either obfuscation or Libertarian incitement of class-conflict, a marketing strategy to facilitate hawking of product via assessing consumer opinion/demand by demographics whilst eroding group allegiance? They incite competition to keep individualism as freedom of choice alive, as that’s good for sales. The alternative risks people bonding together more generally which is potentially bad for sales, as it might lead to consumer protection legislation, market regulation, or market-unfriendly principles such as riba by Muslims. It’s best to secularise the masses. Erode sex, race, religious differences etc, promote equalitarianism. It is good for selling college and books. It’s good for sales of debt especially. It’s good for the money supply. Good for Wall Street. Liberalism is bad for business. Teh USA waged a Cold War against it for 40 years.
Libertarianism is the American Dream. Sadly, it seems to be becoming the American Nightmare/Tragedy as its people undermine their own communities, led on by some of its own academics. Is it Intentional?
Kevin sagaciously writes that “The White majority among these social psychologists have been recruited in a war framed in terms of moral abstractions, a war against their own people. It’s a disease that Whites are particularly prone to”. Correct you are, Kevin! It is a clear cut case of mind poisoning, the surreal ability of many Whites to internalize ludicrous fantasies and delusions, and smugly wallow in them. Huge majorities of the White population have now been narcotized with this self-righteous, yet, self-destructive intellectual effluvium. Tragically, this warped thinking has now been “normalized” by the mind altering parasites of the media. Every people carries the genetic seeds of their own destruction, and in the case of the deracinated White Western intelligentsia, these toxic seeds have sprouted grotesquely, and have spread like a mental plague. This racial death wish miasma has always been latent among Whites, but since the Enlightenment, it has grown like an ideological cancer. In the last hundred years or so, this White tomfoolery has been compounded and accelerated by the pernicious, subversive influence of Jewish dissimulation. As a matter of fact, White, or more specifically, Anglo credulity is what made our dispossession by racial aliens possible. These ‘useful idiots’ now function as Judas Goats, or, a domesticated Jewish Golem, if you will. White America now functions, basically, as a de-facto Jewish colony, and, a very exploited one at that.
You have written on this vital subject before, and, for the sake of really understanding ourselves and being better able to deal with our ethnic foibles, please investigate it in more depth. Our survival depends on it.
@ Junghans …
Since the signing of the “Atlantic Charter” on 14 August 1941 in Newfoundland, the USA has been the defacto ‘leader’ of the Western (i.e., White) world.
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the post-war independence of British and French possessions, the ‘right’ of the Third World to freely enter Europe and North America, and much more are all derived from the Atlantic Charter. This document was likely authored, or at least part authored, by FDR’s primary advisor, the New York City born and long-term U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr.
Morgenthau (a ‘German’ Jew) advocated the summary execution without trial of the top 50 or 100 alleged NSDAP ‘criminals’.
This next article explains what the USA has ACTUALLY been ever since its declared Bankruptcy in March of 1933:
The U.S. Corporation and the Maritime Flag
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/406/269/The_U.S._Corporation_and_the_Maritime_Flag.html
Following the signing of the Atlantic Charter, the ‘elites’ in both Britain and America were then recruited to sell a string of strange ideas to the masses; helped along of course by many Communist professors, authors, and luvvy media whores. I suspect this is what you were indirectly referring to when you wrote:
That is when the narcotization truly got under way … during World War Two.
…this warped thinking has now been “normalized” by the mind altering parasites of the media.”
Don’t forget the dynamic possibilities in “the return of the repressed,” one of the best notions invented by our adversaries.
What happens to white academics in academia is exactly what happens to hollywood actors or MSM personalities: if they dont play by the master’s rules they not only do not get to play but they are quite simply marginalized or destroyed.
As a psych major in college 40 years ago I found mostly the whole field even then a viciously anti-white pro-left group who should have been labeled terrorists and jailed. I can’t think it’s improved any.
I would have to agree that sociology, like psychoanalysis, is not a true science. I have a family member who I love but who also happens to be a sociology professor at a prestigious university. It seems that sociology starts from a premise (whites oppressing minorities, especially African Americans) and then develops studies and theories which validate this premise. For example, to examine racial profiling by police officers, sociologists developed a system where police officers in Chicago are required to fill out cards that indicate the race of each individual they give a ticket to as well as the violation which led to the initial stop and whether or not contraband was found. From this study sociologists concluded that although whites are pulled over far fewer times even though they are far more likely to have illegal drugs in their possession. What the study failed to mention (and what the officers knew) is that these were white individuals wandering into black neighborhoods to purchase drugs. By only interpreting the results of the study in a way that would match their preconceived notions the sociologists missed the larger picture.
“It seems that sociology starts from a premise (whites oppressing minorities, especially African Americans) and then develops studies and theories which validate this premise.”
Rick, I think what you are describing is the misuse of what otherwise is a valid, legitimate discipline. Sociology is the study of class, society, and groups generally. These things do not depend on PC in any way.
I do agree that sociology, along with the rest of the social sciences and humanities, need to exorcise out their PC ideology.
A tall order.
The major problem in this area (Public Services provided by Public Sector employees, note that in the UK most universities are in the Public Sector) is not ‘Liberal’ academic Political Correctness, but how the law actually controls the behaviours of those in Public (state funded) employment. This is what is referred to in Behaviour Analysis as rule-governed behaviour.
Across the EU (the post WWII US European Project), Human Rights legislation (now largely subsumed under the Equality Act 2010 in the UK’s case) has long made it an offence for Public Sector employees to discriminate with respect to delivery of public services (e.g. policing) on grounds of race or other ‘Protected Characteristics’. Do you see what the effect of that must have on the delivery of Public Sector services? Many who have dutifully worked for the state do indeed feel somewhat like Vogons or that they work for GOSPLAN, but that is just the nature of Public Service employees anywhere in the world, under any government. Is is like the military.
What I am suggesting we are really seeing here if one stands back and looks at it objectively, is right-wing Libertarian politics at work. Some find it very hard to see how this operates, but the exercise is well worthwhile. Look at the effects (consequences) of the law, noting that these laws are all democratically passed in ‘Liberal’-Democracies (more accurately, Libertarian-Democracies), and how, like Freedom of Information legislation, Human Rights (Civil Rights in the USA) legislation primarily targets Public Sector bodies/employees – especially senior administrators (note, it does make one a ‘commie’ to work for the state, though I can see how such charges may deter potential employees ;-).
What I have been posting here in recent weeks requires at least some familiarity with how legislation is drafted and then operates, how the Public Sector works, and how it has been being ‘rolled-back’ (eroded) across Liberal-Democracies, especially since 1979/80. Look into how and why ‘Think Tanks’ are resourced. Have a look into the World League for Freedom and Democracy and what’s it’s aims and methods are (see 1978 President), remembering that for many years the West aggressively waged a costly Cold War against Soviet regulators. What better way to facilitate this domestically but to educate/radicalise (whilst indebting note) vast numbers of essentially anarchistic, highly narcissistic students in argumentative ‘disciplines’ such as the social ‘sciences’ and humanities (if not Business Studies and MBAs)?
Some were working on this long before Summers made his ‘controversial’ Harvard statement in 2005. Look at where sub-prime loans were targeted – essentially the more impulsive, child-like, least bright. So, what practical economic function might rendering ‘unpopular’ Behaviour Analysis (note that Behavioural Economics is all about impulsivity and self-control) along with basic research on the biological basis (Behaviour Genetics) of individual differences (e.g race and sex) serve do you think? Might it make calls for protective regulation from the democratic people less noticeable/audible? Once one understands the immutable (genetic) nature of human diversity, caveat emptor is seen to be highly immoral, in fact, in some people’s eyes along with deregulation it becomes a vampirish crime against the people especially as they become ever more child-like through differential/dysgenic fertility.
Jason Speaks refers to Haidt’s article at
http://www.edge.org/q2009/q09_4.html#haidt
is cool. Seems to have some of the ideas in “10,000 year explosion” by Cochran and Harpending, but Haidt is not afraid to be more controversial (if at that same time protecting himself by being in other places very conventional, though some of the conventionality is valid.)
What ethnicity is Haidt, and is the behaviour genetic?
That passage by Haidit about the coming war over ethnic differences in moralized traits is almost shocking, coming from a well known scholar at at top university. I can only hope it’s true. I hope it reflects his intimate knowledge of new studies and projects coming out in the next few years.
Some behaviours are self-fulfilling prophesies brought about by those who actively socially network in their own and thus group’s interest. Often it’s difficult to determine the ethnic identity of those emitting such behaviours, especially when such agents of change/censure/censorship disguise themselves via subterfuges such as name-changes etc.
In the end, it’s just behaviours which matter of course – which has been <a href="said many times before of course:
Trotskyites/Libertarians/anarchists foment conflict/competition – as it’s good for business, bad for regulators.
David Longley, if a real person, is making very strange nonsensical posts. His responses are really non-responses to other people’s posts, which he uses (abuses) as props to repeat a few pretty simple ideas. His posts are generally filled with non sequiturs.
He’s supposed to be for real, but I would never believe it, if credible people weren’t vouching for him. It reminds me of the supertroll Severus from a while back. By the way, the site “Severus” was linking to has totally disappeared – it’s spooky that these people go to so much work to pull these cons.
David Longley says:
You don’t seem to have accepted that ‘mind’ is a myth, a construction (largely constructed by Jewish psychologists in the 60s and 70s, which was being replaced by good extensional scientific research elsewhere in the life-sciences.”
I’m only an amateur, but several things seem wrong with that statement and it makes up the core of Longley’s argument. Almost no serious scientist is saying the mind is a “myth”, no matter how much they discount the importance of mental states people experience subjectively. Hardly anyone is saying they are unimportant. There is a lot of talk about how the brain creates the mind and perhaps a type of narrative self, but this doesn’t mean the mind is not worthy of study or that it is irrelevant.
The mind is not mere epiphenomenon. It exists for a reason (even if you reduce to our experience of it), or it wouldn’t have evolved and been maintained for so long. Perhaps our sense of self is our theory-of-mind that we originally applied to other creatures turned back on ourselves, as some have suggested, but this doesn’t make it devoid of content or unworthy of study, as you seem to suggest.
Also, why would you say the mind was myth invented in the 60s by Jews? That seems bizarre. Something very much like the modern notion of the mind has been in existence for thousands of years. William James and other psychologists were studying the mind long before then.
Please don’t let Longley waste your – extremely valuable – time Professor MacDonald.
This is about the abuse or misunderstanding of mentalistic language (intensional verbs) in explanatory positions when referring to observations of behaviour/physical events in lieu of, or as a distraction from, pursuing useful explanations. That is not done or condoned elsewhere in science, and such intensional terms (which have peculiar/idiosyncratic linguistic/logical characteristics) have always given way in the end to better, i.e extensional, measures. Psychological language per se is best seen as just a modus vivendi, something to be replaced, i.e. a language of ignorance. If people here had not been so keen to give the thumbs down to so many of the earlier comments on this important issue, some may have gone and looked it up, and paid more attention to what was being drawn attention to. What happened in the 60s and 70s was a revisionist rebirth of mentalism and was largely the work of Jewish psychologists who either never understood the force of Skinner and Quine’s critiques of mentalism and the work on the EAB, or egregiously saw an opportunity to translate sound empirical work within the EAB and logic into obsolete terms for a dumber generation in order to hawk an ersatz product for personal gain.
This is not a acdemic issue. It has had serious adverse consequences, some of which I have drawn attention to in this blog in recent weeks. You say you are an amateur. So why are you arguing with a professional?
It’s quite clear that there’s some material which you don’t want people’s attention drawn to. Is it anything specific? The genetics of NCAH, brain-gender, stress, the PDs, stature etc? The relative IQs by ethnicity in NYC as a function of population sizes in relation to financial hegemony, the nature of right-wing Libertarianism and political correctness with the egregiously false attribution to ‘liberals’ i.e communitarians in order to sway people against those politics in favour of right-wing LIbertarianism and the markets? or maybe you don’t know? Whatever it is, perhaps it would be better to openly discuss your grievances in the context of the evidence so others can judge? You do believe in open discussion and free speech don’t you?
You say you are an amateur. So why are you arguing with a professional?
If you are a professional, why are you posting volumes as a mere guest commentator for free?
More to the point, your posts don’t seem to be in agreement with other professionals in science. No one serious is claiming the mind is a “myth”. Perhaps as I believe Someday mentioned, there are spectrums of autism that may make it difficult for some individuals to even imagine the existence of a mind.
Temple Grandin has discussed condition with much eloquence. It is apparently difficult for people with autism to imagine other people even have a mind and this may also be true, in a milder sense, for people with Asberger’s syndrome.
But I am aware of almost no serious scientist that holds the mind is a myth, or that there is nothing of value to be learned by studying the “mental life” of subjects. Nor have I heard any scientist say this “mental language” was created or revived by Jews in the 60s.
Try and read this positively and not as a personal attack, as it genuinely isn’t. It is instructive, but helpfully challenging. Take that as a genuine statement of friendship.
You are amateur, so that is probably just a self-report of your limited awareness of science surely? Note the terms you use to describe your own understanding? You tacitly acknowledge this, I am telling you and others something that I have seen you do not know. That is why I am posting here. There is a vast amount of work which has been done, but it is behavioural, not mentalistic/cognitivist. Cognitive behaviours are perhaps best seen as behaviours which are mediated by the cranial nerves. Or, classes of behaviours which are elaborated i.e configured in time. I provided three links to three short online pieces on this matter posted to an AI group in the early noughties, did you read them? It is an alternative to Minsky’s ‘Society of Mind’ idea of agencies. It is based on neuroanatomy and behavioural neuroscience.
Did you ever read the Herrnstein (Jewish) paper I provided to on ‘Rational Choice Theory’ in 1990? Did not the title alone raise an eyebrow? That one paper is probably at least a day’s reading for any educable person.
Not so, see Paul and Pat Churchland for two. The truth is that you are talking to someone who has worked on all this for many years and you are arguing. Did you read “Fragments of Behavior: The Extensional Stance”? It provides an (hard to read I understand in parts) explanation of what I am referring to on this matter using a deceptively simple analysis of Skinner box lever pressing behaviour to explain what a picoanalysis of Operant behaviour amounts to in place of cognition (see Ainslie also on picoeconomics).
Is your behaviour not just a little bit eccentric given that I have said that most of psychology itself is not taken very seriously by most in science? That is a fact you know. They don’t take psychology seriously becasuse psycholgists can’t measure anything peoperly, and if you can’t do that, one can’t know what one is talking about with colleagues. ‘Psyhologists’ tend to unwittingly collude in this, they tend not to even ask each other. Scientists do that for a living! You should read most in psychology as just creative writing mainly. A good read, but not much else. I am talking as an Applied Behaviour Analyst who now does research in intelligence but one who knows the evidence on efficiacy. I am not talking about material suitable for Hollywood scripts or pop science books. What I have to say has a bearing on our economies and mass behaviour.
They have a communication problem. The disorder is classed as such. Autistics have difficulty reading and responding to other people’s behaviours. They do not have problems reading people’s ‘minds’ or making up ‘models of minds’ etc. This is all bad metaphor for people who do not know how to analyse behaviour and communicate about it. That is, such language is by people who do not discriminate very well, i.e. people who are bad at science etc. Who else has problems with spatial discrimination about classes? Which group has lower spatial than verbal IQ on average? Have you been reading my comments and following the links?
This is important. Take note of how you refer to eloquence, and not scientific control of variables? You appear to be (and many do this these days) judging writers on how good a narrative (story) they can create. This is a good part of my overall point about the feminization of psychology and social sciences/humanities. Where is the science? A credible explanation is not a persuasive populist story which appeals to a mass of people and can be sold like a perfume, but one which provides others with the means to better predict and control behaviour (be it human behaviour, or that of a fridge, or auto etc). Now who discourages such behaviours? What have the economic and political consequences been for the USA and EU manufacturing industries etc? If you go to the SEAB website and look for papers on autism you will find that autism is one of the areas where Behaviour Analysis has made a major contribution to the better management of autism, which in the end must be the touchstone of researchers’ utility surely? It is control that matters. What is the point of understanding if it does not improve management/control?
You do not seem to have grasped what science is all about. It is about better predicting and controlling our way in the world. Undermine that and you undermine the economy too.
As you said, you are an amateur, and that is why I say you are behaving arrogantly (look this up) You don’t want to be told. You have prejudices and you want to hold on to them it seems. I have been pointing this out to a lot of people here that such narcissism (arrested development/anarchism) is endemic have I not? Why? I have provided references so that people here could independently corroborate or refute what I have told them. I have repeatedly pointed to the ETS Perfect Storm material in Feb 2007 so they could see the dire consequences – did you watch the video even?. Have you ever done as instructed?
I am telling you. I have given you and others lots of sound reasons to accept this, but because I have not been tooting my own horn, portraying myself as a guru with peer awards gongs and awards as in Hollywood etc, you and others are demonstrably unable to judge the truth or falsehood (i.e value) of what I have been posting since January. My point throughut is that one should go by the objective evidence, not by popular acclaim. That takes intelligence, reasonably above average intelligence, and that is both in shorter supply and ever more feminized, for reasons which I have given in abundance if you look.
Now what does that tell you about the sad state of Liberal-Democracy? But there you go again, telling us what you do not know. Ask yourself (or someone else who is objective preferably) why do you take what you do not know as a basis for arguing with someone who, should on the face of the evidence, know better? Is that not narcissistic/anarchistic behaviour on your part?
Perhaps you confuse arguing with trying to learn from others? Note that these (learning and arguing) are two Natural Language intensional idioms of propositional attitude (i.e. psychological verbs), which, as I have explained in other comments since January (see also Quine and others) are in fact highly problematic verbs for demonstrably logical reasons (a) substitutivity of identity salva veritate and b) existential quantification in. These are (in Natural Language i.e common sense language) terms used in our private behaviour, a domain which is not as under the control of the verbal reinforcing community as is other behaviours are. We have a harder time using them properly/accurately as a consequence.
Take note, Applied Behaviour Analysis and management in my field was often about trying to save lives, it was not academic or about good story telling/selling.
David Longley – please consider giving a concise and simple description of your world view as it concerns Whites and Jews. Enough of the guess work and links. Try to write this explanation in common language – most here are not in your field. When I talk to people outside my field (medicine), I use language they understand; can you not do the same? I’ve only been able to decipher a few things from your posts: 1. liberals, PC, hate crimes laws, immigration, and globalization are due to libertarian influence. 2. Increasing numbers of women in power have something to do with it 3. Jews are not an issue 4. somehow this all relates back to behavioral analysis.
I want to hear your hypothesis first, before looking at any evidence.
You seem to have something substantive to learn is the best explanation I can provide for your difficulties. You are not alone. Give what I have been posting some time to settle. That is something which you must do.
That isn’t surprising. What I have to say is not difficult, but it is counter-intuitive given the prevailing Libertarian propaganda, most of which operates by subterfuge/deception.
To try to expose some of it for what it is, let’s look further afield to the far East and see if that helps you and others focus upon what’s now been said many ways, on a central theme in The Bell Curve and which really goes back to research on individual differences way back as far as the 1930s when it was already known to eugenicists that intelligence that was probably largely genetic and immutable. One has to ask why hordes of undergraduates ever came to believe the contrary, i.e that anyone could learn and be taught anything if they were just had the right parents/teachers/environments? It was never promulgated by Behaviour Analysts like Skinner for example, so where did it come from? There has never been any evidence that this could be done. Why have those pointing out the contrary been silenced?
This is, I have said, right-wing PC Libertarian political propaganda to ensure that regulation, which would protect naive/vulnerable consumers, is kept at bay as regulation and a grasp of the immutability individual differences is bad for business. The promotion of personal choice, freedom, responsibility etc as universal characteristics along with Human Rights is very good for business as business/financial services etc can argue that individuals make rational, responsible choices and so Caveat emptor suffices. It doesn’t as people are irrational, and many are easily duped (think the old, the young cerebrally etc especially). Such people have been, and increasingly are, preyed upon. What have social science people been peddling for decades?
Many appear to have been severely ‘brainwashed’/misled through Libertarian propaganda, or actively help reinforce it.
Question: What is Japan’s biggest problem?. What is Germany’s> Once you have read the above, go and have a look at the rates for Europe generally and think about the nature of the political-economies which people like Paul Wolfowitz have been so proud of exporting, especially over the past 30 years. Then look up what other people like Jeffrey Sachs go about saying (see his BBC Reith Lecture a few years back). Why has there been so much immigration in the USA and EU? If you are happy with this democratization process, fine. I call it anarchism. What do they all have in common?
How did these slow burning demographic problems come about do you think? Might it has been post-war denazification? Was that a ‘Liberal’ programme? If so why was there ever a Cold War against ‘Liberals’?
Give it some time.
David,
There are still too many question marks – why do you insist on this kind of Socratic dialogue?
Inheritability of IQ, low birth rates in Japan and Europe, IMF and globalization (industrialization and debt burden of less developed nations), and anarchism/libertarianism. Put it together for me – why make me work?
I read the paper on how people make choices; people are not rational and thus need regulation for protection -is that the idea?
This does not form a clear picture for me; not like the hypothesis of ethnic warfare does. For example, libertarian philosophy enables big business in the form of deregulation – I’ll buy that. However, population reduction (due to changing female roles in business) does not aid big business -it hurts economic growth. Initially, the doubling of the work force (and consumers) is a plus for business but the subsequent population reduction (that you cite) doesn’t fit. Can you put it all together without the interrogative sentences? Please.
Was the goal to increase immigration into first world countries? A dumbing down of the work force/consumers? At the same time weakening regulation?
Still, population reduction doesn’t fit – it kills economic growth. I suppose the population reduction in 1st world nations could be offset by 3rd world growth – but eventually, third world people will follow the 1st world with feminism and population reduction – not a good long term strategy ( yet I’m guessing here, since you won’t spell it out).
But Sachs is all about reducing population in 3rd world nations – so it is an overall population reduction that they are after. Again, why would big business be backing this plan? What about population reduction helps economies and business?
Don’t be naive. Which group listens to people like Sachs? Note how you persist in talking in terms of imagined intentions (a subclass of intensions), not consequences? Until you correct that basic error, you won’t follow what I have been posting. YOu have not understood the nature of Differential Fertility either, nor the consequences of immigration on consumerism and borrowing.
You need to stand back and spend far more time examining whether I have been telling you something far more subtle than you have yet grasped.
No. I have already made it clear. You just have not grasped it. The only way you ever will is if you do some work. You may never be able to do that of course. Why do you think it’s not clear and obvious to many other people? It’s the same reason you misunderstood the Twin Study work in sexual preference.
You’ve already made it clear – that’s funny.
State your hypothesis clearly or stop wasting space.
I think we all understand that anyone openly pro-white will face endless hurdles in academia as well as a great many other situations; the anti-whites understand very well their dominance depends on keeping pro-whites out. To this end they will invest considerable time and effort as well as money.
On the subject of psychology I don’t believe very many people realize how far it’s advanced toward doing real harm to people when those with the knowledge use it for evil ends.
Rather than wasting time with largely meaningless, esoteric rhetoric which serves no real purpose at all other than leaving us at the mercy of our enemies, wouldn’t it be more helpful to discuss ways of defending our race; of even carrying the attack to them?
Yes, but who are your enemies. I suspect what you write is basically correct, but it appears to me that many people here won’t be told where to look, or have erroneous preconceptions which stop them from doing so. I suggest you put a few hours (days?) aside to read this paper. It should be a bit of a workout for many, but it as it summarises decades of sound laboratory and field work, even a weekend on it would not be inappropriate. Whilst doing so, think about the predatory-lending which all but ruined the US economy and is costing many other nations across Europe their Public Sector assets, jobs, and homes, in order to bail out those who perpetrated this. Did one serve the other one might ask? The above paper highlights behaviours which have, I suggest, been abused through exploitation of human ‘cognitive psychology’ (see the Libertarian Paternalists behind ‘Nudge’ and its anti Statism at the expense of better regulating behaviours to protect people in the light of research into the Quantitative Genetics of behavioural diversity, which was what The Bell Curve was probably really all about from Herrnstein’s perspective (although maybe not Murray’s?) given all his other published work. It is obfuscation, via mentalism/cognitivism of the sound Operant Behaviour Analyses which, as I have been saying here over recent weeks (and elsewhere for years), accounts for such abuse. Anti-racism, anti-sexism and anti-’behaviourism’ served a Libertarian not ‘Liberal’ agenda, one which all too few appear to appreciate, and which all too many are still happy (albeit often unwittingly perhaps) to be a party to at their collective longer term cost.
Good Article Kevin , there are so many implications from this lot of absurd group of bigoted intellectuals–Scombies I like to call them : Scholar Zombies .Certainly this group as so many departments of the arts have become a ridiculous caricature of Defenders of Knowledge AND they should be ridiculed ; many we would find are merely club loving status worms and when the fashion moves on so would they–that would separate the Zionists from the bigots- [Would make an excellent cartoon--Perhaps White hats with a few black hats in the audience ] .In so many ways they mirror the evil communist predecessors and their “State” psychologists .
I like in a small white town in Australia ; where I can still joke with the locals without having to navigate ethnic cultural divisions and their bigotries (Which Jews are so keen to create) , though unfortunately the pestilence of the Masons is here–Always willing to serve the ‘Supreme Being’-As their credo demands , by informing and spying (sic).Mostly old fools and nobodies who dreary life is spent watching tv , until they get a chance to be ‘somebody.’ .Like these Psyco Scombies , they are waiting for father Christmas , cause HE knows ‘Who’s been naughty and who’s been nice.’
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and these cowardly ignorant fools do it will a smile on their face–Just like many of their evil communist predecessors !
I do hope dis is relevaant !
Concentration Camp Game Was Meant To Be ‘Fun’
http://kotaku.com/#!5711317/concentration-camp-game-was-meant-to-be-fun
“When you speak to survivors of the Holocaust, you quickly learn they have difficulty transmitting the horrors that they went through,” Rabbi Cooper said when asked for comment about the game. ”
Translation: They have difficulty making up fictional statements on-the-fly which will conform perfectly with the revised history forced upon the world for decades by threat of force (and which is forbidden to question or research).
If you don’t believe that, just research the ultimately retracted original lies perpetrated about Germans against Jews: Lampshades made from Jewish skin; Soap made from Jewish body fat; Jewish bodies turned into road tar; etc.
Such shocking claims are always made to galvanize citizens for or against some activity, as when the young girl lied about Iraqi soldiers dumping newborns onto the floor out of incubators as an additional reason to invade that country. That was in the mainstream intel-controlled news by the way, and later debunked.
“I don’t think even the best combination of game developers would ever be successful [at doing so].”
Translation: These amateurs are completely untrained in intelligence propaganda psyops and might therefore undermine in some small way the extremely carefully crafted narrative.
The crazy thing is: there ARE numerous kill-the-nazi video games out. Maybe the pushback on these guys is that they’re not intel-agency backed for kosher release (even though the lead guy is Israeli)
I don’t know what the big deal is. After all, the ‘powers that be’ sanctioned that Jewish bloody revenge WWII flick “Inglorious Basterds” (which I didn’t and never will see). They like to portray ecstatic mayhem by Jews against Germans as something sacred.
One can look at this another way, taking the hostility (and it is excessive/obsessive), as evidence of a class of behaviour which is itself malignant. Such behaviour, still published/broadcast long after the end of WWII is de facto evidence of behaviour counting against Jewish people, given that many now find the behaviour hostile/offensive. It might even make more ask what function it has all been serving since 1945. What has it sustained… and what it’s cost has been? See also Japan and other nations effectively forced to adopt Libertarian-Democracy after WWII.
Such behaviour could even be said to have been an act of demographic/economic warfare which is proscribed by the Article II of the UN Covention on Genocide.
The problem is it would be impossible to bring a charge, let alone prove it. Still, what else explains the pattern and the resistance by some nations to the USA’s continued efforts to export this?
I agree with a lot of what you said. And I also had the same reservations about Inglorious Basterds, but saw it anyway. Violence against Germans is glorified as you would expect, but I can say there are a few things about the movie that do get a little edgy with regard to the standard view.
1. The Jewish team assembled is portrayed as bloody seekers of revenge. There are references to the German fear of Jewish revenge in the movie.
2. The role that propaganda plays, especially in movies, is explored.
3. There is a scene where Churchill laughs about the Nazis using movie propaganda to “beat the Jews at their own game”, an implicit admission that Jews run Hollywood.
4. The German Colonel is portrayed as highly intelligent and urbane, while the American is … not so much.
It’s subtle, but a few Jewish reviewers picked up on something a bit “off” in the movie. It doesn’t quite conform to the standard script we have always seen.
Having said that, it still holds up most of the themes we have come to expect. And of course, it is bloody cynical violence for it’s own sake. So I wouldn’t recommend it.
David, are you connected with ETS? Why are you citing their material? What opinions do you hold about the Educational Testing Service? They seem to have some ideological bent in addition to their role as provider of the SAT, GRE, and other tests.
No, but I was working on similar data trends drawn from the UK and elsewhere in the mid noughties whilst preparing for some papers with Lynn, I thought I had covered this. People doing work like this circulate data and analyses privately. Some of the data and the warnings were known well before the Feb 2007 ETS report, much earlier. For instance, Lynn provided warnings about what was likely to happen to the USA given trend data without explicit reference to the economy, even before his book with Vanhanen in 2002. The basic concerns have been known for some time, and can be traced way back past The Bell Curve (1994), Herrnstein (1971), all the way to Cattell in the 1930s.
Some of us were concerned in the late 80s, given trends we were spotting in my field offending behaviour which primaily happens at the other end of the Bell Curve (as I have mentioned before). Whilst such actuarial analyses are a major part of all Government planning, all across the world, many people, especially in academica were very slow to catch on probably because they did not have access to population level data as government researchers did. Most simply have not taken this in, as ETS remark themselves in the video. This work has become much more population level based in the last couple of decades due to cheap data collection and analysis. In the UK, we have had individual trend data on nearly all school kids going back at least a decade, these data are IQ proxies and control variables, and they are powerful data which bear on the economy. See also OECD PISA data since 2000.
For comparison, the populations of Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nigeria (all lowish mean IQ countries, Nigeria (~70) a SD (15 points) below the others) have more than tripled to over 150 million each in the same period that the English population only rose to about 50 million.
Because a) their data and report were convenient for people in the USA b) they are the largest, and probably most highly respected Education Testing Service in the world, c) the trend data bore on the imminent Credit Crunch (which predictably followed some months later).
The same as anyone else who works in this area. They are a major player – the major player in the USA. I was using UK data of the same sort in the mid noughties. It was why I was working with Lynn. From my perspective, as I have said before, this is what the research is all about.
The trend data is the much the same across other Libertarian-Democracies, it’s just somewhat more opaque for most in the USA possibly because of the larger non White population and the higher than replacement level birth-rate amongst the Catholic Hispanics. What many need to grasp is that they are behaving more ‘normally’ i.e in a biological fit manner. It is Whites who are not. Yet many blame those invited to make up the birth-dearth for their problems. What if their problems are a consequence of their own Libertarian political ideology? Note the Japanese have these problems, as do the Singaporeans, South Koreans etc. What do they share with East Europeans/Russians (since 1989?)
“Request: Please only down-vote abusive comments, not comments you merely disagree with or dislike.”
Readers here should think carefully about that request and how they continue to react to what they find unappealing i.e. by voting down what they do not like/agree with, particulary as it hides material from others. This is precisely the behaviour which brought this about over many years. It’s what Solzenitzen spoke about in his Harvard address in 1978.
That being so, continuing such behaviour is not in the best interest of the collective.
Be careful when creating and lauding charismatic gurus too, as the Cult of Personality is part of the same problem. It tends to foment internecine conflict, which is generally how Libertarians subvert other groups. See Human Rights groups and foreign states.
Longley, you are abusive in most of your posts.
And beyond the personal insults you engage in, the repetitive nature of your posts …. narrow and repetitive … over and over … like someone with Autism or Asberger’s syndrome … itself constitutes a kind of abuse.
If you have those syndromes I commend you on overcoming them to the extent you have. Perhaps this is an issue of social skills. Unsolicited long winded monologues are never advisable. It can prove embarrassing when you discover its lack of value to your involuntary listener.
And the fact that you just referred to Kevin MacDonald as a “guru” in the Cult of Personality sense is deeply dishonest on your part. There is criticism and debate of his theories all the time on this blog, even by guest writers. And you find differing views all the time in the comments section. That accusation is a slur on MacDonald and the readers of this blog.
I don’t know what your game is, but you are not being honest.
Like this?
Yes David, Einstein and Newton were very smart and may, according to some definitions have had a mild form of autism called Asberger’s. Of course, that doesn’t mean everyone that has Asberger’s is brilliant, David.
And if someone has that syndrome, they need to be aware that endless repetition of the same point is one of the traits. And it is not effective communication.
And neither is referring to everyone you disagree with as members of a Cult of Personality.
@ David Longley …
Your comments may have been brutally marked “thumbs down” but, rest assured, there is a significant number of TOO visitors who are cherishing your writings, taking them seriously, and giving them the respect they deserve.
I am in no position to discuss or defend the veracity of all you have posted, but what I do now know is that most contain pointers and information of immense potential value. Some of the insights you have kindly offered us have already altered and expanded my thinking, and hopefully also, my understanding. I can happily and publicly thank you for that, David.
For example — and I am having fun here — the rabidly feminine mind of Jason Squeaks can now be seen for what it is. Indeed, the manner in which you responded to this most pathetic, irritating, and grievously ubiquitous poster is evidence of your patience, maturity, and sense of common welfare.
Your exchanges with Professor MacDonald were of course interesting and enlightening. I thank Prof. MacDonald for engaging you here at his blog. There was no winner or loser. Meanwhile, we bystanders gained new knowledge and insights.
I am sorry to witness the churlishness that has been thrown at you on occasion. I have also been frustrated to see some of your best comments heavily marked with “thumbs down”. But that’s people for you! Clearly there are some “regulars” here who will mark you down even before reading what you have written. What does that tell us about ‘democracy’ and the importance of evidence based arguments??
The average British and American metropolitan has long been in a punch drunk condition. So we would be naive to expect the majority still have the capacity to digest challenging new models or frameworks that have the potential to release the psychotic-stranglehold the “evil ones” have over them.
Anyway, despite the exaggerated and misplaced animosity you have attracted from some quarters, I for one do hope you will continue posting comments (while honing your presentation skills!).
Confucius says … Cows are willingly herded into the abattoir; only the Bulls have the balls to stand defiant.
And the above provides further proof that Anglo Saxon is a troll. He doesn’t even mention the vicious attack Longley made against this site by making the silly “cult of personality ” charge.
Everyone now knows Anglo Saxon is a fake troll, so I am not sure what he is trying to accomplish here.
The other funny thing about the trolls like Anglo Saxon and Der Weenerschnitzel and Adam and all the other is how he fails to maintain a consistent tone for each personality. Apparently, not quite enough IQ points. If you look back over any one of these persona’s posts, you will see the tone and vocabulary changes.
Pretty sad troll attempt.
You do not appear to have learned much from the alleged repetitions. You do not appear to have seen the subtle differences between the posts either, which is evidence of failure of discrimination on your part perhaps, which in my way of analysing behaviour is prima facie evidence of impaired intelligence.
Second, if autism, like other expressions of human diversity, is genetic, even if were possible, what difference might becoming self-aware of such behaviours make? That is, if the above scientists had been effectively encouraged to become less ‘autistic’, what might the consequences have been?
Third did you note the ethnicity of Baron-Cohen? How about Haidt?
Fourth, you do not appear to have understood the full implications of the fact that autism, and others expressions of behaviour, are not terms of personal abuse but expressions of human (in the case of autism, predominantly male) genetic diversity, which, like intelligence, and race, are immutable.
Fifth, In a feminized society, how are those skilled in logic and science likely to be seen by the more verbal, feminized-brained?
Did you ever look into what ‘Apposite Allocation’ in the PROBE project was about in this respect? Did you appreciate that this served to lay the foundations for better management of behaviours at the other end of the curve to the cognitive elite?
My posts have generally been drawing attention to the merits of finding apposite places for genetically expressed behaviours (and other phenotypes). You appear to have missed this. Perhaps if you had spent less time counting and complaining (about posts), being abusive/disrespectful, you’d have had more time to read them more carefully, and you might have grasped more of this by now? On the other hand, perhaps your behaviour is incorrigible? Perhaps you just like conflict? There will be those who are attracted to controversial blogs like this for that very opportunity.
Anglo Saxon February 13, 2011 – 3:33 am The average British and American metropolitan has long been in a punch drunk condition. So we would be naive to expect the majority still have the capacity to digest challenging new models or frameworks that have the potential to release the psychotic-stranglehold the “evil ones” have over them. “
Your comment will no doubt accumulate many thumbs downs, as will anyone else who endorses points which I have been making. That might be taken as a sign of the true agenda of blogs like this regardless of people’s stated intentions.
What you say in the highlighted paragraph above is true – but popping that bubble in people’s best interest is distressing for reasons which I have linked to (i.e. over the HPA-Axis and how this relates to stress/personality – see Gray’s Factor Rotation, and what I have said about NCAH, CYP21 etc). I am a little surprised nobody picked up and discussed the NYC demographics, but still, perhaps some will think quietly about these. One of my points has been to draw attention to the fact that the problem will be much larger than the relatively small group classed as hostile Ashkenazim. There is a danger of taking one’s eye of a bigger problem by focusing upon a salient few. The larger problem I have repeatedly suggested is that of those classed as Libertarians, and whilst that invites even greater opposition, it fits the demographic trend data I suggest (see Japan and Germany birth-rates and politics post WWII).
Cameron’s Party’s ‘Big Society’ is, of course, Libertarian anarchism incarnate.
That’s another dishonest post on your part David, they are adding up. You accuse me of counting posts, but you know full well that it was the troll Anglo Saxon who did an elaborate (miss)counting of posts by me and Someday. I merely corrected his mistakes.
And you know that. You are dishonest.
@ David Longley …
Don’t pay too much attention to the voting system. It currently contains a serious flaw. I would estimate, at least one-quarter of all your “Thumb’s Down” votes have been posted by either one of our two most semi-insane and paranoid visitors to this website, namely: “Jason Shrieks” and “Someday” … although “Someday” appears to be the lesser evil.
The nearest I get to your field of specialization is my academic study of Artificial Intelligence. I was training Neural Networks over 15 years ago, and have at times been responsible for complex control systems. Even so, it took me a while to identify the rich vein running through your contributions due to certain petty distractions, such as your rich use of jargon and short-hand explanations (probably because you were rushed and/or because knowing the ‘big-picture’ as you do, you were impatient with the challenge of explaining everything in simple terms for the hoi polloi).
Sadly, the enlightened have always been in the minority, and shall remain so. No matter how hard educated and perceptive people try, they will never entirely convince the majority. This, of course, is the simplest explanation as to why Democracy is a fraud, and should be abandoned as just another Jewish hoax. Progress can only come about when a determined and enlightened minority drag the remainder, kicking and screaming into the light.
Be satisfied with small gains David. We are living through a humungously tumultuous period already. Many people have already hit their overload limits, and are simply unable to absorb new information any faster than they are doing already (which is likely three times faster than they were used to, back in the 1990s!!).
I recommend you refresh your understanding of the Pareto Principle. You can’t buck it. So relax and embrace it. No sense in flogging a horse that isn’t interested in living. Save your good energy for those who have the good sense to return the compliment, or at least show respect. There is a major cull on the horizon. So please make sure you have battened down your particular hatches.
Cameron’s “Big Society”? Yep, I roger that. I think I hear echoes of Bill (Slick Willy) Clinton’s “New Covenant”. The dishonest garbage that kick-started the “Third Way” era.
You have a problem with truth. Note your frequent use of intensional idioms of propositional attitude?
I have repeatedly and clearly, explicated and referenced my long held, and long publicly expressed (which goes back to the mid 1980s) position on this important matter see, which has essentially been my, and others’ radical critique of soft psychology (including ‘Evolutionary Psychology’ and even much of the Psychology of Individual Differences where it is based on self-report measures and narratives), i.e. the misbehaviour of those practicing in those domains. They end up squabbling for quite predicable, logical reasons which should be graspable by those intellectually diligent enough (smart enough?) to be able to read and understand the first link above. You would be wise to take note.
One again, I suggest, in your own best interests, you read this, and the other links provided in this post before replying to me again, as it is quite clear to me that you (and many others writing here) currently do not know what I have been writing about i.e the behaviours I am referring to.
Many of the assertions (i.e beliefs help to be true) and expressed verbally in this thread are empirically false, and logically unsound. You in particular need to identify what these errors are.
Intelligence I remind you, is Normally Distributed and is largely genetic.
A task for you. Go the the College Board site, and llok up SAT data by subject choice at college. Does psychology attract the smartest people?
I would recommend everyone listen to the power point presentation by Jonathan Haidt in the upper right corner on this site. It has tremendous insight into the biases inside universities, especially the “soft” sciences. It’s actually illuminating for all of us.
I would especially invite the trolls to lay down the heavy load of their hate for a few minutes and open up their hearts and minds. Change is coming in the social sciences and this is a great opportunity to grow up, to give up childish things, as the Bible says.
Just imagine trolls – whether Miriam, Caleb, Anglo Saxon, Severis, Anonyma – actually spending 5% of the time you devote to silly ineffective troll maneuvers to actually educating yourselves on the latest advances in science!
Science is an adventure, it cleanses the soul. Instead of going online and pretending to be a mean old WN, you embrace the thrill of discovery. Good luck!
What ethnicity is Jonathan Haidt?
There was nothing remotely abusive about my above post, just an injunction for the trolls to open their hearts and minds.
For all the trolls – Severis, Der Wienerscnitzel, Arthurdecco, Caleb, Adam, Anglo Saxon, Anonyma and all the other pseudonyms that don’t fool anyone, please look into the more interesting work being done by Jewish scholars like Haidt and Pinker and many others. Perhaps that will help you overcome your Leftist bias against fact-based reasoning on issues of race and ethnicity. And maybe you will finally realize that White Advocacy, may in fact be good for the Jews in the long run.
To David Longly,
David, what is your motivation for posting here? Are you interested in helping whites regain their sense of peoplehood or are you interested in disrupting such activities? If you are interested in helping, what is your personal position and in what way do you see your posts as helping? If you are interested in disrupting, why do you want to do accomplish this? Is it the way you feel just for whites or do you want to disrupt all peoples from building up their own sense of ethno-cultural uniqueness? Either way, given that white ethno-cultural identity is pretty much on its back at the moment, where whites and only whites actually face losing their majorities in their homelands in the next 100 years, and whites and only whites are subjected to such derision and shaming tactics that most of them only feel able to talk abotu their feelings on internet lists using anonymous names; surely given all of that you could feel some compassion and go and bully and disrupt, say, Indians or Chinese or Jewish sites?
To educate the misguided.
What do you notice here?.
What is the basic problem facin the USA (and the EU, Japan, S Korea etc)? What happens when this occurs? What happens to jobs? What happens to pensions? What happens to economies?
It seems that you are not reading/understanding my posts. They are based on many years of research. Have you been giving them the thumbs down without reading and understanding them?
Research takes lot of time and perspiration, so why do expect useful information to come easy to you and for nothing? What was the Frattini link all about, what was the ETS link about?
I suggest you ignore the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song-plugger".
I consider David Longley more of a policy wonk than a manifestation of the Messiah destined to lead White European people out of our figurative desert. I think he might agree with me on that. Policy wonks aren’t required to be verbally versatile – only consistent and insistent that we pay attention to the facts we need to know in order to make intelligent decisions about how to fight back against what our admitted enemies are doing to us. Factual consistency not imaginative creativity is what I always look for in a wonk. ;-)
I can’t think of a single one of his positions or opinions, (of the points in his posts I’ve understood), that disrupt or undermine the hopes and aspirations of the majority of the readership here on the Occidental Quarterly.
His clearly stated and oft-repeated position seems to be that we could all benefit from a deeper understanding of the physiology and chemistry that lie behind behaviour etc., if only to better understand who is behind our eradication as a distinctive racial group. (Correct me if I’m mistaken, Mr. Longley.)
I could be way off base with that. As I’ve mentioned before – all of this, while fascinating to me, is well beyond my areas of expertise. Though I am learning …and not just from Mr. Longley. Of course I’m learning loads from Professor MacDonald’s original essays and his sometimes impatient rebuttals to Mr. Longley and others and even from the comments of people like the disingenuous Jason Speaks.
But what kind of movement are we trying to form through conversations like the ones that happen here and elsewhere on the web? Are we looking to create a narrow-minded, exclusionist and therefore fearful group of reactionaries as our mutually-approved method of fighting back against the powerful forces aligned against our interests or should we rather be looking to become a part of a vibrant and sometimes contradictory collective that (ironically) seems more representative of our past European-based societies than the Collectives our enemies have worked hard to create to take their place – repressive societal constructs some of the readers here appear to prefer to those that existed when and where we were in the ascendant?
It is a poison that will kill us as surely as nuclear radiation, this intemperate intolerance for ideas that come from outside our comfort zone.
Let’s face it – most of us reading and posting here, judging by our published opinions, are what we popularly define as “Type A” personalities, comfortable with the sounds of our own voices and more than willing to raise those voices in the defense of our own sometimes mistaken opinions. Deep down are we so unsure of the rightness of our points of view that we would seek to remove any and all contradictory points of view from our conversations?
I’m asking those who so far have been unwilling to allow discordant and disturbing voices like Mr. Longley’s to contribute to the conversation to either ignore his contributions or to choose instead to deal forthrightly with the points he raises in his statements the way Professor MacDonald and several others have chosen to do.
Is that too much to ask?
One more thing – why is it that I am not allowed to agree or disagree with some of Mr. Longley’s more contentious posts? The rating buttons appear to be disabled on several of the comments. Or is that just me? Because if it isn’t just happening to me, it’s something that should disturb us all greatly.
A fair comment overall, but just remember, a good ‘policy wonk’ is one who advises on how best to effect behaviour change.
Might this be classed as a Libertarian site if analysed in terms of consequences?
Not so, see Paul and Pat Churchland for two.
Absolutely hilarious to see the two of them taken seriously.
Please, look up Paul and Patricia!
Comrade Longley:
Thanks for “educating” those of us who you feel are misguided. I was glad to see I wasn’t the only one who wonders why you want to “educate us” toward your anti Libertarianism goal (and I think pro commie). I’m not going to bother asking you if you are white or not, and if you want to help me and my long suffering white brothers. If you really wanted to help us, you would be happy to show some good faith and support our cause with words of affirmation.
I do have a comment on your citation of US demographic trends. They depend heavily upon assumptions of future birthrates and immigracion, which although reasonable projections and rather easy mathematical models to follow, they are not our miserable destiny. We can follow the mormon model and have big, cohesive, loving and patriarchal white families over the next few generations, and possibly save the white race. I hope you all do your duty.
“I was glad to see I wasn’t the only one who wonders why you want to “educate us” toward your anti Libertarianism goal (and I think pro commie).”
“We can follow the mormon model and have big, cohesive, loving and patriarchal white families over the next few generations, and possibly save the white race. I hope you all do your duty.” @Scooter
Explain to me, Scooter, how accusing a poster who advocates for a system of government that protects its weakest members from the malign attentions of it’s worst elements, rich or poor, of being a “Commie” (ROTFLMAO!!!) benefits you or anyone else concerned with your rights as a white citizen of your country.
And when you’ve accomplished that, maybe you could explain to me who it is that is going to pay to feed and house and clothe your big “Mormon” families, Scooter – the ones who are going to save the white race?
Can you tell me how many woman today are prepared to toil away washing diapers for the next 12-15 years of their lives after acting as perpetual baby machines in order to swell the ranks of…who, exactly, Scooter? …People who think like you?
Sorry…so far, you’re not helping.
Hey Art Deco:
Good name, by the way – it is my favorite style of architecture.
Those big mormon “style” (I’m not a mormon, by the way) families will be taken care of by the man of the house, working hard and loving his wife. He can pay his own way – if he is man enough to do it. Most of the pussies who call themselves men now can’t handle it. Most black men don’t even try but I’m sure they enjoy getting drunk every day and blaming their problems on racism.
He (Comrade Longley) advocates collectivism and worships Stalin or some other fellow travelers, and hates the “liberal/libertarian” nations as weak. Sounds kinda commie to me, smart guy. You know of any freedom loving authoritarian nations? Got your traveling pass? A properly functioning free republic doesn’t have to tolerate crime from either its citizens or its government.
I agree with your implication. Sadly, not too many women are willing to put forth the effort to enjoy a big loving family. If our white society were more grateful for all that women do to make life worth living when they attend to their traditional role as wife and mother, maybe women would prefer that to being lesbians in the army.
If we do not swell the ranks of white people, the USA will continue to decline towards loserville. Massively in debt and things falling apart, all of America like Watts – open war on a free society. Show me a well run black country, artboy.
Scooter, please take a deep breath… I am not your enemy. I don’t think you’re my opponent. I honestly think we’re looking for the same things in the same places. But please; go slow on the cheap shots like, “smart guy”. They’re just dumb.
You and I – we disagree about this. So what? Even my wife and I disagree once a month. And we still hold hands like teenagers..
…smooch.
Things just sound like something to you because you don’t discriminate very finely, or are very young. You do not seem to have grasped that in the UK/EU and many other nations, there are Public Sector employees and Private Sector employees. Those working in the Public Sector are employed by the state (‘the people’) and are paid for either from people’s taxes or via Government borrowing. Public Sector employees include Civil Servant administrators, the police, fire-service. military, teachers, doctors, nurses, social workers, prison officers, etc etc and it used to go on and on. In fact it used to be what most people in the UK worked for until it began to be Privatised by Libertarian politicians aka anarchists who did so with promises of improved efficiency, more choice, and lower taxes to the gullible electorate. Those working for the state (‘the people’) are not ‘commies’, but the above anarchists would have some people like you believe that their Civil Servants and Public Sector employees such as the police etc are evil authoritarians out to deprive people of their freedoms! It works best on not very smart people, so the more they can get imported or bred the better for business. They do this to get at the assets which are locked up in the Public Sector through years of taxes and Public Sector borrowing. Do you not see what the anarchists/Libertarians have been doing? They have been asset-stripping what was sunk into the Public Sector over years, and all for private profit. Many of these state assets were sold off and privatised with the public being given the option to buy shares at a discount, shares in what they already owned! (the same scam was done by Chicago Boyz to the Russians in the 90s – lok at Russia’s birth-rate etc). They did this with the aid of front men and women like Ronald Reagan (a GE salesman) and Margaret Thatcher from around 1980 onwards, by preaching ‘freedom’, ‘choice’ and equality, anti-elitism (ironically using meritocracy which creates just that) and anti-unionism (anti-commununitananism), whilst also vilifying domestic statism as ‘Liberalism’ (abroad depicted as authoritarian). As a consequence, many jobs went abroad with industry/manufacturing collapsing into the feminized Service Sector economy we now have along with massive, contuining, job losses for males and especially the male-brained. The people who do this, and who undermine foreign Governments as well as domestic regulators (like the SEC over there and the FSA here) are anarchists/Libertarians out to create ever more deregulated, aka free markets. Such people market themselves as grass-roots democrats but by their actions are Trotskyites aka wreckers. Using race and other means to foment individual and class (i.e group) conflict is just a tool to foment competition and thus undermine communitarianism, cf female liberation, which has long been a major driver of anarchism, if not the major driver given its impact on the birth-rates and demographics. You should look at your behaviours and those of others here and assess what function in terms of consequences it serves, not what you or they say they believe. What people believe, ‘think’ etc doesn’t make much difference to what actually happens.
How people vote may, but that is a behaviour which gives others the power to legislate on their behalf and thus regulate their behaviour! Note many of those social psychologists wouldn’t know the difference between a Liberal and a Libertarian. They would just vote with what they thought made them look nicest, and Libertarians do make the best handbags etc.
I hope this helps clear some of your confusions up. Wacth the ETS video for the consequences and then re-read my comments since January, and be careful not to be used as a ‘useful idiot’.
See Table 25
Arty:
Don’t hide your “noble” words behind an offensive and aggressive tone and expect me to put up with it. If you could disagree without being disagreeable -just read your condescending and dismissive remarks to me before I even knew of your existence – we could probably get along.
But, I don’t like you so far…
Heads up (from who knows where) Scooter Today, in the UK, only about 20% of the 30 million workforce works in the Public Sector. About half of that is in health and education (then don’t forget the miltiary, police, fire-service and many more providing public services). Mr Cameron seems to have a grandiose Libertarian idea of getting people to do much of that for free via his Big (DIY anarchists’) Society.
Small problem, how will all those free volunteers eat and clothe themselves etc?
.
Is there a kind of racial pride angle too? Jews have got the liberal whites thinking that univeralism is the only proper outlook for a white person. I think there is a sense in which ‘progressives’ (as they like to call themselves) see nationalists as not acting like white people ought to, as somehow ‘unwhite’ in their behavior .
I mean there is a tendency to call white conservatives (never liberals) ‘Neanderthals’.
The white liberals don’t seem to have their heart in it when they look for bias in non whites
David Longley will not make a statement on his beliefs concerning whites, jews, race, etc.. Why?
What have I posted about the nature of beliefs and other intensional idioms of propositional attitude?
Whatever you do in the medical field, I strongly suspect that it is not as a physician!
I don’t know David, what have you posted? Can you make a clear statement of your beliefs or not?
Statements by definition have to be true or false, but as beliefs and other intensional idioms of propositional attitude are not truth-functional contexts as they fail the two tests of extensionality which are the sine qua non for rational verbal/linguistic/quantitative expression and reasoning, so statements can not be clearly made in these contexts. Only truth-functional statements are clear. I suggest you try to find out why.
If you’d done some of the reading which I had suggested instead of repeatedly asking me irrational questions and/or if you had the ability to grasp what’s been said before, you would not be posting the comments which you continue to do.
You have shown me repeatedly that you have much to learn about behaviour, including your own. That is no bad thing. That many others verbally behave irrationally is no justification of it, just testament to our species’ irrrational behaviour. Don’t defend irrational behaviour, learn instead. Most in the social sciences today behave irrationally because most in these disciplines have not learned this important point about the nature of the intensional, even though the point was made long ago by two of the USA’s leading Harvard academics in the 1960s and 70s. As a consequence, many in the Social Sciences would probably be better off typing scripts for Hollywood like J K Rowling and Dan Brown. Many do what they do in order to sell their time at conferences, sell books, or bring in students for university courses which today are businesses. They are rarely as financilaly succcessful as J K Rowling or Dan Brown though, but some clearly try to emulate them. learn.
More extraneous nonsense from David Longley, Scientist.
Comrade Longley:
I wish I were as “financilaly” as successful as Dan Brown!
You wrote: “Only truth-functional statements are clear.”
Here is an example I would would like from you, in the “truth functional” format: “White western societies have fostered their own destruction through their anarchist policies that have allowed unfettered, ruinous non white immigracion” but I’m not counting on a spirit of cooperation from you with our group, ironically – cause while you preach the value of communitarianism you don’t seem to fit in well with this group.
Did Margeret Thatcher cut your cushy government job? It is kind of infantile to hold a grudge so long, no?
Perhaps the people using this group are being abused? Have you ever considerd that? You do not appear to be getting the bigger picture. I’ve suggested that you read the ETS report, that you looked at the crime rates in the UK and USA, the growth in the size of the prison populations in the USA and UK, and that you reflected a little upon why it may all be happening at your own hands.
Clearly to no avail. It’s a common problem.
I suggest interested readers who have been following what I have said about the breakup of the Public Sector (there may be method to this in terms of the wider EU Project, into NUTS note), put ‘Dysfunctional Home Office’ into Google to see what comes up, being sure to read the link ‘it’s a common problem’ above and perhaps digging into the transcript of the evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee in the late 90s. Note that people being referred to as ‘Marxists’ were in all likelihood right-wing Libertarians aka anarchists judged in terms of behavioural outcome.
Here’s a slightly more recent example written in a similar vein, but note – the problem is in fact far more radical from my analysis, and it should be borne in mind that offending behaviour is predominantly a young male behaviour which peaks at 19 and then begins to decline.
What we are generally seeing is explicable, I suggest, in terms which I’ve been referring to in comments here over recent weeks and elsewhere. Most of those responsible probably ‘know not what they do’, but ‘cognitive skills’ programmes are certainly not the answer any more than Speech and Language Therapy can possibly be. If anyone reads my comments to date they should have understood why that is so.
It may help to begin with the current gender balance in subjects like psychology (giving brain-gender some attention along with the Mean SAT scores of those selecting the subject as a College Major), and then look beyond psychology.
Thus, Social Psychologists, and many of those like them, are, in my experience, and based on these analyses. very much part of the problem which I have been referring to, and definitely never likely to be contributors to any solution. Any efforts to defend their behaviours will therefore just serve to exacerbate the status quo. If that is one’s desired outcome (as Libertarians for example), so be it.
Finally be mindful of the reason why the ad hominem and ad populum are invalid modes of argument/inference, and why ascription of intenSional states as causal is merely the modus vivendi of our folk psychological dramatic construction (to be studied by science but not used as science), asking what evidence would one use to corroborate or refute any such conjecture? Would it be not be behavioural?, and that being so, why waste time on the intenSional?
Comrade Longley:
Most of the people using this group are getting abused – by the US Govt. via overtaxation, affirmative action, endless meddling control, etc. – have you ever “considerd” that?
I have reflected upon the problem. The US problem is : Not enough white people!
Thank you for providing further grist to my mill.
Yes I have, and if you’d diligently read my comments since early January instead of just arguing or ignoring, you may have not only grasped that much by now, but you may even have seen the processes whereby people such as yourself behave in ways which extol the virtues of the very behaviours which I am saying describe how you practically help to erode your own means of support, i.e communities and with is sense of identity. i.e your means of helping one another.
This is quite clear in your behaviours and Jason Speaks to name but two, and you are not alone. It doesn’t matter if you are Jewish or not, and that is why I have said that focusing on behaviours is what really matters, not whether someone is ‘Jewish’ or not. These self-destructive behaviours can be found in all groups of people, no doubt with differing prevalence rates, but my interest, if you’s looked closely at some of my earlier comments, explicitly, albeit subtly, highlighted what some of the likely drivers of such behaviours might be, the objective then being that, once better identified it might be possible to focus resources and better manage these behaviours within communities. What you’ve done instead, is emit fragments of behaviour at a similar rate, often with the active reinforcement of other ‘offenders’ here ;QED -)
Left to its own population’s devices it seems it would indeed have had a falling population by now just like Russia today, and Japan shortly. Given the latter and S Korea etc it is clearly not a White problem alone. You have missed this illustration highlighted many times and with links to the data. Why is that? The rate would have been running at an even faster rate of dysgenesis too wee it not for immigration it is suggested. What accounts for such self-destructive behaviour across the Libertarian-Democracies, and what is the function of secularising those who resist, or of inciting others to group/class conflict? Is it not the case that Libertarianism is based upon competition?
Behaviour change hurts. It exposes you to new, unknown contingencies. Most people do not change (except through damage or physical decline in age), hence we refer to their personalities. Most behaviour appears to be genetically expressed, so if one wants to understand how this works at the group level one has to be able to measure at the individual level, i.e class and measure behaviour and genes, only then aggregating it. Hence, social psychology, like most of psychology is radically technically misguided. It aggregates on appearances (some of the poorest classed phenotypes too) including highly unreliable self-reported appearances/labels to boot. This is not offensive, it is purposely destructively critical in many people’s best long term interests. Perhaps you should give that some thought. Those criticised should feel threatened, as what they are doing is in this anaysis both destructive and predatory.
Comrade Longley:
You are welcome for the free grist.
I imagine our population would have declined in number sans immigration. I would take that in return for higher percentages of white folks. If that meant I had to work harder to help my parents and grandparents, that is my obligation anyway.
Behaviours should be looked at as you say. Especially the behaviour of the majority of black people. They behave badly.
They are very destructive and predatory.
But, you make some valid points. Some of our own behaviour was self destructive. We let all these non whites in with their families, and have ruined our country, although some of them are nice people, individually. Collectively, they are a grave threat. Perhaps if you had warned us effectively, and we had listened to you 50 years ago, you would have saved us. You should have told us before we messed up. We are pretty much screwed right now, because our intentional association with other white people is seen as evil, disgusting, outrageous, and worthy of contempt. What do we do going forward? The white man is a cornered pariah -what is left but to resist?
Did you read the links on the Japanese problem? Then look elsewhere as I have suggested. Try looking upon immigration as compensatory, a pragmatic necessity. Falling birth-rates mean closing schools, loss of jobs, shortfalls in pensions, growing medical care and other demands by an ageing population etc.
How exactly is it a White problem?
You need to think very carefully about that before responding, it is not an obvious point, at all. This is why so many people keep missing it.
Below is just one of the many fun observations of David Longley one can find by googling
“David Longley crackpot” http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=david+longley+crackpot&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&pbx=1&fp=72b047763eb2c64e
Applause! Applause! Lee Lady is one of the first to observe what a
crackpot David Longley was back in 1995. It has been 8 years now, and
that particular deconstruction of this crackpot is as relevant as it
was then.
Comrade Dr. Longley:
People have been calling you out as a crackpot for 15 years now! If only Supermax in Colorado would have you interview Dr Kaczynski the two of you could solve all of the world’s problems. Just because the two of you are unpopular doesn’t mean you are wrong, does it?
Oh dear – these are people who are behaving very much like yourself are they not?
What does this show? That there are a lot of silly misguided people in the world who don’t like being challenged. But surely we knew this already, and we even knew that there were lots of misguided people like this in universities?
I suggest you look into AI today, maybe some of Brooks’ work, though I doubt it will get far given we put most of our intelligent behaviour into our technology generally. For example, have a look at what Marvin Minsky had to say in the early noughties, and you won’t still find John McCarthy (also Jewish) trying to programme intensions anymore.
From the above post, you still appear to have learned absolutely nothing here. Neither fame nor abuse are good guides to what is true and what is false. Try to learn what is wrong with the ad homnem and ad populum. Better still, try to learn anything and note what it entails. It entals having been ignorant or wrong before hand.
Were you ever forced to study the Ibsen play, “An Enemy of the People”, in your high school English class, Scooter?
If you haven’t read it, please read it soon. You might learn a thing or two about dealing honestly with the pressures of practical life from point of view of a moral, rather than a practical, man. The message it delivers hasn’t lost its power for a hundred years with those of us uncomfortable with the idea of mob rule or the misuse of the powers of “popular opinion” by those whose whole purpose in life is to take advantage of everyone and everything.
Please read the play. I’m sure its online somewhere…
…by the way, Scooter, your “Comrade Longley” schtick is infantile.
OH – and just for the record, I’m not liking you much either. (Not that it matters a damn what either one of us thinks. Ha ha ha.)
Arty my boy, I was forced to suffer through A Doll’s House, which our Lenin quoting fellow traveler would abhor, as did I, for its effect on liberalising women away from their most important role of being a mother to one of revolting against the system, not providing an adequate TFR, and generally contributing to our decline. I believe I would have liked the play you mentioned, it seems to offer a good moral statement about standing up for what is right in the face of a greedy, jew like grubby dollar chasing bunch of assholes not caring about the community good. Thanks for the reco.
I would have liked you more but for calling my serious, uncontroverted description of Dr. Longley the Lenin liker as “Comrade”. I don’t believe he objects to truth in labeling. I believe he is a communist and doesn’t mind being called one.
But, who can know the mind of Longley?
If people who studied politics and Government etc did not read and cite Lenin, how would they ever study objectively how the real world worked? People such as yourself are clearly limited in your grasp of how the world works. Try to understand the Chinese Constitution or even the SCO without having read and understood some Lenin.
You do not appear to be able to accept that people are able to refer to something or to express a view without your identifying it as that person expressing what they say or write as their own personal point of view. This is a failure of discrimination. It may be why you resort to the ad hominem and ad populum so often. It used to be unusual for people with a good Higher Education to behave in the logically invalid way that you do. Having said that, the data shows that Higher Education has deteriorated in recent generations, standards have been lowered (see how the SATs had to be changed), as Higher Education has become a business and has become highly feminised since the 60s. Standards have deteriorated via numerical expansion, i.e it has become an consumer good, for many, just ‘Bling’. This has lowered the cut scores for entry in pursuit of anti-elitism and more consumers. As grades are peer normed many do not see the modus operandi and consequences of such ‘grade inflation’. In the UK, nearly 50% of the cohort instead of 5% have been going into HE which means a dramatic shift towards average IQ as a cut score. Many students just can’t grasp the material as a consequence, yet arrogantly delude themselves that they are educated. See remarks on ad populum.
Only someone who had not been following what has been written would even want to. What you should be tying to grasp is a) the verbal behaviour which you see appearing on your screen and b) what you see happening in the world as other behaviours.
Comrade Longley:
Have to agree with you that education has been incredibly dumbed down, as has American society. My alma mater actually now has a several negro engineering professors!
We only had one back in my day. He taught a tame class on mechanics of materials.
Today, universities are for indoctrination and credentialism, and are the greatest practioners of PR in history.
Now, why would I care about the chinese constitution? Does it mandate intellectual property theft and sloppily made consumer junk?
China’s Government is run by non-White engineers.
I probably went to school with a few of them, in that case. Hardworking, dedicated, and very uncreative. They hated negroes, couldn’t keep the mouths shut about them. When they started bad mouthing schews, I couldn’t understand what they were saying. Then they made a motion with their hand extending from their nose about 2 feet, and I understood. Said they only cared about money – I just laughed. Even they hated the jews!
Which Jews?
Hell, Professor Longley – they can’t tell the difference. One jew looks the same to them as any other.
Evidence of the American equalitarian (Libertarian) indoctrination at work via selection though peer groups then? Reinforcing poor discrimination whilst fomenting crude ethnic (class) conflict amongst the student populace being good for consumerism and Zionist migration in the end? Such behaviour was discouraged in the former USSR (and in modern China today) as class conflict. People’s differences were recognised, and managed for the common good.
Does anarchism work for the USA, or just some in the USA at the expense of the majority?