Hi Sascha,
Unfortunately UC Santa Cruz and many other college campuses have been changing their code of conduct to make it hard for me to even endorse your article. ... So the repercussions for me to endorse any article related to intelligence of ethnic groups could be quite severe. If I didn't have any children, I could contemplate doing so, but since I do, I think I shouldn't venture out on this limb. I'm sorry if this appears to be cowardly.
I would suggest that you try to find an endorser at an institution with more permissive standards. There is a database kept by thefire.org on this that lists the degree of academic freedom at different universities. UC Santa Cruz isn't the worst at all. It's listed as yellow. Others, such as University of Chicago are in green. Faculty at green schools are less likely to face unpleasant consequences for expressing an opinion. …
In any case, I wish I lived at a time where universities had the kind of academic freedom where ideas, however controversial, could be openly discussed without fear of retribution. I'm sorry I can't be of more help in this regard.
Best wishes,
State Of Academic Freedom 2016
This is the reply after asking a scientist to endorse putting a draft of an article into a more fitting category on the arXiv, which is a mere preprint archive (not a journal or anything like that) where I already put almost 20 articles, and the endorsement would be anonymous, so this established scientist fears that the enforcers at the PC arXiv may notify his or her University - this is the state of free speech today, the reality of the scientific community:
Comments
It was depressing to look at the thefire.org ratings and given that there is almost no universities rated "Green", it appears that a 'cowardly' position is prevalent.
Sundance (not verified) | 08/31/16 | 06:59 AM
- Reply to This »
- Link
"To suggest that race is real “can be something close to professional suicide.” (Satel, S., Policy Review, Dec. 2001). Geneticist Henry Harpending co-authored an article about Jewish intelligence (Cochran, 2006), then said he could never have done so had he not been a senior professor with tenure."
Sascha Vongehr | 08/31/16 | 20:23 PM
Unless I am mistaken you are saying that humans have also interbred historically, culturally and geographically in such a way that different breeds that we now call 'races' have resulted and can be identified. Are you saying that these 'races' can also exhibit different but predictable traits and characteristics that are common but that for whatever reason, scientists are not allowed to study and then publicly report upon any scientifically observed differences in characteristics and traits found to be common to different races without destroying their academic careers?
If that is the case then surely we have to examine the 'whatever reason' that is behind this? You as a philosopher scientist are understandably outraged, especially as you have shown it is academic suicide for most scientists who attempt to study and report on racial differences yet this is not even publicly acknowledged, its hidden and the antithesis of what science is meant to be about.
I think that social scientists should be studying and reporting on this 'whatever reason' for why this is occurring. Unfortunately their careers would also probably be seriously jeopardised in doing this. So, I agree with you that this all needs to be publicly discussed even though it is a minefield, and this is why.
Imagine you were the human equivalent of a German Shepherd and I was the human equivalent of an Australian Kelpie and scientists reported that German Shepherds tend to aggressive, possessive and loyal to just one master and kelpies are highly intelligent, affection but relatively disloyal opportunists and we were both applying for the same job.
Wouldn't you feel annoyed if instead of reading our resumes the prospective employers selected one of us based on our breed? Also, how could prospective employers fairly assess any mongrel puppies that we could breed? One might look like a kelpie and act like a German Shepherd and bite someone's hand off. What do you think the social and academic solution is?
—
My 5 min film 'Hidden Dangers for ALS' entry in the AAN #2015Neurofilm Festival is listed no. 22 of 65 entries at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYNSC2T2aPD7GH6pVWI7I6DjzwbbBKCWK
Helen Barratt | 08/31/16 | 22:51 PM
1) What is the "whatever reason" behind the suppression of the science around human biologically determined and highly heritable differences (such as the general intelligence factor g, or verbal IQ, or testosterone levels)?
2) How are individuals with different, including mixed backgrounds best be allocated with regards to resources or jobs that have certain requirements etc.
1) The reason is that the currently dominant ideology is based on the idea that culture is such a strong influence that it easily overrides biological constraints (, which sadly is not true; it totally neglects that social systems evolve in the background of the biological stratum for example). Any little science that obviously threatens this ideology threatens the house of cards around it, including such issues as "democracy". In my estimation, it is not just so that for example many established "social scientists" or politicians and so on simply fear for their established positions, but that they truly believe that even if all this amounts to the denial of reality, that this, in spite of all the suffering it causes (and always to the weakest, such as Blacks and non-human animals), an admission of reality would result in far more suffering, including a sooner complete breakdown of Westernized systems, which is, on grounds of the held ideology, feared to be far more suffering - all this of course is denial of reality. This is further rationalized with the hope that technological advancement (medicine, AI) will come just in time to save the day before it all comes crushing down. This is stabilized by downplaying the suffering and denial of the suffering that is already caused by the denial of reality, say the state of Africa or the Black community after such a long time of "help".
2) Since this is not a scenario such as, for example, a human female being in a dark alley and having to decide whether to run into a safer space because there has also entered a bulldog, or a golden retriever, or a female White Caucasian, or a Black male, there is plenty of opportunity for unbiased testing and suchlike - a decision does not need to be taken on grounds of statistical data alone. Judging the reality of a given situation is, this is our scientific ideology, the "better" the less we distort reality. The scientific ideology is based on that denial of reality, even if useful locally in space-time, leads to more suffering, also because the distortion of reality increases in order to protect previous distortions from being uncovered. The standpoint is that in the end, to minimize suffering for all involved, we do not insist on treating and predicting, for example, all dogs the same. Of course, this scientific ideology clashes with that there always must be denial of reality. A progressively ever more rational assessment of reality leads to either suicide (if global AI does it, global suicide) or the eventual admission of the basis that can no longer be justified beyond an absolute "I want this; this is the desire that evolved; this is how I identify" (e.g.: I want my child to still live beyond my death although it is an asshole, or I want my race to be still on this planet in 300 years time as if it matters in a universe/totality with infinitely many planets and all possibilities equivalently actualized anyway, or ...).
I cannot know the level of denial that optimizes whatever we desire to optimize (low suffering, number of humans being alive regardless how much they suffer, ...). As an Asperger enhanced high IQ ape, I am going far further along with the scientific ideology than the average intellectual. You are free to describe this as a mistake and categorize it as an to be eliminated sickness, believing that the world is somehow "better" or with less potential suffering if I am silenced. Therefore, regarding your "You as a philosopher scientist are understandably outraged": No! I am in calm recognition of the suffering of all beings and the Zen of my not being able to do anything about it nor having the option to not participate. If the world were not like it is, I would not be.
Sascha Vongehr | 09/01/16 | 21:19 PM
You have two questions:It would have been good if your replies had concluded with equally succinct summaries of your understanding of the 'whatever reason' but I realise that is very difficult even for an Asperger's enhanced, high IQ ape :) I will make an attempt to summarise what you have said and you can correct me if I am wrong or if something is missing.
1) What is the "whatever reason" behind the suppression of the science around human biologically determined and highly heritable differences (such as the general intelligence factor g, or verbal IQ, or testosterone levels)?
2) How are individuals with different, including mixed backgrounds best be allocated with regards to resources or jobs that have certain requirements etc.
In answer to question 1 you say :-
- The currently dominant ideology is based on the idea that culture is such a strong influence that it easily overrides biological constraints.
- Any science that threatens this ideology threatens the house of cards around it, including such issues as "democracy".
- "Social scientists" or politicians truly believe that an admission of reality would result in far more suffering, including a sooner complete breakdown of Westernized systems.
- This is further rationalized with the hope that technological advancement (medicine, AI) will come just in time to save the day before it all comes crushing down.
- This ideology is stabilized by downplaying the suffering and denial of the suffering that is already caused by the denial of reality, say the state of Africa or the Black community after such a long time of "help".
It implies that Western academics & politicians are able to operate a bit like a hive of bees, working collectively to make honey, breeding and fighting off any internal or external threats to the status quo without any individual bee either understanding reality or directing the operations that make these biological systems happen.
If this is true then social scientists should definitely be studying how this political and academic social system has been created and how it works so efficiently to prevent the scientific study of and resultant admission of reality that you believe could threaten Westernized systems and cause their breakdown.
In answer to question 2 you say :-
- There is plenty of opportunity for unbiased testing and suchlike - a decision does not need to be taken on grounds of statistical data alone.
- Judging the reality of a given situation is, this is our scientific ideology, the "better" the less we distort reality. The scientific ideology is based on that denial of reality, even if useful locally in space-time, leads to more suffering.
- The distortion of reality increases in order to protect previous distortions from being uncovered.
- The standpoint is that in the end, to minimize suffering for all involved, we do not insist on treating and predicting, for example, all dogs the same.
- Of course, this scientific ideology clashes with that there always must be denial of reality.
- I cannot know the level of denial that optimizes whatever we desire to optimize (low suffering, number of humans being alive regardless how much they suffer, ...).
I find these answers a bit fuzzy, you are almost arguing against yourself. You are saying that without the distortion of reality civilisation would end because denial of reality is essential and you are also admitting that the scientific results could distort reality even more.
—
My 5 min film 'Hidden Dangers for ALS' entry in the AAN #2015Neurofilm Festival is listed no. 22 of 65 entries at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYNSC2T2aPD7GH6pVWI7I6DjzwbbBKCWK
Helen Barratt | 09/02/16 | 15:32 PM
Question to the arXiv: Since it is 2016 and all kinds of venues are desperately shutting down free speech openly and with large support, why don't you just come out and openly black list critical people already? You will be surprised about how much support you will get for that, and it saves you a lot of time, too - why all this forth and back nonsense via email every time?
Many thanks to vixra, where the draft has now been published without any delay as it obviously should be. See the highly timely (given the rising right) and widely relevant work against antisemitism that would, due to its relevance for the public understanding of science and its relevance for scientific experts in their lack of appreciation for proper statistics each alone, be published on the front cover of Science and Nature if the scientific community would not be one pillar of the denial of reality:
"From Jewish Verbal and General Intelligence to Jewish Achievement: A Doubly Right Wing Issue"
Sascha Vongehr | 09/01/16 | 21:53 PM
Camilo Tabinas y ... | 09/03/16 | 05:27 AM
Sascha Vongehr | 09/04/16 | 05:46 AM
