His work in this area is highly controversial, and has been criticized by other researchers and civil rights organisations as being poorly researched and racist in nature.
Let's take this one step at a time.
Why was his work deemed "highly controversial"?
What are the names and backgrounds of the "other researchers" who criticized him?
What was the basis of the alleged criticisms?
Why was his work allegedly described as "racist" rather than factual?
Rushton, Jensen, Herrnstein, Murray, Lynn, Levin, Gottfredson, et al., have published a very large volume of peer-reviewed papers in numerous biology, natural science, sociology, genealogy, anthropology, and psychology journals, as well as similar publications. Their work strongly supports my position.
Facts and data are not racist, my friend. Of course, some may not like what the research results and the corresponding conclusions indicate, probably because they have been conditioned to respond with revulsion whenever empirical researcher data leads to the inescapable conclusion that genes control intelligence, intelligence controls behavior, and behavior dictates outcomes. |
