Monday, January 29, 2018

Evo-psycho bros and the inconvenient truth about slave-rape part 1

John Paul Wright, another member of the evo-psycho bro/alt-right network.
Every time I think I have a small, easily covered topic I end up stepping into a rat's nest of science racialism. And then it takes me much longer to research and write than I anticipated and I don't get my laundry done, again.

So before I discuss Razib Khan's interesting response to the NYTimes article White? Black? A Murky Distinction Grows Murkier I want to talk about a few related issues.

Since the days of The Pioneer Fund and before, claims of racial tendencies have been based on the assumption that all humans could be sorted neatly into one of several racial groups, most especially black/white, based on self-identification. This is a practice that lives on right up to the present time, as demonstrated by this exchange I had with Kevin M. Beaver, the Judith Rich Harris Professor of Criminology and Director, Distance Learning Program at FSU who appears in the videos of alt-right racist/misogynist Stefan Molyneux to discuss the genetics of intelligence and crime.

When you look at data according to “race” what genetic testing do you use on study participants to determine their “race"? It’s been shown (23andMe) that some self-identified African Americans have a significant percentage of European ancestry and vice-versa.
In all of my research, I have analyzed secondary data which has only included self-identification of race/ethnicity.  As a result, I was never able to examine ancestry based on genetic testing.

There is no doubt that J. Phillipe Rushton believed there are two "platonic" racial types, black and white:
“Whites have, on average, more neurons and cranial size than blacks… Blacks have an advantage in sport because they have narrower hips — but they have narrower hips because they have smaller brains.”
--J. Philippe Rushton, speaking at the 2000 American Renaissance conference
Like all evo-psycho authors, it seems, Beaver cites the work of J. Phillipe Rushton, who was president of The Pioneer Fund from 2002 until his death in 2012. 
There are probably more but I think five is sufficient to make the point.

Based on the chapter "Inconvenient Truths" written by John Paul Wright in the Biosocial Criminology: New Directions... book edited by Beaver, it's safe to assume that Beaver believes in the two platonic racial types, black and white:

Page 149:
...Areas afflicted by crime and other social pathologies are more frequently black than white, and even less frequently Oriental. Part of the reason for these visible and dramatic differences may have to do with the differential abilities of races to organize socially.
Page 150:
From the available data it would seem ludicrous to argue that "race" is a construct devoid of a biological or evolutionary backdrop. That evolutionary forces have produced biological variance across races is now scientifically undeniable. That many of the characteristics that define races appear to be universal and time stable is also undeniable. Evolution can produce many forms of adaptations, but it cannot produce equality. 
The connection between race and criminal behavior is clearly complex and involves a range of historical, social, psychological and individual variables. Evolution however, provides a powerful mechanism to understand the development of human races and the distribution of traits and behaviors within and across races. It helps explain why races would appear and under what conditions races would appear. It helps to explain why certain traits would be beneficial and why these traits such as higher IQ, would be unequally distributed across races. Moreover evolutionary theory helps explain why race-based patterns of behavior are universal, such as black over-involvement in crime. No other paradigm organizes these patterns better. No other paradigm explains these inconvenient truths.
So we see that the "inconvenient truth" according to John Paul Wright in Biosocial Criminology: New Directions in Theory and Research is that there are (apparently) three races: black, white and Oriental, and that races have different evolved intelligences and criminal tendencies.

By the way, who is John Paul Wright? Well he's an author at Quillette, of course.

John Paul Wright is a Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati.

Here is the web site associated with the book Wright co-authored with Matt DeLisi Conservative Criminology, in case you weren't sure where Wright stood politically.

Turns out there is quite the network in academia, centering on Criminal Justice studies, of white conservative men who consider black people to be by nature more criminal and less intelligent than members of other "races."

Not just conservative of course, in many cases alt-right as demonstrated by Wright's visit to Stefan Molyneux (of course) and his fascinating thoughts on "Why Leftists Are Violent"

I am creating a spreadsheet of them - maybe I'll call it "Shitty University Men" with their academic affiliations and connections to Steven Pinker, the alt-right and Quillette.

Although Quillette and the alt-right is rather redundant since Quillette founder Claire Lehmann is part of the international alt-right.

OK, so how does slave-rape fit into all this? Well it appears that although evo-psycho bros will allow for historical, social, psychological and individual variables as Wright does, what they actually do is ignore the historical record and other data sources.

Thanks to the #MeToo movement, we have seen how often many men with power over women will take full advantage of that power from Harvey Weinstein's complicity machine, to Matt Lauer's "assault button" to Donald Trump's brag that when you're famous you can grab 'em by the pussy.

Now imagine what men like that would do if they owned women.

We don't have to imagine of course, we have historical and genetic records. I will get to that next.