BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


The g factor

 
 
Fist Fun
14:16 / 22.01.02
Anybody remember Chris Brand the controversial Edinburgh University lecturer? Basically he published a book with various theories of IQ related to race and was eventually sacked from Edinburgh University.
This is the story as told by a Brand-friendly website:
"Christopher Brand is the author of The g Factor. This 1996 book on general intelligence (g)* was favourably reviewed in the top science magazine Nature on 5 May, 1996; but by that time the book had already been withdrawn from UK bookshops by its publisher. Wiley & Sons (Chichester, UK) had been told by its head office in New York that Brand's politically incorrect claims about race differences were "repellent." Wiley's decision to withdraw the book gave the green light for 'anti-racists' in Scotland to demand that Brand endure an inquisition for his 'scientific racism' which would hopefully end in his being publicly humiliated and banned from teaching.
Readily affirming hereditarian views on race, IQ, and sex differences, but repeatedly asking that his book be re-published and actually read by his critics, Brand was eventually fired by Edinburgh University in August 1997. His dismissal followed twenty-six years of unblemished academic service and one year of him being publicly denounced by his own University Principal as "obnoxious." Though he was cleared by senior Edinburgh academics of a raft of spurious charges -- of "unfairness" as a teacher and examiner, of lack of repute as a researcher, and of having done "damage" to the University -- a mere one page of e-mail which he had copied to the Edinburgh University Chaplain was judged to have been a sackable "disgrace."


A view from an anti-Brand article:


NOTORIOUS PSYCHOLOGIST Christopher Brand, who claimed that some forms of paedophilia were acceptable, has finally had his "racist" book The g Factor published on the Internet, writes Bryan Forrest.

Mr Brand, who describes himself as a "scientific racist", worked at the University of Edinburgh for 26 years before being sacked in 1997 for "disgraceful behaviour" and "gross misconduct".
Inquiry

The University launched an inquiry after he claimed on his Internet newsletter to support Daniel Gajdusek, a Nobel prize-winning scientist who faced a possible 30-year jail term for non-violent paedophilic molestations in America.
Brand also gained notoriety when he claimed that black people were less intelligent than whites and single mothers should be encouraged to "breed" with higher IQ men to escape the poverty trap.



Does anybody remember this? I knew quite a few people who picketed his lectures at the time. How do you feel about the reactions to his academic research/controversial academic research in general? Anybody know of any similar cases?
 
 
The Planet of Sound
14:30 / 22.01.02
Well, along the lines of nazi apologists/insane academics, the David Irving case springs to mind.
 
 
cusm
16:22 / 22.01.02
That all depends on how valid his scientific research is, now doesn't it? Was he trying to justify his personal rascism with science, or did he ledgitimately stumble on something we don't want to look at for social reasons? That's what I'd like to know. I tend to suspect the former, just out of a bleak lack of faith in humanity in general.
 
 
Fist Fun
04:20 / 23.01.02
quote:I tend to suspect the former, just out of a bleak lack of faith in humanity in general.

I would tend to agree, but that is problematic. The difficulty with this case, and similar cases, is that it isn't a question of I may not agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it. It is rather a case of I dislike what you are saying but may have to admit it is valid research.
How should society react to controversial ideas? Should we discourage research in certain areas?
 
 
NotBlue
20:19 / 25.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Buk:


I would tend to agree, but that is problematic. The difficulty with this case, and similar cases, is that it isn't a question of I may not agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it. It is rather a case of I dislike what you are saying but may have to admit it is valid research.
How should society react to controversial ideas? Should we discourage research in certain areas?


The question I would ask is - what benefit is gained from the results. Suppose you do prove inconclusively that race A is on average significantly less intelligent than races B and C. Does this mean that every A you meet is dumber than you if you are a B or a C? Only if they have AVERAGE representative of my race stamped on their forehead. And as anyone will tell you, there is no such thing as an average person.

I was a student at Edinburgh at the time when this all kicked off the first time round. The response was as bad as the proposition in the first place. Anti - Nazi league demanded he be removed for daring to suggest something they didn't agree with, lots of retorhic from their side, picketing the Psych department etc. There were a very few posters around promoting a reasoned scientific logical argument as to why what he claimed was a pile of shit, but they were drowned out by the ANL promotions and demo's.

[ 26-01-2002: Message edited by: Duncan disorderly ]
 
 
NotBlue
20:26 / 25.01.02
quote:Originally posted by cusm:
That all depends on how valid his scientific research is, now doesn't it? Was he trying to justify his personal rascism with science, or did he ledgitimately stumble on something we don't want to look at for social reasons?


With regard to stumbling on something as I mentioned in the sociobiolgy thread, the research was very old and well known and the IQ differences (15 points on average?, my memory is hazy on this)had been explained by socio-economic factors.

As for being generally racist, he claimed that Asians were smarter than whites were smarter than blacks, so if it was personal bias it wasn't from a white superior to all angle, for all the difference that makes.
 
  
Add Your Reply