Suspected Racist Jordan Peterson cries on behalf of incels

[Professor Emeritus]

In the clip Richard Haier mentions that Berkley educational phycologist Author Johnson's (its just one guy, I'm aware) research concluded that compensatory education efforts to minimize IQ gaps weren't working and that they should perhaps consider a genetic component.

He never said there WERE genetics components but just the simple fact that he questioned the possibility of an alterative that strayed from the common religion that preaches that everyone is equal in every measurable metric was enough to end his career and sway others from studying the topic in the future.

I personally just think that's sad. Especially from a scientific perspective.

Well, you don't have to be sad, because it's a lie. Dr. Arthur Jenson published that study in 1969 yet it never ended his career, he was tenured and continued to teach at UC Berkeley until his retirement in 1994 at the age of 70. In his career he published over 400 papers and was one of the most prolific influences in the field. Claiming his career ended because of that study is a total falsehood.

Now back up for a second and look how stupid his claim was. This professor was claiming that efforts to create educational equality and improve Black IQ scores had failed in 1969. How fukking ignorant do you have to be to think that Black-White educational equality was even CLOSE to happening in 1969? There were so many massive societal and educational disparities at that time, you wouldn't even come close to getting any certainhood from experimental results that would legitimately show equality had "failed" - it hadn't even been tried.

Over the next 33 years after that study was published, the Black-White IQ gap was cut in half, even though educational equality still isn't even close to happening, even though generational inequalities are still massive and school segregation is still rampant. Doesn't that easily show that Jenson's 1969 claims were unwarrented?

As a black person, if studies were done and that was ultimate conclusion, I personally wouldn't be offended by wherever it could potentially lead, but that's just me. I'm aware that everyone doesn't share the same sentiment, but I trust the scientific method, I'm not fighting it.

The issue is that we haven't remotely reached a place where any such "conclusions" can be made. First off, geneticists generally agree that race is a social construct and not a legitimate biological category - there is more genetic diversity in Africa alone than in the rest of the world combined, and many people of different "races" are genetically closer to each other than they are to others of their same "race". So grouping all "Black" people together in anything other than a study of social implications is already problematic. Second, the social and educational inequalities are so massive and generational that claiming you can make any conclusion about innate differences between races and IQ when you haven't even identified a single gene responsible for said differences is completely unwarrented.

If someone shows any conclusive belief that Black people are naturally intellectually inferior to White people, they're full of shyt. The science isn't remotely there to back such a claim and the large majority of experts in the field agree on that.

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

In the clip Richard Haier mentions that Berkley educational phycologist Author Johnson's (its just one guy, I'm aware) research concluded that compensatory education efforts to minimize IQ gaps weren't working and that they should perhaps consider a genetic component.

He never said there WERE genetics components but just the simple fact that he questioned the possibility of an alterative that strayed from the common religion that preaches that everyone is equal in every measurable metric was enough to end his career and sway others from studying the topic in the future.

I personally just think that's sad. Especially from a scientific perspective.

As a black person, if studies were done and that was ultimate conclusion, I personally wouldn't be offended by wherever it could potentially lead, but that's just me. I'm aware that everyone doesn't share the same sentiment, but I trust the scientific method, I'm not fighting it.

Alot of because people already have their minds made up on things. Its a potential conclusion that could never possibly be a reality because our religion says so and anyone who disagrees or has the guts to even question it is automatically a racist who must have their careers destroyed.

You mean Arthur Jensen, not Author Johnson.

Arthur Jensen - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Arthur Jensen

Arthur Jensen was arguably the father of modern academic racism. For over 40 years, Jensen, an educational psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, provided a patina of academic respectability to pseudoscientific theories of black inferiority and segregationist public policies...

www.splcenter.org

Arthur Jensen was arguably the father of modern academic racism. For over 40 years, Jensen, an educational psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, provided a patina of academic respectability to pseudoscientific theories of black inferiority and segregationist public policies. Jensen was responsible for resurrecting the idea that the black population is inherently and immutably less intelligent than the white population, an ideology that immediately became known as “jensenism.”

About Arthur Jensen​

Jensen promoted eugenics as the only practical solution to the problems facing the black community, arguing that they lacked the intelligence necessary for compensatory education programs to be successful. His ability to repackage fringe racial theories in the dry, dispassionate rhetoric of science made Jensen an instant celebrity in white nationalist circles, where he is still revered as “an intellectual pioneer comparable to Nobel Prize winners” and “a man of the highest distinction, not just scientifically, but also morally.”

In his own words​

“[T]here are intelligence genes, which are found in populations in different proportions, somewhat like the distribution of blood types. The number of intelligence genes seems to be lower, over-all, in the black population than in the white. As to the effect of racial mixing, nobody has yet performed experiments that reveal its relative effect on I.Q. If the racial mixture weren’t there, it is possible that the I.Q. differences between blacks and whites would be even greater. I think such studies should be done to lay this uncertainty to rest once and for all.”
—Quoted in “jensenism, n. The theory that I.Q. is largely determined by the genes,” The New York Times Magazine, 1969


“Much more thought and research should be given to the educational and social implications of these [dysgenic] trends for the future. Is there a danger that current welfare policies, unaided by eugenic foresight, could lead to the genetic enslavement of a substantial segment of our population? The possible consequences of our failure seriously to study these questions may well be viewed by future generations as our society’s greatest injustice to Negro Americans.”
—“How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?” Harvard Educational Review, 1969


“The rate of AIDS in the black population of the United States is increasing much more rapidly than in any other segment of the population. In the homosexual population, which is not differentiated from the rest of the population in intelligence, the rate of AIDS is going down. I mean the message has gotten to them, apparently. The message is really, probably, getting to just about everyone, but people in the lower part of the distribution don’t seem to be able to have enough [intelligence] to put messages together in a way that influences their behavior. This is one of the reasons why all methods of birth control, except sterilization, are dysgenic, because the effectiveness with which they are used is related to [intelligence]. There’s no getting around it. … My personal opinion is that I think society has to protect itself from dangers without and dangers within. I don’t think it can survive otherwise. I think the dysgenic effect that [William] Shockley was worried about may become so evident one day, that when everything else has been tried and found not to be effective — importantly effective — people will realize that something has to be done at a political and governmental level. Because education will not do the job in a large segment of the population.”
—Interview with white nationalist Jared Taylor, 1992

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

Arthur Jensen's research was largely funded by the Pioneer Fund:

Pioneer Fund

Started in 1937 by textile magnate Wickliffe Draper, the Pioneer Fund's original mandate was to pursue "race betterment" by promoting the genetic stock of those "deemed to be descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the original thirteen states prior to the adoption of the...

www.splcenter.org

Started in 1937 by textile magnate Wickliffe Draper, the Pioneer Fund's original mandate was to pursue "race betterment" by promoting the genetic stock of those "deemed to be descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the original thirteen states prior to the adoption of the Constitution."

Today, it still funds studies of race and intelligence, as well as eugenics, the "science" of breeding superior human beings that was discredited by various Nazi atrocities. The Pioneer Fund has supported many of the leading Anglo-American race scientists of the last several decades as well as anti-immigration groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

In Its Own Words​

"[R]ace-realists view race as a natural phenomenon to observe, study, and explain. They believe that the human race is a valid biological concept… . The researchers associated with Pioneer tend to be race-realists."
— Pioneer Fund website on "race realism"


"[Pioneer Fund founder Wickliffe] Draper's interest, such as it was, in the Repatriation [of black Americans to Africa] Movement was quite separate from the Pioneer Fund. Further … [t]he movement had a long history of support, and from 1917–1923 was popular among a great many African Americans. … Harry Weyher (president of Pioneer from 1958 to 2002), who knew Draper well, noted that Draper's main interest was in the Black-led voluntary repatriation movements."
— Pioneer Fund website, defending the racial views of its founder


"The idea that a few crypto-Nazi, Anglo-Americans dominated the eugenics movement is ludicrous and wrong… . In the early twentieth century, eugenic laws were enacted in Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Canada, Australia, and Latin America. The first sterilization law in the U.S. was passed in Indiana in 1907. … By 1917 fifteen more states had enacted laws that applied to "socially inadequate" people, "mental defectives" and others. … However harshly today we may judge support for policies such as sterilization of those deemed to be "unfit," prohibition of racial intermarriage, and severe restrictions on immigration — it is wrong to equate these ideas with ‘Nazism,' gas chambers, and some of the worst mass murders, war crimes, and crimes against humanity ever committed."
— Pioneer Fund website, defending eugenics

Many of those involved with the fund early on, including its first president Harry H. Laughlin, had "contacts with many of the Nazi scientists whose work provided the conceptual template for Hitler's aspiration toward ‘racial hygiene' in Germany," according to an article in the Albany Law Review. In the 1960s, according to William H. Tucker's scholarly book, The Funding of Scientific Racism, many board members and recipients of Pioneer grants worked to block the civil rights movement.

Arthur Jensen, an educational psychologist focusing on race since 1966, got more than $1 million in Pioneer grants over three decades. In his famous 1969 attack on Head Start — the early-education program that aims to help poor children — Jensen wrote in the prestigious Harvard Education Review that the problem with black children was that they had an average IQ of only 85. No amount of social engineering could improve that performance, he claimed, adding that "eugenic foresight" was the only solution.

 

[Th3Birdman]

In the clip Richard Haier mentions that Berkley educational phycologist Author Johnson's (its just one guy, I'm aware) research concluded that compensatory education efforts to minimize IQ gaps weren't working and that they should perhaps consider a genetic component.

He never said there WERE genetics components but just the simple fact that he questioned the possibility of an alterative that strayed from the common religion that preaches that everyone is equal in every measurable metric was enough to end his career and sway others from studying the topic in the future.

I personally just think that's sad. Especially from a scientific perspective.

As a black person, if studies were done and that was ultimate conclusion, I personally wouldn't be offended by wherever it could potentially lead, but that's just me. I'm aware that everyone doesn't share the same sentiment, but I trust the scientific method, I'm not fighting it.

Alot of because people already have their minds made up on things. Its a potential conclusion that could never possibly be a reality because our religion says so and anyone who disagrees or has the guts to even question it is automatically a racist who must have their careers destroyed.

Fam.

The main issue with the IQ/Race discussion is that it leaves out the socioeconomic factors that lead to higher or lower IQ, which means it's precisely UN-scientific. It is impossible to control for those factors, because the damage has been done.

Black Americans have historically been maligned in this country, literally unable to receive an education for nearly 300 years. Then when they were allowed to learn, they were forced into the poorest neighborhoods without access to the same level of education as White Americans. We also know that Black communities were not given access to the best grocery stores or farmer's markets, leading to poor nutrition.

Here's a study that shows poor nutrition leads to poor cognitive capability:

Head size and intelligence, learning, nutritional status and brain development: Head, IQ, learning, nutrition and brain

This multifactorial study investigates the interrelationships between head circumference (HC) and intellectual quotient (IQ), learning, nutritional st…

www.sciencedirect.com

Then you add in the documented sabotage of Black communities by government-backed forces, and it's clear why someone from that community would generally test lower on an IQ test.

Black Africans test better than Black Americans for this reason. They also test better than White Americans generally speaking.

Put a White person up against me in an IQ test, and I guarantee I'll smoke him or be as good as him.

It's not genetic; it's literally due to access to education and other resources that are conducive to learning and the nurturing of learning.

Source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9620.00277
Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00346.x

 

[Take It In Blood]

Fam.

The main issue with the IQ/Race discussion is that it leaves out the socioeconomic factors that lead to higher or lower IQ, which means it's precisely UN-scientific. It is impossible to control for those factors, because the damage has been done.

Black Americans have historically been maligned in this country, literally unable to receive an education for nearly 300 years. Then when they were allowed to learn, they were forced into the poorest neighborhoods without access to the same level of education as White Americans. We also know that Black communities were not given access to the best grocery stores or farmer's markets, leading to poor nutrition.

Forgive my autism, but based on this perspective it seems the debate isn't about whether or not there is a gap

There is a gap and the actual debate is what's causing it?

those all sound like valid reasons, but again, if there is a hypothetical genetic factor it, even minute, it wouldn't bother me because genetics usually explain everything. I however think that concession alone bothers alot of people.

I just never understood how scientist in one moment can say there's no such thing as biological race and then in the next moment they're able to tell the ethnicity of a dead body in a river just based off its skeleton and nothing else.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I don't think it will ever happen (the science) because no one is crazy enough to throw their career away on it.

All we have is IQ scores, which we're currently fighting the validity of.

Breh, you've already shown that your claim was a LIE. Jenson spent his entire career studying race-IQ differences from the highest halls of education and never lost his career. He was an outright racist who argued that the government should sterilize Black people because they're too stupid to use birth control, and he STILL got to publish over 400 papers and retire from Berkeley at the age of 70 in good standing.

If you can go onto the program of a White Supremacist like Jared Taylor and get away with saying THIS shyt as a Berkeley professor, then what can't you get away with?

​

“The rate of AIDS in the black population of the United States is increasing much more rapidly than in any other segment of the population. In the homosexual population, which is not differentiated from the rest of the population in intelligence, the rate of AIDS is going down. I mean the message has gotten to them, apparently. The message is really, probably, getting to just about everyone, but people in the lower part of the distribution don’t seem to be able to have enough [intelligence] to put messages together in a way that influences their behavior. This is one of the reasons why all methods of birth control, except sterilization, are dysgenic, because the effectiveness with which they are used is related to [intelligence]. There’s no getting around it. … My personal opinion is that I think society has to protect itself from dangers without and dangers within. I don’t think it can survive otherwise. I think the dysgenic effect that [William] Shockley was worried about may become so evident one day, that when everything else has been tried and found not to be effective — importantly effective — people will realize that something has to be done at a political and governmental level. Because education will not do the job in a large segment of the population.”

— Arthur Jenson in interview with white nationalist Jared Taylor, 1992




Supported eugenics, opposed integration, said that Black students belonged in schools for the retarded, sat on the board of Neue Anthropologie, a German neo-Nazi journal for racial pseudoscience, was deputy chairman for National Democratic Party of Germany, a neo-Nazi political party, and STILL didn't get his career ended, but you want to claim people aren't allowed to do legitimate studies of IQ.



There's a bunch more here - this is literally your poster child for "poor racist should be allowed to make racist claims about Black people without getting canceled", and the irony is that he spent 30 years doing all that and STILL never got canceled, but in fact was influential as hell.

Arthur Jensen

Arthur Jensen was arguably the father of modern academic racism. For over 40 years, Jensen, an educational psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, provided a patina of academic respectability to pseudoscientific theories of black inferiority and segregationist public policies...

www.splcenter.org

 

[Take It In Blood]

I could only find 2 vids on Arthur Jensen on youtube. Will watch them later

 

[Professor Emeritus]

if there is a hypothetical genetic factor it, even minute, it wouldn't bother me because genetics usually explain everything. I however think that concession alone bothers alot of people.

Well yeah, cause it's a lie.

The vast majority of scientists would tell you that "genetics usually explain everything" is rubbish. They don't even correlate with everything.

I just never understood how scientist in one moment can say there's no such thing as biological race and then in the next moment they're able to tell the ethnicity of a dead body in a river just based off its skeleton and nothing else.

First off, you can't determine race from a skeleton definitively, you're just going off of "most likely". Since the correct genetic basis isn't actually definitive by genetics, there's a large error rate and lots of crossover.

"Regression equations derived from measurements of the cranial base indicate a 70-90% accuracy for classifying Blacks and Whites, while multivariate discriminant functions for discriminating Blacks, Whites, and Native Americans correctly classify 82.6% of the males and 88.1% of the females."

Determination of Race from the Skeleton through Forensic Anthropological Methods - PubMed

Metric and morphological techniques employed by forensic anthropologists for determination of race are reviewed. Included are several studies which examine cranial morphological techniques such as presence of the oval window of the inner ear, which occurs more frequently in Whites than in Native...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Can Skeletons Have a Racial Identity?

A growing number of forensic researchers are questioning how the field interprets the geographic ancestry of human remains.

www.nytimes.com

Can you tell a person's race from his or her skull?

Law enforcement officials are trying to ascertain the owner of a jawbone that washed up on a beach in Aruba last November. They've ruled out missing...

slate.com

Retired Site | PBS

This Content is No Longer Available

www.pbs.org

Second, no one is saying there isn't difference between populations. I can use skin color to identify people by race and will probably achieve better than 80% accuracy in the USA. Does that somehow prove that it's the correct genetic dividing line? Or course not. It just shows that some people from different regions have some genetic differences....but people from Iceland and Italy, people from Japan and India, people from South Africa and Nigeria and Kenya, also have massive genetic differences. What makes "race" the proper place for the lines to be drawn? It's purely due to social history, not remotely justified by the science.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

@Take It In Blood , here's some serious science. Race is not real because there's no actual genetic differences that align best with race, as opposed to dividing among other lines. If you want a scientific article on the subject, this is the best one I've seen. Genetically if we were to divide humans into genetic ancestry, then the most mathematically supported model would be 21 separate groups (though the differences are so vague there isn't that much difference in the modeling if you use as few as 12 groups or as many as 40) and over 97% of humans are mixed between two or more of those 21 groups. Plus none of the 21 groups would be different enough from each other to rise to the level of subspecies.

Human ancestry correlates with language and reveals that race is not an objective genomic classifier | Scientific Reports

Ancestry analysis of the global data set. The 282 samples are labeled alternating in the left and right margins. The 21 ancestral components are Kalash (black), Southern Asian (dark goldenrod), South Indian (slate blue), Central African (magenta), Southern African (dark orchid), West-Central African (brown), Western African (tomato), Eastern African (orange), Omotic (yellow), Northern African (purple), Northern European (blue), Southern European (dark olive green), Western Asian (white), Arabian (light gray), Oceanian (salmon), Japanese (red), Southeastern Asian (coral), Northern Asian (aquamarine), Sino-Tibetan (green), Circumpolar (pink), and Amerindian (gray).

Each of the colors represents a different genetic lineage. Notice how each of the different geographic areas are made up of people of completely different genetic backgrounds, and even individual groups are made up of different colors themselves meaning they have mixed genetic background, plus some of the genetic backgrounds are shared across different continents. There's no way to look at that chart and decide that 4-5 races is the most sensible way to divide people.

That's another way of showing the data. Notice that there is less genetic difference between the east african and west asian lineages than there is between east african and south african. Notice that native americans are closer genetically to many asian groups than some of those asian groups are to each other. Notice that southern european and northern african lineages are closer to each other than southern europeans are to northern europeans. Notice that the south indian and south asian (north indian) lineages are so different from each other that they're in two entire different sections.

Don't forget that those genetic groupings don't even represent actual human populations today either. For example, the average person in Iran today is some mix of the south asian, west asian, north asian, and arabian ancestries, with every person in Iran being a different mix. Whereas someone from Libya is a different mix of arabian, west asian, north african, southern european, east african, and other ancestries.

There's no way to look at that data and decide that our modern racial categories make biological/genetic sense.

 

[Devilinurear]

As soon as take it in blood said as a black person I knew he was a cracker.

 

[Supa cat]

@Take It In Blood been in the bushes more times than he’s posted

 

[krackdagawd]

As soon as take it in blood said as a black person I knew he was a cracker.

Of course he is. I thought it was understood he was a cac in blackface.

 

[8WON6]

This is why I don’t feel sorry for white incels. They love to talk that “survival of the fittest” talk until it applies to them, just like most CACs in general.

This is why i'm laughin at him, talk all that bootstrapper shyt to (or about) black folks, then starts crying for (white) incels.

 

[Low End Derrick]

The betas need their Alpha leader.

He's the Tariq to conservative white men.

QFT

 

[Dave24]

First people need to stop with this fukking "incel" label. There is a man crisis in this society but no one (especially in the mainstream) wants to have that conversation. Just name-calling and shaming. Even in the Black community the first reaction is "you just mad cuz you don't get no p*ssy".

Subbed