VDARE is a hate group, which often republishes white supremacists. With such a clear, ideological bias, I would hope that people here would know better than to accept their conclusions without some serious corroboration or fact-checking.
I hope all people everywhere know better than to accept anyone's conclusions without serious corroboration or fact-checking. Yes, Sailer's conclusions are racist--but the question is whether they're true or not. And if you're willing to stop short at identifying them as racist without even asking that question, perhaps Sailer isn't the only one with a clear, ideological bias.
Ideological biases usually manifest themselves as flawed arguments that some conclusion or other is true. This is the type of bias you accuse Sailer of; I think your accusation is perfectly reasonable. Sometimes, though, ideological biases manifest themselves as social taboos. When that happens, everyone comfortably forgets about the question of truth or falsity and dismisses ideas out of hand simply for broaching the taboo. (See: pg, "What You Can't Say": http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html)
I'm not arguing for or against anyone's conclusions here, just suggesting some reasonable ground rules for rational conversation.
Actually, the definition is believing that the differences are large enough to render some races superior to others. It's a political belief, not a biological statement.
That's a good way to talk past people. If you're legitimately concerned with their views, this is a great opportunity to identify what flaws there are with this argument, instead of the ways you already disagreed with the conclusion.
I mean, think about this in terms of who is contributing to the argument. Vdare: "Here is some analysis of the data, revealing what may be surprising results!" You: "Like most people, I disagree with VDare's conclusions. I'm not going to address their arguments, and I'd like to warn others against doing so, too." Who is contributing, here?
I'm still hoping for a follow-up addressing the claims, rather than the person making those claims.
Whether an organisation is racist or not is highly relevant to whether we should trust their findings on matters of race, in the same way that someone being a salesman is relevant to whether we should trust their opinion on products they are selling.
If the accusation was that they were homophobic or sexist or a bunch of drunkards, that would be ad hominem. As it is, pointing out that they are racist is a very relevant and useful contribution. Although we cannot assess the objective validity of their findings based on that fact, our assessment of the probabilities change greatly.
I checked 5 of the numbers on his first chart against table R1 in the official report. They all agreed. I checked the 2009 numbers in his second chart against table R3. They also agreed.
I'm curious - Sailer links to his source. It took me 3 minutes to find the relevant data. Why didn't you do this yourself? Why insinuate bias on his part, rather than simply attempting to determine for yourself if he is lying?
Likewise, the characterization of scientific racism as "white supremacism" or of VDARE as a "hate group" means belief in statistical differences between different races is the moral equivalent of being a neo-Nazi. Even if your very own arguments better suggest Chinese supremacism than white supremacism.
Second, even if there is no scientific validity to the concept of race (and there very well may not be), I think everyone knows what the term "scientific racism" means. So I don't see the constructive point in your comment. My point is that there's a distinction between arguing about IQ statistics and burning crosses in people's front yards; I think you're using rhetorical tricks to undermine that point rather than arguing against it directly.
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) called VDARE a hate group,[5] that was "once a relatively mainstream anti-immigration page," but by 2003 became "a meeting place for many on the radical right."[6] The group also criticized VDARE for publishing articles by white nationalists Jared Taylor and Sam Francis, along with other authors who deal with race and intelligence.
I can guarantee you that SPLC is not the only organization that considers VDARE a hate group. They may have been a more "legitimate" anti-immigration group in the past, but they've taken a hard right turn in the past decade or so.
As far as I can tell you seem to know more about them than Wikipedia.
To add to this: Does anyone know if white nationalist is even the same as a supremacist? That guy Jared's picture on WP is him shaking hands with Jesse Jackson. Also, the citations that were included in the quote you added from the article are from the group I mentioned above, which is why I wasn't personally convinced.
To edit further: I'm coming to the conclusion that white nationalist is a position whose mission is to do things "for white people." Not unlike whatever it is Jesse Jackson does with his time for black people. Although I don't see evidence that the guy is a racist, I'm not particularly a fan of any kind of single-race oriented groups. White or otherwise.
It's coded language. Even people on Stormfront call themselves white nationalists.
Just so we're clear though I'm not 'unconvincable' of this, but the barrier is a little high because you almost can't be pro-white without also being called racist. A unique issue for whites, who are not allowed to ever express anything related to pride for their race.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Luther_Pierce
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turner_Diaries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Alliance_(United_State...
I think I've got an idea now of at least the bigger picture. Thanks for the links and the background information.
I'll give you some reading suggestions. Start with the books mentioned as the best books in a wikipedia user page with bibliography on these subjects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Anthropol...
Begin with the books in the section "Best literature on 'race.'" That will expose you to history, biology, and sociology related to the subject of "race," and help you understand the context of race-advocacy groups. Then read the book The funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund by William Tucker (mentioned in a listing of better monographs on the subjects covered by the bibliography page). I learned a lot of interesting facts I had never known before when I read Tucker's book, including interesting facts about where some advocacy groups get their money, which was long a mystery to me.
Perhaps you should call the VDare people "White Nationalists and Japanese Supremacists," to clarify your position.
If you read the Autobiography of Malcolm X, you'll see that he's a "white supremacist" and a "Jewish supremacist" in some respects, but still a "black nationalist" in terms of how he wants to live.
The point is moot; in reality the overlap between people holding a belief in white supremacism[1] and white nationalism is almost total and Steve Sailer claims to be opposed to both philosophies despite his willingness to articulate their arguments.
It doesn't really matter what motivates the author's obsession with proving innate racial differences though. The problem is, it's exactly the sort of clumsy analysis you'd expect to be produced by a racist think tank; it's a series of grotesque simplifications leading to a non-sequitur
It happilyy to take into account the possibility that very white European Austria's relatively poor test performance might be down to lack of teacher and student motivation before failing to extend the same consideration to the [almost certainly much worse] institutional failings and test aversion of the average school filled with underperforming US ethnic minorities and Latin Americans. Instead, we're left with the daft non-sequitur conclusion that the way to fix test scores of black kids whose lineage dates back further than your average Asian American is not to fix their underfunded, gang-ridden schools or their broken homes or the pervasive myth that their race will hold them back even if they are able to overcome those obstacles, but to impose a ban on immigration and hope they go away.
[1]Acknowledging the superiority of Asian tests scores is entirely compatible with white supremacist beliefs so long as one is prepared to make arguments that white people have a better balance of characteristics due to being superior in many other ways; usually by trotting out the dubious stereotype of Asian societies being uninventive. You won't find many "Japanese supremacists" on VDARE.
It is striking that you've mustered so much rhetoric about conclusions in order to avoid looking at the facts behind those conclusions. It is a little like preachers talking up hellfire when someone questions the 6,000-year-old-earth thing.
You, however, accused him of being intentionally obtuse then compared him to a young earth creationist.
Violent ideology that promotes physical violence is turned into an ideology to become a civil ideology? That argument doesn't really follow. I ask you the same question I ask your sibling commenter: Can you show anything more for this standpoint other than "that's how it is?" I'm holding these "facts" up to the same standards as I would a Wikipedia article. Citation needed. (Preferably a citation that doesn't also originate from a group with obvious stake in their claims.)
"What American schools are failing at, despite the trillions poured into schools since the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, is closing the racial divide."
And even if Buchanan were to argue for racial differences in intelligence, what is so wrong with that? The wiki page you quoted implied that such discussion is prima facie evidence of racism, but why? Other kinds of racial differences beyond the obvious exist, particularly in the realm of health and nutrition. The CDC and NIH put out "racist" guidelines all the time, like the recent recommendation concerning African-Americans and salt intake.
To disallow such discussion because you dislike the conclusion that may result from it is close-minded, irrational and demonstrates a mindset not so different from that of the typical young-earth creationist.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh122410.shtml#MINION
If you would like to verify his data, the source is here:
Scare quotes are used to implicitly treat "reform" and "reformers" as somehow less than the words imply, without justification for this disdain.
Loaded terms are used to color perceptions of various elements in the plot ("beautiful" kids, "brutal" history, "tragedy", "painful" scores).
Why don’t American kids score at the top on international tests? Our brutal history is part of the answer, as is the immigration policy we maintain so people like Matthews can pay low wages to the people who care for their homes.
No evidence is provided for the claim that history or immigration policy are the cause for the discrepancies in scores.
Basically, the piece seems to invoke "think of the children," quote some opponents with unsubstantiated outrage, and call QED.
The fact that's totally ignored in this article, and which I find most interesting, is that American students of a given race outperform their peers in their native countries. The next question to ask is whether this correlation is meaningful, and if so, how to use it to improve education in the future.
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.
Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem...
Steve Sailer is not arguing from a authority, so in this case the ad hominem is a logical fallacy.
It's often useful to read more than the first paragraph of a wikipedia article.
You've quoted from "Conflict of Interest" under the "Circumstantial" fallacy section. Under said section, it is clearly stated, "The circumstantial fallacy only applies where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted."
Regardless, I rescind my earlier comment because michaelchisari's statement was simply not an ad hominem attack. He wrote:
With such a clear, ideological bias, I would hope that people here would know better than to accept their conclusions without some serious corroboration or fact-checking.
At no point does he argue that what was said is false, only that readers should be skeptical due to evidence of bias and check their facts.
> It's often useful to read more than the first paragraph of a wikipedia article.
It's never useful to be persnickety.
As far as I'm aware, disputing an argument from authority is the only non-fallacious use of ad hominem. That's because an argument from authority is dependent on the character of the speaker, and attacking the speaker therefore can debunk the authority.