Bias in Academia

Prof. Lee Jussim’s “Social Perception and Social Reality” and the Leftist Bias of Social Psychology

It’s well known that social psychologists are overwhelmingly liberal in their politics—exactly three people in a crowd of 1000 at a psychology conference raised their hand when Jonathan Haidt asked how many identified as politically conservative. In fact, social psychology is a good example of Haidt’s concept of “tribal moral communities” that infest our political discourse on race, multiculturalism, gender, etc.  People within the (liberal) tribe believe themselves morally (and intellectually) superior to people who don’t think the way they do. And we know that liberal social psychologists are perfectly willing to discriminate on the basis of their political attitudes in hiring decisions, etc.

It is also well known that there is a replication crisis in social psychology. Prof. Lee Jussim’s Social Perception and Social Reality: Why Accuracy Dominates Bias and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (Oxford University Press, 2014) describes several examples of non-replicable findings which have become hugely influential in the field. My favorite is the study claiming to show 100+ point improvements in IQ scores as the result of expectancy effects, placing these individuals in the top 99.9999999987th percentile. How long can it be before everyone has an IQ of 200 just by having someone in authority tell teachers that their students are “late bloomers”?

Here I have compiled some particularly striking passages (please read the whole thing) from a masterful review  by Thomas Jackson at AmRen. It is essential reading for anyone interested how the leftist politics of academic social psychologists have corrupted understanding of group differences. Read more

American Education is a War on Whites

Is there really any use in trying to show that education in America is firmly in the hands of enemies of the White race?  Probably not, since it is so obvious. Plus it has been well addressed already time and again, including by gifted writer F. Roger Devlin, who delivered an address six years ago at the fourth annual meeting of the H.L. Mencken Club.’s editor, Peter Brimelow, called Devlin’s presentation “a searing account of how the historic American nation has been, in effect, decapitated — its higher education facilities are now entirely in the hands of hostile forces.”

In his talk, “Higher Education: The Impossibility Of Reform,” Devlin began by noting   that by now there must be “a sizeable class of academically trained non-leftists for whom there is essentially no place in the contemporary academy.” This sense of not being welcome has now trickled down from potential teachers to White male students as well. “Young men,” Devlin observes, “are staying away to avoid what their enemies would describe as a ‘hostile learning environment.’

Not surprisingly, the knowledge that all levels of American education show hatred toward White males — either implicitly or explicitly  — is the reason that the younger cohort of what constitutes today’s Alt-Right addresses the topic so often. I can think of no better example than Mike Enoch, main host of the “Daily Shoah” on The Right Stuff alternative media platform. He and his fellow hosts speak from personal experience when discussing the hostile environment they encountered in school as White non-Jewish males. Typically, this is from kindergarten on up.

While neither Brimelow nor Devlin mentioned any Jewish influence on the transformation of higher education into a bastion of anti-White male positions, other sources easily confirm this. For instance, Ron Unz, a wealthy Jewish businessman who runs The Unz Review, provided us with a stunning 26,000-word treatise that convincingly shows how White Gentiles are systematically excluding from Ivy League schools precisely because undeserving Jewish students are taking their place. Titled “The Myth of Meritocracy”, this seminal essay includes numerous graphs showing that once Jews are disaggregated from Gentile Whites, the number of White students in the Ivy League is drastically out of proportion to the actual number of qualified White students out there. To me, this is part and parcel of higher education’s undeniable War on Whites.

Again, this hyper-critical and destructive (of White civilization) process at American universities is well known. (I wrote about it earlier this year: ”No Campus for White Men.”) Nothing new here. For instance, Jewish writer Mona Charen lamented six years ago that “Academia is a conquered land — the playground of the ultraleft.” Well, isn’t “ultraleft” a proxy for “anti-White”? I’d say it’s close. Charen goes on to say, “We scrape together our hard-earned income (lots of it) to deposit our cherished offspring at schools that are determined to teach them to despise everything we revere — even learning.”  Sounds like the culture of critique to me! Read more

Anthropology’s Obsession with African Origins

There is renewed interest in the “Out of Africa” theory of human origins because of a study showing sub-Saharan Africans interbred with an extinct hominid species. This article, originally posted in January, 2014, provides other reasons for being skeptical of African origins and shows how the “Out of Africa” theory has been promoted partly for reasons of political correctness.

When did humans first become human?  The answer is far from simple, because the question assumes that sometime in the past, humans achieved modernity and were locked within an evolutionary loophole where natural selection no longer applies.  Despite the absurdity of this scenario, and in stark contrast to empirical data, it is widely believed that humans have not changed physically or mentally for the past 50,000 years or so.

After the discipline of anthropology was hijacked by Cultural Marxism and it became crimethink to observe average group differences, a preoccupation with tracing everything back to Africa developed.  Africa does have an outstanding archaeological record revealing many firsts: the first bipedal hominids, the first stone tools, and the first anatomically modern humans that looked roughly like we do today (a vertical forehead, round skull, flat face, and prominent chin).  But largely due to the anti-racist politicization of anthropology, the currently accepted evolutionary paradigm is that Africa was the source of an intellectual watershed event sometime between 100,000 to 50,000 years ago, and that it was only a matter of time before this new breed of clever Africans spread out and replaced all the dim-witted archaic human populations in the rest of the world, such as Neanderthals.  (As used here, the term ‘racist’ refers to views that race and racial differences are a legitimate variable in research on humans, with none of the usual negative connotations found  in the popular and scientific literature.) The concept of behavioral modernity as it has been applied to the Paleolithic seemingly arose out of the Cultural Marxist obsession with proving that Africans are just as good as, and even better than the evil racist nineteenth-century White scientists who dared to rank societies and point out that advanced civilization never developed in certain areas of the world, such as south of the Sahara.

The problem with this paradigm is that, using the same set of criteria proposed by those scholars pushing for an African origin for modern behavior, it seems to have originally appeared in Europe instead, when modern humans first arrived there and replaced Neanderthals.  Furthermore, the so-called modern behavior in the African Stone Age is not qualitatively different from that of Neanderthals, who were supposedly replaced by cognitively-advanced modern humans. Read more

Science and the Suicide-Cult: The Irrationalism of Richard Dawkins

The basis of science is the same as the basis of life: pattern-recognition. Even plants recognize patterns in the weather and the attacks of insects. The difference between scientists and trees, or scientists and sharks, is that scientists use reason and method, not instinct and other forms of biological automation.

Mathemodels of reality

Scientists try to identify and understand patterns in the world by creating patterns of their own: they perform experiments, they model and analyse data using mathematics, trying to create symbolic patterns that behave like real ones. Astronomy is the paradigm of this endeavour. There was sufficient regularity and permanence in the heavens for the ancients to predict lunar and solar eclipses. Ptolemy had an effective mathemodel of the solar system in the Second Century A.D.; Copernicus put forward a better one in 1543; Newton refined and expanded it in 1687. The power of Newton’s mathemodel was confirmed by the successful predictions it made: there were undiscovered planets out there. Neptune was mathematics before it became matter.

Stale pale male Charles Darwin

Biology proved much more difficult than astronomy and other branches of physics. The great pattern of evolution escaped the notice of Aristotle before Christ and Linnaeus long after, and when Darwin and Wallace recognized it in the nineteenth century, their description was linguistic, not mathematical. Their logic was good and their evidence substantial, but evolutionary biology didn’t become a proper science until it had a solid foundation of mathematics. Stale pale males like Ronald Fisher (1890–1962) and W.D. Hamilton (1936–2000) built mathemodels of biological systems that behaved like the real thing and made good predictions. Indeed, biology turned out to have a mathemodel of its own: the three-dimensional double helix of DNA carries a two-dimensional genetic code, which synthesizes proteins, evolves, and protects itself from error in ways that are illuminated by the human mathemodel of information theory.

Digital Dawkins

As Richard Dawkins puts it: “The essential difference between classical Darwinism (which we now understand could not have worked) and neo-Darwinism (which does) is that digital genetics has replaced analogue.” Dawkins will need no introduction. He’s much more famous than Fisher or Hamilton and a much better and clearer writer than his late rival, the Jewish Marxist Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002). Dawkins’ line about Darwinism comes from the lecture “Science and Sensibility,” which is collected in a new book of his called Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist (Bantam Press 2017). I’ve enjoyed the book and it’s reminded me again both of what I admire about Dawkins and of what I deplore.

Powerful pattern: The DNA double helix

Read more

Doused and Denounced

A cold civil war has been brewing within academe, a war between “biologians” and “culturists.” Many modern biologists, genomic scientists, and physical anthropologists are biologians.  They think evolutionary adaptations are partly responsible for some racial disparities.   On the other hand, most historians, social scientists, public leaders, and mainstream journalists are culturists.  They minimize the importance of biology and evolution and say that history and culture explain the variations in the distribution of human characteristics.

One of the landmark events in this academic civil war occurred in 1975, when E. O. Wilson, a biology professor at Harvard, published Sociobiology: The New Synthesis.  Professor Wilson presented a mountain of evidence to establish that biology influenced many forms of social behavior in the animal kingdom.  Then, in the last chapter of the book, Professor Wilson maintained that this was also true for human beings.

Among biologists, the initial reaction to Sociobiology was overwhelmingly favorable.  The response of many historians and social scientists, however, was quite critical.  This was not surprising, for most historians and social scientists regard human nature as relatively unaffected by our evolutionary past, as something that is shaped by social forces.  Some scholars, especially those with Marxist beliefs, have emphasized the special importance of economic forces that are extraneous to human biology.

As it happened, a Marxist group at Harvard, Science for the People, responded to Sociobiology with printed leaflets and teach-ins that were harshly critical of Professor Wilson.  For a few days a protester in Harvard Square used a bullhorn to demand that the university fire Professor Wilson, and on one occasion two students invaded the professor’s class on evolutionary biology to shout slogans and deliver anti-sociobiology monologues.  To make matters worse, Professor Wilson received little support from his colleagues on the Harvard faculty, and to avoid embarrassment he stayed away from department meetings for an entire year.

Professor Wilson considered offers to move to other universities, but he decided to stay at Harvard.  “The pressure was tolerable,” he has written, “since I was a senior professor with tenure . . . and could not bear to leave Harvard’s ant collection, the world’s largest and best.”

The opposition reached something of a climax in 1979, when Professor Wilson was scheduled to speak at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.    As he sat at a table near the lectern, a young man from the audience grabbed the microphone and harangued the assembled scholars.  A young woman then poured a pitcher of water over Professor Wilson’s head and demonstrators chanted, “Wilson, you’re all wet,” and “Racist Wilson, you can’t hide. We charge you with genocide.”

Despite the vilification he received in the 1970s, things eventually turned out well for Professor Wilson.  By the turn of the twenty-first century, he was widely celebrated as the pioneering founder of two new academic fields, the evolutionary biology of humans and evolutionary psychology.  He was the author of two Pulitzer Prize-winning books, and he received many academic awards.  When Harvard University Press published a twenty-fifth anniversary edition of Sociobiology in 2000, it was evident that Professor Wilson’s theory appealed to many of the best minds in science.  By then listed 416 titles under “sociobiology” and 1, 218 under “human evolution.”

Nevertheless, as I have recently learned the hard way, many historians know little or nothing about sociobiology, evolutionary biology, or evolutionary psychology.

Read more

Justin Murphy’s “The psychology of prohibiting outside thinkers”

Here is Justin Murphy describing his background, research, and activism:

Why is there not more rebellion against status quo institutions? How have economic and political processes pacified our capacity for radical collective action? As a political scientist, I am interested in the roles played by information, communication, and ideology in the pacification of political resistance and conflict. Before joining the faculty of Politics and IR at the University of Southampton in the UK, I did my PhD at Temple University in the US. There I was active in Occupy Wall Street, some civil disobedience and shutting down of things, some longer-term campaigns against the big U.S. banks, and sundry other works and deeds, including a radical warehouse project where I lived for nearly three years.

So Murphy is an academic on the left. He is therefore part of the establishment, a card-carrying member of the institutional structure that dominates intellectual discourse in the West. But, unlike the vast majority of his academic brethren, he is quite aware that the left is now the status quo and that it is doing everything it can to preserve its elite status — and that its self-preserving tactics are at base nothing more than irrational assertions of power and privilege. Murphy makes these claims in a blogpost: “The psychology of prohibiting outside thinkers.” Part of the subtitle says it all: “The real motivation of respectable progressivism is managing guilty conscience and conserving bourgeois privileges.”

What’s so refreshing about this is that instead of “exclud[ing] independent right-wing intellectual work on moral grounds,” he would actually “enjoy thinking” with intellectuals on the right. Indeed, moral indictments have become the stock in trade of establishment intellectuals — as noted in my three-part “Moralism and Moral Arguments in the War for Western Survival.” Moral condemnations are easy. No intellectual heavy lifting required. All one need do is appeal to conventional moral intuitions as shaped by the the same institutions that are now the status quo — the media and academic culture. As I note, those who dissent from the status quo are “not only misguided, [they are] malevolent … consumed by hatred, anger and fear towards non-Whites, gays, women and the entire victim class pantheon, or so goes the stereotype And that’s the problem. Being cast as evil means you are outside the moral community. There’s no need to talk with you, no need to be fair, or even worry about your safety. You are like an outlaw in Old Norse society  — ‘a person [who] lost all of his or her civil rights and could be killed on sight without any legal repercussions.’” Read more

No Campus (Or Country) for White Men

Does anyone remember my column of nine years ago called “Letter of Termination to the White Race?” I don’t believe we know who really wrote this letter — or why, but the point is, it paints a chilling picture of what is in fact happening to the White race right before our eyes.

For instance, in the letter the author laid out what is in sad reality unfolding:

By carefully controlling and managing the schools, universities, media, and press, this “out group” has managed to convince the great bulk of your racial kinsmen that not only is resistance futile, but that it is immoral, barbaric, depraved, and unworthy of a “thinking” individual. By promoting the stereotype of a “racist redneck resistance,” they have made the idea of a struggle for White Identity a veritable sin in the minds of nearly every White person. In short: they have convinced European-derived peoples that a prolonged suicide is preferable to the unmitigated evil of “racism.”

Do I need to suggest who this “outgroup” might be?

TOO has emphatically emphasized the reality of this War on Whites, featuring the topic Anti-White Attitudes in fifty-three articles, and in particular the topic Jews as a Hostile Elite, fifty-five times. My article today belongs in either category [Ed.: actually both!].

Nine years ago, I was very taken with a literal belief that Whites were being systematically attacked in a coordinated strategy against us. I have no reason to doubt this now. Around the time I wrote “Letter of Termination to the White Race,” I also wrote kindred columns. For instance, I wrote about former Washington Post political columnist, Harold Meyerson, no friend of the White race. Read more