By Steve Sailer
10/29/2022
From the Daily Mail news section:
Nathan Cofnas denied that all âhuman groupsâ have the same âpotentialâ in 2019
Researchers branded his paper as âracistâ and his ideas as âwrong-headedâ
Students have slammed the decision to hire him as âdisappointingâ and âcrazyâ
By ELIZABETH HAIGH FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 15:57 EDT, 28 October 2022 | UPDATED: 19:58 EDT, 28 October 2022
The University of Cambridge has hired a controversial ârace researcherâ to its Faculty of Philosophy who previously came under fire for publishing a âracistâ paper â despite knowing about its contents before hiring him.
You too can know about the content of Cofnasâ article in Philosophical Psychology, âResearch on group differences in intelligence: A defense of free inquiryâ by clicking on this link.
Nathan Cofnas, an American who was appointed on a three year programme as an âearly career fellowâ on September 1 of this year, has previously been the subject of fierce debate over his argument that there are intrinsic differences between races when it comes to intelligence.
Speaking to MailOnline, he confirms he still stands by what he wrote and said the University of Cambridge knew about the paper before he took up his position there.
Cofnas told MailOnline he would advise critics to âread itâ. He added: âThe paper represents my views then and now.â
In a 2019 paper published in Philosophical Psychology he criticised the idea that all âhuman groups have, on average, the same potentialâ, and argued that the âhypothesisâ of differences in IQ between men and women and different racial groups is âignoredâ.
Cofnas also referenced adopting black children into white families and argued that some ârace groupsâ are âfalsely blamedâ for structural racism.
His paper was widely debunked by various scientists, and in June 2020 the editor of the journal resigned over the controversy.
It was DEBUNKED BY VARIOUS SCIENTISTS, folks.
There has been backlash amongst students who have called the decision âcrazyâ and âdisappointingâ, according to Cambridgeâs student newspaper Varsity.
Nathan Cofnas describes himself as âinterested in scientific and ethical controversies connected with evolution-informed social scienceâ
He argued against the idea of racism and structural racism for difference between peoplesâ achievements, saying some groups of people are âunfairly blamedâ âŚ
A response paper published by a leading group of researchers
Rasmus Rosenberg Larsen, Helen De Cruz, Jonathan Kaplan, AgustĂn Fuentes, Jonathan Marks, Massimo Pigliucci, Mark Alfano, David Livingstone Smith & Lauren Schroeder are not exactly leading researchers.
called Cofnasâ work âunintelligible and wrong-headedâ: âMost researchers in the area of human genetics and human biological diversity no longer allocate significant resources and time to the race/IQ discussion⌠an equally fundamental reason why researchers do not engage with the thesis is that empirical evidence shows that the whole idea itself is unintelligible and wrong-headed.â
In contrast, Steven Pinker of Harvard, who has a much more prestigious job than people like Fuentes and Marks, tweeted in 2015: âIrony: Replicability crisis in psych DOESNâT apply to IQ: huge nâs, replicable results. But people hate the message.â
They added that Cofnasâ work had âracist ideological undertonesâ and âpanderedâ to racist ideas.
In the 2019 paper he refers to the theory of hereditarianism throughout, which relies on the fact that genetics are more important that environmental factors in determining peopleâs actions and decisionsâŚ.
Cofnas refers to old studies that claim white populations have a higher intelligence than black populations.
Old studies like this weekâs announcement of the 2022 federal National Assessment of Educational Progress results:
In the article, Cofnas repeatedly references what he sees as ârace differences in intelligenceâ, and claims that âthe adult black-white IQ gab has remained stubbornly constant⌠since around 1970.â
How dare he?!?
He referred to studies into âearly interventionâ techniques to battle his so-called ârace differenceâ, including adoption.
He wrote: âAdoption by white families [of black children] â one of the most extreme interventions possible â has virtually no effect on the IQ of black adoptees.â
Cofnas appears to question the extent that racism exists within society and argue that white populations are unfairly âblamedâ for âdifferencesâ between races.
He wrote: âAs long as people believe that race differences have a purely environmental cause, differences will, in practice, most likely be attributed to racism or institutional racism.
âDenying the possible genetic cause of race differences will not stop people from being focused on race.â
He added that âif people believe that members of certain races are victimized or benefited by racismâ this could cause harm to society.
When, of course, absolutely no harm has been caused to society by the anti-white male bigotry of the Great Awokening Era. Look how happy we all are!
He called for research to give a âbiological accountâ of how âgenes lead to race differencesâ, adding: âAs of now, there is nothing that would indicate that it is particularly unlikely that race differences will turn out to have a substantial genetic component.
âIf this possibility cannot be ruled out scientifically, we must face the ethical question of whether we ought to pursue the truth, whatever it may be.â
He claimed research such as his is censored and that âif not all groups have identical distributions of potential, then it is unjust to assume that some people must be blamed for average differences in performance among groups.â âŚ