Talk:Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist)/Archive 2

message: Gould himself was raised on academic Marxism. If only we could order the whole world on Marxist principles, we would have Heaven on Earth. Unfortunately, before we get the benefits of Marxism, the whole world must become Marxist. Right now, no country is purely anything. Some countries exhibit a mishmash of economic elements that are sort of capitalist (e.g., the United States), while others exhibit a more Marxist mishmash (Cuba). For some reason, we do not have to wait around for ideal capitalism to materialize before we get the benefits of capitalism. For Marxism, we do. Many of Gould's contemporaries objected to his introduction of politics into science. They think that politics has no place in science (except such sciences as political science) and that scientists have been and continue to be very good at keeping it out. Once again, what began as a difference in kind has now become a difference of degree. Gould, more than his opponents, thinks that such extrascientific considerations as politics play a more important role in science and are harder to uncover and uproot than we are willing to admit.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/hull_structure.html
Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin has written in New Political Science that Marxism, "can do nothing for the university; the real question is what can Marxists do to and in the university ... For the natural and social scientist the answer is very clear. The university is a factory that makes weapons - ideological weapons - for class struggle, for class warfare, and trains people in their use. It has no other leading and important function in the social organization."2
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0500_DeMar_-_Marxism.html (N.B. A Christian site)
He [Steven Rose] appears less Marxist to himself than to his friends: certainly less so than he appears to his enemies. Richard Dawkins once dismissed a book he wrote in collaboration with the American Marxist scientists Richard Lewontin and Leon Kamen as "Dave Spart trying to get into Pseud's Corner". Mary Midgley, the philosopher and a friend, attributes the breadth of Rose's interests to Marxism, because Marxists were forced to think in large terms about society as a complicated system of inter-reacting mechanisms. "He is a good thing", she says. "So few scientists are in a position to stand back and ask what science is doing, as he does: ignorance about the use of words in metaphor, and that they matter, is part of a scientist's training. What's admirable about him and Hilary is that they come from such different places and they keep educating each other." Midgley, a notably pugnacious writer herself, pays Rose a wholly characteristic compliment: "His choice of enemies is not too bad now."
http://education.guardian.co.uk/academicexperts/story/0,1392,618984,00.html
:How, odd, the Stephen Jay Gould article on Wikipedia clearly states "Gould was raised in a socialist home without becoming a socialist himself."  In any event, these scientists are known as famous biologists or evolutionary biologists, and it is in this capacity that they have made their statements about intelligence. 
::About more than intelligence: Rose has argued against evolutionary psychology in Alas, Poor Darwin, for example. And they've done so in the capacity of politically committed scientists clearly influenced by Marxism and similar ideologies. Jacquerie27 22:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, Google gets tens of thousands of hits for websites describing Gould as a "biologist" or "evolutionary biologist" or "evolutionary theorist", but under 100 referring to him as a "neo-Marxist", and none that I can find referring to him as a "Jewish scholar".  Moreover, these scientists were atheists who followed no organized religion.  Describing them as "neo-Marxist Jewish scholars" implies that their fame (and relevance to this page) lies in their Marxist writings and Rabbinic ordinations. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 15:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another example of how the "group"'s interventions have often been pointless. I described Gould et al as "neo-Marxist". Is it likely I need a careful explanation that "these scientists were atheists who followed no organized religion"? As was obvious from its use with "neo-Marxist", "Jewish" was an ethnic label: anyone who researches the "group" will find out that their ethnicity and experience of anti-Semitism have influenced their ideas profoundly (see e.g. ). I used the general term "scholars" because Gould often wrote on general topics such as the relation between science and religion. He was a polymath, in fact, and the others too are all very interested in politics and social affairs: I don't think "scientist" is adequate to describe them, because it suggests narrow specialization. Jacquerie27 22:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, they were all primarily biologists of one sort of another, and it was in that capacity that they promoted the ideas in question.  "Jewish scholar" typically implies a scholar of Judaism or Jewish topics, and they were all far from that.  What is obvious about labels to you is not obvious about labels to others.  If you want to call Gould a polymath, feel free, but again, in this context they were primarily biologists. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 01:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: "Jewish scholar" typically implies... What does "neo-Marxist Jewish scholar" typically imply? Jacquerie27 10:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to say for sure, you appear to have invented the phrase. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 23:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gould, Lewontin, Rose and Neo-Marxism too

message: I'm wondering: is there anywhere I can complain about the behaviour of the following "group" on Kevin B. MacDonald and Jewish ethnocentrism? In alphabetical order: User:AndyL, User:Jayjg, User:Jfdwolff, User:Olve, User:Slrubenstein... If you look at the history and talk pages for these articles, you can see what I claim is a persistent pattern of obstruction, deletion, and personal criticism related to MacDonald's theories, including the very serious charge that I am anti-Semitic. I am not an expert on MacDonald but I have tried to familiarize myself with the material by him freely available on the net. Before I make the possible complaint, I'd like all members of the "group" identified above to say precisely when and to what extent they familiarized themselves with the same material. If (as I believe is the case) some had not (and have still not) familiarized themselves with it at all, I'd also like them to explain what they felt qualified them to participate in the editing and discussion of material related to MacDonald. Jacquerie27 13:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't accused you of anti-Semitism, nor have I criticised you.  My edits and comments here have been mostly about Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:No original research, as well as related Wikipedia policies (e.g. Wikipedia is not a soapbox).  Your questions about my own knowledge of the subject are irrelevant, since one doesn't need to know anything about a topic to work towards those critical Wikipedia goals. My other comments on this page have been few, and mostly related to the point that getting revenge for wrongs done your family is not an example of "ethnocentrism".  My comments on the Jewish ethnocentism page have mostly focussed on the No original research policy as well, with brief digressions into discussion of the topic of "mamzer" in Judaism, and an off-topic discussion with Alberuni's sockpuppet RomperRoomReject.  I find it interesting, though, that you lump all those who disagree with you into a monolithic "group"; do you think they are practising a "group evolutionary strategy?" Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 16:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your questions about my own knowledge of the subject are irrelevant, since one doesn't need to know anything about a topic to work towards those critical Wikipedia goals. So you've not familiarized yourself with the material at all. And one of the critical Wikipedia goals you've been monitoring is no violation of the rules "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and No original research. When you intervened to criticize me for violating them, I had to point out that the examples of Jewish ethnocentrism I was using were MacDonald's. IOW, you wasted your time and mine because you hadn't familiarized yourself with the material. ...you lump all those who disagree with you into a monolithic "group". No, I "lump" into a "group" (monolithic is your spin) all those who, among other things, waste my time and their own because they haven't familiarized themselves with the material. What do you expect? That I should include people from the talk pages for Spinifex Hopping Mouse and Logarithmic spiral? Jacquerie27 22:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't said that at all; please try to read what I have written, rather than what you imagine me to have written.  You have raised an issue which is irrelevant and requires no response, and I pointed that out.  As for your statements, you are indeed wasting your time if you cannot quote from or cite MacDonald, rather than promoting your own ideas, and if you cannot write material in a NPOV way. So far you have often failed at both, and it is this that I have pointed out on a number of occasions.  One needs no special expertise to note either failing. Since you admit wasting time, in the future please avoid doing so by carefully reviewing the relevant Wikipedia policies. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 01:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I see: you're presenting yourself as a neutral, impartial referee, operating on abstract general principle and concerned with preventing POV and the promotion of personal ideas. So far you have often failed at both... In your opinion. But how neutral is your opinion? AndyL has been egregiously POV, biased, and dishonest in his work on these articles, and his failure to answer the simple questions I asked above is proof that he accepts this himself.  Please provide a few examples of you, the neutral, impartial referee who needs "no special expertise" to note such failings, intervening to criticize him or cut anything he has added over the past weeks. Your inevitable failure to do so will be proof that you have no interest at all in neutrality or in abstract general principle. Jacquerie27 10:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop trying to have me say things that I haven't said; I have never claimed to be a "a neutral, impartial referee", or attempted to define my role here at all, except as another Wikipedia editor.  Your use of [[Ad_
#Ad_hominem_tu_quoque|tu quoque]] arguments does not distract from the fact that articles on Wikipedia should be properly sourced, NPOV, and not original research; your claim that others violate these rules does not exempt you from following them.  In any event, the Talk: pages are not a venue for conducting inquisitions into the behaviour of other editors, but rather a venue for engaging in discussions of appropriate article content.  Please try to restrict your Talk: to the latter. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 18:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: It is not tu quoque (which I understand w/o the aid of a link, thanks). I don't think I have been violating those rules. If I have, there have been worse violators you have ignored. IOW, the criticism has always directed at me. Is creating a consistently hostile atmosphere for one editor a violation of any Wikipedia rule? It's certainly a violation of Wikipedia etiquette and a clear attempt to influence the editing in the direction you favour. pages are not a venue for conducting inquisitions into the behaviour of other editors... Another example of your bias: you appeal to an "abstract general principle" that only applies to one side, for obvious reasons. Why no protest from you when my motives were the subject of an inquisition? Why no protest when I was accused of anti-Semitism? If you ever get round to researching MacDonald, you might be struck by déjà vu when you read his discussion of moral particularism. Jacquerie27 21:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I did respond to your direct criticism of me, by username, I haven't attacked or criticized you. Nor have I attacked any of the other editors here.  I have questioned edits and items in the article, on eminently reasonable grounds.  Also, it is a grave misunderstanding of Wikiquette to state that asking for adherence to Wikipedia policies is in some way a violation of Wikiquette.  And finally, I repeat, the Talk: page should preferably be used for discussing article content. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 22:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: You have continually criticized my editing and no-one else's, contributing to a consistently hostile atmosphere. AndyL seems to have retired from these pages for the time being, or he would still be adding to the chorus. And go to Talk:Jewish ethnocentrism and search for "broken record" for an example of one of your interventions "on eminently reasonable grounds". If you had researched MacDonald it would have been unnecessary, but you're not interested in MacDonald and researching him is irrelevant to your real aims and in fact would be detrimental to them. All the same, I really do recommend a look at his discussion of moral particularism. Jacquerie27 22:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And I really do recommend focussing on the article content, rather than insinuations about the "real aims" of other editors. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 23:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Group" Exclusionary Strategy

message: This section is getting filled up with quotations and discussions of what others think. This is an article about MacDonald. Let's cut out the block quote from other Steinlight and add quotes from MacDonald.  -Willmcw 21:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: MacDonald refers specifically to Steinlight in his discussion of immigration and you were duplicating material when you added the block quote. Jacquerie27 22:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm sure that MacDonald refers to many people in his writings, but I don't sit down to read an article about MacDonald to read quotes from his favorite authors. If the quote I added wasn't the best then let's find a better one, from him. I hate to remove material, but this article should stick to listing MacDonald's significant accomplishments and describing his works and their impact. This is not the place to prove or decide whether his theories are "True" by appealing to authorities. If we bring in quotes by others they should be about MacDonald. Jewish ethnocentrism, race and intelligence, immigration, etc, have well-developed articles of their own. All we need to say here is what MacDonald's views are on those topics and how others regard those views. Let's focus on keeping this a biography. No offense to the subject, but this article is perhaps too long already for MacDonald's notability. Let's NPOV this and move on to the next professor's bio. The more this drags on, the more likely it is that unfavorable material will be added. user:Jacquerie27, could you provide a description of each of MacDonald's books that you have read? A short paragraph on the thesis of each book in his main trilogy would be helpful. Cheers,  -Willmcw 23:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent points.  This should be an article about MacDonald, his views, and reactions to his views, not a defence of his theses. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 01:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But "reactions to his views" have included those of Wikipedia contributors ignorant of his work, not MacDonald's academic peers. So you need to start cutting a lot of material. Jacquerie27 10:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a great deal of reactions to his views from well cited sources; which reactions do you think need to be cut, and why? Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 18:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't want to cut anything myself, but if this is a biography "reactions to his views" should be by other named academics, not anonymous contributors on Wikipedia. I don't know that any academic has used the Thomas data to argue against him. Jacquerie27 21:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to help solve that problem by directly quoting some criticism from an academic. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 23:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this contribution. John Tooby and Steven Pinker are among the most notable voices in evolutionary psychology, so I'm moving their criticisms ahead of those from non-scientist Judith Shulevitz and the SLPC mention. -- Schaefer 05:31, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I've added summaries. Please note that I haven't yet read any of MacDonald's books, but plenty of relevant material is available on his website. Jacquerie27 10:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They look like good summaries to me. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 18:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jacq! Those summaries are the kind of core information that should be in an article like this. I wouldn't have known you hadn't read them if you hadn't told me. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks, but... a lot of it was taken from the summaries available on his site. I can't see that he'll object. Jacquerie27 21:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged Jewish Role in Facilitating Mass Immigration

message: Chapter 9 is now referenced in two paragraphs under MacDonald's rebuttals to support intermarriage theories. I believe that is excessive and perhaps unintentional. I also note that the second paragraph contains quotations from others. Can't we merge them into one paragraph that only quotes MacDonald? The length of this article is getting ridiculous. -Willmcw 23:46, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the first time this kind of thing has been done.  I support merging the information.  I also am troubled by the "MacDonald's rebuttals" sections, which, where part of his works, should be included in the earlier sections describing his views, and where not part of his works, should be removed as original research. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 17:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the source, I'd like to see all or most of the quotations by other academics removed. If their opinions are noteworthy we can write articles about them. It's inappropriate to have a biography of someone and write, He believes the same as this other guy: and then quote four lines of text by an even more obscure academic.  This is an article about MacDonald, and all quotes should either be by him or about him. Just cutting out the extraneous citations will cut down the size. I believe there is a footnote capability in Wiki, so we can move the info down into notes if editors want to keep it in some form. What is left perhaps looks like a discussion of intermarriage, and maybe another topic. It'd be best to integrate those rebuttals in with their respective topics. -Willmcw 20:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your points; the various other references were brought by MacDonald in defence of his thesis, and this is an encyclopedia article, not a thesis defence. Also, I think the rebuttals should, where they come from MacDonald's books (and not from his head) be restored to the relevant sections. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 22:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chapter 9 of Separation and Its Discontents

message: To avoid duplication. Needs major editing since no material was deleted. Ultramarine 15:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think this makes sense, and will help confine all the edit wars to one article, not two. :-) Jayjg  | (Talk) 18:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Since the article had pretty much degenerated into a platform for his critics via the conceit of a section labeled "criticsms", it indeed was a postive move to refactor it to a less personal article where defamation isn't so much an issue -- particularly given the fact that his critics were virtually all motivated by views about ethnocentrism.  It is too bad his actual theory isn't being presented but then you can't expect much from folks who can't be bothered to read his work  while zealously demonstrating the predictive power of his theory. Jim Bowery 16:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The predictive power of his theory is almost as good as that of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, wouldn't you say? Jayjg  | (Talk) 17:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Better.  Aside from the fact that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion posits a conspiracy as precondition, which KMac doesn't, the Protocols merely predicted Bolshevism and related movements.  KMac's theory predicts genetic relatedness patterns that have been born out by subsequent published data.  There are some specific predictions that I disagree with because I think his theory is incorrect in an important way:  It relies on indoctrinability of Jewish populations.  I don't think you need to posit such a precondition to account for the observations and indeed there are some phenomena that are better explained by immunity to indoctrinability among Jews.  Some subpopulations are going to be highly indoctrinable but that's a consequence of the evolutionary dynamics of the Jewish nation.  Not that any of this matters to you since you already know what you are supposed to believe. Jim Bowery 01:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I reject what you say because of my immunity to indoctrinability.  Or perhaps I'm one of the highly indoctrinable sub-population, and that's what the other conspiracists have taught me to say.  Damn, if only I weren't such a slave to my genes and my ethnic group's evolutionary strategy! Well, I'd love to chat more, but subverting Western societal values is a big job, so I've got no time to rest. Resistance is futile. Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I expected much better of you than that, Jayg. But perhaps you aren't a native speaker of English either? Jacquerie27 08:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my poor grasp of the English language, combined with my unfortunate genetics and insidious group evolutionary strategy, made it impossible for me to assimilate your comments.  However, your unique cultural and scientific accomplishments, as well as your wealth and property, will be indeed be assimilated and subverted.  Resistance is futile! Jayjg (talk) 16:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move of theory and critique to Jewish ethnocentrism

message: The editor whose signature appears below as  is user:Sam Spade. 
I've reverted the page because a) it is ludicrous to have summaries and critiques of MacDonald's books and theories on a page devoted to only one part of those theories; b) as is obvious from a), the people responsible for the move have not familiarized themselves with MacDonald's work, despite the length of time they've spent obstructing and arguing with people who have. Jacquerie27 08:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted because a) it is ludicous to devote this entire article to MacDonald's theories when they are covered in other articles, and b) as is obvious from the Talk: page, the people fighting the move have confused writing encylopedia articles with advocacy. Jayjg (talk) 15:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So your saying you did it because you felt this article should not be devoted to its namesakes theories, and because of your overriding POV? I advise you to go find another article to edit.  16:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No Sam, where on earth did you get that notion from?  Please only attribute statements to me which I have actually made. Jayjg (talk) 16:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Letting you know what I think your saying is useful, even if I'm wrong. I was a bit annoyed with what I thought you said, but since it seems like I was wrong, I appologize for my ignorance in having been so.  01:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting page

message: This page considerably overlaps the Culture of Critique page.  It needs to be cleaned up to include only material on MacDonald himself, and not duplicte critiques of his work. Jayjg (talk) 00:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of this page 

message: I modified the headers for pinker and tooby into one item, under slate magazine, because that is where all the material used came from, and it cuts down on the too-frequent use of headers for single paragraphs.  I also removed the reference to Macdonald's not claiming to be an evolutionary psychologist.  He has a section  of his curriculum vitae entitled "Evolutionary Psychology" which to my eyes, constitutes a claim to the contrary.  I have not been able to find any statement attributed to Tooby to the effect that MacDonald is not an evolutionary psychologist.  It should also be deleted unless a reference can be found.  Reference 14 is also incorrect.  It appears to back up Tooby's remarks, but does no such thing.  This section still needs work.  DonSiano 15:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slate discussion 

message: Should include IP address as Notable Wikipedian
# It is not anonymous. He openly acknowledged that it was him. -Willmcw 02:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick poll on anonymous "notability" 

message: Reading it over, I think I can guess what Willmcw is really hoping for here.  I.e.:
:MacDonald did not edit anonymously. He was quite upfront about his identity. It is quite important for future editors of this article that the subject has been an editor of the article. -Willmcw 01:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't question the motives of your fellow editors. I'm not aware of any general restriction on "Wikipedians" category limiting them to active editors. -Willmcw 07:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not impugning your motives, just trying to understand what they are.  Maybe I got it wrong; but what I was suggesting wasn't any ill will on your part (even if it also didn't match your actual intentions). Btw. I think it best to move this discussion, if it is to be general to :Category talk:Notable Wikipedians; that's what's really at issue (assuming it's not just about MacDonald specifically). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Category talk:Notable Wikipedians is not as good a place as Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians with articles because few editors watch categories. -Willmcw 08:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is about the category, not about the list.  We might as well say that the Talk:George W Bush article is more widely read than the category talk page, so we should put the discussion there (he is notable, though not AFIAK a Wikipeidan :-)).  The discussion should go on the talk page of the relevant content page.  However, putting a prominent notice on the list is a good idea to draw editors to the relevant discussion. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The real agenda