…and this is a 
I need to take a shower after reading that
Category: Kooks
Posted on: October 8, 2008 10:45 AM, by PZ Myers
Occasionally, John Derbyshire gets kudos from the pro-science side of the national snarl because he at least manages to recognize that Intelligent Design creationism is a load of lies and pseudoscience. I've been less than thrilled with the guy; he's generally a creepy fellow who only advocates science as a prop to his bizarre ideological fantasies. The latest example: he opposes Obama because he will destroy the biological sciences. Why, you might ask? It's a peculiar assertion, since virtually every biologist I know considers the Republican party to have been a disaster for American science, and like Obama's positions on science policy. Just the fact that he's willing to encourage stem cell research is a major step forward.
The reason Derbyshire predicts Obama will stop science cold is that the presidential candidate is a black man who dislikes the idea that modern genetics will demonstrate the inferiority of certain races.
To support his claim, he babbles approvingly about Herrnstein and Murray's awful book, The Bell Curve, and cites a "genomics researcher" who must remain anonymous because the cultural Marxists who dominate the research industry will destroy him…unfortunately, he uses a pseudonym familiar to me — "Godless Capitalist" — and I know his internet ravings well. He's a garden-variety racist who misuses genetics as window-dressing for his delusions. Just to give you an idea of how repugnant and stupid this guy is, here's a little anecdote told by Derbyshire that tells you how clueless Derbyshire is, and how vilely misogynist and bigoted "Godless Capitalist" is:
When "Godless" was helping me get up to speed on this stuff, I asked him at one point: "What's the difference between a geneticist and a genomicist?" He gave a very cute answer: "Geneticists are female, genomicists are male." Asked to elaborate, he offered this: "Imagine you are walking down a corridor in a research institute, looking in through the glass panels in doors. In one lab you see a young woman of nontrivial attractiveness carefully adding drops to a Petri dish from a pipette. That's a geneticist. A couple of doors along you look into another lab and there are two young guys arguing about some long string of numbers displayed on a computer screen. Those are genomicists …"
I guess this guy never heard of Pardis Sabeti or Anne Carpenter or Dannie Durand or any of a bunch of other female genomics researchers I can think of. Or the even larger number of male geneticists out there. And why does attractiveness even come into this?
That's a rhetorical question. It's because these happy chatting bigots are always judging ideas by superficial appearances, by sex or skin color or racial and sexual stereotypes.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Mark Mattern | October 8, 2008 11:29 AM
What a shithead.
Posted by: Mark Mattern | October 8, 2008 11:32 AM
Oh, my first comment ever FTW.
Posted by: Irradiatus | October 8, 2008 11:33 AM
I had not read or even heard of Derbyshire prior to finding this article, so thanks for giving some context on him.
Again, what a douchebag!
Posted by: jck | October 8, 2008 11:38 AM
Screeds like this tell much more about the writer than the subject. Sounds like this guy has a fetish for women in lab coats. I don't even want to speculate on the pipette.
Posted by: HumanisticJones | October 8, 2008 11:46 AM
jck @ #4
Don't sully the fetish for women in lab coats by needlessly associating it with this man. It is a good and decent fetish to have, on par with librarians.
Posted by: Jared | October 8, 2008 11:47 AM
...wow...just wow. How many people actually believe this crap?
Posted by: John Derbyshire | October 8, 2008 11:55 AM
You out of the shower yet, P.Z.? Good. Just a couple:
"The reason Derbyshire predicts Obama will stop science cold is that the presidential candidate is a black man who dislikes the idea that modern genetics will demonstrate the inferiority of certain races."
Where did I say that? Why are you putting words in my mouth? The reason Obama will do what he can to stop the human sciences cold is, I said, that he's a cultural Marxist, a blank-slater. They come in all colors, P.Z., as you ought to know.
Check out human history, which is just human nature at large. It's not a pretty sight. Yet some humans, in some times and places, have built orderly, rational, consensual societies. So the human race isn't hopeless. We do need a better understanding of human nature though, if we are to be spared future horrors; and that better understanding will only come through diligent scientific enquiry.
Which will not go forward if we are fearful of what we might learn. As the cultural Marxists are. As you are.
I guess you'll have to take another shower now. Hope you have one of those energy-saver water heaters. Gotta live green!
Posted by: Prof MTH | October 8, 2008 11:58 AM
Since the 1920s biological factors have been cited as reasons to justify racial discrimination including forced sterilization programs that lasted until the 1980s. Now that the medical sciences are pursuing individualized medicine and race based medicine (see Bidil) we are seeing a resurgence of racial stereotyping, racial discrimination, and just outright racism on the basis of genetics.
A colleague of PZ's recently spoken on these issues as well as other issues such as African-American Liberation Atheism.
Posted by: Eshto | October 8, 2008 11:59 AM
Can someone explain to me what "nontrivial attractiveness" means? (As opposed to trivial attractiveness?)
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 8, 2008 12:00 PM
Posted by: John Derbyshire | October 8, 2008
Where did I say that? Why are you putting words in my mouth? The reason Obama will do what he can to stop the human sciences cold is, I said, that he's a cultural Marxist, a blank-slater. They come in all colors, P.Z., as you ought to know.
Proof?
Posted by: Utilitarian | October 8, 2008 12:02 PM
Contrary anecdotes != refutation of a statistical generalization about the proportion of different genders in different fields.
Randomly selected young veterinarians are more likely to be female than male, randomly selected young computer programmers are more likely to be male than female. Likewise, it *really is the case* that the male:female ratios differ between lab geneticists and genomics techies.
You can object and say that in the future women will exactly match the occupational patterns of men and become techies at the same rate, although this would require DECREASES in female numbers in other skilled professions like medicine, but this business of misinterpreting any statistical generalization as an exceptionless categorical claim and then attacking the speaker is bogus.
I'm Jewish, and we make jokes about our disproportionately high and low representations in various fields all the time (lots of doctors and lawyers, few soldiers and plumbers). It's not anti-Semitic for a Gentile to notice and ask, "Hey, Utilitarian! I'm curious, do you know why it is that a quarter of American Nobel Laureates, or big-firm lawyers, or Hollywood executives, are Jewish?" A world where all sorts of obviously true facts are off-limits for humor or discussion is both less honest and less interesting.
Posted by: Patricia | October 8, 2008 12:10 PM
Fuck off John Derbyshire, said the white Bantu.
Posted by: Irradiatus | October 8, 2008 12:12 PM
Derbyshire also says, "The younger generation of human-sciences enthusiasts trend conservative/libertarian, and Obama has them worried."
I would love to see some data backing that one up.
I think he's confusing scientists who study genetic variation, who most certainly lean left/liberal, with his own euphemistic "human-scientists" (aka racists) who I'm sure do trend conservative.
Posted by: Prof MTH | October 8, 2008 12:13 PM
1. This is a common line of reasoning. It is put forth by Troy Duster, for example. It is a pure inductive argument. It is not clear that medical practitioners and scientists doing the research will engage in the specified behaviors.
2. It is does not logically follow that the past is any indication that Obama specifically will engage in specified behaviors.
3. What do you mean by "cultural marxism"? Do you simply mean "multiculturalism"? And furthermore what is your evidence that Obama is a "cultural marxist"?
4. Read literally your claim is a redundant tautology.
Posted by: raven | October 8, 2008 12:15 PM
I'm getting tired of this Obama is a black man schtick. He is half white. Why are mixed race white-blacks called blacks? And hasn't Derbyshire, the science fan, ever heard of "hybrid vigor"? Genetics says that inbred is bad and a large diverse gene pool is good. You'd think Derbyshire could get a few simple facts right before he goes all racist.
Human genetics is a very small part of science and racial differences or lack thereof is very small part of human gentics.
The Theothuglican catastrophe hasn't been a total disaster for science but it has been close.
1. Funding has been flat to slightly down while inflation roars along. All the stats such as publication rates and grant approval percentages say that US science is barely treading water and in danger of sinking.
2. The antiscience promythology bias is more serious. Bushco censors anything that contradicts their ideological and religious biases. They've been beating up on the CDC lately. With present trends and left to their own devices, we would inevitably end up poorer, sicker, and falling further and further behind the rest of the world.
Science is the basis of our civilization and American science is the key to US economic, political, and military power. Most in science have been keeping their heads down and fervently hoping that the next administration isn't as stupid and hostile as the present one.
Posted by: mad the swine | October 8, 2008 12:21 PM
"3. What do you mean by "cultural marxism"? Do you simply mean "multiculturalism"? And furthermore what is your evidence that Obama is a "cultural marxist"?"
"Cultural Marxists" deny the, er, fact, that some people, and some races, are superior to others. In other words, they hold the truth to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. Real Americans like John Derbyshire recognize that claim for the elitist Commie propaganda it is :P
Posted by: BMS | October 8, 2008 12:22 PM
Likewise, it *really is the case* that the male:female ratios differ between lab geneticists and genomics techies.
(1) Proof?
(2) WTF difference does male:female ratio make?
(3) WTF does *nontrivial attractiveness* (or trivial attractiveness) have to do with the job an individual is performing?
A world where all sorts of obviously true facts are off-limits for humor or discussion is both less honest and less interesting.
In order for a statement or assertion to be humorous it has to be, you know, funny.
Let's try it:
Still not funny, and pretty much a total non-sequitur either way it's sliced.
And by the way, when one pokes fun at one's own group, that's called self-deprecating humor and in general is acceptable within one's own group.
The problem comes when people not of one's own group make fun of you and your group - it's no longer nearly as thigh-slappingly ROFLMAO funny. You and your group are being marginalized for characteristics outside your control and you're being "othered."
There really is a difference.
Posted by: dcb | October 8, 2008 12:22 PM
OK, what's a "cultural marxist"?
Does this gibberish mean anything? Is it code for "liberal"?
Posted by: dcb | October 8, 2008 12:26 PM
OK, what's a "cultural marxist"?
Does this gibberish mean anything? Is it code for "liberal"?
Posted by: Dveduu | October 8, 2008 12:26 PM
I'm a male geneticist o.0
Posted by: Jon W | October 8, 2008 12:28 PM
"I am a homophobe, though a mild and tolerant one, and a racist, though an even more mild and tolerant one, and those things are going to be illegal pretty soon, the way we are going." --John Derbyshire
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 8, 2008 12:32 PM
Prof MTH:
I think a "cultural Marxist" is like a "secular Jew". You know: "Oh, I don't believe in capital-D dialectical materialism, I just value the writings of Lukács for cultural reasons."
Posted by: CityzenJane | October 8, 2008 12:38 PM
Dear Mr. Derbyshire,
It is impossible to make stupid 'illegal.'
Thanks for playing.
Posted by: bernard quatermass | October 8, 2008 12:43 PM
Derbyshire is a conundrum. His book on the Riemann Zeta function is really very very good.
Posted by: MarkusR | October 8, 2008 12:47 PM
I'm trying to figure out what he means with "cultural Marxism". As a left winger who pretty much agrees with the following proposition....
"Marcuse, in his 1954 book Eros and Civilization, argued for a politics based on the strive towards pleasure. This striving for pleasure would unite individualism, hedonism and absolute egalitarianism, because each individual would equally be able to determine their own needs and desires; thus everyone would be able to satisfy their true desires. Marcuse argues that the moral and cultural relativism of contemporary Western society impedes this egalitarian politics, because it provides no way of distinguishing between an individual's true needs, and false needs manufactured by capitalism."
...should "know" what "social marxism" is. Yet I fail to see in the preceding any connection to anti-science.
Posted by: mad the swine | October 8, 2008 12:50 PM
You know, I was halfway through a long, long post dissecting the Derb's latest offering, and the very, very careful way he avoids specifying what inherent qualities 'science' has 'proven' various races to possess (while pointing out that the Democrats are 'afraid' of society finding out the 'truth' (and you know what minority the Democrats are associated with, wink wink, nudge nudge))... but forget it. Derbyshire is a racial realist, and his fear is, ultimately, that an Obama administration will prevent science from proving that the Confederacy was right about blacks all along. In other words, just take out the 'black' from PZ's summary:
"The reason Derbyshire predicts Obama will stop science cold is that the presidential candidate is a [snip] man who dislikes the idea that modern genetics will demonstrate the inferiority of certain races."
and you have Derbyshire's philosophy in words even he would agree with - because, after all, it's not racist if the inferiority of certain races is scientifically proven!
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | October 8, 2008 12:51 PM
A few quickies:
-- John Derbyshire is the guy who wrote this:
As long as we're throwing around Latin tags here: Res ipsa loquitor.
-- Remember how the Bushies and their religious-right friends claimed that adult stem cells could be used in place of embryonic ones for research purposes? Turns out that the key study cited to "prove" this was filled with faked-up data. See what happens when you let political considerations drive your research?
-- O/T, but this oughta bring back memories: Remember how Ben Stein et al were whining about the alleged conspiracy against their sucky film? Another wingnut (this one of the "9/11 scrambled my brains and morals" variety) is making similar arguments to explain the utter cratering of his film.
Posted by: Corey | October 8, 2008 12:52 PM
Derbyshire (if that is you) is this the article: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2U5YTJiMzhjNDNhZTcwZGYyZjcyMzQyZWNmNjJjN2E=
I'm proceeding as if it is.
1) Sociobiology? Please. It in no way is an accepted explanation for human behavior. Here's a nice summary of the controversies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_controversy
2) You wrote: "Name any universal characteristic of human nature, including cognitive and personality characteristics. Of all the observed variation in that characteristic, about half is caused by genetic differences. You may say that is only a half victory; but it is a complete shattering of the nurturist absolutism that ruled in the human sciences 40 years ago, and that is still the approved dogma in polite society, including polite political society, today."
First, the "nuturist absolutism" was prevalent only with the radical neo-behaviorist (i.e., Skinner and his colleagues). And the phrase you're looking for is tabula rasa.
Secondly, you clearly don't have any understanding of the state of modern social cognition or personality psychology. Look up mastery vs helplessness. These personality traits are based upon beliefs about the nature of intelligence. Look up E. Tory Higgin's work relevant to personality. Here's an appropriate citation: Higgins, E. T. (2000). Does Personality Provide Unique Explanations for Behaviour? Personality as Cross-Person Variability in General Principles. European Journal of Personality, 14, 391-406.
3) Ulric Neisser (one of the founders of the cognitive psychology paradigm) also has a nice tear-down of The Bell Curve for the pap it is (hint: it has to do with geography).
4) Cultural Marxism? Nice use of undefined terms. You want to spout buzzwords, fine. Define them then. Your use of it is so vague it's idiotic.
5) Moreover, as a psychologist and ethical scientist, it's rather important to have frank and open discussions about ethics in human research, especially as we begin to unlock the very nature of humanity (i.e., our genetic structure: what is and isn't ethical in that research?).
In short: you have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted by: Zeno | October 8, 2008 12:55 PM
PZ must be honored by the manifestation of The Derb himself in this comment thread. Unfortunately, it's the less savory aspect of Derbyshire that we see here -- the name-calling purveyor of unsupported declarative sentences. Obama is a "Marxist"? We're all "Marxists"? Let me run to my copy of Das Kapital to see how I should respond to that.
As PZ noted, Derbyshire gets a significant amount of credit for taking science seriously most of the time. His books on math are mostly quite good and unfettered by political polemics (and I liked them). But spasms of irrationality still pop up in his political writing and makes it impossible to take him entirely seriously.
When he went gunning for Berlinski after the latter portrayed a douchebag (i.e., played himself) in Expelled, I naturally cheered him on. But it's rather like watching a Japanese monster movie. Do you want Gamera or Rodan or Mothra or Godzilla to win, or do you hope they all just destroy themselves?
Here's a link to my post on Derbyshire's lovely takedown of Berlinski: [Contrapositing Berlinski]
Posted by: CW | October 8, 2008 12:55 PM
You can start with Wikipedia.Only in US politics could a right-wing conservative like Obama be branded a Marxist. You're an bigoted idiot Derbyshire.
Posted by: CW | October 8, 2008 1:01 PM
a, an, meh... where's that edit button?
Posted by: trrll | October 8, 2008 1:02 PM
The ironic thing is that attempts to suppress and censor science in the US have almost always come from the right rather than the left. However uncomfortable some people on the left are with the notion of human genetic diversity, I've seen little indication that such research is being suppressed, although it is unlikely to be a high funding priority (no matter who wins the election) except where it overlaps with human health--for example, with respect to vulnerability to disease or response to drugs.
As a biologist, I have little doubt that some differences in intellectual performance are genetic (why should the brain be the only part of the body that is exempt from genetic variation?), and it seems very likely that there will be some racial differences. This is of potential interest to neuroscientists trying to understand how brain function relates to cognition, but aside from that it is difficult to understand why anybody but a racist would much care--differences in the means for just about any intellectual trait that you care to measure are so small relative to the standard deviation that it is clear that knowing somebody's racial background (or sex) will never provide useful information regarding their intellectual capacity--you end up having to consider people as individuals, not as examples of particular ethnic groups or races. This is what the science tells us, and it is far more likely to be troubling to racists than to egalitarians.
Posted by: MH | October 8, 2008 1:05 PM
Raven #15 wrote "I'm getting tired of this Obama is a black man schtick. He is half white. Why are mixed race white-blacks called blacks?"
It is odd, isn't it, and shows how pointless the concept of race is.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 8, 2008 1:15 PM
LOL! Honestly. :-)
That may sound silly to an American, but it's true. Let this European assure you that Obama would fit nicely into any of Europe's conservative parties. Incidentally, the same holds for Kerry and at least for Hillary Clinton, probably for Bill as well, I haven't checked.
Wait, wait. It seems very likely that there will be some geographic differences, or differences that originated in a particular region before they were imported to the USA or elsewhere. But there's no reason whatsoever to assume that these differences will correlate to skin color. Why should they? Are all of the six genes for skin color even on the same chromosome as each other?
Posted by: Michelle | October 8, 2008 1:19 PM
Oh it's ok. "Godless" just has a small dick.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 8, 2008 1:20 PM
It just happens to be a convention in the USA that people with any amount of externally visible African ancestry (within the last few hundred years) are called "black".
The same person can be "white" in Brazil, "coloured" in South Africa, and "black" in the USA.
Posted by: Robin Zebrowski | October 8, 2008 1:20 PM
I love when the people PZ exposes as swine come here and try to defend themselves. It's a formula that can be followed to the smallest detail: Act condescending (a virtual pat on the head always helps), claim ("I never said that!") in the face of the direct quote, and then, eventually, resort to (I assume) leaving your office and telling all your colleagues how you bested PZ on the internet.
In this case, probably go pinch a few of those nice little girl "researchers" bums, too. Boy, if only we could go back to the 60s when women were there to be grabbed and black men were there to shine your shoes, right, John? The good ol' days.
Posted by: bernard quatermass | October 8, 2008 1:24 PM
"His books on math are mostly quite good and unfettered by political polemics (and I liked them). But spasms of irrationality still pop up in his political writing and makes it impossible to take him entirely seriously."
It's an interesting exercise in trying to divorce the person from the work. I have a similar experience when I watch films starring Emil Jannings. He was a transcendantly great actor (in _Der Blaue Engel_ in particular, I think) but it's terribly difficult not to think of him as that awful guy who starred in Nazi propaganda films.
Ah, life.
Posted by: Matt Heath | October 8, 2008 1:30 PM
I went and read Derbyshire's piece; I can't see that he did say "because Obama is black" anywhere, but even if I try to put the most charitable reading I can find on it, it is still such epic fail.
"Cultural Marxism" seems to be wingnut for "the belief that cultural upbringing is wholly most responsible for differences in human behaviour (and congenital differences are negligible)".
Now Derbyshire says Obama was brought up with this viewpoint and supports this by linking to the Wikipedia entry of the senator's late mother, Ann Dunham. The entry really doesn't say anything about Ms. Dunham holding such views. That is all we have connected Obama to such a viewpoint: nothing. No quotes against sociobiology or even about biology, just nothing.
We then jump to the assertion that Obama as a "culturally Marxist" president will hold up funding for research looking at sociobiology, particularly that looking at difference between ethnic groups. The support for this extremely serious allegation that Obama intends to meddle in funding decisions? Again, nothing, and this really matters; nearly anyone running for office will have some preconceived views that evidence may run up against uncomfortably so even if Obama were a committed "blank slater" it wouldn't make him a particular threat to science unless you have reason to think he intends to interfere with funding decisions (as Bush has on stem cells).
The executive summary is "Unsupported assertion that Obama has a particular view on human development plus unsupportable conclusion that he intends attack scientists that challenge this view".
Posted by: Victor | October 8, 2008 1:31 PM
So, according to Mr Derbyshire we should vote for the McCain-Palin ticket in order to promote science. That's right. I recall Ms Palin claiming that it doesn't matter what causes global warming, what matters is what are we gonna do to adress this issue. As you all know that's the typical way science works... Ms Palin, leave science to the scientists and for goodness sake, start reading (anything!). And Mr. Derbyshire, you are full of crap.
Posted by: Eric | October 8, 2008 1:36 PM
I think I'm dumber for reading that excerpt. Wait, does this mean my genetics professor is a women? Funny, he looks pretty damn male to me. Maybe I should inform his (her?) wife.
Posted by: windy | October 8, 2008 1:37 PM
Are you confusing 'correlated' with 'linked'? Lactose tolerance is probably correlated with skin color, at least weakly on a global scale, although the two traits are not genetically linked. Some trait and skin color can be at linkage disequilibrium simply due to population history and substructure, without the trait having anything to do with skin color genetically.
Posted by: Desert Son | October 8, 2008 1:46 PM
bernard quartermass at #38 posted:
It's an interesting exercise in trying to divorce the person from the work.
Ezra Pound: significant literary figure critical to the development of modern American poetry. Also, unrepentant fascist.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Matt Heath | October 8, 2008 1:54 PM
Posted by: Scott | October 8, 2008 1:57 PM
I'm getting tired of this Obama is a black man schtick. He is half white. Why are mixed race white-blacks called blacks?
There may be no significant difference biologically -- culturally, the differences are vast. Culturally, you've got people like Derbyshire who hate huge numbers of people for not having a pink enough skin color. You've got taxi drivers who won't pick you up if you're the wrong color, cops who are more likely to stop you if you're the wrong skin color, organizations like the Klan that will try to kill you for having the wrong skin color. They don't care about any percentage of "mixed parentage" -- all they care about is that you're not pink enough.
It's hard for people who come from the dominant cultural base to understand how things are for those who are not blessed with the "right" skin color. I have a coworker who tells me stories all the time about getting the N-word dropped on him at a grocery store I go to, about how one of the company administrators hates him because he's black, getting asked to leave restaurants and stores because someone's afraid of him, quite pointlessly.
Obama -- no matter how much "white blood" or "black blood" he has in him, biologically -- is black, because American culture says that he's black.
Posted by: CJO | October 8, 2008 1:58 PM
"cultural marxist" is being used here as a straw man attack on what I might call the central dogma of post-modern social studies (as Derbyshire says: "a blank-slater. They come in all colors, P.Z., as you ought to know.") Roughly put, the positions he is objecting to is that identities are socially constructed and that "human nature" is infinitely (or at least, you know, rilly) maleable.
Conservatives flatter themselves that they have a hard-nosed, no bullshit take on human nature (again, in JD's words, "It's not a pretty sight."). It never seems to dawn on them that it's awfully convenient that this supposed cold calculation just happens to be put to use mainly to justify authoritarian politics and oligarchical economic schemes.
The truth is, though, as I said at the outset, it's a straw man, and certainly it is as applied to presidential politics. Nobody outside of a few, actual "I claim to understand Lacan" po-mo self-identifying Marxist Comp Lit and Anthro (and etc.) professors denies that "nature" has some input into the "nature/nurture" tug o' war. And nobody outside of a few mediocre pseudo-intellectual conservatives *cough* *Derbyshire* really believes their line either. Sensible people (of whom I believe Obama is one) recognize that the issue is complex and not settled in a scientific sense, and that, therefore, we should err on the side of privileging nurture in our policy deliberations, since, you know, that's the one we can actually do something with. Once these scumbags have made a big impression with their supposed hard look at "the truth" about race, class, and gender, they're surprisingly quiet about what use we can actually put these facts to, other than giving them more of the money that we might otherwise be tempted to waste on trying to better the lot of some (desevedly) wretched orphans or something.
Apologia like this for the old order is reprehensible, moreso when it's hypocritically wearing the mantle of objectivity and empiricism.
Posted by: BdN | October 8, 2008 1:58 PM
Sorry for my ignorance, but who is this "Godless Capitalist" ? The only one I could found is Razib Kahn at Gene Expression (gnxp.com).
Posted by: BdN | October 8, 2008 2:00 PM
Sorry for my ignorance, but who is this "Godless Capitalist" ? The only one I could found is Razib Kahn at Gene Expression (gnxp.com).
Posted by: llewelly | October 8, 2008 2:01 PM
Cultural Marxism: The philosophy of hating America(tm) and plotting to replace it with a pinko-commie regime.
Posted by: Matt Heath | October 8, 2008 2:02 PM
Me @44: balls!
It's a slash the OTHER way to close commands.
"checked" is the last word of David's; "Theirs" is the first word of mine
Posted by: SeanH | October 8, 2008 2:09 PM
Drop Bill Clinton into any country's political system and he'd likely come out as a "centrist" every time.
Posted by: Matt Heath | October 8, 2008 2:11 PM
@47: There are plenty of them. Randroids are all Godless capitalists
Posted by: SeanH | October 8, 2008 2:11 PM
David, if we could magically insert Bill Clinton into any country's political system and he'd likely be a "centrist" every single time.
Posted by: BdN | October 8, 2008 2:21 PM
@52
I guess so but since PZ wrote "unfortunately, he uses a pseudonym familiar to me -- "Godless Capitalist" -- and I know his internet ravings well. He's a garden-variety racist who misuses genetics as window-dressing for his delusions" it seemed to me that he was talking about a specific person.
Posted by: secularguy | October 8, 2008 2:25 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rulePosted by: Matt Heath | October 8, 2008 2:36 PM
@54 ah OK I misunderstood; I thought you were saying Razib was the only person you could think of fitting the nickname. I'm pretty sure it can't be him. He blogs about genetic differences between ethnic groups but he does so fairly cautiously and with data (no deluded ravings that I've read) and does so under his own name. (Also he writes better than the guy quoted. (Although he is pretty far to the right and I seem to remember him interviewing Derbyshire)
Posted by: John Derbyshire | October 8, 2008 2:39 PM
...."shithead" ...."douchebag" ...."fuck off" .... Just another day of thoughtful, collegial discourse in the academy. But hey, nobody's used the c-word yet! Don't I rate a c-word? C'mon, scholars, I'm feeling dissed.
I've been tangling with Right creationists for years, as P.Z. was kind enough to notice, and I can report that they have MUCH better manners than you Left creationists.
But then, what are manners? Just another control strategy of the white, male, patriarchal, neocolonial, heteronormative ruling class, right? Another lure into the "middleclassness" plantation.
Can't you get yourself a better class of readers, P.Z.? This lot make your Right-creationist correspondents look positively suave.
All right, gotta leave the thread now before things get nasty. I'm already afraid to answer the doorbell in case I get a pitcher of ice water dumped on my head.
All together now, pharyngulites, you know how it goes:
"Racist Derbyshire you can't hide!
We charge you with genocide!"
Posted by: BdN | October 8, 2008 2:46 PM
@56
No, I thought of him because I've seen some rightists call him like that over at Majority Rights (http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/evidence_that_godless_capitalist_is_lower_caste/) and since we were talking about genetics and genomics... But as you said, I was/would be surprised he was the one PZ was referring to.
Posted by: MH | October 8, 2008 2:47 PM
Thanks Secularguy #55. That was a very interesting read.
Posted by: Dahan | October 8, 2008 2:58 PM
Raven @ 15,
Right there with you. This comes from the racist, KKK sort of notion that "even one drop of blood" makes you black. Sad it still has such a hold on our society. To my knowledge, I'm 1/16th Native American. Is that enough for me to claim to be from a tribe? Am I still "white"?
Fuck, race is a stupid concept.
While I'm at it, fuck John Derbyshire too.
Posted by: Corey | October 8, 2008 3:00 PM
Derbyshire...nice dodge of the more substantive critiques. Care to answer to those? Like for instance: sociobiology as a collection of just-so stories.
Also, I didn't think it relevant earlier, but please define "the human sciences." We have life sciences, biology, humanities, and social sciences.
Posted by: Noadi | October 8, 2008 3:03 PM
Manners are reserved for those who are respected.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | October 8, 2008 3:12 PM
Shorter Derb @ 57: I don't dare address any of the questions posed to me, so instead I'll pretend to have an attack of the vapours over billingsgate and hope that serves to change the subject.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 8, 2008 3:14 PM
I'm already afraid to answer the doorbell in case I get a pitcher of ice water dumped on my head. - John Derbyshire
John Derbyshire compares himself to E O Wilson. Bwah-ha-haw-haw-hawwwwww!
Posted by: CJO | October 8, 2008 3:18 PM
Care to answer to those?
No, in this prick's smug little head, the simple fact that anyone in a given venue has used invective or intemperate language means that he is absolved of any responsibility to defend his pernicious bile.
Just another weak minded blowhard with a feigned case of the vapors, happily flaunting his inability to withstand or answer criticism.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | October 8, 2008 3:20 PM
Other Shorter Derb @ 57: It's all right to "jokingly" call for the murder of Chelsea Clinton, but calling somebody a douchebag is just bad form, old chap!
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | October 8, 2008 3:21 PM
Other Shorter Derb @ 57: It's all right to "jokingly" call for the murder of Chelsea Clinton, but calling somebody a douchebag is just bad form, old chap!
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | October 8, 2008 3:21 PM
Other Shorter Derb @ 57: It's all right to "jokingly" call for the murder of Chelsea Clinton, but calling somebody a douchebag is just bad form, old chap!
Posted by: Travis | October 8, 2008 3:21 PM
@57;
'Creationists'?
I suspect a failure of reading comprehension there Mr. Derbyshire.
"I am a homophobe, though a mild and tolerant one, and a racist, though an even more mild and tolerant one, and those things are going to be illegal pretty soon, the way we are going."
Assuming that this is correctly attributed, and I have no reason to suspect otherwise, it's pretty disingenuous of you to get upset over us calling you a racist.
Have the courage of your repugnant convictions, imbecile.
(See; I even used 'academy' language, just for your poor tender sensibilities. Now go away.)
Posted by: Irradiat | October 8, 2008 3:23 PM
I wonder how grateful he is to only have to worry about a pitcher of ice instead of, oh, I don't know, a mob carrying a good length of rope?
Obviously, any form of science-supported racism would result in kind and intelligent discourse over the proper policies to alleviate discrepancies in intelligence rather than incitements to hatred and violence.
NOT!
Posted by: Hap | October 8, 2008 3:23 PM
JD-
Why waste rational thought on those unable to understand it? Ridicule, on the other hand, is a mode of communication you might actually understand, and since you deserve it anyway, that's what you get.
If you wanted manners, you should have acted like you actually had them. I guess you considered not dropping the N bomb mannerly - thanks for playing.
Posted by: Travis | October 8, 2008 3:23 PM
@57;
'Creationists'?
I suspect a failure of reading comprehension there Mr. Derbyshire.
"I am a homophobe, though a mild and tolerant one, and a racist, though an even more mild and tolerant one, and those things are going to be illegal pretty soon, the way we are going."
Assuming that this is correctly attributed, and I have no reason to suspect otherwise, it's pretty disingenuous of you to get upset over us calling you a racist.
Have the courage of your repugnant convictions, imbecile.
(See; I even used 'academy' language, just for your poor tender sensibilities. Now go away.)
Posted by: James F | October 8, 2008 3:29 PM
PZ vs. Derb on BloggingHeads!
Let's get ready to rrrrrrummmmmmble!!!!!
Posted by: Jay | October 8, 2008 3:29 PM
Derb needs to wake up to the reality of the situation before he continues to make an even bigger dope of himself than he already has.
His position, as stated in his own writings, is that science has the potential to uncover uncomfortable truths of race that may lead to a radical future underfunding of said sciences.
I think that is a fair summary, right? So what are the actual datapoints that lead Derb to come up with this theory, how has he tested his hypothesis?
It turns out, he didn't. He didn't do any work at all, he relied on the work of others, and that work has been determined to have ethical problems, including racial biases, from the very beginning, making that research useless for real scientists to base any conclusions on. So why didn't that stop Derbyshire?
Might I calmly suggest that it is because he is searching for an answer to a question he never voiced and isn't, in fact, looking for any sort of rational discussion of his original hypothesis?
Yes, in short, Derbyshire has trolled the intertubes.
Posted by: Zeno | October 8, 2008 3:30 PM
Although my language tends to be as pure as that of any erudite right-winger's (amazingly pure), I admit to having used the word "douchebag" in a previous comment. I was, however, referring in that instance to Berlinski, not Derbyshire. When he's not talking about math, I find Derbyshire to be merely creepy.
I hope that clears that up.
Posted by: windy | October 8, 2008 3:33 PM
BdN, they are not the same person, Godless Capitalist is a different blogger on that site.
John Derbyshire wrote:
I would love to stay and speak against any rash condemnations of human biodiversity research that may occur, but as a female geneticist I better concentrate on getting some drops pipetted on a petri dish. And then maybe I should go do my hair or something. Whee!
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | October 8, 2008 3:38 PM
Derbyshire @57,
I'm already afraid to answer the doorbell in case I get a pitcher of ice water dumped on my head
It was a cup, not a pitcher, as you'd know if you knew half as much as you like to think you do. (Even so, your presumption in imagining yourself in any way at all comparable to E.O. Wilson is, ehh, amusing.) No worries, though, you're in little danger of having ice-water dumped on your head.
Pity, really. A cold shower might keep your mind off those 15 year old girls.