For example, if there are “genes for homosexuality”, the inference is that homosexuality must somehow have been selected for, either currently or under some ancestral conditions. Even sophisticated thinkers like Richard Dawkins fall foul of this confusion – the apparent need to explain why a condition like homosexual orientation persists. It is safe to say that it is intentional on Richard Dawkins part when he makes use of "a gene for" language as he explicitly defended doing so in The Selfish Gene. His point was that it entirely proper to speak of a a gene for something as long as that gene made such a phenotypic effect more probable, all other things being equal. So when Dawkins is talking about a gene for something, he is talking more about what it does, rather than why it was selected.

@James Greg Cochran on the Straight Dope board discussed some attempts by scientists to test his theory on Ashkenazi intelligence. Unsurprisingly, politics tends to get in the way of research.

Although I agree, the a priori physical plausibility of astrology is orthogonal to my point (i.e. academics behaving badly). 
 
As far as the lack of transparency of climatologists is concerned, the people over at RealClimate recently put up a page cataloging all the publicly available data sources and code in order to counter-act the criticisms.

Just realized I mis-spelled CSICOP. Anyway: 
 
jeecee says: 
BB, regarding astrology...I think you've been reading too much Mangan and Charlton. 
 
I never said I believed in astrology. The reason I brought up the astrology example is specifically because I am sure most here are skeptical of the notion and would be supportive of CSICOP's misssion of debunking them, while I think people are primarily propping up the example of CRU because they disagree with the theory of anthropogenic global warming, and are therefore more willing to impute political motives on its advocates. People need to realize that academics that agree with them are equally as capable of petty political maneuvering. Again, if you haven't I highly recommend you read Dennis Rawlins' account of how CSICOP dealt with the Mars Effect theory. Rawlins' makes a point of emphasizing that he doesn't buy into Michel Gauquelin's theory, but he was downright appalled with the dishonest manner in which Paul Kurtz and other CSICOP members approached the whole issue. 
 
In regards to Mangan and Charlton, I think they have bought into a lot of pseudoscientific BS. I support vaccinations, I think the Duesberg hypothesis is false and I am sure the peer-review process is the least worst system we have for publishing scientific research.

I suspect there is something to Hanson's contention that this is more typical amongst academics than some may think. A corollary example would be CSICOP's bungled attempt to discredit and subsequent attempt at covering up evidence that seemingly validate French psychologist and statistician Michel Gauquelin's Mars Effect astrological theory. 
 
Dennis Rawlins, an astronomer, co-founder of SCICOP and former associate editor of CSICOP's official journal Skeptical Inquirer gave a rather thorough account of the incident here.

As far as human population differences in behavior are concerned, it would depend on what type of academics we are talking about. The majority of sociologists would likely give a different answer than a majority of psychometricians.

In somewhat related news, the mainstream media continues to deny the realities of human genetic diversity. Britain's Channel 4 is airing a documentary on race and intelligence, and Channel 4's diversity czar makes clear that the documentaries purpose is to debunk any link between the 2. Apparently it is going to feature interviews with Lynn and Rushton. Why they are partaking in an obvious hit-piece is beyond me. It amuses me that the article calls the documentary "controversial" for regurgitating the socially acceptable opinion. 
 
Don't expect much celebration of our differences anytime soon.

Now it is working for me.

cognitionandculture.net is giving me the "connection has timed out" message. am i the only one who cannot access it?

Popular militant atheist and leftist blogger PZ Myers has a post up criticizing Gregory Cochran's theory on Ashkenazi intelligence which was written in response to the LA Times article.

I'd thought it obvious that institutions matter. Anyone who compares North and South Korea should realize that. Of course there are always other factors, but institutions certainly isn't one that can be ignored.

geecee says: 
there is definitely a large contingent of people who *do* consider homosexuality a disease and *do* want a cure. The media tends to make fun of them when they go to "ex-gay ministries". 
 
And deservedly so, not so much because it immoral to convert someone to heterosexuality, but because the methods currently utilized by ex-gay organizations are hilariously asinine. If you think bible-study, praying and same-sex cuddling cures homosexuality, you deserve to be laughed at.

geecee says: 
1) Homosexuality was only declassified as a mental disease because of the APA protest, not science 
 
It is of my understanding that in 1974 it was put to a vote whether homosexuality should continued to be listed on the DSM as a psychiatric disorder and some 58% of the American Psychiatric Associations members decided to delist it. Your theory might be plausible if it was top-down decision by the heads of the organization that were copping flack for the DSM, but I doubt that the decision would really affect the lives of the thousands of unknown members of the organization. The protesters weren't outside their houses with protest signs. 
 
I suspect the decision has more to do with the increasing spread of liberalism amongst the psychiatric community, just like the rest of the academic community. The decision merely reflected the normative values of the majority of psychiatrists in 1974.

Damnit, first South Park Studios and now Hulu deny me access because I'm Australian.  
 
Something else to add to my uTorrent queue I guess.

The South Park Studios website doesn't accept foreigners due to "pre-existing contractual obligations". 
 
I guess I will have to settle for the poorer quality rips from southparkzone.com and allsp.com for now.

I concede that hereditarianist views are probably more socially acceptable amongst neo-conservative circles than liberal ones, but only marginally so. There are a handful of individuals, who generally are not neo-conservative, but have nonetheless published work through neo-conservative think-tanks and magazines that seem to lean in the direction of defending hereditarianism. Ultimately, I suspect these handful of anti-egalitarianists are vastly outnumbered by the various neo-conservative commentators who have latched onto biological egalitarianism and have integrated into their political philosophy. 
 
In these modern times, neo-conservative commentators are quick to glorify socialists like Martin Luther King, jump at any opportunity to paint liberal opponents as racists to score political points and transparently prop up any black neo-conservative pundit to defend their opposition to welfare and affirmative action.

Where do you get this notion? There is really no liberal thinktank or academic support for scholarship like AEI's support of Murray or Richwine, whose views are anything but biological egalitarianism. 
 
Murray himself is a libertarian, though I will give you credit that the AEI is neo-conservative. Nonetheless, in The Bell Curve Murray explicitly refuses to draw conclusions about whether intelligence is hereditary. I am unfamiliar with the work of [Jason?] Richwine, so I will avoid commenting on him.

(PS: Several Western African countries are stable democracies. Look up Senegal.) 
 
While the trend isn't universal, the correlations are undeniable. It is significantly harder to create a stable democratic government in a country with a low IQ population.

I see no indication that the neo-conservatives are any less committed to the notion of biological egalitarianism than the liberals. Ultimately, the only difference between the two is their strategy for reducing racial inequalities. The liberals propose various social programs and policies to promote upwards economic mobility within minority communities, while the neo-conservatives see these policies as destructive to a productive work ethic which is necessary for these marginalized minorities to lift themselves out of poverty.  
 
Now, stuck with the decision of choosing between a political party that supports the wrong policies (welfare, affirmative action, etc.) for the wrong reasons (it will result in racial equality) or a political party that supports the right policies (relatively meritocratic monetary incentives for work) for the wrong reasons (it will result in racial equality), the heriditarianist will inevitably choose the latter despite not buying into their blind idealism. 
 
Despite what some leftists may think, the neo-conservatives adherence to the notion that ending welfare will result in equality isn't some ruse to avoid accusations of racism, they genuinely believe this. If they didn't really believe this, they wouldn't try to turn nations with an average IQ of 87 into stable democratic societies.

McCain's platform on stem-cell research 
 
Stem cell research offers tremendous hope for those suffering from a variety of deadly diseases - hope for both cures and life-extending treatments. However, the compassion to relieve suffering and to cure deadly disease cannot erode moral and ethical principles. 
 
For this reason, John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of "fetal farming," making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes. Furthermore, he voted to ban attempts to use or obtain human cells gestated in animals. Finally, John McCain strongly opposes human cloning and voted to ban the practice, and any related experimentation, under federal law. 
 
As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos. 
 
Where federal funds are used for stem cell research, Senator McCain believes clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress, and that any such research should be subject to strict federal guidelines.

For those who wish to promote the interests of genetic/genomic research, who should they prefer in the White House: Barack Obama, or a raving creationist loony (with lipstick)? 
 
Apart from the current religious hostility towards the theory of evolution, the Republicans will also no doubt adhere to the notion that the free-market is what should drive scientific innovation instead of government research grants from the NSF, the NIoH, etc. While the Democrats aren't going to willfully fund any research on the genetics of human cognitive abilities, this is only one minor aspect of a massive field of research. The vast majority of genetics research won't send your average liberal into a moral panic.

I am a fan of both Barack Obama and Charles Murray. Is that weird or what? 
 
I doubt it is any weirder than Charles Murray being a fan of Barack Obama. 
 
I read the various posts here on "The Corner," mostly pretty ho-hum or critical about Obama's speech. Then I figured I'd better read the text (I tried to find a video of it, but couldn't). I've just finished. Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant—rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols.... But you know me. Starry-eyed Obama groupie. 
 
These are the words of a militant racist?

I have been looking for this since Sailer mentioned it on his blog. Thanks for posting it up.