by Albert Brenner
Everybody knows it is not very intelligent to want your cake and eat it. Yet, this is exactly what many liberals do when it concerns discourses surrounding the validity and applicability of IQ tests/scores. That the aforementioned is still a very sensitive issue needs no further elaboration.
Unfortunately ill fortune still awaits any serious writer when s/he addresses the IQ question in a frank manner, except when it comes to criminalizing the conservative (heterosexual) Pale Male, of course.
In a recent article in the science section of the left-wing Huffington Post newspaper, “evidence” was provided to prove that “racists” have low IQ scores.
According to the study`s lead author, Dr. Gordon Hodson, a professor of psychology at Brock University in Ontario, “People of low intelligence gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, which stress resistance to change and, in turn, prejudice…”
His sentiments were echoed by Dr. Brian Nosek, a University of Virginia psychologist, “ Reality is complicated and messy… Ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simpler solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies.”
Now, seeing that one of the gods of the left, Karl Marx, imposed a “simpler solution” called dialectical-materialism on (the) “complicated and messy” Reality – by, basically, reducing everything to the monopoly of the means of production – it surely must cut both ways.
Meaning that both conservatives and liberals are, ultimately, equally prone to simpler solutions, ergo, being equal in the capacity to be people of low intelligence. Nosek readily admits to this logic; stating that less intelligent types might be attracted to liberal “simplifying ideologies“ as well as conservative ones.
It therefore suffices to say that this research only proved that the opposite of its hypothesis is also true. Rather “scientific”, wouldn’t you say? But that, obviously, did not dissuade the Huffington Post to boldly title this article Intelligence Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice, Racism, Conservatism.
Their prejudice (low IQ?) is even more evident in the opening paragraph of said article, “Are racists dumb? Do conservatives tend to be less intelligent than liberals? A provocative new study from Brock University in Ontario suggests the answer to both questions may be a qualified yes”.
Another example; in a recent article titled IQ tests: women score higher than men, in the left-wing British newspaper The Telegraph, it was boldly stated that women are more intelligent than men.The article quoted a certain Helena Jamieson… who said: “I think women probably always knew deep down that they were the more intelligent ones – but as the gentler sex we were quiet about it and let men continue to believe they ruled the world.”
Now just imagine if a man had said, “I think men probably knew deep down that they were the more intelligent ones…“ Can you just imagine the furious outcry that would have caused, especially on the part of feminists?
As is glaringly evident in the above examples, liberals have absolutely no qualms in recognizing the scientific legitimacy/validity of IQ tests when it comes to nailing conservative Pale Males. Yet, when it comes to acknowledging the very same instrument as a scientifically legitimate tool to, for example, measure the difference in average IQ scores between blacks and whites, all hell breaks loose!
Be that as it may; the left certainly has a Gollum-like approach to IQ. A warped approach akin to acknowledging that a thermometer can measure warm temperatures, but when it gets cold, it suddenly does not “function” anymore.
The above irrationality is perfectly illustrated by the liberal columnist John Wiener of The Nation magazine. He wrote an article in lieu of the dismissal of Dr Jason Richwine from the Heritage Foundation. Wiener basically accused Richwine of “racism”. In his article, Why Did Harvard Give a PhD for a Discredited Approach to Race and IQ?, Wiener wrote: “Both ‘race’ and ‘intelligence’ are culturally constructed notions, not biological or genetic facts. None of this is hard to understand.”
Yet in his conclusion, he wrote the following: “The last word in this story goes to a study published in 2012 in the journal Psychological Science. ’In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874),’ the researchers wrote, ‘we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood.’”
It really does seem that liberals want their IQ cake and eat it. It is a pity they do not allow conservative (heterosexual) Pale Males the same Gollum-like leeway. On the contrary; if the latter just mentions the words “race” and “IQ” then they will most certainly be crucified … like Dr Thilo Sarrazin, Prof James Watson, Dr Jason Richwine, et cetera.
The fact that any scientific inquiry into the differences between the races is a political landmine field guarded by the left, has its origins in a deliberate lie told by one of its doyens, Margaret Mead.
As the conservative columnist Christopher F. Chabris notes; “Before World War II, for example, the anthropologist Margaret Mead, presumably basing herself on her observations of non-Western cultures, wrote: ‘We are forced to conclude that human nature is almost unbelievably malleable, responding accurately and contrastingly to contrasting cultural conditions.’ Later, Mead admitted that what forced this conclusion was not the data she had collected but the political goals she espoused: ‘We knew how politically loaded discussions of inborn differences could become. . . . (I]t seemed clear to us that [their] further study . . . would have to wait upon less troubled times.’”
Well, these “troubled times” are still upon us. Difference has not disappeared. On the contrary, it has got progressively worse.
But then, what else could be expected from those who want their cake and eat it?