Right. There was doubt about why he was appointed Harvard president when he his personality was more inclined toward telling the truth than closing the deal.
But, from 20 years on, it's obvious that if the Establishment had rallied to the Harvard president's defense when he did tell the truth, it could have shut down a lot of the subsequent insanity.
Claudine Gay presiding over Harvard wasn't such a good choice either. Despite of (1) not being autistic, (2) questionable science and (3) a black woman.
> Heritage had no official position on the question of gender IQ differences
This is like having no official position on if 8 is greater than 7. However, that a conservative think tank would say this shows what a third rail it is. As for the overall thesis, as a teacher it is so obvious that to say otherwise would be farcical
Back in 2013, years before the practice to cancel someone become widespread, the Heritage Foundation fired Jason Richwine when it was discovered that he had previously written a dissertation focused on national differences in IQ scores and what they suggested for immigration policy.
Heritage doesn't have a commitment to freedom of thought now and it never did.
If it was a setup, it's even more delicious that he had to quit despite the groveling. I remember that huge kerfuffle because one woman got the vapors over them being closer to average.
A few days ago on X, a professional feminist described her hysterics over the word "hysteric." It was hysterical that she was so self-unaware!
Almost everyone focuses on the right side of the graph with its disproportionate share of male geniuses. Thing is, there’s a left side too. I’d say that is of much greater concern and gives an advantage to women.
It doesn't. Men can father (usually consequtively) more than one family. Thus, even if a third of men in marriageable age bracket drop dead - usually in a War, happened for confederate states in the Civil War - the effects on fertility are barely noticeable.
That brings us back to the subject of the previous post: Quantity v Quality. It’s very hard to believe that the UK would have fallen so far, so fast in the twentieth century if not for the bloodletting among the aristocracy in the Great War.
It wasn't aristocracy's decay that brought Britain down. It was the fashionability of socialism at its elite institutions. At THAT time, US universities suffered less from this plague.
Most of Britain's aristocracy exists because a long-ago ancestor killed enough of the king's enemies to merit a knighthood which is bequeathed by birth.
I’d say that’s the primary reason we need to get some manufacturing back in this country. Our fellow Americans on the left side of the bell curve deserve more than the back of our collective hand when it comes to full participation in the economic and civic life of our country.
Hegel is certain that scientific truth eventually becomes obvious to everyone, that it isn’t a matter of personal ethics but a Universal Reason. But, with IQ provocations, the idea of a world order based on IQ realism flattens out other factors which should determine policy in some manner. Not only that, it specifically flattens out individual IQs or individual achievement in favor of IQ realism. It is no wonder Heritage doesn’t “notice,” because “noticing” doesn’t notice what it is filtering out. It is ultimately, an autistic pursuit which appeals specifically to people who want to obsess about IQ, fitting in with far right social ordering. In Steve’s (your) personal case, it is a lifetime of Iq obsession which is fair enough as a choice, but there are loads of other things you could have done, which is just to demonstrate there are other things people make social order from besides IQ.
And as a sidenote, Jews were discriminated against not just in golf clubs in LA, but in housing zoning prior to the lessening of golf exclusion, but that’s a side note Steve ! Mountaingate with grandpa was a good course though.
It seems like the obsession with IQ lies on the other side: the Washington Post, for example, thinks it's national news that a Trump nominee is familiar with a basic, scientifically uncontroversial finding of psychometrics.
I definitely agree that taking the IQ realist bait which you’ve designed for decades is a bad idea for the average reporter, and that in general, leftist or progressive discourse has nothing to say except hysterics. Nonetheless, there is a progressive argument to be had.
The strongest argument against it is not an argument against the empirical nature of it, but its specific function. Is Summers neutrally lecturing to Harvard about why women due to their IQ should be 1 in 7 or 1 in 30 in faculty?
Doesn’t that strike you as autistic? Also, it does prime people to exclude or measure women as too-low-IQ or not, it is not a neutral measure of quality.
Huh? It seems like an absolutely crucial subject for the president of Harvard to raise.
When _Larry Summers_ can't mention the scientific truth in public, then we end up with Ibram X. Kendi being the only person allowed to offer an explanation and Claudine Gay becoming president of Harvard.
I understand that there is nothing you would like more than Harvard official (tm) to explicate IQ realism. In the US, it is definitely a sad truth that probably it is either a far-right person or a unintellectual repetition of progressive discourse.
Despite the anti-Europe propaganda as “fallen,” I think in general the US has a lot to learn about creating a non-racist (rather than your feared “anti-racist” Ibram X) culture on merit which maintains ordinary taste.
The tide is definitely moving in this Sailer direction of blatant sex and racial argumentation, but this is not an acceptable ground of thought, which the UK always knew.
When the first black man to vote in England was accused of being a “blackamoor” and thus shouldn’t vote, the English said, does he fit the qualifications? Does he own land and so on, was he born in Britain? Thus the racists were challenged.
You yourself want meritocracy, but i would really challenge you to think of grounds not arguing from racial tendencies which would be a challenge to Ibram X and lot, which would not be racist or sexist. It seems “woke” to say racist or sexist, but it is simply uncivilized to be racist and sexist rather than meritocratic, or to expect racism and sexism to begin discussions in high order civilized power centers.
Steve, one is mixing racial gaps and gender gaps. Dr Gay never cared about gender gaps accept for a slight form of affirmative action for males in admission at Harvard.
> And as a sidenote, Jews were discriminated against not just in golf clubs in LA, but in housing zoning prior to the lessening of golf exclusion, but that’s a side note Steve ! Mountaingate with grandpa was a good course though. <
Oh geez. This is completely off topic, but it needs saying whenever this Jewish whining rears its ugly head.
Jews are pretty much the last people who should be whining about exclusion. Jews have a thousand year history of *rejecting* integration with the host populations they were exploiting (my peasant ancestors). As whites detribalized and integrated under Christianity, Jews--most of them; the integrators would be some of my ancestors--insisted on maintaining their exclusive tribal identity/allegiance and working it for ethnic networking advantage in middle manning. In fact, Jews took exclusion and fashioned it into some of their religious duties/practices.
If some gentiles reaction to Jewish tribalism is to want to golf without Jews or live in a white neighborhood of their own religious persuasion, they are more than justified in doing so.
Jews seem to think "our stuff is our stuff ... and your stuff should be our stuff too!" But tribalism is not a one way street. Everyone can play.
This is in response to Steve’s other article and was more directed to him himself. Although talking about “Jewish whining” is pretty ugly, just aesthetically speaking. But it is sailer substack after all.
> But, with IQ provocations, the idea of a world order based on IQ realism flattens out other factors which should determine policy in some manner. Not only that, it specifically flattens out individual IQs or individual achievement in favor of IQ realism.
I don't really understand your point. Could you try to write more clearly? Thanks.
Could you write more politely? I mean the entire right wing endeavor is ridiculously savage and racist, but it would make you more European if you could talk like a decent human. I know the internet is the place for vulgar savagery, but maybe you could practice politeness here instead.
The idea that priming one’s self for racist conclusions by obsessing over IQ seems pretty simple to me.
I was a research fellow at Harvard for quite a while and during that time learned that what's really going on behind the ivy covered walls is very different than what gets reported in the popular MSM. The reason why Larry Summers was booted from Harvard's presidency has nothing to do with his talk on sex differences in IQ distributions and everything to do with some shady practices relating to Harvard's endowment. A brief summary of the affair can be found in this Harvard Crimson article https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/2/22/summers-resigns-shortest-term-since-civil/ but this leaves out some of the juicier details. Many of these can be found here https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2025/06/harvard-russia-and-quiet-complicity-of.html
Summer's protege, economic professor Andrei Shleifer, and Shleifer's wife were involved up to their eyebrows in the looting of the Russian economy overseen by the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID). They made a fortune through insider trading. Summers conned Harvard into footing the multi-million dollar federal fine levied on Shleifer. Earlier Summers had talked Harvard's endowment into making some bad investments that cost the university's endowment additional millions. The faculty were sick of Summers's arrogance and the financial scandals associated with him made him unpopular among both the faculty and administration. Summers was a dead man walking before he made a peep about reasons why there are more Nobel winning male physicists than female.
The HIID scandal has never gotten the coverage it should because noticing an important aspect of that scandal is a "hate crime". The system that HIID's mostly Jewish consulting group devised for auctioning off Russian assets--and Yeltsin got conned into accepting--resulted in a disproportionate number of Jewish oligarchs walking away with a disproportionate amount of the loot. Ordinary Russians were immiserated for over a generation. Putin still gets 80% plus approval ratings because he rectified the disaster to some degree.
I am among those who was aware that Summers's financial scandals were the real reason that got the boot, but to Steve's point, what does it say that the world's foremost academic institution in collaboration with the media covered up Summers's actual crimes and instead convicted him over a non-crime statement of fact?
Harvard's motto is famously "Veritas": Truth. Yet they deposed their own president for speaking the truth while protecting him from his actual misdeeds. So by their own actions, Harvard's real motto is "Untruth"—squared.
In most of former Soviet Union, owning all the shares in the company doesn't mean that the company belonged to you. You are an owner on paper. Yeltsin and later Putin found that managing Jewish paper-owners was easier. Because if there was trouble, you could take away the ownership easier, than if it were a Gentile owner. Plus, easier to put the owner into a labor camp.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I’ll never forget listening to NPR during the Mikhail Khodorkovsky trial and wondering why such a liberal network was so deeply concerned about a corrupt oligarch. Well, now I know.
It's not about a corrupt or non-corrupt oligarch. Chodorkovsky's trial demonstrated that if you own things in Russia, you own them on paper - not more. It's still worthwile to own things on paper, but the economics are different. So the valuations collapsed.
They couldn't care less about Chodorkovsky. It was simply that they found they were at the end of the road on making Russia part of the globalist "liberal" empire. In China they hit the wall in 1989, in Russia they hit it in 2003. Currently, they see the possibility of a roll-back beyond Russia. Ukraine, Romania, even Italy and Germany are potential flips.
Paul Klebnikov's _Godfather of the Kremlin_ brings to life that whole era and its bloody shenanigans. The Russian mob got him in the end (my bet would be on Boris Berezovsky as the moral author of his assassination).
> Shortly afterward, Roger Severino, Heritage’s vice president of domestic policy, spoke with the interns and said Antoni should not have shared that viewpoint, one of the people said. Severino told the interns that Heritage had no official position on the question of gender IQ differences, the person told The Post. <
Heritage should fire this Severino toad immediately. A bozo telling people someone "should not have shared that viewpoint"--especially when it is not just a viewpoint, but a well understood *fact*--is the antithesis of what a "think tank"--especially a conservative one--should be about.
More generally, if the presence of women, means that discussions must be censored so women won't have their feelings hurt, then logically women should not be anywhere near any positions of responsibility, really should not be voting and certainly shouldn't be in institutions involved in the search for knowledge.
How could greater IQ variability in men than women still be a hypothesis when it would be so easy to check?
It bugs me no end that there are so many people for whom "yeah, but it's true" is not a valid counterargument. But then I recognize it's probably more important for a society to agree on the average than to be right on the average.
At my high school the AP chemistry/Honors Chemistry teacher was notorious--excellent, difficult and unforgiving of dull-wittedness. She was also a staunch feminist who hated it that almost no girls took her AP chemistry class and few her honors chemistry class.
My impression was that the boy nerds considered it a rite of passage to get humiliated by Frau Mueller, while the girls' (even girls smart enough for the class) feeling was that she was mean and why should they tolerate that kind of stress?
Generally when something that's easy to check is not officially checked, it's because the answer is pretty well known but, as you note, socially unacceptable. It's why so many people are so hyper to avoid factual discussions about IQ.
I was tempted to use the camel's nose metaphor but admitting IQ variability by sex would mean the camel busted through the wall, yanked out the stakes, and is now racing over the next sand dune with the tent wrapped around its hump. The knock-on effects of such an admission would totally upend much of our current political and social debate.
Genetics doesn't stop at the base of the skull.
Identifiable genetic subgroups can differ in expressed intelligence.
Male and female sexual dimorphism goes deeper than external genitalia and fashion statements.
Intelligence is likely not the only human mental function that has a different distribution between sexes, and probably other genetically identifiable subgroups.
Nurturing interventions can help or hurt individuals but won't do anything to close IQ gaps between groups defined by some genetically influenced characteristic.
As Mr Sailer notes above, there are definite winners and losers in our current social hierarchy defined by pretending that none of those statements is true. Trying to force reality to bend to our wishes takes effort that could be spent in more useful directions. Distorting or prohibiting inquiries into the sources of human behavior is a major roadblock to effective amelioration of a number of social problems.
You've got a real chip on your shoulder. Neither of those things invalidate the point of my anecdote. If anything it just shows the Frau Mueller days are over, that the top end of education has become less rigorous and more rewarding of feelings and rule following.
IQ spiel is a desperate attempt to make institutions relevant again. But the jig was up long ago, they produce nothing of cultural nor social value. And now they barely function to reproduce and preserve family/name status and wealth. It’s a farcical debate which feigns the relevance of these institutions.
‘Care about my IQ tests now’
Nah mate no one cares it’s boring af, impotent af, IQ yourself an imagination instead.
Whining on about liberals not being able to handle the mention of IQ results… but both liberals and yourself are in the same boat: absolute IQ and university cucks. You do realise you’re supposed to grow up and graduate? Like gtfo of the institution. Or build one that only allows the highest IQers in. Actually yeah please do the latter as that’s the test I’ve been waiting for, the IQ 2.0 test, can these super smart people create something of cultural merit and value that exceeds the institution?
Women constantly clamor to be recognized and seen as intellectually equal to men, but both sides gloss over and never mention how often women use the sex appeal card. It isn't and never will be quantifiable, but it is oh so there. Women act like it doesn't exist, which is so disingenuous on their part.I've watched so, so much over my time. This tool is nonexistent for men. From my perch, most of (but of course not all) the #MeToo stuff came from women who weren't successful in obtaining something better by using their feminine wiles. They were bitter and saw their window to strike back.
Don't leave out Brett Kavanaugh in vowing to only hire female clerks after his fracas. Less opportunities for my sons, as Steve's wife said.
There is a story in the WSJ right now about Nestle's CEO having to step down because he was having a relationship with a subordinate. It was reported from a tipster on an employee hotline. I would bet my house the tipster was another woman angry to see another woman possibly getting elevated with the "unquantifiable" tool.
Charisma is real but so is just being handsome. On one occasion a student dropped a paper off in my mailbox a few minutes before I walked into the office to check it. Three women colleagues (two faculty, one administrator) mentioned to me that a student had just left me a paper. They were sort of giddy as they told me and at first I thought -- huh, nobody normally cares to announce to me something so ordinary. By lady announcer #3 I had a strong feeling I knew exactly which tall, gorgeous male grad student had just preceded me. When I got to my mailbox my suspicions were confirmed lol
This is absurd, but there are other hints that Antoni is perhaps a bit of a crank, on top of the Soviet-style situation of firing his predecessor because the boss doesn't like the bad news she delivered. It seems that our options are "populist cranks or woke ideologues."
There’s a likely error in your National Post column: “there are a lot more retarded men than women, but they don't come up much for tenure at Harvard.”
*I read that the IQ test was rigged so that men and women would have the same average. This implies that an objective test would show that men have a higher average IQ than women. Now, why would that be a problem for anyone? Well is presents a BIG challenge to the Democrat/socialist ideology, which claims that reality is "socially constructed." IQ is a "social construct," which challenges the favored "social construct" that men and women are equal. The Democrat/commie "social construct" must be repeated until everyone believes it.
Ending the spluttering is pretty easy. Just ask: "We have a huge gender disparity in our prisons. What is your plan to put more women in jail in order to achieve equality?" The subject changes rapidly.
Right. There was doubt about why he was appointed Harvard president when he his personality was more inclined toward telling the truth than closing the deal.
But, from 20 years on, it's obvious that if the Establishment had rallied to the Harvard president's defense when he did tell the truth, it could have shut down a lot of the subsequent insanity.
Claudine Gay presiding over Harvard wasn't such a good choice either. Despite of (1) not being autistic, (2) questionable science and (3) a black woman.
She would have felt different if she hadn’t eaten breakfast that morning as well.
The plagiarism isn’t happenstance. It’s the whole story in a nutshell.
> Heritage had no official position on the question of gender IQ differences
This is like having no official position on if 8 is greater than 7. However, that a conservative think tank would say this shows what a third rail it is. As for the overall thesis, as a teacher it is so obvious that to say otherwise would be farcical
So much for Heritage's commitment to freedom of thought.
Back in 2013, years before the practice to cancel someone become widespread, the Heritage Foundation fired Jason Richwine when it was discovered that he had previously written a dissertation focused on national differences in IQ scores and what they suggested for immigration policy.
Heritage doesn't have a commitment to freedom of thought now and it never did.
If it was a setup, it's even more delicious that he had to quit despite the groveling. I remember that huge kerfuffle because one woman got the vapors over them being closer to average.
A few days ago on X, a professional feminist described her hysterics over the word "hysteric." It was hysterical that she was so self-unaware!
Almost everyone focuses on the right side of the graph with its disproportionate share of male geniuses. Thing is, there’s a left side too. I’d say that is of much greater concern and gives an advantage to women.
It doesn't. Men can father (usually consequtively) more than one family. Thus, even if a third of men in marriageable age bracket drop dead - usually in a War, happened for confederate states in the Civil War - the effects on fertility are barely noticeable.
That brings us back to the subject of the previous post: Quantity v Quality. It’s very hard to believe that the UK would have fallen so far, so fast in the twentieth century if not for the bloodletting among the aristocracy in the Great War.
It wasn't aristocracy's decay that brought Britain down. It was the fashionability of socialism at its elite institutions. At THAT time, US universities suffered less from this plague.
Most of Britain's aristocracy exists because a long-ago ancestor killed enough of the king's enemies to merit a knighthood which is bequeathed by birth.
I’d say that’s the primary reason we need to get some manufacturing back in this country. Our fellow Americans on the left side of the bell curve deserve more than the back of our collective hand when it comes to full participation in the economic and civic life of our country.
Agree. "You should be smarter than you are" isn't a great basis for policy.
Rule based work that many people do is automated in the U.S.
Hegel is certain that scientific truth eventually becomes obvious to everyone, that it isn’t a matter of personal ethics but a Universal Reason. But, with IQ provocations, the idea of a world order based on IQ realism flattens out other factors which should determine policy in some manner. Not only that, it specifically flattens out individual IQs or individual achievement in favor of IQ realism. It is no wonder Heritage doesn’t “notice,” because “noticing” doesn’t notice what it is filtering out. It is ultimately, an autistic pursuit which appeals specifically to people who want to obsess about IQ, fitting in with far right social ordering. In Steve’s (your) personal case, it is a lifetime of Iq obsession which is fair enough as a choice, but there are loads of other things you could have done, which is just to demonstrate there are other things people make social order from besides IQ.
And as a sidenote, Jews were discriminated against not just in golf clubs in LA, but in housing zoning prior to the lessening of golf exclusion, but that’s a side note Steve ! Mountaingate with grandpa was a good course though.
It seems like the obsession with IQ lies on the other side: the Washington Post, for example, thinks it's national news that a Trump nominee is familiar with a basic, scientifically uncontroversial finding of psychometrics.
That's pretty obsessive.
I definitely agree that taking the IQ realist bait which you’ve designed for decades is a bad idea for the average reporter, and that in general, leftist or progressive discourse has nothing to say except hysterics. Nonetheless, there is a progressive argument to be had.
The strongest argument against it is not an argument against the empirical nature of it, but its specific function. Is Summers neutrally lecturing to Harvard about why women due to their IQ should be 1 in 7 or 1 in 30 in faculty?
Doesn’t that strike you as autistic? Also, it does prime people to exclude or measure women as too-low-IQ or not, it is not a neutral measure of quality.
Huh? It seems like an absolutely crucial subject for the president of Harvard to raise.
When _Larry Summers_ can't mention the scientific truth in public, then we end up with Ibram X. Kendi being the only person allowed to offer an explanation and Claudine Gay becoming president of Harvard.
I understand that there is nothing you would like more than Harvard official (tm) to explicate IQ realism. In the US, it is definitely a sad truth that probably it is either a far-right person or a unintellectual repetition of progressive discourse.
Despite the anti-Europe propaganda as “fallen,” I think in general the US has a lot to learn about creating a non-racist (rather than your feared “anti-racist” Ibram X) culture on merit which maintains ordinary taste.
The tide is definitely moving in this Sailer direction of blatant sex and racial argumentation, but this is not an acceptable ground of thought, which the UK always knew.
When the first black man to vote in England was accused of being a “blackamoor” and thus shouldn’t vote, the English said, does he fit the qualifications? Does he own land and so on, was he born in Britain? Thus the racists were challenged.
You yourself want meritocracy, but i would really challenge you to think of grounds not arguing from racial tendencies which would be a challenge to Ibram X and lot, which would not be racist or sexist. It seems “woke” to say racist or sexist, but it is simply uncivilized to be racist and sexist rather than meritocratic, or to expect racism and sexism to begin discussions in high order civilized power centers.
Steve, one is mixing racial gaps and gender gaps. Dr Gay never cared about gender gaps accept for a slight form of affirmative action for males in admission at Harvard.
It's a residue of Stalin's Lysenkoism. Everywhere genetics is otherwise now recognized. Except in the field of human achievement.
> And as a sidenote, Jews were discriminated against not just in golf clubs in LA, but in housing zoning prior to the lessening of golf exclusion, but that’s a side note Steve ! Mountaingate with grandpa was a good course though. <
Oh geez. This is completely off topic, but it needs saying whenever this Jewish whining rears its ugly head.
Jews are pretty much the last people who should be whining about exclusion. Jews have a thousand year history of *rejecting* integration with the host populations they were exploiting (my peasant ancestors). As whites detribalized and integrated under Christianity, Jews--most of them; the integrators would be some of my ancestors--insisted on maintaining their exclusive tribal identity/allegiance and working it for ethnic networking advantage in middle manning. In fact, Jews took exclusion and fashioned it into some of their religious duties/practices.
If some gentiles reaction to Jewish tribalism is to want to golf without Jews or live in a white neighborhood of their own religious persuasion, they are more than justified in doing so.
Jews seem to think "our stuff is our stuff ... and your stuff should be our stuff too!" But tribalism is not a one way street. Everyone can play.
This is in response to Steve’s other article and was more directed to him himself. Although talking about “Jewish whining” is pretty ugly, just aesthetically speaking. But it is sailer substack after all.
Shut up Jew lover.
> But, with IQ provocations, the idea of a world order based on IQ realism flattens out other factors which should determine policy in some manner. Not only that, it specifically flattens out individual IQs or individual achievement in favor of IQ realism.
I don't really understand your point. Could you try to write more clearly? Thanks.
Could you write more politely? I mean the entire right wing endeavor is ridiculously savage and racist, but it would make you more European if you could talk like a decent human. I know the internet is the place for vulgar savagery, but maybe you could practice politeness here instead.
The idea that priming one’s self for racist conclusions by obsessing over IQ seems pretty simple to me.
Thank you for replying in an amusing fashion. I assume that the humor was intentional.
I was a research fellow at Harvard for quite a while and during that time learned that what's really going on behind the ivy covered walls is very different than what gets reported in the popular MSM. The reason why Larry Summers was booted from Harvard's presidency has nothing to do with his talk on sex differences in IQ distributions and everything to do with some shady practices relating to Harvard's endowment. A brief summary of the affair can be found in this Harvard Crimson article https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/2/22/summers-resigns-shortest-term-since-civil/ but this leaves out some of the juicier details. Many of these can be found here https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2025/06/harvard-russia-and-quiet-complicity-of.html
Summer's protege, economic professor Andrei Shleifer, and Shleifer's wife were involved up to their eyebrows in the looting of the Russian economy overseen by the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID). They made a fortune through insider trading. Summers conned Harvard into footing the multi-million dollar federal fine levied on Shleifer. Earlier Summers had talked Harvard's endowment into making some bad investments that cost the university's endowment additional millions. The faculty were sick of Summers's arrogance and the financial scandals associated with him made him unpopular among both the faculty and administration. Summers was a dead man walking before he made a peep about reasons why there are more Nobel winning male physicists than female.
The HIID scandal has never gotten the coverage it should because noticing an important aspect of that scandal is a "hate crime". The system that HIID's mostly Jewish consulting group devised for auctioning off Russian assets--and Yeltsin got conned into accepting--resulted in a disproportionate number of Jewish oligarchs walking away with a disproportionate amount of the loot. Ordinary Russians were immiserated for over a generation. Putin still gets 80% plus approval ratings because he rectified the disaster to some degree.
I am among those who was aware that Summers's financial scandals were the real reason that got the boot, but to Steve's point, what does it say that the world's foremost academic institution in collaboration with the media covered up Summers's actual crimes and instead convicted him over a non-crime statement of fact?
Harvard's motto is famously "Veritas": Truth. Yet they deposed their own president for speaking the truth while protecting him from his actual misdeeds. So by their own actions, Harvard's real motto is "Untruth"—squared.
I wrote a fair amount in 2006 about Larry Summers' Andrei Shleifer scandal and its role in his downfall. For example:
https://www.unz.com/isteve/real-larry-summers-scandal/
In most of former Soviet Union, owning all the shares in the company doesn't mean that the company belonged to you. You are an owner on paper. Yeltsin and later Putin found that managing Jewish paper-owners was easier. Because if there was trouble, you could take away the ownership easier, than if it were a Gentile owner. Plus, easier to put the owner into a labor camp.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I’ll never forget listening to NPR during the Mikhail Khodorkovsky trial and wondering why such a liberal network was so deeply concerned about a corrupt oligarch. Well, now I know.
It's not about a corrupt or non-corrupt oligarch. Chodorkovsky's trial demonstrated that if you own things in Russia, you own them on paper - not more. It's still worthwile to own things on paper, but the economics are different. So the valuations collapsed.
It was the deep concern for a billionaire oligarch on the part of so left-wing an institution that I found surprising.
They couldn't care less about Chodorkovsky. It was simply that they found they were at the end of the road on making Russia part of the globalist "liberal" empire. In China they hit the wall in 1989, in Russia they hit it in 2003. Currently, they see the possibility of a roll-back beyond Russia. Ukraine, Romania, even Italy and Germany are potential flips.
Paul Klebnikov's _Godfather of the Kremlin_ brings to life that whole era and its bloody shenanigans. The Russian mob got him in the end (my bet would be on Boris Berezovsky as the moral author of his assassination).
Thank you, I’ll give it a look. Cheers!
> Shortly afterward, Roger Severino, Heritage’s vice president of domestic policy, spoke with the interns and said Antoni should not have shared that viewpoint, one of the people said. Severino told the interns that Heritage had no official position on the question of gender IQ differences, the person told The Post. <
Heritage should fire this Severino toad immediately. A bozo telling people someone "should not have shared that viewpoint"--especially when it is not just a viewpoint, but a well understood *fact*--is the antithesis of what a "think tank"--especially a conservative one--should be about.
More generally, if the presence of women, means that discussions must be censored so women won't have their feelings hurt, then logically women should not be anywhere near any positions of responsibility, really should not be voting and certainly shouldn't be in institutions involved in the search for knowledge.
How could greater IQ variability in men than women still be a hypothesis when it would be so easy to check?
It bugs me no end that there are so many people for whom "yeah, but it's true" is not a valid counterargument. But then I recognize it's probably more important for a society to agree on the average than to be right on the average.
At my high school the AP chemistry/Honors Chemistry teacher was notorious--excellent, difficult and unforgiving of dull-wittedness. She was also a staunch feminist who hated it that almost no girls took her AP chemistry class and few her honors chemistry class.
My impression was that the boy nerds considered it a rite of passage to get humiliated by Frau Mueller, while the girls' (even girls smart enough for the class) feeling was that she was mean and why should they tolerate that kind of stress?
Generally when something that's easy to check is not officially checked, it's because the answer is pretty well known but, as you note, socially unacceptable. It's why so many people are so hyper to avoid factual discussions about IQ.
I was tempted to use the camel's nose metaphor but admitting IQ variability by sex would mean the camel busted through the wall, yanked out the stakes, and is now racing over the next sand dune with the tent wrapped around its hump. The knock-on effects of such an admission would totally upend much of our current political and social debate.
Genetics doesn't stop at the base of the skull.
Identifiable genetic subgroups can differ in expressed intelligence.
Male and female sexual dimorphism goes deeper than external genitalia and fashion statements.
Intelligence is likely not the only human mental function that has a different distribution between sexes, and probably other genetically identifiable subgroups.
Nurturing interventions can help or hurt individuals but won't do anything to close IQ gaps between groups defined by some genetically influenced characteristic.
As Mr Sailer notes above, there are definite winners and losers in our current social hierarchy defined by pretending that none of those statements is true. Trying to force reality to bend to our wishes takes effort that could be spent in more useful directions. Distorting or prohibiting inquiries into the sources of human behavior is a major roadblock to effective amelioration of a number of social problems.
55% of chemistry undergraduate majors are female. The majority of med school students are female. Old anecdotes are worthless.
You've got a real chip on your shoulder. Neither of those things invalidate the point of my anecdote. If anything it just shows the Frau Mueller days are over, that the top end of education has become less rigorous and more rewarding of feelings and rule following.
The other interpretation is that once schools stopped discriminating, the girls left the boys behind.
IQ spiel is a desperate attempt to make institutions relevant again. But the jig was up long ago, they produce nothing of cultural nor social value. And now they barely function to reproduce and preserve family/name status and wealth. It’s a farcical debate which feigns the relevance of these institutions.
‘Care about my IQ tests now’
Nah mate no one cares it’s boring af, impotent af, IQ yourself an imagination instead.
Whining on about liberals not being able to handle the mention of IQ results… but both liberals and yourself are in the same boat: absolute IQ and university cucks. You do realise you’re supposed to grow up and graduate? Like gtfo of the institution. Or build one that only allows the highest IQers in. Actually yeah please do the latter as that’s the test I’ve been waiting for, the IQ 2.0 test, can these super smart people create something of cultural merit and value that exceeds the institution?
Don’t scare the American WASPs with actual English opinions! Random other substack poster who i don’t know at all!
Women constantly clamor to be recognized and seen as intellectually equal to men, but both sides gloss over and never mention how often women use the sex appeal card. It isn't and never will be quantifiable, but it is oh so there. Women act like it doesn't exist, which is so disingenuous on their part.I've watched so, so much over my time. This tool is nonexistent for men. From my perch, most of (but of course not all) the #MeToo stuff came from women who weren't successful in obtaining something better by using their feminine wiles. They were bitter and saw their window to strike back.
Don't leave out Brett Kavanaugh in vowing to only hire female clerks after his fracas. Less opportunities for my sons, as Steve's wife said.
There is a story in the WSJ right now about Nestle's CEO having to step down because he was having a relationship with a subordinate. It was reported from a tipster on an employee hotline. I would bet my house the tipster was another woman angry to see another woman possibly getting elevated with the "unquantifiable" tool.
I think Nestle wanted to do him in anyway, over a sub-par performance, and just used a moral argument.
For men we call it ‘charisma’ but I assure you, the effect is both real and large.
Charisma is real but so is just being handsome. On one occasion a student dropped a paper off in my mailbox a few minutes before I walked into the office to check it. Three women colleagues (two faculty, one administrator) mentioned to me that a student had just left me a paper. They were sort of giddy as they told me and at first I thought -- huh, nobody normally cares to announce to me something so ordinary. By lady announcer #3 I had a strong feeling I knew exactly which tall, gorgeous male grad student had just preceded me. When I got to my mailbox my suspicions were confirmed lol
Kathleen, if it wasn't for you, we wouldn't have electricity, medicine or rocket ships. Thanks for doing your critical work in academia!
Aw shucks. It is nice to get recognized at last.
This is absurd, but there are other hints that Antoni is perhaps a bit of a crank, on top of the Soviet-style situation of firing his predecessor because the boss doesn't like the bad news she delivered. It seems that our options are "populist cranks or woke ideologues."
https://x.com/dave_hebert/status/1955054062325444659
https://x.com/danieldimartino/status/1955078917523386719
https://x.com/jessicabriedl/status/1955044169598242849
https://x.com/BeachWW453/status/1951376029060055506
I wonder if the thumb on the scale in admissions for Canadian universities has equalized after the Trudeau era?
There’s a likely error in your National Post column: “there are a lot more retarded men than women, but they don't come up much for tenure at Harvard.”
*I read that the IQ test was rigged so that men and women would have the same average. This implies that an objective test would show that men have a higher average IQ than women. Now, why would that be a problem for anyone? Well is presents a BIG challenge to the Democrat/socialist ideology, which claims that reality is "socially constructed." IQ is a "social construct," which challenges the favored "social construct" that men and women are equal. The Democrat/commie "social construct" must be repeated until everyone believes it.
"Summers immediately pledged to boost Harvard's hiring of women" and thus, the modern academic HR department was born.
Ending the spluttering is pretty easy. Just ask: "We have a huge gender disparity in our prisons. What is your plan to put more women in jail in order to achieve equality?" The subject changes rapidly.