Skip to main content

That's Andrew Sullivan, flushing whatever's left of his reputation down the Crapper of Cluelessness.  (Or is it the Wastebasket of White Privilege?)  Sullivan feels Jason Richwine's parting company with the Heritage Foundation should "immediately send up red flags about intellectual freedom."

I kid you not.

And yes, writing about Sullivan is shooting fish in a barrel, but I couldn't resist.

Reflecting on Richwine's notorious dissertation on race and supposed differences in human intelligence:

We remain the same species, just as a poodle and a beagle are of the same species. But poodles, in general, are smarter than beagles, and beagles have a much better sense of smell. We bred those traits into them, of course, fast-forwarding evolution.
Poodles, it seems, rush in where angels fear to tread.

At odds with himself, Sullivan want us to know he believes "IQ is an artificial construct created to predict how well a random person is likely to do in an advanced post-industrial society," and that public policy should never be based in such a measure. Yet he rushes to defend the putative scholarship of Richwine's work.

But the core point about any dissertation is a simple one: does it hold up under scholarly scrutiny? Richard Zeckhauser, the Frank P. Ramsey Professor of Political Economy at Harvard, is on record as saying that “Jason’s empirical work was careful. Moreover, my view is that none of his advisors would have accepted his thesis had he thought that his empirical work was tilted or in error.” One of those advisors was the very serious and very liberal scholar Christopher Jencks.
Well, Professor, if there was a serious liberal involved, OK!  And we are talking Harvard, after all.

Still, I keep returning to Sullivan's words, smacking as they do of eugenics and stupidity:

We remain the same species, just as a poodle and a beagle are of the same species. But poodles, in general, are smarter than beagles, and beagles have a much better sense of smell. We bred those traits into them, of course, fast-forwarding evolution.
Sullivan closes with a warning. "Denying empirical reality is not a good thing in any circumstance."  

On that I agree, Andrew, and empirically speaking, you're a pluperfect imbecile and my dachshund Marty is smarter than you.  That is all.

Originally posted to MrJayTee on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:22 AM PDT.

Also republished by Barriers and Bridges, LatinoKos, and Black Kos community.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  He likens (34+ / 0-)

      races, or "races," to breeds? Wow.

      Sully  -- the man who put "Bell Curve" Charles Murray on the cover of TNR -- has been banging this racist drum for a years, and he's also trafficked in Islamophobia of late, yet he remains eminently "respectable."

      •  This is a classic meltdown. My God it's bad. (9+ / 0-)

        look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

        by FishOutofWater on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:52:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe he is respectable (and actually, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Puffin

        highly respected) because he is not guilty of the racism you and some others here accuse him of? Lots of claims here of Sullivan being a racist, no links yet to anything he's actually said, ever, that is racist.

        •  Here you go. (19+ / 0-)
          We remain the same species, just as a poodle and a beagle are of the same species. But poodles, in general, are smarter than beagles, and beagles have a much better sense of smell. We bred those traits into them, of course, fast-forwarding evolution.
          Hope that helps.

          A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

          by MrJayTee on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:54:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, keep posting that same passage (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Puffin

            out of context. Because you will indeed get a bunch of kossacks to buy into the "Sullivan is a racist" meme if all you give them is that out of context. It's working already. So keep it up.

            •  You're an idiot apologist. (4+ / 0-)
            •  I don't know, I read the whole article. After (6+ / 0-)

              reading the first couple of paragraphs, I was thinking that maybe he was being taken out of context as well. Then, there it is, not so much out of context. Without that comparison, the paragraph is good and so is the rest of the article.

              However, there is a problem with talking about breeds. It is filled with subjective thinking. Who the hell knows which breed is actually smarter than another? It's all based on our own value system, not anything to do with scientific evidence. If we like big dogs, then German Shepherds are smarter, but if we like small dogs, it's poodles. There is nothing scientific about the characterization. Just as there is no reason to research "intelligence" based on race.

              "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

              by ranger995 on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:08:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  poodles aren't small, either (6+ / 0-)

                which kinda speaks to the idiot self-deception involved in the whole debate.

                Poodles aren't small.  
                Latinos aren't a racial group.
                IQ measures the ability to answer the questions on an IQ test.
                Pundits don't understand things any better than the people they condescend to.

                It's not a fake orgasm; it's a real yawn.

                by sayitaintso on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:16:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Whatever. The idea is that we really don't know (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  melfunction, livingthedream

                  anything about the intelligence of dog breeds, we just know that they are physically different. That's it. Then we place our own subjective ideas about how intelligent they are based on what is most pleasing to us in a dog.

                  "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

                  by ranger995 on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:22:35 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Dog breeds are a result (6+ / 0-)

                of human manipulation.  As a dog owner and lover, I have had smart dogs and stupid dogs in the same breed.  I even once had two dogs from the same parent dogs. One dog was relatively intelligent and the other dumb as a brick.

                The problem I have with Sullivan's analogy is that he is comparing human beings to dog breeds, which is like comparing apples to lettuce.  Yes, humans and dogs are both mammals, and apples and lettuce are both in the vegetable family.  All four are living beings.  So what does that prove?  Nothing, zilch, nada at all except that they all have a finite lifespan.  What I am saying is that Sullivan's analogy is a stupid analogy.

                The problem with measuring human intelligence is that it is another artificial measure which only measures how well someone does on a test designed by someone of the same background, learning environment, and culture.

                "Growing up is for those who don't have the guts not to. Grow wise, grow loving, grow compassionate, but why grow up?" - Fiddlegirl

                by gulfgal98 on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:06:05 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  There are ways to measure canine (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Alice in Florida

                intelligence, such as problem-solving ability.

                Almost every Border Collie is smarter than any Afghan Hound. The exceptions are those 3 sigma cases bell curvers talk about.

                Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

                by blue aardvark on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:51:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  You're a Racist (9+ / 0-)

              Let me cut through the insistent stupidity that enables racists to be racists.

              Racism is the use of race to make broad generalizations about people based on their race. Race itself is an invented categorization, and is useless to describe people's innate properties beyond some superficial appearances and a very few physiological tendencies (like succeptibilities to a very few diseases). Racism is an irrational basis for judgements, as is very well known, and has caused incalculable harm through all of human history (and doubtless before that).

              Saying that one race is smarter, while another race has some sensory advantage, the way different dog breeds have different advantages, is making a broad generalization about people based on their race. That's racism.

              Also racism is denying that a racist is racist, to enable their racism.

              Congratulations! You're a racist.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:07:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  MrJayTee you seem not to understand racism (0+ / 0-)

            very well if that is the best example you can come up with to show Sullivan is racist.

            Sadly, too many other people seem to be confused enough to uprate your poor example.

            We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

            by theotherside on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:34:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The best? No, just a plump little sparrow, (5+ / 0-)

              Asking to be plucked from the flock.  

              And so I did.

              A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

              by MrJayTee on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:59:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Understanding Racism (5+ / 0-)

              One key to understanding racism is knowing that it is simply judging people based on their membership in a race, which is an artificial category that predicts nothing beyond some superficial appearances and a very few probabiliities of vulnerability to disease. Sullivan did exactly that. It's racism.

              Another key is knowing that denying racism is racism.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:10:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your last line got me laughing, thanks (0+ / 0-)

                for that!  Ah yes, humans are quite the perfect creature and when they accuse one another of racism it is always a correct assertion.  To deny otherwise proves that it was racism in the first place.

                PS If you are serious about engaging in debate we should probably both agree to accurately describe what Sullivan did.  Go ahead and ask him the question if the IQ studies that he thinks proves there is a slight variation amongst the so called "races" means that a person or a race can be judged to be better or worse.  I'm fairly confident he would say that those studies have no bearing on any individual in any race and that is the antithesis of what you wrote.

                Sullivan is intellectually curious about many things.  Because he is also intellectually curious about the cross section of intelligence and sociology he obviously needs to be called a racist.

                We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

                by theotherside on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:01:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Reading Comprehension (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MrJayTee

                  I never said that every accusation of racism is correct. In this case the accusation is correct.

                  The accusation isn't that he's "intellectually curious". (Is there some other kind of curious?) It's that he's making blanket descriptions of people based on race, which is racism. I suppose you just didn't get the first paragraph in which I made that clear.

                  Sullivan said that White people are smarter. That is racism so blatant and undeniable that only a racist, whether actively or tacitly in support of some other agenda (like alliance with the rest of Sullivan's Conservatism) could miss it.

                  Sullivan didn't even read the research he's praising. In the past he's pushed the fallacious "Bell Curve" racism, too. Which was consistent with his Republicanism (that he gave up only because he'd finally spent enough years gay in their company, and couldn't stand the cost of Conservatism anymore).

                  He's a racist. Some racists are curious. But their racism prevents them from seeing the truth, blinded by bigotry. How do you score?

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Wed May 15, 2013 at 11:42:41 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Let's just leave it at this (0+ / 0-)

                    You are vaguely aware of Sullivan's writings but you don't seem to follow him closely.  I've read his blog essentially daily for the last 13 years.  I know his thinking very well.

                    He never left the Republican party because he never was in the Republican party.  

                    He doesn't say that white people are smarter because that is not what the science says.  The science that he cites says that there is a small, but persistent difference in intelligence test scores across different ethnic groups when you try to account for different factors that affect intelligence.  And "whites" are not at the top of that list.

                    So apparently he is some weird type of white racist who claims that other races are, on the whole, smarter than his white race.

                    And finally, Sullivan didn't praise the research.  He clearly said that he didn't read it and he also said he is not defending (let alone praising) Richwine's position.  

                    If you can't or won't accurately describe either Sullivan or his positions, it is nearly impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you on this topic.  But it is indeed much easier to simply call him a racist and call it a day than engage in a factually based debate.

                    We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

                    by theotherside on Thu May 16, 2013 at 04:52:54 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You Leave (0+ / 0-)

                      No, let's not leave it. You are free to do so, though.

                      I didn't simply call Sullivan a racist, I backed it up with facts and logic. The simple matter is that he said Whites are smarter than other races, using a dog breed analogy. That's racist.

                      It doesn't matter what else he's written, in that column or elsewhere. The rest of it might (or might not) be racist; that assertion is racist. The person who makes a racist assertion is racist. That assertion was a defense of Richwine's research, the entire point of the column, oxymoronic disclaimers to the contrary notwithstanding.

                      Smaller matters like whether he was a Republican or not: he's not a US citizen, or at least hadn't been until he finally attacked the Republican Party for abusing gay people like himself. So he's not an American party member. But his allegiance was Republican. Until that time his "Conservatism" saw him supporting Republicans like Bush Jr - and his Iraq War. He started to break with the Party over torture, but prior to that he was as Republican as any booster of that party during its drive through holding all three elected Federal chambers.

                      As far as implying (if your inference is correct) that it's not Whites who are smartest, though they're among the smartest races, that isn't unusual for a White racist. White racists will often say that East Asians are smarter, but inferior for some other reason (outside the scope of that article).

                      It's really not complicated: he defended Richwine's racist research by saying some human races are smarter, like some dog breeds (poodles) are smarter. That is racist.

                      And you are defending it, too. Feel free to leave it at that.

                      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                      by DocGonzo on Thu May 16, 2013 at 07:46:33 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Once again (0+ / 0-)

                        We shall agree to disagree.  You mischaracterize both Sullivan's position and now you are misstating my position.  You are free to continue to state that Sullivan's entire point was to defend Richwine's research but you couldn't be farther from the truth since Sullivan explicitly said he didn't read the research and wasn't there to defend it.  In fact, he later said he would gladly print arguments that deconstruct Richwine's errors.

                        Hopefully if we cross paths again it will be on a topic that we have at least some common agreement on the facts at hand and what they mean because, if you are like me, then I'm sure you find it frustrating to read the same article and come away with an understanding that is so far from what you think was said and meant.

                        And, just for the record, saying one "race" has darker skin than other "races" like dogs have darker or lighter hair, is not racist.  Saying that one race is more prone to one disease like some dogs are more prone to a particular disease is not racist.  That is, if both of those assertions are true.  If they are not true, then perhaps it is racist.  Now, the question is whether or not IQ has any genetic basis whatsover like skin color and susceptability to a particular disease.  If IQ does have a genetic component then I'm not so sure we should call stating that fact "racist".  If IQ doesn't have any genetic component and a person continues to cling to the false claim that it does, I can understand why people would say that person is a racist.

                        In our current situation some people think that this question has been settled and some do not.  And some on each side seem to think this based mostly on their politics and not the current state of our scientific understanding.  I'm fairly agnostic but even if there is a genetic component it seems to be dwarfed by so many other factors that it doesn't seem very important.

                        But academic freedom is pretty important, at least to me and Sullivan.

                        We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

                        by theotherside on Thu May 16, 2013 at 11:29:18 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Keep It Up (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          MrJayTee

                          You can agree to whatever you want. You can leave it wherever you want. But despite asserting that "we" are agreeing to disagree, or that "we" will leave it at "that", you're not in a position to dictate whether I agree (to disagree or anything else), or leave it at anything (especially at your asserted position). You keep doing that: claiming victory and then retreating. It's inane.

                          You can also say that I am describing Sullivan's "entire point", in a paragraph where you accuse me of misstating both his point and yours. But I never said that it was his entire point. To the contrary, I said "The rest of it might (or might not) be racist; that assertion is racist.", explicitly discounting the rest of his "entire point". I don't care what else racists have to say - they're discredited by their racism. Though Sullivan was already discredited by all kinds of other things he's had to say (lolights of which I've mentioned), which is why I don't waste my time reading his "points". But here you're just changing what I said - another inane tactic, not too different from the first I just mentioned.

                          Now you're turning what Sullivan said about "human races = dog breeds" into "some races have darker skin". But he said "some races are smarter".  Again, you're changing the argument to suit yourself, regardless of the actual subject or statements.

                          On the substantive issue of whether some races are smarter than others: you equate race to genetics, when that's nonsense, too. As others have pointed out, actual reliable DNA studies show that among Africans there's more genetic diversity than among all the other races. "Race" is discredited basis for making accurate statements about entire populations, let alone about individuals. "Race" is cherrypicked phenotype expressions substituting for actual genotype differences in inane arguments. As to whether Richwine's underlying research is accurate or not, it's not even a genetic study. It's a survey of literature, which is always a highly subjective indulgence even in the hands of meticulous researchers. Even his PhD review board members, when challenged, disclaimed in their responses his conclusions from the survey - which should disqualify someone from a Harvard PhD, but evidently doesn't. The point of the validity of Richwine's "some races are smarter" conclusion, determined by the quality of his data collection, is moot though. Sullivan admitted he didn't read the study. But he embraced it's conclusion: some races are inherently smarter (despite living among the other races for many generations), like some dog breeds are smarter and others have a more acute sense of smell. A conclusion the PhD review board has since disclaimed, but which Sullivan embraces. Just like he embraced the fallacious Bell Curve that said the same thing. Racist.

                          Eventually you distance yourself from a claim that Richwine's research is a valid basis for anything. Whether for his own immigration policies that brought his research to public attention, or for Sullivan's conclusion that races are breeds, some of which are smarter than others. It's not just being wrong about a statement about racial tendencies that makes them racist. It's not knowing, and not caring to know (like not reading the research you're saying supports your statement), whether it's wrong, before making the statement. Racism isn't even wrong: it's not an intellectually valid exercise, it's just an attack without regard to right or wrong. And that is what Sullivan gave us in that paragraph, which serves to define his work. Racist.

                          You try to close with some kind of "academic freedom" smokescreen. The only academic issue is whether Harvard should be granting PhDs for the kind of crap Richwine gave it. The kind of crap whose conclusions are disclaimed by the PhD review committee when publicly confronted with it. Where is the attack on academic freedom? Even the freedom of Harvard to undermine its reputation for quality (which is a measure deeply integrated into our society, and so of public interest) isn't challenged. Nobody's doing anything to Harvard but calibrate our expectations of its degrees' indication of quality. Though an important part of academic freedom is its integrity, granting quality marks appropriate to its actual quality. So your attempt to imply that I am somehow opposed to "academic freedom" is just another inane rhetorical ploy.

                          So your posts are mainly strawman assertions that change as I consistently present the simple facts and logic showing Sullivan's' racism. Sullivan's racism uses Richwine's research only as a pretext for his prejudice. And Richwine's research is crap even his review board rejects. Keep trying: none of that is going to change, no matter what transparent feints you use to defend it all. It might work to keep you convinced that Sullivan isn't a racist, and worth reading. But when it reaches me it all falls apart instantly. Why don't you try thinking about what I'm offering you over and over, instead of sticking to your guns regardless of what you're shown? Prejudice is a terrible bog to wallow in.

                          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                          by DocGonzo on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:53:05 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Leave him to heaven... (0+ / 0-)

                            A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

                            by MrJayTee on Fri May 17, 2013 at 11:05:24 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I truly appreciate the lengthy reply (0+ / 0-)

                            One or two paragraph replies typically aren't great at advancing the debate on complex issues such as this.

                            You write very well but our communication is rather poor, it seems to me.  You state in one post:

                            "That assertion was a defense of Richwine's research, the entire point of the column"
                            And then in your next post you state:
                            But I never said that it was his entire point.
                            I don't really know what to do with a commenter who writes that something is the entire point, I subsequently call you out on it, and then you deny that you said it was his entire point.  If I was going to be accusatory I would say that this is  bald face lying.  But, sincerely, I doubt that this is the case.  So I earnestly ask you, when you said that the "entire point" of Sullivan's column "was a defense of Richwine's research" what did you mean?  And can you not understand that I would take it to mean that you thought Sullivan's entire point was a defense of Richwine's research when you explicitly state it?

                            Similarly, in your third paragraph of this post, you state that I'm changing the argument.  I would disagree.  I am pointing out that very few people would deny that different "races" of people have varying shades of pigmentation and that they have different susceptibilities to various diseases.  Do you deny this statement?  If so, why?  If you accept it, is stating it racist?  If so, why?

                            Taking an educated guess (although I could be wrong) I'm guessing that you would acknowledge that the different "races" (however you want to construct that concept) do have different pigmentation and do have different rates of acquiring certain diseases.  If I'm right, we can agree to that and not call each other racist.  But when it comes to whether these same "races" score the exact same on IQ tests I think that you think it is racist to even consider that the different races would not score the EXACT same scores when all other factors are attempted to be teased out.   I think you are probably intellectually honest enough to understand that that is a prejudice that you have.  I myself have no such prejudice.  I am agnostic about what the data would indicate  if every person on the planet took an IQ test and then you grouped the test scores according to some sort of definition of "race" and then, somehow, attempted to tease out environmental factors.  

                            Anyway, this post is already long but I will entertain some of your other thoughts.

                            In paragraph five you state that I distance myself "from a claim that Richwine's research is a valid basis for anything".  I think that either I did not communicate as well as I could or you are misconstruing my statement.  Let me be clear.  I did not read Richwine's research.  I care very little about what he said as he is apparently a guy that is comfortable with posting on white supremacist websites.  It doesn't necessarily mean that his research is invalid but I think it would tend to lead to that conclusion.  One of the key points I'm making, and I think Sullivan is making, is that it is not a racist act to consider that "races" have different levels of melanin, different rates of acquiring different diseases and may have different IQ test scores (taken as a whole).   I think the science is settled on the first two points and I'm agnostic on the third, mostly because of the sordid history of eugenics.  It may be the case that the science behind a slight difference in IQ's amongst the races is as flawed as the  idea that cranial size proves the superiority of one "race" over another.   But you seem to be in the camp says that it is scientifically impossible for there to be any variance amongst "races" in the flawed and limited test that we call IQ.   The data and reports  that Sullivan and others cite seems to refute your stance but a lot of what Sullivan posted is at least 10 years old and I don't know if more recent data/reports confirm or refute what Sullivan has posted.

                            Finally, I'm not exactly sure what you are "offering me" and what you want me to take from your writings.  If science says that there is absolutely no genetic component to IQ test scores, great.  That is probably the ideal outcome in my view.  OTOH, if the science says that there is a slight difference in IQ test scores among the "races" that is a result of genetics, that it is an interesting finding that has not much more significance than whether T Rex could have run at 15 mph or 20 mph.  IOW, it's intellectually interesting but has little if no real world application.

                            But you seem to be saying that it is racist to even consider a genetic component to IQ despite the fact that the different "races" evolved with relatively minimal inter action over the course of long periods of times.   You may be exactly right but it would seem to be incredibly wrong to label all those that are open to science guiding the way on this issue as racist.

                            We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

                            by theotherside on Fri May 17, 2013 at 06:34:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  So humans have breeds like dogs (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a2nite

            Who then is the breeder?

            Whereat some one of the loquacious Lot--
            I think a Sufi pipkin-waxing hot--
            "All this of Pot and Potter--Tell me then,
            Who is the Potter, pray, and who the Pot?"
            - Khayyam

            Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

            by blue aardvark on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:49:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  The constant focus on (14+ / 0-)

          flawed tests revealing meaningless differences regarding a flawed concept (IQ), which doesn't truly reflect intelligence is racist.

          It's junk science that should be taken seriously, esp. when the implications are so hurtful and harmful.

        •  I'm happy condemning him (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MrJayTee, happymisanthropy

          for chastising gay men for their supposedly irresponsible sexual behavior while cruising xxx-rated websites for bareback sex.  

          Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

          by corvo on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:14:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  he's not a racist, he's a moron (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          old possum, happymisanthropy

          Where to start on believing the bullshit that Richwine is shoveling?

      •  I made that same mental connection, not realizing (6+ / 0-)

        the ACTUAL connection.

        figures.

        This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

        by mallyroyal on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:58:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I just read a very good comment (34+ / 0-)

          here:

          There is more genetic diversity within the human population of Africa than among the rest of the human population put together. Describing races, as we use the term today, as comparable to individual breeds of a species is profoundly mistaken. The different populations of Africans and African-derived people are much more different from each other than most of them are from Europeans and European derived races.

          There are intelligent to things to say about human genetic diversity. Sullivan doesn’t say any of them; he indulges in mistaken pseudo-science, and the mistakes always seem to be made in the same directio

          •  An elegant knife (10+ / 0-)

            In Sullivan's back.  Well done.

            A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

            by MrJayTee on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:18:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  exactly right. our eyes deceive us. (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MrJayTee, poco, TomP, david mizner, mikejay611

            This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

            by mallyroyal on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:31:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I agree strongly with this... (9+ / 0-)

            In fact, there's more genetic congruence between a Bantu language speaker in Nigeria and a Norwegian than that same Nigerian and a Dinka cattle herder in Sudan. Most people in Africa are descended from an ancient expansion of peoples from West Africa that more or less corresponds to the Bantu language group -that extends all the way to Kwazulu-Natal in South Africa. Nilotic peoples and especially click-language speakers in Southern Africa (and a few other isolated groups such as Twi in Congo and Rwanda) are mostly comprised of people from much older lineages. See this article about a Y chromosome lineage found from Cameroon that is different from everyone else on the planet:  http://uanews.org/...

            Here's the deal though... this genetic diversity says nothing about "intelligence".  It reflects random genetic drift over 80,000 or 100,000 years, and also adaptation to local environments and particularly diseases. Is it any wonder that many Dinka pastoralists in the plains of S Sudan are 7 feet tall when Twi peoples in the protein-poor Congolese rain forest average at about 5 feet?  It's not just nutrition - it's genetic. 80,000 years of natural selection does that.

            But there's no proof that wonderful diversity in human genetics has anything to do with intelligence.  There's no way to separate intelligence testing from culture, and the whole idea of intelligence as a single index measuring a single value is ridiculous, even if there was a way to measure it. If you were to look at language complexity - grammar, syntax, etc... it's very hard to argue that the incredible diversity in Africa reflects real differences in intelligence.  Some of the most complex and subtle languages in Africa are spoken by some of the peoples with the longest history of separation from other lineages - especially the !Kung San (formerly known as Bushmen) in Botswana and Namibia. They are truly an ancient people, forced into marginal environments by much later migrations.  

            “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

            by ivorybill on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:22:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And that, my friend, is the most cogent thing said (0+ / 0-)

              in these comments so far:

              There's no way to separate intelligence testing from culture
              To me, it's apparent that nature's evolutionary scheme, if you will, is all about species survival.  I am also convinced that the best definition of a "culture" that works is made up of the entire assemblage of behavior that a coherent group imposes upon itself in order to best survive within the context of the particular place they occupy.  Which is to say, if culture is to be of consequence in behalf of the species, it must be place specific, and is, therefore, a moral issue with respect to ecology, species survival, etc.

              I have often thought that in the high entropy, downward spiral of our manifest journey to self extinction, we've passed a point of no return, a Fall of Man thing.  After millions of years of evolving our entire sensory apparatus within the context of the speed of foot, ("spoot"), and with all the physical constraints that implies, we rather suddenly figured out how to go much, much faster.  That got us civilization with its long channels of distribution of all the things needed for survival (food, shelter, water, etc), that were once within our "genomic reach" and are now totally beyond that reach.  The Principalities of Civilization have become our reach, and they are failing us miserably.

              It takes attention to the intricate detail of one's place if one is to survive.  That is the only valid definition of "intelligence".  Without that detail, it is difficult for working culture to survive.  The faster you move, the greater the loss of detail.  That is the real meaning of being dis-placed.

              So, it is apparent to me that we, in the so-called, "developed world", are in fact, dis-placed.  When we celebrate "cultural diversity", we are really acknowledging the presence of cultural artifacts, which, for all their beauty, signal a tragic loss.  

      •  funny thing is that they are both hunting breeds (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lawstudent922

        French Poodle started out as a German retriever breed and fancy cuts were to protect their joints as they swam through cold water.  It was when the fancy folks in Paris embraced the breed that they became show pieces instead of working dogs.

        Beagles were not so cute and so retained their jobs as household pets and rabbit chasers

      •  It's not a bad comparison (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo

        "Race" in humans does not have any clear biological meaning. All humans are simply homo sapiens.  They can breed together and make offspring that can breed together.

        Ditto for dogs. Breeds aren't different species. They are just dogs with identifiable characteristics.

        A determined Chihuahua could  breed with a Great Dane and produce  fertile pups.

        One could make an argument that race in humans means a little bit more than that if we were to treat African blacks as a special case.  All other humans possess DNA inherited from non homo-sapiens.  We have some Neandertal DNA or some Denisoven DNA.  Only African blacks are pure homo sapiens.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:41:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The question the is, (3+ / 0-)

          what basis is there for making generalizations about the intelligence of "latinos" or "native whites," as Richwine does?  These are just cultural-political groups with a thin veil of racial pseudoscience pulled over them, if you try to treat them as biological "races."

          •  I'm not familiar with Richwine's work, so I don't (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            old possum

            know what he claims.

            I am familiar with works that show differences in measured IQ between groups, but measured IQ is a very bendy number affected by nature as much as by nurture, so...

            even if you could demonstrate the differences (remembering that groups and individuals are not the same thing) between groups, you might not be able to interpret what they mean.

            I don't know why this comes to mind, but I remember hearing a story about people from a "lost" tribe.  Don't recall if it was in the Amazon, Africa, New Guinea or where.  The key thing is that their language did incorporate the idea of relative direction.  There was no left or right, just north, south, east, and west.

            A funny thing -- from the time they are children, those people could always tell you which was was north, south, etc.  If you asked them which side of the plate to put the spoon, they'd tell you east or west (or north or south, come to think of it), not left or right.

            So -- if you decided that directional awareness were an integral part of IQ, they would pass and the rest of us would be pretty damned stupid.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:01:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Good point, although we know that Richwine (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Chinton, mikejay611

              did argue that "“The average IQ of immigrants … is substantially lower than that of the white native population."  

              That quote, unless debunked as fraudulent, is in many reports on Richwine's dissertation.

              And it is pure racial pseudoscience.

              •  I'm pretty sure it's not true of Indian doctors (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                old possum

                and computer professionals coming over on H-1B visas.

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:28:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Especially since there is no such thing as (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                old possum, mikejay611, melfunction

                "native white" - simply doesn't exist. The very fact that he bases his entire thesis on the false construct of a "native" white person in the US should have been a red flag so large that the dissertation committee should have run screaming from the room.

                •  Are there no white people (0+ / 0-)

                  in the US who are born here? That's all "native" means...the tribes we refer to as "Native Americans" might better be described as "First Nations" or some term to signify that they came to this continent thousands of years before Europeans, who have only been here a few hundred. But "native" just means born here, and by now native-born white people far outnumber "Native Americans."

                  "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

                  by Alice in Florida on Wed May 15, 2013 at 12:04:23 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Large poodles are very smart, I changed my mind (8+ / 0-)

      after watching one play with my 3 yr old daughter....played catch even though she could only throw the ball a foot or two, very gentle with her, impressed me

    •  I love my standard poodle (14+ / 0-)

      who is intelligent, trainable, polite, loves the farm, wide open spaces, but doesn't disappear for hours chasing some random rabbit.

      But my poodle isn't really a person though he is not just a dog, but that isn't the point.

      People are neither poodles nor beagles nor selectively bred as dogs are.   Selective breeding of people is called eugenics and has a bad reputation in polite circles for reasons related to nazi's and others with no respect for human beings. Sullivan has to be losing his mind to think that analogy was appropriate.

      •  I "love" the dog to people analogies. . . . (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo, jfromga, DocGonzo, happymisanthropy

        . . .dogs are "smart" only in relation to how they deal with their masters. . .same as IQ

        the fact that you're right is nothing more than interesting

        by Egg on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:36:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  not at all true (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mikejay611, Alice in Florida

          dogs are smart in how they deal with their lives as dogs as well, with other dogs and animals, learning from experiences, solving problems.  Not all of us are so species-centric that we can't see intelligence in animals unrelated to ourselves.  That some people may choose only to see and rate dogs on their 'human relations' smarts, is a fault of people's, not dog's, intelligence.

          While some dog to people analogies make sense, ie, training is training, it has some basic principles in common,  dog to people selective breeding analogies are not lovable.  First of all, humans stink at selective breeding in many ways,  fashion and fad take over and common problems are ignored creating so many of our purebreds with near fatal or fatal genetic faults.  Second,  no group of humans should decide the life choices of another when it comes to procreation.  So I don't support eugenics, I don't support forced birth or forced contraception.

        •  Call me a racist but schanuzers kick (0+ / 0-)

          poodle or beagle ass any day!

          •  but I don't want my dog to kick ass (0+ / 0-)

            I want him to be friendly and gentle.

            We had acouple of  schnauzers over the years I was a kid, they are also great dogs.  But my standard is my favorite over even the miniature poodle who was awsome, both the schnauzers and the mixes.  I loved them all, miss them all, but the standard poodle is special.

      •  I love my standard poodle too!! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jfromga

        I have two, from the same litter, Barnabas & Taylor.  They are the best dogs ever!!  Poodles get a bad rap but they are VERY athletic dogs. Like someone else noted in this thread, poodles were originally retriever dogs, often used in connection with duck hunting.

        It's not easy being a Floridian: PS I'm a lawYER now; no longer a lawSTUDENT.

        by lawstudent922 on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:21:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  agreed (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mikejay611, lawstudent922

          they are very athletic, plus they became known as 'French' poodles because the French started training them for circus acts and athleticism was necessary for that as well as trainability.  Nevertheless, they still look totally at home lounging on a sofa, you probably know the pose, as well as having the froofroo show cuts as the public image,  so people think they are not athletes.  Or that they would revel in rolling in horse manure matting all those lovely long ears and pom poms with unmentionable green goop.

    •  right? Snoopy wept. (5+ / 0-)

      This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

      by mallyroyal on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:59:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I have a dream... (4+ / 0-)

      ...I have a dream... that someday,
      pets will be judged not... by the texture of their fur,
      but by the content of their character.


      i just baptized andrew breitbart into the church of islam, planned parenthood, the girl scouts and three teachers unions. - @blainecapatch

      by bobinson on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:30:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I like poodles (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MrJayTee

      But who doesn't love a beagle?  Yes, you're so cute.

      And boxers.  They're beautiful, too.

      And pointers!

      And affenpinschers!

      And corgis!

      "People should not be afraid of their government; governments should be afraid of their people." --V

      by MikeTheLiberal on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:04:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I can't stand poodles, either (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN, mikejay611

      and that includes stabdard poodles, which we've tried owning. For smarts, give me a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever. They've got the brains of a border collie or a standard poodle (they are not only scary smart, the damn dogs are tool users!), the drive and persistence of a true field-bred retriever (which they all are), and the attitude of a cat. They are certainly not for everybody, but they are for us, but it can be really difficult sometimes living with a dog wgo may be smarter than we are, and we are far from stupid.

      Organ donors save lives! A donor's kidney gave me my life back on 02/18/11; he lives on in me. Please talk with your family about your wish to donate.

      Why are war casualty counts "American troops" and "others" but never "human beings"?

      by Kitsap River on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:33:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is there no end (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kitsap River

        to the number of dog breeds out there? It really does seem infinite. I would swear you made that up, but according to Google they exist and look like undersized Goldens.

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Wed May 15, 2013 at 12:13:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We have one. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Charles CurtisStanley

          She will be 12 on June 1, and she's been my dog since she was born. Literally - I held her in my hand within 5 minutes of her birth. Tollers pick out their own people (at least, from those available to them) and she picked me and wouldn't settle fir my dear friend, who co-owned her. She is smart as hell and thinks she ought to be able to get away with whatever she wants, despite lifelong training - that's part of what I mean about the attitude of a cat. They sometimes wash themselves like cats, too. They beat the pants off a Golden or the Golden's parent breed, the Flatcoated Retriever, of which I've had three along with Tollers, when it comes to brains, and they tend to be devious.

          You have to work hard to keep up with a Toller.

          They are also a fairly rare breed. I suspect there may be as many as 20,000-25,000 of them in the world at this point, up from 8,000-12,000 about twelve years ago.

          We are looking to adopt a show-quality female puppy but will settle for a male. Bitty, our Toller, is old, deaf, and very greatly loved, and we want to adopt a pup while she is still with us. Young digs learn from old dogs and it will make early and basic training go much mire quickly if the pup can learn from Bitty, especially things like returning the ball when it's thrown. They fetch automatically, but you have to teach them to return the fetchd object to you. Bitty will also help the oup learn to swim.

          Organ donors save lives! A donor's kidney gave me my life back on 02/18/11; he lives on in me. Please talk with your family about your wish to donate.

          Why are war casualty counts "American troops" and "others" but never "human beings"?

          by Kitsap River on Wed May 15, 2013 at 01:19:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I've Been Bitten By Viscious Poodles And Beagles (0+ / 0-)

      ...as a child i was bitten in the back unprovoked by a large poodle and in the face by a beagle.

      There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

      by bernardpliers on Tue May 21, 2013 at 08:33:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I read this last night (17+ / 0-)

    I was tired and thought "surely he isn't saying this". But it's still there this morning.  Yuck.

    We are raised to honor all the wrong explorers and discoverers - thieves planting flags, murderers carrying crosses. Let us at last praise the colonizers of dreams. - Peter S. Beagle

    by jk2003 on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:33:06 AM PDT

  •  And goshdarnit... (7+ / 0-)

    You wouldn't want your poodle consorting with beagles. Yes, they COULD interbreed, but the tragedy...

  •  The intellectual content of Andrew (8+ / 0-)

    Sullivan's Dish is head and shoulders above this site. And his own writing is some of the best anywhere on the internet. You completely misinterpreted this one essay, and are using your own misinterpretation to smear his entire body of work. Anyone here who does not visit the site regularly should IMO try to do so. It's good on politics (with a leftward leaning bias, though not extreme) but also has got so much more.

    •  Yeah, people like Sullivan are always being (12+ / 0-)

      "Misinterpreted."

      Pity.

      A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

      by MrJayTee on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:39:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think you understood the essay. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Puffin

        His point is that people fighting against racism do their cause an injustice by arguing that certain facts are not facts, or that certain facts should not be discussed or researched. Did you understand that point? Because if you did, whether or not you agree with it, you'd know that your criticism of the essay is completely misplaced. You seem to focus only on the canine analogy, but do you understand what he was saying? If so, tell us what you think the theme of his essay was. You chose to write a diary about it, so I don't think that is asking too much.

        •  Now that was a tangential point (15+ / 0-)

          Here's the reasonable-ish part of the post:

          What on earth are these “liberals” so terrified of, if not the truth? Instead of going on racist witch-hunts, why don’t they question what IQ means, how great the cultural and environmental impact can be (very considerable), whether such tests should guide public policy at all, or examine how “race” as a social construct does not always correlate to specific variations in human DNA.
          Well why doesn't he? Why is he always hyping the test-result differences instead of questioning the validity of these culturally biased tests as well as the very validity of this thing we call IQ?
          •  Perhaps you didn't read the whole (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            concernedamerican, zett, Puffin

            thing. He absolutely "questions the validity" of IQ tests.

            The serious debate is about what importance to assign to the concept of “IQ” and about the possible reasons for the enduring discrepancies: environment, nurture, culture, or genes – or some variation of them all?

            For my part, I’ve come to doubt the existence of something called “g” or general intelligence, as the research has gathered over the years. I believe IQ is an artificial construct created to predict how well a random person is likely to do in an advanced post-industrial society. And that’s all it is.

            At least you read (some) of the article. Most here are willing to take the diarist's word for it that Sullivan wrote some terrible racist screed on his blog; no need to actually go there and read such terrible things.
            •  Yup. And then goes on to say that *some* breeds (12+ / 0-)

              Are smarter than others.

              He (and you) can try covering Sullivan's ass all he likes, he's been burned and he did it to himself.

              A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

              by MrJayTee on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:08:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Fundamentally, it's a sloppy & lazy article (11+ / 0-)

              I read it three times trying to discern what his sometimes self-conflicting points were.   He's also selectively picking his points of views to emphasize.  e.g., He asks this question,

              But the core point about any dissertation is a simple one: does it hold up under scholarly scrutiny?
              and then provides a third-hand subjective quote that "none of his advisors would have accepted his thesis had he thought that his empirical work was tilted or in error."  But Sullivan ignores the committee's own chair admitting he doesn't know much about a central thesis of the dissertation,
              “I have never worked on anything even remotely related to IQ..."
              I could go on.  I think Sullivan was in too much of a hurry to post "intellectual freedom" as a smoke screen for other matters he's trying to support.  My gosh, this is about all one needs to know about Sullivan's own efforts, He admits,
              I haven’t had time to read the thing.
              ...yet has time to post over 1,000 words attacking criticisms about Richwine.  

              I've seen far better work from Sullivan and I don't know if I've seen anything worse than this.

              •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                I think you make some good points but Sullivan clearly wasn't trying to defend Richwine's work (as you point out he didn't even read the work.)  He was focusing on the illiberal reaction from students and acadamia and was warning about suppressing research efforts.  

                To better understand where he was coming from I would draw an analogy between the science of intelligence and that of Climate Science.  None of us have to read the work of Climate Scientists to support the position that they should be able to proceed with research and it will eventually lead to a confirmation or rejection of the idea that we are causing climate change.

                If a conservative group at a conservative university came out and said "even if the claims are supported by the evidence" we reject our university being associated with climate science.  I think most thinking people here would be look poorly on such a statement and would find it extremely illiberal of this group.

                Well, Sullivan is harshly criticizing this type of knee jerk, political driven clamping down on intellectual freedom.  It's a position that liberals (and conservatives) should actually applaud.  We should not be afraid of reality, especially in this "reality based community" and science is the best way to objectively look at reality.  I think that is where Sullivan was coming from.

                We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

                by theotherside on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:07:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I is not a "knee jerk reaction" (3+ / 0-)

                  to call this load of shit racist. Nor is it "clamping down on intellectual freedom" to call the totally discredited eugenics theory crap and unworthy of a Harvard dissertation.  

                  •  Here is something else that Sullivan wrote (0+ / 0-)

                    that may or may not interest you:

                    Since this issue is so explosive and important, I look forward to the scholarly dismantling of the Richwine thesis. Have at it. I’ll happily publish the grotesque, racist errors that somehow got past Christopher Jencks.

                    We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

                    by theotherside on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:59:10 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  How many times does the Bell Curve (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MrJayTee

                      have to be debunked before you can just say race based measures of intelligence only reflect the intelligence of the idiots who write that crap?

                      •  I don't come at it from a political point of view (0+ / 0-)

                        I find it interesting in much the same way as I find it interesting when scientists are talking about the "God" particle recently confirmed by the LHC, or when scientists find new evidence to pinpoint when we branched off from our other primate cousins.

                        So when people on the internet say it's been debunked and provide no proof and a task force made up of PhD's that work in this field describe what the state of science is, I tend to side with the scientists.  With that said, I keep an open mind that the methodology is flawed.  This whole subject has had a sordid history filled with junk science.  Many liberals seem to have a knee jerk reaction that because the methodology of the past was not science based that the modern day research is therefore not valid.  

                        Further, if the choice were presented as to whether a task force assigned to review all the research published a more authoritate report than a dissenting scientist, I would tend to go with a task force rather than the dissenters.  Much in the same way I would go with the 90 percent plus of scientists that are swayed by the evidence of AGW rather than the handful that are not swayed.

                        The result is that all too many liberals think I'm a rational person on climate science but I'm a racist on the question of science of intelligence.  It's sad really but that's what tends to happen when you view a scientific area of inquiry through the lens of politics.

                        Ultimately the question is of minor importance and I certainly don't think that if the science was ultimately confirmed that it matters much.  It would be ultimate folly to think that this would confirm a master race theory or that you should approach people in any other way than as an individual.  But I'm less prone to group think than most although I'm hardly immune.

                        We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

                        by theotherside on Thu May 16, 2013 at 04:01:16 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  It's not suppression of research efforts (5+ / 0-)

                  To point out that the so-called research was a bunch of bullshit derived from more of the same.

                  If we didn't have 4 decades of actual research that show his entire premise is false, he could have an excuse for making his claims. But since he skipped all relevant research that proves his thesis false when writing his dissertation, instead favoring sources such as the fully-debunked "The Bell Curve" and a badly biased 1924 IQ test, it is perfectly valid to call him on the carpet.

                  He "fixed the data around the policy," so to speak, by choosing to analyze only those data that supported his racist thesis.

                  •  How sure are you? (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm not in the field but I basically trust the scientific process.

                    So if a group of scientists come together and try to separate the politics from the science of a contentious issue I tend to rely on them.  That is one reason why when the IPCC comes out and says that we are contributing to climate change that I take it seriously.

                    So in 1994 "the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association concluded that there was an urgent need for an authoritative report on (intelligence test scores)" because the "debate was characterized by strong assertions as well as by strong feelings.  Unfortunately, those assertions often revealed serious misunderstandings of what has (and has not) been demonstrated by scientific research in this field."

                    You can read some of their conclusions at the link below but what they seem to be saying (amongst many things) is that when you try to account for any number of variables that may bias the results there is a persistent difference in IQ test scores amongst the different "races".  But they also caution that "in a field where so many issues are unresolved and so many questions unanswered, the confident tone that has characterized most of the debate on these topics is clearly out of place."

                    Now, maybe this same group (or other similar bodies) have come back and updated their findings and drawn different conclusions.  I simply don't know.  But it seems to me that the experts in the field (at least in this publication now going back 17 years) is clearly NOT saying that the differences have been debunked.

                    Do you know of any other bodies in the same discipline that have issued a newer report contradicting the report I link to below?

                    http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/...

                    We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

                    by theotherside on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:28:39 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Can't get more recent than this (0+ / 0-)

                      http://communications.uwo.ca/...

                      “My hope is that this (study) pens the debate back up on how we should conceive of and measure human intelligence. We very often hear these comparisons (of intelligence) and it’s a terrible oversimplification. People should be skeptical when they hear these reports of population differences in IQ; it shouldn’t be a unitary measure. Examining the social demographic correlations in more detail will help to understand them better. The patterns need to be examined with a more detailed model,” Hampshire noted.
                      In addition, genetically identical individuals (identical twins) separated at birth, only have the same IQ if the environment into which they are adopted is very similar. If IQ were entirely genetic, rather than largely influenced by environment, the children's environments would have little to no impact on their IQs. This is not the case:
                      If there are significant differences in fostered environment--one is neglected; is less well nourished; gets more diseases; is damaged accidentally or by abuse; or even conditioned to distrust the tests and the society they represent--the concordance and the genetic component essentially disappear.
                      •  Two points (0+ / 0-)

                        The write up of that study echoes quite a bit of the one I linked to.  The one I linked to said that when they asked a couple of dozen scientists in the field to describe intelligence they essentially got a couple of dozen different responses.  So IQ appears to be far from perfect.  "G" appears to be far from perfect. And combined measures of different forms of intelligence, while better, are also not perfect nor are they agreed to by all scientists in the field.

                        Secondly, and perhaps this is why many people react so negatively to this field of study, you seem to think that the studies are saying that IQ (even if it were the perfect indicator of intelligence) is "entirely genetic".  That is so far from what the scientists are saying.

                        The article I linked to goes over all the different aspects that can affect test scores and genetics is but one.  But an interesting scientific endeavor would be if you could tease out all the non genetic variables is there any difference in "intelligence" that can be ascribed to genetics.  

                        Both your study and the one I linked to say that our current understanding is that if do remove all other factors there still remains a slight variation due to genetic factors.

                        Anticipating your argument, if the authors in the study you cite thought there was no genetic component they would have stated something to the effect that the "concordance and the genetic component completely disappear."  Or "there is no genetic component amongst ethnic groups when it comes to intelligence."  They didn't state that and so my guess is that they did find a small difference but it was so small that they used the qualifier "essentially" no difference.

                        Anyway, it's all academic to me.  If there are group differences, I really don't care if I'm in the top group, the middle group or the bottom.  And I would be perfectly happy if genetic differences are zero or if they are very slight.  In other words, I have no dog in this fight but I'm open to wherever the science ends up.

                        Be well.

                        We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

                        by theotherside on Thu May 16, 2013 at 04:38:57 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm saying exactly the opposite (0+ / 0-)

                          IQ is not genetic, and therefore any claims that a group genetic characteristic determines IQ, permanently, across generations (such as Richwine's claim) is complete bullshit.

                          He claims that the entire Mexican immigrant population's IQ is mildly retarded (80), and other "Hispanic" populations are "below average" intelligence at a level that, according to IQ level charts would allow them to graduate primary school and make them "suitable for manual labor," but nothing more.

                          The ludicrousness of those claims is clear without even getting into the faulty statistics he cites, and his further faulty reading of those statistics.

                          •  I agree with your statement regarding the Mexican (0+ / 0-)

                            immigrants population's IQ being at 80 as a whole is ludicrous.

                            But, just so that you and I are clear, I know that you don't think that IQ is even partially genetic based.  I think IQ is affected by a great many factors and genetics/race may be one of the factors.  If it isn't true, great.  If it is true, I would be curious to see what in our evolutionary past caused that difference since we all descended from a relative handful of homo sapiens 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.  But what you stated in your comment prior to this one is that you thought that others were arguing that IQ is "entirely genetic".

                            It may have been a simple goof on your part and that's fine.  I was merely pointing out that your stating that that  what Sullivan and/or Richwine or the Bell Curve was saying was that IQ was "entirely genetic" is not at all what they are arguing.

                            Be well.

                            We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

                            by theotherside on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:46:55 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Richwine's paper argues that IQ is 100% genetic (0+ / 0-)

                            And that a non-existent race (Hispanic, which is not a race, but an ethnicity comprising people of many races) is of genetically low intelligence.

                          •  Like Sullivan, I didn't read Richwine's paper (0+ / 0-)

                            Richwine's willingness to post at white supremacist websites makes his views on this subject too biased to seriously consider what he states.

                            With that said, you need to perhaps consider getting different sources for your news.  As I surmised before this last post, neither Sullivan, Richwine or the Bell Curve comes anywhere close to saying that IQ is 100% genetic.

                            Since you continue to state this I quickly went to the internet and found this quote:

                            Richwine said lower IQs among Hispanics in the U.S. were caused in part by genetics, though he said that "the extent of [genetic] impact is hard to determine."
                            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

                            If you are going to websites that push an agenda at risk of the truth, you might want to reconsider going to those sites.  There is probably plenty to laugh at and ridicule about Richwine's dissertation (especially his conclusions) without stating an obvious falsehood that he claimed that IQ was 100 percent genetic.

                            We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

                            by theotherside on Fri May 17, 2013 at 06:55:53 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Go read the paper. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MrJayTee

                            He dismisses all evidence regarding environmental influence - so while he makes a minor acknowledgement at the beginning that the extent of genetic influence is hard to determine, he spends the entire paper "proving" that it's genetic.

                            Since you admit you haven't read it, I have no need to continue this conversation. I have read it.

              •  I agree that it is a sloppy and lazy piece (0+ / 0-)

                And there is much about which I disagree with Sullivan.  This piece in particular.  The poodle-beagle comparison is damning... I also don't get his Catholic religiosity for example.  To me that is equally harmful, but my objections to his religiosity are less tolerated here than my objections to his subconscious racism, which is the consensus opinion on this site.  I think he wrote this as sort of a knee-jerk defense of a quantiative study because he doesn't like what he sees as "liberal bullying".  Personally, I agree with the core of his argument - refute Richwine's argument on the merits rather than shouting him down.  

                I read it because it is one of the only places anywhere in which one can read an allegedly conservative perspective (although I don't think Sullivan is truly a conservative) that isn't brain-dead, that one can actually engage with on some sort of substantive level.  And yes, the intellectual content of his site is often a little higher than here.

                “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

                by ivorybill on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:59:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  The post is full on contradictions -- (0+ / 0-)

              If he sees through the validity of IQ tests, and does not think that they should be used as a basis for policy, then why is he not upset that Richwine actually ADVOCATES FOR USING IQ TESTS AS PART OF PUBLIC POLICY? --

              an IQ selection system could utilize individual intelligence test scores without any resort to generalizations.
              http://www.slate.com/...

              It seems that Richwine's dissertation actually does all of the bad things that Sullivan condemns -- yet he still defends Richwine, because he wants to still hang onto the idea that races can be ranked in terms of intelligence, as if they were dog breeds.

        •  They aren't facts. He is regurgitating talking (12+ / 0-)

          points about a study he hasn't read and isn't qualified to critique.  And then he makes an asinine comparison beagles versus poodles.  Quite frankly, he might as well have picked up an article on trace organic materials found on mars touted as proof that humans evolved on mars and asked "why are liberals afraid of the truth?"...

          ... Except people don't kill each other over martian rocks...

          ... yet ...

          To any wingnut: If you pay my taxes I'll give you a job.

          by ban48 on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:35:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I am a subscriber but this race stuff always (0+ / 0-)

      mystyfies me

    •  I like the Dish a lot, but that entry is a mess. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CoExistNow, Liberal Mole

      eom

      "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

      by Inland on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:43:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You know, I have read the dish (14+ / 0-)

      For years.  But just because he can string words together in a pretty way and he makes conservative cases for many of the issues that I care about doesn't mean I have to let his glaring mistakes slide.  Sometimes he is wrong and most of the time he handles criticism well.  This is not the first time he has peddled this.  He should be taken to task for it each and every time.

      We are raised to honor all the wrong explorers and discoverers - thieves planting flags, murderers carrying crosses. Let us at last praise the colonizers of dreams. - Peter S. Beagle

      by jk2003 on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:44:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed, in that same post he also says he isn't (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zett, Puffin, theotherside

      supporting the conclusions that Richwine draws from the data - just that the data is what the data is.

      He also says being smarter does not make a person "better."

      Basically, his post is a criticism of Richwine for using the data to support racists policy but the controversial point is that the data is what the data is, and researchers/intellectuals shouldn't be attacked for what the data is.

      •  Yes, exactly. People here are missing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Puffin

        the entire point of the entry, misinterpreting it as racist, and then piling on. It's somewhat embarrassing for this site, IMO.

        •  I get what you're saying, but... (16+ / 0-)

          dividing human beings into such categories of race is, in and of itself, ridiculous.

          Furthermore, IQ tests are culturally influenced as much as they are influenced by intelligence. I'd love to see someone create an IQ test centered around the experiences the underclass, just to see how "smart" the self-determined elite really are.

          Of course, they can just call that "street smarts" and thereby dismiss it as not really intelligence, you know? For example, the idea that the art of the ghetto (saying this as a person whose father lived in an Italian "ghetto") is somehow "lesser" than the pieces we deem as classic is strictly a societal judgment.

          The insidiousness of Richwine's "study" alone should be enough to dismiss it. Accepting the "facts" (which have as much to do with socio-economic matters, cultural influences, parenting skills and pressures) as such leads to societal categorizing of an entire group of people, which is defined as racism.

          I like Sullivan and used to read him a lot - until his meltdown over the debate, which I found pathetic, honestly - but on this particular issue, he as always been simply wrong.

          •  Bingo (8+ / 0-)
            dividing human beings into such categories of race is, in and of itself, ridiculous.
            Someone that we call "Hispanic" may be part white, part Quechua, part Mayan, etc.

            Someone we call "black" may be descended from several different parts of Europe and several different parts of Africa, plus one or more of the many North American Indian tribes.

            Pretending that these are discrete "races" is a convenient fiction.

            I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

            by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:39:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sullivan makes this exact point (0+ / 0-)

              Sullivan is (apparently) a racist
              You, therefore, must be a racist.

              (snark, btw)

              We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

              by theotherside on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:20:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And yet he makes that completely loopy (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MrJayTee, mikejay611, jk2003, Armando

                poodles-and-beagles comparison.

                A century ago, Very Serious People told us that Irish immigrants were genetically inferior, less intelligent, less capable, even less moral than those of British or Northern European descent.  There were Very Serious pronouncements that we shouldn't try educating the poor dears, it would just be cruel because they just weren't as smart (but no doubt had an awesome sense of smell).  The same templates were hauled out when "Irish" was replaced with "Italian."

                A century later, Irish and Italians are both deemed "white" and therefore in the "racially superior" category.  So...their genes mutated and they changed from beagles into poodles?

                Sure is miraculous how the current wave of immigrants always just happens to be the one that Very Serious Don't-You-Dare-Call-them-Racist People deems genetically inferior.

                I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

                by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:06:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think so - you can learn things this way. (0+ / 0-)

              The risk is dividing by race and then using findings to promote racism.

              Facts are facts. Truth is truth.

              It does not have to be a negative thing - we divide by race to discover and treat health problems.

              I think the real issue is how "intelligence" is defined pr how that definition of intelligence is used.

              And as Sullivan pointed out - being smarter does not mean being better.

          •  "Smart" in the context of biology (4+ / 0-)

            means you survive long enough to pass on your genes. Every other measure is a societal imposed definition that suits whatever group is controlling the narrative.

            the fact that you're right is nothing more than interesting

            by Egg on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:41:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I hear ya! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mikejay611

            He writes quite nicely, much of the time.  But his hysterics after the 1st debate made me realize he must be a very silly, high strung fellow, best not left in charge of small children and prone to defend indefensible "friends" like this ass Richwine.  

            We purposely skipped Harvard on our college tour.

        •  Garbage In, Garbage Out (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MrJayTee, a2nite, happymisanthropy

          The results of an analysis are only as good as the data on which the analysis is run. The data are bullshit, therefore, the results are bullshit.

        •  Is Kos embarrassed? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MrJayTee, mikejay611

          Is 'this site' embarrassed? Are the Kossaks embarrassed?
          I think it's just you trying to make somebody feel embarrassed.

      •  But is the data what the data is? (8+ / 0-)

        I don't know, but I've worked with some fine statisticians who've made life miserable for research investigators trying to explain to them why the data isn't what they think the data is and frequently it's because there was bias in the selection of the data.

        •  Nail, meet hammer. (5+ / 0-)
          ...bias in the selection of the data.

          "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

          by happy camper on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:53:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Excellent point (0+ / 0-)

          I wish I could give you much more uprates.

          This gets to the point of Sullivan's thrust on this issue and the illiberal reaction from liberals on this issue.  Many "liberals" do not think that the research should be done in fear of what it might show and what conclusions people might draw from it.  Look at that quote from a student group that says "even if the claim has merit" it should be rejected by the university.

          Sullivan is saying people should be free to pursue this type of inquiry.  I personally side with Sullivan on this.  

          Now, as for Richwine's research and that of Murray in the Bell Curve, I'm far from knowledgeable enough to discuss whether or not the data is what the data is (as you put it) but I have no problem having researchers try to understand it.

          We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

          by theotherside on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:29:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not the precision of the data (0+ / 0-)

            under challenge, it's the validity.

            IQ can't measure what he needs to be able to measure in order for his conclusions to be valid.  

            He's extrapolated beyond the end of his yardstick.  When you do that you at least need good corroborating evidence.

            What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

            by happymisanthropy on Wed May 15, 2013 at 11:18:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  What do you think should be "researched?" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a2nite
            •  Hey Armando, (0+ / 0-)

              I assume you are asking what I think should be researched in the arena of cognitive science and/or the biology of the brain.  With that assumption stated, I would state first of all that there is very little that I would consider off limits.  I'm sure there are some really off the wall research paper subjects that I would scratch my head at but usually there is some good idea behind the research.

              With that said, while I like basic research, I think that I would be focusing more research into how the brain re-wires itself and ways to optimize brain function and/or to retain brain function.  Particularly it would seem appropriate at this time to focus on learning how to limit (or eliminate) the effects of Alzheimer's, TBI and PTSD.  I've read recently that marijuana is showing some promise for helping people deal with PTSD but that more research is needed.

              With a population that is growing older and a generation that has suffered through a fair amount of war in the last two decades those three areas of study would seem particularly appropriate at this time but those hardly seem to be the only areas where we should spent our research on the mind/brain.  Finally, I think my opinion matters very little on this as I'm in the a field that creates employment opportunities for people with disabilities and I'm only an interested layman when it comes to most scientific disciplines.

              We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

              by theotherside on Thu May 16, 2013 at 05:57:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  He shows no data (4+ / 0-)

        nor does the paper he quotes in support of his conclusions.  If these people want to use that paper as a foundation for their arguments, they need to do more research.

        "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being up there."

        by Betty Pinson on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:02:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  nah doc, this is bell curve bullshit. (15+ / 0-)

      and I, indeed, visit his site regularly.

      This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

      by mallyroyal on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:59:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sullivan is definitely not a "typical" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jk2003, johanus

      conservative and he has shown the capacity to change over the years, re-think some positions, admit error.  

      That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

      by concernedamerican on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:02:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Log Cabin Republican (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MrJayTee, mikejay611

        It took Sullivan ages to realize that he was a boogeyman in his Republican Party for being gay. If he were straight, he'd still be a Republican. Just because he bit the hand that fed him when it fed him to someone else doesn't mean he isn't feeding us the same crap he used to.

        Before his self-serving epiphany he was a leader in lying us into the Iraq War. He's "apologized", but I don't forgive him. What price has he paid? He's just surfed the change in public opinion to stay in print.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:17:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  If that blog post is an example (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sayitaintso, DocGonzo, mikejay611

      I'd have to say I disagree.  After reading the academic paper he linked to in his post, the one used by Richwine to make his own dubious assumptions, I was underwhelmed.

      The paper everyone keeps referencing is just a literature review, its not a scientific meta-analysis of the data it references.  No attempt has been made to verify or validate any of the data or review the quality of the scientific studies that produced the data.   So any conclusions drawn from the studies are dubious at best. There is no quality scientific basis for their assumptions, period.

      If these "experts" want to tout the scientific validity of IQ differences among ethnic or cultural groups, they have a lot more scientific research to conduct.  The fact that none of them have done so speaks volumes.  

      Sullivan's use of questionable, unverified research "results" doesn't speak well of him.  If he wants to make the case, he needs to show us some data. Real data.

      "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being up there."

      by Betty Pinson on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:57:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You mean like how he gets IQ wrong? Or is your (6+ / 0-)

      post snark?

              IQ tests were not "constructed to predict how well a random individual would do in a post-industrial society," but to predict how well such an individual would do in industrial-era schools.  It's because they measure such a small slice of human abilities that childhood IQ scores predict such a small amount of the statistical variance in adult measures of "success" in post-industrial society such as income -- I.e., 5-10 percent at best.  BFD.

      As a neuropsychologist, I used IQ tests throughout my career FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE DESIGNED -- I.e., to evaluate individuals' CURRENT academically-related intellectual abilities.  Any other use is a scientific travesty.  And even for their appropriate use, they have severe limitations,* which any well-educated neuropsychologist or educational psychologist can tell you about.  

      *E.g., they are unaffected by some types of severe brain damage that render individuals unable to function in their previous roles -- see, e.g., Damasio, "Descartes' Error."

      Maybe the biggest limitation is that they measure PERFORMANCE and not, as most people assume, ABILITY.  So, for example, certain individual or groups will do much better under non-standard administration procedures, such as giving feedback about whether answers are correct or not.  Also some individuals' performance is HIGHLY variable.  E.g., persons with ADHD may perform very poorly one day on one subtest that measures attention and concentration and then a year later score almost at the maximum on the same subtest, whereas the average person shows very little improvement if any at all.  So which performance represents the ADHD person's ability?  

      "If you don't read the newspapers, you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- M. Twain

      by Oliver St John Gogarty on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:04:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with you, but this particular analogy (0+ / 0-)

      was idiotic. For some reason, he continues to think it's worth revisiting race/iq even though he agrees it's worthless. That said, it WOULD be terrible if an academic were penalized for measuring test performance across different groups. I'm just not sure that's what happened with Richwine, who is being criticized for making racist statements that are not scientific and are meant to bolster political beliefs.

      “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

      by jeff in nyc on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:15:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Andrew Sullivan is a johnny come lately to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MrJayTee

      progressive politics. I welcomed him with open arms and would have continued to respect if he hadn't gone and revealed his true self.
      He it was who rushed to call the president "lazy" for not living up to his expectations in the first debate with Romney.
      No, this (MrJayTee's diary) is not a smear of the gentleman. It is just providing further proof that the thin veneer of liberalism is wearing off to reveal just who he has always been - a racist.

      Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

      by JoanMar on Wed May 15, 2013 at 03:49:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  IQ Testing Started Well Within Industrial Economy (8+ / 0-)

    didn't it?

    Noting that we bred different "IQ" into dogs, is he saying The Lord™ bred it into humans?

    Or is he arguing for evolution via natural selection?

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:37:34 AM PDT

    •  Who knows what he's arguing for (8+ / 0-)

      Except "Leave Jason Richwine alone!" and that he's an embarrassment to dogs and people everywhere.

      A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

      by MrJayTee on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:45:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He is arguing that scientific inquiry (0+ / 0-)

      or  intellectual inquiry, even if it goes against the political views of group of people, should be allowed to proceed without much harassment and endangerment of future careers.

      He is basically making a classically liberal argument but because he is using a conservative ass hat to make the point, liberals are confused and heap scorn on him.

      We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

      by theotherside on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:34:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Richwine didn't engage in scientific inquiry (4+ / 0-)

        If that's what he was doing, he would have included the decades of research that show his premise was flawed in his analysis. He chose to leave out that very large body of work, because it did not support his thesis that a broad group of people, from many different backgrounds, who share nothing more than a relative pigment volume in their skin, are dumber than a non-existent group with less volume (what exactly is a native-white?). Other gems in his thesis include the claim that Jews in their populations raised the IQs of otherwise dumber European "races" (i.e.: Polish, Italian, etc.).

        You can read it in his own words - the thesis is online.

  •  He's presuming any of us are purebreds (9+ / 0-)

    when most of us are mongrels.  Humans do not breed by AKC conformity.  

    And he's letting his racism show.  

    We do not forgive. We do not forget. The whole world is watching.

    by Tracker on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:40:21 AM PDT

    •  Oh brother. Everyone here loves to (0+ / 0-)

      call other people racist, because somehow it makes it so clear that you yourself must not be. I've read Sullivan for years, and haven't seen one racist entry. The fact that people here are interpreting the dog analogy to be "racist" is an excellent example of looking for racism with a built-in bias for finding it.

      •  Tell your hero that (10+ / 0-)
        I haven’t had time to read the thing
        Sullivan admits he hasn't even read Richwine's work and then goes on to stare at the clouds and describe Richwine's findings as correct. Particularly galling are Sullivan's comments at the end lamenting why people aren't taking the time to criticize the inherent value of IQ in the first place (a value which Sullivan himself is extremely slow to cast doubt upon, hence his odd remarks on poodles and beagles). The fact is, IQ has been cast into doubt for DECADES and no reasonable scholar, least of all a Harvard PhD, should be using IQ demographics in this day and age as their basis for determinations on intelligence across demographics. This is actually a pretty settled area, just ask anybody working in education. Or at least anybody working in education who isn't looking for a lifetime sinecure at the Heritage Foundation. I'd like to know what inducements Sullivan may have been offered (or received) to attempt this foray into career rehabilitation for Richwine. It's a reasonable suspicion, given that Sullivan travels in many of the same circles as Richwine.
        •  Perhaps you need to re-read what Sullivan wrote (0+ / 0-)

          In his very first paragraph he makes the point exactly 180 degrees from what you state Sullivan wrote.  This is what Sullivan wrote:

          And I am emphatically not defending everything that Richwine has said and done
          Your smear later down about financial enrichment for Sullivan for coming to Richwine's "defense" is pure crap and you should be ashamed.

          We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

          by theotherside on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:44:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  WHOA! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mikejay611, a2nite, MrJayTee
        Everyone here loves to (0+ / 0-)

        call other people racist

        yo NOT FUCKING COOL.  

        This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

        by mallyroyal on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:45:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Try googling "Andrew Sullivan racism. . . (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johanus

        Racist?  I see a man struggling with his instinctive racism and his desire to be an intellectual.  The intellectual facade is not enough to allow the man to shine through.

        Here's the link from a November 2011 post. . .
        http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/...

        Two points: research is not about helping people; it's about finding out stuff. And I have long opposed the political chilling of free inquiry into any area of legitimate curiosity or research. I'm not going to stop now. Secondly, I agree that there would be very little, if any, use for this data in our society, apart from the existence of affirmative action. But when public policy holds that all racial difference in, say, college degrees, are due to racism, a truth claim has already been made. So the p.c. egalitarians have made this a public and social issue by a statement of fact they subsequently do not want to see debated or challenged using the data. That's an illiberal position, in my view.

        I remain gob-smacked by the resilience of IQ differences between broad racial groups, controlling for much other data. Maybe if we understood what was going on – which particular and subtle combination of genetics, culture and generation makes this the result – we could help increase equality of opportunity. Maybe racial categories themselves have become so fluid and opaque the whole area is now moot. Maybe we should accept that differences in outcomes among racial groups have some element of irreducibility to them. Maybe the answer is to abolish racial affirmative action and replace it by class-based forms. Maybe the answer is to abolish affirmative action altogether (my preferred outcome). But all these questions depend on a thriving research culture which has been chilled by politics. That's what saddens me.

        the fact that you're right is nothing more than interesting

        by Egg on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:55:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  He is not (0+ / 0-)

      I would suggest reading the actual post that Sullivan wrote instead of relying on this ad hominem attack of a diary.

      Here is something that Sullivan wrote in that piece:

      But please don’t say truly stupid things like race has no biological element to it or that there is no data on racial differences in IQ (even though those differences are mild compared with overwhelming similarity). Denying empirical reality is not a good thing in any circumstance. In a university context, it is an embrace of illiberalism at its most pernicious and seductive: because its motives are good.

      or this

      What I do want to insist is that the premise behind almost all the attacks – that there is no empirical evidence of IQ differences between broad racial categories – is not true. It is true (pdf), if you accept the broad racial categories Americans use as shorthand for a bewilderingly complex DNA salad (a big if, of course).

      He kinda says what you said.  Are you letting your racism show through too?  ;^)

      We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

      by theotherside on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:40:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's not all bad; the one good point is, I think, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zett

    that while there's differences in IQ results, the IQ results don't measure anything that allows one to say "better", although he steps on that with the idiotic dog reference, which makes it seem that we'd rather pick Asians if we want smarter, and there's very little in life where smarter isn't better.

    "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

    by Inland on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:41:02 AM PDT

  •  Sullivan rushes in where scientists fear to tread (11+ / 0-)

    I'll stick with Stephen Jay Gould who was a scholar that made Harvard look good.

    Sullivan has gone to the dogs.

    look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

    by FishOutofWater on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:42:59 AM PDT

  •  Pluperfect? (6+ / 0-)

    I just finished teaching the pluperfect to my Spanish 4 students: They had made great progress on the present perfect before I taught them the pluperfect...

    /grammar police

    Sullivan is a jerk.

    When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

    by litho on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:53:14 AM PDT

    •  One of Spanish's greatest words is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johanus, litho

      "pluscuamperfecto".  

      For me, it's up there along with "esdrujulo" (sorry, I don't know how to put in diacritics or I'd have put in the accent).

      I've always wanted to name a cat "esdrujulo".

      That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

      by concernedamerican on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:06:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hybrid vigor happens when two "pure" biological (4+ / 0-)

    strains of a species breed and produce offspring that are healthier and better able to handle environmental insults than either of their parents.  Also these offfspring are much less likely to get matching copies of some  deleterious gene like hip dysplasia in large dogs or hemophilia in European royalty.

    I'd tip you but they cut off my tip box. The TSA would put Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad on the no-fly list.

    by OHdog on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:59:05 AM PDT

  •  not at all surprised Jencks approved dissertation (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MrJayTee, johanus, radical simplicity

    one might justifiably label him as left of center in general but on some issues where he has come down as far as his opinions are really not that far from where Richwine came down.

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:01:12 AM PDT

  •  My dos centavos (4+ / 0-)

    He has sometimes made good points in the past, but since the 2012 election cycle, where he declared Romney "ELECTED!" after that disaster of a first debate, right up until election night, he's really been coming apart. He's isn't so much racist as a wicked snob. If you're not Oxbridge/Ivy League ... you're just not up to scratch.

  •  My beagle is far cuter than any poodle. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    I would show you, but I don't know how to insert images from the Daily Kos image library into a comment. Is that possible to do?

  •  'Saw this piece last evening on (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zett, greenbell

    Sullivan's site and felt he would have been wise to omit any reference to "breeding" when data like this are bandied about.

    Other writers, IMO, would have played this smarter.  I can't, for example, picture Charles Blow using such a reference for one of his columns in the New York Times.  

    When Sullivan uploaded what he wrote he must surely have understood that it would provoke controversy.

    •  I think that "breeding" is what Sully (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Remediator, MrJayTee

      (how appropriate the nickname) does when cruising for bareback tricks. :-)

      Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

      by corvo on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:18:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I like that Sullivan has moved (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johanus

        left on many things, but it does feel sometimes that he just hasn't quite swung around whole-hog.  

        Kind of like a little kid at the grown-ups' table who is not quite positioned on the chair and the chair itself is kind of skew-hunky to the table, so that with each forkful of macaroni, there's a perilous distance between plate and mouth, across which any number of noodles fall to their death.

        •  I think he's a reptile (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Remediator, a2nite

          (apologies to RL reptiles) who's trying to remain au courant.

          He's a scion of British upper-upper-middle-class privilege, and insists on continuing to view the world from that perspective.

          Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

          by corvo on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:36:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I like your comment *very* much (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Remediator

          Clever and sharp mixed in good proportion.  More please!

          Almost nothing has a name.

          by johanus on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:57:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Milky Loads/Power Glutes! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo

        A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

        by MrJayTee on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:26:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  p.s. not that there's anything wrong (0+ / 0-)

        with bareback sex, if done responsibly and without the f***ing hypocrisy so characteristic of Sully.

        Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

        by corvo on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:37:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sullivan supports ineffectual freedom (13+ / 0-)

    as no competent anthropologist today tries to use concepts such as race when talking about ethnic groups.  Over and over, I find myself correcting folks who refer to "Hispanic" as a race and who assume that there is a single "Hispanic" culture instead of each ethnic group developing its own folkways.  For example, many people are shocked to find natives of various parts of Mexico are not intelligible to each other when speaking their native dialect (I have not had the heart to point out that this is the situation in India, for example)  I get enough grief pointing out that Aramaic constitutes a group of over a dozen different dialects, some not intelligible to some others in the group, when the biblical literalists get wound up on some picky point of Scripture.  Never mind arguing the tricky nature of translating Aramaic to Koine Greek

  •  I really wish people who dont know jack about (9+ / 0-)

    genetics (which in Amurka is about 99 plus percent of the vox populi) would stop bloviating about it and especially stop using it to bolster their pinheaded pet theses.

  •  Anybody who would accept IQ as a credible metric (8+ / 0-)

    is a giant rampaging asshole to begin with. ESPECIALLY in reference to disadvantaged groups. The cultural stereotyping within the IQ test format itself has been demonstrably shown. One of the most famous examples, from nearly 30 years ago, was the question depicting a tea cup, inferring that it belongs with a saucer. Well if you grew up in a community that did not involve drinking of tea, or keeping spare crockery around the house, guess if you had a better or worse chance of answering correctly?

    Sullivan must be one self-loathing jerk to bring this kind of shit storm upon himself.

    •  plus (0+ / 0-)

      they throw out any question which the low scorers do just as well or better on than the high scorers... so even if there were areas where a hypothetical under-performing ethnic group might excel, those questions would probably get thrown out as a statistical glitch.

      Why do they do that?  Because it's necessary to make the data fit a bell curve.  

      What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

      by happymisanthropy on Wed May 15, 2013 at 11:44:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've always maintained that Sullivan is racist (10+ / 0-)

    to the core. This affirms that.

    Having said that, is it true that poodles are smart? I always thought that poodles were inbred, aristocratic lap dogs like chihuahuas. Dumber than dirt.

    I suppose it depends on what kind of poodle (assuming there are different kinds).

    If I were white, I'd be pissed at the poodle comparison. I'd much prefer a comparison to a golden retriever.

  •  I don't have anything against (6+ / 0-)

    poodles or beagles.  But if I came back as a dog in the next life, I'd like to be a greyhound because they are zoom zoom fast runners across a field but gentle around humans at home or, if that isn't in the cards, maybe an Irish Wolfhound, because I like how on their faces that dark hair hangs in jagged accents over their eyes.

    And don't tell me dogs don't play cards.  I've seen the calendars.

  •  ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MrJayTee

    Disclaimer: If the above comment can possibly be construed as snark, it probably is.

    by grubber on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:22:43 AM PDT

  •  Poor Andrew... (3+ / 0-)

    ...such a profound thinker, such an imperfect world. We should all feel bad at being part of the disappointment.

    Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

    by MBNYC on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:30:58 AM PDT

  •  So he believes in evolution? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo
    :fast-forwarding evolution"
    Strange for a "poodle", no?
  •  Sullivan is in way over his head here... (12+ / 0-)

    He seems to have little familiarity with the literature on race and biology from within any number of disciplines, and his argument for "intellectual freedom," wrongly invoked here, seems to boil down to "hey, the data Richwine used describe empirical reality." Those data are certainly not unproblematic, as many reviewers and critics of Richwine's sources have demonstrated time and time again.

    Garbage In (Murray, Rushton, Jensen), Garbage Out (Richwine).

    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

    by angry marmot on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:34:22 AM PDT

  •  One of the best (5+ / 0-)

    One of the best gotcha moments was when Ed Schultz asked Sullivan, then a Bush supporter:  "How's that tax cut working out for you, Andrew?"  

    This was after the Bush administration had used gay marriage as a wedge issue and Bush proposed a constitutional amendment that marriage was between a man and a woman.  

    Since that moment, Ed Schultz has held a special place in my heart.  

  •  I Believe I Am A Cross Between A Mutt, A Feist (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MrJayTee, a2nite

    and a Boston terrier with a little rat terrier thrown in.  I do like a good bath and want my toenails clipped all the time.

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:37:31 AM PDT

  •  Beagles are awesome and never racist. (4+ / 0-)

    Beagles don't bite people and other dogs. Beagles love food they way republicants love the rich and their corporations. Beagles love to be loved the way Bernie Sanders love his country. Beagles know that the intelligence tests they give dogs are pretty irrelevant to what they are. To say a poodle is smarter than a Beagles is like saying a swimmer is smarter than a marathon runner. If Andrew Sullivan wants to spew veiled racist thoughts, fine; just stay the heck away from Beagles. They're too good for him.

    Excuse me, my Beagles want to be walked....

  •  He's channeling Jimmy "the greek" Snyder. (3+ / 0-)

    The Greek

    Didn't go so well for him either.

    "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

    by ranger995 on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:01:09 AM PDT

  •  Sullivan clings to the idea that (4+ / 0-)

    he can still be a conservative in the face of all of its failures.  His racism is a despicable sideshow to that.

    The GOP: "You can always go to the Emergency Room."

    by Upper West on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:01:40 AM PDT

  •  My greyhound makes Andrew Sullivan (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MrJayTee, a2nite, mikejay611

    look slow and awkward.

    Just joking, I don't actually have a greyhound.

    "Trust me... I've been right before." ~ Tea party patriot

    by Calvino Partigiani on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:20:24 AM PDT

  •  What a wonderful ad hominem (0+ / 0-)

    attack.  It shows your intelligence off quite well.

    Has any research been done on IQs?  So do the studies show any difference in IQ's amongst categories of people broadly defined as "races"?    What does it say?  What are the flaws in the research?  What if you attempt to analyze the data and report out the results?  If you attempt to do a research paper on your findings should you be subsequently fired or forced to resign for the work done to obtain a PhD?

    Those are some serious questions to answer but you go straight for the ad hominem and while you meant to show Sullivan in a poor light it actually ends up not reflecting well on you.

    More specific to the points that Sullivan made do you have any problems with people making arguments that say "even if such claims have merit" the school should run away from it?  Do you only believe certain subjects should be covered and that if research disagrees with somebody's or some group's political orthodoxy (even if they are in the majority) that the findings should be squashed?

    Now, personally I think Richwine is an ass wipe.  I have no use for white supremacists.  But to launch into an ad hominem on Sullivan because he is not afraid to state that his understanding of the issue is that a) "g" is an artificial construct with potentially little use but b) there seems to be a slight difference amongst "races".  For those intellectually curious it could lead some to ask why this is?  Is it culture?  Is it genes?  Is it just an anomoly?   These seem to be all legitimate avenues of research.  Once you branch out from the science of it and start developing some policy prescriptions that is full of landmines and people should be careful but defending basic research into the biology, chemistry, genetics, sociology etc of IQs would seem to be something that most intelletually curious people should defend.

    But the "progressive" response has been fairly reactionary and illiberal as Sullivan lays out in his brief write up and that does not speak well for the progressive community.

    We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

    by theotherside on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:31:42 AM PDT

    •  People who live in glass houses, and all that. (3+ / 0-)

      Your comment, both in form and content, does not reflect an intelligence superior to that of the author of this diary.  

      Sullivan's article is full of contradictions.  The analogy to dog breeds is ridiculous.

      •  It completely ruins any other arguments he might (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        radical simplicity, mikejay611

        have had. Once you introduce the idea that we can start talking about "breeds" of people and their differences of intelligence, which in no way can be related to exterior physical  differences, then you reveal that you have subjective feelings about these things.

        I stop reading at that point.

        "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

        by ranger995 on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:09:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm so glad you felt comfortable enough (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ranger995

      To be frank.  Thank you for your comments.

      A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

      by MrJayTee on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:56:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, I hear you. (0+ / 0-)

        When people attack Sullivan personally instead of intellectually I get a little agitated.  I've been reading him since before 2001 and we come from the same general political outlook (socially libertarian and fiscally conservative).

        I've moved much farther to the "left" than he has (I support higher tax rates than he does and I'm pretty sure I support single payer and he is still opposed) largely because DKOS is also daily reading for me.  

        I also think that if more "conservatives" thought like Sullivan this world would be a much better place and the Republican party would return to sanity.  We could have an honest dialogue with our progressive brothers and sisters to see how we can come together and form a more perfect union.

        Be well.

        We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

        by theotherside on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:36:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Um... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MrJayTee

      Has any research been done on IQs?  

      Yes.

      So do the studies show any difference in IQ's amongst categories of people broadly defined as "races"?

      Not after you control for cultural bias in the questions.

      Testing bias and its effect on scores has been well understood and thoroughly researched for decades.

      Richwine bases the entirety of his conclusions on a highly biased IQ test from 1924 in conjunction with the long-debunked racist apologia "The Bell Curve." His thesis is one of the sloppiest pieces of research to emerge from the hallowed halls of Harvard. His adviser should have sent him back to gather data on the validity of the results he cited, before allowing him to make any conclusions based on that data.

    •  I'd like to take a more nuanced perspective (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      angry marmot

      I think this quote from Sullivan is damning:

      "We remain the same species, just as a poodle and a beagle are of the same species. But poodles, in general, are smarter than beagles, and beagles have a much better sense of smell. We bred those traits into them, of course, fast-forwarding evolution. But the idea that natural selection and environmental adaptation stopped among human beings the minute we emerged in the planet 200,000 years ago – and that there are no genetic markers for geographical origin or destination – is bizarre."

      There is certainly genetic diversity and human evolution through natural selection has not stopped. Geographical variation in blood types and the epidemiology of the black plague prove that. The poodle versus beagle intelligence analogy is what bothers me about Sullivan's piece, not so much of the other things he wrote.  I would say in his defense that he recognizes that IQ is not a valid measure or even a valid construct:

      "For my part, I’ve come to doubt the existence of something called “g” or general intelligence, as the research has gathered over the years. I believe IQ is an artificial construct created to predict how well a random person is likely to do in an advanced post-industrial society. And that’s all it is. It certainly shouldn’t be conflated with some Platonic idea of “intelligence.” I don’t think it carries any moral weight at all, either, and I don’t think it should be used in any way in immigration policy. In fact, any public policy that rests on this kind of data is anathema to me."

      And I agree, academia should take Sullivan up on this challenge:

      "What on earth are these “liberals” so terrified of, if not the truth? Instead of going on racist witch-hunts, why don’t they question what IQ means, how great the cultural and environmental impact can be (very considerable), whether such tests should guide public policy at all, or examine how “race” as a social construct does not always correlate to specific variations in human DNA. Note how the terms “race” and “historical ethnicity” are not the same things, as Reihan does. Or do what the scholar Dana Goldstein has done – criticize Richwine’s dismissal of education and poverty as factors affecting IQ in his dissertation."

      I do agree that this particular diary is a little heavy on ad homeinem and a little light on analysis.  Sullivan is wrong; some of us have tried to describe how and why in teh comments.

      “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

      by ivorybill on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:39:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Did you happen to read any of that report (0+ / 0-)

        issued by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association?

        Do you know if that is still valid or if it has been superceeded by subsequent findings?

        The report ended up having unanimous support of the entire Task Force and so I would assume the controversial aspects of the scientific standings were stripped out.

        http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/...

        It seems to me that what was true at the writing of the report is still true today in regards to this quote:  "Research findings were often assessed not so much on their merits or their scientific standing as on their supposed political implications."  

        FWIW, in an ideal world it would probably be better for their to be no differences in IQ amongst "races".  I don't know for sure whether science says we live in that ideal world or not but I'm willing to let the scientific community and not my political biases guide my thinking on it.

        We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

        by theotherside on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:47:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I also have an alergic reaction to political bias (0+ / 0-)

          which is why some of the criticism of Sullivan in this diary and comments rubs me the wrong way.  

          But my biggest problem is this:  The validity and even the conceptual basis for IQ is so deeply flawed that any research of comparative IQ scores that cannot control for culture is suspect. Intelligence is not a single value on an indexed scale. Even when testing on abstract reasoning, culture creeps in and what one ends up measuring is not necessarily innate ability.  Intelligence testing itself has such a long and sordid history of being driven by and confirming political agendas and cultural bias. So although I agree that research on intelligence testing should not be shouted down because it offends one's sensibility, it is an ironic defense of a highly political person (Richwine) working in a highly politicized field that has always been used to justify discrimination.

          Richwine tries to defend himself (and Sullivan concurs) in that his actual thesis was on quantiative methodology and may have been sound, but the underlying instruments he was using to reach his conclusions are not.  But I agree... the best rebuttal is to go a little deeper than his quantitative methodology and assess the validity of intelligence testing using science and not emotion. I still think he's a racist, and I still think his science sucks, but the way to address that is not to shout him down but to show that his life's work is built upon fundamental flaws in the way we assess intelligence - and that those flaws are themselves products of cultural bias.

          “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

          by ivorybill on Wed May 15, 2013 at 11:21:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  IQ has been proven to not be a measure of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SparkyGump, mikejay611

    intelligence at all.
    it was devised and revised with dubious motives.

    During World War I, a way was needed to evaluate and assign recruits.
    like the SAT, which is equally dubious in its motives, it is eugenics gone wild.

    "A dollah makes me hollah"-- Stephen Colbert, pretending to be S. Palin

    by stagemom on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:33:57 AM PDT

  •  Poodles... bleah... (0+ / 0-)

    Prissy things. Too much upkeep. Walk on their prissy toes all the time.

    Beagles now, they are one of the best dogs in the world (so my brother claimed). I'm a golden retriever person myself.

    Richwine is a Neanderthal and one of the reasons why the human race is so slow to civilize itself.


    A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit.

    by bronte17 on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:44:15 AM PDT

  •  We're not beagles or poodles (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RichM, a2nite

    we're mutts.  

    Stripes

    If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

    by Major Kong on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:22:47 AM PDT

  •  Im a rottweiler (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    so stand aside all of ya.

  •  Abject stupidity... (0+ / 0-)

    "Nach dem Spiel ist vor dem Spiel." -Sepp Herberger

    by surfbird007 on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:42:44 AM PDT

  •  You are aware he prefers beagles, right? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alice in Florida

    He dislikes other dog breeds intensely.  He has his two beagles on the front page in the icon art, right near him.

    And his beef isn't with Richwine being run out of town for nonsense, which Sullivan thinks IQ largely is, but for Harvard being attacked for ever having a thesis defense for him.  The thesis talked about IQ differences, which exist.  The question, which is where Richwine has taken his thesis, is whether these IQ differences mean anything other than who has been in this country for multiple generations.  Where Richwine's thesis fails is not separating out multi-generation Hispanic-Americans (like many in the Southwest) from first generation, and likewise with whites (like the continued waves of Irish immigrants into New England, as compared to their multi-generation cousins who live nearby).  Harvard could be dinged for not asking that question, but so could any university committee in either social or hard sciences be likewise dinged for not asking one given pertinent question.

    We confuse having a PhD with having morality to use that knowledge in an empathic way.  And in rare cases, we make the mistake of assuming that intellectual capacity to defend a thesis is equivalent to being able to use those findings in a logical way.

    This is not the fault of the university.

    For those of you who prefer Bartlett to Obama, re-watch the West Wing. For those who prefer Clinton, re-watch old news videos.

    by Ptolemy on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:47:47 AM PDT

  •  He clearly has beagles for friends nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  Beagles rock. (0+ / 0-)

    And Sullivan is an idiot.

  •  My disagreement with Sullivan (0+ / 0-)

    is that he's arguing it's an issue of intellectual freedom when a partisan political "think tank" fires someone for being an embarrassment....to me, it's politics. The Heritage Foundation is nothing but a collection of right-wing hacks with advanced degrees, and their actions have nothing to do with academic freedom.

    "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

    by Alice in Florida on Wed May 15, 2013 at 11:47:45 AM PDT

  •  I don't think it was that bad either. (0+ / 0-)

    People will get from it what they get but I think he did a pretty good job of saying something we all know.

    Environment creates circumstance.  Certainly the dog reference was a poor way to make his point as beagles and poodles growing up in the same environment will with the same experiences will most likely have equal intelligence and opportunity if they both take advantage of all the resources available.  However if you give a standard IQ test to say myself and then you give it to someone from one of those isolated tribes, if we take the test 1,000 times I will probably do better 999 times out of that 1,000.  

    If we did the same experiment but the test was developed by someone from the isolated tribe the results would flip.

    Let the discussion go on.  Why stifle the conversation?  Let people, especially students come to their own conclusions and go forth.  They might actually learn something.

    Who ya gonna shoot wit dat homie, you'd rather blast an original instead of a phony, true macaroni, you don't even know me, and why does your gun say n****z only?

    by mim5677 on Thu May 16, 2013 at 05:39:04 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site