Post by Pepe friend of obelix on Oct 27, 2005 11:22:54 GMT -5
www.hbiwatch.blogspot.com/
An e-pamphlet from The g-Gnome concerning the Human Biodiversity Institute
The g-Gnome has concluded that:
1. The Human Biodiversity Institute may be committed to the advance of science and the furtherance of human knowledge; however, its founder Steve Sailer and many of its members are non-scientists.
2. Sailer has consistently failed to disclose to the readers of both his Amazon book reviews and his VDare columns that the subjects of some of his reviews, and some people he has quoted favourably, are people with whom he has an existing relationship through the work of the Human Biodiversity Institute.
3. Those HBI members whom Sailer quotes most favourably and most often are those whose opinions are most controversial e.g. Ray Blanchard and J. Michael Bailey (transsexuaism is narcissism), Chris Brand (blacks are inherently more likely to be stupid than whites) and Gregory Cochran (homosexuality may be caused by an infection).
4. Although these HBI members are trained scientists, some of these opinions are outwith their own frame of expertise, e.g. Brand is not a geneticist but a psychologist, and his writings on any issues in genetics must be read in that light; Cochran's background is in physics, before turning to 'evolutionary biology' later in life.
5. It is not clear whether those other members of HBI who are not so frequently quoted are aware of Sailer's behaviour, and if he is attempting to create, or has succeeded in creating, a 'group within a group' which excludes them but instead uses their names to give legitimacy to the work of the Human Biodiversity Institute; just as the leader of a cult would do.
As the founder and president of the Human Biodiversity Institute, Steve Sailer is the one person capable of giving it a particular direction; and it seem that on the balance of probabilities he has. Sailer consistently promotes the arcane in the human sciences, and thus discloses what may be his own agenda: he is not interested in studying human differences, but in creating them. The entire study of human science could not have been so sclerotic in 1999 that only a few brave souls were willing to come together to keep the flame of objectivity alive; given the volume of research undertaken in the human sciences, such a situation is improbable. Instead, HBI gives the impression of being a vehicle for an agenda, an agenda which has existed since before HBI's founding.
Evidence of connections between members of what is now HBI prior to 1999 does exist. In his original 'February Diary' on 'National Review Online', John Derbyshire referred to communicating with Chris Brand at the time of his dismissal in 1997, two years before HBI came into being. How many other eugenics think tanks or discussion groups have they both belonged to?
Steve Sailer is a columnist and movie critic. His leadership of this group, which seems to have no offices or publications, is marked by a desire to separate people from each other on the basis of how they look, how they perceive themselves and who they like to have sex with.
Why does he care?
What's in it for the Human Biodiversity Institute?
And what's in it for him?
An e-pamphlet from The g-Gnome concerning the Human Biodiversity Institute
The g-Gnome has concluded that:
1. The Human Biodiversity Institute may be committed to the advance of science and the furtherance of human knowledge; however, its founder Steve Sailer and many of its members are non-scientists.
2. Sailer has consistently failed to disclose to the readers of both his Amazon book reviews and his VDare columns that the subjects of some of his reviews, and some people he has quoted favourably, are people with whom he has an existing relationship through the work of the Human Biodiversity Institute.
3. Those HBI members whom Sailer quotes most favourably and most often are those whose opinions are most controversial e.g. Ray Blanchard and J. Michael Bailey (transsexuaism is narcissism), Chris Brand (blacks are inherently more likely to be stupid than whites) and Gregory Cochran (homosexuality may be caused by an infection).
4. Although these HBI members are trained scientists, some of these opinions are outwith their own frame of expertise, e.g. Brand is not a geneticist but a psychologist, and his writings on any issues in genetics must be read in that light; Cochran's background is in physics, before turning to 'evolutionary biology' later in life.
5. It is not clear whether those other members of HBI who are not so frequently quoted are aware of Sailer's behaviour, and if he is attempting to create, or has succeeded in creating, a 'group within a group' which excludes them but instead uses their names to give legitimacy to the work of the Human Biodiversity Institute; just as the leader of a cult would do.
As the founder and president of the Human Biodiversity Institute, Steve Sailer is the one person capable of giving it a particular direction; and it seem that on the balance of probabilities he has. Sailer consistently promotes the arcane in the human sciences, and thus discloses what may be his own agenda: he is not interested in studying human differences, but in creating them. The entire study of human science could not have been so sclerotic in 1999 that only a few brave souls were willing to come together to keep the flame of objectivity alive; given the volume of research undertaken in the human sciences, such a situation is improbable. Instead, HBI gives the impression of being a vehicle for an agenda, an agenda which has existed since before HBI's founding.
Evidence of connections between members of what is now HBI prior to 1999 does exist. In his original 'February Diary' on 'National Review Online', John Derbyshire referred to communicating with Chris Brand at the time of his dismissal in 1997, two years before HBI came into being. How many other eugenics think tanks or discussion groups have they both belonged to?
Steve Sailer is a columnist and movie critic. His leadership of this group, which seems to have no offices or publications, is marked by a desire to separate people from each other on the basis of how they look, how they perceive themselves and who they like to have sex with.
Why does he care?
What's in it for the Human Biodiversity Institute?
And what's in it for him?
