The namby-pambies of the failing peecee luniversities of 2011 distinguished themselves by having no less than 68 of their time-serving drones write to the Times Higher to deplore the LSE’s Satoshi Kanazawa (q.v.) for having mentioned Black testosteronization (and the resulting relative ugliness of Black women*) (Atlantic Monthly, 2 vi; TheRoot, 8 vi –providing detail of the massive study of females of ages 12 - 32 on which SK had drawn)).
Even an otherwise-healthy-sounding breakaway group, founding a ‘New College for the Humanities’ in Bloomsbury, a glorified crammer for (daddy-)rich and/or celebrity-crazed Oxbridge rejects (fees to be £18K p.a.), shot itself in the foot by employing, as its few star scientists, academics like Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker and Steve Jones who had notoriously stayed silent on the matter of race x genes x IQ.
* Making SK’s point {or at least mine about Black age decay}, Black chambermaids of New York, protesting against French socialist and Presidential aspirant ‘rapist’ Dominique Strauss-Kahn, turned out en masse to scream abuse but inadvertently to display their non-existent waistlines and ugly mugs (Sun, 7 vi).
The pathetic Psychology Today sent an email to ColorofChange.org, informing this largest online African-American political organization that Kanazawa’s work would not appear on their site any longer. PeeCee Psychology Today said they had instituted ‘new rules to prevent inflammatory content in the future.’
‘TRADE’ UNIONISTS HECKLE LEFTY MINISTER
Britain’s state-tenured ‘Liberals’ got a taste of things to come as militant subscribers to the semi-literate Estuary-accented Bob Crow, the close-cropped mesomorphic leader of the giant RMT ‘trade’ union, shouted down the LibDims’ Saint Vincent Cable (best known in the previous year for occasional footling leftish reservations about CamCo policy) (Sun, 7 vi).
Vince’s offence? He had suggested that ‘industrial action’ by the UK’s bloated and incompetent ‘civil servants’ in late-June might lead to possible suggestions of possible ideas for perhaps just possibly ‘ratcheting up’ possible legal restrictions on such potential ‘action’....
Any repeal of the ‘right to strike’ being replaced by the right to resign and the grant of a bicycle and a booklet pointing out job opportunities and welfare benefits in Bulgaria? Don’t even think about it! CamCo and Saint Vince were actually as one in wanting a quiet life – enjoying the fruits of office and postponing all ‘cuts’ into the dim and distant future. But the unions had other ideas, aiming to re-enact their nationwide bullying of 1978-9 – even though that intransigence finally brought Mrs Thatcher to office....
MORE LIBLABCON TREACHERY
Britain’s collaborationist CamCo regime announced (with Daft Dave as the frontman for the hypocrisy) it would ‘do something’ about Islamic militants operating freely (and indeed with HMG funding) in the country’s universities and prisons. But what – when most civil servants and lunistaff had long been signed-up Guardianistas devoted to the UK’s Vichy regime (encouraging while professing to control enemy infiltration)? Pull the other one! (Spectator, 7 vi).
NAUGHTY BY NATURE
A “strong genetic effect” on childhood disobedience to parental injunctions was reported from the earliest years in a major twin study conducted from Quebec’s Laval University (MedicalXPress, 7 vi).
SOCCER SHAME – BLACKS AGAIN!
Following the collapse of a ‘superinjunction’ (imposed by an adulterous quarter-Black footballer), it turned out that the major scoring in British soccer. 2010 had been by randy WAG Natasha Giggs, who not only helped herself to sex with her part-Black hubby and his brother but also with three other part-Black Manchester United players (all in the team that could not manage to beat Barcelona) (Sun, 9 vi).
OXFORD COP-OUT
The University of Oxford, famous for backing Hitler in the 1930s and whacking its own graduette, PM Margaret Thatcher, in the 1980s, voted joyously, by 283 – 5, to denounce CamCo’s higher-ed-funding fudge (which would tax only the most financially successful graduates) (Guardian, 9 vi). However, the rebellious Oxonians had no alternative of their own to propose – certainly not that state funding should be halved (like all other state handouts) and restricted to the brightest and best.
IMMIGRATION SOLUBLE
Arizona experienced a happy exodus of immigrants in 2010 after it allowed cops to inquire into the immigration status of arrestees. An estimated 100,000 Hispanics, mostly Mexicans, left the state between January and November of 2010, partly because of Arizona’s new law, according to a research which based its findings on U.S. census data (AmRen, 9 vi).
EVOPSYCHOLOGIST KANAZAWA DEFENDED
A fine riposte to Satoshi Kanazawa’s “disingenuous” critics (see previous) was provided in Times Higher (9 vi) by Leslie Jones (deputy editor, Quarterly Review), especially defending SK’s record as an evolutionary and differential psychologist – the first time that ‘differential psychology’ (“including the disputatious subject of racial differences”) could have had a mention in Times Higher for many a long year – and observing that SK’s claims of Black female ‘unattractiveness’ were no more ‘insensitive’ or improper than Simon Baron-Cohen’s widely published and leftist-accepted claim that men ‘lack empathy.’
A further letter from Richard Lynn, Phil Rushton, myself and twenty other distinguished academics (though sadly not including a single girl, pneumatic or otherwise) was being sent to TH, defending in detail SK’s publication practices and handling of his critics – as below.
Sir - We believe the criticisms of Satoshi Kanazawa's work by Alex Alvergne and others (letter, 2 June) cannot be justified. Contrary to the assertion that Kanazawa does poor work, he has published 70 articles in peer-reviewed journals in the fields of psychology, sociology, political science, biology and medicine. These are listed on his website and many of them are in high impact top journals.
The critics assert that many of these papers are bad science and have only been published as a result of a faulty peer-review system. This cannot be accepted. Editors of journals send papers submitted to them to reviewers with expertise in the field and only publish papers that reviewers recommend as sound. Thus, all of Kanazawa's papers have been judged as sound by competent reviewers. Others may disagree, and in the case of innovative papers of the kind Kanazawa writes, frequently do. Time eventually tells whether the authors of the papers or the critics are right.
The critics complain that when Kanazawa has a paper rejected by a journal, he sends it to another journal and publishes it there. Who among those in academia has not done this? Reviewers frequently misjudge a paper and editors accept their recommendations. The author then sends it elsewhere and it is accepted. If there was anything wrong with this, then, as the first commentator ("Liston") on John Gill's article in Times Higher Education notes, "A few Nobel prizes will have to be returned."
The critics assert that Kanazawa rarely responds to his critics. Contrary to this accusation, we believe that, while he sometimes has not responded immediately, he has frequently dealt with criticisms in subsequent work. For example, with respect to the criticisms made by Gelman of his paper reporting that physically more attractive parents are more likely to have daughters, Kanazawa replicated his earlier finding with a different data set from a different nation, and published the replication in the journal Reproductive Sciences in 2011.
Kanazawa even sought Gelman's comments on the draft and Gelman's contribution is acknowledged in the published paper. Kanazawa's 2010 American Psychologist article also responds to many of the criticisms that were levelled against his 2004 Psychological Review article.
Finally, we believe that the proper place to make criticisms of academic papers is in the journals in which the papers are published, and not in letters to the press, where they cannot be adequately answered.
Professor Alex Beaujean, Department of Psychology, Baylor University, Texas, USA.
Christopher Brand, Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, 1970-1997, UK.
Professor Bruce Charlton, Department of Psychology, University of Buckingham, UK.
Dr Eric Crampton, Department of Economics, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, NZ.
Professor Aurelio José Figueredo, Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Professor Gordon G. Gallup, Jr, Department of Psychology, State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA.
Professor Paul Gottfried, Department of History, Elizabethtown College, Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, USA.
Professor Henry Harpending, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Professor emeritus Richard Lynn, Department of Psychology,
University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, UK.
Professor Kevin MacDonald, Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach, California, USA.
Professor Gerhard Meisenberg, Department of Biochemistry, Ross University Medical School, Dominica, West Indies.
Professor Michael E. Mills, Department of Psychology, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Professor emeritus Helmuth Nyborg, Department of Psychology, Aarhus University, Denmark.
Professor Byron Roth, Department of Psychology, Dowling College, Long Island, New York, USA.
Professor J. Philippe Rushton, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Professor Stephen Rushton, College of Education, University of South Florida, Sarasota, Florida, USA.
Professor Donald Templer, Department of Psychology, Alliant International University (retired), Fresno, California, USA.
Dr James Thompson, Department of Psychology, University College, London, UK.
Professor Birgitta Tullberg, Department of Evolutionary Ecology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Professor Fredrik Ullén, Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Professor emeritus Tatu Vanhanen, Department of Political Science, University of Tampere, Finland.
Professor emeritus Erich Weede, Department of Sociology, University of Bonn, Germany.
Professor Predrag Zarevski, Department of Psychology, University of Zagreb, Croatia.
PM BACKS EUGENICS – WELFARE-DEPENDENTS HAVE TOO MANY CHILDREN
After the weirdy-beardie-leftie Archbishop of Canterbury accused the CamCo Government of ‘resurrecting the distinction between deserving and undeserving poor,’ Rowback Williams received a prompt reply from Daft Dave (on ITV’s ‘This Morning’ programme).
Deploring irresponsibility in breeding, DD said he shared the frustration of hard-working families who complained others had children they could not afford, knowing the taxpayer would foot the bill (ParentDish, 11 vi).
Apparently, official figures showed almost 100,000 of those on benefits had four or more children, with more than 900 claimants having at least eight. In many cases the claimants were entitled to a large council house as well as hefty benefit payments.
The PM’s intervention echoed comments by CamCo’s Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who provoked a storm in 2010 by suggesting the jobless should stop having children they couldn't afford. {JH had apparently been as ignorant as DD of Sir Keith Joseph’s 1977 Preston speech, urging contraception for the underclass, which had cost him SKJ Tory leadership – which then had to go to his star pupil, Mrs Thatcher)}.
------------------------------------
Comments? Email Chris Brand. -- CV for Chris Brand. -- Some history.
-----------------------------------
