Bad times for racialists...

[orcenio]

Last October both J P Rushton and Arthur Jensen croaked. Another less prominant racialist Vincent Sarich also died that month. Today, I’ve learned that my prediction was correct. Robert Travis Osborne, the last remaining president of the Pioneer Fund, has bit it too (at the tender age of 99).

In addition, the Pioneer Fund’s website appears to have undergone a redesign. Where there once was a basic html layout peddling links to Rushton’s “Charles Darwin Research Institute” and cheap printouts to his crappy racialist book/pamphlets, is now just a simple splash page (barely three paragraphs). One of which…

2012 to present

In August 2012 Philippe Rushton transferred half the assets of the Pioneer Fund to the Charles Darwin Research Institute, of which he was the president. At the same time he resigned as president of the Pioneer Fund and nominated Richard Lynn as his successor.
Philippe Rushton died on 2 October, 2012, and left the Charles Darwin Research Institute in the control of his son, Stephen Rushton, an associate professor of education at the University of South Florida, in the expectation that he would support research of the kind that had been supported by the Pioneer Fund. Stephen Rushton has subsequently transferred the assets of the Charles Darwin Research Institute to the JSP Education Foundation (JSP stands for John Stephen Philippe).

Dare I say it? The Pioneer fund seems to be…dead. Yep, dead. Now with four more “Mainstream Science on Intelligence” signatories fresh worm food, who’s next? I bet Richard Lynn, I’m quite surprised he’s lived this long already (the fool is 83).

[orcenio]

Well… since Lynn is still alive, maybe I shouldn’t call it “dead.” But lets wait a few months and see what Santa brings us in December.

[TBG]

Is racialist some weird british term for racist or something? If so, you guys sure seem to like adding unneeded letters and syllables to words.

[Chen019]

Yes, Lynn is getting on. Apparently has another book coming out this year.

[TriPolar]

@TBG

Is racialist some weird british term for racist or something? If so, you guys sure seem to like adding unneeded letters and syllables to words.

It appears to be that, another word for racist. Letters and syllables must be cheap in England the way they waste them. Their tweets must be quite constrained.

[orcenio]

@Chen019

Yes, Lynn is getting on. Apparently has another book coming out this year.

Whatever it is, I **really **hope you enjoy it, cuz there’s a high probability that he won’t be publishing any more. Quite frankly, it’s just 19 years since the Mainstream Science on Intelligence was published in the Wall Street Journal and the majority of it’s signators are now dead. Like dead dead. The one’s who aren’t dead are in their 70’s or 80’s all well past their productive years.

In fact one does not even need look afield (and wait for their eventual mortality) to see how their heavily critiqued racialist viewpoint has lost out in modern psychology (with no small help from scientists in other fields like Anthropology/Genetics). However, fear not; you have 2-5 possible years left with Lynn/Brand/Murray/Vanhanen/Nyborg. Also, you can still read/re-read/repeat all the the old writings (dating back to Galton himself) and what not.

The future though…That’s not for you chap.

[orcenio]

@TBG

Is racialist some weird british term for racist or something? If so, you guys sure seem to like adding unneeded letters and syllables to words.

Not British, Canadian. I suppose my use of racialist is to highlight a difference for those who advocate old pernicious racial tropes as new and scientifically sound. Just think of it as “race-ology” and practitioners and “race-ologists;” but yeah. There’s not a difference with them and “racists”.

[BrainGlutton]

@TBG

Is racialist some weird british term for racist or something?

It means a racist with a Ph.D.

[Chen019]

@orcenio

Whatever it is, I **really **hope you enjoy it, cuz there’s a high probability that he won’t be publishing any more. Quite frankly, it’s just 19 years since the Mainstream Science on Intelligence was published in the Wall Street Journal and the majority of it’s signators are now dead. Like dead dead. The one’s who aren’t dead are in their 70’s or 80’s all well past their productive years.

In fact one does not even need look afield (and wait for their eventual mortality) to see how their heavily critiqued racialist viewpoint has lost out in modern psychology (with no small help from scientists in other fields like Anthropology/Genetics). However, fear not; you have 2-5 possible years left with Lynn/Brand/Murray/Vanhanen/Nyborg. Also, you can still read/re-read/repeat all the the old writings (dating back to Galton himself) and what not.

The future though…That’s not for you chap.

I haven’t read any of Lynn’s books. As for the future, as the cost of genome sequencing falls the phenotypes that are consistently observed will likely be better explained. Not sure why you’d be opposed to that - genetic engineering may offer the prospect of Africa making similar development to Asia and Europe?

[Chen019]

@orcenio

Whatever it is, I **really **hope you enjoy it, cuz there’s a high probability that he won’t be publishing any more. Quite frankly, it’s just 19 years since the Mainstream Science on Intelligence was published in the Wall Street Journal and the majority of it’s signators are now dead. Like dead dead. The one’s who aren’t dead are in their 70’s or 80’s all well past their productive years.

In fact one does not even need look afield (and wait for their eventual mortality) to see how their heavily critiqued racialist viewpoint has lost out in modern psychology (with no small help from scientists in other fields like Anthropology/Genetics). However, fear not; you have 2-5 possible years left with Lynn/Brand/Murray/Vanhanen/Nyborg. Also, you can still read/re-read/repeat all the the old writings (dating back to Galton himself) and what not.

The future though…That’s not for you chap.

In terms of what psychologists think the latest survey reveals similar views to those found by Snyderman & Rothman?

Experts agreed that the following were sources of reasonable evidence for significant heritability of intelligence: monozygotic twins reared apart, comparisons of monozygotic and dizygotic twins, adoption studies, “patchwork” family studies.

Asked: Is there sufficient evidence to arrive at a reasonable estimate of the
heritability of intelligence in populations of developed countries?” 73% said Yes.

Asked: What are the sources of U.S. black-white differences in IQ?

0% of differences due to genes: (17% of our experts)
0-40% of differences due to genes: 42% of our experts
50% of differences due to genes: 18% of our experts
60-100% of differences due to genes: 39% of our experts
100% of differences due to genes: (5% of our experts)
M=47% of differences due to genes (SD=31%)

As far as I can see, there are two extreme positions, the 17% who think that the difference is none of it due to genes, and the 5% who think it is all due to genes. The rest are in the middle, and the “consensus” is that 47% of the difference is due to genes. (See above why one should not get too excited about consensus results). All this is obviously very different from the public narrative, which is that 0% of the difference is due to genes. Such a view is rejected by the majority of experts, but there is still a sizeable minority of experts who hold that view. In sum, there are a variety of opinions.