Can someone exlpain this to me??

[Qikdraw]

Will Obama Kill Science? (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2U5YTJiMzhjNDNhZTcwZGYyZjcyMzQyZWNmNjJjN2E=)


[Sarah] Palin is the most libertarian candidate to run since the Reagan administration … we’re fighting to hold territory, not to take it. We just need to hold off the left till genomics can come through. We’re going to be knocking off sacred cow after sacred cow in the next decade or so …

The Democrats do not want the genetic discoveries to lead to widespread knowledge about the truth about human differences. The Democrats are really more anti-Darwinian than the fundamentalist Christians who deny the origin of species …

We need to step very carefully as we as going up against the official state religion, namely PC, and until we reach critical mass we’ll be convicted in the media and go straight to the gulag rather than be afforded the benefit of a [S]copes trial. [J]ust think of how many fedguv bureaucrats and NGOs owe their livelihoods to the axiom of equality … an Obama administration will passionately go after the heretics.

The Left’s restraints on science do not get publicized. Where’s the big research for IQ genes? Where’s the funding for that? Where’s the big research program for psychometrics? The Left strangled that very thoroughly.

Read the whole article please. I have an idea of what they are alluding to, but don't want to colour your thoughts with my opinions before you read it.

So what is this article talking about?

[nimrod]

If it is what I am thinking of, where did they get their facts? To me it just sounded like a matter of opinion, but I could be wrong. Until I see more, it seems like polictical hype.

[Nugent]

It's pure outright polictical hype.

[Boreas]

That strikes me as a group of people who would like to justify racism by saying it is all in the genes.

I even read the Canadian article. I am surprised that Philip Rushton, a "researcher" from the University of Western Ontario is not in the article.

[Fitz1980]

Boreas, you are correct in your assumption. That article is from The National Review, which is a partisan conservative site. That article also mentions the book "The Bell Curve" which was criticized for unsound methodology and assumptions, although some on the right like to claim that it's all a result of a liberal conspiracy to silence the truth.

I mean come on here, they even mention Bill Ayers and call Obama a Marxist.

[Agde]

To me, the article is shrill racism, seeking funding for scientific vindication, camoflagued by a gummy thick layer of pseudo-academic verbiage. It is heartening that a young Obama was knowledgeable and thoughtful enough about Murray & co to cut through to the real point. For anyone who has actually read Marx, referencing Wilson in order to apply an epithet on someone as being a "cultural Marxist" is amusing and just confirms superficial scholastic credentials. Will Obama kill science? He may be the first president in a long time up to understanding and analyzing the real issues.

[Naturist Mark]

Boreas, you are correct in your assumption. That article is from The National Review, which is a partisan conservative site. That article also mentions the book "The Bell Curve" which was criticized for unsound methodology and assumptions, although some on the right like to claim that it's all a result of a liberal conspiracy to silence the truth.

LOL, "The Bell Curve" is a smoldering pile of poo.

Way back when, in the olden days when AOL was the biggest thing on the Internet, and people paid for access by the minute, and a 56k dialup connection was the promise of high speed access (1994?) ... Murray and Herrnstein's "The Bell Curve" was a huge subject at the New Republic Online. I dove into their 'evidence' and found that a statistical analysis of the numbers they provided to back up their theories, when normalized for known and well established and well quantified cultural bias showed that the median IQs of blacks were higher than those of whites - exactly contradicting their results. I wish I could find copies of those essays.

Actually though, conclusions about the aggregate intelligence of racial or cultural groups was only a small portion of the book, and to be fair the real smoldering pile of poo was the use that was made of the book, not its actual content. Yes some of its conclusions were unsupportable - that varying social status and inequality between groups is largely the result of aggregate intelligence - and that that same social inequality is really just a reflection of a growing meritocracy - are downright profane. Murray would use this reasoning to assert that anti-poverty programs and affirmative action are misguided since they aim to correct the unavoidable result of low natural ability.

The basic thesis of the book - that intelligence is an important factor in determining success in America - is trivially obvious. What Murray and others tried to conclude from that was heinous.

-Mark

[Boreas]

Wow Mark, that is a horrendous notion. Dr. Rushton, the professor I mentioned earlier, did a "study" and apparently determined that Asians had the highest intelligence, Whites were second, and Blacks were the least. intelligent. As you can imagine, that stirred the pot big-time! He was criticized from all sides. The only good thing is that he also got people discussing this.

I am currently reading some anti-oppressive, structural literature. I have two books on the go, "Beyond Token Change: Breaking the Cycle of Oppression in Institutions" by Anne Bishop, and "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" by Paulo Freire. I would recommend these for a different perspective on things like poverty and different social status. While inherent intelligence can be a factor, other factors sometimes trump any intelligence a person may own.

[Baron Lake]

Are those books just a couple on your "light" summer reading list Boreas? :) Yikes!
Also, are you saying Trump did not inherit intelligence but can own intelligent people?
That could explain alot.

It's Friday, I'm outa here.

(Mark says ARRRRRR, I feel like ARRRRRRGH)

[Boreas]

Are those books just a couple on your "light" summer reading list Boreas? :) Yikes!
Also, are you saying Trump did not inherit intelligence but can own intelligent people?
That could explain alot.

It's Friday, I'm outa here.

(Mark says ARRRRRR, I feel like ARRRRRRGH)

Hi BL, the books are not as heavy as they sound. Trump may have inherited intelligence. That is fine. He started closer to the "finish line" than someone who grew up in the inner city of Chicago or somewhere and who is not a white male. Both could do it, it is just that the person in the inner city will have more hurdles and such in his/her way.

And yes, now Trump can own intelligent people. ;)