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.
2
Anyone who has not read the wonderful Lark Rise to Candleford should do so.
It’s an autobiographical account of country life in the later 19th century – and bears little resemblance to the soap opera version the BBC adaptation inflicted on us.
Flora Thompson remembered someone saying that it was a disadvantage to a working person to be clever. They only became discontented and lost their jobs. No nonsense about environment making them clever. They wus born with it.
The tragedy is that the educational system no longer really seeks to nurture those born clever. Everyone is to be levelled in the name of psychological comfort.
Well it does not work. All it creates is frustration.
I missed this story in the media, so it can’t have been that widely publicised.
Certainly the Establishment’s problem with reality is worrying. It’s generally accepted we have become a more rational society-first the Reformation and Renaissance, then the Enlightenment, Darwin’s ideas, the scientific era. But when it comes to anything to do with race, ethnicity, immigration or nationalism,any sign of rational thought goes out of the window.
My understanding is that there are different forms of IQ, with people having abilities in different areas eg linguistics, social skills, practical skills, so high IQ on its own is a crude measure of overall mental ability. But we should be studying it, and accepting it may be important, just as we accept individuals have differing physical strength, stamina, health etc.
I think nationalists are barking up the wrong tree with this one. What are you saying – that this country’s elite are genetically entitled to lord it over everyone else? Give me the Bolshevik solution any day. This country’s elite deserve nothing but contempt, regardless of their IQs. We should be encouraging our people to have confidence in themselves and their own abilities and beliefs, not convincing them they’re born into a certain position and must remain there by virtue of their genes.
I’m all in favour of social mobility, Adam, but the fact is some people are born more innately intelligent than others and education policies have to take this into account.
I think everyone accepts that some people are born more intelligent than others, which is one reason why people don’t talk about it that much. Education policies already take it into account. The GCSE grades you get affect the courses available to you post-GCSE and so on. What other policies do you suggest?