What a disgrace for Cambridge. The hypocrisy, the double standards, and the sheer stupidity (by a KC, no less, which tells you something about the English legal profession) are appalling and would be hilarious, if their result wasn't utterly unfair to you and to scholarship truly understood.
How far, how horribly far, has my once-great alma mater not fallen.
Now we'll see if Ghent has backbone. I hope you have good friends there.
Apart from all other aspects of it, your case seems to be another example of the feminization in the sense of emotionalization of academic disputes described by Helen Andrews. I include the gutless master, Doug Chalmers, in that description. Like many male individuals in contemporary Britain, he seems completely castrated when it comes to defending scholarship, honesty, and free speech.
"Having decided that Jones and Haier have no business commenting on intelligence research, McColgan relied on her own self-perceived expertise, which led her to conclusions such as “over 3 million Black Americans [have] an IQ of over 135” and 0.67 is bigger than 0.7."
Reminds me of the quote from Voltaire: "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it."
A clear and objective account. Peter Singer is to be recommended here. But where have all the other academic philosophers been in this? How many of them share the views of Emmanuel College, and how many still defend academic freedom but are too indifferent or intimidated to speak up? Do we really have such a stifling monoculture at our universities now?
I don't know you, I don't really know your views since I haven't studied your articles, and I don't read about race & IQ. I work on politically boring philosophical topics. But I deplore how philosophy professors cannot engage in critical thinking when it comes to topics that challenge left-wing views. I'm generally left-wing, but I'm not so immature as to not be able to handle challenges to those views.
I've also noticed that even when some philosophers agree that Cambridge is in the wrong here, they MUST also announce that they find your views obviously false/foolish/etc. Classic signaling: "I have the correct views!! Just because I'm for free speech and so on, everyone must know that MY views are the right ones, and opposite those of Cofnas!!" So many high IQ academics behave like children when it comes to politically sensitive topics.
They are moral cowards and should not be teaching young people. The lack of wisdom displayed by Cambridge is mind boggling but sadly not a surprise to anyone who has been paying even marginal attention to institutions of “higher” education over the past 3-4 decades.
I feel sick tbh because of how embarrassing and disgraceful our supposed elite institutions have become. It must have been highly stressful to go through this, thanks for documenting your experience and informing us of the rot.
A fabulous description of a horrific experience. Nathan please do not abandon academia. They need you desperately, though they don’t know it. I’m quite old now and my active academic science days behind me, but your work and that of others on hereditarianism reminds me that intellectual rigour still exists. Without honesty of thought, we can forget about progress. Stick to your guns!
If you had known that this is what your experience at Cambridge University was going to be like, would you still have accepted their 3-year Fellowship offer back in 2022?
I am never removing your 2019 article on group differences from my Phil of Race syllabus. It’s my way of giving the middle finger to Cambridge. I don’t know what else to say other than I am disgusted by the direction our profession has taken in the last decade or so.
I strongly believe that most of the great western universities are irretrievably corrupted by wokeness, and they should be entirely broken up and replaced.
Your terrible story is a good example of why I think this.
Reading this post made me very sad. I hope you eventually get over this nightmarish saga, and are able to prosper and work productively in the future.
I'm sorry this happened to you. That must be very difficult. Well done fighting for the sake of civilization and the wellbeing of the human race.
Liberals think that by rabidly attacking anyone talking about race differences, they're actually preventing harm and helping humans flourish, but they're totally wrong.
When you take into account the huge effect that IQ has on people's life outcomes, it's clear that one of the best ways to improve people;s lives and stop them from making bad decisions is to improve their IQ , and the only way we will improve peoples IQ is by identifying which gene variants cause higher IQ and developing gene-editing technology , and in the process of doing that we will inevitably find out which races started off with worse genes on average for IQ (before we make everyone high IQ).
Finding out with total certainty the answer to the race and IQ question is the price to pay for raising people's IQ and causing people to live much better lives and make the world a much better place.
Racial IQ research is LITERALLY the best path to making the world a better place.
Yet liberals are so short sighted and unthinking they just think "race differences = slavery + holocaust"
People with high IQ are far less likely to be criminals, to become addicted to drugs, to end up impoverished , etc. And the aggregate effect of IQ is even more important. Societies where the average IQ is 100-105 are like paradise compared to societies where the average IQ is 90 or lower.
politely disagree: "People with high IQ are far less likely to be criminals, to become addicted to drugs, to end up impoverished , etc...." < they're better at not getting caught, at hiding their addictions or, worse, pretending their addictions are a vital part of their way of life. from the Nature vs Nurture-discussions (anthropology) we know that when children eat and sleep well, are provided with a decent education while growing up in a clean environment, it's easily observed how much such basic conditions support the development of their IQ-based potential.
I politely request that you go ahead and LLM the following prompt: "Are people with high IQ are far less likely to be criminals, to become addicted to drugs, to end up impoverished , etc or do they commit crime , become drug addicts, end up impoverished and reach other negative life outcomes just as much as low IQ people but high IQ people are simply better at hiding it?"
"Nature vs Nurture-discussions (anthropology) "
Anthropology can't investigate whether things are nature vs nurture because anthropology makes no attempt to control for nature (genetics)
"we know that when children eat and sleep well, are provided with a decent education while growing up in a clean environment, it's easily observed how much such basic conditions support the development of their IQ-based potential."
Yes, children mostly reach their potential when growing up in such typically middle-class conditions , but the point is that their IQ potentials are very different due to their genes.
For example, the son of the wife of the crown prince of Norway, Marius Borg Høiby, had a biological father who was a criminal that he never met, instead he grew up as part of the royal familiy. He grew up in an affluent, stable home and ended up a violent criminal. Criminality and violent, aggressive , dishonest behaviour is genetically inheritable.
We know this because children adopted as babies whose biological parents are criminals are 50% more likely to become criminals than children adopted as babies whose biological parents are not criminals.
"The risk for all criminal behaviour was significantly elevated in the adopted-away offspring of biological parents of which at least one had criminal behaviour [odds ratio (OR) 1.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4–1.6] " - A Swedish national adoption study of criminality By Kendler et al
and replicated many other times see meta-study "A meta-analysis of 51 twin and adoption studies was conducted to estimate the magnitude of genetic and environmental influences on antisocial behavior. The best fitting model included moderate proportions of variance due to additive genetic influences (.32), nonadditive genetic influences (.09), shared environmental influences (.16), and nonshared environmental influences (.43)." - Genetic and environmental influences on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies by Rhee and Walden
The only plausible explanation for why adoptees with criminal biological parents are much more likely to be criminals than adoptees with non-criminal biological parents even when they're all being raised by non-criminal adopted parents of on-average upper socio-economic status is that they inherited the genes that caused that behaviour.
that's impressive, but sure, am I glad I grew up influenced by Popper's falsification principle, critical thinking and doing fieldwork. followed by leaving academia. peace out.
lol that's pretty funny and cocky that you get shown experimental evidence falsifying your claim then you appeal to "Popper's falsification principle" as an excuse to disregard the evidence debunking your claims.
Nicely analysed, with the abstraction into a variant of the Institutional Imperative.
Groupthink (and hubris) were likely never any different so no point being surprised by the revealed preferences being at odds with the stated preferences/"laws" of the systems. All we can do is to satirically write about the resulting tragedy and the absurdity of the logical dissonance of what stories we are told and what the reality is.
Charlie Munger or the book The Curse of High IQ have a lot to say on this, and in the somewhat therapeutic satirical style.
Very sad to see, if you kick out the smart people willing to engage academically with racial differences you will only be left with low IQ twitter retards
What a disgrace for Cambridge. The hypocrisy, the double standards, and the sheer stupidity (by a KC, no less, which tells you something about the English legal profession) are appalling and would be hilarious, if their result wasn't utterly unfair to you and to scholarship truly understood.
How far, how horribly far, has my once-great alma mater not fallen.
Now we'll see if Ghent has backbone. I hope you have good friends there.
Apart from all other aspects of it, your case seems to be another example of the feminization in the sense of emotionalization of academic disputes described by Helen Andrews. I include the gutless master, Doug Chalmers, in that description. Like many male individuals in contemporary Britain, he seems completely castrated when it comes to defending scholarship, honesty, and free speech.
She’s “human rights”, a discipline that tends to attract the least talented barristers - by some distance.
"Having decided that Jones and Haier have no business commenting on intelligence research, McColgan relied on her own self-perceived expertise, which led her to conclusions such as “over 3 million Black Americans [have] an IQ of over 135” and 0.67 is bigger than 0.7."
Reminds me of the quote from Voltaire: "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it."
Unfortunately, a confederation of dunces can do a lot of damage, as they did to Nathan
A clear and objective account. Peter Singer is to be recommended here. But where have all the other academic philosophers been in this? How many of them share the views of Emmanuel College, and how many still defend academic freedom but are too indifferent or intimidated to speak up? Do we really have such a stifling monoculture at our universities now?
Surely you jest. Your vocabulary indicates you're over 14 years of age. Yet...
Despicable behavior from Cambridge.
I don't know you, I don't really know your views since I haven't studied your articles, and I don't read about race & IQ. I work on politically boring philosophical topics. But I deplore how philosophy professors cannot engage in critical thinking when it comes to topics that challenge left-wing views. I'm generally left-wing, but I'm not so immature as to not be able to handle challenges to those views.
I've also noticed that even when some philosophers agree that Cambridge is in the wrong here, they MUST also announce that they find your views obviously false/foolish/etc. Classic signaling: "I have the correct views!! Just because I'm for free speech and so on, everyone must know that MY views are the right ones, and opposite those of Cofnas!!" So many high IQ academics behave like children when it comes to politically sensitive topics.
They are moral cowards and should not be teaching young people. The lack of wisdom displayed by Cambridge is mind boggling but sadly not a surprise to anyone who has been paying even marginal attention to institutions of “higher” education over the past 3-4 decades.
I feel sick tbh because of how embarrassing and disgraceful our supposed elite institutions have become. It must have been highly stressful to go through this, thanks for documenting your experience and informing us of the rot.
A fabulous description of a horrific experience. Nathan please do not abandon academia. They need you desperately, though they don’t know it. I’m quite old now and my active academic science days behind me, but your work and that of others on hereditarianism reminds me that intellectual rigour still exists. Without honesty of thought, we can forget about progress. Stick to your guns!
This was very thorough and detailed, as usual.
If you had known that this is what your experience at Cambridge University was going to be like, would you still have accepted their 3-year Fellowship offer back in 2022?
The short answer is no. I accepted the offer from Cambridge because I wrongly believed they were committed to the free speech code.
Whether I regret going there is a more complicated question.
I am never removing your 2019 article on group differences from my Phil of Race syllabus. It’s my way of giving the middle finger to Cambridge. I don’t know what else to say other than I am disgusted by the direction our profession has taken in the last decade or so.
Excellent. Disturbing and exasperating to see authority figures aping the crazed infantilism of some students.
I strongly believe that most of the great western universities are irretrievably corrupted by wokeness, and they should be entirely broken up and replaced.
Your terrible story is a good example of why I think this.
Reading this post made me very sad. I hope you eventually get over this nightmarish saga, and are able to prosper and work productively in the future.
I'm sorry this happened to you. That must be very difficult. Well done fighting for the sake of civilization and the wellbeing of the human race.
Liberals think that by rabidly attacking anyone talking about race differences, they're actually preventing harm and helping humans flourish, but they're totally wrong.
When you take into account the huge effect that IQ has on people's life outcomes, it's clear that one of the best ways to improve people;s lives and stop them from making bad decisions is to improve their IQ , and the only way we will improve peoples IQ is by identifying which gene variants cause higher IQ and developing gene-editing technology , and in the process of doing that we will inevitably find out which races started off with worse genes on average for IQ (before we make everyone high IQ).
Finding out with total certainty the answer to the race and IQ question is the price to pay for raising people's IQ and causing people to live much better lives and make the world a much better place.
Racial IQ research is LITERALLY the best path to making the world a better place.
Yet liberals are so short sighted and unthinking they just think "race differences = slavery + holocaust"
People with high IQ are far less likely to be criminals, to become addicted to drugs, to end up impoverished , etc. And the aggregate effect of IQ is even more important. Societies where the average IQ is 100-105 are like paradise compared to societies where the average IQ is 90 or lower.
politely disagree: "People with high IQ are far less likely to be criminals, to become addicted to drugs, to end up impoverished , etc...." < they're better at not getting caught, at hiding their addictions or, worse, pretending their addictions are a vital part of their way of life. from the Nature vs Nurture-discussions (anthropology) we know that when children eat and sleep well, are provided with a decent education while growing up in a clean environment, it's easily observed how much such basic conditions support the development of their IQ-based potential.
I politely request that you go ahead and LLM the following prompt: "Are people with high IQ are far less likely to be criminals, to become addicted to drugs, to end up impoverished , etc or do they commit crime , become drug addicts, end up impoverished and reach other negative life outcomes just as much as low IQ people but high IQ people are simply better at hiding it?"
"Nature vs Nurture-discussions (anthropology) "
Anthropology can't investigate whether things are nature vs nurture because anthropology makes no attempt to control for nature (genetics)
"we know that when children eat and sleep well, are provided with a decent education while growing up in a clean environment, it's easily observed how much such basic conditions support the development of their IQ-based potential."
Yes, children mostly reach their potential when growing up in such typically middle-class conditions , but the point is that their IQ potentials are very different due to their genes.
For example, the son of the wife of the crown prince of Norway, Marius Borg Høiby, had a biological father who was a criminal that he never met, instead he grew up as part of the royal familiy. He grew up in an affluent, stable home and ended up a violent criminal. Criminality and violent, aggressive , dishonest behaviour is genetically inheritable.
We know this because children adopted as babies whose biological parents are criminals are 50% more likely to become criminals than children adopted as babies whose biological parents are not criminals.
"The risk for all criminal behaviour was significantly elevated in the adopted-away offspring of biological parents of which at least one had criminal behaviour [odds ratio (OR) 1.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4–1.6] " - A Swedish national adoption study of criminality By Kendler et al
and replicated many other times see meta-study "A meta-analysis of 51 twin and adoption studies was conducted to estimate the magnitude of genetic and environmental influences on antisocial behavior. The best fitting model included moderate proportions of variance due to additive genetic influences (.32), nonadditive genetic influences (.09), shared environmental influences (.16), and nonshared environmental influences (.43)." - Genetic and environmental influences on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies by Rhee and Walden
The only plausible explanation for why adoptees with criminal biological parents are much more likely to be criminals than adoptees with non-criminal biological parents even when they're all being raised by non-criminal adopted parents of on-average upper socio-economic status is that they inherited the genes that caused that behaviour.
that's impressive, but sure, am I glad I grew up influenced by Popper's falsification principle, critical thinking and doing fieldwork. followed by leaving academia. peace out.
lol that's pretty funny and cocky that you get shown experimental evidence falsifying your claim then you appeal to "Popper's falsification principle" as an excuse to disregard the evidence debunking your claims.
Superb
Nicely analysed, with the abstraction into a variant of the Institutional Imperative.
Groupthink (and hubris) were likely never any different so no point being surprised by the revealed preferences being at odds with the stated preferences/"laws" of the systems. All we can do is to satirically write about the resulting tragedy and the absurdity of the logical dissonance of what stories we are told and what the reality is.
Charlie Munger or the book The Curse of High IQ have a lot to say on this, and in the somewhat therapeutic satirical style.
Very sad to see, if you kick out the smart people willing to engage academically with racial differences you will only be left with low IQ twitter retards
And worse, high IQ ideologue persecutors given elite credentials
Very disturbing.
My conspiracy confound is political.
When the Tories were clearly going to lose, the administrators felt they aren't at any risk to censor.
Good for you to fight for the principles!