Vdare
Looking at the illustration above we see a word cloud of the selected words on the website Vdare. The size of the words illustrate the quantity of the words.
The illustration shows that Vdare uses the words “race” “black” “asian” “intelligence” and “IQ” a lot. This indicates their focus on racial and genetic aspects of the IQ controversy. The word “Lynn” is also a prominent word. Lynn is Professor emeritus of Ulster University studying genetic and racial variances in IQ.
The word “Immigration” is one of the most frequent words in their articles about the IQ debate. This might not come as a surprise, as Vdare fight to keep
The illustration shows that Vdare uses the words “race” “black” “asian” “intelligence” and “IQ” a lot. This indicates their focus on racial and genetic aspects of the IQ controversy. The word “Lynn” is also a prominent word. Lynn is Professor emeritus of Ulster University studying genetic and racial variances in IQ.
The word “Immigration” is one of the most frequent words in their articles about the IQ debate. This might not come as a surprise, as Vdare fight to keep
|
“America american”
|
as they write about themselves. In relation to this they argue against immigration, one of the reasons is lower IQ due to race. In this connection we see references to Watson, who aside from being a nobel prize winner, entered the debate saying he was: "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". Another defining feature is the use of the words “Anti science”. These are mentioned many times on the site. One quote of it is the following
There seems to be a huge issue of trust. Vdare finds their arguments distrusted and think that the facts and analysis they make is not taken seriously. Therefore they end up calling the other perspective on the controversy “IQ Denialism” and accuse them of emitting a form of “anti science”. With other words, they feel like their adversaries do not open their eyes to the truth. Another way to look at this is a display of non trust of a point being made from for example anthropology. Antropologists arguments are dismissed as anti-science, because Vdare believes that they do not want to look at facts made by Vdare.
Vdare believes that anthropologist doesn’t want to be scientific in Vdare’s understanding of science. The reason being that if anthropology becomes scientific it goes against the politically correct view of anthropology, that genetic racial differences in for example IQ don’t exist. Scientific in this case meaning to include statistical “objective” analysis, which Vdare is a huge proponent of.
The Alternative Hypothesis
On "The Alternative Hypothesis" website many of the same of words appear as on Vdare. They argue for racial differences in IQ and for genetic differences.
One big distinction is the appearance of the word twin (top right at the illustration). Twin relates to studys examining identical twins, and how much genetics and environment influences their IQ. Identical twins are relevant because they share the same DNA. Therefore twin studies can be seen as an way of investigate whether genetics or environment influences the most. Twin studies seems to be quite an appropriate study for this controversy, hence it is mentioned a lot. The Alternative Hypothesis uses the studies to underline the genetic influence of IQ.
The alternative hypothesis also demonstrates a certain distrust, by using the words “anti science” in the same way as Vdare.
One big distinction is the appearance of the word twin (top right at the illustration). Twin relates to studys examining identical twins, and how much genetics and environment influences their IQ. Identical twins are relevant because they share the same DNA. Therefore twin studies can be seen as an way of investigate whether genetics or environment influences the most. Twin studies seems to be quite an appropriate study for this controversy, hence it is mentioned a lot. The Alternative Hypothesis uses the studies to underline the genetic influence of IQ.
The alternative hypothesis also demonstrates a certain distrust, by using the words “anti science” in the same way as Vdare.
Not Politically Correct
Notpoliticallycorrect contains similarly views as the two above.
It is however interesting to mention notpolitcallycorrect's use of the word “realism”. The author behind Notpoliticallycorrect do call himself/herself “racerealist88” on twitter. The author argues for maintaining the correct understanding and version of race effect on IQ. In this sense the anther distances himself/herself from what he calls the politically correct version: that races do not exist, and IQ doesn’t depend on race or genetics. This is one of the key arguments of the website, illustrated by the wordcloud.
Another interesting thing is that education, socio(economic), and families are present in the wordcloud. This is the case for the two other word clouds presented so far as well. This might seems to suggest that they argue for an socioeconomic, effect on IQ such as educational or a Family effect. But actually this is no the case. For example we find a line about behavior and IQ at the Notpoliticallycorrect website:
It is however interesting to mention notpolitcallycorrect's use of the word “realism”. The author behind Notpoliticallycorrect do call himself/herself “racerealist88” on twitter. The author argues for maintaining the correct understanding and version of race effect on IQ. In this sense the anther distances himself/herself from what he calls the politically correct version: that races do not exist, and IQ doesn’t depend on race or genetics. This is one of the key arguments of the website, illustrated by the wordcloud.
Another interesting thing is that education, socio(economic), and families are present in the wordcloud. This is the case for the two other word clouds presented so far as well. This might seems to suggest that they argue for an socioeconomic, effect on IQ such as educational or a Family effect. But actually this is no the case. For example we find a line about behavior and IQ at the Notpoliticallycorrect website:
|
“GENES DICTATE BEHAVIOR AND ALSO THE ENVIRONMENT THAT GETS CREATED."
(Bold, cursive and capital letters in original). |
Another quote especially regarding education:
Notpoliticallycorrect, and the other sites above for that matter, do not use education to show that education effects IQ. They rather use education to argue that people with high IQ choose higher education. This also frames what they consider others to have misunderstood of IQ dependency - that is the effect environmental on IQ. The effect do not exist according to Notpoliticallycorrect, since it is genes that dictate behavior, including IQ.
Notpoliticallycorrect uses an argumentation which can be explained through an understanding of closure mechanisms. He uses kind of a closure mechanism in an attempt to convince people of the his argument. Notpoliticallycorrect tries to argue that environmental differences are created by genetic properties, and therefore it was genetics all along. In this sense the controversy, about whether environmental effects (family, upbringing, education) or genetics (DNA) determines IQ, is resolved according to the website. Notpoliticallycorrect redefines environmental effects to be created by genetics effects, and therefore is it genetics that determines IQ. The website also tries to mobilize credibility by referencing a huge amount of scientific journals, and use these references as a kind of proof-giving-device.
Closure is normally used in a ‘open’ public decision-making-process by a group of experts, or possibly forced by a government. Notpolticallycorrect is however not a group of experts, an governmental agency, or an entity with a officially legitimized authority or expertise. The website is on the other hand an semi anonymous blog. It is though a kind of an ‘open’ public setting where anybody can join the debate in the comment section.
Still a mobilizing of a definite closure or a joint decision seems very unlikely in this controversy because of the high degree of political anchoring in the IQ dependency.
Notpoliticallycorrect uses an argumentation which can be explained through an understanding of closure mechanisms. He uses kind of a closure mechanism in an attempt to convince people of the his argument. Notpoliticallycorrect tries to argue that environmental differences are created by genetic properties, and therefore it was genetics all along. In this sense the controversy, about whether environmental effects (family, upbringing, education) or genetics (DNA) determines IQ, is resolved according to the website. Notpoliticallycorrect redefines environmental effects to be created by genetics effects, and therefore is it genetics that determines IQ. The website also tries to mobilize credibility by referencing a huge amount of scientific journals, and use these references as a kind of proof-giving-device.
Closure is normally used in a ‘open’ public decision-making-process by a group of experts, or possibly forced by a government. Notpolticallycorrect is however not a group of experts, an governmental agency, or an entity with a officially legitimized authority or expertise. The website is on the other hand an semi anonymous blog. It is though a kind of an ‘open’ public setting where anybody can join the debate in the comment section.
Still a mobilizing of a definite closure or a joint decision seems very unlikely in this controversy because of the high degree of political anchoring in the IQ dependency.
Abagond
The Abagond website uses words like “Watson” “IQ” “race” “black” which is quite similarly to the other websites. These words are however not used in the same context as above. As cited on the actor site Abagond uses these words when she tries to argue against genetic influence on IQ.
Abagond also distinguishes himself/herself from the other blogs by using words as racism, racist and nazi. These words are used in reference to genetic determinists and about people who call themselves “race realists”. Nazi is also used about eugenicists, breeding to get a higher IQ, as a way of dismissing their argument. These words illustrate a distrust towards genetic determinist arguments. Their arguments on IQ are dismissed as being politically incorrect and therefore irrelevant by their association. Their arguments are dismissed because Abagond finds them politically loaded, and therefore not scientific.To further illustration of this point “Political correctness” is also a big world on the word cloud. In relation to this we find the word “anti science” which is used about the genetic determinist, because they have a politically bias. The first three blogs, as well as Abagond use the word “anti science” about the “other side”, because of political bias. The name of one of the blogs, Notpoliticallycorrect illustrates this by virtue of its name. It appears that both sides are against an politicization of science, where politics influences science. It can also be argued that they both are against moralization of science, which goes hand in hand with the politicization of science. These two points being read from the word “anti science” which all 4 blogs uses.
Another point concerning all 4 websites is relating to democracy. All these blogs include a comment section, where we find an ongoing discussion which everybody can join. For example in one of Abagonds post about what IQ depends on, there are over 600 comments discussing the blog post and each other's comments.
This can be seen as creating a form of consensus convention where Abagond gives a brief overview over the topic, after which the public is not only informed, but can also engage and try to find a solution to the issue or any controversy surrounding it. Abagond will in this case be considered the expert who informs the public. This can be heavily criticised however.
One point of criticism is that Abagond herself/himself is not informing objectively about IQ and what it depends on. Only she providing one side of the controversy.
Another points is that, even though the author argues convincingly, and with references, the author doesn’t necessarily possess expert knowledge or credibility, in the form of a track record, or reviewable academic titles.
The last argument we will make for now in this matter is that there are an active administrator at play, where some comments can be censored. Abagond even include a list of words that will get you banned from participation. This can be seen as the expert facilitating the debate, but Abagond doesn’t claim to be an expert or scientist in this specific case.
Abagond also distinguishes himself/herself from the other blogs by using words as racism, racist and nazi. These words are used in reference to genetic determinists and about people who call themselves “race realists”. Nazi is also used about eugenicists, breeding to get a higher IQ, as a way of dismissing their argument. These words illustrate a distrust towards genetic determinist arguments. Their arguments on IQ are dismissed as being politically incorrect and therefore irrelevant by their association. Their arguments are dismissed because Abagond finds them politically loaded, and therefore not scientific.To further illustration of this point “Political correctness” is also a big world on the word cloud. In relation to this we find the word “anti science” which is used about the genetic determinist, because they have a politically bias. The first three blogs, as well as Abagond use the word “anti science” about the “other side”, because of political bias. The name of one of the blogs, Notpoliticallycorrect illustrates this by virtue of its name. It appears that both sides are against an politicization of science, where politics influences science. It can also be argued that they both are against moralization of science, which goes hand in hand with the politicization of science. These two points being read from the word “anti science” which all 4 blogs uses.
Another point concerning all 4 websites is relating to democracy. All these blogs include a comment section, where we find an ongoing discussion which everybody can join. For example in one of Abagonds post about what IQ depends on, there are over 600 comments discussing the blog post and each other's comments.
This can be seen as creating a form of consensus convention where Abagond gives a brief overview over the topic, after which the public is not only informed, but can also engage and try to find a solution to the issue or any controversy surrounding it. Abagond will in this case be considered the expert who informs the public. This can be heavily criticised however.
One point of criticism is that Abagond herself/himself is not informing objectively about IQ and what it depends on. Only she providing one side of the controversy.
Another points is that, even though the author argues convincingly, and with references, the author doesn’t necessarily possess expert knowledge or credibility, in the form of a track record, or reviewable academic titles.
The last argument we will make for now in this matter is that there are an active administrator at play, where some comments can be censored. Abagond even include a list of words that will get you banned from participation. This can be seen as the expert facilitating the debate, but Abagond doesn’t claim to be an expert or scientist in this specific case.
Humanvarities
Humanvarities’ word cloud is interesting because it shows a wide array of things. First of all the typical “race”, "black” etc. shows up as on the other word clouds. However socio(economic) is non-existent, but genetics is quite profound. The authors behind Humanvarities argues for an genetic influence on IQ, and argues for this in scientific journals as well. The blog posts mostly consist of the author's scientific journals being discussed. This is illustrated by the words “academic” and “fact” in the word cloud. They try to establish knowledge, primarily through their expertise. These can be argued to have a kind of contributory expertise, because they contribute to the knowledge about IQ and what it depends on.
It can also be argued that they posses the ability to argue with scientists, since they can contribute to the controversy. This can also be illustrated with their use of words such as “Flynn” which is in relation to the Flynn effect, an academic word for the reported increase in IQ in nations. This also explains the complicated and scientific language used on their blog, as seen in the introduction to this actor. It is hard for a bystander to understand what is written on this website, due to the scientific level, and the fact that a bystander typically “only” possess a general or popular understanding of the topic.
It can also be argued that they posses the ability to argue with scientists, since they can contribute to the controversy. This can also be illustrated with their use of words such as “Flynn” which is in relation to the Flynn effect, an academic word for the reported increase in IQ in nations. This also explains the complicated and scientific language used on their blog, as seen in the introduction to this actor. It is hard for a bystander to understand what is written on this website, due to the scientific level, and the fact that a bystander typically “only” possess a general or popular understanding of the topic.