If you've never had the good fortune to hear of this man, let me briefly introduce you:

He's a self-declared psychohistorian and founder of the discipline. Per his definition, the discipline seeks to prove that all historical development is determined by how children are raised.

Hunter-gatherers are supposed to be universally horrific parents and savage wife-beaters who abuse their children so viciously, so demonically, that they become:

1. totally incapable of trusting anybody, making large-scale social organization impossible, giving the illusion of egalitarianism to otherwise viciously violent societies with strict hierarchy.
2. pathologically and randomly hyper-violent, due to magical thinking
3. incapable of scientific thought or any meaningful analysis of their surroundings
4. Equally horrific parents

(It's important to point out that he also claims that mothers are the primary or even only direct abusers, and that they themselves, being viciously mauled by their husbands on an hourly basis, take this abuse out on their children, constantly using them sexually and beating them savagely)

Then, slowly, over hundreds of thousands of years people become ever so slightly less abusive to their children, allowing their children to be better still etc.

It all came to a head when various sorts of Germanic protestants, starting with the Puritans and ending with the 1970s Swedes progressively invented basic human decency, which the rest of the world no must adopt in order to fix all of the world's evils.

Now, I will post a comment cobbled together from some things I already wrote, so forgive the bad text coherence. I'm sure it won't fit into the post itself, so I'll have to use a comment.

Why am I even bothering with this guy?

1. His shit is on the internet
2. It's for free
3. It has footnotes a section called: "Sources" and similar superficial attributes of academic and intellectual credibility.
4. Its content is beyond shocking, beyond scandalous and has the rare quality that both white supremacists and insufferable radical feminists could use it as a seemingly credible source for their BS.

He's basically the perfect internet storm.

A paper using Richard Lynn's widely debunked data on average IQ across countries was published in Psychological Science in January of this year and has recently been retracted. That a paper with such poor methodology and widely speculative, racist conclusions was published in psychology's flagship journal surely undermines the perspective of the so-called IDW. One author (Cory Clark) has an affiliation with Heterodox Academy and another (Bo Winegard) is a white nationalist who was recently fired from Marietta College.

​

https://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/18/authors-of-article-on-iq-religiosity-and-crime-retract-it-to-do-a-level-of-vetting-we-should-have-done-before-submitting/?fbclid=IwAR1B6tXleT0xlWMMbGRWCF9VmB93h_eHSHS9p3cwLmiedeFtxXIAfSCRWt4

Post discord invite, plz.

https://donotlink.it/3qbjE

"No matter the state, no matter the geographic region of the country and no matter the socio-economic background of the family, the common denominator that threads together this unpleasant national image is that Black people everywhere are difficulty to discipline and engaging in misbehavior at an unprecedented scale. An impressive study of Black students being disobedient at alarming scales can be found here. Sadly, the only way to deal with students who misbehave is to permanently eject them from school, so that those who care to learn will not be held down by miscreants incapable of anything resembling education but mere poster children for the juvenile delinquents"

Sadly this research is not peer reviewed and outdated: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/etzn1k/are_fergusons_arrest_rates_fully_representative/

https://www.apmreports.org/story/2016/08/25/reforming-school-discipline https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0895904812453999

Ok, so a zero tolerance policy does nothing to help, no big surprise...

https://www.brookings.edu/research/disproportionality-in-student-discipline-connecting-policy-to-research/

The DCL cites multiple studies in its assertion that differences in behavior do not explain the gap in disparities.[4] The work of Skiba et al. (2011) is among the most convincing cited.[5] The authors draw upon administrative data from 436 schools across the country in 2005-06, looking at differences in discipline for “minor misbehavior.” They find black and Hispanic students were more likely to be disciplined conditional on receiving a referral for “minor misbehavior” than were their white peers.

While they do admit correlation doesn't equal causation...later on:

That is, a poor black student is 10 percentage points likelier than a poor white student in the same school, grade-level, and year to be suspended; he is 16 percentage points likelier than a white student who is not free lunch eligible. In other words, racial disparities are not solely a function of differences in family income by race. This finding is broadly consistent with Skiba et al. (2002), who studied a large Midwestern district, and with Raffaele Mendez and Knoff (2003), who studied a Florida district, both in the mid-1990s.[8,9]

Barrett et al. conduct a similar exercise predicting the length of a suspension, in days. Black students were predicted to have an additional .099 days per suspension, off a base of 2.9 days as the mean suspension for whites. Previous work in Arkansas, also controlling for school fixed effects, estimated that black students received about an additional .07 days per suspension.[10] The authors then attempt to get closer to studying disparities in discipline conditional on student behavior by comparing outcomes for black and white students who participated in the same fight. They find this cut the additional days of suspension predicted for black students roughly in half; black students still received slightly longer suspensions, by about .04 to .05 days, than their white counterparts in these cases. This result is small in magnitude but statistically significant.

Interesting...

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-49296-001

To improve our understanding of where to target interventions, the study examined the extent to which school discipline disproportionality between African American and White students was attributable to racial disparities in teachers’ discretionary versus nondiscretionary decisions. The sample consisted of office discipline referral (ODR) records for 1,154,686 students enrolled in 1,824 U.S. schools. Analyses compared the relative contributions of disproportionality in ODRs for subjectively and objectively defined behaviors to overall disproportionality, controlling for relevant school characteristics. Results showed that disproportionality in subjective ODRs explained the vast majority of variance in total disproportionality. These findings suggest that providing educators with strategies to neutralize the effects of implicit bias, which is known to influence discretionary decisions and interpretations of ambiguous behaviors, may be a promising avenue for achieving equity in school discipline.

Ahha!

More recent studies confirm this: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0042085915623337

Those who read a vignette about a Black student believed that the student was more likely to misbehave in the future, compared with those who read a vignette about a White student. These findings suggest that some teachers attribute the misbehavior of Black male students to more stable causes, which may lead them to alter their behavior toward these students.

See more here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=disproportionate+school+discipline+racism+behavior&hl=en&as_sdt=0,31&as_vis=1

And we know discipline has the opposite effect: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/changeable/201810/is-school-discipline-guilty

It causes negative behavioral changes: https://www.addictionpolicy.org/blog/tag/research-you-can-use/the-impact-of-racism-and-mindfulness-on-health https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4026365/

Here is a bonus tract: https://donotlink.it/Vr3ga

Like bicyclists on roads, Black people believe the streets belong to them and they have every right to cross heavily trafficked avenues with an uncanny ambivalence to any vehicle that may cross their path.

Face it, Stuff Black People Don’t Like includes sidewalks as the conformity to these safe paths for navigating through major cities is one more attempt by The Man to put Black people into their place and integrate with the mainstream.

To keep it real, Black people pay no heed to the crosswalk and brave many lanes of oncoming traffic to prove their disgust with sidewalks.

Why do Black people Jaywalk? Now you know.

Like bicyclists, Black people believe the road belongs to them even if they are merely on feet and impeding traffic. Share the road.

He says as he links to this: https://www.ajc.com/news/jaywalkers-take-deadly-risks-527488.html

He regularly crosses five lanes of speeding traffic on Buford Highway to reach his bus stop. He never uses the crosswalk up the street, at the intersection with Jimmy Carter Boulevard, because that would require a seven-minute detour. He needs to be on time for his job at a sub sandwich shop.“You have a choice,” said Thomas, 28, of Norcross. “You cross the street or you miss the bus.”Jaywalkers have migrated to the suburbs. They venture across four- to eight-lane roads, often not using crosswalks, pausing on the raised medians or the middle “suicide lanes” to look for a break in traffic as cars whiz by

So....

Jaywalking is against the law, however Black people are honestly unaware of any legislation that demands adherence to walking on sidewalks and the crossing of dangerously trafficked streets only at designated portions of the path.

Black people are coming offenders of Jaywalking, perhaps because they were never taught to look both ways before they cross

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/01/27/jaywalking-while-black-final-2019-numbers-show-race-based-nypd-crackdown-continues/ https://features.propublica.org/walking-while-black/jacksonville-pedestrian-violations-racial-profiling/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/03/13/the-classist-racist-history-of-jaywalking/

It seems these are selective arrests

https://www.mercatornet.com/mobile/view/weak-data-small-samples-and-politicized-conclusions-on-lgbt-discrimination/23203

A more recent study described in the Post “found suicide attempts by LGBT youth dropped by 7 percent in states that legalized same-sex marriage.” It’s noteworthy, but in an ironic sort of way. That’s because a recent follow-up scrutiny of this very study and its data revealed “little evidence that SSM laws have reduced suicide attempts among teen sexual minorities, nor have they decreased the likelihood of suicide planning, suicide ideation, or depression.”

In other words, when other researchers examined the data, they didn’t come to the same conclusion at all. Instead, reanalyses actually found “some evidence that SSM legalization via judicial mandate is associated with worse mental health for these individuals. . . .”

This sounded familiar. Three years ago, I discovered an error in one such study that claimed that anti-gay attitudes contributed to a 12-year reduction in lifespan for sexual minorities. It wasn’t true. (The author eventually admitted the mistake.) But this time there is no obvious error. So why such distinctive interpretations of the very same data? Because conclusions about the data and what they tell us are sensitive to different measurement decisions and analytic strategies.

What are the obvious results of these attitudes though?

In Sweden, where anti-LGBT stigma and prejudice may be at a global low, this curious development has emerged. Differences in psychological distress between gay/lesbian and heterosexual respondents have disappeared over the past 10 years. Real victimization has declined dramatically. But “perceived discrimination” by gay/lesbian respondents has risen over that time (from 32 percent in 2005 to 37 percent in 2015).

There is more to the story of differential health outcomes between LGBT and heterosexual populations than that portion that can be explained by prejudice and discrimination from strangers, employers, and colleagues. (By contrast, friends and family members’ attitudes tend to matter more.) So when you define stigma as simple opposition to same-sex marriage—which still characterizes nearly one in three Americans—it’s just scholarly irresponsibility.

But it isn't "mere opposition" https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/transgender-teens-restricted-bathroom-access-sexual-assault/ brainblogger.com/2016/11/21/homosexuality-link-to-child-sex-abuse-confirmed-gender-nonconformity/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6479631/ https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/cb7fwx/religious_homes_harmful_for_lgbt_youth_no_shit/ https://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet

It doesn't help that homophobes try to lie and smear the gay community: https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/dysbb9/christain_hypocricy_in_full_view/ https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/byhd2l/homophobes_dont_belive_in_sourcing_their_claims/