Ignorance vs. dishonesty: hard to discern

False statements may be based on honestly held false beliefs, or may be intentional deception (with the good intention to “avoid prejudice”). Freudian unconscious& denial, self deception can mix and confound ignorance and dishonesty.

Ignorance can be

Ignorance or Lie?

Either out of innocent false conviction, or out of intent to lie, the same patently false statements can be uttered

1) “Women athletes and women fighters are as capable as men”.2: When uttered by experts in sports, biology, medicine, or expressed by Hollywood social engineers, it is likely an intentional blatant lie.

Intentional fraudulent dishonesty is hard to discern from ignorant parroting of dishonest information. The effect is the same. We consider “kind of” insincerity if the ignorant speak up in public pretending to know.

Non-stop brainwashing puts false ideas into people’s subconscious. Hollywood movies invert reality (social engineering): Computer nerds are black, street criminals are blonde whites , and women fight as good as the strongest men.

A sincere society would not promote ignorant postmodernism to faculty tenure positions in women’s and African studies, sociology and similar ideologically driven fields. The belief that the human brain is exempt from the laws of evolution and 100% identical in all races is dishonest for scientists. But it became honest false belief in the majority of the brainwashed people.

2) “Race differences in IQ are not supported by science”


‘‘… is ‘‘inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa’’ because ‘‘all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really,’’ and [he knows] that this ‘‘hot potato’’ is going to be difficult to address [1]’’.

These thoughts were a continuation of the concluding paragraphs from his new book Avoid Boring People:

‘‘A priori, there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so [2, p. 326]’’.

James Watson tells the inconvenient truth, faces the consequences [short version] shows shocking extreme lies or evasive misleading distortions by leading scientists and scientific organizations.4* 5 with J. Phlippe Rushton. Not mentioning Rushton’s research shows blatant dishonesty. But Sternberg’s argumentation against Rushton also shows blatant ideological blindness.

Steven Rose, a professor of biology and neurobiology in London similarly told the media that ‘‘… If [Watson] knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically’’ [3, my emphasis].

The Federation of American Scientists issued a statement condemning Watson, claiming that there is no scientific literature supporting his claims:

‘‘The Federation of American Scientists condemns the comments of Dr. James Watson that appeared in the Sunday Times Magazine on October 14th… The scientific enterprise is based on the promotion and proof of new ideas through evidence, however controversial, but Dr. Watson chose to use his unique stature to promote personal prejudices that are racist, vicious and unsupported by science’’ [7, my emphasis].

What utter dishonesty, a Federation of Scientist demands proof, ignores overwhelming proof that is cited here, and itself does not furnish proof. 

But one thing was conspicuously missing from these numerous scientifically framed condemnations: any semblance of factual refutation. There is good reason for this: everything Watson got in trouble for saying was entirely correct! [Source: James Watson tells the inconvenient truth, faces the consequences [short version]]

[/note] The journalists and citizens who then parrot these lies probably do so out of naïve ignorance due to lying scientists and lying media. They just did not read the truthful scientists’ statements 6

  • Nathan Glazer honestly defends his opinion that untruth is better:

Herrnstein and Murray have a very good special reason: smarter people get more and properly deserve more, and if there are more of them in one group than another, so be it. Our society, our polity, our elites, according to Herrnstein and Murray, live with an untruth: that there is no good reason for this inequality, and therefore society is at fault and we must try harder. I ask myself whether the untruth is not better for American society than the truth.

Nathan Glazer is author, most recently, of The Limits of Social Policy (Harvard University Press). [Source]

  • James Watson Racist: Nobel James Watson Top 20 most influential Americans of all times, top 100 Person of all times, was socially and scientifically destroyed for a well meaning comment about race differences


  1. Ever expanding media codes lead to hate speech laws
  2. Sports: sex differences: Women’s world record speeds are consistently under 90% of men’s record speed

    Hollywood movies invert reality (social engineering): Computer nerds are black, street criminals are blonde whites , and women fight as good as the strongest men. Black heroes have blonde trophy wives

  3. University of Chicago geneticist, Rick Kittles, told the media that ‘‘Watson’s remarks aren’t backed by science’’ [6, my emphasis].

    A geneticist making such statement is a lie, or purposeful misleading. But, it could be ignorance, or self deception: amazingly, entire academic disciplines are WRONG

    • Psychology findings all wrong: Dogmatical ignorance of genetics is the main reason, followed by finagling results until they conform to PC beliefs
    • Nurture Assumption Judith Rich Harris The Nurture Assumption by Judith Rich Harris devastatingly shows: All of social science research is wrong, because they tacitly that only nurture counts, there is no genetic inborn hereditary behavior component

    Robert Sternberg, a psychometrician at Tufts University, told the media that Watson knows nothing about intelligence research, that his claims were false, ‘‘racist and most regrettable,’’ and an expression of his ‘‘own ideology rather than scientific findings’’ [6, my emphasis].

    Sternberg has engaged in academic disputes about Race and IQ 3

    The journal, Psychology, Public Policy and Law, took the unusual step of including three rebuttal essays when it published his most recent study. “What good is research of the kind done by Rushton and Jensen supposed to achieve?” asks one of the critics, Yale University psychologist Robert Sternberg.

    Mr. Sternberg suggests the question to which Mr. Rushton has devoted himself has no value except to those cynics who would use it to justify discrimination. “Does science,” he asks, “really want to provide that ammunition?”

    Mr. Rushton and Mr. Jensen offer an explosive response to that question.

    They argue that their research is important because “we will never make progress in race relations if we operate on the belief that one segment of society is responsible for the plight of another segment and that belief is false.”

    They suggest that policy-makers and judges have mistakenly ascribed “the underachievement of black people to prejudice and discrimination by white people,” rather than to genetic disadvantages. Mr. Rushton and Mr. Jensen then cite the landmark U.S. Supreme Court Decision, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, which outlawed racial segregation in schools, as an example of a decision based on just such a wrong-headed assumption.[source]

  4. Robert Sternberg, a prominent Yale psychologist who has spent much of his career combating race-related research, wrote the first critical response to Profs. Rushton and Jensen. It is an embarrassment. First, he blames the authors for even choosing to study “so-called races,” and seems to be saying that such research can only reflect prejudice and self-delusion.[Source!!]

  5. https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/malloyjameswatsontells.pdf

    1. James Watson tells the inconvenient truth, faces the consequences [short version]: “Nature should be fighting political correctness on behalf of science, not joining a vigilante gang of self-appointed moral guardians who are crushing forthright scientific discourse under the banner of ‘sensitivity’.


    1. Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2008). James Watson’s most inconvenient truth: Race realism and the moralistic fallacy. Medical Hypotheses, 71, 629-640.
    2. https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

    Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE , Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2005, Vol. 11, No. 2, 235–294

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *