Sunday, August 5, 2018

HBD and the Rushton Case

Continuing my discussion of the Rushton fiasco.

Let’s continue our analysis of the Rushton case and what it says about HBD.

An important point that needs to be made: just because Rushton was a disgusting and despicable excuse for a human being, and, according to Dutton, fudged data and interpretations, does not logically imply that r-k theory as regards humans (or more properly, hominids – or australopithecines?) is not correct in its broadest sense.

The thing is, contra fawning “movement” fanboys, the whole r-k theory isn’t particularly innovative or earth-shattering.  It is actually quite obvious. Indeed, back in the 1980s - many years before I ever heard of Rushton and his work – I was reading an ecology textbook, came across a discussion of r-k life strategies, and immediately – emphasis on immediately – realized that this can apply to “humans” as well, with Blacks and Hispanics being “r” and Whites and (East) Asians being “k.”

Now, Rushton certainly deserves credit for coming out and publicly stating the hypothesis, and credit he does get here for that.  The problem with these HBD types is that they fall in love with their own theories, and descend into laughable pseudoscience, and sometimes outright fraud, in order to hysterically defend those hypotheses, rather than subject them to rigorous hypothesis testing, as the Popperian scientific method would suggest.  No, these guys are hyper-Kuhnians, and will defend the dogma at all costs.

An example is the IQ-GDP correlation, what Lynn has been banging the drum about for decades.  The idea that there would be a correlation between national IQ and national GDP – just as there is between individual IQ and personal income/wealth – is obvious, even trivial.  But – and this is a big but – that’s at a very coarse-grained, looking from a distance, view.  When one looks more fine-grained, looks at the details, looks up close, one finds exceptions, many outliers, cases that defy the dogmatic explanation, alternative mechanisms that sometimes better explain the data, etc.  Upon rigorous testing, the strict interpretation of the hypothesis is proven wrong, the hypothesis, in its most strict and fine-grained sense, is falsified.  However, it remains valid as a very general principle, and has some utility in that sense.  But that’s not good enough for these types, with their absurd spin, invented just-so stories, ignoring of contradictory data, “estimates” of IQ rather than reproducible direct measurements, and absolute refusal to even admit the possibility of being wrong about even the most trivial cases.  That’s pseudoscience, that’s HBD.

The same applies to r-k.  In the very broad sense, it is probably true – but even then requires constant and rigorous testing – but it obviously breaks down when one looks at the details.  In some cases, in some details, in some traits, Negroes may be k-selected, and Chinamen r-selected; rather than admit this, Rushton ignored the facts that “went against the general trend.”  Like all HBDers he never even considered the possibility he could be wrong, and never really took opposing views seriously.  The opposition you see was “politically motivated” and “personally motivated” – as if the same could not be said about Rushton himself and all the other HBDers themselves.

Life is messy – Rushton’s life is a perfect example: compare the details of his personal life to what his work was about and to the ideals fervently believed in by “movement” Rushtonites.  It’s almost as if Pierce had married a Jew, or Duke was discovered to have half-Black children.  I won’t even mention the actual realty of Strom Thurmond here.  Life is messy and so life science – including social science (if it is even really a science) – is messy as well.  Let’s not pretend it isn’t and by so doing leave open vulnerable spots in our views that can be attacked by the Left.

The ultimate problem is that HBD in its stupidity and pseudoscience smears genuine racial science, since the two are conflated by the Left and by the general public.  Thus, when Rushton is (justifiably) discredited, it reflects badly on all of us, not only where it belongs – solely on the HBD scum.

If the Right had any sense of being right (no pun intended) they would denounce Rushton, not only for what the specifically did but also because of the damage the inevitable revelations have on the cause.  His work needs to be critically examined more than ever, and that work shown to be based on fraud and/or bad science should be denounced and withdrawn.