By Andrew Brons.
We in the Nationalist Movement know that differences in IQ are attributable to differences in heredity rather than to differences in environment – to nature rather than nurture. However, in the wider world it is a closely guarded secret – not to be talked about in polite company.
When new research is published in support of the hereditarian explanation, surprise is expressed and not a little scepticism hinted at. Of course, such findings rarely see the light of day outside of closely-knit academic circles. When, exceptionally, a piece of research does receive public attention, we are surprised by the publicity given to it, rather than by its content or conclusions.
Research by Professor Robert Plomin, of the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College, London has just been allowed through the informal censorship walls of the media. Professor Plomin analysed the GCSE results of 11,117 twins and concluded that inherited ability accounted for between 52% and 58% (depending on subject) of variance in GCSE marks.
Those acquainted with previous twin studies in this field might be surprised to find that the contribution attributed to heredity was less than 60%, whereas the contribution attributed to the school was as high as 36%. Perhaps it was the comparatively narrow margin that allowed it to receive publicity.
However, we are looking here at variance in GCSE performance, which depends not just on naked ability but also on quantity and quality of teaching and learning and prior academic understanding. Furthermore, the standards reached are very susceptible to ‘help’ and ‘advice’ from teachers and parents. It is only now that course work is being completed under anything like exam conditions.
We are not looking at variance in IQ score – a culturally neutral standard that would be unlikely to be influenced significantly by educational experience.
Indeed, this study is not so much a nature v. nurture study as it is a nature v. ‘everything else’. ‘Everything else’ includes nurture but, in the context of academic subjects (even at GCSE level), it includes prior learning, effort and standard of teaching. For all of these to be included within the category of ‘nurture’ would widen its scope immeasurably.
For heredity to account for more than ‘everything else’, shows how overwhelming its influence to be. It might also show the low factual content of modern GCSEs. Had the factual content been greater, the hereditary element might have been smaller.
The unpopularity of the genetic explanation for differences owes nothing to academic research and everything to left-wing ideology and misguided compassion for children who might be ‘labelled’ as lacking in ability. I say misguided, because it is infinitely preferable for a person’s needs to be identified at an earlier stage, in order that relevant help should be provided. That help cannot boost IQ but it can provide basic skills essential for them to function in a modern society. A failure to understand this is anything but compassionate.
Treatment of the whole subject of heredity by the academic world and by the chattering classes, as a whole, demonstrates an obstinate determination to engage in deception and self-delusion that is quite frightening. It somewhat dents our belief in the rationality of humanity. If it occurs in this area, in how many others does it occur? That is another question for another time!
Nevertheless, the fact that this particular study has received some media attention shows something else. However much the truth is controlled and misrepresented, it will eventually break out of its confinement into the clear light of day.