![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
♠
William Saletan has been stepping back from his essays on race and IQ. These are the "Slate" articles I posted a couple of weeks ago, in which he argued that James Watson's comments on race and IQ were wrongly anathematized, laying out the statistical findings that have shown IQ disparity among the races.
His primary qualification is that he was arguing hypothetically, and that it is worth considering how we egalitarians should respond to the issues raised in the event that this IQ phenomenon is confirmed.
More pointedly, he also repents from using a study that is co-authored by someone who seems to be an avowed racist:
(Source: William Saletan for Slate.com)
xXx
William Saletan has been stepping back from his essays on race and IQ. These are the "Slate" articles I posted a couple of weeks ago, in which he argued that James Watson's comments on race and IQ were wrongly anathematized, laying out the statistical findings that have shown IQ disparity among the races.
His primary qualification is that he was arguing hypothetically, and that it is worth considering how we egalitarians should respond to the issues raised in the event that this IQ phenomenon is confirmed.
More pointedly, he also repents from using a study that is co-authored by someone who seems to be an avowed racist:
Many of you have criticized parts of the genetic argument as I related them. Others have pointed to alternative theories I truncated or left out. But the thing that has upset me most concerns a co-author of one of the articles I cited. In researching this subject, I focused on published data and relied on peer review and rebuttals to expose any relevant issue. As a result, I missed something I could have picked up from a simple glance at Wikipedia.It is a very sensitve subject fraught with dangers.
For the past five years, J. Philippe Rushton has been president of the Pioneer Fund, an organization dedicated to "the scientific study of heredity and human differences." During this time, the fund has awarded at least $70,000 to the New Century Foundation. To get a flavor of what New Century stands for, check out its publications on crime ("Everyone knows that blacks are dangerous") and heresy ("Unless whites shake off the teachings of racial orthodoxy they will cease to be a distinct people"). New Century publishes a magazine called American Renaissance, which preaches segregation. Rushton routinely speaks at its conferences.
I was negligent in failing to research and report this. I'm sorry. I owe you better than that.
(Source: William Saletan for Slate.com)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-11-29 08:57 am (UTC)From:The fact that Rushton is a fanatic is well known enough to be written on Wikipedia. It's funny that Saletan mentioned this here. That was exactly what caused me not to link to any of Rushton's work in my post. It seemed like a simple decision, & at the time, I didn't think much about it. But in retrospect, I guess I kinda lucked out a little!
That being said, everybody makes mistakes & Saletan gets points in my book for being man enough to admit his. It must also be remembered, that merely mentioning Rushton's papers does little to detract from the main thesis of Saletan's argument because it is based on other testable data too.
It takes balls to come out supporting an argument (wholly grounded in science, mind you), in a widely read magazine, when the vast majority of your peers (for whatever reason), are supporting the contrary, politically correct version. If only, just for that, Saletan deserves kudos.