3 ms·

Check the references, he cites Cattell, about whom this was written: http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bios/cattell/genetica.htm http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bios/cattel

Check the references, he cites Cattell, about whom this was written: http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bios/cattell/genetica.htm http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bios/cattell/genetica.htm """Cattell’s critical remarks about Hitler in later years trivialize the horrors of the past and the dangers inherent in fascist ideology. In Cattell (1972, p. 406), for example, he compares Hitler to "the murderous Hippie cults of California."""" """ Despite this, Cattell could write in 1938 that the "envy" and "hostility" of the "Atlantic Democracies" over "the rise of Germany, Italy, and Japan," was uncalled-for. Citizens in these fascist states had "disciplined their indulgences" and focused their energies on "a religious purpose." The rise of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany "should be welcomed by the religious man as reassuring evidence that in spite of modern wealth and ease, we shall not be allowed to sink into stagnation or adopt foolish social practices in fatal detachment from the stream of evolution" (Cattell, 1938, p. 149). After five decades of reflection, Cattell has concluded that the legacy of this catastrophe has been a mental "disorder" he calls "ignoracism" - the inability "to consider the scientific possibility that races may show statistically significant differences" (Cattell, 1972, p. 262). In other words, the Nazis created such a revulsion to racism that it resulted in "ignoracism" - the refusal to accept the reality of racial differences! """

throwaway90446 12y ago
And how, exactly, is this relevant?
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  It's relevant because I find I've posted a paper from a researcher associated with a strongly eugenicist, White Nationalist organization with ties to neo-Nazi and Fascist groups. I did not realize this when I posted the item.
  - throwaway90446 12y ago
    Again, how is this relevant? Science is to be pursued on the merits of the research, not the researchers.
    - dredmorbius 12y ago
      I've addressed this in several comments elsewhere. But briefly: if research is conducted with an overt agenda and with predetermined conclusions, then its validity is called strongly into question. At the very least, those reading the research should be exceptionally skeptical. As a specific example concerning Richard Lynn, his division of "three major racial groups" (see the SPLC article linked elsewhere here) falls flat in the face of numerous fallacies, among them that "negroid" isn't a single racial category (whatever that means), but as a collective of all indigenous populations of Africa is generally held to represent greater diversity than all other human populations combined. It's just bad science. If the assumption is that humans are destined to ever greater intelligence -- well, that may well not be true either. Evolution is not teleological, it is not goal-oriented. It is variation subject to selection. I do think that the question of what selective pressures are being exerted on human populations presently is an open question. That genetic drift and the cost and complexity of sustaining our complicated brains is an interesting area for research. It's exceptionally fraught though. And the affiliations of the researcher and institutions in question, as well as my source on this, lead me to question its value strongly.
dredmorbius 12y ago
Good call. I really didn't know these associations before posting this piece. I'm quite embarrassed.

throwaway90446 12y ago

And how, exactly, is this relevant?

dredmorbius 12y ago
It's relevant because I find I've posted a paper from a researcher associated with a strongly eugenicist, White Nationalist organization with ties to neo-Nazi and Fascist groups. I did not realize this when I posted the item.
- throwaway90446 12y ago
  Again, how is this relevant? Science is to be pursued on the merits of the research, not the researchers.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    I've addressed this in several comments elsewhere. But briefly: if research is conducted with an overt agenda and with predetermined conclusions, then its validity is called strongly into question. At the very least, those reading the research should be exceptionally skeptical. As a specific example concerning Richard Lynn, his division of "three major racial groups" (see the SPLC article linked elsewhere here) falls flat in the face of numerous fallacies, among them that "negroid" isn't a single racial category (whatever that means), but as a collective of all indigenous populations of Africa is generally held to represent greater diversity than all other human populations combined. It's just bad science. If the assumption is that humans are destined to ever greater intelligence -- well, that may well not be true either. Evolution is not teleological, it is not goal-oriented. It is variation subject to selection. I do think that the question of what selective pressures are being exerted on human populations presently is an open question. That genetic drift and the cost and complexity of sustaining our complicated brains is an interesting area for research. It's exceptionally fraught though. And the affiliations of the researcher and institutions in question, as well as my source on this, lead me to question its value strongly.

dredmorbius 12y ago

Good call. I really didn't know these associations before posting this piece. I'm quite embarrassed.