byron
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2024
The breakfast counterfactual claims came from a 4chan thread:
Yep. That's the source.
There is also a very similar claim, based purely in linguistics, from Eugene Valberg here (the issue of subjectivity, and specifically "how would you feel if" comes up at about the 40 minute mark):
As you can probably imagine, he got in BIG TROUBLE when he started saying things like this.
It's actually pretty funny, and pretty typically hypocritical, for the mainstream (read: leftists) to cancel Valberg over this. Many scientists studying languages have observed exactly what he is talking about here: that cultures without words for a concept have trouble thinking about that concept. That really isn't controversial at all. Here's a TED talk on the subject:
You'll notice that the only qualifications she makes (i.e. saying that one way of thinking is *better* than another) is when she says that aborigines (blacks) are better than whites in how they think about direction and time. So, she's safe.
Valberg dared to suggest that blacks were not as good as whites, so he's a racist. Same exact science. Same logical inferences. But one concludes with, "white people have trouble thinking about this" and the other concludes with, "maybe black people have trouble thinking about this"
Keep in mind though - and you're probably already aware of this - no journal will knowingly publish any finding that portends badly for blacks.I don't think the author would have self-doxed, assuming the claims are true, and I can't seem to find any research papers matching the claims
So it is entirely possible that some PhD psychology student working on a thesis project went out to San Quentin, interviewed some convicts, but then showed the results to his advisor and was helpfully encouraged to study something different.
Very occasionally, a more established scientist tells us what the academic environment is like:

The story that the anon claimed: that blacks are less able to conceptualize hypothetical counterfactuals - you could never get that through peer review. The reviewers would tell you that things like socioeconomic status are the true correlations, not race ....because race isn't real, you see.
The mainstream sees a claim like, "race is a factor in [literally anything]" the same way they see a claim like, "astrological sign is a factor" - you might as well be claiming, "people born in January cannot do counterfactuals" - that's so ridiculous as to not warrant a rebuttal.