« Tim Pool Daily Show

The Far Left Opposes Science Even When They Think Its True

2018-09-09 | 🔗

Vox typically takes the stance that differences in race based statistics are due to environmental factors. But in the past they have published a few op-eds that argued in favor of race realist beliefs but simply argued they were morally wrong to pursue. We have had a few issues of political take downs of scientific articles in the past week or so and this led me to look at why the Left would push for articles to be unpublished. It would seem that even though they might agree with the science they view it as morally wrong.

Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Over the past week or so, there's been a couple stories about scientific research studies that were pulled for political reasons. We had one story about rapid onset tenderness, for I get taken down because of activism. Now, there's another story from Colette about study on greater male variability being taken down for political reasons and what, people are saying that this is because of angry feminists, but I do believe the left and the right can be both equally anti science for different reasons, we're tribal. We are going to support data if it benefits our opinions or our view of the world, and so you'll see people cherry picking data to suggest that they are in fact correct when in reality, most situations are more nuanced, and I dont think any Visual has a wide enough view to understand everything in doing research. On these stories, I found something that I believe to be rather disturbing. Maybe disturbing is on the right word, because I don't want to get to political, but their articles from vocs com that essentially argue their inherent traits too
Britain races. That may be the its or may not be the case, and that they do believe that I q is at least partly heritable, and that may be true. Science may believe this to be true. Both shocking to me is that typically, I find the left disagrees with this notion that IQ could be based on race and it seems, like VOX, is kind of taking this position by a kind of Dane time. Not so, let's take a look at the story, they did and take a look at this issue of science denial among the left and the right and I'll just give you some of my thoughts on the whole situation in this blog. From reason, it says Annex paper to mass journals were mom out into suppressing academic discourse, is increasingly under threat from activists professors According to Professor TAT Hill any Wilkinson a senior professor of mathematics, the University of Chicago, launched a successful campaign to get one method.
External that had accepted his paper withdraw its acceptance and a second journal to unpublished the paper after publishing it online, apparently because discussing even mathematical models of hypothetical sex differences is forbidden. If someone might interpret the discussion as conflicting with feminist orthodoxy, the saga is recounted in the linked story, and this is the story from Colette academic activists Sunday published pay, her down the memory hole. I am increasingly worried about politics in science, because science is relatively apolitical but becomes infected by political agendas. You can see sir
organizations, funding specific research so that they can have their specific cherry pick data and try and make people believe that certain things are true, and then you have the post, modernists and people on the far left. Who, because of this, I believe there is no objective truth, because people can just frame. Things was at ways to make. You believe things and create the truth. But rest assured there is an objective truth like if you throw a glass bottle, there is a strong probability. It will break. We dont want to make everything seemed absolutely. This is always a margin of error and there is great variability but its worrying to me that people try to you. science for political advantages. Like this story, it seems that, for political reasons, science is under attack, but in researching the story from quality. I came across this story from the american enterprise and stood by Christina Half summers into doesn't ten? Are there more girl? oh geniuses. She asks which was interesting to me to see, because This is sort of the opposite of the greater male variability hypothesis. The general idea
is that among men, the Bell curve for intelligence is much wider, meaning that there substantially more male idiots, but substantially more male geniuses relative to women and for political reasons that looks like the study was pulled, but I was surprised to secrecy, half summers making an article about the issue it would seem that it's not so much a scientific point, but a political one, because in the article she talks about standardized tests disadvantaging boys creating the illusion that they are more girl geniuses in the Arctic. She states. The reformers believed this open and consistent procedure would yield a more ethnically diverse group of students so far it has not. It has yielded more girls than boys as the times reports. The test is more verbal than other test and it plays to grow. Strikes. Boys are especially disadvantaged by the necessity to sit quietly for one hour and focus exclusively on the test, and this
is an argument that I see among the far left when it comes to iq test between races that if white people are creating IQ tests, it's meant to conform to a white male view of the world, and thus people who are raised outside of that culture are I'm going to do as well if they are female or of a non white race. So there have been attempts to control for this by having women and minorities create these tests. But in doing further research, I came across something that I found really interesting: vocs dot com, arguing that I q is at least partly inheritable and that white people do score better on IQ test in an up at published by vocs. It says, they're still no good reason to believe black White IQ differences are due to genes. Our response to criticisms, the article seems kind of contradictory while they state they dont, believe intelligence differences are due to genetics. They entertain the possibility it.
Which, to me was strange to see coming from a left wing publication. Now I want to point out this is an up ad from boxes. Big think these are outside contributors and may not reflect the actual opinions of oxy article. Bates. All three of us are academic psychologists have studied human intelligence, and it is our contention that Murray's views do not represent the consensus in our field and the referring to Charles Murray, who appeared on SAM Harris's, Blog and Charles Murray, wrote a book called. Belle curve that says there may be genetic factors for differences in intelligence. They state we by noting that we accepted as fax many claims that are controversial in the academy, if not in psychology. That iq exists that it predicts many life outcomes, that there is a gap between black IQ scores and white IQ scores that I q is at least partly heritable, as is almost every human,
great. We rejected the conclusion that Murray and Harris say is virtually inescapable, that it follows that the black white difference and I q must be partly genetic. I find the store age, because, although there saying they reject this notion that it must be partly genetic, they act real estate, in the same paragraph, that there is a difference in scores that IQ test predict like outcome and that I q is at least partly heritable. I would state based on these two statements alone, that if they are claiming IQ was at least partly heritable and there is a gap between blackened IQ scores than they are staying. There is at least a possibility. It is true that this difference is due to genetics, though they are saying they don't want to come to the conclusion. It's kind of can But what I maybe I misunderstood this, but it sounds Like they're, saying, Murray is wrong to concluded, as fact that there is a genetic factor, but their stance is that it is possible
What was also really strange to me and I'll admit, rather worrisome is how they talk about jewish people. Admittedly, the author of this purports to be jewish to what I'll get to this. But what I want to point out is if the far left is going to claim that there should be policy based on race and then admit there is a possibility that there are differences and intelligence based on race and then go even further. That also that article next its worrying to me that we are going to see people who deny Eventually, I in favour of collectivism, but then openly accept the possibility of re space differences if they want inequality of outcome, but our are stripped saying they believe they're inheritable traits based on race, then it sounds to me like their advocating discriminatory practices, and they do believe that certain races are inferior or superior, or at least it's possible that they are. As I mentioned earlier, everyone, including myself, will accept
or deny science if it benefits their view of the world. I am certainly no exception. There are certain things that conflict with my view of the world in my morals, but I'm going to read these next few paragraphs because they were published by vocs dot com. A left wing outlet. To convince the reader that there is no scientifically valid or ethically defensible foundation for the project of assigning group differences in complex behaviour to genetic and environmental causes, I have to move the discussion and an even more uncomfortable direction. This sentence is again interesting because to me I enter. this article as very contradictory. They are saying they want to convince the reader, there's, no scientifically valid or ethically defensible foundation for the project of assigning group differences, but now go on to assert. It might be true, he says, can bitter the assertion that Jews are more materialistic than non Jews. One could try to avoid the question by hoping that materialism isn't a measurable trait, like IQ, accept that it is
or that materialism might not be heritable individuals, except that it is nearly certain it would be if someone bother to check or perhaps that Jews aren't really erase, although they certainly differ ancestrally from non juice, or that one wouldn't actually find an average difference in materialism. But it seems perfectly plausible that one might what? Important to point out here is that he is saying he is of the opinion that even though no one bothered to check he believes they would find that Jews are inheriting a drive for materialism. I don't understand how we could say this in the same sentence and haven't the same What worries claiming he doesn't believe in play a factor, but what's even more shocking to me, is that he then includes this sentence: in case anyone is interested. A biological theory of jewish behaviour by the White Nationalist psychologist coming tunnel actually exists. Links to it. There was a really interesting post a few months ago about why
left is so concerned with the definition of words and what it said was because they believe same thing as the all right as a pertains to race, realism and anti terrorism. They have to change the definition of words, so they can protect themselves from their own policies, the reason they say only white people can be racist is because they believe literally the same thing as the all right, but need to protect themselves from being called racist. so they can say. If only why people racist vacant do the same things, they can believe in the same things, but you can't call them racist in this article, this person is claiming that although no one bottle Currently, no one bothered to check if materialism We inherited by jewish people is arguing that it would be the case. This is an article published by vocs dot com, a left wing website that is uncritically linking to white nationalists and our. That it is plausible to assume materialism is an inherently jewish straight but strain
He then goes on to contradict himself and say it isn't it. You were persuaded by Maria Harris's conclusion at the black White IQ gap is partially genetic, but uncomfortable with the idea of the same kind of thing might apply to the personality traits of Jews. I have one question: why couldn't there as easily be a science of whether Jews are genetically tuned to different levels of materialism than Gentiles. I dont know why any of this is or isn't I'm not a scientist, but I do find it interesting that vocs has this article that I struggling to understand, as it was so contradictory on the idea that they state there is a difference in IQ scores between black people and white people, and their IKEA was at least partially heritable suggests that it might be a reason for the difference, though they say that migration concluded to be the case they entertainers possibility, which is something I typically don't hear from the left. So I was shocked to see that and what the says to me is that
ass. The individual should be considered in all circumstances. That's what we should do, because it doesn't make sense to take an extremely wealthy individual who happens to be asian and say they should be afforded certain protections. It doesn't make sense to say we want to protect the minorities but then discriminate against asian people, universities. I am particularly worried that we're heading towards an extremely segregated future because of people on the left, arguing for segregation. You you do it's not so much. If even diversity, there have been instances numerous times were, activists have segregated races because they believe that somehow that's gonna make things better. I honestly don't, but you have the all right and the regressive left, who believe essentially the same things, and it's very strange to see this in the mainstream left. I made it You about identity and item within mainstream digital publications- and it seems like this is the case.
Maybe this is actual science and maybe they're right, but maybe I'm just really confused by the whole thing, and why don't you guys comment below and let me know what you think we'll keep a conversation going, how you feel about boxes, stance on this? How do you feel about Charles Murray and the whole conversation, and do you think that, for the most part people are just going to cherry pick data to make it seem like they're right, regardless of what is actually happening? Is that what boxes doing is it? What Charles Maria's doing, maybe common below keep the conversation going? You can follow me on twitter team can stay tuned, new videos everyday at four p m here's my second channel Youtube com slashed him cast coming up around six pm. Thanks, rang out and I'll see you next time.
Transcript generated on 2020-10-27.